58
and demand of ES, and related benefits and values, vary across space (Harrison
et al. 2017; Santos-Martin et al. 2018). However, there are key elements that ES
assessments need to consider, to be informative about the equitable distribution of
ES. This chapter explores these elements, presents a case study application, and
provides some conclusions on how planning can pursue equitable distribution of ES
in cities.
6.2 Elements to Assess Equity in the Distribution of ES
Three spatial elements are important to understand the distributional equity of ES:
supply (i.e., where ES services are produced), access (i.e., where and by whom ES
are used), and demand (i.e., who needs ES). The first obvious step of the analysis
consists in identifying where ES are actually supplied (Burkhard et al. 2012). To
this end, many assessments rely on the spatial distribution of urban parks or public
green areas as a proxy of the spatial distribution of ES supply in the city. In this way,
however, they fail to account for the ES provided by other types of urban green
areas, including private gardens (Lin et al. 2017), street trees and roadside vegetation (Mullaney et al. 2015; Säumel et al. 2016), community gardens (Camps-Calvet
et al. 2015), or even brownfields and abandoned areas (Mathey et al. 2015; Pueffel
et al. 2018).
Moreover, spatial analyses focused on the distribution of green areas in the city
sometimes overlook the fact that different ecosystems supply different types of ES
and with different levels of effectiveness (de Groot et al. 2010). As Daw et al. 2011
put it, assuming all green areas as “black boxes” providing ES – without being able
to determine which ES are supplied, and to which level of effectiveness – is a poor
starting point to address issues of equity. Worth of mention here is the fact that ES
indicators should relate to an appropriate scale and resolution. While more and better data are generally available in cities compared to non-urban areas, informing
urban planning decisions requires capturing changes with a high level of detail;
hence, data availability may sometime represent a crucial barrier. To effectively
capture ES supply and provide useful information for equitable distribution of ES,
the assessment should consider all ecosystems in a city, not only public green
spaces. In addition, it should provide disaggregated information about the different
ES that are supplied, considering the extent to which different urban ecosystems
contribute to the provision of each ES.
Comparing ES supply and demand in a spatially explicit way is a fundamental
step to understand who benefits from which services (Burkhard et al. 2012).
However, simple methods based on spatial overlays may overlook whether the
potential beneficiaries can actually access the supply of ES (Schröter et al. 2012).
Tallis and Polasky (2009) rightly refer to access to ES, which is different from
access to ecosystems or to public green spaces. Areas of ES generation (service
6 Towards Equity in the Distribution of Ecosystem Services in Cities
and demand of ES, and related benefits and values, vary across space (Harrison
et al. 2017; Santos-Martin et al. 2018). However, there are key elements that ES
assessments need to consider, to be informative about the equitable distribution of
ES. This chapter explores these elements, presents a case study application, and
provides some conclusions on how planning can pursue equitable distribution of ES
in cities.
6.2 Elements to Assess Equity in the Distribution of ES
Three spatial elements are important to understand the distributional equity of ES:
supply (i.e., where ES services are produced), access (i.e., where and by whom ES
are used), and demand (i.e., who needs ES). The first obvious step of the analysis
consists in identifying where ES are actually supplied (Burkhard et al. 2012). To
this end, many assessments rely on the spatial distribution of urban parks or public
green areas as a proxy of the spatial distribution of ES supply in the city. In this way,
however, they fail to account for the ES provided by other types of urban green
areas, including private gardens (Lin et al. 2017), street trees and roadside vegetation (Mullaney et al. 2015; Säumel et al. 2016), community gardens (Camps-Calvet
et al. 2015), or even brownfields and abandoned areas (Mathey et al. 2015; Pueffel
et al. 2018).
Moreover, spatial analyses focused on the distribution of green areas in the city
sometimes overlook the fact that different ecosystems supply different types of ES
and with different levels of effectiveness (de Groot et al. 2010). As Daw et al. 2011
put it, assuming all green areas as “black boxes” providing ES – without being able
to determine which ES are supplied, and to which level of effectiveness – is a poor
starting point to address issues of equity. Worth of mention here is the fact that ES
indicators should relate to an appropriate scale and resolution. While more and better data are generally available in cities compared to non-urban areas, informing
urban planning decisions requires capturing changes with a high level of detail;
hence, data availability may sometime represent a crucial barrier. To effectively
capture ES supply and provide useful information for equitable distribution of ES,
the assessment should consider all ecosystems in a city, not only public green
spaces. In addition, it should provide disaggregated information about the different
ES that are supplied, considering the extent to which different urban ecosystems
contribute to the provision of each ES.
Comparing ES supply and demand in a spatially explicit way is a fundamental
step to understand who benefits from which services (Burkhard et al. 2012).
However, simple methods based on spatial overlays may overlook whether the
potential beneficiaries can actually access the supply of ES (Schröter et al. 2012).
Tallis and Polasky (2009) rightly refer to access to ES, which is different from
access to ecosystems or to public green spaces. Areas of ES generation (service
6 Towards Equity in the Distribution of Ecosystem Services in Cities