evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Quantifying Tbilisi's Urban Forest Ecosystem Services - And the Policy Gap That Undercuts Them

Georgia · Tbilisi · See the Georgia profile · See the Tbilisi profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 76% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Peer-reviewed modelling (Forests, 2023) found Tbilisi's urban forests remove 1,227 t/yr of air pollutants and sequester 43.72k t/yr of carbon citywide - yet a 2025 policy review shows the city's Land Use Plan is routinely overridden, leaving just 1.3 m2 of green space per capita.

1,227 tonnes/year
Air pollutants removed by urban forest, annually
43.72 thousand tonnes/year
Carbon sequestered by urban forest, annually
1.3 m2/person
Green space per capita (2025)
Quantifying Tbilisi's Urban Forest Ecosystem Services - And the Policy Gap That Undercuts Them

Details

Promoter
Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
Period
2023-2025
Keywords
urban forestry, ecosystem services research, municipal green-space planning

Context

Tbilisi's General Land Use Plan mandates accessible green space, yet the city's per-capita green space stood at just 1.3 m2 as of the 2025 review, far below the commonly recommended 9 m2 minimum.

Results

A peer-reviewed ecosystem-service model (Forests, Jan 2023) estimated Tbilisi's urban and peri-urban forest cover removes 1,227 tonnes of air pollutants per year (2.444 t/km2) and sequesters an average of 43.72 thousand tonnes of carbon annually (87.09 t/km2).

Conclusions

A 2025 Heinrich Boll Foundation policy analysis found the Land Use Plan is routinely overridden ('almost no large-scale development project is blocked'), with elevated green spaces built on impermeable bases worsening flood vulnerability and new plantings favouring imported ornamentals over functional native trees.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Short (< 1 year)

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful