Strategic spatial planning and the ecosystem services concept - an historical exploration.

This study examines how ecosystem services (ES) have been taken into account historically in strategic spatial plans in Melbourne and Stockholm through a comparative case study analysis of eight strategic spatial plans from 1929-2010. We investigated the types of ES taken into account, and how human-nature relations and the valuation and trade-off discussions regarding ES were framed. An ES coding protocol was developed that categorized and identified 39 ES drawing from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and other relevant literature. Only two of the 39 ES were addressed in every plan for both cities, namely freshwater and recreation. While the number of ES referred to in plans has generally increased over time, just under a third of ES in Melbourne and Stockholm were not addressed at all. References to individual ES showed little continuity over time. This variability reveals a time-scale mismatch that has been overlooked in the ES literature with potential urban policy implications. Despite considerable variation in ES addressed across the plans, there is a striking similar pattern in the total numbers of ES addressed over time in both cities. Plans for both cities showed a spike in the late 60s/early 70s, followed by a significant decline in the late 70s/early 80s with the highest number of ES addressed in the most recent plans. Furthermore, our analysis shows that strategic spatial plans generally demonstrate awareness that urban populations are dependent on ecosystems and this framing is an important part of the policy discourse. While specific monetary values were not placed on any ES in the plans, resolution of land-use conflicts requiring tradeoffs between ES and equity of distribution of ES is a central feature of most of the examined plans. We argue that longitudinal policy document analysis represents a useful complement to any attempt to improve understanding of the implications of and opportunities for operationalizing an ES approach in urban practice.

[1]  F. Müller,et al.  Rural-urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics , 2012 .

[2]  Cathy Wilkinson,et al.  Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planning theory , 2012 .

[3]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Reconnecting to the Biosphere , 2011, AMBIO.

[4]  P. Reich,et al.  High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services , 2011, Nature.

[5]  E. Andersson,et al.  Scale-Crossing Brokers and Network Governance of Urban Ecosystem Services : The Case of Stockholm , 2010 .

[6]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Untangling the Environmentalist's Paradox: Why is Human Well-Being Increasing as Ecosystem Services Degrade? , 2010, BioScience.

[7]  Bruce V. Taylor,et al.  Urban policy and governance in a global environment: complex systems, scale mismatches and public participation , 2010 .

[8]  Tarja Söderman,et al.  Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study , 2010, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[9]  Yvonne Rydin,et al.  Governing for Sustainable Urban Development , 2010 .

[10]  E. Corbera,et al.  Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism , 2010 .

[11]  R. D. Groot,et al.  The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes , 2010 .

[12]  R. Norgaard.  Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder , 2010 .

[13]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Damon M. Hall,et al.  Obscuring Ecosystem Function with Application of the Ecosystem Services Concept , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[15]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[16]  F. Chapin,et al.  A safe operating space for humanity , 2009, Nature.

[17]  G. Daily,et al.  Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver , 2009 .

[18]  G. Daily,et al.  Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales , 2009 .

[19]  Johan Colding,et al.  'ecological land-use complementation' for building resilience in urban ecosystems , 2007 .

[20]  P. Healey.  Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times , 2006 .

[21]  Carl Folke,et al.  Incorporating Green-area User Groups in Urban Ecosystem Management , 2006, Ambio.

[22]  P. Groenewegen,et al.  EVIDENCE BASED PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY AND PRACTICE Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? , 2006 .

[23]  Morgan M. Robertson.  The Nature That Capital Can See: Science, State, and Market in the Commodification of Ecosystem Services , 2006 .

[24]  R. Ostfeld,et al.  A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem services , 2005 .

[25]  Morgan M. Robertson.  The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance , 2004 .

[26]  Richard Cowell,et al.  Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process , 2001 .

[27]  E. Jáuregui,et al.  On the environmental role of urban lakes in Mexico City , 2000, Urban Ecosystems.

[28]  J. Friedmann,et al.  Strategising the metropolis in a global era , 2000 .

[29]  P. Bolund,et al.  Ecosystem services in urban areas , 1999 .

[30]  R. O'Neill,et al.  The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital , 1997, Nature.

[31]  Stephen Kaplan,et al.  The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework , 1995 .

[32]  D. Scott Slocombe,et al.  Environmental planning, ecosystem science, and ecosystem approaches for integrating environment and development , 1993 .

[33]  J. Colding.  The role of ecosystem services in contemporary urban planning , 2011 .

[34]  Pushpam Kumar,et al.  The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity : mainstreaming the economics of nature : a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB , 2010 .

[35]  G. Presland.  The place for a village : how nature has shaped the city of Melbourne , 2008 .

[36]  K. Charmaz,et al.  The sage handbook of grounded theory , 2007 .

[37]  Robert Costanza,et al.  Ecosystem Appropriation by Cities , 1996 .