KIYI ALANLARINDAKİ GÖRSEL KALİTE VE KIRILGANLIK İLİŞKİSİNİN İKİLİ MEKANİZMASI

Öz

Kıyı alanları yüksek görsellikleri ile sosyo-ekonomik olarak stratejik öneme sahipken, iklim değişikliği kaynaklı fiziksel kırılganlıkları nedeniyle risk altındadır. Literatürde kıyı görsel kalitesinin değişimi ile deniz seviyesi yükselmesi kırılganlığı, birbirinden bağımsız yöntemlerle değerlendirilirken, bu iki boyut arasındaki ilişki sistematik olarak incelenmemektedir. Literatürdeki bu boşluk, Kıyı Alanları Görsel Kalite Değerlendirme Modeli (CSES) ile belirlenen görsel kalite ve Kıyı Kırılganlık İndeksi (CVI-SLR) ile belirlenen kırılganlık arasındaki ilişkinin Marmara bölgesinde seçilen 16 kumsalda nicel olarak ortaya konduğu bu çalışma ile tartışılmaktadır. Hiyerarşik Spearman korelasyon analizleri, görsel kalite ile kırılganlık arasında ikili bir etkileşim olduğunu göstermektedir. Görsel kaliteyi belirleyen fiziksel parametreler doğal kırılganlık ile pozitif ilişki sergilerken, insan kaynaklı parametrelerin fiziksel kırılganlık üzerindeki insan etkisi ile güçlü negatif ilişkisi bulunmaktadır. Bu sonuç, yüksek görsel değere sahip doğal koruma alanlarının, koruma sağlayabilecek insan müdahalesinin olmaması nedeniyle deniz seviyesi etkilerine doğrudan maruz kalarak yüksek fiziksel kırılganlık gösterebildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ancak, yoğun yapılaşma ve düşük görsel kaliteye sahip kentsel kıyı alanları, mevcut yapılaşmanın kıyı koruma fonksiyonu sayesinde daha düşük kırılganlık sergileyebilmektedir. Bu ikili mekanizma, bileşik kırılganlık indekslerinde maskelenmekte, ancak ayrıntılı hiyerarşik analizler ile ortaya çıkmaktadır. Çalışma, kıyı alanları yönetiminde görsel kalitenin korunması ile kırılganlık azaltım stratejilerinin birlikte değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini önemle vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kıyı görsel kalitesi
• Deniz seviyesi yükselmesi
• Kıyı kırılganlık indeksi
• Marmara Denizi

Dual Nature of Scenic Quality and Vulnerability Interaction of Coastal Areas

Öz

Coastal areas have strategic importance characterized by high aesthetic values but physically vulnerable to climate change. In the literature, coastal scenic quality and sea-level rise vulnerability are addressed by independent methods not considering the relationship between these two dimensions. This paper systematically examines the relationship between scenic quality determined by the Coastal Scenic Evaluation System (CSES) and vulnerability determined by the Coastal Vulnerability Index to Sea-Level Rise (CVI-SLR) at 16 selected locations along Marmara Sea. Hierarchical Spearman correlation analyses revealed a dual interaction between scenic quality and vulnerability. While physical parameters determining scenic quality showed a positive relationship with physical vulnerability, human-induced parameters exhibited a strong negative relationship with human impact on the physical vulnerability. This result demonstrates that natural protected areas with high scenic value exhibit high physical vulnerability as directly exposed to sea-level rise due to minimal human intervention. Conversely, urban coastal areas with intensive development and low scenic quality may exhibit lower vulnerability due to the coastal protection function of the existing structures. This dual effect is masked in composite vulnerability indices, causing the overall relationship to appear statistically non-significant. The study emphasizes that scenic quality and adaptation strategies must be evaluated together in coastal area management.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Coastal scenic quality
• Sea level rise
• Coastal vulnerability index
• Marmara Sea

Kaynakça

1. Abuodha, P. A. O., & Woodroffe, C. D. (2010). Assessing vulnerability to sea-level rise using a coastal sensitivity index: a case study from southeast Australia. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 14(3), 189-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-010-0097-0
2. Ak, M. K. (2010). Görsel peyzaj algısının değerlendirilmesi üzerine bir araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara.
3. Amir, S., & Gidalizon, E. (1990). Expert-based method for the evaluation of visual absorption capacity of the landscape. Journal of Environmental Management, 30(3), 251-263.
4. Anderson, L. M., Levi, D. J., Jacobs, D., Ervin, S. M., & Graff, A. (1979). Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9(1), 1-32.
5. Anfuso, G., Williams, A. T., Casas Martinez, G. M., Botero, C. M., Cabrera Hernández, J. A., & Pranzini, E. (2017). Evaluation of the scenic value of 100 beaches in Cuba: implications for coastal tourism management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 142, 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.03.029
6. Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J. F., Cañas-Madueño, J. A., & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1), 115-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029
7. Aşur, F., & Alphan, H. (2018). Görsel Peyzaj Kalite Değerlendirmesi ve Alan Kullanım Planlamasına Olan Etkileri. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 28(1), 117-124. http://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.333878
8. Botero, C.M.; Ozyurt, G.; Otero, S.; Güler, H.G., and Ergin, A., (2024). More vulnerable although legal: A case-study comparison of coastal urbanization in Türkiye and Colombia. In: Phillips, M.R.; Al-Naemi, S., and Duarte, C.M. (eds.),Proceedings from the International Coastal Symposium (ICS) 2024 (Doha, Qatar). Journal of Coastal Research, SI 113, pp. 69-74. Charlotte (North Carolina), ISSN 0749-0208. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCR-SI113-014.1

9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Cruz-Ramírez, C. J., Chávez, V., Silva, R., Muñoz-Perez, J. J., & Rivera-Arriaga, E. (2024). Coastal Management: A Review of Key Elements for Vulnerability Assessment. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 12(3), 386. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12030386
11. Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966
12. Defeo, O., Licandro, J., Olalde, J., Bausero-Jorcin, S., Celentano, E., De Álava, A., Jorge-Romero, G., Lercari, D., & Rangel-Buitrago, N. (2024). Assessing the health and scenic quality of sandy beaches: A large-scale evaluation using expert judgement. Ocean & Coastal Management, 249, 107468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2024.107468
13. Ergin, A., Karaesmen, E., Micallef, A., & Williams, A. T. (2004). A new methodology for evaluating coastal scenery: fuzzy logic systems. Area, 36(4), 367-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0004-0894.2004.00238.x
14. Ergin, A., Williams, A. T., & Micallef, A. (2006). Coastal scenery: appreciation and evaluation. Journal of Coastal Research, 22(4), 958-964. https://doi.org/10.2112/04-0351.1
15. Ergin A., Karaesmen E., Guler, H.G. (2018) Kıyı Alanlarının Bulanık Mantık Yöntemiyle Değerlendirilmesi İçin Açık Kaynak Kodlu Hesaplama Aracı Geliştirilmesi. TMMOB İMO,9. Kıyı Mühendisliği Sempozyumu. Kasım 1-3, 2018, Adana, Türkiye, sf. 356-365.
16. Ergin, A. (2019). Coastal Scenery Assessment by Means of a Fuzzy Logic Approach. In: Rangel-Buitrago, N. (eds) Coastal Scenery. Coastal Research Library, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78878-4_4
17. Ergin, A., Özyurt Tarakcıoğlu, G. (2024) Kıyı alanları yönetimi düzenlemeleri açısından kıyı alanları doğal ve insan kullanımı ve kırılganlığı bütünleşik değerlendirilmesi Proje Raporu. TÜBİTAK 2511 Proje Desteği, Proje No: 121N828, ODTÜ, 67 sf.
18. European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet). (2022, January 31). EMODnet Digital Bathymetry (DTM 2022). EMODnet product catalogue. https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/ff3aff8a-cff1-44a3-a2c8-1910bf109f85
19. European Space Agency (2024). Copernicus Global Digital Elevation Model. Distributed by OpenTopography. https://doi.org/10.5069/G9028PQB.
20. Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 2-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338
21. IPCC, (2023) Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115, doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647
22. Kalhara, G. W. D., & Rajapaksha, I. (2023). Investigating the effects of built environment on coastal scenery: Coastal scenic assessment of the Southern coastal belt of Sri Lanka. FARU Journal, 10(2), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.4038/faruj.v10i2.241
23. Kiper, T., Korkut, A., & Topal, T. Ü. (2017). Görsel Peyzaj Kalite Değerlendirmesi: Kıyıköy Örneği. KSÜ Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 20(3), 192-203. Doi: 10.18016-ksudobil.289463-272894
24. Lopez Royo, M., Ranasinghe, R., & Jiménez, J. A. (2016). A rapid, low-cost approach to coastal vulnerability assessment at a national level. Journal of Coastal Research, 32(4), 932-945. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-14-00217.1
25. Mclaughlin, S., & Cooper, J. A. G. (2010). A multi-scale coastal vulnerability index: A tool for coastal managers? Environmental Hazards, 9(3), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2010.0052
26. Nakagawa, S., & Cuthill, I. C. (2007). Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: A practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews, 82(4), 591-605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2007.00027.x
27. Özyurt, G. (2007). Vulnerability of coastal areas to sea level rise: A case study on Göksu Delta. Ph.D. Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
28. Özyurt, G., & Ergin, A. (2009). Application of sea level rise vulnerability assessment model to selected coastal areas of Turkey. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 56, 248-251.
29. Özyurt, G., & Ergin, A. (2010). Improving coastal vulnerability assessments to sea-level rise: A new indicator-based methodology for decision makers. Journal of Coastal Research, 26(2), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.2112/08-1055.1
30. Rangel-Buitrago, N., Correa, I. D., Anfuso, G., Ergin, A., & Williams, A. T. (2013). Assessing and managing scenery of the Caribbean Coast of Colombia. Tourism Management, 35, 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.05.008
31. Rangel-Buitrago, N. (Ed.) (2019). Coastal Scenery: Evaluation and Management. Springer.
32. Rangel-Buitrago, N., & Ben-Haddad, M. (2024). A 20-year review of the coastal scenery evaluation system. Ocean & Coastal Management, 257, 107341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2024.107341
33. Reimann, L., Vafeidis, A. T., Brown, S., Hinkel, J., & Tol, R. S. (2018). Mediterranean UNESCO World Heritage at risk from coastal flooding and erosion due to sea-level rise. Nature Communications, 9(1), 4161. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06645-9
34. Rizzo, A., Mattei, G., Dumon Steenssens, L., Anzidei, M., Aucelli, P. P. C., Alberti, T., Antonioli, F., Bezzi, A., Bonaldo, D., Fontolan, G., Furlani, S., Liso, I. S., Parise, M., Sansò, P., Scicchitano, G., Trippanera, D., Vecchio, A., & Mastronuzzi, G. (2025). Methodological advances in sea level rise vulnerability assessment: Implications for sustainable coastal management in a climate change scenario. Ocean & Coastal Management, 268, 107751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2025.107751
35. Roukounis, C. N., & Tsihrintzis, V. A. (2022). Indices of Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change: A Review. Environmental Processes, 9(2), 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-022-00577-9
36. Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279-282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1
37. Tendero-Peiró, C., Asensio-Montesinos, F., Anfuso, G., & Corbí, H. (2024). The Coastal Scenery of São Miguel Island, Azores Archipelago: Implications for Coastal Management. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 12(5), 707. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12050707
38. Thieler, E. R., & Hammar-Klose, E. S. (1999). National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise: preliminary results for the US Atlantic Coast. US Geological Survey Open-File Report, 99-593.
39. Uzun, O., Dilek, F., Erduran, F., Dıjkshoorn, K., & Kesim, G. A. (2012). Ordu ilinde kıyı alanlarının görsel kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 18(3), 234-247.
40. Vousdoukas, Michail; Mentaschi, Lorenzo; Voukouvalas, Evangelos; Verlaan, Martin; Feyen, Luc (2018): Extreme Sea level - RCP45. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) [Dataset] PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/e9e42344-119d-479e-9bc7-57400d12a8a2
41. Vousdoukas, M. I., Mentaschi, L., Hinkel, J., Ward, P. J., Mongelli, I., Ciscar, J. C., & Feyen, L. (2022). Economic motivation for raising coastal flood defenses in Europe. Nature Communications, 11(1), 2119. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15665-3
42. Williams, A.T. (2019). Some Scenic Evaluation Techniques. In: Rangel-Buitrago, N. (eds) Coastal Scenery. Coastal Research Library, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78878-4_3