Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 185, Issue 1, pp 143–155 | Cite as

Quantifying landscape pattern and connectivity in a Mediterranean coastal settlement: the case of the Urla district, Turkey

  • Cigdem Coskun Hepcan


This study was aimed at analyzing and interpreting changes in landscape pattern and connectivity in the Urla district, Turkey using core landscape metrics based on a 42-year data derived from 1963 CORONA and 2005 ASTER satellite images and ten 1/25,000 topographical maps (1963–2005). The district represents a distinctive example of re-emerged suburbanization in the Izmir metropolitan area. In order to explore landscape characteristics of the study area, nine landscape composition and configuration metrics were chosen as follows: class area, percentage of landscape, number of patches, patch density, largest patch index, landscape shape index, mean patch size, perimeter area fractal dimension, and connectance index. The landscape configurations in the Urla district changed significantly by 2005 in that the process of (sub-)urbanization in the study area evolved from a rural, monocentric urban typology to a more suburban, polycentric morphology. Agricultural, maquis-phrygana, and forest areas decreased, while the built-up, olive plantation and phrygana areas increased. There was nearly a fivefold increase in the built-up areas during the study period, and the connectivity of the natural landscape declined. To prevent further fragmentation, it is important to keep the existing natural land cover types and agricultural areas intact. More importantly, a sustainable development scenario is required that contains a green infrastructure, or an ecological network planning for conservation and rehabilitation of the vital natural resources in the study area.


Landscape metrics Landscape pattern Landscape connectivity Urla Turkey 



The author expresses her gratitude to Dr. Şerif Hepcan, Mr. Phil Rousculp, Miss Samantha Chundur, and Dr. Fatih Evrendilek and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.


  1. Antrop, M. (2000). Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 77, 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antrop, M., & Van Eetvelde, V. A. (2000). Holistic aspects of suburban landscapes: Visual image interpretation and landscape metrics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 50, 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bierwagen, B. G. (2005). Predicting ecological connectivity in urbanizing landscapes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32, 763–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bierwagen, B. G. (2007). Connectivity in urbanizing landscapes: The importance of habitat configuration, urban area size, and dispersal. Urban Ecosystems, 10, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bossard, M., Feranec, J., & Otahel, J. (2000). CORINE land cover, technical guide addendum 2000. Report No. 40. Retrieved from European Environmental Agency. Accessed 4 Apr 2007.
  6. Botequilha Leitao, Ä., & Ahern, J. (2002). Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 5, 65–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Botequilha Leitao, Ä., Miller, J., Ahern, J., & McGarigal, K. (2006). Measuring landscapes: A planner’s handbook (p. 118). Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  8. Catalan, B., Sauri, D., & Serra, P. (2008). Urban sprawl in the Mediterranean? Patterns of growth and change in the Barcelona Metropolitan Region 1993–2000. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85(3–4), 174–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doygun, H., Alphan, H., & Gurun, D. K. (2008). Analyzing urban expansion and land use suitability for the city of Kahramanmaraş, Turkey, and its surrounding region. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 145(1–3), 387–395. doi: 10.1007/s10661-007-0047-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Durmuşkahya, C. (2006). Natural trees and scrubs in Ege Region. T.C. Ministry of Environment and Forestry, The General Directorate of Natural Protection and National Parks. Ankara: Fırat Press. in Turkish.Google Scholar
  11. EEA. (2006). Urban sprawl in Europe: The ignored challenge. EEA. European Environment Agency–EEA Report No: 10/2006. ISSN 1725–9177.Google Scholar
  12. Eken, G., Bozdoğan, M., İsfendiyaroğlu, S., Kılıc, D. T., & Lise, Y. (Eds.). (2006). Key biodiversity areas in Turkey. Ankara: Doğa Derneği (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  13. Esbah, H. (2007). Land use trends during rapid urbanization of the city of Aydin, Turkey. Environmental Management, 39(4), 443–459. doi: 10.1007/s00267-005-0331-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Esbah, H., Deniz, B., Kara, B., & Kesgin, B. (2010). Analyzing landscape changes in the Bafa Lake Nature Park of Turkey using remote sensing and landscape structure metrics. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 165, 617–632. doi: 10.1007/s10661-009-0973-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Esbah, H., Kara, B., Deniz, B., & Kesgin, B. (2010). Changing land cover characteristics of a developing coastal town: A case study of Didim, Turkey. Journal of Coastal Research, 26(2), 274–282. doi: 10.2112/08-1092.1. ISSN 0749–0208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ESRI. (2006). Arc View 9.2 Software. Redlands: Environmental Systems Research Institute.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Forman, R. T. T. (1995). Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  19. Görk, G., Bekat, L., Gemici, Y., & Yılmazer, C. (1989). The flora of Çeşme (Izmir) Peninsula. Doğa Türk Botanik Dergisi Tübitak, 13, 249–295. in Turkish.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Hepcan, Ç. C., & Özkan, M. B. (2011). Establishing ecological networks for habitat conservation in the case of Çeşme–Urla Peninsula, Turkey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 174, 157–170. doi: 10.1007/s10661-010-1447-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hepcan, Ş., Hepcan, Ç. C., Kılıçaslan, Ç., Özkan, M. B., & Koçan, N. (2011). Analyzing landscape change and urban sprawl of a Mediterranean coastal landscape: A case study of Izmir, Turkey. Journal of Coastal Research. doi: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00064.1.
  23. Jongman, R. H. G., Külvik, M., & Kristiansen, I. (2004). European ecological networks and greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 305–319. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00163-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jongman, R. H. G., Bouwma, I. M., Griffioen, A., Jones-Walters, L., & Van Doorn, A. M. (2011). The Pan-European Ecological Network: PEEN. Landscape Ecology, 26, 311–326. doi: 10.1007/s10980-010-9567-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. KLASP, (2011). Klazomenai Archeological Survey Project., Accessed 02 May 2011.
  26. Krummel, J. R., Gardner, R. H., Sugihara, G., O’Neill, R. V., & Coleman, P. R. (1987). Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos, 48, 321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leica Geosystems. (2006). ERDAS Imagine Professional 9.1. Software. Sweden: Leica Geosystems.Google Scholar
  28. Marulli, J., & Mallarach, J. M. (2005). A GIS methodology for assessing ecological connectivity: Application to the Barcelona Metropolitan Area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 7, 243–262.Google Scholar
  29. McGarigal, K., & Marks, B. J. (2003). FRAGSTATS. Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscapes structure. Version 3.3. Corvallis: Oregon State University.Google Scholar
  30. PBL, (2005). PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency,, Accessed 10 Jan 2012.
  31. 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
  32. Şengün B. (2007). A research of the housing architecture in the historical town centers of Urla and the evolution that occurred during the republican period (In Turkish). Masters Thesis. Dokuz Eylül University, The Institute of Applied Science, p 406.Google Scholar
  33. Sönmez, I. Ö. (2009). Re-emergence of Suburbia: The case of Izmir Turkey. European Planning Studies, 17(5), 741–763. doi: 10.1080/09654310802674526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. TurkStat, (2011). Reports of Turkish Statistical Institute. URL: Accessed 04 Mar 2011.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Landscape ArchitectureEge UniversityIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations