Skip to main content

Understanding biodiversity-ecosystem service relationships in urban areas: a comprehensive literature review

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)

PDF - Author's Accepted Manuscript

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Download (797kB) Preview
[img]
Preview
MS Word - Author's Accepted Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only
Contact us about this Publication Download (970kB)
[img]
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: Faculties > Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation > DICE (Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology)
Depositing User: Zoe Davies
Date Deposited: 08 Oct 2017 14:10 UTC
Last Modified: 19 Jul 2019 08:31 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/63899 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
  • Depositors only (login required):

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year