IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v72y2018icp27-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational

Author

Listed:
  • Brunet, Lucas
  • Tuomisaari, Johanna
  • Lavorel, Sandra
  • Crouzat, Emilie
  • Bierry, Adeline
  • Peltola, Taru
  • Arpin, Isabelle

Abstract

The term ‘actionable knowledge’ indicates the rising expectation that science should produce useful results for policy and planning. In line with this, the success of the notion of ecosystem services (ES) in ecological sciences has been associated with promises of enhanced environmental protection and a narrowed gap between ecological knowledge and action. Promising to deliver operational knowledge for land-use planning, the notion allows ecologists to address social and economic issues related to conservation. We show that actionability of ES in land-use planning is not given, but requires active engagement by ecologists, land-use planners and nature managers. Making ES knowledge useful can be achieved through a range of techniques facilitating collaborative action between the producers and users of ES knowledge. We draw on exploratory case analyses in France and Finland to show how ES maps and scenarios are mobilised to operationalise ES. More specifically, we identify four techniques associated with mapping and scenario-making that seek to render ES knowledge actionable: (1) measures of ES in specific units, (2) visualisation of the results, (3) storytelling to discuss future options and (4) gamification to enact a culture of cooperation. We underline that these techniques can be used in several different ways in the planning process, providing specific advantages and limits depending on the goals, and that they have a diverging place in professional cultures.

Suggested Citation

  • Brunet, Lucas & Tuomisaari, Johanna & Lavorel, Sandra & Crouzat, Emilie & Bierry, Adeline & Peltola, Taru & Arpin, Isabelle, 2018. "Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-34.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:72:y:2018:i:c:p:27-34
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717304088
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.036?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hauck, Jennifer & Görg, Christoph & Varjopuro, Riku & Ratamäki, Outi & Maes, Joachim & Wittmer, Heidi & Jax, Kurt, 2013. "“Maps have an air of authority”: Potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 25-32.
    2. Frantzeskaki, Niki & Kabisch, Nadja, 2016. "Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 90-98.
    3. Laurens K Hessels & Harro van Lente & Ruud Smits, 2009. "In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(5), pages 387-401, June.
    4. Posner, Stephen & Getz, Christy & Ricketts, Taylor, 2016. "Evaluating the impact of ecosystem service assessments on decision-makers," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 30-37.
    5. Nadia Sitas & Heidi E. Prozesky & Karen J. Esler & Belinda Reyers, 2014. "Exploring the Gap between Ecosystem Service Research and Management in Development Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-23, June.
    6. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    7. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    8. Esther Turnhout & Marian Stuiver & Judith Klostermann & Bette Harms & Cees Leeuwis, 2013. "New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 354-365, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Léa Tardieu & Perrine Hamel & Mehdi Mikou & Lana Coste & Harold Levrel, 2023. "Can the ecosystem service approach make nature more visible in urban planning processes ? [L’approche par les services écosystémiques peut-elle permettre une meilleure mise en visibilité de la natu," Post-Print hal-04509326, HAL.
    2. Khoshkar, Sara & Hammer, Monica & Borgström, Sara & Dinnétz, Patrik & Balfors, Berit, 2020. "Moving from vision to action- integrating ecosystem services in the Swedish local planning context," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    3. Yue Wang & Qi Fu & Tinghui Wang & Mengfan Gao & Jinhua Chen, 2022. "Multiscale Characteristics and Drivers of the Bundles of Ecosystem Service Budgets in the Su-Xi-Chang Region, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-26, October.
    4. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Schirpke, Uta & Ghermandi, Andrea & Sinclair, Michael & Van Berkel, Derek & Fox, Nathan & Vargas, Leonardo & Willemen, Louise, 2023. "Emerging technologies for assessing ecosystem services: A synthesis of opportunities and challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    6. Thompson, Kate & Sherren, Kate & Duinker, Peter N., 2019. "The use of ecosystem services concepts in Canadian municipal plans," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Di Marino, Mina & Tiitu, Maija & Lapintie, Kimmo & Viinikka, Arto & Kopperoinen, Leena, 2019. "Integrating green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning. Results from two Finnish case studies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 643-656.
    8. Mohammadyari, Fatemeh & Tavakoli, Mohsen & Zarandian, Ardavan & Abdollahi, Sedighe, 2023. "Optimization land use based on multi-scenario simulation of ecosystem service for sustainable landscape planning in a mixed urban - Forest watershed," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 483(C).
    9. Rachel E. Bitoun & Ewan Trégarot & Rodolphe Devillers, 2022. "Bridging theory and practice in ecosystem services mapping: a systematic review," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 103-116, March.
    10. Laterra, Pedro & Weyland, Federico & Auer, Alejandra & Barral, Paula & González, Aira & Mastrángelo, Matías & Rositano, Florencia & Sirimarco, Ximena, 2023. "MARCHI: A serious game for participatory governance of ecosystem services in multiple-use protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    11. Thompson, Kate & Sherren, Kate & Duinker, Peter N. & Terashima, Mikiko & Hayden, Anders, 2024. "Building the case for protecting urban nature: How urban planners use the ideas, rhetoric, and tools of ecosystem services science," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    12. Nápoles-Vértiz, Sonia & Caro-Borrero, Angela, 2024. "Conceptual diversity and application of ecosystem services and disservices: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Kathleen C. Stosch & Richard S. Quilliam & Nils Bunnefeld & David M. Oliver, 2022. "Rapid Characterisation of Stakeholder Networks in Three Catchments Reveals Contrasting Land-Water Management Issues," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    14. Jordan Dornbierer & Steve Wika & Charles Robison & Gregory Rouze & Terry Sohl, 2021. "Prototyping a Methodology for Long-Term (1680–2100) Historical-to-Future Landscape Modeling for the Conterminous United States," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-31, May.
    15. Balázsi, Ágnes & Dänhardt, Juliana & Collins, Sue & Schweiger, Oliver & Settele, Josef & Hartel, Tibor, 2021. "Understanding cultural ecosystem services related to farmlands: Expert survey in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    16. Weyland, Federico & Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique & Auer, Alejandra Denise & Barral, María Paula & Nahuelhual, Laura & Larrazábal, Alejandra & Parera, Aníbal Francisco & Berrouet Cadavid, Lina María & L, 2019. "Ecosystem services approach in Latin America: From theoretical promises to real applications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 280-293.
    17. Filipa Guilherme & Eva García Moreno & José Alberto Gonçalves & Miguel A. Carretero & Paulo Farinha-Marques, 2022. "Looking Closer at the Patterns of Land Cover in the City of Porto, Portugal, between 1947 and 2019—A Contribution for the Integration of Ecological Data in Spatial Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maczka, Krzysztof & Chmielewski, Piotr & Jeran, Agnieszka & Matczak, Piotr & van Riper, Carena J., 2019. "The ecosystem services concept as a tool for public participation in management of Poland’s Natura 2000 network," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 173-183.
    2. Bagdon, Benjamin A. & Huang, Ching-Hsun & Dewhurst, Stephen, 2016. "Managing for ecosystem services in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests using a novel simulation-to-optimization methodology," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 324(C), pages 11-27.
    3. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    4. Ping Zhang & Liang He & Xin Fan & Peishu Huo & Yunhui Liu & Tao Zhang & Ying Pan & Zhenrong Yu, 2015. "Ecosystem Service Value Assessment and Contribution Factor Analysis of Land Use Change in Miyun County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-24, June.
    5. Blayac, Thierry & Mathé, Syndhia & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Fontaine, Pascal, 2014. "Perceptions of the services provided by pond fish farming in Lorraine (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 115-123.
    6. Nekane Castillo-Eguskitza & María F. Schmitz & Miren Onaindia & Alejandro J. Rescia, 2019. "Linking Biophysical and Economic Assessments of Ecosystem Services for a Social–Ecological Approach to Conservation Planning: Application in a Biosphere Reserve (Biscay, Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-23, May.
    7. Malinga, Rebecka & Gordon, Line J. & Jewitt, Graham & Lindborg, Regina, 2015. "Mapping ecosystem services across scales and continents – A review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 57-63.
    8. Leander Raes & Nikolay Aguirre & Marijke D’Haese & Guido Huylenbroeck, 2014. "Analysis of the cost-effectiveness for ecosystem service provision and rural income generation: a comparison of three different programs in Southern Ecuador," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 471-498, June.
    9. Gerd Lupp & Bernhard Förster & Valerie Kantelberg & Tim Markmann & Johannes Naumann & Carolina Honert & Marc Koch & Stephan Pauleit, 2016. "Assessing the Recreation Value of Urban Woodland Using the Ecosystem Service Approach in Two Forests in the Munich Metropolitan Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-14, November.
    10. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    11. Chen, Chundi & Wang, Yuncai & Jia, Junsong & Mao, Longfei & Meurk, Colin D., 2019. "Ecosystem services mapping in practice: A Pasteur’s quadrant perspective," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    12. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    13. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Spatial dynamics of biophysical trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services in the Himalayas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    14. Xiaohui Ding & Chen Zhou & Volker Mauerhofer & Weizhou Zhong & Guoping Li, 2019. "From Environmental Soundness to Sustainable Development: Improving Applicability of Payment for Ecosystem Services Scheme for Diverting Regional Sustainability Transition in Developing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-22, January.
    15. Maia de Souza, Danielle & Lopes, Gabriela Russo & Hansson, Julia & Hansen, Karin, 2018. "Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: A synthesis of knowledge and recommendations for biofuels," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 200-210.
    16. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, C.S.A. (Kris) & van Ierland, Ekko C. & Leidekker, Jakob, 2016. "Temporal scales, ecosystem dynamics, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystems services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 109-119.
    17. Kovács, Eszter & Kelemen, Eszter & Kalóczkai, Ágnes & Margóczi, Katalin & Pataki, György & Gébert, Judit & Málovics, György & Balázs, Bálint & Roboz, Ágnes & Krasznai Kovács, Eszter & Mihók, Barbara, 2015. "Understanding the links between ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 117-127.
    18. Vrebos, Dirk & Staes, Jan & Vandenbroucke, Tom & D׳Haeyer, Tom & Johnston, Robyn & Muhumuza, Moses & Kasabeke, Clovis & Meire, Patrick, 2015. "Mapping ecosystem service flows with land cover scoring maps for data-scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 28-40.
    19. Shackleton, Ross T. & Angelstam, Per & van der Waal, Benjamin & Elbakidze, Marine, 2017. "Progress made in managing and valuing ecosystem services: a horizon scan of gaps in research, management and governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PB), pages 232-241.
    20. Rall, Emily Lorance & Kabisch, Nadja & Hansen, Rieke, 2015. "A comparative exploration of uptake and potential application of ecosystem services in urban planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 230-242.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:72:y:2018:i:c:p:27-34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.