Exploring the links between functional traits and cultural ecosystem services to enhance urban ecosystem management

Ecological Indicators

Volumn 70, Issue , 2016, Pages 597-605

  Goodness, Julie ^a   Andersson, Erik ^a   Anderson, Pippin M L ^b   Elmqvist, Thomas ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Cities; Cultural ecosystem services; Ecosystem management; Ecosystem services; Functional effect traits; Functional traits; Human perception; Resilience; Social ecological systems; Urban

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; ECOLOGY;

CITIES; ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; FUNCTIONAL EFFECT TRAITS; FUNCTIONAL TRAITS; HUMAN PERCEPTION; RESILIENCE; SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS; URBAN;

ECOSYSTEMS;

BIODIVERSITY; ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION; ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; ECOSYSTEM RESILIENCE; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FUNCTIONAL ROLE; FUTURE PROSPECT; PERCEPTION; URBAN ECOSYSTEM; URBAN PLANNING;

EID: 84979696627     PISSN: 1470160X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.031     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Appleton, J., The Experience of Landscape. 1975, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
2. Bélair, C., Ichikawa, K., Wong, B.Y.L., Mulongoy, K.J., (eds.) Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity in Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes. Background to the ‘Satoyama Initiative for the benefit of biodiversity and human well-being’, 2010, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Technical Series no. 52, Montreal.
3. Chan, K.M., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., …, Woodside, U., Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62:8 (2012), 744–756.
4. Chen, B., Adimo, O.A., Bao, Z., Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green space from the users’ perspective: the case of Hangzhou flower garden, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 93:1 (2009), 76–82.
5. Cornelissen, J.H.C., Lavorel, S., Garnier, E., Diaz, S., Buchmann, N., Gurvich, D.E., …, Poorter, H., A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust. J. Bot. 51:4 (2003), 335–380.
6. de Bello, F., Lavorel, S., Díaz, S., Harrington, R., Cornelissen, J.H., Bardgett, R.D., …, Harrison, P.A., Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits. Biodivers. Conserv. 19:10 (2010), 2873–2893.
7. De Chazal, J., Quetier, F., Lavorel, S., Van Doorn, A., Including multiple differing stakeholder values into vulnerability assessments of socio-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Change 18:3 (2008), 508–520.
8. Díaz, S., Cabido, M., Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:11 (2001), 646–655.
9. Díaz, S., Lavorel, S., Chapin, F.S. III, Tecco, P.A., Gurvich, D.E., Grigulis, K., Functional diversity – at the crossroads between ecosystem functioning and environmental filters. Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World, 2007, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 81–91.
10. Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P.J., McDonald, R.I., …, Wilkinson, C., Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. 2013, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
11. Farina, A., The cultural landscape as a model for the integration of ecology and economics. Bioscience 50:4 (2000), 313–320.
12. Flynn, D.F., Gogol-Prokurat, M., Nogeire, T., Molinari, N., Richers, B.T., Lin, B.B., …, DeClerck, F., Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol. Lett. 12:1 (2009), 22–33.
13. Fowler, P., World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992-2002. World Heritage Papers 6, 2003, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, 16 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001331/133121e.pdf and http://whc.unesco.org/en/series/6/.
14. Gadgil, M., Conserving India's biodiversity: the societal context. Evol. Trends Plants 5:1 (1991), 3–8.
15. Gitay, H., Noble, I.R., O What are functional types and how should we seek them. Plant Functional Types: Their Relevance to Ecosystem Properties and Global Change, vol. 1(3), 1997.
16. Grime, J.P., Ecology: biodiversity and ecosystem function: the debate deepens. Science 277 (1997), 1260–1261.
17. Hakim, L., Kim, J.E., Hong, S.K., Cultural landscape and ecotourism in Bali Island, Indonesia. J. Ecol. Environ. 32:1 (2009), 1–8.
18. Hedblom, M., Heyman, E., Antonsson, H., Gunnarsson, B., Birdsong diversity influences young people's appreciation of urban landscapes. Urban For. Urban Green. 13:3 (2014), 469–474.
19. Heerwagen, J.H., Orians, G.H., Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O., (eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis, 1993, Island Press, Washington, DC, 138–172.
20. Hope, D., Gries, C., Zhu, W.X., Fagan, W.F., Redman, C.L., Grimm, N.B., Nelson, A.L., Martin, C., Kinzig, A., Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100:15 (2003), 8788–8792.
21. Ichikawa, K., Okubo, N., Okubo, S., Takeuchi, K., Transition of the satoyama landscape in the urban fringe of the Tokyo metropolitan area from 1880 to 2001. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78:4 (2006), 398–410.
22. Ignatieva, M., Plant material for urban landscapes in the era of globalization: roots, challenges and innovative solutions. Richter, M., Weiland, U., (eds.) Applied Urban Ecology: A Global Framework, 2011, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK, 139–151.
23. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Kendal, D., Williams, K.J.H., Williams, N.S.G., Plant traits link people's plant preferences to the composition of their gardens. Landsc. Urban Plan. 105 (2012), 34–42.
25. Klain, S.C., Chan, K.M., Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecol. Econ. 82 (2012), 104–113.
26. Kobori, H., Primack, R.B., Participatory conservation approaches for satoyama, the traditional forest and agricultural landscape of Japan. AMBIO 32:4 (2003), 307–311.
27. Lavorel, S., Garnier, E., Aardvarck to Zyzyxia – functional groups across kingdoms. New Phytol. 149:3 (2001), 360–363.
28. Lavorel, S., Garnier, E., Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct. Ecol. 16:5 (2002), 545–556.
29. Lavorel, S., McIntyre, S., Landsberg, J., Forbes, T.D.A., Plant functional classifications: from general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12:12 (1997), 474–478.
30. Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M.P., Garden, D., Girel, J., …, Douzet, R., Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services. J. Ecol. 99:1 (2011), 135–147.
31. Lohr, V.I., Pearson-Mims, C.H., Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree forms. Environ. Behav. 38:5 (2006), 667–688.
32. Loreau, M., et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294 (2001), 804–808.
33. Malhotra, K.C., Gokhale, Y., Chatterjee, S., Srivastava, S., Cultural and Ecological Dimensions of Sacred Groves in India. 2001, Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi & Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal.
34. Martin, C., Warren, P.S., Kinzig, A.P., Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landsc. Urban Plan. 69 (2004), 355–368.
35. McDonnell, M.J., Hahs, A.K., The future of urban biodiversity research: moving beyond the ‘low-hanging fruit’. Urban Ecosyst. 16:3 (2013), 397–409.
36. McKinney, M.L., Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol. Conserv. 127:3 (2006), 247–260.
37. McKinney, M.L., Lockwood, J.L., Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14:11 (1999), 450–453.
38. MEA – Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment, 2003, Island Press, Washington, DC.
39. Müller, N., Ignatieva, M., Nilon, C.H., Werner, P., Zipperer, W.C., Patterns and trends in urban biodiversity and landscape design. Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P.J., McDonald, R.I., …, Wilkinson, C., (eds.) Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities, 2013, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 123–174.
40. Nagendra, H., Gopal, D., Street trees in Bangalore: density, diversity, composition and distribution. Urban For. Urban Green. 9:2 (2010), 129–137.
41. Naidoo, R., et al. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105:28 (2008), 9495–9500.
42. Orians, G.H., Habitat selection: general theory and applications to human behavior. Lockkard, J.S., (eds.) The Evolution of Human Social Behavior, 1980, Elsevier, New York, 49–66.
43. Orians, G., An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. Penning-Rowsell, C., Lowenthal, D., (eds.) Landscape Meanings and Values, 1986, Allen and Unwin, London, 3–25.
44. Orians, G.H., Heerwagen, J.H., Evolved responses to landscapes. Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., (eds.) The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, 1992, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 555–579.
45. Pataki, D.E., McCarthy, H.R., Gillespie, T., Jenerette, G.D., Pincetl, S., A trait-based ecology of the Los Angeles urban forest. Ecosphere, 4(6), 2013, art72.
46. Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., Bieling, C., Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33 (2013), 118–129.
47. Qin, J., Sun, C., Zhou, X., Leng, H., Lian, Z., The effect of indoor plants on human comfort. Indoor Built Environ., 2013, 1–15.
48. Raymond, C.M., Bryan, B.A., MacDonald, D.H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., Kalivas, T., Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 68:5 (2009), 1301–1315.
49. Sauer, C., The morphology of landscape. Leighly, J., (eds.) Land and Life: A Selection from the Writings of Carl Ortwin Sauer, 1965, University of California Press, Berkeley, 315–350.
50. Sherrouse, B.C., Clement, J.M., Semmens, D.J., A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl. Geogr. 31:2 (2011), 748–760.
51. Sommer, R., Summit, J., An exploratory study of preferred tree form. Environ. Behav. 27:4 (1995), 540–557.
52. Suding, K.N., Lavorel, S., Chapin, F.S., Cornelissen, J.H., Diaz, S., Garnier, E., …, Navas, M.L., Scaling environmental change through the community-level: a trait-based response-and-effect framework for plants. Glob. Change Biol. 14:5 (2008), 1125–1140.
53. Summit, J., Sommer, R., Further studies of preferred tree shapes. Environ. Behav. 31:4 (1999), 550–576.
54. Takeuchi, K., Brown, R.D., Washitani, I., Tsunekawa, A., Yokohari, M., (eds.) Satoyama: The Traditional Rural Landscape of Japan, 2012, Springer Science & Business Media, Tokyo.
55. TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Pushpam Kumar, (eds.) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations, 2010, Earthscan, London and Washington.
56. TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services. 2016 Retrieved from: http://www.teebweb.org/resources/ecosystem-services/.
57. Ulrich, R.S., Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 13 (1986), 29–44.
58. UN-Habitat, State of the World's Cities 2008/2009 – Harmonious Cities. 2008, UN-Habitat.
59. Williams, K., Exploring resident preferences for street trees in Melbourne, Australia. J. Arboric. 28:4 (2002), 161–170.
60. Williams, N.S., Schwartz, M.W., Vesk, P.A., McCarthy, M.A., Hahs, A.K., Clemants, S.E., …, McDonnell, M.J., A conceptual framework for predicting the effects of urban environments on floras. J. Ecol. 97:1 (2009), 4–9.
61. Wilson, E.O., Biophilia. 1984, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.