Shifts in ecosystem services in deprived urban areas: understanding people’s responses and consequences for well-being

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Urban commons are under pressure. City development has led to the encroachment and ecological degradation of urban open space. Although there is growing insight that urban ecosystems need to be protected, there is hardly any attention for the consequences (of both pressures and protection efforts) for vulnerable human population groups. We aim to understand how urban development affects the well-being of the urban poor, through shifts in ecosystem services (ES) and people's responses to these shifts. We performed household interviews and group mapping sessions in seven urban lake communities in Bangalore, India. Changes at Bangalore's lakes can be summarized by three trends: privatization followed by conversion, pollution followed by degradation, and restoration followed by gentrification. Over time, this resulted in a shift in the types of ES supplied and demanded, the nature of use, and de facto governance: from provisioning, communal and public; to cultural, individual, and private. Lake dwellers responded by finding (other) sources of income, accepting lower quality or less accessible ES, and/or completely stopping the use of certain ES. The consequences of ecosystem change for people's well-being differ depending on a household's ability to adapt and on individual circumstances, land tenure and financial capital in particular. To guarantee a future for Bangalore's lakes, restoration seems the only viable option. Although beautiful lake parks may be a solution for the well-off and not-too-poor, leaving the very poor without options to adapt to the new circumstances puts them at risk of becoming even more marginalized. We show that ecosystem degradation and restoration alike can impact the well-being of the urban poor. People's experiences allowed us to couple ecosystem change to well-being through ES and adaptation strategies. Hence, we revealed multiple cause-effect relations. Understanding these relations contributes to sustainable urban development for people from all layers of society.

Green Gentrification and Health: A Scoping Review

“…Overall, the most studied greening interventions were new greenways or parks (n = 9 [25,27,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41], whereas two focused on street greening [15,42] and three on environmental remediation, such as brownfield cleanup and redevelopment [27,42,43]. Two studies focused on more than one greening intervention, covering environmental remediation followed by either street greening [42] or the creation of new parks [27]. Among the 15 included studies, 12 focused on neighborhoods that experienced gentrification, at least in part, because of greening initiatives (i.e., green gentrification).…”

“…While greater exposure to green space can significantly lower the odds of poor health for residents of gentrifying neighborhoods, a study in New York found that only residents with a higher level of education and income appeared to benefit from this resource [44]. In a study focusing on Bangalore, India, respondents mentioned that the creation of parks allowed them to have walking paths, aesthetic improvements, and areas for children to recreate [27]. The increase in park access was linked with higher happiness and self-reported well-being for the wealthiest and middle-income residents [27].…”

“…Conversely, rents likely increase, residents might not feel welcome in the new green spaces, or worse, they might be forced to relocate due to excessive increases in housing prices, presumably resulting in a loss of social networks [21,26]. Researchers note that the paradox and consequences of green gentrification can lead to a shift in the ecosystem services that are accessible to marginalized communities [27]. Thus, these trade-offs call for a review of the latest evidence on the links between green gentrification and health.…”

Light and Low Relative Humidity Increase Antioxidants Content in Mung Bean (Vigna radiata L.) Sprouts

“…Agricultural practices are changing with the introduction of new technologies for the remote monitoring and controlling of environmental conditions, such as intelligent sensors, robots, proximal/remote sensing [ 1 , 2 ]. These new technologies applied to agriculture are helping to meet the nutritional requirements of an increasing population, minimizing environmental impacts and coping with the scarcity of resource availability, also exacerbated by climate changes [ 3 ]. Part of this change is happening in urban areas, where over 54% of the world population is concentrated [ 4 ] and which consumes most of the world’s energy and resources while producing the majority of greenhouse gases [ 5 ].…”

Sharing Reasoning Behind Individual Decisions to Invest in Joint Infrastructure

“…In addition, values may change over time [18] and include both use values (e.g., irrigation) and non-use values (e.g., swimming and aesthetics) [14,19]. These multiple, personal and changing values of water are also discussed and reflected upon in the ecosystem services literature (see, e.g., [20][21][22]).…”