Determination of Land Uses in the Serçeme Basin and Examination of Optimal Land Use

Abstract

Uncontrolled land use causes serious problems for ecosystems. Sustainable development and proper land use require planning that takes into account natural and cultural characteristics. In the Serçeme Basin of Erzurum, the aim is to determine the most suitable land use by considering seven different land uses: pasture, meadow, agriculture, forest, conservation areas, tourism-recreation, and settlement. Ecological suitability maps were created for these seven land use types, and these maps were overlaid. The optimum land use map was generated as a result of overlaying maps supported by Geographic Information Systems (ArcGIS 10.8). When evaluating the study area based on land use types, it was found that 15.46% is suitable for meadow, 2.92% is suitable for conservation areas, 42.65% is suitable for pasture, 32.31% is suitable for forest, 4.07% is suitable for agriculture, 1.62% is suitable for tourism and recreation, and 0.96% is suitable for settlement.

1. Introduction

As the needs of humans have increased, it has become more difficult to adapt to the environment. This situation has led to the necessity of adopting planning as a method. The primary goal of planning approaches is to use natural and artificial resources in the most rational and optimal way, taking into account human needs, thus ensuring sustainability and the highest possible living standards [1]. From an architectural perspective, planning and design were initially carried out in structural forms such as castles, cathedrals, and monumental public buildings. However, since the mid-20th century, with the population increase in cities, it has become evident that the ecological balance is disturbed, and the primary cause of this imbalance is the lack of consideration for the balance between rural and urban areas [2]. The landscape is shaped largely by the influence of the people who use, plan, and design it, as well as by natural and cultural processes. Cultural landscapes are formed through human settlement, land-use changes, and development. Human intervention can have both positive and negative impacts on the landscape [3]. In particular, due to unplanned interventions, fertile agricultural lands are being converted into residential areas, and forests and pastures are being used for agricultural purposes [4]. This situation threatens sustainability and leads to the depletion of critical natural resources [5]. The capacity for these resources to renew themselves is of vital importance. Furthermore, unplanned land use, especially in recent years due to rapid population growth and industrialization, has become one of the primary causes of disasters such as hunger, drought, floods, landslides, and soil erosion [6]. Environmental problems resulting from human intervention lead to the degradation of the natural landscape, which necessitates the restoration of the landscape. The restoration process requires design and planning efforts carried out by humans [7]. The German biogeographer Carl Troll was the first to coin the term “landscape ecology” by combining the words ecology and landscape [8,9,10]. Landscape ecology studies the relationships between the components that make up the landscape. A landscape is defined as a mosaic composed of various landscape components and constitutes a part of the Earth [11]. Ecology has been considered a scientific field that studies the relationships between organisms, their environments, and habitats since the 19th century [9].

Ecological landscape planning, management, conservation, and restoration efforts are necessary for the protection of natural and cultural resources [11]. Many projects are produced without considering ecological features and processes, leading to the disruption of ecological balance. Additionally, there are no regulations or technical documents in the zoning legislation and practices for the urban and rural planning of valley landscapes. Plans are generally made according to the preferences of the designer. Due to environmental problems, landscape restoration is seen as a solution [12]. Considering that landscape restoration is a challenging process, it would be a more accurate approach to determine the most suitable land uses from the beginning and plan in a way that causes minimal or no damage to the landscape, adhering to these planning decisions. Land suitability analyses [13,14,15,16] are interdisciplinary studies aimed at selecting the most suitable land-use areas in the future based on specific needs, preferences, or projections [16,17,18]. In such studies, it is of great importance to carefully determine and protect the most suitable land-use areas by preserving ecology for effective planning [5]. Optimal land-use planning depends on various factors such as topography, slope, climate, vegetation, soil, water, and socio-economic conditions [13,19]. For effective resource management, land-use types are determined using numerical data. Geographic Information Systems (GISs) are widely used in this field both nationally and globally [20,21,22]. GISs are a fundamental tool for creating optimal land-use maps and conducting analyses [23].

In many studies, remote sensing and Geographic Information Systems (GISs) have been preferred due to their ability to provide high accuracy rates and detailed information on optimal land uses [1,5,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. In these studies, urban areas on a macro scale have been mostly considered, and a remote evaluation method has been selected without field observation. Despite numerous studies on optimal land use in urban areas and their surroundings, rural areas have generally been overlooked. However, these types of studies should be initiated with the consideration that rural areas should be addressed before urbanization. This approach will offer more effective and sustainable solutions for the protection of natural resources and the restoration of ecological balance.

No study has been conducted to ensure ecological balance in the Serçeme Basin. In this study, to prevent potential problems resulting from improper land use and to preserve the natural environment, a rural area with potential for ecotourism and livestock was selected. According to existing studies, a micro-scale rural area was selected, where field observations were conducted, and the views of the local population were obtained. Later, the study was carried out in accordance with the opinions of experts who are well-acquainted with the area and live nearby. In this study, the GIS-supported Optimal Suitability Analysis Method was used to identify the most ecologically suitable areas for seven different land-use types (pasture, meadow, agriculture, forest, conservation areas, tourism-recreation, and settlement) in the Serçeme Basin. The study aims to fill existing gaps and develop more accurate and environmentally friendly land-use planning proposals for rural areas to address these gaps.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area is the Serçeme Basin, located within the boundaries of Erzurum Province in the Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey (Figure 1). The research area is situated between the latitudes 40°12′50.581′′ N and 40°00′17.86′′ N, and longitudes 40°52′4.997′′ E and 41°11′51.236′′ E. The basin covers an area of 20,877 hectares, the majority of which falls within the boundaries of Aziziye District. To the northeast, it spans 6033 hectares within the borders of Tortum District, while it covers an area of 290 hectares within the borders of Yakutiye District. The total area of the Serçeme Basin is 27,200 hectares. The southernmost village of the basin, Gelinkaya, is approximately 33 km from Erzurum city center, while the northernmost village, Çamlıca, is about 41 km away. The elevations in the basin start at around 1800 m in the valley floor surrounding the river and rise to 3000 m in the surrounding mountains. Generally, the elevation decreases from east to west and from north to south [46]. About 72% of the basin is covered with sparse vegetation and natural grasslands, while 12% is agricultural land, 3% is forested areas, and 5% is pastureland. In the southwestern part of the basin, chestnut-colored soils cover 62% of the area, while basaltic soils constitute 31% of the area in the northeast. Additionally, alluvial soils formed by water transport cover a small area of 0.87% in Eskipolat and Çıkrıklı villages. Alluvial soils are especially abundant in the village of Eskipolat.

Settlements in the basin are generally located on the valley floors due to the geographical structure, and over time, they have spread to plateau surfaces. Two main settlement belts are observed along the Erzurum–Ispir highway, in the southwest and northeast. Settlements in the northeast are typically found on the slopes west of the Dumlu Mountains or on plateau flats. Villages such as Sorkunlu, Elmalı, Eşkinkaya, and Kuzgun are examples of hillside villages in this region. The second settlement belt includes villages located at the foot of Yeşirçöl Mountain, such as Gelinkaya, Yoncalık, Eğerti, and Eskipolat [47]. There are a total of 29 villages in the Serçeme Valley, and some of these, such as Yoncalık, Gelinkaya, Serçeme, Sorkunlu, and Eğerti, are located close to water sources. The construction of the Kuzgun Dam, located to the north of the study area, caused villages such as Ovacık, Çatak, Çamlıca, and Aynalı Kale to be submerged. Kuzgun Dam, located at an altitude of 2114 m, has a length of 12 km and a width of 5 km [48]. Kuzgun Dam, located in the northern part of the basin, discharges water into the Sırlı Stream, and this water reaches the Serçeme Stream through gravitational flow, extending as far as the village of Eskipolat. Water from the river is pumped near the village of Eskipolat to irrigate the Daphan Plain. Additionally, seasonal waters formed by the melting of snow in the mountains contribute to the stream flow.

The basin exhibits microclimatic characteristics and has a milder climate compared to Erzurum city center. The average annual temperature is 5.6 °C. The highest average temperature occurs in July at 17.5 °C, while the lowest average temperature is in December at −4.9 °C. The average annual precipitation is 444.88 kg/m², with the highest rainfall in May (90.08 kg/m²) and the lowest in January (19.83 kg/m²). The annual average relative humidity is 68.8%, with the highest relative humidity in December (82.4%) and the lowest in August (57.9%). The annual average vapor pressure is 6.5 hPa, with the lowest pressure in January (3.2 hPa) and the highest pressure in July (10.9 hPa). Due to its milder climate compared to the city center, the basin’s vegetation is affected by these conditions [49]. The Serçeme Basin lies within the Holarctic region and the Iran–Turan phytogeographical area. The basin hosts a total of 618 plant species from 322 genera and 67 families, 42 of which are endemic [50]. A significant part of Erzurum’s landscape consists of natural steppe areas. The natural lower boundary of forests is between 1900 and 2000 m, and remnants of forests on mountain slopes and peaks show evidence of significant degradation due to human impact over time. Moreover, the impoverishment of mountain slopes and peak pastures is considered a natural consequence of overgrazing [51]. Forested areas are predominantly covered by poplar, Scots pine, oak, and other deciduous tree species. The trembling poplar (Populus tremuloides) is widespread around Kuzgun Dam, in the northeast of Çatak village, central-western regions, and the Serçeme Stream valley. Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), a conifer species resistant to harsh climatic conditions, is most commonly found around Kuzgun Dam. Mixed forests of Scots pine and poplar are prevalent in Rizekent and Çıkrıklı villages, and in the northern parts of Elmalı village. Oak trees (Quercus) are rarely found in the southern part of the basin, particularly in the northern parts of Gökçebük village. Moreover, the rare white willow (Salix alba) can be observed along the Serçeme Stream and other riverbeds. Apple trees are rare and remain small and green without maturing. Common shrub species such as wild rose, plum, hawthorn, cherry, and raspberry are present in the region, but the fruit sizes are quite small due to the climatic conditions [52].

In addition to forested areas, important green spaces in the research area include agricultural lands where crops such as barley, wheat, rye, oats, clover, vetch, and sainfoin are cultivated [52]. These agricultural lands mainly produce products for livestock farming. Dry farming is practiced in villages such as Yoncalık, Elmalı, Kuzgun, Ağaçkent, and Eskipolat, while irrigated farming is widespread in Eskipolat and Eğerti, where alluvial soils are found. Along the Serçeme Stream, sand dunes are observed near the village of Gelinkaya, and rocky areas with no vegetation are found on the mountain peaks of the Serçeme Stream valley [52]. The region’s economy is largely based on small family-operated livestock farming. Cattle, sheep, and poultry are raised. Although barn livestock farming is common, seasonal grazing is also practiced. Furthermore, fishing is conducted in Kuzgun Dam, and seasonal beekeeping activities are carried out by beekeepers from the Black Sea region [52].

Serçeme Basin offers an important study area for maintaining ecological balance and sustainable land use perspectives. Despite being a rural area, no previous studies have been conducted in this region aimed at maintaining ecological balance. The relatively small size of the region and the field observations made by experts distinguish this study from prior works. This characteristic allows for the development of more accurate and environmentally friendly land-use planning. Additionally, the micro-scale determination of the study area is crucial for assessments based on more specific and local data. Therefore, this research conducted in the Serçeme Basin is of great importance in contributing to the academic literature and providing an important example for sustainable land use in rural areas.

2.2. Methodology

At the beginning of the study, the objective of the study and the appropriate area boundaries were determined. The necessary information and documents for creating maps showing the natural features (physical structure, topographic structure, slope, aspect, geology, geomorphology, hydrology, soil, soil depth, erosion, climate, natural vegetation, corine level, land capability) and cultural features (settlements, transportation, economic situation, demographic development) of the Serçeme Basin, identified as the study area, were collected through field surveys and literature research. By visiting the area, the natural and cultural features were identified on-site, photographs were taken, and written documents were obtained from public institutions. The information and documents that were not available in digital format were digitized and transferred to a computer environment. Thus, base maps showing the cultural and natural features were created.

The inventory of the natural potential of the research area was developed by utilizing landscape evaluation and priority land use recommendations from McHarg (1969) [20] and Lyle (1985) [53]. With this data, land uses suitable for the ecological structure of the area were identified.

To determine the optimal land uses of the area, the method developed by Yılmaz (2004) [51] regarding optimal land use recommendations was used. In our study, similar to Yılmaz (2004) [51], a multi-criteria evaluation method was used to obtain quick results for the research. However, unlike other studies, in this research, the ecological suitability analyses of the Serçeme Basin were not only based on maps and remote sensing data, but also included on-site observations and assessments by experts. As a result, not only theoretical data but also the opinions of experts who are well-acquainted with the region and have observed the surrounding conditions were incorporated into the evaluation. This approach allowed for a more accurate and environmentally friendly assessment of the area. Geographic Information Systems (GISs) were used in the application of this method.

Using maps that show the natural and cultural features of the area, ecological suitability maps for agriculture, pasture, rangeland, forest, settlement, tourism and recreation, and conservation areas were prepared. For the proposed land uses, the natural factors selected as determinants and their sub-factors were identified and evaluated according to Zengin (2007) [5] based on the ecological structure and area characteristics of the Serçeme Basin. The evaluation factors were scored on a scale from 1 to 4, with suitability values being determined. The scoring system is as follows: 4—Very Suitable, 3—Suitable, 2—Less Suitable, and 1—Not Suitable. The obtained proposed land use maps were overlaid to create the optimal land use map for the area.

The scoring table was developed by four experts with in-depth knowledge of the study area (one architect, two landscape architecture professors, and one agricultural engineering professor). Additionally, the study area was visited on-site, and the opinions of the local population were taken into account during the development of the scoring system (

Table 1. Land suitability assessment criteria.

Agricultural Land				Forest Land
Land Use	Evaluation	Sub-Criteria	Score	Land Use	Evaluation	Sub-Criteria	Score
	Criteria				Criteria
Agricultural Land	Land Use Capability Classes	I. Class	4	Forest Land	Land Use Capability Classes	I. Class	1
		II. Class	4			II. Class	1
		III. Class	4			III. Class	1
		IV. Class	4			IV. Class	2
		V. Class	1			V. Class	3
		VI. Class	2			VI. Class	4
		VII. Class	1			VII. Class	3
		VIII. Class	1			VIII. Class	1
		Other (River, Settlement)	0			Others (Stream, Settlement)	1
	Soil Depth	Medium Depth	4		Soil Depth	Medium Depth	4
		Shallow	3			Shallow	2
		Very Shallow	2			Very Shallow	2
		Other (Riverbed, Settlement, Bare Rock)	1			Other (Riverbed, Settlement, Bare Rock)	1
	Limiting Soil Characteristic	Rocky	1		Erosion	None or very little	4
		Stony	2			Moderate	3
		Poorly Drained	1			Severe	2
		Other (Riverbed, Settlement, Bare Rock)	0			Very Severe	2
	Erosion	None or very little	4			Other (Riverbed, Settlement, Bare Rock)	1
		Moderate	3		Slope	0–6	1
		Severe	1			6–12	1
		Very Severe	1			12–18	2
		Other (Riverbed, Settlement, Bare Rock)	1			18–24	3
	Slope	0–6	4			24–30	4
		6–12	4			30+	4
		12–18	2		Precipitation	344–400 mm	1
		18–24	1			400–500 mm	2
		24–30	1			500–600 mm	2
		30+	1			600+ mm	4
	Aspect	South-facing slopes	3		Temperature	1–2 °C	1
		East–West	1			2–4 °C	2
		North-facing	3			4–6 °C	3
		Flat Areas	4			6+ °C	4
	Distance to Water Sources	0–300 m	4		Elevation	<2000 m	4
		300–600 m	3			2000–2200 m	1
		600–900 m	2			2200–2400 m	1
		900+ m	1			>2400 m	1
	Distance to Transportation Networks	0–1000 m	4		Aspect	South-facing slopes	1
		1000–2000 m	3			East–West	3
		2000–4000 m	2			North-facing	4
		4000+ m	1			Flat Areas	2
	Temperature	1–2 °C	1		Limiting Soil Characteristic	Rocky	1
		2–4 °C	2			Stony	2
		4–6 °C	3			Poorly Drained	1
		6+ °C	4			Other (Riverbed, Settlement, Bare Rock)	1
	Precipitation	344–400 mm	1
		400–500 mm	2	Tourism and Recreation Areas
		500–600 mm	2	Land Use	Evaluation	Sub-Criteria	Score
		600+ mm	4		Criteria
	Land Use	Non-Forest, Meadow, and Pasture Areas	4	Tourism and Recreation Areas	Original Rural Landscape	0–500	4
		Forest, Meadow, and Pasture Areas	1			501–1000	3
						1001–2000	2
Settlement Areas						2001–3000	1
Land Use	Evaluation	Sub-Criteria	Puan		Picnic Area	0–500	4
	Criteria					501–1000	3
Settlement Areas	Land Use Capability Classes	I. Class	1			1001–2000	2
		II. Class	1			2001–3000	1
		III. Class	1		Site Area	0–500	4
		IV. Class	1			501–1000	3
		V. Class	1			1001–2000	2
		VI. Class	3			2001–3000	1
		VII. Class	4		Vegetation Cover	0–500	4
		VIII. Class	4			501–1000	3
		Other (River)	1			1001–2000	2
	Slope	0–6	4			2001–3000	1
		6–12	4		Unique Topographic Structure	0–500	4
		12–18	3			501–1000	3
		18–24	2			1001–2000	2
		24–30	2			2001–3000	1
		30+	1		Cultural Asset	0–500	4
	Aspect	South-facing slopes	4			501–1000	3
		East–West	3			1001–2000	2
		North-facing	1			2001–3000	1
		Flat Areas	4		Vista	0–500	4
	Distance to Water Resources	0–300 m	4			501–1000	3
		300–600 m	3			1001–2000	2
		600–900 m	2			2001–3000	1
		900+ m	1		Proximity to Transportation	0–1000 m	4
	Altitude	<2000 m	4			1000–2000 m	3
		2000–2200 m	3			2000–4000 m	2
		2200–2400 m	1			4000+ m	1
		>2400 m	1		Proximity to Water Resources	0–300 m	4
	Geology	Non-alluvial Areas	4			300–600 m	3
		Alluvial Areas	1			600–900 m	2
	Vegetation Cover	Forest	1			900+ m	1
		Non-forest Areas	4
	Limiting Soil Property	Rocky	3	Conservation Areas
		Stony	1	Land Use	Evaluation	Sub-Criteria	Score
					Criteria
Grassland Areas				Conservation Areas	Historical Sites	Existence	4
Land Use	Evaluation	Sub-Criteria	Score			Non-existence	1
	Criteria				Protected Areas	Existence	4
Grassland Areas	Land Use Capability Classes	I. Class	4			Non-existence	1
		II. Class	4		Vegetation Cover	Existence	4
		III. Class	4			Non-existence	1
		IV. Class	4		Geology	Interesting Geological Formations	4
		V. Class	1			Alluvial Areas	1
		VI. Class	2			Other	1
		VII. Class	1
		VIII. Class	1	Grazing Areas
		Other (River, Settlement)	1	Land Use	Evaluation	Sub-Criteria	Score
	Soil Depth	Medium Depth	3		Criteria
		Shallow	2	Grazing Areas	Land Use Capability Classes	I. Class	1
		Very Shallow	1			II. Class	1
		Other (Riverbed, Settlement, Bare Rock)	1			III. Class	1
	Limiting Soil Property	Rocky	1			IV. Class	1
		Stony	2			V. Class	2
		Inadequate Drainage	4			VI. Class	4
		Other (Riverbed, Settlement, Bare Rock)	1			VII. Class	4
	Erosion	None or Very Low	4			VIII. Class	4
		Moderate	3			Other (River, Settlement)	1
		Severe	1		Soil Depth	Medium Depth	4
		Very Severe	1			Shallow	2
		Other (Riverbed, Settlement, Bare Rock)	1			Very Shallow	1
	Slope	0–6	4			Other (Riverbed, Settlement, Bare Rock)	1
		6–12	4		Limiting Soil Characteristic	Rocky	4
		12–18	3			Stony	3
		18–24	1			Inadequate Drainage	3
		24–30	1			Other (Riverbed, Settlement, Bare Rock)	1
		30+	1		Erosion	None or Very Low	4
	Aspect	South-facing slopes	3			Moderate	3
		East–West	2			Severe	1
		North-facing	3			Very Severe	1
		Flat Areas	4			Other (Riverbed, Settlement, Bare Rock)	1
	Distance to Water Resources	0–300 m	4		Slope	0–6	1
		300–600 m	3			6–12	1
		600–900 m	2			12–18	2
		900+ m	1			18–24	3
	Distance to Transportation Networks	0–1000 m	4			24–30	4
		1000–2000 m	3			30+	4
		2000–4000 m	2		Erosion	None or Very Low	3
		4000+ m	1			Moderate	2
	Temperature	1–2 °C	1			Severe	3
		2–4 °C	2			Very Severe	4
		4–6 °C	3		Distance to Transportation Networks	0–1000 m	4
		6+ °C	4			1000–2000 m	3
	Precipitation	344–400 mm	1			2000–4000 m	2
		400–500 mm	2			4000+ m	1
		500–600 mm	2		Precipitation	344–400 mm	1
		600+ mm	4			400–500 mm	2
						500–600 mm	2
						600+ mm	4

).

While creating the optimal land use map, prioritization was made for areas with the same suitability degree. This prioritization was determined based on the natural and cultural characteristics of the study area, following the order proposed by Zengin (2007) [5]. Accordingly, the priority order was established as follows:

Conservation areas—Given the ecological sensitivity and the need for protection, these areas were assigned the highest priority.

Pasture areas—Due to the region’s significance for livestock activities, these areas were given the second priority.

Agricultural areas—Areas with high agricultural production potential were given third priority.

Forest areas—Forest areas, which are crucial for ecological sustainability, were ranked fourth.

Rangeland areas—These areas, important for preserving natural vegetation and grazing, were placed in the fifth rank.

Tourism and recreation areas—Areas designated for benefiting from the region’s natural beauty were given sixth priority.

Settlement areas—To maintain environmental sustainability, settlement areas were assigned the lowest priority compared to other land uses.

This prioritization ensured that the most suitable land use plan was developed without disturbing the natural balance of the area.

3. Results

This study aims to create optimal land use maps based on the existing natural and cultural characteristics of the region. Maps for the optimal use of agricultural, meadow, pasture, forest, settlement, tourism and recreation, and conservation areas were created by overlaying the respective land use maps. The distribution of land uses on the current land use map, seen in Figure 2, is given in

Table 2. CORINE Land use classification in the Serçeme Basin.

CORINE Classification	Area (ha)	%	CORINE Classification	Area (ha)	%
Vegetation Change Areas	1645	6.05	Mixed Agricultural Areas	589	2.17
Bare Rocks	193	0.71	Mining Extraction Sites	27	0.1
Agriculture with Natural Vegetation	2809	10.33	Pastures	1210	4.45
Natural Grasslands	9804	36.04	Sparse Vegetation Areas	9661	35.52
Broadleaf Forest	208	0.77	Water Bodies	153	0.56
Construction Sites	34	0.13	Non-Irrigated Arable Land	116	0.43
Mixed Forest	606	2.23	Permanently Irrigated Land	146	0.54
Total				27,200	100

, while the land use suitability distribution of the optimal land use map, seen in Figure 3, is presented in

Table 3. Distribution of optimal land use in Serçeme Basin.

Optimal Land Use	Area (ha)	%
Meadow	4205.12	15.46
Protected Areas	794.24	2.92
Pasture	11,600.80	42.65
Forest	8788.32	32.31
Agriculture	1107.04	4.07
Tourism and Recreation	440.64	1.62
Settlement	261.12	0.96
Total	27,200	100

. The comparison between the current and optimal land use has revealed significant results in terms of making land use more efficient.

Out of the study area of 27,200 hectares, 1107.04 hectares (4.07%) are suitable for agriculture (Table 3), whereas 3659 hectares (13%) are used as agricultural land (Table 2). Most of the current agricultural lands are located, especially in the flat areas on the eastern slope of the valley, around the Serçeme Stream. The Corine map seen in Figure 2 also confirms that agricultural activities are particularly concentrated around the Serçeme Stream, which accounts for 13% of the current agricultural lands in the region. According to the optimal land use map seen in Figure 3, agricultural areas are generally suitable to the north of Eşkinkaya Neighborhood, on Solak Mountain, east of Kuşdağı Hill, and along the streams to the west of Çıkrıklı Neighborhood.

Additionally, there is no significant recreational-tourism use in the region. Although the area around Serçeme Stream is used as a picnic area by locals during the summer months, there is generally no infrastructure necessary for tourism or recreation. In the optimal land use map (Figure 3), the 440.64 hectares (1.62%) proposed for recreation-tourism are mostly located near Serçeme Stream; however, most of these areas are currently used for agricultural activities (Figure 2).

A large portion of the region, 11,600.80 hectares (42.65%), is suitable for pasture land (Table 3), yet only 1210 hectares (4.4%) are used as pasture (Table 2). Pasture areas are more suitable in steeper and higher areas (Figure 3), and these areas are currently dominated by sparse vegetation and natural meadows (Figure 2).

Forest areas are currently limited to 2459 hectares (9%) (Table 2), concentrated in the northern parts of the Çıkrıklı and Rizekent neighborhoods (Figure 2). However, to the west and east of Serçeme Stream (Figure 3), 8788.32 hectares (32.31%) are suitable for forests (Table 3), and the development of these areas as a potential resource is important.

Meadow areas cover 9804 hectares, which is 36% of the study area (Table 2); however, only 4205.12 hectares (15.46%) of this area are suitable for use as meadows (Table 3). In terms of settlement, low settlement density is observed in 12 neighborhoods along the valley boundaries, and the total area of these settlements is only around 87 hectares (0.3%) (Table 2). It has been determined that an additional 261.12 hectares (0.96%) are more suitable for optimal settlement density (Table 3), as low-density settlement is preferred to preserve the natural structure of the region. However, it is noted that the current density is below the carrying capacity of the area, and there is potential for increased density.

Finally, Bizdıngaz Castle, located to the southeast of Eşkinkaya Neighborhood, and Eğerti Hill, to the east of Eğerti Neighborhood, both of which are declared protected areas by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, are included in the protected areas (Figure 3). These protected areas cover a total of 794.24 hectares (2.92%) (Table 3).

4. Discussion

The findings of this study highlight significant differences between the current and optimal land uses, and these differences could have extensive impacts on the local economy and ecological balance. According to

Table 4. Comparison of optimal and current land use in Serçeme Basin.

Optimal Land Use	Area (ha)	%	Current Land Use	Area (ha)	%
Protected Areas, Sparse Vegetation, Other	794.24	2.92	Protected Areas, Sparse Vegetation, Other	9981	36.7
Meadow	4205.12	15.46	Meadow	9804	36.0
Pasture	11,600.80	42.65	Pasture	1210	4.4
Forest	8788.32	32.31	Forest	2459	9.0
Agriculture	1107.04	4.07	Agriculture	3659	13.5
Settlement	261.12	0.96	Settlement	87	0.3
Tourism and Recreation	440.64	1.62	Tourism and Recreation	0	0
Total	27,200	100	Total	27,200	100

, there is a clear difference between the current and optimal land uses. For example, the optimal land use allocates 11,600.8 hectares (42.65%) to pasture land, while currently only 1210 hectares (4.4%) are designated as pasture. Similarly, the area suitable for tourism and recreation is determined to be 440.64 hectares (1.62%), but this area is not currently used for this purpose; instead, it is being used for agriculture. In comparison, 4205.12 hectares (15.46%) of the meadow area are optimally allocated for meadow use, whereas the current use of this land spans 9804 hectares (36%) of the meadow area. These data clearly show how far current land use is from the land’s potential.

The findings of this study reveal significant discrepancies between existing and optimal land use configurations, emphasizing the potential for implementing more sustainable land management practices within the region. These conclusions are consistent with prior research that employed comparable methodologies to evaluate land use potential and ecological capacity.

For example, Gürbüz and Pirselimoğlu [54], in their ecologically based tourism and recreation planning study, highlighted the importance of harmonizing conservation efforts with land utilization, particularly in areas characterized by both natural and cultural landscape values. Their identification of areas suitable for ecotourism corresponds with the findings presented herein, which demonstrate that certain currently underutilized zones could be reallocated for tourism and recreational purposes, yielding both ecological and economic benefits. This alignment underscores the viability of ecotourism as a sustainable land use alternative in the study area, reflecting conclusions similar to those of Gürbüz and Pirselimoğlu, who found activities such as nature photography and hiking to be highly appropriate in comparable contexts.

Similarly, Hosseini et al. [37] applied a multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) framework to assess the ecological suitability of urban development in the suburban areas of Tabriz, Iran. Utilizing GIS-based mapping and evaluation tools, their study emphasized the necessity of cautious urban expansion to safeguard ecological capabilities. Analogously, the present research utilized a similar approach to determine the land suitability for livestock farming and tourism, both of which emerged as key potential land uses in the region. This comparison highlights the importance of balancing urban growth with environmental conservation to avoid land degradation, a risk also identified in the Tabriz case study.

Moreover, Liu et al. [40] employed the Future Land Use Simulation (FLUS) model in Jinan City to optimize land allocation while integrating ecosystem services as constraints. Their results highlighted the need to preserve core ecological areas from development to maintain environmental security. The optimal land use configuration proposed in the present analysis similarly delineates zones of ecological significance that should be preserved. The integration of ecosystem services as limiting factors, in alignment with the FLUS model, further reinforces the necessity of prioritizing ecological integrity in spatial planning.

Furthermore, the study by Rahman and Szabó [42], which used GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making techniques to optimize urban land use, demonstrated that sustainability outcomes can be maximized through the simultaneous consideration of social, economic, and environmental parameters. In parallel, the current analysis evaluated the economic potential of livestock and tourism, while emphasizing the importance of maintaining ecological balance. The inclusion of field observations and expert assessments within the GIS-based evaluation process enabled the development of a more context-sensitive and accurate land use framework, providing a more detailed local perspective than studies relying exclusively on remote sensing data.

In addition, Ghadimi et al. [55] applied a GIS-based evaluation system to assess the suitability of coastal areas along the Shirud coast of the Caspian Sea for tourism development. Their methodology incorporated ecological, socio-cultural, and infrastructural criteria to identify optimal zones for sustainable tourism planning. Although the geographical focus of their research differs, the methodological convergence—particularly in the application of spatial analysis for identifying the latent potential of underutilized areas—renders this study a pertinent comparative reference. Their findings, like those of the present research, emphasize that environmentally informed tourism planning can significantly contribute to local economic development without undermining ecological resilience. The study by Ghadimi et al. [55] thus reinforces the broader applicability of GIS-based land suitability analysis in diverse geographic and environmental contexts.

Livestock farming and tourism-recreation have great potential, but careful evaluation is necessary in terms of feasibility. Livestock farming, in particular, faces many opportunities and challenges. The region’s climatic and topographic characteristics provide an ideal environment for grazing, as 9661 hectares are covered with sparse vegetation. However, problems such as overgrazing and soil erosion could arise as a result of unsustainable grazing practices. Additionally, the insufficient development of pasture areas and the ongoing studies in the region indicate that this resource is largely underutilized.

Tourism and recreation, while presenting significant economic potential, may encounter challenges. First, the lack of necessary infrastructure—particularly in areas such as transportation, accommodation, and waste management—represents a major barrier to tourism development. Furthermore, the ecological risks of increased tourism, such as habitat degradation, water pollution, and pressure on local resources, must be managed. Therefore, tourism development should be balanced, ensuring that economic growth is promoted while protecting natural resources.

Various policies and measures should be considered to facilitate the implementation of the optimal land use map. Firstly, local governments should prioritize the establishment of infrastructure that supports sustainable tourism, such as eco-friendly hotels, improvements to transportation networks, and waste management systems. By collaborating with environmental organizations and stakeholders, responsible tourism practices should be encouraged to minimize ecological damage. Additionally, the local community should be educated through seminars on these issues.

For livestock farming, the development of sustainable grazing practices should be promoted. This could include rotational grazing, the use of native plant species, and the rehabilitation of overgrazed areas. Additionally, subsidies and incentives could be provided to farmers who adopt sustainable practices. Educational and training programs for local farmers on sustainable agricultural and livestock management will help them increase productivity while maintaining environmental integrity.

In the evaluation of optimal land use, it should be noted that the methodology is based on standard land suitability analysis, which may lead to the assumption that land characteristics are static, overlooking the dynamic structure of ecosystems or changes in socio-economic factors over time. Moreover, the social aspects of land use have not been addressed in this study. The success of land use plans depends on how willing the local population is to adopt new practices, which should be considered an important area for future research.

Previous studies relied solely on remote sensing data [1,5,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45], whereas this study combines remote sensing with field observations and expert interviews to develop a more detailed and site-specific evaluation. In particular, the scoring system used in this study was adapted from Zengin (2007) [5]; however, it was modified to include field-based assessments rather than relying solely on remote sensing. This approach enables more accurate results for the specific characteristics of the study area. Nevertheless, it requires a deep familiarity with the site and significantly more time and effort compared to remote sensing-based studies, which offer easier access to large-scale data but may lack local precision.

5. Conclusions

This study aimed to evaluate the current land use in the Serçeme Basin and create maps for optimal land use. The differences between the current and optimal land use have highlighted potential areas for increasing land efficiency and priority use areas. Significant changes have been identified in agriculture, pasture, meadow, tourism, and recreation, and regulations in these areas could support economic development while preserving ecological balance. Sustainable practices must be adopted to enhance livestock farming and tourism potential. Furthermore, the positive attitude of the local population towards these changes can increase the success of the projects. Future studies should examine the social dimensions and the local community’s response to these proposals in more detail. Lastly, the rapid urbanization and observed population growth in rural areas underscore the importance of planning for the protection of these areas as early as possible.