4.7 Article

Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1890/090220

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Forest Service, Northern Global Change Program and Research Work Unit [NE-4952]
  2. US National Science Foundation [DEB 97-14835, DEB 99-75463, DEB 0423476, BCS 0948914, HSD 0624177]
  3. Center for Urban Environmental Research and Education, University of Maryland Baltimore County (NOAA) [NA06O AR4310243, NA07OAR4170518]
  4. NOAA EPP Environmental Cooperative Science Center [NA06O AR4810164]
  5. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Nonpoint Source Management Section [G0188, G0262]
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences [0918905] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci
  8. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [0948914] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. Division Of Environmental Biology [0918905] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urban green space is purported to offset greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, remove air and water pollutants, cool local climate, and improve public health. To use these services, municipalities have focused efforts on designing and implementing ecosystem-services-based green infrastructure in urban environments. In some cases the environmental benefits of this infrastructure have been well documented, but they are often unclear, unquantified, and/or outweighed by potential costs. Quantifying biogeochemical processes in urban green infrastructure can improve our understanding of urban ecosystem services and disservices (negative or unintended consequences) resulting from designed urban green spaces. Here we propose a framework to integrate biogeochemical processes into designing, implementing, and evaluating the net effectiveness of green infrastructure, and provide examples for GHG mitigation, stormwater runoff mitigation, and improvements in air quality and health.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据