Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services

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

Abstract

There is currently, widespread interest in the assessment of ecosystem services, and the new insights that the concept provides in understanding the ecology of landscapes and the science of sustainability. Three major assessment frameworks can be identified in the contemporary literature, namely one based on habitats, one based on the identification of the system elements that delivers the service, and one based on the understanding of places. Although all are useful for supporting decision making in relation to sustainable development, different situations require different perspectives, and so it is important to understand their advantages and drawbacks. Moreover, it is important to determine how they relate to other approaches used, for example, in landscape planning, so that the contribution that ecosystem assessments can make to sustainability debates can be better understood. The aim of this paper is to describe the strengths of the place-based approach because it is more easily overlooked as an assessment option. In particular we will argue that a place-based approach can help us better understand issues of multi-functionality, the valuation of natural capital and the role of landscape in framing debates about ecosystem services and sustainability. An appreciation of these issues will enable researchers interested in landscape to key questions and priorities in relation to questions of sustainability. Although it is useful to consider different assessment perspectives separately, we conclude that in practice, the habitat and systems approaches can form part of a place-based assessment, just as a better understanding of place can enrich assessments that spring from these more natural science approaches. Nevertheless, in designing analytical strategies to take the ecosystem approach forward, we suggest that it is vital to consider these different perspectives in order to build assessments that are relevant, legitimate and credible, and which can effectively address the problems of sustainability that emerge at the landscape scale.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html.

  2. http://www.ariesonline.org/.

  3. http://www.finding-sanctuary.org/.

  4. See for example, http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/statement_on_qola_1979914.pdf.

References

  • Albrechts L (2006a) Bridge the gap: from spatial planning to strategic projects. Eur Plan Stud 14(10):1487–1500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albrechts L (2006b) Shifts in strategic spatial planning? Some evidence from Europe and Australia. Environ Plan A 38(6):1149–1170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albrechts L (2010) More of the same is not enough! How could strategic spatial planning be instrumental in dealing with the challenges ahead? Environ Plan B 37(6):1115–1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ash N, Blanco H, Brown C, Garcia K, Henrichs T, Lucas N, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Simpson RD, Scholes R, Tomich TP, Vira B, Zurek M (eds) (2010) Ecosystems and Human Well-being A Manual for Assessment Practitioners. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18(3):621–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (2006) From community-based resource management to complex systems. Ecol Soc 11(1):45

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63(2–3):616–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown GG (2006) Mapping landscape values development preferences: for tourism and residential development planning. Int J Tour Res 8:101–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown GG, Raymond C (2007) The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: toward mapping place attachment. Appl Geogr 27:89–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown GG, Reed P, Harris CC (2002) Testing a place-based theory for environmental evaluation: an Alaska case study. Appl Geogr 22:49–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant R, Wilson G (1998) Rethinking environmental management. Prog Hum Geogr 22:321–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey PD, Wallis S, Chamberlain PM, Cooper A, Emmett BA, Maskell LC, McCann T, Murphy J, Norton LR, Reynolds B, Scott WA, Simpson IC, Smart SM, Ullyett JM (2008) Countryside Survey: UK results from 2007. NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, 105 pp (CEH Project Number: C03259)

  • Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries R, Diaz S, Dietz T, Duriappah A, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. PNAS 106:1305–1312

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clement JM, Cheng AS (2011) Using analyses of public value orientations, attitudes and preferences to inform national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming. Appl Geogr 31:393–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT (2008) An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. PNAS 105(28):9483–9488

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Douvere F (2008) The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Mar Policy 32:762–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N (2009) Participatory mapping and geographical patterns of the social landscape values of rural communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Fennia 187(1):43–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish R, Haines-Young RH, Rubiano J (2003) Stakeholder landscapes and GIS: institutional vision of landscape and sustainability in the management of the Sherwood Natural Area, UK. In: Palang H, Fry G (eds) Landscape interfaces. Cultural heritage in changing landscapes. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 147–162

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher B, Turner RK, Zylstra M, Brouwer R, De Groot R, Farber S, Ferraro P, Green R, Hadley D, Harlow J, Jefferiss P, Kirkby C, Morling P, Mowatt S, Naidoo R, Paavola J, Strassburg B, Yu D, Balmford A (2008) Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecol Appl 18:2050–2067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ghazoul J (2007) Challenges to the uptake of the ecosystem service rationale for conservation. Conserv Biol 21:1651–1652

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ghazoul J (2008) Debating the ecosystem service rationale for conservation: response to Kremen et al. Conserv Biol 22(3):799–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilliland PM, Laffoley D (2008) Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Mar Policy 32:787–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young RH (2000) Sustainable development and sustainable landscapes: defining a new paradigm for landscape ecology. Fennia 178(1):7–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young RH (2011) Exploring ecosystem services issues across diverse knowledge domains using Bayesian Belief Networks. Prog Phys Geogr 35(5):685–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young RH, Potschin M (2008) England’s terrestrial ecosystem services and the rationale for an Ecosystem Approach. Project NR0107. Available at: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cem/pdf/NR107_FTR_080108.pdf

  • Haines-Young RH, Barr CJ, Black HIJ, Briggs DJ, Bunce RGH, Clarke RT, Cooper A, Dawson FH, Firbank LG, Fuller RM, Furse MT, Gillespie MK, Hill R, Hornung M, Howard DC, McCann T, Morecroft MD, Petit S, Sier ARJ, Smart SM, Smith GM, Stott AP, Stuart RC, Watkins JW (2000) Accounting for nature: assessing habitats in the UK countryside. DETR, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young RH, Langanke T, Potschin M (2008) Landscape character as a framework for environmental assessment. In: Petrosillo I, Müller F, Jones KB, Zurlini G, Krauze K, Victorov S, Li B-L, Kepner GW (eds) Use of landscape sciences for the assessment of environmental security. Springer, New York, pp 165–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe L, McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopín GC, Grübler A, Huntley B, Jäger J, Jodha NS, Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B III, O’Riordan T, Svedin U (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment 47(3):8–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein AM, Olschewski R, Kremen C (2008) The ecosystem service controversy: is there sufficient evidence for a “Pollination Paradox”? Gaia 17(1):12–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Williams NM, Aizen MA, Gemmill-Herren B, LeBuhn G, Minckley R, Packer L, Potts SG, Roulston T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Vázquez DP, Winfree R, Adams L, Crone EE, Greenleaf SS, Keitt TH, Klein A-M, Regetz J, Ricketts TH (2007) Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecol Lett 10:299–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lackey RT (1998) Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landsc Urban Plan 40:21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane MB, McDonald G (2005) Community-based environmental planning: operational dilemmas, planning principles and possible remedies. J Environ Plan Manag 48(5):709–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone DN (1992) The geographical tradition: episodes in the history of a contested enterprise. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonsdorf E, Ricketts T, Kremen C, Winfree R, Greenleaf S, Williams N (2011) Crop pollination services. In: Karvera P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (eds) Natural capital. Theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 168–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Luck GW, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (2003) Population diversity and ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol 18:331–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck GW, Harrington R, Harrison PA, Kremen C, Berry PM, Bugter R, Dawson TP, de Bello F, Dia S, Feld CK, Haslett JR, Hering D, Kontogianni A, Lavorel S, Rounsevell M, Samways MJ, Sandin L, Settele J, Sykes MT, Van de Hove S, Vandewalle M, Zobel M (2009) Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. Bioscience 59(3):223–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Musacchio LR (2009) The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: a conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecol 24:993–1013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton BG, Noonan D (2007) Ecology and valuation: big changes needed. Ecol Econ 63:664–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan T (1999) The global environmental debate. In: O’Riordan T (eds) Environmental science for environmental management, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Harlow Essex

  • Paasi A (2002) Place and region: regional worlds and words. Prog Hum Geogr 26(6):802–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potschin M, Haines-Young RH (2003) Improving the quality of environmental assessments using the concept of Natural Capital: a case study from Southern Germany. Landsc Urban Plan 63:93–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potschin M, Haines-Young RH (2006) “Rio+10”, sustainability science and Landscape Ecology. Urban Plan 75:162–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2011) Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical perspective. Prog Phys Geogr 35(5):575–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M, Quinn C, Jin N, Holden J, Burt T, Kirby M, Sendzimir J (2007) If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail: ‘traditional’ versus participatory model building. Interdiscipl Sci Rev 32:263–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. PNAS 107(11):5242–5247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond M, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Starthearn S, Grandgirard A, Kavilas T (2009) Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 68:1301–1315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Frau A, Edwards-Jones G, Kaiser MJ (2011) Mapping stakeholder values for coastal zone management. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 434:239–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer FK (1953) Exceptionalism in geography: a methodological examination. AAAG 43:226–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Fraser E, Hubacek K, Prell C, Reed MS (2006) Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social-ecological systems: a critical review. Ecol Soc 11(2):39

    Google Scholar 

  • Suárez de Vivero JL, Rodríguez Mateos JC, Florido del Corra D (2009) Geopolitical factors of maritime policies and marine spatial planning: state, regions, and geographical planning scope. Mar Policy 33:624–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallis H, Polasky S (2011) Assessing multiple ecosystem services: an integrated tool for the real world. In: Karvera P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (eds) Natural capital. Theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 34–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner BL, Lambin EG, Reenberg A (2007) The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. PNAS 104:206660–220671

    Google Scholar 

  • UK NEA (UK National Ecosystem Assessment) (2011) The UK national ecosystem assessment: synthesis of the key findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson G, Bryant R (1997) Environmental management: new directions for the 21st century. University College London Press/Taylor and Francis, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2006) Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity, and sustainability science. Landscape Ecol 21:1–4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Environmental Management, School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK

    Marion Potschin & Roy Haines-Young

Authors
  1. Marion Potschin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roy Haines-Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marion Potschin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R. Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services. Landscape Ecol 28, 1053–1065 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9756-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9756-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation