Assessing the Value of Urban Green Infrastructure Ecosystem Services for High-Density Urban Management and Development: Case from the Capital Core Area of Beijing, China

Abstract

Urban green infrastructure (UGI) includes green and blue open spaces that provide multiple ecosystem services (ES) and the ecological and cultural benefits for people to hedge the urbanization challenges. In this paper, we assessed the total economic value of ES provided by UGI in the capital core area of Beijing by calculating the value of six types of ES related to high-density urban features: (1) climate regulation, (2) carbon sequestration and oxygen production, (3) water control and conservation, (4) air pollution reduction, (5) noise reduction (6) cultural services through the combination of replacement cost, carbon tax, shadow project, afforestation cost, and market price methods. The results showed that UGI generated economic benefits in the surveyed area of about CNY ¥1.56 billion (USD $240 million) per year or CNY ¥91.76 (USD $14) per capita. The largest share of ES came from carbon sequestration and oxygen production, amounting to about 46.32% of the total ES value. Our findings also revealed that the distribution of ES value patterns varied across communities. This study enhanced the understanding of local UGI and had significant policy implications for future urban sustainable management, both in the capital core area of Beijing and in other high-density urban areas.

What Is the Effect of Cultural Greenway Projects in High-Density Urban Municipalities? Assessing the Public Living Desire near the Cultural Greenway in Central Beijing

“…Our study area focused on the “capital core area” of Beijing, which itself is the capital city of China, and the most densely populated city. Because Beijing is a historical city, the central core of the city—including the Dongcheng and Xicheng districts of Beijing that span an area of 92.5 km 2 —is endowed with the full function of the country’s political, cultural, and international exchange [ 7 , 33 ] ( Figure 1 ). The area also serves as a key conservation area for Chinese historical and cultural heritage, and offers a window through which to assess the greater urban area in and around Beijing.…”

“…Since the 1990s, greenway planning had already attracted increased attention from both scholars and regional administrators as a potential avenue to foster connections between local cultural and natural resources—resources which could also contribute to local development through the provision of multiple functions such as recreation, biodiversity conservation, heritage, education, and so on. Greenway planning projects have thus been promoted across the world for decades now by countless urban administrators [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. For high-density urban municipalities, greenways are commonly regarded as just as valuable a green resource as other green open spaces; indeed, both equally serve to improve quality of life within neighborhoods, which are often crowded due to land constraints and high population.…”

“…Current literature on greenway project contributions mainly focus on their ecological benefits, such as climate regulation, carbon sequestration, oxygen production, and biodiversity conservation [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Even though the social aspects of greenways has attracted increasing research attention in decades in both China and western world [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ], few existing studies quantify and evaluate the social-economic benefit of CGPs, nor do they record their contribution in landscape performance series (LPS) analyses, various ecosystem service value assessments, cost-benefit analyses, travel cost analysis (TCM), the contingent valuation method (CVM), nor the cross-sectional hedonic price method using past sales transactions [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ].…”

Reconciling UES, GEP and NCP in Chinese cities

“…Among the different categories of UES, regulating services are the most studied type in Chinese cities. The trend reflects Chinese cities’ keen interest in managing environmental problems such as air pollution and urban heat islands (Jim and Chen, 2008; Xu and Zhao, 2021; Yao et al, 2021). UES studies conducted by Chinese scholars mirror the ambiguity in concepts of UES.…”

“…UES studies conducted by Chinese scholars mirror the ambiguity in concepts of UES. Most studies only consider benefits generated by ecological structures within urban areas (Jim and Chen, 2009; Xu and Zhao, 2021), while some include a wide range of services produced in urban areas, e.g., public services such as the provision of higher education (Yang et al, 2015). Despite being well received by researchers, the UES framework has never been mainstreamed in the policy-making process in Chinese cities.…”