Urban Biomimicry for Flood Mitigation Using an Ecosystem Service Assessment Tool in Central Wellington, New Zealand.

Many cities are vulnerable to flooding due to their high proportion of impervious surfaces and lack of vegetated land cover. This vulnerability will often be exacerbated by changing rainfall and storm patterns due to climate change. Using the principles of urban biomimicry, this study aims to show an ecosystem service-based approach to designing an urban green infrastructure network for stormwater management in densely built areas that more closely emulates natural hydrology processes. Nature Braid (next-generation LUCI) is an ecosystem services assessment tool that was used to simulate flood mitigation ecosystem services in a 13.7 km2 urban water catchment in Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand. The simulation results revealed that 59% of the catchment does not contain or benefit from flood-mitigating land cover features. Adding 0.6 km2 (4% of the catchment) of green roofs alongside major stormwater flow paths resulted in a nearly three-fold decrease (11%) in the unmitigated flooding area. These results suggest that green roofs could help manage stormwater and mitigate flooding in the densely built areas of the catchment. Using ecosystem service assessment tools, like Nature Braid, can inform the design of more regenerative and resilient urban green infrastructure networks that help mitigate climate change impacts on urban residents.

Fragmentation and thresholds in hydrological flow-based ecosystem services.

Loss and fragmentation of natural land cover due to expansion of agricultural areas is a global issue. These changes alter the configuration and composition of the landscape, particularly affecting those ecosystem services (benefits people receive from ecosystems) that depend on interactions between landscape components. Hydrological mitigation describes the bundle of ecosystem services provided by landscape features such as woodland that interrupt the flow of runoff to rivers. These services include sediment retention, nutrient retention and mitigation of overland water flow. The position of woodland in the landscape and the landscape topography are both important for hydrological mitigation. Therefore, it is crucial to consider landscape configuration and flow pathways in a spatially explicit manner when examining the impacts of fragmentation. Here we test the effects of landscape configuration using a large number (>7,000) of virtual landscape configurations. We created virtual landscapes of woodland patches within grassland, superimposed onto real topography and stream networks. Woodland patches were generated with user-defined combinations of patch number and total woodland area, placed randomly in the landscape. The Ecosystem Service model used hydrological routing to map the "mitigated area" upslope of each woodland patch. We found that more fragmented woodland mitigated a greater proportion of the catchment. Larger woodland area also increased mitigation, however, this increase was nonlinear, with a threshold at 50% coverage, above which there was a decline in service provision. This nonlinearity suggests that the benefit of any additional woodland depends on two factors: the level of fragmentation and the existing area of woodland. Edge density (total edge of patches divided by area of catchment) was the best single metric in predicting mitigated area. Distance from woodland to stream was not a significant predictor of mitigation, suggesting that agri-environment schemes planting riparian woodland should consider additional controls such as the amount of fragmentation in the landscape. These findings highlight the potential benefits of fragmentation to hydrological mitigation services. However, benefits for hydrological services must be balanced against any negative effects of fragmentation or habitat loss on biodiversity and other services.

Comparing strengths and weaknesses of three ecosystem services modelling tools in a diverse UK river catchment.

Ecosystem services modelling tools can help land managers and policy makers evaluate the impacts of alternative management options or changes in land use on the delivery of ecosystem services. As the variety and complexity of these tools increases, there is a need for comparative studies across a range of settings, allowing users to make an informed choice. Using examples of provisioning and regulating services (water supply, carbon storage and nutrient retention), we compare three spatially explicit tools - LUCI (Land Utilisation and Capability Indicator), ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services) and InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs). Models were parameterised for the UK and applied to a temperate catchment with widely varying land use in North Wales. Although each tool provides quantitative mapped output, can be applied in different contexts, and can work at local or national scale, they differ in the approaches taken and underlying assumptions made. In this study, we focus on the wide range of outputs produced for each service and discuss the differences between each modelling tool. Model outputs were validated using empirical data for river flow, carbon and nutrient levels within the catchment. The sensitivity of the models to land-use change was tested using four scenarios of varying severity, evaluating the conversion of grassland habitat to woodland (0-30% of the landscape). We show that, while the modelling tools provide broadly comparable quantitative outputs, each has its own unique features and strengths. Therefore the choice of tool depends on the study question.

Spatial patterns and environmental constraints on ecosystem services at a catchment scale.

Improved understanding and prediction of the fundamental environmental controls on ecosystem service supply across the landscape will help to inform decisions made by policy makers and land-water managers. To evaluate this issue for a local catchment case study, we explored metrics and spatial patterns of service supply for water quality regulation, agriculture production, carbon storage, and biodiversity for the Macronutrient Conwy catchment. Methods included using ecosystem models such as LUCI and JULES, integration of national scale field survey datasets, earth observation products and plant trait databases, to produce finely resolved maps of species richness and primary production. Analyses were done with both 1×1km gridded and subcatchment data. A common single gradient characterised catchment scale ecosystem services supply with agricultural production and carbon storage at opposing ends of the gradient as reported for a national-scale assessment. Species diversity was positively related to production due to the below national average productivity levels in the Conwy combined with the unimodal relationship between biodiversity and productivity at the national scale. In contrast to the national scale assessment, a strong reduction in water quality as production increased was observed in these low productive systems. Various soil variables were tested for their predictive power of ecosystem service supply. Soil carbon, nitrogen, their ratio and soil pH all had double the power of rainfall and altitude, each explaining around 45% of variation but soil pH is proposed as a potential metric for ecosystem service supply potential as it is a simple and practical metric which can be carried out in the field with crowd-sourcing technologies now available. The study emphasises the importance of considering multiple ecosystem services together due to the complexity of covariation at local and national scales, and the benefits of exploiting a wide range of metrics for each service to enhance data robustness.