Environmental Management https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01257-w Ecosystem Services and Economic Assessment of Land Uses in Urban and Periurban Areas Gabriela Civeira 1 ● Marcos Lado Liñares 2 ● Eva Vidal Vazquez 2 ● Antonio Paz González 2 Received: 3 May 2019 / Accepted: 24 January 2020 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020 Abstract This work quantified ecosystem services (ES) and the geographic gross product (GGP) at municipal level in the Metropolitan Region of Buenos Aires (MRBA), Argentina. The ES offer and GGP were evaluated for each land use (extensive agriculture EA, intensive agriculture IA, urban and periurban agriculture UPA, green areas GA, urban use URB), expressed as a percentage (%), at the municipality level. Municipalities with a greater URB percentage (<70) presented an elevated ES offer from GA. In periurban municipalities EA contributed to ES offer more than other vegetated land uses (IA, GA, and UPA). Urban municipalities presented 20% more GGP than periurban municipalities. The GGP was negatively associated with total ES offer (-0.34) and ES offer from EA (-0.46). The identification and quantification of ES and GGP is relevant for achieving an adequate landscape planning and a sustainable environmental and economic use of urban systems. Keywords Megacities ● Metropolitan Region of Buenos Aires (MRBA) ● Vegetated uses ● Geographic gross product (GGP) ● Sustainable urban environments Introduction Urban landscapes exhibit different spatial and temporal pat- terns, both related to uses diversity (for example: urban set- tlements, empty spaces, forested areas, urban reserves, productive areas, and among others). Human activities changes landscape structure increasing its fragmentation. The latter occurs in large areas worldwide, and affects the avail- ability of goods and ecosystem services (ES) associated with urban and periurban environments (Costanza et al. 1998; Kremen et al. 2007) (Szumacher and Malinowska 2013). Urban and periurban ecosystems are a consequence of the anthropic creation and ruled by human societies. Also, human regulation affects, positively or negatively, urban ES and may affect inhabitants life quality in the cities (Morello 2000; Szumacher and Malinowska 2013 Endreny 2018). The environmental and social benefits of urban ES are related to landscapes which include green areas (GA) and urban or periurban agriculture. The latter have been documented by several authors, which indicated that these landscape uses are essential to maintain the sustainability of urban and periurban ES (Pérez-Vázquez and Leyva- Trinidad 2015; Szumacher and Malinowska 2013; End- reny 2018). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2016) recorded how urban forests help to sustain nine United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG): zero hunger, zero poverty, well-being and health, unconta- minated water and sanitation, cheap and clean energy, descent labor and economic growth, climate achievement, land living, sustainable cities, and communities (Endreny 2018; Peng et al. 2017). Likewise, the conservation of vegetated uses, such as GA and urban or periurban agri- culture, in the cities fulfils water and food provision, climate regulation, among other fundamental ES for urban popu- lation. Therefore, in urban environments, population life quality, is highly related to ES offer and the virtuous environmental–social link they can maintain (Endreny 2018; Szumacher and Malinowska 2013; Zezza and Tas- ciotti 2010).The set of interactions between the environ- mental domain, where ES are generated, and the social domain, where ES are used, have a positive influence on human welfare and economic variables. Since, socio- economic variables, such as the geographic gross product (GGP), could be affected by ES offer from vegetated urban uses (Szumacher and Malinowska 2013; Peng et al. 2017). * Gabriela Civeira gciveira@agro.uba.ar 1 Instituto de Suelos INTA, Buenos Aires, Argentina 2 Universidade da Coruña, Coruña, Spain 1234567890();,: 1234567890();,: