Skip to main content

Scale-sensitive integration of ecosystem services in urban planning

Abstract

Maintaining green infrastructure as a source of ecosystem services is a key challenge for sustainability of urban regions. In order to support sustainable service provision, planning of this infrastructure needs to consider complex ecological and social processes operating in different timescales and varying spatially within a region. However, such scalar approaches to planning have been rare. This article addresses ways to improve scale-sensitivity in planning of urban green infrastructure, with a focus on holistic considerations of conditions for sustainable reproduction of benefits from ecosystem services. Based on information from the literature, we develop a spatially sensitized conceptual framework for addressing provision of ecosystem services in urban regions. We discuss the application of spatially sensitized scalar approaches from the perspectives of scale dimensions, an area, a service, and a green infrastructure element. We conclude that spatially sensitized scalar frameworks hold promise for addressing the provision of ecosystem services as part of planning for urban sustainability. Research on production of scales in various contexts would further enhance their usability.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 341–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andersson, E., Ahrné, K., Pyykönen, M., & Elmqvist, T. (2009). Patterns and scale relations among urbanization measures in Stockholm, Sweden. Landscape Ecology, 24(10), 1331–1339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Andersson, E., Barthel, S., & Ahrné, K. (2007). Measuring social-ecological dynamics behind the generation of ecosystem services. Ecological Applications, 17(5), 1267–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barthel, S., Parker, J., & Ernstson, H. (2013). Food and green space in cities: a resilience lens on gardens and urban environmental movements. Urban Studies, available online January 28, 2013.

  5. Bastian, O., Haase, D., & Grunewald, K. (2012). Ecosystem properties, potentials and services—The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecological Indicators, 21, 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bendt, P., Barthel, S., & Colding, J. (2013). Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access community gardens in Berlin. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 18–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29(2), 293–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boone, C., Cook, E., Hall, S. J., Grimm, N. B., Raish, C., Finch, D., et al. (2012). A comparative gradient approach to understanding and managing urban ecosystems. Urban Ecosystems, 15(4), 795–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boyd, E., & Juhola, S. (2014). Adaptive climate change governance for urban resilience. Urban Studies. doi: 10.1177/0042098014527483.

  10. Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Colding, J. (2007). Ecological land-use complementation for building resilience in urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(1–2), 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Collier, M. J., Nedović-Budića, Z., Aertsb, J., Connopc, S., Foleyd, D., Foleye, K., et al. (2013). Transitioning to resilience and sustainability in urban communities. Cities, 1(Supplement 32), S21–S28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cook, M. E., Hall, S. J., & Larson, K. L. (2012). Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: A synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment. Urban Ecosystems, 15(1), 19–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R. S., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260.

  16. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., Turner, K.R. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158.

  17. Cowling, R. M., Egoh, B., Knight, A. T., O’Farrel, P. J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., et al. (2008). An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28), 9483–9488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cumming, G. S., Olsson, P., Chapin, F. S, I. I. I., & Holling, C. S. (2013). Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1139–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Daily, G. C. (Ed.). (1997). Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Davoudi, S., Shaw, K., Haider, L. J., Quinlan, A. E., Peterson, G. D., Wilkinson, C., et al. (2012). Resilience: A bridging concept or a dead end? “Reframing” resilience: challenges for planning theory and practice interacting traps: Resilience assessment of a pasture management system in Northern Afghanistan Urban Resilience: What does it mean in planning practice? Resilience as a useful concept for climate change adaptation? The politics of resilience for planning: A cautionary note. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(2), 299–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Decision of the Council of State 13 November 2008 on national land use guidelines.

  23. Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Deutch, L., Dyball, R., & Steffen, W. (2013). Feeding Cities: Food Security and Ecosystem Support in an Urbanizing World. In T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, & C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities: A global assessment (pp. 505–537). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Douglas, I. (2012). Urban ecology and urban ecosystems: understanding the links to human health and well-being. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(4), 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Douglas, I., & Ravetz, J. (2011). Urban ecology – the bigger picture. In J. Niemelä, J. Breuste, T. Elmqvist, G. Guntenspergen, P. James, & N. McIntyre (Eds.), Urban ecology—Patterns, processes, and applications (pp. 246–262). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Ernstson, H. (2013). The social production of ecosystem services: A framework for studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 7–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ernstson, H., Barthel, S., Andersson, E., & Borgström, S. T. (2010a). Scale-crossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: The case of Stockholm. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 28.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ernstson, H., & Sörlin, S. (2013). Ecosystem services as technology of globalization: On articulating values in urban nature. Ecological Economics, 86, 274–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ernstson, H., van der Leeuw, S. E., Redman, C. L., Meffert, D. J., Davis, G., Alfsen, C., et al. (2010b). Urban transitions: on urban resilience and human-dominated ecosystems. Ambio, 39(8), 531–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fisher, B., Turner, K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social–ecological systems. Annual Reviews of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Francis, C. D., Kleist, N. J., Ortega, C. P., & Cruz, A. (2012). Noise pollution alters ecological services: Enhanced pollination and disrupted seed dispersal. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279(1739), 2727–2735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gibson, C. C., Ostrom, E., & Ahn, T.-K. (2000). The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: A survey. Ecological Economics, 32(2), 217–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22(7), 959–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Barton, D. N., Langemeyer, J., McPhearson, T., O’Farrell, P., et al. (2013). Urban ecosystem services. In T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, & C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities: A global assessment (pp. 175–251). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Haase, D., Schwartz, N., Strochbach, M., Kroll, F., & Seppelt, R. (2012). Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in Urban Regions: An integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany. Ecology and Society, 17(3), 22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hamberg, L., Lehvävirta, S., Malmivaara-Lämsä, M., Rita, H., & Kotze, J. (2008). The effects of habitat edges and trampling on understorey vegetation in urban forests in Helsinki, Finland. Applied Vegetation Science, 11(1), 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., & Jax, K. (2013). Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: Some stakeholder perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy, 25, 13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Healey, P. (2010). In search of the “strategic” in spatial strategy making. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(4), 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Helminen, V., Nurmio, K., Rehunen, A., Ristimäki, M., Oinonen, K., Tiitu, M., Kotavaara, O., Antikainen, H., & Rusanen, J. (2013). Kaupungin-maaseudun alueluokitus. Paikkatietomuotoisen alueluokituksen muodostamisperiaatteet (Urban-rural typology. Grounds of the GIS-based typology). Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute.

  42. Jansson, Å. (2013). Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 86, 285–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jansson, Å., & Nohrstedt, P. (2001). Carbon sinks and human freshwater dependence in Stockholm County. Ecological Economics, 39(3), 361–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2009). Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities, 26(4), 187–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. João, E. (2002). How scale affects environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(4), 289–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. João, E. (2007). A research agenda for data and scale issues in strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(5), 479–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kabisch, N., & Haase, D. (2014). Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kärrholm, M. (2011). The scaling of sustainable urban form: A case of scale-related issues and sustainable planning in Malmö, Sweden. European Planning Studies, 19(1), 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kok, K., & Veldkamp, T. (2011). Scale and governance: Conceptual considerations and practical implications guest editorial. Ecology and Society, 16(2), 23.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kopperoinen, L., Itkonen, P. & Niemelä, J. (2014). Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into a new place-based methodology. Landscape Ecology, Published online 13 March, 2014.

  51. Krasny, M. E., Lundholm, C., Shava, S., Lee, E., & Kobori, H. (2013). Urban Landscapes as Learning Arenas for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Management. In T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, & C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities: A global assessment (pp. 629–664). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Kroll, F., Müller, F., Haase, D., & Fohrer, N. (2012). Rural-urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand. Land Use Policy, 29(3), 521–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lafortezza, R., Davies, C., Sanesi, G., & Konijnendijk, C.C. (2013). Green Infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. iForest, 6, 102–108.

  54. Land Use and Building Act. 1999. Statutes of Finland. 132/1999. Ministry of Justice, Helsinki.

  55. Larondelle, N., & Haase, D. (2013). Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural-urban gradient: A cross-analysis of European cities. Ecological Indicators, 29, 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lehvävirta, S., & Kotze, D. J. (2009). How to conduct comparative urban ecological research. In M. J. McDonnell, A. K. Hahs, & J. H. Breuste (Eds.), Ecology of cities and towns: A comparative approach (pp. 530–548). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  57. Lin, C–C., & Lockwood, M. (2014). Forms and sources of place attachment: Evidence from two protected areas. Geoforum, 53, 74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Lindenmayer, D., Hobbs, R. J., Montague-Drake, R., Alexandra, J., Bennett, A., et al. (2008). A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation. Ecology Letters, 11(1), 78–91.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Loibl, W., Piorr, A., & Ravetz, J. (2012). Concepts and methods. In A. Piorr, J. Ravetz & I. Tosics (Eds.), Peri-urbanisation in Europe: Towards European policies to sustain Urban Rural Futures. (pp. 24–29). Frederiksberg C: University of Copenhagen, Academic Books Life Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.plurel.net/images/Peri_Urbanisation_in_Europe_printversion.pdf.

  60. McDonnell, M. J., & Pickett, S. T. A. (1990). Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: An unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology, 71(4), 1232–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. McIntyre, S., & Hobbs, R. (1999). A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes and its relevance to management and research models. Conservation Biology, 13(6), 1282–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Miller, J. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(8), 430–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Miller, J. R., Turner, M. G., Smithwick, E. A. H., Dent, C. L., & Stanley, E. H. (2004). Spatial extrapolation: The science of predicting ecological patterns and processes. BioScience, 54(4), 310–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Moss, T., & Newig, J. (2010). Multilevel water governance and problems of scale: Setting stage for a broader debate. Environmental Management, 46(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Naumann, S., Davis, M., Kaphengst, T., Pieterse, M., & Rayment, M. (2011). Design, Implementation and Cost Elements of Green Infrastructure Projects (Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment). Ecologic institute and GHK Consulting. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/pdf/GI_DICE_FinalReport.pdf.

  66. Niemelä, J., Saarela, S.-R., Söderman, T., Kopperoinen, L., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Väre, S., et al. (2010). Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: A Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(11), 3225–3243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Nilsson, K. Nielsen, T.S., Aalbers, C., Bell, S., Boitier, B., Chery, J.P., Fertner, C., Groschowski, M., Haase, D., Loibl, W., Pauleit, S., Pintar, M., Piorr, A., Ravetz, J., Ristimäki, M., Rounsevell, M., Tosics, I., Westerink, J. & Zasada, I. (2014). Strategies for Sustainable Urban Development and Urban-Rural Linkages. Research briefings. European Journal of Spatial Development, March 2014.

  68. Paloniemi R, Faehnle M, Pelkonen R, & Sahi V. (2014). Planning urban school forests to enhance multi-functional green infrastructure. Poster at EFUF 2014, 17th European Forum on Urban Forestry: Crossing Boundaries Urban Forests—Green cities, June 3–7, 2014, Lausanne, Switzerland.

  69. Pataki, D. E., Carreiro, M. M., Cherrier, J., Grulke, N. E., Jennigs, V., Pincetl, S., et al. (2011). Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: Ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(1), 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Peters, K., Elands, B., & Buijs, A. (2010). Social interaction in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(2), 93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Pham, T–. T.-H., Apparicio, P., Séguin, A.-M., Landry, S., & Gagnon, M. (2012). Spatial distribution of vegetation in Montreal: An uneven distribution or environmental inequity? Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(3), 214–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., & Grove, J. M. (2004). Resilient Cities: Meanings, models and metaphors for integrating the ecological, socio-economic and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Pike, A., Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Tomaney, J. (2007). What kind of local and regional development and for whom? Regional Studies, 41(9), 1253–1269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Potchin, M., & Haines-Young, R. (2013). Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1053–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Pouta, E., & Heikkilä, M. (Eds.). (1998). Virkistysalueiden suunnittelu ja hoito (Planning and management of recreational areas). Ympäristöopas 40. Helsinki: Ministry of Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Radford, G., & James, P. (2013). Changes in the value of ecosystem services along a rural–urban gradient: A case study of Greater Manchester, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Ranta, P. (2012). Urban ecosystems-response to disturbances, resilience and ecological memory. Doctoral dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Environmental Sciences. Environmentalica Fennica, 32.

  79. Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G. S., Elmqvist, T., Hejnowicz, A. P., & Polasky, S. (2013). Getting the measure of ecosystem services: A social-ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(5), 268–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Sahi, V. (2013). Koulumetsät arvoonsa—yhteistyöllä suojelua ja ympäristökasvatusta (Appreciation for school forests—conservation and environmental education through collaboration). Presentation in the Urban Ecology Collaboration Group seminar 22 May, 2013, Helsinki, Finland.

  81. Sayre, N. F. (2008). Scale. In N. Castree, D. Demeritt, D. Liverman, & B. Rhoads (Eds.), A Companion to Environmental Geography (pp. 95–108). West Sussex: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Scholes, R. J., Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Spierenburg, M. J., & Duriappah, A. (2013). Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social-ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Current Opinion on Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. SEDAC—NASA Socio-economic data and applications center Global urban-rural mapping project (GRUMP), v1. SEDAC, CIESIN, Columbia University. Retrieved November 11, 2013 from http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/collection/grump-v1.

  84. Seto, K. C., Parnell, S., & Elmqvist, T. (2013). A global outlook on urbanization. In T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, & C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities: A Global Assessment (pp. 1–12). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  85. Söderman, T., Kopperoinen, L., Yli-Pelkonen, V., & Shemeikka, P. (2012). Ecosystem services criteria for sustainable development in urban regions. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 14(2), 1250008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Strohbach, M. W., Arnold, E., & Haase, D. (2012). The carbon footprint of urban green space—A life cycle approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(2), 220–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., Saltzman, K., & Wetterberg, O. (2012). Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosystem Services, 2, 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Termeer, C. J. A. M., Dewulf, A., & van Lieshout, M. (2010). Disentangling scale approaches in governance research: Comparing monocentric, multilevel, and adaptive governance. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 29.

    Google Scholar 

  89. UN-Habitat (2012). State of the World’s Cities Report 2012/2013: Prosperity of Cities. Retrieved January 2, 2013 from http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3387.

  90. Van Kamp, I., & Davies, H. (2013). Noise and health in vulnerable groups: A review. Noise & Health, 15(64), 153–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. van Lieshout, M., Dewulf, A., Aarts, N., & Termeer, C. (2011). Do scale frames matter? Scale frame mismatches in the decision making process about a “mega farm” in a small Dutch village. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 38.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Van Renterghem, T., Hornikx, M., Forssen, J., & Botteldooren, D. (2013). The potential of building envelope greening to achieve quietness. Building and Environment, 61, 34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Vasanen, A. (2013). Evolving polycentricities. Doctoral dissertation. Turku: University of Turku. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis A II, 280.

  94. Ward Thompson, C., Aspinall, P., & Montarzino, A. (2008). The childhood factor. Adult visits to green places and the significance of childhood experiences. Environment and Behavior, 40(1), 111–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Ward Thompson, C., Roe, J., Aspinall, P., Mitchell, R., Clow, A., & Miller, D. (2012). More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(3), 221–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J. & Newell, P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244.

  97. Wood, G. (2008). Thresholds and criteria for evaluating and communicating impact significance in environmental statements: “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(1), 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Wu, J. (2013). Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 999–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Wu, J. (2014). Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future directions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 209–221.

  100. Wu, J., & Qi, Y. (2000). Dealing with scale in landscape analysis: An overview. Geographic Information Sciences, 6(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Yang, F., Bao, Z. Y., & Zhu, Z. J. (2011). An assessment of psychological noise reduction by landscape plants. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(4), 1032–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Our research is part of the interdisciplinary research programme ‘Enhancing sustainable urban development through ecosystem services’ (2011–2014), funded by the Helsinki University Centre for Environment HENVI, the Finnish Environment Institute SYKE, the Finnish Meteorological Institute FMI and the Finnish Forest Research Institute METLA. We are grateful to all the project partners for the discussions on urban sustainability supporting this article, and especially to Iida Välimaa, Malgorzata Gabrych and Athanasios Votsis for actively participating in workshops where ideas were developed for identifying the different perspectives of scalar planning applications.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maija Faehnle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Faehnle, M., Söderman, T., Schulman, H. et al. Scale-sensitive integration of ecosystem services in urban planning. GeoJournal 80, 411–425 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9560-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Green space
  • Scaling
  • Spatial planning
  • Sustainable cities