Ecosystem services: building informed policies to orient landscape dynamics

Ecosystem services in environmental management, policies and planning

In reaction to traditional environmental management approaches grounded on the paradigm ‘control change in systems’ (Quay 2010), ecosystem services (ES) have emerged as a novel way of understanding ecosystem and landscape dynamics, including landscape change, and interactions and flows between human and natural systems. ES have recently been redefined as the ‘contributions of ecosystem structure and function – in combination with other inputs – to human well-being’ (Burkhard et al. 2012, p. 2). This new notion of ‘other inputs’ refers to the significant, mainly anthropogenic, modifications of ecosystem functions in form of, for example, inputs of energy, fertilizers, labor, knowledge or other forms of material or information. Other definitions refer to ES as benefits for societies deriving from some ecosystem functions (Haines-Young & Potschin 2010). This definition puts in evidence that not all ecosystem functions are identified or constitute benefits for human societies, but are instead subjected to a process of selection and recognition by the beneficiaries of the final ES (Wolff et al. 2015).

The central role of humans in the concept of ES is seen as an advantage to assist decision-making processes, where decision-makers, stakeholders, scientists and practitioners reflect and contribute on ES toward a specific policy goal.

The focus of this Special Issue is on ES as a tool to support and inform decisions in landscape-related policies and planning. The Issue considers methodologies for the identification of ES beneficiaries and providers, investigating interrelationships between landscape structures, ecosystem functions, ES and human benefits. At the same time, ES potentials and flows are addressed in the context of landscape dynamics and change as well as social dynamics.

Ecosystem services as a process of coproduction of knowledge

By their very nature, ES do not necessarily exist as such. Since different stakeholder groups perceive ES differently, ES should be analyzed in the contexts of the beneficiaries or related to demand for ES (e.g., some ES are not equally beneficial for different groups of the population; Hauck et al. 2013a, 2013b). When accounting for these different perceptions, research on ES can be interpreted as resulting from a coproduction process of knowledge between scientists, stakeholders and decision-makers. Such a process is set according to different factors and considerations, including

1. Geographical domain/scope: identification of the territorial and temporal extent and resolution of assessment and its boundaries according to landscape characteristics, accounting for possible decoupling and displacement effects.

2. Decision-making domain/scope: identification of the specific decision-making questions that will be tackled by the ES assessment.

3. Capacity/potential: identification and quantification of ES that an area can (potentially) provide.

4. ES beneficiaries: identification of the end users who will benefit from the ES.

5. ES managers: individuals or agents, such as farmers, who are in charge to support and manage ES provision.

ES are currently being investigated with respect to different components of ES, including ecosystem functions, ES capacity/potential, ES supply (stock), actual ES use (flow), ES value and demand for ES (Crossman et al. 2013; Villamagna et al. 2013; Burkhard et al. 2014; Serna-Chavez et al. 2014; Schröter et al. 2014; Wolff et al. 2015). However, the link to decision-making processes is delegated to another phase, formally separating the five steps of the ES ‘cascade’ approach (Haines-Young & Potschin 2010; van Zanten et al. 2014). Several scientific projects on ES claim to support decision-making, but the adopted ES assessment approaches are only rarely developed in collaboration with decision-makers and stakeholders (Hauck et al. 2013a). The papers of this Special Issue reflect and demonstrate challenges in integrating the ES approach in decision-making. The setting and framework of ES assessments and the related experimental design share several aspects with the setting of the decision-making process. For example, in ES assessments, stakeholder engagement is considered to identify perceived preferences and values to be associated to ES benefits. At the same time, stakeholder engagement is also considered as a key issue in decision-making, for example, in adaptive management (Folke et al. 2005). In the contributions of this Special Issue, it emerges that preferences and values expressed in ES assessments can be considered in decision-making processes (Beichler 2015; Greenhalgh & Hart 2015) when evaluating trade-offs between planning options. Moreover, the legal framework in which ES are investigated, as well as the target and the domain of their assessment, are in strict connection with the domain of decision-making processes, which usually do not coincide as they are based on administrative boundaries.

The ES approach should be tailored according to the decision-making goal, its domain and spatiotemporal scale, as well as to the geographical domain because (i) ES research is often problem-oriented and ES are selected according to the topic of analysis, the theme, or the focus of the study; (ii) ES are place-based and scale-dependent both in relation to the scale of the ES analysis (Andersson et al. 2015), as well as to the relationship between ES and the decision-making process (Hauck et al. 2013a). Moreover, ES and their flow depend on environmental, social and economic conditions of the places where they are produced and benefited (Serna-Chavez et al. 2014); and finally (iii) ES are time-based as they reflect the state of the social-ecological system at the time of the analysis.

Focus of the special issue: ecosystem services as link between science and policy

The articles in the Special Issue investigate ES and the interrelations between ecosystem functions, ES and human benefits. ES assessments are elaborated within processes of knowledge coproduction, where measuring, assessing, mapping and finally valorizing ES should be based on the links between ES managers, benefits and beneficiaries. ES-based management involves paradigm shifts in ecosystem and resource management that also require institutional adjustments. Respective institutions have to act on spatial and temporal scales that match with the scales of ES supply and demand (Burkhard et al. 2012). This is especially relevant with regard to the new European Biodiversity Strategy and its 2020 targets and a clear focus on ES.¹ Hence, the interaction and dialogue between different disciplines play a special role in this Special Issue.

The following key questions are central to the articles in the Special Issue:

• What are the opportunities and challenges of applying ES in science and policy?

• Which are the interrelations between ecosystem functions, ES and human benefits?

• How can measuring, assessing, mapping and valorizing ES contribute to knowledge coproduction about the link between ES managers, benefits and beneficiaries?

• Which institutional adjustments are needed for paradigm shifts in ecosystem and resource management?

Based on the articles in the Special Issue, two different implementations of the ES concept can be distinguished with respect to decision-making. The first is a more traditional one, that is, ES can be envisaged as the object of the decision-making process. This approach reflects on natural resource management considering not only environmental protection, conservation and restoration per se, but demonstrating benefits and values of nature/ecosystems to human well-being through ES (Badola et al. 2015; Beichler 2015; Hohenthal et al. 2015). On the other hand, the ES concept can be adopted to inform decision-making as an approach to reformulate the way decisions are formulated, elaborated and taken (Bark et al. 2015; Beichler 2015; Greenhalgh & Hart 2015; Logsdon et al. 2015; Rosenthal et al. 2015). The ES approach is adopted to reshape the various phases of a decision-making process and to inform about new contents (such as relationships between ecosystem functions, ES capacity, flow, benefits and values) relevant for the formulation of decisions. Moreover, under this second approach, stakeholder engagement and participation are considered from the ES perspective, integrating the perspectives of beneficiaries and end users, ES managers, and decision-makers with their perceptions and preferences with respect to natural resources. Under this wider perspective, different decision-making contexts can be informed by the ES approach (well demonstrated in this Issue by Rosenthal et al. 2015), from natural resources management (Badola et al. 2015; Greenhalgh & Hart 2015), to water management (Bark et al. 2015; Hohenthal et al. 2015), agricultural policies (Logsdon et al. 2015) and urban planning (Beichler 2015).

The Special Issue addresses some common challenges, such as the operationalization of the ES approach at different levels. Some authors focus on singular stages of the ES assessment experimental design (engagement of stakeholders – Logsdon et al. 2015; integrating cultural ES in water planning – Bark et al. 2015; mapping cultural ES for vulnerability assessment – Beichler 2015). Rosenthal et al. (2015) propose a general reflection on the entire experimental design of ES assessments, while Greenhalgh and Hart (2015) and Badola et al. (2015) discuss how policymaking responds in its evolution to the ES concept. Hohenthal et al. (2015) reflect on changes in water-related ES, underlining the importance of the management history and of social ecological conditions at once, while Beichler (2015) reflect on the importance of mapping ES demand and supply in vulnerability assessments.

As emerging from the Special Issue, the ES approach can integrate and enrich existing decision-making, unveiling opportunities for more equitable and transparent processes while involving underrepresented community groups (Bark et al. 2015; Hohenthal et al. 2015; Rosenthal et al. 2015) and acquiring different types of knowledge.

Decision-making processes and legislative contexts are not considered as a separate ‘backside’ for natural resource management and conservation. While gathering data to quantify ES is a key challenge for informing decision-making (Badola et al. 2015; Greenhalgh & Hart 2015; Hohenthal et al. 2015; Rosenthal et al. 2015), identifying, characterizing and operationalizing the role and meaning of ES in decision-making also provide another major challenge. Furthermore, it is frequently identified that in terms of communication there are difficulties in the ES language and terminology and in achieving a shared understanding of the ES concept between scientists, decision-makers and stakeholders (Abson et al. 2014). Evidence-based added value is mentioned as a possible strategy to discuss and support the integration of the ES approach in decision-making processes (Greenhalgh & Hart 2015).

All authors contributing to this Special Issue achieved their results based on the involvement of stakeholders and local communities, through participatory mapping, structured workshops, interviews, questionnaires and surveys. Moreover, the papers of the Special Issue reflect on the necessity of clear institutional management structures and related policies, which are deemed essential to act and support the integration of ES assessments into decision-making at legislative and regulatory levels, which refers to formal interactions between institutional bodies (sensu Folke et al. 2005). Coordination and integration of a multisectoral perspective are consequently essential to support the ES approach’s implementation in decision-making processes (Rosenthal et al. 2015).

Finally, the authors derive their findings not only from research but also from their experience in implementing research matured through learning-by-doing. Besides the evidences from the results, other parallel findings emerge from the ES approach’s application in real decision-making contexts. The studies presented in this Special Issue might set the base for implementing a community of practice on ES in policy. Wenger (1998) stresses that a community of practice involves practitioners in a specific domain, aiming at learning from the exchange on practices. Learning-by-doing can support the effectiveness of integrating the ES approach in decision-making, reflecting on emerging challenges and possible tailored solutions within a context of applied-science-in-policy.

Rosenthal et al. (2015) identify five enabling conditions toward the success of ES assessments’ integration into policymaking, according to their experiences within the Natural Capital Project. The five aspects (described by the authors as the ‘5 Ps’) include the integration of the ES assessment within specific policy questions and policy windows, where policymakers are willing to acquire and adopt the results within decision-making processes. The involvement of local decision-makers, for their leadership position, is considered a key point to acknowledge a deep understanding of local decision contexts as well as pertinent data for the decision at stake. The fifth P concerns an iterative science policy process, where participation, iteration and re-visitation of step-by-step results by experts, decision makers and involved stakeholders support a transparent engagement and co-production of outcomes. The 5 Ps are envisaged as preconditions to be taken in mind when setting an ES assessment, as well as to be verified along with the implementation of the process. Empirical lessons are drawn from six case studies, which are broad in scope, in different types of informed policies and in geographical representativeness, but methodologically grounded on InVEST model applications (Rosenthal et al. 2015). Besides the step-by-step framework and iterative path which define the structure for the ES assessment’s implementation in decision-making, a key finding by Rosenthal et al. (2015) relates to the fact that each case study revealed its own peculiarities, and that the steps are tailored to the local decision context, as well as to the capacity to activate stakeholders’ engagement, iteration and capacity building.

Greenhalgh and Hart (2015) report on their experience in integrating the ES concept and approach in New Zealand based on a series of studies they developed: (i) at the governmental level with regional councils for spatial planning; (ii) with the business sector to strengthen business strategies and (iii) at the community level to identify stakeholder dependencies, impacts and support to ES. They discuss five main challenges arising from their experiences: knowledge, indicators, indigenous cultural services, language and communication. To justify the need for innovation of established procedures and processes, the authors stress on the importance of demonstrating the ‘evidence-based’ added value of the ES approach to decision-makers and stakeholders. A main added value is recognized in supporting decision-making toward a more transparent process, as well as incorporating traditional knowledge. However, the representativeness of the stakeholders within the ES assessment process remains a challenge as well as the significance of data and ES indicators for decision-making, as adopted indicators often do not correspond with available and populated ones. A key finding by Greenhalgh and Hart (2015) relates to the fact that the ES approach can complement existing decision-making processes, integrating different stakeholders’ perspectives as well as unveiling new knowledge. Within ES assessments, scientists are called to engage in communication and mediation. The authors acknowledge the challenge of basic understanding of language and the sharing of concepts for a successful integration of ES within policymaking, as well as the relevance of the ‘awareness of cultural differences and strong interpersonal relationship’ (p. 8) to grasp different stakeholders’ perspectives.

Badola et al. (2015) analyze policy instruments related to natural resources and the environment in the Indian Himalayan region from 1927 till 2008. They dismantle the ES concept to identify seven parameters to be applied in the analysis and depict mechanisms for equitable access to resources and incentives, as well as to their efficient utilization and protection, and property rights. The results report that Indian policy measures have been prominently regulatory. Informatory and marked-based instruments have only recently been adopted. The authors report that a combination of instruments for biodiversity conservation and ES provision would be more effective to answer to the mechanisms of production and support of human well-being from ES. The combination of instruments responds also to the multiple and cross-cutting nature of ES, whose policy and management measures are embedded in multiple sectors.

Hohenthal et al. (2015) analyze the state of ecosystems and changes in water-related ES in a case study area in Kenya (Taita Hills), considering the drivers and responses of local institutions and communities. The methodology adopted by the study is based on a revision of the DPSIR model called DPAESR by introducing ES, human perception and historical experience of environmental changes. Specific attention is devoted to ‘concrete human actions’, which play a pivotal role in the model, intercepting cause–effect relationships at the local scale between drivers and pressures with the state of ecosystems and related ES. Perceptions and preferences as well as different types of knowledge, such as ‘local practical knowledge and skills’ (p. 11) and ‘non-scientific knowledge’ (p. 11), can be recollected under the DPAESR model, informing decision-making processes in data-poor regions for qualitative assessments. As key finding, Hohenthal et al. (2015) stress the importance of considering history, not only as changes in ecosystem dynamics but also as changes in land policy and regulation, which can strongly influence provisioning and flow of ES. Privatization and land adjudication are identified as main causes of environmental degradation and related ES decrease. Multisectorial cooperation and the reconsideration of land and resource ownerships are at stake for a sustainable use of ES.

The contribution of Bark et al. (2015) focuses on the operationalization of the ES approach in water planning through the integration of indigenous cultural values in the Murray–Darling basin in Australia. While analyzing and distinguishing between values and benefits, the authors put in evidence that a comprehensive and inclusive definition of cultural values is at stake for an effective integration of ES in decision-making processes. Such classification serves to define possible data gaps and management synergies. Another key finding relates to the scales of the analysis within the ES assessment. The scale should be sensitive not only to ecological considerations but also to indigenous perspectives and priorities. Implications in water planning include possible new forms of management, tailored on expressed indigenous values and aspirations. An important finding of the analysis resides in the fact that, besides the analysis of indigenous values, it is important to understand and to simultaneously manage social and ecological aspects, which are strictly intertwined. Connectivity is claimed to exist not only in its spatial dimension, but also between temporal scales and between people and ecosystems. The adopted method is also useful in identifying possible synergies between different legislations and planning instruments and to give an operational path to multisectoral integration.

Beichler (2015) investigates relations between ES supply and demand, integrating social factors into their assessment in order to understand the vulnerability of social-ecological systems. The author argues that stakeholder participation forms the base for assessments of both perceived vulnerability and ES (and specifically cultural ES (CES)). The analysis of CES and vulnerability is conducted through participatory mapping in the urban region of Rostock (Germany). The potential use of the integrated ES supply-demand map in vulnerability assessments is discussed. The spatial characterization of the urban region is elaborated on the ES supply and demand distribution. Such maps can contribute to spatial planning with respect to ‘hot’ and ‘cold spots’ of ES supply and demand. The number of ES supplying areas and the diversity of CES supply emerge to be relevant in the relation between ES and human well-being. Overlap analyses between CES supply and perceived vulnerability and impacts on ES demand can be used to elaborate tailored measures on specific services in areas of specific ES undersupply.

The contribution of Logsdon et al. (2015) is centered around the analysis of farmers’ and conservationists’ perceptions of ES in an agricultural case study in Indiana (USA). The analysis is dedicated to acquire and identify the understanding of ES. Logsdon et al. (2015) investigate perceptions of ES benefits, beneficiaries, stewards and persons responsible for ES management and supply. The analysis depicts the knowledge emerging from practice through interviews and surveys. Moreover, it supports a clearer understanding of ES benefits for the society – even if not explicitly mentioned as such – as well as of trade-offs between land types, both for farmers and conservationists. This analysis constitutes a major step in engaging farmers in policy discussions. It assesses farmers’ awareness about their role and responsibility in managing ES, which is linked with their everyday practice. The findings can be used to inform a process of managing multiple ES in farms, both benefiting conservation and farming activities, to move forward the current orientation centered in supporting food provisioning mainly.

The seven contributions in this Special Issue provide an excellent overview of ongoing ES research and show practical applications in different case studies. We hope that the results can be harnessed to build better informed policies to orient landscape dynamics.

Peter H. Verburg

Department of Earth Sciences, VU University Amsterdam

Benjamin Burkhard

Institute for Natural Resource Conservation, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel and Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research ZALF Müncheberg

Elena Gissi

Department of Design and Planning in Complex Environments, Università Iuav di Venezia

[email protected]

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Acknowledgements

The guest editors would like to thank the authors for providing their contributions to the Special Issue as well as Rudolf de Groot and Alexander van Oudenhoven for supporting the publishing of the Special Issue. The Special Issue contains seven contributions arisen from the Symposia ‘Ecosystem Services: Building Informed Policies to orient Landscape Dynamics’ and ‘Land system change impacts on European landscapes’ that were organized by the Special Issue guest editors at the 2013 IALE European Congress ‘Changing European Landscapes. Landscape Ecology Local to Global (http://www.iale2013.eu/)’ in Manchester in September 2013.

Notes

1. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/2020.htm