Before evaluating the abundance and quality of nature in a city, one must define the concept of nature according to resident experience and climatological conditions. For Los Angeles (L.A.) County, home to a sociologically diverse and highly developed city in a Mediterranean climate that experienced drought conditions for the last decade, this represents a formidable theoretical and empirical challenge. In support of an Integrated Vulnerability Assessment, we developed an index of natural resources with the aid of local partnerships. This effort required local expert participation and resulted in the creation of a large database of available regional data. This index was created to investigate the spatial footprint of natural resources in relation to predicted high risk natural hazard areas. This paper demonstrates analytical applications of this index, which consists of six component indicators: greenness, biodiversity, habitat fragmentation, significant ecological areas, tree canopy cover, and wetland cover. Data for each component were compiled into a geodatabase, scaled, aggregated to Census block group areas, and combined to create the natural resources index (the Index). The Index can then be compared with natural hazard spatial data to determine relative vulnerability to these hazards, interactions with other types of vulnerabilities, and where adaptive capacity may be lacking. Results highlight areas of opportunity for multifaceted risk mitigation and adaptation efforts.
AcarCAcarHEroğluE (2007) Evaluation of ornamental plant resources to urban biodiversity and cultural changing: A case study of residential landscapes in Trabzon city (Turkey). Building and Environment42(1): 218–229.
2.
AlcamoJ (2003) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington DC: Island Press.
AronsonMFJ, La Sorte FA, Nilon CH, et al. (2014) A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant biodiversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences281(1780): 20133330.
5.
BanerjeeSB (2003) Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies24(1): 143–180.
6.
BarkROsgoodDColbyB, et al. (2011) How do homebuyers value different types of green space?Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics36(2): 395–415.
Baur JW and Tynon JF (2010) Small-scale urban nature parks: why should we care?. Leisure Sciences 32(2), pp.195–200.
9.
BrownI (2019) Managing Cities as Urban Ecosystems: Analysis Tools for Biodiversity Stewardship in Los Angeles. UCLA Dissertation. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4c81w4nr.
ChanL, Hillel O, Elmqvist T, et al. (2014) User's Manual on the Singapore Index on Cities' Biodiversity, (also known as the City Biodiversity Index). Singapore: National Parks Board, Singapore.
12.
CilliersSS (2010) Social aspects of urban biodiversity—An overview. In: Kelcey JG, Muller N and Werner P (eds) Urban Biodiversity and Design. Germany: Wiley, pp. 81–100.
13.
City of Los Angeles (2019) LA's Green New Deal. [Online] Available at: https://plan.lamayor.org/ (accessed 9 June 2020).
14.
Cooper DS (2009) Bio-monitoring report, Griffith Park Birds 2007-2008.
CutterSLBoruffBShirleyW (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly84(2): 242–261.
18.
DickJ, Maes J, Smith RI, et al. (2014) Cross-scale analysis of ecosystem services identified and assessed at local and European level. Ecological Indicators38: 20–30.
19.
FlemingCReganSFreitagA, et al. (2020) Assessing the Geographic Variability in Vulnerability to Climate Change and Coastal Hazards in Los Angeles County, California. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA NCCOS.
20.
FreitagA (2018) Visions of wilderness in the North Bay communities of California. Area50(1): 101–108.
21.
GasconM, Triguero-Mas M, Martínez D, et al. (2016) Residential green spaces and mortality: A systematic review. Environment International86: 60–67.
GroteR, Samson R, Alonso R, et al. (2016) Functional traits of urban trees: Air pollution mitigation potential. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment14(10): 543–550.
24.
HeBCuiXWangH, et al. (2014) Drought: The most important physical stress of terrestrial ecosystems. Acta Ecologica Sinica34(4): 179–183.
25.
HomerCG, Dewitz J, Jin S, et al. (2020) Conterminous United States land cover change patterns 2001-2016 from the 2016 national land cover database. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing162: 184–199.
26.
JamesPBanayRHartJ, et al. (2015) A review of the health benefits of greenness.Current Epidemiology Reports2(2): 131–142.
27.
Joassart-MarcelliP (2010) Leveling the playing field? Urban disparities in funding for local parks and recreation in the Los Angeles region. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space42(5): 1174–1192.
28.
KohsakaRPereiraHMElmqvistT, et al. (2013) Indicators for management of urban biodiversity and ecosystem services: City biodiversity index. In: Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P.J., McDonald, R.I., Parnell, S., Schewenius, M., Sendstad, M., (Eds) Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: challenges and Opportunities. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 699–718.
29.
KeeleyJ (2002) Native American impacts on fire regimes of the California coastal ranges. Journal of Biogeography29(3): 303–320.
LakesTKimH (2012) The urban environmental indicator “biotope area ratio”—An enhanced approach to assess and manage the urban ecosystem services using high resolution remote-sensing. Ecological Indicators13(1): 93–103.
NashR (1963) The American wilderness in historical perspective. Forest History6(4): 2–13.
38.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office for Coastal Management (NOAA OCM). Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) Regional Land Cover. Charleston, SC: NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Available at: www.coast.noaa.gov/htdata/raster1/landcover/bulkdownload/30m_lc/ (accessed September 2020).
39.
NowakDCraneDStevensJ (2006) Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening4(3–4): 115–123.
Raudsepp-HearneCPetersonG (2016) Scale and ecosystem services: How do observation, management, and analysis shift with scale—Lessons from Quebec. Ecology and Society21(3).
42.
ScherhauferP (2014) Bridging the gap between theory and practices of stakeholder participation in integrated vulnerability assessments of climate change. Systemic Practice and Action Research27: 449–463.
43.
South Bay Cities Council of Governments (2017) City of Hawthorne Climate Action Plan. [Online] Available at: http://www.cityofhawthorne.org/action-plans (accessed 26 August 2019).
44.
TratalosJ, Fullr RA, Warren PH, et al. (2007) Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning83(4): 308–317.
van Asselt MarjoleinBARijkens-KlompN (2002) A look in the mirror: Reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environmental Change12: 167–184.
48.
WangXBlanchetFKoperN (2014) Measuring habitat fragmentation: An evaluation of landscape pattern metrics. Methods in Ecology and Evolution5(7): 634–646.
49.
WilsonJBelonisA (2004) Mapping the Distribution and Density of Green Cover in Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Lusk Center for Real Estate.
50.
Yli-PelkonenVScottAViippolaV, et al. (2017) Trees in urban parks and forests reduce O3, but not NO2 concentrations in Baltimore, MD, USA. Atmospheric Environment167: 73–80.
51.
ZadehAKVeroustraeteFWuytsK, et al. (2012) Dorsi-ventral leaf reflectance properties of Carpinus betulus L.: An indicator of urban habitat quality. Environmental Pollution162: 332–337.
