Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Kentsel Peyzaj Yapısındaki Değişimlerin Peyzaj Metrikleri İle Analizi, İzmir Örneği

Yıl 2020, , 119 - 128, 31.03.2020
https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.619664

Öz

Amaç:
İzmir
ilinde hızlı nüfus artışı ve yoğun kentleşme hareketinin görüldüğü merkez
ilçelerinde, 1990 ve 2009 yılları arasındaki alan kullanım/arazi örtüsü (AKAÖ)
değişimlerinin peyzaj yapısına etkilerinin peyzaj metrikleri ile analiz
edilerek değerlendirilmesidir.



Materyal
ve Metot:
Çalışmada, araştırma alanındaki alan kullanım/arazi
örtüsü haritaları 07.08.1990 ve 26.07.2009 yıllarına ait Landsat 5 TM uydu
görüntülerine piksel tabanlı kontrollü sınıflandırma yöntemi uygulanarak elde
edilmiştir. Peyzaj yapısındaki değişimin alan kullanım/arazi örtüsü sınıflarına
göre değerlendirilmesinde 9 peyzaj metriği hesaplanmıştır.



Bulgular:
Çalışma alanında, 1990 ve 2009 yılları arasında, kentsel peyzaj yapısındaki
değişim incelendiğinde, yapay yüzeylerin ortalama yama büyüklüğü ve ağırlıklı
ortalama yama büyüklüğü değeri artış göstermiştir. Bu artış PROX_AM, ENN_AM, MESH
ve
IJI değerleri ile birlikte değerlendirildiğinde, yapay
yüzeylerin peyzaj içinde genişleyerek büyüdüğü ve yamaların birbirine daha
yakın konumlandığını göstermektedir. Bu genişlemeye bağlı olarak tarım
alanları, yarı doğal alanlar ve açık alanlarda belirgin azalmalar olmuştur.



Sonuç:
Araştırma sonucunda, kentsel gelişmeye bağlı olarak tarımsal alanların, açık
alanların, yarı doğal alanların ve tuzlu bataklıkların yerleşim, sanayi, ulaşım
gibi geçirimsiz alanlara dönüştürülmesinin, parçalanma, habitat yamalarının
izolasyonu, açık alan ve doğal bitki örtüsü kaybı gibi çeşitli süreçlerle
peyzajın yapısını değiştirdiği saptanmıştır.




Destekleyen Kurum

Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu (TÜBITAK)

Proje Numarası

CAYDAG 109Y210

Teşekkür

Bu araştırmada kullanılan AKAÖ verileri COST Aksiyonu TU0902 kapsamında Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu (TÜBITAK) tarafından desteklenen projeden elde edilmiştir.

Kaynakça

  • Alberti, M. 2005. The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. International regional science review, 28(2), 168-192.
  • Bennett, A.F. and Saunders, D.A. 2010. Habitat fragmentation and landscape change. Conservation biology for all, 93: 1544-1550.
  • Congalton, R.G. and Green, K. 2008. Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and practices. CRC press.
  • Deniz, B., Küçükerbaş, E.V. ve Tunçay, H.E. 2006. Peyzaj Ekolojisine Genel Bakış. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 5-18.
  • DiBari, J.N. 2007. Evaluation of five landscape-level metrics for measuring the effects of urbanization on landscape structure: the case of Tucson, Arizona, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(3-4), 308-313.
  • Dramstad, W., Olson, J.D. and Forman, R.T. 1996. Landscape ecology principles in landscape architecture and land-use planning. Island Press.
  • Erdogan, N., Kesgin Atak, B. and Nurlu, E. 2014. Modeling of Land Use Dynamics: Case Studies on Urban Growth in Turkey, Urban and Urbanization. St. Kliment Ohridski University Press, Sofia, Bulgaria, ISBN: 978-954-07-3772-0.
  • Ersoy, E., Jorgensen, A. and Warren, P.H. 2015. Measuring the spatial structure of urban land uses. The case of Sheffield, UK. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 16(1), 393-401.
  • Ersoy, E., Jorgensen, A. and Warren, P.H. 2018. Identifying multispecies connectivity corridors and the spatial pattern of the landscape. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening.
  • Esbah, H., Kara, B., Deniz, B. and Kesgin, B. 2010. Changing land cover characteristics of a developing coastal town: a case study of Didim, Turkey. Journal of Coastal Research, 274-282.
  • Foody, G.M. 2002. Status of Land Cover Classification Accuracy Assessment, Remote Sensing of Environment, 80, 1, 185-201.
  • Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Pres.
  • Hepcan, S., Hepcan, C.C., Kilicaslan, C., Ozkan, M.B. and Kocan, N. 2012. Analyzing landscape change and urban sprawl in a Mediterranean coastal landscape: a case study from Izmir, Turkey. Journal of Coastal Research, 29(2), 301-310.
  • Hepcan, Ç. C., Özeren, M., Hepcan, Ş. and Özkan, M. 2015. İzmir İli Metropol Kıyı İlçelerinin Peyzaj Yapı Analizi. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 52(3), 353-362.
  • Herold, M., Couclelis, H. and Clarke, K.C. 2005. The role of spatial metrics in the analysis and modeling of urban land use change. Computers, environment and urban systems, 29(4), 369-399.
  • İBB, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.izmir.bel.tr/tr/YurutulenProjeler/134/67. Erişim: Şubat, 2019.
  • İZKA - İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı, 2008. İzmir Bölgesi (TR31) Mevcut Durum Raporu. Planlama, Programlama ve Koordinasyon Birimi, Arkadaş Matbaası, İzmir, sayfa: 436.
  • Jaeger, J.A.G. 2000. Landscape Division, Splitting Index and Effective Mesh Size: New Measures of Landscape Fragmentation. Landscape Ecology, 15, 2, 155-130
  • Kesgin, B. and Nurlu, E. 2009. Land cover changes on the coastal zone of Candarli Bay, Turkey using remotely sensed data. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 157(1-4), 89-96.
  • Lee, J.T., Elton, M.J. and Thompson, S. 1999. The role of GIS in landscape assessment: using land-use-based criteria for an area of the Chiltern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Landscape Ecology 1999;16:23–32
  • Leitao, A.B. and Ahern, J. 2002. Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning;59: 65–93Leitão, A.B., Miller, J., Ahern, J. and Mcgarigal, K. 2006. Measuring landscapes: A planner's handbook. Island Press.
  • Lindenmayer, D.B. and Fischer, J. 2013. Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press.
  • Lookingbill, T.R., Elmore, A.J., Engelhardt, K.A., Churchill, J.B., Gates, J.E. and Johnson, J.B. 2010. Influence of wetland networks on bat activity in mixed-use landscapes. Biological Conservation, 143(4):974-983.
  • Mac, M.J., Opler, P.A., Haecker, C.P and Doran, P.D. 1998. Status and trends of the nation’s biological resources. United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 2, 437-964.
  • Nurlu, E., Erdem, E., Doygun, H. ve Oğuz, H. 2013. Entegre Değerlendirme Yöntemleri Kullanılarak İzmir Kenti İçin Sürdürülebilir Alan Kullanim Önerileri Geliştirilmesi. COST Action TU0902, TUBITAK Araştırma Projesi Raporu.
  • Nurlu, E., Kesgin Atak, B. and Barut, I. 2015. Analyzing the Degree of Landscape Fragmentation in Izmir, Turkey from 1984 to 2009. Environment and Ecology at the Beginning of 21st Century, Chapter: 39, Publisher: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press, Editors: Recep Efe, Carmen Bizzarri, İsa Cürebal, Gulnara N. Nyusupova, pp.545-555. ISBN 978-954-07-3999-1
  • Selman, P. 2010. Centenary paper: Landscape planning–preservation, conservation and sustainable development. Town planning review, 81(4), 381-406.
  • TÜİK, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. 2009. Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları. Yayın No: 3649, Ankara, ISBN 978-975-19-5276-9, s66.
  • Turner, M.G. and Gardner, R.H. 1991. Quantitative methods in landscape ecology (p. 536). New York, NY: Springer Verlag
  • Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape Ecology: The Effect of Pattern on Process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 20 (1989). p. 171-197.
  • Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H. and O‟Neill, R.V. 2001. Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J. and Melillo, J.M. 1997. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), 494-499.

Analyzing Urban Landscape Structure Changes Using Landscape Metrics; The Case of Izmir

Yıl 2020, , 119 - 128, 31.03.2020
https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.619664

Öz

Objective:
The aim of this study is to evaluate and determine landscape structure
depending on land use/land cover (LULC) changes between 1990 and 2009 in the
central districts of Izmir province between 1990 and 2009 using landscape
metrics.

Material
and Methods:

In
this study, land use/land cover maps for
study area were derived from
two
different time periods
Landsat 5 TM
(Thematic Mapper) acquared in
August
07, 1990 and in July 26, 2009
using pixel based supervised
classification method. Nine landscape metrics were calculated to evaluate
change in landscape structure according to land use/land cover classes.

Results:
In
the study area, when the urban landscape structure change is examined between
1990 and 2009, it was observed that the average patch size and weighted average
patch size of artificial surfaces are increased. When these values evaluated
together with PROX_AM, ENN_AM, MESH and IJI values, shows that artificial
surfaces expand and grow in the landscape and patches are located closer to
each other. Depending on this expansion, there has been a significant decrease
in agricultural areas, semi-natural areas and open areas.







 Conclusion: As a result of
this research, depending on urban development, the transformation of
agricultural areas, open areas, semi-natural areas, salty marshes into
impermeable areas such as settlement, industry, transportation, fragmentation,
isolation of habitat patches and loss of open area and natural vegetation have
changed the structure and function of the landscape. . 

Proje Numarası

CAYDAG 109Y210

Kaynakça

  • Alberti, M. 2005. The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. International regional science review, 28(2), 168-192.
  • Bennett, A.F. and Saunders, D.A. 2010. Habitat fragmentation and landscape change. Conservation biology for all, 93: 1544-1550.
  • Congalton, R.G. and Green, K. 2008. Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and practices. CRC press.
  • Deniz, B., Küçükerbaş, E.V. ve Tunçay, H.E. 2006. Peyzaj Ekolojisine Genel Bakış. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 5-18.
  • DiBari, J.N. 2007. Evaluation of five landscape-level metrics for measuring the effects of urbanization on landscape structure: the case of Tucson, Arizona, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(3-4), 308-313.
  • Dramstad, W., Olson, J.D. and Forman, R.T. 1996. Landscape ecology principles in landscape architecture and land-use planning. Island Press.
  • Erdogan, N., Kesgin Atak, B. and Nurlu, E. 2014. Modeling of Land Use Dynamics: Case Studies on Urban Growth in Turkey, Urban and Urbanization. St. Kliment Ohridski University Press, Sofia, Bulgaria, ISBN: 978-954-07-3772-0.
  • Ersoy, E., Jorgensen, A. and Warren, P.H. 2015. Measuring the spatial structure of urban land uses. The case of Sheffield, UK. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 16(1), 393-401.
  • Ersoy, E., Jorgensen, A. and Warren, P.H. 2018. Identifying multispecies connectivity corridors and the spatial pattern of the landscape. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening.
  • Esbah, H., Kara, B., Deniz, B. and Kesgin, B. 2010. Changing land cover characteristics of a developing coastal town: a case study of Didim, Turkey. Journal of Coastal Research, 274-282.
  • Foody, G.M. 2002. Status of Land Cover Classification Accuracy Assessment, Remote Sensing of Environment, 80, 1, 185-201.
  • Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Pres.
  • Hepcan, S., Hepcan, C.C., Kilicaslan, C., Ozkan, M.B. and Kocan, N. 2012. Analyzing landscape change and urban sprawl in a Mediterranean coastal landscape: a case study from Izmir, Turkey. Journal of Coastal Research, 29(2), 301-310.
  • Hepcan, Ç. C., Özeren, M., Hepcan, Ş. and Özkan, M. 2015. İzmir İli Metropol Kıyı İlçelerinin Peyzaj Yapı Analizi. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 52(3), 353-362.
  • Herold, M., Couclelis, H. and Clarke, K.C. 2005. The role of spatial metrics in the analysis and modeling of urban land use change. Computers, environment and urban systems, 29(4), 369-399.
  • İBB, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.izmir.bel.tr/tr/YurutulenProjeler/134/67. Erişim: Şubat, 2019.
  • İZKA - İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı, 2008. İzmir Bölgesi (TR31) Mevcut Durum Raporu. Planlama, Programlama ve Koordinasyon Birimi, Arkadaş Matbaası, İzmir, sayfa: 436.
  • Jaeger, J.A.G. 2000. Landscape Division, Splitting Index and Effective Mesh Size: New Measures of Landscape Fragmentation. Landscape Ecology, 15, 2, 155-130
  • Kesgin, B. and Nurlu, E. 2009. Land cover changes on the coastal zone of Candarli Bay, Turkey using remotely sensed data. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 157(1-4), 89-96.
  • Lee, J.T., Elton, M.J. and Thompson, S. 1999. The role of GIS in landscape assessment: using land-use-based criteria for an area of the Chiltern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Landscape Ecology 1999;16:23–32
  • Leitao, A.B. and Ahern, J. 2002. Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning;59: 65–93Leitão, A.B., Miller, J., Ahern, J. and Mcgarigal, K. 2006. Measuring landscapes: A planner's handbook. Island Press.
  • Lindenmayer, D.B. and Fischer, J. 2013. Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press.
  • Lookingbill, T.R., Elmore, A.J., Engelhardt, K.A., Churchill, J.B., Gates, J.E. and Johnson, J.B. 2010. Influence of wetland networks on bat activity in mixed-use landscapes. Biological Conservation, 143(4):974-983.
  • Mac, M.J., Opler, P.A., Haecker, C.P and Doran, P.D. 1998. Status and trends of the nation’s biological resources. United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 2, 437-964.
  • Nurlu, E., Erdem, E., Doygun, H. ve Oğuz, H. 2013. Entegre Değerlendirme Yöntemleri Kullanılarak İzmir Kenti İçin Sürdürülebilir Alan Kullanim Önerileri Geliştirilmesi. COST Action TU0902, TUBITAK Araştırma Projesi Raporu.
  • Nurlu, E., Kesgin Atak, B. and Barut, I. 2015. Analyzing the Degree of Landscape Fragmentation in Izmir, Turkey from 1984 to 2009. Environment and Ecology at the Beginning of 21st Century, Chapter: 39, Publisher: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press, Editors: Recep Efe, Carmen Bizzarri, İsa Cürebal, Gulnara N. Nyusupova, pp.545-555. ISBN 978-954-07-3999-1
  • Selman, P. 2010. Centenary paper: Landscape planning–preservation, conservation and sustainable development. Town planning review, 81(4), 381-406.
  • TÜİK, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. 2009. Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları. Yayın No: 3649, Ankara, ISBN 978-975-19-5276-9, s66.
  • Turner, M.G. and Gardner, R.H. 1991. Quantitative methods in landscape ecology (p. 536). New York, NY: Springer Verlag
  • Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape Ecology: The Effect of Pattern on Process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 20 (1989). p. 171-197.
  • Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H. and O‟Neill, R.V. 2001. Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J. and Melillo, J.M. 1997. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), 494-499.
Toplam 33 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Mühendislik
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Birsen Kesgin Atak 0000-0003-4786-0801

Proje Numarası CAYDAG 109Y210
Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Mart 2020
Gönderilme Tarihi 13 Eylül 2019
Kabul Tarihi 11 Ekim 2019
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020

Kaynak Göster

APA Kesgin Atak, B. (2020). Kentsel Peyzaj Yapısındaki Değişimlerin Peyzaj Metrikleri İle Analizi, İzmir Örneği. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 57(1), 119-128. https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.619664

Cited By








      27559           trdizin ile ilgili görsel sonucu                 27560                    Clarivate Analysis ile ilgili görsel sonucu            CABI logo                      NAL Catalog (AGRICOLA), ile ilgili görsel sonucu             EBSCO Information Services 

                                                       Creative Commons Lisansı This website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.