Martina  Artmann

Dr. Martina Artmann

Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Dresden, Germany
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
1 January 2016 in Ecology and Society
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NKNadja Kabisch
Nadja Kabisch
NFNiki Frantzeskaki
Niki Frantzeskaki
SPStephan Pauleit
Stephan Pauleit
SNSandra Naumann
Sandra Naumann
MDMcKenna Davis
McKenna Davis
ABAletta Bonn
Aletta Bonn
Kabisch, N., N. Frantzeskaki, S. Pauleit, S. Naumann, M. Davis, M. Artmann, D. Haase, S. Knapp, H. Korn, J. Stadler, K. Zaunberger, and A. Bonn. 2016. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society 21(2):39.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239

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.

1 January 2019 in Ecological Indicators
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Martina  ArtmannMartina Artmann
Martina Artmann
MKManon Kohler
Manon Kohler
GMGotthard Meinel
Gotthard Meinel
JGJing Gan
Jing Gan
Cristian IojaCristian Ioja
Cristian Ioja

1 April 2015 in Ecosystem Services
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
RHRieke Hansen
Rieke Hansen
NFNiki Frantzeskaki
Niki Frantzeskaki
TMTimon McPhearson
Timon McPhearson
EREmily Rall
Emily Rall
NKNadja Kabisch
Nadja Kabisch
SPStephan Pauleit
Stephan Pauleit
Ecosystem services (ES) are gaining increasing attention as a promising concept to more actively consider and plan for the varied benefits of the urban environment. Yet, to have an impact on decision-making, the concept must spread from academia to practice. To understand how ES have been taken up in planning discourses we conducted a cross-case comparison of planning documents in Berlin, New York, Salzburg, Seattle and Stockholm. We found: (1) explicit references to the ES concept were primarily in documents from Stockholm and New York, two cities in countries that entered into ES discourses early. (2) Implicit references and thus potential linkages between the ES concept and planning discourses were found frequently among all cities, especially in Seattle. (3) The thematic scope, represented by 21 different ES, is comparably broad among the cases, while cultural services and habitat provision are most frequently emphasized. (4) High-level policies were shown to promote the adoption of the ES concept in planning. We find that the ES concept holds potential to strengthen a holistic consideration of urban nature and its benefits in planning. We also revealed potential for further development of ES approaches with regard to mitigation of environmental impacts and improving urban resilience

9 June 2018 in Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Martina  ArtmannMartina Artmann
Martina Artmann
KSKatharina Sartison
Katharina Sartison
Urbanization and achieving sustainable agriculture are both major societal challenges. By reducing food miles and connecting people with nature, food cultivation in cities has several major advantages. However, due to further urban development (peri-) urban agriculture (UPA) is under threat. To strengthen UPA, we argue for considering UPA as a nature-based solution (NbS) supporting systemic approaches for societal challenges. However, academic knowledge on UPA’s contribution to various societal challenges of urbanization is still fragmented. This study addresses the gap by conducting a systemic literature review, incorporating 166 academic articles focusing on the global north. The results of the review show that UPA contributes to ten key societal challenges of urbanization: climate change, food security, biodiversity and ecosystem services, agricultural intensification, resource efficiency, urban renewal and regeneration, land management, public health, social cohesion, and economic growth. The value of UPA is its multifunctionality in providing social, economic and environmental co-benefits and ecosystem services. When implementing UPA, social, institutional, economic, technical, geographical, and ecological drivers and constraints need to be considered. To upscale UPA successfully, the study develops an integrative assessment framework for evaluating the implementation and impact efficiency of UPA. This framework should be tested based on the example of edible cities.

1 January 2019 in Ecological Indicators
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Martina  ArtmannMartina Artmann
Martina Artmann
LILuis Inostroza
Luis Inostroza
PFPeilei Fan
Peilei Fan