Date post: | 16-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | tiffany-sparks |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Prospects and Perils for Urban Forestry and Ecosystem
Services: Applications and Research
J. Morgan Grove1, Austin Troy2, Matthew Wilson3
1Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service2Rubenstein School of the Environment and Natural
Resources, University of Vermont3School of Business and Administration and Gund Institute
for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont
Overview
• Prospects for Application of Ecosystem Services to Urban Forestry
• Perils for Ecosystem Services Research
• Improving Applications through Research
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Parcel Public Right of Way
Possible
Existing
Not Useable
Acr
es
New Prospects: Urban Tree Canopy Goals and Private and Public
Lands in Urban Areas
Urban Tree Assessment, Baltimore City
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Res
iden
tial
Exe
mpt
Com
mer
cial
Pub
lic R
ight
of W
ay
Indu
stria
l
Com
mer
cial
Apa
rtmen
ts
Exe
mpt
Unk
now
n
Res
iden
tial
Con
do
Res
iden
tial
Com
mer
cial
Com
mer
cial
Res
iden
tial
Com
mer
cial
Con
do
Possible
Existing
Acr
esNew Prospects:
Urban Tree Canopy Goals and Private and Public Lands in Urban Areas
Urban Tree Assessment, Baltimore City
FOS Type
Wildlife
Habitat
Recreation
Forest
Produts
Safety
Cleanliness
Social
Capital
Aesthetics
Quality
Of Life
Property
Values
Energy
Savings
Carbon
Storage
Ozone
Air
Particulates
Storm
water
Drinking
Water
RegionalForestry
Stream Valleys &
Coastal Areas
Roads
Neighborhood Areas
Underutilized Industrial Areas
Large, Protected Areas
UTC / FOS Goal
No Effect
Low Effect
Medium Effect
High Effect
Urban Tree Canopy Goals:Linking Urban Forestry to Ecosystem
Services
Perils of Ecosystem Services Research
• Current focus of Ecosystem Services– Measuring stocks and fluxes of ecosystem services– Valuation and methods for valuation of ecosystem
services
• Geography of Analyses and Advances in Data
• Questions that are really, really hard:– Interactions among variables– Non-linearities and thresholds – Differences in preferences among social groups– Changes in preferences over time
Farber et al. 2006. “Linking Ecology and Economics forEcosystem Management.”Bioscience 56(2):117-129.
Geography of Ecosystem Services ecovalue.uvm.edu
$2,746,828 / year
Geography of Urban Forestry Applicationsand Advances in Data
FOS Type
Wildlife
Habitat
Recreation
Forest
Produts
Safety
Cleanliness
Social
Capital
Aesthetics
Quality
Of Life
Property
Values
Energy
Savings
Carbon
Storage
Ozone
Air
Particulates
Storm
water
Drinking
Water
RegionalForestry
Stream Valleys &
Coastal Areas
Roads
Neighborhood Areas
Underutilized Industrial Areas
Large, Protected Areas
UTC / FOS Goal
No Effect
Low Effect
Medium Effect
High Effect
Peril 1: Interactions Among Variables
Peril 1: Interaction Effects among Proximity to Parks, Safety, and Property
Values
Parcel Level Estimates of Ecosystem Services:
- Access to Parks, - Safety (Crime), and - Property Values
Peril 2: Non-linear Relationships and Spatial Configuration:
Tree Stocking Densities and Property Values
•The relationships among household property values and environmental amenities are not constant over space or among social groups,
•Tree canopy cover is valued highest in the urban core.
Peril 3: Differences Among Social Groups and Spatial Non-Stationarity
of Household Property Values and Environmental Amenities
American Dreams
Big City Blend
Blue Blood Estates
Blue-Chip Blues
Bohemian Mix
Fmaily Scramble
Gray Collars
Gray Power
Hometown Retired
Inner Cities
Mid-City Mix
Military Quarters
Mobility Blues
Money & Brains
New Beginnings
New Empty Nests
Old Yankee Rows
Pools & Patios
Single City Blues
Smalltown Downtown
Southside City
Suburban Sprawl
Towns & Gowns
Upstarts & Seniors
Urban Achievers
Urban Gold Coast
Winner's Circle
Young Influentials
Young Literati
Area of Residential Realized UTC by Block
Group
Peril 3: Differences Among Social Groups:
Realized UTC & Lifestyle
Extrusion Factor = 25
PRIZM 62 Lifestyle Classification
Money & Brains 47% more realized stewardship than Bohemian Mix
Bohemian Mix
Peril 4: Differences in Preferences for Ecosystem Services Over Time
• 1931: Living close to the workplace (TRI site) and industrial areas, and
• 2001: Living far away from TRI sites (workplace) and industrial areas
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#* #*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#* #*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
§̈¦895
§̈¦95
§̈¦83
§̈¦395
2Miles
RailroadInterstate
#* Toxics Release Inventory Site
Zoned Industrial, 1931
Hamilton
Chinquapin
Govans-Northwood
Roland ParkUpper
Park
Forest Park
Lower Park
Mt. W
ashing
ton
Druid Hill
Ten Hills
Irvington
Waverly
CliftonGardenville
Brooklyn
Canton
WestBaltimore
MetroCenter
EastBaltimore
Highland- town
SouthBalt.
Carroll
Morrell
Park
CherryHill Patapsco River
1931: Living close to the workplace (TRI sites) and industrial areas
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#* #*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#* #*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
§̈¦895
§̈¦95
§̈¦83
§̈¦395
2Miles
Percent Black
0.0-16.2
16.3-41.3
41.4-64.1
64.2-84.9
85.0-100.0
Half mile buffer from TRI site
#* Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) site
Interstate
2001: Living far away from TRI sites (workplace) and industrial areas
Conclusion
Areas of Focus to link Research to Application:
• Spatial and temporal resolution of data needed (scale of market transactions: parcel / annual)
• Types of data need to characterize and value ecosystem services over space, time, and for different social groups
• Models of ecosystem service change over space and time due to ecological and social dynamics
• Link ecosystem services assessments to urban forestry interventions and monitoring and evaluation
AbstractProspects and Perils for Urban Forestry and Ecosystem Services: Application and Research
Ecosystem Goods and Services are the benefits people obtain either directly or indirectly from functioning ecological systems. Assessment of Ecosystem Services focuses principally on three issues: measurements of ecological functions, estimates of values for specific ecological functions, and the spatially explicit transfer of valuation estimates from study sites to policy sites. An Ecosystem Service approach has been proposed as a compelling framework for natural resource management because it provides a framework for assessing diverse tradeoffs (Farber et al. 2006). In the case of urban forestry research and applications, however, important issues need to be addressed before an Ecosystem Service approach will be useful in general.
In this presentation we discuss some of the perils and prospects for adopting an ecosystem service approach with examples from Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES) research and Revitalizing Baltimore (RB) applications. These issues include the following questions. Do the measurements of ecological processes and valuation of those processes correspond to the resolution at which urban forestry occurs? Do our valuation estimates account for interactions among social and biophysical processes? Are existing valuation estimates related to urban forest ecosystem services similar enough in context to be transferred to Baltimore? Do our estimates of ecosystem service values depend upon linear relationships or constant variation over space? We conclude with a discussion of the challenges and limitations to value transfer approaches as well as future opportunities in making this analysis spatially and contextually specific.
Support for this research comes from the Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service and NSF DEB Grant # 0423476
Citation: Troy, A, Grove, J.M., and Wilson, M. 2006. Prospects and Perils for Urban Forestry and Ecosystem Services: Application and Research. 12th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management. Vancouver, British Columbia. June 3rd – 8th, 2006. Published Abstract.