1 Introduction

The Industrial Revolution and the technological advancements of the past century have accelerated the pace of global urbanization, resulting in the emergence of highly dense urban settings (Morris 2013). Historical factors, geographic location, and the availability of key resources have allowed several human settlements to evolve into major economic hubs (Gavrilidis et al., 2015). However, the polarization of resources and population often leads to overcrowding (Booth et al., 2020). If not effectively managed, overcrowding negatively affects the overall quality of urban life, acting as a key driver of urban sprawl and environmental degradation (Gavrilidis et al., 2019). Increasing urban density necessitates the expansion of built-up areas, a process that is frequently detrimental to natural and semi-natural landscapes (Dewan & Corner, 2014). The reduction of areas covered by vegetation in already densely populated urban environments has medium- and long-term consequences for the well-being of urban residents (Popa et al., 2022). Urbanization is regarded as a dynamic socioeconomic phenomenon, influenced by a range of natural and anthropogenic factors, and contributing to high population densities and increased pressure on undeveloped land. The complexity and rapid pace of transformations occurring in urban environments have compelled researchers to assess the effects of ongoing urbanization trends. In this context, policymakers and decision-makers tend to prioritize grey infrastructure and the expansion of residential, commercial, logistics, industrial, and business centres because such developments generate direct economic returns (Dong et al., 2017).

The reduction of permeable surfaces in urban areas alters stormwater runoff patterns, increasing both sewage system maintenance costs and the extent of damage during and after heavy rainfall events (Kong et al., 2017). Furthermore, the loss of vegetated areas because of infill development leads to declining air quality, increased noise pollution (Badiu et al., 2018), and intensification of the urban heat island effect (Gunawardena et al., 2017). As built-up densities increase, available land has become one of the most highly valued urban resources (Gavrilidis et al., 2020). Consequently, a key challenge for city planners, policymakers, and decision-makers is maintaining a balanced relationship between built-up and undeveloped land (Kronenberg et al. 2020). Against this backdrop, although most countries have acknowledged the importance of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015), researchers have emphasized that meeting these targets entails substantial costs and requires the development of appropriate financial tools and programmes (Barua, 2020). The SDG targets and monitoring indicators highlight the need for economic development alongside the efficient management of natural resources. Three of the ten targets of SDG 11 – most relevant to this study – address the preservation of natural features and equitable access to them within urban and urbanized areas. Accordingly, a critical priority for research lies in demonstrating to local and national authorities that integrating natural features into urban landscapes offers a viable pathway to achieving multiple sustainability targets in cities. However, to meet the SDGs over the coming decade, researchers must also understand the needs of policymakers and other stakeholders, and they must develop effective methods that deliver practical and actionable evidence (Allen et al., 2021).

Undeveloped land is becoming increasingly scarce in large cities, making the planning of substantial urban green features particularly challenging. As urban expansion continues, large green spaces, such as parks and gardens, have become less accessible and increasingly subject to infill development (Stoia et al., 2022). In response to these pressures, the concept of ecosystem services has emerged as a framework to support decision-makers and the wider public in recognizing the benefits provided by ecosystems (Costanza et al., 1997). Given the relative scarcity of these benefits in urban environments, the integration of ecosystem services approaches into urban planning and management is strongly recommended (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999). The implementation of nature-based solutions in urban planning and policy frameworks can enhance community resilience (Antuna-Rozado et al,. 2019; Bartlett & Mistry 2021). Organizing natural features into an urban green infrastructure network improves the provision of ecosystem services at the city scale (Van Oijstaeijen et al., 2020; Zhang et al. 2021). Extensive green areas dominated by trees and shrubs form the backbone of effective urban green infrastructure (Sanesi et al., 2017). Such areas, located within or at the edges of large cities, are widely recognized as critical assets for sustainability and improved quality of life (Felappi et al., 2020). The ecosystem services they provide are of considerable value (Li, 2021), placing them at the centre of multiple conservation policies (Goodspeed et al., 2022). Urban forests, although relatively uncommon in urban environments, differ substantially in definition and management from natural forests. In the context of the urgency surrounding the SDGs and carbon neutrality, local stakeholders and authorities are increasingly encouraged – through sectoral policies and financing programmes – to invest in the protection and expansion of urban forests (Wu et al., 2022).

Urban forestry is regarded as the art, science, and technology of managing trees and other forest resources within and around urban cores, with the aim of maximizing the physiological, sociological, economic, and aesthetic benefits that forests provide (Konijnendijk et al., 2006). Prior studies have highlighted how forests located within or surrounding cities can function as carbon sinks, actively sequestering carbon, as well as carbon stores, accumulating carbon in biomass. The efficiency of carbon-cycle management is strongly dependent on factors such as species composition and age structure (Boukili et al., 2017; Vais et al., 2023). Clearly, the carbon sequestration capacity of urban forests differs from that of natural forests due to intensive management practices, younger age structures, and frequent biomass removal (Fares et al., 2017). However, the amount of carbon sequestered by urban forests is considered relatively small in comparison to anthropogenic emissions, and their contribution to climate-change mitigation through sequestration is limited or negligible at the urban scale (Chen, 2015; Velasco et al., 2016). Even so, urban forests possess significant economic value as carbon sinks (Bherwani et al., 2024). In this context, planning and designating urban forests that fulfil the criteria outlined in the definition above presents significant challenges for local authorities, particularly due to high built-up densities and limited land availability. Consequently, local decision-makers should prioritize enhancing urban tree density as an alternative strategy. Although areas with higher tree density cannot fully substitute for the ecosystem services provided by forest ecosystems, the benefits they offer can substantially contribute to improving the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of urban living. The presence of tree- and shrub-covered areas within cities amplifies the benefits delivered by individual trees and shrubs, even when these elements do not collectively function as a fully integrated ecosystem. Furthermore, these benefits operate synergistically with those provided by natural and semi-natural ecosystems located at the urban periphery.

Whereas forest management typically adheres to strict regulations and requires specialized personnel (Ciornei, 2019; Ciornei & Munteanu, 2020), the management and maintenance of urban areas covered with trees and shrubs require different practices, uses, and skill sets. In this context, the focus should be on enhancing the provision of ecosystem services. The quality of these services depends on the management practices employed, as well as on species composition and vegetation quality (Mexia et al., 2018). Trees and shrubs act as significant carbon sinks, and their incorporation into urban environments plays a crucial role in climate-change adaptation and in mitigating the deterioration of urban air quality (Lashof & Neuberger, 2023). Careful species selection for planting, aimed at increasing tree density and expanding these types of areas, can strengthen cities’ resilience to environmental hazards while improving residents’ quality of life. This study investigates whether the density, distribution, and composition of urban trees in one of the most polluted capital cities in Europe play a role in CO2 sequestration. To address this research question, the study’s objectives were to assess the status of land covered with trees and shrubs, and associated tree densities, to identify the dominant species present, and to estimate the amount of carbon sequestered in Bucharest, disaggregated by tree species.

2 Data and methods

2.1 Study area

Bucharest, the capital of Romania, is located in the southeast of the country, in a plain. The city had a population of 1.79 million in 2021. When the additional 430,000 inhabitants of surrounding Ilfov County are included (National Institute for Statistics, 2023), Bucharest forms Romania’s most densely populated urban agglomeration. Over the past thirty years, the population within the city boundaries has decreased by 1.5%, corresponding to an average annual growth rate of −0.5%. In contrast, Ilfov County’s population has grown by nearly 40%, with an average annual increase of 1.82% (Figure 1). Consequently, at the regional level (Bucharest and Ilfov County combined), the population has increased by 5.95% over the last three decades. Considering the demographics of the surrounding county is essential when analysing Bucharest because a large share of the population commutes to the city for employment and social activities (Cristea et al., 2017). Examining these demographic trends alongside changes in the number of dwellings reveals a pattern of urban sprawl in Bucharest and Ilfov County, a phenomenon identified in previous studies (Suditu, 2009; Simion & Nistor, 2012). Over the past three decades, the number of dwellings in Bucharest has increased by 26%, with an average annual growth rate of 1.03%, whereas in Ilfov County the number of dwellings has surged by 69%, corresponding to an average annual increase of 3.87%. These trends indicate an expansion of built-up areas at the expense of natural and semi-natural landscapes because new residential developments are accompanied by infrastructure and other urban functions (e.g., commercial, logistics, and business uses).

Figure 1: Population and dwelling number dynamics in Bucharest and surrounding Ilfov County in the past three decades (data source: National Institute of Statistics, 2023).

Romanian regulations classify a wide range of land uses and land covers as green spaces (Lege nr. 24/2007 (republicată), Monitorul Oficial, no. 764/2009). However, some of these areas, such as institutional gardens, are not open to the public, whereas others, including sports grounds or cemeteries, are largely composed of concrete structures. National statistics on green space are based on these regulatory classifications. According to official data, Bucharest has lost approximately 7% of its green space since the fall of the communist regime (National Institute for Statistics, 2023). Similar conclusions have been reached in previous studies, which identified the primary loss of green space as occurring in gardens adjacent to multi-dwelling housing projects, in which these areas were rapidly converted into parking lots (Badiu et al. 2018). When data for Bucharest are combined with those of surrounding Ilfov County, the total land area classified as green space has increased by approximately 14% over the past thirty years. This trend is attributable to the fact that in Ilfov County the development of new built-up areas has included the planning of new green spaces, classified as such under national regulations, whereas within Bucharest’s administrative boundaries these urban green spaces have been reduced in size. In both Bucharest and Ilfov County, the largest and most compact natural and semi-natural areas are located in the north (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Distribution of natural and semi-natural areas in Bucharest and Ilfov County in 2018. Inset: Natural and semi-natural areas lost since 1990 (spatial data source: https://land.copernicus.eu/en).

2.2 Analysis of urban areas covered with trees and shrubs

Areas covered with trees and shrubs were defined as land patches consistent with the FAO definition of “other land with tree cover.” Specifically, this category includes urban land uses with tree cover exceeding 0.5 hectares, a canopy cover greater than 10%, and trees capable of reaching a height of at least five metres at maturity. This definition encompasses both forest and non-forest tree species (Hendriks et al., 2021). The data used to analyse the distribution of areas covered with trees and shrubs in Bucharest were derived from two sources: georeferenced point features from the Bucharest Green Registry (Primăria Municipiului București, 2010) and the 2018 small woody features vector layers from the EU’s Copernicus platform. Both datasets were processed using ESRI’s ArcGIS Pro software. Green Registry data were analysed by creating a grid with a cell size of 1 hectare using the Create Fishnet tool in ArcGIS Pro. The Intersect function within the same GIS environment was then used to extract the number of trees and shrubs per hectare. The small woody features layers were used to compare distribution patterns between the two datasets, given their differing methodologies (Table 1).

Table 1: Input data used for the distribution analysis of urban areas covered with trees and shrubs.

2.3 Urban tree and shrub species analysis, and carbon sequestration estimates

The data used to plot the urban tree species abundance were extracted from the Bucharest Green Registry. Although the dataset lacks detailed geolocation data (such as species, age, and height), the Green Registry includes overall information on the number of individuals for each species. The data were further processed to classify species based on several criteria: plant type (tree/shrub), leaf type (coniferous/deciduous), origin (native/nonnative), and allergenic potential (allergenic/non-allergenic). In addition, the dataset was utilized to determine the total number of individuals for each species. These data were processed using Microsoft Excel. To estimate the carbon sequestration capacity of tree species in Bucharest, values reported by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the One Tree Planted platform were aggregated. According to the EEA, a mature tree sequesters approximately 21.77 kg of CO2 per year and releases oxygen in the process (European Environmental Agency 2010). The One Tree Planted platform estimates that an average tree absorbs around 10 kg of CO2 annually (Bernet, 2023). Given that the atomic weight of carbon is 12 and that of oxygen is 16, the molecular weight of CO2 is 44. Consequently, the amount of carbon in a given quantity of CO2 can be calculated by multiplying the amount of CO2 by 0.27 (Farquhar & Lloyd, 1993). Owing to variability in carbon sequestration rates – driven by factors such as species, age, and height – an average value of 4.29 kg of carbon sequestered per tree per year was adopted for this study. Using this estimate, the urban tree density grid created for Bucharest was applied to map the amount of carbon sequestered per hectare across the city. Furthermore, drawing on data from previous studies assessing air-pollutant sequestration by tree species (Nowak et al., 2006, 2013), the most effective native tree species in mitigating urban pollution – particularly in terms of carbon sequestration – were identified. Finally, the total amount of carbon sequestered by each urban tree species in Bucharest was estimated based on the number of individual trees and the average amount of carbon absorbed by a single mature tree.

3 Results

3.1 Distribution of urban areas covered with trees and shrubs

The urban tree density analysis in Bucharest revealed significant spatial disparities. The outskirts of the city, together with central areas, exhibit a notable lack of trees, with these zones recording a higher prevalence of one-hectare patches devoid of tree cover (Figure 3). In contrast, the intermediate zones of the city display a greater number of one-hectare patches with higher tree densities. Neighbourhoods in the eastern, western, and southern parts of Bucharest show relatively higher tree densities per hectare compared with other areas. The highest tree densities per hectare are concentrated in large parks, which serve as key green assets within the city. Of the total one-hectare land patches generated to cover Bucharest’s administrative boundaries, approximately 36% have a tree density of fewer than twenty-four trees per hectare, and around 41% of the patches contain between twenty-five and one hundred trees. The spatial representation of the small woody features layer highlights a distribution pattern that confirms the findings from the tree density analysis (Figure 4). Neighbourhoods in the east, west, and south exhibit the highest coverage of areas covered with trees and shrubs, whereas the outskirts and the city centre continue to show a noticeable lack of such features. These areas are often located at the edge of large parks dispersed throughout the city. Of the small woody features patches covering Bucharest, approximately 87% are smaller than 0.25 hectares – a minimum threshold defined by national regulations for a group of trees to qualify as a forest. Despite these patches being smaller than 0.25 hectares, cumulatively they represent around 26% out of the total small woody features existing in Bucharest. This indicates that Bucharest benefits from larger, more compact woody features that contribute substantially to its overall tree cover.

Figure 3: Urban tree density distribution within Bucharest, expressed in number of trees per hectare.

Figure 4: Small woody features distribution within Bucharest.

3.2 Urban tree and shrub species and their efficiency in carbon sequestration

The Bucharest Green Registry reports a total of 1,647,517 trees and shrubs distributed across the city, comprising 219 recognized species. However, only around 11% of the recorded trees have been definitively identified at species level. As illustrated in Figure 5, of the identified species, 76% are tree species and 24% are shrubs. The majority (78%) are deciduous species. A notable finding is that most tree and shrub species are nonnative (67%), with a smaller proportion being native. In addition, a substantial number of species are considered allergenic (35% of the total species). The analysis of the number of identified individuals per tree and shrub species revealed that all species with populations exceeding 10,000 individuals are trees. Among these species, 38% are nonnative. The most widespread nonnative species include box elder (Acer negundo), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Oriental arborvitae (Platycladus orientalis), arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis), white ash (Fraxinus americana), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and lilac (Syringa vulgaris), each with more than twenty thousand individuals recorded across the city. The most abundant species in Bucharest is pedunculate oak (Quercus robur), with 114,250 individuals, accounting for 9% of the total number of trees and shrubs identified in the city.

Figure 5: Characteristics of species among urban trees and shrubs in Bucharest.

Using the previously established average carbon sequestration capacity of an adult tree (4.29 kg/year), it is estimated that trees and shrubs in Bucharest sequester approximately 6,090 tonnes of carbon annually. As expected, neighbourhoods with higher urban tree densities per hectare correspond to areas where the largest amounts of carbon are sequestered (Figure 6). The highest recorded value for a single one-hectare patch was 3.34 tonnes of carbon sequestered in one year. Based on the gross carbon sequestration capacity of various tree and shrub species, the most effective native species in Bucharest are silver birch (Betula pendula), cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera), sessile oak (Quercus petraea), downy oak (Quercus pubescens), pedunculate oak (Quercus robur), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), field maple (Acer campestre), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), and manna ash (Fraxinus ornus). Each of these species can sequester more than 5 kg of carbon per year. When considering both the number of individuals present in Bucharest and their carbon sequestration capacity, it is noteworthy that four of the five most efficient tree and shrub species for carbon sequestration are nonnative (Figure 7). However, the superior performance of these nonnative species is primarily attributable to their higher abundance rather than to greater carbon sequestration capacity at the individual tree level.

Figure 6: Carbon sequestration by urban trees (t/ha/year) in Bucharest.

Figure 7: Tree/shrub species contributing the most to carbon sequestration per year in Bucharest (number of individuals multiplied by gross carbon sequestration expressed in t/ha/year).

4 Discussion

This study identified critical areas in Bucharest in terms of urban tree and shrub cover. This was complemented by an estimation of carbon sequestration capacity based on the tree species present in the city. Together, these results may provide a foundation for the development of coherent and effective plans aimed at expanding areas covered with trees and shrubs in Bucharest. Urban environments are dynamic systems, and unbuilt land is a vital resource. In this context, planning or designing urban forests for climate-change adaptation and carbon sequestration becomes a multifaceted challenge. The specific challenges associated with urban green infrastructure planning are largely linked to governance and management, particularly due to the weak integration of urban forestry into urban planning frameworks. These concerns generally relate to species and layout selection, maintenance and monitoring costs, and the survival of planted specimens (Suhane et al., 2024). The last issue is not necessarily related to the selection of tree or shrub species suited to local climatic conditions, but rather to the quality and quantity of urban soils (Jim et al., 2018). Therefore, although establishing extensive urban forests in large cities is constrained by land scarcity, increasing the density of trees and shrubs on available land may be a suitable alternative approach.

The distribution of trees in Bucharest can be explained by the challenges outlined above because land availability for planting is limited in the city centre, and suitable soils are either absent or inadequate in terms of quality. Higher tree densities were recorded further from the city centre, particularly in neighbourhoods planned during the communist period, supporting findings related to uneven green space distribution in large cities (Tatlić et al., 2024). As an eastern European city where post-communist planning approaches overlapped with the centralized communist planning paradigm (Csomós et al., 2021), Bucharest shows disparities in the distribution of areas covered with trees and shrubs that resemble patterns identified in previous studies conducted in post-communist cities. Sector-based and fragmented planning systems, combined with weak legal enforcement mechanisms, are considered key drivers of disparities in urban green space distribution (Vasiljević et al., 2018). Previous studies have associated the distribution of urban areas covered with trees and shrubs primarily with social and economic factors rather than environmental or ecological ones. In Bucharest, the distribution of such green urban areas is strongly linked to the current planning framework and the legacy of earlier planning approaches, whereas in other contexts this distribution is associated with racial segregation, population density, income, and housing characteristics, alongside physical landscape features (Schwarz et al., 2015; Foster et al., 2024). Analyses from Western societies support the idea that wealthier neighbourhoods are greener, whereas poorer and minority-populated areas tend to have less green space. However, in Bucharest, newly planned neighbourhoods, typically inhabited by higher middle-class populations, are often deprived of areas covered with trees and shrubs, whereas older neighbourhoods, predominantly inhabited by lower middle-class populations, tend to be greener. This outcome reflects the market-led planning approaches introduced in the 1990s and continuing today, under which land parcels generate higher returns for developers when built up. Consequently, the provision of urban green spaces in such neighbourhoods is treated as a legal obligation and is often reduced to the minimum area required, with the lowest possible level of investment.

The results of the tree species analysis in Bucharest were as expected, given the biogeographical region the city is located in. However, a significant concern remains the high prevalence of nonnative species, some of which are invasive or have the potential to become invasive. Consistent with previous studies, the most common nonnative species in Bucharest include box elder (Acer negundo), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and white mulberry (Morus alba) (Sîrbu et al., 2021; Gavrilidis et al., 2023). Large urban environments often act as hubs for the introduction of nonnative species into national ecosystems (Kaczorowska 2020), and Bucharest is no exception. Most of the dominant nonnative tree species in the city were deliberately introduced at various times, primarily for aesthetic purposes. Following their introduction, these species have thrived and have become dominant components of Bucharest’s urban landscape. Nonnative invasive tree and shrub species thrive in urban settings due to the urban microclimate, which is warmer and drier, as well as their relatively low ecological requirements. As highlighted in previous studies, black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) performs particularly well in urban environments because its ecological requirements align closely with urban ecological conditions (Franceschi et al., 2023). This species is often preferred in cities because of its lower acquisition and maintenance costs and the comparatively lower mortality rates of planted specimens. Previous research on urban tree species has also shown that ash (Fraxinus spp.) and maple (Acer spp.) are characterized by higher drought tolerance (Sjöman et al. 2024); therefore, the presence of these species in Bucharest is consistent with earlier findings.

Regardless of whether a tree species is native or nonnative, its contribution to carbon sequestration is unequivocally positive (Lashof & Neuberger, 2023). The findings of this study indicate that, in addition to the forest located in the northern part of Bucharest, the city relies on three other major carbon sinks in the east, west, and south. However, the lack of interconnectivity among these sinks limits their overall efficiency, preventing the city from fully benefiting from their regulatory ecosystem services. Furthermore, the absence of linkages between these carbon sequestration sinks – whether through linear green corridors or smaller areas covered with trees and shrubs – poses a risk of gradual degradation and reduced effectiveness in carbon retention (Hansen et al., 2022). Previous research suggests that, although urban forests are an important asset for climate-change adaptation, relying exclusively on them to achieve carbon neutrality is insufficient (Velasco et al., 2016). In-depth studies on the carbon sequestration capacity of urban trees remain relatively scarce in Europe, and most research estimates sequestration based on tree cover or species composition using allometric relationships developed for American tree species (Bherwani et al., 2024). For Bucharest, the average estimated carbon sequestration by trees and shrubs is approximately 0.26 t/ha/year. By comparison, studies have reported average urban forest sequestration rates of around 2 t/ha/year in Chinese cities (Chen, 2015), and estimates for Tehran suggest values of approximately 1 t/ha/year (Rasoolzadeh et al. 2024). Species with high carbon sequestration capacity identified in the Tehran study include black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), elm (Ulmus spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), pine (Pinus spp.), and plane (Platanus spp.), which is consistent with the findings of this study for Bucharest. Analyses from American cities indicate that urban trees in Baltimore – a city comparable to Bucharest in terms of area, climate, and vegetation – exhibit an annual gross carbon sequestration of approximately 14,800 t (≈ 0.62 t/ha/year; Nowak & Crane, 2002).

The literature has clearly established the importance of urban areas covered with trees and shrubs for carbon sequestration efforts. Recent studies have highlighted CO2 as a major air pollutant due to its role in driving climate change (Hadipoor et al., 2021). Estimates of CO2 sequestration by four urban parks in Rome correspond to approximately 3.5% of the city’s total greenhouse-gas emissions (Gratani et al., 2016), whereas in Beijing the estimated annual CO2 sequestration is equivalent to only 0.2% of total emissions (Tang et al., 2016). In Indian cities, trees planted along roadsides were estimated to sequester carbon equivalent to 22% of urban CO2 emissions (Kiran & Kinnary, 2011). Despite these findings, it remains unclear to what extent the costs and efforts incurred by municipalities to expand and develop robust and functional green infrastructure networks are justified solely in terms of carbon sequestration outcomes. Even the monetary valuation of the carbon sequestration capacity of urban trees – although useful for policy framing and illustrating economic relevance – is not sufficiently precise to be treated as an exact financial figure (Nowak & Crane, 2002; Bherwani et al., 2024). Furthermore, growing urban populations are associated with increasing demand for affordable housing and transport infrastructure. Preserving unbuilt land therefore becomes an increasingly complex challenge for local decision-makers because social pressure intensifies from both directions: the need to provide housing and the need to ensure adequate urban green spaces. The carbon sequestration values reported in this and previous studies may appear insufficiently compelling to motivate stronger regulation of urban planning frameworks focused on the quality and quantity of green infrastructure. Nevertheless, there is no scientific doubt that the loss of existing urban green space would lead to a critical decline in urban quality of life.

4.1. This study’s strengths and limitations

A key asset of this study was the availability of the tree location database from the Bucharest Green Registry. In the absence of this resource, the only alternative would have been the small woody features layer, which is sufficiently accurate for general assessments. However, access to both datasets allowed cross-validation of the information. The replicability of the methods applied in this study depends on the availability of geospatial data on urban trees and shrubs. When such data are complemented by information on tree and shrub species, similar assessments can be readily replicated in other urban contexts. Nevertheless, Bucharest’s Green Registry has not been updated since 2012; therefore, conditions may have changed significantly over the years. An updated assessment of tree distribution and species composition could reveal changes in certain parts of the city, but the overall patterns identified in this study are unlikely to differ substantially. Furthermore, the lack of data on tree age and species linked to specific locations limited the depth of the analysis. Despite this limitation, the general statistics on tree species still provide a broad overview of the species that Bucharest relies on for carbon sequestration.

5 Conclusion

This study underscores that achieving carbon neutrality through nature-based solutions in Bucharest will require substantial effort, expert-driven planning, and politically prudent decision-making. Continuing with a “business as usual” approach could yield outcomes worse than maintaining the current status quo, underscoring the urgency of adopting informed and strategic actions. By achieving the proposed objectives, this study revealed that Bucharest is underperforming in comparison with similar cities in terms of carbon sequestration capacity through urban trees and shrubs. However, the areas covered with a significant density of trees and shrubs are mostly dispersed throughout the city. The current situation provides a proper foundation for the further development of Bucharest’s urban green infrastructure, with a particular focus on expanding the areas covered by trees and shrubs. Priority should be given to the city’s outskirts, where sufficient land is still available for the design and implementation of such features. In contrast, the city centre, where land availability is more constrained, would benefit from innovative approaches, such as suspended or vertical forests.

Laurentiu Ciornei, David Davidescu Centre for Agroforestry Biodiversity Studies and Research, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania

E-mail: laurentiu.ciornei@ince.ro

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9381-5051 

Athanasios-Alexandru Gavrilidis (corresponding author), Department of Regional Geography and the Environment, and Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

E-mail: athanasiosalexandru.gavrilidis@g.unibuc.ro, athanasios.gavrilidis@unibuc.ro

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1628-6897 

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization, CNCS UEFISCDI, project number PN-IV-P2-2.1-TE-2023-0828: Developing a Toolbox for Assessing the Resilience and Sustainability of Urban Housing Models in the Context of Environmental Challenges (ReSURCe), within PNCDI IV.

Data availability statement

The land-cover and land-use data for Bucharest and Ilfov County were obtained from the Corine Land Cover (CLC) database and Urban Atlas, and they are freely accessible upon registration. Tree geolocation data were provided by Bucharest City Hall and are available upon request but cannot be shared with third parties. Derived datasets produced in this study, such as tree densities and annual carbon sequestration per hectare, and the species-level tree and shrub counts, are openly available in the OSF repository at https://osf.io/g3xva/overview  (Gavrilidis, 2026); this article must be cited if these data are used in other publications.

Allen, C., Metternicht, G. & Wiedmann, T. (2021) Priorities for science to support national
implementation of the sustainable development goals: A review of progress and gaps.
Sustainable Development, 29(4), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2164
Antuna-Rozado, C., Herzog, C. P., Freitas, T., Cagnin, C. & Wiedman, G. (2019) Nature
based solutions (NBS) for sustainable and resilient cities: Experiences from Europe and
Brazil. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 297, 012001.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/297/1/012001
Badiu, D. L., Onose, D. A., Niță, M. R. & Lafortezza, R. (2018) From “red” to green? A look
into the evolution of green spaces in a post-socialist city. Landscape and Urban Planning,
187, 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.07.015
Bartlett, R. & Mistry, J. (2021) The contributions of NBS to urban resilience. In: Croci, E. &
Lucchitta, B. (eds.) Nature-based solutions for more sustainable cities – A framework
approach for planning and evaluation, 11–20. Bingley, UK, Emerald Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80043-636-720211002
Barua, S. (2020) Financing sustainable development goals: A review of challenges and
mitigation strategies. Business Strategy & Development, 3(3), 277–293.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.94
Bernet, R. (2023) How much CO2 does a tree absorb? Available at:
https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/how-much-co2-does-tree-absorb (accessed 25 May
2024).
Bherwani, H., Banerji, T. & Menon, R. (2024) Role and value of urban forests in carbon
sequestration: Review and assessment in Indian context. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 26(1), 603–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02725-5
Bolund, P. & Hunhammar, S. (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological
Economics, 29(2), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0
Booth, A., Chmutina, K. & Bosher, L. (2020) Protecting crowded places: Challenges and
drivers to implementing protective security measures in the built environment. Cities, 107,
102891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102891
Boukili, V. K., Bebber, D. P., Mortimer, T., Venicx, G., Lefcourt, D., Chandler, M., et al.
(2017) Assessing the performance of urban forest carbon sequestration models using direct
measurements of tree growth. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 24, 212–221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.015
Chen, W. Y. (2015) The role of urban green infrastructure in offsetting carbon emissions in
35 major Chinese cities: A nationwide estimate. Cities, 44, 112–120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.01.005
Ciornei, L. (2019) Capitalizing of complementary products in the context of sustainable
development of the Romanian forestry land. Review of General Management, 30(2), 155–174.

Ciornei, L. & Munteanu, P. (2020) Romanian forest sector labor force-evolutions and trends.
LUMEN Proceedings, 14, 436–449. https://doi.org/10.18662/lumproc/ibmage2020/32
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997) The
value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253.
https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
Cristea, M., Mare, C., Moldovan, C., China, A.-M., Farole, T., Vințan, A., et al. (2017)
Magnet cities: Migration and commuting in Romania. Bucharest, World Bank Group.
https://doi.org/10.1596/27874
Csomós, G., Farkas, Z. J., Kolcsár, R. A., Szilassi, P. & Kovács, Z. (2021) Measuring socio-
economic disparities in green space availability in post-socialist cities. Habitat International,
117, 102434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102434
Dewan, A. M. & Corner, R. J. (2014) Spatiotemporal analysis of urban growth, sprawl and
structure. Dhaka megacity: Geospatial perspectives on urbanisation, environment and health,
99–121. Dordrecht, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6735-5_6
Dong, X., Guo, H. & Zeng, S. (2017) Enhancing future resilience in urban drainage system:
Green versus grey infrastructure. Water Research, 124, 280–289.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.038
European Environmental Agency (2010) Forest, health and climate change. Urban green
spaces, forest for cooler cities and healthier people. Copenhagen.
Fares, S., Paoletti, E., Calfapietra, C., Mikkelsen, T. N., Samson, R. & Le Thiec, D. (2017)
Carbon sequestration by urban trees. In: Pearlmutter, D., Calfapietra, C., Samson, R.,
O’Brien, L., Krajter Ostoić, S., Sanesi, G., et al. (eds.) The urban forest: Cultivating green
infrastructure for people and the environment, 31–39. Cham, Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50280-9_4
Farquhar, G. D. & Lloyd, J. (1993) Carbon and oxygen isotope effects in the exchange of
carbon dioxide between terrestrial plants and the atmosphere. In: Saugier, B., Ehleringer, J.
R., Hall, A. E. & Farquhar, G. D. (eds.) Stable isotopes and plant carbon-water relations,
47–70. San Diego, Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-091801-3.50011-8
Felappi, J. F., Sommer, J. H., Falkenberg, T., Terlau, W. & Kotter, T. (2020) Green
infrastructure through the lens of “One Health”: A systematic review and integrative
framework uncovering synergies and trade-offs between mental health and wildlife support in
cities. Science of the Total Environment, 748, 141589.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141589
Foster, A., Dunham, I. M. & Bukowska, A. (2024) An environmental justice analysis of urban
tree canopy distribution and change. Journal of Urban Affairs, 46(3), 493–508.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2022.2083514
Franceschi, E., Moser-Reischl, A., Honold, M., Rahman, M. A., Pretzsch, H., Pauleit, S., et al.
(2023) Urban environment, drought events and climate change strongly affect the growth of

common urban tree species in a temperate city. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 88,
128083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128083
Gavrilidis, A. A. (2026): Estimating carbon sequestration based on urban tree species:
Findings from Bucharest. Data set. OSF. Available at: https://osf.io/g3xva/overview .
Gavrilidis, A. A., Grădinaru, S. R., Iojă, C., Cârstea, E. M. & Pătru-Stupariu, I. (2015) Land
use and land cover dynamics in the periurban area of an industrialized East-European city. An
overview of the last 100 years. Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 10,
29–38.
Gavrilidis, A. A., Grădinaru, S. R., Onete, M., Breuste, J. & Ioja, C. (2023) The influence of
vacant land presence on proliferation of invasive alien plant species: The case of Ailanthus
altissima (Mill.) Swingle var. altissima. In: Breuste, J., Artmann, M., Ioja, C. & Qureshi, S.
(eds.) Making green cities: Concepts, challenges and practice, 279–295. Cham, Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73089-5_18
Gavrilidis, A. A., Niță, M. R., Onose, D. A., Badiu, D. L. & Năstase, I. I. (2019)
Methodological framework for urban sprawl control through sustainable planning of urban
green infrastructure. Ecological Indicators, 96, 67–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.054
Gavrilidis, A.-A., Popa, A.-M., Nita, M.-R., Onose, D.-A. & Badiu, D.-L. (2020) Planning the
“unknown”: Perception of urban green infrastructure concept in Romania. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening, 51, 126649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126649
Goodspeed, R., Liu, R., Gounaridis, D., Lizundia, C. & Newell, J. (2022) A regional spatial
planning model for multifunctional green infrastructure. Environment and Planning B: Urban
Analytics and City Science, 49(3), 815–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083211033610
Gratani, L., Varone, L. & Bonito, A. (2016) Carbon sequestration of four urban parks in
Rome. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 19, 184–193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.07.007
Gunawardena, K., Wells, M. & Kershaw, T. (2017) Utilising green and bluespace to mitigate
urban heat island intensity. Science of the Total Environment, 584, 1040–1055.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.158
Hadipoor, M., Keivanimehr, F., Baghban, A., Ganjali, M. R. & Habibzadeh, S. (2021) Carbon
dioxide as a main source of air pollution: Prospective and current trends to control. In: Núñez-
Delgado, A. (ed.) Sorbents materials for controlling environmental pollution, 623–688.
Amsterdam, Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820042-1.00004-3
Hansen, W. D., Schwartz, N. B., Williams, A. P., Albrich, K., Kueppers, L. M., Rammig, A.,
et al. (2022) Global forests are influenced by the legacies of past inter-annual temperature
variability. Environmental Research: Ecology, 1(1), 011001.
https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-664X/ac6e4a

Hendriks, C. M. A., Jacobs, S. B. M., Cormont, A., Verweij, P. J. F. M. & van Oosten, R. J.
(2021) What is a forest? A view of Europe’s forest coverage. Joensuu, Finland, Forest
Information System for Europe.
Jim, C. Y., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. & Chen, W. Y. (2018) Acute challenges and
solutions for urban forestry in compact and densifying cities. Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, 144(3), 04018025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000466
Kaczorowska, A. (2020) Urban transformation and implementation of green development
strategies – Case of Gothenburg. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
588, 1.15–1.19. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/588/5/052004
Kiran, G. S. & Kinnary, S. (2011) Carbon sequestration by urban trees on roadsides of
Vadodara city. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 3(4),
3066–3070.
Kong, F., Ban, Y., Yin, H., James, P. & Dronova, I. (2017) Modeling stormwater
management at the city district level in response to changes in land use and low impact
development. Environmental Modelling & Software, 95, 132–142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.021
Konijnendijk, C. C., Ricard, R. M., Kenney, A. & Randrup, T. B. (2006) Defining urban
forestry – A comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening, 4(3–4), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2005.11.003
Kronenberg, J., Haase, A., Łaszkiewicz, E., Antal, A., Baravikova, A., Biernacka, M., et al.
(2020) Environmental justice in the context of urban green space availability, accessibility,
and attractiveness in postsocialist cities. Cities, 106, 102862.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102862
Lashof, D. & Neuberger, J. (2023) Climate-smart infrastructure in the United States – What
does it looks like and how do we get it built? Environmental Research: Infrastructure and
Sustainability, 3(1), 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/acbc95
Lege nr. 24/2007 (republicată). Monitorul Oficial, no. 764/2009. Bucharest.
Li, X. (2021) Examining the spatial distribution and temporal change of the green view index
in New York City using Google Street View images and deep learning. Environment and
Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(7), 2039–2054.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320962511
Mexia, T., Vieira, J., Príncipe, A., Anjos, A., Silva, P., Lopes, N., et al. (2018) Ecosystem
services: Urban parks under a magnifying glass. Environmental Research, 160, 469–478.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.10.023
Morris, A. E. J. (2013) History of urban form before the industrial revolutions. London,
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315841199

National Institute for Statistics (2023) Tempo online. Available at:
http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table (accessed 16 March
2024).
Nowak, D. J. & Crane, D. E. (2002) Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the
USA. Environmental Pollution, 116(3), 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-
7491(01)00214-7
Nowak, D. J., Crane, D. E. & Stevens, J. C. (2006) Air pollution removal by urban trees and
shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4(3–4), 115–123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.007
Nowak, D. J., Greenfield, E. J., Hoehn, R. E. & Lapoint, E. (2013) Carbon storage and
sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States. Environmental
Pollution, 178, 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.019
Popa, A. M., Onose, D. A., Sandric, I. C., Dosiadis, E. A., Petropoulos, G. P., Gavrilidis, A.
A., et al. (2022) Using GEOBIA and vegetation indices to assess small urban green areas in
two climatic regions. Remote Sensing, 14(19), 4888. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14194888
Primăria Municipiului Bucuresti (2012) Registrul Spatiilor Verzi. Available at:
https://www2.pmb.ro/institutii/primaria/directii/directia_mediu/registrul_spatiilor_verzi.php
(accessed 29 January 2024)
Rasoolzadeh, R., Mobarghaee Dinan, N., Esmaeilzadeh, H., Rashidi, Y., Marcu, M. &
Sadeghi, S. (2024) Carbon sequestration and storage of urban trees in a polluted semiarid city.
Forests, 15(9), 1488. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15091488
Sanesi, G., Colangelo, G., Lafortezza, R., Calvo, E. & Davies, C. (2017) Urban green
infrastructure and urban forests: A case study of the metropolitan area of Milan. Landscape
Research, 42(2), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1173658
Schwarz, K., Fragkias, M., Boone, C. G., Zhou, W., McHale, M., Grove, J. M., et al. (2015)
Trees grow on money: Urban tree canopy cover and environmental justice. PloS One, 10(4),
e0122051. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122051
Simion, G. & Nistor, C. (2012) Spatial structure changes inside post-communist capital city of
Bucharest. Human Geographies, 6(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.5719/hgeo.2012.61.79
Sîrbu, C., Anastasiu, P., Urziceanu, M., Camen-Comănescu, P., Sîrbu, I.-M., Popa, A.-M., et
al. (2021) Invasive alien plant species in Romania of European Union concern. Environmental
& Socio-Economic Studies, 9(4), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.2478/environ-2021-0023
Sjöman, H., Watkins, H., Kelly, L. J., Hirons, A., Kainulainen, K., Martin, K. W., et al.
(2024) Resilient trees for urban environments: The importance of intraspecific variation.
Plants, People, Planet, 6(6), 1180–1189. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10518
Stoia, N. L., Niţă, M. R., Popa, A. M. & Iojă, I. C. (2022) The green walk – An analysis for
evaluating the accessibility of urban green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 75,
127685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127685

Suditu, B. (2009) Urban sprawl and residential mobility in the Bucharest area reconfiguration
of a new residential geography. Human Geographies, 3(1), 79–93.
Suhane, S., Sharma, U., Agrawal, R. & Singh, S. P. (2024) Integrating urban forests into
sustainable urban planning: Strategies, challenges and future directions. International Journal
of Environmental Sciences, 10(3), 50–67.
Tang, Y., Chen, A. & Zhao, S. (2016) Carbon storage and sequestration of urban street trees
in Beijing, China. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 53.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2016.00053
Tatlić, D., Čabaravdić, A., Bajrić, M., Ljuša, M., Klarić, S. & Hukić, E. (2024) Assessing
green space indicators: A case study of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Urbani izziv,
35(2), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2024-35-02-05
United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable
development. New York.
Vais, A., Mikhaylov, P., Popova, V., Nepovinnykh, A., Nemich, V., Andronova, A. et al.
(2023) Carbon sequestration dynamics in urban-adjacent forests: A 50-year analysis. Civil
Engineering Journal, 9(9), 2205–2220. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2023-09-09-08
Van Oijstaeijen, W., Van Passel, S. & Cools, J. (2020) Urban green infrastructure: A review
on valuation toolkits from an urban planning perspective. Journal of Evironmental
Management, 267, 110603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110603
Vasiljević, N., Radić, B., Gavrilović, S., Šljukić, B., Medarević, M. & Ristić, R. (2018) The
concept of green infrastructure and urban landscape planning: A challenge for urban forestry
planning in Belgrade, Serbia. iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 11(4), 491.
https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor2683-011
Velasco, E., Roth, M., Norford, L. & Molina, L. T. (2016) Does urban vegetation enhance
carbon sequestration? Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 99–107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.003
Wu, X., Tian, Z. & Guo, J. (2022) A review of the theoretical research and practical progress
of carbon neutrality. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 54–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2021.10.001
Zhang, A., Li, W., Wu, J., Lin, J., Chu, J. & Xia, C. (2021) How can the urban landscape
affect urban vitality at the street block level? A case study of 15 metropolises in China.
Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(5), 1245–1262.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320924425