Mapping of Eco System Services in the Fixfabriken area. Method development and case study application
Övrigt - Rapport, 2015
One important method in the BALANCE 4P project has been to use real case studies as a mean of applying and testing the outcomes of different activities and instruments. In the Fixfabriken case study (for details see Norrman et al., 2015b), the sustainability of alternative redevelopment strategies actions is assessed by means of three different methods:
· the SCORE tool (Garção, 2015),
· mapping of Ecosystem services (ESS), and
· social impact analysis (SIA) (Norrman et al., 2015b).
The basic idea of all three approaches is to analyse the change brought about by different redevelopment alternatives in comparison with the reference scenario. This report gives an in depth description of the ESS-mapping approach, both the methodology itself and its application to the Fixfabriken case study.
The objective of the analysis has been to investigate the potential of ESS-mapping in adding useful information to the sustainability appraisal of identified redevelopment alternatives. The method applied (COWI 2014) follows the principles outlined in a guidance for implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC), the guide follows three steps:
1) Identification of relevant ecosystem services and their status on the remediation site given present land use (reference scenario).
2) Quantification of changes in quality and quantity of ecosystem services affected in the identified redevelopment alternatives.
3) Monetary valuation of the welfare effects from identified changes.
The third step of the methodology, Monetary valuation, has not been applied in the Fixfabriken application. The analysis was delimited to a semi quantitative comparison between the reference scenario and the resulting changes in the provision of ecosystem services in five different redevelopment scenarios, see Garção (2015).
A few specific features of the redevelopment alternatives turned out to have a profound impact on the resulting ranking of studied alternatives. These features are characterized by their impact on the supply of both urban- and soil ESS. On the positive side; the creation, or preservation, of green space will have a positive impact on several urban ESS, e.g. Air quality regulation, Climate regulation local (urban climate), Noise reduction, Aesthetic values and Recreation and ecotourism. The same feature does in addition imply positive effects on a number of soil ESS, e.g. Fresh water, Climate regulation (global), Flood regulation and Water purification and waste treatment. On the negative side; while having a positive effect at the redevelopment site on both urban and soil ESS, excavation and transportation of polluted soil to off-site landfills might lower the desirability of several redevelopment alternatives due to the risk of local adverse effects on the land-fill site. Whether or not these negative effects materialize depends on the conditions at the land fill site prior to the deposition. If the land fill site is new, or if the level of pollution in the masses is higher than previously deposited material, then negative effects might be expected in the supply of both urban ESS (i.e. Recreation and ecotourism ) and soil ESS (e.g. Fresh water and Water purification and waste treatment).
Due to this, one of the redevelopment alternatives appears as the most desirable from an ecosystem services perspective. This alternative implies excavation of contaminated materials to be transported off-site to final disposal, possibly with some treatment at the disposal site. The southern part of the redevelopment area becomes a green area to preserve and emphasize the historical importance of the site. The upper soil layers are remediated through soft techniques (e.g. phytoremediation), i.e. no excavation unless any extreme hot-spots are found in the coming investigations. This allows a lower disturbance of the underneath layers, thus lower probability of affecting the known archaeological remains from the Early stone age and Neolithic age at the site.
The two least attractive alternatives implies increased excavation and deposition of polluted soil. These alternatives would potentially have large negative effects on ecosystem services at off-site landfills.
The method is promising as a means to prioritize between development alternatives. However, there are a number of methodological challenges to address in future applications:
· Further attention should be paid to alternative scales, e.g. are the effects in terms of changes in the status of ecosystem services linear?
· The effect from changes in the provision of different ecosystem services might differ greatly in importance but still have the same score in the analysis.
· Summing the effects on all affected ecosystem services at individual parts of the site will inherently hide details regarding changes that might be of great local importance.
· Knowledge about the local conditions in areas affected by remediation actions is of great importance, not only at the actual site but also at off-site landfills and along the transport routes to the landfills.
Enveco Miljöekonomi AB
Balance 4P - Fyra faktorer för balanserade beslut vid förnyelse av tidigare exploaterad mark i städer – människor, miljö, lönsamhet och processer
Formas (216-2013-1813), 2013-01-01 -- 2015-12-31.
Building Futures (2010-2018)