Kentsel ekosistem hizmetlerinin haritalanması için kullanılan göstergeler, yöntemler ve geliştirilen araçlar

Year 2018, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 1 - 8, 30.06.2018

Gülay Tokgöz , Nuriye Say

Abstract

 Peyzaj alanlarının mekansal özelliklerinin belirlenmesi, bu alanlardaki ekosistem hizmetlerinin hem tipinin ve değ erinin belirlenmesinde hem de haritalanmasında temel faktördür. Ekosistem hizmetleri haritaları, karmaşık ve disiplinler arası bilgilerin, peyzaj yönetimi ve ulusal/uluslararası planlara dahil edilmesi aşamasında birçok yarar sağlar. Bu haritalar, ekosistem hizmetleri arasındaki sinerjilerin ve değ iş imlerin nerede olduğu konusundaki bütüncül yaklaş ımların desteklendiği ve paydaşlar arasında bilgi alış veriş inin sağlandığı sezgisel ve görsel olarak güçlü araçlardır.

Bu çalış mada, ekosistem hizmetleri kavramını iş levsel hale getirebilecek haritalama yöntemleri, bu amaçla geliştirilen uluslar arası haritalama araçları ve bu araçların ulusal ölçekte kullanılabilirliği araştırılmıştır. Bu amaçla birçok ülkede yapılan uygulama örnekleri ve bu konuda hazırlanan kurumsal raporlar incelenerek, yöntemler ve yazılım araçları belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

CBS, Ekosistem hizmetleri, Haritalama

Indicators, methods and developed tools for mapping of urban ecosystem services

Abstract

The areal scope and the mapping of spatial distribution of landscape features is the main factor in determining both type and value of the produced ecosystem service. The maps of ecosystem services provide a lot of benefits in integrating complex and disciplinary information into landscape management and environmental decision making. In the decision phase, these maps are intuitively and visually powerful tools that is both supported of holistic approaches in the subject of where the synergies and changes among ecosystem services and provided by information exchange among stakeholders.

In this study, the mapping methods that can make the ecosystem services concept functional, the mapping tools developed for this purpose and the availability of these tools at the national scale have been investigated. For this purpose, any methods and software tools have been determined by examination of case studies and its institutional reports carried out in many countries.

Keywords

GIS, Ecosystem services, Mapping

References

• [1] Maes J., Teller A., Erhard, M., Liquete, C., Braat, L., Berry P., Egoh B., Puydarrieux P., Fiorina C., Santos F., Paracchini M.L., Keune H., Wittmer, H., Hauck, J., et al. (2013). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_ assessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper2013.pdf
• [2] Maes, J., Liquete, C., Teller, A. (2016). An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Ecosystem Services 17,14-23
• [3] Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., Kienast, F. (2012). Indicators of ecosystem service Potential at European scales:mapping marginal changes and trade-offs.Ecol. Indic. 21, 39–53.
• [4] Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., Müller, F. (2013). Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution. Ecosystem Services, 4, 47–59.
• [5] MEA (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington (DC): Island Press.
• [6]TEEB (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic Foundations., P Kumar (ed.). Earthscan, London.
• [7] ATEAM,(2004).Final report,Section Section 5 and 6 and Annex 1 to 6, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany
• [8] CICES (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services) [Internet]. (2013). Towards a common international classification of ecosystem services; [cited 2015Mar 11]. Available from: http://cices.eu/
• [9] Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., Maes, J., Wittmer, H. Jax, K. (2013). Maps have an air of authority, Potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosystem Services, 4, 25–32.
• [10] Jacobs, S., Burkhard, B., van Daele, T., Staes, J., Schneiders, A. (2015). The matrix reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecological Modelling. 295, 21–30.
• [11] Koschke, L., Fürst, C., Frank, S., Makeschin, F. (2012). A multi-criteria approach for an integrated landcover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecological Indicators, 21, 54-66.
• [12] Depellegrin, D., Pereira, P., Misuine, L., Egorter-Vigl L. (2016). Mapping ecosystem services potantial in Lithuania., International Journal of Sustainable Development &World, 23, 441-45.
• [13] CLC,(2006).https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc-2006
• [14] Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., MuÈller F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets, Ecological Indicators, 21, 17-29.
• [15] Egoh, B., Drakou, E.G., Dunbar, M.B., Maes, J., Willemen, L. (2012). Indicators for mapping ecosystem services:a review, Publications Office of the European Union,Luxembourg.
• [16] Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, et al. (2014). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. Indicators forecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Publications office of the EuropeanUnion, Luxembourg.
• [17] MAES,(2008). (2018) Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: An analytical framework for ecosystem condition. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
• [18] TEEB, (2011). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making. Edited by Patrick ten Brink. Earthscan, London and Washington.
• [19] TEEB, (2015). TEEB for Agriculture & Food: an interim report, United Nations Environment Programme, Geneva, Switzerland.
• [20] Martínez-Harms, M.J., Balvanera, P., (2012). Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management. 8 (February), 17–25.
• [21] White, C., Halpern, B.S., Kappel, C.V. (2012). Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses., Proc Natl Acad Sci. 109, 4696–4701.
• [22] Bagstad, K.J., Johnson, G.W., Voigt, B., Villa, F. (2013). Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services, 4, 117–125.
• [23] Sherrouse, B.C., Semmens, D.J., Clement, J.M. (2014). An application of social values for ecosystem services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecol Indic, 36, 68–79.
• [24] Bagstad, K.J., Villa, F., Johnson, G.W., Voigt, B. (2011). ARIES –artificial intelligence for ecosystem services: a guide to models and data, version1.0 [Internet]. ARIES report series n.1. Aires Consortium.