Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Fig. 5.4 Knowing the shape
of the relationship between
green infrastructure and
landscape service benefits are
essential for deciding about
investments to gain added
value. The rectangle
indicates the range of green
infrastructure area in which
investments are most
profitable. a Below and above
a critical segment of the size
range adaptation is not
profitable. b Beyond the
maximum value investments
to further increase the size of
the network turns into loss of
value
A second challenge is to know where the service can be improved with the best
result. As stated before, mapping and evaluation studies do not inform about where
change is effective. The cost-effectiveness of measures depends on several factors.
One is the spatial relationships between places where landscape services are
produced and the localities where services are in demand. For example, pest
control measures need to be taken at the farm and in its surroundings, flood control
need to be taken upstream. Secondly, the service provision depends on the type of
vegetation of the green infrastructure. For example, grassy strips and woody
elements have different contributions to the perception of scenic beauty. Thirdly, if
the service depends on spatial connectivity, places may be found where the green
infrastructure is narrow or interrupted; measures at such sites are particularly cost-
effective because a relatively small investment may merge two networks into one
large. Some authors touch upon these spatial implications [e.g. Fisher et al. (
2009
)
and Syrbe and Walz (
2012
) draw attention to spatial relationships between service
production areas and service benefit areas], but attempts to bring science and
practitioners together and develop a science-based landscape design approach are
hard to find. Promising lines of research are attempts to develop GIS-tools
(including 3-D visualizations) and scenario approaches in which stakeholders play
Search WWH ::
Custom Search