Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies

Abstract

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 this paper is twofold: first, to make relevant environmental planning experience available to ESS researchers; second, to offer conceptual and methodological suggestions for future ESS assessments that consider key insights from European planning science. A systematic literature analysis was used to juxtapose several theoretical and methodological aspects of ESS assessment and environmental planning concepts in order to identify comparative benefits and potentials for an integration of the two approaches. To illustrate the limitations and potentials of the approaches, the example of German landscape planning is described. A better integration of the two approaches has the potential to (i) strengthen the spatial concreteness and scale relation of ESS on low tiers; (ii) foster accounting and monetary valuation in environmental planning, especially for applications on supra-regional scale; (iii) reflect on underlying values in the ESS approach and overcome a latent nature determinism; (iv) more clearly differentiate between public and private goods for better targeting implementation strategies; (v) help in developing context-dependent classification categories that can accommodate all implementation relevant services and relate services to beneficiaries; and (vi) frame communication and participation processes by reflecting their constitutional 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 increasingly employed by research groups around the world to assess the contributions and/or benefits that human populations derive from ecosystems (cf. MEA 2005; Carpenter et al. 2009; Fisher et al. 2009; Burkhard et al. 2010; The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 2010). Environmental planning could arguably contribute substantially to the emerging science of ESS assessment. Systems for environmental planning and management were introduced in several European states in the 1970s. Since then, planning theory and methods have been continuously further developed, taking into account new scientific insights, improved data (e.g. from remote sensing) and experiences from introducing planning results into decision processes and public participation.

The theoretical and methodological approaches used in contemporary environmental planning are similar to and partly overlapping with the theories and methods employed in ESS assessments. Environmental planning can therefore be considered an important form of dealing with ESS in practice. However, environmental planning has so far failed to connect with the international debate around ESS (cf. Kanning 2005), whereas some researchers in the field of ESS assessment have begun to consider planning applications (e.g. Bastian 2004; Chan et al. 2006; Hein et al. 2006; Troy and Wilson 2006; Willemen et al. 2008; Burkhard et al. 2009; Eigenbrod et al. 2009; Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009).

The objectives of this paper are to share the experiences made with approaches to ESS assessment in the implementation of environmental planning and to offer conceptual and methodological suggestions for future ESS assessments in different application contexts.

To meet these objectives, this paper first juxtaposes the concepts for ESS assessment and environmental planning with respect to (i) goals and purposes, (ii) definitions and characteristics, (iii) methodologies and procedures and (iv) the role and means of communication and monetary valuation. An emphasis is put on the description of the planning approach, as the reader of this journal will presumably know the ESS theory well. Then, similarities and differences between the two concepts and the pros and cons of each concept are identified and discussed. Finally, suggestions are offered on how ESS assessment and environmental planning can benefit from integrating aspects of the respective other approach.

For the literature analysis, which forms the methodological basis of the paper, two issues had to be addressed. First, the ESS concept is presented in an abundance of international literature. However, its description remains inconsistent. This paper draws on recently published reviews of ESS concepts (in particular Boyd and Banzhaf (2007); Fisher et al. (2009)) and selected seminal publications (Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 1997; MEA 2005). The summary of the ESS concept presented here is confined to a very short account of the topics that are important for the comparison with environmental planning.

Second, international literature about the theory and methodologies of environmental planning and management create a diverse picture (e.g. Steinitz 1990; McHarg 1992; Slocombe 1993; Turner 1998; United States Environmental Production Agency 2000). The majority of publications are intended for practice and written in native languages. Environmental planning depends greatly on the planning system of the respective country. Even if we concentrate on Europe, the systems are quite heterogeneous (Shaw et al. 1995).

In the context of diverse planning systems, German landscape planning (LP) serves as a good example and prototype for this discussion. LP as a term and type of planning has been recently strengthened by the European Landscape Convention. The ratification of this Convention means that LP is accepted as a mandatory planning tool by more than 30 European states in and outside of the European Union. There are also other environmental planning types that focus on an individual environmental medium such as air (pollution) or water bodies. However, German LP is a very comprehensive environmental planning based on information about ecosystem goods and services. It covers most subjects of environmental protection in their spatial relevance and has been developed in Germany as a separate field of planning in the framework of spatial planning since decades. Therefore, LP is suitable for demonstrating the limitations and potentials of a planning approach to ESS assessment. The characterisation of LP in this paper is based on official government documentation (especially the German Nature Conservation Act 2010; the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation cited as von Haaren et al. (2008)) as well as on a set of scientific publications (especially Haber 1971; Buchwald 1979; Langer et al. 1985; Bastian and Schreiber 1994; Jessel 1998; Heiland 1999; Luz 2000; Bastian 2004; von Haaren 2004; Gruehn 2005; Wende et al. 2009). In many other European states, LP exists in different forms, although often its contents are not discernable because they are integrated into comprehensive spatial planning (Shaw et al. 1995; von Haaren et al. 2001).

Juxtaposition of approaches for ESS characterisation and LP

Decision and implementation context

Objectives, purposes and implementation of ESS assessments

Generally, ESS are described using quantitative accounting and 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 approaches are supposed to enhance understanding and education, to contribute to environmentally conscious decision-making and to support equity in human welfare (Fisher et al. 2009). The scale of ESS assessments varies and their emphasis is on global and national studies (e.g. MEA 2005). Furthermore, landscape management has recently been proposed as a possible area of application of ESS assessments (Hein et al. 2006; Fisher et al. 2009: 650).

Objectives, purposes and implementation of LP

The purposes and areas of application of LP in Germany are fewer than those of ESS assessment in the international debate. Two prerequisites of LP are relevant concerning a comparison with approaches to ESS assessment:

First, the terminology and structure of LP is influenced by its objectives and applications. The goals of LP are to generate information that supports the inclusion of environmental objectives in spatial decision-making. Consequently, LP functions as the interface between science and the implementation of environmental goals in practice (cf. Nassauer and Opdam 2008). In detail, LP serves as

•	precautionary tool for integrating environmental considerations into regional and local land use planning (Gruehn and Kenneweg 1998; Reinke 2002);
•	information basis for day-to-day decision-making of local and regional nature conservation authorities. Landscape plans propose numerous alternatives for improving the landscape (Wende et al. 2009); this includes targeting landscape related funding programmes (like agri-environmental measures) or developing habitat networks;
•	spatial information basis for environmental impact assessments and the precautionary guiding of interventions to less valuable and sensitive sites as well as pointing out adequate mitigation options and compensation sites if interventions are carried out;
•	information platform for NGOs and the public in order to enable active participation in environmental decisions as well as for sectoral land use administrations (e.g. traffic and agriculture) and land users to raise environmental awareness and to improve land use adaptation to environmental objectives (Luz 2000; von Haaren et al. 2008).

In view of these objectives and applications, it is clear that LP must strive to promote the acceptance of planning objectives and to clearly communicate findings to the public and decision-makers.

Second, LP is a governmental planning instrument which is committed to supporting public interests in the environment (Council of Europe 2000; cf. Olschowy 1976; Faludi 1985; Runge 1998), although its results are relevant for many different user groups. Therefore, LP reflects societal values which are grounded in the legislation and objectives of different tiers of political decision-making. Individual commercial land use interests are not the priority of LP. It is assumed that private interests are achieved through the efforts of private individuals. However, they are relevant as influences that shape the landscape and the context for implementation. LP helps to identify these interests and conflicts and to provide a basis for political decisions.

Theoretical basis: definitions

Definitions of ESS

Existing definitions of ESS are often broad and encompass multiple, conflicting meanings (cf. Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Fisher et al. 2009). They range from conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems sustain human life 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 classifying ESS along ‘functional’ lines (MEA 2005). Fisher et al. (2009) defined ESS as ‘the aspects of ecosystems utilized (actively or passively) to produce human well-being’ and emphasised that ESS must be ecological phenomena that only become services if humans benefit from them, either directly or indirectly. This definition provides a good basis for relating LP to the ESS concept.

Definitions of terms corresponding to ESS in LP

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

the capacity of a landscape and its subspaces to sustainably fulfil basic, lasting and socially legitimised material or immaterial human demands. A landscape function is characterised by its value (with regard to satisfying the demands), its specific sensitivity against different pressures and the state of impairment. Landscape functions may also be described as development potential (Langer et al. 1985; von Haaren 2004).

One task of LP is to spatially and explicitly define landscape functions.

The understanding of ‘landscape’ in the context of LP and geography has been debated since the nineteenth century (cf. Riehl 1862; Seyfert 1903; Passagre 1920; Troll 1950; Schmithüsen 1976; Trepl 1995; Jessel 1998). The European Landscape Convention defines landscape as ‘an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors’ (Council of Europe 2000: chapter I, article I). Similarly in German LP, landscape is interpreted as ‘a region of the Earth and aesthetic, cultural, ecological and economic system which reflects the human perception and realisation’ (von Haaren 2001). Both definitions stress the human influence on and the human perception and understanding of landscape. The term ‘landscape’ is thus not strictly defined, nor is it precisely differentiated from the terms ‘territory’ and ‘space’ or ‘ecosystem’. Therefore, the term ‘landscape’ may be misunderstood: on the one hand, it has mental associations with scenery, and on the other hand, it has been defined using the descriptive classification approach of geography. However, an alternative is difficult to find, if a connection should be made to the collective historical associations, usefulness for practise and the variability of territory in time (Buchecker 1999: 32). The term ‘landscape’ can help in communicating planning purposes and objectives because it carries positive connotations, provides the human perspective and emphasises spatial aspects of the landscape.

The idea of societal benefits from ecosystem processes has for long been an issue for discussion in European geography and spatial planning (e.g. in the concept of natural territorial potentials by Bobeck and Schmithüsen (1949); Troll (1950); Neef (1966); Haase (1978)). Also the ‘functioning capacity’ of ecosystems is given normative connotations in the German Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG 2010). This normative understanding of ‘function’ differs from prevailing interpretations of the term in the ESS approach. The ESS concept usually restricts functions to ‘operations’ (Fisher et al. 2009). In this view, functions describe natural capacities, properties and processes in ecosystems (Costanza et al. 1997: 253) that form the basis for satisfying human needs (de Groot 1992). Thus the ESS approach uses function predominantly in a descriptive or explanatory way. This implies that every ecosystem is functioning, also, for example, a waste water ditch.

Altogether it can be stated that the definition of ‘landscape function’ in LP is overlapping with the understanding of ecosystem service in the ESS concept, however, it emphasises the role of underlying values and the depiction of the spatial reality under stronger selection criteria concerning the underlying societal demands (Figure 1).

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

Since the international discussion around the ESS concept uses similar terms, the meaning of ‘landscape function’ must always be clarified in order to provide a shared understanding. In the remainder of this paper, the term ‘landscape function’ stands for normative functions used in planning, comparable to the ‘final ESS’ in the classification of Fisher et al. (2009: 646).

Theoretical basis: inclusion of values

Values in the ESS concept

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

Values in the LP concept

For LP, a normative base, explicit or implicit, is indispensable for assessing landscape processes and components with respect to their contribution to landscape functions. LP is committed to ensuring public interests (see section ‘Objectives, purposes and implementation of LP’); therefore its guiding principles reflect societal values. The interests of private landowners should be kept in check by regulations that guarantee the long-term usability of natural resources. Larger issues, such as the interests of future generations or supra-local societal needs, must be considered although they may conflict with short-term, local demands.

The selection and evaluation standards for landscape function assessment are predominantly defined by governments (as elected, legitimised institutions) in international agreements (e.g. Agenda 21), legal frameworks (e.g. the EU's Water Framework and Habitat Directives (EC 1992, 2000)) as well as national and state environmental legislation. The implementation of these general goals into valuation standards is based on predefined values set by the government (e.g. protected species), reference mean values (e.g. national average) and/or expert estimation of endangerment (e.g. red lists). Impact assessments are based on threshold standards for pollution or impairment. Ecosystems equilibria and ‘tipping points’ are factors that help to set standards but they do not replace societal decisions about the preferred state of a system. Such goals or standards are translated by LP into spatially explicit objectives. This reliance on legally legitimised norms is without an alternative. The questions ‘Who defines the objectives and extent of environmental protection? How much is enough?’ can be addressed on an individual basis or in the scientific discussion. However, such statements are not binding for others. Moreover, the consequential transparent differentiation between compulsory and not-binding, desirable objectives is necessary in a state planning, as planning objectives may result in mandatory obligations for land owners which cannot be imposed on the subjects without a strong legitimisation. Landscape planners should be able to provide convincing reasons for their assessments and objectives and explain when and why private parties are obliged to comply because public planning often conflicts with individual interests.

This approach contrasts with the thinking of Daily et al. (2000) that values used in decision-making (and thus also in valuation assessment) should not to be imposed by the state, but rather that we should infer people's values which are revealed by actual decisions. Of course, participation is 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 competencies and limits. In political and land use decisions, legitimised standards frame what can be decided on the specific political decision tier. Some laws frame the decision arena for the sake of reducing conflicts and achieving short decision times. For example, local communities cannot decide about species protected by the EU, but farmers can freely choose their crop growing patterns as long as they comply with the legally defined good farming practice. However, the rules of good practice should comply with the precondition that the demands should be satisfied in a sustainable way (Agenda 21, EU Gothenburg strategy, national sustainability goals). If resources are overused beyond their capacities for regeneration, LP will stress this problem.

Theoretical basis: inclusion of human influence

Integration of human influences in ESS assessments

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

Integration of human influences in LP

LP includes land use and other human influence on the environment in the inventory and assessment of the actual state of normative landscape functions. Human influence is seen as a determining factor of the territorial shaping. Landscape functions comprise human elements and influences, for example, (beneficial) human influence on a biotope can generate high species diversity. A theoretically constructed ‘natural’ state is neither necessarily used as the point of reference in evaluation nor used as the aim of landscape development. Scientifically, the natural state is difficult to reconstruct. Also such a nature deterministic goal is not open to democratic decision-making.

Land management practices such as fertilising and harvesting are considered separately from the description of the state and value of landscape functions. These influences or ‘pressure’ factors may be much more variable than their combined impact on the landscape. Furthermore, they are considered as variables which may be changed by planning proposals. Thus the separated analysis of the human influence 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 as well as private goods or market and non-market goods.

Public and private goods in LP

LP considers non-market landscape functions and related goods because governmental interventions focus on supporting public interests. Functions that are important for the private economy are assumed to be satisfied by market mechanisms. The landscape function concept should accompany as well as confront economic approaches that view ecosystems as mere production factors and ignored long-term effects and non-market functions (similar: de Groot (1992)). However, landscape functions may be the preconditions for current or future market goods. Decision-making and public participation processes benefit from a clear differentiation between societal and private interests and concerns.

General methodological approach

Methodologies used in ESS assessment

Approaches to ESS assessment include methodologies for measuring ecosystem processes as well as for assessing their value. The (descriptive) measurement of ecosystem processes follows ‘function analysis’ to identify and quantify ecosystem processes as a basis for economic valuation (de Groot and Hein 2007). It considers scientific ecological categories such as energy, matter fluxes or proxies (of the latter) (Fisher et al. 2009: 648).

Accounting and monetary valuation of ESS require transferring different issues and assessments into one single measuring unit (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; cf. Costanza et al. 1997). Valuation criteria are usually benefits ‘perceived to be important by the specific users of an ecosystem services evaluation’ (Limburg et al. 2002; Fisher et al. 2009: 650). Common accounting methodologies calculate rehabilitation costs or determine stakeholder preferences (see Barkmann and Marggraf 2007; Fisher et al. 2009; Rajmis et al. 2009). Problems with measuring and assigning values to ESS include complexity and double counting that arise from assessing both a broad variety of intermediate ecosystem processes and individual benefits. Complexity also stems from the merging of methodologies of two disciplines (ecology and economy), often without a defined application context that would limit methodologies to the ones relevant for implementation.

Methodologies used in LP

In LP, only those ecosystem properties are selectively measured or represented by proxies which are relevant for (area) specific landscape functions. The methods used are determined by LP's role as an interface between natural science and governance (Bastian and Schreiber 1994) and Gruehn (2005); see section on goals). Basic scientific knowledge is transformed into operative knowledge, mainly via indicator-based methodologies. By that, the general environmental objectives (e.g. of the legislation) are translated into spatially explicit objectives and measures (von Haaren and Bathke 2008; von Haaren et al. 2008). Spatially explicit recommendations can be made based on the classification of the landscape into spatially overlapping and functionally interconnected compartments (e.g. soil, water, climate, flora) and subsequently into functionally characterised areas (e.g. biotopes, climatopes, water catchment areas). Furthermore, when possible, ecological processes can be assigned to spatial areas. For example, migration paths of an amphibian species are depicted as an area with special temporal importance for the maintenance of biodiversity, and it can be safeguarded by spatially concrete measures.

Landscape functions are assessed on an area-wide basis using methods adapted to the respective data situation. Moreover, the assessment distinguishes between areas of different importance. The ‘measurement’ of the relevant function properties results in quantitative (cardinally scaled) or qualitative descriptions of the characteristics. The valuation transforms these different units into ordinal scales (Figure 2). The assessment of the state of landscape functions covers their assigned value as well as their sensitivity against environmental loads, impairments and development potentials.

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

In comparison to the ESS methodologies, LP focuses less on basic ecosystem science, the measurement of individual benefits and accounting. Instead, it uses methods generating spatially explicit starting points for planning implementation measures.

Classification of ecosystem processes and their benefits for society

Classifications used in ESS assessments

Several different classification approaches for ESS exist. The diversity of classification and classification inconsistencies hamper, for example, the identification of joint products (added functions and services (Costanza et al. 1997: 253; Fisher et al. 2009: 651)). Fisher et al. (2009) suggested that the choice or design of ESS classifications should be based on the respective decision 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 different classifications that hold potential to bridge the gap to the LP classifications.

Classifications used in LP

LP differentiates the broad field of ESS (as defined above) into basic information about ecosystem processes and components, normative landscape functions and individual benefits and consumption (see Figure 1 and Table 1). LP concentrates on the following normative landscape functions which are insufficiently capitalised by commercial markets and thus need to be covered by public planning:

Table 1. Classification of landscape planning functions, mapped to the categories of ecosystem services (ESS) suggested by Fisher et al. (2009)

ESS categories after Fisher et al. (2009)
Intermediate services	Final services	Benefits
Corresponding categories of landscape planning
Ecologic functions: ecosystem/landscape processes, structures, components, descriptive, explanatory knowledge	(Normative) landscape functions: capacities of landscapes to sustainably fulfil basic, lasting and socially legitimised material or immaterial human demands	Individual benefits: individual utility welfare, individual activated benefits, market goods, actually used goods (can constitute pressure for landscape functions)
Pollination	Yields function for food and renewable raw materials (soil fertility)	Food (including seafood and game), fodder
Primary production (Conversion of solar energy into biomass)		Fuel (including wood and dung) Timber, fibres and other raw materials
Water regulation		Fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, biochemicals and industrial products
Soil retention		Spices
Soil formation  (material degradation) variety in (bio)chemical substances	Renewable energy function (capacities of the landscape)	Energy (hydropower, biomass, biofuels, geothermy, solar)
Variety of biota in natural ecosystems	Water provision function	Clean water (drinking water, irrigation water)
Nutrient dispersal and cycling.	Water retention function	Flood prevention, property protection, decreased livelihood vulnerability, stable macro climate
Seed dispersal	Climate protection function (maintenance of a favourable global climate by achievements of landscape/climatopes for carbon sequestration and storage)
Decomposition and detoxification, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission/storage/sequestration	Bioclimatic functions (for a meso- and micro-climate favourable for human well-being)	Cool and fresh air, favourable micro- and meso-climate for housing and recreation
	Geodiversity function	Scientific and educational information, spiritual and historic information
Other services	Biodiversity functions (diversity, variation and representation on the levels genome, species, population, bioceonosis, biotopes/ecosystem, ecosystem complex, concerning structure, processes, interaction and composition)	Happiness, ethical and spiritual principles fulfilled, well-being, adventure, information
		Pollination of crops
		Hunting, gathering, fishing
		Drugs and pharmaceutical use
		Biological control
	Landscape aesthetic/experience function (valuation of the function is based on knowledge about collective preferences)	Aesthetic and educational information
		Recreation and (eco)tourism
		Cultural and artistic inspiration
		Spiritual and historic information
	Other functions

•	The yields or production function for food and renewable raw materials is differentiated and evaluated based on criteria of environmental sustainability. This covers the production factors that are constituted by soil, geomorphology, climate as well as habitats in their function for pest control. The sustainable, long-term conservation especially of fertile soils (e.g. by protection from urban land uses or by erosion prevention) is not rewarded at present by market mechanisms.
•	The geodiversity function represents soil, morphological and geological units according to their rareness, scientific and cultural value as an archive of landscape history.
•	The water provision function rates spatial units according to the quantity and accessibility of ground or surface water. Also this function is partly included in commercial markets. In LP, the allocation of water provision functions concerns the water supply in the landscape, not the actual demand for drinking water.
•	The water retention function covers the importance of the landscape for flood protection by differentiating (i) spatial units according to their soil, morphology and vegetation properties and (ii) floodplains according to location and size.
•	The climate protection function differentiates spatial units according to their function as sink, storage or source of greenhouse gases.
•	The bioclimatic function represents the micro- and meso-climate qualities of spatial units functioning as source areas for cool or fresh air from which humans may benefit.
•	The biodiversity function characterises and assesses spatial units according to their (potential and actual) function for supporting and safeguarding biodiversity (understood as diversity, variation and representation on the levels genome, species, population, bioceonosis, biotopes/ecosystem, ecosystem complex, concerning structure, processes, interaction and compositions (Noss 1990; Waldhardt and Otte 2000; BNatSchG 2010). This information is supplemented with information about selected target species.
•	The landscape aesthetic/experience function constitutes landscape units according to their beauty as perceived by humans.

Most services mentioned in other classifications (e.g. de Groot et al. 2002; MEA 2005; Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Kienast et al. 2009) can be included in the categories in Table 1, either as information about basic ecosystem processes, normative landscape functions or their vulnerability or as individual benefits. Some ecosystem properties which are classified as a separate service or function in many ESS approaches (e.g. soil protection function, waste treatment function) are treated in LP only as a property of a landscape functions. For example, low soil erodibility is not a value in itself. Depending on the functions of the site, soil erodibility may be either a threat to the yields function or an important aspect of a pioneer biotope.

The differentiated categorisation of ESS (in Table 1) is relevant for targeted implementation and efficient assignment of resources (Haber 1971).The need, for example, for financially supporting environmental protection activities depends on their capitalisation on commercial markets. Also synergies of measures can be identified in assessing the importance of an area for multiple landscape functions/final services (joint products).

Methodological approach: dealing with scale

ESS and scale

Up to now, ESS have been evaluated on large spatial scales (e.g. Costanza et al. 1997; Kienast et al. 2009). Fisher et al. (2009: 650) suggested to consider spatial relationships between ESS provision and benefit areas which can be identical, omni-directional (surrounding area benefiting) or directional (benefits occur only in one direction from source, e.g. downstream). Hein et al. (2006: 210, 225) gave an example for addressing the differences between the spatial scale of ESS generation and institutional scale of stakeholder benefits. As shown by Zaccarelli et al. (2008), ecological cross-scale effects must be an important aspect of ESS assessments.

Scales in LP

LP is carried out on different spatial scales which are determined by political decision tiers and the respective spatial boundaries of political influence. Scale matters in LP concerning evaluations of the importance of a specific landscape function as well as the selection of appropriate measures for sustaining the provision of this function. The importance of a landscape function depends on its scarcity/endangerment on different scales (international, national, regional or local importance). The landscape plan should propose development measures that reflect the responsibilities and accountability of decision-makers on the respective planning tier (Schedler 1999). Moreover, LP can point out responsibility discrepancies, if environmental impacts of decisions affect areas beyond the territory where the respective decision-makers are competent and responsible (Figure 3).

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

Transboundary landscape functions and planning measures (e.g. supra-regional habitat networks, river rehabilitation areas or national parks) are treated as planning problems on the respective higher decision tier, which covers a larger area. In the local landscape plan the landscape functions that have supra-local relevance, such as endangered biotopes, are usually adopted from the regional landscape plan and marked as ‘not available’ for local discretion. However, the benefits of planning are frequently seen at spatial and temporal scales that are different from the actual planning area and timeframe. For example, a species that is locally abundant may be valuable because it is rare and endangered in a global context. Another case in point is the adaptation of land use to meet climate protection goals. This may involve restrictions for local farmers and foresters, but it benefits the global community and future generations.

Role of public participation

ESS and participation

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

LP and participation

In LP, only legitimised (usually elected) representatives make final planning decisions. However, environmental planning contributes information to decision-making. Public participation is needed for gaining additional information about local problems and citizen's preferences. Furthermore, mutual exchange of information and collaboratively addressing an issue provide an opportunity to increase the public's sense of responsibility towards nature 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 objective of the ESS approach which resulted in several methodologies (cf. Fisher et al. 2009: 649). Especially on the national and supra-national level, the calculations of monetary value seem to have more influence on policymaking than scientific information or lamentations about the loss of ecosystem functions. For example, the Stern report (2006) about the cost of climate change finally stimulated an active political discussion after years of fruitless debate among climate researchers. Likewise, the recent synthesis publication of the study ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (2010) that highlighted the potential contributions of ESS for regional development has received wide interest among the media, policymakers and stakeholder groups.

Monetary valuation in LP

A landscape plan can be used as a basis for monetary valuation, for example, to identify areas suitable for producing nature conservation goods as well as to calculate production potentials (cf. Figure 4).

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

In general, German landscape planners are suspicious of monetary valuation. The early 1980s saw an extensive debate about monetary valuation (e.g. Hampicke et al. 1991) that culminated in the confrontation of Kant's statement that pricing something (by that making it exchangeable) and dignity exclude each other (Kant 1785; cf. Radke 1998) and the antithesis of Frederic Vester (1984) who valued a Bluethroat with 154.09 Euro per year. Thereafter, the German debate halted. It has been revived only recently with the emergence of international ESS research.

Nonetheless, accounting methods and even monetary valuation thrived in a subfield of LP application: The environmental impact regulation (under the Federal Nature Conservation Act 2002 Art. 18 and the Federal Building Code) requires standardised methods for calculating the need for compensation in individual cases (Rundcrantz and Skärbäck 2003; Wende et al. 2005). The application of these methods in German planning practice since 1976 sheds light on the potentials and difficulties of accounting and monetary valuation of ESS. The basic procedure of the impact regulation is a decision cascade that aims to avoid impairments and to determine material compensation for lost functions of the ecosystem (cf. similar requirements at the European level, European Council (2001, 2004)).

In the standard case, the function should be restored to the same area and in the same manner and value (impact: compensation area = 1:1) (Figure 5). The valuation of the landscape functions in LP can be used as an information basis for this step. If that is not possible, for example, because the lost function needs too much time for restoration, material substitution for the lost functions is allowed in a different manner but with the same value. For this step the principles of planning methodology are abandoned and area is multiplied by value in order to calculate the area needed for substitution by different measures.

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

This procedure also allows for implementing eco-banking and compensation pools. An alternative method for calculating the substitution amount, although not wide spread, is to use the restoration cost as a reference unit and to calculate the compensation measures accordingly. Advantages of both accounting systems are that (i) money can be spent on a small site in order to establish high value function or vice versa and (ii) developers as well as municipalities have an incentive to look for the least vulnerable areas for development (in the landscape plan). The compensation of ecosystems with long development times and demanding rehabilitation requirements is more expensive.

The ultima ratio of the decision cascade is the monetary substitution. However, the practice until now has several difficulties: Prices are mostly politically determined and they are not calculated using the restoration cost approach. In summary, the environmental management accounting methods have been developed for the local scale whereas the ESS accounting focuses on the supra-regional level.

Discussion

Comparing the concepts of LP and ESS assessment reveals limitations and potentials of the LP approach, which are summarised in Table 2. As LP and the ESS approach both seem to expand their applications and methodologies to new tasks and spatial scales (e.g. Hein et al. 2006), the two approaches can benefit from merging their respective strengths.

Table 2. Specific limitations and potentials of the landscape planning (LP) approach to ecosystem services (ESS)

	ESS approach	Specific approach (and limitations) of LP	Potential benefits of merging
Decision, implementation context
Objectives, purposes, applications	Communication, tendency regulation (not case specific or area specific);	Public environmental planning;	Broaden application options, better connection to governance approaches on different scales, support of both tendency and detail regulation approaches;
	Illustration of economic contributions of ecosystems to Green GDP Influence of application low; terminology and classification defined by traditions in economic and ecologic sciences	Maintenance, rehabilitation of ecosystem functions;	Support of new planning applications like summative accounting on different scales
		Supporting spatial decision-making
Theoretical basis
Definition, characteristics, dealing with normativity, human influence, public, private goods aspects	Most definitions restricted to natural ecosystem properties;	Normative character of functions based on goals and standards set by legitimised political decisions (usually in legislation);	Reflection about underlying values in ecosystem service approach;
	Discussion about underlying values is not very developed: stressing of individual values and stakeholder preferences on the one hand, danger of nature determinism on the other;	Identification of limits of local, regional decision competencies, preparation of political decisions;	Development of ways how to include individual benefits into public planning
	Legal framework and political (representative) system not systematically included;	Functions characterised by potential, sensitivity and impairments; human influence may be part of value as well as impairment of function;
	Public as well as private goods are covered	Influence of application has been strong (from the beginning) on terminology and structure;
		Stresses public goods; considers non-rival goods if these are sustainably used
Methodological approach
Methodologies, assessment proceedings	ESS are measured in physical and biological terms or by user-centred proxies (often willingness to pay);	In principle LP is restricted to measuring only public services; it covers state, value, sensitivity, potential, impairment by indicator-based methods (ecological risk assessment or the Driving forces, Pressures, States, Impacts and Responses (DPSIR) Model);	Ecological risk assessment of LP can foster a better integration of recent condition and threats into ESS assessment; methodologies and standards of LP can help to better integrate spatial and temporal disparities in valuation of ESS (needs of future generations and supra-local interests)
	High complexity arises from accounting ecosystem processes as well as individual benefits	Uses legally based valuation standards
Classification, selection of relevant properties	- Spectrum of services very wide; distinction between intermediary, final services and benefits proposed (Fisher et al. 2009)	- Selection of functions: a) only non-commercial market, long-term human demands, legally legitimised b) preceding ecosystem processes, properties are included as preconditions;	- Reduction of number of services to be counted and prevention of double counting by excluding intermediate services; better differentiating of public and private goods and including them for different planning/accounting purposes
		- LP includes user-dependent end benefits very rudimentary, not systematically, and only as an information important for communication or implementation
Spatial concreteness	- Intermediate services are/should be usually spatially concrete; for accounting final benefits and goods are not spatially specified	- Spatially concrete and specified, different spatial boundaries of different functional characteristics	- Use of LP data as a base for aggregation into non-spatial accounting units
Multifunctionality	- Joint production	- Spatial geographic information system (GIS) intersection leads to multifunctional measures, identification of synergies	- Methods of LP can contribute to systematically identify potentials for synergies
Reference, relation to spatial scales	- Mostly on upper political scales, (national, international)	- Mostly on lower political scales (local, regional, state)	- Connecting the ESS approach to government on regional and local scale; more accounting in LP
Role and ways of communication
Public participation	- Communication usually on high political decision tiers	- Communication mostly on local, regional scale;	- Use communication potential of ESS monetary valuation for LP; use experiences of LP concerning selecting topics of public participation, multi channel communication for ESS on local, regional level
		- Public participation for preparing decisions;
		- High importance of acceptability of planning objectives
Monetary valuation, cost benefit	- Supra-regional scale predominant	- Calculation of cost of measures;	- Methodological supplementation from ESS: economic monetary valuation methods (planning has to prepare data accordingly)
		- Methods for impact and compensation accounting on local, regional scale	- Contributions from LP: Assessment methods, intervention regulation methods for accounting, monetary valuation (cost of re-establishment)

LP differs from ESS in definition, classification, the role of values and human influence on ecosystems, the scale of decision competencies as well as the integration of public participation. Such differences stem primarily from the early, practical implementation of environmental planning on local and regional scales. The related potentials and limitations of LP in comparison to the ESS approach can be interpreted as follows:

1.	Definitions and categories of classification used in environmental planning stress not only that ESS are (and in Europe even rarely) produced by natural ecosystems, but that human influence is part of the ecosystems as well as the desired services. This is underpinned by using the term ‘landscape’. Methods and application focus on the (normative) landscape functions (termed ‘final services’ in Fisher et al. (2009)) and not on the individual benefits. The synopsis of the two approaches reveals that the LP approach deals with the role of values in a more transparent way. LP explicitly acknowledges the influence of values already in the selection of ecosystem properties for characterising ESS. The bases for valuation are normative thresholds and standards set by legislation and political decisions. This approach may have potential for a more transparent valuation of ESS and can also help to avoid nature determinism, assuming that the ESS approach aims at human welfare (see Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009).
2.	The characterisation of landscape functions is always location-dependent and includes the development potential as well as the specific sensitivity of the functions to different types and intensities of pressure. This procedure has potential for a wider ESS approach because it provides a place-based implementation, for which pressure factors as well as potentials have to be addressed. Consequences for the classification are that sensitivities (e.g. for soil erosion) are not addressed as separate services.
3.	The LP classification categories can embed a wide range of ESS and provide orientation for different implementation strategies. This approach may stimulate the discussion about whether the pre-normative basic ecosystem components and processes should be called services. LP methodologies that identify and assess normative landscape functions could also be used for accounting. More scientific investigation is needed in order to substantiate these methods.
4.	LP as a governmental action focuses on public goods and excludes many commercial market goods from the accounting. This approach has pros and cons, which depend on the application purpose. Integrating the accounting of market goods could help LP to choose strategies for communication and implementation. In turn, practical applications of ESS accounting could gain from separating public and private goods. This would help to avoid double counting, but also to clarify public and private interests in stakeholder participation processes and to choose appropriate implementation instruments (i.e. when do we need to use legislation or tax money for incentives?).
5.	In comparison to the ESS approach, LP methodologies are more focused on small- to medium-scale management problems. They do not usually involve quantitative accounting. However, as landscape functions are always spatially explicit, the step to accounting (in area units) is small.
6.	As for participation, tier-specific competencies and limits of participation are clarified and illustrated in LP. Respective principles could also be applied in ESS-accounting approaches. It is important that the terminology is understandable for laymen: the term ‘landscape function’ has been successfully used in German LP. However, international ecological research interprets the term differently, giving cause for misunderstandings.
7.	Accounting and monetary valuation are more developed in the ESS approach. In LP, general reservations about monetary valuation in the impact regulation hinder a wider use. However, the potential benefits of monetary valuation for communication have not been sufficiently explored.

The results of the comparison of the two approaches (based primarily on literature analysis and examples from German LP) cannot be generalised without considering specific limitations. German LP may be one of possible models for new LP systems in countries which have ratified the European landscape convention (cf. the regional landscape plan of Sardinia (Abis 2010)). However, LP represents an example of the ‘conservative continental’ welfare and planning system (Dühr et al. 2010: 378). Spatial planners in Germany as in many European countries are not accustomed to viewing their own position within the perspective of the European or global spatial planning structure as a whole (Dühr et al. 2010: 379). A broader view of the use of ESS accounting at higher decision levels may support positioning planning projects not only into a broader geographical but also a broader governance context.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the further development of ESS theory may benefit from LP's practical experiences in the assessment and application of information on ESS at the local scale. Vice versa, environmental planning may find interesting insights in the approaches to economic valuation employed in the most often regional and (inter-)national approaches to ESS assessments. Up to now LP methodologies seem to be better adapted to support ESS assessment on lower governance tiers. Thus they may contribute to a comprehensive ESS methodology toolbox, which covers all governance levels. A number of suggestions can be made for stimulating discussions and supporting the further development of such an integrated approach.

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

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

•	The reference state for valuations should not be the untouched natural world, but rather normative standards that consider anthropogenic influences.
•	As the ESS concept is normative and focuses on normatively selected properties of the environment, ESS definitions in democratic systems need to relate to societal and human demands and decisions about values that are determined in legitimised political processes.
•	Individual benefits should be separated from the societal interests and benefits in ESS. In this way, the transparency and efficiency of regulation activities can be better supported or targeted (Figure 6).
•	Spatial depiction of ESS, which environmental planning offers, can improve the validity of accounting results (Urban et al. 2011). Furthermore, the integration of methods for assessing human impact may improve relevance of accounting outcomes for implementation.
•	Considering the discretion level of the planning or decision tier helps to define the scope of public participation. Reflecting about decision competencies also sheds light on the context of using methods to elicit stakeholder preferences such as ‘willingness to pay’. These approaches can be used to determine and legitimise taxes, levies or entrance fees. However, it may not be used to assign monetary values to public goods in cases where the value for global populations or future generations cannot be determined.
•	The choice of methodologies for practical application of monetary valuation depends on the strategic objective of the specific decision context, and it must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the methodology.

On lower governance tiers where planning is usually the predominant tool for considering ESS accounting of individual benefits and monetary valuation offer the opportunity to

•	better include private interests in the analysis of implementation conditions,
•	integrate economic consequences in the impact evaluation of land use scenarios,
•	support regulation activities which require aggregated non-spatially explicit results and
•	develop a methodological approach for parallel monetary ‘bookkeeping’, especially in Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA).

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

•	How to tackle risks of playing off ESS values against each other and against commercial market values (weak sustainability)? Especially in local decisions, the pros and cons of monetary valuation have to be carefully weighed.
•	Will monetary valuation and respective practical pricing of biodiversity and landscape beauty lead to a depreciation of ESS because people may be disenchanted with nature?

The bottom line is that a stronger methodological cooperation among ESS theorists, ecologists, economists and planning scientists offers promising theoretical and methodological potential for all. Furthermore, the application of the ESS concept in communication and practical decision-making on all decision tiers holds much potential for improvement.