Spatial prioritization for urban Biodiversity Quality using biotope maps and expert opinion

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Jalkanen, Joel
dc.contributor.author Vierikko, Kati
dc.contributor.author Moilanen, Atte
dc.date.accessioned 2020-08-26T11:06:03Z
dc.date.available 2020-08-26T11:06:03Z
dc.date.issued 2020-03
dc.identifier.citation Jalkanen , J , Vierikko , K & Moilanen , A 2020 , ' Spatial prioritization for urban Biodiversity Quality using biotope maps and expert opinion ' , Urban Forestry & Urban Greening , vol. 49 , 126586 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126586
dc.identifier.other PURE: 130810304
dc.identifier.other PURE UUID: ac25c573-7f96-44cc-9fec-eb6d120a74cd
dc.identifier.other WOS: 000524972100023
dc.identifier.other ORCID: /0000-0002-6690-4016/work/79518682
dc.identifier.other ORCID: /0000-0002-6170-9916/work/79519676
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10138/318602
dc.description.abstract Spatial prioritization can produce useful information about biodiversity values from urban areas. However, its typical focus on (endangered) species distributions assumes a rather restricted approach to urban biodiversity. In 2006, Feest suggested that five attributes of species assemblages more holistically describe the so called "Biodiversity Quality" of an area: species richness, biomass, population density, evenness, and rarity. Here we apply these attributes in spatial prioritization for urban biodiversity, across ten taxonomic groups: vascular plants, polypores, fungi (other than polypores), birds, bats, mammals (other than bats), herpetofauna, butterflies, hymenoptera, and beetles. In addition, we introduce two more attributes relevant for urban biodiversity conservation: support for specialist species and regional representativeness of the species assemblages. First, spatial data about local urban biotopes was acquired. For each taxon, the capacity of each urban biotope to support the seven introduced attributes of Biodiversity Quality was evaluated via expert elicitation. Expert opinion was then translated into a spatial analysis implemented with the Zonation software. Different anthropogenic, semi-natural, and natural habitats, such as herb-rich forests, lakeshores, open wastelands, fortifications, and botanical gardens, were identified as important for urban Biodiversity Quality. To minimize negative impact on biodiversity, future construction and development should be directed to built-up areas and agricultural fields. Our conception of urban biodiversity lies in between species- and habitat/ecosystem -based analyses and offers a more comprehensive perception of urban biodiversity than a focus on species distributions only, which facilitates the planning of ecologically sustainable cities and biodiverse urban green infrastructure. en
dc.format.extent 11
dc.language.iso eng
dc.relation.ispartof Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
dc.rights cc_by
dc.rights.uri info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject 1172 Environmental sciences
dc.title Spatial prioritization for urban Biodiversity Quality using biotope maps and expert opinion en
dc.type Article
dc.contributor.organization Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS)
dc.contributor.organization Digital Geography Lab
dc.contributor.organization Department of Geosciences and Geography
dc.contributor.organization Environmental Sciences
dc.contributor.organization Finnish Museum of Natural History
dc.description.reviewstatus Peer reviewed
dc.relation.doi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126586
dc.relation.issn 1618-8667
dc.rights.accesslevel openAccess
dc.type.version publishedVersion

Files in this item

Total number of downloads: Loading...

Files Size Format View
1_s2.0_S1618866719304121_main.pdf 11.41Mb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record