Browsing by Author "Ankaya, F"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    MAPPING PROTECTED AREAS BY GIS METHOD: A CASE STUDY OF IZMIR CITY, CESME DISTRICT (TURKEY)
    Ankaya, F; Turkyilmaz, B; Kose, H
    In Turkey, in order to protect nature, there are strategies and categories depending on differences between local environmental conditions as in many countries in the world. The term of protected environments, is also supported by laws as in other countries around the world. Natural protected environments are divided into the following three categories Critical Environments under the Protection of Law (SAPUL), Natural Protected Environments with Qualifications and Sustainable Protection and Controlled Usage Environments, according to the resolution Conditions of Protection and Use of Natural Protected Environments, dated 2017, of Turkish Republic Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning. A map of Natural Protected Environments has been generated as a result of evaluation of 81 polygons which have been specified as natural protected environment borders by the Protection Commission of the Turkish Republic Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning, the strategy for determining (SAPUL) is approached as this article's subject. According to this strategy, in cesme (Izmir/Turkey) district, 20 polygons were specified to belong to the categories (SAPUL) among 81 polygons based on the terms and definition of the resolution of Izmir City and cesme district. Borders of natural protected environments, which were specified by the protection commission of the Turkish Republic Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning, each polygon is generated based on up-to-date land use information, have been formed based on the visuals taken from IKONOS satellite in 2017. The natural areas that carry the status of SAPUL were specified based on the specifications of the landscape and criteria of landscape assessment as the use of the land, live natural landscape, historical landscape, Hereat, each polygon has been evaluated and mapped according to their specifications of landscape. Primarily, sample map has been created by using quantitative evaluation, which is supported by geographical information system (GIS). It is thought that this strategy will be useful for the resolutions that will be taken by the Committee on Conservation of Cultural Assets in Turkey in the Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE SUSTAINABLE PROTECTION AND CONTROLLED USAGE ENVIRONMENTS WITH THE SUPPORT OF GIS USING T-TEST: CASE STUDY OF CESME, IZMIR, TURKEY
    Birim, S; Ankaya, F
    Turkey is not only prosperous with a unique natural heritage but the cultural heritage of history of mankind and civilization. In Turkey, there are hundreds of thousands of hectares of natural protected environments with boundaries. Loss of site characteristics and dissolution caused by boundary restriction and change of status are particularly vital problems facing the hundreds of thousands of hectares naturally protected environments conserved by laws in Turkey. In the country, natural protected area is divided into three categories; 1) Sensitive area to be strictly protected, 2) Qualified natural protection areas 3) Sustainable protection and controlled usage areas. This study examines the evaluation of the Sustainable Protection and Controlled Usage Environments in Cesme (Izmir / Turkey) district to determine the protection strategy and accurate determination based on scientific data. Based on this strategy, in Cesme, Izmir, Turkey, 17 polygons which were specified as Sustainable Protection and Controlled Usage Areas (SPCUA) by GIS method are reevaluated by 3 specialists who were asked to answer the questions using yes, no, or partly in the chart. yes is given 2 points, no is given 0 points and partly is given 1 point. The goal of this paper is to examine whether there is a substantial difference between the groups specified by GIS method Using dependent sample T-Test. The result of the analysis showed there is no significant difference between the GIS method and the evaluations of all the specialists.