Leveraging Ecosystem Services and Well-Being in Urban Landscape Planning for Nature Conservation: A Case Study of Peri-Urban Dynamics
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- RQ1: How are the municipality survey data aligned with previous research findings from the area, specifically in terms of residents’ satisfaction with the environment and recreation in the municipality (Harku)?
- RQ2: How do the long-term dynamics of CESs impact the well-being of people and nature in (Harku) peri-urban areas, and what recommendations to mitigate negative impacts could be derived from this analysis?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Case Study Area
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. Landscape Character Assessment (LCA)
Landscape Belts
- Sea Belt: Positioned along the northern coast and bounded by the sea, the Sea Belt is characterised by a coastal forest landscape with sparse settlement clusters. Notably, nature protection areas related to the sea, such as beaches, coastal nature parks, and cliffs, contribute to the peri-urban ecosystem’s richness.
- Settlement Belt: Distinguished by densely populated areas, including private houses and blockhouses, the Settlement Belt is primarily concentrated in core zones such as Tabasalu, Harku, and Keila-Joa. Understanding the settlement dynamics is crucial for assessing the peri-urban interface and its implications.
- Agricultural Belt: Characterised by a blend of cultivated fields, (semi-)natural grasslands, settlement clusters, and individual farms, this belt reflects the ongoing impact of peri-urbanisation, contributing to the reduction in traditional agricultural areas.
- Forest Belt: Comprising forests, wetlands, and minimal settlement density, this belt underscores the significance of green spaces in peri-urban areas, contributing to biodiversity, recreation, and overall well-being.
- Industrial Belt: Characterised by concentrated industrial and manufacturing activities, this belt introduces complexity in its connection with cultural ecosystem service (CES) values. Understanding this industrial landscape is important for a comprehensive analysis of CESs in the evolving peri-urban setting due to its unique character compared to other belts.
Secondary Municipality Survey Data
2.3. Methods
2.3.1. Data Integration from Resident Municipality Survey
2.3.2. Synthesis Methodology: Scenario Creation
3. Results
3.1. Residents’ Municipality Survey Scores and Belts
3.1.1. Satisfaction with Recreational Opportunities in Harku Municipality
3.1.2. Satisfaction with the Environment in Harku Municipality
3.2. Scenarios
Landscape Belt Dynamics: Recognised Trends and Threats to CESs
- Peri-Urbanisation: This phenomenon is driven by factors like population growth, urbanisation, and economic development. As cities grow, they naturally extend into previously rural or less densely populated regions. The proliferation of new houses on these maps is indicative of increased urban development in the Harku municipality’s peri-urban areas. This signifies that more people were moving to these transitional zones and that urban infrastructure, services, and housing were extending into what were previously rural or agricultural spaces. As urban areas expand, land use in peri-urban zones can shift from traditional agricultural or natural land to residential, commercial, or industrial uses. This transformation has far-reaching implications for the environment, as well as for the people living in these areas. Cadastral maps offer valuable insights into the dynamic landscape by displaying property boundaries and land ownership details. An analysis of these maps allowed us to monitor the potential emergence of new structures and the evolving patterns of land use (Figure 9).
- 2.
- Potential Threats to Nature Conservation: Resource extraction is the second threat and pertains to the activity of removing or mining natural materials within this study area (Figure 10). In this context, there was a potential threat from the extraction of limestone and sand, serving various purposes in construction, manufacturing, and other industries [64,65]. However, it is important to note that poorly managed resource extraction can have environmental and social consequences. It can lead to habitat disruption, water pollution, and land degradation. Furthermore, the figure reveals potential urban expansion in agricultural zones, some under the ownership of development companies already fixed in cadastral units. These areas share similar social and recreational conditions with existing settlements, yet lack nature-protected land within their boundaries. This deficiency makes them more vulnerable to future urban development and transformation into settlement belts.
- 3.
- Recreational Stress on the Environment: This threat highlights the growing environmental strain resulting from the increasing trend towards outdoor recreational activities in Estonian society. This phenomenon is closely interconnected with several other factors, including peri-urbanisation, the reduction in green and blue spaces, and the expected increase in population density due to migration away from the city. In the Harku municipality area, recreational activities encompass a wide range of outdoor and leisure pursuits, such as hiking, camping, boating, and picnicking. As urbanisation expands into peri-urban areas, the demand for such recreational activities often intensifies, particularly close to habitations, contributing to an increased stress on the environment. A key part of this trend is the decrease in natural areas like parks, forests, and water bodies that people use for leisure. As urban areas expand into peri-urban zones, these natural spaces can shrink, meaning there are fewer places for people to relax and have fun. Furthermore, the trend of recreational stress on the environment is connected to an expected increase in population density. Data from a population density map for 2023 reinforce these projections. In particular, areas like Tabasalu, Muraste, the Vääna River mouth, and Viti are expected to experience a substantial increase in population, leading to further environmental impacts (Figure 11).
4. Discussion
4.1. Recommendations
4.1.1. Proactive Measures
- Conservation: Conservation efforts play a crucial role in maintaining the availability of ESs, particularly in the context of coastal forests and wetlands. These ecosystems offer a wide range of benefits, from flood mitigation and water purification to habitat for biodiversity and recreational spaces for the community. Prioritising the conservation of critical ecosystems is essential to maintaining the provision of CESs [71,76]. Protecting these natural areas can safeguard their ability to offer restorative and recreational benefits to the community. The maps (Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11) reveal vulnerable areas, emphasising where CESs and conservation priorities face the greatest risk [65]. Furthermore, the global depletion of forests and wetlands, together with increased values in cropland and urban coverage, resulted in a net annual financial loss of 1.21 trillion US dollars during the period of 1995–2015 [77]. Analysing these types of data is crucial for clarifying insights from the maps, guiding strategic local planning, and pinpointing the most vulnerable areas [78].
- Sustainable Urban Planning: Responsible urban expansion practices that consider the preservation of green and blue spaces and the integration of natural elements into urban design can help mitigate the loss of CESs [8,79]. In addition, it is important for urban planning to emphasise the creation of spaces that support the well-being of the community [80,81]. Well-designed urban environments can contribute to improved mental and physical health, social interactions, and an overall higher quality of life for residents. This is not only beneficial for the people who live in these areas but also for the long-term sustainability and desirability of the city itself. Sustainable urban planning that values the preservation of natural elements, such as green and blue spaces, and actively integrates them into urban design is a fundamental step in mitigating the loss of CESs [82,83,84] and the authors argue will relieve the stress on protected areas.
- Ecosystem-Based Land Management: Adopting ecosystem-based approaches to land management can help to balance human development with the preservation of ESs [16,85]. One of the key strengths of ecosystem-based land management is that it acknowledges the interconnectedness of all life forms and natural processes in a given area. By doing so, it actively seeks to preserve not just individual species or specific ecosystems but the intricate web of relationships and services that ecosystems provide [62,64]. Ecosystem-based approaches emphasise long-term thinking because they understand that the short-term benefits of unsustainable land management can harm the future. They aim to ensure that the land continues to provide vital ESs for both current and future generations [86,87,88].
4.1.2. Interdisciplinary Collaboration
4.2. Limitations and Future Study Recommendations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ricci, L. Peri-Urban Livelihood and Adaptive Capacity: Urban Development in Dar Es Salaam. Consilience 2012, 7, 46–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.-L.; Chen, Y.-H.; Kuo, F.-Y.; Wang, S.-H. Emergy-Based Evaluation of Peri-Urban Ecosystem Services. Ecol. Complex. 2011, 8, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rolf, W. Peri-Urban Farmland Included in Green Infrastructure Strategies Promotes Transformation Pathways towards Sustainable Urban Development. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Maheshwari, B.; Singh, V.P.; Thoradeniya, B. Balanced Urban Development: Is It a Myth or Reality? In Balanced Urban Development: Options and Strategies for Liveable Cities; Maheshwari, B., Thoradeniya, B., Singh, V.P., Eds.; Water Science and Technology Library; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 3–13. ISBN 978-3-319-28112-4. [Google Scholar]
- Riechers, M.; Strack, M.; Barkmann, J.; Tscharntke, T. Cultural Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Green Change along an Urban-Periurban Gradient. Sustainability 2019, 11, 645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schrijnen, P.M. Infrastructure Networks and Red–Green Patterns in City Regions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 48, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (Ed.). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-1-59726-040-4. [Google Scholar]
- Andersson, E.; Tengö, M.; McPhearson, T.; Kremer, P. Cultural Ecosystem Services as a Gateway for Improving Urban Sustainability. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 165–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bull, J.W.; Jobstvogt, N.; Böhnke-Henrichs, A.; Mascarenhas, A.; Sitas, N.; Baulcomb, C.; Lambini, C.K.; Rawlins, M.; Baral, H.; Zähringer, J.; et al. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT Analysis of the Ecosystem Services Framework. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 17, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rounsevell, M.D.A.; Metzger, M.J.; Walz, A. Operationalising Ecosystem Services in Europe. Reg. Env. Chang. 2019, 19, 2143–2149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lele, S.; Springate-Baginski, O.; Lakerveld, R.; Deb, D.; Dash, P. Ecosystem Services: Origins, Contributions, Pitfalls, and Alternatives. Conserv. Soc. 2013, 11, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rendón, O.R.; Garbutt, A.; Skov, M.; Möller, I.; Alexander, M.; Ballinger, R.; Wyles, K.; Smith, G.; McKinley, E.; Griffin, J.; et al. A Framework Linking Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being: Saltmarsh as a Case Study. People Nat. 2019, 1, 486–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R. Valuing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services toward the Goals of Efficiency, Fairness, and Sustainability. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 43, 101096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnaiz-Schmitz, C.; Herrero-Jáuregui, C.; Schmitz, M.F. Recreational and Nature-Based Tourism as a Cultural Ecosystem Service. Assessment and Mapping in a Rural-Urban Gradient of Central Spain. Land 2021, 10, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Noordwijk, M.; Duguma, L.A.; Dewi, S.; Leimona, B.; Catacutan, D.C.; Lusiana, B.; Öborn, I.; Hairiah, K.; Minang, P.A. SDG Synergy between Agriculture and Forestry in the Food, Energy, Water and Income Nexus: Reinventing Agroforestry? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 34, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walz, Y.; Nick, F.; Higuera Roa, O.; Nehren, U.; Sebesvari, Z. Coherence and Alignment among Sustainable Land Management, Ecosystem-Based Adaptation, Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Reduction and Nature-Based Solutions. 2021. Available online: http://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:8495/Walz_et_al._Online_NBS_211215_META.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2023.).
- Marino, D.; Palmieri, M.; Marucci, A.; Tufano, M. Comparison between Demand and Supply of Some Ecosystem Services in National Parks: A Spatial Analysis Conducted Using Italian Case Studies. Conservation 2021, 1, 36–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urbina-Cardona, N.; Cardona, V.O.; Cuellar, S. Uncovering Thematic Biases in Ecosystem Services Mapping: Knowledge Shortfalls and Challenges for Use in Conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2023, 283, 110086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goswami, M.; Nautiyal, S. Transitional Peri-Urban Landscape and Use of Natural Resource for Livelihoods. In Socio-Economic and Eco-Biological Dimensions in Resource Use and Conservation: Strategies for Sustainability; Roy, N., Roychoudhury, S., Nautiyal, S., Agarwal, S.K., Baksi, S., Eds.; Environmental Science and Engineering; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 435–457. ISBN 978-3-030-32463-6. [Google Scholar]
- Hedblom, M.; Andersson, E.; Borgström, S. Flexible Land-Use and Undefined Governance: From Threats to Potentials in Peri-Urban Landscape Planning. Land Use Policy 2017, 63, 523–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Žlender, V.; Ward Thompson, C. Accessibility and Use of Peri-Urban Green Space for Inner-City Dwellers: A Comparative Study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 165, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manes, F.; Marando, F.; Capotorti, G.; Blasi, C.; Salvatori, E.; Fusaro, L.; Ciancarella, L.; Mircea, M.; Marchetti, M.; Chirici, G.; et al. Regulating Ecosystem Services of Forests in Ten Italian Metropolitan Cities: Air Quality Improvement by PM10 and O3 Removal. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 67, 425–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langemeyer, J.; Calcagni, F.; Baró, F. Mapping the Intangible: Using Geolocated Social Media Data to Examine Landscape Aesthetics. Land Use Policy 2018, 77, 542–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aziz, A.; Anwar, M.M.; Majeed, M.; Fatima, S.; Mehdi, S.S.; Mangrio, W.M.; Elbouzidi, A.; Abdullah, M.; Shaukat, S.; Zahid, N.; et al. Quantifying Landscape and Social Amenities as Ecosystem Services in Rapidly Changing Peri-Urban Landscape. Land 2023, 12, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, M.; Luo, Y. Dynamic Variations in Ecosystem Service Value and Sustainability of Urban System: A Case Study for Tianjin City, China. Cities 2015, 46, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, W.; Gibbs, D.; Zhang, L.; Ferrier, G.; Cai, Y. Identifying Hotspots and Management of Critical Ecosystem Services in Rapidly Urbanizing Yangtze River Delta Region, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 191, 258–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Li, W.; Xie, G. Ecosystem Services Research in China: Progress and Perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1389–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, S.; Zhu, C.; Yang, L.; Xie, F. Responses of Ecosystem Services to Urbanization-Induced Land Use Changes in Ecologically Sensitive Suburban Areas in Hangzhou, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konno, N.; Nonaka, I.; Ogilvy, J. Scenario Planning: The Basics. World Futures 2014, 70, 28–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cairns, G.; Wright, G.; Fairbrother, P. Promoting Articulated Action from Diverse Stakeholders in Response to Public Policy Scenarios: A Case Analysis of the Use of ‘Scenario Improvisation’ Method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 103, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berg, C.; Rogers, S.; Mineau, M. Building Scenarios for Ecosystem Services Tools: Developing a Methodology for Efficient Engagement with Expert Stakeholders. Futures 2016, 81, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saito, O.; Kamiyama, C.; Hashimoto, S.; Matsui, T.; Shoyama, K.; Kabaya, K.; Uetake, T.; Taki, H.; Ishikawa, Y.; Matsushita, K.; et al. Co-Design of National-Scale Future Scenarios in Japan to Predict and Assess Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hulse, D.W.; Gregory, S.V. Alternative Futures as an Integrative Framework for Riparian Restoration of Large Rivers. In Applying Ecological Principles to Land Management; Dale, V.H., Haeuber, R.A., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 194–212. ISBN 978-1-4613-0099-1. [Google Scholar]
- van der Heijden, K. Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-0-470-02368-6. [Google Scholar]
- Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services—An Overview|ScienceDirect Topics. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/integrated-valuation-of-ecosystem-services (accessed on 18 November 2023).
- InVEST Sediment Delivery Ratio Model|Model Item|OpenGMS. Available online: https://geomodeling.njnu.edu.cn/modelItem/4a8f7ae3-c735-4222-94ee-01f4703c6943 (accessed on 18 November 2023).
- Kabaya, K.; Hashimoto, S.; Fukuyo, N.; Uetake, T.; Takeuchi, K. Investigating Future Ecosystem Services through Participatory Scenario Building and Spatial Ecological–Economic Modelling. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bateman, I.J.; Harwood, A.R.; Mace, G.M.; Watson, R.T.; Abson, D.J.; Andrews, B.; Binner, A.; Crowe, A.; Day, B.H.; Dugdale, S.; et al. Bringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom. Science 2013, 341, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lawler, J.J.; Lewis, D.J.; Nelson, E.; Plantinga, A.J.; Polasky, S.; Withey, J.C.; Helmers, D.P.; Martinuzzi, S.; Pennington, D.; Radeloff, V.C. Projected Land-Use Change Impacts on Ecosystem Services in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 7492–7497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nelson, E.; Mendoza, G.; Regetz, J.; Polasky, S.; Tallis, H.; Cameron, D.; Chan, K.M.; Daily, G.C.; Goldstein, J.; Kareiva, P.M.; et al. Modeling Multiple Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity Conservation, Commodity Production, and Tradeoffs at Landscape Scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The EU #NatureRestoration Law. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-law_en (accessed on 17 November 2023).
- Agreement on Nature Restoration Law. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_5662 (accessed on 17 November 2023).
- Nevzati, F.; Külvik, M.; Storie, J.; Tiidu, L.-M.; Bell, S. Assessment of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Well-Being: Testing a Method for Evaluating Natural Environment and Contact Types in the Harku Municipality, Estonia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nevzati, F.; Veldi, M.; Külvik, M.; Bell, S. Analysis of Landscape Character Assessment and Cultural Ecosystem Services Evaluation Frameworks for Peri-Urban Landscape Planning: A Case Study of Harku Municipality, Estonia. Land 2023, 12, 1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Researches—News and Announcements—Harku Municipal Government. Available online: https://www.harku.ee/uudised-ja-teated (accessed on 16 November 2023).
- Homepage | Maa-Amet. Available online: https://maaamet.ee/en (accessed on 19 August 2023).
- Fairclough, G.; Herlin, I.S.; Swanwick, C. Routledge Handbook of Landscape Character Assessment: Current Approaches to Characterisation and Assessment; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; ISBN 978-1-317-62103-4. [Google Scholar]
- McAlpine, G. Landscape Character Assessment—Guidance for England and Scotland. Available online: https://digital.nls.uk/pubs/e-monographs/2020/216649977.23.pdf (accessed on 7 August 2023).
- Martin, L.; White, M.P.; Hunt, A.; Richardson, M.; Pahl, S.; Burt, J. Nature Contact, Nature Connectedness and Associations with Health, Wellbeing and pro-Environmental Behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 68, 101389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jellema, A.; Stobbelaar, D.-J.; Groot, J.C.J.; Rossing, W.A.H. Landscape Character Assessment Using Region Growing Techniques in Geographical Information Systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, S161–S174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zakariya, K.; Ibrahim, P.H.; Abdul Wahab, N.A. Conceptual Framework of Rural Landscape Character Assessment to Guide Tourism Development in Rural Areas. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries. 2019, 24, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statistics—Harku Municipal Government. Available online: https://www.harku.ee/statistika (accessed on 12 September 2022).
- Kohv, K. Harku Valla Rohevõrgustiku Tuumalade ja Koridoride Uuring; Eestimaa Looduse Fond: Tartu, Estonia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Muinas Kultuurimälestiste Registri Andmebaas. Available online: https://register.muinas.ee/m/ (accessed on 12 September 2023).
- Rv0240: Population by Sex, Age and Place of Residence after the 2017 Administrative Reform, 1 January. Available online: https://andmed.stat.ee:443/pxweb/en/stat/stat__rahvastik__rahvastikunaitajad-ja-koosseis__rahvaarv-ja-rahvastiku-koosseis/RV0240.px/ (accessed on 6 April 2023).
- Samarüütel, A.; Steen Selvig, S.; Holt-Jensen, A. Urban Sprawl and Suburban Development around Pärnu and Tallinn, Estonia. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr.-Nor. J. Geogr. 2010, 64, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tammaru, T.; Leetmaa, K. Suburbanisation in Relation to Education in the Tallinn Metropolitan Area. Popul. Space Place 2007, 13, 279–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thapa, R.B.; Murayama, Y. Scenario Based Urban Growth Allocation in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foley, J.A.; Defries, R.; Asner, G.P.; Barford, C.; Bonan, G.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; Coe, M.T.; Daily, G.C.; Gibbs, H.K.; et al. Global Consequences of Land Use. Science 2005, 309, 570–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mander, Ü.; Palang, H. Changes of Landscape Structure in Estonia during the Soviet Period. GeoJournal 1994, 33, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mozaffaree Pour, N.; Oja, T. Prediction Power of Logistic Regression (LR) and Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) Models in Exploring Driving Forces of Urban Expansion to Be Sustainable in Estonia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bishop, J.; ten Brink, P.; Gundimeda, H.; Kumar, P.; Nesshöver, C.; Schröter-Schlaack, C.; Simmons, B.; Sukhdev, P.; Wittmer, H. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. 2010. Available online: https://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Synthesis%20report/TEEB%20Synthesis%20Report%202010.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2022).
- Costanza, R.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; Raskin, R.G.; Sutton, P. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaevandaja Nõuab Kohtuga Õigust Harku Valla Maavarasid Uurida. Available online: https://www.postimees.ee/7879944/kaevandaja-nouab-kohtuga-oigust-harku-valla-maavarasid-uurida (accessed on 17 November 2023).
- Vääna-Jõesuu Elanikud Koguvad Plaanitava Kaevanduse Vastu Allkirju. Available online: https://www.postimees.ee/7880353/vaana-joesuu-elanikud-koguvad-plaanitava-kaevanduse-vastu-allkirju (accessed on 17 November 2023).
- Lakshmi, A. Coastal Ecosystem Services & Human Wellbeing. Indian J. Med. Res. 2021, 153, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ridding, L.E.; Redhead, J.W.; Oliver, T.H.; Schmucki, R.; McGinlay, J.; Graves, A.R.; Morris, J.; Bradbury, R.B.; King, H.; Bullock, J.M. The Importance of Landscape Characteristics for the Delivery of Cultural Ecosystem Services. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 206, 1145–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imbrenda, V.; Coluzzi, R.; Lanfredi, M.; Loperte, A.; Satriani, A.; Simoniello, T. Analysis of Landscape Evolution in a Vulnerable Coastal Area under Natural and Human Pressure. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2018, 9, 1249–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torralba, M.; Lovrić, M.; Roux, J.-L.; Budniok, M.-A.; Mulier, A.-S.; Winkel, G.; Plieninger, T. Examining the Relevance of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Forest Management in Europe. Ecol. Soc. 2020, 25, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friess, D.A.; Yando, E.S.; Wong, L.-W.; Bhatia, N. Indicators of Scientific Value: An under-Recognised Ecosystem Service of Coastal and Marine Habitats. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 113, 106255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arkema, K.K.; Griffin, R.; Maldonado, S.; Silver, J.; Suckale, J.; Guerry, A.D. Linking Social, Ecological, and Physical Science to Advance Natural and Nature-Based Protection for Coastal Communities. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2017, 1399, 5–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harff, J.; Soomere, T.; Zhang, H. Journal of Coastal Conservation Special Issue “Coast and Society”. J. Coast. Conserv. 2019, 23, 713–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chakraborty, S.; Gasparatos, A.; Blasiak, R. Multiple Values for the Management and Sustainable Use of Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 41, 101047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chakraborty, S.; Avtar, R.; Raj, R.; Thu Minh, H.V. Village Level Provisioning Ecosystem Services and Their Values to Local Communities in the Peri-Urban Areas of Manila, the Philippines. Land 2019, 8, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anton, C.; Gasparotti, C.; Anton, I.; Rusu, E. Implementation of a Coastal Management Model at Kinvara Bay in the North Atlantic Ocean. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howard, J.; Sutton-Grier, A.; Herr, D.; Kleypas, J.; Landis, E.; Mcleod, E.; Pidgeon, E.; Simpson, S. Clarifying the Role of Coastal and Marine Systems in Climate Mitigation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sannigrahi, S.; Bhatt, S.; Rahmat, S.; Paul, S.K.; Sen, S. Estimating Global Ecosystem Service Values and Its Response to Land Surface Dynamics during 1995–2015. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 223, 115–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schirpke, U.; Tscholl, S.; Tasser, E. Spatio-Temporal Changes in Ecosystem Service Values: Effects of Land-Use Changes from Past to Future (1860–2100). J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 272, 111068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mosler, S.; Hobson, P. Close-To-Nature Heuristic Design Principles for Future Urban Green Infrastructure. Urban Plan. 2021, 6, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porta, S. The Community and Public Spaces: Ecological Thinking, Mobility and Social Life in the Open Spaces of the City of the Future. Futures 1999, 31, 437–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brokking, P.; Mörtberg, U.; Balfors, B. Municipal Practices for Integrated Planning of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Development in the Stockholm Region. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Catalano, C.; Meslec, M.; Boileau, J.; Guarino, R.; Aurich, I.; Baumann, N.; Chartier, F.; Dalix, P.; Deramond, S.; Laube, P.; et al. Smart Sustainable Cities of the New Millennium: Towards Design for Nature. Circ. Econ. Sust. 2021, 1, 1053–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lourdes, K.T.; Hamel, P.; Gibbins, C.N.; Sanusi, R.; Azhar, B.; Lechner, A.M. Planning for Green Infrastructure Using Multiple Urban Ecosystem Service Models and Multicriteria Analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 226, 104500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vert, C.; Gascon, M.; Ranzani, O.; Márquez, S.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Carrasco-Turigas, G.; Arjona, L.; Koch, S.; Llopis, M.; Donaire-Gonzalez, D.; et al. Physical and Mental Health Effects of Repeated Short Walks in a Blue Space Environment: A Randomised Crossover Study. Environ. Res. 2020, 188, 109812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. Building Resilience in Local Management Systems. In Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change; Folke, C., Berkes, F., Colding, J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002; p. 115. ISBN 978-0-521-06184-1. [Google Scholar]
- Morri, E.; Santolini, R. Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, Italy). Land 2022, 11, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cimon-Morin, J.; Goyette, J.-O.; Mendes, P.; Pellerin, S.; Poulin, M. A Systematic Conservation Planning Approach to Maintaining Ecosystem Service Provision in Working Landscapes. FACETS 2021, 6, 1570–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Luo, M.; Yue, H.; Chen, X.; Feng, C. Critical Thresholds in Ecological Restoration to Achieve Optimal Ecosystem Services: An Analysis Based on Forest Ecosystem Restoration Projects in China. Land Use Policy 2018, 76, 675–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pullin, A.; Frampton, G.; Jongman, R.; Kohl, C.; Livoreil, B.; Lux, A.; Pataki, G.; Petrokofsky, G.; Podhora, A.; Saarikoski, H.; et al. Selecting Appropriate Methods of Knowledge Synthesis to Inform Biodiversity Policy. Biodivers. Conserv. 2016, 25, 1285–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paolinelli, G. Crosscutting Issues in Treating the Fragmentation of Ecosystems and Landscapes. In Nature Policies and Landscape Policies: Towards an Alliance; Gambino, R., Peano, A., Eds.; Urban and Landscape Perspectives; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 283–290. ISBN 978-3-319-05410-0. [Google Scholar]
- Etxano, I.; Garmendia, E.; Pascual, U.; Hoyos, D.; Díez, M.-Á.; Cadiñanos, J.A.; Lozano, P.J. A Participatory Integrated Assessment Approach for Natura 2000 Network Sites. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2015, 33, 1207–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riffat, M.; Adem Esmail, B.; Wang, J.; Albert, C. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Dashboards to Inform Landscape and Urban Planning: A Systematic Analysis of Current Practices Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Dashboards to Inform Landscape and Urban Planning: A Systematic Analysis of Current Practices. Ecosyst. People 2023, 19, 2263105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metzger, J.P.; Villarreal-Rosas, J.; Suárez-Castro, A.F.; López-Cubillos, S.; González-Chaves, A.; Runting, R.K.; Hohlenwerger, C.; Rhodes, J.R. Considering Landscape-Level Processes in Ecosystem Service Assessments. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 796, 149028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jennings, V.; Browning, M.H.E.M.; Rigolon, A. Planning Urban Green Spaces in Their Communities: Intersectional Approaches for Health Equity and Sustainability. In Urban Green Spaces: Public Health and Sustainability in the United States; Jennings, V., Browning, M.H.E.M., Rigolon, A., Eds.; SpringerBriefs in Geography; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 71–99. ISBN 978-3-030-10469-6. [Google Scholar]
- Vatseva, R.; Kopecka, M.; Novacek, J. Mapping Forest Fragmentation Based on Morphological Image Analysis of Mountain Regions in Bulgaria and Slovakia. In Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions: Southeastern Europe; Zhelezov, G., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 167–181. ISBN 978-3-319-20110-8. [Google Scholar]
- Iezzi, M.E.; Cruz, P.; Varela, D.; Di Bitetti, M.S.; De Angelo, C. Fragment Configuration or Environmental Quality? Understanding What Really Matters for the Conservation of Native Mammals in the Atlantic Forest of Argentina. J. Nat. Conserv. 2019, 52, 125751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uudised Ja Teated—Harku Vallavalitsus. Available online: https://www.harku.ee/uudised-ja-teated/-/asset_publisher/7WOcbaKfFguz/content/uuringud (accessed on 6 December 2023).
Village | Very Satisfied or Rather Satisfied | Rather Not or Not at All | Do Not Know |
---|---|---|---|
1. Vääna | 70% | 21% | 9% |
2. Vääna-Jõesuu | 82% | 13% | 5% |
3. Tabasalu-Rannamõisa | 74% | 18% | 8% |
4. Muraste | 71% | 21% | 8% |
5. Suurupi | 77% | 14% | 9% |
6. Harkujärv-Tiskre | 67% | 25% | 8% |
7. Harku | 66% | 24% | 10% |
8. Kumna-Tutermaa | 48% | 24% | 28% |
9. Türisalu | 73% | 22% | 5% |
Village | Very Satisfied or Rather Satisfied | Rather Not or Not at All | Do Not Know |
---|---|---|---|
1. Vääna | 82% | 15,5% | 2,5% |
2. Vääna-Jõesuu | 87% | 13% | 0% |
3. Tabasalu-Rannamõisa | 92% | 7% | 1% |
4. Muraste | 89% | 11% | 0% |
5. Suurupi | 92% | 8% | 0% |
6. Harkujärv-Tiskre | 79% | 20% | 1% |
7. Harku | 79% | 20% | 1% |
8. Kumna-Tutermaa | 73% | 21% | 6% |
9. Türisalu | 71% | 28% | 1% |
Belt Type | Restorative Value | Social Value | Cognitive Value |
---|---|---|---|
A. Sea | 2.56 | 2.29 | 2.17 |
B. Settlement | 2.29 | 2.25 | 2.04 |
C. Agricultural | 2 | 2.01 | 2.18 |
D. Forest | 2.52 | 1.99 | 2.24 |
E. Industrial | 2.06 | 1.88 | 1.67 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nevzati, F.; Veldi, M.; Storie, J.; Külvik, M. Leveraging Ecosystem Services and Well-Being in Urban Landscape Planning for Nature Conservation: A Case Study of Peri-Urban Dynamics. Conservation 2024, 4, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation4010001
Nevzati F, Veldi M, Storie J, Külvik M. Leveraging Ecosystem Services and Well-Being in Urban Landscape Planning for Nature Conservation: A Case Study of Peri-Urban Dynamics. Conservation. 2024; 4(1):1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation4010001
Chicago/Turabian StyleNevzati, Fiona, Martti Veldi, Joanna Storie, and Mart Külvik. 2024. "Leveraging Ecosystem Services and Well-Being in Urban Landscape Planning for Nature Conservation: A Case Study of Peri-Urban Dynamics" Conservation 4, no. 1: 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation4010001
APA StyleNevzati, F., Veldi, M., Storie, J., & Külvik, M. (2024). Leveraging Ecosystem Services and Well-Being in Urban Landscape Planning for Nature Conservation: A Case Study of Peri-Urban Dynamics. Conservation, 4(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation4010001