Düzce İli’nde Bütünleşik Ekolojik Risklere Karşı Katılımcı Planlama ile Dirençliliğin Sağlanması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, kompleks ekolojik risk faktörlerine karşı dayanıklı yerleşimler oluşturmak için, katılımcı bir planlama yaklaşımı ile bütünleşik ekolojik planlama metodolojisi geliştirmektir. Düzce ili, geçmişte birçok kez karşı karşıya kaldığı ekolojik risk özelliklerinden dolayı örnek çalışma alanı olarak seçilmiştir. Metodoloji dört aşamadan oluşmaktadır. Metodolojinin ilk aşamasında (1) kavramsal olarak ekolojik planlama amaçları birleştirilmiştir. İkinci aşamada (2) doğal tehlikeler ve peyzaj hassasiyetlerinden doğan riskler ile değerli ekosistem servislerinin (ES) bozulma riskleri birleştirerek, ES ile bütünleşik yerleşime uygunluk haritaları oluşturulmuştur. Üçüncü aşama (3) olan katılımcı risk yönetişimi yaklaşımı ise; (a) risk iletişimi, (b) risk değerlendirmesi ve (c) risk yönetimi olmak üzere üç bileşenden oluşmaktadır. Dördüncü aşamada ise (4), ekolojik risk analizi ve katılımcı planlama bulgularının çoklu mekânsal ve zamansal ölçek yaklaşımına göre bütünleştirilerek, dayanıklılığın sağlanması için kapsamlı çıktılar elde edilmiştir. Risk değerlendirme sonuçlarına göre, katılımcılar doğal tehlikeler arasından sırasıyla deprem, heyelan ve sel riskini ilk üç sırada değerlendirirken, peyzaj hassasiyetleri arasında erozyon, habitat kırılganlığı ve su geçirgenliği risklerini önceliklendirmiştir. Risk yönetimi analiz sonuçları ise, makro-ölçekte, merkezi yönetim kurumlarının ağırlıklı olarak proaktif rollerde en yüksek sorumluluğa sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Orta-ölçekte ise merkezi yönetim taşra teşkilatları temel olarak reaktif sorumluluklara sahiptir. Sonuç olarak, geliştirilen bu bütünleşik ekolojik risk azaltma metodolojisi çoklu mekansal ve zamansal ölçek yaklaşımı ile ekolojik risk azaltma planlarının karar verme sürecine daha kapsamlı bir şekilde katkıda bulunabilecektir. Ayrıca bu metot, başka illerde uygulanabilir ve yaygınlaştırılabilir. Ancak, katılımcı risk yönetişimi sonuçlarının il düzeyinde yaygınlaştırılabilmesi için gelecek çalışmalarda katılım düzeyi ve çeşitliliği artırılmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bütünleşik ekolojik risk,ekosistem servisleri (ES),katılımcı planlama,Düzce İli,ekolojik dirençlilik

Resilience Through Participatory Planning for the Integrated Ecological Risks in Düzce

Öz

This study aims to develop an integrated spatial planning methodology with a participatory planning approach for building resilient settlements against complex ecological risk factors. Düzce Province is selected as a case study because of its complex ecological characteristics as witnessed many times in past. The methodology consists of four phases. (1) The first phase of the methodology joins the ecological planning aims. In the (2) second phase, ecosystem services (ES) integrated land suitability maps was produced by combining natural hazard risks and landscape vulnerabilities with the risk of degradation of valuable ES. The (3) third phase, is participatory risk governance approach, which consists of three components namely, (a) risk communication, (b) risk assessment, (c) risk management that conducted between the local and regional stakeholders within the multi-scale approach. In the (4) fourth phase, comprehensive outputs for spatial risk mitigation was provided by the integration of ecological risk synthesis and participatory planning findings. Results show that participants prioritized earthquake, landslide, and flood as the highest natural hazard risks and erosion, habitat vulnerability, and water infiltration as the highest ecological vulnerability risks respectively. Results of risk governance analysis show that, at macro-scale, central government institutions have the highest responsibility predominantly for proactive roles. At meso-scale local institutions of central governance have mainly reactive responsibilities. Thus, this integrated ecological risk assessment methodology can contribute to the decision-making process of ecological risk mitigation plans in a more comprehensive way through a multi-spatial and temporal scale approach. Moreover, this method can be applied in other provinces. However, in order to disseminate the results of participatory risk governance at provincial level, participation level and diversity should be increased in future studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ecosystem services (ES),ecological resilience,participatory planning,integrated ecological risk,Düzce province

Kaynakça

1. Albayrak, İ. (2012). Ekosistem Servislerine Dayalı Havza Yönetim Modelinin İstanbul - Ömerli Havzası Örneğinde Uygulanabilirliği. (Dr), ITU, Istanbul.
2. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216 — 224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225
3. Balamir, M., & Orhan, E. (Eds.). (2012) Kentsel Planlama Ansiklopedik Sözlük. Ninova.
4. Beatley, T. (1998). The Vision of Sustainable Communities. In R. J. Burby (Ed.), Cooperating with nature : confronting natural hazards with land use planning for sustainable communities. Washington, D.C: Joseph Henry Press.
5. Béné, C., Headey, D., Haddad, L., & von Grebmer, K. (2015). Is resilience a useful concept in the context of food security and nutrition programmes? Some conceptual and practical considerations. Food Security, 8(1), 123-138. doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0526-x
6. Bohle, H.-G. (2001). Vulnerability and Criticality: Perspectives from Social Geography. IHPD-Update, 2(01).
7. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., & Müller, F. (2010). Landscapes‘ Capacities to Provide Ecosystem Services -A Concept for Land-Cover Based Assessments. Landscape Online, 1-22. doi:10.3097/lo.200915
8. Cadag, J. R. D., & Gaillard, J. C. (2012). Integrating knowledge and actions in disaster risk reduction: The contribution of participatory mapping. Area, 44(1), 100-109. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01065.x

9. Costanza, R., & Folke, C. (1997). Valuing Ecosystem Services With Efficiency, Fairness, and Sustainability as Goals. In G. C. Daily (Ed.), Nature’s Services: Island Press.
10. Costanza, R., & Groot, R. d. (1998). The value of ecosystem services: putting the issue in perspective. Ecological Economics, 25, 67-72.
11. Duxbury, J., & Dickinson, S. (2007). Principles for sustainable governance of the coastal zone: In the context of coastal disasters. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3), 319-330. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.016
12. EU-WFD. (2000). The EU Water Framework Directive. Directive 2000/60/EC.
13. EU. (2013). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. doi:10.2779/12398
14. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. (2004). Regime Shifts,Resilience and Biodiversity in Ecosystem Man. doi:10.2307/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.30000021
15. Galantini, Z. D. Y. (2018). Urban Resilience as a Policy Paradigm for Sustainable Urban Planning and Urban Development: The Case of Istanbul. (PhD), ITU, Istanbul.
16. Galic, N., Hommen, U., Baveco, J., & Brinky, P. J. v. d. (2010). Potential application of population models in the European ecological risk assessment of chemicals. II. Review of models and their potential to address environmental protection aims. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management.
17. Giupponi, C., Mysiak, J., & Sgobbi, A. (2008). Participatory Modelling and Decision Support for Natural Resources Management in Climate Change Research. Natural Resources Management.
18. Grothmann, T., & Reusswig, F. (2005). People at Risk of Flooding: Why Some Residents Take Precautionary Action While Others Do Not. Natural Hazards, 38(1), 101-120.
19. GRR. (2017). The Global Risks Report, 12th Edition. World Economic Forum , The Global Competitiveness and Risks Team.
20. Henrich, L., McClure, J., & Crozier, M. (2015). Effects of risk framing on earthquake risk perception: Life-time frequencies enhance recognition of the risk. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 13, 145-150. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.05.003
21. IDNDR. (1999). International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction Program. Retrieved from Geneva, Switzerland: https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/31468
22. IRGC. (2006). Risk Governance Towards an Integrative Approach. Retrieved from Geneva: International Risk Governance Center (IRGC) www.irgc.org
23. IRGC. (2018). Guidelines for the Governance of Systemic Risks- In systems and organisations In the context of transitions. Retrieved from Lausanne: International Risk Governance Center (IRGC) www.irgc.org
24. MARKA. (2013). Düzce Statistics. East Marmara Development Agency.
25. McHarg, I. (1969). Design With Nature. Garden City, N. Y.: Natural History Press.
26. MEA. (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.millenniumassessment.org
27. Miceli, R., Sotgiu, I., & Settanni, M. (2008). Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: A study in an alpine valley in Italy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2), 164-173. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.006
28. Mileti, D., & Noji, E. K. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
29. Natarajan, L. (2015). Socio-spatial learning: A case study of community knowledge in participatory spatial planning. Progress in Planning. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2015.06.002
30. Pearce, L. (2003). Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation: How to Achieve Sustainable Hazard Mitigation. Natural Hazards, 28(2-3), 211-228.
31. Pelling, M. (2007). Learning from others: The scope and challenges for participatory disaster risk assessment. Disasters, 31(4), 373-385. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.01014.x
32. Renn, O., & Klinke, A. (2014). Risk governance: Application to urban planning. A/Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 11(1), 5-19 . Saaty, T. L. (2001). Fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. In D. L. Schmoldt, J. Kangas, G. A. Mendoza, & M. Pesonen (Eds.), The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making: Springer, Dordrecht.
33. Schipper, E. L. F., & Langston, L. (2015). A comparative overview of resilience measurement frameworks,analysing indicators and approaches. Overseas Development Institute.
34. Scott, M. (2013). Resilience: A conceptual lens for rural studies? Geography Compass, 7(9), 597-610. doi:10.1111/gec3.12066
35. Sellke, P., & Renn, O. (2010). Risk, society and environmental policy: Risk governance in a complex world. In Environmental Sociology: European Perspectives and Interdisciplinary Challenges (pp. 295-321).
36. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
37. Sobiech, C. (2012). Agent-Based Simulation of Vulnerability Dynamics- A Case Study of the German North Sea Coast. (Ph.D), University of Hamburg, Germany, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
38. Spiekermann, R., Kienberger, S., Norton, J., Briones, F., & Weichselgartner, J. (2015). The Disaster-Knowledge Matrix – Reframing and evaluating the knowledge challenges in disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 13, 96-108. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.05.002
39. Sutanta, H., Rajabifard, A., & Bishop, I. (2010). Integrating Spatial Planning and Disaster Risk Reduction at the Local Level in the Context of Spatially Enable Government. In Spatially Enabling Society (pp. 205-218): Leuven University Press.
40. Tezer, A., Turkay, Z., Uzun, O., Terzi, F., Koylu, P., Karacor, E., . . . Kaya, M. (2018). Ecosystem services-based multi-criteria assessment for ecologically sensitive watershed management. Environment, Development and Sustainability. doi:10.1007/s10668-018-00300-5
41. Tezer, A., Uzun, O., Okay, N., Terzi, F., Karaçor, E. K., Köylü, P., . . . Kara, D. (2018). Ekosistem servislerine dayalı “havza koruma alanları” tanımlamasının önemi ve kapsamı: Düzce – Melen havzası. Kentli Dergisi, 57, 58-62.
42. Thaler, T., & Levin-Keitel, M. (2016). Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management-A question of roles and power: Lessons from England. Environmental Science and Policy, 55, 292-301. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.007
43. UN. (1992). Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development.
44. UNISDR. (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 - 2030. In. Sendai, Japan: UN.
45. UNISDR. (2016). Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction.
46. Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World.
47. Wehn, U., Rusca, M., Evers, J., & Lanfranchi, V. (2015). Participation in flood risk management and the potential of citizen observatories: A governance analysis. Environmental Science and Policy, 48, 225-236. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.12.017