integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & ManagementVol. 7, No. 3, September 2011, 150–167

Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies

Christina von Haaren* and Christian Albert

Department of Environmental Planning, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany

Environmental planning offers an important approach to dealing with the concept of ecosystem services (ESS) in practice.Nonetheless, spatial planning science has failed to connect with the international ESS discussion. Thus, the purpose of thispaper is twofold: first, to make relevant environmental planning experience available to ESS researchers; second, to offerconceptual and methodological suggestions for future ESS assessments that consider key insights from European planningscience. A systematic literature analysis was used to juxtapose several theoretical and methodological aspects of ESS assess-ment and environmental planning concepts in order to identify comparative benefits and potentials for an integration ofthe two approaches. To illustrate the limitations and potentials of the approaches, the example of German landscape plan-ning is described. A better integration of the two approaches has the potential to (i) strengthen the spatial concreteness andscale relation of ESS on low tiers; (ii) foster accounting and monetary valuation in environmental planning, especially forapplications on supra-regional scale; (iii) reflect on underlying values in the ESS approach and overcome a latent naturedeterminism; (iv) more clearly differentiate between public and private goods for better targeting implementation strate-gies; (v) help in developing context-dependent classification categories that can accommodate all implementation relevantservices and relate services to beneficiaries; and (vi) frame communication and participation processes by reflecting theirconstitutional role in the political decision-making process.

Keywords: ecosystem services; environmental planning; landscape planning; scale; economic valuation

Introduction

The concept of ecosystem services (ESS) is increas-ingly employed by research groups around the world toassess the contributions and/or benefits that human popu-lations derive from ecosystems (cf. MEA 2005; Carpenteret al. 2009; Fisher et al. 2009; Burkhard et al. 2010;The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 2010).Environmental planning could arguably contribute sub-stantially to the emerging science of ESS assessment.Systems for environmental planning and management wereintroduced in several European states in the 1970s. Sincethen, planning theory and methods have been continu-ously further developed, taking into account new scientificinsights, improved data (e.g. from remote sensing) andexperiences from introducing planning results into deci-sion processes and public participation.

The theoretical and methodological approaches usedin contemporary environmental planning are similar toand partly overlapping with the theories and methodsemployed in ESS assessments. Environmental planningcan therefore be considered an important form of deal-ing with ESS in practice. However, environmental plan-ning has so far failed to connect with the interna-tional debate around ESS (cf. Kanning 2005), whereassome researchers in the field of ESS assessment havebegun to consider planning applications (e.g. Bastian2004; Chan et al. 2006; Hein et al. 2006; Troy andWilson 2006; Willemen et al. 2008; Burkhard et al.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

2009; Eigenbrod et al. 2009; Termorshuizen and Opdam2009).

The objectives of this paper are to share the experi-ences made with approaches to ESS assessment in theimplementation of environmental planning and to offerconceptual and methodological suggestions for future ESSassessments in different application contexts.

To meet these objectives, this paper first juxtaposesthe concepts for ESS assessment and environmental plan-ning with respect to (i) goals and purposes, (ii) definitionsand characteristics, (iii) methodologies and procedures and(iv) the role and means of communication and monetaryvaluation. An emphasis is put on the description of theplanning approach, as the reader of this journal will pre-sumably know the ESS theory well. Then, similarities anddifferences between the two concepts and the pros andcons of each concept are identified and discussed. Finally,suggestions are offered on how ESS assessment and envi-ronmental planning can benefit from integrating aspects ofthe respective other approach.

For the literature analysis, which forms the method-ological basis of the paper, two issues had to beaddressed. First, the ESS concept is presented in an abun-dance of international literature. However, its descrip-tion remains inconsistent. This paper draws on recentlypublished reviews of ESS concepts (in particular Boydand Banzhaf (2007); Fisher et al. (2009)) and selectedseminal publications (Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 1997;

ISSN 2151-3732 print/ISSN 2151-3740 online© 2011 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.616534http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.616534

http://www.tandfonline.com

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 151

MEA 2005). The summary of the ESS concept presentedhere is confined to a very short account of the topicsthat are important for the comparison with environmentalplanning.

Second, international literature about the theory andmethodologies of environmental planning and manage-ment create a diverse picture (e.g. Steinitz 1990; McHarg1992; Slocombe 1993; Turner 1998; United StatesEnvironmental Production Agency 2000). The majority ofpublications are intended for practice and written in nativelanguages. Environmental planning depends greatly on theplanning system of the respective country. Even if we con-centrate on Europe, the systems are quite heterogeneous(Shaw et al. 1995).

In the context of diverse planning systems, Germanlandscape planning (LP) serves as a good example andprototype for this discussion. LP as a term and type ofplanning has been recently strengthened by the EuropeanLandscape Convention. The ratification of this Conventionmeans that LP is accepted as a mandatory planning toolby more than 30 European states in and outside of theEuropean Union. There are also other environmental plan-ning types that focus on an individual environmentalmedium such as air (pollution) or water bodies. However,German LP is a very comprehensive environmental plan-ning based on information about ecosystem goods andservices. It covers most subjects of environmental pro-tection in their spatial relevance and has been developedin Germany as a separate field of planning in the frame-work of spatial planning since decades. Therefore, LPis suitable for demonstrating the limitations and poten-tials of a planning approach to ESS assessment. Thecharacterisation of LP in this paper is based on officialgovernment documentation (especially the German NatureConservation Act 2010; the Federal Agency for NatureConservation cited as von Haaren et al. (2008)) as wellas on a set of scientific publications (especially Haber1971; Buchwald 1979; Langer et al. 1985; Bastian andSchreiber 1994; Jessel 1998; Heiland 1999; Luz 2000;Bastian 2004; von Haaren 2004; Gruehn 2005; Wendeet al. 2009). In many other European states, LP existsin different forms, although often its contents are notdiscernable because they are integrated into comprehen-sive spatial planning (Shaw et al. 1995; von Haarenet al. 2001).

Juxtaposition of approaches for ESS characterisationand LP

Decision and implementation context

Objectives, purposes and implementation of ESSassessments

Generally, ESS are described using quantitative accountingand monetary values for services that ecosystems provide(Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 1997, 2000; Fisher et al. 2009;on a smaller scale: Naidoo et al. (2006)). These approachesare supposed to enhance understanding and education, tocontribute to environmentally conscious decision-making

and to support equity in human welfare (Fisher et al.2009). The scale of ESS assessments varies and theiremphasis is on global and national studies (e.g. MEA2005). Furthermore, landscape management has recentlybeen proposed as a possible area of application of ESSassessments (Hein et al. 2006; Fisher et al. 2009: 650).

Objectives, purposes and implementation of LP

The purposes and areas of application of LP in Germanyare fewer than those of ESS assessment in the internationaldebate. Two prerequisites of LP are relevant concerning acomparison with approaches to ESS assessment:

First, the terminology and structure of LP is influ-enced by its objectives and applications. The goals of LPare to generate information that supports the inclusionof environmental objectives in spatial decision-making.Consequently, LP functions as the interface between sci-ence and the implementation of environmental goals inpractice (cf. Nassauer and Opdam 2008). In detail, LPserves as

• precautionary tool for integrating environmental con-siderations into regional and local land use planning(Gruehn and Kenneweg 1998; Reinke 2002);

• information basis for day-to-day decision-makingof local and regional nature conservation authori-ties. Landscape plans propose numerous alternativesfor improving the landscape (Wende et al. 2009);this includes targeting landscape related fundingprogrammes (like agri-environmental measures) ordeveloping habitat networks;

• spatial information basis for environmental impactassessments and the precautionary guiding of inter-ventions to less valuable and sensitive sites as well aspointing out adequate mitigation options and com-pensation sites if interventions are carried out;

• information platform for NGOs and the public inorder to enable active participation in environmentaldecisions as well as for sectoral land use adminis-trations (e.g. traffic and agriculture) and land usersto raise environmental awareness and to improveland use adaptation to environmental objectives (Luz2000; von Haaren et al. 2008).

In view of these objectives and applications, it is clearthat LP must strive to promote the acceptance of plan-ning objectives and to clearly communicate findings to thepublic and decision-makers.

Second, LP is a governmental planning instrumentwhich is committed to supporting public interests in theenvironment (Council of Europe 2000; cf. Olschowy 1976;Faludi 1985; Runge 1998), although its results are rele-vant for many different user groups. Therefore, LP reflectssocietal values which are grounded in the legislation andobjectives of different tiers of political decision-making.Individual commercial land use interests are not the prior-ity of LP. It is assumed that private interests are achieved

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2

152 C. von Haaren and C. Albert

through the efforts of private individuals. However, they arerelevant as influences that shape the landscape and the con-text for implementation. LP helps to identify these interestsand conflicts and to provide a basis for political decisions.

Theoretical basis: definitions

Definitions of ESS

Existing definitions of ESS are often broad and encom-pass multiple, conflicting meanings (cf. Boyd and Banzhaf2007; Fisher et al. 2009). They range from conditions andprocesses through which natural ecosystems sustain humanlife to the benefits people derive from the ecosystems(Daily 1997; MEA 2005). Also the term function is used(de Groot et al. 2002), for example, in the context of clas-sifying ESS along ‘functional’ lines (MEA 2005). Fisheret al. (2009) defined ESS as ‘the aspects of ecosystems uti-lized (actively or passively) to produce human well-being’and emphasised that ESS must be ecological phenomenathat only become services if humans benefit from them,either directly or indirectly. This definition provides a goodbasis for relating LP to the ESS concept.

Definitions of terms corresponding to ESS in LP

In German LP, the term corresponding to ESS is ‘landscapefunction’. It is defined as

the capacity of a landscape and its subspaces to sustain-ably fulfil basic, lasting and socially legitimised materialor immaterial human demands. A landscape function ischaracterised by its value (with regard to satisfying thedemands), its specific sensitivity against different pressuresand the state of impairment. Landscape functions may alsobe described as development potential (Langer et al. 1985;von Haaren 2004).

One task of LP is to spatially and explicitly define land-scape functions.

The understanding of ‘landscape’ in the context of LPand geography has been debated since the nineteenth cen-tury (cf. Riehl 1862; Seyfert 1903; Passagre 1920; Troll1950; Schmithüsen 1976; Trepl 1995; Jessel 1998). TheEuropean Landscape Convention defines landscape as ‘anarea, as perceived by people, whose character is the resultof the action and interaction of natural and/or humanfactors’ (Council of Europe 2000: chapter I, article I).Similarly in German LP, landscape is interpreted as ‘aregion of the Earth and aesthetic, cultural, ecological andeconomic system which reflects the human perception andrealisation’ (von Haaren 2001). Both definitions stress thehuman influence on and the human perception and under-standing of landscape. The term ‘landscape’ is thus notstrictly defined, nor is it precisely differentiated from theterms ‘territory’ and ‘space’ or ‘ecosystem’. Therefore, theterm ‘landscape’ may be misunderstood: on the one hand,it has mental associations with scenery, and on the otherhand, it has been defined using the descriptive classificationapproach of geography. However, an alternative is difficult

to find, if a connection should be made to the collectivehistorical associations, usefulness for practise and the vari-ability of territory in time (Buchecker 1999: 32). The term‘landscape’ can help in communicating planning purposesand objectives because it carries positive connotations, pro-vides the human perspective and emphasises spatial aspectsof the landscape.

The idea of societal benefits from ecosystem processeshas for long been an issue for discussion in Europeangeography and spatial planning (e.g. in the concept ofnatural territorial potentials by Bobeck and Schmithüsen(1949); Troll (1950); Neef (1966); Haase (1978)). Alsothe ‘functioning capacity’ of ecosystems is given nor-mative connotations in the German Nature ConservationAct (BNatSchG 2010). This normative understanding of‘function’ differs from prevailing interpretations of theterm in the ESS approach. The ESS concept usuallyrestricts functions to ‘operations’ (Fisher et al. 2009). Inthis view, functions describe natural capacities, propertiesand processes in ecosystems (Costanza et al. 1997: 253)that form the basis for satisfying human needs (de Groot1992). Thus the ESS approach uses function predominantlyin a descriptive or explanatory way. This implies that everyecosystem is functioning, also, for example, a waste waterditch.

Altogether it can be stated that the definition of ‘land-scape function’ in LP is overlapping with the understand-ing of ecosystem service in the ESS concept, however, itemphasises the role of underlying values and the depic-tion of the spatial reality under stronger selection criteriaconcerning the underlying societal demands (Figure 1).

Since the international discussion around the ESS con-cept uses similar terms, the meaning of ‘landscape func-tion’ must always be clarified in order to provide a sharedunderstanding. In the remainder of this paper, the term‘landscape function’ stands for normative functions used inplanning, comparable to the ‘final ESS’ in the classificationof Fisher et al. (2009: 646).

Theoretical basis: inclusion of values

Values in the ESS concept

Underlying societal values of ESS assessments are notexplicitly elaborated in publications on the ESS concept.Some economists such as Boyd and Banzhaf (2007) orFisher et al. (2009) acknowledge that the understandingof ESS depends on the potential benefits for humans thatare the focus of interest in the respective assessment.However, the role of laws, social processes or politicaldecision-making is not mentioned.

Values in the LP concept

For LP, a normative base, explicit or implicit, is indispens-able for assessing landscape processes and componentswith respect to their contribution to landscape functions.LP is committed to ensuring public interests (see sec-tion ‘Objectives, purposes and implementation of LP’);

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


Capacities

for

perception,

measuring,

explanation

Human

demands,

legitimised

societal

goals

Historicland use

Realcomplex world

Landscape Ecosystem services

Measurablepercievableenvironment

Landscapefunctions

Value, potential,sensitivity,

impairment

Actual

land use

Individual utility

welfare:

Actually produced,used goods:drinking water,vine, wood,foodstuff, subjectivepleasure and so on

Ecosystemprocesses,

components

Figure 1. Landscape functions are defined by human needs and societal norms.

therefore its guiding principles reflect societal values. Theinterests of private landowners should be kept in check byregulations that guarantee the long-term usability of natu-ral resources. Larger issues, such as the interests of futuregenerations or supra-local societal needs, must be con-sidered although they may conflict with short-term, localdemands.

The selection and evaluation standards for landscapefunction assessment are predominantly defined by govern-ments (as elected, legitimised institutions) in internationalagreements (e.g. Agenda 21), legal frameworks (e.g. theEU’s Water Framework and Habitat Directives (EC 1992,2000)) as well as national and state environmental leg-islation. The implementation of these general goals intovaluation standards is based on predefined values set bythe government (e.g. protected species), reference meanvalues (e.g. national average) and/or expert estimationof endangerment (e.g. red lists). Impact assessments arebased on threshold standards for pollution or impairment.Ecosystems equilibria and ‘tipping points’ are factors thathelp to set standards but they do not replace societal deci-sions about the preferred state of a system. Such goals orstandards are translated by LP into spatially explicit objec-tives. This reliance on legally legitimised norms is withoutan alternative. The questions ‘Who defines the objectivesand extent of environmental protection? How much isenough?’ can be addressed on an individual basis or inthe scientific discussion. However, such statements are notbinding for others. Moreover, the consequential transparentdifferentiation between compulsory and not-binding, desir-able objectives is necessary in a state planning, as planningobjectives may result in mandatory obligations for landowners which cannot be imposed on the subjects withouta strong legitimisation. Landscape planners should be ableto provide convincing reasons for their assessments andobjectives and explain when and why private parties areobliged to comply because public planning often conflictswith individual interests.

This approach contrasts with the thinking of Daily et al.(2000) that values used in decision-making (and thus alsoin valuation assessment) should not to be imposed by the

state, but rather that we should infer people’s values whichare revealed by actual decisions. Of course, participationis and must be part of planning and political decisions.However, other than in the approach of Daily et al. (2000),the scope of participation in LP is determined by com-petencies and limits. In political and land use decisions,legitimised standards frame what can be decided on thespecific political decision tier. Some laws frame the deci-sion arena for the sake of reducing conflicts and achievingshort decision times. For example, local communities can-not decide about species protected by the EU, but farmerscan freely choose their crop growing patterns as long asthey comply with the legally defined good farming prac-tice. However, the rules of good practice should complywith the precondition that the demands should be satisfiedin a sustainable way (Agenda 21, EU Gothenburg strategy,national sustainability goals). If resources are overusedbeyond their capacities for regeneration, LP will stress thisproblem.

Theoretical basis: inclusion of human influence

Integration of human influences in ESS assessments

Most definitions of ESS and ecological functions refer totheir natural character and do not mention human fac-tors (e.g. Westman 1977; Daily 1997). References aremade to the theoretical construct of a stable equilibrium ofecosystems and the role of humans as disturbance factors(Limburg et al. 2002: 410, 414). Boyd and Banzhaf (2007:625) explicitly argued against including human influencesin the context of the ‘green GDP’ to avoid overlaps withthe conventional GDP.

Integration of human influences in LP

LP includes land use and other human influence on theenvironment in the inventory and assessment of the actualstate of normative landscape functions. Human influ-ence is seen as a determining factor of the territorialshaping. Landscape functions comprise human elements

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


and influences, for example, (beneficial) human influenceon a biotope can generate high species diversity. A theoret-ically constructed ‘natural’ state is neither necessarily usedas the point of reference in evaluation nor used as the aimof landscape development. Scientifically, the natural stateis difficult to reconstruct. Also such a nature deterministicgoal is not open to democratic decision-making.

Land management practices such as fertilising and har-vesting are considered separately from the description ofthe state and value of landscape functions. These influencesor ‘pressure’ factors may be much more variable than theircombined impact on the landscape. Furthermore, they areconsidered as variables which may be changed by plan-ning proposals. Thus the separated analysis of the humaninfluence is needed for implementation-oriented planning.

Theoretical basis: handling of public and private goods

Public and private goods in ESS

ESS classifications and definitions include public goods aswell as private goods or market and non-market goods.

Public and private goods in LP

LP considers non-market landscape functions and relatedgoods because governmental interventions focus on sup-porting public interests. Functions that are important forthe private economy are assumed to be satisfied by mar-ket mechanisms. The landscape function concept shouldaccompany as well as confront economic approaches thatview ecosystems as mere production factors and ignoredlong-term effects and non-market functions (similar: deGroot (1992)). However, landscape functions may be thepreconditions for current or future market goods. Decision-making and public participation processes benefit from aclear differentiation between societal and private interestsand concerns.

General methodological approach

Methodologies used in ESS assessment

Approaches to ESS assessment include methodologies formeasuring ecosystem processes as well as for assessingtheir value. The (descriptive) measurement of ecosystemprocesses follows ‘function analysis’ to identify and quan-tify ecosystem processes as a basis for economic valuation(de Groot and Hein 2007). It considers scientific ecologicalcategories such as energy, matter fluxes or proxies (of thelatter) (Fisher et al. 2009: 648).

Accounting and monetary valuation of ESS requiretransferring different issues and assessments into one sin-gle measuring unit (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; cf. Costanzaet al. 1997). Valuation criteria are usually benefits ‘per-ceived to be important by the specific users of an ecosystemservices evaluation’ (Limburg et al. 2002; Fisher et al.2009: 650). Common accounting methodologies calculaterehabilitation costs or determine stakeholder preferences

(see Barkmann and Marggraf 2007; Fisher et al. 2009;Rajmis et al. 2009). Problems with measuring and assign-ing values to ESS include complexity and double count-ing that arise from assessing both a broad variety ofintermediate ecosystem processes and individual benefits.Complexity also stems from the merging of methodologiesof two disciplines (ecology and economy), often without adefined application context that would limit methodologiesto the ones relevant for implementation.

Methodologies used in LP

In LP, only those ecosystem properties are selectively mea-sured or represented by proxies which are relevant for(area) specific landscape functions. The methods used aredetermined by LP’s role as an interface between natu-ral science and governance (Bastian and Schreiber 1994)and Gruehn (2005); see section on goals). Basic scien-tific knowledge is transformed into operative knowledge,mainly via indicator-based methodologies. By that, thegeneral environmental objectives (e.g. of the legislation)are translated into spatially explicit objectives and mea-sures (von Haaren and Bathke 2008; von Haaren et al.2008). Spatially explicit recommendations can be madebased on the classification of the landscape into spatiallyoverlapping and functionally interconnected compartments(e.g. soil, water, climate, flora) and subsequently intofunctionally characterised areas (e.g. biotopes, climatopes,water catchment areas). Furthermore, when possible, eco-logical processes can be assigned to spatial areas. Forexample, migration paths of an amphibian species aredepicted as an area with special temporal importance forthe maintenance of biodiversity, and it can be safeguardedby spatially concrete measures.

Landscape functions are assessed on an area-widebasis using methods adapted to the respective data situa-tion. Moreover, the assessment distinguishes between areasof different importance. The ‘measurement’ of the rele-vant function properties results in quantitative (cardinallyscaled) or qualitative descriptions of the characteristics.The valuation transforms these different units into ordinalscales (Figure 2). The assessment of the state of land-scape functions covers their assigned value as well as theirsensitivity against environmental loads, impairments anddevelopment potentials.

In comparison to the ESS methodologies, LP focusesless on basic ecosystem science, the measurement of indi-vidual benefits and accounting. Instead, it uses methodsgenerating spatially explicit starting points for planningimplementation measures.

Classification of ecosystem processes and their benefitsfor society

Classifications used in ESS assessments

Several different classification approaches for ESSexist. The diversity of classification and classification

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


Water provision function (importance and

vulnerability of ground water resources),

retention function (flood protection) landscape

plan Koenigslutter am Elm

High sensitivity against nitrate pollutionof ground water

High retention, floodprotection function landcover, regulating run off, riverdischarge

500

Ground waterrecharge rate

in mm Valuation

400

300

200

100

Pressure, impairment high:flood plains without permanent

vegetation cover

High groundwaterreplenishmentrate

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 km

Transformation from

cardinal to ordinal

scale

Figure 2. Water retention function: cardinal values are transformed into ordinal scales in the process of valuation.

inconsistencies hamper, for example, the identification ofjoint products (added functions and services (Costanzaet al. 1997: 253; Fisher et al. 2009: 651)). Fisher et al.(2009) suggested that the choice or design of ESSclassifications should be based on the respective deci-sion context (the purpose). Examples of such purpose-driven classifications are provided by Boyd and Banzhaf(2007) and the MEA (2005). Furthermore, Fisher et al.(2009: 646) provided an overview framework of differ-ent classifications that hold potential to bridge the gap tothe LP classifications.

Classifications used in LP

LP differentiates the broad field of ESS (as definedabove) into basic information about ecosystem processesand components, normative landscape functions and indi-vidual benefits and consumption (see Figure 1 andTable 1). LP concentrates on the following normativelandscape functions which are insufficiently capitalisedby commercial markets and thus need to be coveredby public planning:

• The yields or production function for food and renew-able raw materials is differentiated and evaluatedbased on criteria of environmental sustainability.This covers the production factors that are consti-tuted by soil, geomorphology, climate as well ashabitats in their function for pest control. The sus-tainable, long-term conservation especially of fertilesoils (e.g. by protection from urban land uses or byerosion prevention) is not rewarded at present bymarket mechanisms.

• The geodiversity function represents soil,morphological and geological units accordingto their rareness, scientific and cultural value as anarchive of landscape history.

• The water provision function rates spatial unitsaccording to the quantity and accessibility of groundor surface water. Also this function is partly includedin commercial markets. In LP, the allocation of waterprovision functions concerns the water supply inthe landscape, not the actual demand for drinkingwater.

• The water retention function covers the importanceof the landscape for flood protection by differentiat-ing (i) spatial units according to their soil, morphol-ogy and vegetation properties and (ii) floodplainsaccording to location and size.

• The climate protection function differentiates spatialunits according to their function as sink, storage orsource of greenhouse gases.

• The bioclimatic function represents the micro- andmeso-climate qualities of spatial units functioning assource areas for cool or fresh air from which humansmay benefit.

• The biodiversity function characterises and assessesspatial units according to their (potential and actual)function for supporting and safeguarding biodiver-sity (understood as diversity, variation and repre-sentation on the levels genome, species, population,bioceonosis, biotopes/ecosystem, ecosystem com-plex, concerning structure, processes, interaction andcompositions (Noss 1990; Waldhardt and Otte 2000;BNatSchG 2010). This information is supplementedwith information about selected target species.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


Tabl

e1.

Cla

ssifi

cati

onof

land

scap

epl

anni

ngfu

ncti

ons,

map

ped

toth

eca

tego

ries

ofec

osys

tem

serv

ices

(ES

S)

sugg

este

dby

Fish

eret

al.(

2009

).

ES

Sca

tego

ries

afte

rFi

sher

etal

.(20

09)

Inte

rmed

iate

serv

ices

Fina

lser

vice

sB

enefi

ts

Cor

resp

ondi

ngca

tego

ries

ofla

ndsc

ape

plan

ning

Eco

logi

cfu

ncti

ons:

ecos

yste

m/la

ndsc

ape

proc

esse

s,st

ruct

ures

,com

pone

nts,

desc

ript

ive,

expl

anat

ory

know

ledg

e

(Nor

mat

ive)

land

scap

efu

ncti

ons:

capa

citi

esof

land

scap

esto

sust

aina

bly

fulfi

lbas

ic,l

asti

ngan

dso

cial

lyle

giti

mis

edm

ater

ialo

rim

mat

eria

lhum

ande

man

ds

Indi

vidu

albe

nefi

ts:i

ndiv

idua

luti

lity

wel

fare

,in

divi

dual

activ

ated

bene

fits

,mar

ketg

oods

,ac

tual

lyus

edgo

ods

(can

cons

titu

tepr

essu

refo

rla

ndsc

ape

func

tion

s)Po

llin

atio

nY

ield

sfu

ncti

onfo

rfo

odan

dre

new

able

raw

mat

eria

ls(s

oilf

erti

lity

)Fo

od(i

nclu

ding

seaf

ood

and

gam

e),f

odde

r

Pri

mar

ypr

oduc

tion

(Con

vers

ion

ofso

lar

ener

gyin

tobi

omas

s)F

uel(

incl

udin

gw

ood

and

dung

)T

imbe

r,fi

bres

and

othe

rra

wm

ater

ials

Wat

erre

gula

tion

Fert

ilis

ers,

phar

mac

euti

cals

,bio

chem

ical

san

din

dust

rial

prod

ucts

Soi

lret

enti

onS

pice

sS

oilf

orm

atio

n(m

ater

iald

egra

dati

on)

vari

ety

in(b

io)c

hem

ical

subs

tanc

esR

enew

able

ener

gyfu

ncti

on(c

apac

itie

sof

the

land

scap

e)E

nerg

y(h

ydro

pow

er,b

iom

ass,

biof

uels

,geo

ther

my,

sola

r)V

arie

tyof

biot

ain

natu

rale

cosy

stem

sW

ater

prov

isio

nfu

ncti

onC

lean

wat

er(d

rink

ing

wat

er,i

rrig

atio

nw

ater

)N

utri

entd

ispe

rsal

and

cycl

ing.

Wat

erre

tent

ion

func

tion

Flo

odpr

even

tion

,pro

pert

ypr

otec

tion

,dec

reas

edliv

elih

ood

vuln

erab

ilit

y,S

eed

disp

ersa

lC

lim

ate

prot

ecti

onfu

ncti

on(m

aint

enan

ceof

afa

vour

able

glob

alcl

imat

eby

achi

evem

ents

ofla

ndsc

ape/

clim

atop

esfo

rca

rbon

sequ

estr

atio

nan

dst

orag

e)

stab

lem

acro

clim

ate

Dec

ompo

siti

onan

dde

toxi

fica

tion

,gre

enho

use

gas

(GH

G)

emis

sion

/st

orag

e/se

ques

trat

ion

Bio

clim

atic

func

tion

s(f

ora

mes

o-an

dm

icro

-cli

mat

efa

vour

able

for

hum

anw

ell-

bein

g)C

oola

ndfr

esh

air,

favo

urab

lem

icro

-an

dm

eso-

clim

ate

for

hous

ing

and

recr

eati

onG

eodi

vers

ity

func

tion

Sci

enti

fic

and

educ

atio

nali

nfor

mat

ion,

spir

itua

land

hist

oric

info

rmat

ion

Oth

erse

rvic

esB

iodi

vers

ity

func

tion

s(d

iver

sity

,var

iati

onan

dre

pres

enta

tion

onth

ele

vels

geno

me,

spec

ies,

popu

lati

on,b

ioce

onos

is,b

ioto

pes/

ecos

yste

m,

ecos

yste

mco

mpl

ex,c

once

rnin

gst

ruct

ure,

proc

esse

s,in

tera

ctio

nan

dco

mpo

siti

on)

Hap

pine

ss,e

thic

alan

dsp

irit

ualp

rinc

iple

sfu

lfill

ed,

wel

l-be

ing,

adve

ntur

e,in

form

atio

nPo

llin

atio

nof

crop

sH

unti

ng,g

athe

ring

,fish

ing

Dru

gsan

dph

arm

aceu

tica

luse

Bio

logi

calc

ontr

olL

ands

cape

aest

heti

c/ex

peri

ence

func

tion

(val

uati

onof

the

func

tion

isba

sed

onkn

owle

dge

abou

tco

llec

tive

pref

eren

ces)

Aes

thet

ican

ded

ucat

iona

linf

orm

atio

nR

ecre

atio

nan

d(e

co)t

ouri

smC

ultu

rala

ndar

tist

icin

spir

atio

nS

piri

tual

and

hist

oric

info

rmat

ion

Oth

erfu

ncti

ons

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


• The landscape aesthetic/experience function consti-tutes landscape units according to their beauty asperceived by humans.

Most services mentioned in other classifications (e.g. deGroot et al. 2002; MEA 2005; Boyd and Banzhaf 2007;Kienast et al. 2009) can be included in the categories inTable 1, either as information about basic ecosystem pro-cesses, normative landscape functions or their vulnerabilityor as individual benefits. Some ecosystem properties whichare classified as a separate service or function in many ESSapproaches (e.g. soil protection function, waste treatmentfunction) are treated in LP only as a property of a land-scape functions. For example, low soil erodibility is not avalue in itself. Depending on the functions of the site, soilerodibility may be either a threat to the yields function oran important aspect of a pioneer biotope.

The differentiated categorisation of ESS (in Table 1) isrelevant for targeted implementation and efficient assign-ment of resources (Haber 1971).The need, for example,for financially supporting environmental protection activi-ties depends on their capitalisation on commercial markets.Also synergies of measures can be identified in assess-ing the importance of an area for multiple landscapefunctions/final services (joint products).

Methodological approach: dealing with scale

ESS and scale

Up to now, ESS have been evaluated on large spatialscales (e.g. Costanza et al. 1997; Kienast et al. 2009).Fisher et al. (2009: 650) suggested to consider spatialrelationships between ESS provision and benefit areaswhich can be identical, omni-directional (surrounding area

benefiting) or directional (benefits occur only in one direc-tion from source, e.g. downstream). Hein et al. (2006:210, 225) gave an example for addressing the differencesbetween the spatial scale of ESS generation and institu-tional scale of stakeholder benefits. As shown by Zaccarelliet al. (2008), ecological cross-scale effects must bean important aspect of ESS assessments.

Scales in LP

LP is carried out on different spatial scales which aredetermined by political decision tiers and the respectivespatial boundaries of political influence. Scale matters inLP concerning evaluations of the importance of a specificlandscape function as well as the selection of appropri-ate measures for sustaining the provision of this function.The importance of a landscape function depends on itsscarcity/endangerment on different scales (international,national, regional or local importance). The landscapeplan should propose development measures that reflect theresponsibilities and accountability of decision-makers onthe respective planning tier (Schedler 1999). Moreover, LPcan point out responsibility discrepancies, if environmen-tal impacts of decisions affect areas beyond the territorywhere the respective decision-makers are competent andresponsible (Figure 3).

Transboundary landscape functions and planning mea-sures (e.g. supra-regional habitat networks, river rehabil-itation areas or national parks) are treated as planningproblems on the respective higher decision tier, whichcovers a larger area. In the local landscape plan the land-scape functions that have supra-local relevance, such asendangered biotopes, are usually adopted from the regionallandscape plan and marked as ‘not available’ for local dis-cretion. However, the benefits of planning are frequentlyseen at spatial and temporal scales that are different from

Reasons for deciding on higher political levels:

Impact on higher tier than pressure;functional areas cross border, cumulative effects of decisions;species, other landscape functions endangerd on higher scale

Global EU

Globally Nationally Locally endangered

Value

National State Region Local Farm

Figure 3. Scale dependence of valuation and accountability for environmentally relevant decisions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


the actual planning area and timeframe. For example, aspecies that is locally abundant may be valuable because itis rare and endangered in a global context. Another case inpoint is the adaptation of land use to meet climate protec-tion goals. This may involve restrictions for local farmersand foresters, but it benefits the global community andfuture generations.

Role of public participation

ESS and participation

Principle objectives of the ESS approach are to enhanceunderstanding and to facilitate education (Costanza et al.1997; Daily 1997; MEA 2005; Fisher et al. 2009). Targetgroups are often decision-makers and the public onnational and supra-national level. Participation also seemsto be used as a tool for the evaluation of ESS (Daily et al.2000). The influence of participation on political or landuse decision-making is not elaborated.

LP and participation

In LP, only legitimised (usually elected) representativesmake final planning decisions. However, environmen-tal planning contributes information to decision-making.Public participation is needed for gaining additionalinformation about local problems and citizen’s prefer-ences. Furthermore, mutual exchange of information andcollaboratively addressing an issue provide an opportu-nity to increase the public’s sense of responsibility towardsnature and to better adapt goals to local contingencies

(see Heiland 1999; Luz 2000; von Haaren and Warren-Kretzschmar 2006; Schipper 2010).

Role of monetary valuation and cost benefit analysis

Monetary valuation in the ESS concept

Monetary valuation has always been an important objectiveof the ESS approach which resulted in several method-ologies (cf. Fisher et al. 2009: 649). Especially on thenational and supra-national level, the calculations of mon-etary value seem to have more influence on policymakingthan scientific information or lamentations about the loss ofecosystem functions. For example, the Stern report (2006)about the cost of climate change finally stimulated an activepolitical discussion after years of fruitless debate amongclimate researchers. Likewise, the recent synthesis publi-cation of the study ‘The Economics of Ecosystems andBiodiversity’ (2010) that highlighted the potential contri-butions of ESS for regional development has received wideinterest among the media, policymakers and stakeholdergroups.

Monetary valuation in LP

A landscape plan can be used as a basis for monetaryvaluation, for example, to identify areas suitable for pro-ducing nature conservation goods as well as to calculateproduction potentials (cf. Figure 4).

In general, German landscape planners are suspiciousof monetary valuation. The early 1980s saw an exten-sive debate about monetary valuation (e.g. Hampicke et al.

Figure 4. Theoretical production potential for nature conservation products, calculated on the basis of the landscape framework planDiepholz.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


1991) that culminated in the confrontation of Kant’s state-ment that pricing something (by that making it exchange-able) and dignity exclude each other (Kant 1785; cf. Radke1998) and the antithesis of Frederic Vester (1984) who val-ued a Bluethroat with 154.09 Euro per year. Thereafter, theGerman debate halted. It has been revived only recentlywith the emergence of international ESS research.

Nonetheless, accounting methods and even monetaryvaluation thrived in a subfield of LP application: The envi-ronmental impact regulation (under the Federal NatureConservation Act 2002 Art. 18 and the Federal BuildingCode) requires standardised methods for calculating theneed for compensation in individual cases (Rundcrantz andSkärbäck 2003; Wende et al. 2005). The application ofthese methods in German planning practice since 1976sheds light on the potentials and difficulties of account-ing and monetary valuation of ESS. The basic procedureof the impact regulation is a decision cascade that aimsto avoid impairments and to determine material compen-sation for lost functions of the ecosystem (cf. similarrequirements at the European level, European Council(2001, 2004)).

In the standard case, the function should be restoredto the same area and in the same manner and value(impact: compensation area = 1:1) (Figure 5). The val-uation of the landscape functions in LP can be used asan information basis for this step. If that is not possible,for example, because the lost function needs too muchtime for restoration, material substitution for the lost func-tions is allowed in a different manner but with the samevalue. For this step the principles of planning methodol-ogy are abandoned and area is multiplied by value in orderto calculate the area needed for substitution by differentmeasures.

This procedure also allows for implementing eco-banking and compensation pools. An alternative methodfor calculating the substitution amount, although not widespread, is to use the restoration cost as a reference unitand to calculate the compensation measures accordingly.

Advantages of both accounting systems are that (i) moneycan be spent on a small site in order to establish highvalue function or vice versa and (ii) developers as wellas municipalities have an incentive to look for the leastvulnerable areas for development (in the landscape plan).The compensation of ecosystems with long developmenttimes and demanding rehabilitation requirements is moreexpensive.

The ultima ratio of the decision cascade is the mon-etary substitution. However, the practice until now hasseveral difficulties: Prices are mostly politically deter-mined and they are not calculated using the restorationcost approach. In summary, the environmental manage-ment accounting methods have been developed for thelocal scale whereas the ESS accounting focuses on thesupra-regional level.

Discussion

Comparing the concepts of LP and ESS assessment revealslimitations and potentials of the LP approach, which aresummarised in Table 2. As LP and the ESS approach bothseem to expand their applications and methodologies tonew tasks and spatial scales (e.g. Hein et al. 2006), thetwo approaches can benefit from merging their respectivestrengths.

LP differs from ESS in definition, classification, therole of values and human influence on ecosystems, thescale of decision competencies as well as the integration ofpublic participation. Such differences stem primarily fromthe early, practical implementation of environmental plan-ning on local and regional scales. The related potentials andlimitations of LP in comparison to the ESS approach canbe interpreted as follows:

(1) Definitions and categories of classification used inenvironmental planning stress not only that ESSare (and in Europe even rarely) produced by nat-ural ecosystems, but that human influence is partof the ecosystems as well as the desired services.

Figure 5. Procedure of the intervention regulation according to the German Federal Nature Conservation Act.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


Tabl

e2.

Spe

cifi

cli

mit

atio

nsan

dpo

tent

ials

ofth

ela

ndsc

ape

plan

ning

(LP

)ap

proa

chto

ecos

yste

mse

rvic

es(E

SS

).

ES

Sap

proa

chS

peci

fic

appr

oach

(and

lim

itat

ions

)of

LP

Pote

ntia

lben

efits

ofm

ergi

ng

Dec

isio

n,im

plem

enta

tion

cont

ext

Obj

ectiv

es,p

urpo

ses,

appl

icat

ions

Com

mun

icat

ion,

tend

ency

regu

lati

on(n

otca

sesp

ecifi

cor

area

spec

ific)

;

Pub

lic

envi

ronm

enta

lpla

nnin

g;B

road

enap

plic

atio

nop

tion

s,be

tter

conn

ecti

onto

gove

rnan

ceap

proa

ches

ondi

ffer

ents

cale

s,su

ppor

tof

both

tend

ency

and

deta

ilre

gula

tion

appr

oach

es;

Illu

stra

tion

ofec

onom

icco

ntri

buti

ons

ofec

osys

tem

sto

Gre

enG

DP

Infl

uenc

eof

appl

icat

ion

low

;ter

min

olog

yan

dcl

assi

fica

tion

defi

ned

bytr

adit

ions

inec

onom

ican

dec

olog

icsc

ienc

es

Mai

nten

ance

,reh

abil

itat

ion

ofec

osys

tem

func

tion

s;

Sup

port

ofne

wpl

anni

ngap

plic

atio

nsli

kesu

mm

ativ

eac

coun

ting

ondi

ffer

ents

cale

sS

uppo

rtin

gsp

atia

ldec

isio

n-m

akin

g

The

oret

ical

basi

sD

efini

tion

,cha

ract

eris

tics

,de

alin

gw

ith

norm

ativ

ity,

hum

anin

flue

nce,

publ

ic,

priv

ate

good

sas

pect

s

Mos

tdefi

niti

ons

rest

rict

edto

natu

rale

cosy

stem

prop

erti

es;

Nor

mat

ive

char

acte

rof

func

tion

sba

sed

ongo

als

and

stan

dard

sse

tby

legi

tim

ised

poli

tica

ldec

isio

ns(u

sual

lyin

legi

slat

ion)

;

Refl

ecti

onab

outu

nder

lyin

gva

lues

inec

osys

tem

serv

ice

appr

oach

;D

iscu

ssio

nab

outu

nder

lyin

gva

lues

isno

tver

yde

velo

ped:

stre

ssin

gof

indi

vidu

alva

lues

and

stak

ehol

der

pref

eren

ces

onth

eon

eha

nd,d

ange

rof

natu

rede

term

inis

mon

the

othe

r;

Iden

tifi

cati

onof

lim

its

oflo

cal,

regi

onal

deci

sion

com

pete

ncie

s,pr

epar

atio

nof

poli

tica

lde

cisi

ons;

Dev

elop

men

tof

way

sho

wto

incl

ude

indi

vidu

albe

nefi

tsin

topu

blic

plan

ning

Leg

alfr

amew

ork

and

poli

tica

l(r

epre

sent

ativ

e)sy

stem

not

syst

emat

ical

lyin

clud

ed;

Fun

ctio

nsch

arac

teri

sed

bypo

tent

ial,

sens

itiv

ity

and

impa

irm

ents

;hum

anin

flue

nce

may

bepa

rtof

valu

eas

wel

las

impa

irm

ento

ffu

ncti

on;

Pub

lic

asw

ella

spr

ivat

ego

ods

are

cove

red

Infl

uenc

eof

appl

icat

ion

has

been

stro

ng(f

rom

the

begi

nnin

g)on

term

inol

ogy

and

stru

ctur

e;S

tres

ses

publ

icgo

ods;

cons

ider

sno

n-ri

valg

oods

ifth

ese

are

sust

aina

bly

used

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


Met

hodo

logi

cala

ppro

ach

Met

hodo

logi

es,a

sses

smen

tpr

ocee

ding

sE

SS

are

mea

sure

din

phys

ical

and

biol

ogic

alte

rms

orby

user

-cen

tred

prox

ies

(oft

enw

illi

ngne

ssto

pay)

;

Inpr

inci

ple

LP

isre

stri

cted

tom

easu

ring

only

publ

icse

rvic

es;

itco

vers

stat

e,va

lue,

sens

itiv

ity,

pote

ntia

l,im

pair

men

tby

indi

cato

r-ba

sed

met

hods

(eco

logi

calr

isk

asse

ssm

ento

rth

eD

rivi

ngfo

rces

,Pre

ssur

es,

Sta

tes,

Impa

cts

and

Res

pons

es(D

PS

IR)

Mod

el);

Eco

logi

calr

isk

asse

ssm

ento

fL

Pca

nfo

ster

abe

tter

inte

grat

ion

ofre

cent

cond

itio

nan

dth

reat

sin

toE

SS

asse

ssm

ent;

met

hodo

logi

esan

dst

anda

rds

ofL

Pca

nhe

lpto

bett

erin

tegr

ate

spat

iala

ndte

mpo

rald

ispa

riti

esin

valu

atio

nof

ES

S(n

eeds

offu

ture

gene

rati

ons

and

supr

a-lo

cali

nter

ests

)H

igh

com

plex

ity

aris

esfr

omac

coun

ting

ecos

yste

mpr

oces

ses

asw

ella

sin

divi

dual

bene

fits

Use

sle

gally

base

dva

luat

ion

stan

dard

sC

lass

ifica

tion

,sel

ecti

onof

rele

vant

prop

erti

es-

Spe

ctru

mof

serv

ices

very

wid

e;di

stin

ctio

nbe

twee

nin

term

edia

ry,

fina

lser

vice

san

dbe

nefi

tspr

opos

ed(F

ishe

ret

al.2

009)

-S

elec

tion

offu

ncti

ons:

a)on

lyno

n-co

mm

erci

alm

arke

t,lo

ng-t

erm

hum

ande

man

ds,

lega

llyle

giti

mis

edb)

prec

edin

gec

osys

tem

proc

esse

s,pr

oper

ties

are

incl

uded

aspr

econ

diti

ons;

-R

educ

tion

ofnu

mbe

rof

serv

ices

tobe

coun

ted

and

prev

enti

onof

doub

leco

unti

ngby

excl

udin

gin

term

edia

tese

rvic

es;b

ette

rdi

ffer

enti

atin

gof

publ

ican

dpr

ivat

ego

ods

and

incl

udin

gth

emfo

rdi

ffer

ent

plan

ning

/ac

coun

ting

purp

oses

-L

Pin

clud

esus

er-d

epen

dent

end

bene

fits

very

rudi

men

tary

,not

syst

emat

ical

ly,a

ndon

lyas

anin

form

atio

nim

port

antf

orco

mm

unic

atio

nor

impl

emen

tati

onS

pati

alco

ncre

tene

ss-

Inte

rmed

iate

serv

ices

are/

shou

ldbe

usua

llysp

atia

llyco

ncre

te;f

orac

coun

ting

fina

lben

efits

and

good

sar

eno

tspa

tial

lysp

ecifi

ed

-S

pati

ally

conc

rete

and

spec

ified

,di

ffer

ents

pati

albo

unda

ries

ofdi

ffer

entf

unct

iona

lch

arac

teri

stic

s

-U

seof

LP

data

asa

base

for

aggr

egat

ion

into

non-

spat

iala

ccou

ntin

gun

its

(Con

tinu

ed)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


Tabl

e2.

(Con

tinu

ed)

ES

Sap

proa

chS

peci

fic

appr

oach

(and

lim

itat

ions

)of

LP

Pote

ntia

lben

efits

ofm

ergi

ng

Mul

tifu

ncti

onal

ity

-Jo

intp

rodu

ctio

n-

Spa

tial

geog

raph

icin

form

atio

nsy

stem

(GIS

)in

ters

ecti

onle

ads

tom

ulti

func

tion

alm

easu

res,

iden

tifi

cati

onof

syne

rgie

s

-M

etho

dsof

LP

can

cont

ribu

teto

syst

emat

ical

lyid

enti

fypo

tent

ials

for

syne

rgie

s

Ref

eren

ce,r

elat

ion

tosp

atia

lsc

ales

-M

ostly

onup

per

poli

tica

lsca

les,

(nat

iona

l,in

tern

atio

nal)

-M

ostly

onlo

wer

poli

tica

lsca

les

(loc

al,r

egio

nal,

stat

e)-

Con

nect

ing

the

ES

Sap

proa

chto

gove

rnm

ento

nre

gion

alan

dlo

cal

scal

e;m

ore

acco

unti

ngin

LP

Rol

ean

dw

ays

ofco

mm

unic

atio

n

Pub

lic

part

icip

atio

n-

Com

mun

icat

ion

usua

llyon

high

poli

tica

ldec

isio

nti

ers

-C

omm

unic

atio

nm

ostly

onlo

cal,

regi

onal

scal

e;-

Use

com

mun

icat

ion

pote

ntia

lof

ES

Sm

onet

ary

valu

atio

nfo

rL

P;u

seex

peri

ence

sof

LP

conc

erni

ngse

lect

ing

topi

csof

publ

icpa

rtic

ipat

ion,

mul

tich

anne

lcom

mun

icat

ion

for

ES

Son

loca

l,re

gion

alle

vel

-P

ubli

cpa

rtic

ipat

ion

for

prep

arin

gde

cisi

ons;

-H

igh

impo

rtan

ceof

acce

ptab

ilit

yof

plan

ning

obje

ctiv

es

Mon

etar

yva

luat

ion,

cost

bene

fit

-S

upra

-reg

iona

lsca

lepr

edom

inan

t-

Cal

cula

tion

ofco

stof

mea

sure

s;-

Met

hodo

logi

cals

uppl

emen

tati

onfr

omE

SS

:eco

nom

icm

onet

ary

valu

atio

nm

etho

ds(p

lann

ing

has

topr

epar

eda

taac

cord

ingl

y)

-M

etho

dsfo

rim

pact

and

com

pens

atio

nac

coun

ting

onlo

cal,

regi

onal

scal

e-

Con

trib

utio

nsfr

omL

P:A

sses

smen

tm

etho

ds,i

nter

vent

ion

regu

lati

onm

etho

dsfo

rac

coun

ting

,mon

etar

yva

luat

ion

(cos

tof

re-e

stab

lish

men

t)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


This is underpinned by using the term ‘landscape’.Methods and application focus on the (norma-tive) landscape functions (termed ‘final services’in Fisher et al. (2009)) and not on the individ-ual benefits. The synopsis of the two approachesreveals that the LP approach deals with the roleof values in a more transparent way. LP explicitlyacknowledges the influence of values already inthe selection of ecosystem properties for character-ising ESS. The bases for valuation are normativethresholds and standards set by legislation andpolitical decisions. This approach may have poten-tial for a more transparent valuation of ESS andcan also help to avoid nature determinism, assum-ing that the ESS approach aims at human welfare(see Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009).

(2) The characterisation of landscape functions isalways location-dependent and includes the devel-opment potential as well as the specific sensitivityof the functions to different types and intensities ofpressure. This procedure has potential for a widerESS approach because it provides a place-basedimplementation, for which pressure factors as wellas potentials have to be addressed. Consequencesfor the classification are that sensitivities (e.g. forsoil erosion) are not addressed as separate services.

(3) The LP classification categories can embed a widerange of ESS and provide orientation for dif-ferent implementation strategies. This approachmay stimulate the discussion about whether thepre-normative basic ecosystem components andprocesses should be called services. LP method-ologies that identify and assess normative land-scape functions could also be used for accounting.More scientific investigation is needed in order tosubstantiate these methods.

(4) LP as a governmental action focuses on pub-lic goods and excludes many commercial marketgoods from the accounting. This approach has prosand cons, which depend on the application pur-pose. Integrating the accounting of market goodscould help LP to choose strategies for commu-nication and implementation. In turn, practicalapplications of ESS accounting could gain fromseparating public and private goods. This wouldhelp to avoid double counting, but also to clarifypublic and private interests in stakeholder partici-pation processes and to choose appropriate imple-mentation instruments (i.e. when do we need to uselegislation or tax money for incentives?).

(5) In comparison to the ESS approach, LP method-ologies are more focused on small- to medium-scale management problems. They do not usuallyinvolve quantitative accounting. However, as land-scape functions are always spatially explicit, thestep to accounting (in area units) is small.

(6) As for participation, tier-specific competenciesand limits of participation are clarified and

illustrated in LP. Respective principles could alsobe applied in ESS-accounting approaches. It isimportant that the terminology is understandablefor laymen: the term ‘landscape function’ has beensuccessfully used in German LP. However, inter-national ecological research interprets the termdifferently, giving cause for misunderstandings.

(7) Accounting and monetary valuation are moredeveloped in the ESS approach. In LP, gen-eral reservations about monetary valuation in theimpact regulation hinder a wider use. However,the potential benefits of monetary valuationfor communication have not been sufficientlyexplored.

The results of the comparison of the two approaches (basedprimarily on literature analysis and examples from GermanLP) cannot be generalised without considering specificlimitations. German LP may be one of possible modelsfor new LP systems in countries which have ratified theEuropean landscape convention (cf. the regional landscapeplan of Sardinia (Abis 2010)). However, LP representsan example of the ‘conservative continental’ welfare andplanning system (Dühr et al. 2010: 378). Spatial plan-ners in Germany as in many European countries are notaccustomed to viewing their own position within the per-spective of the European or global spatial planning struc-ture as a whole (Dühr et al. 2010: 379). A broader viewof the use of ESS accounting at higher decision levelsmay support positioning planning projects not only intoa broader geographical but also a broader governancecontext.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the further development of ESS theory maybenefit from LP’s practical experiences in the assessmentand application of information on ESS at the local scale.Vice versa, environmental planning may find interestinginsights in the approaches to economic valuation employedin the most often regional and (inter-)national approachesto ESS assessments. Up to now LP methodologies seem tobe better adapted to support ESS assessment on lower gov-ernance tiers. Thus they may contribute to a comprehensiveESS methodology toolbox, which covers all governancelevels. A number of suggestions can be made for stimu-lating discussions and supporting the further developmentof such an integrated approach.

With regard to a general ESS theory, the followingpropositions can be made from the perspective of LP:

• The reference state for valuations should not bethe untouched natural world, but rather normativestandards that consider anthropogenic influences.

• As the ESS concept is normative and focuses onnormatively selected properties of the environment,ESS definitions in democratic systems need to relateto societal and human demands and decisions about

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


Figure 6. Assignment of implementation strategies to the ecosystem service categories.

values that are determined in legitimised politicalprocesses.

• Individual benefits should be separated from the soci-etal interests and benefits in ESS. In this way, thetransparency and efficiency of regulation activitiescan be better supported or targeted (Figure 6).

• Spatial depiction of ESS, which environmental plan-ning offers, can improve the validity of accountingresults (Urban et al. 2011). Furthermore, the inte-gration of methods for assessing human impact mayimprove relevance of accounting outcomes for imple-mentation.

• Considering the discretion level of the planning ordecision tier helps to define the scope of public par-ticipation. Reflecting about decision competenciesalso sheds light on the context of using methods toelicit stakeholder preferences such as ‘willingness topay’. These approaches can be used to determine andlegitimise taxes, levies or entrance fees. However, itmay not be used to assign monetary values to publicgoods in cases where the value for global populationsor future generations cannot be determined.

• The choice of methodologies for practical applica-tion of monetary valuation depends on the strategicobjective of the specific decision context, and itmust weigh the advantages and disadvantages of themethodology.

On lower governance tiers where planning is usu-ally the predominant tool for considering ESS accountingof individual benefits and monetary valuation offer theopportunity to

• better include private interests in the analysis ofimplementation conditions,

• integrate economic consequences in the impact eval-uation of land use scenarios,

• support regulation activities which require aggre-gated non-spatially explicit results and

• develop a methodological approach for parallelmonetary ‘bookkeeping’, especially in StrategicEnvironmental Assessments (SEA).

Until now, some basic questions remain unanswered.They refer to monetary valuation and how it is communi-cated to citizens and politicians.

• How to tackle risks of playing off ESS values againsteach other and against commercial market values(weak sustainability)? Especially in local decisions,the pros and cons of monetary valuation have to becarefully weighed.

• Will monetary valuation and respective practicalpricing of biodiversity and landscape beauty leadto a depreciation of ESS because people may bedisenchanted with nature?

The bottom line is that a stronger methodological coopera-tion among ESS theorists, ecologists, economists and plan-ning scientists offers promising theoretical and method-ological potential for all. Furthermore, the application ofthe ESS concept in communication and practical decision-making on all decision tiers holds much potential forimprovement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


ReferencesAbis E. 2010. Sustainable planning: landscape, environment,

energy. The Cagliari Metropolitan Area case study. Roma(Italy): Gangemi Editore.

Barkmann J, Marggraf R. 2007. Weil wir Geld nicht essenkönnen: Zur ökologischen Katastrophenvorsorge durchbiologische Vielfalt. In: Sandhoff K, Engel A, ErtG, Linsenmair KE, Nüsslein-Volhard C, Sackmann E,Schwab ME, Donner W, Stetter J, editors. Vom UrknallLzum Bewusstsein: Selbstorganisation der Materie. Stuttgart(Germany): Thieme. p. 175–191.

Bastian O. 2004. Functions, Leitbilder, and Red Lists-expressionof an integrative landscape concept. In: Brandt J, Vejre H, edi-tors. Multifunctional landscapes: theory, values and history.Southhampton (UK): WIT Press. p. 75–96.

Bastian O, Schreiber K-F. 1994. Analyse und ÖkologischeBewertung der Landschaft. Stuttgart (Germany): GustavFischer.

BNatSchG. 2010. Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspf-lege. Bundesgesetzblatt I S. 2542.

Bobeck H, Schmithüsen J. 1949. Die Landschaft im logischenSystem der Geographie. Erdkunde. 3:112–120.

Boyd J, Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The needfor standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ.63(2–3):616–626.

Buchecker M. 1999. Die Landschaft als Lebensraum derBewohner - Nachhaltige Landschaftsentwicklung durchBedürfniserfüllung, Partizipation und Identifikation.Theoretische Begründung, empirische Untersuchungund Evaluation von Methoden zur praktischen Umsetzung[dissertation]. [Bern (Switerland)]: Universtität Bern.

Buchwald K. 1979. Die ökologische Orientierung derRaumplanung: Referate und Diskussionsbericht anlässlichder wissenschaftlichen Plenarsitzung 1978 in Saarbrücken.Hannover (Germany): Schroedel.

Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W. 2009. Landscapes,capacities to provide ecosystem services – a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc Online. 15:1–22.

Burkhard B, Petrosillo I, Costanza R. 2010. Ecosystem ser-vices: bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. EcolComplex. 7(3):257–259.

Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS,Díaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, PereiraHM, et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services:beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Nat AcadSci. 106(5):1305–1312.

Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC.2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PublicLibrary Sci Biol. 4(11):e379.

Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, HannonB, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, et al. 1997.The value of the world’s ecosystem services and naturalcapital. Nature. 387(6630):253–260.

Council of Europe. 2000. European landscape convention.Florence (Italy): Council of Europe.

Daily GC. 1997. Nature’s services. Washington (DC): IslandPress/Shearwater Books.

Daily GC. 2000. Management objectives for the protection ofecosystem services. Environ Sci Policy. 3(6):333–339.

Daily GC, Söderqvist T, Aniyar S, Arrow K,Dasgupta P, Ehrlich PR. 2000. Ecology – thevalue of nature and the nature of value. Science.289(5478):395–396.

de Groot RS. 1992. Functions of nature: evaluation of nature inenvironmental planning, management, and decision-making.Groningen (The Netherlands): Wolters Noordhoff BV.

de Groot RS, Hein L. 2007. Concept and valuation of land-scape functions at different scales. In: Mander Ü, Wiggering

H, Helming K, editors. Multifunctional land use – meet-ing future demands for landscape goods and services. Berlin(Germany): Springer. p. 15–36.

de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ. 2002. A typol-ogy for the classification, description and valuation ofecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ. 41(3):393–408.

Dühr S, Colomb C, Nadin V. 2010. European spatial planningand territorial cooperation. London (UK), New York (NY):Routledge.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. 2010. TheEconomics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: mainstreamingthe Economics of Nature: a synthesis of the approach, con-clusions and recommendations of TEEB. Mriehel (Malta):Progress Press.

Eigenbrod F, Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Heinemeyer A,Jackson SF, Parnell M, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ. 2009.Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strate-gies in a human-dominated region. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci.276(1669):2903–2911.

[EC] European Council. 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and ofwild fauna and flora. Brussels (Belgium): European Council.

[EC] European Council. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000establishing a framework for community action in the field ofwater policy. Brussels (Belgium): European Council.

[EC] European Council. 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC on strate-gic environmental assessment. Luxembourg from 27 June2001. Brussels (Belgium): European Council.

[EC] European Council. 2004. Directive 2004/35/CE of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004on environmental liability with regard to the prevention andremedying of environmental damage. Brussels (Belgium):European Council.

Faludi A. 1985. A decision-centred view of environmental plan-ning. Landsc Plan. 12(3):239–256.

Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. 2009. Defining and classi-fying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ.68(3):643–653.

Gruehn D. 2005. Zur Validität von Bewertungsmethoden in derLandschafts- und Umweltplanung. Handlungsbedarf,methodisches Vorgehen und Konsequenzen für diePlanungspraxis, aufgezeigt am Beispiel der Validitätsprüfungpraxistauglicher Verfahrensansätze zur Bewertung vonboden-, wasser- und klimarelevanten Landschaftsfunktionen.Berlin (Germany): Mensch & Buch Verlag.

Gruehn D, Kenneweg H. 1998. Berücksichtigung derBelange von Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege in derFlächennutzungsplanung. Ergebnisse aus dem F+E-Vorhaben 808 06 011 des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz.Münster (Germany): Landwirtschaftsverlag.

Haase G. 1978. Zur Ableitung und Kennzeichnung vonNaturraumpotentialen. Petermans Geogr Mitt. 112(2):113–125.

Haber W. 1971. Landespflege durch differenzierte Bodennutzung.Bayer Landwirtschaftliches Jahrb. 48(1):19–35.

Hampicke U, Tampe K, Kiemstedt H, Horlitz T, WaltersM, Timp D. 1991. Kosten und Wertschätzung des Arten-und Biotopschutzes. Forschungsbericht 10103110/04. Berlin(Germany): Erich Schmidt Verlag.

Heiland S. 1999. Voraussetzungen erfolgreichen Naturschutzes.Landsberg (Germany): Ecomed-Verl.-Ges.

Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC. 2006.Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystemservices. Ecol Econ. 57(2):209–228.

Jessel B. 1998. Landschaften als Gegenstand von Planung:Theoretische Grundlagen ökologisch orientierten Planens.Berlin (Germany): Erich Schmidt.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


Kanning H. 2005. Brücken zwischen Ökologie und Ökonomie:Umweltplanerisches und ökonomisches Wissen für ein nach-haltiges regionales Wirtschaften. Muenchen (Germany):Oekom.

Kant I. 1785. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Riga(Latvia): Bey Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.

Kienast F, Bolliger J, Potschin M, de Groot R, Verburg P,Heller I, Wascher D, Haines-Young R. 2009. Assessing land-scape functions with broad-scale environmental data: insightsgained from a prototype development for Europe. EnvironManage. 44(6):1099–1120.

Langer H, Cv H, Hoppenstedt A. 1985. ÖkologischeLandschaftsfunktionen als Planungsgrundlage - EinVerfahrensansatz zur räumlichen Erfassung. Landsc Stadt.17:1–9.

Limburg KE, O’Neill RV, Costanza R, Farber S. 2002. Complexsystems and valuation. Ecol Econ. 41(3):409–420.

Luz F. 2000. Participatory landscape ecology – a basis for accep-tance and implementation. Landsc Urban Plan. 50(1–3):157–166.

McHarg IL. 1992. Design with nature (25th anniversary ed.). NewYork (NY): Wiley.

[MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystemsand human well-being: synthesis. Washington (DC): IslandPress.

Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH,Rouget M. 2006. Integrating economic costs into conserva-tion planning. Trends Ecol Evol. 21(12):681–687.

Nassauer JI, Opdam P. 2008. Design in science: extend-ing the landscape ecology paradigm. Landsc Ecol. 23(6):633–644.

Neef E. 1966. Zur Frage des gebietswirtschaftlichen Potentials.Forsch Fortschr. 40(3):65–70.

Noss RF. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierar-chical approach. Conserv Biol. 4(4):355–364.

Olschowy G. 1976. The development of landscape planning inGermany. Landsc Plan. 3(4):391–411.

Passagre S. 1920. Die Grundlagen der Landschaftskunde:Die Oberflächengestaltung der Erde. Hamburg (Germany):Friederichsen.

Radke V. 1998. Zum Naturverständnis der Ökonomie. In: Instituteof Science and Technology Studies, editor. Graduiertenkolleg‘Genese, Strukturen und Folgen von Wissenschaft undTechnik’. Die Natur der Natur. Bielefeld (Gremany):University of Bielefeld.

Rajmis S, Barkmann J, Marggraf R. 2009. User communitypreferences for climate change mitigation and adaptationmeasures around Hainich National Park, Germany. Clim Res.40:61–73.

Reinke M. 2002. Qualität der kommunalen Landschaftsplanungund ihre Berücksichtigung in der Flächennutzungsplanungim Freistaat Sachsen. Berlin (Germany): Logos Verlag.

Riehl WH. 1862. Culturstudien aus drei Jahrhunderten.Stuttgart/Augsburg (Germany): Cotta.

Rundcrantz K, Skärbäck E. 2003. Environmental compensa-tion in planning: a review of five different countries withmajor emphasis on the German system. Environ Policy Gov.13(4):204–226.

Runge K. 1998. Entwicklungstendenzen der Landschaftsplanung.Vom frühen Naturschutz bis zur ökologisch nachhaltigenFlächennutzung. Berlin (Germany): Springer.

Schedler A. 1999. Conceptualizing accountability. In: SchedlerA, Diamond L, Plattner MF, editors. The self-restrainingstate: power and accountability in new democracies. London(UK): Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 13–28.

Schipper S. 2010. Interaktive Öffentlichkeitsarbeit in derLandschaftsplanung [dissertation]. [Hannover (Germany)]:Leibniz University of Hannover.

Schmithüsen J. 1976. Allgemeine Geosynergetik. Grundlagen derLandschaftskunde. Berlin (Germany), and New York (NY):de Gruyter.

Seyfert R. 1903. Die Landschaftsschilderung: ein fachwis-senschaftliches und psychogenetisches Problem, dargestelltan der heimatkundlichen Literatur über das KönigreichSachsen. Leipzig (Germany): Verlag von Ernst Wunderlich.

Shaw D, Nadin V, Westlake T. 1995. The compendium ofEuropean spatial planning systems. Eur Plan Stud. 3(3):390–395.

Slocombe D. 1993. Environmental planning, ecosystem science,and ecosystem approaches for integrating environment anddevelopment. Environ Manage. 17(3):289–303.

Steinitz C. 1990. A framework for theory applicable to the educa-tion of landscape architects (and other environmental designprofessionals). Landsc J. 9(2):136–143.

Stern N. 2006. The economics of climate change: the Sternreview. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.

Termorshuizen J, Opdam P. 2009. Landscape services as a bridgebetween landscape ecology and sustainable development.Landsc Ecol. 24(8):1037–1052.

Trepl L. 1995. Die Landschaft und die Wissenschaft. In: ErdmannK-H, Kastenholz HG, editors. Umwelt- und Naturschutzam Ende des 20 Jahrhunderts: Probleme, Aufgaben undLösungen. Berlin, Heidelberg (Germany) and New York(NY): Springer. p. 11–26.

Troll C. 1950. Die geografische Landschaft und ihre Erforschung.Studium Gen. 3(4–5):163–181.

Troy A, Wilson MA. 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer. Ecol Econ. 60(2):435–449.

Turner T. 1998. Landscape planning and environmental impactdesign. London (UK): Routledge.

[USEPA] United States Environmental Production Agency.2000. Environmental planning for communities: a guideto the environmental visioning process utilizing a geo-graphic information system (GIS). Cincinnati (OH): U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research andDevelopment.

Urban B, von Haaren C, Kanning H, Krahl J, Munack A. 2011.Methode zur Bewertung der Arten- und Biotopvielfalt(Biodiversität) in Ökobilanzen am Beispiel biogenerKraftstoffe - Aussagemöglichkeiten und -grenzen fürÖkobilanzen auf Bundesebene auf der Basis vorhandenerDaten. Umwelt und Raum, Band 3. Göttingen (Germany):Cuvillier Verlag.

Vester F. 1984. Der Wert eines Vogels: ein Fensterbilderbuch.München (Germany): Kösel Verlag.

von Haaren C. 2001. Landscape planning in Europe: frame-work and survey. In: von Haaren C, von Kügelgen B,Warren-Kretzschmar B, editors. Landscape planning inEurope report international conference 27091999-01101999in memoriam Prof Dr Hans Kiemstedt. Hannover (Germany):Institut für Landschaftsplanung und Naturschutz, UniversitätHannover. p. 1–18.

von Haaren C, editor. 2004. Landschaftsplanung. Stuttgart(Germany): Eugen Ulmer.

von Haaren C, Bathke M. 2008. Integrated landscape planningand remuneration of agri-environmental services: results ofa case study in the Fuhrberg region of Germany. EnvironManage. 89(3):209–221.

von Haaren C, Galler C, Ott S. 2008. Landscape planning.The basis of sustainable landscape development. Bonn(Germany): Bundesamt für Naturschutz.

von Haaren C, von Kügelgen B, Warren-Kretzschmar B.2001. Landscape planning in Europe. Report inter-national conference 27.09.1999-01.10.1999 inmemoriam Prof. Dr. Hans Kiemstedt. Hannover (Germany):

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2


Institut für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz, UniverstiätHannover.

von Haaren C, Warren-Kretzschmar B. 2006. The interactivelandscape plan: use and benefits of new technologies inlandscape planning and discussion of the interactive land-scape plan in Koenigslutter am Elm, Germany. Landsc Res.31:83–105.

Waldhardt R, Otte A. 2000. Zur Terminologie und wis-senschaftlichen Anwendung des Begriffs Biodiversität.Wasser Boden. 52(1–2):10–13.

Wende W, Herberg A, Herzberg A. 2005. Mitigation banking andcompensation pools: improving the effectiveness of impactmitigation regulation in project planning procedures. ImpactAssess Proj Apprais. 23(2):101–111.

Wende W, Marschall I, Heiland S, Lipp T, Reinke M, Schaal P,Schmidt C. 2009. Umsetzung von Maßnahmenvorschlägenörtlicher Landschaftspläne: Ergebnisse eines hochschulüber-greifenden Evaluierungsprojektes in acht Bundesländern.Nat Landsc. 41(5):145–149.

Westman W. 1977. How much are nature’s services worth?Science. 197:960–964.

Willemen L, Verburg PH, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF. 2008.Spatial characterization of landscape functions. LandscUrban Plan. 88(1):34–43.

Zaccarelli N, Petrosillo I, Zurlini G, Riitters KH. 2008.Source/sink patterns of disturbance and cross-scale mis-matches in a panarchy of social-ecological landscapes. EcolSoc. 13(1):26.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

01:

40 0

8 M

arch

201

2

integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies

Documents