Eco-service potential of sustainable development of small towns


Keywords: ecosystem services, land use, cost transfer coefficient, eco-balance development

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to determine the ecosystem services potential and capacity for ecological stability of the five nearest small towns to Kyiv by comparative analysis of their territories by the number of ecosystem services provided per unit  area  and per capita. The researched towns have a similar history of development, but differ in area, number and density of population, industrial development and land use structure. The research is conducted on the basis of public indicators of the master plans of the small towns using the transfer method and relative values. The cost of ecosystem services in the territories of the small towns is calculated according to the categories of the land fund by agricultural land, forest and water. Ecosystem services per 1 ha of each land use category are adjusted for transfer coefficient into USD, taking into account the purchasing power parity factor for Ukraine. The cost of ecosystem services per capita and 1 ha of territory of each town is calculated for the current state of towns and for a 20-year perspective. It was established that the total cost of ecosystem services in Boyarka, Vyshgorod, Bucha and Irpin towns exceeded that of the ecosystem services of Vyshneve by 3.6, 5.8, 10.6 and 25.7 times respectively The cost of ecosystem services per capita in Irpin exceeds by 28.8 times the same indicator of Vyshneve, due to the small number of water bodies, forests and agricultural lands in the territory of the latter town, as well as due to its extremely high level of development. An analysis of the dynamics of the cost of ecosystem services per unit area of the small towns shows that the maximum cost   of ecosystem services per 1 hectare of urban territory is borne by Vyshgorod and Irpin, and in the long run – the maximum will be increased by 2.9 and 3.0 times in Vyshgorod and Boyarka respectively. These dynamics are due to the expansion of the urban area. The results of the study indicate the need to adjust the master plans of urban development in terms of expanding the environmental component of Irpin and Bucha.

Author Biographies

Vasyl Yu. Yukhnovskyi
National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine
Olga V. Zibtseva
National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine

References

1. Andrade-Nunez, M. & Aide, T. (2018). Built-up expansion between 2001 and 2011 in South America continues well beyond the cities. Environmental research letters, 13, 8, 084006. https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad2e3
2. Arnold, J., Kleemann, J. & Fuerst, C. (2018). A Differentiated Spatial Assessment of Urban Ecosystem Services Based on Land Use Data in Halle, Germany. Land, 7, 3, 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7030101
3. Arif, S., Saqib, Z., Ali, A., Zaman, M., Akhtar, N., Fatima, H., … Farooqi, S. (2018). Identification of key- trends and evaluation of contemporary research regarding urban ecosystem services: a path towards socio-ecological sustainability of urban areas. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 16, 3, 3545-3581. https://doi.org/10.15666/ aeer/1603_35453581
4. Bastian, О., Haase, D. & Grunewald, K. (2012). Ecosystem properties, potentials and services – The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example Ecological Indicators, 21, 7–16. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.014
5. Bolund, P. & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas. Ecological Economics, 29, 293-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0
6. Bondar, V. (2014). Features of the Kyiv suburban area sociodemographic development (on the example of Bucha town). Ukrainian Journal of Geography. 4, 52-57.
7. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S. & Müllera, F. (2011). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21, 17–29. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019
8. Calderón-Contreras, R. & Quiroz-Rosas, L. (2017). Analysing scale, quality and diversity of green infrastructure and the provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: A case from Mexico Town. Ecosystem Services, 23:127-137. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.004
9. Cen, X., Wu, C., Xing, X., Fang, M., Garang, Z. & Wu, Y. (2015). Coupling Intensive Land Use and Landscape Ecological Security for Urban Sustainability: An Integrated Socioeconomic Data and Spatial Metrics Analysis in Hangzhou Town. Sustainability, 7, 1459-1482.
10. Chang, J., Qu, Z., Xu, R., Pan, K., Xu, B., Min, Y., Ren, Y., Yang, G. & Ge, Y. (2017). Assessing the ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces along urban center-edge gradients Scientific Reports, 7, 11226. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11559-5
11. Costanza, R., dArge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., … van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.
12. Costansa, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S., Kubiszewski, I. … Turner, R. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
13. de Groot, R., Wilson, M., Boumans, R. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41, 3, 393-408. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
14. Derkzen, M., van Teeffelen, A. & Verburg, P. (2015). REVIEW: Quantifying urban ecosystem services based on high‐resolution data of urban green space: an assessment for Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology 52, 1020– 1032 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12469
15. Greenhalgh, S., Samarasinghe, O., Curran-Cournane, F., Wright, W., Brown, P. (2017). Using ecosystem services to underpin cost-benefit analysis: Is it a way to protect finite soil resources? Ecosystem services, 27, A, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoser.2017.07.005
16. Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Barton, D. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235–245. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
17. Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., …. Elmqvist, T. (2014). A Quantitative Review of Urban Ecosystem Service Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implementation. Ambio, 43(4), 413–433. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0
18. Hansen, R., & Pauleit, S. (2014). From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas. Ambio, 43(4), 516-29.
19. Hossein, A. (2016). Methodological aspects of economic evaluation of urban forests. Proceedings of Belarus state University, 7, 301-305. (In Russian).
20. Kasimov, D. & Kasimov, V. (2015). Some approaches to the assessment of ecosystem functions (services) of forest plantations in the practice of nature management. M. World of Science, 91. (In Russian).
21. Kim, G. & Coseo, P. (2018). Urban Park Systems to Support Sustainability: The Role of Urban Park Systems in Hot Arid Urban Climates. Forests, 9, 7, 439. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9070439
22. Lam, S. & Conway, T. (2018). Ecosystem services in urban land use planning policies: A case study of Ontario municipalities. Land, use, policy, 77, 641-651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.020
23. Lin, X., Xu, M., Cao, C., Singh, R., Chen, W. & Ju, H. (2018). Land-Use/Land-Cover Changes and Their Influence on the Ecosystem in Chengdu Town, China during the Period of 1992- 2018. Sustainability, 10 (10) 3580. https://doi. org/10.3390/su10103580
24. Markandia, A., Strukova, E., Guchgeldiyev, O. (2014). Ecosystem services, assessment methods and application in Turkmenistan. Ashgabat. United Nations Development Program in Turkmeistan (Reg. EK-848, 1/07/2013), 42.
25. Neverov, A. & Andrushko, S. (2016). Ecological-economic assessment of anthropogenic transformation of natural landscapes (on the example of Gomel interfluve). Proceedings of Belarus state University, 7(189), 146–151. (In Russian).
26. Rai, R., Zhang, Y. L., Paudel, B., Acharya, B. & Basnet, L. (2018). Land Use and Land Cover Dynamics and Assessing the Ecosystem Service Values in the Trans-Boundary Gandaki River Basin, Central Himalayas. Sustainability, 10, 9, 3052. https://doi. org/10.3390/su10093052
27. Rosenberg, A. (2014). Estimates of ecosystem services for the territory of the Samara region. Volga Ecological Journal, 1, 139–145.
28. Seppelt, R., Dormann, C., Eppink, F., Lautenbach, S. & Schmidt, S. (2011). A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology, British Ecological Society. 48(3), 630-636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x
29. Soloviy, I. (2016). Evaluation of forest ecosystem services provided by forests of Ukraine and proposals on PES mechanisms. http://sfmu.org.ua/files/ Soloviy_2016b.pdf
30. Strokov, A. & Poleshkina, I. (2016). Еconomical evaluation of ecosystem services in Tavushskaya oblast’ of Armenia. Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, [Online]. 2, 1, available at: www.arejournal.com.
31. Sulkarnaeva, L. (2017). Determination of approaches to evaluating urban and ecological system services in Russian cities. Earth sciences, 9(63). https://doi. org/10.23670/IRJ.2017.63.068 (In Russian).
32. Tang, L. N., Wang, L., Li, Q., Zhao, J. (2018). A framework designation for the assessment of urban ecological risks. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 25, 5, 387-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2018.1434570
33. Tomashuk, Yu. (2014). Small towns in the system of social and economic development in the region: current trends and problems (on the application of the Kiev region). Materials of conference. Kharkiv National University. (November, 6. 2014). Proceedings 371, 271-275.
34. Wang, X., Yao, J., Yu, S., Miao, C., Chen, W. & He, X. (2018). Street Trees in a Chinese Forest Town: Structure, Benefits and Costs. Sustainability, 10, 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030674
35. Wu, Z. & Zhang, Y. (2018). Spatial Variation of Urban Thermal Environment and Its Relation to Green Space Patterns: Implication to Sustainable Landscape Planning. Sustainability, 10, 7, 2249. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072249
36. Xu, L., Huang, Q., Ding, D., Mei, M. & Qin, H. (2018). Modelling urban expansion guided by land ecological suitability: A case study of Changzhou Town, China. Habitat international, 75, 12-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.04.002
37. Xue, M. & Ma, S. (2018). Optimized Land-Use Scheme Based on Ecosystem Service Value: Case Study of Taiyuan, China. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 144(2), 04018016. https://doi. org/10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000447
38. Yukhnovskyi, V. & Zibtseva, O. (2018). Dynamics of ecological stability of small towns in Kyiv region. Journal of Geology, Geography and Geoecology. 27(2), 386-398. https://doi.org/10.15421/111863
Published
2019-12-22
How to Cite
Yukhnovskyi, V., & Zibtseva, O. (2019). Eco-service potential of sustainable development of small towns. Journal of Geology, Geography and Geoecology, 28(4), 795-803. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15421/111974