Arazi Kullanımı/Arazi Örtüsü Değişikliklerinin Ekosistem Hizmetleri Üzerindeki Etkisinin Sayısallaştırılması: Adana-Karaisalı Örneği
Abstract
Arazi kullanımındaki küresel ölçekteki değişiklikler biyolojik çeşitliliği, küresel iklimi ve ekosistem hizmetlerini etkiler. Plan ve politikalara yerel ve bölgesel bir ekosistem hizmeti yaklaşımının entegre edilmesi, sürdürülebilir arazi yönetimi için esastır. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye'nin Adana-Karaisali ilçesindeki arazi kullanımı/arazi örtüsü farklılıkları Normalleştirilmiş Fark Bitki Örtüsü İndeksi (NDVI) kullanarak incelenmiştir. 2000 ve 2016 yıllarına ait Landsat uydu görüntüleri ISODATA yöntemi kullanılarak analiz edilmiş ve CORINE sınıflandırma çerçevesinin üçüncü düzeyine göre 16 arazi kullanımı tespit edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, en büyük değişimin tarım alanlarında meydana geldiğini, sulanmayan ekilebilir arazilerde %2,57' lik bir azalma, sürekli sulanan arazilerde ise %7,14'lük bir artış olduğunu göstermiştir. Bölgedeki nüfus azalmasına rağmen kesintisiz kentsel doku % 0,07 oranında artmıştır ve ormanlık alanlarda %7,62 artış gözlenmiştir. Tespit edilen değişikliklerin, Ekosistem Hizmetleri Ortak Sınıflandırması (CİCES) çerçevesine dayalı olarak olumlu veya olumsuz etkileri değerlendirilmiştir. Su kütleleri ve doğal peyzaj alanlarındaki azalmaya rağmen tarım alanlarındaki, ormanlardaki ve yapay yüzeylerdeki artışların ilçedeki ekosistem hizmetleri değerlemesini olumlu etkilediği belirlenmiştir.
References
- Anaya-Romero M., Muñoz-Rojas M., Ibáñez B., Marañón T. Evaluation of forest ecosystem services in Mediterranean areas. A regional case study in South Spain. Ecosystem Services 2016; 20, 82–90.
- Anna H., Sabine S., Thomas W. The concept of ecosystem services regarding landscape research, Living Rev Landscape Res. 2011; 5,1.
- Baral H., Keenan R.J., Fox J.C., Stork N.E., Kasel S. Spatial assessment of ecosystem goods and services in complex production landscapes: A case study from south-eastern Australia. Ecol Complex 2013; 13, 35–45.
- Braat L., de Groot R. The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012; 1, 4–15.
- Chen X., Vierling L., Deering D. A simple and effective radiometric correction method to improve landscape change detection across sensors and across time. Remote Sensing of Environment 2005; 98, 63 – 79.
- CICES. (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services) Towards acommon international classification of ecosystem services 2013.
- Costanza R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O’Neill RV., Paruele J., Raskin RG., Sutton P., Van den Belt M. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997; 387, 253–260.
- Costanza R., de Groot R., Braat L., Kubiszewski I., Fioramonti L., Sutton P., Farber S., Grasso M. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services 2017 ; 28, 1–16.
- Costanza R., de Groot R., Sutton P., van der Ploeg S., Anderson S., Kubiszewski I., Farber S., Turner R. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014; 26, 152–158.
- Costanza R., Quatrini S., Øystese S.The Valuation of Nature and Ecosystem Services is not Privatization. Climate Home News 2012.
Quantification of the Impact of Land Use/Land Cover Changes on Ecosystem Services: A Case Study in Adana-Karaisalı
Abstract
Global scale changes in land use affect biodiversity, global climate, and ecosystem services. Integrating a local and regional ecosystem service approach into plans and policies levels is essential for sustainable land management. In this study, land use/land cover differences in Adana-Karaisali district of Turkey were investigated using Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). Landsat satellite images of the area from 2000 and 2016 were analyzed using ISODATA method and 16 land use were identified based on the third level of the CORINE classification framework. The results showed that the biggest changes occurred in agricultural areas, 2.57% decrease in non-irrigated arable land while a 7.14% increase was observed in permanently irrigated lands. In spite of the decrease in the number of inhabitants in the area, continuous urban fabric increased at the rate of 0.07% and 7.62% increase was observed in forest lands. The positive or negative effects of the identified changes on ecosystem services based on the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) framework were evaluated. In the case of Karaisalı, in spite of the decrease in water bodies and natural landscapes, it has been observed that increases in agricultural areas, forests, and artificial surfaces positively have affected ecosystem services valuation in the district.
References
- Anaya-Romero M., Muñoz-Rojas M., Ibáñez B., Marañón T. Evaluation of forest ecosystem services in Mediterranean areas. A regional case study in South Spain. Ecosystem Services 2016; 20, 82–90.
- Anna H., Sabine S., Thomas W. The concept of ecosystem services regarding landscape research, Living Rev Landscape Res. 2011; 5,1.
- Baral H., Keenan R.J., Fox J.C., Stork N.E., Kasel S. Spatial assessment of ecosystem goods and services in complex production landscapes: A case study from south-eastern Australia. Ecol Complex 2013; 13, 35–45.
- Braat L., de Groot R. The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012; 1, 4–15.
- Chen X., Vierling L., Deering D. A simple and effective radiometric correction method to improve landscape change detection across sensors and across time. Remote Sensing of Environment 2005; 98, 63 – 79.
- CICES. (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services) Towards acommon international classification of ecosystem services 2013.
- Costanza R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O’Neill RV., Paruele J., Raskin RG., Sutton P., Van den Belt M. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997; 387, 253–260.
- Costanza R., de Groot R., Braat L., Kubiszewski I., Fioramonti L., Sutton P., Farber S., Grasso M. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services 2017 ; 28, 1–16.
- Costanza R., de Groot R., Sutton P., van der Ploeg S., Anderson S., Kubiszewski I., Farber S., Turner R. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014; 26, 152–158.
- Costanza R., Quatrini S., Øystese S.The Valuation of Nature and Ecosystem Services is not Privatization. Climate Home News 2012.
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Environmental Sciences |
| Journal Section | RESEARCH ARTICLES |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | December 15, 2021 |
| Submission Date | September 30, 2021 |
| Acceptance Date | October 23, 2021 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2021 Volume: 4 Issue: 3 |
Cite
Cited By
Useful indicators and models for assessing erosion control ecosystem service in a semi-arid forest landscape
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10814-1
*This journal is an international refereed journal
*Our journal does not charge any article processing fees over publication process.
* This journal is online publishes 5 issues per year (January, March, June, September, December)
*This journal published in Turkish and English as open access.
* This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.