Journal of Arid Environments (2003) 54: 553–564doi:10.1006/jare.2002.1078

Agricultural land use change and sustainable use ofland resources in the mediterranean region of Turkey

Harun Tanrivermis

Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, AnkaraUniversity, 06110 Diskapi, Ankara, Turkey

(Received 17 July 2002, accepted 17 July 2002)

Agricultural land use has changed in the Mediterranean Region particularlysince the 1950s. Factors affecting these changes include increasingagricultural productivity and intensification, changes in population density,industrialization, urbanization, tourism, agricultural mechanization and useof agri-chemicals. Farms have been fragmented and the average farm size hasdecreased because of rapid rural population growth. During this period, mostpasture and meadow land has been transformed into crop cultivation. Onceproductive farmlands have been used for industrialization, urbanization andtourist developments. For sustainable agricultural land use, new legal andinstitutional regulations are required, which integrate environmental con-cerns and agricultural policies. These regulations must be defined in terms ofmultiple use of agricultural land and strict conservation of prime agriculturalland.

# 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: land use change; agriculture; sustainability; natural resourcemanagement

Introduction

In ancient times, agriculture was a basic economic activity, using natural resources inharmony with the environment. Following the industrial and green revolutions of the19th and 20th centuries, agriculture began to have negative impacts on theenvironment (Rehber, 1991). Over several centuries, farming techniques graduallyspread and agricultural tools and practices became easier to use and more efficient(Beazley, 1993). Agricultural chemicals, machinery, and high-yielding crops andanimals began to be used in agriculture for high profitability. These advances changedthe structure of production, and market-oriented or commercial farming gainedimportance, so enhancing trade in food and agricultural products.

The agricultural sector combines the production factors of land, labour, capital andentrepreneurship in different ways and combinations. The main factor limiting thequantity of production in agriculture is land. From the viewpoint of economists, primeagricultural land is a scarce factor of production and a finite, exhaustible national

Email: tanriver@agri.ankara.edu.tr

0140-1963/03/030553 + 12 $30.00/0 # 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd.

resource. Although its amount and quality are limited, there are many alternative

554 H. TANRIVERMIS

usesFall competing with each other. Land can generate returns from more than onealternative use. Land use is transferred to the area which generates the highest return,unless legal and/or institutional regulations and monitoring systems are set up. Themarket price of land reflects the value given by society. The use of land would tend tomaximize social welfare, but its market price is far from being a good indicator of itssocial value (Azqueta, 1995), particularly in developing countries, because perfectlycompetitive land markets and strict legal regulations of land use rarely exist.

During the second half of the 20th century, changes in land use have been veryrapid, due to the implementation of agricultural and economic policies in Turkey.These changes are linked to achieving sustainable management of natural resources inthe Mediterranean region. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the change inagricultural land use in the Mediterranean region of Turkey between 1950 and 1998.The changes in agricultural land use, production patterns, relationships between landand population, and use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides will also be evaluated inthis paper. The legal and political regulations, and agri-environmental policies neededfor the appropriate and sustainable use of agricultural and rural land in this region arediscussed.

Data and methodology

Data on land use change are available from cadastral surveys, agricultural census,digitized maps and remotely sensed data (Whitby, 1991). The main sources of data onagricultural land use in Turkey are agricultural census results, conducted in eachdecade by the State Institute of Statistics (SIS) (SIS, 1956, 1982, 1994). Data fromindividual owner-occupied farms are aggregated at the provincial, regional andnational level. Data on agricultural land use are also collected by the Ministry ofAgriculture and Rural Affairs, and the General Directorate of Rural Services (GDRS,1995; MARA, 2000). In this paper, both data sources are used to evaluate changes inland use.

In this paper, the Mediterranean region covers the provinces of Adana, Antalya,Aydın, Balıkesir, Burdur, Canakkale, Denizli, Gaziantep, Hatay,

.Icel,

.Izmir, Isparta,

Kahramanmaras, Manisa, Mugla, and Osmaniye. Data from these provinces areaggregated to represent the regional level. To assess the change in land use in thisregion, time-series data from 1952 to 1998 are considered (TCZB, 1952–1990; SIS,1989–1998, 1950–1998). Many socio-economic factors affect changes in agriculturalland use. The impacts of these factors are analysed with regression analysis, whichdetermines the factor causing variation in the independent variable, or the annualchange in agricultural land use. The regression equation used is

LUCt ¼ a0þa1ðAPVtÞ þ a2ðTtÞ þ etðIÞ ðEqn 1Þwhere LUC is the percentage change in agricultural land use in the region annually.APV represents the real value of agricultural production in Turkish Lira (TL) perhectare, deflated by the wholesale price index (1948 = 100). This indicator is also ameasure of agricultural intensification. T defines the trend of land use change and mayalso reflect other factors that may affect land use change. et defines stochastic variablesomitted in this regression model, such as income generated from alternative use ofagricultural land. Some variables such as agricultural production value and populationdensity are used as independent variables, and a second model was derived:

LUCt ¼ a0þa1ðAPVtÞ þ a2ðPDtÞ þ etðIIÞ ðEqn 2Þwhere PD defines the population density as people per square kilometre in the region.All the variables in the two equations are in natural logarithms and estimated by the

ordinary least square (OLS) techniques. The second regression model gave the same

LAND USE CHANGE 555

results as Eqn (1).To test the statistical significance of the estimated parameters of the two regression

equations, t-statistics is used. The statistical significance of the multiple coefficientcorrelation is expressed by the F-statistic (Koutsoyiannis, 1993). All parameters aretested at 1% and 5% level of significance. The serial correlation of errors is tested bythe Durbin–Watson statistic.

Results and discussion

Basic agricultural characteristics of the mediterranean region

The main objective of the agricultural sector is the production of food and fibre, butthe role of agriculture in environmental management is also important (Pearce, 1993).Agriculture creates 18?4% of gross domestic product (GDP), and represents 22?3% ofindustrial output. Agricultural land and natural resources have been threatened by therapid population growth rate ( = 1?4% in 1997; SIS, 2000) in the Mediterraneanregion of Turkey. In 1950, 73?6% of the population was rural, decreasing to 37?4% in1997. Population density had increased from 30 to 94 people per square kilometre inthe same period. In this region, 88?7% of the rural population was employed inagriculture, with widespread use of hired labour. The proportion of hired labour in theagricultural workforce overall increased from 47?0% to 68?0% (Yurdakul, 1990).

Agricultural land in the Mediterranean region of Turkey makes up 20?8% of thetotal agricultural land of the country. This region has the most rapid growth inagricultural production since the 1950s. The value of agricultural production from theregion has increased from 28?0% to 53?0% of the total agricultural production value ofthe country. The high value of agricultural production is due to the production of cashcrops on the highest quality agricultural land.

Most farms are small in size, with fragmented, spatially disparate land parcels. Thenumber of farms was 590,814 in 1950, increasing to 1,275,207 in 1991. The meanfarm size decreased from 6?8 to 3?9 ha (Table 1). Fragmentation of land has occurredbecause of population pressure and inappropriate legal regulations related toagricultural land use. The ratio of farms of 4?9 ha or less was 61?5% and 76?9% in1950 and 1991, respectively. The proportion of agricultural land occupied by these

Table 1. Number and size of farms in the Mediterranean region, 1950–1991

Farm size (ha) 1950 1980 1991

Number % Number % Number %

o4?9 363,132 61?5 725,413 69?3 980,094 76?95–9?9 142,301 24?1 192,277 18?4 195,472 15?310–19?9 43,745 7?4 93,207 8?9 72,236 5?720–49?9 24,771 4?2 34,242 3?3 23,947 1?950+ 16,865 2?8 1662 0?1 3457 0?2Total number of farms 590,814 100?0 1,046,801 100?0 1,275,207 100?0Mean farm size 6?8 F 4?8 F 3?9 FMean number of parcels 5?6 F 7?1 F 4?3 F

Source: SIS (1956, 1982, 1994).

Table 2. Distribution of farms by the type of farming in the Mediterranean region,1950–1991

Type of farming 1950 1980 1991

Number % Number % Number %

Farms engaged onlyin crop production

282,892 47?9 172,650 16?5 428,814 33?6

Farms engaged onlyin animal husbandry

16,239 2?8 18,003 1?7 37,463 3?0

Farms engaged both in cropproduction and animalhusbandry

291,683 49?3 856,148 81?8 808,930 63?4

Number of farms 590,814 100?0 1,046,801 100?0 1,275,207 100?0% Change 100?0 177?2 215?8

Source: SIS (1956, 1982, 1994).

556 H. TANRIVERMIS

farms was 30?0% and 35?6% in 1950 and 1991, respectively. These indicators showthat agricultural land is not distributed evenly among farms in the region.

To achieve sustainable agriculture, crop production and animal husbandry shouldbe integrated. While the proportion of farms engaged in mixed farming was 49?3% in1950, this increased to 63?4% in 1991. During this period, the proportion of farmsengaged solely in crop production decreased, and yet the proportion slightly increasedfor those solely concerned with animal husbandry (Table 2). Farmers, farmers’organizations and governmental agencies should work together to reintegrate crop andlivestock production especially in environmentally sensitive areas. Such improvementsin agriculture practice should reduce the impacts of agriculture.

In the region, family-owned farms dominate (64?0% and 85?8% of total farms in1950 and 1991, respectively). The proportion of tenanted farms has increased from1?0% to 2?6%. On the other hand, the proportion of farms run by share-croppers hasdecreased from 3?1% to 1?2%. These data are important as investment in protectingsoil productivity and efficient land resource management are closely related to landtenure.

Agricultural inputs such as fertilizers are higher in the region than the nationalaverage. The amount of chemical fertilizer use is 128 kg ha�1 on average (Associationof Fertilizer Producers, 2000). Near the coastal zone, particularly in greenhouses,fertilizer use is greater than the regional average. For instance, mean chemicalfertilizer use on cut-flower farms in Antalya province under contract farming was3113 kg ha�1 (Ozcelik et al., 1999). In Manisa, farmers used 3?6 times more fertilizerthan the national average (Caglayan, 1983). In Izmir, cotton producers apply threetimes more nitrogen fertilizer than the economic optimum level (Ozkaya & Ozdemir,1992), due to input subsidies and price support policies. Unsurprisingly, in thegreenhouse area of Antalya province, underground water resources are heavilypolluted by nitrogenous fertilizers (Colakoglu et al., 1995).

These results indicate that agricultural policies have encouraged fertilizer use. In thepast, there has been insufficient use of fertilizers, so an input subsidy was introducedin the 1970s. Consequently, current fertilizer use exceeds the economic optimum,especially in the coastal zone of the Mediterranean region. The price elasticity ofnitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers is �0?21, �0?36 and �0?07,respectively (Sener & Koc, 1999). So when the price of fertilizers increases by 10%,fertilizer demand decreases by between 0?7% and 3?6% for the next production year.To regulate fertilizer use, the input subsidy may have to be decreased, and fertilizerprices may have to increase in the 21st century.

LAND USE CHANGE 557

In the region, the amount of pesticide use has steadily increased since 1950. In1998, it reached 4?8 kg ha�1 on average (MARA, 2000). Research in the region at thefarm scale concluded that farmers generally use pesticides and fertilizers intensively,compared to the levels recommended by agricultural extension agents (Akbay, 1991;Miran, 1996; sengul, 1996; Zeren et al., 1996; Ozcelik et al., 1999). Farmers generallyuse pesticides unconsciously, and governmental institutions do not control theirapplication. For soil fumigation in greenhouses where cut flowers are grown forexample, methyl bromide is generally used, and this pesticide has negative impacts onsoil and air quality, as well as on human health. The Montreal Protocol of 1987recommended that this chemical would be withdrawn by the first decade of the 21stcentury. In crop production, the price elasticity of pesticide demand is lower thanunity, and therefore a 10% increase in pesticide price has been estimated to decreasepesticide demand by about 9?5% (Tanrıvermis, 2000). This implies that economicinstruments (such as taxes, charges, etc.) can be used as agri-environmentalmanagement tools to control pesticide use and subsequent pollution.

Erbatur & Erbatur (1995) stated that pesticides were found in rivers, irrigation anddrainage canals, and on greenhouse vegetables. They included some banned productssuch as DDT, aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor, but were all below the legal limits forthe Antakya-Samandag district. These chemicals are probably imported illegally.These findings show that there are some serious environmental pollution problemscaused by pesticides in the Mediterranean region. These problems also affectproduction costs and the profitability of agricultural activities. As a result, they hinderthe viability of economic sustainability in the region.

Agricultural mechanization has encouraged changes in land use in the region sincethe 1950s. Between 1950 and 1998, the transformation of meadows and pastures intofarmland is correlated with agricultural modernization and mechanization. Thenumber of tractors per 1000 ha was 4 in 1950, while it reached 51 in 1998.The area occupied by greenhouses in the region has reached 43,013 ha ( = 97?1% ofthe total greenhouse area in Turkey). Greenhouse cultivation of vegetables, fruits andcut flowers has grown in the region because of suitable climatic conditions, domesticdemand and export potential.

The modernization and intensification of agriculture has increased pressure onnatural resources. The environmental impacts of agricultural technologies andpractices are not new. For instance, increasing use of agri-chemicals has caused soilpollution, eutrophication of water resources, damage to ecosystems and contamina-tion of drinking water and foodstuffs (Allanson & Whitby, 1996). In the region, riverscarry pollution from agricultural activities (such as phosphorus, nitrogen andpesticides) to the Mediterranean (OECD, 1999), as well as industrial pollutantsand waste from tourist establishments.

For control of agricultural pollution, command and control instruments of agri-environmental management has been used in Turkey. For instance:

K pollution and recharge standards, and tolerance limits defined by the

regulation of water pollution,K a minimum time period between pesticide application and crop harvesting,K limits of pesticide residue on fresh foods determined by legal regulations,K burning of cereal stubble is forbidden, especially in rain-fed areas,K 29 different pesticides have been banned in the last 25 years, due to

phytotoxicity, ineffectiveness and negative environmental impacts.

Despite these measures, agri-environmental quality has not improved efficiently.Therefore, as stated in the 5-year development plans, the use of economic instrumentsof environmental management is needed to improve environmental quality.

Land use change

558 H. TANRIVERMIS

Land use has changed as a result of agricultural and economic policies since thefoundation of the Turkish Republic. Between 1920 and 1950, land use was quitestable. Between 1950 and 1997, important changes occurred. Total land under cropsincreased by 39?1%, as pastures and meadows were cultivated as a result of the rapidspread of commercial agriculture. Consequently, total land under pasture andmeadow has decreased by about 70?8%, because of inadequate legal and institutionalregulations. In the same period, fallow land has decreased by 78?4% due to irrigationinvestment and the improvement of agricultural practices. Land under vegetables andorchards has increased by 135?9%, reflecting the intensification and specialization inagriculture at this time. The proportion of total agricultural land under fruits andvegetables has increased from 16?1% to 27?3% (Table 3).

The intensive use of land resources for agriculture provides the setting forconservation policies. Agricultural land accounts for 32?9% of all land in theMediterranean region, and 36?0% in Turkey as a whole. Agricultural activities have avital role in maintaining the sustainability and conservation of the rural environment.Current farming practices in the Mediterranean region have a negative impact onnatural resources. Crop rotations, especially in vegetables and industrial crops areuncommon. The decline in the amount of pasture and meadowlands affects thesustainable use of natural resources in the region. Between 1923 and 1998, pasturewas regarded as ‘communal’, and hence policies for maintenance, improvement andconservation were not developed or implemented. The fertility of this land hasdecreased because of heavy grazing and land degradation. In 1998, the Pasture Law of4342 defined pasturelands as a public good, and the management of these areas wasdeveloped according to the livestock population of the village and the vegetationcharacteristics of the land (Resmi Gazete, 1998a). An improvement programme hasbeen started in these areas, and farmers who use the pasturelands have to contributeto the maintenance and operation costs of these areas.

The changes in land use and management strategies in recent decades may causepressure on biodiversity and the natural landscape. Policies aimed at encouraginglivestock production tripled the density of animals per unit of land, relative to what ithad been before. While grass yield and quality in pasturelands declined because ofovergrazing, the number of pastoral vegetation species decreased from about 25 to 5–6(Environmental Foundation of Turkey, 1998).

Besides agriculture, there are many aspects of rural land use such as wildlifeconservation, outdoor recreation, forestry, education and research, which are of valueto the individual (Kula, 1994). The multiple land use approach sees the land resourcesupplying services to more than one user and produces more than one product.

Table 3. Land use change in the Mediterranean region, 1950–1997

Land use category (ha) 1950 1997 % Change

Agricultural land 4,018,376 5,588,750 +39?1Cultivated land 2,217,222 3,814,305 +72?0Fallow land 1,154,973 249,974 �78?4Vegetables and fruits 646,181 1,524,471 +135?9Pasture and meadows 6,497,059 1,897,000 �70?8Forest land 4,240,524 8,699,340 +105?2Others 3,402,141 1,450,493 �57?4Total area 18,158,100 17,635,583 F

Source: SIS (1950–1998).

LAND USE CHANGE 559

Therefore, although the primary land use is agriculture, this also provides drainage forrainwater, a habitat for wildlife, and a facility for recreation and sport (such as gameshooting) (Whitby, 1991). Many of these uses are for the public good, and yet do notusually bring revenue to land owners, and hence private land owners are reluctant tosupply them (Whitby, 1991; Kula, 1994). These issues are more significant at the locallevel, but decision makers must develop specific policies related to these topics.

Table 4 shows the present land use situation in the region based on land capabilitystudies carried out by the General Directorate of Rural Services (GDRS, 1995). Themost important problem is that land is not being used according to its capabilityclassification. For instance, meadows, forest and non-agricultural lands were allocatedcapability classes ranging from I to IV. Land in classes V–VII is also being used foragricultural purposes (Table 4). Such inappropriate land use has caused soil erosionand land degradation.

Indeed, soil erosion is one of the major land use problems in the region. Watererosion affects 40% of land in the region (Environmental Foundation of Turkey,1998). The situation is critical on marginal land where agricultural plots have beencreated through deforestation, and are cultivated without soil conservation measures.Also, erosion due to overgrazing is especially serious in pasture and meadowlands inthe region.

Housing has been built on 178,095 ha of land classed between class I and IV( = 3?7% of productive farmland in the region, GDRS, 1995). This is the result ofgovernmental policies and inadequate legal regulation related to the planning,controlling and monitoring of land use change. Economic policies including taxes,charges, prices and incentives related to one economic sector must be harmonizedwith those in other sectors, otherwise developments in one sector may adversely affectthe use of resources in other sectors.

For the protection of specific natural resources, national parks, nature protectionareas, nature parks and wildlife reserve areas have been legally defined. These areasoccupy 1,133,453 ha in the region ( = 6?4% of the total land area). These protectedareas are threatened by tourism, irrigation schemes, overgrazing, pollution, forestfires, and illegal hunting because there are no environmental management plans.

Although, the total area under cultivation has increased, the crop productionpattern has not changed. Cereals, pulses, oil seeds, cotton, tobacco and vegetables arethe main crops cultivated in the region, occupying 82?3% of the total cropland in1991, compared with 78?2% in 1950. Irrigation investment for agriculturaldevelopment has increased and thus the rate of irrigated land increased from 7?7%to 18?4% during the same period.

In general, degraded farmland requires more chemical input and more irrigation tosustain productivity. This is costly in terms of energy and capital input use. In

Table 4. Land use and land capability classification in the Mediterranean region

Land use Land capability classification (%) Total

I II III IV V VI VII VIII

Agricultural land 20?9 21?2 17?3 12?5 F 17?0 11?1 F 100?0Meadows and pastures 0?3 1?5 2?6 3?8 2?7 13?3 75?8 F 100?0Forest land F 0?4 1?0 2?1 0?3 9?7 86?5 F 100?0Non-agricultural land 10?4 10?5 7?9 4?1 0?6 6?7 25?5 34?3 100?0Other lands F F F F F F F 100?0 100?0Water surface F F F F F F F 100?0 100?0Total 8?7 8?1 7?7 7?2 0?5 10?1 49?5 8?2 100?0

Source: GDRS (1995).

addition, the abandonment of some production techniques such as crop rotation has

560 H. TANRIVERMIS

resulted in increased incidence of pest and diseases, which have required the intensiveuse of pesticides (Pimental, 1993). Particularly, farm chemical applications maysignificantly affect the cost of farm production, which will have implications for thecompetitiveness of agricultural markets. For instance, the cost of pesticides as a percent of total production cost for cotton is between 24?3% and 39?1% in the Adanaprovince (Gunes et al., 1990; Akbay, 1991). As a result, the area under cotton hasdecreased by over 4% between 1950 and 1991.

Another serious problem in relation to the environment is burning of cereal stubble(Erkan, 1995). Farmers burn stubble after harvest for ease of subsequent cultivation.This practice results in air pollution from ash, increased risk of forest fires and damageto wildlife. Soil fertility can be adversely affected too. The practice of stubble burningwas not controlled by legal restrictions nor by advice from extension or governmentalagencies.

Legal and institutional approaches for controlling land use change

The main objectives of national environmental and agricultural policies should aim tomanage land use change in rural areas. Some governmental institutions, which areactive in land resource management, have been established such as the Ministry ofAgriculture and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Forestry, the Ministry of Civilizationand Resettlement, the Ministry of Environment, the General Directorate of RuralServices, the General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works and some scientificinstitutions in Turkey. These institutions are responsible for land use planning withvarious objectives, including the conservation of rural and urban land resources. Infact, there is an important coordination problem observed in practice between thedifferent governmental and non-governmental institutions.

Numerous laws and regulations have been issued since the foundation of theTurkish Republic regarding the use and conservation of land resources. Some policyproposals can be found in development plans. The Third to the Eighth (inclusive),Five Year Development Plans were focused on soil erosion and environmentalproblems, land use planning based on rational management, conservation of primefarmlands solely for agricultural production and the preparation of soil mapping basedon sustainable development approaches and the need for legal and institutionalregulations for achieving the defined goals were emphasized (SPO, 1962–2000).

The basic principles of land use have been defined by the 1982 Constitution ofTurkish Republic (articles 44–46), the Environment Law of 1983, the PreliminaryMeasurements of Land and Agricultural Reform Law of 1617, the Law on LandReform in Irrigated Areas of 3083, the Regulation on Environmental ImpactAssessment of 1997, the Regulation on Non-agricultural Use of Agricultural Landof 1998 and the Law on the Establishment of General Directorate of Rural Services of3202 (Gokce, 1989; Haktanır et al., 1995; Resmi Gazete, 1998b; EnvironmentalFoundation of Turkey, 1999). In order to apply these regulations efficiently, detailedsoil mapping studies must be completed in each province and the strategies formultiple land use planning should be developed and applied under the responsibilityof competent central and local institutions.

Between 1960 and 1984, policies of land use planning, mapping and monitoringwere applied by the Soil and Water General Directorate (TOPRAKSU) of theMinistry of Agriculture. After that these functions were less successfully organized bysome governmental agencies, because of inefficient co-ordination between thegovernmental institutions. There is a need for reorganization of public agencies andthe creation of a competent public authority responsible for land use planning,

mapping, monitoring and conservation as occurred with TOPRAKSU. For this

LAND USE CHANGE 561

objective, a new legal regulation covering the planning and use of land resources inurban and rural areas will be adopted and a competent governmental agency will beresponsible for its application. Certain existing laws and regulations need to beupdated according to recent developments and problems related to the physicalplanning of land resources caused by industrialization, urbanization, tourism and thelack of co-operation between public and private investment decisions.

Factors affecting land use change

Sustainability and environmental change in rural areas depend on various social,economic and demographic factors (Pearce, 1993), such as population density,economic growth, socio-economic development, and legal and institutional regula-tions. A regression analysis can be used to explain the reasons for the change inagricultural land use in the region, using Eqn (1). The result of the regression analysisis presented in Table 5.

The equation provides a good fit to the data (R2 = 0?9081). It is significant(F-value is 212?519) at the 1% level. The Durbin–Watson statistic (1?7299) indicatesno serial correlation. All the coefficients have the correct sign, and the coefficients arestatistically significant at the 1% level.

The findings are consistent with the theoretical expectations. Independent variablesexplain 90?81% of the reasons for land use change in the region. When the agriculturalproduct value increases by 10?0% in real terms, there is a consequent intensification ofagricultural production, and resultant land use change. The intensification of existingproduction technology is a key factor in determining rural land use change. For thisaim, farmers tend to select cash crops or improved new crop varieties.

The impact of other factors related to land use change is analysed by the trendfactor. Between 1952 and 1998, agricultural land decreased by 0?7% annually. Somevariables such as population density, urbanization, industrial development andtourism activities, etc. may decrease the amount of agricultural land. The impact ofpopulation density on change in agricultural land use was also tested by Eqn (2). Theresults of this equation are given in Table 6. The relationship between populationdensity and land use change concurs with theoretical expectations.

The goodness of fit is acceptable (R2 = 0?899), with a significant F-value of 191?403(Table 6). The Durbin–Watson test (D–W = 1?7261) indicates that there is no serialcorrelation in the error terms. The estimated coefficients are of the correct sign andare statistically significant at the 1% and 5% levels. The results of these two equationsindicate that the sustainability of land use depends on intensification and socio-

Table 5. Result of regression estimation (Eqn (1))

Dependent variable Land use change

Constant 13?585 (53?96)Agricultural product value (TL ha�1) 0?49558 (6?817)Trend �0?0066128 (�3?701)R2 0?9081Adjusted R2 0?9039F-statistic 212?519D.W. 1?7299

Note: t-Statistics are in parentheses. Parameter values are significant at the 1% level.

Table 6. Result of regression estimation (Eqn (2))

Dependent variable Land use change

Constant 14?088 (77?53)Agricultural product value (TL ha�1) 0?39398 (5?786)Population density �0?0061512 (�2?614)R2 0?8990Adjusted R2 0?8943F-statistic 191?403D.W. 1?7261

Note: t-Statistics are in parentheses. Bold denotes significance at the 1% level and italics denotessignificance at the 5% level.

562 H. TANRIVERMIS

economic factors. For this reason, new agricultural and regional development policiesmust be investigated and applied at local and regional levels.

Conclusion

Land use in the region has changed rapidly since the 1950s as a result ofindustrialization, urbanization, tourism, migration, and changes in agriculturaltechnologies and practices. An increase in agricultural productivity per unit offarmland and population density has affected the amount of cropland, as well as othersocio-economic factors tested by two regression equations. Typical scenarios are theuse of prime farmlands for urbanization and industrialization, or the use of permanentpasture and meadowlands for cultivation. The planning and control of land usechange should be an essential part of a strategy for sustainable agriculturaldevelopment.

It is quite difficult to conserve prime agricultural land solely for agriculturalproduction because of the rapid population growth rate, localization of industry andtourism investments in the region. For these reasons, new legal and institutionalregulations should be made. Also it is necessary to highlight the public benefit ofnatural resources such as pasture and meadowlands by the Pasture Law of 4342 in1998.

In terms of sustainable land management in the region, a change in land usestrategy to better integration of crops, woodland and meadowlands should beencouraged by the governmental policies particularly in marginal land which coversfarmlands between land classes V and VII described in Table 4. Such a strategy shouldalso reduce the environmental impacts of agricultural practices, and intensification onlowlands should be based on the development of low input and/or organic farmingsystems.

Agricultural support policies which cover input subsidies and price supportscurrently encourage further input use and the intensification of agriculture. Attentionneeds to be given to integrating environmental concerns into agricultural policies andto adopting conservation approaches of natural resources.

Instruments such as pollution standards, tolerance limits for water quality, bans ofsome farm chemicals, limits of pesticide residue on food and ban of cereal stubbleburning as well as market-based tools such as taxes, incentives, charges, depositrefund systems are often recommended as flexible policy tools for land usemanagement (Harou, 1995). The application cost of such schemes is quite high,and the improvement and control of environmental quality in rural areas is not

guaranteed but these steps should be used to achieve better agri-environmental quality

LAND USE CHANGE 563

in the 21st century.

References

Akbay, C. (1991). Asagı Seyhan Ovası’nda Tarimsal Savas.Ilaclarının Pazarlanması ve Tarım.

Ilacları Kullanımının Ekonomik Analizi (Economic Analysis of Pesticide Use and PesticideMarketing in Lower Seyhan Valley). Cukurova Universitesi, Yuksek Lisans Tezi, Adana.

Allanson, P. & Whitby, M. (1996). Prologue: rural policy and the British countryside. In: TheRural Economy and the British Countryside, pp. 1–16. Allanson, P. and Whitby, M. (Eds)London, U.K.: Earthscan Publication Ltd. 1–226 pp.

Association of Fertilizer Producers (2000). Fertilizer Consumption Catalogue 2000, Ankara.Azqueta, D. (1995). Land economic value and the environment: some ethical points, In:

Environmental and Land Use Issues, an Economic Perspective, pp. 27–34. Albusi, L.M. & Romero,C. (Eds), Proceedings of the 34th EAAE Seminar. Kiel: Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk, 1–540 pp.

Beazley, M. (1993). Caring for the Earth, IUEN-UNEP-WWF. London, U.K.: Reed InternationalBooks Limited, 1–159 pp.

Caglayan, L. (1983). Manisa.Ili Merkez

.Ilce Ova Koylerinde Kimyasal Gubrelerin Tedarik ve

Kullanımı Uzerine Bir Arastırma (A Research on the Supply and Usage of Chemical Fertilizer in theFarms of Valley Village in the Central District of Manisa). Yasar Egitim ve Kultur Vakfı Yayın No.3,

.Izmir.

Colakoglu, H., Hatipoglu, F., Fırat, B., Yurtsever, N. & Duzbastılar, M. (1995). Gubre Kullanımıve Uretimi (The Production and Usage of Fertilizer), pp. 999–1013. Turkiye Ziraat MuhendisligiIV. Teknik Kongresi, TMMOB Ziraat Muhendisleri Odası, TCZB Kultur Yayınları No. 26,Ankara.

Environment Foundation of Turkey (1998). Environmental Profile of Turkey ’99, Ankara.Environment Foundation of Turkey (1999). Environmental Laws of Turkey, Ankara.Erbatur, N.G. & Erbatur, O. (1995). Dogu Akdeniz Bolgesi’nde Pestisit Kirliliginin Arastırılması (A

Research of Pesticide Pollution in the Eastern Mediterranean Region). TUB.ITAK Proje No:

KTCAG:134, Adana.Erkan, O. (1995). Economics of land use and environmental problems of agriculture in the

Cukurova region of Turkey. In: Albusi, L.M. & Romero, C. (Eds), Environmental and Land UseIssues, an Economic Perspective, pp. 413–420. Proceedings of the 34th EAAE Seminar. Kiel:Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk. 1–540 pp.

Gokce, O. 1989. Turkiye’de Arazi Kullanımı, Sorunları ve Cozom Yolları (The Land Use of Turkey,Problems and Solutions). Tabiat ve

.Insan. No. 2, pp. 8–14, No. 3.pp.5–9, Ankara.

GDRS (1995). Turkiye Arazi Varlıgı (The Land Inventory of Turkey), Ankara.Gunes, T., Kıral, T., Bulbul, M., Vural, H., Tatlıdil, F.F., Turan, A., Albayrak, M., Albayrak, M.,

Fidan, H. & Cetin, B. (1990). Baslıca Taryim Uruonleri Maliyetleri Arastırma Projesi II (AResearch on Production Costs of Major Agricultural Products II ) Ankara: TMO Alkasan Matbaası.

Haktanır, K., Karaca, A. & Turgay, O.C. (1995). Legislative approach to soil protection and landuse in Turkey. In: Kapur, S. et al. (Eds), First International Conference on Land DegradationProceedings, Adana, Turkey, pp. 273–278. 1–401 pp.

Harou, P. (1995). Wetland economics and land use. In: Albusi, L.M. & Romero, C. (Eds),Environmental and Land Use Issues, an Economic Perspective, pp. 61–74. Proceedings of the 34thEAAE Seminar. Kiel: Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk. 1–540 pp.

Koutsoyiannis, A. (1993). Theory of Econometrics, an Introductory Exposition of EconometricMethods (2nd Edn). London, U.K.: The Macmillan Press Ltd. 1–681 pp.

Kula, E. (1994). Economics of Natural Resources, the Environment and Policies. London, U.K.:Chapman & Hall. 1–377 pp.

Miran, B. (1996). Cok Amaclı Karar Alma Yontemiyle Salihli ve Ahmetli Yooresinde Tarımsal.Ilacların Optimum Kullanımı Uzerine Bir Arastırma (A Research on the Optimum Use of Pesticidewith the Methods of Multi-Objective Decision in Salihli and Ahmetli Districts).

.Izmir: Ege

Universitesi.MARA (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs) (2000). Pesticides Consumption Statistics.

Ankara. Unpublished data.OECD (1999). Environmental Performance Reviews, Turkey, Paris, France.

¨

564 H. TANRIVERMIS

Ozcelik, A., Turan, A. & Tanrıvermis, H. (1999). Turkiye’de Tarımın Pazara EntegrasyonundaSozlesmeli Tarım ve Bu Modelin Surdurulebilir Kaynak Kullanımı ile Uretici Geliri Uzerine Etkileri(The Role of Contract Farming for the Integration of Agriculture to Market and its Impacts onProducer Income and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Turkey), Publication No. 14. Ankara:Agricultural Economics Research Institute of Turkey.

Ozkaya, T. & Ozdemir, S. (1992)..Izmir

.Ilinde Pamuk Uretiminde Asırı Gubre Kullanımı (Excessive

Fertilizer Use in Cotton Farming in.Izmir Province), pp. 45–58. Taryim Ekonomisi Dergisi, No. 1,.

Izmir.Pearce, D. (1993). Blueprint 3 Measuring Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan Publi-

cations Ltd. 1–224 pp.Pimental, D. (1993). Environmental and economic benefits of sustainable agriculture. In:

Paoletti, M.G., Napier, T., Ferro, O., Stinner, B. & Stinner, D. (Eds), Socio-economic and PolicyIssues for Sustainable Farming Systems. pp. 5–20. Padova, Italy: Cooperativa Amicizia S.r.l.1–308 pp.

Rehber, E. (1991). Alternatif Tarım Uzerine Bir Tartisma (A Review on Alternative Agriculture), pp.153–160. Uludag Universitesi Ziraat Fakultesi Dergisi No. 8, Bursa.

Resmi Gazete (1998a). 4342 Sayılı Mer’a Kanunu, No. 23272, Tarih: 28?2?1998, Ankara.Resmi Gazete (1998b). Tarim Alanlarının Tarım Dısı Gaye

.Ile Kullanılmasına Dair Yonetmelik,

No. 23445, Tarih:26?08?1998, Ankara.Sengul, M. (1996). Adana

.Ili Yuregir Ovasında Turuncgil Uretiminde Tarımsal Savas

.Ilacları

Kullanımı ve Ekonomik Analizi (Economic Analysis and Usage of Pesticides in Citrus FruitsFarming in Yuregir Valley of Adana Province). Cukurova Universitesi Yuksek Lisans Tezi, Adana.

Sener, A. & Koc, A. (1999). Turkiye’de Kimyasal Gubre Talebi (The Demand of Chemical Fertilizerin Turkey), Publication No. 25. Ankara: Agricultural Economics Research Institute of Turkey.

SIS (1950–1998). Agricultural Structure and Production (1950–1997). Ankara: SIS Publications.1–599 pp.

SIS (1956). 1950 Ziraat Sayımı Neticeleri, Publication No. 371, Ankara.SIS (1982). 1980 Genel Tarim Sayımı Hanehalkı Anketi Sonucları, Publication No. 1028,

Ankara.SIS (1989–1998). Agricultural Structure (Production, Price, Value). Ankara: SIS Publications.

1–588 pp.SIS (1994). 1991 Genel Tarım Sayımı Hanehalkı Anketi Sonucları, Publication No. 1691,

Ankara.SIS (1999). 1997 Domestic Product By Provinces, Turkey, Publication No. 2276, Ankara.SIS (2000). 1997 Population Count Administrative Division, Publication No. 2281, Ankara.SPO (1962–2000). Five Year Development Plans, Ankara.Tanrıvermis, H. (2000). Orta Sakarya Havzası’nda Domates Uretiminde Tarimsal

.Ilac

Kullanıminın Ekonomik Analizi (Economic Analysis of Pesticide Use in Tomato Farming in theMiddle Sakarya Basin), Publication No.42. Ankara: Agricultural Economics ResearchInstitute of Turkey.

TCZB (Agricultural Bank of Turkey) (1952–1990). Agricultural Production Value. Ankara:Publication of Head of Budgeting and Planning Division.

Whitby, M. (1991). The changing nature of rural land use. In: Hanley, N. (Ed.), Farming and theCountryside: an Economic Analysis of External Costs and Benefits, pp. 12–25. Wallingford, U.K.:CAB International.

Yurdakul, O. (1990). Akdeniz Bolgesi Tarım.Isletmelerinde Sosyo-ekonomik Yapı (The socio-

economic structure of farms in the Mediterranean region). In: Akdeniz Bolgesi’nde TarımınVerimlilik Sorunları Sempozyumu, Publication No. 433, pp. 24–33. Ankara: MPM Publications.

Zeren, O., Kumbur, H. and Tasdemir, H. (1996)..Icel

.Ilinde Tarımsal

.Ilac Pazarlama, Kullanım

Teknigi ve Etkinligi Uzerinde Arastırmalar (Researchs on the efficiency, usage techniques andmarketing of pesticide in

.Icel province). In: Tarım-Cevre

.Iliskileri Sempozyumu Dogal

Kaynaklarin Surdurulebilir Kullanımı, pp. 259–269. Mersin: Mersin Universitesi MuhendislikFakultesi.