IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i3p1219-d489620.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulating and Cultural Ecosystem Services of Urban Green Infrastructure in the Nordic Countries: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Jorge H. Amorim

    (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), 601 76 Norrköping, Sweden)

  • Magnuz Engardt

    (Environment and Health Administration, Box 8136, 104 20 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Christer Johansson

    (Environment and Health Administration, Box 8136, 104 20 Stockholm, Sweden
    Department of Environmental Science, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Isabel Ribeiro

    (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), 601 76 Norrköping, Sweden)

  • Magnus Sannebro

    (Environment and Health Administration, Box 8136, 104 20 Stockholm, Sweden)

Abstract

In the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), the Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) has been traditionally targeted at reducing flood risk. However, other Ecosystem Services (ES) became increasingly relevant in response to the challenges of urbanization and climate change. In total, 90 scientific articles addressing ES considered crucial contributions to the quality of life in cities are reviewed. These are classified as (1) regulating ES that minimize hazards such as heat, floods, air pollution and noise, and (2) cultural ES that promote well-being and health. We conclude that the planning and design of UGI should balance both the provision of ES and their side effects and disservices, aspects that seem to have been only marginally investigated. Climate-sensitive planning practices are critical to guarantee that seasonal climate variability is accounted for at high-latitude regions. Nevertheless, diverging and seemingly inconsistent findings, together with gaps in the understanding of long-term effects, create obstacles for practitioners. Additionally, the limited involvement of end users points to a need of better engagement and communication, which in overall call for more collaborative research. Close relationships and interactions among different ES provided by urban greenery were found, yet few studies attempted an integrated evaluation. We argue that promoting interdisciplinary studies is fundamental to attain a holistic understanding of how plant traits affect the resulting ES; of the synergies between biophysical, physiological and psychological processes; and of the potential disservices of UGI, specifically in Nordic cities.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorge H. Amorim & Magnuz Engardt & Christer Johansson & Isabel Ribeiro & Magnus Sannebro, 2021. "Regulating and Cultural Ecosystem Services of Urban Green Infrastructure in the Nordic Countries: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-19, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:3:p:1219-:d:489620
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/3/1219/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/3/1219/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Theo Bodin & Jonas Björk & Jonas Ardö & Maria Albin, 2015. "Annoyance, Sleep and Concentration Problems due to Combined Traffic Noise and the Benefit of Quiet Side," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Gunnar Cerwén & Eja Pedersen & Anna-María Pálsdóttir, 2016. "The Role of Soundscape in Nature-Based Rehabilitation: A Patient Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Giovanna Calogiuri, 2016. "Natural Environments and Childhood Experiences Promoting Physical Activity, Examining the Mediational Effects of Feelings about Nature and Social Networks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, April.
    4. Matilda Annerstedt Van den Bosch & Per-Olof Östergren & Patrik Grahn & Erik Skärbäck & Peter Währborg, 2015. "Moving to Serene Nature May Prevent Poor Mental Health—Results from a Swedish Longitudinal Cohort Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-16, July.
    5. Michiel N. Daams & Paolo Veneri, 2017. "Living Near to Attractive Nature? A Well-Being Indicator for Ranking Dutch, Danish, and German Functional Urban Areas," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 501-526, September.
    6. Tammi, Ilpo & Mustajärvi, Kaisa & Rasinmäki, Jussi, 2017. "Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 329-344.
    7. Silvennoinen, Sveta & Taka, Maija & Yli-Pelkonen, Vesa & Koivusalo, Harri & Ollikainen, Markku & Setälä, Heikki, 2017. "Monetary value of urban green space as an ecosystem service provider: A case study of urban runoff management in Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 17-27.
    8. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    9. Karin K. Peschardt & Ulrika K. Stigsdotter & Jasper Schipperrijn, 2016. "Identifying Features of Pocket Parks that May Be Related to Health Promoting Use," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 79-94, January.
    10. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tianwei Geng & Hai Chen & Di Liu & Qinqin Shi & Hang Zhang, 2021. "Research on Mediating Mechanisms and the Impact on Food Provision Services in Poor Areas from the Perspective of Stakeholders," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    3. Milena V. Sokolova & Brian D. Fath & Umberto Grande & Elvira Buonocore & Pier Paolo Franzese, 2024. "The Role of Green Infrastructure in Providing Urban Ecosystem Services: Insights from a Bibliometric Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, October.
    4. Jarmila Makovníková & Stanislav Kološta & Filip Flaška & Boris Pálka, 2023. "Potential of Regulating Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital in Model Regions of Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-22, January.
    5. Katarzyna Kołat & Marek Furmankiewicz & Magdalena Kalisiak-Mędelska, 2022. "What Are the Needs of City Dwellers in Terms of the Development of Public Spaces? A Case Study of Participatory Budgeting in Częstochowa, Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-21, April.
    6. Sina Razzaghi Asl & Hamil Pearsall, 2022. "How Do Different Modes of Governance Support Ecosystem Services/Disservices in Small-Scale Urban Green Infrastructure? A Systematic Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-21, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Steele & Edda Bild & Cynthia Tarlao & Catherine Guastavino, 2019. "Soundtracking the Public Space: Outcomes of the Musikiosk Soundscape Intervention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-38, May.
    2. Klimanova, O.A. & Bukvareva, E.N. & Yu, Kolbowsky E. & Illarionova, O.A., 2023. "Assessing ecosystem services in Russia: Case studies from four municipal districts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    3. Raviv, Orna & Shiri, Zemah-Shamir & Ido, Izhaki & Alon, Lotan, 2021. "The effect of wildfire and land-cover changes on the economic value of ecosystem services in Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    4. Daams, Michiel N. & Sijtsma, Frans J. & Veneri, Paolo, 2019. "Mixed monetary and non-monetary valuation of attractive urban green space: A case study using Amsterdam house prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Linrun Qiu & Yuxiang Dong & Hai Liu, 2022. "Integrating Ecosystem Services into Planning Practice: Situation, Challenges and Inspirations," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    6. Patrycia Brzoska & Aiga Spāģe, 2020. "From City- to Site-Dimension: Assessing the Urban Ecosystem Services of Different Types of Green Infrastructure," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Shan Lu & Wonseok Oh & Ryozo Ooka & Lijun Wang, 2022. "Effects of Environmental Features in Small Public Urban Green Spaces on Older Adults’ Mental Restoration: Evidence from Tokyo," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-22, April.
    8. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2019. "A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Remme, Roy P. & Meacham, Megan & Pellowe, Kara E. & Andersson, Erik & Guerry, Anne D. & Janke, Benjamin & Liu, Lingling & Lonsdorf, Eric & Li, Meng & Mao, Yuanyuan & Nootenboom, Christopher & Wu, Tong, 2024. "Aligning nature-based solutions with ecosystem services in the urban century," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    10. Tapio Riepponen & Mikko Moilanen & Jaakko Simonen, 2023. "Themes of resilience in the economics literature: A topic modeling approach," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 326-356, April.
    11. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    12. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    13. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    14. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    15. Amber L. Pearson & Victoria Breeze & Aaron Reuben & Gwen Wyatt, 2021. "Increased Use of Porch or Backyard Nature during COVID-19 Associated with Lower Stress and Better Symptom Experience among Breast Cancer Patients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-13, August.
    16. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    17. Chiara Cortinovis & Grazia Zulian & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Nature-Based Recreation to Support Urban Green Infrastructure Planning in Trento (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, September.
    18. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    19. Sirakaya, Aysegül & Cliquet, An & Harris, Jim, 2018. "Ecosystem services in cities: Towards the international legal protection of ecosystem services in urban environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 205-212.
    20. Zengzeng Fan & Yuanyang Wang & Yanchao Feng, 2021. "Ecological Livability Assessment of Urban Agglomerations in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-16, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:3:p:1219-:d:489620. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.