IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i7p3063-d1371224.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land Cover Patterns of Urban Lots and Their Contribution to Ecological Functions

Author

Listed:
  • Marise Barreiros Horta

    (Departamento de Genética, Ecologia & Evolução, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, MG, Brazil
    Programa de Pós-Graduação em Análise e Modelagem de Sistemas Ambientais, Instituto de Geociências, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, MG, Brazil)

  • Sònia Maria Carvalho-Ribeiro

    (Programa de Pós-Graduação em Análise e Modelagem de Sistemas Ambientais, Instituto de Geociências, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, MG, Brazil)

  • Jean François Mas

    (Centro de Investigaciones en Geografia Ambiental, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia 58190, Mexico)

  • Francisco Medeiros Martins

    (Faculdade de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina 39100-000, MG, Brazil)

  • Fernando de Moura Resende

    (Departamento de Genética, Ecologia & Evolução, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, MG, Brazil)

  • Fernando Figueiredo Goulart

    (Departamento de Genética, Ecologia & Evolução, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, MG, Brazil)

  • Geraldo Wilson Fernandes

    (Departamento de Genética, Ecologia & Evolução, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, MG, Brazil)

Abstract

The green infrastructure of urban lots performs socio-ecological functions and provides several ecosystem services (ESs) in urban environments. By assessing the land cover patterns of such sites, one can deduce ecological functions and potential ESs. We represented the various land cover combinations of lots by mapping and classifying the vegetation quality of 2828 lots in the city of Belo Horizonte, Southeast Brazil. We performed cluster analysis of land cover with weighting according to ecological functions, potential for ES provision, and performance. Most lots (1024, 36.21%) were in the moderate vegetation quality class (trees/native vegetation between 25% and 50% or >50% herbaceous-shrubby vegetation), which included the largest plot of 383,300 m 2 and a median plot size of 403 m 2 . A total of 244 (8.63%) lots were in the highest vegetation quality class (trees/native vegetation between >50% and 100%). The lots included diverse vegetation cover combinations of up to ten land cover types, with two dominant types: herbaceous-shrubby vegetation and tree clumps. Among the four land cover patterns obtained, those covered by tree clusters (1193 lots; 42.18%) had the highest ecological performance and the greatest potential for regulating and supporting ESs. This cluster had the highest average land cover of tree clumps (49%) and the highest averages for native vegetation formations (2–6%). Our study showed a variety of land cover patterns and an expressive percentage of lots with capabilities to provide ecological functions and ESs, which can support urban sustainability policies that have yet to be addressed.

Suggested Citation

  • Marise Barreiros Horta & Sònia Maria Carvalho-Ribeiro & Jean François Mas & Francisco Medeiros Martins & Fernando de Moura Resende & Fernando Figueiredo Goulart & Geraldo Wilson Fernandes, 2024. "Land Cover Patterns of Urban Lots and Their Contribution to Ecological Functions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-25, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:7:p:3063-:d:1371224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/3063/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/3063/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    2. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-15, April.
    3. Matthias Bernt, 2016. "The Limits of Shrinkage: Conceptual Pitfalls and Alternatives in the Discussion of Urban Population Loss," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 441-450, March.
    4. Jacobs, Sander & Burkhard, Benjamin & Van Daele, Toon & Staes, Jan & Schneiders, Anik, 2015. "‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 21-30.
    5. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    6. Charrad, Malika & Ghazzali, Nadia & Boiteau, Véronique & Niknafs, Azam, 2014. "NbClust: An R Package for Determining the Relevant Number of Clusters in a Data Set," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 61(i06).
    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    5. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Chen, Haojie & Costanza, Robert & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2022. "Legitimacy and limitations of valuing the oxygen production of ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    8. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    9. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    10. Exley, G. & Hernandez, R.R. & Page, T. & Chipps, M. & Gambro, S. & Hersey, M. & Lake, R. & Zoannou, K.-S. & Armstrong, A., 2021. "Scientific and stakeholder evidence-based assessment: Ecosystem response to floating solar photovoltaics and implications for sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    11. Namakando, Namakando, 2020. "Stakeholder perceptions of raw water quality and its management in Fetakgomo and Maruleng municipalities of Limpopo Province," Research Theses 334769, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    12. Wubante Fetene Admasu & Annelies Boerema & Jan Nyssen & Amare Sewnet Minale & Enyew Adgo Tsegaye & Steven Van Passel, 2020. "Uncovering Ecosystem Services of Expropriated Land: The Case of Urban Expansion in Bahir Dar, Northwest Ethiopia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-20, October.
    13. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    14. Mörtberg, Ulla & Goldenberg, Romain & Kalantari, Zahra & Kordas, Olga & Deal, Brian & Balfors, Berit & Cvetkovic, Vladimir, 2017. "Integrating ecosystem services in the assessment of urban energy trajectories – A study of the Stockholm Region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 338-349.
    15. 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).
    16. Daams, Michiel N. & Sijtsma, Frans J. & Veneri, Paolo, 2019. "Mixed monetary and non-monetary valuation of attractive urban green space: A case study using Amsterdam house prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Rafał Blazy & Hanna Hrehorowicz-Gaber & Alicja Hrehorowicz-Nowak & Arkadiusz Płachta, 2021. "The Synergy of Ecosystems of Blue and Green Infrastructure and Its Services in the Metropolitan Area—Chances and Dangers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    18. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    19. Santiago Madrigal-Martínez & José Luis Miralles i García, 2020. "Assessment Method and Scale of Observation Influence Ecosystem Service Bundles," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-19, October.
    20. Suchocka, Marzena & Heciak, Jakub & Błaszczyk, Magdalena & Adamczyk, Joanna & Gaworski, Marek & Gawłowska, Agnieszka & Mojski, Jacek & Kalaji, Hazem M. & Kais, Karolina & Kosno-Jończy, Joanna & Hec, 2023. "Comparison of Ecosystem Services and Replacement Value calculations performed for urban trees," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(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:16:y:2024:i:7:p:3063-:d:1371224. 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.