Sevgi GÖRMÜŞ, Dicle OĞUZ, Hayriye EŞBAH TUNÇAY, Serhat CENGİZ

The Use of Landscape Character Analysis to Reveal Differences Between Protected and Nonprotected Landscapes in Kapısuyu Basin

The European Landscape Convention (ELC) has directed the landscape classification towards landscape character analysis. Landscape character analysis provides a character-based classification that can combine different values or variables and be applied at different scales to define the landscapes of each country and define the forces on the landscape. In this study, the Kapısuyu Basin of Küre Mountains National Park, which is one of the hot spots in the world in terms of different landscape character and natural quality, was classified by landscape character analysis.In this study, Kapısuyu basin was analyzed on an analytical ground according to the landscape variables and the basin landscape types, and the landscape character area map were obtained based on the dominant features of the area and the cultural landscape pattern. Throughout the basin, 345 landscape character types and 21 landscape character area were identified. Despite having similar values, the surface area of the protected area in the national park and the rural area had significant differences in landscape character ratios and patchiness ratio. Patchiness was seen to be higher in rural areas. When looked at Shannon Diversity Index (SDI) values, it is seen that a high diversity of Landscape Character Types (LCT) exist in the rural areas. Within the scope of this study, the fact that the landscape character analysis performed at the basin scale in the protected area can be evaluated together with different variables and interpreted from the perspective of holistic landscape planning shows that the technique is a positive approach in the evaluation of protected areas.

Keywords:

Landscape Character Analysis, Landscape variables Landscape Metrics, Küre Mountains National Park, Kapısuyu basin, Turkey,

PDF

___

1. ANDELMAN SJ & WILLIG MR (2003). Present patterns and future prospects for biodiversity in the Western Hemisphere. Ecol. Lett. 6 (9): 818–824.
2. BOTEQUILHA LEİTAO AB, MILLER J, AHERN J & MCGARIGAL K. (2006). Measuring Landscapes: A Planners Handbook, Island Press, Washington, D.C.Council of Europe.
3. COLE DN & LANDRES PB. 1996. Threats to wilderness ecosystems: impacts and research needs. Ecol. Appl. 6 (1): 168–184.
4. DOĞAN İ (2002). Kümeleme Analizi ile Seleksiyon. Turk J Vet Anim Sci.26: 47-53.
5. ELKIE PC, REMPEL RS & CARR AP (1999). Patch Analyst User’s Manuel: A tool for Quantifying Landscape Structure. Ontorio Ministry of Natural Resources, Northwest Science and Technology, Canada. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55765258/Manual-Patch-Analyst-Users.
6. FOLERO EM & ALONSO SG (1995). Quantitative Tecniques in Landscape Planning. CRC Levis Publisher, Boca Raton, New York, London, Tokyo.
7. HAIR JF., ANDERSON RE, TATHAM RL, & BLACK WC (1992). Multivariate Data Analysis With Readings. Prentice-Hall International Inc., Fourth Edition, New Jersey.
8. HANSEN AJ & DEFRİES R (2007). Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to surrounding lands. Ecol. Appl. 17 (4): 974-988.
9. HANSEN AJ & ROTELLA JJ (2002). Biophysical factors, land use, and species viability in and around nature reserves. Conserv. Biol. 16 (4): 1112–1122.
10. KIM KH & PAULEIT S (2007). Landscape character, biodiversity and land use planning: The case of Kwangju City Region, South Korea. Land Use Policy.24:264-274.
11. MAS JF, GAO Y & PACHECO JAN (2010). Sensitivity of Landscape Pattern Metrics to Classsification Approaches. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 1215-1224.
12. MCDONALD RI, KAREİVA P& FORMAN RT (2008). The implications of current and future urbanization for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 141 (6): 1695-1703.
13. MCGARIGAL K & CUSHMAN SA (2002). Hierarchical, Multi-scale Decomposition of Species-Environment Relationships. Landscape Ecology 17, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
14. MCGARIGAL K (2002). Landscape Pattern Metrics. Encyclopedia of Environmentrics. A. El-Shaarawi and W. W. Piegrorsch, eds. Sussex, England, John Wiley and Sons. 2, pp.1135-1142.
15. MEP (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2003. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC .
16. NEWMARK WD (1985). Legal and biotic boundaries of western North American national parks: a problem of congruence. Biol. Conserv. 33 (3):197- 208.
17. Şahin, Ş., Perçin, H., Kurum, E., Uzun, O, Bilgili, C., Tezcan, L., Çiçek, İ., Müftüoğlu, V., Çorbacı, Ö.L., Sütünç, S., Doğan, D., Koç, Ö., Ateş, E., Tarım, B., Kurdoğlu, G., (2013). PEYZAJ-44: İl Ölçeğinde Peyzaj Karakter Analizi ve Turizm/Rekreasyon Açısından Değerlendirilmesi (In English: Landscape Character Analysıs and Its Assessment for Tourısm/Recreatıon Peyzaj-44) TÜBİTAK KAMAG 1007 Programı 109G074 Nolu Proje Raporu.
18. TATLIDİL H (1996). Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli Analiz, Akademi Matbaası, Ankara.
19. TURNER MG (1989). Landscape Ecology: The Effect of Pattern on Process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20.
20. USGAO (US General Accounting Office) (1994). National Park Service: Activities Outside Park Borders have Caused Damage to Resources and Will Likely Cause More. (No. GAO/RCED-94-59), Washington, DC.
21. VAN EETVELDE V & ANTROP M (2009). A stepwise multi-scaled landscape typology and characterisation for trans-regional integration, applied on the federal state of Belgium. Landscape and Urban Planning.91:160-170.
22. WIENS JA, VAN HORNE B & NOON BR (2002). Integrating landscape structure and scale into natural resource management. In: Liu, J.G., Taylor, W.W. (Eds.), Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural Resource Management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 485.

Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
Yayıncı: Halit APAYDIN

Arşiv