Abstract
Urban ecosystem services (ES) contribute to the compensation of negative effects caused by cities by means of, for example, reducing air pollution and providing cooling effects during the summer time. In this study, an approach is described that combines the regional biotope and land use data set, hemeroby and the accessibility of open space in order to assess the provision of urban ES. Hemeroby expresses the degree of naturalness of land use types and, therefore, provides a differentiated assessment of urban ES. Assessment of the local capacity to provide urban ES was conducted with a spatially explicit modeling approach in the city of Halle (Saale) in Germany. The following urban ES were assessed: (a) global climate regulation, (b) local climate regulation, (c) air pollution control, (d) water cycle regulation, (e) food production, (f) nature experience and (g) leisure activities. We identified areas with high and low capacity of ES in the urban context. For instance, the central parts of Halle had very low or no capacity to provide ES due to highly compact building styles and soil sealing. In contrast, peri-urban areas had particularly high capacities. The potential provision of regulating services was spatially limited due to the location of land use types that provide these services.
Highlights
Urbanization is globally one of the key development processes of the 21st century [1]
Spatial Statistics—Areas Allocated to biotope and land use data set (BTNT), Hemeroby and Accessibility
On the basis of hemeroby and ecosystem services (ES) assessment, interested city dwellers could be better informed about different types and services of urban nature and express more precisely through these findings the requirements and needs for public green spaces and open spaces
Summary
Urbanization is globally one of the key development processes of the 21st century [1]. The ES concept represents a theoretical and anthropocentric basis for the social, ecological and economic valuation of nature, addressing the direct and indirect benefits that ecosystems provide to society spanning from biogeophysical structures and landscape patterns, to functions, services and economically assessable impacts on societies [4,5,6,7]. Different evaluation frameworks, such as those suggested by Diaz et al (2015) [8] in the context of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) describe how drivers and cause-effect relationships should be reflected. The cascade model suggested by Haines-Young and Potschin (2010) [6], adopted by “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (TEEB 2010) [7] and implemented in the context of the “Common International
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
