Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp 1435–1446 | Cite as

Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balanced score card

  • Christine FürstEmail author
  • Paul Opdam
  • Luis Inostroza
  • Sandra Luque
Research Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Ecosystem services Participatory land use planning Balanced score card Actors Ecosystem services groups Efficiency of land use planning processes Quality of land use plans 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Albert C, Zimmermann T, Knieling J, von Haaren C (2010) Social learning can benefit decision-making in landscape planning: Gartow case study on climate change adaptation, Elbe valley biosphere reserve. Landsc Urban Plan 105:347–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur RI, Charles AT, Davidson-Hunt IJ, Diduck AP, Doubleday NC, Johnson DS, Marschke M, McConney P, Pinkerton EW, Wollenberg WK (2009) Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ 7:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker J, Sheate WR, Phillips P, Eales R (2013) Ecosystem services in environmental assessment—help or hindrance? Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Beunen R, Opdam P (2011) When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landsc Urban Plan 100:324–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boaden N, Goldsmith M, Hampton W, Stringer P (1980) Planning and participation in practice: a study of public participation in structure planning. Prog Plan 13(Part 1):1–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bošnjaković B (2006) Valuing and paying for ecosystem services: a pre-condition for sustainability. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 6(1–4):123–134Google Scholar
  8. Bourgoin J, Castella JC, Pullar D, Lestrelin G, Bouahom B (2012) Toward a land zoning negotiation support platform: “tips and tricks” for participatory land use planning in Laos. Landsc Urban Plan 104(2):270–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broch SW, Strange N, Jacobsen JB, Wilson KA (2013) Farmers’ willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution. Ecol Econ 92:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Casado-Arzuaga I, Madariaga I, Onaindia M (2013) Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J Environ Manag 129:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapman PM (2012) Adaptive monitoring based on ecosystem services. Sci Total Environ 415:56–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemenen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7(3):260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frank S, Fürst C, Koschke L, Makeschin F (2012) Towards the transfer of the ecosystem service concept to land use planning using landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank S, Fürst C, Koschke L, Makeschin F (2013) Assessment of landscape aesthetics—validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecol Indic 32:222–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fu B, Wang S, Su C, Forsius M (2013) Linking ecosystem processes and ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(1):4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Fürst C, Frank S, Witt A, Koschke L, Makeschin F (2013a) Assessment of the effects of forest land use strategies on the provision of ecosystem services at regional scale. J Environ Manag 127:S96–S116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fürst C, Helming K, Lorz C, Müller F, Verburg P (2013b) Integrated land use and regional resource management—a cross-disciplinary dialogue on future perspectives for a sustainable development of regional resources. J Environ Manag 127:S1–S5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN (2013) Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ 86:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gruber JS (2010) Key principles of community-based natural resource management: a synthesis and interpretation of identified effective approaches for managing the commons. Environ Manag 45:52–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauck J, Görg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamäki OJ (2013) Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives. Environ Sci Policy 25:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Inostroza L, Baur R, Csaplovics E (2013) Urban sprawl and fragmentation in Latin America: a dynamic quantification and characterization of spatial patterns. J Environ Manag 115:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iverson L, Echeverria C, Nahuelhual L, Luque S (2014) Ecosystem services in changing landscapes: an introduction. Landscape Ecol 29(2):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jessel B, Jacobs J (2005) Land use scenario development and stakeholder involvement as tools for watershed management within the Havel River Basin. Limnologica 35(3):220–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klug H (2012) An integrated holistic transdisciplinary land use planning concept after the Leitbild approach. Ecol Indic 23:616–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 land use planning. Ecol Indic 21:54–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lambin E (2012) Global land availability: Malthus versus Ricardo. Glob Food Secur 1(2):83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Larondelle N, Haase D (2012) Valuing post-mining landscapes using an ecosystem services approach—an example from Germany. Ecol Indic 18:567–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lorenz M, Fürst C, Thiel E (2013) A methodological approach for deriving regional crop rotations as basis for the assessment of the impact of agricultural strategies using soil erosion as example. J Environ Manag 127:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. McIntyre N, Iverson L, Turner M (2013) A 27-year perspective on landscape ecology from the US-IALE annual meeting. Landscape Ecol 28:1845–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis [online]. Island Press, Washington. www.millenniumassessment.org. Accessed 29 April 2014
  37. 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
  38. 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, Berlin, pp 77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Opdam P, Nassauer J, Wang Z, Albert C, Bentrup G, Castella JC, McAlpine C, Liu J, Sheppard S, Swaffield S (2013) Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landscape Ecol 28:1439–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social–ecological systems. Science 325:419–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manag 91(8):1766–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rees WE (1996) Revisiting carrying capacity: area-based indicators of sustainability. Popul Environ 17(3):195–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Risser PG, Iverson LR (2013) 30 years later—landscape ecology: directions and approaches. Landscape Ecol 28(3):367–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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/
  45. Schroeter B, Sessin-Dilascio K, Sattler C, Matzdorf B, Meyer C, Meyer A, Giersch G, Jericó-Daminello C, Wortmann L (2014) Multi-level governance through co-management: conflict resolution in an inhabited Brazilian State Park. Ecol Process 3:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Seppelt R, Fath B, Burkhard B, Fisher JL, Grêt-Regamey A, Lautenbach S, Pert P, Hotes S, Spangenberg J, Verburg PH, van Oudenhoven APE (2012) Form follows function? Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies. Ecol Indic 21:145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Steingröver E, Geertsema W, van Wingerden WKRE (2010) Designing agricultural landscapes for natural pest control: a transdisciplinary approach in the Hoeksche Waard (The Netherlands). Landscape Ecol 25(6):825–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Syrbe RU, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Temorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24:1037–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Witt A, Fürst C, Makeschin F (2013) Regionalization of climate change sensitive forest ecosystem types for potential afforestation areas. J Environ Manag 127:48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Fürst
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul Opdam
    • 2
  • Luis Inostroza
    • 3
    • 4
  • Sandra Luque
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Natural Resources Management, Center for Development ResearchUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Spatial Planning Group, Alterra-Wageningen UR Team Nature and SocietyWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote SensingTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  4. 4.Centre for Latin American StudiesUniversity of EconomicsPrague 3Czech Republic
  5. 5.EMGRNational Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture (IRSTEA)GrenobleFrance
  6. 6.Department of Geography and Sustainable DevelopmentUniversity of St AndrewsSt. AndrewsScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations