IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i12p4488-d186315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Needs-Driven, Multi-Objective Approach to Allocate Urban Ecosystem Services from 10,000 Trees

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Almeter

    (Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Participant, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA)

  • Arik Tashie

    (Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Participant, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA)

  • Andrew Procter

    (Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Participant, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA)

  • Tara McAlexander

    (Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) Environmental Fellow, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA)

  • Douglas Browning

    (Student Services Contractor, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA)

  • Charles Rudder

    (Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Participant, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA)

  • Laura Jackson

    (Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA)

  • Rochelle Araujo

    (Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA)

Abstract

Urban areas face challenges including vehicular emissions, stormwater runoff, and sedentary lifestyles. Communities recognize the value of trees in mitigating these challenges by absorbing pollution and enhancing walkability. However, siting trees to optimize multiple benefits requires a systems approach that may cross sectors of management and expertise. We present a spatially-explicit method to optimize tree planting in Durham, NC, a rapidly growing urban area with an aging tree stock. Using GIS data and a ranking approach, we explored where Durham could augment its current stock of willow oaks through its plans to install 10,000 mid-sized deciduous trees. Data included high-resolution landcover metrics developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), demographics from the U.S. Census, an attributed roads dataset licensed to the EPA, and sidewalk information from the City of Durham. Census block groups (CBGs) were ranked for tree planting according to single and multiple objectives including stormwater reduction, emissions buffering, walkability, and protection of vulnerable populations. Prioritizing tree planting based on single objectives led to four sets of locations with limited geographic overlap. Prioritizing tree planting based on multiple objectives tended to favor historically disadvantaged CBGs. The four-objective strategy met the largest proportion of estimated regional need. Based on this analysis, the City of Durham has implemented a seven-year plan to plant 10,000 trees in priority neighborhoods. This analysis also found that any strategy which included the protection of vulnerable populations generated more benefits than others.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Almeter & Arik Tashie & Andrew Procter & Tara McAlexander & Douglas Browning & Charles Rudder & Laura Jackson & Rochelle Araujo, 2018. "A Needs-Driven, Multi-Objective Approach to Allocate Urban Ecosystem Services from 10,000 Trees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4488-:d:186315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4488/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4488/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & A, 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    2. Langemeyer, Johannes & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Haase, Dagmar & Scheuer, Sebastian & Elmqvist, Thomas, 2016. "Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 45-56.
    3. Fontana, Veronika & Radtke, Anna & Bossi Fedrigotti, Valérie & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Tasser, Erich & Zerbe, Stefan & Buchholz, Thomas, 2013. "Comparing land-use alternatives: Using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 128-136.
    4. Laura Jackson & Jessica Daniel & Betsy McCorkle & Alexandra Sears & Kathleen Bush, 2013. "Linking ecosystem services and human health: the Eco-Health Relationship Browser," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 58(5), pages 747-755, October.
    5. Pickard, Brian R. & Daniel, Jessica & Mehaffey, Megan & Jackson, Laura E. & Neale, Anne, 2015. "EnviroAtlas: A new geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services science and resource management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 45-55.
    6. Graciela Chichilnisky & Geoffrey Heal, 1998. "Economic returns from the biosphere," Nature, Nature, vol. 391(6668), pages 629-630, February.
    7. Brownson, R.C. & Baker, E.A. & Housemann, R.A. & Brennan, L.K. & Bacak, S.J., 2001. "Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(12), pages 1995-2003.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adriana A. Zuniga-Teran & Andrea K. Gerlak, 2019. "A Multidisciplinary Approach to Analyzing Questions of Justice Issues in Urban Greenspace," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-22, May.
    2. Herlin Chien, 2022. "Evaluating impacts of researchers to enable sustainability transition: using urban ecosystem service literature as an exemplary field," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 2345-2361, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Oosterbroek, Bram & de Kraker, Joop & Huynen, Maud M.T.E. & Martens, Pim, 2016. "Assessing ecosystem impacts on health: A tool review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 237-254.
    2. Brzoska, P. & Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O., 2021. "A multi-criteria analytical method to assess ecosystem services at urban site level, exemplified by two German city districts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    3. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    4. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    5. Charles, Michael & Ziv, Guy & Bohrer, Gil & Bakshi, Bhavik R., 2020. "Connecting air quality regulating ecosystem services with beneficiaries through quantitative serviceshed analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Belton, Valerie & Hjerppe, Turo & Marttunen, Mika, 2020. "Utilizing ecosystem service classifications in multi-criteria decision analysis – Experiences of peat extraction case in Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Stefano Salata & Gabriele Garnero & Carlo Alberto Barbieri & Carolina Giaimo, 2017. "The Integration of Ecosystem Services in Planning: An Evaluation of the Nutrient Retention Model Using InVEST Software," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-21, July.
    8. Minmin Zhao & Zhibin He, 2018. "Evaluation of the Effects of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Service Values in the Upper Reaches of the Heihe River Basin, Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Fontana, Veronika & Ebner, Manuel & Schirpke, Uta & Ohndorf, Markus & Pritsch, Hanna & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Kurmayer, Rainer, 2023. "An integrative approach to evaluate ecosystem services of mountain lakes using multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    10. Pickard, Brian R. & Daniel, Jessica & Mehaffey, Megan & Jackson, Laura E. & Neale, Anne, 2015. "EnviroAtlas: A new geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services science and resource management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 45-55.
    11. Matthew C. Harwell & Chloe A. Jackson, 2021. "Synthesis of Two Decades of US EPA’s Ecosystem Services Research to Inform Environmental, Community and Sustainability Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-29, July.
    12. Campbell, Elliott & Marks, Rachel & Conn, Christine, 2020. "Spatial modeling of the biophysical and economic values of ecosystem services in Maryland, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    13. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2019. "A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Mohamed F. Sallam & Chelsea Fizer & Andrew N. Pilant & Pai-Yei Whung, 2017. "Systematic Review: Land Cover, Meteorological, and Socioeconomic Determinants of Aedes Mosquito Habitat for Risk Mapping," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-15, October.
    15. Balzan, Mario V & Caruana, Julio & Zammit, Annrica, 2018. "Assessing the capacity and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small island state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 711-725.
    16. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    17. Nazmul Huq & Antje Bruns & Lars Ribbe & Saleemul Huq, 2017. "Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services Based Climate Change Adaptation (EbA) in Bangladesh: Status, Challenges and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    18. Hougner, Cajsa & Colding, Johan & Soderqvist, Tore, 2006. "Economic valuation of a seed dispersal service in the Stockholm National Urban Park, Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 364-374, September.
    19. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    20. Min Liu & Jianpeng Fan & Yuanzheng Li & Qizheng Mao, 2023. "Ecosystem Service Optimisation in the Central Plains Urban Agglomeration Based on Land Use Structure Adjustment," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4488-:d:186315. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.