Advertisement

Ecosystem Services and Planning

  • Silvia Ronchi
Chapter
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)

Abstract

The concept of Ecosystem Services (ES) was investigated with a historical overview of the definitions, methods of classification and approaches proposed over the years, from different disciplines regarding the Services provided by Ecosystem for Human wellbeing. The concept of ES is strictly related to Land Use/Land Cover changes that affect ES provision determining a decline of the global environmental conditions and loss of biodiversity. The generalised decline requires putting in place governance systems that guarantee long-term delivery and use of ES. Hence, information on ES is fundamental to support Spatial planning processes and Strategic Environmental Assessment can be the tool used to integrate ES in Planning for Sustainable Land use management.

References

  1. Arcidiacono A, Ronchi S, Salata S (2015) Ecosystem Services assessment using InVEST as a tool to support decision making process: critical issues and opportunities. Compu. Sci Appli ICCSA 2015:35–49Google Scholar
  2. Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P et al (2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297:950–953.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1073947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bastian O, Schreiber K-F (1999) Analyse und ökologische Bewertung der Landschaft. Anal und ökologische Bewertung der LandschaftGoogle Scholar
  4. Blum WEH (2005) Functions of soil for society and the environment. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 4:75–79.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-005-2236-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breure A, De Deyn G, Dominati E et al (2012) Ecosystem services: a useful concept for soil policy making! Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4:578–585.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.2011.06.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castellani V, Sala S (2013) Sustainability indicators integrating consumption patterns in strategic environmental assessment for Urban. Planning 3426–3446:00001.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su5083426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Commission of the European Communities (2006) Thematic strategy for soil protection. Com 12Google Scholar
  10. Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv 141:350–352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costanza R, D’Arge R, de Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260.  https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Council of European Union (2007) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC—Outcome of the European Parliament’s first readingGoogle Scholar
  13. Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Ecology so: 392Google Scholar
  14. Daily GC (1999) Developing a scientific basis for managing Earth’s life support systems. Conserv Ecol 3Google Scholar
  15. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J et al (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–28.  https://doi.org/10.1890/080025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dalal-Clayton B, Sadler B (2005) Strategic environmental assessment: a sourcebook and reference guide to international experience. October 28:1347–1352Google Scholar
  17. de Groot R (1992) Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning. Management and Decision Making, Wolters-Noordhoff BVGoogle Scholar
  18. de Groot R (2006) Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75:175–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Groot R, Wilson M, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diehl K, Burkhard B, Jacob K (2015) Should the ecosystem services concept be used in European Commission impact assessment? Ecol Indic 61:6–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.07.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dominati E, Patterson M, Mackay A (2010) Response to Robinson and Lebron—Learning from complementary approaches to soil natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 70:139–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. European Commission (1997) The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies. Eur Plan Stud 3:192Google Scholar
  23. European Commission (2011a) The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020Google Scholar
  24. European Commission (2011b) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the RegionsGoogle Scholar
  25. European Commission (2012) Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealingGoogle Scholar
  26. European Commission (2016) No net land take by 2050 ?Google Scholar
  27. European Environment Agency (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe - The ignored challengeGoogle Scholar
  28. European Environment Agency (2013) Land takeGoogle Scholar
  29. European Environment Agency (2016) Soil resource efficiency in urbanised areasGoogle Scholar
  30. European Parliament (2001) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001, on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Off J Eur Communities 197:30–37Google Scholar
  31. Farber SC, Costanza R, Wilson M (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41:375–392.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fischer TB (2003) Strategic environmental assessment in post-modern times. Environ Impact Assess Rev 23:155–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00094-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fischer TB (2010) Reviewing the quality of strategic environmental assessment reports for English spatial plan core strategies. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30:62–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fischer TB, Gazzola P (2006) SEA effectiveness criteria—equally valid in all countries? The case of Italy. Environ Impact Assess Rev 26:396–409.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2005.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fisher B, Turner KR (2008) Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation. Biol Conserv 141:1167–1169.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.02.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Foley JA, Defries R, Asner GP et al (2005) Global Consequences of Land Use. Science 80(309):570–574.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gelli F (2001) Planning systems in italy within the context of new processes of “regionalization”. Int Plan Stud 6:183–197.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13563470123858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Geneletti D (2011) Reasons and options for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial planning. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 7:143–149.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.617711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Geneletti D (2013) Assessing the impact of alternative land-use zoning policies on future ecosystem services. Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:25–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Geneletti D (2016) Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in Impact Assessment. ElgarGoogle Scholar
  41. Geneletti D, Cortinovis C (2015) L’integrazione dei Servizi Ecosistemici nel processo della Valutazione Ambientale Strategica. In: INU Edizioni (ed) Nuove sfide per il Suolo. Rapporto CRCS 2016. Roma, pp 50–55Google Scholar
  42. Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN (2012) Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ 86:235–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Haase D, Larondelle N, Andersson E et al (2014) A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43:413–433.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2011) Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES): 2011 Update. Expert Meet Ecosyst Accounts 1:1–17Google Scholar
  45. Haygarth PM, Ritz K (2009) The future of soils and land use in the UK: Soil systems for the provision of land-based ecosystem services. Land use policy 26, Supple:S187–S197. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.2005.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Helian L, Shilong W, Guanglei J, Ling Z (2011) Changes in land use and ecosystem service values in Jinan, China. Energy Procedia 5:1109–1115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Helming K, Diehl K, Geneletti D, Wiggering H (2013) Mainstreaming ecosystem services in European policy impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:82–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hermann A, Schleifer S, Wrbka T (2011) The concept of ecosystem services regarding landscape research: a review. Living Rev Landsc Res 5:1–37.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609104565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Howarth RB, Farber S (2002) Accounting for the value of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41:421–429.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00091-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Inostroza L, Baur R, Csaplovics E (2013) Urban sprawl and fragmentation in Latin America: a dynamic quantification and characterization of spatial patterns. J Environ Manage 115:87–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Inostroza L, Zasada I, König HJ (2016) Last of the wild revisited: assessing spatial patterns of human impact on landscapes in Southern Patagonia. Chile. Reg Environ Chang 1–15:0001.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0935-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) (2009) What Is Impact Assessment? Ghana Conf Proc 1–4Google Scholar
  54. Jeffery S, Gardi C, Jones A et al (2010) European Atlas of Soil BiodiversityGoogle Scholar
  55. Lamorgese L, Geneletti D (2013) Sustainability principles in strategic environmental assessment: a framework for analysis and examples from Italian urban planning. Environ Impact Assess Rev 42:116–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maes J, Hauck J, Paracchini ML et al (2013) Mainstreaming ecosystem services into EU policy. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:128–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Maes J, Liquete C, Teller A et al (2016) An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosyst Serv 17:14–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Marsh GP (1864) Man and Nature or physical geography as modified by human action. Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  59. McBratney A, Field DJ, Koch A (2014) The dimensions of soil security. Geoderma 213:203–213.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.08.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-beingGoogle Scholar
  61. Nadin V (2006) The role and scope of spatial planning. literature review. Spatial plans in practice: supporting the reform of spatial planning sustain. 29Google Scholar
  62. Nilsson M, Dalkmann H (2001) Decision Making and Strategic Environmental Assessment. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 3Google Scholar
  63. Noël JF, O’Connor M (1998) Strong sustainability: towards indicators for sustainability. Valuation for sustainable development: methods and policy indicators. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 75–97Google Scholar
  64. OECD—Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2008) Strategic Environmental Assessment and adaptation to Climate change. In: Endorsed by members of the DAC Net—work on Environment and Development Co-operation (ENVIRONET) at their 8th meeting; 2008. pp 1–26Google Scholar
  65. Partidário MR (2000) Elements of an SEA framework—improving the added-value of SEA. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:647–663.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00069-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Partidario MR, Gomes RC (2013) Ecosystem services inclusive strategic environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:36–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pearce DW, Kerry Turner R (1990) Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USAGoogle Scholar
  68. Pierce FJ, Larson WE (1993) Developing criteria to evaluate sustainable land management. In: USDA-SCS NSSC (ed) Proceedings of the 8th international soil management workshop: utilization of soil survey information for sustainable land use. Lincoln, pp 7–14Google Scholar
  69. Pileri P (2007) Compensazione Ecologica Preventiva. Carocci MilanoGoogle Scholar
  70. Pileri P (2012) Misurare il cambiamento. Dalla percezione alla misura delle variazioni d’uso del suolo. In: Regione Lombardia (ed) L’uso del suolo in Lombardia negli ultimi 50 anni. pp 185–207Google Scholar
  71. Pileri P, Maggi M (2010) Sustainable planning? First results in land uptakes in rural, natural and protected areas: the Lombardia case study (Italy). J Land Use Sci 5:105–122.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2010.481078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pimentel D, Whitecraft M, Scott ZR et al (2010) Will limited land, water and energy control human population numbers in the future? Hum Ecol 38:599–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2013) Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol 28:1053–1065.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9756-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Primmer E, Furman E (2012) Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosyst Serv 1:85–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Prokop G (2011) Report on best practices for limiting soil sealing and mitigating its effectsGoogle Scholar
  76. Robinson DA, Hockley N, Cooper DM et al (2013) Natural capital and ecosystem services, developing an appropriate soils framework as a basis for valuation. Soil Biol Biochem 57:1023–1033.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.09.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Romano B, Zullo F (2014) The urban transformation of Italy’s Adriatic coastal strip: fifty years of unsustainability. Land use policy 38:26–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Runhaar H, Driessen PPJ (2007) What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision-making. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 25:2–14.  https://doi.org/10.3152/146155107X190613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sadler B, Verheem R (1996) Strategic environmental assessment: status challenges and future directions. The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  80. Sheate WR, Do PMR, Byron H et al (2008) Sustainability assessment of future scenarios: methodology and application to mountain areas of Europe. Environ Manage 41:282–299.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9051-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Söderman T, Saarela S-R (2010) Biodiversity in strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of municipal spatial plans in finland. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 28:117–133.  https://doi.org/10.3152/146155110X498834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP) (1970) Man’s impact on the global environment assessment and recommendations for action. Cambridge Massachusetts MIT Press, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  83. TEEB (2009) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB) for National and International Policy MakersGoogle Scholar
  84. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystem and biodiversity for local and regional policy makersGoogle Scholar
  85. Therivel R (2004) Strategic Environmental Assessment in action. LondonGoogle Scholar
  86. Tóth G, Stolbovoy V, Montanarella L (2007) Soil quality and sustainability evaluation—an integrated approach to support soil-related policies of the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  87. UNEP—United Nations Environment Programme (2014) Guidance manual on valuation and accounting of ecosystem services for small island developing statesGoogle Scholar
  88. Vandewalle M, Sykes MT, Harrison PA et al (2008) Review paper on concepts of dynamic ecosystems and their services—RUBICODE. Environ Res 94. doi:http://www.rubicode.net/rubicode/RUBICODE_Review_on_Ecosystem_Services.pdf
  89. Vettori A (2015) Sviluppi per un uso sostenibile del suolo nell’Unione europea. In: INU Edizioni (ed) Nuove sfide per il Suolo. Rapporto CRCS 2016Google Scholar
  90. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vrščaj B, Poggio L, Marsan FA (2008) A method for soil environmental quality evaluation for management and planning in urban areas. Landsc Urban Plan 88:81–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.08.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. World Resources institute (2008) Ecosystem Services. A Guide for Decision MakersGoogle Scholar
  94. Zoppi C, Lai S (2014) Land-taking processes: an interpretive study concerning an Italian region. Land use policy 36:369–380.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.09.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture and Urban StudiesPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations