Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: Open Street Map and ArcGIS version 10.0

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

  • 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 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department Sustainable Landscape Development, Institute for Geosciences and Geography, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Von-Seckendorff-Platz 4, 06120, Halle, Germany

    Marcin Spyra, Janina Kleemann, HongMi Koo & Christine Fürst

  2. Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Opole University of Technology, Katowicka 48, Opole, Poland

    Marcin Spyra

  3. Urban and Regional Planning Department, Faculty of Architecture, Gebze Technical University, 41400, Kocaeli, Turkey

    Nuket Ipek Cetin

  4. Graduate School of Science, Engineering and Technology, Istanbul Technical University, 34496, Istanbul, Turkey

    Nuket Ipek Cetin

  5. Campus Tabasco, Periferico Carlos A. Molina s/n, 86500, Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico

    Cesar Jesús Vázquez Navarrete

  6. Institute of Environmental Planning, Leibniz University Hannover, Herrenhäuser Str. 2, 30419, Hannover, Germany

    Christian Albert

  7. UNESCO Chair on Sustainable Development and Environmental Education, University of the Basque Country—UPV/EHU, Barrio Sarriena s/n, 48940, Leioa, Spain

    Igone Palacios-Agundez & Ibone Ametzaga-Arregi

  8. Mathematics and Experimental Sciences Didactics Department, University of the Basque Country—UPV/EHU, Paseo de la Universidad 7, 01006, Leioa, Spain

    Igone Palacios-Agundez

  9. Plant Biology and Ecology Department, University of the Basque Country—UPV/EHU, Barrio Sarriena s/n, 48940, Leioa, Spain

    Ibone Ametzaga-Arregi

  10. Department Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, Via S. Sofia 64, 95123, Catania, Italy

    Daniele La Rosa

  11. Laboratorio de Planificación Territorial, Facultad de Recursos Naturales, Departamento de Ciencias Ambientales, Universidad Católica de Temuco, Rudecindo Ortega, 02950, Temuco, Chile

    Daniel Rozas-Vásquez

  12. Department of Ecology and Natural Resources Management, Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, Genscherallee 3, D-53113, Bonn, Germany

    Janina Kleemann, Daniel Rozas-Vásquez & HongMi Koo

  13. Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Via Mesiano 77, 38123, Trento, Italy

    Blal Adem Esmail & Davide Geneletti

  14. Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Research Area Biotic Interactions between Forest and Agricultural Land, Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374, Müncheberg, Germany

    Hannes J. König

  15. Land Use and Urbanisation Unit, Biodiversity Centre, Finnish Environment Institute SYKE, Helsinki, Finland

    Leena Kopperoinen

  16. Academy of Architecture, Amsterdam University of the Arts, Waterlooplein 211-213, 1011 PG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Paolo Picchi

Authors
  1. Marcin Spyra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janina Kleemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nuket Ipek Cetin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cesar Jesús Vázquez Navarrete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Albert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Igone Palacios-Agundez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ibone Ametzaga-Arregi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Daniele La Rosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Daniel Rozas-Vásquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Blal Adem Esmail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Paolo Picchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Davide Geneletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Hannes J. König
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. HongMi Koo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Leena Kopperoinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Christine Fürst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcin Spyra.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

10980_2018_745_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 496 kb). Fig. A1 Ecosystem services and ES types considered in the case studies (design inspired by Schröter et al. 2016)

Supplementary material 2 (PDF 110 kb)

10980_2018_745_MOESM3_ESM.jpg

Supplementary material 3 (JPEG 205 kb). Fig. A3 Scores of advantages by case studies with practical and theoretical use of the ecosystem services (ES) concept in participatory planning

Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 55 kb)

Supplementary material 5 (DOCX 31 kb)

Supplementary material 6 (PDF 92 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. 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

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0745-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation