Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp 1335–1346 | Cite as

From explanation to application: introducing a practice-oriented ecosystem services evaluation (PRESET) model adapted to the context of landscape planning and management

  • Christina von Haaren
  • Christian Albert
  • Jan Barkmann
  • Rudolf S. de Groot
  • Joachim H. Spangenberg
  • Christoph Schröter-Schlaack
  • Bernd Hansjürgens
Research Article


The development and use of the conceptual framework of ecosystem services (ES) has been very successful in supporting the broad diffusion and application of ES within science and policy communities. However, most of the currently proposed interpretations of the framework neither correlate to environmental planning nor to decision-making contexts at the local and regional scale, which is a potential reason for the slow adoption and practice of the ES conceptual framework. This paper proposes a practice-oriented ES evaluation (PRESET) model specifically adapted to the requirements of local and regional planning and decision-making contexts, and discusses its potential benefits and implications for practice. Through the usage of PRESET we suggest making a distinction between ‘offered ES’, ‘utilized ES’, ‘human input’, and ‘ES benefits’ as relevant information for decision-making. Furthermore, we consider it important to link these decision-support categories to different value dimensions relevant in planning and management practice. PRESET provides guidance to inject the ES concept into planning, but needs to be implemented together with concrete assessment methods, indicators and data. The planning strategic benefits of using PRESET include its reference to existing legislative objectives, avoiding the risk that monetized ES values might dominate decision-making, clarification of human contributions, and easier identification of land use conflicts and synergies. Examples are given for offered and utilized ES, as well as for respective evaluation approaches and instruments of implementation.


Regional planning Landscape planning Biodiversity Ecosystem services Communication Implementation 



We thank the participants of workshops of the project “Naturkapital Deutschland - TEEB-DE”, funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), for discussions of earlier drafts. In particular, we thank Dr. Schweppe-Kraft for very useful contributions to the conceptual discussion. Further support was provided by Leibniz Universität for the QUANTIFY project. We would like to thank Louise von Falkenhayn for polishing the language of the paper. Christoffer Lange-Kabitz provided assistance in the revision—his help is also gratefully acknowledged. Finally, we thank the two reviewers who contributed to the final version of article to an extraordinary extent by a very comprehensive discussion of the model and by extremely helpful and detailed comments.


  1. Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Baumgärtner S, Fischer J, Hanspach J, Härdtle W, Heinrichs H, Klein AM, Lang DJ, Martens P, Walmsley D (2014) Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol Econ 103:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert C, Aurbacher J, von Haaren C, Mahnkopf B, Petermann C (2009) Ökonomische Auswirkungen zukünftiger Agrarentwicklungen auf die Landschaftspflege und mögliche Beiträge der Aufpreisvermarktung von Naturschutzprodukten im Landkreis Diepholz. Ber Landwirtsch 87(3):357–379Google Scholar
  3. Albert C, Hauck J, Buhr N, von Haaren C (2014) What ecosystem services information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among landscape and regional planners in Germany. Landscape Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10980-014-9990-5 Google Scholar
  4. Bastian O, Steinhardt U (eds) (2002) Development and perspectives of landscape ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Müller F (2014) Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands—concepts for spatial localization, indication and quantification. Landsc Online 34:1–33. doi: 10.3097/LO.201434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cerda C, Barkmann J, Marggraf R (2013) Application of choice experiments to quantify the existence value of an endemic moss: a case study in Chile. Environ Dev Econ 18(2):207–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Council of Europe (2000) European landscape convention. Council of Europe, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  10. de Groot RS, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Gowdy J, Haines-Young R, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, Portela R, Ring I (2010a) Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar P (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London, pp 9–40Google Scholar
  11. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010b) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7(3):260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EC (European Commission) (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) published in the Official Journal (OJ L 327) on 22 December 2000Google Scholar
  13. EEA (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Technical Report No 25. EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Golley FB (1993) A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology. More than the sum of the parts. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  16. Gómez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C (2010) The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 69(6):1209–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grunewald K, Bastian O (2012) Ökosystemdienstleistungen. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli DG, Frid CLJ (eds) Ecosystem ecology—a new synthesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 110–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2013) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): consultation on version 4, Aug–Dec 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. Download at and spread sheet
  20. 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 (2013) The promise of the ecosystem services concept for planning and decision-making. GAIA 22:232–236Google Scholar
  21. Hoppichler J (2013) Vom Wert der Biodiversität.Wirtschaftliche Bewertungen und Konzepte für das Berggebiet. Bundesanstalt für Bergbauernfragen. Forschungsbericht Bundesanstalt für Bergbauernfragen, p 67Google Scholar
  22. IPBES (2013) Outcome of an informal expert workshop on main issues relating to the development of a conceptual framework for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES/1/INF/9). Available from Accessed July 2014
  23. Jax K (2010) Ecosystem functioning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kosoy N, Corbera E (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol Econ 69(6):1228–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kowarik I (1987) Kritische Anmerkungen zum theoretischen Konzept der potentiellen natürlichen Vegetation mit Anregungen zu einer zeitgemäßen Modifikation. Tuexenia 7:53–67Google Scholar
  26. Landers DH, Nahlik AM (2013) Final ecosystem goods and services classification system (FEGS-CS). EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu J, Opdam P (2014) Valuing ecosystem services in community-based landscape planning: introducing a wellbeing-based approach. Landscape Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10980-014-0045-8 Google Scholar
  28. Maltby E (ed) (2009) Functional assessment of wetlands. Towards evaluation of ecosystem services. Woodhead Publishing, Abington, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Müller F, Burkhard B (2012) The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 1(1):26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Opdam P, Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Albert C, Bentrup G, Castella JC, McAlpine C, Liu J, Shephard S, Swaffield S (2013) Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landscape Ecol 28:1439–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pascual U, Muradian R (2010) The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In: TEEB (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan Publications, London, pp 183–256Google Scholar
  32. Pearce DW, Moran D (1994) The economic value of biodiversity. Earthscan Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Perez-Soba M, Petit S, Jones L, Bertrand N, Briquel V, Omodei-Zorini L, Contini C, Helming K, Farrington J, Tinacci M, Wascher DM, Kienast F, de Groot RS (2008) Land use functions—a multifunctionality approach to assess the impact of land use change on land use sustainability. In: Helming K, Tabbush P, Perez-Soba M (eds) Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, Berlin, pp 375–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2011) Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical perspective. Prog Phys Geogr 35(5):575–594Google Scholar
  35. Primmer E, Furman E (2012) Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosyst Serv 1(1):85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spangenberg JH, von Haaren C, Settele J (2014a) The ecosystem service cascade: further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy. Ecol Econ 104:22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Spangenberg JH, Görg C, Truong DT, Tekken V, Bustamante JV, Settele J (2014b) Provision of ecosystem services is determined by human agency, not ecosystem functions. Four case studies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 10(1):40–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steinitz C (1990) A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other environmental design professionals). Landsc J 9:136–143Google Scholar
  39. Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16(3):284–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Termorshuizen J, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24(8):1037–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. UK NEA (UK National Ecosystem Assessment) (2011) The UK national ecosystem assessment: synthesis of the key findings. UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. van Oudenhoven APE, Petz K, Alkemade R, Hein L, de Groot RS (2012) Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecol Ind 21:110–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. von Haaren C (ed) (2004) Landschaftsplanung. Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  45. von Haaren C, Albert C (2011) Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 7:150–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina von Haaren
    • 1
  • Christian Albert
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jan Barkmann
    • 3
  • Rudolf S. de Groot
    • 4
  • Joachim H. Spangenberg
    • 5
  • Christoph Schröter-Schlaack
    • 6
  • Bernd Hansjürgens
    • 6
  1. 1.Institute of Environmental PlanningLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Department Environmental PoliticsHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural DevelopmentGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  4. 4.Environmental Systems Analysis GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department Community EcologyHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZHalleGermany
  6. 6.Department EconomicsHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations