Identify and evaluate the ecosystem services provided by UPF - chapter 4

4
IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE THE
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
PROVIDED BY UPF

4.1
LITERATURE REVIEW
BENEDETTA CONCETTI
The structural properties of ecosystems allow them to carry out their function and processes within their natural evolutional dyna-mics.
An Ecosystem Function is called a “Service” once it becomes an element that benefits human communities.
Ecosystem Services are therefore both the goods produced by the ecosystems (such as food, water, raw materials…) and the functions
and processes they perform (pollutants removal, landslides and flood control, pedogenesis…). Robert Constanza defines Ecosystem
Services as the fluxes of matter, energy and information stemming from the natural capital, that combine with the services of human
constructions to provide well-being and a high quality of life.
213

4 - IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY URBAN FORESTS www.emonfur.eu
The supply of Ecosystem Services is hence influenced by many of
the energy and matter fluxes that regulate every natural and eco-nomic
system; their origin, the natural capital, holds therefore
also a staggering economic value (ie the existence or the substitu-tion
value of any organism). The study and the awareness of the
value, included the monetary value, of ES are essential for the li-fe
of the human populations that manage and preserve the servi-ces’
fluxes, and for that of nature itself. The concept of ecosystem
Service is thus quintessential within the process of endorsing the
natural capital and for the conservation of nature and of biodiver-sity.
Scientific literature on Ecosystem services has increased steeply
since 1981, when the expression was coined by the ecologists
Paul and Anne Ehrlich in their book "Extinction. The causes and
Consequences of the Disappearance of Species". In the nineties
the term was starting to being introduced in the international po-litics
and economic lingo, especially thanks to the article ‘Capa-city
of ecosystems to provide goods and services that satisfy hu-man
needs, directly and indirectly’, by de Groot (1992) and to the
pioneer work published by Robert Costanza et al in a 1997 issue
of nature magazine, titled "The Value of the World's Ecosystem
Services and Natural Capital". This study considered 17 ecosy-stem
services (atmospheric gas regulation, climate regulation, di-sturbance
regulation - ecosystems response to environmental
fluctuations such as floods, hurricanes, drought – water cycle re-gulation,
freshwater provision, erosion control, pedogenesis, nu-trient
cycling – i.e. nitrogen fixation - , natural waste treatment,
pollination, control of populations’ food chains, shelter for spe-cies
reproduction and migration, food production – the share of
the whole primary production available as food – raw material
production, recreation services, the esthetic, cultural spiritual
and scientific role for ecosystems) for 16 biomes (sea, coral reef,
coastal, tropical forest, temperate forest, prairie, marshlands,
mangroves, lakes and rivers, deserts, tundra, ices and rocks, far-ming
lands and urban areas) and concluded that the overall mo-netary
value of those services for the whole biosphere could, after
a first preliminary estimate, be assessed to range between 16.000
and 54.000 billion dollars per year, with a yearly average of
33.000 billion dollars. Recently that study has been updated by
the two scientist in the article “Changes in the global value of
ecosystem services” (Costanza R., de Groot et al., 2014); here,
using the same method presented in the famed 1997 paper but
featuring updated data both for unit values and biomes areas,
the estimated the overall value of global ecosystem services at
around 125.000 billions of dollars in 2011 (145.00 if only the uni-tary
values are updated). Furthermore, it has been assessed that
the loss of ecosystem due to land use changes from 1997 to 2011
214

yields a monetary loss ranging from 4.300 to 20.300 billions of
dollars yearly.
Actually only in 2005 with the publication of the “Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment” (MEA, www.maweb.org), final re-port
of the planetary ecosystem evaluation initiative launched in
2000 by the UN, ecosystem services got a real international role
and recognition. The study involved more than 1.200 among the
major world experts on the topic of natural and social systems.
The study has yielded the more widely known definition of ES:
“benefits people obtain from ecosystems”. The Millennium Ecosy-stem
Assessment divides ecosystem services into four categories:
• Provision services, as "products obtained from ecosystems"
(food, including crops, game, seafood...; raw materials, inclu-ding
lumber, fuel wood...; genetic resources, including crop
improvement genes, medicinal resources…; minerals...)
• Regulating services, the “benefits obtained from the regula-tion
of ecosystem processes” (Carbon sequestration and clima-te
regulation, waste decomposition and detoxification, purifi-cation
of water and air, pest and disease control...)
• Cultural services, described as the "nonmaterial benefits peop-le
obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, co-gnitive
development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic ex-periences"
(therefore related to culture, to spiritual, histori-cal,
recreational experiences and education…)
• Supporting services, “necessary for the production of all other
ecosystem services" (nutrient dispersal and cycling, seed di-spersal,
primary production…).
The study underlines how the provision of two thirds of the
Earth ecosystem services is declining or at risk. Among the activi-ties
following the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment the EU has
established to draft an assessment for the Europe region. A new
planetary assessment will be available in 2015.
The final volumes of “The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity” (TEEB, www.teebweb.org) were presented in
2010 by the UNEP as part of the actions of the International Bio-diversity
Year; it was among the main topics debated by the
COP10 of the Nagoya CBD.
215

“The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” introduces a 22
ecosystem services classification, divided into three main catego-ries,
slightly adjusting the MEA ones, but without any major
change:
• provisioning
• regulating
• of habitat and cultural and aesthetic beauty
Considering the need of coherence and compatibility among as-sessments
and in order to support the integration of ES within
environmental accounting, recently a common international clas-sification
has been proposed, the Common International
Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES v4,
http://cices.eu), which also acts as a conversion system among
existing standards. It takes off from the classification developed
for environmental accounting purposes by the United Nations
Statistics Division (UNDS), as part of the activities aimed at revi-sing
and updating the SEEA (System of Environmental-Econo-mic
Accounting). CICES revised version (v4) would allow the
Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services
(MAES) within the European framework of the Biodiversity
2020 Strategy. This last aspect is the most innovative feature of
the CICES v4 classification system, as it could offer a more inte-grated
and holistic perspective through which analyze ecosystem
services.
216

It consists of a hierarchic structure organized into three levels:
• Ecosystem “goods”
• Raw materials and energy produced by ecosystems
• “Services”, the ecosystem non-material effects (i.e. processes’
regulation)
Even though the loss of biodiversity and the pressure on ecosy-stems
in the whole world are far from stopping, the growing in-crease
of awareness of ecosystem services value, of their impor-tance
for human well-being and society economy, can’t be igno-red;
it is in fact stronger day by day among the general public, so-ciety,
corporations and institutions: the EU Biodiversity 2020
Strategy, for example, recognizes as a key objective “Stopping bio-diversity
loss and ecosystem services decay in the EU before
2020 and restore them where possible”.
217

4.2
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY URBAN AND
PERIURBAN FORESTS
ENRICO CALVO
The European Forest Strategy (COM, 2013) highlights the importance of ecosystem services: priority 2 (forests and climate change)
and 4 (forests and environment) emphasize the role of forests in these sectors. "Protection efforts should aim to maintain, enhance
and restore forest ecosystems' resilience and multi-functionality as a core part of the EU’s green infrastructure, providing key envi-ronmental
services as well as raw materials." To guarantee the maintenance of ecosystem services, the forest strategy foresees the
linkage with forest measures in the rural development (RD) program, to ensure that in EU forests sustainable forest management
principles are applied (Szedlak, 2013).
218

219
Services offered by different ecosystems, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

On the basis of the main descriptions of ecosystem services pre-sented
in the chapter 4.1, it is possible to identify the most impor-tant
services provided by urban forests:
a) Provision services
Timber as raw Material and Energy supply
Timber is still the most important (and often only) income sour-ce
for the forest owners.
Non-wood forest products: (food-supply) edible products, Hun-ting
& fishing products, mushrooms, honey
The Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) are organic but not
wooden and can be found in forests, other forested sites or at
single trees (FAO). At least 150 NWFP are economically relevant
on the international (global) market: honey, mushrooms, truf-fles,
cork, nuts , resin, essential oils, plants (herbage, lichens)
and parts of animals for the pharmaceutical industry. In the ur-ban
and periurban areas the forest systems have to be integrated
in agro-forestry urban and periurban systems.
b) Regulatory services (in accordance with: European Envi-ronment
Agency,Towards a Pan-European Ecosystem Asses-sment
Methodology, 2013)
They are the most important ecosystem services provided by ur-ban
and periurban forests:
• Natural hazard regulation: erosion , flood, debris flow, land-slides.
Forest ecosystems prevent soil erosion, cut surface runoff and
store water, reducing the effect of extreme weather events
and natural hazards like floods or storms.
• Water cycle regulation (water flow, runoff, groundwater,
water filtration and quality).
Forest ecosystems maintain and regulate the water cycle, sto-re
and filter large amount of water. Trees act like pumps: tree
roots take the water from the soil and bring it back to the at-mosphere
through transpiration; in dry periods they reduce
evaporation. In addition the (usually deep) soil of forests acts
as a massive filter that purifies water. The UPF help in the ma-nagement
of storm water in urban areas.
• Atmosphere components regulation (air quality, micro- , ma-cro-
climate): Trees provide shade whilst forests influence
rainfall and water availability both locally and regionally. Tre-es
also play an important role in regulating air quality by re-moving
pollutants, ozone among others, from the atmosphe-re.
Very important is CO2 sequestration, reducing the rate of
accumulation in the atmosphere, counteracting emissions.
UPF help to reduce the Urban heat island effect
(http://www.urbanheatislands.com/).
220

• Biodiversity supporting services
UPF enrich the cities of biodiversity: the diversity of flora, fau-na
and habitats is essential element for a sustainable manage-ment
of urban environment. For Kowarik (2001) the cities
can harbor high numbers of species (vascular plants particu-larly),
including also rare species. UPF have to be include in
green, blue and grey infrastructures within cities: these infra-structures
are the first system to reconnect a city to natural
surrounding area. This important function must be recogni-sed,
supported and valorised, avoiding the creation of bar-riers
through infrastructures, land use changes or manage-ment
of specific measures to improve the connecting func-tion,
creating micro- and fringe-habitats.
• Another service supplied by semi natural and agricultural
ecosystems is impollination by insects, but also birds and so-me
bets, which is essential for many fruits, vegetables and
seeds.
c) Cultural services
• Human health and wellbeing
UPF help improving the quality of life in city: reduce air pollu-tions,
have a positive effect on psychological well-being, provi-de
opportunities of physical outdoor activities and improve
lifestyle
• UPF play an important role in children’s development, as at-tention
span and cognitive skills are facilitated by exploratory
and imaginative play.
• Opportunities for tourism, leisure-time activities and recrea-tion
Urban and periurban forests improve the landscape of the
city e can give important opportunities for touristic activities
and recreation, silence and location near to the nature to “re-cover”,
away from an urbanized and artificial world.
221

4.3
THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (CO2 STORAGE)
PROVIDED BY ROWS TREES AND SHRUBS
PAOLO SEMENZATO
The contribution of row plantations, particularly street trees, to the reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide, through storage and
avoided emissions has been widely debated (Nowak and Crane, 2002; McPherson and Simpson, 2003; Killicot et al., 2002; McHale et
al. 2007; Kovacs et al., 2013, Weissert et al. 2014). Many ambitious urban greening and street tree planting programs have been ba-sed
on the assumption that urban trees can store carbon, reduce the urban heat island and positively influence buildings energy balan-ce
through shading, thus reducing carbon emissions (Pincetl, 2010; MillionTreesNYC, 2013). Although this is possible in principle,
particular attention should be paid to the entire carbon cycle related to street trees and their maintenance (Nowak et al. 2002; Pataki
et al. 2011). Street trees in urban areas often require high maintenance levels, with high energy inputs and they are often characteri-
222

zed by high mortality rates (Nowak et al. 2004; Roman and Scate-na
2011; Leibowitz. 2012). In such situations CO2 emissions rela-ted
to the production, transport, planting, control and mainte-nance
often outweigh savings, and/or carbon reduction is far less
cost effective then other solutions. This is particularly true in
high density urban centers. A recent study in New York City (Ko-vacs
et al., 2013) shows that the average cost for ton of carbon sa-ved
by a New York street tree is ten to twenty times higher then
that of a tree in a forest. Urban trees however offer a range of
ecosystem services that have to be considered as a whole. Carbon
sequestration and avoided emissions are only part of the picture,
and in many situations can be a relevant benefit of street trees.
Many studies have shown that carbon reduction by urban trees is
species related and varies widely depends on differences in life
span, growth rate and size of tree canopy (Nowak. et al., 2002).
Allometric equations have been developed for many species in ur-ban
settings in different climatic zones (Freilich, 1992; Pillsbury
et al. 1998; Peper et al. 2001a, 2001b and 2014; Lukaszkiewicz
et al. 2005, 2008; Stoffberg et al. 2008; McHale et al., 2009; Se-menzato
et al. 2011) to estimate and model carbon storage and
other ecosystem services. Generally it has been observed that
the tree species that reduce carbon the most are large, have a
long life span, and grow at a medium rate (Nowak. et al., 2002).
The employment of sound arboricultural practices is fundamen-tal
for the sustainability of the urban forest (Clark et al. 1997, Lei-bowitz
R., 2012). Selecting good nursery stock and providing ade-quate
planting conditions are very important practices to maximi-ze
ecosystem services, especially in street tree plantations. Good
practices can increase the life span of trees, and avoid structural
defects that could greatly increase maintenance costs. The use of
structural soils in difficult sites can be very appropriate to enhan-ce
benefits (Grabosky and Bassuk 2008).
In long term planning of row plantation in a urban forest it is im-portant
to address issues of sustainability and resilience. For
their nature street tree plantations are often monospecific and
characterized by low age variation. Many studies show that
street tree populations are less diverse both in richness of species
and in eveness of distribution compared to parks and other ur-ban
forest types and this makes them far more susceptible to
pest outbreaks, less resilient to climate change and more costly
to manage (Sanders, 1981; Richards, 1983; Welch, 1994; Raupp
et al. 2006, Nagendra and Gopal, 2009; Semenzato et al., 2014).
Species diversification and age management, with programmed
renewal, are fundamental for the long term sustainability of the
linear urban forest (Alvey, 2006).
223

REFERENCES
Freilich L.E., 1992. Predicting Dimensional Relationships for Twin Cities
Shade Trees University of Minnesota, University of Minnesota, Depart-me
n t o f F o r e s t Re s o u r c e s , S t . P a u l , MN, US p . 3 3 -
www.forestry.umn.edu/.../cfans_asset_249769.pdf
Grabosky, J., Bassuk, N., 2008. Sixth-and tenth-year growth measure-ments
for three tree species in a load-bearing stone-soil blend under pave-ment
and a tree lawn in Brooklyn, New York, USA. Arboriculture & Urban
F o r e s t r y , 3 4 ( 4 ) ( 2 0 0 8 ) , p p . 2 6 5 – 2 6 6 –
http://auf.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=3052&Typ
e=2
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/mcpherson/psw_2009_mcphers
on(mchale)002.pdf
Killicoat, P, Puzio, E, and Stringer, R, 2002. The Economic Value of Trees
in Urban Areas: Estimating the Benefits of Adelaide’s Street Trees. Procee-dings
Treenet Symposium, 94-106, University of Adelaide.
http://treenetmedia.com/up/pdf/2002/02TS%20THE%20ECONOMIC%
20VALUE%20OF%20TREES%20IN%20URBAN%20AREAS_Killicoat%2
0Puzio%20Stringer.pdf
Leibowitz R., 2012. Urban tree growth and longevity: An international
meeting and research symposium white paper. Arboriculture & Urban Fo-r
e s t r y , 3 8 ( 5 ) , p p . 2 3 7 – 2 4 1 -
http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=3242&Typ
e=2
Lukaszkiewicz, J., Kosmala, M., 2008. Determining the age of streetside
trees with diameter at breast height-based multifactorial model. Arboricul-t
u r e & U r b a n F o r e s t r y 3 4 ( 3 ) , 1 3 7 – 1 4 3 . -
e=2
Lukaszkiewicz, J., Kosmala, M., Chrapka, M., Borowski, J., 2005. Determi-ning
the age of streetside Tilia cordata trees with a dbh-based model. Jour-n
a l o f A r b o r i c u l t u r e 3 1 ( 6 ) , 2 8 0 – 2 8 4 . -
http://auf.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=210&Type
=2
McHale, M.R., Burke, I.C., Lefsky, M.A., Peper, P.J., McPherson, E.G.,
2009. Urban forest biomass estimates: is it important to use allometric
relationships developed specifically for urban trees? Urban Ecosyst. 12,
95–113.
McHale, M.R., McPherson, E.G., Burke, I.C., 2007. The potential of urban
tree plantings to be cost effective in carbon credit markets. Urban Forestry
& U r b a n G r e e n i n g . 6 , 4 9 – 6 0 . -
http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/pdf/urban-tree-planting.pdf
McPherson, E.G. , Simpson, J.R. 2003. Potential energy savings in buil-dings
by an urban tree planting programme in California. Urban Forestry
& U r b a n G r e e n i n g . , 2 , p p . 7 3 – 8 6 -
http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/urban-forests/docs/calif_energy-saving
s.pdf
M i l l i o n T r e e s N Y C , 2 0 1 3 . A b o u t M i l l i o n T r e e s N Y C
http://www.milliontreesnyc.org/html/about/about.shtml
Nagendra, H., Gopal, D, 2010. Street trees in Bangalore: Density, diver-sity,
composition and distribution. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9
( 2 ) , 1 2 9 – 1 3 7 . -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866709001046
Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E. 2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by ur-ban
trees in the USA. Environ. Pollut., 116 pp. 381–389 -
http://sfrc.ifas.ufl.edu/urbanforestry/Resources/PDF%20downloads/No
wak_Crane_2002.pdf
Nowak, D.J., Kuroda, M., Crane, D.E., 2004. Tree mortality rates and tree
populations projections in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Urban Forestry &
224

U r b a n G r e e n i n g 2 , 1 3 9 – 1 4 7 . -
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/7005
Nowak, D.J., Stevens, J.C., Sisinni, S.M., Luley, C., 2002. Effects of urban
tree management and species selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide.
J o u r n a l o f A r b o r i c u l t u r e 2 8 ( 3 ) , 1 1 3 - 1 2 2 -
http://archive.treelink.org/joa/2002/may/01nowak.pdf
Pataki, D.E., Carreiro, M.M., Cherrier, J., Grulke, N.E., Jennings, V. S.,
2011. Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: Ecosystem
services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Frontiers in Ecology and
t h e E n v i r o nme n t , 9 ( 1 ) , p p . 2 7 – 3 6 -
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/090220
Peper, P.J., McPherson, E.G., Mori, S.M., 2001a. Predictive equations for
dimensions and leaf area of Coastal Southern California street trees. Jour-n
a l o f A r b o r i c u l t u r e 2 7 ( 4 ) , 1 6 9 – 1 8 0 -
e=2
Peper, P.J., McPherson, E.G., Mori, S.M., 2001b. Equations for predicting
diameter, height, crown width, and leaf area of San Joaquin Valley street
t r e e s . J o u r n a l o f A r b o r i c u l t u r e 2 7 ( 6 ) , 3 0 6 – 3 1 7 . -
https://www.itreetools.org/streets/resources/Equations_for_Predicting_
Dia_hgt_CW_Leaf_area_cufr_94_PP01_39.pdf
Pillsbury, N.H., Reimer, J.L., Thompson, R.P., 1998. Tree Volume Equa-tions
for Fifteen Urban Species in California. Tech. Rpt. 7.Urban Forest
Ecosystems Institute, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis
O b i s p o , C A . -
http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/urban-forests/docs/PillsburyUrbanTree
Eqns.pdf
Pincetl S., 2010 Implementing municipal tree planting: Los Angeles mil-lion-
tree initiative Environmental Management, 45, pp. 227–238 . -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819482/
Raupp, M. J., Cumming, A. B., Raupp, E. C., 2006. Street tree diversity in
eastern North America and its potential for tree loss to exotic borers. Ar-b
o r i c u l t u r e & U r b a n F o r e s t r y 3 2 ( 6 ) , 2 9 7 - 3 0 4 -
e=2
Richards, N.A., 1983. Diversity and stability in a street tree population.
U r b a n E c o l o g y 7 ( 2 ) , 1 5 9 - 1 7 1 . -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304400983900347
Roman L.A., Scatena F.N., 2011. Street tree survival rates: Meta-analysis
of previous studies and application to a field survey in Philadelphia, PA,
USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 10 (2011) 269–274 -
Sanders, R.A., 1981. Diversity in the street trees of Syracuse, New York.
U r b a n E c o l o g y 5 ( 1 ) , 3 3 - 4 3 . -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030440098190019X
Seamans G. S., 2013. Mainstreaming the environmental benefits of street
t r e e s , Urban Fo r e s t r y & Urban Gr e ening 12( 1 ) : 2- 1 1 . -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S161886671200091X
Semenzato P., Cattaneo D., Sitzia, T, Dainese, M., 2014. Assessing and
comparing composition and diversity in urban trees populations in Nort-hern
Italy. International conference on Urban Tree Diversity 16-18 June
2 0 1 4 , A l n a r p , Swe d e n . I S BN: 9 7 8 - 9 1 - 5 7 6 - 9 2 3 5 - 1 -
http://www.urbantreediversity.com/sites/default/files/Urban%20Tree%2
0Diversity%20-%20Programme%20and%20abstract%20book%20A5.pdf
Semenzato, P., Cattaneo, D., Dainese, M., 2011. Growth prediction for five
tree species in an Italian urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
1 0 , 1 6 9 – 1 7 6 . -
Stoffberg, G.H., van Rooyen, M.W., van der Linde, M.J., Groeneveld, H.T.,
2008. Pre- dicting the growth in tree height and crown size of three street
225

tree species in the city of Tshwane, South Africa. Urban Forestry & Urban
G r e e n i n g 7 , 2 5 9 – 2 6 4 . -
Weissert, L.F., Salmond, J.A., Schwendenmann, L., 2014. A review of the
current progress in quantifying the potential of urban forests to mitigate
urban CO2 emissions. Urban Climate Volume 8, June 2014, Pages 100-
1 2 5 -
Welch, J.M., 1994. Street and park trees of Boston: a comparison of urban
forest structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 29 (2-3), 131-143. -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016920469490023X
226

4.4
THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY SOIL
ROBERTO COMOLLI, MILAN KOBAL, ALEKSANDER MARINŠEK
Soils are crucial elements of ecosystems. They are composed of different genetic horizons (Fig. A), which testify the processes of for-mation:
chemical and physical weathering of parent material, formation of structural aggregates, internal translocation of material
(clay, carbonates, oxides and hydroxides, salts, etc.), accumulation of dead organic matter and its transformation (White, 2006).
Soil formation requires suitable climatic conditions and parent materials, appropriate biological activity and a very long time (centuri-es
or millennia); by contrast, it can be destroyed in a very short time, due to natural or anthropogenic reasons: in this sense, the soil is
considered as a non-renewable resource (at least on the human timescale).
227

Being a fragile resource, the soil may pass several degradation
processes or threats (erosion, salinization, acidification, loss of
structure, contamination, etc.): today it is estimated that soil de-gradation
seriously affects about 20% of the emerged lands.
One of the most serious threats for soil degradation is represen-ted
by its consumption (sealing), i.e. its use for urbanization (resi-dential
settlements and industrial zones, infrastructure, etc.).
228
Fig. A - Soil horizons in a profile excavated in a 23-years old UPF (Parco Nord
Milano). The depth of the profile is 160 cm.
Soil horizon in a profile excavated in Rožnik Urban Forest in Ljubljana

When it’s used for such purposes, the soil ceases to exist: in some cases because it is removed before the construction works or becau-se
it is sealed with waterproof or low permeability covers, which discontinued the exchange processes (matter, energy) with the other
components of the ecosystem. The soil is therefore excluded from its protective and productive functions (agriculture, forestry and en-vironment).
In this context, the establishment of UPF should be viewed with particular favor, because it puts a stop to the misuse of
soil and preserves its specific functions.
The soil provides a wide range of ecosystem services (Daily et al., 1997) (see also Fig. B):
• Soil plays a key role in the regulation of the hydrological cycle: the presence of a large porosity ensures the quick infiltration of
rainwater (reducing runoff) and the leaching to groundwater (ensuring its recharge); at the same time, the presence of a small po-rosity
allows the soil to retain a fraction of the water by capillarity, which can be available to the plants when they need it.
229
Fig. B - Synthetic scheme of the main ecosystem services provided by soil (from Bennett et al., 2010, modified)

• Soil is able to retain the essential nutrients for the growth of
plants and to release them gradually. This capacity is strongly
linked to the exchange capacity of colloidal particles (organic
matter, clay), which possess negative surface charges and ha-ve
the ability to retain the cations (calcium, magnesium, po-tassium,
ammonia nitrogen, etc.); otherwise cations would be
easily leached further belowground, beyond the operating ran-ge
of the roots. The soil acts also as a buffer for the applica-tion
of chemical fertilizers, releasing them when required by
plants.
• Soil provides a mechanical support for plants and acts as a
thermal flywheel: it mitigates the extremes of air temperatu-re.
• Soil plays an important role in the decomposition of dead or-ganic
matter, contributing as well to make many pathogens
harmless. Simple chemicals are derived from the mineraliza-tion
of the organic matter, and they can be used once again by
plants for their growth. The chemical fertility of the soil - i.e.
its ability to provide nutrients to the plants -, is closely rela-ted
to the biological activity that takes place within it, thanks
to bacteria, fungi, algae, mites, insects, earthworms, etc.
(Wall and Virginia, 2000).
• Some bacteria are able to transform atmospheric inorganic
nitrogen into organic nitrogen compounds, which can be
used to produce proteins; insects and earthworms are able to
shred plant residue, mixing the soil and promoting the attack
by decomposer bacteria. Much of the toxic organic substances
may be destroyed: the soil therefore performs a decontamina-tion
activity, which also concern the percolation of water.
• Soil is a key element in the regulation of biogeochemical
cycles, especially those of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and
sulfur. The content of organic carbon in soil is about twice the
one in vegetation, while the nitrogen in the soil is nearly
twenty times greater. The alteration of the carbon cycle of the
soil (Fig. C), as a result of careless management, can lead to
serious consequences: the conversion of land use, from natu-ral
vegetation to agricultural fields, or drainage and subse-quent
cultivation of marsh lands, causes a strong oxidation of
soil organic matter, which causes a substantial release of car-bon
dioxide and methane into the atmosphere - gases that in-crease
the normal greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. Mo-reover,
the improper use of fertilizers may increase the relea-se
of nitrous oxide, which is another strong greenhouse gas.
230
Fig. C – Schematic representation of the carbon cycle in UPF soil

The set of ecosystem services mentioned above can be done at
best only if the soil has good characteristic (convenient
thickness, low bulk density, balanced texture, reaction not too far
from neutrality, good supply of organic matter and nutrients). It
is not possible to identify a relation between soil evolution (de-gree
of expression of pedogenic processes) and level of deve-lopment
of these characteristics: often strongly developed soils
are also the worst in terms of agricultural productivity (see the
case of podzolic soils).
However, many characteristics benefit from the development of
the soil, at least until it becomes extreme. In this regard, the UPF
play an important action, especially when compared to arable
soils: while in the latter the frequent mechanical operations pre-vent
the normal formation of soil horizons and also lead to a loss
of organic matter by strong mineralization; in the case of UPF
the organic matter tends to accumulate in the upper part of the
soil, allowing the formation of organic (litter) and organo-mine-ral
horizons (surface A horizon, highly enriched in organic mat-ter).
The process is slow and its effects become measurable only
after at least a decade from the plantation; in this regard it is ne-cessary
to pay particular attention to the spatial variability of soil
characteristics (Fig. D), which makes it difficult to monitor their
changes over time.
Other soil characteristics that are favorably affected by the esta-blishment
of the UPF are:
• the thickness of the soil, that is increased by the roots of
woody plants to a greater extent by comparison with arable
crops;
231
Fig. D – Spatial variation of soil organic carbon (SOC) in the first horizon (Ap1, 0-15
cm) of a 2-hectares UPF
derived from an agricultural soil (Lombardy, Italy).
The uneven distribution of SOC is due to the differences in soil texture (low C concentra-tion
in sandy loam soils,
high in silty loam soils)

• bulk density, especially at the soil surface, which is favorably
affected by the increase in organic matter and by the little or
no compaction by mechanical equipments;
• the biological fertility, much greater than fertility in the culti-vated
soils.
However, some characteristics of the soil can get worse: it is the
case of pH, which can be lowered (leading to a higher acidity) af-ter
the constitution of UPF. The comparison is done with arable
crops, in which fertilization and correction of soil acidity are cur-rent
practices and keep the pH under control. Anyway tree spe-cies
have very different acidifying power, passing from almost ze-ro
(false acacia, alder) to high power (conifers, some oaks): a ca-reful
choice of the species at the time of plantation can keep the
process under control (Binkley and Fisher, 2013).
References
Bennett L.T., Mele P.M., Annett S., Kasel S., 2010. Examining links betwe-en
soil management, soil health, and public benefits in agricultural land-scapes:
An Australian perspective. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environ-ment
139, 1-12.
Binkley D., Fisher R.F., 2013. Ecology and management of forest soils, 4
ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Chicester, UK, pp. 347.
Daily, G.C., Matson P.A., Vitousek P.M., 1997. Ecosystem services sup-plied
by soil. In: Daily G.C. (ed.), Nature’s Services, Societal Dependence
on Natural Ecosystems, Washington DC, Island Press, pp. 113–132.
Wall D.H., and Virginia R.A., 2000. The world beneath our feet: Soil biodi-versity
and ecosystem functioning. In: Raven P.R., Williams T. (eds.), Na-ture
and Human Society: The Quest for a Sustainable World, Washington
DC, National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council, pp.
225–241.
White R.E., 2006. Principles and practice of soil science, 4 ed. Blackwell,
Malden, MA, USA, pp. 363.
Useful links
ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/guidel_soil_descr.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/index_en.htm
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:5200
2DC0179&from=EN
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/soils/home/
http://www.soils.org.uk/pages/education/ecosystem-services
232

4.5
TOOLS FOR MONITORING OF ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES
GIORGIO MATTEUCCI
This paragraph presents information and links to web resources on tools that can be used to monitor the Ecosystem Services provided
by UPF. Most of these ES are similar, if not the same, of those provided by forests on the whole. It is the balance and importance
among the supplied ES services that may differ between UPF and “natural” forest. In general, provisioning services (e.g. timber) are
more relevant in non-urban forests, while cultural services could be prominent in urban landscape. On the other hand, regulatory ser-vices
are very important in both forest types, although different regulatory services may have different importance (e.g. local climate
regulation is very relevant for UPF, water cycle and CO2 sequestration are more significant for natural forest).
233

The primary features of a forest are its structure (both horizontal
and vertical) and volume/biomass (m3, tons of wood). Sample
areas, where trees are measured with calipers and height-measu-ring
devices coupled to species-specific allometric relationship,
are the classic tools used to measure these forestry parameters.
Starting from forest inventory based on classical methods
(http://www.sian.it/inventarioforestale/jsp/metodo_introa.jsp?
menu=3) you can get to more advanced and integrated tools, ob-taining
structure, map and biomass nearly at the same time
(http://www.fieldmap.cz/).
Monitoring networks (e.g. ICP-Forests, http://icp-forests.net/;
ICP Integrated Monitoring, http://www.syke.fi/nature/icpim)
and research projects
(e.g. ExpeER, http://www.expeeronline.eu/, ManFor C.BD.,
http://www.manfor.eu) have often developed manuals and proto-cols
for several variables and parameters than can be traced to
Ecosystem Services, also through direct measurements or calcula-tion
(e.g. http://icp-forests.net/page/publications;
http://www.syke.fi/en-US/Research__Development/Ecosystem
_services_and_biological_diversity/Monitoring/Integrated_Mo
nitoring/Manual_for_Integrated_Monitoring). The manual deve-loped
by ExpeER project (Experimentation in Ecosystem Re-search)
gives advice on forest biomass estimation through both
samplings and assessment of Leaf Area Index, plus other impor-tant
ecosystem parameters (e.g. soil emissions,
http://www.expeeronline.eu/index.php/accomplishments/expee
r-protocols).
234
Figure 1. Regulating and provisiong services
related to carbon cycling in forest
(Bonan, 2008, Science)

International Organisations, whose role is providing approaches
at different complexity levels to allow capabilities implementa-tion,
often make data and methods available. Examples are the
reference method for forestry (LULUCF) of the Intergovernmen-tal
Panel on Climate Changes(http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/;
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/kpsg/index.html;
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/mtdocs/pdfiles/0910_
FAO-IFAD-IPCC-Meetingreport.pdf), the Global Terrestrial Ob-serving
System (GTOS) at Food and Agriculture Organization
(http://www.fao.org/gtos/) or the data sources available at the
Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission
(http://mars.jrc.ec.europa.eu/mars/Projects/AFOLU-DATA-PO
RTAL).
Important regulatory services are related to the carbon and wa-ter
cycles in forests (see figure 1 and 2). Carbon, water and ener-gy
exchanges can be directly measured by the Eddy Covariance
technique, which can be applied in urban areas too (although
usually the shape and surface of Urban Forests prevent the appli-cation
on UPF stands). Infrastructure researches have been
world-wide developed (http://www.icos-infrastructure.eu/).
Urban Forests host important biodiversity. Essential Biodiversity
Variables (EBV) have been proposed as connection to ecosystem
services by the GEO Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO-BON
https://www.earthobservations.org/geobon.shtml,
https://www.earthobservations.org/geobon_ebv.shtml).
235
Figure 2. Regulating and provisiong services related
to water cycling in forest
(Bonan, 2008, Science)

In addition, other LIFE+ projects have proposed methods to as-sess
biodiversity in forests: Life+ ManFor CBD (Management of
Forests, Carbon and Biodiversity) has tested and verified the ef-fectiveness
of forest management options in meeting multiple ob-jectives
(timber production, environment protection and biodi-versity
conservation, etc.), providing data, guidance and indica-tions
of best-practice (http://www.manfor.eu), an overall sche-me
based on Ecological Integrity Indicators has been developed
and tested within the LIFE+ EnvEurope
(http://www.enveurope.eu/products)
and the European Long Term Ecosystem Research network
(http://www.lter-europe.net/) developing the EcoPar tool
(http://www.ufz.de/lter-d/index.php?en=32141&contentonly=1)
However, many of the proposed schemes to assess and measure
Ecosystem Services are complex to be used, require substantial
resources or specialist technical knowledge, or heavily rely upon
existing data. In this respect, it is relevant to address the reader
to tool-kits for site-based assessment of ecosystem services. Tho-se
tool-kits guide the non-specialists to relatively accessible met-hods,
recommending, where appropriate, the use of existing data
or suggesting local users to collect new field data at relatively low
costs and efforts. Two of these tool-kits are TESSA (Toolkit for
Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment,
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/estoolkit) and the boo-klet
from Cambridge Conservation Initiative (Measuring and mo-nitoring
ecosystem services at the site scale,
http://www.conservation.cam.ac.uk/resource/document/resour
ce-3).
Figure 3. “Examples of various biophysical factors in a grassland or cropland (A)
and forest (B). Because of a grassland or cropland’s higher reflectivity (albedo), it
typically reflects more sunlight than the forest does, cooling surface air temperatures
relatively more. In contrast, the forest often evaporates more water and transmits
more heat to the atmosphere (latent and sensible heat, respectively), cooling it local-ly
compared to the grassland or unirrigated cropland. More water vapor in the at-mosphere
can lead to a greater number and height of clouds as well as to increased
convective rainfall. In addition, the forest has a more uneven canopy (surface
roughness) that increases mixing and upwelling of air.”
(Jackson et al, 2008)
236

REFERENCES
Bonan G.B. (2008). Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks,
and the Climate Benefits of Forests. Science 320: 1444-1449 DOI:
10.1126/science.1155121
Jackson R.B., Randerson J.T., Canadell J.G., Anderson R.G., Avissar R.,
Baldocchi D.D., Bonan G.B., Caldeira K., Diffenbaugh N.S., Field C.B.,
Hungate B.A., Jobb´agy E.G., Kueppers L.M., Nosetto M.D., Pataki D.E.
(2008). Protecting climate with forests. Environ. Res. Lett. 3: 044006
(5pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/4/044006
Kelvin S.-H. Peh, Andrew Balmford, Richard B. Bradbury, Claire Brown,
Stuart H.M. Butchart, Francine M.R. Hughes, Alison Stattersfield, David
H.L. Thomas, Matt Walpole, Julian Bayliss, David Gowing, Julia P.G. Jo-nes,
Simon L. Lewis, Mark Mulligan, Bhopal Pandeya, Charlie Stratford,
Julian R. Thompson, Kerry Turner, Bhaskar Vira, Simon Willcock, Jenni-fer
C. Birch (2013). TESSA: A toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem
services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance, Ecosystem Servi-ces,
5:51-57 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.003)
Pereira H. M., S. Ferrier, M. Walters, G. N. Geller, R. H. G. Jongman, R. J.
Scholes, M. W. Bruford, N. Brummitt, S. H. M. Butchart, A. C. Cardoso, N.
C. Coops, E. Dulloo, D. P. Faith, J. Freyhof, R. D. Gregory, C. Heip, R.
Höft, G. Hurtt, W. Jetz, D. S. Karp, M. A. McGeoch, D. Obura, Y. Onoda,
N. Pettorelli, B. Reyers, R. Sayre, J. P. W. Scharlemann, S. N. Stuart, E. Tu-rak,
M. Walpole, M. Wegmann (2013) essential Biodiversity Variables.
Science 339 (6117): 277-278. DOI: 10.1126/science.1229931
Tallis H., Harold Mooney, Sandy Andelman, Patricia Balvanera, Wolfgang
Cramer, Daniel Karp, Stephen Polasky, Belinda Reyers, Taylor Ricketts,
Steve Running, Kirsten Thonicke, Britta Tietjen, and Ariane Walz (2012).
A Global System for Monitoring Ecosystem Service Change. BioScience
62:977-986 doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.7
237

4.6
TOOLS FOR EVALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
BENEDETTA CONCETTI
According to the definition provided by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystem Services are the multiple benefits that
ecosystems provide to the human populations and therefore, unlike “environmental functions”, a term generally used referring to im-pacts
linked with the presence of environmental resources (not accounting for the perception that people may have of them), have a
strong connection with the well-being of human communities. For this reason the use of the concept of “Ecosystem Service” is di-rectly
linked with the issue of its measurability, both in biophysical and economical terms. It is also due to the goal of orienting the
choices of public operators in the context of the decisional processes related to landscape planning, especially in regard to the manage-ment
and conservation of natural resources; this after centuries of exploitation of natural resources, function and processes as positi-ve
externalities.
238

To reach this goal, usually analysis models are used; most of
them rely on geographical informative systems: they are “spatial-ly
explicit” and able to integrate data from ecology, economy and
social sciences, allowing to analyze the links between ecosystem
services according to a multi-scale approach starting from punc-tual
data - gathered in the field - and territorial data - acquired
from remote sensors. Among these models the most used as a
support to decisional processes are InVEST, ARIES, SolvES,
iTree. Non limited to the Convention of Biological Diversity
anymore, the crucial themes of the value of natural capital, of
ecosystems and of the services and goods the offer to our well-being
and our economies, are nowadays the subjects of in-depth
analysis and decisions in important government headquarters
(i.e. The European Commission).
InVEST
(Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs,
www.naturalcapitalproject.org), is a free models suite, developed
and constantly updated by Stanford Woods Institute for the Envi-ronment,
University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environ-ment,
The Nature Conservancy e World Wildlife Fund, joined in
the Natural Capital Project. The tool operates within the work
frame of the ArcGIS 10.0 software through the ArcToolBox inter-face,
and in versions after 2.6 it also works as a stand-alone soft-ware,
which allows to map Ecosystem Services and to quantify
them from a biophysical and economic point of view; users can
measure, estimate and map the potential of ecosystem with re-gards
to the provision of goods and services that people get, both
at the present time and referring to future scenarios. Using bio-physical
and economical models, the tool offers stakeholders
new planning and management solutions as maps, tradeoffs and
monetary evaluations.
The models allow to get output at a local, regional or national sca-le,
considering the heterogeneity of the landscape. The base carto-graphic
information needed to run almost all modules is an ac-tual
and a past Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) map, while a futu-re
LULC map is an optional input, useful in order to define futu-re
scenarios depending on landscape planning. For each module
and according to the Ecosystem Service considered, a different
set of indicators is required as input (their format could be ras-ter,
vector or database), while the output data could be biophysi-cal
or economical, depending on the policy makers’ needs and on
data availability.
Right now the toolset collects 15 different models, divided into
three macro categories based on the type of ecosystem they aim
to investigate (marine, freshwater, terrestrial)
Terrestrial ecosystems
• Crop Pollination
• Biodiversity: Habitat Quality & Rarity
• Managed Timber Production Model
• Carbon Storage and Sequestration
• Recreation
239

Freshwater ecosystems
• Reservoir Hydropower Production
• Water Purification: Nutrient Retention
• Sediment Retention Model: Avoided dredging and water qua-lity
Marine ecosystems
• Coastal Vulnerability Model, Erosion Protection Model
• Aesthetic quality
• Wave Energy Model
• Wind Energy Model
In the following box the results of the study carried on within the
EMoNFUr project using Invest models to analyze ecosystem ser-vices
in the Lombardy UPF will be presented.
ARIES
( A R t i f i c i a l I n t e l l i g e n c e f o r Ecosystem S e r v i c e s ,
www.ariesonline.org) is a University of Vermont project. It aims
at providing an assessment of ecosystem services using artificial
intelligence techniques which would allow to get probabilistic fu-ture
data even without punctual input data. This web-based,
open-source technology, useful to understand and assess environ-mental
goods and the factors which influence their values, can
process ecological and socio-economical knowledge to map ES
provision, use and benefits’ fluxes through an automatic data in-tegration
process based on a large database of local and global
GIS data. ARIES maps the localization of the potential provision
of ES (“source”), the potential beneficiaries (“users”), and the bio-physical
features that could negatively affect the flux of the servi-ce
(“sink”), using deterministic tree algorithm models of ecologi-cal
processes or baynesian models specifically developed for the
study context. Through a family of flux algorithms the effective
service flux from ecosystem to people is therefore mapped (eg
with hydrological or transport networks, proximity, visual lines).
The source, sink and use models quantify these values in com-mon
units, either real (eg CO2, metric tons, water mm, fish kg)
or abstract (eg the aesthetical value or the quality of the recrea-tion
in the site, which are valued using a 0-100 point system). So
far the following modules, which value 8 ES, have been comple-ted
and are available:
• Carbon sequestration and storage
• Flood regulation
240

• Coastal flood regulation
• Aesthetic views and open space proximity
• Freshwater supply
• Sediment regulation
• Subsistence fisheries
• Recreation
241

SolVES
(Social Values for Ecosystem Services, http://solves.cr.usgs.gov)
is an instrument developed to assess, map and value “cultural”
Ecosystem Services (eg aesthetic value, spiritual value, recrea-tion
and cultural value) as perceived by citizens or the local com-munity.
The output value depends on a combination of replies
(also spatial ones) to a general public preference survey and of
calculated parameters which characterize the surrounding envi-ronment,
such as the average distance from water features or
from the dominant landscape features. More recent versions ha-ve
an improved flexibility to different contexts than the USA
ones, as they introduce the options for users to define their custo-mized
range of perceived social values and public uses, to model
any number and kind of environmental variables and to modify
the analysis spatial resolution. The tool is based on data derived
from surveys given out to a panel of citizens who are asked to ex-press
their preferences on the aforementioned “cultural” ES. The
model also allows users to process value/benefit transfer opera-tions,
using the data collected in one area, with proper
adjustments, to value the same parameters in similar situations.
242

iTree
(Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forests
www.itreetools.org) is the last installment, free and peer-reviews,
of the american UFORE (Urban FORest Effects) model, develo-ped
in the late nineties by the USDA Forest Service; the suite
“Eco” module is used to estimate data related to “Regulation” ES
linked to air pollution and microclimate mitigation. It simulates
the interaction and gas exchanges which occur between trees and
atmosphere. It is therefore possible to quantify the fluxes of the
different gas compounds (O2, CO2, pollutant gasses) that enter
and exit the leaves stoma, and their interception of particulate
matter. The model combines structural vegetation data with local
pollution indicators and climate data. ITree Eco provides infor-mation
of PM10, ozone, nitrogen bioxyde, sulphur bioxyde, car-bon
monoxide. The model also allows to estimate CO2 sequestra-tion
that occurs thanks to urban trees. If used within the USA
context, the BenMAP tool - developed by the Environmental Pro-tection
Agency (EPA) to estimate the economical value of these
services as avoided healthcare costs - is also available.
243

BOX
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES’
PLANNING AND
MONITORING ACTIVITY
AT EUROPAEAN SCALE
DAGMAR HAASE
A study by Larondelle, Haase and Kabisch (2014) about
ecosystem services (ESS) provisioning in European cities
shows a quite heterogeneous distribution of regulating ecosy-stem
services, particularly considerable differences between
the core cities and their hinterland: Whereas northern coun-tries
such as Sweden and Finland, which are rich in sup-plying
ESS in their urban areas compared to the UK and Bel-gium,
which, similar to Spanish and Greek cities, are cha-racteristically
low in ecosystem services supply. Regional
and city-size differences can be found in the supply of regu-lating
ESS.
244

Furthermore, the provision of regulating ESS is a function of the
degree of surface imperviousness; all of the land use classes
that show a potential to provide ESS are either not or only mini-mally
sealed. Small green patches such as backyards, street tre-es
and pocket parks, are not considered at this scale.
Figure X shows that the regulation of ESS supply varies greatly
among European cities and that there are significant differen-ces
between large European regions. The data can roughly be
explained by the fact that land use in and around cities
throughout Europe is heterogeneous and that biophysical condi-tions
are different within the countries and regions. The above-average
regulating ESS values in Northern Europe can be ex-plained
by the high percentage of forest and tree cover in both
the core cities and the urban hinterland. This forest cover re-sults
from the biophysical conditions and the forest richness of
the countries in general. Accordingly, the low forest and tree
cover in southern Europe explains the below-average regula-ting
ESS values of southern European cities. Additionally, a
high degree of soil sealing and rock surface in the cities along
the Mediterranean coastline limits ESS provision. Conversely,
limited biophysical conditions are not the reason for the mode-rately
low regulating ESS provision in western European cities
where economic and immigration dynamics have resulted in a
high degree of land consumption (Batty et al., 2003). At the
same time, however, an increased awareness exists in western
Europe of the importance of protecting nature. In addition, an
increase in ecological ‘‘green’’ lifestyles appearing in cities,
leading to better protection of high ESS supply areas, could
serve to explain the widespread values that were observed for
those cities. In the case of eastern, “post-socialist” Europe, the
ESS provision is very dynamic and hard to predict. The biophy-sical
pre-conditions vary greatly between the more Mediterra-nean
Bulgarian cities and the semi-continental cities in Poland
and the Czech Republic (Melichar and Kaprov, 2013). Additio-nally,
in nearly each eastern European country, the processes
of urban sprawl into the hinterlands occurred after 1990 and
became more extensive during the 2000s (Nuissl and Rink,
2005).
The reasons for the observed differences in the regulating ESS
values between European cities are many and do not simply re-flect
major drivers such as population dynamics or city area
(being both proxies of growth). Larondelle et al. (2014) found
a statistical positive relationship between ESS provisioning and
city area. Only weak and statistically insignificant relationships
were found between ESS potentials and population number
and density. These results show that drivers such as city area
and population dynamics influence a city’s ability to supply
ESS but that they are neither the only nor most important dri-vers.
From an ESS supply perspective, urban growth necessa-rily
destroys habitat and soil functions and thus reduces the
ESS provision.
245

However, it is not necessarily true that urban growth reduces
the value of ecosystem services in a greater urban region be-cause
in highly urbanized (dense) landscapes, the remaining
urban green spaces such as street trees within the inner city
might have/get greater heat balancing and aesthetic (and pre-sumably)
monetary value than when there were less people li-ving
nearby. More importantly, dense urban growth may be
more preferable than large periurban populations for nature
and biodiversity conservation, even though this growth might
reduce the provision of ecosystem services in the cities themsel-ves,
as we found certain trade-offs concerning compactness
and the ESS supply (Bowler et al., 2010).
In total and regardless of the compact or sprawlness of an ur-ban
area, city population density is so high that most of the
ESS demand seems not to be fulfilled by ESS supply within citi-es’
administrative borders. Nevertheless, it needs to be mentio-ned
that the ESS provided at urban patch level (house, front
garden, etc.) cannot be displayed by the Urban Atlas data
which is the highest grain data set available for almost all big
European cities. Tosics et al. (2010) in accordance with ESPON
distinguish between six different classes of potential control by
government and planning systems and four styles of spatial
planning. They refer to ‘‘a high diversity of government and
planning systems in the EU countries from the perspective of
land-use change’’. The impacts of urban planning on the regula-ting
ESS provision observed in this study agree with the state-ments
of various studies (Schwarz et al., 2011) that found diffe-rent
planning strategies and an awareness of nature protection
levels resulting in different (urban) landscapes. Additionally, La-rondelle
et al. (2014) found significant differences in the land
use planning and nature protection activities (including an awa-reness
of their importance) between eastern European countri-es
that entered the EU comparatively early (Poland and Slove-nia)
and those countries that joined the EU three years later
(Bulgaria).
The impact of urban form on the regulating ESS potential can-not
be overlooked (Schwarz, 2010). Kasanko et al. (2006)
analyzed the compactness of 15 European urban areas. These
authors found that southern cities tend to be more compact,
whereas northern and eastern European cities are characteri-zed
by looser structures with lower densities, and ‘‘western citi-es
[are located] in the midway between the extremes’’ (Ka-sanko
et al., 2006: 111). The higher proportion of built-up ur-ban
areas in southern European cities—not similar to but not ve-ry
different from South and Central American cities—results in
less area and thus less capacity for the regulating ESS supply,
whereas the more discontinuous urban structures in western Eu-ropean
cities imply the opposite. Southern European cities ha-ve
exhibited lowering density development over the last two de-cades
(Schwarz, 2010; Dura-Guimera, 2003), including more
intense urban sprawl, similar to that which occurred in western
Europe during the 1970s and 1980s (Munoz, 2003).
246

Despite sprawling still compact southern European cities have
a significantly lower ability to provide their inhabitants with re-gulating
ESS, which makes a strong point against the compact
city standard that has been promoted by many urban scholars
and by the European Commission (Westerink et al., 2013). The-re
is a clear tradeoff when weighing the advantages of com-pact
cities in terms of accessibility and social cohesion and tho-se
of ESS supply. This tradeoff highlights the importance of an
ecological balance between the core city and the hinterland. If
a core city is dense and compact and the hinterland provides
forest and water structures, the larger urban zone does not ne-cessarily
suffer from a low ESS supply. For the analyzed clima-te
regulating services, the proximity to the beneficiaries plays
an important role, as a forest outside of the city does not alter
the heat stress of a citizen in the inner-city during a heat wave.
The concept of the compact city might need adjusting, leaving
enough green and blue space in close proximity to urban dwel-lers
so that they can directly benefit from these spaces.
The study by Larondelle et al. (2014) provides the first overall
picture of regulating services supply in ‘urban EU-Europe’ and
serve to inform decisions on the key aspects of future European
policy and strategies involving urban nature, green spaces and
health.
247
Figure X Patterns of urban ecosystem services provisioning across European
cities exemplified for two regulating ecosystem services
(Source: Larondelle et al., 2014)

REFERENCES
Batty, M., Besussi, E., Chin, N., 2003. Traffic, Urban Growth and Subur-ban
Sprawl CASA Working Paper Series, pp. 70.
Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T.M., Pullin, A.S., 2010. Urban
greening to cool towns and cities: a systematic review of the empirical
evidence. Landsc. Urban Plan. 97, 147–155.
Dura-Guimera, A., 2003. Population deconcentration and social restruc-turing
in Barcelona, a European Mediterranean city. Cities 20 (6), 387–
394.
Kasanko, M., Barredo, I.J., Lavalle, C., McCormick, N., Demicheli, L.,
Sagris, V., Brezger, A., 2006. Are European cities becoming dispersed?
A comparative analysis of 15 European urban areas. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 77, 111–130.
Larondelle N, Haase D, Kabisch N 2014. Diversity of ecosystem servi-ces
provisioning in European cities. Global Environmental Change 26,
119-129.
Melichar, J., Kaprov, K., 2013. Revealing preferences of Prague’s home-buyers
toward greenery amenities: the empirical evidence of distance-si-ze
effect. Landsc. Urban Plan. 109, 56–66.
Munoz, F., 2003. Lock living: urban sprawl in Mediterranean cities. Citi-es
20 (6), 381–385.
Nuissl, H., Rink, D., 2005. The ‘production’ of urban sprawl in eastern
Germany as a phenomenon of post-socialist transformation. Cities 22
(2), 123–134.
Schwarz, N., Bauer, A., Haase, D., 2011. Assessing climate impacts of
planning policies: an estimation for the urban region of Leipzig (Germa-ny).
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 31, 97–111.
Schwarz, N., 2010. Urban form revisited—selecting indicators for cha-racterising
European cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 96 (1), 29–47.
Westerink, J., Haase, D., Bauer, A., Ravetz, J., Jarrige, F., Aalbers, C.,
2013. Dealing with sustainability trade-offs of the compact city in periur-ban
planning across European city regions. Eur. Plan. Stud. 21 (4),
473–497.
BOX
248

BOX
APPLICATION OF
INVEST MODELS TO THE
LOMBARDY REGION
FEATURING
EMONFUR’S DATA
BENEDETTA CONCETTI
This study, which features the application of InVEST software
(www.naturalcapitalproject.org; 2.5.6 x64 and 2.6.0 x86
versions), aims at mapping three Ecosystem Services provi-ded
by Urban an Periurban Forests:
•CO2 stock
•Biodiversity habitat
•Recreation
249

The study area is the Lombardy region, within which the urban
and periurban areas have been selected based on the criteria
defined by the EMoNFUr project.
For each model of the InVEST suite it is possible both to input
the required data to obtain as a descriptive mapping of the
considered ES, and to provide optional data in order to get mo-re
complex assessments such as monetary evaluations or future
scenarios.
The outputs quality and detail (thematic maps with biophysical
quantitative values, thematic maps with qualitative values and
thematic maps with monetary values) is critically linked to the
input data quality and accuracy, especially that of the LULC
(Land Use/Land Cover) classes (required in almost all modu-les).
Although the results should be considered a first approximation
and likely underestimate of the ES provided by the UPF, they
could allow policy makers to have on their hand a tool with a
great potential, using data which is accessible to everybody
(the sources of input data are listed): the outputs could affect
landscape management and planning strategies, both support-ing
the analysis of different scenarios and intervention hypothe-sis
and being effective to promote the involvement of stakehol-ders
in a participative decision process.
Carbon Stock
Required DATA INPUT:
1.L U C L ma p ( r a s t e r )
Source: SIT Lombardia (DUSAF 2009); Emonfur UPF forest
types map
2. Database (.csv) of the values of C stocked in each of the 4
pools for each LUCL class (t C/ha stocked in above ground
biomass, below ground biomass, soil dead organic matter,
s o i l )
Source: Tonolli, Salvagni (2007) Infocarb (biotic pools);
Brenna, D’Alessio, Solaro (2004) Soil map of Lombardy
(soil)
3.Monetery value of a t of carbon (€):
Source: InterContinentalExchange Futures Europe
https://www.theice.com/emissions.jhtml
The optional data input, which allow to estimate the carbon se-questration,
are:
1. Current vegetation cut rate (.shp):
• C removed during the cut period (t/ha)
• Average life of wooden products
• C density in cut wood (t C/t of dry wood)
250

2. Future scenario (.shp):
• C removed during the cut period (t/ha)
• Cut frequency (years)
The main limits of the InVEST Carbon model are due to the fact
that the model assumes a simplified Carbon cycle; whenever a
monetary evaluation is carried out the model assumes a linear
trend in the sequestration of carbon in time.
DATA OUTPUT
The model generates a raster map of the carbon stocked in the
study area at the resolution of choice for each cell (t/ha,
Fig.1), and a map of the monetary value of the carbon stocked
in the current scenario (Fig 7). To this end, it is important to
consider how the value of that ES is assessed from the emission
trade market, which oscillates widely; eg, in May 2008 the Eu-ropean
Climate Exchange (ECX) listed a price of $153 t/C,
which by 2012 has dropped under $12. Figg. 2,3,4,5,6,8,9
are the result of further GIS-based elaborations.
Fig.1 Total Carbon stock, urban municipalities of Lombardia
251

Fig. 2 Carbon stock in a scenario without UPF, urban municipalities of Lombardia Fig. 3 Carbon stocked by UPF, urban municipalities of Lombardia
252

Fig. 4 Average Carbon stock, urban municipalities of Lombardia Fig. 5 Average Carbon stock in urban municipalities of Lombardia, on a province
basis
253

Fig. 6 Average Carbon stocked by UPF, urban municipalities of Lombardia Fig. 7 Monetary value of Carbon stock, urban municipalities of Lombardia
254

255
Fig. 8 Monetary value of Carbon stock in a scenario without UPF, urban municipaliti-es
of Lombardia
Fig. 9 Value of Carbon stocked by UPF, urban municipalities of Lombardia

Biodiversity Habitat
The assessment of the ES “Biodiversity Habitat” offered by the
InVEST model it in a strictly biophysical one, coherently to the
widely accepted position within the current scientific debate on
the matter; InVEST evaluates environmental quality and biodi-versity
vulnerability as depending on 5 main factors: relative
impact of each threat to biodiversity on the study area, environ-mental
quality of each LULC class, relative sensibility of each
LULC class to each threat, threat effect buffer, legal measures
enforced to protect the environment.
1 . LUC L ma p ( r a s t e r )
Source: SIT Lombardia (DUSAF 2009); Emonfur UPF forest ty-pes
map
2. Database (.csv) of Threats
•Threat:
Agriculture (pesticide use, monoculture): farming areas
Urban expansion: urban areas
Road and railroad infrastructures: highways, main roads,
secondary roads, railway network
Industry: industrial areas
Air, water and soil pollution: contraminated sites, degra-ded
areas
Exotic invasive species: Robinia pseudoacia L. + anthropo-genic
tree formations
• Buffer (MAX_DIST) (km)
• Weight (WEIGHT) (0-1, 5 classes)
Source: Literature (Nowak, D.J., et al., 2010. Sustaining
America’s urban trees and forests: a Forests on the Edge re-port.
Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-62); Consultation with experts
3 . T h r e a t s Map ( r a s t e r )
Source: SIT Lombardia
4. Database (.csv) LULC vulnerability to threats
•Environmental quality (HABITAT) (0-1, 5 classes)
•Vulnerability (SENSITIVITY) (0-1, 5 classes)
Source: Literature; Consultation with experts
5. Conservation measures map (.shp)
•Rated in terms of strictness (0-1, 5 classes)
Source: SIT Lombardia (Protected areas); Literature
DATA OUTPUT
The model outputs two raster maps illustrating Environmental
quality (Fis. 10) and Biodiversity vulnerability (Fig. 11) in the
study area, respectively; fig 12, 13, 14, 15 are the product of
further GIS-based elaborations.
256

Fig. 11 Biodiversity vulnerability, urban municipalities Fig. 10 Environmental quality, urban municipalities of Lombardia of Lombardia
257

Fig. 13 Average environmental quality of urban municipalities of Lombardia,
on a province basis
258
Fig. 12 Average environmental quality, urban municipalities of Lombardia

Fig. 15 Average biodiversity vulnerability of urban municipalities of Lombardia, on a
province basis
259
Fig. 14 Average biodiversity vulnerability, urban municipalities of Lombardia

Recreation
InVEST version 2.6.0 includes a model dedicated to the map-ping
of the potential provision of the ES “recreation”; still un-stable,
the tool generates outputs are limited to the estimate of
the average daily users of the study area for recreational pur-poses
(linked to the LULC class and therefore to the relative se-lected
activities), based on an integrated Internet search engi-ne
which collects the pictures uploaded to the flicr.com website,
geo-tagged within the considered area and LULC class.
1. Study area boundaries (.shp)
2. Selection of the LULC classes (elements of interest) which
are to be taken into consideration in the assessment
DATA OUTPUT
The model generates a vector map which illustrates the distribu-tion
of the estimated average visitors per year.
Fig. 16 Distribution of recreational activity linked to natural features,
urban municipalities of Lombardia
BOX
260

BOX
AN ASSESSMENT OF
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
IN URBAN
ECOSYSTEMS:
REGULATION OF WATER
FLOW, WATER
PURIFICATION AND AIR
POLLUTION REDUCTION
URŠA VILHAR, MILAN KOBAL, DANIEL ŽLINDRA,
ANDREJ VERLIČ, ANŽE JAPELJ
In the recent years there has been an increasing focus on
ecosystem services provided by urban forests, such as flood
regulation, moderation of the urban climate and air pollu-tion
reduction. Relative to natural ecosystems, urban ecosy-stems
seem to possess similar climate, soils, vegetation, soil
dynamics, and flows of energy as a result of natural ecologi-cal
patterns and processes.
261

However, urban ecosystems differ from natural ecosystems in
importance and prevalence of certain disturbances. A large
amount of environmental monitoring and evaluation data have
been collected in various formats throughout the research com-munity,
which has the potential to support practice, decision-ma-king
and policy. However, information about the extent of how
urban forests fulfill their ecosystem services, is limited (Vilhar
and Simončič 2012).
This study presents quantitative and qualitative indicators for se-lected
ecosystem services of urban forests and other land uses
in the City of Ljubljana, related to regulation of water flow, wa-ter
purification and air pollution reduction. We focused on
main land cover classes: forests, cropland, grassland / pastu-res,
wetlands, swamps / floodplains, lakes / rivers and urban
areas. In cases of missing values for certain land cover class,
an estimated values from regional investigations were used.
Rainfall interception (% annual precipitation) and soil water
holding capacity (g cm-3) were selected indicators for regula-tion
of water flow. Nitrate concentrations in the groundwater of
Ljubljana aquifer (max NO3 l-1), soil bulk density (g cm-3) and
C/N ratio were selected indicators for water purification. And
finally, annual concentration of NO2 (μg m-3), annual concen-tration
of PM10 (μg m-3) and number of days with exceeded
PM10 concentration threshold 50 μg m-3 were selected indica-tors
for air pollution.
262
Ecosystem
service Indicator Unit Reference
Regulation of water
Rainfall
% annual
flow
interception
precipitation
ICP Forests &
EMoNFUr Database
Soil water holding
capacity g cm-3
ICP Forests
Database, Ausec
2008, 2009
Water purification
Max nitrate (NO3)
concentrations in
the groundwater of
Ljubljana aquifer
mg l-1 Jamnik 2003
Soil bulk density g cm-3 Soil information
sistem 2014, Ausec
Soil C/N ratio 2008, 2009
Air pollution
reduction
Annual
concentration of
NO2
μg m-3
Ogrin, 2007, ICP
Forests & EMoNFUr
Database
Annual
concentration of
PM10
μg m-3
Ivančič 2013, Koleša
2013, Jazbinšek
Sršen 2010
Number of days
with exceeded PM10
concentration
threshold (50 μg
m-3)
No.
Selected indicators for ecosystem services, related to regulation of water flow,
water purification and air pollution reduction

We standardized the obtained values on a relative scale: from
0 – no relevant contribution; to 100 – maximum possible contri-bution
of land cover class to provision of an ecosystem service
(Koschke, Fürst et al. 2012).
The highest capacity to provide water flow regulation was
shown for wetlands (55 scores) and mixed forests (53 scores).
For the wetlands extremely high soil water holding capacity
contributed to the importance of this ecosystem service whe-reas
for the mixed forest high rainfall interception was impor-tant.
The lowest capacity was indicated for urban areas (0 sco-res).
The highest capacity to provide water purification services was
shown for mixed (83 scores) and coniferous forests (82 sco-res),
compared to urban areas with lowest capacity (3 scores).
For the forests the values of all three selected indicators for wa-ter
purification were higher compared to other land classes.
The lowest capacity for the air pollution reduction was indica-ted
for urban areas (15 scores), followed by cropland (52 sco-res),
whereas other land classes had scores higher than 80.
The highest capacity to provide air pollution reduction was
shown for forests with 100 scores.
From top:
Provisioning of ecosystem services, related to regulation of water flow
Provisioning of ecosystem services, related to water purification
263

Results of this study could help to link the decision making incor-porated
in urban planning system with the relevant scientific
knowledge and environmental information, models and data,
e.g. water protection areas, human health exposure and risk
by air pollutants, ecosystem exposure to excess of critical levels
and loads, etc.
References:
Koschke L, Fürst C, Frank S, Makeschin F (2012) A multi-criteria appro-ach
for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services
provision to support landscape planning. Ecological Indicators 21. 54-
66
Vilhar U, Simončič P (2012) Identification of Key Indicators for Drinking
Water Protection Services in the Urban Forests of Ljubljana. SEEFOR
South-east European Forestry 3. 103-113
BOX
264
From top:
Provisioning of ecosystem services, related to air pollution reduction
Provisioning of ecosystem services, related to regulation of water flow,
water purification and air pollution reduction

BOX
WORKSHOP:
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
OF UPF
ELISA BARBANTE
The key concept underlying modern “Urban Ecology” is that
urban green areas (parks, gardens, rows of trees, etc.) can
generate a wide range of environmental benefits called
“Ecosystem services” (ES). These range from the reduction
of the Urban Heat Island and air pollution to carbon seque-stration
and the interception of runoff water. Most of these
benefits have a significant impact on the health and well-being
of the population. These effects are more direct and
tangible compared with the more “natural ecosystems”, for
urban ecosystems are in close daily contact with a potential
user base of thousands of people.
265

On March 13, 2014 the “Ecosystem services and urban fo-rests“
workshop was held at Parco Nord Milano. Sponsored
by the EMoNFUr project (LIFE + 10 ENV/IT/399), the event
was aimed at specialists and public administrators for addres-sing
and analyzing the subject of ecosystem services that may
be provided by urban and peri-urban forests.
The workshop originated from the need to respond to several
simple but fundamental questions - What are the main ecosy-stem
services being produced by our forests? What is the best
way to maximize them? - and to initiate a shared debate regar-ding
these issues.
A part of the WS was dedicated to the presentation of several
cases of the monitoring and evaluation of ecosystem services
with a speech held by Davide Marino, Project Leader of the LI-FE+
“Making Good Natura” (LIFE 11 ENV7IT/168) Project.
The changes that affect urban and suburban areas were first
analyzed, which are characterized by a progressive increase
in soil consumption, the concept of an ecosystem service ap-plied
specifically to urban and peri-urban forests, and, finally,
the presentation of the Life + Making Good Natura project, de-dicated
to the evaluation of ecosystem services.
266

With Benedetta Concetti’s speech entitled, “Ecosystem services
in the UPF of Lombardy: preliminary results of the application
of InVEST e SolVES mapping tools”, two monitoring tools for
the biophysical and economic mapping and quantification of
the Ecosystem Services, that were implemented in the Lombard
urban forests, were presented. By implementing the InVEST
tool (Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tra-deoffs),
the data on carbon storage and biodiversity was able
to be analyzed. Instead, the SolVES (Social Values for Ecosy-stem
Services 2.1) tool had allowed for the analysis of issues
related to recreation time and well-being.
Andrej Verlič, Slovenian technical coordinator of the EMoNFUr
Project, presented the activities of monitoring and evaluation of
the ecosystem services realized in the urban forest of Ljubljana.
The monitoring system allows for a continuous assessment of va-rious
factors, such as the hydrogeological situation, air pollu-tants,
climate, etc...
The topics discussed within the working groups were related to
biodiversity and ecosystem services, well-being provided by ur-ban
forests and the ecosystem services provided by the soil in
the perspective of the hydrological security of the territory and
climate mitigation.
The “biodiversity and ecosystem services” working group came
up with several important actions for the increase and improve-ment
of the biodiversity in UPF.
Examples of these actions include the choice of native species
to be used in reforestation and the possible reintroduction of
nemoral flora, the thinning of exotic species or those outside
their natural range and, with the process of the realization of
new plantations, the use of pioneer species that are capable of
preparing habitats of climax species.
Moreover, for the promotion of biodiversity, it may be benefi-cial
to implement a zoning of the areas based on their intend-ed
uses by diversifying the areas destined for anthropic activiti-es
from the areas that are dedicated for biodiversity.
267

According to the group that has worked on the subject of well-being
provided by urban forests, UPF help to improve the
overall well-being of people both from a physical and psycholo-gical
point of view, and at the same time, promoting social di-mension
through the processes of inclusion.
In fact, over the past few years several municipalities have ex-pressed
particular attention to this issue by the favoring of ex-periences
that could encourage the participation of citizens
(maintenance of common green areas, urban gardens, etc...)
and at the same time, act as therapies for those who find them-selves
in situations of discomfort (ex. walking groups, healing
gardens, etc...).
According to the working group, there is a strong criticality re-lated
to the sustainable management of UPF and the maximum
participation possible for farmers and private individuals. In ge-neral,
there is an awareness of the well-being generated by
UPF, but a major challenge is the communication and involve-ment
among citizens for the protection and maintenance of
UPF.
For the working group that had addressed the issue of ecosy-stem
services provided by the soil, it was important to divide
the ES into two parts: first, there is the central nucleus consi-sting
of well-defined ecosystem services, limited to their con-tours
and measureable in several aspects (physical, chemical,
and often monetary); then there are other services and aspects
present that progressively distance themselves from this central
nucleus, becoming increasingly vague, difficult to define and
even more so to measure and evaluate.
All the WS material can be downloaded at this link.
BOX
268
Click HERE to download the Italian version

Identify and evaluate the ecosystem services provided by UPF - chapter 4

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Identify and evaluate the ecosystem services provided by UPF - chapter 4

Similar to Identify and evaluate the ecosystem services provided by UPF - chapter 4 (20)

More from Giovanni Poletti

More from Giovanni Poletti (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Identify and evaluate the ecosystem services provided by UPF - chapter 4