Aydın'da Kent Parklarının Bazı Ekolojik Kalite Kriterleri Yönünden İrdelenmesi

Hayriye EŞBAH

Ekoloji, 2006, Issue 58, Pages: 42-48

OPEN ACCESS

Download Full Text (PDF)

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the urban parks in Aydýn by utilizing some ecological quality criterion. The research specifically deals with the soil and native vegetation attributes of the ecological quality. In this work, AutoCad folders along with the list of services and the amount of green areas in parks obtained from the Aydýn Municipality are used for determining the amount of pervious soil surfaces, and site visits are conducted for generating the existing plant cover data. The results show that, in the investigated 47 parks, the average percentage of pervious surfaces is 37.98%, and only 11.64% of the vegetation is indigenous to Aydýn. As conclusion, the parks are inadequate in terms of the pervious soil surfaces and the amount of native vegetation hence decline of habitat values of these important spaces contributing to urban environment number of ways.

Keywords

Aydýn, vegetation cover, ecological quality, permeability, urban parks

References

  • Altan T (1984) Türkiye'nin Doðal Bitki Örtüsü. Çukurova Üniversitesi Yayýný, Adana. Anonymous (1973) 1970 Genel Nüfus Sayýmý. Yayýn No: 568. Devlet Ýstatistik Enstitüsü, Ankara. Anonymous (2002) 2000 Genel Nüfus Sayýmý. Yayýn No: 2636, Devlet Ýstatistik Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Bunnell JF, Zampella RA, Lathrop RG, Bognar JA (2003) Landscape changes in the Mullica river basin of the Pinelands National Reserve, New Jersey, USA. Environmental Management 31, 696-708.
  • Burke J, Ewan J (1999) Sonoran Preserve Master Plan: An Open Space Plan For The Phoenix Sonoran Desert. Arizona State University Press, Tempe.
  • Chiesura A (2004) The role of urban parks for the sustainabile city. Landscape and Urban Planning 68, 129-138.
  • Cook EA (2002) Landscape structure indices for assessing urban ecological networks. Landscape and Urban Planning 58, 269-280.
  • Çelik A (1995) Aydýn Daðlarýnýn Flora ve Vejetasyonu. Yayýn No: 1006000000014. Ege Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ýzmir.
  • Esbah H (2002) A Comprehensive Approach To Urban Landscape Information. In: Gamba P (ed), Proceedings of the 23rd. Urban Data Management Symposium, 10-13 October, 2002, Prag, 29-38.
  • Forman RTT (1997) Land Mosaics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Kelkit A (2002) Çanakkale Kenti Açýk ve Yeþil Alanlarýnda Kullanýlan Bitki Materyali Üzerinde Bir Araþtýrma. Ekoloji 43, 17-21.
  • Livingston M, Shaw WW, Harris LK (2003) A model for assessing wildlife habitats in urban landscapes of Eastern Pima County. Landscape and Urban Planning 64, 131-144.
  • Meffe GF, Carroll CR (1997) Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Asoc., Sunderland.
  • Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32, 333-365.
  • Shaw WW, Harris LK, Livingston M (1998) Vegetative characteristics of urban land covers in metropolitan Tucson. Urban Ecosystem 2, 65-73.
  • Thompson CW (2002) Urban open spaces in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 60, 2, 59-72.
  • Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehl P, Bannerman R (2001) Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environmental Management 28, 255-266.
  • Westmacott R (1991) Scale economics and planning in urban landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 21, 21-29.