Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Setting conservation priorities in cities: approaches, targets and planning units adapted to wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Protecting wetlands in cities is challenging. A cost-effective spatial prioritization approach taking into account stakeholder motivations is needed to identify wetlands of conservation interest.

Objectives

This study aims to optimize the efficiency of a systematic conservation planning (SCP) approach to protect nine urban wetland ecosystem services (ES) and biodiversity.

Methods

First, we mapped ES supply and demand to capture their spatial variation as they occur at the wetland scale. Secondly, using wetland property value as cost data, we compared the efficiency of SCP to two multicriteria scoring approaches. Thirdly, we compared SCP alternatives by changing the planning unit scale and conservation objectives (i.e. emphasizing ES demand and focusing on the most important ES).

Results

The total cost of the scoring approach networks was minimally 13 times higher, when compared to the SCP approaches. Consequently, the scoring approaches were at least five times less efficient than SCP per unit of network area ($/m2). Decreasing the size of planning units resulted in further cost reduction, with networks that were up to 92% less costly. We also highlighted that beneficiary demand fulfillment in networks could be optimized without a loss in efficiency. Finally, SCP secured nine ES for the same expenditure as that required to protect four public safety related ES. However, planning solely for these four important ES failed to represent those of other ES.

Conclusions

Our results may provide a tool to better inform land use decision planning in order to mitigate the impacts of urban growth on ES.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alberti M (2005) The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. Int Reg Sci Rev 28:168–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ando A, Camm J, Polasky S, Solow A (1998) Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279:2126–2128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Armsworth PR, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Kremen C, Ricketts TH, Sanjayan MA (2007) Ecosystem-service science and the way forward for conservation. Conserv Biol 21:1383–1384

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ausseil AGE, Dymond JR, Shepherd JD (2007) Rapid mapping and prioritisation of wetland sites in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region, New Zealand. Environ Manag 39:316–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausseil A-GE, Lindsay Chadderton W, Gerbeaux P, Theo Stephens RT, Leathwick JR (2011) Applying systematic conservation planning principles to palustrine and inland saline wetlands of New Zealand. Freshw Biol 56:142–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball IR, Possingham HP, Watts ME (2009) Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritization. In: Moilanen A, Wilson K, Possingham H (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana E, Costa CA, De Corte J-M, Vansnick J-C (2012) MACBETH. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 11:359–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaulieu J, Dulude P, Falardeau I, Murray S, Villeneuve C (2014) Cartographie détaillée des milieux humides du territoire de la Communauté métropolitaine de Québec (mise à jour 2013)—Rapport technique. Canards Illimités Canada et le ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction du patrimoine écologique et des parcs. Québec, p 54

  • Blackwell MSA, Pilgrim ES (2011) Ecosystem services delivered by small-scale wetlands. Hydrol Sci J 56:1467–1484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin O, Tengo M, Norman A, Lundberg J, Elmqvist T (2006) The value of small size: loss of forest patches and ecological thresholds in southern Madagascar. Ecol Appl 16:440–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolund P, Hunhammar S (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ 29:293–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer T, Polasky S (2004) Valuing urban wetlands: a review of non-market valuation studies. Wetlands 24:744–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buteau P (1989) Atlas des tourbières du Québec méridional. Gouvernement du Québec, Direction générale de l'exploration géologique et minérale

  • Carwardine J, Wilson KA, Watts M, Etter A, Klein CJ, Possingham HP (2008) Avoiding costly conservation mistakes: the importance of defining actions and costs in spatial priority setting. PLoS ONE 3(7):2586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4:2138–2152

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cimon-Morin J, Darveau M, Poulin M (2013) Fostering synergies between ecosystem services and biodiversity in conservation planning: a review. Biol Conserv 166:144–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimon-Morin J, Darveau M, Poulin M (2014) Towards systematic conservation planning adapted to the local flow of ecosystem services. Glob Ecol Conserv 2:11–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimon-Morin J, Darveau M, Poulin M (2016a) Consequences of delaying the conservation of ecosystem services in frontier landscapes for natural resource exploitation. Landscape Ecol 31:825–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimon-Morin J, Darveau M, Poulin M (2016b) Site complementarity between biodiversity and ecosystem services in conservation planning of sparsely-populated regions. Environ Conserv 43:56–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimon-Morin J, Darveau M, Poulin M (2018) Conservation biogeography of ecosystem services. In: DellaSala DA, Goldstein MI (eds) The encyclopedia of the anthropocene, vol 3. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 25–30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Costello C, Polasky S (2004) Dynamic reserve site selection. Resour Energy Econ 26:157–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson NC (2014) How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Mar Freshw Res 65:934–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dearborn DC, Kark S (2010) Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conserv Biol 24:432–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupras J, Alam M (2014) Urban sprawl and ecosystem services: a half century perspective in the Montreal Area (Quebec, Canada). J Environ Plan Policy 17:180–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupras J, Marull J, Parcerisas L, Coll F, Gonzalez A, Marc Girard M, Tello E (2016) The impacts of urban sprawl on ecological connectivity in the Montreal Metropolitan Region. Environ Sci Policy 58:61–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eigenbrod F, Bell VA, Davies HN, Heinemeyer A, Armsworth PR, Gaston KJ (2011) The impact of projected increases in urbanization on ecosystem services. Proc R Soc B 278:3201–3208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. (2012) ArcGIS 10.0. Redlands, USA

  • Faith DP, Magallón S, Hendry AP, Conti E, Yahara T, Donoghue MJ (2010) Evosystem services: an evolutionary perspective on the links between biodiversity and human well-being. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennessy MS, Jacobs AD, Kentula ME (2007) An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing the ecological condition of wetlands. Wetlands 27:543–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferland ME, del Giorgio PA, Teodoru CR, Prairie YT (2012) Long-term C accumulation and total C stocks in boreal lakes in northern Quebec. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GB004241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fossey M, Rousseau A, Savary S (2015) Assessment of the impact of spatio-temporal attributes of wetlands on stream flows using hydrological modelling framework: a theoretical case study of a watershed under temperate climatic conditions. Hydrol Processes. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett 3:390–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Game ET, Grantham HS (2008) Marxan user manual: for Marxan version 1.8.10. University of Queensland, Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

  • Gibbs JP (1993) Importance of small wetlands for the persistence of local populations of wetland-associated animals. Wetlands 13:25–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs JP (2000) Wetland Loss and biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 14:314–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN (2013) Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ 86:235–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun E, Gren Å, Barton DN, Langemeyer J, McPhearson T, O’Farrell P, Andersson E, Hamstead Z, Kremer P (2013) Urban ecosystem services. In: Elmqvist T, Fragkias M, Goodness J, Güneralp B, Marcotullio PJ, McDonald RI, Parnell S, Schewenius M, Sendstad M, Seto KC, Wilkinson C (eds) Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez A, Rayfield B, Lindo Z (2011) The disentangled bank: how habitat loss fragments and disassembles ecological networks. Am J Bot 98:503–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon A, Simondson D, White M, Moilanen A, Bekessy SA (2009) Integrating conservation planning and landuse planning in urban landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 91:183–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouvernement du Québec (2016a) Décret de population pour 2017—Municipalités locales, arrondissements, villages nordiques et territoires non organisés. Gazette officielle du Québec, 28 décembre 2016 Décret 1099–2016, 21 décembre 2016. http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/organisation-municipale/decret-de-population/

  • Gouvernement du Québec (2016b) Rôle d’évaluation foncière géoréférencé: Exercice financier 2016. Direction générale de la fiscalité et de l’évaluation foncière, Ministère des affaires municipales et de l’Occupation du territoire. Ville de Québec, Québec

  • Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haase D, Larondelle N, Andersson E, Artmann M, Borgström S, Breuste J, Gomez-Baggethun E, Gren Å, Hamstead Z, Hansen R, Kabisch N, Kremer P, Langemeyer J, Rall EL, McPhearson T, Pauleit S, Qureshi S, Schwarz N, Voigt A, Wurster D, Elmqvist T (2014) A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43:413–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermoso V, Kennard MJ, Linke S (2012) Integrating multidirectional connectivity requirements in systematic conservation planning for freshwater systems. Divers Distrib 18:448–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter MLJ, Schmiegelow FKA (2011) Wildlife, forests, and forestry: principles of managing forests for biological diversity, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen R, Goosen H, Verhoeven M, Verhoeven J, Omtzigt A, Maltby E (2005) Decision support for integrated wetland management. Environ Model Softw 20:215–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaczorowska A, Kain J-H, Kronenberg J, Haase D (2016) Ecosystem services in urban land use planning: integration challenges in complex urban settings—case of Stockholm. Ecosyst Serv 22:204–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keniger LE, Gaston KJ, Irvine KN, Fuller RA (2013) What are the benefits of interacting with nature? Int J Environ Res Public Health 10:913–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick JB (1983) An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: an example from Tasmania. Biol Conserv 25:127–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremer P, Hamstead ZA, McPhearson T (2016) The value of urban ecosystem services in New York City: a spatially explicit multicriteria analysis of landscape scale valuation scenarios. Environ Sci Policy 62:57–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kukkala AS, Moilanen A (2013) Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning. Biol Rev 88:443–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kukkala AS, Moilanen A (2016) Ecosystem services and connectivity in spatial conservation prioritization. Landscape Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0446-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacroix G, Tremblay V, Huggins K, Pronovost M (2006) Méthode intégrée d’inventaire, d’évaluation et de suivi des milieux humides Le. Naturaliste Can 130:62–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Langemeyer J, Gomez-Baggethun E, Haase D, Scheuer S, Elmqvist T (2016) Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Environ Sci Policy 62:45–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavoie R, Deslandes J, Proulx F (2016) Assessing the ecological value of wetlands using the MACBETH approach in Quebec City. J Nat Conserv 30:67–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee ACK, Maheswaran R (2011) The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the evidence. J Public Health 33:212–222

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Linke S, Turak E, Nel J (2011) Freshwater conservation planning: the case for systematic approaches. Freshw Biol 56:6–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lourival R, McCallum H, Grigg G, Arcangelo C, Machado R, Possingham HP (2009) A systematic evaluation of the conservation plans for the Pantanal wetland in Brazil. Wetlands 29:1189–1201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck GW, Chan KM, Klien CJ (2012) Identifying spatial priorities for protecting ecosystem services. F1000Research 1:17–20

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Sarkar S (2007) Systematic conservation planning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P (2012) Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 8:17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McInnes RJ (2014) Recognising wetland ecosystem services within urban case studies. Mar Freshw Res 65:575–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Cons 127:247–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conserv Biol 16:330–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffett A, Sarkar S (2006) Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendations. Divers Distrib 12:125–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham H (2009) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore TLC, Hunt WF (2012) Ecosystem service provision by stormwater wetlands and ponds - A means for evaluation? Water Res 46:6811–6823

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget M (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol 21:681–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayan S, Beck MW, Reguero BG, Losada IJ, van Wesenbeeck B, Pontee N, Sanchirico JN, Ingram JC, Lange GM, Burks-Copes KA (2016) The effectiveness. Costs and coastal protection benefits of natural and nature-based defences. PLoS ONE 11:e0154735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nazarnia N, Schwick C, Jaeger JAG (2016) Accelerated urban sprawl in Montreal, Quebec City, and Zurich: investigating the differences using time series 1951–2011. Ecol Ind 60:1229–1251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nel JL, Roux DJ, Abell R, Ashton PJ, Cowling RM, Higgins JV, Thieme M, Viers JH (2009) Progress and challenges in freshwater conservation planning. Aquat Conserv 19:474–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nhancale BA, Smith RJ (2011) The influence of planning unit characteristics on the efficiency and spatial pattern of systematic conservation planning assessments. Biodivers Conserv 20:1821–1835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemela J, Saarela SR, Soderman T, Kopperoinen L, Yli-Pelkonen V, Vare S, Kotze DJ (2010) Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodivers Conserv 19:3225–3243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ, Dwyer JF (2007) Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In: Kuser JE (ed) Urban and community forestry in the Northeast. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 25–46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pâquet J (2003) Outil d'aide à la décision pour classifier les secteurs d'intérêt majeurs et définir les stratégies d'aménagement pour l'intégration visuelle des coupes dans les paysages – Objectif de protection ou de mise en valeur des ressources du milieu forestier visant le maintien de la qualité visuelle des paysages forestiers. Ministère des Ressources Naturelles, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec, Direction des programmes forestiers, p 15

  • Pâquet J, Deschênes L (2005) Lignes directrices pour la mise en oeuvre des objectifs visant le maintien de la qualité des paysages et l’harmonisation des usages. Québec, Gouvernement du Québec, ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Direction des programmes forestiers, Direction de l’ environnement forestier, p 33

  • Pickard BR, Van Berkel D, Petrasova A, Meentemeyer RK (2017) Forecasts of urbanization scenarios reveal trade-offs between landscape change and ecosystem services. Landscape Ecol 32:617–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett ST, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Boone CG, Groffman PM, Irwin E, Kaushal SS, Marshall V, McGrath BP, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Szlavecz K, Troy A, Warren P (2011) Urban ecological systems: scientific foundations and a decade of progress. J Environ Manag 92:331–362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL, Nicholls AO (1989) Application of a numerical algorithm to the selection of reserves in semi-arid New South Wales. Biol Conserv 50:263–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulighe G, Fava F, Lupia F (2016) Insights and opportunities from mapping ecosystem services of urban green spaces and potentials in planning. Ecosyst Serv 22:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quebec Natural Heritage Data Center (2015) Extractions du système de données pour le territoire de l'agglomération de Québec. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, Québec

  • Reis V, Hermoso V, Hamilton SK, Ward D, Fluet-Chouinard E, Lehner B, Linke S (2017) A global assessment of inland wetland conservation status. Bioscience 67:523–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remme RP, Schröter M (2016) Effects of budget constraints on conservation network design for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecol Complex 26:45–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieb JT, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily GC, Armsworth PR, Böhning-Gaese K, Bonn A, Cumming GS, Eigenbrod F, Grimm V, Jackson BM, Marques A, Pattanayak SK, Pereira HM, Peterson GD, Ricketts TH, Robinson BE, Schröter M, Schulte LA, Seppelt R, Turner MG, Bennett EM (2017) When, where, and how nature matters for ecosystem services: challenges for the next generation of ecosystem service models. Bioscience. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivers-Moore NA, Goodman PS, Nel JL (2011) Scale-based freshwater conservation planning: towards protecting freshwater biodiversity in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Freshw Biol 56:125–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy S, Byrne J, Pickering C (2012) A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban For Urban Green 11:351–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruliffson JA, Haight RG, Gobster PH, Homans FR (2003) Metropolitan natural area protection to maximize public access and species representation. Environ Sci Policy 6:291–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandifer PA, Sutton-Grier AE, Ward BP (2015) Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst Serv 12:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar S, Illoldi-Rangel P (2010) Systematic conservation planning: an updated protocol. Natureza Conservação 8:19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar S, Moffett A, Sierra R, Fuller T, Cameron S, Garson J (2004) Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks. Endanger Species Update 21:100–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar S, Pressey RL, Faith DP, Margules CR, Fuller T, Stoms DM, Moffett A, Wilson KA, Williams KJ, Williams PH, Andelman S (2006) Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:123–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider A, Woodcock CE (2008) Compact, dispersed, fragmented, extensive? A comparison of urban growth in twenty-five global cities using remotely sensed data, pattern metrics and census information. Urban Stud 45:659–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröter M, Barton DN, Remme RP, Hein L (2014a) Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: a conceptualmodel and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecol Indic 36:539–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröter M, Remme R (2015) Spatial prioritisation for conserving ecosystem services: comparing hotspots with heuristic optimisation. Landscape Ecol 31:431–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröter M, Rusch GM, Barton DN, Blumentrath S, Nordén B (2014b) Ecosystem services and opportunity costs shift spatial priorities for conserving forest biodiversity. PLoS ONE 9:e112557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR (1998) Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conserv Biol 12:1129–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp R, Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Chaplin-Kramer R, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pennington D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J, Cameron D, Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes G, Kim CK, Guannel G, Papenfus M, Toft J, Marsik M, Bernhardt J, Griffin R, Glowinski K, Chaumont N, Perelman A, Lacayo M, Mandle L, Hamel P, Vogl AL, Rogers L, Bierbower W (2015) InVEST +VERSION+ User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund

  • Talbot Poulin MC, Comeau G, Tremblay Y, Therrien R, Nadeau MM, Lemieux JM, Molson J, Fortier R, Therrien P, Lamarche L, Donati-Daoust F, Bérubé S (2013) Projet d'acquisition de connaissances sur les eaux souterraines du territoire de la Communauté métropolitaine de Québec-Rapport final. Département de géologie et de génie géologique, Université Laval, mars 2013, 19 annexes, 28 cartes, p 172

  • Tarnocai C, Kettles IM, Lacelle B (2011) Peatlands of Canada; Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 6561 (digital database)

  • Tratalos J, Fuller RA, Warren PH, Davies RG, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landsc Urban Plan 83:308–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kaźmierczak A, Niemela J, James P (2007) Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc Urban Plan 81:167–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2015) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/366). Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division

  • Verhagen W, Kukkala AS, Moilanen A, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH (2016) Use of demand and spatial flow in prioritizing areas for ecosystem services. Conserv Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi12872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM (2013) Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol Complex 15:114–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ville de Québec (2016a) Données de milieux humides sur l’ensemble du territoire de la Ville de Québec. E-16-Conservation de la biodiversité des milieux humides. Données provenant de la cartographie détaillée de Canards Illimités 2013 et mise à jour par la ville de Québec en 2015. La cartographie des milieux humides de la ville de Québec n’est pas exhaustive. Elle l’objet d’une révision périodique enfonction de l’évolution des connaissances

  • Ville de Québec (2016b) Schéma d’aménagement et de développement révisé pour l’agglomération de Québec: Premier projet pour consultation publique. Ville de Québec, p 230

  • Wiersma YF, Nudds TD (2009) Efficiency and effectiveness in representative reserve design in Canada: the contribution of existing protected areas. Biol Conserv 142:1639–1646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams P, Gibbons D, Margules C, Rebelo A, Humphries C, Pressey R (1996) A comparison of richness hotspots, rarity hotspots, and complementary areas for conserving diversity of British birds. Conserv Biol 10:155–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff S, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH (2015) Mapping ecosystem services demand: a review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol Ind 55:159–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright WCC, Eppink FV, Greenhalgh S (2017) Are ecosystem service studies presenting the right information for decision making. Ecosyst Serv 25:128–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Quebec City’s environment department (F. Proulx, J. Deslandes, M. Rubiano and A.-M. Cantin) for input into the study and for sharing data, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. Special thanks to A. Raimbault for his work on the photointerpretation of Quebec City. Thanks to E. Forget and Y. Leblanc for sharing ideas and suggestions during a preliminary phase of the study. Finally, we wish to thank Karen Grislis for stylistic revision of the manuscript. This project was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council discovery grant to M. Poulin (RGPIN-2014-05663).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département de phytologie, Faculté des Sciences de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Laval University, Pavillon Paul-Comtois, 2425 rue de l’Agriculture, Québec, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada

    Jérôme Cimon-Morin & Monique Poulin

  2. Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science, McGill University, Stewart Biology Building, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, QC, H3A 1B1, Canada

    Jérôme Cimon-Morin & Monique Poulin

Authors
  1. Jérôme Cimon-Morin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monique Poulin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monique Poulin.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 80 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 40 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cimon-Morin, J., Poulin, M. Setting conservation priorities in cities: approaches, targets and planning units adapted to wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services. Landscape Ecol 33, 1975–1995 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0707-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0707-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation