4.7 Article

Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple urban ecosystem services

期刊

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 33-46

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.08.007

关键词

Ecosystem services; Mapping; Spatial pattern; Urbanisation; Urban greenspace; Urban planning

资金

  1. White Rose Network Research Studentship from the Universities of Sheffield, York
  2. Leeds, a NERC Knowledge Exchange Fellowship [NE/J500483/1]
  3. NERC BESS project [NE/J015369/1]
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/J015369/1, NE/J015067/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. NERC [NE/J015369/1, NE/J015067/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urbanisation is a key driver of land use change and urban growth is set to continue. The provision of ecosystem services depends on the existence of greenspace. Urban morphology is potentially an important influence on ecosystem services. Therefore, it may be possible to promote service provision through an urban structure that supplies the processes and functions that underpin them. However, an understanding of the ability of urban areas to produce multiple ecosystem services, and the spatial pattern of their production, is required. We demonstrate an approach using easily accessible data, to generate maps of key urban ecosystem services for a case study city of Sheffield, UK. Urban greenspace with a mixture of land covers allowed areas of high production of multiple services in the city centre and edges. But crucially the detection of such 'hotspots' depended on the spatial resolution of the mapping unit. This shows there is potential to design cities to promote hotspots of production. We discuss how land cover type, its spatial location and how this relates to different suites of services, is key to promoting urban multifunctionality. Detecting trade-offs and synergies associated with particular urban designs will enable more informed decisions for achieving urban sustainability. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据