A framework for incorporating ecosystem connectivity into urban planning for resilient cities
2020
- 52Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage52
- Abstract Views52
Artifact Description
Urban land-use planners are faced with competing and often conflicting demands for transportation, housing, safety and economic development but frequently lack the tools to integrate these with protecting environmental functions at the landscape level. Incorporating benefits from nature, or ecosystem services (ES), could help prioritize ecological connectivity, but ES are not often included in land-use planning because values are not readily available or lack credibility. However, failure to consider the benefits of ecosystem connectivity can result in increased fragmentation of habitats and ecological flows, especially in urban and urbanizing areas resulting in environmental inequities, loss of biodiversity and decreased human health. To address this we developed a novel, integrated framework, the Connectivity Services Framework (CSF), that combines the ES from four categories of ecological connectivity with benefit relevant indicators minimizing the need for monetary valuation of the ES. The CSF enables practitioners to integrate connectivity into urban planning via inclusive stakeholder engagement. It provides a method to identify and visualize multiple and overlapping benefits from connectivity management actions to aid in prioritizing initiatives. Unlike software tools that incorporate generalized ES values at a landscape level, the CSF guides a systematic approach to community-engaged land-use planning that prioritizes localized societal needs. We demonstrate application of the framework using two examples from Portland: 1) incorporating connectivity into Southwest Corridor Light Rail planning and 2) prioritizing Metro Parks and Nature’s projects that support multiple objectives of connectivity. The CSF can be used anywhere at any scale to facilitate land-use decisions resulting in more equitable and resilient cities.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know