IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i11p8574-d1155397.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of Aboveground Carbon Storage of Woody Vegetation in an Urban–Rural Transect in Shanghai, China

Author

Listed:
  • Yanyan Wei

    (School of Environmental and Geographical Sciences, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200234, China
    Yangtze River Delta Urban Wetland Ecosystem National Field Scientific Observation and Research Station, Shanghai 200234, China)

  • Chi-Yung Jim

    (Department of Social Sciences, Education University of Hong Kong, Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, Hong Kong, China)

  • Jun Gao

    (School of Environmental and Geographical Sciences, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200234, China
    Yangtze River Delta Urban Wetland Ecosystem National Field Scientific Observation and Research Station, Shanghai 200234, China)

  • Min Zhao

    (School of Environmental and Geographical Sciences, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200234, China
    Yangtze River Delta Urban Wetland Ecosystem National Field Scientific Observation and Research Station, Shanghai 200234, China)

Abstract

Carbon storage of urban woody vegetation is crucial for climate change mitigation. Biomass structure and species composition have been shown to be important determinants of carbon storage in woody vegetation. In this study, allometric equations were used to estimate the aboveground carbon storage of urban woody vegetation along an urban–rural transect in Shanghai. A random forest model was developed to evaluate the importance scores and influence of species diversity, canopy cover, species evenness, and tree density on aboveground carbon storage. The results showed that tree density, canopy cover, species diversity, species evenness, and aboveground carbon storage of urban woody vegetation vary with the degree of urbanization and urban–rural environment. In addition, the Bayesian optimization algorithm optimized the random forest model parameters to enhance model accuracy, and good modeling results were demonstrated in the study. The R 2 was at 0.61 in the testing phase and 0.78 in the training phase. The root mean square errors (RMSEs) were 0.84 Mg/ha of carbon in the testing phase and 0.57 Mg/ha in the training phase, which is indicative of a low error of the optimized model. Tree species diversity, canopy cover, species evenness, and tree density were found to correlate with aboveground carbon storage. Tree density was the most important contributor, followed by species diversity and canopy cover, and species evenness was the least effective for aboveground carbon storage. Meanwhile, the results of the partial dependence analysis indicated the combination of factors most conducive to aboveground carbon storage at a tree density of 2200 trees/ha, canopy cover of 50%, species diversity of 1.2, and species evenness of 0.8 in the transect. The findings provided practical recommendations for urban forest managers to adjust the structure and composition of woody vegetation to increase carbon storage capacity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Suggested Citation

  • Yanyan Wei & Chi-Yung Jim & Jun Gao & Min Zhao, 2023. "Determinants of Aboveground Carbon Storage of Woody Vegetation in an Urban–Rural Transect in Shanghai, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:11:p:8574-:d:1155397
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/11/8574/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/11/8574/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Virginia Harris & Dave Kendal & Amy K. Hahs & Caragh G. Threlfall, 2018. "Green space context and vegetation complexity shape people’s preferences for urban public parks and residential gardens," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 150-162, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kelei Li & Wenpeng Du & Zhiqi Yang & Huimin Yan & Yutong Mu, 2024. "Spatio-Temporal Pattern of Urban Green Space in Chengdu Urban Center under Rapid Urbanization: From the Policy-Oriented Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Elena Prioreschi & Nici Zimmermann & Michael Davies & Irene Pluchinotta, 2024. "Interrelationships and Trade-Offs between Urban Natural Space Use and Biodiversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-29, May.
    3. Lennon, Mick & Douglas, Owen & Scott, Mark, 2019. "Responsive environments: An outline of a method for determining context sensitive planning interventions to enhance health and wellbeing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 68-78.
    4. Maria Ignatieva & Duy Khiem Tran & Rosangela Tenorio, 2023. "Challenges and Stakeholder Perspectives on Implementing Ecological Designs in Green Public Spaces: A Case Study of Hue City, Vietnam," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Alicia Thomas & Muntazar Monsur & Carol S. Lindquist & Thayne Montague & Catherine R. Simpson, 2024. "Evaluation of Military Service Member Preferences of Landscape Design Elements in Therapeutic Gardens," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-15, May.
    6. Yuanyuan Luo & Jun He & Yuelin Long & Lu Xu & Liang Zhang & Zhuoran Tang & Chun Li & Xingyao Xiong, 2023. "The Relationship between the Color Landscape Characteristics of Autumn Plant Communities and Public Aesthetics in Urban Parks in Changsha, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-27, February.
    7. Wu, Zhen & Chen, Ruishan & Meadows, Michael E. & Sengupta, Dhritiraj & Xu, Di, 2019. "Changing urban green spaces in Shanghai: trends, drivers and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    8. Mengyao Wang & Yu Yan & Mingxuan Li & Long Zhou, 2024. "Differences in Emotional Preferences toward Urban Green Spaces among Various Cultural Groups in Macau and Their Influencing Factors," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-22, March.
    9. Xiaoqi Feng & Thomas Astell-Burt, 2022. "Perceived Qualities, Visitation and Felt Benefits of Preferred Nature Spaces during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia: A Nationally-Representative Cross-Sectional Study of 2940 Adults," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, June.
    10. Jiao Zhang & Danqing Li & Shuguang Ning & Katsunori Furuya, 2023. "Sustainable Urban Green Blue Space (UGBS) and Public Participation: Integrating Multisensory Landscape Perception from Online Reviews," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-29, July.
    11. Aleksandra Lis & Łukasz Pardela & Wu Can & Anna Katlapa & Łukasz Rąbalski, 2019. "Perceived Danger and Landscape Preferences of Walking Paths with Trees and Shrubs by Women," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-22, August.
    12. Marianne Lefebvre & Pauline Laille & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel, 2020. "Individual preferences regarding pesticide-free management of green-spaces: a discret choice experiment with French citizens," Working Papers 2020.02, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    13. Marianne Lefebvre & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel & Pauline Laille, 2022. "Alternative adaptation scenarios towards pesticide-free urban green spaces: Welfare implication for French citizens," Post-Print hal-03694169, HAL.
    14. Pauline Laille & Marianne Lefebvre & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel, 2020. "Individual preferences regarding pesticide-free management of green-spaces: a discret choice experiment with French citizens," Working Papers hal-02867639, HAL.
    15. Lena Lämmle & Eike von Lindern & Dorothee Rummel & Mark Michaeli & Matthias Ziegler, 2022. "Shedding Light onto the City Blues Myth—The Potential of Stimulating and Activating Effects of Urban Public Spaces and the Role of City Relatedness," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-14, June.
    16. Janina Borysiak & Małgorzata Stępniewska, 2022. "Perception of the Vegetation Cover Pattern Promoting Biodiversity in Urban Parks by Future Greenery Managers," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, February.
    17. Zuzana Drillet & Tze Kwan Fung & Rachel Ai Ting Leong & Uma Sachidhanandam & Peter Edwards & Daniel Richards, 2020. "Urban Vegetation Types are Not Perceived Equally in Providing Ecosystem Services and Disservices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    18. Aleksandra Lis & Łukasz Pardela & Paweł Iwankowski, 2019. "Impact of Vegetation on Perceived Safety and Preference in City Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-20, November.
    19. Hangyu Gao & Shamsul Abu Bakar & Suhardi Maulan & Mohd Johari Mohd Yusof & Riyadh Mundher & Khalilah Zakariya, 2023. "Identifying Visual Quality of Rural Road Landscape Character by Using Public Preference and Heatmap Analysis in Sabak Bernam, Malaysia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, July.
    20. Zheng Zhu & Qingyun He & Xiang Zhu, 2022. "Spatial Analysis for the Landscape Visual Aesthetic Quality of Urban Residential Districts Based on 3D City Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-28, September.

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:11:p:8574-:d:1155397. 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.