IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i8p4560-d791564.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A SUDS Planning Decision Support Tool to Maximize Ecosystem Services

Author

Listed:
  • Juliana Uribe-Aguado

    (Environmental Engineering Research Center (CIIA), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota 111711, Colombia)

  • Sara L. Jiménez-Ariza

    (Environmental Engineering Research Center (CIIA), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota 111711, Colombia)

  • María N. Torres

    (Department of Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo (SUNY), Buffalo, NY 14260, USA)

  • Natalia A. Bernal

    (Environmental Engineering Research Center (CIIA), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota 111711, Colombia)

  • Mónica M. Giraldo-González

    (Environmental Engineering Research Center (CIIA), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota 111711, Colombia)

  • Juan P. Rodríguez

    (Environmental Engineering Research Center (CIIA), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota 111711, Colombia)

Abstract

In the past years, alternative drainage approaches have emerged, such as Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), to prevent run-off and flooding impacts on the most vulnerable zones of the cities. These systems not only provide the benefit of water regulation but also promote other types of ecosystem services. Several studies have developed optimization tools to assist SUDS selection, location, and design. However, they do not consider a comprehensive set of ecosystem services (e.g., provision, regulation, cultural, and support services). This research proposes a flexible and adaptable methodology to incorporate SUDS in different stages of urban projects using a multi-objective optimization technique to minimize run-off, maximize ecosystem services and minimize cost. The methodology comprises four phases: (1) the preliminary analysis of ecosystem services potentially generated by each SUDS type, (2) the priority and opportunity index quantification, (3) the physical feasibility analysis, and (4) the multi-objective optimization tool implementation. The methodology was successfully applied to three different urban areas of Bogotá city (Colombia). Results evidence that the interaction of the budget constraints and the available area restrict the potential benefits of SUDS implementation. These results are helpful to support different urban planning stages.

Suggested Citation

  • Juliana Uribe-Aguado & Sara L. Jiménez-Ariza & María N. Torres & Natalia A. Bernal & Mónica M. Giraldo-González & Juan P. Rodríguez, 2022. "A SUDS Planning Decision Support Tool to Maximize Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:8:p:4560-:d:791564
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/8/4560/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/8/4560/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Sara Lucía Jiménez Ariza & José Alejandro Martínez & Andrés Felipe Muñoz & Juan Pablo Quijano & Juan Pablo Rodríguez & Luis Alejandro Camacho & Mario Díaz-Granados, 2019. "A Multicriteria Planning Framework to Locate and Select Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) in Consolidated Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-33, April.
    3. 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.
    4. V. M. Jayasooriya & S. Muthukumaran & A. W. M. Ng & B. J. C. Perera, 2018. "Multi Criteria Decision Making in Selecting Stormwater Management Green Infrastructure for Industrial areas Part 2: A Case Study with TOPSIS," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(13), pages 4297-4312, October.
    5. Langemeyer, Johannes & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Haase, Dagmar & Scheuer, Sebastian & Elmqvist, Thomas, 2016. "Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 45-56.
    6. García, Andrés M. & Santé, Inés & Loureiro, Xurxo & Miranda, David, 2020. "Green infrastructure spatial planning considering ecosystem services assessment and trade-off analysis. Application at landscape scale in Galicia region (NW Spain)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    7. Antonio Menéndez Suárez-Inclán & Cristina Allende-Prieto & Jorge Roces-García & Juan P. Rodríguez-Sánchez & Luis A. Sañudo-Fontaneda & Carlos Rey-Mahía & Felipe P. Álvarez-Rabanal, 2022. "Development of a Multicriteria Scheme for the Identification of Strategic Areas for SUDS Implementation: A Case Study from Gijón, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Sikhululekile Ncube & Scott Arthur, 2021. "Influence of Blue-Green and Grey Infrastructure Combinations on Natural and Human-Derived Capital in Urban Drainage Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, February.
    9. Ignacio Andrés-Doménech & Jose Anta & Sara Perales-Momparler & Jorge Rodriguez-Hernandez, 2021. "Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in Spain: A Diagnosis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    10. Tanja Fluhrer & Fernando Chapa & Jochen Hack, 2021. "A Methodology for Assessing the Implementation Potential for Retrofitted and Multifunctional Urban Green Infrastructure in Public Areas of the Global South," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-25, January.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    3. Guglielmo Pristeri & Viviana di Martino & Silvia Ronchi & Stefano Salata & Francesca Mazza & Andrea Benedini & Andrea Arcidiacono, 2023. "An Operational Model to Downscale Regional Green Infrastructures in Supra-Local Plans: A Case Study in an Italian Alpine Sub-Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-25, July.
    4. Silvia Ronchi, 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Planning: A Generic Recommendation or a Real Framework? Insights from a Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    5. Wenjing Wang & Tong Wu & Yuanzheng Li & Hua Zheng & Zhiyun Ouyang, 2021. "Matching Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand through Land Use Optimization: A Study of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Megacity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Kinga Kimic & Karina Ostrysz, 2021. "Assessment of Blue and Green Infrastructure Solutions in Shaping Urban Public Spaces—Spatial and Functional, Environmental, and Social Aspects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-31, October.
    7. Francesca Vignoli & Claudia de Luca & Simona Tondelli, 2021. "A Spatial Ecosystem Services Assessment to Support Decision and Policy Making: The Case of the City of Bologna," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    8. Andrés M. García & Inés Santé & Xurxo Loureiro & David Miranda, 2020. "Spatial Planning of Green Infrastructure for Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change at a Regional Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-22, December.
    9. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    10. Brzoska, P. & Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O., 2021. "A multi-criteria analytical method to assess ecosystem services at urban site level, exemplified by two German city districts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    11. Mannetti, Lelani M. & Göttert, Thomas & Zeller, Ulrich & Esler, Karen J., 2017. "Expanding the protected area network in Namibia: An institutional analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 207-218.
    12. 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).
    13. 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.
    14. Kieslich, Marcus & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2021. "Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    15. Klimanova, O.A. & Bukvareva, E.N. & Yu, Kolbowsky E. & Illarionova, O.A., 2023. "Assessing ecosystem services in Russia: Case studies from four municipal districts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    16. Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 150-157.
    17. Falk, Thomas & Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Siegmund-Schultze, Marianna & Kobbe, Susanne & Feike, Til & Kuebler, Daniel & Settele, Josef & Vorlaufer, Tobias, 2018. "Identifying governance challenges in ecosystem services management – Conceptual considerations and comparison of global forest cases," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 193-203.
    18. Takashi Hayashi & Daisuke Kunii & Masayuki Sato, 2021. "A Practice in Valuation of Ecosystem Services for Local Policymakers: Inclusion of Local-Specific and Demand-Side Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    19. Weitzman, Jenny, 2019. "Applying the ecosystem services concept to aquaculture: A review of approaches, definitions, and uses," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 194-206.
    20. Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2022. "Benefits of Stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(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:14:y:2022:i:8:p:4560-:d:791564. 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.