IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v150y2025ics0264837724004186.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatially explicit multi-objective optimization tool for green infrastructure planning based on InVEST and NSGA-II towards multifunctionality

Author

Listed:
  • Dong, Yuxiang
  • Liu, Song
  • Pei, Xinsheng
  • Wang, Ying

Abstract

The imperatives of sustainable urban development have propelled the prominence of green infrastructure (GI) as a viable solution. However, prevailing methodologies for GI planning often prioritize individual ecosystem services (ES) and lack spatially explicit guidance. This study presents a spatially explicit approach integrating the InVEST model and the Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II (NSGA-II) algorithm as a multi-objective spatial optimization tool for assisting decision-making in multifunctional GI planning. The spatially explicit InVEST model was used as a model to assess GI multifunctionality. To demonstrate the applicability of our proposed model, GI of the central area of Wuhu City are optimized with the aim of maximizing the 3 objectives of maximizing habitat quality, crop production, and runoff reduction, evaluated respectively by InVEST habitat quality model, crop production model, and urban flood risk mitigation model. The comparison of typical optimized GI planning schemes—including the compromise, habitat quality preference, runoff reduction preference, and crop production preference scenarios—with the current scenario demonstrates significant improvements in corresponding ES objective. Our findings suggest that increasing forest land, certain types of arable land, and green spaces may have a higher probability of enhancing the multifunctionality of the site. Allocating GI elements in highly built-up areas may efficiently enhance multifunctionality. Spatial analysis of optimal GI schemes reveals a preference for dispersing forest land and grassland, while aggregating agricultural GIs to enhance multifunctionality. Non-linear relationships are found between the ES pair of crop production and habitat quality, as well as runoff reduction and habitat quality. Identifying inflection points where synergies and trade-offs shift is essential for maximizing multifunctionality. Trade-off relationships between crop production & runoff reduction are identified. Our study highlights the importance of recognizing non-linear relationships between certain ES pairs in GI planning, particularly identifying inflection points where synergies and trade-offs shift. This research underscores the viability of our proposed model in facilitating informed decision-making pertaining to GI planning on a citywide scale, with a specific emphasis on achieving multifunctionality. By addressing the shortcomings of current approaches and integrating advanced optimization techniques, our model offers valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners involved in sustainable urban development and GI planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Dong, Yuxiang & Liu, Song & Pei, Xinsheng & Wang, Ying, 2025. "Spatially explicit multi-objective optimization tool for green infrastructure planning based on InVEST and NSGA-II towards multifunctionality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:150:y:2025:i:c:s0264837724004186
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107465
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837724004186
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107465?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. Hamel & A. Guerry & S. Polasky & B. Han & J. Douglass & M. Hamann & B. Janke & J. Kuiper & H. Levrel & H. Liu & E. Lonsdorf & R. Mcdonald & C. Nootenboom & Z. Ouyang & R. Remme & R. Sharp & Léa Tar, 2021. "Mapping the benefits of nature in cities with the InVEST software," Post-Print hal-03318222, HAL.
    2. Vergarechea, M. & Astrup, R. & Fischer, C. & Øistad, K. & Blattert, C. & Hartikainen, M. & Eyvindson, K. & Di Fulvio, F. & Forsell, N. & Burgas, D. & Toraño-Caicoya, A. & Mönkkönen, M. & Antón-Fernánd, 2023. "Future wood demands and ecosystem services trade-offs: A policy analysis in Norway," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    3. Langemeyer, Johannes & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Haase, Dagmar & Scheuer, Sebastian & Elmqvist, Thomas, 2016. "Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 45-56.
    4. Byungsun Yang & Dongkun Lee, 2021. "Urban Green Space Arrangement for an Optimal Landscape Planning Strategy for Runoff Reduction," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-12, August.
    5. Blattert, Clemens & Eyvindson, Kyle & Hartikainen, Markus & Burgas, Daniel & Potterf, Maria & Lukkarinen, Jani & Snäll, Tord & Toraño-Caicoya, Astor & Mönkkönen, Mikko, 2022. "Sectoral policies cause incoherence in forest management and ecosystem service provisioning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    6. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Spatial dynamics of biophysical trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services in the Himalayas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    7. Kremer, Peleg & Hamstead, Zoé A. & McPhearson, Timon, 2016. "The value of urban ecosystem services in New York City: A spatially explicit multicriteria analysis of landscape scale valuation scenarios," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 57-68.
    8. Andrés M. García & Inés Santé & Xurxo Loureiro & David Miranda, 2020. "Spatial Planning of Green Infrastructure for Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change at a Regional Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-22, December.
    9. Timothy Beatley & Peter Newman, 2013. "Biophilic Cities Are Sustainable, Resilient Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Federica Isola & Sabrina Lai & Federica Leone & Corrado Zoppi, 2022. "Strengthening a Regional Green Infrastructure through Improved Multifunctionality and Connectedness: Policy Suggestions from Sardinia, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-22, August.
    11. Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Krause, Torsten & Orsi, Francesco & Geneletti, Davide & Brogaard, Sara & Aukes, Ewert & Ciolli, Marco & Grossmann, Carol & Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica & Kister, Jutta & , 2021. "Mapping Europe’s institutional landscape for forest ecosystem service provision, innovations and governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    12. Shen, Jiashu & Li, Shuangcheng & Liang, Ze & Liu, Laibao & Li, Delong & Wu, Shuyao, 2020. "Exploring the heterogeneity and nonlinearity of trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services bundles in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    13. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    14. Elliot, Thomas & Bertrand, Alexandre & Babí Almenar, Javier & Petucco, Claudio & Proença, Vânia & Rugani, Benedetto, 2019. "Spatial optimisation of urban ecosystem services through integrated participatory and multi-objective integer linear programming," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 409(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    16. V. M. Jayasooriya & A. W. M. Ng & S. Muthukumaran & B. J. C. Perera, 2019. "Multi Criteria Decision Making in Selecting Stormwater Management Green Infrastructure for Industrial Areas Part 1: Stakeholder Preference Elicitation," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(2), pages 627-639, January.
    17. Di Pirro, E. & Sallustio, L. & Capotorti, G. & Marchetti, M. & Lasserre, B., 2021. "A scenario-based approach to tackle trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and land use pressure in Central Italy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 448(C).
    18. Potschin-Young, M. & Haines-Young, R. & Görg, C. & Heink, U. & Jax, K. & Schleyer, C., 2018. "Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 428-440.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Toraño Caicoya, Astor & Vergarechea, Marta & Blattert, Clemens & Klein, Julian & Eyvindson, Kyle & Burgas, Daniel & Snäll, Tord & Mönkkönen, Mikko & Astrup, Rasmus & Di Fulvio, Fulvio & Forsell, Nikla, 2023. "What drives forest multifunctionality in central and northern Europe? Exploring the interplay of management, climate, and policies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    2. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    3. Vasileios G. Iliopoulos & Dimitris Damigos, 2024. "Groundwater Ecosystem Services: Redefining and Operationalizing the Concept," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, January.
    4. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    5. Martin, D.M. & Mazzotta, M., 2018. "Non-monetary valuation using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Sensitivity of additive aggregation methods to scaling and compensation assumptions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 13-22.
    6. Cristian Accastello & Simone Blanc & Filippo Brun, 2019. "A Framework for the Integration of Nature-Based Solutions into Environmental Risk Management Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-12, January.
    7. Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Belton, Valerie & Hjerppe, Turo & Marttunen, Mika, 2020. "Utilizing ecosystem service classifications in multi-criteria decision analysis – Experiences of peat extraction case in Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    8. Stefano Salata & Gabriele Garnero & Carlo Alberto Barbieri & Carolina Giaimo, 2017. "The Integration of Ecosystem Services in Planning: An Evaluation of the Nutrient Retention Model Using InVEST Software," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-21, July.
    9. Vergarechea, M. & Astrup, R. & Fischer, C. & Øistad, K. & Blattert, C. & Hartikainen, M. & Eyvindson, K. & Di Fulvio, F. & Forsell, N. & Burgas, D. & Toraño-Caicoya, A. & Mönkkönen, M. & Antón-Fernánd, 2023. "Future wood demands and ecosystem services trade-offs: A policy analysis in Norway," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    10. Havinga, Ilan & Bogaart, Patrick W. & Hein, Lars & Tuia, Devis, 2020. "Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    11. Stefano Salata & Bertan Arslan, 2022. "Designing with Ecosystem Modelling: The Sponge District Application in İzmir, Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-26, March.
    12. Ludvig, Alice & Schmid, Blasius & Öllerer, Barbara & Nikinmaa, Laura & Hurtado, Pilar & Rodriguez-Ogea, Montserrat & Toppinen, Anne, 2024. "Increasing climate-related resilience in the forest-based value chains? A policy perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    13. Jarmila Makovníková & Stanislav Kološta & Filip Flaška & Boris Pálka, 2023. "Potential of Regulating Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital in Model Regions of Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-22, January.
    14. Harris, Linda R. & Defeo, Omar, 2022. "Sandy shore ecosystem services, ecological infrastructure, and bundles: New insights and perspectives," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    15. Farina, Georges & Le Coënt, Philippe & Hérivaux, Cécile, 2024. "Do urban environmental inequalities influence demand for nature based solutions?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    16. Caicoya, Astor Toraño & Poschenrieder, Werner & Blattert, Clemens & Eyvindson, Kyle & Hartikainen, Markus & Burgas, Daniel & Mönkkönen, Mikko & Uhl, Enno & Vergarechea, Marta & Pretzsch, Hans, 2023. "Sectoral policies as drivers of forest management and ecosystems services: A case study in Bavaria, Germany," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    17. Emily C. Hazell, 2020. "Disaggregating Ecosystem Benefits: An Integrated Environmental-Deprivation Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-20, September.
    18. Zhenjun Yan & Yirong Wang & Xu Hu & Wen Luo, 2023. "Assessment and Enhancement of Ecosystem Service Supply Efficiency Based on Production Possibility Frontier: A Case Study of the Loess Plateau in Northern Shaanxi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-20, September.
    19. Lago-Olveira, Sara & Moreira, Maria Teresa & González-García, Sara, 2025. "Quantifying spatially explicit LCA midpoint characterization factors to assess the impact of specific farming practices on ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    20. Matthew C. Harwell & Chloe A. Jackson, 2021. "Synthesis of Two Decades of US EPA’s Ecosystem Services Research to Inform Environmental, Community and Sustainability Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-29, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:150:y:2025:i:c:s0264837724004186. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.