Applications of biodiversity and ecosystem services impact assessment in spatial planning

Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 222-254

  Kopperoinen, Leena ^a   Albert, Christian ^b   Itkonen, Pekka ^c  

^a FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^c Helsinki City Rescue Department   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85042306029     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781783478996.00016     Document Type: Chapter

References (56)

1. Albert, C. and C. von Haaren 2014, Implications of applying the green infrastructure concept in landscape planning for ecosystem services in peri-urban areas: An expert survey and case study, Planning Practice & Research online, accessed 23 January 2016 at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697459.2014.973683?journalCode=cppr20.
2. Albert, C., J. Aronson and C. Fürst et al. 2014, Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: Requirements, approaches, and impacts, Landscape Ecology, 298, 1277-85.
3. Albert, C., C. von Haaren and C. Galler 2012, Ökosystemdienstleistungen: Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen oder ein Impuls für die Landschaftsplanung?, Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 44, 142-8.
4. ARL ed. 2003, Planungsbegriffe in Europa, Deutsch-Niederländisches Handbuch der Planungsbegriffe, Hannover: Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung-ARL.
5. ARL ed. 2005, Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung, Hannover: Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung-ARL.
6. ARL ed. 2011, Grundriss der Raumordnung und Raumentwicklung, Hannover: Verlag der ARL.
7. Baró, F., D. Haase, E. Gómez-Baggethun and N. Frantzeskaki 2015, Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: A quantitative assessment in five European cities, Ecological Indicators, 55, 146-58.
8. Becker, G. and M. Richard 1990, The Biotope Area Factor as an Ecological Parameter -Principles for its Determination and Identification of the Target, Berlin: Landschaft Planen & Bauen.
9. Bergsten, A., O. Bodin and F. Ecke 2013, Protected areas in a landscape dominated by logging-a connectivity analysis that integrates varying protection levels with competition-colonization tradeoffs, Biological Conservation, 160, 279-88.
10. Brown, G. 2013, Relationships between spatial and non-spatial preferences and place-based values in national forests, Applied Geography, 44, 1-11.
11. Brown, G., M. Kelly and D. Whitall 2013, Which “public”? Sampling effects in public participation GIS PPGIS and volunteered geographic information VGI systems for public lands management, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 572, 190-214.
12. Calabrese, J.M. and W.F. Fagan 2004, A comparison-shoppers guide to connectivity metrics, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 210, 529-36.
13. Chan, K.M.A., A.D. Guerry and P. Balvanera et al. 2012, Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement, Bioscience, 628, 744-56.
14. City of Tampere 2014, Kantakaupungin yleiskaava 2040. Osallistumis- ja arviointisuun-nitelma 26.3.2014 Local master plan for the inner city 2040-participation and assessment scheme, 26 March 2014, accessed 26 January 2016 at http://www.tampere.fi/liitteet/o/tYcUE45eO/OsallistumisJaArviointisuunnitelma.pdf in Finnish.
15. Emanuelsson, K. and J. Persson 2014, En kontextanpassad grönytefaktormodell. Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet A Context-adapted Green Factor Model, Alnarp: Fakulteten för landskapsarkitektur, Trädgärds- och växtproduktionsvetenskap in Swedish.
16. European Commission 2011, The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
17. European Environment Agency 2014, Spatial Analysis of Green Infrastructure in Europe, EEA Technical Report No. 2/2014, Luxembourg: European Environment Agency.
18. European Environment Agency 2015, CICES: Towards a common classification of ecosystem services website, accessed 6 August 2015 at http://cices.eu/.
19. García-Nieto, A.P, C. Quintas-Soriano and M. García-Llorente et al. 2015, Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: The role of stakeholders profiles, Ecosystem Services, 13, 141-52.
20. Geneletti, D. 2011, Reasons and options for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial planning, International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 73, 143-9.
21. Geneletti, D. 2013, Assessing the impact of alternative land-use zoning policies on future ecosystem services, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 25-35.
22. Geneletti, D. 2014, Integrating Ecosystem Services in Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Guide for Practitioners, a ProEcoServ report, Nairobi: United Nations Environment Program UNEP.
23. Hatton Macdonald, D., R. Bark and A. Coggan 2014, Is ecosystem service research used by decision-makers? A case study of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia, Landscape Ecology, 298, 1447-60.
24. Honrado, J.P., C. Vieira and C. Soares et al. 2013, Can we infer about ecosystem services from EIA and SEA practice? A framework for analysis and examples from Portugal, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 14-24.
25. Itkonen, P., L. Kopperoinen and A. Viinikka et al. 2015, Case: Mapping green infrastructure and ecosystem services in the Helsinki-Uusimaa Region, in J.-P. Jappinen and J. Heliola eds, Towards a Sustainable and Genuinely Green Economy. The Value and Social Significance of Ecosystem Services in Finland TEEB for Finland. Synthesis and Roadmap, The Finnish Environment, Helsinki: Ministry of the Environment, pp. 46-55.
26. Jarvela, E. and T. Tiihonen 2014, Climate-proof City. Developing a Green Factor Tool for the City of Helsinki, Helsinki: City of Helsinki and Eero Paloheimo Ecocity Ltd.
27. Kelemen, E., M. Garcia-Llorente and G. Pataki et al. 2014, Non-monetary techniques for the valuation of ecosystem services, in M. Potschin and K. Jax eds, Ecosystem Services Reference Book, accessed 23 January 2016 at www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book.
28. Klain, S.C. and K.M.A. Chan 2012, Navigating coastal values: Participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning, Ecological Economics, 82, 104-13.
29. Kopperoinen, L., P. Itkonen and J. Niemela 2014, Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: An insight into a new place-based methodology, LandscapeEcology, 298, 1361-75.
30. Kruuse, A. 2011, GRaBS Expert Paper 6: The Green Space Factor and the Green Points System, London: Town and Country Planning Association.
31. Kytta, M. and M. Kahila 2011, SoftGIS methodology-building bridges in urban planning, GIM International The Global Magazine for Geomatics, 253, 37-41.
32. Kytta, M., A. Broberg and T. Tzoulas et al. 2013, Towards contextually sensitive urban densification: Location-based softGIS knowledge revealing perceived residential environmental quality, Landscape and Urban Planning, 113, 30-46.
33. Laita, A., J. Kotiaho and M. Monkkonen 2011, Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: What do they tell us about connectivity?, Landscape Ecology, 267, 951-67.
34. Maes, J., A. Teller and M. Erhard et al. 2013, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An Analytical Framework for Ecosystem Assessments Under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
35. Milcu, A., J. Hanspach and D. Abson et al. 2013, Cultural ecosystem services: A literature review and prospects for future research, Ecology and Society, 183, 565-98.
36. Ministry of the Environment 2002, Finlands National Land Use Guidelines, Helsinki: Ministry of the Environment, Land Use Department.
37. Moreno, J., I. Palomo and J. Escalera et al. 2014, Incorporating ecosystem services into ecosystem-based management to deal with complexity: A participative mental model approach, Landscape Ecology, 298, 1407-21.
38. Nadin, V. 2006, The Role and Scope of Spatial Planning. Literature Review. Spatial Plans in Practice: Supporting the Reform of Spatial Planning, Wetherby, UK: Communities and Local Government, accessed 20 January 2016 at http://webarchive.nationalarchives. gov.uk/20120919132719.
39. Partidario, M.R. and R.C. Gomes 2013, Ecosystem services inclusive strategic environmental assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 36-46.
40. Pascual-Hortal, L. and S. Saura 2006, Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: Towards the prioritization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation, Landscape Ecology, 217, 959-67.
41. Peifer, H. 2009, CORILIS Version 3-A Short Technical Description, European Environment Agency, accessed 17 February 2015 at http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corilis-2000-2#tab-methodology.
42. Potschin, M. and R. Haines-Young 2011, Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective, Progress in Physical Geography, 355, 575-94.
43. Raymond, C.M., B.A. Bryan and D. Hatton MacDonald et al. 2009, Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services, Ecological Economics, 685, 1301-15.
44. Region Hannover 2009, Regional Planning in the Hannover Region, Hannover: Region Hannover.
45. Region Hannover 2013, Landschaftsrahmenplan der Region Hannover Regional Landscape Plan of Region Hannover, Hannover: Region Hannover.
46. Saura, S., O. Bodin and M.-J. Fortin 2014, Stepping stones are crucial for species longdistance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks, Journal of Applied Ecology, 511, 171-82.
47. Sindell, M. and Z. Thomas 2011, Green Factor: Redux. Leveraging Seattles Green Code to Create Urban Spaces, accessed 21 January 2016 at http://www.gglo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011-08-31_UW-Green-Factor-Final.pdf.
48. Soderman, T. and S.-R. Saarela eds 2011, Kestavat kaupunkiseudut. Kriteereita ja mit-tareita suunnittelun tyovalineiksi Sustainable urban regions-criteria and indicators for land use planning, Finnish Environment 25/2011, Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute in Finnish; English abstract.
49. Soderman, T., P. Itkonen and J. Rinne et al. 2014, Ekosysteemipalvelut ja viherrak-enne Tampereella-EVITA-hankkeen loppuraportti Ecosystem Services and Green Infrastructure in Tampere-The Final Report of the EVITA project, Tampere: City of Tampere, accessed 17 February 2015 at http://www.tampere.fi/material/attachments/e/rnJW3eIn6/EVITA_Ekosysteemipalvelut_ja_viherrakenne.pdf in Finnish.
50. Soderman, T., L. Kopperoinen and V. Yli-Pelkonen. 2012, Ecosystem services criteria for sustainable development in urban regions, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 142, 1250008-48.
51. Soille, P. and P. Vogt 2009, Morphological segmentation of binary patterns, Pattern Recognition Letters, 304, 456-9.
52. Spangenberg, J.H., C. von Haaren and J. Settele 2014, The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy, Ecological Economics, 104, 22-32.
53. Statistics Finland 2014, National accounts, accessed 21 January 2016 at http://www.tilas-tokeskus.fi/til/kan_en.html.
54. Stenning, E. 2008, An assessment of the Seattle green factor: Increasing and improving the quality of urban green infrastructure, Master of Urban Planning thesis, Department of Urban Design and Planning. University of Washington.
55. Van Assche, K., R. Beunen and M. Duineveld et al. 2013, Co-evolutions of planning and design: Risks and benefits of design perspectives in planning systems, Planning Theory, 122, 177-98, accessed 29 January 2016 at http://plt.sagepub.com/content/12/2Z177.short.
56. Von Haaren, C., C. Albert and J. Barkmann et al. 2014, From explanation to application: Introducing a practice-oriented ecosystem services evaluation PRESET model adapted to the context of landscape planning and management, Landscape Ecology, 298, 1335-46.