the values of ecosystem services and · ecosystems - decline of habitat size - soil sealing - niche...
Post on 26-Jul-2020
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The values of ecosystem services and biodiversity: addressing cities and the urban-rural interface
Dagmar Haase (Berlin, Leipzig)
� Reasoning� Urban Ecosystem Services & Biodiversity� Results at European, regional and city scale� Discussion and Dissemination� Conclusions� SURE 2013 in Berlin
Outline
2015
• We find a rising share of people living in cities and urban areas.
• Ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructure and biodiversity gain importance.
• Urban forests, street trees and parks belong to the most prominent green spaces in cities
• but also allotment gardens, cemeteries, interim use sites, pocket parks and, last not least,regnerated urban brownfields are crucial.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005); TEEB for Local and Regional Policy 2010; Icons by Jan Sasse, TEEB
UES initiatives
• TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (G8+5, http://www.teebweb.org/)
• UK NEA National Ecosystem Assessment (http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/)
• IPBES International science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (governments, global) (http://www.ipbes.net/)
• Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP)
• URBES project
• URBIS platform
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005); TEEB for Local and Regional Policy 2010; Icons by Jan Sasse, TEEB
URBES project
Urban landscapes are the everyday environment for the majority of the global population: >50% of the world’s and almost 80% of the Europeans live in urban areas.
The continuous increase in the number and size of urban regions, and the ensuing transformation of landscapes on different scales, pose great challenges for reducing the rate of loss of biodiversity and for ensuring human welfare.
Our mission
The understanding of how urban ecosystems work, how they change and what limits their performance, can add to the understanding of ecosystem change and governance in general in an ever more humandominated world.
Our mission
URBES builds on case studies of four European cities: Berlin , Rotterdam , Salzburg and Stockholm . Some studies are also done on the cities of Barcelona , Helsinki , Lodz and New York .
The research consortium consists of eleven world-leading research institutes on social-ecological studies of urban areas, based in Europe and one in USA. Helsinki University, University of Lodz and The New School (New York) participate as self-funded partners.
Our mission
Case studies
Stockholm
Berlin
Rotterdam
Salzburg
Helsinki
New York City
Lodz
� is for all UES types & biodiversity � at different spatial scales� includes provisioning and demand� is spatial and non-spatial� needs to be integrated (MCA) � needs to be tested/discussed in stakeholder workshops, round tables
Work on UES …
Interim results
UES review (Haase et al.)
UES studies allocation & frequency(n=217)
UES review
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Regulating Supporting &
Biodiversity
Cultural Provisioning
% o
f en
trie
s
Haase et al. (AMBIO SI 2014)
UES review
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
fore
sts
land
use m
ixtu
regr
een in
fras
truct
urew
ater
ways
/lak
es
urban
fabric
urban
park
surb
an-r
ural g
radi
ent
brow
nfield
s
allo
tmen
tsru
ral s
urroun
dings
infr
astr
ucture
urban
agr
icultu
re%
of
en
trie
s
Haase et al. (AMBIO SI 2014)
UES review
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
bio-p
hysic
alca
usal
-loop
empiri
cal
GIS-b
ased
inte
rvie
wlo
ok-up
table
prize
qualita
tive
stat
istic
al
surv
ey
will
ingn
ess-to
-pay
% o
f e
ntr
ies
What type of model is used for the quantification of ES
supply/provisioning?
What type of model is used for the quantification of ES
demand/need?
Haase et al. (AMBIO SI 2014)
UES of European citiesCore city Larger urban area
Larondelle, Haase, Kabisch (sub.)
Core city Larger urban area
UES of European cities
Larondelle, Haase, Kabisch (sub.)
Europe
Sweden Netherlands
Bulgaria Portugal
UGS of European cities
1990-2000 2000-2006 Kabisch & Haase (2012)
UGS of European cities
Western Europe Eastern Europe
Kabisch & Haase (2012)
City region level – Berlin
Carbon storage[MgCO 3/ha]
Climate regulation[f-ETP]
Larondelle & Haase (2013)
standardized value
Rural-urban gradients
Larondelle & Haase (2013)
Demand and Supply
Baró, Haase, Frantzeskaki, Gómez-Baggethun (2013)
Barcelona Berlin
Stockholm Rotterdam
Integration – NYC
Local scale – Berlin
C 1 C 2 C 3Total city
Urban green space (%) 16.1 52.7 10.9 23.0Pop density (inh./km²) 4270 1764 12515 6296Foreigners (%) 8.2 7.0 21.2 12.0Residential area (%) 24.0 18.9 34.1 26.0
Nr. of cases 27 14 19 60
Kabisch & Haase (submitted)
Local scale – Berlin
Kabisch & Haase (submitted)
GC = Gini coefficient
Well-being – NYC
Low physical activity
Well-being – NYC
Moderate physical activity
Damages on urban ecosystems
- Decline of habitat size- Soil sealing- Niche habitats- Soil pollution (road salt, heavy metals)- Water and heat stress- Damages, vandalism- Climate change (droughts)
due to urbanization and soil sealing
Conservation strategies
- Conservation areas - Nature protection- Maintenance and melioration- „Optimization“ of species- Planting - Water and flood regulation- Revitalisation- Education and care
Berliner HauptwegeBerlin green ways
Scenarios – Berlin 2006
Scenarios – Berlin Utopia
• Factsheets of URBES• EC Science for Environment• urban TEEB Manual• urban InVest• City Biodiversity Outlook (CBO)
How to bring it among people?
Elmqvist, 2012
Vision
Take home message
For an effective conservation/management of urban ecosystems we need a combination of merging of
� an “ecology in cities ”mainly focusing on designing energy efficient building, sustainable logistics and providing inhabitants with healthy and functioning green urban environments
� an “ecology of cities ”which acknowledges the total dependence of cities on the surrounding landscape and the ever-ongoing dance between urban and rural, viewing the city as an ecosystem.
Read more
Larondelle N, Haase D 2013. Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural-urban gradient: a cross-analysis of European cities. Ecological Indicators 29, 179–190.
Haase D, Schwarz N, Strohbach M, Kroll F 2012. Synergies, trade-offs and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: An integrated framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany. Ecology and Society.Larondelle N, Haase D 2012 Valuing post-mining landscapes using the ecosystem services approach – an example from Germany. Ecological Indicators 18, 567–574.
Kroll F, Müller F, Haase D, Fohrer N 2012. Rural-urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy 29(3), 521-535.
Strohbach M W, Arnold E, Haase D 2012. The carbon mitigation potential of urban restructuring – a life cycle analysis of green space development. Landscape and Urban Planning 104, 220– 229.
Strohbach M W, Haase D 2012. Estimating the carbon stock of a city: a study from Leipzig,Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning 104, 95–104.
Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K 2012. Ecosystem properties, potentials and services - the EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecological Indicators 21, 7-16.
Schwarz N, Bauer A, Haase D 2011. Assessing climate impacts of local and regional planning policies - Quantification of impacts for Leipzig (Germany). Env Impact Assessment Review 31, 97-111.
Larondelle N, Haase D 2012. Valuing post-mining landscapes using the ecosystem services approach –an example from Germany. Ecological Indicators 18, 567–574.
Haase D 2009. Effects of urbanisation on the water balance – a long-term trajectory. Environment Impact Assessment Review 29, 211-219.
• URBES symposium “Understanding the nexus of Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services”
• Symposium on “Methodological approaches for dealing with socio-ecological complexity of urban areas”
• Symposia on urban land and green space management• Openning by Ingo Kowarik• Synthesis by Stewart Pickett
Thank you for your attention!
Dagmar Haase (dagmar.haase@ufz.de)Niki FrantzeskakiTimon McPhearsonThomas Elmqvist
The URBES factsheets
top related