The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of European and American cities

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 12, Issue , 2015, Pages 228-246

  Hansen, Rieke ^a   Frantzeskaki, Niki ^b   McPhearson, Timon ^c   Rall, Emily ^a   Kabisch, Nadja ^d   Kaczorowska, Anna ^e   Kain, Jaan Henrik ^e   Artmann, Martina ^f   Pauleit, Stephan ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH   (United States)

^d HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^e CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG   (Austria)

Author keywords

Discourses; Ecosystem services; Human nature relations; Policy making; Resilience; Urban planning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928159635     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.013     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Ahern J. From fail-safe to safe-to-fail. Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 100:341-343.
2. Ahern J., Cilliers S., Niemelä J. The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: a framework for supporting innovation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125:254-259.
3. 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. Lands. Ecol. 2014, 29:1301-1313. 10.1007/s10980-014-9990-5.
4. Albrechts L. Bridge the gap: from spatial planning to strategic projects. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2006, 14:1487-1500.
5. Amt für Stadtplanung und Verkehr Die zukünftige Entwicklung der Stadt Salzburg. Räumliches Entwicklungskonzept der Stadt Salzburg REK 2009, 2007.
6. Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg Statistisches Jahrbuch 2013 Berlin 2013, Kulturbuch, Berlin.
7. Artmann M. Assessment of soil sealing management responses, strategies and targets towards ecologically sustainable urban land use management. AMBIO 2014, 43:530-541.
8. Baró F., Chaparro L., Gómez-Baggethun E., Langemeyer J., Nowak D.J., Terradas J. Contribution of ecosystem services to air quality and climate change mitigation policies: the case of urban forests in Barcelona, Spain. AMBIO 2014, 43:466-479.
9. Barthel S., Colding J., Elmqvist T., Folke C. History and local management of a biodiversity-rich, urban cultural landscape. Ecol. Soc. 2005, 10. (online), URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art10.
10. Bastian O., Haase D., Grunewald K. Ecosystem properties, potentials and services - the EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21:7-16.
11. Batker, D., Swedeen, P., R. Costanza, de La Torre, I., Boumans, R., Bagstad, K., 2008. A new view of the Puget Sound Economy: the economic value of nature's services in the Puget Sound Basin. Tacoma, WA.
12. Brunauer F. Entwicklungsperspektive für Grün- und Freiräume in Salzburg und Poznan 2014, (unpublished Master thesis), University Salzburg, Department of Geography and Geology, Paris-Lodron.
13. Ciecko L., Tenneson K., Dilley J., Wolf K. Seattle's forest ecosystem value. Analysis of the Structure, Function, and Economic Benefits 2012.
14. City of Seattle, 2013. About Seattle. Land Use. Available from: (accessed 04.03.14). http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cityplanning/populationdemographics/aboutseattle/landuse/default.htm.
15. Colding J. The role of ecosystem services in contemporary urban planning. Urban Ecology. Patterns, Processes, and Applications 2011, 228-237. Oxford University Press, Oxford. J. Niemelä (Ed.).
16. Colding J. Local assessment of Stockholm: revisiting the Stockholm Urban Assessment. Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. A Global Assessment 2013, 313-335. Springer, Dordrecht. T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. Marcotullio, R. McDonald, S. Parnellet (Eds.).
17. Cowling R.M., Egoh B., Knight A.T., O'Farrell P.J., Reyers B., Rouget M., Roux D.J., et al. Ecosystem services special feature: an operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. PNAS 2008, 105:9483-9488.
18. de Groot R.S. Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning, Management and Decision Making 1992, Wolters-Nordhoff, Groningen.
19. Daily G.C., Polasky S., Goldstein J., Kareiva P.M., Mooney H.A., Pejchar L., Ricketts T.H., et al. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7:21-28.
20. EC, 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Our life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: An EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. COM(2011) 244 Final, Brussels.
21. EC, 2013. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Green Infrastructure (GI) - Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital. COM(2013) 249 final.
22. Faludi A. The performance of spatial planning. Plan. Pract. Res. 2000, 15:299-318.
23. Fisher B., Turner K.R., Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:643-653.
24. Frantzeskaki N., Tillie N. Dynamics of urban ecosystem governance of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. AMBIO 2014, 43:542-555.
25. Gemeinsame Landesplanungsabteilung Berlin-Brandenburg, 2013. Raumordnungsbericht 2013. Hauptstadtregion Berlin-Brandenburg.
26. Getzner M., Jungmeier M., Köstl T., Weiglhofer S. Fließstrecken der Mur - Ermittlung der Ökosystemleistungen.(River sections of the Mur - Assessment of Ecosystem Services). Endbericht. Studie im Auftrag von Landesumweltanwaltschaft Steiermark, Bearbeitung: E.C.O 2011, Institut für Ökologie, Klagenfurt.
27. Götzl, M., Schwaiger, E., Sonderegger, G., Süßenbacher, E., 2011. Ökosystemleistungen und Landwirtschaft. Erstellung eines Inventars für Österreich (Ecoystem Services and Agriculture. An inventory for Austria). Umweltbundesamt, Reports 0355, Wien.
28. Gómez-Baggethun E., Gren Å., Barton D.N., Langemeyer J., McPhearson T., O'Farrell P., Andersson E., et al. Urban ecosystem services. Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. A Global Assessment 2013, 175-251. Springer, Dordrecht. T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. Marcotullio, R. McDonald, S. Parnell (Eds.).
29. Granath, F., Blom, G., Östergård, H., Andersson, J., Inghe, O., Hagbarth, U., Ivarsson, M., et al., 2012. Sammanställd information om Ekosystemtjänster (Compiled information on ecosystem services). Available from: (accessed 06.03.14). http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/miljoarbete-i-samhallet/miljoarbete-i-sverige/regeringsuppdrag/2012/ekosystem-ekosystemtjanster/ekosystem-tjanster.pdf.
30. Gunder M., Hillier J. Planning in ten words or less. A Lacanian Entanglement with Spatial Planning 2009, Ashgate, Farnham.
31. Haaren C.von, Albert C. Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies. TBSM 2011, 7:150-167.
32. Haase D., Larondelle N., McPhearson T., Schwarz N., Hamstead Z., Kremer P., Artmann M., et al. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem services assessment: concepts, models and implementation. AMBIO 2014, 43:413-433.
33. Hauck J., Görg C., Varjopuro R., Ratamäki O., Jax K. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 25:13-21.
34. Honrado J.P., Vieira C., Soares C., Monteiro M.B., Marcos B., Pereira H.M., Partidário M.R. Can we infer about ecosystem services from EIA and SEA practice? A framework for analysis and examples from Portugal. Environ. Impact Assess. 2013, 40:14-24.
35. Howlett M., Cashore B. The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: understanding policy change as a methodological problem. J. Comp. Pol. Anal. 2009, 11:33-46.
36. Kabisch N. Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning - The case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy 2015, 42:557-567.
37. Karvonen A. Metronatural™: Inventing and reworking urban nature in Seattle. Prog. Plan. 2010, 74:153-202.
38. Kopperoinen L., Itkonen P., Niemelä J. Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into a new place-based methodology. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, (online).
39. Kumar P. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Ecological and Economic Foundations. [TEEB: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity] 2010, Earthscan, London.
40. Lachmund J. Greening Berlin. The Co-production of Science, Politics, and Urban Nature 2013, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
41. Lewan, L., 2000. Ekologiska fotavtryck & biokapacitet: verktyg för planering och uppföljning av hållbar utveckling i ett internationellt perspektiv (Ecological Footprints & Biocapacity: Tools for planning and follow-up of sustainable development in an international perspective). Available from: (accessed 04.03.14). http://www.boverket.se/Global/Webbokhandel/Dokument/2000/ekologiska_fotavtryck_och_biokapacitet.pdf.
42. Li F., Wang R., Paulussen J., Liu X. Comprehensive concept planning of urban greening based on ecological principles: a case study in Beijing, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2005, 72:325-336.
43. MA Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
44. Matzdorf B., Meyer C. The relevance of the ecosystem services framework for developed countries' environmental policies: a comparative case study of the US and EU. Land Use Policy 2014, 38:509-521.
45. McPhearson T., Kremer P., Hamstead Z. Mapping ecosystem services in New York City: applying a social-ecological approach in urban vacant land. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5:11-26.
46. McPhearson T., Maddox D., Gunther B., Bragdon D. New York city biodiversity, green space, and ecosystem services. Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. A Global Assessment 2013, 355-383. Springer, Dordrecht. T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. Marcotullio, R. McDonald, S. Parnell (Eds.).
47. McPhearson T., Hamstead Z., Kremer P. Urban ecosystem services for resilience planning and management in New York city. AMBIO 2014, 43:502-515.
48. Sustainable Stockholm. Exploring Urban Sustainability in Europe's Greenest City 2013, Routledge, New York. J. Metzger (Ed.).
49. Molnar J.L., Kubiszewski I. Managing natural wealth: research and implementation of ecosystem services in the United States and Canada. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 2:45-55.
50. NCY Planning, 2010. 2010 Primary Land Use. Available from: (accessed 06.03.14). http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/landusefacts/landuse_tables.pdf.
51. Newman, P., Thornley, A., 2013. Case study window. Global Cities: Governance Cultures and Urban Policy in New York, Paris, Tokyo and Beijing. In: Young, G., Stevenson, D. (Eds.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning and Culture, pp. 69-84.
52. Niemelä J., Saarela S.R., Soderman T., Kopperoinen L., Yli-Pelkonen V., Vare S., Kotze D.J. Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces. A Finland case study. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19:3225-3243.
53. Norgaard R.B. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1219-1227.
54. Piwowarczyk J., Kronenberg J., Dereniowska M.A. Marine ecosystem services in urban areas: do the strategic documents of Polish coastal municipalities reflect their importance?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109:85-93.
55. Primmer E., Furman E. Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems?. Ecosys. Serv. 2012, 1:85-92.
56. Rall E.L., Haase D. Creative intervention in a dynamic city: a sustainability assessment of an interim use strategy for brownfields in Leipzig, Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 100:189-201.
57. Rall, E.L., Kabisch, N., Hansen, R., 2014. Operationalizing Ecosystem Services in Urban Planning: An Exploration of Implementation and Challenges in New York and Berlin, in review.
58. Randolph J. Environmental Land Use Planning and Management 2012, Island Press, Washington.
59. Roe E. Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice 1994, Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
60. Rouse D.C., Bunster-Ossa I.F. Green infrastructure. A Landscape Approach 2013, Amer College Personnel.
61. Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H., Guerry, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., Polasky, S., et al., Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ., in press.
62. Scarlett, L., Boyd, J., Ecosystem services and resource management: institutional issues, challenges, and opportunities in the public sector. Ecol. Econ., in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.013.
63. Schewenius M., McPhearson T., Elmqvist T. Opportunities for increasing resilience and sustainability of urban social-ecological systems: insights from the URBES and the cities biodiversity outlook projects. AMBIO 2014, 43:434-444.
64. Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E.H., van Oudenhoven, A.P., Remme, R.P., Serna-Chavez, H.M., de Groot, R.S., Opdam, P., Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conserv. Lett., in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091.
65. Schwarz N., Bauer A., Haase D. Assessing climate impacts of planning policies - an estimation for the urban region of Leipzig (Germany). Environ. Impact Assess. 2011, 31:97-111.
66. Stadsledningskontoret, 2013. Stockholm: Facts & Figures 2013. Available from: (accessed 06.03.14). http://www.statistikomstockholm.se/attachments/article/21/facts%20and%20figures%202013_webb.pdf.
67. Stadt Salzburg (Ed.), 2013. Salzburg in Zahlen. Stand 2013.
68. Statistik Austria, 2013. Stadtregionen Abgrenzung 2001 - Stand 1.1.2013.
69. TEEB, 2011. TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management.
70. The City of New York, 2013. plaNYC. A Stronger, More Resilient New York. Available from: (accessed 06.03.14). http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030.
71. US Census Bureau, 2010. People Quick Facts, New York (City). Available from: (accessed 04.03.14). http://www.quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3651000.html.
72. US Census Bureau, 2011. Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Population of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Available from: (accessed 06.03.14). http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2011/tables/CBSA-EST2011-01.csv.
73. US Census Bureau, 2012. Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change, 2000 to 2010.
74. US Census Bureau, 2014a. State & County QuickFacts. New York (city), New York. Available from: (accessed 06.03.14). http://www.quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3651000.html.
75. US Census Bureau, 2014b. State & County QuickFacts. Seattle (city), Washington. Available from: (accessed 06.03.14). http://www.quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/5363000.html.
76. Wilkinson C., Saarne T., Peterson G.D., Colding J. Strategic spatial planning and the ecosystem services concept - an historical exploration. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18:37.
77. Young R.F. Mainstreaming urban ecosystem services: a national survey of municipal foresters. Urban Ecosyst. 2013, 16:703-722.