Kent Ormanlarının Kentsel Mekana Sağladığı Faydalar

Öz

Kentsel ekosistemler içerisinde önemli yeri olan kent ormanlarının kentlere birçok faydaları vardır. Yapılan çalışmada, kent ormanlarının kentlere sağladığı faydalar; ekonomik, ekolojik ve sosyal boyutları ile değerlendirilmiştir. Bu konularda yapılan bilimsel araştırmaların sonuçları sunularak, kent ormanlarının kentler ve ülkeler için önemli kaynaklar olduğu ortaya konulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kent ormanı, kentsel ekosistem, kent ormanının faydaları

Kaynakça

1. Acar, C., Günay, K., 2004. Kent ormancılığının kent ekosistemi ve işlevlerine katkısı; peyzaj ekolojisi açısından bir değerlendirme. 1. Ulusal Kent Ormancılığı Kongresi, 485- 492, Ankara.
2. Akbari, H., Rosenfeld, A., Taha, H., 1990. Recent developments in heat island studies: Technical and policy. In Controlling Summer Heat Islands.
3. Anonim, 1999. Ormancılık Hukuku. Türkiye Çevre Vakfı Yayını, No: 136, 231, Önder Matbaası, Ankara.
4. Anonim, 2004. Orman Nedir? T. C. Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı. www.cevreorman.gov.tr
5. Anonymous, 1990. South Carolina Forestry Commission Report. www.state.sc.us/forest/urbben.htm
6. Anonymous, 1993.U.S. Department of Energy.
7. Anonymous, 2004. Urban and community forestry: Improving our quality of life. Edited by Georgia Forestry Commission. www.gfc.state.ga.us
8. Aslanboğa, İ., 2004. Kent ormancılığı bağlamında ormanların işlevleri. 1. Ulusal Kent Ormancılığı Kongresi, 3-18, Ankara.

9. Bayram, A., 2004. Karatepe mevkii ağaçlandırma sahasının kent ormancılığı açısından değerlendirilmesi. http://www.ispartacevreorman.gov.tr/KENTORMANI.HTM
10. Beattie, J., Kolin, C., Moll, G., 2000. Trees help cities meet clean water regulations. www.americanforests.org
11. Brack, C. L., 2002. Pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration by an urban forest. Environmental Pollution, 116 (1), 195- 200.
12. Dochinger, L.S., 1980. Interception of airborne particles by tree plantings. Journal of Environmental Quality, 9 (2), 265–268.
13. Dwyer, J. F., McPherson, E. G., Schroeder, H. W., Rowntree, R. A., 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest . Journal of Arboriculture, 18(5).
14. Givoni, B., 1991. Impact of planted areas on urban environmental quality: A review. Atmospheric Environment, 25 (3), 289- 299.
15. Gül, A., Küçük, V., 2001. Kentsel açık yeşil alanlar ve Isparta Kenti örneğinde irdelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 2, 27-48.
16. Hartig, T., Mang, M., Evans, G. W., 1991. Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26.
17. Hasler, B., Damgaard, C. K., Erichsen, E. H., Jİrgensen, J. J., Kristoffersen, H. E., 2002. The recreational values of forest, lake and nature restoration- valuation of nature goods using the hedonic price method. Energy and Environment. www. akf.dk/dk2002/summary/nature_restoration.htm
18. Kaplan, S., 1987. Mental Fatigue and The Designed Environment. Public Environments, Washington.
19. Knapp, M., Jordan, A., 1995. What are urban woodlands worth? Urban forest benefits analysis. Fairfax ReLeaf. Inc. Room 828. 12011 Government Center Parway, Fairfax. VA 22035. www. ser.org/abstracts.
20. Konijnendijk, C., 2003. A decade of urban forestry in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics, 5, 173-186.
21. Korkut, A. B., Çilek, M. S., 2004. Peyzaj planlama ilkeleri çerçevesinde kent ormancılığının kent gelişimi üzerine etkileri. 1. Ulusal Kent Ormancılığı Kongresi, 519-524, Ankara.
22. Kuchelmeister , G., Braatz, S., 1993. Urban forestry revisited. An International Journal of The Forestry and Food Endustries, 44 (2), Unasylva.
23. Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, E. C., 2001. Agression and violence in the inner city. Effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33 (4), 543-571.
24. Küçükkaya, İ., Uyanık, M., 2004. Yeşil Kuşak Ağaçlandırma Çalışmaları. www.tb-yayin.gov.tr
25. Luttik, J., 2000. The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning. 48 (3-4), 161-167.
26. Maca, S. E., 2002. Apractical approach to assessing structure, function, and value of street populations in small communities. Davis, CA: University of California. M. S. Thesis, 218. wcufre.ucdavis.edu.
27. McPherson, E. G., 1994. Cooling urban heat islands with sustainable landscapes. The Ecological City: Preserving and Restoring Urban Biodiversity, 151-172, University of Massachusets Press, Amherts.
28. McPherson, E. G., Rowntree, R. A., Wagar, J. A., 1995. Energy- efficent landscapes. I: Bradley, G. A., (ed). Urban forest landscapes: integrating multidisciplinary perspectives. Seattle: University of Washington Pres: 150-160.
29. McPherson, E. G., 1996. Urban forest lanscapes, how greenery saves greenbacks. Wagner, C., ed. 1996 Annual Meeting Proceedings, American Society of Landscape Architects, Washington, DC. ASLA, 27-29. wcufre.ucdavis.edu.
30. McPherson, E. G., 2003. Benefits of urban forest. The Journal of The Society of Municipal Arborists, 39(3).
31. McPherson, E. G., 2004. Trees and energy conservation. Urban Forest Cut Energy Costs. www. americanforest.org
32. Nowak, D. J., McPherson, E. G, 1993. Quantifying the impact of trees: The Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. An International Journal of The Forestry and Food Endustries, 44 (2), Unasylva.
33. Nowak , D. J., Crane, D. E., 2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental Pollution, 116 (3), 381-389.
34. Pouyat, R., Groofman, P., Yesilonis, I., Hernandez, L., 2000. Soil carbon and fluxes in urban ecosystems. Environmental Pollution, 116 (1), 107-118.
35. Scott, K. I., Mcpherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., 1998. Air pollutant uptake by Sacramento’s urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 24 (4), 224-234.
36. Simpson, J. R., 1998. Urban forest impacts on regional cooling and heating energy use: Sacramento County case study. Journal of Arboriculture, 24(4), 201-214.
37. Simpson, J. R., McPherson, E. G. 1998. Simulation of tree shade impacts on residential energy use for space conditioning in Sacremento. Atmospheric Environment, 32 (1), 69-74.
38. Simpson, J. R., McPherson, E. G. 1999. Energy and air quality improvements through urban tree planting. Proceedings from the 1999 National Urban Forest Conference, 110-112. wcufre.ucdavis.edu
39. Simpson, J. R., 2004. Urban forest improve air quality. Energy and air quality improvements through urban tree planting. Proceedings from the 1999 National Forest Conference,110- 112. wcufre.ucdavis.edu.
40. Sullivan, W. C., Human F. E.,1996. Do trees strengthen urban communities, reduce domestic violence? Forestry Report R8- FR 56. www.urbanforestrysouth.org
41. Sydnor, T. D., 2001. Functional uses of plants in the landscape. Ohio State University Fact Sheet. Horticulture and Crop Science, Columbus, OH 43210.
42. Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, E. F., Sullivan, W. C., 1998. Growing up in the inner city; green spaces as places to grow. Journal Environment and Behavior, 30 (1).
43. Thompson, R., Hana, R., Noel, J., Piirto, D., 1999. Valuation of tree aesthetics on small urban-interface properties. Journal of Arboriculture, 25 (5) September.
44. Yücel , E., 2004. Kent ormancılığının önemi ve Eskişehir’den bir örnek. 1. Ulusal Kent Ormancılığı Kongresi, 551-565, Ankara.