R

Eg

Sa

Ub

2

h

••••

a

ARRA

KESEPL

1

fTqr

h0

Landscape and Urban Planning 152 (2016) 90–100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / landurbplan

esearch paper

cosystem services in urban planning: Comparative paradigms anduidelines for high quality plans

ierra C. Woodruff a,∗, Todd K. BenDor b

Curriculum for the Environment and Ecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Venable Hall, Campus Box #3275, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3275,nited StatesDepartment of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, New East Building, Campus Box #3140, Chapel Hill, NC7599-3140, United States

i g h l i g h t s

We compare a traditional and an ecosystem service based comprehensive plan.Ecosystem services help achieve sustainable development goals.Plans that integrate ecosystem services may better link diverse community goals and protect natural resources.Additional guidance is proposed to integrate ecosystem services into plans.

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 12 February 2016eceived in revised form 29 March 2016ccepted 2 April 2016

eywords:cosystem servicesustainabilitynvironmental planninglan quality guidanceand use planning

a b s t r a c t

Ecosystem services are a powerful tool for land-use and environmental planning, which can help deci-sion makers better understand the tradeoffs between different development scenarios. However, there islimited guidance about how ecosystem services should be used in the land-use and environmental plan-ning context. While existing plan quality guidance for sustainability recognizes benefits of ecosystemsby promoting conservation and green infrastructure, it fails to provide specific direction on the type ofecosystem service information to collect and how it should be incorporated into land-use planning pro-cesses. We explore this gap by using criteria from American Planning Association (APA) Sustaining Placesguidance to analyze two comprehensive plans: Damascus, Oregon, which uses ecosystem services as anorganizing framework, and Cincinnati, Ohio, which has received recognition for advancing the scienceand art of planning. In addition, we compare the extent to which the plans incorporate ecosystem services(both concepts and language) into their goal setting, fact base, policies, and public participation process.

We find that incorporating ecosystem services into land-use planning may help achieve sustainabilitygoals by elevating the importance of conservation and providing a lens to link multiple community objec-tives. APA rewards these attributes of Damascus’ plan, but fails to identify the plan’s strong ecosystemservice strategies or weak analysis of ecosystem service information. Based on these findings, we proposeadditional metrics to help practitioners incorporate ecosystem services into comprehensive plans.

© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Ecosystem Services, defined as the benefits that people obtainrom ecosystems, are essential for human well-being (MEA, 2005).

his is particularly true in cities, where economic productivity,uality of life, safety, and public health are tied to natural sur-oundings – both inside and outside city boundaries – in unique

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail address: sscheleg@email.unc.edu (S.C. Woodruff).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.003169-2046/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

and generally under-appreciated ways (Grêt-Regamey, Celio, Klein,& Hayek, 2013; Salzman et al., 2014). Despite the importance ofecosystem services, they continue to be eroded, particularly inurban environments, where strong development pressure typicallyeclipses consideration of ecosystems contribution to quality of life(Díaz, Fargione, Chapin, Tilman, 2006; Grêt-Regamey et al., 2013;MEA, 2005).

Efforts to protect natural areas are frequently hampered by

the inability to appraise the value of services provided by natu-ral features (Hirokawa, 2012). Ecosystem services recast naturalareas on a continuum of their use to humans, which spans from

e and

eosttrBtssd&wo

thrtc(icotvn(ph&o

d(asSt1etbreb2bv

eteE2thbLuiL

q2H

S.C. Woodruff, T.K. BenDor / Landscap

xpendable (extremely low quality) to an indispensable sourcef clean air, flood protection, recreation, clean water, and otherervices (Brauman, Daily, Duarte, & Mooney, 2007). By relatinghe health of natural systems with human well being, ecosys-em services provides a powerful lens to advance sustainable andesilient urban development (Biggs, Schlüter, & Schoon, 2015;rauman et al., 2007; Grêt-Regamey et al., 2013). The charac-erization of ecosystem function and outputs as human-centeredervices offers several advantages, such as the opportunity to mea-ure and evaluate different development patterns, urban form, andesigns (Dorning, Koch, Shoemaker, Meentemeyer, 2015; Logsdon

Chaubey, 2013). Ecosystem services can help better identify andeigh tradeoffs inherent in development decisions in both devel-

ping and developed countries (Biggs et al., 2015; MEA, 2005).In the United States, city and regional planning contributes

o the design, implementation, and enforcement of policies thatelp balance many of the tensions inherent in urbanized andapidly urbanizing environments (Berke & Kaiser, 2006). In contrasto European countries where national governments have histori-ally been responsible for planning and metropolitan developmentSalet, Thornley, & Kreukels, 2003), in the United States this powers devolved. Cities and counties have the authority to developomprehensive plans, which direct where and how developmentccurs. Although planning is far from the last voice on conserva-ion or development decisions, its role in developing communityisions, agendas, policies, designs, and strategies is an opportu-ity to influence decision-making within the development processHopkins, 2001). The geographic coverage, integration of multi-le systems, and public engagement of comprehensive planningas made it an important vehicle for sustainability goals (Conroy

Berke, 2004; Godschalk & Anderson, 2012) and represents anpportunity to protect ecosystem services.

Many current and past planning movements, such as the gar-en city and smart growth, implicitly recognize ecosystem servicesColding, 2011; Salzman et al., 2014). Wilkinson, Saarne, Peterson,nd Colding (2013) demonstrate the long recognition of ecosystemervices in planning by analyzing land use plans for Melbourne andtockholm from the last 90 years. The authors found that ecosys-em services were recognized as early as 1929 in Melbourne and936 in Stockholm. Although these plans (as well as nearly all otherfforts documented in the literature) did not use the term “ecosys-em services”, they recognized that natural areas provided valuableenefits such as water purification; provision of freshwater andecreation is mentioned in every plan analyzed by Wilkinsont al. (2013). More recent plans have made stronger connectionsetween environmental assets and quality of life (Wilkinson et al.,013), demonstrating the alignment between the services providedy natural systems and the services urban planning strives to pro-ide (Colding, 2011).

Recent work has begun to argue that explicitly incorporatingcosystem services into plans could better target environmen-al protection during the course of urban development (Albertt al., 2016; Langemeyer, Gómez-Baggethun, Haase, Scheuer, &lmqvist, 2016; Nin, Soutullo, Rodríguez-Gallego, & Di Minin,016). By recognizing the values of functioning urban ecosystemso human well-being and social welfare, ecosystem services couldelp improve land use decisions by better reflecting the tradeoffsetween different development scenarios (Dorning et al., 2015;ogsdon & Chaubey, 2013). Integration of ecosystem services inrban land-use planning and decision-making, however, is still in

ts infancy (Albert, Aronson, Fürst, Opdam, 2014; Colding, 2011opes & Videira, 2013; Mascarenhas et al., 2014).

Considerable effort has been dedicated to improving mapping,uantification, and valuation of ecosystem services (Albert et al.,014; Crossman, Bryan, de Groot, Lin, & Minang, 2013; Faith, 2012;ubacek & Kronenberg, 2013), but a meta-analysis of studies on

Urban Planning 152 (2016) 90–100 91

urban ecosystem services found that few address implementationor provide recommendations to policy makers (Haase et al., 2014).More recently, studies have proposed modification of existing anddevelopment of new frameworks to integrate ecosystem servicesinto land-use planning and decision-making. Biggs et al. (2015) pro-pose principles to sustain ecosystem services and details how theymay be applied and operationalized in a policy context. Albert et al.(2016) incorporate ecosystem service valuation into the DrivingForces, Pressures, State, Impacts and Responses model commonlyused in Germany to assess the current state of the environment andhow it may change in the future. Langemeyer et al. (2016) explorethe potential of integrating ecosystem services into multi-criteriadecision analysis, a tool commonly used to assess land-use deci-sions. Nin et al. (2016) draws on conservation practices to developmethods of prioritizing protection of ecosystem services in theplanning process in Uruguay.

Despite this growing scholarship, there is a lack of plan qualityguidance that incorporates ecosystem services. Plan quality guid-ance is intended to help practitioners improve plans by highlightingspecific planning processes and elements that should be includedin plans themselves. In the United States, where planning is decen-tralized, plan quality guidance plays an important role in advancingplanning practice. Plan quality guidance can also serve as a tool toevaluate the extent to which plans incorporate ecosystem services.To promote the incorporation of ecosystem services into land-useplanning greater attention must be dedicated to understandinghow current plan quality guidance treats ecosystem services andhow it can better incorporate these concepts.

In this paper, we use existing sustainability plan quality guid-ance (The American Planning Association’s (APA) Sustaining Placesguidance; APA, 2012) to compare a traditional comprehensive plan(i.e. one that does not include ecosystem services; Cincinnati, Ohio’sPlan Cincinnati: a comprehensive plan for the future; Cincinnati,2012) to a plan that uses ecosystem services as an organizing frame-work (Damascus, Oregon’s Envision Damascus: Comprehensive Plan;Damascus, 2010) to highlight the limited direction existing planquality guidance provides on ecosystem services. How does anecosystem service-based plan compare to a traditional plan onthe criteria developed by the APA? In addition, we compare theecosystem services content of the two plans to identify promisingpractices and areas for improvement. Specifically, how do theseplans incorporate ecosystem services into their goal setting, factbase, policies, and public participation process? Through theseanalyses, we identify and propose additional metrics to help practi-tioners incorporate ecosystem services into comprehensive plans.

In the following section, we provide additional background onthe origin and purpose of plan quality guidance. We then discuss indetail the American Planning Association (APA) Sustaining Placesguidance (Godschalk & Anderson, 2012). In describing our meth-ods, we expand on our coding techniques and the two plans usedin our analysis. We then present how the two plans scored on theAPA Sustaining Places guidance and discuss the extent to whichthey incorporate ecosystem services ideas. Drawing on these find-ings and the ecosystem services literature, we propose additionalcriteria for plan quality guidance to improve the integration ofecosystem services into planning.

2. Background

2.1. The evolving role of plan quality guidance

Plan quality guidance is intended to help practitioners improveplans and ultimately planning outcomes, by highlighting specificissues and elements that should be included in comprehensiveplans. For example, multiple checklists and guidance have been

9 e and

dd(mtM2fffSoatr(

oevisttaparpgcs

aataaiaBiqa&cpgcchaL

ttt2vwWuaeea

2 S.C. Woodruff, T.K. BenDor / Landscap

eveloped to encourage the integration of sustainability into urbanesign and planning, including the Sustainable Sites InitiativeSITES) rating system, the Leadership in Energy and Environ-

ental Design (LEED)-Neighborhood Development certification,he Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment

ethodology (BREEAM), and the STAR Community Index (Larco,016). These rating systems and certifications have been at theorefront of identifying and promoting design elements criticalor sustainability (Larco, 2016), however, they are predominatelyocused on the building, site, and neighborhood scale (Windhager,teiner, Simmons, & Heymann, 2010). Several efforts have drawnn these rating systems to develop more generalized frameworksnd guidance for design and planning (Larco, 2016). Most notably,he American Planning Association (APA) developed a set of crite-ia for comprehensive plan to encourage sustainable developmentAPA, 2012).

The APA is a professional association representing the fieldf urban planning in the United States. The APA advocates forxcellence in planning, advances education of planners, and pro-ides tools and support to planning professionals. The associationncludes a professional institute that offers certification to maintaintandards of practice and ethics. In the decentralized planning sys-em of the United States, APA plays an important role in advancinghe state of planning. The Journal of the American Planning Associ-tion (JAPA) is a respected peer-reviewed journal that distributeslanning research to practicing planners, policy makers, scholars,nd students and APA publications, such as “Sustaining Places: Theole of the comprehensive plan,” have been influential in guidinglanning processes. The criteria included in APA’s Sustaining Placesuidance are intended to be a resource for the preparation of localomprehensive plans by providing a concise description of desiredustainability content and planning processes.

To help practitioners self-evaluate their plans, Sustaining Placesnd many other plan quality guidance documents mimic thepproach used in plan quality studies of specifying criteria impor-ant for plan content and quality. Early plan quality studies suchs Berke and French (1994), Dalton and Burby (1994), and Burbynd May (1997) examined the direction setting principles of a planncluding fact base, goals, and policies. By reviewing the plan evalu-tion literature and developing a robust set of plan quality criteria,aer (1997) extended plan quality theory to include public partic-

pation and implementation. Since these seminal papers, the planuality literature has grown to include more than 45 peer-reviewrticles, garnering more than twenty-five hundred citations (Lyles

Stevens, 2014). As plan quality evaluation has become moreommon, consensus has emerged on the core characteristics, orrinciples, of plan quality. Among these core characteristics areoals, fact base, policies, public participation in the planning pro-ess, and details concerning implementation and monitoring. Theseharacteristics are applicable across nations, planning domains (e.g.azard mitigation, transportation, and environmental planning),nd scales (e.g. municipal, county, state; Berke & Godschalk, 2009;yles & Stevens, 2014).

Typically, plan evaluation studies utilize content analysis. Usinghis method, researchers develop a set of criteria corresponding tohe plan quality characteristics and then systematically read planso identify whether they fulfill the specified criteria (Krippendorff,004). Assessing the presence/absence of criteria allows the con-ersion of text to a quantitative measurement of plan quality,hich eases comparisons between plans and statistical analyses.hile there is no standardized set of procedures to evaluate plans

sing content analysis, Lyles and Stevens (2014) and Stevens, Lyles

nd Berke (2014) provide methodological recommendations tonsure the validity and rigor of plan quality evaluations. When usedffectively, plan quality evaluations can identify specific strengthsnd review the effectiveness of planning processes, providing the

Urban Planning 152 (2016) 90–100

opportunity improve planning in the future (Berke & Godschalk,2009).

It is important to note that plan quality evaluation and plan qual-ity guidance focus on plans themselves and not the outcomes thatplans produce. Evaluating outcomes is difficult for several reasons:first, it is unclear when outcomes should be evaluated. Second, it isdifficult to justify the counterfactual to compare to outcomes (Baer,1997). Should outcomes be compared to the vision of the plan orhow development would occur in absence of the plan? Millard-Ball(2012) also raises questions of causality. In his evaluation of climateaction plans in California, Millard-Ball found that plans codify poli-cies that would likely be adopted in absence of the plan. Despitethese difficulties, several studies have attempted to connect planquality to plan outcomes. Nelson and French (2002) found thathigh quality locally prepared seismic safety plans reduced damagefrom the Northridge earthquake in 1971. While the link betweenplan quality and improved outcomes remains tenuous, the callfor plan quality evaluation is based on the idea that high-qualityplans better advance community goals than lower-quality plans(Stevens et al., 2014). Theoretically, high quality plans that addressecosystem services would result in better protection of ecosystemservices.

Since explicitly integrating ecosystem services into planningis a relatively new idea, few studies have used plan evaluationto examine the ecosystem service content of plans. Lynch (2015)used a plan evaluation approach to analyze green infrastructureplanning, which she defines as the coordinated effort to protectand enhance lands that provide ecosystem services. The criteriaLynch (2015) developed includes promising practices for integrat-ing ecosystem services into planning; however, in order to evaluateolder plans, this approach focuses predominately on practices thatwould enhance ecosystem services without explicitly using ecosys-tem services information in the plan (many of which align withprinciples proposed by Biggs et al. (2012)). Fürst, Opdam, Inostroza,and Luque (2014) develop a scorecard to examine how successfullythe ecosystem services concept was applied to facilitate partici-patory planning; their criteria are intended to support structuredreflection of the planning process by identifying benefits and fail-ures of the ecosystem service approach. When they applied thescorecard to two case studies, Fürst et al. (2014) found that ecosys-tem services can help facilitate knowledge sharing, incorporatelocal data, and create a shared vision of the future but may overem-phasize some groups of services.

Ecosystem services and the benefits that natural systems pro-vide to human well-being are inherently recognized in planningguidance for sustainability. The authors of the APA comprehensiveplan standards, for example, argue that plans should explicitly rec-ognize and value the contribution of natural resources to humanwell-being (Godschalk & Anderson, 2012, p. 12). The APA standards,however, fail to provide specific guidance on how ecosystem ser-vices should be incorporated into comprehensive planning. In thispaper, we explore this gap by comparing a traditional comprehen-sive plan (i.e. ones that do not include ecosystem services) to a planthat uses ecosystem services as an organizing framework on APA’sSustaining Places standards.

2.2. APA sustaining places guidance

“Sustainability” has emerged as a central organizing conceptfor comprehensive planning, and has been succinctly defined forthe planning context by Berke (2002) as the concept that devel-opment needs to balance environmental, economic, and equity

concerns to meet the needs of the present, without compromis-ing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.Following this rubric, the APA’s Sustaining Places guidelines areintended to shape the next generation of comprehensive plans for

e and

spiMwMptdcctps

EIRpmCaagttaEiani

geimiutgngsscaaacar

tapanamnpmp

s

S.C. Woodruff, T.K. BenDor / Landscap

ustainability by providing a concise description of planning bestractices. In 2010, APA established a taskforce that reviewed lead-

ng comprehensive plans that focus on sustaining places includingarin Countywide Plan (2007), Connecting Cleveland 2020 City-ide Plan (2007), and Keene, New Hampshire, Comprehensiveaster Plan (2010). From these plans, the taskforce distilled best

ractices and set forth basic sustainability principles specificallyailored for comprehensive-plan making. APA’s best practices areiscussed in detail in the report, “Sustaining Places: The role of theomprehensive plan” (Godschalk & Anderson, 2012) and a score-ard for practitioners to self-evaluate their plans (APA, 2012). Sincehe release of these resources, APA’s sustaining place initiative hasiloted the best practices and further refined their sustainabilitytandards (Godschalk & Rouse, 2015).

The final guidance includes six principles: (1) Livable Builtnvironment, (2) Harmony with Nature, (3) Resilient Economy, (4)nterwoven Equity, (5) Healthy Community, and (6) Responsibleegionalism (Table 1). In addition, the guidelines include two planrocesses: (1) Authentic Participation and (2) Accountable Imple-entation, and two plan attributes: (1) Consistent Content and (2)

oordinated Characteristics. Across these ten components, the guid-nce includes 85 best practices to evaluate plans. These categorieslign with the core plan quality characteristics, but they also distin-uish the plans’ substantive goals and policies from the evidenceo support those goals and details to that ensure those policiesranslate into action (Norton, 2008). The principles in the APA Guid-nce (e.g. Livable Built Environment, Harmony with Nature, Resilientconomy, etc.) indicate the substantive content that should bencluded in high quality plans. While the processes and attributesre intended to help practitioners evaluate if their plans include theecessary evidence, analysis, consistency, and detail to support the

mplementation of the goals and policies.The Livable Built Environment principle indicates that plan

oals and policies should ensure that all elements of the builtnvironment, including land use, transportation, housing, andnfrastructure, are coordinated to enhance livability. The Har-

ony with Nature principle states that high quality plans willnclude goals and policies that recognize the contribution of nat-ral resources to human well-being and maintain the health ofhese resources. The Resilient Economy principle focuses on planoals and policies to prepare the community to deal with both eco-omic growth and decline by fostering redevelopment, businessrowth, and local assets. The Interwoven Equity principle empha-izes the importance of fairly and equitably providing housing,ervices, health, and livelihood needs. The Healthy Community prin-iple states that plans should ensure that public health is recognizednd addressed in the plan by providing healthy foods, physicalctivity, access to recreation, health care, environmental justice,nd safe neighborhoods. Lastly, the Responsible Regionalism prin-iple indicates that plan goals and policies should connect withnd support plans from neighboring jurisdictions and surroundingegion. In total, these six principles include 53 criteria.

The APA guidelines also include two planning processes, Authen-ic Participation and Accountable Implementation, which focus on thebility to translate plan into action. Authentic Participation includesractices that ensure that the planning process actively involvedll segments of the community. Community members and orga-izations should be involved in the entire planning process fromnalyzing issues, generating visions, developing strategies, andonitoring outcomes. Accountable Implementation describes the

eed for specifying parties responsible for implementing goals andolicies as well as determining timelines, sources of funding, and

etrics to measure implementation progress. In total, these two

rocesses include 15 criteria.In addition, the APA guidelines include two plan attributes: Con-

istent Content and Coordinated Characteristics. Consistent Content

Urban Planning 152 (2016) 90–100 93

measures the extent to which the plans visions, goals, policies,objectives, and actions are consistent with the evidence about thecommunity’s condition. Coordinated Characteristics describes if theplan is coordinated internally across different community sectors,vertically with federal ands state requirements, and horizontallywith plans from neighboring jurisdictions. In total, these two planattributes include 17 criteria.

The Harmony with Nature principle is most closely aligned withthe concept of ecosystem services; it calls for plans in which, “con-tributions of natural resources to human well-being are explicitlyrecognized and valued and that maintaining their health is a pri-mary objective” (Godschalk & Anderson, 2012, p. 9). Many of theprinciple’s criteria, such as policies to reduce carbon footprints andsolid waste, and comply with air quality standards, however, donot discuss ecosystem services. Only two criteria specifically men-tion ecosystem services: (1) restore, connect, and protect naturalhabitats and sensitive lands, and (2) plan for the provision andprotection of green infrastructure.

The guidance recognizes that restoring, connecting, and pro-tecting natural habitat can enhance associated ecosystem services.The protection of green infrastructure criteria defines green infras-tructure as, “strategically planned and managed network of greenopen spaces, including parks, greenways, and protected lands [that]provides a range of critical functions and ecosystem services tocommunities, such as wildlife habitat, stormwater management,and recreational opportunities” (APA, 2012). Both these criteriarecognize that natural ecosystems provide ecosystem services, butthey do not explore how ecosystem services can inform the plan-ning process. Traditionally, plans rely on simple metrics such asacres of open space (Berke & Kaiser, 2006). Recognizing that openspace provides benefits is important but qualitatively differentfrom protecting land because of the services it provides.

These two criteria, and the Harmony with Nature principle,more generally, perpetuate existing planning approaches of rec-ognizing the concept of ecosystem services without explicitlyusing ecosystem services to elevate the importance of natural sys-tems, determine areas for protection, and integrate communitygoals. While APA’s guidance argues that protecting “life-sustainingecosystems” (Godschalk & Anderson, 2012, p. 9) and “ecologicalservices” (p. 30) is a central tenet of Sustaining Places, the guidanceprovides no direction on how ecosystem services could be inte-grated with planning. How does an ecosystem service-based plancompare to a traditional plan on the criteria developed by APA?

3. Methods

We drew on content analysis to explore the gap in ecosys-tem service planning guidance. First, we use the criteria from APASustaining Places guidance to analyze two comprehensive plans:Damascus, Oregon (Damascus, 2010), which uses ecosystem ser-vices as an organizing framework, and Cincinnati, Ohio (Cincinnati,2012), which has received recognition by the APA for advancingthe science and art of planning. We chose these plans becausethey provide a comparison between the “high quality” sustainabil-ity focused plan APA aimed to promote with its guidelines andan innovative application of ecosystem services in planning. TheAPA Sustaining Places Standards includes 85 criteria divided intoplan principles (53 criteria), processes (15 criteria), and attributes(17 criteria). While the scorecard allows criteria to be scored ona scale of 0–3 based on level (low, medium, or high) of achieve-

ment (APA, 2012), we coded all criteria as present or absent. Codingbased on presence/absence increases objectivity of the coding pro-cess and improves clarity of the results. Text supporting coding wascaptured, providing qualitative data to support the quantitative

94 S.C. Woodruff, T.K. BenDor / Landscape and Urban Planning 152 (2016) 90–100

Table 1APA’s Sustaining Places standards modified from “Comprehensive Plan Standards for Sustaining Places” (2012).

Component Definition Example best practices #

Principles Livable built environment Goals and policies should ensure that all elementsof the built environment are coordinated toenhance livability.

Transit oriented development; multi-modaltransportation; complete streets; avoid hazardzones

11

Harmony with nature Goals and policies that recognize the contributionof natural resources to human well-being andmaintain the health of these resources.

Green infrastructure; respect natural topography;reduce carbon footprints; climate adaptation

10

Resilient economy Goals and policies to prepare the community todeal with economic growth and decline.

Balanced land use; transportation access toemployment centers; green jobs

7

Interwoven equity Fairly and equitably providing housing, services,health, and livelihood needs.

A range of housing types; equitably provideservices; upgrade infrastructure;

9

Health community Public health is recognized and addressed in theplan.

Reduce exposure to toxins; reduce crime;encourage physical activity and healthy food

7

Responsible regionalism Plan goals and policies should connect with andsupport plans from neighboring jurisdictions andsurrounding region.

Coordinate land use, housing, and open spaceregionally; delineate growth areas

9

Total: 53

Processes Authentic participation The entire planning process actively involved allsegments of the community.

Use a variety of communication channels; Provideunderstandable information for all participants

7

Accountable implementation Implementation details regarding responsibilities,timelines, sources of funding, and evaluation.

Connect implementation to capital plan andannual budget; establish indicators; process toupdate plan

8

Total: 15

Attributes Consistent content Consistency of plan goals and policies with theevidence provided on community condition.

Establish a fact base; develop vision, goals, andobjectives; define specific actions

8

Coordinated characteristics Coordination internally across different sectors,nd staborin

Comprehensive coverage; integrate plan with 9

pw

eteiqitosrDepsyebg

es2rpirwaV“edt

vertically with federal ahorizontally with neigh

Total:

resence/absence data. To ensure validity of the coding, each planas double coded, and any coding discrepancies were rectified.

Next, we analyzed the extent to which the two plans use thecosystem services concept. Since planning that integrates ecosys-em services is still in an embryonic stage and few complete plansxist, we do not conduct a full plan evaluation. Rather, we exam-ne how the plans integrate ecosystem services into the core planuality characteristics to identify promising practices and areas for

mprovement. Specifically, we focus on five questions: (1) Doeshe plan integrate ecosystem services into their vision, goals, andbjectives? (2) Does the plan move beyond recognizing ecosystemervices to providing detailed analysis about the scale, beneficia-ies, quantity, and value of ecosystem services in the fact base? (3)oes the plan use ecosystem services to compare tradeoffs of differ-nt development scenarios? (4) Does the plan include strategies torotect ecosystem services? And, (5) does the plan use ecosystemervices in the public participation process? The results of this anal-sis are descriptive in nature, documenting how a plan that usescosystem services differs from a traditional plan, and exploratoryy examining additional areas that should be included in planninguidance to promote the protection of ecosystem services.

Planning has a long history of recognizing the benefits ofcosystems and natural areas, without using the term “ecosystemervices” (Colding, 2011; Salzman et al., 2014; Wilkinson et al.,013). In 2010, a survey of U.S. voters found that the majority ofespondents recognize the critical benefits that nature provides toeople, embrace quantifying or valuing these benefits, and explic-

tly acknowledging these benefits in decisions about how naturalesources are managed (Metz & Weigel, 2010). When respondentsere asked what term they prefer to describe this approach to man-

ging natural resources, however, “ecosystem services” scored low.oters favored the terms “Nature’s Value,” “Nature’s Benefits,” andEarth’s Benefits” (Metz & Weigel, 2010). To account for this pref-

rence in our analysis, we attempt to capture every time the planiscusses the benefits nature provide, not just when they use theerm “ecosystem services.”

te requirements, andg jurisdictions.

other programs; innovation; consistency acrosscomponents

17

3.1. Damascus, Oregon

There are few examples of plans that explicitly incorporateecosystem services. Damascus, Oregon has received attention forintegrating ecosystem services into their public facilities and com-prehensive plan (Hirokawa, 2011; Judge-Lord & Cochran, 2011).Damascus incorporated in 2004 after the Portland Metro UrbanGrowth Boundary was expanded to include the area. Due to therapid growth in the Portland region, Damascus anticipates anincrease in population from approximately 10,000 residents in2010 to 35,000 in 2030 and 50,000 in 2050. The infrastructure coststo support this population growth has been estimated at $3.5 bil-lion (Yap & Murdock, 2011). By recognizing the stormwater andwater quality services provided by existing natural features, Dam-ascus hopes to lower infrastructure cost and protect environmentalresources.

In 2010, Damascus adopted its first comprehensive plan, Envi-sion Damascus (Damascus, 2010). The state of Oregon requirescities and counties to adopt comprehensive plans. Local compre-hensive plans and planning processes must align with state goals,which include robust public participation in the planning process,protection of natural resources, limiting development in hazardprone areas, encouraging economic development, and addressinghousing needs (Oregon, 2016). One of the guiding values of Dam-ascus’ comprehensive plan is the protection of ecosystem services.The plan connects ecosystem services to broader community out-comes and the state goals. Additionally, the plan establishes a policyframework in which ecosystem services are used in infrastructureplanning and development decisions. Just six months after the planwas adopted and before it was officially recognized by Oregon State,it was overturned by a citywide referendum. To date, Damascushas not adopted a new comprehensive plan. Although the plan wasoverturned, it provides an example of how ecosystem services can

be incorporated into comprehensive planning.

e and

3

paCwtPtDt

bp1apeiwsnoimOpmwc

chtspipfit

gcnAhi

4

4

ippi(taptor

S.C. Woodruff, T.K. BenDor / Landscap

.2. Cincinnati, OH

We compare Damascus, Oregon’s plan to Cincinnati, Ohio’s com-rehensive plan, Plan Cincinnati: A comprehensive plan for the future,dopted in 2012 (Cincinnati, 2012). In 2014, the APA awarded Planincinnati the Daniel Burnham Award for a Comprehensive Plan,hich recognizes outstanding comprehensive plans that advance

he science and art of planning. Plan Cincinnati was funded by theartnership for Sustainable Communities, a collaboration betweenhe U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S.epartment of Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protec-

ion Agency.While Plan Cincinnati was the first comprehensive plan adopted

y the city in more than 30 years and developed by a newly formedlanning department, the city has a long history of planning. In925, Cincinnati became the first city in the United States to have

city council approve and adopt a comprehensive plan. The 1925lan pioneered the concept of comprehensive plan and was influ-ntial in the development of Cincinnati, motivating infrastructuremprovements and the creation of public spaces. In 1948 the plan

as updated with a new vision of the city − one that embraceduburbs, highways, and urban renewal. The population of Cincin-ati dropped dramatically after 1950, with the city losing over 40%f its population in the next 50 years. The plan was again updated

n 1980. The 1980 plan predominately focused on the integration ofultiple existing plans and lacked an extensive planning process.hio grants cities and counties the power to create comprehensivelans, but there are no requirements to do so or state require-ents for content (Ohio, 2016). In 2002 the Cincinnati planningas demolished; it was reformed in 2007 with the intention of

reating a new comprehensive plan.Like many industrial cities, Cincinnati has struggled to maintain

ity services with a shrinking population. Plan Cincinnati intends toelp reverse the trends of declining city population by revitalizinghe city’s neighborhood centers and corridors. The plan emphasizesustainability as a guiding principle and strategies throughout thelan promote mixed-use, compact, and walkable development to

mprove citizen’s physical health and quality of life. In addition, thelan breaks down traditional silos by organizing the plan aroundve initiatives, generally described as, “compete, connect, live, sus-

ain, and collaborate.”While Cincinnati and Damascus vary greatly in their size, geo-

raphic location, history, and planning challenges, we believe theomparison is informative. As an award-winning plan, Plan Cincin-ati represents the type of “high quality” sustainability focused planPA aimed to promote with its guidelines. Damascus on the otherand represents a novel experiment to use ecosystem services to

mprove the development process.

. Results

.1. Comparison on APA guidance

Out of the 85 criteria we considered, Damascus includes 53 (62%)n their comprehensive plan and Cincinnati includes 61 (71%). Bothlans scored highest on plan attributes, which suggest that bothlans are internally consistent and well coordinated; Damascus

ncluded 13 (76%) of the 17 criteria and Cincinnati included 1482%). Both plans establish a fact base (an evidence-based descrip-ion of current conditions and projection of future trends), develop

vision of the future, set goals to support this vision, and define

olicies to achieve the goals. Neither plan, however, includes objec-ives or measurable targets to track progress toward fulfilling goalsr defines specific actions with timeframes, funding sources, andesponsibilities to carry out the plan. Both plans score well on the

Urban Planning 152 (2016) 90–100 95

Coordinated Characteristics attribute taking a comprehensive andinnovative approach. The plans are also coordinated with neigh-boring jurisdictions plans and comply with state and federal policy.

Damascus performed weakest on the processes including only6 (40%) of the 15 criteria, while Cincinnati includes 10 (67%).In particular, Damascus scores extremely low on the AccountableImplementation process including none of these 8 criteria. The plandoes not include specific actions with timeframes, funding sources,and responsibilities to carry out the plan nor does it establishindicators or a reporting process to track implementation of theplan. Although Cincinnati also fails to include specific actions andestablish indicators, it takes additional steps to encourage imple-mentation. The Cincinnati comprehensive plan is connected to thecapital planning and annual budgeting processes. Cincinnati alsoestablishes a process for evaluating and reporting plan implemen-tation as well as a process for updating the plan based on thisinformation. Both plans perform well on the Authentic Participationprocess engaging diverse stakeholders throughout the planningprocess. Damascus scores higher than Cincinnati on this princi-ple because it developed alternative scenarios of the future duringthe planning process. Damascus considers low and high growthscenarios as well as different housing mixes (Damascus, 2010, p.79).

Of the 53 plan principle criteria we considered, Damascusincludes 34 in their comprehensive plan and Cincinnati includes37. Cincinnati scored higher on every principle except Harmonywith Nature and Responsible Regionalism. Cincinnati includes morestrategies to create a livable environment, increase economicresilience, promote equity, and advance community health. Thisdifference may be in part due to differing history and context.As a rural area that is rapidly urbanizing, Damascus may nothave brownfields, toxin pollution, disadvantaged neighborhoods,or older substandard areas all of which are prominent issues inolder industrial cities like Cincinnati.

Conversely, Damascus scores stronger on the Harmony withNature principle due to multiple policies focused on preservingopen space as development occurs. Damascus includes 8 of the 10criteria in the Harmony with Nature principle; Cincinnati containsonly 6. Within the Harmony with Nature principle, Cincinnati hasthe most strategies related to the reduce carbon footprint crite-ria (12 policies). Most of these policies focus on the transportationsector such as: “implement transportation components such asenergy efficient street lighting and traffic signals” (Cincinnati, 2012,p. 143) and “complete the upgrade of the City’s Fleet to more fuelefficient vehicles” (p. 190). These strategies focus on technologi-cal improvements and transitional policies; they do not transformthe built environment or land use. The focus on transitional poli-cies over transformational land use changes in Cincinnati’s planis evident in other criteria as well. For example, in the provisionof green infrastructure and water conservation criteria, Cincinnatiproposes the use of rain barrels—a technological strategy that doesnot change land use. Cincinnati does not include any policies forthe restore, connect, and protect natural habitats or protect andmanage streams, watersheds, and floodplains criteria both of whichhave strong connection to land use.

In contrast, Damascus includes 13 policies to restore, connect,and protect natural habitats and sensitive lands and 5 to protectand manage streams, watersheds, and floodplains. Many of thesepolicies focus on encouraging concentrated development to pro-tect open space: “Denser, more developed areas shall be clusteredto minimize encroachment on open rural landscape” (Damascus,2010, p. 25). In addition, Damascus views the preservation of open

space as a tool to protect ecosystem services. The city recommendstargeting growth and preservation, “to ensure the quality of thecity’s natural resources: clean water, high quality fish and wildlifehabitat, healthy air quality and the area’s heritage and history”

9 e and

(tbat1smcaub

4

dtbanparttu“(denuaa(b

ph

vd

vevhcfamwi

vsmsia

6 S.C. Woodruff, T.K. BenDor / Landscap

Damascus, 2010, p. 101). Policies in the protection of green infras-ructure criteria become even more explicit, “Consideration shalle given to meeting multiple objectives with open space, suchs recognition of the natural function, ecosystem services poten-ial, connectivity and resource protection” (Damascus, 2010, p.02). The focus on land use strategies (i.e. preservation of openpace and concentrating development) is evident across the Har-ony with Nature criteria. When Cincinnati focuses on transitional

hanges such as fleet upgrades to reduce carbon footprints, Dam-scus emphasizes transformational changes such as altering landse and the nature of the built environment to encourage walking,iking and public transportation.

.2. Ecosystem services content

Cincinnati’s comprehensive plan (Cincinnati, 2012) does notiscuss ecosystem services in any matter. In the “Sustain” initia-ive, which integrates public health, preservation of natural anduilt environments, and management of financial resources, greenpproaches are discussed but the ecosystem services concept isotably missing (p. 188). For example, to improve water quality thelan mentions that efforts to reduce sewer overflows, “. . .createn opportunity to use green techniques to slow down and cleanunoff to streamsand rivers” (Cincinnati, 2012, p. 190), but the onlyechnique mentioned involves rain barrels. This could be an oppor-unity to discuss the water retention and infiltration services ofrban forest and other green spaces. Similarly, the plan proposes,plant[ing] trees in areas with a lower-than-average tree canopy”Cincinnati, 2012, p. 192) to improve air quality, but is missing aiscussion about the services and benefits that trees and urban for-st provide. Even in the section dedicated to the goal of protectingatural resources fails to mention the benefits of Cincinnati’s nat-ral resources for its residents. The plan states, “We will maintainnd preserve our hillsides, vistas, wildlife, forests, trees, waterways,nd other natural features for future generations of Cincinnatians”Cincinnati, 2012, p. 202), but never mentions the multitude ofenefits and services these features provide.

In contrast, ecosystem services form a central topic of Damascus’lan. One of the eight core values guiding the Damascus compre-ensive plan is environmental responsibility:

“The growth occurring in the area shall be designed to ensurethe quality of nature’s gifts, including-but not limited to-cleanwater, high-quality fish and wildlife habitat, healthy air quality,and the area’s heritage and history” (Damascus, 2010, p. 26).

Ecosystem services are viewed as an approach to further thisalue, while simultaneously providing for economic growth andevelopment.

In their comprehensive plan, Damascus defines ecosystem ser-ices as, “. . .the unique and irreplaceable services provided by thexisting natural resources” (Damascus, 2010, p. 95). Multiple ser-ices are identified in the plan including clean air, fish and wildlifeabitat, carbon sequestration, and cultural and spiritual values. Theomprehensive plan links these services to particular habitats andeatures within the community. The city views these habitats asn asset to be protected. When discussing stormwater manage-ent, for example, the plan calls for the protection of forested areas,etlands, and riparian buffers to reduce the amount of runoff and

mprove management of stormwater.Damascus’ Comprehensive Plan includes over 50 ecosystem ser-

ice related policies. Many strategies focus on capacity building,uch as inventorying natural resources and including this infor-

ation in future planning. Most of these policies are higher level

trategies, such as, “Growth shall be designed to ensure the qual-ty of the city’s natural resources: clean water, high quality fishnd wildlife habitat, healthy air quality and the area’s heritage

Urban Planning 152 (2016) 90–100

and history” (Damascus, 2010, p. 102). This strategy does not pro-vide details about actions to be taken, but demonstrates the city’sapproach of using ecosystem services. Another major theme withinthe strategies is using ecosystem services in infrastructure devel-opment, “If preserved, Damascus’ naturally occurring ecosystemscan act as a substitute for traditional utility infrastructure (sewer,water, stormwater) and reduce the costs of constructing tradi-tional infrastructure to serve Damascus residents and businesses”(Damascus, 2010, p. 72).

Damascus’ plan goes beyond recognizing ecosystem servicesand employs ecosystem service quantification and valuation toguide development. This is evident in policies related to the sitingof public facilities and parks. The City aims to achieve multiple com-munity objectives by siting parks and recreational facilities wherethey can also protect valuable ecosystem services, to accomplishthis goal Damascus calls for evaluation tools: “The City shall useecosystem services evaluation tools to rank and prioritize park siteselection and development” (Damascus, 2010, p. 164). Valuation isalso discussed as a tool to encourage private protection of ecosys-tem services, “By assigning economic value to Damascus’ naturalqualities, citizens receive increased benefits in preserving them”(Damascus, 2010, p. 30). Although the plan discusses these analy-ses, it does not include a quantification or valuation of ecosystemservices.

Damascus also uses ecosystem services to connect communitygoals within the comprehensive plan. The plan effectively connectsecosystem services to the goals of creating a sense of place, provid-ing infrastructure, and meet recreational needs.

“This ecosystem services approach bridges public facilities andpublic services in Damascus, allowing the City to integrate itsgoals and values of sustainability and resource use and protec-tion into the development of public facilities” (Damascus, 2010,p. 96).

The ability to integrate goals and strategies across sectors sug-gests that ecosystem services may be a powerful lens to advancesustainability.

While Damascus’ comprehensive plan provides a strong exam-ple of how ecosystem services can be integrated into planning toinform the location and form of development, it does not providea complete analysis of ecosystem services in the fact base. Manyof the services are discussed at a general level. For example, whendiscussing the ability of riparian buffers to manage stormwater theplan does not provide details about the scale at which this ser-vice is provided or who benefits. The plan also lacks specificity interms of quantification and valuation; while both are discussed aspotential tools neither is used in this planning process. How muchstormwater do riparian buffers in Damascus capture? How muchis this service worth? Similarly, the plan does not discuss potentialtradeoffs between development decisions or ecosystem services.The plan also did not take advantage of ecosystem services to com-municate information about development tradeoffs in the publicparticipation process.

5. Discussion

The APA guidance helps identify strengths and weaknesses ofthe comprehensive plans we analyzed. Namely, the guidance high-lights the strong public engagement, coordination, and internalconsistency of Damascus’ comprehensive plan as well as the plan’sweak implementation component. In the case of Cincinnati’s plan,

the guidance highlights the strong emphasis on a healthy, liv-able community and strong implementation as well as the needto improve regional coordination. These differences can largely beexplained by the differing history and context; the issues, concerns,

e and

areifodBvp

ruavw2igdaustAt

ilotipfl

bosptdoaopgit

5

ptaegPvt2namtt

S.C. Woodruff, T.K. BenDor / Landscap

nd options of an industrialized city are simply different than aapidly urbanizing rural area. But the difference in plans also helpsxplore the potential for ecosystem services. Previous research onncorporating ecosystem services in planning has predominatelyocused on the benefits new frameworks and methods provide butften lack comparisons to existing processes or an empirical foun-ation (Albert et al., 2016; Langemeyer et al., 2016; Nin et al., 2016).y empirically comparing a plan with and without ecosystem ser-ices we illustrate potential benefits of ecosystem services in thelanning context more clearly.

To create plans that advance sustainability planners need toecognize the connections between multiple systems and, in partic-lar, the link between man-made and natural systems (Godschalknd Anderson, 2012; Larco, 2016). Damascus’ use of ecosystem ser-ices supports the claim that ecosystem services provide a lens byhich to identify and value those connections (Windhager et al.,

010). In Damascus’ plan, ecosystem services help the City advancets vision of sustainability and achieve higher scores on the APAuidance. Ecosystem services elevate the importance of compactevelopment and preservation of open space; they also provide

lens to integrate goals across sectors. Ecosystem services aresed to connect land use, public facilities, infrastructure, and openpace. While we lack a counterfactual for comparison, we asserthat ecosystem services help Damascus’ plan score higher on thePA’s Harmony with Nature principle and Coordinated Characteris-

ics attribute.Cincinnati’s plan performs well on the coordinated character-

stic attribute, connecting sectors with the theme of health andivability, but falls short on the protection of natural habitats. Rec-gnizing the services provided by ecosystems and the connection ofhose services to other community goals, such as health and livabil-ty, could help Cincinnati advance efforts to protect natural habitats,rovide green infrastructure, and manage streams, watersheds, andoodplains.

Damascus provides an example of how ecosystem services couldenefit planning. Damascus moves beyond the long history of rec-gnizing ecosystem services in plans to explicitly use ecosystemervices to support land-use and development decisions. Yet, thelan falls short of realizing the full potential of ecosystem services;he plan discusses ecosystem services at a general level withoutetails about the quantity, value, and scale of services. This lackf detail raises concerns about how ecosystem services will actu-lly be used in the decision making process. Describing methodsf incorporating detailed ecosystem service information into thelan, however, is far beyond the scope of APA guidance. Additionaluidance, drawing on existing literature and efforts of other cities,s needed to help recognize the strengths and weaknesses of planshat integrate ecosystem services.

.1. Proposed ecosystem services plan evaluation guidelines

While the ecosystem service goals of Damascus’ comprehensivelan are strong, it did not take advantage of ecosystem services inhe public participation process. There is large variation in the valuessigned to ecosystem services by different stakeholders such asnvironmental organizations, business associations, neighborhoodroups, and individuals (Biggs et al., 2012; Brooks, Smith, Holland,oppy, & Eigenbrod, 2014; Lopes & Videira, 2013). In particular,alue assigned by decision-makers may not concur with thosehat most directly rely or benefit from the services (Brooks et al.,014). Participatory processes that engage a broad base of commu-ity members is necessary to account for the variation in values

ssigned to services and better integrate perceptions into assess-ents (Lopes & Videira, 2013). Fürst et al. (2014) demonstrate

he ability of ecosystem services to enhance public participa-ion by facilitating knowledge sharing, incorporating local data,

Urban Planning 152 (2016) 90–100 97

creating a shared vision of the future, and building networks. In thecase of Damascus, incorporated ecosystem services into the pub-lic participation process may have ameliorated or prevented thepolitical backlash against the plan. We encourage future planningefforts to consider including ecosystem services in the public par-ticipation process, to more clearly display development tradeoffsand understand community preferences. Engagement of commu-nity members is particularly important when they are expectedto change their behavior to implement plan strategies (Piemonti,Babbar-Sebens, & Luzar, 2013).

The fact base of Damascus’ plan could also be improved. Damas-cus’ plan identifies ecosystem services of interest and the featuresthat provide these services, but does not include specific details onquantification, valuation, and tradeoffs. Future ecosystem servicebased plans should provide this additional information. To set pri-orities and make development decisions, it is necessary to not onlyidentify the source of services but also to quantify or measure theproduction of ecosystem services across the landscape. Hernández-Morcillo, Plieninger, and Bieling (2013) discuss multiple types ofindicators to quantify ecosystem services such as condition indica-tors (e.g. chemical and biological indicators that assess the ability ofan ecosystem to support services), function indicators (e.g. measureprocesses that deliver services), and benefit indicators (e.g. mea-sures of tangible projects such as number of tourist visits or levelof dissolved nitrogen). Valuation of ecosystem services transfersthese types of indicators into a single unit or currency.

By explicitly recognizing the value of ecosystem service, anecosystem service framework allows planners to better weigh land-use tradeoffs and examine multiple development scenarios. Plansshould describe tradeoffs between different land uses and ser-vices and how these tradeoffs are measured. Plans should alsorecognize the tradeoffs between different ecosystem services. Theproduction of one service may come at the expense of another; forexample, plantation forestry for carbon sequestration may dimin-ish water quantity (Brauman et al., 2007). Ultimately, decidingbetween tradeoffs is a value judgment—does the community valuecarbon sequestration or water availability more? Since decisionsare largely dependent on community values, scholars have arguedthat there is a need for planning methods that incorporate culturalvalues in a meaningful way (Brauman et al., 2007). Plans shouldconsider multiple types of data such as surveys, focus groups, andpublic input in addition to ecological data.

Damascus’ plan could also be improved by examining the scaleand beneficiaries of the ecosystem services of interest. Some pro-cesses distribute services at local scales; for example farmers inCalifornia were found to benefit from vegetated buffer strips.Improvements in water quality and reduction in soil loss out-weighed the cost of taking land out of production to create thebuffers (Brismar, 2002). At the same time, vegetated buffer stripsmay decrease nitrogen in streams, distributing benefits across aregional scale (Brauman et al., 2007; Ernstson, 2013). Other servicesmay not be beneficial at both local and regional scale. Consequently,cost and benefits of land-use options will be dependent on the scaleof analysis. Plans should clearly describe the scale at which servicesare analyzed.

The scale of analysis is closely tied to questions about beneficia-ries from ecosystem services. When the benefits of an ecosystemservice accrue mainly to those who make management decisions,markets such as payments for carbon sequestration can incen-tivize the protection of services (Jack, Kousky, & Sims 2008). Thefocus on maximizing marketable ecosystem services at the localscale, however, can mask impacts to regional public goods such as

water quality that are not as easily commodified (Bullock, Aronson,Newton, Pywell, & Rey-Benayas, 2011; Goldstein et al., 2012). Man-aging these regional public goods has long been recognized asa governance challenge, since rational individual decisions often

98 S.C. Woodruff, T.K. BenDor / Landscape and Urban Planning 152 (2016) 90–100

Table 2Proposed ecosystem service planning criteria.

1 Goals: the plan should clearly identify and explain desired ecosystem service outcomes1.1 Are “ecosystem services” defined?1.2 Are ecosystem service outcomes linked to broader environmental, social, and economic outcomes?1.3 Are ecosystem service goals connected to other community goals (e.g. hazard mitigation, economic development)?

2 Participation: the plan should integrate ecosystem services into the public participation to communicate information and solicit feedback2.1 Are ecosystem services used as a tool to communicate information in the public participation process?2.2 Are ecosystem services used when presenting tradeoffs between different development scenarios in the public participation process?2.3 Does the participation process solicit community values and preferences for ecosystem services?

3 Fact base: the plan should be built on a solid foundation of data3.1 Are ecosystem services identified? Does the plan identify different types of ecosystem services (e.g. recreation, carbon sequestration, flood abatement)?3.2 Are features and process that provide ecosystem services identified?3.3 Is the scale of the plan or service shed discussed?3.4 Are the beneficiaries from services identified?3.5 Are threats to ecosystem services identified and discussed?3.6 Is information and data specific to the planning area and context?3.7 Does the plan consider or make use of multiple types of data (e.g. public surveys, ecological studies)?3.8 Is methodology for quantification, valuation, and tradeoffs clearly discussed?3.9 Are tradeoffs between different ecosystem services discussed?3.10 Are tradeoffs between different land uses and management options presented?3.11 Are sources given for background information and data?

4 Policies: the plan should provide specific policies to guide decision-making and planningnto incts to

s and

pceoese

aFwupowSin

mdlqmteos

pcscitci

trg

4.1 Invest in green infrastructure or incorporate ecosystem services i4.2 Create ecosystem service markets and require mitigation of impa4.3 Integrate ecosystem services into land-use and development plan

roduce negative community outcomes. It becomes even morehallenging when the individuals responsible for maintenance ofcosystems providing a service are not the same as the beneficiariesf that service (Jack et al., 2008; Viglizzo et al., 2012 Viglizzo, Paru-lo, Laterra, & Jobbágy, 2012). Consequently plans should identifyervice beneficiaries and providers (Ernstson, 2013) to understandxisting incentive structures and appropriate strategies.

The quantity and value of ecosystem services as well as the scalend beneficiaries are site dependent (Faith, 2012; Plummer, 2009).or example, Plummer (2009) describes a 6-acre wetland whoseater treatment services were valued at $215,000 because it was

sed to treat the wastewater of an adjacent Zapp’s Potato Chiplant. It would be inaccurate to use this figure to estimate the valuef other wetlands, since it does not reflect the intrinsic value of theetland but the cost savings of the neighboring potato chip plant.

imilarly, the value of recreational services provided by a forests dependent on the proximity to users and the amount of otheratural, recreational areas.

These examples demonstrate that the quantity and value ofany ecosystem services are not intrinsic to a site, but rather are

ependent on the context of a site within the human and naturalandscape (Luck, Chan, & Klien, 2012; Plummer, 2009). Conse-uently, to quantify and value ecosystem services in a credible andeaningful way for decision makers, information must be specific

o the community (Albert et al., 2014; Petter et al., 2013). Futurecosystem service efforts should include local and diverse formsf data to accurately estimate ecosystem services’ quantity, value,cale, and beneficiaries.

With over 50 ecosystem service related strategies, Damascusrovides multiple promising strategies future planning efforts mayonsider. These promising strategies include: (1) using ecosystemervice to decide where to site public facilities so that these facilitiesan fulfill multiple goals; (2) integrating ecosystem services intonfrastructure planning; and (3) requiring replacement of ecosys-em services impacted by development. Future plans may alsoonsider strategies to create ecosystem service markets and investn green infrastructure.

Based on Damascus’ plan and important recommendations inhe ecosystem services literature, we propose 20 additional crite-ia to help improve the integration of ecosystem services into planoals, public participation process, fact base, and policies (Table 2).

frastructure planning and decision-making.protected services.

decision-making.

These criteria are intended to compliment existing plan qualityguidance and be applicable to planning in other countries andat different scales. As more plans explicitly incorporate ecosys-tem services, these criteria help identify strengths and areas forimprovement. A major strength of Damascus’ comprehensive planis the clear definition of ecosystem services and ability to link multi-ple community goals with ecosystem services. Future plans shouldreplicate Damascus’ practice of defining ecosystem services andlinking ecosystem services to multiple community goals and out-comes.

6. Conclusion

The APA guidance helps identify strengths and weaknesses ofcomprehensive plans, but fails to explore the quality of plans’ cov-erage of ecosystem services, and consequently does not provideguidance on how plans should incorporate ecosystem services. InDamascus, ecosystem services provide a useful framework to con-nect environmental protection with other community goals andguide future development. The plan provides convincing evidencethat the integration of ecosystem services into planning enablesthe realization of benefits of environmental protection for othergoals such as infrastructure and open space. While the scope ofthis study is limited to two plans, the comparison between theecosystem based plan in Damascus and the more traditional, sus-tainability focused plan in Cincinnati suggests that an ecosystemlens could help advance sustainability goals and elevate the impor-tance of environmental protection. This theory should be tested byanalyzing a larger sample of plans. It is also important to note thatthis study focuses exclusively on plan content and cannot addressplan outcomes. It remains to be answered whether a plan thatincorporates ecosystem services actually improves environmentalprotection, social well-being, and other sustainability goals.

Theoretically, ecosystem services provide an opportunityto improve land-use planning by recognizing the relationshipbetween healthy ecosystems and human well-being. To achievethis potential, we need to establish standards for high-quality

ecosystem service plans and better understand the strengths andweaknesses of existing plans. Existing sustainability guidance per-petuates traditional approaches of recognizing ecosystem serviceswithout explicitly using them to improve land-use decisions. As

e and

sfiave

A

a

R

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

S.C. Woodruff, T.K. BenDor / Landscap

uch, practitioners interested in using an ecosystem service-basedramework for planning have no resource about the type of goals,nformation, and strategies they should include. With a carefulnalysis of Damascus’ plan we identify promising practices and pro-ide recommendations that may help improve the quality of futurecosystem service based plans.

cknowledgement

We would like to thank Mary Jo Kealy (CH2MHILL) for her valu-ble feedback on the Damascus plan.

eferences

PA. (2012). Comprehensive plan standards for sustaining places. https://www.planning.org/sustainingplaces/compplanstandards/pdf/scoringmatrix.pdf

lbert, C., Aronson, J., Fürst, C., & Opdam, P. (2014). Integrating ecosystem servicesin landscape planning: requirements approaches, and impacts. LandscapeEcology, 29(8), 1277–1285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0085-0

lbert, C., Galler, C., Hermes, J., Neuendorf, F., von Haaren, C., & Lovett, A. (2016).Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning andmanagement: the ES-in-Planning framework. Ecological Indicators, 61,100–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.029

aer, W. C. (1997). General plan evaluation criteria: an approach to making betterplans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(3), 329–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975926

erke, P. R. (2002). Does Sustainable Development Offer a New Direction forPlanning? Challenges for the Twenty-First Century. Journal of PlanningLiterature,. http://doi.org/10.1177/088122017001002

erke, P. R., & French, S. P. (1994). The Influence of State Planning Mandates onLocal Plan Quality. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 13(4), 237–250.http://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9401300401

erke, P., & Godschalk, D. (2009). Searching for the good plan: a meta-analysis ofplan quality studies. Journal of Planning Literature, 23(3), 227–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0885412208327014

iggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., et al.(2012). Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services.Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 421–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836

iggs, R., Schlüter, M., & Schoon, M. L. (2015). Principles for building resilience:sustaining ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge: UniversityPress.

rauman, K. A., Daily, G. C., Duarte, T. K., & Mooney, H. A. (2007). The nature andvalue of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services.Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32(1), 67–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.031306.102758

rismar, A. (2002). River systems as providers of goods and services: a basis forcomparing desired and undesired effects of large dam projects. EnvironmentalManagement, 29(5), 598–609.

rooks, E. G. E., Smith, K. G., Holland, R. A., Poppy, G. M., & Eigenbrod, F. (2014).Effects of methodology and stakeholder disaggregation on ecosystem servicevaluation. Ecology and Society, 19(3) http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-06811-190318

ullock, J. M., Aronson, J., Newton, A. C., Pywell, R. F., & Rey-Benayas, J. M. (2011).Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts andopportunities. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26(10), 541–549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.06.011

urby, R. J., & May, P. J. (1997). Intergovernmental environmental planning:Addressing the commitment conundrum. Journal of Environmental Planningand Management, 41(1), 95–110.

incinnati. (2012). Plan cincinnati: a comprehensive plan for the future. http://www.plancincinnati.org/sites/default/files/plan cincinnati pdf/final plan cincinnatidocument 11-21-12.pdf

olding, J. (2011). The role of ecosystem services in contemporary urban planning.In J. Niemelä, J. H. Breuste, T. Elmqvist, G. Guntenspergen, & P. N. E. JamesMcIntyre (Eds.), Urban ecology: patterns, processes, and applications (pp.228–237). Oxford University Press.

onroy, M. M., & Berke, P. R. (2004). What makes a good sustainable developmentplan? An analysis of factors that influence principles of sustainabledevelopment. Environment and Planning A, 36(8), 1381–1396. http://doi.org/10.1068/a367

rossman, N. D., Bryan, B. A., de Groot, R. S., Lin, Y., & Minang, P. A. (2013). Landscience contributions to ecosystem services. Current Opinion in EnvironmentalSustainability, 5(5), 509–514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.003

íaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, F. S., & Tilman, D. (2006). Biodiversity loss threatenshuman well-being. PLoS Biology, 4(8) http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.

0040277, 277

alton, L., & Burby, R. (1994). Mandates, plans and planners: Building localcommitment to development management. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, 60(4), 444–461.

amascus (2010). Envision Damascus: Comprehensive Plan.

Urban Planning 152 (2016) 90–100 99

Dorning, M. A., Koch, J., Shoemaker, D. A., & Meentemeyer, R. K. (2015). Simulatingurbanization scenarios reveals tradeoffs between conservation planningstrategies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 136, 28–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.11.011

Ernstson, H. (2013). The social production of ecosystem services: a framework forstudying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanizedlandscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109, 7–17.

Fürst, C., Opdam, P., Inostroza, L., & Luque, S. (2014). Evaluating the role ofecosystem services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balancedscore card. Landscape Ecology, 29(8), 1435–1446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0052-9

Faith, D. P. (2012). Common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services: the‘partial protection’ challenge. F1000 Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.1-30.v1

Godschalk, D. R., & Anderson, W. R. (2012). Sustaining places: the role of thecomprehensive plan. Planning advisory service report, no. 567. Chicago, IL:American Planning Association.

Godschalk, D. R., & Rouse, D. C. (2015). Sustaining places: best practices forcomprehensive plans. Planning advisory service report, no. 578. Chicago, IL:American Planning Association.

Goldstein, J. H., Caldarone, G., Duarte, T. C., Ennaanay, D., Hannahs, N., Mendoza, G.,et al. (2012). Integrating ecosystem-Service tradeoffs into land-use decisions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), 7565–7570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201040109

Grêt-Regamey, A., Celio, E., Klein, T. M., & Hayek, U. W. (2013). Understandingecosystem services trade-offs with interactive procedural modeling forsustainable urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 107–116.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.011

Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., et al.(2014). A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments:concepts models, and implementation. AMBIO, 43(4), 413–433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0

Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., & Bieling, C. (2013). An empirical review ofcultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29, 434–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013

Hirokawa, K. H. (2011). Driving local governments to watershed governance.Environmental Law, 42, 157–200.

Hirokawa, K. H. (2012). In K. H. Hirokawa, & P. E. Salkin (Eds.), Urban forests asgreen infrastructure. Chicago: Greening Local Government.

Hopkins, L. D. (2001). Urban development: the logic of making plans. DC: Island PressWashington.

Hubacek, K., & Kronenberg, J. (2013). Synthesizing different perspectives on thevalue of urban ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 1–6.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.010

Jack, B. K., Kousky, C., & Sims, K. R. E. (2008). Designing payments for ecosystemservices: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28), 9465–9470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705503104

Judge-Lord, D., & Cochran, B. (2011). Putting ecosystem services to work:institutional changes needed to implement an ecosystem-based plan. OregonPlanners’ Journal, 7–12.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage.Langemeyer, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Haase, D., Scheuer, S., & Elmqvist, T. (2016).

Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-Useplanning through multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). EnvironmentalScience & Policy, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.013

Larco, N. (2016). Sustainable urban design—a (draft) framework. Journal of UrbanDesign, 21(1), 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.1071649

Logsdon, R. A., & Chaubey, I. (2013). A quantitative approach to evaluatingecosystem services. Ecological Modelling, 257, 57–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.02.009

Lopes, R., & Videira, N. (2013). Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem services: anintegrated participatory framework. Ocean & Coastal Management, 84,153–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.08.001

Luck, G. W., Chan, K. M., & Klien, C. J. (2012). Identifying spatial priorities forprotecting ecosystem services. F1000Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.1-17.v1

Lyles, W., & Stevens, M. (2014). Plan quality evaluation 1994–2012: growth andcontributions, limitations, and new directions. Journal of Planning Educationand Research, 34(4), 433–450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456x14549752

Lynch, A. J. (2015). Is it good to be green? assessing the ecological results of countygreen infrastructure planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research,http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456x15598615

Mascarenhas, A., Ramos, T. B., Haase, D., & Santos, R. (2014). Integration ofecosystem services in spatial planning: A survey on regional planners’ views.Landscape Ecology, 29(8), 1287–1300. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0012-4

Metz, D., & Weigel, L. (2010). Key findings from recent national opinion researchon ‘ecosystem services. The Nature Conservancy, https://www.conservationgateway.org/Files/Pages/key-findings-recent-natio.aspx

Millard-Ball, A. (2012). The limits to planning: Causal impacts of city climate action

plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(1), 5–19. http://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X12449742

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being:synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

1 e and

N

N

OO

P

P

P

S

ecosystem services as a basis for design. Landscape Journal, 29, 2–10.Yap, A., & Murdock, C. (2011). Is ecosystem services implementable by

municipalities at the landscape level? Oregon Planners’ Journal.

00 S.C. Woodruff, T.K. BenDor / Landscap

in, M., Soutullo, A., Rodríguez-Gallego, L., & Di Minin, E. (2016). Ecosystemservices-Based land planning for environmental impact avoidance. EcosystemServices, 17, 172–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.009

orton, R. K. (2008). Using content analysis to evaluate local master plans andzoning codes. Land Use Policy, 25(3), 432–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.10.006

hio. (2016). Planning Commisions. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/713regon. (2016). Oregon department of land conservation and development goals.

https://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/goals.aspxetter, M., Mooney, S., Maynard, S. M., Davidson, A., Cox, M., & Horosak, I. (2013). A

methodology to map ecosystem functions to support ecosystem servicesassessments. Ecology and Society, 18(1) http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05260-180131

iemonti, A. D., Babbar-Sebens, M., & Luzar, E. J. (2013). Optimizing conservationpractices in watersheds: do community preferences matter? Water ResourcesResearch, 49(10), 6425–6449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20491

lummer, M. L. (2009). Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem

services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 38–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/080091

alet, W. G. M., Thornley, A., & Kreukels, A. (2003). Metropolitan governance andspatial planning comparative case studies of european city-regions. London: SponPress.

Urban Planning 152 (2016) 90–100

Salzman, J., Arnold, C. A., Garcia, R., Hirokawa, K. H., Jowers, K., LeJava, J., et al.(2014). The most important current research questions in urban ecosystemservices. SSRN scholarly paper ID 2483455. Rochester, NY: Social ScienceResearch Network [http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2483455].

Stevens, M. R., Lyles, W., & Berke, P. R. (2014). Measuring and reporting intercoderreliability in plan quality evaluation research. Journal of Planning Education andResearch, 34(1), 77–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456x13513614

Viglizzo, E. F., Paruelo, J. M., Laterra, P., & Jobbágy, E. G. (2012). Ecosystem serviceevaluation to support land-Use policy. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,154, 78–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.07.007

Wilkinson, C., Saarne, T., Peterson, G. D., & Colding, J. (2013). Strategic spatialplanning and the ecosystem services concept—an historical exploration.Ecology and Society, 18(1) http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05368-180137

Windhager, S., Steiner, F., Simmons, M. T., & Heymann, D. (2010). Toward

Berke, P., & Kaiser, E. J. (Eds.). (2006). Urban land use planning. Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press.