Grn infrastruktur och ekosystemtjnster Dagmar Haase SLU EKOLOGI - - PDF document

• 18. 12. 2017

1

Keynote

Urban Green Infrastructure and the Ecosystem Services it provides: Potentials and Challenges

Dagmar Haase

SLU EKOLOGI GRUPPEN Konferens i Stockholm 30.11.2017

Thema 3

Grön infrastruktur och ekosystemtjänster

Dagmar Haase

SLU EKOLOGI GRUPPEN Konferens i Stockholm 30.11.2017

• 18. 12. 2017

2

∙ Page 3

Setting the scene… urban ecosystem services & GBI

∙ Page 4

Setting the scene… urban ecosystem services & GBI

• 18. 12. 2017

3

• How green‐blue infrastructure (GBI) in cities can be classified for defining its

“function in the city”,

• what functional linkages between GBI, biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES)

exist and how they are distributed at European and city scale,

• what ES are provided by specific types of GBI such as parks, forests, green rooftops,

and gardens as well as

• how available GBI is across European cities.

∙ Page 5

In this keynote, we will discuss about… Main hypotheses are:

∙ Page 6

There are functional linkages between green infrastructure and ecosystem services in cities. The linkages between GI, ES and biodiversity are less clear. We will find benefits of all GBI types in all cities across Europe but with different effectiveness and importance for the residents. Residents of cities in Europe value the benefits of different GBI types in different ways. Dissimilarity in access and availability of GBI is characteristic for many cities and results in public health inequalities for example.

• 18. 12. 2017

4

Main achievements so far…

∙ Page 7 ∙ Page 8

Green Infrastructure Typology and Inventory and Functionality

• 18. 12. 2017

5

∙ Page 9

Green Infrastructure Typology and Inventory as base for Functionality

∙ Page 10

Blue Infrastructure Typology and Inventory as base for Functionality

• 18. 12. 2017

6

∙ Page 11

Urban GI in a pan‐European view – Urban Atlas database 2006‐2012

∙ Page 12

Urban GI in a pan‐European view ‐ % GI area in core cities

GREENSURGE ULLs

• 18. 12. 2017

7

∙ Page 13

Urban GI in a pan‐European view ‐ % covered by GI

∙ Page 14

Green LULC flows

• 18. 12. 2017

8

∙ Page 15

Public and private green in cities

∙ Page 16

Public and private green in cities

• 18. 12. 2017

9

∙ Page 17

Public and private green in cities

May 2017 WP3 activities winter 2016‐2017

GBI & Ecosystem Services

• 18. 12. 2017

10

May 2017 WP3 activities winter 2016‐2017

GBI & Ecosystem Services

SEITE 20

 Relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem service just assumed or really tested?  What is the direction of the relationship? Is it positive, negative, unclear or inexistent? Urban Ecosystem Services

Cultural services Provisioning services Regulating services Diversity Abundance Identity Habitats Species Traits

Urban Biodiversity

Positive? Negative? Unimodal? None?

Review on the linkages of biodiversity and ecosystem services

• 18. 12. 2017

11

("ecosystem service*" OR “food product*” OR "agricultural product*" OR "gardening" OR “crop product*” OR fibre OR “wood product*” OR timber OR "forestry product*" OR "forest product*" OR "raw material*" OR "natural resource*" OR "water quality improvement" OR "water quality provision" OR "water quality supply" OR "fresh water" OR "drinking water" OR "groundwater recharge" OR "groundwater retention" OR "groundwater quality" OR "water supply" OR "air filtering" OR "air filtration" OR "air pollution removal" OR "air quality" OR "ozone removal" OR "climate regulation" OR "climate control" OR "climate resilience" OR cooling OR "temperature regulation" OR "temperature reduction" OR "heat mitigation" OR "temperature mitigation" OR "noise reduction" OR "disturbance regulation" OR "noise attenuation" OR "noise mediation" OR "acoustic insulation" OR "rainwater drainage" OR "water regulation" OR "stormwater run‐off" OR "flood regulation" OR "water flow regulation" OR "sewage treatment" OR "wastewater purification" OR "wastewater treatment" OR "waste treatment" OR "litter treatment" OR "trash treatment" OR "waste consumption" OR "litter consumption" OR "trash consumption" OR "waste removal" OR "litter removal" OR "trash removal" OR detoxification OR decomposition OR minerali$ation OR "food removal" OR "erosion control" OR "erosion prevention" OR "erosion protection" OR "erosion stabili*" OR "landslide control" OR " landslide prevention" OR " landslide protection" OR " landslide stabili*" OR "carbon storage" OR "carbon sequestration" OR pollination OR "pest control" OR "disease control" OR "climate change adaptation" OR "climate change moderation" OR "climate change mitigation" OR "climate change regulation" OR "climate change prevention" OR "heat mitigation" OR "adaptation to extreme event*" OR "moderation of extreme event*" OR "mitigation of extreme event*" OR "regulation of extreme event*" OR "prevention of extreme event*" OR "soil fertility" OR "soil formation" OR "nutrient cycling" OR "weathering" OR pedogenesis OR nitrification OR denitrification OR recreation OR "cultural value*" OR culture OR "human health" OR "physical health" OR "mental health" OR "well‐being" OR wellbeing OR spiritual OR "sense of place" OR "cultural identity" OR "human identity" OR "local identity" OR aesthetic* OR inspiration OR t i *)

SEITE 21 SEITE 22

52% positive 11% negative 28% none

• 18. 12. 2017

12 In most cases, yes. Relationships among biodiversity and ecosystem services can be positive, negative or inexistent. Therefore, managing urban green spaces in order to gain high biodiversity will not automatically improve the delivery of ecosystem services (and vice versa). Researchers: Identify synergies and trade‐offs! Planners: Consider both biodiversity and ecosystem services!

SEITE 23

Can we enhance ecosystem services by protecting biodiversity in cities?

SEITE 24

• 18. 12. 2017

13

SEITE 25 ∙ Page 26

Urban GI as a heat buffer counteracting the UHI

• 18. 12. 2017

14

∙ Page 27

Urban GI as a heat buffer counteracting the UHI Planning family Land use Urban Heat Island Central Planning family

∙ Page 28

Urban GI as a heat buffer counteracting the UHI Planning family Land use Urban Heat Island New Member States Planning family

• 18. 12. 2017

15

∙ Page 29

Urban GI as a heat buffer counteracting the UHI Planning family Land use Urban Heat Island Mediterranean Planning family Green Infrastructure Functionality – Cooling by tree shade

∙ Page 30

Pessimistic estimation Calculation Optimistic estimation

m2 shadow per m2 area

• 18. 12. 2017

16 Green Infrastructure Functionality – Cooling into the built space

∙ Page 31

Core area (m2) Cooling influence (m)

Lene-Voigt-Park (former railway)

air temperature noise pollution endangered bird species bird diversity Green Infrastructure Functionality – Impacting the built space

• 18. 12. 2017

17 Functional plant traits and spatio‐temporal trait variations Annual amplitude in spectral trait variations of UGI types and

• ther urban land use classes

• 18. 12. 2017

18 Regressing the mean annual amplitude in UGI spectral trait variations against hemeroby

t1 t2

Mowing

Represents the the plants reaction to the disturbance. Allows conclusions about state and process regime of whole landscapes.

tn

Dependency between traits and process

Spectral traits: Leaf form & Growth height

• 18. 12. 2017

19 Dependency between traits and process Harvesting and Foraging as carrier of “old” species memory

Species name Scientific name # Apple Malus domestica Borkh. 141 Apricot Prunus armeniaca L. 23 Blackthorn Prunus spinosa L. 14 Cherry Prunus avium L. / Prunus cerasus L. 92 Cornelian cherry Cornus mas L. 11 Currant Ribes spec. 8 Elderberry Sambucus nigra L. 106 Hawthorn Crataegus spec. 3 Juneberry Amelanchier spec. 3 Mirabelle Prunus domestica subsp. syriaca (Borkh.) Janch. ex Mansf. 109 Mulberry Morus spec. 18 Pear Pyrus communis L. 34 Plum Prunus domestica L. 72 Quince Cydonia oblonga Mill. 8

• 18. 12. 2017

20 Harvesting and Foraging as carrier of “old” species memory

The percentage of mundraub.org locations within the Urban Atlas classes. The percentage of mundraub.org locations within green space.

∙ Page 40

More than just green – biocultural benefits of urban parks

• 18. 12. 2017

21 Parks across Europe

ALTER‐Net conference ‐ Nature and Society: synergies, conflicts, trade‐offs

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Immaterial elements Nature Social relations Services and facilities Location

Berlin

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Nature Immaterial elements Facilities and services Wellbeing

Lisbon

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Nature Immaterial elements Weather Social relations Services and facilities

Helsinki

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Immaterial things Nature Facilities and services Social relations Location

Bucharest

What people use, benefit, enjoy when visiting parks?

• 18. 12. 2017

22

ALTER‐Net conference ‐ Nature and Society: synergies, conflicts, trade‐offs

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Feral dogs Facilities People Park maintenance Nothing

Bucharest

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Immaterial things Facilities Park maintenance People Nothing

Lisbon

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Facilities Nature Immaterial characteristics People Nothing

Helsinki

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Immaterial things People Facilities (lack) Park maintenance Nothing

Berlin

What do people dislike when visiting parks?

Do you think this park is biologically and culturally diverse? Why?

An GREENSURGE insight

• 18. 12. 2017

23

• Majority felt that parks are

biologically diverse

• In Helsinki, great proportion

considered urban parks are culturally diverse

• In Berlin and Helsinki, people

referred to heterogeneity of park users (in terms of ethnicity, age, socio‐ demographic factors)

• In Bucharest social events

made the place culturally diverse

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Biologically diverse park? Culturally diverse park? Different people/ groups (%) Cultural events and activities (%)

Berlin (n=145) Bucharest (n=120) Helsinki (n=598)

Perceived biological and cultural diversity Perceived biological and cultural diversity

• 18. 12. 2017

24

∙ Page 47

Making use of green – a participatory mapping: Hot and cold spots Do parks deliver what they are expected to do?

• 18. 12. 2017

25 Do parks deliver what they are expected to do?

Bucharest Leipzig LST ‐ Imperviousness .666** .710** LST ‐ Park area ‐.645* ‐.617**

Pearson correlation coefficient between soil imperviousness and LST Bucharest Leipzig LST around parks Chl red‐edge Chl red‐edge .493 .875** RENDVI ‐.441 ‐.888** PSRI .498 .744* SR ‐.142 ‐.613 MSI MSI .471 .885** Pearson correlation coefficient between vegetation indices and estimated LST around the parks (150 m)

Results – Cluster analyis

∙ Page 50

Cluster 1 2 3 4 Total city Variables M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Overweight (%) 5.79 (2.41) 11.48 (3.72) 8.41 (2.22) 7.58 (2.92) 8.76 (3.92) Single parent hh (%) 19.48 (6.01) 23.48 (4.07) 39.89 (5.55) 23.68 (10.18) 24.17 (8.44) Natural space (%) 20.21 (7.29) 15.16 (7.16) 15.30 (9.39) 55.54 (12.03) 22.28 (15.68) Complete measles immunisation (%) 88.59 (4.49) 92.89 (2.13) 93.26 (1.56) 90.19 (4.14) 91.18 (3.83) N 19 25 7 8 59

Values sign. above total city average Values sign. below total city average

Green Space and Public Health: The kids perspective – case study Berlin

• Natural areas did show a clear spatial pattern that overlapped with social

patterns, which reflects the need for further investigation of “green” inequality indicators, especially in other cities where green and blue spaces may be less abundant than in Berlin.

• However, the study was only partly conclusive regarding any causalities

between natural area cover and health inequality

• Results are not conclusive as to whether natural area cover, natural area

per capita, or accessibility of natural area is the most appropriate metric to use to indicate health and inequalities because their relationships to

• ther indicators varied.  Further discussion about the adequacy of

existing urban green or natural space indicators is needed

• 18. 12. 2017

26 Well‐being aspects of urban gardens – a cross European picture

∙ Page 52

• 18. 12. 2017

27 Well‐being aspects of urban gardens: the <60 years old

∙ Page 53

20 40 60 80 100 Type of agriculture: organic Fertilizer: natural No irrigation of the AG Problems: abiotic factors Social learning Reasons for gardening: learning/experiencing Non‐adequated size of the AG Cost compensation: negative food: markets/supermarkets Gender: male Age: < 60 y.o. Professional activity status: active Berlin Lodz Leipzig Ljubljana Lisbon

∙ Page 54

Malmö Lodz Bari Berlin Ljubljana Edinburgh Population number with access to green

City border

10 5 km 1:400,000

no access less than 1000 1000 -< 2000 2000 -< 4000 4000 -< 6000 6000 and more Urban green spaces and forest areas

Knowing the benefits of urban green spaces: Wat is the accessibility in the GREEN SURGE Urban Learning Labs

• 18. 12. 2017

28

∙ Page 55

Knowing also the barriers… Local effects of GBI infrastructure

• 18. 12. 2017

29

• 18. 12. 2017

30

∙ Page 60

Some final thoughts, reflections and remarks

• 18. 12. 2017

31

∙ Page 61 ∙ Page 62

• 18. 12. 2017

32

∙ Page 63 ∙ Page 64

• 18. 12. 2017

33

∙ Page 65 ∙ Page 66

• 18. 12. 2017

34 Conclusions

∙ Page 67

We need  a multi‐type GBI in cities as each type of GBI fulfills specific requirements and provides specific benefits,  an integrative GBI approach that is part of different, particularly dense, urban structures and areas,  a connected GBI to link functionality/benefits of centre with the peri‐urban fringe,  a multifunctional GBI to respond to various needs and challenges (heat, recreation,…),  a multi‐scale consideration of greening strategies, instruments and targets, Conclusions

∙ Page 68

We need  a strategic approach to improve and enhance UGI in a multi‐actor environment,  a socially inclusive approach to distribute/provide the benefits of GBI in a fair way,  a interdisciplinary approach to make use of the specific knowledge and methods

• f a full range of scientific disciplines,

 a transdisciplinary approach to bring practice and science together, and  a participatory approach to create stewardship and responsibility for GBI in cities.

• 18. 12. 2017

35 My – Our – Vision of our great social‐ecological researcher's family

∙ Page 69

• TACK. THANK YOU.

Thema 3

Grön infrastruktur och ekosystemtjänster

Dagmar Haase SLU EKOLOGI GRUPPEN Konferens i Stockholm 30.11.2017