Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp 1301–1313 | Cite as

What ecosystem services information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among landscape and regional planners in Germany

  • Christian AlbertEmail author
  • Jennifer Hauck
  • Nina Buhr
  • Christina von Haaren
Research Article

Abstract

While political and scientific interests in ecosystem services (ES) information increases, actual implementation in planning still remains limited. We investigated how landscape and regional planners in Germany already use environmental information, and explored their perceptions concerning an integration of additional information on ES in their work. Four themes are addressed: (1) existing decision-making contexts, (2) current use of environmental information, (3) perceived options for integrating ES information, and (4) useful ES information formats. The research method consists of semi-structured interviews and a web-based survey with German landscape and regional planners. Results are disaggregated between landscape and regional planners, as well as planners with and without prior knowledge of the ES concept. Our results illustrate that a broad range of environmental information is already used that could be associated with ES, but the two most frequently consulted data, species and habitats, relate more to biodiversity. Stronger integrating ES information in planning was generally perceived as useful. However, implementation would often require a mandate from higher-ranking policy levels and the provision of appropriate resources. Project-oriented planning, public information and regional development were seen as promising application contexts. Contrary to our expectations, planners with prior knowledge of the ES concept did not evaluate the usefulness of ES information significantly more optimistic. No single optimal ES information format (ordinal, cardinal, economic valuation) emerged, but context-specific combinations were proposed. The results present valuable guidance for studies and assessments that aim at addressing the ES information needs and requirements of decision makers, and planners in particular.

Keywords

Landscape services Ecosystem services Application Landscape planning Regional planning Communication 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our interviewees and survey respondents for their time and willingness to take part in our study and to provide their insights and expertise. Furthermore, we would like to thank two anonymous reviewers who provided very helpful guidance and advice for the revision. We are grateful for the support of Bea Achtermann, Johannes Hermes, Frauke Lehrke and Felix Neuendorf who helped to set up the internet survey and to evaluate the results. And we thank Frank Schaarschmidt for analyzing our survey data with different statistical methods. Funding for the study was provided through a research grant for the project “QUANTIY-Quantifying Ecosystem Services as Decision Support in Landscape Planning” by Leibniz Universität Hannover.

Supplementary material

10980_2014_9990_MOESM1_ESM.docx (345 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 344 kb)
10980_2014_9990_MOESM2_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 20 kb)

References

  1. Albert C, von Haaren C, Galler C (2012a) Ökosystemdienstleistungen: alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen oder ein Impuls für die Landschaftsplanung? Naturschutz Landschaftsplanung 44:142–148Google Scholar
  2. Albert C, Zimmermann T, Knieling J, von Haaren C (2012b) Social learning can benefit decision-making in landscape planning: gartow case study on climate change adaptation, Elbe valley biosphere reserve. Landscape Urban Planning 105:347–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arciniegas G, Janssen R (2012) Spatial decision support for collaborative land use planning workshops. Landscape Urban Planning 107:332–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ARL (2005) Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung. Akad. für Raumforschung und Landesplanung - ARL, HannoverGoogle Scholar
  5. ARL (2011) Grundriss der Raumordnung und Raumentwicklung. Verlag der ARL, HannoverGoogle Scholar
  6. Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K (2012) Ecosystem properties, potentials and services: the EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol Ind 21:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bateman IJ, Harwood AR, Mace GM, Watson RT, Abson DJ, Andrews B, Binner A, Crowe A, Day, BH, Dugdale S, Fezzi C, Foden J, Hadley D, Haines-Young R, Hulme M, Kontoleon A, Lovett AA, Munday P, Pascual U, Paterson J, Perino G, Sen A, Siriwardena G, van Soest D, Termansen M (2013) Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341(6141):45-50Google Scholar
  8. Beunen R, Opdam P (2011) When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landscape Urban Planning 100:324–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brouwer R, Brander L, Kuik O, Papyrakis E, Bateman I (2013) A synthesis of approaches to assess and value ecosystem services in the EU in the context of TEEB final reportGoogle Scholar
  10. Burkhard B, Petrosillo I, Costanza R (2010) Ecosystem services: bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecol Complex 7:257–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burkhard B, de Groot R, Costanza R, Seppelt R, Joergensen SE, Potschin M (2012) Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Ind 21:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cork SJ, Proctor W (2005) Implementing a process for integration research: ecosystem services project. Aust J Res Pract 1:M6Google Scholar
  13. Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT, O’Farrell PJ, Reyers B, Rouget M, Roux DJ, Welz A, Wilhelm-Rechman A (2008) An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9483PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 7:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 7:260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2011) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. COM(2011) 244Google Scholar
  17. Faludi A, Waterhout B (2006) Introducing evidence-based planning. disP – Planning Rev 42:4–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher TB (2007) Theory and practice of strategic environmental assessment: towards a more systematic approach. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Galler C, Von Haaren C, Albert C (Under Rev) Enhancing landscape management effectiveness and efficiency by optimizing multifunctional effects of environmental measures: case study results and recommendations for Designing Agri-Environmental Programs. J Environ ManageGoogle Scholar
  20. Geertman S, Stillwell J (2004) Planning support systems: an inventory of current practice. Comput Environ Urban Syst 28:291–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geneletti D (2013) Ecosystem services in environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haase G (1978) Zur Ableitung und Kennzeichnung von Naturraumpotentialen. Petermans Geogr Mitteilungen 112:113–125Google Scholar
  23. Hauck J, Görg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamäki O, Maes J, Wittmer H, Jax K (2013a) Maps have an air of authority: potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosyst Serv 4:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauck J, Schweppe-Kraft B, Albert C, Görg C, Jax K, Jensen R, Fürst C, Maes J, Ring I, Hönigová I, Burkhard B, Mehring M, Tiefenbach M, Grunewald K, Schwarzer M, Meurer J, Sommerhäuser M, Priess JA, Schmidt J, Grêt-Regamey A (2013b) The promise of the ecosystem services concept for planning and decision-making. GAIA 22:232–236Google Scholar
  25. Hay I (ed) (2005) Qualitative research methods in human geography. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Helming K, Diehl K, Geneletti D, Wiggering H (2013) Mainstreaming ecosystem services in European policy impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huitema D, Cornelisse C, Ottow B (2010) Is the jury still out? Toward greater insight in policy learning in participatory decision processes—the case of Dutch citizens’ juries on water management in the Rhine Basin. Ecol Soc 15:16Google Scholar
  28. Huser B, Rutledge DT, Van Delden H, Wedderburn ME, Cameron M, Elliott S, Fenton T, Hurkens J, Mcbride G, Mcdonald G, O’Connor M, Phyn D, Poot J, Price R, Small B, Tait A, Vanhout R, Woods RA (2009) Creating futures: towards an integrated spatial decision support system for local government in New Zealand. In: Anderssen RS, Braddock RD and Newham LTH (eds) 18th IMACS world congress – MODSIM09 international congress on modelling and simulation, Cairns, Australia, ISBN: 978-0-9758400-7-8Google Scholar
  29. Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kates RW, Parris TM (2003) Long-term trends and a sustainability transition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8062–8067PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Koschke L, Fürst C, Frank S, Makeschin F (2012) A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecol Ind 21:54–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lang D, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas C (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nadin V, Stead D (2008) European spatial planning systems, social models and learning. disP Plan Rev 172:35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecol 23:633–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Neef E (1966) Zur Frage des gebietswirtschaftlichen potentials. Forschungen Fortschritte 40:65–70Google Scholar
  36. Opdam P (2010) Learning science from practice. Landscape Ecol 25:821–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Opdam P, Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Albert C, Bentrup G, Castella J-C, McAlpine C, Liu J, Sheppard S, Swaffield S (2013) Strengthening the science-policy interface at the local scale. Landscape Ecol 28:1439–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Plieninger T, Bieling C, Gerdes H, Ohnesorge B, Schaich H, Schleyer C, Trommler K, Wolff F (2010) Ökosystemleistungen in Kulturlandschaften - Konzept und Anwendung am Beispiel der Biosphärenreservate Oberlausitz und Schwäbische Alb. Natur Landschaft 85:187–192Google Scholar
  39. Primmer E, Furman E (2012) Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosyst Serv 1:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scolozzi R, Morri E, Santolini R (2012) Delphi-based change assessment in ecosystem service values to support strategic spatial planning in Italian landscapes. Ecol Ind 21:134–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Selman P (2012) Sustainable landscape planning: the reconnection agenda. Abington, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  42. TEEB 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, Edited by Pushpam Kumar, London and Washington, D.C., EarthscanGoogle Scholar
  43. Termorshuizen J, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24:1037–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. UBA - Federal Environmental Agency (2008) Economic valuation of environmental damage: methodological convention for estimates of environmental externalities. Federal Environmental Agency, Dessau-RoßlauGoogle Scholar
  45. von Haaren C (ed) (2004) Landschaftsplanung. Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  46. von Haaren C, Albert C (2011) Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies. Int J Biodiv Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 7:150–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. von Haaren C, Saathoff W, Galler C (2011) Integrating climate protection and mitigation functions with other landscape functions in rural areas: a landscape planning approach. J Environ Plan Manage 55:59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wiek A, Binder C, Scholz RW (2006) Functions of scenarios in transition processes. Futures 38:740–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wittmer H, Gundimedia H (eds) (2012) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in local and regional policy and management. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Wood SA, Guerry AD, Silver JM, Lacayo M (2013) Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation. Sci Reports 3:2976Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Albert
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jennifer Hauck
    • 2
  • Nina Buhr
    • 1
  • Christina von Haaren
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Environmental PlanningLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Department of Environmental PoliticsHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations