Pääkaupunkiseudun viherrakenteen arvotus Zonation-menetelmällä

Biotopes and biodiversity within the Metropolitan Area of Helsinki (cities of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa and Kauniainen) were prioritized with a spatial conservation prioritization software called Zonation. The aim of the thesis was to examine how different, largely urban or semi-urban, areas supported biodiversity and thus, indirectly, ecosystem services provisioning. Furthermore, the effects of the new City of Helsinki Strategic Plan 2050 on the prioritization were examined. The analyses were based on expert elicitations, in which different urban biotopes were evaluated in terms of how well they supported species richness and the occurrence of specialist species of 8 taxonomic groups. Following the biotope classification, an urban biotope map was compiled from various GIS sources. Based on the expert answers, these biotope maps were then converted to suitability maps for each of the eight taxonomic groups. The urban biotope map, as well as the suitability maps, were made according to two land-use versions: current land-use in the research area, and a scenario describing the actual City of Helsinki Strategic Plan 2050. Separate Zonation prioritizations were then made for both scenarios. Urban biotopes a-priori evaluated as important for biodiversity, such as lakes and their shores, ruderal areas, dry meadows, manor yards, shoreline meadows and herb-rich forests, became emphasized in Zonation prioritizations as well, whereas the currently heavily built areas received lowest conservation priority in the analysis. Thus, according to this study, densification of the current residential and built-up areas does not threaten the urban biodiversity or ecosystem services of the Metropolitan Area of Helsinki. According to the present analysis, the new Helsinki Strategic Plan would have some relatively small effects on biodiversity in the research area. While the plan proposes development in some top-value biodiversity areas, the estimated effects of the plan were on average only a 3.3% loss of biotopes across taxonomic groups. Nevertheless, the plans of Helsinki could influence biodiversity priority areas in neighboring cities, and I recommend that the broader Metropolitan Area should be treated as a whole from the perspective of urban biodiversity. Rather than preserving sets of defined species, multi-functionality and ecosystem services provided by urban biodiversity should be emphasized when planning for urban nature conservation. As biodiversity ultimately underlies and supports both of these objectives, it should be central in the urban planning as well. Spatial conservation prioritization can well be used for ecologically sustainable urban planning, as long as the quality of the input data is taken care of and different uncertainties and limitations of the analyses are recognized in interpretation.