ARTICLE IN PRESS

0360-1323/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.bu

�CorrespondE-mail addr

Building and Environment 42 (2007) 218–229

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Evaluation of ornamental plant resources to urban biodiversityand cultural changing: A case study of residential landscapes

in Trabzon city (Turkey)

Cengiz Acara,�, Habibe Acarb, Engin Eroglub

aDepartment of Landscape Architecture, Forestry Faculty, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080 Trabzon, TurkeybKaradeniz Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey

Received 1 August 2005; received in revised form 22 August 2005; accepted 30 August 2005

Abstract

The residential vegetation features in urban landscapes play an important role as indicators regarding urban biodiversity potential and

cultural changing. They also include ornamental resources in the context to landscape appreciation for human environment. Therefore,

this paper provides quantitative information on the distribution of plant species in urban residential landscape areas of Trabzon city

(Turkey). In a total of 218 sampled areas, 274 plants species belonging to 70 families were surveyed with respect to residential use types of

the city. The study results showed that among the species recorded in five residential type (traditional housing, detached housing, villa,

apartment blocks and sites, mass housing for employees), non-native taxa frequency of a total species are much and dominantly represent

residential landscape structure. Additionally, the species richness and diversity is positively related to new urban development areas. But,

it was clearly determined that the vegetation structure has tended to ornamental purposes different from traditional residential gardens

including fruit and other benefiting species. Consequently, it can be evidence that the residential vegetation is ornamental plant resources

to urban biodiversity and that the distribution of the species in urban landscapes follows necessities of city and human quality.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cultural changing; Diversity indices; Floral and landscape assessment; Ornamental residential vegetation; Urban biodiversity; Turkey

1. Introduction

Urbanization in Turkey has been quickening due topopulation increase, immigrations from rural and urbanand industrial processes after 1960 years. As Turkey’ssituation, urbanization phenomenon around the world hasbeen an important component of land use and land coverchange, and its significance will undoubtedly continue toincrease with the majority of the world’s populationswarming into cities [1]. In 1990, only 5–10% of thehuman population lived in cities, but this grew to half in2001, and in 2025 it is projected to be 2/3 [2]. In Turkey,over 5% of the total surface area of the country is coveredby urban and other built-up areas [3].

e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ildenv.2005.08.030

ing author. Tel.: +90462 3773133; fax: +90 462 3257499.

ess: cengiz@ktu.edu.tr (C. Acar).

However, the land and biological resources around thecities have tended to be consumed, that is getting to figureout the importance of the planning for urban natureconservation and conscious use [4]. For the past twodecades the concept of urban ecology, therefore, hasbecome more understood as a base for urban planning[5,6]. Urban ecology is affected by urbanization that is arapidly growing cause of many environmental problemsoccurred because ecological components were not takeninto consideration during planning stages. Ecologicalcomponents threatened by urbanization tend to benegatively affected by agriculture, recreation, roads, andmany other human impacts, emphasizing the uniquely far-reaching transformations that accompany urban sprawl.McKinney [7] also illustrated the importance of habitat-loss in cities that is becoming progressively more commontoward the urban cores and, listed as the four types of

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Acar et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 218–229 219

replacement habitat (built habitat, managed vegetation,ruderal vegetation and natural remnant vegetation).

Presently, no encouraging attempts to develop themeasures for urban nature conservation toward applyingurban development plans have been faithfully put forward,that entirely consider the concepts of ecological integrity,sustainability, biological diversity and conservation ofurban landscapes important. Therefore, there is a gapabout information of urban environments affected bysocial, cultural and economic drivers [8,9].

Urban environments include the most important indi-cator as urban vegetation that is the most directlymanipulated by humans for the purpose of enhancingecological aesthetics [10,11]. But, vegetation in urbansettings loses the natural features and reflects humanpreferences for urban infrastructure [12,13]. In this context,there are many scientific literature documented in Europe,America and the Far East for example [14–18]. But specialattention is not paid to Turkish biogeography having a biggene center with biodiversity owing to its rich fauna andflora in the country where three continents (Europe, Asiaand Africa) meet. Cities in Turkey were interrelated to westand east countries in those forming urban landscapes havebeen eventuated and decorated by many ornamental exoticlandscape plants [19–21]. Urban landscape vegetationhitherto has somewhat limited interest in the Turkish citylandscapes. Gokturk and Sumbul [22] examined thenatural plants together with some cultivated plants of thecity of Antalya. Acar et al. [21] discussed by a research onexotic plants in Turkey that are used for aesthetic andfunctional aims of the city establishments and ruralareas in the foreshore as a part of green and open spacedevelopment of the cities. They also presented some of the

Fig. 1. Stud

landscape characteristics and types of usage of species,their importance, and recommendations and suggested thatthe use of these plant materials can be considered forconvenient and adaptable landscapes in Turkey.With these precedents, this study provides the contribu-

tion on biodiversity in cities focuses on both the species andassessment level with special regard to selected habitats inthe city of Trabzon (Turkey). The present paper exploresthe relationship between residential land use type and plantspecies diversity. Within this aim, ornamental woodyspecies for selected settlements forms were analyzed bynumerical classification and the performance of therecorded species for urban landscape were determined.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area

This study has been carried out within the city ofTrabzon, in the northeastern Black Sea Region of Turkey(401330N–411070N; 371070E–401300E) (Fig. 1). The cityof Trabzon, which covers an area of approximately4.685 km2, has a population about 283.233 inhabitantsmaking it the third largest principal city in the region [23].The mean altitude of the area is 37m. The highestelevations 4150m above sea level, are found in the southof the city. Generally, the grade is 0–5%, presenting themuch less section of the city. It falls within A8 of the gridsystem adopted by Davis [24]. The annual mean rainfall isabout 760mm and mean temperature is about 14.6 1C. Themonthly mean temperature ranges from 7.3 1C in Januaryand from 13 to 23.1 1C in August. The geological

y area.

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Acar et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 218–229220

substratum is mainly schist but limestone is also present inthe eastern part of the city.

A rapid urbanization as a consequence of a populationincrease since the 1960s has stretched out to the surround-ing agricultural landscape [3,25]. Thus, numerous newhousing areas were built outside the former city center and,older and traditional residential forms within urban corearea and surroundings have been remained. These areas arelike heritage landscapes in which include outstandingornamental plant materials while the green areas of thecity have been decreased at present [26].

2.2. Floristic analysis and field sampling

The present research dealt with providing the floristicinformation in residential landscapes that can be formedurban biodiversity in context to the city of Trabzon. Thefloristic analysis [27–32] method integrated with othernumerical approaches was adopted for this purpose, inwhich we will discuss the richness, spatial composition,diversity and of the recognized species communities andtheir ecological, aesthetic and landscape potentials forurban nature.

In this study, a comprehensive survey of all plant speciesoccurring in five residential types was carried out (Fig. 2).These are as following;

�

Residential type 1: Traditional housing. � Residential type 2: Detached housing. � Residential type 3: Villa. � Residential type 4: Apartment blocks and sites. � Residential type 5: Mass housing for employees.

Totally 218 sample sites were visited and surveyed fordetermination of all plant species in proper times of year ifpossible. Within the sample sites, all woody tree, shrub,ground cover, vine plant species were recorded in during2002–2004. Habitats were first sampled in spring, markedand resampled in summer, in order to record the presenceof the communities that segregate their phenological peak.For this survey, a form-recorded data on the presence/absence of species was arranged. Methodology followedin the field surveys was described in detail in previousreports [32]. The voucher materials were deposited at theherbarium of Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty ofForestry (KATO). Taxonomic determinations were madeusing the serial ‘Flora of Turkey and the East AegeanIslands’ Davis [24] and other related books and publica-tions as well as comparing with the identified specimens inherbaria in Turkey.

For the quantification of species occurrence, frequencyvalues are given (218 samples ¼ 100% frequency). Infor-mation on the origin of the species in the Turkish flora weretaken from Davis (1965–1988) who differentiate NorthAmerica, Tropical America, South America, Europe,Eurasia, Asia, China, and Africa. Nomenclature of the

species is in accordance to that of Davis [24] and Ansin andTerzioglu [33].

2.3. Data analysis

After recognizing the plant species, we calculated foreach of them the mean diversity and occurrence values inorder to characterize the structural features of eachresidential setting. Various indices have been adjusted tomeasure diversity within an assessed point. The a diversityindices were used to assess species diversity based onthe floristic data. The species richness was described as thenumber of species encountered in each plot. For thecalculation of diversity values, we used the Shannon,evenness, Margalef and Berger–Parker indices since is themost widely used index of heterogeneity and is derivedfrom a function used in the field of information theory.The Shannon–Wiener index (H0 ¼ �

PpiLn pi), where

pi ¼ ni/N (ni is the number of individuals of species, i and N

is the total number of individuals), a measure to indicatethe structural composition of the communities, andPielou’s evenness index (J0 ¼ H0/logS), where S is thenumber of species) were calculated. The Margalef measure(DM ¼ (S�1)/Ln(N)) and the dominance indices ofBerger–Parker (d ¼ Nmax/NT), (Nmax is total dominantspecies in a habitat type and NT is the proportion of thetotal species), were calculated to compare each site [34].Species distribution within the residential types was

analyzed by using numerical classifications. Using Com-munity Analysis Package Version 1.41 program [35],principal component analysis (PCA) was performed toexplore and ordinate the relationship of the species’composition of each association. Thus, the axes derivedcorrespond to gradients of species’ compositional change.Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to provide

the classification of residential sites and the species. In thisexamination, the complete linkage clustering methodchoosing Bray–Curtis distance measure was used toanalyze the input data matrix. To detect any significantdifferences in the species diversity among plant associationsone-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performedusing the package SPSS 7.5 program for Windows. Inaddition, to detect the relationships between existing plantscharacteristics and residential types we used the correlationanalysis by means of the same statistical program.

3. Results

In this study, the results obtained will be showed in twodifferent parts as floral assessment and landscape assess-ment. These are given in following sections.

3.1. Floral assessment

3.1.1. Frequency of ornamental species

Table 1 lists the species according to their frequencyvalues. So, a total of 274 ornamental plants were recorded

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. Samples of studied residential types in Trabzon city (1—Traditional housing, 2—Detached housing, 3—Villa, 4—Apartment blocks and sites, 5—

Mass housing for employees).

C. Acar et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 218–229 221

in the 218 sample plots of the city of Trabzon. Consideringall sample sites, the most frequent taxa in the city wereRosa sp. (63.30% of the total species), Hydrangea

macrophylla (54.13%) and Nerium oleander (44.50%).However, 231 species were much less frequent of 15%, ofwhich 52 species were occurred only one time (0.46%) asZiziphus jujuba, Ceratonia siliqua and Myrtus communis

native to Turkey.

According to the residential land use, the speciesrecorded were showing difference. As seen in Table 1,Rosa sp., Eriobotrya japonica and Ficus carica weredetermined in traditional houses with the frequencies of63.41%, 58.54% and 51.22% respectively. Species thatoccurred with the values of 58.82%, 54.41% and 41.18%were Rosa sp., H. macrophylla and F. carica in detachedhousings. Similarly, H. macrophylla (57.14%) and Rosa sp.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Frequency values of the species recorded in different residential types for Trabzon citya (only those of above 15% were given)

Plant species Abbreviations Plant life type Family Origin Relative frequency in each residential typeb Total

frequency

(218)1 (41c) 2 (68) 3 (35) 4 (55) 5 (19)

Rosa sp. Rosp Shrub Rosaceae Hybrid 63.41 58.82 57.14 67.27 78.95 63.30

Hydrangea macrophylla Hyma Shrub Hydrangeaceae Japan 24.39 54.41 57.14 72.73 57.89 54.13

Nerium oleander Neol Shrub Apocynaceae Mediterranean 26.83 23.53 28.57 85.45 68.42 44.50

Laurocerasus officinalis Laof Fruit tree Rosaceae Turkey 17.07 36.76 34.29 49.09 47.37 36.70

Eriobotrya japonica Erja Fruit tree Rosaceae Japan 58.54 27.94 20.00 34.55 47.37 35.78

Ficus carica Fica Fruit tree Moraceae Turkey 51.22 41.18 17.14 21.82 26.32 33.03

Cedrus deodora Cede Tree Pinaceae Himalayas 4.88 38.24 31.43 43.64 36.84 32.11

Philadelphus coronarius Phco Shrub Saxifragaceae Europe 29.27 20.59 14.29 52.73 47.37 31.65

Picea orientalis Pior Tree Pinaceae Turkey 4.88 33.82 25.71 40.00 52.63 30.28

Weigela florida Wefl Shrub Caprifoliaceae Japan 0.00 29.41 25.71 52.73 36.84 29.82

Spirae� vanhouttei Spva Shrub Rosaceae Hybrid 2.44 17.65 25.71 49.09 57.89 27.52

Punica granatum Pugr Fruit tree Punicaceae Mediterranean 39.02 25.00 28.57 14.55 26.32 25.69

Cryptomeria japonica Crja Tree Taxodiaceae Japan 4.88 16.18 17.14 41.82 68.42 25.23

Prunus cerasifera Prcer Fruit tree Rosaceae Japan 12.20 41.18 34.29 12.73 10.53 24.77

Euonymus japonica Euja Shrub Calastraceae Japan 2.44 20.59 25.71 43.64 21.05 23.85

Acacia dealbata Acde Tree Mimosaceae Australia 2.44 19.12 25.71 40.00 31.58 23.39

Cercis siliquastrum Cesq Tree Laguminosae Mediterranean 4.88 13.24 40.00 38.18 21.05 22.94

Cedrus libani Celi Tree Pinaceae Turkey 2.44 16.18 37.14 21.82 63.16 22.48

Pyracantha coccinea Pyco Shrub Rosaceae Mediterranean 2.44 10.29 14.29 47.27 47.37 22.02

Wisteria sinensis Wisi Climber Fabaceae China 7.32 25.00 28.57 23.64 26.32 22.02

Albizzia julibrissin Alju Tree Laguminosae China 4.88 20.59 17.14 34.55 31.58 21.56

Lonicera periclymenum Lope Climber Caprifoliaceae England 21.95 16.18 20.00 23.64 31.58 21.10

Pinus pinea Pipin Tree Pinaceae Turkey 9.76 5.88 14.29 38.18 57.89 20.64

Hibuscus syriacus Hisy Shrub Malvaceae Asia 9.76 13.24 11.43 32.73 47.37 20.18

Ligustrum japonica Lija Fruit tree Oleaceae Japon 0.00 8.82 25.71 34.55 52.63 20.18

Salix babylonica Saba Tree Salicaceae China 2.44 8.82 17.14 40.00 47.37 20.18

Citrus nobilis Cino Fruit tree Rutaceae Mediterranean 26.83 27.94 28.57 5.45 0.00 19.72

Sequoia sempervirens Sese Tree Taxodiaceae America 0.00 13.24 11.43 34.55 57.89 19.72

Buxus sempervirens Buse Fruit tree Buxaceae Europe 0.00 20.59 25.71 27.27 15.79 18.81

Cydonia oblonga Cyob Fruit tree Rosaceae Asia 31.71 23.53 17.14 1.82 15.79 17.89

Hedera helix Hehe Climber Araliaceae Europe 34.15 7.35 20.00 21.82 5.26 17.89

Robinia pseudoacacia Rops Tree Papilionaceae Turkey 4.88 10.29 17.14 29.09 42.11 17.89

Biota orientalis Bior Shrub Cupressaceae Greece 2.44 14.71 5.71 27.27 52.63 17.43

Magnolia grandiflora Magr Tree Magnoliaceae America 7.32 19.12 11.43 25.45 21.05 17.43

Morus alba Moal Fruit tree Moraceae China 21.95 22.06 14.29 5.45 31.58 17.43

Forsythia� intermedia Foin Shrub Oleaceae Hybrid 0.00 16.18 11.43 25.45 42.11 16.97

Phoenix canariensis Phca Palm Palmeae Mediterranean 0.00 8.82 31.43 23.64 36.84 16.97

Pyrus sp. Pysp Fruit tree Rosaceae Europe 31.71 26.47 11.43 1.82 0.00 16.51

Jasminium fruticans Jafr Shrub Oleaceae Mediterranean 2.44 11.76 22.86 29.09 10.53 16.06

Thuja occidentalis Thoc Shrub Cupressaceae Europe 2.44 23.53 25.71 10.91 15.79 16.06

Kerria japonica Keja Shrub Rosaceae Japan 4.88 13.24 22.86 21.82 15.79 15.60

Viburnum tinus Viti Shrub Caprifoliaceae Mediterranean 0.00 5.88 14.29 34.55 31.58 15.60

Picea abies Piab Tree Pinaceae Europe 2.44 17.65 20.00 14.55 26.32 15.14

aOther species with total frequency values of studied sites: Acer negundo (14.68), Vitis vinifera (14.68), Picea pungens ‘‘Glauca’’ (14.22), Buddleia davidi

(13.76), Euonymus japonica ‘‘Aurea’’ (13.30), Fraxinus excelsior (13.30), Laurus nobilis (12.84), Prunus persica (12.84), Pinus sylvestris (12.39), Prunus

ceracifera ‘‘Atropurpurea’’ (12.39), Chamaerops excelsa (11.93), Yucca flamentosa (11.93), Picea pungens (11.01), Cotoneaster frigida (10.55), Cryptomeria

japonica ‘‘Elegans’’ (10.55), Deutzia gracilis (10.55), Berberis thunbergii ‘‘Atropurpurea’’ (10.09), Platanus orientalis (10.09), Syringa vulgaris (10.09), Tilia

grandiflora (10.09), Tilia tomentosa (10.09), Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (9.63), Malus sp. (9.17), Cupressus macrocarpa ‘‘Goldcrest’’ (8.72), Juglans regia

(8.72), Lonicera nitida (8.72), Corylus avellana (8.26), Cupressus arizonica (7.80), Pittosporum tobira ‘‘Nana’’ (7.80), Cerasus avium (7.34), Cupressus

sempervirens (7.34), Mahonia aquifolium (7.34), Rosmarinus officinalis (7.34), Aesculus hippocastanum (6.88), Chamaecyparis lawsoniana ‘‘Elwoodii’’ (6.88),

Laburnum vulgare (6.88), Pinus pinaster (6.88), Citrus sinensis (6.42), Olea europea (6.42), Prunus avium (6.42), Prunus domestica (6.42), Spirae bumalda

(6.42), Cotoneaster microphyllus (5.96), Magnolia soulangena (5.96), Ribes alpinum (5.96), Abies nordmanniana (5.50), Agave americana (5.50), Cydonia

japonica (5.50), Prunus cerasus (5.50), Taxus baccata (5.50), Viburnum opulus (5.50), Acer palmatum (5.05), Cotoneaster franchetti (5.05), Cupressocyparis

leylandii (5.05), Pinus brutia (5.05), Pittosporum tobira (5.05), Malus� pupurea ‘‘Eleyii’’ (4.59), Populus nigra (4.59), Prunus armeniaca (4.59), Berberis

thunbergii (4.13), Campsis radicans (4.13), Chamaecyparis psifera ‘‘Boulevard’’ (4.13), Deutzia scabra (4.13), Lagerstroemia indica (4.13), Malus purpurea

(4.13), Pinus nigra (4.13), Pseudotsuga menziesii var. viridis (4.13), Abelia grandiflora (3.67), Abies bornmullerina (3.67), Acer pseudoplatanus (3.67),

Chamaerops humulis (3.67), Cornus sanguinea (3.67), Cycas revoluta (3.67), Diospyros kakii (3.67), Trachycarpus fortunei (3.67), Ailanthus altissima (3.21),

Camellia japonica (3.21), Citrus limon (3.21), Cornus mas (3.21), Mespilus germanica (3.21), Tilia rubra (3.21), Actinidia deliciosa (2.75), Azalea sp. (2.75),

Betula pendula (2.75), Buxus sempervirens ‘‘Rotundifolia’’ (2.75), Crateagus sp. (2.75), Diospyros lotus (2.75), Eucalyptus camaldulensis (2.75), Juniperus

chinensis (2.75), Juniperus horizontalis (2.75), Morus nigra (2.75), Pawlonia imperialis (2.75), Prunus sp. (2.75), Thuja plicata (2.75), Aucuba japonica (2.29),

Callistemon citrinus (2.29), Catalpa bignonioides (2.29), Citrus sp. (2.29), Cotinus coggyria (2.29), Cotoneaster horizontalis (2.29), Euonymus japonica ‘‘Alba

C. Acar et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 218–229222

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Marginata’’ (2.29), Euonymus japonica ‘‘Aurea Variegata’’ (2.29), Fraxinus ornus (2.29), Ligustrum vulgare (2.29) Lonicera tataricum (2.29), Malus alba

(2.29), Populus alba (2.29), Rhododendron ponticum (2.29), Thuja occidentalis ‘‘Compacta’’ (2.29), Thuja occidentalis ‘‘Rheingold’’ (2.29), Ulmus glabra

(2.29), Washingtonia robusta (2.29), Alnus glutinosa (1.83), Biota orientalis ‘‘Aurea’’ (1.83), Buxus sempervirens ‘‘Suffruticosa’’ (1.83), Cedrus atlantica

(1.83), Hedera helix ‘‘Alba Marginata’’ (1.83), Koelreuteria paniculata (1.83), Pseudotsuga menziesii (1.83), Rubus fruticosus (1.83), Arceuthos drupacea

(1.38), Bougainvillea spectabilis (1.38), Berberis veitchii (1.38), Berberis vulgaris (1.38), Cedrus atlantica ‘‘Glauca’’ (1.38), Celtis australis (1.38),

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana ‘‘Aurea’’ (1.38), Cotoneaster salicifolia (1.38), Creteagus oxycantha (1.38), Cupressus horizontalis (1.38), Cupressus macrocarpa

(1.38), Eleagnus angustifolia (1.38), Euonymus fortunei ‘‘Repens’’ (1.38), Fraxinus angustifolia (1.38), Hedera helix ‘‘Variegata’’ (1.38), Juniperus chinensis

‘‘Aurea’’ (1.38), Juniperus chinensis ‘‘Pfitzeriana Glauca’’ (1.38), Juniperus sp. (1.38), Lonicera x purpusii (1.38), Malus marshal ‘‘Oyama’’ (1.38), Morus

alba ‘‘Pendula’’ (1.38), Parthenocissus quenguefolia (1.38), Picea glauca ‘‘Conica’’ (1.38), Quercus hartwissiana (1.38), Salix matsudana ‘‘Tortuosa’’ (1.38),

Tamarix tetranda (1.38), Thuja occidentalis ‘‘Aurea Compacta’’ (1.38), Acacia cyanophylla (0.92), Acer buergeranum (0.92), Acer palmatum

‘‘Atropurpurea’’ (0.92), Acer platonoides (0.92), Chamaecyparis lawsoniana ‘‘Glauca’’ (0.92), Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (0.92), Chamaecyparis sp.

(0.92), Clerodendron bungei (0.92), Fagus orientalis (0.92), Fatsia japonica (0.92), Ginkgo biloba (0.92), Hebe veronica (0.92), Jasminium revolutum (0.92),

Juniperus chinensis ‘‘Fastigiata Glauca’’ (0.92), Lantana camara (0.92), Picea sitchensis (0.92), Pinus radiata (0.92), Pinus strobus (0.92), Populus tremula

(0.92), Rhus typhina (0.92), Robinia pseudoacacia ‘‘Umbraculifera’’ (0.92), Sequoiadendron giganteum (0.92), Sophora japonica (0.92), Tamarix parviflora

(0.92), Thuja occidentalis ‘‘Danica’’ (0.92), Thuja occidentalis ‘‘Smargard’’ (0.92), Ulmus campestre (0.92), Ulmus laevis (0.92), Viburnum japonicum (0.92),

Viburnum opulus ‘‘Roseum’’ (0.92), Vinca minor (0.92), Washingtonia filifera (0.92), Acer ginnala (0.46), Acer palmatum ‘‘Dissectum’’ (0.46), Acer

pseudoplatanus ‘‘Purpurea’’ (0.46), Agave americana ‘‘Aurea’’ (0.46), Amorpha fruticosa (0.46), Araucaria heterophylla (0.46), Arbutus andrachne (0.46),

Atriplex halimus (0.46), Betula pendula ‘‘Youngii’’ (0.46), Biota orientalis ‘‘Compacta’’ (0.46), Camellia sinensis (0.46), Casuarina equisetifolia (0.46),

Ceratonia siliqua (0.46), Citrofortunella microcarpa (0.46), Cupressus arizonica ‘‘Glauca’’ (0.46), Cupressus funebris (0.46), Doryanthes palmeri (0.46),

Eleagnus pungens (0.46), Hydrangea macrophylla ‘‘Hortansia’’ (0.46), Ilex aquifolium (0.46), Ilex aquifolium ‘‘Golden King’’ (0.46), Juniperus chinensis

‘‘Psifera’’ (0.46), Juniperus chinensis ‘‘Pfitzeriana’’ (0.46), Juniperus sabina (0.46), Junperus chinensis ‘‘Offinennima’’ (0.46), Lavandula officinalis (0.46),

Ligustrum japonica ‘‘Aurea Variegata’’ (0.46), Liquidambar sytraciflua (0.46), Lonicera� telmanniona (0.46), Medicago arborea (0.46), Melia azaderach

(0.46), Mimosa pudica (0.46), Myrtus communis (0.46), Pinus halepensis (0.46), Pinus mugo (0.46), Pinus sp. (0.46), Pinus wallachiana (0.46), Podocarpus

macrophyllus (0.46), Quercus pontica (0.46), Quercus rubra (0.46), Rosa canina (0.46), Salix alba (0.46), Salix caprea (0.46), Schinus molle (0.46), Sorbus sp.

(0.46), Symphoricarpus albus (0.46), Taxus baccata ‘‘Fastigiata’’ (0.46), Thuja occidentalis ‘‘Tiny Tim’’ (0.46), Tilia cordata (0.46), Viburnum rhytidophyllum

(0.46), Vinca major ‘‘Variegata’’ (0.46), Ziziphus jujuba (0.46).bResidential types (1—Traditional housing, 2—Detached housing, 3—Villa, 4—Apartment blocks and sites, 5—Mass housing for employees).cSampled sites number is given in parenthesis.

Fig. 3. Distribution of the species by families.

C. Acar et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 218–229 223

(57.14%) were mostly recorded in villas in addition toCercis siliquastrum with 40.00%. Rosa sp. and N. oleander

are the most preferred species in neighborhood context thatmass housing sites have these taxa with 67.27% and85.45% whereas public neighborhoods include with78.95% and 68.42%, respectively.

3.1.2. Species distribution by plant families

In total, 70 plant families are represented by the speciesin the city of Trabzon (Fig. 3). The families including thehighest number of taxa were Cupressaceae (37 species),Rosaceae (34), Pinaceae (25), Caprifoliaceae (13), Oleaceae(11), Aceraceae (9), Salicaceae (7), Fabaceae (6), Palmeae(6), Berberidaceae (5), Calastraceae (5) and Rutaceae (5).

All other plant families represented by the species accountfor less than 1.46% of the total.

3.1.3. Origin of the species

Fig. 4 shows the spectrum of origin of the species thatoccur in the city of Trabzon. The highest percentage(approximately 25%) was recorded for species fromTurkey and Mediterranean regions, such as Cedrus libani,

Abies bornmulleriana and Pinus pinea. The species intro-duced from Europe, America, Japan and China are16.42%, 14.96%, 14.23% and 12.41%, respectively. Lessthan 18% of species were native to other countries (i.e.New Zealand, Australia, and Mexico).However, the study area actually is located in the region

of northeastern in Turkey according to phytogeographic

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Acar et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 218–229224

region, the taxa recorded in the sites have Mediterraneanelements such as N. oleander and Olea europea.

3.1.4. Species diversity patterns

Fig. 5 illustrates the alpha diversity results for the speciesalong each residential type described in the study sitesbased on ANOVA test. Thus, the diversity measurescalculated for study sites had differed significantlyðpo0:001Þ.

Equitability

cbc

a

bb

0

1

1

Residential type

Ind

ex v

alu

e

Ind

ex v

alu

e

Species richness

c

b

b

ab

a

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 3Residential type

Ind

ex v

alu

e

Berg

a

b

0.0

0.2

0.4

Resid

2 4 5

1 32 4 5

1 2

Fig. 5. Variation of some diversity indices by residential type in the study area.

test. (F ¼ 21.603 for Species richness; F ¼ 29.293 for Shannon–Wiener;

Berger–Parker indices at po0:001)

24.82%

17.15%

16.42%

14.96%

12.41%

14.23%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Turkey +Mediterranean

Others

Europe

America

Japan

China

Fig. 4. The origin of the 274 taxa occurred in residential sites in Trabzon

city.

According to species richness, the recorded plants inpublic neighborhoods in Trabzon city had more species33.37723.43 than the other residential types. Less speciesnumber was attained by traditional houses with 8.5973.76.ANOVA test illustrated that these results were statisticallyproved and significant at po0:001. In addition to speciesrichness, we did find a common pattern for diversity valuesas it can be seen in Fig. 5, that species diversity indices forTrabzon’s residential vegetation had different values. Onthe other hand, except for Berger–Parker index, Shan-non–Wiener, evenness and Margalef indices reachedpositively higher according to residential types fromtraditional to public neighborhoods. Namely, comparingthese measures, residential development and neighborhooddiversify affected species number and diversity highertendency.

3.2. Landscape assessment

3.2.1. Species composition preferences—PCA analysis

Some of the structural parameters of the assemblages indifferent residential landscape (at least presence/absencevalues and biological forms of species) varied greatly from

Shannon-Wiener

cbcb

ba

0

2

4

6

Residential type

Ind

ex v

alu

e

Margalefc

b

b

b

a

0

5

10

15

20

Residential type

Ind

ex v

alu

e

er-Parker

aa

a

ential type

1 32 4 5

1 32 4 5

3 4 5

Small letters indicate different groups based on ANOVA and Homogeneity

F ¼ 29.293 for Equitability; F ¼ 23.427 for Margalef; F ¼ 25.796 for

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 7. Cluster analysis of residential types (1—Traditional housing, 2—

Detached housing, 3—Villa, 4—Apartment blocks and sites, 5—Mass

housing for employees).

C. Acar et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 218–229 225

one to each other. So, the preferences for speciescomposition in residential landscapes in Trabzon city weredistinguished by means of some multivariate analysesconducted on data set.

From these analyses, PCA ordination allowed us todetect the gradients of residential types and the speciesgroups. The PCA of residential vegetation generallyseparated the residential properties. The correspondingbi-plot is shown in Fig. 6. The first axis of the PCA ofresidential vegetation data accounted for 45.8% of thevariance and clearly separated the residential types fromeach other (2, 5 and 4), while the second axis accounted foran additional 29.28% and separated 1 and 3 from theothers.

Fig. 7 clearly indicates that the cluster analysis of theresidential vegetation data aggregated the study sites intotwo main clusters: the traditional residential landscapesand the others. Indeed, contributing PCA and diversityresults, the vegetation structure and composition in oldhouses in Trabzon city had different from those habitats ofseparate residents and neighborhood environments andcould be separated as a distinct cluster. In addition to this,as it shown in Fig. 8, the species studied for residentiallandscapes of Trabzon city could be distinguished by fourmajor functional groups using the cluster analysis. Thisresult corresponds with area observations, surveys andspecies compositions. Accordingly, it was obtained thatGroup A has Rosa sp., H. macrophylla and N. oleander atfirst, the other three groups included the species relatedwith their compositions. In this species classification, thedissimilarity level was defined at 77.1%.

Fig. 6. PCA ordination of the species in residential landscapes of Trabzon city

3.2.2. Landscape preference analysis for plant species

We assessed the species for landscape preferences forresidential types. An evaluating approach was developedbased on the species characteristics. Thus, the species weredealt with three basis features as visual–aesthetic, func-tional and socio-cultural dimensions. Regarding all speciesamong a total of 218 sampled sites, the species were mostlypreferred with visual-aesthetic characteristics that theirtextural (78.10%), habitual (71.53%) and accent (64.60%)characteristics are preceding taxa (Table 2).

(Abbreviations of the species and gradient arrows were given as Table 1).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 8. Cluster analysis of the species in residential landscapes of Trabzon city.

C. Acar et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 218–229226

Table 3 illustrates the relationship between plantscharacteristics and residential types. In this correlationanalysis, significant relationship was found among thespecies flowering preferences, fruit benefiting and tradi-tional housing, considering first 10 plants of it. However,the fruit effect and benefiting, calligraphic effect and shadecharacteristics are negatively correlated in neighborhoodcontext. In total residential landscape types, the floweringeffect was strongly related while fruiting effect, habits, wallcovering, shading and regional integrity parameters werenegatively significant at po0:01 and 0.05. Namely, it canbe clearly mentioned that the individual characteristics ofplanting species could be affected by residential land use.

4. Discussion and conclusion

For the first time, urban residential vegetation has beenquantitatively studied in the cities of northeastern region ofTurkey. In the case of the city of Trabzon, the plant speciesdistribution, richness and diversity pattern have beendetermined and their significance of landscape potentialcharacteristics were put forward in relation to residentialfeatures. Actually, the objective of floristic surveying is todetect whether the species the urban biodiversity andcultural changing reflects or not within the urban matrix.The study findings suggest that in an example of Trabzoncity, the distribution of ornamental resources is signifi-

cantly related to residential development. But, we needmuch scientific information and researching about know-ing the ecological and socio-cultural effects on thisdistribution and diversity. In other countries, the human-created plant patterns reflecting much of the urbanlandscape have been focused [16,17,36,37]. So far, plantspecies in Turkish urban habitats which is yet affected bycultural and natural processes, remained unknown.All of the plant materials are greatly important for urban

landscapes and shaping green areas [38–43]. Our surveywas to aim the interactions between plants and human tolive where urban landscape is. Accordingly, the traditionalresidential environment in Trabzon city showed interestingresults. One of them is seems to mirror the relationshipamong natural resource uses and needs, socio-culturalfactors and preferences in this type. Considering thedetermined plant taxa, it clearly was appeared that thesespecies was to be much aimed to benefit than ornamentalpurposes. In present, there is greatly ornamental tendedlandscape in residential neighborhood in Trabzon citywhich is based on planting with exotic species. However,that the encountering the species to native for this regionin this study illustrated their significance for urban land-scape such as Laurocerasus officinalis, Picea orientalis andC. libani. But, it is true that common use of exotic specieswould not be decreasing in cities, because the needs forcity people regarding space and preference always are

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Frequency values by plant characteristics in all 274 species of residential

landscape of Trabzon city

Plant characteristics Preferred

species

number

Frequency

(%)

t-value p-value

Aesthetic– visual characteristics

Flowering effect 116 42.34 14.16 o0.001

Fruiting effect 73 26.64 9.96 o0.001

Leaves effect 165 60.22 20.33 o0.001

Trunk-shoot 34 12.41 6.22 o0.001

Calligraphic effect 66 24.09 9.31 o0.001

Habits 196 71.53 26.19 o0.001

Texture 214 78.10 31.20 o0.001

Functional characteristics

Hedge 111 40.51 13.64 o0.001

Fruit benefiting 67 24.45 9.40 o0.001

Barrier 71 25.91 9.77 o0.001

Wall covering 21 7.66 4.76 o0.001

Direction 72 26.28 9.86 o0.001

Screening 85 31.02 11.08 o0.001

Accent 177 64.60 22.32 o0.001

Shade 101 36.86 12.63 o0.001

Wildlife 91 33.21 11.65 o0.001

Socio-cultural characteristics

Regional integrity 77 28.10 10.33 o0.001

Table 3

Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between plant species characteristics

Plant characteristics RT1a RT2

Aesthetic– visual characteristics

Flowering effect 0.394** 0.405**

Fruiting effect 0.262 �0.030

Leaves effect �0.083 �0.073

Trunk-shoot 0.007 �0.153

Calligraphic effect �0.094 �0.100

Habits �0.144 �0.423**

Texture �0.128 �0.188

Functional characteristics

Hedge �0.174 �0.203

Fruit benefiting 0.388** 0.091

Barrier �0.412** �0.125

Wall covering 0.206 �0.291*

Direction �0.316* �0.214

Screening �0.339* �0.162

Accent �0.526** �0.320

Shade �0.187 �0.110

Wildlife �0.133 �0.051

Socio-cultural characteristics

Regional integrity 0.207 �0.181

**Correlation is significant at po0:01 level.*Correlation is significant at the 0aOnly major 10 species in each residential type (Residential types (RT): 1—T

and sites, 5—Mass housing for employees) were assessed as following: 1—Ro

Hedera helix, Cydonia oblonga, Prunus domestica, Pyrus sp. and Philadelphu

cerasifera, Cedrus deodora, Laurocerasus officinalis, Picea orientalis, Weigela fl

Rosa sp., Cercis siliquastrum, Cedrus libani, Laurocerasus officinalis, Prunus c

oleander. 4—Nerium oleander, Hydrangea macrophylla, Rosa sp., Philadelphu

Pyracantha coccinea, Cedrus deodora and Euonymus japonica. 5—Rosa sp., Cry

Pinus pinea, Sequoia sempervirens, Spirae vanhouttei, Acer negundo and Biota

C. Acar et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 218–229 227

changeful and infinite paralleling to urban design char-acteristics [44]. This situation also should affect directly theusing ornamental plants.The plant diversity in urban landscape areas plays a

certain role in urban nature conservation and thedetermination of planning and policies. But, it is alsoimportant for the design of cities. It explicitly seems thatthe cities have become the strategic areas for different plantand other biological systems [45–48]. In this structure, thecontribution of the residential landscapes is considerablefor developing and orientating these systems. If we couldthink that the plant diversity and effected cultural factorswould shape the landscape complex of the cities as those inthe event of landscaping residential environment scale, theappropriate policies dealing with urban planning forimproved vegetation management should be related todecision makers. Still, there is an interaction gap betweenthe biophysical and socio-economic parameters. Therefore,in this study we performed an order to determine plantdiversity relations by some measures. According to thevalidity of this research, we should be developing plantdiversity indices in the direction of reflecting and shapinglandscape character.Residential environments and especially gardens are

valuable tools regarding detecting and monitoring urban

and residential types in Trabzon city

RT3 RT4 RT5 TOTAL

0.274 0.376** 0.132 0.435**

�0.232 �0.611** �0.626** �0.298**

0.056 �0.014 �0.030 0.061

�0.228 �0.262 �0.202 �0.185

0.008 �0.409** �0.340* �0.256

�0.350* �0.318* �0.097 �0.288*

�0.004 �0.119 �0.114 �0.076

�0.137 0.111 0.078 �0.037

�0.206 �0.611** �0.617** �0.208

0.006 �0.055 0.121 �0.078

�0.217 �0.234 �0.285* �0.290*

0.062 0.094 0.187 0.014

0.015 0.158 0.275 0.057

�0.024 0.105 0.013 �0.118

�0.157 �0.521** �0.355* �0.343*

�0.070 �0.399** �0.282* �0.197

�0.363** �0.544** �0.509** �0.316*

:01opo0:05 level.

raditional housing, 2—Detached housing, 3—Villa, 4—Apartment blocks

sa sp., Eriobotrya japonica, Ficus carica, Punica granatum, Vitis vinifera,

s coronarius. 2—Rosa sp., Hydrangea macrophylla, Ficus carica, Prunus

orida, Citrus nobilis and Eriobotrya japonica. 3—Hydrangea macrophylla,

erasifera, Cedrus deodora, Phoenix canariensis, Citrus nobilis and Nerium

s coronarius, Weigela florida, Laurocerasus officinalis, Spirae vanhouttei,

ptomeria japonica, Nerium oleander, Cedrus libani, Hydrangea macrophylla,

orientalis.

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Acar et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 218–229228

landscape biodiversity and cultural changing. Conse-quently, we can give some implications for further studieswith regard to this topic.

�

Urban landscape includes constantly dynamic changing.Therefore, in putting forward this changing the plantsare important indicator living materials. � Plants as living material of the landscape should be

assessed according to not only species and composi-tional determination but also functional characteristicsin contributing urban landscape and human life quality.

� Residential landscapes as a part of urban environment

should be considered partly, but it should be studied inurban sections to be integrative.

� In residential landscape, we showed the differential

results of land use types. But, it seems not to beneglected that this variability includes not for within acity, but there is a regional manner. Also, we shouldconsider the counties linked in same city.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank residential owners of Trabzoncity for their kind assistance and tolerance during thefieldwork.

References

[1] Zhang LQ, Wu JP, Zhen Y, Shu HA. A GIS-based gradient analysis

of urban landscape pattern of Shanghai metropolitan area, China.

Landscape and Urban Planning 2004;69(1):1–16.

[2] World Resources Institute. World resources 2000–2001. Washington,

DC: WRI; 2001.

[3] Ozbilen A, Gedikli R. Kentsel Ogelerin Analizi ve Kent Modellerine

Gore Ac- ık Yes-il Alanların Belirlenmesi Uzerine Bir Aras-tırma: Dogu

Karadeniz Bolgesi Orneginde, KTU Aras-tırma Projesi No.

98.113.003.2, Trabzon, 2000.

[4] Evrendilek F. Identification of ecologically significant habitats for

urban nature conservation: a case study in Turkey. Journal of

Envıronmental Bıology 2003;24(3):241–51.

[5] Breuste JH. Decision making, planning and design for the conserva-

tion of indigenous vegetation within urban development. Landscape

and Urban Planning 2004;68(4):439–52.

[6] Pedersen AØ, Nyhuus S, Blindheim T, Krog OMW. Implementation

of a GIS-based management tool for conservation of biodiversity

within the municipality of Oslo, Norway. Landscape and Urban

Planning 2004;68(4):429–38.

[7] McKinney ML. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation.

BioScience 2002;52:883–90.

[8] Martin CA, Warren PS, Kinzig AP. Neighborhood socioeconomic

status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in

residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix,

AZ. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004;69(4):355–68.

[9] Hope D, Gries C, Zhu WX, Fagan WF, Redman CL, Grimm NB,

Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig A. Socioeconomics drive urban plant

diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of The

United States of America 2003;100(15):8788–92.

[10] Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: quality

inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape

and Urban Planning 1999;44:177–98.

[11] Parsons R, Daniel TC. Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape

aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002;60:43–56.

[12] Rees WE. Urban ecosystems: the human dimension. Urban

Ecosystems 1997;1:63–75.

[13] Gyllin M, Grahn P. A semantic model for assessing the experience of

urban biodiversity. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2005;3(3–4):

149–61.

[14] Richards NA, Mallette JR, Simpson RJ, Macie EA. Residential

greenspace and vegetation in a mature city: Syracuse, New York.

Urban Ecology 1984;8(1–2):99–125.

[15] Shaw WM, Harris LK, Livingston M. Vegetative characteristics of

urban land covers in metropolitan Tucson. Urban Ecosystems 1998;

2:65–73.

[16] Zerbe S, Maurer U, Schmitz S, Sukopp H. Biodiversity in Berlin and

its potential for nature conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning

2003;62(3):139–48.

[17] Zerbe S, Choi IK, Kowarik I. Characteristics and habitats of non-

native plant species in the city of Chonju, southern Korea. Ecological

Research 2004;19(1):91–8.

[18] Cornelis J, Hermy M. Biodiversity relationships in urban and

suburban parks in Flanders. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004;

69(4):385–401.

[19] Var M. Kuzeydogu Karadeniz Bolgesi Dogal Odunsu Taksonlarının

Peyzaj Mimarlıgı Yonunden Degerlendirilmesi Uzerine Aras-tırmalar.

Doktora Tezi, KTU Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu, Trabzon, 1992.

[20] Yaltırık, F., Efe, A., Uzun, A. Tarih Boyunca Istanbul’un Park Bahc-

e ve Koruları Egzotik Agac- ve C- alıları, Esen Ofset, Istanbul, 1997,

247p.

[21] Acar C, Var M, Acar H. The exotic plants and their contributions to

urban and rural Landscape planning. In: 38th IFLAWorld Congress,

Singapore, 26–29 June, 2001.

[22] Gokturk S, Sumbul H. Flora of Antalya City Turkish. Journal of

Botany 1997;21:341–78.

[23] Anonymous. Trabzon Valiligi, http://www.trabzon.gov.tr/index.htm,

2005.

[24] Davis PH. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, vol. 1–9.

Edinburgh: Aldine Publishing Co.; 1965–1985.

[25] Gedikli R. Trabzon Kenti Geleneksel Konutlarında Konut-Bahc-e

Ilis-kisi Uzerine Bir Inceleme, KTU Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu, Peyzaj

Mimarlıgı Anabilim Dalı, Yuksek Lisans Tezi, Trabzon, 1993.

[26] Gedikli R, Ozbilen A. A mathematical model to determine unit area

size per person needed in a neigbourhood park: a case study in

Trabzon city (Turkey). Building and Environment 2004;39(11):

1365–78.

[27] Pysek P. Factors affecting the diversity of flora and vegetation in

Central European settlements. Vegetatio 1993;106:89–100.

[28] Chronopoulos G, Christodoulakis D. Contribution to the urban

ecology of Greece: the flora of the city of Patras and the surrounding

area. Botanica Helvetica 1996;106:159–76.

[29] Pysek P. Alien and native species in central European urban floras: a

quantitative comparison. Journal of Biogeography 1998;25:155–63.

[30] Kent M, Stevens RA, Zhang L. Urban plant ecology patterns and

processes: a case study of the flora of the City of Plymouth, Devon,

UK. Journal of Biogeography 1999;26(6):1281–98.

[31] Dana ED, Vivas S, Mota JF. Urban vegetation of Almeria City—a

contribution to urban ecology in Spain. Landscape and Urban

Planning 2002;59:203–16.

[32] Acar C, Acar H, Altun L. The diversity of ground cover species in

rocky, roadside and forest habitats in Trabzon (north-eastern

Turkey). Biologia 2004;59:477–91.

[33] Ansin R, Terzioglu S. Dogu Karadeniz Bolgesinin Ozellikle Trabzon

Yoresinin Egzotik Agac- ve Calilari, KTU Orman Fakultesi Yayinlari

No. 29, KTU Matbaasi, Trabzon, 1998, 131p.

[34] Magurran AE. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton,

USA: Princeton University Press; 1988.

[35] CAP, Community Analysis Package Version 1.41 programme,

PISCES Conservation Ltd., Pennington, 1999.

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Acar et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 218–229 229

[36] Thompson K, Austin KC, Smith RM, Warren PH, Angold PG,

Gaston KJ. Urban domestic gardens (I): putting small-scale

plant diversity in context. Journal of Vegetation Science 2003;14(1):

71–8.

[37] Turner K, Lefler L, Freedman B. Plant communities of selected

urbanized areas of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Landscape and

Urban Planning 2005;71(2–4):191–206.

[38] Sukopp H, Werner P. Urban environments and vegetation. In:

Holzner W, Werger MJA, Ikusima I, editors. Man’s impact on

vegetation. The Hague: Dr. W. Junk Publishers; 1983. p. 247–60.

[39] Miller PR, Winer AM. Composition and dominance in Los Angeles

basin urban vegetation. Urban Ecology 1984;8:29–54.

[40] Gilbert OL. The ecology of urban habitats. London: Chapman &

Hall; 1991 369p.

[41] Wittig R. Urban development and the integration of nature: reality or

fiction? In: Breuste J, Feldmann H, Uhlmann O, editors. Urban

ecology. Berlin: Springer; 1998. p. 593–9.

[42] Niemela J. Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity and Conserva-

tion 1999;8:119–31.

[43] Sukopp H. Human-caused impact on preserved vegetation. Land-

scape and Urban Planning 2004;68(4):347–55.

[44] Acar, C. ve Sarı, D., 2005. Kentsel Biyoc-es-itlilik ve Peyzaj Planlama,

1. C- evre ve Ormancılık S-urası, Antalya, 21–24 Mart 2005. http://

sura.cevreorman.gov.tr/gelen_teblig_kisi_7.htm.

[45] Sukopp H. In: Kaule G, editor. Naturschutzstrategien in der Stadt.

Stuttgart: Arten- und Biotopschutz; 1986. p. 434–9.

[46] Kowarik I. Some responses of flora and vegetation to urbanization in

Central Europe. In: Sukopp H, Hejny S, Kowarik I, editors. Urban

ecology. Den Haag: SPB, Academic Publishing; 1990. p. 45–74.

[47] Rebele F. Urban ecology and special features of urban ecosystems.

Global Ecology & Biogeography Letters 1994;4:173–87.

[48] Hill MO, Roy DB, Thompson K. Hemeroby, urbanity and

ruderality: bioindicators of disturbance and human impact. Journal

of Applied Ecology 2002;39(5):708–20.