تغییرات در کاربری اراضی و خدمات اکولوژیک محدوده سد سهند با استفاده از تکنیک سنجش‌ازدور

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

گروه کشاورزی اکولوژیک، پژوهشکده علوم محیطی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

سابقه و هدف:
تغییر کاربری یکی از عوامل مهم در تغییر تنوع زیستی و خدمات اکوسیستمی در یک منطقه می‌باشد. سدها به‌عنوان یکی از سازه‌های ذخیره آب نقش بسزایی در این تغییرات دارند. به دلیل گسترش سدسازی در 40 سال گذشته در ایران تناقض بین بهره‌برداری از سد و کاهش خدمات اکوسیستمی بسیار نگران‌کننده می‌باشد. این مطالعه باهدف بررسی تأثیر احداث سد سهند بر تغییر کاربری و پوشش اراضی و محاسبه ارزش خدمات اکوسیستمی با استفاده از تصاویر مـاهواره لند ست انجام شد.
مواد و روش‌ها:
سه تصویر ماهواره‌ای لند ست در یک دوره 28ساله (1989، 2006 و 2017) بـا اعمال تصحیحات هندسی، اتمسفری و توپوگرافی مورداستفاده قرار گرفت. پس از شناسایی مناطق تحت تـأثیر سـد به‌عنوان محدوده مطالعه، با استفاده از روش طبقه‌بندی نظارت‌شده، حداکثر احتمال، کـاربری و پوشش اراضی تعیین و صحت آن‌ها در بازدیدهای میدانی ارزیابی شد. صحت کاربری و ضریب کاپا برای تمامی نقـشه‌هـا به ترتیب بالاتر از ٪ 79 و ٪ 63 به دست آمد.  ارزش خدمات اکوسیستمی و تغییرات اراضی مرتعی و کشاورزی در بین سال­های 1368 و 1396 با استفاده از تفسیر عکس­های هوایی و تصاویر ماهواره­ای در 49400 هکتار از اراضی اطراف سد سهند واقع در استان آذربایجان شرقی در شمال غرب ایران انجام گرفت.
نتایج و بحث:
نتایج  نشان داد که در طی دوره 28 ساله مساحت اراضی مرتعی بشدت کاهش یافت و در مقابل افزایش قابل‌ملاحظه‌ای در وسعت اراضی کشاورزی مشاهده شد. درمجموع کاهش 56 درصدی سهم اراضی مرتعی و افزایش 38 و 32 درصدی سهم  اراضی کشاورزی آبی و دیم تغییرات شدیدی را در کاربری زمین نشان می­دهد. تغییر کاربری از مرتع به اراضی کشاورزی منجر به کاهش بیش از سی‌وپنج میلیون و نه‌صد هزار دلار به‌صورت سالانه در ارزش خدمات اکوسیستمی شده است (6/10 دلار در هکتار در سال).  
نتیجه‌گیری:
اگرچه، احداث سد و تغییر کاربری به سمت کشاورزی ممکن است به لحاظ اقتصادی سودمند باشد ولی به دلیل کاهش توانایی اکوسیستم‌ها در ارائه خدمات اکوسیستمی، خسارت درازمدت بر منافع کوتاه‌مدت فائق می‌آید. از اینرو تصمیم سازان ذی‌ربط می‌بایست ضمن حفظ تعادل بین نیازهای جامعه و ارجحیت‌ها، اثرات مخرب درازمدت سدها نیز مدنظر قرار دهند. درنتیجه تدوین و ترسیم نقشه راه و راهبردهای مناسب مدیریت ­زمین در برنامه­هایی توسعه اقتصادی آینده بسیار ضروری به نظر می‌رسد. سودمندی زمانی به دست خواهد آمد اگر اکوسیستم‌های طبیعی حفظ‌شده و به‌اندازه ظرفیت آن‌ها مورداستفاده قرار گیرند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Changes in land use and ecosystem services in Sahand dam using remote sensing technique

نویسندگان [English]

  • Farhad Nouri Najafi
  • Hadi Veisi
  • Reza Mirzaee
Deptrtment of Agroecology, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction:
Recently, land use change is one of the main possible causes in losing biodiversity and ecosystem services. Dams as main human-made structures in order to save surface water play an important role in this regards. Due to the rapid increasing of dam construction over last 40 years in Iran, the contradiction between dam productivity and the loss of ecosystem services has become an issue of increasing concern. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of Sahand Dam construction on land use, land use changes and ecosystem services.
Materials and methods:
In this study three Landsat satellite images were used to track land use changes over a period of 28 years (1989, 2006 and 2017). First, these images were used for geometric, atmospheric and topographic correction. The maximum possibility of different land uses and cover were determined using supervised classification method and their accuracy checked again by field inspection. The user authenticity and Kappa coefficient calculated and resulted in value of 63 and 79 percent respectively. The value of ecosystem services and changes in land uses carried out using aerial photographs and satellite imagery between 1989 and 2017 throughout 49400 ha of areas around Sahand dam in East Azarbaijan province.
Results and discussion:
Results showed that the total area for rangeland decreased significantly between years 1989 and 2017 while there has been a noticeable increasing in cropping land. In general, the share of area under rangeland decreased by 56% over period 1989-2017. The total area for rainfed and irrigated cropping areas increased by 38 and 32 percent respectively indicating significant changes in this area. In regards to ecosystem services value, land uses changes from rangeland to crop land led to a 35900000 dollars annually loss in ecosystem services value (10.6 $ per hectare per year).
Conclusions:
To conclude, although dam construction and shifting from natural land toward crop land may be profitable but due to depletion of the ecosystem capacities to deliver ecosystem services, long-term losses may exceed short-term gains. Land use and policy making should aim at balancing society needs and preferences, while considering long-term negative effects of dams and ecosystem service losses. Therefore, providing a land management roadmap for future economic development programs is receiving a great priority. It will be beneficial if natural ecosystems are preserved and used adequately.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Land uses
  • Sahand dam
  • Agriculture
  • biodiversity
  • Ecosystem services

مراجع

  1. Abedi, Z., Muharram Nejad, N., Mathematics, B. and bayat, m., 2012. Estimation of Damage Damage of the Vegetation Covered within the Lake of Zaban Dam. Environmental Science and Technology. 4(13), 87-80.(In Persian with English abstract).
  2. Barati Ghahfarhi, S., Soltani Kupayi, S., Khajeedin, S.J. and Freebies, B., 2010. Investigating Land Use Change Changes in Qaleh Shahrokh Area Using Time Estimating Technique (1384-1354) and Agricultural and Natural Resources Engineering. 13 (47), 349-365. (In Persian with English abstract).
  3. Basiri Isfahani, M., 2012. Design of Unspecified Damage. Proceedings of Damage Conference, Isfahan University of Technology.
  4. Bazgeera, S., Sharma, P.K., Maheya, R.K., Hundala, S.S. and Sood, A., 2008. Assessment of land use changes
  5. using remote sensing and GIS and their implications on climatic variability for Balachaur watershed in Punjab, India. Desert. 12, 139–147.
  6. Bergkamp, G. M., McCartney, P., Dugan, J., Neely. Mc. and Acreman, M., 2000. Dams, Ecosystem Functions and
  7. Environmental Restoration. World Commission on Dams (WCD), USA. p. 199.
  8. Billington, D.P., Jackson. D.C. and Melosi M.V., 2005. The History of Large Federal Dams: Planning, Design, and Constration. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Denver Colorad. p. 623.
  9. Boron, V., Payan, E., MacMillan, D. and Tzanopoulos, J., 2016. Achieving sustainable development in rural areas in Colombia: Future scenarios for biodiversity conservation under land use change. Land Use Policy. 59, 27-37.
  10. Butt, A., Shabbir, R., Saeed Ahmad, S. and Aziz, N., 2015. Land use change mapping and analysis using Remote Sensing and GIS: A case study of Simly watershed, Islamabad, Pakistan. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Sciences. 18, 251–259.
  11. Caruso, G., Rounsevell, M.D.A. and Cojacarus, G., 2005. Exploring a spatiodynamic neighborhood-based model of residential behavior in the Brussels peri-urban area. Int. J. Geograph. Inf. Sci. 19, 103–123.
  12. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., ONeill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. and Van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 387 (6630), 253-260.
  13. Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I.,Farber, S. and Turner, R.K., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 26, 152-158.
  14. De Groot, R., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., Christie, M., Crossman, N., Ghermandi, A., Hein, L., Hussain, S., Kumar, P., McVittie, A., Portela, R., Rodriguez, L.C., ten Brink, P. and Beukering, P., 2012. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 1(1), 50–61.
  15. Dietzel, C., Herold, M., Hemphill, J.J. and Clarke, K.C., 2005. Spatialtemporal dynamics in Californias central
  16. Valley: empirical links to urban theory. Int. J. Geograph. Inf. Sci. 19, 175-195.
  17. Eskandari, S., Moradi, A. and Parent, C., 2012. Land Use and Analysis of Terrestrial Landscape of the White Flower Village for Environmental Use Using RS and GIS Land Application, .13.(In Persian with English abstract).
  18. Estehman, S.V., 2004. A critical evaluation of the normalized error matrix in map accuracy assessment. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 70, 743-751.
  19. Gajbhiye, S. and Sharma, S.K., 2012. Land use and land cover change detection of Indra river watershed through
  20. remote sensing using multi-temporal satellite data. Int. J. Geomatics Geosci. 3, 89-96.
  21. Gibbs, H.K., Ruesch, A.S., Achard, F., Clayton, M.K., Holmgren, P., Ramankutty, N. and Foley, J.A., 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980 and 1990. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107, 16732–16737.
  22. Hadian, F., Jafari, R., Bashari, H. and Ramezani, N.B., 2013. Field Methods in Remote Sensing. University Press Publishing House, Tehran. (In Persian with English abstract).
  23. Holcock, J.A., Piper, R.D. and Hril, K. U., 2010. Principles and methods of rangeland (translation). University of Tehran Publication Center. (In Persian with English abstract).
  24. Hu, H.B., Liu, H.Y., Hao, J.F. and An, J., 2012. Analysis of land use change characteristics based on remote
  25. Hietala-Koivu, R., Järvenpää, T. and Helenius, J., 2004. Value of semi-natural areas as biodiversity indicators in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 101, 9–19.
  26. Jafari, R., Lewis. M.M. and Ostendorf. B., 2007. Evaluation of vegetation indices for assessing vegetation cover in southern arid lands in South Australia. The Rangeland Journal. 29, 39-49.
  27. Kreuter, U.P., Harris, H.G., Matlock, M.D. and Lacey, R.E., 2001. Change in ecosystem service values in the San Antonio area, Texas. Ecol. Econ. 39 (3), 333–346.
  28. McDonald, R., Güneralp, B., Zipperer, W. and Marcotullio, P.J., 2014. The future of global urbanization and the environment. Solutions. 5 (6), 60–69.
  29. Mesdaghi, M., 2004 Rangeland in Iran. Fourth edition, Imam Reza University Press, p. 333.
  30. Mohammadpour, M., Abdi, N. and al-Madrasi, S.A., 2015. Detection of Land Use Change Using Satellite Image Processing and Landform Metrics: A Case Study of Urmia. First National Conference on Application of Advanced Models of Spatial Analysis (GIS) and GIS in Land Use, Yazd: Islamic Azad University, Yazd Branch. (In Persian with English abstract).
  31. Motakyan, ah. h., Saeedi, A.S. and Hosseini Asl. A., 2011. Investigation of Land Cover Changes in Connection with Taleghan Dam Construction Use of remote sensing technique. Quarterly Journal of Applied Geographic Sciences. 16(19), 45-64. (In Persian with English abstract).
  32. Nahuelhual, L., Carmona, A., Aguayo, M. and Echeverria, C., 2013. Land use change and ecosystem services
  33. provision: a case study of recreation and ecotourism opportunities in Southern Chile. Landsc. Ecol. 29(2), 329–344.
  34. Parker, D. and Meretsky, V., 2004. Measuring pattern outcomes in an agent-based model of edge-effect
  35. externalities using spatial metrics. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 101, 233–250.
  36. Rautela, P., Rakshit, R., Jha, V.K., Kumar Gupta, R. and Munshi, A., 2002. GIS and remote sensing-based study of the reservoir-induced land-use/ land-cover changes in the catchment of Tehri dam in Garhwal Himalaya, Uttaranchal (India). Current Science. 83(3), 308-311.
  37. Ramezani, N., Jafari. R. and Esenloo, A., 2012. Study of Land Use Change in North Khorasan Province of Esfarayen in the last four decades. Magazine Remote Sensing and GIS Iran. 3(2), 19-37. (In Persian with English abstract).
  38. Reid, W.V., 2005 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem
  39. Assessment. Island Press., Washington.
  40. Rezaei, M.E., Barmaki, M. and Vaisi, H., 2017. Land use change trends and the value of ecosystem services in Hamedan-Bahar plain, with emphasis on semi-natural areas in science-Promotion of environment and development in print. (In Persian with English abstract).
  41. Rugani, B. and Rocchini, D., 2017. Boosting the use of spectral heterogeneity in the impact assessment of agricultural land use on biodiversity. Journal of Cleaner Production. pp. 516-524.
  42. Soleimani Sardou, F., Soltani Kupai, S. and Salajegh, A.S., 2014. Selection of suitable flood index using rainfall-runoff model HEC-HMS and GIS and RS techniques. Case study: Jiroft dam area. Journal of Watershed Management Research.4 (8), 90-105. (In Persian with English abstract).
  43. Souza, D.M., Teixeira, R.F. and Ostermann, O.P., 2015. Assessing biodiversity loss due to land use with Life Cycle Assessment: are we there yet?. Global change biology. 21(1), 32-47.
  44. Stewart, T.J. Janssen, R. and Van Herwijnen, M., 2004. A genetic algorithm approach to multiobjective land
  45. use planning. Compute and Operation. Research. 31, 2293–2313.
  46. Sun, B. and Zhou, Q., 2016. Expressing the spatio-temporal pattern of farmland change in arid lands using
  47. landscape metrics. Arid Environments. 124, 118-127.
  48. Talebi Amiri, Sh., Azari Dehkordi, F., Sadeghi, H. and Soof Baf, R., 2009. Analysis of the destruction of the landscape of the waters of the waters of the waters of Neka using Land Ecology Metrics. Journal of Environmental Science . 6(3),133-144. (In Persian with English abstract).
  49. Tolessa, T., Senbeta, F. and Kidane, M., 2017. The impact of land use/land cover change on ecosystem services in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Ecosystem Services. 23, 47–54.
  50. Torahi, A.A. and Chand Rai, S., 2011. Land cover classification and forest change analysis, using satellite imagery a case study in dehdez area of zagros Mountain in Iran. Journal of Geographic Information System.
  51. Wang, X., Yu, S. and Huang, G.H., 2004. Land allocation based on integrated GIS-optimization modeling at a
  52. watershed level. Landscape Urban Plann. 66, 61–74.
  53. Xie, G.D. Zhang, C.X. Zhang, L.M. Chen, W.H. and Li, S.M., 2015. Improvement of the evaluation method for ecosystem services value based on per unit area. J. Nat. Res. 30, 1245–1254.
  54. Xie, G.D. Zhen, L., Lu, C.X. Xiao, Y. and Chen, C., 2008. Expert knowledge based valuation method of ecosystem services in China. Journal of Natural Resources. 23(5), 911–919.
  55. Yi, H., Güneralp, B., Filippi, A.M. Kreuter, U.P. and Güneralp, I., 2017. Impacts of Land Change on Ecosystem Services in the San Antonio River Basin, Texas, from 1984 to 2010. Ecological Economics. 135, 125–135.
  56. Yazdani, S. and Hashemi Bonab, S., 2015. Changing the use of agricultural land and environmental damage in the economy Economic. Journal of Agricultural Economics (Special Letter). 54-45.
  57. Zhang, L., Yu, X., Jiang, M., Xue, Z., Lu, X. and Zou, Y., 2017. A consistent ecosystem services valuation method based on Total Economic Value and Equivalent Value Factors: A case study in the Sanjiang Plain, Northeast China. Ecological Complexity. 29, 40–48.
فصلنامه علوم محیطی
دوره 16، شماره 1
فروردین 1397
صفحه 207-224

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار