sustainability

Article
Assessing the Ecosystem Services of Various Types of
Urban Green Spaces Based on i-Tree Eco
Peihao Song 1,2 , Gunwoo Kim 3, *, Audrey Mayer 2 , Ruizhen He 1 and Guohang Tian 1, *
1 Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Forestry, Henan Agricultural University,
Zhengzhou 450002, China; [email protected] (P.S.); [email protected] (R.H.)
2 College of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University,
Houghton 49931, MI, USA; [email protected]
3 Graduate School of Urban Studies, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected] (G.K.); [email protected] (G.T.);
Tel.: +82-2-2220-0274 (G.K.); +86-0371-6355-8098 (G.T.)




Received: 3 February 2020; Accepted: 20 February 2020; Published: 21 February 2020


Abstract: Urban green spaces play a crucial role in maintaining urban ecosystem sustainability by
providing numerous ecosystem services. How to quantify and evaluate the ecological benefits and
services of urban green spaces remains a hot topic currently, while the evaluation is barely applied
or implemented in urban design and planning. In this study, super-high-resolution aerial images
were used to acquire the spatial distribution of urban green spaces; a modified pre-stratified random
sampling method was applied to obtain the vegetation information of the four types of urban green
spaces in Luohe, a common plain city in China; and i-Tree Eco model was further used to assess
the vegetation structure and various ecosystem services including air quality improvement, rainfall
interception, carbon storage, and sequestration provided by four types of urban green spaces. The
modeling results reveal that there were about 1,006,251 trees in this area. In 2013, all the trees in these
green spaces could store about 54,329 t of carbon, sequester about 4973 t of gross carbon, remove 92 t
of air pollutants, and avoid 122,637 m3 of runoff. The study illustrates an innovative method to reveal
different types of urban green spaces with distinct ecosystem service productivity capacity to better
understand their various roles in regulating the urban environment. The results could be used to
assist urban planners and policymakers to optimize urban green space structure and composition to
maximize ecosystem services provision.

Keywords: urban green space; ecosystem services; i-Tree Eco; vegetation structure; Luohe

1. Introduction
Urban green space, as an inseparable element of urban ecosystems, provides critical ecosystem
services [1,2] for human wellbeing, like air quality improvement [3,4] through pollution removal and
noise reduction, water and soil conservation [5], microclimate regulation [6,7], urban heat island (UHI)
mitigation [8], biodiversity conservation [9,10], etc. Meanwhile, urban green spaces also bring economic
and social benefits [11,12], for instance, energy saving, promoting community integration [13], and
outdoor recreation. Their potential contribution to citizens is also being increasingly acknowledged.
Urban ecosystem services of green spaces have been identified, quantified, and assessed to inform
taxpayers and support urban planning and decision-making processes [14–20]. However, urban
ecosystem services are rarely involved in actual urban design and planning because of the lack of
sufficient basic research about urban green space ecosystem services [21,22]. Urban planners and
policymakers often lack knowledge of the benchmarks for ecosystem productivity when setting specific
planning goals or expectations [16,23]. Furthermore, many studies focus on the different eco-functions

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630; doi:10.3390/su12041630 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 2 of 16

of various vegetation communities within the urban area [24–29], while there are few studies that
analyze variations in types and functions of urban green spaces at finer scales [1,22,30]. Urban green
spaces are divided into several types, reflecting the different needs that these spaces meet, which
could further affect the different ecosystem services provision. The capacity of various green spaces
ecosystem services provision is context-specific and different depending on their type and size [31,32].
Various types of urban green spaces such as public parks, road belt green space, wetland, and private
gardens are extremely heterogeneous with different vegetation communities and diversities reflecting
diverse social needs and personal preferences that further influence eco-function value provision [33].
In China, spatially heterogeneous urban green spaces are classified into four main types, which
are public parks, protective green spaces, square green spaces, and attached green spaces by individual
location and function across urban area based on Standard for Classification of Urban Green Space
(CJJ/T85-2017), which was released by Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of P.R.C.
in 2017. Different social needs and ecological values that are driven by landowners’ preferences and
function-oriented design bring various types of urban green spaces [34]. Diverse vegetation preferences
and differing management and maintenance practices reflect human-oriented design within different
types of urban green spaces [35,36].
Urban green spaces regulate regional microclimate via shading, evapotranspiration, boosting
air movements, and increasing heat exchange, which mitigates urban heat island (UHI) effects at
a city scale [37–39]. Furthermore, vegetation in green spaces can not only intercept rainfall and
reduce rainfall runoff, but also bring more rainfall infiltration, which decreases the frequency of urban
floods and stormwater treatment costs and damages [40]. These ecological benefits are based on the
composition and structure of the urban forest, which is crucial for improving and regulating the urban
environment [25]. Exposing how different types of urban green spaces impact ecosystem service
performance could help policymakers and urban planners to optimize green space planning and
maximize ecosystem services provision. However, there are many studies focusing on how vegetation
types like trees, shrubs and herbaceous, or vegetation communities perform in ecosystem services
provision [28,41–46]. There are comparatively few studies concerning different types of urban green
space ecosystem service provision and baseline information is not available on the vegetation structure,
ecosystem benefits, and value of various types of urban green spaces in Luohe. An assessment of the
city’s urban green spaces is also needed to make the policymakers, urban planners, city managers,
and the general public aware of the ecosystem services that their green spaces provide to better
preserve, manage, and maintain the existing urban green spaces in Luohe. In this paper, a spatial
distribution database of the four types of urban green spaces was acquired by high-resolution aerial
images interpretation and pre-stratified random plots were created to collect vegetation information of
the four types of urban green spaces. An i-Tree Eco model was then used to assess their vegetation
composition and structure and ecosystem services. Using these methods, the paper explores how
different types of urban green spaces perform in ecosystem services provision in Luohe. The baseline
information could be used for optimized management decision-making and planning, developing
suitable policies, and setting a maintenance plan for Luohe. Better-treated urban green spaces in this
area could contribute to air quality improvement and a better living environment for the general public.
The selected ecosystem services in this study were carbon storage and sequestration, air pollution
removal, and runoff avoidance. Because all the sample plots were created within the green space, and
there was less building information in these sample plots, energy saving was not discussed in this
study. The objective of this study is to reveal the difference in vegetation structure of the four types of
urban green spaces, to highlight how the various types of urban green spaces perform in ecosystem
service provisioning in Luohe, and to demonstrate how to increase and maximize the ecosystem
services provisioning in the future.
 Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 3 of 16
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

2.2.Materials
Materialsand
andMethods
Methods

2.1.Study
2.1. StudyArea
Area
Luohecity
Luohe citywas
wasselected
selected as as the
the research
research area
area due
due to
to its
its large
largenumber
numberand andconsiderable
considerablediversity
diversityof
urban green spaces. Luohe city is a common medium-size plain city located in
of urban green spaces. Luohe city is a common medium-size plain city located in south-central Henan south-central Henan
Province, China (Latitude 33 ◦ 340 55.36” N, Longitude 114◦ 00 38.70” E, Figure 1). Luohe is situated in the
Province, China (Latitude 33°34'55.36"N, Longitude 114°0'38.70"E, Figure 1). Luohe is situated in the
Cfaclimate
Cfa climatezone
zone(Köppen
(KöppenClimate
ClimateClassification
ClassificationSystem),
System),and andits
itselevation
elevationisis5656toto5959mmabove
aboveseasea
level. Luohe consists of three districts, Yancheng, Yuanhui, and Shaoling,
level. Luohe consists of three districts, Yancheng, Yuanhui, and Shaoling, with a combined with a combined population
of 720,000, of
population and a totaland
720,000, of 8000 ha of
a total of land
8000 (2018
ha of Henan Statistical
land (2018 HenanYearbook). The urban green
Statistical Yearbook). space
The urban
ratio reaches 34% and the per capita public green space is 11.8 square meters
green space ratio reaches 34% and the per capita public green space is 11.8 square meters (2018 (2018 Government Work
Report of Luohe). Two seasonal (January and June, 2016) super high-resolution
Government Work Report of Luohe). Two seasonal (January and June, 2016) super high-resolution (9 cm) Unmanned
(9Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
cm) Unmanned images
Aerial Vehicle were available,
(UAV) imageswhich
were could be interpreted
available, which could to be
achieve the amounts
interpreted and
to achieve
spatial distribution of urban green spaces in Luohe city.
the amounts and spatial distribution of urban green spaces in Luohe city.

.
Location of
Figure1.1.Location
Figure of Henan Province
Provinceand
andLuohe
LuoheCity inin
City central China
central (left);
China Pre-stratified
(left); sample
Pre-stratified plots
sample
and spatial distribution of the four types of urban green spaces in Luohe (right).
plots and spatial distribution of the four types of urban green spaces in Luohe (right).

2.2. Sample Plots Establishment

2.2. Sample Plots Establishment
The three methods of sample plot establishment using the i-Tree model are the layering method,
The three methods of sample plot establishment using the i-Tree model are the layering method,
random method, and grid method [25]. According to the i-Tree Eco v6 protocol, we could pre-stratify
random method, and grid method [25]. According to the i-Tree Eco v6 protocol, we could pre-stratify
or post-stratify the study area into smaller parts to better understand the differences across the various
or post-stratify the study area into smaller parts to better understand the differences across the
strata [47]. An innovative application of i-Tree Eco was utilized in this study by creating sample plots
various strata [47]. An innovative application of i-Tree Eco was utilized in this study by creating
based on a pre-stratification scheme within the urban green spaces, which brought more valid sample
sample plots based on a pre-stratification scheme within the urban green spaces, which brought more
plots and vegetation information than normal random sample creation across the whole study area.
valid sample plots and vegetation information than normal random sample creation across the whole
Four types of urban green spaces in Luohe were interpreted, classified, and delineated manually [48]
study area. Four types of urban green spaces in Luohe were interpreted, classified, and delineated
based on two-seasonal UAV images by combining with a Present Land Use Map of Luohe, which was
manually [48] based on two-seasonal UAV images by combining with a Present Land Use Map of
used to obtain a spatially explicit representation of the four types of urban green spaces (Figure 2).
Luohe, which was used to obtain a spatially explicit representation of the four types of urban green
Based on Random Plots Workbook from i-Tree Eco User’s Manual (2018), ArcGIS software with the
spaces (Figure 2). Based on Random Plots Workbook from i-Tree Eco User’s Manual (2018), ArcGIS
Spatial Analysis tools was utilized to create stratified random sample plots within the four types of
software with the Spatial Analysis tools was utilized 2to create stratified random sample plots within
urban green spaces. A total of 120 circular 404.7 m plots (Table 1) were created with public parks
the four types of urban green spaces. A total of 120 circular 404.7 m² plots (Table 1) were created with
(35 plots), protective green spaces (25 plots), attached green spaces (35 plots), and square green spaces
public parks (35 plots), protective green spaces (25 plots), attached green spaces (35 plots), and square
(25 plots). Each plot had an area of 404.7 m2 as recommended by Nowak et al. [49]. The plots were
green spaces (25 plots). Each plot had an area of 404.7 m² as recommended by Nowak et al. [49]. The
proportionally assigned to the four types of urban green spaces according to individual total area and
plots were proportionally assigned to the four types of urban green spaces according to individual
total area and complexity. Individual plot maps, at a scale of 1:500, with clear boundaries, were
created from the UAV images and printed to assist with the field survey.

Sustainability 2020, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 4 of 16

complexity. Individual plot maps, at a scale of 1:500, with clear boundaries, were created from the
UAV images and printed to assist with the field survey.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 2. Samples
2. Samples of urban
of urban greengreen spaces
spaces in Luohe,
in Luohe, (a) Public
(a) Public park;
park; (b) Protective
(b) Protective green
green space;
space; (c)(c)
Square
Square green space; (d) Attached
green space; (d) Attached green space.green space.

TableTable 1. Area
1. Area andand number
number of of createdsample
created sampleplots
plots of the
thefour
fourtypes
typesofof
urban green
urban spaces
green in Luohe.
spaces in Luohe.
Number of
Type ofofUrban
Type Urban Area Number of Definition Definition of Typology
of Typology of Urban
of Urban Green SpaceGreen Space
Area (ha)
Sample
Green
GreenSpace
Space (ha) Sample Plots (revised(Revised from CJJ/T85-2017)
from CJJ/T85-2017)
Plots
Code: G1,
Code: G1, publicly publicly
accessible, accessible,
including including
all kinds of parks, all
likekinds of
PublicPark
Public Park 765 765 35 comprehensive
35 parks, community
parks, parks, themeparks,
like comprehensive parks, botanic
communitygardens,
parks,
belt parks,
theme parks, etc. gardens, belt parks, etc.
botanic
Code: G2, not suitable
Code: access,
G2, notused for ecological
suitable access,isolation,
used for security,
ecological
Protective
Protective Green 390 25 protection, including highway and railway belt protective green
isolation, security, protection, including highway space, and
Green Space 390 25
Space high tension
railway corridor protective green
belt protective greenspace, etc.high tension
space,
Square Green Code: G3, publicly accessible open space, used for recreation, memorial,
41 25 corridor protective green space, etc.
Space rally, emergency and disaster-prevention, tree coverage above 35%.
Code: G3, publicly accessible open space, used for
Code: XG, attached to all kinds of land use, including residential, public
Square GreenGreen
Attached Space 41 25 recreation, memorial, rally, emergency and
2123 35 management and service, commercial, industrial, logistics and
Space disaster-prevention, tree coverage above 35%.
warehousing, road and transportation, public facility, etc.
Study Area 3319 120 Code: XG, attached —— to all kinds of land use, including
Attached Green residential, public management and service,
2123 35
Space commercial, industrial, logistics and warehousing,
2.3. Data Collection and Analysis
road and transportation, public facility, etc.
StudyFollowing
Area 3319 Eco data120
the i-Tree collection protocol, field data such ——as plot information,
groundcover information, vegetation information were collected via field survey during the leaf-on
season
2.3. Data (May to and
Collection August in 2018) to identify and measure the trees properly. To be more specific, plot
Analysis
information includes tree and shrub cover percentage, plantable space area and ground cover types
Following
under canopy;the i-Tree
shrub Eco data collection
information protocol,
was collected field data
including such as
species, plot information,
average groundcover
height, percent area,
percent of mass missing, etc.; tree information including tree species, total height,
information, vegetation information were collected via field survey during the leaf-on season (May todiameter at breast
August height (DBH,
in 2018) to 1.37m from
identify and the base), canopy
measure missing
the trees percentage,
properly. crown
To be more size, crown
specific, health condition,
plot information includes
crown
tree and lightcover
shrub exposure, etc. A total
percentage, of 111 plots
plantable spacewith 35and
area public park plots,
ground cover23types
protective
undergreen spaceshrub
canopy;
plots, 33 attached green space plots, and 23 square green space plots were investigated, while 9 plots
information was collected including species, average height, percent area, percent of mass missing,
were unachievable and 5 plots were misclassified. All the field data were imported from Excel files
etc.; tree information including tree species, total height, diameter at breast height (DBH, 1.37 m from
to Access files in the i-Tree Eco model by a hacking method to further analyze and assess vegetation
the base), canopy missing percentage, crown size, crown health condition, crown light exposure, etc. A
structures of urban green spaces and associated ecosystem services.
total of 111 plots with 35 public park plots, 23 protective green space plots, 33 attached green space
plots,2.4.
andi-Tree
23 square
Eco V6 green space
Modeling plots were investigated, while 9 plots were unachievable and 5 plots
and Analysis
were misclassified.
i-Tree modelAll
is the field data
a software suitewere imported
developed from
by the USDAExcel filesServices
Forest to Access filesmanagers
to help in the i-Tree
and Eco
model by a hacking method to further analyze and assess vegetation structures of urban green
researchers quantify urban forest structure and ecological functions (www.itreetools.org). i-Tree Eco spaces
and associated ecosystem services.
(formerly called UFORE, Urban Forest Effects Model) is designed to utilize standardized field data

Sustainability 2020, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 5 of 16

2.4. i-Tree Eco V6 Modeling and Analysis

i-Tree model is a software suite developed by the USDA Forest Services to help managers and
researchers quantify urban forest structure and ecological functions (www.itreetools.org). i-Tree Eco
(formerly called UFORE, Urban Forest Effects Model) is designed to utilize standardized field data
from sample plots or complete inventories, together with local hourly air pollution and meteorological
data to analyze a detailed characterization of urban forest structure and quantify numerous ecological
services for cities [25]. The i-Tree model has been widely used in case studies across the world to
assess total ecosystem services for whole research areas without stratification or to compare one single
stratum within a research area [50–54]. This research represents an innovative application of i-Tree
Eco, using pre-stratified random sample plots created within the four types of urban green spaces to
reveal the various characterizations of diverse types of urban green spaces in Luohe. Pollution data
including hourly concentrations of NO2 , SO2 , CO, O3 , PM10 , and PM2.5 were obtained from the online
national database, hosted by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment of P.R.C. (www.mee.gov.cn).
Local hourly meteorological data were acquired from Luohe Meteorological Service. Air pollution and
weather data from 2013 were used in this study.

3. Results
In this study, based on the leaf-off season high-resolution UAV images, only the plantable and
pervious area of urban green spaces were identified, interpreted, and delineated manually, while
using the interpretation procedure, appurtenances in the green spaces like outbuildings, trails, paved
surfaces, etc. were excluded, so the areas of individual types of urban green spaces discussed in this
study were smaller than actual area.

3.1. Spatial Distribution of the Four Types of Urban Green Spaces Across the City
Green space coverage in Luohe covered about 38% of the urban area. Considering the four main
types of urban green spaces, attached green spaces (2123 ha) was the highest coverage type of green
spaces in the city, followed by public parks (765 ha), protective green spaces (390 ha), and square green
spaces (41 ha).
By using the Sha and Li River as the natural boundary of the city, the city area was divided into
three parts, the north part, the south part, and the west part. The north part obviously had more
green spaces than the south part. The south part, as the old district, had few green spaces due to
historical factors and land conflicts. Since 2000, the north part as the new district began to be planned
and developed, with an increasing awareness of a better living environment, lots of green spaces
were planned initially and implemented to meet increasing needs. The west part was developed
with modern sustainable development strategies from 2010, relying on natural resources, lots of street
parks, and wetland parks were established until now. There was a notable difference in the individual
numbers of the four types of green spaces, and the distribution of the four types of urban green spaces
was not even across various land uses in Luohe.
Attached green spaces were not only the largest area type of green space but also the most widely
extended all over the city. The public parks were mainly located along Sha and Li River, but plenty of
areas lacked public parks or even small-size street-corner parks. Protective green space areas ranked
third, and mainly could be found along the highways, canals, and near plants. Square green space
areas were the least numerous type, as there were only six public squares and all the plantable coverage
was less than 35%.

3.2. Structural Variables of the Four Types of Urban Green Spaces

The model results show considerable variation among the four types of green spaces in terms of
structural variables (Table 2). There were approximately 1,006,251 trees within whole green spaces in
Luohe. Attached green spaces had the largest number of trees, accounting for more than 56.4% of all
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 6 of 16

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

trees in Luohe, followed by public parks (27.0%), protective green spaces (15.3%), and square green
spaces (1.4%).
Table The highestcharacterization
2. Vegetation average treeanddensity was
structure of found
the four in protective
types green
of urban green spaces
spaces (974 trees/ha),
in Luohe.
followed by public parks, and square green spaces. Attached Tree and green spaces had the least tree density
Tree Percent
with 660.2 trees/ha.
Acquired
Number Percent of Density
Shrub Leaf Tree Simpson's
of
Stratum Sample Area Species SPP1 Diversity
of Trees Population (Number Native
Plots Density Richness Index
Table 2. Vegetation characterization and /ha) of
structure the four types of urban green spaces in Species
Luohe.
(m²/ha)
Public Park 35 271662 27.0% 878 102922.1 42 73 20.2 90.2
Acquired Tree and Shrub Tree Simpson’s Percent of
Protective Number Percent of Tree Density
Stratum Sample Leaf Area Species SPP 1 Diversity Native
Green 22Plots of Trees
153750 Population
15.3% (Number/ha)
974 112176.2
Density (m2 /ha)32 Richness
89 8.1 Index 93.7Species
Space
Public Park 35 271,662 27.0% 878 102,922.1 42 73 20.2 90.2
Square
Protective Green Space 22 153,750 15.3% 974 112,176.2 32 89 8.1 93.7
Green
Square Green Space
22 22 13631
13,631
1.4%
1.4%
822
822
95315.6
95,315.6
30 30
83 83
16.4 16.4
93.5 93.5
Attached Space
Green Space 32 567,209 56.4% 660 82,018.7 49 94 19.3 93.0
Attached
Study Area 111 1,006,251 100.0% 749 90,544.7 69 38 19.4 92.4
Green 32 1 567209 56.4% 660 82018.7 49 94 19.3 93.0
Space
SPP: the number of species found in the sampled area per hectare.
Study Area 111 1006251 100.0% 749 90544.7 69 38 19.4 92.4
1 SPP: the number of species found in the sampled area per hectare.
In terms of diversity indices, attached green spaces had the highest richness with 93.5 species/ha,
In terms of diversity indices, attached green spaces had the highest richness with 93.5 species/ha,
followed by protective green spaces and square green spaces with 88.8 and 83.3 species/ha, respectively,
followed by protective green spaces and square green spaces with 88.8 and 83.3 species/ha,
while public parks had the lowest richness with 73.3 species/ha. A higher Simpson’s diversity index,
respectively, while public parks had the lowest richness with 73.3 species/ha. A higher Simpson’s
whichdiversity
means greater species
index, which diversity
means [55],
greater was found
species in public
diversity parks
[55], was found(20.2) and attached
in public green
parks (20.2) spaces
and
(19.3).attached
Protective green spaces had the lowest Simpson’s diversity index with 8.1.
green spaces (19.3). Protective green spaces had the lowest Simpson’s diversity index with
Concerning
8.1. the tree age distribution (Figure 3), more than 62.7% of trees had DBH ≤ 15.2 cm in the
whole study area, which
Concerning means
the tree age that there are
distribution abundant
(Figure young
3), more thantrees
62.7% and, thus,had
of trees a potential
DBH ≤ 15.2to contribute
cm in
the whole
to urban studyservices
ecosystem area, which means in
provision that
thethere are abundant
coming years. Only young
4.5% trees and, with
of trees thus, DBH
a potential
were to
higher
contribute to urban ecosystem services provision in the coming years. Only 4.5%
than 30.6 cm. Results showed a similar ranking with tree density concerning tree and shrub leaf area of trees with DBH
were
density higher
and leaf than 30.6 cm.
biomass, Results
where showed green
protective a similar ranking
spaces hadwith tree density
the highest leafconcerning treefollowed
area density, and
shrub leaf area density and leaf biomass, where protective green spaces had the highest leaf area
by public parks. However, square green spaces yielded the highest leaf biomass with 12,976.5 kg/ha
density, followed by public parks. However, square green spaces yielded the highest leaf biomass
(Table 3), while attached green spaces had the lowest leaf biomass with 7735.6 kg/ha. It is notable that
with 12,976.5 kg/ha (Table 3), while attached green spaces had the lowest leaf biomass with 7735.6
shrubs in square
kg/ha. greenthat
It is notable spaces made
shrubs significant
in square green contributions to leaf biomass,
spaces made significant which
contributions to was equal to half
leaf biomass,
that of the contribution of trees.
which was equal to half that of the contribution of trees.

Public Park

Protective Green Space

Square Green Space

Attached Green Space

Study Area

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0-7.6 7.7-15.2 15.3-30.5 30.6-45.7 45.8-61 61.1-76.2 76.3-91.4

Figure
Figure 3. Tree
3. Tree population
population compositionofofthe
composition thefour
four types
types of
ofurban
urbangreen
greenspaces in Luohe,
spaces classified
in Luohe, by by
classified
DBH groups (Unit:
DBH groups (Unit: cm). cm).

Sustainability 2020, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 7 of 16

Table 3. Modeling results of the four types of urban green spaces in Luohe, assessed via i-Tree Eco.

Net Carbon Runoff

Tree Leaf Shrub Leaf Carbon CO2 CO2 Water Avoided Interception
Sequestration Avoiding
Stratum Biomass Biomass Storage Equivalent Equivalent Intercepted Runoff Efficiency
Density Efficiency
(kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/yr/ha) (kg/yr/ha) (kg/yr/ha) (m3 /yr) (m3 /yr) (m3 /yr/ha)
(kg/yr/ha) (m3 /yr/ha)
Public Park 7578.8 1227.9 57,970.0 212,576.0 4701.0 17,238.7 182,765.3 39,106.6 238.9 51.1
Protective Green Space 7695.2 1718.5 59,281.6 217,385.5 3995.3 14,650.7 83,929.2 17,958.4 215.2 46.0
Square Green Space 8768.4 4208.1 29,017.4 106,406.8 3281.0 12,031.2 4695.5 1004.7 114.5 24.5
Attached Green Space 5958.9 1776.7 30,894.3 113,289.4 2937.4 10,771.3 301,755.8 64,567.1 142.1 30.4
Study Area 6571.0 1673.4 40,447.5 148,320.9 3472.4 12,733.4 573,145.7 122,636.8 172.7 36.9
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 8 of 16

3.3. Carbon Storage and Sequestration

3.3. Carbon Storage and Sequestration
Photosynthesis, which converts inorganic matter into organic matter and releases oxygen, is one
of thePhotosynthesis, which converts
physiological features of trees inorganic matterDuring
via their tissue. into organic matter and releases
the physiological process,oxygen,
carbonis one of
dioxide
the physiological features of trees via their tissue. During the physiological
in the air is not only reduced, but oxygen is also produced, maintaining the balance of carbon and process, carbon dioxide in
the air isin
oxygen notthe
only
air.reduced,
Annualbut oxygen
carbon is also produced,
sequestration efficiencymaintaining
showing thethe
balance
annual of carbon
carbon and oxygen
absorption
in the air. Annual carbon sequestration efficiency showing the annual
capacity could be calculated by i-Tree Eco, which is related to tree size, health condition, canopy carbon absorption capacity
could be calculated
coverage, and spatial bydistribution.
i-Tree Eco, whichAll theistrees
related to tree
of the foursize,
types health condition,
of green spacescanopy
in Luohe coverage, and
could store
spatial distribution.
approximately 54,329Allt the trees ofin
of carbon the fourThere
2013. types of weregreen spaces4973
around in Luohe couldcarbon
t of gross store approximately
sequestration
54,329 t of carbon in 2013. There were around 4973 t of gross carbon
from these green spaces annually. Different types of green spaces had various carbon sequestration sequestration from these green
spaces annually. Different types of green spaces had various carbon
capacities, while public parks had the highest net carbon sequestration efficiency with 4701 kg/yr/ha, sequestration capacities, while
public
attached parks
green had the highest
spaces had thenet carbon
lowest onesequestration
with 2937 kg/yr/ha. efficiency with 4701 kg/yr/ha, attached green
spaces had the lowest one with 2937 kg/yr/ha.
Carbon storage efficiency exhibits a very different ranking, where protective green spaces had
Carboncarbon
the highest storage efficiency
storage exhibits
efficiency witha very
59,281 different
kg/ha, ranking,
followed where
by publicprotective
parks with green spaces
57,970 had
kg/ha,
the highest carbon storage efficiency with 59,281 kg/ha, followed
while attached green spaces and square green spaces had the lowest carbon storage capacity with by public parks with 57,970 kg/ha,
while
30,894 attached
kg/ha and green
29,017spaces
kg/ha, and square green spaces had the lowest carbon storage capacity with
respectively.
30,894 kg/ha and 29,017 kg/ha, respectively.
3.4. Air Pollution Removal
3.4. Air Pollution Removal
Since the 1950s, air quality issues have been a major concern worldwide [56]. Air quality is
Sincenot
therefore theonly
1950s, air quality
a pressing public issues
health have
issue been
but a is major concern
also affects worldwide
ecosystem health[56]. Air quality
[2]. Trees in urban is
therefore
areas notremove
could only a pressing public and
air pollutants health issue but
improve airisquality
also affects ecosystemharmful
by absorbing health [2]. gasTrees
fromincars
urbanor
plants and intercepting particulate matter [57–60]. Trees could absorb and filter large amounts or
areas could remove air pollutants and improve air quality by absorbing harmful gas from cars of
plants and intercepting particulate matter [57–60]. Trees could absorb
particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfide every year [57,61]. i-Tree could quantify and estimate and filter large amounts of
particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfide every year [57,61]. i-Tree
the total amount of various harmful substances in the air purified by trees [62]. As shown in Figure could quantify and estimate
4the total amount of various harmful substances in the air purified by trees [62]. As shown in Figure 4,
, about 92 t of air pollutants (CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5, SO2) were removed by all the trees in 2013. Of these
about 92 t ofthere
pollutants, air pollutants
were more (CO,thanNO247.4, O3 , tPMof 2.5O,3SO 2 ) were removed
removed by trees by all the trees
accounting forin51.5%
2013. Ofof these
total
pollutants, there were more than
pollutants. Only 0.6 t of PM2.5 was removed 47.4 t of O removed by trees accounting for 51.5%
3 in 2013. A similar trend can be seen with total leaf area of total pollutants.
Only 0.6 the
ranking, t ofhighest
PM2.5 was removed
pollutant in 2013.
removing A similar
capacity wastrendfound canin be seen with
attached total
green spacesleaf with
area ranking,
48.4 t in
the highest
2013 pollutant
and square greenremoving
spaces had capacity was found
the lowest capacityin attached
with 0.7greent. In spaces
terms of withthe48.4 t in 2013
efficiency of and
the
square green spaces had the lowest capacity with 0.7 t. In terms of
removal of different pollutants (Figure 5), the four types of green spaces had obvious differences inthe efficiency of the removal of
different
the removalpollutants (Figure
of various 5), the four
air pollutants types of
ranging green spaces
between had obvious
0.13 kg/ha differences
to 19.8 kg/ha. Attached in the removal
green spacesof
various air pollutants ranging between 0.13 kg/ha to 19.8 kg/ha.
could remove 19.8 kg per ha, while only removing 0.27 kg of PM2.5. Square green spaces had the Attached green spaces could remove
19.8
lowest kg air
perpollution
ha, while only
removalremoving
capacity 0.27from
kg of0.13,
PM2.5. 0.65,Square green
3.9, 4.1, 9.2spaces
kg/ha,had PMthe lowest air pollution
2.5, CO, NO2, SO2, O3,
removal capacity from 0.13, 0.65, 3.9, 4.1, 9.2 kg/ha, PM2.5 , CO, NO2 , SO2 , O3 , respectively.
respectively.

CO

NO₂

O₃

PM₂.₅

SO₂

0 5 10 15 20 25
Pollution Removal (ton)
Public Park Protective Green Space Square Green Space Attached Green Space

Figure 4. Air
Air pollution
pollution (CO,
(CO, NO
NO22, ,OO3,3 PM
, PM , SO
2.52.5 2) 2
, SO removal byby
) removal thethe
four types
four of of
types urban green
urban spaces
green in
spaces
Luohe.
in Luohe.

Sustainability 2020, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 9 of 16
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

CO

NO₂

O₃

PM₂.₅

SO₂

0 5 10 15 20
Pollution Removal Efficiency (kg/ha)
Public Park Protective Green Space Square Green Space Attached Green Space

Figure 5. Yearly
5. Yearly air pollution
air pollution (CO,
(CO, NO NO, 2O
, O,3,PM
PM2.5,,SO 2) removal efficiency of the four types of urban
Figure 2 3 2.5 SO2 ) removal efficiency of the four types of urban
green spaces in Luohe.
green spaces in Luohe.

3.5. Runoff
3.5. Runoff Reduction
Reduction
Globally,
Globally, urban
urban floods
floods areare frequentoccurrences
frequent occurrences [63,64].
[63,64].Floods
Floods increase
increase thethe
contamination
contaminationof of
surface runoff in urban areas and lead to continuously deteriorating water quality in streams, rivers,
surface runoff in urban areas and lead to continuously deteriorating water quality in streams, rivers,
lakes, and wetlands [65]. When it rains, some portion of precipitation is intercepted and stored by the
lakes, and wetlands [65]. When it rains, some portion of precipitation is intercepted and stored by the
vegetation canopy, bark, and branches, while the remainder reaches the ground. The precipitation
vegetation canopy, bark, and branches, while the remainder reaches the ground. The precipitation
that falls on pervious or impervious surfaces and cannot infiltrate into the soil becomes surface
that falls on pervious or impervious
runoff. Furthermore, the overwhelmingsurfaces and cannot
impervious infiltrate
coverage in theinto
urbanthearea
soilincreases
becomesthe surface
amount runoff.
Furthermore,
and density the
ofoverwhelming
surface runoff [66].impervious
Many studies coverage in thethat
have shown urban
treesarea
in urbanincreases the aamount
areas play crucial and
density
roleofinsurface runoff
stormwater [66].reduction
runoff Many studies
[67–69].have shown
Results showthat
thattrees in urban122,636.8
an estimated areas playm³ aofcrucial
avoided role in
runoff in
stormwater 2013 was
runoff due to whole
reduction [67–69].green spaces.
Results showThethat
avoided runoff ranking
an estimated had am
122,636.8 3 of avoided
similar trend asrunoff
the in
individual areas of each type of green space. However, the stormwater interception
2013 was due to whole green spaces. The avoided runoff ranking had a similar trend as the individual efficiency of
areasdifferent typesof
of each type of green
green spaces
space.varied
However, considerably, public parks
the stormwater had the highest
interception efficiency
efficiency with 238.9
of different types of
m³/ha/yr, followed by protective green spaces and attached green spaces with 215.2 and 142.1
green spaces varied considerably, public parks had the highest efficiency with 238.9 m3 /ha/yr, followed
m³/ha/yr. Square green spaces had the lowest interception efficiency with 114.5 m³/ha/yr, which was
by protective green spaces and attached green spaces with 215.2 and 142.1 m3 /ha/yr. Square green
less than half that of public parks. Compared to the interception efficiency, the runoff avoiding
spaces had theoflowest
efficiency the fourinterception
types of green efficiency
spaces hadwiththe 114.5 m3 /ha/yr,
same ranking andwhich was less
was pretty low, than
publichalf that of
parks
public parks.
had Compared
the highest to thewith
efficiency interception efficiency,
51.1 m³/ha/yr, whichthe runoffthat
means avoiding
only 21.4% efficiency
of theofintercepted
the four types
of green spaces had
stormwater was the same ranking
captured. The rest and was
of the pretty low,
intercepted public parks
stormwater would had the highest
evaporate intoefficiency
the air or with
51.1 m 3 /ha/yr, which means that only 21.4% of the intercepted stormwater was captured. The rest of
become runoff. In terms of individual tree interception capacity, individual trees in public parks had
the highest capacity
the intercepted stormwaterwith 0.67 m³/yr,
would followed by
evaporate into0.55
theand
air0.53
or m³/yr,
become forrunoff.
protectiveIn green
termsspaces and
of individual
tree interception capacity, individual trees in public parks had the highest capacity with 0.67 m3 /yr,
attached green spaces, respectively, while square green space trees had the lowest with 0.34 m³/yr.
followed by 0.55 and 0.53 m3 /yr, for protective green spaces and attached green spaces, respectively,
4. Discussion
while square green space trees had the lowest with 0.34 m3 /yr.
4.1. Analysis and Implications From Results
4. Discussion
Innovative sampling approaches that create sample plots within the various types of green
4.1. Analysis andacquire
spaces can Implications From Results
more valuable tree information than standard i-Tree Eco sampling methods, and
also better tree structure and ecosystem services estimations.
Innovative sampling approaches that create sample plots within the various types of green spaces
can acquire more valuable
4.1.1. Vegetation treeofinformation
Structure Urban Greenthan standard i-Tree Eco sampling methods, and also better
Spaces
tree structure and ecosystem services estimations.
Concerning vegetation structure, the urban green space is a mix of native and exotic tree species
composed, while different types of green space consist of various vegetation compositions or
4.1.1. Vegetation Structure of Urban Green Spaces
communities that play an individual role or function. Not surprisingly, public parks and attached
Concerning vegetation
green spaces have structure,
higher species thethan
diversity urban greenand
protective space is agreen
square mixspaces,
of native and
as they bothexotic
have tree
species composed,
Sustainability while
2020, 12, x; doi:different types of green space consist of various
FOR PEER REVIEW vegetation compositions or
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
communities that play an individual role or function. Not surprisingly, public parks and attached
green spaces have higher species diversity than protective and square green spaces, as they both have
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 10 of 16

multiple functions and the various activities’ spaces are comprised of vegetation to meet all ages’ needs.
Protective and square green spaces have single or specific functions resulting from simple vegetation
communities within these areas. A higher species diversity could minimize ecological vulnerability
to natural disaster, while low species diversity has low ecosystem resilience [70]. High biodiversity
not only boosts ecosystem productivity, but also provides a healthy ecosystem to support natural
sustainability, which can lead to high resilience, in regard to withstanding and recovering from natural
hazards [71]. More attention should be focused on improving species diversity in protective square
green spaces.

4.1.2. Ecosystem Service Provision of the Four Types of Urban Green Spaces
The results of spatial distribution and an ecosystem service comparison of the four types of urban
green spaces reveal that the ratio of the four types of green spaces is unbalanced and attached green
spaces accounting for 56.4% of total trees offer the greatest ecosystem benefits. The highest carbon
storage efficiency was found in protective green spaces. Protective green spaces had the highest tree
density and thus have more above-ground biomass (carbon storage) than other types of green space.
Public parks had higher net carbon sequestration efficiency than protective green space. By comparing
the tree DBH proportion of public parks and protective green spaces, although protective green spaces
have higher tree density per ha, public parks have fewer small trees (DBH ≤ 7.6 cm) and more medium
trees (15.3 cm ≤ DBH ≤ 30.5) than protective green space. Meanwhile, trees in public parks are well
maintained, receiving regular watering and fertilizing, and public parks have more large trees resulting
in a higher leaf area density. Obviously, large trees can provide significantly more ecosystem services
than small trees, while there are far more small trees in protective green spaces, which will mature and
have the potential to provide more ecosystem services in the coming years, and these trees should be
well treated and maintained.
The comparison of ecosystem service efficiency of the four types of urban green spaces indicates
that attached green spaces had the highest capacity and public parks had the highest efficiency in
providing ecosystem services for the city. Attached green spaces as the most widely distributed type of
green spaces had the closest connection with citizenship. According to the Classification Standard of
Urban Green Space (CJJ/T85-2017), green space located in residential areas, municipal service areas,
commercial areas, industrial land, warehousing land, public facility area, and road and traffic facility
areas is attached green space. Attached green spaces not only provide recreation areas for human
beings but also decorate the living environment. These have the closest relationship with human
life and play a key role in the maintenance of ecological balance [72]. This suggests that the role of
attached green spaces in improving the urban environment and human life should be acknowledged,
well maintained and protected. Although attached green spaces account for a major percentage (64%)
of the total green space area, it has the lowest tree density per ha, resulting in a low ecosystem service
provision efficiency. With continuous maintenance and maturing in the future, attached green spaces
have great potential to be the most effective green space type with increasing ecosystem services
provision efficiency in Luohe. Square green spaces had the lowest capacity in ecosystem service
provision with lower tree density. In future urban greening programs, more trees could be planted in
attached green spaces and square green spaces to increase the total ecosystem service provision. The
ecosystem services of public parks were quantified and acquired, indicating that public parks have
the greatest ecosystem service provision capability for the city. Meanwhile, public parks that provide
habitats for many kinds of animals, and recreation spaces for multiple activities to the general public
should not be neglected. There has been huge investment every year in public parks management
and maintenance. The trees in public parks are growing well under continuous and stable investment
support, which further increases ecosystem service provision [73]. Meanwhile, strict regulations should
be established to protect current public parks. In fact, the Department of Green Space Management
in Luohe has released a series of rules and regulations, such as the Ecological Protection Redline
Program [74] intended to permanently protect the public parks and leave them to future generations.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 11 of 16

4.1.3. Air Pollution Removal of Urban Green Spaces

As this study investigated the four main types of urban green spaces, air pollution removal
by the whole green spaces across the city of Luohe was quantified. The air pollution removal
capacities of urban green spaces were limited and could remove less than 10% of PM10 emissions in
the city [3]. Trees in urban green spaces help to remove air pollution, while trees can also produce
negative effects like pollen pollution, limiting pollution dispersion and increasing local pollution
concentrations [75–77]. Hence, green space planning and management should be combined with other
environmental protection plans and strategies (e.g., more efficient energy consumption technology).
While climate adaption strategy continues to be involved in urban planning programs, urban green
space ecosystem service provision has not been introduced and remains unconsidered due to a lack of
scientific evidence. In many sustainable development projects focusing on the development of urban
green space and green infrastructure, only the social and aesthetic factors were considered, which
revealed that planners and policymakers need more information about the services provided by urban
green spaces. This study quantified the air pollution removal capabilities of the four types of urban
green spaces, which revealed a disparity in pollution removal capacities across the city. Acquiring the
unequal distribution of green spaces could be used to improve urban sustainable planning within the
city. Air pollution removal by urban green spaces in Luohe needs further research, considering the
complex ecological process and functions in the future.

4.1.4. Runoff Mitigation of Urban Green Space

The results showed that urban green space is indeed effective in reducing flooding and various
types of urban green spaces had different runoff avoiding capacities in Luohe. For example, each
ha of public parks could avoid more than 51 m3 of rainfall runoff per year, which is the highest of
the four types of green spaces. However, urban flooding became more and more serious with the
acceleration of urbanization in Luohe, which was relatively common in China [78]. Urban green spaces
cannot eliminate urban flooding, but can undoubtedly mitigate flooding damage by the interception
effect. Urban green spaces are a key green infrastructure and, by combining with gray infrastructure,
can improve flood mitigation effects. Urban green spaces are considered an effective component of
stormwater management infrastructure and many cities are now considering urban green spaces as an
important element for the effective implementation of sponge cities [79] or stormwater management
strategies [80]. Meanwhile, urban green spaces could be a very cost-effective way to decrease the need
for expensive gray infrastructure, such as retention tanks and sewer systems [81]. However, urban
green spaces have very limited runoff avoiding capacity, indicating that the combined development of
green and gray infrastructure would be more effective and practical for flooding mitigation [82,83].
The runoff avoiding performance of various types of urban green spaces was acquired. Apart from
public parks, the other three types of green spaces had great potential to increase their runoff avoiding
capacities via increasing tree density, replacing tree species with high leaf area index, and infiltration
by improving the soil.

4.2. Reliability and Limitations

The i-Tree model is a publicly accessible toolset and technical support is available through email
from the support team. By performing consistent, peer-reviewed procedures and on-site field survey
data, the vegetation structure and ecosystem services of urban forests could be assessed and quantified
by the i-Tree Eco model [25]. However, urban green spaces are complicated and normally it is difficult
to assess the associated vegetation structure and to further estimate and quantify their ecosystem
services. The i-Tree model is based on a sampling method within an entire study area and could
provide a much more scientific and reasonable estimation of the entire population and ecosystem
service provision of different sizes or species of trees [84]. More accurate locally collected field data
would also lead to more reliable and precise eco-function estimation [25]. Derkzen et al. noted that
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 12 of 16

one shortcoming of i-Tree Eco is that it does not discriminate between various types of urban green
spaces [17]. Using super-high-resolution UAV images, our modified-sample-plot-creation approach
showed how starting a proper stratification project to create stratified sample plots enabled i-Tree Eco
to compare the ecosystem service provision of various types of urban green spaces. Our modified
methodology enabled the mapping of the spatial distribution and ecosystem service provision of urban
green spaces at a city scale, which can be adapted to other cities to explore ecosystem service provision
by urban green spaces, further assisting municipal planning.
However, this study has some limitations. The precision of the ecosystem services depends on
the number of samples and plot size. Normally, 200 random samples will produce a 12% standard
error for the entire study area [49]. Therefore, more sample plots lead to a more precise estimation.
Due to the available resources and limited funding support, 120 random sample plots were created
within four types of urban green space in this study. Unlike other studies, where many plots were
located in buildings, roads, etc., resulting in limited valid tree information, almost all the sample plots
in this study were valid and a substantial amount of vegetation information was obtained. More
sample plots would provide a more precise assessment of ecosystem service provision, while the time
and cost of the field survey would increase [49]. A tradeoff decision should be made to find a proper
balance between precision and cost. The assessment of vegetation structure and ecosystem services of
urban green spaces had good consistency with ground-based estimations in other studies [52,85,86].
One more limitation is that only one year of meteorological and air quality data was used in this
study; continuous long-term data would bring more detailed information about the ecosystem service
provision. The i-Tree Eco model also calculates air pollution removal based on an average deposition
velocity estimated from tree coverage area, leaf area index, and hourly local air pollution data. For
individual tree contributions, the total pollutant removal is prorated to a single tree based on its
proportion of the total leaf area. It should be noted that the different pollutant removal capabilities of
various tree species are not considered and only the tree leaf area attribute is taken into consideration
in the model. Further studies should be completed to fill the identified gaps.

5. Conclusions
Urban green spaces represent a fundamental component of urban ecosystems. Different types of
urban green spaces with various vegetation communities and functions result in different ecosystem
services. The purpose of this study was to reveal how various types of urban green space perform in
ecosystem service and value provision in Luohe, exploring how to increase and maximize ecosystem
services. The assessment and estimation of the vegetation structure and ecosystem services of urban
green space provide a sound basis for ecosystem productivity of current urban green space in Luohe.
As urban green spaces are growing and changing all the time, it is critical to acknowledge the spatial
pattern and variation of urban green space ecosystem service provision. The efficiency of diverse
types of urban green spaces in the provision of various ecosystem services could be used by urban
planners or managers to set specific planning goals in the future. For green space projects where the
implementation and maintenance costs are known, i-Tree Eco could be used to conduct a cost–benefit
analysis, which would be helpful when planning urban green space. This study utilized an innovative
method to collect field data to acknowledge the ecological values easily and reach a fuller understanding
of various roles and functions of diverse types of urban green space. The i-Tree Eco model, as a
free valuable tool to assess the ecosystem services of urban forests, has great potential to be used in
relative research and other urban contexts. The results gained in this study can help urban planners,
policymakers, and landscape architects to provide more rational planning or optimum proportions of
various types of urban green space and maximize the ecosystem benefits as a key part of urban green
infrastructure to support ecosystem balance.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.S., G.T. and A.M.; methodology, P.S. and G.K.; software, P.S.;
formal analysis, P.S.; investigation, P.S., G.T., R.H.; resources, G.T.; writing—original draft preparation, P.S.;
writing—review and editing, P.S., G.K. and A.M.; visualization, R.H.; supervision, G.T., A.M.; funding acquisition,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 13 of 16

G.T., G.K. All the authors revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Urban-Rural Green Space Resources Control and Landscape Ecological
Design Disciplinary Innovation and Talents Introduction Centre Program (GXJD006), Education Department of
Henan Province Program (18B220003) and Hanyang University (HY-201900000003487). And the APC was funded
by Investigation and Database Construction of Green Spaces in Luohe Project (20161210).
Acknowledgments: We thank Lingyu Chen, Xinkai Niu, Kairui Xu and Hua Wang for helping us to collect the
data in 2018; and appreciate Al Zelaya from Davey Tree Expert Company for continuous technical support to run
i-Tree model.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Young, R.F. Managing municipal green space for ecosystem services. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9,
313–321. [CrossRef]
2. Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kazmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting
ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [CrossRef]
3. Selmi, W.; Weber, C.; Rivière, E.; Blond, N.; Mehdi, L.; Nowak, D. Air pollution removal by trees in public
green spaces in Strasbourg city, France. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 17, 192–201. [CrossRef]
4. Nowak, D.J.; Hirabayashi, S.; Doyle, M.; McGovern, M.; Pasher, J. Air pollution removal by urban forests in
Canada and its effect on air quality and human health. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 40–48. [CrossRef]
5. Jim, C.Y. Green-space preservation and allocation for sustainable greening of compact cities. Cities 2004, 21,
311–320. [CrossRef]
6. Buyadi, S.N.A.; Mohd, W.M.N.W.; Misni, A. Green spaces growth impact on the urban microclimate.
Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 105, 547–557. [CrossRef]
7. Xue, F.; Gou, Z.H.; Lau, S.S.Y. Green open space in high-dense Asian cities: Site configurations, microclimates
and users’ perceptions. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 34, 114–125. [CrossRef]
8. Park, J.; Kim, J.H.; Lee, D.K.; Park, C.Y.; Jeong, S.G. The influence of small green space type and structure at
the street level on urban heat island mitigation. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 21, 203–212. [CrossRef]
9. Aronson, M.F.J.; Lepczyk, C.A.; Evans, K.L.; Goddard, M.A.; Lerman, S.B.; MacIvor, J.S.; Nilon, C.H.; Vargo, T.
Biodiversity in the city: Key challenges for urban green space management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15,
189–196. [CrossRef]
10. Fuller, R.A.; Irvine, K.N.; Devine-Wright, P.; Warren, P.H.; Gaston, K.J. Psychological benefits of greenspace
increase with biodiversity. Biol. Lett. 2007, 3, 390–394. [CrossRef]
11. Zhou, X.; Parves Rana, M. Social benefits of urban green space: A conceptual framework of valuation and
accessibility measurements. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2012, 23, 173–189. [CrossRef]
12. Fam, D.; Mosley, E.; Lopes, A.; Mathieson, L.; Morison, J.; Connellan, G. Irrigation of Urban Green Spaces:
A Review of the Environmental, Social and Economic Benefits; CRC for Irrigation Futures Technical Report;
Cooperative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures: Darling Heights, Australia, 2008.
13. Barbosa, O.; Tratalos, J.A.; Armsworth, P.R.; Davies, R.G.; Fuller, R.A.; Johnson, P.; Gaston, K.J. Who benefits
from access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 187–195.
[CrossRef]
14. Li, F.; Wang, R. Evaluation, planning and prediction of ecosystem services of urban green space: A case
study of Yangzhou City. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2003, 23, 1929–1936.
15. McPhearson, T.; Kremer, P.; Hamstead, Z.A. Mapping ecosystem services in New York City: Applying a
social-ecological approach in urban vacant land. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5, E11–E26. [CrossRef]
16. Kabisch, N. Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space
planning—The case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 557–567. [CrossRef]
17. Derkzen, M.L.; van Teeffelen, A.J.A.; Verburg, P.H. REVIEW Quantifying urban ecosystem services based on
high-resolution data of urban green space: An assessment for Rotterdam, The Netherlands. J. Appl. Ecol.
2015, 52, 1020–1032. [CrossRef]
18. Kim, G.; Miller, P.A.; Nowak, D.J. Assessing urban vacant land ecosystem services: Urban vacant land as
green infrastructure in the City of Roanoke, Virginia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 519–526. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 14 of 16

19. Arnold, J.; Kleemann, J.; Furst, C. A Differentiated Spatial Assessment of Urban Ecosystem Services Based on
Land Use Data in Halle, Germany. Land 2018, 7, 101. [CrossRef]
20. Kopecka, M.; Szatmari, D.; Rosina, K. Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies
from Slovakia. Land 2017, 6, 25. [CrossRef]
21. Cilliers, S.; Cilliers, J.; Lubbe, R.; Siebert, S. Ecosystem services of urban green spaces in African
countries-perspectives and challenges. Urban Ecosyst. 2013, 16, 681–702. [CrossRef]
22. Haase, D.; Larondelle, N.; Andersson, E.; Artmann, M.; Borgstrom, S.; Breuste, J.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.;
Gren, A.; Hamstead, Z.; Hansen, R.; et al. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments:
Concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 2014, 43, 413–433. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Haaland, C.; van Den Bosch, C.K. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities
undergoing densification: A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 760–771. [CrossRef]
24. Oberndorfer, E.; Lundholm, J.; Bass, B.; Coffman, R.R.; Doshi, H.; Dunnett, N.; Gaffin, S.; Kohler, M.;
Liu, K.K.Y.; Rowe, B. Green roofs as urban ecosystems: Ecological structures, functions, and services.
Bioscience 2007, 57, 823–833. [CrossRef]
25. Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Hoehn, R.E.; Walton, J.T.; Bond, J. A ground-based method of
assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Aboricult. Urban For. 2008, 34, 347–358.
26. Chen, W.Y.; Jim, C.Y. Assessment and Valuation of the Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Forests.
In Ecology, Planning, and Management of Urban Forests; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 53–83.
27. Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities 2009, 26, 187–194.
[CrossRef]
28. Robinson, S.L.; Lundholm, J.T. Ecosystem services provided by urban spontaneous vegetation. Urban Ecosyst.
2012, 15, 545–557. [CrossRef]
29. Lehmann, I.; Mathey, J.; Rossler, S.; Brauer, A.; Goldberg, V. Urban vegetation structure types as a
methodological approach for identifying ecosystem services—Application to the analysis of micro-climatic
effects. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 42, 58–72. [CrossRef]
30. Czembrowski, P.; Kronenberg, J. Hedonic pricing and different urban green space types and sizes: Insights
into the discussion on valuing ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 146, 11–19. [CrossRef]
31. Tratalos, J.; Fuller, R.A.; Warren, P.H.; Davies, R.G.; Gaston, K.J. Urban form, biodiversity potential and
ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 308–317. [CrossRef]
32. Holt, A.R.; Mears, M.; Maltby, L.; Warren, P. Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple
urban ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 16, 33–46. [CrossRef]
33. Andersson, E.; Barthel, S.; Ahrne, K. Measuring social-ecological dynamics behind the generation of
ecosystem services. Ecol. Appl. 2007, 17, 1267–1278. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Grove, J.M.; Troy, A.R.; O’Neil-Dunne, J.P.M.; Burch, W.R.; Cadenasso, M.L.; Pickett, S.T.A. Characterization
of households and its implications for the vegetation of urban ecosystems. Ecosystems 2006, 9, 578–597.
[CrossRef]
35. Muller, N.; Werner, P.; Kelcey, J.G. Urban Biodiversity and Design; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010.
36. Threlfall, C.G.; Ossola, A.; Hahs, A.K.; Williams, N.S.G.; Wilson, L.; Livesley, S.J. Variation in Vegetation
Structure and Composition across Urban Green Space Types. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2016, 4, 66. [CrossRef]
37. Buyadi, S.N.A.; Mohd, W.; Misni, A. Quantifying Green Space Cooling Effects on the Urban Microclimate
Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques. In Proceedings of the XXV International Federation of Surveyors,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 16–21 June 2014; pp. 1–16.
38. O’Malley, C.; Piroozfar, P.; Farr, E.R.P.; Pomponi, F. Urban Heat Island (UHI) mitigating strategies:
A case-based comparative analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 19, 222–235. [CrossRef]
39. Wu, Z.J.; Zhang, Y.X. Spatial Variation of Urban Thermal Environment and Its Relation to Green Space
Patterns: Implication to Sustainable Landscape Planning. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2249. [CrossRef]
40. Nowak, D.J.; Dwyer, J.F. Understanding the Benefits and Costs of Urban Forest Ecosystems. In Urban and
Community Forestry in the Northeast; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2007; pp. 25–46.
41. Yapp, G.; Walker, J.; Thackway, R. Linking vegetation type and condition to ecosystem goods and services.
Ecol. Complex 2010, 7, 292–301. [CrossRef]
42. Petter, M.; Mooney, S.; Maynard, S.M.; Davidson, A.; Cox, M.; Horosak, I. A Methodology to Map Ecosystem
Functions to Support Ecosystem Services Assessments. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 31. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 15 of 16

43. Werling, B.P.; Dickson, T.L.; Isaacs, R.; Gaines, H.; Gratton, C.; Gross, K.L.; Liere, H.; Malmstrom, C.M.;
Meehan, T.D.; Ruan, L.; et al. Perennial grasslands enhance biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services in
bioenergy landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 1652–1657. [CrossRef]
44. Wang, H.-F.; Qureshi, S.; Knapp, S.; Friedman, C.R.; Hubacek, K. A basic assessment of residential plant
diversity and its ecosystem services and disservices in Beijing, China. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 64, 121–131.
[CrossRef]
45. Ziter, C. The biodiversity-ecosystem service relationship in urban areas: A quantitative review. Oikos 2016,
125, 761–768. [CrossRef]
46. Richards, D.R.; Edwards, P.J. Quantifying street tree regulating ecosystem services using Google Street View.
Ecol. Indic. 2017, 77, 31–40. [CrossRef]
47. i-Tree. i-Tree Eco User’s Manual_V6.0. Available online: https://www.itreetools.org/support/resources-
overview/i-tree-manuals-workbooks (accessed on 8 August 2018).
48. Husson, E.; Ecke, F.; Reese, H.J.R.S. Comparison of maual mapping and automated object-based image
analysis of non-submerged aquatic vegetation from very-high-resolution UAS images. Remote Sens. 2016, 8,
724. [CrossRef]
49. Nowak, D.J.; Walton, J.T.; Stevens, J.C.; Crane, D.E.; Hoehn, R.E. Effect of plot and sample size on timing and
precision of urban forest assessments. Aboricult. Urban For. 2008, 34, 386–390.
50. Baró, F.; Haase, D.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Frantzeskaki, N. Mismatches between ecosystem services supply
and demand in urban areas: A quantitative assessment in five European cities. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 55, 146–158.
[CrossRef]
51. Intasen, M.; Hauer, R.J.; Werner, L.P.; Larsen, E. Urban forest assessment in Bangkok, Thailand. J. Sustain.
For. 2017, 36, 148–163. [CrossRef]
52. Graca, M.; Alves, P.; Goncalves, J.; Nowak, D.J.; Hoehn, R.; Farinha-Marques, P.; Cunha, M. Assessing how
green space types affect ecosystem services delivery in Porto, Portugal. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 170,
195–208. [CrossRef]
53. Kim, G.; Miller, P.A.; Nowak, D.J. Urban vacant land typology: A tool for managing urban vacant land.
Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 36, 144–156. [CrossRef]
54. Gormanson, D.D.; Pugh, S.A.; Barnett, C.J.; Miles, P.D.; Morin, R.S.; Sowers, P.A.; Westfall, J.A. Statistics and
Quality Assurance for the Northern Research Station Forest Inventory and Analysis Program; Gen. Tech. Rep.
NRS-178; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: Newtown Square, PA,
USA, 2018. [CrossRef]
55. Luz de la Maza, C.; Hernández, J.; Bown, H.; Rodríguez, M.; Escobedo, F. Vegetation diversity in the Santiago
de Chile urban ecosystem. Arboric. J. 2002, 26, 347–357. [CrossRef]
56. Fenger, J. Urban air quality. Atmos. Environ. 1999, 33, 4877–4900. [CrossRef]
57. Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States.
Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 4, 115–123. [CrossRef]
58. Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. Assessing the ecosystem service of air pollutant removal by urban trees in Guangzhou
(China). J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 665–676. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Nowak, D.J.; Hirabayashi, S.; Bodine, A.; Greenfield, E.J. Tree and forest effects on air quality and human
health in the United States. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 193, 119–129. [CrossRef]
60. Grote, R.; Samson, R.; Alonso, R.; Amorim, J.H.; Cariñanos, P.; Churkina, G.; Fares, S.; Thiec, D.L.;
Niinemets, Ü.; Mikkelsen, T.N. Functional traits of urban trees: Air pollution mitigation potential. Front. Ecol.
Environ. 2016, 14, 543–550. [CrossRef]
61. Nowak, D.J. The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality; USDA Forest Service: Syracuse, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 1–4.
62. Hirabayashi, S.; Kroll, C.N.; Nowak, D.J. Development of a distributed air pollutant dry deposition modeling
framework. Environ. Pollut. 2012, 171, 9–17. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Kubal, C.; Haase, D.; Meyer, V.; Scheuer, S.J.N. Integrated urban flood risk assessment–adapting a multicriteria
approach to a city. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 9, 1881–1895. [CrossRef]
64. Yin, J.; Ye, M.; Yin, Z. A review of advances in urban flood risk analysis over China. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk
2015, 29, 1063–1070. [CrossRef]
65. Sauer, E.P.; VandeWalle, J.L.; Bootsma, M.J.; McLellan, S.L. Detection of the human specific Bacteroides genetic
marker provides evidence of widespread sewage contamination of stormwater in the urban environment.
Water Res. 2011, 45, 4081–4091. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630 16 of 16

66. Xiao, Q.; McPherson, E.G.; Ustin, S.L.; Grismer, M.E. A new approach to modeling tree rainfall interception.
J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2000, 105, 29173–29188. [CrossRef]
67. Wang, J.; Endreny, T.A.; Nowak, D.J. Mechanistic simulation of tree effects in an urban water balance model
1. J. Am. Water Resour. 2008, 44, 75–85. [CrossRef]
68. Armson, D.; Stringer, P.; Ennos, A.J.U.F.; Greening, U. The effect of street trees and amenity grass on urban
surface water runoff in Manchester, UK. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 282–286. [CrossRef]
69. Zhang, B.; Li, N.; Wang, S. Effect of urban green space changes on the role of rainwater runoff reduction in
Beijing, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 140, 8–16. [CrossRef]
70. Peterson, G.; Allen, C.R.; Holling, C.S. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1998, 1, 6–18.
[CrossRef]
71. Duffy, J.E. Why biodiversity is important to the functioning of real-world ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ.
2009, 7, 437–444. [CrossRef]
72. Yang, L.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, X. Study on Attached Green Space Planning and Management in Office and Residential
Areas in Old City Districts—A Case Study of Changji in Xinjiang. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2013, 3, 55–58.
73. Shu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Yin, J.; Song, Q.; Cong, R.; Yu, W. Research on Urban Public Park Maintaince and Management
Cost Standard—Case in Beijing. 2011 Beijing Urban Greening and Biodiversity Protection; Scientific and Technical
Documentation Press: Beijing, China, 2011.
74. Wan, J.; Yu, L.; Zhang, P.; Wang, C.; Zhang, N. Method and Application of Urban Ecological Protection
Redline. Environ. Prot. Sci. 2015, 5, 6–11.
75. Wania, A.; Bruse, M.; Blond, N.; Weber, C. Analysing the influence of different street vegetation on
traffic-induced particle dispersion using microscale simulations. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 94, 91–101.
[CrossRef]
76. Salmond, J.A.; Williams, D.E.; Laing, G.; Kingham, S.; Dirks, K.; Longley, I.; Henshaw, G.S. The influence
of vegetation on the horizontal and vertical distribution of pollutants in a street canyon. Sci. Total Environ.
2013, 443, 287–298. [CrossRef]
77. Klimas, C.; Williams, A.; Hoff, M.; Lawrence, B.; Thompson, J.; Montgomery, J. Valuing Ecosystem Services
and Disservices across Heterogeneous Green Spaces. Sustainability 2016, 8, 853. [CrossRef]
78. Chen, Y.; Zhou, H.; Zhang, H.; Du, G.; Zhou, J. Urban flood risk warning under rapid urbanization. Environ.
Res. 2015, 139, 3–10. [CrossRef]
79. Li, H.; Ding, L.; Ren, M.; Li, C.; Wang, H. Sponge City Construction in China: A Survey of the Challenges
and Opportunities. Water 2017, 9, 594. [CrossRef]
80. Jayasooriya, V.M.; Ng, A.W.M. Tools for Modeling of Stormwater Management and Economics of Green
Infrastructure Practices: A Review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2014, 225, 2055. [CrossRef]
81. Berland, A.; Shiflett, S.A.; Shuster, W.D.; Garmestani, A.S.; Goddard, H.C.; Herrmann, D.L.; Hopton, M.E.
The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 162, 167–177. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
82. Mell, I.C.; Henneberry, J.; Hehl-Lange, S.; Keskin, B. To green or not to green: Establishing the economic
value of green infrastructure investments in the Wicker, Sheffield. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 18, 257–267.
[CrossRef]
83. Xie, J.; Chen, H.; Liao, Z.; Gu, X.; Zhu, D.; Zhang, J. An integrated assessment of urban flooding mitigation
strategies for robust decision making. Environ. Model. Softw. 2017, 95, 143–155. [CrossRef]
84. Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Hoehn, R.E. The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) Model: Field Data
Collection Manual; US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: Syracuse,
NY, USA, 2003; pp. 4–11.
85. Nowak, D.J.; Greenfield, E.J.; Hoehn, R.E.; Lapoint, E. Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban
and community areas of the United States. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 178, 229–236. [CrossRef]
86. Bodnaruk, E.W.; Kroll, C.N.; Yang, Y.; Hirabayashi, S.; Nowak, D.J.; Endreny, T.A. Where to plant urban
trees? A spatially explicit methodology to explore ecosystem service tradeoffs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157,
457–467. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).