IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i18p7751-d416047.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Utilization of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index to Map Habitat Quality in Turin (Italy)

Author

Listed:
  • Stefano Salata

    (Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Responsible Risk Resilience Centre, Politecnico di Torino, 10125 Torino, Italy)

  • Carolina Giaimo

    (Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino, 10125 Torino, Italy)

  • Carlo Alberto Barbieri

    (Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino, 10125 Torino, Italy)

  • Andrea Ballocca

    (Consorzio per il Sistema Informativo-CSI Piemonte, Corso Unione Sovietica 216, 10134 Torino, Italy)

  • Francesco Scalise

    (Consorzio per il Sistema Informativo-CSI Piemonte, Corso Unione Sovietica 216, 10134 Torino, Italy)

  • Giulio Pantaloni

    (Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino, 10125 Torino, Italy)

Abstract

The integration of ecosystem service mapping in decision-making is crucial to place effective urban design and sustainable planning solutions. Nonetheless, often ecosystem service maps are the product of different data inputs that influences the final modeling output thus affecting final decisions, especially when a finer and site-specific assessment is required to design practical and effective solutions. In this work, the city of Turin (Northwest Italy) was selected as a test site for an empirical experiment of ecosystem service mapping using the software Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST): two habitat quality models of the city were compared in a Geographic Information System environment, the first using the “traditional” sensitivity employed during the LIFE SAM4CP European research while the second using the natural difference vegetation index to re-assign the sensitivity scores. Results demonstrate that the integration of site-specific information in the habitat quality input model generates a different result, which is capable of differentiating all those dense built-up areas of the dense settlement system that provide ecosystem supporting functions at the city-level. These differences were analyzed to define new green hotspots in the compact city while furnishing a new perspective for sustainable city planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefano Salata & Carolina Giaimo & Carlo Alberto Barbieri & Andrea Ballocca & Francesco Scalise & Giulio Pantaloni, 2020. "The Utilization of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index to Map Habitat Quality in Turin (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-17, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:18:p:7751-:d:416047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7751/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7751/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luca Congedo & Lorenzo Sallustio & Michele Munafò & Marco Ottaviano & Daniela Tonti & Marco Marchetti, 2016. "Copernicus high-resolution layers for land cover classification in Italy," Journal of Maps, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(5), pages 1195-1205, October.
    2. Pulighe, Giuseppe & Fava, Francesco & Lupia, Flavio, 2016. "Insights and opportunities from mapping ecosystem services of urban green spaces and potentials in planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 1-10.
    3. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2018. "Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is there, and what is still needed for better decisions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 298-312.
    4. Raymond, Christopher M. & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Kabisch, Nadja & Berry, Pam & Breil, Margaretha & Nita, Mihai Razvan & Geneletti, Davide & Calfapietra, Carlo, 2017. "A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 15-24.
    5. Didem Dizdaroglu & Tan Yigitcanlar, 2016. "Integrating urban ecosystem sustainability assessment into policy-making: insights from the Gold Coast City," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(11), pages 1982-2006, November.
    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. Stefano Salata & Bertan Arslan, 2022. "Designing with Ecosystem Modelling: The Sponge District Application in İzmir, Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-26, March.
    2. Stefano Salata, 2021. "The Utilization of Supervised Classification Sampling for Environmental Monitoring in Turin (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, February.
    3. Helena Madureira & Ana Monteiro, 2021. "Going Green and Going Dense: A Systematic Review of Compatibilities and Conflicts in Urban Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-20, September.

    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. Grazia Brunetta & Stefano Salata, 2019. "Mapping Urban Resilience for Spatial Planning—A First Attempt to Measure the Vulnerability of the System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-24, April.
    2. Stefano Salata & Sila Ozkavaf-Senalp & Koray Velibeyoğlu & Zeynep Elburz, 2022. "Land Suitability Analysis for Vineyard Cultivation in the Izmir Metropolitan Area," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, March.
    3. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Mihai-Razvan Niță & Ana-Maria Anghel & Cristina Bănescu & Ana-Maria Munteanu & Sabina-Stella Pesamosca & Mihuț Zețu & Ana-Maria Popa, 2018. "Are Romanian urban strategies planning for green?," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 158-173, January.
    5. Eunjoung Lee & Gunwoo Kim, 2022. "Analysis of Domestic and International Green Infrastructure Research Trends from the ESG Perspective in South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-18, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Babí Almenar, Javier & Elliot, Thomas & Rugani, Benedetto & Philippe, Bodénan & Navarrete Gutierrez, Tomas & Sonnemann, Guido & Geneletti, Davide, 2021. "Nexus between nature-based solutions, ecosystem services and urban challenges," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    8. Edoardo Croci & Benedetta Lucchitta & Tommaso Penati, 2021. "Valuing Ecosystem Services at the Urban Level: A Critical Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, January.
    9. Zwierzchowska, Iwona & Fagiewicz, Katarzyna & Poniży, Lidia & Lupa, Piotr & Mizgajski, Andrzej, 2019. "Introducing nature-based solutions into urban policy – facts and gaps. Case study of Poznań," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 161-175.
    10. Alina Pancewicz & Dominika Bednarz & Dawid Drożdż & Monika Marszoł & Natalia Suchy, 2023. "The Use of Nature-Based Solutions in the Adaptation of Large Polish Cities to Climate Change and Energy Transformation: A Comparative Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-18, July.
    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. 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.
    13. 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).
    14. Floris C. Boogaard & Guri Venvik & Rui L. Pedroso de Lima & Ana C. Cassanti & Allard H. Roest & Antal Zuurman, 2020. "ClimateCafé: An Interdisciplinary Educational Tool for Sustainable Climate Adaptation and Lessons Learned," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, May.
    15. Nancy Andrea Ramírez-Agudelo & Roger Porcar Anento & Miriam Villares & Elisabet Roca, 2020. "Nature-Based Solutions for Water Management in Peri-Urban Areas: Barriers and Lessons Learned from Implementation Experiences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-36, November.
    16. Miroshnyk, N.V. & Likhanov, A.F. & Grabovska, T.O. & Teslenko, I.K. & Roubík, H., 2022. "Green infrastructure and relationship with urbanization – Importance and necessity of integrated governance," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    17. 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).
    18. Chiara Cortinovis & Grazia Zulian & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Nature-Based Recreation to Support Urban Green Infrastructure Planning in Trento (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, September.
    19. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    20. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:18:p:7751-:d:416047. 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.