Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on urban biodiversity perception and valuation |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Ecology, Ecosystem Science/Plant Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, D-12165 Berlin, Germany;2. Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), D-14195 Berlin, Germany;1. ODBU, Observatoire départemental de la Biodiversité urbaine, Direction de la Nature, des Paysages et de la Biodiversité, Conseil général de la Seine-Saint-Denis, Hôtel du Département, 93006 Bobigny Cedex, France;2. UMR 7206 MNHN-CNRS—Université Paris 7, Éco-anthropologie et Ethnobiologie, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, 43 rue Buffon, F-75005 Paris, France;3. Université Lyon 1, CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, 43 Bd du 11 novembre 1918, 69622 Villeurbanne, France;4. ANR, Agence Nationale de la Recherche, 7 rue Watt, 75013 Paris, France;5. Laboratoire Ecologie, Systématique et Evolution, UMR 8079, AgroParisTech, CNRS & Université Paris Sud Orsay, Orsay Cedex, France;1. Land Use Planning Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands;2. Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands;3. Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki P.O. Box 65, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland;1. Department of Education, Experimental Psychology Laboratory, Roma Tre University, Italy;2. Department of Human Studies, Libera Università Maria Ss. Assunta (LUMSA), Italy;3. Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, University of Bari, Italy;4. Department of Agrifood Production and Environmental Sciences, University of Florence, Italy;5. Department of Agriculture, Food and Forest Systems Management, University of Florence, Italy;6. Department for Innovation in Biological, Agro-food and Forest systems, Tuscia University, Italy;7. Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padua, Italy;1. Zoology Department, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand;2. Geography Department, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand;1. Department of Ecology, Ecosystem Science/Plant Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, Rothenburgstr. 12, D-12165 Berlin, Germany;2. Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), D-14195 Berlin, Germany;3. German Institute of Urban Affairs (Difu), Team Economics and Innovation, Zimmerstr. 13-15, D-10969 Berlin, Germany;4. Institute of Vocational Education and Work Studies, Education for Sustainable Nutrition and Food Science, Technische Universität Berlin, Marchstr. 23, D-10587 Berlin, Germany;5. Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia;6. Street and Parks Department, City of Malmö, 205 80 Malmö, Sweden;7. Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands;8. Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Department of Geography, Rudower Chaussee 16, 12489 Berlin, Germany;9. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Urban and Environment Sociology, Permoser Straße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany;10. Department of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of Bari “A. Moro”, Via Amendola 165/A, 70126 Bari, Italy;11. Center for Global Change and Earth Observations (CGCEO), Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823 USA;12. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark;13. Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Slottsvägen 5, 23053 Alnarp, Sweden;14. Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands;15. Strategic Projects Unit, Research Services, P.O. Box 53 (Fabianinkatu 32), 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland;1. University of Évora, 7000 Évora, Portugal;2. CITUA, Instituto Superior Tecnico, University of Lisbon, Portugal;3. Technical Institute, University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal |
| |
| Abstract: | Many researchers and policymakers from various disciplines highlight the role of urban biodiversity in delivering ecosystem services to enhance human wellbeing in a rapidly urbanising world. This suggests powerful synergies between approaches that are often disciplinarily separated, aiming either at human wellbeing or biodiversity conservation. Strategies towards liveable and biodiverse cities would gain support from insights into the people-biodiversity interface in cities. Yet, the question of which scale of biodiversity (from ecosystems to genes) benefits urban people in general and different socio-cultural groups in particular, remains largely open. To assess the current scientific knowledge as well as potential for further research, we systematically reviewed literature on people’s perception and valuation of urban biodiversity (200 studies). We also quantified the outcomes of studies in terms of the effects of biodiversity on valuation for studies that addressed biodiversity valuation below the ecosystem scale. We found that the current literature is critically biased in four ways. (1) Most studies cover temperate climates, while regions with the most pronounced urban growth are underrepresented. (2) Studies focus on urban forests and parks while important informal greenspaces are largely neglected. (3) Biodiversity is mostly addressed at the ecosystem scale (habitat or land-use types) while diversity at the species community or gene scale—key issues in biodiversity conservation—is covered to a much lesser extent. Most studies below the ecosystem scale show positive biodiversity effects, but universal patterns are not apparent due to the scarcity and low comparability of research. (4) Almost no studies consider the cultural diversity of urban residents by systematically targeting people from different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds or specific age groups. Our review reveals critical knowledge gaps about the people-biodiversity interface in cities, both in approaching cultural and biological diversity (‘biocultural diversity’). This shows unexploited opportunities and future directions in linking usually separated strategies on enhancing human wellbeing and biodiversity conservation in sustainable cities. |
| |
| Keywords: | Biodiversity conservation Cultural ecosystem services Environmental psychology Green infrastructure Interdisciplinarity Urban nature Urbanisation |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
