Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balanced score card
- 1.7k Downloads
The application of the ecosystem services (ES) concept in land use planning has great potential to enhance the awareness of planning actors on their interactions. At the same time it can contribute to improve the linkage between the role of land use patterns and the understanding of land system functioning and its contribution to human well-being. The concept should be developed in a way that can be applicable in socio-ecological systems where nature and society are capable of enhancing their roles mutually. The objective of this paper is to suggest a standardized scheme and generalizable criteria to assess how successful the application of the ES concept contributed to facilitate participatory planning. We consider three potential advantages and three critical aspects for how to improve the applicability and relevance of the ES concept in planning. Hereon based, we present a balanced score card tool for which we broke down to advantages and risks into concrete questions. We illustrate the application of this approach with two case studies, representatives of two major governance schemes in relation to land use planning. We demonstrate that the balanced score card approach helps to reveal potential imbalances regarding the consideration of different ES groups. It supports testing the potential of the ES concept to enhance or not interactions of local and regional actors. We conclude that the framework should be reconsidered after a set of case studies to be developed into a monitoring tool for supporting planning practices.
KeywordsEcosystem services Participatory land use planning Balanced score card Actors Ecosystem services groups Efficiency of land use planning processes Quality of land use plans
The idea for this paper was born from the workshop organized at the EcoSummit 2012 “Structure matters—The potential of land-use pattern to contribute to ES provision”. It underwent an intensive discussion process and we wish to thank cordially the participants of this workshop, for sharing ideas and supporting the development of this paper.
- Becker E (2012) Social–ecological systems as epistemic objects. In: Glaser M, Krause G, Ratter BMW, Welp M (eds) Human–nature interactions in the anthropocene—potentials of socio-ecological systems analysis. Routledge studies in environment, culture and science. pp 37–59Google Scholar
- Bošnjaković B (2006) Valuing and paying for ecosystem services: a pre-condition for sustainability. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 6(1–4):123–134Google Scholar
- Cairns J (1996) Determining the balance between technological and ecosystem services. In: Schulze PC (ed) Engineering within ecological constraints. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 12–30Google Scholar
- Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KM, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH, Grêt-Regamey A, Lave R, Muhar S, Penker M, Ribe RG, Schauppenlehner T, Sikor T, Soloviy I, Spierenburg M, Taczanowska K, Tam J, von der Dunk A (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(23):8812–8819PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Fürst C, Lorz C, Makeschin F (2011) Integrating land management aspects into an assessment of the impact of land cover changes on Ecosystem Services. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 1–14Google Scholar
- Fürst C, Pietzsch K, Frank S, Witt A, Koschke L, Makeschin F (2012)How to better consider sectoral planning information in regional planning—example afforestation and conversion. J Environ Plan Manag 1–29Google Scholar
- Werner C, Panesar A, Bracken P, Mang HP, Huba-Mang, E, Gerold A (2003) An ecosan source book for the preparation and implementation of ecological sanitation projects. GTZ—ecosan programGoogle Scholar
- Mastrangelo M, Weyland F, Villarino SH, Barral MP, Nahuelhual L, Laterra P (2014) Concepts and methods for landscape multifunctionality and a unifying framework based on ecosystem services. Landscape Ecol 29(2). doi: 10.1007/s10980-013-9959-9
- MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis [online]. Island Press, Washington. www.millenniumassessment.org. Accessed 29 April 2014
- Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky P, Tallis H, Cameron R, Chan KM, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lonsdorf E, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw R (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sandström A, Rova C (2010) Adaptive co-management networks: a comparative analysis of two fishery conservation areas in Sweden. Ecol Soc 15(3):14. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art14/