Journals / GSI Journals Serie C: Advancements in Information Sciences and Technologies / 2025 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1

Quantitative Evaluation of Urban Ecosystem Services via the i-Tree Canopy Method: The Case of Suluova Adnan Menderes Millet Garden

i-Tree Canopy Yöntemiyle Kentsel Ekosistem Hizmetlerinin Nicel Değerlendirilmesi: Suluova Adnan Menderes Millet Bahçesi Örneği

Sultan Sevinç Kurt Konakoğlu(AMASYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MİMARLIK FAKÜLTESİ, KENTSEL TASARIM VE PEYZAJ MİMARİSİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0001-5383-0954
Pages
141–156
Publication Date
2025-12-31
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)

The findings indicate that the amount of green space per capita is 10.12 m², which exceeds the World Health Organization’s minimum recommended value of 9 m².

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The production-consumption processes that gained momentum with the Industrial Revolution brought about intense industrialization and rapid urbanization.
📊
Key Findings & Data:These developments have resulted in increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thereby exacerbating global warming and climate change.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that the amount of green space per capita is 10.12 m², which exceeds the World Health Organization’s minimum recommended value of 9 m².
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Karbon Tutumu · i-Tree Canopy · Ekosistem Hizmetleri

Abstract

The production-consumption processes that gained momentum with the Industrial Revolution brought about intense industrialization and rapid urbanization. These developments have resulted in increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thereby exacerbating global warming and climate change. One of the primary urban manifestations of climate change is the formation of urban heat islands, which negatively affect the quality of life. In this context, urban green spaces play a significant role both in regulating the microclimate and functioning as carbon sinks, thereby contributing to the sustainability of ecosystem services. The integration of green infrastructure into urban planning through a holistic approach is of critical importance for the development of climate-resilient settlements. The aim of this study is to evaluate the carbon sequestration capacities of urban trees in terms of ecosystem services within Adnan Menderes Millet Garden, the 2nd and 3rd phase Millet Gardens, and the Barrier-Free Life Park, covering a total area of 24,812.51 m² in the Suluova district of Amasya Province. For this purpose, an analysis was conducted using the i-Tree Canopy software based on 2452 random sampling points. The findings indicate that the amount of green space per capita is 10.12 m², which exceeds the World Health Organization’s minimum recommended value of 9 m². The current green spaces were found to have an estimated annual carbon sequestration potential of 1.49 tons. Furthermore, it is projected that the carbon storage capacity will increase in the coming years with the growth of the young vegetation in the study area. The results emphasize the contributions of urban trees to ecosystem services such as air quality improvement and climate regulation, underlining the necessity of planned and conscious green space management for the development of sustainable and livable cities.

Özet

Sanayi Devrimi ile birlikte hız kazanan üretim-tüketim süreçleri, yoğun sanayileşme ve hızlı kentleşmeyi beraberinde getirmiştir. Bu süreçler, atmosferdeki karbondioksit yoğunluğunun artmasına neden olarak küresel ısınma ve iklim değişikliği gibi çevresel sorunların artmasına yol açmıştır. İklim değişikliğinin kentlerdeki başlıca etkilerinden biri olan kentsel ısı adası oluşumu, yaşam kalitesini olumsuz yönde etkilemektedir. Bu bağlamda, kentsel yeşil alanlar hem mikro iklimin düzenlenmesinde hem de karbon yutak alanı olarak işlev görerek ekosistem hizmetlerinin sürdürülebilirliğinde önemli bir rol üstlenmektedir. Yeşil altyapının kent planlamasında bütüncül bir yaklaşımla ele alınması, iklim değişikliğine dirençli yerleşimlerin oluşturulması açısından kritik öneme sahiptir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Amasya ili Suluova ilçesinde yer alan toplam 24.812,51 m² büyüklüğe sahip Adnan Menderes Millet Bahçesi, 2. ve 3. etap Millet Bahçeleri ile Engelsiz Yaşam Parkı'ndaki kent ağaçlarının karbon tutma kapasitelerinin ekosistem hizmetleri bağlamında değerlendirilmesidir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, i-Tree Canopy yazılımı kullanılarak 2452 noktasal veri üzerinden analiz gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre kişi başına düşen yeşil alan miktarı 10,12 m² olarak belirlenmiş ve bu değerin Dünya Sağlık Örgütü tarafından önerilen minimum 9 m² seviyesinin üzerinde olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Mevcut yeşil alanların yıllık toplam 1,49 ton karbon tutma potansiyeline sahip olduğu hesaplanmıştır. Ayrıca, araştırma alanındaki genç bitki örtüsünün gelişimiyle birlikte karbon tutma kapasitesinin ilerleyen yıllarda artış göstereceği öngörülmektedir. Elde edilen bulgular, kentsel ağaçların hava kalitesinin iyileştirilmesi ve iklim düzenlemesi gibi ekosistem hizmetlerine katkı sağladığını ortaya koymakta; sürdürülebilir ve yaşanabilir kentlerin inşasında planlı ve bilinçli yeşil alan yönetiminin gerekliliğine dikkat çekmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Konakoğlu, S. S. K. (2025). Quantitative Evaluation of Urban Ecosystem Services via the i-Tree Canopy Method: The Case of Suluova Adnan Menderes Millet Garden. GSI Journals Serie C: Advancements in Information Sciences and Technologies, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 141–156. https://ajindex.com/articles/1489120

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (53)

  1. Aktaş, R., Öztürkci, A., & Ersoy Tonyaloğlu, E. (2022). Kentsel Alanlarda Çoklu Ekosistem Hizmetlerinin Değerlendirilmesi: Didim/Aydın Örneği. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 275-281. https://doi.org/10.25308/aduziraat.1162860
  2. Barrufol, M., Schmid, B., Bruelheide, H., Chi, X., Hector, A., Ma, K., Michalski, S. G., Tang, Z., & Niklaus, P. A. (2013). Biodiversity Promotes Tree Growth during Succession in Subtropical Forest. Plos One, 8(11), e81246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081246
  3. Berland, A., Shiflett, S. A., Shuster, W. D., Garmestani, A. S., Goddard, H. C., Herrmann, D. L., & Hopton, M. E. (2017). The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 162, 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.02.017
  4. Britt, C., & Johnston, M. (2008). Trees in Towns II: a new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management (executive summary). Technical Report. London: Department of Communities and Local Government, London. Cazolla Gatti, P., Reich, P. B., Gamarra, J. G. P., ……Liang, J. (2022). The number of tree species on Earth. PNAS, 119 (6), e2115329119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2115329119 https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/02/world-tree-species-forest-deforestation-climate-change/
  5. Corbacı, Ö. L., & Ekren, E. (2021). Kentsel Açık Yeşil Alanlarda Kullanılan Zehirli Bitkiler Üzerine Bir Araştırma: Rize Kenti Örneği. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(3), 824-836. https://doi.org/10.24011/barofd.954295
  6. Corvalan, C., Hales, S., McMichael, A.J., Butler, C., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Confalonieri, U., Leitner, K., Lewis, N., Patz, J., Polson, K., Scheraga, J., Woodward, A., & Younes, M. (2005). Ecosystems and human wellbeing: Health synthesis. A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Geneva, Switzerland.
  7. Coşkun Hepcan, Ç., & Hepcan, Ş. (2017). Assessing air quality improvement as a regulating ecosystem service in the Ege University housing campus. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 54(1), 113-120. https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.299257
  8. Davies, H.J., Doick, K., Handley, P., O’Brien, L., & Wilson, J. (2017). Delivery of ecosystem services by urban forests Forest Research, Edinburgh. Forestry Commission Research Report. https://cdn.forestresearch.gov.uk/2017/02/fcrp026.pdf
  9. Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H.,. & Faehnle, M. (2014). Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. Journal of Environmental Mamanagement, 146, 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.025
  10. Derkzen, M. L., Van Teeffelen, A. J., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Quantifying urban ecosystem services based on high‐resolution data of urban green space: an assessment for Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(4), 1020-1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12469
  11. Doğan, D., Zengin, M., Özdede, S., & Yılmaz, F. Ç. (2023). Kentlerde yeşil alanların yeterliliğinin ve i-Tree Canopy ile hava kalitesine olan katkılarının belirlenmesi: Denizli merkez ilçeleri ve kent merkezi örneği. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology, 11(11), 2146-2154. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v11i11.2146-2154.6371
  12. Durkaya, B., Bekci, B., & Varol, T. (2016). Bartın kent ormanının karbon tutma, oksijen üretimi ve rekreasyonel açıdan değerlendirilmesi. Kastamonu Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 111-119. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/227080
  13. Elma, S., & Ortaçeşme, V. (2024). i-Tree Programı Aracılığıyla Yeşil Alanların Sağladığı Ekonomik Değerin Saptanması. Peyzaj-Eğitim, Bilim, Kültür ve Sanat Dergisi, 6(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.53784/peyzaj.1496082
  14. Ersoy Tonyaloğlu, E. (2023). Investigation of regulatory ecosystem services in the case of Aydın Adnan Menderes university campus. Ecological Perspective, 3(1), 19-27. https://doi.org/10.53463/ecopers.20230202
  15. Ersoy Tonyaloğlu, E., Atak, B. K. & Yiğit, M. (2021). Assessment of air quality as a regulating ecosystem services in the case of Efeler-Aydın. Adnan Menderes University Faculty of Agriculture Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 18(1), 119-125. https://doi.org/10.25308/aduziraat.867541
  16. Escobedo, F. J., Kroeger, T., & Wagner, J. E. (2011). Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution, 159(8–9), 2078–2087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010
  17. Feyisa, G. L., Dons, K., & Meilby, H. (2014). Efficiency of parks in mitigating urban heat island effect: An example from Addis Ababa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 123, 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.12.008
  18. Forman, R. T. (2008). Urban Regions: Ecology and Planning Beyond the City. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511754982
  19. Han, W., Cheng, H., & Kang, T. (2025). Carbon storage and air pollution effect of urban trees and tree species selection: A case study in a typical city of the central Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 16(2), 102371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2024.102371
  20. Gill, S. E., Handley, J. F., Ennos, A. R., & Pauleit, S. (2007). Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment, 33(1), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.33.1.115
  21. Guo, W. Y., Serra-Diaz, J. M., Schrodt, F., Eiserhardt, W. L., Maitner, B. S., Merow, C.,. & Svenning, J. C. (2022). High exposure of global tree diversity to human pressure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(25), e2026733119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026733119
  22. Gül, A., Tuğluer, M., & Akkuş, F. G. (2018). Kentsel Yol Ağaçları Envanteri Ve Karbon Tutma Kapasitesinin Belirlenmesi. Turkish Journal of Forest Science, 5(2), 516-535. https://doi.org/10.32328/turkjforsci.979778
  23. Güler, T., Şahnagil, S., Güler, H. (2016). Kent kimliğinin oluşturulmasında kültürel unsurların önemi: Balıkesir üzerine bir inceleme. PARADOKS Ekonomi, Sosyoloji ve Politika Dergisi, 12(Özel Sayı), 5-104.
  24. Hilde, T., & Paterson, R. (2014). Integrating ecosystem services analysis into scenario planning practice: Accounting for street tree benefits with i-Tree valuation in Central Texas. Journal of Environmental Management, 146, 524-534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.039
  25. Hirabayashi, S., Kroll, C. N., & Nowak, D. J. (2012). Component-based development and sensitivity analyses of an air pollutant dry deposition model. Environmental Modelling&Software, 37, 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.03.005
  26. Kaçmaz, G., Ozeren Alkan, M., Çobankaya, H., & Şen, D. (2023). Assessment of ecosystem services provided by street trees: Burdur (Türkiye) city center. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 60(2), 221-234. https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.1226241
  27. Karaşah, B., & Çelik, M. (2021). Kent Kimliğini Oluşturan Kent İmgelerinin Kültürel Ekosistem Servisleri Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi “Balıklıgöl ve Çevresi Örneği”. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(3), 767-778. https://doi.org/10.24011/barofd.941519
  28. Körmeçli, P. Ş. (2023). Kent parklarının hava kalitesini iyileştirme üzerine etkisinin değerlendirilmesi: Ankara Altınpark Örneği. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.17474/artvinofd.1295845
  29. Kurt Konakoğlu, S. S., Çelik, K. T., Üstün Topal, T., Demirel, Ö., & Bingül Bulut, M. B. (2024). Assessment of Regulatory Ecosystem Services of Amasya University Hakimiyet Campus. Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences, 9(4), 521-527. https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.1555094
  30. McPherson, E. G., Nowak, D., Heisler, G., Grimmond, S., Souch, C., Grant, R., & Rowntree, R. (1997). Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Urban Ecosystems, 1, 49-61.
  31. Liu, X., Trogisch, S., He, J. S., Niklaus, P. A., Bruelheide, H., Tang, Z.,. & Ma, K. (2018). Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 285(1885), 20181240. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1240
  32. Livesley, S. J., McPherson, E. G., & Calfapietra, C. (2016). The urban forest and ecosystem services: impacts on urban water, heat, and pollution cycles at the tree, street, and city scale. Journal of Environmental Quality, 45(1), 119-124. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2015.11.0567
  33. MEA. (2005). Ecosystems and human well- being: a framework for assessment. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Framework.html
  34. Nyelele, C., Kroll C. N., & Nowak, D.J. (2022). A comparison of tree planting prioritization frameworks: i-Tree Landscape versus spatial decision support tool. Urban Foresty & Urban Greening, 75, 127703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127703
  35. Nowak, D. J., & Crane, D. E. (2002). Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental Pollunation. 116(3), 381-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00214-7
  36. O’Brien, L., De Vreese, R., Kernm, M., Sievänen, T., Stojanova, B., & Atmiş, E. (2017). Cultural ecosystem benefits of urban and peri-urban green infrastructure across different European countries. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 24, 236-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.002
  37. Roy, S., Byrne, J., & Pickering, C. (2012). A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(4), 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.006
  38. Salmond, J. A., Tadaki, M., Vardoulakis, S., Arbuthnott, K., Coutts, A., Demuzere, M., Dirks, K. N., Heaviside, C., Lim, S., Macintyre, H., McInnes, R. N., & Wheeler B. W. (2016). Health and climate related ecosystem services provided by street trees in the urban environment. Environmental Health, 15, 95-111. doi: 10.1186/s12940-016-0103-6
  39. Sarı, D., Kurt, U., Resne, Y., & Çorbacı, Ö. L. (2020). Kent Parklarında Kullanılan Ağaç Türlerinin Sağladığı Ekosistem Hizmetleri: Rize Örneği. Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences, 5(4), 541-550. https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.774967
  40. Sönmez, T., & Çetin, B. (2024). İstanbul Özgürlük Parkı’ndaki ağaçların biyokütle ve karbon depolama kapasitesinin belirlenmesi. Anadolu Orman Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(2), 49-56. https://doi.org/10.53516/ajfr.1530115
  41. TEEB. (2011). TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Geneva. https://teebweb.org/publications/other/teeb-cities/
  42. The Landscape Institute. (2019). Landscape Institute. Green infrastructure: connected and multifunctional landscape-Position document, London: Landscape Institute. https://www.landscapeinstitute.org/policy/green-infrastructure/
  43. Tokgöz, G., Aysu, A., & Özyurt Ökten, S. S. (2022). Ekosistem hizmetleri haritalamada matris yönteminin kullanımı: Adana Sarıçam örneği. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 23(1), 69-78. https://doi.org/10.18182/tjf.987025
  44. Tülek, B., & Ersoy Mirici, M. (2019). Kentsel Sistemlerde Yeşil Altyapı ve Ekosistem Hizmetleri. Peyzaj, 1(2), 1-11. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/925226
  45. USDA. (2021). United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, i-Tree Tools, i-Tree Canopy. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs200-2021.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 19.08.2024.
  46. Üstün Topal, T., & Demirel, Ö. (2023). Measuring air quality impacts of green areas and ecosystem services (ESs) using web-based i-tree canopy tool: A case study in İstanbul. Turkish Journal of Forest Science, 7(2), 253-266. https://doi.org/10.32328/turkjforsci.1341656
  47. URL-1. (2025). İ-Tree Canopy A tree canopy assessment tool. Accessed at: i-Ağaç Gölgelik, 11.06.2025 URL-2. (2025). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed at: https://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software/cropwat/en/, 07.06.2025.
  48. Wang, J., & Banzhaf, E. (2018). Towards a better understanding of Green Infrastructure: A critical review. Ecological Indicators, 85, 758–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind. 2017.09.018
  49. Wirth, L. (2002). Bir Yaşam Biçimi Olarak Kentlileşme, çev. Bülent Duru ve Ayten Alkan, 20. https://bulentduru.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/louis_wirth_bir_yasam_bicimi _olarak_kent.pdf
  50. Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H.,. & Faehnle, M. (2014). Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. Journal of Environmental Mamanagement, 146, 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.025
  51. Guo, W. Y., Serra-Diaz, J. M., Schrodt, F., Eiserhardt, W. L., Maitner, B. S., Merow, C.,. & Svenning, J. C. (2022). High exposure of global tree diversity to human pressure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(25), e2026733119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026733119
  52. Liu, X., Trogisch, S., He, J. S., Niklaus, P. A., Bruelheide, H., Tang, Z.,. & Ma, K. (2018). Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 285(1885), 20181240. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1240
  53. URL-1. (2025). İ-Tree Canopy A tree canopy assessment tool. Accessed at: i-Ağaç Gölgelik, 11.06.2025 URL-2. (2025). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed at: https://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software/cropwat/en/, 07.06.2025.