TY - JOUR
T1 - When we cannot have it all
T2 - Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning
AU - Turkelboom, Francis
AU - Leone, Michael
AU - Jacobs, Sander
AU - Kelemen, Eszter
AU - García-Llorente, Marina
AU - Baró, Francesc
AU - Termansen, Mette
AU - Barton, David N.
AU - Berry, Pam
AU - Stange, Erik
AU - Thoonen, Marijke
AU - Kalóczkai, Ágnes
AU - Vadineanu, Angheluta
AU - Castro, Antonio J.
AU - Czúcz, Bálint
AU - Röckmann, Christine
AU - Wurbs, Daniel
AU - Odee, David
AU - Preda, Elena
AU - Gómez-Baggethun, Erik
AU - Rusch, Graciela M.
AU - Pastur, Guillermo Martínez
AU - Palomo, Ignacio
AU - Dick, Jan
AU - Casaer, Jim
AU - van Dijk, Jiska
AU - Priess, Joerg A.
AU - Langemeyer, Johannes
AU - Mustajoki, Jyri
AU - Kopperoinen, Leena
AU - Baptist, Martin J.
AU - Peri, Pablo Luis
AU - Mukhopadhyay, Raktima
AU - Aszalós, Réka
AU - Roy, S. B.
AU - Luque, Sandra
AU - Rusch, Verónica
PY - 2018/2
Y1 - 2018/2
N2 - Spatial planning has to deal with trade-offs between various stakeholders' wishes and needs as part of planning and management of landscapes, natural resources and/or biodiversity. To make ecosystem services (ES) trade-off research more relevant for spatial planning, we propose an analytical framework, which puts stakeholders, their land-use/management choices, their impact on ES and responses at the centre. Based on 24 cases from around the world, we used this framing to analyse the appearance and diversity of real-world ES trade-offs. They cover a wide range of trade-offs related to ecosystem use, including: land-use change, management regimes, technical versus nature-based solutions, natural resource use, and management of species. The ES trade-offs studied featured a complexity that was far greater than what is often described in the ES literature. Influential users and context setters are at the core of the trade-off decision-making, but most of the impact is felt by non-influential users. Provisioning and cultural ES were the most targeted in the studied trade-offs, but regulating ES were the most impacted. Stakeholders' characteristics, such as influence, impact faced, and concerns can partially explain their position and response in relation to trade-offs. Based on the research findings, we formulate recommendations for spatial planning.
AB - Spatial planning has to deal with trade-offs between various stakeholders' wishes and needs as part of planning and management of landscapes, natural resources and/or biodiversity. To make ecosystem services (ES) trade-off research more relevant for spatial planning, we propose an analytical framework, which puts stakeholders, their land-use/management choices, their impact on ES and responses at the centre. Based on 24 cases from around the world, we used this framing to analyse the appearance and diversity of real-world ES trade-offs. They cover a wide range of trade-offs related to ecosystem use, including: land-use change, management regimes, technical versus nature-based solutions, natural resource use, and management of species. The ES trade-offs studied featured a complexity that was far greater than what is often described in the ES literature. Influential users and context setters are at the core of the trade-off decision-making, but most of the impact is felt by non-influential users. Provisioning and cultural ES were the most targeted in the studied trade-offs, but regulating ES were the most impacted. Stakeholders' characteristics, such as influence, impact faced, and concerns can partially explain their position and response in relation to trade-offs. Based on the research findings, we formulate recommendations for spatial planning.
KW - Ecosystem use
KW - Property regimes
KW - Real-world case studies
KW - Stakeholder responses
KW - Trade-off analytical framework
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011
DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85034973160
SN - 2212-0416
JO - Ecosystem Services
JF - Ecosystem Services
ER -
