Systematic Review of Urban Ecosystem Services

This UES review is a meta-analysis of published scientific papers. The following search terms and Boolean operators were used for a literature search through the ISI Web of Science to identify studies suitable for inclusion: (i) urban AND ecosystem AND services, (ii) urban AND ecosystems, (iii) urban AND environment, (iv) urban AND land AND use OR cover, (v) urban AND ecosystem AND value OR valuation. These search terms generally cover the topical area of UES.
The search returned 393 unique records. The title of each paper was checked for relevance. Those not focused on the urban context were removed. We also removed studies that were reviews of previous work. As a result, 176 studies were discarded, and 217 articles were included for in-depth analyses. Due to the interdisciplinary and broad character of the subject of “UES,” journals in which these 217 papers were published span over a range of disciplines including geography, ecology, landscape ecology, biology, land use science, planning, forestry, computational science and remote sensing (see Electronic Supplementary Material).
Papers were analyzed using a list of assessment criteria (in the form of questions/choices; Table 1), which was developed based on criteria used in existing reviews on ES (Table 1) and issues unique to urban systems, such as different urban scales and planning/implementation issues. The quantitative results of the criteria analysis are shown in Figs. 1–7.Table 1

Criteria for the paper analysis

Criterion (question)	Possible entries
Which type(s) of ES are analyzed?	Provisioning, regulating, supporting and biodiversity, cultural, not applicable
Which number of ES is analyzed?	Numeric answer
In which country is the case study located?	Name of the country where the study is located
In which city (region) is the case study located?	Name of the city where the study is located
Does the paper explicitly mention “urban ecosystem services”? Is a specific vulnerability to change (climate change, loss of BD, etc.) considered? Are off-site effects considered? Is a model used for the quantification of ES provisioning? Is a model used for the quantification of ES demand? Are synergies considered?	Yes, no, not applicable
What is/are the specific ES analyzed?	Food, raw materials, fresh water, medicinal resources, local climate and air quality regulation, carbon sequestration and storage, moderation of extreme events, waste water treatment, erosion prevention and maintenance of soil fertility, pollination, biological (pest) control, habitat for species, maintenance of genetic diversity, biodiversity, recreational and mental and physical health, tourism, esthetic appreciation and inspiration for culture, art and design, spiritual experience and sense of place, other, not applicable
Which indicator(s) are used?	Indicator and unit (e.g., carbon storage in MgCO3)
Does the paper deal with ES potential or demand and provisioning?	Potential, demand and provision, demand, not applicable
What scale is used?	City region, city, neighborhood, site, not applicable
Which SPUs is the paper dealing with?	Forests, urban agriculture, urban parks, waterways/lakes, cemeteries, urban fabric, allotments, rural surroundings, infrastructure, brownfields, land use mixture, urban–rural gradient, green infrastructure, other, not applicable
What is the temporal scale?	One time step, time series analysis, not applicable
What is the relation between demand and provisioning?	Local, regional, distal (teleconnections), not applicable
What kind of valuation methods/indicators is applied?	Monetary, non-monetary, both, not applicable
What type of model is used for the quantification of ES supply/provisioning? What type of model is used for the quantification of ES demand?	Bio-physical, GIS-based, statistical, qualitative, causal loop, look-up table, willingness-to-pay, survey, interview, conjoint analysis, prize, trading, REDD, risk assessment, empirical, other, not applicable
Are trade-offs considered?	No, between ES, between land use and ES, between ES and quality of life, between ES and economy, other, not applicable
Are stakeholders involved within the assessment?	Policy makers, policy analysts, NGOs, land owner/lords, scientists, firms/industry, farmers, foresters, public, residents, tourists, various, various-local, various-regional, EU-policy makers, no, not applicable
Is the approach implemented?	Tool, toolkit, monoservice, multi-service, test phase, plan, strategy, communication, awareness, no, not applicable

Fig. 1

Geographic distribution of 217 UES studies

Fig. 2

Number of articles published on UES between 1973 and 2012 (N = 217)

Fig. 3

Type of ecosystem services analyzed (% of 217 entries)

Fig. 4

Service providing units analyzed sorted according to the number (% of 217 entries)

Fig. 5

Models used to analyze and assess UES demand and provisioning (% of 217 entries)

Fig. 6

Stakeholders involved in UES analysis and assessment (% of 217 entries)

Fig. 7

Methods of implementation of UES valuation (% of 217 entries)