1

MUNICIPAL ECOLOGICAL STRUCTURE: BEYOND THE DESCRIPTION ON THE

MUNICIPAL MATER PLANS

EXTENDED ABSTRACT

João Corgo1

Dissertation for the Masters Degree in Urban Studies and Territorial Management

Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources, Instituto Superior Técnico,

Universidade de Lisboa

October, 2014

ABSTRACT

In a world increasingly urbanized, cities management and spatial planning take an important place in

political and technical concerns and it is in this perspective that Municipal Ecological Structure (MES)

arises. However MES still struggles with some problems that challenge its implementation. In order to

overcome these problems, the present thesis explores the designing hypothesis of a Management

Plan for the Municipal Ecological Structure (MPMES). To support the MPMES, this thesis explores the

role of Ecosystem Services (ES) and their potential to provide a vision of the value of MES to the

municipalities, to the people, and as an impulse for local economic growth.

In order to gather insights on the contribution of the MPMES for the MES implementation, an

approach was made, based on interviews, confronting visions and discourses by planning experts

contrasts with the stakeholders, and thus it was possible to identify, characterize and value the

functions performed by the MES of Sesimbra. Ultimately, the objectives, contents, development,

approval, and articulation with other territorial management instruments are identified as requirements

for the PGEEM development.

Keywords: Municipal Ecological Structure; Management Plan; Ecosystem Services; Green corridors;

continuum naturale.

1 Email addresses: joao.corgo@ist.utl.pt; joao.corgo23@gmail.com

2

1. Introduction

"Municipal Ecological Structure (MES) is the set of areas of soil which, by virtue of their biophysical or

cultural characteristics, ecological continuity, and planning, have as their main function to contribute to

the ecological balance, for the protection, conservation and enhancement of environment, landscape

and natural heritage of the urban and rural areas"2.

The term Municipal Ecological Structure it was first introduced as a legal instrument in the Legal

Regime of the Territorial Management Instruments (RJIGT)3 and methodologically, all the MES maps

and regulations are approved by the Municipal Master Plans (MMP). However, in most cases, the

concept is far from being implemented in full, because there are difficulties in defining, regulating and

implementing it (Correia, 2012). In order to overcome these difficulties, the development of a MPMES,

using the ecosystems services as a tool, could help fulfill the MES objectives implementation.

The principal aim of this thesis is to recognize the main objectives, elements and steps to develop an

MPMES. To achieve this purpose, it is necessary to understand (a) the evolution of the environmental

concerns in planning context, (b) the role of MES in delivering Ecosystem Services and their

integration in Management Plans, (c) the relevance of the Management Plan for the MES

implementation, and (d) the importance of public participation to identify the functions and values of

the MES.

From the evolution of environmental concerns in the context of planning, until the emerge of

MES

Changes in land use are among the most important direct drives for the global continuous loss of

biodiversity, as well the degradation of ecosystems and their services (MA, 2005). Concerns for land

conservation and the preservation of natural resources date from a speech by George Perkins Marsh

in 1847. He drew attention to the destructive impact of human activity on the land of the United States,

especially through deforestation (Benedict & McMahon, 2006). In Europe, since the Industrial

Revolution and particularly since the 1950s, urbanization has proliferated at an increasing rate

(Magalhães, 1994), together with transportation infrastructures (EEA, 2009), tourism development and

intensive agriculture (EEA, 2014). The integration of open green spaces in spatial planning

approaches started in the cities after it was noticed how they were growing at a fast pace and with

poor living conditions, (e.g. noise, air pollution and traffic and lack of green spaces).

Since Olmsted proposed the Parkway concept (Benedict & McMahon, 2006; Fabos, 2004), during

decades, different approaches have integrated urban green areas in spatial planning, focused mainly

on the recreational value for the population (Benevolo, 2001; Cabral 1993; Lobo, 1995). However, the

concerns and approaches have evolved, from the acknowledgment of the environmental and

2 Record n.º 29 - Decreto-Regulamentar n.º 9/2009 de 29 de Maio.

3 Decreto-Lei n.º380/99, de 22 de Setembro.

3

aesthetical aspects by Le Corbusier approaches (Benevolo, 2001), to the application of Greenbelts as

a natural barrier to the urban expansion (Mumfor, 1965; Benedict & McMahon, 2006). In Portugal, in

the early twentieth century, the evaluation of this concept, gave rise to the theory of continuum

naturale (Cabral, 1993; Telles et al, 1997) aiming to bring nature into the city.

Notwithstanding, the efforts have not been successful in fighting the land use based on soil

consumption, so on the last decade of the 21th century, the Green Infrastructure (GI) approach arises,

as an "interconnected green space network that is planned and managed for its natural resource

values and for the associated benefits it confers to human populations (Benedict & McMahon, 2006:3).

GI adopt a large and utilitarian view of the multiple functions of the green spaces as a whole,

according to the ecosystem services and assess the various benefits that each area provides, going

beyond an ecological perspective (CE, 2010).

According to Cabral (1980), the concept of Ecological Structure emerged from the Homeostasis

principle de Walter Cannon, 1929. The definition of this concept has contributed to the continuum

naturale between rural and urban landscape. Since 1999 Portuguese law foresees the integration of

Ecological Networks in spatial plans. At a regional, it scale establishes the Regional Ecological

Structure, but it is at a local level that the implementation of the Municipal Ecological Structure (MES)

by the municipalities is more sensitive, as Municipal Master Plans (MMP) have an increased

regulatory power on land use changes. Municipalities are responsible for the MES delimitation and

regulation, in continuity with rural and urban areas, adjoining the fundamental systems for the

environmental protection. However, the technical concept and the decision about wich areas would

integrate the MES was only defined in May of 2009, and "only a few MMP have been revised during

the last decade, so there is still little experience on how to integrate the MES" (Correia, 2012).

The integration of Ecosystem Services in MES planning

Nowadays, most people today live in cities, urbanization is a megatrend expected to continue

throughout the world at least until midcentury, and that "has contributed to profound alteration of

ecosystems, not just a local scale, but also global" (Barnosky et al., 2012:52). Thus, it is important to

use the ecosystem services approach, in order to preserve the benefits that MES ecosystems offer to

the Human well-being.

Ecosystem services (ES) are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. This definition was derived

from other commonly referenced and representative definitions, suc as: Ecosystem goods (e.g. food)

and services (e.g. waste assimilation) represent the benefits human populations derive, directly or

indirectly, from ecosystem functions (Costanza et al., 1997:253).

Research on ecosystem services has grown over the decades (e.g. Costanza, 1992,1997, 2008; de

Groot, 1992, 2006, 2010; Daily, 1997, 2000; de Groot et al., 2002, 2010; Díaz et al., 2007; MA, 2003,

2005a, 2005b; Carpenter et al., 2006, 2009; Wallace, 2007; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010; Pereira

et al., 2009; TEEB, 2010; Ash et al., 2010; Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010; Braat & de Groot, 2012; de

4

Groot et al., 2012; Steiner, 2014; Ahern et al., 2014) and ES have been categorized in four functional

groups, the production, regulation and cultural services, that directly affect people, and the habitat

services, which are needed to keep the other three.

Some issues related with geographical limitation of ecosystem services, the fact that ES do not exist in

an isolated way to meet the needs of populations, and the difficulty in valuing them, are some of the

problems that we face today (Wallace, 2007; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010). To solve overcome

these obstacles we must study the physical characteristics of MES ecosystems, explore the

environmental, social and economic relations and use the best planning practices and decision

making, in order to reduce the negative impacts of ES exploration. To achieve this reduction, there

should exist an ecological continuity in the territory, which would ensure the sustainability and

maintenance of the functions and services by the MES ecosystems.

The role of Management Plan in MES implementation

Management Plan (MP) is a denomination used in different contexts to emphasize that the

implementation and management of a planning process, which is complex, can gain in efficiency and

effectiveness to streamline the entire wide range of actions, by involving different stakeholders, by

formalizing the temporal program, and by considering the uncertainty of the planning process. Thus,

MP can be defined as a written and approved document that describes an area, its problems and

potentialities, developing objectives that may be achieved in a defined period of time and at a defined

cost (Eurosite, 1999, 2004; PMI, 2008; OMNR, 2009; Alexander, 2010; Lester, 2014).

Management Plans must list the phases, main parameters, standards and requirements in terms of

time, cost performance, and establish several issues to be included in the plan, and in MPMES, as

Table 1 shows Alexander, (1992); Silva, (1998); BS 6079-1:(2002); Lester,(2014).

Table 1. Key issues to consider in the preparation of a Management Plan

Why a Management Plan for MES?

- To clarify the strategic thinking about the situation and achieve rationality and coherence in action;

- To achieve clear objectives and to solve the identified problems;

- To ensure the adequacy of the objectives and targets chosen for intervention;

- To achieve the effectiveness of actions.

Managing what and for whom?

- Identifying the resources required for the management plan;

- Identifying and determining the resources required to achieve the desired goals;

- Ensuring contracting entities responsible for MPMES designing .

Who does what, to whom, and with what in mind?

- Consider the historical, institutional, social and ideological context of the MES area;

- Apply the "integrated planning" that recognizes the complexity of the numerous social, demographic

and economic factors that influence the decision and try to integrate them in an analytical and

rational process4.

How is management exercised and the MPMES implemented?

- Through the identification of management methods;

- Defining structuring goals for the plan;

- Through the analysis of the action programs and their impacts;

- Comparing and evaluating the options to selecting an operating program;

- By aiding the proper tools and actions to the management plan for its implementation;

- Through the review of the plan and its control mechanisms.

4 Silva (1998:14).

5

The issues listed in Table 1 are fundamental to the construction of the MP, because they:

Suggest a technical team and stakeholders to monitor and contribute to the plan development;

Establish agreements and working relationships between MES stakeholders;

Recommend the definition of the main objectives and the development of a plan which

implement MES;

Allows the decision making and review process;

and, the adjustment of the MPMES over time.

The MPMES development should include an ongoing assessment, and monitoring for the effective

implementation of the plan.

2. Methodology

The methodology followed in this study is divided in five main phases, as shown in Figure 1. Firstly, a

research about the concept evolution of concepts of MES and ES, and the concept of Management

Plan (MP) was made. The legal framework that involves the MES in Portugal was also analyzed.

At the second, third and fourth levels, the interviews explored and analyzed the stakeholders and the

experts (in the fields of spatial planning, landscape quality, ecology and nature conservation,

transports and mobility) views, concerning the goals, spaces to include, potentialities, contribution as

spatial planning tool, and investigation needs, for the MES. In the discussion of the results, the

functions performed by the Sesimbra MES and its spaces were located, and it was calculated the

value of each function in order to identify the most multifunctional spaces of the MES.

The findings of this paper are based on the literature review made during the first phase, and its

crossing with the results of the interviews, aiming to support the development of the MPMES.

Figure 1. Methodology outline

Legal andconceptual framework

Concepts:Municipal Ecological Structure

Ecosystem ServicesManagement Plan

Evolution of the legalcontext of MES

Application Case study: Municipality ofSesimbra

Analysis

Discussion of theresults

Stakeholdersviews

Planning expertsviews

Identification of thespaces potencial and challenges

MESfunctions location

Assessment ofspaces and

MES functions

ConclusionsContributionsto the MPMESdevelopment

6

3. Discussion of Results

Aiming to understand the best way to prepare a Management Plan for the MES, were asked to

stakeholders and planning experts about their opinion on the advantages, opportunities and functions

performed by the MES of Sesimbra.

3.1 The stakeholders views

A large majority of the stakeholders define MES as a key instrument to preserve its values, and

natural areas, and to promote environmental quality as well as people´s lives, through ecosystems.

The remaining consider MES as the surrounding area to urban spaces, the protect areas, green

spaces and other natural areas. Thus, MES is important to allow environmental balance for the

sustainability of the Municipality, to establish connectivity between rural and urban areas and their

ecosystems and ensure ES management (e.g. fishing and forest).

Stakeholders identified some of the problems of the MES (Figure 2), such as fragmentation of the

territory, lack of management to prevent ecosystem and ES loss. The lack of public participation was

selected as the greatest problem as it results in lack of feedback, and consequently, lack of

prevention, on the prevention of the negative impacts on the MES. In order to solve this problems, the

stakeholders´ group identified some opportunities that can solve or even prevent the negative impacts

on the MES (e.g. support nature tourism, preserve and protect natural resources, green modes of

transport - like bike lanes, footpaths - invest in economic activities that promote the protection of ES

for both populations and other living beings).

Figure 2. Problems, advantages and opportunities for the Sesimbra MES as stated by stakeholders

Most of the stakeholders classified the ecological functions (e.g. carbon sequestration by the forests)

and the economic functions (e.g. forestry) functions as the most important to safeguard ecosystems

sustainability and provide ES to populations.

MES ADVANTAGES

Multifunctionality Connectivity Strategic vision

PROBLEMS

Loss of

Ecosystem and its services

Fragmentation

of the territory

Lackof public

participation

OPPORTUNITIES

Preserve and

protect natural resources

Support for

nature tourismactivities

Implementation

of green modes of transport

7

3.2 The planning experts views

The majority of the experts define MES as an ecological system that is complementary to the human

system. Others define it as all rural (e.g. protected areas) and urban (that include the green corridors)

spaces, or as a planning tool that is articulated with other instruments (e.g. National Agricultural

Reserve; National Ecological Reserve). The most evidenced function according to experts was the

ecological one - to maintain the natural continuity between important areas, and to preserve and

protect the natural resources and biodiversity. Some place these goals on the rural areas. Others

place the MES in the cites, with the concern of creating less artificial cities and linking population to

nature. Thus, the MES can respond to insurance of the ecosystem services in cities, notably by

promoting recreation, leisure and sports, but also by regulating the biophysical processes, as well as

the aesthetical functions. Watercourses, and surrounding areas, and the aquifers recharge zones are

often mentioned as spaces to include in the MES. Experts mention as main advantages, the

multifunctionality of the included spaces, the creation of natural connectivity, and the strategic vision of

this tool.

The main goals for the MES referred by experts are represented in figure 3. They mention the capacity

of MES to articulate the planning scales, realizing the regional guidance of the Regional Ecological

Structure (ERPVA in PROT-AML), with corridors and fundamental areas, at a local scale, and the

creation of a multi-scale network of green corridors (from the transnational to the detailed scale). By

integrating not only areas for nature protection, but also for other uses, like recreation and leisure

Figure 3. Goals for the MES according to the experts.

3.3 Functions deliver by the Sesimbra MES

Delivered the results of the interviews enable the location of the functions performed by the MES and

the calculation their value based on the ratings given by the stakeholders and the experts. Then it was

possible to calculate the weighted averages of each function and their respective weight. To obtain

the value of each function, the following formula was used:

Ensure the

sustainability of

ecosystems and their

resources for Human

activity.

Protect, enhance

and restore the

landscape

values and natural

resources.

Improve the

quality of the

environment

and people's

lives.

Define a sustainable

form of mobility for the

city.

Ensure articulation

between the areas of

rural and urban land,

contributing to the

resolution of conflicts of

use and occupation.

Encourage the

development of economic

activity through

gastronomy and tourism

in a sustainable manner.

Improve the

quality of the

environment and

people s lives

Create a

regulation that

allows the

management of

MES.

Adapt the network of

corridors of PROT-AML

to MES allowing the

ecological continuity.

Goals for

the MES

8

V = ΣW v( ) In what:

V - function value W - weight function v( ) - Value function

It was considered v( )=1 for all functions of the MES and the results represented in table 1 were

obtained.

Table 1. Value of each function

Functions

Importance level assigned to

functions Weighted

averages Weight (W)

Function value

(V) 5 4 3 2 1

Ecological 28 1 1 0 0 4.9 0.22 0.22

Recrational 19 7 2 0 0 4.3 0.19 0.19

Aesthetic 10 13 3 2 2 3.9 0.17 0.17

Economic 19 7 4 0 0 4.4 0.20 0.20

Mobility 18 9 2 1 0 4.4 0.20 0.20

Total 21.9 1 1

In order to represent the results, the ArcGIS tool was used and with the values´ function of each space

of the Sesimbra MES, obtaining Figure 4.

Figure 4. Multifunctionality degree proposal for the Sesimbra MES, acording to stakeholders and the experts. (1)

Map resulting from the intersection of the functions; (2) Matrix Conversion of functions map.

The results show the multifunctional component of the MES and it is possible to determine that areas

with more functions are those with more value, such as the Natura 2000 Network areas - Special

Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (e.g. Arrábida, Albufeira Lagoon) and the

National System of Protected Areas (e.g. Arrábida Natural Park and Fossil Cliff Protected Landscape

of Costa da Caparica).

The Sesimbra Forest is also a multifunctional area, where the forestry, articulated with agricultural

use, perform ecological functions, (e.g. improvement of air quality and infiltration of runoff water),

economic functions (e.g. forestry, farm) and aesthetic functions - for its natural and scenic values.

Ecological function Recreational function Aesthetic function Economic function Mobility function

(1)

(2)

0 fucntions1 function2 function3 function4 function5 function

9

4. Towards MPMES

To improve the performance, operability, of MES, and functions of an MES, as well as the delivery of

its ES, this thesis suggests the creation of a clause in the legal system that refers to soil regimes or in

the legislation of the Municipal Mater Plan, and that obliges municipalities, that have their MES

elaborate and to approved, to the development of a MPMES. During the process of plan development,

there should not occur any land use changes in territory while the management plan is not produced,

in other words, while there is no collective commitment or policy option about MES, about its main

goals and how to achieve them, there can be no public or private transformations in the municipality.

Suggestions for the development of an MPMES

MPMES are planning instruments that may contribute and establish:

Object

1. MPMES develops and implements MES, namely, the set of soil areas that, due to their

biophysical and cultural characteristics, their ecological continuity, and planning, have as their

main function, to contribute for the ecological balance, protection, conservation and

environmental enhancement, landscape, and natural heritage, for both rural and urban spaces;

2. MPMES has as its territorial basis the Regional County, and can also be an intermunicipality;

3. MPMES provides MES goals to be achieved programmatically and in conjunction with local

communities;

4. The development of MPMES is mandatory.

Material content

MPMES must adopt the defining criteria for the MES and its goals, establishing:

1. The deification of the structural components of the MES, namely the spaces to safeguard for

protection and enhancement of natural resources, ecological systems and economic activities

(e.g. forest areas, areas with natural values, coastal areas, riparian zones, agricultural areas and

urban green spaces);

2. The identification and characterization of the functions performed by MES, it is essential to

ensure the ability of the structure and of the processes of ecosystems to provide services for the

population welfare (e.g. Hydrological cycle or bioclimatic regulation);

3. Identification and structural characterization of ecological corridors for the MES;

4. The survey of ecosystem services provided by the MES ecosystems;

5. Appreciation levels of MES ecosystems, taking into account the needs for their protection and

conservation, their functions and several ES;

6. Prioritization of actions, costs, alternatives, time and budget available to fulfill the MES goals;

7. Identification of management measures;

8. Planning measures, monitoring and evaluation in continuum;

10

9. MPMES must be prepared within one year, and must contain a description of the components,

functions, action priorities, threats and regulatory aspects. After elaboration, MP should present a

program of actions, projects initiated by Municipal Assembly (e.g. urban parks), private or mixed;

10. MPMES must earn technical and political approval within the Municipality;

11. After approval of the MP, an implementation period follows, and an ongoing monitoring of the

plan;

12. On the fifth year of its existence, of the management plan, and the Municipality will have the

commitment to reassess the MP; publishing a Management and Evaluation Report of MES,

indicating all changes made in the original MPMES, the results obtained, and new objectives and

actions for the MES management.

Document content

1. MPMES consists of:

a) Regulation;

b) MES plant with its functions and ES detailed.

2. MPMES is accompanied by:

a) Reports of public participation;

b) Program containing the measures and actions planned for the attainment of the MES

objectives;

c) Management and Evaluation Report of MES

5.Conclusions

MPMES should be a tool that links all MES uses and occupations to allow its implementation, the

management of its multifunctional spaces and to contribute to the sustainable development of

territories. To achieve this, the plan should contribute to a better MES knowledge, its weaknesses and

potentials (e.g. analysis that was achieved with the stakeholders and planning experts interviews) on

MES diagnosis should be made, containing this and other information before starting the plan

development.

It is considered that the MPMES’ development itself, can serve as an opportunity for the involvement

of the local community, as well as to a growing sense of responsibility on all the stakeholders to

implement it. In this regard, MPMES may be able to promote environmental citizenship. The proposed

approach of the MPMES development is based on the identification and mapping of ecosystem

services. In relation to the mapping procedures, the literature review evidences that there is still need

for further research, not only concerning the ES identification, but also their multiple interactions.

Notwithstanding, it is considered that the conceptual model of ES applied to planning, could decisively

benefit the current approach to the Municipal Ecological Structures, and promote discussion among

the possible trade-offs in the territory.

11

References

Ahern, J., Clliers, S., Niemela, J. (2014). The concept of ecosystem services in adaptative urban planning

and design: A framework for supporting innovation. Landscape and Urban Planning. ELSEVIER.

Alexander, E.R. (1992). Approaches to Planning - Introducing Current Theories, Concepts and Issues,

Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 2.ª Ed. Department of Urban Planning. University of Wisconsin-

Milwaukee

Ash, N., Blanco, H., Garcia, K., Torrich, T. Vira, B., Zurek, M., Brown, C. (2010). Ecosystems and Human

Well-Being: A Manual for Assessment Practitioners. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Barnosky, A. D., Hadly, E. A., Bascompte, J., Berlow, E. L., Brown, J. H., Fortelius, M.,et al. (2012).

Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature, 486(7 June),52–58.

Benedict, M.A. & McMahon, E.T. (2006). Green infrastructure: linking landscapes and communities.

Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Benevolo, L. (2001). O Ambiente da Revolução Industrial. In L. Benevolo, História da Cidade. São Paolo,

Brasil: PERSPECTIVA S.A.

Braat, L.C. & de Groot, R. (2012). The Ecosystem Services agenda: bridging the worlds of Natural

Science and economics, conservation and development, and public, and private policy. Ecosystem

Services 1. pp 14-15.

BS 6079-1:(2002) Project management Guide to project management. The British standards Institute

Cabral, F. C. (1980). O Continuum Naturale e a Conservação da Natureza. In Conservação da Natureza.

Lisboa: Serviço de Estudos do Ambiente

Cabral, F.C. (1993). Fundamentos da Arquitetura Paisagista. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza.

Lisboa.

Carpenter, S.R., Bennett, E.M. & Peterson, G.D. (2006). Scenarios for ecosystem services on overview.

Ecology on Society 11 (1): 29.

Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R. S., Diaz, S., et al. (2009). Science

for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences, 106(5), 1305-1312.

CE (2010). LIFE building up Europe's green infrastructure: Addressing connectivity and enhancing

ecosystem functions. Luxemburgo: Publications Office of the European Union.

Correia, I. (2012). Das Estruturas Ecológicas Municipais às Infraestruturas verdes - Visões, discursos e

prática Municipal. Dissertação para obtenção do Grau de Mestre em Engenharia do Ambiente. Instituto

Superior Técnico. Universidade Técnica de Lisboa.

12

Costanza, R. (2008). Ecosystem Services: Multiple Classification systems are needded. Biological

Conservation 141: 350-352.

Costanza, R. & Daly, H. E. (1992), Natural Capital and Sustainable Development. Conservation Biology,

Vol. 6, nº1. pp. 37-46.

Costanza, R., d´Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S.,

O´Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world´s

ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. Vol. 387.

Daily, G.C. (1997). Introduction. what are ecosystem services? Island Press. Washington D.C., Covelo,

California.

Daily. G.C., Söderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P.R., Folke, C., Jansson, A.,

Jansson, B., Kautsky, N., Levin, S., Lubchenco, J., Maker, K., Simpson, D., Starret, D., Tilman, D. &

wALKER, b. (2000). Ecology: The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value. Science. 289:395.

de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A. & Boumans, R.M.J. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and

valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41. p.393-408.

de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the

concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making.

Ecological Complexity, 7(3). pp. 260-272.

de Groot, R., Brander, K., Vander Plog, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., Christie, M., Crossman,

N., Chermandi, A., Hein, L., Hussain, S., Kumar, P., McVittie, A., Portela, R., Rodriguesz, L.C., ten Brink,

P., van Beukering, P. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary

units. Ecosystem services. Vol.1. pp. 50-61.

Díaz, S., Fargione, J. Chapin, F.S. & Tilman, D. (2007). Biodiversitt loss threatens human well-being. Plos

Biology, 4, 8, e 277.

EEA - European Environment Agency (2009). Ensuing quality of life in Europe´s cities and town´s. Report

Nº5/2009.

EEA - European Environment Agency (2014). Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe.

Technical Report Nº2/2014.

Fabos, J. G., 2004. Greenways Planning in the United States: Its Origins and Recent Case Studies.

Landscape and Urban Planning 68.

Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P.L. & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services

in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological

Economics. ELSEVIER.

13

Haines-Young & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between Biodiversity, ecosystem services and human

weel-being. Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. eds. David, G., Raffaelli and Christopher, L.J. Frid.

Published by Cambridge University Press. British Ecological Society.

Lester, A. (2014). Project Management, Planning, and Control. Managing Engineering, Construction, and

Manufacturing Projects to PMI, APM, and BSI Standards 6th Edition. ELSEVIER and Book Aid

international.

Lobo, M.S., 1995. Planos de Urbanização, A Época de Duarte Pacheco. Faculdade de Arquitetura da

Universidade do Porto. DGOTDU.

MA (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessement, Washington, D.C.,

Island Press.

MA (2005a). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis, Washignton, D.C., Island Press.

MA (2005b). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Scenarios, Washington, D.C., Island Press.

Magalhães, M. (1994). Paisagem Urbana e Interface urbano-rural. In Alves, A., Espenica, A. Caldas,

E., Gary, I.,Telles, G., Araújo, I. & Magalhães, M., Paisagem (p.99). Lisboa: Direção Geral do

Ordenamento do Território e Desenvolvimento Urbano.

Mumford, L. (1965). The guarded city idea and modern planning, em Garden Cities of Tomorrow, Howard

E., p.29. Cambridge: MA:MIT Press.

Pereira, et al. (2009). Ecossistemas e Bem-Estar Humano - Avaliação para Portugal do Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment. Fundação da Faculdade de Ciências da U.L. e Escolar Editora.

Telles, G.R., Magalhães, M.R. e Alfaiate, M..T., (1997). Plano Verde de Lisboa. Edições Colibri, Lisboa.

Wallace, K.J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem service: Problems and solutions. Biological

Conservation. pp.235-246.