PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 18, 2026Ecological Indicators0 citationsOpen Access

Driving mechanisms and regulation of neighborhood-scale urban forest carbon storage in New York City, USA

View Full Paper
MWMengqi WeiYZYijie ZhengPSPeihao Song

Key Points

  • This study aims to understand the factors influencing carbon storage in neighborhood-scale urban forests in NYC.
  • Developed a neighborhood-level analytical framework using LiDAR and remote sensing.
  • Applied Pearson correlation analysis and boosted regression tree modeling to identify key drivers.
  • Utilized 2014 LiDAR and multi-source datasets for consistent analysis.
  • Carbon storage varies significantly across NYC, with Staten Island having the highest levels (over 20,000 T C) and Manhattan the lowest (less than 1000 T C).
  • Total carbon storage correlates strongly with tree number (r = 0.96) and canopy cover.
  • Tree canopy percentage (T_PLAND) relates to carbon density (r > 0.5); canopy height is a key factor for per-tree carbon storage (r = 0.46).

Abstract

Urban forests play a critical role in mitigating climate change through carbon sequestration, yet their spatial variability at fine scales remains insufficiently understood. Most existing studies focus on city- or regional-level analyses, largely due to limitations in high-resolution data availability. Using 2014 as a representative year with consistent and comprehensive LiDAR and multi-source datasets, this study investigates neighborhood-scale urban forest carbon storage in New York City (NYC). A neighborhood-level analytical framework was developed by integrating LiDAR-derived structural data, remote sensing information, and literature-based variables, and applying Pearson correlation analysis and boosted regression tree (BRT) modeling to identify key drivers. The results reveal that carbon storage vary widely across NYC space. The area of Staten Island has the most significant carbon storage, where over 40% of the neighborhoods are more than 20, 000 T C of carbon. Also, on the other end of the spectrum is Manhattan with over 90% of neighborhoods containing less than 1000 T C of carbon. Further: The total carbon storage (r = 0. 96) strongly correlates to tree number and canopy cover area. The forest metric Treecanopy Percentage of Landscape (TPLAND) strongly associated with carbon density (r > 0. 5), while canopy height is the major factor for per-tree carbon storage (r = 0. 46). Variables in the landscape explain 95. 0% of the variation in total carbon storage, and tree number is the main driver. Soil nitrogen and canopy cover of a forest showed positive correlation with carbon storage, while precipitation (PCP) and Roads Percentage of Landscape (RPLAND) showed negative correlation. This study argues that increasing green space, modifying the built-up and vegetation ratio, and altering spatial configuration can enhance neighborhood-level carbon storage. It gives a scientific basis for urban forest engineering and carbon sink improvement.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Wei et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a338a8f630953a74978c968https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2026.115057
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper