Mapping an urban ecosystem service: quantifying above‐ground carbon storage at a city‐wide scale

Abstract

Summary1. Despite urbanization being a major driver of land-use change globally, there have been few attempts to quantify and map ecosystem service provision at a city-wide scale. One service that is an increasingly important feature of climate change mitigation policies, and with other potential benefits, is biological carbon storage. 2. We examine the quantities and spatial patterns of above-ground carbon stored in a typical British city, Leicester, by surveying vegetation across the entire urban area. We also consider how carbon density differs in domestic gardens, indicative of bottom-up management of private green spaces by householders, and public land, representing top-down landscape policies by local authorities. Finally, we compare a national ecosystem service map with the estimated quantity and distribution of above-ground carbon within our study city.3. An estimated 231 521 tonnes of carbon is stored within the above-ground vegetation of Leicester, equating to 3AE16 kg C m )2 of urban area, with 97AE3% of this carbon pool being associated with trees rather than herbaceous and woody vegetation. 4. Domestic gardens store just 0AE76 kg C m )2 , which is not significantly different from herbaceous vegetation landcover (0AE14 kg C m )2 ). The greatest above-ground carbon density is 28AE86 kg C m )2 , which is associated with areas of tree cover on publicly owned ⁄ managed sites. 5. Current national estimates of this ecosystem service undervalue Leicester's contribution by an order of magnitude. 6. Synthesis and applications. The UK government has recently set a target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, from 1990 levels, by 2050. Local authorities are central to national efforts to cut carbon emissions, although the reductions required at city-wide scales are yet to be set. This has led to a need for reliable data to help establish and underpin realistic carbon emission targets and reduction trajectories, along with acceptable and robust policies for meeting these goals. Here, we illustrate the potential benefits of accounting for, mapping and appropriately managing aboveground vegetation carbon stores, even within a typical densely urbanized European city.

Temporal trend of green space coverage in China and its relationship with urbanization over the last two decades

“…Typically, urban green spaces have important ecological effects, contribute to public health, and increase the life quality of urban citizens by offering esthetic enjoyment, recreational opportunities and improvements in physical and psychological well-being (Jo, 2002;Chen and Jim, 2008). Recent reports also found that carbon density in urban areas (23-42 kg C m −2 in sample cities of the United States, Churkina et al, 2010;3.16 kg C m −2 in Leicester, UK, Davies et al, 2011) is comparable to that of some natural forests, and the dynamics of urban vegetation may leave footprints in global biogeochemical cycles (Grimm et al, 2008). The enhancement of green areas has the potential to mitigate the adverse effects of urbanization in a sustainable way (Ridder et al, 2004).…”

Soilless system on peat reduce trace metals in urban-grown food: unexpected evidence for a soil origin of plant contamination

“…Urban allotment gardens are one element of the urban green infrastructure that is becoming increasingly important in urban landscape planning. As reported in Breuste and Artmann (2014), they combine utility, social meaning, beauty and several ecosystem services such as food supply (Drescher 2004), air filtering (Davies et al 2011), urban temperature and climate regulation (Phelan et al 2015), noise reduction (Aylor 1972), runoff mitigation (Zhang et al 2012) and biodiversity development (Lin et al 2015). However, plant cultivation within cities may present environmental risks associated to both air and soil pollution (Alloway 2004).…”

Assessing urban tree carbon storage and sequestration in Bolzano, Italy

“…This carbon sequestration mitigation potential of urban trees is being considered a regulating ecosystem service ) and according to the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020, by 2014 all European member states should map and assess the state of ecosystem services in their national territory (Maes et al 2012). However, with the exception of some studies in Germany and the United Kingdom (Davies et al 2011;Strohbach & Haase 2012;Strohbach et al 2012) and assessments in Spain, Switzerland, and England using the i-Tree Eco/Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) model developed in the USA (i-Tree 2012a) we know of no studies of carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in Europe and particularly in South Tyrol in peerreviewed literature.…”

“…Urban areas are steadily growing throughout the world (Grimm et al 2008) and by 2030 it is expected that 60% of the world's population will be living in cities (Rydin et al 2012). Thus, as urban environments become more important as living space for humans, they are an increasing source of carbon emissions.Several studies in North America, China, and Australia (Brack 2002;Zhao et al 2010;Dobbs et al 2011;Martin et al 2012;Roy et al 2012), and more recently in the United Kingdom and Germany (Davies et al 2011;Strohbach & Haase 2012;Strohbach et al 2012), have shown that trees in urban environments remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through growth and photosynthesis, and store excess carbon as biomass in roots, stems, and branches. Indirectly, urban trees also reduce building energy used for cooling through their shade and climate amelioration effects, thereby reducing CO 2 emissions from decreased energy production (Akbari et al 2001).…”