Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 174, Issue 1–4, pp 157–170 | Cite as

Establishing ecological networks for habitat conservation in the case of Çeşme–Urla Peninsula, Turkey

  • Çiğdem Coşkun Hepcan
  • Mehmet Bülent Özkan
Article

Abstract

The study involves the Çeşme–Urla Peninsula, where habitat fragmentation and loss, which threaten biological diversity, have become an urgent matter of concern in recent decades. The study area has been subjected to anthropogenic pressures and alterations due to ongoing and impending land uses. Therefore, ecological networks, as an appropriate way to deal with habitat fragmentation and loss and to improve ecological quality, were identified in the study area as one of the early attempts in the country to maintain its rich biodiversity. In this sense, core areas and ecological linkages as primary components of ecological networks were established on the basis of sustaining natural habitats. A GIS-based model was created to identify core areas and to facilitate the ecological connectivity. The modeling process for core areas and corridors combined 14 and 21 different variables, respectively. The variables were used as environmental inputs in the model, and all analyses were materialized in ArcGIS 9.2 using grid functions of image analysis and spatial analyst modules. As a result, six core areas and 36 corridor alternatives were materialized. Furthermore, some recommendations for the implementation and management of the proposed ecological networks were revealed and discussed.

Keywords

Ecological networks Core areas Spatial linkages Çeşme–Urla Peninsula 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adriaensen, F., Chardon, J. P., DeBlust, G., Swinnen, E., Villalba, S., Gulinck, H., et al. (2003). The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 233–247. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beier, P., & Noss, R. F. (1998). Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology, 12(6), 1241–1252. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.98036.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, A. F. (2003). Linkages in the landscape-the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. Cambridge: IUCN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, G. (2004). Linkages in practice: A review of their conservation practice. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  5. Beunen, R., & Hagens, J. (2009). The use of the concept of ecological networks in nature conservation policies and planning practices. Landscape Research, 34(5), 563–580. doi: 10.1080/01426390903184280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boutani, L., Fallucci, A., Maiorano, L., & Rondinini, C. (2007). Ecological networks as conceptual frameworks or operational tools in conservation. Conservation Biology, 21(6), 1414–1422. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00828.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouwma, I. M., Jongman, R. H. G., & Butovsky, R. O. (2002). Indicative map of the Pan-European ecological network for central and Eastern Europe. Technical Background Document, ECNC, Technical Report Series, Tilburg/Budapest.Google Scholar
  8. Carroll, C., Noss, R. F., Paquet, P. C., & Schumaker, N. H. (2004). Extinction debt of protected areas in developing landscapes. Conservation Biology, 18(4), 1110–1120. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00083.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook, E. A. (2002). Landscape structure indices for assessing urban ecological networks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eken, G., Bennun, L., Brooks, T. M., Darwall, W., Fishpool, L. D. C., Foster, M., et al. (2004). Key Biodiversity Areas as site conservation targets. BioScience, 54, 1110–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eken, G., Bozdoğan, M., İsfendiyaroğlu, S., Kılıç, D. T., & Lise, Y. (Eds.) (2006). Key biodiversity areas in Turkey. Ankara: Doğa Derneği (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  12. ESRI (2006). Arc View 9.2 software. Redlands: Environmental System Research Institute.Google Scholar
  13. ESRI (2009). ESRI GIS and mapping software. http://www.esri.com. Accessed 20 June 2009.
  14. Evrendilek, F., & Doygun, H. (2000). Assessing major ecosystem types and the challenge of sustainability in Turkey. Environmental Management, 26(5), 479–489. doi: 10.1007/s002670010106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forman, T. T. (1998). Land Mosaics. The ecology of landscapes and regions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. GEF II (2005). Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Forestry biodiversity and natural resources management project documents. Ankara (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  17. Graves, T. A., Farley, S., Goldstein, M. I., & Servheen, C. (2007). Identification of functional corridors with movement characteristics of brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Landscape Ecology, 22, 765–772. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9082-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gruttke, H., & Kornacker, P. M. (1995). The development of epigeic fauna in new hedges. Landscape and Urban Planning, 31, 217–231. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(94)01048-D.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Güçlüsoy, H. (2006). The status of marine mammals and their interaction with fisheries along the central Turkish Aegean coasts. Ph.D. thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  20. Haaren, V. H., & Reich, M. (2006). The German way to greenways and habitat networks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76, 7–22. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hellmund, R. C., & Smith, D. S. (2006). Designing Greenways—Sustainable landscape for nature and people. Washington: Island.Google Scholar
  22. Hepcan, Ç. C. (2008). Identification and planning of ecological networks as a sustainable approach in nature conservation; The case of Cesme-Urla Peninsula. Ph.D. thesis, Ege University (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  23. Hepcan, Ç. C., & Özkan, M. B. (2007). Assessment of spatial and temporal changes in natural landscape in Cesme (Izmir). In The 3rd congress in landscape architecture (pp. 176-182). Antalya, 22–25 November 2007 (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  24. Hepcan, ş., Hepcan, Ç. C., Bouwma, I. M., Jongman, R. H. G., & Özkan, M. B. (2009). Ecological networks as a new approach for nature conservation in Turkey: A case study of Izmir Province. Landscape and Urban Planning, 90, 143–154. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.10.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hess, G. (1994). Conservation corridors and contagious disease: A cautionary note. Conservation Biology, 8, 256–262. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08010256.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hobbs, N. T., Reid, R. S., Galvin, K. A., & Ellis, J. E. (2007). Fragmentation of arid and semi-arid ecosystems: Implications for people and animals. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Hoctor, T. S. (2003). Regional landscape analysis and reserve design to conserve Florida’s biodiversity. Ph.D., University of Florida.Google Scholar
  28. Jongman, R. H. G. (1995). Nature conservation planning in Europe: Developing ecological networks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, 170–183. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(95)00197-O.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jongman, R. H. G. (2004). The context and concept of ecological networks. In R. H. G. Jongman & G. Pungetti (Eds.), Ecological networks and greenways concept, design and implementation (pp. 7–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koçman, A. (1993). In terms of anthropogenic activities and impact on environment, climate of Aegean plains. Faculty of Letters: 73, Izmir (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  31. Leica Geosystems (2006). ERDAS Imagine Professional 9.1. Software, Leica Geosystems: Sweden.Google Scholar
  32. Luke, C., Penrod, K., Cabanero, C. R., Beier, P., Spencer, W., & Shapiro, S. (2004). A linkage design for the Santa Ana Mountains connection. South Cost Wildlands and National Park Service, CA.Google Scholar
  33. Maiorano, L., Falcucci, A., & Boitani, L. (2008). Size-dependent resistance of protected areas to land-use change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 275, 1297–1304. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maiorano, L., Falcucci, A., Gaton, E. O., & Boitani, L. (2007). Contribution of the Natura 2000 network to biodiversity conservation in Italy. Conservation Biology, 21(6), 1433–1444. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00831.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martinoli, A., Preatoni, D., Galanti, V., Codipietro, P., Kilewo, M., Fernandes, C. A. R., et al. (2006). Species richness and habitat use of small carnivores in the Arusha National Park (Tanzania). Biodiversity and Conservation, 15, 1729–1744. doi: 10.1007/s10531-004-5020-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller, M., Foreman, D., Fink, M., Shinneman, D., Smith, J., DeMarco, M., et al. (2003). Southern Rockies wildlands network vision (261 p.). Southern Rockies ecosystem project.Google Scholar
  37. Ministry of Culture and Tourism (2009). The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism. http://www.kultur.gov.tr/. Acsessed 25 June 2009.
  38. Opdam, P. (2002). Assessing the conservation potential of habitat networks. In K. Z. Gutzewiller (Ed.), Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation (pp. 381–404). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Opdam, P., & Wascher, D. (2004). Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: Linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biological Conservation, 117, 285–297. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2003.12.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Özhatay, N., Byfield, A., & Atay, S. (2003). The important plant areas in Turkey. Istanbul: WWF (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  41. Penrod, K., Cabanero, C. R., Beier, P., Luke, C., Spencer, W., Rubin, E., et al. (2006). South coast missing linkage project: A linkage design for the Santa Monica-Sierra Madre connection. South Coast Wildlands and National Park Service, CA.Google Scholar
  42. Quinby, P., Trombulak, S., Lee, T., Henry, M., Long, R., & MacKay, P. (1999). Opportunities for wildlife connectivity between Algonquin Park, Ontario and the Adirondack Park, New York. The greater Laurentian wildlands project, Burlington, Vermont.Google Scholar
  43. Semenderoğlu, A. (1999). The relations of socio-economic and natural factors in Urla-Çeşme Peninsula. Ph.D. thesis, Dokuz Eylul University (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  44. Sepp, K., Jagomagi, J., Kaasik, A., Gulbinas, Z., & Nikodemus, O. (2001). Methodology of designation of national ecological networks in the Baltic Countries. In K. Sepp & A. Kaasik (Eds.), Development of national ecological networks in the Baltic Countries in the framework of the Pan European Ecological Network. Poland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  45. Simberloff, D., & Cox, J. (1987). Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conservation Biology, 1, 63–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1987.tb00010.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simberloff, D., Farr, J. A., Cox, J., & Mehlman, D. W. (1992). Movement corridors: Conservation bargains or poor investments. Conservation Biology, 6, 493–504. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.06040493.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Der Windt, H. J., & Swart, J. A. A. (2008). Ecological corridors, connecting science and politics: The case of the Green River in the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 124–132. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01404.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Rooij, S. A. M., Van Der Sluis, T., & Steingrover, E. G. (2003). Networks for life. Alterra-Report No: 729, Development of an ecological network for Persiceto (Italy).Google Scholar
  49. Verboom, J., & Pouwels, R. (2004). Ecological functioning of networks: A species perspective. In R. Jongman & G. Pungetti (Eds.), Ecological networks and greenways concept, design and implementation (pp. 56–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Vos, C. C., Baveco, H., & Grashof-Bokdam, C. J. (2002). Corridors and species dispersal. In K. J. Gutzwiller (Ed.), Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation (pp. 85–104). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Weber, T., Sloan, A., & Wolf, J. (2006). Maryland’s green infrastructure assessment: Development of a comprehensive approach to land conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77, 94–110. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Woess, M., Grillmayer, R., & Voelk, E. H. (2002). Green bridges and wildlife corridors in Austria. Zeitschrift für Jagdwiss, Supplement, 48, 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yanes, M., Velasco, J., & Suarez, F. (1995). Permeability of roads and railways to vertebrates: The importance of culverts. Biological Conservation, 71, 217–222. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(94)00028-O.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Çiğdem Coşkun Hepcan
    • 1
  • Mehmet Bülent Özkan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Landscape Architecture Faculty of AgricultureEge UniversityBornova IzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations