Schwarz, Nina, Moretti, Marco, Bugalho, Miguel N., Davies, Zoe G., Haase, Dagmar, Hack, Jochen, Hof, Angela, Melero, Yolanda, Pett, Tristan J., Knapp, Sonja and others. (2017) Understanding biodiversity-ecosystem service relationships in urban areas: a comprehensive literature review. Ecosystem Services, 27 (A). pp. 161-171. ISSN 2212-0416. (doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.014) (KAR id:63899)
PDF
Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
|
|
Download this file (PDF/1MB) |
Preview |
Request a format suitable for use with assistive technology e.g. a screenreader | |
Microsoft Word
Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English Restricted to Repository staff only |
|
Contact us about this Publication
|
|
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.014 |
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.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
DOI/Identification number: | 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.014 |
Subjects: | Q Science > QH Natural history > QH75 Conservation (Biology) |
Divisions: | Divisions > Division of Human and Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation > DICE (Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology) |
Funders: | European Research Council (https://ror.org/0472cxd90) |
Depositing User: | Zoe Davies |
Date Deposited: | 08 Oct 2017 14:10 UTC |
Last Modified: | 05 Nov 2024 10:59 UTC |
Resource URI: | https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/63899 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes) |
- Link to SensusAccess
- Export to:
- RefWorks
- EPrints3 XML
- BibTeX
- CSV
- Depositors only (login required):