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

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

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
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 n^o 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 n^o 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

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
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

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
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

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
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.