Systematic Review on Urban Ecosystem Services in South-East Asia: Asean Countries

Rosehan, Nur Shazwanie; Abas, Azlan; Aiyub, Kadaruddin

doi:10.35784/pe.2022.1.23

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Systematic Review on Urban Ecosystem Services in South-East Asia: Asean Countries

Autorzy

Rosehan Nur Shazwanie , Abas Azlan , Aiyub Kadaruddin

Treść / Zawartość

Pełne teksty:

Pobierz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.35784/pe.2022.1.23

Warianty tytułu

Przegląd usług pełnionych przez ekosystemy miejskie w Azji Południowo-Wschodniej

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

Urban ecosystem services refer to all the benefits of nature especially to the urban community and economy for maintaining human well-being. This concept links to the economic, community and environmental aspects and shows how nature conservation is important for human and economic principles. However, the view of urban ecosystem services assessment based on essential categories with current urban development is provided. So, this paper reviews the aim to analyze the types and assessing the categories of urban ecosystem services and the methodological used in ASEAN countries. Furthermore, understanding studies about urban ecosystem services are important in long-term studies for monitoring purpose. As a result, 8 out of 10 ASEAN countries excluding Laos and Brunei have studied urban ecosystem services. In this context, the result also shows the most studies specify the significance of the ecosystem services given by the urban as regulating (waste absorption, climate regulation, water purification, flood regulation, and disease control) and followed by cultural (tranquility, social relations, and recreation). Thus, exploring urban ecosystem interaction in current ASEAN countries may have added benefits in terms of improving the urban ecosystem services to streamline the urban area planning. Finally, we conclude that all the ASEAN countries should play an important role to make sure the countries maintain sustainable and more livable with the right policies and guidelines like can fit in Paris Agreement especially in Climate Strategies and plans.

Usługi ekosystemów miejskich odnoszą się do wszystkich korzyści płynących z natury, zwłaszcza dla społeczności miejskiej i gospodarki, wspomagając utrzymanie ludzkiego dobrostanu. Ta koncepcja łączy się z aspektami ekonomicznymi, społecznymi i środowiskowymi oraz pokazuje, jak ważna jest ochrona przyrody dla ludzi i ekonomii. Dokonano oceny usług ekosystemów miejskich w oparciu o podstawowe kategorie przy obecnym rozwoju miast. Dokonano przeglądu celów analizy rodzajów i oceny kategorii usług ekosystemów miejskich oraz metodologii stosowanych w krajach ASEAN. Należy podkreślić, że zrozumienie badań dotyczących usług ekosystemów miejskich jest ważne w długoterminowej perspektywie, do celów monitorowania. Okazuje się, żee 8 na 10 krajów ASEAN, z wyjątkiem Laosu i Brunei, zbadało usługi ekosystemów miejskich. Większość badań określa znaczenie usług ekosystemowych świadczonych przez miasto jako regulujących (pochłanianie odpadów, regulacja klimatu, oczyszczanie wody, regulacja przeciwpowodziowa i kontrola chorób), a następnie kulturowych (spokój, relacje społeczne i rekreacja). W związku z tym badanie interakcji ekosystemów miejskich w obecnych krajach ASEAN może przynieść dodatkowe korzyści w postaci poprawy usług ekosystemów miejskich w celu usprawnienia planowania obszarów miejskich. Wszystkie kraje ASEAN powinny odgrywać ważną rolę w zapewnieniu, że kraje te wspierają zrównoważony rozwój i będą bardziej przyjazne do życia dzięki odpowiednim politykom i wytycznym, takim jak mogą zmieścić się w Porozumieniu Paryskim, zwłaszcza w strategiach i planach klimatycznych.

Słowa kluczowe

urban ecology urbanization Paris Agreement sustainable development environmental management

ekologia miasta urbanizacja Porozumienie Paryskie zrównoważony rozwój zarządzanie środowiskiem

Wydawca

Lublin University of Technology

Czasopismo

Problemy Ekorozwoju

Rocznik

2022

Tom

Vol. 17, nr 1

Strony

257--266

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 60 poz., fig., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Rosehan Nur Shazwanie

Universiti Kebangsaan, Centre for Research in Development, Social & Environment (SEEDS), Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Malaysia 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

autor

Abas Azlan

azlanabas@ukm.edu.my

Universiti Kebangsaan, Centre for Research in Development, Social & Environment (SEEDS), Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Malaysia 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

autor

Aiyub Kadaruddin

Universiti Kebangsaan, Centre for Research in Development, Social & Environment (SEEDS), Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Malaysia 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Bibliografia

1. ABAS A., AIYUB K., IDRIS N.A., 2020, Systematic review on ecosystem services (Es) of ecotourism in south-east Asia (Asean), Problemy Ekorozwoju. Problems of Sustaiable Development, 16(1): 113-122, DOI: 10.35784/pe.2021.1.12.
2. ACHMADA A., HASYIM H., DAHLAN B., AULIAD D.N., 2015, Modeling of urban growth in tsunami-prone city using logistic regression: Analysis of Banda Aceh, Indonesia, Applied Geography, 62: 237-246.
3. AHERN J. 2007, Green infrastructure for cities: The spatial dimension. Conference Cities of the Future: Towards Integrated Sustainable Water and Landscape Management, IWA Publishing.
4. ARIFIN, H.S., NAKAGOSHI, N., 2011, Landscape ecology and urban biodiversity in tropical Indonesian cities, Landscape Ecol Eng, 7: 33-43.
5. BAHARUDDIN Z.M., RUSLI F.N., OTHMAN R., 2014, Kuala Lumpur Urban Biodiversity: Birds Community in Urban Public Parks, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Policy, 3(6):146-159.
6. BUENO E.A., ANCHOG R., OBALAN E., CERO A.D., SIMON A.N., MALVECINO-MACALINTAL M.R., BACTONGJR M., LUNAR J., BUENA G.R., SUGUI L., 2016, Measuring Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Restoration of a Natural Urban Lake in the Philippines, Environmental Process, 3(4): 875-89.
7. CHALLCHAROEN, WATTANA A., PHARINO C., 2016, Wishing to finance a recycling program? Willingness-to-pay study for enhancing municipal solid waste recycling in urban settlements in Thailand, Habitat International, 51: 23-30.
8. CLARK K.H., NICHOLAS K.A., 2013, Introducing urban food forestry: a multifunctional approach to increase food security and provide ecosystem services, Landscape Ecology, 28(9): 1649-1669.
9. COSTANZA R., D’ARGE R., DE GROOT R., FARBER S., GRASSO M., HANNON B., LIMBURG K., NAEEM S., O’NEILL RV., PARUELO J., RASKIN RG., SUTTON P., VANDENBELT M., 1997, The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature International Journal of Science, 387:253-260.
10. DANIELAINI T.T., MAHESHWARI B., HAGARE D., 2018, Defining rural-urban interfaces for understanding ecohydrological processes in West Java, Indonesia: Part I. Development of methodologytodelineate peri-urban areas, Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 18: 22-36.
11. DAVIES G.L., MCIVER L., KIM Y., HASHIZUME M., IDDINGS S., CHAN V., 2015, Water-Borne Diseases and Extreme Weather Events in Cambodia: Review of Impacts and Implications of Climate Change, International Journal of Environment Research and Public Health, 12(1): 191-213.
12. DEPIETRI Y., RENAUD F.G., KALLIS G., 2013, Heat waves and floods in urban areas: a policy-oriented review of ecosystem services, Sustainability Science, 7(1): 95-107.
13. DOUGLAS I., 2012, Urban ecology and urban ecosystems: understanding the links to human health and well-being, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(4): 385-392.
14. EL-BAGHDADI O., DESHA C., 2016, Conceptualising a biophilic services model for urban areas, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 27: 399-408.
15. ELMQVIST T., SETALA H., HANDEL S.N., VAN DER PLOEG S., ARONSON J., BLIGNAUT J.N., E GOMEZ-BAGGETHUN E., NOWAK D.J., KRONENBERG J., DE GROOT R., 2015, Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14:101-108.
16. ESTOQUE R.C., MURAYAMA Y., 2012, Examining the potential impact of land use/cover changes on the ecosystem services of Baguio city, the Philippines: A scenario-based analysis, Applied Geography, 35(1-2): 316-326.
17. EUROPEAN UNION, 2015, Think tank, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank.
18. FRIES D.A., 2017, Singapore as a long-term case study for tropical urban ecosystem services, Urban Ecosystems, 20(2): 277-291.
19. FRIESS D.A., RICHARDS D.R., PHANG V.X.H., 2016, Mangrove forests store high densities of carbon across the tropical urban landscape of Singapore, Urban Ecosystems, 19(2): 795-810.
20. FRIESS D.A., 2016. Singapore as a long-term case study for tropical urban ecosystem services, Urban Ecosystems, 20(2): 277-291.
21. GÓMEZ-BAGGETHUN E., GREN Å., BARTON D., LANGEMEYER J., MCPHEARSON T., O’FARRELL P., ANDERSSON E., HAMSTEAD Z., KREMER P., 2013, Urban Ecosystem Services, Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities, eds. Elmqvist T., Fragikas M., Goodness J., Guneralp B., Marcotullio P., McDonald R., Parnell S., Schwenius M., Sendstad M., Seto K., Wilkinson C., Springer Netherlands:755, DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1.
22. GUTMAN P., 2007, Ecosystem services: foundations for a new rural–urban compact, Ecol. Econ, 62 (3-4): 383-387, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.027.
23. HAASE D., LARONDELLE N., ANDERSSON E., ARTMANN M., BORGSTROM S., BREUSTE J., GOMEZ-BAGGETHUN E., GREN A., HAMSTEAD Z., HANSEN R., KABISCH N., KREMER P., LANGEMEYER J., RALL EL., MCPHEARSON T., PAULEIT S., QURESHI S., SCHWARZ N., VOIGT A., WURSTER D., ELMQVIST T., 2014, A Quantitative Review of Urban Ecosystem Service Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implementation, AMBIO, 43: 413-433.
24. HEATHER Z.D., 2006, Indigenous ecotourism: Sustainable development and management, H. Zeppel.
25. INTASEN M., HAUER R., WERNER L., LARSEN E., 2016, Urban Forest Assessment in Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 36(2).
26. INVESTOPEDIA, Asean, 2017, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/asean.asp.
27. ISLAM R., SIWAR C., 2012, The Analysis of Urban Agriculture Development in Malaysia, Advances in Environmental Biology, 6(3): 1068-1078.
28. JANSSON Å., 2013, Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services, Ecol. Econ., 86: 285-291, DOI: 10.1016/j. ecolecon.2012.06.013.
29. KARUPPANNAN S., BAHARUDDIN Z.M., SIVAM A., DANIELS C.B., 2014, Urban Green Space and Urban Biodiversity: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(1): 1-16.
30. KOYADUN S., BUTRAPORN P., KITTAYAPONG P., 2012, Ecologic and Sociodemographic Risk Determinants for Dengue Transmission in Urban Areas in Thailand, Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Infectious Diseases.
31. LI X.X., NORFORD L.K., 2016, Evaluation of cool roof and vegetations in mitigating urban heat island in a tropical city, Singapore, Urban Climate, 16: 59-74.
32. LIZUKA K., JOHNSON B.A, ONISHI, A., MAGCALE-MACANDOG D.B., ENDO, I., BRAGIS M., 2017, Modeling Future Urban Sprawl and Landscape Change in the Laguna de Bay Area, Philippines, Land, 6(2): 1-21.
33. MAHAZAR A., OTHMAN M.S., KUTTY A.A., MOHAMED DESA M.N., 2013, Monitoring Urban River Water Quality Using Macroinvertebrate and Physio-Chemical Parameters: Case study of Penchala River, Malaysia, Journal of Biological Sciences, 13(6): 1-9.
34. MCGEE T.G., 2010, Building liveable cities in Asia in the twenty-first century research and policy challenges for the urban future of Asia, Malaysian Journal of Environmental Management, 11(1): 14-28.
35. MCGRANAHAN G., MARCOTULLIO P., BAI X., BALK D., BRAGA T., DOUGLAS I., ZLOTNIK H., 2005, Urban Systems, Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Current State and Trends, eds. Hassan R., Scholes R., Ash N., Oxford University Press, Oxford:795-825.
36. MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT (MEA), 2005, Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis Report, Island Press, Washington, DC.
37. MOHRI H., LAHOTI S., SAITO O., MAHALINGAM A., GUNATILLEKE N., IRHAM HOANG V.T., HITINIYAKE G., TAKEUCHI K., HERATH S., 2013, Assessment of ecosystem services in homegarden systems in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam, Ecosystem Services, 5: 124-136.
38. MÜLLER F., BURKHARD B., 2012, The indicator side of ecosystem services, Ecosystem Services, 1(1):26-30.
39. NATH T.K., HAN S.S.Z., LECHNER A.M., 2018, Urban green space and well-being in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 36:34-41.
40. NEWMAN P., 2014, Biophilic urbanism: a case study on Singapore, Australian Planner, 51(1): 47-65.
41. PHAM V.C., PHAM T.T.H., TONG T.H.A., NGUYEN T.T.H., PHAM N.H., 2014, The conversion of agricultural land in the peri-urban areas of Hanoi (Vietnam): patterns in space and time, Journal of Land Use Science, 10(2): 224-242.
42. SAADATIAN O., HAW, L.C., MAT S., SOPIAN K., 2012, Perspective of Sustainable Development in Malaysia, International Journal of Energy and Environment, 2(6): 260-267.
43. SCARANO FR., 2017, Ecosystem-based Adaptation to Climate Change: Concept, Scalability and a Role for Conservation Science, Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 15: 65-73.
44. SCHEWENIUS M., MCPHEARSON T., ELMQVIST T., 2014, Opportunities for Increasing Resilience and Sustainability of Urban Social–Ecological Systems: Insights from the URBES and the Cities and Biodiversity Outlook Projects, AMBIO, 43(4): 434-444.
45. SHAY-WEI C., HAN-HWA G. 2016, A Proposed Urban Environmental Sustainability Indicators Framework: The Case of Malaysia, Wseas Transactions on Business and Economics, 13: 522-528.
46. SILVA, J.D., KERNAGHAN S., LUQUE A., 2012, A systems approach to meeting the challenges of urban climate change, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 4(2): 125-145.
47. SPRINGATE-BAGINSKI O., THEIN A.K., NEIL A. THU M.W., DOHERTY, F., 2014, Democratising timber: An assessment of Myanmar's emerging ‘Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade’ (FLEGT) process, Forest Policy and Economics, 48(1): 33-45.
48. SUWARNO D., LÖHR A., KROEZE C., WIDIANARKO B., 2014, Fast increases in urban sewage inputs to rivers of Indonesia, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 16(5): 1077-1096.
49. TAN P.Y., ISMAIL M.Z., 2014, Building shade affects light environment and urban greenery in highdensity residential estates in Singapore, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(4): 771-784.
50. THIAGARAJAH J., WONG S.K.M., RICHARDS D.R., FRIESS D.A., 2015, Historical and contemporary cultural ecosystem service values in the rapidly urbanizing city state of Singapore, Ambio, 44(7): 666-677.
51. TRATALOS J., FULLER R.A., WARREN P.H., DAVIES R.G., GASTON K.J., 2007, Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services, Landscape and Urban Planning,. 83: 308-317.
52. UY N., & SHAW R., 2013, Ecosystem Resilience and Community Values: Implications to EcosystemBased Adaptation, Journal of Disaster Research, 8(1): 201-202.
53. VINCENT L., MICHEL L., CATHERINE C., PAULINE R., 2014, The energy cost of water independence: the case of Singapore, Water Science and Technology, 787-794.
54. VIVITHKEYOONVONGA S., JOURDAIN D., 2016, Willingness to pay for ecosystem services provided by irrigated agriculture in Northeast Thailand, International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 13(1): 14-26.
55. VOLLMER D., RYFFEL A.N., DJAJA K., GRETREGAMEY A., 2016, Examining Demand for Urban River Rehabilitation in Indonesia: Insights from A Spatially Explicit Discrete Choice Experiment, Land Use Policy, 57: 514-525.
56. YANG Y.C.E., PASSARELLI S., LOVELL R.J., RINGLER C., 2018, Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review, Ecosystem Services, 31: 58-67.
57. YEN Y., WANG Z., SHI Y., SOEUNG B., 2016, An Assessment of the Knowledge and Demand of Young Residents regarding the Ecological Services of Urban Green Spaces in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Sustainability, 8(6): 523.
58. YEN Y., WANG Z., SHI Y., XU F., SOEUNG B., SOHAIL M.T., RUBAKULA G., JUMA S.A., 2017, The predictors of the behavioral intention to the use of urban green spaces: The perspectives of young residents in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Habitat International, 64: 98-108.
59. YULE, C.M., GAN J.Y., JINGGUT T., LEE K.V., 2015, Urbanization affects food webs and leaf-litter decomposition in a tropical stream in Malaysia, Freshwater Science, 34(2): 702-715.
60. ZIEGLER AD., SHE LH., TANTASARIN C., JACHOWSKI NR., WASSON R., 2012, Floods, false hope, and the future, Hydrological Processes, 26: 1748-1750.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-77b5b616-72be-48c7-a67a-70f7a7121e78