Around two‐thirds of the global population will live in cities by 2050 requiring large urban infrastructure development. Decision‐makers and planners usually rely on standard economic accounting methods for urban planning and investments on infrastructure assets. However, standard methods fail to account for the ecosystem services benefits that living infrastructure (e.g. urban forests, open spaces) provides to city dwellers. This could generate socially inefficient configurations of urban spaces and compromise the achievement of long‐term urban sustainability targets. In this analysis, we applied a stochastic whole‐of‐life benefit–cost analysis following the System of Environmental‐Economic Accounting (SEEA) framework to compare alternative long‐term management strategies for living infrastructure in Canberra, Australia. Spatially explicit data, i‐Tree Eco and benefit transfer methods were used to estimate the stocks and flows ecosystem services benefits of urban forests and irrigated open spaces from 2018 to 2070. Our analysis suggests that a ’30 per cent canopy cover expansion’ scenario has the highest benefit–cost ratio, while the business as usual scenario, where a net loss of 400 trees is expected per year, offers the lowest benefit–cost ratio. Scenarios of expanding versus not expanding irrigated open spaces in the future both result in a benefit–cost ratio of approximately two.

中文翻译：

---

重视城市森林和开放空间的生态系统服务：SEEA框架在澳大利亚的应用*

到2050年，约有三分之二的全球人口将居住在城市中，这需要大规模的城市基础设施建设。决策者和规划者通常依靠标准的经济核算方法来进行城市规划和基础设施资产的投资。但是，标准方法无法说明生活基础设施（例如，城市森林，开放空间）为城市居民提供的生态系统服务收益。这可能会导致城市空间的社会效率低下，并损害长期城市可持续性目标的实现。在此分析中，我们根据环境经济核算体系（SEEA）框架进行了随机的全寿命收益成本分析，以比较澳大利亚堪培拉生活基础设施的替代性长期管理策略。空间显式数据 i-Tree生态和收益转移方法用于估算2018年至2070年城市森林和灌溉空地的种群和流量生态系统服务的收益。我们的分析表明，“ 30％的冠层覆盖扩展”方案具有最高的收益–成本比率，而照常运作的情况下，预计每年净损失400棵树，却提供了最低的成本效益比。将来扩大或不扩大灌溉开放空间的情况都会导致收益成本比大约为2。而照常运作的情况（预计每年净损失400棵树）提供的利益成本比最低。将来扩大或不扩大灌溉开放空间的情况都会导致收益成本比大约为2。而照常运作的情况（预计每年净损失400棵树）提供的利益成本比最低。将来扩大或不扩大灌溉开放空间的情况都会导致收益成本比大约为2。