2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100977
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing Biophilic Design Elements for ecosystem service attributes – A sub-tropical Australian case

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Almenar et al (2021) systematically identifies nexuses between nature‐based solutions, ecosystem services, and urban challenges with plausible causal relationships. Other examples include documenting the services of different urban ecosystem elements or structures (Barthel et al, 2010; Dobbs et al, 2014; Mexia et al, 2018), drawing linkages among ES, urban design factors, landscape patterns or management options (e.g., Cortinovis & Geneletti, 2018; Pulighe et al, 2016; Shoemaker et al, 2019; Tratalos et al, 2007), and demonstrating the potential use of ES to inform or optimize landscape management, infrastructure development or urban planning (Kambo et al, 2019, Di Marino et al 2019, BenDor et al, 2018).…”
Section: The Ecosystem Service Framework As a Design Toolmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Almenar et al (2021) systematically identifies nexuses between nature‐based solutions, ecosystem services, and urban challenges with plausible causal relationships. Other examples include documenting the services of different urban ecosystem elements or structures (Barthel et al, 2010; Dobbs et al, 2014; Mexia et al, 2018), drawing linkages among ES, urban design factors, landscape patterns or management options (e.g., Cortinovis & Geneletti, 2018; Pulighe et al, 2016; Shoemaker et al, 2019; Tratalos et al, 2007), and demonstrating the potential use of ES to inform or optimize landscape management, infrastructure development or urban planning (Kambo et al, 2019, Di Marino et al 2019, BenDor et al, 2018).…”
Section: The Ecosystem Service Framework As a Design Toolmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At present, the studies on biophilic urban nature construction mainly focuses on two aspects: "biophilic infrastructure construction" and "biophilic perceptual design", with the strategies of "biophilic ratio improvement" (Beatley, 2011;Beatley, 2018;Carrus et al, 2015;el-Baghdadi & Desha, 2017;Kambo et al, 2019;Zhang et al, 2014) and " biophilic management" (Beatley, 2011;Langemeyer et al, 2018;Parsaee et al, 2019), and "biophilic visual connection" (Coburn et al, 2019;Lee, 2019;World Green Building Council, 2014;Yin et al, 2020) and "biophilic non-visual connection" (Ghezeljeh et al, 2017;Soga et al, 2018) were used to achieve the related goals respectively. Although the relevant researches have involved many contents at the medium and micro spatial scales, there is still no a comprehensive framework at the city scale to fully express the panoramic contents of the biophilic urban nature construction.…”
Section: Overview Of the Current Situation Of Biophilic Urban Nature ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ecosystem services include four service elements of supply, regulation, culture and auxiliary. Among them, the supply service refers to the provision of ecological products for nature, the regulation service is to regulate the ecological environment, the cultural service is the cultural and aesthetic enjoyment provided by the nature, and the auxiliary service includes the auxiliary function to the formation and development of land and plants [8][9][10]. Costanza et al proposed using the ecosystem's economic value per unit area to assess ecosystem service value (ESV) [11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%