Re-Valuing Canals Valuation of Ecosystem Services Provided by the Smart Canal Project
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Master of urban climate and sustainability (MUrCS) Re-valuing canals Valuation of ecosystem services provided by the Smart Canal project Ala' Al Dwairi August 2020 Re-valuing canals Valuation of ecosystem services provided by the Smart Canal project Ala' Al Dwairi Submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirements of Master of Urban Climate & Sustainability (MUrCS) Glasgow Caledonian University, UK; LAB University of Applied Sciences, Finland; University of Huelva, Spain Supervisor: Prof. Slobodan B. Mickovski August 2020 Declaration of originality 'This dissertation is my original work and has not been submitted elsewhere in fulfillment of the requirements of this or any other award.' Ala' Al Dwairi August 17, 2020 ABSTRACT The primary purpose of this work was to provide a new view of the role canals can play in cities. In Glasgow city, canals were held highly for its role in shaping the industrial image of the city during the industrial revolution (1790-1930). After the Forth & Clyde canal (‘the Canal’ in further text) demise due to the uprise of railway transport, it moved to hold a scheduled monument status with recreational uses in the city. This dissertation aims to highlight the different roles canals can play in cities by mapping the provision of Ecosystem Services (ES) provided by the Smart Canal project in the north of Glasgow city. Furthermore, the performed ES mapping started by adopting a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) using Geographic Information System (GIS). Eight ES (one provisioning, five regulating, and two cultural) were mapped based on available spatial data for land use and landcover classes combined with other criteria. The MCDA criteria were selected based on existing research and the study area characteristics. GIS map algebra was used to analyze the ES provision maps, identify areas providing multiple ES and highlight areas of possible synergies and trade-offs between ES. The results showed that the Smart Canal area has considerable potential for offering regulating and cultural services in comparison with provisioning services. The highest ES provision was for enhancing water quality and carbon sequestration followed by flood control and evaporative cooling. As well, the Canal showed intermediate to a high potential for the delivery of habitat areas (biodiversity). Moreover, the north-western part of the Canal proved to be a 'hotspot' for the delivery of multiple ES, making it a highly sensitive area in need of sustainable planning to manage ES synergies and trade- offs adequately. Thus, the results of this analysis fortified the role of the Canal as an adaptation tool to face climate change threats as well as its potential for forming an ecological corridor creating a refuge for urban wildlife. The mapping of the Canal’s ES portrayed in this analysis can be used as a decision support tool for planning areas around the canals network in Glasgow and to ensure sustainable management of canal resources. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to thank Prof. Rohinton Emmanuel, Prof. Eeva Aarrevaara, Anne Bowman, and the entire MUrCS team for their unwavering support and motivation through the past two years. I will forever be grateful for the opportunity given to join the MUrCS family, allowing me to embark on a journey of personal and professional exploration. Secondly, special thanks are due to my supervisor Prof. Slobodan Mickovski for his continued support and valuable advice through the length of this research. Thirdly, appreciation goes towards Eng. Peter Robinson from Scottish Canals for his valuable ideas on the potential roles of canals in Glasgow city. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their continuous encouragement, especially mentioning my sister Thekra, my dear friend Khulood and my partner Moha. ii CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Problem statement ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Research questions ................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Methods .................................................................................................................................. 5 1.4 Dissertation structure ............................................................................................................. 5 2 THE RISE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Ecosystem services advancement ........................................................................................... 6 2.2 Ecosystem services frameworks ............................................................................................. 8 2.3 Urban ecosystem services ..................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Mapping ecosystem services ................................................................................................ 19 2.5 Adapted case studies ............................................................................................................ 22 3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 28 3.1 Study area ............................................................................................................................. 28 3.2 Methods ................................................................................................................................ 30 3.2.1 Key ecosystem services ................................................................................................. 31 3.2.2 Input data ...................................................................................................................... 31 3.2.3 Analysis and representation of ES provision ................................................................. 34 3.2.4 Detection of ecosystem service bundles ...................................................................... 41 3.2.5 Ecosystem services trade-offs and synergies ................................................................ 42 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................ 43 4.1 Results ................................................................................................................................... 43 4.1.1 ESPU maps .................................................................................................................... 43 4.1.2 Detection of bundles ..................................................................................................... 47 4.1.3 ES synergies and trade-offs ........................................................................................... 47 4.2 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 52 4.2.1 Ecosystem services mapping ........................................................................................ 53 4.2.2 Bundles and trade-offs .................................................................................................. 56 4.2.3 The new role of Forth & Clyde canal ............................................................................. 59 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 62 5.1 Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 63 5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 64 6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 65 7 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 78 7.1 Appendix A: input data ......................................................................................................... 78 iii FIGURES Figure 1: Major events in research leading to the definition and use of “ecosystem services” term, Adapted from (Daily, 1997) ..................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2: classification of ecosystem services according to MA, adapted from (Leemans and De Groot, 2003) ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 3: TEEB approach core principals, adapted from (TEEB, 2008) .................................................. 10 Figure 4: UK NEA framework hierarchy, adapted from (UK NEA, 2011) ............................................... 11 Figure 5: Main sections of ecosystem services in CICES, adapted from (Haines-Young et al., 2018) ... 11 Figure 6: Subhabitats within greenspaces, adapted from (Davies et al., 2011) ................................... 14 Figure 7: Most cited definitions of green infrastructure, adapted from (EEA, 2011) ........................... 15 Figure 8: ES mapping tiers with increasing complexity, adapted from (Grêt-Regamey