Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle

Lyytimäki, Jari; Petersen, Lars Kjerulf; Normander, Bo; Bezák, Peter

doi:10.1080/15693430802055524

Cited by 268 publications

(200 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

184

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Urban wildlife can annoy or threaten pets and humans, or damage plants and structures (e.g., birds and fruit trees) [99]. For example, in Helsinki, Finland, the excrement on sidewalks from aphids in linden trees produced a vomit-like odour during warm spells [100].…”

Section: Can Trees Detract From Urban Sustainability?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trees in Canadian Cities: Indispensable Life Form for Urban Sustainability

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We argue that a healthy urban forest contributes immensely to the sustainability of cities. The argument is based on a comprehensive array of values elicited from Canadians in several cities. To begin, we define the urban forest as inclusive of all the trees in the city and thus representing the predominant contributor to a city's green infrastructure. Then we enumerate and explain the broad diversity of ways in which urban people value trees in the city. We, thus, show the myriad pathways by which trees contribute positively to any city's social, economic, and ecological sustainability. Following a short summary of the ways in which trees may detract from people's quality of life, we present promising management directions for urban-forest improvement, as we understand the situation in Canada. We conclude that all cities can enhance their sustainability by improving the urban forest.

show abstract

Section: Can Trees Detract From Urban Sustainability?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trees in Canadian Cities: Indispensable Life Form for Urban Sustainability

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the natural world these interactions contribute to the formation of distinctive topographical features (landforms) across a range of spatial and temporal scales (see Viles, 1988;Coombes, 2016 and references therein). The colonisation of engineered/built structures is, however, associated with concerns over the progressive loss of functional, and aesthetic and other social values (Harbulakova et al, 2013;Lyytimäki et al, 2008). In contrast, the notion of organisms as protective agents ('bioprotection') is broadly recognised within geomorphology (Carter and Viles, 2005;McIlroy de la Rosa et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cool barnacles: Do common biogenic structures enhance or retard rates of deterioration of intertidal rocks and concrete?

Coombes

Viles

Naylor

et al. 2017

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sedentary and mobile organisms grow profusely on hard substrates within the coastal zone and contribute to the deterioration of coastal engineering structures and the geomorphic evolution of rocky shores by both enhancing and retarding weathering and erosion. There is a lack of quantitative evidence for the direction and magnitude of these effects. This study assesses the influence of globally-abundant

show abstract

“…This work is a requirement for the initial site and development characteristics surveys to support the planning and design of SuDS systems in accordance with the updated SuDS manual (Woods-Ballard et al 2015). The new SuDS approach also lacks ways to appraise ecosystem disservices, which are end-products generated by the natural environment that have negative effects, or costs, to human beings (Lyytimaki et al 2008;Lyytimaki and Sipila 2009;Dunn 2010;Limburg et al 2010;Escobedo et al 2011;Gómez-Baggethun and Barton 2013;Shapiro and Báldi 2014;von Döhren and Haase 2015). In order to treat storm water at or near their sources, SuDS developments are often located within urban environments (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the interaction of humans and wild animals in urban areas, facilitated further by SuDS sites (vegetated and retain water), can potentially be detrimental to the life of humans (Garroway and Sheldon 2013). Issues such as interactions between humans and (parasite-or disease-infected) wild animals (Polley 2005), and the sense of fear and unrest associated with natural environments (Jones et al 2006;Lyytimaki et al 2008; Sustainable Cities Institute 2012) cannot be ignored and have to be assessed properly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable drainage system site assessment method using urban ecosystem services

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United Kingdom's recently updated approach to sustainable drainage enhanced biodiversity and amenity objectives by incorporating the ecosystem approach and the ecosystem services concept. However, cost-effective and reliable methods to appraise the biodiversity and amenity values of potential sustainable drainage system (SuDS) sites and their surrounding areas are still lacking, as is a method to enable designers to distinguish and link the amenity and biodiversity benefits that SuDS schemes can offer. In this paper, therefore, the authors propose two ecosystem services-and disservicesbased methods (i.e. vegetation structure cover-abundance examination and cultural ecosystem services and disservices variables appraisal) to aid SuDS designers to distinguish and link amenity and biodiversity benefits, and allow initial site assessments to be performed in a cost-effective and reliable fashion. Forty-nine representative sites within Greater Manchester were selected to test the two methods. Amenity and biodiversity were successfully assessed and habitat for species, carbon sequestration, recreation and education ecosystem services scores were produced, which will support SuDS retrofit design decision-making. Large vegetated SuDS sites with permanent aquatic features were found to be most capable of enhancing biodiversity-and amenity-related ecosystem services. Habitat for species and recreation ecosystem services were also found to be positively linked to each other. Finally, waste bins on site were found to help reduce dog faeces and litter coverage. Overall, the findings presented here enable future SuDS retrofit designs to be more wildlife friendly and socially inclusive.

show abstract

Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle

Cited by 268 publications

References 44 publications

Trees in Canadian Cities: Indispensable Life Form for Urban Sustainability

Trees in Canadian Cities: Indispensable Life Form for Urban Sustainability

Cool barnacles: Do common biogenic structures enhance or retard rates of deterioration of intertidal rocks and concrete?

Sustainable drainage system site assessment method using urban ecosystem services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About