Doğal Sermaye ve Ekosistem Hizmetleri: Kavramsal Temeller ve Mekansal Modelleme Araçları ile Küresel ve Türkiye Uygulamaları

Öz

Bu çalışma, doğal sermaye ve ekosistem hizmetlerinin kavramsal temelleri ile bu hizmetlerin mekânsal olarak modellenmesine olanak tanıyan araçları değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Ekosistem hizmetlerinin hem fiziksel hem de parasal olarak değerlenmesi, sürdürülebilir kalkınma, çevresel planlama ve doğa temelli karar alma süreçleri açısından kritik önemdedir. Bu bağlamda, dünya genelinde yaygın olarak kullanılan ARIES, InVEST ve Co$ting Nature araçları, teknik özellikleri, veri gereksinimleri, çıktıları ve kullanıcı profilleri açısından karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz edilmiştir. Ayrıca, bu araçların Türkiye bağlamında uygulanabilirliği, mevcut veri altyapısı ve politika belgeleriyle olan ilişkisi değerlendirilmiş; Türkiye’deki mevcut akademik çalışmalar, pilot projeler ve kurumsal girişimlere dair bir derleme sunulmuştur. Bulgular, ekosistem hizmetlerinin sayısallaştırılması, haritalandırılması ve doğal sermaye muhasebesine entegrasyonu için mekânsal modelleme araçlarının güçlü bir potansiyel sunduğunu ortaya koymakta; ancak bu potansiyelin etkin şekilde kullanılabilmesi için veri altyapısının güçlendirilmesi, yasal çerçevelerin oluşturulması ve kurumsal kapasitenin artırılması gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mekânsal Modelleme
• SEEA EA
• InVEST
• ARIES
• Co$ting Nature
• Doğa Temelli Çözümler
• Çevresel Muhasebe
• Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma
• Türkiye

Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services: Theoretical Foundations and the Global and Turkish Implementations of Spatial Modeling Tools

Öz

This study aims to evaluate the conceptual foundations of natural capital and ecosystem services, as well as the tools that enable their spatial modeling. Valuing ecosystem services both physically and monetarily is critically important for sustainable development, environmental planning, and nature-based decision-making processes. In this context, three widely used global tools—ARIES, InVEST, and Co$ting Nature—are comparatively analyzed in terms of their technical features, data requirements, outputs, and user profiles. Additionally, the implementation of these tools within the Turkish context is assessed by reviewing the current data infrastructure, policy documents, academic studies, pilot projects, and institutional initiatives. The findings reveal that spatial modeling tools offer strong potential for quantifying, mapping, and integrating ecosystem services into natural capital accounting. However, to fully realize this potential, it is essential to strengthen data infrastructure, establish legal frameworks, and enhance institutional capacity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Spatial Modeling
• SEEA EA
• InVEST
• ARIES
• Co$ting Nature
• Nature-based Solutions
• Environmental Accounting
• Sustainable Development
• Turkey

Kaynakça

1. Agarwala, M., Atkinson, G., Palmer, C., Fry, B., Homewood, K., Mourato, S., & Milner‐Gulland, E. J. (2014). Natural capital: Using ecosystem service framework to inform policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30(1), 126–144.
2. Aziz, T., & Van Cappellen, P. (2019). Comparative valuation of potential and realized ecosystem services in Southern Ontario, Canada. Environmental Science & Policy, 100, 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.06.011
3. Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D. J., Waage, S., & Winthrop, R. (2013). A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosystem Services, 5, 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.004
4. Bagstad, K. J., Villa, F., Johnson, G. W., & Voigt, B. (2011). ARIES – Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services: A guide to models and data (Version 1.0). ARIES Report Series No.1. ARIES Consortium.
5. Bagstad, K. J., Balbi, S., Adamo, G., et al. (2025). Interoperability for ecosystem service assessments: Why, how, who, and for whom? Ecosystem Services, 72, 101705.
6. Başak, E., Çetin, N. İ., Vatandaşlar, C., Pamukcu-Albers, P., Karabulut, A. A., Demirbaş Çağlayan, S., ... & Atkin, G. (2022). Ecosystem services studies in Turkey: A national-scale review. Science of The Total Environment, 844, 157068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157068
7. Choi, C. Y., Kim, H., & Lee, D. K. (2018). Identifying priority areas for ecosystem services using ecosystem service bundles: A case study in South Korea. Ecological Indicators, 89, 745–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.02.008
8. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., ... & Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0

9. Daily, G. C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Pejchar, L., ... & Shallenberger, R. (2009). Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1890/080025
10. Guerry, A. D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin‐Kramer, R., Daily, G. C., Griffin, R., ... & Vira, B. (2015). Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), 7348–7355. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503751112
11. Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In D. Raffaelli & C. Frid (Eds.), Ecosystem ecology: A new synthesis (pp. 110–139). Cambridge University Press.
12. Hemati, A., Karami, M., & Khorasani, N. (2020). Identifying hotspots of ecosystem services and ecological conservation under land-use change scenarios using Co$ting Nature model. Environmental Earth Sciences, 79, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-020-09182-w
13. IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (E. S. Brondízio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, & H. T. Ngo, Eds.). IPBES Secretariat.
14. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.
15. Mulligan, M., & van Soesbergen, A. (2017). Mapping ecosystem services in the Volta Basin using the Co$ting Nature ecosystem service assessment model. CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE). Colombo, Sri Lanka.
16. Mulligan, M., et al. (2010). Co$ting Nature: A policy support system for ecosystem services and conservation. King’s College London & AmbioTEK.
17. Natural Capital Project. (2023). InVEST user guide: Integrated valuation of ecosystem services and tradeoffs. Stanford University. https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest
18. Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D. R., ... & Shaw, M. R. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and trade-offs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1890/080023
19. Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H., Guerry, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., ... & Bernhardt, J. (2015). Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecological Economics, 115, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009
20. TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. (2010). Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Malta: Progress Press.
21. Tonyaloğlu, E. E. (2025). Future land use/land cover and its impacts on ecosystem services: Case of Aydın, Turkey. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 22, 4601–4617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-024-05907-y
22. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. (2018). Ulusal Biyolojik Çeşitlilik Stratejisi ve Eylem Planı 2018–2028. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı, Doğa Koruma ve Millî Parklar Genel Müdürlüğü. https://faolex.fao.org
23. United Nations. (2021). System of environmental-economic accounting – Ecosystem accounting (SEEA EA). United Nations.
24. Villa, F., Bagstad, K. J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G. W., Portela, R., Honzák, M., & Batker, D. (2014). A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLOS ONE, 9(3), e91001. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091001
25. Villa, F., Balbi, S., Bulckaen, A., & Ochoa, A. (2021). Artificial intelligence technology for rapid natural capital accounting: The ARIES for SEEA Explorer. BC3 Policy Briefing. Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3).
26. Willcock, S., Hooftman, D., Blanchard, R., Dawson, T. P., Hickler, T., Lindeskog, M., ... & Bullock, J. M. (2020). Ensembles of ecosystem service models can improve accuracy and indicate uncertainty. Science of the Total Environment, 747, 141006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141006
27. Uluç, S. M. (2022). Doğal sermaye muhasebesi ile ilgili çalışmaların betimsel bir içerik analizi ile değerlendirilmesi. Academic Social Resources Journal, 7(40), 883–890. https://doi.org/10.29228/ASRJ.63471
28. IUCN. (2020). Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.08.en
29. UNEP. (2021). State of finance for nature 2021. https://www.unep.org/resources/state-finance-nature
30. Sharp, R., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Wood, S. A., et al. (2020). InVEST 3.9.1 User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project. https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest
31. Mulligan, M. (2018). Documentation for the Co$tingNature Model V3. King’s College London. http://www.policysupport.org/costingnature
32. Mulligan, M. (2015). WaterWorld and Co$ting Nature: Web-Based Policy Support Systems. Paper presented at the 2015 AAAS Annual Meeting, San Jose, CA, USA. https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2015/webprogram/Paper14868.html
33. Neugarten, R. A., Honzak, M., Carret, P., Koenig, K., Andriamaro, L., Cano, C. A., Grantham, H. S., Hole, D., Juhn, D., McKinnon, M., Rasolohery, A., Steininger, M., Wright, T. M., & Turner, W. R. (2016). Rapid Assessment of Ecosystem Service Co-Benefits of Biodiversity Priority Areas in Madagascar. PLOS ONE, 11(12), e0168575. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0168575
34. Obst, C., Hein, L., & Edens, B. (2015). National accounting and the valuation of ecosystem assets and their services. Environmental and Resource Economics, 64(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9921-1
35. T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı. (2023). On İkinci Kalkınma Planı (2024 - 2028). https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/On-Ikinci-Kalkinma-Plani_2024-2028_11122023.pdf
36. Martínez-López, J., Bagstad, K. J., Balbi, S., Magrach, A., Voigt, B., Athanasiadis, I. N., Pascual, M., Willcock, S., & Villa, F. (2019). Towards globally customizable ecosystem service models. Science of the Total Environment, 650(2), 2325–2336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.371
37. ARIES Consortium. (n.d.). ARIES: Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services. https://aries.integratedmodelling.org
38. Pamukçu Albers, P., Lise, Y., Balkız, Ö., Demirbaş Çağlayan, S., & Zeydanlı, U. (2018). Akdeniz Entegre Orman Yönetimi Projesi: Bir Planlama Aracı Olarak Orman Ekosistemi Ürün ve Hizmetleri. www.dkm.org.tr
39. Co$tingNature for TNFD. (n.d.). Retrieved April 26, 2025, from https://www.policysupport.org/costingnature/CN4TNFD
40. Çiçekalan, B., Özgün, H., & Öztürk, İ. (2023). Ekosistem Hizmetlerinin Sağladığı Doğal Sermaye. Çevre İklim ve Sürdürülebilirlik, 24(1), 7-16.
41. Kalfa, V. R. (2025). Sulak Alanlarda Ekonomik Değerleme. The Journal of Social Science, 9(17), 105-119
42. Gürlük, S. (2006). Manyas Gölü ve Kuş Cenneti'Nin Cevresel Değerlemesi Uzerine Bir Araştırma (Doctoral dissertation, Bursa Uludağ Universitesi, Türkiye.
43. Bann, C., & Başak, E. (2013a). Economic Analysis of Fethiye-Göcek Special Environmental Protection Area. Project PIMS 3697: The Strengthening the System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey.
44. Bann, C., & Başak, E. (2013b). Economic Analysis of Köyceğiz-Dalyan Special Environmental Protection Area. Project PIMS 3697: The Strengthening the System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey.
45. Bann, C., & Başak, E. (2013c). Economic Analysis of Datça-Bozburun Special Environmental Protection Area. Project PIMS 3697: The Strengthening the System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey.
46. Çağlayan, S.D., Balkız, Ö., Arslantaş, F., Sanalan, K.C., Lise, Y., Zeydanlı, U. 2020. Şehir Planlama Aracı Olarak Ekosistem Hizmetleri: Çankaya İlçesi Örneği (236 sayfa). Ankara: Doğa Koruma Merkezi,
47. European Commission (EC) (2013): Commission Staff Working Document. Technical information on Green Infrastructure (GI). Brussels, 6.5.2013. SWD (2013) 155 final. Çeviri: DKM, 2019. https://www.dogavesehirler.org/yayinlar
48. Uçar, E. S. (2021). Kentsel yeşil alanların ekosistem hizmetleri kapsamında değerlendirilmesi: Üsküdar Fethipaşa Korusu örneği (Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, Türkiye.
49. Ersoy Mirici M., ve Berberoğlu S. (2020). Küresel İklim Değişikliği Çerçevesinde Doğu Akdeniz Bölgesi Ekosistem Hizmetlerinin Karbon Temelli Modellenmesi, Ç.Ü Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 39(10).
50. Harrison, P. A., Berry, P. M., Simpson, G., Haslett, J. R., Blicharska, M., Bucur, M., ... & Turkelboom, F. (2014). Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem services, 9, 191-203.
51. Su, Q., Chang, H., & Pai, S. (2022). A Comparative Study of the Resilience of Urban and Rural Areas under Climate Change. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19158911.
52. Brandon, C., Brandon, K., Fairbrass, A., & Neugarten, R. (2021). Integrating natural capital into national accounts: Three decades of promise and challenge. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 15(1), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1086/713075
53. Capriolo, A., Boschetto, R., Mascolo, R., Balbi, S., & Villa, F. (2020). Biophysical and economic assessment of four ecosystem services for natural capital accounting in Italy. Ecosystem Services, 46, 101207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101207
54. Hein, L., Bagstad, K., Edens, B., Obst, C., De Jong, R., & Lesschen, J. (2016). Defining ecosystem assets for natural capital accounting. PLOS ONE, 11(10), e0164460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164460
55. Hein, L., Bagstad, K., Obst, C., Edens, B., Schenau, S., Castillo, G., Soulard, F., Brown, C., Driver, A., Bordt, M., Steurer, A., Harris, R., & Caparrós, A. (2020). Progress in natural capital accounting for ecosystems. Science, 367(6477), 514–515. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz8901
56. Hein, L., Remme, R., Schenau, S., Bogaart, P., Lof, M., & Horlings, E. (2020). Ecosystem accounting in the Netherlands. Ecosystem Services, 44, 101118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101118
57. NEA Initiative. (n.d.). Home - NEA Initiative. Erişim27 Nisan, 2025, https://www.ecosystemassessments.net/
58. İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Çevre Koruma ve Kontrol Dairesi Başkanlığı. (2023). İstanbul Sürdürülebilir Enerji ve İklim Eylem Planı (SECAP). https://cevre.ibb.istanbul/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/SECAP-TR-1.pdf
59. Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J. P., Grizzetti, B., Drakou, E. G., Notte, A. La, Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F., Luisa Paracchini, M., Braat, L., & Bidoglio, G. (2012). Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2012.06.004
60. Maes, Joachim., Fabrega, Nina., Zulian, Grazia., Barbosa, Ana., Vizcaino, Pilar., Ivits, Eva., Polce, Chiara., Vandecasteele, Ine., Rivero, I. M. ., Guerra, Carlos., Perpiña Castillo, Carolina., Vallecillo, Sara., Baranzelli, Claudia., Barranco, Ricardo., Batista e Silva, Filippe., Jacobs-Crisoni, Chris., Trombetti, Marco., & Lavalle, Carlo. (2015). Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services: trends in ecosystems and ecosystem services in the European Union between 2000 and 2010. Publications Office of the European Union.
61. Schröter, M., Albert, C., Marques, A., Tobon, W., Lavorel, S., Maes, J., Brown, C., Klotz, S., & Bonn, A. (2016). National Ecosystem Assessments in Europe: A review. BioScience, 66(10). https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw101
62. Sumarga, E., Hein, L., Edens, B., & Suwarno, A. (2015). Mapping monetary values of ecosystem services in support of developing ecosystem accounts. Ecosystem Services, 12, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.009
63. UK National Ecosystem Assessment. (2011). UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/
64. Vallecillo, S., La Notte, A., Zulian, G., Ferrini, S., & Maes, J. (2019). Ecosystem services accounts: Valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people. Ecological Modelling, 392, 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.09.023
65. Wilson, L., Mapendembe, A., Booth, H., Brown, C., & Tierney, M. (2014). The Role of National Ecosystem Assessments in Influencing Policy Making (OECD Environment Working Papers, Vol. 60). https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxvl3zsbhkk-en
66. Yıldırak, K., & Seyhun, Ö. K. (2025). Refining ESG models: embedding natural capital valuation beyond box-ticking compliance towards confronting planetary boundaries. IFC Bulletins chapters, 63.