Practical Integration of Ecosystem Services in the Planning and Assessment Process

  • Silvia RonchiEmail author
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


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.


  1. 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. Scholar
  2. Arcidiacono A, Di Simine D, Pareglio S et al (2012) Rapporto CRCS 2012, INU Edizioni, RomeGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 2015:35–49Google Scholar
  4. Arcidiacono A, Ronchi S, Salata S (2016) Managing multiple ecosystem services for landscape conservation: a green infrastructure in Lombardy region, Procedia Engineering, 161:2297–2303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. Scholar
  6. 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. Scholar
  7. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic 21:17–29. Scholar
  8. 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. Scholar
  9. 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. Scholar
  10. 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. Scholar
  11. European Commission (1999) Towards environmental pressure indicators for the EU. LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (2001) Study on the valuation and restoration of damage to natural resources for the purpose of environmental liabilityGoogle Scholar
  13. European Environment Agency (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe - The ignored challengeGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission (2012) Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealingGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission (2013) Brownfield regenerationGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2016) No net land take by 2050?Google Scholar
  17. Federal Ministry for the Environment Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2009) Act on nature conservation and landscape managementGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher B, Bateman IJ, Turner RK (2011) Valuing ecosystem services: benefits, values, space and time. Ecosyst Serv Econ Work Pap Ser 11.
  19. Grêt-Regamey A, Walz A, Bebi P (2008) Valuing ecosystem services for sustainable landscape planning in alpine regions. Mt Res Dev 28:156–165. Scholar
  20. 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.
  21. 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. Scholar
  22. Ingegnoli V, Giglio E (2008) Landscape biodiversity changes in forest vegetation and the case study of the Lavazé Pass (Trentino, Italy). Annu di Bot 8:21–29Google Scholar
  23. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2006) Volume 4 agriculture, forestry and other land use. In: IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventoriesGoogle Scholar
  24. ISPRA—Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (2015) Il consumo di suolo in ItaliaGoogle Scholar
  25. La Rosa D, Spyra M, Inostroza L (2015) Indicators of cultural ecosystem services for urban planning: a review. Ecol Indic 61:74–89. Scholar
  26. 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. Scholar
  27. 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. Scholar
  28. Magnaghi A (2010) Il Progetto locale. Verso la coscienza di luogo. TorinoGoogle Scholar
  29. Martinez-Harms MJ, Gajardo R (2008) Ecosystem value in the Western Patagonia protected areas. J Nat Conserv 16:72–87. Scholar
  30. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-beingGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. Scholar
  32. 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 1–26Google Scholar
  33. Palomo I, Martín-López B, Potschin M et al (2013) National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosyst Serv 4.
  34. Solaro S, Brenna S (2005) Il carbonio organico nei suoli e nelle foreste della LombardiaGoogle Scholar
  35. 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. Scholar
  36. 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 tradeoffsGoogle Scholar
  37. Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc Ecol 24:1037–1052. Scholar
  38. 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. 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