Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Richard leBrasseur
 + 1314 word(s) 1314 2022-01-13 06:43:59 |
2 format correct
Nora Tang
 -66 word(s) 1248 2022-02-23 03:21:40 | |
3 format correct
Nora Tang
 Meta information modification 1248 2022-02-28 06:43:45 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Lebrasseur, R. Mapping Green Infrastructure Based on Multifunctional Ecosystem Services. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/19756 (accessed on 23 July 2024).
Lebrasseur R. Mapping Green Infrastructure Based on Multifunctional Ecosystem Services. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/19756. Accessed July 23, 2024.
Lebrasseur, Richard. "Mapping Green Infrastructure Based on Multifunctional Ecosystem Services" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/19756 (accessed July 23, 2024).
Lebrasseur, R. (2022, February 22). Mapping Green Infrastructure Based on Multifunctional Ecosystem Services. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/19756
Lebrasseur, Richard. "Mapping Green Infrastructure Based on Multifunctional Ecosystem Services." Encyclopedia. Web. 22 February, 2022.
Mapping Green Infrastructure Based on Multifunctional Ecosystem Services
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14020825

Most sustainable planning frameworks assess natural and social–economic landscape systems as separate entities, and the understanding of the interrelationships between them is incomplete. Landscape classification in urbanizing environments requires an integrated spatial planning approach to better address the United Nation’s sustainable development challenges.

ecosystem services green infrastructure multicriteria evaluation GIS mapping multifunctional landscapes sustainable planning

1. Introduction

Urban landscapes are social–ecological systems [1] and occur across much of the world [2]. Nearly two thirds of the world’s population is expected to live in cities by 2050 [3], including 89% of the population within the USA, requiring sustainable growth to ensure environmental integrity, ecological function, [4] and human wellbeing [5]. Urban landscapes have high spatial heterogeneity [6] as well as demographic and social diversity, impacting resource access and function [7]. The ecosystem services (ES) framework assesses ecosystem benefits by translating ecological structures, functions, and processes into value based operations and objects [8]. Ecosystem services include supporting services (e.g., soil formation and nutrient cycling), provisioning services (e.g., food, fresh water, fuel, fiber, and other goods), regulating services (e.g., climate, water, and disease regulation as well as pollination), and cultural services (e.g., educational, aesthetic, and cultural heritage values as well as recreation and tourism) [9].
Many models and theoretical constructs within ecosystem services exist, most are predominately ecological frameworks or anthropocentric frameworks [10]. Most ecosystem services frameworks evaluate single function landscapes [11], not multifunctionality nor the wider range of ecosystem services available [12][13]. In urban landscapes, ecosystem services originate from multiple and diverse biophysical, social, economic, political, and cultural landscape features that fluctuate with spatial scale [14]. The interrelationships between these diverse landscapes regulate ecosystem functions [4][15], which provide benefits, or ecosystem services, to populations [16]. The need for an integrated, comprehensive assessment of ecosystem services is increasingly acknowledged [17][18].
Established land suitability analyses commonly applied in spatial planning (e.g., hierarchical, ordinal) do not fully represent the diversity of ES related functions and benefits [19] and have limited capacity to quantify the multifaceted relationship between social and ecological systems [20]. Multifunctionality, however, acknowledges the supply of a diverse set of ecosystem services which lead to numerous environmental, social, and economic benefits. Multifunctional landscapes integrate ecosystem services and human wellbeing, they support livelihoods, protect species, and provide recreational needs [21][22]. Multifunctional landscapes are characterized by diverse land use and complex landscape structure, thereby including the many, often competing, interests and values of different landowners and stakeholder groups. Multifunctional landscape analyses are better able to interpret the complexity of their socioecological systems and their values. Overall, a multifunctional landscape approach to ecosystem services assessment increases sustainable development strategies [23].
Literature supports a comprehensive planning approach which includes multifunctional ecosystem service assessment [24][25]. However, the application of an ecosystem services approach to landscape analysis, sustainable planning, and decision making is still lacking in the spatial planning process [26][27][28]. During the past decade, many spatial landscape frameworks and environmental planning tools have been developed which incorporate the concept of ecosystem services [29]. Few, however, have comprehensively captured the diversity of ecosystem services, particularly within urban and urbanizing landscapes [30][31]. In China, urban greenspace system planning has been placed within urban planning and serves to control urban sprawl and improve urban ecosystem services but lacks the inclusion of nonbuilt greenspaces such as forests and wetlands [32]. Elsewhere, in Berlin, Germany, concrete decisions and management actions did not result from the ES assessment used. Here, only informal planning strategies could be agreed upon due to unclear and disagreed upon ecosystem service outcomes among a diverse stakeholder group [33]. Other barriers to ES planning integration and operationalization strategies remain and include a lack of understanding for exactly how ES informs decision making [34] and at which point the ES concept should be applied [28]. Overall, there is a continued need to examine and define possible methods and tools for ecosystem service assessment in planning and policy documents e.g., [26][35][36]. Literature’s different methods used for ES classification and mapping limit the comparability of outcomes and call for a more consistent but flexible approach [37][38][39].
This recognition has led to the concept of “Green Infrastructure” (GI) [40] to help manage functional ecosystems through strategic land use planning. GI encompasses an interconnected network of natural, seminatural, and artificial ecosystems and greenspaces within, around, and between environments, at varying spatial scales [41][42]. These GI areas can be managed to deliver a wide range of ecological, social and economic benefits or ecosystem services [5]. Overall, GI is able to improve the environmental quality, livability, and sustainability of people and communities through multifunctionality [43]. The GI concept is a valuable tool for “translating” the complex topic of ES into more comprehensible terms and is better suited to convey ES language to diverse stakeholders and disciplines [29]. Furthermore, GI can be spatially mapped and applied towards sustainable planning policy.

2. Green Infrastructure as a Framework for Multifunctional Ecosystem Service Analysis

One of the main strengths of GI is its landscape multifunctionality, i.e., promoting spatial areas that can serve more than one purpose, such as climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, food production, the creation of recreational greenspaces, and provide employment opportunities [44]. GI addresses multiple demands and contributes to finding solutions for a range of environmental, social, and economic pressures [45]. Multifunctionality, here, is described as the capacity of green infrastructure to provide multiple ES [46] and is regarded as a core principle of the GI approach [47][48][49]. Multifunctionality is closely related to physical connectivity. Connectivity is important to GI and the delivery of ecosystem services through the concept of flows [50][51]. This connectivity supports and enhances GI; it increases ecological resilience to stressors from urbanization and climate change [52] and strengthens regional economic stability [53]. As an interconnected landscape framework which can assess ecosystem services, the GI framework emphasizes the quality and quantity of these diverse landscapes, as well as their multiple functions and the importance of interconnections between them [42][54].
Notably, if systematically planned, developed, and maintained, GI has the potential to contribute to ecosystem services and sustainability [55]. GI is able to identify the positive synergies among ecosystem services found within diverse landscapes [56]. However, literature demonstrates that consistently quantifying multifunctionality, even within the GI framework, is difficult [57], as is operationalizing multifunctional ES within spatial planning [58]. The concept of GI has been interpreted divergently and no consensus regarding GI’s components nor a method to identify and map GI has been reached [59]. For example, biodiversity as a key ecosystem service is often assessed through strictly ecological benefits and planning considerations (e.g., connectivity, species diversity), which does not capture societal values such as socioemotional wellbeing and human disease resilience [60]. These and other synergistic benefits within GI remain difficult to document and quantify.

3. Multifunctional Landscapes and Multicriteria Analysis

To address these issues, concepts within multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and multicriteria evaluation (MCE) provide an approach to collectively analyze landscape features and ecosystem services [61]. These methods are often used to support complex decision-making situations with multiple and often conflicting objectives that stakeholder groups value differently. MCE methods are able to address intangible values such as cultural and heritage ecosystem services [62] as well as aspects of human wellbeing [63][64]. MCE allows the comparison of ecosystem services with sociocultural and economic values in a structured and shared framework [65][66][67], as well as the evaluation of quantitative and qualitative information [68][69]. MCE methods are integrative evaluation methods, e.g., [66]; they combine criteria scoring with contextual weighting and are often used in spatially explicit landscape models of ecosystem services such as GIS [70][71]. MCE approaches can synthesize GI’s multifunctional ES information and better clarify the gap of stakeholder communication and knowledge. They comprehensively assess the landscape’s interrelationships in order inform sustainability, spatial planning, management, and policy [37].

References

  1. Scholes, R.J.; Reyers, B.; Biggs, R.; Spierenburg, M.J.; Duriappah, A. Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social–ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 16–25.
  2. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. Urbanization. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization (accessed on 10 December 2018).
  3. UN-Habitat. World Cities Report 2016: Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/world-cities-report (accessed on 10 December 2016).
  4. Alberti, M. Maintaining ecological integrity and sustaining ecosystem function in urban areas. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2010, 2, 178–184.
  5. Pauleit, S.; Hansen, R.; Rall, E.L.; Zölch, T.; Andersson, E.; Luz, A.C.; Szaraz, L.; Tosics, I.; Vierikko, K. Urban landscapes and green infrastructure. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017.
  6. Qian, Y.; Zhou, W.; Pickett, S.T.; Yu, W.; Xiong, D.; Wang, W.; Jing, C. Integrating structure and function: Mapping the hierarchical spatial heterogeneity of urban landscapes. Ecol. Process. 2020, 9, 1–11.
  7. Swyngedouw, E.; Heynen, N. Urban Political Ecology, Justice and the Politics of Scale. Antipode. 2003, 35, 898–918.
  8. De Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 393–408.
  9. Reid, W.V.; Mooney, H.A.; Cropper, A.; Capistrano, D.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chopra, K.; Dasgupta, P.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Hassan, R.; et al. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being-Synthesis: A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
  10. Schröter, M.; van der Zanden, E.; Alexander, P.; van Oudenhoven Remme, R.; Serna Chavez, H.; de Groot, R.; Opdam, P. Ecosystem services as a contested concept: A synthesis of critique and counter arguments. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7, 514–523.
  11. De Groot, R.; Hein, L. Concept and valuation of landscape functions at different scales. In Multifunctional Land Use; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 15–36.
  12. Palomo, I.; Felipe-Lucia, M.R.; Bennett, E.M.; Martín-López, B.; Pascual, U. Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production. Adv. Ecol. Res. 2016, 54, 245–283.
  13. Schröter, M.; Crouzat, E.; Hölting, L.; Massenberg, J.; Rode, J.; Hanisch, M.; Kabisch, N.; Palliwoda, J.; Priess, J.A.; Seppelt, R.; et al. Assumptions in ecosystem service assessments: Increasing transparency for conservation. Ambio 2021, 50, 289–300.
  14. McDonald, R.I. Ecosystem service demand and supply along the urban-to-rural gradient. J. Conserv. Plan. 2009, 5, 1–14.
  15. Hölting, L.; Beckmann, M.; Volk, M.; Cord, A.F. Multifunctionality assessments–More than assessing multiple ecosystem functions and services? A quantitative literature review. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 103, 226–235.
  16. Gebre, T.; Gebremedhin, B. The mutual benefits of promoting rural-urban interdependence through linked ecosystem services. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 20, e00707.
  17. Pagella, T.F.; Sinclair, F.L. Development and use of a typology of mapping tools to assess their fitness for supporting management of ecosystem service provision. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 383–399.
  18. Tardieu, L. The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping. Rev. Agric. Food Environ. Stud. 2017, 98, 173–200.
  19. Anna, K.; Jaan-Henrik, K.; Jakub, K.; Dagmar, H. Ecosystem services in urban land use. Services 2016, 22, 204–212.
  20. Sterling, E.; Ticktin, T.; Morgan, T.K.K.; Cullman, G.; Alvira, D.; Andrade, P.; Bergamini, N.; Betley, E.; Burrows, K.; Caillon, S.; et al. Culturally grounded indicators of resilience in social-ecological systems. Environ. Soc. 2017, 8, 63–95.
  21. Fagerholm, N.; Martín-López, B.; Torralba, M.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Lechner, A.M.; Bieling, C.; Stahl Olafsson, A.; Albert, C.; Raymond, C.M.; Garcia-Martin, M.; et al. Perceived contributions of multifunctional landscapes to human well-being: Evidence from 13 European sites. People Nat. 2020, 2, 217–234.
  22. Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 999–1023.
  23. Maes, J.; Egoh, B.; Willemen, L.; Liquete, C.; Vihervaara, P.; Schägner, J.P.; Grizzetti, B.; Drakou, E.G.; La Notte, A.; Zulian, G.; et al. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 31–39.
  24. Rozas-Vásquez, D.; Fuerst, C.; Geneletti, D.; Almendra, O. Integration of ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment across spatial planning scales. Land Use Policy 2018, 71, 303–310.
  25. Speziale, L.; Geneletti, D. Applying an ecosystem services approach to support land-use planning: A case study in Koboko district, Uganda. Ecol. Process. 2014, 3, 10.
  26. Cortinovis, C.; Geneletti, D. Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is there, and what is still needed for better decisions. Land Use Policy 2019, 70, 298–312.
  27. Forkink, A. Benefits and challenges of using an Assessment of Ecosystem Services approach in land-use planning. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 2071–2084.
  28. Maes, J.; Jacobs, S. Nature-Based solutions for Europe’s sustainable development. Conserv. Lett. 2017, 10, 121–124.
  29. Albert, C.; Aronson, J.; Fürst, C.; Opdam, P. Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: Requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 1285.
  30. Ronchi, S. Ecosystem Services for Planning: A Generic Recommendation or a Real Framework? Insights from a Literature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6595.
  31. Wang, L.; Zheng, H.; Wen, Z.; Liu, L.; Robinson, B.E.; Li, R.; Li, C.; Kong, L. Ecosystem service synergies/trade-offs informing the supply-demand match of ecosystem services: Framework and application. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 37, 100939.
  32. Inkoom, J.N.; Frank, S.; Fürst, C. Challenges and opportunities of ecosystem service integration into land use planning in West Africa–an implementation framework. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2017, 13, 67–81.
  33. Ministry of Land and Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Control indicators for industrial lands use. Urb. Plan. Newsrep. 2008, 5, 13.
  34. Kabisch, N. Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning—The case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 557–567.
  35. Woodruff, S.C.; BenDor, T.K. Ecosystem services in urban planning: Comparative paradigms and guidelines for high quality plans. Landsc. Urb. Plan. 2016, 152, 90–100.
  36. Spyra, M.; Kleemann, J.; Cetin, N.I.; Vázquez Navarrete, C.J.; Albert, C.; Palacios-Agundez, I.; Ametzaga-Arregi, I.; La Rosa, D.; Rozas-Vásquez, D.; Adem Esmail, B.; et al. The ecosystem services concept: A new Esperanto to facilitate participatory planning processes? Landsc. Ecol. 2019, 34, 1715–1735.
  37. Mascarenhas, A.; Ramos, T.B.; Haase, D.; Santos, R. Ecosystem services in spatial planning and strategic environmental assessment-A European and Portuguese profile. Land Use Policy 2015, 48, 158–169.
  38. Maes, J.; Teller, A.; Erhard, M.; Grizzetti, B.; Barredo, J.I.; Paracchini, M.L.; Condé, S.; Somma, F.; Orgiazzi, A.; Jones, A. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services: An Analytical Framework for Ecosystem Condition; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018.
  39. Crossman, N.D.; Burkhard, B.; Nedkov, S.; Willemen, L.; Petz, K.; Palomo, I.; Drakou, E.G.; Martin-Lopez, B.; McPhearson, T.; Boyanova, K.; et al. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 4, 4–14.
  40. Jacobs, S.; Burkhard, B.; Van Daele, T.; Staes, J.; Schneiders, A. ‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecol. Model. 2015, 295, 21–30.
  41. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
  42. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Renew. Resour. J. 2002, 20, 12–17.
  43. Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kaźmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure. Landsc. Urb. Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178.
  44. Baycan-Levent, T.; Nijkamp, P. Planning and management of urban green spaces in Europe: Comparative analysis. J. Urb. Plan. Dev. 2009, 135, 1–12.
  45. European Commission. Green Infrastructure (GI)—Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0249 (accessed on 5 December 2013).
  46. Naumann, S.; Davis, M.; Kaphengst, T.; Pieterse, M.; Rayment, M. Design, Implementation and Cost Elements of Green Infrastructure Projects; Final report; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011; p. 138.
  47. Hansen, R.; Pauleit, S. From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas. Ambio 2014, 43, 516–529.
  48. Liquete, C.; Kleeschulte, S.; Dige, G.; Maes, J.; Grizzetti, B.; Olah, B.; Zulian, G. Mapping green infrastructure based on ecosystem services and ecological networks. A Pan-European case study. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 268–280.
  49. Madureira, H.; Andresen, T. Planning for multifunctional urban green infrastructures: Promises and challenges. Urb. Des. Int. 2013, 19, 38–49.
  50. Kambites, C.; Owen, S. Renewed prospects for green infrastructure planning in the UK. Plan. Pract. Res. 2006, 21, 483–496.
  51. Kukkala, A.S.; Moilanen, A. Ecosystem services and connectivity in spatial conservation prioritization. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 32, 5–14.
  52. Turner, M.G.; Donato, D.C.; Romme, W.H. Consequences of spatial heterogeneity for ecosystem services in changing forest landscapes: Priorities for future research. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1081–1097.
  53. Liu, Z.; Xiu, C.; Ye, C. Improving Urban Resilience through Green Infrastructure: An Integrated Approach for Connectivity Conservation in the Central City of Shenyang, China. Complexity 2020, 2020.
  54. Belote, R.T.; Dietz, M.S.; McRae, B.H.; Theobald, D.M.; McClure, M.L.; Irwin, G.H.; McKinley, P.S.; Gage, J.A.; Aplet, G.H. Identifying corridors among large protected areas in the United States. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154223.
  55. Pauleit, S.; Liu, L.; Ahern, J.; Kazmierczak, A. Multifunctional green infrastructure planning to promote ecological services in the city. In Urban Ecology. Patterns, Processes, and Applications; Niemela, J., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 272–285.
  56. Chang, Q.; Liu, X.; Wu, J.; He, P. MSPA-based urban green infrastructure planning and management approach for urban sustainability: Case study of Longgang in China. J. Urb. Plan. Dev. 2015, 141, A5014006.
  57. Millenium Ecosystems Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
  58. Sussams, L.W.; Sheate, W.R.; Eales, R.P. Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation. Environ. Manag. 2015, 147, 184–193.
  59. Brandt, J.; Vejre, H. (Eds.) Motives, concepts and perceptions. In Multifunctional Landscapes: Volume 1 Theory, Values and History; WIT Press: Southhampton, UK, 2004; pp. 3–31.
  60. von Haaren, C.; Albert, C.; Galler, C. Spatial and landscape planning: A place for ecosystem services. In Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2016; pp. 568–581.
  61. Chan, K.M.A.; Shaw, M.R.; Cameron, D.R.; Underwood, E.C.; Daily, G.C. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4, e379.
  62. Tahri, M.; Kaspar, J.; Vacik, H.; Marusak, R. Multi-attribute decision making and geographic information systems: Potential tools for evaluating forest ecosystem services. Ann. For. Sci. 2021, 78, 1–19.
  63. Martínez-Sastre, R.; Ravera, F.; González, J.A.; Santiago, C.L.; Bidegain, I.; Munda, G. Mediterranean landscapes under change: Combining social multicriteria evaluation and the ecosystem services framework for land use planning. Land Use Policy 2017, 67, 472–486.
  64. Sarra, A.; Nissi, E. A spatial composite indicator for human and ecosystem well-being in the Italian urban areas. Soc. Indic. Res. 2020, 148, 353–377.
  65. Saarikoski, H.; Mustajoki, J.; Barton, D.N.; Geneletti, D.; Langemeyer, J.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Marttunen, M.; Antunes, P.; Keune, H.; Santos, R. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 22, 238–249.
  66. Etxano, I.; Villalba-Eguiluz, U. Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 188, 107131.
  67. Newton, A.C.; Hodder, K.; Cantarello, E.; Perrella, L.; Birch, J.C.; Robins, J.; Douglas, S.; Moody, C.; Cordingley, J. Cost-benefit analysis of ecological networks assessed through spatial analysis of ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 49, 571–580.
  68. Mendoza, G.A.; Martins, H. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 230, 1–22.
  69. Pan, H.; Zhang, L.; Cong, C.; Deal, B.; Wang, Y. A dynamic and spatially explicit modeling approach to identify the ecosystem service implications of complex urban systems interactions. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 102, 426–436.
  70. Chan, K.M.A.; Satterfield, T.; Goldstein, J. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 74, 8–18.
  71. Feizizadeh, B.; Kienberger, S. Spatially explicit sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for multicriteria-based vulnerability assessment. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 2013–2035.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Green & Sustainable Science & Technology
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Richard leBrasseur
View Times: 443
Entry Collection: Environmental Sciences
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 28 Feb 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback