See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273480922

Ecosystem services based spatial planning decision making for adaptation to

climate changes

Article  in  Habitat International · June 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.01.008

CITATIONS READS

12 423

2 authors:

C. Onur Azime Tezer

2 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS   
Istanbul Technical University
41 PUBLICATIONS   64 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Urban Resilience As a Policy Paradigm for Sustainable Urban Planning and Urban Development: The Case of Istanbul (PhD Thesis) View project

Gaziosmanpaşa İlçesi’nde Güvenli Yerleşim için Mekânsal Risk Yönetim Kapasitesinin Geliştirilmesi View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Azime Tezer on 25 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 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
ITU, Faculty of Architecture, Urban and Regional Planning Department, 34457 Istanbul, Turkey
b
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: Climate change adaptation is a rising global issue and has become the primary issue for transnational
Available online 2 March 2015 organisations and EU institutions. Particularly in developing and dynamic cities like Istanbul, the pres-
sure of rapid urbanisation, institutional and legislative uncertainties are expected to create new vul-
Keywords: nerabilities in ecosystems and their services. Climate change can cause new vulnerabilities in ecosystem
Climate change adaptation services (ESs) through events such as floods, heat-waves, and droughts brought on by rises in temper-
Spatial planning
atures and changes in precipitation. These vulnerabilities may affect the well-being of inhabitants and
Ecosystem services
interfere with the reaching of sustainable development goals in the future.
Sustainability indicators
Istanbul
Istanbul has a unique geographical location for biological diversity when compared with other set-
tlements 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.

Introduction beautification efforts such as those proposed by Burnham and

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: acerentan@gmail.com (A.C. Onur), tezera@itu.edu.tr (A. Tezer).
Olmsted at the beginning of the 1900s. UN (2008) defines today's
spatial planning with its key role in promoting sustainable devel-
opment 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 devel-
opment. This kind of approach is an urgent necessity, especially
with the growing concern over the impact of climate change which

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.01.008
0197-3975/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
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 ur-
banisation and climate change may create impacts on key ESs such
as water, flood control, food production, climate regulation, recre-
ation, 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 temper-
ature 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). Under-
standing the possible future vulnerabilities and addressing the role
Fig. 1. Istanbul province e the study area.
of ESs for climate adaptation may be a less-costly and environ-
mental tool in climate change adapted planning. Finally, integration
of planning with climate change mitigation and adaptation stra-
tegies 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 metro-
politan 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 metro-
politan 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
 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 rele-
vant 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 meteorolog-
ical 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 assess-
ment 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 find-
ings of the method used for the case of Istanbul will be assessed in
terms of its suitability and limitations for other cases.
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 pro-
jection 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 continental-
average 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
change (IPCC, 2007b; Tezer, Ulug tekin, Go€ksel, Ertekin, & Terzi,
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 sce-
narios, 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 ab-
sorption in addition to controlling water quality and quantity, water
flow, biodiversity etc. (Polasky, Nelson, Pennington, & Johnson,
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 set-
tlements 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 wa-
ter 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 sus-
tainable 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 adap-
tation 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
According to Zhao, Fu, Liu, and Fu (2011), climate and spatial
planning have a strong relationship as they may affect human well-
being 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 exam-
ples for realising the scenario construction in the literature
(Bohensky, Reyers, & Van Jaarsveld, 2006; Bryan, Neville, Crossman,
King, & Meyer, 2011; Hoymann, 2010; Plata-Rocha, Gomez-Del-
gado, & 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 urbanisa-
tion, population, economic growth, policies and LCLU such as set-
tlements, roads, vegetation, agriculture, forest, water,
administrative boundaries and soil structure (Bohensky et al.,
2006; Bryan et al., 2011; Hoymann, 2010; Moss et al., 2010; Plata-
Rocha et al., 2011; Shearer, 2009; Xia et al., 2009; Zhang et al.,
2011). Scenarios should be developed in a simple and under-
standable 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 Enhancement of biodiversity,  Climate Linear programming  Temperature Mapping;

MurrayeAustralia mitigation of wind erosion,  Production model e GAMS  Rainfall  Agriculture
(Bryan et al. 2011) salinity and climate  Economics  Carbon price  Protected vegetation
change, cost effectiveness  Biodiversity  Biomass price  Biofuels
 Carbon emission  Biofuel price  Biomass
 Salinity  Conservation farming
 Wind  Deep rooted perennials
 Erosion  Ecological restoration
Gariep BasineSouth Possible futures for ecosystem  Economic Survey  Growth Spider Diagram;
Africa (Bohensky services and human well-being  Geopolitical  Wealth  Biodiversity
et al., 2006)  Social issues  Policy  Food
 Demographics  Minerals
 Urbanization  Energy
 Freshwater
Shenyang-Fushun The impacts of different  Urban growth Cellular automaton  Urban extent Mapping;
Metropolitan ecological protection policies  Industrialization (CA)- SLEUTH  LCLU change  Urban areas
area- China on future urban growth and  Sustainability  Roads change  Agricultural
(Xia et al., 2009) landscape change in the  Slope  Forest
industrial metropolitan  Exclusion  Water
areas  Hill Shade  Rural settlement
 Mine
 Barren
Elbe River Analyses on the feasibility  Suburbanization Logistic regression  Residential Areas Mapping;
BasineGermany of using logistic regression development analysis and CA model  Patches  Nature
(Hoymann, 2010) for future land-use-change  Sustainability policies  Connectivity conservation areas
scenarios  New residential areas
Madrid Region- Spain Show and to reinforce the  Policies Multicriteria evaluation  Land use Mapping;
(Plata-Rocha possibilities of MCE  Urban expansion techniques (MCE) e  Soil type,  Residential,
et al., 2011) techniques in developing Weighted linear  Hydrography, roads,  Commercial,
scenarios of urban growth combination (WLC)  Protected natural areas  Industrial
Conjunctive/disjunctive (Red Natura), vulnerability
model (CD) of aquifers
Multiobjective land  Undesirable installations,
allocation (MOLA)  Social facilities,
 Topography population,
 Administrative boundaries.
Greater Shanghai Scenario-based urban Urban expansion Markov Chain analysis  Administration Mapping;
Area, China. simulation and CA  Residential  Agriculture
(Zhang et al., 2011) modelling and landscape  Road,  Industry
metrics, are used to be  Water,  High density
effective in spatialetemporal  Terrain, land cover,  Low density
dynamics and patterns of  Other features.  Vegetation
urban evolution, including  Water and beach
urban expansion trends.

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 asso-
ciated 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 vul-
nerabilities 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
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 method-
ology 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 cir-
culation 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
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 con-
struction 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 sce-
narios, which are more suitable for cities that have a self-
organising 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
271
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
Torres, Palacín, Seoane, and Alonso (2011); Benítez-Lo pez,
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 wa-
ter, 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 per-
centages) 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.
Actual LCLU is produced from IMM (2009), Istanbul Orman Bo € lge
Müdürlüg ü (2012) and Istanbul Tarım Il _ Müdürlüg ü (2006). In or-
der to analyse ESs, TÜIK_ (2011) data for agricultural and livestock
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 consider-
ation. 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 sus-
tainable urbanisation. A scale rating was used in questions to
facilitate the procedure and prioritise the topics. A similar meth-
odology 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 munici-
pality, planning and environmental associations, non-
governmental organisations and representatives of related minis-
tries. 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 1-
5 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, eco-
nomic and social) should be prioritised to promote the adap-
tation 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 in-
crease 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 ex-
pected to be around 1e2 mm/year, which may create new chal-
lenges for Istanbul as it is a coastal city.
According to the A2 scenario developed in this study for Istan-
bul, 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 pre-
cipitation. 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 ecosys-
tems, 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. There-
fore, 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
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 sce-
narios include spatial projects implemented by the central govern-
ment, 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
273
disregard the regulations (the 1st and 2nd scenarios). In scenarios
those that are compatible with regulations (the 3rd and 4th sce-
narios), the impact zone of the motorway narrows to 1 km diameter
(in accordance with the Environmental and Social Impact Assess-
ment Report of the Northern Marmara Motorway Project) for pro-
tected areas (forest, conservation area and watershed) and increases
to 5 km diameter in agricultural, pastures and mining areas as con-
struction 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 pol-
icies as a priority by developing new urban areas. But different from
the 1st scenario, natural LCLU is secured with the restrictive mea-
sures 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 pro-
tected in accordance with regulations.
Natural LCLU is subject to be under pressure of new urbanisa-
tion 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 sce-
nario, 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 re-
sponses. 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 regula-
tions 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 pres-
sure from built-up areas (existing ratio is 20%). In Fig. 5, the com-
parison 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 ur-
banisation 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 1st Scenario 2nd Scenario 3rd Scenario 4th Scenario

ENV. (Environment) Controlling development of built-up area L H L H

Protection of natural land cover L M L H
Control on ecosystem fragmentation L M L M
SOC. (Social) Balancing population distribution L L L M
Improving environmental awareness L M M H
Enhancing initiatives with public participation L M M H
ECO. (Economical) Supporting local and regional plan oriented investment L L L H
Improving sustainable growth L L L H
POL. (Political) Enhancing interconnectedness with international regulatory tools L L L H
Advocating participatory governance L L L H
TEC. (Technological) Developing innovative technologies M L M H

Highly relevant policy responses: H.

Moderately relevant policy responses: M.
Irrelevant policy responses: L.
 A.C. Onur, A. Tezer / Habitat International 47 (2015) 267e278
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 devel-
oped (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 partici-
pants (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 impor-
tant 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-
275
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 use-
fulness 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 3rd Scenario 4th Scenario

Spatial Spatial projects of central government Is considered Not considered Is considered Not considered
Built-up areas in EMP Is considered Is considered Is considered Is considered
5 km diameter urban impact zone All around highways All around highways Only on agricultural, Only on agricultural,
around highways pasture lands due to law pasture lands due
to law
Governance Regulations Spatial regulations Disregards to the Regulations are Regulations are
can be adapted regulations implemented strictly implemented strictly
in case of need
for investments
Decentralization of governance Local authorities More decentralized Local authorities are Decentralized
are highly under than 1st scenario highly under control of government
control of central central government
government
Regarding to the law and regulations Not considered Not considered Is considered Is considered
Local government decisions in Not considered Is considered Not considered Is considered
accordance with central government
Social Participation of stakeholders Not important Not important (but Not important (but Is important
better than 1st scenario) better than 1st scenario)
Population 20 million 20 million (TMMOB, 20 million (TMMOB, 16 million (EMP
(TMMOB, 2012 2012 projection) 2012 projection) plan projection)
projection)
Main Relevancy to policy responses Highest level of Third level of irrelevant Second level of irrelevant Highest level of
characteristics (According to Table 2) irrelevant policy policy responses policy responses relevant policy
responses responses
Importance given to sustainability Only economic Economic growth is Economic growth is All components
components (economy, social, growth is important but environment important but environment are important
environment) important is tried to be protected by law is tried to be protected by law

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

ES Sustainability components This paper attempts to develop an integrated approach to

Environment Economy
Food M M
Bio& inorganic raw material M M
Freshwater H H
Climate regulation H H
Flood regulation H M
Recreation M M
Low(L): <20%, Medium (M): 21%e79%, High (H): 80%<.
absorption, water filtration and climate regulation capacity. Ur-
banisation pressure on natural LCLU decreases the adaptation ca-
pacity 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 emis-
sions 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, espe-
cially 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.
Social identify the impact on ESs by climate change and LCLU. As ESs are
M
diverse benefits directly consumed or used ecological products/
M processes to human well-being (Boyd & Banzhaf, 2007; Costanza
H et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; MEA, 2007), the identification of their
H loss or degradation is more complicated and multi-dimensional
M
than just defining them through LCLU.
M
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 in-
dicators are taken into consideration for detailed comparisons.
Results show that drinking water, flood regulation and food pro-
vision are the main vulnerable ESs to both climate change and ur-
banisation 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 com-
ponents 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. Un-
certainties, 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 constant-
monitoring 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 Impact of climate change Survey results
of built-up area (due to 1st on LCLU (based on climate
Vulnerability Important for
LCLU scenario) change scenarios)
to climate climate change
change impacts adaptation

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  Ratio of forest under
pressure of built-up area
 Ratio of scrub areas under
pressure of built-up area
Recreation  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
Food  Ratio of croplands under
pressure of built-up area
 Ratio of loss in average
food stock
 Ratio of loss in high
capable soil
Biological and  Ratio of loss of animal
Inorganic raw and fish stocks
material  Ratio of loss in wood
production
 Watersheds: 33%  Decrease in quality of water Highly vulnerable Highly important
 Water bodies: 62%  Loss in water based
 Streams: 52% ecosystems because of
 Underground water: 52% floods and rise in temperature.
 Forest with hydrological
protection function: 20%
 Forest: 20%  Increase in wildfires, Highly vulnerable Important
 Erosion control  Replacement of species
forest: 20%
 Nature protection
forest: 33%
 Scrubs:31%
 Forests: 20%  Decrease in quality of air, Less vulnerable Highly important
 Scrubs:31%  Increase in GHG emissions
due to rise in temperature
 Protection zones  Risk on ecosystems due to rise Vulnerable Less important
(in law: 2863) in temperature, flood and
in natural areas: 48% pollution
 Wildlife protection
zone: 5%
 Location of aromatic
plants: 45%
 Soil with high  Risk of loss in products due to Highly vulnerable Less important
capability on flood, drought, change in rainfall
natural areas: 45% regimes and rise in temperature
 Agricultural area: 56%
 Agricultural products:%58
 Crops: 56%
 Vegetables and fruit
production: 62%
 Around 52% of milk  Due to rise in temperature, loss Vulnerable Less important
production due to in livestock products
 31% of wood production  Wildfires, degradation of forests
will be lost due to change of climate

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 multi-
dimensional, 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 decen-
tralised 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 pro-
cess 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 man-
made) may facilitate not only climate adaptation but also
climate mitigation by decreasing the impact of temperature in-
creases, 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 consid-
ering 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
_
AGORA. (2011). Iklim Modelleri için Veri Dag _
ıtım Sistemi. ITÜ 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
€
Omerli havzası o€rneginde uygulanabilirlig _
i (Phd thesis). Istanbul: _
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 uncer-
tainty. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 53, 98e109.
278 A.C. Onur, A. Tezer / Habitat International 47 (2015) 267e278
Benítez-Lo pez, A., Alkemade, R., & ve Verweij, P. A. (2010). The impacts of roads and
other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: a meta-analysis. Bio-
logical 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 standard-
ized 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 alter-
native 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 land-
use 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 classifi-
cation. 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 uncer-
tainty 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-National-
Water-Program-Strategy.cfm.
European Environment Agency (EEA). (2010). No:12. In M. Asquith (Ed.), Agro-
ecosystems, 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 vulner-
ability in Europe. Available at http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-
impacts-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.
_
Istanbul Orman Bo € lge Müdürlüg _
ü. (2012), Istanbul.
_Istanbul Il
_ Tarım Müdürlüg _
ü. (2006). Istanbul _ Tarım Master Planı. Istanbul.
Il _ ment, 1(1e2), 111e127.
_
Istanbul _
Metropolitan Municipality (IMM). €
(2009). 1/100.000 Olçekli _
Istanbul _ Çevre
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.
View publication stats
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005). Key questions on biodiversity in
the millennium ecosystem assessment, ecosystems and human well-being: Biodi-
versity 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.
€
Ozhatay, N., Byfield, A., & Atay, S. (2003). Türkiye'nin o €nemli bitki Alanları. MAS
_
Matbacılık A.Ş. 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 land-
use 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 develop-
ment. 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-alanlarda-
gerceklestirilecek-proje-uygulamalari-kapsamindacevre-ve-sehircilik-
bakanliginin-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.
Tezer, A., Ulugtekin, N., Go € & Terzi, F. (2011). Ekosistem Servi-
€ksel, Ç., Ertekin, O.,
slerinin Kent Planlamaya Entegrasyonu, TÜBITAK _ 108K615 No'lu Araştırma Projesi
_
Nihai Raporu. Istanbul: _
ITÜ.
Tezer, A., Yigiter, R., Eyübog € Kerimog
lu, E., Ertekin, O., lu, E., Koramaz, K., et al.
(2008). Urban-Ist: A policy relevant research for establishing a multi-
participatory international network of urban biospheres in Istanbul e UNESCO
2006e2007, participation program project, final report. Istanbul: _ ITU Faculty of
Architecture.
TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası-Istanbul _ Şubesi. (2012). 3. Ko €prü Projesi
Deg _
erlendirme Raporu. Istanbul. 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 befor-
eeduringeafter-controleimpact designs. Biological Conservation, 144,
2223e2232.
_
TURKSAT (TÜIK). (2011). Tarım ve Hayvancılık Veri Tabanı. Ankara. Available at
http://www.turkstat.gov.tr.
TURKSAT (TÜIK)._ (2012). Nüfus, Demografik, Iş _ gücü, Gelir Analizleri. Ankara. Avail-
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.
UNDP & Çevre ve Orman Bakanlıg _
ı. (2007). Türkiye Iklim Degişiklig
i Birinci Ulusal
Bildirimi. Ankara: Çevre ve Orman Bakanlıg ı.
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 Develop-
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.