Ecosystem service multifunctionality and trade-offs in English Green Belt peri-urban planning

IF 6.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Ecosystem Services Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101620
Matthew G. Kirby , Joanna Zawadzka , Alister J. Scott
{"title":"Ecosystem service multifunctionality and trade-offs in English Green Belt peri-urban planning","authors":"Matthew G. Kirby ,&nbsp;Joanna Zawadzka ,&nbsp;Alister J. Scott","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Green Belt policies govern <em>peri</em>-urban landscapes globally by restricting built development. Yet, they often have little consideration for the land within them. This is especially the case in England where ecosystem services are poorly accounted for in Green Belt policy, whilst also being viewed as a development obstacle, with few environmental and social benefits; a situation mirrored in <em>peri</em>-urban landscapes globally. Moreover, there is a significant research gap into Green Belts through the socio-ecological lenses of ecosystem services and multifunctionality, which allows populist discourses to go unchallenged. Using modelling and participatory mapping data this paper addresses this gap by quantifying the ecosystem service supply, trade-offs and multifunctionality of the North-East Green Belt, and the wider planning and policy implications. The results show that contrary to claims, Green Belts in England can and do provide multiple benefits to people when studied through these lenses. However, levels of individual ecosystem services and overall multifunctionality differ spatially within Green Belts resulting in opportunity areas as well as potential losses of ecosystem services from development. Areas of deciduous and coniferous woodland as well as key “green wedges” close to urban populations were found to be multifunctionality “hots-spots”, whereas arable and improved grassland provide notable “cold-spots”. Trade-offs were mostly from provisioning services. We argue that Green Belt policies explicitly and holistically accounting for ecosystem services could catalyse a multifunctional opportunity space for climate, nature and people in <em>peri</em>-urban landscapes. Additionally, our study demonstrates the conceptual merits of ecosystem service multifunctionality for planning.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51312,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Services","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000263/pdfft?md5=016371aa4831e1fa70c36bdd8379ce65&pid=1-s2.0-S2212041624000263-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Services","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000263","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Green Belt policies govern peri-urban landscapes globally by restricting built development. Yet, they often have little consideration for the land within them. This is especially the case in England where ecosystem services are poorly accounted for in Green Belt policy, whilst also being viewed as a development obstacle, with few environmental and social benefits; a situation mirrored in peri-urban landscapes globally. Moreover, there is a significant research gap into Green Belts through the socio-ecological lenses of ecosystem services and multifunctionality, which allows populist discourses to go unchallenged. Using modelling and participatory mapping data this paper addresses this gap by quantifying the ecosystem service supply, trade-offs and multifunctionality of the North-East Green Belt, and the wider planning and policy implications. The results show that contrary to claims, Green Belts in England can and do provide multiple benefits to people when studied through these lenses. However, levels of individual ecosystem services and overall multifunctionality differ spatially within Green Belts resulting in opportunity areas as well as potential losses of ecosystem services from development. Areas of deciduous and coniferous woodland as well as key “green wedges” close to urban populations were found to be multifunctionality “hots-spots”, whereas arable and improved grassland provide notable “cold-spots”. Trade-offs were mostly from provisioning services. We argue that Green Belt policies explicitly and holistically accounting for ecosystem services could catalyse a multifunctional opportunity space for climate, nature and people in peri-urban landscapes. Additionally, our study demonstrates the conceptual merits of ecosystem service multifunctionality for planning.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国绿化带城郊规划中的生态系统服务多功能性与权衡
在全球范围内,绿化带政策通过限制建筑开发来管理近郊景观。然而,这些政策往往很少考虑其中的土地。英格兰的情况尤其如此,绿化带政策对生态系统服务的考虑很少,同时也被视为发展障碍,几乎没有环境和社会效益;这种情况也反映在全球城市周边景观中。此外,通过生态系统服务和多功能性的社会生态视角对绿化带进行研究还存在很大差距,这使得民粹主义的论调不受质疑。本文利用建模和参与式绘图数据,通过量化东北绿化带的生态系统服务供应、权衡和多功能性,以及更广泛的规划和政策影响,弥补了这一空白。研究结果表明,与人们所说的相反,通过这些视角研究英格兰的绿化带时,绿化带可以而且确实为人们提供了多种益处。然而,绿化带内的单个生态系统服务水平和整体多功能性在空间上存在差异,这导致了机遇区域以及开发可能造成的生态系统服务损失。研究发现,落叶林地和针叶林地以及靠近城市人口的关键 "绿色楔子 "区域是多功能性的 "热点",而耕地和改良草地则是明显的 "冷点"。权衡主要来自提供服务。我们认为,明确而全面地考虑生态系统服务的绿化带政策可在城郊景观中为气候、自然和人类创造一个多功能的机会空间。此外,我们的研究还证明了生态系统服务多功能性在规划概念上的优点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem Services ECOLOGYENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES&-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
14.90
自引率
7.90%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: Ecosystem Services is an international, interdisciplinary journal that is associated with the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP). The journal is dedicated to exploring the science, policy, and practice related to ecosystem services, which are the various ways in which ecosystems contribute to human well-being, both directly and indirectly. Ecosystem Services contributes to the broader goal of ensuring that the benefits of ecosystems are recognized, valued, and sustainably managed for the well-being of current and future generations. The journal serves as a platform for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to share their findings and insights, fostering collaboration and innovation in the field of ecosystem services.
期刊最新文献
A multi-indicator distributive justice approach to assess school-related green infrastructure benefits in Brussels Ecosystem accounting applied to the restoration of a brackish coastal lagoon highlights the importance of individual ecosystem-level studies A global systematic review of the cultural ecosystem services provided by wetlands Integration of the system of environmental economic accounting-ecosystem accounting (SEEA-EA) framework with a semi-distributed hydrological and water quality simulation model Collaborative models and uncertain water quality in payments for watershed services: China’s Jiuzhou River eco-compensation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1