Can the Craft of Planning Be Ecologized? (And Why the Answer to That Question Doesn’t Include ‘Ecosystem Services’)

  • Jonathan Metzger


In this chapter I argue that any serious ambition toward ‘ecologizing’ the craft of planning would in addition to a reconfiguration of its underpinning sensibility also demand the development of a new methodological toolbox since currently existing frameworks are seriously limited by their foundations in modernist epistemologies and ontologies. I particularly focus on analyzing Ecosystem Services approaches, a set of methods that is today considered to be at the forefront of ecological planning, and carefully scrutinize how they in practice enact (or not) issues of wicked ecological complexity. I conclude that such approaches fail to provide handles for grappling with the type of complex trans-scalar ecological interdependencies that planning processes unavoidable must tackle if they are to function as vehicles for confronting planetary ecological challenges.


  1. Balducci, A., L. Boelens, J. Hillier, T. Nyseth, and C. Wilkinson. 2011. Introduction: Strategic Spatial Planning in Uncertainty: Theory and Exploratory Practice. Town Planning Review 82 (5): 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnosky, A.D., N. Matzke, S. Tomiya, G.O. Wogan, B. Swartz, T.B. Quental, C. Marshall, et al. 2011. Has the Earth/’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived? Nature 471 (7336): 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braun, B. 2015. THE 2013 ANTIPODE RGS-IBG LECTURE New Materialisms and Neoliberal Natures. Antipode 47 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Callon, M., and J. Law. 2005. On Qualculation, Agency, and Otherness. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 23 (5): 717–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castree, N. 2003. Commodifying What Nature? Progress in Human Geography 27 (3): 273–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. 1939. Theory of Valuation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ernstson, H., and S. Sörlin. 2013. Ecosystem Services as Technology of Globalization: On Articulating Values in Urban Nature. Ecological Economics 86: 274–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guattari, F. 2000. The Three Ecologies. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hahn, T., C. McDermott, C. Ituarte-Lima, M. Schultz, T. Green, and M. Tuvendal. 2015. Purposes and Degrees of Commodification: Economic Instruments for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Need Not Rely on Markets or Monetary Valuation. Ecosystem Services 16: 74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hinchliffe, S., M.B. Kearnes, M. Degen, and S. Whatmore. 2007. Ecologies and Economies of Action—Sustainability, Calculations, and Other Things. Environment and Planning A 39 (2): 260–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jackson, S., and L.R. Palmer. 2015. Reconceptualizing Ecosystem Services Possibilities for Cultivating and Valuing the Ethics and Practices of Care. Progress in Human Geography 39 (2): 122–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kosoy, N., and E. Corbera. 2010. Payments for Ecosystem Services as Commodity Fetishism. Ecological Economics 69 (6): 1228–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kwa, C. 2002. Romantic and Baroque Conceptions of Complex Wholes in the Sciences. In Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices, ed. J. Law and A. Mol. Durham, NC: Duke University.Google Scholar
  15. Latour, B. 1993. We have Never been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 1998. To Modernize or to Ecologize? That’s the Question. In Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millennium, ed. N. Castree and B. Willems-Braun, 221–242. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2004. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2013. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2016. Why Gaia is not a God of Totality. Theory, Culture & Society. doi: 10.1177/0263276416652700.
  20. Law, J. 2004. And if the Global were Small and Noncoherent? Method, Complexity, and the Baroque. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22 (1): 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lempert, R.J., S.W. Popper, and S.C. Bankes. 2003. Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative Long-Term Strategy Analysis (MR-1626-RPC). Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Pardee Center.Google Scholar
  22. McHarg, I.L. 1969. Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press for the American Museum of Natural History.Google Scholar
  23. McKenzie, E., S. Posner, P. Tillmann, J.R. Bernhardt, K. Howard, and A. Rosenthal. 2014. Understanding the Use of Ecosystem Service Knowledge in Decision Making: Lessons from International Experiences of Spatial Planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32 (2): 320–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murdoch, J. 2006. Post-structuralist Geography: A Guide to Relational Space. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  25. Ndubisi, F. 2002. Ecological Planning: A Historical and Comparative Synthesis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Norgaard, R.B. 2010. Ecosystem Services: From Eye-Opening Metaphor to Complexity Blinder. Ecological Economics 69 (6): 1219–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paul, A., P.F. Downton, E. Okoli, J.K. Gupta, and M. Tirpak. 2014. Does Adding More Lettuce Make a Hamburger Truly Green? A Metaphor Behind the Green Movement Paradigm in Designing Cities. Environment Systems and Decisions 34 (3): 373–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pickering, A. (2007). Producing Another World. Paper presented at the ‘Assembling Culture’ Workshop, University of Melbourne, Australia, December 10–11.Google Scholar
  29. Prigogine, I., and I. Stengers. 1997. The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos and the New Laws of Nature. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Robertson, M.M. 2004. The Neoliberalization of Ecosystem Services: Wetland Mitigation Banking and Problems in Environmental Governance. Geoforum 35 (3): 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F.S. Chapin, E.F. Lambin, T.M. Lenton, et al. 2009. A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Nature 461 (7263): 472–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Secretariat of the CBD. 2012. Cities and Biodiversity Outlook. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.Google Scholar
  33. Serres, M. (2006). Revisiting the Natural Contract. Talk given at the Institute for the Humanities at Simon Fraser University on May 4, 2006. Available at
  34. SLL. 2013. Ekosystemtjänster i Stockholmsregionen: ett underlag för diskussion och planering. Stockholm: Stockholms Läns Landsting, förvaltningen för Tillväxt, miljö, regionplanering.Google Scholar
  35. Stengers, I. 2011. Thinking with Whitehead: A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. Malta: Progress Press.Google Scholar
  37. Uexküll, J.V. 2010. A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans: With a Theory of Meaning. 1st University of Minnesota Press ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  38. Vatn, A. 2010. An Institutional Analysis of Payments for Environmental Services. Ecological Economics 69 (6): 1245–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Verran, H. 2013. Numbers Performing Nature in Quantitative Valuing. NatureCultures 2: 23–37.Google Scholar
  40. Whitehead, A.N. 1929. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Metzger
    • 1
  1. 1.Divison of Urban & Regional StudiesKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations