An Approach For Recreation Suitability Analysis To Recreation Planning In G Lc K Nature Park

An Approach for Recreation Suitability Analysis to
Recreation Planning in Gölcük Nature Park
ATILA GÜL*
Department of Landscape Architecture
Sleyman Demirel niversity
Orman Fakltesi, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Bçlm
32260, Isparta, Turkey
M. KAMIL ÖRÜCÜ
Department of Eğirdir Vocational College
Sleyman Demirel University
Eğirdir, Turkey
ÖZNUR KARACA
Department of Geology
Sleyman Demirel University
32260, Isparta, Turkey
ABSTRACT / Gçlck Nature Park (GNP) is an area protected
by law in Turkey. It is an important nature park with rich flora,
fauna, geomorphologic forms, landscape features, and
recreational potential in the region. However, GNP does not
have a recreation management plan. The purpose of this
study was to determine the actual natural, cultural, and vi-
sual resources of GNP, determine the most suitable recrea-
tional sites with multiple factors, evaluate the demands and
tendencies of visitors, and suggest recreational activities
and facilities for the most suitable sites of GNP. However, it
was also conceived as leading to a recreational plan and
design of GNP in the future and identifying the entire
appropriate and current data of GNP with the creation of
various maps. This study used multifactor analysis to
determine the most suitable recreation sites of GNP. Used
recreation factors were established including degree of
slope, proximity to water resources, accessibility, elevation,
vegetation, soil, climate, aspect, current cultural facilities,
visual values, and some limiting factors in accordance with
the characteristics of GNP. Weighting and suitability values
of factors were determined by 30 local expert surveys. All
obtained data were evaluated and integrated in the Geo-
graphical Information Systems base. Obtained maps were
overlapped. Thus, recreational suitability zones map were
created manually. However, the demands and behaviours
from visitor surveys in GNP were focused on the most suit-
able recreation sites of the park. Finally, 10% of GNP was
identified as the most suitable sites for recreational use.
Various recreational facilities and activities (including pic-
nicking, sports facilities and playgrounds, camping sites,
walking paths, food and local outlets, etc.) were recom-
mended for nine of the most suitable areas on the proposed
recreational map.
The significance of natural areas and the forests as
recreational areas has increased constantly over the last
few decades (Brandli and Ulmer 2001, Lynn and
Brown 2003). Nowadays, recreation and leisure play an
important role in sustaining human life along with the
political, technological, cultural, economic, and social
developments in Turkey. Demands for recreational
diversity have increased with urbanization and
improvements in transportation. Unhealthy, uncon-
trolled, and rapid urbanization and the inadequacy of
present green open spaces and recreational facilities in
urban areas have led many urban people to spend their
time in natural rural areas rather than in cities (Gül
and Gezer 2004). It can be said that recreation in the
forest is very important in Turkey. Forests that have
various recreation opportunities, including picnicking,
trekking, cycling, ecological tours, fishing, and so on,
have psychological and physical benefits for people
(Aslanboğa and Gül 1999).
Forest areas cover 26% of Turkey, and 99% of for-
ested areas are managed by the Ministry of Environ-
ment and Forestry. As a result of nature conservation
tendencies in Turkey, the number of protected areas
has increased since the 1980s. These protected areas
have been designated to include national parks, nature
conservation areas, nature parks, and nature monu-
ments by the National Park Law in 1983 (O.B. 1996).
Eighty-four percent of Turkeys forests are managed for
production, whereas only 16% of the forests are man-
aged for conservation and recreational purposes.
However, national parks, nature parks, and picnic areas
KEY WORDS: Gçlck; Nature park; Recreation planning; Suitability
analysis
Published online February 20, 2006.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; email:
atilagul@ orman.sdu.edu.tr
Environmental Management Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 606–625 ª 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-004-0322-4

in forests can also be used for recreational purposes
(about 3.5% of total forest areas) in Turkey (Gül 2002).
According to The World Conservation Union, nature
parks and protected landscape/seascape areas can be
used for recreational and tourism purposes (IUCN
1994).
Nature parks are defined as ‘‘a protected natural
area, which have unique natural and geo-morphologi-
cal elements, scenic beauty, special floristic features
and wildlife, various outdoor recreational resources at
(the) regional and national level’’ (O.B. 1996, p. 5).
There are 17 nature parks that meet these conditions
in Turkey. However, there is no outdoors recreation
planning strategy at the regional or local level, and no
nature parks have recreation management planning
yet. Nature parks and other protected areas in Turkey
have a lot of problems in terms of planning, design,
management, social pressure, and economic con-
straints (Gül 2002).
One of the most serious problems facing managers
of recreational resources is the paradox of protecting
natural ecosystems while providing for their recrea-
tional use (Kuss and Grafe 1985). Recreational plan-
ning includes this method, and the relationship
between leisure and recreation resources is very
important for land use in natural areas (Gold 1980).
Recreational planning is about assessing the demand,
both actual and potential; about assessing the capacity
of the land base to meet that demand in a sustainable
way; and about using available resources wisely to
optimize the potential (Bell 2001). The main process
of recreational planning is determined by a detailed
long-term analysis between supply and demand
(Altunkasa 1998, Gold 1980, Uzun and Altunkasa
1991). Recreation planning aims to achieve a balance
between resources and community needs with man-
agement planning objectives in order to improve the
quality of life for people.
Research methods for recreational planning are
needed for accurate assessment, analysis, and design of
natural, cultural, and visual values. The demands and
preferences of visitors must also be addressed with so-
cial research, and the obtained data should be used in
order to make decisions and manage recreational re-
sources (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1986, Roovers and
others 2002). Visitors demands and needs for recrea-
tional planning are contingent upon the supply of
existing resource characteristics. Planners and manag-
ers have tried many approaches to recreation planning.
Stankey and Wood (1982) present a very clear sum-
mary of the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS)
and refer to a formal planning framework. This ranges
from primitive, largely natural, undeveloped areas, to
urban areas with much human modification. The full
range is: primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, semi-
primitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban.
Gobster and others (1987) implemented the widely
used ROS approach using Geographic Information
System (GIS) in support of recreation policy develop-
ment. ROS mapping uses management-derived vari-
ables, including measures of physical setting, social
setting, and managerial setting, to identify a range of
recreation experiences. This approach is useful for
taking an inventory of the recreation opportunity
classes from management-defined settings but does not
accommodate the representation of specific recrea-
tional activities in specific landscapes. Rudis (1987),
though, stated that using the ROS as the basis for
classification is not always straightforward, because
individual characteristics, values, and perceptions play
a major role in assessing recreation resources and
decision-making.
Recreational suitability analysis, which is one of the
important stages of recreation planning, is devised for
the evaluation of each land unit for all site values.
Suitability analysis has its roots in McHargs (1969)
seminal work on transparent overlays and their appli-
cation for land use planning (Steinitz and others
1976). This approach was automated with the devel-
opment of computer cartography (Lyle and Stutz 1983,
Mutunayagam and Bahrami 1987) and has since
evolved into a range of GIS-based methodologies for
land-use issues. The recreation and tourism industry
has grown significantly over the past 50 years, and the
functions and capabilities of GIS in planning and
developing recreational sites has only recently been
explored (McAdam 1999).
Recreation suitability index models were first sug-
gested by Levinsohn and others (1987), who developed
a GIS approach for assessing recreation suitability.
Applications range from broad all-encompassing land
use approaches, such as for urban greenway suitability
analysis (Miller and others 1998), to those focused on
specific resources, such as the development of GIS-
based habitat suitability models (Donovan and others
1987). The application of GIS-based habitat suitability
indices has led to their adoption for simulating man-
agement strategies for wildlife objectives (Kliskey and
others 1999). Such approaches also have the potential
for backcountry recreation modeling, where a suffi-
ciently robust methodology is used.
Suitability techniques are essential for informed
decision-making and enable planners and local deci-
sion-makers to analyze interactions in multiple ways
(Steiner and others 2000). The result is a map showing
how suitable each area is for a proposed use. The most
Recreation Planning in Gçlck Nature Park 607

important decision an analyst makes when using this
tool is the determination of how relative values, or
weights, are to be given to two or more combined
factors. Factors are simply characteristics of land that
are grouped as attributes (Pease and Coughlin 1996).
According to Brandli and Ulmer (2001), recreational
suitability comprises five components: environmental
qualities (natural hazards, emissions), event potentials
(beauty, naturalness, diversity, and uniqueness), suit-
ability for activities (type and intensity of possible rec-
reational use), equipment (facilities), and accessibility
(distance or travel time).
The purposes of this study are to determine the
most suitable recreational sites with multiple factors, to
measure the demands and tendencies of visitors, and
to suggest recreational activities and facilities for the
most suitable sites of GNP. Finally, it was intended to
develop an approach for the methodology of recrea-
tional suitability analysis for GNP or other areas. Spe-
cific objectives are to collect and identify the entire
current natural, cultural, and visual data of GNP along
with created maps, and to lead to a recreational plan
and design of GNP in the future.
Study Area
This study was carried out in Gölcük Nature Park
(GNP) of Isparta, which is in the northwest Mediter-
ranean region of Turkey. The park covers an area of
5925 ha and is 12 km away from Isparta (Figure 1).
With its diverse and interesting flora and fauna,
geomorphological features, scenic beauty and recre-
ational potential, Gölcük Nature Park (GNP) was
announced as the seventh Nature Park of Turkey in
1991. Despite its rich recreational potential, the park
does not meet the recreational demands of local
people. The impacts of visitors have continued to
increase and threaten the integrity of the natural,
cultural, and visual resources of the park. Although
there is no settlement in the park itself, it is sur-
rounded by the south and southwest suburbs of Is-
parta. There are three villages in the area (Darıdere,
Yakaören, and Gelincik), with the nearest one being
about 8 km away from the park. The population of
Isparta is about 150,000 (I.N.M. 2002). The mean
annual rainfall is about 700 mm. The park receives its
maximum rainfall between December and March.
The mean temperatures for January and July are
2.5C and 24C, respectively (I.M.M. 2000). The alti-
tude of GNP ranges from 1000 m to 2271 m. It has a
geographical form rising from the north to the south.
Gölcük Lake was originally a small crater lake at
1378 m altitude.
GNP is rich in flora. The Lake and its surrounding
areas contain 227 plant species, and the endemism rate
is quite high at 64% (Fakir and Dutkuner 2000, Özçelik
2000). Some of the dominant wood species are Ana-
tolian black pine (Pinus nigra Arn. subsp. pallasiana
(Lamb.) Holmboe), Pinus sylvestris L., Taurus cedar
(Cedrus libani Carr.), Juniperus oxycedrus L. subsp.
oxycedrus, Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.), Com-
mon and Kermes oaks (e.g., Quercus robur L., Quercus
coccifera L.), and Poplars (e.g., Populus alba L., Populus
nigra subsp. caudina (Ten.) Bugala).
The Department of Natural Parks and Wildlife, of
the Ministry of Forestry, owns the GNP and is respon-
sible for its management. However, 230 ha of the park
belong to Isparta Municipality, the Directorate of
Government Water, and local people. Isparta Munici-
pality is using its lands (40 ha) as orchard gardens and
has constructed some buildings on the south coast of
the Lake. Private areas of the park are scattered and
contain many residences, agricultural lands, and pas-
ture lands (I.O.B.M. 1990). There is social pressure on
the park for agriculture, hunting, and grazing.
The nature park, especially around the lake, is
generally used for picnic activities. The park has a
coffee house, a restaurant, a gatehouse, four toilets,
five fountains, a playground, 125 picnic fireplaces, 58
picnic tables, seven covered picnic tables, a parking lot,
two transformers, a mosque, and two tombs. The park
is currently used for limited recreational activities, such
as no-arrangement picnicking, playgrounds, and walk-
ing trails. People have heavily used areas close to the
Lake as picnic areas for many years. It is estimated that
about 50,000 people visit the Lake and its surroundings
every year (I.M.P.Y.H.B. 2002). There is no public
transportation route to the park area.
Method
In this method, multiple factors were identified as
integral to the suitability analysis through field surveys
and factors defined by McHarg (1967), Gold (1980),
Gülez (1980), Pehlivanoğlu (1987), Gülez (1990),
Trisurat and others (1991), Kurum (1992), Cendrero
and others (1993), Hepcan (2000), and Bell (2001).
These factors and subfactors to be used in the overlay
and multiple factor analysis were selected after assess-
ing the available data and consulting with local expert
surveys. In relationship with characteristics of the park,
positive recreational factors (including proximity to
water sources, the cultural values, accessibility, vegeta-
tion, slope, visual values, climatic conditions, elevation,
soil, and aspect) and the limiting (negative) factors
(including environmental pollution, telephone lines,
608 A. Gl and others

power lines, sheepfolds, forest fires, and erosion) were
taken into account for recreation. In general, the lim-
iting factors are expected hypothetically to have nega-
tive points (Gülez 1990). Limiting factors are not
generally preferred in recreational activities and sites
because of their negative impacts on natural resources
Figure 1. Location of the study area (Isparta, Turkey).

or forests in Turkeys conditions. For example, visitors
do not prefer areas close to sheepfolds for picnic and
other recreational activities because they are not
maintained well and smell bad.
The procedure applied can be summarized in five
stages as follows:
Spatial data collection and digitalization in the GIS,
Determination of weighting and suitability values of
recreational factors using expert surveys,
Data integration and determination of recreational
suitability zones,
Visitor/user surveys,
Output evaluation.
Spatial Data Collection and Digitalization
The Isparta information survey map (Sheet: M24-c2
and M25-d1) (scale 1:25,000), forest stands map (scale
1:25,000), forest cadastral map (scale 1:10,000), and
forest management plans were used during the survey
and analysis. The data from the maps were digitized
and stored in ARC/INFO 7.2.1 format. Data obtained
by field observations such as natural values, cultural
facilities, and vista points were transferred to the
computer as well.
Determination of Weighting and Suitability Values of
Recreational Factors
For weighting and suitability scores of recreational
factors, selected local experts who live and work in the
region and are familiar with the park and recreation
issues participated in the survey. Thirty experts
(n = 30) were selected from academicians, park man-
agers, and technical staffs such as forest engineers,
landscape planners, urban planners, architects, agri-
cultural engineers, and biologists (Table 1). An expert
survey was realized with interviews and the response
rate was 100%.
First, each expert was asked to rank the recreational
factors in order of importance. By using ranking scores
from 1 (most important) to 11 (unimportant) for each
factor, 30 experts determined the priorities of 11 rec-
reational factors according to their professional
knowledge and experiences. Thus, the weighting
scores of each factor were calculated. In this study, to
determine the weighting values of 11 factors, the fol-
lowing Equation 1 was used:
TVFm ¼
X
m
n
VF
WCFm ¼ m
ðTVFm=nÞ
m
ð1Þ
WCFm is the weighting values of each factor, TVFm is the
total value of each factor, n is the number of experts
(n = 30), m is the number of factors (m = 11), and VF is
the value given by the experts.
Second, subfactors in the main factors were dis-
cussed with the experts in terms of their values and
suitability. The recreational suitability values of deter-
Table 1. Profile of local experts (n = 30)
Questions Answers Frequency Percentage
Sex Male 22 73%
Female 8 27%
Age group (yrs) 20 yrs 0 0%
20–40 yrs 15 50%
41–60 yrs 13 43%
60 yrs 2 7%
Education status University 6 20%
Graduate 6 20%
Postgraduate 18 60%
Expertise areas Forest engineer 8 27%
Landscape architecture 8 27%
Urban planner 4 13%
Agricultural engineer 4 13%
Biologist 4 13%
Architecture 2 7%
Occupational status Academicians 23 77%
Managers of park 4 13%
Technical staffs in organizations 3 10%

mined subfactors were also asked of the experts and
ranged from 0 to 3 points. The experts scores for each
subfactor were calculated (Table 3). Thus, standard
categories of suitability were created based on high (3
points), moderate (2 points), low (1 point), and non-
capability (0 point) (Table 4). The proximity values of
recreational subfactors were related to the dimension
of grid units (250 m · 250 m).
Data Integration and Determination of Recreational
Suitability Zones
In this stage, all collected data were transferred into
the ARCVIEW-3.2 format for analysis. After this, five
maps, including slope, elevation, aspect, vegetation,
and general information maps (scale 1:25,000), were
created, and the five different maps were divided into
890 grids total using 1 cm · 1 cm (250 m · 250 m) grid
cell resolution as they were overlaid into one layer.
The recreational suitability values of each grid were
evaluated contingent upon expert approaches and
then calculated in Excel software manually by using the
following Equation 2:
FSVU ¼
X
m
n¼1
VPFm WCPFm
X
m
n¼1
VLFm WCLF ð2Þ
FSVU is the final suitability values in each grid, n is the
number of grids, m is the number of factors, VPFm is the
value of each positive factor, WCPFm is the weighting
values of each positive factor, VLFm is the value of
limiting factors in each unit, and WCLF is the weighting
values of limiting factors.
The total recreational suitability values of each grid
were obtained by subtracting the total values of the
negative factors from the total values of the positive
factors. After creating the final recreational suitability
total scores in each grid, maximum and minimum
suitability scores were determined. A final recreational
suitability zones map was produced based upon the
resultant classifications of total suitability. This map was
classified into three zoning groups as the best suitable,
moderate, and not suitable for recreational purposes
only.
Visitor Survey
A visitor survey with interviews was conducted be-
tween May and September in 2001 and 2002 in the
park. The survey by the authors was carried out during
the weekends as well as weekdays between 10:00 a.m.
and 9:00 p.m. The survey gave the possibility of clari-
fying questions by direct interaction between inter-
viewer and interviewee, enhancing the reliability of the
answers. The survey was tested for a preliminary stage
and then amended and made more complete. Each
interview lasted about 20–25 minutes. Finally, 400
questionnaires were completed. The response rate was
95%. The survey focused on the characteristics,
behaviors, and demands of the visitors.
Output Evaluation
After the completion of the final recreational suit-
ability zones map, a proposed recreational map was
developed for recreational planning. By using the de-
mands and behaviors of visitors (n = 400), various
recreational activities and facilities were then proposed
contingent upon their conditions in the most suitable
recreational sites for GNP.
Results
Weighting in suitability analysis refers to assigning a
weight to each factor in order to recognize its relative
importance (Pease and Coughlin 1996). The ranking
values as calculated should be normalized for each
function under analysis (Banai Kashani 1989, Whitley
1993). Although the evaluations of experts were gen-
erally variable, the approach values of each factor were
normalized. Weighting values of each factor were
determined for accessibility (0.78), current cultural
values (0.76), proximity to water resources (0.75),
vegetation (0.62), slope (0.55), visual and aesthetic
values (0.54), climatic values (0.37), elevation (0.25),
soil (0.25), aspect (0.13), and limiting factors (0.01).
These results indicated that the most important rec-
reational factors were preferred accessibility (30%), the
cultural values (23%), proximity to water resources
(23%), vegetation (16.7%), and slope (6.7%) by local
experts (Table 2).
The experts scores for suitability of each subfactor
were calculated and normalized (Table 3). Thus,
standard categories of suitability were created based on
high (3 points), moderate (2 points), low (1 point) and
noncapability (0 point) (Table 4). There were no sig-
nificant differences found among experts about rec-
reational suitable values.
According to recreational suitability categories for
each subfactor (Table 4), a total of five maps (slope,
elevation, aspect, vegetation, and general information
maps) were created (Figures 2–6). Data on five differ-
ent maps were overlaid on the recreational suitability
map (Figure 7). According to recreational suitability
zones map, finally each unit was classified according to
their calculated levels of total recreational suitability
values as ‘‘suitable,’’ ‘‘moderate,’’ and ‘‘not suitable.’’
Units that had values between 7.01 and 10.85 were
deemed very suitable or to have high capability for

Table 2. Ranking scores from 1 (most important) to 11 (unimportant) for each factor by experts
Experts Accessibility Cultural facilities
Proximity
to water resources Vegetation Slope Visual values
Climatic
values Elevation Soil type Aspect
Limiting
values
Forest engineer 1 3 2 6 5 4 9 7 8 10 11
Forest engineer 1 3 2 8 6 4 5 9 7 10 11
Forest engineer 4 2 3 1 6 5 7 9 8 10 11
Forest engineer 1 5 3 2 4 6 7 9 8 10 11
Forest engineer 2 5 1 9 4 3 6 8 7 10 11
Forest engineer 3 4 1 2 5 6 8 11 7 9 10
Forest engineer 2 4 3 1 7 6 5 9 8 10 11
Forest engineer 3 2 4 1 6 5 8 7 9 10 11
Landscape architecture 2 1 3 4 5 7 6 8 9 10 11
Urban planner 3 1 2 6 4 5 10 8 7 9 11
Urban planner 1 2 4 3 7 5 8 9 6 10 11
Urban planner 3 1 2 6 4 5 8 7 10 9 11
Urban planner 5 1 3 4 6 2 9 7 8 10 11
Architecture 2 1 3 5 6 7 4 8 10 9 11
Architecture 3 1 5 2 7 4 6 9 8 10 11
Agricultural engineers 2 4 3 5 1 6 8 10 7 9 11
Agricultural Engineers 4 2 5 3 1 7 6 8 9 10 11
Biologist 2 3 1 4 7 5 6 10 8 9 11
Biologist 4 2 1 3 5 6 7 9 8 11 10
Biologist 1 2 6 4 3 5 10 7 8 9 11
Biologist 2 3 4 1 8 5 7 9 6 10 11
Total Scores 72 80 82 125 149 152 209 249 246 288 328
Average scores (TVFm /n) 2.4 2.7 2.7 4.2 5.0 5.1 7.0 8.3 8.2 9.6 10.9
Weighting values of each
factor (WCFm)
0.78 0.76 0.75 0.62 0.55 0.54 0.37 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.01
Most important factors preferred by experts are given in bold.
612
A.
Gl
and
others

recreation and were named as ‘‘the most suitable
zones.’’ These areas consisted of 10% (89 units) of
GNP. Units that had values between 4.01 and 7.00 were
accepted as moderately capable areas and were named
as ‘‘moderate zones.’’ These areas consisted of 51%
(454 units) of the park. Units that have values between
1.00 and 4.00 were deemed as ‘‘unsuitable zones’’ or
‘‘protection zone’’ for recreation use, and consisted of
39% (347 units) of the park (Figure 7).
Analysis of Visitor Survey
The use of surveys was the most accurate and com-
prehensive means for determining the community
Table 3. Total scores of given points for recreational
suitability by experts
Subfactors Values
Total scores
of given points
Proximity to Gölcük Lake 0–250 m 56
251–500 m 50
501–750 m 46
751–1000 m 28
Proximity to other water 0–250 m 79
sources (stream, spring, 251–500 m 63
fountain, etc.) 501–750 m 31
751–1000 m 3
Land use groups Forest 87
Pastoral 59
Agricultural 34
Other 0
Proximity to current 0–250 m 67
cultural facilities 251–500 m 60
501–750 m 43
751–1000 m 10
Road types Asphalt roads 84
Gravel–soil roads 56
Forest soil roads 40
Other 0
Proximity to roads 0–250 m 86
251–500 m 64
501–750 m 30
751–1000 m 0
Vegetation groups Forest stands 88
Shrubs 62
Meadows and
agricultural
30
Other 0
Forest stand types Mixed forests 73
Deciduous
broadleaf
57
Coniferous 50
Cover of vegetation (%) 11% 13
11–40% 57
41–70% 63
71–100% 47
Slope groups 0–10% 79
11–20% 63
21% 38
Vista points Lake 68
Forest 62
Isparta City
and Lowland
52
Other 0
Geomorphologic Rarely encounters 90
formations Abundant 0
Averages of 0–15C 33
temperature 15–20C 63
20–40C 84
Table 3. Continued
Subfactors Values
Total scores
of given points
Averages of 0–30 mm 83
precipitation 31–60 mm 65
61 mm 32
Elevation groups 1000–1450 m 80
1451–1850 m 63
1851–2250 m 37
Soil groups Deep soils 77
Shallow soils 64
Stony places 39
Aspect groups West, South, Flat 81
East, Southwest 79
North,
Southeast–Northeast,
Northwest
20
Proximity 0–250 m 80
to environment 251–500 46
pollutions 501–1000 38
1001 m 16
Proximity to 0–250 m 78
telephone line 251–500 51
501–1000 36
1001 m 15
Proximity to 0–250 m 85
power line 251–500 50
501–1000 40
1001 m 5
Vulnerable to Risk 90
forest fires No Risk 0
Proximity to
sheepfolds
0–250 m 86
251–500 40
501–1000 34
1001 m 20
Proximity to areas 0–250 m 85
vulnerable 251–500 44
to erosion 501–1000 32
1001 m 19

Table 4. Recreational suitability values of recreational subfactors for GNP
Recreational Suitability Values
Recreational factors Subfactors High (3 points) Moderate (2 points) Low (1 point) Noncapability (O point)
1 Proximity to
water resources
Proximity to Gölcük Lake 0–250 m 250–500 m 500–750 m more than 750 m
Proximity to other water sources
(stream-spring, fountain, etc.)
0–250 m 250–500 m 500–750 m more than 750 m
2 Cultural values Land use groups Forest Pastoral Agricultural Other
Proximity to current
cultural facilities
0–250 m 250–500 m 500–750 m more than 750
3 Accessibility Road types Asphalt roads Gravel–soil roads Forest-soil roads —
Proximity to roads 0–250 m 250–500 m 500–750 m more than 750 m
4 Vegetation Vegetation groups Forest stands Shrubs Meadows and
agricultural plants
Other
Forest stand types Mixed forests Deciduous
broadleaf
Coniferous Other
Coverage of vegetation (%) 41–70% 11–40% 71–100% 0–11%
5 Slope Slope groups 0–10% 11–20% 21–40% 41–100%
6 Visual values Vista points Lake Forest Isparta City and
lowlands
Other
Geomorphologic formations Rarely encounter — — Abundant
7 Climatic factors Average temperature 20–35C 15–20C less than 15C —
Average precipitation less than or equal 30 mm— more than 30 mm —
8 Elevation Elevation groups 1000–1450 m 1451–1850 m 1851–2250 m —
9 Soil Soil groups Deep soils Shallow soils Stony places —
10Aspect Aspect groups West, south, southwest,
east, flat
North, southeast,
northeast, northwest
—
11Limiting (negative) factors ())Proximity to environmental pollution 0–250 m — — more than 250 m
Proximity to telephone lines 0–250 m — — more than 250 m
Proximity to power lines 0–250 m — — more than 250 m
Vulnerability to forest fires Risk — — No risk
Proximity to sheep-folds 0–250 m — — more than 250 m
Proximity to areas vulnerable to erosion0–250 m — — more than 250 m
614
A.
Gl
and
others

demand and need for recreation by the recreation
planner. The analysis focused on the visitor character-
istics, behaviors, and demands in the park.
According to the characteristics of the visitors,
most respondents were male (60%). The largest
group of respondents was the 18–35 age group or
mainly young (49%), whereas second in line was the
36–50 age group, or middle-aged group (31%). Forty-
three percent of visitors had a high level of formal
education. Regarding occupational status, 40% of the
Figure 2. Slope map of GNP.
Figure 3. Elevation map of GNP.

visitors worked as civil servants. Most of the visitors
were married (about 80%) and in the middle-income
group (between $750 and $1000 monthly). In their
spare time, visitors usually preferred picnicking
(33%), sports activities (15%), and nature trips (14%)
(Table 5).
Figure 4. Aspect map of GNP.
Figure 5. Vegetation map of GNP.

Behaviors of visitors. Visitors usually preferred GNP
because of its proximity to Isparta (47%), and its nat-
ural and visual views (38%). The majority of the visitors
came from Ispartas center (72%). The main reason for
their visit was picnicking (54%). They visited the park
in July (35%) and August (33%). Most of the visitors
usually came to GNP on Sunday (63%) and visited the
park once a month (38%). Respondents preferred
afternoons (56%). The average staying time in the park
was 4–8 hours (47%). Most of the visitors (96%)
Figure 6. General information of GNP.
Figure 7. Recreational suitability map of GNP.

brought their own foods and drinks. They enjoyed
picnicking or cooking (28%) and chatting (17%) dur-
ing their stay in the park (Table 6).
Demands of visitors. Ninety percent of the respon-
dents explained that recreation planning and design
study of the park should be carried out. However, they
wanted various recreation facilities. The visitors com-
plained about a lack of picnic sites (22%), sports areas
(10%), administration (14%), and food or local outlets
(10%). Visitors wanted recreational facilities, such as
teashops and restaurants (29%), food and local outlets
(26%), restrooms (12%), and washing sinks for dirty
dishes (7%). They wanted appropriate recreational
sites for picnicking (25%), sports activities (16%),
walking (15%), and playgrounds (13%). The requests
of visitors for sports activities included basketball and
volleyball (37%), football (14%), aquatic sports (12%),
and biking (12%). For effective conservation of the
park, visitors suggested that the public needs to be
educated (23%). Effective administrative (19%), par-
ticipation of visitors (11%), and keeping the visitor
numbers within the carrying capacities of the park
(9%) were also mentioned. Visitors usually preferred
picnic areas around the Lake (45%) and the edges of
forest areas (30%), especially the mixed forest stands
(Table 7).
Output Evaluation
After recreational suitability zones were created,
nine potential recreational sites were selected in the
most suitable units. Various recreational facilities and
activities were suggested in each site. These activities
and facilities, the quality and quantity of the most
suitable recreation sites, and the visitor demands in
which they take place were considered all together
(Figure 8).
Gölcük Lake and its surroundings, or site number 1
(about 200 ha), were determined to be the most suit-
able recreational sites and improvements were pro-
posed, such as picnic sites, parking lots, biking, sight-
seeing points, sports facilities, playgrounds, camping
sites, walking paths, aquatic sports in the lake, pro-
gliding points, a cafeteria, food and local outlets,
fountains, climbing, bird watching, and botanical
observation. Site number 2 (about 10 ha) is one of the
best that was close to Ispartas center, and a tea garden,
picnic sites, a walking path, a parking lot, food outlets,
and playgrounds were suggested. Site number 3 (about
37 ha) is also close to Ispartas center, and upgrades
were proposed, such as picnic sites, a teleferic (cable
railways), a rock garden, a parking lot, a cafeteria, a
walking path, and scenic points. For site number 4
(about 50 ha), which was originally used as a nursery, a
parking lot, a cafeteria, a walking path, an arboretum
garden, salmon trout facilities, picnic sites, and play-
grounds were proposed. Site number 5 (about 25 ha)
had suggestions for a parking lot, camping and picnic
sites, a walking path, and mountaineering. For site
number 6 (about 13 ha), camping and picnic sites, a
parking lot, and a walking path were suggested. Site
number 7 (about 10 ha) had proposals for a walking
path, a parking lot, picnic sites, and playgrounds. Site
number 8 (about 6 ha) is also close to Ispartas center,
and a parking lot, a cafeteria, playgrounds, and scenic
points were suggested. Site number 9 (about 6 ha) is
the farthest from Ispartas center and was considered
for a parking lot, a picnic, and playground sites for
Darıderes villagers.
Discussion
Recreation suitability is the first stage of recreational
management planning for the current and future use
Table 5. Characteristics of visitors in GNP
Questions Answers Percentage
Sex Male 60%
Female 40%
Age group (yrs) 18–35 yrs 49%
36–50 yrs 31%
7–17 yrs 10%
50 yrs 10%
Education status University 33%
High school 32%
Primary and
Junior high school
24%
Graduate 10%
Illiterate 1%
Occupational status Civil servant 40%
Student 24%
Worker 13%
Tradesman 9%
Retired 6%
Unemployed
and others
8%
Salary status ($/monthly) Between $750
and $1000
35%
Less than $500 30%
Between $500
and $750
29%
More than $1000 6%
General spare Picnicking 33%
time activities Sports activities 15%
Nature trips 14%
Reading 13%
Listening to music 13%
Walking and others 5% and 7%

of protected natural areas and is very important for the
determination or selection of the best sites or areas for
recreation. Recreational suitability is essential for
decision-making analysis (Pease and Coughlin 1996,
Steiner and others 2000). This approach for suitability
analysis in this article rests heavily on the data available
and includes the natural, cultural, and visual variables
of the park. Multiple factors have been used in many
studies to locate optimum facility sites. It is a very useful
method when the criteria being used are not nominal
(i.e., suitable or unsuitable) but have relative degrees
of suitability (Carter 1991). This allows for a more de-
Table 6. Behaviors of visitors in GNP
Questions Answers Percentage (%)
Why do you prefer to visit GNP over other parks? Proximity to Isparta 47
Natural and visual views 38
Forest areas and Lake 15
What is your main reason for visiting the park? Picnicking 54
Naturalness 18
Relaxing 13
Fun and trip 8
Physical activities 7
Where do you come from? Isparta City 72
Burdur City 16
Antalya City 8
Others 4
Which months do you prefer to come to the park? July 35
August 33
June 18
May 9
September 5
Which days do you prefer to come to the park? Sunday 63
Saturday 30
Friday 3
Tuesday 2.5
Others 1.5
How frequently do you come to the park? Once a month 38
Once every 3 months 23
Once every 15 days 15
Once every 6 months 9
Once a year 8
Others 7
Which part of day do you spend in the park? Afternoon 56
All day 36
Morning 7
Evening 1
How many hours do you spend in the park? 4–8 hours 47
0–4 hours 29
More than 8 hours 24
Do you bring foods and drinks with you? Yes 90
No 7
Only foods 2
Only drinks 1
Which activities do you do in the park? Picnicking or cooking 28
Chatting 17
Sightseeing 23
Walking 15
Listening to music 2
Others 15

tailed analysis of potential facility sites; however, the
weights for the factors are subjective to the humans
involved. To reduce potential inaccuracies due to bia-
ses within the analysis, a sensitivity analysis was per-
formed by weighting factors at more extreme values to
ensure that the weights assigned were appropriate
(Labelle and others 2002). Recreational facilities and
activities involve finding a suitable location while
attempting to minimize the negative impacts of the
facility on the surrounding environment, and maxi-
mizing the positive economic and social impacts
(Downham and Wilson 2003). Before designing sites
and facilities, it is important to put the right kinds in
the right places. Recreational site planning is essential
if conflicts between users and the landscape sites and
wildlife are to be minimized (Bell 2001). Comprehen-
sive information needs to be available for each of the
factors applied in the analysis. The most important
advantage of this study is to include a number of po-
sitive and limiting factors for recreational suitability.
Suitability and weighting values of recreational vari-
ables were derived from experts assessments as in
other studies (e.g., Banai-Kashani 1989, Levinsohn and
others 1987, Miller and others 1998). In Turkey, it is
necessary to benefit from expert opinion for recreation
suitability and weighting values because of the lack of
visitors or users knowledge about recreation and
protected area concepts. Other attempts at recrea-
tional suitability used limited variables (e.g., Downham
and Wilson 2003, Kliskey 2000, Levinsohn and others
1987, Miller and others 1998). It should be preferred
to using available multiple factors for recreation suit-
ability analysis.
This method that was used to determine the best or
potentially suitable sites for recreational facilities and
activities was relatively effective, consistent, actual, and
practicable; however, it is recommended that further
analyses be made. It also allows a broad approach for
multiobjective recreational management planning. In
this study, the park (GNP), which is a protected natural
area by law, has potential or the most suitable recrea-
tional sites in about 10% of its area (Figure 7). Pro-
tected natural areas should not have more than 10% of
its area designated for recreational use (Mracek 1975).
The basic aim of protected natural areas should be
to protect and sustain natural, cultural, and visual val-
ues for future generations (Gül 2002, O.B. 1996,
Pehlivanoğlu 1987). It is anticipated that the methods
used to find suitable recreational sites will be incor-
porated into future recreational management plans as
Figure 8. Proposed recreation map of GNP.

additional support for finding suitable sites. Recrea-
tional design studies should be realized in selecting the
most suitable sites. Moderate areas may be used to
reserve areas for future recreational aims. Unsuitable
sites should only be designated as protection aims to
include soil and water conservation, wildlife, and so on.
Table 7. Demands of visitors in GNP
Questions Answers Percentage (%)
Should recreational planning and design study of park be carried out? Yes 90
No agree 10
What are the deficiencies of the park? Picnic sites 22
Administrative deficiencies 14
Sports sites 10
Food and local outlets 10
Walking paths 9
Playground areas 6
Fountains 5
Parking lots 4
Others 20
Which facilities would you like in the park? Tea gardens 29
Food and local outlets 26
Restrooms 12
Washing sinks for dirty dishes 7
Information and exhibition center 9
Camping sites 3
Others 14
Which recreational sites would you like in the park? Picnicking 25
Sports areas 16
Walking paths 15
Playgrounds 13
Aquatic sports 10
Biking 6
Cultural sites 4
Horseback riding 2
Trekking 2
Others 7
Which sports activities would you like? Basketball and volleyball 37
Football 14
Aquatic sports 12
Biking 12
Runway 5
Miniature golf 5
Ice skating 4
Tennis 3
Others 8
Which areas do you prefer for picnic sites? Around the Lake 45
Forest edges 30
In forests 20
Open areas or meadow areas 4
Shrub areas 1
What type of forest stand do you prefer for recreation? Mixed forest stands 52
Deciduous broadleaf stands 33
Coniferous stands 15
What do you think about effective conservation of the park? All 37
The public needs to be educated 23
Effective administrative 19
Participation of visitors 11
No exceeding carrying capacities 9
No idea 1

Historically, optimal sites for various types of rec-
reational facilities and activities were determined
through manually sifting through large amounts of
data and combining them to ascertain which locations
were the most suitable for that facility type. This was
not only time consuming, but was also much less
effective at providing information and analyzing and
understanding problems than the use of GIS
(Heywood and others 1998). GIS has become a very
useful resource in this context, because it allows for
multiple factors to be incorporated and weighted in
the analysis to find the most suitable site areas. In
terms of recreation siting, GIS can be used to deter-
mine the effects of the site on the surrounding envi-
ronment and ecosystem, enabling the planner to
minimize the potential negative impacts of the facility
(Bahaire and Elliott-White 1999, Kliskey 2000, McAd-
am 1999). GIS has become a very useful tool in many
decision-making applications, including determining
suitable locations for recreational and tourism facili-
ties. GIS is not just an automated decision-making
system but a tool for query, analysis and data mapping
in support of the decision-making process (Franklin
1994, Hanna 1999). The use of computer-based GIS
provides a means for integrating and displaying the
various data (Steiner and others 2000). In the study, all
data could be not queried and overlapped in GIS be-
cause of vector, line, and point data of different rec-
reational variables and lack of a spatial analyst module
in ARCVIEW-3.2 format. Therefore, GIS was used only
to form maps, and the final recreational suitability map
was created manually. However, the created maps in
GIS, which have small enough grid units (250 · 250
m), facilitated recreational suitability analysis progress
and the field survey. The dimension of the grid unit
was small enough to define the most detailed features
(ESRI 1996).
The recreational demands and behaviors of visitors
should be taken into account in recreational planning
and design stages (Altunkasa 1998, Bell 2001, Rydberg
and Falck 2000, Tarrant and Green 1999, Uzun and
Altunkasa 1991). Demand analyses for recreation serve
to indicate what people do, how people feel, and what
people want in recreation. By comparing this infor-
mation with a detailed inventory of existing recreation
opportunities, it is possible to determine the commu-
nity ‘‘need’’ for recreation. Several different method-
ologies for determining recreation demand have been
developed over the years, but none can give exact
quantifiable results. Visitors demands and needs for
recreation are contingent upon the supply of existing
resources. In this study, visitors demands and behav-
iors were integrated with selecting the best recreational
sites in the existing condition of the park. According to
the visitor survey, the average visitors in GNP were
young and middle-aged people. Recreational activities
were also related to higher educational and economic
levels. The preferred activity was picnicking, followed
by chatting, sightseeing, walking, and some sport
activities in the park. Picnicking is nationally the most
important activity in forest recreation (Aslanboğa and
Gül 1999, Gül 2002). North of Gölcük Lake has been
heavily used as picnic areas by visitors so far. Therefore,
new picnic sites were proposed around the Lake and
other sites. Accessibility and travel distance is an
important factor for the recreational use of forests
(Brandli and Ulmer 2001, Lindhagen 1996, Roovers
and others 2002). Visitors usually prefer GNP because
of its shorter distance from the city than other forests
or natural areas. According to Genç and others (2000),
GNP is one of the most preferred recreational areas in
Isparta. The dominant visitor groups consist of the lo-
cal people of Isparta City. The majority (more than
90%) of visitors want various recreational activities and
facilities in GNP. Although visitors did not prefer eco-
tourism activities, we also proposed some ecotourism
activities in the park.
There are several limitations in this study, including
some that require further work. The park has insuffi-
cient scientific data about species and habitat diversity.
However, threatened, endangered, sensitive, and lo-
cally rare species and habitats for flora and fauna
should be taken into consideration for recreational
suitability analysis in protected natural areas.
Used factors and subfactors for recreational suit-
ability in this study can be used and improved for other
protected natural areas, but given recreational suit-
ability and weighting values by experts will be different
for each location.
Conclusion
The basic aim of protected natural areas should be
to protect and sustain the natural, cultural, and visual
values of the natural areas for future generations
through legislation in Turkey. It should also meet the
recreational demands of visitors. Therefore, utilization
and protection should be in balance when planning
and managing protected areas (Gül 2002, O.B. 1996,
Pehlivanoğlu 1987, Sakarya 2000).
The comprehensive recreational management
planning of GNP is needed to help direct future
growth and protect the natural, cultural, and visual
values. The results of this study can be used in the
future recreational design of GNP. Recreational suit-
ability zones are one of the vital components for

sustainable recreational management and planning.
As a result, a recreational suitability analysis and visi-
tor demands provide essential information for
decision-making concerning recreational facilities and
activities in the recreational planning and manage-
ment of GNP. The demands and needs of visitors
must be established with social research, and the ob-
tained data should be used to give direction to design
and monitoring. Conditions and tendencies, which
change over the short term and long term, must be
monitored. Therefore, necessary precautions about
changes must be taken into account during the
monitoring. The carrying capacity of recreation sites
and activities ratio must be calculated carefully and
monitored continuously. GNP should have a sufficient
budget, staff, and facilities. The park authority should
also cooperate with local authorities, universities,
nongovernmental organizations, and other official
organizations, working on education, public informa-
tion, staff supply, and budget.
Literature Cited
Altunkasa, M. F. 1998. Rekreasyonel planlama organizasyonu
(Organization in recreational planning). Ç.Ü. Zir. Fak.
Peyzaj Mimarlığı Bölümü, Genel Yayın No: 54, Yrd. Ders
Kitabı, Yayın No: B-4, Adana, Turkey, 97 pp.
Aslanboğa, I., and A. Gül. 1999. Kemalpaşa ormanlarının re-
kreasyonel değeri (Recreational values of Kemalpaşa for-
ests). Kemalpaşa Çevre ve Kültür Sempozyumu, Kemalpaşa
Kaymakamlığı ve E.Ü. Aras
¸ tırma ve Uygulama Merkezi,
Izmir, Turkey, pp. 397–405.
Bahaire, T., and M. Elliott-White. 1999. The application of
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in sustainable
tourism planning: A review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
7:159–174.
Banai-Kashani, R. 1989. A new method for site suitability
analysis: The analytic hierarchy process. Environmental
Management 13:685–693.
Bell, S. 2001. Design for outdoor recreation. Spon Press,
London, 217 pp.
Brandli, U. B., and U. Ulmer. 2001. Recreational function.
Pages 254–264 in P. Brassel, H. Lischke (eds.), Swiss Na-
tional Forest inventory: Methods and models of the second
assessment. Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Bir-
mensdorf.
Carter, S. 1991. Site search and multi criteria evaluation.
Planning Outlook 34:27–35.
Cendrero, A., J. R. D. Teran, D. Gonzales, V. Mascitti, R.
Rotondaro, and R. Tecchi. 1993. Environmental diagnosis
for planning and management in the high Andean region:
The Biosphere Reserve of Pozuelos, Argentina. Environ-
mental Management 17:683–703.
Donovan, M. L., D. L. Rabe, and C. E. Olson. 1987. Use of
geographic information systems to develop habitat suit-
ability models. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: 574–579.
Douglass, R. 1982. Forest recreation. Pergamon Press, New
York.
Downham, J., and A. Wilson. 2003. Ski resort site suitability for
Amador and Calaveras Counties in California, U.S.A. Al-
pine Meadows Ski Resort 2003 (http://www.geography.
uoguelph.ca/research/geog4480_w2003/group18/index.
htm).
ESRI, Inc. 1996. Working with the Arcview spatial analyst.
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands,
CA, pp 2–11.
Fakir, H., and I. Dutkuner. 2000. Isparta Tabiat Parkının
Florası Üzerine Aras
¸ tırmalar, (Research on the flora of Is-
parta Gölcük Nature Park). Birinci Ehrami Karaçam ve
Doğal Çevre Koruma Sempozyumu (1st International
Symposium on Protection of Natural Environment Erh-
ami Karaçam), Kütahya, Turkey, pp. 77–87.
Franklin, J. 1994. Developing information essential to
policy, planning, and management decision: The prom-
ise of GIS. Pages 18–24 in V. A. Sample (ed.), Remote
sensing and GIS in ecosystem management. Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Genç, M., A. Gül, V. Küçük, and M. Akten. 2000. Isparta kent
insanının rekreasyonel davranıs
¸ biçimleri (Recreational
attitudes of the public in Isparta). Peyzaj Mimarlığı Kong-
resi, Ankara, Turkey pp 255–263.
Gobster, P. H., H. R. Gimblett, and B. B. Kelley. 1987. Mod-
elling forest recreation policy. American Society for Pho-
togrammetry and Remote Sensing, Falls Church, Virginia,
pp. 101–111.
Gold, S. M. 1980. Recreation planning and design. McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York.
Gül, A. 2002. Orman peyzajı ve rekreasyon ders notları (For-
est landscape and recreation, lecture notes). S.D.Ü. Or.
Fak. Or. Müh. Bölümü, Isparta, Turkey, (unpublished).
Gül, A., and A. Gezer. 2004. Kentsel alanda kent ormanı yer
seçimi model önerisi ve Isparta örneğinde irdelenmesi
(Modeling proposal for the selection of urban forest loca-
tion and its evaluation using Isparta city example). I. Ulusal
Kent Ormancılıgı Kongresi (First National Urban Forestry
Congress in Turkey) Ankara, pp. 365–382.
Gülez, S. 1980. Doğu Karadeniz kıyı s
¸ eridinde rekreasyon
potensiyelinin saptanması ve değerlendirilmesi (Evaluation
and determination of recreational potential on the Eastern
Black Sea shore), K.T.U. Or. Fak. Dergisi, Cilt 3, Sayı 1,
Trabzon, pp. 105–132.
Gülez, S. 1990. Ormaniçi rekreasyon potansiyelinin belir-
lenmesi için bir değerlendirme yöntemi (Method of
evaluation for recreational potential in forests). _
I.Ü. Or.
Fak. Dergisi, Seri:A, Cilt: 40, Sayı :2, Istanbul, pp. 132–
147.
Hanna, C. K. 1999. GIS for landscape architects. Environ-
mental System Research Inst., Inc, Redlands, California,
pp. 85–97.
Hepcan, Ş. 2000. A methodological approach for designating
management zones in Mount Spil National Park, Turkey.
Environmental Management 26:329–338.
Heywood, I., S. Cornelius, and S. Carver. 1998. An introduc-
tion to Geographical Information Systems. Addison Wesley
Longman, Ltd, New York, pp 139–140.

I.M.M. 2000. Isparta Meteoroloji Müdürlüğü resmi kayıtları
(The meteorology records of Isparta). Isparta, Turkey.
I.M.P.Y.H.B. 2002. Isparta Milli Parklar ve Yaban Hayatı
Bas
¸ mühendisliği resmi kayıtları (Recordings of Chief
Engineering of Natural Parks and Wildlife in General
Directorate of Department of Natural Parks and Wildlife in
Isparta). Isparta, Turkey.
I.N.M. 2002. Isparta Nüfus Müdürlüğü resmi kayıtları
(The Records of Registration Office). Isparta, Turkey.
I.O.B.M. 1990. Isparta Orman Bölge Müdürlüğü kadastro
komisyonu kayıtları (The Forest Cadastral Committee Re-
cords of Isparta), Isparta Or. Böl. Md., Isparta, Turkey.
IUCN. 1994. Definition of a protected area. Guidelines for
protected areas management categories. Cambridge, UK.
Kliskey, A. D., E. C. Lofroth, W. A. Thompson, S. Brown, and
H. Schreier. 1999. Simulating and evaluating alternative
resource-use strategies using GIS-based habitat suitability
indices. Landscape and Urban Planning 45:163–175.
Kliskey, A.D. 2000. Recreation terrain suitability mapping: a
spatially explicit methodology for determining recreation
potential for resource use assessment. Landscape and Urban
Planning 52:33–44.
Kurum, E. 1992. Beynam Muhafaza Ormanı ve Yakın
Çevresinin Ankara Kenti Rekreasyon Sistemi Açısından
Koruma-Kullanım ve Planlama _
Ilkelerinin Saptanması
Üzerine Bir Aras
¸ tırma (A study on the determination of
protecting: Using and planning principles of peripheries
and protected forests of Beynam District for recreational
use of Ankara City). A.Ü. F.B.E. Doktora Tezi (Doctoral
Thesis), Ankara, Turkey.
Kuss, R. F., and A. R. Grafe. 1985. Effects of recreation
trampling on natural area vegetation. Journal of Leisure Re-
search 17:165–183.
Labelle, A., A. Langevin, and J. F. Campbell. 2002. Sector
design for snow removal and disposal in urban areas. Socio-
Economic Planning Sciences 36:183–202.
Levinsohn, A., G. Langford, M. Rayner, J. Rintoul, and R.
Eccles. 1987. A micro-computer based GIS for assessing
recreation suitability. Proceedings of GIS 87, American
Society for Photogrametry and Remote Sensing, Falls
Church, Virginia, pp. 739–747.
Lindhagen, A. 1996. Forest recreation in Sweden: Four case
studies using quantitative and qualitative methods. Disser-
tation, Swedish University, Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
Lyle, J., and F. P. Stutz. 1983. Computerised land use suit-
ability mapping. Cartographic Journal 20:39–49.
Lynn, N. A., and R. D. Brown. 2003. Effects of recreational use
impacts on hiking experiences in natural areas. Landscape
and Urban Planning 64:77–87.
McAdam, D. 1999. The value and scope of Geographical
Information Systems in tourism management. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 7:77–92.
McHarg, I. L. 1967. Design with nature. Doubleday/Natural
History Press, Doubleday Company, Inc, Garden City,
New York pp 127–152.
Miller, W., M. Collins, F. Steiner, and E. Cook. 1998. An ap-
proach for greenway suitability analysis. Landscape and Ur-
ban Planning 42:91–105.
Mracek, Z. 1975. Recreation forests: Their delimitations and
function arrangement. Prace Vulhlm 47:171–185.
Mutunayagam, N. B., and A. Bahrami. 1987. Cartography and
site analysis with microcomputers: A programming guide
for physical planning. Urban design and landscape archi-
tecture. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
O. B. (Orman Bakanligi) 1996. Milli Parklar Kanunu (Na-
tional Parks Law: #2873), T.C. Orman Bakanlığı
M.P.Y.H.G.M. (Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Forest,
General Directory of Department of Natural Parks and
Wildlife), Tertip:5, Cilt:22, Ankara, Turkey, 5 pp.
Özçelik, H. 2000. Studies on protections of endemic and rare
plants of Lakes Region in Turkey. Bulletin of Pure and Ap-
plied Sciences 19B:93–116.
Pease, J. R., and R. E. Coughlin. 1996. Land evaluation and
site assessment: A guidebook for rating agricultural lands.
Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa.
Pehlivanoğlu, T. 1987. Belgrad ormanının rekreasyonel pot-
ansiyeli ve planlama ilkelerinin tesbiti (Determination of
the principles of recreational potential and planning of
Belgrade forests in Istanbul). _
I.Ü. Or. Fak. Doktora Tezi
(Doctoral thesis), Istanbul, Turkey, 288 pp.
Roggenbuck, J. W., and R. C. Lucas. 1986. Wilderness use and
user characteristics: A state of knowledge review. Invited
paper, National Wilderness Research Conference, Ft. Col-
lins, Colorado.
Roovers, P., M. Hermy, and H. Gulinck. 2002. Visitor profile,
perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of
increasing urbanization in central Belgium. Landscape and
Urban Planning 59:129–145.
Rudis, V. A. 1987. Recreational use of forested areas by Ala-
bama residents. Research paper SO-237, US Forest Service,
Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, Loui-
siana.
Rydberg, D., and J. Falck. 2000. Urban forestry in Sweden
from a silvicultural perspective: A review. Landscape and
Sakarya, Y. 2000. Ormaniçi dinlenme yeri planlaması. Milli
Parklar ve Yaban Hayatı Genel Müdürlüğü (Planning of
picnic recreational areas in forest), M.P.Y.H.G.M. Perso-
neli Güçlendirme Vakfi, Yayın No: 002, Ankara, Turkey,
72 pp.
Stankey, G. H., and J. Wood. 1982. The recreation opportu-
nity spectrum: An introduction. Australian Parks and Rec-
reation, Feb, pp. 6–14.
Steiner, F., L. McSherry, and J. Cohen. 2000. Land suitability
analysis for the upper Gila River watershed. Landscape and
Steinitz, C., P. Parker, and L. Jordan. 1976. Hand drawn
overlays: Their history and prospective uses. Landscape
Architecture 9:444–455.
Tarrant, M. A., and G. T. Green. 1999. Outdoor recreation
and the predictive validity of environmental attitudes. Lei-
sure Science 21:17–30.
Trisurat, Y., A. Eiumnoh, D. R. Webster, and H. E. Daugherty.
1991. National Park zoning: A case study of Phu Rua Na-
tional Park, Thailand. International Workshop on Conser-
vation and Sustainable Development, Organized by:

Interdisciplinary Natural Resources Development and
Management Program, Asian Institute of Technology,
Thailand.
Uzun, G., and M. F. Altunkasa. 1991. Rekreasyonel planla-
mada arz ve talep. (Supply and demand for recreational
planning). Ç.Ü. Zir. Fak. Genel Yayın No: 6, Yardımcı Ders
Kitabı Yayın, No: 1, Adana, Turkey, 78 pp.
Whitley, D. 1993. A GIS–based land use suitability model for
the city of Concord, North Carolina. University of North
Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina.

An Approach For Recreation Suitability Analysis To Recreation Planning In G Lc K Nature Park

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to An Approach For Recreation Suitability Analysis To Recreation Planning In G Lc K Nature Park

Similar to An Approach For Recreation Suitability Analysis To Recreation Planning In G Lc K Nature Park (20)

More from Jim Webb

More from Jim Webb (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

An Approach For Recreation Suitability Analysis To Recreation Planning In G Lc K Nature Park