Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 37–47 | Cite as

Ecosystem services deficits in cross-boundary landscapes: spatial mismatches between green and grey systems

  • Marcin SpyraEmail author
  • Luis Inostroza
  • Adam Hamerla
  • Jan Bondaruk
Article

Abstract

Quantitative analyses of the influence of boundary lines on ecosystem services distributions remain rare. Approaches towards integrative assessments of green and grey landscape systems, particularly in cross-boundaries contexts, remain underdeveloped. This study aims to close that knowledge gap. This study was carried out in the cross-boundary landscape of the cities of Cieszyn (in Poland) and Český Těšín (in the Czech Republic), which form one urban system that is divided by a national boundary. The study proposes a novel quantitative method to (1) assess and analyse the spatial structure of urban green and grey systems and (2) analyse the potential provision of ecosystem services (ES) in cross-boundary landscapes. The methodology could be useful for various types of cross-boundary landscapes. A spatial analysis using technomass (Ψ) and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) indicators was performed and combined with population data. The ratio between technomass and number of inhabitants to NDVI, used as a proxy indicator for the provision of ES, was implemented for the identification of areas of deficits in ecosystem services provision. The study shows significant spatial asymmetries, indicated inter alia by the share of grey and green systems and distribution of ES deficit areas. The spatial asymmetries of the urban cross-boundary landscape indicate the need for environmental governance covering green and grey systems located on both sides of a boundary as a spatial unit. This challenges current planning frameworks based mostly on “static” Euclidean land-use zones.

Keywords

Urban landscape Boundary Spatial indicators Technomass NDVI Green and grey system 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the guest editors of this special issue of Urban Ecosystems journal and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier version of this manuscript.

References

  1. Allen J, Cochrane A (2007) Beyond the territorial fix: regional assemblages, politics and power. Reg Stud 41(9):1161–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baoyan S, Xue-fei Z (2015) Optimal allocation of service area of urban elusion and dispersion based on GIS. In: Spatial Data Mining and Geographical Knowledge Services (ICSDM), 2015 2nd IEEE International Conference Fuzhou: IEEE, p 99–103Google Scholar
  3. Birch CPD, Oom SP, Beecham JA, Dhv BV, Box PO, Amersfoort BC (2007) Rectangular and hexagonal grids used for observation, experiment and simulation in ecology. Ecol Model 206:347–359.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.03.041
  4. Brüll A, Wirth TM, Lohrberg F, Kempenaar A, Brinkhuijsen M, Godart F, Nielsen M (2017) Territorial cohesion through cross-border landscape policy? The European case of the Three Countries Park ( BE-NL-DE ). CASES: Change and Adaptation of Socjoecological Systems 3:68–92Google Scholar
  5. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic 21:17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan A (2015) Connecting cities and their environments: harnessing the water-energy-food nexus for sustainable urban development. Chang Adapt Socio Ecol Syst 2(1):103–105Google Scholar
  7. Dahlin K, Asner GP, Field CB (2014) Linking vegetation patterns to environmental gradientsand human impacts in a mediterranean-type island ecosystem. Landsc Ecol 29:1571–1585.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0076-1
  8. Faehnle M et al (2014) Scale-sensitive integration of ecosystem services in urban planning. GeoJournal 80(3):411–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forman R, Gordon M (1986) Landcape ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Frank S, Spyra M, Fürst C (2017) Requirements for cross-border spatial planning technologies in the European context. Chang Adapt Socio Ecol Syst 3(1):39–46Google Scholar
  11. Fürst C, Frank S, Witt A, Koschke L, Makeschin F (2013) Assessment of the effects of forest land use strategies on the provision of ecosystem services at regional scale. J Environ Manag 127:S96–S116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garmendia E, Apostolopoulou E, Adams WM, Bormpoudakis D (2016) Land use policy biodiversity and green infrastructure in Europe : boundary object or ecological trap ? Land Use Policy 56:315–319.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geneletti D, Rosa D, La Spyra M, Cortinovis C (2017) A review of approaches and challenges for sustainable planning in urban peripheries. Landsc Urban Plan 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.01.013
  14. Habartová D, Havlínová E, Novotná V, Skružná Ih (2011) Statistická ročenka České republiky - 2011. Prague. Retrieved from https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/statisticka-rocenka-ceske-republiky-2011-idioienvk3. Accessed Sept 2016
  15. Inostroza L (2014a) Measuring urban ecosystem functions through “Technomass”—a novel indicator to assess urban metabolism. Ecol Indic 42:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Inostroza L (2014b) Open spaces and urban ecosystem services. Cooling effect towards urban planning in South American cities. TeMA J Land Use Mobil Environ SI:523–534Google Scholar
  17. Inostroza L (2016a) Climate change adaptation responses in Latin American urban areas. Challenges for Santiago de Chile and lima. In: Nail S (ed) Cambio climático. lecciones de y para ciudades de América Latina. Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogota, pp 391–420Google Scholar
  18. Inostroza L (2016b) Informal urban development in Latin American urban peripheries. Spatial assessment in Bogotá, Lima and Santiago de Chile. Landsc Urban Plan 165:267–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Inostroza L, Baur R, Csaplovics E (2010) Urban sprawl and fragmentation in Latin America: a comparison with European cities. The myth of the diffuse Latin American city, Cambridge, pp 1–47Google Scholar
  20. Inostroza L, Baur R, Csaplovics E (2013) Urban sprawl and fragmentation in Latin America: a dynamic quantification and characterization of spatial patterns. J Environ Manag 115:87–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inostroza L, Palme M, De La Barrera F (2016a) A heat vulnerability index: spatial patterns of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity for Santiago de Chile. PLoS One 11(9):e0162464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inostroza L, Zasada I, König HJ (2016b) Last of the wild revisited: assessing spatial patterns of human impact on landscapes in southern Patagonia, Chile. Reg Environ Chang 16(7):2071–2085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inostroza L, König HJ, Pickard B, Zhen L (2017) Putting ecosystem services into practice: trade-off assessment tools, indicators and decision support systems. Ecosyst Serv 26(b):303–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaeger JAG, Bertiller R, Schwick C, Kienast F (2010) Suitability criteria for measures of urban sprawl. Ecol Indic 10(2):397–406 Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1470160X09001265. Accessed 26 May 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jim C (2004) Green-space preservation and allocation for sustainable greening of compact cities. Cities 21(4):311–320 Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S026427510400054X. Accessed 11 April 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaczorowska A, Kain JH, Kronenberg J, Haase D (2015) Ecosystem services in urban land use planning: integration challenges in complex urban settings—Case of Stockholm. Ecosyst Serv 22:204–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kyttä M, Broberg A, Haybatollahi M, Schmidt-Thomé K (2015) Urban happiness: contextsensitive study of the social sustainability of urban settings. Environ Plann B 47:1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515600121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. La Rosa D, Spyra M, Inostroza L (2015) Indicators of cultural ecosystem services for urban planning: a review. Ecol Indic. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1470160X1500206X
  29. Lafortezza R, Chen J (2016) The provision of ecosystem services in response to global change: evidences and applications. Environ Res 147:576–579.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.02.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc Ecol 19:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu C, Xiong L, Hu X, Shan J (2015) A progressive buffering method for road map update using OpenStreetMap data. ISPRS Int J Geo Inf 4:1246–1264.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi4031246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luck M, Wu J (2002) A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: a case study from the phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landsc Ecol 17(4):327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martinico F, La Rosa D, Privitera R (2014) Green oriented urban development for urban ecosystem services provision in a medium sized city in southern Italy. IForest 7(7):385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McHarg I (1969) Design with nature. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Mukul SA, Sohel MSI, Herbohn J, Inostroza L, König H (2017) Integrating ecosystem services supply potential from future land-use scenarios in protected area management: a Bangladesh case study. Ecosyst Serv 26:355–364.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nelson E, Polasky S, Lewis DJ, Plantinga AJ, Lonsdorf E, White D, Bael D, Lawler JJ (2008) Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(28):9471–9476 Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2474525&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newman D, Paasi A (1998) Fences and neighbours in the postmodern world: boundary narratives in political geography. Prog Hum Geogr 22(2):186–207 Available at: http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/22/2/186. Accessed 18 July 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ning F (2015) Using surface fitting and buffer analysis to estimate regional geoidal undulation. BCG - Boletim de Ciências Geodésicas - On-Line Version 21:624–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Poławska H, Węgłowska M, Hanna W, Orlik W (2014) Informator GUS 2014. Warszawa. Retrieved from http://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/inne-opracowania/inne-opracowania-zbiorcze/informator-gus-2014-r-folder,15,2.html. Accessed Sept 2016
  40. Roces-díaz JV et al (2015) A multiscale analysis of ecosystem services supply in the NW Iberian peninsula from a functional perspective. Ecol Indic 50:24–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.10.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sayre NF (2008) Scale. In: Castree N. Demeritt D, Liverman D, Rhoads B (eds.) A companion to environmental geography. Blackwell, West Sussex, pp 95–108Google Scholar
  42. Scott JW, van Houtum H (2009) Reflections on EU territoriality and the “bordering” of Europe. Polit Geogr 28(5):271–273 Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0962629809000444. Accessed 19 July 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shen L, Guo X, Xiao K (2015) Spatiotemporally characterizing urban temperatures based on remote sensing and GIS analysis: a case study in the city of Saskatoon. Open Geosci 7:27–39.  https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2015-0005 Google Scholar
  44. Spyra M (2014a) Ecosystem services and border regions. Case Study from Czech–Polish Borderland. TeMA J Land Use Mobil Environ 7(3) Available at: http://www.tema.unina.it/index.php/tema/article/view/2543
  45. Spyra M (2014b) The feasibility of implementing cross-border land-use management strategies: a report from three upper Silesian Euroregions. iForest 7:396–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steiner F (2014) Frontiers in urban ecological design and planning research. Landsc Urban Plan :1–8. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0169204614000425. Accessed 30 March 2014
  47. Sung H, Lee S (2015) Residential built environment and walking activity: empirical evidence of Jane Jacobs’ urban vitality. Transp Res Part D 41:318–329.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Termeer CJAM, Dewulf A, van Lieshout M (2010) Disentangling scale approaches in governance research: comparing monocentric, multilevel, and adaptive governance. Ecol Soc 15(4):29.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/ssn080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Pattern and process. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Vimal R, Geniaux G, Pluvinet P, Napoleone C, Lepart J (2012) Landscape and urban planning detecting threatened biodiversity by urbanization at regional and local scales using an urban sprawl simulation approach : application on the French Mediterranean region. Landsc Urban Plan 104(3–4):343–355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilson E, Piper J (2008) Spatial planning for biodiversity in Europe’s changing climate. Eur Environ 151:135–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang Y, Odeh IOA, Han C (2009) Bi-temporal characterization of land surface temperature in relation to impervious surface area, NDVI and NDBI, using a sub-pixel image analysis. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 11(4):256–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zimmermann E, Bracalenti L, Piacentini R, Inostroza L (2016) Urban flood risk reduction by increasing green areas for adaptation to climate change. Procedia Eng 161:2241–2246CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-WittenbergHalle (Saale)Germany
  2. 2.Opole University of TechnologyOpolePoland
  3. 3.Institute of GeographyRuhr-Universität BochumBochumGermany
  4. 4.Universidad Autónoma de ChileSantiagoChile
  5. 5.Central Mining InstituteKatowicePoland

Personalised recommendations