Research ArticleArticles

Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees

Eugenio Ferretti, Ana Luísa Soares, Leónia Nunes, Inês Marques Duarte and Susana Dias
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2025, jauf.2025.013; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2025.013

Abstract

Background Lisbon’s urban trees are vital for providing environmental benefits, enhancing the city’s liveability and sustainability. As such, it is important to understand how different urban spaces, such as gardens and streets, affect the ecosystem services (ES) trees provide.

Methods In this study, we evaluate the composition, structure, and ES provision of trees in 3 gardens in Lisbon. Then, their individual tree size and ES supply were compared to street trees for the same species to assess the impact of management on ES. Additionally, four management scenarios were assessed for one garden, selected for its composition and susceptibility to change: Business as Usual (BAU); planned underground Metro Expansion Impact (MEI); Disease Outbreak (DO); and Removal of Monumental Trees (RMT).

Results Garden trees generally exhibited higher diameter and canopy dimensions than street trees for the same species, leading to enhanced ES provision. The MEI scenario predicted significant reductions in canopy cover and ES due to tree removals and construction stress, highlighting the need for mitigation strategies. The DO scenario of a hypothetical fungal infection on Celtis australis L. predicted severe losses in tree health and ES, emphasizing the importance of disease management and resilient species selection. The RMT scenario revealed a substantial immediate reduction in ES following the removal of monumental trees, underscoring the importance of careful planning before such actions.

Conclusion The findings illustrate how an examination of data gathered on urban forests can facilitate an understanding of their dynamics and enable an evaluation of the impact of potential scenarios on the services they provide.

Keywords

Introduction

Urban areas worldwide are increasingly recognizing the importance of trees in enhancing ecological and social wellbeing (Konijnendijk et al. 2023). Urban forests need to be healthy and diverse to provide essential ecosystem services (ES), including carbon sequestration, stormwater management, air pollutant removal, temperature regulation, and habitat provision (Turner-Skoff and Cavender 2019). Urban forests are more than trees; however, tree specimens are in many cases among the characteristic elements of a mature phase of ecological succession (the climax) capable of providing benefits with continuity over time (Clark et al. 1997), thus making it the most perennial element of the forest. These services contribute significantly to the liveability and sustainability of cities (Escobedo et al. 2011; Bennett et al. 2015).

Forest structural data encompass a range of vital attributes including, but not limited to, tree quantity, species composition, dimensional characteristics of trees and their vitality, as well as precise geospatial coordinates (e.g., Turner-Skoff and Cavender 2019). These multifaceted data collectively underpin pivotal estimations to aggregate leaf area and tree and foliage biomass, thereby facilitating a comprehensive quantification of diverse tree functionalities synonymous with ES (Nowak et al. 2008). Given that the selection of tree species, their size when planted, and the way they are managed is dependent on human intervention in the cities, it is important to understand how different options can provide different results and to test the actual and available tools that could help us to make strong, evidence-based decisions.

Literature emphasizes the key role that green infrastructure plays within our cities (e.g., Turner-Skoff and Cavender 2019). Specifically, we can see green infrastructure as a solution to the problems of cityexpansion, even more so after our experience with the Covid-19 pandemic (Pino et al. 2022), which brought much of the world to a standstill during the first half of 2020 and exposed latent needs and desires within individuals regarding their relationship with public spaces and urban lifestyles (Sharifi and Khavarian-Garmsir 2020). Currently, an awareness was born in many of us that we want to live in an environment where the chase for economic wellbeing does not undermine our mental and physical wellbeing (Sharifi and Khavarian-Garmsir 2020). Following the goals of the United Nations, along with European development guidelines, Portugal is adapting its legislation on urban forestry (Salbitano et al. 2016; United Nations 2017; United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 2022).

The publication of Law 59/2021 has significantly transformed the approach of municipalities toward public green space management in Portugal (Assembleia da República 2021). This law builds upon previous legislation, such as the Law on the Classification of Arboretum of Public Interest (Assembleia da República 2012) and introduces several key innovations in urban green management. For example, it mandates the creation of a comprehensive inventory of urban trees, requires the development of management regulations, and emphasizes the ecological, economic, and social functions of urban trees. These measures aim to enhance the understanding and management of urban vegetation, leading to more informed and sustainable decisions regarding species selection and long-term urban planning.

The Lisbon area has 34% green spaces, of which 14% are gardens and parks and 18% are street corridors, where trees play pivotal but distinct roles for ecological sustainability and aesthetic enhancement (Gestor Geodados 2018). Understanding the role of trees in different settings in Lisbon is crucial due to diverse urban greenery.

Several methodologies, such as “The Urban Forest Effects” (UFORE) model, developed by Nowak and Crane (2000), have been instrumental in quantifying the structure and functions provided by urban forests. Scenario planning has become a critical tool in land management, especially in urban forestry, where it helps address the uncertainties inherent in predicting future outcomes. For example, the methodology developed by Barron et al. (2023) highlights the utility of scenario-based variable analysis as a critical tool for governments addressing the multifaceted challenges of climate change. The core idea behind scenario planning is to explore multiple potential futures, considering the various uncertainties that could impact the system, rather than attempting to predict a single outcome with precision (Peterson et al. 2003). Scenario planning is increasingly used in urban forest design to maximize ES (Amini Parsa et al. 2020). Tools like i-Tree help evaluate ecosystem benefits and their economic value (Amini Parsa et al. 2019; Barron et al. 2023).

Understanding the composition of Lisbon’s urban forest is crucial for appreciating the ecological benefits provided by these natural elements (Cunha et al. 2022). The urban forest management must consider climate data and species adaptability to ensure sustainable development (Nowak 2008). Studies have consistently highlighted the economic and ecological value of Lisbon’s urban forest. For example, the STRATUM software (Silvon Software Inc., Oakbrook Terrace, IL, USA)(McPherson 2010) was used to quantify the ES provided by street trees, revealing an annual benefit of $8.4 million, much higher than the annual maintaining costs (Soares et al. 2011).

Recent projects in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area have assessed the composition and structure of street trees and their relationship to ES, highlighting the critical role of urban green corridors in providing these benefits (e.g., LX-Tree project)(Soares et al. 2022). Furthermore, a comprehensive characterization of Lisbon historical gardens identified 27,610 individuals of 799 taxa (Soares 2021). Some of these gardens include species highly represented as alignment street trees, highlighting the diversity of species managed under various urban contexts and enabling comparisons regarding their contribution to ES provision.

This study focuses on 2 main objectives: first, to compare the behaviour of the same tree species in garden settings versus street vegetation, considering a 15-m buffer around streets to include street trees, by examining structural diversity, growth, and environmental benefits. The i-Tree Eco tool was used to estimate the ES (USDA 2023). This comparison allows us to understand how different environmental conditions, such as the more favourable growing conditions in gardens versus the harsher stressors faced by street trees, influence tree performance and the provision of ES (McPherson et al. 1997; Collins et al. 2003; Nowak et al. 2006). The second objective aims to provide insights into the impacts of different management decisions on tree health, ES provision, and economic value (Soares et al. 2011; Donovan 2017). For that, we established 4 potential management scenarios for Teófilo Braga Garden (Lisbon, Lisbon Metropolitan area, Portugal), each addressing real-world issues, such as ongoing infrastructure development, disease outbreaks, and the preservation of mature trees. With this, we want to understand and assess how these data can generate useful information in perspective of a forward-looking design and management of the urban forest. To achieve this goal, 5 steps were implemented:

  1. Evaluate differences between the vegetation of the selected gardens.

  2. Estimate the ecosystem benefits and their value provided by the studied vegetation.

  3. Identify the tree species and specimens with the highest contribution to the overall ES estimation.

  4. Analyse substantial differences between the vegetation of selected gardens and street vegetation.

  5. Project how vegetation within a study area might evolve and assess the resulting changes in ecosystem benefits.

By focusing on these objectives, this study feeds a more comprehensive understanding of the contributions of urban trees to ES in Lisbon. The findings will inform urban planners and policymakers on how to optimize tree planting and maintenance strategies to maximize ecological and social benefits.

Materials and Methods

Study Areas

Lisbon, the capital of Portugal, is located on the right margin of the Tagus River estuary, a geographical feature that significantly influences its climate and urban environment (Figure 1). The city experiences a Mediterranean climate characterized by hot summers and mild winters, with a strong Atlantic influence that moderates temperature extremes. The average maximum temperature in June is 27.4 °C, while the minimum in January is 8.2 °C (Alcoforado et al. 2005). Rainfall is concentrated in the winter months, typically from October to April, often leading to urban flooding and disruptions (Câmara Municipal de Lisboa 2017; Dias 2022).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Location of Lisbon, Portugal (dots represent the study area locations).

The Tagus and Sado rivers have created fertile depressions that have historically supported human settlement due to their rich soils (Telles 1992). This dynamic environment necessitates sustainable urban planning to balance human use and conservation (Sijmons et al. 2017). Professor Gonçalo Ribeiro Telles’s Lisbon Green Plan, initiated in 1997, aimed to create a metropolitan ecological structure with landscape continuity, reflecting the principles of sustainable urban development (Telles 1997). These ideas have been fundamental to Lisbon’s landscape architecture, tracing back to Professor Caldeira Cabral (Cabral 2003).

This study focuses on the 3 following gardens (Figure 2):

  • Guerra Junqueiro Garden (4.5 ha): characterized by high species richness and diversity.

  • Teófilo Braga Garden (0.5 ha): known for its historical significance but facing several management challenges.

  • França Borges Garden (1.2 ha): features a mix of native and exotic species with varying contributions to ES.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Locations of the parishes and gardens studied in Lisbon.

Data Collection

Species location and inventory was retrieved from Soares (2021) and updated during fieldwork when necessary. Following a standard protocol implemented in other studies (e.g., LX-Tree project)(Dias et al. 2022), a 15-m buffer around roads was used to locate street trees. Where roadside vegetation was also part of a garden, this was checked against historic garden plans and drawings and then subtracted from the street trees data and considered part of the garden. Street tree data from the parishes where the gardens were located was obtained under the LX-Tree project (e.g., Soares et al. 2022). Data collected on vegetation from the 3 parishes and Lisbon municipal area, will allow for a comparison of the structure and ES of street trees and garden trees. This analysis will evaluate the role of gardens in supporting ES within Lisbon’s green infrastructure. Tree data includes species identification, DBH (measured using a diameter tape at 1.3-m above the ground), height measured using a digital hypsometer, and canopy dimensions assessed by measuring the canopy spread along 2 perpendicular axes. The inventory identified a total of 103 specimens from 19 different species in the Teófilo Braga Garden (Figure 3); 157 specimens belonging to 43 tree species in the França Borges Garden (Figure 4); and 632 tree specimens from 117 species in the Guerra Junqueiro Garden (Figure 5).

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Teófilo Braga Garden tree inventory.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

França Borges Garden tree inventory.

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Guerra Junqueiro Garden tree inventory.

Data Analysis

The i-Tree Eco V6.0.32 software was used to quantify the ES provided by the trees, including the total amount of carbon stored and the annual sequestration rate (Nowak and Crane 2002; de Castro Neto and Sarmento 2019), the volume of stormwater runoff avoided by the presence of tree canopies (Berland et al. 2017), and the amount of common air pollutants, such as PM10, NO2, and SO2 removed by the trees (Bodnaruk et al. 2017).

A comparative analysis was conducted to evaluate differences in size and ES (carbon sequestration, stormwater management, and air pollutant removal) between sampled garden and street trees with statistical analyses performed to determine the significance of these differences, focusing on metrics such as DBH and tree height comparisons for growth, species richness, Shannon diversity (H’) and Evenness (E) indices for composition (Odum and Barrett 2005). Comparative analysis used a standard error or 95% confidence interval as a measure of dispersion, assuming statistically significant differences (α < 0.05) between measurement categories, when no overlaps occur for upper or lower limits of the confidence interval (Zar 2009). To cross-analyse the collected data with those from the LX-Tree project (Dias et al. 2022), the species lists were filtered. Out of 130 species identified in the 3 gardens, only 66 matched the species studied in the LX-Tree project. For accurate assessment, only species with at least 1% representation in the study, corresponding to a minimum of 9 specimens, were considered. This selection process resulted in 17 tree species being considered for analysis. Further filtering ensured consistency by excluding species with fewer than 9 street tree specimens in the LX-Tree project dataset (Ferretti 2023).

In the context of Lisbon, the growing body of data on its urban forest opens opportunities to apply scenario planning effectively. By integrating scenario analysis into urban forestry strategies, Lisbon can better manage its green spaces, ensuring that future developments align with ecological goals and maximize the provision of ES.

Four management scenarios were developed for Teófilo Braga Garden in order to address specific real-world issues. The Teófilo Braga Garden was selected for study due to its low species diversity, susceptibility to external influences, and social and cultural importance in the neighbourhood context. It is not coincidental that one of the scenarios attempts to simulate the effect of the planned extension of the metro line.

  1. Business as Usual (BAU): Maintaining the current structure to serve as a baseline.

  2. Metro Expansion Impact (MEI)(Figure 6): Assessing the impact of metro expansion on tree health and ES. Modifications to the tree inventory data were made in accordance with the interventions proposed by Metropolitano de Lisboa in collaboration with the municipality. Due to construction work for the new metro station, 6 specimens of Celtis australis will be removed from Teófilo Braga Garden, with 4 planned for later relocation (Metropolitano de Lisboa 2022). In total, 8 specimens will be considered for removal, with the replacement of 4 young C. australis trees featuring specific characteristics such as a DBH of 5 cm and a total height of 3 m. These modifications allowed for a revised garden structure to be analysed, enabling the evaluation of ecosystem benefits from the young trees (Ferretti 2023).

  3. Disease Outbreak (DO)(Figure 6): Evaluating the effects of a hypothetical fungal infection (Inonotus rickii) on C. australis. Drawing on studies of C. australis in Lisbon, specimens with a DBH greater than 40 cm (where the fungus has a higher incidence) were isolated. Of these isolated specimens, 92% were randomly selected, assuming they exhibited symptoms or fruit bodies. This random selection was repeated to identify 45.7% of these specimens with a risk rating value greater than 8 (Ramos et al. 2017). The selected specimens, illustrated in Figure 6, were then removed from the i-Tree database to assess the condition of Teófilo Braga Garden under a high incidence of fungus (Ferretti 2023).

  4. Removal of Monumental Trees (RMT)(Figure 6): Analysing the consequences of removing 2 large Metrosideros excelsa Banks ex Gaertn. trees (Le Roux et al. 2014).

Figure 6.
Figure 6.

Altered management scenarios in Teófilo Braga Garden: (#2) MEI scenario; (#3) DO scenario; (#4) RMT scenario.

Each scenario’s impact on tree health, ES, and economic value was assessed using i-Tree Eco projections (Bodnaruk et al. 2017).

Results

Composition and Biodiversity

Species richness and diversity were higher in garden settings, particularly in Guerra Junqueiro Garden, which had the highest species diversity among the 3 gardens studied (Table 1).

View this table:
Table 1.

Biodiversity indices comparison between studied gardens.

The comparative analysis revealed significant differences in the behaviour of trees in garden and street settings (Table 2). Garden trees generally exhibited higher growth rates, as evidenced by larger DBH and tree heights. Additionally, garden trees had more extensive canopies compared to street trees.

View this table:
Table 2.

Vegetation composition average value comparison between streets trees and studied gardens.

A broader look at the data (Figure 7 and Figure 8) reveals how Aesculus hippocastanum and Platanus × hispanica are the 2 species that show the greatest physiognomy differences between trees belonging to gardens and street trees. The differences regarding the size characteristics of the 12 species analysed can also be found in a comparison of the ecosystem benefits these species are able to provide.

Figure 7.
Figure 7.

Comparison of average DBH (mean ± 95% CI) for main selected species in Garden and Street trees. The numbers of specimens studied in gardens and streets are in brackets.

Figure 8.
Figure 8.

Comparison of average canopy cover (mean ± 95% CI) for main selected species in Garden and Street trees. The numbers of specimens studied in gardens and streets are in brackets.

Ecosystem Services

The ES provided by trees in gardens was generally higher than those provided by street trees. As depicted in Figure 9, significant contributors to carbon sequestration included Platanus × hispanica and Aesculus hippocastanum in garden settings. Platanus × hispanica and Tilia tomentosa played a key role in stormwater management (Figure 10). Tilia tomentosa was particularly effective in air pollutant removal, as shown in Figure 11.

Figure 9.
Figure 9.

Average carbon sequestration (mean ± 95% CI) for main selected species in Garden and Street trees. The numbers of specimens studied in gardens and streets are in brackets.

Figure 10.
Figure 10.

Average stormwater management (mean ± 95% CI) for main selected species in Garden and Street trees. The numbers of specimens studied in gardens and streets are in brackets.

Figure 11.
Figure 11.

Average air pollutant removal (mean ± 95% CI) for main selected species in Garden and Street trees. The numbers of specimens studied in gardens and streets are in brackets.

Scenarios

As mentioned, 4 management scenarios were developed to address specific real-world issues in Teófilo Braga Garden. The results indicate that:

  1. BAU: Maintaining the current structure to serve as a baseline. This scenario showed stable ES provision with no major changes over time.

  2. MEI: Assessing the impact of metro expansion on tree health and ES. This scenario predicted significant reductions in canopy cover and ES due to tree removals and construction stress, emphasizing the need for mitigation strategies.

  3. DO: Evaluating the effects of a hypothetical fungal infection (Inonotus rickii) on C. australis. The scenario predicted a severe loss of tree health and ES, highlighting the importance of disease management and resilient species selection.

  4. RMT: Analysing the consequences of removing 2 large M. excelsa Banks ex Gaertn. trees. This scenario showed a substantial immediate reduction in ES, underlining the value of mature trees and the need for careful planning before removal.

Each scenario provided insights into how different interventions, by directly changing tree structure, could affect ES (Table 3).

View this table:
Table 3.

Scenario results for structures and ES in the Teófilo Braga Garden. ES (ecosystem services); BAU (Business as Usual); MEI (Metro Expansion Impact); DO (Disease Outbreak); RMT (Removal of Monumental Trees).

Discussion

The results of this study highlight the significant differences in the growth, diversity, and ES provision of trees in gardens compared to street settings in Lisbon. Garden trees in average exhibited better growth characteristics, including larger DBH and canopy dimensions, compared to their street counterparts. The results obtained support the idea that urban trees find more favourable growing conditions in gardens, such as better soil quality, less pollution, and reduced physical stress, as well as the intentional selection of diverse species with ornamental impact, shade provision, and aesthetic appeal (Soares et al. 2011). In contrast, street trees are often selected for their fast growth, effectiveness in removing pollutants, and resistance to pests. Street trees faced more environmental stressors which limited their growth and ES provision (Bassuk and Whitlow 1988; Alberti et al. 2003).

The higher tree richness and diversity observed in gardens, especially in Guerra Junqueiro Garden, underscores the importance of maintaining and enhancing urban green spaces. Diverse tree populations not only contribute to aesthetic and recreational values but also enhance the microhabitat diversity and resilience of urban forests to pests, diseases, and climate change. The limited growth and ES provision of street trees, on the other hand, highlight the need for targeted interventions to improve their growing conditions.

The study confirms that the same species of trees in gardens, when compared with those in the streets, provide higher ES, namely rates of carbon sequestration, stormwater management, and air pollutant removal. These findings emphasize the ecological benefits of urban gardens and the need for urban planners to prioritize the maintenance and expansion of such green spaces (Burkhard and Maes 2017).

The 4 management scenarios for Teófilo Braga Garden offer practical insights into the potential impacts of different management decisions:

  1. BAU: This baseline scenario demonstrated that maintaining the current tree population without any major interventions would result in stable ES provision. However, it also implies missed opportunities for enhancement.

  2. MEI: The significant reduction in canopy cover and ES projected under this scenario highlights the adverse effects of urban development on green spaces. It underscores the necessity for mitigation strategies, such as transplanting affected trees, creating green corridors, and implementing construction practices that minimize damage to the urban forest. Notably, maintaining the same level of annual carbon sequestration is achievable through the strategic inclusion of young tree specimens, thereby ensuring the continuity of critical ES.

  3. DO: The scenario of a fungal infection affecting C. australis illustrated the vulnerability of urban trees to pests and diseases. The low species diversity within the garden results in a significant reduction in canopy cover, as a large proportion of the existing trees are highly susceptible to fungal infections. This vulnerability highlights the critical need for increasing species diversity to enhance the garden’s resilience and maintain its canopy cover over time.

  4. RMT: The removal of large, mature trees resulted in an immediate loss of ES. This scenario emphasized the value of mature trees and the need for careful planning and replacement strategies before removal. Preserving mature trees should be a priority due to their significant contributions to carbon storage, microclimate regulation, and biodiversity. In addition to the quantifiable ecosystem benefits, we must also consider the significant social and cultural value that these specimens contribute to the urban fabric. These intangible benefits, while not measurable through tools like i-Tree, are essential to understanding the full impact and importance of urban trees within the community.

The findings of this study have several implications for urban planning in Lisbon, including the prioritization of garden maintenance to maximize ES by ensuring the health and diversity of garden trees through regular maintenance, proper watering, and protection from physical damage. Additionally, enhancing the conditions for street trees by improving soil quality, providing adequate watering, and protecting them from pollutants can significantly boost their growth and ES provision. The use of tools like i-Tree Eco offers valuable data to inform urban planning and tree management decisions, enabling data-driven approaches that optimize the ecological and economic benefits of urban trees (Berland et al. 2017). Furthermore, the implementation of proactive management strategies, such as disease monitoring, pest control, and the selection of resilient species, is crucial for ensuring the long-term sustainability of urban forests.

Conclusion

This study highlights the critical role that urban trees play in enhancing the ecological and social fabric of Lisbon’s urban environment. By comparing the same tree species in garden and street environments, we have underscored the substantial differences in growth, structural characteristics, and ES provision that arise from the distinct environmental conditions these trees experience. The findings suggest that garden trees, benefiting from more favourable growing conditions, offer greater contributions to ES such as carbon sequestration, stormwater management, and air pollutant removal. In contrast, street trees, often subjected to harsher urban conditions, exhibit constrained growth and reduced ES provision (Nowak et al. 2008; Graça et al. 2018).

The application of tools like i-Tree Eco could be useful for quantifying these ES and providing data-driven insights for urban planning and tree management. Such tools enable planners to make informed decisions that can optimize the ecological benefits of urban green spaces, thereby enhancing the overall sustainability of the city (Soares et al. 2011).

Furthermore, the scenario analysis conducted for Teófilo Braga Garden demonstrates the importance of proactive and adaptive management strategies in urban forestry. Whether addressing potential threats from infrastructure development, disease outbreaks, or the removal of significant trees, it is clear that urban forest management must be dynamic and responsive to both current and future challenges.

Ultimately, the study advocates for a holistic approach to urban forestry that recognizes trees not just as functional components of the urban ecosystem but as living organisms integral to the wellbeing of urban residents. By fostering a deeper understanding and appreciation of urban trees, we can ensure that these green assets continue to provide essential services and contribute to the resilience and liability of Lisbon for generations to come (Kroll 2001; dos Santos 2010; Metta 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

Some of the data used in this study were derived from projects coordinated by CEABN, including the “LX-Tree: Specialized studies for the quantification of ecosystem services provided by street trees in the city of Lisbon,” a collaboration protocol between School of Agronomy, University of Lisbon (ISA/ULisboa) and the Lisbon City Council; and the “LX GARDENS–Historical Gardens and Parks of Lisbon: study and inventory of the landscape heritage” (FCT Project, ref: PTDC/EAT-EAT/ 110826/2009). This paper is based on a presentation given at the 26th European Forum on Urban Forestry (EFUF), held in Zagreb, Croatia, 21–25 May 2024. The Forum was organized by the European Forest Institute (EFI), the Croatian Forestry Society – section Urban Forestry, the Croatian Forest Research Institute, the Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology (University of Zagreb), and the Croatian Forests Ltd Company.

Literature Cited

  1. ↵
    1. Alberti M,
    2. Marzluff JM,
    3. Shulenberger E,
    4. Bradley G,
    5. Ryan C,
    6. Zumbrunnen C.
    2003. Integrating humans into ecology: Opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. BioScience. 53(12):1169–1179. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[1169:IHIEOA]2.0.CO;2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Alcoforado MJ,
    2. Lopes A,
    3. Andrade H,
    4. Vasconcelos J.
    2005. Orientações climáticas para o ordenamento em Lisboa. Lisbon (Portugal): Centre for Geographical Studies of the University of Lisbon. 82 p.
  3. ↵
    1. Amini Parsa V,
    2. Salehi E,
    3. Yavari A.
    2020. Improving the provision of ecosystem services from urban forest by integrating the species’ potential environmental functions in tree selecting process. Landscape and Ecological Engineering. 16:23–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-019-00401-x
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Amini Parsa V,
    2. Salehi E,
    3. Yavari AR,
    4. van Bodegom PM.
    2019. Analyzing temporal changes in urban forest structure and the effect on air quality improvement. Sustainable Cities and Society. 48:101548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101548
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    Assembleia da República. 2012. Lei no 53/2012, de 5 de setembro. Official Gazette No. 172/2012, Series 1 of 2012-09-05. p. 5124–5126. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/lei/53-2012-174836
  6. ↵
    Assembleia da República. 2021. Lei no 59/2021, de 18 de agosto. Official Gazette No. 160/2021, Series 1 of 2021-08-18. p. 12–22. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/lei/59-2021-169780050
  7. ↵
    1. Barron S,
    2. Dunster K,
    3. Williams NSG,
    4. Rugel E,
    5. Kozak R,
    6. Sheppard S.
    2023. A scenario process for urban forest design at the neighbourhood level. Futures. 150:103172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103172
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Bassuk N,
    2. Whitlow T.
    1988. Environmental stress in street trees. Arboricultural Journal. 12(2):195–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.1988.9746788
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Bennett EM,
    2. Cramer W,
    3. Begossi A,
    4. Cundill G,
    5. Díaz S,
    6. Egoh BN,
    7. Geijzendorffer IR,
    8. Krug CB,
    9. Lavorel S,
    10. Lazos E,
    11. Lebel L,
    12. Martín-López B,
    13. Meyfroidt P,
    14. Mooney HA,
    15. Nel JL,
    16. Pascual U,
    17. Payet K,
    18. Harguindeguy NP,
    19. Peterson GD,
    20. Prieur-Richard AH,
    21. Reyers B,
    22. Roebeling P,
    23. Seppelt R,
    24. Solan M,
    25. Tschakert P,
    26. Tscharntke T,
    27. Turner BL II,
    28. Verburg PH,
    29. Viglizzo EF,
    30. White PCL,
    31. Woodward G.
    2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: Three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 14:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Berland A,
    2. Shiflett SA,
    3. Shuster WD,
    4. Garmestani AS,
    5. Goddard HC,
    6. Herrmann DL,
    7. Hopton ME.
    2017. The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landscape and Urban Planning. 162:167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.02.017
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Bodnaruk EW,
    2. Kroll CN,
    3. Yang Y,
    4. Hirabayashi S,
    5. Nowak DJ,
    6. Endreny TA.
    2017. Where to plant urban trees? A spatially explicit methodology to explore ecosystem service tradeoffs. Landscape and Urban Planning. 157:457–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.08.016
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Burkhard B,
    2. Maes J
    , editors. 2017. Mapping ecosystem services. Sofia (Bulgaria): Pensoft Publishers. 374 p.
  13. ↵
    1. Cabral FC.
    2003. Fundamentos da Arquitectura Paisagista. 2nd Ed. Lisbon (Portugal): Instituto da Conservação da Natureza. 220 p.
  14. ↵
    Câmara Municipal de Lisboa. 2017. Estratégia municipal de adaptação às alterações climáticas de Lisboa. EMAAC. 243 p. https://www.lisboa.pt/fileadmin/cidade_temas/ambiente/qualidade_ambiental/EMMAC/EMAAC_2017.pdf
  15. ↵
    1. Clark JR,
    2. Matheny NP,
    3. Cross G,
    4. Wake V.
    1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture. 23(1): 17–30. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1997.003
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Collins JP,
    2. Kinzig A,
    3. Grimm N,
    4. Fagan W,
    5. Hope D,
    6. Wu J,
    7. Borer E.
    2003. A new urban ecology: Modeling human communities as integral parts of ecosystems poses special problems for the development and testing of ecological theory. American Scientist. 88(5):416–425. https://doi.org/10.1511/2000.35.416
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Cunha AR,
    2. Soares AL,
    3. Dias S,
    4. Duarte I,
    5. Nunes L,
    6. Gaião D,
    7. Brilhante M,
    8. Vasconcelos T,
    9. Forte P,
    10. Romeiras MM,
    11. Rego FC.
    2022. Árvores em Números: O património arbóreo da cidade de Lisboa. In: Pinto MA, Silva ME, Azevedo JC, Sequeira M, Ribeiro N, Fernandes P, Mateus P, Dias S, editors. Livro de resumos do 9o Congresso Florestal Nacional. 9th National Forestry Congress; 2022 October 10–14; Funchal, Madeira, Portugal. Lisbon (Portugal): ISAPress. p. 103. https://www.isa.ulisboa.pt/ceabn/uploads/docs/projectos/lxtree/Cunha_et_al_2022_Proceedings_-_9_Congresso_Florestal_Nacional_2022.pdf
  18. ↵
    1. de Castro Neto M,
    2. Sarmento P.
    2019. Assessing Lisbon trees’ carbon storage quantity, density, and value using open data and allometric equations. Information. 10(4):133. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10040133
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Dias D.
    2022. Lisboa: Choveu num dia quase tanto como o que costuma chover em Dezembro inteiro. PÚBLICO. https://www.publico.pt/2022/12/14/azul/foto-legenda/lisboa-choveu-dia-quase-tanto-costuma-chover-dezembro-inteiro-2031400
  20. ↵
    1. Dias S,
    2. Soares AL,
    3. Nunes L,
    4. Duarte IM,
    5. Gaião D,
    6. Rego FC.
    2022. As árvores de arruamento ao serviço do ecossistema urbano. Lisbon (Portugal): CEABN-ISA. https://www.isa.ulisboa.pt/ceabn/uploads/docs/projectos/lxtree/Jornadas_Cientificas-LXTREE__SDias_CEABN_ISA.pdf
  21. ↵
    1. Donovan GH.
    2017. Including public-health benefits of trees in urban-forestry decision making. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 22:120–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.02.010
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. dos Santos HP.
    2010. Do tempo e da paisagem: Manual para leitura de paisagens. 1st Ed. Cascais (Portugal): Princípia. 85 p.
  23. ↵
    1. Escobedo FJ,
    2. Kroeger T,
    3. Wagner JE.
    2011. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution. 159(8-9):2078–2087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Ferretti E.
    2023. Data tree contribution to urban forest planning—Composition and ecosystem services forecast, for Lisbon case studies [masters thesis]. Lisbon (Portugal): Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa.
  25. ↵
    Gestor Geodados. 2018. Corredor verde [dataset]. Lisbon (Portugal): Câmara Municipal de Lisboa. [Updated 2025 February 14]. https://geodados-cml.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/CML::corredor-verde/explore
  26. ↵
    1. Graça M,
    2. Alves P,
    3. Gonçalves J,
    4. Nowak DJ,
    5. Hoehn R,
    6. Farinha-Marques P,
    7. Cunha M.
    2018. Assessing how green space types affect ecosystem services delivery in Porto, Portugal. Landscape and Urban Planning. 170:195–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.10.007
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Konijnendijk C,
    2. Devkota D,
    3. Mansourian S,
    4. Wildburger C
    , editors. 2023. Forests and trees for human health: Pathways, impacts, challenges and response options. World Series Vol. 41. Vienna (Austria): IUFRO. 232 p.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Kroll L.
    2001. Ecologie urbane. Cavallari L, editor. 1st Ed. Milan (Italy): FrancoAngeli. 144 p.
  29. ↵
    1. Le Roux DS,
    2. Ikin K,
    3. Lindenmayer DB,
    4. Manning AD,
    5. Gibbons P.
    2014. The future of large old trees in urban landscapes. PLoS ONE. 9(6):e99403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099403
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. McPherson EG.
    2010. Selecting reference cities for i-Tree streets. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 36(5):230–240. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2010.031
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. McPherson EG,
    2. Nowak D,
    3. Heisler G,
    4. Grimmond S,
    5. Souch C,
    6. Grant R,
    7. Rowntree R.
    1997. Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: The Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Urban Ecosystems. 1:49–61. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014350822458
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    Metropolitano de Lisboa. 2022. Linha vermelha. https://projetos.metrolisboa.pt/expansao/linha-vermelha
  33. ↵
    1. Metta A.
    2022. Il paesaggio è un mostro: Città selvatiche e nature ibride. Rome (Italy): DeriveApprodi. 224 p.
  34. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ.
    2008. Species selector application: Tools for assessing and managing community forests. Syracuse (NY, USA): i-Tree, USDA Forest Service. 55 p. https://www.itreetools.org/documents/407/SpeciesSelectorMethod.pdf
  35. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Crane DE.
    2000. The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) model: Quantifying urban forest structure and functions. In: Hansen M, Burk T, editors. Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st century. St. Paul (MN, USA): USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. General Technical Report NC-212. p. 714–720. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/18420
  36. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Crane DE.
    2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental Pollution. 116(3): 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00214-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Crane DE,
    3. Stevens JC.
    2006. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 4(3-4):115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.007
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Crane DE,
    3. Stevens JC,
    4. Hoehn RE,
    5. Walton JT,
    6. Bond J.
    2008. A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 34(6):347–358. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2008.048
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Odum EP,
    2. Barrett GW.
    2005. Fundamentals of ecology. 5th Ed. Boston (MA, USA): Thomson Brooks/Cole. 598 p.
  40. ↵
    1. Peterson GD,
    2. Cumming GS,
    3. Carpenter SR.
    2003. Scenario planning: A tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology. 17(2):358–366. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01491.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    1. Pino J,
    2. Florido F,
    3. O’Driscoll C,
    4. Doimo I,
    5. Konijnendijk C.
    2022. EU Innovation Blueprint: Analysing factors influencing innovation within Urban Forestry. Erasmus+ project Uforest Deliverable 3.3: EU Urban Forestry Blueprint. 77 p. https://www.uforest.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Uforest_report-3.3.pdf
  42. ↵
    1. Ramos AP,
    2. Maia F,
    3. Ferreira B,
    4. Valada T,
    5. Soares P,
    6. Caetano MF,
    7. Fabião A.
    2017. Risk assessment of Celtis australis affected by Inonotus rickii in Lisbon town. Acta Horticulturae. 1189:411–414. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1189.79
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Salbitano F,
    2. Borelli S,
    3. Conigliaro M,
    4. Chen Y.
    2016. Guidelines on urban and peri-urban forestry. Rome (Italy): Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Forestry Paper. 172 p.
  44. ↵
    1. Sharifi A,
    2. Khavarian-Garmsir AR.
    2020. The COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on cities and major lessons for urban planning, design, and management. Science of the Total Environment. 749:142391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142391
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Sijmons DF,
    2. Feddes Y,
    3. Luiten E,
    4. Feddes F,
    5. Nolden M.
    2017. Room for the river: Safe and attractive landscapes. Ede (Netherlands): Blauwdruk. 320 p.
  46. ↵
    1. Soares AL
    , editor. 2021. O arvoredo, os jardins e parques públicos de Lisboa (1755–1965), trê séculos de um património botânico, paisagístico e cultural. Lisbon (Portugal): Câmara Municipal de Lisboa.
  47. ↵
    1. Soares AL,
    2. Nunes L,
    3. Duarte I,
    4. Gaião D,
    5. Rego FC,
    6. Dias S.
    2022. Serviços dos ecossistemas das árvores de arruamento da cidade de Lisboa: Relatório técnico. Lisbon (Portugal): Centro de Ecologia Aplicada “Prof. Baeta Neves” (CEABN-InBIO) Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa (ULisboa). 127 p. https://www.isa.ulisboa.pt/ceabn/uploads/docs/projectos/lxtree/Lx-Tree_RELATORIO_SERVICOS_ECOSSISTEMA_CEABN_ISA_NOV2022.pdf
  48. ↵
    1. Soares AL,
    2. Rego FC,
    3. McPherson EG,
    4. Simpson JR,
    5. Peper PJ,
    6. Xiao Q.
    2011. Benefits and costs of street trees in Lisbon, Portugal. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 10(2):69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2010.12.001
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. Telles GR.
    1992. A paisagem global da Região de Lisboa. Agros. Revista Da Associação de Estudantes Do Instituto Superior de Agronomia. A. 75(2):5–9.
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Telles GR.
    1997. Plano verde de Lisboa. Famões (Odivelas, Portugal): Edições Colibri. 197 p.
  51. ↵
    1. Turner-Skoff JB,
    2. Cavender N.
    2019. The benefits of trees for livable and sustainable communities. Plants, People, Planet. 1(4):323–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.39
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    United Nations. 2017. New urban agenda. Habitat III. United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development; 2016 October 17–20; Nairobi, Kenya. 66 p. https://www.habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf
  53. ↵
    United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 2022. Sustainable urban and peri-urban forestry: An integrative and inclusive nature-based solution for green recovery and sustainable, healthy and resilient cities. In: Eightieth session of the ECE Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry; 2022 November 2–4; Geneva, Switzerland. Bern (Switzerland): Federal Office for the Environment of the Government of Switzerland. 27 p. https://unece.org/forestry-timber/documents/2022/08/working-documents/sustainable-urban-and-peri-urban-forestry
  54. ↵
    USDA. 2023. i-Tree Eco v6 [computer software]. https://www.itreetools.org/tools/i-tree-eco
  55. ↵
    1. Zar JH.
    2009. Biostatistical analysis. 5th Ed. Hoboken (NJ, USA): Prentice Hall. 960 p.
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
Eugenio Ferretti, Ana Luísa Soares, Leónia Nunes, Inês Marques Duarte, Susana Dias
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2025, jauf.2025.013; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2025.013
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords