Rumelifeneri-Kumköy (İstanbul) Arasındaki Koyların ve Plajların Morfometrik Analizi ve Değişimleri

Öz

Kıyılar farklı jeomorfolojik birimleri barındırmakta ve bu durum kıyıların morfodinamik gelişim süreçlerini etkilemektedir. Kara içine doğru girinti oluşturan koylar ve buradaki plajlar özellikle koy morfometrisine bağlı olarak dalga-akıntı hidrodinamiğinin değişmesiyle karakterize edilir. Belirtilen kapsamda bu çalışmada, İstanbul ilinin kuzeyinde yer alan Rumelifeneri-Kumköy arasındaki 17 koy ve plajın morfometrik analizi yapılmış, plajlardaki 55 yıllık alansal, çizgisel değişimler saptanmış ve morfometrik sonuçlar ile plaj değişiminin ilişkisi incelenmiştir. Çalışmada uydu görüntüleri ve Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) ile koyların sınırları tespit edilmiş, koyların ve içerisindeki plajların 7 temel morfometrik parametresi belirlenmiştir. Daha sonra bu değişkenler üzerinden koyların Planform İndisi (Ip), Koy Morfometrik Parametresi (γe-EMP), Koy Sinüzite Oranı (Si), Koy Dairesellik Oranı (Rc), Koy Dolum İndisi (Bfi) ve Koy Plajı Morfometrik Parametresi (Bγe) indisleri hesaplanmıştır. Plaj değişimleri 1970 yılı ortofotosu ve 2025 yılı uydu görüntüsünden saptanmış, plaj toplam alanı, yıllık plaj alanı ve maksimum plaj kıyı çizgisi değişimleri analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmadaki bulgulara göre ortalama girintisi 168 m olan koylar farklı geometrik yapılara ve plaj alanlarına sahiptir. Bulgulara göre doğu kesimde yer alan koyların ağız genişliğine göre daha yüksek girinti oranına ve sinüzite değerlerine sahip olması, bu alanlarda dalga enerjisinin daha fazla sönümlendiğini ve morfodinamik süreçlerin daha kapalı sistemler içerisinde gerçekleştiğini ortaya koymuştur. Plaj değişiminin alansal ve çizgisel olarak daha yüksek değerlerde batı kesimde yoğunlaşması bu durumun sonuçlarındandır. Elde edilen bulgular yıllık plaj alanı ve plaj kıyı çizgisi değişiminin γe, Bfi indisleri ve koy alanı temel morfometrik parametresi ile yüksek korelasyona sahip olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Koy morfometrisi
• plaj değişimi
• kıyı jeomorfolojisi
• CBS
• İstanbul.

Morphometric Analysis and Changes of the Bays and Beaches Between Rumeli Feneri and Kumköy (Istanbul)

Öz

Coasts comprise various geomorphological units, a factor that influences their morphodynamic development processes. Inlets that penetrate inland and the beaches within them are characterised by variations in wave-current hydrodynamics, particularly depending on the morphometry of the inlet. Within the scope of this study, morphometric analyses were conducted on 17 bays and beaches located between Rumelifeneri and Kumköy on the north of Istanbul Province; spatial and linear changes over a 55-year period were identified, and the relationship between the morphometric results and beach change was examined. In the study, the bays' boundaries were identified using satellite imagery and GIS, and seven basic morphometric parameters of the bays and their beaches were determined. Subsequently, the following indices were calculated for the coves using these variables: Planform Index (Ip), Emmabyment Morphometric Parameter (γe), Bay Sinuosity Ratio (Si), Bay Circularity Ratio (Rc), Bay Filling Index (Bfi) and Bay Beach Morphometric Parameter (Bγe). Beach changes were identified using a 1970 orthophoto and a 2025 satellite image; changes in total beach area, annual beach area, and maximum beach shoreline were analyzed. According to the findings, the bays, with an average indentation of 168 m, possess different geometric structures and beach areas. The findings indicate that the bays located in the eastern section have higher indentation ratios and sinuosity values relative to their mouth widths; this suggests that wave energy is dissipated to a greater extent in these areas and that morphodynamic processes occur within more closed systems. The higher spatial and linear values of beach change in the western section are a consequence of this situation. The results revealed a high correlation between annual changes in beach area and shoreline length and the γe and Bfi indices, as well as the basic morphometric parameter of bay area.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bay morphometry
• beach change
• coastal geomorphology
• GIS
• Istanbul.

Kaynakça

1. Babar, M. (2005). Hydrogeomorphology fundamentals, applications and techniques. New Delhi: New India Publishing Agency.
2. Bird, E. (2008). Coastal geomorphology: An introduction_second edition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England.
3. Bishop, P., & Cowell, P.J. (1997). Lithological and drainage network determinants of the character of drowned, embayed coastlines. Journal. Geology. 105, 685–700. https://doi.org/10.1086/515974
4. Bowman, D., Guill´en, J., L´opez, L., & Pellegrino, V. (2009). Planview geometry and morphological characteristics of pocket beaches on the Catalan coast (Spain). Geomorphology, 108, 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.01.005.
5. Bowman, D., Rosas, V., & Pranzini, E. (2014). Pocket beaches of Elba Island (Italy) - Planview geometry, depth of closure and sediment dispersal. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 138, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.12.005.
6. Bowman, D., Klein, A. H. F., & Pranzini, E. (2019). Embayed beaches: Classification, processes and management implications. Coastal Engineering, 150, 1–15.
7. Bryan, K. R., Foster, R., & MacDonald, I. (2013). Beach rotation at two adjacent headland-Enclosed beaches. Journal of Coastal Research, 165, 2095-2100. https://doi.org/10.2112/SI65-354.1
8. Calkoen, F. R., Luijendijk, A. P., Hanson, S., Nicholls, R. J., Moreno-Rodenas, A., De Heer, H., & Baart, F. (2025). Mapping the world’s coast: A global 100-m coastal typology derived from satellite data using deep learning. Earth System Science Data Discussions, 2025, 1-37. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-388

9. Cao, C., Cai, F., Qi, H., Zheng, Y., & Lu, H. (2021). Characteristics of Underwater Topography, Geomorphology and Sediment Source in Qinzhou Bay. Water, 13(10), 1392. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13101392
10. Castelle, B., & Coco, G. (2012). The morphodynamics of rip channels on embayed beaches. Cont. Shelf Res. 43, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2012.04.010.
11. Castelle, B., Scott, T., Brander, R. W., & McCarroll, R. J. (2016). Rip current types, circulation and hazard. Earth-Science Reviews, 163, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.09.008
12. Castelle, B., Robinet, A., Idier, D., & D’Anna, M. (2020). Modelling of embayed beach equilibrium planform and rotation signal. Geomorphology, 369, 107367. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107367.
13. Daly, C.J., Bryan, K.R., & Winter, C. (2014). Wave energy distribution and morphological development in and around the shadow zone of an embayed beach. Coast. Eng. 93, 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2014.08.003.
14. De Muro, S., Ibba, A., & Kalb, C., (2016). Morpho-sedimentology of a Mediterranean microtidal embayed wave dominated beach system and related inner shelf with Posidonia oceanica meadows: the SE Sardinian coast. J. Maps, 12 (3), 558–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2015.1051599.
15. Davidson-Arnott, R. (2010). Introduction to coastal processes and geomorphology. Cambridge University Press. New York.
16. Erginal, A. E., Kıyak, N. G., Selim, H. H., Bozcu, M., Öztürk, M. Z., Ekinci, Y. L., ... & Karabıyıkoğlu, M. (2017). Eolianite and coquinite as evidence of MIS 6 and 5, NW Black Sea coast, Turkey. Aeolian Research, 25, 1-9.
17. Erinç, S., (1986). Kıyılardan Yararlanmada Hukuki Düzenlemelere Jeomorfolojinin Katkısı, Jeomorfolojisi Dergisi, 14:1-5.
18. Erol, O., (1989). Türkiye’de Kıyıların Doğal Niteliği, Kıyı ve Kıyı Varlıklarının Korunmasına İlişkin Kıyı Kanunu ve Uygulamaları Konusunda Jeomorfolojik Yaklaşım, İstanbul Üniv. Deniz Bilimleri ve Coğrafya Enstitüsü Bülten, 6:15-46.
19. Erol, O., (1997). Türkiye’deki Kıyı Kullanımı Sorunlarına Jeomorfolojik Yaklaşım, Ankara Üniv. Türkiye Coğrafyası Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Türkiye Coğrafya Dergisi, 6: 93-122.
20. Ertek T. A. (2010). İstanbul’un Jeomorfolojisi. TMMOB Jeoloji Mühendisleri İstanbul’un Jeolojisi Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı (Editörler: Örgün, Y., Şahin, S. Y.), (21-48) İstanbul.
21. Evagorou, E., Hasiotis, T., Petsimeris, I. T., Monioudi, I. N., Andreadis, O. P., Chatzipavlis, A., Christofi, D., Kountouri, J., Stylianou, N., Mettas, C., Velegrakis, A., & Hadjimitsis, D. (2025). A Holistic High-Resolution Remote Sensing Approach for Mapping Coastal Geomorphology and Marine Habitats. Remote Sensing, 17(8), 1437. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17081437
22. Fellowes, T.E., Vila-Concejo, A., & Gallop, S.L. (2019). Morphometric classification of swell- dominated embayed beaches. Mar. Geol. 411, 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. margeo.2019.02.004
23. Finkelstein, K., (1982). Morphological variations and sediment transport in crenulate-bay beaches, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Mar. Geol. 47, 261–281
24. Finkl, C. W., & Makowski C. (2021). Alongshore Classification and Morphometric Analysis of Coastal Belts: The State of Oregon, USA. Journal of Coastal Research. 37(2): 238–271. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-21A-00001.1
25. Fiorini L.P., Mascagni M.L., & Klein A.H.F. (2026) Four decades of embayed coastline evolution assessed through the integration of remote sensing (CASSIE) and hybrid wave modeling (BinWaves) tools. Front. Mar. Sci. 13:1768972. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2026.1768972
26. Gallop, S. L., Ranasinghe, R., & Nicholls, R. (2020). Headland-bay beach morphodynamics: Recent advances and future directions. Earth-Science Reviews, 210, 1–21.
27. Gao, A., Ai, T., Yu, H., Xiao, T., Chen, Y., Li, J., & Huang, H. (2024). A vector-based coastline shape classification approach using sequential deep learning model. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 129, 103810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2024.103810
28. Gedik, İ., Duru, M., Pehlivan, Ş., & Timur, E. (2005). Türkiye Jeoloji Haritaları İstanbul F22c Paftası. No: 11-13, MTA Jeoloji Etüdleri Dairesi
29. George, D. A., Coco, G., & Black, K. P. (2015). Headland bypassing and shoreline rotation: Controls and interactions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 120(1), 1–16.
30. Guerrero, A. M., Otero, L., Ospino, S., & Cueto, J. (2024). Interactions between hydrodynamic forcing, suspended sediment transport, and morphology in a microtidal intermediate-dissipative beach. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 12(7), 1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12071141
31. Håkanson L., & Eklund J. M. A. (2007). Dynamic mass balance model for phosphorus fluxes and concentrations in coastal areas. Ecol Res. 22(2): 296-20.
32. Håkanson L, Kvarnäs H., & Karlsson B. (1986). Coastal morphometry as regulator of water exchange—a Swedish example.
33. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 23: 873-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7714%2886%2990078-8 Harley, M. D., Turner, I. L., Short, A. D., & Ranasinghe, R. (2014). Beach rotation and climate variability at embayed beaches. Marine Geology, 349, 1–15.
34. Holman, R. A., Symonds, G., Thornton, E. B., & Ranasinghe, R. (2006). Rip spacing and persistence on an embayed beach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 111(C1). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC002965
35. Horta, J., Oliveira, S., Moura, D., & Ferreira, Ó. (2018). Nearshore hydrodynamics at pocket beaches with contrasting wave exposure in southern Portugal. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 204, 40-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2018.02.018
36. Hsu, J. R. C., & Evans, C. (1989). Parabolic bay shapes and applications. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 87(4), 557-570. https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1989.3778
37. Hsu, J.R.C., Silvester, R., Xia, Y.M. (1989a). Static Equilibrium Bays: New Relationships. J. Waterway. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 115 (3), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(1989)115:3(285)
38. Hsu, J.R.C., Silvester, R., & Xia, Y.M. (1989b). Generalities on Static Equilibrium Bays. Coast. Eng. 12, 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3839(89)90012-4.
39. Hsu, J. R.-C., Yu, M.-J., Lee, F.-C., & Benedet, L. (2010). Static bay beach concept for scientists and engineers: A review. Coastal Engineering, 57(2), 76-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2009.09.004
40. Iglesias, G., López, I., Castro, A., & Carballo, R. (2009). Neural network modelling of planform geometry of headland-bay beaches. Geomorphology, 103, 577–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.08.002
41. Jackson, D. W. T., & Cooper, J. A. G. (2009). Morphological variability of headland-bay beaches, Ireland. Journal of Coastal Research, 25(1), 80–91.
42. King, E. V., Conley, D. C., Masselink, G., Leonardi, N., McCarroll, R. J., Scott, T., & Valiente, N. G. (2021). Wave, tide and topographical controls on headland sand bypassing. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 126(8). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JC017053
43. Klein, A.H.F., & Menezes, J.T., (2001). Beach Morphodynamics and profile sequence for a headland bay coast. J. Coast. Res. 17(4), 812–835. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4300242
44. Klein, A. H. F., Vieira da Silva, G., Taborda, R., da Silva, A. P., & Short, A. D. (2020). Headland bypassing and overpassing: form, processes and applications. In Sandy Beach Morphodynamics (ss. 557-591). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102927-5.00023-0
45. Lindgren, D., & Hakanson, L. (2011). Morphometric classification and GIS-Based data analysis in coastal modeling and management. Open Environmental Sciences, 5, 1-17.
46. Loureiro, C., Ferreira, Ó., & Cooper, J. A. G. (2012a). Extreme erosion on high-energy embayed beaches: Influence of megarips and storm grouping. Geomorphology, 139-140, 155-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.10.013
47. Loureiro, C., Ferreira, Ó., & Cooper, J. A. G. (2012b). Geologically constrained morphological variability and boundary effects on embayed beaches. Marine Geology, 329-331, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2012.09.010
48. Loureiro, C., Ferreira, Ó., & Cooper, J. A. G. (2013). Applicability of parametric beach morphodynamic state classification on embayed beaches. Marine Geology, 346, 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2013.09.005
49. Marco-Peretó, C., Durán, R., Toomey, T., & Guillén, J. (2024). Controls on the morphological evolution of embayed beaches: Morphometry versus external forcing. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 49(4), 1289-1302. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.5766
50. Masselink, G., Castelle, B., Scott, T., Dodet, G., Suanez, S., Jackson, D., & Floc’h, F. (2016). Extreme wave activity during 2013/2014 winter and morphological impacts along the Atlantic coast of Europe. Geophysical Research Letters, 43(5), 2135-2143. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067492
51. McCarroll, R. J., Brander, R. W., Turner, I. L., & Leeuwen, B. van. (2016). Shoreface storm morphodynamics and mega-rip evolution at an embayed beach: Bondi Beach, NSW, Australia. Continental Shelf Research, 116, 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2016.01.013
52. Migoń, P., & Szczepanik, M. (2005). Rock-cut amphitheatres of the north-eastern ecsarpment of the Stołowe Mountains. Szczeliniec, 9, 5–18.
53. Miller, V. C (1953). A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain Area, Virginia and Tennessee, Technical Report no 3, Department of Geology, Columbia University, New York, USA. Ojeda, E. & Guillén, J. (2008). Shoreline dynamics and beach rotation of artificial embayed beaches. Mar. Geol. 253, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2008.03.010.
54. Öztürk, M. Z., Yılmaz, B., & Soykan, A. (2025). A comprehensive analysis of Türkiye’s beaches: spatial distribution, morphometry, and human impacts. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 34 (7): 854-874. https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0985.1998
55. Prodger, S., Russell, P., & Davidson, M. (2017). Grain-size distributions on high-energy sandy beaches and their relation to wave dissipation. Sedimentology, 64(5), 1289-1302. https://doi.org/10.1111/sed.12353
56. Rodríguez-Padilla, I., Mariño-Tapia, I., & Ruiz de Alegría-Arzaburu, A. (2024). Daily timescale analysis of sediment transport and topographic changes on a mesotidal sandy beach under low to moderate wave conditions. Marine Geology, 474, 107323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2024.107323
57. Seth, S. M., Ramasastri K. S., & Rao, V. N. (1998). Representative basin studies: Morphometric analysis of Suddagedda Basin, Andhra Pradesh, National Institute of Hydrology Jal Vigyan Bhawan, 1-28.
58. Short, A. D. (1985). Rip-current type, spacing and persistence, Narrabeen Beach, Australia. Marine Geology, 65(1-2), 47-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(85)90046-5
59. Short, A.D., Masselink, G. (1999). Embayed and structurally controlled beaches. In: Short, A.D. (Ed.), Handbook of beach and shoreface morphodynamics. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, pp. 230–250.
60. Spagnolo, M., Llopis, I.A., Pappalardo, M., & Federici, P.R. (2008). A new approach for the study of the coast indentation index. Journal of Coastal Research, 24, 1459–1468. Available from: https://doi.org/10. 2112/07-0880.1
61. Storlazzi, C.D., & Field, M.E. (2000). Sediment distribution and transport along a rocky embayed coast: Monterey Peninsula and Carmel Bay, California. Mar. Geol. 170, 289–316.
62. Swirad, Z. M., & Rees, G. W. (2015). Geomorphometric analysis of a rocky coastline: an example from Hornsund, Svalbard. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 29:9, 1694-1717, DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2015.1061131
63. Turoğlu, H., (2009). 3621 Sayılı Kıyı Kanunun ve Onun Uygulama Problemleri, Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, 53: 31-40.
64. Turoğlu, (2017). Deniz ve Göllerde Kıyı, Yasal ve Bilimsel Boyutlarıyla Kıyı, (Editörler: H. Turoğlu, H. Yiğitbaşıoğlu) Jeomorfoloji Derneği Yayını No: 1.
65. Turoğlu, H. (2019). Yapay kıyıların jeomorfolojik tanımlaması: Diliskelesi kıyıları örneği (Kocaeli, Türkiye). Coğrafya Dergisi, 39, 11-27. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2019-0015
66. Usai, A., Simeone, S., Trogu, D., Porta, M., & De Muro, S. (2025). A morphometric analysis of embayed beaches: Southern Sardinia Island. Geomorphology, 483, 109838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2025.109838
67. Uzun, S.M. (2023) Riva (İstanbul) Kıyılarında Doğal ve Antropojenik Etkenlerle Değişen Kıyı Çizgisinin DSAS Aracı ile Analizi Jeomorfolojik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2023 (11): 95-113. https://doi.org/ 10.46453/jader.1335105
68. Uzun, S.M. (2025) Karaburun–Kumköy (İstanbul) Arası Kıyı Şeridinde Meydana Gelen Değişimlerin Dsas Aracı ile Antropo-Jeomorfolojik Analizi Jeomorfolojik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2025 (14): 48-73. https://doi.org/ 10.46453/jader.1621372
69. Yasso, W. E. (1965). Plan geometry of headland-bay beaches. Journal of Geology, 73(5), 702–714