0
Systematic Review ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 1 ? Systematic review or meta-analysis. Synthesizes findings across many studies. Strongest evidence. Environmental Sources Marine & Wildlife Policy & Risk Sign in to save

Urban ecosystem services research in Russia: Systematic review on the state of the art

AMBIO 2024 4 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 65 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Diana Dushkova, Anastasia Konstantinova, Victor Matasov, Dara V. Gaeva, Еlvira A. Dovletyarova, Mina Taherkhani

Summary

Despite its classification in this database, this systematic review examines urban ecosystem services research in Russia — not microplastic research. It found that Russian studies focus primarily on large cities, with key challenges including anthropogenic pressure on soils and vegetation, urban green space quality, and integration of ecosystem services into urban planning.

Study Type Review

Research on urban ecosystem services (ES) covers many regions globally, yet significant gaps remain in several areas, including Russia. Furthermore, the number of publications on Russian ES is still very low, and most of them focus on ES assessment on the national level which results in an incomplete understanding of ES provision in Russian cities. To fill this gap, 197 publications on urban ES have been systematically reviewed. Those mostly included research on urban ES in Russia as well as in other cities of the world that represented case studies within international collaborations of Russian scientists with other partners. The paper presents the main aspects of the ES concept adoption and operationalizing in the Russian scientific discourse, by providing an overview of the current research on the relationships between humans and urban ecosystems. Spatially, the majority of studies focused on large cities; herewith field surveys, statistical analysis, expert evaluations, and mapping were often used as the main research methods. Four key challenge areas have been revealed: anthropogenic pressure on soils and vegetation, urban green spaces (UGS) and their quantity and quality for ES provision, the value of ES assessment for urban planning, and payments for ES. To address these challenges, future research should focus on the role of urban ES for city resilience and sustainability, ecosystem disservices, rural-urban interactions, broader testing and validation of ES mapping and assessment as well as better integration of ES in economic, regulatory and compensation mechanisms.

Sign in to start a discussion.

Share this paper