Research ArticleArticles

Green Urban Scenarios: A Framework for Digital Twin Representation and Simulation for Urban Forests and Their Impact Analysis

Bulent Ozel and Marko Petrovic
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) January 2024, 50 (1) 109-130; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2023.029

Literature Cited

  1. ↵
    1. Berger U,
    2. Hildenbrandt H.
    (2000). A new approach to spatially explicit modelling of forest dynamics: Spacing, ageing and neighbourhood competition of mangrove trees. Ecological Modelling. 132(3):287–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00298-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Bittebiere AK,
    2. Mony C,
    3. Clement B, and
    4. Garbey M.
    2012. Modeling competition between plants using an Individual Based Model: Methods and effects on the growth of two species with contrasted growth forms. Ecological Modelling. 234:38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.05.028
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Botkin DB.
    1993. Forest dynamics: An ecological model. New York (NY, USA): Oxford University Press, Inc. 309 p.
  4. ↵
    1. Canham CD,
    2. Finzi AC,
    3. Pacala SW,
    4. Burbank DH.
    1994. Causes and consequences of resource heterogeneity in forests: Interspecific variation in light transmission by canopy trees. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 24(2):337–349. https://doi.org/10.1139/x94-046
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Castro CV,
    2. Maidment DR.
    2020. GIS preprocessing for Rapid initialization of HEC-HMS hydrological basin models using web-based data services. Environmental Modelling & Software. 130:104732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104732
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Coates KD,
    2. Canham CD,
    3. Beaudet M,
    4. Sachs DL,
    5. Messier C.
    2003. Use of a spatially explicit individual-tree model (SORTIE/BC) to explore the implications of patchiness in structurally complex forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 186(1-3): 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00301-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Dale VH,
    2. Doyle TW,
    3. Shugart HH.
    1985. A comparison of tree growth models. Ecological Modelling. 29(1-4):145–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(85)90051-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. DeVries R.
    1987. A preliminary investigation of the growth and longevity of trees in Central Park [dissertation]. New Brunswick (NJ, USA): Rutgers University. 95 p.
  9. ↵
    1. Dimitrova A.
    2021. Prague with a major tree-planting programme. Sofia (Bulgaria): TheMayor. [Updated 2021 January 4; Accessed 2021 May 17]. https://www.themayor.eu/en/a/view/prague-with-a-major-tree-planting-programme-2337
  10. ↵
    1. Dubbelboer J,
    2. Nikolic I,
    3. Jenkins K,
    4. Hall J.
    2017. An agent-based model of flood risk and insurance. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 20(1):6. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3135
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Epstein JM.
    2008. Why model? Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 11(4):12. https://www.jasss.org/11/4/12.html
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Epstein JM,
    2. Axtell R.
    1996. Growing artificial societies: Social science from the bottom up. Washington, DC (USA): The Brookings Institution. 228 p. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3374.001.0001
  13. ↵
    1. Grimm V,
    2. Ayllon D,
    3. Railsback SF.
    2017. Next-generation individual-based models integrate biodiversity and ecosystems: Yes we can, and yes we must. Ecosystems. 20(2):229–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-016-0071-2
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Gode DK,
    2. Sunder S.
    1993. Allocative efficiency of markets with zero intelligence traders: Market as a partial substitute for individual rationality. Journal of Political Economy. 101(1):119–137. https://doi.org/10.1086/261868
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Grueters U,
    2. Ibrahim MR,
    3. Satyanarayana B,
    4. Dahdouh-Guebas F.
    2019. Individual-based modeling of mangrove forest growth: MesoFON—Recent calibration and future direction. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science. 227:106302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2019.106302
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Grueters U,
    2. Ibrahim MR,
    3. Schmidt H,
    4. Tiebel K,
    5. Horn H,
    6. Pranchai A,
    7. Vovides AG,
    8. Vogt J,
    9. Otero V,
    10. Satyanarayana B,
    11. Dahdouh-Guebas F.
    2021. Stable coexistence in a field-calibrated individual-based model of mangrove forest dynamics caused by inter-specific crown plasticity. Forests. 12(7):955. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070955
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Hirabayashi S.
    2013. i-Tree eco precipitation interception model descriptions. 21 p. https://www.itreetools.org/documents/61/iTree_Eco_Precipitation_Interception_Model_Descriptions.pdf
  18. ↵
    1. Karnouskos S,
    2. de Holanda TN.
    2009. Simulation of a smart grid city with software agents. In: Al-Dabass D, Katsikas S, Koukos I, Abraham A, Zobel R, editors. EMS ’09: Proceedings of the 2009 third UKSim European symposium on computer modeling and simulation; 2009 November 25–27; Athens (Greece). Washington, DC (USA): IEEE Computer Society. p. 424–429. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMS.2009.53
  19. ↵
    1. Kirman A.
    1993. Ants, rationality, and recruitment. Quarterly Journal ofEconomics. 108(1):137–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118498
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Law AM,
    2. Kelton WD.
    1991. Simulation modeling and analysis. 2nd Ed. New York (USA): McGraw-Hill. 672 p.
  21. ↵
    1. Lin J,
    2. Kroll CN,
    3. Nowak DJ.
    2020. Ecosystem service-based sensitivity analyses of i-Tree Eco. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 46(4):287–306. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2020.021
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Lorimer CG,
    2. Frelich LE,
    3. Nordheim EV.
    1992. Forest-tree growth rates and probability of gap origin: A reply to clark. Ecology. 73(3):1124–1128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940185
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Marwick B,
    2. Krishnamoorthy K.
    2019. Cvequality: Tests for the equality of coefficients of variation from multiple groups. R software package version 0.1.3. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cvequality/readme/README.html
  24. ↵
    1. Metropolis N,
    2. Ulam S.
    1949. The Monte Carlo method. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 44(247):335–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1949.10483310
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    1. Musolin DL,
    2. Selikhovkin AV,
    3. Shabunin DA,
    4. Zviagintsev VB,
    5. Baranchikov YN.
    2017. Between ash dieback and emerald ash borer: Two Asian invaders in Russia and the future of ash in Europe. Baltic Forestry. 23(1):316–333.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Muukkonen P,
    2. Mäkipää R.
    2006. Biomass equations for European trees: Addendum. SilvaFennica. 40(4):475. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.475
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Newman MEJ.
    2011. Complex systems: A survey. American Journal ofPhysics. 79(8):800–810. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3590372
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ.
    1994. Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Chicago’s urban forest. In: McPherson EG, Nowak DJ, Rowntree RA, editors. Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: Results of the Chicago urban forest climate project. Madison (WI, USA): USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experimental Station. General Technical Report NE-186. p. 83–94.
  29. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ.
    1996. Estimating leaf area and leaf biomass of open-grown deciduous urban trees. Forest Science. 42(4):504–507. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/42.4.504
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  30. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ.
    2020. Understanding i-Tree: Summary of programs and methods. Madison (WI, USA): USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. General Technical Report NRS-200. 100 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-200
  31. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Crane DE.
    2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental Pollution. 116(3):381–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00214-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Crane DE,
    3. Stevens JC,
    4. Hoehn RE,
    5. Walton JT.
    2008. A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 34(6):347–358. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2008.048
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Crane DE,
    3. Stevens JC,
    4. Ibarra M.
    2002. Brooklyn’s urban forest. Newtown Square (PA, USA): USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. General Technical Report NE-290. 107 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NE-GTR-290
  34. ↵
    New South Wales Government. 2020. Greening our city premier’s priority. [Updated 2020 May 17; Accessed 2022 May 17]. https://www.dpie.nsw.gov.au/premiers-priorities/greening-our-city
  35. ↵
    1. Ozel B,
    2. Petrovic M.
    2022. Green urban scenarios: Model specification document. [Updated 2022 October 28]. https://github.com/lucidmindsai/gus/tree/main/docs
  36. ↵
    1. Ozel B,
    2. van der Hoog S.
    2020. Augmented collective intelligence a framework for self-organizing community actions in response to climate change. [Accessed 2022 May 28]. https://lucidminds.ai
  37. ↵
    1. Raberto M,
    2. Ozel B,
    3. Ponta L,
    4. Teglio A,
    5. Cincotti S.
    2019. From financial instability to green finance: The role of banking and credit market regulation in the Eurace model. Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 29(1):429–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-018-0568-2
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    ReTreevAIable Project. 2022. Research and Development cooperation project co-funded by the Dutch Enterprise Agency (RVO). https://www.rvo.nl
  39. ↵
    1. Rumble H,
    2. Rogers K,
    3. Doick K,
    4. Albertini A,
    5. Hutchings T.
    2015. Valuing urban trees in Glasgow: Assessing the ecosystem services of Glasgow’s urban forest: A technical report. Dumfries (Scotland): The Research Agency of the Forestry Commission. http://www.urbantreecover.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/FR_Doick_GlasgowItreereportFINAL.pdf
  40. ↵
    1. Savaglio C,
    2. Ganzha M,
    3. Paprzycki M,
    4. Badica C,
    5. Ivanovic M,
    6. Fortino G.
    2020. Agent-based internet of things: State-of-the-art and research challenges. Future Generation Computer Systems. 102:1038–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.09.016
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Schelling TC.
    1978. Micromotives and macrobehavior. New York (NY, USA): W.W. Norton and Co. 252 p.
  42. ↵
    1. Smith W,
    2. Shifley S.
    1984. Diameter growth, survival, and volume estimates for trees in Indiana and Illinois. St. Paul (MN, USA): USDA, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. Research Paper NC-257. https://doi.org/10.2737/NC-RP-257
  43. ↵
    1. Snowden D.
    2000. The social ecology of knowledge management. In: Despres C, Chauvel D, editors. Knowledge horizons. Boston (MA, USA): Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 237–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7247-4.50015-X
  44. ↵
    1. Wang J,
    2. Endreny TA,
    3. Nowak DJ.
    2008. Mechanistic simulation of tree effects in an urban water balance model1. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 44(1):75–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00139.x
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. Zhang B,
    2. DeAngelis DL.
    2020. An overview of agent-based models in plant biology and ecology. Annals of Botany. 126(4):539–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcaa043
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
Green Urban Scenarios: A Framework for Digital Twin Representation and Simulation for Urban Forests and Their Impact Analysis
Bulent Ozel, Marko Petrovic
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 2024, 50 (1) 109-130; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2023.029
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords