IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i5p2825-d511350.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem Services Assessment Tools for Regenerative Urban Design in Oceania

Author

Listed:
  • Fabian Delpy

    (Department of Biology, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Maibritt Pedersen Zari

    (Wellington School of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington, 139 Vivian Street, Wellington 6011, Aotearoa, New Zealand)

  • Bethanna Jackson

    (School of Geography, Environmental and Earth Science, Victoria University of Wellington, Kelburn Parade, Wellington 6012, Aotearoa, New Zealand)

  • Rubianca Benavidez

    (School of Geography, Environmental and Earth Science, Victoria University of Wellington, Kelburn Parade, Wellington 6012, Aotearoa, New Zealand)

  • Thomas Westend

    (Wellington School of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington, 139 Vivian Street, Wellington 6011, Aotearoa, New Zealand)

Abstract

Tools that spatially model ecosystem services offer opportunities to integrate ecology into regenerative urban design. However, few of these tools are designed for assessing ecosystem services in cities, meaning their application by designers is potentially limited. This research reviews and compares a range of ecosystem services assessment tools to find those that are most suited for the urban context of Oceania. The tool classification includes considerations of type of input and output data, time commitment, and necessary skills required. The strengths and limitations of the most relevant tools are further discussed alongside illustrative case studies, some collected from literature and one conducted as part of this research in Wellington, Aotearoa using the Land Utilisation and Capability Indicator (LUCI) tool. A major finding of the research is that from the 95 tools reviewed, only four are judged to be potentially relevant for urban design projects. These are modelling tools that allow spatially explicit visualisation of biophysical quantification of ecosystem services. The ecosystem services assessed vary among tools and the outputs’ reliability is often highly influenced by the user’s technical expertise. The provided recommendations support urban designers and architects to choose the tool that best suits their regenerative design project requirements.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabian Delpy & Maibritt Pedersen Zari & Bethanna Jackson & Rubianca Benavidez & Thomas Westend, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Assessment Tools for Regenerative Urban Design in Oceania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:5:p:2825-:d:511350
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/5/2825/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/5/2825/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Waage, Sissel & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 27-39.
    4. Komugabe-Dixson, Aimée F. & de Ville, Naomi S.E. & Trundle, Alexei & McEvoy, Darryn, 2019. "Environmental change, urbanisation, and socio-ecological resilience in the Pacific: Community narratives from Port Vila, Vanuatu," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. Pedersen Zari, Maibritt & Kiddle, Gabriel Luke & Blaschke, Paul & Gawler, Steve & Loubser, David, 2019. "Utilising nature-based solutions to increase resilience in Pacific Ocean Cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Ferdinando Villa & Kenneth J Bagstad & Brian Voigt & Gary W Johnson & Rosimeiry Portela & Miroslav Honzák & David Batker, 2014. "A Methodology for Adaptable and Robust Ecosystem Services Assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Oosterbroek, Bram & de Kraker, Joop & Huynen, Maud M.T.E. & Martens, Pim, 2016. "Assessing ecosystem impacts on health: A tool review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 237-254.
    8. Ruckelshaus, Mary & McKenzie, Emily & Tallis, Heather & Guerry, Anne & Daily, Gretchen & Kareiva, Peter & Polasky, Stephen & Ricketts, Taylor & Bhagabati, Nirmal & Wood, Spencer A. & Bernhardt, Joanna, 2015. "Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 11-21.
    9. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Sirén, Elina & Brunner, Sibyl Hanna & Weibel, Bettina, 2017. "Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 306-315.
    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. Nguyet Anh Dang & Rubianca Benavidez & Stephanie Anne Tomscha & Ho Nguyen & Dung Duc Tran & Diep Thi Hong Nguyen & Ho Huu Loc & Bethanna Marie Jackson, 2021. "Ecosystem Service Modelling to Support Nature-Based Flood Water Management in the Vietnamese Mekong River Delta," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-28, December.
    2. Veerkamp, C.J. & Loreti, M. & Benavidez, R. & Jackson, B & Schipper, A.M., 2023. "Comparing three spatial modeling tools for assessing urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).

    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. 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).
    2. Hugé, J. & Rochette, A.J. & de Béthune, S. & Parra Paitan, C.C. & Vanderhaegen, K. & Vandervelden, T. & Van Passel, S. & Vanhove, M.P.M. & Verbist, B. & Verheyen, D. & Waas, T. & Janssens, I. & Jansse, 2020. "Ecosystem services assessment tools for African Biosphere Reserves: A review and user-informed classification," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    3. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    4. Manley, Kyle & Nyelele, Charity & Egoh, Benis N., 2022. "A review of machine learning and big data applications in addressing ecosystem service research gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    5. Dunford, Rob & Harrison, Paula & Smith, Alison & Dick, Jan & Barton, David N. & Martin-Lopez, Berta & Kelemen, Ezsther & Jacobs, Sander & Saarikoski, Heli & Turkelboom, Francis & Verheyden, Wim & Hauc, 2018. "Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: Experiences from real world situations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 499-514.
    6. Forio, Marie Anne Eurie & Villa-Cox, Gonzalo & Van Echelpoel, Wout & Ryckebusch, Helena & Lock, Koen & Spanoghe, Pieter & Deknock, Arne & De Troyer, Niels & Nolivos-Alvarez, Indira & Dominguez-Granda,, 2020. "Bayesian Belief Network models as trade-off tools of ecosystem services in the Guayas River Basin in Ecuador," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    7. Yuan, Mei-Hua & Lo, Shang-Lien, 2020. "Ecosystem services and sustainable development: Perspectives f1 rom the food-energy-water Nexus," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    8. Harrison, Paula A. & Dunford, Rob & Barton, David N. & Kelemen, Eszter & Martín-López, Berta & Norton, Lisa & Termansen, Mette & Saarikoski, Heli & Hendriks, Kees & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Czúcz, Báli, 2018. "Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 481-498.
    9. Espécie, Mariana de Assis & de Carvalho, Pedro Ninô & Pinheiro, Maria Fernanda Bacile & Rosenthal, Vinicius Mesquita & da Silva, Leyla A. Ferreira & Pinheiro, Mariana Rodrigues de Carvalhaes & Espig, , 2019. "Ecosystem services and renewable power generation: A preliminary literature review," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 39-51.
    10. Yu-Pin Lin & Wei-Chih Lin & Hsin-Yi Li & Yung-Chieh Wang & Chih-Chen Hsu & Wan-Yu Lien & Johnathen Anthony & Joy R. Petway, 2017. "Integrating Social Values and Ecosystem Services in Systematic Conservation Planning: A Case Study in Datuan Watershed," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-22, April.
    11. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    12. Staes, Jan & Broekx, Steven & Van Der Biest, Katrien & Vrebos, Dirk & Olivier, Beauchard & De Nocker, Leo & Liekens, Inge & Poelmans, Lien & Verheyen, Kris & Jeroen, Panis & Meire, Patrick, 2017. "Quantification of the potential impact of nature conservation on ecosystem services supply in the Flemish Region: A cascade modelling approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 124-137.
    13. Cabral, Pedro & Feger, Clément & Levrel, Harold & Chambolle, Mélodie & Basque, Damien, 2016. "Assessing the impact of land-cover changes on ecosystem services: A first step toward integrative planning in Bordeaux, France," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 318-327.
    14. Babí Almenar, Javier & Petucco, Claudio & Sonnemann, Guido & Geneletti, Davide & Elliot, Thomas & Rugani, Benedetto, 2023. "Modelling the net environmental and economic impacts of urban nature-based solutions by combining ecosystem services, system dynamics and life cycle thinking: An application to urban forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    15. Liu, Hongxiao & Hamel, Perrine & Tardieu, Léa & Remme, Roy P. & Han, Baolong & Ren, Hai, 2022. "A geospatial model of nature-based recreation for urban planning: Case study of Paris, France," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    16. Alcon, Francisco & Zabala, José A. & Martínez-García, Victor & Albaladejo, José A. & López-Becerra, Erasmo I. & de-Miguel, María D. & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2022. "The social wellbeing of irrigation water. A demand-side integrated valuation in a Mediterranean agroecosystem," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    17. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey & Bettina Weibel & Kenneth J Bagstad & Marika Ferrari & Davide Geneletti & Hermann Klug & Uta Schirpke & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2014. "On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-26, December.
    18. Lee, Jongyeol & Lim, Chul-Hee & Kim, Gang Sun & Markandya, Anil & Chowdhury, Sarwat & Kim, Sea Jin & Lee, Woo-Kyun & Son, Yowhan, 2018. "Economic viability of the national-scale forestation program: The case of success in the Republic of Korea," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 40-46.
    19. Huirong Yu, 2022. "A multi-scale approach to mapping conservation priorities for rural China based on landscape context," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 10803-10828, September.
    20. Feurer, Melanie & Rueff, Henri & Celio, Enrico & Heinimann, Andreas & Blaser, Juergen & Htun, Aung Myin & Zaehringer, Julie Gwendolin, 2021. "Regional scale mapping of ecosystem services supply, demand, flow and mismatches in Southern Myanmar," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(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:13:y:2021:i:5:p:2825-:d:511350. 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.