4.7 Article

Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment

Journal

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Volume 35, Issue -, Pages 139-149

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.006

Keywords

Green infrastructure; Urban ecosystem services; Sustainability; Urban development; Urban resilience; Non-market valuation

Funding

  1. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme, Marie Curie Actions, ADVOCATE Project (FP7/2007-2013) [265063]
  2. SNOWMAN program (Balance 4P) [SN04-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Urban environments provide opportunities for greater resource efficiency and the fostering of urban ecosystems. Brownfield areas are a typical example of underused land resources. Brownfield redevelopment projects that include green infrastructure allow for further ecosystems to be accommodated in urban environments. Green infrastructure also deliver important urban ecosystem services (UES) to local residents, which can greatly contribute to improving quality of life in cities. In this case study, we quantify and assess the economic value of five UES for a brownfield redevelopment project in Antwerp, Belgium. The assessment is carried out using the Nature Value Explorer modelling tool. The case includes three types of green infrastructure (green corridor, infiltration gullies and green roofs) primarily intended to connect nature reserves on the urban periphery and to avoid surface runoff. The green infrastructure also provides air filtration, climate regulation, carbon sequestration and recreation ecosystem services. The value of recreation far exceeds other values, including the value of avoided runoff. The case study raises crucial questions as to whether existing UES valuation approaches adequately account for the range of UES provided and whether such approaches can be improved to achieve more accurate and reliable value estimates in future analyses.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available