Urban green spaces have been widely recognized for their ecosystem services (ES) provisioning, but their resources are insufficient. Informal green spaces (IGS), the neglected areas whose maintenance was abandoned, can complement existing greenery, generating minimal costs for the managers. In this transdisciplinary study, we investigate the role of IGS in the ES provisioning and preserving biodiversity compared to urban parks. We conducted measurements in locations that represent IGS in two varying habitat types (upland and riparian) compared to recently established parks on the upland. We measured biophysical indicators related to ES and performed a social study to assess cultural ES. We used multivariate analysis to find the significant indicators related to ES and biodiversity and analyzed interrelations among them. We found comparable ES provisioning for dust removal, cooling benefits, water storage and biodiversity preservation in IGS and urban parks. The differences were mainly due to the canopy development stage rather than cultivation. Despite the lack of infrastructure, IGS with dense vegetation were perceived more positively than traditionally cultivated parks. We found differences in how the ES and biodiversity were interrelated, in IGS, the most important links were between regulating and supporting services, while in parks, cultural services prevailed.

城市绿地因其提供生态系统服务（ES）而得到广泛认可，但其资源不足。非正式绿地 (IGS)，即已放弃维护的被忽视区域，可以补充现有的绿地，为管理人员带来最低的成本。在这项跨学科研究中，与城市公园相比，我们调查了 IGS 在 ES 供应和保护生物多样性中的作用。与最近在高地建立的公园相比，我们在代表两种不同栖息地类型（高地和河岸）的 IGS 的位置进行了测量。我们测量了与 ES 相关的生物物理指标，并进行了一项社会研究来评估文化 ES。我们使用多变量分析找到了与 ES 和生物多样性相关的重要指标，并分析了它们之间的相互关系。我们在 IGS 和城市公园中发现了可比的 ES 配置，用于除尘、冷却效益、储水和生物多样性保护。差异主要是由于冠层发育阶段而不是栽培。尽管缺乏基础设施，但植被茂密的 IGS 被认为比传统种植的公园更积极。我们发现 ES 和生物多样性的相互关系存在差异，在 IGS 中，最重要的联系是调节和支持服务之间的联系，而在公园中，文化服务占主导地位。与传统栽培公园相比，植被茂密的 IGS 被认为更积极。我们发现 ES 和生物多样性的相互关系存在差异，在 IGS 中，最重要的联系是调节和支持服务之间的联系，而在公园中，文化服务占主导地位。与传统栽培公园相比，植被茂密的 IGS 被认为更积极。我们发现 ES 和生物多样性如何相互关联存在差异，在 IGS 中，最重要的联系是调节和支持服务之间的联系，而在公园中，文化服务占主导地位。