Abstract
The application of the Ecosystem Services (ES) concept in spatial planning can help improve the connection between land use patterns and the understanding of the functioning of settlement systems to improve risk prevention and management and contribute to enhanced human well-being.
The Project LIFE SAM4CP Soil Administration Model 4 Community Profit aims at delivering by June 2018 new tools to improve planning, land management and use, including mapping and assessing ecosystem services generated by the land as tangible and intangible benefits for humans.
The article aims to investigate how the government can deal with sustainable land use through new frameworks of cooperative urban and territorial planning involving all the different public actors. Then the paper will highlight how ES mapping tools and techniques can be used effectively in the decision-making processes associated with urban and regional programming and planning. The thesis is that the ecosystem-based approach adopted by the Project can be helpful in assessing the possible environmental benefits of each planning option and thus facilitate risk prevention and management decisions through the direct involvement of citizens and a multi-level governance model.
The Project consists in drawing up 4 urban plans (or their variants) based on the co-planning procedure provided for in the planning legislation of Piedmont (Italy). The pilot project concern the Municipality of Bruino followed by three subsequent Municipalities of the Metropolitan City of Turin (Settimo T.se, Chieri and None).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See www.lifesam4cp.eu. A first, brief account is included in: LIFE+ SAM4CP, MIDTERM Report. Covering the project activities from 03/06/2014 to 30/06/2016, Turin, 30/09/2016.
- 2.
For example, at the CBD COP12 in 2014, a decision XII/20 titled “Biodiversity and Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction” was adopted. The decision encourages Parties to promote and implement ecosystem-based approaches to climate change and disaster risk reduction.
In March 2015, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 was adopted as the successor to the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015. This new framework places a stronger emphasis on the importance of ecosystems, biodiversity and proposes a more rigorous monitoring framework, which strongly advocates for capacity development and knowledge transfers for risk management.
In June 2015, the Ramsar Convention Decision XXII.13 was adopted in order to recognize the role of wetlands in disaster risk reduction.
In September 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
In December 2015, the Paris Agreement was adopted by 195 countries.
- 3.
Integrated Evaluation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs.
- 4.
Trade-offs indicate the change in the ecosystemic value of the soil subject to urban transformation; is a situation that implies a choice between two or more possibilities, where the loss of value of one constitutes an increase in value in another.
- 5.
For example: Citizens for Europe: www.citizensforeurope.eu; Center for Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University: www.cdd.stanford.edu; Center for Democracy and Citizenship: www.publicwork.org; Civic Evolution: www.civic.evolution.org; Community Planning: www.communityplanning.net/index.php; DDC-Deliberative Democracy Consortium: http://participedia.net/de/organizations/deliberative-democracy-consortium; EIPP-European institute for Public Participation: www.participationinstitute.org/index.php?id=3&L=2; European Commission – The European Citizens’ Initiative: http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome?lg=en; Iap2 - International Association for Public Participation: www.iap2.org; IAF – International Association of Facilitators: www.iaf-world.org/site/ ; International Observatory on Participatory Democracy: www.oidp.net/en/, PEP-NET Pan European eParticipation Network: www.citizensforeurope.eu/organisation/pep-net
- 6.
Black swans are unexpected events with low probability but with enormous impacts and consequences (Taleb 2007).
References
Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., & Rockström, J. (2005). Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309, 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1112122
Andrade, A., et al. (2012). Principles and guidelines for integrating ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation in project and policy design. Turrialba: IUCN- CEM, CATIE. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2011-064-Rev.pdf
Barberis Rami M. (2017). Come affrontare l’incertezza? Ovvero la gestione del rischio di disastro. EyesReg, 7(1), Gennaio 2017.
Barbieri, C. A. (2015). Dall’istituzione all'azione della Città metropolitana di Torino: il ruolo di una nuova pianificazione. Il Piemonte delle Autonomie, 2, 8–15.
Barbieri, C. A., & Giaimo, C. (2015). A new model of institutional governance for new planning policies in Italy. Urbanistica, 153, 92–96.
Blecic, I., & Cecchini, A. (2016). Verso una pianificazione antifragile. Come pensare al futuro senza prevederlo. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Bobbio, L. (Ed.). (2004). A più voci. Amministrazioni pubbliche, imprese, associazioni e cittadini nei processi decisionali inclusivi. Napoli: ESI.
Bobbio, L., & Pomatto, G. (2007). Il coinvolgimento dei cittadini nelle scelte pubbliche. Meridian, 58, 45–67.
Bricocoli, M. (2002). Uno sporco lavoro di quartiere. Il Contratto di Quartiere a Cinisello Balsamo. Animazione sociale, 3, 54–63.
Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., & Maginnis, S. (Eds.). (2016). Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. Gland: IUCN. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en
European Environmental Agency. (2010). European environment state and outlook report 2010 - SOER 2010. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
EU- Committee of the Regions. (2014). On the charter for multilevel governance in Europe. RESOL-V-012.
Faludi, A. (2012). Multi-level (territorial) governance: Three criticisms. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(2), 197–211.
Fürst, C., Opdam, P., & Inostroza, L. (2014). Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: Proposing a balanced score car. Landscape Ecology, 29, 1435–1446.
Fung, A. (2003). Survey article: Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 11, 338–367.
Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (Eds.). (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook. Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gruber, J. S. (2010). Key principles of community-basednatural resource management: A synthesis and interpretation of identified effective approach for managing the commons. Environmental Management, 45, 52–66.
Monty, F., Murti, R., & Furuta, N. (2016). Helping nature help us: Transforming disaster risk reduction through ecosystem management. Gland: IUCN. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.15.en
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for anaelyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422.
Pizzetti, F. (2015). La legge Delrio: una grande riforma in un cantiere aperto. Il diverso ruolo e l’opposto destino delle città metropolitane e delle province. Rivista on line dell'Associazione Italiana dei Costituzionalisti, 3, 1–11.
Sclavi, M. (2002). Avventure urbane. Progettare la città con gli abitanti. Milano: Eleuthera.
Susskind, L., McKearnen, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (Eds.). (1999). The consensus building handbook. A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oakes/London: Sage.
Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan. London: Allen Lane.
UNEP. (2014). Integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment: A guide for practitioners. A report of ProEcoServ. Geneletti, D. Nairobi: UNEP
Wates, N. (2006). Community planning handbook (2nd ed.). London: Earthscan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Giaimo, C., Barbieri, C.A., Salata, S. (2019). Ecosystem Services Based Approach for Participatory Spatial Planning and Risk Management in a Multi-Level Governance System. In: Brunetta, G., Caldarice, O., Tollin, N., Rosas-Casals, M., Morató, J. (eds) Urban Resilience for Risk and Adaptation Governance. Resilient Cities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76944-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76944-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76943-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76944-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)