Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 101273 |
| Journal | Ecosystem Services |
| Volume | 2021 |
| Issue number | 49 |
| Early online date | 22 Apr 2021 |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2021 |
Abstract
This paper presents a summary of lessons learned from implementing the ecosystem services (ES) approach into urban planning practice in different European urban settings. We summarise a survey co-created with, and presented to, researchers and end-users in city administrations from ten European case study cities. To complement the expert analysis, 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted among stakeholders to assess the use of ES in practice in urban settings. There was strong agreement between scientists and practitioners on both the opportunities and the barriers to uptake the ES concept in urban planning practice. Key agreements were that the ES concept supports decision-making as well as spatial planning, it is most useful as a communication tool, and monetarisation and public pressure can be considered as promoting factors. Barriers are lack of evidence including case studies, standardised methods and criteria to evaluate nature and its benefits, lack of legislations/reform, limited capacity and reluctance to apply ES in planning practice, and limited public involvement. On individual aspects, such as the monetarisation of ES, views differed both among the scientists and the practitioners. Derived from our investigations we summarize in which circumstances the ES concept is most relevant and useful for urban planners and decision-makers.
Keywords
- Decision-making, Green-blue infrastructure, Practitioners’ perspective, Scientists’ perspective, Urban nature
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Social Sciences(all)
- Geography, Planning and Development
- Environmental Science(all)
- Nature and Landscape Conservation
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Environmental Science(all)
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
- Environmental Science(all)
- Global and Planetary Change
- Environmental Science(all)
- Ecology
Sustainable Development Goals
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Ecosystem Services, Vol. 2021, No. 49, 101273, 06.2021.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Lessons learned from implementing the ecosystem services concept in urban planning
AU - Grunewald, Karsten
AU - Bastian, Olaf
AU - Louda, Jiri
AU - Arcidiacono, Andrea
AU - Brzoska , Patrycia
AU - Bue, Mathilde
AU - Cetin, Nuket Ipek
AU - Dworczyk, Claudia
AU - Dubová, Lenka
AU - Fitch, Alice
AU - Jones, Laurence
AU - La Rosa, Daniele
AU - Mascarenhas, André
AU - Ronchi, Silvia
AU - Schlaepfer, Martin
AU - Sikorska, Daria
N1 - Funding Information: Lenka Dubova's research was supported by project BIDELIN "The values of ecosystem services, biodiversity and green-blue infrastructure in cities using the examples of Dresden, Liberec and Decin" (Grant No. 100282320), financed by European fund for regional development (Interreg V-A 2014-2020 Saxony-Czech Republic). The work of Olaf Bastian, Patrycia Brzoska and Karsten Grunewald was also supported by the BIDELIN project (http://bidelin.ioer.eu/en/project/). Claudia Dworczyk`s research was supported by research project "SKKIP (Ecosystem Services of Urban Regions - Mapping, Communicating and Integrating into Planning to conserve biodiversity during a changing climate) funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the funding code FKZ 16LC1604B. Laurence Jones was supported by the EU Horizon 2020-project REGREEN (Grant Agreement No. 821016 ). Jiri Louda's research was supported by project "Smart City - Smart Region - Smart Community" financed by the Operational Programme Research, Development and Education of the Czech Republic - Grant no. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/17_048/0007435 and project "Economic and Institutional Aspects of Planning and Implementation Nature Based Adaptation Solutions" (UJEP-IGA-JR-2021-45-008-2). Daria Sikorska's research was supported as part of the project ENABLE, funded through the 2015/2016 BiodivERsA COFUND call for research proposals, with the national funders The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences, and Spatial Planning, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, German aeronautics and space research centre, National Science Centre (Poland), The Research Council of Norway and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.
PY - 2021/6
Y1 - 2021/6
N2 - This paper presents a summary of lessons learned from implementing the ecosystem services (ES) approach into urban planning practice in different European urban settings. We summarise a survey co-created with, and presented to, researchers and end-users in city administrations from ten European case study cities. To complement the expert analysis, 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted among stakeholders to assess the use of ES in practice in urban settings. There was strong agreement between scientists and practitioners on both the opportunities and the barriers to uptake the ES concept in urban planning practice. Key agreements were that the ES concept supports decision-making as well as spatial planning, it is most useful as a communication tool, and monetarisation and public pressure can be considered as promoting factors. Barriers are lack of evidence including case studies, standardised methods and criteria to evaluate nature and its benefits, lack of legislations/reform, limited capacity and reluctance to apply ES in planning practice, and limited public involvement. On individual aspects, such as the monetarisation of ES, views differed both among the scientists and the practitioners. Derived from our investigations we summarize in which circumstances the ES concept is most relevant and useful for urban planners and decision-makers.
AB - This paper presents a summary of lessons learned from implementing the ecosystem services (ES) approach into urban planning practice in different European urban settings. We summarise a survey co-created with, and presented to, researchers and end-users in city administrations from ten European case study cities. To complement the expert analysis, 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted among stakeholders to assess the use of ES in practice in urban settings. There was strong agreement between scientists and practitioners on both the opportunities and the barriers to uptake the ES concept in urban planning practice. Key agreements were that the ES concept supports decision-making as well as spatial planning, it is most useful as a communication tool, and monetarisation and public pressure can be considered as promoting factors. Barriers are lack of evidence including case studies, standardised methods and criteria to evaluate nature and its benefits, lack of legislations/reform, limited capacity and reluctance to apply ES in planning practice, and limited public involvement. On individual aspects, such as the monetarisation of ES, views differed both among the scientists and the practitioners. Derived from our investigations we summarize in which circumstances the ES concept is most relevant and useful for urban planners and decision-makers.
KW - Ökosystemleistungen
KW - Decision-making
KW - Green-blue infrastructure
KW - Practitioners’ perspective
KW - Scientists’ perspective
KW - Urban nature
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85104645162&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101273
DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101273
M3 - Article
VL - 2021
JO - Ecosystem Services
JF - Ecosystem Services
SN - 2212-0416
IS - 49
M1 - 101273
ER -