Quantifying and mapping the supply of and demand for carbon storage and sequestration service from urban trees

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 8, 2015, Pages

  Zhao, Chang ^a   Sander, Heather A ^a   Bond Lamberty, Ben ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARBON; CARBON DIOXIDE; EXHAUST GAS;

ARTICLE; CARBON FOOTPRINT; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; CARBON STORAGE; CLIMATE CHANGE; ECONOMICS; HUMAN IMPACT (ENVIRONMENT); LAND USE; NONHUMAN; SUPPLY AND DEMAND; TREE; UNITED STATES; URBAN AREA; CITY; EXHAUST GAS; FOREST; GEOGRAPHIC MAPPING; MINNESOTA; PHYSIOLOGY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

CARBON SEQUESTRATION; CITIES; FORESTS; GEOGRAPHIC MAPPING; MINNESOTA; TREES; VEHICLE EMISSIONS;

EID: 84943327709     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136392     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005. doi: 10.1196/annals.1439.003
2. De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex. Elsevier B.V.; 2010; 7: 260-272. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
3. Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Müller F. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands-concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landsc Online. 2014; 32:1-32. doi: 10.3097/LO. 201434
4. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ. Elsevier B.V.; 2009; 68: 643-653. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
5. Haase D, Larondelle N, Andersson E, Artmann M, Borgström S, Breuste J, et al. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio. 2014; 43: 413-33. doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0 PMID: 24740614
6. De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RM. R. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ. 2002; 41: 393-408. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
7. Boyd J, Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ. 2007; 63: 616-626. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
8. Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K. Ecosystem properties, potentials and services-The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol Indic. Elsevier Ltd; 2012; 21: 7-16. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.014
9. Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B, Villa F. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst Serv. 2013; 4:117-125. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012
10. Serna-Chavez HM, Schulp CJE, van Bodegom PM, Bouten W, Verburg PH, Davidson MD. A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services. Ecol Indic. Elsevier Ltd; 2014; 39: 24-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.024
11. Wolff S, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH. Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol Indic. 2015; 55:159-171. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.016
12. Schröter M, Barton DN, Remme RP, Hein L. Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecol Indic. 2014; 36: 539-551. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.018
13. Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol Complex. 2013; 15:114-121. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.004
14. Geijzendorffer IR, Martín-López B, Roche PK. Improving the identification of mismatches in ecosystem services assessments. Ecol Indic. 2015; 52: 320-331. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.016
15. Willemen L, Verburg PH, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF. Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landsc Urban Plan. 2008; 88: 34-43. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.08.004
16. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron Dr, et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ. 2009; 7: 4-11. doi: 10.1890/080023
17. Tallis H, Polasky S. Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2009; 1162: 265-83. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009. 04152.x PMID: 19432652
18. Locatelli B, Imbach P, Vignola R, Metzger MJ, Hidalgo EJL. Ecosystem services and hydroelectricity in Central America: modelling service flows with fuzzy logic and expert knowledge. Reg Environ Chang. 2010; 11: 393-404. doi: 10.1007/s10113-010-0149-x
19. Boumans R, Costanza R, Farley J, Wilson MA, Portela R, Rotmans J, et al. Modeling the dynamics of the integrated earth system and the value of global ecosystem services using the GUMBO model. Ecol Econ. 2002; 41: 529-560. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00098-8
20. Villa F, Ceroni M, Bagstad K, Johnson G, Krivov S. ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services): A newtool forecosystem services assessment, planning, and valuation. 11th annual BIOECON conference on economic instruments to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Venice, Italy; 2009.
21. Paracchini ML, Zulian G, Kopperoinen L, Maes J, Schägner JP, Termansen M, et al. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecol Indic. Elsevier Ltd; 2014; 45: 371-385. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.018
22. Stürck J, Poortinga A, Verburg PH. Mapping ecosystem services: The supply and demand of flood regulation services in Europe. Ecol Indic. 2014; 38:198-211. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.010
23. Locatelli B, Imbach P, Wunder S. Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in Costa Rica. Environ Conserv. 2013; 41: 27-36. doi: 10.1017/S0376892913000234
24. Schulp CJE, Lautenbach S, Verburg PH. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services: Demand and supply of pollination in the European Union. Ecol Indic. 2014; 36:131-141. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013. 07.014
25. Nedkov S, Burkhard B. Flood regulating ecosystem services-mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecol Indic. 2012; 21: 67-79. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.022
26. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic. 2012; 21:17-29. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019
27. Van Berkel DB, Verburg PH. Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol Indic. 2014; 37:163-174. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.025
28. Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land use policy. 2013; 33:118-129. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012. 12.013
29. Casado-Arzuaga I, Madariaga I, Onaindia M. Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J Environ Manage. 2013; 129: 33-43. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.059 PMID: 23792888
30. Syrbe R-U, Walz U. Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: Providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic. Elsevier Ltd; 2012; 21: 80-88. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.013
31. Liquete C, Zulian G, Delgado I, Stips A, Maes J. Assessment of coastal protection as an ecosystem service in Europe. Ecol Indic. Elsevier Ltd; 2013; 30: 205-217. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.02.013
32. Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Richardson DM, Le Maitre DC, van Jaarsveld AS. Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2008; 127:135-140. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.03.013
33. Pataki DE, Alig RJ, Fung AS, Golubiewski NE, Kennedy CA, Mcpherson EG, et al. Urban ecosystems and the North American carbon cycle. Glob Chang Biol. 2006; 12: 2092-2102. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01242.x
34. McPherson E, Nowak D, Rowntree R. Chicago's urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. USDA ForServ. 1994;186.
35. Nowak DJ, Crane DE. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environ Pollut. 2002; 116: 381-9. PMID: 11822716
36. Nowak DJ. Atmospheric carbon reduction by urban trees. J Environ Manage. 1993; 207-217.
37. Nowak DJ, Greenfield EJ, Hoehn RE, Lapoint E. Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States. Environ Pollut. 2013; 178: 229-36. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.019 PMID: 23583943
38. Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program (FIA) [Internet]. 2014 [cited 10 Feb 2015]. Available: www.fia.fs.fed.us
39. Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC, Ibarra M. Brooklyn's urban forest. USDA For Serv. 2002;290.
40. Phillips DL. Assessment of ecosystem services provided by urban trees: public lands within the urban growth boundary of Corvallis, Oregon. City. 2011; 1-18.
41. Myeong S, Nowak DJ, Duggin MJ. A temporal analysis of urban forest carbon storage using remote sensing. Remote Sens Environ. 2006; 101: 277-282. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2005.12.001
42. Ã SCP, Popescu SC. Estimating biomass of individual pine trees using airborne lidar. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2007; 31: 646-655. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.06.022
43. Brown S. Measuring carbon in forests: current status and future challenges. Environ Pollut. 2002; 116: 363-72. PMID: 11822714
44. Liu C, Li X. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban forests in Shenyang, China. Urban For Urban Green. Elsevier GmbH.; 2012; 11:121-128. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.03.002
45. Baró F, Chaparro L, Gómez-Baggethun E, Langemeyer J, Nowak DJ, Terradas J. Contribution of ecosystem services to air quality and climate change mitigation policies: the case of urban forests in Barcelona, Spain. Ambio. 2014; 43: 466-79. doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0507-x PMID: 24740618
46. Jenkins J, Chojnacky D. National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For Sci. 2003; 49.
47. Berland A. Twin Cities urbanization and implications for urban forest ecosystem services. University of Minnesota. 2012.
48. US Census Bureau. 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria [Internet]. 2010.
49. Minnesota Geospatial Information Office [Internet]. 2015 [cited 1 Jan 2015]. Available: http://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/
50. Overwatch [Internet]. 2015. Available: http://www.geospatial.overwatch.com/
51. ESRI ArcGISv.10.1 [Internet]. 2012. Available: http://www.esri.com/
52. Opitz D, Blundell S, Rajendran R, Morris M. An approach for collection of geospecific 3D features from terrestrial LiDAR. ASPRS 2008 Annual Conference. Portland, Oregon; 2008. pp. 0-7.
53. Minnesota Native Big Tree registry [Internet] MNDNR; 2015. Available: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/treesshrubs/bigtree/index.html
54. Jenkins J, Chojnacky D, Heath L, Birdsey R. Comprehensive database of diameter-based biomass regressions for North American tree species. USDA For Serv. 2004;319.
55. Cairns MA, Brown S, Helmer EH, Baumgardner GA. Root biomass allocation in the world's upland forests. Oecologia. 1997; 111:1-11. doi: 10.1007/s004420050201
56. Brown S, Lugo A. The storage and production of organic matter in tropical forests and their role in the global carbon cycle. Biotropica. 1982; 14:161-187.
57. Dixon R, Brown S. Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science (5144:). 1994; 263: 185-190. PMID: 17839174
58. Iverson L, Brown S, Prasad A. Use of GIS for estimating potential and actual forest biomass for continental South and Southeast Asia. Effects of Land-Use Change on Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations. New York: Springer Verlag New York, Inc.; 1994.
59. Ecoregions of the United States [Internet]. USDA Forest Service; 2015. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecoregions/products/map-ecoregions-united-states/
60. Scheu S, Schauermann J. Decomposition of roots and twigs: effects of wood type (beech and ash), diameter, site of exposure and macrofauna exclusion. Plant Soil. 1994; 13-24.
61. Olson JS. Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology. 1963; 44: 322-331.
62. Chambers JQ, Higuchi N, Schimel JP, Ferreira LV., Melack JM. Decomposition and carbon cycling of dead trees in tropical forests of the central Amazon. Oecologia. 2000; 122: 380-388. doi: 10.1007/s004420050044
63. Harmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Sollins P, Gregory SV, Lattin JD, et al. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv Ecol Res. 1986; 15: 302.
64. Berendse F, Berg B, Bosatta E. The effect of lignin and nitrogen on the decomposition of litter in nutrient-poor ecosystems: a theoretical approach. Can J Bot. 1987; 65:1116-1120. doi: 10.1139/b87-155
65. Boddy L, Owens E, Chapela I, Road N, Boddy L, Owens E, et al. Small scale variation in decay rate within logs one year after felling: effect of fungal community structure and moisture content. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1989; 62.
66. Russell MB, Fraver S, Aakala T, Gove JH, Woodall CW, D'Amato AW, et al. Quantifying carbon stores and decomposition in dead wood: A review. For Ecol Manage. Elsevier B.V.; 2015; 350:107-128. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.033
67. David HA, Pastor J. Decomposition of aspen, spruce, and pine boles on two sites in Minnesota. Can J For Res. 1993; 23:1744-1749. doi: 10.1139/x93-220
68. Fraver S, Milo AM, Bradford JB, D'Amato AW, Kenefic L, Palik BJ, et al. Woody debris volume depletion through decay: Implications for biomass and carbon accounting. Ecosystems. 2013; 16:1262-1272. doi: 10.1007/s10021-013-9682-z
69. Lambert RL, Lang GE, Reiners WA. Loss of mass and chemical change in decaying boles of a subalpine balsam fire forest. Ecology. 2014; 61:1460-1473.
70. Mcpherson EG, Simpson JR. Through urban forestry: guidelines for professional and volunteer tree planters. USDAForServ. 1999;171.
71. Teck R, Hilt D. Individual-tree diameter growth model for northeastern United States. USDAForServ. 1991;649.
72. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency [Internet]. 2015. Available: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/
73. Xcel Energy Inc. Power Generation supply [Internet]. 2013 [cited 7 Jan 2015]. Available: http://www.xcelenergy.com/Company/Operations/Power-Generation
74. Minnesota Geographic Metadata. Metadata: Generalized Land Use 2010 for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area [Internet]. 2011. Available: http://www.datafinder.org/metadata/GeneralizedLandUse2010.html
75. The terrestrial carbon cycle: managing forest ecosystems. U.S. EPA; 2007.
76. Conte M, Nelson E, Carney K, Fissore C, Olwero N, Plantinga AJ, et al. Terrestrial carbon sequestration and storage. In: Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S, editors. Natural capital theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2011. pp. 111-128.
77. Gill SJ, Biging GS, Murphy EC. Modeling conifertree crown radius and estimating canopy cover. For Ecol Manage. 2000; 126: 405-416. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00113-9
78. Estornell J, Ruiz LA, Velázquez-Martí B, Fernández-Sarría A. Estimation of shrub biomass by airborne LiDAR data in small forest stands. For Ecol Manage. Elsevier B.V.; 2011; 262:1697-1703. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.07.026
79. Alonzo M, Bookhagen B, Roberts DA. Urban tree species mapping using hyperspectral and lidardata fusion. Remote Sens Environ. Elsevier Inc.; 2014; 148: 70-83. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2014.03.018
80. Romaguera M, Hoekstra AY, Su Z, Krol MS, Salama MS. Potential of using remote sensing techniques for global assessment of water footprint of crops. Remote Sens. 2010; 2:1177-1196. doi: 10.3390/rs2041177
81. Pataki DE, Carreiro MM, Cherrier J, Grulke NE, Jennings V, Pincetl S, et al. Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Front Ecol Environ. 2011; 9: 27-36. doi: 10.1890/090220
82. Simpson JR. Improved estimates of tree-shade effects on residential energy use. Energy Build. 2002; 34:1067-1076. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00028-2
83. Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP, et al. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv. 2012; 1: 31-39. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004
84. Paetzold A, Warren PH, Maltby LL. A framework for assessing ecological quality based on ecosystem services. Ecol Complex. Elsevier B.V.; 2010; 7: 273-281. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.11.003
85. Boithias L, Acuña V, Vergoñós L, Ziv G, Marcé R, Sabater S. Assessment of the water supply:demand ratios in a Mediterranean basin under different global change scenarios and mitigation alternatives. Sci Total Environ. Elsevier B.V.; 2014; 470-471: 567-77. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.003 PMID: 24176705
86. Schulp CJE, Burkhard B, Maes J, Van Vliet J, Verburg PH. Uncertainties in ecosystem service maps: a comparison on the European scale. PLoS One. 2014; 9: e109643. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109643 PMID: 25337913
87. Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ. 2006; 57: 209-228. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005
88. Honey-Rosés J, Pendleton LH. A demand driven research agenda for ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv. 2013; 5:160-162. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.007
89. Palomo I, Martín-López B, Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Montes C. National Parks, bufferzones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosyst Serv. 2013; 4:104-116. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.001
90. Jacobs S, Burkhard B, Daele T Van, Staes J, Schneiders A. "The Matrix Reloaded": A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecol Modell. Elsevier B.V.; 2014; 295: 21-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.024
91. De Groot RS, Brander L, van der Ploeg S, Costanza R, Bernard F, Braat L, et al. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst Serv. Elsevier; 2012; 1:50-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005
92. Costanza R. Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv. 2008; 1: 8-10.