Urban Ecosystem Services: A Review of Definitions and Classifications for the Identification of Future Research Perspectives

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 12253 LNCS, Issue , 2020, Pages 332-344

  Caprioli, Caterina ^a   Bottero, Marta ^a   Mondini, Giulio ^a  

^a POLITECNICO DI TORINO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Decision making; Ecosystem services; Evaluation methods; Land use planning; Resilient city

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; DECISION MAKING; REFUSE DISPOSAL; URBAN PLANNING;

DECISION MAKING PROCESS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENTS; PLANNING PROCESS; POLITICAL DEBATES; SPATIAL PLANNING; STATE OF THE ART; URBAN ECOSYSTEM;

ECOSYSTEMS;

EID: 85092927270     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-58814-4_23     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (45)

1. United Nations: World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision (2019). https://doi.org/10.18356/b9e995fe-en
2. EuroStat: Urban Europe. Statistics on Cities, Towns and Suburbs. Stat. books Eur. Union (2016). https://doi.org/10.2785/91120
3. European Union: Mapping Ecosystem Services. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2016)
4. Assumma, V., Bottero, M., Monaco, R.: Landscape economic attractiveness: an integrated methodology for exploring the rural landscapes in piedmont (Italy). Land 8(7), 105 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/land8070105
5. Bottero, M., Datola, G., De Angelis, E.: A system dynamics model and analytic network process: an integrated approach to investigate urban resilience. Land 98, 242 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/land9080242
6. Ayres, R.U., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M.: A theory of economic growth with material/energy resources and dematerialization: Interaction of three growth mechanisms. Ecol. Econ. 55(1), 96–118 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.07.023
7. Guo, Z., Zhang, L., Li, Y.: Increased dependence of humans on ecosystem services and biodiversity. PLoS One 5, e13113 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013113
8. Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M.: Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century. Ecol. Econ. 68(10), 2696–2705 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.007
9. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N.: Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
10. Maes, J., Zulian, G., Günther, S., Thijssen, M., Raynal, J.: Enhancing Resilience Of Urban Ecosystems through Green Infrastructure. Final Report, Luxembourg (2019). https://doi.org/10.2760/602928
11. Biodiversity Strategy. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/strategy/index_ en.htm. Accessed 18 Jan 2020
12. Odum, E.P.: Fundamentos de Ecologia (2007)
13. Maas, J.: Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 60(7), 587–592 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.043125
14. Tzoulas, K., et al.: Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 81(3), 167–178 (2007). https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001
15. Costanza, R., Mitsch, W.J., Day, J.W.: A new vision for New Orleans and the Mississippi delta: applying ecological economics and ecological engineering. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4(9), 465–472 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)4[465:ANVFNO]2.0.CO;2
16. European Environment Agency: Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion (2011). https://doi.org/10.2800/88266
17. TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity): Mainstreaming the economics of nature?: A synsthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB (2010)
18. Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S.: Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 29(2), 293–301 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0
19. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Living Beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-being Statement from the Board (2005). https://doi.org/10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-13-00013.1
20. Elmqvist, T.: The URBES Project. Factsheet 1 (2015)
21. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M.: Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012 (2013)
22. European Commission: Management Plan-Environment DG (2012)
23. Assennato, F., et al.: Azione B1-I servizi ecosistemici del suolo-Review (2015)
24. Morel, J.L., Chenu, C., Lorenz, K.: Ecosystem services provided by soils of urban, industrial, traffic, mining, and military areas (SUITMAs). J. Soils Sediments 15(8), 1659–1666 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-014-0926-0
25. Luederitz, C., et al.: A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research. Ecosyst. Serv. 14, 98–112 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.001
26. Lundy, L., Wade, R.: Integrating sciences to sustain urban ecosystem services. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 35(5), 653–669 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311422464
27. Wang, Y., Bakker, F., de Groot, R., Wörtche, H.: Effect of ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructure on indoor environment: a literature review. Build. Environ. 77, 88–100 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.03.021
28. Salmond, J.A., et al.: Health and climate related ecosystem services provided by street trees in the urban environment. Environ. Health 15(S1), S36 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12 940-016-0103-6
29. Perrotti, D., Stremke, S.: Can urban metabolism models advance green infrastructure planning? Insights from ecosystem services research. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 47(4), 678–694 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808318797131
30. Chan, K.M.A., et al.: Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 62(8), 744–756 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7
31. Lautenbach, S., Kugel, C., Lausch, A., Seppelt, R.: Analysis of historic changes in regional ecosystem service provisioning using land use data. Ecol. Indic. 11(2), 676–687 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.09.007
32. Larondelle, N., Haase, D.: Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural-urban gradient: a cross-analysis of European cities. Ecol. Indic. 29, 179–190 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.022
33. Daily, G.C., et al.: Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7(1), 21–28 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1890/080025
34. Moll, G., Petit, J.: The urban ecosystem: putting nature back in the picture. Urban For. 14, 8–15 (1994)
35. Rebele, F.: Urban ecology and special features of urban ecosystems. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 4(6), 173–187 (1994). https://doi.org/10.2307/2997649
36. De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J.: A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41(3), 393–408 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
37. Costanza, R., et al.: The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 387(6630), 253–260 (1997)
38. Costanza, R., et al.: Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 1–16 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017. 09.008
39. Gutman, P.: Ecosystem services: foundations for a new rural-urban compact. Ecol. Econ. 62(3–4), 383–387 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.027
40. Dobbs, C., Escobedo, F.J., Zipperer, W.C.: A framework for developing urban forest ecosystem services and goods indicators. Landsc. Urban Plan. 99(3–4), 196–206 (2011). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.11.004
41. Bottero, M., Dell’Anna, F., Nappo, M.: Evaluating tangible and intangible aspects of cultural heritage: an application of the PROMETHEE method for the reuse project of the Ceva–Ormea Railway. In: Mondini, G., Fattinnanzi, E., Oppio, A., Bottero, M., Stanghellini, S. (eds.) SIEV 2016. Green Energy and Technology. GET, pp. 285–295. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-78271-3_23
42. Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., O’Neill, J.: Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 26(3), 277–286 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00120-1
43. Norton, B.G., Hannon, B.: Environmental values. Environ. Ethics 19(3), 227–245 (1997). https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics199719313
44. Saarikoski, H., et al.: Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis: comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 238–249 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.014
45. Caprioli, C., Bottero, M., Zanetta, E., Mondini, G.: Ecosystem services in land-use planning: an application for assessing transformation scenarios at the local scale. In: Bevilacqua, C., Calabrò, F., Della Spina, L. (eds.) New Metropolitan Perspectives. NMP 2020. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol. 178, pp. 1332–1341. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48279-4_124