SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kastamonu Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 3

Flood Risk Analysis with AHP and the Role of Forests in Natural Flood Management: A Case Study from the North of Türkiye

AHP ile Taşkın Risk Analizi ve Doğal Taşkın Yönetiminde Ormanların Rolü: Türkiye'nin Kuzeyinden Bir Vaka Çalışması

Hasan AKSOY
Pages
282–297
Publication Date
2023-12-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Main results: The results showed that flood risk varies with forest structure.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim of studty: The aim of this study is to determine the flood risk map of the study area where floods and flood events are frequently encountered by AHP method.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Study area: The study was carried out within the boundaries of the Sinop Regional Directorate of Forestry, Ayancık Forest Management Directorate.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Main results: The results showed that flood risk varies with forest structure.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Taşkın Riski · AHP · Stant Yapısı

Abstract

Aim of studty: The aim of this study is to determine the flood risk map of the study area where floods and flood events are frequently encountered by AHP method. Study area: The study was carried out within the boundaries of the Sinop Regional Directorate of Forestry, Ayancık Forest Management Directorate. Material and method: The flood risk map of the study area was produced by Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. For AHP, 6 different criteria were used: slope, precipitations, aspect, stream distance, land use, and soil. Forest type maps of the study area were used to analyze the impact of forests on flood risk. In terms of forest structure, the stand structure was divided into 3 classes as coniferous, broadleaf, and mixed forest. Main results: The results showed that flood risk varies with forest structure. Coniferous forest class was determined as the class with the lowest flood risk and mixed forest as the class with the highest flood risk. Research highlights: It was determined that the flood risk changed according to the forest structure. Coniferous forest class was determined as the class with the least flood risk, and mixed forest was determined as the class with the highest flood risk.

Özet

Çalışmanın amacı: Bu çalışmanın amacı, taşkın ve taşkın olaylarına sıkça rastlanan çalışma alanının taşkın risk haritasını AHP yöntemi ile belirlemektir. Çalışma alanı: The study was carried out within the boundaries of the Sinop Regional Directorate of Forestry, Ayancık Forest Management Directorate. Materyal ve yöntem: Çalışma alanı taşkın risk haritası Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) yöntemi ile üretildi. AHP için slope, precipitations, aspect, stream distance, land use and soil olmak üzere 6 farklı kriter kullanıldı. Ormanların taşkın riski üzerine etkisini analiz etmek için çalışma alanına ait forest type maps kullanıldı. Orman yapısı itibarı ile stand structure, coniferous, broadleaf and mixed forest olmak üzere 3 sınıfa ayrıldı. Sonuçlar: Orman yapısına göre taşkın riskinin değiştiği tespit edildi. Coniferous forest sınıfı taşkın riski’nin en az olduğu, mixed forest ise taşkın riskinin fazla olduğu sınıf olarak tespit edildi. Araştırma vurguları: Orman yapısının taşkın hasarının boyutunu farklı oranlarda azaltma eğiliminde olduğunu ve dolayısıyla taşkın olayları sırasında meydana gelecek zararları azaltma ve engelleme yeteneğine sahip olduğunu gösterdi.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKSOY, H. (2023). Flood Risk Analysis with AHP and the Role of Forests in Natural Flood Management: A Case Study from the North of Türkiye. Kastamonu Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 3, 282–297. https://ajindex.com/articles/1021477

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R. & Rockstrom, J. (2005). Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309(5737), 1036-1039.
  2. AFAD. (2021) Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı. https://www.afad.gov.tr/
  3. Akgun, A. & Türk, N. (2010). Landslide susceptibility mapping for Ayvalik (Western Turkey) and its vicinity by multicriteria decision analysis. Environmental Earth Sciences, 61, 595-611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0373-1
  4. Aksoy, H. & Kaptan, S. (2022). Simulation of future forest and land use/cover changes (2019–2039) using the cellular automata-Markov model. Geocarto International, 37(4), 1183-1202. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2020.1778102
  5. Alongi, D. M. (2008). Mangrove forests: resilience, protection from tsunamis, and responses to global climate change. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 76(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2007.08.024
  6. Anonymus. (2011).
  7. Orman Genel Müdürlüğü, Ayancık Orman Amenajman Planı. Sinop Orman Bölge Müdürlüğü, Ankara:
  8. OGM. Balica, S. F., Dinh, Q. & Popescu, I. (2015). Vulnerability and exposure in developed and developing countries: Large-scale assessments. In Hydro-meteorological hazards, risks and disasters, 125-162, Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394846-5.00005-9
  9. Bhattacharjee, K. & Behera, B. (2017). Forest cover change and flood hazards in India. Land use policy, 67, 436-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.06.013
  10. Bhattacharjee, K. & Behera, B. (2018). Does forest cover help prevent flood damage? Empirical evidence from India. Global Environmental Change, 53, 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.09.004
  11. Bosch, J. M. & Hewlett, J. D. (1982). A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology, 55(1-4), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(82)90117-2
  12. Brand, F. (2009). Critical natural capital revisited: Ecological resilience and sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 605-612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.013
  13. Brauman, K. A., Daily, G. C., Duarte, T. K. E., & Mooney, H. A. (2007). The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, 67-98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.031306.102758
  14. Bredemeier, M. (2011). Forest, climate and water issues in Europe. Ecohydrology, 4(2), 159-167. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.203
  15. Brookhuis, B. J.