Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning-The case of Berlin, Germany

Land Use Policy

Volumn 42, Issue , 2015, Pages 557-567

  Kabisch, Nadja ^a,b  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

Berlin; Governance; Green space planning; Urban ecosystem services

Indexed keywords

GOVERNANCE APPROACH; GREENSPACE; PLANNING SYSTEM; POPULATION GROWTH; STRATEGIC APPROACH; URBAN ECOSYSTEM; URBAN PLANNING;

BERLIN; GERMANY;

EID: 84907829598     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.005     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Airport Berlin Brandenburg GmbH Annual Report 2011 SXF, TXL & BER, Berlin 2012, 126. Retrieved from: https://www.berlin-airport.de/en/press/publications/.
2. Albert C., Hauck J., Buhr N., von Haaren C. What ecosystem services information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among landscape and regional planners in Germany. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 10.1007/s10980-014-9990-5.
3. Amt für Statistik, Berlin-Brandenburg Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg 2013, Retrieved from: http://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/home.asp (accessed 08.04.13).
4. Baró F., Chaparro L., Gómez-Baggethun E., Langemeyer J., Nowak D.J., Terradas J. Contribution of ecosystem services to air quality and climate change mitigation policies: the case of urban forests in Barcelona, Spain. Ambio 2014, 43(4):466-479. 10.1007/s13280-014-0507-x.
5. Baur J.W.R., Tynon J.F., Gómez E. Attitudes about urban nature parks: a case study of users and nonusers in Portland, Oregon. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 117:100-111. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.015.
6. Bendt P., Barthel S., Colding J. Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access community gardens in Berlin. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109(1):18-30. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.003.
7. Bolund P., Hunhammar S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29:293-301.
8. Bowler D.E., Buyung-Ali L., Knight T.M., Pullin A.S. Urban greening to cool towns and cities: a systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97(3):147-155. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.006.
9. Chiesura A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68(1):129-138. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003.
10. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence of Natural Ecosystems 1997, 392. Island Press, Washington, DC.
11. Daily G.C., Polasky S., Goldstein J., Kareiva P.M., Mooney H., Pejchar L., Ricketts T.H., Salzman J., Shallenberger R. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7(1):21-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/080025.
12. De Groot R.S., Alkemade R., Braat L., Hein L., Willemen L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7(3):260-272. 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.
13. Frantzeskaki N., Tilie N. The dynamics of urban ecosystem governance in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ambio 2014, 43(4):542-555. 10.1007/s13280-014-0512-0.
14. Frantzeskaki N., Wittmayer J., Loorbach D. The role of partnerships in "realising" urban sustainability in Rotterdam's City Ports Area, The Netherlands. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65:406-417. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.023.
15. Gill S.E., Handley J.F., Ennos A.R., Pauleit S. Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Build. Environ. 2007, 33:115-133.
16. Giseke U. Die zentrale Stellung der Freiraumplanung bei der sozialen und kulturellen Ausgestaltung der postindustriellen Stadt. Inf. Raumentwickl. 2004, 11(12):669-678.
17. Gómez-Baggethun E., Barton D.N. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86:235-245. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019.
18. Haase D., Schwarz N., Strohbach M., Kroll F., Seppelt R. Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: an integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17(3). 10.5751/ES-04853-170322.
19. Hauck J., Go C., Varjopuro R., Ratama O., Jax K. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 5:13-21.
20. Hauck J., Görg C., Varjopuro R., Ratamäki O., Jax K. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 25:13-21. 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.001.
21. Hauck J., Görg C., Varjopuro R., Ratamäki O., Maes J., Wittmer H., Jax K. "Maps have an air of authority": potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 4:25-32. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.11.003.
22. Irvine K.N., Warber S.L., Devine-Wright P., Gaston K.J. Understanding urban green space as a health resource: a qualitative comparison of visit motivation and derived effects among park users in Sheffield, UK. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10(1):417-442. 10.3390/ijerph10010417.
23. Jim C.Y., Chen W.Y. Assessing the ecosystem service of air pollutant removal by urban trees in Guangzhou (China). J. Environ. Manage. 2008, 88(4):665-676.
24. Joh K., Nguyen M.T., Boarnet M.G. Can built and social environmental factors encourage walking among individuals with negative walking attitudes?. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2011, 32(2):219-236. 10.1177/0739456X11427914.
25. Kabisch N., Haase D. Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 122:129-139. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.016.
26. Kelty M.J. The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2006, 233(2-3):195-204. 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.011.
27. Kuo F.E., Sullivan W.C., Coley R.L. Fertile Ground for Community: Inner-City Neighborhood Common Spaces. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 1998, 26(6):823-851.
28. Lakes T., Kim H.-O. The urban environmental indicator "biotope area ratio"-an enhanced approach to assess and manage the urban ecosystem services using high resolution remote-sensing. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 13(1):93-103. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.05.016.
29. Loorbach D. Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 2010, 23(1):161-183.
30. Maas J., Verheij R.A., Groenewegen P.P., de Vries S., Spreeuwenberg P. Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation?. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 2006, 60(7):587-592. 10.1136/jech.2005.043125.
31. Mayer M. New lines of division in the new Berlin. The Berlin Reader. A Compendium on Urban Change and Activism 2013, 95-106. Transcript, Berlin. M. Bernt, B. Grell, A. Holms (Eds.).
32. McMillan T.E. The relative influence of urban form on a child's travel mode to school. Transp. Res. A: Policy Pract. 2007, 41(1):69-79. 10.1016/j.tra.2006.05.011.
33. McPherson G.E., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J., Xiao Q. Benefit-cost analysis of modesto's municipal forest. J. Arboric. 1999, 25(5):235-248.
34. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis 2005.
35. Nelson E., Mendoza G., Regetz J., Polasky S., Tallis H., Cameron D.R., Chan K.M., Daily G.C., Goldstein J., Kareiva P.M., Lonsdorf E., Naidoo R., Ricketts T.H., Shaw M.R. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7(1):4-11. 10.1890/080023.
36. Niemela J. Ecology and urban planning. Biodivers. Conserv. 1999, 8:119-131.
37. Niemelä J., Saarela S.-R., Söderman T., Kopperoinen L., Yli-Pelkonen V., Väre S., Kotze D.J. Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19:3225-3243.
38. O'Brien R. Pocket Parks of NYC. Little Green Spaces in the Middle of the City 2014, Retrieved from: http://www.pocketparksnyc.com/ (accessed 13.03.14).
39. Peschardt K.K., Stigsdotter U.K., Schipperrijn J. Identifying features of pocket parks that may be related to health promoting use. Landsc. Res. 2014, 1-16. 10.1080/01426397.2014.894006.
40. Piwowarczyk J., Kronenberg J., Dereniowska M.A. Marine ecosystem services in urban areas: do the strategic documents of Polish coastal municipalities reflect their importance?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109(1):85-93. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.009.
41. Primmer E., Furman E. Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems?. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1(1):85-92. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.008.
42. Radford K.G., James P. Changes in the value of ecosystem services along a rural-urban gradient: a case study of Greater Manchester, UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109(1):117-127. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.007.
43. Schröter M., van der Zanden E.H., van Oudenhoven A.P.E., Remme R.P., Serna-Chavez H.M., de Groot R.S., Opdam P. Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 10.1111/conl.12091.
44. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Der Park am Gleisdreieck Idee, Geschichte, Entwicklung und Umsetzung, Berlin 2013, 53. Retrieved from: http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/stadtgruen/gruenanlagen/downloads/gleisdreieck_der-park-am-gleisdreieck_broschuere.pdf.
45. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Urban Green 2013, Retrieved from: http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/stadtgruen/gruenanlagen/index.shtml (accessed 08.04.13).
46. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Berlin Stadtentwicklungsplan Wohnen 2025, Berlin 2014, 119. Retrieved from: http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/stadtentwicklungsplanung/de/wohnen/download/step_wohnen_2025_bericht.pdf.
47. Simpson J.R. Improved estimates of tree-shade effects on residential energy use. Energy 2002, 34:1067-1076.
48. Stewart I.D., Oke T.R. Local climate zones for urban temperature studies. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2012, 93(12):1879-1900. 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00019.1.
49. Strohbach M., Haase D. Above-ground carbon storage by urban trees in Leipzig, Germany: analysis of patterns in a European city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104(1):95-104. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.001.
50. TEEB The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity: TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management 2011, Retrieved from: http://www.teebweb.org/Portals/25/Documents/TEEB_Manual_for_Cities_Ecosystem_Services_for_Urban_managment___FINAL_2011.pdf.
51. Van Renterghem T., Hornikx M., Forssen J., Botteldooren D. The potential of building envelope greening to achieve quietness. Build. Environ. 2013, 61:34-44. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.12.001.
52. Völker S., Kistemann T. Urban blue enhancing human health and well-being in Cologne and Düsseldorf. Germany.Sci. Med. 2013, 91(78):141-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.047.
53. Von Haaren C., Albert C. Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage. 2011, 7(3):150-167. 10.1080/21513732.2011.616534.