Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ws8qp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T10:51:32.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

24 - Tools to assess human impact on biotope resilience and biodiversity in urban planning: examples from Stockholm, Sweden

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2010

Mark J. McDonnell
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne and University of Melbourne
Amy K. Hahs
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne and University of Melbourne
Jürgen H. Breuste
Affiliation:
Universität Salzburg
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In Sweden, the political ambition is to integrate the convention on biological diversity (UNCED, 1992) into physical planning and monitoring of urban areas. These ambitions are, however, hampered by a lack of significant information on the ecological landscape context. The responsibility for implementation lies with the local municipalities, through physical planning of land and water uses, and development. According to the Planning and Building Act every municipality shall have a comprehensive up-to-date plan for its geographical area and the local government should develop the plan in co-operation with inhabitants and other interested stakeholders. The expectations on planning as an arena for discussions and implementation of environmental issues and sustainable development have increased in international and Swedish national politics. In this context it is important for the different players to bring forth the best possible grounds for making decisions on future planning and building.

To increase the comprehensive understanding of urban ecosystems, new theoretical frameworks are needed (Pickett et al., 2001 and Chapter 3). The study I describe in this chapter stresses the importance of including spatio-temporal aspects in this work. It focuses on how urban monitoring procedures can be designed on the local level to provide complementary spatial and temporal information on biodiversity that supports assessments in physical planning. By addressing questions considering biotope (i.e. habitat) fragmentation, this enables comparisons to be made at the scale of the entire municipality.

Type
Chapter
Information
Ecology of Cities and Towns
A Comparative Approach
, pp. 422 - 438
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×