ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR PLANNING OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL

Maija Ušča, Ivo Vinogradovs, Agnese Reķe, Dāvis Valters Immurs, Anita Zariņa

Abstract


Ecosystem services (ES) are defined as the benefits that human beings derive from ecosystem functions. Assessment and mapping of these benefits are crucial for sustainable environmental planning and future natural capital. Green infrastructure (GI) is natural or semi-natural territories that provide wide range of ES. Human affected ecosystems tend to fail to provide certain sets of ES due to the trade-offs among those services, which could be mitigated through implementation of GI. Mapping of ES, as well as assessing the interactions among various ES and analysing their supply potential’s cold/hot spots considerably enhances and substantiates the planning process of GI, particularly at the regional scale and for the territories with diverse landscape potential. The aim of this paper is to discuss the assessment of ES supply potential and analyse its spatial distribution to reveal cold/hot spots of ecosystem capacity to provide wide range services and functions for GI. The study presents GIS based assessment of ES in a case study of Zemgale Planning Region. ES supply potential was assessed for 27 Corine land use classes (CLC2018) together with 10 regulatory, 12 provisioning and 6 cultural ES. An expert-based ranking approach using a two-dimensional ES matrix and a geospatial analysis was applied to determine total ES supply potential, spatial patterns and relations among multiple ES. Additional statistical analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*) was performed on spatial distribution of regulatory ES to disclose statistically significant capacity of ecosystems to function as GI in given surroundings. Preliminary results show uneven distribution of ES, trade-offs between regulatory and provisioning ES and landscape dependent spatial clustering of these trade-offs supported by result of Getis-Ord Gi* analysis, thus laying a foundation for further planning of GI at the regional scale.

Keywords


ecosystem services; green infrastructure; Zemgale Planning Region

Full Text:

PDF

References


Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being, 2005.

M. Villoslada, I. Vinogradovs, A. Ruskule, K. Veidemane, O. Nikodemus, R. Kasparinskis, K. Sepp and J.Gulbinas, “A multitiered approach for grassland ecosystem services mapping and assessment: The Viva Grass tool,” One Ecosystem 3: e25380, 2018.. Available: https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e25380

A.D. Guerry, S. Polasky, J. Lubchenco, R. Chaplin-Kramer, G. C. Daily, R. Griffin, M. Ruckelshaus, I.J. Bateman, A. Duraiappah, T. Elmqvist, M. W. Feldman, C. Folke, J. Hoekstra, P.M. Kareiva, B.L. Keeler, S. Li, E. McKenzie, Z. Ouyang, B. Reyers, T. H. Ricketts, J. Rockström, H. Tallis, and B. Vira, “Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112 (24), p. 7348-7355, June 16, 2015. Available: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503751112

F. J.Escobedoa, V. Giannico, C.Y. Jim, G. Sanesi, R. Lafortezza, “Urban forests, ecosystem services, green infrastructure and nature-based solutions: Nexus or evolving metaphors?,” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 37, p. 3-12, January 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.02.011

European Commission Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions, 2013. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0249

C.V. Mejía, L. Shirotova, I F. Marques de Almeida, “Green Infrastructure and German Landscape Planning: A Comparison of Approaches,” Urbani izziv, vol. 26, p. 25-37, 2015. Available: http://urbani-izziv.uirs.si/Portals/uizziv/papers/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-supplement-002.pdf

Statistics of Latvia, Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2017. [Accessed November 20, 2018], Available: https://www.csb.gov.lv/lv/statistika/db

B. Burkhard, F. Kroll, F. Müller, W. Windhorst, “Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services – a concept for land-cover based assessments,” Landscape Online 15, p. 2-22., 2009. Available: : https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.200915

B. Burkhard, F. Kroll, S. Nedkov, F. Müller, “Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 21, p. 17-29, October 2012. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019

B. Burkhard, M. Kandziora, Y. Hou, F. Müller, “Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands – concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification,” Landsc Online, vol. 34, p.1-32, 2014. Available: https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434

R. Costanza, R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farberk, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, O. Rv, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton and M.van den Belt. “The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital,” Nature 387, p.253-260, 1997. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0

R.S. de Groot, M.A. Wilson, R.M.J. Boumans, “A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services,” Ecological Economics, vol. 41, no. 3, p. 393-408, June 2002. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB, Malta, 2010, UNEP. Available: http://doc.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Synthesis%20report/TEEB%20Synthesis%20Report%202010.pdf

D. Depellegrin, P. Pereira, I. Misiune and L. Egarter-Vigl “Mapping ecosystem services potential in Lithuania”, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology vol. 23, no.5, p. 441-455, 2016. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1146176

E.M. Bennett, G.D. Peterson, L. Gordon, “Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services”, Ecology Letters 12, p. 1394-1404, 2009. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/etr2019vol1.4085

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.