ArticlePDF Available

Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balanced score card

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The application of the ecosystem services (ES) concept in land use planning has great potential to enhance the awareness of planning actors on their interactions. At the same time it can contribute to improve the linkage between the role of land use patterns and the understanding of land system functioning and its contribution to human well-being. The concept should be developed in a way that can be applicable in socio-ecological systems where nature and society are capable of enhancing their roles mutually. The objective of this paper is to suggest a standardized scheme and generalizable criteria to assess how successful the application of the ES concept contributed to facilitate participatory planning. We consider three potential advantages and three critical aspects for how to improve the applicability and relevance of the ES concept in planning. Hereon based, we present a balanced score card tool for which we broke down to advantages and risks into concrete questions. We illustrate the application of this approach with two case studies, representatives of two major governance schemes in relation to land use planning. We demonstrate that the balanced score card approach helps to reveal potential imbalances regarding the consideration of different ES groups. It supports testing the potential of the ES concept to enhance or not interactions of local and regional actors. We conclude that the framework should be reconsidered after a set of case studies to be developed into a monitoring tool for supporting planning practices.
Content may be subject to copyright.
REVISED PROOF
RESEARCH ARTICLE
1
2Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory
3land use planning: proposing a balanced score card
4Christine Fu
¨rst Paul Opdam Luis Inostroza
5Sandra Luque
6Received: 29 April 2014 / Accepted: 9 June 2014
7ÓSpringer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
8Abstract The application of the ecosystem services
9(ES) concept in land use planning has great potential to
10 enhance the awareness of planning actors on their
11 interactions. At the same time it can contribute to
12 improve the linkage between the role of land use
13 patterns and the understanding of land system func-
14 tioning and its contribution to human well-being. The
15 concept should be developed in a way that can be
16 applicable in socio-ecological systems where nature
17 and society are capable of enhancing their roles
18 mutually. The objective of this paper is to suggest a
19 standardized scheme and generalizable criteria to assess
20 how successful the application of the ES concept
21 contributed to facilitate participatory planning. We
22 consider three potential advantages and three critical
23
aspects for how to improve the applicability and
24
relevance of the ES concept in planning. Hereon based,
25
we present a balanced score card tool for which we
26
broke down to advantages and risks into concrete
27
questions. We illustrate the application of this approach
28
with two case studies, representatives of two major
29
governance schemes in relation to land use planning.
30
We demonstrate that the balanced score card approach
31
helps to reveal potential imbalances regarding the
32
consideration of different ES groups. It supports testing
33
the potential of the ES concept to enhance or not
34
interactions of local and regional actors. We conclude
35
that the framework should be reconsidered after a set of
36
case studies to be developed into a monitoring tool for
37
supporting planning practices.
A1 C. Fu
¨rst (&)
A2 Department of Ecology and Natural Resources
A3 Management, Center for Development Research,
A4 University of Bonn, Walter Flex Str. 3, 53113 Bonn,
A5 Germany
A6 e-mail: cass.editorial@degruyteropen.com; cfuerst@uni-
bonn.de
A7 P. Opdam
A8 Spatial Planning Group, Alterra-Wageningen UR Team
A9 Nature and Society, Wageningen University, PO Box 47,
A10 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
A11 L. Inostroza
A12 Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,
A13 Technische Universita
¨t Dresden, 01062 Dresden,
Germany
A14 L. Inostroza
A15 Centre for Latin American Studies, University of
A16 Economics, W. Churchilla Sq. 4, 130 67 Prague 3,
A17 Czech Republic
A18 S. Luque
A19 EMGR, National Research Institute of Science and
A20 Technology for Environment and Agriculture (IRSTEA),
A21 Grenoble, France
A22 S. Luque
A23 Department of Geography and Sustainable Development,
A24 University of St Andrews, St. Andrews, Scotland, UK
123
Landscape Ecol
DOI 10.1007/s10980-014-0052-9
Journal : Medium 10980 Dispatch : 26-6-2014 Pages : 12
Article No. : 52 hLE hTYPESET
MS Code : LAND-D-14-00188 hCP hDISK
44
REVISED PROOF
38 Keywords Ecosystem services Participatory land
39 use planning Balanced score card Actors
40 Ecosystem services groups Efficiency of land use
41 planning processes Quality of land use plans
42 Introduction
43 There is a growing consensus that in democratic
44 societies a greater involvement of local citizens,
45 interest groups and entrepreneurs is indispensable to
46 achieve broad acceptance of landscape change and to
47 successfully translate plans into actions (Opdam et al.
48 2013). Solving multi-scale environment-society
49 dilemmas needs innovative governance approaches
50 that foster collaboration and mutual learning, contrib-
51 ute to building trust and support towards the develop-
52 ment of social networks of researchers, communities
53 and policy makers (Armitage et al. 2009). Case studies
54 and lessons learnt from practice provide evidence that
55 participatory planning systems increase sustainability
56 and self-reliance at local and regional scale. Also, they
57 are more efficient in the implementation phase and
58 consequently more responsive to change (Werner et al.
59 2003). Within participatory planning, we can identify
60 two major governance schemes. They are decisive for
61 the overall organization and performance of the
62 planning processes and the efficiency to which target
63 formulations, such as ecosystem services (ES) can be
64 used for support. The first one, self-governance, also
65 known under ‘‘integrated land use planning’’ in
66 development research and aid (Fu
¨rst et al. 2013b), is
67 understood as a planning strategy which is driven by
68 actors at place. In this case, actors overtake full
69 responsibility for the whole process up to results
70 implementation (Bourgoin et al. 2012; Klug 2012).
71 The second scheme, known as ‘‘multi-level gover-
72 nance’’ (Schroeter et al. 2014), is mainly based on
73 cooperation between hierarchic and institutionalized
74 planning structures at regional or local communities
75 (Fu
¨rst et al. 2012).
76 Many prerequisites for the improvement and evo-
77 lution of such participatory land use planning schemes
78 have been identified (Ostrom 2009; Gruber 2010). The
79 majority of them are dependent on the resource and
80 governance system, and socio-cultural traditions con-
81 sidering the involvement of stakeholders and the
82 distribution of power. An important prerequisite for
83
land owners and land users, is then, the availability of a
84
shared knowledge base that informs planning actors
85
about relationships between land use patterns, land-
86
scape functioning and benefits. Of equal importance,
87
participatory land use planning, benefits nowadays
88
from social networks that foster social learning and
89
collective actions, for example collaboration between
90
land owners and managers across the landscape
91
(Sandstro
¨m and Rova 2010; Albert et al. 2010).
92
Usually, the position and role of science is affected
93
when policy regulations are released by governments.
94
Hence, it is crucial to open up challenges and
95
opportunities for increasing involvement of actors in
96
land use planning (Beunen and Opdam 2011).
97
According to the type of planning process, different
98
sources of knowledge and experiences can have
99
different impacts on direct inputs for policy improve-
100
ment to facilitate various negotiation processes. Sim-
101
ilarly, in cases where the role of the government
102
diminishes, we may ask how expert and scientific
103
knowledge can play a role to achieve sustainability.
104
Consequently, we can identify a strong need for
105
scientific methods that do not only facilitate shared
106
understanding of the human-landscape relationships,
107
but also foster collective management of common
108
values (Opdam 2013). To develop such methods, a
109
comprehensive, integrative common language with
110
shared concepts and reference systems is of highest
111
importance. The ES concept might be the most
112
prominent and—due to its meanwhile great success
113
in inflowing science and policy making—most sus-
114
tainable solution to support integration. On the other
115
hand, we have to acknowledge that ES is a concept that
116
is still unknown in practice or not yet perceived by the
117
wider society as applicable for decision making (de
118
Groot et al. 2010; Hauck et al. 2013). Existing
119
environmental monitoring and survey approaches
120
deliver incomplete information, missing sometimes
121
the decision scale level (Chapman 2012; Koschke
122
et al. 2012), and therefore might not satisfy the need to
123
identify and manage trade-offs related to the optimal
124
provision of one or several services (Inostroza et al.
125
2013).
126
The spatial dimension of ES is a key issue for
127
stakeholders since they are more interested to know
128
‘where’’ to implement planning than ‘‘why’’. Usually,
129
they have clear ideas of local and regional problems,
130
but they need operational and spatial solutions.
131
Although landscape ecological assessment tools
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980 Dispatch : 26-6-2014 Pages : 12
Article No. : 52 hLE hTYPESET
MS Code : LAND-D-14-00188 hCP hDISK
44
REVISED PROOF
132 support the application of ES (McIntyre et al. 2013;
133 Risser and Iverson 2013; Iverson et al. 2014), suffi-
134 cient information of stakeholders in evaluating deci-
135 sion alternatives at landscape scale is still challenging,
136 particularly when it comes to an integration of the
137 supply and demand side in ES (e.g. Mastrangelo et al.
138 2014).
139 The objective of this paper is to suggest general-
140 izable ‘‘success and risk criteria’’ within an opera-
141 tional scheme that can be standardized. The aim is to
142 be able to assess how successful the application of the
143 ES concept contributes to facilitate participatory
144 planning. Hereby we consider the two main gover-
145 nance schemes, self-governance and multilevel gov-
146 ernance to test concretely how our scheme can
147 contribute to learn from practice. First, we identify
148 criteria that represent the above described main
149 advantages and potential critical aspects to assess
150 strengths and weaknesses of the ES concept in
151 planning. Subsequently, we combine strengths (S)–
152 weaknesses (W) analyses with a balanced score card
153 approach that breaks our criteria down to a qualitative
154 assessment on a scale from minus twenty to plus
155 twenty to compare their degree of fulfillment. Finally,
156 this framework is applied on two case studies, each
157 representing one of the two governance modes. We
158 discuss the applicability of the balanced score card
159 approach and how to further adapt and develop it into a
160 monitoring tool that provides guidance for planning
161 practitioners when applying the ES concept.
162 Advantages of using the ES concept
163 in participatory land use planning
164 Shared knowledge base: integrating disciplinary
165 knowledge
166 The concept of ES has greatly contributed in integrat-
167 ing knowledge on ecosystem functioning and pro-
168 cesses and may therefore serve as a holistic framework
169 for many disciplinary oriented scholars towards
170 implementation of operational outputs into planning
171 practice (Baker et al. 2013; Fu et al. 2013; Opdam et al.
172 2013). In all, the concept has gained high public
173 and scientific perception in the integrative assess-
174 ment of land use and land use patterns changes (Fu
¨rst
175 et al. 2013b; Jessel and Jacobs 2005). The concept
176 is acknowledged to support thinking towards
177
opportunities rather than towards problems (Baker
178
et al. 2013). It helps in the elaboration of municipal
179
budgets (Go
´mez-Baggethun and Barton 2013),
180
embraces both individual and common benefits (e.g.
181
Broch et al. 2013), fosters a landscape level thinking
182
rather than micro-scale solutions (Temorshuizen and
183
Opdam 2009) and facilitates the balancing of short
184
term and long term needs and benefits for sustainable
185
development (e.g. Bos
ˇnjakovic
´2006). Being a broad
186
concept, ES could bridge disciplinary views on the
187
nature–human relationship and link values perceived
188
by widely different actors in the landscape (e.g.
189
Larondelle and Haase 2012).
190
Building a shared vision
191
One of the benefits of the concept of ES, is the
192
capability for the formulation of different perceptions
193
and desires regarding benefits and values for future
194
landscapes. This provides a conceptual basis for
195
integrating actor preferences’ as a starting point for
196
adapting a land system based on participative land use
197
planning. The fact that desired goals are expressed in a
198
similar set of terms will facilitate understanding by
199
actors of each other’s values and beliefs. However, it
200
must be considered that perceptions of actors depend
201
on their position within social groups and might vary
202
with culture, gender, lifestyles and knowledge (Frank
203
et al. 2013). As pointed out by Temorshuizen and
204
Opdam (2009), deliberation about why and how to
205
adapt the landscape to future challenges always
206
pertains to values and benefits perceived by people
207
that own or use the landscape in a particular way.
208
Therefore, actors should be capable of linking knowl-
209
edge on biophysical processes to perception of values.
210
This exercise can be complex because of the wide
211
variety of opinions regarding how landscapes develop
212
outside the interaction of natural processes and human
213
interventions. Views may entail gaining purely eco-
214
nomic profits from using the land, ensuring the holistic
215
principle of sustainable use or even legal protection for
216
reasons of intrinsic values such as landscape aesthetics
217
or biodiversity (Koschke et al. 2012; Frank et al.
218
2012).
219
Social network and collaboration
220
The concept of ES can help to improve relationships
221
between actors in a land use planning process and
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980 Dispatch : 26-6-2014 Pages : 12
Article No. : 52 hLE hTYPESET
MS Code : LAND-D-14-00188 hCP hDISK
44
REVISED PROOF
222 thereby influence the building of social networks that
223 form a sustainable structure for translating plans and
224 ideas into actions. Actors can play two major roles, the
225 one of a supplier of agreed private and public services
226 and commodities and/or the one of a demander.
227 Demanders might be interested in several services at
228 the same time, and several demanders may share
229 interests. On the supplier side, the application of the
230 ES concept could contribute knowledge about the
231 required environmental and spatial conditions for their
232 delivery and might therefore stimulate awareness how
233 to better coordinate the land use pattern and make use
234 of place-based benefits for a service and related
235 externalities. Steingro
¨ver et al. (2010) showed that the
236 perception of common benefits from ES, stimulated
237 collaboration in relation to vision building and land-
238 scape level partnerships among farmers, water man-
239 agers and advocates for cultural landscape and
240 biodiversity. Thus, within this actors interplay, the
241 willingness to cooperate can be strongly influenced by
242 beliefs about different goals and aims. In this context,
243 the potential of the ES concept to address the interests
244 of multiple actors is of relevance: landscape scale
245 plans need to capture and communicate a vision on
246 how to represent real word complexity and should
247 allow actors to work together without formalistic
248 agreement. Such plans can be understood as boundary
249 objects, characterized by being vague enough to bring
250 the different discourses together in a ‘middle ground’,
251 but strong enough to emphasize common benefits
252 (Fu
¨rst et al. 2013a). The terms ecosystem service and
253 landscape service have been proposed to play such a
254 role as boundary concept (Temorshuizen and Opdam
255 2009), but as far as we know empirical evidence
256 supporting this proposition has not been published.
257 Critical aspects of using the ES concept
258 in participatory planning
259 Requested knowledge basis and training, actor
260 inequality
261 A successful application of the ES concept requests
262 the standardization of easily assessable and accessible
263 sets of indicators that support the selection of case-
264 sensitive services without restrictions. However, many
265 actors in land use planning might not have enough
266 understanding of what is hidden behind the different
267
services and how these are based on such indicators.
268
As a result, communication between scientific actors
269
and professionals in planning, and those, who are
270
locally concerned, but not trained in using the concept,
271
becomes more complex (Fu
¨rst et al. 2011). In the
272
worst case, non-professional actors might even fail to
273
express their needs and ideas being unable to cope
274
with transforming them into services which reflect
275
their intentions (see e.g. Boaden et al. 1980). On the
276
other hand, Casado-Arzuaga et al. (2013) highlighted
277
for urban greenbelts in the Bilbao region, Spain, that
278
users and interest groups are very well capable of
279
distinguishing current and desired benefits. Cairns
280
(1996) warned however against an overemphasis of
281
easily assessable and visible services through not well
282
trained actors that provokes an imbalance in selected
283
services for regional planning decisions and therefore
284
might question long-term sustainability.
285
Supporting the detection of supply–demand
286
relationships
287
It is important, when applying ES in planning, to
288
consider discrepancies between the areas where one or
289
several services are requested and consumed, and
290
where these are produced. Also, some areas might
291
connect provisioning areas and those, where services
292
are consumed without benefiting from these services
293
or being confronted to environmental and economic
294
impacts to provide them (Syrbe and Walz 2012). The
295
ES concept supports thereby the identification of prior
296
areas where one or a bundle of services can be
297
provided. Also, trade-offs can be evaluated as they
298
occur in the landscape when its functioning is
299
optimized (Nelson et al. 2009). Participatory land
300
use planning as such does not support balancing
301
supply and demand in a supra-regional context and can
302
thereby provoke trade-offs through resource overex-
303
ploitation outside the planning system boundaries that
304
are not considered in the decision making process.
305
Schemes as the ecological footprint analysis (Rees
306
1996) help to detect such spatial shortcomings and
307
could be included as a decisive and helpful criterion in
308
using the ES concept: by combining both, the virtual
309
area that is needed to feed the demand for a service or
310
bundle of services within a planning context can be
311
calculated and compared against the land availability.
312
So far however, this integration has not yet been
313
accomplished.
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980 Dispatch : 26-6-2014 Pages : 12
Article No. : 52 hLE hTYPESET
MS Code : LAND-D-14-00188 hCP hDISK
44
REVISED PROOF
314 Involvement of socio-ecological–economic
315 system aspects in planning
316 The ES approach does not address properly two major
317 aspects in the understanding and functioning of socio-
318 ecological systems. First, socio-ecological systems
319 must be understood as a spatially and temporally
320 dynamic compound of interacting entities that impact
321 each other and may provoke different expression of
322 properties and behavior of each entity. Economic
323 decisions done by actors to settle and stay within a
324 particular region, are driven by concrete needs such as
325 job provision, income generation and security, that are
326 only indirectly and unclearlyexpressed as benefits taken
327 from ecosystems and their services without concretiza-
328 tion of how this process is done. This is closely related
329 with the problem of how to express best qualitatively or
330 quantitatively the value of an ecosystem service to make
331 it applicable in planning processes. Perceived values of
332 ES can vary greatly depending on the axiological,
333 ontological, and epistemological viewpoint of those
334 who perform the evaluation (Go
´mez-Baggethun and
335 Barton 2013). If the expression of a service value by
336 monetary or non-monetary terms is overemphasized, it
337 might hide the fact that this value is only a virtual one
338 which does not correspond to any real willingness to pay
339 or invest (Bos
ˇnjakovic
´2006). A request is therefore to
340 appropriately define epistemological system boundaries
341 within which different valuation approaches can be
342 consistently combined (Becker 2012).
343 Score card for assessing the success of applying
344 the ES concept in planning
345 To assess how successful the ES concept adds to
346 facilitating planning processes and building consensus
347 between actors, we structured the above suggested
348 advantages and potential critical aspects in a matrix
349 (Fig. 1) that involves questions related to text sections
350 ‘‘ Shared knowledge base: integrating disciplinary
351 knowledge’’ , ‘‘ Building a shared vision’’ , ‘‘ Social
352 network and collaboration’ (advantages) and
353 ‘‘ Requested knowledge basis and training, actor
354 inequality’’ , ‘‘Supporting the detection of supply-
355 demand relationships’’ , ‘‘Involvement of socio-eco-
356 logical–economic system aspects in planning’’ (criti-
357 cal aspects). To fine-detect where an advantage was
358 particularly met or where a critical aspect was of
359
specific importance, we structured our questions into
360
two scales, a temporal scale that addresses short and
361
medium term impacts, and a spatial scale that focuses
362
on the local and regional level. For the spatial scale,
363
we restrict our analysis to the regional and local
364
context, where participatory planning that leads to
365
concrete actions can happen, while national or EU
366
contexts that would mean policy planning are outside
367
of our focus. Consequently, at the temporal scale, we
368
focus on short and medium term as we assume that
369
participatory land use planning addresses time scales
370
from (intra)annual (management planning, regional
371
economic development) up to 5–10 years maximum.
372
Figure 1: score card for assessing how efficient the
373
use of the ES concept was in facilitating the planning
374
process by supporting consensus building and enhanc-
375
ing collective action.
376
To get an overall assessment, we suggest first
377
assessing each of the questions related to potential
378
advantages on a scale from 0 (=advantage was not
379
successfully realized or was irrelevant for this study)
380
to 5 (=advantage was highly relevant in facilitating the
381
process and in consensus building). Similarly we
382
suggest assessing the impact of each of the critical
383
aspects on a scale from -5(=critical aspects were
384
highly relevant) to 0 (=critical aspect had no impact or
385
was not relevant). In a second step, we suggest to
386
calculate an average value for each matrix cell
387
(=advantages relevant at short and long term, and at
388
local and regional scale; critical aspects relevant at
389
short and long term, and at local and regional scale by
390
division through 3). By doing so, we can fine-detect at
391
which temporal or spatial scale the application of the
392
ES concept added or hampered particularly the
393
successful planning. In a third step, we suggest adding
394
the points achieved for each matrix cell on the
395
advantages side and on the critical aspects side. On
396
the advantage scale, maximally 20 points can be
397
achieved, on the critical aspects side, maximally -20
398
points. Finally, summing up the points achieved for
399
advantages and risks will help to analyze the general
400
balance: an overall score closer to ?20 will highly
401
recommend the use of ES approach for similar cases.
402
Contrariwise, a score closer to -20 might warn about
403
weaknesses in its application. A score close to 0 is
404
neutral, in terms that advantages are equal to potential
405
disadvantages. Similarly, also partial overall-scores
406
could be calculated line-by-line to weight advantages
407
and risks for the different temporal and spatial scales.
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980 Dispatch : 26-6-2014 Pages : 12
Article No. : 52 hLE hTYPESET
MS Code : LAND-D-14-00188 hCP hDISK
44
REVISED PROOF
408 Appraisal of the framework based on case studies
409 For illustrating our framework, we selected two case
410 studies, which represent two governance modes in
411 participatory land use planning that are typical in a
412 European and international context. The case study
413 Hoeksche Waard, The Netherlands, stands for the
414 highest level in participation, community based plan-
415 ning, with a pure bottom-up process in planning. Such
416 cases might also be relevant for developing countries,
417 where legal instruments in planning are difficult to be
418 applied due to the great impact of ethnical aspects and
419 the high decision power of land-owning communities.
420 The case study Upper-Elbe-Valley–Eastern-Ore-Mts.,
421 Germany stands for a form of multi-level governance
422 with a more modest level of participation and high
423 relevance of a decision hierarchy; this might be more
424 representative for typical European planning systems.
425 We made use of these case studies to explore the
426 applicability of our suggested framework and learn
427 how it can be further developed. In both cases, the
428 assessment was conducted by us as the coordinators of
429 the application cases so that it can only be considered
430 as a highly subjective assessment example. Further
431 tests with more actors from the presented and other
432 case studies are planned.
433
Case study Hoeksche Waard, The Netherlands
434
The Hoeksche Waard is a 300 km
2
former estuarine
435
floodplain used for agriculture ever since the early
436
middle ages (Steingro
¨ver et al. 2010). The area, close
437
to the cities of Rotterdam and Dordrecht, is largely
438
used for arable farming. With urban populations close
439
by, farmer groups decided to establish sustainable
440
agriculture by bringing down the level of chemical
441
pest control. They expected that by reconstructing
442
their way of farming, they will create in the long run a
443
stronger position as a provider of highly important ES,
444
particularly of food, in this peri-urban landscape.
445
Steingro
¨ver et al. (2010) were asked to help them with
446
achieving this ambition.
447
Initially, the ecosystem service of natural pest
448
regulation was used as a common perspective for the
449
farmers. The researchers connected this ecosystem
450
service to the spatial network of semi-natural elements
451
extending over the farm landscape. They combined
452
farmer’s knowledge about agricultural practices with
453
generic knowledge from landscape ecology and insect
454
ecology to construct a spatial design tool. This tool
455
was used by the farmer groups to detect where the
456
green infrastructure network should be expanded and
457
enforced to achieve the desired performance of the
Fig. 1 Score card for
assessing how efficient the
use of the ES concept was in
facilitating the planning
process by supporting
consensus building and
enhancing collective action
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980 Dispatch : 26-6-2014 Pages : 12
Article No. : 52 hLE hTYPESET
MS Code : LAND-D-14-00188 hCP hDISK
44
REVISED PROOF
458 natural pest control service. Green infrastructure also
459 included parts of the landscape that were owned and
460 managed by public organizations and other actors.
461 Therefore, the researchers proposed that green infra-
462 structure could provide further services such as water
463 purification, protecting species and creating landscape
464 identity. This made it possible to involve a local
465 conservationists group, the water board and road
466 managers, resulting in cooperative relationships with
467 the farmers. Farmer and naturalist groups, which were
468 previously opposing, found that they shared the same
469
advantages by contributing to the green infrastructure
470
network and they developed a shared management plan.
471
All actor groups worked together in applying the
472
design tool. The tool connects the structure of the
473
network to the provisioning of the priority service. It
474
helped to reveal to farmers where the existing network
475
was not robust enough to provide the desired pest
476
control service, and together, from a landscape level
477
perspective, they agreed where additional measures
478
were demanded. A collective management plan for the
479
green infrastructure was finally made.
Table 1 Application of the balanced score card to the Hoeksche Waard case study
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980 Dispatch : 26-6-2014 Pages : 12
Article No. : 52 hLE hTYPESET
MS Code : LAND-D-14-00188 hCP hDISK
44
REVISED PROOF
480 Following a first year in which one farm successfully
481 refrained from using pesticides, an increasing number
482 of farmers started to create flowery strips in the margins
483 of their fields, while the water board and the conser-
484 vation group adapted the management of dykes and
485 water courses. The network expanded over the years
486 and farmers insisted to give the green infrastructure a
487 prominent place in the regional landscape plan. The
488 effect of the structural change on the occurrence of
489 natural enemies of pests was monitored on the request
490 of farmers. In the course of the implementation project,
491 an improvement of biodiversity and recreational visi-
492 tors was noticed. The use of ES improved the sustain-
493 able use of the land. The landscape change enforced the
494 role of natural processes in the production of food,
495 which is less aggravating for the ecological system and
496 uses less energy and resources. Above that, the social
497 network was enhanced, farmers enjoyed their work
498 better and the area is becoming an internationally
499 known example of innovative landscape management.
500 When applying our suggested matrix, we achieve
501 the following result (Table 1).
502 Case study Upper-Elbe-Valley–Eastern-Ore-Mts
503 Focus of this case study was updating a regional plan for
504 the region Upper-Elbe-Valley–Eastern-Ore-Mts., which
505 is situated in the middle of Saxony, Germany. With the
506 Saxon capital Dresden, it comprises an area of 3,500 km
2
507 with high land use conflicts and great public interest in
508 contributing to the plan. Take notice that the German
509 planning system is strictly hierarchically organized and
510 the role of the regional plan is to break down political
511 goals formulated at EU, national and federal state level to
512 a concrete and spatially explicit delineation of areas
513 which are dedicated prior or preferably to the provision of
514 a specific service or good, including nature conservation
515 (Fu
¨rst et al. 2012). Consequently, the question how to
516 realize these measures in collaborative actions was out of
517 the scope of this study.
518 Updating the regional plan in Upper-Elbe–Eastern-
519 Ore-Mts. was organized as a participatory consensus
520 building process including consultation of institutional
521 actors (state administrations in agricultural, forest and
522 water management planning, NGO’s in nature con-
523 servation and tourism and other regional interest
524 groups) and of public opinion. While the institutional
525 actors with their professional background contributed
526 easily by own planning suggestions, actors from the
527
general public needed support by the scientists that
528
accompanied the process to spell out their specific
529
desires and concerns (Fu
¨rst et al. 2011,2012): to
530
enable a higher level of public participation and equity
531
between institutional actors and publicity in submit-
532
ting comments and suggestions, the planning support
533
tool GISCAME was adapted. With this tool, partici-
534
patory scenario building and impact assessment were
535
conducted in a series of workshops and public events
536
organized by the regional planning authority, and the
537
LEADER and ILE (integrated rural development)
538
regions in the case study area (Fu
¨rst et al. 2011,2012;
539
Koschke et al. 2012; Frank et al. 2012).
540
The ES concept was used in the case study as a
541
consensus building framework, firstly between differing
542
philosophies of the institutional actors how to assess the
543
impact of land use alternatives and secondly as a means to
544
moderate between professional and public opinion. By
545
using the ES concept, areas that are highly exposed to
546
conflicting services requests could be detected, and most
547
preferable, integrative land use planning alternatives
548
were identified. An example where the ES concept was of
549
particular help for conflict detection and solution was the
550
search for most appropriate areas for wind power plant
551
parks. Furthermore, the concept helped to plan the
552
restructuring of industrial agricultural areas which
553
impacted their neighborhood through immense mass
554
movements due to missing capacity in regulating water
555
erosion. Preferable combinations between spatial re-
556
arrangements and introduction of green infrastructure
557
with altered management concepts such as no-till
558
farming and intercropping were identified (Lorenz et al.
559
2013). Finally, combined agriculture-agro-forestry and
560
forest land use pattern changes were tested and new
561
priority areas for afforestation and short rotation coppices
562
were selected that were clearly larger, better connected
563
and provided an improved overall benefit for multiple
564
services compared to the old regional plan (Fu
¨rstetal.
565
2013a; Witt et al. 2013). When applying our suggested
566
matrix, we achieve the following result (see Table 2).
567
Discussion: appraisal of the approach and way
568
ahead
569
Assessment of the applicability of the concept
570
We proposed six criteria to assess the performance of
571
the ES concept in participatory landscape planning,
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980 Dispatch : 26-6-2014 Pages : 12
Article No. : 52 hLE hTYPESET
MS Code : LAND-D-14-00188 hCP hDISK
44
REVISED PROOF
572 and based hereon a balanced score card approach to
573 apply them in a systematic way. As such, we intended
574 to contribute to a better understanding of how ES
575 contribute to collaborative decision making for land
576 use adaptation. We applied the tool in two case studies.
577 In both cases the suggested framework helped us to
578 detect advantages, but also potential shortcomings in
579 the practical use of the ES concept. The scoring of the
580 single criteria and matrix cells and the final calculation
581 of an overall balance was easily applicable for the
582 assessment of the case studies and for their
583
comparison. For instance, overemphasis of some
584
services groups such as regulating services or cultural
585
services was discovered; i.e. the framework shows
586
potential to contribute to an improved balance
587
between services groups for the future design of ES
588
applications in planning. In both cases, the framework
589
revealed that positive effects from using the ES
590
concept apply more in the long run, while in the
591
German study case, also some negative effects became
592
more pronounced when using a long term perspective.
593
With this, our suggested frame work can add to a
Table 2 Application of the balanced score card to the Upper-Elbe-Valley–Eastern-Ore-Mts. case study
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980 Dispatch : 26-6-2014 Pages : 12
Article No. : 52 hLE hTYPESET
MS Code : LAND-D-14-00188 hCP hDISK
44
REVISED PROOF
594 sustainability and intergenerational equity check by
595 revealing potential shortcomings from short or long
596 term optimization. Advantages at local scale achieved
597 for the two case studies a higher scoring than for the
598 regional scale, i.e. by using the score-card criteria we
599 could reveal that local participation processes were
600 better supported through the ES concept as compared
601 to strengthening interactions and collaboration
602 between local and regional actors.
603 Considering the applicability for different gover-
604 nance systems in planning, we found that our criteria
605 worked well for both case studies. For the Dutch case
606 study Hoeksche Waard with its community-based
607 planning background, our score card delivers a higher
608 overall balance of 14.7 points, i.e. the use of the ES
609 concept was of an overall higher benefit compared to
610 the multi-scale governance context in Germany with
611 an overall score of only 8.7.
612 The impact of the ES concept on the quality of
613 participation in planning, as revealed by the balanced
614 score card, is influenced by the type ofplanning process
615 and its organizational structure, for example by the
616 method that is used to involve local planning groups.
617 For instance, collaboration between regional authorities
618 and local stakeholder groups may be enhanced by using
619 the ecosystem service concept in goal setting, but also
620 by how the actor involvement is organized by a regional
621 planning authority. Therefore, we suggest that the
622 application of the balanced score card is complemented
623 by analyzing the perception of the planning actors of the
624 organizational structure of the planning process. Infor-
625 mation on the role and contribution of social networks
626 before, during and after the planning process may also
627 add to the understanding of the role of the ES concept in
628 land use planning.
629 A possible weakness of the suggested score card
630 when being applied to compare planning cases is that
631 the different sub-criteria in the matrix might not be
632 unequivocal enough to exclude subjectivity in per-
633 forming the assessment. Accompanying information
634 boxes that explain the background of the criteria and
635 give examples how to judge them might be helpful to
636 overcome this problem.
637 Outlook
638 All in all, as a mission-oriented discipline, ecosystem
639 service research should be user-inspired and user-
640 useful (Raymond et al. 2010), which will require that
641
researchers respond to stakeholder needs from the
642
outset and collaborate with them in strategy develop-
643
ment and implementation. Outcomes of social, bio-
644
physical, and valuation assessments are needed to
645
identify opportunities and constraints in order to build
646
up scenarios that support rational planning. Opera-
647
tional models in the future should focus on projects for
648
safeguarding ES that are likely to empower stake-
649
holders to implement effective on-the-ground man-
650
agement that will achieve resilience of the
651
corresponding social–ecological systems.
652
Many papers comment on the value of the ES
653
concept for planning and criticize at the same time its
654
failure in the planning practice. ES often go unrecog-
655
nized in policies, markets, conservation and natural
656
resource management practices. This occurs in part
657
because the concept is still too new, compared to
658
concepts such as sustainability or multifunctionality to
659
resonate with mainstream decision-makers at regional
660
scale (Seppelt et al. 2012). Consequently, demands for
661
ecosystem service based instruments that support
662
planning and the sustainable of natural resources are
663
increasing at a greater pace than scientists are able to
664
provide robust tools to support planning processes.
665
With our balanced score card approach, we intended to
666
contribute to a more objective assessment why failures
667
happened and how to take benefit from positive
668
examples. Working with the balanced score card
669
approach supports reflecting in a structured and
670
detailed way own case studies, fosters comparing
671
application cases of ES in planning and creates the
672
basis for a collective learning process not only
673
between scientist and planning actors, but also among
674
planning scientists.
675
For developing the full potential of the balanced
676
score card tool, it will be essential to apply and
677
reconsider the presented structure and criteria in a
678
series of case studies and governance systems in
679
planning. This would help to detect if the questions
680
and criteria are generic enough for a larger audience or
681
if essential aspects for assessing the usability of the ES
682
concept in planning as such or in specific planning
683
phases were ignored. By doing so, a reference system
684
for the scoring could be generated that facilitates the
685
judgment and leads to its further standardization.
686
The score card should be iteratively adapted and
687
developed into a monitoring tool that provides guid-
688
ance for planning practitioners in the ES concept
689
application: we suggest that it may be used for
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980 Dispatch : 26-6-2014 Pages : 12
Article No. : 52 hLE hTYPESET
MS Code : LAND-D-14-00188 hCP hDISK
44
REVISED PROOF
690 comparing ex-ante and ex-post the overall perfor-
691 mance and success of the ES concept in planning
692 processes. With this, a data base could be built for
693 training in order to improve the role of ES in land use
694 planning.
695 Acknowledgments The idea for this paper was born from the
696 workshop organized at the EcoSummit 2012 ‘‘Structure
697 matters—The potential of land-use pattern to contribute to ES
698 provision’’. It underwent an intensive discussion process and we
699 wish to thank cordially the participants of this workshop, for
700 sharing ideas and supporting the development of this paper.
701 References
702 Albert C, Zimmermann T, Knieling J, von Haaren C (2010) Social
703 learning can benefit decision-making in landscape planning:
704 Gartow case study on climate change adaptation, Elbe valley
705 biosphere reserve. Landsc Urban Plan 105:347–360
706 Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur RI, Charles AT,
707 Davidson-Hunt IJ, Diduck AP, Doubleday NC, Johnson
708 DS, Marschke M, McConney P, Pinkerton EW, Wollen-
709 berg WK (2009) Adaptive co-management for social–
710 ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ 7:95–102
711 Baker J, Sheate WR, Phillips P, Eales R (2013) Ecosystem
712 services in environmental assessment—help or hindrance?
713 Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:3–13
714 Becker E (2012) Social–ecological systems as epistemic
715 objects. In: Glaser M, Krause G, Ratter BMW, Welp M
716 (eds) Human–nature interactions in the anthropocene—
717 potentials of socio-ecological systems analysis. Routledge
718 studies in environment, culture and science. pp 37–59
719 Beunen R, Opdam P (2011) When landscape planning becomes
720 landscape governance, what happens to the science?
721 Landsc Urban Plan 100:324–326
722 Boaden N, Goldsmith M, Hampton W, Stringer P (1980) Plan-
723 ning and participation in practice: a study of public par-
724 ticipation in structure planning. Prog Plan 13(Part 1):1–102
725 Bos
ˇnjakovic
´B (2006) Valuing and paying for ecosystem ser-
726 vices: a pre-condition for sustainability. Ecohydrol
727 Hydrobiol 6(1–4):123–134
728 Bourgoin J, Castella JC, Pullar D, Lestrelin G, Bouahom B
729 (2012) Toward a land zoning negotiation support platform:
730 ‘tips and tricks’’ for participatory land use planning in
731 Laos. Landsc Urban Plan 104(2):270–278
732 Broch SW, Strange N, Jacobsen JB, Wilson KA (2013) Farmers’
733 willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of
734 their spatial distribution. Ecol Econ 92:78–86
735 Cairns J (1996) Determining the balance between technological
736 and ecosystem services. In: Schulze PC (ed) Engineering
737 within ecological constraints. National Academy Press,
738 Washington, pp 12–30
739 Casado-Arzuaga I, Madariaga I, Onaindia M (2013) Perception,
740 demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the
741 Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J Environ Manag 129:
742 33–43
743
Chapman PM (2012) Adaptive monitoring based on ecosystem
744
services. Sci Total Environ 415:56–60
745
Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW,
746
Chan KM, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster
747
PH, Gre
ˆt-Regamey A, Lave R, Muhar S, Penker M,
748
Ribe RG, Schauppenlehner T, Sikor T, Soloviy I, Spi-
749
erenburg M, Taczanowska K, Tam J, von der Dunk A
750
(2012) Contributions of cultural services to the eco-
751
system services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
752
109(23):8812–8819
753
de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemenen L
754
(2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem
755
services and values in landscape planning, management
756
and decision making. Ecol Complex 7(3):260–272
757
Frank S, Fu
¨rst C, Koschke L, Makeschin F (2012) Towards the
758
transfer of the ecosystem service concept to land use
759
planning using landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:30–38
760
Frank S, Fu
¨rst C, Koschke L, Makeschin F (2013) Assessment of
761
landscape aesthetics—validation of a landscape metrics-
762
based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty.
763
Ecol Indic 32:222–231
764
Fu B, Wang S, Su C, Forsius M (2013) Linking ecosystem
765
processes and ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ
766
Sustain 5(1):4–10
767
Fu
¨rst C, Lorz C, Makeschin F (2011) Integrating land man-
768
agement aspects into an assessment of the impact of land
769
cover changes on Ecosystem Services. Int J Biodivers Sci
770
Ecosyst Serv Manag 1–14
771
Fu
¨rst C, Pietzsch K, Frank S, Witt A, Koschke L, Makeschin F
772
(2012)How to better consider sectoral planning informa-
773
tion in regional planning—example afforestation and
774
conversion. J Environ Plan Manag 1–29
775
Fu
¨rst C, Frank S, Witt A, Koschke L, Makeschin F (2013a)
776
Assessment of the effects of forest land use strategies on
777
the provision of ecosystem services at regional scale.
778
J Environ Manag 127:S96–S116
779
Fu
¨rst C, Helming K, Lorz C, Mu
¨ller F, Verburg P (2013b)
780
Integrated land use and regional resource management—a
781
cross-disciplinary dialogue on future perspectives for a
782
sustainable development of regional resources. J Environ
783
Manag 127:S1–S5
784
Go
´mez-Baggethun E, Barton DN (2013) Classifying and valu-
785
ing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ
786
86:235–245
787
Gruber JS (2010) Key principles of community-based natural
788
resource management: a synthesis and interpretation of
789
identified effective approaches for managing the commons.
790
Environ Manag 45:52–66
791
Hauck J, Go
¨rg C, Varjopuro R, Ratama
¨ki OJ (2013) Benefits and
792
limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environ-
793
mental policy and decision making: some stakeholder
794
perspectives. Environ Sci Policy 25:13–21
795
Werner C, Panesar A, Bracken P, Mang HP, Huba-Mang, E,
796
Gerold A (2003) An ecosan source book for the preparation
797
and implementation of ecological sanitation projects.
798
GTZ—ecosan program
799
Inostroza L, Baur R, Csaplovics E (2013) Urban sprawl and
800
fragmentation in Latin America: a dynamic quantification
801
and characterization of spatial patterns. J Environ Manag
802
115:87–97
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980 Dispatch : 26-6-2014 Pages : 12
Article No. : 52 hLE hTYPESET
MS Code : LAND-D-14-00188 hCP hDISK
44
REVISED PROOF
803 Iverson L, Echeverria C, Nahuelhual L, Luque S (2014) Eco-
804 system services in changing landscapes: an introduction.
805 Landscape Ecol 29(2):1–6
806 Jessel B, Jacobs J (2005) Land use scenario development and
807 stakeholder involvement as tools for watershed manage-
808 ment within the Havel River Basin. Limnologica 35(3):
809 220–233
810 Klug H (2012) An integrated holistic transdisciplinary land use
811 planning concept after the Leitbild approach. Ecol Indic
812 23:616–626
813 Koschke L, Fu
¨rst C, Frank S, Makeschin F (2012) A multi-
814 criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based
815 assessment of ecosystem services provision to support land
816 use planning. Ecol Indic 21:54–66
817 Lambin E (2012) Global land availability: Malthus versus Ri-
818 cardo. Glob Food Secur 1(2):83–87
819 Larondelle N, Haase D (2012) Valuing post-mining landscapes
820 using an ecosystem services approach—an example from
821 Germany. Ecol Indic 18:567–574
822 Lorenz M, Fu
¨rst C, Thiel E (2013) A methodological approach
823 for deriving regional crop rotations as basis for the
824 assessment of the impact of agricultural strategies using
825 soil erosion as example. J Environ Manag 127:37–47
826 Mastrangelo M, Weyland F, Villarino SH, Barral MP, Nah-
827 uelhual L, Laterra P (2014) Concepts and methods for
828 landscape multifunctionality and a unifying framework
829 based on ecosystem services. Landscape Ecol 29(2).
830 doi:10.1007/s10980-013-9959-9
831 McIntyre N, Iverson L, Turner M (2013) A 27-year perspective
832 on landscape ecology from the US-IALE annual meeting.
833 Landscape Ecol 28:1845–1848
834 MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems
835 and human well-being: synthesis [online]. Island Press,
836 Washington. www.millenniumassessment.org. Accessed
837 29 April 2014
838 Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky P, Tallis H, Cameron
839 R, Chan KM, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lons-
840 dorf E, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw R (2009) Modeling
841 multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation,
842 commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales.
843 Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11
844 Opdam P (2013) Using ecosystem services in community based
845 planning: science is not ready to deliver. In: Fu B, Jones KB
846
(eds) Landscape ecology for sustainable environment and
847
culture. Springer, Berlin, pp 77–101
848
Opdam P, Nassauer J, Wang Z, Albert C, Bentrup G, Castella
849
JC, McAlpine C, Liu J, Sheppard S, Swaffield S (2013)
850
Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landscape
851
Ecol 28:1439–1445
852
Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustain-
853
ability of social–ecological systems. Science 325:419–422
854
Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM,
855
Evely AC (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowl-
856
edge for environmental management. J Environ Manag
857
91(8):1766–1777
858
Rees WE (1996) Revisiting carrying capacity: area-based indi-
859
cators of sustainability. Popul Environ 17(3):195–215
860
Risser PG, Iverson LR (2013) 30 years later—landscape ecology:
861
directions and approaches. Landscape Ecol 28(3):367–369
862
Sandstro
¨m A, Rova C (2010) Adaptive co-management net-
863
works: a comparative analysis of two fishery conservation
864
areas in Sweden. Ecol Soc 15(3):14. www.ecology
865
andsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art14/
866
Schroeter B, Sessin-Dilascio K, Sattler C, Matzdorf B, Meyer C,
867
Meyer A, Giersch G, Jerico
´-Daminello C, Wortmann L
868
(2014) Multi-level governance through co-management:
869
conflict resolution in an inhabited Brazilian State Park.
870
Ecol Process 3:6
871
Seppelt R, Fath B, Burkhard B, Fisher JL, Gre
ˆt-Regamey A,
872
Lautenbach S, Pert P, Hotes S, Spangenberg J, Verburg PH,
873
van Oudenhoven APE (2012) Form follows function?
874
Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments
875
based on reviews and case studies. Ecol Indic 21:145–154
876
Steingro
¨ver E, Geertsema W, van Wingerden WKRE (2010)
877
Designing agricultural landscapes for natural pest control:
878
a transdisciplinary approach in the Hoeksche Waard (The
879
Netherlands). Landscape Ecol 25(6):825–838
880
Syrbe RU, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment
881
of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connect-
882
ing areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:80–88
883
Temorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a
884
bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable devel-
885
opment. Landscape Ecol 24:1037–1052
886
Witt A, Fu
¨rst C, Makeschin F (2013) Regionalization of climate
887
change sensitive forest ecosystem types for potential
888
afforestation areas. J Environ Manag 127:48–55
889
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980 Dispatch : 26-6-2014 Pages : 12
Article No. : 52 hLE hTYPESET
MS Code : LAND-D-14-00188 hCP hDISK
44
... Наважимось умовно об'єднати досліджені нами роботи з цієї проблематики у кілька принципово різних груп. Перша -це теоретики, які розробляють саму концепцію ЕП та намагаються оцінити потенційний вплив застосування ЕП на взаємовідносини між суб'єктами ЕП [360,372,374,376,384,395]. Друга група публікацій намагається дослідити саме шляхи затосування ЕП, проблеми, що його супроводжують, для виробників і користувачів ЕП [359,383,397,413,429,435]. ...
Book
Full-text available
Монографія є результатом наукового дослідження автора з розробки теоретико-методологічних засад та напрямків реалізації ландшафтно-екологічного планування територій локального рівня організації довкілля для потреб інвайронментального менеджменту. Наведено конкретні приклади процедури ландшафтно-екологічного планування модельних територій в межах експериментального полігону. Результати ландшафтно-екологічних досліджень, викладені в монографії, можуть бути використані спеціалістами для оптимізації природокористування з метою підвищення ефективності цільового використання територій та зменшення конфліктів природокористування, а також при викладанні дисциплін «Ландшафтна екологія», «Ландшафтно-екологічне планування», спецкурсу «Ландшафтно-екологічне планування заповідних територій» та навчальної ландшафтно-екологічної практики.
... Landscape governance and landscape planning are two distinct but closely related processes, both of which have to involve various institutions pertaining to the landscape. The connections among institutions, planning, and governance are crucial for nature conservation and sustainable landscape management (Kok et al. 2007;Nassauer and Opdam 2008;Beunen and Opdam 2011;Swaffield 2013;Fürst et al. 2014;Oteros-Rozas et al. 2015;Allington et al. 2018;Foo et al. 2018;Opdam 2020). Local and indigenous knowledge plays an indispensable role in sustainable landscape planning and governance (Fagerholm et al. 2019;Sarkki et al. 2019;Cebrián-Piqueras et al. 2020;Liao et al. 2020a;Opdam 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Context A background assumption of landscape approaches is that some landscape patterns are more sustainable than others, and thus searching for these patterns should be a unifying theme for all landscape-related studies. We know much about biodiversity, ecosystems, and human wellbeing in our landscapes, but much less about how their interactions influence, and are influenced by, landscape patterns. To help fill this knowledge gap, landscape sustainability science (LSS) has emerged. However, the core research questions and key approaches of this new field still need to be systematically articulated. Objectives The main objectives of this paper were: (1) to propose a set of core research questions for LSS, and (2) to identify key cross-disciplinary approaches that can help address these questions. Methods I took a qualitative and subjective approach to review and synthesize the literature relevant to landscape sustainability, based on which I developed core questions and identified key cross-disciplinary approaches. Results Eight core questions were proposed to focus on understanding the relationships among landscape pattern, biodiversity, ecosystem function, ecosystem services, and human wellbeing, assessing the impacts of environmental and socio-institutional changes on these relationships, and fusing knowledge and action through landscape design/planning and governance processes. Ten inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches were identified, and their key characteristics were discussed in relation to landscape sustainability. Conclusions LSS has emerged as an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research field that aims to understand and improve sustainability by focusing on landscape scales, while considering local and global scales in the same time. To advance LSS, future research not only needs to emphasize the relationships among landscape pattern, ecosystem services, and human wellbeing, but also to proactively integrate complementary approaches across natural and social sciences. Landscape sustainability is inevitably connected to the broader regional and global context; but if global sustainability is to be achieved, our landscapes must be sustained first. It is not the other way around.
Article
Full-text available
Nature forms interdependent networks in a landscape, which is key to the survival of species and the maintenance of genetic diversity. Nature provides crucial socio-economic benefits to people, but they are typically undervalued in political decisions. This has led to the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI), which defines an interlinked network of (semi-)natural areas with high ecological values for wildlife and people, to be conserved and managed in priority to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. This relatively new concept has been used in different contexts, but with widely diverging interpretations. There is no apparent consensus in the scientific literature on the methodology to map and implement GI. This paper serves as an informed primer for researchers that are new to GI mapping understand the key principles and terminology for the needs of their own case-study, and as a framework for more advance researchers willing to contribute to the formalization of the concept. Through a literature review of articles on creating GI networks, we summarized and evaluated commonly used methods to identify and map GI. We provided key insights for the assessment of diversity, ecosystem services and landscape connectivity, the three ‘pillars’ on which GI identification is based according to its definition. Based on this literature review, we propose 5 theoretical levels toward a more complex, reliable and integrative approach to identify GI networks. We then discuss the applications and limits of such method and point out future challenges for GI identification and implementation.
Article
Full-text available
Engineers play a vital role in enabling the sustainable development of their societies. Thus, it is necessary to teach sustainability in universities, especially for engineering students, for a more sustainable future. The present work aims to measure and enhance engineering students’ awareness of sustainability by monitoring and evaluating learning and student outcomes during the last stages of an engineering curriculum and its culminating major design experience. A questionnaire to assess students’ awareness of sustainability and its tools is implemented. From this empirical study, obstacles to the awareness of sustainability through engineering education are discussed. The analysis of the results of the questionnaire implies the modification of the structure of senior projects and other capstone design courses in order to include a proposed teaching and assessment framework. This framework emphasizes students’ ability to understand and use effective sustainability tools, within the environment of their major design experience. The framework is composed of two paths. The first path concerns course design through which sustainability concepts and methods are included in several course elements. The second path addresses the assessment of the attainment of sustainability objectives by the students. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10798-020-09567-0
Article
Full-text available
The ecosystem service (ES) concept is acknowledged for its potential to support decision-making on various scales. Still, it lacks in practical implementation, particularly concerning spatial planning and land management-key aspects that lead to criticism in its applicability. ES in planning and decision-making can contribute to improve the quality of land use and management by integrating synergies, trade-offs and conflicts among economy, environment and societal goals. This opinion paper suggests a nexus approach that shows how ES can contribute to characterize the interactions between humans and nature on different temporal and spatial scales while integrating cross-scale effects in trade-off analyses. We discuss how our nexus approach can be implemented and contribute to revealing the interdependencies between policy sectors, spatial and land-use planning. We argue that thinking in terms of a nexus adds to an improved coherence across different policy sectors relevant for spatial planning. We conclude that only a strategic and concise use of ES throughout all decision levels will help to create maximum benefits for harmonizing policy, planning and management instruments supported by intervention measures for the sake of sustainable development. ARTICLE HISTORY
Thesis
Full-text available
Three case-studies were used to understand the conflicts and synergies between forage production, the nature conservation value, carbon stocks and their relations to several ecosystem properties. The first case study highlights the importance of abiotic gradients and land use parameters in the genesis of conflicts and synergies between services and properties. Identifying the chain of causes and effects on final services allows targeting the most relevant determinants of services in planning and management schemes. For instance, biomass removal, ANPP and fertilization need to be well balanced on the landscape scale in order to both conserve endangered birds and yield sales from forage production. Incorporating this chain of responses and effects into new spatial optimization models should allow us to identify the best spatial planning strategy that resolves the trade-off between sales of forage-based products and species conservation in multifunctional landscapes.The second case allows us to understand the perceptions of stakeholders, who have a strong concept about how the landscape provides services and ecosystem properties. The different perceptions are revealed through multi-dimensional constructs based on biophysical variables, reflecting the importance of social contexts. Even elementary provisioning services such as forage production were linked to different values, ecosystem properties and land uses. Our results indicate that notions and values of services are strongly influenced by different social contexts, involving current livelihoods, professional interests and traditions. Formal stakeholder assessments of ecosystem services to establish or improve sustainable land management thus need to take into account that stakeholder groups interpret ecosystem services in different ways and give them different meanings. We therefore argue that ecosystem service assessments by stakeholders should be complemented by determining indicators of biophysical ecosystem properties, allowing the evaluation of the correspondence between stakeholder perceptions. Ultimately, analyses of the complex social-ecological contexts forming stakeholder attitudes towards ecosystems should be encouraged. The third case provides revealing results on the functionality of the vegetation in response to key environmental variables, i.e. biomass removal, soil nutrients and water gradient, and how associations of traits determine trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem properties and services. Contrary to the plant- or leaf economics, our results suggest the trade-offs and synergies between plant functional traits found here are not explained by a resource acquisition vs. resource conservation trade-off. Here the variation of plant functional traits in respond to disturbance, may express a trade-off on a gradient of well-established competitors’ species (persistence) vs. competition for establishment. These results indicate that plant community assemblies and associated specific key plant traits can well explain the variation of determinant environmental parameters and their effects on ecosystem properties and services. Empirical approaches, as used here, may help to optimize management strategies under the threats of environmental change and strong land-use pressure. This thesis is an example of scientific work based on the understanding of a complex socio-ecological system through the study of (1) ecosystem processes and (2) the conceptual system of the main actors responsible for its future. The ecosystem service framework served as basis to analyze and structure parameters and relationships by applying structural equation models. The use of these results may offer insights to regional managers, policy makers and landscape planners in order to implement successful management solutions.
Article
Full-text available
Co-management constitutes a certain type of institutional arrangement that has gained increased attention among both policy makers and researchers involved in the field of natural resource management. Yet the concept of co-management is broad, and our knowledge about how different kinds of management structures affect the ability to deal with challenges pertinent to the commons is limited. One of these challenges is to foster an adaptive management process, i.e., a process in which rules are continuously revised and changed according to what is known about the ecological system. We aim to address the relationship between different kinds of co-management structures and adaptive management. To this end, we conducted a comparative case study of two Fishery Conservation Areas in Sweden. The concept of networks and the formal method of social network analysis are applied as theoretical and methodological devices. Building on previous research, we propose that adaptive management processes occur in co-management networks consisting of a heterogeneous set of actors that are centrally and densely integrated. Networks of this kind are believed to promote a management process in which actors with disparate perspectives and resources formulate a common view regarding the condition of the ecosystem, the basic problem to be solved, and what measures to adopt. The empirical findings support the existence of such a relationship. Nonetheless, the restricted empirical material, an inability to control for hidden variables, and a lack of success in determining causality among variables are all factors that call for more research.
Article
Full-text available
Communities situated in protected areas generate conflicts among park administrators, residents and scientists. Should they stay or should they go? This article presents a positive example of a community existing in a state park. The study describes the community’s governance process as well as how the park administration and the community solve the conflicts that arise and achieve a method of co-management in a multi-level governance process. The analysis is based on the Management and Transition Framework (MTF). We used a case study approach and collected data via document study, participatory observation and qualitative interviews. We find that the agreed system of community-based co-management has improved the implementation and enforcement of the state park’s rules through negotiation and communication mechanisms in the park council. This relative success is due to the construction of social capital, equality and empowerment. For state parks in similar situations, the findings suggest that: 1) a community should have at least a minimal level of self-organization; 2) the empowerment of the community in the decision-making process is useful; 3) the park administration should gain the trust of the residents; and 4) the effective management of ecosystem services can create a win-win situation for the community as well as the park.
Article
Full-text available
To continue the reflections on the 30 year anniversary of the Allerton Park Workshop as initiated by Wu (2013), we present some reflections of the situation just before and developments after the workshop from two participants—one who was a chief organizer and synthesizer of the workshop as well as lead author of the subsequent document (and this piece), and one who was a brand new entrant into the newly formulated and wonderfully fascinating field of landscape ecology at the time of the workshop.
Article
Full-text available
The potential of landscapes to supply multiple benefits to society beyond commodities production has received increasing research and policy attention. Linking the concept of multifunctionality with the ecosystem services (ES) approach offers a promising avenue for producing scientific evidence to inform landscape planning, e.g., about the relative utility of land-sharing and land-sparing. However, the value for decision-making of ES-based multifunctionality assessments has been constrained by a significant conceptual and methodological dispersion. To contribute towards a cohesive framework for landscape multifunctionality, we analyse case studies of joint ES supply regarding ten criteria designed to ultimately answer four aspects: (i) the multifunctionality of what (e.g., landscapes), (ii) the type of multifunctionality (e.g., based on ES synergies), (iii) the procedure of multifunctionality assessments, and (iv) the purpose of multifunctionality. We constructed a typology of methodological approaches based on scores for criteria describing the evaluation method and the level of stakeholder participation in assessments of joint ES supply. Surveyed studies and underlying types of methodological approaches (spatial, socio-spatial, functional, spatio-functional) differed in most criteria. We illustrate the influence of methodological divergence on planning recommendations by comparing two studies employing contrasting approaches (spatial and functional) to assess the joint supply of wildlife habitat and agricultural production in the Argentine Chaco. We distinguish between a pattern-based and process-based multifunctionality, where the latter can only be detected through approaches considering the ecological processes (e.g., ES complementarities) supporting the supply of multiple ES (functional and spatio-functional). Finally, we propose an integrated approach for assessing a socially-relevant process-based multifunctionality.
Article
Full-text available
Abstract The concept of ecosystem services from landscapes is rapidly gaining momentum as a language to communicate values and benefits to scientists and lay alike. Landscape ecology has an enormous contribution to make to this field, and one could argue, uniquely so. Tools developed or adapted for landscape ecology are being increasingly used to assist with the quantification, modelling, mapping, and valuing of ecosystem services. Several of these tools and methods encased therein are described among the eleven papers presented in this special issue, and their application has the potential to facilitate the management and promotion of services within ecosystems. Papers are associated with each of the four key categories of services that ecosystems provide to humans: supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural. The papers represent work conducted in eleven different countries, especially from South America. Each carries a unique approach to address a particular question pertaining to a particular set of ecosystem services. These studies are designed to inform and improve the economic, environmental and social values of the ecosystem services. This knowledge should help to develop new management alternatives for sustaining and planning ecosystems and the services they provide at different scales in space and time. We believe that these papers will create interest and inform management of some potential methods to evaluate ecosystem services at the landscape level with an integrative approach, offering new tools for management and conservation.
Chapter
Community-based landscape governance is considered as conditional to achieving sustainable landscape. I consider landscape governance from the point of view of adapting landscapes to create value out of ecosystem services, using the social–ecological system model as a theoretical framework. I advocate the use of the term landscape services because it can serve as a common ground between science and local communities, and between scientists from different disciplines. Six principles for sustainable landscape change are presented, which can be developed as a checklist in planning, and as requirements to scientific methods. From the current literature it is obvious that ecosystem service research does not provide the type of science that is required to support sustainable, community-based landscape planning. Research is mainly science driven, focussed on assessments at large spatial scale, and with policy users in mind. Active involvement of local stakeholders is scarce. There is a strong demand for approaches that are able to involve local governance networks and move the ecosystem services research out of the static mapping and evaluation approaches towards dynamic systems thinking. The chapter ends with a research agenda.
Article
The article presents a multicriteria assessment framework for the qualitative estimation of regional potentials to provide ecosystem services as a prerequisite to support regional development planning. We applied this approach to a model region in Saxony, Eastern Germany. For the estimation of the potentials of the model region to provide ecosystem services, we used a modified approach compared to the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). We then employed a benefit transfer and a purely expert driven approach to assess contribution of the land cover classes in our model region to the provision of ecosystem services. In a subsequent step, the services in our set were combined to ecosystem services groups that were designed together with regional actors, while considering their ideas, concerns and experiences in regional decision making. The latter was analyzed in a weighting experiment, in which different weighting approaches were tested. Based upon this, we analyzed the performance of the model region to provide ecosystem services and generated ecosystem services distribution maps. We could show that the different data gathering methods “benefit transfer” and “expert-based assessment” have a considerable impact on the evaluation outcomes. The results of our study show that the combination of selected services and land cover data can contribute to regional planning by communicating the effect of land cover change on ecosystem services groups, especially when applied as an evaluation basis in the tool Pimp Your Landscape (PYL). The approach supports also the assessment of the performance of a region to provide ecosystem services and the comparison of regions towards this aspect. Finally, we discuss the limitations of our approach that are related to coarse land cover data, lacking knowledge on the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale, and the difficulty to make relevant the ecosystem services concept in regional planning processes.