FIESTAS POPULARES ENERO

3.2.1 Relationship between functions

Multifunctionality is more than simply addition of multiple uses but consist different types of integration between functions, with spatial and temporal changes. Spatially, most landscape functions have strong attachment with land use and land type, and two or more functions could co- exist as a basic level; beyond this location-sharing, multifunctionality emphasis the interaction between functions (Lovell and Taylor 2013), especially different types of functions; furthermore, based on intensive interactions, synergistic effects could be captured and encouraged, which is one critical feather of multifunctional landscape (Selman 2009). More advantages could be bring by

use efficiency (Gulickx, Verburg et al. 2013); upon these, a more complex relationship network between users could be built and it also give chance to a better comprehensive management (Tank 2008).

Through the temporal scale, diverse functions could be realized on the same substantial land simultaneously or successively (Selman 2009); the present of functions may also changes or being re-adjusted through time (Rodríguez-Loinaz, Alday et al. 2015). These spatial and temporal interactions between functions give multifunctionality an image of a dynamic balance between topics, which makes it a substantial expression of sustainability in green spaces (O’Farrell and Anderson 2010).

In recent five years, many quantitative researches noticed a specific phenomenon that ecosystem services in a given landscape show certain patterns of synergies and trade-offs among each other because of their underpinned connectedness or interdependence, which is the so-called ecosystem services bundles or clusters Interestingly, the distribution of such bundles always strongly coupling with the social-ecological gradient and reveal deeper roots of human-modified nature of urban landscape. In fact, such bundles are exactly the reflections of multifunctionality at different level and scale.

Normally only 10-15 ecosystem services are chosen for the bundle researches, within which Supporting or Habitat services are often ignored and Cultural services left only 1-2 due to the hardness in locating suitable indicators (Haase, Larondelle et al. 2014). Instead of using natural boundaries like river basin, municipality boundary or spatial grids are used to engage with social process and municipal data. The actual bundles are not always clearly diverse with each other but has varies with social-ecological gradient, it was artificially divided into typical types. A common category is urban related bundles, Exurban/ Destination Tourism/ Mega-city/ Urban perform higher Cultural services, average Provisioning services and medium to low level of Regulating services; the agriculture/ corn-soy/ feed-lot group has obviously better food related Provisioning services but acts not ideal in other services. Many such bundles are land use based, or resource-oriented, like recreational forest/ lake/ coast attract local and foreign tourism and are favourable places for activities like hunting and hiking, thus have Cultural services than other places (Raudsepp-Hearne, Peterson et al. 2010, Turner, Odgaard et al. 2014, Queiroz, Meacham et al. 2015, Yang, Ge et al. 2015).

Since there is no common division method, the specific classification varies and few trends could be summarized. The Stockholm case (Queiroz, Meacham et al. 2015) shows no obvious trade- offs between Provisioning and Regulating or Cultural services, while the Denmark case (Turner, Odgaard et al. 2014) and Chinese case (Yang, Ge et al. 2015) confirms a negative relation between Provisioning and other services, but such trade-offs could be reduced in certain land type through better management (Xue, Li et al. 2015). Similarly, Denmark case show a dispersal of Cultural

services, which concentrate surround urban area in Stockholm case. Generally, the services across different cases show a clear non-random, but context specific, geographic patterns with several gradient. In this way, the bundles is a graphic information of social-ecological relationship on site, which could be a useful reference for multifunctionality.

The status of an ecosystem services is influenced not only by its provision but also by the related human demand (Paetzold, Warren et al. 2010). Agricultural discussion intensively involves the topic based on its commodity production nature, but for landscape scenario it is relatively new. The ecosystem services supply is the natural resources and services that currently could be used, not the maximum or potential situation; the demand refer to ecosystem services that are being used, but it may not necessarily be local because of the globalization reality; based on such perspective, the budget and foot print could be calculated to present the necessary total amount of services and corresponding areas that needed to generate the services (Burkhard, Kroll et al. 2012, Willemen, Veldkamp et al. 2012, Palacios-Agundez, Onaindia et al. 2015). Such approach further connects practical problems like “mismatch” in the allocation of services and has profound effects for planning perspectives.

3.2.2 Multi-disciplinary influences

The developing of multifunctionality in landscape helps the traditional deep-rooted aesthetic- oriented artificial space growing out of its limit and forming a bigger unity with the adding concepts from other fields. Disadvantages naturally would be a confusion in the randomness of its current use but on the positive perspective, this enlarging process give the term more substantial content and methods. Ecosystem services, giving assistance to the construction of an applied framework for landscape multifunctional analysis, have strong roots not only in urban ecology, but more essentially in economic. The trend of monetization and commodification of ecosystem services helps to capture the attraction of political support and involve market logic for environmental problems (Gómez- Baggethun, De Groot et al. 2010). The production perspective in multifunctional landscape, which may have influence from cultural landscape and peri-urban agriculture, merged the former exclusive topics like food production and agro-biodiversity into the unity, and thus have positive effects for the relocation and reconnection of rural-urban relationship (Selman 2009, Lovell, DeSantis et al. 2010). By fixing this traditional rural-urban divide, urban landscape expand its range and became a continuous matrix that docking more easily with planning system (Lovell and Taylor 2013). Besides, public participation as another factor give the chance of multifunctionality to embedded in local context (Otte, Simmering et al. 2007).