KENTSEL EKOSİSTEMİN DAYANIKLILIK HEDEFİNİ KARŞILAMADA EKOLOJİK PLANLAMA YAKLAŞIMLARI

Year 2021, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 122 - 134, 31.12.2021

Sevgi Görmüş Elif Oktay Serhat Cengiz

https://doi.org/10.53784/peyzaj.1034398

Cited By: 3

Abstract

İnsan etkisi gezegenin çevresel ve ekolojik krizinin en önemli belirleyicisi olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Nüfus artışı ve kentlere göçün mevcut haliyle devam etmesi durumunda, 2050 yılında dünya nüfusunun %70’inin kentlerde olacağı ve kentsel alanların da üç kat daha artacağı öngörülmektedir. Kentsel alanların artma eğilimine küresel iklim değişikliği, biyolojik çeşitlilik kayıpları, Covid 19 pandemisi ve kentsel yayılma gibi sorunlarının eşlik etmesi ile birlikte dünya kentlerinin ortak hedefi, kentsel dayanıklılığın nasıl sağlanacağına yönelmiştir. Dünyanın farklı kentlerinde etkin olan çevresel ve ekolojik sorunlara bağlı olarak yerel yönetimler yeni vizyonlar belirlemekte, kentsel planlama stratejilerini ve mekânsal planlamalarını, belirledikleri vizyonlar çerçevesinde geliştirmektedirler.

Kentsel dayanıklılığı geliştirme hedefinin gerçekleştirilmesi için ekosistem hizmetleri ve yeşil altyapı yaklaşımının kentsel planlama stratejileri ve mekânsal planlamaya entegre edilmesi önem kazanmıştır.
Bu çalışma gittikçe yoğunlaşan kentlerde dayanıklılığı sağlamada ekolojik planlama yaklaşımlarından özellikle ekosistem hizmetlerinin ve yeşil altyapının iyileştirici etkilerini akademik yazın üzerinden değerlendirmektedir.

Keywords

Kentsel dayanıklılık, Kentsel ekosistem, Ekolojik Planlama, Ekosistem Hizmetleri, Yeşil Altyapı

Supporting Institution

İnönü Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Koordinasyonu

Project Number

FYL-2020-1881

Thanks

Bu makale, İnönü Üniversitesi BAP birimi tarafından desteklenen “Ankara Vadilerindeki Arazi Dönüşüm Sürecinin Ekolojik Planlama Kapsamında İncelenmesi” (FYL-2020-1881) adlı Yüksek Lisans Projesi’nin kuramsal temeller bölümünün geliştirilmesi ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Desteklerinden dolayı, İnönü Üniversitesi BAP birimine teşekkür ederiz.

ECOLOGICAL PLANNING APPROACHES TO MEET THE RESILIENCE TARGET OF URBAN ECOSYSTEMS

Abstract

Human impact is defined as the most important determinant of the environmental and ecological crisis of the planet. If population growth and migration to cities continue in their current form, it is predicted that, by 2050, the 70% of the world's population will be living in cities and that urban areas will grow three times. With the current growth trend of urban areas accompanied by problems such as global climate change, biodiversity losses, Covid 19 pandemic and urban sprawl, the common goal of world cities has turned to how to provide urban resilience. Depending on the environmental and ecological problems prevailing in different cities of the world, local governments determine new visions and develop their urban planning strategies and spatial planning in accordance with these visions.

To achieve the goal of improving urban resilience, integration of ecosystem services and green infrastructure approach into urban planning strategies and spatial planning has gained importance. This study evaluates the healing effects of ecological planning approaches, especially ecosystem services and green infrastructure, in providing resilience in cities that are getting more densely populated.

Keywords

Urban resilience, Urban ecosystem, Ecologic planning, Ecosystem services, Green Infrastructure

Project Number

FYL-2020-1881

References

• Ahern, J. (2007). Green infrastructure for cities: the spatial dimension. In. Paper presented at the Cities of the future: towards integrated sustainable water and landscape management. IWA Publishing.
• Ahern, J., Cilliers, S., & Niemelä, J. (2014). The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: A framework for supporting innovation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 254-259.
• Ahern, J., Cilliers, S., & Niemelä, J. (2014). The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: A framework for supporting innovation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 254-259.
• Albuquerque-Lima, S., Diniz, U. M., Machado, I. C. (2021). A nectar oasis for urban Glossophaginae bats: Temporal resource dynamics of the chiropterophilous Crescentia cujete (Bignoniaceae). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 127412.
• Amundsen, O. M., Allen, W., ve Hoellen, K. (2009). Green infrastructure planning: Recent advances and applications.
• Andersson, E. (2006). Urban landscapes and sustainable cities. Ecology and society, 11(1).
• Arcidiacono, A., & Ronchi, S. (2021). Challenges for Contemporary Spatial Planning in Italy. Towards a New Paradigm. In Ecosystem Services and Green Infrastructure (pp. 1-16). Springer, Cham.
• Arneth, A., Barratt, D., Cassman, K., Christensen, T., Cornell, S., Foley, J., Ganzeveld, L., Thomas, H., Houweling, S.,, Scholze, M., Joos, F., Kohfeld, K., Manizza, M., Ojima, D., Prentice, I.C., l Schaaf, C., Smith B., Tegen, I.,Thonicke, K., Warwick, N. (2005). Climate and Air Quality in Hassan, R., Scholes, R. ve Ash, N., eds,Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends Volume 1, 357 - 384, Island Press, Washington DC, London.
• Avrupa Komisyonu, (2017). An Action Plan for nature, people and the economy. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm
• BenDor, T. K., Spurlock, D., Woodruff, S. C., & Olander, L. (2017). A research agenda for ecosystem services in American environmental and land use planning. Cities, 60, 260-271.
• Benedict, M. A., ve McMahon, E. T. (2006). Green infrastructure: linking landscapes and communities: Island press.
• Benedict, M. A., ve McMahon, E. T. (2002). Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the 21st century. 20(3), 12-17.
• Birleşmiş Milletler, (2019a). Global sustainable development report 2019: the future is now-science for achieving sustainable development. United Nations, New York.
• Birleşmiş Milletler, (2019b) World urbanization prospects. The 2018 revision. United Nations, New York
• Biyolojik Çeşitlilik Sözleşmesi, (2021). Ecosystem approach. https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/
• Boyd, J., ve Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. 63(2-3), 616-626.
• Breunig, R. V., & Pagan, A. R. (2004). Do Markov-switching models capture nonlinearities in the data?: Tests using nonparametric methods. Mathematics and computers in simulation, 64(3-4), 401-407.
• Çelikyay, S. (2005). Arazi kullanımlarının ekolojik eşik analizi ile belirlenmesi Bartın örneğinde bir deneme.
• Çetinkaya, G. (2014). Kentsel Peyzaj Ekolojisinin Sürdürülebilirliği için Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Yeşil Altyapı ve Planlama Politikası. İDEALKENT, 5(12), 218-245.
• Chapin III, F.S., Dirzo, R., Kitzberger, T., Gemmill, B., Zobel, M.,Vila, M., Mitchell, C., Wilby, A., Daily, G.C., Galetti, M., Laurance, W.F., Pretty, J., Naylor, R., Power, A. ve Harvell, D. (2005). Biodiversity Regulation of Ecosystem Services in Hassan, R., Scholes, R. ve Ash, N., eds, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends Volume 1, 243 - 269, Island Press, Washington DC, London.
• Chen, L., Pei, S., Liu, X., Qiao, Q., Liu, C., (2021). Mapping and analysing tradeoffs, synergies and losses among multiple ecosystem services across a transitional area in Beijing, China. Ecol. Indic. 123, 107329.
• Cortinovis, C. ve Geneletti, D. (2018). Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is there, and what is still needed for better decisions. 70, 298-312.
• Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., . . . Paruelo, J. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. 387(6630), 253-260.
• Daily, G.C. (1997). Introduction: what are ecosystem services, in Daily, G.C.,eds.,Nature's Services. Island Press, 1–10, Washington DC.
• Dáttilo, W., & MacGregor-Fors, I. (2021). Ant social foraging strategies along a Neotropical gradient of urbanization. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1-9.
• de Groot, R. S., & Ramakrishnan, P. S. (2005). Cultural and amenity services. Ecosystems and human well-being. Volume 1: Current state and trends. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series.
• de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological economics, 41(3), 393-408.
• Degefu, M. A., Argaw, M., Feyisa, G. L., Degefa, S. (2021). Dynamics of urban landscape nexus spatial dependence of ecosystem services in rapid agglomerate cities of Ethiopia. Science of The Total Environment, 798, 149192.
• Dunn, A. D. (2007). Green light for green infrastructure.
• Enache, A., Kühmaier, M., Visser, R., & Stampfer, K. (2016). Forestry operations in the European mountains: a study of current practices and efficiency gaps. 31(4), 412-427.
• Enache, A., Kühmaier, M., Visser, R., &Stampfer, K. (2016). Forestry operations in the European mountains: a study of current practices and efficiency gaps. 31(4), 412-427.
• Firehock, K., & Walker, R. A. (2015). Strategic green infrastructure planning: a multi-scale approach. Island Press.
• Fisher, T. (2010). Frederick Law Olmsted and the campaign for public health. Places Journal
• Gong, C., Xian, C., Cui, B., He, G., Wei, M., Zhang, Z., Ouyang, Z. (2021). Estimating NOx removal capacity of urban trees using stable isotope method: A case study of Beijing, China. Environmental Pollution, 290, 118004
• Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. (2012). Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES, Version 4.1). 33, 107.
• Hellmund, P. C., & Smith, D. (2013). Designing greenways: sustainable landscapes for natur and people. Island Press.
• Leitao, A. B., & Ahern, J. (2002). Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and urban planning, 59(2), 65-93.
• Makhzoumi, J., & Pungetti, G. (2003). Ecological landscape design and planning. Taylor & Francis. MEA. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being - Biodiversity Synthesis.
• Mech, S. G., ve Hallett, J. G. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of corridors: a genetic approach. 15(2), 467-474.
• Menteşe, E. Y., Tezer, A., & Demir, M. Mekânsal Planların Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik Performansının Belirlenmesine Yönelik CBS Aracı Geliştirilmesi Development of a GIS Tool for the Identification of Environmental Sustainability Performance of Spatial Plans.
• Miklós, L., & Špinerová, A. (2019). Landscape-ecological planning LANDEP. Springer International Publishing.
• Ndubisi, F. (2002). Ecological planning: a historical and comparative synthesis. JHU Press.
• Nuissl, H., Haase, D., Lanzendorf, M., & Wittmer, H. (2009). Environmental impact assessment of urban land use transitions—A context-sensitive approach. 26(2), 414-424.
• Odum, E., Barrett, G., & Brewer, R. (2005). Fundamentals of ecology Thomson brooks. California: Cole.
• Özügül M., D. (2004). Ekolojik Planlamada Kullanılabilecek Analitik Bir Model Önerisi.( Doktora Tezi).Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Ronchi, S. (2018). Ecosystem Services for Spatial Planning: Innovative Approaches and Challenges for Practical Applications: Springer.
• Rouse, D. C., & Bunster-Ossa, I. F. (2013). Green infrastructure: a landscape approach (No. 571).
• Sarukhán, J., Whyte, A., Hassan, R., Scholes, R., Ash, N., Carpenter, S. T., ... & Raudsepp-Hearne, C. (2005). Millenium ecosystem assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being.
• Steiner, F., & Brooks, K. (1981). Ecological planning: A review. Environmental management, 5(6), 495-505.
• Steiner, F. (2008). The Living Landscape: An Ecological Approach to Landscape Planning.Arizona State University, McGraw-Hill Yayınları, 275 s, Amerika.
• Stitt, F. A. (1999). Ecological Design Handbook; Sustainable Strategies For Architecture, Landscape Architecture, İnterior Design, And Planning, McGraw Hill, New York.
• Thorp, J. H., Thoms, M. C., & Delong, M. D. (2010).The riverine ecosystem synthesis: toward conceptual cohesiveness in river science. Elsevier.
• Thorp, J. H., Thoms, M. C., & Delong, M. D. (2010).The riverine ecosystem synthesis: toward conceptual cohesiveness in river science. Elsevier.
• Tozar, T., & Ayaşlıgil, T. (2007). Doğal Kaynakların Sürdürülebilirliği İçin Geliştirilen Ekolojik Planlama Yöntemleri. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University, 58(1), 17-36.
• Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (2021). İnşaat verileri. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?locale=tr)
• Von der Dunk, A., Grêt-Regamey, A., Dalang, T., & Hersperger, A. M. (2011). Defining a typology of peri-urban land-use conflicts–A case study from Switzerland. Landscape and urban planning, 101(2), 149-156.
• Willis, K. J., & Petrokofsky, G. (2017). The natural capital of city trees. Science, 356(6336), 374-376.
• Xiang, W. N. (2019). Ian McHarg and “the ecology of the city”. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 1(2), 163-164.
• Yeang, K. (2012). Ekotasarım: ekolojik tasarım rehberi. Yem Yayın.Çeviri, Eryıldız, S., & Eryıldız, D
• Young, R. F. (2011). Planting the living city: Best practices in planning green infrastructure—Results from major us cities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(4), 368-381.