4.7 Article

The influence of subdivision design and conservation of open space on carbon storage and sequestration

期刊

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
卷 131, 期 -, 页码 64-73

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.001

关键词

Carbon storage; Carbon sequestration; Compact design; Forest type; Open space; Tree stand age

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cities are increasingly trying to offset carbon dioxide emissions and existing and new residential developments, or urban subdivisions, are a major source of such emissions. Compact or clustered subdivision designs have the potential to improve carbon storage and sequestration through the conservation of open space and the preservation of existing trees found on built lots. However, very few empirical studies assess how different subdivision designs and tree preservation strategies affect the carbon footprint of proposed residential developments. Using a 705 ha pine plantation that has been approved for the development of 1835 residential units near Gainesville, Florida, our objectives were to determine which site designs and tree preservation strategies could maximize carbon sequestration and storage. From 80 stratified random plots, we measured and analyzed tree and plot characteristics according to forest type and tree stand age categories. Tree data collected from these plots were analyzed with the i-Tree ECO model to estimate baseline predevelopment carbon stores and sequestration rates. Using ArcMap, we then assessed the impact, on baseline carbon sequestration and storage capacity, of several different site designs and tree conservation scenarios for the proposed development. Up to 91% of carbon storage and up to 82% of carbon sequestration could be maintained through a cluster urban development design and by preserving older tree stands. Results indicate that a subdivision's carbon footprint can significantly improve when forest types and tree preservation are incorporated into the design of a development. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据