Valuation of Ecosystem Services for the Identification of Metropolitan Ecological Structures: the Case of Cali, Colombia

M. Tabares-Mosquera, E. Zapata-Caldas, O. Buitrago-Bermúdez

Abstract


The aim of this research was to assess–based on spatial analysis techniques and expert knowledge–the capacity of land covers to provide ecosystem services (ES) in the socioecological system (SES) “metropolitan area of influence of Cali”. In this manner, it was possible to identify the metropolitan ecological structure of said SES in order to establish a baseline from which its level of conservation or fragmentation can be identified in the future. The application of the methodology required the use of mixed research methods. In this regard, i) the SES area was defined from the combination of urban-functional and ecological-biophysical criteria; ii) criteria were defined to establish the unit of analysis and the land cover classification of the defined area at 1:25,000 scale; and iii) the assessment of ES was made based on a consultation with experts from academic, administrative and scientific institutions about the capacity to supply and demand ES present in the land covers that make up the SES. It was found that the metropolitan ecological structure is composed of ten natural and semi-natural land covers, which have the capacity to provide cultural ES (high level), regulation ES (high and medium levels) and supply ES (low level). In addition, as expected, the perception was validated that the flat area of the SES–which concentrates productive, economic and service activities–is clearly the demanding one, while the areas located in the periphery–i.e. piedmonts and the Eastern and Western mountain chains–are the suppliers. Finally, the results of this research once again demonstrate that, from the academic angle, there are novel ways to strengthen the processes of formulating guidelines for planning and environmental management of metropolitan SES, from the combination of spatial analysis and expert knowledge.


Keywords


metropolitan ecological structure; built metropolitan structure; socioecological system; ecosystem services; Cali

References


Albert, C., Galler, C., Hermes, J., Neuendorf, F., Haaren, C. Von, Lovett, A. 2016. Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and management: The ES-in-Planning framework. Ecological Indicators 61, 100-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.029.

Boone, H. N., Boone, D. A. 2012. Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension 50 (2), 5.

Burkhard, B., Kandziora, M., Hou, Y., Müller, F. 2014. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands-concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landscape Online 34 (1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434.

Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., Windhorst, W. 2009. Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services - A concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape Online 15 (1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.200915.

Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators 21, 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019.

Costanza, R., Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0.

Cortinovis, C., Geneletti, D. 2018. Land Use Policy Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is there, and what is still needed for better decisions. Land Use Policy 70, 298-312. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.017.

Clason, D.L., Dormody, T.J. 1994. Analyzing Data Measured by Individual Likert-Type Items. Journal of Agricultural Education 35 (4), 31-35.

Cumming, G.S. 2011. Spatial Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0307-0.

DANE 2009. Proyecciones nacionales y departamentales de poblacion 2005-2020. Estudios Postcensales. Bogotá, D.C., Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadisticas (DANE). http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

EEA 2011. Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion. Technical Report 18. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.

ESRI 2017. Train Random Trees Classifier. Disponible en: http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/tools/spatial-analyst-toolbox/train-random-trees-classifier.htm (Fecha de acceso: 28/02/2017).

Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 68 (3), 643-653. .https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16 (3), 253-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.

Gligo, N. 1995. Entorno de la sustentabilidad ambiental del desarrollo agrícola latinoamericano: factores y políticas. En: G.C. Gallopín (Ed.), El futuro ecológico de un continente: una visión prospectiva de la América Latina (p. 336) México, D.F., Universidad de las Naciones Unidas, 336 pp.

Google 2017. Google Forms. Disponible en: https://www.google.com/forms/about/ (Fecha de acceso: 08/08/2017).

Goodland, R. 1995. The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology, and Systematics 26, 1-24.

Gulinck, H., Múgica, M., de Lucio, J.V., Atauri, J.A. 2001. A framework for comparative landscape analysis and evaluation based on land cover data, with an application in the Madrid region (Spain). Landscape and urban planning 55 (4), 257-270.

Haines-Young, R., Potschin-Young, M. 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES, Version 4.3). Report to the European Environment Agency, (September), 17 pp.

Haines-Young, R. Potschin, M. 2017. The classification challenge. En: B. Burkhard, J. Maes, (Eds.), Mapping Ecosystem Services, Pensoft, Sofia, pp. 42-45.

Harvey, D. 2008. The right to the city. The New Left Review 53, 23-40.

Helliwell, D.R. 1969. Valuation of wildlife resources. Regional studies 3 (1), 41-47.

IDEAM 2010. Leyenda nacional de coberturas de la tierra. Metodología CORINE Land Cover adaptada para Colombia Escala 1:100.000. Bogotá, D.C., Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales.

Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi (IGAC) 2018. Formatos y Escalas de Mapas. Recuperado 18 de mayo de 2018, a partir de https://www.igac.gov.co/es/contenido/areas-estrategicas/formatos-y-escalas-de-mapas.

Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems 4 (5), 390-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-00.

Hughes, H. 1993. Metropolitan Structure and the Suburban Hierarchy. American Sociological Review 58 (3), 417-433. https://www.jstor.org.bd.univalle.edu.co/stable/2095909.

Jacobs, S., Burkhard, B., Van Daele, T., Staes, J., Schneiders, A. 2015. “The Matrix Reloaded”: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecological Modelling 295, 21-30. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.024.

Jacobs, S., Burkhard, B. 2017. Applying expert knowledge for ecosystem services quantification. En: B. Burkhard, J. Maes (Eds.) Mapping Ecosystem Services. Pensoft, Sofía, pp. 142-146.

Kaczorowska, A., Jaan-Henrik, K., Jakub, K., Dagmar, H. 2016. Ecosystem services in urban land use planning: Integration challenges in complex urban settings – Case of Stockholm. Ecosystem Services 22, 204-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.04.006.

Koschke, L., Fürst, C., Frank, S., Makeschin, F. 2012. A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecological Indicators 21, 54-66. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.010.

Marques, L Pradilla, E., 2008. Desindustrialización, terciarización y estructura metropolitana: un debate conceptual necesario. Cuadernos del CENDES 69, 21-45.

Martínez-Toro, P. 2014. La producción del espacio en la ciudad latinoamericana. El modelo del impacto del capitalismo global en la metropolización. Hallazgos 12 (23), 1794-3841. https://doi.org/10.15332/s1794-3841.2015.0023.010.

Martínez-Toro, P. 2014. La planificación y la gestión interescalar municipal y metropolitana: casos áreas metropolitanas de Valle de Aburrá y Centro Occidente. Santiago de Cali: Universidad del Valle, Programa Editorial.

Martínez-Toro, P. 2018. Mercado inmobiliario y la producción del archipiélago metropolitano. La metropolización de Cali. Bitácora Urbano Territorial 28 (1), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.15446/bitacora.v28n1.40237.

Martínez-Toro, P., Buitrago-Bermúdez, O. 2011. Cali: una metrópoli regional en movimiento. La planeación municipal y los procesos de metropolización. Santiago de Cali: Universidad del Valle, Programa Editorial.

Martínez-Toro, P., Patiño-Gómez, Z.L. 2015. Área metropolitana del sur del Valle y norte del Cauca (AMVACA). Definición, caracterización y propuesta de conformación. Santiago de Cali: Universidad del Valle, Programa Editorial.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, D.C., Island Press.

NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory 2009. ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model. Disponible en: https://gdex.cr.usgs.gov/gdex/ (Fecha de acceso: 01/04/2016).

Nedkov, S., Bayona, K., Burkhard, B. 2015. Quantifying, Modelling and Mapping Ecosystem Services in Watersheds. En: L. Chicharo, F. Müller, N. Fohrer (Eds.), Ecosystem Services and River Basin Ecohydrology. Springer, pp. 133-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9846-4.

Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R. 2013. Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 28 (6), 1053-1065.

Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R. 2017. From nature to society. En: B. Burkhard, J. Maes (Eds.), Mapping Ecosystem Services. Sofia, Pensoft, pp. 39-41.

Rojas, E., Cuadrado-Roura, J.R., Fernández Güell, J.M. 2005. Gobernar las metrópolis. Washington, D.C.

Salas-Zapata, W.A., Ríos-Osorio, L.A., Álvarez-del Castillo, J. 2012. Marco conceptual para entender la sustentabilidad de los sistemas socioecológicos. Ecologia Austral 22 (1), 74-79.

Salitchev, K. 2009. Cartografía. Pueblo y Educación. La Habana.

Satir, O. Berberoglu, S. 2012. Land use/cover classification techniques using optical remotely sensed data in landscape planning. En: M. Ozyavuz (Ed.). Landscape Planning, InTech, pp. 21-54.

Stanford University 2017. Matrix Operations. Disponible en: http://doi.org/q (Fecha de acceso 13/09/2017).

Stephens, G. R., Wikstrom, N. 2000. Metropolitan government and governance. Oxford University Press, 208 pp.

Tabares-Mosquera, M., Gaitán-Idárraga, L.F. 2018. Estructura ecológica del sistema socioecológico “área de influencia metropolitana de Santiago de Cali”. Universidad del Valle.

van der Hammen, T., Andrade, G. 2003. Estructura ecológica principal de Colombia: Primera aproximación. Bogotá, D.C., IDEAM.

Woodruff, S.C., Bendor, T.K. 2016. Landscape and Urban Planning Ecosystem services in urban planning: Comparative paradigms and guidelines for high quality plans. Landscape and Urban Planning 152, 90-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.003.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.18172/cig.3952

Copyright (c) 2020 M. Tabares-Mosquera, E. Zapata-Caldas, O. Buitrago-Bermúdez

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

© Universidad de La Rioja, 2013

ISSN 0211-6820

EISSN 1697-9540