The values of ecosystem services and biodiversity: addressing cities and the urban-rural interface Dagmar Haase (Berlin, Leipzig)
Outline Reasoning Urban Ecosystem Services & Biodiversity Results at European, regional and city scale Discussion and Dissemination Conclusions SURE 2013 in Berlin
2015
We find a rising share of people living in cities and urban areas. Ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructure and biodiversity gain importance. Urban forests, street trees and parks belong to the most prominent green spaces in cities but also allotment gardens, cemeteries, interim use sites, pocket parks and, last not least, regnerated urban brownfields are crucial.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005); TEEB for Local and Regional Policy 2010; Icons by Jan Sasse, TEEB
UES initiatives TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (G8+5, http://www.teebweb.org/) UK NEA National Ecosystem Assessment (http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/) IPBES International science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (governments, global) (http://www.ipbes.net/) Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP) URBES project URBIS platform
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005); TEEB for Local and Regional Policy 2010; Icons by Jan Sasse, TEEB
URBES project
Our mission Urban landscapes are the everyday environment for the majority of the global population: >50% of the world s and almost 80% of the Europeans live in urban areas. The continuous increase in the number and size of urban regions, and the ensuing transformation of landscapes on different scales, pose great challenges for reducing the rate of loss of biodiversity and for ensuring human welfare.
Our mission The understanding of how urban ecosystems work, how they change and what limits their performance, can add to the understanding of ecosystem change and governance in general in an ever more humandominated world.
Our mission URBES builds on case studies of four European cities: Berlin, Rotterdam, Salzburg and Stockholm. Some studies are also done on the cities of Barcelona, Helsinki, Lodz and New York. The research consortium consists of eleven world-leading research institutes on social-ecological studies of urban areas, based in Europe and one in USA. Helsinki University, University of Lodz and The New School (New York) participate as self-funded partners.
Case studies Stockholm Rotterdam Helsinki Salzburg Lodz Berlin New York City
Work on UES is for all UES types & biodiversity at different spatial scales includes provisioning and demand is spatial and non-spatial needs to be integrated (MCA) needs to be tested/discussed in stakeholder workshops, round tables
Interim results
UES review (Haase et al.) UES studies allocation & frequency (n=217)
UES review % of entries 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Regulating Supporting & Biodiversity Cultural Provisioning Haase et al. (AMBIO SI 2014)
rural surroundings infrastructure urban agriculture allotments brownfields urban-rural gradient urban parks urban fabric UES review 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Haase et al. (AMBIO SI 2014) % of entries forests land use mixture green infrastructure waterways/lakes
look-up table prize qualitative statistical survey interview UES review 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 What type of model is used for the quantification of ES supply/provisioning? What type of model is used for the quantification of ES demand/need? willingness-to-pay Haase et al. (AMBIO SI 2014) % of entries bio-physical causal-loop empirical GIS-based
UES of European cities Core city Larger urban area Core city Larger urban area Larondelle, Haase, Kabisch (sub.)
UES of European cities Europe Sweden Netherlands Bulgaria Portugal Larondelle, Haase, Kabisch (sub.)
UGS of European cities 1990-2000 2000-2006 Kabisch & Haase (2012)
UGS of European cities Western Europe Eastern Europe Kabisch & Haase (2012)
City region level Berlin standardized value Carbon storage [MgCO 3 /ha] Climate regulation [f-etp] Larondelle & Haase (2013)
Rural-urban gradients Larondelle & Haase (2013)
Demand and Supply Barcelona Berlin Stockholm Rotterdam Baró, Haase, Frantzeskaki, Gómez-Baggethun (2013)
Integration NYC
Local scale Berlin C 1 C 2 C 3 Total city Urban green space (%) 16.1 52.7 10.9 23.0 Pop density (inh./km²) 4270 1764 12515 6296 Foreigners (%) 8.2 7.0 21.2 12.0 Residential area (%) 24.0 18.9 34.1 26.0 Nr. of cases 27 14 19 60 Kabisch & Haase (submitted)
Local scale Berlin GC = Gini coefficient Kabisch & Haase (submitted)
Well-being NYC Low physical activity
Well-being NYC Moderate physical activity
Damages on urban ecosystems due to urbanization and soil sealing - Decline of habitat size - Soil sealing - Niche habitats - Soil pollution (road salt, heavy metals) - Water and heat stress - Damages, vandalism - Climate change (droughts)
Conservation strategies - Conservation areas - Nature protection - Maintenance and melioration - Optimization of species - Planting - Water and flood regulation - Revitalisation - Education and care
Berliner Hauptwege Berlin green ways
Scenarios Berlin 2006
Scenarios Berlin Utopia
How to bring it among people? Factsheets of URBES EC Science for Environment urban TEEB Manual urban InVest City Biodiversity Outlook (CBO)
Vision Elmqvist, 2012
Take home message For an effective conservation/management of urban ecosystems we need a combination of merging of an ecology in cities mainly focusing on designing energy efficient building, sustainable logistics and providing inhabitants with healthy and functioning green urban environments an ecology of cities which acknowledges the total dependence of cities on the surrounding landscape and the ever-ongoing dance between urban and rural, viewing the city as an ecosystem.
Read more Larondelle N, Haase D 2013. Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural-urban gradient: a cross-analysis of European cities. Ecological Indicators 29, 179 190. Haase D, Schwarz N, Strohbach M, Kroll F 2012. Synergies, trade-offs and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: An integrated framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany. Ecology and Society.Larondelle N, Haase D 2012 Valuing post-mining landscapes using the ecosystem services approach an example from Germany. Ecological Indicators 18, 567 574. Kroll F, Müller F, Haase D, Fohrer N 2012. Rural-urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy 29(3), 521-535. Strohbach M W, Arnold E, Haase D 2012. The carbon mitigation potential of urban restructuring a life cycle analysis of green space development. Landscape and Urban Planning 104, 220 229. Strohbach M W, Haase D 2012. Estimating the carbon stock of a city: a study from Leipzig,Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning 104, 95 104. Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K 2012. Ecosystem properties, potentials and services - the EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecological Indicators 21, 7-16. Schwarz N, Bauer A, Haase D 2011. Assessing climate impacts of local and regional planning policies - Quantification of impacts for Leipzig (Germany). Env Impact Assessment Review 31, 97-111. Larondelle N, Haase D 2012. Valuing post-mining landscapes using the ecosystem services approach an example from Germany. Ecological Indicators 18, 567 574. Haase D 2009. Effects of urbanisation on the water balance a long-term trajectory. Environment Impact Assessment Review 29, 211-219.
URBES symposium Understanding the nexus of Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Symposium on Methodological approaches for dealing with socio-ecological complexity of urban areas Symposia on urban land and green space management Openning by Ingo Kowarik Synthesis by Stewart Pickett
Thank you for your attention! Dagmar Haase (dagmar.haase@ufz.de) Niki Frantzeskaki Timon McPhearson Thomas Elmqvist
The URBES factsheets