Russo_2017 - Edible green infrastructure: An approach and review of provisioning ecosystem services and disservices in urban environments

Basic Article Info:

Article key Russo_2017
Title Edible green infrastructure: An approach and review of provisioning ecosystem services and disservices in urban environments
Year 2017
Review type systematic review
Main topic Urban provisioning / food growing
Subjects area(s) Environment and nature
Built environment scale Global / Country / Region
Application(s) Policy making, Implementation
Geographically focused no
Prisma diagram used no
Study focus start not mentioned
Study focus end 2017
Search string We specifically searched for the following English language keywords including “urban agriculture benefits”, “green roof +food”, “urban+provisioning ecosystem services”, “edible green wall”, “urban forestry food production”, “school gardens”, “edible forest garden”, “historic gardens”, “edible botanic gardens”, “food +botanic gardens”, “edible community gardens”, “allotment garden”, “urban soil contaminants”, “edible green walls”, “ecosystem disservices +urban agriculture”, and “botanic gardens ecosystem services”.
No. of original sources 80
Synthesis method qualitative
Quantitative map included yes
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments

 

Details about searches

Search sources
Search source name Source type Comments Weblink
Scopus Online Database Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed research literature. With over 22,000 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers. https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic
Proquest Online Database ProQuest is committed to empowering researchers and librarians around the world. Its innovative information content and technologies increase the productivity of students, scholars, professionals and the libraries that serve them. Through partnerships with content holders, ProQuest preserves rich, vast and varied information – whether historical archives or today’s scientific breakthroughs – and packages it with digital technologies that enhance its discovery, sharing and management. For academic, corporate, government, school and public libraries, as well as professional researchers, ProQuest provides services that enable strategic acquisition, management and discovery of information collections. http://www.proquest.com/
Google Scholar Online Database Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. Released in beta in November 2004, the Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online academic journals and books, conference papers, theses and dissertations, preprints, abstracts, technical reports, and other scholarly literature, including court opinions and patents. https://scholar.google.com.au/
Science Direct Online Database ScienceDirect is a website which provides subscription-based access to a large database of scientific and medical research. It hosts over 12 million pieces of content from 3,500 academic journals and 34,000 e-books. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
Keywords used in search Ecosystem , Green Infrastrucutre, Peri-urban Agriculture, Sustainability, urban

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Alessio Russo alessio.landscape@gmail.com Laboratory of Urban and Landscape Design School of Arts, Culture and Sports, Far Eastern Federal University, 690922 Vladivostok Russia
Francisco J. Escobedo Functional and Ecosystem Ecology Unit, Biology Program, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Matemáticas, Universidad del Rosario Kr 26 No 63B-48, Bogotá DC Colombia
Giuseppe T. Cirella Institute of Earth Sciences, Department of Regional Policy and Political Geography, Saint Petersburg State University 199034 Saint Petersburg Russia
Giuseppe T. Cirella Polo Centre of Sustainability Imperia Italy
Stefan Zerbe Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Piazza Università 5, 39100 Bolzano, Italy

 

Funding

Funding sources No funding sources recorded


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale International
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2017-05-05
Edition
Issue
Journal Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Pagination 53-66
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher Elsevier B.V
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 242
Website owner
Copyrights of article Elsevier B.V.
Licences of article Open Access:
Identifiers of article ISSN: 01678809


Quality assessment

Quality measure Details Score Comments
QA question 1 Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. general but concrete description of aims
QA question 2 Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 0 = ”No” = research question and inclusion criteria not outlined in detail. not provided
QA question 3 Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 0 =”No” = no explicit justification of the study designs/types included in the review. various types of studies for the scoping/mapping purpose
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question), provided key word and/or general search strategy, justified publication restrictions (e.g., language). 8 databases
QA question 5 Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in study selection. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 6 Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in data extraction. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 7 Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. not provided
QA question 8 Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 1 = “Yes” = ALL the following: Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described in detail. Table 1, Table 2
QA question 9 Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 0 =”No” = no mention of RoB assessment of individual included studies. not provided
QA question 10 Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. not provided
QA question 11 If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 12 If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 13 Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 0 =”No” = no discussion of the potential impact of RoB in individual studies. not provided
QA question 14 Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. general discussion
QA question 15 If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 16 Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 1 = “Yes” = The authors reported no competing interests OR the authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. funding statement provided
Quality index Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. B no protocol, some details missing, some bias might be present
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. systematic map N/A
Risk of bias level How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? medium no protocol, some details missing, some bias might be present