Budgeting ecosystem service analysis as a tool in communication processes in participatory planning?

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.68

Keywords:

Ecosystem service analysis, Participative planning, Informal planning tools, Communication, Transdisciplinarity, Rhine-Neckar region

Abstract

In planning processes, issues of high complexity and conflicts are negotiated. Perceptions and requirements of different actors need to be reconciled in planning processes. To negotiate these different perceptions and requirements, public participation is obligatory in planning processes. However, as participation still faces many challenges with regard to acceptance and understanding of determining factors, there is a need for further participation procedures. This paper aims to show to what extent ecosystem service analysis can be used in the context of participation processes and informal planning instruments for transdisciplinary communication. By budgeting, both ecosystem services supply and the demands of different stakeholder groups from for example spatial planning and civil society are taken into account. Based on a completed research project on the valuation of green and open spaces in the Rhine-Neckar region – in which ecosystem service analy sis has been applied – this paper highlights opportunities and limitations of a relational budgeting ecosystem service analysis. We reflect on the obstacles and challenges encountered during application and implementation. Based on this, we argue that relational budgeting ecosystem service analysis can provide a sound and multidimensional basis for communication that can contribute to the objectification of differences in perception and valuation in discussion and negotiation processes in planning.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Albert, C.; Galler, C.; Hermes, J.; Neuendorf, F.; von Haaren, C.; Lovett, A. (2016): Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and management: The ES-in-Planning framework. In: Ecological Indicators 61, 1, 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.029

Albert, C.; Schröter, B.; Haase, D.; Brillinger, M.; Henze, J.; Herrmann, S.; Gottwald, S.; Guerrero, P.; Nicolas, C.; Matzdorf, B. (2019): Addressing societal challenges through nature-based solutions: How can landscape planning and governance research contribute? In: Landscape and Urban Planning 182, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.003

Berr, K.; Jenal, C.; Kühne, O.; Weber, F. (2019): Government, Governance und Postgovernance als Konzepte politischer Steuerung von Gesellschaft. In: Berr, K.; Jenal, C.; Kühne, O.; Weber, F. (Hrsg.): Landschaftsgovernance. Ein Überblick zu Theorie und Praxis. Wiesbaden, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27484-9_3

Burkhard, B. (2017): Ecosystem services matrix. In: Burkhard, B.; Maes, J. (Hrsg.): Mapping ecosystem services. Sofia, 225–230. https://doi.org/10.3897/ab.e12837

Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Müller, F.; Windhorst, W. (2009): Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services – A concept for land-cover based assessments. In: Landscape Online 15, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.200915

Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Nedkov, S.; Müller, F. (2012): Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. In: Ecological Indicators 21, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019

Burkhard, B.; Müller, F. (2013): Indikatoren und Quantifizierungsansätze. In: Grunewald, K.; Bastian, O. (Hrsg.): Ökosystemdienstleistungen. Konzept, Methoden und Fallbeispiele. Berlin, 80–90.

Carmen, E.; Watt, E.; Carvalho, L.; Dick, J.; Fazey, I.; Garcia-Blanco, G.; Grizzetti, B.; Hauck, J.; Izakovicova, Z.; Kopperoinen, L.; Liquete, C.; Odee, D.; Steingröver, E.; Young, J. (2018): Knowledge needs for the operationalisation of the concept of ecosystem services. In: Ecosystem Services 29, C, 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.012

Danielzyk, R.; Sondermann, M. (2018): Informelle Planung. In: ARL – Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (Hrsg.): Handwörterbuch der Stadt- und Raumentwicklung. Hannover, 963–974.

Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (1993): Die Selbstbestimmungstheorie der Motivation und ihre Bedeutung für die Pädagogik. In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 39, 2, 223–238.

Detjen, J.; Massing, P.; Richter, D.; Weißeno, G. (2012): Politikkompetenz – ein Modell. Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00785-0

Dick, J.; Turkelboom, F.; Woods, H.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; Primmer, E.; Saarela, S.-R.; Bezák, P.; Mederly, P.; Leone, M.; Verheyden, W.; Kelemen, E.; Hauck, J.; Andrews, C.; Antunes, P.; Aszalós, R.; Baró, F.; Barton, D. N.; Berry, P.; Bugter, R.; Carvalho, L.; Czúcz, B.; Dunford, R.; Blanco, G. G.; Geamana, N.; Giuca, R.; Grizzetti, B.; Izakovicová, Z.; Kertész, M.; Kooperoinen, L.; Langemeyer, J.; Lapola, D. M.; Liquete, C.; Luque, S.; Martinéz Pastur, H.; Martin-Lopez, B.; Mukhopadhyay, R.; Niemela, J.; Odee, D.; Peri, P. L.; Pinho, P.; Bürger Patrício-Roberto, G.; Preda, E.; Priess, J.; Röckmann, C.; Santos, R.; Silaghi, D.; Smith, R.; Vadineanu, A.; Tjalling van der Wal, J.; Arany, I.; Badea, O.; Bela, G.; Boros, E.; Bucur, M.; Blumentrath, S.; Calvache, M.; Carmen, E.; Clemente, P.; Fernandes, J.; Ferraz, D.; Fongar, C.; García-Llorente, M.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Gundersen, V.; Haavardsholm, O.; Kalóczkai, Á.; Khalalwe, T.; Kiss, G.; Köhler, B.; Lazányi, O.; Lellei-Kovács, E.; Lichungu, R.; Lindhjem, H.; Magare, C.; Mustajoki, J.; Ndege, C.; Nowell, M.; Nuss Girona, S.; Ochieng, J.; Often, A.; Palomo, I.; Pataki, G.; Reinvang, R.; Rusch, G.; Saarikoski, H.; Smith, A.; Soy Massoni, E.; Stange, E.; Vagnes Traaholt, N.; Vári, Á.; Verweij, P.; Vikström, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Zzlian, G. (2018): Stakeholders‘ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: results from 27 case studies. In: Ecosystem Services 29, C, 552–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015

Farber, S.; Costanza, R.; Wilson, M. (2002): Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. In: Ecological Economics 41, 3, 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088‑5

Flick, U. (2007): Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung. Reinbek bei Hamburg.

Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D. N. (2013): Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. In: Ecological Economics 86, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019

Growe, A.; Baker, M.; Ziafati Bafasarat, A. (2020): The legitimation of planning processes as a challenge to metropolitan governance. In: Administrative Sciences 10, 2, 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci10020034

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

Healey, P. (1996): The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. In: Environment and Planning B 23, 2, 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1068/b230217

Innes, J. E.; Booher, D. E. (2018): Planning with complexity. An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147949

Kanwischer, D. (2006): Der Doppelcharakter der Geographie und andere Katastrophen nebst einigen Bemerkungen zur fachdidaktischen Umsetzung. In: Horst, U.; Kanwischer, D.; Stratenwerth, D. (Hrsg.): Die Kunst sich einzumischen. Vom vielfältigen und kreativen Wirken des Geographen Tilman Rhode-Jüchtern. Berlin, 127–142.

Kiese, N.; Mager, C. (2018): Urban green and open spaces under pressure: the potential of ecosystem services supply and demand analysis for mediating planning processes in the context of climate change. In: Schrenk, M.; Popovich, V.; Zeile, P.; Elisei, P.; Beyer, C.; Navratil, G. (Hrsg.): REAL Corp 2018 Proceedings: Expanding cities – diminishing space. Wien, 699–704.

Kopperoinen, L.; Itkonen, P.; Niemelä, J. (2014): Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into a new place-based methodology. In: Landscape Ecology 29, 8, 1361–1375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0014-2

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

Kramer, C.; Wagner, M. (2020): Enhancing urban sustainable indicators in a German city – towards human-centered measurements for sustainable urban planning. In: World 1, 2, 104–123. https://doi.org/10.3390/world1020009

Kroll, F.; Müller, F.; Haase, D.; Fohrer, N. (2012): Rural-urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. In: Land Use Policy 29, 3, 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.07.008

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

Lautenbach, S.; Mupepele, A.-C.; Dormann, C. F.; Lee, H.; Schmidt, S.; Scholte, S.; Seppelt, R.; van Teeffelen, A.; Verhagen, W.; Volk, M. (2019): Blind spots in ecosystem services research and challenges for implementation. In: Regional Environmental Change 19, 8, 2151–2172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1457-9

Maes, J.; Liquete, C.; Teller, A.; Erhard, M.; Paracchini, M. L.; Barredo, J. I.; Grizzetti, B.; Cardoso, A.; Somma, F.; Petersen, J.-E.; Meiner, A.; Gelabert, E. R.; Zal, N.; Kristensen, P.; Bastrup-Birk, A.; Biala, K.; Piroddi, C.; Egoh, B.; Degeorges, P.; Fiorina, C.; Santos-Martín, F.; Naruševičius, V.; Verboven, J.; Pereira, H. M.; Bengtsson, J.; Gocheva, K.; Marta-Pedroso, C.; Snäll, T.; Estreguil, C.; San-Miguel-Ayanz, J.; Pérez-Soba, M.; Grêt-Regamey, A.; Lillebø, A. I.; Malak, D. A; Condé, S.; Moen, J.; Czúcz, B.; Drakou, E. G.; Zulian, G.; Lavalle, C. (2016): An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. In: Ecosystem Services 17, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023

MEA – Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005): Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, DC.

Massing, P. (2012): Die vier Dimensionen der Politikkompetenz. In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 62, 46-47, 23–29.

Meier, G. (2018): Stadt und Partizipation – eine Analyse zur Bedeutung und Wirksamkeit von Bürgerbeteiligung in der Stadtentwicklung. Heidelberg. = Heidelberger Geographische Arbeiten 136.

Morales-Reyes, Z.; Martín-López, B.; Moleón, M.; Mateo-Tomás, P.; Olea, P. P.; Arrondo, E.; Donázar, J. A.; Sánchez-Zapata, J. A. (2019): Shepherds’ local knowledge and scientific data on the scavenging ecosystem services: insights for conservation. In: Ambio 48, 1, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1055-6

Nagel, M.; Satoh, K. (2019): Protesting iconic megaprojects: A discourse network analysis of the evolution of the conflict over Stuttgart 21. In: Urban Studies 56, 8, 1681–1700. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018775903

Nanz, P.; Fritsche, M. (2012): Handbuch Bürgerbeteiligung. Verfahren und Akteure, Chancen und Grenzen. Bonn. = Schriftenreihe der Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung 1200.

Nesshöver, C.; Assmuth, T.; Irvine, K. N.; Rusch, G. M.; Waylen, K. A.; Delbaere, B.; Haase, D.; Jones-Walters, L.; Keune, H.; Kovacs, E.; Krauze, K.; Külvik, M.; Rey, F.; van Dijk, J.; Vistad, O. I.; Wilkinson, M. E.; Wittmer, H. (2017): The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective. In: Science of the Total Environment 579, 1215–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106

Novy, J.; Peters, D. (2012): Railway station mega-projects as public controversies: the case of Stuttgart 21. In: Built Environment 38, 1, 128–145. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.38.1.128

Plieninger, T.; Dijks, S.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Bieling, C. (2013): Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. In: Land Use Policy 33, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013

Priebs, A. (2018): Regionalplanung. In: ARL – Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (Hrsg.): Handwörterbuch der Stadt- und Raumentwicklung. Hannover, 2047–2062.

Ronchi, S. (2018): Ecosystem services for spatial planning. Innovative approaches and challenges for practical applications. Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90185-5

Schröter, M.; van der Zanden, E.; van Oudenhoven, A.; Remme, R.; Serna-Chavez, H.; de Groot, R.; Opdam, P. (2014): Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. In: Conservation Letters 7, 6, 514–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091

Selle, K. (2007): Stadtentwicklung und Bürgerbeteiligung – Auf dem Weg zu einer kommunikativen Planungskultur? Alltägliche Probleme, neue Herausforderungen. In: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 1, 63–71.

Selle, K. (2011): „Particitainment“ oder: Beteiligen wir uns zu Tode? Wenn alle das Beste wollen und Bürgerbeteiligung dennoch zum Problem wird. In: PND online 3, 1–19.

Sinning, H. (2018): Beteiligung. In: ARL – Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (Hrsg.): Handwörterbuch der Stadt- und Raumentwicklung. Hannover, 207–219.

Spyra, M.; Kleemann, J.; Cetin, N.; Vázquez Navarrete, C.; Albert, C.; Palacios-Agundez, I.; Ametzaga-Arregi, I.; La Rosa, D.; Rozas-Vásquez, D.; Adem Esmail, B.; Picchi, P.; Geneletti, D.; König, H.; Koo, H.; Kopperoinen, L.; Fürst, C. (2019): The ecosystem services concept. A new Esperanto to facilitate participatory planning processes? In: Landscape Ecology 34, 7, 1715–1735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0745-6

Taddicken, M.; Reif, A.; Hoppe, I. (2018): Wissen, Nichtwissen, Unwissen, Unsicherheit: Zur Operationalisierung und Auswertung von Wissensitems am Beispiel des Klimawandels. In: Janich, N.; Rhein, L. (Hrsg.): Unsicherheit als Herausforderung für die Wissenschaft. Reflexionen aus Natur‑, Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften. Berlin, 113–142. https://doi.org/10.3726/b14379

TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010): The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for local and regional policy makers. Genf.

van Oudenhoven, A. P.; Schröter, M.; Drakou, E. G.; Geijzendorffer, I. R.; Jacobs, S.; van Bodegom, P. M.; Chazee, L.; Czúcz, B.; Grunewald, K.; Lillebø, A. I.; Mononen, L.; Nogueira, A. J. A.; Pacheco-Romero, M.; Perennou, C.; Remme, R. P.; Rova, S.; Syrbe, R.-U.; Tratalos, J. A.; Vallejos, M.; Albert, C. (2018): Key criteria for developing ecosystem service indicators to inform decision making. In: Ecological Indicators 95, 1, 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.020

Wagner, M.; Mager, C.; Schmidt, N.; Kiese, N.; Growe, A. (2019): Conflicts about urban green spaces in metropolitan areas under conditions of climate change: A multidisciplinary analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions of planning processes. In: Urban Science 3, 1, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3010015

Weijters, B.; Cabooter, E.; Schillewaert, N. (2010): The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. In: International Journal of Research in Marketing 27, 3, 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.004

Wolff, S.; Schulp, C.; Verburg, P. (2015): Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. In: Ecological Indicators 55, 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.016

Yeh, E. T. (2016): „How can experience of local residents be ‘knowledge’?“ Challenges in interdisciplinary climate change research. In: Area 48, 1, 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12189

Downloads

Published

Issue publication date 2022-02-28 (version 2)
Published online first 2021-09-21 (version 1)

Versions

How to Cite

Mager , C., Wagner, M. and Growe, A. (2022) “Budgeting ecosystem service analysis as a tool in communication processes in participatory planning?”, Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning. DE, 80(1), pp. 40–57. doi: 10.14512/rur.68.

Issue

Vol. 80 No. 1 (2022)

Section

Research Article

License

Copyright (c) 2021 Christoph Mager , Madeleine Wagner, Anna Growe

Creative Commons License

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. 

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>