Next Article in Journal
Public Opinion and the Energy Transition in East Asia: The Case of Taiwan
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Influence of Cultural Memory in Agricultural Heritage on Brand Loyalty
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 10
10.3390/su16104163
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Raw Material Stage Assessment of Seating Elements as Urban Furniture and Eco-Model Proposals

by
Serkan Sipahi
1 and
Merve Sipahi
2,*
1
Faculty of Architecture and Design, Ataturk University, 25030 Erzurum, Turkey
2
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, 53100 Rize, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(10), 4163; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104163
Submission received: 19 February 2024 / Revised: 10 May 2024 / Accepted: 14 May 2024 / Published: 16 May 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As cities strive to become sustainable, it is imperative to consider even the smallest components of the urban environment and prioritize sustainability. Ensuring the sustainability of urban furniture, especially the numerous benches found in cities, is crucial. This study proposes an alternative solution to the sustainability issue in cities regarding urban furniture. This is because a review of the literature indicates that while efforts have been made to evaluate the sustainability of urban amenities and furniture, studies conducting life cycle analysis specifically for urban furniture are lacking. This study will contribute to the identified gap in the literature by analyzing 14 different seating elements in recreational areas located in the city of Rize, Turkey, using the Ccalc program to calculate their carbon footprints. In the subsequent phase of this study, an eco-design process will be conducted based on the findings, aiming to create an eco-seating unit design. Based on the data obtained, materials with high environmental impact were identified, material replacement recommendations were made, and consequently, a model proposal was presented. The potential reduction in carbon footprints with the use of transformed materials was discussed. The findings revealed that carbon footprint values were particularly high in the seating units where concrete and polypropylene materials were used. Additionally, it was determined that solvent paint, especially varnish, affects the carbon footprint, and it was recommended that would be used in its natural form, which is eco-friendly. In conclusion, the recommendations developed for the sustainability of urban furniture in coastal areas will contribute to the future of cities and humanity.

1. Introduction

Rapid urbanization, encompassing the economic, ecological, and sociological development process of cities, brings forth urban benefits alongside urban and environmental threats [1]. The rapid depletion of natural and cultural resources, climate change, and urban pressures such as environmental pollution (air, water, noise) highlight the issues of urban resilience and sustainability [2]. In the context of sustainability, which has become a global concern, the aim is to develop policies that enhance the quality of life for all individuals today and in the future by providing equal opportunities in cities and reducing the environmental impacts of all these efforts [3,4]. The lives of urban users directly influence the design of sustainability channels and products in accordance with sustainability principles, making it mandatory [5].
Strategies for achieving sustainable development goals in cities are fundamentally based on the efficient use of raw materials and energy, as well as reducing/preventing their environmental impact [6]. Sustainable cities provide a framework for urban development but also face environmental, local, social, cultural, and economic challenges [7,8]. Within this context, it is not possible identify a single suitable solution for sustainability in cities with different identities, resources, and characteristics [9]. Therefore, each city needs unique urban planning, defining goals and objectives that enhance the quality of life for sustainability at macro- to microscales [10].
Open green spaces, which are prominent among land uses that enhance the quality of life in urban areas, contribute significantly to sustainability due to their quality and usability [11]. Urban open green spaces encompass urban equipment/furniture tailored to user needs, integrated into public spaces [12]. Urban equipment is a crucial element that contributes to the livability of space and shape the identity of a city [13]. This equipment has a systematic structure that ensures the integrity of the city and provides spatial uniqueness [14]. Urban furniture holds significant importance for sustainable cities, being influenced by social, cultural, environmental, and economic factors [15]. Seating units within urban equipment serve various purposes such as creating social spaces, relaxing, and gathering [16]. Outdoor seating units with various designs commonly utilize materials such as concrete, wood, metal alloys, and plastics [17]. Seating units that provide general usability in urban areas should be planned and designed with materials that are compatible with climatic conditions, allowing for adaptation, having long lifespans, and doing no harm to the environment in order to extend their lifespan within the framework of sustainability [18].
Urban equipment has a lifecycle at the product–material scale before and after the design process. Additionally, they significantly impact urban quality of life and sustainability [19]. This furniture is a significant part of urban design approaches and, supported by sustainable design strategies while addressing user needs, will contribute to future generations [15]. Studies emphasizing the contribution of urban furniture to sustainability in sustainable urban designs are available [20,21]. These studies highlight the necessity of considering the environmental impact of materials/products in every aspect, from micro- to macroscales, such as urban furniture. In this context, emerging sustainable approaches adopt an understanding of where natural resources are efficiently used, ecosystems are preserved, and environmental impacts are reduced [22]. In this regard, material choices and the raw material stage are crucial in the life cycle of urban equipment.
Sustainability gives rise to the concept of eco-design, which encompasses processes involving the assessment of and reduction in the environmental impacts of products or systems throughout their life cycle, shaping the design accordingly. Life cycle analysis can be defined as determining the environmental impacts of a design process from the raw material stage to transformation and disposal [23,24,25,26].
Rooted in the integrative impact of ecology and design, eco-design aims to create designs that do not harm the environment in any way during their use and return to nature, ensuring the sustainability of the production chain [27,28]. In eco-design, the identification of ecological impacts and consideration of environmental factors are essential from the early stages of product design, such as planning and conceptualization [29,30,31]. Eco-design is shaped by seven main strategies covering the product’s life cycle [32]. These strategies include low-impact material, reduction in material use, optimization of production techniques, optimization of distribution systems, reduction in impact during use, optimization of product lifetime, and optimization of end-of-life systems.
Life cycle assessment (LCA), which forms the basis of eco-design, is a technique that evaluates possible environmental impacts, such as energy usage and waste, in addition to production costs, as well as product usage and recycling [33,34]. In the approach adopted by low-carbon design philosophy, environmental impacts throughout the entire life cycle are considered. The product’s carbon footprint is revealed in life cycle design and analysis [26]. In today’s discussions, particularly related to climate change, the importance of life cycle analysis is emphasized in connection with low-carbon design [35]. “Life cycle analysis (LCA)” or “life cycle assessment (LCA)” is considered among the methodologies that assess the sustainability of products and is considered a suitable method from the urban scale to the furniture scale [36]. Life cycle analysis encompasses five fundamental cycles: raw material acquisition, product manufacturing, product distribution and application, product use and maintenance, and the recycling or disposal of the product, covering the pre-use, in-use, and end-of-life stages of a product [37,38,39,40]. Additionally, life cycle analysis (LCA) occurs in four distinct stages: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact analysis, and interpretation [41,42,43]. In this context, the first step involves identifying the raw materials, energy, and water used throughout the product’s entire process, resulting in an inventory of environmental emissions. Based on the obtained data, the environmental impacts of inputs and outputs are evaluated, and in the final stage, systematic and comparative analyses are conducted with interpretations [41,44] The fundamental principle of life cycle analysis is to determine the environmental impacts of a product or substance, reduce harmful effects, and select environmentally and ecologically friendly products that cause minimal harm to the environment [45,46,47]. Life cycle analysis has been standardized in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards 14040 and 14044 [48].
Life cycle analysis has various applications such as enhancing the planning and design processes of a product, making strategic decisions, integrating products into the eco-design process, and comparing products [41]. Several tools and techniques are employed to reveal the environmental impacts of a product within the scope of eco-design. In this context, the Material-Energy-Toxicology (MET) matrix and analysis, with environmental indicators, have emerged as significant tools [49,50,51]. Different software tools with various databases and interfaces, such as Simapro, GaBI, Umberto, and Ccalc, are utilized in the creation and evaluation of life cycle analysis [52]. These software applications make significant contributions to the analysis process [44]. Sustainability within the scope of urban planning, particularly in eco-design, highlights the need for life cycle analysis at both the urban and sub-scales. Selecting and analyzing products or materials in a way that minimizes ecological impact is crucial [47,53]. Therefore, all structural and vegetative areas within the city scope should be included in the sustainability process, and the environmental impacts of furniture that are overlooked at small scales should be identified, and necessary measures should be taken.
According to searches conducted on the Scopus and Web of Science databases, there are no eco-design studies specifically focused on benches in the literature. Although there are studies on sustainable urban equipment, there is a lack of research specifically focused on the life cycle analysis of this equipment. To the best of our knowledge, this article is the first attempt to evaluate the environmental effects on benches of a city using an LCA method.
In reviewing past studies, it has been observed that there are eco-design studies on the wood sector [54] and furniture sector [55,56], sustainability studies on cities and urban spaces [57,58], and sustainability studies on urban equipment [59,60]. In this context, the current study aims to serve as a bridge among other studies and address questions such as “What are the environmental impacts of existing designs for benches as urban equipments? Is it possible to reduce the environmental impacts of these designs through eco-design methods?” The analysis conducted within the scope of this study calculated the current carbon footprints of 14 types of benches in the city, considering the materials. Carbon footprints were reduced by changing materials and reducing material diversity, and a bench model with a low carbon footprint was proposed by implementing ideas for reducing parts. With these studies, the main contribution of this article will be the eco-bench model proposals for cities created through eco-design studies conducted on existing designs. This study underscores the critical need to integrate life cycle analysis for the raw material stage into assessing the sustainability of urban furniture, particularly in the realm of urban furniture. This study only focused on the raw material stage of the life cycle of benches. Given that this study only addressed one stage of the life cycle, focusing on all stages of the life cycle in future studies would be appropriate and serve as a guide for further research. Focusing on seating elements in recreational areas and proposing eco-design solutions, it not only addresses a significant gap in the literature but also offers tangible strategies for reducing carbon footprints and advancing sustainable practices in coastal urban environments. This study, through its analysis of coastal urban furniture with eco-design, will provide a foundation for other similar works.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The material of this study comprises 14 different seating elements used in the coastal landscape of the city of Rize, which is located in the Eastern Black Sea Region (Turkey) (Figure 1). Rize is a city with a linear structure along the coast of the Black Sea. With a mild climate, Rize receives rainfall throughout the year due to its geographical features, and the humidity in the city is quite high. Due to the topography of the Rize province, land uses are created in areas close to the coast.
The coastal areas, which are intensively used by users for recreational purposes, have significant importance for the city in terms of social, economic, ecological, and cultural aspects and their structural and plant elements. In this context, 14 different seating units from three different coastal recreational areas heavily used in the city of Rize were included in this study (Figure 2). The sustainability of seating elements with different materials and designs was examined within the scope of this study.
The presence of 14 different seating elements in close proximity to each other in the city center, along with the richness in material diversity, has led to the selection of the city center of Rize as the study area.

2.2. Method

The methodology of this study involves investigating the sustainability of seating units used in coastal areas through a life cycle analysis. In this context, this study consists of 11 stages (Figure 3):
  • Collecting data through direct measurements (Figure 4).
  • Calculating weights by using the specific densities of the materials and entering the data into the Ccalc program (Version: V3.3, Country: Manchester, UK).
  • Identifying the carbon footprint of designs using the Ccalc program, identifying and evaluating materials with environmental impacts above the determined average value, and evaluating carbon footprints of materials for original designs.
  • First round of listing alternative materials using brainstorming method, evaluating alternative materials through cost–benefit analysis, and implementation of alternative materials.
  • Identifying and evaluating carbon footprints of designs after first round.
  • Second round of listing alternative materials using brainstorming method, evaluating alternative materials through cost–benefit analysis, and implementation of alternative materials.
  • Identifying and evaluating carbon footprints of designs after second round.
  • Final review of designs with alternative materials.
  • Listing ideas for reducing parts using brainstorming method, evaluating reduced furniture parts through cost–benefit analysis, identifying ideas for materials with low carbon footprint.
  • Generating and evaluating proposals for new designs based on material substitution and material reduction ideas.
  • Comparison of the developed model proposals with existing seating elements.
In this study, the carbon footprints of seating units were calculated only for the raw material stage, excluding the production stage due to factors such as the ease of regional production and the large number of seating units having on-site assembly. Additionally, the transportation stage was excluded from the study scope because of the on-site assembly implementation. Furthermore, discussions with the municipality revealed the absence of a specific recycling program for old products and the diversity of recycling processes. Hence, the end-of-life stage was also excluded from the study scope. Since seating elements do not consume energy during the usage stage, they were also excluded, because they focused solely on the raw material stage in this study.
This study began with the collection of data through on-site measurements in the specified areas. During the measurements, a tape measure and a caliper measurement tool were used, while the numbers of parts were calculated through on-site observation.
Initially, the data were collected for 14 seating units located in three different recreational areas. Within this scope, on-site observations, measurements, and analyses of the material details and dimensions of each seating element were conducted and plans and elevations were drawn (Table 1 and Table 2). Measurements were taken volumetrically for seating elements without the possibility of dismantling, and their weights were calculated using the density of the materials. The collected data revealed variations in the lengths of the seating units. Accordingly, the seating units had different lengths: designs 2 and 3 were 180 cm long, designs 5, 6, and 13 were 150 cm long, designs 4 and 8 were 270 cm long, design 9 was 196 cm long, design 10 was 350 cm long, and design 14 was 235 cm long. As shown in Table 1, seating units with different seating capacities were included in the study scope. In particular, designs 1, 11, and 12 were observed to serve large groups. To minimize this variation, designs 1, 11, and 12 were considered for three people based on the Neufert handbook and the lengths of other seating units were assumed to be 180 cm for three people [61].
In the second stage of this study, the weights of the materials whose volumes were calculated using the specific densities shown in Table 3 were determined for data entry into the Ccalc program.
In the next stage of this study, the data were input into the Ccalc program used for life cycle analysis. Assuming that 5% of the weights constituted waste and consumable materials [52], the product weights were entered into the program with a 5% increase.
The Ccalc program is a tool that follows the life cycle methodology created according to PAS2050, ISO14040, and ISO14044 standards [52]. This user-friendly program comes with the ecoinvent database. In this study, the ecoinvent database was also utilized. Ccalc allows for cradle-to-grave carbon footprint calculations and helps identify carbon hotspots and carbon reduction opportunities. It is a program with a broad database that calculates the carbon footprint in kg CO2 eq./functional unit [62]. kg CO2 eq./functional unit is kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent [63]. The emission levels of different greenhouse gases can be converted to CO2 equivalents in order to combine the global warming effects. This conversion is based on the global warming potential (GWP), which measures the warming impact of the greenhouse effect of materials [64].
After calculating the carbon footprint of designs using the Ccalc program, materials with environmental impacts above the determined average value were identified and evaluated in the fourth stage. To determine the average value, the total carbon footprint number of the identified seating units was divided by the number of seating units, resulting in the average total carbon footprint value. Then, the average number of materials used in these 14 seating units was determined. The calculated average total carbon footprint value was divided by the average number of materials, resulting in an average value.
Materials with values above the calculated average are considered to have a high carbon footprint. For these materials, brainstorming methods were used to list new material alternatives; the listed materials were then evaluated using the cost–benefit technique, and material substitutions were made based on the evaluation results. When the results were evaluated, they were deemed insufficient. Therefore, the calculations and material changes were repeated once more with second round, taking advantage of the iterative nature of eco-design [61]. Finally, the carbon footprints of the new designs obtained from the material changes in the second round were determined, and comparative analyses were conducted with the results from the first round.
In the next stage of this study, material reduction ideas were developed based on the new designs obtained by changing the necessary materials while preserving the seating function. In the final stage of this study, a new design model proposal was presented, and a life cycle comparison was made between the initial designs and the new design proposal.

3. Results and Discussion

The findings of this study were evaluated under three main headings. In this context, the results include carbon footprint measurements of existing designs, new measurements by applying eco-design strategies, material reduction ideas, and the development of a new model.

3.1. Identifying and Evaluating the Carbon Footprints of Materials for Original Designs

An analysis was conducted by considering the materials and quantities used in 14 different seating elements, and the materials used along with their carbon footprints are presented in Table 4. The obtained data reveal the frequent use of concrete, wood, and iron materials in seating units, along with the utilization of polypropylene and granite materials. It was identified that varnish and solvent paint are commonly used for seating elements. The average value of the identified carbon footprint for the seating units is 15.58 kg CO2 eq./functional unit.
The examination revealed that the carbon footprint values of the seating units using concrete and polypropylene materials were consistently above the identified average values. Figure 4 shows that seating design No. 1 is entirely made of concrete, while designs No. 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 use concrete in their legs and structural parts. Additionally, design No. 13 is entirely made of polypropylene. Varnish is used in designs No. 4, 7, 8, and 14, and it is observed that this material has a high carbon footprint. Designs No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 14 used solvent paint, and it was observed that this material also has a high carbon footprint.

3.2. First Round of Listing, Evaluating, and Implementing Alternative Materials and Evaluating the Carbon Footprints of Designs after the First Round

In the initial assessment of existing designs, it was identified that the carbon footprint of concrete and polypropylene materials is high. In response, alternative material suggestions have been developed. The developed recommendations are provided in Table 5.
In the scope of this study, carbon footprint analyses were repeated by using wood instead of concrete and polypropylene, taking advantage of the repetitive nature of eco-design [52]. The obtained data are provided in Table 6.
The average carbon footprint of the new materials was re-calculated and determined to be 1.896. Figure 5 shows that the varnish material exceeds the average value in designs 4, 7, 8, and 14; the solvent paint in design 5; the iron structural elements in designs 5, 8, 9, and 10; and the granite in design 12.

3.3. Second Round of Listing, Evaluating, and Implementing Alternative Materials and Evaluating the Carbon Footprints of Designs after the Second Round

Believed to serve no purpose other than extending the lifespan of seating elements and adding aesthetic value, solvent paint and varnish from the identified materials may be considered unnecessary. Moreover, products such as paint, varnish, and adhesives often negatively impact human health due to formaldehyde and its derivatives [66]. Therefore, these materials may not be used, as seen in designs No. 1, 9, 11, 12, and 13, where wood is utilized. Although the non-use of these materials may slightly shorten the lifespan, it can be estimated in accordance with ISO standards that opting for a method of replacing deteriorating parts over time would result in a lower carbon footprint. Additionally, it is possible to say that wood retains visual and aesthetic value in its natural color without the use of paint and varnish. Similarly, granite stone cladding has been used for aesthetic purposes in design No. 12. Hence, there is no objection to discontinuing the use of this material. Alternative materials for the use of structural iron in seating elements are presented in Table 7.
After the examinations were conducted, it was concluded that the wood material can be used instead of an iron structure due to its lower cost and environmental characteristics [67]. The carbon footprint values of seating element designs created using wood instead of an iron structure, without the use of granite, varnish, and solvent paint, are provided in Table 8. In design number 10, the need for metal connection elements arises due to the change in the material. The carbon footprint values of the necessary connection elements have been calculated and added to the table.

3.4. Final Review of Designs with Alternative Materials

The carbon footprints of the existing designs range from 1.475 kg CO2 eq./functional unit to 317 kg CO2 eq./functional unit. With the material changes implemented, the carbon footprints of the seating unit designs vary between 0.492 CO2 eq./functional unit and 2.539 CO2 eq./functional unit. Despite eliminating practices such as varnish and paint that extend the material lifespan, the changes made are believed to be acceptable considering a carbon footprint change ranging from 60% (design 2) to 99% (design 1), even with a shortened lifespan.
Furthermore, as shown in Figure 6, reducing the carbon footprints of designs from the initial range of 1.76 CO2 eq./functional unit to 15.257 CO2 eq./functional unit after the first revision to the final range of 0.392 CO2 eq./functional unit to 2.539 CO2 eq./functional unit following the second application of eco-design principles highlights the significance of recycling as applied for the second time.

3.5. Material Reduction Ideas and the Development of a New Model

Under the strategies of low-impact material and reductions in material use, wood was used as the main material and iron screws for connections in the model [68,69]. The ideas emerging for reducing the components used in the seating unit, within the scope of the reduction in material use strategy, are presented in Table 9.
Based on the ideas presented in Table 9, it was decided to remove the backrest element due to its potential to affect comfort in all situations and the absence of backrests in some existing designs. Although removing the backrest may have an impact on comfort, it does not pose any inconvenience to the main action, which is the sitting action. Additionally, it has been deemed appropriate to remove the legs, as elevating the existing terrain and designing seating elements to sit directly on the terrain eliminate the need for maintenance and repair of the leg elements. Terrain elevation will be achieved solely by compacting the existing soil on the site and will not involve any additional materials or applications. On the other hand, it is believed that particularly in coastal areas, moist and alkaline soil significantly shortens the service life of the seating unit. Therefore, two versions of the model were designed: one with legs and one without legs, which sit directly on the ground.

3.6. New Design Models

As a result of material reduction ideas, two new design models have been developed. In the first design, no legs were used, but considering that the seating element of sitting directly on the ground could significantly reduce its lifespan, especially in humid areas where the soil contains moisture and alkalinity, a second design was developed (Table 10).
While the materials used in the developed models remain the same, in the second design, legs are added to elevate the seating element from the ground. Gaps are created in the seating part of the model with legs, as there is no direct contact with the ground or wall, whereas no gaps are opened in the seating section of the legless model. Both models were created as shown in Figure 7.
In both designs, as a result of the material change ideas implemented in the project, solid wood and a minimum level of iron screws for connection were used. The naturalness of the wood has been preserved in designs without using materials such as solvent-based paint or varnish for protection or aesthetic purposes. Additionally, using entirely recycled materials such as the Wood–Plastic Composite (WPC) [70] produced from waste is also an alternative (Table 11).
The carbon footprint of the developed design model without legs was determined to be 0.474 kg CO2 eq./functional unit. Additionally, the carbon footprint of the model with legs was determined in to be 0.244 kg CO2 eq./functional unit. The carbon footprints of both models were examined based on the design configurations in Table 10 and the carbon footprint values of the materials in Table 11. The design model without legs could not be designed with a gapped structure due to its direct contact with the ground. Additionally, the material thickness increases to reduce heat transfer from the ground. Moreover, the dimensions and thicknesses of iron connection elements are larger, especially due to the need for stronger connections to the soil. Considering all these reasons, the carbon footprint of the design without legs is greater than that of the design model with legs.
Although there is a difference of 0.230 CO2 eq./functional unit between the newly created models, it is observed that the carbon footprints of both designs are lower than those of the existing 14 designs and the designs obtained after round 1 and round 2 (Figure 8). However, the effectiveness of the eco-design applied to current designs becomes better understood when considering the smaller difference in carbon footprints between the newly created model and the carbon footprints of the 14 designs.
Urban seating groups integrated with landscape areas can contribute to sustainability by reducing material usage. Similarly to the implementation in design 9, seating elements can be designed on existing walls. Additionally, in conjunction with landscaping, designing seating elements by elevating some areas of the seating distance above the ground, along with surfaces applied to the ground, is possible. Surfaces applied above ground may not prefer natural wood without varnish for durability.
Although design models without leg seating element designs provide an alternative for seating elements with low environmental impact, design models with legs seating elements are considered to be a better alternative due to their ability to be more easily applied to any surface and climate, the expectation of longer lifespan, and their lower environmental impact compared to that of the design model with legs.
By implementing such practices and similar ones, sustainability can be achieved for all urban furniture, particularly in the city of Rize and coastal areas, throughout their lifecycle.

4. Conclusions

This research conducted in Rize evaluates seating elements within the city. This paper discusses the possibility of making seating elements sustainable in humid areas, coastal zones, and urban areas by making and implementing certain design decisions. Within the scope of this study, life cycle assessment (LCA) analysis was performed to measure the carbon footprint of existing seating elements in Rize for the raw material phase. Based on the analyses, gradual material changes were proposed and implemented with feedback to reduce the carbon footprint of existing seating units in the city. The focus was on materials that needed transformation to lower the carbon footprint values of the current seating units in the city. The discussion also addressed how much the carbon footprint could be reduced with the transformation of materials.
Once the materials to be used for seating units with a low carbon footprint were identified, ideas for part reduction were developed for creating new design models. The formation of new design models was carried out by implementing these reduction ideas. As a result, based on the presented solution proposals, emphasis was placed on how sustainable urban seating elements could be achieved.
As a result, it has been determined that the effective use of wood, a natural material, reduces the carbon footprint of sustainable urban seating elements. The findings suggesting the utilization of wood in urban furniture are corroborated by studies such as those conducted by Gabric et al. (2022) and Barcic et al. (2018) [71,72]. According to this study, it is necessary to avoid the use of materials such as concrete, polypropylene, granite, and iron structures as structural materials, as well as varnish and solvent paint as protective materials. In the first round, concrete and polypropylene materials were detected as a high-carbon-footprint material. Varnish, solvent paint, iron structure, and granite were determined to be high-carbon-footprint materials in the second round. Other studies have shown that reinforcements with concrete materials containing recycled aggregates are frequently used [73]. While concrete is commonly used in urban furniture due to its durability and resistance to adverse weather conditions, efforts have been made to enhance its environmental sustainability. These include the addition of coal ash to concrete for urban furniture use [74] and the development of cellular lightweight concrete designs for modular designs [75]. However, based on the findings obtained in this study, concrete can be considered a material to be avoided from an environmental sustainability perspective. Designs with restricted use of metal as connection elements will contribute to environmental sustainability. Restricting and eliminating unnecessary components in the seating elements used for urban furniture is essential. However, the design model without legs presents a suitable design example for implementation everywhere within urban areas, while in landscape design, it serves as a good alternative solution for evaluating elevation differences.
The sustainability of urban seating elements can be optimized based on various environmental conditions through strategies such as the use of eco-friendly materials and the reduction in material usage, as seen in both the design model without legs and the design model with legs. As stated in the study by Yasar (2023) [21], the sustainability of urban seating elements can be optimized for various environmental conditions through strategies such as the use of eco-friendly materials and the reduction in material usage. Additionally, reducing energy consumption for transportation and production, extending product lifespan to decrease the need for replacements, and designing end-of-life usability are all crucial strategies. Therefore, regardless of changes in climatic and geographical conditions, sustainable urban seating elements can be created by implementing these strategies.
However, within the scope of this study, an ecological approach has been taken primarily for the environmental impact dimension at the raw material stage for seating elements. Integration with the environment in the design of seating elements should not only be approached ecologically and for the raw material stage but also encompass all aspects of sustainability in the life cycle of designs, with universality being a forefront consideration. Additionally, the strength of moisture-prone materials, especially wood, in humid regions is a separate subject of investigation. In this sense, conducting studies based on moisture and climatic data, along with determining service life, will contribute to a clearer identification of the environmental impacts of seating elements.
In addition to environmental issues, universal design principles, which are components of sustainable design, are significant in the context of urban areas and urban designs and are used by the entire urban population without discrimination [76]. In this regard, it would be appropriate for future studies to address sustainability in all its dimensions for seating elements, incorporating not only the ecological aspects of environmental impact but also the design element for human usability. In this regard, as highlighted by Spangenberg (2013), this will greatly improve the quality and sustainability of urban spaces [77].
In addition to the scale considered within the scope of this study, other works in different scales addressing infrastructure and social deficiencies, unplanned settlements, parking and traffic issues, and deficiencies in pedestrian and bicycle paths are among the obstacles that could hinder urban sustainability [78]. Because cities have a complex structure as a result of their development [79], all of these components need to be made sustainable for the sustainability of the city.
Furthermore, sharing the findings of studies with urban stakeholders regardless of scale is of utmost importance. To achieve urban sustainability, it is necessary to develop local, national, and international policies that foster stakeholder collaboration to increase public awareness. Environmental standards and regulations hold a significant place in the policies to be developed within this scope. These standards should be prepared to encompass the entire life cycle of materials, from raw material extraction to recycling processes. Assessments should be made considering the environmental impact at the level of seating units, and sustainable products should be promoted when users and stakeholders are educated on this matter. Municipalities should engage in collaborative efforts with public and private institutions to increase awareness about sustainability through practical initiatives.
Environmental issues represent one of the greatest threats facing humanity, and tackling them requires comprehensive efforts at all scales, particularly focusing on urban sustainability. Success in addressing environmental problems can only be achieved through thorough work across all scales in cities. Therefore, starting from the equipment scale and extending to the city scale, a collaborative effort involving not only authorities or designers but also all stakeholders in the city is essential. Through such a collective effort, a sustainable environment can be provided for future generations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S. and M.S.; methodology, S.S. and M.S.; software, S.S. and M.S.; validation, S.S. and M.S.; formal analysis, S.S. and M.S.; investigation, S.S. and M.S.; resources, S.S. and M.S.; data curation, S.S. and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, S.S. and M.S.; writing—review and editing, S.S. and M.S.; visualization, S.S. and M.S.; supervision, S.S. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zeng, X.; Yu, Y.; Yang, S.; Lv, Y.; Sarker, M.N.I. Urban resilience for urban sustainability: Concepts, dimensions, and perspectives. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Michalina, D.; Mederly, P.; Diefenbacher, H.; Held, B. Sustainable urban development: A review of urban sustainability indicator frameworks. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Newman, P.; Jennings, I. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and Practices; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; p. 277. [Google Scholar]
  4. Wu, J. Urban sustainability: An inevitable goal of landscape research. Landsc. Ecol. 2010, 25, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sert, M.K.; Altiparmakoğullari, Y.; Basar, A.G. 2023 Investigation of environmental sustainability awareness in the urban furniture design processes in the Marmara Region. Kent Akad. 2023, 16, 338–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhong, Y.; Wang, Q. Ecodesign strategy for demand-oriented electrical and electronic products. Sustainability 2021, 14, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Indicators for Sustainability. Available online: https://cityprotocol.cat/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Annex-B.-Indicators-for-Sustainability.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2024).
  8. Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 15, 281–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Berman, M.; Orttung, R.W. Measuring progress toward urban sustainability: Do global measures work for Arctic cities? Sustainability 2020, 12, 3708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ness, B.; Urbel-Piirsalu, E.; Anderberg, S.; Olsson, L. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gałaś, S.; Gryga, M. Evaluation of availability of green areas in urban areas, taking Kraków, Poland as an example. In Proceedings of the Public Recreation and Landscape Protection, Bruno, Czech Republic, 1–3 May 2017. [Google Scholar]
  12. Özaydın, G.; Erbil, D.; Ulusoy, B. Kamu mekânları tasarımının tamamlayıcısı olarak bildirişim ögeleri. In Proceedings of the Kamu Mekânları Tasarımı ve Kent Mobilyaları Sempozyumu, Bursa, Turkey, 15–16 May 1989. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bolkaner, M.K.; İnançoğlu, S.; Asilsoy, B. A study on urban furniture: Nicosia old city. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 8, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Akpınar Külekçi, E. Kent donatı elemanlarında özgün tasarımların peyzaj ergonomisi yaklaşımıyla irdelenmesi. J. Archit. Sci. Appl. 2018, 3, 89–109. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kaya, H.S.; Kaya, M.E.; Yakut, E.S.; Çiçek, M.; Tozluoğlu, E.G. An interdisciplinary urban furniture design model. A|Z Itu J. Fac. Archit. 2022, 19, 721–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Akyol, M. Kent Mobilyaları Tasarım ve Kullanma Süreci. Master’s Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, 14 June 2006. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kurt Konakoğlu, S.S.; Çelik, K.T. Amasya Üniversitesi Yeşilırmak yerleşkesinde yer alan donatı elemanları üzerine bir çalışma. Türkiye Peyzaj Araştırmaları Dergisi 2023, 6, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sert, M.K. Kent Mobilyası Tasarım Sürecinin Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik Açısından Marmara Bölgesi Ölçeğinde Incelenmesi. Master’s Thesis, Mimar Sinan Guzel Sanatlar University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  19. Şatır, S. Sürdürülebilir kentsel mekânlar ve kent mobilyaları. Tasarım+ Kuram 2015, 11, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  20. Rehan, R.M. Sustainable streetscape as an effective tool in sustainable urban design. HBRC J. 2013, 9, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yasar, D. Urban furniture in the framework of economic, social, and environmental sustainability. SAUC-Str. Art Urban Creat. 2023, 9, 74–80. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wheeler, S.M. Planning for Sustainability; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; p. 424. [Google Scholar]
  23. Klöpffer, W. Introducing life cycle assessment and its presentation in ‘LCA Compendium’. In Background and Future Prospects in Life Cycle Assessment; Editor Klöpffer, W., Ed.; Springer Dordrecht: Frankfurt, Germany, 2014; pp. 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fiksel, J. Design for Environment: A Guide to Sustainable Product Development; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  25. Favi, C.; Marconi, M.; Germani, M. Teaching eco-design by using LCA analysis of company’s product portfolio: The case study of an Italian manufacturing firm. Procedia CIRP 2019, 80, 452–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. He, B.; Wang, J.; Huang, S.; Wang, Y. Low-carbon product design for product life cycle. J. Eng. Des. 2015, 26, 321–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Barbosa, A.J.D.; Santos, V.H.D.P.; Araújo, P.C.D.; Medeiros, F.L.D.; Otaviano, L.Y.D.S. Eco product development combining eco design and life cycle assessment. Benchmarking Int. J. 2021, 28, 502–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Karlsson, R.; Luttropp, C. EcoDesign: What’s happening? An overview of the subject area of EcoDesign and of the papers in this special issue. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 1291–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kobayashi, H. A systematic approach to eco-innovative product design based on life cycle planning. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2006, 20, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Segonds, F.; Mantelet, F.; Maranzana, N.; Gaillard, S. Early stages of apparel design: How to define collaborative needs for PLM and fashion? Int. J. Fash. Des. Technol. Educ. 2014, 7, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Harivardhini, S.; Chakrabarti, A. A new model for estimating End-of-Life disassembly effort during early stages of product design. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2016, 18, 1585–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Brezet, H.; Hemel, C. Ecodesign–A Promising Approach to Sustainable Production and Consumption; UNEP Cleaner Production: Delft, The Netherlands, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kong, L.; Wang, L.; Li, F.; Tian, G.; Li, J.; Cai, Z.; Zhou, J.; Fu, Y. A life-cycle integrated model for product eco-design in the conceptual design phase. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bishop, P.L. Pollution prevention: A new paradigm for engineering education. In Environmental Challenges; Shimpson, B., Ed.; Kluwer Academic Publisher: Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2000; pp. 505–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Naboni, E. The use of facade mockups in LCA based architectural design. Procedia Eng. 2017, 180, 759–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Loiseau, E.; Junqua, G.; Roux, P.; Bellon-Maurel, V. Environmental assessment of a territory: An overview of existing tools and methods. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 112, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Papanek, V. The Green Imperative, Ecology and Ethics in Design and Architecture; Thames & Hudson: London, UK, 2003; pp. 29–34. [Google Scholar]
  38. Yarwood, J.M.; Eagan, P.D. Design for Environment Toolkit: A Competitive Edge for the Future; Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  39. Schmidt, K.; Christensen, F.M.; Juul, L.; Øllgaard, H.; Nielsen, C.B. Manual on Product-Oriented Environmental Work; The Danish Ministry of the Environment: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002; p. 228. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tuna Taygun, G. Yapı Ürünlerinin Yaşam Döngüsü Değerlendirmesine Yönelik bir Model Önerisi. Doctoral Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  41. James, K.L. Environmental Life Cycle Cost in the Australian Food Packaging Supply Chain. Doctoral Thesis, Victoria University, Sydney, Australia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  42. Özbilen, A.; Dinçer, I.; Rosen, M.A. A comparative life cycle analysis of hydrogen production via thermochemical water splitting using a cu-cl cycle. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2011, 36, 11321–11327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Paulsen, J. Life Cycle Assessment for Building Products-the Significance of the Usage Phase. Doctoral Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  44. İşler, A. Aspir Yağı etil Esteri ve Yaşam Döngüsü Değerlendirmesi. Doctoral Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  45. Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G.; Guinée, J.B. Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2010, 95, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Keoleian, G.A.; Menerey, D.; Vigon, B.W.; Tolle, D.A.; Cornaby, B.W.; Latham, H.C.; Harrison, C.L.; Boguski, T.L.; Hunt, R.G.; Sellers, J.D. Product Life Cycle Assessment to Reduce Health Risks and Environmental Impacts; Noyes Publications: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 1994; p. 299. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wu, X.; Zhanga, Z.; Chenb, Y. Study of the environmental impacts based on the green tax—Applied to several types of building materials. Build. Environ. 2005, 40, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Finkbeiner, M.; Inaba, A.; Tan, R.; Christiansen, K.; Klüppel, H.J. The new international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Knight, P.; Jenkins, J.O. Adopting and applying eco-design techniques: A practitioners perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 549–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bovea, M.D.; Pérez-Belis, V. A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating environmental requirements into the product design process. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 20, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Diehl, J.C.; Crul, M.; Bijma, A. Ecodesign in Central America, ecodesign methodology: Product improvement tool (PIT). J. Sustain. Prod. Des. 2001, 1, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sipahi, S.; Kulözü-Uzunboy, N. A study on reducing the carbon footprint of architectural buildings based on their materials under the guidance of eco-design strategies. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2021, 23, 991–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Anderson, J.; Shiers, D.E.; Sinclair, M. The Green Guide to Specification an Environmental Profiling System for Building Materials and Components, 3rd ed.; Blackwell Science Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2002; p. 223. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mao, Y.; Yu, X. A hybrid forecasting approach for China’s national carbon emission allowance prices with balanced accuracy and interpretability. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 351, 119873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Coloma-Jiménez, M.; Akizu-Gardoki, O.; Lizundia, E. Beyond ecodesign, internationalized markets enhance the global warming potential in the wood furniture sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 379, 134795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bianco, I.; Thiébat, F.; Carbonaro, C.; Pagliolico, S.; Blengini, G.A.; Comino, E. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)-based tools for the eco-design of wooden furniture. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 324, 129249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pérez-Medina, S.; López-Falfán, I. Áreas verdes y arbolado en Mérida, Yucatán. Hacia una sostenibilidad urbana. Econ. Soc. Territ. 2015, 15, 01–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Qiao, Y.K.; Peng, F.L.; Sabri, S.; Rajabifard, A. Socio-environmental costs of underground space use for urban sustainability. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 51, 101757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kılıç, M.; Sungurlu, A. Sürdürülebilir Kent Mobilyaları. Online J. Art Des. 2021, 9, 276–286. [Google Scholar]
  60. Alotaibi, B.S.; Khalifa, K.R.M.; Abuhussain, M.A.; Dodo, Y.A.; Alshenaifi, M.; Yahuza, M.S.; Algamadi, M.; Al-Tamimi, N.; Maghrabi, A.; Abba, S.I. Integrating Renewable-Based Solar Energy into Sustainable and Resilient Urban Furniture Coupled with a Logical Multi-Comparison Study of Cyprus and Saudi Arabia. Processes 2023, 11, 2887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Manual Práctico de Ecodiseño. Available online: https://www.euskadi.eus/contenidos/documentacion/ekodiseinu7/es_def/adjuntos/PUB-2000-014-f-C-001.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2024).
  62. Jeswani, H.K.; Smith, R.W.; Azapagic, A. Energy from waste: Carbon footprint of incineration and landfill biogas in the UK. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Alvarez, S.; Tobarra, M.A.; Zafrilla, J.E. Corporate and product carbon footprint under compound hybrid analysis: Application to a Spanish timber company. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019, 23, 496–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Available online: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2019/37/greenhouse-gas-emissions-down (accessed on 1 January 2024).
  65. Muhammad Suandi, M.E.; Amlus, M.H.; Hemdi, A.R.; Abd Rahim, S.Z.; Ghazali, M.F.; Rahim, N.L. A review on sustainability characteristics development for wooden furniture design. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Cobut, A.; Blanchet, P.; Beauregard, R. Prospects for appearance wood products ecodesign in the context of nonresidential applications. For. Prod. J. 2016, 66, 196–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Langová, N.; Réh, R.; Igaz, R.; Krišťák, Ľ.; Hitka, M.; Joščák, P. Construction of wood-based lamella for increased load on seating furniture. Forests 2019, 10, 525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lähtinen, K.; Alina Samaniego Vivanco, D.; Toppinen, A. Designers’ wooden furniture ecodesign implementation in Scandinavian country-of-origin (COO) branding. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2014, 23, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Vallet, F.; Eynard, B.; Millet, D.; Mahut, S.G.; Tyl, B.; Bertoluci, G. Using eco-design tools: An overview of experts’ practices. Des. Stud. 2013, 34, 345–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Available online: https://mobipark.com/en/sustainable-urban-furniture/ (accessed on 2 September 2023).
  71. Grabiec, A.M.; Łacka, A.; Wiza, W. Material, functional, and aesthetic solutions for urban furniture in public spaces. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Barcic, A.P.; Oblak, L.; Motik, D.; Govedic, T.B.; Kopljar, A.; Vukovic, A. Street furniture in Croatia and Slovenia-Park users requirements for (WOOD) urban equipment. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Internatinal Scientific Conference on Increasing the Use of Wood in the Global Bio-Economy, Belgrad, Serbia, 26–28 September 2018; pp. 46–55. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sánchez-Roldán, Z.; Martín-Morales, M.; Valverde-Espinosa, I.; Zamorano, M. Technical feasibility of using recycled aggregates to produce eco-friendly urban furniture. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 250, 118890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bedoya, M.; Rivera, F.; Rico, M.; Vélez, D.; Urrego, A.; Hernandez, S. Sustainable concrete application in the manufacture of university urban furniture. MATEC Web Conf. 2019, 303, 05001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Thamrin, D.; Mulyono, G. Usability evaluation of adaptable urban park furniture product with cellular light-weight concrete as material. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 408, 012033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Çorbacı, Ö.L.; Turna, T.; Oğuztürk, G.E. Examining Accessibility of Public Spaces in terms of Landscape Arrangement: A Sample on Dicle University Campus. Düzce Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Orman. Derg. 2020, 16, 105–127. [Google Scholar]
  77. Spangenberg, J.H. Design for sustainability (DfS): Interface of Sustainable Production and Consumption. In Handbook of Sustainable Engineering; Kauffman, J., Lee, K.M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 575–595. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ercan Oğuztürk, G.; Pulatkan, M. Interaction of urban and university campuses; KTU Kanuni campus example. In Architectural Sciences and Urban/Environmental Studies-I; Çakır, M., Gözlükaya, H., Eds.; Iksad Publications: Ankara, Turkey, 2023; pp. 22–43. [Google Scholar]
  79. Kartal, S.; İnceoglu, M. Evaluating street character using the 3d fractal analysis method: Lefkoşa. J. Des. Studio 2023, 5, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 04163 g001
Figure 1. Study areas: (A) Fener Recreational Area, (B) Mesut Yılmaz Coastal Park, (C) Portakallık-Islampasa Recreational Area.
Figure 1. Study areas: (A) Fener Recreational Area, (B) Mesut Yılmaz Coastal Park, (C) Portakallık-Islampasa Recreational Area.
Sustainability 16 04163 g001
Sustainability 16 04163 g002
Figure 2. Seating units: A Fener Recreational Area, B Mesut Yılmaz Coastal Park, C Portakallık-Islampasa Recreational Area.
Figure 2. Seating units: A Fener Recreational Area, B Mesut Yılmaz Coastal Park, C Portakallık-Islampasa Recreational Area.
Sustainability 16 04163 g002
Sustainability 16 04163 g003
Figure 3. Study method.
Figure 3. Study method.
Sustainability 16 04163 g003
Sustainability 16 04163 g004
Figure 4. Design, materials, and carbon footprint values (blue: low values, red: high values).
Figure 4. Design, materials, and carbon footprint values (blue: low values, red: high values).
Sustainability 16 04163 g004
Sustainability 16 04163 g005
Figure 5. Materials and designs after first review (blue: low values, red: high values).
Figure 5. Materials and designs after first review (blue: low values, red: high values).
Sustainability 16 04163 g005
Sustainability 16 04163 g006
Figure 6. Carbon footprints of objects after first round revision and second round revision (1–20 CO2 eq./functional unit).
Figure 6. Carbon footprints of objects after first round revision and second round revision (1–20 CO2 eq./functional unit).
Sustainability 16 04163 g006
Sustainability 16 04163 g007
Figure 7. Schematic presentation of new solid model proposal.
Figure 7. Schematic presentation of new solid model proposal.
Sustainability 16 04163 g007
Sustainability 16 04163 g008
Figure 8. Carbon footprints of original designs after rounds and new design models.
Figure 8. Carbon footprints of original designs after rounds and new design models.
Sustainability 16 04163 g008
Table 1. Seating units (1–7) examined in the study scope.
Table 1. Seating units (1–7) examined in the study scope.
NoTop (Plan) ViewFront-Side ViewPhotograph
1Sustainability 16 04163 i001Sustainability 16 04163 i002Sustainability 16 04163 i003
2Sustainability 16 04163 i004Sustainability 16 04163 i005Sustainability 16 04163 i006
3Sustainability 16 04163 i007Sustainability 16 04163 i008Sustainability 16 04163 i009
4Sustainability 16 04163 i010Sustainability 16 04163 i011Sustainability 16 04163 i012
5Sustainability 16 04163 i013Sustainability 16 04163 i014Sustainability 16 04163 i015
6Sustainability 16 04163 i016Sustainability 16 04163 i017Sustainability 16 04163 i018
7Sustainability 16 04163 i019Sustainability 16 04163 i020Sustainability 16 04163 i021
Table 2. Seating units (8–14) examined in the study scope.
Table 2. Seating units (8–14) examined in the study scope.
NoTop (Plan) ViewFront-Side ViewPhotograph
8Sustainability 16 04163 i022Sustainability 16 04163 i023Sustainability 16 04163 i024
9Sustainability 16 04163 i025Sustainability 16 04163 i026Sustainability 16 04163 i027
10Sustainability 16 04163 i028Sustainability 16 04163 i029Sustainability 16 04163 i030
11Sustainability 16 04163 i031Sustainability 16 04163 i032Sustainability 16 04163 i033
12Sustainability 16 04163 i034Sustainability 16 04163 i035Sustainability 16 04163 i036
13Sustainability 16 04163 i037Sustainability 16 04163 i038Sustainability 16 04163 i039
14Sustainability 16 04163 i040Sustainability 16 04163 i041Sustainability 16 04163 i042
Table 3. Seating units examined in the study scope.
Table 3. Seating units examined in the study scope.
MaterialDensity
Concrete2.4 g/cm3
Wood0.7 g/cm3
Iron screws for connection7.87 g/cm3
Solvent-based paint0.8 g/cm3
Iron structure7.87 g/cm3
Varnish1.14 g/cm3
Granite2.7 g/cm3
Polypropylene0.9 g/cm3
Table 4. Seating elements, materials used, and carbon footprints (kg CO2 eq./functional unit).
Table 4. Seating elements, materials used, and carbon footprints (kg CO2 eq./functional unit).
Design NoMaterialCarbon Footprint (kg CO2 eq./Functional Unit)Total Carbon Footprint (kg CO2 eq./Functional Unit)
1Concrete317317
2Wood0.843741
Iron screws for connection0.111
Solvent-based paint1.18
Iron structure1.61
3Wood0.5022295
Iron screws for connection0.064
Solvent-based paint0.379
Iron structure1.35
4Wood1.6841.377
Varnish8.11
Concrete27.3
Iron screws for connection0.067
Solvent-based paint1.31
Iron structure2.91
5Concrete23.931.079
Iron screws for connection0.039
Solvent-based paint3.21
Iron structure3.93
6Wood0.4421.475
Iron screws for connection0.096
Solvent-based paint0.164
Iron structure0.773
7Wood0.1875.861
Varnish3.81
Iron screws for connection0.025
Solvent-based paint0.309
Iron structure1.53
8Wood1.6821.607
Varnish8.11
Concrete7.53
Iron screws for connection0.067
Solvent-based paint1.31
Iron structure2.91
9Wood0.3713.107
Iron screws for connection0.056
Iron structure2.68
10Solvent-based paint1.063.5
Iron structure2.44
11Wood0.53494.689
Concrete94
Iron screws for connection0.155
12Wood0.708221.129
Concrete211
Iron screws for connection0.191
Granite9.23
13Polypropylene118118
14Wood1.197.815
Varnish4.42
Iron screws for connection0.151
Solvent-based paint0.744
Iron structure1.31
Table 5. Alternatives for concrete and polypropylene.
Table 5. Alternatives for concrete and polypropylene.
OriginalAlternative
MaterialBenefitsIssues
Concrete and PolypropyleneWoodLow cost, renewable, not harmful, no hazardLow durability
Natural RubberFlexible, easy to care forLow durability
Polylactic acid (PLA)RenewableThermoplastic
Natural stoneHigh durabilityHigh environmental impact
Aerated concreteRecyclableHigh initial cost
BambooRecyclableHigh initial cost
Wood, among the alternative materials utilized instead of concrete and polypropylene, can be considered a widespread material used in seating units overall. Additionally, it is known to be highly sustainable and environmentally friendly [65]. Therefore, wood is considered a material that can replace concrete and polypropylene.
Table 6. Carbon footprints after the first round.
Table 6. Carbon footprints after the first round.
Design NoMaterialCarbon Footprint (kg CO2 eq.)Total Carbon Footprint (kg CO2 eq.)
1Wood1.761.76
2Wood0.843.741
Iron screws for connection0.111
Solvent-based paint1.18
Iron structure1.61
3Wood0.5022.295
Iron screws for connection0.064
Solvent-based paint0.379
Iron structure1.35
4Wood1.2914.687
Varnish8.11
Iron screws for connection0.067
Solvent-based paint1.31
Iron structure2.91
5Wood1.148.319
Iron screws for connection0.039
Solvent-based paint3.21
Iron structure3.93
6Wood0.4421.475
Iron screws for connection0.096
Solvent-based paint0.164
Iron structure0.773
7Wood0.1875.861
Varnish3.81
Iron screws for connection0.025
Solvent-based paint0.309
Iron structure1.53
8Wood1.8615.257
Varnish8.11
Iron screws for connection0.067
Solvent-based paint1.31
Iron structure2.91
9Wood0.3713.107
Iron screws for connection0.056
Iron structure2.68
10Solvent-based paint1.063.5
Iron structure2.44
11Wood0.53494.689
Concrete1.07
Iron screws for connection0.155
12Wood1.7811.201
Iron screws for connection0.191
Granite9.23
13Wood1.161.16
14Wood1.197.815
Varnish4.42
Iron screws for connection0.151
Solvent-based paint0.744
Iron structure1.31
Table 7. Alternatives for iron structure.
Table 7. Alternatives for iron structure.
OriginalAlternative
MaterialBenefitsIssues
Iron StructureWoodLow cost, renewable, no harmful, no hazardLow durability
SteelLow cost, easy to care forLow durability
Hemp ConcreteDurable, low weightHigh cost
Bambu
Cow BoneDurableDifficult to process
Table 8. Carbon footprints after final review.
Table 8. Carbon footprints after final review.
Design NoMaterialCarbon Footprint (kg CO2 eq./Functional Unit)Total Carbon Footprint (kg CO2 eq./Functional Unit)
1Wood1.761.95
Iron screws for connection0.19
2Wood1.351.461
Iron screws for connection0.111
3Wood0.7380.802
Iron screws for connection0.064
4Wood2.032.097
Iron screws for connection0.067
5Wood1.2761.315
Iron screws for connection0.039
6Wood0.5760.5672
Iron screws for connection0.096
7Wood0.5780.603
Iron screws for connection0.025
8Wood2.182.247
Iron screws for connection0.067
9Wood0.4360.492
Iron screws for connection0.056
10Wood1.331.517
Iron screws for connection0.187
11Wood1.6011.756
Iron screws for connection0.155
12Wood1.781.971
Iron screws for connection0.191
13Wood1.161.255
Iron screws for connection0.095
14Wood1.2351.386
Iron screws for connection0.151
Table 9. Component reduction ideas.
Table 9. Component reduction ideas.
Reduced ComponentReducing IdeaBenefitsIssues
BackrestOpening gaps on the backrestDecrease in material usage and carbon emissionDecrease in comfort
Removing the backrestDecrease in material usage and carbon emissionDecrease in comfort
LegsUsing the legs with possible reduced dimensions Decrease in material usage and carbon emissionDecrease in durability
Placing the seating element on elevated terrain by eliminating the legsDecrease in material usage and carbon emissionDecreased lifespan of the seating element
Table 10. New design models.
Table 10. New design models.
DesignTop (Plan) ViewFront-Side ViewPhotograph
Model without legsSustainability 16 04163 i043Sustainability 16 04163 i044Sustainability 16 04163 i045
Model with legsSustainability 16 04163 i046Sustainability 16 04163 i047Sustainability 16 04163 i048
Table 11. Carbon footprint of new design models.
Table 11. Carbon footprint of new design models.
DesignMaterialCarbon Footprint (kg CO2 eq./Functional Unit)Total Carbon Footprint (kg CO2 eq./Functional Unit)
Model without legsWood0.2840.474
Iron screws for connection0.19
Model with legsWood0.1350.244
Iron screws for connection0.109
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sipahi, S.; Sipahi, M. Raw Material Stage Assessment of Seating Elements as Urban Furniture and Eco-Model Proposals. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104163

AMA Style

Sipahi S, Sipahi M. Raw Material Stage Assessment of Seating Elements as Urban Furniture and Eco-Model Proposals. Sustainability. 2024; 16(10):4163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104163

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sipahi, Serkan, and Merve Sipahi. 2024. "Raw Material Stage Assessment of Seating Elements as Urban Furniture and Eco-Model Proposals" Sustainability 16, no. 10: 4163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104163

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop