Ecosystem services in urban and regional planning instruments Authors Sonja Deppisch HafenCity Universität Hamburg Anne Heitmann HafenCity Universität Hamburg Günden Savaşçı ifuplan Institut für Umweltplanung und Raumentwicklung Dagmar Lezuo ifuplan Institut für Umweltplanung und Raumentwicklung DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.122 Keywords: ecosystem services, urban region, regional plan, regulatory land-use plan, urban development concept, regional development concept, resilience, sustainable land-use Abstract Land-use in complex urban regions and their future development is uncertain, especially in view of (global) change conditions and the planetary boundaries discussed. An encompassing discussion and weighting within planning is necessary, on what ecosystems offer which kind of services to urban and regional societies and how this current supply and further potentials can be sustainably used. This is essential to contribute to a resilient urban and regional development. Scientific discussions on the role of ecosystem services in spatial planning do partly investigate the current status-quo of references to ecosystem services. This paper presents results from two German case study regions on the extent of references to ecosystem services in existing spatial planning instruments. Both binding as well as non-binding regional and urban development concepts were considered. Although none of the planning instruments explicitly uses the term “ecosystem services”, references to ecosystem services can be identified in all instruments. However, the majority of classified ecosystem services is not linked to specific objectives. This evokes questions on if spatial planning is oriented on keeping options open to act in the future and what the detected blind spots tell about the interpretation of the vision of sustainable spatial development. Downloads Download data is not yet available. Author Biography Günden Savaşçı, ifuplan Institut für Umweltplanung und Raumentwicklung References Albert, C.; Aronson, J.; Fürst, C.; Opdam, P. (2014): Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning. Requirements, approaches, and impacts. In: Landscape Ecology 29, 8, 1277–1285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0085-0 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. In: Landscape Ecology 29, 8, 1301–1313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-9990-5 Arbeitskreis „Stadt-Umland-Raum-Rostock“ (2011): Entwicklungsrahmen. Stadt-Umland-Raum Rostock. Rostock. de Groot, R. S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Willemen, L. (2010): Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. In: Ecological Complexity 7, 3, 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 Deppisch, S.; Heitmann, A.; Lezuo, D.; Marzelli, S. (2020): Ökosystemleistungen in der Landschaftsplanung: Eine exemplarische Untersuchung in den Stadtregionen München und Rostock. Hamburg. = landmetamorphosis working papers 02. Galler, C.; Albert, C.; von Haaren, C. (2016): From regional environmental planning to implementation: Paths and challenges of integrating ecosystem services. In: Ecosystem Services 18, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.02.031 Geneletti, D.; Cortinovis, C.; Zardo, L.; Esmail, B. A. (2020): Conclusions. In: Geneletti, D.; Cortinovis, C.; Zardo, L.; Esmail, B. A. (Hrsg.): Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities. Cham, 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20024-4_7 Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. (2018): Common International Classification of Ecosystem services (CICES) V 5.1. Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Nottingham. Hansen, R.; Frantzeskaki, N.; McPhearson, T.; Rall, E.; Kabisch, N.; Kaczorowska, A.; Kain, J.-H.; Artmann, M.; Pauleit, S. (2015): The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of European and American cities. In: Ecosystem Services 12, 228–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.013 Hansestadt Rostock (2012): Rostock 2025. Leitlinien zur Stadtentwicklung. Rostock. Heiland, S. (2010): Landschaftsplanung. In: Henckel, D.; von Kuczkowski, K.; Lau, P.; Pahl-Weber, E.; Stellmacher, F. (Hrsg.): Planen – Bauen – Umwelt. Ein Handbuch. Wiesbaden. 294–300. Hofmeister, S.; Mölders, T.; Thiem A. (2014): Nachhaltige Raumentwicklung. In: Heinrichs, H.; Michelsen, G. (Hrsg.): Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaften. Berlin, 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25112-2_15 Klein, A.-M.; Vaissière, B. E.; Cane, J. H.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Cunningham, S. A.; Kremen, C.; Tscharntke, T. (2007): Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences 274, 1608, 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721 Koschke, L.; Fürst, C.; Frank, S.; Makeschin, F. (2012): A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. In: Ecological Indicators 21, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.010 Kühne, O.; Duttmann, R. (2020): Recent Challenges of the Ecosystems Services Approach from an Interdisciplinary Point of View. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning 78, 2, 171–184. https://doi.org/10.2478/rara-2019-0055 Landeshauptstadt München (2016): Flächennutzungsplan mit integrierter Landschaftsplanung. Erläuterungsbericht. München. Mascarenhas, A.; Ramos, T. B.; Haase, D.; Santos, R. (2015): Ecosystem services in spatial planning and strategic environmental assessment – A European and Portuguese profile. In: Land Use Policy 48, 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.012 McPhearson, T.; Andersson, E.; Elmqvist, T.; Frantzeskaki, N. (2015): Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. In: Ecosystem Services 12, 152–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.012 MEA – Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005): Ecosystem and Human Well-being. Synthesis. Washington DC. MEIL M‑V – Ministerium für Energie, Infrastruktur und Landesentwicklung Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (2016): Landesraumentwicklungsprogramm Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Schwerin. Naturkapital Deutschland – TEEB DE (2016): Ökosystemleistungen in der Stadt. Gesundheit schützen und Lebensqualität erhöhen. Berlin. Nordin, A. C.; Hanson, H. I.; Alkan Olsson, J. (2017): Integration of the ecosystem services concept in planning documents from six municipalities in southwestern Sweden. In: Ecology and Society 22, 3, 26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09420-220326 Owens, S. (1994): Land, limits and sustainability: A conceptual framework and some dilemmas for the planning system. In: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 19, 4, 439–456. https://doi.org/10.2307/622834 PV – Planungsverband Äußerer Wirtschaftsraum München (2019): Regionsdaten. Region München. Datengrundlagen 2017. München. RPV MMR – Regionaler Planungsverband Mittleres Mecklenburg/Rostock (2011): Regionales Raumentwicklungsprogramm Mittleres Mecklenburg/Rostock. Rostock. Rinne, J.; Primmer, E. (2016): A case study of ecosystem services in urban planning in Finland: benefits, rights and responsibilities. In: Journal of Environment Policy and Planning 18, 3, 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1076721 SA M‑V – Statistisches Amt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (2018): Bruttoinlandsprodukt und Bruttowertschöpfung der Wirtschaftsbereiche in den kreisfreien Städten und Landkreisen Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns. 2000 bis 2016. Schwerin. Stadt Bad Doberan (2015): Integriertes Stadtentwicklungskonzept. 2. Fortschreibung. Bad Doberan. Stadt Bad Doberan (2016a): 3. Änderung Flächennutzungsplan: Begründung mit Umweltbericht und zusammenfassender Erklärung zu den Umweltbelangen. Bad Doberan. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S. E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E. M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S. R.; de Vries, W.; de Wit, C. A.; Folke, C.; Gerten, D.; Heinke, J.; Mace, G. M.; Persson, L. M.; Ramanathan, V.; Reyers, B.; Sörlin, S. (2015): Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. In: Science 347, 6223, 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 WBGU – Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (2020): Landwende im Anthropozän: Von der Konkurrenz zur Integration. Berlin. Wilkinson, C.; Saarne, T.; Peterson, G. D.; Colding, J. (2013): Strategic Spatial Planning and the Ecosystem Services Concept – An Historical Exploration. In: Ecology and Society 18, 1, 37. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05368-180137 Empirischer Korpus Arbeitskreis „Stadt-Umland-Raum-Rostock“ (2011): Entwicklungsrahmen. Stadt-Umland-Raum Rostock. Rostock. Hansestadt Rostock (2009): Flächennutzungsplan der Stadt Rostock. Erläuterungsbericht. Rostock. Hansestadt Rostock (2012): Rostock 2025. Leitlinien zur Stadtentwicklung. Rostock. Landeshauptstadt München (2014): Stadtentwicklungskonzept „Perspektive München“. München. Landeshauptstadt München (2016): Flächennutzungsplan mit integrierter Landschaftsplanung. Erläuterungsbericht. München. Regionaler Planungsverband München (2014): Regionalplan der Region München. München. RPV MMR – Regionaler Planungsverband Mittleres Mecklenburg/Rostock (2011): Regionales Raumentwicklungsprogramm Mittleres Mecklenburg/Rostock. Rostock. Stadt Bad Doberan (2015): Integriertes Stadtentwicklungskonzept. 2. Fortschreibung. Bad Doberan. Stadt Bad Doberan (2016b): Flächennutzungsplan der Stadt Bad Doberan. Bad Doberan. Stadt Dachau (2018): Flächennutzungsplan. Dachau. Downloads PDF (German) HTML (German) XML (German) Published Issue publication date 2022-02-28 (version 2)Published online first 2022-02-10 (version 1) Versions 2022-02-28 (2) 2022-02-10 (1) Issue Vol. 80 No. 1 (2022) Section Research Article License Copyright (c) 2022 Sonja Deppisch, Anne Heitmann, Günden Savaşçı, Dagmar Lezuo This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Articles in Raumforschung und Raumordnung – Spatial Research and Planning are published under a Creative Commons license. From Vol. 79 No. 2 (2021), the license applied is CC BY 4.0. From Vol. 77 No. 1 to Vol. 79 No.1, articles were published under a CC BY-SA license. Earlier volumes have been re-published by oekom 2022 under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CC BY 4.0. How to Cite 1.Deppisch S, Heitmann A, Savaşçı G, Lezuo D. Ecosystem services in urban and regional planning instruments. RuR [Internet]. 2022 Feb. 28 [cited 2024 Oct. 9];80(1):58-79. Available from: https://rur.oekom.de/index.php/rur/article/view/122 More Citation Formats ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver Download Citation Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX Share
A new Issue has been published August 30, 2024 A new issue of the Open-Access-Journal "Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning" has been published. Volume 82 No. 4 (2024) is now available on our website.
A new Issue has been published June 28, 2024 A new issue of the Open-Access-Journal "Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning" has been published. Volume 82 No. 3 (2024) is now available on our website.
Call for papers for a special issue on: Planning for sustainability transformations: Theoretical approaches, practical experiences, and political consequences June 3, 2024 Call for papers for a special issue onPlanning for sustainability transformations: Theoretical approaches, practical experiences, and political consequences