SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Nature and Life Sciences / 2025 / Volume: 9 Issue: 2

Transforming an Urban Void into an Ecological Public Space: Landscape Design and Implementation of Ardahan Nation’s Garden (Türkiye)

Kentsel Bir Boşluğun Ekolojik Bir Kamusal Alana Dönüştürülmesi: Ardahan Millet Bahçesi Peyzaj Tasarımı ve Uygulaması (Türkiye)

Alperen Meral(BINGOL UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-6714-7187
Doruk Görkem Özkan(KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-0127-0948
Özgür Demirci(KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-1081-2892
İlknur Yazıcı(BİNGÖL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0003-9134-2654
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-12-30
🏛️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)

Findings indicate that the project increased green area coverage to 61.5%, implemented over 40,500 plantings dominated by native cold-climate species, and restored natural hydrological processes through bio-swales and permeable surfaces.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study presents a post-design evaluation of the Ardahan Nation’s Garden (Türkiye), examining how the transformation of an underused urban void into a multifunctional ecological public space performs in terms of ecological, aesthetic, and social outcomes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The methodological framework integrates spatial analyses, ecological performance assessment, aesthetic quality evaluation, and user-oriented observations, conducted after the project’s completion.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings indicate that the project increased green area coverage to 61.5%, implemented over 40,500 plantings dominated by native cold-climate species, and restored natural hydrological processes through bio-swales and permeable surfaces.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Nature-based solutions (NbS) · Ecological design · Urban resilience

Abstract

This study presents a post-design evaluation of the Ardahan Nation’s Garden (Türkiye), examining how the transformation of an underused urban void into a multifunctional ecological public space performs in terms of ecological, aesthetic, and social outcomes. The methodological framework integrates spatial analyses, ecological performance assessment, aesthetic quality evaluation, and user-oriented observations, conducted after the project’s completion. Data were obtained from site surveys, vegetation inventories, GIS-based land-use measurements, drainage and permeability analyses, and on-site behavioral mapping. The evaluation follows the Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) Evaluation Framework and the Landscape Aesthetic Quality Index, enabling a systematic assessment of the design’s ecological functionality and visual coherence. Findings indicate that the project increased green area coverage to 61.5%, implemented over 40,500 plantings dominated by native cold-climate species, and restored natural hydrological processes through bio-swales and permeable surfaces. Ecologically, these interventions enhanced carbon sequestration potential, biodiversity continuity, and microclimate regulation. Aesthetic analysis shows improved visual legibility through topography-sensitive spatial organization, natural materials, and seasonal vegetation dynamics. Socially, the site demonstrates increased public use, accessibility, and place attachment, functioning as a socio-ecological system that supports community well-being. Overall, the study provides empirical evidence that small-scale NbS applications in severe climatic regions can generate measurable environmental, aesthetic, and social benefits, offering a transferable model for sustainable urban design practices.

🔖

Cite This Article

Meral, A., Özkan, D. G., Demirci, Ö., Yazıcı, İ. (2025). Transforming an Urban Void into an Ecological Public Space: Landscape Design and Implementation of Ardahan Nation’s Garden (Türkiye). International Journal of Nature and Life Sciences, Volume: 9 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.47947/ijnls.1807031

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (55)

  1. Ahern, J. (2013). Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecology, 28 (6), 1203–1212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9799-z
  2. Ajmi, R., Allouche, F. K., Taîbi, A. N., & Boussema, S. B. F. (2023). Developing a qualitative urban green spaces index applied to a mediterranean city. Urban Science, 7 (4), 115. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci7040115
  3. Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J., & Brand, A. L. (2018). From landscapes of utopia to the margins of the green urban life. City, 22 (3), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2018.1473126
  4. Antunez, G. (2024). Unpacking and fostering socially acceptable and just urban green space transformations, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
  5. Ardahan Medya Gazetesi. (2024). Millet Bahçesi, Ardahan’a Hayat Verecek. https://Ardahanmedyagazetesi.Com/Haber/Millet_bahcesi_ardahana_hayat_verecek-9492.Html.
  6. Athokpam, V., Chamroy, T., & Ngairangbam, H. (2024). The role of urban green spaces in mitigating climate change: An integrative review of ecological, social, and health benefits. Environmental Reports, 6 (1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.51470/ER.2024.6.1.10
  7. Buijs, A. E., Mattijssen, T. J. M., Van der Jagt, A. P. N., Ambrose-Oji, B., Andersson, E., Elands, B. H. M., & Steen Møller, M. (2016). Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.002
  8. Buijs, A., Hansen, R., Van der Jagt, S., Ambrose-Oji, B., Elands, B., Lorance Rall, E., Mattijssen, T., Pauleit, S., Runhaar, H., Stahl Olafsson, A., & Steen Møller, M. (2019). Mosaic governance for urban green infrastructure: Upscaling active citizenship from a local government perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 40, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.06.011
  9. Çakır, M., & Gül, A. (2024). Urban biodiversity performance determining model (UrBioPDeM): The case of Isparta, Türkiye. BioResources, 19 (4), 9285–9309. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.19.4.9285-9309
  10. Chen, B., & Hashimoto, S. (2025). Integrate brownfield greening into urban planning: A review from the perspective of ecosystem services. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 104, 128642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128642
  11. Cook, L. M., Good, K. D., Moretti, M., Kremer, P., Wadzuk, B., Traver, R., & Smith, V. (2024). Towards the intentional multifunctionality of urban green infrastructure: a paradox of choice? Npj Urban Sustainability, 4 (1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-024-00145-0
  12. Corgo, J., Cruz, S. S., & Conceição, P. (2024). Nature-based solutions in spatial planning and policies for climate change adaptation: A literature review. Ambio, 53 (11), 1599–1617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02052-1
  13. Deming, M. E., & Swaffield, S. (2011). Landscape Architectural Research: Inquiry, Strategy, Design. Wiley.
  14. Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Collier, M. J., Kendal, D., Bulkeley, H., Dumitru, A., Walsh, C., Noble, K., van Wyk, E., Ordóñez, C., Oke, C., & Pintér, L. (2019). Nature-based solutions for urban climate change adaptation: Linking science, policy, and practice communities for evidence-based decision-making. BioScience, 69 (6), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz042
  15. Frantzeskaki, N., Vandergert, P., Connop, S., Schipper, K., Zwierzchowska, I., Collier, M., & Lodder, M. (2020). Examining the policy needs for implementing nature-based solutions in cities: Findings from city-wide transdisciplinary experiences in Glasgow (UK), Genk (Belgium) and Poznań (Poland). Land Use Policy, 96, 104688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104688
  16. Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., and Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22 (7), 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x
  17. Hanna, E., Bruno, D., & Comín, F. A. (2024). The ecosystem services supplied by urban green infrastructure depend on their naturalness, functionality and imperviousness. Urban Ecosystems, 27 (1), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01442-9
  18. Hashem, O. M., Wahba, S. M. E., & Nasr-Eldin, T. I. (2022). Urban voids: identifying and optimizing urban voids potential as a revitalization source in enhancing developing countries’ city income. Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, 69 (1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-021-00053-5
  19. Herath, P., & Bai, X. (2024). Benefits and co-benefits of urban green infrastructure for sustainable cities: six current and emerging themes. Sustainability Science, 19 (3), 1039–1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01475-9
  20. IUCN. (2016). Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges. E. Cohen-Shacham, G. Walters, C. Janzen, & S. Maginnis, Eds., IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en
  21. Jandaghian, Z., Gaur, A., Laouadi, A., Lu, H., & Lacasse, M. A. (2025). Integrating nature-based solutions for urban resilience in the pursuit of sustainable built environments. CIB Conferences, 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.7771/3067-4883.1745
  22. Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., & Bonn, A. (2017). Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas. N. Kabisch, H. Korn, J. Stadler, and A. Bonn, Eds. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5
  23. Korkou, M., Tarigan, A. K. M., & Hanslin, H. M. (2025). Integrated assessment of urban green infrastructure multifunctionality: Insights from Stavanger. Landscape and Urban Planning, 254, 105257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105257
  24. Lee, S., & Kim, Y. (2021). A framework of biophilic urbanism for improving climate change adaptability in urban environments. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 61, 127104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127104
  25. Martínez Cuaresma, M. A., Riveros Noa, A. R., & Vargas Febres, C. G. (2025). Voids and architectural regeneration: Systematic review of applied approaches. Urban Science, 9 (9), 344. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9090344
  26. Masood, N., & Russo, A. (2023). Community Perception of Brownfield Regeneration through Urban Rewilding. Sustainability, 15 (4), 3842. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043842
  27. McDonald, R., & Beatley, T. (2021). Biophilic Cities For an Urban Century. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51665-9
  28. Meteorological Service of Turkey. (2025). Ardahan Ili Mevsim Normalleri (1991–2020). Access date: 21 November 2025, Available online: https://www.mgm.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?k=H&m=ARDAHAN
  29. Molin, J. F., Fors, H., & Faehnle, M. (2017). Citizen Participation for Better Urban Green Spaces: Policy brief. Access date: 19 August 2025, Available online: http://nordicforestresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Citizen-participation-PB-final.pdf
  30. Mosisa, G. B., Bedadi, B., Dalle, G., & Tassie, N. (2025). Nature-based solutions for urban climate resilience: implementation, contribution, and effectiveness. Nature-Based Solutions, 8, 100245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2025.100245
  31. Mostafavi, MMostafavi, M., & Doherty, G. (2016). Ecological Urbanism. Harvard University; Lars Müller Publishers, Baden.
  32. Musacchio, L. R. (2009). The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: A conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecology, 24 (8), 993–1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9396-y
  33. Nassauer, J. I. (2012). Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106 (3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.014
  34. Niemelä, J., Saarela, S. R., Söderman, T., Kopperoinen, L., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Väre, S., & Kotze, D. J. (2010). Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19 (11), 3225–3243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9888-8
  35. Palmer, J. F., & Hoffman, R. E. (2001). Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54 (1–4), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00133-5
  36. Pauleit, S., Ambrose-Oji, B., Andersson, E., Anton, B., Buijs, A., Haase, D., Elands, B., Hansen, R., Kowarik, I., Kronenberg, J., Mattijssen, T., Stahl Olafsson, A., Rall, E., van der Jagt, A. P. N., & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. (2019). Advancing urban green infrastructure in Europe: Outcomes and reflections from the Green Surge project. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 40, 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.10.006
  37. Pinto, L. iV., Inácio, M., & Pereira, P. (2023). Green and blue infrastructure (GBI) and urban nature-based solutions (NbS) contribution to human and ecological well-being and health. Oxford Open Infrastructure and Health, 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/ooih/ouad004
  38. Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M. R., Geneletti, D., & Calfapietra, C. (2017). A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science & Policy, 77, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008
  39. Salih, K., & Báthoryné Nagy, I. R. (2024). Review of the role of urban green infrastructure on climate resiliency: A focus on heat mitigation modelling scenario on the microclimate and building scale. Urban Science, 8 (4), 220. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8040220
  40. Sanches, P. M., & Mesquita Pellegrino, P. R. (2016). Greening potential of derelict and vacant lands in urban areas. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 19, 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.07.002
  41. Schön, D. A. (2017). The Reflective Practitioner. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473
  42. Seddon, N., Smith, A., Smith, P., Key, I., Chausson, A., Girardin, C., House, J., Srivastava, S., & Turner, B. (2021). Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change. Global Change Biology, 27 (8), 1518–1546. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15513
  43. Smallwood, N. L., & Wood, E. M. (2023). The ecological role of native‐plant landscaping in residential yards to birds during the nonbreeding period. Ecosphere, 14, e4360. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4360
  44. Sobhaninia, S., Meerow, S., Dugger, A., Hopson, T., He, C., & Wilhelmi, O. (2025). Where should the green go? A systematic literature review of methods for siting green infrastructure to mitigate rising heat and stormwater risks in cities worldwide. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 107, 128790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128790
  45. Tartaglia, E. S., & Aronson, M. F. J. (2024). Plant native: comparing biodiversity benefits, ecosystem services provisioning, and plant performance of native and non-native plants in urban horticulture. Urban Ecosystems, 27 (6), 2587–2611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-024-01610-5
  46. Ugochukwu, K. A., Blessing, A. E., Aniekan, A. U., Preye, W. B., & Andrew, I. D. (2024). Urban green infrastructure and its role in sustainable cities: A comprehensive review. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 21 (2), 928–936. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.2.0519
  47. Wang, D., Xu, P. Y., An, B. W., & Guo, Q. P. (2024). Urban green infrastructure: bridging biodiversity conservation and sustainable urban development through adaptive management approach. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 12, 1440477. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2024.1440477
  48. Weather-Atlas. (2024). Yearly & Monthly Weather – Ardahan, Turkey. https://www.weather-atlas.com/en/Turkey/Ardahan-climate
  49. Wikipedia. (2024). Ardahan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardahan
  50. Wu, J., Addai, J., Consolata, M., Gao, Z., Martin, E., Yasutake, E. S., & Wang, Y. (2025). Landscape sustainability science and the Sustainable Development Goals. Geography and Sustainability, 6 (5), 100309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2025.100309
  51. Yılmaz, D. G. (2023). Nature-based Solutions for climate-resilient cities: A proposal of a model for successful implementation. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 4 (2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2023.v4i2092
  52. Yılmaz, M., Meral, A., Yüksel, A., & Avşaroğlu, M. M. (2025). Nature-based solutions and the carbon cycle: analysis of Murat River watershed rehabilitation utilising the Ex-Act model. International Journal of Energy and Water Resources. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-025-00405-4
  53. Zarei, M., & Shahab, S. (2025). Nature-based solutions in urban green infrastructure: A systematic review of success factors and implementation challenges. Land, 14 (4), 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040818
  54. Zhang, F., & Qian, H. (2024). A comprehensive review of the environmental benefits of urban green spaces. Environmental Research, 252, 118837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.118837
  55. Zhong, W., Schröder, T., & Bekkering, J. (2022). Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11 (1), 114–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006