Advertisement

Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

  • I. RingEmail author
  • C. Schröter-Schlaack
Chapter

Abstract

The ecosystem service concept is closely linked to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (MEA 2005a, b). By focusing on the direct and indirect benefits humans derive from nature the concept may bridge the gap between nature conservation and economic development and help mainstreamthe sustainable management of ecosystems and their services into public policies and private decisionmaking. However, it has been emphasised by most authors that biodiversity itself is not an ecosystem service, although there is evidence of a central role of biodiversity in the functioning and resilience of ecosystems (MEA 2005b; Elmqvist et al. 2010).

Keywords

Ecosystem Service Biodiversity Conservation Landscape Plan Fiscal Equalisation Fiscal Transfer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams WM, Aveling R, Brockington D, Dickson B, Elliott J, Hutton J, Roe D, Vira B, Wolmer W et al (2004) Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306:1146–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert C, von Haaren C, Galler C (2012) Ökosystemdienst-leistungen. Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen oder ein Impuls für die Landschaftsplanung? Nat Schutz Landsch Plan 44:142–148Google Scholar
  3. Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Eigenbrod F, Thomas CD, Gillings S, Heinemeyer A, Roy DB, Gaston KJ (2009) Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities. J Appl Ecol 46:888–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Backhaus T (2008) Backhaus begrüßt Erklärung des Bundes und der Länder zur biologischen Vielfalt. Natur & Umwelt vom 7. Mai 2008, www.mv-schlagzeilen.de/
  5. Bastian O, Schrack M (2007) Energie vom Acker – Traum oder Albtraum? – Mitt. Landesverein Sächs. Heimatschutz 3:57–66Google Scholar
  6. Bastian O, Schreiber K-F (1999) Analyse und ökologische Bewertung der Landschaft (2. edn.). Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  7. Bern Convention (2007) European charter on hunting and biodiversity (Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France) http://www.facenatura2000.net/conference 2009/2.4.Lasen-Dias.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2012
  8. Bertke E (2005) Ökologische Güter in einem ergebnisorien-tierten Honorierungssystem für ökologische Leistungen der Landwirtschaft. Herleitung – Definition – Kontrolle. PhD-thesis, University Göttingen, ibidem Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  9. Breuste J, Haase D, Elmqvist T (2011) Urban landscapes and ecosystem services. In: Sandhu H, Wratten S, Cullen R, Costanza R (eds) ES2: ecosystem services in engineered systems. Wiley-Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Brondízio ES, Gatzweiler FG, Zografos C, Kumar M (2010) Socio-cultural context of ecosystem and biodiversity evaluation: biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services. In: Kumar P (eds) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London, pp 149–181Google Scholar
  11. Bundestagsfraktion Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (2012) Biodiversität 2020. Das grüne Handlungskonzept zum Schutz der biologischen Vielfalt. www.gruene-bundestag.de/themen/biologische-vielfalt/der-gruene-aktionsplan-fuer-den-schutz-der-biologischen-vielfalt.html
  12. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2011) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic 21:17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. Secretariat Conv Biol Divers, Montreal, www.cbd.int/doc/publications/addis-gdl-en.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2012
  14. Czybulka D, Luttmann M (2005) Die Berücksichtigung von Leistungen der Länder für das Naturerbe im Finanzausgleichssystem des Bundes. Natur und Recht 2:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Danson M, Halkier H, Cameron G (eds) (2000) Governance, institutional change and regional development. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  16. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integration the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diller C (2002) Zwischen Netzwerk und Institution. Eine Bilanz regionaler Kooperationen in Deutschland. VS-Verlag, OpladenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Richardson DM, Le Maitre DC, van Jaarsveld AS (2008) Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elmqvist T, Maltby E, Barker T, Mortimer M, Perrings C, Aronson J, de Groot R, Fitter A, Mace G, Norberg J, Sousa Pinto I, Ring I (2010) Biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services. In: Kumar P (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London, Washington, pp 41–111Google Scholar
  20. Endlicher W (2011) Introduction: from urban nature studies to ecosystem services. In: Endlicher W et al (eds) Perspectives in urban ecology. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65:663–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. FAO–Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2007) The state of food and agriculture. Paying farmers for environmental services. FAO Agriculture Series No. 38. Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferraro PJ (2008) Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 65:810–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferraro PJ, Kiss A (2002) Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298:1718–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Freese J, Klimek S, Marggraf R (2011) Aktionen- und ergebnisorientierte Honorierung bei Agrarumweltmaßnahmen. Nat Landsch 4:156–159Google Scholar
  26. Graham J, Amos B, Plumptre T (2003) Governance principles for protected areas in the 21st century, a discussion. www.earthlore.ca/clients/WPC/English/grfx/sessions/PDFs/session_1/Amos_plenary.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2012
  27. Grêt-Regamey A, Walz A, Bebi P (2008) Valuing ecosystem services for sustainable landscape planning in Alpine regions. Mt Res Dev 28:156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grossmann M, Hartje V, Meyerhoff J (2010) Ökonomische Bewertung naturverträglicher Hochwasservorsorge an der Elbe, Abschlussbericht des F + E-Vorhabens “Naturverträgliche Hochwasservorsorge an der Elbe und Nebenflüssen und ihr volkswirtschaftlicher Nutzen. Teil: Ökonomische Bewertung naturverträglicher Hoch­wasservorsorge an der Elbe und ihren Nebenflüssen”. BfN-Heft 89Google Scholar
  29. Gruehn D, Kenneweg H (1998) Berücksichtigung der Belange von Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege in der Flächennutzungsplanung. Ergebnisse aus dem F + E-Vorhaben 80806011 des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BfN-Schriftenvertrieb im LandwirtschaftsverlagGoogle Scholar
  30. Grünwald A (2011) Zukunft Landschaftsplan – Perspektiven einer methodischen Weiterentwicklung unter Anwen-dung des Konzeptes der Ökosystemdienstleistungen. Masterarbeit, TU DresdenGoogle Scholar
  31. Gundimeda H, Wätzold F (2010) Payments for ecosystem services and conservation banking. In: Wittmer H, Gundimeda H (coordinators), TEEB (eds) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for local and regional policy makers (Chap.8, pp 141–160). (www.teebweb.org)
  32. Gunningham N, Young MD (1997) Toward optimal environmental policy: the case of biodiversity conservation. Ecol Law Quart 24:243–296Google Scholar
  33. Gunningham N, Sinclair D, Grabosky P (1998) Smart regulation: designing environmental policy. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Haaren C von (ed) (2004) Landschaftsplanung. Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  35. Haaren C von, Albert C (2011) Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosys Services Manage 7. doi:10.1080/21513732.2011.616534Google Scholar
  36. Haaren C von, Galler C, Ott S (2008) Landscape planning. The basis of sustainable landscape development. Bundes­amt für Naturschutz, BonnGoogle Scholar
  37. Hahn T, Galaz V, Terry A (2008) The GEM-CON-BIO analysis framework. In: Manos B, Papathanasiou J (eds) GEM-CON-BIO Governance and ecosystem management for the conservation of biodiversity. Aristoteles-Universität Thessaloniki, Griechenland, pp 39–52Google Scholar
  38. Hampicke U, Wätzold F (Spokeperson for the initiative) (2009) Memorandum economics for nature conservation–harmonising economic activities with protecting and conserving biodiversity, Greifswald, Leipzig, Bonn. www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/oekonomie/MemoOekNaturschutz.pdf
  39. Hartmann E, Thomas F, Luick R (2006) Agrarumweltprogramme in Deutschland. Anreiz für umweltfreundliches Wirtschaften in der Landwirtschaft und Kooperationen mit dem Naturschutz. Nat.schutz Landsch.plan 38:205–213Google Scholar
  40. Heiland S (2010) Landschaftsplanung. In: Henckel D, Kuczkowski K v, Lau P, Pahl-Weber E, Stellmacher F (eds) Planen – Bauen – Umwelt. Ein Handbuch. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp 294–300Google Scholar
  41. Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environment assessment and management. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. James AN, Gaston KJ, Balmford A (1999) Balancing the earth’s accounts. Nature 401:323–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jedicke E (2010) Kann die TEEB-Studie den Landschaftsplan reanimieren? Nat Schutz Landsch Plan 42:289Google Scholar
  44. Jessel B (2011) Ökosystemdienstleistungen – Potenziale und Grenzen eines aktuellen umweltpolitischen Konzepts. In: BBN (ed) Frischer Wind und weite Horizonte – Jahrbuch für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege, Bd 3, Naturschutz und Gesellschaft, Bonn, pp 72–87Google Scholar
  45. Kaechele K, May P, Primmer E, Ludwig G (2011) Forest certification: a voluntary instrument for environmental governance. In: Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, pp 162–174. http://policymix.nina.no
  46. Kenward R, Whittingham M, Arampatzis S, Manos B, Hahn T, Terry A, Simoncini R, Alcorn J, Bastian O, Donlan M, Elowe K, Franzén F, Karacsyonyi Z, Larsson M, Manou D, Navodaru I, Papadopoulou O, Papathanasiou J, von Raggamby A, Sharp R, Söderqvist T, Soutukorva A, Vavrova L, Aebischer N, Leader-Williams N, Rutz C (2011) Identifying governance strategies that effectively support ecosystem services, resource sustainability, and biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:5308–5312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kienast F (2010) Landschaftsdienstleistungen: Ein taugliches Konzept für Forschung und Praxis? Forum für Wissen:7–12Google Scholar
  48. Kirchhoff T, Trepl L, Vicenzotti V (2012) What is landscape ecology? An analysis and evaluation of six different conceptions. Landscape Res (38:33–51). doi:10.1080/01426397.2011.640751Google Scholar
  49. Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Klimek S, Richter-Kemmermann A, Steinmann H-H, Fresse J, Isselstein J (2008) Rewarding farmers for delivering vascular plant diversity in managed grasslands: a transdisciplinary case-study approach. Biol Conserv 131:2888–2897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Knieling J (2003) Kooperative Regionalplanung und Regional Governance: Praxisbeispiele, Theoriebezüge und Perspektiven. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 8/9:463–478Google Scholar
  52. Krönert R, Steinhardt U, Volk M (eds) (2001) Landscape balance and landscape assessment. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. KULAP–Kulturlandschaftsprogramm (2012) Richtlinie des Ministeriums für Infrastruktur und Landwirtschaft des Landes Brandenburg zur Förderung umweltgerechter landwirtschaftlicher Produktionsverfahren und zur Erhaltung der Kulturlandschaft der Länder Brandenburg und Berlin (KULAP 2007) vom 27. August 2010, geändert mit Erlass vom 29. Juli 2010 und vom Erlass 30. Januar 2012Google Scholar
  54. Lamont A (2006) Policy characterization of ecosystem management. Environ Monit Assess 113:5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Le Galès P (1998) Regulations and Governance in European Cities. Int J Urban Regional 22:482–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lupp G, Albrecht J, Darbi M, Bastian O (2011) Ecosystem services in energy crop production–a concept for regulatory measures in spatial planning? J Landscape Ecol 4:49–66Google Scholar
  57. Manos B, Papathanasiou J (2008) GEM-CON-BIO Govern­ance and Ecosystem Management for the Conservation of Biodiversity. Aristotle University Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  58. May PH, Veiga Neto F, Denardin V, Loureiro W (2002) Using fiscal instruments to encourage conservation: Municipal responses to the “ecological” value-added tax in Paraná and Minas Gerais, Brazil. In: Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell-Mills N (eds) Selling forest environmental services: Market-based mechanisms for conservation and development. Earthscan, London, pp 173–199Google Scholar
  59. MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  60. MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  61. Mewes M, Sturm A, Johst K, Drechsler M, Wätzold F (2012) Handbuch der Software Ecopay zur Bestimmung kosteneffizienter Ausgleichszahlungen für Maßnahmen zum Schutz gefährdeter Arten und Lebensraumtypen im Grünland. UFZ-Bericht 01/2012. Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung – UFZ, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  62. Michaelis P (1996) Ökonomische Instrumente der Umweltpolitik. Physica-Verlag, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. NeFo–Netzwerkforum zur Biodiversitätsforschung Deutschland (2011) Endbericht zum F & E-Vorhaben. Workshop: Ökosystemdienstleistungen – warum ein sperriges Konzept Karriere macht. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, www.biodiversity.de/index.php/de/fuer-presse-medien/experteninterviews/1657-interview-barkmann-2. Accessed 10 Feb 2012
  64. Nill D (2011) Bezahlung von Ökosystemdienstleistungen für den Erhalt der landwirtschaftlichen genetischen Vielfalt. Konzepte, Erfahrungen und Relevanz für die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit. GIZ, BonnGoogle Scholar
  65. OECD (1999) Handbook of incentive measures for biodiversity: design and implementation. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  66. OECD (2007) Instrument mixes for environmental policy. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  67. Oosterhuis F (2011) Tax reliefs for biodiversity conservation. In: Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, pp 89–97. http://policymix.nina.no
  68. Perner A, Thöne M (2005) Naturschutz im Finanzausgleich. Erweiterung des naturschutzpolitischen Instrumentari­ums um finanzielle Anreize für Gebietskörperschaften. FiFo-Berichte Nr. 3, Mai 2005, Finanzwissenschaftliches Forschungsinstitut an der Universität zu KölnGoogle Scholar
  69. Perrot-Maître D (2006) The Vittel payments for ecosystem services: a “perfect” PES case? International Institute for Environment and Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Pimentel D, Harvey C, Resoosudarmo P, Sinclair K, Kurz D, McNair M, Crist S, Shpritz L, Fitton L, Saffouri R, Blair R (1995) Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267:1117–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Porras I, Chacón-Cascante A, Robalino J, Oosterhuis F (2011) PES and other economic beasts: assessing PES within a policy mix in conservation. In: Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung – UFZ, Leipzig, pp 119–144. http://policymix.nina.no
  72. Richter M, Weiland U (eds) (2012) Applied urban ecology – a global framework. Wiley-Blackwell, West-SussexGoogle Scholar
  73. Ring I (2001) Ökologische Aufgaben und ihre Berücksichtigung im kommunalen Finanzausgleich. Z Angew Umweltforschung 13:236–249Google Scholar
  74. Ring I (2002) Ecological public functions and fiscal equalisation at the local level in Germany. Ecol Econ 42:415–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ring I (2004) Naturschutz in der föderalen Aufgabenteilung: Zur Notwendigkeit einer Bundeskompetenz aus ökonomischer Perspektive. Nat Landsch 79:494–500Google Scholar
  76. Ring I (2008a) Compensating municipalities for protected areas. Fiscal transfers for biodiversity conservation in Saxony, Germany. GAIA 17(S1):143–151Google Scholar
  77. Ring I (2008b) Integrating local ecological services into intergovernmental fiscal transfers: the case of the ecological ICMS in Brazil. Land Use Policy 25:485–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ring I (2011) Economic Instruments for Conservation Policies in Federal Systems. UFZ Habilitation Nr. 1/2011; zugleich Habilitationsschrift, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, 219 p. www.ufz.de/index.php?de†=13920
  79. Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) (2011a) Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig. http://policymix.nina.no
  80. Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (2011b) Justifying and Assessing Policy Mixes for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Governance. In: Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, pp 14–35. http://policymix.nina.no
  81. Ring I, Drechsler M, van Teeffelen AJ, Irawan S, Venter O (2010a) Biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation: what role can economic instruments play? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ring I, Hansjürgens B, Elmqvist T, Wittmer H, Sukhdev P (2010b) Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ring I, May P, Loureiro W, Santos R, Antunes P, Clemente P (2011) Ecological fiscal transfers. In: Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, pp 98–118. http://policymix.nina.no
  84. Santos R, Clemente P, Antunes P, Schröter-Schlaack C, Ring I (2011) Offsets, habitat banking and tradable permits for biodiversity conservation. In: Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, pp 59–88. http://policymix.nina.no
  85. Santos R, Ring I, Antunes P, Clemente P (2012) Fiscal transfers for biodiversity conservation: the Portuguese local finances law. Land Use Policy 29:261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schrack M (eds) (2008) Der Natur verpflichtet. Projekte, Ergebnisse und Erfahrungen der ehrenamtlichen Naturschutzarbeit in Großdittmannsdorf. Veröff. Mus. Westlaus. Kamenz, Sonderheft, 180 pGoogle Scholar
  87. Schröter-Schlaack C, Blumentrath S (2011) Direct regulation for biodiversity conservation. In: Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, pp 36–58. http://policymix.nina.no
  88. Schröter-Schlaack C, Ring I (2011) Towards a framework for assessing instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity and ecosystem governance. In: Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, pp 175–208. http://policymix.nina.no
  89. Schröter-Schlaack C, Ring I, Möckel S, Schulz-Zunkel C, Lienhoop N, Klenke R, Lenk T (2013) Assessment of existing and proposed policy instruments for biodiversity conservation in Germany: The role of ecological fiscal transfers. POLICY MIX Report No. 1/2013. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, 95 p. http://policymix.nina.no
  90. Simoncini R, Borrini-Feyerabend G, Lassen B (2008) Policy guidelines on governance and ecosystem management for biodiversity conservation. GEM-CON-BIO project report, IUCN Regional Office for Europe, BrüsselGoogle Scholar
  91. Southern A, Lovetta A, O’Riordana T, Watkinson A (2011) Sustainable landscape governance: lessons from a catchment based study in whole landscape design. Landsc Urban Plan 101:179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. SRU–Der Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen (1996) Konzepte einer dauerhaft-umweltgerechten Nutzung ländlicher Räume, Sondergutachten. StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  93. Staub C, Ott W, Heusi F, Klingler G, Jenny A, Häcki M, Hauser A (2011) Indikatoren für Ökosystemdienstleistungen: Systematik, Methodik und Umsetzungsempfehlung für eine wohlfahrtsbezogene Umweltberichterstattung. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Bern. Umwelt-Wissen Nr. 1102Google Scholar
  94. Sterner T (2003) Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management. RFF Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  95. Stokman A, von Haaren C (2012) Integrating science and creativity for landscape planning and design of urban areas. In: Richter M, Weiland U (eds) Applied urban ecology–a global framework. Wiley-Blackwell, West-Sussex, pp 170–185Google Scholar
  96. Swetnam RD, Fisher B, Mbilinyi BP, Munishi PKT, Willcock S, Ricketts T, Mwakalila S, Balmford A, Burgess ND, Marshall AR, Lewis SL (2010) Mapping socio-economic scenarios of land cover change: a GIS method to enable ecosystem service modelling. J Environ Manage 92:1–12Google Scholar
  97. Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. TEEB–The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (2010a) Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature. A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. www.teebweb.org
  99. TEEB–The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (2010b) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for local and regional policy makers. www.teebweb.org
  100. TEEB–The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (2011) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in national and international policy making. Ten Brink P (ed), Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  101. ten Brink P, Bassi S, Bishop J, Harvey CA, Ruhweza A, Verma M, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S (2011) Rewarding benefits through payments and markets. Section 1: payments for ecosystem services. In: TEEB–the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in national and international policy making. Ten Brink P (ed), Earthscan, London, pp 181–199Google Scholar
  102. Termorshuizen J, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc Ecol 24:1037–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Troy A, Wilson MA (2006) Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecol Econ 60:435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. UNDP–United Nation Development Programme (1999) Human development report 1999–globalisation with a human face. united nations development programme, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  105. Vasishth A (2008) A scale-hierarchic ecosystem approach to integrative ecological planning. Progress in Planning 70:99–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Vihervaara P, Kumpula T, Tanskanen A, Burkhard B (2010) Ecosystem services–a tool for sustainable management of human–environment systems. Case study in Finish Forest Lapland. Ecol Complex 7:410–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Walters K (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  108. Wätzold F, Schwerdtner K (2005) Why be wasteful when preserving a valuable resource? A review article on the cost-effectiveness of European conservation policy. Biol Conserv 123:327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wätzold F, Drechsler M, Armstrong CW, Baumgärtner S, Grimm V, Huth A, Perrings C, Possingham HP, Shogren JF, Skonhoft A, Verboom-Vasiljev J, Wissel C (2006) Ecological-economic modeling for biodiversity management: potential, pitfalls, prospects. Conserv Biol 20:1034–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wätzold F, Mewes M, van Apeldoorn R, Varjopouro R, Chmielewski TJ, Veeneklaas F, Kosola MJ (2010) Cost-effectiveness of managing Natura 2000 sites: an exploratory study for Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland. Biodivers Conserv 19:2053–2069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wende W, Reinsch N, Jülg D, Funke J (2005) Kommunale Landschaftspläne – Rahmenbedingungen der praktischen Umsetzung von Erfordernissen und Maßnahmen. Landschaftsentwicklung und Umweltforschung – Schriftenreihe der Fakultät Architektur Umwelt Gesellschaft TU Berlin, Nr. 126Google Scholar
  112. Wende W, Marschall I, Heiland S, Lipp T, Reinke M, Schaal P, Schmidt C (2009) Umsetzung von Maßnahmenvorschlägen örtlicher Landschaftspläne – Ergebnisse eines hochschulübergreifenden Projektes in acht Bundesländern. Nat Schutz Landsch Plan 41:145–149Google Scholar
  113. Wende W, Wojtkiewicz W, Marschall I, Heiland S, Lipp T, Reinke M, Schaal P, Schmidt C (2012) Putting the plan into practice: implementation of proposals for measures of local landscape plans. Landscape Res. 37:483-500Google Scholar
  114. Willemen L, Hein L, Verburg PH (2010) Evaluating the impact of regional development policies on future landscape services. Ecol Econ 69:2244–2254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Willemen L, Verburg PH, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF (2008) Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landsc Urban Plan 88:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Wirth P, Hutter G, Schanze J (2010) Flood risk management and regional governance–the case of Weisseritz Regio (Germany). In: Kluvánková-Oravská T et al (eds) From government to governance? New governance for water and biodiversity in an enlarged Europe. Alfa Nakladatelství, Prague, pp 128–141Google Scholar
  117. Wunder S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper No. 42, Center for International Forestry Research, Nairobi, Kenya. www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/occpapers/op-42.pdf
  118. Wunder S (2007) The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conserv Biol 21:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Econ 65:834–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung GmbH - UFZ, Dept. ÖkonomieLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations