A Comparative Evaluation and Application of Established Urban Carbon Sequestration Tools Pubblico

Abstract

With urban area increasing and urban environmental quality concerns growing, land-owning institutions within densely developed space experience pressures against allocating natural land or advocating for green space. Given the significance of carbon emissions in global climate change, urban managers recognize the potential for managed areas to offset these emissions and impact urban environmental management and policy. This work seeks to assist the study area, Emory University, in selecting and implementing land management solutions that contribute positively to the resilience (ecological health) - and human well-being - of the urban system through a comparison of evaluation methods for estimating carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services.

This study compares well-established ecosystem service estimation tools, I-Tree Tools, to evaluate the suitability of each tool to Emory. I then recommend alternative exterior development priorities and strategies for supporting carbon sequestration, long-term-storage, and non-carbon ecosystem services on Emory's campus. This study finds that I-Tree Canopy is most suited to a mixed land area such as Emory, as well as being the most user friendly relative to the reliability of its output. If variable output and data are needed, I-Tree Eco bridges the physical gap and estimates based on field data.

Ecosystem services describes the natural benefits that humankind can obtain from an ecosystem. In this case, forested land alone stores approximately 50,510 tons of carbon (valued at $1.826 million) and sequesters 2,318 tons annually, nearly offsetting the annual emissions from Emory's fleet vehicles, totaling 2,472 tons. Emory's trees and forests have the potential to remove 10.44 tons of ozone (O3), 2.52 tons of PM 10 air pollution, and 1,276 pounds of PM 2.5 air pollution annually. Prioritizing large biomass tree species selection and continuing to expand overall vegetative and tree cover will benefit all facets of Emory's University system and healthcare network, including working toward a larger emissions offset project.

Table of Contents

Contents Introduction.................................................................................................................1 Methods......................................................................................................................6 Study Area..................................................................................................................6 Tool Selection and Comparison.......................................................................................7 Survey Work................................................................................................................8 Carbon Estimates and Recommendations.........................................................................8 Co-citation Analysis - VosViewer Software........................................................................9 Results.......................................................................................................................10 Initial ArborGuard Survey..............................................................................................10 I-Tree Canopy..............................................................................................................11 I-Tree Eco...................................................................................................................12 Comparative Evaluation of Estimation Tools.....................................................................14 VosViewer Co-citation Analysis......................................................................................15 Discussion...................................................................................................................16 Main campus recommendations.....................................................................................18 Native species expansion and management.....................................................................19 Campus sustainability vision and aesthetic management...................................................20 Air quality and pollution abatement recommendations.......................................................21 Campus resilience and future development......................................................................22 Conclusion..................................................................................................................23 References..................................................................................................................25 Tables and Figures.......................................................................................................28 Table 1. Standards and considerations for choice of software tool.......................................28 Table 2. Other estimation tools and their suitability for Emory's urban canopy......................29 Table 3. I-Tree Eco V.6 Inventory Variables and Data Types................................................31 Table 4. Percent groundcover by category for full property using Canopy.............................32 Table 5. Percent groundcover and associated benefits for main campus using Canopy...........33 Table 6. Urban tree benefits, Emory forested areas using Canopy.......................................34 Table 7. Comparative I-Tree Eco, Canopy, and ArborGuard results summary.........................35 Table 8. Annual oxygen production by species using Eco...................................................36 Figure 1. Emory University Main Campus, ArborGuard......................................................37 Figure 2. Emory University Forested Areas measured by Canopy.........................................38 Figure 3. Carbon storage: amount (points) and value (bars) from Eco.................................39 Figure 4. Annual gross carbon sequestration: amount (points) and value (bars) from Eco......40 Figure 5. Annual pollution removal by individual pollutants (points)....................................41 Figure 6. Annual avoided runoff (points) and associated value (bars) from Eco.....................42 Figure 7. VOS Viewer Map Image...................................................................................43 Appendix 1.1 - I-Tree Eco Methodology, UFORE A, B, and C...............................................44 Appendix 1.2 - I-Tree Eco Methodology, UFORE D and E....................................................45 Appendix 1.3 - I- Tree Canopy Technical Notes - General...................................................46 Appendix 1.4 - I-Tree Canopy Technical Notes - Air Pollution..............................................47

About this Honors Thesis

Rights statement

• Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.

School	Emory College
Department	Environmental Sciences
Degree	BA
Submission	Honors Thesis
Language	English
Research Field	Land Use Planning Biology, Ecology Environmental Management
Parola chiave	ecosystem services greenspace carbon storage urban planning carbon sequestration
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor	Wegner, John, Emory University
Committee Members	Saikawa, Eri , Emory University Murphy, Vinnie, Emory University

Ultima modifica

Primary PDF

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions
	A Comparative Evaluation and Application of Established Urban Carbon Sequestration Tools ()	2018-08-28 16:24:01 -0400	Press to Select an action Download

Supplemental Files

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions
	Emory Hardwood-Softwood Eco Data for submit.xlsx ()	2018-08-28 16:27:07 -0400	Press to Select an action Download