Ekosistem hizmetleri haritalamada matris yönteminin kullanımı: Adana Sarıçam örneği

Abstract

Hızlı nüfus artışına paralel olarak doğal kaynaklar üzerinde baskı artmakta, ekosistemlerin nitelik ve nicelik bakımından özellikleri değişmektedir. Bu değişim arazi örtüsü/alan kullanımı üzerinde ciddi sorunlar oluşturmakta ve kaynakların sürdürülebilir kullanımını riske atmaktadır. Bu nedenle ekosistem hizmetlerinin potansiyel analizinin yapılması, alan kullanım yönetim sürecinde büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Adana Sarıçam ilçesi örneğinde arazi örtüsü/alan kullanımı değişiminin ekosistem hizmetleri üzerindeki etkisi incelenmiştir. Ekosistem hizmetlerinin potansiyel arzını bütüncül bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirmek için uzman odaklı matris metot yaklaşımı kullanılmıştır. Oluşturulan ekosistem hizmetleri sonuç haritasına göre, çalışma alanındaki en önemli ekosistem hizmeti sunan kullanımların ekilebilir alanlar, iğne yapraklı ormanlar, çayır-mera alanları ile makilik alanlar olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında elde edilen alan kullanımı verileri, ekosistem hizmetleri matris ve haritalarının planlama çalışmalarında altlık veri olarak kullanılması hedeflenmiştir.

Keywords

• Ekosistem hizmetleri
• Matris yöntemi
• Sarıçam

Matrix method usage in ecosystem services mapping: Adana Sarıçam sample

Abstract

The characteristics of ecosystems in terms of quality and quantity are changing and the pressure on natural resources is increasing in parallel with the rapid population growth. This change creates serious problems on land cover/land use and puts the risk on sustainable use of resources.. Therefore, potential analysis of ecosystem services has great importance in the land use management process. In this study, the effect of land cover/land use change on ecosystem services was investigated in Adana Sarıçam district. An expert-focused matrix method approach was used to assess the potential supply of ecosystem services from a holistic perspective. According to the ecosystem services result map created, it has been determined that the most important ecosystem services in the study area are arable lands, coniferous forests, meadow-pasture areas and maquis areas. It is aimed to use the land use data, ecosystem services matrices and maps obtained within the scope of the study as base data in planning studies.

Keywords

• Ecosystem services
• Matrix method
• Sarıçam

References

1. Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L.J., 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12(12): 1394-1404.
2. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F., 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21: 17-29.
3. Burkhard, B., Kandziora, M., Hou, Y., Müller, F., 2014. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands-concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landscape Online, 34: 1-32.
4. Burnett, W.C., P.K. Aggarwal, P.K., Aureli, A., Bokuniewicz, H., Cable, J.E., Charette, M.A., Kontar, E., Krupa, S., Kulkarni, K.M., Loveless, A., Moore, W.S., Oberdorfer, J.A., Oliveira, J., Ozyurt, N., Povinec, P., Privitera, A.M.G., Rajar, R., Ramessur, R.T., Scholten, J., Stieglitz, T., Taniguchi, M., Turner, J.V., 2006. Quantifying submarine groundwater discharge in the coastal zone via multiple methods. Science of the Total Environment, 367(2-3): 498-543.
5. Campagne, C.S., Roche, P., 2018. May the matrix be with you! Guidelines for the application of expert-based matrix approach for ecosystem services assessment and mapping. One Ecosystem 3: e24134. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e24134
6. Campagne, C.S., Roche, P., Müller, F., Burkhard, B., 2020. Ten years of ecosystem services matrix: Review of a (r)evolution. One Ecosystem, 5: 1-23.
7. Corvalan, C., Hales, S., McMichael, A., Butler, C., Sarukhán, J., 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, ISLAND Press, Washington, DC.
8. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Faber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630): 253-260.

9. Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., O’Farrell, P.J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D.J., Welz, A., Wilhelm-Rechman, A., 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105: 9483–9488.
10. Dadashpoor, H., Azizi, P., Moghadasi, M., 2019. Land use change, urbanization, and change in landscape pattern in a metropolitan area. Science of The Total Environment, 655: 707-719.
11. Demiroğlu, D., Karadağ, A.A., 2015. Ecosystem services approach to spatial planning In Turkey. International Urban Studies Congress-Problems in Present Day City, 1(1): 252-270.
12. Drescher, M., Perera, A.H., Johnson, C.J., Buse, L.J., Drew, C.A., Burgman, M.A., 2013. Toward rigorous use of expert knowledge in ecological research. Ecosphere, 4(7): 1-26.
13. European Commission (EC), 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. COM(2011) 571. EC, Brussels.
14. Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Basic Books, Pitman, Boston.
15. Fu, B., Zhang, L., Zhihong, X., Zhao, Y., Wei, Y., Skinner, D., 2015. Ecosystem services in changing land use. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 15: 833-843.
16. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. https://cices.eu/content/ uploads/sites/8/2012/07/CICES-V43_Revised-Final_Report_29012013.pdf, Erişim:12.01.2021
17. Hornung, L.K., Podschun, S.A., Pusch, M., 2019. Linking ecosystem services and measures in river and floodplain management. Ecosystems and People. 15(1):214–231. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1656287. Jacobs, S., Burkhard, B., Van Daele, T., Staes, J., Schneiders, A., 2015. ‘Te Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecological Modelling, 295: 21-30.
18. Kamlun, K.U., Arndt, R.B., 2019. Expert-based approach on mapping ecosystem services potential supply incircling a protected areas by integrating matrix model assessment. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1358: 1-10.
19. Kaziukonyte, K., Lesutiene, J., Gasiunaite, Z.R., Morkune, R., Elyaagoubi, S., Razinkovas-Baziukas, A., 2021. Expert-Based assessment and mapping of ecosystem services potential in the Nemunas Delta and Curonian Lagoon Region, Lithuania. Water, 13: 2728. https:// doi.org/10.3390/w13192728
20. Kertész, Á., Nagy, L.A., Balázs, B., 2019. Effect of land use change on ecosystem services in Lake Balaton Catchment. Land Use Policy, 80: 430-438.
21. Kopperoinen, L., Luque, S., Tenerelli, P., Zulian, G., Viinikka, A., 2017. Mapping cultural ecosystem services. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia.
22. Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J.P., Grizzetti, B., Drakou, E. G., La Notte, A., Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F., Paracchini, M.L., Braat, L., Bidoglio, G., 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services, 1(1): 31-39.
23. Manson, S., Bonsal, D., Kernik, M., Lambin, E., 2015. Geographic ınformation systems and remote sensing. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 10: 64-68.
24. Metzger, M.J., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Acosta-Michlik, L., Leemans, R., Schroter, D., 2006. The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 114: 69-85.
25. Müller, F., Bicking, S., Ahrendt,K.,Kinh B. D., Blindow, I., Fürst C., Haase, P., Kruse, M., Kruse,T., Ma, L., Perennes, M.,Ruljevic, I., Schernewski,G., Schimming,C.G., Schneineders, A., Schubert, H., Schumacher, J., Tappeiner, U., Wangai, P., Windhorst, W., Zeleny, J., 2020. Assessing ecosystem service potentials to evaluate terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystem types in Northern Germany – an expert-based matrix approach. Ecological Indicators,112
26. Poikolainen, L., Pinto, G., Vihervaara, P., Burkhard, B., Wolff, F., Hyytiäinen, R., Kumpula, T., 2019. GIS and land cover-based assessment of ecosystem services in the North Karelia Biosphere Reserve, Finland. Fennia, 197(2): 249-267.
27. Primmer, E., Furman, E., 2012. Operationalizing ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosystem Services, 1(1): 85-92.
28. Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Stringer, L.C., 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5): 1933‑1949.
29. Sannigrahi, S., Chakraborti, S., Joshi, P.K., Keesstra, S., Sen, S., Paul, S.K., Kreuter, U., Sutton, P.C., Jha, S., Dang, K.B., 2019. Ecosystem service value assessment of a natural reserve region for strengthening protection and conservation. Journal of Environmental Management, 244: 208-227.
30. Sarıçam Belediyesi, 2021. Coğrafi Konumumuz, Sarıçam Belediyesi, Adana, http://www.saricam.bel.tr/kurumsal/cografi-konumumuz, Erişim: 20.04.2021
31. Sarıçam Kaymakamlığı, 2021. Tarihçe, T.C. Sarıçam Kaymakamlığı Resmi İnternet Sitesi, Adana, http://www.saricam.gov.tr/tarihce, Erişim: 27.04.2021.
32. Shen, J., Chen, C., Wang, Y., 2021. What are the appropriate mapping units for ecosystem service assessments? A systematic review. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 7(1): 1-20. Sieber,M., Campagne, S.C., Villien, C., Burkhard, B., 2021. Mapping and assessing ecosystems and their services: A comparative approach to ecosystem service supply in Suriname and French Guiana. Ecosystems and People, 17:1, 148-164, DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2021.1896580
33. Sinare H, Gordon L.J., Kautsky E.E., 2016. Assessment of ecosystem services and benefits in village landscapes-a case study from Burkina Faso. Ecosystem Services, 21: 141-152.
34. Smiraglia, D., Ceccarelli, T., Bajocco, S., Salvati, L., Perini, L., 2016. Linking trajectories of land change, land degradation processes and ecosystem services. Environmental Research, 147: 590-600.
35. Sohel, M.S.I., Mukul, S.A., Burkhard, B., 2015. Landscape׳‎s capacities to supply ecosystem services in Bangladesh: A mapping assessment for Lawachara National Park. Ecosystem Services, 12: 128-135.
36. Su, S., Xiao, R., Jiang, Z., Zhang, Y., 2012. Characterizing landscape pattern and ecosystem service value changes for urbanization impacts at an eco-regional scale. Applied Geography, 34: 295-305.
37. Tokgöz, G., Say, N., 2018. Kentsel ekosistem hizmetlerinin haritalanması için kullanılan göstergeler, yöntemler ve geliştirilen araçlar. Artıbilim: Adana Bilim ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1): 1-8.
38. Vatandaşlar, C., 2021. Orman fonksiyonu mu ekosistem hizmeti mi? Turkish Journal of Forestry, 22(2):171-185.
39. Vihervaara, P., Kumpula, T., Ruokolainen, A., Tanskanen, A., Burkhard, B., 2012. The use of detailed biotope data for linking biodiversity with ecosystem services in Finland. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 8(1-2): 169-185.
40. Vihervaara, P., Mononen, L., Nedkov, S., Viinikka, A., 2018. Biophysical mapping and assessment methods for ecosystem services. Deliverable D3.3 EU Horizon 2020 ESMERALDA Project, Grant agreement No. 642007.
41. Vihervaara, P., Mononen, L., Nedkov, S., Viinikka, A., 2018. Biophysical mapping and assessment methods for ecosystem services. Deliverable D3.3 EU Horizon 2020 ESMERALDA Project, Grant agreement No. 642007.
42. Villamagna, A.M., Angermeier, P.L., Bennett, E.M., 2013. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity, 15: 114-121.
43. Weibel, B., Rabe, S.E., Burkhard, B., Grêt-Regamey, A., 2018. On the importance of a broad stakeholder network for developing a credible, salient and legitimate tiered approach for assessing ecosystem services. One Ecosystem, 3: 1-9
44. Xiuwan, C., 2002. Using remote sensing and GIS to analyse land cover change and its impacts on regional sustainable development. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23(1): 107-124.
45. Yu, H., Liu, X., Kong, B., Li, R., Wang, G., 2019. Landscape ecology development supported by geospatial technologies: A review. Ecological Informatics, 51: 185-192.