Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 501–511 | Cite as

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration variations in Rome: relationship with traffic level and urban park size

  • Loretta GrataniEmail author
  • Laura Varone
Article

Abstract

Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration variations in Rome in the period January 2009 to December 2010 was monitored. Five representative sites (T sites) in the city centre with different traffic levels and urbanistic characteristics, and four urban parks (P sites) of different sizes were selected. The regression analysis underlines the significant (p ≤ 0.05) correlation between traffic levels and CO2 concentration. Considering the daytime CO2 concentration peak among T sites, Cerchi Street and Teatro Marcello Street, located in the city centre and closed by buildings, showed the highest traffic levels (85 ± 3 and 63 ± 2 cars min−1, respectively) and the highest CO2 concentration (512 ± 11 and 488 ± 8 ppm, respectively). With regards to the considered P sites, those extending over the largest surface areas (Villa Pamphilj Park and Villa Borghese Park, 180 and 80 ha, respectively) characterized by large tree coverage (81 ha and 60 ha, respectively) had a significant lower CO2 concentration (404 ± 9 ppm, mean value) than those extending over a small surface area (Villa Torlonia Park and Villa Celimontana Park, 14 ha and 11 ha, respectively). More efforts should be made to further reduce CO2 concentration in the cities in order to ameliorate ecosystem services related to urban parks.

Keywords

CO2 concentration Park size Street Traffic level Urban area 

References

  1. ACI—Automobile Club Italy (2009) Statistic yearly 2009.Google Scholar
  2. Artuso F, Chamard P, Piacentino S, Sferlazzo DM, De Silvestri L, di Sarra A, Meloni D, Monteleone F (2009) Influence of transport and trends in atmospheric CO2 at Lampedusa. Atmos Environ 43:3044–3051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ATAC (2009) Report of the Mobility Agency of the Rome Municipality, year 2009Google Scholar
  4. Bergeron O, Strachan IB (2011) CO2 sources and sinks in urban and suburban areas of a northen mid-latitude city. Atmos Environ. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.12.043 Google Scholar
  5. Bolund P, Hunhammar S (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ 29:293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coutts AM, Beringer J, Tapper NJ (2007) Characteristics influencing the variability of urban CO2 fluxes in Melbourne, Australia. Atmos Environ 41:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dwyer JF, McPherson EG, Schroder HW, Rowntree RA (1992) Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. J Arboric 18:227–234Google Scholar
  8. Georgi NJ, Zafiridias (2006) The impact of park trees on microclimate in urban areas. Urban Ecosyst 9:195–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gorham R (2002) Air pollution from ground transportation. An assessment of causes, strategies and tactics, and proposed actions for the international community. United Nations.Google Scholar
  10. Gratani L, Varone L (2005) Daily and seasonal variation of CO2 in the city of Rome in relationship with the traffic volume. Atmos Environ 39:2619–2624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gratani L, Varone L (2006) Carbon sequestration by Quercus ilex L. and Quercus pubescens Willd. and their contribution to decreasing air temperature in Rome. Urban Ecosystems 9:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gratani L, Varone L (2007) Plant crown traits and carbon sequestration capability by Platanus hybrida Bront. in Rome. Urban Land Plann 81:282–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gratani L, Pesoli P, Crescente MF (1998) Relationship between photosynthetic activity and chlorophyll content in an isolated Quercus ilex L. tree during the year. Photosynthetica 35:445–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gratani L, Varone L, Catoni R (2008) Relationship between net photosynthesis and leaf respiration in Mediterranean evergreen species. Photosynthetica 46:567–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grimmond CSB, King TS, Cropley FD, Nowak DJ, Souch C (2002) Local-scale fluxes of carbon dioxide in urban environments: methodological challenges and results from Chicago. Environ Poll 116:S243–S254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Idso CD, Idso SB, Balling RC (1998) The urban CO2 dome of Phoenix. AZ Phys Geogr 19:95–108Google Scholar
  17. Idso CD, Idso SB, Balling RC Jr (2001) An intensive two—week study of an urban CO2 dome in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Atmos Environ 35:995–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jim CY, Wy C (2006) Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China. Land Urban Plann 75:81–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jo HK (2002) Impacts of urban greenspace on offsetting carbon emissions for middle Korea. J Environ Manag 64:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kordowski K, Kuttler W (2010) Carbon dioxide fluxes over an urban park area. Atmos Environ 44:2722–2730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matese A, Gioli B, Vaccari FP, Zaldei A, Miglietta F (2009) Carbon dioxide emissions of the City Center of Firenze, Italy: measurement, evaluation, and source partitioning. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 48:1940–1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mays KL, Shepson PB, Stirm BH, Karion A, Sweeney C, Gurney KR (2009) Aircraft-based measurements of the carbon footprint of Indianapolis. Environ Sci Technol 43:7816–7823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McPherson EG (2007) Benefit-Based Tree Valuation. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33:1–11Google Scholar
  25. Millward AA, Sabir B (2011) Benefits of a forested urban park: what is the value of Allan Gardens to the city of Toronto, Canada? Land Urban Plann 100:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moreno E, Sagnotti L, Dinarès—Turell J, Winkler A, Cascella A (2003) Biomonitoring of traffic air pollution in Rome using magnetic properties of tree leaves. Atmos Environ 37:2967–2977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nasrallah HA, Balling RC Jr, Madi SM, Al—Ansari L (2003) Temporal variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration in Kuwait City, Kuwait with comparisons to Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Environ Pollut 121:301–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nejadkoorki F, Nicholson K, Lake I, Davies T (2008) An approach for modelling CO2 emissions from road traffic in urban areas. Sci Total Environ 406:269–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nemitz E, Hargreaves KJ, McDonald AG, Dorsey JR, Fowler D (2002) Micrometeorological measurements of the urban heat budget and CO2 emissions on a city scale. Environ Sci Technol 36:3139–3146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nicolas JP, David D (2009) Passenger transport and CO2 emissions: what does the French transport survey tell us? Atmos Environ 43:1015–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Novak DJ, Rowntree RA, McPherson EG, Sisinni SM, Kerkmann ER, Stevens JC (1996) Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover. Land Urban Plann 36:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC (2006) Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban For Urban Gree 4:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oleyar MD, Greve AI, Withey JC, Bjorn AM (2008) An integrated approach to evaluating urban forest functionality. Urban Ecosyst 11:289–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pataki DE, Alig RJ, Fung AS, Golubiewsky NE, Kennedy CA, McPherson EG., Nowak DJ, Pouyat RV, Lankao PR (2006). Urban ecosystems and the North American carbon cycle. Global Change Biol.Google Scholar
  35. Ramamurthy P, Pardyjak ER (2011) Toward understanding the behaviour of carbon dioxide and surface energy fluxes in the urbanized semi-arid Salt Lake Valley, Utah, USA. Atmos Environ 45:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Soegaard H, Møller-Jensen L (2003) Towards a spatial CO2 budget of a metropolitan region based on textural image classification and flux measurements. Remote Sens Environ 87:289–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stevanovic A, Stevanovic J, Zhang K, Batterman S (2009) Optimizing traffic control to reduce fuel consumption and vehicular emissions. Transport Res Rec 2128:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Svirejeva-Hopkins A, Schellnhuberm HJ (2006) Modelling carbon dynamics from urban land conversion: fundamental model of city in relation to a local carbon cycle. Carbon Balance Manag I:8 doi: 10.1186/1750-0680-1-8
  39. Velasco E, Pressley S, Allwine E, Westberg H, Lamb B (2005) Measurements of CO2 fluxes from the Mexico City urban landscape. Atmos Environ 39:743–7446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vogt R, Christen A, Rotach MW, Roth M, Satyanarayana ANV (2005) Temporal dynamics of CO2 fluxes and profiles over a Central European city. Theor Appl Climatol 84:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental BiologySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations