Düzce İli’nde Bütünleşik Ekolojik Risklere Karşı Katılımcı Planlama ile Dirençliliğin Sağlanması

Year 2018, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 105 - 121, 31.12.2018

Bilge Aydın , Azime Tezer , Zeynep Türkay , Elif Kutay Karaçor , İpek Güler , Osman Uzun , Nilgün Okay , Fatih Terzi , Pınar Köylü Ebru Satılmış Didem Kara

https://doi.org/10.32569/resilience.484946

Cited By: 5

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı,
kompleks ekolojik risk faktörlerine karşı dayanıklı yerleşimler oluşturmak
için, katılımcı bir planlama yaklaşımı ile bütünleşik ekolojik planlama
metodolojisi geliştirmektir. Düzce ili, geçmişte birçok kez karşı karşıya
kaldığı ekolojik risk özelliklerinden dolayı örnek çalışma alanı olarak
seçilmiştir. Metodoloji dört aşamadan oluşmaktadır. Metodolojinin ilk
aşamasında (1) kavramsal olarak ekolojik planlama amaçları birleştirilmiştir.
İkinci aşamada (2) doğal tehlikeler ve peyzaj hassasiyetlerinden doğan riskler
ile değerli ekosistem servislerinin (ES) bozulma riskleri birleştirerek, ES ile
bütünleşik yerleşime uygunluk haritaları oluşturulmuştur. Üçüncü aşama (3) olan
katılımcı risk yönetişimi yaklaşımı ise; (a) risk iletişimi, (b) risk
değerlendirmesi ve (c) risk yönetimi olmak üzere üç bileşenden oluşmaktadır.
Dördüncü aşamada ise (4), ekolojik risk analizi ve katılımcı planlama
bulgularının çoklu mekânsal ve zamansal ölçek yaklaşımına göre
bütünleştirilerek, dayanıklılığın sağlanması için kapsamlı çıktılar elde
edilmiştir. Risk değerlendirme sonuçlarına göre, katılımcılar doğal tehlikeler
arasından sırasıyla deprem, heyelan ve sel riskini ilk üç sırada değerlendirirken,
peyzaj hassasiyetleri arasında erozyon, habitat kırılganlığı ve su geçirgenliği
risklerini önceliklendirmiştir. Risk yönetimi analiz sonuçları ise,
makro-ölçekte, merkezi yönetim kurumlarının ağırlıklı olarak proaktif rollerde
en yüksek sorumluluğa sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Orta-ölçekte ise merkezi
yönetim taşra teşkilatları temel olarak reaktif sorumluluklara sahiptir. Sonuç
olarak, geliştirilen bu bütünleşik ekolojik risk azaltma metodolojisi çoklu
mekansal ve zamansal ölçek yaklaşımı ile ekolojik risk azaltma planlarının
karar verme sürecine daha kapsamlı bir şekilde katkıda bulunabilecektir. Ayrıca
bu metot, başka illerde uygulanabilir ve yaygınlaştırılabilir. Ancak, katılımcı
risk yönetişimi sonuçlarının il düzeyinde yaygınlaştırılabilmesi için gelecek
çalışmalarda katılım düzeyi ve çeşitliliği artırılmalıdır.

Keywords

bütünleşik ekolojik risk, ekosistem servisleri (ES), katılımcı planlama, Düzce İli, ekolojik dirençlilik

Resilience Through Participatory Planning for the Integrated Ecological Risks in Düzce

Abstract

This
study aims to develop an integrated spatial planning methodology with a
participatory planning approach for building resilient settlements against
complex ecological risk factors. Düzce Province is selected as a case study
because of its complex ecological characteristics as witnessed many times in
past. The methodology consists of four phases. (1) The first phase of the
methodology joins the ecological planning aims. In the (2) second phase,
ecosystem services (ES) integrated land suitability maps was produced by
combining natural hazard risks and landscape vulnerabilities with the risk of
degradation of valuable ES. The (3) third phase, is participatory risk
governance approach, which consists of three components namely, (a) risk
communication, (b) risk assessment, (c) risk management that conducted between
the local and regional stakeholders within the multi-scale approach. In the (4)
fourth phase, comprehensive outputs for spatial risk mitigation was provided by
the integration of ecological risk synthesis and participatory planning
findings. Results show that participants prioritized earthquake, landslide, and
flood as the highest natural hazard risks and erosion, habitat vulnerability,
and water infiltration as the highest ecological vulnerability risks
respectively. Results of risk governance analysis show that, at macro-scale,
central government institutions have the highest responsibility predominantly
for proactive roles. At meso-scale local institutions of central governance
have mainly reactive responsibilities. Thus, this integrated ecological risk
assessment methodology can contribute to the decision-making process of
ecological risk mitigation plans in a more comprehensive way through a
multi-spatial and temporal scale approach. Moreover, this method can be applied
in other provinces. However, in order to disseminate the results of
participatory risk governance at provincial level, participation level and
diversity should be increased in future studies.

Keywords

ecosystem services (ES), ecological resilience, participatory planning, integrated ecological risk, Düzce province

References

• Albayrak, İ. (2012). Ekosistem Servislerine Dayalı Havza Yönetim Modelinin İstanbul - Ömerli Havzası Örneğinde Uygulanabilirliği. (Dr), ITU, Istanbul.
• Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216 — 224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225
• Balamir, M., & Orhan, E. (Eds.). (2012) Kentsel Planlama Ansiklopedik Sözlük. Ninova.
• Beatley, T. (1998). The Vision of Sustainable Communities. In R. J. Burby (Ed.), Cooperating with nature : confronting natural hazards with land use planning for sustainable communities. Washington, D.C: Joseph Henry Press.
• Béné, C., Headey, D., Haddad, L., & von Grebmer, K. (2015). Is resilience a useful concept in the context of food security and nutrition programmes? Some conceptual and practical considerations. Food Security, 8(1), 123-138. doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0526-x
• Bohle, H.-G. (2001). Vulnerability and Criticality: Perspectives from Social Geography. IHPD-Update, 2(01).
• Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., & Müller, F. (2010). Landscapes‘ Capacities to Provide Ecosystem Services -A Concept for Land-Cover Based Assessments. Landscape Online, 1-22. doi:10.3097/lo.200915
• Cadag, J. R. D., & Gaillard, J. C. (2012). Integrating knowledge and actions in disaster risk reduction: The contribution of participatory mapping. Area, 44(1), 100-109. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01065.x
• Costanza, R., & Folke, C. (1997). Valuing Ecosystem Services With Efficiency, Fairness, and Sustainability as Goals. In G. C. Daily (Ed.), Nature’s Services: Island Press.
• Costanza, R., & Groot, R. d. (1998). The value of ecosystem services: putting the issue in perspective. Ecological Economics, 25, 67-72.
• Duxbury, J., & Dickinson, S. (2007). Principles for sustainable governance of the coastal zone: In the context of coastal disasters. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3), 319-330. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.016
• EU-WFD. (2000). The EU Water Framework Directive. Directive 2000/60/EC.
• EU. (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. doi:10.2779/12398
• Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. (2004). Regime Shifts,Resilience and Biodiversity in Ecosystem Man. doi:10.2307/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.30000021
• Galantini, Z. D. Y. (2018). Urban Resilience as a Policy Paradigm for Sustainable Urban Planning and Urban Development: The Case of Istanbul. (PhD), ITU, Istanbul.
• Galic, N., Hommen, U., Baveco, J., & Brinky, P. J. v. d. (2010). Potential application of population models in the European ecological risk assessment of chemicals. II. Review of models and their potential to address environmental protection aims. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management.
• Giupponi, C., Mysiak, J., & Sgobbi, A. (2008). Participatory Modelling and Decision Support for Natural Resources Management in Climate Change Research. Natural Resources Management.
• Grothmann, T., & Reusswig, F. (2005). People at Risk of Flooding: Why Some Residents Take Precautionary Action While Others Do Not. Natural Hazards, 38(1), 101-120.
• GRR. (2017). The Global Risks Report, 12th Edition. World Economic Forum , The Global Competitiveness and Risks Team.
• Henrich, L., McClure, J., & Crozier, M. (2015). Effects of risk framing on earthquake risk perception: Life-time frequencies enhance recognition of the risk. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 13, 145-150. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.05.003
• IDNDR. (1999). International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction Program. Retrieved from Geneva, Switzerland: https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/31468
• IRGC. (2006). Risk Governance Towards an Integrative Approach. Retrieved from Geneva: International Risk Governance Center (IRGC) www.irgc.org
• IRGC. (2018). Guidelines for the Governance of Systemic Risks- In systems and organisations In the context of transitions. Retrieved from Lausanne: International Risk Governance Center (IRGC) www.irgc.org
• MARKA. (2013). Düzce Statistics. East Marmara Development Agency.
• McHarg, I. (1969). Design With Nature. Garden City, N. Y.: Natural History Press.
• MEA. (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.millenniumassessment.org
• Miceli, R., Sotgiu, I., & Settanni, M. (2008). Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: A study in an alpine valley in Italy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2), 164-173. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.006
• Mileti, D., & Noji, E. K. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
• Natarajan, L. (2015). Socio-spatial learning: A case study of community knowledge in participatory spatial planning. Progress in Planning. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2015.06.002
• Pearce, L. (2003). Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation: How to Achieve Sustainable Hazard Mitigation. Natural Hazards, 28(2-3), 211-228.
• Pelling, M. (2007). Learning from others: The scope and challenges for participatory disaster risk assessment. Disasters, 31(4), 373-385. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.01014.x
• Renn, O., & Klinke, A. (2014). Risk governance: Application to urban planning. A/Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 11(1), 5-19 . Saaty, T. L. (2001). Fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. In D. L. Schmoldt, J. Kangas, G. A. Mendoza, & M. Pesonen (Eds.), The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making: Springer, Dordrecht.
• Schipper, E. L. F., & Langston, L. (2015). A comparative overview of resilience measurement frameworks,analysing indicators and approaches. Overseas Development Institute.
• Scott, M. (2013). Resilience: A conceptual lens for rural studies? Geography Compass, 7(9), 597-610. doi:10.1111/gec3.12066
• Sellke, P., & Renn, O. (2010). Risk, society and environmental policy: Risk governance in a complex world. In Environmental Sociology: European Perspectives and Interdisciplinary Challenges (pp. 295-321).
• Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
• Sobiech, C. (2012). Agent-Based Simulation of Vulnerability Dynamics- A Case Study of the German North Sea Coast. (Ph.D), University of Hamburg, Germany, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
• Spiekermann, R., Kienberger, S., Norton, J., Briones, F., & Weichselgartner, J. (2015). The Disaster-Knowledge Matrix – Reframing and evaluating the knowledge challenges in disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 13, 96-108. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.05.002
• Sutanta, H., Rajabifard, A., & Bishop, I. (2010). Integrating Spatial Planning and Disaster Risk Reduction at the Local Level in the Context of Spatially Enable Government. In Spatially Enabling Society (pp. 205-218): Leuven University Press.
• Tezer, A., Turkay, Z., Uzun, O., Terzi, F., Koylu, P., Karacor, E., . . . Kaya, M. (2018). Ecosystem services-based multi-criteria assessment for ecologically sensitive watershed management. Environment, Development and Sustainability. doi:10.1007/s10668-018-00300-5
• Tezer, A., Uzun, O., Okay, N., Terzi, F., Karaçor, E. K., Köylü, P., . . . Kara, D. (2018). Ekosistem servislerine dayalı “havza koruma alanları” tanımlamasının önemi ve kapsamı: Düzce – Melen havzası. Kentli Dergisi, 57, 58-62.
• Thaler, T., & Levin-Keitel, M. (2016). Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management-A question of roles and power: Lessons from England. Environmental Science and Policy, 55, 292-301. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.007
• UN. (1992). Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development.
• UNISDR. (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 - 2030. In. Sendai, Japan: UN.
• UNISDR. (2016). Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction.
• Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World.
• Wehn, U., Rusca, M., Evers, J., & Lanfranchi, V. (2015). Participation in flood risk management and the potential of citizen observatories: A governance analysis. Environmental Science and Policy, 48, 225-236. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.12.017