Vacant urban lot soils and their potential to support ecosystem services
- 802 Downloads
Urban soils are the basis of many ecosystem services in cities. Here, we examine formerly residential vacant lot soils in Cleveland, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan, USA for their potential to provide multiple ecosystem services. We examine two key contrasts: 1) differences between cities and 2) differences within vacant lots created during demolition, specifically pre-existing (i.e., prior to demolition) soils outside of the building footprint and fill soils added within the former building’s footprint.
Deep soil cores were collected from vacant lots in Cleveland and Detroit. Soil properties that are proxies for three ecosystem services were measured: hydraulic conductivity for stormwater retention, topsoil depth and soil nitrogen (N) level for support for plant growth, and soil carbon (C) content for C storage.
Both city and soil group contrasts created distinct ecosystem service provisioning based on proxy measures. Cleveland soils had greater hydraulic conductivity and greater soil C and N levels but thinner topsoil layers than Detroit. Within vacant lots of both cities, pre-existing soils had greater soil C and N levels, but lower hydraulic conductivity values than fill soils.
Soil properties of vacant lots were generally suitable for providing multiple ecosystem services. City-level differences in soil properties created differences in ecosystem service potential between cities and these differences were evident in pre-existing and fill soils. When comparing between cities, though, fill soils were more similar than pre-existing soils indicating some homogenization of ecosystem service potential with greater redistribution of soil.
KeywordsCleveland Detroit Ecosystem services Vacant lots Shrinking cities
We thank A. Knerl and K. Gilkey for research assistance. Previous versions of this paper were greatly improved by the comments of three anonymous reviewers. Partial financial support was provided by an appointment of D.L. Herrmann to the research participation program with the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through the US DOE and US EPA. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Compliance with Ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Beard JB (1973) Turfgrass: Science and Culture. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USGoogle Scholar
- Berland A, Schwarz K, Herrmann DL, Hopton ME (2015) How environmental justice patterns are shaped by place: terrain and tree canopy in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Cities Environ 8(1):Article 1Google Scholar
- Bowman AO, Pagano MA (2004) Terra Incognito: Vacant Land and Urban Strategies. Georgetown University Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Detroit Future City (2012) 2012 Detroit Strategic Framework Plan. Inland Press, Detroit, MIGoogle Scholar
- City of Detroit (2014) Detroit Blight Removal Task Force Plan. Detroit, MIGoogle Scholar
- Craul PJ (1992) Urban Soil in Landscape Design. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Craul PJ (1999) Urban Soils: Applications and Practices. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
- Dunne T, Leopold LB (1978) Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman Co., San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- Furio B, Grosshans J, Bratko J, et al (2013) On the road to reuse: residential demolition bid specification development tool. US Environmental Protection Agency Report 560K13002. US EPA Region 5, Chicago, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
- Gee GW, Or D (2002) Particle size analysis. In: Dane JH, Topp GC (eds) Methods of Soil Analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 255–289Google Scholar
- Jenny H (1941) Factors of Soil Formation: A System of Quantitative Pedology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kremer P, Hamstead ZA (2015) Transformation of urban vacant lots for the common good: an introduction to the special issue. Cities Environ 8(2):Article 1Google Scholar
- NRCS (2013) Pedon descriptions. in: National Soil Survey Handbook. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DC, p. 627.08Google Scholar
- Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, et al (2015) Vegan: community ecology packageGoogle Scholar
- Pouyat RV, Szlavecz K, Yesilonis ID, et al. (2010) Chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of urban soils. In: Aitkenhead-Peterson J, Volder A (eds) Urban Ecosystem Ecology. Agronomy M. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 119–152Google Scholar
- R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
- Soil Survey Staff (1993) Soil Survey Manual, Handbook 1. USDA-Soil Conservation Service, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Soil Survey Staff (2010) Keys to soil taxonomy, 11th edn. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DCGoogle Scholar