Promoting Urban Ecosystems by Integrating Urban Ecosystem Disservices in Inclusive Spatial Planning Solutions

Abstract

Ecosystem disservices (EDS)—ecosystem properties and functions that cause discomfort or harm—often shape public attitudes to urban biodiversity more strongly than ecosystem services, yet they remain weakly integrated into inclusive spatial planning. This study develops and tests an EDS classification and a decision-making tree intended to help planners recognise disservices, assess ES–EDS trade-offs, and select proportionate responses without defaulting to ecological simplification. The framework was derived from literature, survey evidence, and expert–stakeholder input from Eastern European cities, and then examined through five contrasting urban action situations in Estonia and Belarus. The cases show that a shared decision logic for EDS is transferable across settings, but that its practical uptake depends on governance conditions. Where communication was proactive and explanatory, participation was meaningful, and long-term management was institutionally secured, disservices were reframed or mitigated while ecological objectives were maintained. Where disservices were framed late, trust was low, or political intervention truncated deliberation, even modest nature-based interventions were stalled or redirected toward grey alternatives. These findings justify treating EDS as a routine planning concern and demonstrate how an EDS-aware approach can strengthen inclusive planning by making both benefits and burdens of urban nature explicit.

1. Introduction

The functions and properties of ecosystems that generate discomfort or harm for people, commonly referred to as ecosystem disservices (EDS) [1,2], play an important role in shaping interactions between citizens and urban nature [2,3,4,5]. In urbanised environments, residents often attend more to the inconveniences associated with nature than to its benefits [6]. Such perceptions influence how people evaluate biodiversity and whether they support nature-based solutions in cities. This calls for planning approaches that consider ecosystem services (ES) and EDS simultaneously, in order to create urban environments that are both ecologically functional and socially comfortable [5,7].

Integrating ES and EDS into planning remains challenging. The difficulty stems not only from familiar trade-offs—such as tensions between allocating space for green infrastructure and pursuing commercial development [8]—but also from divergent understandings of what constitutes a service or disservice and for whom [9]. The same ecological feature may be experienced as beneficial by some groups and harmful by others, depending on values, everyday practices, and vulnerabilities. These tensions provide two reasons to address EDS explicitly in planning. First, identifying and mitigating EDS can reduce sources of conflict that otherwise motivate the removal or simplification of urban nature, thereby indirectly supporting the continued provision of ES. Second, attention to EDS enables planning processes that are sensitive to unequal exposure to, and tolerance of, nature-related discomforts across social and demographic groups [9]. Addressing EDS therefore requires structured multi-stakeholder engagement that reflects diverse preferences and vulnerabilities, including those linked to age, gender, and other dimensions of social difference.

Within the repertoire of planning methodologies, inclusive planning offers a particularly comprehensive framework for engaging such diversity. Rooted in the policy concept of social inclusiveness, inclusive planning is guided by principles of social equity and justice and aims to ensure that all members of society—regardless of background or circumstance—can participate in and benefit from social, economic, and political processes [10]. Applied to urban planning, this approach recognises cities as heterogeneous socio-ecological systems shaped by varied socio-economic positions, cultural identities, and environmental values. Inclusive planning therefore emphasises meaningful participation of diverse stakeholders and incorporation of their perspectives into planning and design strategies [11,12]. Its ultimate goal is to create urban environments that are accessible, responsive, and equitable, including in relation to ES and nature-based solutions (NBS) [11,13,14].

Mainstream research on citizen–urban-nature interactions has largely focused on ES and their direct benefits, including positive effects of green spaces on mental and physical health [15], social cohesion [16], and overall well-being [17]. Studies show that inclusive and participatory planning can enhance these benefits by aligning green infrastructure with the needs and preferences of different social groups [11,12,18] and by strengthening trust between residents and decision-makers [19]. In contrast, empirical and conceptual work on EDS in urban contexts remains limited (e.g., [20,21,22,23,24,25]), and scholarship that connects an EDS perspective to inclusive planning is only beginning to emerge [26,27]. As a result, while inclusive planning provides tools for accommodating diversity, it rarely addresses the specific governance and management implications of nature-related discomforts, harms, or conflicts. This constitutes a key gap: we lack systematic understanding of how EDS can be framed, governed, and reconciled with ES within inclusive planning processes, particularly across differing socio-ecological and institutional contexts.

Although some EDS (e.g., nuisance species, allergenic vegetation) have long been acknowledged in planning and management guidelines, many others have only recently gained attention. Their systematic incorporation into planning frameworks remains incomplete, and conceptual and methodological work on EDS has not yet developed in parallel with ES. To address this disparity and advance an inclusive-planning perspective that explicitly integrates urban nature’s benefits and burdens, this paper investigates how EDS are governed and managed in practice, in particular in the context of specific socio-ecological systems (SES). We ask:

• How can EDS be framed in terms of management actions needed to reconcile them with citizens’ needs and preferences within specific socio-ecological contexts?
• Is a universal approach to governing EDS feasible within inclusive planning frameworks?
• How does EDS management—understood as a structured process of identifying, assessing, and mitigating negative ecosystem impacts on human well-being while balancing ES and EDS in decision-making—interact with broader governance contexts?

Because EDS research is still emerging, many pertinent questions remain underexplored, including how to quantify EDS (e.g., as discomfort, harm, or measurable damage) and how to negotiate ES–EDS trade-offs in ways that sustain ES while effectively minimising EDS [28]. Without aiming to resolve these issues comprehensively, the present study contributes by clarifying how EDS are understood and acted upon in real planning situations and by identifying governance conditions that enable or constrain inclusive EDS management. In doing so, it strengthens the empirical and conceptual foundations for integrating EDS into inclusive planning and urban environmental governance.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, we present the methodological framework, methods, and case-study selection. Second, we analyse cases from Belarus and Estonia as action situations, focusing on how EDS are identified, negotiated, and managed. Third, we examine the governance contexts that shape these management practices. Finally, we synthesise the findings and discuss their implications for inclusive planning and the broader ES–EDS agenda in urban environments.

2. Materials and Methods

The study followed a three-stage research design (Figure 1): (1) development of the EDS classification, (2) construction of a decision-making tree, and (3) empirical validation through case studies.

2.1. Development of the EDS Classification

Stage 1 focused on developing a detailed classification of ecosystem disservices (EDS). We first compiled an initial list of EDS instances through a literature review of studies conducted in urban areas located in temperate and boreal climate zones. This literature-based inventory was complemented by three rounds of sociological surveys carried out in the city of Mahilioŭ (Belarus) between 2016 and 2018. The surveys addressed residents’ perceptions of green and blue infrastructure (GBI), experiences of nature-related disturbances, attitudes toward urban biodiversity, and preferences for GBI management.

A stratified random sampling approach was used to ensure representation across age groups, gender, and administrative districts. In total, 912 respondents participated in face-to-face interviews conducted by trained enumerators. The survey instrument included 28 items organised into four thematic blocks: (1) awareness and perception of GBI; (2) experiences of nature-related disturbances; (3) attitudes toward urban biodiversity; and (4) preferences for management interventions. The questionnaire was pilot-tested with 35 participants to improve clarity and eliminate ambiguities. Internal reliability for multi-item scales ranged from Cronbach’s α = 0.71 to 0.83. The survey results were used to (a) identify locally salient EDS, (b) assess how different disturbances are perceived by residents, and (c) validate and refine the preliminary EDS list derived from the literature.

To further refine the classification and link EDS to feasible management responses, we conducted three rounds of expert consultations with 14 professionals in ecology, urban planning, and municipal governance in Belarus. Experts were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling to ensure diversity in sectoral affiliation, managerial responsibilities, and professional background. Participants had 7–25 years of experience in fields directly related to urban environmental management.

Each consultation round was held as a semi-structured workshop guided by a discussion protocol covering attribution of disturbances, their scale and frequency, and the practical feasibility of interventions. All sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic coding by two independent coders; disagreements were resolved through consensus discussion to enhance coding reliability. Between rounds, participants received summaries of emerging findings and were invited to comment on and validate the interpretations (member checking), supporting the credibility of the results. Themes recurring across rounds—such as difficulties in distinguishing ecosystem-driven processes from infrastructural failures, mismatches between ecological and administrative boundaries, and constraints on management feasibility—directly informed refinement of EDS categories and specification of management pathways.

Overall, 156 candidate EDS instances were identified from the combined literature, survey, and consultation inputs. After removing duplicates and instances deemed irrelevant to urban GBI management, 84 EDS were retained. These were organised into four main categories based on the nature of the disturbance and further subdivided into eight subgroups reflecting characteristics of potential management interventions (

Table 1. A classification of ecosystem disservices (adopted after [27]).

EDS Group	EDS Sub-Group	EDS Examples
I. Ecosystem attributes and functions	Ia. Ecosystem attributes	Ecosystems perceived as “unacceptable” (e.g., wetlands), invasive species
	Ib. Events arising from ecosystem dynamics	Flooding as part of ecosystem dynamics; wildfires (forest, landscape, peatland)
	Ic. Functioning of urban ecosystems	Infections and pathogens spread by wild species; falling trees and branches; invasive roots damaging infrastructure; leaf litter; seeds and pollen; fire-prone vegetation; algal blooms, etc.
II. Human health	IIa. Risks related to human health	Allergies and diseases; hygiene and public-health concerns; toxic species; biting insects/animals; attacks by wild animals; crime and safety risks in green areas
	IIb. Nature related fears	Fear of wild animals; fear of darkness in green spaces; fear or avoidance of “wild” nature in general
III. Aesthetic and sensory disturbances	Non applicable	Loud calls/sounds of birds, dogs, etc.; unattractive or frightening species; poorly maintained or unmanaged green spaces; weeds, pests, or nuisance species; unpleasant odours
IV. Constraints on urban development	Non applicable	Protected species and areas constraining urban development; land-use restrictions reducing property values; barriers to transport connectivity; excessive shading or visual obstruction caused by vegetation

).

2.2. Construction of the Decision Tree

Stage 2 involved developing and validating a decision tree intended to guide planners in selecting appropriate management strategies for diverse EDS contexts. The development process integrated (i) a structured review of mitigation options for the identified EDS, (ii) expert evaluation, and (iii) participatory stakeholder workshops.

The proposed management logic follows the premise that wild species, ecosystems, and their characteristics possess intrinsic value and contribute to the livability and resilience of urban environments. In this perspective, ES are generally expected to outweigh EDS when the latter do not cause substantial or unacceptable disturbance. In most situations, this requires identifying ES–EDS trade-offs and determining appropriate combinations of engineering, management, communication, and awareness-raising measures. In some cases, however, trade-offs are not acceptable—for example, EDS posing direct risks to human health (e.g., ticks, hogweed, or highly allergenic species) or compromising engineering safety (e.g., ecosystem-scale inundations). These cases were therefore classified as undesirable, while recognising that this designation may need revision in other geographical or institutional contexts.

Recognising nature-induced disturbances as EDS raises challenges of attribution and scale. These challenges were addressed through consultations with planning and ecology professionals in Belarus, Estonia and Ukraine (total 8 sessions involving joint review of the suggested decision-making logic). For example, flooding was classified as an EDS only when it represented an intrinsic property of ecosystem dynamics, such as in floodplain meadows or wetlands, rather than a result of infrastructural failure.

Decision-tree development began with a review of management and planning solutions associated with the EDS instances included in the classification. A provisional tree was then circulated for review among urban planning and development professionals in Belarus. Eleven usable expert responses were collected in 2019 via written questionnaires and follow-up interviews. The most common areas of disagreement concerned:

• the boundary between acceptable ecosystem dynamics and unacceptable EDS;
• prioritisation of biodiversity-friendly measures versus public safety;
• conditions under which non-engineering interventions are appropriate.

These comments informed iterative revisions, through which a working consensus on the tree logic was established. The revised draft tree was subsequently discussed at two stakeholder workshops held in Mahilioŭ in 2020 (with 23 and 28 participants). Attendees included municipal officials, planners, ecologists, NGO representatives, and citizen activists. In each workshop:

• four representative EDS cases (one from each major group) were jointly examined;
• participants navigated the draft tree step by step;
• feasibility, trade-offs, and contextual constraints were discussed;
• the tree was modified through consensus to reflect realistic ecological and governance conditions.

The final version of the decision-making tree (Figure 2) integrates stakeholders’ feedback and balances ecological, engineering, and social considerations.

2.3. Application and Validation of the Framework in SES Contexts

Stage 3 tested the applicability and robustness of the EDS classification and decision-making tree through five case studies conducted in three medium-sized cities in Belarus and Estonia. Across the five cases, we carried out 21 semi-structured interviews with municipal planners (n = 7), local residents (n = 5), NGO representatives (n = 4), ecologists (n = 3), and private-sector stakeholders (n = 2). Interview protocols followed a common template aligned with the decision-making tree and addressed identification of EDS, perceived impacts, management rationales, and evaluations of outcomes. Interviews lasted 35–80 min, were recorded with informed consent, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically.

Each case dealt with a complex EDS-related situation in which several stakeholder groups were involved and where preferences over urban nature and its disturbances clearly diverged. Mahilioŭ, Pärnu, and Tartu were chosen for practical and research reasons: in all three cities we had sufficient background data, access to relevant documents, and partner networks that facilitated contact with municipal actors, experts, NGOs, and resident groups. Within these settings, the five cases were selected deliberately to give the framework a meaningful test. They cover different EDS categories (Table 1), rather than concentrating on one type of disturbance. They also represent varied management pathways, including situations where EDS were acknowledged and handled through processes broadly consistent with the decision-making tree, as well as situations where EDS attribution was contested or where management choices departed from the tree’s logic. Finally, working across three cities in two countries adds institutional and socio-ecological variation, which is essential for examining how context shapes the way EDS are recognised, negotiated, and governed. Taken together, this mix of cities and cases allows a comparative assessment of how well the framework applies across different urban nature–people configurations.

Basic characteristics of the selected urban locations are presented in

Table 2. Case study areas.

	Mahilioŭ	Pärnu	Tartu
Geographical coordinates	53°55′ N 30°21′ E	58°23′05″ N 24°31′07″ E	58°23′ N 26°43′ E
Year of foundation or first mentioned	1267	1251	1030
Area, km2	118.5	33.15	38.9
Elevation (mean/max/min/range), m	171/210/138/72	5/21/−2/23	55/82/27/55
Green (tree, shrub) areas, km2/%	15.9/13.5	6.4/19.3	39.8/25.8
Type of climate (Köppen)	humid continental Dfb	humid continental Dfb	humid continental Dfb
Average daily mean temperature, °C	6	8.8	8.1
Average annual precipitation, mm	622	678	587
Population	383,313	40,253	98,247
The biggest ethnic group & % of total population	Belarusians, 91%	Estonians, 83.7%	Estonians, 80.1%

.

For each case, we conducted between three and eleven stakeholder interviews and, where relevant, complemented these with desktop research of grey literature and media coverage. Interview and desktop-research questions were structured according to the decision-making tree (Figure 2), and management actions in each situation were assessed against the tree’s logic. Where cases represented situations of divergence from the tree’s logic, we additionally interviewed stakeholders responsible for the relevant decisions and asked them to reflect on alternative courses of action suggested by the tree. Beyond case-specific reflections, all interviewees were invited to comment on broader issues of EDS recognition and management emerging in their contexts. These insights were supplemented by a desktop inquiry into academic literature, media sources, and local regulatory documents.

Treating the study areas as socio-ecological systems (SES), we analysed each case as a “focal action situation” in the sense of the revised Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework [29,30,31]. In IAD, action situations are structured arenas in which actors holding different positions, resources, and preferences interact under specific rules, biophysical conditions, and community attributes, producing outcomes that can be assessed against normative criteria; this makes it possible to isolate the immediate decision structure shaping observed behaviour and results [32]. We adopted this lens because ecosystem disservices (EDS) arise at the interface of ecological dynamics and human decision-making, and their management typically depends on multi-actor interactions across sectors and scales.

In practice, EDS controversies often hinge on contested attribution (ecosystem-driven processes versus infrastructural failures), uneven distributions of costs and benefits, and disagreements over acceptable levels of disturbance. Framing these situations through IAD allows such tensions to be studied as parts of connected governance networks rather than as isolated events, supporting systematic comparison across cases and helping to identify institutional and contextual conditions that enable—or constrain—management pathways consistent with the decision-making tree [33]. Consistent with IAD’s emphasis on polycentric SES governance, we therefore examined each case’s governance context—through interviews and the desktop inquiry—in relation to welfare service delivery processes and the wider institutional setting in which EDS management unfolded [30].

3. Results

3.1. Estonian Cases

3.1.1. Situation E1: How Wild Nature in a City Became Decoupled from Poor Management Perceptions

In preparation for Tartu’s designation as the European Capital of Culture in 2024, the city launched a number of projects aimed at enhancing its public spaces, including the green ones. As part of this effort, the Curated Biodiversity project, launched in 2020, aimed to improve the ecological quality and liveability of Tartu’s parks by integrating natural processes into urban management. The project introduced low-mow meadows, micro-wetlands, and insect-friendly habitats to increase habitat diversity for invertebrates, birds, and small mammals, while also supporting cleaner air, soil, and water. Additional actions included establishing pocket parks and planting beds with native species, as well as incorporating architectural installations developed in collaboration with local art students. Together, these measures turned the city’s parks into a model for biodiversity-based urban planning.

During the implementation stage, two key ecosystem disservices (EDS) were identified through citizen feedback. One was related to the “unmanaged” appearance of parks following reduced mowing. Many residents, accustomed to regularly trimmed lawns, expressed concern about the taller grass and its visual impact. The second involved fears of increased ticks, insects associated with “wilder” vegetation and the Spanish Slug (Arion vulgaris). Although these concerns did not present direct risks to health or property, they aligned with categories 1.5 (nature-related fears) and 1.6 (aesthetic issues) in the project’s decision-making framework (Figure 2).

Project leaders and city officials addressed these issues through communication and community engagement. Informational boards were placed in parks to explain the project’s objectives and ecological basis. Outreach efforts included social media updates, newspaper articles, and public events to raise awareness of biodiversity benefits. Residents were also invited to participate in planting native species, building a sense of ownership and connection to the parks. These actions, consistent with steps 2.6.1–2.6.4 of the decision-making framework, helped turn initial scepticism into public support. By combining ecological restoration with active participation, the Curated Biodiversity project showed how inclusive communication can mitigate perceived ecosystem disservices and promote long-term biodiversity-oriented management. The summary profile for this situation is set out in

Table 3. Case profile for Situation E1 (Tartu, Estonia): Curated Biodiversity project.

Element	Content
Urban nature/intervention	“Curated Biodiversity” project (2020–): low-mow meadows, micro-wetlands, insect-friendly habitats, pocket parks, native planting beds, art-based park installations.
Key ES at stake	Biodiversity and habitat support; regulating ES (cleaner air, soil, and water); cultural ES (recreation, learning, place quality).
Key EDS types (classification link)	Aesthetic/sensory discomfort from “unmanaged” appearance (Group III/1.6); nature-related fears regarding ticks/insects/Spanish slug (Group IIb/1.5).
EDS manifestations	Complaints about tall grass and perceived neglect; concern about higher tick/insect occurrence and invasive slugs.
Actively involved stakeholders	City officials and project leaders; residents/park users; local media; art students/community participants.
Main conflict/tension	Biodiversity-based “wild” aesthetics vs. expectations of tidy lawns; fear of nuisances vs. ecological rationale.
Decision-making tree pathway applied	Communication and engagement measures to reframe perceptions and build acceptance (steps 2.6.1–2.6.4).
Outcome (type)	EDS concerns addressed through communication; management pathway follows the decision-making tree; ecosystem/NBS maintained.
Decisive factors	Early identification of perceived EDS; clear on-site explanations; sustained outreach (social media, press, events); participatory planting fostering ownership.

.

3.1.2. Situation E2: How Cows in a City Became an Accepted Landscape Element

Pärnu’s coastal meadows cover approximately 375 hectares and represent one of the few remaining semi-natural ecosystems within the city. Of this area, 250–300 hectares consist of species-rich grasslands that support diverse flora, including several rare orchids and wetland plants, as well as important habitats for amphibians and wetland birds. Restoration initiatives, including the EU-funded LIFE+ Urban Cows project, have helped control reed overgrowth, restore hydrological conditions, and improve public access through the construction of trails, birdwatching towers, and educational facilities. Despite these efforts, the meadows remain ecologically sensitive and require continued management to prevent degradation, as Baltic coastal meadows are classified as endangered habitats in Europe.

Seeking to address this, the Restoration and Public Access of Urban Coastal Meadow Complex in Pärnu Town project (LIFE10 NAT/EE/000107) was launched in 2012 to rehabilitate and reopen the city’s long-neglected coastal meadows. Earlier management trials, including mowing and limited grazing on a 20-hectare area beginning in 2010, proved insufficient to achieve full restoration. The project’s broader objective was to restore beach and coastal meadows and improve habitats for protected species within the Pärnu Beach Meadow Nature Reserve. Restoration activities included clearing overgrown vegetation and sediment, reestablishing natural water flows, and enhancing conditions for sensitive species. Through intensive grazing and the removal of reeds and shrubs, approximately 220 hectares of beach meadows and 74 hectares of grasslands were successfully restored. Public access and education were integral components of the project. Two birdwatching towers and a 660 m wooden boardwalk were constructed, supported by ecological monitoring and research. Although the project formally concluded in 2016, active management continues: Highland cattle graze the meadows each summer to maintain open habitats and preserve biodiversity. Since the city does not own livestock, local farmers lease the land and provide the cattle, ensuring sustainable management. Without regular grazing, the meadows would again become overgrown, undermining restoration gains.

Following the reintroduction of grazing, several ecosystem disservices (EDS) emerged, primarily associated with human–wildlife interactions in this urban coastal setting. While grazing is essential for maintaining ecological integrity, the presence of cattle near a popular recreational beach raised two health-related concerns (category 1.2 in the decision-making framework) (Figure 2).

First, residents and visitors expressed concern about potential short-term water pollution from animal feces, as the meadows are adjacent to the Pärnu Beach, a major summer destination. Second, there were fears of animal bites, as some visitors attempted to approach or feed the cows despite fencing around the grazing areas. These concerns required different responses. Water quality issues cannot be ignored or eliminated; thus, the city government monitors water quality (step 2.8.3) and applies safeguards in line with national regulations. In contrast, the risk of animal bites can be mitigated through preventive measures. Clear signage on fences (step 2.7.5) warning visitors not to approach the animals has proven to be an effective solution. Two additional EDS, related to aesthetic concerns (category 1.6), involved the noise and odors associated with grazing cattle. These do not pose risks to health or property and can therefore be assessed under the framework’s provisions for aesthetic disservices. To date, there have been no significant complaints from nearby residents, suggesting these effects can be tolerated under point 2.3 (“measures are not needed”). However, community attitudes will continue to be monitored and reassessed as needed.

While the restoration of Pärnu’s coastal meadows introduced new management challenges, the process demonstrates how transparent communication, risk assessment, and regulatory compliance can balance ecological objectives with public well-being. The integration of biodiversity restoration, active stakeholder engagement, and adaptive management has enabled Pärnu to preserve a rare urban ecosystem while maintaining its accessibility and social value. This case highlights the importance of long-term stewardship in sustaining multifunctional landscapes that serve both ecological and community needs. Its summary is provided in

Table 4. Case profile for Situation E2 (Pärnu, Estonia): Urban coastal meadow restoration and grazing.

Element	Content
Urban nature/intervention	Restoration of Pärnu coastal meadows via LIFE projects (2012–2016+) with ongoing Highland cattle grazing; boardwalk, trails, birdwatching towers; hydrological restoration and reed/shrub removal.
Key ES at stake	Conservation of endangered Baltic coastal meadows; habitat for protected species; regulating ES (hydrological functioning, reed control); cultural ES (recreation, tourism, education).
Key EDS types (classification link)	Health/safety EDS: feces-related water-quality risk; potential cattle bites (Group IIa/1.2). Aesthetic/sensory EDS: odour and noise (Group III/1.6).
EDS manifestations	Visitor concerns about beach water pollution; fear of bites when people approach/feed cows; minor effects from odour/noise.
Actively involved stakeholders	Municipal government; farmers providing cattle; residents and beach visitors; ecologists/conservation bodies.
Main conflict/tension	Need for grazing to sustain habitats vs. perceived health/safety risks and discomfort in a recreational beach setting.
Decision-making tree pathway applied	Non-negotiable risks → monitoring/regulatory safeguards (2.8.3). Manageable risks → preventive signage (2.7.5). Minor aesthetic EDS → tolerance with monitoring (2.3).
Outcome (type)	Adaptive management consistent with the decision-making tree; grazing continues and ecosystem is maintained.
Decisive factors	Ecological necessity of grazing; separation of non-negotiable vs. manageable EDS; legal water-quality monitoring; targeted communication to visitors.

.

3.2. Belarusian Cases

3.2.1. Situation B1: What Opportunities for Mindset Transformation Are Worth Considering, but Were Not So Far

The Dubravenka River, a small watercourse draining the city of Mahilioŭ and its outskirts, is adjoined along a 3 km stretch by a 50–300 m wide floodplain composed of wetlands, oxbow cut-offs, and floodplain ponds. This ecosystem shows strong natural dynamics and supports high species diversity. The floodplain is closely bordered by multistorey housing blocks and areas of wooden cottages with gardens [34]. Until the late 1990s, the Dubravenka meadows were still used for fodder harvesting and goat grazing. As these traditional practices declined, the benefits of living near the river also disappeared. Most nearby residents now report problems such as insects, odors, fog, dirt, poor access and connectivity, a general sense of marginalization, and aesthetically displeasing surroundings. Similar attitudes are shared by other city residents. This perception was reflected in the common discourse surrounding a stretch of the floodplain that existed further down the river and reached Mahilioŭ’s downtown until the late 1980s, when it was transformed. The original ecosystem that existed there was a periodically flooded alder grove, with multiple sandy channels resembling a small delta. By the 2000s, it had been redeveloped into a system of ponds with embankments, fountains, and open lawns. While this redevelopment improved river access and was generally appreciated by residents, its original ecological character and value were lost and are no longer part of the city’s collective memory.

The city continues to grow, and current development proposals risk turning the remaining floodplain into another lifeless open space. Alternatives that would preserve biodiversity and the ecosystem’s character include: (1) maintaining the status quo with minor improvements such as better access, safety, and maintenance of the surrounding area; (2) creating controlled access to and through the ecosystem—via walking paths, observation towers for bird or beaver watching, and educational infrastructure—to add learning and recreational value; or (3) establishing a conservation regime that prioritizes wildlife protection while allowing for non-destructive observation and education [31]. Each of these options conflicts with current planning policies, priorities, practices, or citizens’ expectations. However, they represent the most rational strategies for maintaining the ecosystem’s value, including climate resilience, and could add an important new dimension to the city’s green and blue infrastructure. Option (1) may be the most suitable under current resource constraints, while option (2) would require high-quality expertise and significant development investment. The EDS identified in this case fall under categories 1.4.1, 1.6.3, 1.6.4, and 1.6.5 (Figure 2). Within the framework of inclusive planning, the most affected group consists of residents living adjacent to the floodplain (2.4), as the related EDS are localized [34]. The next steps include developing communication strategies to address perceptions and modify value systems (2.6) and management actions to increase public acceptance of new developments (2.5).

Both options, as well as the decision-making logics and possible communication strategies, were discussed through in-depth interviews with municipality representatives involved in planning a decision-making process, as well as citizens. While following the decision-making tree, reviewing the options, and receiving additional information, four of five interviewees reconsidered their preferences from the heavily managed public space to more ecosystem-friendly options. The summary profile of the action situation is set in

Table 5. Case profile for Situation B1 (Mahilioŭ, Belarus): Dubravenka floodplain meadows.

Element	Content
Urban nature/intervention	Dubravenka River floodplain (wetlands, oxbows, ponds) adjacent to housing; future management/development options under debate.
Key ES at stake	Biodiversity and habitat value; regulating ES (floodplain dynamics, microclimate, climate resilience); cultural ES potential (learning, recreation, nature experience).
Key EDS types (classification link)	Local nuisance and access-related disservices: insects, odours, fog, dirt, poor connectivity; marginalisation and unmanaged aesthetics (Groups I/III; 1.4.1, 1.6.3–1.6.5).
EDS manifestations	Residents perceive the area as unpleasant and neglected; annoyance is strongest among those living adjacent to the floodplain.
Actively involved stakeholders	Adjacent residents; wider city public; municipal planners; potential developers; ecologists/experts.
Main conflict/tension	Pressure for “improved/tidy” public space and development vs. maintaining dynamic wetland ecosystem and biodiversity.
Decision-making tree pathway considered	Communication to shift perceptions and values (2.6); acceptance-building and minor improvements for access/safety (2.5); focus on most affected local groups (2.4).
Outcome (type)	Situation remains open; decision-making tree used as a structured deliberation tool to explore ecosystem-friendly alternatives.
Decisive factors	Loss of traditional uses weakened ES recognition; strong localised EDS perception; resource constraints; tree-guided discussion prompted preference change among several interviewees.

.

3.2.2. Situation B2: How Citizens Actively Resist When the Communication Was Not Convincing

In 2015–2017, an environmental NGO in Mahilioŭ implemented a water purification project that included a small oil trap and a constructed wetland at the mouth of a ravine receiving stormwater discharge. Residents of nearby cottages were alarmed by reports of a “water treatment facility” being built in their vicinity and opposed the project, despite the NGO’s efforts to reassure them that the wetland and the oil trap were very small-scale, would not increase emissions, and would serve as an attractive landscaping feature [9]. The activists organized an extensive cleanup of the ravine, which had been filled with garbage, but this only heightened local suspicion. Fearing the perceived “treatment plant” and wetland-related EDS, residents appealed directly to the city mayor, who ordered the project halted to prevent social tensions—despite this action violating standard procedures and regulations [9].

This case illustrates a typical scenario in which a top-down attempt to introduce green and blue infrastructure (GBI) featuring potential EDS can be easily overruled through higher-level political intervention, as short-term political gains often outweigh the expected environmental benefits. If the decision-making tree (Figure 2) had been applied beforehand, it would have identified the relevant EDS as primarily aesthetic (1.6.4 and 1.6.5). As in the previous example, the most affected group comprised local residents (2.6), who expressed concern about possible odors, insects, unsightly views, and air pollution. The appropriate next steps for developers would have been, therefore, to consider options outlined in boxes 2.6.1 and 2.6.5. Four residents of the case study neighborhood, who participated in in-depth interviews following the decision-making tree and explaining available options, expressed their regrets for opposing the project in the first place, and notice that, at the time, they did not receive enough information and found the whole communication process improper. The summary of the action situation is provided by

Table 6. Case profile for Situation B2 (Mahilioŭ, Belarus): Constructed wetland halted by resident opposition.

Element	Content
Urban nature/intervention	Small constructed wetland and oil trap for stormwater purification at ravine outlet (NGO project, 2015–2017).
Key ES at stake	Regulating ES (water purification, runoff treatment); potential cultural ES (cleaner ravine landscape, local amenity).
Key EDS types (classification link)	Primarily perceived aesthetic/nuisance EDS: fear of odours, insects, unsightly views, and “treatment facility” stigma (Group III/1.6.4–1.6.5).
EDS manifestations	Residents interpreted the project as a “water treatment plant”; anxiety about pollution and nuisance effects; opposition escalated politically.
Actively involved stakeholders	Local cottage residents; NGO implementers; municipal authorities; mayor/political level.
Main conflict/tension	Top-down NBS introduction vs. strong local risk perception and low trust; environmental benefits vs. short-term political avoidance of conflict.
Decision-making tree pathway that would apply	Early intensive communication, co-framing, and institutionalisation to address aesthetic fears (2.6.1 and 2.6.5).
Outcome (type)	Management pathway diverged from decision-making tree logic; project halted by mayoral order.
Decisive factors	Inadequate early communication; stigma around “treatment” narrative; weak trust; political override prioritising short-term stability.

.

3.2.3. Situation B3: How Adaptation of Mindsets Took Place, and What Hopes It Gives

Piačersk Woods is a historical city forest of Mahilioŭ with its core in Dubravenka Valley. With a large pond in its southern section, it functions as an important recreational area. This intensive use has significantly altered the ecosystem, although a remarkable mosaic of vegetation types and several red-listed species have been preserved. Since the early 2000s, a group of local NGO activists and academics had advocated for the establishment of a protected area in Piačersk Woods. From the outset, this was a major challenge. The first stakeholder workshop in 2011 revealed that most citizens, even those with environmental awareness, did not recognize the forest’s conservation value. Over time, a multi-stakeholder community emerged that valued and promoted the importance of Piačersk Woods. This network included concerned residents, small business owners, academics, journalists, urban planners, environmental professionals, and NGO representatives. In 2018, the activists invited experts from the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a site visit. The experts confirmed the forest’s conservation value and formally notified local authorities that a protected area should be established. This announcement was well received by residents, who appeared willing to accept conservation restrictions in exchange for stronger protection. Although the municipality initially hesitated, under public pressure, it could not justify its reluctance and therefore acknowledged the proposal and began formal proceedings.

In this situation, all the conditions for turning a potential EDS into a valuable ES have been met. The EDS belonged to 1.5.3, 1.7.1, and 1.7.2, and the groups with the greatest potential objectives would be the citizens residing around the forest or visiting it, as well as the municipality and affiliated developers. Turning disadvantages into benefits required changes in values and core beliefs. In order to achieve this, the activists started with options 2.6.1 and 2.6.2, including excursions, publications on Piačersk’s value for the current and future generations, and promoting the forest to academics as a research ground. In parallel, the group of activists explored 2.6.3 and organized 6 stakeholder events to share the mission with more parties. As a result, more spin-off initiatives emerged (2.6.4), organized by businesses (e.g., Piačersk-themed gastro fests and folk fairs), sport clubs (e.g., canoeing, diving, or sport-orienteering events with a litter-collection component), and other environmental activists organising regular clean-up or tree-planting fests). The latter worked particularly well to improve understanding of the municipality and the locals. Following option 2.6.5, the activists sought to institutionalize the issue and place it on the local policy agenda through meetings with decision-makers and petitions to higher authorities. Eventually, a dedicated committee—including NGO representatives, which is uncommon in Belarus—was established by the municipality, and the process of creating the protected area entered the implementation phase

Table 7. Case profile for Situation B3 (Mahilioŭ, Belarus): Protected area established through a coordinated bottom-up push.

Element	Content
Urban nature/intervention	Piačersk Woods: historical city forest with intensive recreation; long-term NGO/academic initiative to establish protected area (process intensified 2000s–2018+).
Key ES at stake	Biodiversity conservation (red-listed species, habitat mosaic); regulating ES (urban forest functions); cultural ES (recreation, identity, education).
Key EDS types (classification link)	Perceived restrictions and fears linked to protection status and “wild” forest (categories 1.5.3, 1.7.1, 1.7.2).
EDS manifestations	Initially low recognition of conservation value; concern that protection would limit use or development.
Actively involved stakeholders	NGO activists; academics; concerned residents; small businesses; journalists; municipal planners; National Academy of Sciences experts.
Main conflict/tension	Conservation and protection regime vs. expectations of unrestricted recreation and/or development opportunities.
Decision-making tree pathway applied	Extended values/awareness work and coalition building (2.6.1–2.6.4), followed by institutionalisation and agenda-setting (2.6.5).
Outcome (type)	Management trajectory follows decision-making tree logic; municipality initiated formal process to establish a protected area.
Decisive factors	Long-term multi-actor coalition; repeated engagement events; expert confirmation of biodiversity value; gradual shift in public and municipal perceptions.

.

3.3. Cross-Case Synthesis of Governance Conditions: Success Factors and Barriers

Comparison of the three successful trajectories (E1, E2, and B3) points to a consistent set of enabling conditions. First, communication was proactive, sustained, and explanatory. Rather than reacting only after contestation emerged, project actors articulated the ecological rationale and expected benefits of interventions early and reiterated these messages over time. In E1 and B3, this involved framing biodiversity-oriented management as a legitimate and desirable urban planning objective, using multiple formats and venues; in E2, communication focused on making health and safety implications explicit and providing clear behavioural guidance for visitors. Second, successful cases combined information provision with meaningful, low-threshold forms of stakeholder engagement. Participation was not limited to formal consultation; it included activities that fostered familiarity with the intervention and created a sense of shared responsibility (e.g., planting and public events in E1, and repeated excursions, workshops, and locally initiated spin-off activities in B3). Third, positive outcomes were supported by institutional arrangements capable of sustaining management over time. In E2, long-term grazing—a precondition for maintaining coastal meadow ES—was secured through stable cooperation with local farmers and routine compliance monitoring. In B3, advocacy progressed from awareness-raising to institutionalisation: external expert validation, agenda-setting within municipal procedures, and establishment of a dedicated committee anchored the process in formal governance. Taken together, the successful cases are characterised by early and credible framing of ES–EDS trade-offs, engagement that built legitimacy and trust, and governance structures that stabilised implementation.

The two cases with unsuccessful or blocked trajectories (B1 and B2) highlight recurrent barriers. Most clearly, both show how unresolved or weakly addressed perceptions of EDS can outweigh ES arguments, even where ecological benefits are substantial. In B2, the intervention was locally reinterpreted as a threatening “treatment facility,” and communication lacked timeliness and credibility; once opposition escalated, higher-level political intervention halted the project despite its regulatory and environmental logic. In B1, negative everyday experiences of the floodplain (e.g., insects, odours, poor access, and perceptions of neglect) remained dominant after traditional practices and associated ES meanings had disappeared, leaving little social basis for ecosystem-friendly options without targeted value-oriented engagement. A second shared barrier concerns insufficient institutional embedding of EDS negotiation within planning practice. In both cases, there was no stable arena for deliberating trade-offs and attributing disturbances (ecosystem dynamics versus infrastructural failure), which increased vulnerability to short-term political incentives (B2) and to development pressures under resource constraints (B1). These cases therefore underline that inclusive EDS governance depends not only on technical design, but on early recognition of disservices, credible engagement with affected groups, and institutional arrangements that can contain conflict and support consistent decision-making over time.

The main differences between management and governance approaches regarding Ecosystem Disservices (EDS) in Estonia (E1, E2) and Belarus (B1, B2, B3) center on trust, the stability of institutional frameworks, and the effectiveness of communication strategies (

Table 8. Synthesis of distinctive feature of EDS governance in Belarus and Estonia.

Feature	Estonia (Situations E1, E2: Successful Trajectories)	Belarus (Situations B1, B2, B3: Mixed Trajectories)
Communication & Framing	Proactive, sustained, and explanatory. Focused on articulating the ecological rationale and expected benefits early on. Communication was targeted (e.g., clear safety guidance/signage).	Varied, but often non-credible or inadequate in failed cases. Poor communication led to negative reinterpretation (e.g., “treatment facility” stigma). Success (B3) required extended values/awareness work.
Institutional Embedding & Conflict	Supported by stable institutional arrangements capable of sustaining management over time. Management adhered to decision-making logic, distinguishing between non-negotiable risks (requiring monitoring/safeguards) and manageable risks.	Unsuccessful cases (B1, B2) had insufficient institutional embedding for EDS negotiation. Projects were vulnerable to short-term political override (e.g., mayoral order) despite environmental logic. Success (B3) required obtaining expert validation and forming a dedicated committee to anchor the process in formal governance.
Stakeholder Engagement & Trust	Focused on meaningful, low-threshold engagement that fostered familiarity and shared responsibility (e.g., participatory planting). Engagement built legitimacy and trust.	Often characterized by low initial trust. Successful outcomes (B3) relied on building a long-term multi-actor coalition and repeated engagement events to gradually shift public and municipal perceptions. Failure occurred when top-down attempts were met with strong local resistance.

). The successful Estonian cases demonstrate that positive outcomes are characterized by the early and credible framing of trade-offs and governance structures that stabilize implementation. In contrast, blocked Belarusian trajectories highlight how low trust, combined with a lack of a stable arena for deliberating trade-offs, made projects vulnerable to political intervention overriding environmental benefits.

3.4. Broader SES Contexts of Action Situations: IAD Analysis

The application of the decision tree allowed us to trace decision points in interviews and documentary materials against the tree’s sequence and to note where observed choices aligned with or diverged from its logic (e.g., early communication and participation in E1 and B3; delayed or absent framing in B2). The IAD framework provides the analytical structure for interpreting why alignment or divergence occurred by situating each action situation within its broader socio-ecological system (SES) governance context. Following the welfare service delivery process in IAD [32], we therefore examined four governance dimensions—(1) rule-making and coordination, (2) public provision, financing, and monitoring, (3) legal and political dispute resolution, and (4) production and consumption (co-production)—and used the case studies as empirical illustrations of how these dimensions condition the uptake and effectiveness of decision-tree recommendations.

Rule-making and coordination. Across cases, rules and coordination were shaped by both elected officials and municipal bureaucrats at larger administrative scales, while at smaller scales, local landowners, businesses, and organised citizen groups could become decisive. These actors generate planning guidelines, permits, and funding decisions that either open or constrain space for acting on EDS. In Estonia, municipal rule-making frameworks allow city governments to promote urban wilderness and nature-based solutions even when public enthusiasm is mixed, as seen in E1 and E2. The Curated Biodiversity project (E1) proceeded under a municipal mandate to enhance ecological quality ahead of the European Capital of Culture programme, creating institutional room to follow the tree’s communication-first pathway. Similarly, in E2, the LIFE-supported coastal meadow restoration embedded grazing as a legitimate rule-supported management measure. In Belarus, by contrast, rule-making tends to privilege grey infrastructure and formal landscaping, with urban nature initiatives emerging mainly from non-state actors (B3) [9]. The protected-area initiative in B3 illustrates how sustained citizen entrepreneurship can gradually shift coordination rules and place conservation on the municipal agenda, whereas B2 shows how, in the absence of early co-framing, a small constructed wetland could be reinterpreted as a threatening “treatment facility” and stopped before tree-consistent measures could be institutionalised. Broader contextual reviews indicate that Belarusian citizens often value urban nature but prefer visibly “managed” landscapes [6], a preference that intensified resistance in B2 and underpins the ongoing tensions in B1.

Public provision, financing, and monitoring. In both countries, provision and monitoring are primarily municipal responsibilities, but the extent to which biodiversity-oriented action is resourced differs. Many EDS linked to routine maintenance—such as tree litter, roots, or safety pruning—are governed through established budgets and regulations in both settings, covering large parts of Groups I–II (Figure 2). Yet beyond these standardised EDS, divergence is clear. In Estonia, ES and NBS are formalised within planning and management routines, which makes it easier to implement decision-tree recommendations that rely on long-term stewardship and risk differentiation. E2 illustrates this well: water-quality monitoring for feces-related risks followed established regulatory routines, while manageable risks (bites) were addressed through signage, closely matching the tree’s branching logic. In Belarus, comparable NBS provision is fragmented and often weakly monitored; consequently, when EDS are raised by citizens they can quickly become arguments for halting or removing urban nature, as in B2, or for intensive redevelopment, as in B1. This difference helps explain why tree-consistent pathways were more readily enacted in E1–E2 than in B1–B2.

Legal and political dispute resolution. Dispute resolution mechanisms vary with the type and scale of EDS and the governance setting, though municipal officials commonly act as arbiters. Clear guidelines exist for standard green-infrastructure disputes, but these can be undermined by entrenched practices (e.g., excessive pruning), funding gaps, private-sector pressure, or—in Estonia—land-restitution complexities [35,36,37]. The cases show that the decision tree is most likely to be followed when dispute-resolution arenas allow deliberation rather than abrupt political override. In E1, contestation over “unmanaged” parks was channelled into dialogue and public explanation, supporting acceptance. In B2, by contrast, the conflict bypassed deliberative spaces and escalated directly to mayoral intervention, which halted the project despite procedural inconsistency [9]. Unequal actor influence is a shared feature, but more pronounced in Belarus, where certain groups carry disproportionate political weight, contributing to the vulnerability of tree-consistent NBS initiatives (B2). Estonia’s more plural political landscape creates countervailing pressures that can stabilise biodiversity-oriented decisions, as seen in E2.

Production and consumption (co-production). EDS are experienced in daily environments and often trigger emotional, value-laden responses linked to place attachment, safety, and aesthetic norms. As a result, governance outcomes depend on how citizens, experts, planners, and political actors co-produce meanings around urban nature. The successful cases show that co-production aligned with the decision tree when communication and engagement were established early and repeatedly. In E1, residents were invited into planting and public events, allowing perceptions of disservices to shift toward services. In B3, a long sequence of excursions, workshops, and locally initiated activities gradually produced a shared conservation narrative and stabilised institutional support. In contrast, co-production worked against NBS in B2, where distrust and stigma framed the wetland as an unwanted facility and mobilised resistance. B1 sits between these trajectories: residents’ negative experiences of the floodplain dominate current consumption values, but tree-guided interviews indicate that preferences can shift when management options and ecosystem values are made explicit.

Taken together, the IAD analysis clarifies that the decision-making tree functions as an internal diagnostic and guidance tool within action situations, but its uptake and effectiveness are conditioned by broader SES governance. Where rules, resources, deliberative arenas, and co-production dynamics support biodiversity-oriented management (E1, E2, B3), tree-consistent pathways are feasible and tend to gain acceptance. Where these conditions are weak or politically unstable (B1, B2), disservices become focal points for resistance and tree recommendations are difficult to institutionalise.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

4.1. EDS Framing for Reconciling Them with the Needs and Preferences of Citizens

The Belarusian and Estonian action situations show that EDS can be reconciled with citizens’ needs and preferences only when they are framed in ways that are directly usable for management and inclusive deliberation. Across the five cases, disservices became governable once they were (i) identified in terms that residents recognise from everyday experience and (ii) linked to a limited set of response pathways. The classification developed in this study (Table 1) supported that translation by connecting types of disturbance to practicable interventions—communication, maintenance, engineering, monitoring, or their combinations—thus making EDS legible within inclusive planning.

At a broader level, the cases also suggest that the social drivers behind EDS perceptions are comparable across the two countries. Both societies are structured by similar socio-economic gradients, which are widely recognised as key determinants of how ecosystem benefits and burdens are distributed and perceived in cities [38]. Environmental conditions are likewise comparable, whereas the differences observed here are primarily institutional and political, as underlined by the governance analysis. In Estonia, with its EU integration and policy alignment, EDS are more often interpreted as manageable side effects of desired urban nature and NBS agendas (E1, E2). In Belarus, hierarchical governance and strong reliance on formal landscaping norms tend to amplify the political salience of EDS claims (B1, B2), even though underlying citizen perceptions of urban nature are not fundamentally different from those documented elsewhere in Europe [6].

The contrast between cases clarifies how EDS framing operates in practice. In E1, the principal disservices concerned aesthetic discomfort and nature-related fears. These were treated as negotiable, perception-based EDS, and the response prioritised explanation, social learning, and participation rather than ecological rollback. In E2, the same decision logic led to a stricter framing: grazing-related water-quality risks were classified as non-negotiable health EDS requiring institutionalised monitoring, whereas bite risks and nuisance effects were considered manageable through preventive guidance and agreed tolerance thresholds. In B3, early concerns about protection restrictions and “wild” forest qualities were progressively reframed through sustained engagement, such that EDS no longer dominated local interpretations of the site; notably, this engagement proved robust enough to counteract entrenched distrust of state institutions toward bottom-up initiatives [39]. By contrast, B1 and B2 show that weak or delayed framing allows everyday nuisances (odours, insects, and perceptions of “unmanaged” landscapes) to be construed as planning failures or threats, thereby pushing preferences toward ecosystem simplification or outright project rejection. In B2, this tendency was amplified by the particular vulnerability of small-scale NBS to political override once disservices gain public salience [9].

Hawkins et al. emphasise that operationalising EDS remains difficult because classifications often stay detached from decision practice [39]. The classification proposed here responds to that challenge by remaining comprehensive while staying close to management needs: it accommodates locally specific disturbances (as in E2 and B2), and it foregrounds a key planning boundary—between EDS that arise from intrinsic ecosystem properties and those rooted in mismanagement or human-caused degradation. This boundary is central to inclusive planning because it indicates whether the appropriate response is ecological change, governance change, or communication, echoing recent work on the role of incentive systems for citizen involvement in distinguishing these pathways [40]. To maintain clear connections between disservices and acceptable response options, the classification does not embed ES categories explicitly and does not foreground origin unless attribution is needed for deciding on action [41,42,43,44]. This choice keeps the framing oriented toward management implications, which is where EDS add most value for reconciling urban nature with citizens’ preferences.

4.2. EDS-Aware Decision-Making for Inclusive Planning

The decision-making tree performed consistently across all five cases, providing an empirical answer to Research Question 2. The results suggest that a universal set of interventions for EDS governance is unrealistic, but a universal decision logic is feasible. The tree is applicable across contexts because it structures planning around stable questions—attribution, negotiability, affected groups, and feasible response modes—while leaving acceptability thresholds and concrete measures to be negotiated locally through inclusive processes.

Planning professionals in both countries recognised the tree as compatible with practice. Its main contribution lies in offering a shared platform for discussing the desired balance between wild and managed nature in cities. The cases show that the same internal decision logic can support different local outcomes without losing coherence: E1 and B3 relied primarily on communication and social-learning pathways (2.6x), whereas E2 depended on monitoring and precautionary governance for non-negotiable risks (2.8x), combined with preventive measures for manageable ones (2.7x). In each case, the tree did not dictate a single “correct” solution; rather, it clarified which options preserved ecosystem value under given constraints and which options risked unnecessary ecological loss.

A practical obstacle, however, concerns institutional readiness to adopt EDS-based decision support. In both Estonia and Belarus, established routines and the perceived costs of revising protocols or widening participatory arenas can generate reluctance, even where planners agree on the relevance of the approach [45,46]. This is not a minor implementation issue: it shapes whether EDS are treated as legitimate planning objects at all. For that reason, EDS-aware instruments are more likely to be adopted when positioned as integrative extensions of ES and NBS governance, rather than as a competing framework [47]. In this sense, EDS add value by making trade-offs and distributional sensitivities explicit within inclusive planning, rather than by replacing existing ES repertoires.

The action situations point to domains where this integrative function is particularly useful and where current European urban practice remains patchy: (1) disturbances associated with ruderal vegetation and invasives in unmanaged or poorly managed areas (1.2, 1.4, 1.6), (2) unwanted properties of rewilding projects, and (3) governance and communication around “unwanted ecosystems,” where acceptance depends on social framing as much as on design (1.1–1.7). Finally, tree-guided interviews in B1 and B2 suggest that the tool can also function as a learning device. When alternative pathways and their ES–EDS implications were made explicit, several interviewees revised their preferences toward more ecosystem-friendly options. Although most applications in this study were retrospective, this mirrors findings from choice-based ES methodologies showing that structured decision support can shift preferences toward more informed trade-offs [48].

4.3. Limitations and the Way Forward

This research has limitations of scope and transferability. Five action situations cannot capture the full variety of urban EDS, although we deliberately selected cases spanning all major EDS groups and contrasting trajectories. This limitation is partly offset by the IAD-based governance analysis, which helps answer Research Question 3 by showing how EDS management interacts with institutional incentives, community attributes, and deliberative arenas. The decision tree clarified the internal logic of management choices, while the IAD lens explained why those choices were enabled in some settings (E1, E2, B3) and undermined in others (B1, B2).

A second limitation concerns the treatment of ES–EDS trade-offs. Although the study does not aim to resolve such trade-offs in a formal optimisation sense, the cases demonstrate that they are unavoidable in practice and must be made explicit within inclusive planning processes. The decision tree distinguishes between “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” disservices and proposes corresponding response pathways, but it does not specify where acceptable thresholds lie across social groups, risk perceptions, or governance contexts. As these thresholds are likely to vary with vulnerability, tolerance of disturbance, and institutional capacity, future research should combine prospective, real-time applications of the tool with methods for recognising and comparing stakeholder-defined acceptability thresholds in order to better operationalise ES–EDS trade-offs in planning decisions.

A third methodological constraint is that most decision-tree applications were retrospective. We could therefore assess alignment and divergence, but not observe full prospective use in live planning processes. The tree-guided interviews in B1 and B2 partly addressed this by inviting stakeholders to reflect on alternative pathways, yet future research should include ex-ante trials to evaluate the tool’s influence on real-time decisions and outcomes.

Finally, the empirical base is limited to three cities in two countries with broadly comparable ecological baselines and interlinked historical trajectories. While the institutional contrast between Estonia and Belarus provided a meaningful test of context sensitivity, additional validation is needed in settings where environmental conditions, cultural norms, and expectations of urban wildness differ more significantly [49,50]. Extending the framework to such contexts would help refine the contextual thresholds that determine when EDS are treated as tolerable trade-offs and when they require stricter mitigation or avoidance.