When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning

Turkelboom, Francis; Leone, Michael; Jacobs, Sander; Kelemen, Eszter; García-Llorente, Marina; Baró, Francesc; Termansen, Mette; Barton, David N.; Berry, Pam; Stange, Erik; Thoonen, Marijke; Kalóczkai, Ágnes; Vadineanu, Angheluta; Castro, Antonio J.; Czúcz, Bálint; Röckmann, Christine; Wurbs, Daniel; Odee, David; Preda, Elena; Gómez-Baggethun, Erik; Rusch, Graciela M.; Pastur, Guillermo Martínez; Palomo, Ignacio; Dick, Jan; Casaer, Jim; van Dijk, Jiska; Priess, Joerg A.; Langemeyer, Johannes; Mustajoki, Jyri; Kopperoinen, Leena; Baptist, Martin J.; Peri, Pablo Luis; Mukhopadhyay, Raktima; Aszalós, Réka; Roy, S.B.; Luque, Sandra; Rusch, Verónica

When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning

Francis Turkelboom, Michael Leone, Sander Jacobs, Eszter Kelemen, Marina García-Llorente, Francesc Baró, Mette Termansen, David N. Barton, Pam Berry, Erik Stange, Marijke Thoonen, Ágnes Kalóczkai, Angheluta Vadineanu, Antonio J. Castro, Bálint Czúcz, Christine Röckmann, Daniel Wurbs, David Odee, Elena Preda, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Graciela M. Rusch, Guillermo Martínez Pastur, Ignacio Palomo, Jan Dick, Jim Casaer, Jiska van Dijk, Joerg A. Priess, Johannes Langemeyer, Jyri Mustajoki, Leena Kopperoinen, Martin J. Baptist, Pablo Luis Peri, Raktima Mukhopadhyay, Réka Aszalós, S.B. Roy, Sandra Luque and Verónica Rusch

Ecosystem Services, 2018, vol. 29, issue PC, 566-578

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: Trade-off analytical framework; Ecosystem use; Property regimes; Stakeholder responses; Real-world case studies (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (83)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617300256
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:29:y:2018:i:pc:p:566-578

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011

Access Statistics for this article

Ecosystem Services is currently edited by Leon C Braat

More articles in Ecosystem Services from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().