Development and Assessment of a Web-Based National Spatial Data Infrastructure for Nature-Based Solutions and Their Social, Hydrological, Ecological, and Environmental Co-Benefits
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. NBS Multi-Functional Datasets
3. NBS-Geo Sustainability Tool
3.1. System Architecture
3.2. Comprehensive Datasets
- Authoritative content: Authoritative content includes data from a national mapping agency or governmental entity that has been reviewed and vetted by Esri as reliable. Such content is recommended as the best-available data from the hosting agency and is proposed to be well-maintained over time.
- Subscriber content: These layers require an organizational subscription for access, including various satellite-based, large-scale data layers, demographical layers, and historical maps. An organizational subscription for Esri content is free, although many web users do not have organizational account access readily available. To eliminate this hindrance, and to provide the NBS-Geo tool to the general public at no cost, we leveraged the University of Houston’s organizational account credentials to pre-authorize subscriber content via the layer’s source (i.e., the REST service endpoint) [107], thereby enabling use of the full web mapping application functionality without logging in to an Esri account.
- Premium content: Premium content is subscriber content that consumes credits within the subscriber’s organizational account. The only layer within NBS-Geo that had been categorized as premium content was the crime index. We pre-authorized this data layer through the University of Houston’s organizational account to allow public access. We then imposed daily usage limitations of this dataset within the web application [107], which are only triggered when the crime index layer is selected for display, in order to minimize overall consumption of our organizational subscription credits.
3.3. Sustainability Tool Framework
3.4. Value-Added Tool Functions
4. Geospatial Suitability Evaluation
4.1. Characteristic #1: Openness
4.2. Characteristic #2: Spatial Analysis Functionality
4.3. Characteristic #3: Scalability
4.4. Characteristic #4: Geospatial Standards
5. Discussion and Conclusions
- ✓ Bridges the gaps between research, data, and implementation.
- ✓ Enables science-based (risk-based) decision making.
- ✓ Fosters collaborative approaches across disciplines.
- ✓ Enhances understanding through data and mapping.
- ✓ Provides empirical evidence for novel planning and research in light of urgent climate change and urbanization challenges.
- ✓ Provides a common understanding of overlapping objectives and underlying functionalities.
- ✓ Used as a lens to understand the world.
- ✓ Facilitates relationships with local governmental officials.
- ✓ Fosters prioritization of equity across domains.
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- UNDRR. Human Cost of Disasters: An Overview of the Last 20 Years (2000–2019); UNDRR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- World Urbanization Prospects 2018; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
- Demuzere, M.; Orru, K.; Heidrich, O.; Olazabal, E.; Geneletti, D.; Orru, H.; Bhave, A.G.; Mittal, N.; Feliu, E.; Faehnle, M. Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 146, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hansen, R.; Olafsson, A.S.; Van der Jagt, A.P.N.; Rall, E.; Pauleit, S. Planning multifunctional green infrastructure for compact cities: What is the state of practice? Ecol. Indic. 2019, 96, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bratman, G.N.; Anderson, C.B.; Berman, M.G.; Cochran, B.; De Vries, S.; Flanders, J.; Folke, C.; Frumkin, H.; Gross, J.J.; Hartig, T.; et al. Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax0903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bowen, K.J.; Parry, M.; Barrett, M.A.; Miller, D.; Frumkin, H.; Peen, J.; Schoevers, R.A.; Beekman, A.T.; Dekker, J.; Sandifer, P.A.; et al. The evidence base for linkages between green infrastructure, public health and economic benefit. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 11, 1–34. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, V.; Gough, W.A. Evaluating the potential of nature-based solutions to reduce ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon dioxide through a multi-type green infrastructure study in Ontario, Canada. City Environ. Interact. 2020, 6, 100043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berardi, U.; GhaffarianHoseini, A.H.; GhaffarianHoseini, A. State-of-the-art analysis of the environmental benefits of green roofs. Appl. Energy 2014, 115, 411–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Bosch, M.; Sang, O. Urban natural environments as nature-based solutions for improved public health—A systematic review of reviews. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN. Environment Programme Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Manifesto. 2019. Available online: https://www.unenvironment.org/nature-based-solutions-climate (accessed on 25 June 2021).
- Keesstra, S.; Nunes, J.; Novara, A.; Finger, D.; Avelar, D.; Kalantari, Z.; Cerdà, A. The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610–611, 997–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Veenendaal, B.; Brovelli, M.A.; Li, S. Review of web mapping: Eras, trends and directions. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2017, 6, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, H.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, H.; Wang, C.; Liu, J.; Liang, D. Big Earth Data: A new challenge and opportunity for Digital Earth’s development. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2017, 10, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ames, D.P.; Horsburgh, J.S.; Cao, Y.; Kadlec, J.; Whiteaker, T.; Valentine, D. HydroDesktop: Web services-based software for hydrologic data discovery, download, visualization, and analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 2012, 37, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyd, D.S.; Foody, G.M. An overview of recent remote sensing and GIS based research in ecological informatics. Ecol. Inform. 2011, 6, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Flemons, P.; Guralnick, R.; Krieger, J.; Ranipeta, A.; Neufeld, D. A web-based GIS tool for exploring the world’s biodiversity: The Global Biodiversity Information Facility Mapping and Analysis Portal Application (GBIF-MAPA). Ecol. Inform. 2007, 2, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soille, P.; Burger, A.; De Marchi, D.; Kempeneers, P.; Rodriguez, D.; Syrris, V.; Vasilev, V. A versatile data-intensive computing platform for information retrieval from big geospatial data. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 81, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorelick, N.; Hancher, M.; Dixon, M.; Ilyushchenko, S.; Thau, D.; Moore, R. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 202, 799–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehmann, A.; Guigoz, Y.; Ray, N.; Mancosu, E.; Abbaspour, K.C.; Rouholahnejad Freund, E.; Allenbach, K.; De Bono, A.; Fasel, M.; Gago-Silva, A.; et al. A web platform for landuse, climate, demography, hydrology and beach erosion in the Black Sea catchment. Sci. Data 2017, 4, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mekonnen, A.D.; Gorsevski, P.V. A web-based participatory GIS (PGIS) for offshore wind farm suitability within Lake Erie, Ohio. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 162–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khalil, A.; Hanich, L.; Hakkou, R.; Lepage, M. GIS-based environmental database for assessing the mine pollution: A case study of an abandoned mine site in Morocco. J. Geochem. Explor. 2014, 144, 468–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meerow, S. A green infrastructure spatial planning model for evaluating ecosystem service tradeoffs and synergies across three coastal megacities. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 125011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Green Infrastructure Focus Map: Briefing 1; GLA: London, UK, 2018.
- Ruangpan, L.; Vojinovic, Z.; Di Sabatino, S.; Leo, L.S.; Capobianco, V.; Oen, A.M.P.; Mcclain, M.E.; Lopez-Gunn, E. Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological risk reduction: A state-of-the-art review of the research area. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2020, 20, 243–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frantzeskaki, N.; McPhearson, T.; Collier, M.J.; Kendal, D.; Bulkeley, H.; Dumitru, A.; Walsh, C.; Noble, K.; Van Wyk, E.; Ordóñez, C.; et al. Nature-based solutions for urban climate change adaptation: Linking science, policy, and practice communities for evidence-based decision-making. Bioscience 2019, 69, 455–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Kirkwood, N.; Maksimović, Č.; Zhen, X.; O’Connor, D.; Jin, Y.; Hou, D. Nature based solutions for contaminated land remediation and brownfield redevelopment in cities: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 663, 568–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- García, A.M.; Santé, I.; Loureiro, X.; Miranda, D. Green infrastructure spatial planning considering ecosystem services assessment and trade-off analysis. Application at landscape scale in Galicia region (NW Spain). Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 43, 101115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, A.; Gersonius, B.; Kapelan, Z.; Vojinovic, Z.; Sanchez, A. Assessing the Co-Benefits of green-blue-grey infrastructure for sustainable urban flood risk management. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 239, 244–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fenner, R. Spatial evaluation of multiple benefits to encourage multi-functional design of sustainable drainage in Blue-Green cities. Water 2017, 9, 953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, H.; Ding, L.; Ren, M.; Li, C.; Wang, H. Sponge city construction in China: A survey of the challenges and opportunities. Water 2017, 9, 594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mitchell, R.; Popham, F. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. Lancet 2008, 372, 1655–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maas, J.; Van Dillen, S.M.E.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P. Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health Place 2009, 15, 586–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gascon, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Martínez, D.; Dadvand, P.; Rojas-Rueda, D.; Plasència, A.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Residential green spaces and mortality: A systematic review. Environ. Int. 2016, 86, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brown, S.C.; Lombard, J.; Wang, K.; Byrne, M.M.; Toro, M.; Plater-Zyberk, E.; Feaster, D.J.; Kardys, J.; Nardi, M.I.; Perez-Gomez, G.; et al. Neighborhood greenness and chronic health conditions in medicare beneficiaries. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2016, 51, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ray, H.; Jakubec, S.L. Nature-based experiences and health of cancer survivors. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 2014, 20, 188–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fuertes, E.; Markevych, I.; Von Berg, A.; Bauer, C.P.; Berdel, D.; Koletzko, S.; Sugiri, D.; Heinrich, J. Greenness and allergies: Evidence of differential associations in two areas in Germany. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2014, 68, 787–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Astell-Burt, T.; Feng, X. Urban green space, tree canopy and prevention of cardiometabolic diseases: A multilevel longitudinal study of 46 786 Australians. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2021, 49, 926–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ward Thompson, C.; Roe, J.; Aspinall, P.; Mitchell, R.; Clow, A.; Miller, D. More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dadvand, P.; Wright, J.; Martinez, D.; Basagaña, X.; McEachan, R.R.C.; Cirach, M.; Gidlow, C.J.; De Hoogh, K.; Gražulevičiene, R.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Inequality, green spaces, and pregnant women: Roles of ethnicity and individual and neighbourhood socioeconomic status. Environ. Int. 2014, 71, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luck, G.W.; Smallbone, L.T.; O’Brien, R. Socio-economics and vegetation change in urban ecosystems: Patterns in space and time. Ecosystems 2009, 12, 604–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunn, A.D. Siting green infrastructure: Legal and policy solutions to alleviate urban poverty and promote healthy communities. Environ. Aff. 2008, 37, 604–620. [Google Scholar]
- Mell, I.C.; Henneberry, J.; Hehl-Lange, S.; Keskin, B. To green or not to green: Establishing the economic value of green infrastructure investments in The Wicker, Sheffield. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 18, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandermeulen, V.; Verspecht, A.; Vermeire, B.; Van Huylenbroeck, G.; Gellynck, X. The use of economic valuation to create public support for green infrastructure investments in urban areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 103, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.M.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 2010, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McMahan, E.A.; Estes, D. The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis. J. Posit. Psychol. 2015, 10, 507–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houlden, V.; Weich, S.; De Albuquerque, J.P.; Jarvis, S.; Rees, K. The relationship between greenspace and the mental wellbeing of adults: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0203000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frumkin, H.; Bratman, G.N.; Breslow, S.J.; Cochran, B.; Kahn, P.H.; Lawler, J.J.; Levin, P.S.; Tandon, P.S.; Varanasi, U.; Wolf, K.L.; et al. Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017, 125, 075001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Han, J.W.; Choi, H.; Jeon, Y.H.; Yoon, C.H.; Woo, J.M.; Kim, W. The effects of forest therapy on coping with chronic widespread pain: Physiological and psychological differences between participants in a forest therapy program and a control group. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roe, M.; Mell, I. Negotiating value and priorities: Evaluating the demands of green infrastructure development. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013, 56, 650–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Berg, A.E.; Maas, J.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P. Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 70, 1203–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- McGrath, L.J.; Hopkins, W.G.; Hinckson, E.A. Associations of objectively measured built-environment attributes with youth moderate—Vigorous physical activity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sport. Med. 2015, 45, 841–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Henderson, K.A. Environmental correlates of physical activity: A review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leis. Sci. 2007, 29, 315–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovell, R.; Wheeler, B.W.; Higgins, S.L.; Irvine, K.N.; Depledge, M.H. A Systematic Review of the Health and Well-Being Benefits of Biodiverse Environments. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part B Crit. Rev. 2014, 17, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mitchell, R. Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments? Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 91, 130–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suppakittpaisarn, P.; Jiang, X.; Sullivan, W.C. Green Infrastructure, Green Stormwater Infrastructure, and Human Health: A Review. Curr. Landsc. Ecol. Rep. 2017, 2, 96–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Troy, A.; Morgan Grove, J.; O’Neil-Dunne, J. The relationship between tree canopy and crime rates across an urban-rural gradient in the greater Baltimore region. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 106, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kondo, M.C.; Han, S.H.; Donovan, G.H.; MacDonald, J.M. The association between urban trees and crime: Evidence from the spread of the emerald ash borer in Cincinnati. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 193–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Branas, C.C.; Cheney, R.A.; MacDonald, J.M.; Tam, V.W.; Jackson, T.D.; Ten Havey, T.R. A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant urban space. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2011, 174, 1296–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- De Vries, S.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Natural environments—Healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environ. Plan. A 2003, 35, 1717–1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Piff, P.K.; Dietze, P.; Feinberg, M.; Stancato, D.M.; Keltner, D. Awe, the small self, and prosocial behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 108, 883–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dadvand, P.; Bartoll, X.; Basagaña, X.; Dalmau-Bueno, A.; Martinez, D.; Ambros, A.; Cirach, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Gascon, M.; Borrell, C.; et al. Green spaces and General Health: Roles of mental health status, social support, and physical activity. Environ. Int. 2016, 91, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Daniels, G.D.; Kirkpatrick, J.B. Does variation in garden characteristics influence the conservation of birds in suburbia? Biol. Conserv. 2006, 133, 326–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandström, U.G.; Angelstam, P.; Mikusiński, G. Ecological diversity of birds in relation to the structure of urban green space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 77, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arroyo-Rodríguez, V.; Fahrig, L.; Tabarelli, M.; Watling, J.I.; Tischendorf, L.; Benchimol, M.; Cazetta, E.; Faria, D.; Leal, I.R.; Melo, F.P.L.; et al. Designing optimal human-modified landscapes for forest biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Lett. 2020, 23, 1404–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kaźmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Planchuelo, G.; Von Der Lippe, M.; Kowarik, I. Untangling the role of urban ecosystems as habitats for endangered plant species. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 320–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowarik, I.; Hiller, A.; Planchuelo, G.; Seitz, B.; Lippe, M.; Von der Buchholz, S. Emerging urban forests: Opportunities for promoting the wild side of the urban green infrastructure. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gilbert-Norton, L.; Wilson, R.; Stevens, J.R.; Beard, K.H. A Meta-Analytic Review of Corridor Effectiveness. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 660–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carlier, J.; Moran, J.; Aughney, T.; Roche, N. Effects of greenway development on functional connectivity for bats. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 18, e00613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P.; Lindquist, M. Enhancing landscape connectivity through multifunctional green infrastructure corridor modeling and design. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 38, 305–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abhijith, K.V.; Kumar, P.; Gallagher, J.; McNabola, A.; Baldauf, R.; Pilla, F.; Broderick, B.; Di Sabatino, S.; Pulvirenti, B. Air pollution abatement performances of green infrastructure in open road and built-up street canyon environments—A review. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 162, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, P.; Druckman, A.; Gallagher, J.; Gatersleben, B.; Allison, S.; Eisenman, T.S.; Hoang, U.; Hama, S.; Tiwari, A.; Sharma, A.; et al. The nexus between air pollution, green infrastructure and human health. Environ. Int. 2019, 133, 105181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 4, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, D.J.; Greenfield, E.J.; Hoehn, R.E.; Lapoint, E. Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 178, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hofman, J.; Stokkaer, I.; Snauwaert, L.; Samson, R. Spatial distribution assessment of particulate matter in an urban street canyon using biomagnetic leaf monitoring of tree crown deposited particles. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 183, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Kumar, D.L.M.; Pyrgou, A.; Chong, A.; Santamouris, M.; Kolokotsa, D.; Lee, S.E. Green and cool roofs’ urban heat island mitigation potential in tropical climate. Sol. Energy 2018, 173, 597–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Bakker, F.; De Groot, R.; Wörtche, H. Effect of ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructure on indoor environment: A literature review. Build. Environ. 2014, 77, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doick, K.; Hutchings, T. Air Temperature Regulation by Urban Trees and Green Infrastructure; Forestry Commission: Edinburgh, UK, 2013.
- Dzhambov, A.; Dimitrova, D. Urban green spaces’ effectiveness as a psychological buffer for the negative health impact of noise pollution: A systematic review. Noise Health 2014, 16, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, P.; Potchter, O.; Schnell, I. The impact of an urban park on air pollution and noise levels in the Mediterranean city of Tel-Aviv, Israel. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 195, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mekonnen, M.; Keesstra, S.D.; Baartman, J.E.M.; Stroosnijder, L.; Maroulis, J. Reducing sediment connectivity through man-made and natural sediment sinks in the Minizr Catchment, Northwest Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017, 28, 708–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jesús Arce-Mojica, T.; Nehren, U.; Sudmeier-Rieux, K.; Miranda, P.J.; Anhuf, D. Nature-based solutions (NbS) for reducing the risk of shallow landslides: Where do we stand? Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 41, 101293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boano, F.; Caruso, A.; Costamagna, E.; Ridolfi, L.; Fiore, S.; Demichelis, F.; Galvão, A.; Pisoeiro, J.; Rizzo, A.; Masi, F. A review of nature-based solutions for greywater treatment: Applications, hydraulic design, and environmental benefits. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 711, 134731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arden, S.; Ma, X. Constructed wetlands for greywater recycle and reuse: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 630, 587–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pradhan, S.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G.; Mackey, H.R. Greywater recycling in buildings using living walls and green roofs: A review of the applicability and challenges. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 652, 330–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debele, S.E.; Kumar, P.; Sahani, J.; Marti-Cardona, B.; Mickovski, S.B.; Leo, L.S.; Porcù, F.; Bertini, F.; Montesi, D.; Vojinovic, Z.; et al. Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological hazards: Revised concepts, classification schemes and databases. Environ. Res. 2019, 179, 108799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishimatsu, K.; Ito, K.; Mitani, Y.; Tanaka, Y.; Sugahara, T.; Naka, Y. Use of rain gardens for stormwater management in urban design and planning. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 13, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ercolani, G.; Chiaradia, E.A.; Gandolfi, C.; Castelli, F.; Masseroni, D. Evaluating performances of green roofs for stormwater runoff mitigation in a high flood risk urban catchment. J. Hydrol. 2018, 566, 830–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, B.; Li, S. Green infrastructure design for stormwater runoff and water quality: Empirical evidence from large watershed-scale community developments. Water 2013, 5, 2038–2057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, J.G.; Handley, J.; Butlin, T.; Gill, S. Adapting cities to climate change—Exploring the flood risk management role of green infrastructure landscapes. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2018, 61, 1535–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arkema, K.K.; Griffin, R.; Maldonado, S.; Silver, J.; Suckale, J.; Guerry, A.D. Linking social, ecological, and physical science to advance natural and nature-based protection for coastal communities. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2017, 1399, 5–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoonees, T.; Gijón Mancheño, A.; Scheres, B.; Bouma, T.J.; Silva, R.; Schlurmann, T.; Schüttrumpf, H. Hard Structures for Coastal Protection, Towards Greener Designs. Estuaries Coasts 2019, 42, 1709–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruckelshaus, M.H.; Guannel, G.; Arkema, K.; Verutes, G.; Griffin, R.; Guerry, A.; Silver, J.; Faries, J.; Brenner, J.; Rosenthal, A. Evaluating the Benefits of Green Infrastructure for Coastal Areas: Location, Location, Location. Coast. Manag. 2016, 44, 504–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pennino, M.J.; McDonald, R.I.; Jaffe, P.R. Watershed-scale impacts of stormwater green infrastructure on hydrology, nutrient fluxes, and combined sewer overflows in the mid-Atlantic region. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 565, 1044–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tavakol-Davani, H.; Burian, S.J.; Devkota, J.; Apul, D. Performance and Cost-Based Comparison of Green and Gray Infrastructure to Control Combined Sewer Overflows. J. Sustain. Water Built Environ. 2016, 2, 04015009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucas, W.C.; Sample, D.J. Reducing combined sewer overflows by using outlet controls for Green Stormwater Infrastructure: Case study in Richmond, Virginia. J. Hydrol. 2015, 520, 473–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lottering, N.; Du Plessis, D.; Donaldson, R. Coping with drought: The experience of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) in the George Municipality. Water SA 2015, 41, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Y.; Huang, J.; Chen, X. Do forests relieve crop thirst in the face of drought? Empirical evidence from South China. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 55, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agrawal, S.; Gupta, R.D. Web GIS and its architecture: A review. Arab. J. Geosci. 2017, 10, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, W.; Chi, C.H.; Wang, C.; Wong, R.; Ding, C. Bridging the gap between spatial data sources and mashup applications. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress), Anchorage, AK, USA, 27 June–2 July 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Feng, Q.; Flanagan, D.C.; Engel, B.A.; Yang, L.; Chen, L. GeoAPEXOL, a web GIS interface for the agricultural policy environmental eXtender (APEX) model enabling both field and small watershed simulation. Environ. Model. Softw. 2020, 123, 104569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granell, C.; Havlik, D.; Schade, S.; Sabeur, Z.; Delaney, C.; Pielorz, J.; Usländer, T.; Mazzetti, P.; Schleidt, K.; Kobernus, M.; et al. Future Internet technologies for environmental applications. Environ. Model. Softw. 2016, 78, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Di, L.; Sun, Z.; Lin, L.; Yu, E.G.; Gaigalas, J. Exploring cloud-based Web Processing Service: A case study on the implementation of CMAQ as a Service. Environ. Model. Softw. 2019, 113, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esri ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World. Available online: https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/en/home/ (accessed on 18 January 2021).
- Castro, C.V.; Maidment, D.R. GIS preprocessing for rapid initialization of HEC-HMS hydrological basin models using web-based data services. Environ. Model. Softw. 2020, 130, 104732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szukalski, B. Use ArcGIS Living Atlas Subscriber Content in Public Maps and Apps. Available online: https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/arcgis-living-atlas/mapping/living-atlas-subscriber-content-public-apps/ (accessed on 2 June 2021).
- Fu, B.; Merritt, W.S.; Croke, B.F.W.; Weber, T.R.; Jakeman, A.J. A review of catchment-scale water quality and erosion models and a synthesis of future prospects. Environ. Model. Softw. 2019, 114, 75–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, P. Spatial data infrastructure in India: Status, governance challenges, and strategies for effective functioning. Int. J. Spat. Data Infrastruct. Res. 2009, 4, 359–388. [Google Scholar]
- Choi, J.; Hwang, M.; Kim, G.; Seong, J.; Ahn, J. Supporting the measurement of the United Nations’ sustainable development goal 11 through the use of national urban information systems and open geospatial technologies: A case study of south Korea. Open Geospat. Data Softw. Stand. 2016, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paradis, E. A review of computer tools for prediction of ecosystems and populations: We need more open-source software. Environ. Model. Softw. 2020, 134, 104872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitolo, C.; Elkhatib, Y.; Reusser, D.; Macleod, C.J.A.; Buytaert, W. Web technologies for environmental Big Data. Environ. Model. Softw. 2015, 63, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ESRI. Add Custom Widgets to Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS Developer Edition. Available online: https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/arcwatch/add-custom-widgets-to-web-appbuilder-for-arcgis-developer-edition/ (accessed on 21 June 2021).
- Dangermond, J. The Emergence of a Geospatial Cloud. 2019. Available online: https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/arcnews/the-emergence-of-a-geospatial-cloud/ (accessed on 8 May 2021).
- Zhang, M.; Jiang, L.; Yue, P.; Gong, J. Interoperable web sharing of environmental models using OGC web processing service and Open Modeling Interface (OpenMI). Environ. Model. Softw. 2020, 133, 104838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CDC SVI 2016 Documentation. 2020. Available online: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/data_documentation_download.html (accessed on 3 October 2021).
- Jin, S.; Homer, C.; Yang, L.; Danielson, P.; Dewitz, J.; Li, C.; Zhu, Z.; Xian, G.; Howard, D. Overall methodology design for the United States national land cover database 2016 products. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marchese, D.; Reynolds, E.; Bates, M.E.; Morgan, H.; Clark, S.S.; Linkov, I. Resilience and sustainability: Similarities and differences in environmental management applications. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 613, 1275–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Theme | Urban Challenge | NBS Demonstrated Benefits | Sources |
---|---|---|---|
Society | Morbidity | Improvements in various non-communicable diseases, including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, mental disorders, and chronic respiratory diseases. | [31,32,33,34,35,36,37] |
Social Vulnerability | Improved health and social outcomes, particularly in lower socio-economic populations. | [38,39,40,41] | |
Economic Health | Improved land values. Increased tourism. Indirect economic benefits from improvements to local health. | [6,42,43] | |
Mental Health | Improvements in mental stress, depression, general emotional wellbeing, sleep, anxiety, mood, aggression, and pain management. | [5,44,45,46,47,48,49,50] | |
Physical Health | Improved levels of physical activity. Reduced obesity. Improved birth outcomes and pregnancy health. | [51,52,53,54] | |
Crime | Reduction in crime rates, including improvements in incidences of theft and assault. | [55,56,57,58] | |
Social Cohesion | Improved sense of community and pro-social behavior. | [59,60,61] | |
Ecosystem | Biodiversity | Higher levels of biodiversity in various plant, insect, bird, mammal, and aquatic species. | [11,62,63,64,65] |
Imperiled Species | Habitat preservation for native and non-native wildlife, including endangered and threatened species. | [66,67] | |
Habitat Connectivity | Increased movement of plants and animals between fragmented areas, resulting in improved conservation. | [68,69,70] | |
Environment | Air Pollution | Improved air quality, including abatement of particulate matter, carbon, ozone precursors, and indoor air. | [71,72,73,74,75] |
Urban Heat Island | Evaporative outdoor cooling effects. Reduced indoor energy consumption and improved energy savings. | [9,76,77,78,79] | |
Noise Pollution | Improved levels of urban noise, including from air and traffic-related sources. | [8,80,81] | |
Soil Erosion | Reduced risk of shallow landslides. Reduced soil erosion and enhanced catchment sedimentation. | [82,83] | |
Water Quality | Removal of contaminants in greywater reuse. Improved water quality, including levels of nutrients, metals, suspended solids, oil/grease, oxygen, and chemicals. | [84,85,86] | |
Hydrology | Flooding | Improved peak runoff, delay, and attenuation. Reduction in total runoff volume. Reduced hydrological flashiness. | [87,88,89,90,91] |
Coastal Protection | Coastal habitat protection. Mitigation for storms and sea-level rise. | [92,93,94] | |
Sewer Overflow | Reduced occurrence and magnitude of combined sewer overflows. | [95,96,97] | |
Drought | Agricultural protection. Improved irrigation, water availability and food security. | [98,99] |
Dataset | Attribution | Description | |
---|---|---|---|
NBS Multi-functionality | 1. Vegetation Index *,‡ | U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) | High-resolution aerial imagery describing intensity of vegetation on the Earth’s surface through the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). |
2. Imperiled Species | NatureServe Network 2020 | Range-size rarity for wildlife (vertebrates, invertebrates, pollinators, plants) protected by the Endangered Species Act. | |
3. Open Spaces * | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | Open space lands protected by federal, state, and local governments, as well as private conservation easements. | |
4. Intact Habitat Cores | Esri | National core index of minimally disturbed natural areas, modeled as part of Esri’s Green Infrastructure Initiative. | |
5. Air Quality | National Aeronautics and Space Admin. (NASA) | Aggregated data in 50 km hexagonal bins of average annual particular matter (sized ≤ 2.5 micrometers, PM2.5), in microgram/m3, for years 1998–2016. | |
6. Opportunity Zones | U.S. Department of the Treasury (DOT) | Qualified federal opportunity zones, per 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, for economic development in low-income neighborhoods. | |
7. Social Vulnerability | U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) | Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), created from U.S. census data to determine social vulnerability according to key themes: socio-economic, housing composition and disability, minority status and language, housing, and transportation. | |
8. Health Statistics | University of Wisconsin | Composite county health rankings, including health behaviors (smoking, diet, and exercise), access to care, socio-economics, and life expectance. | |
9. Urban Heat Islands * | The Trust for Public Land (TPL) | Relative heat severity during summers 2018 and 2019, from Landsat 8 imagery, ground-level thermal sensors. | |
10. Building Footprints | OpenStreetMap | Building feature outlines from OpenStreetMap data, updated every minute. | |
11. Soils Erodibility *,‡ | U.S. Natural Resources Cons. Service (NRCS) | K-factor for national soil survey using Universal Soil Loss Equation. | |
12. Crime Index *,ф | Applied Geographic Solutions | Total crime score for 2020, including personal and property crime indices compared to national crime average. | |
13. Transportation Noise | U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) | Transportation-related noise from exposure to aviation and highway modes. | |
Prediction | 14. Temperature Anomaly | National Center for Atmo. Research (NCAR) | Projected anomalies for RCP 6.0 (most likely climate scenario) using mean results of 10 future-scenario CMIP5 climate models from Research Applications Laboratory (RAL). Temperature (℃) and average annual precipitation (mm). Anomalies represent average differences between projected years 2040–2059 compared with baseline conditions for 1986–2005. |
15. Precipitation Anomaly | National Center for Atmo. Research (NCAR) | ||
16. Land Cover Change, Year 2050 ‡ | Clark University | Predicted land cover for year 2050, projected from historical land cover patterns in the 2018–2018 European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative maps. | |
Reference Data | 17. Environmental Facilities | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | Locations of facilities within the EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS), including brownfield sites, sources of air pollution, superfund sites, radioactive sites, toxic release inventory sites, greenhouse gas emitters, and power plants. |
18. Air Quality Monitors | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | Live (hourly) air quality data from local monitoring sites, displaying the average Air Quality Index (AQI). | |
19. Stream Gauges * | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (and others) | Live stream gauge observations, including discharge and stage height. | |
20. Flood Hazard Areas ‡ | Federal Emergency Mgmt. Assoc. (FEMA) | Federal flood insurance rate map special flood hazard area classifications. | |
21. Dam Inventory | U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) | National inventory of dams, regulated by federal and state agencies, meeting large-scale or high-hazard potential classification criteria. | |
22. Wetlands * ‡ | Fish and Wildlife Service | National wetlands inventory with detailed characteristics of each area. | |
Hydrology | 23. Rainfall * ‡ | WorldClim | Average global mean precipitation from WorldClim, per interpolated rainfall stations, for 1970–2000 (mm), 5 km resolution. |
24. Soils Hydrology *,‡ | U.S. Natural Resources Cons. Service (NRCS) | Hydrologic soil group classifications (A–D), depicting the rate of precipitation infiltration capability, from SSURGO soils data. | |
25. Terrain Elevation * ‡ | Various | Digital terrain elevation model showing ground height (m) from various sources, depending on highest-resolution available. | |
26. Land Cover * ‡ | National Land Cover Database (NLCD) | Time series of land cover (20 classifications, according to modified Anderson Level-II scheme) for 2001–2016. | |
27. Impervious Cover * ‡ | National Land Cover Database (NLCD) | Time series of percent imperviousness (roadways, parking lots, rooftops) within each 30 m pixel, derived from land cover database for 2001–2016. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Castro, C.V.; Rifai, H.S. Development and Assessment of a Web-Based National Spatial Data Infrastructure for Nature-Based Solutions and Their Social, Hydrological, Ecological, and Environmental Co-Benefits. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911018
Castro CV, Rifai HS. Development and Assessment of a Web-Based National Spatial Data Infrastructure for Nature-Based Solutions and Their Social, Hydrological, Ecological, and Environmental Co-Benefits. Sustainability. 2021; 13(19):11018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911018
Chicago/Turabian StyleCastro, Cyndi V., and Hanadi S. Rifai. 2021. "Development and Assessment of a Web-Based National Spatial Data Infrastructure for Nature-Based Solutions and Their Social, Hydrological, Ecological, and Environmental Co-Benefits" Sustainability 13, no. 19: 11018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911018
APA StyleCastro, C. V., & Rifai, H. S. (2021). Development and Assessment of a Web-Based National Spatial Data Infrastructure for Nature-Based Solutions and Their Social, Hydrological, Ecological, and Environmental Co-Benefits. Sustainability, 13(19), 11018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911018