Approaches to integrate ecosystem services in formal spatial planning Authors Sonja Deppisch HafenCity Universität Hamburg Gesa Geißler Universität für Bodenkultur Wien https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8559-9320 Christian Poßer Fachhochschule Erfurt Linda Schrapp Hochschule Weihenstephan-Triesdorf DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.66 Keywords: Ecosystem services, Formal spatial planning, Spatial development, Modernisation of planning instruments, Preparatory land use planning, Land use planning, Maritime spatial planning Abstract Due to global changes and changes in land use, ecosystems and their services are increasingly affected. Against this background, it is questionable how ecosystems and the services they provide can be better and sufficiently taken into account in land-use planning as well as spatial development in Germany. Currently little chance is seen to establish new ecosystem service-based processes that would be comprehensively integrated in the spatial planning practice in Germany. However, modernisation of formal and informal planning instruments is conceived in a long-term perspective. The ecosystem service approach can essentially contribute to this modernisa[1]tion methodically as well as conceptually. Therefore, this paper discusses possibilities how to integrate the ecosystem service approach in formal spatial planning in a short to medium term and which societal and ecological added value can be generated. Chances and risks of different implementation options will be discussed and specific approaches outlined. Downloads Download data is not yet available. References Ahrendt, K.; Ruljevic, I.; Müller, F. (2019): Einsatz von geographischen Informationssystemen zur Ermittlung der Ökosystemleistungen von Küstenlinien. In: Rostocker Meeresbiologische Beiträge 29, 47–54. 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 Albert, C.; von Haaren, C.; Galler, C. (2012): Ökosystemdienstleistungen. Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen oder ein Impuls für die Landschaftsplanung? In: Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 44, 142–148. Armoškaitė, A.; Puriņa, I.; Aigars, J.; Strāķe, S.; Pakalniete, K.; Frederiksen, P.; Schrøder, L.; Hansen, H. S. (2020): Establishing the links between marine ecosystem components, functions and services: An ecosystem service assessment tool. In: Ocean and Coastal Management 193, 105229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105229 Bicking, S.; Müller, F. (2019): Die „Matrix“. Ein Werkzeug zur Bewertung von Ökosystemleistungen. In: Rostocker Meeresbiologische Beiträge 29, 37–45. BSH – Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (2020a): Entwurf Raumordnungsplan für die deutsche ausschließliche Wirtschaftszone in der Nord- und Ostsee. https://www.bsh.de/DE/THEMEN/Offshore/Meeresraumplanung/Fortschreibung/_Anlagen/Downloads/Entwurf_Raumordnungsplan.pdf;jsessionid=C19D9DE9B3D1C3FA2939A92766B8670B.live21304?__blob=publicationFile&v=8 (22.07.2021). BSH – Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (2020b): Umweltbericht zum Entwurf des Raumordnungsplans für die deutsche ausschließliche Wirtschaftszone in der Ostsee. https://www.bsh.de/DE/THEMEN/Offshore/Meeresraumplanung/Fortschreibung/_Anlagen/Downloads/Umweltbericht_Ostsee.pdf;jsessionid=C19D9DE9B3D1C3FA2939A92766B8670B.live21304?__blob=publicationFile&v=7 (22.07.2021). Deininger, M.; Koellner, T.; Brey, T.; Teschke, K. (2016): Towards mapping and assessing antarctic marine ecosystem services – The weddell sea case study. In: Ecosystem Services 22, A, 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.001 Depellegrin, D.; Menegon, S.; Gusatu, L.; Roy, S.; Misiunė, I. (2020): Assessing marine ecosystem services richness and exposure to anthropogenic threats in small sea areas: A case study for the Lithuanian sea space. In: Ecological Indicators 108, 105730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105730 Deppisch, S.; Heitmann, S.; Lezuo, D.; Marzelli, S. (2020): Ökosystemleistungen in der Landschaftsplanung. Eine exemplarische Untersuchung in den Stadtregionen München und Rostock. Hamburg. = Landmetamorphosis Working Paper 02. Fürst, C.; Opdam, P.; Inostroza, L.; Luque, S. (2014): Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning. Proposing a balanced score card. In: Landscape Ecology 29, 8, 1435–1446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0052-9 Furlan, E.; Slanzi, D.; Torresan, S.; Critto, A.; Marcomini, A. (2020): Multi-scenario analysis in the Adriatic Sea: A GIS-based Bayesian network to support maritime spatial planning. In: Science of the Total Environment 703, 134972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134972 Gacutan, J.; Galparsoro, I.; Murillas-Maza, A. (2019): Towards an understanding of the spatial relationships between natural capital and maritime activities: A Bayesian Belief Network approach. In: Ecosystem Services 40, 101034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101034 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. (2016): Ecosystem Services Analysis for Strategic Environmental Assessment: Concepts and Examples. In: Geneletti, D. (Hrsg.): Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment. Northampton, 41–61. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783478996 Geneletti, D.; Cortinovis, C.; Zardo, L.; Adem Esmail, B. (2020): Conclusions. In: Geneletti, D.; Cortinovis, C.; Zardo, L.; Adem Esmail, B. (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. (2009): The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D. G.; Frid, C. (Hrsg.): Ecosystem Ecology: A new synthesis. Cambridge, 110–139. 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 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, J. A.; Schmidt, J.; Grêt-Regamey, A. (2013): The Promise of the Ecosystem Services Concept for Planning and Decision-Making. In: GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 22, 4, 232–236. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.22.4.6 Heiland, S.; Kahl, R.; Sander, H.; Schliep, R. (2016): Ökosystemleistungen in der kommunalen Landschaftsplanung – Möglichkeiten der Integration. In: Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 48, 10, 313–320. Heiland, S.; Mengel, A.; Hänel, K.; Geiger, B.; Arndt, P.; Reppin, N.; Werle, V.; Hokema, D.; Hehn, C.; Mertelmeyer, L.; Burghardt, R.; Opitz, S. (2017): Bundeskonzept Grüne Infrastruktur. Fachgutachten. Bonn. = BfN-Skripten 457. https://doi.org/10.19217/skr457 HELCOM – Helsinki Commission; VASAB – Visions and Strategies around the Baltic Sea (2016): Guidelines for the implementation of ecosystem based approach in maritime spatial planning (MSP) in the Baltic Sea area. https://www.helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Guideline-for-the-implementation-of-ecosystem-based-approach-in-MSP-in-the-Baltic-Sea-area_June-2016.pdf (22.07.2021). Hermann, A.; Schleifer, S.; Wrbka, T. (2011): The Concept of Ecosystem Services Regarding Landscape Research: A Review. In: Living Reviews in Landscape Research 5, 1, https://doi.org/10.12942/lrlr-2011-1 Hooper, T.; Beaumont, N.; Hattam, C. (2017): The implications of energy systems for ecosystem services: A detailed case study of offshore wind. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70, 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.248 Janssen, G.; Birnstengel, P.; Magel, I.; Zegada, M. E. (2017): Umweltbelange der Meeresraumordnung in der deutschen ausschließlichen Wirtschaftszone (AWZ) unter Berücksichtigung des Ökosystemansatzes. Endbericht. Dessau-Roßlau. = UBA Texte 08/2017. Jay, S.; Klenke, T.; Janßen, H. (2016): Consensus and variance in the ecosystem approach to marine spatial planning: German perspectives and multi-actor implications. In: Land Use Policy 54, 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.015 Köppel, J.; Biehl, J.; Dahmen, M.; Geißler, G.; Portman, M. E. (2019): Perspectives on marine spatial planning. In: Perrow, M. R. (Hrsg.): Wildlife and Wind Farms, Conflicts and Solutions. Volume 4: Offshore: Monitoring and Mitigation. Exeter, 281–317. Koschke, L.; Fürst, C.; Lorenz, M.; Witt, A.; Frank, S.; Makeschin, F. (2013): The integration of crop rotation and tillage practices in the assessment of ecosystem services provision at the regional scale. In: Ecological Indicators 32, 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.008 Lange, H.; Riedel, W. (2016): Allgemeiner Ablauf zur Aufstellung von Landschaftsplänen. In: Riedel, W.; Lange, H.; Jedicke, E.; Reinke, M. (Hrsg.): Landschaftsplanung. Berlin, 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39855-1 Le Cornu, E.; Kittinger, J. N.; Koehn, J. Z.; Finkbeiner; E. M.; Crowder, L. B. (2014): Current practice and future prospects for social data in coastal and ocean planning. In: Conservation Biology 28, 4, 902–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12310 Liquete, C.; Piroddi, C.; Macías, D.; Druon, J.-N.; Zulian, G. (2016): Ecosystem services sustainability in the Mediterranean Sea: assessment of status and trends using multiple modelling approaches. In: Scientific Reports 6, 34162. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34162 MEA – Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005): Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, D.C. Menegon, S.; Depellegrin, D.; Farella, G.; Sarretta, A.; Venier, C.; Barbanti, A. (2018): Addressing cumulative effects, maritime conflicts and ecosystem services threats through MSP-oriented geospatial webtools. In: Ocean and Coastal Management 163, 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.07.009 Mengel, A. (2018): Landschaftsplanung (§§ 8‑12). In: Lütkes, S.; Ewer, W. (Hrsg.): Bundesnaturschutzgesetz. Kommentar. München, 105–155. Nahuelhual, L.; Vergara, X.; Kusch, A.; Campos, G.; Droguett, D. (2017): Mapping ecosystem services for marine spatial planning: Recreation opportunities in Sub-Antarctic Chile. In: Marine Policy 81, 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.038 Naturkapital Deutschland – TEEB DE (2016): Ökosystemleistungen in ländlichen Räumen. Grundlage für menschliches Wohlergehen und nachhaltige wirtschaftliche Entwicklung. Hannover. O’Hagan, A. M. (2020): Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) and Ecosystem Services in EU Law, Policy and Governance. In: O’Higgins, T.; Lago, M.; DeWitt, T. (Hrsg.): Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity. Cham, 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_18 Outeiro, L.; Häussermann, V.; Viddi, F.; Hucke-Gaete, R.; Försterra, G.; Oyarzo, H.; Kosiel, K.; Villasante, S. (2015): Using ecosystem services mapping for marine spatial planning in southern Chile under scenario assessment. In: Ecosystem Services 16, 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03.004 Pınarbaşı, K.; Galparsoro, I.; Borja, Á.; Stelzenmüller, V.; Ehler, C. N.; Gimpel, A. (2017): Decision support tools in marine spatial planning: Present applications, gaps and future perspectives. In: Marine Policy 83, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.031 Poßer, C. (2020): Bürgereigentum privatisieren nur mit Gegenleistung. Eine Satzung zur Kompensation von Ökosystemleistung. In: Planerin 3, 57–58. Rehhausen, A.; Günther, M.; Odparlik, L.; Geißler, G.; Köppel, J. (2018): Internationale Trends der UVP- und SUP-Forschung und -Praxis. Abschlussbericht. Dessau-Roßlau. = UBA-Texte 82/2018. Ruskule, A.; Bergström, L.; Schmidtbauer Crona, J.; Kotta, J.; Arndt, P.; Sträke, S.; Ustups, D.; Sprukta, S.; Urtane, I. (2019): Green Infrastructure Concept for MSP and Its Application within Pan Baltic Scope Project. o.O. Schachtner, E. (2019): The Challenges of Applying the Ecosystem Approach to Spatial Planning in the EEZ: German Experiences. In: Langlet, D.; Rayfuse, R. (Hrsg.): The Ecosystem Approach in Ocean Planning and Governance. Perspectives from Europe and Beyond. Leiden, 317–370. = Publications on Ocean Development 87. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004389984_012 Scholich, D. (2018): Vorranggebiet, Vorbehaltsgebiet und Eignungsgebiet. In: ARL – Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (Hrsg.): Handwörterbuch der Stadt- und Raumentwicklung, Hannover, 2841–2855. Schrapp, L.; Garschhammer, J.; Meyer, C.; Blum, P.; Reinke, M.; Mewes, M. (2020): Ökosystemleistungen in der Landschaftsplanung. Bonn. = BfN-Skripten 568. https://doi.org/10.19217/skr568 Szücs, L.; Garschhammer, J.; Meyer, C.; Blum, P.; Reinke, M. (2019): Integration von Ökosystemleistungen in die kommunale und regionale Landschaftsplanung. Mehrwert und Erkenntnisgewinn für die Planungspraxis. In: Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 51, 11, 530–537. Tobias, S. (2013): Preserving Ecosystem Services in Urban Regions: Challenges for Planning and Best Practice Examples from Switzerland. In: Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 9, 2, 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1392 Veidemane, K.; Ruskule, A.; Strake, S.; Purina, I.; Aigars, J.; Sprukta, S.; Ustups, D.; Putnis, I.; Klepers, A. (2017): Application of the marine ecosystem services approach in the development of the maritime spatial plan of Latvia. In: International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 13, 1, 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1398185 WBGU – Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (2020): Landwende im Anthropozän: Von der Konkurrenz zur Integration. Hauptgutachten. Berlin. Downloads PDF (German) HTML (German) XML (German) Published Issue publication date 2022-02-28 (version 2)Published online first 2021-10-08 (version 1) Versions 2022-02-28 (2) 2021-10-08 (1) Issue Vol. 80 No. 1 (2022) Section Policy and practice perspective License Copyright (c) 2021 Sonja Deppisch, Gesa Geißler, Christian Poßer, Linda Schrapp 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, Geißler G, Poßer C, Schrapp L. Approaches to integrate ecosystem services in formal spatial planning . RuR [Internet]. 2022 Feb. 28 [cited 2024 Oct. 12];80(1):80-96. Available from: https://rur.oekom.de/index.php/rur/article/view/66 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