Ecosystem services based spatial planning decision making for adaptation to climate changes

Habitat International 47 (2015) 267e278

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Ecosystem services based spatial planning decision making for adaptation to climate changes A. Ceren Onur a, *, Azime Tezer b a b

ITU, Faculty of Architecture, Urban and Regional Planning Department, 34457 Istanbul, Turkey ITU, Faculty of Architecture, Urban Planning Department, 34457 Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 2 March 2015

Climate change adaptation is a rising global issue and has become the primary issue for transnational organisations and EU institutions. Particularly in developing and dynamic cities like Istanbul, the pressure of rapid urbanisation, institutional and legislative uncertainties are expected to create new vulnerabilities in ecosystems and their services. Climate change can cause new vulnerabilities in ecosystem services (ESs) through events such as floods, heat-waves, and droughts brought on by rises in temperatures and changes in precipitation. These vulnerabilities may affect the well-being of inhabitants and interfere with the reaching of sustainable development goals in the future. Istanbul has a unique geographical location for biological diversity when compared with other settlements in the region, and the urban development dynamics of the region play a significant role in the € well-being of ecological units and biological diversity of the Istanbul Metropolitan Area (Ozhatay, Byfield, & Atay, 2003; Tezer, 2005; Tezer et al., 2008). This paper aims to define which ESs are vulnerable due to both LCLU change caused by urbanisation and potential impacts of climate change. Particular importance is given to the result of the survey done with related stakeholders as it is used to define and to verify the existing and future vulnerabilities of ESs in Istanbul. Regarding the close relationship between ESs and LCLU, the impact of changes in LCLU on key ESs are evaluated by developing LCLU scenarios. Climate change scenarios are used in this paper to understand the possible future climatic conditions of Istanbul and their impact on LCLU and ESs. These two sub-results are prepared according to scenario analyses and are evaluated together to address the future vulnerabilities of ESs. Integration of ESs and climate change adaptation strategies into spatial planning (EEA, 2010) seems to be both necessary and urgent. Therefore, a spatial planning framework that is climate change adapted and ESs oriented is proposed as a key tool to achieve a climate resilient, sustainable development in Istanbul. The framework used in this paper can be used to develop relevant strategies and planning tools by considering climate change adaptive policies for other rapidly developing settlements. In brief, this paper aims to integrate ecosystems and their services into spatial planning by using relevant mapping of ESs, which will be utilised for the climate adaptive spatial policy development process for the Istanbul case. This paper has been prepared under the auspices of The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) Project No. 110K350. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Climate change adaptation Spatial planning Ecosystem services Sustainability indicators Istanbul

Introduction Planning and urban designers are constantly trying to establish a better “nature” and “development” against the impact of rapid industrialisation and urbanisation. Ultimately, the need for a better interaction of urbanisation, nature and community is beyond

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.C. Onur), [email protected] (A. Tezer). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.01.008 0197-3975/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

beautification efforts such as those proposed by Burnham and Olmsted at the beginning of the 1900s. UN (2008) defines today's spatial planning with its key role in promoting sustainable development not only considering economic and social issues in urban areas but also focussing environmental dimension with its impacts and benefits. Therefore environment (built and un-built space of urban areas) has been becoming the interest of spatial planning as a result of integration among the components of sustainable development. This kind of approach is an urgent necessity, especially with the growing concern over the impact of climate change which

268

A.C. Onur, A. Tezer / Habitat International 47 (2015) 267e278

includes changes in temperature, precipitation, vulnerabilities in the hydrological cycle, food chain and land cover-land use (LCLU). These are expected to increase the existing vulnerabilities of urban areas, especially in developing countries and can be accepted as a new challenge for sustainability. According to scientific research and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) report of 2005, climate change will have a major impact on Ecosystem Services (ESs) in the following 50e100 years and will be the direct driver that may complicate the management and assessment of ESs at all scales. Both LCLU change due to urbanisation and climate change may create impacts on key ESs such as water, flood control, food production, climate regulation, recreation, and primary production services. It is obvious that LCLU decisions and investments in land have the power to affect the sustainability of ESs. The heat island effect of built up areas is also a significant outcome of urbanisation and may increase the temperature in urban areas more than climate change (Cadenasso, Pickett, & Schwarz, 2007). It is difficult to predict the future impacts of climate change and urbanisation on the existing social, physical and economical vulnerabilities of urban areas, especially in developing cities. Therefore, scenario analyses are efficient prediction tools to better respond the future dynamics and changes in cities. Research based on the impact of climate change and its effect on cities shows the need to analyse LCLU and climate change scenarios together (Cabello, Velasco, Barredo, & Hurkmans, 2011; Lindley, Handley, Theuray, Peet, & McEvoy, 2006; Storch & Downes, 2011). Understanding the possible future vulnerabilities and addressing the role

of ESs for climate adaptation may be a less-costly and environmental tool in climate change adapted planning. Finally, integration of planning with climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies has vital importance in the attempt to reduce of the impact of climate change on the environment and human well-being (EEA, 2010). Istanbul is a unique example among rapidly growing metropolitan cities. It covers 5344 km2 and has a population of over 13 million, with an increase of 23% occurring between 2000 and 2010 (TurkStat, 2012). The urbanisation ratio is around 90%, and it has the third highest gross domestic product among 78 OECD metropolitan regions (OECD, 2008). Istanbul geographically sits at the junction of two continents, and is within the climatic regions of Mediterranean and the Black Sea (Fig. 1). Therefore, its location plays a very significant role in the natural structure of the city. The existing pressures on the ecological units and biological diversity of Istanbul are expected to increase in the near future as results of increasing urbanisation, population growth and rapidly emerging € economic activities (Ozhatay, Byfield, & Atay, 2003; Tezer, 2005; Tezer et al., 2008). In addition to urbanisation, climate change can be accepted as a new challenge for the Istanbul Metropolitan Area, and its impact may increase the existing vulnerabilities of LCLU and ESs. This research has been conducted in the border of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality where built and un-built environment taken into account to identify the impacts of urbanisation on ESs. The main aim is to address future vulnerabilities of ESs to climate

Fig. 1. Istanbul province e the study area.

A.C. Onur, A. Tezer / Habitat International 47 (2015) 267e278

change and urbanisation in Istanbul, and to show that these possible vulnerabilities can be reduced by a new approach combining ESs, climate change and LCLU issues. Climate change integrated sustainable spatial planning is recommended as a relevant planning tool for the resiliency of cities and other regions. Future ESs vulnerabilities have been addressed through LCLU and climate change scenarios developed from spatial and meteorological statistical data obtained from the output of the “Enhancing the Capacity of Turkey to Adapt to Climate Change” project of Istanbul Technical University, which is funded by the MDG-F (Millennium Development Goals Achievement Fund) program. The data used for addressing future ESs vulnerabilities over LCLU scenarios is taken from The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) Project No. 110K350, “Sustainable Urban Planning for Ecosystem Services and Resilience”. In this paper, LCLU scenarios are explained in general terms but only the one with the highest negative impact on LCLU is considered for a more detailed assessment to address vulnerable ESs and those ESs which are important for climate adaptation and mitigation. Thereafter, the findings about the possible impact of climate change on the LCLU of Istanbul due to climate change scenarios' and results of surveys which are applied to the related stakeholders at the workshop organisation done under TUBITAK project No. 110K350 are evaluated together to address the ESs which are vulnerable to climate change and ESs which are important for climate adaptation and mitigation. ESs based spatial planning methodology is adapted from Albayrak's (2012) research which was developed for the ESs integrated watershed management model. As a conclusion, the overall findings of the method used for the case of Istanbul will be assessed in terms of its suitability and limitations for other cases.

269

2011). The interaction between climate change, LCLU and ESs, can be assessed through climate change scenarios to explain the future risks and vulnerabilities of ESs. Defining the vulnerabilities of settlements is a complex issue with a high level of uncertainty due to the nature of predictions, projections and foresights (Hallegatte and Corfee-Morlot, 2011). In order to confront climate change, mitigation and adaptation strategies are critically important. As Füssel (2007) indicates, the existing strategies on climate change are generally focussed on mitigation strategies and initiatives. Adaptation is relevant for all climate-sensitive domains, including agriculture, forestry and water management, coastal protection, public health and disaster prevention. Climate change mitigation and adaptation tools and strategies may be relevant for achieving a more resilient and sustainable urban development. There have been many studies into the integration of climate change into water, agriculture and social issues. However, spatial planning and climate change is a new combination which has to consider integrating different disciplines. The existing case studies for City Of New York (2010), City Of London (2011), City Of Boston (2011) illustrate good examples of cities from developed nations that generally focus on sectoral, economical and local mitigation strategies such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions by technological innovations and flood regulation but which scarcely focus on ESs. As emphasised by the IPCC (2007a); merging spatial planning and climate change adaptation strategies can be an efficient tool. Special importance to planning should be given for the management of LCLU and the protection of natural areas from the future impact of both climate change and urbanisation. Assessment of scenario analyses as a tool for climate adaption

Impact of climate change on ESs and LCLU Cities, especially the developed ones, are contributors to climate change through their production of greenhouse gas emissions, but mainly through their energy consumption and production of transportation and industrial pollution (Pimm & Raven, 2000). Global greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities, increased by 70% between 1970 and 2004 (IPCC, 2007b). A projection of current trends as represented by a number of different scenarios, predicts the global surface temperature to increase from 1.8
C to 4
C by the year 2100. Additionally, sea levels are expected to rise between 18 e 59 cm globally. The foreseeable impacts of climate change can be summarised as; an increase in continentalaverage temperatures; extreme weather events such as cyclones and tornados; changes in precipitation levels; more severe heat waves; and an increase in natural hazards such as droughts, floods and the spread of diseases. Rising temperatures and changes in precipitation are expected to impact the natural LCLU and ESs. Vulnerabilities caused by existing urban development dynamics can be worsened by climate tekin, Go €ksel, Ertekin, & Terzi, change (IPCC, 2007b; Tezer, Ulug 2011; UN-Habitat, 2011) in the form of decreasing accessibility to urban services and natural resources such as drinking water and food. Deforestation as a result of urbanisation may increase the temperature by more than the predictions of climate change scenarios, and more severe floods may be seen in urban areas as a result. The impact on ESs components such as forests, agricultural areas, pastures, scrubland and water bodies may result in their depletion. Existing species may be replaced by others that have less economic value and this may result in the loss of the productive, regulative and supportive capacity of ecosystems (UN, 1994). ESs make serious contributions to climate regulation by carbon absorption in addition to controlling water quality and quantity, water flow, biodiversity etc. (Polasky, Nelson, Pennington, & Johnson,

According to Zhao, Fu, Liu, and Fu (2011), climate and spatial planning have a strong relationship as they may affect human wellbeing and urban morphology. Change in LCLU, especially as a result of urbanisation, is one of the main reasons for increasing the greenhouse gas emissions (Tan, Lim, Matjafri & Abdullah, 2010). Both climate and LCLU change may create serious challenges for ecosystems (EPA, 2012). In Table 1, some examples of scenario planning are given and they indicate that scenario analyses can be a very efficient way to understand and analyse the future uncertainties of cities, especially when there is little information available. There are several examples for realising the scenario construction in the literature (Bohensky, Reyers, & Van Jaarsveld, 2006; Bryan, Neville, Crossman, King, & Meyer, 2011; Hoymann, 2010; Plata-Rocha, Gomez-Delgado, & Bosque-Sendr, 2011; Xia et al., 2009; Zhang, Ban, Liu, & Hu, 2011). In these studies, Cellular Automata based models are generally used, but this prediction tool may not be utilised properly in regions like Istanbul where spatial growth may change according to sudden decisions and the implementation of large scale projects. In these studies, the main drivers are mostly related to urbanisation, population, economic growth, policies and LCLU such as settlements, roads, vegetation, agriculture, forest, water, administrative boundaries and soil structure (Bohensky et al., 2006; Bryan et al., 2011; Hoymann, 2010; Moss et al., 2010; PlataRocha et al., 2011; Shearer, 2009; Xia et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2011). Scenarios should be developed in a simple and understandable manner as more complex results may increase the existing uncertainty of urban development. There are only a few studies which consider climate change as a driver in scenario analyses. Dunn, Brown, Sample, and Post (2012) considers the relationships between climate, water resources, land use and pollution. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states that LCLU may increase the impact of climate change by

270

A.C. Onur, A. Tezer / Habitat International 47 (2015) 267e278

Table 1 A summary of methodologies of some scenario construction examples. Author

Objectives

Drivers

Methodology

Parameters

Classification

Lower MurrayeAustralia (Bryan et al. 2011)

Enhancement of biodiversity, mitigation of wind erosion, salinity and climate change, cost effectiveness

Linear programming model e GAMS

    

Temperature Rainfall Carbon price Biomass price Biofuel price

Gariep BasineSouth Africa (Bohensky et al., 2006)

Possible futures for ecosystem services and human well-being

          

Survey

    

Growth Wealth Policy Demographics Urbanization

Shenyang-Fushun Metropolitan area- China (Xia et al., 2009)

The impacts of different ecological protection policies on future urban growth and landscape change in the industrial metropolitan areas

 Urban growth  Industrialization  Sustainability

Cellular automaton (CA)- SLEUTH

     

Urban extent LCLU change Roads change Slope Exclusion Hill Shade

Elbe River BasineGermany (Hoymann, 2010)

Analyses on the feasibility of using logistic regression for future land-use-change scenarios Show and to reinforce the possibilities of MCE techniques in developing scenarios of urban growth

 Suburbanization development  Sustainability policies

Logistic regression analysis and CA model

 Residential Areas  Patches  Connectivity

 Policies  Urban expansion

Multicriteria evaluation techniques (MCE) e Weighted linear combination (WLC) Conjunctive/disjunctive model (CD) Multiobjective land allocation (MOLA)

   

Mapping;  Agriculture  Protected vegetation  Biofuels  Biomass  Conservation farming  Deep rooted perennials  Ecological restoration Spider Diagram;  Biodiversity  Food  Minerals  Energy  Freshwater Mapping;  Urban areas  Agricultural  Forest  Water  Rural settlement  Mine  Barren Mapping;  Nature conservation areas  New residential areas Mapping;  Residential,  Commercial,  Industrial

Madrid Region- Spain (Plata-Rocha et al., 2011)

Greater Shanghai Area, China. (Zhang et al., 2011)

Scenario-based urban simulation modelling and landscape metrics, are used to be effective in spatialetemporal dynamics and patterns of urban evolution, including urban expansion trends.

Climate Production Economics Biodiversity Carbon emission Salinity Wind Erosion Economic Geopolitical Social issues

Urban expansion

considering socioeconomic and demographic factors. However, the EPA's studies focus on the determination of future LCLU change more than the determination of climate change vulnerabilities. Lindley et al. (2006) attempt to address future urban environment and its possible vulnerabilities to the risk of climate change associated hazards in their study of the City of Manchester. As a result, climate change and spatial planning scenarios must be evaluated together to address the relationship between climate change and LCLU change and their impact on ESs. Among the drivers shown in Table 1, LCLU change and climate change are assumed to be the two main drivers which will effect on each other. In this sense, in order to understand climate change based vulnerabilities on LCLU and ESs, not only climate change scenarios but also, LCLU scenarios are recommended for integration into the policy development process. Methodology The sustainability of ESs is closely related with the vulnerability and/or resiliency of LCLU. The interrelationships between climate change, LCLU and ESs are important issues that must be addressed in

Markov Chain analysis and CA

         

Land use Soil type, Hydrography, roads, Protected natural areas (Red Natura), vulnerability of aquifers Undesirable installations, Social facilities, Topography population, Administrative boundaries. Administration Residential Road, Water, Terrain, land cover, Other features.

Mapping;  Agriculture  Industry  High density  Low density  Vegetation  Water and beach

the assessment process (Groot, Alkemade, Braat, Hein, & Willemen, 2010; Hou, Burkhard, & Müller, 2012). In this study, besides the evaluation of the literature reviews made for understanding possible impact of climate change on LCLU (EEA, 2012; EPA, 2012; Fagundez, 2012; FAO, 2013; UNCSD, 2007), climate change and LCLU scenarios (adapted from Shearer, 2009) were developed in an attempt to understand the possible impact of future built-up areas and climate change on LCLU and ESs, the importance of ESs in adapting to climate change, and possible strategies. The methodology and outline of the study can be seen in Fig. 2. In the climate change scenarios of Istanbul, A2 as the emission scenario, Echam5 (The fifth-generation atmospheric general circulation model as the global model) and REGCM3 (3-dimensional, sigma-coordinate, primitive equation regional climate model) as the regional model are accepted. The variables are accepted as; temperature at 2 m. and precipitation (mm/day). The scenarios are developed for annual, winter and summer averages for the periods of 2030e2039, 2060e2069 and 2090e2099. The reference period as a starting point is taken as 1961e1990. The LCLU scenario methodology is adapted from the studies of Schwartz (1991 in Shearer, 2009) and Bryan et al. (2011) in Lower

A.C. Onur, A. Tezer / Habitat International 47 (2015) 267e278

271

Fig. 2. Research outline of the study.

Murray, Australia. A new scenario construction process adapted from these two studies is developed as shown below;  Defining the issues and/or decisions that may change the LCLU of Istanbul,  Addressing driving forces or trends,  Joining the similar driving forces and ranking by importance,  Defining the main two drivers of Istanbul in X and Y axis,  Analysing four potential scenarios according to their responses to pre-defined policies,  Scoring the scenarios and giving names according to their features,  Defining the spatial criteria for each scenario,  Implication in the geographic information system interface,  Analysing the future impact of urbanisation on natural LCLU,  Evaluating of these scenarios and developing spatial strategies. Both studies emphasise that related stakeholders and decision makers should be included at each step of the scenario construction process. In addition, a continuous monitoring process should be integrated to intervene and re-assess the process in case of necessity. In this study, cellular automata model based scenarios, which are more suitable for cities that have a selforganising capacity, may not respond to the predictions for the future situation of Istanbul. For this reason, future LCLU is addressed by existing LCLU trends, present plan decisions, and large-scale investments based on the decisions of the Council of Ministers and legal reports. In these scenarios, the construction of a new highway issue necessitates the scientific identification and integration of the

highway impact zone. In order to determine the impact on natural LCLU, an impact area zone 5 km in diameter from the route is identified in all scenarios. This zone is inspired from the research of pez, Torres, Palacín, Seoane, and Alonso (2011); Benítez-Lo Alkemade, and ve Verweij (2010); Pruett, Patten, and Wolfe (2009). The 5 km diameter impact zone (Cervero, 2003; TMMOB, 2012) is accepted as the potential impact area for measuring any future impact on different LCLU. According to Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005), ESs are classified into four groups; supporting (nutrient cycling, soil formation and primary production), provisioning (food, fresh water, wood and fuel), regulating (climate regulation, flood regulation, disease regulation and water purification) and cultural services (aesthetic, spiritual, educational and recreational). Depending on data availability and the comprehensiveness of the assessment of ESs, only biological and inorganic raw material, food, freshwater, climate regulation, flood regulation, and recreation services are taken into account (Albayrak, 2012). Possible vulnerabilities of ESs in relation with change in natural LCLU are measured by indicators adapted from Groot et al. (2010); MEA (2005); and UNCSD (The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development) (2007). These indicators are developed to understand the loss (in percentages) of natural LCLU which may also represent the loss of ESs if the LCLU scenarios come true. Climate change impacts on ESs are evaluated nonnumerically as there is a high level of uncertainty in adapting regional climate change scenario maps at the city scale. € lge Actual LCLU is produced from IMM (2009), Istanbul Orman Bo _ Müdürlüg ü (2012) and Istanbul Tarım Il ü (2006). In orMüdürlüg _ (2011) data for agricultural and livestock der to analyse ESs, TÜIK production is also used.

272

A.C. Onur, A. Tezer / Habitat International 47 (2015) 267e278

In order to determine the priority of the ESs, to combat climate change, and/or take precautions to increase their resilience and to verify the purpose of this study; the results of a self-administered survey applied to the related stakeholders, is taken into consideration. This procedure was conducted in a workshop organised under No. 110K350 Project. Close ended questions are structured in a matrix format. Through this survey, an attempt was made to determine the interaction between ESs, climate change and sustainable urbanisation. A scale rating was used in questions to facilitate the procedure and prioritise the topics. A similar methodology was used to determine the priorities of LCLU, ESs (Koschke, Fürst, Frank, & Makeschin, 2010), and location decisions (Awasthi, Chauhanb, & Goyal, 2011) by using statistical analyses such as multi criteria analyses. The stakeholder group consisted of 39 participants from local municipalities, the metropolitan municipality, planning and environmental associations, nongovernmental organisations and representatives of related ministries. In this study, the related survey is evaluated with ANOVA tests. Three basic, three supplementary questions were asked for the identification of prioritisation of LCLU and ESs in the process of climate change and urbanisation. In these questions biological and inorganic raw material, food, freshwater, climate regulation, flood regulation, and recreation ESs were asked to be prioritised under 15 scales.  Which ESs may be more vulnerable in case of climate change in Istanbul? (1e5 scales in between not vulnerable to very vulnerable)  Which ESs should have priority to combat climate change impact? (1e5 scales in between not important to very important)  Which dimension of sustainable development (ecological, economic and social) should be prioritised to promote the adaptation of key ESs to climate change? (1e5 scales in between not important to very important) Beside these main questions; following questions are also asked.  Which ESs may be more vulnerable to urbanisation in Istanbul?  Which LCLU (Among forest, watershed, agriculture, scrublands, urban green areas, beach and rocky areas) may be more vulnerable in case of climate change?  Which LCLU should have priority in climate change adaptation? The results of this analysis, as well as the climate change and LCLU scenarios, are evaluated together for a final conclusion to address the vulnerable ESs and ESs which are important for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Finally, relevant strategies and tools for increasing resiliency of ESs are recommended to be developed under a climate change adapted spatial planning framework which integrates ESs based spatial planning (Albayrak, 2012), sustainable planning approach and climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies to combat climate change and urbanisation based vulnerabilities and to increase the resilience and sustainability of ESs. Climate change in Istanbul and its impact on LCLU Evaluating the actual LCLU with projected changes in primary climate parameters (such as temperature and precipitation) can assist the understanding the vulnerabilities of LCLU and ESs. According to the climate change scenarios (A2) made by United Nations development Programme (UNDP, 2007) for Turkey, the average annual temperature is expected to increase by 3
Ce4
C and average annual precipitation is expected to decrease by 1 mm/ day until 2080. Precipitation may decrease in the Mediterranean

and Aegean (southern and western) regions; and may increase in the Black Sea (northern) region. In these circumstances the western part of Istanbul may seriously suffer from rises in temperature and drought while the north east part may suffer from floods as a result of sudden and irregular rainfall and the increased precipitation of the Black Sea climatic region. The increase in sea level rise is expected to be around 1e2 mm/year, which may create new challenges for Istanbul as it is a coastal city. According to the A2 scenario developed in this study for Istanbul, the average annual temperature is predicted to increase by around 0.5
C until 2030e2039, 2
C until 2060e2069, and 3.5
C until 2090e2099. This increase is expected to be more significant after 2060. The increase in temperature is expected to be worse in summer (4.5
C) until 2099. The spatial distribution of the increase in temperature seems to be homogeneous while the change in precipitation does not (Fig. 3). The annual average precipitation is expected to increase by about 0.23 mm/day until 2060e2069. Approximately 75% of the Istanbul metropolitan area may be faced with an increase in precipitation. A decrease is expected in the western areas during both winter and summer periods. An increase in precipitation may cause extreme flood events resulting in serious damage, especially in urbanised areas. Drought seems to be another possibility for the western part of Istanbul, especially during summer periods. This may create pressures on all ESs, especially for freshwater ecosystems, agricultural areas and human well-being. Climate change scenarios represent future challenges and evaluating these results with existing LCLU and ESs is not a rational methodology. Therefore, LCLU scenarios are necessary to be developed for better addressing the future vulnerabilities caused by climate change. LCLU scenarios in Istanbul The existing drivers which may change the LCLU of Istanbul can be categorised as rapid spatial expansion due to urbanisation, population growth, regulations, unplanned urbanisation and rapidly emerging economic activities. There are several things that increase the uncertainties in Istanbul's future LCLU. These can be summarised as the following;  Istanbul is open to spatial investments with high speculations as the city is the growing economic engine of Turkey.  Spatial investments may be changed, postponed or delayed in a very short period of time.  The growing population and economy of Istanbul has been driven by sudden, top-down decisions, which may cause new uncertainties and disrupt sustainable development.  Even though the local government has the right to prepare and approve province-wide spatial development plans, the central government has a broader authority to make spatial investments that may influence and/or change the development decisions. These ever changing dynamics complicate the planning process, so scenario analysis is needed to understand the future situation and decrease uncertainties. It appears to be an efficient prediction tool for the planning process that facilitates the creation of future data, the analysis of the future situation and the understanding of possible vulnerabilities. In the light of the above mentioned factors, two main drivers (large-scale spatial projects and regulations) are taken into consideration in order to develop LCLU scenarios for Istanbul. In all scenarios, the identified built-up area of the 1/100,000 scaled Environmental Master Plan (EMP) is accepted as a base for future built-up areas (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality-IMM, 2009), together with the ones in existence.

A.C. Onur, A. Tezer / Habitat International 47 (2015) 267e278

273

Fig. 3. Spatial distribution of change in precipitation according to A2 scenario simulation of the ECHAM5 Global Circulation Model (AGORA, 2011) (Yellow to red colours show decreases in precipitation, blue to dark blue colours show increases). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

The spatial projects of the central government that are expected to change the natural LCLU are;  The Northern Marmara Motorway Project to connect with the 3rd Bosporus Bridge (TMMOB, 2012)  A canal project on the European side as an alternative sea-way to the Bosporus Straight for maritime and freight transport as well as a new settlement development location (decision of the Council of Ministers, No: 3573 (TBMM, 2012) Spatial Regulations that may relate (fasten or control) the change in natural LCLU are;  Forest law (No: 6831, 1956),  Watershed regulation (ISKI, 2011),  Regulation on agricultural land use and protection (No: 25766, 2005)  Pasture law (No: 4342, 1998)  Conservation of Cultural and Natural assets law (No: 2863, 1983) Placement of the scenarios on X and Yaxis can be seen in Fig. 5. The 3rd and 4th scenarios are compatible with the laws and regulations while the 1st and 2nd scenarios assume that legislative tools have a weak influence on built-up area development. The 1st and 3rd scenarios include spatial projects implemented by the central government, but the 2nd and 4th scenarios do not have the influence of these top-down projects. It is worth clarifying that a 5 km impact zone will be applicable for all LCLU, only in those cases which

disregard the regulations (the 1st and 2nd scenarios). In scenarios those that are compatible with regulations (the 3rd and 4th scenarios), the impact zone of the motorway narrows to 1 km diameter (in accordance with the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report of the Northern Marmara Motorway Project) for protected areas (forest, conservation area and watershed) and increases to 5 km diameter in agricultural, pastures and mining areas as construction of urban settlements and facilities is permitted in these areas. In the 1st scenario; economic development based policies are accepted and natural LCLU is assumed be under land development pressures without restricting rules of any regulation. According to the scenario 48% of natural LCLU is expected to be under pressure from induced built-up areas. This scenario has the highest impact ratio. The 3rd scenario also considers economic development policies as a priority by developing new urban areas. But different from the 1st scenario, natural LCLU is secured with the restrictive measures of regulations for new urban development. The 2nd scenario disregards economic development policies based on new spatial projects rather than the ones proposed in the master plan. The 4th scenario; also ignores development policies based on new spatial projects rather than Environmental Master Plan proposes. But different from the 2nd scenario, LCLU is tried to be strictly protected in accordance with regulations. Natural LCLU is subject to be under pressure of new urbanisation in the 3rd scenario with 38% in the 2nd scenario 33% and in the 4th scenario with 30%. It is clear that the implementation of spatial

274

A.C. Onur, A. Tezer / Habitat International 47 (2015) 267e278

Fig. 4. LCLU scenarios and percentages of impact areas in future built-up areas of Istanbul.

projects proposed by the central government creates a significant impact on the natural LCLU of Istanbul. When the 1st and 3rd scenarios are compared, laws and regulations can be relevant tools to decrease the possible impacts of spatial investments (Fig. 4). LCLU change as a result of urbanisation for each scenario is shown in the table above. The intersecting areas produced by existing LCLU and the impact zone, which is different in each scenario, is accepted as a loss in LCLU due to urbanisation (Fig. 4). The impact zone differs in each scenario according to the characteristics of each scenario's policy responses under the environmental, social, ecological, political and technological issues and it is summarised in Table 2. The 1st scenario has the highest level of irrelevant policy responses. In this scenario, the economic growth of Istanbul is the main priority and all spatial regulations can be adapted to meet the needs of spatial projects. Neither environmental protection nor social issues have enough importance when compared with the importance given to economic growth. Spatial projects made by the central government have either been approved or are in the process of being approved (the 3rd Bosporus Bridge and the Northern Marmara Motorway Project). This scenario disregards any regulations and the 5 km diameter impact zone for main roads is accepted (Fig. 5). Local authorities are under the control of the central

government and the participation of stakeholders appears to be insufficient (Table 3). In the 1st scenario, around 48% of Istanbul will be under pressure from built-up areas (existing ratio is 20%). In Fig. 5, the comparison of existing and future area ratios of remaining natural LCLU can be seen in detail. Due to a possible change in LCLU, 20% of forest areas, 56% of agriculture areas, 31% of scrub and heathlands, 64% of pastures are expected to be under pressure from urbanisation. In this scenario, as the watershed protection law and regulation does not function, and 42% of water surfaces may be threatened by pollution. These changed percentages in LCLU are important to determine the urbanisation impact of ESs in relation to the change in LCLU. In this study, the most challenging scenario, 1st scenario, is considered in order to understand the possible and extreme impact it has on LCLU (Fig. 5).

Evaluation of climate change impact on LCLU and ESs According to the results of the surveys, the most vulnerable ESs are determined as being food and freshwater in terms of climate change. Priority should be given to these ESs to develop appropriate

Table 2 Policy responses of LCLU scenarios. Policy responses ENV. (Environment)

SOC. (Social)

ECO. (Economical) POL. (Political) TEC. (Technological)

Controlling development of built-up area Protection of natural land cover Control on ecosystem fragmentation Balancing population distribution Improving environmental awareness Enhancing initiatives with public participation Supporting local and regional plan oriented investment Improving sustainable growth Enhancing interconnectedness with international regulatory tools Advocating participatory governance Developing innovative technologies

Highly relevant policy responses: H. Moderately relevant policy responses: M. Irrelevant policy responses: L.

1st Scenario

2nd Scenario

3rd Scenario

4th Scenario

L L L L L L L L L L M

H M M L M M L L L L L

L L L L M M L L L L M

H H M M H H H H H H H

A.C. Onur, A. Tezer / Habitat International 47 (2015) 267e278

275

Fig. 5. LCLU and impacted areas of Istanbul through urbanisation, according to the 1st scenario.

strategies and tools for the spatial decision making process (Table 4). To withstand the impact of climate change, freshwater, climate regulation and flood regulation services should be protected, and appropriate environmental strategies and tools should be developed (Table 5). Environmental strategies should have priority to address both the impact of climate change and urbanisation. Stakeholders agree that ESs are important components for sustainable urbanisation in Istanbul and rapid urbanisation may affect ESs with a ratio of 80%. Natural LCLU, which may be efficient in climate change adaptation and mitigation, are determined as forest, watersheds and agriculture respectively. Almost all participants (90%) agree that change in natural LCLU may cause negative impact in terms of climate change and that strategies should focus on environmental issues. ESs may also have to face with different values of loss in their quality and quantity under the process of climate change. In particular, freshwater, food and flood regulation ESs are expected to be the most vulnerable ones. Freshwater ES is accepted as the most important and vulnerable ES in adaptation to climate change, especially considering the projected rise in temperature and danger of drought in Istanbul. The results of the surveys are included in Table 5 for an overall evaluation. Sustaining the resiliency of natural LCLU and surface water by creating protection through laws and regulations is highly important to restrain climate change in Istanbul. The overall evaluation of the impact of urbanisation and climate change in the 1st scenario can be seen in detail. In this scenario, the key ES, which should have the first priority, is freshwater. According to the scenario, the water consumption of Istanbul shows an increase of around 65% as a result of the increase in population. Second key ES is flood regulation. Increases in the precipitation trend until 2069, 75% of all metropolitan area and 85% of the built-

up area may be under the threat of flooding. Forest and scrubland, together with other natural LCLU are important for flood regulation as their transformation into built-up areas may increase flood risks (Storch and Downes, 2011). Future flooding close to built-up areas may cause serious pollution in water resources and decrease the quality of water as well as increasing the risk to the local population and their economic resources. A rise in temperature, may degrade trees in lower altitudes (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), 2005). In this case, the erosion control function of forest cover in low altitudes may no longer continue, and this may cause serious soil erosion. Even though food ES does not have a very significant function in climate change adaptation, it is important for the continuity of urban food security. In Istanbul, an increase in temperature may also cause a significant decrease in agricultural productivity. Possible droughts, especially in summer (A2 scenario) in the western areas and the risk of flood, together with the pressure of urbanisation may increase the stress on these products. Change in LCLU in the 1st scenario will also increase the pressure on livestock production. In addition, beekeeping may also suffer from changes in both LCLU and climate change. Water bodies, forests and scrubland should have priority to be sustained for adaptation to climate change and increasing the resiliency of vulnerable ESs. These areas are important for the sustainability of flood regulation, freshwater surfaces and climate adaptation due to their role in carbon absorption, and their usefulness in decreasing the impact of heat waves and storms, decreasing flood risk and improving the water infiltration for ground water resources. Freshwater ESs also play a vital role in food production and must be given special importance as they are directly connected with human well-being and continuity of life. Protection and rehabilitation of green cover and forestation may facilitate adaptation to climate change due to their carbon

276

A.C. Onur, A. Tezer / Habitat International 47 (2015) 267e278

Table 3 Main characteristics of each LCLU scenario. Criteria

1st Scenario

2nd Scenario

Spatial

Spatial projects of central government Is considered Not considered Built-up areas in EMP Is considered Is considered 5 km diameter urban impact zone All around highways All around highways around highways

Governance

Regulations

Spatial regulations can be adapted in case of need for investments Local authorities are highly under control of central government Not considered Not considered

Decentralization of governance

Social

Regarding to the law and regulations Local government decisions in accordance with central government Participation of stakeholders

Not important

Population

20 million (TMMOB, 2012 projection) Highest level of irrelevant policy responses Only economic growth is important

Main Relevancy to policy responses characteristics (According to Table 2) Importance given to sustainability components (economy, social, environment)

Table 4 ESs which are important for adaptation to climate change in Istanbul. ES

Food Bio& inorganic raw material Freshwater Climate regulation Flood regulation Recreation

3rd Scenario

4th Scenario

Is considered Is considered Only on agricultural, pasture lands due to law

Not considered Is considered Only on agricultural, pasture lands due to law Regulations are implemented strictly

Disregards to the regulations

Regulations are implemented strictly

More decentralized than 1st scenario

Local authorities are highly under control of central government

Decentralized government

Not considered Is considered

Is considered Not considered

Is considered Is considered

Not important (but better than 1st scenario) 20 million (TMMOB, 2012 projection)

Not important (but better than 1st scenario) 20 million (TMMOB, 2012 projection)

Is important

Third level of irrelevant policy responses

Second level of irrelevant policy responses

Highest level of relevant policy responses All components are important

Economic growth is Economic growth is important but environment important but environment is tried to be protected by law is tried to be protected by law

16 million (EMP plan projection)

Conclusion

Sustainability components Environment

Economy

Social

M M H H H M

M M H H M M

M M H H M M

Low(L): <20%, Medium (M): 21%e79%, High (H): 80%<.

absorption, water filtration and climate regulation capacity. Urbanisation pressure on natural LCLU decreases the adaptation capacity of ESs to climate change and changes in LCLU may cause serious reductions in ESs and human well-being. The results of LCLU scenarios of Istanbul also show the importance of being in accordance with laws and regulations. In accordance with a plan for agriculture, agroforestry can also be a relevant adaptation strategy for decreasing the level of emissions from agriculture, and decreasing the impact of floods and heat waves on agricultural products. These lands can also be protected by special laws as they are important for human well-being through food security. Existing agricultural products can be replaced by ones that are more resistant to higher temperatures, droughts and/ or floods. This issue is open to further research. Mediterranean scrubs also play significant roles as well, especially in climate regulation and flood control. These ecosystems are more resistant to higher temperatures and wild fires (FAO, 1986). Protection and replantation of these types of land cover can be a relevant strategy for adaptation to climate change Scrub and heathlands replantation can be a rational strategy to protect land from invasive species. Scrubs and heathlands are important areas for wild food, flood regulation, freshwater, climate regulation due to their role in carbon and water absorption. So these areas may have particular importance in any adaptation to climate change.

This paper attempts to develop an integrated approach to identify the impact on ESs by climate change and LCLU. As ESs are diverse benefits directly consumed or used ecological products/ processes to human well-being (Boyd & Banzhaf, 2007; Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; MEA, 2007), the identification of their loss or degradation is more complicated and multi-dimensional than just defining them through LCLU. Scenario analysis is preferred here to establish the uncertainties related to climate change and urbanisation drivers. Even though there is a high level of uncertainty in the scenarios, they are necessary to be able to understand the future impact of change on ESs. The impact of urbanisation is easier to measure and is given in percentages. More indicators under different perspectives can be developed in further studies. In this study, spatially definable indicators are taken into consideration for detailed comparisons. Results show that drinking water, flood regulation and food provision are the main vulnerable ESs to both climate change and urbanisation in Istanbul. Freshwater ESs are also very important for climate change adaptation together with climate regulation ES. Special importance is needed to be given to freshwater ES's components such as protection of watershed areas (Albayrak, 2012). Climate change adapted ESs based spatial planning can be a relevant tool for developing appropriate strategies against future vulnerabilities of ESs. More research can be done upon this framework and new spatial planning models can be created. Uncertainties, especially about adapting regional scale climate change scenarios to the city scale, create challenges for addressing climate change impact on LCLU. Climate change scenarios are significant after 40e50 years, which is a long period of time for LCLU scenarios. These uncertainties force a climate change adapted new planning mechanism to give special importance to feedback and constantmonitoring processes. This also shows the need for innovation in all sectors and the importance of improving their capacity for better climate change adaptation.

A.C. Onur, A. Tezer / Habitat International 47 (2015) 267e278

277

Table 5 Evaluation of the impact of urban built-up area according to the 1st scenario and climate change on the main ESs indicators (indicators are adapted from Groot et al., 2010; MEA, 2005; UNCSD, 2007). ESs

Indicators

Ratio of LCLU under pressure of built-up area (due to 1st LCLU scenario)

Impact of climate change on LCLU (based on climate change scenarios)

Survey results Vulnerability to climate change impacts

Important for climate change adaptation

 Decrease in quality of water  Loss in water based ecosystems because of floods and rise in temperature.

Highly vulnerable

Highly important

 Increase in wildfires,  Replacement of species

Highly vulnerable

Important

 Decrease in quality of air,  Increase in GHG emissions due to rise in temperature

Less vulnerable

Highly important

 Protection zones (in law: 2863) in natural areas: 48%  Wildlife protection zone: 5%  Location of aromatic plants: 45%

 Risk on ecosystems due to rise in temperature, flood and pollution

Vulnerable

Less important

 Soil with high capability on natural areas: 45%  Agricultural area: 56%  Agricultural products:%58  Crops: 56%  Vegetables and fruit production: 62%  Around 52% of milk production due to  31% of wood production will be lost

 Risk of loss in products due to flood, drought, change in rainfall regimes and rise in temperature

Highly vulnerable

Less important

 Due to rise in temperature, loss in livestock products  Wildfires, degradation of forests due to change of climate

Vulnerable

Less important

Freshwater

 Ratio of water bodies under pressure of built-up area  Ratio of watersheds under pressure of built-up area

    

Flood regulation

 Ratio of forest under pressure of built-up area  Ratio of scrub areas under pressure of built-up area

 

Climate regulation

Recreation

Food

Biological and Inorganic raw material

 Ratio of forest under pressure of built-up area  Ratio of scrub areas under pressure of built-up area  Ratio of protection zones under pressure of built-up area  Ratio of wild life under pressure of built-up area  Ratio of loss in endemic plants under pressure of built-up area  Ratio of croplands under pressure of built-up area  Ratio of loss in average food stock  Ratio of loss in high capable soil

 Ratio of loss of animal and fish stocks  Ratio of loss in wood production

   

Watersheds: 33% Water bodies: 62% Streams: 52% Underground water: 52% Forest with hydrological protection function: 20% Forest: 20% Erosion control forest: 20% Nature protection forest: 33% Scrubs:31% Forests: 20% Scrubs:31%

Three planning frameworks are taken into account in this study; integrated sustainable planning, ESs based spatial planning (Albayrak, 2012) and climate change mitigation, and it is proposed to integrate adaptation strategies into this study. A multidimensional, multi-disciplinary point of view which is highly participative for all sectors and stakeholders can be very efficient in the assessment and monitoring of the city now and in the future. Research and development, local initiatives, cooperation and collaborations among different sectors, international financial tools and programs (such as C40 initiatives), risk assessment, technological innovation are commonly used tools all over the world especially in developed cities (New York, London, Boston etc.). Local climate change agencies (such as those in New York and Boston) in collaboration with local government and other stakeholders may monitor the planning process and reassess the process when needed. More importance should be given to LCLU protection and conservation of natural land in these strategies, and this should be prioritised together with spatial development. Spatial risk management plans can be developed for most vulnerable cases in collaboration with spatial plans. Spatial plans may give references to these sub-plans where needed. A decentralised governance is very important in combatting climate change. All plans at all levels should be in accordance with each other, and no investments should be made on plan offers. These issues may sound similar to developed cities but in developing and

ever growing cities like Istanbul, such problems are difficult to be implemented. MEA (2005) establishes the importance of the planning process from the global to the local level through an analytical approach. Protection and rehabilitation of land cover, especially water bodies and green open spaces (either natural or manmade) may facilitate not only climate adaptation but also climate mitigation by decreasing the impact of temperature increases, droughts and floods. It is necessary to develop this approach to reduce the conflict between different policy makers, and to produce holistic and participatory strategies by considering the future and reducing uncertainty. Further research should also be done into the role of ESs in the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, and new planning frameworks through new spatial planning approaches and models should be developed.

References _ _ ıtım Sistemi. ITÜ AGORA. (2011). Iklim Modelleri için Veri Dag Avrasya Yer Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Available at http://agora.itu.edu.tr/node/4. €netim modelinin istanbul e Albayrak, I. (2012). Ekosistem servislerine dayalı havza yo € _ _ €rneg inde uygulanabilirlig i (Phd thesis). Istanbul: Omerli havzası o ITÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Awasthi, A., Chauhanb, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2011). A multi-criteria decision making approach for location planning for urban distribution centers under uncertainty. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 53, 98e109.

278

A.C. Onur, A. Tezer / Habitat International 47 (2015) 267e278

pez, A., Alkemade, R., & ve Verweij, P. A. (2010). The impacts of roads and Benítez-Lo other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: a meta-analysis. Biological Conservation, 143, 1307e1316. Bohensky, E. L., Reyers, B., & Van Jaarsveld, A. S. (2006). Future ecosystem services in a southern African River Basin: a scenario planning approach to uncertainty. Conservation Biology, 20(4), 1051e1061. Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2e3), 616e626. Bryan, B. A., Neville, D., Crossman, D., King, D., & Meyer, W. S. (2011). Landscape futures analysis: assessing the impacts of environmental targets under alternative spatial policy options and future scenarios. Environmental Modelling & Software, 26, 83e91. Cabello, A., Velasco, M., Barredo, J. I., Hurkmans, R. T. W. L., Barrera Escoda, A., Sempere, T. D., et al. (2011). Assessment of future scenarios of climate and landuse changes in the IMPRINTS test-bed areas. Environmental Science and Policy, 14, 884e897. Cadenasso, M. L., Pickett, S. T. A., & Schwarz, K. (2007). Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: reconceptualizing land cover and a framework for classification. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 5, 80e88. Cervero, R. (2003). Road expansion, urban growth, and induced travel: a path analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 145e163. City Of Boston. (2011). A climate of progress: City of Boston climate action plan. Boston. City Of London. (2011). Rising to the challenge: The City of London climate change adaptation strategy. London. City Of New York. (2010). Climate change adaptation plan in New York City. New York. Costanza, R., dArge, R., Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253e260. Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature's services: Societal dependence on ecosystem services (pp. 1e10). Washington DC: Island Press. Dunn, S. M., Brown, I., Sample, J., & Post, H. (2012). Relationships between climate, water resources, land use and diffuse pollution and the significance of uncertainty in climate change. Journal of Hydrology, 434e435, 19e35. EPA. (2012). National water program 2012 strategy: Response to climate change full report. Available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/climatechange/2012-NationalWater-Program-Strategy.cfm. European Environment Agency (EEA). (2010). No:12. In M. Asquith (Ed.), Agroecosystems, EU 2010 biodiversity baseline e European agency report (pp. 27e34), ISBN 978-92-9213-164-7. Cophenagen eLuxenburg. European Environment Agency (EEA). (2012). Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe. Available at http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climateimpacts-and-vulnerability-2012. Fagundez, J. (2012). Heathlands confronting global change: drivers of biodiversity loss from past to future scenarios. Annals of Botany, 1e22. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (1986). Irrigation water management: Irrigation water needs, Chapter 2: Climate and crop growth. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/S2022E/S2022E00.htm. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2005). Global forest resources assessment. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/A0400E/ A0400E09.pdf. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2013). Advancing agroforestry on the policy agenda: A guide for decision-makers. Available at http:// www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3182e/i3182e00.pdf. Forest law (No: 6831) (1956), Date of Acceptance: 31/8/1956, Official Gazette : Date: 8/9/1956 Number: 9402, Publishing Code : Arrangement: 3 Volume: 37 Page: 2457. Füssel, H. M. (2007). Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. Sustainability Science, 2, 265e275. Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260e272. Hallegatte, S., & Corfee-Morlot, J. (2011). Understanding climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation at city scale: an introduction. Climatic Change, 104, 1e12. Hou, Y., Burkhard, B., & Müller, F. (2013). Uncertainties in landscape analysis and ecosystem service assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 127, 117e131. Hoymann, J. (2010). Spatial allocation of future residential land use in the Elbe River Basin. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37, 911e928. IPCC. (2007a). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. IPCC. IPCC. (2007b). Fourth assessment Report: Climate change. IPCC. ISKI. (2011). Watershed regulation. Available at http://www.iski.gov.tr/Web/statik. aspx?KID¼1001225. _ _ € lge Müdürlüg ü. (2012), Istanbul. Istanbul Orman Bo _Istanbul Il _ Tarım Müdürlüg _ _ Tarım Master Planı. Istanbul. _ ü. (2006). Istanbul Il € _ _ _ _ Çevre Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM). (2009). 1/100.000 Olçekli Istanbul Il _ Düzeni Planı Analitik ve Sentez Raporu. Istanbul. Koschke, L., Fürst, C., Frank, S., & Makeschin, F. (2010). A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecological Indicators, 21, 54e66. Lindley, S. J., Handley, J. F., Theuray, N., Peet, E., & McEvoy, D. (2006). Adaptation strategies for climate change. Journal of Risk Research, 9(5), 543e568.

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005). Key questions on biodiversity in the millennium ecosystem assessment, ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2007). A toolkit for understanding and action e Protecting nature's Services, protecting ourselves, millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington DC/, London: Island Press. Moss, R. H., Edmonds, J. A., Hibbard, K. A., Manning, M. R., Rose, S. K., Van Vuuren, D. P., et al. (2010). The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature, 463(7282), 747e756. OECD. (2008). Territorial Reviews: Istanbul e Turkey, policy brief. € €nemli bitki Alanları. MAS Ozhatay, N., Byfield, A., & Atay, S. (2003). Türkiye'nin o _ _ Matbacılık A.S¸. ISBN: 975-92433-0-x, Istanbul. Pasture law (No 4342) (1998). Date of acceptance: 27.5.2004. Pimm, S. L., & Raven, P. (2000). Extinction by numbers. Nature, 403, 843e845. Plata-Rocha, W., Gomez-Delgado, M., & Bosque-Sendr, J. (2011). Simulating urban growth scenarios using GIS and multicriteria analysis techniques: a case study of the Madrid region, Spain. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38, 1012e1031. Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Pennington, D., & Johnson, K. A. (2011). The impact of landuse change on ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: a case study in the state of Minnesota. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 219e242. Pruett, C. L., Patten, M. A., & Wolfe, D. H. (2009). Avoidance behavior by Prairie Grouse: implications for development of wind energy. Conservation Biology, 23, 1253e1259. Regulation on agricultural land use and protection (No:25766) (2005). Official Journal No. 25766, 25 March 2005. Shearer, A. W. (2009). Land use scenarios: Environmental consequences of development. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Storch, H., & Downes, N. K. (2011). A scenario-based approach to assess Ho Chi Minh City's urban development strategies against the impact of climate change. Cities, 28, 517e526. Tan, K. C., Lim, H. S., MatJafri, M. Z., & Abdullah, K. (2010). Landsat data to evaluate urban expansion and determine land use/land cover changes in Penang Island, Malaysia. Environmental Earth Sciences, 60, 1509e1521. TBMM. (2012). Council of ministers decision. No: 3573. Available at http://www. resmi-gazete.org/rega/2012-3573-istanbul-ilinde-bulunan-bazi-alanlardagerceklestirilecek-proje-uygulamalari-kapsamindacevre-ve-sehircilikbakanliginin-yetkilendirilmesine-iliskin-karar-32870.htm. Tezer, A. (2005). Urban biosphere reserve (ubr) concept for sustainable use and protection of urban aquatic habitats: case of Omerli Wathershed, Istanbul. Ecohydrology &Hidrobiology, 5(4), 309e320. € & Terzi, F. (2011). Ekosistem Servitekin, N., Go €ksel, Ç., Ertekin, O., Tezer, A., Ulug _ slerinin Kent Planlamaya Entegrasyonu, TÜBITAK 108K615 No'lu Aras¸tırma Projesi _ _ Nihai Raporu. Istanbul: ITÜ. € Kerimog iter, R., Eyübog lu, E., Ertekin, O., lu, E., Koramaz, K., et al. Tezer, A., Yig (2008). Urban-Ist: A policy relevant research for establishing a multiparticipatory international network of urban biospheres in Istanbul e UNESCO _ 2006e2007, participation program project, final report. Istanbul: ITU Faculty of Architecture. _ €prü Projesi TMMOB S¸ehir Plancıları Odası-Istanbul S¸ubesi. (2012). 3. Ko _ erlendirme Raporu. Istanbul. Deg Available at http://www.spoist.org/dokuman/ Raporlarimiz/spoist_3.koprurapor.pdf. Torres, A., Palacín, C., Seoane, J., & Alonso, J. C. (2011). Assessing the effects of a highway on a threatened species using beforeeduringeafter and beforeeduringeafter-controleimpact designs. Biological Conservation, 144, 2223e2232. _ TURKSAT (TÜIK). (2011). Tarım ve Hayvancılık Veri Tabanı. Ankara. Available at http://www.turkstat.gov.tr. _ _ ¸ gücü, Gelir Analizleri. Ankara. AvailTURKSAT (TÜIK). (2012). Nüfus, Demografik, Is able at http://www.turkstat.gov.tr. UN. (1994). Convention to combat desertification in countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa. UN. (2008). Spatial planning, key instrument for development and effective governance with special reference to countries in transition. Geneva: Economic Commission for Europe. UN Habitat. (2011). Planning for climate change, a strategic, values-based approach for urban planners. UNCSD. (2007). Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies. New York: UN Economic and Social Affairs. _ ı. (2007). Türkiye Iklim is¸iklig i Birinci Ulusal UNDP & Çevre ve Orman Bakanlıg Deg ı. Bildirimi. Ankara: Çevre ve Orman Bakanlıg Xia, F., Hea, H. S., Hua, Y., Bua, R., Changa, Y., Wud, X., et al. (2009). Simulating the impacts of ecological protection policies on urban land use sustainability in Shenyang-Fushun, China. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 1(1e2), 111e127. Zhang, Q., Ban, Y., Liu, J., & Hu, Y. (2011). Simulation and analysis of urban growth scenarios for the Greater Shanghai Area, China. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 35, 126e139. Zhao, C., Fu, G., Liu, X., & Fu, F. (2011). Urban planning indicators, morphology and climate indicators: a case study for a north-south transect of Beijing, China. Building and Environment, 46, 1174e1183.