Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 161-171 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Ecosystem Services |
| Volume | 27 |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Oct 2017 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Abstract
Positive relationships between biodiversity and urban ecosystem services (UES) are widely implied within both the scientific and policy literatures, along with the tacit suggestion that enhancing urban green infrastructure will automatically improve both biodiversity and UES. However, it is unclear how much published empirical evidence exists to support these assumptions. We conducted a review of studies published between 1990 and May 2017 that examined urban biodiversity ecosystem service (BES) relationships. In total, we reviewed 317 publications and found biodiversity and UES metrics mentioned 944 times. Only 228 (24%) of the 944 mentions were empirically tested. Among these, 119 (52%) demonstrated a positive BES relationship. Our review showed that taxonomic metrics were used most often as proxies for biodiversity, with very little attention given to functional biodiversity metrics. Similarly, the role of particular species, including non-natives, and specific functional traits are understudied. Finally, we found a paucity of empirical evidence underpinning urban BES relationships. As urban planners increasingly incorporate UES delivery consideration to their decision-making, researchers need to address these substantial knowledge gaps to allow potential trade-offs and synergies between biodiversity conservation and the promotion of UES to be adequately accounted for.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Social Sciences(all)
- Geography, Planning and Development
- Environmental Science(all)
- Nature and Landscape Conservation
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Environmental Science(all)
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
- Environmental Science(all)
- Global and Planetary Change
- Environmental Science(all)
- Ecology
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Ecosystem Services, Vol. 27, 01.10.2017, p. 161-171.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Understanding biodiversity-ecosystem service relationships in urban areas: A comprehensive literature review
AU - Schwarz, Nina
AU - Moretti, Marco
AU - Bugalho, Miguel N.
AU - Davies, Zoe G.
AU - Haase, Dagmar
AU - Hack, Jochen
AU - Hof, Angela
AU - Melero, Yolanda
AU - Pett, Tristan J.
AU - Knapp, Sonja
N1 - Funding information: This paper resulted from the workshop entitled ‘Urban biodiversity for the delivery of ecosystem services’ at the conference ‘Nature and Urban Wellbeing: Nature-Based Solutions to Societal Changes’ in Ghent, Belgium, 18-20 May 2015. The conference was organised by ALTER-Net (European Ecosystem Research Network) and European Commission. We thank Å.A. Borg-Pedersen and GREEN SURGE team members for discussions and feedback. Financial support has been provided by the Helmholtz Foundation (Topic ‘Land Use, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’; N.S. and S.K.), Portuguese National Science Foundation (FCT Principal Investigator research contract IF/01171/2014; M.N.B.), EU FP7 collaborative project GREEN SURGE (FP7-ENV.2013.6.2-5-603567; D.H.), ENABLE (BiodivERsA COFUND 2015-2016 Joint Call), Swire Foundation (T.P.) and a Beatriu de Pinos – B grant (2013 BP-B 00168) from AGAUR (Y.M.). The authors would like to express their gratitude to two anonymous reviewers who provided constructive comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
PY - 2017/10/1
Y1 - 2017/10/1
N2 - Positive relationships between biodiversity and urban ecosystem services (UES) are widely implied within both the scientific and policy literatures, along with the tacit suggestion that enhancing urban green infrastructure will automatically improve both biodiversity and UES. However, it is unclear how much published empirical evidence exists to support these assumptions. We conducted a review of studies published between 1990 and May 2017 that examined urban biodiversity ecosystem service (BES) relationships. In total, we reviewed 317 publications and found biodiversity and UES metrics mentioned 944 times. Only 228 (24%) of the 944 mentions were empirically tested. Among these, 119 (52%) demonstrated a positive BES relationship. Our review showed that taxonomic metrics were used most often as proxies for biodiversity, with very little attention given to functional biodiversity metrics. Similarly, the role of particular species, including non-natives, and specific functional traits are understudied. Finally, we found a paucity of empirical evidence underpinning urban BES relationships. As urban planners increasingly incorporate UES delivery consideration to their decision-making, researchers need to address these substantial knowledge gaps to allow potential trade-offs and synergies between biodiversity conservation and the promotion of UES to be adequately accounted for.
AB - Positive relationships between biodiversity and urban ecosystem services (UES) are widely implied within both the scientific and policy literatures, along with the tacit suggestion that enhancing urban green infrastructure will automatically improve both biodiversity and UES. However, it is unclear how much published empirical evidence exists to support these assumptions. We conducted a review of studies published between 1990 and May 2017 that examined urban biodiversity ecosystem service (BES) relationships. In total, we reviewed 317 publications and found biodiversity and UES metrics mentioned 944 times. Only 228 (24%) of the 944 mentions were empirically tested. Among these, 119 (52%) demonstrated a positive BES relationship. Our review showed that taxonomic metrics were used most often as proxies for biodiversity, with very little attention given to functional biodiversity metrics. Similarly, the role of particular species, including non-natives, and specific functional traits are understudied. Finally, we found a paucity of empirical evidence underpinning urban BES relationships. As urban planners increasingly incorporate UES delivery consideration to their decision-making, researchers need to address these substantial knowledge gaps to allow potential trade-offs and synergies between biodiversity conservation and the promotion of UES to be adequately accounted for.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029798725&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.014
DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.014
M3 - Article
VL - 27
SP - 161
EP - 171
JO - Ecosystem Services
JF - Ecosystem Services
SN - 2212-0416
ER -