Chronicles and geoheritage of the ancient Roman city of Pompeiopolis: a landscape plan

  • Mehmet CetinEmail author
  • Ayse Kalayci Onac
  • Hakan Sevik
  • Ugur Canturk
  • Huseyin Akpinar
Original Paper


Kastamonu-Pompeiopolis is a protected area with historical, natural, and cultural value and has recently increased in popularity. The aim of this study is to ensure the sustainability of natural and cultural resources via an evaluation to reveal the necessary practices and precautions regarding the area’s landscape plan decisions for the ancient city. Maps of Pompeiopolis were created and the Gülez formula (1990) was used to evaluate the city. Based on the data obtained from the area, we have determined that it has a high recreational potential, and hence this study. We find that the untapped recreational potential of Pompeiopolis has yet to be exploited and reached. According to the formula, Pompeiopolis’s recreational potential is 72%, which means it is considered to be an area of high recreational potential. In conclusion, Pompeiopolis has a wealth of ecotourism activities, including historical and cultural tourism, bird watching, wildlife tours, adventure and sports tourism, photography, camping, picnic activities, and cave exploring. However, management and planning is needed for trekking, hiking, and the rest of the activities in order to ensure long-term sustainability.


Ecosystem activities Evaluation Landscape planning Landscape management Modeling GIS Protected area 



The Turkish Republic Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, General Directorate of Meteorology, Turkish Republic Ministry of Forest and Aquaculture, Municipality of Taskopru (Pompeiopolis), The Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs, and the General Directorate of National Parks and Nature Conservation provided information about the protected area in Kastamonu. We sincerely thank all of them.

Ugur Canturk’s Master Thesis in Kastamonu University, Institute of Science, Programs of Landscape Architecture, conducted one of part of this research. He sincerely thanks his Advisor’s Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Cetin and Kastamonu University. Furthermore, Huseyin Akpinar’s Master Thesis in Kastamonu University, Institute of Science, Programs of Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Plant Resources, conducted one part of this research. He sincerely thanks his Advisor’s Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Cetin and Kastamonu University.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Aricak B (2015) Using remote sensing data to predict road fill areas and areas affected by fill erosion with planned forest road construction: a case study in Kastamonu Regional Forest Directorate (Turkey). Environ Monit Assess 187(7):417. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barros A, Gonnet J, Pickering C (2013) Impacts of informal trails on vegetation and soils in the highest protected area in the southern hemisphere. J Environ Manag 127:50–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bathrellos GD, Gaki-Papanas tassiou K, Skilodimou HD, Papanastassiou D, Chousianitis KG (2012) Potential suitability for urban planning and industry development by using natural hazard maps and geological–geomorphological parameters. Environ Earth Sci 66(2):537–548.
  4. Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD, Chousianitis K, Youssef AM, Pradhan B (2017) Suitability estimation for urban development using multi-hazard assessment map. Sci Total Environ 575:119–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cakir G, Muderrisoglu H, Kaya LG (2016) Assessing the effects of long-term recreational activities on landscape changes in Abant Natural Park, Turkey. J For Res 27(2):453–461. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cetin M (2015a) Determining the bioclimatic comfort in Kastamonu City. Environ Monit Assess 187(10):640. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cetin M (2015b) Evaluation of the sustainable tourism potential of a protected area for landscape planning: a case study of the ancient city of Pompeipolis in Kastamonu. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 22(6):490–495. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cetin M (2015c) Using GIS analysis to assess urban green space in terms of accessibility: case study in Kutahya. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 22(5):420–424. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cetin M (2016) Determination of bioclimatic comfort areas in landscape planning: a case study of Cide coastline. Turk J Agric-Food Sci Technol 4(9):800–804Google Scholar
  10. Cetin M, Sevik H (2016) Evaluating the recreation potential of Ilgaz Mountain National Park in Turkey. Environ Monit Assess 188(1):52. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cetin M, Adiguzel F, Kaya O, Sahap A (2018a) Mapping of bioclimatic comfort for potential planning using GIS in Aydin. Environ Dev Sustain 20:361–375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cetin M, Zeren I, Sevik H, Cakir C, Akpinar H (2018b) A study on the determination of the natural park’s sustainable tourism potential. Environ Monit Assess 190(167):167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chaminuka P, Groeneveld RA, Selomane AO, Van Ierland EC (2012) Tourist preferences for ecotourism in rural communities adjacent to Kruger National Park: a choice experiment approach. Tour Manag 33:168–176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheung LTO, Jim CY (2014) Expectations and willingness-to-pay for ecotourism services in Hong Kong’s conservation areas. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 21:149–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chhetri P, Arrowsmith C (2008) GIS-based modelling of recreational potential of nature-based tourist destinations. Tourism Geogr 10(2):233–257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dereli Z, Yucedag C, Pearce JC (2013) Simple and low-cost method of planning for tree growth and lifetime effects on solar photovoltaic systems performance. Sol Energy 95:300–307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dixit SK, Narula VK (2010) Ecotourism in Madhav National Park: visitors’ perspectives on environmental impacts. South Asian J Tour Herit 3:109–115Google Scholar
  18. Gülez S (1990) An evaluation method for determination of inside of forest recreation potential. Istanbul Uni J Fac For 40(2):132–147Google Scholar
  19. Kaya LG (2009) Assessing forests and lands with carbon storage and sequestration amount by trees in the State of Delaware, USA. Sci Res Essays 4(10):1100–1108Google Scholar
  20. Kaya LG, Aytekin A (2009) Determination of outdoor recreation potential: case of the city of Bartın and its environs, Turkey. Fresenius Environ Bull 18(8):1513–1524Google Scholar
  21. Kaya LG, Cetin M, Doygun H (2009) A holistic approach in analyzing the landscape potential: Porsuk Dam Lake and its environs, Turkey. Fresenius Environ Bull 18(8):1525–1153Google Scholar
  22. Kaya LG, Yucedag C, Bingol B (2017) Usage of ineffective mining quarries for recreational purposes: the case study of Burdur City, Turkey. J Grad Sch Nat Appl Scien MAKU 8(2):184–190Google Scholar
  23. Kumari S, Behera MD, Tewari HR (2010) Identification of potential ecotourism sites in West District, Sikkim using geospatial tools. Trop Ecol 51:75–85Google Scholar
  24. Mamat K, Du P, Ding J (2018) Ecological function regionalization of cultural heritage sites in Turpan, China, based on GIS. Arab J Geosci 10:90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maple LC, Eagles PFJ, Rolfe H (2010) Birdwatchers’ specialisation characteristics and national park tourism planning. J Ecotour 9:219–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Monz CA, Cole DN, Marion JL, Leung YF (2010) Sustaining visitor use in protected areas: future opportunities in recreation ecology research based on the USA experience. Environ Manag 45:551–562. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Municipality of Taskopru (Pompeiopolis) (2016) [online], [cited 21 March 2016]. Available from Internet:. Accessed 02 June 2017
  28. Ngoka PC (2013) Capacity and levels of utilization of tourism potentials of Yankari and Cross River National Parks—implications for optimistic ecotourism development in Nigeria. African J Hosp Tour Leis 2(4):1–12Google Scholar
  29. Nouri J, Danehkar A, Sharifipour R (2008) Evaluation of ecotourism potential in the northern coastline of the Persian Gulf. Environ Geol 55:681–686. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nowak D, Walton JT, Dwyer JF, Kaya LG, Myeong S (2005) The increasing influence of urban environments on US Forest. J For 103(8):377–382Google Scholar
  31. Ohl-Schacherer J, Mannigel E, Kirkby C, Shepard GH Jr, Yu DW (2008) Indigenous ecotourism in the Amazon: a case study of Casa Matsiguenka in Manu National Park, Peru. Environ Conserv 35:14–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Powell RB, Ham SH (2008) Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro-conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? Evidence from the Galapagos Islands. J Sustain Tour 16:467–489. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tomczyk AM (2011) A GIS assessment and modelling of environmental sensitivity of recreational trails: the case of Gorce National Park, Poland. Appl Geogr 31(1):339–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Topay M (2013) Mapping of thermal comfort for outdoor recreation planning using GIS: the case of Isparta Province (Turkey). Turk J Agric For 37:110–120Google Scholar
  35. Topay M, Memluk Y (2011) Suitable for recreational area events choice for a new method approach: a case study of Bartin-Uluyayla. SDU J Fac For 12(2):141–147Google Scholar
  36. Tsai WH, Chou WC, Lai CW (2010) An effective evaluation model and improvement analysis for national park websites: a case study of Taiwan. Tour Manag 31:936–952. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Turkish Republic Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, General Directorate of Meteorology (2016) Pompeiopolis the meteorological data of between 2000 to 2015 yearsGoogle Scholar
  38. Turkish Republic Ministry of Forest and Aquaculture (2016) Pompeiopolis forest map. Department of Kastamonu Forest Region. Turkish Republic Ministry of Forest and Aquaculture. Department of Forest Management [online], [cited 10 March 2016]. Available from Internet: Accessed 02 June 2017
  39. Yucedag C, Kaya LG (2017) Chapter 104. Recreational trend and demands of people in Isparta-Turkey. In: H Arapgirlioglu, A Atik, RL Elliott, E Turgeon (eds) Book: Researches on science and art in 21 st century Turkey. Gece Publishing, ISBN: 978-605-180-771-3Google Scholar
  40. Yucedag C, Kaya LG, Cetin M (2018) Identifying and assessing environmental awareness of hotel and restaurant employees’ attitudes in the Amasra District of Bartin. Environ Monit Assess 190(60):60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zeren I (2016) Determination of bioclimatic comfort in Kastamonu Nature Park, The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) during the 2209-A-2015/2 period (University Students Domestic Research Projects Support Program) working on projects numbered 1919B011502715, 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureKastamonu UniversityKastamonuTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureKastamonu UniversityKastamonuTurkey
  3. 3.Program of Landscape Architecture, Institute of ScienceKastamonu UniversityKastamonuTurkey
  4. 4.Program of Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Plant Resources, Institute of ScienceKastamonu UniversityKastamonuTurkey

Personalised recommendations