- Download PDF -

SEEFOR 3 (2): 69-78
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15177/seefor.12-08   

Original scientific paper

 

Status, Use and Management of Urban Forests in Turkey


Erdogan Atmiş 1*, H. Batuhan Günşen 1,  Cengiz Yücedağ 2, Wietze Lise 3


1 Bartın University, Faculty of Forest, Bartın, Turkey
2 Bartın University, Faculty of Engineering, Bartın, Turkey
3 AF Mercados EMI, Ankara, Turkey

* Corresponding author: e-mail: eatmis@bartin.edu.tr, doganatmis@hotmail.com 

Citation:
ATMIŞ E, BATUHAN GÜNŞEN H, YÜCEDAĞ C, LISE W 2012 Status, Use and Management of Urban Forests in Turkey. South-east Eur for 3 (2): 69-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15177/seefor.12-08 


Cited by:        CrossRef        Google Scholar


Abstract

Background and Purpose: From the 1950s onwards the urban population in Turkey has been increasing. Today, 77% of the population is living in cities and urban conglomerates. Public expectations from forest resources have changed, together with the migration of people from rural to urban centers. Due to rapid urbanization, the expectations from green areas and forests in and near cities have increased and changed for people living in the vicinity of cities. Following the world-wide trend in providing special attention to urban forests and to meet the demand and expectations from urban forests, the General Directorate of Forestry (OGM) has begun to deal with urban forestry from 2003 onwards. There are 112 urban forests in Turkey as of 2012. Out of these 72 are in provinces and the other 40 are in counties. The aim of the study is to determine general characteristics of urban forests in Turkey, to identify similarities and differences among the urban forests and to evaluate their appropriateness for the discipline of urban forestry. 
Material and Methods: Studies were conducted from the beginning of May until the end of October 2010. This study was able to collect a sufficient amount of information for only 52 of the active urban forests. In total, 35 variables were derived by a literature study and interviews. Data was assembled from the Forest Regional Directorates through OGM. Frequency, minimum, maximum and mean values of the collected variables were calculated. 
Results and Conclusion: In conclusion, the analyses have focused on the general characteristics and accessibility of urban forests, urban forest infrastructure, urban forest management and urban forest services. Consequently, it was found that a standard was not reached for establishing urban forests in Turkey. Urban forests showed significant differences from each other in terms of various characteristics such as distance, accessibility, plant and animal diversity, water surfaces, facilities and infrastructure circumstances. Population and urbanization ratio were not considered in establishing and planning the related urban forests. Urban forests were mostly used for picnic and entertainment. Urban forests were not managed based on scientific and technical principles. Finally, some recommendations were presented to create a management infrastructure for urban forests in Turkey.

Keywords: administration, planning, recreation, urban forest, urban forestry, urbanization 


 

REFERENCES

  1. KUCHELMEISTER G, BRAATZ S 1993 Urban forestry revisited. Unasylva 173 (44): 3-12
  2. ATMIŞ E 2004 Ormanlar Üzerindeki Kent Kökenli Baskılar ve Kentli Duyarlılığı (Urbanum Pressures and Urban Sensitivity on Forests). In: 1st National Urban Forestry Congress Proceedings Book, Ankara, pp 401-413
  3. ATMIŞ E, ÖZDEN S, LISE W 2007 Urbanizations pressures on the natural forests in Turkey: an overview. Urban For Urban Gree 6 (2): 83-92. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.01.002
  4. OGM 2012 T.C. Orman Genel Müdürlüğü, Odun Dışı Ürün ve Hizmetler Dairesi Başkanlığı, Mesire Yerleri Şube Müdürlüğü Kayıtları. (General Directorate of Forestry, Report of Nonwood Products and Services Department). Available at: http://web.ogm.gov.tr/birimler/merkez/odundisiurun/Dkmanlar/Mesire%20Yerleri%20Sube%20Mudurlugu/Kent%20Ormanlar%C4%B1.pdf  (Accessed: 21 December 2012)
  5. KONIJNENDIJK CC 2003 A decade of urban forestry in Europe. Forest Policy Econ 5: 173-186. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00023-6
  6. TYRVÄINEN L 1997 The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method. Landscape Urban Plan 37: 211-222. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(97)80005-9
  7. JORGENSEN E 1986 Urban forestry in the rearview mirror. Arboricultural Journal 10: 177–190. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03071375.1986.9746750
  8. KONIJNENDIJK CC,  RICARD RM, KENNEY A, RANDRUP TB 2006 Defining urban forestry – A comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban For Urban Gree 4 (3-4): 93-103. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2005.11.003 
  9. JIM CY, CHEN WY 2009 Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forest in China. Cities 26: 187-194. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2009.03.003
  10. KONIJNENDIJK CC 2008 The forest and city - The cultural landscape of urban woodland. Springer, Berlin, p 245. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8371-6
  11. YILMAZ S, BULUT Z, YEŞIL P 2006 The benefits of urban forests to urban space. Ataturk University Journal of Agriculture Faculty 37 (1): 131-136
  12. GEZER A, GÜL A 2009 Kent ormancılığı - Kavramsal, teknik ve kültürel yaklaşımlar (Urban forestry - Conceptual, technical and cultural approaches). Süleyman Demirel University Forestry Faculty Publications, Isparta-TURKEY, p 244
  13. COŞKUN AA, VELIOĞLU N 2004 Kent Ormanı Tanımı ve Hukuksal Boyutu (Definition and Legal Aspect of Urban Forest). In: 1st National Urban Forestry Congress Proceedings Book, Ankara, pp 19-33
  14. ELVAN D, VELIOĞLU N 2004 Kent Ormanı Yönetiminin Yasal Esasları (Legal Principals of Urban Forest Management). In: 1st National Urban Forestry Congress Proceedings Book, Ankara, pp 118-133
  15. OĞUZ D 2004 Avrupa Ülkelerinde Kent Ormancılığı Araştırmaları (Researches of Urban Forestry in Europe Countries). In: 1st National Urban Forestry Congress Proceedings Book, Ankara, pp 223-236
  16. ÇAKCI I, ÇELEM H 2004 Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesinin Artırılmasında Çok Amaçlı Kent Ormancılığı Uygulamaları (Multipurpose Urban Forestry Applications in Developing Countries to be enhanced Urban Life Quality). In: 1st National Urban Forestry Congress Proceedings Book, Ankara, pp 237-249
  17. ÇAĞLAR Y 2004 Türkiye Ormancılığı’nın Yeni Serüveni: “Kent Ormancılığı” (New Adventure of Forestry in Turkey: "Urban Forestry"). In: 1st National Urban Forestry Congress Proceedings Book, Ankara, pp 472-481
  18. REGA 2012 T.C. Resmi Gazetesi, Mesire Yerleri Yönetmeliği, (Picnic Spots Regulations in Official Gazette) Resmi Gazete Tarihi: 30.09.2006 Resmi Gazete Sayısı: 26305.
  19. ZHU P, ZHANG Y 2008 Demand for Urban Forests in Unıted States Cities. Landscape Urban Plan 84: 293-300. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.005
  20. KUCHELMEISTER G 1998 Urban Forestry: Present Situation and Prospects in the Asia and Pasific region, FAO Asia-Pasific Forestry Sector Outlook Study, FAO Working Paper No: APFSOS/WP/44, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
  21. SINGH V S, PANDEY D N, CHAUDHRY P 2010 Urban forests and open green spaces: Lessons for Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board,  Rajasthan, India, p 22
  22. ASLAN Z 1993 Sanayileşme ve kentleşmenin doğada rekreasyon faaliyetlerine duyulan gereksinimi arttırıcı etkisi (The Increasing Effect of Industrialization and Urbanization on the Recreation Activities Need in the Nature). Ekoloji Dergisi 8: 22-24
  23. HÖRNSTEN L, FREDMAN P 2000 On the distance to recreational forests in Sweden. Landscape Urban Plan 51(1): 1-10. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00097-9
  24. ROOVERS P, HERMY M, GULINCK H 2002 Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanization in central Belgium. Landscape Urban Plan 59:129-145. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00011-7
  25. SCHIPPERIJN J, STIGSDOTTER U K, RANDRUP T B, TROELSEN  J 2010 Influences on the use of urban green space – A case study in Odense, Denmark. Urban For Urban Gree 9 (1): 25-32. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.002
  26. KONIJNENDIJK CC 2002 Urban Woodland Conservation, Management and Development in Europe - A Comparative Study. In: Randrup TB, Konijnendijk CC, Christophersen T, Nilsson K (eds) Urban Forests and Trees - Proceedings No 1. COST Action E12. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp 163-180
  27. COLES RW, BUSSEY SC 2000 Urban forest landscapes in the UK-progressing the social agenda. Landscape Urban Plan  52: 181-188. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00132-8
  28. TYRVÄINEN L, PAULEIT S, SEELAND K, DE VRIES S 2004 Benefits and Uses of Urban Forests and Trees. In: Nilsson K, Randrup TB, Konijnendijk CC (eds) Urban Forests and Trees in Europe A Reference Book. Springer Verlag (in print), p 24
  29. USLU Ş, AYAŞLIGIL T 2007 Kent ormanlarının rekreasyonel amaçlı kullanımı ve İstanbul ili örneğinde irdelenmesi (Recreational usage of urban forests and a scrutiny on İstanbul case). YTÜ Arch. Fac. E-Journal 2 (4): 213-236
  30. SCHMITHÜSEN F, KAZEMI Y, SEELAND K 1997 Perceptions and attitudes of the population towards forests and their social benefits. Social origins and research topics of studies conducted in Germany, Austria and Switzerland between 1960 and 1995. IUFRO Occasional Paper 7. IUFRO, Vienna
  31. TYRVÄINEN L, SILVENNOINEN H, KOLEHMAINEN O 2003 Can ecological and aesthetic values be combined in urban forest management? Urban For Urban Gree 1 (3): 135-149. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00014
  32. ÇETINER Ş, KIRIŞ R, YILMAZ A 2004 Kent Ormancılığında Hukuki ve Teknik Altyapı (Legal and Technical Infrastructure of Urban Forestry). In: 1st National Urban Forestry Congress Proceedings Book, Ankara, pp 96-117
  33. CLARK JR, MATHENY NP, CROSS G, WAKE V 1997 A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture 23 (1): 17-30
  34. NOWAK DJ, HOEHN III RE, CRANE DE,  STEVENS JC, WALTON JT, BOND NYJ, INA G 2006 Assessing urban forest effects and values. USDA Forest Service Publications, Northeastern Research Station Resource Bulletin NE-166, p 5
  35. DIRIK H, ATA C 2004 Kent Ormancılığının Kapsamı, Yararları, Planlaması ve Teknik Esasları (Scope, Benefits, Planning and Technical Principles of Urban Forestry). In: 1st National Urban Forestry Congress Proceedings Book, Ankara, pp 63-77
  36. RINES D, KANE B, KITTREDGEA DB, RYANA HDP, BUTLERA B 2011 Measuring urban forestry performance and demographic associations in Massachusetts, USA. Urban For Urban Gree 10 (2): 113-118. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2010.12 .005

 

© 2015 by the Croatian Forest Research Institute. This is an Open Access paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).