Linked spatial and temporal success of urban growth boundaries to preserve ecosystem services

IF 7.9 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Landscape and Urban Planning Pub Date : 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105134
Elena Oertel , Caroline E. Vickery , John E. Quinn
{"title":"Linked spatial and temporal success of urban growth boundaries to preserve ecosystem services","authors":"Elena Oertel ,&nbsp;Caroline E. Vickery ,&nbsp;John E. Quinn","doi":"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Urban expansion and sprawl lead to loss of green space. This has the potential to degrade natural capital and associated ecosystem services. Urban growth boundaries (UGBs) are a planning tool to delineate where growth may or may not occur as a strategy to protect green and open space.<!--> <!-->However, how these policies impact ecosystem services is unknown, particularly across multiple years. Here we compare pairs of cities: one of which has a UGB and one that does not.<!--> <!-->Specifically, we analyzed the following city pairs: (1) Lexington, KY: Huntsville, AL and (2) Portland, OR: Denver, CO. We modeled the ecosystem services provided to each city, quantifying carbon storage, pollinator abundance, urban flood risk, and urban cooling. Our results show that UGBs succeed in preserving the ecosystem services, over time, at a higher and more predictable rate than cities that do not have a UGB. Change over time highlights the effectiveness of UGBs in preserving ecosystem services overall and concentrating loss of ecosystem service delivery within highly urbanized areas. We discuss how the data necessitates analyzing spatial and temporal trends together to incorporate starting values of ecosystem service function for comparison between case studies. Natural capital and its associated ecosystem services should be key criteria for assessing policies for urban planning and used to further implement laws and policies to enhance environmental and human health within urban areas.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54744,"journal":{"name":"Landscape and Urban Planning","volume":"250 ","pages":"Article 105134"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Landscape and Urban Planning","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204624001336","RegionNum":1,"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

Urban expansion and sprawl lead to loss of green space. This has the potential to degrade natural capital and associated ecosystem services. Urban growth boundaries (UGBs) are a planning tool to delineate where growth may or may not occur as a strategy to protect green and open space. However, how these policies impact ecosystem services is unknown, particularly across multiple years. Here we compare pairs of cities: one of which has a UGB and one that does not. Specifically, we analyzed the following city pairs: (1) Lexington, KY: Huntsville, AL and (2) Portland, OR: Denver, CO. We modeled the ecosystem services provided to each city, quantifying carbon storage, pollinator abundance, urban flood risk, and urban cooling. Our results show that UGBs succeed in preserving the ecosystem services, over time, at a higher and more predictable rate than cities that do not have a UGB. Change over time highlights the effectiveness of UGBs in preserving ecosystem services overall and concentrating loss of ecosystem service delivery within highly urbanized areas. We discuss how the data necessitates analyzing spatial and temporal trends together to incorporate starting values of ecosystem service function for comparison between case studies. Natural capital and its associated ecosystem services should be key criteria for assessing policies for urban planning and used to further implement laws and policies to enhance environmental and human health within urban areas.

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
将城市增长边界的空间和时间成功联系起来,以保护生态系统服务
城市扩张和无计划扩展导致绿色空间的丧失。这有可能导致自然资本和相关生态系统服务退化。城市增长边界 (UGB) 是一种规划工具,用于划定可增长或不可增长的区域,作为一种保护绿色和开放空间的策略。然而,这些政策如何影响生态系统服务尚不清楚,尤其是在不同年份。在此,我们比较了两对城市:一对有 UGB,另一对没有。具体来说,我们分析了以下城市对:(1) 肯塔基州列克星敦:阿拉巴马州亨茨维尔;(2) 俄勒冈州波特兰:科罗拉多州丹佛市。我们对每个城市提供的生态系统服务进行了建模,量化了碳储存、传粉昆虫数量、城市洪水风险和城市降温。我们的结果表明,随着时间的推移,UGB 在保护生态系统服务方面的成功率比没有 UGB 的城市更高、更可预测。随着时间的推移而发生的变化突显了 UGB 在保护生态系统服务的整体效果以及将生态系统服务的损失集中在高度城市化地区的效果。我们讨论了如何利用数据分析空间和时间趋势,以纳入生态系统服务功能的起始值,从而在案例研究之间进行比较。自然资本及其相关生态系统服务应成为评估城市规划政策的关键标准,并用于进一步实施法律和政策,以提高城市地区的环境和人类健康水平。
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
Landscape and Urban Planning
Landscape and Urban Planning 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
6.60%
发文量
232
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Landscape and Urban Planning is an international journal that aims to enhance our understanding of landscapes and promote sustainable solutions for landscape change. The journal focuses on landscapes as complex social-ecological systems that encompass various spatial and temporal dimensions. These landscapes possess aesthetic, natural, and cultural qualities that are valued by individuals in different ways, leading to actions that alter the landscape. With increasing urbanization and the need for ecological and cultural sensitivity at various scales, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to comprehend and align social and ecological values for landscape sustainability. The journal believes that combining landscape science with planning and design can yield positive outcomes for both people and nature.
期刊最新文献
Who values urban open spaces? investigating heterogeneity in the capitalization of open space in New York city Editorial Board The planning of urban–rural linkages: An automated content analysis of spatial plans adopted by European intermediate cities Not or Yes in My Back Yard? A physiological and psychological measurement of urban residents in Taiwan Homelessness and nature across landscapes and disciplines: A literature review
×
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