IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i4p469-d779374.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Ecosystem Service Approach to Assessing Agro-Ecosystems in Urban Landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Thais Thiesen

    (Earth and Environment Department, Florida International University, MM Campus, Miami, FL 33199, USA)

  • Mahadev G. Bhat

    (Earth and Environment Department, Florida International University, MM Campus, Miami, FL 33199, USA)

  • Hong Liu

    (Earth and Environment Department, Florida International University, MM Campus, Miami, FL 33199, USA)

  • Roberto Rovira

    (Landscape Architecture + Environmental and Urban Design, Florida International University, MM Campus, Miami, FL 33199, USA)

Abstract

Creating sustainable urban landscapes in light of growing population pressures requires interdisciplinary multi-functional solutions. Alternative agro-ecosystems described as food forests, permaculture gardens, and/or edible landscapes among others could offer potential ways to address the social, economic, and ecological goals of various stakeholders simultaneously. Current research is lacking a comprehensive tool that can assess the performance of alternative agro-ecosystems that have both functional and aesthetic values. The present research uses a novel rubric, the Permaculture and Agro-ecosystems Sustainability Scorecard (PASS) that combines agricultural sustainability and ecosystem services (ES) indicators in order to assess alternative agro-ecosystems. The rubric evaluates provisioning, regulating, supporting, economic and cultural ES and includes benefits such as pollinator presence, increased biodiversity, alternative pesticides and fertilizer use, carbon sequestration, food security, and human interactions. Based on the concepts and principles drawn from four popular frameworks and sub-disciplines, namely, SAFE, SITES, permaculture, and agroecology, we identify sixteen broad ES indicators and 59 sub-indices and measure them using data collected through site observation, survey, interviews, and documentary research. For easy comparison across different urban agriculture sites, the above sub-indices are further aggregated into five ES criteria using stakeholder-informed weights. The weights are developed through pair-wise comparison of criteria by sample survey respondents. The PASS framework is used to score twelve sites in South Florida that meet specific criteria in the small farm, residential, and public space categories. Sample respondents place the highest weight on cultural services. Contrary to the popular notion of promoting urban agriculture for food security, the results show that the majority of the sites score highest in the supporting services provided, followed by regulating and cultural services, and lowest in the economic services category. The supporting service for most of the sample sites score consistently very high, close to the highest possible level of 5.0. There is a wide variation in provisioning and economic values across the study sites. The paper offers several ideas for mainstreaming the ES indicators into urban planning and decision-making and some of the practical difficulties one might face along the way. We conclude that in order to realize the broader ES benefits of urban agriculture in particular and agro-ecosystems in general, a multi-pronged policy and planning approach is necessary.

Suggested Citation

  • Thais Thiesen & Mahadev G. Bhat & Hong Liu & Roberto Rovira, 2022. "An Ecosystem Service Approach to Assessing Agro-Ecosystems in Urban Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-23, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:4:p:469-:d:779374
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/4/469/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/4/469/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S. lópez-ridaura & H. Keulen & M. Ittersum & P. Leffelaar, 2005. "Multiscale Methodological Framework to Derive Criteria and Indicators for Sustainability Evaluation of Peasant Natural Resource Management Systems," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 51-69, January.
    2. Krajnc, Damjan & Glavič, Peter, 2005. "A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 189-208.
    3. Ina Säumel & Suhana E. Reddy & Thomas Wachtel, 2019. "Edible City Solutions—One Step Further to Foster Social Resilience through Enhanced Socio-Cultural Ecosystem Services in Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    4. Dale, Virginia H. & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 286-296, December.
    5. Muradian, Roldan & Rival, Laura, 2012. "Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 93-100.
    6. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    7. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    8. Seleman, Amour & Bhat, Mahadev G., 2016. "Multi-criteria assessment of sanitation technologies in rural Tanzania: Implications for program implementation, health and socio-economic improvements," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 70-79.
    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. Zhe Cheng & Tianyu Zhao & Tao Song & Li Cui & Xinfa Zhou, 2022. "Assessing the Spatio-Temporal Pattern and Development Characteristics of Regional Ecological Resources for Sustainable Development: A Case Study on Guizhou Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.

    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. Ebner, Manuel & Fontana, Veronika & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    2. Chenyu Li & Ling Zhang & Yan Xu, 2023. "An integrated approach to identify criteria interactions based on association rule and capacity in MCDA," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 45(4), pages 1381-1412, December.
    3. Fontana, Veronika & Ebner, Manuel & Schirpke, Uta & Ohndorf, Markus & Pritsch, Hanna & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Kurmayer, Rainer, 2023. "An integrative approach to evaluate ecosystem services of mountain lakes using multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    4. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    5. Maczka, Krzysztof & Chmielewski, Piotr & Jeran, Agnieszka & Matczak, Piotr & van Riper, Carena J., 2019. "The ecosystem services concept as a tool for public participation in management of Poland’s Natura 2000 network," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 173-183.
    6. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    7. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    8. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    9. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    10. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    11. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.
    12. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    13. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    14. Luis Pérez-Domínguez & Luis Alberto Rodríguez-Picón & Alejandro Alvarado-Iniesta & David Luviano Cruz & Zeshui Xu, 2018. "MOORA under Pythagorean Fuzzy Set for Multiple Criteria Decision Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-10, April.
    15. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    16. Kumar B, Pradeep, 2021. "Changing Objectives of Firms and Managerial Preferences: A Review of Models in Microeconomics," MPRA Paper 106967, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Mar 2021.
    17. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Anirban Mukhopadhyay & Sugata Hazra & Debasish Mitra & C. Hutton & Abhra Chanda & Sandip Mukherjee, 2016. "Characterizing the multi-risk with respect to plausible natural hazards in the Balasore coast, Odisha, India: a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) appraisal," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1495-1513, February.
    19. Chamoli, Sunil, 2015. "Hybrid FAHP (fuzzy analytical hierarchy process)-FTOPSIS (fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity of an ideal solution) approach for performance evaluation of the V down perforated baffle r," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 432-442.
    20. H. S. C. Perera & W. K. R. Costa, 2008. "Analytic Hierarchy Process for Selection of Erp Software for Manufacturing Companies," Vision, , vol. 12(4), pages 1-11, October.

    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:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:4:p:469-:d:779374. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.