The ecosystem services concept: a new Esperanto to facilitate participatory planning processes?

Abstract

Context

Several case studies investigated the role of ecosystem services in participatory planning processes. However, no systematic study exists that cuts across a large number of empirical cases to identify the implications of using ecosystem services in participatory planning.

Objectives

This study explores the potential of the ecosystem services concept to act as a boundary concept (“new Esperanto”) to facilitate the integration of actors’ perceptions and objectives into planning goals.

Methods

We analyzed eleven case studies to explore how the ecosystem services concept has been operationalized to support participatory planning processes, and to identify lessons from successful applications. We characterized the case studies according to contextual and methodological criteria. Each case study was assessed through a codified score card method in order to detect success or failure criteria in using the ecosystem services concept in participatory planning. We compared the case study criteria with the results of the balanced score card method.

Results

We identified several positive effects of applying the ecosystem services concept in participatory planning, including the facilitation of knowledge sharing and consideration of local experiences, the support towards a shared vision, and the increased awareness among local actors concerning their role as ecosystem services suppliers or beneficiaries. Among the drawbacks, we identified the risk of overemphasizing specific ecosystem goods or services during the process.

Conclusions

We conclude by providing some recommendations to enhance future practice related to issues such as communication, use of local knowledge and integration of ecosystem services in existing legal instruments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Source: Open Street Map and ArcGIS version 10.0

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. Adem Esmail B, Geneletti D, Albert C (2017) Boundary work for implementing adaptive management: a water sector application. Sci Total Environ 593:274–285

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Albert C, Aronson J, Fürst C, Opdam P (2014) Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landscape Ecol 29(8):1277–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arler F, Mellqvist H (2015) Landscape democracy, three sets of values, and the connoisseur method. Environ Values 24(3):271–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Balmford A, Fisher B, Green RE, Naidoo R, Strassburg B, Turner RK, Rodrigues ASL (2011) Bringing ecosystem services into the real world: an operational framework for assessing the economic consequences of losing wild nature. Environ Resour Econ 48(2):161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic 21:17–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cortinovis C, Geneletti D (2018) Ecosystem services in urban plans: what is there, and what is still needed for better decisions. Land Use Policy 70:298–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT, O’Farrell PJ, Reyers B, Rouget M, Wilhelm-Rechman A (2008) An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(28):9483–9488

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(3):260–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dick J, Turkelboom F, Woods H, Iniesta-Arandia I, Primmer E, Saarela S-R, Zulian G (2017) Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: results from 27 case studies. Ecosyst Serv 29:552–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N, Ndumbaro F, Khamis M (2012) Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments - Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol Indic 18:421–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fisher JA, Brown K (2014) Ecosystem services concepts and approaches in conservation: just a rhetorical tool? Ecol Econ 108:257–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fürst C, Opdam P, Inostroza L, Luque S (2014) Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balanced score card. Landscape Ecol 29(8):1435–1446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Galler C, Albert C, von Haaren C (2016) From regional environmental planning to implementation: paths and challenges of integrating ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 18:118–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. García-Llorente M, Harrison PA, Berry P, Palomo I, Gómez-Baggethun E, Iniesta-Arandia I, Martín-López B (2016) What can conservation strategies learn from the ecosystem services approach? Insights from ecosystem assessments in two Spanish protected areas. Biodivers Conserv 27(7):1575–1597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hansen R, Frantzeskaki N, McPhearson T, Rall E, Kabisch N, Kaczorowska A, Pauleit S (2015) The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of European and American cities. Ecosyst Serv 12:228–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hein L, Koppen K Van, De Groot RS, Van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hubacek K, Kronenberg J (2013) Synthesizing different perspectives on the value of urban ecosystem services. Landsc Urban Plan 109(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Martín-López B, Barton DN, Gomez-Baggethun E, Boeraeve F, Washbourn CL (2016) A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst Serv 22:213–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kabisch N (2015) Land Use Policy Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning—The case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy 42:557–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. La Rosa, D. (2018). Is spatial planning taking advantage of Ecosystem services? A review of Italian experiences. Urbanistica Quaderni

  21. La Rosa D, Spyra M, Inostroza L (2015) Indicators of cultural ecosystem services for urban planning: a review. Ecol Indic 61:74–89, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Levrel H, Cabral P, Feger C, Chambolle M, Basque D (2017) How to overcome the implementation gap in ecosystem services? A user-friendly and inclusive tool for improved urban management. Land Use Policy 68:574–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu J, Yang W, Li S, (2016) Framing ecosystem services in the telecoupled Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ 14(1):27–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/16-0188.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mascarenhas A, Ramos TB, Haase D, Santos R (2015) Ecosystem services in spatial planning and strategic environmental assessment-A European and Portuguese profile. Land Use Policy 48:158–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mascarenhas A, Ramos TB, Haase D, Santos R (2016) Participatory selection of ecosystem services for spatial planning: insights from the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal. Ecosyst Serv 18:87–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mukul SA, Sohel MSI, Herbohn J, Inostroza L, König H (2017) Integrating ecosystem services supply potential from future land-use scenarios in protected area management: a Bangladesh case study. Ecosyst Serv 26(Part B):355–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecol 23(6):633–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Olander L, Polasky S, Kagan JS, Johnston RJ, Wainger L, Saah D, Yoskowitz D (2017) So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice. Ecosyst Serv 26:170–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Opdam P, Albert C, Fürst C, Grêt-Regamey A, Kleemann J, Parker D, Walz A (2015) Ecosystem services for connecting actors—lessons from a symposium. Change Adapt Socio-Ecol Syst 2(1):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  30. Palacios-Agundez I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Madariaga I, Onaindia M (2013) The relevance of local participatory scenario planning for ecosystem management policies in the Basque Country, northern Spain. Ecol Soc 18(3):7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Palomo I, Martín-López B, Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Montes C (2012) National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosyst Serv 4(2005):104–116

    Google Scholar 

  32. Palomo I, Martín-López B, Zorrilla-Miras P, García Del Amo D, Montes C (2014) Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services within and around Doñana National Park (SW Spain) in relation to land use change. Reg Environ Change 14(1):237–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Partidario MR, Gomes RC (2013) Ecosystem services inclusive strategic environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 40(1):36–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pelorosso R, Gobattoni F, Lopez N, Leone A (2016) Verde Urbano e regolazione delle acque meteoriche. L’approccio modellistico come base per nuovi standard urbanistici. Sentieri Urbani 19:71–77

    Google Scholar 

  35. Plant R, Ryan P (2013) Ecosystem services as a practicable concept for natural resource management: some lessons from Australia. Int J Biodivers Sci 9(1):44–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2013) Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services. Landscape Ecol 28(6):1053–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Reyers B, Roux DJ, Cowling RM, Ginsburg AE, Nel JL, Farrell PO (2010) Conservation planning as a transdisciplinary process. Conserv Biol 24(4):957–965

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rodríguez JP, Beard Jr TD, Bennett EM, Cumming GS, Cork S, Agard J, Dobson AP, Peterson GD (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 11(1):28. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art28/. Accessed 4 Jan 2011

  40. Rozas-Vásquez D, Fürst C, Geneletti D, Almendra O (2018) Integration of ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment across spatial planning scales. Land Use Policy 71:303–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rozas-Vásquez D, Fürst C, Geneletti D, Muñoz F (2017) Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans. Environ Impact Assess Rev 62:135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Saarikoski H, Primmer E, Saarela SR, Antunes P, Aszalós R, Baró F, Young J (2017) Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice. Ecosyst Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2017.07.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sander J, Nicolas D, Berta ML, Nicholas BD, Erik G-B, Fanny B, Carla-Leanne W (2016) A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schröter B, Sessin-Dilascio K, Meyer C, Matzdorf B, Sattler C, Meyer A, Wortmann L (2014) Multi-level governance through adaptive co-management: conflict resolution in a Brazilian state park. Ecol Process 3(1):6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tammi I, Mustajärvi K, Rasinmäki J (2016) Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development. Ecosyst Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. In: Kumar, P. (Ed.), Earthscan London and Washington

  47. Turnhout E, Van Bommel S, Aarts N (2010) How participation creates citizens: participatory governance as performative practice. Ecol Soc 15(4):26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. van Wensem J, Maltby L (2013) Ecosystem services: from policy to practice. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9(2):211–213

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. von Haaren C, Albert C, Barkmann J, de Groot RS, Spangenberg JH, Schröter-Schlaack C, Hansjürgens B (2014) From explanation to application: introducing a practice-oriented ecosystem services evaluation (PRESET) model adapted to the context of landscape planning and management. Landscape Ecol 29(8):1335–1346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wilkinson C, Saarne T, Peterson GD, Colding J (2013) Strategic spatial planning and the ecosystem services concept—an historical exploration. Ecol Soc 18(1):37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Woodruff SC, Bendor TK (2016) Ecosystem services in urban planning: comparative paradigms and guidelines for high quality plans. Landsc Urban Plan 152:90–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to express their gratitude to the guest editors of this special issue of Landscape Ecology journal and to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier version of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcin Spyra.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spyra, M., Kleemann, J., Cetin, N.I. et al. The ecosystem services concept: a new Esperanto to facilitate participatory planning processes?. Landscape Ecol 34, 1715–1735 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0745-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Case studies
  • Comparative analysis
  • Ecosystem services
  • Landscape planning
  • Participatory planning
  • Stakeholders