use of the ecosystem services concept in landscape management in the netherlands

Use of the Ecosystem Services Concept in LandscapeManagement in the NetherlandsJoke van Wensem*ySoil Protection Technical Committee (TCB), PO Box 30947, 2500 GX, The Hague, the Netherlands

(Submitted 31 July 2012; Returned for Revision 05 October 2012; Accepted 11 December 2012)

EDITOR’S NOTEThis paper is one of 8 articles generated from the SETAC Special Symposium: Ecosystem Services, from Policy to Practice

(15–16 February 2012, Brussels, Belgium). The symposium aimed to give a broad overview of the application of the ecosystemservices concept in environmental assessment and management, against the background of the implementation of the Europeanenvironmental policies such as the biodiversity agenda, agricultural policy, and the water framework directive.

ABSTRACTIncreasing reference to the ecosystem services (ES) concept is made in publications on the need to use natural resources

sustainably, to protect and enhance biodiversity, and to alleviate poverty in developing countries. To examine the significanceof the concept in densely populated industrialized countries, this case study investigates its use in several sustainablelandscapemanagement projects in the Netherlands. Guidance by the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project (TEEB)for local and regional policy andmanagement serves as a reference. The projects studied show that the ES concept is seen as atool for enhancing biodiversity, creating more sustainable regional development plans, supporting better spatial‐planning decisions on soil sealing, and, most importantly, for getting the involvement of much broader stakeholdergroups—not just tomake better decisions, but also to attract more funding for the plans. Not only does the Netherlands havea high demand for various ecosystem services and a desire for multifunctional land use, it also has a long tradition ofconsensus‐seeking. As a result, “Dutch practice” is complex and involves many different stakeholders. Because of increasingrecognition of the role ecosystem services play in enhancing the visibility of natural resources in decision making, the ESconcept seems to be gaining a foothold. However, the number of projects is still limited, and neither the use of the methodsnor the results are monitored. So far, this has made it impossible to say whether the approach leads to more sustainabledecisions—in other words, to the better protection and management of natural resources. Integr Environ Assess Manag2013;9:237–242. © 2013 SETAC

Keywords: Ecosystem services Landscape management Case study Decision‐making Stakeholder involvement

INTRODUCTIONSince the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assess-

ment (Hassan et al. 2005), the ecosystem services (ES) concepthas gained increasing interest in environmental research andpolicy making. Among its many uses, it helps communicate theneed to use natural resources sustainably, protect and enhancebiodiversity, and alleviate poverty in developing countries.

Daily et al. (2009) give an overall scheme for how ES shouldbe included in decision making (Figure 1). Ecosystems areinfluenced by decisions that can alter the provision and value ofservices. On the basis of changes in ES flows and values,institutions use incentives to persuade decision makers tomaintain or improve ecosystems and the provision of ES. Theways in which decisions influence ecosystems, and changes inecosystems influence the provision of ES (right hand side ofFigure 1), are addressed in the natural sciences domain. Thevaluation of ES, the monitoring and incentives to influencedecisionmaking (left hand side of Figure 1) are addressed in thesocio‐economic domain.

Daily et al. (2009) concluded “In practice, however, we havenot yet developed the scientific basis, nor the policy and financemechanisms, for incorporating natural capital into resource‐and land‐use decisions on a large scale.” In a proposal for ablueprint for ES assessments, Seppelt et al. (2011) state that thedemand for ES instruments is increasing at a greater pace thanscientists are able to provide robust information on the

* To whom correspondence may be addressed: [email protected]

Published online 10 January 2013 in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1391

Figure 1. Overall scheme for how to include ecosystem services in decisionmaking. Decisions influence ecosystems, which may alter the provision ofservices and the value of these services. Based on changes in ecosystem servicesflows and values, institutions use incentives to influence decision makers tomaintain or improve ecosystems and ecosystem service provision. Modifiedfrom Daily et al. (2009).

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management — Volume 9, Number 2—pp. 237–242© 2013 SETAC 237

Special

Series

relationships between ecosystem functioning and ES. Thismeans that the right‐hand side of Figure 1 seems less well‐developed than the left‐hand side. Nevertheless, politiciansexpect answers from environmental managers and scientists;this is illustrated by a letter from the US Congress to the ArmyCorps of Engineers and the US Forest Service, in which theCongress asks for a joint report on how the values of ES can beincluded in decisionmaking on themanagement of federal land.The primary purpose of this report would be to enhance themanagement of ES across agencies by formally addressing thevalues early in the decision making process to that all partiesunderstand the tradeoffs (US Congress 2012).The enthusiasm with which the ES concept has been

embraced by policy makers reflects an urgent need for newways to achieve sustainable development and green growth(OECD 2011). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(Hassan et al. 2005) focused on large‐scale ecosystemdegradation; since then, considerable attention has been paidto developing countries in which large‐scale ecosystems areunder threat and inwhich there is a need for poverty alleviation.However, what might the ES concept mean for environmentalpolicy in densely populated industrialized countries that havelost many of their ecosystem qualities and services? In suchcountries, there is considerable competition between differentkinds of land uses, and, if societal needs are to bemet, landmustbe used for multiple purposes. This leads to complex decisionmaking, particularly at regional and local levels.Partly on the basis of a report by the Dutch Soil Protection

Technical Committee (TCB 2012), this article describes theactual and potential use of the ES concept in the sustainablemanagement of landscapes in the Netherlands. Developmentsin international science and policy are used as a reference.Muchof the information presented in this article is documented onlyin Dutch in the so‐called gray literature. Please contact theauthor for additional information.

LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENTDictionaries define theword “landscape” as “the land forms of

a region in the aggregate” or “the portion of territory that can beviewed at one time from one place.” This article uses the termlandscape to signify a management “unit” that consists of aregional system that encompasses soil and water, and also theorganisms—including humans—living in it. This might be anappropriate spatial scale to use when considering citizens’needs for ES provision in densely populated areas.Here, our definition of “landscape management” comprises

spatial planning and design, and all measures necessary tomaintaining the landscape. Landscapemanagement is driven bya complex of governance levels, ranging from international toneighborhood level; even individual citizens can influencelandscapes.One of themajor challenges inherent to achieving sustainable

development and green growth is the protection and mainte-nance of the natural resources on which we heavily depend forour well‐being and welfare, but which are not always includedor valuated properly in decision making. As a landscapecomprises different ecosystems, it may contain a wide range ofnatural resources.The use of the ES concept in landscape management is

advocated to protect and enhance natural resources—in otherwords, to maintain healthy ecosystems and biodiversity.Although these objectives are interlinked, each is distinctfrom the other, even if policy makers refer to them

interchangeably according to context and audience. Where“healthy ecosystems” refers to the functioning of ecosystems,and is associated with environmental quality, “biodiversity” is astructural aspect of ecosystems, and is often associated withnature conservation. Both are conditional for the sustainableprovision of natural resources.The natural resources provided by landscapes can be made

visible by the ES concept, e.g., as food, clean water, air quality,and recreation. Most of the ES are associated with specific kindsof land use (such as agriculture or forestry) or landscapeelements (such as watercourses or hedgerows). Managementtends to target a single ES provided by the particular land use orlandscape element, leading to tradeoffs between ES. Often,management also leads to uniformity in the landscape, which ata regional scale may lead to complete loss of specific ES. Thefact that most land is privately owned, and that landownershave a right to optimize certain ES to maximize profitability, isan important cause in creating tradeoffs and ultimatelyuniformity in the landscape.Landscape management should strengthen the position of

natural resources: the ES concept provides the imagery andvaluation landscape managers need in their decision making onnatural resources. In addition, and if necessary, the concept of“service providing units” might provide a spatial dimension toES (Kontogianni et al. 2010).Although basic scientific guidelines have been given for the

management of natural resources through the ES concept(see Box 1) (TCB 2003; EFSA 2010), they need to beoperationalized before they can be of practical use to decision‐makers such as landscape managers. In other words, theirapplication in decision making has to be ensured. For thispurpose, the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project(TEEB) is still working on guidelines for including naturalresources in decision making at various levels. One of thereports includes a stepwise approach to including naturalresources in decision making at the levels of local and regional

BOX 1. BASIC MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR ES(CITED FROM EFSA 2010)

1. The use (optimization) of an ecosystem service should notlead to its exhaustion or destruction locally.

2. In optimizing a specific ecosystem service, other servicesshould as far as possible remain intact.

3. The recovery capacity of the ecosystem should remainintact; this means that the services temporarily lessavailable or absent, possibly for a protracted period,must be able to return.

4. The rate of recovery should be commensurate with therate at which the optimization of an ecosystem service isbeing changed, e.g. from agriculture to nature. A recoveryperiod of centuries is too long where the changes tookplace over 30 years, for example.

5. All ES must have the requisite space; this limits the scaleon which optimizing of certain services can occur.

6. The exploitation of the ecosystem goods and servicesmustnot harm its surroundings, e.g. other contiguousecosystems.

238 Integr Environ Assess Manag 9, 2013—J van Wensem

policy and management, a relevant scale for landscapes(TEEB 2012).

The TEEB approach starts with a list of questions common toall planning decisions:

1. What does nature provide us at the local level?2. How valuable is this?3. How do we evaluate these ES or value them in monetary

terms?4. Who is affected by changes in services?5. How might those affected by these changes alter their

behavior?To investigate these questions, the approach then includes

the following steps (referred to here as TEEB steps):

Step 1: Specify and agree on the problemStep 2: Identify which ES are relevant to the decisionStep 3: Define the information needs and select appro-

priate methodsStep 4: Assess the changes that are expected in the flow of

ESStep 5: Identify and assess policy optionsStep 6: Assess distributional impacts of policy options

DUTCH APPROACHES TO INCLUDING NATURALRESOURCES IN DECISION MAKING FORLANDSCAPES

Over the past decade, experience has accumulated in theinclusion of natural resources in Dutch landscape managementthrough the use of the ES concept. A number of these nationalprojects are described below. Where possible, all are placed inthe context of the TEEB steps for including natural resources indecisionmaking (see above). Even though theymay be suitablefor broader application, most of these projects have beendeveloped by government institutes or have been commis-sioned by governments for national use, and have not beenreported in the international literature.

Stakeholder support of and funding for landscapemanagement

The question behind the first TEEB step (specify and agreeon the problem) is whether policy makers and stakeholdershave the same perception of the issue at stake. This makes itnecessary to conduct a thorough stakeholder analysis. A way to

identify stakeholders is provided by the ES relevant to thedecision, which is TEEB step 2. First the ES delivered by thelandscape or landscape elements under decision can beanalyzed, and then the stakeholders of these ES.

An illustration of this method is given in Table 1; it is derivedfrom Hendriks et al. (2010), whose study analyzed the ESprovided by forests, woodlands, and smaller areaswith trees andbushes (all indicated by “wood”). The same exercise was donefor grasslands and reed lands (not shown). This analysis wascarried out for larger nature conservation bodies, and aimed toidentify stakeholders who would be interested in investing inspecific ES. Hendriks et al. (2010) thus used the relevant ES toidentify stakeholders.

The purpose of TEEB step 1 is to identify stakeholders tocreate support for decision making. Identifying stakeholders isalso necessary to attract or increase funding for landscapeprojects that will enhance natural resources. Goldman et al.(2008) found that, relative to traditional approaches such assetting aside land through the purchase of property rights,biodiversity conservation projects that used ES approacheswere able to attract more than 4 times the funding, due largelyto greater corporate sponsorship and the use of a wider varietyof finance tools.

To identify a broad spectrum of stakeholders for support andfunding of landscape projects, a Dutch consortium consisting ofnational government departments, research institutes, andconsultants developed the “discover, agree and develop”approach (known in Dutch as Triple‐O) (IenM 2012). Theapproach is based on experiences in 3 pilot projects. As thename suggests, it consists of 3 steps: discovering the unrecog-nized benefits of natural resources in a region, agreeing withmultiple stakeholders on the additional value of these naturalresources and accommodating their different interests, andjointly developing business cases for sustainably exploiting andmanaging the benefits of these natural resources. In thisapproach, natural resources are visualized by ES. Triple‐Ofocuses on the local governance, societal, and economicalprocesses necessary to achieving sustainable regional develop-ment; it comprises TEEB steps 1, 2, 5, and 6.

To attract funding for green–blue infrastructure, the Dutchgovernmental biodiversity program commissioned the devel-opment of a practical approach called “doing business withlandscape services” (Steingröver et al. 2011). Written forproviders, buyers, and stakeholders of ES, the resultingguideline aims to extend and improve the green–blueinfrastructure (hedgerows, parks, waterways) in areas that arenot eligible for subsidies from agri‐environment schemes. The

Table 1. Examples of ecosystem services provided by “wood” (forests, woodlands, and smaller woody areas), and respective providers,buyers, stakeholders, and spatial conditions for these ecosystem services (Hendriks et al. 2010)

Ecosystem service Provider Buyer Stakeholder Spatial condition

• Carbonsequestration

• Forest managers • National government• European Union

• National government• Industry• Citizens

• Sufficient area for substantialsequestration

• Living and workingin a greenenvironment

• Forest managers• Municipalities

• Citizens• Companies

• Project developers• Health insurance

companies

• Ratio built up and green area• Spatial cohesion

• Trails in forests • Forest managers • Walkers• Runners

• Recreation businesses• Sports clothing businesses• Contractors

• Size of forest and/or recreationarea

• Location compared to city

Ecosystem Services in Landscape Management—Integr Environ Assess Manag 9, 2013 239

guideline explains how providers of the ES delivered by green–blue infrastructure on their land can identify buyers andstakeholders for purposes of raising funding for constructing,planting, and maintaining green–blue infrastructure.In the Netherlands, the involvement of stakeholders with

regard to sustainable land use and ES is relatively institutional-ized. To achieve more sustainable land management in theagricultural sector, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agricul-ture and Innovation established several communities of practice(CoP). Although these do not apply the ES concept directly,they aim to enhance ES in agricultural soils, for example byenhancing agrobiodiversity through noninversion tillage (PN‐

NKG 2012). Likewise, the Learning Network on FunctionalAgroBiodiversity (ELN‐FAB 2012) operates as a CoP atEuropean level.Similarly, the Dutch initiative for “conscious soil use” can be

seen as a variant of a CoP. Focusing on external integration, thisinitiative has gained the support of more than 50 societalorganizations, and is represented by 13 soil “ambassadors”recruited from these organizations (CSUI 2012). In 2011, aCoP on Ecosystem Services was established under the umbrellaof the applied research program for sustainable developmentof the subsurface (SKB 2012), to provide a platform forend‐users (stakeholders), scientists, and national, regional, orlocal policy makers to discuss and exchange information on theuse of the ES concept in practice (Brils and Van derMeulen 2010).

Identification of relevant ecosystem services

TEEB step 2—identification of the ES that are relevant to thedecision—is often based on general knowledge about which ESare being provided by a specific kind of land use (thus, underaverage conditions, agricultural land might provide food, fiber,fuel, water regulation, and some C sequestration, but nothabitat for many species, recreation, and pollination). Theconnection between land use and ES provision was used toidentify relevant ES in a Dutch decision support instrument forsoil sealing (covering soils with impervious materials, such asroads and buildings) in rural areas. In this decision supportinstrument, the relevance of an ES for a certain land use type isindicated by a default value between 0 and 5, the values beingbased on expert judgment and literature. The impact of soilsealing is expressed as the loss of ES provision caused by the lossof specific land‐use types in the plan area. As it was recognizedthat the provision of ES may deviate locally from the results ofan expert‐judgment exercise, the method allows for deviationof default values and for additional stakeholder input for ES thatare not easily connected to land‐use types (Huijsmanset al. 2011) (Figure 2).The method was based on the idea (Burkhard et al. 2009) of

connecting ES to the land‐cover classification used for theEuropeanCORINEprogram(EEA1994),whichcomprises over40 types of land cover, ranging fromhighlymanmade ecosystems(e.g., continuous urban fabric) to natural ones (e.g., estuaries).The classificationpresents the capacityof each land‐cover type toprovide individual ES. Thus, although continuous urban fabrichas no capacity to provide ES (besides supporting buildings),estuaries can provide a wide range of ES, such as food, floodprotection, and water purification. As the system is based oninitial expert evaluations, it should be seen as a series of researchhypotheses that are to be tested (Burkhard et al. 2009).Identifying relevant ES bymaking a connection with land use

or land‐cover type indicates the potential for ES provisioning.

As actual ES delivery may be affected by location and landand water quality, Rutgers et al. (2012) developed a methodfor assessing the quantitative aspects of ES provision by soilsat arable farms. The method is based on stakeholder expect-ations (i.e., what they expect the land to provide), expertjudgment (to identify indicators), and the Dutch SoilMonitoring Network (to derive reference values for theseindicators).

Changes in the flow of ecosystem services

Environmental assessment methods are used to investigatethe state of ecosystems and changes in the flow of ES (TEEBstep 4). The ES concept was used in site‐specific ecological riskassessment for the Krimpenerwaard, a 12 000‐ha polder (i.e.,reclaimed area) in the Netherlands, in which approximately5000 ditches had been filled with various waste materials.Addressing specific goals for land use in terms of ES defined bylocal stakeholders, the assessment focused on 3 criteria:ecological risks for agriculture, nature conservation anddevelopment, and recreation (Faber 2006). The approachtaken in this project inspired a protocol for site‐specificecological risk assessment that was later published by theNetherlands Standards Institute (NEN 2010). In addition,Faber and VanWensem (2012) elaborated on the use of the ESconcept for application in site‐specific ecological risk assess-ment for soils.

Implementation of ES in existing projects and networks

In the province of Zeeland, a consortium involving 14governmental, scientific and business partners took an experi-mental approach to improving the use of the soil, subsoil andlandscape in economic and societal projects for sustainableregional development (Smit and Verzandvoort 2012a, 2012b).Per project, the ES provided by the soil, subsoil, and landscapeweremade visible and concrete. Onemajor conclusion was thatit is important from the point of view of end‐users andstakeholders to use 2 techniques to visualize the role of soil,subsoil and landscape in ES provision: 1) by using images for ES,and 2) by mapping ES at appropriate landscape scales. Projectparticipants felt that the key to fulfilling the sustainability of

Figure 2. Schematic overview of a decision support instrument for soil sealingin rural areas. The amount and location of the sealing in the rural developmentplan is the starting point. The most relevant flows of ecosystem services in theplanning area are selected and an evaluation is made of the effects of sealingon these services. These effects are weighed in the plan idea that may lead tochanges of the plan ormitigation of the effects.Modified fromHuijsmans et al.(2011).


each project lay in the implementation of measures to maintainES provision (so‐called “services on return”). It was concludedthat greater benefits would be derived from integrating ESthinking into existing networks and projects than from settingup projects exclusively to enhance ES thinking. All TEEB stepswere involved in this experiment.

Societal cost–benefit analyses

In the past decade, a number of societal cost–benefit analyseshave been carried out in the Netherlands to investigate local,regional, and national development scenarios. The casesincluded analyses of the societal costs and benefits (Koetseand Rietveld 2010, and references therein):

� The greening of a neighborhood� Creating green areas near a city� Extending green recreation areas� Better management of peat meadow areas� Green–blue landscape elements and� Landscape quality

In general, the analyses show that much greater societalbenefits are produced by investments in creating and main-taining landscape elements that provide ES than by thealternative scenario, autonomous development. The analyticalmethods used in SCBA are still under discussion, especiallywith regard to how one should value ES or “nature” (where thefocus is on the use of monetary values) against the use of naturescores, such as the “ecological quality area” (Sijtsma et al. 2010;De Blaai and Verburg 2011).

Policy developments

The Dutch government facilitates the use of ES in landscapemanagement by initiating and supporting pilot experiments andby publishing guidance documents. Some examples arepresented in this article. At the request of the Dutchgovernment, the Soil Protection Technical Committee pub-lished an advisory report on the use of the ES concept indecision making in land use and land management. TheCommittee stressed the value of the ES concept in interpretingand valuing ecosystems, in including natural resources indecision making andmonitoring, in increasing synergy betweendifferent policy fields, and in identifying stakeholders. Thecommittee recommended that the ES concept be used tosupport decision making under the upcoming IntegratedEnvironment Act (TCB 2012).

DISCUSSION: FOCUS ON NETWORKS ANDGOVERNANCE

In densely populated, highly industrialized countries, there isconsiderable competition between different kinds of land use,and the fulfillment of various societal needs requires the use ofland for multiple purposes. The complexity of decision makingon natural resources is compounded by the fact that much landis privately owned. The Dutch case studies show that variousparties view the ES concept as a tool for enhancing biodiversity,creatingmore sustainable regional development plans, support-ing better spatial‐planning decisions with respect to soil sealing,and, most importantly, for involving much broader stakeholdergroups not only in making better decisions but also in attractinggreater funding for the plans.

As the TEEB steps were designed for local and regionalauthorities, they follow a top‐down approach in which the

authorities have the initiative. Because of 3 factors—a highdemand for a variety of ES, a desire formultifunctional land use,and a tradition of seeking consensus—“Dutch practice” is acomplex phenomenon that involves many different stake-holders. The initiatives described above were often driven byconsortia composed of parties from divergent backgrounds,such as local, regional, and national authorities, plus businesses,NGOs, and citizens and citizen groups—all supported byconsultants and scientists.

This Dutch phenomenon is described by the concept of“the energetic society,” in which broad stakeholder involve-ment in decision making is seen as the driver of sustainabledevelopment (Hajer 2011). The energetic society is composedof a large group of actors who participate actively in thedebate on sustainability. Although the effect of the broadstakeholder involvement may be overshadowed by differencesin values, and although sustainable decisions are not guaran-teed, the energetic society concept inspires many regional andlocal projects, in which the ES concept serves as a languageand tool for communicating, identifying stakeholders, valuatingnatural resources, and finding funding. The key to mostof these projects is the collaboration between local orregional authorities, businesses, NGOs, and citizens or citizengroups.

Regardless of a plan’s initiator or initiators, the Dutchprojects show that 2 TEEB steps—“specifying and agreeingon the problem” and “identifying which ES are relevant tothe decision”—cannot be taken consecutively, as the stake-holders that need to be consulted about the problem areidentified by the relevant ES services. The Zeeland projectstressed that it was important to make visible the role thatlandscapes play in ES provisioning, of whichmany stakeholderswere unaware. If necessary, maps should be used for thepurpose.

The facilitating role of the ES in increasing the visibility ofnatural resources in decision making therefore seems to begaining a foothold in the Netherlands, though the number ofprojects is still limited, and the wider use of methods—e.g.,enhancing green–blue veining or decision support for sealing—is not monitored.

For this reason, it is not yet possible to say whether thisapproach results in more sustainable decisions—in other words,whether it leads to the better protection and management ofnatural resources. The lesson from the Zeeland project isimportant: for the stakeholders, theachievementof sustainabilityintheproject lay inthe implementationof the “servicesonreturn”that need to be provided to ecosystems to maintain the desiredES. It was recommended that this be includedmore explicitly inthe TEEB steps.

On the basis of this Dutch case study, it can be concludedthat the ES concept is also useful in highly industrialized,densely populated countries. The focus in these projects seemsto lie on governance, particularly with regard to networks andstakeholder involvement. One reason why environmentalassessments attract little attention in the projects may be thatthe use of the ES concept in governance is considered by theproject participants as a “new” development, whereas environ-mental assessments are considered to be business as usual.Regardless of the perception of relative importance of these 2elements in decision making, the present environmentalassessments should at least be extended with information onchanges in ES flows. In this way, ES would be better integratedinto decision making.

Ecosystem Services in Landscape Management—Integr Environ Assess Manag 9, 2013 241

Acknowledgments—The author acknowledges the Soil Pro-tection Technical Committee (TCB) and Lorraine Maltby(Sheffield University) for their inspiration and support; andJack Faber (Wageningen University and Research Centre), JaapTuinstra (TCB), and 2 anonymous reviewers for their com-ments on earlier drafts.

REFERENCESBrils J, Van der Meulen S. 2010. Sharing experiences with ecosystem services. [in

Dutch] [cited 2012 July 12]. Available from: http://www.soilpedia.nl/Bikiwiki%20documenten/CoP%20Ecosysteemdiensten/Delen_ervaringen_ESD_finale%5b1%5d.pdf

Burkhard BF, Kroll F, Muller F, Windhorst W. 2009. Landscapes capacities to provideecosystem services—A concept for land‐cover based assessments. LandscapeOnline 15:1–22.

[CSUI] Consious Soil Use Initiative. 2012. Initiatief Bewust Bodemgebruik [in Dutch].[cited 2012 July 24]. Available from: http://www.bewustbodemgebruik.nl

Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kaveira PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH,Salzman J, Shallenberger R. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: Timeto deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–18.

De Blaeij A, Verburg R. 2011. Voor‐en nadelen van het gebruik van natuurpunten bijhet bepalen en monitariseren van natuureffecten. Wageningen, theNetherlands: LEI. Nota 11‐113 [in Dutch].

[EEA] European Environment Agency. 1994. CORINE land cover. [cited 2012July 24]. Available from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0‐landcover

[EFSA] European Food Safety Authority. 2010. Scientific opinion on thedevelopment of specific protection goal options for environmental riskassessment of pesticides, in particular in relation to the revision of theGuidance Documents on Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology (SANCO/3268/2001and SANCO/10329/2002). EFSA J 8:1821.

[ELN‐FAB] European Learning Network on Functional AgroBiodiversity. 2012. [cited2012 July 30]. Available from: http://www.eln‐fab.eu

Faber JH. 2006. European experience on application of site‐specific ecological riskassessment in terrestrial ecosystems. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12:1–39.

Faber JH, Van Wensem J. 2012. Elaborations on the use of the ecosystem servicesconcept for the application in ecological risk assessment for soil. Sci TotalEnviron 415:3–8.

Goldman RL, Tallis H, Kaveira P, Daily GC. 2008. Field evidence that ecosystem serviceprojects support biodiversity and diversify options. Available from: http://www.pnas.org/cgl/doI/10.1071/pnas.0800208105

Hajer M. 2011. The energetic society. In search of a governance philosophy for aclean economy. Report No. 500070012. The Hague, the Netherlands: PBLNetherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N. 2005. Ecosystems and human well‐being: current stateand trends. Washington, DC: Island Press; 948 p.

Hendriks K, Smit A, Spijker J, Melman D. 2010. Overzicht van beschikbareinformatie bij posters Ecosysteemdiensten met Gras, Hout en Riet. Wagenin-gen, the Netherlands: Alterra. Projectcode [BO,11,003,000] (in Dutch).

Huismans KGA, DeWit J, Muntjewerff R. 2011. Soil sealing in rural areas, a decisionsupportive instrument. Reference No. GM‐0027410. Houten, the Netherlands:Grontmij.

[IenM] Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. 2012. The triple‐O approach.Ecosystem services in the practice of sustainable land management andregional development. [in Dutch] [cited 2012 July 24]. Available from: http://www.agentschapnl.nl/sites/default/files/bijlagen/Triple_O_aanpak_Ontdekken_%20Overeenkomen%20_Ontwikkelen.pdf

Koetse MJ, Rietveld P. 2010. Economische waardering van omgevingskwaliteit.[in Dutch] The Hague, the Netherlands: SDU uitgevers. 263 p.

Kontogianni A, Luck GW, SkourtosM. 2010. Valuing ecosystem services on the basisof service‐providing units: A potential approach to address the ‘endpointproblem’ and improve stated preference methods. Ecol Econ 69:1479–1487.

[NEN] Netherlands Normalisation Institute. 2010. Soil quality—Ecological riskanalysis. [in Dutch] NEN 5737.

[OECD] Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development. 2011. Towardsgreen growth—monitoring progress: OECD Indicators. [cited 2012 July 28].Available from: http://www.oecd.org/document/49/0,3746,en_2649_37465_48033720_1_1_1_37465,00.html

[PN‐NKG] Praktijk Netwerk Niet Kerende Grondbewerking. 2012. [in Dutch].[cited 2012 July 30]. Available from: http://www.nietkerendegrondbewerking.nl/

Rutgers M, Van Wijnen HJ, Schouten AJ, Mulder C, Kuiten AM, Brussaard L, BreureAM. 2012. A method to assess ecosystem services developed from soilattributes with stakeholders and data of four arable farms. Sci Total Environ415:39–48.

Seppelt R, Fath B, Burkhard B, Fisher JL, Gret‐Regamey A, Lautenbach S, Pert P, HotesS, Spangenberg J, Verburg PH, et al. 2011. Form follows function? Proposing ablueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies.Ecol Indic 21:145–154.

Sijtsma FJ, Dietz F, Kruitwagen S, Van Hinsbergen A. 2010. In: Koetse MJ, Rietveld P,editors. Economische waardering van omgevingskwaliteit. [in Dutch]. TheHague, the Netherlands: SDU uitgevers. 263 p.

SKB. 2012. Program for sustainable development of the subsurface [in Dutch].[cited 2012 July 24]. Available from: http://www.skbodem.nl

Smit A, Verzandvoort S. 2012a. Doenderzoek [in Dutch]. [cited 2012 July 24].Available from: http://prezi.com/5vsnnxj‐ggki/doenderzoek/

Smit A, Verzandvoort S. 2012b. Doenderzoek [draft English version]. [cited 2012November 6]. Available from: http://prezi.com/wjdahxerqoce/doenderzoek‐en/?res_nr¼5&sis¼2719401128

Steingröver E, Opdam P, Van Rooij S, Grashof‐Bokdam C, Van der Veen M. 2011.Ondernemen met landschapsdiensten. Hoe houtwallen, stadsparken enwatergangen duurzaam kunnen bijdragen aan economie en leefomgeving.[in Dutch]. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Alterra. Report No. 2208.

TCB [Soil Protection Technical Committee]. 2003. Towards a more ecolo-gically sustainable land use. Report No. A33. The Hague, the Netherlands:TCB.

TCB [Soil Protection Technical Committee]. 2012. Better decisions with ecosystemservices. Report No. A073. [in Dutch]. The Hague, the Netherlands.

TEEB [The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity]. 2012. The economics ofecosystems and biodiversity in local and regional policy and management.Wittmer H, Gundimeda H, editors. Oxford, UK: Routledge. 384 p.

US Congress. 2012. Letter on ecosystem services to the assistant secretary of theArmy Corps of Engineers and the Chief of the US Forest Service for April 18.Washington, DC.
