Landscape and environmental planning as the basis for administrative decision-making on ecosystem services
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26565/2410-7360-2016-45-20Keywords:
landscape, landscape planning, landscape and environmental planning, ecosystem services, model, management decisionAbstract
The concepts of ecosystem services (ES) and indicators of landscape planning must be linked with models for decision-making in ecological management. The author analyzes an increase in an applied orientation of geographical and environmental studies, the possibility to use landscape ecological planning for the development of administrative decision-making on ecosystem services. Based on the analysis of landscape planning models and ecosystem services that exist in Europe, fundamentally different models have been developed to characterize the Ukrainian features. In these models ES indicators become part of landscape ecological planning as a means of assessing the current state of the environment and determining how it might change in the future.
Key segments of the model have been highlighted to ensure the adoption of the correct management decisions on the provision of ecosystem services. It has been well-grounded that the landscape and environmental planning provides basic information about both the ecosystem capital, and the limitations of its use in a particular area. Cyclical model of the administrative decision-making implementation proves its viability in the market conditions.
This model provides further justification for the relevance of ES in decision-making planning, and confirms that ecological objectives do remain of prime importance.
Study focuses on innovations in integrating ES indicators in planning practice, comprehensively considering the whole range of ES and potential indicators. The case study shows how landscape ecological planning can benefit from differentiating between offered ES, basic needs, and utilized ES.
References
Degtjar', N. V. (2012). Suchasni metody ekonomichnoj ocinki ekosistemnih poslug [Modern methods of economic evaluation of ecosystem services]. Electronic scientific specialized edition of "Effective Economy" 2. Available at : http://www.economy.nayka.com.ua/?op= 1&z=959
Antipov, A. N., Drozdov, A. V., Kravchenko, V. V., Semenov, Ju. M., Gagarinova, O. V., Pljusnin, V. M., Suvorov, E .G., Fedorov, V. N., Vikel'brandt, A., Mikel'n, V., Fon Haaren, K., Shiller, I. (2002). Landshaftnoe planirovanie: principy, metody, evropejskij i rossijskij opyt [Landscape planning: main principles, methods, european and russian experience]. – Irkutsk : Izd-vo Instituta geografii SO RAN, 141.
Drozdov, A. V. ed. (2006). Landshaftnoe planirovanie s elementami inzhenernoj biologii [Landscape planning with elements of engineering biology]. Moscow: KMK. 239.
Rudenko, L. G., Golubev, O. G., Lіsovs'kij, S. A., Marunjak, E. O., Farіon, Ju. M., Chehnіj, V. M. (2013). Landshaftna programa Cherkas'koj oblastі; metodichnі pіdhody ta osnovnі rezul'taty planuvannja [Landscape program Cherkasy region; methodological approaches and main results of planning]. Ukrajns'kij geografіchnyj zhurnal, 2, 30–39.
Solovіj, І. P., Kuleshnik, T. Ja. (2011). Traktuvannja kljuchovih termіnіv koncepcіj poslug ekosistem z ogljadu na ekologo-ekonomіchnі doslіdzhennja landshaftіv [The interpretation of the key terms of the concept of ecosystem services because of the environmental and economic studies of landscapes]. Report on implementation of research works Academy of Forest Sciences Ukraine. L'vіv : RVV NLTU, 9, 174–178.
Son'ko, S. P. (2016). Koncepcіja prostorovogo pererozpodіlu jak geografіchnij vimіr noosfernogo vchennja [The concept of spatial redistribution as a geographical dimension noosphere doctrine]. V Interuniversity scientific and practical Internet conference "Ecology - ways of harmonizing relations of nature and society. Uman (Ukraine), 5–15.
Chervan'ov, І. G. (1995). Strіmkimi shodami donizu? (Rozdumi pro stan ta perspektivi suchasnoj geografіj) [Steep stairs down? (Reflections on the status and prospects of modern geography)]. Ukrainian Geographical Journal. 3, 47–52.
Albert, С., Aronson, J., Fürst, C., Opdam, P. (2014) Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landsc. Ecol., 1277–1285.
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. Landsc. Ecol., 1301–1313.
10. Albert, C., Galler, C., Hermes J., Neuendorf F., Felix; von Haaren C., Lovett A. (2016). Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and management: The ES-in-Planning framework. Developing and Applying Ecosystem Services Indicators in Decision-Support at Various Scales, Ecological Indicators. Volume 61, Part 1, February. – P. 100–113.
11. Bastian, O., Schreiber, K.-F. (1999) Analyse und ökologische Bewertung der Landschaft, Heidelberg – Berlin (Spektrum), 2nd edn. 4., P. 23-25.
12. Burkhard B., Kandziora, M., Hou Y., Müller, F. (2014). Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demand – concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landscape Online, 1–32.
13. Cowling, R. M., Egoh, B., Knight, A. T., O’Farrell, P. J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D. J., Welz, A., Wilhelm-Rechman, A. (2008). An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (U.S.A), 9483.
14. Daily, G. C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T. H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R. (2009). Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ, 21–28.
15. De Groot, R., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Haines-Young, R., Gowdy, J., Maltby, E., Neuville, A., Polasky, S., Kumar, P. (2010) Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, Earthscan, London, 9–40.
16. De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex, 260–272.
17. Frank, S., Fürst, C., Witt, A., Koschke, L., Makeschin, F. (2014). Making use of the ecosystem services concept in regional planning – trade-offs from reducing water erosion. Landsc. Ecol., 1377–1391.
18. 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 , 1435–1446.
19. Haines-Young, R., Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. D. G. Raffaelli, C. L. J. Frid (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology – A New Synthesis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 110–139.
20. Hatton MacDonald, D., Bark, R., Coggan, A. (2014). Is ecosystem service research used by decision-makers? A case study of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Landsc. Ecol., 2014. Available at : http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-10014-10021-10983
21. Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., Maes, J., Wittmer, H., Jax, K. (2013). Maps have an air of authority: potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosyst. Serv., 25–32.
22. 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. GAIA: Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc, 232–236.
23. Helming, K., Diehl, K., Geneletti, D., Wiggering, H. (2013). Mainstreaming ecosystem services in European policy impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess, 82–87.
24. Kato, S., Ahern, J. (2008). ‘Learning by doing’: adaptive planning as a strategy to address uncertainty in planning. Environ. Plann. Manage, 543–559.
25. 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. Landsc. Ecol., 1361–1375.
26. Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J. P., Grizzetti, B., Drakou, E. G., Notte, A. L., Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F., Paracchini, M. L., Braat, L., Bidoglio, G. (2012). Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv., 31–39.
27. Maksymenko, N., Cherkashina, N. (2013). Prospects of landscape planning in legislation of Ukraine. Acta envinronmentalica universitatis comenianae. – Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, 21, 1,83–88.
28. Mascarenhas, A., Ramos, T., Haase, D., Santos, R. (2014). Integration of ecosystem services in spatial planning: a survey on regional planners’ views. Landsc. Ecol. Available at : http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-10014-10012-10984
29. Müller, F., Burkhard, B. (2012). The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv., 26–30.
30. Palacios-Agundez, I., Fernández de Manuel, B., Rodríguez-Loinaz, G., Peña, L., Ametzaga-Arregi, I., Alday, J., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Madariaga, I., Arana, X., Onaindia, M. (2014). Integrating stakeholders’ demands and scientific knowledge on ecosystem services in landscape planning. Landsc. Ecol. 2014. Available at : http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-10014-19994-10981
31. Potschin, M. B., Haines-Young, R. H. (2011) Ecosystem services – exploring a geographical perspective. Progr. Phys. Geogr.,575–594.
32. Smeets, E., Weterings, R. (1999). Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. Technical Report No. 25 EEA, Copenhagen (Danmark). Available at: http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S1470160X15001533?#bib0200
33. Steinitz, C. (1993). A framework for theory and practice in landscape planning. GIS Europe., 42–45.
34. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Interim report (2008). Available at : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/index_en.htm
35. Van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Petz, K., Alkemade, R., Hein, L., de Groot, R. S. (2012). Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic., 110–122.
36. Von Haaren, C., Galler, C., Ott, S. (2008). Landscape planning. The basis of sustainable landscape development. Gebr. Klingenberg Buchkunst Leipzig GmbH. (Germany), 52.
37. Von Haaren, C., Albert, C., Barkmann, J., de Groot, R., Spangenberg, J., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Hansjürgens, B. (2014). From explanation to application: introducing a practice-oriented ecosystem services evaluation (PRESET) model adapted to the context of landscape planning and management. Landsc. Ecol., 1335–1346.
38. Willemen, L., Hein, L., van Mensvoort, M. E. F., Verburg, P. H. (2010). Space for people, plants, and livestock Quantifying interactions among multiple landscape functions in a Dutch rural region. Ecological Indicators, 10(1), 62–73.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Н. В. Максименко
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
