Short answer
Prioritize species selection for urban greening based on functional benefits and ecosystem service provision, rather than solely on native status.
- Field
- Classic Design
- Source
- Urban forestry & urban greening (2020)
- Method
- Quantitative analysis of a large urban tree database, incorporating phenotypic data to assess ecosystem services.
- Sample
- 115,686 trees (1,025 species) for biodiversity analysis; 50,718 trees (527 species) for ecosystem service quantification.
- Evidence
- Strong effect
The functional contributions of non-native trees to urban environments, in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem services, are often as significant as those of native species, suggesting a need to re-evaluate design choices based solely on origin. This classic design research insight is drawn from a 2020 study published in Urban forestry & urban greening. Using Quantitative analysis of a large urban tree database, incorporating phenotypic data to assess ecosystem services. with 115,686 trees (1,025 species) for biodiversity analysis; 50,718 trees (527 species) for ecosystem service quantification., researchers explored how this design variable affects real-world outcomes. The key design takeaway: Prioritize species selection for urban greening based on functional benefits and ecosystem service provision, rather than solely on native status.
Non-native trees offer comparable ecosystem services to native species, challenging traditional design preferences.
The functional contributions of non-native trees to urban environments, in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem services, are often as significant as those of native species, suggesting a need to re-evaluate design choices based solely on origin.
Urban forestry & urban greening · 2020
Key Findings
- 01Non-native trees constitute a significant majority of species and individuals in urban settings.
- 02Both native and non-native trees provide comparable regulating ecosystem services (e.g., micro-particle capture, carbon sequestration) on a per-tree basis.
- 03Non-native trees often provide greater cultural ecosystem services (e.g., aesthetic, recreational value) than native trees, with the exception of 'natural heritage'.
- 04Non-native trees are disproportionately represented in lists of 'remarkable' or significant trees.
Application
Design takeaway
Prioritize species selection for urban greening based on functional benefits and ecosystem service provision, rather than solely on native status.
How to apply
When designing urban parks, streetscapes, or green infrastructure, conduct an assessment of potential tree species based on their ability to deliver specific ecosystem services (e.g., shade, air purification, pollinator support, aesthetic appeal) and their adaptability to local conditions, regardless of their native or non-native status.
Project actions
- 01When selecting materials or components for a design project, research their functional performance and environmental impact, not just their traditional or common usage.
- 02Consider how the aesthetic qualities of a design element might be perceived and valued by different user groups, even if it deviates from conventional expectations.
Method & Evidence
Variables
Strengths & Limitations
Strengths
- +Large sample size providing robust statistical power.
- +Quantification of a wide range of ecosystem services, offering a comprehensive view.
Limitations
The specific benefits of non-native species might be context-dependent and require careful consideration of potential ecological risks.
Reliability & validity
The study's reliability is enhanced by the large dataset and standardized methods for quantifying ecosystem services. Validity is supported by the comparison of multiple service types and the use of existing 'remarkable' tree classifications.
Think critically
To what extent should the 'natural heritage' value of native species influence design decisions when non-native species offer greater functional or aesthetic benefits?
Design Principles
"Functional performance over origin: Design choices for urban flora should be guided by demonstrable contributions to ecosystem services and user experience."
This research challenges the conventional design bias towards native species in urban planning and landscape architecture. It highlights that functional performance, rather than origin, should be a primary consideration when selecting trees for their environmental and aesthetic benefits.
What This Means for Your Design
Even trees that aren't originally from a place can be just as good, or even better, at helping the environment and making a city nice to look at and use.
How to use in your project
- 1.Reference this study when justifying the selection of materials or design elements that might be considered unconventional or non-traditional, by demonstrating their functional equivalence or superiority.
Add to My Project
Quick Cite
Paragraph starter
This research indicates that the functional contributions of non-native elements, such as trees in urban environments, can be comparable or even superior to native counterparts in delivering ecosystem services. This challenges traditional design preferences and suggests that design decisions should prioritize performance and user benefit over conventional origin or material choice.
Source
Urban forestry & urban greening
Quantifying the contributions of native and non-native trees to a city’s biodiversity and ecosystem services
journal · 2020
View sourceQuestions About This Research
- What does the research say about non-native trees offer comparable ecosystem services to native species, challenging traditional design preferences?
- Prioritize species selection for urban greening based on functional benefits and ecosystem service provision, rather than solely on native status. Evidence: Urban forestry & urban greening (2020).
- Why does "Non-native trees offer comparable ecosystem services to native species, challenging traditional design preferences." matter for design?
- This research challenges the conventional design bias towards native species in urban planning and landscape architecture. It highlights that functional performance, rather than origin, should be a primary consideration when selecting trees for their environmental and aesthetic benefits.
- How can designers apply this research?
- Prioritize species selection for urban greening based on functional benefits and ecosystem service provision, rather than solely on native status.
- What were the main findings?
- Non-native trees constitute a significant majority of species and individuals in urban settings.. Both native and non-native trees provide comparable regulating ecosystem services (e.g., micro-particle capture, carbon sequestration) on a per-tree basis.. Non-native trees often provide greater cultural ecosystem services (e.g., aesthetic, recreational value) than native trees, with the exception of 'natural heritage'.. Non-native trees are disproportionately represented in lists of 'remarkable' or significant trees.
- What research method was used?
- Quantitative analysis of a large urban tree database, incorporating phenotypic data to assess ecosystem services. with 115,686 trees (1,025 species) for biodiversity analysis; 50,718 trees (527 species) for ecosystem service quantification..
- How strong is the evidence?
- Evidence strength is rated Strong effect, based on a 2020 journal from Urban forestry & urban greening.
- What should I do differently in my next project?
- When designing urban parks, streetscapes, or green infrastructure, conduct an assessment of potential tree species based on their ability to deliver specific ecosystem services (e.g., shade, air purification, pollinator support, aesthetic appeal) and their adaptability to local conditions, regardless of their native or non-native status.
- What are the limitations?
- The study was conducted in a specific urban context (Geneva, Switzerland) and may not be universally applicable without further regional analysis. The assessment of 'natural heritage' is subjective and may vary culturally.