
It has been shown that different urbanisation policies have different varying impacts on a region’s ecosystem. In urban areas there is an increase in housing and services: dense housing leads to an increase in concrete and other impervious composites which reduce flood mitigation. In relation to this, some studies show that lower density housing does not affect the flood mitigation but does have different effects on the environment as a whole, including a reduction in the land mass available for uses such as carbon storage.
The study in question was a joint effort conducted by the University of Southampton and the University of Sheffield, and its findings were presented to the British Ecological Society (BES) at the last meeting, held at Sheffield University. Cities are continually growing and evolving: it was noted that a city’s evolutionary path was difficult to predict due to each one having different needs resulting in them expanding in different ways
The study showed two different scenarios ‘Densification’ and ‘Sprawl’; these two scenarios were based on classifications which can be found in the UK land cover map. The ‘Densification’ scenario covered areas which are inhabited by a dense urban population whereas ‘sprawl’ involved lower population density, suburban areas.
The ‘Densification’ scenario highlighted the fact that within largely populated areas (such as cities) there are less ‘green’ spaces but they do accommodate more people. The ‘Sprawl’ scenario, on the other hand, shows that there is more ‘green’ space readily available.
National Statistics show that the population is estimated to grow by 16% by 2013. With calculations being based on 2006 figures, that is an estimated population of approximately 70 million. Taking these figures into consideration the two scenarios of ‘Densification’ and ‘Sprawl’ may have an effect on a significant volume of people and as a result the ecosystem services necessary to sustain them, such as
‘Densification’ is perceived to have a negative impact on all the services listed above. By building more houses and services the land cannot be used for agriculture, or carbon storage; disturbing the land itself removes any carbon stored within it. Urban areas may have more drainage and sewerage systems but the increase in concrete and asphalt mean flood mitigation may be compromised resulting in urban areas running a higher risk of becoming flooded.
‘Sprawl’ will benefit from the services listed as there is more green space readily available. The soil will be less disturbed in ‘Sprawl’ areas due to the abundance of green space including parks and gardens: carbon storage is ultimately more successful in these areas. Areas of ‘Sprawl’ are also less likely to become flooded due to the volume of green space; increased levels of undisturbed soil provide somewhere for rain water to be absorbed and held for longer periods, reducing the potential of flooding
Dr. Eigenbrod stated “If you have these bigger cities with a lot of green space, then they are bigger. So then, of course, land that could be used by wilder natural habitats or for agricultural production is lost. The challenge is to have smart cities that are quite dense so they do not take up too much space and do not have the disadvantages of sprawls (longer commuting distances etc), but still have enough green spaces that give all these benefits for people living there, including flood mitigation services.”
From this study it would appear that people who live in cities are more at risk of flooding and their property being damaged. Also, with cities increasing and the population density being higher then city residents are often forced to sacrifice space to live in the particular location of their desires. Self storage facilities are a practicable solution to both these concerns. Dr. Eigenbrod also suggested urban ecosystem services are an under-researched topic: self storage services could be integrated into further studies as a sustainable option for urbanised areas suffering from ecosystem service constraints.
For more info - BBC