UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SÃO CARLOS - Campus Sorocaba CENTRO DE CIÊNCIAS E TECNOLOGIAS PARA A SUSTENTABILIDADE PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM SUSTENTABILIDADE NA GESTÃO AMBIENTAL VALÉRIA LETÍCIA MARQUES BARBOSA PROTOCOLO PARA AVALIAÇÃO DE SERVIÇOS ECOSSISTÊMICOS EM ÁREAS VERDES E FLORESTAS URBANAS Sorocaba 2024 Valéria Letícia Marques Barbosa Protocolo para avaliação de serviços ecossistêmicos em áreas verdes e florestas urbanas Dissertação submetida ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Sustentabilidade na Gestão Ambiental da Universidade Federal de São Carlos para obtenção do título de Mestra em Sustentabilidade na Gestão Ambiental. Orientadora: Profa. Dra. Eliana Cardoso Leite Sorocaba 2024 Marques Barbosa, Valéria Letícia Protocolo para avaliação de serviços ecossistêmicos em áreas verdes e florestas urbanas / Valéria Letícia Marques Barbosa -- 2024. 148f. Dissertação (Mestrado) - Universidade Federal de São Carlos, campus Sorocaba, Sorocaba Orientador (a): Eliana Cardoso Leite Banca Examinadora: Profa. Dra. Eliana Cardoso Leite, Prof. Dr. Luciano Elsinor Lopes, Dra. Jussara de Lima Carvalho Bibliografia 1. Serviços ecossistêmicos. 2. Gestão ambiental. 3. Ecossistemas urbanos. I. Marques Barbosa, Valéria Letícia. II. Título. Ficha catalográfica desenvolvida pela Secretaria Geral de Informática (SIn) Bibliotecário responsável: Maria Aparecida de Lourdes Mariano - CRB/8 6979 Valéria Letícia Marques Barbosa Protocolo para avaliação de serviços ecossistêmicos em áreas verdes e florestas urbanas O presente trabalho em nível de Mestrado foi avaliado e aprovado, em 09 de setembro de 2024, pela banca examinadora composta pelos seguintes membros: Profa. Dra. Eliana Cardoso Leite Universidade Federal de São Carlos Prof. Dr. Luciano Elsinor Lopes Universidade Federal de São Carlos Dra. Jussara de Lima Carvalho Secretaria de Meio Ambiente, Infraestrutura e Logística do Estado de São Paulo Certificamos que esta é a versão original e final do trabalho de conclusão que foi julgado adequado para obtenção do título de Mestra em Sustentabilidade na Gestão Ambiental. ___________________________ Coordenação do Programa de Pós-Graduação ____________________________ Profa. Dra. Eliana Cardoso Leite Orientadora Sorocaba, 2024 Dedico este trabalho às minhas avós e falecido avô, cujos olhinhos sempre brilham (e brilhavam) com orgulho e admiração quando falo dos meus estudos. AGRADECIMENTOS Gostaria de agradecer imensamente à minha orientadora, que confiou em mim e sempre se demonstrou tão solícita, interessada, proativa, e prestativa, desde 2019, em que a idealização do trabalho ainda era foco de iniciação científica. Agradeço aos meus amigos Pedro Poleti, Gabriel Telo Mariano e André Fogaça, assim como minha namorada Natalia, que me acompanharam nas minhas dezenas de saídas de campo ao longo dos anos. Agradeço ao professor Dr. Luiz Carlos de Faria, que me auxiliou no processo da revisão sistemática, assim como ao Ms. Leonardo Ferreira da Silva e à Msa. Vanessa Peixoto, que me auxiliaram na revisão do artigo do protocolo e o acompanham também desde 2019. Também gostaria de agradecer aos funcionários dos parques e da Secretaria do Meio Ambiente de Sorocaba que me ajudaram em campo, como o Sr. Quico, ex-funcionário do Parque Ouro Fino, Maurício Tavares Mota ex-secretário do Meio Ambiente, e a Tainara ex- funcionária da SEMA, assim como incontáveis outros como funcionários que me acompanharam durante os testes, que prestaram informações, ou que facilitaram meu acesso durante os tempos da pandemia, e que infelizmente não me recordo dos nomes. Finalmente, agradeço à minha família: meus pais, avós, tias, padrinhos, que sempre se mostraram tão presentes, acreditaram em mim e me acompanharam durante todo o meu percurso profissional, dando suporte, me acompanhando e assistindo eventos e apresentações, e até mesmo auxiliando financeiramente, quando precisei. RESUMO Áreas verdes urbanas fornecem serviços ecossistêmicos, benefícios que as pessoas obtêm dos ecossistemas, os quais são agrupados em quatro categorias: cultural, provisão, regulação e suporte. Pesquisadores criaram e testaram alguns protocolos para avaliar serviços ecossistêmicos em áreas urbanizadas de regiões temperadas, mas países em desenvolvimento carecem de estudos, apesar das suas distintas realidades ambientais e sociais. Então, o objetivo do presente mestrado é propor um instrumento que qualquer técnico em um país em desenvolvimento possa utilizar de forma simples, rápida, porém ainda sensível. Como diferentes áreas verdes possuem diferentes potenciais para fornecer serviços ecossistêmicos de acordo com suas propriedades e objetivos, o protocolo deve avaliar a qualidade do fornecimento de serviços, medindo fraquezas e forças de cada área. Primeiro, foi realizada revisão sistemática da literatura para avaliar o estado da arte do tema, de acordo com o método PRISMA. Então, foram escolhidos indicadores para serviços ecossistêmicos que representassem as quatro categorias; eles deveriam ser sensíveis, de fácil aplicação, e adaptados para ambientes urbanos. Os indicadores foram ranqueados em quatro notas que representavam a qualidade do fornecimento de serviços na área: I- extremamente insatisfatório, II- insatisfatório, III- satisfatório e IV- extremamente satisfatório. Testes empíricos para calibrar o protocolo e avaliar o fornecimento de cada serviço ecossistêmico foram realizados na cidade de Sorocaba, durante o outono. A comparação entre as áreas demonstrou que o protocolo é sensível para indicador diferenças entre as áreas, e pode servir como instrumento de gestão pra as secretarias de meio- ambiente municipais. Por final, pontua-se que as áreas verdes urbanas podem atender, com o planejamento adequado, uma multiplicidade de benefícios para a população em diversas frentes. Então, áreas que englobam elementos sociais e ambientais, em conjunto, destacam-se com a mais completa oferta de serviços ecossistêmicos e bem-estar. Palavras-chave: planejamento verde urbano; infraestrutura verde; índice de serviços ecossistêmicos. ABSTRACT Urban green areas provide ecosystem services, benefits people obtain from ecosystems, which are clustered in four categories: Cultural, Provisioning, Regulating and Supporting. Researchers have created and tested some protocol to assess ecosystem services in urbanised areas of temperate regions; nevertheless, development countries lack studies, notwithstanding their distinct environmental and social realities. Hence, this master's program objective to propose an instrument that any development-country technician is able to use simply, rapidly, but still sensitively. As different green areas possess different potentials to deliver ecosystem services, according to their properties and goals, the protocol must assess ES, evaluating weaknesses and strengths for each area. First, a systematic literature review was carried out to assess theme's state of art, according to PRISMA method. Subsequently, ES indicators were selected to assess the four categories; they ought to be sensitive, user-friendly, and adapted to urban environments. Indicators were ranked in four grades which represented the ES supply quality in the area: I- extremely unsatisfactory, II- unsatisfactory, III- satisfactory and IV- extremely satisfactory. Empirical tests to calibrate the protocol and assess each ES supply were performed in autumn, in the city of Sorocaba. Areas comparison demonstrated the protocol is sensitive to identify differences amongst areas, and may serve as a management instrument for municipal environmental secretaries. Finally, it is pointed out that urban green areas may attend, with proper planning, a multitude of benefits for the population on several fronts. Thus, areas which embrace social and environmental elements combined stand out with the most complete offer of ES and well-being. Keywords: urban green planning; green infrastructure; ecosystem services index. LISTA DE FIGURAS ARTIGO 1 Figura 1 - Mapa de rede de coocorrência de palavras-chave no vosviewer ........................ 24 Figura 2 - Diagrama de fluxo prisma .................................................................................... 25 Figura 3 - Distribuição das Publicações em Revistas dos Estudos Incluídos na Revisão Sistemática ........................................................................................................................... 26 Figura 4 - Cronologia de publicação dos estudos incluídos na Revisão Sistemática ........... 27 Figura 5 - Distribuição Geográfica dos Locais dos Estudos por países ................................ 28 Figura 6 - Tipos de serviços ecossistêmicos encontrados na Revisão Sistemática de Literatura ............................................................................................................................................... 28 Figura 7 - Tipos de áreas verdes avaliadas empiricamente pelos autores dos artigos incluídos na Revisão Sistemática de Literatura ................................................................................... 30 ARTIGO 3 Figuras 1 e 2 - Parque das Águas (fotografia) ...................................................................... 71 Figura 3 - Parque das Águas (Imagem de satélite) ............................................................... 72 Figuras 4 e 5 - Parque Campolim (fotografia) ..................................................................... 73 Figura 6 - Parque Campolim (Imagem de satélite) ............................................................... 74 Figuras 7 e 8 - Parque Miguel Gregório (Fotografia) ........................................................... 75 Figura 9 - Parque Miguel Gregório (Imagem de satélite) ..................................................... 76 Figuras 10 e 11 - Parque da Biquinha (Fotografia) .............................................................. 77 Figura 12 - Parque da Biquinha (Imagem de satélite) .......................................................... 78 Figuras 13 e 14 - Parque da Água Vermelha (Fotografia) .................................................... 79 Figura 15 - Parque da Água Vermelha (Imagem de satélite) ............................................... 80 Figuras 16 e 17 - Parque Ouro Fino (Fotografia) ................................................................. 81 Figura 18 - Parque Ouro Fino (Imagem de satélite) ............................................................. 81 Figuras 19 e 20 – Floresta Cultural (Fotografia) .................................................................. 82 Figura 21 – Floresta Cultural (Imagem de satélite) .............................................................. 83 Figura 22 – Lago do Parque das Águas, porção levemente eutrofizada ............................... 87 Figura 23 – Lago do Campolim (condição satisfatória) ....................................................... 87 Figura 24 – Lago do Campolim (condição insatisfatória) .................................................... 88 Figura 25 – Lago do Parque da Água Vermelha (condição satisfatória) ............................. 88 Figura 26 – Lago do Parque da Água Vermelha (condição insatisfatória) ........................... 89 Figura 27 – Córrego na Floresta Cultural ............................................................................. 90 Figura 28 – Lagos na Floresta Cultural ................................................................................. 91 Figura 29 – Córrego no Parque da Biquinha ........................................................................ 91 Figura 30 – Lago natural no Parque da Biquinha ................................................................. 92 Figura 31 – Córrego no Parque Ouro Fino ........................................................................... 92 Figura 32 – Córrego no Parque Miguel Gregório, com presença de resíduos sólidos .......... 93 Figura 33 – Lago no parque Miguel Gregório ...................................................................... 93 Figura 34 – Trilhas dinâmicas na floresta florestal ............................................................... 99 Figura 35 – Trilha das pedras no parque da Biquinha ........................................................ 100 Figuras 36 e 37 – Trilha no Parque Ouro Fino ................................................................... 101 Figura 38 – Trilha no parque Miguel Gregório .................................................................. 102 Figura 39 – Pista de caminhada no parque Miguel Gregório ............................................. 102 Figuras 40 e 41 – Pistas de caminhada no parque Campolim ............................................. 103 Figuras 42 e 43 – Pista de caminhada no Parque das Águas .............................................. 104 Figura 44 – Pista de caminhada permeável no Parque da Água Vermelha ........................ 105 Figura 45 –Pista de caminhada adaptada para PCD no Parque da Água Vermelha ........... 106 Figura 46 – Trecho do córrego do parque Miguel Gregório, próximo à nascente .............. 110 Figura 47 – Nascente modelo do parque da Biquinha ........................................................ 110 Figura 48 – Nascente modelo do parque da Água Vermelha ............................................. 111 Figura 49 – Nascente perene na Floresta Cultural .............................................................. 112 Figura 50 – Nascente no Parque Ouro Fino ........................................................................ 112 Figura 51 – Árvores isoladas no Parque das Águas ............................................................ 117 Figuras 52 e 53 – Estrato do parque Campolim .................................................................. 118 Figuras 54 e 55 – Estratos no Parque da Água Vermelha ................................................... 119 Figuras 56 e 57 – Estratos no parque Miguel Gregório ...................................................... 120 Figuras 58 e 59 – Estratos no parque da Biquinha .............................................................. 121 Figuras 60 e 61 – Estratos florestais no Parque Ouro Fino ................................................. 122 Figuras 62 e 63 – Estratos florestais na Floresta Cultural .................................................. 122 LISTA DE TABELAS E QUADROS ARTIGO 2 Table 1. Ecosystem Services Assessment Protocol ............................................................. 52 Table 2. Selected Cultural ES indicators and evaluation procedures ................................... 53 Table 3. Selected Provisioning ES indicators and evaluation procedures ........................... 53 Table 4. Selected Regulating ES indicators and evaluation procedures ............................... 55 Table 5. Selected Supporting ES indicators and evaluation procedures ............................... 56 ARTIGO 3 Quadro 1 – Classificação da oferta de serviços ecossistêmicos .......................................... 84 Tabela 1 – Áreas (em ha) ...................................................................................................... 85 Tabela 2 - Notas recebidas pelas áreas verdes urbanas testadas para cada um dos indicadores avaliados ............................................................................................................................... 85 Tabela 3 - Notas parciais (categorias) e finais para cada área verde urbana testada ......... 124 Quadro 2 – Classificação das áreas verdes testadas, segundo a oferta de serviços ecossistêmicos (das 4 categorias – culturais, provisão, regulação, suporte) ...................... 124 LISTA DE ABREVIATURAS E SIGLAS AIA Áreas de Interesse Ambiental CICES Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services CO2 Carbon dioxide (dióxido de carbono) COAVES Clube de Observadores de Aves de Sorocaba COVID-19 Infecção respiratória aguda causada pelo coronavírus SARS-Cov-2 oC graus Celsius dB(s) decibels (decibéis) dB(A) decibels in A-weighting (decibéis em ponderação A) ES Ecosystem Services (Serviços Ecossistêmicos) ELUPIS Espaços Livres de Uso Público e Interesse Social GDP Growth Domestic Product (Produto Interno Bruto - PIB) GE Google Earth h hora ha hectare(s) HDI Human Development Index (Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano - IDH) indiv. individuals (indivíduos) IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística km kilometres (quilômetros) km² square kilometres (quilômetros quadrados) LGBT Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender LGBTQIA+ Pessoas Lésbicas, Gays, Bissexuais, Transgêneros, Queer, Intersexos, Assexuais e outras m metres (metros) m² square metres (metros quadrados) MEA Millenium Ecosystem Services (Avaliação Ecossistêmica do Milênio) PAR Protocolo de Avaliação Rápida PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses ONG Organização Não-Governamental RAP Rapid Assessment Protocol SEMIL Secretaria de Meio Ambiente, Infraestrutura e Logística do Estado de São Paulo spp. espécies SSF Semideciduous Seasonal Forest (Floresta Estacional Semidecidual) t tons (toneladas) UA Urban Area (Áreas Urbanas) UC Unidade de Conservação UGA Urban Green Areas (Áreas Verdes Urbanas) UM United Nations (Organização das Nações Unidas – ONU) SUMÁRIO 2 INTRODUÇÃO GERAL 16 3 OBJETIVOS 18 3.1 OBJETIVOS GERAIS ............................................................................................. 18 3.2 OBJETIVOS ESPECÍFICOS ................................................................................... 18 4 ARTIGO 1: COMPOSITE-INDICATORS FOR URBAN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AT SITE-LEVEL: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW 20 4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 21 4.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................. 22 4.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 23 4.4 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 33 4.5 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 33 5 ARTIGO 2: ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ASSESSMENT IN URBAN GREEN AREAS AND URBAN FORESTS - RAPID ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL FOR CITIES 44 5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 45 5.2 METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES .................................................................. 47 Indicators Selection ................................................................................................................ 48 Protocol Construction ............................................................................................................ 49 Protocol Calibration ............................................................................................................... 50 5.3 RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 51 5.4 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 57 5.5 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 59 5.6 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 59 6 ARTIGO 3: OS SERVIÇOS ECOSSISTÊMICOS OFERECIDOS POR ÁREAS VERDES E FLORESTAS URBANAS EM SOROCABA/SP. 67 6.1 INTRODUÇÃO ........................................................................................................ 67 6.2 MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS ..................................................................................... 69 6.2.1 Área de estudo ................................................................................................................ 69 6.2.2.1 Parque das Águas “Maria Barbosa Silva” (ELUPIS) ............................................. 70 6.2.2.2 Parque Carlos Alberto de Souza — Parque Campolim (ELUPIS) .......................... 72 6.2.2.3 Parque Miguel Gregório de Oliveira — Parque do Santa Bárbara (ELUPIS) ....... 74 6.2.2.4 Parque Natural da Biquinha (AIA) .......................................................................... 76 6.2.2.5 Parque Natural Municipal da Água Vermelha “João Câncio Pereira” (AIA) ........ 78 6.2.2.6 Parque Natural Ouro Fino (AIA) ............................................................................. 80 6.2.2.7 Floresta Cultural do Parque Três Meninos (UC) .................................................... 82 6.2.2 Indicadores e testes ........................................................................................................ 83 6.2.3 Cálculo das notas ........................................................................................................... 84 6.3 RESULTADOS E DISCUSSÃO.............................................................................. 84 1.1.1 Indicadores Culturais ............................................................................................. 86 6.3.1.1 Água .............................................................................................................................. 86 6.3.1.2 Flores ............................................................................................................................ 93 6.3.1.3 Animais atrativos .......................................................................................................... 95 6.3.1.4 Acessibilidade ............................................................................................................... 96 6.3.1.5 Atividades e eventos ..................................................................................................... 97 6.3.1.6 Pistas de caminhada ..................................................................................................... 98 6.3.1.7 Aves (vocalização) e sons de água ............................................................................. 107 6.3.1.8 Visitação guiada ou auto-guiada ............................................................................... 107 6.3.2 Indicadores de Provisão .............................................................................................. 108 6.3.2.1 Árvores frutíferas .................................................................................................... 108 6.3.2.2 Nascentes .................................................................................................................... 109 6.3.3 Indicadores de Regulação ........................................................................................... 113 6.3.3.1 Fragmentos florestados (sequestro de carbono) ........................................................ 113 6.3.3.2 Temperatura ............................................................................................................... 113 6.3.3.3 Sombreamento ............................................................................................................ 114 6.3.3.4 Solo protegido ............................................................................................................ 114 6.3.3.5 Solo drenante .............................................................................................................. 114 6.3.3.6 Ruído ........................................................................................................................... 115 6.3.4 Indicadores de Suporte ............................................................................................... 116 6.3.4.1 Cobertura de dossel .................................................................................................... 116 6.3.4.2 Estratificação ............................................................................................................. 116 6.3.4.3 Serrapilheira ............................................................................................................... 123 6.3.5 Comparação entre as áreas ......................................................................................... 123 7 CONCLUSÃO GERAL 134 REFERÊNCIAS.................................................................................................... 135 APÊNDICE A – LITERATURE KEY-ASPECTS FOR PROTOCOL CONSTRUCTION................................................................................................ 143 16 2 INTRODUÇÃO GERAL Os benefícios advindos dos ecossistemas que afetam diretamente o bem-estar humano são chamados de "serviços ecossistêmicos" (SE) (MEA, 2005). Os serviços ecossistêmicos podem ser agrupados em 4 categorias: provisão (fornecimento de materiais como alimento e água); regulação (climática, hídrica, etc.); suporte (funções biogeoquímicas); e cultural (benefícios não-materiais) (MEA, 2005). Visto que o julgamento para a conservação, na prática, se baseia mais nos valores humanos do que em estudos científicos sobre ameaças à biodiversidade, um enfoque sobre os SE fornece mais argumentos para a comunidade científica embasar suas motivações conservacionistas (MACE et al., 2012). Estes argumentos podem ser mais convincentes para a população e, por conseguinte, mais úteis para validar políticas públicas. Um enfoque no ambiente urbano se faz então necessário, posto que as pessoas podem aprender a valorizar mais facilmente algo que está no seu cotidiano, que pode ser utilizado, e que está próximo da sua área de vivência. Este enfoque também se faz urgente, posto que as consequências da perda destes serviços já podem ser sentidas pelas pessoas, como as “ilhas de calor” nas cidades e o aumento na poluição atmosférica. Contudo, as áreas verdes urbanas são muito heterogêneas, fato que reflete na entrega de cada categoria de SE. Logo, é de interesse o desenvolvimento de um instrumento, tal como um protocolo, que avalie o fornecimento de SE em cada área, de acordo com suas características. Pesquisadores criaram e testaram alguns protocolos para avaliar os SE em áreas urbanas em países de clima temperado; contudo, regiões tropicais e países em desenvolvimento, caracterizados por fitofisionomias e sistemas sociais distintos, contam com uma escassez de estudos (BOTZAT et al., 2016; HAASE et al., 2014; KLEINSCHOTH e KOWARIK, 2020; SCHEWENIUS et. al., 2004). Estudos multidimensionais são necessários para preencher lacunas de conhecimento nestas regiões socio-ecológicas, de forma a construir uma resiliência em cidades que já estão enfrentando mudanças climáticas (BOTZAT et al, 2016; HAASE et al., 2014; MUÑOZ PACHECO & VILLASEÑOR, 2022). Os protocolos existentes também são de difícil adaptação e aplicação para os países em desenvolvimento, por exemplo: enquanto Dobbs et al. (2011) selecionaram indicadores onerosos, como a realização de estudos laboratoriais, Brzoska et al. (2021) criaram um protocolo padronizado e de fácil aplicação, contudo, segundo os próprios autores, que ainda 17 precisaria de pessoal altamente treinado. Estas demandas são dissonantes com uma falta de recursos econômicos e pessoal, como muitas vezes é a realidade de secretarias de meio ambiente de países com economia emergente (GRUNEWALD et al., 2021). Um estudo que cubra mais de uma dimensão de SE também é raro (HAASE et al., 2014). Foi criado, durante iniciação científica, nos anos de 2019 e 2020, um protocolo para avaliação de serviços ecossistêmicos oriundos de áreas verdes urbanas, adaptado para o município de Sorocaba, com indicadores sensíveis para mostrar as diferenças na quantidade e qualidade dos SE entregues por diferentes áreas verdes, evidenciando quais áreas provém quais serviços e o porquê. O protocolo possui aplicação fácil e relativamente rápida, de forma a poder ser aplicado por pessoal de nível médio, com treinamento relativamente simples. A opinião de especialistas, metodologia utilizada na construção do protocolo para estabelecer classes, é a forma mais frequente dentre as utilizadas na literatura (BURKHARD et. al., 2014; CAMPAGNE et. al., 2020). A presença dos especialistas, em painéis, é, inclusive, um processo legítimo que, quando envolve realização de workshops, promove entendimento dos tomadores de decisão e formuladores de políticas públicas (CAMPAGNE et. al., 2020). O protocolo proposto deverá continuar a ser, então, de fácil utilização e entendimento, porém ainda sensível para identificar a diferença entre as áreas, e respaldado cientificamente. O protocolo poderá ser utilizado (com pouco treinamento prévio) por técnicos de prefeituras na avaliação da qualidade das áreas verdes. O mestrado resultou na submissão de dois artigos científicos, um para uma revista qualis B5 com uma revisão sistemática da literatura (foi aprovado), outro para revista qualis A3, acerca da construção e calibragem do protocolo (está em análise pela revista) e o terceiro artigo está em construção e será apresentado em 4º Fórum Latino-americano de Florestas Urbanas, da FAO, e posteriormente submetido para publicação. Este último artigo é uma análise das áreas verdes de Sorocaba, aplicando o protocolo. 18 3 OBJETIVOS 3.1 OBJETIVOS GERAIS O enfoque do presente mestrado é aprimorar o protocolo criado previamente em iniciação científica, atualizá-lo e realizar testes em mais áreas, agora com um contexto pós-pandêmico. A presente pesquisa de mestrado tem como objetivo aprimorar o Protocolo de Avaliação Rápida (PAR) (Rapid Assessment Protocol) para avaliação de SE oriundos de áreas verdes urbanas, criado durante iniciação científica. Todos os ajustes visam aumentar a precisão metodológica e a confiabilidade dos resultados do protocolo. 3.2 OBJETIVOS ESPECÍFICOS I- Atualizar a revisão da literatura quanto às publicações dos anos de 2021 a 2023, para verificar sobre possíveis novas metodologias disponíveis, mais simples e rápidas; II- Aprimorar o intervalo entre as classes, e aprofundar a metodologia de cada indicador, quando necessário; III- Realizar novos testes: a) em áreas diferentes, para alcançar um número amostral maior e mais abrangente em relação aos números alcançados durante a iniciação científica; b) em algumas das mesmas áreas, para atualizar os dados de coleta e permitir uma comparação confiável, dado que a realidade dos parques pode estar muito diferente desde a pandemia de COVID-19. 19 “Biodiversidade é a biblioteca da vida” (Thomas Lovejoy, ambientalista) 20 4 ARTIGO 1: COMPOSITE-INDICATORS FOR URBAN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AT SITE-LEVEL: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW INDICADORES COMPOSTOS PARA SERVIÇOS ECOSSISTÊMICOS URBANOS EM NÍVEL LOCAL: UMA REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA DE LITERATURA ABSTRACT Urban green areas, crucial components of green infrastructure, provide a variety of ecosystem services (ES) essential for enhancing the quality of life in cities. The quantity and quality of these ES are estimated and evaluated using indicators that serve as urban planning tools. However, these indicators are often challenging to generalize as they have been developed for specific locations and situations, frequently focusing on just one dimension - ecological, environmental, or economic. In this context, this study explored indicators for ES in urban green areas found in scientific articles from Scopus, Web of Science, and Scielo, through a Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Literature Review following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol. Upon thorough examination of the 37 articles resulting from PRISMA, a predominance of indicators related to regulating services, particularly in urban parks, followed by cultural and supporting services, was observed. A diversity of indicators, methodologies, and analysis frameworks for ES was identified without a clear standardization, potentially complicating their application in urban green infrastructure planning and management. A research gap was noted regarding ES indicators studies in tropical and subequatorial urban environments, especially those that establish connections between ES and the necessary innovations to promote them. Keywords: Urban Management; Urban Green Areas; Environmental Indicators. Urban arborization. RESUMO As áreas verdes urbanas, partes essenciais da infraestrutura verde, fornecem uma variedade de serviços ecossistêmicos (SE) para a melhoria da qualidade de vida nas cidades. A quantidade e qualidade dos SE são avaliadas por meio de indicadores que servem como ferramentas de planejamento urbano. No entanto, muitas vezes, esses indicadores são difíceis de generalizar, uma vez que foram desenvolvidos para localidades e situações específicas, abrangendo frequentemente apenas uma dimensão - ecológica, ambiental ou econômica. Neste contexto, este estudo investigou indicadores para SE em áreas verdes urbanas encontrados em artigos científicos da Scopus, Web of Science e Scielo, por meio de uma Análise Bibliométrica 21 e Revisão Sistemática de Literatura conforme o protocolo PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Após a leitura completa dos 37 artigos resultantes do PRISMA, observou-se a predominância de indicadores associados aos serviços de regulação, especialmente em parques urbanos, seguidos por serviços culturais e de suporte. Foi identificada uma diversidade de indicadores, metodologias e estruturas de análise para SE sem uma padronização clara, o que pode dificultar sua aplicação no planejamento e gestão da infraestrutura verde nas cidades. Foi identificada uma lacuna na pesquisa de indicadores de SE em ambientes urbanos tropicais e subequatoriais, especialmente naquelas que estabelecem conexões entre os SE e as inovações necessárias para promovê-los. Palavras-chave: Gestão ambiental; Áreas verdes urbanas; Indicadores Ambientais; Arborização urbana. 4.1 INTRODUCTION Ecosystems provide essential benefits to human society, collectively referred to as ecosystem services (ES). The concept of ES was formulated to emphasize the increasing threats to ecosystems posed by human activities while underscoring the superior advantages of natural environments compared to deforested areas (Pesche et al., 2012). In urban environments, urban forests play an essential role, offering a diverse range of ecological, social, and economic benefits. However, the management and conservation of urban forests present multifaceted challenges (Locosselli and Buckeridge, 2023). Urban forests contribute significantly to the four primary categories of ecosystem services (Locosselli and Buckeridge, 2023; MEA, 2005): (i) cultural services: which encompass non-material benefits such as education and recreation; (ii) provisioning services: which involve consumable products like food and water; (iii) regulating services: which include processes like climate amelioration; and (iv) supporting services: which maintain functional cycles such as nutrient cycling. In addition to natural ecosystems, urban green areas (UGA) serve as vital green infrastructures (UGAs). The post-COVID-19 era has witnessed a substantial surge in demand for UGAs, emphasizing their critical role in providing localized ecosystem services (KIM and SON, 2022). Each UGA offers unique sets of ecosystem services, and necessitates the development of effective assessment tools to aid landscape designers in their evaluation. Indicators play a crucial role in simplifying the complexity of ecosystems (Kelly and Harwell, 1990), facilitating the assessment of ecosystem services in UGAs. While economic frameworks have been popular for ecosystem services evaluation, they have faced criticisms 22 regarding their applicability (Engström and Gren, 2017; Brzoska et al., 2021), advocating for the utilization of biophysical indicators, especially for non-cultural services (Cortinovis et al., 2021). Many services are economically incommensurable, and could not be charged, like the right to breathe fresh air. Regarding to scale, a site-level assessment focus provides more detail about the ES supply in each UGA (Daniels et al., 2018; Caprioli et al., 2020; Brzoska et al., 2021; Veerkamp et al., 2021). Several ecological indicators assess ES, and studies in urban landscapes and UAs are increasing. However, those indicators are scattered in the literature, as most studies elaborate and test a single indicator (Charoenkit and Kampanart, 2019). Likewise, when more than a single ES is analyzed, the ES usually belong to the same category (e.g. waste treatment and pollination, which are both regulating services). Nonetheless, a multidimensional approach for the supply of ES in UA areas is certainly useful for urban planning and design. A composite-indicator solves the multifunctionality problem. Composite indicators combine sets of individual indicators into a single index (Saisana, 2004; Alam et al., 2016). Authors quantify ES in UGAs with diverse methodological approaches and give composite indicators different names: protocol, indexes, frameworks, or do not name them at all. Hence, there is neither standardization nor consensually accepted composite-indicators that comprehend all types of UGA, UA, ES or eco-regions (Longsdon and Chaubey, 2013; Pakzad and Osmond, 2015; Szücs et al., 2015; Bartesaghi Koc et al., 2018; Veerkamp et al., 2021). Therefore, this study aims to organize non-economic composite indicators designed for or tested in urban green areas at the site level. The specifics objectives are: (i) identify publication trends; (ii) compare different methodologies, indicators and indexes; (iii) identify what kind of ES categories, services and indicators are currently assessed in urban contexts; (iv) identify which green areas are focused; and (v) indicate future research directions. 4.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS This Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Literature Review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, following the approach outlined by Pahlevan et al. (2018) and Page et al. (2021). The review criteria encompassed documents in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, with a special consideration for systematic reviews due to their efficiency in identifying aggregated environmental services and indicators. Eligibility criteria for articles included the presentation of non-economic indicators, expert-applied methodologies for assessing multiple ecosystem services, and a specific focus 23 on urban green areas (UGAs), especially for urban arborization, at the site level, in accordance with the criteria proposed by Robinson and Lundholm (2012). Key inclusion criteria for selected articles were as follows: (i) the presentation of a composite index encompassing multiple ecosystem services, either through methodological innovation or by referencing existing works, with a clear definition of ecosystem services, such as pollination or recreation; (ii) the assessment of UGA's capacity to provide ecosystem services, excluding articles that did not correlate UGA characteristics with ecosystem service provision; (iii) the application of biophysical indicators by experts, directly related to ecosystem services, while excluding indicators focused on area design, perception, demand, or economic aspects; (iv) the individual assessment in urban contexts, excluding broader land cover comparisons or national-level analyses. Data collection involved the identification of seminal articles by Dobbs et al. (2011) and Gomez-Baggethun and Barton (2013) and Gaudereto et al. (2018), which proposed ecosystem services indexes for UGAs. Keywords derived from these studies were augmented to encompass broader terms, considering the variable use of 'environmental services' and 'ecosystem services' in the literature, as discussed by Tancoigne et al. (2014), and Lamarque et al. (2011). The final search string in English included terms such as 'indicators,' 'framework,' 'valuation,' and 'assessment,' without imposing date restrictions. The search was conducted across Scopus, Web of Science, and Scielo databases on December 2022, with a focus on titles, abstracts, and keywords. Google Scholar was excluded due to its tendency to generate broad results and its limited filtering capabilities. Data analysis involved exporting metadata for identified records in RIS format for import into Rayyan, a systematic review management tool (Rayyan, 2022). Rayyan facilitated the identification of duplicates and initial labeling of articles. Two independent reviewers conducted abstract screening, with full reviews conducted for eligible texts. The data analysis process included the extraction and coding of relevant information from eligible papers, including a pilot test on 10 papers to refine data coding. The extracted data covered publication trends, geographical patterns, categories of ecosystem services, indicators used, key aspects of documents, UGA assessment, and the structure of frameworks. All data were recorded in an Excel sheet for comprehensive analysis. 4.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The Bibliometric Analysis network visualization produced by VOSviewer (Figure 1) elucidates keyword clusters, where the colour of each circle signifies its cluster group, and circle 24 size reflects the strength of interrelationships among keywords. This visualization provides a nuanced perspective on keyword interplay and their significance within the realm of ecosystem services in urban green areas. Figure 1. VosViewer Keyword Network Map. Figura 1. Mapa de rede de coocorrência de palavras-chave no VosViewer. Source: Own authorship (2024). Our comprehensive search across databases yielded a total of 1209 records. Following the process of duplicate removal and assessment against inclusion criteria using the Rayyan software, we retained 37 studies for the final analysis, as depicted in Figure 2. Importantly, this figure provides a detailed breakdown, shedding light on the specific exclusion criteria that led to the omission of certain studies, ensuring transparency in our selection process. 25 * A single study may have reached more than one exclusion criteria. Figure 2. PRISMA Flow Diagram — Study selection stages on the left, numbers of identified and excluded studies on the right. Figura 2. Diagrama de fluxo PRISMA — Etapas de seleção do estudo à esquerda, números de estudos identificados e excluídos à direita. SOURCE: Adapted from PRISMA (2023) The study's analysis of publication patterns underscores the distinctive focus of this study on composite indicators at the site level, distinguishing it from prior research that explored general knowledge and publication trends in urban ecosystem service assessments (Brzoska and Spāģe, 2020; Haase et al., 2014; Muñoz-Pacheco and Villaseñor, 2022). Most of the literature consists of journal articles, complemented by two conference papers, a chapter in a series, and an annual congress report. 'Ecosystem Services' emerges as the predominant Identification of studies via databases and registers Full-text reports excluded:* • Assessment at site level (21) • ES provision (7) • ES technical assessment (4) • Indexes (11) • Language (2) • Without access (1) Records removed before screening: • Duplicate records removed (n = 382) Records excluded*: (n = 769) • Assessment at site level (590) • ES provision (376) • ES technical assessment (151) • Indexes (279) • Non-economical approach (102) Reports not retrieved (n = 8) S cr e en in g E li g ib il it y In cl u d ed Id en ti fi ca ti o n Full-text reports assessed for eligibility (n = 69) Records identified from: Databases (n = 1209) • Web of Science (396) • Scielo (7) • Scopus (806) Records screened (n = 838) Reports sought for retrieval (maybe) (n = 9) Studies included in the review (n = 37) 26 publication theme, followed by 'Ecological Indicators' and 'Science of the Total Environment', all of which are published by Elsevier. The alignment of these journals with our search terms underscores their relevance to the study's focal point. Figure 3. Distribution of Publications in Journals for the Included Studies in the Systematic Review. Figura 3. Distribuição das Publicações em Revistas dos Estudos Incluídos na Revisão Sistemática. Source: Own authorship (2024). A temporal analysis of publication trends, presented in Figure 4, reveals a noteworthy surge in publications during 2021. This surge aligns with the evolving dynamics in the field of ecosystem services, particularly in the context of urban green areas, which Jato-Espino et al. (2023) identify as increasingly significant in contemporary and future urban planning. The increased volume of publications in 2021 can be attributed to two factors: first, an escalated academic interest in exploring the multifunctionality of ecosystem services, in contrast to the previous year's emphasis on single-indicator studies, and second, the potential filling of gaps in multifunctional studies that did not meet all inclusion criteria in other years, now being addressed. 27 Figure 4. Timeline of publication for Studies Included in the Systematic Review. Figura 4. Cronologia de publicação dos estudos incluídos na Revisão Sistemática. Source: Own authorship (2024). In line with the findings of Haase et al. (2014) and Brzoska and Spāģe (2020), Europe stands out as the leader in the development of composite indicators for ecosystem services, followed by Asia and North America (Figure 5). The prolific contributions from individual countries mirror this trend, with Germany, China, and the United States taking the lead. Notably, the representation of studies is limited in Africa, with Brazil being the sole representative from South America, and New Zealand representing Oceania. A significant portion of studies (23.7%) introduced theoretical protocols without empirical testing, categorizing them as non-empirical. 28 Figure 5. Geographic distribution of study locations by countries. Figura 5. Distribuição Geográfica dos Locais dos Estudos por países. Source: Own authorship (2024). We observed an increasing interest in other continents, contrastingly to previous research where European cities dominated (73.3%) as in Brzoska and Spāģe (2020). However, tropical and developing regions remain underrepresented, indicating a substantial knowledge gap, as highlighted by Brzoska and Spāģe (2020), Haase et al. (2014), Muñoz-Pacheco and Villaseñor (2022), and Jato-Espino et al. (2023). Figure 6: Types of Ecosystem Services Found in the Systematic Literature Review. Figura 6: Tipos de serviços ecossistêmicos encontrados na Revisão Sistemática de Literatura. Source: Own authorship (2024). 29 It is essential to clarify that, for consistency and standardized analysis, we adopted the categorization framework established by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) for 'Supporting' services. Our analysis of ecosystem service categories (Figure 6) reveals a significant focus on 'Regulating' services. The dominance of 'Regulating' services in the literature can be attributed to the presence of urban forests and parks within anthropized environments, where urbanisation amplifies vulnerability to hazardous events (Jato-Espino et al., 2023). Researchers have focused on understanding the roles of these services in mitigating the impacts of climate change, including the control of extreme weather events, reduction of atmospheric and noise pollution, waste hazard mediation, and soil conservation (Sutherland et al., 2018; Jato-Espino et al., 2023). Regulating services were followed closely by 'Cultural' services, with 'Supporting' services also receiving considerable attention. It is noteworthy that some studies exclusively concentrated on either 'Regulating' or 'Cultural' services. Notably, UGAs play a pivotal role in enhancing public health, a prolific branch of ecosystem services (ES) research, often encompassing terms like 'recreation,' 'physical activity,' 'walking,' and 'sports' (Jato-Espino et al., 2023). Additionally, Cultural ES assessments frequently adopt non-monetary frameworks (Dickinson and Hobbs, 2017), which can impact the number of publications included in this review. City residents face limited opportunities for nature interaction and the associated benefits, including leisure, education, and contemplation (Dickinson and Hobbs, 2017). Consequently, the findings presented in Figure 6 underscore the significance of urban green areas (UGAs) in comparison to protected areas (PAs), such as National or State Parks (IUCN, 1994), primarily due to the greater accessibility and visitation potential of UGAs. In contrast, 'Provisioning' services received less attention and were primarily integrated into broader frameworks, making them the least represented category in this review. The finding aligns with other reviews of urban ecosystem service assessments (Brzoska and Spāģe, 2020; Haase et al., 2014; Muñoz-Pacheco and Villaseñor, 2022). Brzoska and Spāģe (2020) posit that unlike other ES categories, Provisioning services can be imported into urban areas, diminishing their importance in city contexts. In contrast to Muñoz-Pacheco and Villaseñor's (2022) findings in South America, we did not observe a shortage of studies encompassing Supporting services. Some authors integrate Supporting and Regulating services within the same category, following the CICES framework, potentially leading to misinterpretations. 30 In the review, while some studies broadly define UGAs as urban green structures, urban vegetation, or urban green infrastructures (Brzoska and Spāģe, 2020; Muñoz-Pacheco and Villaseñor, 2022), others focus primarily on parks, often exclusively (Muñoz-Pacheco and Villaseñor, 2022). Various types of UGAs were assessed (Figure 7). Some studies concentrated on assessing individual UGA types, while others evaluated multiple UGA types to compare their ES delivery. Nine studies neither empirically tested their indices nor specified a particular UGA for testing. Seven studies tested their indices across multiple UGA types. Among UGAs, urban parks were the most frequently assessed, followed by urban forests and gardens, which encompass public gardens, allotment gardens, or common gardens. Figure 7. Types of green areas empirically assessed by the authors of articles included in the systematic literature review. Figura 7. Tipos de áreas verdes avaliadas empiricamente pelos autores dos artigos incluídos na Revisão Sistemática de Literatura. Source: Own authorship (2024). Urban parks, vital elements of landscape urbanism and recreational spaces, receive considerable attention in urban studies, possibly due to their standardized nomenclature, which is characterized by extensive greenery and designated public use areas. These attributes are of utmost importance in urban environments. However, it is worth noting that within the same study, different definitions of urban parks may coexist, as exemplified by Ungaro et al. (2022), 31 who categorized urban parks based on land cover and urban soil types, highlighting variations in vegetation type, density, and the presence of amenities such as playgrounds or walkways. Many excluded studies focused on landscape ES provision. For instance, Alam et al. (2015) proposed a composite indicator for urban ecosystem services, yet their tested indicators were limited to landscape metrics. Typically, authors rely on spatial proxy methods to estimate ES capacities, rather than collecting primary data through field observations (Brzoska and Spāģe, 2020). While landscape studies are vital, many ES necessitate site-level measurements for accurate assessment. Regarding framework, we found that only seven studies comprehensively covered all ES categories (Delpy et al., 2021; Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Kabisch, 2021; Schram-Bijkerk et al., 2018; Kraemer Charoenkit and Kampanart, 2019; Tudorie et al., 2019; Sikorski et al., 2021). Despite the acknowledged importance of multifunctionality in management, the literature predominantly consists of studies focusing on a single ES category (Jato-Espino et al., 2023). The diversity in suggested indicators, methodologies, framework structures, and even nomenclature for ES is evident across studies, although certain indicators, such as Leaf Area Index (LAI), are consistently repeated. Standardized models for classifying ES, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) and the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), have gained widespread acceptance within the scientific community. Authors are encouraged to adhere to these established nomenclatures to facilitate cross-comparisons. A standardized framework, incorporating comprehensive indicators and detailed methods, should be selected, at least for specific UGA types or regional variations. Some studies, exemplified by Dong and Liu (2019), proposed numerous indicators and subsets but focused solely on a single ES category, precluding classification as composite indicators. Studies that merely list possible indicators without establishing comparative classes or field assessment criteria often result in weak and superficial frameworks. Notably, 23.7% of the studies did not empirically test their composite indicators, undermining their reliability. Recognizing that each phytophysiognomy and socioeconomic region may require specific evaluation criteria, these criteria should be empirically validated. A few studies omitted framework tables and described theoretical indicators within the text, rendering them theoretical rather than practical tools. To enhance clarity, frameworks should always be presented in tables, with further clarifications provided in the text. In contrast, studies like Gómez-Baggethun and Barton (2012) may not conduct empirical tests but present robust 32 frameworks that include the ES, their descriptions, and numerous indicators or proxies, some of which are only measurable at the site level. Authors should establish connections between ES provision and the innovations required to achieve it. This guidance can assist urban planners in integrating ES enhancement into infrastructure development routines and utilizing indicators in decision-making (Cortinovis and Geneletti, 2019). Well-defined and reliable ES indicators serve as valuable urban planning tools. Indicators link ecosystem processes, identify interconnected services, communicate benefits to stakeholders, and support management objectives (Müller and Burkhard, 2012; Samson et al., 2019; Tudorie et al., 2019). The UGA must be designed to encompass all aspects of ES, and a set of indicators that assesses all aspects at once saves time and money. Multifunctionality reveals synergies among ES and maximizes UGA benefits (Cortinovis and Geneletti, 2019; Jato-Espino, 2023). A holistic approach to ES by municipal urban planners optimizes UGA design for multiple benefits, fostering sustainable cities (Wang and Foley, 2021; Belaire et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Muñoz-Pacheco and Villaseñor, 2022; Jato-Espino, 2023). Managers can assess ES supply, compare UGA strengths and weaknesses, and make informed decisions using a qualified, active, and transparent tool (Andersson-Sköld et al., 2018; Breuste et al., 2013; Nur et al., 2022). Finally, it is essential to recognize that developing countries are currently in a vulnerable position concerning climate change. Hence, there is an imperative need for these countries to receive more substantial representation regarding the multifunctional aspects of their Urban Green Areas (UGAs). This representation will contribute to the harmonization of socioeconomic development and environmental protection efforts (Jato-Espino et al., 2023). Our efforts to reduce bias encompassed the inclusion of comprehensive keywords in the search terms; nevertheless, certain terms, such as the ecosystem service categories (Supporting, Regulating, Provisioning, Cultural), were not searched for separately. Furthermore, article selection relied solely on the scientific judgment of a single author, considering articles published in known languages (Portuguese, English, and Spanish), potentially introducing geographical bias. Also, studies not archived in Scopus, Scielo, or Web of Knowledge were not included in this review. Lastly, it is evident that tropical and sub-climate countries lack adequate representation in the literature; given the distinct biodiversity and urban planning models in these regions, authors must address their peculiarities by developing compatible frameworks in future research efforts. 33 4.4 CONCLUSIONS The study revealed that empirically tested indexes with indicators for Ecosystem Services (ES) strictly adapted urban green areas are still scarce, especially indexes which address a holistic approach of ES and encompass all four categories. In regard to the empirically tested indexes, the most assessed urban green area type was ‘Urban park’. Regulating ES were the most prominent among the articles analysed, followed by Cultural and Supporting services in similar proportions. It is worth highlighting that ES indicators in urban green areas still lack standardization in the scientific community, given the diversity of nomenclatures, methodologies, and assessment frameworks found. However, certain indicators, such as Leaf Area Index (LAI), are frequently encountered. Lastly, European researchers stand out as leaders, followed by Asian and American researchers. Researchers from (Africa, South America, and Oceania) had little representation, presenting. The development of indicators and empirical testing in different regions, especially in tropical and subequatorial climate countries from South America, and Africa and Oceania, represent opportunities for future studies on the peculiarities of these locations. 4.5 REFERENCES Alam, M., Dupras, J., Messier, C. A framework towards a composite indicator for urban ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 60, 38–44. 2016. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Almeida, C. M. V. B., Mariano, M. V., Agostinho, F., Liu, G. Y., Yang, Z. F., Coscieme, L., Giannetti, B. F. Comparing costs and supply of supporting and regulating services provided by urban parks at different spatial scales. Ecosystem Services, 30, 236–247. 2018. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Andersson-Sköld, Y., Klingberg, J., Gunnarsson, B., Cullinane, K., Gustafsson, I., Hedblom, M., Knez, I., Lindberg, F., Ode Sang, Å., Pleijel, H., Thorsson, P., & Thorsson, S. A framework for assessing urban greenery’s effects and valuing its ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management, 205, 274–285. 2018. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Bartesaghi Koc, C., Osmond, P., & Peters, A. Evaluating the cooling effects of green infrastructure: A systematic review of methods, indicators and data sources. Solar Energy, 166, 34 486–508. 2018. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Belaire, J. A., Higgins, C., Zoll, D., Lieberknecht, K., Bixler, R. P., Neff, J. L., Keitt, T. H., Jha, S. Fine-scale monitoring and mapping of biodiversity and ecosystem services reveals multiple synergies and few tradeoffs in urban green space management. Science of the Total Environment, 849, 157801. 2022. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Breuste, J., Schnellinger, J., Qureshi, S., Faggi, A. M. Urban Ecosystem services on the local level: Urban green spaces as providers. Ekologia, 32(3). 2013. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Brzoska, P., Grunewald, K., Bastian, O. A multi-criteria analytical method to assess ecosystem services at urban site level, exemplified by two German city districts. Ecosystem Services, 49, 101268. 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Brzoska, P., Spāģe, A. From City- to Site-Dimension: Assessing the Urban Ecosystem Services of Different Types of Green Infrastructure. Land, 9(5), 150. 2020. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Charoenkit, S., Piyathamrongchai, K. A review of urban green spaces multifunctionality assessment: A way forward for a standardized assessment and comparability. Ecological Indicators, 107, 105592. 2019. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Chee, Y. E. An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biological Conservation, 120(4), 549–565. 2004. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Chen, D., Zhao, Q., Jiang, P., Li, M. Incorporating ecosystem services to assess progress towards sustainable development goals: A case study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. Science of the Total Environment, 806, 151277. 2022. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. 35 Cheng, X., Van Damme, S., Uyttenhove, P. A review of empirical studies of cultural ecosystem services in urban green infrastructure. Journal of Environmental Management, 293, 112895. 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Cochran, F., Daniel, J., Jackson, L., Neale, A. Earth observation-based ecosystem services indicators for national and subnational reporting of the sustainable development goals. Remote Sensing of Environment, 244, 111796. 2020. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Cortinovis, C., Geneletti, D. A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities. Ecosystem Services, 38(100946), 100946. 2019. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Cortinovis, C., Geneletti, D., Hedlund, K. Synthesizing multiple ecosystem service assessments for urban planning: A review of approaches, and recommendations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 213, 104129. 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Daniels, B., Zaunbrecher, B. S., Paas, B., Ottermanns, R., Ziefle, M., Roß-Nickoll, M. Assessment of urban green space structures and their quality from a multidimensional perspective. Science of the Total Environment, 615, 1364–1378. 2018. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. DELPY, Fabian; ZARI, Maibritt Pedersen; JACKSON, Bethanna; BENAVIDEZ, Rubianca; WESTEND, Thomas. Ecosystem Services Assessment Tools for Regenerative Urban Design in Oceania. Sustainability, [S.L.], v. 13, n. 5, p. 2825, 5 mar. 2021. MDPI AG. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13052825. Depietri, Y., Ghermandi, A., Campisi-Pinto, S., Orenstein, D. E. Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: Instances of complementarity. Ecosystem Services, 50, 101277. 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Derkzen, M. L., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., Verburg, P. H. REVIEW: Quantifying urban ecosystem services based on high-resolution data of urban green space: an assessment for 36 Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(4), 1020–1032. 2015. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Dickinson, D. C., Hobbs, R. J. Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research. Ecosystem Services, 25, 179–194. 2017. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Dobbs, C., Escobedo, F. J., Zipperer, W. C. A framework for developing urban forest ecosystem services and goods indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(3-4), 196–206. 2011. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Dong, Y., Liu, H. Reframing the index system of urban green space planning toward public health in China: problems and solutions, Cities & Health, 5:3, 256-275, 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Engström, G., Gren, A. Capturing the value of green space in urban parks in a sustainable urban planning and design context: pros and cons of hedonic pricing. Ecology and Society, 22(2). 2017. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Gaudereto, G. L., Gallardo, A. L. C. F., Ferreira, M. L., Nascimento, A. P. B. D., Mantovani, W. Evaluation of ecosystem services and management of urban green areas: promoting healthy and sustainable cities. Ambiente & Sociedade, 21. 2018. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D. N. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235–245. 2013. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Hyun, J., Kim, Y. J., Kim, A., Plante, A. F., Yoo, G. Ecosystem services-based soil quality index tailored to the metropolitan environment for soil assessment and management. Science of the Total Environment, 820, 153301. 2022. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Jato-Espino, D., Capra-Ribeiro, F., Moscardó, V., Bartolomé del Pino, L. E., Mayor- Vitoria, F., Gallardo, L. O., … Dietrich, K. A systematic review on the ecosystem services 37 provided by green infrastructure. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 86(127998), 127998. 2023. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Kelly, J. R., Harwell, M. A. Indicators of ecosystem recovery. Environmental Management, 14(5), 527–545. 1990. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Kim, D., Son, Y. Differences in Perceptions of Naturalness among Urban Park User Groups in Seoul. International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, 10(4), 112–129. 2022. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Kim, J., Son, Y. Assessing and mapping cultural ecosystem services of an urban forest based on narratives from blog posts. Ecological Indicators, 129, 107983. 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Kraemer, R., Kabisch, N. Parks in context: advancing citywide spatial quality assessments of urban green spaces using fine-scaled indicators. Ecology and Society, 26(2). 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. La Rosa, D., Spyra, M., Inostroza, L. Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem Services for urban planning: A review. Ecological Indicators, 61, 74–89. 2016. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Lamarque, P., Quétier, F., Lavorel, S. The diversity of the ecosystem services concept and its implications for their assessment and management. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 334(5- 6), 441–449. 2011. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Locosselli, G. M., Buckeridge M. S. The science of urban trees to promote well‑being. Trees, 37, 1–7. 2023. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. 38 Logsdon, R. A., Chaubey, I. A quantitative approach to evaluating ecosystem services. Ecological Modelling, 257, 57–65. 2013. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Mak, C., Scholz, M., James, P. Sustainable drainage system site assessment method using urban ecosystem services. Urban Ecosystems, 20(2), 293–307. 2016. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Matasov, V., Belelli Marchesini, L., Yaroslavtsev, A., Sala, G., Fareeva, O., Seregin, I., Castaldi, S., Vasenev, V., Valentini, R. IoT Monitoring of Urban Tree Ecosystem Services: Possibilities and Challenges. Forests, 11(7), 775. 2020. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Müller, F., Burkhard, B. The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 26–30. 2012. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Muñoz-Pacheco, C. B., & Villaseñor, N. R. (2022). Urban Ecosystem Services in South America: A Systematic Review. 14(17), 10751–10751. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710751 Nur, I. J., Sarker, M. H., Hossain, T., Ferdous, T., Rahman, S., Iqbal, B., Helal, Md. G. J., Hossain, Md. F. Evaluation of ecosystem services of rooftop gardens in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 100166. 2022. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022 Orta-Ortiz, M. S., Geneletti, D. What variables matter when designing nature-based solutions for stormwater management? A review of impacts on ecosystem services. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 95, 106802. 2022. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Pace, R., Biber, P., Pretzsch, H., Grote, R. Modeling Ecosystem Services for Park Trees: Sensitivity of i-Tree Eco Simulations to Light Exposure and Tree Species Classification. Forests, 9(2), 89. 2018. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. 39 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., & McGuinness, L. A. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372(71). 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Pakzad, P. and Osmond, P. Developing a sustainability indicator set for measuring green infrastructure performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 216 68 – 79. 2016. Available at: < https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.12.009 >. Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Pesche, D., Philippe Méral, Hrabanski, M., Bonnin, M. Ecosystem Services and Payments for Environmental Services: Two Sides of the Same Coin? Studies in Ecological Economics, 67–86. 2012. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Pretzsch, H., Moser-Reischl, A., Rahman, M.A. et al. Towards sustainable management of the stock and ecosystem services of urban trees. From theory to model and application. Trees, 37, 177–196. 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. PRISMA. PRISMA flow diagram. 2020. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Ramos, J.S., Rodríguez, C.H. Análisis de servicios ecosistémicos para la configuración de una infraestructura verde en el área metropolitana de Sevilla. ACE: Architecture, City and Environment, 16(46). 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Rayyan - AI Powered Tool for Systematic Literature Reviews. 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Robert, A., & Yengué, J. L. What Ideal Green Spaces for the City of Tomorrow, Providing Ecosystem Services? Procedia Engineering, 198, 116–126. 2017. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. 40 Roeland, S., Moretti, M., Amorim, J. H., Branquinho, C., Fares, S., Morelli, F., Niinemets, Ü., Paoletti, E., Pinho, P., Sgrigna, G., Stojanovski, V., Tiwary, A., Sicard, P., & Calfapietra, C. (2019). Towards an integrative approach to evaluate the environmental ecosystem services provided by urban forest. Journal of Forestry Research, 30(6), 1981– 1996. 2019. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Saisana, M. Composite Indicators - A review. Second Workshop on Composite Indicators of Country Performance, Feb. 26-27th 2004 OECD, Paris. 2004. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Schram-Bijkerk, D., Otte, P., Dirven, L., Breure, A. M. Indicators to support healthy urban gardening in urban management. Science of the Total Environment, 621, 863–871. 2018. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Sikorski, P., Gawryszewska, B., Sikorska, D., Chormański, J., Schwerk, A., Jojczyk, A., Ciężkowski, W., Archiciński, P., Łepkowski, M., Dymitryszyn, I., Przybysz, A., Wińska- Krysiak, M., Zajdel, B., Matusiak, J., & Łaszkiewicz, E. The value of doing nothing – How informal green spaces can provide comparable ecosystem services to cultivated urban parks. Ecosystem Services, 50, 101339.2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Silva, A. L., Ribeiro, A. Í., Longo, R. M. Tools for prioritizing Ecosystem Services provided by fragments forest in the context of cities. Ambiente & Sociedade, 24. 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Song, P., Kim, G., Mayer, A., He, R., & Tian, G. Assessing the Ecosystem Services of Various Types of Urban Green Spaces Based on i-Tree Eco. Sustainability, 12(4), 1630. 2020. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Structure of CICES |. (n.d.). Retrieved August 17, 2023. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. 41 Sutherland, I. J., Villamagna, A. M., Dallaire, C. O., Bennett, E. M., Chin, A. T. M., Yeung, A. C. Y., … Cormier, R. (2018). Undervalued and under pressure: A plea for greater attention toward regulating ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 94, 23–32. 2018. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Szücs, L., Anders, U., & Bürger-Arndt, R. Assessment and illustration of cultural ecosystem services at the local scale – A retrospective trend analysis. Ecological Indicators, 50, 120–134. 2015. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Tancoigne, E., Barbier, M., Cointet, J.-P., & Richard, G. The place of agricultural sciences in the literature on ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 10, 35–48. 2014. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Tudorie, C. M., Gielen, E., Vallés-Planells, M., Galiana, F. Urban green indicators: a tool to estimate the sustainability of our cities. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, 14(1), 19–29. 2019. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Ungaro, F., Maienza, A., Ugolini, F., Lanini, G. M., Baronti, S., Calzolari, C. Assessment of joint soil ecosystem services supply in urban green spaces: A case study in Northern Italy. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 67, 127455. 2022. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. United Nations. (2022). Goal 11 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations; United Nations. 2022. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. van Oorschot, J., Sprecher, B., van ’t Zelfde, M., van Bodegom, P. M., & van Oudenhoven, A. P. E. Assessing urban ecosystem services in support of spatial planning in the Hague, the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 214, 104195. 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Veerkamp, C. J., Schipper, A. M., Hedlund, K., Lazarova, T., Nordin, A., Hanson, H. I. (2021). A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue 42 infrastructure. Ecosystem Services, 52, 101367. 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Wang, J., Foley, K. Assessing the performance of urban open space for achieving sustainable and resilient cities: A pilot study of two urban parks in Dublin, Ireland. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 62, 127180. 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Westfall, J. A., Henning, J. G., Edgar, C. B. Urban tree measurement variability and the contribution to uncertainty in estimates of ecosystem services. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 64, 127302. 2021. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Yang, Q., Liu, G., Casazza, M., Campbell, E. T., Giannetti, B. F., Brown, M. T. Development of a new framework for non-monetary accounting on ecosystem services valuation. Ecosystem Services, 34, 37–54. 2018. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. Zhao, L. Environmental ecosystem services assessment based on urban green infrastructure structure indicators with case study in Shanghai. E3S Web of Conferences, 136, 03003. 2019. Available at: . Accessed on: December 01, 2022. 43 Somente quando for cortada a última árvore, pescado o último peixe, e poluído o último rio, que as pessoas vão perceber que não podem comer dinheiro.” (Provérbio Indígena) 44 5 ARTIGO 2: ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ASSESSMENT IN URBAN GREEN AREAS AND URBAN FORESTS - RAPID ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL FOR CITIES AVALIANDO SERVIÇOS ECOSSISTÊMICOS EM ÁREAS VERDES E FLORESTAS URBANAS – UM PROTOCOLO DE AVALIAÇÃO RÁPIDA PARA CIDADES ABSTRACT Urban planners must have a tool to communicate stakeholders the benefits of green spaces in cities. Indicators ought to be economic feasible and easily understandable, within an ES multidimensional perspective. This study proposes an instrument that assesses the quality of ecosystem services (ES) supply in urban green areas (UGA), evaluating the weaknesses and strengths of each area, quickly, simply and still sensitively. We chose sensitive and application- friendly indicators, based on their applicability in Brazilian reality, in a forest-savannah ecotone (Atlantic Forest and Cerrado). We ranked the indicators in four grades representing the ES supply in each area, from extremely unsatisfactory to extremely satisfactory conditions. After tests in different UGA, the protocol was calibrated, and indicators were adjusted to urban context and biome specificities. We present a calibrated and ready-to-use protocol to assess ES in UGA. The protocol assesses: five Cultural services with eight indicators, two Provisioning services with two indicators, four Regulating services with five indicators, and three Supporting services with three indicators. We included qualitative and quantitative indicators to comprehensively assess complex areas. The protocol contemplated all ES categories in order to respond to the different needs of UGA management. Several indicators were tailored to urban contexts and local scale. Cities may use this comprehensive list of ES indicators, already adapted for urban context, as an inspirational checklist for describing their UGA weaknesses and strengths. Keywords: urban green area, urban green solution, green infrastructure, ecosystem services framework, composite indicators. RESUMO Planejadores urbanos devem ter uma ferramenta que comunique aos tomadores de decisões os benefícios dos espaços verdes nas cidades. Os indicadores devem ser economicamente viáveis e facilmente compreendidos, dentro de uma perspectiva multidimensional de SE. Este estudo propõe um instrumento que avalie a qualidade do 45 fornecimento de serviços ecossistêmicos (SE) em áreas verdes urbanas (AVU), avaliando pontos fortes e fracos de cada área, de forma rápida, simples, mas ainda assim sensível. Escolhemos indicadores sensíveis e de fácil uso, baseados na aplicabilidade na realidade brasileira, em um ecótono de floresta e savana (Mata Atlântica e Cerrado). Classificamos os indicadores em quatro notas que representavam o fornecimento de SE em cada área, de condições extremamente insatisfatórias até extremamente satisfatórias. Após testes em diferentes AVU, o protocolo foi calibrado, e os indicadores foram ajustados para um contexto urbano e para especificidades do bioma. Apresentamos um protocolo calibrado e pronto para uso para avaliar SE em AVU. O protocolo avalia: cinco serviços culturais com oito indicadores, dois serviços de provisão com dois indicadores, quatro serviços de regulação com cinco indicadores, e três serviços de suporte com três indicadores. Incluímos indicadores qualitativos e quantitativos para avaliar áreas complexas de forma completa. O protocolo contemplou todas as categorias de SE, de forma a atender as diferentes necessidades da administração de AVU. Diversos indicadores foram ajustados para o contexto urbano e escala local. Cidades podem usar esta abrangente lista de indicadores de SE, já adaptados para o contexto urbano, como um checklist inspiracional para descrever as fraquezas e forças de suas AVU. Palavras-chave: área verde urbana, solução verde urbana, infraestrutura verde, índice de serviços ecossistêmicos, indicadores compostos. 5.1 INTRODUCTION Accelerated population growth results in small and sparse green areas, with lesser quality (Shanahan et al., 2017). This process fragments natural environments, reduces biodiversity, creates a tension between urban expansion and nature conservation, and consequently leads to an ‘extinction of nature experience’ (Botzat et al., 2016; Calderón- Contreras and Quiroz-Rosas, 2017; Sandifer et al., 2015). Nevertheless, urbanisation can also be an opportunity to manage ecosystems closely (Schewenius et al., 2014). When ecosystems are healthy, they deliver benefits, called ecosystem services (ES), which directly affect human well-being (MEA, 2005). Ecosystem services are clustered in four categories: Provisioning (e.g. materials as food and water), Regulating (e.g. climate or water regulation), Supporting (biogeochemical cycles maintenance) and Cultural (non-material benefits) (MEA, 2005). In practice, conservation judgment relies on human values more than on scientific studies about biodiversity threats; therefore, an ES focus provides the scientific community an 46 assertion to base conservation decisions (Mace et al., 2012). The human well-being argument persuades more; hence, it helps to validate public policies. The urban perspective must be adopted, since people are prone to value more something usable in their day-to-day lives, and near to their homes. This perspective also claims urgency, since cities already face ES loss consequences, such as heat islands and atmospheric pollution. Nevertheless, urban green areas (UGA) differ among each other. Their heterogenous characteristics reflects on the ES delivery for each category. Hence, is pertinent to construct an instrument, such as a composite indicator or protocol, which assesses the ES supply in each area, according to its ecologic and social characteristics. Studies have analysed trends in ES research (Haase et al., 2014; Schewenius et al., 2014; Botzat et al., 2016; Kleinschoth and Kowarik, 2020; Brzoska and Spāģe, 2020; Veerkamp et al., 2021, Muñoz-Pacheco and Villaseñor, 2022; Jato-Espino et al., 2023; Barbosa et al., 2024) and evidenced that authors have created and tested some protocols to evaluate urban ES in European, Asian and North American forests; however, those studies highlighted whilst temperate regions are greatly represented, tropical regions have a scarcity of studies e.g. in developing countries of Latin America and Africa. Moreover, Brazil represents South America solo, which contributes to only 5.3% of worldwide studies (Barbosa et al., 2024). Latin America has a predominantly tropical climate, high endemic biodiversity and high demographic growth; nevertheless, it counts with scarce resources, poorly distributed to the environmental department, and bureaucratic public administration (Sinnott et al., 2010). These climate regions have distinctive socio-ecological systems and need multidimensional studies to fulfil knowledge gaps, in order to promote resilient cities, which are already facing climate changes (Botzat et al, 2016; Haase et al., 2014; Muñoz-Pacheco and Villaseñor, 2022). The Brazilian Constitution provides for the environment and its ES protection (Brasil, 1988); hence, municipal environment secretaries must have the necessary means to evaluate the ES supply in their areas. City administrations must have the means to assess green areas’ ES supply in order to propose achievable goals and manage these areas with a plan of actions for increasing ES supply (Caprioli et al., 2020). Green areas assessment improves management efficiency, and approximate underdeveloped countries to United Nations' Sustainable Developing Goals, such as ‘3. Good health and well-being’, ‘11. Sustainable cities and communities’, and ‘15. Life on land’ (UN, 2017). Ecosystems manifest their processes and functions (Veerkamp et al., 2021); thus, the expression of potential ES can be measured (Bastian et al., 2013). 47 Indicators simplify a complex reality into a manageable level; they find patterns and analyse the ecosystems’ viability, in order to guide decision-making (Dobbs et al., 2011; Haase et al., 2014). Nonetheless, a study that covers more than one dimension of ES is rare (Haase et al., 2014); most studies focus on a single service, and the methods include less than ten indicators (Charoenkit and Piyathamrongchai, 2019; Barbosa et al., 2024). Furthermore, monetary indicators predominate, which narrows the human-welfare to mere economic performance (Yang et al., 2018). Also, indicators usually involve spatial proxy methods and secondary data to estimate ES supply capacities, with different approaches assess (Brzoska and Spāģe, 2020). They assess regional scales only, which impairs recognising which green infrastructure contributed to determined ecological property (Brzoska et al., 2021; O'Sullivan et al., 2017). Indicators must measure biophysical traits which assess individual sites, such as single parks, as this local (detailed) scale is directly perceived by residents and allow urban planners to design green infrastructure in details (Brzoska and Spāģe, 2020; Brzoska et al. 2021; Cortinovis et al., 2021). In order to compose a useful urban planning and management tool and communicate stakeholders the benefits of green spaces in urban areas, the unified ES indicators must be accessible, easily understandable and practical (Brzoska et al., 2021; Tudorie et al., 2019), as in a Rapid Assessment Protocol (RAP). A RAP is an instrument designed to measure environmental quality (Guimarães et al., 2021). It gathers several indicators whose standardised evaluation methods identify which areas provide more services and why, transparently, as recommended by Brzoska et al. (2021). Hence, this study objective was to elaborate an instrument (Rapid Assessment Protocol) to assess ecosystem services in urban green areas. The proposed instrument must sensitively evaluate weaknesses and strengths of each area, with quick, simple and low-cost indicators. Therefore, a technician of a developing country's Municipal Environment Secretary — as the ones in Brazil — can potentially apply it, with low training levels. 5.2 METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES In this study, a rapid assessment protocol (RAP) was developed to evaluate ecosystem services provided by urban green areas. The RAP consists of a composite-indicator with application-friendly methodological procedures, represented as indicators, and their respective evaluating classes, represented as 48 grades. To create the RAP, we followed three steps: indicators selection, protocol construction, and then testing and calibration. Indicators Selection To select the indicators, a comprehensive literature review was carried out. Studies utilise diverse metrics, indicators and methodologies to quantify ES in urban green areas (Veerkamp et al., 2021). Therefore, we screened peer-reviewed articles on ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar databases, along with journals linked to environmental indicators, ecosystem services or urban planning. The keywords used for searching were ‘urban ecosystem services’, ‘ecosystem services indicators’ and ‘urban green areas’, along with the corresponding terms in Portuguese and Spanish, since much research conducted in America Latina is written in these languages. A total of 451 studies were selected and screened. In addition, as much information about green areas administration is published in non-scientific literature, we also analysed grey literature and, if available, consulted its scientific references within. All indicators were listed and analysed. Tools must be adapted to local context, and their construction considers the expertise required, the affordability, and the scalability needed (Almeida et al., 2018; Delpy et al., 2021). Therefore, to apply in Brazilian urban areas, in a low-budget scenario, indicators inclusion criteria to the official list were as follows: Does the indicator… i. Represent a relevant ES according to MEA (2005)? ii. Is low-cost and easily-applicable? iii. Apply to urban context? iv. Provide biotic, abiotic and related to human relationship features assessment? v. Applies in local scale, with site-specific inputs? If the studies and their indicators did not attend the inclusion criteria, they were excluded, e.g. if the indicator: (i) is related to service not listed on MEA (2005); (ii) needed laboratory analysis, high-trained personnel, expensive instruments or charged software; (iii) only relates to forest and rural contexts; (iv) only provided monetary or social/perception values; and (v) applies only to regional or less-specific inputs. 49 Protocol Construction The protocol construction was carried out from 2020 (preliminary protocol) to 2024 (final protocol), and all ES categories were contemplated in order to respond to the different needs of urban green space management (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013). We included both qualitative and quantitative indicators to comprehensively assess complex areas (Wang and Foley, 2021). For each ES included, the protocol contains: its category according to MEA (2005) (Cultural, Supporting, Provisioning and Regulating); indicator(s) and respective descriptors (what is going to be measured) and methodologies; and four classes, representing grades which ranked each ES supply condition. Four-class grades can also be seen in the studies of La Bianca et al. (2018) and Geange et al. (2019). The classes used the scale ‘I. very unsatisfactory’, for the worst scenario found within the study reality; ‘II. unsatisfactory’; ‘ III. satisfactory’; and ‘IV. Very satisfactory’, considered “the best possible scenario for that indicator”. It is possible to adapt each class range to other realities. In the present study, besides literature, author’s and co-author’s academic education (Architecture and Biology) and previous experiences (Giacon et al., 2022; Cardoso-Leite et al., 2022; Galvani et al., 2020; Mello et al., 2016; Mota et al., 2016) were crucial to stablish the intervals which defined each class. Experts opinion, combined to literature consultation, is the most common method to stablish intervals amongst classes and respective grades, and does not substantially differ from traditional statistical methods (Burkhard et al., 2014; Campagne et al., 2020). Quantitative classes were first constructed based on maximum and minimum values found in field and in literature. For example, for ‘Carbon sequestration’, is estimated that, for each hectare of Semideciduous Seasonal Forest (SSF) standing, 108 tC/ha are stored in the aerial part and more 120 tC/ha in the soil (Lemos et al., 2010). Also, Galvani et al. (2020) stated that urban forest remnants with less than 5ha are not able to maintain biotic integrity on the long term; in opposition, remnants with more than 20ha can maintain biotic integrity. Then, we stablished these values as, respectively, minimum and maximum, and calculated the average between then to stablish medium classes values. For fruit trees and flowers, we verified minimum and maximum in field. For percentages as e.g. canopy cover or covered surface, we stablished minimum values expected for an urban green area; we expect green areas to have a minimum of greenery, as recommended by Mota et al. (2016), otherwise they lose their status. 50 For qualitative indicators which could not be counted, we stablished presence and maintenance parameters e.g. for walking trails the parameter was the presence of hazardous stretches: ‘how severe the hazard was, how many hazardous stretches there were in the field, which group of people could not utilise the trail and enjoy the park?’. Protocol Calibration A protocol template was elaborated and tested to evaluate the indicators’ sensitivity and adjust the classes. The test was conducted in areas of Sorocaba, a city located at approximately 230o 30’ S and 470o 27’ W in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Sorocaba has a population of 723,682 inhabitants and its population density is 1608.64/km² (IBGE, 2022). The climate is humid subtropical and its biomes are Atlantic Forest and Cerrado, and an ecotone between them. The city holds more than thirty heterogenous green areas (Mello et al., 2016). We created a preliminary protocol (in 2020) based on theoretical key-findings in literature — which stated each service importance. Then, most urban green areas in Sorocaba were visited and checked (approximately 30 areas), in order to check each indicator’s existence, frequency along with its methodology feasibility (economic and temporal) — if it was suitable for urban context, and if the data it conveyed could be easily measured and analysed. After the visits, authors discussed if indicators had to be adapted, excluded or maintained. We found that all indicators classes and methodologies found in literature had to be tailored to attend urban contexts. Therefore, we re-constructed and tailored (2021) the remaining indicators methodologies. Many indicators were commonly cited in literature; nevertheless, they were excluded if proven not-applicable. Then, we stablished intervals amongst grades, with minimum, medium and maximum values, consonantly with the results obtained with the preliminary protocol. Next, it was tested again four more times (in 2022 and 2023), after COVID-19 lockdown, along with park’s staff, to test if indicators could be understood and applicable after short instructions. Finally, (in 2024), classes were refined (final calibration), especially in quantitative indicators, based on the tests conducted in eight selected areas with distinctive characteristics of: vegetation naturalness (natural, exotic or a mix of both), area size (from 1.79 to 60ha), vegetation patches size (from 0.32 to 31ha), and presence (or not) of infrastructure (for e.g. leisure, recreation and sports practice, along with bathrooms and drinking fountains). The areas were public and located within the anthropized matrix. 51 To avoid bias when calculating the intervals amongst classes, field visits occur