IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i18p7589-d413700.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disaggregating Ecosystem Benefits: An Integrated Environmental-Deprivation Index

Author

Listed:
  • Emily C. Hazell

    (Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B2K3, Canada)

Abstract

The valuation of ecosystem services has become an integral part of smart urban planning practices. Traditionally designed to bridge ecology and economy through economic language and logic (e.g., goods and services), this conceptual framework has developed into an effective tool for interdisciplinary work. The concept of ecosystem services is used to improve the management of ecosystems for human well-being. However, gaps in how to govern ecological benefits remain. Specifically, identifying which stakeholders benefit the most from the provision of ecosystem services remains largely unaddressed. This study examines the spatial discordance between ecosystem services and the residential stakeholders who may benefit. Using a landscape approach to quantify urban ecosystem services, an area-based composite index was developed for the City of Toronto, Canada, based on the three pillars of sustainability in order to identify potentially vulnerable populations. This method combines the use of principal component analysis (PCA) and spatial multicriteria decision analysis (GIS-MCDA) to combine and weight a select grouping of socioeconomic and ecological indicators. In addition, two sets of enumeration units (i.e., dissemination areas and census tracts) were evaluated to assess the potential impact of measurement scale on subsequent decision or policy outcomes. Results indicate the spatial interdependencies between ecological and socioeconomic processes in an urban setting, offering a unique framework for novel planning and policy intervention strategies. The influence of measurement scale was demonstrated, creating an opportunity to assess an appropriate policy scale by which to measure and evaluate trends over time and space. This approach seeks to provide a flexible and intuitive planning tool that can help to achieve goals relating to urban sustainability, resiliency and equity.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily C. Hazell, 2020. "Disaggregating Ecosystem Benefits: An Integrated Environmental-Deprivation Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:18:p:7589-:d:413700
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7589/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7589/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & , 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    2. Chiesura, Anna & de Groot, Rudolf, 2003. "Critical natural capital: a socio-cultural perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 219-231, March.
    3. Maes, Joachim & Egoh, Benis & Willemen, Louise & Liquete, Camino & Vihervaara, Petteri & Schägner, Jan Philipp & Grizzetti, Bruna & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Notte, Alessandra La & Zulian, Grazia & Bour, 2012. "Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 31-39.
    4. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    5. Germann-Chiari, Christina & Seeland, Klaus, 2004. "Are urban green spaces optimally distributed to act as places for social integration? Results of a geographical information system (GIS) approach for urban forestry research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 3-13, January.
    6. 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.
    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. Steger, Cara & Hirsch, Shana & Evers, Cody & Branoff, Benjamin & Petrova, Maria & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Wardropper, Chloe & van Riper, Carena J., 2018. "Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 153-160.
    9. 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.
    10. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    11. Chen, Nengwang & Li, Huancheng & Wang, Lihong, 2009. "A GIS-based approach for mapping direct use value of ecosystem services at a county scale: Management implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2768-2776, September.
    12. Susan L. Cutter & Bryan J. Boruff & W. Lynn Shirley, 2003. "Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 84(2), pages 242-261, 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. Yurii Kharazishvili & Aleksy Kwilinski & Olena Grishnova & Henryk Dzwigol, 2020. "Social Safety of Society for Developing Countries to Meet Sustainable Development Standards: Indicators, Level, Strategic Benchmarks (with Calculations Based on the Case Study of Ukraine)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, October.
    2. Yurii Kharazishvili & Aleksy Kwilinski & Oleksandr Sukhodolia & Henryk Dzwigol & Dmytro Bobro & Janusz Kotowicz, 2021. "The Systemic Approach for Estimating and Strategizing Energy Security: The Case of Ukraine," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-30, 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. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    2. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    3. 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).
    4. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    5. Pandeya, B. & Buytaert, W. & Zulkafli, Z. & Karpouzoglou, T. & Mao, F. & Hannah, D.M., 2016. "A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 250-259.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & , 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    9. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François &, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    10. Chang Zhao & Heather A Sander, 2015. "Quantifying and Mapping the Supply of and Demand for Carbon Storage and Sequestration Service from Urban Trees," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-31, August.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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).
    14. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    15. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    16. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    17. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.
    18. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    19. Tammi, Ilpo & Mustajärvi, Kaisa & Rasinmäki, Jussi, 2017. "Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 329-344.
    20. Maria Susana Orta Ortiz & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Mismatches in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services to Support Spatial Planning: A Case Study on Recreation and Food Supply in Havana, Cuba," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-21, June.

    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:12:y:2020:i:18:p:7589-:d:413700. 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.