Öz
Ecosystems contribute to human life, biodiversity and the world economy. Accordingly, the ecosystem services approach provides a basic framework for evaluating the relationships between ecological, economic and social landscape resources. In this context, the inclusion of the ecosystem services approach in the planning and decision-making processes is seen as an important tool for a more sustainable management of resources. The inclusion of ecosystem services into the decision-making process in landscape planning studies depends on the availability of spatial data on the status and changes of existing ecosystems and the services they provide. The aim of this study is to evaluate the change in potential ecosystem services in the example of Kuşadası, Söke and Didim districts of Aydın province, which is an ecologically, socially and economically important region in our country. In the study, potential ecosystem services and ecological integrity were mapped with the ecosystem services matrix method on the CORINE land cover maps of the years 1990 and 2018, and the change between these years was analyzed and evaluated. While there was a 1,26% decrease in the potential of multi-ecosystem services due to the changes in the land cover, it was determined that the biggest change was in the regulatory services with 1,31% increase. While there was a 1,08% decrease and a 0,41% increase in the provisioning and cultural ecosystem service values, respectively, between 1990 and 2018, there was a 0,61% decrease in the ecological integrity value.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Aydın ecosystem services matrix land cover landscape planning
Kaynakça
- Bastian, O.; Haase, D. & K. Grunewald, (2012). Ecosystem properties, potentials and services – The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecological Indicators 21, 7–16.
- Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D., & Gordon, L. J. (2009). Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology letters, 12(12), 1394-1404.
- Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., & Windhorst, W. (2009). Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services - A concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape Online, 15, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.200915
- Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F., (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 21, 17–29.
- Burkhard, B., & Maes, J. (2017). Mapping ecosystem services. Advanced Books. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia (2017), 374s.
- CLMS. (2022). Copernicus Land Monitoring Service, Imperviousness. https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc-1990 ve https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc2018 (Erişim tarihi: 14.11.2022).
- G. C. Daily, (1997). Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, 1rd ed., Washington, USA: Island Press, pp. 5-6.
- Haines-Young, R.H., Potschin, M.P., (2010). The links between biodiversity, Ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D., Frid, C. (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. BES Ecological Reviews Series. CUP, Cambridge, UK, p. 172.
- Haines-Young, R. & M.B. Potschin. (2018). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Fabis Consulting Ltd. The Paddocks, Chestnut Lane, Barton in Fabis, Nottingham, NG11 0AE, UK.
- Hou, Y., Burkhard, B.,Müller, F., (2013). Uncertainties in landscape analysis and ecosystem service assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 127, S117–S131.
- MEA. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island, Washington, DC. 563s.
- Schaafsma, M., & Bartkowski, B. (2021). Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services. Life on Land, 1022-1032.
- Stoll, S., Frenzel, M., Burkhard, B., Adamescu, M., Augustaitis, A., Baeßler, C., ... & Müller, F. (2015). LTER Avrupa ağını kullanarak Avrupa çapında ekosistem bütünlüğünün ve hizmet gradyanlarının değerlendirilmesi. Ekolojik Modelleme, 295, 75-87.
- Tonyaloğlu, E. E. (2020). Spatiotemporal dynamics of urban ecosystem services in Turkey: The case of Bornova, Izmir. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 49, 126631.
- Wallace, K.J., (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol. Conserv. 139, 235–246.
Öz
Ekosistemler insan yaşamına, biyoçeşitliliğe ve dünya ekonomisine birçok katkı sağlamaktadır. Buna bağlı olarak ekosistem hizmetleri yaklaşımı, ekolojik, ekonomik ve sosyal peyzaj kaynaklarının birbirleri ile olan ilişkilerinin değerlendirilebilmesi için oluşturulmuş temel bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Bu kapsamda ekosistem hizmetleri yaklaşımının planlama ve karar verme süreçlerine dâhil edilmesi, kaynakların daha sürdürülebilir bir şekilde yönetimi için önemli bir araç olarak görülmektedir. Peyzaj planlama çalışmalarında ekosistem hizmetlerinin karar verme sürecine dâhil edilebilmesi ise mevcut ekosistemler ve sundukları hizmetlerin durumu ve değişimleri hakkında mekânsal verilerin mevcudiyetine bağlıdır. Bu çalışmanın amacı ülkemizde ekolojik, sosyal ve ekonomik açıdan önem taşıyan Aydın ili Kuşadası, Söke ve Didim ilçeleri örneğinde potansiyel ekosistem hizmetlerinde meydana gelen değişimin değerlendirilmesidir. Çalışmada 1990 ve 2018 yıllarına ait CORINE arazi örtüsü haritaları üzerinden ekosistem hizmetleri matris yöntemi ile potansiyel ekosistem hizmetleri ve ekolojik bütünlük haritalanarak, bu yıllar arasındaki değişim analiz edilerek değerlendirilmiştir. Arazi örtüsünde yaşanan değişimlere bağlı olarak çoklu ekosistem hizmetleri potansiyelinde %1,26 azalma yaşanırken, en büyük değişimin %1,31 artış ile düzenleyici hizmetlerde olduğu saptanmıştır. Tedarik ve kültürel ekosistem hizmet değerlerinde 1990-2018 yılları arasında sırasıyla %1,08 azalma ve %0,41 artış yaşanırken, ekolojik bütünlük değerinde ise %0,61 azalma meydana gelmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Aydın ekosistem hizmetleri matrisi arazi örtüsü peyzaj planlama
Kaynakça
- Bastian, O.; Haase, D. & K. Grunewald, (2012). Ecosystem properties, potentials and services – The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecological Indicators 21, 7–16.
- Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D., & Gordon, L. J. (2009). Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology letters, 12(12), 1394-1404.
- Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., & Windhorst, W. (2009). Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services - A concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape Online, 15, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.200915
- Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F., (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 21, 17–29.
- Burkhard, B., & Maes, J. (2017). Mapping ecosystem services. Advanced Books. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia (2017), 374s.
- CLMS. (2022). Copernicus Land Monitoring Service, Imperviousness. https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc-1990 ve https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc2018 (Erişim tarihi: 14.11.2022).
- G. C. Daily, (1997). Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, 1rd ed., Washington, USA: Island Press, pp. 5-6.
- Haines-Young, R.H., Potschin, M.P., (2010). The links between biodiversity, Ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D., Frid, C. (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. BES Ecological Reviews Series. CUP, Cambridge, UK, p. 172.
- Haines-Young, R. & M.B. Potschin. (2018). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Fabis Consulting Ltd. The Paddocks, Chestnut Lane, Barton in Fabis, Nottingham, NG11 0AE, UK.
- Hou, Y., Burkhard, B.,Müller, F., (2013). Uncertainties in landscape analysis and ecosystem service assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 127, S117–S131.
- MEA. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island, Washington, DC. 563s.
- Schaafsma, M., & Bartkowski, B. (2021). Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services. Life on Land, 1022-1032.
- Stoll, S., Frenzel, M., Burkhard, B., Adamescu, M., Augustaitis, A., Baeßler, C., ... & Müller, F. (2015). LTER Avrupa ağını kullanarak Avrupa çapında ekosistem bütünlüğünün ve hizmet gradyanlarının değerlendirilmesi. Ekolojik Modelleme, 295, 75-87.
- Tonyaloğlu, E. E. (2020). Spatiotemporal dynamics of urban ecosystem services in Turkey: The case of Bornova, Izmir. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 49, 126631.
- Wallace, K.J., (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol. Conserv. 139, 235–246.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | Türkçe |
|---|---|
| Konular | Peyzaj Mimarlığı |
| Bölüm | Makaleler |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 31 Aralık 2022 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2022 Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2 |
