IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v82y2019icp181-194.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pathways of demographic and urban development and their effects on land take and ecosystem services: The case of Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal

Author

Listed:
  • Mascarenhas, André
  • Haase, Dagmar
  • Ramos, Tomás B.
  • Santos, Rui

Abstract

Land use and land cover (LULC) changes, particularly land take by urbanization, can jeopardize ecosystems and their capacity to provide humans with numerous benefits, known as ecosystem services. A better understanding of the connections between land take, changes in complex LULC patterns and ecosystem services is still needed. Especially needed are forward-looking analyses that can support spatial planning in the face of targets like “no net land take,” as set in Europe. The aim of this research is to gain insight into the possible consequences of alternative pathways of demographic and urban development, in terms of land take and ecosystem services supply. Using the Lisbon Metropolitan Area in Portugal as case study, four contrasting scenarios for 2030 were developed that cover major determinants of land take (with a focus on residential development) and priority ecosystem services for the region, as well as deal with climate regulation, recreation and food production. Our findings suggest that the effects of urban development on land take are positive for a “compact city” and negative for an “urban sprawl” pattern, even for opposite demographic developments (growth versus decline). However, each pattern can have both positive and negative effects on the supply of ecosystem services. Hence, tensions can exist between the “compact city” model of urban development and the provision of ecosystem services to urban dwellers, especially across planning levels. We argue that the way land take is defined can influence the outcome of this kind of assessment, depending on which LULC dataset is used to support it. Exploring the approach developed in this research with different stakeholders while adopting more extreme scenario assumptions can provide additional insights on the topic.

Suggested Citation

  • Mascarenhas, André & Haase, Dagmar & Ramos, Tomás B. & Santos, Rui, 2019. "Pathways of demographic and urban development and their effects on land take and ecosystem services: The case of Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 181-194.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:82:y:2019:i:c:p:181-194
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717313765
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.056?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. Mascarenhas, André & Ramos, Tomás B. & Haase, Dagmar & Santos, Rui, 2016. "Participatory selection of ecosystem services for spatial planning: Insights from the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 87-99.
    2. Frantzeskaki, Niki & Kabisch, Nadja, 2016. "Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 90-98.
    3. Ciro Gardi & Panos Panagos & Marc Van Liedekerke & Claudio Bosco & Delphine De Brogniez, 2015. "Land take and food security: assessment of land take on the agricultural production in Europe," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(5), pages 898-912, May.
    4. Karen C Seto & Michail Fragkias & Burak Güneralp & Michael K Reilly, 2011. "A Meta-Analysis of Global Urban Land Expansion," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-9, August.
    5. Mark D. A. Rounsevell & Marc J. Metzger, 2010. "Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(4), pages 606-619, July.
    6. Sara Santos & Pedro Cabral & Alexander Zamyatin, 2015. "Scenarios and Modeling of Land Use and Cover Changes in Portugal from 1980 to 2040," International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information Systems (IJAEIS), IGI Global, vol. 6(4), pages 1-15, October.
    7. Iannucci, Corrado, 2016. "Temporal Trajectories of HR/VHR Pixels and Detection of Land Take Processes," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, March.
    8. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiang Pan & Peiji Shi & Na Wu, 2020. "Spatial–Temporal Interaction Relationship between Ecosystem Services and Urbanization of Urban Agglomerations in the Transitional Zone of Three Natural Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Andrea Pronti, 2020. "The bottom-up approach is teetering. When sustainability does not match public participation: The case of an urban re-greening project in a small town in Northern Italy," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(1), pages 129-157.
    3. Pranav Gupta & Alka Bharat, 2022. "Developing sustainable development Index as a tool for appropriate urban land take," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(11), pages 13378-13406, November.
    4. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2019. "A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Le Bivic, Camille & Melot, Romain, 2020. "Scheduling urbanization in rural municipalities: Local practices in land-use planning on the fringes of the Paris region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Biao Zhang & Dian Shao & Zhonghu Zhang, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Evolution Dynamic, Effect and Governance Policy of Construction Land Use in Urban Agglomeration: Case Study of Yangtze River Delta, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-36, May.
    7. Piaggio, Matías, 2021. "The value of public urban green spaces: Measuring the effects of proximity to and size of urban green spaces on housing market values in San José, Costa Rica," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Catalina B. Muñoz-Pacheco & Nélida R. Villaseñor, 2022. "Urban Ecosystem Services in South America: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-17, August.
    9. Vlaďka Kirschner & Daniel Franke & Veronika Řezáčová & Tomáš Peltan, 2022. "Poorer Regions Consume More Undeveloped but Less High-Quality Land Than Wealthier Regions—A Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Renato Monteiro & José Carlos Ferreira & Paula Antunes, 2022. "Green Infrastructure Planning Principles: Identification of Priorities Using Analytic Hierarchy Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, April.

    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. Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O. & Louda, J. & Arcidiacono, A. & Brzoska, P. & Bue, M. & Cetin, N.I. & Dworczyk, C. & Dubova, L. & Fitch, A. & Jones, L. & La Rosa, D. & Mascarenhas, A. & Ronchi, S. & Schla, 2021. "Lessons learned from implementing the ecosystem services concept in urban planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Riccardo Scalenghe & Ottorino-Luca Pantani, 2019. "Connecting Existing Cemeteries Saving Good Soils (for Livings)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Schetke, Sophie & Lee, Heera & Graf, Wanda & Lautenbach, Sven, 2018. "Application of the ecosystem service concept for climate protection in Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 294-305.
    4. Linrun Qiu & Yuxiang Dong & Hai Liu, 2022. "Integrating Ecosystem Services into Planning Practice: Situation, Challenges and Inspirations," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    5. Venter, Zander S. & Barton, David N. & Martinez-Izquierdo, Laura & Langemeyer, Johannes & Baró, Francesc & McPhearson, Timon, 2021. "Interactive spatial planning of urban green infrastructure – Retrofitting green roofs where ecosystem services are most needed in Oslo," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    6. Renato Monteiro & José Carlos Ferreira & Paula Antunes, 2022. "Green Infrastructure Planning Principles: Identification of Priorities Using Analytic Hierarchy Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, April.
    7. Rémi Jaligot & Jérôme Chenal, 2019. "Integration of Ecosystem Services in Regional Spatial Plans in Western Switzerland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    8. Tapio Riepponen & Mikko Moilanen & Jaakko Simonen, 2023. "Themes of resilience in the economics literature: A topic modeling approach," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 326-356, April.
    9. Susca, T. & Zanghirella, F. & Colasuonno, L. & Del Fatto, V., 2022. "Effect of green wall installation on urban heat island and building energy use: A climate-informed systematic literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    10. Adams, Clare & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Moglia, Magnus, 2023. "Mainstreaming nature-based solutions in cities: A systematic literature review and a proposal for facilitating urban transitions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    11. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    12. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    13. Grazia Brunetta & Ombretta Caldarice & Martino Faravelli, 2022. "Mainstreaming climate resilience: A GIS-based methodology to cope with cloudbursts in Turin, Italy," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(5), pages 1431-1447, June.
    14. Steve Harris & Jan Weinzettel & Gregor Levin, 2020. "Implications of Low Carbon City Sustainability Strategies for 2050," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-23, July.
    15. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    16. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    17. Shunqian Gao & Liu Yang & Hongzan Jiao, 2022. "Changes in and Patterns of the Tradeoffs and Synergies of Production-Living-Ecological Space: A Case Study of Longli County, Guizhou Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.
    18. Ke Huang & Martin Dallimer & Lindsay C. Stringer & Anlu Zhang & Ting Zhang, 2021. "Does Economic Agglomeration Lead to Efficient Rural to Urban Land Conversion? An Examination of China’s Metropolitan Area Development Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    19. Michel Opelele Omeno & Ying Yu & Wenyi Fan & Tolerant Lubalega & Chen Chen & Claude Kachaka Sudi Kaiko, 2021. "Analysis of the Impact of Land-Use/Land-Cover Change on Land-Surface Temperature in the Villages within the Luki Biosphere Reserve," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-23, October.
    20. Park, Mi Sun & Shin, Seongmin & Lee, Haeun, 2021. "Media frames on urban greening in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).

    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:82:y:2019:i:c:p:181-194. 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.