Urban Ecosystem Services (UES) Assessment within a 3D Virtual Environment: A Methodological Approach for the Larger Urban Zones (LUZ) of Naples, Italy
Source abstract
Abstract
The complexity of the urban spatial configuration, which affects human wellbeing and landscape functioning, necessitates data acquisition and three-dimensional (3D) visualisation to support effective decision-making processes. One of the main challenges in sustainability research is to conceive spatial models adapting to changes in scale and recalibrate the related indicators, depending on scale and data availability. From this perspective, the inclusion of the third dimension in the Urban Ecosystem Services (UES) identification and assessment can enhance the detail in which urban structure–function relationships can be studied. Moreover, improving the modelling and visualisation of 3D UES indicators can aid decision-makers in localising, analysing, assessing, and managing urban development strategies. The main goal of the proposed framework is concerned with evaluating, planning, and monitoring UES within a 3D virtual environment, in order to improve the visualisation of spatial relationships among services and to support site-specific planning choices.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Land Use and Ecosystem Services · Urban Planning and Valuation · Urban Green Space and Health
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Architecture (DiARC), University of Naples Federico II, 80138 Napoli, Italy
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. EU (2020, July 18). Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing Nature Back into Our Lives. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1590574123338&uri=CELEX:52020DC0380.
2. OECD (2020, July 18). Biodiversity: Finance and the Economic and Business Case for Action, Available online: https://www.oecd.org/env/resources/biodiversity/biodiversity-finance-and-the-economic-and-business-case-for-action.htm.
3. Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., and Turner, R.K. (2016). Defining and measuring ecosystem services. Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services, Routledge.10.4324/9781315775302 ↗
4. Recognising the complexities of ecosystem management and the ecosystem service concept
5. Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020 ↗
6. Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009 ↗
7. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x ↗
8. Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012 ↗
9. Social Goals and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services10.1007/s100210000002 ↗
10. Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101096 ↗
11. MEA (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Island Press.
12. Zermoglio, M.F., Biggs, R., and Vicente, L. (2005). The Multiscale Approach. Ecosyst. Hum. Well Being, 61.
13. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019 ↗
14. Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural–urban gradient: A cross-analysis of European cities10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.022 ↗
15. Key insights for the future of urban ecosystem services research10.5751/ES-08445-210229 ↗
16. Urban ecosystem conditions and ecosystem services–a comparison between large urban zones and city cores in the EU10.1080/09640568.2019.1613966 ↗
17. A conceptual framework to untangle the concept of urban ecosystem services10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103837 ↗
18. A review of urban ecosystem services: Six key challenges for future research10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.001 ↗
19. Ecosystem and urban services for landscape liveability: A model for quantification of stakeholders’ perceived importance10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.023 ↗
20. Demonstrating the importance of intangible ecosystem services from peri-urban landscapes10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.09.005 ↗
21. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems10.1126/science.1172133 ↗
22. The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: A framework for supporting innovation10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.020 ↗
23. The Multiscale Integrated Model of Ecosystem Services (MIMES): Simulating the interactions of coupled human and natural systems10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.004 ↗
24. A Quantitative Review of Urban Ecosystem Service Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implementation10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0 ↗
25. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008 ↗
26. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 ↗
27. Ecosystem services visualization and communication: A demand analysis approach for designing information and conceptualizing decision support systems10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.006 ↗
28. Elliot, T.B., Almenar, J.B., Niza, S., Proença, V., and Rugani, B. (2019). Pathways to Modelling Ecosystem Services within an Urban Metabolism Framework. Sustainability, 11.10.3390/su11102766 ↗
29. Adda, P., Mioc, D., Anton, F., McGillivray, E., Morton, A., Fraser, D., and Eb, C. (2010, January 26–27). 3D flood-risk models of government infrastructure. Proceedings of the WebMGS 2010: 1st International Workshop on Pervasive Web Mapping, Geoprocessing and Services, Como, Italy.
30. Impact of urban form and design on mid-afternoon microclimate in Phoenix Local Climate Zones10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.004 ↗
31. Assessing the capacity and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small island state10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.025 ↗
32. Cerreta, M., and Panaro, S. (2017). From Perceived Values to Shared Values: A Multi-Stakeholder Spatial Decision Analysis (M-SSDA) for Resilient Landscapes. Sustainability, 9.10.3390/su9071113 ↗
33. Reasons and options for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial planning10.1080/21513732.2011.617711 ↗
34. Cerreta, M., and Poli, G. (2017). Landscape Services Assessment: A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Spatial Decision Support System (MC-SDSS). Sustainability, 9.10.3390/su9081311 ↗
35. Comparing the territorial performances of renewable energy sources’ plants with an integrated ecosystem services loss assessment: A case study from the Basilicata region (Italy)10.1016/j.scs.2020.102082 ↗
36. Understanding ecosystem services trade-offs with interactive procedural modeling for sustainable urban planning10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.011 ↗
37. The Future of Vascular Plant Diversity Under Four Global Scenarios10.5751/ES-01818-110225 ↗
38. Spatial statistical analysis and simulation of the urban heat island in high-density central cities10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.016 ↗
39. Which is the Appropriate 3D Visualization Type for Participatory Landscape Planning Workshops? A Portfolio of Their Effectiveness10.1068/b36113 ↗
40. Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social–ecological systems and their ecosystem services10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.004 ↗
41. Malczewski, J., and Rinner, C. (2015). Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic Information Science, Springer.10.1007/978-3-540-74757-4 ↗
42. Exploring effective conservation networks based on multi-scale planning unit analysis. A case study of the Balsas sub-basin, Maranhão State, Brazil10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.03.001 ↗
43. An experimental assessment of minimum mapping unit size10.1109/TGRS.2003.816587 ↗
44. The means determine the end–Pursuing integrated valuation in practice10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011 ↗
45. Braat, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Barton, D., García-Llorente, M., Kelemen, E., and Saarikoski, H. (2020, June 18). Framework for Integration of Valuation Methods to Assess Ecosystem Service Policies, Available online: http://www.openness-project.eu/sites/default/files/OpenNESS%20D4.2%20Framework_%20Integrated_Valuation_Final_Draft_March_23-2015.pdf.
46. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007 ↗
47. Shared, plural and cultural values10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.010 ↗
48. Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.006 ↗
49. Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., and Keune, H. (2013). Ecosystem Services: Global Issues, Local Practices, Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-12-419964-4.02002-3 ↗
50. Integrating the third dimension into the concept of urban ecosystem services: A review10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.010 ↗
51. Applications of 3D city models: State of the art review10.3390/ijgi4042842 ↗
52. MEA (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment, Island Press.
53. Democratization of ecosystem services—A radical approach for assessing nature’s benefits in the face of urbanization10.1080/20964129.2018.1480905 ↗
54. Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.01.001 ↗
55. Navigating complexity through knowledge coproduction: Mainstreaming ecosystem services into disaster risk reduction10.1073/pnas.1414374112 ↗
56. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation10.1073/pnas.0706559105 ↗
57. From invisibility to transparency: Identifying the implications10.5751/ES-02405-130207 ↗
58. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment10.1073/pnas.0808772106 ↗
59. The Development of an Ecosystem Services Framework for South East Queensland10.1007/s00267-010-9428-z ↗
60. Beyond services: A process and framework to incorporate cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships in ecosystem service assessments10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.012 ↗
61. Assuring the quality of volunteered geographic information10.1016/j.spasta.2012.03.002 ↗
62. Rectangular and hexagonal grids used for observation, experiment and simulation in ecology10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.03.041 ↗
63. How to analyse ecosystem services in landscapes—A systematic review10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.10.009 ↗
64. Relationship between land surface temperature and spatial pattern of greenspace: What are the effects of spatial resolution?10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.02.005 ↗
65. Urban 3D GIS From LiDAR and digital aerial images10.1016/j.cageo.2003.08.012 ↗
66. 3D Visualization of Urban Area Using Lidar Technology and CityGML10.1088/1755-1315/95/4/042006 ↗
67. Arsanjani, J.J., Mooney, P., Zipf, A., and Schauss, A. (2015). Quality assessment of the contributed land use information from OpenStreetMap versus authoritative datasets. OpenStreetMap in GIScience, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-14280-7_3 ↗
68. Quality assessment for building footprints data on OpenStreetMap10.1080/13658816.2013.867495 ↗
69. Fan, H., and Zipf, A. (2016). Modelling the world in 3D from VGI/Crowdsourced data. European Handbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Information, Ubiquity Press.10.5334/bax.ae ↗
70. Capineri, C., Haklay, M., Huang, H., Antoniou, V., Kettunen, J., Ostermann, F., and Purves, R. (2016). Social Media Geographic Information: Why social is special when it goes spatial. European Handbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Information, Ubiquity Press.10.5334/bax ↗
71. Measuring completeness of building footprints in OpenStreetMap over space and time10.3390/ijgi2041066 ↗
72. Fonte, C.C., Antoniou, V., Bastin, L., Estima, J., Arsanjani, J.J., Bayas, J.-C.L., See, L., and Vatseva, R. (2017). Assessing VGI data quality. Mapp. Citiz. Sens., 137–163.10.5334/bbf.g ↗
73. 3D building modeling using images and LiDAR: A review10.1080/19479832.2013.811124 ↗
74. 3D urban models: Recent developments in the digital modelling of urban environments in three-dimensions10.1023/A:1014276309416 ↗
75. Review on digital elevation model
76. Baghdadi, N., and Zribi, M. (2016). 7-Digital Terrain Models Derived from Airborne LiDAR Data. Optical Remote Sensing of Land Surface, Elsevier.
77. Saaty, T.L. (2001). The seven pillars of the analytic hierarchy process. Multiple Criteria Decision Making in the New Millennium, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-56680-6_2 ↗
78. Mele, R., and Poli, G. (2017). The Effectiveness of Geographical Data in Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Landscape Services@. Data, 2.10.3390/data2010009 ↗
79. (2018, December 01). Urban Atlas 2018—Copernicus Land Monitoring Service. Available online: https://land.copernicus.eu/.
80. MEA (2005). Current State and Trends, Island Press.
81. TEEB (2010). Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB, Progress Press. Available online: http://www.teebweb.org/publication/mainstreaming-the-economics-of-nature-a-synthesis-of-the-approach-conclusions-and-recommendations-of-teeb/.
82. The Concept of Ecosystem Services Regarding Landscape Research: A Review10.12942/lrlr-2011-1 ↗
83. The diversity of the ecosystem services concept and its implications for their assessment and management10.1016/j.crvi.2010.11.007 ↗
84. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital10.1038/387253a0 ↗
85. Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015 ↗
86. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7 ↗
87. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.016 ↗
88. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being
89. Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services10.1007/s10980-012-9756-x ↗
90. Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES, Version 4.1)
91. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver10.1890/080025 ↗
92. A comparative exploration of uptake and potential application of ecosystem services in urban planning10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.005 ↗
93. Ecosystem health and ecological engineering10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.03.023 ↗
94. Stocks and flows of natural and human-derived capital in ecosystem services10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.014 ↗
95. Ecological science and transformation to the sustainable city10.1016/j.cities.2013.02.008 ↗
96. Urban ecological research in Singapore and its relevance to the advancement of urban ecology and sustainability10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.019 ↗
97. A Classification of Landscape Services to Support Local Landscape Planning
98. Verhagen, W. (2019). Managing our Land for Multiple Ecosystem Services: Identifying Priority Areas and Actions to Maintain Ecosystem Services Across Europe, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
99. Mascot: Multi-criteria analytical scoring tool for arcgis desktop10.1142/S0219622014500783 ↗
100. O’Sullivan, D., and Unwin, D.J. (2010). Geographic Information Analysis and Spatial Data, Wiley Online Library.