Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Next Article in Journal
Machine Learning Models for the Spatial Prediction of Gully Erosion Susceptibility in the Piraí Drainage Basin, Paraíba Do Sul Middle Valley, Southeast Brazil
Next Article in Special Issue
Anthropogenic Effects on Green Infrastructure Spatial Patterns in Kisangani City and Its Urban–Rural Gradient
Previous Article in Journal
Leverage Effect of New-Built Green Spaces on Housing Prices in a Rapidly Urbanizing Chinese City: Regional Disparities, Impact Periodicity, and Park Size
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Urban Green Space Dynamics in Dhaka South City Corporation of Bangladesh Using Geospatial Techniques
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/land13101664
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Role of Green Infrastructure in Providing Urban Ecosystem Services: Insights from a Bibliometric Perspective

by
Milena V. Sokolova
1,2,
Brian D. Fath
2,3,4,*,
Umberto Grande
1,5,
Elvira Buonocore
1 and
Pier Paolo Franzese
1
1
International PhD Programme/UNESCO Chair “Environment, Resources and Sustainable Development”, Department of Science and Technology, Parthenope University of Naples, 80122 Naples, Italy
2
Advancing Systems Analysis Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2361 Laxenburg, Austria
3
Department of Biological Sciences, Towson University, Towson, MD 21252, USA
4
Department of Environmental Studies, Masaryk University, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic
5
Department of Geobotany and Landscape Planning, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 87-100 Torun, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2024, 13(10), 1664; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13101664
Submission received: 9 September 2024 / Revised: 7 October 2024 / Accepted: 8 October 2024 / Published: 12 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Managing Urban Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Urban ecosystems, and the services they provide, are a key focus of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, specifically SDG 11, which emphasizes making cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Green infrastructure (GI) is crucial in enhancing citizens’ quality of life and achieving this goal and it can be defined as a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas designed to deliver a range of ecosystem services (ESs). These infrastructures improve ecosystem functioning, protect biodiversity, promote health, support sustainable land and water management, and boost the local green economy. This paper explores the scientific literature on GI and their ESs in cities using bibliometric science. By combining the keywords “Green Infrastructures”, “Ecosystem Services”, and “Cities” with VOSviewer software (1.6.20 version), we analyzed trends over time. Results show growing attention to these topics, emphasizing human well-being, urban resilience, and sustainability. The study also highlights that focusing exclusively on either “Green Infrastructure in Cities” or “Ecosystem Services in Cities” leads to fragmented insights. A more integrated examination of these three domains offers a holistic view and underscores the importance of considering ecosystem disservices. The study further identifies key research directions, including the need for a comprehensive evaluation of diverse GI types, especially those that are under-researched, such as green roofs, sports areas, and wetlands, and the underexplored role of cultural ecosystem services. Additionally, future research should consider both the benefits and disservices of GI to support better urban planning decisions. Finally, integrating biophysical, social, and economic values of ESs is critical for providing more holistic insights and enhancing sustainable urban development. The novelty of this paper lies in its integrated, holistic approach to examining GI and ESs in urban areas, with a focus on ecosystem disservices, insufficient attention to specific GI types, and the role of cultural ecosystem services—each contributing to the creation of more resilient and sustainable cities.

1. Introduction

Urban areas are regarded as the core for innovation, employment, and wealth generation [1,2]. However, the rapid rise in urbanization has led to numerous issues that make cities diverge from delivering sustainable living spaces [3]. For example, the challenge of supplying needed goods and services that support the urban metabolism equitably is exacerbated by the rapid growth as well as environmental stresses such as extreme heat or flooding due to climate change [4,5,6]. For instance, ensuring a stable food supply, providing clean drinking water, managing waste, maintaining energy supply, facilitating public transportation, and delivering healthcare services are all critical components of urban infrastructure that are increasingly strained under these conditions [7,8,9,10,11]. From a land-use perspective, growing cities have a high impact in terms of area converted from previous uses, which were more likely to provide functioning ecosystem services (ESs) [12,13,14]. As stated in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ESs “are the multiple benefits that people obtain from ecosystems”, crucial to ensure human well-being (WB) [15]. Nowadays, urban land cover is still a relatively small fraction of the total Earth surface (3%), but future forecasts expect that urban areas will keep growing, with more than one-half of the world’s population moving to urban areas by 2050 [16,17,18]. Moreover, urban land is often located on highly productive areas such as coastal and riverine, or quality soils. The delivery of ESs from these productive ecosystems led humans to originally settle in those areas [19].
Recognizing the need to deal with urbanization concerns, a global awareness aiming at sustainable management of urban areas has arisen, as witnessed by the actions proposed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the World Forum on Urban Forests, and the UN New Urban Agenda [14,15].
Particularly, the United Nations General Assembly in 2015 considered cities as a priority target, deciding to adopt “Sustainable cities and communities” as a distinct goal (SDG 11) under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [20,21,22,23]. The UN 2030 Agenda and related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent the global framework for tackling the planet’s major challenges at a local and global level, considering in an integrated way the three dimensions of sustainable development: environment, society, and economy. In this Agenda, the targets 11.6 “Reduce the environmental impact of cities” and 11.7 “Provide access to safe and inclusive green and public spaces” of the 11th SDG suggest the need to make cities inclusive, safe, and resilient [16,20,21,22,23].
Historically, urban planners relied on conventional engineering approaches to address the challenges imposed by urbanization, without considering the cost–benefit ratio and the sustainability of alternative solutions [24]. To address the issues raised by the 2030 Agenda, Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) or Ecological Engineering (EE) are considered long-term approaches to improve the quality of life in cities, dealing with environmental and socio-economic concerns [25,26]. The concept of NBS brings nature and natural processes into urban areas, emphasizing the role that ecological functions can play in providing multiple ESs that are useful to satisfy the needs of an urban population [27,28]. For this reason, sound urban planning approaches based on NBS are needed to create communities that can sustainably flourish [29,30].
One of the most effective NBS for sustainable cities is the creation and maintenance of green infrastructures (GI) [31,32].
GI is a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ESs [26,33]. GI refers to those green spaces (or blue if aquatic ecosystems are considered) that are able to generate benefits to the individual and the community, physically, psychologically, emotionally, and socio-economically [34,35]. The examples of GI solutions include green roofs and walls, functional flood plains, barrier beaches riparian woodland, protection forests in mountainous areas and others [26]. Providing several provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting ESs, such as microclimate regulation, flood control, air quality regulation, noise pollution mitigation and nature-based recreation, GI aims to conserve and manage biodiversity and urban landscapes, reduce community infrastructure costs, promote economic growth, and enhance the quality of human life [36,37].
An alternative definition of GI was presented in ref. [38] (Figure 1) and was defined as a network of interconnected components that sustain natural processes. These components vary in size and shape based on the type and scale of the resource being protected. Conservation levels are determined by the rarity or ecological importance of natural features, while environmental sensitivity dictates the appropriate level of human interaction. Hubs serve as anchors for natural processes and provide origins or destinations for wildlife. Links connect the hubs, enabling the flow of ecological processes. We have schematically presented this in the accompanying figure.
Moreover, the concept of green infrastructure already existed in theory under different names such as greenways, garden cities, green belts, and green wedges [39,40]. Frederick Law Olmsted, an apprentice civil engineer, seaman, former nurseryman, and journalist turned American landscape architect, is considered the pioneer of the greenway movement (1880s), which laid the foundation for modern concepts of green infrastructure. Around the same time, in 1899, Ebenezer Howard, an English urban planner, developed the concept of the garden city, which became famous through the “Garden City Movement” [41]. Even though the initial idea of green infrastructure was conceptually linked to Olmsted’s work, the first comprehensive and integrative attempts to develop green infrastructure began in Maryland in the 1930s as part of the United States national greenways’ initiative [42]. In Charles Little’s book, Greenways for America, it is noted that the greenway movement was referred to by different names in various places [43]. For instance, it was called the “greenbelt” in the United Kingdom and the “parkway” in the western United States. However, these terms trace their origins to the word “greenway”, combining “green” and “way” to signify natural corridors connecting landscapes [43,44].
The Florida Greenways Commission used the term “green infrastructure” in a formal report in 1994, making it one of the earliest official uses [45]. Benedict and McMahon [46] played a key role in popularizing and formalizing the concept, making it a widely recognized approach in urban planning and environmental conservation. Their work brought together different strands of thinking, such as the greenway movement, ecological networks, and sustainable urban planning, under the umbrella of green infrastructure.
In addition, the term GI is also used to describe strategic approaches to planning green spaces that emphasize network connectivity [47].
The concept of GI highlights the multifunctional roles of urban and peri-urban green spaces, emphasizing the relations between humans and ecosystems [48,49]. In recent years, the ESs and GI concepts have become more integrated into urban planning practices. According to the European Commission, ecosystem services function as a complement to green infrastructure. ESs and habitat types are examples of GI components in urban areas, allowing cities to adapt and become more resilient to climate change [39].

Research Questions and Goal of the Study

This study aims to answer the following research questions.
Q1:
What is the occurrence of research in the areas of green infrastructure and ecosystem services, and how does their integration enhance the understanding of urban sustainability?
Q2:
Are there any emerging trends or gaps in the scientific literature about GI, ESs, and cities?
Therefore, the main goal of this study is to explore the above questions to assess the role that GI and ESs have in achieving the 11th SDG and in supporting stakeholders in better urban planning.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bibliographic Research and Data Collection

Documents in this study were collected on 14 January 2024 by search on the Scopus web search engine. The search string used was composed by the following three combinations of keywords: (1) “Green Infrastructures” AND “Cities”, (2) “Ecosystem Services” AND “Cities”, and (3) “Green Infrastructures” AND “Ecosystem Services” AND “Cities”. We retrieved documents published in the timeframe from 1995 to 2023.

2.2. Bibliometric Network Analysis

A bibliometric network analysis with a combination of literature review was conducted in this study to explore the global scientific literature on the topic “Green Infrastructures”, “Ecosystem Services”, and “Cities” using three different search combinations. The structure of the research is presented in a flowchart (Figure 2).
Bibliometrics uses statistics and quantitative analysis to investigate knowledge structure and the development of research fields [50]. The VOSviewer software (1.6.20 version) was used to generate network maps based on the relationships among countries, journals, authors, and keywords related to the investigated topic. VOSviewer is a software tool allowing for the creation, visualization, and exploration of maps based on bibliometric network data, displaying clusters that support the classification of output results [51]. Table 1 shows the main technical terms used in the software.
Bibliometric network analysis is a quantitative method used to analyze research activities and scientific publications. By examining data from sources like journals, articles, and citations, it identifies patterns, such as how often an article is cited, indicating its impact. This analysis helps track trends in research topics, compare the performance of researchers or institutions, and guide decisions on resource allocation and collaboration patterns. The field of bibliometrics has gained increasing recognition and continues to grow annually [52,53].
Different types of bibliometric networks and maps can be generated by the software. In this study, co-authorship, co-occurrence, and citation analyses were performed to explore the network of (1) the co-authorship among countries, (2) the co-occurrence of keywords, and (3) the cited scientific journals (Table 2). The network maps contain nodes with different sizes, according to the weight attributes (total link strength, number of documents, and number of citation), while the thickness of connections is based on the “link strength”. The analysis depends on the chosen resolution, which is a parameter that determines how fine-grained or coarse-grained the clustering of nodes will be in the network. It influences the size and number of clusters or communities that the software identifies within the network. The resolution applied in this study for all the analyses was equal to one. In order to create the maps, thresholds were chosen manually as it enabled us to optimize the visualization for clarity and interpretability. In addition to the bibliometric network analysis, the temporal trend of the number of scientific articles published per year was created (Figure 3).

3. Results

3.1. Temporal Trend Analysis and Literature Review

The search on the Scopus database using the three research strings generated a total number of 9846 published documents (Table 3 and Figure 3). The results showed the growth and relevance of the investigated topic in the scientific literature over time (Figure 1). All three publication trends from 1995 to 2023, show an exponential growth with the highest value of R2 = 0.91 for the “ES and cities”, R2 = 0.87 for the “GI and cities”, and the smallest value of R2 = 0.78 for the “GI, ES and cities”.
Table 3. Number of documents related to the investigated scientific topic published from 1995 to 2023.
Table 3. Number of documents related to the investigated scientific topic published from 1995 to 2023.
Keywords Search “GI” AND “Cities”“ES” AND “Cities”“GI” AND “ES”
AND “Cities”
Total № of documents34855511850
Land 13 01664 g003
Figure 3. Trend of GI and ES-related publications from 1995 to 2023.
Figure 3. Trend of GI and ES-related publications from 1995 to 2023.
Land 13 01664 g003
From Figure 3 we can observe the significant interest in this scientific area after 2005 (violet and green lines). The growth of scientific documents can be related to the published international initiative of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005, which is a major assessment of the human impact on the environment, called for by the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan. According to the MEA, humans had already degraded 60% of the Earth’s ecosystems, jeopardizing their ability to provide services and sustain future generations [15,22]. Notably, The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment reports were among the first to present scientific evidence that, on a global scale, 15 out of 24 assessed ecosystem services, including freshwater, capture fisheries, air and water purification, and regional and local climate regulation, were being degraded or used unsustainably [15,54].
Also, according to Figure 3, the interaction between green infrastructure and ecosystem services is not as strong as they appear to be separately (yellow line). It appears that GI and ESs became more synergistic only after 2010 because GI’s definition is younger than ES’s. Initially, green infrastructure and ecosystem services were often studied as separate concepts within distinct disciplinary frameworks. However, as research progressed, scholars began to recognize the synergies between them. Green infrastructure, such as parks, green roofs, and urban forests, provides multiple ecosystem services, including air purification, stormwater management, and biodiversity conservation [34]. Additionally, a notable increase in the number of publications has been observed since 2013. Specifically, 2013 marks the year when the European Union adopted the strategy “Green Infrastructure (GI)—Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital”, aimed at promoting the widespread adoption and integration of green infrastructure throughout Europe [26]. Understanding these synergies has led researchers to investigate how green infrastructure can be designed and managed to maximize ecosystem service delivery.
To answer RQ1 more comprehensively and enhance the analysis, we conducted a literature review of articles from diverse perspectives.
Our review revealed that many studies focus on GI’s role in specific ESs, for example, stormwater management [55,56] or air quality [57,58], but only a few studies [59,60,61] focus on the role of different types of GI (e.g., urban forests, green roofs) that simultaneously enhance multiple ESs and impacts on well-being. Notably, ref. [59] provides a broader overview, examining how eight types of GI (park, forest, sport area, etc.) influence not only nature systems but also human well-being, highlighting the importance of both ESs supply and demand. In the context of synergy of GI and ESs, a key gap is that stakeholders tend to associate a greater number of ESs with forests, perceiving them as providing more benefits (e.g., regulating services like air purification or recreation) compared to the other seven GI types, such as sports areas or degraded land [59]. Forests received the highest number of ESs assignments, whereas sports areas and degraded lands received far fewer. This suggests that stakeholders prioritize forests, likely due to their visibility and familiarity, but may not fully recognize the multifunctionality of other UGI types.
Additionally, the study demonstrated a linkage between UGI–ES–WB, finding that cultural ESs, compared with provisioning and regulating ESs, have weaker links with WB components (health, security, social relations and basic material for a good life). Cultural ESs have mostly weak or medium relations with WB. This indicates a gap in the UGI–ES relationship, particularly in the lack of studies on GI types (e.g., sports areas) that could enhance cultural ESs and, in turn, promote health and well-being. In ref. [62], various types of green infrastructure, such as urban parks, community gardens, green roofs, and waterfront areas, are identified as valuable for providing cultural ecosystem services (CESs). These spaces should include characteristics like biodiversity, accessibility, aesthetic appeal, and spaces for social interaction, recreation, and mental restoration. Specific features like walkable paths, shaded areas, and proximity to residential zones can help maximize the benefits for different population segments.
Although CESs contribute to human well-being, assessments of them remain less developed than those of service provisioning and regulation. It is also worth keeping in mind that CESs are intangible, so their value is determined more by subjective perceptions of their contribution to well-being than other ES categories. Human–nature interactions are integral to CESs, and this complexity underscores the need for greater attention to CESs in future assessments and monitoring [63]. Study [59] emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive assessment that includes a wider variety of GI types to enhance ESs provision and support all aspects of human well-being. Meanwhile, ref. [64] highlights the significance of balanced attention to both ecosystem services and disservices, for more informed decision making.
As an example of Italian cities, ref. [60] points out a critical gap: the limited integration of green infrastructure into urban planning, particularly in how these spaces are tailored to meet specific local needs. A deeper understanding of how different types of GI (e.g., urban parks, green roofs, and community gardens) deliver specific ecosystem services is essential to optimize their benefits for both nature and society.
In our review of articles on the benefits of GI, we observed that while the positive correlation between green areas and health is well established, the causal relationship between green areas, the ecosystem services they provide, and specific health outcomes remains unclear. This reveals several gaps in the research:
  • More studies on diverse types of GI are needed (studies tend to focus disproportionately on forests and parks, often ignoring other types of GI such green roofs, sports areas, greenways or wetlands).
  • A more holistic assessment of different ESs is needed (cultural ESs are often neglected [65]).
  • Potential ecosystem disservices (e.g., pollen allergy [66,67], invasive species [68], pests [69,70]) should be considered.
  • Integration of not only environmental benefits, but also economic [39,71] and social factors [60,71,72].
  • More engagement with stakeholders and policymakers is necessary.
Increasing awareness of the importance of various green spaces and their respective benefits can enhance urban planning and the effective use of NBS.
This revision confirms the necessity of investigating GI and ESs together and clearly states that this approach is essential for answering Q1.

3.2. Co-Authorship Analysis of Countries

The co-authorship analyses of countries for the three search combinations were quite similar, and therefore only one network map is shown in Figure 4. The network map reveals patterns of international collaboration. Based on total link strength, the leader countries publishing on the topics of “GI and cities”, “ES and cities”, and “GI, ES and cities” are the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany (Table 4). The analysis of the map on “GI and cities” showed 140 countries with 64 interactions among them. Articles co-authored by researchers belonging to more than 25 countries were not included in the analysis to avoid a network map with unlinked contributions. For more detailed analysis, we used six for the minimum number of documents of a country and three for the number of citations of a country. In addition, the thickness of the lines in the map indicates the strength of connections between countries over years. For instance, we observed the strong connection of the Unites States with several countries starting from 2019 (such as the United Kingdom and many others), whereas the only recent connection since 2021 is with Iraq.

3.3. Co-Occurrence of Keywords

The co-occurrence network maps of keywords (Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10) show the main trends and gaps in the investigated area over time. Keywords that are closely connected or clustered together may represent areas of active research and commonly studied topics, while keywords with fewer connections may represent areas where joint research is lacking or underdeveloped.
Based on the literature review, in the Table 5, the initial eight keywords are presented on the topic of “Green infrastructures and Cities”, “Ecosystem services and Cities”, and “Green infrastructures, Ecosystem services and Cities”. The selection was made based on total link strength which means the cumulative strength of connections between keywords: it indicates the overall level of association or co-occurrence between keywords within a dataset.
Comparing network maps of keywords over time can help to track changes in the research landscape and identify emerging trends or shifts in research focus over time. The co-occurrence maps of keywords for the three search combinations are presented and discussed.

3.3.1. The Scientific Literature on GI and Cities

The co-occurrence analysis of keywords related to “GI and cities” (Figure 5 and Figure 6) resulted in 14,492 keywords of which 148 met a minimum threshold of 40 occurrences.
As an overall trend, the co-occurrence network maps of keywords indicate a more recent focus on air pollution (mainly particulate matter) and urban heat island, with China and Italy as leader countries in this research. Currently, more attention is drawn to cities because of urbanization problems showing concerns on the relation among urbanization, ecosystems, and human well-being. The maps show that the previous focus, before 2020, was on water issues such as flooding, storms, and runoff especially in the United States and the United Kingdom.
More recently, the global scientific literature has been moving onto topics such as urbanization, decision making, urban green spaces, NBS, and air pollution, highlighting the relevance of GI for a more sustainable management of urban systems. Additionally, ESs also resulted as a current topic, emphasizing the relevance of the ecosystem approach in facing urban issues.
Land 13 01664 g005
Figure 5. Co-occurrence overlay network map of keywords related to “GI and cities”.
Figure 5. Co-occurrence overlay network map of keywords related to “GI and cities”.
Land 13 01664 g005
Land 13 01664 g006
Figure 6. Co-occurrence network density map of keywords related to “GI and cities”.
Figure 6. Co-occurrence network density map of keywords related to “GI and cities”.
Land 13 01664 g006

3.3.2. The Scientific Literature on ESs and Cities

The co-occurrence analysis of “ES and Cities” resulted in 20,935 keywords of which 80 met a minimum threshold of 131 occurrences (Figure 7 and Figure 8).
In recent years, trends have shifted to NBS, agglomeration, spatial planning, and cultural ESs as well as to the regulating ecosystem service of carbon sequestration, which is acknowledged as crucial for achieving carbon neutrality. The recent keyword “invest model” also highlights that INVEST has become a popular tool for assessing ESs, complementing GIS tools. In comparison with the first maps on “GI and cities” (Figure 3 and Figure 4), air pollution and urban heat island are still present but not as the most recent topics. Also, in response to Q1, these results demonstrate the important synergy between GI and ESs, as different areas of studies resulted from the separate search on “GI and Cities” and “ES and Cities”.
Land 13 01664 g007
Figure 7. Co-occurrence overlay network map of keywords related to “ES and cities”.
Figure 7. Co-occurrence overlay network map of keywords related to “ES and cities”.
Land 13 01664 g007
Land 13 01664 g008
Figure 8. Co-occurrence network density map of keywords related to “ES and cities”.
Figure 8. Co-occurrence network density map of keywords related to “ES and cities”.
Land 13 01664 g008

3.3.3. The Scientific Literature on GI, ESs, and Cities

The co-occurrence analysis of keywords (Figure 9 and Figure 10) resulted in 4657 keywords of which 127 met a minimum threshold of 12 occurrences.
When analyzing this map, it is noteworthy that recent attention has been mainly focused on human well-being, urban resilience and urban sustainability, highlighting an increased recent awareness on the important role played by GI and related ESs in achieving sustainable urban systems and for adapting to current environmental problems [73]. Also, it is worth mentioning that there are as equally important topics such as “ecosystem disservices” with China in 2020. According to [74], the examples of ecosystem disservices are plants causing allergies, decreases in air quality, blockage of views, maintenance costs, infrastructure damage, introduction of invasive species, and displacement of endemic species. These are important to assess too as well as ecosystem services, because we usually take into account only benefits for human well-being [75], as even if the plant is removing an air pollutant, it can cause allergies in many people. The keywords “urban trees”, “carbon”, “mitigation”, and “climate change” are also among the most recent ones, suggesting that the increase in GI and generated ESs is being considered in the scientific literature among the urgent actions to face climate change in line with the SDG 13 of the United Nations 2030 Agenda.
Land 13 01664 g009
Figure 9. Co-occurrence overlay network map of keywords related to “GI, ES and cities”.
Figure 9. Co-occurrence overlay network map of keywords related to “GI, ES and cities”.
Land 13 01664 g009
Land 13 01664 g010
Figure 10. Co-occurrence network density map of keywords related to “GI, ES and cities”.
Figure 10. Co-occurrence network density map of keywords related to “GI, ES and cities”.
Land 13 01664 g010

3.4. Citation Network Map of Journals

The citation analysis of journals resulted in an overall number of 293 journals, among which 16 sources met the minimum threshold of 10 articles on the topic of “GI, ES and Cities”. The minimum number of citations of a source was identified as three. All journals from this selection based on the number of citations are shown in Table 6. The obtained map highlighted the high number of citations in journals, showing the recent interest on the topic “Green infrastructures, ecosystem services and cities” (Figure 11).
The results of the citation analysis of the journals reflected the most relevant research domains dealing with “Green infrastructures, ecosystem services and cities”, showing the relevance of studies in ecology and urban management. Since 1995, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening (Elsevier) and Landscape and Urban planning (Elsevier) have received the most citations on the topic of “GI, ES and cities”.

4. Discussion

This study shows the importance of synergy of the keywords “Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services in Cities”, and we found several existing studies on the coexistence of the GI/ES research subjects. For example, ref. [39] brought out a gap of economic valuation of ecosystem services and did a comparative analysis of documents from 2010 to 2021. The results of [73] were restricted to the Web of Science with the help of two bibliometric analysis tools, VOSviewer and Biblioshiny. They claim that this study has highlighted the growing interest of the research community in planning GI to promote sustainability in the global context of climate change. The results of this study suggest that GI could become a major strategic factor in addressing the global environmental and social challenges facing cities. Another important observation was the relation between GI with climate change where climate change was clearly among the most recurrent terms. Therefore, from this perspective it is understood that the scientific community positions the use of GI as a tool for adaptation and/or mitigation of the adverse effects of climate change [73,76]. In another example, ref. [42] performed a bibliometric analysis on ecosystem service topics demonstrating a strong link between “ecosystem services” and biodiversity. The top journals in terms of number of highly cited articles were Ecological Economics, PNAS, and Ecological Indicators. Between countries, the US, UK, The Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden were the top five countries in the world in terms of total number of highly cited articles, whereas our research is quite similar with the US and UK as the most consistent. A recent bibliometric analysis conducted by [77], from 2000 to 2023, utilized VOSviewer and CiteSpace for visual analysis using the keyword “island ecosystem services”. Their study identified hot topics such as “ecosystem services”, “urban heat island”, and “climate change”, which align closely with our research interests. They also highlighted the “InVEST model”, “ecological vulnerability model”, and “Google Earth Engine (GEE)” as the most frequently used research techniques and tools. Notably, our study agrees with their findings and observes that the InVEST model is becoming an increasingly popular tool for assessing ESs. In addition, an interesting observation was made in the review paper [78]. The authors divided keywords into four clusters, with one of them being “ecosystem services” and “cities”. They highlighted a close connection between green infrastructures and ecosystem services, noting that papers on ecosystem services frequently appear in highly cited literature, emphasizing the importance and relevance of the topic, particularly in urban areas. Furthermore, they identified Landscape and Urban Planning, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, and the Journal of Environmental Management as the three most frequently cited journals in GI studies. This finding aligns with our study, except for the third journal, which in our case is Ecological Indicators.
While previous studies have highlighted the potential benefits of integrating GI and ESs into urban planning, several challenges remain in realizing these goals in practice. Multiple categories of barriers to GI integration have been identified, complicating the process of incorporating both GI and ESs into urban planning. These barriers are institutional (due to legal parts such as policies and laws), regulatory (due to lack of communication with stakeholders and policymakers), technical (challenges in technology implementation), physical (limited space and existing land use), capacity (lack of funding, resources), and cultural/community (due to social perceptions, influence generated by customs, values, beliefs) [79,80].
In this research, we applied a bibliometric network analysis for the identification of the main trends on the following topics: (1) “Green infrastructures and Cities”, (2) “Ecosystem services and Cities” and the combined selection (3) “Green infrastructures, Ecosystem services and Cities”, using a bibliometric tool, VOSviewer software, and Scopus database. Exploring the global scientific literature, we made a conclusion that singular focuses on either “Green Infrastructures in Cities” or “Ecosystem Services in Cities” provide merely fragmented insights. Instead, the synergistic examination of these domains offers a holistic and broad view: for decision making it is important to consider not only ecosystem services but disservices as well. Moreover, results showed that the research growth on both studied combinations are well fitted to an exponential function.
Research on the topic “GI and cities” showed that there has been a shift from water issues such as flooding, storms, and runoff to more recent topics including air pollution, mainly due to particulate matter, and urban heat island.
Compared to the first search, the second research on “ES and Cities” showed a more recent focus on NBS, cultural ESs and the regulating service of carbon sequestration, which is acknowledged as crucial matter for achieving carbon neutrality.
Finally, the last search on “GI, ES and cities” highlighted a more recent focus on human well-being, urban resilience, urban sustainability and ecosystem disservices. The integration of green infrastructure and ecosystem services has been facilitated by policy frameworks that emphasize nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based approaches to urban challenges. Based on keyword analysis, understanding these synergies has led researchers to investigate how green infrastructure can be designed and managed to maximize ecosystem service delivery. Overall, the shift towards combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in studies may reflect broader recognition of the interconnectedness between nature, cities, and human well-being. By integrating these concepts and considering both benefits (pest control, pollination) and disadvantages (allergy, disease), researchers, practitioners, and policymakers can develop more effective strategies for building resilient and sustainable urban environments. The following trends and research lines can be an important tool for decision making of urban sustainability globally.
The results also showed that the interaction between green infrastructure and ecosystem services is not as strong as they appear to be separately. Due to GI’s younger definition than ES’s, it appears that GI and ESs became more synergistic only after 2010. Initially, green infrastructure and ecosystem services were often studied as separate concepts within distinct disciplinary frameworks. Additionally, it is important to note that, as in the study by [44], the first document in our dataset—Scopus—mentioning the term “green infrastructure” dates back to 1995, making it challenging to analyze the earlier literature related to GI under this specific term.
Regarding limitations, we are aware that data such as keywords and authors are quite scarce, it is difficult to provide a concrete overview of the scientific literature, but it helps to understand future lines of research. Also, we only used Scopus search string, and it would be interesting to use other search sources as well. We assume that the future trends are as follows:
  • Holistic assessment of all types of green infrastructure (future studies should focus on evaluating the multifunctionality of different GI types beyond forests and parks, including green roofs, wetlands, and sports areas),
  • Integration of ecosystem services and disservices, (for example, more studies on cultural ESs [81],
  • Importance of biophysical, social, and economic values of ESs,
  • More attention to the problem of urban heat island, and
  • More engagement with stakeholders and policymakers for better urban planning.
In conclusion, this study highlighted that GI and related ESs are becoming core concepts and tools to address urbanization concerns and achieve urban sustainability. Indeed, the integration of GI in cities can benefit human well-being, biodiversity, and reduce the way cities impact their surroundings, creating more livable systems.

5. Conclusions

The integration of green infrastructure and ecosystem services has been increasingly facilitated by policy frameworks that emphasize nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based approaches to urban challenges. This shift reflects a broader recognition of the interconnectedness between nature, cities, and human well-being. Through bibliometric analysis, strong connections have emerged between GI, ESs, and urban settings, as well as the growing importance of nature-based solutions in addressing these relationships.
However, a significant gap remains in the research: not all types of GI are equally studied or recognized for their potential to provide ecosystem services. While some GI types, like urban forests and parks, are well-explored, others such as green roofs, sports areas, and wetlands are often overlooked despite their multifunctionality. Understanding the human well-being and ecosystem services provided by under-researched GI types is critical to filling this gap. In particular, more attention should be given to cultural ecosystem services—which contribute to mental health, recreation, and social well-being—but these remain underexamined, compared to other ESs, and are often undervalued in the broader context of GI and ESs research.
Additionally, there is a growing need for a more balanced approach that considers not only the benefits (e.g., pollination, pest control) but also the potential disservices (e.g., pollen allergy, disease). This nuanced understanding will enable policymakers and urban planners to create more resilient and sustainable urban environments that benefit both people and biodiversity.
Future research should integrate biophysical, social, and economic values to provide more holistic insights for sustainable urban development. While biophysical values of ecosystem services are essential, they may not fully support urban planning decisions on their own. Economic valuation is crucial for policymakers, offering tangible data on the financial benefits of ESs.
By integrating these concepts and focusing on a holistic approach to GI and ESs, cities can become more livable, fostering well-being while mitigating the environmental impacts of urbanization. This evolving synergy between GI, ESs, and human well-being highlights a promising direction for future research and policy aimed at building sustainable, resilient cities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.V.S., P.P.F. and E.B.; Methodology, M.V.S.; Software, M.V.S.; Validation, M.V.S. and U.G.; Formal Analysis, M.V.S. and U.G.; Investigation, M.V.S. and U.G.; Data Curation, M.V.S.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, M.V.S.; Writing—Review and Editing, B.D.F., P.P.F. and E.B.; Visualization, M.V.S.; Supervision, B.D.F., P.P.F. and E.B.; Project Administration, P.P.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data used in this study are retrieved from the Scopus research engine and analyzed through the VOSviewer software (1.6.20).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Marando, F.; Salvatori, E.; Sebastiani, A.; Fusaro, L.; Manes, F. Regulating Ecosystem Services and Green Infrastructure: Assessment of Urban Heat Island Effect Mitigation in the Municipality of Rome, Italy. Ecol. Modell. 2019, 392, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Washbourne, C.L. Environmental Policy Narratives and Urban Green Infrastructure: Reflections from Five Major Cities in South Africa and the UK. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 129, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhang, X. Sustainable Urbanization: A Bi-Dimensional Matrix Model. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 425–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hsu, A.; Sheriff, G.; Chakraborty, T.; Manya, D. Disproportionate Exposure to Urban Heat Island Intensity across Major US Cities. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kabisch, N.; Korn, H.; Stadler, J.; Bonn, A. Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions Natureebased Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  6. Reckien, D.; Creutzig, F.; Fernandez, B.; Lwasa, S.; Tovar-Restrepo, M.; Mcevoy, D.; Satterthwaite, D. Climate Change, Equity and the Sustainable Development Goals: An Urban Perspective. Environ. Urban. 2017, 29, 159–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zavrl, M.S.; Zeren, M.T. Sustainability of Urban Infrastructures. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2950–2964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. McDonald, R.I.; Weber, K.; Padowski, J.; Flörke, M.; Schneider, C.; Green, P.A.; Gleeson, T.; Eckman, S.; Lehner, B.; Balk, D.; et al. Water on an Urban Planet: Urbanization and the Reach of Urban Water Infrastructure. Global Environ. Change 2014, 27, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kennedy, C.; Pincetl, S.; Bunje, P. The Study of Urban Metabolism and Its Applications to Urban Planning and Design. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 1965–1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guerrero, L.A.; Maas, G.; Hogland, W. Solid Waste Management Challenges for Cities in Developing Countries. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 220–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vlahov, D.; Galea, S. Urbanization, Urbanicity, and Health. J. Urban Health 2002, 79, S1–S12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ma, J.; Li, X.; Baoquan, J.; Liu, X.; Li, T.; Zhang, W.; Liu, W. Spatial Variation Analysis of Urban Forest Vegetation Carbon Storage and Sequestration in Built-up Areas of Beijing Based on i-Tree Eco and Kriging. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 66, 127413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zeng, J.; Cui, X.; Chen, W.; Yao, X. Impact of Urban Expansion on the Supply-Demand Balance of Ecosystem Services: An Analysis of Prefecture-Level Cities in China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 99, 107003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Li, Y.; Li, J.; Chu, J. Research on Land-Use Evolution and Ecosystem Services Value Response in Mountainous Counties Based on the SD-PLUS Model. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e9431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; ISBN 1597260401. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bai, X.; McPhearson, T.; Cleugh, H.; Nagendra, H.; Tong, X.; Zhu, T.; Zhu, Y.G. Linking Urbanization and the Environment: Conceptual and Empirical Advances. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017, 42, 215–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. FAO. The Future of Food and Agriculture: Trends and Challenges; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017; ISBN 1815-6797. [Google Scholar]
  18. Mansour, S.; Alahmadi, M.; Atkinson, P.M.; Dewan, A. Forecasting of Built-Up Land Expansion in a Desert Urban Environment. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Seto, K.C.; Güneralp, B.; Hutyra, L.R. Global Forecasts of Urban Expansion to 2030 and Direct Impacts on Biodiversity and Carbon Pools. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 16083–16088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 15 January 2024).
  21. United Nations. 2018 Review of SDGs Implementation: SDG 11—Make Cities and Human Settlements Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable. In High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development; 2018; pp. 1–11. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/197282018_background_notes_SDG_11_v3.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2024).
  22. United Nations. 2023 Rescuing SDG 11 for a Resilient Urban Planet. 2023. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/rescuing-sdg-11-for-a-resilient-urban-planet (accessed on 17 January 2024).
  23. Global Goals. Sustainable Cities and Communities. Available online: https://www.globalgoals.org/goals/11-sustainable-cities-and-communities/ (accessed on 16 July 2024).
  24. Frumkin, H. Urban Sprawl and Public Health. Public Health Rep. 2002, 117, 201–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Amorim, J.H.; Engardt, M.; Johansson, C.; Ribeiro, I.; Sannebro, M.; Leandro Maia, R.; Oliveira, G. Regulating and Cultural Ecosystem Services of Urban Green Infrastructure in the Nordic Countries: A Systematic Review. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. European Environment Agency. Green infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. 2014. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/green-infrastructure-gi-2014-enhancing (accessed on 13 March 2024).
  27. Davis, M.; Naumann, S. Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; ISBN 9783319537504. [Google Scholar]
  28. Maes, J.; Jacobs, S. Nature-Based Solutions for Europe’s Sustainable Development. Conserv. Lett. 2017, 10, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. de Luca, C.; Naumann, S.; Davis, M.; Tondelli, S. Nature-based Solutions and Sustainable Urban Planning in the European Environmental Policy Framework: Analysis of the State of the Art and Recommendations for Future Development. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kabisch, N.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Hansen, R. Principles for Urban Nature-Based Solutions. Ambio 2022, 51, 1388–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Pinto, L.V.; Inácio, M.; Pereira, P. Green and Blue Infrastructure (GBI) and Urban Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) Contribution to Human and Ecological Well-Being and Health. Oxf. Open Infrastruct. Health 2023, 1, ouad004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wong, C.P.; Jiang, B.; Kinzig, A.P.; Ouyang, Z. Quantifying Multiple Ecosystem Services for Adaptive Management of Green Infrastructure. Ecosphere 2018, 9, e02495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. European Environment Agency. Green Infrastructure and Territorial Cohesion: The Concept of Green Infrastructure and Its Integration into Policies Using Monitoring Systems; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rayan, M.; Gruehn, D. Planning for Sustainable Green Urbanism: An Empirical Bottom-Up (Community-Led) Perspective on Green Infrastructure (GI) Indicators in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Pakistan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 11, 11844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zulian, G.; Marando, F.; Mentaschi, L.; Alzetta, C.; Wilk, B.; Maes, J. Green Balance in Urban Areas as an Indicator for Policy Support: A Multi-Level Application. One Ecosystem 2022, 7, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Evans, D.L.; Falagán, N.; Hardman, C.A.; Kourmpetli, S.; Liu, L.; Mead, B.R.; Davies, J.A.C. Ecosystem Service Delivery by Urban Agriculture and Green Infrastructure—A Systematic Review. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 54, 101405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Benefits of Green Infrastructure; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2024. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/benefits-green-infrastructure (accessed on 20 May 2024).
  38. Williamson, K.S.; Williamson, K. Growing with Green Infrastructure; Heritage Conservancy: Doylestown, PA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ersoy Mirici, M. The Ecosystem Services and Green Infrastructure: A Systematic Review and the Gap of Economic Valuation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Meneguetti, K.S.; de Oliveira, F.L. Reconsidering Green Belts, Green Wedges and Greenways. Acta Sci. Technol. 2021, 43, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Howard, E. Garden Cities of To-Morrow; Duke University Library: Durham, NC, USA, 1902. [Google Scholar]
  42. Cathy, D. Knepper Greenbelt, Maryland: A Living Legacy of the New Deal Creating the North American Landscape; Center for American Places; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MA, USA, 2001; Volume 275. [Google Scholar]
  43. Little, C.E. Greenways for America; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  44. Seiwert, A.; Rößler, S. Understanding the Term Green Infrastructure: Origins, Rationales, Semantic Content and Purposes as Well as Its Relevance for Application in Spatial Planning. Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Florida Greenways Commission. Creating a Statewide Greenways System: For People… for Wildlife… for Florida; Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Tallahassee, FL, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  46. Benedict, M.; McMahon, E.; Fund, T.; Bergen, L. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. In Bibliovault OAI Repository; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2006; Volume 22. [Google Scholar]
  47. Davies, C.; Lafortezza, R. Urban Green Infrastructure in Europe: Is Greenspace Planning and Policy Compliant? Land Use Policy 2017, 69, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Smart Conservation for the 21st Century. Green. Infrastruct. 2002, 20, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
  49. The Countryside Agency & Partners. Green Infrastructure: Planning Guide Project. 2006, pp. 1–82. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265012095_GREEN_INFRASTRUCTURE_PLANNING_GUIDE_Authors (accessed on 18 April 2024).
  50. Currie, J.; Borst, A.C.; Carter, M. Bibliometric Review of the Field of Australian Nurse Practitioner Research between January 2000 to May 2021. Collegian 2022, 29, 671–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Van Eck, N.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer Manual; Leiden University: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 1–82. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.18.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2023).
  52. Yanuar Zukmadini, A.; Ismail, I.; Rochman, S.; Rustaman, N.; Ramlan Ramalis, T.; Amri, K.; Ismail, I.; Hongko Putra, A. How Bibliometric Analysis Using VOSviewer Based on. ASEAN J. Sci. Eng. 2024, 4, 251–294. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381962595_How_Bibliometric_Analysis_Using_VOSviewer_Based_on (accessed on 15 July 2023).
  53. Passas, I. Bibliometric Analysis: The Main Steps. Encyclopedia 2024, 4, 1014–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Maes, J.; Fabrega Domenech, N.; Zulian, G.; Lopes Barbosa, A.; Vizcaino Martinez, M.; Ivits, E.; Polce, C.; Vandecasteele, I.; Mari Rivero, I.; Bastos De Morais Guerra, C.; et al. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services: Trends in Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in the European Union between 2000 and 2010; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  55. Mao, Y.; Li, Y.; Bai, X.; Yang, X.; Han, Y.; Fu, X. Scenario-Based Green Infrastructure Installations for Building Urban Stormwater Resilience—A Case Study of Fengxi New City, China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Daniels, B.J.; Yeakley, J.A. Catchment-Scale Hydrologic Effectiveness of Residential Rain Gardens: A Case Study in Columbia, Maryland, USA. Water 2024, 16, 1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jayasooriya, V.M.; Ng, A.W.M.; Muthukumaran, S.; Perera, B.J.C. Green Infrastructure Practices for Improvement of Urban Air Quality. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 21, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Picone, N.; Esposito, A.; Emmanuel, R.; Buccolieri, R. Potential Impacts of Green Infrastructure on NOx and PM10 in Different Local Climate Zones of Brindisi, Italy. Sustainability 2024, 16, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nastran, M.; Pintar, M.; Železnikar, Š.; Cvejić, R. Stakeholders’ Perceptions on the Role of Urban Green Infrastructure in Providing Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being. Land 2022, 11, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Valente, D.; Pasimeni, M.R.; Petrosillo, I. The Role of Green Infrastructures in Italian Cities by Linking Natural and Social Capital. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 108, 105694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jabbar, M.; Yusoff, M.M.; Shafie, A. Assessing the Role of Urban Green Spaces for Human Well-Being: A Systematic Review. Geo J. 2022, 87, 4405–4423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Chen, X.; de Vries, S.; Assmuth, T.; Dick, J.; Hermans, T.; Hertel, O.; Jensen, A.; Jones, L.; Kabisch, S.; Lanki, T.; et al. Research Challenges for Cultural Ecosystem Services and Public Health in (Peri-)Urban Environments. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 2118–2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Crouzat, E.; De Frutos, A.; Grescho, V.; Carver, S.; Büermann, A.; Carvalho-Santos, C.; Kraemer, R.; Mayor, S.; Pöpperl, F.; Rossi, C.; et al. Potential Supply and Actual Use of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Mountain Protected Areas and Their Surroundings. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 53, 101395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Andrade, M.; Fernandes, C.; Coutinho, A.; Figueiredo, A. Urban Green Infrastructure: Does Species’ Origin Impair Ecosystem Services Provision? Land 2024, 13, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cox, D.T.C.; Hudson, H.L.; Plummer, K.E.; Siriwardena, G.M.; Anderson, K.; Hancock, S.; Devine-Wright, P.; Gaston, K.J. Covariation in Urban Birds Providing Cultural Services or Disservices and People. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 2308–2319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Calatayud, V.; Cariñanos, P. Mapping Pollen Allergenicity from Urban Trees in Valencia: A Tool for Green Infrastructure Planning. Environ. Res. 2024, 252, 118823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cariñanos, P.; Ruiz-Peñuela, S.; Valle, A.M.; de la Guardia, C.D. Assessing Pollination Disservices of Urban Street-Trees: The Case of London-Plane Tree (Platanus x Hispanica Mill. Ex Münchh). Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 737, 139722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Stinson, L.T.; Pejchar, L. The Effects of Introduced Plants on Songbird Reproductive Success. Biol. Invasions 2018, 20, 1403–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mangan, A.M.; Pejchar, L.; Werner, S.J. Bird Use of Organic Apple Orchards: Frugivory, Pest Control and Implications for Production. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0183405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cleveland, C.J.; Betke, M.; Federico, P.; Frank, J.D.; Hallam, T.G.; Horn, J.; López, J.D.; McCracken, G.F.; Medellín, R.A.; Moreno-Valdez, A.; et al. Economic Value of the Pest Control Service Provided by Brazilian Free-Tailed Bats in South-Central Texas. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2006, 4, 238–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wong, S.M.; Montalto, F.A. Exploring the Long-Term Economic and Social Impact of Green Infrastructure in New York City. Water Resour. Res. 2020, 56, e2019WR027008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Uzonnah, O.E.; Chukwu, I.N.; Ibem, E.O. Influence of Perceived Social Benefits on Motives for Visiting Urban Green Infrastructure Spaces in Small and Medium-Sized Towns in Southeast Nigeria. Cities 2023, 135, 104240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Caparrós-Martínez, J.L.; Milán-García, J.; Martínez-Vázquez, R.M.; Valenciano, J.d.P. Green Infrastructures and Grand Environmental Challenges: A Review of Research Trends by Keyword. Agronomy 2021, 11, 782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Von Döhren, P.; Haase, D. Ecosystem Disservices Research: A Review of the State of the Art with a Focus on Cities. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 52, 490–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Costanza, R. Valuing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services toward the Goals of Efficiency, Fairness, and Sustainability. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 43, 101096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zhang, S.; Muñoz Ramírez, F. Assessing and Mapping Ecosystem Services to Support Urban Green Infrastructure: The Case of Barcelona, Spain. Cities 2019, 92, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Du, R.; Liu, B.; Xu, M. Current Status and Trends in Island Ecosystem Services Research: A Bibliometric Analysis from 2000 to 2023. Mar. Policy 2024, 163, 106098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ying, J.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Bilan, S. Green Infrastructure: Systematic Literature Review. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraz. 2022, 35, 343–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Naumann, S.; Davis, M.; Kaphengst, T.; Pieterse, M. Design, Implementation and Cost Elements of Green Infrastructure Projects: Acknowledgements. Ecologic Institute. 2011. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272352149_Design_implementation_and_cost_elements_of_Green_Infrastructure_projects (accessed on 13 July 2024).
  80. Okour, Y.; Shaweesh, H. Identifying the Barriers to Green Infrastructure Implementation in Semi-Arid Urban Areas Using the DPSIR Framework: A Case Study of Amman, Jordan. City Environ. Interact. 2024, 24, 100165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kulczyk, S.; Grzyb, T.; Woźniak, E.; Derek, M. Nature in Urban Green Spaces: Main Attractor or Nice Background? Drivers and Dynamics of Cultural Ecosystem Services Provision. Urban For. Urban Green. 2024, 96, 128328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 13 01664 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual green infrastructure system.
Figure 1. Conceptual green infrastructure system.
Land 13 01664 g001
Land 13 01664 g002
Figure 2. Flowchart of the study.
Figure 2. Flowchart of the study.
Land 13 01664 g002
Land 13 01664 g004
Figure 4. Co-authorship countries network map on “GI and cities” based on total link strength.
Figure 4. Co-authorship countries network map on “GI and cities” based on total link strength.
Land 13 01664 g004
Land 13 01664 g011
Figure 11. The most cited journals on the topic of “Green infrastructures, ecosystem services and cities”.
Figure 11. The most cited journals on the topic of “Green infrastructures, ecosystem services and cities”.
Land 13 01664 g011
Table 1. Terminology used by VOSviewer © software. Reprinted with permission from ref. [51] 2009–2023, Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman.
Table 1. Terminology used by VOSviewer © software. Reprinted with permission from ref. [51] 2009–2023, Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman.
TermDescription
ItemsObjects of interest (e.g., publications, researchers, keywords, authors).
LinkConnection or relation between two items (e.g., co-occurrence of keywords).
Link strength Attribute of each link, expressed by a positive numerical value. In the case of co-authorship links, the higher the value, the higher the number of publications the two researchers have co-authored.
NetworkSet of items connected by their links.
ClusterSet of items included in a map. One item can belong only to one cluster.
Number of linksThe number of links of an item with other items.
Total link strengthThe cumulative strength of the links of an item with other items such as between authors, keywords, or documents in a bibliographic dataset. The strength of a link between two items typically represents the frequency of co-occurrence or some other measure of association between them.
Table 2. Different VOSviewer © types of analyses used in this study. Reprinted with permission from ref. [51] 2009–2023, Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman.
Table 2. Different VOSviewer © types of analyses used in this study. Reprinted with permission from ref. [51] 2009–2023, Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman.
Type of AnalysesDescription
Co-authorshipIn co-authorship networks, researchers or countries are linked to each other based on the number of publications they have authored jointly.
Co-occurrenceThe number of co-occurrences of two keywords is the number of publications in which both keywords occur together in the title, abstract or keyword list.
CitationIn citation networks, two items are linked if at least one cites the other.
Table 4. Main countries based on total link strength generated by VOSviewer.
Table 4. Main countries based on total link strength generated by VOSviewer.
GI and CitiesESs and CitiesGI, ESs and Cities
Countries№ of DocumentsTotal Link StrengthCountries№ of DocumentsTotal Link StrengthCountries№ of DocumentsTotal Link Strength
USA840367USA1031830Germany112119
UK328355Germany472613UK96107
Germany285327UK408561USA174104
China397250China1869541Sweden5281
Sweden118197Sweden211366China8264
Italy275193Spain209349Italy11163
The Netherlands110175Italy417341The Netherlands2952
Table 5. Top keywords in the three search combinations based on total link strength generated by VOSviewer.
Table 5. Top keywords in the three search combinations based on total link strength generated by VOSviewer.
GI and Cities
KeywordOccurrencesTotal Link Strength
Green infrastructures 190911,040
Green spaces 7966313
Urban policy 7765858
Urban areas 6435659
Climate change 5223973
Ecosystem services 5483963
Storms 4553901
Cities 3213446
ESs and Cities
KeywordOccurrencesTotal Link Strength
Ecosystem services 351724,548
Ecosystems 148513,586
Urban areas 108610,006
Ecosystem 6668409
Cities 6697827
Land use 8047729
Urban policy 9147358
Urbanization 7997294
GI, ES and Cities
KeywordOccurrencesTotal Link Strength
Ecosystem services 5484125
Green infrastructures 4703229
Green spaces 2712516
Urban policy 2522185
Ecosystems 2002037
Urban areas 1922012
Cities 1051322
Urban ecosystem 1221231
Table 6. Top ten journals based on number of citations on the topic “GI, ES and cities”.
Table 6. Top ten journals based on number of citations on the topic “GI, ES and cities”.
SourceDocumentsCitations
Urban Forestry and Urban Greening683115
Landscape and Urban Planning453068
Ecological Indicators231579
Environmental Science and Policy121426
Sustainability (Switzerland)651382
Ambio51210
Ecosystem Services181177
Science of the total environment22982
Environmental Research7928
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health10699
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sokolova, M.V.; Fath, B.D.; Grande, U.; Buonocore, E.; Franzese, P.P. The Role of Green Infrastructure in Providing Urban Ecosystem Services: Insights from a Bibliometric Perspective. Land 2024, 13, 1664. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13101664

AMA Style

Sokolova MV, Fath BD, Grande U, Buonocore E, Franzese PP. The Role of Green Infrastructure in Providing Urban Ecosystem Services: Insights from a Bibliometric Perspective. Land. 2024; 13(10):1664. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13101664

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sokolova, Milena V., Brian D. Fath, Umberto Grande, Elvira Buonocore, and Pier Paolo Franzese. 2024. "The Role of Green Infrastructure in Providing Urban Ecosystem Services: Insights from a Bibliometric Perspective" Land 13, no. 10: 1664. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13101664

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop