Does the Ecosystem Service Concept Reach its Limits in Urban Environments?

Abstract

There is a rapidly growing body of literature on the theory about the ecosystem service concept and the practical assessment of ecosystem services in different contexts ranging from natural to urban environments. Yet, where does the concept reach its limits? This paper critically reflects the application of the ecosystem service concept in urban environments illustrating the handling of urban structures (incl. built-up areas) and the risk that the normative principle of the concept could be missed. It is shown that in theory urban structures refer to a variety of ecosystem concepts. As a starting point for ecosystem service assessments, these could be classified into natural, managed, constructed and overbuilt systems. Since ecosystem service concepts do not directly refer to a specific ecosystem definition, but to biophysical structures and processes, all of these classes could be included. However, the dependency on context and scale makes a differentiation in practical ecosystem services assessment challenging. We conclude that the ecosystem service concept does not reach its limits in urban environments, but urban environments represent an extreme case characterized by multifunctionality and a high degree of modification that enables to uncover research challenges applying in any environment. There is a need for a more transparent reporting of theoretical and methodological assumptions to facilitate the comparability between ecosystem service assessments. Comprehensive approaches that consider multiple ecosystem services and include human input, human modification, the ecosystem status as well as their interactions are required to understand the spatial relations between ecosystem services delivered by different ecosystems.

A Differentiated Spatial Assessment of Urban Ecosystem Services Based on Land Use Data in Halle, Germany

“…We suggest an adjustment of the hemeroby concept to better express the status of the mapped ecosystems in terms of degradation and disturbance, but also with regard to better restoration or creation of biotopes in an urban context [22]. The degree of ecosystem transformation in urban areas can be measured by the proportion of sealed and built-up land [23]. The sealing describes the sum of paved areas, asphalt and building construction, while built-up land includes all forms of houses and buildings [24].…”

Analysing the Synergies and Trade-Offs between Ecosystem Services to Reorient Land Use Planning in Metropolitan Bilbao (Northern Spain)

“…Most analyses of ES trade-offs have focused on intact natural vegetation or protected areas [20][21][22][23]. However, in the last years more attention has been paid to the assessment of ES in more complex social-ecological systems such as metropolitan and urban areas [24][25][26][27][28], as the need to protect ES within human-dominated landscapes has been recognized by practitioners [29][30][31]. Urban populations typically obtain most of their ecosystem resources from sources that are distributed over a substantially larger area [32].…”

Protected areas in the function of sustainable development: Case study on the city of Belgrade

“…Starting from the basic definition of ecosystem services as benefits that population earns due to ecosystem functions (de Groot et al, 2002), it is certain that with the continuous activities of protection, revitalization and restoration of elements that secure providing ecosystem services in urban conditions, it is possible to reduce the environmental footprint and ecological debt of cities, while at the same time improving the resilience, health condition and quality of life of the urban population (Gómez-Baggethun, Barton, 2013). Consistent with the fact that cities are characterized by multifunctionality and a high degree of transformation of natural conditions caused by long-lasting anthropogenic pressures, activities aimed toward successful provision of ecosystem services can be seen as an extraordinary example of equal importance for creating better living and health conditions of the urban population as well as ecological connectivity of habitats, species and their communities of life (Jennings et al, 2016;Beichler et al, 2017).…”