Determination of Field Use Changes by Using Landscape Metrics: “Erzurum City Example”

Abstract

The human increases environmental pressures and consumes resources. Therefore; Landscapes are also changed by natural events or human beings over time. Landscape ecology examines these changing relationships and takes landscape as a level and system within the concept of hierarchical order. Landscape structure analysis is an important method used in ecological planning studies, which analyzes the landscapes in the matrix-patch-corridor model by dividing them into units and provides analytical data with the help of landscape metrics and interprets the landscape structure. In this context, ecological-based planning should be made in cities, corridors are created. Aquatic and Terrestrial ecological corridors are ecosystems that connect two different landscape matrices. They combine with different landscape matrices and patches to form an integrated landscape mosaic. This approach, which also forms the basis of green infrastructure systems, emphasizes centers, connections. The green infrastructure is designed with a systematic approach that ensures the sustainability of ecological networks, protects and improves natural and cultural living environments, within the scope of the landscape system integrity, on a city scale. In this context, Erzurum city green areas, centers and their connections are handled ecologically. In order to protect the existence of urban flora and fauna, to ensure the integrity and to maintain continuity, it is desired to fulfill green infrastructure requirements. Using the Patch Analyst 4.2 software, the interactions, fragmentation states, habitat qualities, sizes, differences of the patches that make up the matrix of the research area were evaluated on the basis of landscape ecology.

Keywords

• Landscape metrics
• Urban open-green area
• Erzurum
• Landscape structure
• Landscape measurements
• Landscape planning

References

1. Ahern J, 2007. Green infrastructure for cities: the spatial dimension, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA 01003, USA, 267-283 pp.
2. Anonim 2019. Erzurum İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü, https://erzurum.ktb.gov.tr/TR-56063/cografya.html (Erişim tarihi: 20.02.2019)
3. Balaban O, Tamer N. G, 2016. Kentsel Planlama Ansiklopedik Sözlük. Ersoy, M. (Der.). İklim Değişikliği, Küresel Isınma ve Kentler içinde (ss.152-155). Ninova
4. Bastian O, 2001. Landscape ecology-towards a unified discipline, Landscape Ecology, 16: 757-766 pp.
5. Benliay A, 2009. Peyzaj Planı Oluşturulması Bağlamında Finike–Kumluca Kıyı Bölgesinin Değerlendirilmesi, Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Peyzaj Mimarlığı Ana Bilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi,249s (Basılmış)
6. Boongaling C.G.K, Faustino-Eslava D.V, Lansigan P.F, 2018. Modeling land use change impacts on hydrology and the use of landscape metrics as tools for watershed management: The case of an ungauged catchment in the Philippines, Land Use Policy Volume 72, March 2018, Pages 116-128
7. Cushman S. A, McGarigal K, Neel M. C, 2008. Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency, Ecological indicators, 8(5): 691-703 pp.
8. Demir S, Demirel Ö, 2018. Peyzaj planlamada peyzaj ekolojisi yaklaşımı. Türkiye Peyzaj Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 1-8.

9. Deniz B, Küçükerbaş E.V, Eşbah Tuncay H, 2006. Peyzaj ekolojisine genel bakış, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, Aydın, 3(20): 5-18
10. Dramstad W.E, Olston J.D, Forman R.T.T, 1996. Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning, Insland Press, Washington DC, USA, 71p.
11. Eroğlu D, 2018. Sürdürülebilir Yaşam Penceresinden Yerel ve Kırsal Kalkınma. Bayramoğlu, M ve Gür, F. (Ed.). Kırsal Yayım ve İletişim: Teoriden Pratiğe içinde (ss. 301-328). İstanbul: Özyeğin Üniversitesi
12. Farina A, 2000. Landscape Ecology in Action. Lunigiana Museum of Natural History, Aulla Italy, Venice University, Venice, Italy, Urbino University, Urbina, Italy Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 324p.
13. Forman R.T.T, 1995. Land Mosaics, The Ecology of Landscape and Regions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 656p.
14. Forman R.T.T, 2008. Urban Regions; Ecology and Planning Beyond the City. Cambridge University Press
15. Gordon A, Simondsona D, Whiteb M, Moilanenc A, Bekessya S.A, 2009. Integrating conservation planning and landuse planning in urban landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 91: 183–194 pp.
16. Gökyer E, 2009. Bartın Kenti ve Arıt Havzasında Peyzaj Değerlendirme, Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Peyzaj Mimarlığı Ana Bilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi, 152s (Basılmış)
17. Hepcan Ş, 2013. Analyzing the pattern and connectivity of urban green spaces: a case study of İzmir, Turkey, Urban Ecosystems, 16: 279–293 pp.
18. Kor A, 2011. Koruma Alanı Yakınındaki Hızlı Kentleşmenin Peyzaj Ekolojisi Yaklaşımı İle İrdelenmesi İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi (Basılmış).
19. Leitao A.B, Ahern J, 2002. Applying landscape ecological consept and metrics in sustainable landscape planning, Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(2):65-93
20. Lin J, Shaoying X, YouyueWen L, 2020. What is the influence of landscape metric selection on the calibration of land-use/cover simulation models? Environmental Modelling & Software Volume 129, July 2020, 104719.
21. Liu Y, Peng J, Wang Y, 2020. Efficiency of landscape metrics characterizing urban land surface temperature, Landscape and Urban Planning Volume 180, 2018, Pages 36-53
22. McGarigal K, 2006. Landscape Pattern Metrics, Encyclopedia of environmetrics, Chichester, UK, 6: 2, 7p.
23. McGarigal K, Marks B.J, 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, PNW, 351p.
24. O’Neill R. V, Krummel J. R, Gardner R. H, Sugihara G, Jackson B, DeAngelis D. L, Milne B. T, Turner M. G, Zygmunt B, Christensen S. W, Dale V. H, Graham R. L, 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology (1):153-162.
25. Odum E.P, Barrett G.W, 2008. Ekolojinin Temel İlkeleri, (Çev. E. Kani Işık, Palme Yayıncılık, Ankara, 534s.
26. Şahin Ş, Pervin H, Kurum E, Uzun O, Bilgili E, Tezcan L, Müftüoglu V, .Çorbacı L, Sütün, S, Doğan D, Ateş E, Tarım B, Kurdoglu G, Kasko Y, 2011. PEYZAJ-44: l Ölçeginde Peyzaj Karakter Analizi ve Turizm/Rekreasyon Açısından Degerlendirilmesi. 109G074 Nolu TUBİTAK-KAMAG Projesi 2. Ara Raporu.
27. Tağıl Ş, 2006. Peyzaj patern metrikleriyle Balıkesir Ovası ve yakınında habitat parçalılığında ve kalitesinde meydana gelen değişim (1975-2000), Ekoloji Dergisi, 60: 24-36 ss.
28. Turner M.G, Gardner R.H, O’neill R.V, 2001. Landcape Ecology in Theory and Practice Pattern and Process, Springer, New York, USA, 389p.
29. Uzun O, 2003. Düzce Asarsuyu havzası peyzaj değerlendirmesi ve yönetim modelinin geliştirilmesi. Ankara üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı Doktora Tezi, ,485s (Basılmış).
30. Wei L, Luo Y, Wang M, Su S, Pi J, Li G, 2020. Essential fragmentation metrics for agricultural policies: Linking landscape pattern, ecosystem service and land use management in urbanizing China, Agricultural Systems Volume 182, June 2020, 102833
31. Wu J. J, 2013 Landscape ecology, in Ecological Systems, Springer, New York, 179-200 pp.