Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
The conservation of urban biodiversity is one of the priorities issues for the sustainable development of urban areas. Urban green spaces (UGS) can provide the most effective biodiversity conservation function, and thus the maximum volumes of ecosystem services (ES), only if they function as elements of the ecological network. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to develop a methodology for assessing the volume of ES based on determining the effectiveness of urban green spaces in providing biodiversity conservation services and conducting this assessment on the example of green spaces in Kyiv.
The potential of UGSs in performing their functions as elements of the ecological network was determined: the most "valuable" UGSs in Kyiv are currently 2%, 67% of UGSs have medium potential, and 11 sites have low potential.
The sustainability of UGS was defined as the ability to self-regulate in accordance with the power and type of anthropogenic pressure: in 19% of the city's model polygons, UGS have medium levels of sustainability, in 2% – poor (1%) and very poor (1%) sustainability. In 32% of the model polygons, UGSs with strong sustainability are recorded. In 38% of the model polygons, there are low levels of anthropogenic pressure, so these areas have very strong sustainability of UGS in biodiversity conservation.
The "individual" effectiveness of UGSs in biodiversity conservation – E_biodiversity(g_a) – was determined: three areas have high biodiversity conservation effectiveness, 5% are effective (above average), 67% of UGSs have below average, 15% have low biodiversity conservation effectiveness.
The volume of ES was calculated – ES_biodiversity(g_a): 60% of the UGS of Kyiv provide ecosystem services for biodiversity conservation in volumes below average, 21% in average and 4% in volumes above average. Only 24 sites provide these ES in maximum volumes.
The assessment based on this methodology can be a useful tool in environmental decision-making, as it allows identifying UGSs that need priority actions to improve their capacity to conserve the region's biodiversity.
References
Збереження і моніторинг біологічного та ландшафтного різноманіття в Україні. (2000). Національний екологічний центр України. 244 с.
Корогода, Н., & Купач, Т. (2023). Оцінка обсягів надання культурних екосистемних послуг зеленими зонами міста Києва. Visnyk of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Series "Geology. Geography. Ecology, 58, 159-170. https://doi.org/10.26565/2410-7360-2023-58-13
Корогода, Н. П. (2023). Оцінка екосистемних послуг зі зниження рівня шуму від дорожнього руху у міських ландшафтах. Ландшафтознавство, 3(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.31652/2786-5665-2023-3-56-67
Розбудова екомережі України. (1999). Під ред. Шеляга-Сосонка, Ю.Р. Програма розвитку ООН. Проект “Екомережі”. 127 с.
Самойленко, В. М., & Корогода, Н. П. (2006). Геоінформаційне моделювання екомережі. Ніка-Центр, 224 c.
Самойленко, В. М., & Корогода, Н. П. (2005). Особливості геоінформаційного математично-картографічного моделювання екомережі в містах. Гідрологія, гідрохімія і гідроекологія, 7, 234-243
Brondizio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., & Ngo H. T. (2019). IPBES: Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673
Edinburgh Declaration on post-2020 global biodiversity framework. (2020). https://cor.europa.eu/en/events/pages/edinburgh-declaration.aspx
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2009). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69, 1209-1218
Korohoda, N., Halahan, O., & Kovtoniuk, O. (2022, November). The use of GIS and Remote Sensing Data in Determining the Condition of Green Areas in Kyiv. In 16th International Conference Monitoring of Geological Processes and Ecological Condition of the Environment (Vol. 2022, No. 1, pp. 1–5). EAGE Publications BV. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.2022580056
Korohoda, N., Kovtoniuk, O., & Halahan, O. (2023). Kyiv green areas: assessment of the functioning efficiency and volumes of ecosystem services for erosion control. Journal of Geology, Geography and Geoecology, 32(3), 516-524. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15421/112346
Maes, J., Liquete, C., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Paracchini, M.L., et al. (2016). An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosystem Services, 17, 14-23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023
Martens, D., Öztürk, Ö., Rindt, L., Twarok, J., Steinhardt, U., & Molitor, H. (2022). Supporting biodiversity: Structures of participatory actions in urban green spaces. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 4, 952790. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.952790
The Convention on Biological Diversity. (2011). https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities (eBook). (2013). Springer Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1
Zari, M. P. (2018). The importance of urban biodiversity – an ecosystem services approach. Biodiversity International Journal, 2(4), 357-360. https://doi.org/10.15406/bij.2018.02.00087
References
VZberezhennya i monitorynh biolohichnoho ta landshaftnoho riznomanittya v Ukrayini (2000). [Conservation and Monitoring of Biological and Landscape Diversity in Ukraine]. Natsionalʹnyy ekolohichnyy tsentr Ukrayiny [National Ecological Centre of Ukraine], 244 p. [inUkrainian].
Korohoda, N., & Kupach, T. (2023). Otsinka obsyahiv nadannya kulʹturnykh ekosystemnykh posluh zelenymy zonamy mista Kyyeva - Assessment of the volume of provision of cultural ecosystem services by Kyiv green zones. Visnyk of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Series "Geology. Geography. Ecology, 58, 159-170. [inUkrainian] https://doi.org/10.26565/2410-7360-2023-58-13
Korohoda, N. P. (2023). Otsinka ekosystemnykh posluh zi znyzhennya rivnya shumu vid dorozhnʹoho rukhu u misʹkykh landshaftakh - Assessment of ecosystem traffic noise reduction service in the urban landscapes. Landshaftoznavstvo [Landscape science], 3(1), 56–67 [inUkrainian]. https://doi.org/10.31652/2786-5665-2023-3-56-67
Rozbudova ekomerezhi Ukrayiny. (1999). [Development of the Ecological Network of Ukraine. Pid red. Shelyaha-Sosonka, YU.R. Prohrama rozvytku OON. Proekt “Ekomerezhi” [Edited by Sheliag-Sosonko, Y.R. United Nations Development Programme. Project “Ecological Networks”, 127 p. [inUkrainian]
Samoylenko, V. M., & Korogoda, N. P. (2006). Heoinformatsiyne modelyuvannya ekomerezhi [Geo-informative modeling of ecological network]. Nika-Center, 224 p. [inUkrainian].
Samoylenko, V. M., & Korogoda, N. P. (2005). Osoblyvosti heoinformatsiynoho matematychno-kartohrafichnoho modelyuvannya ekomerezhi v mistakh - Features of geo-informational mathematical and cartographic modeling of eco-networks in cities. Hidrolohiya, hidrokhimiya i hidroekolohiya [Hydrology, hydrochemistry and hydroecology], 7, 234-243. [in Ukrainian]
Brondizio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., & Ngo H. T. (2019). IPBES: Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673
Edinburgh Declaration on post-2020 global biodiversity framework. (2020). https://cor.europa.eu/en/events/pages/edinburgh-declaration.aspx
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2009). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69, 1209-1218
Korohoda, N., Halahan, O., & Kovtoniuk, O. (2022, November). The use of GIS and Remote Sensing Data in Determining the Condition of Green Areas in Kyiv. In 16th International Conference Monitoring of Geological Processes and Ecological Condition of the Environment (Vol. 2022, No. 1, pp. 1–5). EAGE Publications BV. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.2022580056
Korohoda, N., Kovtoniuk, O., & Halahan, O. (2023). Kyiv green areas: assessment of the functioning efficiency and volumes of ecosystem services for erosion control. Journal of Geology, Geography and Geoecology, 32(3), 516-524. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15421/112346
Maes, J., Liquete, C., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Paracchini, M.L., et al. (2016). An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosystem Services, 17, 14-23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023
Martens, D., Öztürk, Ö., Rindt, L., Twarok, J., Steinhardt, U., & Molitor, H. (2022). Supporting biodiversity: Structures of participatory actions in urban green spaces. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 4, 952790. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.952790
The Convention on Biological Diversity. (2011). https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities (eBook). (2013). Springer Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1
Zari, M. P. (2018). The importance of urban biodiversity – an ecosystem services approach. Biodiversity International Journal, 2(4), 357-360. https://doi.org/10.15406/bij.2018.02.00087.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Наталія Петрівна Корогода