Ecosystem services in Arak's urban development plans: facts and needs

Mostafavi, Najme Sadat; Partovi, Parvin; Asadolahi, Zhara

doi:10.22034/urbs.2023.62837

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

¹ Member of Urban Physical Development Department, ACECR, Iran; Department of Urban Planning, School of Architecture and Urban Studies, Iran Art University, Tehran, Iran.

² Department of Urban Planning, Iran Art University, Tehran, Iran

³ Department of Environment and Fisheries, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khorram Abad, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22034/urbs.2023.62837

Abstract

Highlight:
- Urban development plans offer numerous opportunities to incorporate the concept of ecosystem services into the urban planning process, yet their integration remains inconsistent.
- Scientific methods to evaluate the uptake and operationalization of ecosystem services in urban planning include stakeholder interviews and content analysis of plans.
- Analyzing these plans provides a broader understanding of the potential, gaps, and limitations regarding ecosystem services.
- Cultural ecosystem services, followed by provisioning and some regulating services, receive the most attention in these plans.
- The survey and analysis phase, influenced by the scale of service studies, is the primary focus.
Introduction:
Urban areas, as human-environment systems, depend heavily on natural ecosystems for sustainability and well-being. Therefore, integrating ecosystem services into urban planning is essential for promoting sustainable urban development. Among the various decision-making processes impacting ecosystem services in cities, urban planning is arguably the most critical. Despite the increasing academic interest in ecosystem services, there are still significant knowledge gaps regarding their integration into urban planning. Incorporating ecosystem services into the management of urban land is crucial for the rational allocation of land and effective ecological management in urban areas.
However, several obstacles hinder this integration, including the inadequacies in the content and process of urban development plans, the limitations of current planning tools, the lack of knowledge about ecosystem services, the absence of relevant institutions and executive organizations, and the deficiency in the application of ecosystem services knowledge in practice and policy. Moreover, the necessary legal and regulatory frameworks are often lacking. This paper aims to examine both the current and potential utilization of ecosystem services in urban development plans, specifically focusing on the city of Arak.
Methods:
Two dominant scientific approaches are employed to evaluate the uptake and operationalization of ecosystem services in urban planning: interviewing stakeholders and analyzing the content of plans and policies. Content analysis of urban development plan documents provides a comprehensive understanding of the potential, gaps, and limitations related to the inclusion of ecosystem services in urban planning practices. To achieve this goal, a content analysis method with a directional approach (deductive method based on theory) was utilized. The study examined the extent to which 19 ecosystem services were addressed within three components of the Arak development and construction plan: the information base, vision/objectives, and actions.
A scoring protocol was developed to assess the quality of ecosystem services inclusion in urban plans. This protocol used a 3-point scale, with scores ranging from zero (no inclusion), one (implicit inclusion), to two (explicit inclusion).
Results:
Among the regulating services, air purification and local ventilation services were mentioned 109 times, with the highest frequency (34 times) in the analysis section (database). The content analysis revealed that healthy water production was referenced 99 times, while food production was mentioned 82 times. Regarding supporting services, soil quality was noted nine times in total, with the highest mention (four times) in the analysis section. Among cultural services, recreational services and mental experiences were mentioned 94 times, with the highest frequency (26 times) in the city survey and knowledge section.
The results indicate that the ecosystem services concept is partially integrated into the mentioned development document. However, the document lacks a holistic view of urban ecology and its benefits. In the three examined components, ecosystem services were mentioned 607 times, both implicitly (312 times - 51.4%) and explicitly (295 times - 48.6%), with the most attention given to the information base component (358 times - 59%). The significant difference in the score for cultural services (400) compared to provisioning (274), regulating (198), and supporting (30) services suggests that cultural services are more comprehensively included in the Arak metropolis plan.
Discussion:
The inconsistency in addressing each service or concept across the three components highlights a lack of significant correlation between data collection, analysis, goal formulation, vision development, plan preparation, and the establishment of rules and regulations. Another critical issue is the misalignment between the process and content of these plans with new concepts, as well as the weakness of the comprehensive rational process in integrating these concepts. To incorporate new ideas like ecosystem services into urban development plans, not only is there a need to strengthen content and process, but also to improve planning tools. Empirical studies suggest that tools such as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) can help bridge this gap.

Conclusion:
Incorporating the concept of ecosystem services into new laws, guidelines, or revisions of existing plans and programs is a complex process that cannot be accomplished in the short term. The presence of informed stakeholders, public decision-makers, and experts is essential. Additionally, it is crucial to form interdisciplinary teams within both consulting engineering firms that prepare urban development plans and public institutions responsible for drafting and approving these plans. Tools such as Strategic Impact Assessment (SIA) are recommended to evaluate proposed alternatives and select the final options.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Urban Ecology

References

Albert, C., Aronson, J., Fürst, C. et al. Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landscape Ecology 29, 1277–1285 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0085-0

Albert, C., Galler, C., Hermes, J., Neuendorf, F., Haaren, C., & Lovett, A. (2016). Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and management: The ES-in-Planning framework. Ecological Indicators, Volume 61, Part 1, 100-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.029

Atumane, A., & Cabral, P. (2021). Integration of Ecosystem Services into Land Use Planning in Mozambique. Ecosystems and People, 17:1, 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1903081

Barati, N. (2006). Challenges have to be faced in the context of urbanism in Iran at the beginning of the 21th century. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 3(6), 5-29. [In Persian]

Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics 29, 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0

Bouwma, I., Schleyer, C., Primmer, E., Winkler, K., Berry, P., Young, J., & Carmen, E. (2018). Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosystem Services 29, 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.014

Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics Volume 63, Issues 2–3, 616-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002

Burton, E., Jenks, M., & Williams, K. (2013). Achieving sustainable urban form. London: Routledge.

Colding, J. (2011). The Role of Ecosystem Services in Contemporary Urban Planning. In J. Niemelä, Urban Ecology: Patterns, Processes, and Applications (pp. 228–237). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199563562.003.0028

Cortinovis, C., & Geneletti, D. (2018). Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is there, and what is still needed for better decisions. Land Use Policy 70, 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.017

Cortinovis, C., & Geneletti, D. (2020). A performance-based planning approach integrating supply and demand of urban ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 201, 103842, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103842

Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Ervin, D., Bluffstone, R., Brown, D., Chang, H., & Dujon, V. (2011). Valuing Ecological Systems and Services. F1000 Biology Reports, 3-14. https:// doi.org/10.3410/B3-14

de Groot, R., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Haines-Young, R., ... Ring, I. (2010). Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. Draft Chapter 1 of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Study. London, Washington DC.

de Groot, R., Wilson, M., & Boumans, R. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41, 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7

Ernstson, H., Sorlin, S., & Elmqvist, T. (2008). Social management and ecosystem services – the role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green areas in Stockholm. Ecol.Soc.13(2),39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02589-130239

Faludi, A. (2000). The performance of spatial planning. Planning Practice and Research15, 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/713691907

Gashaw, T., Tulu, T., Argaw, M., Worqlul, A., Tolessa, T., & Kindu, M. (2018). Estimating the impacts of land use/land cover changes on Ecosystem Service Values: The case of the Andassa watershed in the Upper Blue Nile basin of Ethiopia. Ecosystem Services, Volume 31, Part A, 219-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.05.001

Godschalk, D., & Rouse, D. (2015). Sustaining places: best practices for comprehensive plans. no. 578. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association: Planning advisory service report

Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Barton, D. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics 86, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019

Graça, M., Gonçalves, J., Alves, P., Nowak, D., Hoehn, R., Ellis, A., . . . Cunha, M. (2017). Assessing mismatches in ecosystem services proficiency across the urban fabric of Porto (Portugal): The influence of structural and socioeconomic variables. Ecosystem Services 23, 82-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.015

Grêt-Regamey, A., Celio, E., Klein, T., & Hayek, U. (2013). Understanding ecosystem services trade-offs with interactive procedural modeling for sustainable urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 109, 1, 107-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.011

Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgstrom, S., Breuste, J., … Hamstead, Z. (2014b). A Quantitative Review of Urban Ecosystem Service Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implementation. AMBIO 43, 413–433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0

Hansen, R., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Rall, E., Kabisch, N., Kaczorowska, A., & Kain, J.-H. (2015). The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of European and American cities. Ecosystem Services 12, 228–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.013

Holt, A., Mears, M., Maltby, L., & Warren, P. (2015). Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 16, 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.08.007

Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2009). The Dependent Variable Problem in the Study of Policy Change: Understanding Policy Change as a Methodological Problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice Volume 11, Issue 1, 33–46.

Iman, M., & Noshadi, M. (2011). Qualitative content analysis. research 3(2), 15-44. [In Persian]

Jaligot, R., & Chenal, J. (2019). Integration of Ecosystem Services in Regional Spatial Plans in Western Switzerland. Sustainability, 11, 313, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020313

Jenks, M., & Jones, C. (2010). Dimensions of the sustainable. New York: Springer.

La Notte, A., D’Amato, D., Mäkinen, H., Paracchini, M., Luisa, M., Egoh, B., ... Crossman, N. (2017). Ecosystem services classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.030

Lam, S., & Conway, T. (2018). Ecosystem services in urban land use planning policies: A case study of Ontario municipalities. Land Use Policy, Volume 77, 641-651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.020

Luederitz, C., Brink, E., Gralla, F., Hermelingmeier, V., Meyer, M., Niven, L., . . . Wehrden, H. (2015). A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research. Ecosystem Services 14, 98-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.001

Mascarenhas, A., Ramos, T., Haase, D., & Santos, R. (2015). Ecosystem services in spatial planning and strategic environmental assessment—A European and Portuguese profile. Land Use Policy, Volume 48, 158-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.012

MEA. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being (Synthesis). Washington, DC: International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions, Island Press.

Momeni rad, A. (2013). Qualitative content analysis in research tradition: nature, stages and validity of the results. Quarterly of Educational Measurement 4(14), 187-222. [In Persian]

Mostafavi, N. S., Partovi, P., & Asadolahi, Z. (2023). Identification and analysis of key stakeholders to prioritize ecosystem services for integration into Arak urban development plans. Journal of Natural Environment, 76(1), 61-80. https://doi.org/10.22059/jne.2022.348501.2468. [In Persian]

Nordin, A., Hanson, H., & Olsson, J. (2017). Integration of the ecosystem services concept in planning documents from six municipalities in southwestern Sweden. Ecology and Society 22(3):26, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09420-220326

Ronchi, S. (2021). Ecosystem Services for Planning: A Generic Recommendation or a Real Framework? Insights from a Literature Review. Sustainability, 13, 6595, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126595

Russo, A., & Cirella, G. (2021). Urban Ecosystem Services: Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Future Research. Socio-Ecological Practice Research volume 1, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10080811

Salzman, J., Arnold, T., Garcia, R., Hirokawa, K., Jowers, K., LeJava, J., ... Olander, L. (2014). The Most Important Current Research Questions in Urban Ecosystem Services. SSRN scholarly paper ID 2483455. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.

Shao, Q., Peng, L., Liu, Y., & Li, Y. (2023). A Bibliometric Analysis of Urban Ecosystem Services: Structure, Evolution, and Prospects. Land 12, 337. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020337

Sousa, L., & Alves, F. (2020). A model to integrate ecosystem services into spatial planning: Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon study. Ocean and Coastal Management 195, 105280, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105280

Therivel, R., & González, A. (2020). Is SEA worth it? Short-term costs v. long-term benefits of strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Volume 83, 106411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106411

Tolessa, T., Senbeta, F., & Kidane, M. (2017). The impact of land use/land cover change on ecosystem services in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Ecosystem Services Volume 23, 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.010

Varol, C., Ercoskun, I., & Gurer, N. (2011). Local participatory mechanisms and collective actions for sustainable urban development in Turkey. Habitat International, 35(1), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.02.002

Westman, W. (1977). How Much Are Nature's Services Worth. Science 197(4307), 960-964. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.197.4307.960

Wilkinson, C., Saarne, T., Peterson, G., & Colding, J. (2013). Strategic Spatial Planning and the Ecosystem Services Concept – an Historical Exploration. Ecology and Society 18(1): 37, 1-19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269278

Woodruff, S., & BenDor, T. (2016). Ecosystem services in urban planning: Comparative paradigms and guidelines for high quality plans. Landscape and Urban Planning 152, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.003

Wu, J. (2014). Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future directions. Landscape and Urban Planning 125, 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.21487

Yang, J. (2020). Big data and the future of urban ecology: From the concept to results. Science China Earth Sciences volume 63, 1443–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-020-9666-3

Zhang, Z., Shen, Z., Liu, L., Zhang, Y., Yu, C., Cui, L., & Gao, Y. (2023). Integrating ecosystem services conservation into the optimization of urban planning policies in eco-fragile areas: A scenario-based case study. Cities, Volume 134, 104200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104200.

Motaleate Shahri

Ecosystem services in Arak's urban development plans: facts and needs

References

References

Volume 13, Issue 50 - Serial Number 50
May 2024
Pages 47-60

Ecosystem services in Arak's urban development plans: facts and needs

References

References

Volume 13, Issue 50 - Serial Number 50May 2024Pages 47-60

Volume 13, Issue 50 - Serial Number 50
May 2024
Pages 47-60