Agroforestry’de Kriterlerin ve Ağaç Türlerinin Önceliklendirilmesi

Öz

Doğal olarak kendini yenileyebilen en önemli kaynaklardan birisi olan ormanlar günümüzde sadece odun hammaddesi elde edilen kaynaklar olarak değerlendirilmemekte ve işletilmemektedir. Ormanların sağladığı ürünler ve koruyucu hizmetler modern toplumun taleplerini karşılamayı amaç edinen entansif ormancılık anlayışı yönünden daha da büyük bir önem taşımaktadır. Ülkemizin sahip olduğu farklı ekolojik koşullar ve buna bağlı olarak ortaya çıkan geniş tür yelpazesi özellikle gıda, kimya, sağlık ve enerji sektörü açısından önemli katkılar sağlayacak tarımsal ormancılık uygulamalarının potansiyelini arttırmaktadır. Türkiye tarımsal ormancılık uygulamalarında kavak, söğüt, yalancı akasya, servi, ceviz, kestane, fıstıkçamı gibi ağaçlar öne çıkan türlerdir. Bu araştırmada Bartın yöresinde yaygın olarak özel ve devlet ağaçlandırmalarında kullanılan türler ile gelecekte yapılacak olan tarımsal ormancılık çalışmalarının Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) Metodu ile önceliklendirilmesi ve yöre için en uygun kriterlerin ve türlerin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla araştırma alanında bulunan ekolojik, teknik, sosyal ve ekonomik kriterler dikkate alınarak değişik yaş ve eğitim seviyelerinden konu ile ilgili olan 80 katılımcı ile anket çalışması gerçekleştirilmiş ve elde edilen sonuçlar AHP metodu ile değerlendirilmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre Bartın yöresinde tarımsal ormancılık plantasyonları için tür önceliklendirilmesinde 1. Kestane, 2. Fıstıkçamı ve 3. Kavak yer almıştır. Bu sıralamada etkili olan en önemli kriterler, ekolojik ve ekonomik olanlarıdır. Alt kriterler açısından ise en yüksek değeri, Net Gelir Maksimizasyonu almıştır.   

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Agroforestry,kestane,fıstıkçamı,kavak,önceliklendirme,AHP,katılımcılık,Türkiye

Prioritization of Criteria and Tree Species in Agroforestry

Abstract

Today, forests, which are one of the most important resources capable of naturally renewing themselves, are not considered and operated only as the resources of wood raw materials. The products and the protective services provided by forests are of greater importance in terms of intensive forestry approach that aims to meet the demands of the modern society. The different ecological conditions of our country as well as the wide range of species arising correspondingly increase the potential of agroforestry practices which are to make important contributions, especially in terms of food, chemistry, medicine and energy sectors. Within this scope, poplar, salix, robinia pseudoacacia, cupressus, juglans, chestnut and stone pine are the first species that spring to mind, when it comes to agroforestry practices in Turkey. In this study, it is aimed to identify the most suitable species, i.e. to make species prioritisation, in a potential agroforestry site for the agroforestry plantations to be established in the future by using the chestnut, stone pine and poplar species used in private and state afforestation in Bartin region in terms of the suitability of ecological conditions, with the use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method, which is one of today's multidimensional and widely used decision making methods. For this purpose, taking the ecological, technical, social and economic criteria in the study area into consideration, a questionnaire study was conducted with 80 participants at different ages and educational levels, and the results were evaluated by AHP method. According to the analysis results, the species prioritization for the agroforestry plantations in Bartin region was found to be as follows: 1st Chestnut, 2nd Stone pine and 3rd Poplar. The ecological and economic criteria are the most important ones effective in this ranking. In terms of sub-criteria, Net Income Maximization received the highest value.

Keywords

• Agroforestry,chestnut,stone pine,poplar,prioritization,AHP,participation,Turkey

Kaynakça

1. Aguirre-Salado, C. A., Valdéz-Lazalde, J. R., Sánchez-Díaz, G., Miranda-Aragón, L., Aguirre-Salado, A. I. (2015). Modelling site selection for tree plantation establishment under different decision scenarios. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 27(3): 298-313.
2. Ahmad, T., Rai. A, Singh, R. (2012). Objective spatial analytic hierarchy process for identification of potential agroforestry areas using GIS. Mod Assist Stat Appl 7(1):65–73.
3. Ahmad., T., Sahoo, P. M., Jally, S. M. (2016). Estimation of area under agroforestry using high resolution satellite data, Agroforest Syst 90:289–303 DOI 10.1007/s10457-015-9854-2.
4. Alanay, A. (1989). Karakavak Agaclandirmalari ve Zirai Ara Kultur Ekonomisi Uzerine Arastirmalar [The Researches on the Economics of Black Poplar Forestation and Agricultural Intercropping.] Poplar Fast Growing Forest Trees Res. Inst., Tech. Bull., No. 143: 1-74, Izmit, Turkey.
5. Apichatvullop, Y., Grisanaputi, W., Prohmchum, C. (1997). Household Use and Management of Trees: A Case of Don Chang Village. Khon Kaen University, 1-38 s, Thailand.
6. Armutlu, I. H. (2008). Isletmelerde Uygulamali Istatistik [Applied Statistics in Business], Alfa Publication, Istanbul.
7. Ayaz, S., Gungor, E. (2019). Socio-Economic Analysis of Agroforestry Practices. Analysıs of Rural Development Investments, Gece Kitaplığı, ISBN: 978-625-7958-58-5.
8. Ayaz, S. (2019). Agroforestry Uygulamalari ve Sosyo-Ekonomik Acidan Degerlendirilmesi [Agroforestry Practices and Their Socio-Economic Analysis], Unpublished Master's Thesis, Bartin University, Institute of Science, 67 pp.

9. Ayberk, S. (1992). Tarimsal Ormancilik Tanimi, Onemi, Uygulama ve Araşstirmalardan Ornekler [The Definition and Importance of Agroforestry, Examples of Practices and Research], Journal of Poplar and Fast Growing Forest Trees Research Institute, Volume 1, No.18, Izmit, Turkey.
10. Ayberk, S., Angeli, A., Colak, İ. (1996). Melez (I-214) ve Karakavak (Gazi) Agaclandirmalarinda Karma Ormancilik Tekniklerinin Uygulanması Uzerine Arastirmalar [The Investigation on Agroforestry Techniques in Hybrid and Black Poplar Plantations], Poplar and Fast Growing Forest Trees Research Institute, Technical Bulletin, No. 175, 1- 16 p. Izmit, Turkey.
11. Battisti, D. S., Naylor, R. L. (2009). Historical Warnings of Future Food İnsecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat. Science 323(5911):240–244.
12. Bhagwat, S. A., Willis, K. J., Birks, H. J. B., Whittaker, R. J. (2008). Agroforestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends Ecol Evol 23(5):261–267.
13. Braunschweig, T., B. Becker. (2004). Choosing Research Priorities By Using The Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Application To International Agriculture, R&D Management, 34(1), 77-86. Carfagna E, Gallego F. J. (2005). Using remote sensing for agricultural statistics. Int Stat Rev 73(3):389–404.
14. COB. (2004). Turkey's National Forestry Program, Ministry of Environment and Forestry Publications. https://www.ogm.gov.tr/ekutuphane/Dokumanlar/Ulusal_Ormancilik_Programi_2004_2023.pdf.
15. Diner, A. and Kocar, S. (1999). “I-214” Melez Kavak Agaclandirmalarinda Ara Tarimin Kavakcilik Ekonomisine Etkileri [The Effect of Agricultural Intercropping on Poplar Plantation Economics.], Poplar and Fast Growing Forest Trees Research Institute, Technical Bulletin, No. 189, 1-187p, Izmit, Turkey.
16. Filiz S. (2002). Suitable Species for Agroforestry Practices in the Western Mediterranean Region. SDU, Journal of Science Institute, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, 230 p., Isparta.
17. Filiz, S., Tolunay, A. (2003). Isparta Ilinde Agroforestry Uygulamalari ve Bu Uygulamalarda Kullanilabilecek Bitki Turleri [Agroforestry Practices and Useful Plant Species in Agroforestry Practices for Isparta Province], Suleyman Demirel University, Journal of Forestry Faculty, Serial: A, Issue: 2, 2003, ISSN: 1302-7085, p.149-160.
18. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2007). Paying Farmers for Environmental Services. The State of Food and Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
19. Forman, E. H., Selly, M. A. (2001). Decision By Objectives (How To Convince Others That You Are Right), World Scientific Pub. Co., ABD.
20. Garrity, D., Akinnifesi, F., Ajayi, O., Weldesemayat, S., Mowo, J., Kalinganire, A., Larwanou, M., Bayala, J. (2010). Evergreen agriculture: a robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa. Food Sec 2(3):197–214.
21. Geray, U., Gorcelioglu, E. (1993). Tarim ve Orman Arazileri Kullaniminda Karma Sistemler [Mixed Systems in Agriculture and the Use of Forest Land]. I.U. Journal of Faculty of Forestry, B, Volume 33, 173 p., Istanbul, Turkey.
22. Gholz, H.L. (1986). Realities, Possibilities and Potentials Departmant of Forestry, Universty of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, 1-6 s., USA.
23. Gungor, E., Sen, G. (2018). Selecting Suitable Forest Areas for Honey Production Using the AHP: A Case Study in Turkey. DOI: 10.1590/01047760201824012511, CERNE, v. 24, n. 1, p. x-x, 2018.
24. Gungor E. (2018). Determination Of Optimum Management Strategy of Honey Production Forest Using A'WOT and Conjoint Analysis: A Case Study in Turkey. Applied Ecology And Environmental Research, 16(3):3437- 3459. ISSN 1589 1623 (Print), ISSN 1785 0037 (Online) DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1603_34373459, ALOKI Kft., Budapest.
25. Gungor, E., Varol, T., Ozel, H. B. (2018). Yenice Yöresi Tarımsal Ormancılık Önceliklerinin Dinamik Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi Metodu (DAHP) İle Belirlenmesi. 1.st International Symposium on Silvopastoral Systems and Nomadic Societies in Mediterranean Countries, 22-24 October 2018, Isparta, Sf. 230-238.
26. ICRAF (World Agroforestry Center) (2010). Annual report 2009–2010: Going evergreen for a Climate–SMART Agriculture.
27. Jose, S. (2009). Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76(1):1–10. Hungary.Liu, X., Wang, Z., 2006. Evaluation and selection of broadleaved tree species for fast-growing industrial plantation in Southwest Zhejiang. Forest Research, Beijing, 19(4): 497-503.
28. Konig, D. (1992). The potential of agroforestry methods for erosion control in Rwanda. Soil Technol 5(2):167–176.
29. Liu, Y.A. and Wang, F. (2006). A Study on the Influence Factors of Employee Turnover Intention. Enterprise Economy, 6, 42-44.
30. Montagnini, F., Nair, P. K. R. (2004). Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 61(1):281–295.
31. Nair, P. K. R. (1993). An Introduction to Agroforestry, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 499 s., Dordrecht, Holland.
32. Nair, P. K. R., Kumar M. B., Nair, V. D. (2009). Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 172(1):10–23.
33. Ndayambaje, J. D. (2005). Agroforestry for wood energy production in Rwanda. In: Workshop on alternative sources of energy in Rwanda, Centre Iwacu, Kabusunzu, Rwanda. Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda (ISAR), p 14.
34. Nsabimana, D. (2009). Carbon stock and fluxes in Nyungwe forest and Ruhande Arboretum in Rwanda. University of Gothnburg, Gothenburg.
35. Orhunbilge, A. N. (2000). Örnekleme Yöntemleri ve Hipotez Testleri (Gozden Gecirilmisş ve Genisletilmis Ikinci Baski) [Sampling Methods and Hypothesis Testing (Review and Expanded Second Edition)], Avciol Printing & Publishing, Istanbul.
36. Ozel H.B., Karayilmazlar S., Demirci A. (2014). Location Selection for Afforestation Activities Using Mediterranean Pine Selection (Pinus brutia Ten. and Pinus pinea L.) in Bartin Watershed by Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method, II. National Mediterranean Forest and Environment Symposium “The Future of Mediterranean Forests: Sustainable Society and Environment”, October 22-24, 2014, p.104-110, Isparta, Turkey.
37. Quinion A, Chirwa P, Akinnifesi F, Ajayi O. (2010). Do agroforestry technologies improve the livelihoods of the resource poor farmers? Evidence from Kasungu and Machinga districts of Malawi. Agrofor Syst 80(3):457–465.
38. Pereira, J.M., Duckstein, L. (1993). A Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Approach to GIS-Based Land Suitability Evaluation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 7(5): 407-424.
39. Raintree, J.B. (1987). The State of the Art of Agroforestry Diagnosis and Design, Agroforestry Systems 5, 219-250 s.
40. Reubens, B., Moeremans, C., Poesen, J., Nyssen, J., Tewoldeberhan, S., Franzel, S., Muys, B. (2011). Tree Species Selection for Land Rehabilitation in Ethiopia: From Fragmented Knowledge to an Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Approach. Agroforestry Systems, 82(3), 303-330.
41. Roose, E., Ndayizigiye, F. (1997). Agroforestry, water and soil fertility management to fight erosion in tropical mountains of Rwanda. Soil Technol 11(1):109–119.
42. Rutunga, V., Janssen, B. H., Mantel, S., Janssens, M. (2007). Soil use and management strategy for raising food and cash output in Rwanda. J Food Agric Environ 5(3-4):434–441 Saaty, T.L., 1980. “The Analytic Hierarchy Process.” McGraw-Hill, New York.
43. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
44. Saaty, T.L. (1990). How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
45. Saaty, T.L. (2005). The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes for the Measurement of Intangible Criteria and for Decision Making, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, J. Figueira, S. Greco ve M. Ehrgott (der.), Springer, Berlin, 78(4), 345-405.
46. Saaty, T.L. (2008). Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
47. Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G. (2001). Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Springer, 3.
48. Saaty, T.L., Tran, L.T. (2007). On The Invalidity of Fuzzifying Numerical Judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7-8), 962-975.
49. Sivacioglu, A., Sen, G. (2019). Chapter: Turkey. Book: Hasenauer, H., Gazda, A., Konnert, M., Lapin, K., Mohren G.M.J., Spiecker, H., van Loo, M., Pötzelsberger, E. (Eds.) 2017. Non-Native Tree Species for European Forests: Experiences, Risks and Opportunities. COST Action FP1403 NNEXT Country Reports, Joint Volume. 3rd Edition. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria. 431 pages.
50. Stainback, G. A., Masozera, M. (2010). Payment for ecosystem services and poverty reduction in Rwanda. J Sustain Dev Africa 12(3):122–139.
51. Stainback, G. A, Masozera, M., Mukuralinda, A. Dwivedi, D. (2011). Smallholder Agroforestry in Rwanda: A SWOT-AHP Analysis, Small-scale Forestry. DOI 10.1007/s11842-011-9184-9.
52. Store, R., Kangas, J. (2001). Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modelling. Landscape and urban planning, 55(2): 79-93.
53. Sen, G., Genc, A. (2017). The definition of the problems in the forest management certification application process from forester’s perspectives in Turkey. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 36(4), 388-419.
54. Sen, G., Genc, A. (2018). Perceptions and expectations on forest management certification of foresters in state forest enterprises: a case study in Turkey. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 16(1), 867-891.
55. Sen, G., Gungor, E. (2018a). Analysis of Land Use/Land Cover Changes Following Population Movements and Agricultural Activities: A Case Study in Northern Turkey. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 16(2):2073-2088. http://www.aloki.hu. ISSN 1589 1623 (Print), ISSN 1785 0037 (Online), DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1602_20732088, ALÖKI Kft., Budapest, Hungary.
56. Sen, G., Gungor, E. (2018b). The use of analytic hierarchy process method in choosing the best tree type for industrial plantations: The case of Kastamonu Province. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 19(1), 63-75.
57. Sen, G., Gungor, E. (2018c). Determination of the seasonal effect on the auction prices of timbers and prediction of future prices. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 266-277.
58. Sen, G., Gungor, E. (2019). Local Perceptions of Forest Certification in State-Based Forest Enterprises. Small-scale Forestry, 18(1), 1-19.
59. Sen, G., Çelik, M. Y., Ulusoy, T. (2019). A New Financing Model for Carbon Emission Reduction Projects: The Use of Carbon Emission Reduction Purchase Agreements (ERPA) in the Private Pension System. Alinteri Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 34(2): 111-120. doi: 10.28955/alinterizbd.664754.
60. Toksoy, D., Sen, G., Özden, S., Ayaz, H. (2008). The forestry organization and its relationship with local people in the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey. New Mediterr, 4, 47-53.
61. Tolunay, A., Alkan, H., Korkmaz, M. (2002). Bati Akdeniz Bolgesi’nin Tarımsal Ormancilik Uretim Potansiyeli [Determination of agroforestry production potential of West Mediterranean Region]. SDU Research Project No. 275, Isparta, Turkey.
62. Toscano, M., Toscano, N., Ramsey, P. P., Smidt, R. K. (2001). Instructor's Solutions Manual [for] Applied Statistics for Engineers and Scientists: Using Microsoft Excel and Minitab [by] David M. Levine, Patricia P. Ramsey, Robert K. Smidt. Prentice Hall.
63. Verchot L, Van Noordwijk M, Kandji S, Tomich T, Ong C, Albrecht A, Mackensen J, Bantilan C, Anupama K, Palm C. (2007). Climate change: linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 12(5):901–918.
64. Working Group on Climate Change and Development (2006). Africa—up in smoke 2: the second report on Africa and global warming from the Working Group on Climate Change and Development.
65. Yilmaz, E. (2007). A’WOT Teknigi Kullanarak Katilimci Yaklasimla Proje Degerlendirmesi [Participatory Project Assessment Using A’WOT Method], Eastern Mediterranean Forestry Research Institute, Journal of DOA, Issue: 132: 1-16.
66. Yilmaz, H., Surat, H. (2015). Analitik Hiyerarsi Sureci Kullanilarak En Uygun Ekoturizm Etkinliginin Belirlenmesi [Determination of the Most Convenient Ecotourism Activity By Using Analytic Hierarchy Process.] Turkish Journal of Forestry, 16(2), 164-176.