An evaluation of the ecosystem services provided by urban trees: The role of Krasiński Gardens in air quality and human health in Warsaw (Poland)

• Autorzy: Zbigniew Szkop
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Trees remove air pollution by the interception of particulate matter on plant surfaces and the absorption of gaseous pollutants through leaf stomata. However, to date, we have rather few empirical studies on the magnitude and value of the effects of trees on air quality and human health, especially especially within the climatic conditions of Central Europe. To investigate the significance of urban trees from the point of view of air pollution removal, an i-Tree Eco model was implemented. The results indicate that the 932 trees in Krasiński Gardens (Warsaw, Poland) absorb 267.12 kg of pollutants per year: 149.9 kg of O3, 94.4 kg of NO2, 11.8 kg of SO2 and 10.9 kg of PM2.5. That makes an average removal per tree (calculated by summarizing the values of all of the pollutants) of 0.287 kg/year. Furthermore, health values were used to estimate their pollution removal services in monetary terms. The total benefit of air purification by trees in Krasiński Gardens is estimated at 26250 PLN/year with an average value per tree of: 28 PLN. Although PM2.5 removal is the lowest among the four air pollutants analysed, accounting for only 4% of the total mass reduction, it provides 69% of the total economic value. The benefit associated with absorption of O3 provided 28% of the value, with the absorption of NO2 and SO2 at just 3%. The results also show that large tree species (with a crown diameter of 14-15m) can provide around 10 times higher benefits, than small ones (5-6m).(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Landscape parks; Ecosystem; City; Air pollution

PL

Parki krajobrazowe; Ekosystem; Miasto; Zanieczyszczenie powietrza

• Czasopismo: Environmental & Socio-economic Studies
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 4
• Numer: nr 4
• Strony: 41--50

Twórcy

autor

Zbigniew Szkop

• University of Warsaw, Poland

Bibliografia

• Andersson E. 2006. Urban landscapes and sustainable cities. Ecol. Soc., 11, 1.
• Ash C., Jasny B.R., Roberts L., Stone R., Sugden A.M. 2008. Reimagining cities. Introduction. Science, 319 (5864). [Web of Science]
• Baldocchi D.D., Hicks B.B., Camara P. 1987. A canopy stomatal resistance model for gaseous deposition to vegetated surfaces. Atm. Environ., 21: 91-101.
• Bettencourt L.M.A., West G. 2010. A unified theory of urban living. Nature, 467 (7318), 912-913. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/467912a. [Crossref]
• Bolund P., Hunhammar S. 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ., 29: 293-301.
• Clark W.C. 2007. Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. [Crossref]
• Dawe N.A. 1996. Sprinting Toward Sustainabilit. Am. Forests, 22-30, 45.
• Escobedo F.J., Wagner J.E., Nowak D.J., De la Maza C.L., Rodríguez M., Crane D.E. 2008. Analyzing the cost effectiveness of Santiago, Chile's policy of using urban forests to improve air quality. J. Environ. Manage., 86:148-157. [Web of Science]
• Fann N., Lamson A.D., Anenberg S.C., Wesson K., Risley D., Hubbell B.J. 2012. Estimating the national public health burden associated with exposure to ambient PM2.5 and ozone. Risk Analysis, 32: 81-95.
• Giergiczny M. 2008. Value of a statistical life - Case of Poland. Environ. Res. Econ., 41(2): 209-221. [Crossref]
• Gomez-Baggethun E., Barton D.N. 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ., 86: 235-245.
• Gomez-Baggethun E., Gren D., Barton J., Langemeyer T., McPhearson P., O'Farrell E., Andersson E., Hamstead Z.. 2013. Urban ecosystem services. [in:] Elmqvist T., Fragkias M., Goodness J., Güneralp B., Marcotullio P., McDonald R.I., et al. (ed.) Urbanization: 175-251.
• Hubacek K., Kronenberg J. 2013. Synthesizing different perspectives on the value of urban ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plan., 109 (1), 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.010. [Crossref]
• Kuchcik M., Błażejczyk K., Milewski P., Szmyd J. 2014. Urban climate research in Warsaw: the results of microclimatic network measurements. Geogr. Pol., 87, 4: 491-504.
• Martin N.A., Chappelka A.H., Loewenstein E.F., Keever G.J. 2012. Comparison of carbon storage, carbon sequestration, and air pollution removal by protected and maintained urban forests in Alabama, USA. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci., Ecosystem Serv. Manage., 8(3): 265-272. [Crossref]
• McPherson E.G. 2003. A benefit-cost analysis of ten street tree species in Modesto, California, U.S. J. Arboriculture, 29(1): 1-8.
• McPherson E.G., Kendall A. 2014. A life cycle carbon dioxide inventory of the Million Trees Los Angeles program. Int. J. Life Cycle Assessment, 19(9): 1653-1665.
• McPherson E.G., Simpson, J.R. 1999. Carbon dioxide reduction through urban forestry: guidelines for professional and volunteer tree planters. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-171. Albany.
• Murray F.J., Marsh L., Bradford P.A. 1994. New York State Energy Plan. vol. II: issue reports. Albany, NY: New York State Energy Office.
• Najwyższa Izba Kontroli, 2014. Ochrona powietrza przed zanieczyszczeniami. Available at https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,7764,vp,9732.pdf
• Northeast Regional Climate Center, 2012. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOWData. Ithaca, NY: US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available at http://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/page_nowdata.html.
• Nowak D.J. 1994. Understanding the structure of urban forests. J. Forestry, 92(10): 42-46.
• Nowak D.J. Dwyer J.F. 2007. Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. [In:] Kuser J. (ed.) Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast. New York: Springer: 25-46.
• Nowak D.J., Crane D.E. 2000. The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) Model: Quantifying urban forest structure and functions. [in:] Hansen M., Burk T. (ed.) Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st century. St. Paul: North Central Research Station: 714-720.
• Nowak D.J., Crane D.E., Stevens J.C. 2006. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4: 115-123. [Crossref]
• Nowak D.J., Crane D.E., Stevens J.C., Hoehn R.E., Walton J.T. 2008. A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 34: 347-358.
• Nowak D.J., Hirabayashi S., Bodine A. 2014. Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health in the United States. Environ. Pollut., 193: 119-129. [Web of Science] [Crossref]
• Pauleit S., Duhme F. 2000. GIS assessment of Munich's urban forest structure for urban planning. J. Arboriculture, 26(3):133-141.
• Peper P.J., McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Shelly L., Gardner Vargas K.E., Xiao Q. 2007. New York Municipal Forest Resource Analysis. Technical Report. Center for Urban Forest Research. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Research Station. New York City.
• Pope C.A. III, Burnett R.T., Thun M.J., Calle E.E., Krewski D., Ito K. 2002. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287(9): 1132-1141.
• Preiss P., Friedrich R., Klotz V. 2008. Report on the procedure and data to generate. Project no: 502687, Institut für Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung (IER), Universität Stuttgart.
• Rogers K., Jarratt T., Hansford D. 2011. Torbay's Urban Forest: Assessing urban forest effects and values. A report on the findings from the UK i-Tree Eco pilot project. Treeconomics, Exeter.
• Rosenzweig C., Gaffin S., Parshall L. (eds.), 2006. Green Roofs in the New York Metropolitan Region. Research Report. Columbia Univ. Center for Climate Systems Research and NASA Goddard Inst. for Space Studies.
• Senta W., Dolatowski J. 2008. Dendrologia. Wyd. Nauk. PWN. Warszawa.
• United Nations. 2012. World Urbanization Prospects. The 2011 Revision. New York.
• USDA Forest Service. 2003. Urban Forest Research: The case for large trees vs. small trees. Center for Urban Forest Research, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Davis, California.
• Żylicz T. 2010. Valuation of ecosystem services. An overview of world research. Ekonomia i Środowisko, 1:31-45.