Abstract
This paper explains briefly the conceptual framework of an ecosystem-based multiple-use forest management planning focusing on biodiversity conservation and participation. Some results from a case study were documented to realize the implementation of the concept. A strong liaison between the related institutions and major stakeholders and the effective use of Geographic Information System (GIS) and Remote Sensing (RS) are necessary. Effective participation is evident only with the involvement of enthusiastic and skillful stakeholders. A case study of İğneada, Turkey, supported the idea that participation as communication has better possibilities to promote multiple-use forest management than participation as information gathering. Primary challenges relate to the effectiveness of conservation program, availability of coherent biodiversity data, capacity building; awareness, training, and common understanding of biodiversity and protected area concept; coordination among the related institutions and stakeholders; and willingness and enthusiasm of authorities to accept and implement the concept.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abusow K, Rotherham T (1998) Canadian progress toward sfm system certification. The Forestry Chronicle 74(3):405–408
Asan Ü (1999) Multiple use of forest resources and planning systems: meeting on the multiple use forest management planning. Bolu, Turkey, pp 33–40; 5–6 May
Baskent EZ, Jordan GA (2002) Forest landscape (ecosystems) management with simulated annealing. Forest Ecology and Management 165(1–3):29–45
Baskent EZ, Yolasigmaz A (1999) Forest landscape (ecosystems) management revisited. Environmental Management 24(4):437–448
Baskent EZ, Köse S, Altun L, Terzioğlu S, Başkaya Ş (2005a). Integration of biodiversity with forest management plans. Orman Mühendisliği Dergisi 4–9
Baskent EZ, Köse S, Keles S (2005b) Forest management planning system of turkey: constructive criticism towards the sustainable management of forest ecosystems. International Forestry Review 7(3):208–217
Bengtsson J, Nilsson SG, Franc A, Menozze P (2000) Biodiversity disturbances, ecosystem function, and management of European forests. Forest Ecology and Management 132:39–50
Bettinger P, Sessions J, Johnson KN (1998) Ensuring the compatibility of aquatic habitat and commodity production goals in eastern Oregon with a Tabu search procedure. Forest Science 44:96–112
Bücking W (2003) Are there threshold numbers for protected forests? Journal of Environmental management 67:37–45
Bunnell FL, Huggard DJ (1999) Biodiversity across spatial and temporal scales: problems and opportunities. Forest Ecology and Management 115:113–126
Conley A, Moote MA (2003) Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 16:371–386
Davis SL, Johson KN, Bettinger PS, Howard TE (2001) Forest management, 4th ed. Mcgraw–Hill, New York
Ekim T, Koyuncu M, Vural M, Duman H, Aytaç Z, Adıgüzel N (2000) Red data book of Turkish plants (Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta). Turkish Association for the Conservation of Nature and Van Centennial University, Ankara
Eriksson S, Hammer M (2006) The challenge of combining timber production and biodiversity conservation for long-term ecosystem functioning: a case study of Swedish boreal forestry. Forest Ecology and Management 237(1–3):208–217
Fabbio G, Merlo M, Tosi V (2003) Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe—the Mediterranean region. Journal of Environmental Management 67:67–76
Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD (2006) Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(2):80–86
Grashof-Bokdam CJ, Geertsema W (1998) The effect of isolation and history on colonization patterns of plant species in secondary woodland. Journal of Biogeography 25(5):837–846
Hagan JM, Whiteman AA (2006) Biodiversity indicators for sustainable forestry: simplifying complexity. Journal of Forestry June:203–210
Hunter ML (2005) A mesofilter conservation strategy to complement fine and coarse filters. Conservation Biology 19(4):1025–1029
Işik K, Yaltirik F, Akesen A (1997) Forests, biological diversity and the maintenance of natural heritage. In: Proceedings, XI World Forestry Congress, Antalya, October 13–22, 2:3–27
IUCN (2001) IUCN red list categories and criteria. Version 3.1. Information Press, Oxford, UK
Kavgacı A, Özalp G (2007) Medical plants of İğneada, their importance in term of nature protection. In: Bottlenecks, solutions, and priorities in the context of functions of forest resource. Harbiye, İstanbul, pp 43–51
Lambeck RJ (1997) Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11:849–856
Leskinen LA (2004) Purposes and challenges of public participation in regional and local forestry in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics 6:605–618
Lindenmayer DB (1999) Future directions for biodiversity conservation in managed forests: indicator species, impact studies and monitoring programs. Forest Ecology and Management 115:277–287
Lindenmayer DB, Margules CR, Botkin DB (2000) Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology 14(4):941–950
Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J, Felton A et al (2007) The complementarily of single-species and ecosystem-oriented research in conservation research. OIKOS 116(7):1220–1226
McGarigal K, McComb WC (1995) Relationship between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon coast range. Ecological Monograph 63(3):235–260
Noss R (1999) Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecology and Management 115:135–146
Parviainen J, Frank G (2003) Protected forests in Europe approaches-harmonizing the definitions for international comparison. Journal of Environmental Management 67:27–37
Probst JR, Crow RT (1991) Integrating biodiversity and resource management. Journal of Forestry 12–17
Pukkala T, Miina J (1997) A method for stochastic multi-objective optimization of stand management. Forest Ecology and Management 98:189–203
Schulte LA, Mitchell RJ, Hunter ML, Franklin JF, McIntyre KR, Palik BJ (2006) Evaluating the conceptual tools for forest biodiversity conservation and their implementation in the U.S. forest. Forest Ecology and Management 232:1–11
Simberloff D (1999) The role of science in the preservation of forest biodiversity. Forest Ecology and Management 115:101–111
Sivrikaya F, Çakır G, Kadioğullari Aİ, Keleş S, Başkent EZ, Terzioğlu S (2007) Evaluating land use/land cover changes and fragmentation in the Camili Forest Planning Unit of northeastern Turkey from 1972–2005. Land Degradation and Development 18:383–396
URL-1 (2006) Biodiversity and natural resource management project. Available at: http://www.gef-2.org
World Bank (1998) Protected areas and sustainable resource management. TRGE44175
Wulf M (2003) Forest policy in the EU and its influence on the plant diversity of woodlands. Journal of Environmental Management 67:15–25
Acknowledgments
Funding for the development of this research was provided by the GEF Project of the World Bank through ODOPEM in Turkey. The authors would like to thank the staff at the Turkish Forest Service, particularly the forest management department, and the research associates in the Faculty of Forestry, Karadeniz Technical University, for providing data and all valuable help.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baskent, E.Z., Terzioğlu, S. & Başkaya, Ş. Developing and Implementing Multiple-Use Forest Management Planning in Turkey. Environmental Management 42, 37–48 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9106-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9106-6