Izvestiya of Saratov University.

Chemistry. Biology. Ecology

ISSN 1816-9775 (Print)
ISSN 2541-8971 (Online)


For citation:

Sarbayeva E. V. Assessment of ecosystem services of green spaces in Yoshkar-Ola. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Chemistry. Biology. Ecology, 2024, vol. 24, iss. 2, pp. 214-224. DOI: 10.18500/1816-9775-2024-24-2-214-224, EDN: XAJNID

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
Full text:
(downloads: 25)
Language: 
Russian
Heading: 
Article type: 
Article
UDC: 
574.4:502.3
EDN: 
XAJNID

Assessment of ecosystem services of green spaces in Yoshkar-Ola

Abstract: 

In many parts of the world, urban green spaces are being explored as a source of ecosystem services. Their role in the provision of regulation of and, support of ecosystem services and even in the provision of cultural services is considered. At the same time, species assessment of the composition and vital condition of trees that provide ecosystem benefits in an urbanized environment is becoming increasingly relevant. The purpose of this study was to assess the contribution of the most common species of woody plants in urban greening to the provision of ecosystem services. The research was carried out in Yoshkar-Ola, in different functional areas of the city: residential, recreational and industrial, where the assortment of trees was studied and their vital condition was assessed. For the most common tree species, the potential supply of providing ecosystem services was determined on a ten-point scale, taking into account adverse effects (so-called «ecosystem disservices»). It was established that Betula pendula, Tilia cordata, Sorbus aucuparia were the predominant species in the landscaping of the city, their share in the studied plantings reached 36–64%. Of the introduced species, Acer negundo, Picea pungens, and Thuja occidentalis are the most common in the landscaping of the city. Most of the trees of different functional zones belonged to the 1st and 2nd categories of life condition (healthy and with signs of slight oppression). Strongly weakened trees accounted for no more than 12% of the total number, and dying plants were rare. Betula pendula makes a significant contribution to the provision of ecosystem services in Yoshkar-Ola. Tilia cordata, Picea pungens and Sorbus aucuparia – do so mainly due to their high carbon storage capacity, phytoncide and aesthetic value. Acer negundo is considered to be a dangerous urban explerent and, despite its regulating and maintaining ecosystem services, its distribution in the urban environment should be limited.

Reference: 
  1. Gomez-Baggethun E., Barton D. N. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning // Ecological Economics. 2013. Vol. 86. Р. 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
  2. Gill S. E., Handley J. F., Ennos A. R., Pauleit S. Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure // Built Environment. 2007. Vol. 33, iss. 1. Р. 115–133. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.33.1.115
  3. Kremer P., Andersson E., McPhearson T., Elmqvist T. Advancing the frontier of urban ecosystem services research // Ecosystem Services 12. 2015. April. P. 149– 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2015.01.008
  4. Mao Q., Wang L., Guo Q., Li Y., Liu M., Xu G. Evaluating cultural ecosystem services of urban residential green spaces from the perspective of residents’ satisfaction with green space // Frontiers in Public Health. 2020. Vol. 8. Аrticle 226. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00226
  5. Заика А. С., Кавеленова Л. М. Особенности баланса экосистемных услуг и рисков для древесных растений в насаждениях г. Самары // Самарский научный вестник. 2022. Т. 11, № 3. С. 41–47. https:// doi.org/10.55355/snv2022113104
  6. Бобылев С. Н., Захаров В. М. Экосистемные услуги. Человек и природа. М. : Департамент природопользования и охраны окружающей среды г. Москвы ; Центр устойчивого развития и здоровья среды ИБР РАН ; Центр экологической политики России, 2015. 100 с.
  7. Бобылев С. Н., Горячева А. А. Идентификация и оценка экосистемных услуг: международный контекст // Вестник международных организаций. 2019. Т. 14, № 1. С. 225–236. https://doi.org/10,17323/19967845-2019-01-13
  8. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington : Island Press, 2005. 156 p.
  9. Румянцев Д. Е., Фролова В. А. Методологические подходы к изучению разнообразия экосистемных услуг зеленых насаждений в мегаполисе // Международный научно-исследовательский журнал. 2019. № 10 (88), ч. 2. С. 28–34. https://doi.org/10.23670/IRJ.2019.88.10.028
  10. Jumaah M., Abdulrazzaq Z. M., Atheer H. Role of green spaces and their impact on climate design and ecosystem effi ciency // IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 2021. № 761. P. 012055. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/761/1/01205 
  11. Морозова Г. Ю., Дебелая И. Д. Зеленая инфраструктура как фактор обеспечения устойчивого развития Хабаровска // Экономика региона. 2018. Т. 14, вып. 2. С. 562–574. https://doi.org/10.17059/2018-2-18
  12. Бухарина И. Л., Журавлева А. Н., Болышова О. Г. Городские насаждения: экологический аспект. Ижевск : Удмуртский университет, 2012. 206 с.
  13. Алексеев В. А. Диагностика жизненного состояния деревьев и древостоев // Лесоведение. 1989. № 4. С. 51–57.
  14. Бебия С. М. Дифференциация деревьев в лесу, их классификация и определение жизненного состояния древостоев // Лесоведение. 2000. № 4. С. 35–43.
  15. Hurley P. T., Emery M. R. Locating provisioning ecosystem services in urban forests: Forageable woody species in New York City, USA // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2018. Vol. 170. P. 266–275. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.025
  16. Salmond J. A., Tadaki M., Vardoulakis S., Arbuthnott K., Coutts A., Demuzere M., Dirks K. N., Heaviside C., Lim S., Macintyre H., McInnes R. N., Wheeler B. W. Health and climate related ecosystem services provided by street trees in the urban environment // Environ. Health. 2016. 15 (Suppl. 1). Р. 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0103-6
  17. Kenter J. Deliberative and Non Monetary Valuation of Ecosystem Services. Les services ecosystemiques dans les espaces agricoles // Les services ecosystemiques dans les espaces agricoles. Paroles de chercheur(e)s. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 2020. P. 127–138. https://doi.org/10.15454/nwq9-zk60_book_ch14
  18. Vaz A. S., Kueffer C., Kull C. A., Richardson D. M., Vicente J. R., Kuhn I., Schroter M., Hauck J., Bonn A., Honrado J. P. Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: Insights from invasive plants // Ecosystem Services. 2017. Vol. 23. P. 94–107.
  19. Воскресенская О. Л., Сарбаева Е. В. Экологофизиологические адаптации туи западной (Thuja occidentalis L.) в городских условиях. ЙошкарОла : Марийский гос. ун-т, 2006. 130 с.
  20. Экосистемные услуги России: Прототип национального доклада. Т. 3. Зелёная инфраструктура и экосистемные услуги крупнейших городов России / ред. О. А. Климанова. М. : Центр охраны дикой природы, 2021. 112 с.
  21. A catalogue of ecosystem services in Slovakia: Benefi ts to society / eds. P. Mederly, J. Cernecky. Cham : Springer, 2020. 259 р. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46508-7
  22. Thaweepworadej P., Evans K. L. Species richness and ecosystem services of tree assemblages along an urbanisation gradient in a tropical mega-city: Consequences for urban design // Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2022. Vol. 70. 14 р. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127527.
  23. Linden L., Riikonen A., Setälä H., Yli-Pelkonen V. Quantifying carbon stocks in urban parks under cold climate conditions // Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2020. Vol. 49. 9 р. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126633
Received: 
15.03.2023
Accepted: 
19.02.2024
Published: 
31.05.2024
Short text (in English):
(downloads: 13)