Quantifying current and Predicting

An Unified Approach

Name: Dongdong Cheng

ID: dche901
Word count: 2,949
 Table of Contents

1. Introduction 2

2. Methods 5

3. Results 7

4. Conclusion 10

References 14

Appendix I 17

1
1. Introduction

In the last five decades, humans have altered natural environments at a pace and scale
unprecedented in our history. This transformation has been driven primarily by the increasing
need for food, clean water, wood, textiles, and energy. Unfortunately, this has led to a
significant and mostly irreversible decline in the variety of species on our planet (MEA,
2005). The alterations made to ecosystems have indeed resulted in significant overall
improvements in human quality of life and economic progress. However, these advantages
have come at a rising expense, manifesting as the deterioration of numerous essential
ecosystem functions, heightened risks of unpredictable shifts, and the worsening of poverty
for specific populations. If these issues are left unaddressed, they will significantly reduce the
advantages that future generations can derive from ecosystems (MEA, 2005).

Grunewald and Bastian (2015) categorize 30 Ecosystem Services (ES) into three
primary groups: provisioning, regulation, and sociocultural services, each of which has
further subcategories. Additionally, they offer brief definitions and descriptions, along with
examples, and identify specific indicators for analysing or evaluating these ES, though it is
important to note that this list may not cover all possible indicators comprehensively (see
Appendix I).

Urban ecology can be described as the examination of the spatial and temporal
arrangements, environmental consequences, and the long-term viability of urban growth,
giving particular attention to the diversity of life, the functioning of ecosystems, and the
benefits they provide (ES) (Wu, 2014). While socioeconomic activities and city planning
techniques play a significant role in shaping urban development, they are essential
components but not the sole essence of the field of urban ecology (Wu, 2014). At the local
level, urban ecology focuses on the interconnections between urban planning and
construction, the provision of ecosystem services within the emerging urban system, how
individuals and their institutions adapt to changing opportunities, and the initiatives that
propel ongoing transformation within the system (Grimm et al., 2000; Pickett & Cadenasso,
2006).

Variations in land and water use, encompassing attributes such as character,

arrangement, velocity, and the ensuing ecological and societal repercussions, exhibit
divergent manifestations when assessed across distinct spatial scales, ranging from local to
regional to continental. These disparities stem from the heterogeneity in human predilections,

2
economic and political influences, and environmental sensitivities within disparate
geographical domains (Carpenter et al., 2007). Consequently, it becomes imperative to
delineate the operative mechanisms of assorted determinants across this spectrum of
interrelated levels, bearing upon transformations in land and water utilization and the inherent
traits of ecosystems (U.S. Long Term Ecological Research Network, 2007). Moreover, a
critical endeavour pertains to discerning the intricate pathways through which these
determinants cyclically impact human conduct. Undertaking comprehensive, protracted
investigations assumes paramount importance in elucidating the ecological and socio-
ecological dynamics inherent in both natural and urban systems. Equally essential is the
imperative for such inquiries to adopt a comparative perspective, thereby encompassing an
array of climatic conditions, societal contexts, and geographic settings to afford a
comprehensive comprehension (U.S. Long Term Ecological Research Network, 2007).

Wu (2014) provides us with a critical understanding of the interrelationships between

biodiversity, ecosystem processes (or ecosystem functions), ecosystem services, and human
well-being. These details are depicted in Figure 1. Urbanization has a significant impact on
the makeup and layout of landscape elements such as natural remnants, human-designed
green spaces, waterways, farmlands, buildings, transportation networks, and residential zones
(Wu, 2014). These alterations have far-reaching consequences, affecting biodiversity, the
operation of ecosystems, environmental conditions, and also influencing human conduct,
community structure, and social organization (Wu, 2014). These ecological and social
changes brought about by urbanization, in turn, have a bearing on the availability and
distribution of various types of ecosystem services that are crucial for the well-being of urban
populations (Wu, 2014). The various elements and their interconnections are profoundly
influenced by the pace and spatiotemporal patterns of urbanization, primarily driven by
socioeconomic forces (Wu, 2014). Therefore, when it comes to understanding and enhancing
the ecology and sustainability of urban environments and regions, it's crucial not only to
consider how urbanization impacts these essential elements but also how their relationships
evolve over time (Wu, 2014).

While urban sustainability initiatives primarily prioritize human well-being, urban

ecological studies often concentrate on aspects like biodiversity, ecological processes, and
ecosystem services (Wu, 2014). In either case, it's vital to account for the interplay among
these crucial elements and their connections across different spatial scales (from local

3
landscapes to regional and global scales) and temporal scales (from years and decades to
centuries) (Wu, 2014).

Figure 1. A conceptual diagram to illustrate the relationships among biodiversity, ecosystem processes (or functions), ecosystem
services, and human well-being in an urban landscape. From Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future
directions, by Jianguo Wu, 2014. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.018). Elsevier B.V.

It is no doubt that "green infrastructure" like coastal forests, urban forests, rivers, and
urban parks serves not only to enhance the ecological health of an area but also contributes
positively to social, cultural, and economic aspects (Ito, 2021). Given the significant decline
in open or natural spaces, particularly in urban regions, observed in the past century, Ito
(2021) argues that it is imperative to conserve these areas as both wildlife habitats and
communal spaces for the daily use of residents. This preservation should be a fundamental

4
consideration in current and future urban planning efforts. It is essential that we heed the
voices of nature, draw inspiration from its fundamental structures, and incorporate these
lessons into the design of our sustainable future (Ito, 2021).

2. Methods

2.1. Study Area

As shown in Figure 1, the study area covers 1 km2 (1 km× 1 km), which is located in Auckland
CBD and includes residential units, commercial areas, university campus and green areas
such as Albert Park.

Figure 2. Study Area. From Auckland Council GeoMaps, by Auckland Council, n.d.
(https://geomapspublic.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/viewer/index.html). In the public domain.

2.2. Identification and Classification

2.2.1. Categorization and Calculation

Using data from Auckland Council GeoMaps and field survey to gather information about
categorization for mapping (Auckland Council, n.d.). This will offer a preliminary
understanding of the distribution of different landscape components within the study area,

5
including category 1(coded as B for built-up) - solid surfaces such as roads, driveways,
parking lots, building rooftops, and concrete structures; category 2 (coded as P for pasture) -
grasslands or pastures, which denote open terrain devoid of any construction; Category 3
(coded as T for trees etc. over open ground)- areas featuring trees growing amidst grass,
lacking an 'understory' layer, which means there's minimal shrubbery or groundcover
vegetation beneath the tree canopy; category 4 (coded as F for forests) - urban 'forests'
characterized by distinct layers of vegetation beneath the primary canopy, encompassing sub-
canopy, shrub, and ground tiers. These layered components can obstruct visibility and hinder
movement beneath the trees, with most of these characteristics requiring on-site
identification; category 5 (coded as E) - ecological sites, which have been previously mapped
before your fieldwork. It's important to note that there may be few or even none of these sites
in study area.

Ecosystems that exhibit higher complexity and greater biological diversity are
assigned a higher level of significance in the weighting process. Assign a score to each
category (Category 1 to Category 5) based on the given multipliers. Add up all the scores
from each category. The resulting total score will represent the biodiversity value of your
suburb, ranging from 160 (highest biodiversity value) to 0 (lowest biodiversity value).

2.2.2. Urban growth pattern

Based on aerial photos provided in Auckland Council GeoMaps ,the research study period is
26 years (1996-2022) (Auckland Council, n.d.). To monitor changes in land cover, it is
necessary to gather a sufficient number of satellite images that span the entire study period.
These images can then be directly compared using methods like band subtraction to identify
spatial changes. More commonly, comparisons involve analyzing time-series data of
vegetation or other indices (Gašparović, 2020). Additionally, spatial changes can be discerned
by comparing time-series data of land-cover classifications (Gašparović, 2020). It allows for
a straightforward identification of changes between specific classes, such as the
transformation of forested areas into urban developments, like deforestation for urban
expansion (Gašparović, 2020).

6
3. Results

3.1. Identification, Categorization, and Calculation

Figure 3 shows the identification and categorization of the research area. Note that the red
colored triangle indicates the built-up is actually pasture during field trip for ground truthing.

Figure 3. Results of Identification and Categorization. Dark Blue – Built-up; Orange – Pasture; Pink – Tress etc. over open ground;
Yellow – Forest.

Results of the Calculations of the categorized ecosystem values based on Figure 4 are
depicted in Table 4. As shown in Table 8, the estimated ecosystem value is relatively quite
low in the Auckland CBD. According to Appendix I, the ecosystem within the study area
supplies both regulation (for example noise protection and maintenance of biodiversity) and
sociocultural services (aesthetic values and opportunities for recreation and tourism, for
instance), but not provisioning services. Urban forests in the study area, which constitute one
of the most active, intricate, and ever-changing natural elements within urban ecosystems,

7
offer a diverse array of services essential for the maintenance of the urban system (Carreiro et
al., 2018). These services encompass the sequestration of carbon dioxide, release of oxygen,
functioning as carbon sinks, removal of air pollutants, regulation of microclimates,
attenuation of noise, retention of rainwater, provision of recreational spaces, facilitation of
aesthetic appreciation, contribution to physical and mental well-being, creation of wildlife
habitats, support for biodiversity conservation, opportunities for education, and avenues for
scientific research (Carreiro et al., 2018). These ecosystem services effectively mitigate some
of the adverse consequences inherently associated with urbanization, such as air pollution and
the urban heat island effect (Carreiro et al., 2018). Consequently, urban communities are
eager to identify cost-effective solutions for addressing these challenging and aggravating
environmental issues, with the expansion and enhancement of urban forests emerging as a
promising natural and sustainable solution (Carreiro et al., 2018).

Table 4. Results of Calculations.

Data % cover or % length Multiplier Final score

1. Hardstand 82 (approx. 816,466) X0 0
2
2. Pasture 3 (approx. 30,920 m ) X 0.2 0.6
Ecosystems 3. Trees over open 1 (approx. 11,158 m2) X 0.3 0.3
2
4. Forest 14 (approx. 141,456 m ) X 0.6 8.4
5. Ecological Site 0 X 1.0 0
6. Hardstand 0 X0 0
Waterways 7. Pasture or trees over pasture 0 X 0.3 0
8. Forest or ecological site 0 X 0.6 0
Total 9.3

3.2. Urban Growth Pattern

Figure 4 depicts the overall growth pattern in 26 years, showing aerial images of 1996, 2001,
2006, 2011, 2016, and 2022, respectively.

8
 1996 2001

2006 2011

2016 2022

Figure 4. Urban Growth Pattern. From Auckland Council GeoMaps, by Auckland Council, n.d.
(https://geomapspublic.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/viewer/index.html). In the public domain.

Although there were new built-up areas throughout the course of the years (especially
around the northeast side), no new large green space was identified in the series of the
images, which means the size of green areas, including pastures, trees over open ground and
forests, has no significant changes throughout the years. This indicates a steady pace of
urbanization happening in central Auckland, especially after 2006. Due to the resolutions of
the images, the changes of the class of barren land or low vegetation into the built-up area are
not visible, which requires future research for detailed urbanization process (Verma et al.,
2020).

Nonetheless, there is a prevailing consensus that the native biodiversity in the

Auckland region faces significant threats, primarily stemming from the persistent reduction

9
and fragmentation of indigenous land cover, the continuous impact and escalating menace
posed by invasive species and diseases, excessive harvesting, environmental pollution, and
the influence of climate change, as documented by Auckland Regional Council (2010).

Many of the forest ecosystems within the Auckland region have become fragmented
due to human-induced modifications and disturbances (Singers et al., 2017). Within a
predominantly urban and rural landscape, one can observe the presence of successional and
regenerating forest remnants (Singers et al., 2017). Despite these challenges, Auckland's
forests have managed to maintain a remarkable degree of biodiversity and species richness
(Singers et al., 2017). This complexity is the outcome of a synergistic interplay between
biotic and abiotic factors, with ongoing management initiatives playing a supportive role
(Singers et al., 2017). The general pattern applies to the current study area.

4. Conclusion

It is essential to separate economic growth processes from the use of materials and carbon
dioxide emissions, as discussed by various studies (Giljum et al., 2009, 2014; Sanyé-Mengual
et al., 2019), with additional insights available in Andreoni and Galmarini (2012).
Furthermore, we need to establish carbon budgets for each city based on their carbon
metabolism, as proposed by Zhang et al. (2014).

Auckland council can take various approaches, such as urban planning, the
development of smart city, the creation of eco-industrial parks, and the establishment of
vertical gardens, to improve the outcomes of ecosystem values (Verma et al., 2020). The
absence of markets for ecosystem services leads to valuation challenges. To address this, a
functioning ecosystem services market, similar to the carbon market where carbon credits are
traded, should be established. Alternatively, compensation should be provided for wildlife
conservation efforts. While there are concerns about treating ecosystem services as
commodities, it is important to recognize that valuation is not the same as commodification.
Valuation serves as a crucial step in highlighting the significance of ecosystem preservation,
as discussed by Costanza et al. (2014). However, there is a risk that this approach may
reintroduce the problem of cost-benefit analysis, potentially leading to the neglect of
ecosystem services preservation if their benefits are deemed lower than their costs.

Research into the energy performance of urban ecosystems is crucial, and it is heavily
influenced by factors like building design and the local climate (Natanian et al., 2019).

10
Promising opportunities for enhancing urban energy efficiency include green building
designs, zero-emission structures, rooftop agriculture, and solar photovoltaic panels for
power generation (Verma et al., 2020). Rooftop gardens, in particular, hold significance in
rapidly growing and unplanned urban areas, as they can help revive the ecological balance in
cities. However, they also pose challenges, such as the introduction of invasive plant species,
especially in ornamental horticulture and disturbed habitats. In order to effectively address
this matter, urban planning must accord primacy to the preservation of indigenous flora, the
stringent enforcement of prohibitions on the exportation of invasive species, and the active
promotion of consumer education, as outlined by Hulme et al. (2018).

Essential facets in the regulation and enhancement of biodiversity encompass the

imperative roles of efficacious governance and comprehensive education, as elucidated by
Verma et al. (2020). Adroit governance not only exerts a discernible influence on the
spectrum of social and cultural ecosystem services but also mitigates the potential for socio-
economic disparities to engender deleterious living conditions among economically
disadvantaged urban denizens, as posited by Ngiam et al. (2017).

To safeguard the repository of cultural ecosystem services, urban centers should

cultivate and foster social networks, traditional knowledge systems, and communal economic
frameworks, in alignment with the perspectives articulated by Alberti (2017). Food security, a
salient concern, is contingent upon an interplay of local socio-economic dynamics and
ecological conditions. Herein, urban agriculture emerges as an instrumentality of paramount
import, bolstering local food security and sustainability by curtailing the requisite reliance on
imported sustenance from geographically distant locales, as expounded upon by Verma et al.
(2020).

Nevertheless, empirical investigations disclose that rooftop gardens, despite their

inherent virtues, confront an inherent impediment to environmental sustainability attributable
to their reliance on extraneous energy sources, most notably fossil fuels. In light of this,
Piezer et al. (2019) contend that to redress this inherent imbalance, the imperative resides in a
deliberate pivot towards a more substantial integration of renewable energy resources into the
operational framework, thus fostering sustainability in the domain of energy flux.Urban
design can significantly contribute to greening urban peripheries for agriculture (Geneletti et
al., 2017). Green spaces play a vital role in mitigating air pollution and the urban heat island
effect, with factors like wind speed, direction, and landscape influencing pollution effects

11
(Łowicki, 2019). Air pollution is a significant contributor to various health issues (Singh et
al., 2019). Ensuring the sustainable use of essential resources like air and water is critical.
Groundwater depletion in urban areas, driven by overconsumption and inadequate
governance, has global implications, leading to telecoupling of socioeconomic and
environmental factors (Deines et al., 2016). A watershed approach, integrating remote sensing
and simulation modeling, is needed to guide decision-making and develop policies for
preserving natural water bodies (Ren et al., 2017). The concept of Sponge City may offer
valuable insights in this regard (Friis et al., 2016).

Urban ecosystems operate with a subsidized material and energy balance, consuming
more materials than they return to the ecosystem, while exporting a significant amount of
waste (Verma et al., 2020). Managing waste is essential, including regulating waste flow,
developing infrastructure for waste management, and educating the public, especially
regarding hazardous waste (Dong et al., 2018; Adeola, 2000). Emerging technologies can be
harnessed to turn waste into economic opportunities. Achieving sustainable economic growth
requires decoupling economic growth from carbon emissions, which occur in various aspects
of energy use and resource utilization in urban areas. Challenges include reducing coal
consumption, addressing emissions outsourcing, and adopting cleaner technologies.
Identifying co-benefits of low-carbon strategies and revising assessment methodologies to
include these co-benefits is essential (Li et al., 2019). Achieving these goals requires
innovation in legal, institutional, financial, and governance frameworks. In summary,
urbanization can be viewed as the outcome of various human processes, resulting in both the
emergence of numerous challenges and the potential for solutions to these issues (Verma et
al., 2020).

Ecosystem health essentially refers to the condition of an ecosystem in which it can

operate sustainably. Costanza et al. (1992) has defined it in terms of attributes like system
resilience, organization, and vitality. It encompasses ecosystem services, which are vital not
only for human survival but also for the proper functioning of all elements within an
ecosystem. Unfortunately, the integration of ecosystem services into decision-making and
policy development is often lacking, particularly in developing nations (Kenter et al., 2011).
This deficiency is due to the absence of universal indicators, databases, and comparable
measurement standards. Habitat value index (HVI) is a simple method to facilitate well-
informed decision-making regarding land-use or habitat changes, enabling early planning and
visualization of appropriate compensatory or remedial actions (Young & Jarvis, 2001). The

12
key aspect of this approach is its ability to pinpoint the extent of loss or gain resulting from
changes within a specific area (patch) and to assess how these changes impact the broader
landscape (Young & Jarvis, 2001).

To enhance ecosystem health, it is crucial to rely on place-specific empirical

knowledge, foster collaboration among social scientists, ecologists, and environmental
experts, demonstrate institutional leadership, and prioritize relevant education (Larondelle &
Lauf, 2016; Kaczorowska et al., 2016).

13
References

Adeola, F. O. (2000). Cross-national environmental injustice and human rights issues. American Behavioral
Scientist, 43(4), 686–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027640021955496

Alberti, M. (2017). Grand Challenges in Urban Science. Frontiers in Built Environment, 3.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2017.00006

Andreoni, V., & Galmarini, S. (2012). Decoupling economic growth from Carbon Dioxide Emissions: A
decomposition analysis of Italian energy consumption. Energy, 44(1), 682–691.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.05.024

Auckland Council. (n.d.). Auckland Council GeoMaps.

https://geomapspublic.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/viewer/index.html

Auckland Regional Council. (2010). State of the Auckland Region report, 2009. Auckland Regional Council,
Auckland.

Carpenter, S. R., Benson, B. J., Biggs, R., Chipman, J. W., Foley, J. A., Golding, S. A., Hammer, R. B., Hanson,
P. C., Johnson, P. T., Kamarainen, A. M., Kratz, T. K., Lathrop, R. C., McMahon, K. D., Provencher, B.,
Rusak, J. A., Solomon, C. T., Stanley, E. H., Turner, M. G., Vander Zanden, M. J., … Yuan, H. (2007).
Understanding regional change: A comparison of two Lake Districts. BioScience, 57(4), 323–335.
https://doi.org/10.1641/b570407

Carreiro, M. M., Song, Y., & Wu, J. (2008). Ecology, planning, and management of urban forests international
perspectives. Springer.

Costanza, R., Norton, B. G., & Haskell, B. D. (1992). Ecosystem health: New goals for environmental
management. Island.

Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., & Turner,
R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26,
152–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002

Deines, J. M., Liu, X., & Liu, J. (2015). Telecoupling in urban water systems: An examination of beijing’s
imported water supply. Water International, 41(2), 251–270.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2015.1113485

Dong, L., Wang, Y., Scipioni, A., Park, H.-S., & Ren, J. (2018). Recent progress on innovative urban
infrastructures system towards Sustainable Resource Management. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 128, 355–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.02.020

Friis, C., Nielsen, J. Ø., Otero, I., Haberl, H., Niewöhner, J., & Hostert, P. (2015). From teleconnection to
telecoupling: Taking stock of an emerging framework in Land System Science. Journal of Land Use
Science, 11(2), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423x.2015.1096423

Gašparović, M. (2020). Chapter 3 - Urban growth pattern detection and analysis. In P. Verma, P. Singh, R.
Singh & A. S. Raghubanshi (Eds.), Natural disasters and sustainable development (pp. 35-48). Elsevier
Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820730-7.00003-3

14
Geneletti, D., La Rosa, D., Spyra, M., & Cortinovis, C. (2017). A review of approaches and challenges for
Sustainable Planning in urban peripheries. Landscape and Urban Planning, 165, 231–243.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.01.013

Gilbert, O. L. (1989). The ecology of urban habitats. Chapman and Hall.

Grimm, N. B., Grove, J. G., Pickett, S. T., & Redman, C. L. (2000). Integrated approaches to long-term studies
of urban ecological systems. BioScience, 50(7), 571-584.

Grunewald, K., & Bastian, O. (Eds.). (2015). Ecosystem services : concept, methods and case studies. Springer.

Giljum, S., Hinterberger, F., Lutz, C., Meyer, B. (2009). Accounting and Modelling Global Resource Use. In
Suh, S. (Eds) Handbook of Input-Output Economics in Industrial Ecology. Eco-Efficiency in Industry
and Science (pp. 139-160). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5737-3_8

Giljum, S., Dittrich, M., Lieber, M., & Lutter, S. (2014). Global patterns of material flows and their socio-
economic and environmental implications: A MFA study on all countries world-wide from 1980 to 2009.
Resources, 3(1), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources3010319

Hulme, P. E., Brundu, G., Carboni, M., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Dullinger, S., Early, R., Essl, F., González-
Moreno, P., Groom, Q. J., Kueffer, C., Kühn, I., Maurel, N., Novoa, A., Pergl, J., Pyšek, P., Seebens, H.,
Tanner, R., Touza, J. M., van Kleunen, M., & Verbrugge, L. N. H. (2017). Integrating invasive species
policies across ornamental horticulture supply chains to prevent plant invasions. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 55(1), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12953

Ito, K. (2021). Urban Biodiversity and ecological design for sustainable cities. Springer.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (2016). Handbook for phase-1 habitat survey—a technique for
environmental audit. https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/9578d07b-e018-4c66-9c1b-47110f14df2a/Handbook-
Phase1-HabitatSurvey-Revised-2016.pdf

Kaczorowska, A., Kain, J.-H., Kronenberg, J., & Haase, D. (2016). Ecosystem Services in urban land use
planning: Integration challenges in complex urban settings—case of Stockholm. Ecosystem Services, 22,
204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.04.006

Kenter, J. O., Hyde, T., Christie, M., & Fazey, I. (2011). The importance of deliberation in valuing ecosystem
services in developing countries—evidence from the Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change,
21(2), 505–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.001

Larondelle, N., & Lauf, S. (2016). Balancing demand and supply of multiple urban ecosystem services on
different spatial scales. Ecosystem Services, 22, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.008

Li, L., Shan, Y., Lei, Y., Wu, S., Yu, X., Lin, X., & Chen, Y. (2019). Decoupling of Economic Growth and
emissions in China’s cities: A case study of the central plains urban agglomeration. Applied Energy, 244,
36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.192

Łowicki, D. (2019). Landscape pattern as an indicator of urban air pollution of particulate matter in Poland.
Ecological Indicators, 97, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.09.050

MEA-Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human wellbeing.

https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf

15
Natanian, J., Aleksandrowicz, O., & Auer, T. (2019). A parametric approach to optimizing urban form, Energy
Balance and environmental quality: The case of Mediterranean districts. Applied Energy, 254, 113637.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113637

Ngiam, R. W., Lim, W. L., & Matilda Collins, C. (2017). A balancing act in urban social-ecology: Human
appreciation, ponds and dragonflies. Urban Ecosystems, 20(4), 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-
016-0635-0

Pickett, S. T., & Cadenasso, M. L. (2006). Advancing urban ecological studies: frameworks, concepts, and
results from the Baltimore Ecosystem Study. Austral Ecology, 31(2), 114-125.

Piezer, K., Petit-Boix, A., Sanjuan-Delmás, D., Briese, E., Celik, I., Rieradevall, J., Gabarrell, X., Josa, A., &
Apul, D. (2019). Ecological network analysis of growing tomatoes in an urban rooftop greenhouse.
Science of The Total Environment, 651, 1495–1504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.293

Ren, N., Wang, Q., Wang, Q., Huang, H., & Wang, X. (2017). Upgrading to urban water system 3.0 through
Sponge City Construction. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 11(4).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-017-0960-4

Sanyé-Mengual, E., Secchi, M., Corrado, S., Beylot, A., & Sala, S. (2019). Assessing the decoupling of
economic growth from environmental impacts in the European Union: A Consumption-based approach.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.010

Singers, N., Osborne, B., Lovegrove, T., Jamieson, A., Boow, J., Sawyer, J., Hill, K., Andrews, J., Hill, S., &
Webb, C. (2017). Indigenous terrestrial and wetland ecosystems of Auckland. Auckland Council.

U.S. Long Term Ecological Research Network. (2007). The Decadal Plan for LTER: Integrative Science for
Society and the Environment.
https://lternet.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/TheDecadalPlanReformattedForBook_with_citation.pd
f

Verma, P., Singh, P., Singh, R., & Raghubanshi, A. S. (2020). Urban Ecology Emerging Patterns and social-
ecological systems. Elsevier.

Wu, J. (2014). Urban Ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and Future Directions. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 125, 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.018

Young, C. H., & Jarvis, P. J. (2001). A simple method for predicting the consequences of land management in
urban habitats. Environmental Management, 28(3), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0026702421

Zhang, Y., Linlin, X., & Weining, X. (2014). Analyzing spatial patterns of urban carbon metabolism: A case
study in Beijing, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 130, 184–200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.05.006

16
Appendix I

Table 1. Provisioning services. Source: from Ecosystem services : concept, methods and case studies, by Grunewald, K., & Bastian, O. (Eds.)., 2015. Springer.
Table 2. Regulation services. Source: from Ecosystem services : concept, methods and case studies, by Grunewald, K., & Bastian, O. (Eds.)., 2015. Springer.

18
Table 3. Sociocultural services. Source: from Ecosystem services : concept, methods and case studies, by Grunewald, K., & Bastian, O. (Eds.)., 2015. Springer.

19