Research Article
PDF Zotero Mendeley EndNote BibTex Cite

Kentsel Yeşil Altyapıların Önemli Bir Bileşeni Olan Kent Ormanlarının Sağladığı Ekosistem Servisleri ‘ Kafkasör Kent Ormanı Örneği’

Year 2020, Volume 5, Issue 4, 668 - 675, 31.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.796515

Abstract

Ekosistem servisleri, insanların doğal veya tasarlanmış alanlardan doğrudan veya dolaylı olarak elde ettikleri fayda ve ürünler olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Kentsel yeşil alt yapıların çevresel ve sosyal birçok faydası vardır. Kentsel yeşil altyapıların önemli bir parçası olan kent ormanları, kent çevrelerinin homojenliğini kıran, kentin estetiğine katkı sağlayan, kentlerin yeşil dokusunu güçlendiren, kente ve kentlilere rekreasyonel açıdan aktivite alanları sunan ve kent sakinlerine fiziksel ve ruhsal açıdan birçok ekosistem servisi sağlayan aktif yeşil alanlardır. Bu çalışmada, Artvin kentine ve kent sakinlerine geniş bir yelpazede ekosistem servisi sağlayan Kafkasör Kent Ormanı çalışma alanı olarak seçilmiş ve kent ormanının sağladığı ekosistem servislerinin ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır. Kafkasör Kent Ormanı’nın kaynak sağlayan (gıda, dekoratif kaynaklar, biyolojik hammadde, biyokimyasal ve tıbbi ürünler), düzenleyici (hava kalitesini düzenleme, iklim düzenleme su akışı ve erozyon kontrolü, polenleme), destekleyici (fotosentez, besin ve su döngüsünü destekleme) ve kültürel ekosistem servisleri (eğitim, bilgi sistemi, ilhan, estetik değerler, sosyal ilişkiler, yer ve mekan hissi, rekreasyon-ekoturizm, sağlık, ekonomi, doğayla bağlantı, duyusal deneyimler) açısından birçok servisi sunduğu tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmada kültürel ekosistem servisleri bağlamında görülen bazı eksikliklerin giderilmesine yönelik önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Ekosistem servislerinin sürekliliğinin sağlanması ve insanların bu servislerden en iyi şekilde faydalanabilmesi için alanlara ilişkin doğru stratejilerin belirlenmesi ve planlamaların bu doğrultuda yapılması önem arz etmektedir.

References

  • Akbari, H. (2002). Shade trees reduce building energy use and CO2 emissions from power plants. Environmental Pollution, 116, 119–126.
  • Barthel, S., Parker, J. & Ernstson, H. (2015). Food and green space in cities: A resilience lens on gardens and urban environmental movements. Urban Studies, 52(7), 1321–1338.
  • Baumeister, C.F., Gerstenberg, T., Plieninger, T. & Schraml, U. (2020). Exploring cultural ecosystem service hotspots: Linking multiple urban forest features with public participation mapping data. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 48, 126561.
  • Benedict, M.A. & McMahon, E.T. (2002). Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Renewable Resources Journal, 20, 12–17.
  • Bethmann, S., Simminger, E., Baldy, J. & Schraml, U. (2018). Forestry in interaction. Shedding light on dynamics of public opinion with a praxeological methodology. Forest Policy and Economics, 69, 93–101.
  • Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., Pirker, H., Vogl, C.R. (2014). Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: an empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecological Economics, 105, 19–30.
  • Binyıl Eksosistem Değerlendirmesi (MEA), (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  • Bogar, S. & Beyer, K.M. (2015). Green space, violence, and crime: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 17(2), 160–171.
  • Bolund, P. & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29, 293–301.
  • Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Ferrini, F., Salbitano, F., Agrimi, M., Portoghesi, L., Semenzato, P. & Sanesi, G. (2015). Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the wellbeing of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 221–228.
  • Church, A., Fish, R., Haines Young, R., Mourato, S., Tratalos, J., Stapleton, L., Willis,C., Coates, P., Gibbons, S., Leyshon, C., Potschin, M., Ravenscroft, N.,Sanchis-Guarner, R., Winter, M. & Kenter, J. (2014). UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-On. Work Package Report 5: Cultural Ecosystem Servicesand Indicators. UNEP-WCMC, LWEC, UK.
  • Conradson, D. (2005). Landscape, care and the relational self: Therapeutic encounters in rural England. Health and Place, 11(4), 337–348.
  • Coppel, G. & Wustemann, H. (2017). The impact of urban green space on health in Berlin, Germany: empirical findings and implications for urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 167, 410–418.
  • De Vries, S., Van Dillen, S. M., Groenewegen, P.P. & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2013). Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Social Science and Medicine, 94, 26–33.
  • Dwyer, J. F. & Schroeder, H. W. (1994). The human dimensions of urban forestry. Journal of Forestry, 92(10), 12-15.
  • Garcia-Nieto, A.P., Garcia-llorente, M., Iniesta-arandia, I. & Martin-lopez, B. (2013). Mapping forest ecosystem services: From providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosystem Services, 4, 126–138.
  • Grote, R., Samson, R., Alonso, R., Amorim, J. H., Cariñanos, P., Churkina, G. & Mikkelsen, T. N. (2016). Functional traits of urban trees: air pollution mitigation potential. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(10), 543–550.
  • Hansen, M.M., Jones, R. & Tocchini, K. (2017). Shinrin-yoku (forest bathing) and nature therapy: A state of the art review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(8), 1-48.
  • Harriss, L. & Hawton, K. (2011). Deliberate self-harm in rural and urban regions: a comparative study of prevalence and patient characteristics. Social Science and Medicine, 73(2), 274–281.
  • Hartig, T., Mitchell, R. & De Vries, S. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207–228.
  • Kaya, M.Y. & Uzun, O. (2019). Ekosistem hizmetleri ve mekânsal planlama ilişkisinin peyzaj planlama çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 7, 2166- 2193.
  • Kotte, D., Li, Q., Shin, W.S. & Michalsen, A. (2019). International Handbook of Forest Therapy. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, UK.
  • La Rosa, D. (2014). Accessibility to greenspaces: GIS based indicators for sustainable planning in a dense urban context. Ecological Indicators, 42, 122-134.
  • Lafortezza, R., Carrus, G., Sanesi, G. & Davies, C. 2009. Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 8(2), 97–108.
  • Lyu, B., Zeng, C., Xie, S., Li, D., Lin, W., Li, N., Jiang, M., Liu, S. & Chen, Q. (2019). Benefits of a Three-day Bamboo Forest therapy session on the psychophysiology and immune system responses of male College students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 49–91.
  • Ma, F. (2020). Spatial equity analysis of urban green space based on spatial design network Analysis (sDNA): A case study of central Jinan, China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 60, 102256.
  • Mao, G., Cao, Y., Wang, B., Wang, S., Chen, Z., Wang, J., Xing, W., Ren, X., Lv, X., Dong, J., Chen, S., Chen, X., Wang, G., Yan, J. (2017). The salutary influence of Forest bathing on elderly patients with chronic heart failure. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(4), 368–387.
  • Margaritis, E. & Kang, J. (2017). Relationship between green space-related morphology and noise pollution. Ecological Indicators, 72: 921–933.
  • Mesire Yerleri Yönetmeliği, 2013. Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=17173&MevzuatTur=7&MevzuatTertip=5. (28.08.2020).
  • Nowak, D.J. & Dwyer J.F. (2007). Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In: (Ed: Kuser, J.E.), Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast, pp. 25-46. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Syracuse, New York.
  • O’Brien, L., De Vreese, R., Kern, M., Sievänen, T., Stojanova, B. & Atmis, E. (2017). Cultural ecosystem benefits of urban and peri-urban greeninfrastructure across different European countries. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 24, 236–248.
  • OGM (2009). Kent Ormanları. T.C. Çevre Ve Orman Bakanlığı Orman Genel Müdürlüğü yayınları,https://www.ogm.gov.tr/ekutuphane/Yayinlar/Kent%20Ormanlar%C4%B1.pdf. (28.07.2020).
  • Pietila, M., Neuvonen, M., Borodulin, K., Korpela, K., Sievanen, T. & Tyrvainen, L. (2015). Relationships between exposure to urban green spaces, physical activity and selfrated health. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 10, 44–54.
  • Poe, M.R., Lecompte, J., Cmlain, R. & Hurley, P. (2014). Urban foraging and the relational ecologies of belonging. Social and Cultural Geography, 15, 901–919.
  • Portman, M.E. (2013). Ecosystem services in practice: challenges to real world implementation of ecosystem services across multiple landscapes: a critical review. Applied Geography, 45, 185–192.
  • Pulighe, G., Fava, F. & Lupia, F. (2016). Insights and opportunities from mapping ecosystem services of urban green spaces and potentials in planning. Ecosystem Services, 22, 1–10.
  • Rajoo, K.S., Karam, D.S. & Abdul Aziz, N.A. (2019). Developing an effective forest therapy program to manage academic stress in conservative societies: A multi-disciplinary approach. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 43, 126353.
  • Rajoo, K.S., Karam, D.S. & Abdullah, M.Z. (2020). The physiological and psychosocial effects of forest therapy: A systematic review. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 54, 126744.
  • Riva, S., Curtis, S., Gauvin, L. & Fagg, J. (2009). Unravelling the extent of inequalities in health across urban and rural areas: evidence from a national sample in England. Social Science and Medicine, 68, 654–663.
  • Shin D-H. & Lee K-S. (2005). Use of remote sensing and geographical information system to estimate green space temperature change as a result of urban expansion. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 1, 169-176.
  • Song, C., Ikei, H. & Miyazaki, Y. (2017). Sustained effects of a forest therapy program on the blood pressure of office workers. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 27, 246–252.
  • Stolt, E. (1982). Vegetationens förmaga att minska expositionen för bilavgaser (The ability of vegetation in decreasing exposure to car fumes). Göteborgs Universitet pa uppdrag av Göteborgs Halsovardsavdelning (quoted from Svensson and Eliasson 1997, in Swedish).
  • Terzi, F., Tezer, A., Turkay, Z., Uzun, O., Köylü, P., Karacor, E., Okay, N. & Kaya, M. (2020). An ecosystem services-based approach for decision making in urban planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(3), 433-452.
  • Ulrich, R. S., Bogren, L., Gardiner, S. K. & Lundin, S. (2018). Psychiatric ward design can reduce aggressive behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 57, 53–66.
  • Van den Berg, A. E., Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P. (2010). Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Social Science and Medicine, 70(8), 1203–1210.
  • Wolf, K.L. & Robbins, A.S. (2015). Metro nature, environmental health, and economic value. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123, 390–398.
  • Völker, S., Heiler, A., Pollmann, T., Classe, T., Hornberg, C., Kistemann, T. (2018). Do perceived walking distance to and use of urban blue spaces affect self-reported physical and mental health? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 29, 1–9.
  • Zhang, B., Xie, G., Zhang, C., Zhang, J. (2012). The economic benefits of rainwater runoff reduction by urban green spaces: A case study in Beijing, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 100, 65–71.

Kentsel Yeşil Altyapıların Önemli Bir Bileşeni Olan Kent Ormanlarının Sağladığı Ekosistem Servisleri ‘ Kafkasör Kent Ormanı Örneği’

Year 2020, Volume 5, Issue 4, 668 - 675, 31.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.796515

Abstract

Ekosistem servisleri, insanların doğal veya tasarlanmış alanlardan doğrudan veya dolaylı olarak elde ettikleri fayda ve ürünler olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Kentsel yeşil alt yapıların çevresel ve sosyal birçok faydası vardır. Kentsel yeşil altyapıların önemli bir parçası olan kent ormanları, kent çevrelerinin homojenliğini kıran, kentin estetiğine katkı sağlayan, kentlerin yeşil dokusunu güçlendiren, kente ve kentlilere rekreasyonel açıdan aktivite alanları sunan ve kent sakinlerine fiziksel ve ruhsal açıdan birçok ekosistem servisi sağlayan aktif yeşil alanlardır. Bu çalışmada, Artvin kentine ve kent sakinlerine geniş bir yelpazede ekosistem servisi sağlayan Kafkasör Kent Ormanı çalışma alanı olarak seçilmiş ve kent ormanının sağladığı ekosistem servislerinin ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır. Kafkasör Kent Ormanı’nın kaynak sağlayan (gıda, dekoratif kaynaklar, biyolojik hammadde, biyokimyasal ve tıbbi ürünler), düzenleyici (hava kalitesini düzenleme, iklim düzenleme su akışı ve erozyon kontrolü, polenleme), destekleyici (fotosentez, besin ve su döngüsünü destekleme) ve kültürel ekosistem servisleri (eğitim, bilgi sistemi, ilhan, estetik değerler, sosyal ilişkiler, yer ve mekan hissi, rekreasyon-ekoturizm, sağlık, ekonomi, doğayla bağlantı, duyusal deneyimler) açısından birçok servisi sunduğu tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmada kültürel ekosistem servisleri bağlamında görülen bazı eksikliklerin giderilmesine yönelik önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Ekosistem servislerinin sürekliliğinin sağlanması ve insanların bu servislerden en iyi şekilde faydalanabilmesi için alanlara ilişkin doğru stratejilerin belirlenmesi ve planlamaların bu doğrultuda yapılması önem arz etmektedir.

References

  • Akbari, H. (2002). Shade trees reduce building energy use and CO2 emissions from power plants. Environmental Pollution, 116, 119–126.
  • Barthel, S., Parker, J. & Ernstson, H. (2015). Food and green space in cities: A resilience lens on gardens and urban environmental movements. Urban Studies, 52(7), 1321–1338.
  • Baumeister, C.F., Gerstenberg, T., Plieninger, T. & Schraml, U. (2020). Exploring cultural ecosystem service hotspots: Linking multiple urban forest features with public participation mapping data. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 48, 126561.
  • Benedict, M.A. & McMahon, E.T. (2002). Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Renewable Resources Journal, 20, 12–17.
  • Bethmann, S., Simminger, E., Baldy, J. & Schraml, U. (2018). Forestry in interaction. Shedding light on dynamics of public opinion with a praxeological methodology. Forest Policy and Economics, 69, 93–101.
  • Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., Pirker, H., Vogl, C.R. (2014). Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: an empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecological Economics, 105, 19–30.
  • Binyıl Eksosistem Değerlendirmesi (MEA), (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  • Bogar, S. & Beyer, K.M. (2015). Green space, violence, and crime: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 17(2), 160–171.
  • Bolund, P. & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29, 293–301.
  • Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Ferrini, F., Salbitano, F., Agrimi, M., Portoghesi, L., Semenzato, P. & Sanesi, G. (2015). Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the wellbeing of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 221–228.
  • Church, A., Fish, R., Haines Young, R., Mourato, S., Tratalos, J., Stapleton, L., Willis,C., Coates, P., Gibbons, S., Leyshon, C., Potschin, M., Ravenscroft, N.,Sanchis-Guarner, R., Winter, M. & Kenter, J. (2014). UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-On. Work Package Report 5: Cultural Ecosystem Servicesand Indicators. UNEP-WCMC, LWEC, UK.
  • Conradson, D. (2005). Landscape, care and the relational self: Therapeutic encounters in rural England. Health and Place, 11(4), 337–348.
  • Coppel, G. & Wustemann, H. (2017). The impact of urban green space on health in Berlin, Germany: empirical findings and implications for urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 167, 410–418.
  • De Vries, S., Van Dillen, S. M., Groenewegen, P.P. & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2013). Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Social Science and Medicine, 94, 26–33.
  • Dwyer, J. F. & Schroeder, H. W. (1994). The human dimensions of urban forestry. Journal of Forestry, 92(10), 12-15.
  • Garcia-Nieto, A.P., Garcia-llorente, M., Iniesta-arandia, I. & Martin-lopez, B. (2013). Mapping forest ecosystem services: From providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosystem Services, 4, 126–138.
  • Grote, R., Samson, R., Alonso, R., Amorim, J. H., Cariñanos, P., Churkina, G. & Mikkelsen, T. N. (2016). Functional traits of urban trees: air pollution mitigation potential. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(10), 543–550.
  • Hansen, M.M., Jones, R. & Tocchini, K. (2017). Shinrin-yoku (forest bathing) and nature therapy: A state of the art review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(8), 1-48.
  • Harriss, L. & Hawton, K. (2011). Deliberate self-harm in rural and urban regions: a comparative study of prevalence and patient characteristics. Social Science and Medicine, 73(2), 274–281.
  • Hartig, T., Mitchell, R. & De Vries, S. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207–228.
  • Kaya, M.Y. & Uzun, O. (2019). Ekosistem hizmetleri ve mekânsal planlama ilişkisinin peyzaj planlama çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 7, 2166- 2193.
  • Kotte, D., Li, Q., Shin, W.S. & Michalsen, A. (2019). International Handbook of Forest Therapy. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, UK.
  • La Rosa, D. (2014). Accessibility to greenspaces: GIS based indicators for sustainable planning in a dense urban context. Ecological Indicators, 42, 122-134.
  • Lafortezza, R., Carrus, G., Sanesi, G. & Davies, C. 2009. Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 8(2), 97–108.
  • Lyu, B., Zeng, C., Xie, S., Li, D., Lin, W., Li, N., Jiang, M., Liu, S. & Chen, Q. (2019). Benefits of a Three-day Bamboo Forest therapy session on the psychophysiology and immune system responses of male College students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 49–91.
  • Ma, F. (2020). Spatial equity analysis of urban green space based on spatial design network Analysis (sDNA): A case study of central Jinan, China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 60, 102256.
  • Mao, G., Cao, Y., Wang, B., Wang, S., Chen, Z., Wang, J., Xing, W., Ren, X., Lv, X., Dong, J., Chen, S., Chen, X., Wang, G., Yan, J. (2017). The salutary influence of Forest bathing on elderly patients with chronic heart failure. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(4), 368–387.
  • Margaritis, E. & Kang, J. (2017). Relationship between green space-related morphology and noise pollution. Ecological Indicators, 72: 921–933.
  • Mesire Yerleri Yönetmeliği, 2013. Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=17173&MevzuatTur=7&MevzuatTertip=5. (28.08.2020).
  • Nowak, D.J. & Dwyer J.F. (2007). Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In: (Ed: Kuser, J.E.), Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast, pp. 25-46. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Syracuse, New York.
  • O’Brien, L., De Vreese, R., Kern, M., Sievänen, T., Stojanova, B. & Atmis, E. (2017). Cultural ecosystem benefits of urban and peri-urban greeninfrastructure across different European countries. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 24, 236–248.
  • OGM (2009). Kent Ormanları. T.C. Çevre Ve Orman Bakanlığı Orman Genel Müdürlüğü yayınları,https://www.ogm.gov.tr/ekutuphane/Yayinlar/Kent%20Ormanlar%C4%B1.pdf. (28.07.2020).
  • Pietila, M., Neuvonen, M., Borodulin, K., Korpela, K., Sievanen, T. & Tyrvainen, L. (2015). Relationships between exposure to urban green spaces, physical activity and selfrated health. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 10, 44–54.
  • Poe, M.R., Lecompte, J., Cmlain, R. & Hurley, P. (2014). Urban foraging and the relational ecologies of belonging. Social and Cultural Geography, 15, 901–919.
  • Portman, M.E. (2013). Ecosystem services in practice: challenges to real world implementation of ecosystem services across multiple landscapes: a critical review. Applied Geography, 45, 185–192.
  • Pulighe, G., Fava, F. & Lupia, F. (2016). Insights and opportunities from mapping ecosystem services of urban green spaces and potentials in planning. Ecosystem Services, 22, 1–10.
  • Rajoo, K.S., Karam, D.S. & Abdul Aziz, N.A. (2019). Developing an effective forest therapy program to manage academic stress in conservative societies: A multi-disciplinary approach. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 43, 126353.
  • Rajoo, K.S., Karam, D.S. & Abdullah, M.Z. (2020). The physiological and psychosocial effects of forest therapy: A systematic review. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 54, 126744.
  • Riva, S., Curtis, S., Gauvin, L. & Fagg, J. (2009). Unravelling the extent of inequalities in health across urban and rural areas: evidence from a national sample in England. Social Science and Medicine, 68, 654–663.
  • Shin D-H. & Lee K-S. (2005). Use of remote sensing and geographical information system to estimate green space temperature change as a result of urban expansion. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 1, 169-176.
  • Song, C., Ikei, H. & Miyazaki, Y. (2017). Sustained effects of a forest therapy program on the blood pressure of office workers. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 27, 246–252.
  • Stolt, E. (1982). Vegetationens förmaga att minska expositionen för bilavgaser (The ability of vegetation in decreasing exposure to car fumes). Göteborgs Universitet pa uppdrag av Göteborgs Halsovardsavdelning (quoted from Svensson and Eliasson 1997, in Swedish).
  • Terzi, F., Tezer, A., Turkay, Z., Uzun, O., Köylü, P., Karacor, E., Okay, N. & Kaya, M. (2020). An ecosystem services-based approach for decision making in urban planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(3), 433-452.
  • Ulrich, R. S., Bogren, L., Gardiner, S. K. & Lundin, S. (2018). Psychiatric ward design can reduce aggressive behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 57, 53–66.
  • Van den Berg, A. E., Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P. (2010). Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Social Science and Medicine, 70(8), 1203–1210.
  • Wolf, K.L. & Robbins, A.S. (2015). Metro nature, environmental health, and economic value. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123, 390–398.
  • Völker, S., Heiler, A., Pollmann, T., Classe, T., Hornberg, C., Kistemann, T. (2018). Do perceived walking distance to and use of urban blue spaces affect self-reported physical and mental health? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 29, 1–9.
  • Zhang, B., Xie, G., Zhang, C., Zhang, J. (2012). The economic benefits of rainwater runoff reduction by urban green spaces: A case study in Beijing, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 100, 65–71.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Science
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Banu KARAŞAH (Primary Author)
ARTVİN ÇORUH ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SANAT VE TASARIM FAKÜLTESİ
0000-0001-5079-5313
Türkiye

Publication Date December 31, 2020
Application Date September 17, 2020
Acceptance Date December 6, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020, Volume 5, Issue 4

Cite

Bibtex @research article { jaes796515, journal = {Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences}, issn = {}, eissn = {2548-0006}, address = {}, publisher = {Bülent VEREP}, year = {2020}, volume = {5}, pages = {668 - 675}, doi = {10.35229/jaes.796515}, title = {Kentsel Yeşil Altyapıların Önemli Bir Bileşeni Olan Kent Ormanlarının Sağladığı Ekosistem Servisleri ‘ Kafkasör Kent Ormanı Örneği’}, key = {cite}, author = {Karaşah, Banu} }
APA Karaşah, B. (2020). Kentsel Yeşil Altyapıların Önemli Bir Bileşeni Olan Kent Ormanlarının Sağladığı Ekosistem Servisleri ‘ Kafkasör Kent Ormanı Örneği’ . Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences , 5 (4) , 668-675 . DOI: 10.35229/jaes.796515
MLA Karaşah, B. "Kentsel Yeşil Altyapıların Önemli Bir Bileşeni Olan Kent Ormanlarının Sağladığı Ekosistem Servisleri ‘ Kafkasör Kent Ormanı Örneği’" . Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences 5 (2020 ): 668-675 <https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jaes/issue/57983/796515>
Chicago Karaşah, B. "Kentsel Yeşil Altyapıların Önemli Bir Bileşeni Olan Kent Ormanlarının Sağladığı Ekosistem Servisleri ‘ Kafkasör Kent Ormanı Örneği’". Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences 5 (2020 ): 668-675
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Kentsel Yeşil Altyapıların Önemli Bir Bileşeni Olan Kent Ormanlarının Sağladığı Ekosistem Servisleri ‘ Kafkasör Kent Ormanı Örneği’ AU - Banu Karaşah Y1 - 2020 PY - 2020 N1 - doi: 10.35229/jaes.796515 DO - 10.35229/jaes.796515 T2 - Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 668 EP - 675 VL - 5 IS - 4 SN - -2548-0006 M3 - doi: 10.35229/jaes.796515 UR - https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.796515 Y2 - 2020 ER -
EndNote %0 Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences Kentsel Yeşil Altyapıların Önemli Bir Bileşeni Olan Kent Ormanlarının Sağladığı Ekosistem Servisleri ‘ Kafkasör Kent Ormanı Örneği’ %A Banu Karaşah %T Kentsel Yeşil Altyapıların Önemli Bir Bileşeni Olan Kent Ormanlarının Sağladığı Ekosistem Servisleri ‘ Kafkasör Kent Ormanı Örneği’ %D 2020 %J Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences %P -2548-0006 %V 5 %N 4 %R doi: 10.35229/jaes.796515 %U 10.35229/jaes.796515
ISNAD Karaşah, Banu . "Kentsel Yeşil Altyapıların Önemli Bir Bileşeni Olan Kent Ormanlarının Sağladığı Ekosistem Servisleri ‘ Kafkasör Kent Ormanı Örneği’". Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences 5 / 4 (December 2020): 668-675 . https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.796515
AMA Karaşah B. Kentsel Yeşil Altyapıların Önemli Bir Bileşeni Olan Kent Ormanlarının Sağladığı Ekosistem Servisleri ‘ Kafkasör Kent Ormanı Örneği’. JAES. 2020; 5(4): 668-675.
Vancouver Karaşah B. Kentsel Yeşil Altyapıların Önemli Bir Bileşeni Olan Kent Ormanlarının Sağladığı Ekosistem Servisleri ‘ Kafkasör Kent Ormanı Örneği’. Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences. 2020; 5(4): 668-675.
IEEE B. Karaşah , "Kentsel Yeşil Altyapıların Önemli Bir Bileşeni Olan Kent Ormanlarının Sağladığı Ekosistem Servisleri ‘ Kafkasör Kent Ormanı Örneği’", Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 668-675, Dec. 2020, doi:10.35229/jaes.796515


13221            13345           13349              13352              13353              13354          13355    13356   13358   13359   13361     13363   13364                crossref1.png            
         Paperity.org                  13369           EBSCOHost Logo        Scilit logo                  
JAES/AAS-Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences/Anatolian Academic Sciences&Anadolu Çevre ve Hayvancılık Dergisi/Anadolu Akademik Bilimler-AÇEH/AABcabi-logo-black.svg