Advertisement

Evaluation of urban topography–biotope–population density relations for Istanbul–Beşiktaş urban landscape using AHP

  • Gül Aslı Aksu
  • Nigar Küçük
Article
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

The analytical evaluation of urban landscapes is a time-consuming and difficult process as it concerns a large number of components in a complex network of interactions. Studies are either very general and superficial, or unidirectional and in-depth based on certain indicators. For this reason, suitability analyses based on analytic hierarchy process (AHP) create an appropriate framework for evaluating multicomponential urban landscapes systematically. The purpose of this research is to establish an important framework for sustainable landscape planning decisions by comparing it with the artificial topography, population density and biotope characteristics evaluated in the context of microclimatic occurrences in urban landscapes. For this purpose, artificial topography was analyzed by means of AHP according to slope–aspect and elevation criteria. These criteria (slope–aspect–elevation) used to evaluate the artificial topography were preferred for having the potential to represent microclimatic formations such as wind corridor, shading and runoff that affect the decisions on urban landscape planning and management significantly. Artificial topography suitability map obtained was compared to biotope types and population density in research area. In regions with high population density topography compliance is low. In appropriate areas, the building and park biotopes attract attention. These findings indicate that green roof-façade systems should be introduced in such areas and ecological balances should be considered in park design. A balanced distribution of building stock gardens influenced the quality of life positively. It was seen that suitability of topography addressed with regard to life quality and microclimatic comfort is inversely proportional to population density. It was determined by evaluating the relationship of artificial topography with urban biotopes that the predominant biotopes in the areas with high suitability of topography such as garden and grove have high ecological value. Artificial surfaces, such as roads and buildings, gain weight in the areas with high population density and unsuitable urban topography. Considering all of these findings, it was concluded that artificial urban topography is an important indicator for interpreting the relationship with habitat-population density and taking decisions on planning and management of urban landscapes which are in a rapid transformation process.

Keywords

Urban landscape planning Biotope Artificial urban topography Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) Suitability analysis Population density 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out in the scope of the project called “Istanbul-Besiktas District an Ecological Planning Approach for an Urban Landscape Plan and Implementation Strategy (114O341-TOVAG-TUBITAK)” project funded by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK). We are grateful to TUBITAK for their support.

References

  1. Aksu, G. A. (2012). Peyzaj Değişimlerinin Analizi. İstanbul, Sarıyer Örneği. (Analysis of landscape changes: A case study in Istanbul sariyer). Ph.D. thesis, Istanbul University, Institute of Science, Istanbul, Turkey (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  2. Aksu, G. A., Musaoğlu, N., & Uzun, A. (2017). An auxiliary tool for landscape evaluation: Ecological risk analysis based on analytic hierarchy process. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 26(1/2017), 84–92.Google Scholar
  3. Bahadori, H., Hasheminezhad, A., & Karimi, A. (2017). Development of an integrated model for seismic vulnerability assessment of residential buildings: Application to Mahabad City. Iran. Journal of Building Engineering, 12, 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banai-Kashani, R. (1989). a new method for site suitability analysis: The analytic hierarchy process. Environmental Management, 13, 685–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cetin, M., Adiguzel, F., Kaya, O., & Sahap, A. (2016). Mapping of bioclimatic comfort for potential planning using GIS in Aydin. Environment, Development and Sustainability.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9885-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins, M. G., Steiner, F. R., & Rushman, M. J. (2001). Land-use suitability analysis in the United States: Historical development and promising technological achievements. Environmental Management, 28(5), 611–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darmstad, W. E., Olson, J. D., & Forman, R. T. T., (1996). Landscape ecology principles in landscape architecture an land-use planning. USA: Harward University Graduate School of Design, Island Press, American Society of Landscape Architects. ISBN 1-55963-514-2.Google Scholar
  8. Davies, R. G., Barbosa, O., Fuller, R. A., Tratalos, J., Burke, N., Lewis, D., et al. (2008). City-wide relationships between green spaces, urban land use and topography. Urban Ecosystems, 11, 269–287.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-008-0062-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duzgun, H. S. B., Yucemen, M. S., Kalaycioglu, H. S., Celik, K., Kemec, S., Ertugay, K., et al. (2011). An integrated earthquake vulnerability assessment framework for urban areas. Natural Hazards, 59(2), 917–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feizizadeh, B., & Blaschke, T. (2013). Land suitability analysis for Tabriz County, Iran: a multi-criteria evaluation approach using GIS. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(1), 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.646964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forman, R. T. T. (2008). Urban regions. Ecology and planning beyond the city. UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 13: 978-0-521-67076-0 (PB).Google Scholar
  12. Forman, R. T. T. (2014). Urban ecology: science of cities. UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-0-521-18824-1 (PB).Google Scholar
  13. Geneletti, D. (2005). Multicriteria analysis to compare the impact of alternative road corridors: a case study in northern Italy. Impact Assessment and ProJect Appraisal, 23(2), 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geneletti, D. (2007). An approach based on spatial multicriteria analysis to map the nature conservation value of agricultural land. Journal of Environmental Management, 83, 228–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gordon, A., Simondson, D., Whiteb, M., Moilanenc, A., & Bekessya, S. A. (2009). Integrating conservation planning and landuse planning in urban landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harker, P. T., & Vargas, L. G. (1987). The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 33(11), 1383–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herwijnen, M., van Janssen, R. (2001). Evaluation methods to support the comparison of maps for environmental decision making. In P. J. Halls (Ed.), Spatial Information and the environment (pp. 259–271). USA: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0-415-25362-4.Google Scholar
  18. Jaafari, S., Sakieh, Y., Shabani, A. A., Danehkar, A., & Nazarisamani, A. (2016). Landscape change assessment of reservation areas using remote sensing and landscape metrics (case study: Jajroud reservation, Iran). Environment, Development and Sustainability, 18, 1701–1717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kitada, T., Okamura, K., & Tanaka, S. (1998). Effects of topography and urbanization on local winds and thermal environment in the Nohbi Plain, Coastal Region of Central Japan: A numerical analysis by mesoscale meteorological model with a k − ε Turbulence model. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 37(10), 1026–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Küblü, Y., (2015). Strüktür ve form olarak kent topografyasının incelenmesi Galata, İstanbul örneği. (An analyses about urban topography as a form and structure; in the case of Galata). Master thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Institute of Science, Istanbul (in Turkish). Google Scholar
  21. Kumar, P., Ahmed, F., Singh, K. R., & Sinha, P. (2017). Determination of hierarchical relationships among sustainable development goals using interpretive structural modeling. Environment, Development and Sustainability.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9981-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li, C., Wu, K., & Wu, J. (2017). Urban land use change and its socio-economic driving forces in China: a case study in BeijingTianjin and Hebei region. Environment, Development and Sustainability.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9928-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Malczewski, J. (2004). GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overwiev. Progress in Planning, 62, 3–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-9006(03)00079-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marsh, W. M. (1997). Landscape planning: Environmental applications (3rd ed.). USA: Wiley. ISBN 0-471-24207-1 (pbk).Google Scholar
  25. Mcharg, I. L. (1992). Design with nature. Wiley. ISBN: 0-471-55797-8.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, W., Collins, M. G., Steiner, F. R., & Cook, E. (1998). An approach for greenway suitability analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42, 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Musaoğlu, N. (1999). Elektro-optik ve Aktif Mikrodalga Algılayıcılardan Elde Edilen Uydu Verilerinden Orman Alanlarında Meşcere Tiplerinin ve Yetişme Ortamı Birimlerinin Belirlenme Olanakları (Possibilities of determining the types of tree stocks in the forest lands and the units of growing sites by means of satellite images obtained from the electro-optical and active microwave sensors), doctorate thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Institute of Science., Istanbul (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  28. Özcan, O. (2008). Sakarya Nehri Alt Havzası’nın Taşkın Riski Analizinin Uzaktan Algılama ve CBS ile Belirlenmesi (Sakarya River Sub-Basin Flood Risk Analysis by using Remote Sensing and GIS). Master Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Institute of Informatics., Istanbul (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  29. Patowary, S., & Sarma, K. A. (2017). Model-based analysis of urban settlement process in eco-sensitive area of developing country: a study with special reference to hills of an Indian city. Environment, Development and Sustainability.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9965-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process (p. 287). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  31. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2012). The possibility of group choice: pairwise comparisons and merging functions. Social Choice and Welfare, 38(3), 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shi, P., & Yu, D. (2014). Assessing urban environmental resources and services of Shenzhen, China: A landscape-based approach for urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 290–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Steiner, F. (1991). The living landscape. An ecological approach to landscape planning. USA: McGraw-Hill, Inc. ISBN 0-07-061133-5.Google Scholar
  34. Steiner, F., McSherry, L., & Cohen, J. (2000). Land suitability analysis for the upper Gila River watershed. Landscape and Urban Planning., 50, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK). (2017). Turkish Statistical Institute, Address based population registration system results official web site. Retrieved August 10, 2017 from http://tuik.gov.tr.
  36. Uy, P. D., & Nakagoshi, N. (2008). Application of land suitability analysis and landscape ecology to urban greenspace planning in Hanoi, Vietnam. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yürekli, İ. (1993). Mimarlık ile eğimli arazi ilişkisi. (Relationship between architecture and sloping land). Master thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Institute of Science, Istanbul (in Turkish). Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and DesignIstanbul Commerce UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Landscape Architecture, Institute of SciencesIstanbul UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations