Designing green infrastructure and sustainable drainage systems in urban development to achieve multiple ecosystem benefits
Designing green infrastructure and sustainable drainage systems in urban development to achieve multiple ecosystem benefits
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.scs.2022.104078
复制
发表时间：
2022-07-30
影响因子：
11.7
通讯作者：
Hall, Jim W.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chapman, Cherona;Hall, Jim W.
城市化是对生物多样性和生态连通性的最大威胁之一。即使在城市化的背景下，绿色基础设施(GI)网络和走廊也被作为维护栖息地连通性的一种方式得到推广。然而，以前的研究主要集中在GI网络可能提供的生态效益上，而不是也评估其他潜在的生态系统服务。关于城市发展的设计，包括可持续排水系统的潜力，如何促进这类网络，也缺乏研究。利用英格兰东南部的一个案例研究区域，根据量化提供地理信息的四个方面--生态服务、生态状况、生态连通性和与人口的接近程度--对不同的发展情景和城市设计进行了评估。然后将这些数据合并为一个分数，以比较在不同设计和开发方法下整个区域的地理信息潜力的总体空间。对规划者来说，有三个关键的考虑因素：第一，城市空间在促进地理信息潜力方面可以发挥积极的作用，即使没有城市空间，或者考虑到人口的接近；第二，不同发展方法之间的平衡，以管理彼此之间的权衡；第三，在不同的城市设计下，不同的城市空间基础设施对地理空间潜力的积极和消极影响的范围。
Urbanisation is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity and ecological connectivity. Green infrastructure (GI) networks and corridors are promoted as a way to preserve habitat connectivity even in the context of urbani-sation. Yet, previous research has a primary focus on the ecological benefits that may be provided by GI networks without also valuing other potential ecosystem services. There has also been a lack of research into how the design of urban developments, including the potential of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), may contribute to such networks. Using a case study region in south-east England, different development scenarios and urban designs were assessed under metrics quantifying four aspects of GI provision - ecological services, ecological status, ecological connectivity, and proximity to the population. These were then combined into a single score to compare the overall spatiality of GI potential across the region under the different design and development approaches. Three key considerations for planners were found: first, the positive role urban spaces can play, even without SuDS or considering the proximity to the population, in contributing to GI potentials; second, the bal-ance required between different development approaches to manage the trade-offs between each; and third, the range of positive and negative impacts different SuDS infrastructure have on GI potentials under different urban designs.