Temporal and Spatial Analysis of Urban Landscape Change: The Case of Burdur, Turkey

Öz

In this study, were examined landscape changes in the Central District of Burdur Province using 2012 and 2018 land use/land cover (LULC) maps. ArcMap 10.8 and FRAGSTATSTM 4.2 software were used for data analysis. Changes on LULC were determined using Class Area (CA), Number of Patch (NP), Patch Density (PD), Proportion of Landscape (PLAND) and Mean Patch Size (AREA_MN) metrics. Between 2012 and 2018, mining/construction/vacant land showed the greatest increase (122,34%). The biggest decrease (19,68%) occurred in wetlands. The biggest transformation (7.016,07 ha) among LULC classes has been between agricultural areas and natural/semi-natural areas. Fragmentation has increased in industrial/commercial areas and wetlands, whereas fragmentation has decreased in agricultural areas and natural/semi-natural areas. As a result, landscape changes in a short period of 6 years raise important question marks. These changes will undoubtedly affect ecosystem services and ecological processes negatively. Thus, necessary measures should be taken to prevent disruption of ecosystem services and ecological processes. The preparation of a comprehensive urban green infrastructure strategy and plan for the city of Burdur will be an important step in this direction.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Landscape pattern
• landscape change/transformation
• landscape ecology
• landscape metrics
• landscape fragmentation

Kentsel Peyzaj Değişiminin Zamansal ve Mekansal Analizi: Burdur Kenti Örneği

Öz

Bu araştırmada, 2012 ve 2018 arazi kullanım/arazi örtüsü (AKAÖ) haritaları kullanılarak Burdur İli Merkez İlçesi'nde peyzaj değişiklikleri incelenmiştir. Veri analizinde ArcMap 10.8 ve FRAGSTATSTM 4.2 yazılımlarından faydalanılmıştır. AKAÖ üzerindeki değişiklikler Sınıf Alanı (CA), Parça Sayısı (NP), Parça Yoğunluğu (PD), Peyzajın Oranı (PLAND) ve Ortalama Parça Büyüklüğü (AREA_MN) metrikleri kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. 2012 ve 2018 yılları arasında maden/inşaat/kullanılmayan araziler en büyük artışı (%122,34) göstermişken, en büyük azalış (%19,68) sulak alanlarda meydana gelmiştir. AKAÖ sınıfları arasında en büyük dönüşüm (7.016,07 ha) tarımsal alanlar ile doğal/yarı doğal alanlar arasında olmuştur. Endüstriyel/ticari alanlarda ve sulak alanlarda parçalanma artmış, tarımsal alanlarda ve doğal/yarı doğal alanlarda ise parçalanma azalmıştır. Sonuç olarak, 6 yıl gibi kısa bir sürede meydana gelen peyzaj değişimleri önemli soru işaretlerini gündeme getirmektedir. Bu değişiklikler hiç şüphesiz ekosistem hizmetlerini ve ekolojik süreçleri olumsuz etkileyecektir. Ekosistem hizmetleri ve ekolojik süreçlerin aksamaması için gerekli önlemler alınmalıdır. Burdur kenti için geniş kapsamlı bir kentsel yeşil altyapı stratejisi ve planının hazırlanması bu yolda önemli bir adım olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Peyzaj deseni
• peyzaj değişimi/dönüşümü
• peyzaj ekolojisi
• peyzaj metrikleri
• peyzaj parçalanması

Kaynakça

1. 1. Agaton, M., Setiawan, Y., Effendi, H. (2016). Land use/land cover change detection in an urban watershed: A case study of upper Citarum Watershed, West Java Province, Indonesia. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 33, 654-660. doi: 10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.120
2. 2. Alkan, M., Oruc, M., Yildirim, Y., Seker, D.Z., Jacobsen, K. (2013). Monitoring spatial and temporal land use/cover changes; A case study in Western Black Sea Region of Turkey. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 41, 587-596. doi:10.1007/s12524-012-0227-2
3. 3. Alphan, H. (2003). Land-use change and urbanization of Adana, Turkey. Land Degradation & Development, 14, 575-586. doi:10.1002/ldr.581
4. 4. Ataol, M. (2010). Burdur Gölü’nde seviye değişimleri. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1), 77-92. doi: 10.1501/Cogbil_0000000105
5. 5. Aybek, A., Kuzu, H., Karadöl, H. (2021). Türkiye’nin ve tarım bölgelerinin tarımsal mekanizasyon düzeyindeki değişimlerin son on yıl (2010-2019) ve gelecek yıllar (2020-2030) için değerlendirilmesi. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, 24(2), 319-336. doi:10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.747163
6. 6. Bateman, I.J., Harwood, A.R., Mace, G.M., Watson, R.T., Abson, D.J., Andrews, B., Binner, A., Crowe, A., Day, B.H., Dugdale, S., Fezzi, C., Foden, J., Hadley, D., Haines-Young, R., Hulme, M., Kontoleon, A., Lovett, A.A., Munday, P., Pascual, U., Paterson, J., Perino, G., Sen, A., Siriwardena, G., van Soest, D., Termansen, M. (2013). Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: Land use in the United Kingdom. Science, 341(6141), 45. doi: 10.1126/science.1234379
7. 7. Bayar, R., Karabacak, K. (2017). Ankara ili arazi örtüsü değişimi (2000-2012). Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 15(1), 59-76.
8. 8. Bolliger, J., Kienast, F. (2010). Landscape functions in a changing environment. Landscape Online, 21, 1-5. doi: 10.3097/lo.201021

9. 9. Butt, A., Shabbir, R., Ahmad, S.S., Aziz, N. (2015). Land use change mapping and analysis using Remote Sensing and GIS: A case study of Simly Watershed, Islamabad, Pakistan. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science, 18, 251-259. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrs.2015.07.003
10. 10. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farberparallel, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260. doi: 10.1038/387253a0
11. 11. Çakır, G., Kaya, L.G., Yücedağ, C., Bayram, S. (2019). Determination of the effects of alucra forest planning unit's population dynamics on land use changes. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 19(1), 35-46. doi: 10.17475/kastorman.543415
12. 12. Dengi̇z, O., Demi̇rağ Turan, İ. (2014). Uzaktan algılama ve coğrafi bilgi sistem teknikleri kullanılarak arazi örtüsü / arazi kullanımı zamansal değişimin belirlenmesi: Samsun Merkez İlçesi örneği (1984-2011). Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(1), 78-90. doi:10.19159/tutad.45474
13. 13. Drummond, M.A., Loveland, T.R. (2010). Land-use pressure and a transition to forest-cover loss in the Eastern United States. BioScience, 60, 286-298. doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.4.7
14. 14. EEA (2020a). Urban atlas, copernicus land monitoring service – part of the copernicus programme, European Environment Agency, https://land.copernicus.eu/local/urban-atlas (15.11.2020).
15. 15. EEA (2020b). Mapping guide v6.1 for a european urban atlas, copernicus land monitoring service – part of the copernicus programme, European Environment Agency, https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/urban_atlas_2012_2018_mapping_guide_v6-1.pdf (15.11.2020).
16. 16. ESRI 2020. ArcGIS 10.8 Software, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA.
17. 17. Gül, M., Zorlu, K., Gül, M. (2019). Assessment of mining impacts on environment in Muğla-Aydın (SW Turkey) using landsat and google earth imagery. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191, 655. doi:10.1007/s10661-019-7807-3
18. 18. Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Loibl, W., Schulz, N., Weisz, H. (2001). Changes in ecosystem processes induced by land use: Human appropriation of aboveground NPP and its influence on standing crop in Austria. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 15, 929-942. doi: 10.1029/2000gb001280
19. 19. Hao, R., Yu, D., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Qiao, J., Wang, X., Du, J. (2017). Impacts of changes in climate and landscape pattern on ecosystem services. Science of The Total Environment, 579, 718-728. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.036
20. 20. Hepcan, Ş. (2013). Analyzing the pattern and connectivity of urban green spaces: A case study of Izmir, Turkey. Urban Ecosystems, 16, 279-293. doi:10.1007/s11252-012-0271-2
21. 21. Hepcan, Ş., Coşkun Hepcan, Ç., Kılıçaslan, Ç., Özkan, M.B., Koçan, N. (2013). Analyzing landscape change and urban sprawl of a Mediterranean coastal landscape: A case study of Izmir, Turkey. Journal of Coastal Research, 29(2), 301-310. doi: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00064.1
22. 22. Kara, B. (2019). Agrarian and wetland areas under metropolitan threats: Learning from the case of Inciraltı, Izmir (Turkey). Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 17(6), 15087-15102. doi: 10.15666/aeer/1706_1508715102
23. 23. Kara, B., Esbah, H., Deniz, B. (2013). Monitoring and analyzing land use/land cover changes in a developing coastal town: A case study of Kusadasi, Turkey. Journal of Coastal Research, 29(6), 1361-1372. doi: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00140.1
24. 24. Karaali̇, İ., Ersoy Tonyaloğlu, E., Kesgi̇n Atak, B., Nurlu, E. (2020). Alan kullanımı/arazi örtüsü değişiminin mekansal ve zamansal analizi: İzmir/Türkiye Örneği. Uluslararası Doğu Anadolu Fen Mühendislik ve Tasarım Dergisi, 2, 308-324. doi:10.47898/ijeased.800037
25. 25. Kaya, L.G., Yücedağ, C., Duruşkan, Ö. (2015). Burdur gölü havzasının çevresel açıdan irdelenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(1), 6-10.
26. 26. Khan, M.M.H., Bryceson, I., Kolivras, K.N., Faruque, F., Rahman, M.M., Haque, U. (2015). Natural disasters and land-use/land-cover change in the southwest coastal areas of Bangladesh. Regional Environmental Change, 15, 241-250. doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0642-8
27. 27. Kumar, N., Singh, S.K., Singh, V.G., Dzwairo, B. (2018). Investigation of impacts of land use/land cover change on water availability of Tons River Basin, Madhya Pradesh, India. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 4, 295-310. doi:10.1007/s40808-018-0425-1
28. 28. Kumar, N., Singh, S.K., Srivastava, P.K., Narsimlu, B. (2017). SWAT Model calibration and uncertainty analysis for streamflow prediction of the Tons River Basin, India, using Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI-2) algorithm. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 3, 30. doi: 10.1007/s40808-017-0306-z
29. 29. Lawler, J.J., Lewis, D.J., Nelson, E., Plantinga, A.J., Polasky, S., Withey, J.C., Helmers, D.P., Martinuzzi, S., Pennington, D., Radeloff, V.C. (2014). Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 7492-7497. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1405557111
30. 30. Lorencová, E., Frélichová, J., Nelson, E., Vačkář, D. (2013). Past and future impacts of land use and climate change on agricultural ecosystem services in the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy, 33, 183-194. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.012
31. 31. McGarigal, K., Cushman, S.A. (2002). Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecological Applications, 12, 335-345. doi: 10.2307/3060945
32. 32. McGarigal, K., Cushman, S.A., Ene, E. (2012). FRAGSTATS v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html (15.11.2020).
33. 33. McGarigal, K., Marks, B.J. (1995). FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 122 p. doi: 10.2737/PNW-GTR-351
34. 34. Mitchell, M., Bennett, E., Gonzalez, A. (2015). Strong and nonlinear effects of fragmentation on ecosystem service provision at multiple scales. Environmental Research Letters, 10, 094014. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094014
35. 35. Mooney, H.A., Duraiappah, A., Larigauderie, A. (2013). Evolution of natural and social science interactions in global change research programs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 3665-3672. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1107484110
36. 36. Moser, D., Zechmeister, H.G., Plutzar, C., Sauberer, N., Wrbka, T., Grabherr, G. (2002). Landscape patch shape complexity as an effective measure for plant species richness in rural landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 17, 657-669. doi: 10.1023/a:1021513729205
37. 37. Oğuz, H., Zengin, M. (2011). Peyzaj patern metrikleri ve landsat 5 tm uydu görüntüleri kullanılarak arazi örtüsü/arazi kullanımı değişimi analizi (1984-2010): Kahramanmaraş örneği, I. Ulusal Akdeniz Orman ve Çevre Sempozyumu, 26-28 Ekim 2011, Kahramanmaraş.
38. 38. Paudel, D., Thakur, J.K., Singh, S.K., Srivastava, P.K. (2014). Soil characterization based on land cover heterogeneity over a tropical landscape: An integrated approach using earth observation data-sets. Geocarto International, 30(2), 218-241. doi: 10.1080/10106049.2014.905639
39. 39. Petropoulos, G.P., Kalivas, D.P., Georgopoulou, I.A., Srivastava, P.K. (2015). Urban vegetation cover extraction from hyperspectral imagery and geographic information system spatial analysis techniques: Case of Athens, Greece. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, 9, 096088. doi: 10.1117/1.jrs.9.096088
40. 40. Renó, V., Novo, E., Escada, M. (2016). Forest fragmentation in the lower Amazon Floodplain: Implications for biodiversity and ecosystem service provision to riverine populations. Remote Sensing, 8, 886. doi: 10.3390/rs8110886
41. 41. Rocchini, D., Perry, G.L.W., Salerno, M., Maccherini, S., Chiarucci, A. (2006). Landscape change and the dynamics of open formations in a natural reserve. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77, 167-177. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.008
42. 42. Roth, D., Moreno-Sanchez, R., Torres-Rojo, J.M., Moreno-Sanchez, F. (2016). Estimation of human induced disturbance of the environment associated with 2002, 2008 and 2013 land use/cover patterns in Mexico. Applied Geography, 66, 22-34. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.11.009
43. 43. Singh, S.K., Srivastava, P.K., Singh, D., Han, D., Gautam, S.K., Pandey, A.C. (2015). Modeling groundwater quality over a humid subtropical region using numerical indices, earth observation datasets, and X-ray diffraction technique: A case study of Allahabad District, India. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 37, 157-180. doi: 10.1007/s10653-014-9638-z
44. 44. Singh, S.K., Srivastava, P.K., Szabó, S., Petropoulos, G.P., Gupta, M., Islam, T. (2016). Landscape transform and spatial metrics for mapping spatiotemporal land cover dynamics using earth observation data-sets. Geocarto International, 32(2), 113–127. doi:10.1080/10106049.2015.1130084
45. 45. Syrbe, R., Walz, U. (2012). Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: Providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators, 21, 80-88. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.013
46. 46. Tanner, E.P., Fuhlendorf, S.D. (2018). Impact of an agri-environmental scheme on landscape patterns. Ecological Indicators, 85: 956-965. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.11.043
47. 47. Turgut, Y.Ş., Keleş, B., Şenol, S. (2021). Toprak veritabanı kullanılarak Ceyhan Ovası arazi kullanımında zamansal değişimlerin belirlenmesi. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, 24(3), 622-631. doi:10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.737302
48. 48. TÜİK 2021. Adrese dayalı nüfus kayıt sistemi, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=95&locale=tr (10.04.2021).
49. 49. Uzun, O., Müderrisoğlu, H., Demir, Z., Kaya, L.G., Gültekin, P., Gündüz, S. (2015). Yeşilırmak havzası peyzaj atlası. T.C. Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı, Doğa Koruma ve Milli Parklar Genel Müdürlüğü adına AKS Planlama ve Mühendislik Limited Şirketi, Ankara, 259 s.
50. 50. Yigitbaşıoğlu, H., Uğur, A. (2010). Burdur Gölü Havzasında arazi kullanım özelliklerinden kaynaklanan çevre sorunları. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi, 2(2), 129-143. doi: 10.1501/Csaum_0000000032
51. 51. Zadbagher, E., Becek, K., Berberoglu, S. (2018). Modeling land use/land cover change using remote sensing and geographic information systems: Case study of the Seyhan Basin, Turkey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 190, 494. doi:10.1007/s10661-018-6877-y
52. 52. Zhang, J., Fu, M., Tao, J., Huang, Y., Hassani, F.P., Bai, Z. (2010). Response of ecological storage and conservation to land use transformation: A case study of a mining town in China. Ecological Modelling, 221(10), 1427-1439. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.02.011
53. 53. Zhang, L., Nan, Z., Xu, Y., Li, S. (2016). Hydrological impacts of land use change and climate variability in the headwater region of the Heihe River Basin, Northwest China. PLOS ONE, 11, e0158394. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158394