TY - JOUR

T1 - Application of the ecosystem services concept in stakeholder communication—Results of a workshop including a planning game at the Lower Mulde River (Dessau-Roßlau, Germany)

AU - Gapinski, Cedric M.

AU - Vollheyde, Anna Lena

AU - von Haaren, Christina

N1 - Funding Information: The ‘Wilde Mulde’ project is jointly funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) with funds also from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) in Germany (funding code: 16LC1322F). The BMBF is funding this project as an Initiative for Sustainable Development (FONA): www.fona.de . We would also like to express our sincere thanks to the workshop participants, to the implementation partner WWF for helping to identify the stakeholders, to the Dessau‐Roßlau youth hostel for providing the facilities and, last but not least, to our committed students.

PY - 2022/4/5

Y1 - 2022/4/5

N2 - The concept of ecosystem services (ES) is a powerful tool for communicating with stakeholders because it highlights the benefits of ecosystems for people and demonstrates their economic importance through monetized values. However, this hypothesis has rarely been substantiated in the context of local landscape planning. To investigate which ecosystem services information formats (ESIF) stakeholders prefer in decision situations, we experimented with a highly conflictual planning situation about the Lower Mulde restoration in Germany. We invited local stakeholders to a so-called ‘future vision workshop’. It included a paper-based, noncompetitive planning game, which combined the freedom of choice with strict rules for justifying the proposed measures. We tested how often participants used different ESIFs to justify their decisions, focusing on quantification, monetization, and the default qualitative (ordinal-scaled) format applied in landscape planning. A total of 17 representatives from stakeholder groups such as nature conservation, recreation, and local politics attended. We provided information on four ES and eight related measure proposals to the stakeholders, who used them to select, locate, and justify actions for the area's future development. The participants applied the ordinal-qualitative format in more than two-thirds of the decisions. Quantification and monetization were used with approximately equal frequency, mostly for measures that favoured flood risk regulation. Actions supporting habitat provision and biodiversity were justified exclusively in ordinal-qualitative terms. Instead of our provided quantifications, some participants mentioned numbers they were already familiar with before. They also partly doubted our monetization approaches. In conclusion, we recommend combined and context-specific uses of several ESIFs, while using the ordinal-qualitative format as the basis. Furthermore, the participants appreciated the workshop and requested that the results be presented to the city council. The workshop also confirmed that the ES concept is challenging to understand, especially for laypeople unfamiliar with ES and landscape planning.

AB - The concept of ecosystem services (ES) is a powerful tool for communicating with stakeholders because it highlights the benefits of ecosystems for people and demonstrates their economic importance through monetized values. However, this hypothesis has rarely been substantiated in the context of local landscape planning. To investigate which ecosystem services information formats (ESIF) stakeholders prefer in decision situations, we experimented with a highly conflictual planning situation about the Lower Mulde restoration in Germany. We invited local stakeholders to a so-called ‘future vision workshop’. It included a paper-based, noncompetitive planning game, which combined the freedom of choice with strict rules for justifying the proposed measures. We tested how often participants used different ESIFs to justify their decisions, focusing on quantification, monetization, and the default qualitative (ordinal-scaled) format applied in landscape planning. A total of 17 representatives from stakeholder groups such as nature conservation, recreation, and local politics attended. We provided information on four ES and eight related measure proposals to the stakeholders, who used them to select, locate, and justify actions for the area's future development. The participants applied the ordinal-qualitative format in more than two-thirds of the decisions. Quantification and monetization were used with approximately equal frequency, mostly for measures that favoured flood risk regulation. Actions supporting habitat provision and biodiversity were justified exclusively in ordinal-qualitative terms. Instead of our provided quantifications, some participants mentioned numbers they were already familiar with before. They also partly doubted our monetization approaches. In conclusion, we recommend combined and context-specific uses of several ESIFs, while using the ordinal-qualitative format as the basis. Furthermore, the participants appreciated the workshop and requested that the results be presented to the city council. The workshop also confirmed that the ES concept is challenging to understand, especially for laypeople unfamiliar with ES and landscape planning.

KW - ecosystem services

KW - landscape planning

KW - participatory planning

KW - river landscape

KW - stakeholder communication

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124762570&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/iroh.202002080

DO - 10.1002/iroh.202002080

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85124762570

VL - 107

SP - 128

EP - 139

JO - International Review of Hydrobiology

JF - International Review of Hydrobiology

SN - 1434-2944

IS - 1-2

ER -