Assessment of ecological capacity for urban planning and improving resilience in the European frameworkAn approach based on the Spanish case

  1. Córdoba Hernández, Rafael 1
  2. Camerin, Federico 2
  1. 1 Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03n6nwv02

  2. 2 Universidad de Valladolid
    info

    Universidad de Valladolid

    Valladolid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01fvbaw18

Revista:
Cuadernos de investigación geográfica: Geographical Research Letters
  1. Rodrigo Comino, Jesús (ed. lit.)
  2. Muñoz Gómez, Casandra (ed. lit.)
  3. Rahdari, Mohammad Reza (ed. lit.)
  4. Salvati, Luca (ed. lit.)

ISSN: 0211-6820,  1697-9540

Ano de publicación: 2023

Título do exemplar: Land Degradation Risks: Key Topics to be faced over the world

Volume: 49

Número: 2

Páxinas: 119-142

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.18172/CIG.5638 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Outras publicacións en: Cuadernos de investigación geográfica: Geographical Research Letters

Resumo

The basic idea underlying this research is that urban planning is one of the main causes of environmental degradation. Despite its relevance in impacting ecosystems, the current methodological assessments across Europe still fail to include spatial planning as a relevant factor. This paper aims to formulate an innovative methodology for the evaluation of ecosystems for protecting land at risk of degradation. This methodology is exemplified by the case of Spanish spatial planning applied in the Community of Madrid, being also capable to be employed in other European State Members after a cartographic adaptation. The proposed methodology specifically implements a European approach to the scale of regional and local spatial planning based on the “Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services” (MAES) project. Among the main results, four outcomes stand out. The first is the novelty to provide a methodology capable of dealing with natural values at regional and municipal levels based on a spatial-planning-based scale (1:20,000). The second result regards the incorporation of new attributes tied to existing ecosystems during the drafting of spatial plans, thus improving the quality of the information to make better decisions in terms of environmental protection. The third result is the more accurate environment assessment due to the inclusion of a new element of direct pressure on ecosystems, while the fourth outcome is that the proposed methodology detects the impacts of the drivers of change in the Community of Madrid. Although the cartographic information is defined at the regional scale, the results obtained can be linked to the municipal planning scale. The proposed methodology can be a much more useful tool for regional spatial planning for three main reasons: it works at the same scale as regional planning (1:20,000), it incorporates the environmental information necessary for the correct identification of natural values and impacts at the municipal level, and it works with geographic information systems. These reasons allow an easier and quicker incorporation of ecosystems in spatial planning tools by simultaneously interpreting and comparing different land protection issues such as ecosystem loss and ecosystem services.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adem Esmail, B., Geneletti, D. 2017. Design and impact assessment of watershed investments: An approach based on ecosystem services and boundary work. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.08.001
  • Arkema, K. K., Verutes, G. M., Wood, S. A., Clarke-Samuels, C., Rosado, S., Canto, M., Rosenthal, A., Ruckelshaus, M., Guannel, G., Toft, J., Faries, J., Silver, J. M., Griffin, R., Guerry, A. D. 2015. Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for people and nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(24), 7390-7395. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406483112
  • Bagstad, K. J., Johnson, G. W., Voigt, B., Villa, F. 2013. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services 4, 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012
  • Baveye, P. C., Baveye, J., Gowdy, J. 2016. Soil «ecosystem» services and natural capital: Critical appraisal of research on uncertain ground. Frontiers in Environmental Science 4, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00041
  • Brand, F. 2009. Critical natural capital revisited: Ecological resilience and sustainable development. Ecological Economics 68(3), 605-612). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.013
  • Burkhard, B., Maes, J. 2017. Mapping Ecosystem Services. In: B. Burkhard and J. Maes (Eds.), Mapping Ecosystem Services. Pensoft Publishers. https://doi.org/10.3897/ab.e12837
  • Büttner, G., Kostztra, B., Soukup, T., Sousa, A., Langanke, T. 2017. CLC2018 Technical Guidelines. European Environment Agency, 60 p. https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/clc2018technicalguidelines_final.pdf
  • Büttner, G., Kosztra, B., Maucha, G., Pataki, R., Kleeschulte, S., Hazeu, G., Vittek, M., Schröder, C., Littkopf, A. 2021. CORINE Land Cover, User Manual. https://land.copernicus.eu/ [Accessed 07-June-2021]
  • Córdoba Hernández, R. 2021. Estructura territorial resiliente: análisis y formalización a través del planeamiento urbanístico. Tesis Doctoral inédita. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. https://doi.org/10.20868/UPM.thesis.69364
  • Córdoba Hernández, R., Morcillo Álvarez, D. 2020. Marco territorial de la producción de espacio en la región funcional de Madrid. Ciudades 23, 71-93. https://doi.org/10.24197/CIUDADES.23.2020.71-93
  • Córdoba Hernández, R., Martí Guitera, L. 2022. Ecosystem vulnerability due to urban growth policies. The role of regulatory ecosystem contributions in the land use planning. SUPTM 2022: 1st Conference on Future Challenges in Sustainable Urban Planning & Territorial Management, 4. https://doi.org/10.31428/10317/10599
  • Davies, C. E., Moss, D., Hill, M. O. 2004. EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004. Technology, October, 310 p. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/eunis-habitat-classification
  • European Commission. 2020. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back into our lives. COM(2020), 23. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:a3c806a6-9ab3-11ea-9d2d-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
  • European Environment Agency. 2014. Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe. EEA Technical Report 2/2014. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/spatial-analysis-of-green-infrastructure
  • European Environment Agency. 2015a. EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline — Adapted to the MAES Typology (2015). EEA Technical Report 9/2015. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline-revision
  • European Environment Agency. 2015b. European Ecosystem Assessment - Concept, Data and Implementation. EEA Technical report 6/2015. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-ecosystem-assessment
  • European Environment Agency. 2016. Mapping and assessing the condition of Europe’s ecosystems: progress and challenges. EEA Report 3/2016. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/mapping-europes-ecosystems
  • European Environment Agency. 2018. European waters Assessment of status and pressures 2018. EEA Report 7/2018. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water
  • Fernández de Manuel, B., Peña, L., Ametzaga, I., Onaindia, M. 2020. Guía práctica para la integración de los servicios de los ecosistemas en la formulación de planes y programas territoriales y urbanísticos. Universidad del País Vasco. http://web-argitalpena.adm.ehu.es/pasa_pdfFin.asp
  • Ghaley, B. B., Vesterdal, L., Porter, J. R. 2014. Quantification and valuation of ecosystem services in diverse production systems for informed decision-making. Environmental Science and Policy 39, 139-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.004
  • Hamilton, W. A. H. 2009. Resilience and the city: the water sector. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Urban Design and Planning 162(3), 109-121. https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.2009.162.3.109
  • Henderson, J. 2015. Avian Urban Ecology: Behavioural and Physiological Adaptations. Biodiversity 16(1), 51-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2015.1009944
  • Heymann, Y., Steenmans, C., Croisille, G., Bossard, M., Lenco, M., Wyatt, B., Weber, J.-L., O’Brian, C., Cornaert, M.-H., Sifakis, N. 1994. CORINE land cover. Technical guide. Environment, nuclear safety and civil protection series. European Commission, Directorate-General, Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection.
  • Hurlimann, A. C., March, A. P. 2012. The role of spatial planning in adapting to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3(5), pp. 477-488. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.183
  • Jacobs, S., Stevens, M., Reeth, W. Van, Daele, T. Van, Schneiders, A., Demolder, H., Thoonen, M., Gossum, P. Van, Peymen, J. 2013. Capacity for delivery of ecosystem services - Interim evaluation of a method based on agriculture and expert knowledge in Flanders.
  • Jefatura del Estado. 1978. Real Decreto 2159/1978, de 23 de junio, por el que se establece el Reglamento del Planeamiento Urbanístico. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 221, de 15 de septiembre, 21592-21606. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/1978/06/23/2159
  • Jefatura del Estado. 2015. Ley 33/2015, de 21 de septiembre, por la que se modifica la Ley 42/2007, de 13 de diciembre, del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 227, de 22 de septiembre, 83588-83632.
  • Jefatura del Estado. 2021a. Ley 7/2021, de 20 de mayo, de cambio climático y transición energética. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 121, de 21 de mayo, 62009 a 62052.
  • Jefatura del Estado. 2021b. Orden PCM/735/2021, de 9 de julio, por la que se aprueba la Estrategia Nacional de Infraestructura Verde y de la Conectividad y Restauración Ecológicas. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 166, de 13 de julio, 83217-83470. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/o/2021/07/09/pcm735
  • Keesstra, S. D., Bouma, J., Wallinga, J., Tittonell, P., Smith, P., Cerdà, A., Montanarella, L., Quinton, J. N., Pachepsky, Y., Van Der Putten, W. H., Bardgett, R. D., Moolenaar, S., Mol, G., Jansen, B., and Fresco, L. O. 2016. The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations sustainable development goals. SOIL 2(2), 111-128. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2-111-2016
  • Kramer, K., Verkaar, H. J. 1998. Disturbed disturbances: The complicated management of sustainable forest ecosystems. In: M. Nabuurs, G.J. Nuutinen, T. Bartelink, H.Korhonen (Eds.), Forest scenario modelling for ecosystem management at landscape level Proceedings 19, pp. 47-62. ISBN: 952-9844-40-9.
  • Kumar, P. 2012. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Routledge. 456 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775489
  • Larondelle, N., Haase, D. 2012. Valuing post-mining landscapes using an ecosystem services approach - An example from Germany. Ecological Indicators 18, 567-574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.008
  • Longcore, T., Rich, C. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(4), 191-198. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0191:ELP]2.0.CO;2
  • Longato, D., Cortinovis, C., Albert, C., Geneletti, D. 2021. Practical applications of ecosystem services in spatial planning: Lessons learned from a systematic literature review. Environmental Science & Policy 119, 72-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.02.001
  • Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Liquete, C., Braat, L., Berry, P., Egoh, B., Puydarrieux, P., Fiorina, C., Santos-Martín, F., Paracchini, M. L., Keune, H., Wittmer, H., Hauck, J., Fiala, I., Verburg, P. H., Condé, S., Schägner, J. P., Miguel, J. S., … Bidoglio, G. (2013). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper2013.pdf
  • Maruna, M., Crnčević, T., Milojević, M. P. 2019. The institutional structure of land use planning for urban forest protection in the post-socialist transition environment: Serbian experiences. Forests 10(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/f10070560
  • Masoudi, M., Asrari, E., Razaghi, S., Karimi, F., Cerdà, A. (2023). A new proposed model of EMOLUP for assessing of ecological capability of different utilizations and land use planning in Sepidan Township, Iran. Cuadernos de Investigación Geográfica- Geographical Reserach Letters. https://doi.org/10.18172/cig.5443
  • McGranahan, G., Balk, D., Anderson, B. 2007. The rising tide: Assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environment and Urbanization 19(1), 17-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247807076960
  • Méndez, R. 2012. Ciudades y metáforas: sobre el concepto de resiliencia urbana. Ciudad y Territorio. Estudios territoriales XLIV(172), 215-232. http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/FF63AECF-CF4B-4A59-968B-D9B701ACA03B/113205/CyTET172.pdf
  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press. http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf
  • Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M. 2004. Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning 69(4), 369-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.035
  • Ronchi, S., Salata, S., Arcidiacono, A., Piroli, E., Montanarella, L. 2019. Policy instruments for soil protection among the EU member states: A comparative analysis. Land Use Policy 82, 763-780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.017
  • Ruhl, J. B., Kraft, S. E., Lant, C. L. 2008. The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services. Island Press, Washington, DC. 350 p.
  • Saner, M. A., Bordt, M. 2016. Building the consensus: The moral space of earth measurement. Ecological Economics 130, 74-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.019
  • Spyra, M., Kleemann, J., Cetin, N. I., Vázquez Navarrete, C. J., Albert, C., Palacios-Agundez, I., Ametzaga-Arregi, I., La Rosa, D., Rozas-Vásquez, D., Adem Esmail, B., Picchi, P., Geneletti, D., König, H. J., Koo, H., Kopperoinen, L., Fürst, C. 2019. The ecosystem services concept: a new Esperanto to facilitate participatory planning processes? Landscape Ecology 34(7), 1715-1735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0745-6
  • Stürck, J., Poortinga, A., Verburg, P. H. 2014. Mapping ecosystem services: The supply and demand of flood regulation services in Europe. Ecological Indicators 38, 198-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.010
  • Thoidou, E. 2021. Spatial planning and climate adaptation: Challenges of land protection in a peri-urban area of the mediterranean city of thessaloniki. Sustainability 13(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084456
  • Turner, R. K., Morse-Jones, S., Fisher, B. 2010. Ecosystem valuation: A sequential decision support system and quality assessment issues. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1185, 79-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05280.x
  • United Nations. 2017. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012. United Nations. https://doi.org/10.5089/9789211615630.069
  • United Nations Habitat. 2015. International Guidelines on Urban and Territorial Planning. https://unhabitat.org/international-guidelines-on-urban-and-territorial-planning
  • Urban, D. L., O’Neill, R. V, Shugart, H. H. J. 1987. Landscape Ecology: A hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns. BioScience 37(2), 119-127.
  • Valenzuela Rubio, M. 2010. La planificación territorial de la región metropolitana de Madrid. Una asignatura pendiente. Cuadernos Geograficos 47, 95-129. https://doi.org/10.30827/cuadgeo.v47i0.603
  • Veidemane, K., Ruskule, A., Strake, S., Purina, I., Aigars, J., Sprukta, S., Ustups, D., Putnis, I., Klepers, A. 2017. Application of the marine ecosystem services approach in the development of the maritime spatial plan of Latvia. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 13(1), 398-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1398185
  • Verhagen, W., Verburg, P. H., Schulp, N., Störck, J. 2015. Mapping ecosystem services. In: J.A. Bouma, P.J.H. van Beukering (Eds.), Ecosystem Services: From Concept to Practice. Cambridge University Press. pp. 65-86. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107477612.006
  • Verutes, G. M., Arkema, K. K., Clarke-Samuels, C., Wood, S. A., Rosenthal, A., Rosado, S., Canto, M., Bood, N., Ruckelshaus, M. 2017. Integrated planning that safeguards ecosystems and balances multiple objectives in coastal Belize. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 13(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1345979
Fonte de datos: Dialnet