A Typology of Urban Green Spaces, Eco- System Services Provisioning Services
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A TYPOLOGY OF URBAN GREEN SPACES, ECO- SYSTEM SERVICES PROVISIONING SERVICES Report: D3.1: AND DEMANDS Work package 3: Functional linkages Partners involved: UL, UBER, TUM, SRC, FCRA, UH, FFCUL Researchers: C. Braquinho, R. Cvejić, K. Eler, P. Gonzales, D. Haase, R.Hansen, N. Kabisch, E. Lorance Rall, J. Niemela, S. Pauleit, M. Pintar, R. Lafortezza, A. Santos, M. Strohbach, K. Vierikko, Š. Železnikar Description: The report outlines the different types of urban green spaces, ESS provision- ing and demand for green space as a part of the EU FP7 (ENV.2013.6.2-5- 603567) GREEN SURGE project (2013-2017) Primary authors: Rozalija Cvejić, Klemen Eler, Marina Pintar, Špela Železnikar (UL, Slovenia), Dagmar Haase, Nadja Kabisch, Michael Strohbach (UBER, Germany) th V10 •May 13 2015 LIST OF CONTRIBUTING PARTICIPANTS TO WP3 No. Legal name (short name) and working months Country Organisation type 1 Kobenhavns Universitet (UCPH) 5 Denmark Research Organisation 2 Helsingin Yliopisto (UH) 3 Finland Research Organisation 3 Humboldt Universität zu Berlin (UBER) 35 Germany Research Organisation 4 Technische Universität München (TUM) 6 Germany Research Organisation 5 Wageningen University (WU) 2 Netherlands Research Organisation 6 Stockholms Universitet (SRC) 8 Sweden Research Organisation 7 Forestry Commission Research Agency (FCRA) 10 United Kingdom Public Body 8 ICLEI European Secretariat (ICLEI Europe) 1 Germany SME 10 Università degli Studi di Bari 'Aldo Moro' (UNIBA) 1 Italy Research Organisation 13 Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (SLU) 6 Sweden Research Organisation 14 Fundação da Faculdade de Ciências 18 Portugal Non-profit Da Universidade de Lisboa (FFCUL) Research Organisation 15 Univerza v Ljubljana (UL) 44 Slovenia Research Organisation 16 Technische Universität Berlin (TUB) 1 Germany Research Organisation 24 Eco-Metrica (ECO) 6 United Kingdom SME A TYPOLOGY OF URBAN GREEN SPACES, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVISIONING SERVICES AND DEMANDS • WP3 • Page 2 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 8 1.1 General introduction to the deliverable D3.1 8 1.2 Introduction to the urban green spaces inventory 9 1.3 Introduction to ecosystem service provisioning by urban green space 10 1.4 Introduction into the demand for urban green space 13 2 METHODOLOGY 14 2.1 Urban green space elements inventory 14 2.2 Assessment of urban green space demand for the two scale levels, European Urban Atlas cities and Urban Learning Labs 15 2.2.1 European scale 15 2.2.2 Urban Learning Lab scale 17 3 RESULTS 18 3.1 Inventory of urban green space elements 18 3.1.1 Urban green space elements 18 3.1.2 Empirical evidence for functional links between urban green space elements and ecosystem services 29 3.1.3 Assessments of selected urban green space elements for European and Urban Learning Lab cities 46 3.2 Assessment of urban green space demand for the two scale levels, European Urban Atlas cities and Urban Learning Labs 49 3.2.1 European scale 49 3.2.2 Urban Learning Lab scale 52 4 DISCUSSION 57 4.1 Urban green space elements inventory 57 4.2 Ecosystem service provisioning by urban green space 57 4.3 Assessment of urban green space demand for the two scale levels, Urban Learning Lab and European Urban Atlas cities 58 5 REFERENCES 60 6 SUPPLEMENT 66 A TYPOLOGY OF URBAN GREEN SPACES, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVISIONING SERVICES AND DEMANDS • WP3 • Page 3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Green walls in the city of Augsburg, Germany. (Photo: M. Strohbach) 7 Figure 2: Ecosystem services as an integral of natural capital, goods and benefits for human well-being and drivers of change (left) and different categories of ecosystem services that ecosystems provide (right) (http://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas) 12 Figure 3: Method for accessibility calculation in ARC GIS 16 Figure 4: The forest cover of the core city areas of Urban Atlas cities (EEA, 2010) in percent shown for the bottom 20, top 20 and for the ULL cities Bari, Berlin, Edinburgh, Ljubljana and Malmö. 46 Figure 5: The green urban areas cover of the core city areas of Urban Atlas cities (EEA, 2010) in percent shown for the bottom 20, top 20 and for the ULL cities Bari, Berlin, Edinburgh, Ljubljana and Malmö. 46 Figure 6: The agricultural land, semi-natural areas, and wetland cover in the core city areas of Urban Atlas cities (EEA, 2010) in percent shown for the bottom 20, top 20 and for the ULL cities Bari, Berlin, Edinburgh, Ljubljana and Malmö. 47 Figure 7: Share of city areas covered by forests. Calculation based on Urban Atlas data (EEA 2010). 47 Figure 8: Share of city areas covered by green urban areas. Calculation based on Urban Atlas data (EEA 2010). 48 Figure 9: Share of city areas covered by agricultural, semi-natural areas and wetlands. Calculation based on Urban Atlas data (EEA 2010). 48 Figure 10: UGS in the ULL city Berlin. They cover 46 % of the city. Green roofs (detail in frame on top right) cover only 0.1% of the city or 12% of the total building area (Source: Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Berlin). 49 Figure 11: Share of population with access to UGS (≥2 ha) within 500 m in administrative city boundaries. Note: Calculation based on GEOSTAT 1 km² grid and Urban Atlas land cover data. 52 Figure 12: Land use/cover as share of total area based on Urban Atlas 20006 (EEA, 2010). 54 Figure 13: Accessibility of urban green and forest areas of a minimum size of 2 ha within 500 m distance. Note: In colour are only those grid cells which are within a distance to a 2ha green space. The respective colour of those grid cells represents the number of people living in that grid cell. Calculation is based on GEOSTAT 1km² grid and Urban Atlas land cover data. No street or public transport net was included in the analysis. 55 Figure 14: Per capita green space (m²/inh.) and population density at district level for the ULL cities Berlin and Ljubljana. 56 A TYPOLOGY OF URBAN GREEN SPACES, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVISIONING SERVICES AND DEMANDS • WP3 • Page 4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Data used for calculation of demand for UGS at European scale. 17 Table 2: Data used for calculation of demand for UGS at ULL scale 17 Table 3: The elements of the UGS inventory with a description and photos of examples. The full inventory is stored in an excel spreadsheet. 18 Table 4: Empirical evidence for the connection between UGS and provisioning services. Because no link between UGS and medicinal resources was found in this review, the column is also not shown here. 31 Table 5: Empirical evidence for the connection between UGS and regulating services. Pollination and biological control were removed from table because they are usually provided by organisms and not particular UGS. Because no link between UGS and erosion prevention and maintenance of soil fertility was found in this review, the column is also not shown here. 34 Table 6: Empirical evidence for the connection between UGS and habitat or supporting services. Because no link between UGS and maintenance of genetic diversity was found in this review, the column is not shown here. 38 Table 7: Empirical evidence for the connection between UGS and cultural services. 42 Table 8: Land use/land cover area and per capita values for European urban regions 51 Table 9: Area of land cover/land use in the ULL case study cities. 53 A TYPOLOGY OF URBAN GREEN SPACES, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVISIONING SERVICES AND DEMANDS • WP3 • Page 5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ESS ecosystem service ULL Urban Learning Lab/ Urban Learning Labs UGS urban green space/ urban green spaces GI green infrastructure DOW description of work UGI urban green infrastructure WP work package PPP public private partnership EU European Union A TYPOLOGY OF URBAN GREEN SPACES, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVISIONING SERVICES AND DEMANDS • WP3 • Page 6 Figure 1: Green walls in the city of Augsburg, Germany. (Photo: M. Strohbach) A TYPOLOGY OF URBAN GREEN SPACES, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVISIONING SERVICES AND DEMANDS • WP3 • Page 7 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General introduction to the deliverable D3.1 The concept of Green Infrastructure (GI) became increasingly important and prominent in the last decade and across the different spheres of science, policy and planning. It is understood as a strategic approach to develop “an interconnected network of green space that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions, and that provides associated benefits to human populations” (Benedict and McMahon, 2002). At the pan-European scale, the GI approach can be central to achieving the 2020 biodiversity target (SCU-UWE, 2012; European Commission, 2013). Accord- ing to the DOW of GREEN SURGE, “[…] urban GI is a planning approach aimed at creating net- works of multifunctional green space in urban environments” (DOW, p11 and Milestone 34). Historically, most cities were almost devoid of green spaces, but cities were relatively small and most people lived in rural areas. It wasn’t until the 19th century that the importance of parks and other urban green for residents was recognized to some extent (Swanwick et al., 2003). Today, it is understood that urban green spaces (UGS) are essential for well-functioning and liveable cities because they (1) play a recreational role in everyday life; (2) contribute to the conservation of biodiversity; (3) contribute to the cultural identity of the city; (4) help maintaining and improv- ing the environmental quality of the city; and (5) bring natural solutions to technical problems (e.g., sewage treatment) in cities (Sandström 2002). Besides an ever growing evidence base for the benefits of UGS, the increasing interest in them is driven