Christina von Haaren, Dept. for Environmental Planning, Leibniz University Hannover
Abstract: Ecosystem services in practice: Potentials and Limitations in Environmental Planning
and Management
1. History and definition of ecosystem services in German environmental planning
The term ecosystem goods and services has only recently been widely used in the political discussion
and practice of environmental management. However, the intentions which are combined with the
respective theories and methods have been applied in practical environmental planning and
management (in the following: landscape planning) in some European states since the 1970s of the last
century. Therefore a lot of experience is available especially in Switzerland and Germany about
potentials and limitations of landscape management based on information about ecosystem goods and
services in environmental management.
Nevertheless some differences have to be considered if the experiences of practical planning shall be
made productive for theory and methodology of the ecosystem services approach.
The main difference between the landscape function approach and the definitions of ecosystem
services seems to be that landscape functions depict the spatial reality under stronger selection criteria
concerning the underlying human demands. These constitute also the normative basis of the ecosystem
goods and services approach. However landscape functions being developed against the background of
existing planning systems and situations are restricted explicitly to those functions which serve to
fulfil sustainably either basic human needs (e.g. provision of clean drinking water) or those societal
demands, which are democratically legitimised usually by legislative standards or objectives. In
general services for short term individual, economic interests in landscape exploitation will not be
included or called landscape functions if they are not identical with the before mentioned basic or
sustainable human demands. Also the delineation between functions and ecosystem services as
proposed e.g. in Constanza 1997 or MEA 2005 is not a clear line in the landscape function approach:
Some ecosystem services which will not be consumed in the process of using (e.g. in perceiving
landscape beauty or biodiversity) are identical with landscape functions. Others (like the ecosystem
good “extracted water”), will be separated from the function (of water provision) by the ecosystem.
The amount of extracted water will be solely assed with regard to impacts on the sustainable water
provision or other functions like the natural production capacity of the soil (natural fertility).
These limitations can be explained by the task of landscape planning as an instrument of political
decision support. Landscape planning concentrates on the environmental conservation point of view
because the interest of private economy as well as sectoral land uses are brought forward to the
decision maker anyway on different information channels. In the decision and public participation
process the different societal and private interests and concerns should stay discernable and transparent,
which requires a separate (or even partial) presentation. In addition in Germany and Switzerland a
comprehensive spatial planning will coordinate the different land use interest i.a. on the base of
landscape planning.
2. Planning as a translation of basic scientific knowledge about landscape functions into
operative knowledge for decision support
Landscape planning constitutes a crucial interface between natural science or modeling and social
sciences or governance approaches. It has the task to transform untreated scientific knowledge into
action or operative knowledge, which is relevant for implementation. This is done by transforming
general knowledge (mainly via indicator based methodologies) into site specific knowledge, by that
concretizing the general environmental objectives (e.g. of the legislation) into concrete objectives and
measures as well as proposing ways for implementation (von Haaren et al. 2007).
In order to accomplish this, interdisciplinary knowledge is necessary which ranges from natural
science, social and communication science, planning theory and methodologies, to expertise economic
and legal implementation instruments. The process includes identification and evaluation of the
importance of the different landscape functions, the assessment of sensitivity of the functions, of
pressure and impact, the deduction of respective restoration and remediation measures. The different
functions as well as measures can be finally brought together by spatial overlay in order to identify
multifunctionalities with synergy potential. The whole process and especially the selection of
measures is accompanied by a constant communication with politics and administration as well as
public participation. This process constitutes a challenge for the communicative qualities of the
planning. The resulting plans are usually merged into spatial and local land use planning but besides
that, often are not immediately implemented. They serve as an information basis for the public and
especially for the daily decisions of environmental administration.
2. Lessons learnt in implementation processes
The main effect of planning on the basis of landscape functions or ecosystem services is that
transparency about development options and their environmental trade offs is produced. This enables
the public to participate and the decision maker to make a decision knowing about respective
environmental consequences and taking the responsibility. In reality
- many decision makers prefer not to know (Hachmann dissertation in preparation)
- few economic interests support the environmental objectives, which motivated some German
states to make the results of LP legally binding (with different pros and cons)
- environmental but also spatial and local land use planners usually appreciate the facilitation of
planning, routine comments and statements
- the public is interested in certain aspects of the plans (concrete biodiversity projects, landscape
beauty, neighboring development projects) (von Haaren, Warren-Kretzschmar 2006)
- the quality of a plan (detail, substantiation) shows a positive correlation with the integration of
environmental aspects into local land use plans (e.g. Gruehn et al. 1998)
- translation of objectives into legal and economic terms and instruments is important for
integration into other plans and projects
- targeted visualization, public relations and multichannel communication is crucial for public
participation (Schipper 2010, Warren-Kretzschmar in preparation).
v. Haaren, C., Galler, C. & Ott, S., 2008: Landscape Planning – the basis of sustainable landscape
development. Published by Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN).
http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/landschaftsplanung/
landscape_planning_basis.pdf