[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Rubber Intercropped with Coffea liberica Increases Carbon and Nitrogen Stocks in Soils in Xishuangbanna, China
Previous Article in Journal
Improving Jelly Nutrient Profile with Bioactive Compounds from Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) Extracts
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/f16010012
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing Sustainability in Urban Forests: A Case Analysis of Atatürk Urban Forest (Bursa)

by
Elvan Ender Altay
* and
Zeynep Pirselimoğlu Batman
Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Agriculture, Bursa Uludağ University, Bursa 16059, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2025, 16(1), 12; https://doi.org/10.3390/f16010012
Submission received: 23 November 2024 / Revised: 19 December 2024 / Accepted: 23 December 2024 / Published: 24 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Urban Forestry)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>The contributions of urban forests [<a href="#B31-forests-16-00012" class="html-bibr">31</a>,<a href="#B32-forests-16-00012" class="html-bibr">32</a>,<a href="#B33-forests-16-00012" class="html-bibr">33</a>,<a href="#B34-forests-16-00012" class="html-bibr">34</a>].</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Interactions between social, economic, and ecological processes [<a href="#B37-forests-16-00012" class="html-bibr">37</a>].</p> "> Figure 3
<p>The location of the study area [<a href="#B55-forests-16-00012" class="html-bibr">55</a>].</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Sustainability indicators (original).</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Survey of Atatürk Urban Forest (original).</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Roads in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Equipment within Atatürk Urban Forest (original).</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Playgrounds in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Indicators evaluated under the scope of economic sustainability in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Green spaces in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Distribution of native and exotic plant species in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).</p> "> Figure 12
<p>SPVs of socio-cultural, economic and ecological sustainability (original).</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Urban forests, as part of the green infrastructure systems in cities, are also important components of natural systems. To ensure the sustainability of urban forests, ecological, social, and economic dimensions must be addressed holistically. In this context, qualitative and quantitative evaluations conducted in Atatürk Urban Forest have revealed significant findings regarding the socio-cultural, economic, and ecological sustainability of the urban forest. Atatürk Urban Forest covers an area of 150 hectares and constitutes important urban green infrastructure for Bursa. Sustainability indicators were defined within this study, and an approach for calculating sustainability performance values was developed. In this approach, 32 sustainability indicators were calculated based on parameters such as area size, distance, volume, shape, and the number of facilities. As a result of the calculations, Atatürk Urban Forest’s sustainability performance value was determined to be 187.76 (62.58%). However, this value indicates that there are certain shortcomings in terms of sustainability. Addressing these shortcomings will enhance the quality of sustainability indicators, and Atatürk Urban Forest will play a significant role as a sustainable urban green infrastructure.

1. Introduction

Green infrastructure systems, strategically planned and managed to conserve the functions of natural ecosystems and provide various benefits to local communities, consist of a network of natural environments (e.g., wetlands, forests, wildlife habitats, and waterways), semi-natural environments (e.g., green corridors and parks), publicly and privately owned lands (e.g., farms, agricultural areas, and managed forests), and outdoor recreational spaces. The key components of the urban green infrastructure system typology are natural habitats (e.g., urban forests, wetlands), green corridors, and open green spaces [1]. With the rapid increase in urbanization during the 20th century, trees have increasingly been incorporated into urban systems as essential components of urban settlements. The principle of sustainability has led to the emergence of planning approaches that emphasize the active role of ecological factors in the restructuring of cities. This process has highlighted the need to develop a specialized urban green network management discipline to oversee the management of all trees within urban areas [2,3]. Due to increasing urbanization worldwide and the resulting degradation of urban ecosystems, which contribute to the sustainability of urban environments and the improvement of urban quality of life, urban forests have become a significant focus [4]. Therefore, urban forests are an integral part of urban ecosystems and the quality of urban life [5]. The increasing importance of urban forests stems from the growing need for spaces that address people’s requirements for rest, sports, recreation, and health [6,7]. Urban forests play a critical role in the planning of green infrastructure, serving as a functional element that integrates with the urban fabric and forms part of regional forest assets [8]. These practices highlight significant environmental, social, and economic benefits. Urban forests are defined as areas located within city boundaries that provide direct or indirect benefits to both the city and its inhabitants [9,10]. The concept of “urban forest”, first introduced in the United States in 1894, was revived in the 1960s as a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach to address the challenges and growth difficulties associated with trees in urban areas and their surrounding environments [11].
The definition of the urban forest concept varies, reflecting the forestry traditions and forest resources of each country, and while there are similarities, significant differences also exist. Miller provides the most widely accepted and recognized definition [12]. Miller defines urban forestry as “the technology, science, and art of managing forest resources and trees within or around urban ecosystems that provide aesthetic, economic, psychological, and sociological benefits to society” [10].
The definitions of urban forests in different countries can be summarized as follows:
  • In Germany, urban forests are defined as areas that are managed and designed to meet the recreational needs of urban inhabitants [13];
  • In the United States, urban forests are seen as a combination of vegetation and green spaces that enhance the community’s quality of life [14];
  • In Finland, urban forests refer to forested areas within or around urban areas, with their primary purpose and function being recreation [15];
  • In Iceland, urban forests are defined as areas that provide firewood, offer natural beauty, and create positive values by serving the community through recreational and other societal services [16].
In Turkey, urban forests are defined as green spaces that involve planning, designing, establishing, protecting, and managing areas containing trees, tree clusters, and forest-like landscapes, whether natural or artificially created, within or around urban areas [13].
The concept of urban forestry entered the literature in various countries after the 1960s, but in Turkey, it was not introduced until the 1980s. However, the first examples of urban forestry in Turkey can be traced back to the establishment of forested areas (korular) in Istanbul between 1450 and 1530. During this period, exotic species such as Cupressus sempervirens and Pinus pinea, as well as local species like Aesculus hippocastanum, Salix vitellina, and Juniperus communis, were planted throughout various parts of Istanbul [17]. Beginning in 2003, urban forest projects were initiated across many cities and districts in Turkey. By 2016, the number of established urban forests in the country reached 145, although this number has recently decreased to 134.
Urban forests are primarily located within or around urban areas, composed mainly of tall native or non-native tree species, and aimed at contributing to the urban climate, ecosystem, aesthetics, and recreational needs [18]. Compared to other natural ecosystems, urban forests present unique ecological patterns characterized by distinctive microclimates, vegetation, social dynamics, and energy flows specific to urban green spaces [19,20,21]. Urban forests, with their ecological, aesthetic, architectural, physical, climatic, social, and economic benefits, are among the most important components of urban green spaces and serve as fundamental building blocks of urban green infrastructure systems. In this context, the role of urban forests in shaping the sustainability of cities is undeniable.
The principle that current needs should be met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs forms the foundation of sustainability. In this context, sustainability can be considered a fundamental determinant of the urban development process [22,23,24]. It is essential to approach it from three perspectives: social, economic, and ecological dimensions [25,26,27]. In the context of urban forests, social sustainability refers to the equitable and just access of users to these spaces, as well as the enhancement of social interaction and the strengthening of community ties. Economic sustainability involves the contribution of urban forests to the local economy, the efficient use of resources, and the implementation of sustainable economic models. Ecological sustainability, on the other hand, pertains to the support of ecosystem services provided by urban forests and the preservation of natural resources through environmentally friendly practices. Beyond these three categories, cultural sustainability, which addresses more abstract concepts, can also be discussed. This refers to the integration of urban forests with the cultural values of communities and the preservation of cultural heritage through practices that align with these goals [28].
Cultural sustainability in urban forests refers to the alignment of these natural spaces with the cultural values, identities, and social connections of communities. Cultural sustainability encompasses the integration of urban forests into daily life, the preservation of cultural heritage, the creation of spaces for social interaction, and the strengthening of local community identities. It lies at the intersection of social, economic, and ecological sustainability, with a strong interaction between these three dimensions. In this context, when these dimensions are addressed within sustainable development policies, more holistic and long-term solutions can be generated [29,30]. Moreover, cultural transmission, alongside the social, economic, and ecological dimensions, can be defined as a complex whole encompassing knowledge, beliefs, arts, morals, laws, customs, and other capabilities and habits acquired by individuals as members of society [31]. This interaction emphasizes the importance of integrating cultural values with sustainability efforts, ensuring that urban spaces are not only functional but also in harmony with the local culture. This situation provides an explanation of socio-cultural sustainability. In this context, urban forests are key elements of urban landscape character, influencing the development of sustainability principles and making significant contributions to the city [31,32,33,34] (Figure 1).
When considering the importance of these contributions for the city, examining the dynamics of urban forests can clarify the interactions between social, ecological, and economic processes across multiple temporal and spatial scales within the framework of sustainability [35,36]. Understanding the dynamics of urban forests provides valuable insights into how these processes interact with each other and contribute to the urban ecosystem, offering essential information for the sustainable management of cities. In this context, addressing the social, ecological, and cultural dimensions together is crucial for the effective and holistic planning of urban green infrastructure (Figure 2).
With the growing population, the impact of land use patterns on community dynamics and ecology within urban forests should be examined in greater detail to enhance urban sustainability [38]. Sustainability indicators for urban forests are used to describe the condition of the urban forest phenomenon or its surrounding environment. These indicators are also numerical values employed as tools to summarize information about the state of the green space ecosystem [39,40].
Several studies have focused on ensuring the sustainability of urban forests, including works by Raintree [41], Kennedy et al. [42], Wiersum [43], Kennedy and Thomas [44], Konijnendijk [45], Payne et al. [46], Morgenroth et al. [47], Kim and Kim [48], Roman et al. [49], Sonti [50], Piana et al. [51], Rötzer et al. [52], Škėma et. al. [53], and Chambers-Ostler et al. [54]. Several studies have focused on ensuring the sustainability of urban forests, including works by [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. Although previous studies have assessed the benefits and functional uses of urban forests, there remains a significant research gap in identifying the necessary criteria and effectively evaluating them to ensure sustainability within urban green infrastructure systems.
This study, based on the concept of sustainability, aims to determine the sustainability performance of urban forests within the urban green infrastructure system. In this context, this study seeks to deeply examine sustainability indicators for urban forests and generate analytical outputs. Another aim of this study is to explore approaches that can ensure the sustainability of the urban green infrastructure system.
Bursa Atatürk Urban Forest, which is an important part of Bursa’s green infrastructure system and is used year-round, has been addressed based on ecological, social, and economic sustainability principles to prevent the overuse and uncontrolled consumption of the surrounding natural habitat and ensure the sustainability of its resources. In this context, the sustainability performance values of the forest’s natural and cultural resources were calculated using the sustainability indicator assessment method. This research provides a framework for identifying strategies that will contribute to the sustainability performance of resources and enables the more efficient and protective use of urban forests that contribute to the sustainable performance of the resources evaluated.

2. Materials and Methods

Atatürk Urban Forest is located in the Odunluk district of Nilüfer, Bursa (Turkey), covering an area of 150 hectares (Figure 3). Located 12 km from the city center, the average elevation of Atatürk Urban Forest is 205 m, and it plays a significant role in the city’s green spaces [55]. Amid Bursa’s rapidly expanding urbanization, Atatürk Urban Forest provides a valuable area for both natural habitat preservation and recreational use.
The forest is divided into three main sections: the Eastern (Doburca/Bursa/Turkey) Section, the Central Section, and the Western (Misi/Gümüştepe/Bursa/Turkey) Section. These sections offer a diversity of ecological, social, and aesthetic functions, as well as various modes of use.
Each section provides opportunities for interaction with nature while also offering the urban population a range of options to connect with the environment. This diversity contributes to both the conservation of natural habitats and the promotion of sustainable urban green space use. Therefore, the forest serves not only as a recreational area but also as a model for environmental sustainability.
The method used in this study adopts a comprehensive approach to determine sustainability performance. This process is structured by utilizing data obtained through both direct observations supported by quantitative data and interviews that provide qualitative insights. Qualitative data were gathered through interviews with relevant personnel involved in the management of Atatürk Urban Forest and representatives from the Bursa General Directorate of Forestry. These individuals are experts responsible for the forest’s management, monitoring, and sustainability strategies, playing an active role in the forest’s conservation. The interviews aimed to gather in-depth information on the forest’s current management processes, challenges faced, and sustainability strategies. The data for indicators other than the quantitative data that can be obtained through observations (such as use of renewable energy, water-efficient approaches, use of natural resources, water conservation, and use of local plants) have been gathered through these interviews.
The combined use of quantitative and qualitative data allowed for a more comprehensive analysis of the sustainability, management strategies, and public relations aspects of Atatürk Urban Forest. This mixed-methods approach facilitated a better understanding of the ecological and social dynamics of the forest and ensured that the results were based on solid evidence. Moreover, this approach enabled a richer and more reliable analysis by integrating multiple data sources. During this process, on-site observations were made in various areas of Atatürk Urban Forest, and various social, economic and ecological indicators were measured and recorded.

2.1. Phase One: Field Survey and Site Analysis

In the first phase of this study, a field survey was conducted at the Bursa Atatürk Urban Forest. During the survey, the boundaries of the area, which would provide essential data for the analysis, were defined. Parameters such as sunlight exposure, wind, views, noise levels, and the presence of commercial areas were visualized on a map. This map served as a reference point for the subsequent sustainability performance analysis.

2.2. Phase Two: Development of Sustainability Indicators

Sustainability indicators were defined to calculate the performance values of the urban forest. These indicators were developed based on the works of researchers such as Basiago (1998), Keivani (2009), Dobbs et al. (2011), Ordóñez and Duinker (2013), Huang et al. (2015), Wu and Zhi (2016), Du and Zhang (2020), Zeng et al. (2022), Zhao et al. (2022), Büyükağaççı ve Arısoy (2024), Varşak and Altay (2024), and Altay and Zencirkıran (2024) [5,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]. The status of these indicators was processed and visualized on the relevant map using data obtained from both quantitative and qualitative observations. These indicators were comprehensively defined to encompass the social, economic, and ecological dimensions of sustainability within Atatürk Urban Forest.

2.3. Phase Three: Data Collection and Processing of Indicators

The quantitative and qualitative data obtained during the field survey at Bursa Atatürk Urban Forest served as the primary data sources for the application of sustainability indicators. Field observations and the qualitative data collected were linked to the mapping processes, and performance values were determined for each indicator. This evaluation process involved scoring each indicator. These parameters were analyzed based on the required characteristics of the indicator in the area (e.g., size, distance, volume, shape, number of facilities, etc.).

2.4. Phase Four: Calculation of Sustainability Performance Values

The sustainability performance value (SPV) formula was developed to calculate the performance values of sustainability indicators, drawing from the works of Zonneveld (1995), Tony (1998), Shen and Fu (2002), and Huang et al. (2010) [66,67,68,69]. This approach enables the simultaneous calculation of social, economic, and ecological sustainability in the context of Atatürk Urban Forest. The sustainability performance score is calculated as follows:
  • Sustainability performance value (SPV)
SPV = SoSus + ESus + EcoSus + CuSus
2.
Socio-cultural sustainability (SoSus)
So = a.S1 + b.S2             where a + b = 1
3.
Economic sustainability (ESus)
E = c.E1 + d.E2 + e.E3 + f.E4       where c + d + e + f = 1
4.
Ecological sustainability (EcSus)
Ec = g.Ec1 + h.Ec2 + i.Ec3 + j.Ec4 + k.Ec5     where g + h + i + j + k = 1
The codes for the sub-criteria are provided in Table 1.
Sustainability categories in the formula:
1. Socio-cultural sustainability (SoSus):
Cultural sustainability includes important elements such as the way that communities use the space, social interaction, and the preservation of cultural heritage, making it essential to incorporate these elements into the evaluation framework. In this context, it has been expressed as socio-cultural sustainability. The indicators evaluated under socio-cultural sustainability, such as equipment, are important in terms of their quantity, while the road network is crucial in terms of area. This is because the homogeneous distribution of each indicator will enhance social interaction. In this context, the homogeneous distribution of indicators and their accessibility to users are of critical importance. Homogeneous distribution refers to the equal and balanced allocation of a particular resource or indicator within the target group or community. From the perspective of socio-cultural sustainability, the homogeneous distribution of indicators ensures that users benefit from equal opportunities. The road network, on the other hand, is evaluated in terms of accessibility to activities and amenities. The road network, according to its area size, increases transportation ease and effectiveness, thereby facilitating access to various facilities and enhancing overall connectivity. The number of amenities per square meter and the area sizes of the road network are calculated, and the percentages of their ratios relative to the total area are determined. The standards used in the calculation of socio-cultural sustainability indicators have been developed by utilizing various references [70,71,72,73] (Table 1).
2. Economic Sustainability (ESus):
In this context, economic sustainability refers to the ability of a system to operate efficiently and cost-effectively in the long-term while being compatible with environmental and social factors. This involves optimizing costs and ensuring long-term economic benefits, particularly in infrastructure projects such as transportation networks and road systems. The durability and maintenance condition indicators reflect the physical condition of road surfaces and equipment over time, as well as the maintenance efforts required to keep these elements functional. Durability refers to the ability of these elements to withstand wear over time, while the maintenance condition defines their current operational capacity. The proportion of well-maintained and durable road surfaces and equipment relative to the total assets of pavement and equipment represents their contribution to overall sustainability. After calculating the proportions of road surfaces and equipment, these data were converted into numerical values (the ratio of all indicators is expressed in percentage values) to be used in models assessing economic sustainability.
3. Ecological Sustainability (EcoSus):
The indicators evaluated under ecological sustainability, such as intact landscape structure (Ec1), green space area (Ec2), use of local plants (Ec3), and use of renewable energy (Ec4), are each calculated based on the ratio of the criterion area to the total area. These ratios provide important data regarding their impact on ecosystem health and sustainability. The ratio of all indicators is expressed in percentage values. These four indicators are used to assess the ecological health of a specific area by relating the criterion area to the total area. The criterion area could include regions where ecosystem services are provided, such as green spaces, areas where local plants are used, or areas where natural landscapes are preserved. The ratios of these indicators within the total area (Atatürk Urban Forest) were used to evaluate environmental sustainability.
Fifth Phase: Weighting of Sub-Indicators and Application of the Weighted Scoring System for Evaluation
The coefficients (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k) for the indicators defined for each sustainability category were determined based on the number of relevant sustainability indicators. These coefficients were equally assigned, considering most sub-indicators, and evaluated on a scale of 1 point for each category. Equal weights weighting is normally operationalized by a function where the sum of the weights equals 1 [74]. For instance, in the socio-cultural sustainability category, coefficients a and b were applied for evaluation, and similar coefficients were used in other categories. The indicators related to sustainability in any given area were of considerable importance within each category. This highlights the necessity of treating all sustainability aspects equally. The idea that sustainability indicators should be equal is based on the perspective that, when a holistic assessment is desired, each dimension (ecological, economic, socio-cultural) is considered equally important. In this approach, giving equal weight to each indicator aims to maintain balance across different sustainability categories. The importance of equal weighting in the method is emphasized in the study conducted by Libório et al. [75]. The emphasized point is that equal weighting is an objective weighting scheme, and its significance for sustainability lies in the assumption that each criterion is equally valuable and effective. This ensures impartiality in decision-making processes and guarantees that all factors are considered.
The total of the sustainability indicators was calculated to be 100. In this case, the coefficients were distributed equally and proportionally across each category. For example, the socio-cultural sustainability (So) category was determined to be 100, and since it had two indicators, the coefficients for the sub-indicators S1 and S2 were calculated as a = 0.67 and b = 0.33 based on the number of sub-criteria. Similarly, in other categories, the appropriate coefficients were weighted and applied according to their respective numbers.

2.5. Sixth Phase: Development of Recommendations

This formula and methodology can be used to assess the sustainability performances of urban forests. In the final phase of this study, various recommendations were developed based on the findings obtained from the calculation of the performance values of sustainability indicators. These recommendations aimed to provide strategic approaches to enhance the sustainability of Atatürk Urban Forest. The performance values derived from the calculations comprehensively reflect the socio-cultural, economic, and ecological sustainability of the forest. These data serve as an important foundation for evaluating the relationship between the current state of the forest and future management strategies.

3. Results

The data obtained through qualitative and quantitative evaluations conducted at Atatürk Urban Forest reveal significant findings regarding the socio-cultural, economic and ecological sustainability of the urban forest. These findings encompass various indicators of Atatürk Urban Forest’s sustainability (Figure 4). Additionally, the data provide crucial information that will be used for determining sustainable management strategies for the forest and shaping future conservation policies. To facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the sustainability performance of Atatürk Urban Forest, the survey of the study area for the research background is also presented in Figure 5.
In this study, where sustainability indicators are examined in detail, the data based on the indicators developed for socio-cultural sustainability are presented visually and visualized through maps. In this context, the indicators measuring socio-cultural sustainability are analyzed based on the obtained data and presented in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8.
In Figure 6, the transportation network within Atatürk Urban Forest is mapped in detail, with the locations of vehicle roads, pedestrian pathways, sidewalks, and parking areas clearly identified and evaluated within the context of sustainability indicators. The site features vehicle roads with an average width of 3–5 m, a total of 10 km of walking paths, and sidewalks that are 1.5 m wide. There are no bicycle paths or stairs within the area. Additionally, the site includes ramps with a maximum slope of 10%. Vehicle parking capacity is provided by a total of 1180 parking spaces located across 13 different areas.
The study area contains 41 pergolas and 241 concrete and 100 wooden tables with seating units. There are no canopy elements in any of the seating units. Additionally, there are 145 fire bins and 100 lighting units. Upon examining the lighting units, it was found that the area includes 89 streetlamps of 7 m in height, 7 large lighting poles of 12 m in height, and 4 bollard-type lights of 50 cm. Various types of paving materials, including asphalt, have been used throughout the area. The pavement from the entrance sections to Extrempark is made with gray and red interlocking paving stones, while in Extrempark, black and gray paving stones along with slate stones are used.
Directional signs are present throughout the area in all zones. There are a rural restaurant, small kiosks, and stands available. One bicycle house is present, although the bicycle parking is non-functional. There are no planters or art objects in the area. Additionally, the area contains 145 fire bins, which are evenly distributed. Five quadruple fountains and 32 single fountains are equally distributed across the area. Plastic bollards and hedge plants are used to demarcate the spaces, but no boundaries are established for different functions. Trash bins are available throughout the entire area.
Atatürk Urban Forest contains three children’s playgrounds located in various areas. Additionally, the forest features an adventure park spanning 74,000 m2. This adventure park includes various entertainment and activity areas such as a mountain slide, an artificial ski slope, a rally system passenger transport line, a zipline, a zorbing ball, children’s playgrounds, and sports facilities. The operation of Extrempark has been managed by a private organization since 2017 and is located within Atatürk Urban Forest.
The economic sustainability indicators developed based on the data obtained are visually presented in Figure 9. These maps detail the factors that contribute to the economic sustainability of the area.
The use of durable materials provides long-term economic benefits rather than short-term savings. Additionally, sustainable maintenance practices are crucial for economic sustainability. Regular maintenance extends the lifespans of materials, preventing potential damages at early stages and reducing the need for larger repairs. In this context, the maintenance and durability of materials in Atatürk Urban Forest have been assessed. The ground surfaces are durable, and no negative conditions have been identified based on the observations.
When considering the use of asphalt pavements on roads and some equipment, it is observed that asphalt is designed and constructed to be durable over an extended period. Asphalt materials that have reached the end of their lifespan are of significant economic and technical importance, as they can be reused in new mixtures as reclaimed asphalt pavement. Asphalt roads require minimal maintenance, which provides long-term energy and resource savings. Modern technologies used in new asphalt production aim to reduce carbon emissions. Moreover, the long lifespan of asphalt extends the time between repaving, thereby reducing environmental impacts. The recycling process of asphalt also helps to reduce waste. The materials used in this process offer a sustainable solution both economically and environmentally in the long term [76,77]. No deformations have been observed in these areas.
However, deformations due to seasonal weather conditions have been observed in the wooden furnishings. There is no use of natural resources within the area. Additionally, there are no facilities or equipment that have lost their functionality. No signs of neglect have been observed in the plants within the area, and no studies are being conducted regarding this matter.
The green space network and plant species found within the green spaces, evaluated under ecological sustainability, are presented in Figure 10 and Figure 11.
Atatürk Urban Forest spans an area of 150 hectares, the majority of which retains natural landscape characteristics. However, the adventure park covering 74,000 m2 within the forest represents the largest area with a disturbed landscape structure, showing deviations from the ecosystem’s natural balance. The forest hosts a diverse range of tree, shrub, and groundcover species, which are well suited to the region’s climate conditions. The native plant species found in Atatürk Urban Forest are Quercus robur, Quercus petraea, Pinus brutia, Pinus nigra, Pinus silvestris, Castanea sativa, Laurus nobilis, Arbutus unedo, and Fraxinus ornus, while the exotic species are Carpinus orientalis, Robinia pseudoacacia, Picea orientalis. These data have been obtained from maps prepared by the Bursa General Directorate of Forestry. The classification of species as native or exotic has been determined with reference to the study conducted by Altay and Zencirkıran [65].
A large portion of the area retains an undisturbed landscape structure, with these sections maintaining their natural texture. However, green spaces are also present in areas with altered landscape structures. Through appropriate interventions in these areas, environmentally compatible green spaces have been created, adopting an approach that aligns with the ecosystem.
The use of native plants in the area is observed to be intensive, contributing to the preservation of biodiversity and the maintenance of ecological balance. However, 8% of the plants used in the area consist of exotic species.
On the other hand, there are no ongoing studies or implementations related to renewable energy sources within the area. This represents a potential gap in sustainability, as renewable energy solutions play a crucial role in reducing environmental impact and enhancing energy efficiency.
This native and exotic plant (Figure 11) diversity creates a rich ecosystem in Bursa Atatürk Urban Forest, providing an important habitat for both flora and fauna.
The performance value of the area within the framework of sustainability indicators has been calculated with all these data and is presented in Table 2.
The sustainability performance value of Atatürk Urban Forest was calculated using the formula (SPV = SoSus + ESus + EcSus) based on the findings presented in Table 1. The following results were obtained from the formula calculation (Figure 12).
  • Socio-cultural sustainability (SoSus)
  S o =     ( 0.67   .   66.29 ) + ( 0.33   .   58.79 )
2.
Economic sustainability (ESus)
E =     ( 0.33   .   91.5 ) + 0 + ( 0.33   .   100 ) + 0
3.
Ecological sustainability (EcSus)
E c =     ( 0.25   .   73 ) + ( 0.25   .   78 ) + ( 0.25   .   92 ) + 0
4.
Sustainability performance value (SPV) S P V = 187.76 = 63.81 + 63.20 + 60.75 .
In this study, conducted within the framework of sustainability, 32 indicators of Atatürk Urban Forest, evaluated under three main categories, were comprehensively examined to assess its sustainability performance. As a result of the calculation of the indicators, the sustainability performance score of Atatürk Urban Forest was determined to be 188.66, which represents 62.58% of the total 300 points that can be obtained from all the indicators.

4. Discussion

Urban forests are important components for cities both as part of urban green infrastructure and as functional elements within regional forest assets. In their study, Morzillo et al. [78] highlighted that sustainability in urban forests stands out through the ecological, socio-cultural, and economic dimensions that it provides to society. In this study, 32 indicators assessed within the framework of sustainability were comprehensively examined under three main categories—ecological, socio-cultural, and economic—to evaluate the sustainability performance of Atatürk Urban Forest. As a result of the indicator calculations, the sustainability performance score of Atatürk Urban Forest was determined to be 187.76, representing 62.58% of the total 300 points that could be obtained from all indicators. This result was obtained by evaluating all sustainability categories with equal weighting. Ravallion [79] refers to the fact that the use of the geometric mean implies that lower values are given higher weights. This also highlights the potential risk that changes in any dimension may go unnoticed, allowing the result to remain unaffected. Equal weighting is also the most used weighting approach in the composite indicator literature [80,81]. Based on the values obtained from this method, it can be stated that there are certain shortcomings in terms of sustainability. Addressing these shortcomings will facilitate the development of strategies for the sustainable management and use of urban forests.
Yücel and Yıldızcı [82] emphasize that one of the most important aspects of social sustainability is transportation. They also highlight the significance of accessibility in creating a quality living environment for users within urban green infrastructure systems. In this study, the components of transportation infrastructure were examined within the context of social sustainability. It was found that the presence of sidewalks in areas with vehicle traffic and pedestrian pathways connecting all activities within Atatürk Urban Forest significantly enhanced accessibility. Saelens, Sallis, and Frank [83] further stress that transportation infrastructure should not be limited to motorized vehicles but should also support non-motorized transportation options such as walking and cycling. The absence of bicycle paths within Atatürk Urban Forest is a significant shortcoming in the transportation network. Baljon [84] identified such shortcomings as factors that hinder bicycle transportation and as critical issues threatening socio-cultural sustainability. The analysis conducted revealed the weak points in the transportation network, and these data will contribute to the development of sustainable transportation strategies. Innovative solutions, such as the creation of bicycle paths, could enhance environmental interaction and make the use of green spaces in urban areas more efficient for the community.
The research conducted by Talay, Kaya, and Belkayalı [85] emphasized that recreational facilities should cater to all users and be evaluated based on accessibility and proximity criteria. Similarly, the facilities within Atatürk Urban Forest were evaluated in line with these criteria. Adopting this approach is a crucial step in achieving socio-cultural sustainability goals in urban spaces. Environmental responsibility among urban forest visitors is also a crucial determinant of the conservation of urban forests. In their study, Erfanian et al. [86] emphasized that identifying the reasons behind individuals’ intentions and actual behaviors related to environmental responsibility is an important step in promoting such behaviors. In other words, raising awareness regarding the use of natural and cultural resources while utilizing these areas is essential.
This study emphasizes the importance of preserving the natural structure of Atatürk Urban Forest while assessing its ecological sustainability. Supporting biodiversity in the area is crucial for the continuity of ecosystem services. In their study, Blood et al. [87] highlighted that the presence of species diversity and native plant compositions in urban forests ensures the ecological stability and sustainability of urban systems. Their findings suggest that the ecological diversity of urban forests will perform well in the face of future global changes. Furthermore, our study conducted at Atatürk Urban Forest concluded that due to the lack of indicators for the efficient use of water resources and renewable energy, a score of 0 was recorded for these aspects. It was determined that projects should be developed that take these areas into consideration. In this context, improving water collection infrastructure and preserving natural habitats are critical for maintaining the ecological balance of the forest.
Erfanyan et al. [86] emphasize that environmental responsibility is a critical factor in the conservation of urban forests. The study highlights that identifying the intentions and actual behaviors of individuals in adopting environmentally responsible practices is a crucial step in promoting such behaviors. In this context, raising awareness among individuals using urban forests about how they utilize natural resources is essential. In another study by Powning et al. [88], the interaction between urban forests and users is highlighted as an important tool for understanding the social impacts of urban forests and achieving social sustainability. Both approaches suggest that a conservation-oriented approach to resource use in urban forests can support sustainability not only through individual awareness but also through a multi-stakeholder management approach. It is believed that the sustainability indicators evaluated holistically in this study can contribute to fostering environmental consciousness among stakeholders.
Regarding economic sustainability, the study area should particularly focus on improving the efficiency of natural resource use and enhancing water management. The research has revealed the absence of current water harvesting methods, and this indicator has been assessed from a dual perspective, highlighting its significance not only in terms of economic sustainability but also as a critical issue in ecological sustainability. Sheikh and Birajdar [89], in their study, highlight the critical role of rainwater harvesting in improving water availability, reducing the impact of drought, promoting ecological sustainability, and enhancing community resilience. Furthermore, while the largely undisturbed landscape structure of the forest has been preserved, areas like Extrempark, the most heavily degraded section, highlight the need for further intervention. In Atatürk Urban Forest, the extreme park and road network together cover approximately one-quarter of the total area. This proportion is significantly large from an ecological perspective. Thies et al. (2011), in their study, stated that the degradation of landscape structure increases the risk of uncontrolled climate change and can lead to catastrophic losses in ecosystems [90]. Therefore, it is important to preserve intact forest landscapes to enhance the ecological resilience of forests. It is suggested that such large-scale degraded areas should be separated from natural landscapes as a crucial step for sustainable ecosystem management. Additionally, the use of native plant species in green spaces, in relation to intact landscape structure, offers a significant advantage for ecological sustainability. The preference for local plant species reduces maintenance costs and supports the long-term health of the ecosystem due to their better adaptation to local climate conditions and environmental factors. In their study, Wu and Zhi (2016) emphasized that economic sustainability faces challenges such as shared economy issues, instability in supply and demand, hidden agreements, and monopolies, stressing the need for major innovations to generate economic benefits [59]. They also indicated that research on transportation and infrastructure, particularly in relation to the economy, is necessary and that this would strengthen the economic sustainability of the area across all sectors [59].
Varzaru et al. (2023) [91] emphasize, in their study, that economic and ecological processes are, in fact, opposing concepts, and as the economy grows, ecology may shrink. However, in the literature review conducted during the indicator identification phase of this study, as well as in the methodology, it was demonstrated that economic sustainability and ecological sustainability are parallel concepts. Sustainability indicators such as water management, natural resource usage, and renewable energy, which are part of the methodological framework, support both categories.
Urban forests contribute to the well-being of cities by providing ecological and economic benefits, while also offering cultural contributions by promoting socialization alongside these benefits [92,93]. Considering all the findings, the identity of the urban forest is revealed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Improving the performances of the sustainability indicators addressed in the study can strengthen users’ emotional connection with the forest and enrich its cultural aspect. In the study by Büyükağaçcı and Arısoy (2024) [63], it was noted that the identity category received the highest score, with users viewing the park as an important cultural or symbolic landmark within their community. Based on the indicators in the study, the user–urban forest relationship can also be explored; this would help to accelerate sustainability efforts by raising awareness and consciousness levels.

5. Conclusions

This study evaluating the sustainable performance of Atatürk Urban Forest has examined sustainability through socio-cultural, economic, and ecological dimensions.
The socio-cultural sustainability score of urban forests is 63.81, the economic sustainability score is 63.20, and the ecological sustainability score is 60.75. These results can be explained by various factors as follows:
The higher socio-cultural sustainability score suggests that urban forests have a positive impact on providing societal benefits and strengthening the public’s connection with the forest. Urban forests enhance the quality of social life by offering spaces for social interactions, relaxation, and healthy living. In addition, they promote cultural exchange by providing social spaces for recreational activities for urban residents. The study area is an urban forest built upon a natural system and accommodates recreational activities within its premises.
The medium level of the economic sustainability score, although the economic sustainability score is only slightly lower than the socio-cultural sustainability score, may indicate that the potential for urban forests to provide economic benefits is still limited. Economic gains are typically indirect, and it may take time to reflect and measure these benefits in financial terms. However, with appropriate sustainability indicators, long-term beneficial outcomes are possible.
The lowest score for ecological sustainability reflects the challenges encountered in maintaining the ecosystem functions of urban forests. Moreover, the ecological sustainability of urban forests is influenced by environmental factors, and managing these factors is difficult. Managing ecological processes requires more complex and long-term solutions. Preserving the natural structure of forests and developing ecological approaches within urban forests are critical for improving their ecological sustainability.
In conclusion, these scores reflect a situation where the benefits provided by urban forests are more direct and visible at the social level, while economic and ecological sustainability involve longer-term and more complex processes. Socio-cultural sustainability can be developed more quickly through the societal benefits of the forest and the public’s interaction with it, while economic and ecological sustainability rely on factors that require more planning, investment, and natural resource management.
In conclusion, if these approaches are considered, the overall sustainability performance of Atatürk Urban Forest will be enhanced, ensuring the sustainability of resource values. This will allow the area to remain an important recreational space for urban forest users and a critical green infrastructure system for the urban ecosystem without causing the degradation of its resources.

Author Contributions

Authors E.E.A. and Z.P.B. contributed equally to the data analysis and writing of this study. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Çetinkaya, G. An Innovative Approach for the Sustainability of Urban Landscape Ecology: Green Infrastructure and Relevant Planning Policy. İdeal Kent 2014, 12, 218–245. [Google Scholar]
  2. Carter, J. The Potential of Urban Forestry Ġn Developing Countries. A Concept Paper; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  3. Özcan, K. Sürdürülebilir Kentsel Gelişme, Kentsel Planlama, Ansiklopedik Sözlük; NİNOVA Yayıncılık: İstanbul, Turkey, 2016; p. 408. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, W.Y.; Wang, D.T. Urban Forest development in China: Natural endowment or socioeconomic product? Cities 2013, 35, 62–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ordóñez, C.; Duinker, P.N. An analysis of urban forest management plans in Canada: Implications for urban forest management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 116, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Öner, N.; Ayan, S.; Sıvacıoğlu, A.; İmal, B. Kent ormancılığı ve kent ormanlarının çevresel etkileri. Kastamonu Univ. J. For. Fac. 2007, 7, 190–203. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hladnik, D.; Pirnat, J. Urban forestry—Linking naturalness and amenity: The case of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vasiljević, N.; Radić, B.; Gavrilović, S.; Šljukić, B.; Medarević, M.; Ristić, R. The concept of green infrastructure and urban landscape planning: A challenge for urban forestry planning in Belgrade, Serbia. Forest 2018, 11, 491–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bekdemir. Generating a Recreation Planning Model in Istanbul Azizpaşa Forest. Doctoral Thesis, Istanbul University, İstanbul, Turkey, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  10. Mutlu, B.E. Assessment of Multifunctional Usage Characteristics of Bolu Urban Forest in the Context of Urban GREEN Infrastructure. Master’s Thesis, Bartın University, Bartın, Turkey, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  11. Konıjnendıjk, C.C.; Ricard, R.M.; Kenney, A.; Randrup, T.B. Defining urban forestry—A comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 4, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Miller, R.W. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Green Spaces; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  13. Uslu, Ş.; Ayaşlıgil, T. Kent Ormanlarının Rekreasyonel Amaçlı Kullanımı ve İstanbul İli Örneğinde İrdelenmesi. YTÜ Mim. Fak. E-Derg. 2007, 2, 4. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ermeydan, M. Planning of Urban Forest Istanbul Experience. Master’s Thesis, Bahçeşehir University, İstanbul, Turkey, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  15. Köse, M. The emergence and development of urban forestry in the world and in Turkey. Tree For. 2021, 2, 62–71. [Google Scholar]
  16. Konijnendijk, C.C. A decade of urban forestry in Europe. For. Policy Econ. 2003, 5, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Köse, M.; Kirca, S.; Gürbey, A.P.; Sağlam, S.; Çinar, H.S.; Özdemir, E.; Kul, A.A.; Altınçekiç, T.H.; Gümüş, C. A model for Urban Forest Management Planning: Istanbul Case Study. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2021, 20, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kurdoğlu, O.; Düzgüneş, E.; Kurdoğlu, B. Kent ormanlarının kavramsal hukuksal ve çevresel boyutuyla değerlendirilmesi. Artvin Çoruh Üniv. Orman Fak. Derg. 2011, 12, 72–85. [Google Scholar]
  19. Alberti, M. Advances in Urban Ecology: Integrating Humans and Ecological Processes in Urban Ecosystems; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pickett, S.T.; Cadenasso, M.L.; McDonnell, M.J.; Burch, W.R., Jr. Frameworks for urban ecosystem studies: Gradients, patch dynamics and the human ecosystem in the New York metropolitan area and Baltimore, USA. In Ecology of Cities and Towns: A Comparative Approach; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; pp. 25–50. [Google Scholar]
  21. Trepl, L. Towards a theory of urban biocoenoses. Urban Ecol. Basis Urban Plan. 1995, 3, 21. [Google Scholar]
  22. Tıraş, H. Hayrettin. Sustainable Development and Environment: An Examine in Theory. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniv.Fac. Econ. Adm. J. 2012, 2, 57–73. [Google Scholar]
  23. Şüküroğlu, V.K. Consumer Citizen Responsibilty within the Context of Sustainability. J. Acad. Soc. Sci. Stud. 2019, 1, 451–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Saf, H.O.; Belge, Z.S. Urban Design Suggestions in the Context of Sustainable Conservation-Development; Soli Pompeiopolis. Kent Akad. Sürdürülebilir İnsani Kalkınma Kent 2024, 17, 234–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bilgili, M.Y. Ekonomik, Ekolojik ve Sosyal Boyutlarıyla Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma. J. Int. Soc. Res. 2017, 10, 559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ardiçoğlu, R.; Çilek, M.Ü.; Özkan, E.Ç. Evaluation of University Campuses That Diffusive Settlement Plan Based on Sustainable Design Criteria. Artium 2024, 12, 94–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Aleha, A.; Zahra, S.M.; Qureshi, S.; Shah, S.; Marri, S.A.; Khan, M. Urban forests and their contribution to sustainable urban development in a global context: A case study of Multan, Pakistan. Front. Clim. 2024, 6, 1275102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bhatt, H.; Jugran, H.P.; Pandey, R. Cultural ecosystem services nexus with Socio-Cultural attributes and traditional ecological knowledge for managing community forests of Indian western Himalaya. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 166, 112379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nesbitt, L.; Hotte, N.; Barron, S.; Cowan, J.; Sheppard, S.R. The social and economic value of cultural ecosystem services provided by urban forests in North America: A review and suggestions for future research. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 25, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Akbayır, Z. Corporate Sustainability Communication from Public Relations Perspective and A Case Study. Uluslar. Halkla İlişkiler Rekl. Çalışmaları Derg. 2019, 2, 39–71. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mutlu, B.E.; Cengiz, B. Uzman Perspektifinden Bolu Kent Ormanı’ nın Çok Fonksiyonlu Kullanım Özelliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. J. Inst. Sci. Technol. 2017, 7, 213–222. [Google Scholar]
  32. Çetinkaya, G.; Uzun, O. Peyzaj Planlama; Birsen Yayınevi: İstanbul, Turkey, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  33. Tyrväinen, L.; Miettinen, A. Property prices and urban forest amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2000, 39, 205–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tyrvainen, L.; Pauleit, S.; Seeland, K.; Vries, S. Benefits and Uses of Urban Forests and Trees. In Urban Forests and Trees; Konijnendijk, C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T., Schipperijn, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Roy, S.; Byrne, J.; Pickering, C.A. Systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 351–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lee, J.; Kim, D.H. Urban Forest Visit Motivation Scale: Development and Validation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Owuor, J.A.; Whitehead, I.; De Vreese, R. Unlocking the Potential of Urban Forests: Developing a Local Urban Forestry Plan; Erasmus+ Project Uforest Deliverable: 2022. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372646764_Unlocking_the_Potential_of_Urban_Forests_Developing_a_Local_Urban_Forestry_Action_Plan#fullTextFileContent (accessed on 22 December 2024).
  38. Hostetler, M.; Holling, C.S. Detecting the scales at which birds respond to structure in urban landscapes. Urban Ecosyst. 2000, 4, 25–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. OECD. Environmental Indicators: Towards Sustainable Development; OECD: Paris, France, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  40. Segnestam, L. Indicators of Environment and Sustainable Development: Theories and Practical Experience; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  41. Raintree, J.B. Socioeconomic Attributes of Trees and Tree Planting Practices; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kennedy, J.J.; Dombeck, M.P.; Koch, N.E. Values, beliefs and management of public forests in the western world at the close of the 20th century. Unasylva 1998, 49, 16–26. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wiersum, K.F. Social Forestry: Changing Perspectives in Forestry Science or Practice? Doctoral Dissertation, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kennedy, J.J.; Thomas, J.W. Managing natural resources as social value. In A New Century for Natural Resources Management; Knight, R.L., Bates, S.F., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; pp. 311–319. [Google Scholar]
  45. Konijnendijk, C.C. Adapting forestry to urban demands—Role of communication in urban forestry in Europe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 52, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Payne, L.L.; Mowen, A.J.; Orsega-Smith, E. An examination of park preferences and behaviors among urban residents: The role of residential location, race, and age. Leis. Sci. 2002, 24, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Morgenroth, J.; Östberg, J.; Van den Bosch, C.K.; Nielsen, A.B.; Hauer, R.; Sjöman, H.; Chen, W.; Jansson, M. Urban tree diversity—Taking stock and looking ahead. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 15, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kim, S.Y.; Kim, B.H. The effect of urban green infrastructure on disaster mitigation in Korea. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Roman, L.A.; Pearsall, H.; Eisenman, T.S.; Conway, T.M.; Fahey, R.T.; Landry, S.; Vogt, J.; van Doorn, N.S.; Grove, J.M.; Locke, D.H.; et al. Human and biophysical legacies shape contemporary urban forests: A literature synthesis. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 1, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sonti, N.F.; Campbell, L.K.; Svendsen, E.S.; Johnson, M.L.; Auyeung, D.N. Fear and fascination: Use and perceptions of New York City’s forests, wetlands, and landscaped park areas. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 49, 126601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Piana, M.R.; Pregitzer, C.C.; Hallett, R.A. Advancing management of urban forested natural areas: Toward an urban silviculture? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2021, 19, 526–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rötzer, T.; Moser-Reischl, A.; Rahman, M.A.; Hartmann, C.; Paeth, H.; Pauleit, S.; Pretzsch, H. Urban tree growth and ecosystem services under extreme drought. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2021, 308, 108532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Škėma, M.; Doftartė, A.; Perkumienė, D.; Aleinikovas, M.; Perkumas, A.; Sousa, H.F.P.E.; Beriozovas, O. Development of a Methodology for the Monitoring of Socio-Economic Indicators of Private Forest Owners towards Sustainable Forest Management: The Case of Lithuania. Forests 2024, 15, 1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chambers-Ostler, A.; Walker, H.; Doick, K.J. The role of the private tree in bringing diversity and resilience to the urban forest. Urban For. Urban Green. 2024, 91, 127973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Google Earth 9.3.105.0. Atatürk Urban Forest, Turkey. 40°11′14″N, 28°59′04″E, DigitalGlobe. 2024. Available online: https://earth.google.com/web/ (accessed on 13 November 2024).
  56. Basiago, A.D. Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. Environmentalist 1998, 19, 145–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Keivani, R.A. Review of the main challenges to urban sustainability. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2009, 1, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Huang, L.; Wu, J.; Yan, L. Defining and measuring urban sustainability: A review of indicators. Landsc. Ecol. 2015, 30, 1175–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wu, X.; Zhi, Q. Impact of shared economy on urban sustainability: From the perspective of social, economic, and environmental sustainability. Energy Procedia 2016, 104, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Du, M.; Zhang, X. Urban greening: A new paradox of economic or social sustainability? Land Use Policy 2020, 92, 104487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zeng, X.; Yu, Y.; Yang, S.; Lv, Y.; Sarker, M.N.I. Urban resilience for urban sustainability: Concepts, dimensions, and perspectives. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhao, J.; Xiao, Y.; Sun, S.; Sang, W.; Axmacher, J.C. Does China’s increasing coupling of ‘urban population’ and ‘urban area’ growth indicators reflect a growing social and economic sustainability? J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 301, 113932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Büyükağaçcı, S.B.; Arısoy, N. Social Sustainability in Urban Parks: Insights from Alaeddin Hill Park, Konya. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Akarsu Varşak, N.; Ender Altay, E. Thermal Comfort and Green Spaces: The Role of Temperature-Regulating Elements in Neighborhood Parks. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Altay, E.E.; Zencirkıran, M. Contributions of native plants to the urban ecosystem: Bursa (Turkey) sample. TeMA-J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 2024, 1, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zonneveld, L.S. Land Ecology: An Introduction to Landscape Ecology as a Basic for Land Evaluation, Land Management and Conservation; SPB Publishing: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  67. Tony, M.R.G. Planning for sustainability as a learning concept. Ecol. Econ 1998, 26, 121–137. [Google Scholar]
  68. Shen, Q.J.; Fu, B. Eco-thinking with urban ecological planning. Planners 2002, 11, 73–76. [Google Scholar]
  69. Huang, L.C.; Ye, S.H.; Gu, X.; Cao, F.C.; Fan, Z.Q.; Wang, X.R.; Wu, Y.S.; Wang, S.B.A. Sustainable landscape ecosystem design: A case study. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1195, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Harris, C.W.; Dines, N.T. Time-Saver Standards for Landscape Architecture; Design and Construction Data; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  71. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry General Directorate of Forestry. 313 Sayılı Orman Parkları Tebliği. 2022. Available online: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2022/05/20220528-5.htm (accessed on 22 December 2024).
  72. Türk Standardları Enstitüsü, TS 12576. Şehir İçi Yollar—Özürlü Ve Yaşlılar İçin Sokak, Cadde, Meydan Ve Yollarda Yapısal Önlemler Ve İşaretlemelerin Tasarım Kuralları (ICS 11.180; 91.040.30; 93.080.30). 1999. Available online: https://tofd.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ts-12576_compressed.pdf (accessed on 22 December 2024).
  73. Neufert, E. Architects’ Data; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  74. Correa Machado, A.M.; Ekel, P.I.; Libório, M.P. Goal-based participatory weighting scheme: Balancing objectivity and subjectivity in the construction of composite indicators. Qual. Quant. 2023, 57, 4387–4407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Libório, M.P.; de Abreu, J.F.; Ekel, P.I.; Machado, A.M.C. Effect of sub-indicator weighting schemes on the spatial dependence of multidimensional phenomena. J. Geogr. Syst. 2023, 25, 185–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Charter, M.; Tischner, U. (Eds.) Sustainable Solutions: Developing Products and Services for the Future; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  77. Çiner, B. Evaluation of Spatial Comfort in Public Spaces Within the Framework of Anthropometry: Pendik Nation Garden. Master’s Thesis, Bursa Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  78. Morzillo, A.T.; Campbell, L.K.; King, K.L.; Lautar, K.J.; Scott, L.; Johnson, M.L.; Clarke, M.; Rhodes, L.; Pincetl, S.; Sonti, N.F.; et al. Tale of urban forest patch governance in four eastern US cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 75, 127693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ravallion, M. Troubling tradeoffs in the human development index. J. Dev. Econ. 2012, 99, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. OECD Joint Research Centre-European Commission. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  81. Libório, M.P.; da Silva, L.M.L.; Ekel, P.I.; Figueiredo, L.R.; Bernardes, P. Consensus-Based Sub-Indicator Weighting Approach: Constructing Composite Indicators Compatible with Expert Opinion. Soc. Indic. Res. 2022, 164, 1073–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yücel, G.F.; Yıldızcı, A.C. Kent Parkları ile ilgili kalite kriterlerinin oluşturulması. İTÜ Derg./Mimar. Plan. Tasarım 2006, 5, 222–232. [Google Scholar]
  83. Saelens, B.E.; Sallis, J.F.; Lawrence, D.F. Environmental Correlates of Walking and Cycling: Findings from the Transportation, Urban Design, and Planning Literature. Ann. Behav. Med. 2003, 25, 80–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Baljon, I. Designing Parks; Architectura & Natura Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  85. Talay, İ.; Kaya, F.; Belkayalı, N. Socio-economic structure effects on the recreational trends and demands: A case study Bartın city. Coğraf. Bilim. Derg. 2010, 8, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Erfanian, S.; Maleknia, R.; Azizi, R. Environmental Responsibility in Urban Forests: A Cognitive Analysis of Visitors’ Behavior. Forests 2024, 15, 1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Blood, A.; Starr, G.; Escobedo, F.; Chappelka, A.; Staudhammer, C. How Do Urban Forests Compare? Tree Diversity in Urban and Periurban Forests of the Southeastern US. Forests 2016, 7, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Powning, C.B.; Harper, R.W.; Bloniarz, D.V.; Kahl, K.J.; Markowitz, E.M. Reviewing the use of research interviews and qualitative inquiry in urban forestry: Understanding human-tree relationships in the built landscape. Urban For. Urban Green. 2024, 98, 128387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Shaikh, M.A.J.; Birajdar, F. Water Harvesting: Importance and Techniques for Mitigating Drought in Solapur District. Int. J. Res. Eng. Sci. Manag. 2024, 7, 74–83. [Google Scholar]
  90. Thies, C.; Rosoman, G.; Cotter, J.; Meaden, S. Intact Forest Landscapes. Why It Is Crucial to Protect Them from Industrial Exploitation; Technical Note, Bd, 5; Greenpeace Research Laboratories: Exeter, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  91. Vărzaru, A.A.; Bocean, C.G. An Empirical Analysis of Relationships between Forest Resources and Economic and Green Performances in the European Union. Forests 2023, 14, 2327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Nowak, D.J.; Hoehn, R.E.; Bodine, A.R.; Greenfield, E.J.; O’Neil-Dunne, J. Urban Forest structure, ecosystem services and change in Syracuse, NY. Urban Ecosyst. 2016, 19, 1455–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zhang, H.; Yu, J.; Dong, X.; Zhai, X.; Shen, J. Rethinking Cultural Ecosystem Services in Urban Forest Parks: An Analysis of Citizens’ Physical Activities Based on Social Media Data. Forests 2024, 15, 1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 16 00012 g001
Figure 1. The contributions of urban forests [31,32,33,34].
Figure 1. The contributions of urban forests [31,32,33,34].
Forests 16 00012 g001
Forests 16 00012 g002
Figure 2. Interactions between social, economic, and ecological processes [37].
Figure 2. Interactions between social, economic, and ecological processes [37].
Forests 16 00012 g002
Forests 16 00012 g003
Figure 3. The location of the study area [55].
Figure 3. The location of the study area [55].
Forests 16 00012 g003
Forests 16 00012 g004
Figure 4. Sustainability indicators (original).
Figure 4. Sustainability indicators (original).
Forests 16 00012 g004
Forests 16 00012 g005
Figure 5. Survey of Atatürk Urban Forest (original).
Figure 5. Survey of Atatürk Urban Forest (original).
Forests 16 00012 g005
Forests 16 00012 g006
Figure 6. Roads in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).
Figure 6. Roads in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).
Forests 16 00012 g006
Forests 16 00012 g007
Figure 7. Equipment within Atatürk Urban Forest (original).
Figure 7. Equipment within Atatürk Urban Forest (original).
Forests 16 00012 g007
Forests 16 00012 g008
Figure 8. Playgrounds in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).
Figure 8. Playgrounds in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).
Forests 16 00012 g008
Forests 16 00012 g009
Figure 9. Indicators evaluated under the scope of economic sustainability in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).
Figure 9. Indicators evaluated under the scope of economic sustainability in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).
Forests 16 00012 g009
Forests 16 00012 g010
Figure 10. Green spaces in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).
Figure 10. Green spaces in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).
Forests 16 00012 g010
Forests 16 00012 g011
Figure 11. Distribution of native and exotic plant species in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).
Figure 11. Distribution of native and exotic plant species in Atatürk Urban Forest (original).
Forests 16 00012 g011
Forests 16 00012 g012
Figure 12. SPVs of socio-cultural, economic and ecological sustainability (original).
Figure 12. SPVs of socio-cultural, economic and ecological sustainability (original).
Forests 16 00012 g012
Table 1. Standards used in the evaluation of socio-cultural sustainability indicators.
Table 1. Standards used in the evaluation of socio-cultural sustainability indicators.
RoadwayGeneral width: 3–6 m (one-way) and 6–12 m (two-way).
The width varies depending on the traffic capacity.
Pedestrian PathA width of 1.2–2 m is generally recommended.
This width is the minimum. It may increase in areas with higher user density. It is important to establish a connection between activities and space usage.
Bicycle PathThe width of the bicycle path should be 180 cm. For one-way use, the width should be 140–160 cm; for two-way use, it should be 160–200 cm; and for bike paths with cargo bikes, the width should be 200–250 cm. The continuity of the bicycle path must be ensured. Additionally, bike parking areas should be provided, considering access to activities.
StairsStep width should be 28–33 cm. Step height should be 11.5–17 cm.
In areas with a slope, step width can be increased. In areas with a high incline, stairs should be provided to support access.
RampsMinimum width for accessibility: 91.5–1.80 m is recommended. The slope of the ramp should be between 6% and 8%. Ramps are required in areas with elevation differences.
SidewalksMinimum width: 1.2–1.5 m.
This width is the minimum. It may increase in areas with higher user density. It is necessary in areas with vehicular traffic.
Parking LotsStandard width per vehicle: 2.5–3.6 m; length: 5–7 m.
The total width of parking lots should be calculated based on vehicle capacity. It should be determined according to the number of users arriving by vehicle. Observations of the number of vehicles parked outside designated parking spaces should be made during the times of highest usage to identify potential shortages.
Seating UnitsFrequency: It is recommended to place approximately one seating unit per 100 m2 area.
Description: Seating units should be positioned in areas such as walkways, parks, and resting areas in the space.
LightingFrequency: The height of the lighting unit and light intensity will determine the spacing. The height of the lighting unit should be between 1 and 4 m.
Description: Lighting should be evenly distributed to enhance safety and guide night users. Areas that do not receive light during nighttime usage should be identified through observations.
Signage and information BoardsFrequency: The number of signage units changes according to the size of the area, assisting visitors in understanding and navigating the space.
Description: The number of units should vary according to the area size to assist visitors in orienting themselves and understanding the layout. Missing areas should be identified in the wayfinding process.
Cover UnitsFrequency: It varies depending on the furnishings and activities in the area.
Description: Cover materials, seating areas, and activities should align with the landscape design and not disrupt comfort. They should be considered together with other furnishings.
Trash BinsFrequency: It is recommended to place one trash bin every 50–100 m.
Description: Trash bins should be placed in areas with high user density.
Boundary
Enclosure Elements		Frequency: The placement of boundary elements should depend on their function.
Description: These elements should be used to enclose areas for security, privacy, and aesthetic purposes.
Vending UnitsFrequency: It is recommended to place one vending unit at the focal point of the area, ensuring accessibility from all directions.
Description: In areas with intense activity, the number may increase to 3–4 units.
Bicycle RacksFrequency: Bicycle racks should be placed to ensure access to parking lots and event areas.
Description: They should be integrated with bicycle paths.
Art ObjectsFrequency: Art objects can be placed in areas such as entrances and focal points.
Description: Art objects are typically placed in spaces for aesthetic and emphasis purposes.
FountainsFrequency: It is recommended to place one fountain per 1000–5000 m2 area.
Description: The number of fountains (single or multiple) should not affect this frequency.
Play EquipmentFrequency: For children’s playgrounds, one piece of equipment should be placed per 1000 m2 area.
Description: If a playground has multiple pieces of equipment, the adequacy of this placement can be evaluated based on observations.
PlantersFrequency: It is appropriate to place one planter every 20–50 m2.
Description: Planters are used to create green areas, especially benefiting smaller spaces.
Fire BinsFrequency: It is recommended to place one fire bin every 250 m2.
Description: Fire bins are typically used in green spaces and forests that are at risk.
Reflecting Traces
of the Past		Frequency: These elements are usually positioned in 2–3 areas within the space.
Description: These elements, representing historical or cultural traces, reflect the past of an area and are used as part of the landscape. They are generally placed at the entrance or focal points of the space.
Table 2. Sustainability performance values of Atatürk Urban Forest.
Table 2. Sustainability performance values of Atatürk Urban Forest.
Sustainability
Category		Sustainability IndicatorsScore
Socio-CulturalRoads (S1)Roadway9266.29
Pedestrian path100
Bicycle path0
Stairs0
Ramps87
Sidewalks100
Parking lots85
Equipment (S2)Seating units10058.79
Lighting78
Signage and information boards100
Cover elements34
Trash bins100
Boundary enclosure elements45
Vending units100
Bicycle racks0
Art object0
Fountains100
Play equipment66
Planters0
Fire bins
Reflecting Traces of the Past		100
0
EconomicUse of durable
materials (E1)		Pavement10091.5
Equipment83
Use of natural resources (E2)0
Maintenance (E3)Structural100100
Vegetative100
Water conservation(E4)0
EcologicalIntact landscape structure (Ec1)73
Green space area(Ec2)78
Use of local plants (Ec3)92
Use of renewable energy (Ec4)0
Water efficient approach/
Rainwater harvesting (E5)0
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ender Altay, E.; Pirselimoğlu Batman, Z. Assessing Sustainability in Urban Forests: A Case Analysis of Atatürk Urban Forest (Bursa). Forests 2025, 16, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16010012

AMA Style

Ender Altay E, Pirselimoğlu Batman Z. Assessing Sustainability in Urban Forests: A Case Analysis of Atatürk Urban Forest (Bursa). Forests. 2025; 16(1):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16010012

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ender Altay, Elvan, and Zeynep Pirselimoğlu Batman. 2025. "Assessing Sustainability in Urban Forests: A Case Analysis of Atatürk Urban Forest (Bursa)" Forests 16, no. 1: 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16010012

APA Style

Ender Altay, E., & Pirselimoğlu Batman, Z. (2025). Assessing Sustainability in Urban Forests: A Case Analysis of Atatürk Urban Forest (Bursa). Forests, 16(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16010012

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop