Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

From explanation to application: introducing a practice-oriented ecosystem services evaluation (PRESET) model adapted to the context of landscape planning and management

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The development and use of the conceptual framework of ecosystem services (ES) has been very successful in supporting the broad diffusion and application of ES within science and policy communities. However, most of the currently proposed interpretations of the framework neither correlate to environmental planning nor to decision-making contexts at the local and regional scale, which is a potential reason for the slow adoption and practice of the ES conceptual framework. This paper proposes a practice-oriented ES evaluation (PRESET) model specifically adapted to the requirements of local and regional planning and decision-making contexts, and discusses its potential benefits and implications for practice. Through the usage of PRESET we suggest making a distinction between ‘offered ES’, ‘utilized ES’, ‘human input’, and ‘ES benefits’ as relevant information for decision-making. Furthermore, we consider it important to link these decision-support categories to different value dimensions relevant in planning and management practice. PRESET provides guidance to inject the ES concept into planning, but needs to be implemented together with concrete assessment methods, indicators and data. The planning strategic benefits of using PRESET include its reference to existing legislative objectives, avoiding the risk that monetized ES values might dominate decision-making, clarification of human contributions, and easier identification of land use conflicts and synergies. Examples are given for offered and utilized ES, as well as for respective evaluation approaches and instruments of implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Baumgärtner S, Fischer J, Hanspach J, Härdtle W, Heinrichs H, Klein AM, Lang DJ, Martens P, Walmsley D (2014) Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol Econ 103:29–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert C, Aurbacher J, von Haaren C, Mahnkopf B, Petermann C (2009) Ökonomische Auswirkungen zukünftiger Agrarentwicklungen auf die Landschaftspflege und mögliche Beiträge der Aufpreisvermarktung von Naturschutzprodukten im Landkreis Diepholz. Ber Landwirtsch 87(3):357–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert C, Hauck J, Buhr N, von Haaren C (2014) What ecosystem services information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among landscape and regional planners in Germany. Landscape Ecol. doi:10.1007/s10980-014-9990-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian O, Steinhardt U (eds) (2002) Development and perspectives of landscape ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K (2012) Ecosystem properties, potentials and services—the EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol Ind 21:7–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard B, de Groot R, Costanza R, Seppelt R, Joergensen SE, Potschin M (2012) Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Ind 21:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Müller F (2014) Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands—concepts for spatial localization, indication and quantification. Landsc Online 34:1–33. doi:10.3097/LO.201434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerda C, Barkmann J, Marggraf R (2013) Application of choice experiments to quantify the existence value of an endemic moss: a case study in Chile. Environ Dev Econ 18(2):207–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2000) European landscape convention. Council of Europe, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • de Groot RS, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Gowdy J, Haines-Young R, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, Portela R, Ring I (2010a) Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar P (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London, pp 9–40

  • de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010b) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7(3):260–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC (European Commission) (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) published in the Official Journal (OJ L 327) on 22 December 2000

  • EEA (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Technical Report No 25. EEA, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golley FB (1993) A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology. More than the sum of the parts. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C (2010) The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 69(6):1209–1218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunewald K, Bastian O (2012) Ökosystemdienstleistungen. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli DG, Frid CLJ (eds) Ecosystem ecology—a new synthesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 110–139

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2013) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): consultation on version 4, Aug–Dec 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. Download at www.cices.eu and spread sheet

  • Hauck J, Schweppe-Kraft B, Albert C, Görg C, Jax K, Jensen R, Fürst C, Maes J, Ring I, Hönigová I, Burkhard B, Mehring M, Tiefenbach M, Grunewald K, Schwarzer M, Meurer J, Sommerhäuser M, Priess JA, Schmidt J, Grêt-Regamey A (2013) The promise of the ecosystem services concept for planning and decision-making. GAIA 22:232–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppichler J (2013) Vom Wert der Biodiversität.Wirtschaftliche Bewertungen und Konzepte für das Berggebiet. Bundesanstalt für Bergbauernfragen. Forschungsbericht Bundesanstalt für Bergbauernfragen, p 67

  • IPBES (2013) Outcome of an informal expert workshop on main issues relating to the development of a conceptual framework for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES/1/INF/9). Available from http://www.ipbes.net/images/documents/IPBES_1_INF_9_En.pdf. Accessed July 2014

  • Jax K (2010) Ecosystem functioning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kosoy N, Corbera E (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol Econ 69(6):1228–1236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowarik I (1987) Kritische Anmerkungen zum theoretischen Konzept der potentiellen natürlichen Vegetation mit Anregungen zu einer zeitgemäßen Modifikation. Tuexenia 7:53–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Landers DH, Nahlik AM (2013) Final ecosystem goods and services classification system (FEGS-CS). EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

  • Liu J, Opdam P (2014) Valuing ecosystem services in community-based landscape planning: introducing a wellbeing-based approach. Landscape Ecol. doi:10.1007/s10980-014-0045-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Maltby E (ed) (2009) Functional assessment of wetlands. Towards evaluation of ecosystem services. Woodhead Publishing, Abington, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller F, Burkhard B (2012) The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 1(1):26–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Albert C, Bentrup G, Castella JC, McAlpine C, Liu J, Shephard S, Swaffield S (2013) Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landscape Ecol 28:1439–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual U, Muradian R (2010) The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In: TEEB (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan Publications, London, pp 183–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW, Moran D (1994) The economic value of biodiversity. Earthscan Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Soba M, Petit S, Jones L, Bertrand N, Briquel V, Omodei-Zorini L, Contini C, Helming K, Farrington J, Tinacci M, Wascher DM, Kienast F, de Groot RS (2008) Land use functions—a multifunctionality approach to assess the impact of land use change on land use sustainability. In: Helming K, Tabbush P, Perez-Soba M (eds) Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, Berlin, pp 375–404

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2011) Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical perspective. Prog Phys Geogr 35(5):575–594

  • Primmer E, Furman E (2012) Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosyst Serv 1(1):85–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg JH, von Haaren C, Settele J (2014a) The ecosystem service cascade: further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy. Ecol Econ 104:22–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg JH, Görg C, Truong DT, Tekken V, Bustamante JV, Settele J (2014b) Provision of ecosystem services is determined by human agency, not ecosystem functions. Four case studies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 10(1):40–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinitz C (1990) A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other environmental design professionals). Landsc J 9:136–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16(3):284–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Termorshuizen J, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24(8):1037–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK NEA (UK National Ecosystem Assessment) (2011) The UK national ecosystem assessment: synthesis of the key findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • van Oudenhoven APE, Petz K, Alkemade R, Hein L, de Groot RS (2012) Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecol Ind 21:110–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Haaren C (ed) (2004) Landschaftsplanung. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • von Haaren C, Albert C (2011) Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 7:150–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the participants of workshops of the project “Naturkapital Deutschland - TEEB-DE”, funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), for discussions of earlier drafts. In particular, we thank Dr. Schweppe-Kraft for very useful contributions to the conceptual discussion. Further support was provided by Leibniz Universität for the QUANTIFY project. We would like to thank Louise von Falkenhayn for polishing the language of the paper. Christoffer Lange-Kabitz provided assistance in the revision—his help is also gratefully acknowledged. Finally, we thank the two reviewers who contributed to the final version of article to an extraordinary extent by a very comprehensive discussion of the model and by extremely helpful and detailed comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Environmental Planning, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Herrenhäuser Str. 2, 30419, Hannover, Germany

    Christina von Haaren & Christian Albert

  2. Department Environmental Politics, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstr. 15, 04318, Leipzig, Germany

    Christian Albert

  3. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073, Göttingen, Germany

    Jan Barkmann

  4. Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Rudolf S. de Groot

  5. Department Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Theodor-Lieser-Str. 4, 06120, Halle, Germany

    Joachim H. Spangenberg

  6. Department Economics, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstr. 15, 04318, Leipzig, Germany

    Christoph Schröter-Schlaack & Bernd Hansjürgens

Authors
  1. Christina von Haaren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Albert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Barkmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rudolf S. de Groot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joachim H. Spangenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christoph Schröter-Schlaack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bernd Hansjürgens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Christina von Haaren or Christian Albert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

von Haaren, C., Albert, C., Barkmann, J. et al. From explanation to application: introducing a practice-oriented ecosystem services evaluation (PRESET) model adapted to the context of landscape planning and management. Landscape Ecol 29, 1335–1346 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0084-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0084-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation