"The urban ecosystem": How should we design cities to make the most of green space?

Lungs of New York: Central Park in 2010. Image: Gryffindor/Wikimedia Commons.

Back in 1839, public health expert J F Murray published his article The Lungs of London, in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine. Even then, city dwellers appreciated the advantages of open, green spaces. Murray described the benefits of the parks of London as “great vehicles of exercise, fresh air, health, and life to the myriads that congregate in the great metropolis”.

Living in cities offers numerous advantages in terms of employment, education, healthcare and social communication, among others. But urban living also comes with its challenges: in particular, urban environments can put a strain on mental and physical health, because they tend to be noisy, polluted, overcrowded and hot.

Ecologists are increasingly turning their attention to urban areas, in an effort to find solutions to these problems. Their work is beginning to show us how cities can be designed to accommodate all the advantages – and minimise the disadvantages – of urban living.


Specifically, urban ecologists are considering how we can enhance “ecosystem services” for those living and working in cities. It is now widely recognised that ecosystems – including urban ecosystems such as parks, protected areas and waterways – provide essential services for people. Temperature regulation, air purification, noise reduction, human well-being, carbon storage (both above and below ground), water infiltration, agricultural production, pollination, and pest control – all of these are examples of the services that urban ecosystems can provide.

Of course, besides services there are also so-called disservices, such as noise pollution and high temperatures, that can be associated with open spaces. For instance, some people find that the dawn chorus of birds in spring affects their sleep patterns; or that they suffer from hayfever when there are high pollen counts.

But now, armed with an understanding of ecosystems and the services they provide, ecologists are able to shine some light on a central question in urban planning: should cities be designed so that intensive and extremely compact urbanisation sits alongside separate, large, continuous green spaces – an approach known as “land-sparing”? Or, is it better to adopt “land-sharing”, where compact green spaces are scattered throughout the urban sprawl?

Sharing or sparing?

A recent study by researchers from the University of Exeter and Hokkaido University, Japan, found that land-sparing is the most effective approach to maintain the majority of ecosystem services. But they also recognise that some degree of land-sharing is important, especially when it comes to the ecosystem services that benefit our well-being.

 

A bit of both. Image: Lawrence OP/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND.

Being near high-quality green space can provide important health benefits, as well as “cultural ecosystem services”, such as places for recreation, spiritual and religious enrichment, education, cultural heritage, inspiration, social gatherings, and cultural diversity. If a city is to provide these services, it needs to be designed so that people can quickly and easily access green spaces as part of their everyday activities.

The authors of the study concluded that the best way to ensure the optimum distribution of development and green space is to take a top-down, policy-led approach. Changing the design of a city is no easy matter, but we know from experience that it can be done.

As far back as 1809, architect John Nash began work on Regent’s Park in London, where much of his input can still be seen today. In 1858, Frederick Olmsted won the competition to design Central Park in the heart of New York. And in the 1870s, Baron Haussmann – who was charged with redesigning Paris – wanted to join the Bois de Boulonge with the Bois de Vincennes to make a green belt around the city.

These are all perfect examples of land-sparing – but it is worth noting that these green spaces were established when the cities were already in the process of being redesigned.

Berlin's Tempelhof Park in May 2010. Image: Times/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA.

A more recent example of land-sparing is the 300 hectare Tempelhof Airport in Berlin. The site was earmarked for development, but the public voted to retain it as a large, open, green space in May 2014. Ingo Gräning, of the state-run Tempelhof Project stated: “No other city would treat itself to such a crown jewel [of open space]”.

Of course, not all cities have enough available land to “treat” themselves in this way. In densely-built cities like Hong Kong, the opportunity to create large open spaces may never arise. Berlin is an exception – many cities do not have the option of dropping a large park into a built-up area, and in most cases it is not feasible to combine lots of small parks and gardens into a large green area. A lot depends on the history of a city and its geography, and land-sparing is not an option for every location.


Ebenezer Howard – the first modern urban planner theorist – recognised this, when he initiated the Garden City movement in 1898. His aim was to bring the advantages of nature to city dwellers, by introducing compact green areas and small parks into cities. The first examples of Howard’s organised land-sharing can still be seen today, in the UK towns of Letchworth and Welwyn.

So when asking ourselves which approach is best, there is no straightforward answer. Whether land-sparing or land-sharing is most effective will depend on the context; factors such as the shape of the land and the existing developments in the area will all play a part.

But there is no doubt that cities benefit from the services offered by urban ecosystems, and both land-sparing and land-sharing are important means of providing these advantages.The Conversation

Philip James is professor of ecology, University of Salford

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

How bad is the air pollution on the average subway network?

The New York Subway. Image: Getty.

Four more major Indian cities will soon have their own metro lines, the country’s government has announced. On the other side of the Himalayas, Shanghai is building its 14th subway line, set to open in 2020, adding 38.5 km and 32 stations to the world’s largest subway network. And New Yorkers can finally enjoy their Second Avenue Subway line after waiting for almost 100 years for it to arrive.

In Europe alone, commuters in more than 60 cities use rail subways. Internationally, more than 120m people commute by them every day. We count around 4.8m riders per day in London, 5.3m in Paris, 6.8m in Tokyo, 9.7m in Moscow and 10m in Beijing.

Subways are vital for commuting in crowded cities, something that will become more and more important over time – according to a United Nations 2014 report, half of the world’s population is now urban. They can also play a part in reducing outdoor air pollution in large metropolises by helping to reduce motor-vehicle use.

Large amounts of breathable particles (particulate matter, or PM) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), produced in part by industrial emissions and road traffic, are responsible for shortening the lifespans of city dwellers. Public transportation systems such as subways have thus seemed like a solution to reduce air pollution in the urban environment.

But what is the air like that we breathe underground, on the rail platforms and inside trains?

Mixed air quality

Over the last decade, several pioneering studies have monitored subway air quality across a range of cities in Europe, Asia and the Americas. The database is incomplete, but is growing and is already valuable.

Subway, Tokyo, 2016. Image: Mildiou/Flickr/creative commons.

For example, comparing air quality on subway, bus, tram and walking journeys from the same origin to the same destination in Barcelona, revealed that subway air had higher levels of air pollution than in trams or walking in the street, but slightly lower than those in buses. Similar lower values for subway environments compared to other public transport modes have been demonstrated by studies in Hong Kong, Mexico City, Istanbul and Santiago de Chile.

Of wheels and brakes

Such differences have been attributed to different wheel materials and braking mechanisms, as well as to variations in ventilation and air conditioning systems, but may also relate to differences in measurement campaign protocols and choice of sampling sites.

Second Avenue Subway in the making, New York, 2013. Image: MTA Capital Construction/Rehema Trimiew/Wikimedia Commons.

Key factors influencing subway air pollution will include station depth, date of construction, type of ventilation (natural/air conditioning), types of brakes (electromagnetic or conventional brake pads) and wheels (rubber or steel) used on the trains, train frequency and more recently the presence or absence of platform screen-door systems.

In particular, much subway particulate matter is sourced from moving train parts such as wheels and brake pads, as well as from the steel rails and power-supply materials, making the particles dominantly iron-containing.


To date, there is no clear epidemiological indication of abnormal health effects on underground workers and commuters. New York subway workers have been exposed to such air without significant observed impacts on their health, and no increased risk of lung cancer was found among subway train drivers in the Stockholm subway system.

But a note of caution is struck by the observations of scholars who found that employees working on the platforms of Stockholm underground, where PM concentrations were greatest, tended to have higher levels of risk markers for cardiovascular disease than ticket sellers and train drivers.

The dominantly ferrous particles are mixed with particles from a range of other sources, including rock ballast from the track, biological aerosols (such as bacteria and viruses), and air from the outdoors, and driven through the tunnel system on turbulent air currents generated by the trains themselves and ventilation systems.

Comparing platforms

The most extensive measurement programme on subway platforms to date has been carried out in the Barcelona subway system, where 30 stations with differing designs were studied under the frame of IMPROVE LIFE project with additional support from the AXA Research Fund.

It reveals substantial variations in particle-matter concentrations. The stations with just a single tunnel with one rail track separated from the platform by glass barrier systems showed on average half the concentration of such particles in comparison with conventional stations, which have no barrier between the platform and tracks. The use of air-conditioning has been shown to produce lower particle-matter concentrations inside carriages.

In trains where it is possible to open the windows, such as in Athens, concentrations can be shown generally to increase inside the train when passing through tunnels and more specifically when the train enters the tunnel at high speed.

According to their construction material, you may breath different kind of particles on various platforms worldwide. Image: London Tube/Wikimedia Commons.

Monitoring stations

Although there are no existing legal controls on air quality in the subway environment, research should be moving towards realistic methods of mitigating particle pollution. Our experience in the Barcelona subway system, with its considerable range of different station designs and operating ventilation systems, is that each platform has its own specific atmospheric micro environment.

To design solutions, one will need to take into account local conditions of each station. Only then can researchers assess the influences of pollution generated from moving train parts.

The ConversationSuch research is still growing and will increase as subway operating companies are now more aware about how cleaner air leads directly to better health for city commuters.

Fulvio Amato is a tenured scientist at the Spanish National Research CouncilTeresa Moreno is a tenured scientist at the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA), Spanish Scientific Research Council CSIC.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.