See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303296147

Holistic valuation of urban ecosystem services in New York City's Central Park

Article  in  Ecosystem Services · June 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.04.003

CITATIONS READS

28 1,301

2 authors:

Paul C. Sutton Sharolyn Anderson

University of Denver University of South Australia
140 PUBLICATIONS   26,411 CITATIONS    76 PUBLICATIONS   4,610 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LULC Change Dynamics View project

Ecosystem services View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul C. Sutton on 11 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ecosystem Services 19 (2016) 87–91

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecosystem Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser

Holistic valuation of urban ecosystem services in New York City's

Central Park
Paul C. Sutton a,b,n, Sharolyn J. Anderson a
a
School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Australia
b
Department of Geography and the Environment, University of Denver, United States

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Central Park is iconic Green Infrastructure that provides myriad ecosystem services to New York City that
Received 13 August 2015 have significant economic value. We used the market value of Central Park as developable real estate as a
Received in revised form proxy measure of the minimum value of the ecosystem services provided by Central Park. We present
7 April 2016
$500 billion as a reasonable estimate of the market value of Central Park as developable real estate. We
Accepted 8 April 2016
assume this $500 billion of natural capital converted to money could earn a 5% annual return ($25 Billion
per year). This return is an estimate of the value of annual ecosystem services provided by the 341 ha that
Keywords: constitute Central Park. This is over $70 million per hectare per year which is orders of magnitude higher
Green Infrastructure than the estimated value of ecosystem services provided by the most valuable biomes of previous es-
Urban Ecosystem Services
timates. The very high value of the ecosystem services provided by Central Park result from an inter-
Holistic Valuation
action of social, natural, human, and built capital. These interactions are poorly addressed from the
dominant economic worldview that governs social and environmental policy today. These findings also
suggest that the ‘up vs. out’ questions associated with sustainable urban development do not have simple
answers.
& 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction interaction of natural, social, human, and built capital. We regard

all of these definitions as useful; however, we feel the Ecological
‘Green Infrastructure’ (GI) is earning increased recognition as a Economics approach captures the very important idea of ‘inter-
critical element of the urban environment because of the impacts action’ amongst natural, social, human, and built capital which
GI has on human well-being and urban ecology (Tzoulas et al., necessitates a holistic perspective for analysis and understanding
2007). Additionally, studies of GI raise some very fundamental and (Costanza et al., 2014). Here we adopt the idea that GI is the net-
provocative questions with respect to economic rationalism and work of green spaces and water systems that provide myriad en-
urban planning (Schaffler and Swilling, 2013; Laurans and Mermet, vironmental, economic, and social benefits to urban areas (Ely and
2014). There are many differing definitions of GI (Young et al., Pitman, 2012). We present an efficient and holistic approach to
2014) several of which are described here: (1) GI is about pre- economic valuation of these benefits using New York City's Central
servation of natural urban environments via a suite of policies and Park as an iconic example of the natural capital associated with GI.
strategies to conserve land and biodiversity (Newell et al., 2013), Green infrastructure is natural capital in the urban environ-
(2) GI is a worldview for maintaining and enhancing Ecological ment that provides valuable ecosystem services. The idea of eco-
Function in an urban network of energy, materials, and species system services is well established and there have been literally
flows that provide benefits to human populations, (3) GI is viewed thousands of peer-reviewed publications in which economic va-
from an engineering perspective which sees natural and built luation of various ecosystem services have been performed
networks as a part of the broader traditional infrastructure of the (Costanza; 2014). Triple bottom line (TBL) accounting (Elkington,
urban environment (Spatari et al., 2011; Pucher et al., 2010), and 1997) suggests green infrastructure should be assessed from the
(4) GI is seen from the Ecological Economics perspective which three perspectives of social, environmental, and economic ac-
focuses on provision of ecosystem services that result from the counting (aka people, planet, and profit). The Millennium Eco-
system Assessment (MEA, 2005) argued for more of an ecosystem
n
service assessment perspective. The TBL and MEA approaches are
Corresponding author at: School of Natural and Built Environments, University
of South Australia, Australia.
not incompatible; however, economic valuation from either per-
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.C. Sutton), spective can be a formidable accounting task. Many ecosystem
[email protected] (S.J. Anderson). services can be roughly classified into these TBL and MEA

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.04.003
2212-0416/& 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.
88 P.C. Sutton, S.J. Anderson / Ecosystem Services 19 (2016) 87–91

categories. Ecosystem services typically associated with green in- challenges. Holistic valuation is in one sense a ‘revealed pre-
frastructure include: (1) Provisioning services such as food, water, ference’ of the public at large. Some might argue we are using an
timber, and genetic resources; (2) Regulating services such as cli- ‘opportunity cost’ perspective for the collective rather than the
mate regulation, air and water filtration, and carbon sequestration; individual. The value of the ‘opportunity’ to sell off all of Central
(3) Cultural/Social services such as recreational, aesthetic, and Park for development is ‘revealed’ as not desired by the public by
spiritual; and (4) Supporting services such as soil formation and the observation that selling off Central Park for development
retention, nutrient cycling, and photosynthesis (De Groot et al. would be unacceptable to the public at large.
2002). These general categories of ecosystem services don’t ne-
cessarily enable appreciation of the real and tangible value of the
specifically urban ecosystem services provided by GI (Young et al. 2. Approach
2014).
The challenging accounting task of estimating a dollar value for Estimating the economic value of the ecosystem services pro-
urban ecosystem services derived from GI would likely include the vided by the natural capital of GI is a daunting task for numerous
following: reasons including questions of double counting, classification, and
spatial and temporal scale (De Groot et al., 2010). Consequently we
1) Ecological Benefits Assessment: mitigation of urban heat is- adopt an approach that bypasses and obviates almost all of these
land effect, temperature moderation by urban vegetation complexities by simply estimating the market value of the real
through evapotranspiration and shading (Zhang et al. 2014), estate occupied by Central Park in New York City and stating that
wind speed moderation, air quality improvement through this is a legitimate and logical estimate of the minimum economic
avoided emissions and pollutant removal, carbon sequestration, value of the natural capital contained in Central Park. The logic is
storage, and avoided greenhouse gas emissions via cooling (Qiu this: the public wants Central Park to exist and would not support
et al., 2013), reduced building energy use for heating and any politician or political movement that argued for the sale and
cooling because of parks, green walls, roofs, and shading (Ca privatization of the real estate that constitutes Central Park (at
et al. 1998), Hydrologic regulation via flow control and flood least not at the current market value of the real estate) (S. Johanna
reduction, water purification, waste decomposition and nutrient Robledo NY Magazine, 2015). This is a ‘revealed preference’ of the
cycling, noise level attenuation, biodiversity protection and public at large. Our ‘holistic valuation’ approach adopts the lan-
enhancement (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999). guage of ‘revealed preference’ often associated with ‘revealed
2) Human Health and Well-being Benefits Assessment: im- preference theory’ of neo-classical economics (Samuelson, 1938);
proved physical well-being from increased physical activity, however, any analogy is weak for several reasons including: 1) the
healthier food, healthier outdoor and indoor environments non-sale of Central Park is a passive rather than an active act, 2)
(Wang et al., 2014), improved social well-being from increased Central Park is a public good and the benefits and utility of the
social interaction, social integration, community cohesion, and park or its potential sale are difficult to allocate accurately or co-
improved mental well-being from biophilic responses to GI herently, 3) these are collective rather than individual decisions.
(Takano et al., 2002). Despite these complexities we are confident that any proposals to
3) Social and Cultural Benefits Assessment: food production sell off Central Park to private interests and to use the proceeds of
from urban agriculture (edible landscapes, community gardens, such sale to reduce the taxes of the citizens of New York City
etc.), opportunities for recreation and non-motorized transpor- would be overwhelmingly rejected by the public. This idea enables
tation, improved socio-ecological resilience (Folke, 2006), ben- the following simplifying assumption: The market value of the real
efits of social interaction and community integrity, benefits of estate of Central Park is a minimum estimate of the value of the
connectivity of footpaths, sidewalks, and bike paths, integrated Natural Capital contained by Central Park. Using this assumption it
public spaces for recreation-education-research activities, value is a simple and straightforward task to estimate the dollar value of
of sense of place and belonging, enhanced aesthetics via the GI represented by Central Park and to estimate the dollar value
enhancing desirable views and restricting undesirable views, of the ecosystem services annually provided by Central Park.
reduced social inequality through open access to desirable Proceeding with this assumption leads us to questions of the
public space (Wolch et al., 2014). dollar value of real estate in Manhattan. We are comfortable with
4) Marketed Economic Benefits Assessment: improved property order of magnitude errors in this particular case because the
values and property tax revenues (McPhearson et al., 2013), numbers are so large that they raise provocative questions for any
enhanced local economic activity, reduced health care costs as a reasonable estimate of the value of real estate in Manhattan. One
result of aforementioned human health and well-being benefits, estimate of $528,783,552,000 (over half of a trillion dollars) for the
monetary value of saved energy and reduced CO2 emissions, total value of the 843 acres of real estate in Central Park was
value of avoided construction and management costs of grey conducted by the property appraisal firm of Miller Samuel and
infrastructure, avoided costs of flood damage, value of increased published in New York Magazine (S. Johanna Robledo NY Maga-
use of non-motorized transportation (walking and cycling). zine, 2015). There is spatial variation in the value of real estate in
all urban areas including Manhattan (Thunen and Hall, 1966). Mid-
The aforementioned list of valuable benefits provided by green town will have different values than the financial district which
infrastructure is both formidable and undoubtedly incomplete. will in turn have different values than Harlem. Central Park spans
Conducting an economic valuation of each and every one of these enough area to undoubtedly capture some variation in per acre
benefits would be an enormous task to complete for a large me- values of real estate; nonetheless, the Miller Samuel estimate
tropolitan area and it is very likely that it would be an under- produces an average per acre value of over $600 million. Another
estimate fraught with isolated calculations that each have un- estimate can be derived from a story about a property that was
certainty and error associated with them and do not account for destroyed by an explosion on the Upper East Side of Manhattan on
significant interactions. Additionally, many of these services are east 62nd street (NYTimes, 2006). The house was leveled in an
often complementary rather than substitutable (Ostrom, 2009; explosion and had an appraised value of $6 million. The open land
Daly and Farley, 2011). For this reason we adopt a new approach of without the structure was valued at $7 million and this was for an
‘holistic valuation’ to estimate the economic value of all of these area of less than 0.05 acres. This works out to over $140 million
combined services which avoids many of these pitfalls and per acre for a property which had a single family unit on it. This
 P.C. Sutton, S.J. Anderson / Ecosystem Services 19 (2016) 87–91 89

suggests that even if Central Park were zoned for single family
housing it would still have a value at well over a 100 billion dollars
(
$118,000,000,000).
Using the Miller Samuel estimate of $500 Billion as the market
value of Central Park as developable real estate provides an esti-
mate of the minimum value of the natural capital that Central Park
represents. Ecosystem services are the benefits that flow from the
ecological functions of natural capital. Central Park as GI clearly
provides many of the previously discussed ecosystem services that
result from the interaction of human, social, natural, and built
capital in New York City. To estimate the value of these ecosystem
services we assume a five percent return on investment of this
$500 Billion. This works out to $25 billion dollars a year. In other
words the ecosystem services provided by the natural capital of
Central Park provide $25 billion dollars’ worth of value to the ci-
tizens of New York every year as a public good. Given that Central
Park is roughly 341 ha of area this is over $73 million dollars per
hectare per year.

3. Discussion

An early estimate of the total value of the world's ecosystem

services produced a number of $33 trillion per year in 1997 which
was roughly twice the size of the global marketed economy at that
time (Costanza et al., 2001). A revised estimate was produced in
2014 which increased this estimate to $145 trillion per year
(Costanza et al. 2014). The world's land surfaces and associated
ecosystems do not have the same distribution they had in 1997
(e.g. roughly half the world's coral reefs are gone) nor are all these
ecosystems functioning at 100%. Changes in land cover that have
occurred in the last 15 years have resulted in a reduced estimate of
the total value of the world's ecosystem services to $125 trillion
per year. This represents a loss of roughly $20 trillion per year
because of land cover change alone and does not account for de-
graded ecological function that results from species extinction (e.g.
loss of pollination services) or land degradation (e.g. sea level rise,
soil salinization, desertification). This constitutes a loss of revenue
that is roughly one third of the world's market economy. Failure to
appropriately value ecosystem services is a massive market failure. Fig. 1. New York City's Central Park.
Fig. 1.
The sheer magnitude of the dollar value of ecosystem services
relative to the market economy combined with the market failure
nature of ecosystem services (e.g. the fact that they are public
goods, suffer from unclear property rights questions, and are af-
fected by both positive and negative externalities) raises many
questions as to whether economic rationalism is an appropriate
world view at all for developing environmental policy. In addition,
ecosystem services do not flow directly from natural capital to
improve human well-being but result from complex interactions of
human, social, natural and built capital that improve well-being
(Costanza et al. 2014) (Fig. 2). This economic valuation of urban
ecosystem services provided by the GI that is Central Park's natural
capital is a manifestation of this very point. Here we find that the
GI of Central Park provides urban ecosystem services that have a
value of at least $70 million dollars per hectare per year. The
highest annual per hectare values for ecosystem services in these
aforementioned studies were estimated for coral reefs ($352,249),
tidal marsh/mangroves ($193,845), and swamps and floodplains
Fig. 2. Human Well-being resulting from the interaction of human, built, social,
($25,682). Estimates of the value of urban ecosystems were only
and natural capital.
$6,661/ha/year (Fig. 3). Extending this valuation to the five bor-
oughs of New York City (Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Man-
hattan, and Bronx) would result in a value of $19,710,000/ha/year This estimate of the value of urban ecosystem services is orders of
for the urban ecosystem services of New York City. This calculation magnitude larger than previous estimates and this calculation
is based on the area of the five boroughs of NYC at 790 km2 and provides evidence as to how important and powerful these in-
27% of this area is green infrastructure (McPhearson et al. 2014). teractions amongst human, social, built, and natural capital are. It
90 P.C. Sutton, S.J. Anderson / Ecosystem Services 19 (2016) 87–91

Fig. 3. Map of landcover of U.S. with associated annual ecosystem service value.

would be ludicrous to ‘value’ Central Park as a smattering of ‘economy of scale’ arguments suggesting that larger and denser
grasses ($2,871/ha/year), forests ($3,013/ha/year), and lakes cities are more efficient because denser settlement leads to a more
($4,267/ha/year). Urban areas are characterized by the spatial in- intense use of infrastructure (Bettencourt and West, 2010). Do
teraction of low levels of natural capital with very high levels of these studies suggest that Central Park should be paved over to ac-
built, social, and human capital due to population density. The commodate an even higher density in Manhattan for the purpose of
high economic values we are finding are the result of this inter- even greater efficiency? We regard the ‘Up vs. Out’ question re-
action of relatively scarce natural capital with the nearby built, garding urban growth to be somewhat of a red herring and agree
human, and social capital. We are not presenting $19.7 million/ha/ with the opinions of Chris Ives and Cecily Maller of RMIT Uni-
year as a global value for urban ecosystem services. This value is versity (http://theconversation.com/growing-out-versus-filling-
high because Central Park is an iconic and unique urban park in in-how-about-we-all-grow-up-12798 ).
one of the most densely populated and wealthy cities of the world.
However, the holistic valuation method can be used in cities The dichotomy between urban sprawl and urban densification is
throughout the world. Applying this method to a diverse set of false. More worryingly, it hinders our ability to make decisions for
cities with a range of geographic and demographic characteristics creating sustainable, healthy and equitable cities of the future.
will result in a spatially varying set of urban ecosystem service Cities are highly complex and multifaceted socio-ecological sys-
values. tems, and an equally sophisticated decision-making framework is
Human well-being is increased via an interaction of ecosystem required to plan their future. Ultimately, we need to move past the
services with human, social, and built capital. The contribution of tired debate about one urban form versus another. A new dis-
the natural capital of Central Park to human well-being is in- cussion based on desired end states for urban sustainability must
credibly large because Manhattan is a high concentration of hu- be started. Rather than a one-size-fits all solution, special atten-
man capital, social capital, and built capital with Central Park right tion should be given to the spatial and unique requirements of the
in the middle of it. Similarly, an interaction of calcium and vitamin people, species, and ecosystems that comprise cities. With this
D supports strong bone development. Interactions can be very starting point, we can transcend the current stalemate to ensure
complex and powerful factors. Ceteris Paribus assumptions so our cities are planned and designed to meet the sustainability
common in economic analyses often fail to capture interactions challenges of the future.
and can embed a hubris in these analyses that we may deeply
regret. The 2006 Stern report on the economics of climate change The ongoing debate about the ‘Up vs. Out’ development of cities
stated “Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has seems to tilt weakly toward supporting infill and densification;
ever seen, and it interacts with other market imperfections” (Stern, however, Shlomo Angel, in his book ‘Planet of Cities’, makes a
2006). Climate change is also interacting with ecosystem function compelling argument that this debate is not over nor is it that
and ecosystem services and the complexity of these problems simple (Angel, 2012). Indeed, there is a growing recognition that
demands more than ‘market based solutions’ or calls for privati- we need to develop a much better understanding of the urbani-
zation. If Central Park were to be privatized by divvying up the zation process because cities are where the driving forces of global
parkland to private land holders as it currently exists it would change come from; and, how our cities develop from this point on
undoubtedly be sold off and developed. Would such a transfor- will be critical determinants as to whether the human experiment
mation please urban planners who seek increased urban density? will or will not chart a path to a sustainable and desirable future.
Green infrastructure is a public good and presents the chal- Perhaps the idea of establishing a desired end-state might include
lenges typically associated with optimal provision of public goods. improving human well-being as a primary objective of urban life
However, green infrastructure exists as both private and publicly rather than an efficiency defined by economic rationalism (Ku-
held land in urban environments. In Australia privately held green biszewski et al., 2013).
spaces are continuously being subdivided as lot splits resulting in There is a growing call for the establishment of a ‘Science of
what is being called ‘The Death of the Australian Back Yard’ (Hall, Urbanization’ that progresses urban studies toward a more sys-
2010). These lot splits can result in increasing impervious surfaces tematic understanding of cities that captures these complexities
in urban environments that may cross tipping points with respect (Solecki et al., 2013). The idea that the ecosystem services of New
to capacity for flood mitigation and water retention. Ironically York City's Central Park provide a minimum value worth over $70
these subdivisions are often encouraged and subsidized by local million/hectare/year suggests that there are some compelling
and state governments because it encourages urban infill and reasons to develop a new urbanization science that can see the
densification that is regarded as a positive move toward increased immense and real values that exist beyond the horizons of eco-
urban sustainability by planners. Recent papers have made nomic rationalism.
 P.C. Sutton, S.J. Anderson / Ecosystem Services 19 (2016) 87–91 91

4. Conclusion biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar, P. (Ed.), The Economics
of Ecosystems and Biodiversity TEEB Ecological and Economic Foundations,.
TEEB, London, UK.
We present ‘holistic valuation’ as a method for determining a De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classification,
minimum value of the ecosystem services derived from urban description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol.
parks. We use Central Park in New York City as a case study. The Econ. 41 (3), 393–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8009(02)00089-7.
Ely, M., Pitman, S. (2012). Green Infrastructure: Life Support for Human Habitats
natural capital embodied in Central Park is iconic green infra-
The compelling evidence for incorporating nature into urban environments.
structure (GI) for the city of New York that provides a complex (Botanic Gardens of Adelaide): 〈http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/bota
suite of ecosystem services (McPhearson et al. 2014). Central Park nicgardens/Learn/Green_Infrastructure〉 (Retrieved from) 〈http://www.bota
nicgardens.sa.gov.au/greeninfrastructure〉.
has a market value as developable real estate of roughly $500
Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of Twenty-First
billion. We use this number as an estimate of the minimum value Century Business. Capstone, Oxford, England.
of the natural capital of central park based on the argument that Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological
the public does not want to sell off Central Park, convert the systems analyses. Glob. Environ. Chang.-Human Policy Dimens. 16 (3), 253–267.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.
proceeds to cash, and reduce their taxes by the revenue that cash Hall, Tony (2010). The Life and Death of the Australian Backyard CSIRO Publishing.
could generate. This ‘holistic valuation’ approach to the economic Holling, C.S., 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and
valuation of ecosystem services simplifies the formidable ac- social systems. Ecosystems 4 (5), 390–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10021-001-0101-5.
counting task of summing the myriad individual ecosystem ser- Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Franco, C., Lawn, P., Talberth, J., Jackson, T., Aylmer, C.,
vices provided by the GI of Central Park. In terms of ecosystem 2013. Beyond GDP: measuring and achieving global genuine progress. Ecol.
services this represents roughly $25 billion per year which is over Econ. 93, 57–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.019.
Laurans, Y., Mermet, L., 2014. Ecosystems services economic valuation, decision-
$70 million per hectare per year. Applying this estimate of $70
support system or advocacy? Ecosyst. Serv. 7, 98–105.
million/ha/year for the GI of Central Park to all of the green in- McPhearson, T., Kremer, P., Hamstead, Z.A., 2014. Urban Ecosystem Services for
frastructure of NYC results in an estimate of urban ecosystem Resilience Planning and Management in New York City. Ambio 43, 502–515.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0509-8.
services for all of NYC that is roughly $20 million/ha/year. This
McPhearson, T., Kremer, P., Hamstead, Z.A., 2013. Mapping ecosystem services in
value is orders of magnitude higher than previous estimates of New York City: applying a social–ecological approach in urban vacant land.
urban ecosystem service values ($6,661/ha/year). These high va- Ecosyst. Serv. 5, 11–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.005.
lues result from spatial interactions of human, natural, social, and MEA. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment - Ecosystems and Human Well-
Being: Synthesis. Washington DC.
built capital that support theoretical frameworks using ideas of Newell, J.P., Seymour, M., Yee, T., Renteria, J., Longcore, T., Wolch, J.R., Shishkovsky,
socio-ecological systems (Costanza et al., 2001). These frameworks A., 2013. Green Alley Programs: planning for a sustainable urban infra-
call for new institutions to better manage common pool resources structure? Cities 31, 144–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.07.004.
N.Y. Times, 2006. Blast Levels Manhattan Town House; Inquiry Focuses on Injured
at varying spatial scales including green infrastructure (local) and Owner. 〈http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/nyregion/11explode.html?
the atmosphere (global) (McPhearson, 2014; Holling, 2001). This _r¼2&〉 ((accessed) 05.04.2006).
study contributes evidence to support the provocative and chal- Ostrom, E., 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Eco-
logical Systems. Science 325 (5939), 419–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
lenging questions surrounding the utility of the traditional neo- science.1172133.
classical economic world view with respect to governance, en- Pucher, J., Dill, J., Handy, S., 2010. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase
vironmental policy, and sustainability. bicycling: an international review. Prev. Med. 50, S106–S125. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.07.028.
Qiu, G., Li, H., Zhang, Q., Chen, W., Liang, X., Li, X, 2013. Effects of evapotranspiration
on mitigation of urban temperature by vegetation and urban agriculture. J.
Acknowledgements Integr. Agric. 12 (8), 1307–1315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(13)
60543-2.
Robledo, S.J. (2015). Because We Wouldn’t Trade a Patch of Grass for
We would also like to thank Martino Pesaresi and other $528,783,552,000, New York Magazine (Retrieved 12 Aug 2015 from) 〈http://
members of the steering committee of the ‘Human Planet’ in- nymag.com/nymetro/news/reasonstoloveny/15362/〉.
itiative that is part of the GEO Strategic Plan. This work was in- Schaffler, A., Swilling, M., 2013. Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environ-
ment under pressure - The Johannesburg case. Ecol. Econ. 86, 246–257. http:
spired and supported by the Global Human Settlement Layer //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.05.008.
working group and the subsequent ‘Human Planet’ initiative that Spatari, S., Yu, Z.W., Montalto, F.A., 2011. Life cycle implications of urban green
partially resulted from it. Support from the University of South infrastructure. Environ. Pollut. 159 (8–9), 2174–2179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2011.01.015.
Australia is gratefully acknowledged via the Research Themes In- Solecki, W., Seto, K.C., Marcotullio, P., 2013. It’s time for an urbanization science.
vestment Scheme program. In addition we would like to thank the Environment 55, 12–16.
anonymous peer reviewers for their constructive suggestions on Stern, N., (2006). Stern Review on The Economics of Climate Change. Executive
Summary. HM Treasury, London.
the manuscript.
Takano, T., Nakamura, K., Watanabe, M., 2002. Urban residential environments and
senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of walkable green
spaces. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 56 (12), 913–918. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1136/jech.56.12.913.
References Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela, J.,
James, P., 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using
Bettencourt, L., West, G., 2010. A unified theory of urban living. Nature 467 (7318), Green Infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 81 (3), 167–178.
912–913. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001.
Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 29 Thunen, Johann Heinrich von. & Hall, Peter. (1966). Isolated state : an English
(2), 293–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8009(99)00013-0. edition of Der isolierte Staat. Oxford, New York : Pergamon Press.
Ca, V.T., Asaeda, T., Abu, E.M., 1998. Reductions in air conditioning energy caused by Wang, Y.F., Bakker, F., de Groot, R., Wortche, H., 2014. Effect of ecosystem services
a nearby park. Energy Build. 29 (1), 83–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ provided by urban green infrastructure on indoor environment: a literature
s0378-7788(98)00032-2. review. Build. Environ. 77, 88–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Costanza, R., Low, B., Ostrom, E., Wilson, J., 2001. Institutions, Ecosystems, and buildenv.2014.03.021.
Sustainability. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL. Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., Newell, J.P., 2014. Urban green space, public health, and en-
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., vironmental justice: the challenge of making cities'just green enough. Landsc.
Farber, S., Turner, R.K., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Urban Plan. 125, 234–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017.
Glob. Environ. Chang.-Human Policy Dimens. 26, 152–158. http://dx.doi.org/ Young, R., Zanders, J., Lieberknecht, K., Fassman-Beck, E., 2014. A comprehensive
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002. typology for mainstreaming urban green infrastructure. J. Hydrol. 519,
Daly, H.E., Farley, J., 2011. Ecological Economics: Pinciples and Applications, Second 2571–2583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.05.048.
ed. Island Press, Washington DC. Zhang, B., Xie, G.D., Gao, J.X., Yang, Y., 2014. The cooling effect of urban green spaces
De Groot, R.S., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Haines-Young, R., Gowdy, as a contribution to energy-saving and emission-reduction: A case study in
J., et al., 2010. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in Beijing, China. Build. Environ. 76, 37–43.

View publication stats