LEFKOŞA KENTİ AÇIK-YEŞİL ALAN SİSTEMİ BAZINDA KENTSEL EKOSİSTEM HİZMETLERİNİN KATILIMCI YAKLAŞIMLA DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Yıl 2022, , 112 - 122, 31.12.2022

Gülay Çetinkaya Çiftçioğlu , Aslıhan Aydın

https://doi.org/10.53784/peyzaj.1218945

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı; KKTC’nin Lefkoşa kenti örneğinde mevcut açık-yeşil alan sisteminin bölge halkına sağladığı kentsel ekosistem hizmetlerinin katılımcı bir yaklaşımla belirlenmesi ve değerlendirilmesini içermektedir. Araştırmanın başlıca alt-hedefleri: (i) mevcut açık-yeşil alanlardaki bitki türlerinin saptanması ve (ii) açık-yeşil alanların bölge halkına sağladığı kentsel ekosistem hizmetlerinin değerlendirilmesidir. Araştırma yöntemi BinYıl Ekosistem Hizmetleri Değerlendirmesi (2005) ve 1-5 Likert Ölçekte sosyal tercih yönteminin entegrasyonunu içermektedir. Araştırmanın alt-hedefleri doğrultusunda 14 Ocak – 26 Şubat 2017 tarihleri arasında bölgede survey çalışmaları gerçekleştirilmiştir. Hazırlanan bir anket formuna 160 ziyaretçinin katılımı ile kentsel ekosistem hizmetlerinin sosyal değeri sorgulanmıştır. Elde edilen verilerin SPSS Programı ile değerlendirilmesi sonucunda, mevcut açık-yeşil alan sisteminin sağladığı ekosistem hizmetlerinin toplam ortalama göreceli değeri 2,43 (çok düşük) olarak belirlenmiştir. Ekosistem hizmetlerinin ortalama göreceli değeri çok düşük olarak meydanlar (2,30) ve ev bahçeleri (2,48) arasında değişim göstermiştir. Ayrıca, mevcut açık-yeşil alanlarda 229 bitki türü saptanmıştır. Katılımcılar ile yapılan görüşmeler sonucunda ‘bitki tür çeşitliliğinin’ kentsel ekosistem hizmetlerinin sosyal değerinin artmasını sağlayan başlıca kriter olduğu belirlenmiştir. Maalesef, aşırı kentleşme ve KKTC’nin ulusal planlama mevzuatında peyzajı temel alan bütüncül bir planlama yaklaşımının bulunmaması kentsel ekosistemleri ve hizmetlerini tehdit etmektedir. Sonuç olarak, KKTC-Ulusal Peyzaj Stratejisinin ivedilikle hazırlanmasına ihtiyaç vardır. Ayrıca, bölgesel ve ulusal ölçekte ekosistem hizmetlerinin ekolojik, ekonomik ve sosyal değerleri belirlenmeli ve ilgili planlama stratejilerine entegre edilmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Açık-Yeşil Alanlar, Kentsel Ekosistem Hizmetleri, Kentsel Peyzaj, Lefkoşa, Green Open Spaces, Urban Ecosystem Services, Urban Landscape, Nicosia

EVALUATION OF THE URBAN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES USING A PARTICIPATORY APPROACH IN THE CASE OF OPEN-GREEN SPACES OF NICOSIA CITY

Öz

The purpose of this study was to determine and evaluate the urban ecosystem services using a participatory approach in the case of green-open spaces of Nicosia City located in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). The study’s objectives were: (i) to identify the plant diversity in the open-green spaces and (ii) to quantify and evaluate the social values of the urban ecosystem services. The method of the study included the integration of the Millennium Ecosystem Services Assessment (2005) and the social preference method based on a 1-5 Likert Scale. Within this context, survey studies were conducted in the region between 14 January and 26 February 2017. The social values of urban ecosystem services were questioned by a questionnaire designed and applied to 160 visitors. As a result of the analysis of the data by the SPSS Program, the total average relative value of the urban ecosystem services delivered by the green open spaces was estimated to be very low at 2,43 points. The average relative value of the ecosystem services varied as very low between urban squares (2,30 points) and home gardens (2,48 points). Besides, 229 plant species were identified in the green open spaces. During the questionnaire, the results of the interviews conducted with the participants uncovered that ‘plant diversity’ is the key criterion that enables the increase in the social values of the urban ecosystem services. Unfortunately, intensive urbanization and the absence of an integrated landscape planning approach in the national planning legislation of TRNC threaten the urban ecosystems and their services. In response to this, the national landscape strategy should urgently be prepared. Besides, the ecological, economic, and social values of ecosystem services at regional and national scales should be determined and integrated into relevant planning strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Green Open Spaces, Urban Ecosystem Services, Urban Landscape, Nicosia

Kaynakça

• Andersson E (2006) Urban landscapes and sustainable cities. Ecology and Society 11(1), 34.
• Aydın A (2017) Evaluation of the linkages between ecosystem services and human wellbeing in the open green spaces of Nicosia. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Lefke Avrupa Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, KKTC.
• Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (Eds) (2003) Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Bolund P ve Hunhammar S (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics 29 (1999): 293-301.
• Boyd J ve Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63(2–3): 616–626.
• Cadenasso ML ve Pickett STA (2008) Urban principles for ecological landscape design and management: Scientific fundamentals. Cities and the Environment 1(2): Article 4.
• Ciftcioglu GC ve Aydin A (2018) Urban ecosystem services delivered by green open spaces: an example from Nicosia City in North Cyprus. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 190 (10): 613.
• Çetinkaya G ve Uzun O (2014) Peyzaj planlama. Birsen Yayınevi, İstanbul.
• Çetinkaya GÇ (2014) Kentsel peyzaj ekolojisinin sürdürülebilirliği için yenilikçi bir yaklaşım: Yeşil altyapı ve planlama politikası. İdeal Kent Dergisi, Sayı 12 (2014): 218-245.
• Çiftçioğlu GÇ (2015) The role of traditional ecological knowledge in landscape planning: Bio-cultural landscape. 2nd International Sustainable Buildings Symposium, 28-30 May 2015, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. pp. 557-563.
• Çiftçioğlu, GÇ (2017) Assessment of the relationship between ecosystem services and human wellbeing in the social-ecological landscapes of Lefke Region in North Cyprus. Landscape Ecology 32(4): 897-913.
• Costanza R, d’Arge R, Groot Rd, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Naeem S, Limburg K, Paruelo JO, Neill R.V, Raskin R, Sutton P, Mvd Belt (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.
• Daily GC (1999) Developing a scientific basis for managing Earth’s life support systems. Conservation Ecology 3(2): 14.
• de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, descriptions and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41: 393–408.
• de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7(3): 260–272.
• Grimm NB, Grove JM, Pickett STA, Redman CL (2000) Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience 50 (7): 571-584.
• Hapsari A (2010) Assessing and mapping ecosystem services in offinso district Ghana. MSc Thesis, International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, Enshede, The Netherlands.
• Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot R.S, & van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57: 209–228.
• Jim CY ve Chen SS (2003) Comprehensive greenspace planning based on landscape ecology principles in compact Nanjing City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 998 (2003): 1-22.
• Kelemen E, Garcia-Llorente M, Pataki G, Martin-Lopez B, Gomez-Baggethun E (2014) Non- monetary techniques for the valuation of ecosystem service. URL: http://www.openness-project.eu/sites/default/files/SP-Non-monetary-valuation.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 13.12.2022).
• MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.
• Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, González J.A, Lomas P.L, Montes C (2009) The assessment of ecosystem services provided by biodiversity: re-thinking concepts and research needs. (Ed: Aronoff J.B), Handbook of Nature Conservation. Nova Science Publishers Inc, s. 1-22.
• Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, Garcia-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Del Amo D.G, Gomez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, Gonzalez J.A, Santos-Martin F, Onaindia M, Lopezsantiago C, Montes C (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLOS ONE 7(6): e38970.
• TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London.