Abstract
In this chapter is illustrated the methodological approach designed by the book author called “RES (Restart from Ecosystem Services)” for an operative application of ES during the planning process providing an ecological balance of the forecasted transformation that involve Land Use Land Cover changes. RES is a step by step procedure that acts as a practical application of the ES approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In this part the LULC changes are understood as the transition from arable, natural and semi-natural areas into artificial surfaces.
- 2.
As explained in Arcidiacono et al. (2016) “In Italy, Landscape planning is disciplined at regional level by law according with national reference guidelines framework. In Lombardy Region the article 19 of the Planning Law n. 12 of 2005 introduces the Regional Territorial Plan (Piano Territoriale Regionale) with the aim to provide a regulative framework on different State-Region competences, according with the national legislation on landscape and environment (Code of cultural heritage and landscape—Legislative decree 42/2004). The Regional Territorial Plan is composed by a specific side, which is dedicated to landscape prescriptions. Such part is called “Regional Landscape Plan” (Piano Paesaggistico Regionale).
- 3.
Other details regarding the scale issue are provided in Step 1: Scale definition.
- 4.
The identification of the FP provided by the new edition of the RLP confirms what was already identified in the RLP in force, adding only a supplementary district related on the metropolitan urbanised area.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
The last two versions of InVEST software (3.3.0 and 3.3.1 version) also include the model for Crop production but temporally was judged “unstable” due to possible bugs, so it was preferable to estimate the Crop production considering another method of calculation.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
Different typologies of AT could already have a specific form of compensation and mitigation. In that case is in force the system already prescript.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
The proposed possible ways to implement RES in planning processes are based only considering the environmental aspect knowing that different factors could influence the decision-making process.
References
Albert C, Galler C, Hermes J et al (2015) Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and management: the ES-in-planning framework. Ecol Indic 61:100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.029
Arcidiacono A, Di Simine D, Pareglio S et al (2012) Rapporto CRCS 2012, INU Edizioni, Rome
Arcidiacono A, Ronchi S, Salata S (2015) Ecosystem services assessment using InVEST as a tool to support decision making process: critical issues and opportunities. Comput Sci ApplICCSA 2015:35–49
Arcidiacono A, Ronchi S, Salata S (2016) Managing multiple ecosystem services for landscape conservation: a green infrastructure in Lombardy region, Procedia Engineering, 161:2297–2303
Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K (2012) Ecosystem properties, potentials and services—the EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol Indic 21:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.014
Bisquert M, Bégué A, Deshayes M (2015) Object-based delineation of homogeneous landscape units at regional scale based on MODIS time series. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 37:72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2014.10.004
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic 21:17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019
de Groot R, Alkemade R, Braat L et al (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
Decoville A, Schneider M (2015) Can the 2050 zero land take objective of the EU be reliably monitored? A comparative study. J Land Use Sci 4248:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423x.2014.994567
Eigenbrod F, Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR et al (2009) Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated region. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:2903–2911. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0528
European Commission (1999) Towards environmental pressure indicators for the EU. Luxembourg
European Commission (2001) Study on the valuation and restoration of damage to natural resources for the purpose of environmental liability
European Environment Agency (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe - The ignored challenge
European Commission (2012) Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing
European Commission (2013) Brownfield regeneration
European Commission (2016) No net land take by 2050?
Federal Ministry for the Environment Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2009) Act on nature conservation and landscape management
Fisher B, Bateman IJ, Turner RK (2011) Valuing ecosystem services: benefits, values, space and time. Ecosyst Serv Econ Work Pap Ser 11. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203847602
Grêt-Regamey A, Walz A, Bebi P (2008) Valuing ecosystem services for sustainable landscape planning in alpine regions. Mt Res Dev 28:156–165. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.0951
Haines-Young, Roy; Potschin M (2010) Common international classification of ecosystem goods and services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August–December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. Contract 30. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10650
Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot R, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005
Ingegnoli V, Giglio E (2008) Landscape biodiversity changes in forest vegetation and the case study of the Lavazé Pass (Trentino, Italy). Annu di Bot 8:21–29
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2006) Volume 4 agriculture, forestry and other land use. In: IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories
ISPRA—Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (2015) Il consumo di suolo in Italia
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
Li J, Jiang H, Bai Y et al (2016) Indicators for spatial–temporal comparisons of ecosystem service status between regions: a case study of the Taihu River Basin, China. Ecol Indic 60:1008–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.002
Liu J, Ye J, Yang W, Yu S (2010) Environmental impact assessment of land use planning in Wuhan city based on ecological suitability analysis. Procedia Environ 2:185–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2010.10.022
Magnaghi A (2010) Il Progetto locale. Verso la coscienza di luogo. Torino
Martinez-Harms MJ, Gajardo R (2008) Ecosystem value in the Western Patagonia protected areas. J Nat Conserv 16:72–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2008.02.002
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being
Murakami A, Zain AM, Takeuchi K et al (2005) Trends in urbanization and patterns of land use in the Asian mega cities Jakarta, Bangkok, and Metro Manila. Landsc Urban Plan 70:251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.021
OECD—Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2008) Strategic environmental assessment and adaptation to climate change. In: Endorsed by members of the DAC network on environment and development co-operation (ENVIRONET) at their 8th meeting, pp 1–26
Palomo I, Martín-López B, Potschin M et al (2013) National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosyst Serv 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.001
Solaro S, Brenna S (2005) Il carbonio organico nei suoli e nelle foreste della Lombardia
Syrbe RU, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.013
Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Sharp R, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pennington D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J, Cameron D, Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes PC-KR (2013) InVEST 2. 0 beta user’ s guide : integrated valuation of ecosystem services and tradeoffs
Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc Ecol 24:1037–1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9314-8
Terrado M, Sabater S, Chaplin-Kramer B et al (2016) Model development for the assessment of terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality in conservation planning. Sci Total Environ 540:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.064
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ronchi, S. (2018). Practical Integration of Ecosystem Services in the Planning and Assessment Process. In: Ecosystem Services for Spatial Planning. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90185-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90185-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90184-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90185-5
eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)