42
interventions. The latter are more adequate for large areas, while for small areas an
enhancement of the cooling capacity can be obtained by increasing the tree canopy
cover. An exception is the Mediterranean region where trees are more preferable
than soil cover interventions. On the contrary, for large areas soil cover changes can
provide much more interesting results in all three climatic regions, especially in the
Mediterranean. However, a good balance in terms of tree-canopy coverage, soil
cover type and size, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, is the strategy providing the best cooling capacity.
The approach, as it stands now, has three main limitations. Firstly, the computation of shading, evapotranspiration and the overall cooling capacity is based on a
review of the available literature and on expert opinion. Further empirical evidence
would make the approach stronger. Secondly, variables such as wind flow, city morphology, and tree species were not considered due to the choice for simplicity and
synthesis, looking for a fair trade-off between accuracy of the assessment and a
complexity in computations and data. Despite restricted to the most influencing factors, the analysis is flexible enough to provide solutions that are site-specific. For
example, concerning tree species, the literature provides evidence about the fact that
different tree species differently contribute to cooling due to different evapotranspiration functioning. Last, the proposed approach only considers the cooling capacity
within the UGI, without addressing the effects outside its boundaries. Clearly,
knowing the spatial extent of the cooling capacity beyond UGI boundaries would be
interesting for urban planning, and for an analysis of the expected beneficiaries of
different interventions. This challenge is addressed in the next chapter, where the
analysis of the cooling capacity of UGI, as well as of other ES, is linked to an
explicit assessment of different groups of beneficiaries, and the outcomes are used
to inform urban planning.
Acknowledgments Marta Pérez-Soba and Michiel Van Eupen are acknowledged for contributing
to this chapter.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and
reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, a link is provided to the Creative Commons license and any changes
made are indicated.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the work’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included in
the work’s Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt or reproduce
the material.
4 Developing Ecosystem Service Models for Urban Planning: A Focus…
interventions. The latter are more adequate for large areas, while for small areas an
enhancement of the cooling capacity can be obtained by increasing the tree canopy
cover. An exception is the Mediterranean region where trees are more preferable
than soil cover interventions. On the contrary, for large areas soil cover changes can
provide much more interesting results in all three climatic regions, especially in the
Mediterranean. However, a good balance in terms of tree-canopy coverage, soil
cover type and size, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, is the strategy providing the best cooling capacity.
The approach, as it stands now, has three main limitations. Firstly, the computation of shading, evapotranspiration and the overall cooling capacity is based on a
review of the available literature and on expert opinion. Further empirical evidence
would make the approach stronger. Secondly, variables such as wind flow, city morphology, and tree species were not considered due to the choice for simplicity and
synthesis, looking for a fair trade-off between accuracy of the assessment and a
complexity in computations and data. Despite restricted to the most influencing factors, the analysis is flexible enough to provide solutions that are site-specific. For
example, concerning tree species, the literature provides evidence about the fact that
different tree species differently contribute to cooling due to different evapotranspiration functioning. Last, the proposed approach only considers the cooling capacity
within the UGI, without addressing the effects outside its boundaries. Clearly,
knowing the spatial extent of the cooling capacity beyond UGI boundaries would be
interesting for urban planning, and for an analysis of the expected beneficiaries of
different interventions. This challenge is addressed in the next chapter, where the
analysis of the cooling capacity of UGI, as well as of other ES, is linked to an
explicit assessment of different groups of beneficiaries, and the outcomes are used
to inform urban planning.
Acknowledgments Marta Pérez-Soba and Michiel Van Eupen are acknowledged for contributing
to this chapter.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and
reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, a link is provided to the Creative Commons license and any changes
made are indicated.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the work’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included in
the work’s Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt or reproduce
the material.
4 Developing Ecosystem Service Models for Urban Planning: A Focus…