当前位置：文档库 › Changes in the value of ecosystem services along a rural–urban gradient

Changes in the value of ecosystem services along a rural–urban gradient

Landscape and Urban Planning 109 (2013) 117–127

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban

Planning

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :w w w.e l s e v i e r.c o m /l o c a t e /l a n d u r b p l a

Research paper

Changes in the value of ecosystem services along a rural–urban gradient:A case study of Greater Manchester,UK

Kathleen Gail Radford ?,Philip James

Research Centre for Urban Change,School of Environment and Life Sciences,Peel Building,University of Salford,M54WT,UK

h i g h l i g h t s

We have created a new analytical tool for the non-economic valuation of a number of ecosystem services.

The provision of the ecosystem services described are found to exist at signi?cantly lower values in highly urban areas,but not necessarily in suburban or peri-urban environments.

The methodology described in the paper provides a tool for stakeholders to assess the synergies and trade-offs of ecosystem services within urban areas to plan for sustainable cities and to bene?t the health and wellbeing of residents.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Available online 11 November 2012Keywords:

Ecosystem services

Ecosystem service valuation Rural–urban gradient Urbanisation

Urban ecosystem services Non-economic valuation

a b s t r a c t

The degradation and loss of vital ecosystem functions and services have been an uncontested result of urbanisation.An understanding of how ecosystem services are provided along rural–urban gradients is crucial in the task of conserving and enhancing vital services in urban environments,increasing the quality of life of urban dwellers,and working towards a sustainable future.Focusing on nine ecosystem services –aesthetic,spiritual,recreation,water ?ow regulation,carbon sequestration,climate change adaptation,pollination,biodiversity potential,and noise attenuation –regarded as important to urban areas the authors detail the changes in the values of these services along a gradient comprising four categories of urbanisation:urban,suburban,peri-urban and rural,in Greater Manchester,UK.The data on which the discussion is based are derived from an interdisciplinary assessment tool,developed from a selection of previously used assessment methods including the Residential Environment Assessment Tool and the Green Flag Award.Based on a mixture of a ?eld and desktop study,the new tool assigns non-economic values of 0–10to the selected services,allowing for evaluation of quality between,as well as within,each category of ecosystem service.Trends in the results are discussed,as are drivers for the changes in values along the rural–urban gradient.It is foreseen that this new body of knowledge will allow both practitioners and academics to gain further insight into the provision of ecosystem services along a rural–urban gradient to allow them to tackle the problems associated with them and to optimise open space planning.

1.Introduction

The concepts of ecosystem functions (the “habitat,biological or system properties or processes of ecosystems”(Costanza et al.,1997,p.253))and services (the “bene?ts the human population derives,directly or indirectly,from ecosystem functions”(Costanza et al.,1997,p.253))have been increasingly promoted as a means for documenting the values humans place on ecosystems and the

?Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses:k.g.radford@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html, ,kat radford1@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html, (K.G.Radford),p.james@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html, (P.James).

bene?ts they derive from them (Abel et al.,2003;Costanza et al.,1997,p.253;De Groot,Wilson,&Boumans,2002;Defra,2011;Farber et al.,2006;Groffman et al.,2004;UK National Ecosystem Assessment,2011;Wallace,2007).The appreciation of ecosystem services has given researchers and practitioners an alternative per-spective when dealing with issues associated with urbanisation.Concepts relating to ecosystem services have developed gradually throughout history,with The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA)(2005)recognising the need to include them within plan-ning and policy.However,this is not always straight forward,as with many policy related issues,where issues such as a lack of clari?cation between de?nitions and classi?cations,and a lack of communication between researchers and practitioners often

118K.G.Radford,P.James/Landscape and Urban Planning109 (2013) 117–127

hinder the goal of ecosystem services becoming the primary focus in the task of tackling a number of the problems related to urbani-sation.

Urban environments are currently the fastest growing land use type(Davies et al.,2009)with approximately4%of the Earth’s land cover classi?ed as‘urbanised’(McKinney,2002;Meyer&Turner, 1992).The process of urbanisation in?uences natural processes (Alberti,2005),thereby in?uencing both human and wildlife popu-lations.Despite its widely reported negative effects,particularly those on climate and wildlife populations,urbanisation also brings with it many advantages.These advantages largely bene?t human populations with improved housing arrangements,better employ-ment prospects(Godfrey&Julien,2005),better access to health and social care,education and cultural activities(McDade&Adair, 2001).Furthermore,urban areas play a large role in the?ow of economic capital,labour,goods and services(McMichael,2000).

However,as stated by Williamson(1990,p.2),“economic suc-cess breeds problems of adjustment”and,therefore,despite its many bene?ts,urbanisation has also been responsible for a mul-titude of negative effects.Urbanisation is commonly associated with poverty,poor health and wellbeing(McMichael,2000),an increased rate of climate change(Kalnay&Cai,2003),loss of bio-diversity(Gibb&Huchuli,2002),increased localised?ooding(Del Saz-Salazar&Rausell-K?ster,2008;Goode,2006),and increased temperature(i.e.the heat island effect)(Tratalos,Fuller,Warren, Davies,&Gaston,2007).

Despite awareness of the numerous drawbacks associated with urbanisation,cities and urban environments are still expected to continue to expand rapidly(Wheater,1999).Current predictions are that cities will be inhabited by approximately60%of the human population by2030(Alberti,2005;McMichael,2000),thus making it increasingly important to develop methods of tackling the prob-lems associated with urbanisation.In recent times,in order to do this,the focus has been on the conservation and enhancement of ecosystem functions and ecosystem services,concepts which have become increasingly important models for linking the functioning of ecosystem services to environmental sustainability,and human health and wellbeing(Fisher,Turner,&Morling,2009).

In order to focus on enhancing and conserving ecosystem ser-vices within urban areas,it is necessary to be able to quantify them at a variety of scales.The subject of ecosystem service quanti?ca-tion or valuation has become an increasingly popular topic since the1960s(De Groot et al.,2002;Hein,van Koppen,de Groot,&van Ireland,2006),especially within the?eld of ecological economics (Costanza et al.,1997;De Groot et al.,2002).As a result of this interest there has been a call for analytical tools to be developed that provide insight into the value of ecosystems(Vejre,Jensen, &Thorsen,2010),thereby allowing for better decision making regarding the sustainable use and management of services(Kumar &Kumar,2008),as well as allowing clari?cation and quanti?cation of ecological and environmental changes(Chen,Li,&Wang,2009).

Economic valuation studies can reveal information on the struc-ture and functioning of ecosystems and the“varied and complex roles of ecosystems in supporting human welfare”(p.421),as well as giving insight into institutional arrangements which are not functioning well to re?ect the social costs of environmental degradation(Howarth&Farber,2002).Economic valuation is also useful within planning for sustainable communities as it allows for the identi?cation of trade-offs between society and nature(Chen, Adimo,&Bao,2009;Daily,2000;Farber,Costanza,&Wilson,2002; Kumar&Kumar,2008),and allows for direct decision making (Chen,2004).Chen(2004)also explains that ecosystem service valuation can illustrate the distribution of bene?ts,and thus facil-itate cost-sharing for management initiatives,as well as spur the creation of innovating institutional and market instruments that promote sustainable ecosystem management.

In contrast,whilst there is no denying the bene?ts of economic valuation frameworks,the subject of economic valuation of ecosys-tem services remains largely controversial(Loomis,Kent,Strange, Fausch,&Covich,2000).Firstly,many argue that because ecosys-tem services are essentially public goods the concept of placing a monetary value on an ecosystem service or function is impossible or unwise(Costanza et al.,1997).The valuation of ecosystem services also relies on some rather bold assumptions including the centrality of markets,the utilitarian framework–an indirect measure based on personal preferences that attempts to measure all services in monetary terms(Kumar&Kumar,2008)–,and technological opti-mism(Chee,2004).A further area of contention within the debate on ecosystem service valuation is that of ecosystem functioning. Kumar and Kumar(2008)argue that,because the state and quality of ecosystem functioning within the valuation process has not been given adequate emphasis then the economic valuation of ecosys-tem services renders little worth.The need for interdisciplinary understanding between ecologists and economists regarding states of ecosystem functioning therefore exists.To this day,a compre-hensive framework for the integrated assessment and valuation of ecosystem functions still does not exist(De Groot et al.,2002), especially with regards to non-economic valuation.

The research reported in this paper aims to bypass the argu-ments surrounding the economic valuation of ecosystem services in order to focus on the‘quality’of the selected services.Furthermore, as ecosystem services operate at a variety of spatial and temporal scales,generating different ecosystem services at each one(Martín-López,Gómez-Baggethun,Lomas,&Montes,2009),there is a need for the ability to assess and measure ecosystem functions and ser-vices at these different scales,including the neighbourhood scale, a task which has not yet been attempted for many functions,espe-cially the cultural functions.Cultural services play an important role in social–ecological systems(Martín-López et al.,2009),making them a high priority in terms of provision and conservation within urban areas,where,compared to rural areas,socio-ecological func-tions are of greater importance,due to the greater densities of populations and loss or deterioration of ecosystem services as a result of urbanisation.

Furthermore,the research looks into the provision of ecosys-tem functions at different levels of urbanisation.Although many ecosystem functions and services have been analysed along an urban–rural gradient,many,especially the cultural services,still remain somewhat unexplored.This research will,therefore,create a new body of knowledge surrounding the provision of ecosystem services along a rural–urban gradient,allowing both practitioners and academics to gain further insight into the provision of ecosys-tem functions along the rural–urban gradient,and allow them to tackle the problems associated with them.

2.Methodology

2.1.Study area and site selection

Situated in the northwest of England,and covering an area of1276km2,Greater Manchester(53?30N ,2?15 W)lies within a region considered one of the UK’s most varied,with rural land-scapes to the north and populated lowland centres to the south (Rothwell et al.,2010).The topography of the conurbation is largely ?at towards the south and west with elevation increasing towards the north and east,which mark the start of the Pennines(Lindley &Walsh,2005).With an estimated population,based on the2001 census(the latest?gures available)of2.5million people(Lindley& Walsh,2005),Greater Manchester comprises10metropolitan bor-oughs:The Cities of Salford and Manchester,and the Metropolitan Boroughs of Stockport,Tameside,Oldham,Rochdale,Bury,Bolton,

K.G.Radford,P.James/Landscape and Urban Planning109 (2013) 117–127

119

Fig.1.Map of Greater Manchester with administrative boundaries(Williams,1999).

Wigan,and Trafford(Fig.1).Approximately42%of the conurbation can be classi?ed as‘built up’(Lindley&Walsh,2005).

Greater Manchester was chosen for the study due to the ade-quate representation of different levels of urbanisation as well as contrasting soil types,and a full range of neighbourhood and land use types(Gill et al.,2008;Rothwell et al.,2010).A city born of the industrial revolution,Manchester is considered an“urban prototype”as it was the“?rst of a new generation of huge indus-trial cities created in the Western world in the two centuries after 1750(Rodgers,1987)”(Douglas,Hodgson,&Lawson,2002,p.236). Despite the changes caused to the natural environment within this time,many habitats of natural origin such as woodland,moorland and raised bogs still persist(GMEU,2001).Greater Manchester is an excellent example of an urban region“formed by the coalescence of several cities and consisting of overlapping urban realms”(Barlow, 1995,p.379)and many urban morphology types.

Based on these morphology types,it was possible to construct a rural–urban gradient for the conurbation based on the percentage of impermeable land cover.Data for this process was provided by Manchester University(Gill et al.,2008)who mapped all the urban morphology types(UMTs)for Greater Manchester,and,concur-rently,calculated the mean percentage of impermeable land cover associated with each UMT.

The categories of urbanisation were based on natural breaks within the data,resulting in the identi?cation of the following four categories(Fig.2):

?Rural(0.00–5.25%impermeable landscape):generally consisting of open spaces with very little/no residential,commercial or indus-trial areas.

?Peri-urban(5.26–11.50%impermeable landscape):generally con-sisting of open spaces and sparsely populated with areas of residence,commerce or industry.

?Suburban(11.51–50.75%impermeable landscape):greater areas of residence/commerce/industry with fewer open spaces.?Urban(50.76–100%impermeable landscape):consist mainly of res-idential,commercial or industrial landscape with few/no open spaces.

Based on a pilot study,a site(area studied in detail by?eld observation)size of0.25km2was settled upon.Areas exceeding this size were too heterogeneous,making assessment dif?cult.To establish the number of sample sites and to select individual sites, a grid constructed of cells of0.25km2was superimposed onto the map in ArcView9.2.A sampling population(cells containing only one category of urbanisation)of969rural sites,24peri-urban sites, 88suburban sites and44urban sites was identi?ed from the grid. A25%random sample was chosen from the?nal sampling popu-lation,with the exception of the rural category.Due to the high number of sites falling within this category(969),a sample size of 30was chosen.This resulted in a?nal sampling population of30 rural sites;6peri-urban sites;22suburban sites and11urban sites.

2.2.Selection of ecosystem services

The complex interactions between the social,economic and institutional variables of urban environments have resulted in vast differences existing between them and rural landscapes(Alberti, 2005).Because of these differences,the importance of the pro-vision of certain ecosystem services differs from those of other landscapes(Yeh&Huang,2009),for example cultural services such as recreation and education services are considered more impor-tant in urban landscapes than in horticultural or rural landscapes (Haines-Young&Potschin,2008).With this in mind,how might the ecosystem services that are of greatest importance/priority within an urban setting be identi?ed?

Haines-Young and Potschin(2008),together with a large multidisciplinary focus group of33experts and professionals,high-lighted11ecosystem services relating to the urban environment which are of high priority in terms of conservation and/or improve-ment.These are:

?Aesthetic

?Recreation

?Spiritual

?Genetic/biodiversity conservation

?Air quality

120K.G.Radford,P.James /Landscape and Urban Planning 109 (2013) 117–

127

Fig.2.Rural–urban gradient of Greater Manchester.

Based on data from Gill et al.(2008).

?Noise buffering ?Climate ?Pollination

?Water ?ow regulation ?Water quality regulation 1?

Nutrient cycling 2

This study therefore focused on 9ecosystem services:aesthetics,recreation,spiritual,genetic/biodiversity conservation,air qual-ity/carbon sequestration,noise buffering,climate and pollination.

2.3.Development of the assessment tool

An extensive literature review revealed numerous methods for the valuation of ecosystem services in non-economic terms for the majority of the ecosystem services listed in Section 2.2.However,methods for measuring cultural services were scarce and,those that do exist (e.g.contingent valuation methods such as the travel-cost and willingness-to-pay)could not be applied to urban areas as such methods generally focus on natural areas such as national parks,gardens etc.,where visitors are able to apply contingent valuation methods given certain scenarios.However,with regards to urban environments,how could one question the willingness-to-pay or willingness-to-travel to an urban area which may only consist of,for example,industrial or residential morphology types?With this in mind,alternative approaches to measuring the

Water quality regulation has not been included as in many cases water bodies exist on private land to which access cannot be gained.2

Nutrient cycling has not been included in the study as it is a supporting service and therefore the bene?ts provided by it are re?ected in the quality of the other services.

aesthetic and spiritual ecosystem services of urban areas were sought via a thorough literature search.

The search led to the Residential Environment Assessment Tool (REAT)(Dunstan et al.,2005)–a survey instrument designed to be completed by an independent observer and which measures the quality of urban environments based on ?ve separate components.These components were physical incivilities (broken/boarded up windows,vandalism to private properties,abandoned cars,stray dogs roaming,illegal parking,burnt out properties,dog litter in street,littered pathways/streets and vandalism to public property);territorial function/personal investment (low external beauti?ca-tion,poor garden maintenance;poor property maintenance and no neighbourhood watch signs);defensible space (low defensi-ble space and dense properties);natural environment (few trees in front gardens,few trees in public space,no planted vegeta-tion and no green space)and miscellaneous (absence of recreation space,poor path condition,vacant properties,commercial outlook,industrial outlook,presence of derelict land,undesirable parking arrangements and poor maintained shared areas).These criteria were then selected and assigned to the relevant ecosystem service (as demonstrated in Table 1).

Whilst the REAT takes green space into account,the importance that such spaces play in the provision of high quality ecosystem ser-vices was not adequately represented.In order to incorporate the important role of green space in ecosystem service provision,crite-ria used within the Green Flag Award were also included within the assessment tool.The Green Flag Award is the national standards for green spaces in England and Wales,judging green spaces on vari-ous criteria within categories such as feelings of safety,cleanliness,maintenance,sustainability and management.Criteria relating to aesthetic and spiritual services were selected and adjusted to ?t within the new assessment tool.

K.G.Radford,P.James/Landscape and Urban Planning109 (2013) 117–127121 Table1

Field survey criteria and maximum score.

Ecosystem service Item Max score

Aesthetic

(pri-

vate

space/residential areas)Absence of broken/boarded up windows3 Absence of vandalism3 Property maintenance2 Trees in front gardens3 Defensible space(size)3

Aesthetic(public space)Absence of stray dogs3

Absence of dog fouling3

Absence of litter and vandalism3

Design and location of furniture2

Presence and condition of water features3

Green space(excludes private gardens)3

Presence of trees3

Presence and maintenance of vegetation3 Aesthetic(private and public space)Absence of abandoned cars2

Parking3

General outlook(natural/residential/industrial/commercial)3

Openness of site3 Spiritual Extent of natural sounds3

Opportunities for quiet contemplation2

Visibility of green vegetation2

Variety of vegetation2

Feeling of space and openness3

Feeling of being safe and secure2 Recreation Number of communal recreational facilities(e.g.playing?elds,skate parks or

parks)and the quality of these(1point if facility is scarce or of poor quality;2

points if of good quality or provided in abundance)

Number of recreational facilities occurring on residential properties(e.g.

trampolines,basketball hoops or permanent swimming pools)and the quality

of these(1point if facility is scarce or of poor quality;2points if of good

quality or provided in abundance)a

Climate change adaptation and mitigation Recycling facilities5

Transport links3

Renewable energy technologies1

Street trees3

Double glazing of properties3 Noise buffering Absence of noise2

Physical attempts to buffer noise3 Pollination potential Extent/abundance of?owering plants2

Variety in colour3

Diversity of?owering plants3 a Assessed via?eld and desktop survey,surveying both those facilities visually accessible from the street and aerial images of the area.

The selected ecosystem services were,therefore,measured in a mixture of both qualitative and quantitative techniques using both a?eld survey and GIS-based desktop study.The?eld survey involved walking through the site to gain full visual access(with the exception of walled/fenced off private areas to which access was prohibited).No characteristics outside the border of the site were taken into account.The?eld survey and list of indicators can be found in Appendices A and B.

Supplementary material related to this article found,in the online version,at https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,/10.1016/https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,ndurbplan. 2012.10.007.

The desktop survey involved using Google Earth images to gain full visual access to the entire site.To ensure analysis only takes place within the boundaries of the site,images from Google Earth were geo-referenced onto1:10,000MasterMap data(downloaded as raster data)in ArcView9.2.Following this,polygons were drawn onto the new layer to assess habitats etc.This data was then used as follows:

?Carbon sequestration:Tree cover was digitised from aerial pho-tographs.Following this,the total tree cover was calculated and, based on methods employed by Tratalos et al.(2007)a formula used by Rowntree and Nowak(1991)was employed:Tonnes of carbon sequestration acre?1year?1=0.00335(%tree cover).?Biodiversity potential:Based on work by Pauleit,Ennos,and Golding(2005),the Shannon-Weaver biodiversity model was used to quantify biodiversity potential

i=1

p i log2p i

but applied to habitats,where p1=proportion of bare ground and turf grass;p2=proportion of rough grassland and herbs; p3=proportion of shrubs;p4=proportion of trees;and p5=proportion built up land.The proportions of habitats and green space were calculated by digitising the respective areas using ArcView9.2from aerial photographs.

?Water?ow regulation:Water?ow regulation was calculated as the‘maximum potential rainfall retention’potential(S)of the site. This was measured using a method used by Tratalos et al.(2007), developed by Whitford,Ennos,and Handley(2001)and Weng (2001)and based on studies by the Soil Conservation Service (1972).S=2540/CN?25.4,where CN is the curve number cal-culated by the Soil Conservation Service for each combination of soil and land cover type.The same soil type(sandy loam)was assumed for all sites as the study concentrates on the effects of urbanisation rather than soil type(Tratalos et al.,2007).

Scores were decided against a list of indicators which accom-panied the surveys(see Appendices A and B).Although the criteria used to measure some services may be seen as‘overlapping’(e.g.

122K.G.Radford,P.James/Landscape and Urban Planning109 (2013) 117–127

Table2

Mean values of ecosystem service provision along a rural–urban gradient. Ecosystem service Category of Urbanisation

Rural Peri-urban Suburban Urban

Aesthetics 6.8 6.7 6.2 4.7 Spiritual8.88.6 6.1 1.5 Recreation0.50.9 1.30.9 Climate change

adaptation and

mitigation

2.8 2.6 6.3 4.9

Noise buffering8.5 6.3 5.10.7 Pollination potential 5.87.38.2 3.6 Carbon sequestration 2.8 5.0 3.7 1.7 Biodiversity potential 5.18.8 4.2 1.1 Water?ow regulation7.78.0 3.2 1.3

the variety in vegetation structure considered for both biodiver-sity conservation and spiritual services),the differences,in terms of quanti?cation,relates to the qualitative and quantitative nature of these measurements and difference perspectives between the desktop and?eld surveys.

Once both?eld and desktop surveys were complete,it was nec-essary to transform all the scores for each ecosystem service to?t along a scale of0–10to allow for easier comparison between the different services.In order to do this,the following calculation was carried out:

individual score

maximum possible score

×10=?nal score between0and10.

3.Results

A total of69sites were studied between May2009and November2009(30rural,6peri-urban,22suburban and11urban). Following the completion of the data collection period,all data were collated in spreadsheet form and,following relevant calculations, assigned a score of0–10,where0indicated the lowest possible quality,and10the highest.These scores subsequently outlined the non-economic values of the selected ecosystem services within the Greater Manchester conurbation(Table2).

The Kolmogorov–Smirnov Goodness-of-Fit Test con?rmed a normal distribution.Following this,a One Way ANOVA test was carried out in order to establish if the differences in the values of ecosystem services along the rural–urban gradient were signi?cant. Scheffe’s post hoc test was then also carried out to establish where these differences occurred(Table3).The results established that all values,barring carbon sequestration,were signi?cantly different at the =0.05level(Table3and Sections3.1–3.3).

3.1.Trends in aesthetic,spiritual and recreation services

Aesthetic and spiritual services displayed similar patterns in terms of the changes in value along the rural–urban gradient: decreasing in value from rural through to urban sites(Fig.3).The value of aesthetic services was found to be signi?cantly greater within rural and peri-urban areas(6.8and6.7)compared to urban areas(4.7)(Table3).The underlying issues(based on the criteria on which this service was measured)relating to these changes are due to signi?cant differences in the number of broken and boarded up windows,levels of vandalism to private property,number of burnt out properties,the openness and size of the sites,levels of litter and vandalism in public spaces,amount of green space present,and the general outlook(Table4).

Suburban and urban sites scored signi?cantly lower values for the provision of spiritual ecosystem services(6.1and 1.5 respectively)compared to rural and peri-urban sites(8.8and

8.6Fig. 3.The provision of aesthetic,spiritual and recreation services along a rural–urban gradient.

respectively)(Fig.3).This is due to urban sites,and in some cases suburban sites,scoring signi?cantly lower scores for all the items upon which this service was measured(see Table5).

In contrast to all the ecosystem services measured within this study,recreational services scored substantially lower within all categories of urbanisation.A total of34different recreational facil-ities/opportunities were recorded within the data collection period, 11of which were recorded within the rural and peri-urban cate-gories,17within the urban category and28within the suburban category.Rural sites scored signi?cantly lower than suburban sites (0.5and1.3respectively),where urban and peri-urban sites scored slightly higher values for recreational services,both with scores of 0.9.

3.2.Trends in noise buffering,climate change adaptation and mitigation and water?ow regulation

Signi?cant differences were observed between the values obtained for noise buffering services.The value of this service in urban areas(0.7)was found to be signi?cantly lower than the remaining three categories of urbanisation.The value of noise buffering in suburban sites(5.1)was also found to be signi?cantly lower than rural and peri-urban sites(8.5and6.3).One Way Anova established that these differences were due to the number of barri-ers put in place.Unfortunately,sites in which barriers had been put in place were those in which noise was not necessarily a problem (Table6).Traf?c was a greater problem in urban areas(0.18)where noise buffering barriers had not been implemented(score of0.18).

A similar issue arose for suburban sites which scored a value of0.95 for noise being a problem and1.59for barriers being put in place. Noise from traf?c was less of a problem in peri-urban areas(1.50) and rarely a problem within rural sites(1.90).These sites scored higher scores for physical attempts being put in place,especially rural sites(Table6).

Whilst urban sites exhibited a moderately high value for cli-mate change adaptation and mitigation services(4.9),suburban sites exhibited signi?cantly higher values(6.3)compared to the remaining two categories of urbanisation.Both rural and peri-urban sites scored fairly low for this ecosystem service compared to the other two categories of urbanisation,with scores of2.6and 2.8respectively.These changes are due to signi?cant differences in the provision of recycling facilities,access to alternative trans-port modes and the use of double glazing(Table7).The differences in the provision of street trees and use of renewable technologies

K.G.Radford,P.James/Landscape and Urban Planning109 (2013) 117–127123 Table3

Signi?cant differences in the provision of ecosystem services along the rural–urban gradient.

Ecosystem service F-Value Signi?cance at the =0.05level Scheffe’s post hoc results(signi?cance at the =0.05level)

Aesthetics25.8Yes Rural signi?cantly greater than suburban and urban.

Peri-urban signi?cantly greater than urban.

Suburban signi?cantly lower than rural and signi?cantly

greater than urban.

Urban signi?cantly lower than all other categories.

Spiritual122.9Yes Suburban signi?cantly lower than rural and peri-urban and

signi?cantly greater than urban.

Urban signi?cantly lower than all other categories.

Recreation potential7.0Yes Rural signi?cantly lower than suburban.

Climate change adaptation and mitigation18.2Yes Suburban signi?cantly greater than rural and peri-urban.

Rural signi?cantly lower than urban.

Noise buffering34.3Yes Urban signi?cantly lower than all other categories.

Suburban signi?cantly lower than rural and signi?cantly

higher than urban.

Pollination potential15.1Yes Urban signi?cantly lower than all other categories.

Suburban signi?cantly greater than rural and urban.

Carbon sequestration 1.9No–

Biodiversity potential26.9Yes Urban signi?cantly lower than all other categories.

Suburban signi?cantly lower than peri-urban and signi?cantly

greater than urban.

Peri-urban signi?cantly greater than all other categories.

Water?ow regulation134.9Yes Suburban signi?cantly greater than urban and signi?cantly

lower than rural and peri-urban.

Urban signi?cantly lower than all other categories.

Rural signi?cantly greater than urban and suburban.

Table4

Items relating to aesthetic services.

Item Max score Rural Peri-urban Sub-urban Urban Signi?cant at the =0.05level? Aesthetic(private)

No broken/boarded up windows3 2.67 2.67 2.76 2.11Yes

No vandalism to private property3 2.95 3.00 2.33 2.00Yes

No burnt out properties2 2.00 1.67 2.00 1.56Yes

Property maintenance is of a high level3 1.95 1.67 2.14 1.44No

There are trees in front gardens3 1.71 1.00 2.190.78No

The site is not built up3 3.00 2.00 1.330.22Yes

Defensible territorial spaces are large3 2.76 3.00 1.620.89Yes

Aesthetic(public)

There are no stray dogs3 3.00 3.00 2.95 3.00No

There is no dog fouling3 2.13 2.33 2.41 2.72No

The space is free from litter and vandalism3 2.67 2.17 1.64 1.00Yes

Furniture is present,well designed and located20.170.170.640.82No

Water features are present and in good condition30.73 1.670.450.55No

There is public green space present3 1.53 1.83 1.50 1.00Yes

Trees are present3 2.13 2.00 1.73 1.27No

Vegetation(excluding trees)is present and well maintained3 2.03 2.17 2.05 1.73No

Aesthetic(both)

There are no abandoned cars2 1.97 2.00 1.95 2.00No

All cars are legally parked3 2.97 2.67 2.91 2.82No

The outlook is not industrial or commercial3 2.97 2.83 2.410.64Yes

The predominant outlook is green3 2.97 3.00 1.360.45Yes

Table5

Properties of spiritual services.

Item Max score Rural Peri-urban Sub-urban Urban Signi?cant at the =0.05level?

Natural sounds3 2.87 2.50 1.590.18Yes

Opportunities for quiet contemplation2 1.93 2.000.820.09Yes

Visible green vegetation2 1.60 1.67 1.270.18Yes

Variety in vegetation3 2.23 2.50 2.680.91Yes

Feeling of space and openness2 1.93 2.000.730.18Yes

Safe and secure2 1.93 1.33 1.410.55Yes

Table6

Items relating to noise buffering.

Item Max score Rural Peri-urban Sub-urban Urban Signi?cant level at the =0.05level? Is noise from traf?c a problem?2 1.90 1.500.950.18Yes

Have physical attempts been made to buffer noise?3 2.30 1.67 1.590.18Yes

124K.G.Radford,P.James /Landscape and Urban Planning 109 (2013) 117–127

Table 7

Items relating to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Item

Max score

Rural

Peri-urban

Sub-urban

Urban

Signi?cant level at the =0.05level?

Number of recycling facilities 50.300.50 2.86 1.55Yes Residents discouraged to use cars

30.200.67 1.86 2.27Yes Use of renewable energy technologies 10.030.000.140.09No Street trees present

3 2.13 1.83 1.73 1.55No Evidence of double glazing

1.48

1.00

2.91

1.91

Yes

between the four categories of urbanisation were not found to be signi?cant at the =0.05level (see Fig.4).

Water ?ow regulation services,measured as the maximum potential rainfall retention of a catchment (S ),were found to be greatest within peri-urban areas (8.0),followed by rural areas (7.7).These values were found to be signi?cantly higher than those obtained for urban and suburban sites (1.1and 3.2),as would be expected.

3.3.Trends in biodiversity,pollination and carbon sequestration services

The values obtained for biodiversity potential were signi?cantly higher in peri-urban sites (8.8),whilst urban sites were found to have the signi?cantly lowest overall average value for biodiversity potential (1.1).Rural and suburban sites scored 5.1and 4.2respec-tively.The high values for biodiversity in peri-urban and suburban sites are in line with what would be expected due to the increased concentration of gardens,and mixtures of native and non-native planting within these areas (see Goddard,Dougill,&Benton,2010;Marco et al.,2008;Smith,Thompson,Hodgson,Warren,&Gaston,2006).

Suburban and peri-urban study sites have the highest values for pollination potential (8.2and 7.3respectively)whilst urban sites scored a signi?cantly lower value (3.6).Suburban and peri-urban sites had the greatest extent/abundance of ?owering plants present (scores of 1.55and 1.33respectively),variety of ?owering plants (2.55and 2.17),and diversity of ?owering plants (2.50and 2.33).Urban areas had the lowest extent/abundance of ?owering plants (score of 0.55),variety in colour of ?owering plants (score of 1.09),and diversity of ?owering plants (score of 1.27),compared to the other categories of urbanisation.These differences were found to be signi?cant at the ≤0.05level (Table 8).

Fig.5illustrates that carbon sequestration was greatest within peri-urban sites (5.0)and lowest within urban sites (1.7).Subur-ban sites scored second highest (3.7)and rural second lowest

(2.8).

Fig.4.The provision of noise buffering,climate change adaptation and mitigation and water ?ow regulation services along a rural–urban gradient.

However,One Way Anova established that these differences were not signi?cant at the =0.05level.

4.Discussion

In gaining an understanding of how ecosystem services are pro-vided at the local scale and along a rural–urban gradient we are continuously adding to ideas and literature regarding the enhance-ment of ecosystem services.The positive relationship between nature,sustainability,and health and wellbeing is widely reported,as are the numerous drawbacks of urbanisation.As urban environ-ments consume natural landscapes the ecosystem services once provided decrease in quality and value.In order to tackle this prob-lem it is essential to have an understanding of how ecosystem services are provided along a rural–urban gradient and the drivers relating to any changes,whether at the regional scale (policy)or local (physical/biological factors).This research has focused on the local,physical,and biological changes in both the value/quality of ecosystem service provision along a rural–urban gradient,and the physical factors behind these changes.

In total 69sites were studied,with results indicating a decline in the majority of the nine services studied along the urbanisation gradient (rural,peri-urban sub-urban,and urban).However,not all services declined:more urbanised environments favoured some ecosystem services such as recreation and pollination potential.This is discussed further in the following sections.

4.1.Changing values of aesthetic,spiritual and recreation ecosystem services along a rural–urban gradient

Signi?cant differences were established between the provision of aesthetic and spiritual ecosystem services along the rural–urban gradient,particularly in urban environments where the values of these services were signi?cantly lower than in rural and peri-urban sites.Highly urbanised areas are often classi?ed as such due to their industrial or commercial characters,thereby negating the need for strong aesthetic and spiritual values due to fewer

residents/people

Fig.5.The provision of carbon sequestration,pollination and biodiversity services along a rural–urban gradient.

K.G.Radford,P.James/Landscape and Urban Planning109 (2013) 117–127125 Table8

Properties of pollination services.

Item Max score Rural Peri-urban Sub-urban Urban Signi?cant level at the =0.05level?

To what extent are?owering plants present2 1.03 1.33 1.550.55Yes

Is there variety in the colour of?owering plants3 1.57 2.17 2.55 1.09Yes

Is there diversity in the number of?owering plants3 2.03 2.33 2.50 1.27Yes

in these areas.However,due to the in?ux of people coming in to city centres to work or for leisure opportunities such as shopping,urban cores are often heavily populated during working hours.There-fore,is it not still important that aesthetic and spiritual values be provided at high values for the bene?t of those frequenting urban cores?

Furthermore,in Greater Manchester,and particularly the City of Manchester,there is an increasing trend of‘inner-city living’,with numerous residential properties situated in the heart of cities and business districts.These inner city apartments are often associated with high standards of living,despite the apparent lack of aesthetic and spiritual services.In contrast,moving just outside of the urban core into the outskirts of cities the situation is often very differ-ent.Manchester has been described as a“classical industrial city with all the implications of that term for inner city problems”(Law, 1989,p.336).Historically inner-city residential communities have been associated with economic,social,environmental and infras-tructural problems(Law,1989).It would,therefore,be bene?cial to encourage the inclusion of strong aesthetic and spiritual ecosystem services within these areas to tackle some of these issues.

Recreation,as well as spiritual and aesthetic services,is vital in the promotion of good health and wellbeing.Suburban sites scored slightly higher values for recreation compared to peri-urban and urban sites(1.3compared to0.9)and signi?cantly higher values compared to rural sites.As the majority of residential environ-ments occur within suburban areas,this is a promising outlook for Greater Manchester,indicating that areas in which residential land use is most concentrated(and hence the population is most concentrated)greater input has been put in ensuring that recre-ation services exist at higher values,thereby bene?ting a greater proportion of people.

4.2.Changing values of noise buffering,climate change

adaptation and mitigation and water?ow regulation services Noise buffering services existed at signi?cantly higher values in rural and peri-urban sites.Unfortunately these were often sites where noise from traf?c was less of a problem.Noise from traf-?c was often a problem in suburban and especially urban sites –areas in which physical barriers to buffer or attenuate noise often failed to exist.Noise is known to have potentially profound effects on the quality of life of urban inhabitants(Arenas,2008; Berglund&Lindvall,1995;Passchier-Vermeer&Passchier,2000), affecting quality of sleep and concentration levels(Moudon,2009) and increasing general stress levels of individuals(Song,Gee,Fan, &Takeuchi,2007).It would,therefore,be bene?cial,in terms of human health and wellbeing,to encourage noise attenuation devices/measures into suburban and urban areas.

Climate change adaptation and mitigation services were mea-sured against the number of physical attempts imposed at the local site level such as the presence of renewable energy tech-nologies,street trees and access to alternative transport modes and recycling facilities.These were found to be signi?cantly lower in rural and,to some degree,peri-urban sites.It is encourag-ing,therefore,to note that physical steps are being taken in the urban and peri-urban areas within Greater Manchester towards implementing practices to help tackle and adapt to the issues asso-ciated with climate change at the local level.Activities typically associated with urban cores and suburban areas are responsible for a large proportion of CO2emissions compared to their less urban counterparts due to the concentration of industry and traf?c pol-lution(Martínez-Zarzoso&Maruotti,2011).So,these areas could be targeted for the introduction of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures.

Water?ow regulation services were,as expected,signi?cantly different between all categories of urbanisation(barring the rela-tionship between rural and peri-urban areas);with suburban and urban areas obtaining signi?cantly lower values than rural and peri-urban sites,with a range in values of8.0(rural)–1.3(urban). The problems associated with increased impermeable land cover in terms of?oodwater runoff have been well documented.How-ever,the incorporation of urban green space and sustainable urban drainage techniques(SUDs),for example,could increase the values of this service within urban and suburban areas,thereby tackling issues such as localised?ooding,an event which is expected to increase in frequency as climate change takes hold.

4.3.Changing values of biodiversity,pollination and carbon sequestration ecosystem services along a rural–urban gradient It is well documented that suburban and peri-urban areas expe-rience greater levels of biodiversity due to the increased cover of gardens,typically housing a greater?oral diversity due to the intro-duction of non-native species,and therefore attracting a greater variety of wildlife(Goddard et al.,2010).This has been the case within Greater Manchester,where peri-urban sites exhibited a sig-ni?cantly higher value for biodiversity services(8.8).Suburban sites obtained lower values than both peri-urban and rural sites, possibly due to an increased proportion of Victorian terraced and semidetached housing(a typical house type for suburban areas in northern UK cities such as Manchester,typi?ed by smaller gar-dens or yards and very little open space(Hall,Handley,&Ennos, 2012)).These low values scored for biodiversity suggest a lack in variety of habitats,in addition to other issues associated with biodiversity in urban areas such as poor habitat quality and con-nectivity.This lack of variety has the potential to lead to biotic homogenisation(Olden,Douglas,&Douglas,2005;Ortega-álvarez and MacGregor-Fors,2009),which in turn presents further threats to biodiversity.

Linked to biodiversity is the issue of pollination.Values for pollination services were found to exist at signi?cantly higher val-ues in peri-urban and suburban areas.This would be due to the increased number of gardens compared to rural and urban areas and a greater extent and diversity of?owering plants and wider variety of colours as a result of ornamental planting.High values for pollination services would encourage a greater diversity of pol-linators,thus bene?ting biodiversity as a whole.However,whilst this is important,it is also important to maintain high biodiversity levels of native?ora rather than introduced species.So,for exam-ple,when planning urban areas,the types of vegetation used for ornamental planting,such as in hanging baskets,grass verges and urban green spaces could be taken into account,where the aim of remaining aesthetically pleasing may override the need to maintain the biodiversity of native?ora.

Despite the obvious differences between the values scored for carbon sequestration between the different levels of urbanisation,

126K.G.Radford,P.James/Landscape and Urban Planning109 (2013) 117–127

no signi?cant difference existed.One would assume a signi?cant difference in tree cover(against which this service was measured) between rural and urban environments,as urban environments typically experience much less vegetative cover compared to rural, which are typically associated with extensive vegetative cover. However,the insigni?cant differences between these two cate-gories,as far as this study goes,may be due to the number of agricultural sites falling within the rural category as farmland accounts for roughly39%of land cover within the Greater Man-chester conurbation,compared to a mere3.2%of woodland(Gill et al.,2008).

4.4.Tackling the decrease in value of ecosystem services in urban areas

The effects of urbanisation on ecosystem services are evident, with the majority of services measured as part of this study exist-ing at lower values within urban areas.As previously discussed in Section4.1,simply because of low residential intensities in highly urbanised areas(urban cores),the importance of ecosystem service provision in highly urbanised areas cannot be overlooked,espe-cially as large proportions of the population frequent urban areas on a regular basis,whether for work or leisure.It is,therefore,vital to maintain high standards of ecosystem service provision not only for sustainability,but for general health and wellbeing of residents out-side of urban and city cores.This is also true,of course,for suburban and urban environments.

The question arising from this,however,is that of how high standards of the selected ecosystem services can be maintained and,indeed,whether they can all exist together at high standards. The new analytical tool described within this research aids in pro-viding data allowing stakeholders to gain an understanding of the synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services;a vital task in optimising the provision of ecosystem services in urban areas. Planners and decision makers will then have the task of deciding between the trade-offs,depending on their views and aspirations for the future of our cities and urban environments.The way in which this comes about,however,is another matter.

5.Conclusion

This research has reinforced the negative implications of urban-isation in terms of ecosystem service provision and has provided a new,non-economic valuation tool for the quanti?cation and val-uation of ecosystem services at the local scale.Although already existing for a number of services,the non-economic valuation of cultural services such as aesthetic and spiritual services remains to be fully developed.The new analytical Tool described in this research therefore provides a starting point for future research into the values of these services.

With an understanding into the provision of ecosystem ser-vices at the local scale and along a rural–urban gradient,we have been able to identify some of the characteristics pertaining to high value ecosystem service provision in other areas,which can hope-fully then be implemented into urban settings to help restore a balance in nature and to bene?t urban inhabitants.The most log-ical way to do this would be through the increased provision of urban green space and vegetation.Whilst seemingly a simple and straight forward task,a battle for space and resources often means that these goals cannot be met.However,it is hoped that in view of the increasingly unstable climate,decreasing biodiversity and social issues associated with urban environments,that there will be a shift in priorities and that ecosystem services important to urban areas can be provided at high standards,thereby securing a positive future.References

Abel,S.,Cork,S.,Gorddard,R.,Langridge,J.,Langston,A.,Plant,R.,et al.(2003).

Natural values:Exploring options for enhancing ecosystem services in the Goulburn Broken Catchment.Canberra:CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

Alberti,M.(2005).The effects of urban patterns of ecosystem function.International Regional Science Review,28(2),168–192.

Arenas,J.P.(2008).Potential problems with environmental sound barriers when used in mitigating surface transportation noise.Science of the Total Environment, 405(1–3),173–179.

Barlow,M.(1995).Greater Manchester:Conurbation complexity and local govern-ment structure.Political Geography,14,379–400.

Berglund,B.,&Lindvall,T.(1995).Community noise–A document prepared for the World Health Organisation.Archives of the Centre for Sensory Research,2,86–103. Chee,Y.E.(2004).An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services.

Biological Conservation,120,549–565.

Chen,B.,Adimo,O.A.,&Bao,A.(2009).Assessment of aesthetic quality and mul-tiple functions of urban green space form the users’perspective:The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,ndscape and Urban Planning,93,76–82. Chen,N.,Li,H.,&Wang,L.(2009).A GIS-based approach for mapping direct use value of ecosystem services at a county scale:Management implications.Ecological Economics,68,2768–2776.

Costanza,R.,d’Arge,R.,De Groot,R.,Farber,S.,Grasso,M.,Hannon,B.,et al.(1997).

The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital.Nature,387, 253–260.

Daily,G.C.(2000).Management objectives for the protection of ecosystem services.

Environmental Science and Policy,3,333–339.

Davies,Z.G.,Fuller,R.A.,Lorama,A.,Irvine,K.N.,Sims,V.,&Gaston,K.J.(2009).A national scale inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens.Biological Conservation,142,761–771.

De Groot,R.S.,Wilson,M.A.,&Boumans,R.M.J.(2002).A typology for the classi-?cation,description and valuation of ecosystem functions,goods and services.

Ecological Economics,41,393–408.

Del Saz-Salazar,S.,&Rausell-K?ster,P.(2008).A double-hurdle model of urban green areas valuation:Dealing with zero https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,ndscape and Urban Planning,84, 241–251.

Department of Environment,Food and Rural Affairs.(2011).The Natural Choice: Securing the value of nature Cm.8082.London:Stationery Of?ce.

Douglas,I.,Hodgson,R.,&Lawson,N.(2002).Industry,environment and health through200years in Manchester.Ecological Economics,41,235–255. Dunstan,F.,Weaver,N.,Araya,R.,Bell,T.,Lannon,S.,Lewis,G.,et al.(2005).An obser-vation tool to assist with the assessment of urban residential environments.

Journal of Environmental Psychology,25,293–305.

Farber,S.,Costanza,R.,Childers,D.L.,Erickson,J.,Gross,K.,Grove,M.,et al.(2006).

Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management.Bioscience,56, 121–133.

Farber,S.C.,Costanza,R.,&Wilson,M.A.(2002).Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services.Ecological Economics,41,375–392.

Fisher,B.,Turner,R.K.,&Morling,P.(2009).De?ning and classifying ecosystem services for decision making.Ecological Economics,68,643–653.

Gibb,H.,&Huchuli,D.F.(2002).Habitat fragmentation in an urban environment: Large and small fragments support arthropod assemblages.Biological Conserva-tion,106(1),91–100.

Gill,S.E.,Handley,J.F.,Ennos,A.R.,Pauleit,S.,Theuray,N.,&Lindley,S.J.(2008).

Characterising the urban environment of UK cities and towns:A template for landscape https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,ndscape and Urban Planning,87,210–222.

GMEU(Greater Manchester Ecology Unit).(2001).Greater Manchester biodiversity action plan.Manchester:Greater Manchester Ecology Unit.

Goddard,M.A.,Dougill,A.J.,&Benton,T.G.(2010).Scaling up from gardens:Biodi-versity conservation in urban environments.Trends in Ecology&Evolution,25(2), 90–98.

Godfrey,R.,&Julien,M.(2005).Urbanisation and health.Clinical Medicine,5(2), 137–141.

Goode, D.(2006).Green infrastructure.Report to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.Available from https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,/urban/report/ green-infrastructure-david-goode.pdf Accessed29.05.08.

Groffman,P.M.,Driscoll,C.T.,Likens,G.E.,Fahey,T.J.,Holmes,R.T.,Eagar,C.,et al.

(2004).Nor gloom of night:A new conceptual model for the Hubbard Brook ecosystem study.Bioscience,54,139–148.

Haines-Young,R.,&Potschin,M.(2008).England’s terrestrial ecosystem ser-vices and the rationale for an ecosystem approach–Overview report to Defra [Project Code NR0107].Available from https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,/ docs/NR0107Overview%20report080108.pdf Accessed02.12.08.

Hall,J.M.,Handley,J.F.,&Ennos,A.R.(2012).The potential of tree planting to climate-proof high density residential areas in Manchester,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,ndscape and Urban Planning,104(3–4),410–417.

Hein,L.,van Koppen,K.,de Groot,R.S.,&van Ireland,E.C.(2006).Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services.Ecological Economics,57, 209–228.

Howarth,R.B.,&Farber,S.(2002).The dynamics and value of ecosystem services: Integrating economic and ecological perspectives.Accounting for the value of ecosystem services.[Special issue],Ecological Economics,41,421–429. Kalnay,E.,&Cai,M.(2003).Impact of urbanisation and land-use change on climate.

Nature,423,528–531.

Kumar,M.,&Kumar,P.(2008).Valuation of the ecosystem services:A psycho-cultural perspective.Ecological Economics,64,808–819.

K.G.Radford,P.James/Landscape and Urban Planning109 (2013) 117–127127

Law,C.M.(1989).Inner city policy on the ground:The Manchester experience.London: Butterworth and Co.Ltd.

Lindley,S.J.,&Walsh,T.(2005).Inter-comparison of interpolated background nitrogen dioxide concentrations across Greater Manchester,UK.Atmospheric Environment,39,2709–2724.

Loomis,J.,Kent,P.,Strange,L.,Fausch,K.,&Covich,A.(2000).Measuring the total eco-nomic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin:Results from a contingent valuation survey.Ecological Economics,33,103–117. Marco, A.,Dutoit,T.,Deschamps-Cottin,M.,Mauffrey,J.-F.,Vennetier,M.,& Bertaudiére-Montes,V.(2008).Gardens in urbanising rural areas reveal an unex-pected?oral diversity relating to housing https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,ptes Rendus Biologies, 331(6),452–465.

Martínez-Zarzoso,I.,&Maruotti,A.(2011).The impact of urbanisation on CO2 emissions:Evidence from developing countries.Ecological Economics,70(7), 1344–1353.

Martín-López,B.,Gómez-Baggethun,E.,Lomas,P.L.,&Montes,C.(2009).Effects of spatial and temporal scales on cultural services valuation.Journal of Environ-mental Management,90,1050–1059.

McDade,T.W.,&Adair,L.S.(2001).De?ning the urban in urbanisation and health:

A factor analysis approach.Social Science and Medicine,53,55–70.

McKinney,M.L.(2002).Urbanisation,biodiversity and conservation.Bioscience,52, 883–890.

McMichael,A.J.(2000).The urban environment and health in a world of increasing globalisation:Issues for developing countries.Bulletin of the World Health Orga-nisation,78(9).Available from.https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862000000900007&script=sci arttext&tlng=en.Accessed14.10.09

Meyer,W.B.,&Turner,B.L.(1992).Human population growth and global land-use cover change.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,23,6–39.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(MEA).(2005).Ecosystems and human well-being:Synthesis.Washington,DC:Island Press.

Moudon,A.V.(2009).Real noise from the urban environment:How ambient com-munity noise affects health and what can be done about it.American Journal of Preventive Medicine,37(2),167–171.

Olden,J.D.,Douglas,M.E.,&Douglas,M.R.(2005).The human dimensions of biotic homogenisation.Conservation Biology,19,2036–2038.

Ortega-álvarez,R.,&MacGregor-Fors,I.(2009).Living in the big city:Effects of urban land-use on bird community structure,diversity,and https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,ndscape and Urban Planning,90,189–195.

Passchier-Vermeer,W.,&Passchier,W.F.(2000).Noise exposure and public health.

Environmental Health Perspectives,108(1),123–131.

Pauleit,S.,Ennos,R.,&Golding,Y.(2005).Modeling the environmental impacts of urban land use and land cover change–A study in Merseyside,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,ndscape and Urban Planning,71,295–310.

Rodgers,H.B.(1987).Manchester.In Encyclopedia Britannica(pp.503–507).(15th ed.).Chicago:E.B.Inc.

Rothwell,J.J.,Dise,N.B.,Taylor,K.G.,Allott,T.E.H.,Scho?eld,P.,Davies,H.,et al.

(2010).A spatial and seasonal assessment of river water chemistry across North West England.Science of the Total Environment,408,841–855.

Rowntree,R.A.,&Nowak,D.J.(1991).Quantifying the role of urban forests in removing atmospheric carbon dioxide.Journal of Arboriculture,17,269–275.Smith,R.M.,Thompson,K.T.,Hodgson,J.G.,Warren,P.H.,&Gaston,K.J.(2006).

Urban biodiversity gardens(IX):Composition and richness of the vascular plant ?ora,and implications for native biodiversity.Biological Conservation,129(3), 312–322.

Song,Y.,Gee,G.C.,Fan,Y.,&Takeuchi,D.T.(2007).Do physical neighbourhood characteristics matter in predicting traf?c stress and health outcomes?Transport Research Part F:Traf?c Psychology and Behaviour,10,164–176.

Tratalos,J.,Fuller,R.A.,Warren,P.H.,Davies,R.G.,&Gaston,K.J.(2007).Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,ndscape and Urban Planning,83, 308–317.

UK National Ecosystem Assessment.(2011).The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the key?ndings.Cambridge:UNEP-WCMC.

Vejre,H.,Jensen,F.S.,&Thorsen,B.J.(2010).Demonstrating the importance of intan-gible ecosystem services from peri-urban landscapes.Ecological Complexity,7(3), 338–348.

Wallace,K.J.(2007).Classi?cation of ecosystem services:Problems and solutions.

Biological Conservation,139,235–246.

Weng,Q.(2001).Modelling urban growth effects on surface run-off with the Inte-gration of Remote Sensing and GIS.Environmental Management,28,737–748. Wheater,C.P.(1999).Urban habitats.London:Routledge.

Whitford,V.,Ennos,A.R.,&Handley,J.F.(2001).City form and natural process–Indicators for the ecological performance on urban areas and their application to Merseyside,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,ndscape and Urban Planning,57,91–103.

Williams,G.(1999).Metropolitan governance and strategic planning:A review of experience in Manchester,Melbourne and Toronto.Progress in Planning,52, 1–100.

Williamson,J.G.(1990).Coping with city growth during the British industrial https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,:Cambridge University Press.

Yeh,C.-T.,&Huang,S.-L.(2009).Investigating spatiotemporal patterns of land-scape diversity in response to https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2b13147775.html,ndscape and Urban Planning,93, 151–162.

Kathleen Gail Radford After completing a BSc(Hons)degree in Wildlife and Prac-tical Conservation at the University of Salford in2007,she continued at Salford to undertake a PhD in the?eld of Urban Ecology.Her research focuses on the provision of ecosystem services in urban areas at the local scale.Her work has aspired to quan-tify ecosystem services(including cultural services such as aesthetics and spiritual services)in non-economic terms and goes on to identify synergies and trade-offs between services.She has recently completed her PhD subject to changes.

Philip James,a Professor of Ecology at Salford University,has particular research interests in tackling environmental quality enhancement and protection issues within the concept of sustainable development is of international importance.His research which involves national and international collaborations as well as a ded-icated group of postgraduate researchers is addressing four themes:ecosystem process and land use,conservation ecology,environment and health,and technol-ogy for environmental application.The work is developing methods and techniques which bring together social,economic and environmental considerations,in?uenc-ing decision makers and supporting communities in the UK,Greece and China as they seek to realise their aspirations.