Copyright © 2016 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Kremer, P., Z. Hamstead, D. Haase, T. McPhearson, N. Frantzeskaki, E. Andersson, N. Kabisch, N. Larondelle, E. Lorance Rall, A. Voigt, F. Baró, C. Bertram, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R. Hansen, A. Kaczorowska, J.-H. Kain, J. Kronenberg, J. Langemeyer, S. Pauleit, K. Rehdanz, M. Schewenius, C. van Ham, D. Wurster, and T. Elmqvist. 2016. Key insights for the future of urban ecosystem services research. Ecology and Society 21(2):29. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08445-210229 Insight Key insights for the future of urban ecosystem services research Peleg Kremer 1,2, Zoé Hamstead 3, Dagmar Haase 4,5, Timon McPhearson 6, Niki Frantzeskaki 7, Erik Andersson 8, Nadja Kabisch 4,9,10, Neele Larondelle 4,11, Emily L. Rall 12, Annette Voigt 13, Francesc Baró 14, Christine Bertram 15, Erik Gómez-Baggethun 16,17, Rieke Hansen 12, Anna Kaczorowska 18, Jaan-Henrik Kain 18, Jakub Kronenberg 19, Johannes Langemeyer 14, Stephan Pauleit 12, Katrin Rehdanz 15,20, Maria Schewenius 8, Chantal van Ham 21, Daniel Wurster and Thomas Elmqvist 22 ABSTRACT. Understanding the dynamics of urban ecosystem services is a necessary requirement for adequate planning, management, and governance of urban green infrastructure. Through the three-year Urban Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (URBES) research project, we conducted case study and comparative research on urban biodiversity and ecosystem services across seven cities in Europe and the United States. Reviewing > 50 peer-reviewed publications from the project, we present and discuss seven key insights that reflect cumulative findings from the project as well as the state-of-the-art knowledge in urban ecosystem services research. The insights from our review indicate that cross-sectoral, multiscale, interdisciplinary research is beginning to provide a solid scientific foundation for applying the ecosystem services framework in urban areas and land management. Our review offers a foundation for seeking novel, nature-based solutions to emerging urban challenges such as wicked environmental change issues. Key Words: biodiversity; social-ecological systems; urban ecology; urban ecosystem services; urban green infrastructure; urban liveability; urban planning INTRODUCTION in which they reflected on the collective themes of the project. We Urban ecosystem services (ES) are produced and consumed then used the results of this workshop along with a review of the within the context of autonomous but interacting social, project’s > 50 published papers to develop a synthesis of the ecological, economic, and technological systems. Understanding project as a whole. We present seven insights supported by the how these systems influence the availability of urban ES is critical URBES project research, including critical achievements and for planning, managing, and governing urban ecosystems remaining gaps. (Gomez-Baggethun et al. 2013a, McPhearson et al. 2016). 1. Land-cover and land-use based indicators are convenient The three-year Urban Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for evaluating ES but have limitations for comparative (URBES) research project assessed urban ES and biodiversity in research in urban areas and may discourage new empirical, seven cities in Europe and the United States. Through field-based research. understanding urban places as complex social-ecological systems, 2. Understanding relationships and mismatches between the project applied multiscale interdisciplinary approaches and supply and demand for urban ES requires cross-boundary integrated assessment methods. Working in Berlin, Rotterdam, and cross-scale considerations. Salzburg, Stockholm, Barcelona, Helsinki, and New York City (NYC), URBES researchers (1) assessed ES performance in cities 3. Urban ES are mediated by nonecological elements, at a range of scales from patches to the continent, (2) explored including physical infrastructure, technology, social planning instruments and governance of urban ES, and (3) practices, and the cultural contexts in which people engaged in knowledge exchange among scientists, planners and experience human-environment relations. This issue is other government officials, nongovernmental organization particularly important in the urban realm, where high representatives, and the general public. densities of people and of mediation elements necessitate nuanced study of the relationships among them. Here, we highlight the cumulative results and new understandings of urban ES generated by the URBES project. We analyzed the 4. Urban nature provides an opportunity for people in cities aggregate results of the project using a two-step process. First, to connect with nature. Cultural ES that come about through URBES members participated in a survey and one-day workshop this connection to nature bring the diverse values and 1 Department of Geography and the Environment, Villanova University, 2Tishman Environment and Design Center, The New School, 3Milano School of International Affairs, Management and Urban Policy, The New School, 4Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Geography, 5 Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, 6Urban Ecology Lab, Environmental Studies Program, The New School, 7DRIFT, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 8Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 9Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Ecosystem Services, 10German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, 11Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 12Technical University of Munich, Chair for Strategic Landscape Planning and Management, 13Department of Geography and Regional Studies, Alpen-Adria-Universität, 14Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), 15Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Research Area The Environment and Natural Resources, 16Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), 17Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric), Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), 18Department of Architecture, Chalmers University of Technology, 19Department of International Economics, University of Lodz, 20University of Kiel, Department of Economics, 21IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature, 22Stockholm Resilience Center, Stockholm University Ecology and Society 21(2): 29 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art29/ meanings people find in nature to light and enable, inform, problematic as new and understudied land-use and land-cover and substantiate discussion about environmental potentials classes (e.g., new housing types, new open-land or built-up space and challenges in cities. arrangements, and new surface materials) emerge in cities. 5. Relationships between biodiversity and ES in urban areas In addition, we found that while land-use and land-cover based are unclear, lack evidence, and require new data and proxies can provide meaningful information across scales and empirical research. enable cross-city comparisons (Larondelle et al. 2014a,b, Hamstead et al. 2016), coarse spatial and class resolution of 6. Effective implementation of the urban ES concept in available data may lead to over- or underestimation of ES practice requires overcoming disciplinary barriers, bridging potential. Kain et al. (2016) show how a more fine-grained science-policy-governance gaps, and aligning the ES representation of urban land use through service-providing scientific concept with existing planning frameworks and elements that include both biotic and abiotic elements tools. substantially improves the quality of ES estimates. More detailed 7. Cross-city comparisons are fundamental for understanding information also enables the development of tools for planning the drivers of ecosystem structure, functioning, and and monitoring. For example, Kaczorowska et al. (2016) use the processes, as well as for differentiating between dynamics green area factor (GAF) as a way to monitor urban green cover. that are locally unique vs. those which are generalizable to The GAF expresses the ratio of ecologically effective surface area multiple urban contexts across the globe. to the total land area, wherein the particular parts of the land (a plot or block) are weighted according to the ecosystem RESEARCH-BASED INSIGHTS FOR THE FUTURE OF performance and functionality they provide. URBAN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES RESEARCH Future studies of urban ES at the city and regional levels should: Insight 1: use of indicators (1) use high resolution data on human activities (land-use type Land-cover and land-use indicators are convenient for evaluating and intensity) and urban morphology (including three- ecosystem services but may be problematic as proxies for urban dimensional representation of green and blue elements) to capture ecosystem services. In a quantitative review of literature relating better the complexity of urban structure; (2) use standardized to urban ES, we found that local and regional studies primarily classification schemes for urban land cover and land use; (3) model regulating urban ES using land-use or land-cover classes integrate land-use and land-cover data with information about as indicators. These indicators are used as proxies for ecological, people’s preferences, the ways people interact with the landscape, biogeochemical, or biophysical functions, and thus, as proxies for and models that represent ecological processes; and (4) focus on the performance of ecosystems in sustaining services for humans understudied areas at local or neighborhood levels for gathering (Haase et al. 2014b). Similarly, many URBES studies used land- new field data and generating new empirically based estimates of use and land-cover data as proxies to estimate ES capacity, flow, urban ES. and demand. This creates a number of challenges for the field of urban ES estimation in cities and urban regions. Many of these Insight 2: understanding relationships and mismatches proxies and indicators are simple to generate and widely available Understanding relationships and mismatches between supply and to researchers from existing data bases; they are derived from demand for urban ES requires cross-boundary and cross-scale empirical studies that establish relationships between land use or considerations. As functional nodes of current global networks, land cover and ES potential for given study areas. In the URBES cities represent strategic hotspots of management and regulation, project, we used this approach to perform single case studies where large-scale resource exchanges occur, and where global (McPhearson et al. 2013a, Larondelle et al. 2014a, Rodríguez- transportation networks, commodity chains, and communication Rodríguez et al. 2015, Kain et al. 2016) as well as larger cross-city networks meet (Haase et al. 2014b). Today’s teleconnected city comparisons (Larondelle and Haase 2013, Larondelle et al. networks exhibit mismatches between supply and demand of ES 2014a). However, because of a legacy of nonurban empirical field (Borgström et al. 2006, Cumming et al. 2006, Baró et al. 2015). work, differences in urban morphologies, and urban Studies within the URBES project show that understanding heterogeneity, land-use and land-cover based proxies and ES urban ES supply and demand dynamics requires cross-scale and indicators may have limited applicability in urban areas and cross-boundary considerations. limited transferability from one city to another (e.g., Larondelle Urban demand for ES such as food provision can only be fulfilled and Haase 2013, Kain et al. 2016) for several reasons. First, cities at a geographic scope that expands beyond the city boundaries and their metropolitan regions are particularly heterogeneous and (Folke et al. 1997, Gómez-Baggethun and Barton 2013). have relatively large proportions of artificial surfaces. Thus, field Managing these ES supply and demand relationships in urban measurements derived from nonurban areas may be inaccurate areas may require interjurisdictional cooperation, which can be when applied to urban environments. In addition, cities cumbersome to establish, but important for conserving and dynamically change in space and time, often with an accelerated restoring ES. An analysis of the potential ES provisioning in core pace of change, which requires continuous measurement and cities and hinterlands across Europe found that administrative monitoring. Because of variation in ecosystem and landscape boundaries are often not sufficient to delimit an area of analysis structures across cities, ES indicator data derived from one urban because ES supply and demand dynamics do not align with context may not apply well to another. For this reason, urban ES administrative boundaries (Larondelle et al. 2014a). Larondelle studies tend to be restricted to areas where local or regional et al. (2014a) analyzed the regulating ES potential of > 300 measurements have been acquired (Haase et al. 2014b). The use European cities at three scales: the core city within the of land-use and land-cover based proxies will become increasingly administrative boundaries, the hinterland as defined as functional Ecology and Society 21(2): 29 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art29/ urban regions (OECD 2013), and the combined hinterland and contexts in which people experience human-environment relations. core city. For most ES, the hinterlands around European cities For the ES approach to articulate adequately ways in which generally had more potential to supply services such as air cooling ecosystems provide benefits to people in cities, it must more and carbon storage than did the core city. Similar findings in broadly consider the contexts within which people obtain these Barcelona suggest that local capacity of green spaces to produce services (Chan et al. 2012, Andersson et al. 2015a). Because ES air purification and carbon sequestration in the urban core is are benefits to humans, they are inherently generated and affected limited. For example, greenspace within Barcelona’s municipal by both ecological and social processes (Andersson et al. 2007, boundaries has the potential to offset < 1% of the nitrogen dioxide Reyers et al. 2013). Particularly in urban ecosystems dominated (NO2) pollution generated within city boundaries, suggesting that by built features, urban ES are often enabled by technical elements greenspace at a broader scale (metropolitan or regional) or or built infrastructure such as roof construction that can support measures not related to greenspace are required to abate air vegetation, pipes for delivery of drinking water, and paths along pollution (Baró et al. 2014). green and blue corridors. ES are also mediated by a socio-political (or environmental-political) context, including governance Other ES can be supplied at a similar scale as the scale at which institutions and management practices (Kronenberg 2014, they are demanded. For example, the capacity to mitigate local Langemeyer 2015); social institutions such as norms and flooding following storm events depends on the specific location, regulations; socioeconomic factors such as affluence or poverty structure, and physical characteristics of the immediate that influence both the demand and the way people perceive environment (Andersson et al. 2015a). For the supply of cultural benefit from ecosystems (Gómez-Baggethun and Kelemen 2008, urban ES such as recreation and enhanced social cohesion, Langemeyer 2015); the social-technological context, which helps Camps-Calvet et al. (2016) found that multiple benefits can be to facilitate benefitting from services; and the environmental supplied by small urban green areas such as urban gardens, problem context (Bertram and Rehdanz 2015a, Buchel and illustrating a relatively close match between the scales of supply Frantzeskaki 2015, Voigt and Wurster 2015). and demand for cultural urban ES. Kain et al. (2016) illustrate how different policy, planning, and management arrangements Value attributed to an urban ES does not only depend on its in Stockholm would enable the supply of urban ES to meet physical characteristics, but also on the number of beneficiaries demand better even if overall land use remains the same. Measures who potentially have access to that service. Because cities have systematically targeted at optimizing supply through high population densities (and thus high densities of architectural and landscape design and management can beneficiaries), urban ES can present high value in small service- significantly increase the supply of many local-scale urban ES, providing units (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton 2013, Villamagna including recreation, air cooling, and storm water retention. et al. 2013, Elmqvist et al. 2015, Zank et al. 2016). Hence, restoring, optimizing, or creating urban green spaces in dense Addressing mismatches of urban ES supply and demand requires urban areas, where relatively small quantities of additional green bridging the scale at which ecological processes underpinning ES space can be translated into high societal benefits, can lead to operate with the scale of management. The problem of mismatch increases in health and well-being of people (Bertram and in the scale of governance and management, and the need for Rehdanz 2015b, Elmqvist et al. 2015). Some service-providing cross-boundary management for successful provision of urban units mitigate urban environmental problems that can arise ES, are often cited as major barriers in the implementation of because of high densities of people, buildings, or transportation urban ES concepts in planning (Frantzeskaki and Tillie 2014) and infrastructure, and therefore, deliver a greater benefit in the have been identified as a potential source of conflicts related to presence of these problems and the related demand (Andersson access to, and jurisdiction of, ES (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013b). et al. 2015a). For instance, the cooling influence of trees is more However, there are successful examples of cross-boundary urban beneficial in neighborhoods with paved surfaces that absorb heat ES management, as in the case of drinking water provisioning for than in less developed areas, and the flood mitigation capability NYC. Responsibility for ensuring safe drinking water for the of a bioswale is more beneficial during a heavy, intense rain event population of NYC lies within municipality boundaries while the than during a brief rain shower. In NYC, storm water quality drinking water supply is drawn beyond municipal boundaries, enhancement is a major ES priority, given that combined sewer from the Catskill-Delaware watershed, in a region to the north of overflows have caused significant eutrophication of the city’s NYC. Water sources, pollution abatement, and delivery and tributaries and have resulted in federal fines (McPhearson et al. treatment infrastructure are managed by multiple agencies and 2014). Likewise, air quality regulation can be very important in stakeholders at the federal, state, regional, and city scales, cities that are severely polluted (e.g., Santiago de Chile), but may constituting a form of polycentric governance of greenspace be of secondary importance in cities where there are low levels of (McPhearson et al. 2014). atmospheric pollution (e.g.; Helsinki; Gómez-Baggethun and Future studies of urban ES at the city and regional levels should: Barton 2013). (1) clarify the relevancy of scale, given ES management regimes Relationships among demand, supply, and benefit are not always and research questions (Andersson et al. 2015a); and (2) focus on linear. For instance, Bertram and Rehdanz (2015b) found an the scale of both supply and demand to understand their relation inverted U-shaped relationship between urban green space to each other and the appropriate scale of governance, which in availability and life satisfaction among residents of densely some cases may involve multiscale, multiactor mechanisms. populated, inner-city districts in Berlin. This implies that Insight 3: mediators of urban ecosystem services additional urban green space first increases life satisfaction but Urban ES are mediated by nonecological elements, including tends to decrease life satisfaction above a certain threshold. Urban physical infrastructure, technology, social practices, and the cultural ES depend on man-made infrastructure. For example, to Ecology and Society 21(2): 29 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art29/ understand how park infrastructure mediates the delivery of cultural background (Voigt and Wurster 2015). Perceptions of ES recreational services, Voigt et al. (2014) combined ecological are not only linked to socioeconomic background, but also with surveys and mapping of infrastructure for both active and passive place-based experiences and value sets (Buchel and Frantzeskaki recreation with questionnaire interviews of park users in Berlin. 2015). Future studies should focus on: (1) the technical-ecological They related specific characteristics of urban parks to ways in interplay, with stronger consideration of the technical structures which parks are used and valued, finding that where there is less and facilities that enable ES; (2) the role of institutions in shaping recreational infrastructure in Berlin, fewer park visitors engaged and encouraging individual demand for ES; and (3) socio-cultural in recreational activities (Voigt et al. 2014). Good infrastructural values that people assign to different kinds of nature, landscape accessibility, both within and outside of the boundaries of the elements, and species. areas of service provision, can enable uptake of urban ES. Insight 4: cultural ecosystem services Similarly, the value of ES can be influenced by the enviro-political Cultural ES bring the diverse values and meanings people find in context, including governance institutions and management nature to light and enable, inform, and substantiate discussion about practices as well as norms and regulations (Kronenberg 2014, environmental potentials and challenges in cities. Findings from Langemeyer 2015). For example, following the European Union’s research conducted in the URBES project indicate that cultural EU 2020 goals, many EU municipalities have enrolled in the ES stand among the most important services in urban areas (Voigt “Covenant of Mayors” initiative, voluntarily committing to et al. 2014, Andersson et al. 2015b, Bertram and Rehdanz 2015a, reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% by 2020 Buchel and Frantzeskaki 2015, Langemeyer et al. 2015). Because (Baró et al. 2014), thus setting an ES demand level within an people hold moral, spiritual, educational, aesthetic, place-based, environmental problem context. Given the public good nature of and other nonmaterial values toward the urban environment, carbon sequestration (and most regulating services), such policy cultural ES represent many of the most intimate interactions that targets to address a specific environmental problem (in this case, urbanites have with nature. Research suggests that there are strong climate change; Baró et al. 2014) may be used as proxies for social connections among cultural ES, civic engagement, and ES demand of a given urban ES. If unmet demand is significant, for stewardship (Colding and Barthel 2013, Andersson et al. 2014). instance, when levels of air pollution are very high relative to Communities may support ecologically motivated management targets (such as Environmental Quality Standards), green actions when those actions enhance cultural ES (Andersson et al. infrastructure strategies may not be an effective way to meet the 2015b). Understanding the diverse ways in which people value targets unless they are coupled with other solutions (Baró et al. nature creates opportunities for more inclusive valuations 2014, 2015). At the core city level, pollution abatement can be (Dendoncker et al. 2013) in which positive experiences are used addressed more effectively by reducing pollution sources (e.g., by as starting points for virtuous cycles (Krasny and Tidball 2012) limiting traffic) rather than increasing pollution sinks (e.g., that lead to enhanced cultural ES. through restoration of urban green infrastructure). Thus, a mix of policy interventions and behavioral change needs to be Research to understand cultural ES better and integrate them into considered when assessing future demand for urban ES ES assessments is only recently gaining ground. Still, it has (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2015). become clear that cultural ES exhibit multiple levels of heterogeneity: (1) in the number and types of cultural ES, (2) in Moreover, urban ES that require deliberate action to provide the diverse ways in which people value cultural ES, and (3) in the benefits also require awareness and information that can only be methods that can be used to capture these values. The number provided within a social context. People may ascribe higher values and types of experienced cultural services vary greatly depending to service-providing units that are marketed to them or that they on user perceptions, context, and culture (Bertram and Rehdanz know to hold unique biodiversity or “high-quality” nature, even 2015a, Buchel and Frantzeskaki 2015, Voigt and Wurster 2015, if they do not directly experience more species or “quality” than Camps-Calvet et al. 2016), which makes studying them especially people without that knowledge (Jacobsen et al. 2008, Czajkowski challenging in urban environments characterized by high degrees and Hanley 2009). Additionally, the citizen perceptions of ES are of social and cultural heterogeneity (Gómez-Baggethun and not only linked with their socioeconomic background, as some Barton 2013, Kabisch et al. 2015). For instance, whereas some surveys associate, but also with the experience and value sets they people may see aesthetic beauty and a form of cultural heritage have from the place where they live (Buchel and Frantzeskaki in allotment gardens, others may simply see them as an eyesore. 2015). How people experience cultural ES can also depend on the People attribute different cultural values and symbolic meanings location, physical setting, and structure of urban green to nature, which translate into varied beliefs, choices, and actions. infrastructure (Buchel and Frantzeskaki 2015, Langemeyer et al. For instance, park visitors may attribute the term “diverse” to a 2015). park without having precise knowledge of its biodiversity (in Urban ES also exhibit aesthetic, symbolic, and place values terms of number of species or landscape elements); rather, they (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton 2013). Comparable to the use this term to articulate that they value, appreciate, or find this cultural value and symbolic meaning of a work of art such as of urban green area beautiful and worth protecting and maintaining Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, which is expressed neither by the entrance (Voigt and Wurster 2015). Research on cultural values and fee people are willing to pay to see it nor by its market value, symbolic meanings attributed to urban nature and on how people cultural ES reflect much more than monetary values. People perceive, experience, and value it has to consider people’s assign, allocate, and express diverse values and meanings to nature understanding of landscape and nature and how this and its experience; these meanings and values may be different understanding is grounded in their particular individual and because of individual experiences and cultural backgrounds. Ecology and Society 21(2): 29 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art29/ Therefore, cultural ES cannot be defined without considering the of the high degree of heterogeneity of urban ecosystems (Sukopp particular cultural background of the people benefitting from and Hejný 1990, Andersson et al. 2014). Urban biodiversity is them (Voigt 2012). For example, Voigt and Wurster (2015) generally considered fundamental to the generation of ES interviewed residents about their perception and valuation of the (Elmqvist et al. 2013). Thus, biodiversity protection and diversity of an urban green space (landscape elements, species conservation should be essential components of city efforts to diversity). The results suggest that people’s valuation of the green maintain urban ES, including regulating services that provide space as “diverse” is more related to a prevailing European idea adaptive capacity and resilience to urban stressors such as of landscape diversity, including components such as trees, heatwaves, hurricanes, and heavy storm spells (McPhearson et al. hedgerows, open spaces, and water elements (European 2015, 2016). Landscape Convention), than to their knowledge about this site. However, even if biodiversity is generally considered fundamental To capture fully the multilayered complexity of urban ES values, to the generation of ES, integrating the perspective of biodiversity Chan et al. (2012) discuss eight distinct value dimensions, (and its protection) into the framework of ES research is including individual vs. holistic, physical vs. metaphysical, and challenging and contradictory. Where there is evidence for the process-based dimensions. For example, people might assign importance of particular species groups as key service providers values to a community garden that relate to the aesthetic for the service provision, there are always species that seem preferences or shared community identity of those involved in the dispensable, functionally redundant, and less effective than others garden. Thus far, the plurality in value dimensions is not often (Voigt 2013, 2015). Some species even have negative effects in matched by pluralism in approaches for capturing value, which relation to ES, generating ecosystem disservices (Gómez- are often divided into monetary and nonmonetary (e.g., see Baggethun and Barton 2013). Voigt (2013, 2015) argues that the Langemeyer et al. 2015). Although common monetary valuation loss of some species in a service-providing area may not have a methods (e.g., hedonic pricing, contingent valuation, travel cost) significant negative influence or may have a positive influence on can be useful for capturing some aspects of the value of ES, the provision of ES. Therefore, the perspective of species intangible cultural ES are often not amenable to quantification conservation that considers every species as unique and therefore and monetary metrics (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton 2013). In meriting protection can be in conflict with the perspective of ES URBES research, methods used to evaluate intangible, in which the functions of species are evaluated with respect to nonmonetary values included questionnaires and interviews their contributions to ES. Moreover, conservation efforts are often (Bertram and Rehdanz 2015a,b, Buchel and Frantzeskaki 2015, focused on rare species, which generally have little influence on Voigt and Wurster 2015) and methods combining questionnaires their environment because of their rarity. In contrast, from the with the assessment of the physical characteristics of the given ES perspective, the most important species for conservation are area (Voigt et al. 2014, Langemeyer et al. 2015) to demonstrate those that best support ES, which are often abundant species the pluralism of cultural and individual values. (Voigt 2013, 2015). Thus, both rare and abundant species contribute to the multitude of ES in a city, from social values to Cultural ES valuation methods that are interdisciplinary and food web functions, so protection has to include both. involve stakeholder engagement can help to capture context and cultural differences (Kabisch et al. 2015, Langemeyer et al. 2015, Cities are highly anthropogenic ecosystems, further challenging Voigt and Wurster 2015). Stakeholder engagement is particularly the ecological understanding of how novel species assemblages relevant in urban land-use decision-making, characterized by support urban ES. The role of particular groups of species (native, trade-offs between ES and associated values, which are often non-native, invasive) in the supply and demand for ES remains conflicting and incommensurable along a single measurement poorly understood (Haase et al. 2014b). Additionally, axis (Langemeyer et al. 2016).To support a better integration of understanding habitat function and habitat connectivity is a key cultural ES into urban ES research, planning, and policy-making, for city planners to design appropriate management and we emphasize the need to develop theory and methods that conservation strategies for urban biodiversity and ecosystem accommodate value and methodological pluralism (Gómez- resilience, some or all of which could be vital to secure a stable Baggethun et al. 2013a, Langemeyer et al. 2015). Possibly more supply of ES in cities (McPhearson et al. 2015). Moreover, than any other ES category, cultural ES are critically important Andersson et al. (2015a) argue that understanding cross-scale to human well-being in urban areas. To be inclusive and effective, interactions and landscape diversity is needed for spatial planning cultural ES research should concentrate on: (1) the inclusion and and designing for ES provisioning. They further suggest that to integration of cultural ES in urban ES assessments, (2) how understand the role of biodiversity in supporting different ES, it plurality of values may be better captured and communicated, is necessary to identify the ecological level (e.g., species, and (3) how different values may be integrated. communities, or ecosystems) relevant for the analysis of a given ES. Insight 5: unclear links between urban biodiversity and ecosystem services It is well known that the relicts of near-natural ecosystems are Links between urban biodiversity and ecosystem services remain highly fragmented in urban areas, which can alter the genetic unclear. There is limited empirical research on how biodiversity diversity and long-term survival of sensitive species dependent and ecosystem functioning in urban areas relate to the production on this kind of ecosystem. To ensure viable populations of these of urban ES (Campbell et al. 2012, Cardinale et al. 2012, species groups, urban planners will need to understand better the Tomimatsu et al. 2013, Harrison et al. 2014). However, we do very specific species’ needs for connectivity among suitable habitat know that biodiversity in European cities is high, often much patches. For example, the connectivity of the habitat network higher than in the agricultural landscapes outside of cities because within the urban area plays a major role for ground-dwelling Ecology and Society 21(2): 29 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art29/ animal movement like for the European hedgehog in Zurich between the adaptive policy-making processes in cities and the (Braaker et al. 2014) or specialist bird species (Andersson and timing when research inputs become available to be applied in Bodin 2009), and hence, is of primary importance for sustaining planning (Frantzeskaki and Tillie 2014, Hansen et al. 2015, habitat services. Kabisch 2015, Kaczorowska et al. 2016). Other factors such as time and financial constraints, as well as the presentation of One of the primary difficulties in advancing urban biodiversity scientific results formats incomprehensible or unusable to research is the high cost, in both time and resources, of generating planners (e.g., publication in nonopen-access journals), are not new field-based biodiversity data that are essential for identifying necessarily related to the ES concept but highlight a general linkages with urban ES. If cities want to make progress in problem of knowledge transfer between science and policy and understanding the links between biodiversity and urban ES, it planning. may require significant investment at local and federal levels to support new biodiversity data collection, monitoring schemes, In principle, the ES concept could provide a language bridge and empirical studies on how biodiversity affects ecosystem between scholars and practitioners in different sectors and cities. functioning and its outcomes in terms of services and benefits However, the URBES project findings indicate that there is wide provided in different urban landscapes. At present, biodiversity variation in the use of the terminology. For instance, results from research is not adequately accounted for in current funding the case study in Berlin showed that stakeholders use the mechanisms for urban ES-related research. Citizen-science using background principles of the ES concept and relevant indicators modern apps and smartphone technologies may provide one but do not explicitly link this to the ES concept. When asked to complementary option to support new research in this area. Still, define the term ES, stakeholders primarily associated the term more information on urban biodiversity is needed to understand with monetization of natural elements, rather than broader local-, city-, and regional-scale relationships between biodiversity benefits that humans gain from nature. The term ES was also and the generation of urban ES (Andersson et al. 2015a, related to the less anthropocentric-oriented concept of landscape McPhearson et al. 2016). functions (Kabisch 2015). Findings from an NYC-based case study indicate that the ES concept is present in planning Insight 6: implementation of concepts documents, though description of the concept is limited to a Implementation of the urban ES concepts in planning and policies general idea of communicating benefits that nature provides to requires strategies that work with current methods. Since the early humans. Similar terms such as environmental services or benefits 2000s, multiple levels of governance in western Europe and the appear interchangeably (Hansen et al. 2015). Stakeholder United States have adopted ES terminology in planning processes interviews revealed that this concept, in combination with the and resulting documents. At the EU level, examples include the development and implementation of recent, more integrated European Green Infrastructure Strategy and the EU Biodiversity strategic plans, has helped different city agencies and stakeholders Strategy to 2020. At the national level, examples include the to communicate and work together toward shared goals (Rall et German National Strategy to Biodiversity. At the city level, al. 2015). In Stockholm, which has a long history of addressing examples are Berlin’s Biodiversity Strategy, Barcelona’s issues of biodiversity and cultural landscapes, many stakeholders Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Strategy, the New York showed interest in the somewhat “hyped” ES concept as a State Open Space Conservation Plan, Rotterdam’s Sustainability potentially useful tool for safeguarding urban ecosystems in the Program, the Integrated Development Strategy of Lodz 2020+, context of intense urban growth, but found it too theoretical and and Stockholm’s Comprehensive Plan (Frantzeskaki and Tillie complex to be adopted easily for use in their work (Kaczorowska 2014, Giergiczny and Kronenberg 2014, Hansen et al. 2015, et al. 2016). Kabisch 2015). A second challenge concerns the demand by stakeholders for ES However, URBES case study research has found that there are assessment tools or models. In NYC, planners asked for more varying ways and degrees to which the ES framework and complex ES assessment models that incorporate more of the local rationale have been understood in urban planning and context but are still scalable to the neighborhood level. These governance (Hansen et al. 2015, Rall et al. 2015). In URBES, the models would ideally integrate both functional and social ES framework was brought to the interface of policy and science assessment (i.e., supply and demand). There is also increasing through in-depth analysis of case studies, planning documents, awareness of and interest by green space planners and managers interviews, and workshops with officials from urban planning in NYC in incorporating community perceptions and values of administrations (Frantzeskaki and Tillie 2014, Hansen et al. 2015, green space (Rall et al. 2015). Linking to existing planning Kabisch 2015, Rall et al. 2015, Kaczorowska et al. 2016, Kain et concepts such as multifunctionality can provide an entry point al. 2016). Researchers identified main challenges concerning the for integrating the ES concept into urban greening and green understanding, operationalization, and implementation of the ES infrastructure planning (Hansen and Pauleit 2014). Although framework in urban environmental planning. some stakeholders are demanding more complex models or tools One barrier slowing down the implementation of the ES that can address specific needs, the concept, terminology, and framework and biodiversity planning into urban policy and specific valuation methods used by scholars to assess ES may be practice is the science-policy gap. In all seven URBES case study too complex for many urban stakeholders. Such studies can, cities, we found that the wealth of scientific knowledge available nevertheless, provide general information on the importance of reaches policy makers and practitioners only to a limited extent. nature as perceived by city inhabitants, rather than specific Factors that contribute to the lack of information transfer include information that might be easily incorporated into traditional the terminological complexity of the ES framework, the weak decision-making processes (Giergiczny and Kronenberg 2014). connection of the framework to policy problems, and asynchrony Still, Stockholm stakeholders identified an urgent need for the ES Ecology and Society 21(2): 29 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art29/ concept to be made more useful in relation to practical tools used (Kronenberg 2015), and may have no effect on urban public health for detailed planning and land allocation agreements in ongoing and well-being (Pataki et al. 2011). urban development projects (Kaczorowska et al. 2016). Experiences from the URBES project shows that cross-city Interactions between scientists and urban planners in the case comparisons help: (1) to evaluate and establish thresholds for study cities enhanced urban stakeholders’ perceptions of the urban ES supply in comparison to the demand dynamics and urban ES framework. In particular, spatial visualization of urban relationships (Baró et al. 2015); (2) to uncover good practices in ES through land-use maps, as well as through charts and diagrams urban ES implementation and planning (Hansen et al. 2015); (3) showing urban ES values, proved to be a powerful tool for helping to support scientific understanding of how different urban land- to understand and communicate the ES concept and related cover combinations affect the provision of urban ES, in particular values (Kain et al. 2016). urban heat mitigation (Larondelle et al. 2014a, Hamstead et al. For further integration of the urban ES framework into urban 2016); (4) to advance understanding of similar social policy and planning, we recommend that complex scientific requirements and needs for effective use of urban ES despite terminology be translated in a way that is understandable for differences in cities, cultural backgrounds, and other factors (e.g., urban stakeholders. This can be facilitated by usable tools such facilities to support recreation, accessibility by public transit, and as maps that highlight the distribution and values of urban ES more; McPhearson et al. 2013b, Voigt et al. 2014, Andersson et based on a land use. However, such maps should be provided in al. 2015a); (5) to establish uniform terminology, language, and formats compatible with the conventions of respective local wording to move urban ES research and practice forward across planning systems (Kain et al. 2016). From our experience in the contexts and cities (Gomez-Baggethun et al. 2013a); and (6) to URBES cities, we propose that communication of ES to policy improve knowledge on common urban ES demand, which is much makers and practitioners should minimize the use of acronyms less understood and much less investigated than urban ES supply. and complex jargon. When possible, communication should draw A potential benefit of the urban ES framework is that it provides on related concepts that are well established in urban policy and a solution to the problem of comparing ecological data and planning. Finally, language to communicate urban ES should be analytical findings regarding the benefits of ecosystems across adapted for its audience. The explicit use of the ES concept may cities. However, this requires further development of an agreed not be necessary as long as links are drawn between urban set of methodologies for comparative assessment of ES. Through ecosystems and human well-being. Hybrid concepts, existing in land-use intensification processes, urban landscapes tend to be the planning and ES domains, can help to bridge disciplines and heterogeneous over fine spatial scales relative to nonurban create stronger links between science and practice. For example, landscapes. As a consequence, it can be a challenge to compare the term “natural capital” may work well to communicate with the ecological benefits of sites between cities, or even within a economists in policy contexts such as environmental accounting, single city. The concept of ES providing and reducing elements whereas the term “urban green infrastructure” may be more can form a basis for operationalizing nonmonetary or monetary suitable to communicate with urban architects and engineers. assessment of urban ES on a site level (Wurster and Artmann Insight 7: need for cross-city comparisons 2014, Baró et al. 2015). In this sense, ES can be seen as common Cross-city comparisons are fundamental for understanding the denominators that can be used to compare benefits provided by drivers of ecosystem structure, functioning, and processes. Cross- sites, even if those sites have different landscape features, city comparisons are fundamental to advancing the infrastructure characteristics, or are in different cultural contexts understanding of drivers of urban ecosystem structure and (Kabisch et al. 2015). function, to differentiate between dynamics of urban ES that are Comparative research has begun to make progress in informing locally unique in cities and patterns and processes, which are local management of urban biodiversity and ecological potentially generalizable to multiple urban contexts (McPhearson functioning (Haase et al. 2014a, Larondelle et al. 2014a). et al. 2016). We expect local contexts and dynamics always to be However, to develop design principles, urban ecosystem important for explaining patterns and processes within cities and management guidelines, and provide input to decision-making on urban regions (Niemelä and Kotze 2009); however, we also expect urban ES that is based on a broad evidence base, it would be highly that some principles may generally apply to all urban systems or beneficial to develop a cross-city comparative research program to a set or type of urban systems. Cross-city, cross-context for advancing the ability to provide general knowledge on urban research that employs similar research approaches in multiple ecosystem patterns and processes (Niemelä et al. 2010). Such a urban areas allows identifying similarities and differences in the comparative program could allow the contrast of research results drivers of urban ES while building research collaborations and at different scales toward the development of confirmed facilitating knowledge transfer. Systematic cross-city comparison generalizations regarding multiple kinds of urban relationships studies could also help to conduct estimations of urban such as between ES and urban form, structure, and function biodiversity and ES at regional to global scales to elucidate global (Larondelle et al. 2014a). Such research should use a common trends (Kabisch and Haase 2013, Larondelle and Haase 2013, conceptual framework, use similar and comparable methods and Larondelle et al. 2014a) and inform management and governance. data, and ask similar questions. Standard research methodologies For example, the potential benefits of street trees for improving addressing similar research questions could be applied to multiple urban air quality, temperature, and consequently, public health urban areas, adopting already proven successful comparative has generated major efforts of urban tree plantings such as New approaches (Larondelle et al. 2014a, Baró et al. 2015). York’s million trees program (McPhearson 2011, McPhearson et al. 2013b). However, these benefits strongly depend on the urban context, are not necessarily generalizable to all situations Ecology and Society 21(2): 29 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art29/ CONCLUSION: ENABLING COMMENSURABILITY OR similar way in different cities may allow a generalizable A TOWER OF BABEL? understanding of how values for different types of urban green As fundamentally built on value pluralism, the concept of urban spaces vary across cities. ES can provide an inclusive platform for discursive governance, Finally, urban ES frameworks have great potential to serve as a cocreation of knowledge, and stakeholder involvement in the bridge between science and policy in the context of urban elicitation of urban ES values. The ES framework can provide a planning and environmental governance. Knowledge translation common language through which scholars, policy makers, and and coproduction mediation processes and tools need to be practitioners in interdisciplinary fields can bring together created in a systematic way based on a transdisciplinary ground. knowledge from different contexts and disciplinary domains. The Particular attention should be given to the multiplicity of ES framework holds the potential to conceive of cities and their stakeholder backgrounds, perceptions, expectations, and hinterlands as interconnected ES landscapes in which many ES application contexts. The appropriate level of complexity of are comanaged (Andersson et al. 2015b). Different kinds of scientific knowledge that is introduced into planning and approaches are needed to measure and value ES for this purpose. governance processes depends on local circumstances. Successful However, as findings from the URBES project indicate, it can be applications require tailoring the scientific processes to fit social challenging to apply multiple methods and link diverse and political processes and address scale and boundary approaches through the larger theoretical framework, and even mismatches. more so to communicate this information in formats that can be readily used by decision makers and planners. As new efforts to develop green infrastructure and nature-based solutions for urban Responses to this article can be read online at: sustainability and resilience in cities continue to emerge, urban http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses. ES can be a way to capture different values of nature in cities for php/8445 cities, their citizens, and the variety of stakeholders within and beyond city boundaries. Building bridges to overcome the various gaps, inconsistencies, and incommensurability associated with the study of urban ES are of particular importance for future Acknowledgments: research. This research was funded by the ERA-Net BiodivERsA as part of Incompatible theoretical frameworks, methods, and research the URBES project (2011–2014), and the national funding bodies traditions, as well as insufficient data, can inhibit integration of contributing to the ERANET fund. crucial knowledge. For example, although we recognize biodiversity as a key issue fundamental to the establishment of the urban ES concept and its operationalization, we struggle with LITERATURE CITED the integration and inclusion of actual biodiversity research. To Andersson, E., S. Barthel, and K. Ahrné. 2007. Measuring social- overcome this knowledge gap, we need to define and analytically ecological dynamics behind the generation of ecosystem services. relate to biodiversity in new ways that connect more directly to Ecological Applications 17(5):1267-1278. http://dx.doi. urban ES, e.g., through functional traits. org/10.1890/06-1116.1 In addition, spatial associations such as those between potential Andersson, E., S. Barthel, S. Borgström, J. Colding, T. Elmqvist, supply and demand are understudied in urban ES assessments. C. Folke, and Å. Gren. 2014. Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: They could offer a direct hands-on tool for urban planning and stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. design at all scales, and promote collaborative approaches. Social- Ambio 43(4):445-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0506- ecological interpretation of landscape ecology, urban y morphology, and socioeconomic patterns has not yet reached the Andersson, E., and Ö. Bodin. 2009. Practical tool for landscape full integration needed to address ES, and will need to expand planning? An empirical investigation of network based models further to include technical and infrastructure dimensions of of habitat fragmentation. Ecography 32(1):123-132. http://dx.doi. urban ES production (McPhearson et al. 2016). org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05435.x Future research should continue to develop methods for Andersson, E., T. McPhearson, P. Kremer, E. Gomez-Baggethun, integrated assessment and valuation of urban ES from both D. Haase, M. Tuvendal, and D. Wurster. 2015a. Scale and context natural and social sciences. This is particularly important for dependence of ecosystem service providing units. Ecosystem cultural urban ES valuation in which plurality of values is most Services 12:157-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.001 prominent, offering a promising avenue to capture their societal importance and actively engage urban stakeholders. By necessity, Andersson, E., M. Tengö, T. McPhearson, and P. Kremer. 2015b. this means that urban ES researchers should make stronger Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban connections to social science as well as to the planning and sustainability. Ecosystem Services 12:165-168. http://dx.doi. governance communities. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.002 Multicity and cross-scale comparisons are essential to the Baró, F., L. Chaparro, E. Gómez-Baggethun, J. Langemeyer, D. development of the general theories of urban ES. Multiple J. Nowak, and J. Terradas. 2014. Contribution of ecosystem valuation methods are needed to address the multiple perspectives services to air quality and climate change mitigation policies: the of urban green space value. Testing these multiple methods in a case of urban forests in Barcelona, Spain. Ambio 43(4):466-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0507-x Ecology and Society 21(2): 29 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art29/ Baró, F., D. Haase, E. Gómez-Baggethun, and N. Frantzeskaki. Dendoncker, N., H. Keune, S. Jacobs, and E. Gómez-Baggethun. 2015. Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and 2013. Inclusive ecosystem services valuation. Pages 3-12 in S. demand in urban areas: a quantitative assessment in five Jacobs, N. Dendoncker, and H. Keune, editors. Ecosystem European cities. Ecological Indicators 55:146-158. http://dx.doi. services: global issues, local practices. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.013 Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-419964-4.00001-9 Bertram, C., and K. Rehdanz. 2015a. Preferences for cultural Elmqvist, T., M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. urban ecosystem services: comparing attitudes, perception, and Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. use. Ecosystem Services 12:187-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, and C. Wilkinson, editors. 2013. ecoser.2014.12.011 Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities: a global assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, The Bertram, C., and K. Rehdanz. 2015b. The role of urban green Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1 space for human well-being. Ecological Economics 120:139-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.013 Elmqvist, T., H. Setälä, S. N. Handel, S. van der Ploeg, J. Aronson, J. N. Blignaut, E. Gómez-Baggethun, D. J. Nowak, J. Kronenberg, Borgström, S. T., T. Elmqvist, P. Angelstam, and C. Alfsen- and R. de Groot. 2015. Benefits of restoring ecosystem services Norodom. 2006. Scale mismatches in management of urban in urban areas. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability landscapes. Ecology and Society 11(2):16. [online] URL: http:// 14:101-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.001 www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art16/ Folke, C., Å. Jansson, J. Larsson, and R. Costanza. 1997. Braaker, S., J. Ghazoul, M. K. Obrist, and M. Moretti. 2014. Ecosystem appropriation by cities. Ambio 26(3):167-172. [online] Habitat connectivity shapes urban arthropod communities: the URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4314576 key role of green roofs. Ecology 95(4):1010-1021. http://dx.doi. org/10.1890/13-0705.1 Frantzeskaki, N., and N. Tillie. 2014. The dynamics of urban ecosystem governance in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Ambio 43 Buchel, S., and N. Frantzeskaki. 2015. Citizens’ voice: a case study (4):542-555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0512-0 about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Ecosystem Servcies 12:169-177. Giergiczny, M., and J. Kronenberg. 2014. From valuation to http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.014 governance: using choice experiment to value street trees. Ambio 43(4):492-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0516-9 Campbell, A. J., J. C. Biesmeijer, V. Varma, and F. L. Wäckers. 2012. Realising multiple ecosystem services based on the response Gómez-Baggethun, E., and D. N. Barton. 2013. Classifying and of three beneficial insect groups to floral traits and trait diversity. valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Basic and Applied Ecology 13(4):363-370. http://dx.doi. Economics 86:235-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019 org/10.1016/j.baae.2012.04.003 Gomez-Baggethun, E., Å. Gren, D. N. Barton, T. McPhearson, Camps-Calvet, M., J. Langemeyer, L. Calvet-Mir, and E. Gómez- P. O’Farrell, E. Andersson, Z. Hampstead, and P. Kremer. 2013a. Baggethun. 2016. Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens Urban ecosystem services. Pages 175-251 in T. Elmqvist, M. in Barcelona, Spain: insights for policy and planning. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. Environmental Science and Policy, in press. http://dx.doi. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.007 and C. Wilkinson, editors. Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities: a global Cardinale, B. J., J. E. Duffy, A. Gonzalez, D. U. Hooper, C. assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi. Perrings, P. Venail, A. Narwani, G. M. Mace, D. Tilman, D. A. org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_11 Wardle, A. P. Kinzig, G. C. Daily, M. Loreau, J. B. Grace, A. Larigauderie, D. S. Srivastava, and S. Naeem. 2012. Biodiversity Gómez-Baggethun, E., and E. Kelemen. 2008. Linking loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486(7401):59-67. http:// institutional change and the flows of ecosystem services. Case dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11148 studies from Spain and Hungary. Pages 118-145 in T. Kluvánková- Oravská, V. Chobotova, J. Jílková, and P. Sauer, editors. Chan, K. M. A., T. Satterfield, and J. Goldstein. 2012. Rethinking Institutional analysis of sustainability problems: emerging theories ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. and methods in sustainability research. Nakladatelství a Ecological Economics 74:8-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. vydavatelství litomyšlského semináre, Prague, Czech Republic. ecolecon.2011.11.011 Gómez-Baggethun, E., E. Kelemen, B. Martín-López, I. Palomo, Colding, J., and S. Barthel. 2013. The potential of “Urban Green and C. Montes. 2013b. Scale misfit in ecosystem service Commons” in the resilience building of cities. Ecological governance as a source of environmental conflict. Society and Economics 86:156-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.10.016 Natural Resources 26(10):1202-1216. http://dx.doi. Cumming, G. S., D. H. M. Cumming, and C. L. Redman. 2006. org/10.1080/08941920.2013.820817 Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, Haase, D., N. Frantzeskaki, and T. Elmqvist. 2014a. Ecosystem consequences, and solutions. Ecology And Society 11(1):14. services in urban landscapes: practical applications and [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/ governance implications. Ambio 43(4):407-412. http://dx.doi. art14/ org/10.1007/s13280-014-0503-1 Czajkowski, M., and N. Hanley. 2009. Using labels to investigate Haase, D., N. Larondelle, E. Andersson, M. Artmann, S. scope effects in stated preference methods. Environmental and Borgström, J. Breuste, E. Gomez-Baggethun, Å. Gren, Z. Resource Economics 44(4):521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9299- z Ecology and Society 21(2): 29 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art29/ Hamstead, R. Hansen, N. Kabisch, P. Kremer, J. Langemeyer, E. Krasny, M. E., and K. G. Tidball. 2012. Civic ecology: a pathway L. Rall, T. McPhearson, S. Pauleit, S. Qureshi, N. Schwarz, A. for Earth stewardship in cities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Voigt, D. Wurster, and T. Elmqvist. 2014b. A quantitative review Environment 10(5):267-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/110230 of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and Kronenberg, J. 2014. Environmental impacts of the use of implementation. Ambio 43(4):413-433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ ecosystem services: case study of birdwatching. Environmental s13280-014-0504-0 Management 54(3):617-630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0317-8 Hamstead, Z. A., P. Kremer, N. Larondelle, T. McPhearson, and Kronenberg, J. 2015. Why not to green a city? Institutional D. Haase. 2016. Classification of the heterogeneous structure of barriers to preserving urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem urban landscapes (STURLA) as an indicator of landscape Services 12:218-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.002 function applied to surface temperature in New York City. Ecological Indicators, in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Langemeyer, J. 2015. Urban ecosystem services: the value of green ecolind.2015.10.014 spaces in cities. Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. Hansen, R., N. Frantzeskaki, T. McPhearson, E. Rall, N. Langemeyer, J., F. Baró, P. Roebeling, and E. Gómez-Baggethun. Kabisch, A. Kaczorowska, J.-H. Kain, M. Artmann, and S. 2015. Contrasting values of cultural ecosystem services in urban Pauleit. 2015. The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in areas: the case of park Montjuïc in Barcelona. Ecosystem Services planning discourses of European and American cities. Ecosystem 12:178-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.016 Services 12:228-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.013 Langemeyer, J., E. Gómez-Baggethun, D. Haase, S. Scheuer, and Hansen, R., and S. Pauleit. 2014. From multifunctionality to T. Elmqvist. 2016. Bridging the gap between ecosystem service multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban Decision Analysis (MCDA). Environmental Science and Policy, in areas. Ambio 43(4):516-529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0510-2 press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.013 Harrison, P. A., P. M. Berry, G. Simpson, J. R. Haslett, M. Larondelle, N., and D. Haase. 2013. Urban ecosystem services Blicharska, M. Bucur, R. Dunford, B. Egoh, M. Garcia-Llorente, assessment along a rural-urban gradient: a cross-analysis of N. Geamănă, W. Geertsema, E. Lommelen, L. Meiresonne, and European cities. Ecological Indicators 29:179-190. http://dx.doi. F. Turkelboom. 2014. Linkages between biodiversity attributes org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.022 and ecosystem services: a systematic review. Ecosystem Services Larondelle, N., D. Haase, and N. Kabisch. 2014a. Mapping the 9:191-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.006 diversity of regulating ecosystem services in European cities. Jacobsen, J. B., J. H. Boiesen, B. J. Thorsen, and N. Strange. 2008. Global Environmental Change 26:119-129. http://dx.doi. What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.008 ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity. Environmental and Larondelle, N., Z. A. Hamstead, P. Kremer, D. Haase, and T. Resource Economics 39(3):247-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ McPhearson. 2014b. Applying a novel urban structure s10640-007-9107-6 classification to compare the relationships of urban structure and Kabisch, N. 2015. Ecosystem service implementation and surface temperature in Berlin and New York City. Applied governance challenges in urban green space planning—the case Geography 53:427-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.07.004 of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy 42:557-567. http://dx.doi. McPhearson, P. T. 2011. Toward a sustainable New York City: org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.005 greening through urban forest restoration. Pages 181-204 in M. Kabisch, N., and D. Haase. 2013. Green spaces of European cities I. Slavin, editor. Sustainability in America’s cities: creating the revisited for 1990–2006. Landscape and Urban Planning green metropolis. Island Press and Center for Resource 110:113-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.017 Economics, Washington, D.C., USA. http://dx.doi. org/10.5822/978-1-61091-028-6_9 Kabisch, N., S. Qureshi, and D. Haase. 2015. Human- environment interactions in urban green spaces — a systematic McPhearson, T., E. Andersson, T. Elmqvist, and N. Frantzeskaki. review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. 2015. Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50:25-34. http://dx.doi. Ecosystem Services 12:152-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.007 ecoser.2014.07.012 Kaczorowska, A., J.-H. Kain, J. Kronenberg, and D. Haase. 2016. McPhearson, T., Z. A. Hamstead, and P. Kremer. 2014. Urban Ecosystem services in urban land use planning: integration ecosystem services for resilience planning and management in challenges in complex urban settings—case of Stockholm. New York City. Ambio 43(4):502-515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ Ecosystem Services, in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. s13280-014-0509-8 ecoser.2015.04.006 McPhearson, T., P. Kremer, and Z. A. Hamstead. 2013a. Mapping Kain, J.-H., N. Larondelle, D. Haase, and A. Kaczorowska. 2016. ecosystem services in New York City: applying a social-ecological Exploring local consequences of two land-use alternatives for the approach in urban vacant land. Ecosystem Services 5:11-26. supply of urban ecosystem services in Stockholm year 2050. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.005 Ecological Indicators, in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. McPhearson, T., D. Maddox, B. Gunther, and D. Bragdon. 2013b. ecolind.2016.02.062 Local assessment of New York City: biodiversity, green space, Ecology and Society 21(2): 29 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art29/ and ecosystem services. Pages 355-383 in T. Elmqvist, M. Villamagna, A. M., P. L. Angermeier, and E. M. Bennett. 2013. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological and C. Wilkinson, editors. Urbanization, biodiversity and Complexity 15:114-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.004 ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities: a global Voigt, A. 2012. Landscapes as ecosystems. What is lost when assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi. science gains the privilege of interpretation? Pages 99-102 in I. org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_19 Dymitryszyn, M. Kaczyńska, and G. Maksymiuk, editors. The McPhearson, T., S. T. A. Pickett, N. B. Grimm, J. Niemelä, M. power of landscape: peer reviewed proceedings of ECLAS 2012 Alberti, T. Elmqvist, C. Weber, D. Haase, J. Breuste, and S. conference at Warsaw University of Life Sciences. Warsaw Qureshi. 2016. Advancing urban ecology toward a science of University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland. cities. BioScience 66(3):198-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/ Voigt, A. 2013. Naturschutz nur für Leistungsträger? biw002 Überlegungen zu der Frage, inwiefern das Konzept der Ecosystem Niemelä, J., and D. J. Kotze. 2009. Carabid beetle assemblages Services zum Schutz der Biodiversität beitragen kann. Pages along urban to rural gradients: a review. Landscape and Urban 141-157 in J. Friedrich, A. Halsband, and L. Minkmar, editors. Planning 92(2):65-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.016 Societal dimensions of the conservation and utilization of biological diversity. University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. Niemelä, J., S.-R. Saarela, T. Söderman, L. Kopperoinen, V. Yli- Pelkonen, S. Väre, and D. J. Kotze. 2010. Using the ecosystem Voigt, A. 2015. Die Macht des Ökonomischen im Blick auf Natur services approach for better planning and conservation of urban und Landschaft: Eine Diskussion des Ökosystemdienstleistungsansatzes. green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation Pages 201-219 in S. Kost and A. Schönwald, editors. 19(11):3225-3243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9888-8 Landschaftswandel — Wandel von Machtstrukturen. Springer, Wiesbaden, Germany. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04330-8_13 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2013. Definition of functional urban areas (FUA) Voigt, A., N. Kabisch, D. Wurster, D. Haase, and J. Breuste. 2014. for the OECD metropolitan database. OECD Definitions. OECD, Structural diversity: a multi-dimensional approach to assess Paris, France. [online] URL: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional- recreational services in urban parks. Ambio 43(4):480-491. http:// policy/Definition-of-Functional-Urban-Areas-for-the-OECD- dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0508-9 metropolitan-database.pdf Voigt, A., and D. Wurster. 2015. Does diversity matter? The Pataki, D. E., M. M. Carreiro, J. Cherrier, N. E. Grulke, V. experience of urban nature’s diversity: case study and cultural Jennings, S. Pincetl, R. V. Pouyat, T. H. Whitlow, and W. C. concept. Ecosystem Services 12:200-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ Zipperer. 2011. Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban j.ecoser.2014.12.005 environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and Wurster, D., and M. Artmann. 2014. Development of a concept misconceptions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9 for non-monetary assessment of urban ecosystem services at the (1):27-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/090220 site level. Ambio 43(4):454-465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ Rall, E. L., N. Kabisch, and R. Hansen. 2015. A comparative s13280-014-0502-2 exploration of uptake and potential application of ecosystem Zank, B., K. J. Bagstad, B. Voigt, and F. Villa. 2016. Modeling services in urban planning. Ecosystem Services 16:230-242. http:// the effects of urban expansion on natural capital stocks and dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.005 ecosystem service flows: a case study in the Puget Sound, Reyers, B., R. Biggs, G. S. Cumming, T. Elmqvist, A. P. Hejnowicz, Washington, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 149:31-42. and S. Polasky. 2013. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.004 a social-ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(5):268-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/120144 Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D., J. H. Kain, D. Haase, F. Baró, and A. Kaczorowska. 2015. Urban self-sufficiency through optimised ecosystem service demand. A utopian perspective from European cities. Futures 70:13-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.03.007 Sukopp, H., and S. Hejný. 1990. Urban ecology: plants and plant communities in urban environments. SPB Academic, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tomimatsu, H., T. Sasaki, H. Kurokawa, J. R. Bridle, C. Fontaine, J. Kitano, D. B. Stouffer, M. Vellend, T. M. Bezemer, T. Fukami, E. A. Hadly, M. G. A. van der Heijden, M. Kawata, S. Kéfi, N. J. B. Kraft, K. S. McCann, P. J. Mumby, T. Nakashizuka, O. L. Petchey, T. N. Romanuk, K. N. Suding, G. Takimoto, J. Urabe, and S. Yachi. 2013. Sustaining ecosystem functions in a changing world: a call for an integrated approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 50(5):1124-1130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12116