Abstract
Anyone wants to analyze and evaluate ecosystem services is necessarily challenged by the question after the suitable methodology. Due to the complexity of the issue «services of nature for society«, it is not simply a matter of simple recipes. Generally valid methodical requirements refer to the scientific foundations, intersubjective comprehensibility and communicability. The interdisciplinary approach is not only the terminology, but rather the diversity of methods and the different perspectives and approaches (▶ Fig. 1.5), which must be geared to the specific, quite concrete questions. It is necessary to distinguish between general principles and concepts on the one side and specific investigation methods on the other side.
3.1 Properties, Potentials and Services of Ecosystems
3.1.1 The Cascade Model in the TEEB Study
Anyone wants to analyze and evaluate ecosystem services is going to be challenged finding the suitable methodology. Due to the complexity of the issue ‘services of nature for society’, this is no simple feat. Generally valid methodical requirements refer to the scientific foundations, intersubjective comprehensibility, and communicability. The interdisciplinary approach is not only the terminology, but rather the diversity of methods and the different perspectives and approaches (▶ Fig. 1.5), which must be geared to specific, quite concrete questions. It is necessary to distinguish between general principles and concepts on the one side and specific investigation methods on the other side.
In view of the complexity and multidisciplinarity of the problem area ecosystem service (ES) it is no surprise that different scientific-theoretical approaches and practical methods have emerged over time, which complement each other, or which are partially congruent or divergent. This is reflected in the classification of ES (▶ Sect. 3.2), but also in the different theoretical-methodical concepts.
The cascade model of Haines-Young and Potschin (2009) and Maltby (2009) is a frequently cited framework and was also adopted by TEEB (2010) (◉ Fig. 3.1). The graph presents the chain from the ecosystems to human well-being. The ES mediate between the structures, processes and functions (functioning) of ecosystems and the benefits and values belonging to the human well-being. In the real world, however, the relation is not so simple as the graph might communicate. Nevertheless, the general structure proposed by the scheme is widely accepted among experts.
The chain from ecosystem structures and processes to human well-being (from TEEB 2010; www.teebweb.org/EcologicalandEconomicFoundationDraftChapters/tabid/29426/Default.aspx, Chap. 1, p. 11)
3.1.2 The EPPS Framework
Based on this scheme (◉ Fig. 3.1) and taking the knowledge of various schools of landscape ecology and the international scientific discussions into account, we consider the framework depicted in ◉ Fig. 3.2 appropriate for ES issues. According to this, the ‘functions’ in the sense of ecosystem integrity are directly attributed to the left pillar (‘properties of ecosystems’), while the societal functions are subsumed in the ES. This better corresponds with the German understanding of the term ‘function’ (▶ Sect. 2.1). In the cascade model of Haines-Young and Potschin (2009) (◉ Fig. 3.1), functions represent their own intermediate step between the structure and processes on the one side and the ES on the other side. This subgroup of ecosystem processes is essential for and directly contributes to the generation of ES (Albert et al. 2012). The potentials of an ecosystem (or a landscape) show its performance and possible utilisation and, thus, they are a logical intermediate step between the properties (structure and processes) and the ES themselves (real use of nature and landscape, or demand) . This conceptual concept is called EPPS framework (derived from E cosystem P roperties, P otentials and S ervices, cp. Grunewald and Bastian 2010; Bastian et al. 2012b).
Conceptual framework for the analysis and evaluation of ES with a particular focus on space and time aspects (from Grunewald and Bastian 2010, modified)
The basic elements of the EPPS framework will be explained in the following section.
3.1.2.1 Ecosystem Properties
On the left side of the EPPS framework (◉ Fig. 3.2) are the properties of ecosystems–individual objects, parts of objects and even entire ecosystem complexes –and the structures and processes (e.g. soil qualities, nutrient cycles, biological diversity), which form the basis for all ES and, moreover, for the existence of humans and of human society in general. According to van Oudenhoven et al. (2012), ecosystem properties are the set of ecological conditions, structures, and processes that determine whether an ES can be supplied. Since this ecological endowment is, first of all, scientifically based, it has to be assigned mainly to the factual level. The (scientific) analysis of ecosystem properties is the research starting point as it enables an understanding of the functional principles of nature.
It is the matter of the performance basis, i.e. those components of nature that provide services, e.g. the particular components of specifications of ecosystems, which ensure primary production, flood regulation or aesthetic values. As a component of nature, this basis for services is materially manifested and can, in principle, be measured (Staub et al. 2011).
Hence, the analysis of ecosystem properties is predominantly driven by natural scientific methods using analytical indicators . Indicators can be rather easily analyzed and they illustrate the concerned problem especially well. Without them it is almost impossible to decipher the complicated network of relationships of ecosystems (and landscapes) (Durwen et al. 1980; Walz 2011). One category of indicators is bioindicators: organisms, whose living functions can be correlated with certain environmental factors in such a manner that they can be used as a specific indicator for them. As indicators may simplify informations and present them comprehensively, they enable decision-makers to give convincing reasons for their decisions.
There is now extensive experience in the field of analyzing ecosystems, their structures, processes and changes (e.g. in the framework of the ‘Ecosystem Research Germany’–Fränzle 1998), as well as scientific literature (e.g. Leser and Klink 1988; Bastian and Schreiber 1999).
Valueless categories like complexity, diversity, rarity, ecosystem integrity, ecosystem health or resilience also belong to the category of ‘ecosystem properties’ (de Groot et al. 2002). The concept of ‘ecological integrity’ as a precondition for the supply of ES is applied by the assessment method of Burkhard et al. (2009), and Müller and Burkhard (2007, ▶ Sect. 4.1). According to Barkmann (2001) the ‘ecological integrity’ describes the maintenance of those structures and processes that are necessary for the ecosystems’ self-regulation capacity. The ecological integrity is mainly based on variables of energy and matter balance, as well as on structural properties of whole ecosystems. These components are similar to those defined in other ES-studies as supporting services (e.g. in MEA 2005).
3.1.2.1.1 Functional Traits
Sometimes only specific parts of ecosystems, single species, individuals or parts of them (roots or leafs of plants) are relevant for ecosystem services. The issue that functional groups, populations or communities, and different genotypes or species may contribute to service provision to different degrees at different times or in different places has been discussed for several years (de Bello et al. 2010). This involves the concepts of functional traits (Lavorel et al. 1998) and Service Providing Units (SPU–Luck et al. 2003; Harrington et al. 2010; Haslett et al. 2010): a SPU is ‘the collection of organisms and their characteristics necessary to deliver a given ecosystem service at the level required by service beneficiaries.’ Kremen (2005) emphasized the importance of key Ecosystem Service Providers (ESPs) and functional groups of species (e. g. population abundance and spatio-temporal variation in group membership) for service provision. Later, the SPU concept was combined with the concept of ESPs to form the SPU-ESP continuum (Luck et al. 2009), which was simplified by Rounsevell et al. (2010) as the Service Provider (SP) concept.
Despite their potential value for ecosystem service assessment, very little is known about the role of the functional, structural and genetic components of biodiversity (Diaz et al. 2007). Examples for the role of functional groups are known in soil formation, where key taxa exist, such as legumes, which are able to fix atmospheric nitrogen and build up nitrogen stores in the soil , or deep-rooted species that can relocate nutrient elements from the parent material to the surface layers. At a finer scale, sequestration of carbon in stable aggregates depends on the activity of the soil fauna: In many managed systems, control of plant pests can be provided by various generalist and specialist predators and parasitoids. Bees are the dominant taxon providing crop pollination services, but birds, bats, moths, flies and other insects can also be important. The multiple service provision by sub-alpine grasslands depends on plant functional groups, and recreational services such as bird-watching or duck-hunting rely on specific animal taxonomic groups. The literature also mentions examples of ecosystem services provided by such single species as the Eurasian jay (Garrulus glandarius), which ensure oak seed dispersal, or the Eurasian wildcat (Felis silvestris), the very presence of which make it a flagship species in terms of recreational/touristic value (Vandewalle et al. 2008; Haines-Young and Potschin 2009). The loss of an important functional group may cause drastic changes in the functioning of ecosystems.
3.1.2.2 Ecosystem Potentials–The Capacity or Supply Side
Depending on their properties, ecosystems are able to supply services; they have particular potentials or capacities for that. Potentials (▶ Chap. 2) have consciously been included as the second, so as to distinguish between the possibility of use and an actual use, which is the expression of the real service (Bastian et al. 2012a). Potentials can be regarded and quantified as stocks of ES, while the services themselves represent the actual flows (Haines-Young et al. 2012).
In terms of ecosystem potentials, various preconditions need to be considered, e.g. the ecological carrying capacity and the resilience , which is defined as ‘the capacity of a system to absorb and utilise or even benefit from perturbations and changes that attain it, and so to persist without a qualitative change in the system’ (Holling in Ring et al. 2010).
This is closely related to the ecological stability , i.e. the persistence of an ecological system and its capacity to return to the initial situation after changes. Within the ‘stability’, we can distinguish between constancy and cyclicity (without extraneous factors), as well as between resistance and elasticity (with extraneous factors). In this regard, the carrying capacity, meaning the range of a possible use should be mentioned. It indicates to which extent particular utilisations may be tolerated. For example, high (natural) soil fertility allows the assumption of a high potential for farming, though, this alone is not sufficient if, for example, risk factors like high erosion disposition may damage the topsoil at some point, which eventually causes the loss of the usability for farming.
The assessment of ecosystem potentials also pursues the goal of ascertaining the potential use of particular services, and is more normative than a mere accounting of ecosystem properties . It constitutes an important basis for planning, e.g. for the implementation of sustainable land-use systems: the suitability of an ecosystem to carry different forms of land use can be established, the available but still unused potentials can be put to actual use, and risks can be estimated.
3.1.2.3 Ecosystem Services
Only human needs or demands actually convert a potential into a real service. ES, the third pillar of the framework (◉ Fig. 3.2), reflect an even stronger human perspective (value level) , since the services (and goods) are in fact currently valued, demanded, or used. In other words, the status of an ES is influenced not only by its provision of a certain service, but also by human needs and the desired level of provision for this service by society, which connects inseparably supply and demand of ES (Burkhard et al. 2012; Syrbe and Walz 2012) .
We regard services and (societal) functions as synonyms. The term ‘function’ stands for a benefit-oriented view, not for the functioning of ecosystems in the sense of processes, cycles, etc. We prefer a tripartite classification of functions (Bastian and Schreiber 1999) or ES (Grunewald and Bastian 2010): provisioning, regulation and sociocultural services (▶ Sect. 3.2).
The analysis of ES always involves a valuation step, e.g. scientific findings (facts) are transformed into human driven value categories. The decisive factor is the combination of the various causal areas in the relationship between society and nature, one example being economic valuation (e.g. Costanza et al. 1997; Spangenberg and Settele 2010).
Intact ecosystems provide a wide variety of ES that are characterised by complex interrelations (trade-offs, see below). Some ES are strictly related or occur in bundles and, therefore, are influenced positively or negatively if a particular ES is enhanced (e.g. the maximisation of the yield of an arable field at the expense of regulation ES, like carbon sequestration, or habitat services) . The manner of connections and interrelations between single ES is still an issue with significant knowledge gaps (MEA 2005).
Although the EPPS framework focuses on the benefits produced, it also implicitly includes negative social or economic effects of ecosystems (and landscapes) to human well-being, so-called ‘disservices’ (Lyytimäki and Sipilä 2009; Dunn 2010).
As previously stated, the term ES is only justified if ecosystems and their processes generate a benefit for humans. Status and value of ES are determined by the demand depending on the societal conditions. The actual land use reflects such a demand. For the application of the ES concept, the demand side plays a crucial role. Nevertheless, in contrast to ‘ecological’ assessments and plannings (e.g. within landscape planning , cp. Wende et al. 2011a; Albert et al. 2012), spatially precise representations of the demand or the comparison of supply and demand are still rarely implemented (▶ Sect. 5.3). The demand for services, however, is the basis of an appropriate spatial planning . To analyze the demand, information about the actual, intended or desired use of ES is needed, e.g. through socio-economic modelling, statistics, or questionnaires (Burkhard et al. 2012). Suitable data is often only available to a limited extent. They must be specifically collected, which mostly entails a significant amount of work.
Both sections ▶ Chaps. 4 and ▶ 5 and the case studies give an overview of common methodological approaches for assessing ES (▶ Chap. 6).
3.1.2.4 Benefits, Values and Welfare
Through the link ‘ecosystem services’, human beings benefit from ecosystems. That means, ecosystems yield benefits and values (fourth pillar of the EPPS framework), which contribute to human well-being. The benefit is the sociocultural or economic welfare gain provided through the ES, such as health, employment, and income. Moreover, the benefits of ES must have a direct relationship to human wellbeing (Fisher and Turner (2008). Value is most commonly defined as the contribution of ES to goals, objectives or conditions that are specified by a user (van Oudenhoven et al. 2012). Actors in society can attach a value to these benefits. Monetary value can help to internalise so-called externalities (impacts and side effects) in economic valuation procedures so that they can be better taken into account in decision-making processes at all levels. It should be noted that not all dimensions of human well-being can be expressed in monetary terms, e.g. cultural and spiritual values.
For human well-being factors like health, prevention of psychological damages, aesthetic pleasure, recreation, food supply, and economic prosperity are crucial. They are influenced positively by ES. For the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) and several other authors (e.g. Costanza et al. 1997; Wallace 2007) ES and benefits are identical .
In order to measure benefits and values, an evaluation step is necessary. Generally, an evaluation is a relation between an evaluating subject and an object of evaluation, or the degree of fulfilment in comparison with predetermined objectives. This relation has two dimensions:
-
Factual dimension: facts on the object to be evaluated for the reflection of the reality
-
Value dimension : value system or basic values as a normative basis for the value judgment (Bechmann 1989, 1995)
The evaluation shows the extent to which the present state differs from the desired or planned one (Auhagen 1998). The literature often uses the term ‘evaluation’ ambiguously (Wiegleb 1997), e.g. in the sense of basic assessment (scaling), judgment, ranking (relative comparison), or plan/actual comparisons (= evaluation sensu stricto).
An evaluation is the crucial step to process analytical data concerning decision-making and action, i.e. to convert scientific parameters into socio-political categories.
An evaluation sensu stricto indicates the extent and the manner of necessary measures. It provides the norms and orientations for the concrete action, which is always a decision between several options. If an evaluation shall be generally valid, the consensus of the human society is necessary; it is a matter of conventions and, thus, depending on the situation and time. Therefore, evaluation can never be objective. The skill of evaluation is the combination of facts and standards of value with sensible judgement. Evaluations are always based on the competence of the evaluating subject. On no account does subjectivity mean arbitrariness or irrationality since an evaluation is or should be also comprehended by other subjects (intersubjectivity). Necessary preconditions for this are disclosed facts and standards of value that are combined in a systematical manner, i.e. using well-defined assessment procedures (Bechmann 1995; Bastian and Steinhardt 2002).
There are quite different motivations to valuate ES. These motivations heavily depend on moral, aesthetic, and other cultural perspectives (Hein et al. 2006).
It is often neglected that scientific findings are in principle free of value. That means that there is no logical conclusion on the desired situation (normative consideration) from being (actual state, descriptive consideration). In other words: it is not possible to derive value judgments from ecological findings or to answer respective questions such as ‘Which nature we want to protect?’ or ‘How nature shall be protected?’ Things are not valuable per se, but because we appreciate them and decide so.
Already Hume (1740) referred in his ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’ to the problem of the dichotomy between what is and what ought to be. As a term for the derivation of norms from nature, Moore introduced the term ‘naturalistic fallacy’ in his ‘Principa Ethica’ in 1903 (see Erdmann et al. 2002). Terms like naturalness , rarity , etc. don’t necessarily prejudge a value decision. The protection of rare species must be justified because not all rare things are per se worthy of protection. A near-natural vegetation is not generally desirable, e.g. from the farmer’s point of view if he looks at his weedy arable field. However, from a nature conservation point of view, a near-natural vegetation can also be undesired if, for instance, a colourful flowering meadow owing its existence to human influences shall be conserved and not become fallow-field, shrubland or forest.
The sense of formalised evaluation algorithms is to rationalise the (landscape) planning process and to increase the acceptance of the results by society.
For the analysis of benefits and values in the ES context, monetary valuation is often regarded as the method of choice. The sole orientation to the monetary valuation of ES, however, is increasingly regarded critical (Spangenberg and Settele 2010). On the other side, studies on the implementation of measures and their financial consequences (e.g. Lütz and Bastian 2000; von Haaren and Bathke 2008; Grossmann et al. 2010), have shown that a monetary valuation of services may provide incentives for alterations in existing management rules or decision support for certain problem solutions. Monetary values served to internalise so-called externalities (external influences, impacts) in economic valuation methods in order to take them better into account in decision processes at all levels (▶ Sect. 4.2) .
In addition to the economic evaluation , other approaches must also be observed to show the importance of ES. Other dimension of human well-being that cannot be expressed in monetary values , e.g. cultural and spiritual values, should also be integrated. Participative methods have a great significance, i.e. the participation of stakeholders . The preferences for certain ES are negotiated within society. As a basis, adequate background knowledge is indispensable, which entails ecological as well as economic information (▶ Sect. 4.3).
In principle we distinguish between three types of methods for the evaluation of ES (▶ Sect. 4.1, ▶ Sect. 4.2 and ▶ Sect. 4.3): quantitative expert methods (mainly ecologically or physically based), economic/monetary methods and participative, scenario-based methods. Complex methods as combinations of these three methods are discussed in ▶ Sect. 4.4.
3.1.2.4.1 Classification of ES Related Values (▶ Sect. 2.3 and ▶ Sect. 4.2)
ES-related values can be classified into two categories: use values and non-use values . Use values refer to the present, future or potential use of an ES. They encompass direct and indirect use values , option values and quasi-option values .
Values for hunting, fishery and medical plants are examples for use values. All provisioning and some socio-cultural services (e. g. recreation) provide direct use values . Indirect use values refer especially to the positive effects of ecosystems. Examples are the values of pollination and decomposition of toxic substances.
Option values und quasi-option values are connected with information and uncertainty. As humans are not sure what are their future demands, circumstances of life and then available information, they evaluate the option of a possible future use, and they take the expected information growth into account.
Society attributes non-use values to the mere existence of an ecosystem, regardless of the use of its services (existence values) . Altruistic values (benefits of existence for other people) and bequest values (benefits for the well-being of future generations) also belong to this heading. It is often difficult to differentiate the single categories of non-use values, both conceptually and empirically (Hein et al. 2006).
Quasi-option values represent the value of irreversible decisions, until new information is not available, which may indicate today still unknown values of ecosystems. Quasi-option values, too, are difficult to assess in practice (Hein et al. 2006). They are strongly corresponding with the concept of natural potentials .
3.1.2.5 Beneficiaries of ES/Actors
An ecosystem service is only a service if there is a human benefit. Without human beneficiaries, there are no ES (Fisher et al. 2009). Accordingly, a disservice only exists if humans suffer harm. The stakeholders, providers, users or beneficiaries of ecosystems and their services (pillar 5 of the EPPS framework) can be single persons, groups, or society as a whole. Not only do they depend or benefit from ecosystems, they in turn react upon ecosystems through land use, management, decision, regulation, etc. (▶ Chap. 5).
The identification of beneficiaries of ES helps to develop environmental-political steering instruments to set incentives in a targeted manner for a more careful management of ecosystems and the services they deliver. The key question is: Who benefits where from which ES? The following cases can be distinguished (Kettunen et al. 2009):
-
Local public benefits: a site’s role in supporting local identity, local recreation, local nonmarket forest products and the local ‘brand’, etc.
-
Local private benefits: a site’s support to natural water purification resulting in lower pretreatment costs to the local water supply company, etc.
-
Local public sector benefits: a site’s abilities to mitigate floods resulting to lower public investment in flood control and/or flood damage , etc.
-
Regional and cross-border benefits: regulation of climate and floods, mitigation of wild fires, provisioning and purification of water in transnational river basins, etc.
-
International/global public benefits: a site’s provision of habitat for a migratory species at some point in its annual cycle, regulation of climate (carbon capture and storage), maintenance of global species and genetic diversity , etc.
-
International private benefits: new pharmaceutical or medicinal product derived via bioprospecting, etc.
3.1.2.6 Trade-Offs, Limit Values, Driving Forces and Scenarios
Other very important points of view regarding ES are related e.g. to the so-called trade-offs. They describe the multiple interactions and linkages among services; this means that management aimed at providing a single service (e.g. food, fibre, water) often reduces biodiversity and the provision of other services (Ring et al. 2010). Some ES co-vary positively but others negatively. For example, the increase of provisioning ES may reduce many regulation ES. Thus, the growth of agricultural production may reduce carbon storage in the soils , water regulation and/or sociocultural ES. The TEEB study (TEEB 2009) distinguishes between: 1. Temporal trade-offs: Benefits now–costs later, 2. Spatial trade-offs: benefits here–costs there, 3. Beneficiary trade-offs: Some win–others lose, 4. Service trade-offs: Enhancing one ES–reduces another.
All pillars or categories of the framework can or should be analyzed and differentiated in terms of space (e.g. scale, dimension, patterns) and time (e.g. driving forces, changes, scenarios) aspects (▶ Sect. 3.3).
Ecosystems can go through fairly big changes: If critical thresholds or limit values are exceeded, substantial changes cannot be excluded, e.g. the eutrophication of lakes, the degradation of farmland, the collapse of fish stocks or coral reefs .
Ecosystem changes can be triggered by various, partly superposed driving forces . Artner et al. (2005) distinguished between fixed factors or drivers, e.g. the ongoing globalisation, the demographic change and variable factors like the economic development, the societal governance , leisure behaviour, the traffic volume, the consumption of resources and the structural development.
The status of ES can be predicted or analyzed under the assumption of different scenarios. In contrast to a prognosis, a scenario is no forecast and not correlated with a statement on the probability of occurrence. Instead it represents a possible development under defined, predictable conditions. A set of scenarios can be used to simulate possible long-term effects and consequences of decisions (Dunlop et al. 2002) (▶ Sect. 4.3). Scenarios inform the decision-maker about possible welfare gains and losses. Not only do the changes in ecosystems and ES have to be considered, but also the variability of values. Value orientations are subject to cycles and trends (one of the best examples are fashion trends). The future development of societal values depends on many factors. As the value scales, e.g. the value of money , may change, monetary valuations of future states are subject to considerable uncertainties (see the discounting of ES, ▶ Sect. 4.2).
3.1.3 The Application of the EPPS Framework–The Example ‘Mountain Meadow’
Finally, the application of the EPPS framework will be demonstrated with an example, the ecosystem (type) ‘mountain meadow’.
Mountain meadows are species-rich, extensively used meadows of fresh to medium moist sites of mountains above c. 500 m a.s.l. Depending on the geographical situation, nutrient content, moisture balance of soils, type and intensity of use or management, e.g. cutting frequency and fertilisation, mountain meadows occur in different specifications.
For the capacity of mountain meadows to deliver ES, particular characteristics, combinations of them or parts of ecosystems (functional traits–see above) are crucial, e.g. nutrient and water balance, the combination of species and usage intensity. Mountain meadows have the potential to deliver manifold ES of all three classes–provisioning, regulation and sociocultural services , among them:
-
Provisioning services : provision of fodder plants for livestock, biochemical/pharmaceutical substances (spignel plants–Meum athamanticum–and other herbs), drinking water
-
Regulation services: cold air production, water retention and flood prevention, erosion control, habitat services
-
Sociocultural services : aesthetic values (e.g. scenery) , recreation and eco-tourism, culture-historical aspects
Not all of these potentials are really used. There is almost no demand for the biomass from species-rich but low yielding meadows since the current dairy cattle farming trimmed for high-performance has no use for it. The energetic use of scrap materials from landscaping is not very advanced either. Until a market or customers for such materials will come into existence, no benefit or value in an economic sense can be attributed. The situation with biodiversity and aesthetic values is quite different, although a quantification or even monetisation is anything but easy. Irrespective of this, colourful flowering meadows contribute to human well-being because of their beauty and if their occurrence is related to the attractiveness of holiday regions, economic values can be derived, for instance, in the form of the number of tourists traveling there just because of these attractive mountain meadows. In this case, tourists and touristic enterprises can be regarded as beneficiaries, with regard to the maintenance of biodiversity the whole society or even the European Community (in the case of Natura 2000, ▶ Sect. 6.6.1) .
Mountain meadows seem to be natural, but they represent ecosystems created by humans through regular cutting. Hence, an adequate usage or management must be ensured so that the mountain meadows as such and the related/relevant ES are maintained. This requires human labour, e.g. of agricultural enterprises, landscape management associations, or nature conservation organisations. The ones ensuring the ongoing existence of the meadows and the provision of ES with their activities are not always identical with the beneficiaries. However, as society is interested in, for example, the conservation of biodiversity, which is reflected in many laws, contracts, conventions and strategies at different levels, the expense is remunerated in monetary terms (▶ Sect. 6.2). Simultaneously, society ensures for necessary legal instruments in the form of protected areas (nature reserves, Natura 2000, etc.).
All these levels, starting from the ecosystem ‘mountain meadow’ (physical level, factual level) over the ES (intermediate level) to the benefits and beneficiaries (socio-economic level) are subjected to manifold space and time aspects (▶ Sect. 3.3). Thus, at the ecosystem level, the size of the mountain meadow or its arrangement in the biotope mosaic is important, so that the requirements of particular species are met. As a rule, a large mountain meadow delivers more services than a small one, if the other properties are more or less identical; a big flowering meadow has a higher aesthetic effect as a smaller one. Also, benefits and beneficiaries are subject of strong spatial relationships . Thus, the local landscape management association ensures the maintenance of the mountain meadow, and the travelling tourists benefit from its aesthetic values. The effect of the ‘conservation of biodiversity’ is difficult to narrow down in terms of its effective radius, but it may refer–as with Natura 2000–to the whole EU and even other countries.
In terms of time aspects, first of all the changes to which the ecosystems are subjected should be regarded, this is especially the case with mountain meadows due to improper or missing usage or management. Over time attitudes and value systems of people may change.
Changes are triggered by driving forces : globalisation and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU, but also technological progress reducing the attractiveness of mountain meadows for agriculture. Demographic change goes hand in hand with a shortage of personnel in voluntary nature conservation, i.e. less actors are available who will take care of the mountain meadows (Wende et al. 2012). Climate change , too, will doubtless have some measure of impact on such sensible ecosystems.
3.2 Classification of ES
3.2.1 Introduction
In view of the diversity and complexity of ecosystems and the services they supply, it is difficult to develop a classification of ES which is clear, widely accepted, and meets broad requirements. With respect to the classification of ecosystem and landscape functions, potentials and services, there are numerous proposals, classification systems and partly divergent opinions. Depending on the goals of the assessment, spatial scales and specific decision-making context, they all show both strengths and weaknesses.
For the past decades science has been trying to determine a way of classifying ecosystem functions (and services). In 1977, Niemann distinguished four groups of functions: production, landscape-shaping (ecological), human-ecological, and aesthetic ones. Van der Maarel and Dauvellier (1978) declared production, carrier, information, regulation and reservoir functions as societal functions of the physical landscape. Bastian and Schreiber (1999) divided landscape functions into three groups: so-called production functions (economic functions), regulation functions (ecological functions) and habitat functions (sociocultural functions). Each group was again classified into main-functions and sub-functions.
De Groot et al. (1992, 2002) defined regulation, production, habitat, and information functions (or services). The TEEB study also identifies the habitat services as a separate category to stress the importance of ecosystems to provide habitat for migratory species and gene-pool ‘protectors’ (TEEB 2010). Using the definition of Costanza et al. (1997), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) provided a simple typology of services that has been widely taken-up in the international research and policy literature:
-
Provisioning services , e.g. food, drinking water, timber
-
Regulating services , e.g. flood protection, air pollution control
-
Cultural services, e.g. recreation services
-
Supporting services : all processes that ensure necessary preconditions for the existence of ecosystems, e.g. nutrient cycle.
The ES classification systems outlined above shows numerous commonalities, mainly in the three classes provisioning, regulating and cultural services. There is disagreement about the assignment of phenomena, which are the basis for the services of the three other classes. This applies to the supporting services (or basic services , ecosystem integrity –e.g. Müller and Burkhard 2007). We consider supporting services an intermediate (analytical) stage. They are a prerequisite for defining the other three groups of services, but they are more related to the first pillar of our EPPS framework (▶ Sect. 3.1), that of ecosystem properties . Other authors (e.g. Pfisterer et al. 2005, Burkhard et al. 2009, Hein et al. 2006, OECD 2008, Haines-Young and Potschin 2010) also suggest treating them differently from the other ES, which provide their benefits directly to humans. Due to thematic overlaps with regulating ES there is a high risk of double-counting (Hein et al. 2006, Burkhard et al. 2009, see Box p. 51).
The breakdown into productive (economic), regulating (ecological), and societal functions or services (Bastian and Schreiber 1999, Bastian et al. 2012b) has the advantage that it can be linked to both fundamental concepts of sustainability and risk using the established ecological, economic, and social development categories. We adjust the supporting services–depending on the respective situation–to the regulative services or the ecological processes (e.g. nutrient cycles, food chains).
Ultimately, the classification depends on the respective researcher. As a rule, three or four groups with a total of 15 to 30 functions or services are distinguished. For useful results, they must be further specified. Moreover, information on suitable indicators that describe these ES is necessary. In this respect there are still severe deficits in the literature (Jessel et al. 2009, TEEB 2009).
Below we present an overview of ES supplied by terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems based on current knowledge (e.g. Costanza et al. 1997, de Groot et al. 2002, Müller and Burkhard 2007, Vandewalle et al. 2008) and on our own experiences and reflections (Tab. 3.1–3.3). We classify 30 ES according to three main categories: provisioning, regulation and sociocultural services -each with subdivisions. Furthermore, we provide a short definition and description with examples and mention selected indicators for the analysis or the assessment of the ES with no claim to completeness.
3.2.2 Provisioning Services
Ecosystems may provide many goods and services from oxygen and water to food and energy to medicinal and genetic resources, and materials for clothing and shelter. As a rule, these goods and services refer to renewable biotic resources, i.e. the products of living plants and animals. Abiotic resources (raw materials near the earth’s surface), wind and solar energy cannot be assigned to particular ecosystems; hence, they are not, in our view, to be considered ecosystem goods and services. Especially in ecosystems strongly modified by humans (e.g. farmland) it is difficult to differentiate between the natural and human inputs in labour, material and energy to a service or a good (◉ Table 3.1) .
3.2.3 Regulation Services
The biosphere and its ecosystems are the main preconditions for human life. Processes like energy transformation mainly from solar radiation into biomass , storage and transfer of mineral material and energy in food chains, bio-geochemical cycles, mineralisation of organic matter in soils and climate regulation are essential for life on earth . On the other hand, these processes are influenced and enabled by the interaction of abiotic factors with living organisms. The existence and functioning of–particularly natural and semi-natural–ecosystems must be ensured so that people will be able to continue benefiting from these processes in the future. Due to the ‘merely’ indirect benefits of regulation services (Tab. 3.2), they are often overlooked and not sufficiently considered until they are damaged or lost, although they are the basis for human life on earth (De Groot et al. 2002).
3.2.4 Sociocultural Services
Especially natural and semi-natural ecosystems provide manifold opportunities for enjoyment, inspiration, intellectual enrichment, aesthetic delight and recreation. Such ‘psychological-social’ services are no less important to people than regulation and provisioning services ; however, they are often neglected or not fully appreciated. One reason is the difficulty of valuating them economically, especially in monetary terms. A second group includes information services, i.e. the contribution of ecosystems to knowledge and education (Tab. 3.3).
3.2.5 Additional Classification Aspects
Classification systems that combine both ecosystem processes and the results of these processes cause redundancy (Box ‘The problem of double-counting’) . Hence, it should be strictly distinguished between the benefit people enjoy (or the so-called ‘final services’) on the one hand and the mechanisms that give rise to that benefit, the so-called ‘intermediate services’, on the other hand. Any classification system containing both ecosystem processes and the outcomes of those processes within the same set will produce redundancy (Wallace 2008).
The literature also raises the question whether ES are delivered only by natural or semi-natural ecosystems or if they can also be delivered by cultivated areas (Cowling et al. 2008). This may cause astonishment, as even an intensively used arable field may represent a habitat for several plant and animal species. Arable land has a better infiltration rate and, hence, groundwater recharge compared to forests! Biodiversity in cities may be high. Of course, there are methodical specifications regarding the ES of highly modified or man-made ecosystems (e.g. urban ES, ▶ Sect. 6.3).
Hermann et al. (2011) present a classification that distinguishes between two main groups, namely the active and passive functions. Whereas the passive functions are divided into ‘regulating and life sustaining functions’ of the natural systems (environmental regulation, habitat protection, biomass generation) and the ‘potentials’ (biomass, raw material production and provision of territory for the different land uses and provision of information and aesthetics), the active functions are the services provided by human activities and artificial territories (settlements, infrastructure networks, recreation sites and agricultural surfaces, etc.). Apart from the fact that it is difficult in practice to draw a sharp distinction between cultivated and natural ecosystems, most of the ES of Central European cultural landscapes would be excluded by such a narrow ES concept. Instead, we should follow an ES definition which does not distinguish between both ecosystem types (Loft and Lux 2010).
It is not possible to simply dismiss the problem that some ES are not only resulting from ecosystem effects, but that natural effects interfere with human influences. Thus, Boyd and Banzhaf (2007) pointed out that conventional agriculture requires various inputs (soil quality, fertiliser application, human labour) that influence the yield. This, however, makes the identification and assessment of ES difficult, as too many non-natural factors are effective. In contrast, the amount of harvestable end-products of nonactively cultivated ecosystems may be a measure for the assessment of ES. Also, the example of sport fishing mentioned above shows the difficulty while analyzing and evaluating ES. Often, they can deliver benefits only through interactions with other goods and services since the recreation value arising through sport fishing consists of natural conditions (landscape, lake, fishes) and artificial goods (fishing rods, boat, etc.). In other words: without technical tools like the fishing rod the recreation value would not come into effect (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Loft and Lux 2010).
For cases where for the provision of benefits for humans not only ecosystem processes are necessary, but also human impacts, Matzdorf et al. (2010) suggested the term ‘environmental services’. For example, the maintenance of semi-natural meadows with their ES relies on regular mowing. Conscious exclusion of permitted actions, such as the application of fertilisers can be regarded as a human performance , too. Species-rich grassland may be regarded as a final environmental good, for its production both human and ecosystem impacts are necessary. Hence, the evaluation, especially in monetary terms, the anthropogenic part (human performance = private costs) must be subtracted. This means that agriculture delivers environmental services but no ES. Instead it uses them for the production of demanded environmental goods (▶ Sect. 6.2.4).
The method developed for a welfare-oriented perspective of the Swiss environmental reporting, defines altogether 23 final ES (Final Ecosystem Goods and Services–FEGS) in the benefit categories ‘health’, ‘safety’, ‘natural diversity’ and ‘economic performances’ (BAFU 2011). The attribute ‘service type’ indicates whether the provided service:
-
1.
Is a directly usable ES
-
2.
Is an input factor for the production of market goods by the economy
-
3.
Is provided by a natural/healthy habitat (ecosystem)
-
4.
Contributes to final ES as an intermediate ES
(1) Directly usable ES cause discrete benefits to humans (e.g. recreation service) . Input factors (2) are final services of the ecosphere; they are integrated in a market product (e.g. timber growth), they belong to the benefit category ‘economic performance’. The performance type (3) natural/healthy habitat (ecosystem) contains welfare contributions of the environment, which–in contrast to the classical ES–are not ‘produced’ by ecosystems but they rather represent qualities of the habitat enabling humans’ health life (e.g. air quality) . The (4) intermediate ES are considered only exceptionally (e.g. CO2 sequestration), namely if the resulting ES occur only with long delay, and therefore cannot be measured at the moment, yet.
The classification of ES according to spatial characteristics is another possibility. This can be useful if they are used as a basis for decisions on different scales, or if Service Providing Area and Service Benefiting Area are not congruent (Fisher et al. 2009, ▶ Sect. 3.3).
Costanza (2008) grouped ES into five categories according to their spatial characteristics (◉ Table 3.4) . For example, he classified carbon sequestration (CO2 and other greenhouse gases; an intermediate input to climate regulation) as global: non-proximal since the spatial location of carbon sequestration does not matter. Local proximal services, however, are dependent on the spatial proximity of the ecosystem to the human beneficiaries. For example, ‘storm protection’ requires that the ecosystem performing the protecting is proximal to the human settlements being protected. Directional flow related services are related to the flow from upstream to downstream as is the case for water supply and water regulation.
Another way to classify ES is according to their excludability and rivalness status (Costanza 2008, Tab. 3.5). Thus, individuals can be excluded from benefiting from excludable goods and services. Most privately owned, marketed goods and services are relatively easily excludable. One can prevent others from eating the tomatoes one has grown or the fish one caught unless they pay for these goods. But it is difficult or impossible to exclude other people from benefiting from many public goods like a well-regulated climate, fish in the ocean, or the beauty of a forest. Goods and services are rival if one person’s benefiting from them interferes with or is rival with other people benefiting from them. If one person eats the tomato or the fish, another cannot. But if one person benefit from a favourable climate, other people can also do the same. There are cultural and institutional mechanisms available to enforce exclusion, while rivalness is a function of demand (How do benefits depend on other users?).
3.2.5.1 Conclusion
All attempts to develop a generally applicable classification system must be viewed with caution as they are not targeted to a certain extent. ES arise through complex interactions of the biotic and abiotic environment, claims on utilisation and the expectations of the users. An inappropriate classification system as a basis of assessments hardly leads to reliable results. If decisions shall be taken on an economic evaluation , the classification after the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) is less useful since multiple counting may occur. For this purpose, a classification should distinguish between intermediate and final services and benefits. Nevertheless, there is striving for internationally consistent classification systems. The European Environmental Agency (EEA) is promoting the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services (CICES) . The goal of CICES is, starting from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, to develop a new classification system, which is compatible with the already existing national accounting systems (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010).
3.2.5.2 The Problem of Double-Counting
A clear distinction between the ecological phenomena on one hand and their direct and indirect contributions to human well-being on the other hand is necessary to avoid double-counting . They may arise due to the fact that certain ES serve as prerequisite for other ES and become a part of them (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007, Balmford et al. 2008, Wallace 2008).
Intermediate ES are basing on complex interactions between ecosystem structures and processes, and contribute to final ES, which directly provide human benefits and well-being (Fisher et al. 2009). For example, clean drinking water (e. g. from a lake), is traded on markets, and is included as a product in the calculation of welfare, but not the upstream process of natural water filtering. This process can be described as an intermediate service; its indirect value is included in the value of the drinking water (cp. Wallace 2007). The focus of ES classifications on final ES does not mean to abstain from a comprehensive consideration and appreciation of ecosystem structures, processes and cause-effect interrelationships.
But also the regulative services are often included in other ES, e.g. pollination , which is important for the maintenance of fruit-growing, in the ES “food provision”. Mäler et al. (2008) classified only provisioning and cultural ES to the “intermediate” ES, as both provisioning and cultural ES would influence human well-being directly, whilst the other two would do it only indirectly.
After Costanza (2008) all ES are “only” means to achieve human well-being. Ecosystem processes may appear also as ES (the roles of process or service are not mutually exclusive), hence on a case-by-case basis the same ES may be intermediate or final. Thus, the lake with drinking-water quality mentioned above may be regarded as a final product of nature, and a direct societal benefit can be attributed, if the lake serves as water reservoir (final ES). In another context, the same lake may be regarded as a supplier of an intermediate ES, i. e. if the direct benefit consists in fishing for leisure and the special water quality only ensures the fish stock in the lake enabling the angling. In this case, the indirect benefit of the special water quality is included in the direct benefit, which delivers the fish stock for the angler (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007, Loft and Lux 2010).
Generally, there are quite controversial opinions of experts with respect to a clear classification of intermediate and final ES, and agreement may hardly be achieved. Finally, the respective context and pragmatic points of view are crucial.
3.3 Space and Time Aspects of ES
3.3.1 Fundamentals, Control Scheme
“Space and time are modes in which we think, not conditions in which we exist (A. Einstein).”
There are significant deficits in knowledge and many open questions concerning spatial aspects of ES. Ecosystems and their services are always linked to space and time. This issue was addressed repeatedly in the literature, but so far relatively few operationalised and systematised in terms of conceptual and methodological aspects (e.g. Hein et al. 2006; Bastian et al. 2012a). However, there are more and more international publications that operate spatially explicit, e.g. the results of the PEER project (PEER Research on EcoSystem Services, www.peer.eu/projects/press/).
The term ‘space’ is used and considered very important and constitutive in a wide range of scientific disciplines, e.g. philosophy, mathematics and physics, but also history, medicine, theology, archaeology, education science and sociology. Of course, this term is especially important for the inter- and multidisciplinary spatial sciences, such as geography, environmental sciences, urban development and architecture, spatial planning , traffic sciences and also sociology and economics (cf. Müller 2005). According to Blotevogel (1995) we understand ‘space’ as a:
-
a.
tangible physical space (pattern of different ares and cubes), which can be described objectively;
-
b.
the natural human environment (e.g. landscape); and
-
c.
social space (social construction of reality, spaces of collective actions, areas of spatial allocations).
Various main research questions need to be resolved in order to better integrate ES into landscape planning , management and decision-making, as identified by De Groot et al. (2010), who calls for a focus on aspects such as: ‘How can ecosystem/landscape functions and services be spatially defined (mapped) and visualised?’, and: ‘What is the influence of scaling-issues on the economic value of ecosystem and landscape services to society?’
The arrangement patterns and spatial relationships of ecosystems are hardly ever taken into account (Blaschke 2006), and ‘spatial and temporal dimensions of ecosystem service production, use, and value are not well understood’ (TEEB 2010).If the space–time dimensions of the ES concept are not well understood, the conclusion is inevitable that nature and its services cannot be integrated adequately into political decision-making processes . This is especially true of cases involving distribution options.There are further questions, e.g.: to what extent specific methods are necessary for analyses and evaluations in the particular scales? How can spatial approaches in the areas of nature and society be harmonised? How can we define clear space and time relations, especially with regard to distribution options?
Within the EPPS-framework (▶ Sect. 3.1) principle solutions for capturing spatially relevant aspects are offered; ◉ Table 3.6 gives an orientation for it. Appropriate representations and visualisations of spatial aspects of ES should also be considered.
Time aspects are of great relevance related to space. ES are subject to various temporal dynamics. Of particular importance are the different, for the formation of the respective services necessary time spans, the nonsimultaneity in the multifunctional use, and the temporary differences between the provision and use of services or goods (Fisher et al. 2009). The changes in individual services over time are very relevant because functional effects of interventions , plans and other policy measures can be evaluated either retrospectively or may be estimated in advance (scenarios and forecasts). Another aspect is the variability of individual and societal value systems .
3.3.1.1 Spatial Aspects of Ecosystems
The spatial reference of ES appears in many ways. The generation of ES requires ecosystems with specific (including spatial) characteristics. To be able to supply ES, special areal requirements (minimum areas) of the ecosystems concerned are necessary. For example, animal populations need specific minimum areas of appropriate quality for their stability and their survival; a forest must have a size of several hectares to be able to influence the microclimate in the vicinity; a body of groundwater must have a minimum size or rate of groundwater recharge in order to be able to supply usable amounts of drinking water. Sometimes only single parts of ecosystems, single (organism) species, individuals or parts of them (roots or leafs of plants) are responsible for ES generation.
Frequently, a specific spatial composition or pattern of several ecosystems is necessary to generate ES. Composition aspects are also manifested in the spatial congruence or divergence of ES (e.g. Anderson et al. 2009), or in mutual influences. There can be spatial concordance among different services. Some ES co-vary positively: for example, maintaining soil quality may promote nutrient cycling and primary production, enhance carbon storage and hence climate regulation , help regulate water flows and water quality and improve most provisioning services , notably food, fibre and other chemicals (Ring et al. 2010). Other services co-vary negatively (▶ Sect. 3.1).
Multiple ES can be interconnected and interlinked in ‘bundles’ (MEA 2005). Willemen (2010) refers to interactions between landscape functions (or ES), which can be categorised into three classes:
-
1.
Conflicts: the combination of several landscape functions reduces the provision of services to society of a particular landscape function
-
2.
Synergies: the combination of functions enhances a particular function
-
3.
Compatibility: landscape functions co-exist without reducing or enhancing one another
Whether different ES co-vary positively or negatively often depends on the configuration of the ecosystems or landscape elements involved at a specific scale. Productive land uses require compensation areas for the maintenance of key ecosystem providers. By contrast, sensible ecosystems need buffers to shelter them from harmful side effects. Nonetheless, in places without enough space for all desired functions in a landscape to operate equally, complex structures and sophisticated sequences of different ecosystems might be able to maintain the majority of them. In practice, mainly at local levels rather than at regional scales, we are familiar with structural environmental quality standards, such as buffer stripes, habitat connection, wildlife corridors and SCA concepts, as described below. A well-known example is the zoning within large protected areas (national parks, biosphere reserves), where core zones (wilderness) are buffered by managed, near natural zones, which in turn provides a gradient to the more intensively used areas (e.g. farmland) outside the protected areas.
3.3.1.2 Spatial Aspects of ES Providers and ES Beneficiaries (Functional Connections)
In spatial analyses of ES, not only the source area of a service is interesting but also the demand area, i.e. the areas where the benefits are required and realised. Hence, we need to address both providers and beneficiaries of ES: who provides the ES? For whom are they provided or who benefits from them? Within which spatial position is the ES generated and supplied and where is it used (where are providers and beneficiaries located)? We should also consider spatial cost/benefit relationships, such as spatial, ‘benefits here–costs there’ trade-offs, where a service is provided in one location for the benefit of another. This creates a relation between the ES provider (the person/or group responsible for an ES or environmental responsibility) and the ES beneficiary, or between winner/s and loser/s (Ring et al. 2010) .
There are often distinct spatial differences between areas where ES are generated (SPA–Service Providing Areas) and areas which benefit from the ES (SBA–Service Benefiting Areas , correspond to the SPU ▶ Sect. 3.1.2). If providing and benefiting areas (SPA and SBA) do not adjoin, there will necessarily be a space between them, the so-called Service Connecting Area (SCA) (Syrbe and Walz 2012). For instance, flood protection is provided mainly in the mountains (by water storage reservoirs) and benefits cities along the middle and lower stretches of a river. In between, the river course can alter a flood wave. The SCA should be identified to support the transmission from the SPA to the SBA, for instance by avoiding or removing barriers (e.g. in water streams or in biotope networks). Thus, a natural floodplain, which is connected with the river and not separated by dams, can be regarded as a SCA, too. It can contribute to flood mitigation in favour of downstream settlements. The identification of SP and beneficiaries helps to avoid free riders or at least to reduce their effect on ES consumption.
Fisher et al. (2009) proposed a classification scheme that describes relationships between service provision and benefit (i.e. where and by whom benefits are realised):
-
a.
both the service provision and benefit occur at the same location (e.g. soil formation, provision of raw materials)
-
b.
the service is provided omni-directionally and benefits the surrounding landscape (e.g. pollination , carbon sequestration)
-
c.
specific directional benefits, e.g. down slope units benefit from services provided in uphill areas in mountains; the service provision unit could be coastal wetlands providing storm and flood protection to a coastline
An additional case could be added to these classes as the counterpart to (b):
-
d.
the service is provided in large (hardly limited) areas and benefits small, discrete locations (e.g. a settlement).
The cases described in (b) and (c) necessarily lead to scale transfers (▶ Sect. 3.3.1 Scale and Dimension). According to such spatial characteristics, Costanza (2008) groups ES into five categories. For example, services like carbon sequestration are classified as ‘global: non-proximal’, since the spatial location of carbon sequestration does not matter. Nowadays, due to carbon trades spatial scales in CO2 storage area are becoming more crucial and need to be considered on a finer scale. When one pays for CO2 storage, e.g. by planting trees, he would like to know where the trees are planted and how much carbon will be sequestrated. ‘Local proximal’ services, on the other hand, are dependent on the spatial proximity of the ecosystem to the human beneficiaries. For example, ‘storm protection’ requires that the ecosystem doing the protecting be proximal to the human settlements being protected. ‘Directional flow related’ services are dependent on the flow from upstream to downstream, as is the cases of water supply and water regulation. Other services are ‘in situ (point of use)’ (e.g. soil formation) or ‘user movement related: flow of people to unique natural feature’ (e.g. recreational potential).
3.3.1.3 Aspects of Time
Ecosystems do not only need special time spans for their regeneration, they are also subject to natural fluctuations and trends , which can alter their functionality and capacity (to supply ES) periodically, episodically or permanently. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) predicts a decline of many ES. Land use (intensification) is or will be a major reason for this (EASAC 2009). Changes in ecosystems and the ES they supply are increasingly caused by humans. The knowledge of time-dependent changes of ES are of great practical importance since it helps to evaluate practical consequences of impacts, plans and policies for humans and societies either ex-post or ex-ante (scenarios and prognoses). Not only ecosystems or ecological properties can change; so, too, can economic values and the values that different stakeholders attach to the services. For example, infrastructure and transportation costs can change, which leads to new spatial and economic relationships between SP and beneficiaries. Methods are needed to reveal natural fluctuations or changes of ecosystems more detailed in order to be able to better adapt impacts caused by human utilisations.
Systematically, the following time aspects are especially important:
-
1.
The minimum time requirements for the generation of particular ES
-
2.
The disparity in the multifunctional use requirement for adequate temporal sequences in the provision and utilisation of ES (e.g. concerning water sampling, flood runoff, fishing)
-
3.
The temporal differences between supply and demand or use of goods and services, so-called time lags (e.g. between water sampling from the water bodies and water consumption, or between water accumulation in the mountains and the crisis situation in the valley; e.g. Grunewald et al. 2007).
Functional traits (or SPU, ESP–see above) may contribute to service provisions to a different degree, not only in different places, but also at different times (De Bello et al. 2010).
To consider the capacity of ecosystems to supply ES sustainably is a basic issue for the development of the ES concept and also needs to be fundamentally implemented in its methodology. Thus, it is also crucial to adjust the sequence of different land uses in an intelligent manner to minimise impacts. For instance, crop rotation can influence flood regulation . A tight crop rotation, adapted intercrops, or conservative cultivation can close critical bare fallow periods to reduce erosion and surface runoff .
One of the most important issues refers to the sometimes huge differences between the periods in which natural developments occur and the time frames of social processes (public awareness, political opinion-making, parliamentary terms, human lifetimes) .
Ring et al. (2010) highlight the question of temporal trade-offs: benefits now–costs later. Such trade-offs represent the central tenet of sustainable development stipulating that it ‘… meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations …’ Therefore, even the inter-generational time lags need to be addressed (▶ Sect. 2.2).
Time differences between the supply of ES on the one hand and the use of goods and services on the other can usefully be expressed by the concept of natural potentials (▶ Chap. 2 and ▶ Sect. 3.1). The concept of natural potentials (see Neef 1966; Haase 1978; Mannsfeld 1979, Bastian and Steinhardt 2002; Burkhard et al. 2009; Grunewald and Bastian 2010; Bastian et al. 2012b) aims to display the service capacities of an area as a field of options available to society to use while taking different categories into account, which limit or even exclude certain intended uses, such as risks , carrying capacity, and the capacity to handle stress (increasingly summarised today in the term ‘resilience’) . Analogously, e.g. de Groot et al. (2002) and Willemen (2010) use the term ‘capacity’ and define ‘ecosystem functions’ (and ‘landscape functions’) as ‘the capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and services which directly and/or indirectly satisfy human needs’, and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) refers to ‘the capacity of the natural system to sustain the flow of economic, ecological, social and cultural benefits in the future’ (see also option values, ▶ Sect. 3.1 and ▶ Sect. 4.2) .
3.3.1.4 Scale and Dimension
The scale dependence of ES is an additional but rather poorly investigated aspect (MEA 2005; Hein et al. 2006). Recent research emphasises that both the manner in which we are dissecting our reality and the scale of investigation influence the results significantly (Blaschke 2006). Ecological structures and processes as well as ES manifest themselves at different scales and in quite different manners at the local, the regional and the global scale (◉ Fig. 3.4).
Selected spatially relevant phenomena reflecting different scales. © Grunewald
According to its original definition, ecosystems can be defined at a wide range of spatial scales (Tansley 1935), from the level of a small ephemeral sunlit spot on the forest floor up to a whole forest ecosystem spanning several thousands of kilometres and persisting for decades or centuries (Forman and Godron 1986). The supply of ES depends on the functioning of ecosystems, which is in turn driven by ecological processes operating across a range of scales (MEA 2003; Hein et al. 2006). Hence, ES depend on several scale issues. Often, specific ES are generated and supplied at particular scales (Hein et al. 2006; Costanza 2008; Bastian et al. 2012a).
As an example, carbon sequestration and climate regulation are related more to the global scale–notwithstanding the fact that the global balance will be improved by a multitude of local measures. On the other hand, protection against floods by coastal or riparian ecosystems as well as regulation of erosion and sedimentation requires various scales. Pollination (for most plants) and regulation of pests and pathogens refer to the ecosystem level or the local scale (Hein et al. 2006).
According to various scale levels , scale-dependent process variables and magnitudes require scale-adapted methods of analysis and evaluation, which has already been addressed by the dimension theory (Neef 1963). Using this, the approaches developed at the local and regional scales can be transferred (adapted, applied and checked) to the supra-regional or even to the global context (bottom-up strategy) . But the reverse approach (top-down) is possible as well. For example, the results of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) (global scale) need to be underpinned by case studies at the local to regional levels (Neßhöver et al. 2007) (▶ Chap. 6). Due to the fact that the combination and processing of data from quite different temporal and spatial scales and the transition from one scale to another can cause problems concerning the expressiveness and interpretation of data and information (Neef 1963), the choice of a suitable dimension is essential for any conceptual and/or methodological ES framework.
It is necessary to distinguish between scales related to socio-economic and ecological issues:
-
Ecological and institutional boundaries seldomly coincide and stakeholders of ES often cut across a range of institutional zones and scales (de Groot et al. 2010). Services generated at a particular ecological level can be provided to stakeholders at a range of institutional scales, from the individual and household to the local/municipal, state/provincial, national and international/global community levels. Stakeholders at a particular institutional scale can receive ES generated at a range of ecological scales (Hein et al. 2006; de Groot et al. 2010).
-
The fact that ES are generated and supplied at various spatial scales has a strong impact on the value that various stakeholders attach to the services as the scale at which the system service is supplied determines which stakeholders may benefit from it and what their interests would be.
-
Spatial trade-offs in terms of local costs and regional or global benefits and vice-versa (e.g. of water purification, carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation) , so-called spatial externalities (Ring et al. 2010), are also a question of scale. The costs of conserving ecosystems and biodiversity fall mostly on local land users and communities whereas the beneficiaries of conservation are not only found at the local level but also far beyond it at the national and global scales.
-
There are also various scales at which decisions on natural resources and ES are made. The identification of scales and stakeholders allows an analysis of potential conflicts in environmental management, in particular between local stakeholders and those at larger scales. Considering scale issues in ecosystem management can be important as a basis for establishing compensation payments to local stakeholders who face opportunity costs of ecosystem conservation. Furthermore, they provide insight into the appropriate institutional scales for decision-making on ecosystem management (Hein et al. 2006).
There is a strong need to examine the various scales at which ES are generated and used and, subsequently, how the supply of ES affects the interests of stakeholders at various scales (Tacconi 2000; MEA 2003; Turner et al. 2003; Hein et al. 2006). Hence, the possible scale transitions of ES and the relevant traits need to be examined carefully.
Scale trade-offs are very difficult to manage (▶ Sect. 3.1.2 Trade-offs, Limit Values, Driving Forces and Scenarios), because they include, in both space and time, shifts of costs and benefits transcending levels of magnitude–small- and large-scale, as well as short- and long-term. Threats on biodiversity and climate, deforestation, and desertification do not imply simple transfers of costs from just one area to other regions or continents. Most likely there will be transfers to later periods and future generations. This problem can render ecosystem payment systems as well as immediate political reactions difficult or even impossible. Regarding time scales it is very important that ‘analyses of the dynamics of ES supply require consideration of drivers and processes at scales relevant for the ES at stake’ (de Groot et al. 2010). Due to the scale trade-off problem, the transfer of ES assessments over the different scales (‘glocal valuation’) needs to analyze the specific units and scales of Service Providing Areas (SPA) and Service Benefiting Areas (SBA) (▶ Sect. 3.3.2).
Scale issues lead to the question of reference units . Adequate spatial reference units are necessary for the sampling, analysis, and assignment of data, as well as for the assessment and modelling of ES (Bastian et al. 2006). The reference units should be related to scales that are ecologically reasonable and policy relevant and they should express the complexity of facts and relationships. Examples for ecological units are ecosystems, watersheds, landscapes and geo-chores (Haase and Mannsfeld 2002; Bastian et al. 2006; Blaschke 2006). For example, the supply of the hydrological service depends on a range of ecological processes that operate, in particular, at the scale of the watershed (de Groot et al. 2010). Examples for socio-economic reference units are: administrative units (municipality, district, state, country) and land-use units. The mismatch of administrative/socio-economic and ecological units and data is a crucial problem (e.g. population statistics on administrative units not matching catchment boundaries), which needs special attention.
Ecological reference units can be used for benefit transfers (benefit-transfer, ▶ Sect. 4.2; e.g. Plummer 2009): Ecological data and analyses from a particular reference unit can be transferred to a certain degree to ecologically similar and therefore comparable units (incl. the capacity to supply goods and services).
3.3.1.5 Control Scheme for ES Space and Time Considerations
In order to check and improve the given methodological ES frameworks and studies concerning the consideration of important space and time aspects , we propose the following check list (◉ Table 3.7). It can help avoid overlooking or missing important aspects, and it provides a guideline for the quality control of ES assessments as well as for the analysis of the aspects taken into consideration. The relevant issues (space, time and scale aspects) have been described above (The relevant key words are in italic) . We explicitly intend to introduce the check list even into fields that have not been affected by the ES concept to date. The scheme is demonstrated by the example of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000), which addresses many space and time aspects. In fact, it does not mention the ES concept and terminology, but implicitly aims to maintain and improve several ES .
3.3.2 Case Study: EU-Water Framework Directive (WFD) and ES
3.3.2.1 WFD–Contents
The application of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000) implies consideration for many space and time aspects, as we seek to demonstrate below, using the example of the Elbe River management plan (Tab. 3.8). The WFD is a directive designed to harmonise the legal framework of water policy in the EU. It also aims at a stronger orientation of the water policy towards a sustainable and environment-friendly use of water. Due to the quite heterogeneous natural conditions within the EU, the WFD is confined to establishing general quality goals and to indicating methods for meeting those goals and achieving favourable water quality.
The core of this directive is the establishment of the WFD of environmental goals including sustainable land use (long-term sustainable water management basing on a high level of protection for the aquatic environment), and also the optimisation of ES (e.g. human health protection, economic consequences).
The ‘translation’ of normative regulations in the WFD into numerical class limits of a ‘favourable state’ applies scientific methods. Socio-economic aspects are also taken into consideration by the WFD in the form of ‘exceptions’ from the goals, and of cost efficiency analyses.
The goals of the WFD imply mainly the following benefits, reflecting a whole bundle of ES :
-
Human health protection by water-related utilisations, e.g. bathing-water quality, drinking-water quality
-
Lower costs for water purification
-
Maintenance of water supply
-
Improvement of life quality by increasing the recreation value of surface waters
-
Coping with conflicts and regional damages through the balance of interests among different social groups
The precautionary principle, information and transparency shall be considered consequently. The WFD contains mechanisms to assure that socio-economic effects are considered in decision-making processes and that cost-effective options are preferred. The implementation of the environmental goals, however, can cause additional costs but it can be profitable for some beneficiaries (e.g. landscape management companies) and–in the long run–for the whole society. According to the particular watershed, the goals depend on the difference between the actual and the target state as well as on the choice of instruments and management measures . Space-time approaches play a decisive role.
3.3.2.2 Selected Spatial and Scale Aspects of the WFD
The spatial orientation towards river basins is decisive. Until recently, Germany’s water body management was organised predominantly according to political borders and administrative units. The water policy changed first in Great Britain and in France where it was oriented on watershed units. This gave the impulse for a European regulation. As the watersheds of many large European rivers (Meuse, Rhine, Elbe, Oder, Danube) exceed state borders, a common European regulation was advisable. A similar situation applies to groundwater bodies, which are also independent of political borders.
The international Elbe river basin unit contains 146,828 km2 and it is divided into 10 coordination units. The Czech Republic is responsible for five coordination units (Upper and Middle Bohemian Labe/Elbe, Upper Vltava/Moldau, Berounka, Lower Vltava/Moldau, Ohře/Eger), while Germany is responsible for the other five coordination units (Mulde-Elbe-Black Elster, Saale, Havel, Middle Elbe/Elde, Tidal Elbe). Except for the coordination unit Lower Vltava/Moldau, minor parts of the coordination units with Czech responsibility are situated in Germany (Ohře/Eger and Lower Bohemian Labe/Elbe, Berounka, Upper Vltava/Moldau), Austria (Upper Vltava/Moldau) and Poland (Upper and Middle Bohemian Elbe). The International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe River (ICPER) has the role of a supra-national coordination agency (e.g. water monitoring , supra-regional goals and strategies) .
Management plans for large-scale river basin units, e.g. the plan for the Elbe watershed in Germany, contain, due to these large dimensions, specifically for the dimensions, strongly aggregated statements. They refer to such questions as: ‘Who provides the ES and who pays for them?’ They also consider the specific spatial categories for ecological analyses, planning and decision-making.
As EFTEC (2010) noticed, the spatial analysis of the management plans:
-
Helps better organise locally specific data on water bodies and provides a consistent basis for accounting the context-specific nature of economic values, in particular in terms of spatial variation
-
Allows better representation of WFD implementation impacts (e.g. in identifying the location of improvements in environmental quality)
-
Provides a basis for assessing spatial variation in economic values . This implies that more robust estimates of aggregate costs and benefits can be obtained and additionally, that the distributional impacts can also be examined.
The real planning and implementation of measures takes place at the regional and local levels within meso- and microscale spatial subunits. For this purpose, combined top-down and bottom-up approaches are necessary: supra-regional environmental goals and needs must be down-scaled to regional and local action targets. In contrast, the measures must be aggregated according to the related river basin units and coordination units.
After EFTEC (2010), a key aspect of the WFD implementation is concerned with the spatial and geographic aspects of water bodies. It is necessary to understand how the impacts of measures may vary over spatial scales. These effects will not only have an impact on the direct benefits related to the water bodies themselves but can also have indirect beneficial or detrimental impacts elsewhere. In the case of water quality, and in particular rivers, most of the relationships between ES production areas and benefit areas are ‘directional’ in a downstream direction (rather than ‘in situ’). In some cases the beneficial effects can be spatially very remote from the area of a targeted intervention. For example, reducing diffuse pollution may enhance terrestrial biodiversity, soil quality and erosion control in addition to the water quality benefits downstream (Grunewald et al. 2005, 2008; EFTEC 2010) (◉ Table 3.7 und Tab. 3.10, line 3.2: scale transition).
Accordingly, for management purposes (assessments of the state, targeting) the Elbe river basin has been divided into 61 planning units ranging in size from 300 to 5600 km2 , 3896 surface water bodies and 327 groundwater bodies. The institutional levels and the information levels, including the accuracy of data, should be in reference to these scales (◉ Table 3.7 und Tab. 3.10, line 3.1: suitable dimension) .
The chemical, biological and ecological quality of waters depends on a variety of influences. In order to assess them and to take action, an integrated approach and a broad database are the key necessities. The WFD prescribes consistent and therefore comparable criteria for the provision and updating of these data. For example, Article 10 of the WFD prescribes that the loads from point sources (especially industrial wastes and from sewage purification works) and diffuse sources (especially from agricultural land) should be considered together.
This is based on spatially-specific analyses and documentations of loads (main sources). Typical questions are: Which waters (surface waters, groundwater) are polluted by nutrients (N, P) and to which extent? What is the contribution of parts of catchment areas or of countries/states to the eutrophication of the North Sea and what are the specific potentials for reducing these loads? Such spatially relevant distribution options were traded off in the framework of the Elbe river basin Agency (Flussgebietsgemeinschaft Elbe–FGG Elbe 2009). It is obvious that the efforts to reduce N can and should be especially high in the German states of Schleswig -Holstein and Saxony, while the potentials to reduce P are especially high in Thuringia, Schleswig-Holstein, Saxony-Anhalt and Saxony (◉ Table 3.9 and ◉ Table 3.10, 1.4: functional connection).
This supra-regional distribution of nutrient reductions must be further underpinned in the water basin subunits. In terms of spatial aspects, for example, it needs to be clarified whether agro-environmental payments, e.g. for intermediate crops, or soil protection against erosion are provided for all arable fields, or if they are concentrated on focus areas. Analyses of efficiency and acceptance are necessary for this (Grunewald and Naumann 2012). It is also essential to make arrangements for cooperative efforts and to negotiate solutions between the land users (farmers) and the beneficiaries of ES (here society as a whole).
3.3.2.3 Time Aspects of the WFD
The WFD outlines several time limits for the legal implementation of the Directive itself, the analyses, the monitoring programme, the management plans and the specific programmes (time tables) for the undertaken measures. More important, it is established until when a ‘favourable state’ of the water(s) has to be reached. Time aspects are especially considered with respect to the practical implementation of the WFD. The clear requirements for ES providers and beneficiaries correspond to the time spans for the realisation of measures, e.g. for reducing nutrient loads or the reporting obligation of the countries/states (◉ Table 3.10, line 2.1: Time requirements) . The concrete, super-ordinate timetable with milestones is obligatory for all parties concerned: beginning with the transformation of the WFD into national legislation in 2003 and ending with the achievement of the ‘good ecological state in river basins’ in 2015, with the possibility of extending this time limit until 2021 or 2027 (WFD 2000).
It must be considered that waters need time to reach such goals after development measures (time-span until results of the measures are achieved). The temporal sequence (◉ Table 3.10, line 2.2) of requirements refers to the duration of natural processes, as well as to the time needed to accomplish management measures . In fact, WFD aims at a ‘good ecological state’ of all waters by 2015. But the directive also allows exceptions: extensions of time or reduced environmental targets, if they cannot be achieved in time for objective reasons. The exceptions are designed to avoid excessively high costs of management measures. Without valid cost calculations it is difficult to justify exceptions. For the practical implementation of the WFD, the countries (in Germany also the federal states) are responsible. All countries interpret the directive independently, but they have implemented working groups to harmonise the national regulations to a certain extent.
The WFD puts an end to previous time lags, it contributes to ensuring water-related ecosystem potentials for the future. The precautionary principle is already implemented since the WFD ensures water reasonable quality. But even economic time lags (i.e. the next generation has to pay for our success now) will be avoided.
The member states of the EU were obligated to implement an appropriate water fee policy by 2010 with incentives for water users to use the resources economically. The various water users (industry, households, agriculture, etc.) are to contribute adequately to cover the costs of water ES including costs related to the environment and the resources (Article 9 WFD). The evaluation of financial disproportions (cost excessiveness) also needs the balancing of costs and benefits, i.e. typical core aspects of the ES approach are considered (▶ Sect. 4.2). The WFD also mandates that the water supply was to be organised in such a way by 2010 that all costs were covered (the cost-covering principle). The question is: ‘Who pays?’ Formerly, the general public paid for the protection of drinking water. Now, the waste producer has to pay but the principle of solidarity is applied. It must be noted that to date these regulations and obligations have been only partially implemented.
3.3.2.4 Control Scheme for ES Space and Time Considerations in the WFD
The check list for space and time aspects (◉ Table 3.7) was completed and exemplified by means of relevant aspects of the European Water Framework Directive. ◉ Table 3.10 shows that the directive meets most of the space and time issues concerned, e.g. the size of catchments and the differentiation of measures in terms of space and time. On the other hand, the table also reveals possible deficits, such as the incomplete consideration of spatial configuration or of scale transition aspects .
3.3.2.4.1 ConclusionES demonstrate a wide range of space, time and scale dependent relations.
In respect to the analysis and evaluation steps as well as to the supply and demand perspectives, not only the ecological aspects are concerned, but also socio-economic and cultural ones. Often, space and scale effects are related mainly to ecological phenomena. According to our concept of space, we have tried to widen this perspective and to include socio-economic aspects as well. This is in line with the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UKNEA 2011), which notes that institutional mechanisms linking across spatial scales (from small- to large-scale in terms of area) would ‘provide opportunities for stakeholder engagement and greater collaboration between actors, and for the involvement of local groups and nongovernmental organisations’. From the perspective of ecological regional development, the ES concept is of particular importance because the human-environment relationship is emphasised. Thereby the social concept of space (perception, area for interaction) can be associated with physical concepts of space (order, place, location, spatial intersections, distances, boundaries in space).
All main aspects of the ES approach can be found in the European Water Framework Directive (EU-WFD), e.g. conflict relevance, focus on problems, goal setting, environmental and economic data, quantitative and model-based approaches, integrated approach, participatory approaches , decision support systems, cost-benefit considerations, and solutions-oriented approach. Even in terms of space and time approaches, the WFD represents an enormous advance over previous approaches, simply because of clear definitions and conceptual hierarchies. Some of the special questions concerning space, time and scale relationships in ES assessments could be solved and discussed by reference to the example of the WFD and the Elbe river watershed, e.g. spatial configuration and composition (patterns), reference units , concordance of physical and socio-economic space concepts, the spatial position of services providers and service beneficiaries, service connecting areas , the role of temporal sequences (of land uses, supply and demand) and time lags (precautionary principle, intergenerational lags) , the shift from one scale to another and practical consequences resulting from these factors.
In order to take space, time and scale effects into consideration adequately, a check list is useful, which we have developed and tested successfully using the example of the WFD. Such a check list can be applied to all frameworks and studies where ES are to be assessed. This check list is a flexible scheme that can be modified according to the particular situation.
Space, time and scale aspects of ES are of great practical interest, e.g. for land-use and landscape management, for spatial planning , regional development and financial policies (balancing of costs and benefits arising from ES). After EFTEC (2010), spatial analysis improves the economic valuation and it can help to ‘target’ policies (e.g. maximise aggregate benefits given a resource budget, or to redistribute benefits to disadvantaged groups). The example of the WFD reveals the practical relevance in many ways, e.g. the choice of relevant reference units, the spatial and temporal distribution of costs and benefits, time frames for reaching particular goals with consideration for ecological preconditions (e.g. the regeneration capacity of waters) and also of economic scales (economic carrying capacity, payments over adequately great time periods). The WFD takes ecological periods into account (development, seasonality, regeneration, matter transfers) and it gives a clear orientation in terms of time horizons, which is important for users and other stakeholders . In the WFD, such issues are better addressed than–for instance–in the EU Habitats Directive and other regulations (▶ Sect. 6.6.1).
3.4 Landscape Services
As explained in ▶ Sect. 3.3, the creation and also the use of ES is always tied to concrete spaces. It is manifested in spatial differentiation, and in various dimensions and scales. Critical voices have claimed that to date there has been little or no localisation, i.e. that the pattern of arrangements and relationships of ES in space has hardly been taken into account at all (Syrbe and Walz 2012), and that merely statistical information, such as land cover, has been included instead (Blaschke 2006). Moreover, it is claimed that the practical applicability and the connections of ES to the planning process have been insufficient (Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009).
One promising way to eliminate these deficits is to link ES to the landscape approach and to the definition of landscape services in order to emphasise the spatial connection and to arrive at statements, which can better be used in the planning and/or practical context (Burkhard et al. 2009; Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009; Frank et al. 2012; Schenk and Overbeck 2012).
This is true in spite of the fact that the term landscape has been highly controversial in the scientific discourse, with a broad spectrum of interpretations and substantive meanings existing, depending not only on levels of education, socialisation and professional backgrounds, but also on language and cultural area. ‘The landscape’ has been an object of investigation for various scientific disciplines, and also of other areas of life, such as aesthetics, painting, literature, philosophy, geography, conservation and landscape care, agriculture and silviculture, etc. A farmer, a geologist, a forester, a recreation seeker–each of them sees the landscape differently and focuses on something different (Jessel 1998).
In common parlance landscape is usually seen as a piece of land that can be perceived all at once with the naked eye. The word ‘landscape’ comes from the old Germanic lantscaf, with scaf having developed to ‘shape’ in English and ‘schaffen’ (‘to create’, ‘to achieve;’ in some dialects, ‘to work’) in German (Haber 2002). Hence, the landscape is literally the ‘land shaped’ or created by people. However, the landscape as a dimension that can be visually experienced was for centuries only to a lesser extent a consciously created object. It was merely seen as a product of the top-priority activity: the provision of the food supply. Nonetheless, even at an early date landscapes were often shaped in such a way that various positive side effects were realised. Examples include the rows of fruit trees on embankments, which are otherwise difficult to utilise, so as to provide fruit for food and at the same time shade for the peasants on their long walks to the work in the fields, or else, in the proximity of farms and villages, as planted groves which served as a windbreak and improved the microclimate. Aesthetic aspects, too, may certainly have played a part. The consciously shaped landscape, which would later also be marketed as a tourist attraction had its roots in the Enlightenment–the ideal of the English landscape garden–and culminated in park designs of major cities in the nineteenth century, such as New York’s Central Park. Today, this constant is a firm part of landscape and spatial planning (Kienast 2010).
According to Leibenath and Gailing (2012), landscape can be interpreted in any of four different ways:
-
1.
The landscape as a physical space or complex of ecosystems
-
2.
The cultural landscape in the context of the human-environment relationship
-
3.
The cultural landscape as a metaphor; and
-
4.
The cultural landscape as a social construct, or as an object of communication.
Backhaus and Stremlow (2010) distinguish the following four basic disciplinary approaches to landscape:
-
1.
The ecosystemic and geomorphological approach
-
2.
The psychological and phenomenological approach
-
3.
The constructivist/cultural-scientific approach
-
4.
The political and social scientific approach
An understanding of landscape as an intermediate phenomenon between natural-scientifically ascertainable objective reality on the one hand and a mental construct on the other is expressed in such definitions as that of the Council of Europe in the European Landscape Convention (Article 1; Czybulka 2007 [Engl: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/Landscape/default_en.asp]): ‘…an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors; or by Fry (2000): …’ a physical and mental reflection of the interaction between societies and cultures and their natural environment. In this context, landscape can also be seen as a section of the earth’s shell of varying orders of magnitude, prepared by natural conditions, overformed to varying degrees by human activity, perceived or felt by people as characteristic, and delimited according to rules which are to be stipulated (Bastian 2006, 2008, modified).
According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005), a landscape is typically composed of a number of different ecosystems, each of which generates a whole package of different ES. Hence, it is certainly justified to certify landscape areas of identical or similar overall character–or to use them as units of reference–in order to interpret their characteristics for an effective but gentle use by society (Bernhardt et al. 1986; Hein et al. 2006; TEEB 2009).
Most landscape definitions fulfill the requirement of spatial reference or of spatial expanse, and of holism in accordance with Alexander von Humboldt’s ‘total impression of a region’, or of the ‘landscape-like’ (Humboldt 1847, pp. 92, 97). Often, landscape and people are seen as two opposite poles, an attitude which, by the way, is promoted even by a term such as ‘people and nature’. It is easy to ignore the fact that people are also part of nature (Oldemeyer 1983, in Gebhard 2000). Increasingly, however, material and intellectual aspects are being taken into account in a more balanced way, and people are being directly involved.
For the ES concept, we see the definition of landscape as a physical space or an ecosystem complex as particularly helpful. Many ES are influenced by the landscape structure and the geographic context, for instance by the arrangement of landscape elements or land-use units. Landscape structure largely determines flows and cycles of waters, nutrients and organisms. The spatial relationship between biotic factors, such as vegetation, and abiotic factors, such as soil, is decisive for the manner in which many ES are provided, so that the whole–the landscape and the ecological mosaic linked to it–is more significant than the sum of its parts (Odum 1971; Haber 2004). The matrix of the landscape determines the effectivity and significance of its biotic components to a much greater degree than would be the case if these components were merely added together (Frank et al. 2012; Syrbe and Walz 2012).
Landscape services constitute the link between landscape and human well-being. They imply a strong spatial orientation and regional differentiation, as well as a reference to actors, planners and decision-makers. The concept of landscape services is also of particular significance inasmuch as it raises the issue of the human-environment relationship and of anthropogenic transformation more strongly, and hence links the societal concept of space–space for perception, and also space for action–with the physical concept of space.
The incorporation of landscape services as a special form of the ES approach has the following advantages:
-
Landscapes as units of reference enhance the perspective beyond the services provided by ecosystems and place a greater emphasis on the aesthetic, ethical and sociocultural aspects, as well as on the anthropogenic modification (e.g. land use) and the overall character of an area (peculiarities of the landscape).
-
Spatial aspects are expressed more strongly, for example the arrangement of ecosystems and land-use units in their spatial context, structural and process-determined interactions, the spatial difference of supply and demand–in the form of so-called ‘service-providing areas’ and ‘service-benefiting areas’–or the reference to different dimensions and scales (▶ Sect. 3.3). Interactions between spaces and ES can be shown with reference to many functional aspects relevant for practice: the problem of the conflicting needs of upstream vs. downstream residents in watersheds, the relationship between cities and their surrounding countrysides, or the relationship between economic areas, impact areas and places used for compensation and offsetting measures, etc. To some extent, the ES generated at certain places can only be transferred to the areas of demand via specific spaces, known as ‘service-connecting areas’, e.g. the feeding of cold air into cities via cold-air corridors; (▶ Sect. 3.3).
-
The emphasis on the reference to a landscape improves the interaction (or integration) of various disciplines since nature, culture, and use aspects all have to be addressed in equal measures–even though the definitions of ‘landscape’ differ between the various academic disciplines. Especially the physical landscape approach enhances the relevance for practical spatial planning , including landscape planning, as well as for the landscape development of management, and favours participatory approaches , which recognise the landscape as an element providing identity and as an area for action, with a connection to the actors.
Another advantage of the reference to landscapes is provided by the fact that in spite of the controversial scientific discourse on the definition of ‘landscape’, the sustainable use and protection of landscapes is gaining growing support worldwide, in the first European environmental report, the so-called Dobřiš Assessment of the European Environmental Agency, and in the European Landscape Convention of the Council of Europe of 2000. One of the demands is that visions, or models, for European landscapes are established, and that landscape protection be integrated into sectoral policy, e.g. in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy and its regional policy, in order to support regional identities and landscape peculiarities (Czybulka 2007).
In the Territorial Agenda of the European Union of 2007 (EU 2007, p. 7), cultural landscapes are designated as the ‘foundation for environmentally and culturally oriented development … which offers development perspectives … particularly in regions that are lagging behind or undergoing structural changes’. Fürst et al. (2008) call for placing greater emphasis–once again–on seeing cultural-landscape development as a catalyst and as a vehicle, i.e. as ‘the essential element for new kinds of problem-solving in regional development’. The concept of the landscape must be integrated into all relevant policy areas in this context, e.g. in connection with the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU after 2013, in Natura 2000 , and with regard to issues of bio-energy .
We consider landscape services to be a special case within the overall concept of ES (analogously to Kienast 2010; Hermann et al. 2011). However, the landscape approach is broader and more complex since it includes not only ecological aspects but also to a peculiar degree aesthetic, cultural, psychological, as well as other aspects. In this case we are examining services with a specific connection to the landscape. Thus, we explicitly emphasise the analysis and evaluation of landscape services as it is usually already implied in the main focus of the work: landscape planning , landscape care, evaluation of the cultural landscape and the appearance of the landscape (cf. ▶ Sect. 5.3 and particularly ▶ Sect. 6.5).
The term ‘landscape’ moreover has a strong connection to planning and is especially familiar to spatial planners. Likewise, the broader public has a greater understanding of this term than of ‘ecosystem’. According to Termorshuizen and Opdam (2009), landscape planners have for decades viewed landscape as a human-ecological concept and have addressed its economic, cultural and ecological values.
Rather than treating single components or protected assets as isolated from one another, landscape planning is taking the complexity of the investigated object into account, which is one of its fundamental requirements. Even during the 1970s and 1980s landscape and spatial planning assigned potential functions to the landscape, which were for the most part cartographically recorded. In that respect, landscape and spatial planning was actually very close to the concept of landscape services , even if the landscape-specific functions were not yet called ‘services’ (▶ Sect. 2.2).
The selected landscape approach (see above) not only enhances the relevance for practical spatial planning, including landscape planning (▶ Sect. 5.3), and for landscape development and management (▶ Sect. 6.5), it also favours participatory approaches , which see the landscape as an identity-providing element and as a space for action (▶ Sect. 4.3; Fürst and Scholles 2008). The landscape, not the ecosystem, is the space of reference for public participation; it permits a large number of local stakeholders to identify with the landscape in which they live, work and enjoy life, and to have an influence upon it, to take responsibility for it and to help shape it. By contrast, the term ‘ecosystem’ often means new natural, more or less untouched areas, often associated with a protected status, with recreational function, with species diversity and with undisturbed natural processes (Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009). The landscape is also a public-relations factor; it can be ‘sold’ as a good place where recreation can be found and where people can live and work (Wascher 2005).
3.4.1 Conclusion
In the final analysis, ecosystem and landscape services cannot be fundamentally distinguished. The latter emphasises spatial aspects more and is oriented towards complex approaches by reference to interfaces of ecological, economic and social aspects. Moreover, it is more oriented towards spatial planning, communications and the participation of actors and stakeholders , of ‘local people’. Methods for ascertaining and evaluation are largely similar or identical; however, landscape services as a result of broader, more multidisciplinary approaches take a more comprehensive spectrum of methodologies into account. A thorough and detailed discussion of the landscape services issue is published in the Journal of Landscape Ecology in 2014 (Bastian O et al. 2014).
3.4.2 Landscape vs. Ecosystem
In view of the multiplicity of meanings of the term “landscape,” and the difficulty in delimiting concrete landscape areas, the concept of landscape may appear as to non-concrete, fuzzy and unscientific, compared with the concept of ecosystems. However, is the ecosystem paradigm really that unproblematic, by comparison? Certainly not, for it, too, is subject to the criticism that it is too diffuse and contradictory (O’Neill et al. 1986), and suffers from methodological deficits in its application in research and practice. Naveh and Lieberman (1994) raise the question of whether ecosystems could indeed be considered real existing phenomenon, or whether they were not simply conceptual aids for the analysis of the flows of energy, materials and information in ecological systems.
Noss (2001) sees ecosystems as functional systems, with their spatial boundaries either undefined or defined more or less arbitrarily. What we have in his view is open systems between which the exchange of materials, energies and organisms take place.
Naveh (2010) raises serious issues regarding the ecosystem paradigm with respect to their spatial aspects: First, he says, that what is at issue is the assumption that interactions and feedback loops exist within ecosystemic boundaries. In reality however, the spatial dissemination of the participating organism populations may be much broader. Second, spatial homogeneity is often assumed. This simplification overlooks some of the essential properties of the system, for precisely heterogeneity is the precondition for the lives of these organisms. Another major failing of the paradigm of “natural” ecosystems is, he says, the common practice of categorizing human activity as an external disturbance.
Nonetheless it may certainly be useful to generally prefer the abstract term “ecosystem” for the ES concept, (▶ Chap. 1, ▶ Chap. 2, ◉ Chap. 3), since it emphasizes the natural structures and processes more strongly, and does a better job of creating the connections to “ecology” as a category of sustainability, and/or as a class of functions and services.
References
Albert C, von Haaren C, Galler C (2012) Ökosystemdienstleistungen. Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen oder ein Impuls für die Landschaftsplanung? Nat Schutz Landsch Plan 44:142–148
Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Eigenbrod F, Thomas CD, Gillings S, Heinemeyer A, Roy DB, Gaston KJ (2009) Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities. J Appl Ecol 46:888–896
Artner A, Frohnmeyer U, Matzdorf B, Rudolph I, Rother J, Stark G (2005) Future Landscapes. Perspektiven der Kulturlandschaft. Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung, Bonn
Auhagen (1998) Verbal-Argumentation oder Punkte-Ökologie–Bewertungsverfahren unter der Lupe des Planers. Sächsische Akademie für Natur und Umwelt im Sächsischen Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Landesentwicklung in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Lehr- und Forschungsgebiet Landschaftsplanung der Technischen Universität Dresden (eds) Dresdner Planergespräche–Vom Leitbild zur Quantifizierung–Bewertungsprobleme und ihre Lösung in der Landschafts- und Grünordnungsplanung. Bericht zur wissenschaftlichen Arbeitstagung am 14. und 15. November 1997. Dresden, 137 S
Backhaus N, Stremlow M (2010) Handlungsraum Landschaft: Wege zur Förderung transdisziplinärer Zusammenarbeit. Nat Landsch 85:345–349
BAFU–Bundesamt für Umwelt (2011) Indikatoren für Ökosystemleistungen. Systematik, Methodik und Umsetzungsempfehlungen für eine wohlfahrtsbezogene Umweltberichterstattung. Herausgegeben vom Bundesamt für Umwelt BAFU, Bern
Balmford A, Rodrigues ASL, Walpole M, ten Brink P, Kettunen M, Braat L, de Groot R (2008) The economics of biodiversity and ecosystems: scoping the science. European Commission, Cambridge
Barkmann J (2001) Angewandte Ökosystemforschung zwischen Biodiversitäts-, Landschafts- und Ressourcenschutz. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 145:16–23
Bastian O (2006) Landschaft als Basiskonzept für integrative Forschungsansätze in der Geographie. (Vortrag im Institut für Länderkunde Leipzig. Workshop “Raum–Landschaft–Region als Bezugsgrößen integrativer Projekte in der Geographie”, 14./15.7.2006 in Leipzig)
Bastian O (2008) Landscape classification–between fact and fiction. In: Lechnio J, Kulczyk S, Malinowska E, Szumacher I (eds) Landscape classification. Theory and practice. Warsaw, S 13–20
Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe RU (2012a) Space and time aspects of ecosystem services, using the example of the European Water Framework Directive. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosys Services Manage 8(1–2):5–16
Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe RU, Walz U, Wende W (2014) Landscape services–concept and practical relevance. Landsc Ecol 29(6):1463–1478. DOI 10.1007/s10980-014-0064-5
Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K (2012b) Ecosystem properties, potentials and services–the EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol Indic 21:7–16
Bastian O, Krönert R, Lipsky Z (2006) Landscape diagnosis on different space and time scales–a challenge for landscape planning. Landsc Ecol 21:359–374
Bastian O, Schreiber KF (eds) (1994) Analyse und ökologische Bewertung der Landschaft. Fischer, Jena, 502 S
Bastian O, Schreiber KF (eds) (1999) Analyse und ökologische Bewertung der Landschaft, 2. edn. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, 564 pp.
Bastian O, Steinhardt U (eds) (2002) Development and perspectives of landscape ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 498 pp.
Bechmann A (1989) Die Nutzwertanalyse. In: Storm P-C, Bunge T (eds) Handbuch der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung. Schmidt, Berlin, S 1–31
Bechmann A (1995) Anforderungen an Bewertungsverfahren im Umweltmanagement–Dargestellt am Beispiel der Bewertung für die UVP-Dokumentation zu den 11. Pillnitzer Planergesprächen am 29./30.9.1995, pp 6–39
de Bello F, Lavorel S, Diaz S, Harrington R, Cornelissen JHC, Bardgett RD, Berg MP, Cipriotti P, Feld CK, Hering D, da Silva PM, Potts SG, Sandin L, Sousa JP, Storkey J, Wardle DA, Harrison PA (2010) Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531–010-9850–9
Bernhardt A, Haase G, Mannsfeld K, Richter H, Schmidt R (1986) Naturräume der sächsischen Bezirke. Sächsische Heimatblätter 4, 5
Blaschke T (2006) The role of the spatial dimension within the framework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital. Landsc Urban Plan 75:198–226
Blotevogel HH (1995) Raum. In: Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ed) Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung, Hannover, pp 733–740
Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W (2009) Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services–a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape Online 15:1–22
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic 21:17–29
Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv 141:350–352
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J, et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260
Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT, O’Farrell PJ, Reyers B, Rouget M, Roux DJ, Welz A, Wilhelm-Rechman A (2008) An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9483–9488
Czybulka D (2007) Die Europäische Landschaftskonvention. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht (EurUP) 6:250–258
Díaz S, Fargione J, Chapin FS, Tilman D (2007) Biodiversity loss threatens human wellbeing. PLoS Biol 4:e277. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277
Dunlop M, Turner G, Foran B, Poldy F (2002) Decision points for land and water futures. Resource Futures Program Working Document 2002/08, CSIRO Sustainaible Ecosystems, Canberra, Australia
Dunn RR (2010) Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: the unspoken reality that nature sometimes kills us. Biotropica 42:555–557
Durwen KJ, Schreiber K-F, Thöle R (1980) Ein pragmatischer Ansatz zur Aufbereitung ökologischer Determinanten für die Raumplanung. Arb.-Ber. Landschaftsökologie, Münster 2:3–12
EASAC–European Academies Science Advisory Council (2009) Ecosystem services and biodiversity in Europe. EASAC policy report 09, London
EEG (2009) Gesetz zur Neuregelung des Rechts der Erneuerbaren Energien im Strombereich und zur Änderung damit zusammenhängender Vorschriften. Bundesgesetzblatt 2008, Teil I(49), Bonn, 21.10.2008
EFTEC (2010) Scoping study on the economic (or non-market) valuation issues and the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. Final Report for the EU Comm. DGE (ENV.D1/ETU/2009/0102rl) (Economics for the Environment Consultancy–eftec, Ozdemiroglu E, Provins A, Hime S), London
Erdmann KH, Shell C, Todt A, Küchle-Krischun J (2002) Natur und Gesellschaft: Humanwissenschaftliche Aspekte zum Naturschutz. Nat Landsch 77:101–104
EU–European Union (2007) Territorial Agenda of the European Union. http://www.eu-territorial-agenda.eu/Reference%20Documents/Territorial-Agenda-of-the-European-Union-Agreed-on-25-May-2007.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2014
FGG Elbe (2009) Nationales Überwachungsprogramm Elbe 2009– Deutscher Teil des internationalen Messprogramms, aufgestellt: Wassergütestelle Elbe, 1/09. www.fgg-elbe.de. Accessed 3 Jan 2011
Fisher B, Turner RK (2008) Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol Conserv 141:1167–1169
Fisher B, Turner RK, Morlin P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision-making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653
Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York
Frank S, Fürst C, Koschke L, Makeschin F (2012) A contribution towards a transfer of the ecosystem service concept to landscape planning using landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:30–38
Fränzle O (1998) Grundlagen und Entwicklung der Ökosystemforschung. Handbuch der Umweltwissenschaften, 3. Erg. Lfg. 12/98, pp 1–24
Fry G (2000) The landscape character of Norway–landscape values today and tomorrow. In: Pedroli B (ed) Landscape our Home/Lebensraum Landschaft. Indigo, Zeist, pp 93–100
Fürst D, Gailing L, Pollermann K, Röhring A (eds) (2008) Kulturlandschaft als Handlungsraum–Institutionen und Governance im Umgang mit dem regionalen Gemeinschaftsgut Kulturlandschaft. Rohn, Dortmund, 328 pp
Fürst D, Scholles F (eds) (2008) Handbuch Theorien und Methoden der Raum- und Umweltplanung, 3. edn. Rohn, Dortmund
Gebhard U (2000) Naturschutz, Naturbeziehung und psychische Entwicklung. Nat Schutz Landsch Plan 32:45–48
de Groot RS (1992) Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen
de Groot RS, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002) A typology for description, classification and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408
de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272
Grossmann M, Hartje V, Meyerhoff J (2010) Ökonomische Bewertung naturverträglicher Hochwasservorsorge an der Elbe, Abschlussbericht des F + E-Vorhabens “Naturverträgliche Hochwasservorsorge an der Elbe und Nebenflüssen und ihr volkswirtschaftlicher Nutzen. Teil: Ökonomische Bewertung naturverträglicher Hochwasservorsorge an der Elbe und ihren Nebenflüssen”, BfN 89
Grunewald K, Bastian O (2010) Ökosystemdienstleistungen analysieren–begrifflicher und konzeptioneller Rahmen aus landschaftsökologischer Sicht. GEOÖKO 31:50–82
Grunewald K, Naumann S (2012) Bewertung von Ökosystemdienstleistungen im Hinblick auf die Erreichung von Umweltzielen der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie am Beispiel des Flusseinzugsgebietes der Jahna in Sachsen. Nat Landsch 1:17–23
Grunewald K, Weber C, Schröder K (2005) Schadstoffbelastung und Auennutzung nach dem Elbehochwasser 2002 in Sachsen–eine Synopse. In: Steinberg C, Calmano W, Klapper H, Wilken R-D (eds) Handbuch Angewandte Limnologie. 22. Erg.Lfg. 7/05, 42 pp
Grunewald K, Scheithauer J, Monget JM, Nikolova N (2007) Mountain water tower and ecological risk estimation of the Mesta-Nestos transboundary river basin (Bulgaria-Greece). J Mt Sci 4:209–220
Grunewald K, Dehnert J et al (2008) Nährstoffmodellierung zur Aufstellung der Maßnahmenprogramme nach WRRL in Sachsen. Wasser + Abfall 3:15–19
Haaren C von, Bathke M (2008) Integrated landscape planning and remuneration of agri-environmental services, Results of a case study in the Fuhrberg region of Germany. J Environ Manage 89:209–221. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.058
Haase G (1978) Zur Ableitung und Kennzeichnung von Naturraumpotenzialen. Petermanns Geogr Mitt 22:113–125
Haase G, Mannsfeld K (2002) Naturraumeinheiten, Landschaftsfunktionen und Leitbilder am Beispiel von Sachsen. Deutsche Akademie für Landeskunde, Flensburg
Haber W (2002) Kulturlandschaft zwischen Bild und Wirklichkeit. In: Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften, Bern, Akademievorträge, Heft IX, 19 pp
Haber W (2004) Über den Umgang mit Biodiversität. In: Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege (ANL): Schwerpunkte: Leitbilddiskussion: Traditionen und Trends/Biodiversität als Aufgabe/Biografie: Alwin Seifert. Berichte der ANL, 28:25–43; Laufen/Salzach (Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege)
Haines-Young RH, Potschin MB (2009) Methodologies for defining and assessing ecosystem services. Final Report, JNCC, Project Code C08–0170-0062, 69 pp
Haines-Young RH, Potschin MB (2010) Proposal for a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (V1). Report to the European Environment Agency
Haines-Young RH, Potschin M, Kienast F (2012) Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: mapping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecol Indicators 21:39–53
Harrington R, Anton C, Dawson TP, de Bello F, Feld CK, Haslett JR, Kluvánkova-Oravská T, Kontogianni A, Lavorel S, Luck GW, Rounsevell MDA, Samways MJ, Settele J, Skourtos M, Spangenberg JH, Vandewalle M, Zobel M, Harrison PA (2010) Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: concepts and a glossary. Biodiv Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9834–9 19, 10: 2843–2853
Haslett J, Berry P, Bela G, Jongman RG, Pataki G, Samways M, Zobel M (2010) Changing conservation strategies in Europe: a framework integrating ecosystem services and dynamics. Biodivers Conserv 19:2963–2977. doi:10.1007/s10531-009-9743-y
Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228
Hermann A, Schleifer S, Wrbka T (2011) The concept of ecosystem services regarding landscape research: a review. Living Rev Landscape Res 5. http://landscaperesearch.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrlr-2011-1/, 01.04.2011
Humboldt A von (1847) Kosmos. Entwurf einer physischen Weltbeschreibung, Bd 2. Cotta, Stuttgart, Tübingen, 544 pp
Jessel B (1998) Landschaften als Gegenstand von Planung. Schmidt, Berlin
Jessel B, Tschimpke O, Waiser M (2009) Produktivkraft Natur. Hoffmann und Campe, Hamburg
Kettunen M, Bassi S, Gantioler S, ten Brink P (2009) Assessing socioeconomic benefits of Natura 2000–a toolkit for practitioners. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London, Brussels
Kienast F (2010) Landschaftsdienstleistungen: ein taugliches Konzept für Forschung und Praxis? Forum Wiss 2010:7–12
Kontogianni A, Luck GW, Skourtos M (2010) Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: a potential approach to address the ‘endpoint problem’ and improve stated preference methods. Ecol Econ 69:1479–1487. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.019
Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479
Lavorel S, McIntyre S, Landsberg J, Forbes TDA (1997) Plant functional classifications: from general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. Trends Ecol Evol 12:474–478
Lavorel S, Touzard B, Lebreton JD, Clement B (1998) Identifying functional groups for response to disturbance in an abandoned pasture. Acta Oecol 19:227–240
Leibenath M, Gailing L (2012) Semantische Annäherung an die Worte “Landschaft” und “Kulturlandschaft”. In: Schenk W, Kühn M, Leibenath M, Tzschaschel S (eds) Suburbane Räume als Kulturlandschaften. ARL, Hannover, pp 58–79
Leser H, Klink HJ (Hrsg) (1988) Handbuch und Kartieranleitung Geoökologische Karte 1: 25000 (KA GÖK 25). Forsch z. dt. Landeskunde 228
Loft L, Lux A (2010) Ecosystem Services–eine Einführung. BiKF–Biodiversität und Klima. Knowledge Flow Paper 6
Luck GW, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (2003) Population diversity and ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol 18:331–336
Luck GW, Harrington R, Harrison PA, Kremen C, Berry PM, Bugter R, Dawson TP, de Bello F, Diaz S, Feld CK, Haslett JR, Hering D, Kontogianni A, Lavorel S, Rounsevell M, Samways MJ, Sandin L, Settele J, Sykes MT, van den Hove S, Vandewalle M, Zobel M (2009) Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. BioScience 59:223–235
Lütz M, Bastian O (2000) Vom Landschaftsplan zum Bewirtschaftungsentwurf. Z Kulturtech Landesentwick 41:259–266
Lyytimäki J, Sipilä M (2009) Hopping on one leg–The challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban For Urban Green 8:309–315
Maarel E van der, Dauvellier PJ (1978) Naar een globaal ecologisch model voor de ruimlijke entwikkeling van Niederland. Studierapp. Rijksplanologische Dienst, Den Haag, 9 p
Mäler KG, Aniyar S, Jansson A (2008) Accounting for ecosystem services as a way to understand the requirements for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9501–9506
Maltby E (Hrsg) (2009) Functional assessment of wetlands: towards evaluation of ecosystem services. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge
Mannsfeld K (1979) Die Beurteilung von Naturraumpotentialen als Aufgabe der geographischen Landschaftsforschung. Petermanns Geogr Mitt 123:2–6
Matzdorf B, Reutter M, Hübner C (2010) Gutachten-Vorstudie: Bewertung der Ökosystemdienstleistungen von HNV-Grünland (High Nature Value Grassland)–Abschlussbericht im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz, Bonn (z2.zalf.de/oa/46452aad –17c1–45ed –82b6-fd9ba62fc9c2.pdf)
MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and human wellbeing: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington DC
MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human wellbeing. Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC
Müller B (2005) Stichwort “Raumwissenschaft”. In: Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung. 4. Aufl. ARL, Hannover, S 906–911
Müller F, Burkhard B (2007) An ecosystem based framework to link landscape structures, functions and services. In: Mander Ü, Wiggering H, Helming K (eds) Multifunctional land use–meeting future demands for landscape goods and services. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 37–64
Naveh Z (2010) Ecosystem and landscapes–a critical comparative appraisal. J Landsc Ecol 3:64–81
Naveh Z, Lieberman AS (1994) Landscape ecology. Theory and application. 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin
Neef E (1963) Dimensionen geographischer Betrachtungen. Forsch Fortsch 37:361–363
Neef E (1966) Zur Frage des gebietswirtschaftlichen Potentials. Forsch Fortschr 40:65–70
Neßhöver C, Beck S, Born W, Dziock S, Görg C, Hansjürgens B, Jax K, Köck W, Rauschmeyer F, Ring I, Schmidt-Loske K, Unnerstall H, Wittmer H, Henle K (2007) Das Millennium Ecosystem Assessment–eine deutsche Perspektive. Nat Landsch 82:262–267
Niemann E (1977) Eine Methode zur Erarbeitung der Funktionsleistungsgrade von Landschaftselementen. Arch Nat Schutz Landsch Forsch 17:119–158
Noss RF (2001) Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a time of rapid climate change. Conserv Biol 15:578–590
Odum EP (1971) Fundamentals of ecology, 3. edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, 574 pp
OECD (2008) Strategic environmental assessment and ecosystem services. DAC Network on Environment and Development Co-operation (ENVIRONET), Paris
O’Neill RV (2001) It is time to bury the ecosystem concept? Ecology 82:3275–3284
O’Neill RV, DeAngelis DL, Waide JB, Allen TFH (1986) A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton
van Oudenhoven APE, Petz K, Alkemade R, Hein L, de Groot RS (2012) Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecol Indicators 21:110–122
Peters W (2009) Biomassepotenziale aus der Landschaftspflege in Sachsen. FuE-Bericht im Auftrag des Sächsischen Landesamtes für Umwelt. Landwirtschaft und Geologie (unpubl.), Bosch & Partner, Berlin
Pfisterer AB, Balvanera P, Buchmann N, He JS, Nakashizuka T, Raffaelli D, Schmid B (2005) The role of biodiversity for ecosystem services: current knowledge. Institute of Environmental Sciences, University of Zurich
Plummer M (2009) Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 7:38–45
Ring I, Hansjürgens B, Elmqvist T, Wittmer H, Sukhdev P (2010) Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:15–26
Rounsevell DA, Dawson TP, Harrison PA (2010) A conceptual framework to assess the effects of environmental change on ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv 19:2823–2842
Schenk W, Overbeck G (2012) Suburbane Räume als Kulturlandschaften–Einführung. In: Schenk W, Kühn M, Leibenath M, Tzschaschel S (eds) Suburbane Räume als Kulturlandschaften. ARL, Hannover, 1–12 pp
Spangenberg JH, Settele J (2010) Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services. Ecol Complex 7:327–337
SRU (2007) Klimaschutz durch Biomasse. Sondergutachten des Sachverständigenrates für Umweltfragen (SRU). Schmidt, Berlin
Staub C, Ott W et al (2011) Indikatoren für Ökosystemleistungen: Systematik, Methodik und Umsetzungsempfehlungen für eine wohlfahrtsbezogene Umweltberichterstattung. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Bern. Umwelt-Wissen 1102, 106 S
Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: Providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:80–88
Tacconi L (2000) Decentralization, forests and livelihoods: theory and narrative. Global Environ Chang 17:338–348
Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16:284–307
TEEB–The economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2009) An interim report. Europ. Comm., Brussels. www.teebweb.org. Assessed 20 June 2013
TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Kumar P (ed) Earthscan, London, Washington
Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Ecol Soc 16(4):17. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES –04191–160417
Territoriale Agenda der Europäischen Union (2007) Für ein wettbewerbsfähigeres nachhaltiges Europa der vielfältigen Regionen. Angenommen anlässlich des Informellen Ministertreffens zur Stadtentwicklung und zum territorialen Zusammenhalt in Leipzig am 24./25. Mai 2007. http://www.bmvbs.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/SW/territoriale-agenda-der-europaeischen-union.html. Accessed 10 July 2012
UKNEA–UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) Synthesis of the key findings. Information Press, Oxford
Vandewalle M, Sykes MT, Harrison PA, Luck GW, Berry P, Bugter R, Dawson TP, Feld CK, Harrington R, Haslett JR, Hering D, Jones KB, Jongman R, Lavorel S, Martins da Silva P, Moora M, Paterson J, Rounsevell MDA, Sandin L, Settele J, Sousa JP, Zobel M (2008) Review paper on concepts of dynamic ecosystems and their services. RUBICODE Deliverable D2.1. www.rubicode.net/rubicode/RUBICODE_e-conference_report.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2009
Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–246
Wallace KJ (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classifications or confusion? Biol Conserv 141:353–354
Walz U (2011) Landscape structure, landscape metrics and biodiversity. Living Rev Landsc Res 5:3–23
Wascher DM (Hrsg) (2005) European landscape character areas–typologies, cartography and indicators for the assessment of sustainable landscapes. Final Project Report. Alterra Report 1254
Wende W, Kästner A, Bastian O, Walz U, Blum A, Oertel H (2011) Analyse des ehrenamtlichen und privaten Naturschutzes in Sachsen. Abschlussbericht im Auftrag des Sächsischen Staatsministeriums für Umwelt und Landwirtschaft. www.umwelt.sachsen.de/umwelt/download/Abschlussbericht_Ehrenamt_01_09_2011_mit_Anlagen.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2012
Wende W, Wojtkiewicz W, Marschall I, Heiland S, Lipp T, Reinke M, Schaal P, Schmidt C (2012) Putting the plan into practice: implementation of proposals for measures of local landscape plans. Landscape Res 37: 483–500 doi:10.1080/01426397.2011.592575
Wiegleb G (1997) Leitbildmethode und naturschutzfachliche Bewertung. Z Ökol Nat Schutz 6:43–62
Willemen L (2010) Mapping and modeling multifunctional landscapes. PhD- Thesis, Wageningen, 152 pp
WFD–Water Framework Directive (2000) Directive 2000/60/EG of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy.- published in the Official Journal (OJ L 327) on 22 December 2000
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bastian, O., Grunewald, K. (2015). Conceptual Framework. In: Grunewald, K., Bastian, O. (eds) Ecosystem Services – Concept, Methods and Case Studies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44143-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44143-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-44142-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-44143-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)