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 ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4180-9338; 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. 2018 When we cannot have it all: ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning [in special issue: SI: Synthesizing OpenNESS] Ecosystem Services, 29 (C). 566-578. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011

Full text not available from this repository.

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011

Abstract/Summary

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.

Item Type:	Publication - Article
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):	10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011
UKCEH and CEH Sections/Science Areas:	Biodiversity (Science Area 2017-)
ISSN:	2212-0416
Additional Keywords:	trade-off analytical framework, ecosystem use, property regimes, stakeholder responses, real-world case studies
NORA Subject Terms:	Ecology and Environment
Date made live:	13 Feb 2018 12:08 +0 (UTC)
URI:	https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/519280

Item Type:

Publication - Article

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011

UKCEH and CEH Sections/Science Areas:

Biodiversity (Science Area 2017-)

ISSN:

2212-0416

Additional Keywords:

trade-off analytical framework, ecosystem use, property regimes, stakeholder responses, real-world case studies

NORA Subject Terms:

Ecology and Environment