Evaluation of Perspectives on Ecosystem Services Provided from Seyhan River by Using Q Methodology

Öz

In this study, it is aimed to evaluate the perspectives on ecosystem services provided from Seyhan River by using Q methodology. As a result of the analysis, two different perspectives were determined, 80% of the participants took part in factor 1 and 20% in factor 2. The principal expression agreed on in factor 1 is "Seyhan River provides resources for agricultural irrigation.". This result is of great importance for Turkey and the region of Cukurova agricultural feeding suggests that a heightened awareness on the crucial question for the benefits provided by the Seyhan River. When the expressions on which the participants who came together in factor 2 were examined, it was seen that the statement "Seyhan River presents unsuitable environments for social interaction" was found at the top. In general, it is possible to say that the participants in factor 1 developed positive opinions, and participants in factor 2 developed negative views regarding the ecosystem services provided from Seyhan River. This study demonstrated that the studies to be carried out with Q methodology are an important tool in the studies aimed at determining the perspectives of people and in making the work of planners and managers more efficient. It is expected that the data obtained through the study will set an example for the studies to be carried out on Q methodology in our country and shed light on nature conservation and resource management activities to be carried out for the Seyhan River.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Seyhan River
• ecosystem services
• Q methodology
• source management

Seyhan Nehri’nden Sağlanan Ekosistem Hizmetlerine Yönelik Bakış Açılarının Q Metodoloji Yardımıyla Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Seyhan Nehri’nden sağlanan ekosistem hizmetlerine yönelik bakış açılarının Q metodoloji yardımıyla değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Analizler sonucunda konuya yönelik iki farklı bakış açısı belirlenmiş, katılımcıların %80’i 1 nolu faktörde, %20’si 2 nolu faktörde yer almıştır. 1 Nolu faktörde üzerinde hemfikir olunan başlıca ifade “Seyhan Nehri tarımsal sulama için kaynak sağlar.” olmuştur. Bu sonuç, Türkiye ve bölge tarımı için büyük önem taşıyan Çukurova’yı besleyen Seyhan Nehri’nden sağlanan hayatî yararlara yönelik yüksek bir farkındalık söz konusu olduğunu işaret etmektedir. 2 Nolu faktörde bir araya gelen katılımcıların üzerinde en çok birleştikleri ifadeler incelendiğinde, en üst sırada “Seyhan Nehri sosyal etkileşim için uygun olmayan ortamlar sunar.” ifadesinin yer aldığı görülmüştür. Genel olarak, Seyhan Nehri’nden sağlanan ekosistem hizmetlerine yönelik olarak 1 nolu faktördeki katılımcıların olumlu, 2 nolu faktördeki katılımcıların ise olumsuz görüş geliştirdiklerini söylemek mümkün bulunmaktadır. Q metodoloji ile yapılacak çalışmaların, insanların bakış açılarını belirlemeye yönelik araştırmalarda, plancıların ve yöneticilerin çalışmalarını daha verimli hale getirmelerinde önemli bir araç olduğu bu çalışma ile ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. Çalışma ile elde edilen verilerin, ülkemizde Q metodoloji ile ilgili yapılacak çalışmalara örnek teşkil etmesi, Seyhan Nehri’ne yönelik gerçekleştirilecek doğa koruma ve kaynak yönetimi faaliyetlerine ışık tutması beklenmektektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Seyhan Nehri
• ekosistem hizmetleri
• Q metodoloji
• kaynak yönetimi

Kaynakça

1. Anonim (2020). Adana 5 Ocak Gazetesi, https://www.5ocakgazetesi.com (08.10.2020)
2. Anonim (2021). Seyhan Nehri, https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seyhan_Nehri (12.01.2021)
3. Amin, Z. (2000). Q Methodology – A journey into the subjectivity of human mind. Singapore Medical Journal, 41(8), 410-414.
4. Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3/4), 91-138.
5. Buchel, S., Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ecosystem Services, 12, 169-177.
6. Chee, Y. E. (2004). An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biological Conservation, 120 ,549–565.
7. Cheng, X., Van Damme, S., Li, L., Uyttenhove, P. (2019). Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods. Ecosystem Services, 37, 100925.
8. Covich, A., Ewel, K. C., Hall, C. A. S., Giller, P. G., Merritt, D. M., Goedkoop, W. (2004). Ecosystem services provided by freshwater benthos. In Sustaining Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Soils and Sediments Ed. Wall, D. H., Island Press, pp. 45-72.

9. Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., Kenter, J. O. (2012). An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecological Economics, 83,67–78.
10. Cross, R. M. (2005). Exploring attitudes: the case for Q methodology. Health Education Research, 20(2),206–213.
11. Curt, B. (1994). Textuality and tectonics: troubling social and psychological science. Open University Press, Buckingham.
12. Çanak, E. (2015). Cumhuriyet Döneminde Adana’da (Seyhan) Meydana Gelen Seller ve Alınan Önlemler (1930-1956). Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(1), 296 – 341.
13. Çiftcioğlu, G. C. (2018). Revealing major terrestrial- and marine species-based provisioning ecosystem services provided by the socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes of Lefke Region in North Cyprus. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(1),197–221.
14. Çiftcioğlu, G. C., Ebedi, S., Abak, K. (2019). Evaluation of the relationship between ornamental plants – based ecosystem services and human wellbeing: A case study from Lefke Region of North Cyprus. Ecological Indicators, 102,278-288.
15. Davies, B. B., Hodge, I. D. (2007). Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK. Ecological Economics, 61, 323-333.
16. De Groot, R., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Gowdy, J., Haines-Young, R., Maltyby, E., Neuville, A., Polasky, S., Portela, R., Ring, I. (2010). Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, Ed. G.K. Kadekodi, Earthscan, London and Washington.
17. Demir, F., Kul, M. (2011). Modern Bir Araştırma Yöntemi Q Metodu. Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara.
18. Gret-Regamey, A., Siren, E., Hanna Brunner, S., Weibel, B. (2017). Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem servicesconcept. Ecosystem Services, 26,306-315.
19. Hermans, F., Kok, K., Beers, P. J., Veldkamp, T. (2011). Assessing sustainability perspectives in rural innovation projects using Q-Methodology. Sociologia Ruralis, 52, 70-90.
20. Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2007). Use of landscape perception methods in tourism studies: A review of photo - based research approaches. Tourism Geography, 9(3), 234-253.
21. Karasu, M., Peker, M. (2019). Q Yöntemi: Tarihi, Kuramı ve Uygulaması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 22(43), 28-39.
22. Kerr, G. N., Swaffield, S. R. (2012). Identifying cultural service values of a small river in the agricultural landscape of Canterbury, New Zealand, using combined methods. Society and Natural Resources, 25, 1330–1339.
23. Loomis, D. K., Paterson, S. K. (2014). The human dimensions of coastal ecosystem services: Managing for social values. Ecological Indicators, 44,6-10.
24. Martinez, M. L., Intralawan, A., Vázquez, G., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Sutton, P., Landgrave, R. (2007). The coasts of our world: Ecological, economic and social importance. Ecological Economics, 63,254-272.
25. MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses, Vol 3. Eds. Chopra, K., Leemans, R., Kumar, P., Simons, H. Island Press, 607 p.
26. Oteros-Rozas, E., Martın-Lopez, B., Gonzalez, J. A., Plieninger, T., Lopez, C. A., Montes, C. (2014). Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Regional Environmental Change, 14,1269–1289.
27. Pike, K., Wright, P., Wink, B., Fletcher, S. (2015). The assessment of cultural ecosystem services in the marine environment using Q methodology, Journal of Coastal Conservation, 19, 667–675.
28. Sala, R., Oltra, C., Gonçalves, L. (2015). Attitudes towards urban air pollution: a Q methodology study / Actitudes frente a la contaminación atmosférica urbana: un estudio basado en el método Q. Psyecology, 6(3), 359-385.
29. Scholte, S. S. K., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., Verburg, P. H. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecological Economics, 114,67–78.
30. Shuib, S. B., Hashim, H., Nasir, N. A. M. (2017). Q methodology for assessing urban park values among stakeholders. Sustainable Development and Planning VIII, Vol.: 210, 469 – 480.
31. Simpson, S., Brown, G., Peterson, A., Johnstone, R. (2016). Stakeholder perspectives for coastal ecosystem services and influences on value integration in policy. Ocean and Coastal Management, 126, 9-21.
32. Stainton Rogers, R., (1995). Q methodology. In: J.A. Smith, R. Harre, L. Van Langenhove, (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology. Sage, London.
33. Steelman, T. A., Maguire, L. A. (1999). Understanding participant perspectives: Q-Methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3), 361-388.
34. Stephenson, W. (1935). Technique of factor analysis. Nature, 136, 297.
35. Swaffield, S. R., Fairweather, J. R. (1996). Investigation of attitudes towards the effects of land use change using image editing and Q sort method. Landscape and Urban Planning, 35, 213-230.
36. Watts, S., Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), 67-91.
37. Van Wilgen, B. W., Cowling, R. M., Burgers, C. J. (1996). Valuation of ecosystem services: A case study from South African fynbos ecosystems. BioScience, 46(3),184-189.
38. Yıldırım, İ. (2017). Eğitimin oyunlaştırılmasına ilişkin öğrenci algıları: Bir Q metodu analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42(191), 235-246.
39. Zivojinovic, I., Wolfslehner, B. (2015). Perceptions of urban forestry stakeholders about climate changeadaptation – A Q-method application in Serbia. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14, 1079–1087.