Quantification of Summer Thermal Bioclimate of Different Urban Forms in Erzurum City Centre

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 4, 235 - 242, 31.12.2017

Esra Bulgan Sevgi Yılmaz

Öz

Climate has always become an important research object due to its effects on people and environment.

In this study, five different areas in Erzurum city centre were determined for the assessment of thermal comfort

areas. For the measurement of bioclimatic comfort values in these areas, meteorological parameters (such as ambient

temperature (°C), relative humidity (%), wind speed (m/s) and cloudiness (oktas) for the daily time zones such as

00:00, 03:00, 06:00, 09:00, 12:00, 15:00, 18:00 and 21:00 were taken in 2012 between 20th of June and 10th of

September. PET index and RayMan 2.1 model are used for the assessment of bioclimatic comfort conditions. When

the reference station is identified as rural and the other five stations are defined as urban, it is observed that there

are PET differences between urban and rural stations in the range of 1.1ºC to 4.3ºC. While the comfortable range

for summer time are felt as %10.3 in Erzurum Meteorology Airport Station which is rural area covered with steppe

vegetation, this ratio is identified as %20,4 at Ataturk University Campus covered with vegetation. Therefore, urban

green areas should be protected and increased as much as possible.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bioclimatic comfort, Erzurum, PET, climate, rayman

Farklı Kent Dokularının Yaz Aylarında Biyoklimatik Konfora Etkisi: Erzurum Örneği

Öz

İklim; insan ve çevreye ait etkileri nedeniyle araştırılmaya değer önemli konular arasında yer almaktadır.

Bu çalışmada, Biyoklimatik konfor değeri hesaplamak için Erzurum kent merkezinde farklı niteliklere sahip beş

alan belirlenmiştir. Bu alanlardan; 2012 yılı 20 Haziran ve 10 Eylül aralığında günlük 00:00, 03:00, 06:00, 09:00,

12:00, 15:00, 18:00 ve 21:00 saatlerini kapsayan sıcaklık (°C) , nem (%), rüzgar (m/s) ve bulutluluk (oktas) gibi

meteorolojik parametreler ölçülmüştür. Çalışmada; fizyolojik Eşdeğer Sıcaklık (FES) indeksi ve RayMan 2.1 modeli

kullanılmıştır. Referans istasyon kırsal, diğer 5 istasyon kentsel olarak tanımlandığında kırsal istasyon ile kentsel

istasyonlar arasında 1.1°C ve 4.3°C arasında değişen FES farklılıkları olduğu görülmüştür. Step bitki örtüsüyle

kaplı kırsal alan olan Erzurum Meteoroloji Havaalanı istasyonunda yaz aylarında “konfor”lu aralık %10,3 oranında

hissedilirken, bitki örtüsünce zengin olan Atatürk Üniversitesi yerleşkesinde bu oran %20,4 olarak tesbit edilmiştir.

Bu nedenle kent içi yeşil alanları mümkün olduğunca korunmalı ve miktarları arttırılmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Biyoklimatik konfor, erzurum, fizyolojik eşdeğer sıcaklık, iklim, rayman

Kaynakça

• Abreu-Harbich LV, Labaki LC and Matzarakis A, 2012. Paper 327: Different Trees and configuration as microclimate control strategy in Tropics. ICUC8 6th-10th August, 2012, UCD, Dublin Ireland.
• Ali-Toudert F and Mayer H, 2007. Effects of asymmetry, galleries, overhanging facades and vegetation on thermal comfort in urban street canyons. Solar Energy, 81(6), 742–754.
• Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali L, Knight TM and Pullin AS, 2010. Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape Andurban Plannıng, 97(3), 147-155.
• Bulgan E, 2014. Erzurum Kenti Farklı Kent Dokularının Yaz Aylarında Biyoklimatik Konforun Hesaplaması. Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, S.137
• Bulgan E, Yilmaz S, Matzarakis A and Irmak MA, 2014. Quantification of summer thermal bioclimate of different land uses in an urban city centre. IC2UHI3, October 13-15, 2014, pp. 523-534, Venezia, Italy
• Cohen P, Potchter O and Matzarakis A, 2012. Daily and seasonal climatic conditions of green urban open spaces inthe mediterranean climate and their impacton. Building and Environ., 51, 285-295.
• Dimoudi A and Nikolopoulou M, 2003. Vegetation in the urban environment: microclimatic analysis and benefits. Energy and buildings, 35(1), 69-76.
• Fanger PO, 1970. Thermal comfort. Analysis and application in Environmental Engineering. Danish Technical Press, 244, Copenhagen.
• Höppe P, 1999. The physiological equivalent temperature - A universal index for the biometeorological assessment of the thermal environment. International Journal of Biometeorology, 43(2), 71-75.
• Hwang RL, Lin TP and Matzarakis A, 2011. Seasonal effects of urban street shading on long-term outdoor thermal comfort. Building and Environment, 46(4),863–870.
• Kamoutsis A, Matsoukis A, Chronopoulos K and Manoli E, 2010. A comparative study of human thermal comfort conditions in two mountainous regions in greece during summer. Global N.J., 12(4), 401-408.
• Ketterer C and Matzarakis A, 2012. 312: Development and application of assessment methods for thermal bioclimate conditions in Stuttgart. ICUC8 - 6th-10th August, 2012, UCD, Dublin Ireland.
• Lin TP, Matzarakis A, 2009. Tourism climate and thermal comfort in Sun Moon Lake, Taiwan. Int J Biometeorol, 52(4),281–290.
• Matzarakis A, Rutz F and Mayer H, 1999. Estimation and calculation of the mean radiant temperature within urban structures. Biomet. and urban clim. at the turn of the millennium. WMO/TD, 1026,273–278.
• Oke TR, 1982. The Energetic Basis of the Urban Heat Island. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 108(455), 1-24.
• Oke TR, 1987. Boundary Layer Climates. New York, Routledge.
• Pattacini L, 2012. Climate and urban form. Urban design international, 17(2),106-114.
• Picot X, 2004. Thermal comfort in urban spaces: impact of vegetation growth - Case study: Piazza della Scienza, Milan, Italy. Energy and buildings, 36(4), 329–334.
• Thorsson S, Honjo T, Lindberg F, Eliasson I and Lim EM, 2007. Thermal comfort and outdoor activity in Japanese urban public places. Environment and Behavior, 39(5), 660-684.
• Toy S and Yilmaz S, 2010. Thermal sensation of people performing recreational activities in shadowy environment: a case study from Turkey. Theoretical and applied climatology, 101(3-4), 329-343.
• Unger J, 1999. Comparisons of urban and rural bioclimatological conditions in the case of a Central-European city. International Journalof Biometeorology, 43(3), 139-144.
• Upmanis H and Chen DL, 1999. Influence of geographical factors and meteorological variables on nocturnal urban-park temperature differences.., Sweden. Climate Research, 13(2), 125-139.
• Xi TY, Li Q, Mochida A and Meng QL., 2012. Study on the outdoor thermal environment and thermal comfort around campus clusters in subtropical urban areas. Buılding and Environment, 52, 162-170.
• Xu J, Wei Q, Huang X, Zhu X and Li G, 2010. Evaluation of human thermal comfort near urban waterbody during summer. Building and Environment, 45(4), 1072-1080.
• Yang F, Lau SY and Qian F, 2011. Thermal comfort effects of urban design strategies in high-rise urban environments in a sub-tropical climate. Architectural Science Review, 54(4), 285-304.
• Yilmaz S, Avdan U, Yilmaz H, Yildiz ND and Irmak MA, 2015. Quantification of thermal bioclimate of Erzurum based on different land uses and thermal band information. ICUC9- 20-24 July, France
• Yilmaz S, Koç A, Mutlu E and Yildiz ND, 2016. Integration of Thermal Comfort Information with Spatial Modelling in Erzurum City Center. Procedia Engineering, 169, 80-87
• Zoulia I, Santamouris M and Dimoudi A, 2009. Monitoring the effect of urban green areas onthe heat island in Athens. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,156(1-4), 275-292.