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