Page 129 - Çevre Şehir İklim İngilizce - Sayı 1

Yasemin Şentürk - Kemal Mert Çubukçu

the positive direction in standard deviation of LST (SD_LST) (r=0,698, p<0,01).
However, the relationship between maximum LST (Max_LST) and T_N (r=0,362,
p<0,01) is in the positive direction and weak. A medium-strength relationship
is in the negative direction between the size of the average tree surface
(T_A) and A_LST (r= -0,460, p<0,01) and in the positive direction between
Min_LST (r= -0,403, p<0,01 and SD_LST (r=0,384, p<0,01). According to the
correlation results, as the T_N and T_Av increased, the A_LST and Min_LST
values decreased, and as the T_N increased, the Max_LST and SD_LST values
increased (Table 4).
A relationship in the negative and weak direction was measured between
the total tree-covered surface (T_T) and A_LST (r= -0,123, p<0,01) and Min_
LST (r= -0,102, p<0,05) while the correlation results show that there is not
a meaningful relationship within 95% reliability between T_T and Max_LST
and SD_LST. Similarly, a very weak relationship in the negative direction was
measured between the maximum tree-covered patch in square meter (T_M)
and A_LST (r= -0,123, p<0,01), Min_LST(r= -0,102, p<0,01) and Max_LST (r=
-0,033, p<0,01); also a very weak relationship in the positive direction was
measured in SD_LST (r=0,070, p<0,01). That is to say, as the T_T and T_M
increase, the A_LST and Min_LST decrease, and as the T_M increases, so
does SD_LST (Table 4).
Grass Covered Surfaces
The correlation in the relationship between tree covered surfaces and grass
covered surfaces and the intensity of cooling seemed to be similar. There was
a strong relationship in the negative direction between the total number of
grass-covered patch (Grass_N) and A_LST (r= -0,647, p<0,01) and Min_LST(r=
-0,725, p<0,01) while in SD_LST (r=0,751, p<0,01), there is a strong correlation
in the positive direction. However, there is a medium level relationship in the
positive direction between Max_LST and T_N (r=0,450, p<0,01). According to
the correlation results, as the Grass_N increases, A_LST and Min_LST values
decrease, and as the Grass_N increases so do Max_LST and SD_LST values.
There was a relationship in the negative direction with medium intensity
between grass surface size (Grass_Av) and A_LST (r= -0,405, p<0,05) and in the
negative direction between Min_LST(r= -0,399, p<0,01) while in the positive
direction in SD_LST (r=0,391, p<0,01) (Table 4).
There wasn’t a meaningful relationship with 95% reliability between the
total grass covered patch in square meter (Grass_T) and A_LST, Min_LST and
Max_LST, but a negative and very weak relationship was observed between
Grass_T and Max_LST (r= -0,117, p<0,05). That is, there wasn’t a meaningful
relationship with 95% reliability between Grass_T and A_LST, and Min_LST

114 Journal of Environment, Urbanization and Climate,