| Literature DB >> 25402184 |
Cynnamon Dobbs1, Craig R Nitschke2, Dave Kendal3.
Abstract
Our world is increasingly urbanizing which is highlighting that sustainable cities are essential for maintaining human well-being. This research is one of the first attempts to globally synthesize the effects of urbanization on ecosystem services and how these relate to governance, social development and climate. Three urban vegetation ecosystem services (carbon storage, recreation potential and habitat potential) were quantified for a selection of a hundred cities. Estimates of ecosystem services were obtained from the analysis of satellite imagery and the use of well-known carbon and structural habitat models. We found relationships between ecosystem services, social development, climate and governance, however these varied according to the service studied. Recreation potential was positively related to democracy and negatively related to population. Carbon storage was weakly related to temperature and democracy, while habitat potential was negatively related to democracy. We found that cities under 1 million inhabitants tended to have higher levels of recreation potential than larger cities and that democratic countries have higher recreation potential, especially if located in a continental climate. Carbon storage was higher in full democracies, especially in a continental climate, while habitat potential tended to be higher in authoritarian and hybrid regimes. Similar to other regional or city studies we found that the combination of environment conditions, socioeconomics, demographics and politics determines the provision of ecosystem services. Results from this study showed the existence of environmental injustice in the developing world.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25402184 PMCID: PMC4234474 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113000
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Socioeconomic, political and climatic characteristics for the 100 cities included in this study.
| Climate (Köppen classification) | Population | Human Development Index (HDI) | Democracy Index (DI) |
| Tropical moist (11) | <1 million habitants (11) | Very high HDI (45) | Full democracies (38) |
| Dry climate (13) | 1 to 2 million habitants (32) | High HDI (19) | Flawed democracies (32) |
| Moist mid latitude with mild winters (60) | 2 to 6 million habitants (39) | Medium HDI (22) | Hybrid regimes (14) |
| Moist mid latitude with cold winters (16) | >6 million habitants (18) | Low HDI (14) | Authoritarian regimes (16) |
Figure 1Ordination of the first and second standardized principal component for each ecosystem services and main drivers for 100 cities.
The value of PC1 (Principal Component1) and PC2 (Principal Component 2) for the cities was standardised in order to more clearly show their location in the orthogonal space. The length of the arrow is an indication of the strength of the socio-political-climate variables and the ecosystem service in each PC. HMI: Heat Moisture Index, DI: Democracy Index, HDI: Human Development Index.
Figure 2Bayesian models for three ecosystem services.
Values overlapping zero imply a consistent effect of the bio-socio-political factor in the probability of having a positive or negative effect in the provision of ecosystem services. HDI: Human Development Index, DI: Democracy Index, PP: Annual precipitation, MAT: Mean Annual Temperature, HMI: Heat Moisture index.
Significant differences (ANOVA) in the provision of ecosystem services using categories from significantly influential urban characteristics.
| Recreation potential (m2 per capita) | Carbon storage (kg/ha) | Habitat provision (%) | ||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Population | <1 million | 16.5a (2.6–44) | 39.5a (0.7–81) | 45a (5–74) |
| 1 to 2 million | 8.6b (1.7–31) | 42.3a (0.7–151) | 54a (4–93) | |
| 2 to 6 million | 7.5b (0.6–33) | 38.4a (0.2–149) | 56.2a (4–98) | |
| >6 million | 3.2b (0.4–7.6) | 27.7a (5–161) | 49.3a (2–93) | |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Democracy Index |
|
|
|
|
| Authoritarian | 3.4a (0.8–6.5) | 21.3b (0.2–59) | 63.4a (7–93) | |
| Hybrid | 3.3a (0.4–8) | 32ab (3.1–114) | 52.6b (4–78) | |
| Flawed democracy | 5.6a (0.7–31) | 31.5b (0.7–161) | 52.9b (2–90) | |
| Full democracy | 13.9b (1–44) | 55.5a (3.4–151) | 48.9b (4–78) | |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Climate |
|
|
|
|
| Tropical | 3.3a (0.6–8) | 25.5a (0.7–94.1) | 58.2a (2–88) | |
| Desert | 8.5ab (0.6–29) | 31.7a (0.2–84) | 61.5a (7–90) | |
| Mediterranean | 7.4a (0.4–33) | 40.8a (1.9–161) | 51.6a (4–93) | |
| Continental | 13.7b (3–44) | 46.5a (0.7–103) | 49.2a (4–98) | |
|
|
|
|
|
Values label with the different letter a imply significant differences among categories of analysis for Tukey’s HSD comparison test.
Spearman correlations between different ecosystem services for all the cities and by categories of population, democracy and climate.
| Recreation vs. Carbon | Recreation vs. Habitat | Carbon vs. Habitat | ||
| All cities | 0.53*** | 0.09 | 0.02 | |
| Population | Less 1 million | 0.46* | 0.47* | 0.009 |
| 1 to 2 million | 0.64 *** | 0.1 | 0.05 | |
| 2 to 6 million | 0.59*** | 0.24 | 0.11 | |
| more than 6 million | 0.62** | −0.12 | −0.14 | |
| Democracy | Authoritarian regimes | 0.47** | 0.07 | −0.04 |
| Hybrid regimes | 0.66** | −0.11 | −0.02 | |
| Flawed Democracy | 0.63*** | 0.25* | 0.17 | |
| Full Democracy | 0.12 | 0.36* | 0.15 | |
| Climate | Tropical | 0.18 | 0.3 | −0.19 |
| Desert | 0.64** | 0.009 | −0.1 | |
| Mediterranean | 0.58*** | 0.12 | 0.19* | |
| Continental | 0.27 | 0.24 | 0.05 |
Fisher significant test: *p-value<0.01, **p-value<0.05, ***p-value<0.001.