Åsa Gren

Dr. Åsa Gren

The Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Science, Box 50005, SE-104 05, Stockholm, Sweden
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

14Years (2013-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
17 April 2014 in AMBIO
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Dagmar HaaseDagmar Haase
Dagmar Haase
NLNeele Larondelle
Neele Larondelle
EAErik Andersson
Erik Andersson
Martina  ArtmannMartina Artmann
Martina Artmann
SBSara Borgström
Sara Borgström
TEThomas Elmqvist
Thomas Elmqvist
Although a number of comprehensive reviews have examined global ecosystem services (ES), few have focused on studies that assess urban ecosystem services (UES). Given that more than half of the world’s population lives in cities, understanding the dualism of the provision of and need for UES is of critical importance. Which UES are the focus of research, and what types of urban land use are examined? Are models or decision support systems used to assess the provision of UES? Are trade-offs considered? Do studies of UES engage stakeholders? To address these questions, we analyzed 217 papers derived from an ISI Web of Knowledge search using a set of standardized criteria. The results indicate that most UES studies have been undertaken in Europe, North America, and China, at city scale. Assessment methods involve bio-physical models, Geographical Information Systems, and valuation, but few study findings have been implemented as land use policy.

18 August 2014 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MTMax Troell
Max Troell
RNRosamond L. Naylor
Rosamond L. Naylor
MMMarc Metian
Marc Metian
MBMalcolm Beveridge
Malcolm Beveridge
PTPeter H. Tyedmers
Peter H. Tyedmers
AZAart de Zeeuw
Aart de Zeeuw
Aquaculture is the fastest growing food sector and continues to expand alongside terrestrial crop and livestock production. Using portfolio theory as a conceptual framework, we explore how current interconnections between the aquaculture, crop, livestock, and fisheries sectors act as an impediment to, or an opportunity for, enhanced resilience in the global food system given increased resource scarcity and climate change. Aquaculture can potentially enhance resilience through improved resource use efficiencies and increased diversification of farmed species, locales of production, and feeding strategies. However, aquaculture’s reliance on terrestrial crops and wild fish for feeds, its dependence on freshwater and land for culture sites, and its broad array of environmental impacts diminishes its ability to add resilience. Feeds for livestock and farmed fish that are fed rely largely on the same crops, although the fraction destined for aquaculture is presently small (∼4%). As demand for high-value fed aquaculture products grows, competition for these crops will also rise, as will the demand for wild fish as feed inputs. Many of these crops and forage fish are also consumed directly by humans and provide essential nutrition for low-income households. Their rising use in aquafeeds has the potential to increase price levels and volatility, worsening food insecurity among the most vulnerable populations. Although the diversification of global food production systems that includes aquaculture offers promise for enhanced resilience, such promise will not be realized if government policies fail to provide adequate incentives for resource efficiency, equity, and environmental protection.

17 April 2014 in AMBIO
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
EAErik Andersson
Erik Andersson
SBStephan Barthel
Stephan Barthel
SBSara Borgström
Sara Borgström
Johan ColdingJohan Colding
Johan Colding
TEThomas Elmqvist
Thomas Elmqvist
Åsa GrenÅsa Gren
Åsa Gren
Within-city green infrastructure can offer opportunities and new contexts for people to become stewards of ecosystem services. We analyze cities as social–ecological systems, synthesize the literature, and provide examples from more than 15 years of research in the Stockholm urban region, Sweden. The social–ecological approach spans from investigating ecosystem properties to the social frameworks and personal values that drive and shape human interactions with nature. Key findings demonstrate that urban ecosystem services are generated by social–ecological systems and that local stewards are critically important. However, land-use planning and management seldom account for their role in the generation of urban ecosystem services. While the small scale patchwork of land uses in cities stimulates intense interactions across borders much focus is still on individual patches. The results highlight the importance and complexity of stewardship of urban biodiversity and ecosystem services and of the planning and governance of urban green infrastructure.

5 September 2013
Verified
Book Chapter
Open access
PDF file
EGErik Gómez-Baggethun
Erik Gómez-Baggethun
Åsa GrenÅsa Gren
Åsa Gren
DBDavid N. Barton
David N. Barton
JLJohannes Langemeyer
Johannes Langemeyer
TMTimon McPhearson
Timon McPhearson
PKPeleg Kremer
Peleg Kremer
We explore the potential of urban ecosystem services for improving resilience and quality of life in cities. First, we classify and categorize important ecosystem services and disservices in urban areas. Second, we describe a range of valuation approaches (cultural values, health benefits, economic costs, and resilience) for capturing the importance of urban ecosystem service multiple values. Finally, we analyze how ecosystem service assessment may inform urban planning and governance and provide practical examples from cities in Africa, Europe, and America. From our review, we find that many urban ecosystem services have already been identified, characterized and valued, and have been found to be of great value and importance for human well-being and urban resilience. We conclude that the use of the concept of urban ecosystem services can play a critical role in reconnecting cities to the biosphere, and reducing the ecological footprint and ecological debt of cities while enhancing resilience, health, and quality of life of their inhabitants.

1 November 2016 in Ecological Indicators
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TMTimon McPhearson
Timon McPhearson
Dagmar HaaseDagmar Haase
Dagmar Haase
NKNadja Kabisch
Nadja Kabisch
Åsa GrenÅsa Gren
Åsa Gren

20 May 2020 in Land
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Johan ColdingJohan Colding
Johan Colding
Åsa GrenÅsa Gren
Åsa Gren
SBStephan Barthel
Stephan Barthel
More precise explanations are needed to better understand why public green spaces are diminishing in cities, leading to the loss of ecosystem services that humans receive from natural systems. This paper is devoted to the incremental change of green spaces—a fate that is largely undetectable by urban residents. The paper elucidates a set of drivers resulting in the subtle loss of urban green spaces and elaborates on the consequences of this for resilience planning of ecosystem services. Incremental changes of greenspace trigger baseline shifts, where each generation of humans tends to take the current condition of an ecosystem as the normal state, disregarding its previous states. Even well-intended political land-use decisions, such as current privatization schemes, can cumulatively result in undesirable societal outcomes, leading to a gradual loss of opportunities for nature experience. Alfred E. Kahn referred to such decision making as ‘the tyranny of small decisions.’ This is mirrored in urban planning as problems that are dealt with in an ad hoc manner with no officially formulated vision for long-term spatial planning. Urban common property systems could provide interim solutions for local governments to survive periods of fiscal shortfalls. Transfer of proprietor rights to civil society groups can enhance the resilience of ecosystem services in cities.