African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 5(8), pp. 589-599, 18 April, 2010 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR ISSN 1991-637X © 2010 Academic Journals Full Length Research Paper

Determination of ecotourism potential in national parks: Kure mountains national park, Kastamonu-Bartin,

Turkey

Sebahat Açiksöz1*, Sevgi Görmü�1 and Nilgül Karadeniz2

1Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Forestry, Bartin University, Bartin, Turkey.

2Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Agriculture, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.

Accepted 15 March, 2010

Ecotourism is an important instrument used for contribution to preservation of the natural landscape and offers a solution to the poverty problem commonplace in underdeveloped regions. In addition, it produces a structure utility for the economic development and political progress of the local population, providing a resource for training of the visitors and for preservation. For the last five years, there have been significant initiatives concerning sustainable and environmentally sensitive tourism in Turkey. The National Tourism Strategy is one of these initiatives and its primary objective is to ensure the integration of ecotourism within protected areas. As part of this strategic plan, the Western Black Sea Region is designated as a notable area wherein ecotourism is to be expanded. The Kastamonu-Bartin Kure Mountains National Park (KMNP) stands in the foreground of this region, being one of the major focuses of the strategy. The goal of this discussion is to assess the ecotourism potential of Kastamonu-Bartin KMNP and additionally to provide an orientation for ecotourism activities to be developed for the region. In this regard, the "KMNP Buffer Zone-Ulus Region Ecotourism Development Framework" has been produced as a recommendation following the results of the study conducted by means of the Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (ECOS) method in which the ecotourism potential of twenty (20) villages was evaluated. The study area was divided into two regions in the framework. As a result of employing ECOS, centers of ecotourism were described and identified strong and weak, with weak centers found to be dependent upon strong centers. The results of this study contribute significantly to the assessment of the ecotourism potential for the region studied, and they apply especially to the protected areas and their appropriate development. Key words: Rural landscape planning, Ecotourism opportunity spectrum (ECOS), Kastamonu-Bartin Kure mountains national park.

INTRODUCTION For a long time, tourism has been described as a "clean industry" which has no adverse effect on the environment compared to other industries and other business activities (Bundesamtfur Naturschutz, 1997; Van der Duim and Caalders, 2002). Studies have been undertaken for *Corresponding author. E-mail: saciksoz@yahoo.com.

measuring the impact and deleterious effects of tourism on natural areas (UNEP, 2000; Van der Duim and Caalders 2002). The concept of ecotourism was developed in the 1980s with the purpose of controlling tourism and its adverse effects on natural areas (WTO, 2002). Ecotourism is a kind of tourism which requires the implementation of environmentally responsible recreational activities within the designated natural areas, and sets forth a policy which encourages protection of the natural area with a minimal

590 Afr. J. Agric. Res. negative visitor effect and which at the same time contributes to the socio-economic development of the local population (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996). Ecotourism is a concept that makes contributions to the protection of natural landscape. Ecotourism is a slightly effective and small-scaled form of tourism in which there is a heightened sensitivity to the protection of the natural areas (Honey, 1999). Moreover, ecotourism includes in its appropriate implementation the creation of an infrastructure assisting in the economic development and political progress the local population. Also it provides a resource for training of the visitors to the locale about environmental concerns and wilderness preservation, in addition to encouraging a respectful attitude towards different cultures and human rights. This type of tourism can offer a sustainable alternative compared to more detrimental activities, such as intensive agricultural production, hunting, lumbering, mining, etc. in rural areas (Collins, 1998; Ross and Wall, 1999; Van der Duim and Caalders, 2002). Ecotourism represents a sub-group of tourism in which natural/ecological resources are offered for the use of tourists. For this reason, ecotourism is required to maintain strategies with ecology as a priority rather than strategies with unrestrained economic growth as a priority (Fagence, 2001).

National parks are one of the preferred destinations of ecotourism activities in Turkey. Unfortunately the ecotourism potential of the national parks in Turkey has not been developed at the level of government policy in spite of the results of academic studies concerning designated protected areas. The aim of this article is to determine the ecotourism potential in the Kastamonu-Bartin KMNP Buffer Zone, which has ecological significance from both a local scale to a global extent. The results obtained from this study will hopefully support a change in the perception of the use of fragmented planning which is now the experience of this area toward the use of integrated planning. In order to determine the potential of ecotourism, 20 villages of in the town of Ulus situated in the Kastamonu-Bartin KMNP Buffer Zone were selected as the study area. A major step was taken with this study in a determination of the common problems faced in the development of ecotourism in the settlements, and in developing solutions to problems such that they advanced ecotourism practices in the end. The results of the study also establish a baseline for enabling a policy of conservation in the region while providing for sustainable business opportunities in ecotourism in the study area, and to economic development in the region. THE PRESENT STATUS OF ECOTOURISM IN TURKEY The first official reference in Turkey to the concept of

ecotourism was in the eighth Five-Year Development Plan (2001-2005). The plan put forth the following statement: “Nature Protection Areas, National Parks and similar areas of conservation will be developed and expanded with an aim of protecting biological diversity, water, and wildlife and cultural and esthetic values, enabling research to learn of benefits that are not yet understood, preventing soil erosion and the occurrences of landslides and avalanches, and toward the development of ecotourism.” But in reality the intention of this statement was entirely contradictory to the objectives delineated in National Parks Law No. 2873 for the purpose of establishing Nature Protection Areas. Environmentally sensitive projects and sustainable tourism are among the objectives set for development of tourism by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Turkey, which is one of the two organizations influential in the policymaking orientation of ecotourism activities in Turkey. In the Tourism Cities Project, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism showed its understanding of the balance between economic and ecological productivity with sensitivity to the needs of the environment. The principal goal of authorities and academicians in this matter is the integration of cities whose tourism is to be developed in the study areas with the concepts of ecotourism, with the constraints placed on it from ecological sensitivity. The concept of ecotourism was also one of the priority agenda items at the Environment Planning and Infrastructure Commission of the Council of Tourism that convened between 12 and 14 April 2002, and various resolutions were made at this meeting as to the development of ecotourism.

The phases of conservation of natural areas; biological diversity and natural resources; economic development and infrastructure improvement; and the control of these activities from a central bureau as well as locally should be achieved in this particular order such that the interrelationship between ecotourism and sustainability is successful (Ross and Wall 1999). Ecotourism studies have been initiated in Turkey with consideration given to these phases. The western Black Sea region is included in the National Tourism Strategy (Resmi Gazete, 2007) as an important region where ecotourism will be expanded. The Kastamonu-Bartin KMNP has been nominated as one of the nine “hot points” by Conservation International (CI), and will be a significant focal point of ecotourism in the western Black Sea region. To this end, different public organizations and institutions as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been developing and implementing various cooperative projects and continue in these activities. Some titles of the area-based studies from among these projects include: the "National Parks and Protected Areas Management, Biological Diversity Protection and Rural Areas Development Project (1997-1998)" supervised by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry; the "Kure Mountains Ecotourism Project (May

2001-August 2003)" undertaken by the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) of Turkey; the "Zumrut Village Implementation Project for Development of Ecotourism in Bartin-Kastamonu KMNP and Environs (April 2004-November 2007)" conducted by the Kure Mountains Ecotourism Society, which had been founded as the result of the former project. Studies have been initiated by the park administration for the Kure Mountains as the first PAN Parks candidate of Turkey, with the goal of the study to form a tourism strategy and revise the management plan. In addition to the entirety of its natural assets, the national park possesses a cultural wealth of authentic, folkloristic characteristics as well. The National Park is one of the elemental areas of Turkey where naturally derived values have not been destroyed to any degree. For this reason, concurrently with the establishment of a National Park, a buffer zone is also designated which surrounds the park area and which is found to maintain a traditional way of life, with preservation of the structures forming the original architecture. The planning and management of these buffer zones is done in cooperation with associated ministries (Creve ve Orman Bakanligi, 2006a; Cevre ve Orman Bakanligi, 2006b; Bilgin et al., 2007).

The protection and sustainability of the resources of the National Park relies upon protecting the units of settlement and the authentic way of life within the buffer zone as well as setting up habitations suitable for living. In addition to this activity, it is important with respect to the protection of this area to develop rational tourism strategies as well for the tourists who visit these sites in order to see this cultural wealth within the National Park and its close environs. Accordingly, the Kastamonu-Bartin KMNP has been included among the areas of expansion within the scope of the “Biological Diversity and Sustainable Natural Resource Management (GEF II) Project” initiated by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in the year 2000 for the purpose of developing ecotourism in the protected areas. "The Project to Strengthen Forest Conservation Areas’ Management" was launched in 2008 with the purpose of reinforcing the nature protection and sustainable resource management infrastructure and of promoting inclusion of the Kastamonu-Bartin KMNP and environs, making up an effective and integrated management framework to develop the position and administrative efficiency of the forest conservation areas in the national protected areas system, and toward expanding the framework experience. The project is sponsored with the financial support of the Global Environment Fund (GEF), through a partnership with the General Directorate of Nature Protection and National Parks, the General Directorate of Forestry of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). It includes the contribution of the General Directorate of Afforestation and Erosion Control, the General Directorate of Forest- Village Relations, and the WWF of Turkey (Bartin Valiligi, 2009).

Açiksöz et al. 591 MATERIALS AND METHODS Materials The study was undertaken in twenty (20) villages within the vicinity of the town of Ulus located within the Bartin province of Turkey. These villages are situated in the Kastamonu-Bartin KMNP Buffer Zone (Figures 1 and 2). All villages studied have an official designation as "forest village." The designation “forest village” is fully described in article 4 of the Notice, "Fundamentals and Procedures of Development Services for Forest Village Inhabitants" published in the Official Gazette no. 26040 dated 31 December 2005. Forest villages are those villages situated inside or adjacent to forested areas (Icisleri Bakanligi, 2009). The Kure Mountains constitute a mountain system with a span of approximately 250 km parallel to the coastline of the western Black Sea region (this region includes the provinces of Bartin, Kastamonu, and Sinop). The highest peak in the range is Yaralıgöz Mountain (2,019 m), located southeast of Inebolu. The Kastamonu-Bartin KMNP, which was declared a national park in 2000, is located at the western end of the mountain range, south of the towns of Kurucasile and Cide, and north of the towns of Pinarbasi and Ulus. The 37,000 hectares of the "Core Zone" of the park is designated as having absolute protection status, and the 80,000 hectares which form the buffer zone surrounding this core zone is designated as a "Buffer Zone" but has no official status similar to absolute protection at the present, and so it features rural settlements and forested areas where lumber production is being made (WWF, 2009). Methods Data collection for the study area A literature survey related to the study area was done. In addition written and graphic materials also related to the area were obtained from the Directorate of Plans, Projects, Investments, from the Constructions of the Provincial Private Administration, from the office of the provincial governor of Bartin, from the Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism, and finally from the Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry as part of the data used in the analysis of the study area. Area analysis A field study was performed on the entirety of the units of settlement in the research area. Topographical maps of 1:25,000 scale were examined with respect to study area potential; and the problems regarding physical and socio-cultural infrastructure of the area were examined following field trips to the area. To this end, the Participatory Rural Appraisal method was used for data collection. Collected data was evaluated using the framework of the ECOS method. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) PRA is a methodological framework used to determine the status of rural areas and to the means of planning development for these areas. Using this method, different techniques are used to adapt to local circumstances for purpose of learning about the local population as the starting point. This information is then appraised together with the information obtained from planners and administrators. PRA is considered to be a method capable of yielding the best result in

592 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Figure 1. Location of the research area.

querying about the activities that are still in draft form and which have yet to be put into practice (SDC, 1993).

In the study, a one-day workshop on the details of PRA was done with the guidance of two moderators and 80 participants including village leaders (“muhtar” in Turkish), the local residents, the representatives of NGOs, the manager of KMNP, and the students in the last year of study at the Landscape Architecture Department of Bartin University. The participants in the workshop were informed of the content, time, and place of the meeting to be held in order to discuss the potential of ecotourism in the study area, and to enable an efficient interview and proposal process. Thirty open-ended questions were asked of the participants in public survey interviews with respect to the concerns and expectations of the local population regarding ecotourism. In addition, with the express purpose of revealing the current status of the study area and of discussing problems and their proposed solutions, each village leader was given two papers of different colors and requested to write down the five most important problems of the village in order of significance, and proposals for solutions regarding these problems, and to name the relevant organizations possibly providing solutions, in the opinion of the village leader. Written notes were posted on a community notice board, and each problem and its proposed solutions were discussed.

The results of the PRA study were tabulated and interpreted accordingly. ECOS method Various techniques and methods are used to solve the problems related to the protection and management of the natural areas, one of which is the Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (ECOS) method constructed on the basis of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), Tourism Opportunity Spectrum (TOS), Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC), and Visitor Activity Management Process (VAMP) methods. The ECOS sub-components are specified below (Boyd and Butler, 1996): 1. Accessibility 2. Relationship of ecotourism to other resources 3. Regional attraction 4. Availability of tourism infrastructure 5. Status of users' capability and knowledge 6. Degree of social interaction 7. Acceptable degree of effects and control on utilization

Açiksöz et al. 593

Figure 2. Location of the villages in the scope of research.

8. Type of management developed for long term protection of the area The ecotourism potentials of the villages in the study area were determined and compared taking the biological-physical structure, socio-cultural and economic structure components of the ECOS method as a basis. Substantial conditions on which ecotourism can be maintained, and the natural, socio-cultural, and economic situations which can have an effect on protection were evaluated as sub-components for the determination of the ecotourism potential in the study area. To this end, 22 criteria have been developed for the study area. The degree of significance of each criterion has been graded with a point value. By separately examining the villages in the study area on the basis of the enumerated criteria, the ecotourism potential for each village is expressed by a numerical value (Table 1). RESULTS The development of ecotourism and growth of employment are among the overall objectives of the projects carried out in the Kastamonu-Bartin KMNP. The strengths and weaknesses with respect the program for the development of the ecotourism potential in the study area, the development of which included in the plan of these projects, are specified in Table 2. While the basic strengths of the project regarding the ecotourism potential development are the natural structures and traditional

composition of the region, the weaknesses are seen as a lack of a youthful population and an undeveloped consciousness for moving toward ecotourism. Data obtained from the settlements in the study area according to the ECOS method have been evaluated by means of the pointing system in Table 3. In the evaluation made in the scope of ECOS, the villages with the values of their ecotourism potential have been listed in the descending order of value (Table 4). The Yukaridere Village received the highest score. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION In recent years there has been a rapid growth in ecotourism. However, a rational and efficient development of ecotourism requires appropriate management. Ecotourism demands a greater environmental quality in comparison to the other types of tourism, and in order to minimize the adverse effects of human activities, administrators and ecotourism planners must take careful measures. There are two major problems with respect to ecotourism: (1) to achieve ecologic integrity of the ecotourism resource and, (2) to increase and ensure consistency of quality of the recreation experience for the ecotourist (Boyd and Butler, 1996). It is essential to

594 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 1. Criteria developed in order to carry out the ECOS method in the study area (adopted from Boyd and Butler, 1996).

Substantial conditions on which ecotourism can be maintained Components Criteria

Topographical structure diversity1

Unique beauty1

Forest assets1

Biological-Physical Structure

Wildlife Diversity1

Young population potential1 Educational status1

Level of consciousness for ecotourism1 Organizational capability1

Human resources (guides, etc.)1

Accommodations for the ecotourist1

Quality of transportation infrastructure1

Distance to the National Park2

Distance to the central town2

Distance to Bartin2 Health institutions1

Educational institutions1

Utilities infrastructure (sewer, electricity, water, communication systems, etc.)1

Dining places (trout producing facilities, etc.)1

Existing recreational activities1

Socio-Cultural Structure

Historical-archeological values1

Plant production1 Economic Structure Animal production1

1 high: 3, fair: 2, low: 1, none: 0 2 very close: 3, close: 2, far: 1, very far: 0

evaluate thoroughly the ecotourism potential in the Kastamonu-Bartin KMNP where studies on the deployment of ecotourism are seen as an enhancement of the National Tourism Strategy. This will achieve a rational utilization of employment opportunities and ensure participation. As distance between the major town or city and the villages in the study area increases, in other words, as the forest boundary is approached, the level of income in the village decreases. The level of income in these villages which are being considered for designation as “forest village” is reduced even further as a result of being located in the National Park Buffer Zone. One of considerations for the improvement of the income status of the villages is the development of ecotourism opportunities for these areas. Related to the aim of this study and also to the characteristics of the area, we decided to use the criteria set by Boyd and Butler (1996). There may be some additional sub-components in the criteria, such as the cost of alternate ecotourism activities determined by different studies, but these depend upon the characteristics of the area.

A framework has been recommended for development of the ecotourism potential on the basis of data obtained in

the scope of the ECOS method. The study area has been separated into two zones in the framework. Separation into zones has been made with consideration given to the distance of the villages to the central provincial town. In the ECOS evaluation table, the villages that have received a point value of 2 in the component of village-to-town distance (very close in distance: 4, close in distance: 3, far in distance: 2, very far in distance: 1) were assigned to the 1st Zone which is the Ecotourism Zone of 1st Degree, and consisted of the villages of Yukaridere, Ulukaya, Kozanli, Asagicamli and Koklu, Kirazcik, Kadikoy, Dereli, Cubukbeli, Arpacik and Alicli with consideration given to their total ECOS points. Villages that received point values of 3 and 4 were assigned to the 2nd Zone, which is the Ecotourism Zone of 2nd Degree, consisting of the villages of Asagicerci, Igneciler, Abdurahman, Alpi, Adagios, Cerde, Sarifasil, Asagidere and Karahasan (Figure 3). The total ECOS points of the villages were also factored into the zoning within the 1st and 2nd Zones. Accordingly, these villages have been designated as follows: - Those with < 42 points as weak centers - Those with 42 to 48 points as average centers

Açiksöz et al. 595

Table 2. Strengths and weaknesses of the settlements in terms of ecotourism potential.

Strengths Weaknesses

Low rate of young population 1 Natural and historical values (caves, historical ruins, etc.) 1 2 Consciousness for ecotourism not adopted adequately

2 Bird's-eye view of Ulus town 3 3 Structure available for nature sports

Insufficient organization of agricultural production and marketing

4 Local people's willingness to take part in ecotourism activities

4 Insufficient resources to set up ecotourism facilities

Shortage of qualified personnel for ecotourism activities Difficulties in transportation to natural areas

5 Undisturbed natural environment and wildlife areas

5 6 7

6 Old village houses of traditional style

Unawareness of a part of the areas with ecotourism potential

7 High rate of literate people in the village (Sarıfasıl) 8 Undeveloped basic utilities infrastructure 8 Favorable climatic conditions

9 Lack of promotion

9 Valuable areas in terms of ornithology 10 Insufficient health services

Insufficient financial resources High rate of unemployment problem and associated immigration

10 Endemic flora 11 12 Lack of facilities for tourists' accommodation

Figure 3. Recommended ecotourism zones for Ulus region, Kastamonu-Bartin KMNP Buffer Zone.

596 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 3. Evaluation of ecotourism potential of the settlements through ECOS method.

������������������������������� �������������� � � � ������� � ������ � ���� � ������ � � �� ������� � �� ������� � �� �� ���� � �� �� �� � ���� �� � � � ����

������������� �� � �� �� �� � ��� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� ��� � � �� � �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� ��� � ����� ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� ������ ����� �� � �� �

� � � ��� �! �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

�

" �� ������� � ������ � � ����� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

#� � � ������ � � ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

$ � � � �� ������� ��� ��� ���� � �� ���% �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

& �����' � ��������� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

( � % ����� ��� �� ��)�� �� � �*�� +,�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

- �% % �� � ����� ��� �� �� � �� ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

. � �� � �� � ������� � ������ ��� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

/ �� ��� � �� �� �0 � �����1 ��2 �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

/ �� ��� � �� �� �� � ������� ����� �! ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

/ � ��� � �� ����� � ����� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

( � � ����� � � ������ �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

#� � � �������� � � ������ �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� ���� ��� �� � �� �)�� ! � �*�! � � ���� � � % ��� +,�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

/ ��������� ��) ��� ����� � ���� ��� �� �*�� +,�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

#3 �� ������ �� � ������ �� � �� ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� ����4 � � ���� �� � �� �

( �� ��������� ������� �� � ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

�

1 �� ����� � ����� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��#���% ��� �� � �� � - ��% ������ � ����� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

�� ������ �� �5 � �6 � ��� ��� �7 � �7 � ��� �5 � �5 � ���

Açiksöz et al. 597

Table 3. Cont’d.

��������������������������� �������������� � ������ �� �������� � �� �� �� � � �������� ���� ��� � � �� ����� � �� � � � ������� � � � �� �� � � ���� ����

������������� �� � �� �� �� � ��� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� ��� � � �� � �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� ��� � ����� ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� ������ ����� �� � �� �

� � � ��� �! �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

�

" �� ������� � ������ � � �����

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

#� � � ������ � � ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

$ � � � �� ������� ��� ��� ���� � �� ���% �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

& �����' � ��������� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

( � % ����� ��� �� ��)�� �� � �*�� +,�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

- �% % �� � ����� ��� �� �� � �� ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

. � �� � �� � ������� � ������ ��� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

/ �� ��� � �� �� �0 � �����1 ��2 �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

/ �� ��� � �� �� �� � ������� ����� �! ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

/ � ��� � �� ����� � ����� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

( � � ����� � � ������ �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

#� � � �������� � � ������ �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� ���� ��� �� � �� �)�� ! � �*�! � � ���� � � % ��� +,�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

/ ��������� ��) ��� ����� � ���� ��� �� �*�� +,�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

#3 �� ������ �� � ������ �� � �� ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

�

� ����� � ����

� �� � �� �

( �� ��������� ������� �� � ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

�

1 �� ����� � �����

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

���

#���% ��� �� � �� �- ��% ������ � ����� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

����������� �8 � �5 � ��� ��� ��� 9 6 � �7 � ��� 9 6 � 9 �� 1 very high: 4 high: 3 fair: 2 low: 1; 2 very close: 4 close: 3 far: 2 very far:

- Those with >48 points as strong centers. As Yukaridere was among the villages having a total ECOS value of higher than 48 points and receiving the highest point value of all villages in

the First Zone (Yukaridere, Ulukaya, Kozanli, Asagicamli and Koklu), it was considered to be the representative village for this zone. Arpacık and Kirazcik were assigned as Average Centers,

because those were villages with total ECOS values between 42 and 48 points. Villages with total ECOS values of less than 42 points were assigned as Weak Centers. In the 2nd Zone, the

598 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 4. - Ecotourism potentials of the villages. Village names ECOS points Yukaridere 52 Ulukaya, Kozanli 50 Asagicamli, Koklu 49 Asagicerci 49 Abdurahman, Asagikoy, Cerde, Igneciler 46 Sarifasil 43 Alpi, Arpacik, Kirazcik 42 Asagidere, Cubukbeli, Kadikoy, Karahasan 41 Alicli 40 Dereli 37

Strong Center

Yukaridere • Ulukaya • Kozanli • Asagicamli • Koklu

Average Centers

• Arpacik • Kirazcik

Weak Centers

• Cubukbeli • Alicli • Dereli • Kadikoy

1st Zone

Strong Center

Asagicerci

Average Centers

• Igneciler • Abdurahman • Asagikoy • Cerde • Alpi • Sarifasil

Weak Centers

• Karahasan • Asagidere

2nd Zone

Figure 4. Ecotourism development framework for Ulus region, Kastamonu-Bartin KMNP Buffer Zone.

village of Asagicerci was considered to be the center for these villages based on its proximity status and on its ECOS value being higher than 48 points. Igneciler, Abdurahman, Alpi, Asagikoy, Cerde, and Sarifasil villages

were assigned as Average Centers, while Kadikoy, Karahasan, and Asagidere were assigned as Weak Centers (Figure 4).

The study area is one of the areas of having a high

ecotourism potential in Turkey, according to the National Tourism Strategy. Of the many reasons, the traditional life style and natural resources in the area are significant. The National Tourism Strategy is a high level plan and this plan only discusses the potential of ecotourism in study area. However our work shows what can be realized of this potential. For this reason our work is important, and it has the kind of quality that will provide a lead to other activities in this field. In our study, the ECOS method showed that there are other important factors such as the existence and adequacy of human resources, of infrastructure and of services to define the study area as an area having ecotourism potential. The scoring by ECOS does more to assess potential based on the existing structures and realities of the area. Although this study shows that very high scores were not reached in ECOS evaluation, the villages could nonetheless be ranked by the scores, and two villages could reasonably be considered for selection as strong centers for ecotourism. The framework provides the results from this study draws attention to the strong centers as the focal point. Thus, strong centers will be able to provide guidance to average and weak centers with respect to the correction of their weaknesses. Thus, as a first recommendation is a correct of the weaknesses, as listed in Table 2, of those villages designated as strong centers. Training of ecotourism guides and the building of the infrastructures for transportation, health, drinking water and sewer systems, as well as recreation, are the issues that should be given priority in this framework. The results obtained from this study are significant, based on their nature of providing guidance for the studies carried out to determine the ecotourism potential particularly for the protected areas. They also show how this potential might be developed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank to Ercan Yeni, the Manager of Nature Protection and National Parks Branch of Bartin Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry, and to Galip Aslan from Asagicerci Village of Ulus town for their support in the execution of this study.

Açiksöz et al. 599 REFERENCES Bartın V (2009). Orman Koruma Alanlari Yonetiminin Guclendirilmesi

ProjeToplantisi.Accessedfrom:http://www.bartin.gov.tr/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=646).

Bilgin C, Ke�aplı Can Ö, Ke�aplı Didrickson Ö, Erdem O, Kulu Erdemli H, Özbek H (2007). Do�a Korumacının El Kitabı, (Ed.: T. Gürpınar), Bird Res. Soc., 128 s., Ankara.

Boyd SW, Butler RW (1996). Managing Ecotourism: An Opportunity Spec-trum Approach. Tourism Manage. 17(8), Elsevier Sci. Ltd. Great Britain.

Bundesamtfur N (1997). Biodiversitat und Tourismus. Konflikte und Losungsansatzeanden Kustender Weltmeere. Berlin: Springer.

Ceballos-Lascurain H (1996). Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected Areas: The State of Nature-based Tourism Around the World and Guidelines for its Development. 315 pages. IUCN-World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.

Cevre ve Orman Bakanligi (2006a). Doganin Penceresinden Turkiye (Turkey through the Window of Nature). Department of Education and Publications, Min. Environ. For., Rep. Turk., 240s, Ankara.

Cevre ve Orman B (2006b). Turkiye Korunan Alan En �yi Uygulamaları. Biologic Diversity and Natural Resource Management Project, Ankara. Min. Environ. For., Rep. Turkey.

Collins A (1998). Tourism Development and Natural Capital. Annals of Tourism Res. 26:98-109.

Fagence M (2001). Strategies for Developing Ecotourism in the Pacific Island Countries. Paper presented at the ESCAP/SPTO Seminar on Sustainable Development of Ecotourism in Pacific Island Countries, Suva, Fiji Oct. 2001. p. 14.

Honey M (1999). Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg: South Africa. Paradise Island Press, Wash. DC.

Icisleri B (2009). Orman Köyleri. Mahalli Idareler Genel Müdürlügü, Accessed from: Accessed from: http://yonetim.istanbul.gov.tr/Portals/VilayetKonagi/docs/mahalliidare/genelge/ 2002_2004genelge /2004 -125. doc.

Resmi G (2007). Türkiye Turizm Stratejisi (2023) ve Turkiye Turizm Stratejisi Eylem Planı (2007-2013). Sayı: 26450. Accessed from: http://mevzuat.dpt.gov.tr/ypk/2007/04.htm.

Ross S, Wall G (1999). Ecotourism: Towards Congruence between Theory and Practice. Tourism Manage. 20:123-132.

SDC (1993). Participatory Rural Appraisal. A Working Instrument in the Series Working Instruments for Planning, Evaluation, Monitoring and Transference into Action (PEMT). Swiss Directorate for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid, Evaluation Service, Berne, Switzerland.

UNEP (2000). Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Nairobi, 15-26 May 2000.

Van der Duim V, Caalders J (2002). Biodiversity and tourism: Impacts and interventions. Annals of Tourism Res. 29:743–761.

WFF (2009). Kure Daglari. Accessed from: http://www.wwf.org.tr/page.php?ID=103.

WTO (2002). Quebec Declaration on Ecotourism. World Summit. World Tourism Organisation.