The Contribution of Ecosystem Regulating Services Based on Their Interrelationship in the Urban Ecosystem
Source abstract
Abstract
The urban ecosystem provides many services that help humans lead physically and mentally healthy lives. The quality of such urban ecosystem services is closely related to various urban forms, such as land cover, land use, buildings, infrastructure, population, and type and scale of green space. This study aims to promote the overall improvement and balance of an urban ecosystem’s regulating services. Initially, ecosystem regulating services are assessed according to the type of the urban space, and their contributions are analyzed based on linear regression slope and pairwise comparison of the ecosystem services. The contribution of ecosystem regulating services of Suwon City in South Korea was assessed through the following process: (1) selection of assessment indices and assessment methods for urban ecosystem regulating services; (2) urban space classification; (3) ecosystem regulating service assessment by type of urban space; and (4) pairwise comparison of ecosystem regulating services by type and for the entire study area. The study areas are classified into six type areas: forests (type A), agricultural land (type B), low-rise residential areas (type C), mid-rise mixed (residential and commercial) areas (type D), high-rise residential areas (type E), and industrial and barren land (type F). By studying representative regulating services, such as vegetation vitality, flood reduction capacity, carbon storage capacity, and heat reduction capacity, this study confirmed that type A provided the best service, while type C provided the worst. In addition, the relative contribution analysis between the regulating services based on pairwise comparison showed that the standard deviation between the contributions was 0.04 when diagnosing the entire study area, but apparently no types except type A were balanced. The reason such regulating services are imbalanced is that their vegetation vitality was calculated to be the lowest compared with the assessment indices of type A. Additionally, this imbalance was found to be most severe in the mid-rise mixed (residential and commercial) districts. Through this study, the spatial types in which the ecosystem regulating services in Suwon City are imbalanced could be determined. It was also revealed that regulating services should be prioritized for improvement in order to achieve greater balance in urban ecosystem. Such pairwise comparison results can be effectively utilized in determining the area and supply needed when formulating urban greening plans and forest restoration plans.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Land Use and Ecosystem Services · Urban Green Space and Health · Soil and Land Suitability Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Urban Planning and Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Korea
Research Institute of Spatial Planning & Policy, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Korea
Funding
Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE)
References (70)
Show source-provided references
1. Starfinger, U., and Sukopp, H. (1994). Assessment of Urban Biotopes for Nature Conservation, Elsevier.
2. Corvalan, C., Hales, S., McMichael, A., Butler, C., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Confalonieri, U., Leitner, K., Lewis, N., Patz, J., and Polson, K. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Health Synthesis, WHO.
3. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital10.1038/387253a0 ↗
4. Daily, G., Postel, S., Bawa, K., and Kaufman, L. (1997). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press.
5. A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100946 ↗
6. Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple urban ecosystem services10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.08.007 ↗
7. REVIEW: Quantifying urban ecosystem services based on high-resolution data of urban green space: An assessment for Rotterdam, the Netherlands10.1111/1365-2664.12469 ↗
8. Unpacking ecosystem service bundles: Towards predictive mapping of synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.004 ↗
9. What factors affect the synergy and tradeoff between ecosystem services, and how, from a geospatial perspective?10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120454 ↗
10. Integrating conservation planning and landuse planning in urban landscapes10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.011 ↗
11. Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038 ↗
12. Rodríguez, J.P., Beard, J.T.D., Bennett, E.M., Cumming, G., Cork, S.J., Agard, J., Dobson, A.P., and Peterson, G. (2006). Trade-offs across Space, Time, and Ecosystem Services. Ecol. Soc., 11.10.5751/ES-01667-110128 ↗
13. Synergies, Trade-offs, and Losses of Ecosystem Services in Urban Regions: An Integrated Multiscale Framework Applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany10.5751/ES-04853-170322 ↗
14. The tradeoff and synergy between ecosystem services in the Grain-for-Green areas in Northern Shaanxi, China10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.028 ↗
15. Trade-Off and Synergy among Ecosystem Services in the Guanzhong-Tianshui Economic Region of China10.3390/ijerph121114094 ↗
16. Turkelboom, F., Thoonen, M., Jacobs, S., Garcia Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., and Berry, P. (2016). Ecosystem Services Trade-Offs and Synergies, OpenNESS.
17. Relationship between paired ecosystem services in the grassland and agro-pastoral transitional zone of China using the constraint line method10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.015 ↗
18. Spatial trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services within a global biodiversity hotspot10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.007 ↗
19. An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development10.1073/pnas.0705797105 ↗
20. Urban Ecological Network Planning for Sustainable Landscape Management10.1080/10630732.2011.648433 ↗
21. Lee, D., and Oh, K. (2019). The Green Infrastructure Assessment System (GIAS) and Its Applications for Urban Development and Management. Sustainability, 11.10.3390/su11143798 ↗
22. The effect of street trees and amenity grass on urban surface water runoff in Manchester, UK10.1016/j.ufug.2013.04.001 ↗
23. Effect of urban green space changes on the role of rainwater runoff reduction in Beijing, China10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.03.014 ↗
24. Urban systems: A socio-ecological system perspective10.15406/sij.2017.01.00001 ↗
25. Grimm, N.B., Redman, C.L., Boone, C.G., Childers, D.L., Harlan, S.L., and Turner, B.L. (2013). Viewing the urban socio-ecological system through a sustainability lens: Lessons and prospects from the central Arizona–Phoenix LTER programme. Long Term Socio-Ecological Research, Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-1177-8_10 ↗
26. A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services
27. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes10.1073/pnas.0907284107 ↗
28. Mapping an urban ecosystem service: Quantifying above-ground carbon storage at a city-wide scale10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02021.x ↗
29. Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses10.1073/pnas.1114215109 ↗
30. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning
31. Chan, K.M.A., and Satterfield, T. (2016). Managing Cultural Ecosystem Services for Sustainability, Routledge.10.4324/9781315775302-30 ↗
32. Korea Ministry of Environment (KME) (2015). Basic Plan for Conservation of the Natural Environment, Korea Ministry of Environment (KME).
33. TEEB (2012). The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity, Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB, UNEP.
34. Song, I., and Yoon, C. (2019). Establishment and Utilization of Ecosystem Service Assessment in Seoul, Seoul Institute.
35. System dynamic modelling to assess economic viability and risk trade-offs for ecological restoration in South Africa10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.02.001 ↗
36. Linkages between ecosystem services provisioning, urban growth and shrinkage—A modeling approach assessing ecosystem service trade-offs10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.01.028 ↗
37. Modeling trade-offs among ecosystem services in agricultural production systems10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.12.017 ↗
38. A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.004 ↗
39. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019 ↗
40. The spatial aspect of ecosystem services balance and its determinants10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104263 ↗
41. Korea Ministry of Environment (KME) (2018). Urban Ecological Health Promotion Technology Development Project, Korea Ministry of Environment (KME).
42. Rouse, J.W., Haas, R.H., Schell, J.A., and Deering, D.W. (1974, January 10–14). Monitoring vegetation systems in the great plains with ERTS. Proceedings of the 3rd ERTS-1 Symposium, Washington, DC, USA.
43. Weier, J., and Herring, D. (2021, June 01). Measuring Vegetation (NDVI & EVI), Available online: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MeasuringVegetation.
44. Transition Modeling of Land-Use Dynamics in the Pipestem Creek, North Dakota, USA
45. Using the satellite-derived NDVI to assess ecological responses to environmental change10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.011 ↗
46. Evaluation of landscape connectivity at community level using satellite-derived NDVI10.1007/s10980-012-9817-1 ↗
47. Urban vegetation loss and ecosystem services: The influence on climate regulation and noise and air pollution
48. Investigation of the impacts of urban vegetation loss on the ecosystem service of air pollution mitigation in Karaj metropolis, Iran10.1007/s10661-020-08399-8 ↗
49. Modeling Urban Growth Effects on Surface Runoff with the Integration of Remote Sensing and GIS10.1007/s002670010258 ↗
50. Nedkov, S., Boyanova, K., and Burkhard, K. (2015). Quantifying, Modelling and Mapping Ecosystem Services in Watersheds, Springer.10.1007/978-94-017-9846-4_7 ↗
51. Influences of setting sizes and combination of green infrastructures on community’s stormwater runoff reduction10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.11.007 ↗
52. Mockus, V. (1964). National Engineering Handbook, US Soil Conservation Service.
53. Korea Ministry of Environment (KME) (2019). Standard Guidelines for Estimating Flood Volumes, Korea Ministry of Environment (KME).
54. “City form and natural process” indicators for the ecological performance of urban areas and their application to Merseyside, UK10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00192-X ↗
55. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00214-7 ↗
56. Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., and Tanabe, K. (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme.
57. Urbanization and global environmental change: Local effects of urban warming10.1111/j.1475-4959.2007.232_3.x ↗
58. Local Climate Zones for Urban Temperature Studies10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00019.1 ↗
59. Classifying urban climate zones (UCZs) based on statistical analyses10.1016/j.uclim.2017.06.005 ↗
60. Lee, D., Oh, K., and Jung, S. (2019). Classifying Urban Climate Zones (UCZs) Based on Spatial Statistical Analyses. Sustainability, 11.10.3390/su11071915 ↗
61. Balancing demand and supply of multiple urban ecosystem services on different spatial scales10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.008 ↗
62. The influence of small green space type and structure at the street level on urban heat island mitigation10.1016/j.ufug.2016.12.005 ↗
63. Lee, D., and Oh, K. (2019). Developing the Urban Thermal Environment Management and Planning (UTEMP) System to Support Urban Planning and Design. Sustainability, 11.10.3390/su11082224 ↗
64. Estimation of C Storage and Annual CO2 Uptake by Street Trees in Gyeonggi-do
65. Korea Forest Service (2006). Carbon Emission Factors and Biomass Allometric Equations by Species in Korea, Korea Forest Service.
66. Irmak, A. (2011). Evapotranspiration—Remote Sensing and Modeling, INTECH Open Access Publisher.10.5772/725 ↗
67. Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8 ↗
68. Decision making for leaders10.1109/TSMC.1985.6313384 ↗
69. The Usefulness of the GIS—Fuzzy Set Approach in Evaluating the Urban Residential Environment10.1068/b2779 ↗
70. Kim, H., Oh, K., and Lee, D. (2021). Establishment of a Geographic Information System-Based Algorithm to Analyze Suitable Locations for Green Roofs and Roadside Trees. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11167368 ↗