IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i5p1088-d1150226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being

Author

Listed:
  • Goran Krsnik

    (Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia (CTFC), Ctra Sant Llorenç de Morunys, km 2, 25280 Solsona, Spain)

  • Sonia Reyes-Paecke

    (Departamento de Ecosistemas y Medio Ambiente, Facultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av. Vicuña Mackenna, Santiago 4860, Chile)

  • Keith M. Reynolds

    (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Research, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA)

  • Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo

    (Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia (CTFC), Ctra Sant Llorenç de Morunys, km 2, 25280 Solsona, Spain
    Joint Research Unit CTFC-AGROTECNIO, Ctra Sant Llorenç de Morunys, km 2, 25280 Solsona, Spain)

  • José Ramón González Olabarria

    (Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia (CTFC), Ctra Sant Llorenç de Morunys, km 2, 25280 Solsona, Spain
    Joint Research Unit CTFC-AGROTECNIO, Ctra Sant Llorenç de Morunys, km 2, 25280 Solsona, Spain)

Abstract

In this study, we evaluated alternative methods for comparing the provision of ecosystem services among urban areas, stressing how the choice of comparison method affects the ability to compare the ecosystem service outcomes, in order to improve the management actions in urban green areas, reduce environmental inequality, and ensure satisfactory levels of human well-being. For the analysis, ten spatial indicators were quantified to assess the provision of urban ecosystem services in Barcelona, Spain, and Santiago, Chile. Two comparison methods were applied in both cities to evaluate the differences in their provision scores. The analysis was performed using the Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) system, a spatially enabled decision support framework for environmental management. The results depicted changes in the values of the provision of ecosystem services depending on the methodological approach applied. When the data were analysed separately for each city, both cities registered a wide range of provision values across the city districts, varying from very low to very high values. However, when the analysis was based on the data for both cities, the provision scores in Santiago decreased, while they increased in Barcelona, showing relativeness and a discrepancy in their provisions, hindering an appropriate planning definition. Our results emphasise the importance of the choice of comparison approach in the analyses of urban ecosystem services and the need for further studies on these comparison methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:5:p:1088-:d:1150226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/5/1088/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/5/1088/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nahlik, Amanda M. & Kentula, Mary E. & Fennessy, M. Siobhan & Landers, Dixon H., 2012. "Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 27-35.
    2. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    3. Holt, Alison R. & Mears, Meghann & Maltby, Lorraine & Warren, Philip, 2015. "Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 33-46.
    4. Kathleen L. Wolf & Sharon T. Lam & Jennifer K. McKeen & Gregory R.A. Richardson & Matilda van den Bosch & Adrina C. Bardekjian, 2020. "Urban Trees and Human Health: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-30, June.
    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. Jie Wang & Shaohong Wu & Lulu Liu & Rui Yan & Shuang Zhou, 2024. "Coupling Coordination Relationships Between Ecosystems and Economic Development in Qinghai and Tibet," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, October.

    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. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    3. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    4. Luederitz, Christopher & Brink, Ebba & Gralla, Fabienne & Hermelingmeier, Verena & Meyer, Moritz & Niven, Lisa & Panzer, Lars & Partelow, Stefan & Rau, Anna-Lena & Sasaki, Ryuei & Abson, David J. & La, 2015. "A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 98-112.
    5. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    6. David H. Fletcher & Joanne K. Garrett & Amy Thomas & Alice Fitch & Phil Cryle & Simon Shilton & Laurence Jones, 2022. "Location, Location, Location: Modelling of Noise Mitigation by Urban Woodland Shows the Benefit of Targeted Tree Planting in Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, June.
    7. Ernstson, Henrik & Sörlin, Sverker, 2013. "Ecosystem services as technology of globalization: On articulating values in urban nature," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 274-284.
    8. Luodan Cao & Jialin Li & Mengyao Ye & Ruiliang Pu & Yongchao Liu & Qiandong Guo & Baixiang Feng & Xiayun Song, 2018. "Changes of Ecosystem Service Value in a Coastal Zone of Zhejiang Province, China, during Rapid Urbanization," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-16, June.
    9. Danley, Brian & Widmark, Camilla, 2016. "Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 132-138.
    10. Thompson, Kate & Sherren, Kate & Duinker, Peter N., 2019. "The use of ecosystem services concepts in Canadian municipal plans," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Larondelle, Neele & Lauf, Steffen, 2016. "Balancing demand and supply of multiple urban ecosystem services on different spatial scales," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 18-31.
    12. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Balzan, Mario V & Caruana, Julio & Zammit, Annrica, 2018. "Assessing the capacity and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small island state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 711-725.
    14. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    15. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    17. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    18. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    19. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    20. Saner, Marc A. & Bordt, Michael, 2016. "Building the consensus: The moral space of earth measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 74-81.

    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:12:y:2023:i:5:p:1088-:d:1150226. 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.