The use of EUNIS habitat classification to assess ecosystem services capacity: the case of Mamak district (Ankara, Türkiye)

Yıl 2024, , 31 - 45, 18.04.2024

İrem Tüfekcioğlu , Muhammed Hakan Çakmak , Çiğdem Coşkun Hepcan

https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.1342347

Öz

Objective: The ecosystem services (ES) term is defined as all of the products, services, and benefits provided by ecosystems on earth to human beings and other living entities. In order to determine the ES capacity and integrating such data into management plans is a key element for nature conservation and sustainable land-use planning. Hence, a study was conducted, and the objective of this study was to determine the ES capacity of Mamak district (Ankara, Turkey) with an evaluation approach based on expert opinions using EUNIS habitat data.
Material and Methods: Besides raw scores obtained from experts with the evaluation approach based on expert opinions, the areal ES capacity (AESC) indices for each EUNIS habitat type were calculated, and maps were developed accordingly.
Results: The results obtained from this study showed that; (1) with raw scores, ES capacities of habitat types are very diverse for each ES type, (2) with AESC indices, almost all ES capacity class are same for each habitat type.
Conclusion: As a conclusion, it can be stated that the use of EUNIS habitat maps is applicable to assess ES capacities in such studies if and when the presence of such habitat data.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Biodiversity, ecosystem service mapping, GIS, habitat data

Teşekkür

The authors thank to Ms. Duygu Dönertaş for checking the language of the manuscript.

Ekosistem hizmetleri kapasitesini değerlendirmede EUNIS habitat sınıflandırmasının kullanımı: Mamak ilçesi örneği (Ankara, Türkiye)

Öz

Amaç: Ekosistem hizmetleri (EH) terimi, yeryüzündeki ekosistemlerin insan ve diğer canlılara sağladığı ürün, hizmet ve faydaların tümü olarak tanımlanmaktadır. EH kapasitesinin belirlenmesi ve bu tür verilerin yönetim planlarına entegre edilmesi, doğanın korunması ve sürdürülebilir arazi kullanım planlaması için kilit bir unsurdur. Bu çalışmada, EUNIS habitat verileri kullanılarak uzman görüşlerine dayalı değerlendirme yaklaşımı ile Mamak ilçesinin (Ankara, Türkiye) EH kapasitesinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmaktadır.
Materyal ve Yöntem: Uzman görüşlerine dayalı değerlendirme yaklaşımı ile uzmanlardan alınan ham puanların yanı sıra her bir EUNIS habitat tipi için alansal EH kapasite (AESC) indeksleri hesaplanmış ve buna göre haritalar geliştirilmiştir.
Araştırma Bulguları: Sonuçlar göstermiştir ki; (1) ham puanlarla, habitat tiplerinin EH kapasiteleri her EH tipi için çok farklı iken, (2) AESC indeksleriyle, hemen hemen tüm EH kapasite sınıfları her habitat tipi için aynıdır.
Sonuç: Sonuç olarak bu çalışma, EUNIS habitat haritalarının kullanımının, EUNIS habitat verilerinin mevcut olması durumunda ve bu tip çalışmalarda EH kapasitelerini değerlendirmek için uygulanabilir olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Biyoçeşitlilik, ekosistem hizmetleri haritalaması, CBS, habitat verileri

Kaynakça

• Ahern, J., S. Cilliers & J. Niemelä, 2014. The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: a framework for supporting innovation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125: 254-259. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.020
• Anonymous, 2016. 100 Maddede Sürdürülebilirlik Rehberi. SKD Türkiye, İstanbul, 112 s. Arslan, M. & N. Arslantürk, 2009. Avrupa Doğa Bilgi Sistemi (EUNIS) Habitat Sınıflandırması. Orman Mühendisliği, 46 (1-2-3): 48-51.
• Başak, E., N.I. Çetin, C. Vatandaşlar, P.P. Albers, A.A. Karabulut, A.A. Çağlayan & G. Atkin, 2022. Ecosystem services studies in Turkey: A national-scale review. Science of the Total Environment, 844: 157068.
• Bilgin, A. & M. Doğan, 2012. Doğa Korumanın Ekonomik Sisteme Entegrasyonu Taslak Kılavuzu 2 Biyokıymetlendirme Teknik Uygulayıcıları: Sultan Sazlığı Milli Parkı Pilot Uygulaması. Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı, Ankara, 192 s.
• Bolliger, J. & F. Kienast, 2010. Landscape functions in a changing environment. Landscape Online, 21: 1-5. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201021.
• Brander, L. M., A. J. Wagtendonk, S.S. Hussain, A. McVittie, P.H. Verburg, R.S. de Groot & S. van der Ploeg, 2012. Ecosystem service values for mangroves in Southeast Asia: a meta-analysis and value transfer application. Ecosystem Services, 1 (1): 62-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.003.
• Burkhard, B., F. Kroll, S. Nedkov & F. Müller, 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21: 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019.
• Çakmak, M.H. & M. Can, 2020. Mamak İlçesinin (Ankara) hava kalitesinin iyileştirilmesine yönelik düzenleyici ekosistem hizmetlerinin hesaplanması. Bilge International Journal of Science and Technology Research, 4 (2): 141-149.
• Çakmak, M.H. & Z. Aytaç, 2018. Urban vascular flora and ecological characteristics of Mamak District (Ankara/Turkey). Biological Diversity and Conservation, 11 (2): 123-131.
• Çakmak, M.H. & Z. Aytaç, 2020. Determination and mapping of EUNIS habitat types of Mamak District (Ankara), Turkey. Acta Biologica Turcica, 33 (4): 227-236.
• Çakmak, M.H. & Z. Aytaç, 2021. EUNIS Habitat Sınıflandırmasının Türkiye durum değerlendirmesi. Bilge International Journal of Science and Technology Research, 5 (2): 157-163. https://doi.org/10.30516/bilgesci.888297.
• Celik, M., M. Tastekin & K. Kayabali, 2007. An investigation of the surface and groundwater leachate from an old waste disposal site at Mamak, Ankara, Turkey. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 30 (3-4): 548-560. https://doi,org/10,1504/IJEP,2007,014828.
• Cohen-Shacham, E., G. Walters, C. Janzen & S. Maginnis, 2016. Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 97pp. ISBN: 978-2-8317-1812-5.
• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2016. COP Decision XIII/5. Ecosystem Restoration: Short-Term Action Plan. CBD Secretariat, Mexico, 10 pp.
• Coşkun Hepcan, Ç. & Ş. Hepcan, 2017. Ege Üniversitesi Lojmanlar Yerleşkesinin hava kalitesinin iyileştirilmesine yönelik düzenleyici ekosistem servislerinin hesaplanması. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 54 (1): 113-120.
• Costanza, R., R. D’Arge, R.S. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton & M. van den Belt, 1997. The value of world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253-260. doi:10,1038/387253a0.
• Daily, G.C. & P.A. Matson, 2008. Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105 (28): 9455-9456. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804960105.
• Daily, G.C., 1997. Nature’s Services. Island Press, Washington DC, 412 pp.
• Davies, C.E., D. Moss & M.O. Hill, 2004. EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004. European Environment Agency, European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity, 1-307.
• de Groot, R., M.A. Wilson & R.M.J. Boumans, 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41 (3): 393-408, https://doi,org/10, 1016/s0921-8009 (02)00089-7.
• Egoh, B., B. Reyers, M. Rouget, D.M. Richardson, D.C. Le Maitre & A.S. van Jaarsveld, 2008. Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 127: 135-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.03.013.
• European Environmental Agency (EEA), 2015. Exploring Nature-Based Solutions the Role of Green İnfrastructure in Mitigating the İmpacts of Weather- and Climate Change-Related Natural Hazards. EEA Technical report No 12/2015. ISBN 978-92-9213-693-2. doi:10.2800/946387, 66 pp.
• Evans, D., 2012. The EUNIS habitats classification - past, present & future. Revista de Investigación Marina, 19 (2): 28-29.
• Fisher, B., R.K. Turner & P. Morling, 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68 (3): 643-653.
• Grimm, N.B. & C.L. Redman, 2004. Approaches to the study of urban ecosystems: the case of Central Arizona -Phoenix. Urban Ecosystem, 7 (3): 199-213.
• Gutman, P., 2007. Ecosystem services: foundations for a new rural-urban compact. Ecological Economics, 62 (3-4): 383-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.027.
• Haines-Young, R. & M. Potschin, 2012. “The Links Between Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being, 110-139.” In: Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis (Eds. D.G. Raffaelli & C.L.J. Frid), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 174 pp.
• Hepcan, S. & C. Coskun Hepcan, 2021. Assessing ecosystem services of urban green spaces: the case of Eugene Pioneer Cemetery, Eugene, OR (USA). Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 58 (4): 513-522. DOI: 10.20289/zfdergi.900698.
• Karahalil, U., E.Z. Başkent & S. Bulut, 2018. The effects of land cover changes on forest carbon storage in 40 years: a case study in Turkey. International Journal of Global Warming. 14: 207-223.
• Kasparainskis, R., A. Ruskule, I. Vinogradovs & M. Villoslada Pecina, 2018. The Guidebook on “The Introduction to the Ecosystem Service Framework and Its Application in Integrated Planning”. Riga: University of Latvia, Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences, 63 pp.
• Kremen, C. & R.S. Ostfeld, 2005. A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3: 540-548.
• Li, F., X. Liu, X. Zhang, D. Zhao, H. Liu, C. Zhou & R. Wang, 2017. Urban ecological infrastructure: an integrated network for ecosystem services and sustainable urban systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 163: 12-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.079.
• Lin, Y.P., W.C. Lin, Y.C. Wang, W.Y. Lien, T. Huang, C.C. Hsu, D.S. Schmeller & N.D. Crossman, 2017. Systematically designating conservation areas for protecting habitat quality and multiple ecosystem services. Environmental Modelling & Software, 90: 126-146.
• Maes, J., N. D. Crossman & B. Burkhard, 2016. “Mapping ecosystem services, 188-204”. In: Routledge handbook of ecosystem services. (Eds. P. Potschin, R. Haines-Young, R. Fish & R.K. Turner), Routlegde, London, 630 pp.
• Mcintyre, N.E., K. Knowles-Yánez & D. Hope, 2000. Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: differences in the use of “urban” between the social and natural sciences. Urban Ecosystems, 4 (1): 5-24. https://doi.org/10,1023/A:1009540018553
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: a Framework for Assessment, MA. (Web page: http://www,millenniumassessment,org/en/Framework,html) (Date accessed: 16.08.2023)
• Nelson, E., G. Mendoza, J. Regetz, S. Polasky, H. Tallis, D.R. Cameron, K.M.A. Chan, G.C. Daily, J. Goldstein, P.M. Kareiva, E. Lonsdorf, R. Naidoo, T.H. Ricketts & M.R. Shaw, 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7 (1): 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1890/080023.
• Niemelä, J., S-R. Saarela, T. Söderman, L. Kopperoinen, V. Yli-Pelkonen, S. Väre & D.J. Kotze, 2010. Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19 (11): 3225-3243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9888-8
• Örücü, Ö.K. & E.S. Arslan, 2021. “Sosyal medya fotoğrafları ile Artvin’in ekosistem hizmet potansiyelinin zamansal ve konumsal analizi, 0”. In: CEDESU2021/ 2ND International City and Ecology Congress within the Framework of Sustainable Urban Development, Online (December 2-3, 2021), 365 pp.
• Sandhu, H. & S. Wratten, 2013. “Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities, 3-15”. In: Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes. (Eds. S. Wratten, H. Sandhu, R. Cullen & R. Costanza), Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 200 pp.
• Swetnam, T., D.A. Falk, A.E. Hessl & C. Farris, 2011. “Reconstructing Landscape Pattern of Historic Fires and Fire Regimes, 165-192”. In: Landscape Ecology of Fire (Eds. D. McKenzie, C. Miller & D.A. Falk), Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 312 pp.
• T.C. Mamak Belediyesi, 2023. 2022 Mamak Belediyesi İdare Faaliyet Raporu. Ankara: T.C. Mamak Belediye Başkanlığı, 470 s.
• Tallis, H. & S. Polasky, 2009. Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1162: 265-283. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04152.x
• Tilman, D., R.M. May, C.L. Lehman & M.A. Nowak, 1994. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature, 371: 65-66.
• Tırnakçı, A., 2021a. Sürdürülebilir kentsel açık-yeşil alanlar olarak mezarlıklar ve sunduğu ekosistem hizmetleri: Tarihi Seyyid Burhaneddin Mezarlığı-Kayseri. Bartın Orman Fakultesi Dergisi, 23 (1): 18-35. https://doi.org/10.24011/barofd.785895.
• Tırnakçı, A., 2021b. Kentsel kültürel miras alanlarının kültürel ekosistem servisleri bağlamında değerlendirilmesi: Kayseri-Talas Tarihi Kent Dokusu Örneği. Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences, 6 (4): 749-756. https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.983932
• Tırnakçı, A., 2022. Mezarlıkların kentsel bitki çeşitliliği potansiyeli ve sunduğu ekosistem hizmetleri: Kayseri Şehir Mezarlığı. Uluslararası Hakemli Tasarım ve Mimarlık Dergisi, 25: 33-63.
• Tratalos, J., R.A. Fuller, P.H. Warren, R.G. Davies & K.J. Gaston, 2007. Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83 (4): 308-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.003.
• Troy, A. & M.A. Wilson, 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics, 60: 435-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.007.
• Tuominen, S., H. Eeronheimo & H. Toivonen, 2001. Yleispiirteinen Biotooppiluokitus. Metsähallituksen luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja, Sarja B No. 57, Finland, Vantaa, 1-60.
• Turner, W.R., T. Brandon, M. Brooks, R. Costanza, G.A.B. da Fonseca & R. Portela, 2007. Global conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience, 57 (10): 868-873. https://doi.org/10.1641/B571009.
• Tzoulas, K., K. Korpela, S. Venn, V. Yli-Pelkonen, A. Kaźmierczaka, J. Niemela & P. James, 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81: 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001.
• Vihervaara, P., T. Kumpula, A. Ruokolainen, A. Tanskanen & B. Burkhard, 2012. The use of detailed biotope data for linking biodiversity with ecosystem services in Finland. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 8 (1-2): 169-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.686120.
• Vihervaara, P., T. Kumpula, A. Tanskanen & B. Burkhard, 2010. Ecosystem services-A tool for sustainable management of human-environment systems, Case study Finnish Forest Lapland. Ecological Complexity, 7: 410-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.12.002.
• Wang, W., T. Wu, Y. Li, S. Xie, B. Han, H. Zheng & Z. Ouyang, 2020. Urbanization impacts on natural habitat and ecosystem services in the Guangdong Hong Kong-Macao “Megacity”. Sustainability, 12 (16): 6675. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166675.
• Zinia, N.J. & P. McShane, 2021. Urban ecosystems and ecosystem services in megacity Dhaka: mapping and inventory analysis. Urban Ecosystems, 24: 915-928.