Ecosystem services assessment in urban green areas and urban forests: Rapid Assessment Protocol for cities

Valéria Letícia Marques Barbosa; Vanessa Peixoto Giacon; Eliana Cardoso-Leite

doi:10.5327/Z2176-94782231

Authors

Valéria Letícia Marques Barbosa Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCAR) - Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1606-9227
Vanessa Peixoto Giacon Universidade Paulista (UNIP) - Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5833-5677
Eliana Cardoso-Leite Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCAR) - Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3152-2576

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-94782231

Keywords:

urban green spaces; urban green solution; green infrastructure; ecosystem services indices; composite indicators.

Abstract

Urban planners must have a tool that communicates to stakeholders the benefits of green spaces in cities. Indicators ought to be economically feasible and easily understandable within a multidimensional perspective of ecosystem services. This study proposes an instrument that assesses the quality of ecosystem services supply in urban green areas and urban forests, evaluating the weaknesses and strengths of each area, quickly, simply, and still sensitively. We chose sensitive and application-friendly indicators, based on their applicability to Brazilian reality, in medium to highly urbanised areas. The indicators were ranked in four grades representing the ecosystem service supply in each area, from extremely unsatisfactory to extremely satisfactory conditions. After tests in different urban green areas and urban forests, in Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil, the protocol was calibrated, and indicators were adjusted to urban context and biome specificities. The calibrated and ready-to-use protocol was presented, assessing: five Cultural services with eight indicators, two Provisioning services with two indicators, four Regulating services with five indicators, and three Supporting services with three indicators. Qualitative and quantitative indicators were combined to comprehensively assess complex areas. The protocol contemplated all ecosystem service categories in order to respond to different management needs. Several indicators were tailored to urban contexts and local scale. Finally, cities may use this comprehensive list of ecosystem service indicators, already adapted for urban context, as an inspirational checklist for describing their urban green areas and urban forests’ weaknesses and strengths.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Almeida, C.M.V.B.; Mariano, M.V.; Agostinho, F.; Liu, G.Y.; Yang, Z.F.; Coscieme, L.; Giannetti, B.F., 2018. Comparing costs and supply of supporting and regulating services provided by urban parks at different spatial scales. Ecosystem Services, v. 30 (Part B), 236-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.003.

Araújo Júnior, C.A.; Miranda, P.R.S.; Gonçalves, T.S.; Zuba, S.M.; Castro, R.V.O.; Marcatti, G.E., 2021. Evaluation of optimal ecological tourism routes obtained via Google Earth software in an environmental protection area. Floresta, v. 51 (4), 874-882. https://doi.org/10.5380/rf.v51i4.73731.

Arias-Arévalo, P.; Martín-López, B.; Gómez-Baggethun, E. 2017. Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, v. 22 (4), 43. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09812-220443.

Balvanera, P.; Pérez-Harguindeguy, N.; Perevochtchikova, M.; Laterra, P.; Cáceres, D.M.; Langle-Flores, A., 2020. Ecosystem Services Research in Latin America 2.0: Expanding Collaboration across Countries, Disciplines, and Sectors. Ecosystem Services, v. 42 (101086), 101086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101086.

Barbosa, V.L.M.; de Faria, L.C,; Cardoso-Leite, E., 2024. Composite indicators for urban ecosystem services at site-level: a systematic literature review. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Arborização Urbana (REVSBAU), v. 19 (1903), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.5380/revsbau.v19i0.94342.

Barona, C.O.; Devisscher, T.; Dobbs, C.; Orozco Aguilar, L.; Dias Baptista, M.; Navarro, N.M.; Ferreira da Silva Filho, D.; Escobedo, F.J., 2020. Trends in Urban Forestry Research in Latin America & the Caribbean: A Systematic Literature Review and Synthesis. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, v. 47 (126544), 126544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126544.

Barreira, A.P.; Andraz, J.; Ferreira, V.; Panagopoulos, T., 2025. Relevance of Ecosystem Services and Disservices from Green Infrastructure Perceived by the Inhabitants of Two Portuguese Cities Dealing with Climate Change: Implications for Environmental and Intersectional Justice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, v. 68 (6), 1390-1420. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2023.2286927.

Bastian, O.; Syrbe, R.-U.; Rosenberg, M.; Rahe, D.; Grunewald, K., 2013. The five pillar EPPS framework for quantifying, mapping and managing ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, v. 4, 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.003.

Biondi, D., 2015. Floresta Urbana. O Autor, Curitiba, 202 p.

Botzat, A.; Fischer, L.K.; Kowarik, I., 2016. Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on urban biodiversity perception and valuation. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, v. 39, 220-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.008.

Brasil, 1988. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Senado Federal, Centro Gráfico, Brasília, DF.

Breuste, J.; Schnellinger, J.; Qureshi, S.; Faggi, A., 2013. Urban Ecosystem services on the local level: Urban green spaces as providers. Ekológia (Bratislava), v. 32 (3). https://doi.org/10.2478/eko-2013-0026.

Brzoska, P.; Grunewald, K.; Bastian, O., 2021. A multi-criteria analytical method to assess ecosystem services at urban site level, exemplified by two German city districts. Ecosystem Services, v. 49, 101268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101268.

Brzoska, P.; Spāģe, A., 2020. From city- to site-dimension: Assessing the urban ecosystem services of different types of green infrastructure. Land, v 9 (150), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9050150.

Burkhard, B.; Kandziora, M.; Hou, Y.; Müller, F., 2014. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands-concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landscape Online, v. 34, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.3097/lo.201434.

Calderón-Contreras, R.; Quiroz-Rosas, L.E., 2017. Analysing scale, quality and diversity of green infrastructure and the provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: a case from Mexico City. Ecosystem Services, v. 23, 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.004.

Campagne, C.S.; Roche, P.; Müller, F.; Burkhard, B., 2020. Ten years of ecosystem services matrix: Review of a (r)evolution. One Ecosystem, v. 5. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.5.e51103.

Caprioli, C.; Bottero, M.; Mondini, G., 2020. Urban ecosystem services: A review of definitions and classifications for the identification of future research perspectives. In: Computational Science and Its Applications – Computational Science and its Applications (ICCSA 2020), 332-344. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58814-4_23.

Cebrián-Piqueras, M.A.; Filyushkina, A.; Johnson, D.N.; Lo, V.B.; López-Rodríguez, M.D.; March, H.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Peppler-Lisbach, C.; Quintas-Soriano, C.; Raymond, C.M.; Ruiz-Mallén, I.; van Riper, C.J.; Zinngrebe, Y.; Plieninger, T., 2020. Scientific and Local ecological knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas and related ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, v. 35 (11), 2549-2567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01107-4.

Charoenkit, S.; Piyathamrongcha, K., 2019. A Review of urban green spaces multifunctionality assessment: a way forward for a standardized assessment and comparability. Ecological Indicators, v. 107, 105592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105592.

Cortinovis, C.; Geneletti, D.; Hedlund, K., 2021. Synthesizing multiple ecosystem service assessments for urban planning: A review of approaches, and recommendations. Landscape and Urban Planning, v. 213, 104129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104129.

Delpy, F.; Pedersen Zari, M.; Jackson, B.; Benavidez, R.; Westend, T., 2021. Ecosystem services assessment tools for regenerative urban design in Oceania. Sustainability, v. 13, 2825. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052825.

Dobbs, C.; Escobedo, F.J.; Zipperer, W.C., 2011. A framework for developing urban forest ecosystem services and goods indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning, v. 99 (3-4), 196-206. https://doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.11.004.

Duan, L.; Niu, X.; Wang, B., 2025. Construction and application of urban green space ecosystem service assessment indicator system and assessment method: a case study of Chifeng Central Urban Area, China. Forests, v. 16 (1), 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16010129.

Dushkova, D.; Ignatieva, M.; Konstantinova, S.; Yang, F., 2021. Cultural Ecosystem Services of Urban Green Spaces. How and What People Value in Urban Nature? Advanced Technologies for Sustainable Development of Urban Green Infrastructure: Proceedings of Smart and Sustainable Cities 2020. Springer, Switzerland, pp. 292-318.

Ferreira, L.M.R.; Esteves, L.S.; Souza, E.P.; Santos, C.A.C., 2019. Impact of the Urbanisation Process in the Availability of Ecosystem Services in a Tropical Ecotone Area. Ecosystems (New York, N.Y.), v. 22 (2), 266-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-018-0270-0.

Galvani, F.M.; Graciano-Silva, T.; Cardoso-Leite, E., 2020. Is biotic integrity of urban forests remants related with their size and shape? CERNE, v. 26, (1), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1590/01047760202026012674.

Gaudereto, G.L.; Gallardo, A.L.C.F.; Ferreira, M.L.; Do Nascimento, A.P.B.; Mantovani, W., 2019. Avaliação de serviços ecossistêmicos na gestão de áreas verdes urbanas: promovendo cidades saudáveis e sustentáveis. Ambiente e Sociedade, v. 21 (01203). https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc0120r3vu18L4TD.

Giacon, V.P.; Valente, R.A.; Cardoso-Leite, E., 2022. Association between urbanization and the biotic integrity of urban forest remnants. Ambiente & Sociedade, v. 25. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc20200053r4oa.

Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics, v. 86, 235-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019.

Grunewald, K.; Bastian, O.; Louda, J.; Arcidiacono, A.; Brzoska, P.; Bue, M.; Cetin, N.I.; Dworczyk, C.; Dubova, L.; Fitch, A.; Jones, L.; La Rosa, D.; Mascarenhas, A.; Ronchi, S.; Schlaepfer, M.A.; Sikorska, D.; Tezer, A., 2021. Lessons learned from implementing the ecosystem services concept in urban planning. Ecosystem Services, v. 49, 101273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101273

Guimarães, A.; Rodrigues, A.S.L.; Malafaia, G., 2021. Rapid assessment protocols of rivers as instruments of environmental education in elementary schools. Ambiente & Água, v. 12 (5), 801-813. https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.1996.

Haase, D.; Larondelle, N.; Andersson, E.; Artmann, M.; Borgström, S.; Breuste, J.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Gren, Å.; Hamstead, Z.; Hansen, R.; Kabisch, N.; Kremer, P.; Langemeyer, J.; Rall, E.L.; McPhearson, T.; Pauleit, S.; Qureshi, S.; Schwarz, N.; Voigt, A.; Wurster, D.; Elmqvist, T., 2014. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio, v. 43, 413-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE), 2022. Sorocaba (SP), Censo 2022 (Accessed February 6, 2024) at:. https://www.ibge.gov.br/cidades-e-estados/sp/sorocaba.html

Jato-Espino, D.; Capra-Ribeiro, F.; Moscardó, V.; Bartolomé del Pino, L.E.; Mayor- Vitoria, F.; Gallardo, L.O.; Carraceo, P.; Dietrich, K., 2023. A systematic review on the ecosystem services provided by green infrastructure. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, v. 86, 127998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127998.

Kleinschroth, F.; Kowarik, I., 2020. COVID-19 crisis demonstrates the urgent need for urban greenspaces. Front. Ecol. Environ, v. 18 (6), 318-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2230.

La Rosa, D.; Spyra, M.; Inostroza, L., 2016. Indicators of cultural ecosystem services for urban planning: a review. Ecological Indicators, v. 61, 74-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.028.

Leinonen, U.; Koskinen, J.; Makandi, H.; Mauya, E.; Käyhkö, N., 2018. Open Foris and Google Earth Engine linking expert participation with natural resource mapping and remote sensing training in Tanzania. ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLII-4/W8, 117-122. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs- archives-xlii-4-w8-117-2018.

Lemos, A.L.F.; Vital, M.H.F.; Pinto, M.A.C., 2010. As florestas e o painel de mudanças climáticas da ONU. BNDES Setorial, v. 32, 153-192.

Ma, Y.; Yang, J., 2025. A review of methods for quantifying urban ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning, v. 253 (105215), 105215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105215.

Mace, G.M.; Norris, K.; Fitter, A.H., 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 27 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006.

Marques, A.L.; Alvim, A.T.B.; Schröder, J., 2022. Ecosystem services and urban planning: a review of the contribution of the concept to adaptation in urban areas. Sustainability, v. 14 (4), 2391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042391.

Matasov, V.; Belelli Marchesini, L.; Yaroslavtsev, A.; Sala, G.; Fareeva, O.; Seregin, I.; Castaldi, S.; Vasenev, V.; Valentini, R., 2020. IoT monitoring of urban tree ecosystem services: Possibilities and challenges. Forests, v. 11 (7), 775. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11070775.

Mello, K.; Toppa, R.H.; Cardoso-Leite, E., 2016. Priority areas for forest conservation in an urban landscape at the transition between Atlantic forest and Cerrado. CERNE, v. 22 (3), 277-288. https://doi.org/10.1590/01047760201622032172.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Copyright, World Resources Institute.

Mota, M.T.; Cardoso-Leite, E.; Sola, F.; Mello, K., 2016. Categorização da infraestrutura verde do município de Sorocaba (SP) para criação de um sistema municipal integrando espaços livres e áreas protegidas. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais (RBCIAMB), (41), 122-140. https://doi.org/10.5327/z2176-947820160121.

Muñoz-Pacheco, C.B.; Villaseñor, N.R., 2022. Urban Ecosystem Services in South America: a systematic review. Sustainability, v. 14 (17), 10751. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710751.

O’Sullivan, O.S.; Holt, A.R.; Warren, P.H.; Evans, K.L., 2017. Optimising UK urban road verge contributions to biodiversity and ecosystem services with cost-effective managementz Journal of Environmental Management, v. 191, 162-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.062.

Ordóñez, C.; Duinker, P.N., 2012. Ecological integrity in urban forests. Urban Ecosystems, v. 15, 863-877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0235-6.

Pereira, L.F.; Guimarães, R.M.F.; Oliveira, R.R.M., 2018. Integrando geotecnologias simples e gratuitas para avaliar usos/coberturas da terra: QGIS e Google Earth Pro. Journal of Environmental Analysis and Progress, v. 3 (3), 250-264. https://doi.org/10.24221/jeap.3.3.2018.1839.250-264.

Programa Cidades Sustentáveis (PCS), n.d. Programa Cidades Sustentáveis (Accessed July 30, 2024) at:. https://www.cidadessustentaveis.org.br/painelIndicadoresCidade/detalhes/3849.

Romero-Duque, L.P.; Trilleras, J.M.; Castellarini, F.; Quijas, S., 2020. Ecosystem services in Urban ecological infrastructure of Latin America and the Caribbean: How do they contribute to urban planning? The Science of the Total Environment, v. 728 (138780), 138780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138780.

Sandifer, P.A.; Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Ward, B.P., 2015. Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem Services, v. 12, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007.

Schewenius, M.; McPhearson, T.; Elmqvist, T., 2014. Opportunities for increasing resilience and sustainability of Urban social-ecological systems: insights from the URBES and the cities and biodiversity outlook projects. Ambio, v. 43 (4), 434-444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0505-z.

Secretaria de Meio Ambiente, Infraestrutura e Logística (SEMIL), 2023. O Programa VerdeAzul (Accessed July 30, 2024) at:. https://semil.sp.gov.br/verdeazuldigital.

Shanahan, D.F.; Cox, D.T.C.; Fuller, R.A.R.A.; Hancock, S.; Lin, B.B.; Anderson, K.; Bush, R.; Gaston, K.J., 2017. Variation in experiences of nature across gradients of tree cover in compact and sprawling cities. Landscape Urban Planning, v. 157, 231-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.004.

Sinnott, E.; Nashat, B.; De la Torre, A., 2010. Natural resources in Latin America and the Caribbean: Beyond booms and busts? The World Bank Group, [S.l.]. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0- 8213-8482-4.

Steenberg, J.W.N.; Duinker, P.N.; Nitoslawski, S.A., 2019. Ecosystem-based Management Revisited: Updating the Concepts for Urban Forests. Landscape and Urban Planning, v. 186, 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.006.

Thapa, P.; Torralba, M.; Bhaskar, D.; Nagendra, H.; Plieninger, T., 2023. Green in grey: ecosystem services and disservices perceptions from small-scale green infrastructure along a rural-urban gradient in Bengaluru, India. Ecosystems and People (Abingdon, England), v. 19 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2223307.

Thiemann, M.; Riebl, R.; Haensel, M.; Schmitt, T.M.; Steinbauer, M.J.; Landwehr, T.; Fricke, U.; Redlich, S.; Koellner, T., 2022. Perceptions of ecosystem services: comparing socio-cultural and environmental influences. PloS One, v. 17 (10), e0276432. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276432.

Tudorie, C.M.; Gielen, E.; Vallés-Planells, M.; Galiana, F., 2019. Urban Green indicators: a tool to estimate the sustainability of our cities. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics: A Transdisciplinary Journal Relating to Nature, Science and the Humanities, v. 14 (1), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.2495/dne-v14-n1-19-29.

United Nations (UN), 2017. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (Retrieved February 7, 2024) at.: https://sdgs.un.org/goals

Van Oudenhoven, A.E.; Schröter, M.; Drakou, E.; Geijzendorffer, I.; Jacobs, S.; van Bodegom, P.; Chazee, L.; Czúcz, B.; Grunewald, K.; Lillebø, A.; Mononen, L.; Nogueira, A.A.; Pacheco-Romero, M.; Perennou, C.; Remme, R.; Rova, S.; Syrbe, R.; Tratalos, J.; Vallejos, M.; Albert, C., 2018. Key criteria for developing ecosystem service indicators to inform decision making. Ecological Indicators, v. 95, 417‑426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.020.

Veerkamp, C.J.; Schipper, A.M.; Hedlund, K.; Lazarova, T.; Nordin, A.; Hanson, H.I., 2021. A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure. Ecosystem Services, v. 52, 101367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101367.

Wang, J.; Foley, K., 2021. Assessing the Performance of urban open space for achieving sustainable and resilient cities: a pilot study of two urban parks in Dublin, Ireland. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, v. 62, 127180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127180.

Weyland, F.; Mastrangelo, M.E.; Auer, A.D.; Barral, M.P.; Nahuelhual, L.; Larrazábal, A.; Parera, A.F.; Berrouet Cadavid, L.M.; López-Gómez, C.P.; Villegas Palacio, C., 2019. Ecosystem Services Approach in Latin America: From Theoretical Promises to Real Applications. Ecosystem Services, v. 35: 280-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.11.010.

Yang, Q.; Liu, G.; Casazza, M.; Campbell, E.T.; Giannetti, B.F.; Brown, M.T., 2018. Development of a new framework for non-monetary accounting on ecosystem services valuation. Ecosystem Services, v. 34, 37-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.09.006.

Zhang, G.; Zhang, X.; Xie, L.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, D.; Wu, H.; Li, S., 2021. Perceived importance and bundles of ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Middle Reaches Megalopolis, China. Frontiers in Environmental Science, v. 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.739876.