Belgrad forest carbon sequestration and life cycle carbon footprints of İstanbul

Abstract

Increases in the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere is one of the most important environmental problems of today. In addition to the increases due to industry, human activities such as heating, transportation, and electricity consumption contribute to this increase gradually. There are different measures to reduce the amount of carbon concentration in the atmosphere, one of which is the use of terrestrial ecosystems such as forests, which gain importance due to their carbon sequestration potential. On the other hand, the values of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), especially CO2, and the carbon values of forest sinks and sequestrations (FS) also vary spatially. We examined the quantities of the human activities' annual carbon footprint (CF) with the FS carbon value of the largest forest area of İstanbul’s two districts as a sample calculation. CF values were calculated by using life cycle survey data made for the another study in 2014. The survey applied to geomatic engineers concerning six categories: houses, flights, cars, motorbikes, bus and rail, and secondary data (food, clothing, services, trade, etc.). The sink value and the annual carbon sequestration for Belgrad forest were calculated concerning the formulas set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the values of local coefficients and forest plans inventories. According to the results of the study, approximately 6 475 500 tCO2e was released annually in two neighbor districts. The forest continues to store an average of 13 171 tons of carbon or 48 294 tons CO2e each year.

Keywords

• carbon footprint,
• forest carbon sequestration
• GIS
• Belgrad forest

References

1. Caglayan, I., Yeşil, A., Tolunay, D., Petersson, H. (2023). Carbon Suitability Mapping for Forest Management Plan Decisions: The Case of Belgrad Forest (Istanbul). Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 28(2), 175-188.
2. Çelekli, A., Zariç, Ö. E. (2023). From Emissions to Environmental Impact: Understanding the Carbon Footprint. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics, 10(4), 146-156. doi.org/10.30897/ijegeo.1383311
3. FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment. UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. https://www.fao.org/
4. GDF (2012). General Directorate of Forest, Kurtkemeri-Bentler-Atatürk Arboretum Forest Management Plans.
5. GDF (2017). General Directorate of Forest, Principles and Procedures for Arrangement of Ecosystem-Based Functional Forest Management. www.ogm.gov.tr/
6. Hertwich, E. G., Peters, G. P. (2009). Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(16), 64146420.
7. Huang, L., Long, Y., Chen, J., Yoshida, Y. (2023). Sustainable lifestyle: Urban household carbon footprint accounting and policy implications for lifestyle-based decarbonization. Energy Policy, 181, 113696.
8. IPCC (2006). IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Vol 4, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, Chapter 4 Forest Land.

9. Kiehl, J. T., Trenberth, K. E. (1997). Earth's annual global mean energy budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78(2), 197-208.
10. Lackner, K. S., Grimes, P., Ziock, H. J. (2014). Capturing carbon dioxide from air. In Carbon Capture and Storage: CO2 Management Technologies (pp. 364-376). Apple Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b16845
11. Mısır, N., Mısır, M., Ülker, C. (2012). Determination of carbon storage capacity. KSU Journal of Natural Sciences, Special Issue, 26-28.
12. Pachauri, R. K., Allen, M. R., Barros, V. R., Broome, J., Cramer, W., Christ, R., van Ypserle, J. P. (2014). Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (151).
13. Post, W. M., Peng, T.-H., Emanuel, W. R., King, A. W., Dale, V. H., DeAngelis, D. L. (1990). The global Carbon cycle. American scientist, 78(4), 310-326.
14. Sariturk, B., Sivri, N., Seker, D. Z. (2017). A study to determine level of awareness about health and carbon footprint among geomatics engineers in Türkiye. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 26(1), 156-161.
15. Solomon, S., Manning, M., Marquis, M. and Qin, D. (2007). Climate change 2007-the physical science basis: Working group I contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC (Vol. 4). Cambridge university press
16. Swamy, S. L., Darro, H., Mishra, A., Lal, R., Kumar, A., Thakur, T. K. (2023). Carbon stock dynamics in a disturbed tropical forest ecosystem of Central India: Strategies for achieving carbon neutrality. Ecological Indicators, 154, 110775.
17. Tadese, S., Soromessa, T., Aneseye, A. B., Gebeyehu, G., Noszczyk, T., Kindu, M. (2023). The impact of land cover change on the carbon stock of moist afromontane forests in the Majang Forest Biosphere Reserve. Carbon Balance and Management, 18(1), 24.
18. Tolunay, D. (2011). Total carbon stocks and carbon accumulation in living tree biomass in forest ecosystems of Türkiye. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 35(3), 265-279.
19. Tolunay, D. (2019). Biomass factors used to calculate carbon storage of Turkish forests. Forestist, 69(2), 145-155.
20. Tolunay, D., Çömez, A. (2008). Amounts of organic carbon stored in forest floor and soil in Turkey. National Symposium on Air pollution and Control, 22-25 October 2008 Hatay, Turkey, 750- 765.
21. TÜİK (2021). Adrese dayalı nüfus kayıt sistemi sonuçlan. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/
22. Ulker, D., Erguven, O., Gazioglu, C. (2018). Socio-economic impacts in a changing climate: Case study Syria. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics, 5(1), 84-93.
23. Wiedmann, T., Minx, J. (2008). A Definition of 'Carbon Footprint'. In: C. C. Pertsova, Ecological Economics Research Trends: Chapter 1, 1-11, Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge NY, USA.
24. Worldbank (2014). CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) for all countries and economies.