Journals / Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi Part C: Tasarım ve Teknoloji / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3

Determining and Evaluating the Carbon Footprint of a Household Based on Electricity, Natural Gas, and Water Consumption Data: The Case of Ankara Province

Elektrik, Doğalgaz ve Su Tüketim Verilerine Dayalı Konut Karbon Ayak İzinin Belirlenmesi ve Değerlendirilmesi: Ankara İli Örneği

Furkan Buğra Öztaşkın(Gazi Üniversitesi, Teknik Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu, Makine ve Metal Teknolojileri Bölümü)0000-0003-0977-2376
Pages
1765–1784
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️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)

The results showed that the share of natural gas consumption in the winter period varied between 45.19% and 51.44%, and natural gas-related emissions constituted 69.71% to 84.99% of the total carbon footprint.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study evaluates energy consumption trends and carbon footprint performance of four different residences located in different locations in Ankara province, using natural gas, electricity, and water consumption data for the period 2021-2025.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The results showed that the share of natural gas consumption in the winter period varied between 45.19% and 51.44%, and natural gas-related emissions constituted 69.71% to 84.99% of the total carbon footprint.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that reducing residential carbon emissions primarily requires reducing natural gas consumption for heating, improving building energy efficiency, and including meteorological conditions in energy performance assessments.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2021-2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Enerji kaynakları · Enerji tüketimi. · Karbon ayak izi

Abstract

This study evaluates energy consumption trends and carbon footprint performance of four different residences located in different locations in Ankara province, using natural gas, electricity, and water consumption data for the period 2021-2025. Energy consumption data were analyzed on a seasonal and annual scale. Heating Degree Day (HDD) and Cooling Degree Day (CDD) indicators were used to determine meteorological effects. To reduce the impact of climatic differences between years on energy consumption, natural gas consumption was normalized based on HDD, and electricity consumption was normalized based on CDD. Carbon footprint calculations were performed according to IPCC and DEFRA emission factor approaches, and the emission contributions of natural gas, electricity, and water were compared. The results showed that the share of natural gas consumption in the winter period varied between 45.19% and 51.44%, and natural gas-related emissions constituted 69.71% to 84.99% of the total carbon footprint. The emission contribution from electricity ranged from 14.13% to 29.37%, and the contribution from water ranged from 0.39% to 2.10%. The total carbon footprint varied between 2,272.59 and 7.766,50 kgCO2e/year in the IPCC approach and between 2,270.60 and 7.585,67 kgCO2e/year in the DEFRA approach. It was determined that both approaches showed similar trends, but differences in absolute values occurred depending on the emission factors used. The findings indicate that reducing residential carbon emissions primarily requires reducing natural gas consumption for heating, improving building energy efficiency, and including meteorological conditions in energy performance assessments.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Ankara ilinde farklı konumlarda bulunan dört farklı konutun 2021-2025 dönemine ait doğalgaz, elektrik ve su tüketimleri kullanılarak enerji tüketim eğilimleri ve karbon ayak izi performansları değerlendirilmiştir. Enerji tüketim verileri mevsimsel ve yıllık ölçekte analiz edildi. Meteorolojik etkilerin belirlenmesinde Isıtma Gün Derecesi (IGD) ve Soğutma Gün Derecesi (SGD) göstergelerinden yararlanılmıştır. Yıllar arasındaki iklimsel farklılıkların enerji tüketimleri üzerindeki etkisini azaltmak amacıyla doğalgaz tüketimleri IGD, elektrik tüketimleri ise SGD tabanlı olarak normalize edilmiştir. Karbon ayak izi hesaplamaları IPCC ve DEFRA emisyon faktörü yaklaşımlarına göre gerçekleştirilmiş ve doğalgaz, elektrik ve su kaynaklı emisyon katkıları karşılaştırılmıştır. Sonuçlar, doğalgaz tüketiminin kış dönemindeki payının %45,19-51,44 arasında değiştiğini ve doğalgaz kaynaklı emisyonların toplam karbon ayak izinin %69,71-84,99'unu oluşturduğunu göstermiştir. Elektrik kaynaklı emisyon katkısı %14,13-29,37, su kaynaklı katkı ise %0,39-2,10 aralığında belirlenmiştir. Toplam karbon ayak izi IPCC yaklaşımında 2.272,59-7.766,50 kgCO2e/yıl, DEFRA yaklaşımında ise 2.270,60-7.585,67 kgCO2e/yıl arasında değişmiştir. Her iki yaklaşımın benzer eğilimler sergilediği, ancak kullanılan emisyon faktörlerine bağlı olarak mutlak değerlerde farklılıklar oluştuğu belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, konut kaynaklı karbon emisyonlarının azaltılmasında öncelikle ısınma amaçlı doğalgaz tüketiminin azaltılması, bina enerji verimliliğinin geliştirilmesi ve meteorolojik koşulların enerji performansı değerlendirmelerine dâhil edilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Öztaşkın, F. B. (2026). Determining and Evaluating the Carbon Footprint of a Household Based on Electricity, Natural Gas, and Water Consumption Data: The Case of Ankara Province. Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi Part C: Tasarım ve Teknoloji, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3, 1765–1784. https://doi.org/10.29109/gujsc.1987850

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (38)

  1. Gök Kısa A.C. Evaluation of renewable energy sources in TR83 region by CRITIC based grey relational analysis approach. Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences. 2021; 27: 542–548. https://doi.org/10.5505/pajes.2021.99389.
  2. Kılıç Ş., Doğdu Yücetürk G., Pekdemir T. Bilim–Politika Uçurumunu Aşmak: Küresel ve Ulusal İklim Politikalarının Bilimsel Bulgular ve Siyasi Eylemler Bağlamında Eleştirel İncelemesi. Çevre, İklim ve Sürdürülebilirlik İTÜ Dergisi-e (2026).
  3. Wiedmann T., Minx J. A Definition of “Carbon Footprint” ISA UK Research Report 07-01, 2007. www.censa.org.uk.
  4. Wackernagel M., Rees W.E. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers. 9 (1998).
  5. Wilby R.L. A Review of Climate Change Impacts on the Built Environment. Built Environment. 2007; 33: 31–45. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.33.1.31.
  6. Yatarkalkmaz M.M., Özdemir M.B. The Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions of a Family and Projections for Emission Reduction. Journal of Energy Systems. 2019; 3: 96–110. https://doi.org/10.30521/jes.566516.
  7. Gençtürk F., Biroğul S. Carbon Footprint Through the Lens of Information and Communication Technology. Uluslararası Sürdürülebilir Mühendislik ve Teknoloji Dergisi. 2025; 9: 118–132. https://doi.org/10.62301/usmtd.1712846.
  8. Dulkadiroğlu H. Türkiye’de Elektrik Üretiminin Sera Gazı Emisyonları Açısından İncelenmesi. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi. 2018; 7: 67-74. https://doi.org/10.28948/ngumuh.369948.
  9. Türkeş M. İklim Değişikliğinde Son Gelişmeler: IPCC 2013 Raporu Aralık 2013. İstanbul Politikalar Merkezi. 2013.
  10. Binboğa G., Ünal A. Sürdürülebilirlik Ekseninde Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi’nin Karbon Ayak İzinin Hesaplanmasına Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi. 2018; 187–202. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.323532.
  11. IEA. World Energy Outlook 2025, International Energy Agency (2025). https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2025. (erişildi 01.07.2026)
  12. Kılıç E., Puig R., Zengin G., Zengin C.A., Fullana-i-Palmer P. Corporate Carbon Footprint for Country Climate Change Mitigation: A Case Study of a Tannery in Turkey. Science of The Total Environment. 2018; 635: 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.111.
  13. 2023 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Beyond Foundations Mainstreaming Sustainable Solutions to Cut Emissions from the Buildings Sector. United Nations Environment Programme. 2024. https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/45095.
  14. de Wilde P., Coley D. The Implications of a Changing Climate for Buildings. Building and Environment. 2012; 55: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.03.014.
  15. Dino I.G., Meral Akgül C. Impact of Climate Change on the Existing Residential Building Stock in Turkey: An Analysis on Energy Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Occupant Comfort, Renewable Energy. 2019; 141: 828–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.150
  16. OECD. OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2024. OECD Publishing. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1787/f42db3bf-en.
  17. IEA. CO2 Emissions in 2022. International Energy Agency (2022). https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022. (erişildi 01.07.2026)
  18. Altun M., Meral Akgül Ç., Akçamete A. Kabuk Yalıtımının Bina Isıtma Enerjisi İhtiyacına, Maliyetine ve Karbon Ayak İzine Etkisinin Yaşam Döngüsü Bakış Açısıyla Değerlendirmesi, Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi. 2019; 35: 147–164. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.445751.
  19. Meral Akgül C., Gürsel Dino İ. RCP4.5 ve RCP8.5 İklim Senaryolarına Göre Konutlarda İklim Değişikliği Etki Değerlendirmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi. 2020; 35: 1665–1684. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.534970.
  20. Karanasios K. Sustainable Facilities Management: A Sociotechnical System Perspective and a Review of the Literature. Journal of Facilities Management. 2026; 24: 21–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-04-2024-0046.
  21. Ibrahim N.I., Vering C., Giannetti N., Kim M., Sholahudin, Storek T., Müller D., Saito K. State-of-the-Art of the Digital Twin Concept in HVAC+R Systems for Thermal Management of Buildings, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2026; 229: 116601. 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2025.116601.
  22. Can A., Atimtay A.T., Tokdemir T. CO2 Emission Inventory in Türkiye and Estimation of CO2 Concentration over Türkiye by Using Dispersion Modelling. Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi Part C: Tasarım ve Teknoloji. 2025; 13: 308–329. https://doi.org/10.29109/gujsc.1590432.
  23. Ergüç R., Sarı Y., Argun M.E. Konya/Selçuklu İlçesi Karbon Ayak İzinin Belirlenmesi. Selcuk University Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology. 2019; 7: 287–297. https://doi.org/10.15317/Scitech.2019.199.
  24. Atabey T. Karbon Ayak İzinin Hesaplanması: Diyarbakır Örneği. Fırat Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. 2013.
  25. Emissions Trends and Drivers, in: Climate Change 2022- Mitigation of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press. 2023; 215–294. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.004.
  26. Teng J., Yin H. Forecasting the Carbon Footprint of Civil Buildings Under Different Floor Area Growth Trends and Varying Energy Supply Methods. Scientific Reports. 2023; 13: 21978. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-49270-3.
  27. Bramwell R., Brown P., Galatioto F., Ingledew D., Karagianni E., Maccarthy J., Mullen P., Walker C., Willis D., Wong J., Energy R., Harris B. 2023 Government Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factors for Company Reporting Methodology Paper for Conversion Factors Final Report. 2, 2023. www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/.
  28. Atmaca A., Atmaca N. Carbon Footprint Assessment of Residential Buildings. A Review and A Case Study in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022; 340: 130691. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130691.
  29. Kurnuç Seyhan A., Çerçi M. IPCC Tier 1 ve DEFRA Metotları ile Karbon Ayak İzinin Belirlenmesi: Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi’nin Yakıt ve Elektrik Tüketimi Örneği. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2022; 26: 386–397. https://doi.org/10.19113/sdufenbed.1061021.
  30. Baiocchi G., Minx J.C. Understanding Changes in the UK’s CO 2 Emissions: A Global Perspective. Environmental Science & Technology. 2010; 44: 1177–1184. https://doi.org/10.1021/es902662h.
  31. Jones C., Kammen D.M. Spatial Distribution of U.S. Household Carbon Footprints Reveals Suburbanization Undermines Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Urban Population Density. Environmental Science & Technology. 2014; 48: 895–902. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4034364.
  32. Hünerli E., Karaca Dolgun G., Ural T., Güllüce H., Karabacak D. Calculation of Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University’s Carbon Footprint with IPCC Tier 1 Approach and DEFRA Method. Kırklareli Üniversitesi Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi. 2024; 10: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.34186/klujes.1386656.
  33. Kaya M. Energy Consumption Patterns and Residential Carbon Footprint in Turkey. Journal of Environment. 2025; 5: 47–58. https://doi.org/10.47941/je.2520.
  34. Yıldız C. Binalarda Enerji Verimliliğinde Son Gelişmeler: Türkiye Örneği. Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi Part C: Tasarım ve Teknoloji. 2024; 12: 176–213. https://doi.org/10.29109/gujsc.1293759.
  35. Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T., Tanabe K. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. 2006. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ (erişildi 01.07.2026)
  36. Jang Y., Park J., Kim Y., Yu K.-H. Energy Savings, Carbon-Equivalent Abatement Cost, and Payback of Residential Window Retrofits: Evidence from a Heating-Dominated Mid-Latitude City-Gyeonggi Province. South Korea, Buildings. 2025; 16: 71. 1-36. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16010071.
  37. Santamouris M. Cooling the Buildings - Past, Present And Future. Energy and Buildings. 2016; 128: 617–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.07.034.
  38. Ürge-Vorsatz D., Khosla R., Bernhardt R., Chan Y.C., Vérez D., Hu S., Cabeza L.F. Advances Toward a Net-Zero Global Building Sector. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2020; 45: 227–269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-045843.