Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Valuing ecosystem services in community-based landscape planning: introducing a wellbeing-based approach

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The challenge of incorporating the concept of ecosystem services in landscape planning has been widely acknowledged, yet values of ecosystem services are not well considered in current landscape planning and environmental governance. This is particularly the case when local stakeholders are strongly involved in decision making about adapting the landscape to future demands and challenges. Engagement of stakeholders introduces a variety of interests and motives that result in diverging value interpretations. Moreover, participative planning approaches are based on learning processes, implying that the perceptions of value evolve during the planning process. Current valuation approaches are not able to support such process. Therefore we argue that there is a need for a novel view on the mechanism of integrating valuation in the different stages of community-based landscape planning, as well as for tools based on this mechanism. By revisiting the original conception of ecosystem services and redefining the value of an ecosystem service as its comparative importance to human wellbeing, we develop a conceptual framework for incorporating ecosystem service valuation that captures the full spectrum of value and value changes. We acknowledge that in the social interactions during the planning process values are redefined, negotiated and reframed in the context of the local landscape. Therefore, we propose a valuation mechanism that evolves through the phases of the cyclic planning process. We illustrate the use of this mechanism by proposing a tool that supports stakeholder groups in building a value-based vision on landscape adaptation that contributes to all wellbeing dimensions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin F-P (2003) Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med 57:239–251

  • Ahern J (1999) Spatial concepts, planning strategies, and future scenarios: a framework method for integrating landscape ecology and landscape planning. Landsc. Ecol. Anal. Springer, New York, pp 175–201

  • Aldred J (2006) Incommensurability and monetary valuation. Land Econ 82(2):141–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkire S (2002) Dimensions of human development. World Dev 30:181–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson L (1995) Guidelines for preparing urban plans. Planners Press, American Planning Association, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18:621–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bramston P, Pretty G, Zammit C (2010) Assessing environmental stewardship motivation. Environ Behav 43:776–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie M, Fazey I, Cooper R, Hyde T, Kenter JO (2012) An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecol Econ 83:67–78

  • Daily GC (ed) (1997) Introduction: What are ecosystem services. In Nature's service: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DC, pp 1–10

  • Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–28

  • Daw T, Brown K, Rosendo S, Pomeroy R (2011) Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ Conserv 38:370–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot RS, 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. Ecol Complex 7:260–272

  • Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907–1912

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duff G, Garnett D, Jacklyn P et al (2009) A collaborative design to adaptively manage for landscape sustainability in north Australia: lessons from a decade of cooperative research. Landsc Ecol 24:1135–1143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun E, de Groot R (2010) Natural capital and ecosystem services: the ecological foundation of human society. In: Hester RE, Harrison RM (eds) Ecosyst. Serv. Royal Society of Chemistry, pp 105–121

  • Grêt-Regamey A, Walz A, Bebi P (2008) Valuing ecosystem services for sustainable landscape planning in alpine regions. Mt Res Dev 28:156–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber JS (2010) Key principles of community-based natural resource management: a synthesis and interpretation of identified effective approaches for managing the commons. Environ Manage 45:52–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kosoy N, Corbera E (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol Econ 69:1228–1236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar M, Kumar P (2008) Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ 64:808–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane MB, McDonald G (2005) Community-based environmental planning: operational dilemmas, planning principles and possible remedies. J Environ Plan Manag 48:709–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitão AB, Ahern J (2002) Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan 59:65–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lurie S, Hibbard M (2008) Community-based natural resource management: ideals and realities for Oregon watershed councils. Soc Nat Resour 21:430–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda G (2004) Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences. Eur J Oper Res 158:662–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI (2012) Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 106:221–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landsc Ecol 23:633–644

  • Nelson G, Bennett E (2006) Anthropogenic drivers of ecosystem change: an overview. Ecol Soc 11(2):29. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art29/, [online]

  • Opdam P (2013) Using ecosystem services in community based planning: science is not ready to deliver. In: Fu B, Jones KB (eds) Landscape ecology for sustainable environment and culture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 77–101

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Foppen R, Vos C (2002) Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 16:767–779

  • Pahl-Wostl C (2009) A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob Environ Chang 19:354–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual U, Muradian R, Brander L, Gómez- Baggethun E, Martín-López B, Verma M, Armsworth P, Christie M, Cornelissen H, Eppink F, Farley J, Loomis J, Pearson L, Perrings C, Polasky S (2010) Chapter 5: The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In: Kumar R (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 183–256

  • Pereira E, Queiroz C, Pereira HM, Vicente L (2005) Ecosystem services and human well-being: a participatory study in a mountain community in Portugal. Ecol Soc 10(2):14. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art14/, [online]

  • Polishchuk Y, Rauschmayer F (2012) Beyond “benefits”? Looking at ecosystem services through the capability approach. Ecol Econ 81:103–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH et al (2009) Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 68:1301–1315

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ (2006) An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecol Econ 59:406–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith LM, Case JL, Smith HM, Harwell LC, Summers JK (2013) Relating ecoystem services to domains of human well-being: Foundation for a U.S. index. Ecol Indic 28:79–90

  • Spash CL (2007) Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecol Econ 63:690–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers JK, Smith LM, Case JL, Linthurst RA (2012) A review of the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. Ambio 41:327–340

  • Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc Ecol 24:1037–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Morse-Jones S, Fisher B (2010) Ecosystem valuation: a sequential decision support system and quality assessment issues. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1185:79–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vatn A (2005) Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. Ecol Econ 55:203–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner MM, Gobster PH (2007) Interpreting landscape change: measured biophysical change and surrounding social context. Landsc Urban Plan 81:67–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace KJ (2012) Values: drivers for planning biodiversity management. Environ Sci Policy 17:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner G, Pascual U (2011) Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: a multidisciplinary critique. Glob Environ Chang 21:492–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willemen L, Hein L, Verburg PH (2010) Evaluating the impact of regional development policies on future landscape services. Ecol Econ 69:2244–2254

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Parts of this study were developed in the GIFT-T! project (Green Infrastructure for Tomorrow Together, www.gift-t.eu) and financed by the INTERREG IVB Program North West Europe. This program is an effort toward building a more cohesive EU society, as it is the fruit of a cooperative work by people from different countries working on common issues that touch the lives of EU-citizens. The authors wish to thank Menko Wiersema and Kees Verdouw (Province of South Holland, The Netherlands) for making available the dream session data, and Martijn Haag for his kind support in translating and interpreting these data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Land Use Planning Group and Alterra, Team Nature and Society, Wageningen University, 6708 PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Juichieh Liu & Paul Opdam

Authors
  1. Juichieh Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Opdam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juichieh Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, J., Opdam, P. Valuing ecosystem services in community-based landscape planning: introducing a wellbeing-based approach. Landscape Ecol 29, 1347–1360 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0045-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0045-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation