Türkiye’de İki Farklı Yöntemle Elde Edilmiş Derecelendirme Haritalarının Arazi Toplulaştırma Projelerine Etkisi

Öz

Arazi toplulaştırması (AT), gelişen tarımsal teknolojinin ihtiyaçlarına göre toplumun ve bireylerin ihtiyaçları doğrultusunda kırsal alanın yeniden düzenlenmesi ve tarımsal işletmelerin daha verimli çalışması için gerekli önlemlerin alınması olarak tanımlanabilir. Yeniden dağıtım miktarları tarımsal alanların derecelendirilmesine bağlıdır. Türkiye’de AT projeleri iki farklı yasal kurum tarafından gerçekleştirilmektedir ve bu kurumlar derecelendirme haritalarının oluşturulmasında farklı yöntemler kullanmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, aynı proje alanında iki farklı yasal kurum için iki farklı yöntemle elde edilen derecelendirme haritalarının etkilerini belirlemek ve değerlendirmektir. Bu çalışmadaki bulgulara göre, her iki yöntemin sonuçları birbirine yakın olarak görülmektedir. İlk olarak, çalışma alanında, 1216 kadastral parsel vardı. 3083 sayılı Kanunun uygulanmasından sonra parsellerin sayısı 35 yeni blokta 614'e düşmüştür. Ayrıca, 5403 sayılı Kanunun uygulanmasından sonra 35 yeni blokta parsel sayısı 749'a düşmüştür. Modeller parsel büyüklükleri açısından karşılaştırılmıştır. İki yönteme göre yeniden dağıtımda, ortalama kareler yöntemine göre farklar yönetmelik hata sınırında belirtilenin altındadır. Bu durum, her iki yöntemin uygulanabilirliğini göstermektedir. Bu nedenle, 3083 sayılı “Sulama Alanlarında Arazi Düzenlemeleri için Tarım Reformu Yasası” ve 5403 sayılı “Toprak Koruma ve Arazi Kullanımı Kanunu” aynı çerçeve altında birleştirilmelidir. Bu durum için yapılacak yeni düzenlemeler uygulayıcıları rahatlatacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tarımsal arazi derecelendirme,Arazi toplulaştırma,Yeniden dağıtım

EFFECTS OF THE GRADATION MAPS OBTAINED BY TWO DIFFERENT METHODS ON THE LAND CONSOLIDATION PROJECTS IN TURKEYS

Öz

Land consolidation (LC) can be defined as rearranging the rural area in line with the needs of the society and individuals according to the needs of the developing agricultural technology, and taking all necessary measures to enable agricultural enterprises to work more efficiently. Reallocation quantity depends on the agricultural land valuation. In Turkey, LC projects are performed by different two legal institutions and these institutions use different methods for the production of gradation maps. The purpose of this study was to determine and evaluate effects of different gradation maps obtained by the two different methods for two different legal institutions for the same project area. According to finding in this study, the results of both methods are seen as close to each other. First, in the study area, there were 1216 cadastral parcels. The number of the parcels after application of Law 3083 decreased to 614 in the 35 new blocks. Furthermore, the number of parcels decreased to 749 in the 35 new blocks after the application of Law 5403. Models were compared in terms of parcel sizes. In the reallocation according to the two methods, differences according to the average squares are below that specified in the regulations error limit. This case demonstrates the applicability of both methods. So, law 3083 “Agrarian Reform Act for Land Arrangements in Irrigation Areas” and law 5403 “Soil Conservation and Land Use” should be combined under the same framework. New regulations for this case will relax practitioners.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Agricultural land gradation,Land consolidation,Land reallocation

Kaynakça

1. Bayrakcı, A. G., Koçar, G., 2012, “Utilization of Renewable Energies in Turkey's Agriculture”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 16(1), pp. 618–633.
2. Blaikie, P. M., Sadeque, A. Z., 2000, “Policy in the High Himalayas: Environment and Development in the Himalayan Region”, ICIMOD, Kathmandu.
3. Cay, T., Uyan, M., 2013, “Evaluation of Reallocation Criteria in Land Consolidation Studies Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 30, pp. 541-548.
4. Cay T., Ayten T., Iscan F., 2010, “Effects of Different Land Reallocation Models on the Success of Land Consolidation Projects: Social and Economic Approaches”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 27(2), pp. 262–269.
5. Chartin, C., Evrard, O., Salvador-Blanes, S., Hinschberger, F., Van Oost, K., Lefevre, I., Daroussin, J., Macaire, J. J., 2013, “Quantifying and Modelling the Impact of Land Consolidation and Field Borders on Soil Redistribution in Agricultural Landscapes (1954-2009)”, Catena, Vol. 110, pp. 184-195.
6. Coelho, J. C., Portela, J., Pinto, P. A., 1996, “A Social Approach to Land Consolidation Schemes - A Portuguese Case Study: The Valenca Project”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 13(2), pp. 129-147.
7. Crecente, R., Alvarez, C., Fra, U., 2002, “Economic, Social and Environmental Impact of Land Consolidation in Galicia”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 19(2), pp. 135-147.
8. Demetriou, D., Stillwell, J., See, L., 2012, “Land Consolidation in Cyprus: Why is an Integrated Planning and Decision Support System Required?”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 29(1), pp. 131–142.

9. Demir, H., Gür, M., Cagdas, V., 2002, “Land Consolidation, Valuation and Cadastre”, FIG XXII International Congress, Washington, USA, 19-26 April 2002.
10. Derlich, F., 2002 “Land Consolidation: A Key for Sustainable Development – French Experience”, FIG XXII International Congress, Washington, USA, 19-26 April 2002.
11. Gonzalez, X. P., Alvarez, C. J., Crecente, R., 2004, “Evaluation of Land Distributions with Joint Regard to Plot Size and Shape”, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 82, pp. 31-43.
12. Ivkovic, M., Barkovic, D., Bacani, S., 2010, “Land Consolidation and Rural Development”, Geodetski List, Vol. 64(4), pp. 297-312.
13. Kirmikil, M., Arici, I., 2013, “The Role of Land Consolidation in the Development of Rural Areas in Irrigation Areas”, Journal of Food Agriculture & Environment, Vol. 11(2), pp. 1150-1155.
14. Kizilsu, G., 2002, “Land Consolidation in Rural Areas with Lacis” International Symposium on GIS, Istanbul-Turkey, 23-26 September 2002.
15. Lerman, Z., Cimpoies, D., 2006, “Land Consolidation as a Factor for Rural Development in Moldova”, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 58 (3), pp. 439-455.
16. Liu, Y. S., Yang, R., Li, Y. H., 2013, “Potential of Land Consolidation of Hollowed Villages under Different Urbanization Scenarios in China”, Journal of Geographical Sciences, Vol. 23(3), pp. 503-512.
17. Martinez, R., Solla, M., Arias, P., Armesto, J., 2013, “Semi-automatic Land Consolidation Software based on Geographic Information Systems”, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Vol. 97, pp. 1-5.
18. Mihara, M., 1996, “Effects of Agricultural Land Consolidation on Erosion Processes in Semi-Mountainous Paddy Fields of Japan”, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, Vol. 64 (3), pp. 237-247.
19. Niroula, G. S., Thapa, G. B., 2007, “Impact of Land Fragmentation on Input Use, Crop Yield and Production Efficiency in the Mountains of Nepal”, Land Degradation and Development, Vol. 18, pp. 237-248.
20. Niroula, G. S., Thapa G. B., 2005, “Impacts and Causes of Land Fragmentation, and Lessons Learned from Land Consolidation in South Asia”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 22(4), pp. 358–372.
21. Pasakarnis, G., Maliene, V., 2010, “Towards Sustainable Rural Development in Central and Eastern Europe: Applying Land Consolidation”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 27, pp. 545-549.
22. Prazan, J., Dumbrovsky, M., 2011, “Soil Conservation Policies: Conditions for Their Effectiveness in the Czech Republic”, Land Degradation & Development, Vol. 22 (1), pp. 124-133.
23. Quadflieg, F., 1997, “An Economist’s View of the Measures Introduced to Accompany the Change in the Agrarian Structure”, Berichte Uber Landwirtschaft, Vol. 75, pp. 501-514.
24. Sklenicka, P., Hladik, J., Strelecek, F., Kottova, B., Lososova, J., Cihal, L., Salek, M., 2009, “Historical, Environmental and Socio-Economic Driving Forces on Land Ownership Fragmentation, the Land Consolidation Effect and the Project Costs”, Agricultural Economics-Zemedelska Ekonomika, Vol. 55(12), pp. 571-582.
25. Sklenicka, P., 2006, “Applying Evaluation Criteria for the Land Consolidation Effect to Three Contrasting Study Areas in the Czech Republic”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 23, Issue 4, pp. 502-510.
26. TUIK, 2008, “Tarım İstatistikleri-Sorularla Resmi İstatistikler Dizisi” 5. TÜİK Matbaası, Ankara.
27. Uhling, J., 1989, “Land Consolidation Agriculture and Environmental Protection”, Berichte Uber Landwirtschaft, Vol. 67, pp. 426-456.
28. Van Huylenbroeck, G., Coelho, J., Pinto, P.A., 1996, “Evaluation of Land Consolidation Projects (LLCs): a Multidisciplinary Approach”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 12 (3), pp. 297–310.
29. Ulger, N. E., Cay, T., 2012, “An Assessment about Land Consolidation in Turkey”, FIG Working Week, Rome, Italy.
30. Yang, Z.S., Yang, L. F., Zhang, B. S., 2010, “Soil Erosion and Its Basic Characteristics at Karst Rocky-desertified Land Consolidation Area: A Case Study at Muzhe Village of Xichou County in Southeast Yunnan, China”, Journal of Mountain Science, Vol. 7 (1), pp. 55-72.
31. Zhang, Z. F., Zhao, W., 2013, “A Parametric Approach to Assess the Sustainability of Land Consolidation: A Case Study in Shandong Province, North China”, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, Vol. 37(4), pp. 444-464.