Yeşil alan uygunluk analizinin CBS tabanlı AHP ve TOPSİS yöntemleriyle değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Şehirler, artan nüfus yoğunluklarıyla sürekli gelişim halindedir. Bu durum kentlerin planlamasını ve sürdürülebilirliklerini sağlamak için plancılara çeşitli sorunlar oluşturmaktadır. Günümüz insanının şehirlerde en çok eksikliğini hissettiği alanlar yeşil alanlardır. İnsanların yaşam kalitesinin arttırılmasında ve ortaya çıkan sorunların giderilmesinde en önemli faktörlerden biri olan yeşil alanların planlanması oldukça önemlidir. Bu çalışmada, Ankara ili Çankaya ilçesine bağlı Emek, Bahçelievler ve Yukarı Bahçelievler mahalleleri çalışma alanı seçilmiş ve yeşil alan analizinin yapılabilmesi için on iki kriter belirlenmiştir. Bu kriterlerin birbirlerine göre ağırlıklarını tespit edilmesi için analitik hiyerarşi süreci (AHP) metodu kullanılmış ve kriterlerin konum analizleri için coğrafi bilgi sistemlerinden (CBS) yararlanılmıştır. En uygun yeşil alanların önem sıralarını belirlemek için ise TOPSIS metodu uygulanmıştır. TOPSIS yönteminde hem eşit ağırlıklı hem de AHP ağırlıklı hesaplar yapılmış ve analizler sonucunda, belirlenen dokuz bölgenin %44,4’ünün sıralamasının benzerlik gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda, çalışma alanının yeşil alanlar bakımından yetersiz olduğu belirlenerek, uygulanan yöntemin sürdürebilir kent modelleri için kullanımı değerlendirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yeşil Alan
• AHP
• TOPSIS
• CBS

Kaynakça

1. Ahmad, R., & Matori, A. N. (2016). Prioritizing the criteria for urban green space using AHP-multiple criteria decision model. In Engineering Challenges for Sustainable Future: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Civil, Offshore and Environmental Engineering (ICCOEE 2016, Malaysia, 15-17 Aug 2016) CRC Press, 355-359
2. Amoly, E., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., López-Vicente, M., Basagana, X., Julvez, J., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., & Sunyer, J. (2014). Green and blue spaces and behavioral development in Barcelona schoolchildren: the BREATHE Project. Environ. Health Perspect. 122, 1351–1358, http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ ehp.1408215.
3. Aydınoğlu, A. Ç., Bovkır, R., & Bulut, M. (2022). Akıllı şehirlerde büyük coğrafi veri yönetimi ve analizi: hava kalitesi örneği. Geomatik, 7(3), 174-186. https://doi.org/10.29128/geomatik.938855
4. Baig, F., Zhang, D., Lee, J., & Xu, H. (2022). Shaping inclusiveness of a transportation system: Factors affecting seat-yielding behavior of university students in public transportation. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 155, 79-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.11.004
5. Bakioglu, G., & Atahan, A. O. (2021). AHP integrated TOPSIS and VIKOR methods with Pythagorean fuzzy sets to prioritize risks in self-driving vehicles. Applied Soft Computing, 99, 106948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106948
6. Baskurt, Z. M., & Aydin, C. C. (2018). Nuclear power plant site selection by Weighted Linear Combination in GIS environment, Edirne, Turkey. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 104, 85-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.09.004.
7. Başeğmez, M., Yıldırım, V., & Bediroğlu, Ş. (2019). CBS ve AHP yöntemiyle en uygun okul yer seçimi analizi: Uşak-Merkez örneği. TMMOB 6. Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Kongresi, October.
8. Beatley, T. (2000). Preserving biodiversity: challenges for planners. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 5-20.

9. Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M., & Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with applications, 39(17), 13051-13069.
10. Bennett, G., Cassin, J., & Carroll, N. (2016). Natural infrastructure investment and implications for the nexus: A global overview. Ecosystem Services, 17, 293-297.
11. Bird, A. (2009). Federal legislation aims to get kids off the couch and exploring the outdoors. https://www.mlive.com/outdoors/2009/09/legislation_aims_to_get_kids_o.html.
12. Braun, W. J., & Murdoch, D. J. (2021). A first course in statistical programming with R. Cambridge University Press.
13. Burkhard, B., Petrosillo, I., & Costanza, R. (2010). Ecosystem services–bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecological complexity, 7(3), 257-259
14. Campisi, T., Caselli, B., Rossetti, S., & Torrisi, V. (2022). The evolution of sustainable mobility and urban space planning: exploring the factors contributing to the regeneration of car parking in living spaces. Transportation Research Procedia, 60, 76-83.
15. Caner, H. I., & Aydin, C. C. (2021). Shipyard site selection by raster calculation method and AHP in GIS environment, İskenderun, Turkey. Marine Policy, 127, 104439.
16. Chaudhry, P., Bagra, K., & Singh, B. (2011). Urban greenery status of some Indian cities: A short communication. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, 2(2), 98-101.
17. Dadvand, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Esnaola, M., Forns, J., Basagaña, X., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., ... & Sunyer, J. (2015). Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(26), 7937-7942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503402112.
18. De Clercq, E. M., De Wulf, R., & Van Herzele, A. (2007). Relating spatial pattern of forest cover to accessibility. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80(1-2), 14-22.
19. Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H., ... & Faehnle, M. (2014). Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. Journal of environmental management, 146, 107-115.
20. Drobne, S., & Lisec, A. (2009). Multi-attribute decision analysis in GIS: weighted linear combination and ordered weighted averaging. Informatica, 33(4), 459–474
21. Fadhıl, A., & Kurban, T. (2022). Hücresel otomata markov zincir yöntemi ile kentsel yayılmanın modellenmesi: Kerkük ili örneği. Geomatik, 7(1), 58-70. https://doi.org/10.29128/geomatik.852900
22. Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology letters, 3(4), 390-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149.
23. Galeeva, A., Mingazova, N., & Gilmanshin, I. (2014). Sustainable urban development: urban green spaces and water bodies in the city of Kazan, Russia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(24), 356-360
24. General plan for Stockholm (1952). Stockholm (Sweden). Stadsplanekontoret. Town Planning Office of the city of Stockholm, pp. 74.
25. Gezer, A., & Gül, A. (2009). Kent ormancılığı-kavramsal-teknik ve kültürel boyutu. SDU Orman Fakültesi, Kitap Yayın No: 86, s 245. (ISBN: 978-9944-452-30-4) SDU Basım evi- Isparta.
26. Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2010). The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and urban planning, 94(3-4), 264-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.10.012
27. Gupta, K., Roy, A., Luthra, K., & Maithani, S. (2016). GIS based analysis for assessing the accessibility at hierarchical levels of urban green spaces. Urban forestry & urban greening, 18, 198-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.
28. Haq, S. M. A. (2011). Urban green spaces and an integrative approach to sustainable environment. Journal of environmental protection, 2(5), 601-608.
29. Heidt, V., & Neef, M. (2008). Benefits of urban green space for improving urban climate. Ecology, planning, and management of urban forests: International perspectives, 84-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71425-7_6
30. Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications–A literature review. European Journal of operational research, 186(1), 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.004.
31. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multi attiribute decision making methods and applications. Springer-Verlag.
32. Hwang, C. L., Lai, Y. J., & Liu, T. Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Computers & operations research, 20(8), 889-899. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(93)90109-V
33. IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007-impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Working Group ıı contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press.
34. İşcan, F., & Ilgaz, A. (2017). Analysis of geographic/urban information system web presentations of local governments in Turkey. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 2(3), 75-83. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.317088
35. Jafari-Sirizi, R., Oshnooeı-Nooshabadi, A., Khabbazi-Kenarı, Z., & SadeghI, A. (2022). Determination of the Quality of Life using Hybrid BWM-TOPSIS Analysis: Case study of Tabriz (District 1, 2, 3 and 8), Iran. Türkiye Uzaktan Algılama Dergisi, 4(1), 7-17. https://doi.org/10.51489/tuzal.1066578
36. Jia, J. (2001). Planning and design of green space system. Chinese Forestry Press, Beijing.
37. Kelemenis, A., & Askounis, D. (2010). A new TOPSIS-based multi-criteria approach to personnel selection. Expert systems with applications, 37(7), 4999-5008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.013
38. Keleş, M. D., & Aydın, C. C. (2020). Mobil lidar verisi ile kent ölçeğinde cadde bazlı envanter çalışması ve coğrafi sistemleri entegrasyonu-Ankara Örneği. Geomatik, 5(3), 193-200. https://doi.org/10.29128/geomatik.643569
39. Khalil, R. (2014). Quantitative evaluation of distribution and accessibility of urban green spaces (Case study: City of Jeddah). International journal of geomatics and geosciences, 4(3), 526-535.
40. Koohsari, M. J. (2011). Access to public open space: is distribution equitable across different socio-economic areas. Journal of Urban and Environmental Engineering, 5(2), 67-72.
41. Kumar, A., & Pandey, A. C. (2016). Geoinformatics based groundwater potential assessment in hard rock terrain of Ranchi urban environment, Jharkhand state (India) using MCDM–AHP techniques. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 2, 27-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2016.05.001
42. Lappé, F. M. (2009). Questions to ask strategies to save our planet. Solutions, 1(1), 34-35.
43. La Rosa, D. (2014). Accessibility to greenspaces: GIS based indicators for sustainable planning in a dense urban context. Ecological Indicators, 42, 122-134.
44. Lee, A. C., & Maheswaran, R. (2011). The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the evidence. Journal of public health, 33(2), 212-222. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdq068
45. Luthra, K., & Gupta, K. (2012). Evaluation of urban green spaces based on social criteria. ındian ınstitute of remote sensing, dehradun, Unpublished report.
46. Malczewski, J. (1999). GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
47. Marzouk, M., & Sabbah, M. (2021). AHP-TOPSIS social sustainability approach for selecting supplier in construction supply chain. Cleaner environmental systems, 2, 100034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100034
48. Massam, B. H. (2013). Spatial search: Applications to planning problems in the public sector, 23, Pergamon Press, Exeter.
49. Meisel, F., & Thiele, N. (2014). Where to dispose of urban green waste? Transportation planning for the maintenance of public green spaces. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 64, 147-162.
50. Mensah, C. A. (2014). Nature and challenges of urban green spaces in Africa, http://www.jhbcityparks.com/pdfs/urban greens spaces.pdf.
51. Midatana, S., Saran, S., & Ramana, K. V. (2018). Site suitability analysis for industries using GIS and multi criteria decision making. ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences, 4(5).
52. NASA (2022). Advanced spaceborne thermal emission and reflection radiometer (aster) global digital elevation model. https://asterweb.jpl.nasa.gov/gdem.asp. Erişim Tarihi: 28 Haziran 2022.
53. Navarro, J. G. M., Jaramillo, L. A., & Magan, E. L. (2019). Assessing connectivity in single and multimodal networks using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Transportation Research Procedia, 40, 1473-1480.
54. Oh, K., & Jeong, S. (2007). Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landscape and urban planning, 82(1-2), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.014
55. Pulighe, G., Fava, F., & Lupia, F. (2016). Insights and opportunities from mapping ecosystem services of urban green spaces and potentials in planning. Ecosystem services, 22, 1-10.
56. Reid, W. V. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: general synthesis: A report of the millennium ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
57. Saaty, T. L. (1972). An eigenvalue allocation model for prioritization and planning. Energy Management and Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, 28-31.
58. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
59. Salihoğlu, T. (2020). CBS Yardımıyla İstanbul’daki Merkez Alanların Sınırlarının Belirlenmesi. Geomatik, 5(3), 201-208. https://doi.org/10.29128/geomatik.644562
60. Sánchez-Lozano, J. M., Teruel-Solano, J., Soto-Elvira, P. L., & García-Cascales, M. S. (2013). Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods for the evaluation of solar farms locations: Case study in south-eastern Spain. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 24, 544-556.
61. Sandifer, P. A., Sutton-Grier, A. E., & Ward, B. P. (2015). Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem services, 12, 1-15.
62. Sarı, S., & Türk, T. (2021). An investigation of urban development with geographical information systems: 100-year change of Sivas City, Turkey. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 6(1), 51-63. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.690216
63. Shorabeh, S. N., Argany, M., Rabiei, J., Firozjaei, H. K., & Nematollahi, O. (2021). Potential assessment of multi-renewable energy farms establishment using spatial multi-criteria decision analysis: A case study and mapping in Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, 126318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126318
64. Sotoudehnia, F., & Comber, L. (2011, April). Measuring perceived accessibility to urban green space: an integration of GIS and participatory map. In 14th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information: Advancing Geoinformation Science for a Changing World.
65. Sönmez, Z. (2021). Sürdürülebilir kent planlamasında cbs tabanlı çok kriterli çevresel risk analizi: Ankara Gölbaşı örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
66. Ståhle, A. (2010). More green space in a denser city: Critical relations between user experience and urban form. Urban Design International, 15, 47-67.
67. Stessens, P., Khan, A. Z., Huysmans, M., & Canters, F. (2017). Analysing urban green space accessibility and quality: A GIS-based model as spatial decision support for urban ecosystem services in Brussels. Ecosystem services, 28, 328-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.016
68. Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231.
69. Şahin, T., Ocak, S., & Top, M. (2019). Analytic hierarchy process for hospital site selection. Health Policy and Technology, 8(1), 42-50.
70. Şenik, B., & Uzun, O. (2021). Düzce Kentinde Açık Yeşil Alan Sisteminin Oluşturulmasına Yönelik Bazı Öneriler. Düzce Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Ormancılık Dergisi, 17(2), 367-396.
71. T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı (2019). On Birinci Kalkınma Planı (2019-2023), s. 172. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/OnbirinciKalkinmaPlani.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 28 Haziran 2022.
72. Triantaphyllou, E., & Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods (pp. 5-21). Springer US.
73. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) (2022). https://www.tuik.gov.tr/. Erişim Tarihi: 28 Haziran 2022.
74. URL 1. İmar kanunu. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.3194.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 28 Haziran 2022.
75. URL 2. Mekansal Planlar Yapım Yönetmeliği. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/File/GeneratePdf?mevzuatNo=19788&mevzuatTur=KurumVeKurulusYonetmeligi&mevzuatTertip=5. Erişim Tarihi: 28 Haziran 2022.
76. Van Herzele, A., & Wiedemann, T. (2003). A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape and urban planning, 63(2), 109-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00192-5
77. Villacreses, G., Gaona, G., Martínez-Gómez, J., & Jijón, D. J. (2017). Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: The case of continental Ecuador. Renewable energy, 109, 275-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.041
78. Yoon, K. P., & Hwang, C. L. (1995). Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction. Sage publications.
79. Zeng, J., Lin, G., & Huang, G. (2021). Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of Green Infrastructure in climate change scenarios using TOPSIS. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 64, 127287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127287
80. Zhang, Z., Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Lindquist, M. (2019). Enhancing landscape connectivity through multifunctional green infrastructure corridor modeling and design. Urban forestry & urban greening, 38, 305-317.