IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i18p4943-d265913.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Urban Green Space Based on Bio-Energy Landscape Connectivity: A Case Study on Tongzhou District in Beijing, China

Author

Listed:
  • Kunyuan Wanghe

    (School of Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, No. 35 Qinghua East Road, Beijing 100083, China
    The authors contributed equally to this study.)

  • Xinle Guo

    (School of Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, No. 35 Qinghua East Road, Beijing 100083, China
    The authors contributed equally to this study.)

  • Xiaofeng Luan

    (School of Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, No. 35 Qinghua East Road, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Kai Li

    (School of Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, No. 35 Qinghua East Road, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

Green infrastructure is one of the key components that provides critical ecosystems services in urban areas, such as regulating services (temperature regulation, noise reduction, air purification), and cultural services (recreation, aesthetic benefits), but due to rapid urbanization, many environmental impacts associated with the decline of green space have emerged and are rarely been evaluated integrally and promptly. The Chinese government is building a new city as the sub-center of the capital in Tongzhou District, Beijing, China. A series of policies have been implemented to increase the size of green urban areas. To support this land-use decision-making process and achieve a sustainable development strategy, accurate assessments of green space are required. In the current study, using land-use data and environmental parameters, we assessed the urban green space in the case study area. The bio-energy and its fluxes, landscape connectivity, as well as related ecosystem services were estimated using a novel approach, the PANDORA model. These results show that (1) in the highly urbanized area, green space is decreasing in reaction to urbanization, and landscape fragmentation is ubiquitous; (2) the river ecology network is a critical part for ecosystem services and landscape connectivity; and (3) the alternative non-green patches to be changed to urban, urban patches which can improve landscape quality the most by being changed to green, and conservation priority patches for biodiversity purposes of urban green were explicitly identified. Conclusively, our results depict the spatial distribution, fluxes, and evolution of bio-energy, as well as the conservation prioritization of green space. Our methods can be applied by urban planners and ecologists, which can help decision-makers achieve a sustainable development strategy in these rapidly urbanizing areas worldwide.

Suggested Citation

  • Kunyuan Wanghe & Xinle Guo & Xiaofeng Luan & Kai Li, 2019. "Assessment of Urban Green Space Based on Bio-Energy Landscape Connectivity: A Case Study on Tongzhou District in Beijing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:18:p:4943-:d:265913
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/4943/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/4943/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antonio Nesticò & Maria Rosaria Guarini & Pierluigi Morano & Francesco Sica, 2019. "An Economic Analysis Algorithm for Urban Forestry Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, January.
    2. Angela Heymans & Jessica Breadsell & Gregory M. Morrison & Joshua J. Byrne & Christine Eon, 2019. "Ecological Urban Planning and Design: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Antonio Nesticò & Francesco Sica, 2017. "The sustainability of urban renewal projects: a model for economic multi-criteria analysis," Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 35(4), pages 397-409, July.
    4. Matthew Gandy, 2008. "Landscapes of Disaster: Water, Modernity, and Urban Fragmentation in Mumbai," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(1), pages 108-130, January.
    5. Hao Wu & Lingbo Liu & Yang Yu & Zhenghong Peng, 2018. "Evaluation and Planning of Urban Green Space Distribution Based on Mobile Phone Data and Two-Step Floating Catchment Area Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, January.
    6. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Johnson, Gary W. & Voigt, Brian & Villa, Ferdinando, 2013. "Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 117-125.
    7. Md. Rana, 2011. "Urbanization and sustainability: challenges and strategies for sustainable urban development in Bangladesh," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 237-256, February.
    8. Boumans, Roelof & Roman, Joe & Altman, Irit & Kaufman, Les, 2015. "The Multiscale Integrated Model of Ecosystem Services (MIMES): Simulating the interactions of coupled human and natural systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 30-41.
    9. Shiyi Guo & Kaoru Saito & Weida Yin & Chang Su, 2018. "Landscape Connectivity as a Tool in Green Space Evaluation and Optimization of the Haidan District, Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    10. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    11. Giulia Capotorti & Barbara Mollo & Laura Zavattero & Ilaria Anzellotti & Laura Celesti-Grapow, 2015. "Setting Priorities for Urban Forest Planning. A Comprehensive Response to Ecological and Social Needs for the Metropolitan Area of Rome (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-19, April.
    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. MariaElena Menconi & Rosaria Abbate & Luca Simone & David Grohmann, 2023. "Urban Green System Planning Insights for a Spatialized Balance between PM 10 Dust Retention Capacity of Trees and Urban Vehicular PM 10 Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Maria Elena Menconi & Ambra Sipone & David Grohmann, 2021. "Complex Systems Thinking Approach to Urban Greenery to Provide Community-Tailored Solutions and Enhance the Provision of Cultural Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Giulio Senes & Chiara Parretta & Natalia Fumagalli & Patrizia Tassinari & Daniele Torreggiani, 2023. "Soft Mobility Network for the Enhancement and Discovery of the Rural Landscape: Definition of a Masterplan for Alto Ferrarese (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, February.

    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. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Shiliang Liu & Yuhong Dong & Hua Liu & Fangfang Wang & Lu Yu, 2023. "Review of Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services and Realization Approaches in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    3. You Zuo & Lin Zhang, 2023. "Research on Local Ecosystem Cultural Services in the Jiangnan Water Network Rural Areas: A Case Study of the Ecological Green Integration Demonstration Zone in the Yangtze River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, July.
    4. Antonio Nesticò & Piera Somma, 2019. "Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Methods for the Enhancement of Historical Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, August.
    5. Maia de Souza, Danielle & Lopes, Gabriela Russo & Hansson, Julia & Hansen, Karin, 2018. "Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: A synthesis of knowledge and recommendations for biofuels," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 200-210.
    6. Jessica K. Breadsell & Joshua J. Byrne & Gregory M. Morrison, 2019. "Household Energy and Water Practices Change Post-Occupancy in an Australian Low-Carbon Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-20, October.
    7. Maria Rosaria Sessa & Benedetta Esposito & Daniela Sica & Ornella Malandrino, 2021. "A Logical-Mathematical Approach for the Implementation of Ecologically Equipped Productive Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, January.
    8. Xiao, Lan & Haiping, Tang & Haoguang, Liang, 2017. "A theoretical framework for researching cultural ecosystem service flows in urban agglomerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 95-104.
    9. Wilkerson, Marit L. & Mitchell, Matthew G.E. & Shanahan, Danielle & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Ives, Christopher D. & Lovelock, Catherine E. & Rhodes, Jonathan R., 2018. "The role of socio-economic factors in planning and managing urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 102-110.
    10. Zahra Kalantari & Sara Khoshkar & Helena Falk & Vladimir Cvetkovic & Ulla Mörtberg, 2017. "Accessibility of Water-Related Cultural Ecosystem Services through Public Transport—A Model for Planning Support in the Stockholm Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-16, February.
    11. Ochoa, Vivian & Urbina-Cardona, Nicolás, 2017. "Tools for spatially modeling ecosystem services: Publication trends, conceptual reflections and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 155-169.
    12. Giulia Capotorti & Eva Del Vico & Ilaria Anzellotti & Laura Celesti-Grapow, 2016. "Combining the Conservation of Biodiversity with the Provision of Ecosystem Services in Urban Green Infrastructure Planning: Critical Features Arising from a Case Study in the Metropolitan Area of Rome," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, December.
    13. Huang, Qingxu & Yin, Dan & He, Chunyang & Yan, Jubo & Liu, Ziwen & Meng, Shiting & Ren, Qiang & Zhao, Rui & Inostroza, Luis, 2020. "Linking ecosystem services and subjective well-being in rapidly urbanizing watersheds: Insights from a multilevel linear model," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    14. Qingbin Wang & Laurel Valchuis & Ethan Thompson & David Conner & Robert Parsons, 2019. "Consumer Support and Willingness to Pay for Electricity from Solar, Wind, and Cow Manure in the United States: Evidence from a Survey in Vermont," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    15. Sarnataro, Michele & Barbati, Maria & Greco, Salvatore, 2021. "A portfolio approach for the selection and the timing of urban planning projects," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    16. Maria Rosaria Guarini & Pierluigi Morano & Francesco Sica, 2019. "Integrated Ecosystem Design: An Evaluation Model to Support the Choice of Eco-Compatible Technological Solutions for Residential Building," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-34, July.
    17. 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.
    18. Ernestyna Szpakowska-Loranc, 2021. "Multi-Attribute Analysis of Contemporary Cultural Buildings in the Historic Urban Fabric as Sustainable Spaces—Krakow Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-25, May.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:18:p:4943-:d:265913. 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.