Key insights for the future of urban ecosystem services research

Ecology and Society

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2016, Pages

  Kremer, Peleg ^a,b   Hamstead, Zoé ^b   Haase, Dagmar ^c,d   McPhearson, Timon ^b   Frantzeskaki, Niki ^e   Andersson, Erik ^f   Kabisch, Nadja ^c,d,g   Larondelle, Neele ^c,h   Rall, Emily L ⁱ   Voigt, Annette ^j   Baró, Francesc ^k   Bertram, Christine ^l   Gómez Baggethun, Erik ^m,n   Hansen, Rieke ⁱ   Kaczorowska, Anna ^o   Kain, Jaan Henrik ^o   Kronenberg, Jakub ^p   Langemeyer, Johannes ^k   Pauleit, Stephan ⁱ   Rehdanz, Katrin ^l,q   Schewenius, Maria ^f   Van Ham, Chantal ^r   Wurster, Daniel ^f   Elmqvist, Thomas ^f   more..

^a VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH   (United States)

^c HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^d HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^e ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^f STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^g GERMAN CENTRE FOR INTEGRATIVE BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH IDIV HALLE JENA LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^h POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH   (Germany)

ⁱ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^j UNIVERSITY OF KLAGENFURT   (Austria)

^k INSTITUT DE CIÈNCIA I TECNOLOGIA AMBIENTALS   (Spain)

^l KIEL INSTITUTE FOR THE WORLD ECONOMY   (Germany)

^m NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

ⁿ NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

^o CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^p UNIVERSITY OF LODZ   (Poland)

^q UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

^r IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature   (Switzerland)

more..

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Social ecological systems; Urban ecology; Urban ecosystem services; Urban green infrastructure; Urban liveability; Urban planning

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH; LAND MANAGEMENT; URBAN ECOSYSTEM; URBAN PLANNING;

EUROPE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84976584444     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17083087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5751/ES-08445-210229     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Andersson, E., S. Barthel, and K. Ahrné. 2007. Measuring socialecological dynamics behind the generation of ecosystem services. Ecological Applications 17(5):1267-1278. http://dx.doi. org/10.1890/06-1116.1
2. Andersson, E., S. Barthel, S. Borgström, J. Colding, T. Elmqvist, C. Folke, and Å. Gren. 2014. Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. Ambio 43(4):445-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0506-y
3. Andersson, E., and Ö. Bodin. 2009. Practical tool for landscape planning? An empirical investigation of network based models of habitat fragmentation. Ecography 32(1):123-132. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05435.x
4. Andersson, E., T. McPhearson, P. Kremer, E. Gomez-Baggethun, D. Haase, M. Tuvendal, and D. Wurster. 2015a. Scale and context dependence of ecosystem service providing units. Ecosystem Services 12:157-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.001
5. Andersson, E., M. Tengö, T. McPhearson, and P. Kremer. 2015b. Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability. Ecosystem Services 12:165-168. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.002
6. Baró, F., L. Chaparro, E. Gómez-Baggethun, J. Langemeyer, D. J. Nowak, and J. Terradas. 2014. Contribution of ecosystem services to air quality and climate change mitigation policies: the case of urban forests in Barcelona, Spain. Ambio 43(4):466-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0507-x
7. Baró, F., D. Haase, E. Gómez-Baggethun, and N. Frantzeskaki. 2015. Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: a quantitative assessment in five European cities. Ecological Indicators 55:146-158. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.013
8. Bertram, C., and K. Rehdanz. 2015a. Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosystem Services 12:187-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoser.2014.12.011
9. Bertram, C., and K. Rehdanz. 2015b. The role of urban green space for human well-being. Ecological Economics 120:139-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.013
10. Borgström, S. T., T. Elmqvist, P. Angelstam, and C. Alfsen-Norodom. 2006. Scale mismatches in management of urban landscapes. Ecology and Society 11(2):16. [online] URL: http:// www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art16/
11. Braaker, S., J. Ghazoul, M. K. Obrist, and M. Moretti. 2014. Habitat connectivity shapes urban arthropod communities: the key role of green roofs. Ecology 95(4):1010-1021. http://dx.doi. org/10.1890/13-0705.1
12. Buchel, S., and N. Frantzeskaki. 2015. Citizens' voice: a case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Ecosystem Servcies 12:169-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.014
13. Campbell, A. J., J. C. Biesmeijer, V. Varma, and F. L. Wäckers. 2012. Realising multiple ecosystem services based on the response of three beneficial insect groups to floral traits and trait diversity. Basic and Applied Ecology 13(4):363-370. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.baae.2012.04.003
14. Camps-Calvet, M., J. Langemeyer, L. Calvet-Mir, and E. Gómez-Baggethun. 2016. Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: insights for policy and planning. Environmental Science and Policy, in press. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.007
15. Cardinale, B. J., J. E. Duffy, A. Gonzalez, D. U. Hooper, C. Perrings, P. Venail, A. Narwani, G. M. Mace, D. Tilman, D. A. Wardle, A. P. Kinzig, G. C. Daily, M. Loreau, J. B. Grace, A. Larigauderie, D. S. Srivastava, and S. Naeem. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486(7401):59-67. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11148
16. Chan, K. M. A., T. Satterfield, and J. Goldstein. 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics 74:8-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2011.11.011
17. Colding, J., and S. Barthel. 2013. The potential of "Urban Green Commons" in the resilience building of cities. Ecological Economics 86:156-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.10.016
18. Cumming, G. S., D. H. M. Cumming, and C. L. Redman. 2006. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology And Society 11(1):14. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/ art14/
19. Czajkowski, M., and N. Hanley. 2009. Using labels to investigate scope effects in stated preference methods. Environmental and Resource Economics 44(4):521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9299-z
20. Dendoncker, N., H. Keune, S. Jacobs, and E. Gómez-Baggethun. 2013. Inclusive ecosystem services valuation. Pages 3-12 in S. Jacobs, N. Dendoncker, and H. Keune, editors. Ecosystem services: global issues, local practices. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-419964-4.00001-9
21. Elmqvist, T., M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, and C. Wilkinson, editors. 2013. Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities: a global assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1
22. Elmqvist, T., H. Setälä, S. N. Handel, S. van der Ploeg, J. Aronson, J. N. Blignaut, E. Gómez-Baggethun, D. J. Nowak, J. Kronenberg, and R. de Groot. 2015. Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:101-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.001
23. Folke, C., Å. Jansson, J. Larsson, and R. Costanza. 1997. Ecosystem appropriation by cities. Ambio 26(3):167-172. [online] URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4314576
24. Frantzeskaki, N., and N. Tillie. 2014. The dynamics of urban ecosystem governance in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Ambio 43 (4):542-555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0512-0
25. Giergiczny, M., and J. Kronenberg. 2014. From valuation to governance: using choice experiment to value street trees. Ambio 43(4):492-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0516-9
26. Gómez-Baggethun, E., and D. N. Barton. 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics 86:235-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
27. Gomez-Baggethun, E., Å. Gren, D. N. Barton, T. McPhearson, P. O'Farrell, E. Andersson, Z. Hampstead, and P. Kremer. 2013a. Urban ecosystem services. Pages 175-251 in T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, and C. Wilkinson, editors. Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities: a global assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_11
28. Gómez-Baggethun, E., and E. Kelemen. 2008. Linking institutional change and the flows of ecosystem services. Case studies from Spain and Hungary. Pages 118-145 in T. Kluvánková-Oravská, V. Chobotova, J. Jílková, and P. Sauer, editors. Institutional analysis of sustainability problems: emerging theories and methods in sustainability research. Nakladatelství a vydavatelství litomyšlského semináre, Prague, Czech Republic.
29. Gómez-Baggethun, E., E. Kelemen, B. Martín-López, I. Palomo, and C. Montes. 2013b. Scale misfit in ecosystem service governance as a source of environmental conflict. Society and Natural Resources 26(10):1202-1216. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/08941920.2013.820817
30. Haase, D., N. Frantzeskaki, and T. Elmqvist. 2014a. Ecosystem services in urban landscapes: practical applications and governance implications. Ambio 43(4):407-412. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s13280-014-0503-1
31. Haase, D., N. Larondelle, E. Andersson, M. Artmann, S. Borgström, J. Breuste, E. Gomez-Baggethun, Å. Gren, Z. Hamstead, R. Hansen, N. Kabisch, P. Kremer, J. Langemeyer, E. L. Rall, T. McPhearson, S. Pauleit, S. Qureshi, N. Schwarz, A. Voigt, D. Wurster, and T. Elmqvist. 2014b. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43(4):413-433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-014-0504-0
32. Hamstead, Z. A., P. Kremer, N. Larondelle, T. McPhearson, and D. Haase. 2016. Classification of the heterogeneous structure of urban landscapes (STURLA) as an indicator of landscape function applied to surface temperature in New York City. Ecological Indicators, in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2015.10.014
33. Hansen, R., N. Frantzeskaki, T. McPhearson, E. Rall, N. Kabisch, A. Kaczorowska, J.-H. Kain, M. Artmann, and S. Pauleit. 2015. The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of European and American cities. Ecosystem Services 12:228-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.013
34. Hansen, R., and S. Pauleit. 2014. From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas. Ambio 43(4):516-529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0510-2
35. Harrison, P. A., P. M. Berry, G. Simpson, J. R. Haslett, M. Blicharska, M. Bucur, R. Dunford, B. Egoh, M. Garcia-Llorente, N. Geamănă, W. Geertsema, E. Lommelen, L. Meiresonne, and F. Turkelboom. 2014. Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: a systematic review. Ecosystem Services 9:191-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.006
36. Jacobsen, J. B., J. H. Boiesen, B. J. Thorsen, and N. Strange. 2008. What's in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus 'Iconised' species when valuing biodiversity. Environmental and Resource Economics 39(3):247-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10640-007-9107-6
37. Kabisch, N. 2015. Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning-the case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy 42:557-567. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.005
38. Kabisch, N., and D. Haase. 2013. Green spaces of European cities revisited for 1990-2006. Landscape and Urban Planning 110:113-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.017
39. Kabisch, N., S. Qureshi, and D. Haase. 2015. Humanenvironment interactions in urban green spaces-a systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50:25-34. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.007
40. Kaczorowska, A., J.-H. Kain, J. Kronenberg, and D. Haase. 2016. Ecosystem services in urban land use planning: integration challenges in complex urban settings-case of Stockholm. Ecosystem Services, in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoser.2015.04.006
41. Kain, J.-H., N. Larondelle, D. Haase, and A. Kaczorowska. 2016. Exploring local consequences of two land-use alternatives for the supply of urban ecosystem services in Stockholm year 2050. Ecological Indicators, in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2016.02.062
42. Krasny, M. E., and K. G. Tidball. 2012. Civic ecology: a pathway for Earth stewardship in cities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10(5):267-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/110230
43. Kronenberg, J. 2014. Environmental impacts of the use of ecosystem services: case study of birdwatching. Environmental Management 54(3):617-630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0317-8
44. Kronenberg, J. 2015. Why not to green a city? Institutional barriers to preserving urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 12:218-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.002
45. Langemeyer, J. 2015. Urban ecosystem services: the value of green spaces in cities. Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
46. Langemeyer, J., F. Baró, P. Roebeling, and E. Gómez-Baggethun. 2015. Contrasting values of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas: the case of park Montjuïc in Barcelona. Ecosystem Services 12:178-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.016
47. Langemeyer, J., E. Gómez-Baggethun, D. Haase, S. Scheuer, and T. Elmqvist. 2016. Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Environmental Science and Policy, in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.013
48. Larondelle, N., and D. Haase. 2013. Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural-urban gradient: a cross-analysis of European cities. Ecological Indicators 29:179-190. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.022
49. Larondelle, N., D. Haase, and N. Kabisch. 2014a. Mapping the diversity of regulating ecosystem services in European cities. Global Environmental Change 26:119-129. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.008
50. Larondelle, N., Z. A. Hamstead, P. Kremer, D. Haase, and T. McPhearson. 2014b. Applying a novel urban structure classification to compare the relationships of urban structure and surface temperature in Berlin and New York City. Applied Geography 53:427-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.07.004
51. McPhearson, P. T. 2011. Toward a sustainable New York City: greening through urban forest restoration. Pages 181-204 in M. I. Slavin, editor. Sustainability in America's cities: creating the green metropolis. Island Press and Center for Resource Economics, Washington, D.C., USA. http://dx.doi. org/10.5822/978-1-61091-028-6_9
52. McPhearson, T., E. Andersson, T. Elmqvist, and N. Frantzeskaki. 2015. Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 12:152-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoser.2014.07.012
53. McPhearson, T., Z. A. Hamstead, and P. Kremer. 2014. Urban ecosystem services for resilience planning and management in New York City. Ambio 43(4):502-515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-014-0509-8
54. McPhearson, T., P. Kremer, and Z. A. Hamstead. 2013a. Mapping ecosystem services in New York City: applying a social-ecological approach in urban vacant land. Ecosystem Services 5:11-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.005
55. McPhearson, T., D. Maddox, B. Gunther, and D. Bragdon. 2013b. Local assessment of New York City: biodiversity, green space, and ecosystem services. Pages 355-383 in T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, and C. Wilkinson, editors. Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities: a global assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_19
56. McPhearson, T., S. T. A. Pickett, N. B. Grimm, J. Niemelä, M. Alberti, T. Elmqvist, C. Weber, D. Haase, J. Breuste, and S. Qureshi. 2016. Advancing urban ecology toward a science of cities. BioScience 66(3):198-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/ biw002
57. Niemelä, J., and D. J. Kotze. 2009. Carabid beetle assemblages along urban to rural gradients: a review. Landscape and Urban Planning 92(2):65-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.016
58. Niemelä, J., S.-R. Saarela, T. Söderman, L. Kopperoinen, V. Yli-Pelkonen, S. Väre, and D. J. Kotze. 2010. Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation 19(11):3225-3243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9888-8
59. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2013. Definition of functional urban areas (FUA) for the OECD metropolitan database. OECD Definitions. OECD, Paris, France. [online] URL: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regionalpolicy/ Definition-of-Functional-Urban-Areas-for-the-OECDmetropolitan-database.pdf
60. Pataki, D. E., M. M. Carreiro, J. Cherrier, N. E. Grulke, V. Jennings, S. Pincetl, R. V. Pouyat, T. H. Whitlow, and W. C. Zipperer. 2011. Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9 (1):27-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/090220
61. Rall, E. L., N. Kabisch, and R. Hansen. 2015. A comparative exploration of uptake and potential application of ecosystem services in urban planning. Ecosystem Services 16:230-242. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.005
62. Reyers, B., R. Biggs, G. S. Cumming, T. Elmqvist, A. P. Hejnowicz, and S. Polasky. 2013. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social-ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(5):268-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/120144
63. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D., J. H. Kain, D. Haase, F. Baró, and A. Kaczorowska. 2015. Urban self-sufficiency through optimised ecosystem service demand. A utopian perspective from European cities. Futures 70:13-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.03.007
64. Sukopp, H., and S. Hejný. 1990. Urban ecology: plants and plant communities in urban environments. SPB Academic, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
65. Tomimatsu, H., T. Sasaki, H. Kurokawa, J. R. Bridle, C. Fontaine, J. Kitano, D. B. Stouffer, M. Vellend, T. M. Bezemer, T. Fukami, E. A. Hadly, M. G. A. van der Heijden, M. Kawata, S. Kéfi, N. J. B. Kraft, K. S. McCann, P. J. Mumby, T. Nakashizuka, O. L. Petchey, T. N. Romanuk, K. N. Suding, G. Takimoto, J. Urabe, and S. Yachi. 2013. Sustaining ecosystem functions in a changing world: a call for an integrated approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 50(5):1124-1130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12116
66. Villamagna, A. M., P. L. Angermeier, and E. M. Bennett. 2013. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity 15:114-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.004
67. Voigt, A. 2012. Landscapes as ecosystems. What is lost when science gains the privilege of interpretation? Pages 99-102 in I. Dymitryszyn, M. Kaczyńska, and G. Maksymiuk, editors. The power of landscape: peer reviewed proceedings of ECLAS 2012 conference at Warsaw University of Life Sciences. Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
68. Voigt, A. 2013. Naturschutz nur für Leistungsträger? Überlegungen zu der Frage, inwiefern das Konzept der Ecosystem Services zum Schutz der Biodiversität beitragen kann. Pages 141-157 in J. Friedrich, A. Halsband, and L. Minkmar, editors. Societal dimensions of the conservation and utilization of biological diversity. University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
69. Voigt, A. 2015. Die Macht des Ökonomischen im Blick auf Natur und Landschaft: Eine Diskussion des Ökosystemdienstleistungsansatzes. Pages 201-219 in S. Kost and A. Schönwald, editors. Landschaftswandel-Wandel von Machtstrukturen. Springer, Wiesbaden, Germany. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04330-8_13
70. Voigt, A., N. Kabisch, D. Wurster, D. Haase, and J. Breuste. 2014. Structural diversity: a multi-dimensional approach to assess recreational services in urban parks. Ambio 43(4):480-491. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0508-9
71. Voigt, A., and D. Wurster. 2015. Does diversity matter? The experience of urban nature's diversity: case study and cultural concept. Ecosystem Services 12:200-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecoser.2014.12.005
72. Wurster, D., and M. Artmann. 2014. Development of a concept for non-monetary assessment of urban ecosystem services at the site level. Ambio 43(4):454-465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-014-0502-2
73. Zank, B., K. J. Bagstad, B. Voigt, and F. Villa. 2016. Modeling the effects of urban expansion on natural capital stocks and ecosystem service flows: a case study in the Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 149:31-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.004