Ways Forward for Advancing Ecosystem Services in Municipal Planning—Experiences from Stockholm County
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- What were the practitioner’s experiences and views on challenges and needs for integrating ecosystem services in municipal planning practice?
- What key factors could be identified for supporting the integration of ecosystem services in municipal planning practices?
2. Theoretical Framework
Urban Governance and Spatial Planning
3. Swedish Governance Context
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Case Study Area
4.2. Research Design
4.3. Focus Group Discussion
4.4. Workshops
4.5. Semi-structured Interviews
4.6. Thematic Analysis
5. Results
5.1. Regulatory Framework and Political Support
5.2. Organizational Capacity Building for Implementing ES in Municipal Planning
5.3. Tools and Practices for ES Implementation in the Local Context
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Reid, W.V.; Mooney, H.A.; Cropper, A.; Capistrano, D. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. A Report of Millenium Ecosystem Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- IPBES. IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Second order draft; IPBES: Bonn, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. Transforming Our World—The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Eurostat. Urban Europe—Statistics on Cities, Towns and Suburbs; Publications office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Geneletti, D.; Cortinovis, C.; Zardo, L.; Esmail, B.A. Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Ronchi, S. Ecosystem Services for Spatial Planning-Innovative Approaches and Challenges for Practical Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- De Groot, R.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albert, C.; Aronson, J.; Fürst, C.; Opdam, P. Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: Requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 1277–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lautenbach, S.; Mupepele, A.-C.; Dormann, C.F.; Lee, H.; Schmidt, S.; Scholte, S.S.K.; Seppelt, R.; Van Teeffelen, A.J.A.; Verhagen, W.; Volk, M. Blind spots in ecosystem services research and challenges for implementation. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 2151–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davoudi, S.; Evans, E.; Governa, F.; Santangel, M. Territorial governance in the making. Approaches, methodologies, practices. Bol. Asoc. Geogr. Esp. 2008, 46, 33–52. [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira, E.; Hersperger, A.M. Disentangling the governance configurations of strategic spatial plan-making in European urban regions. Plan. Pr. Res. 2018, 34, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Högström, J.; Balfors, B.; Hammer, M. Planning for sustainability in expansive metropolitan regions: Exploring practices and planners’ expectations in Stockholm, Sweden. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2017, 26, 439–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersson, E.; Barthel, S.; Borgström, S.; Colding, J.; Elmqvist, T.; Folke, C.; Gren, Å. Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: Stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. Ambio 2014, 43, 445–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K.; Morling, P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 643–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farley, J.; Costanza, R. Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2060–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geneletti, D. A Conceptual Approach to Promote the Integration of Ecosystem Services in Strategic Environmental Assessment. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2015, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mascarenhas, A.; Ramos, T.B.; Haase, D.; Santos, R. Ecosystem services in spatial planning and strategic environmental assessment—A European and Portuguese profile. Land Use Policy 2015, 48, 158–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mann, C.; Loft, L.; Hansjürgens, B. Governance of ecosystem services: Lessons learned for sustainable institutions. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 16, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galler, C.; Albert, C.; Von Haaren, C. From regional environmental planning to implementation: Paths and challenges of integrating ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 18, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabisch, N. Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning—The case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 557–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haase, D.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Elmqvist, T. Ecosystem services in urban landscapes: Practical applications and governance implications. Ambio 2014, 43, 407–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Primmer, E.; Furman, E. Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Opdam, P.; Albert, C.; Fürst, C.; Grêt-Regamey, A.; Kleemann, J.; Parker, D.; La Rosa, D.; Schmidt, K.; Villamor, G.B.; Walz, A. Ecosystem services for connecting actors—Lessons from a symposium. Chang. Adapt. Socio Ecol. Syst. 2015, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Rosa, D. Why is the inclusion of the ecosystem services concept in urban planning so limited? A knowledge implementation and impact analysis of the Italian urban plans. Socio Ecol. Pr. Res. 2019, 1, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nadin, V.; Maldonado, A.M.F.; Zonneveld, W.; Stead, D.; Dąbrowski, M.; Piskorek, K.; Sarkar, A.; Schmitt, P. COMPASS—Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Planning Systems in Europe: Applied Research 2016–2018: Final Report; ESPON & TU Delft: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, G. Regional planning in Sweden. In Planning and Sustainable Urban Development in Sweden; Lundström, M.J., Fredriksson, C., Witzell, J., Eds.; Swedish Society for Town & County Planning: Stockholm, Sweden, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bennett, N.; Satterfield, T. Environmental governance: A practical framework to guide design, evaluation, and analysis. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol. 2018, 11, e12600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Albrechts, L.; Healey, P.; Kunzmann, K.R. Strategic Spatial Planning and Regional Governance in Europe. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2003, 69, 113–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rydin, Y. Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. Plan. Theory 2007, 6, 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tennøy, A.; Hansson, L.; Lissandrello, E.; Næss, P. How planners’ use and non-use of expert knowledge affect the goal achievement potential of plans: Experiences from strategic land-use and transport planning processes in three Scandinavian cities. Prog. Plan. 2016, 109, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Primmer, E.; Jokinen, P.; Blicharska, M.; Barton, D.N.; Bugter, R.; Potschin, M. Governance of ecosystem services: A framework for empirical analysis. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 16, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ratamäki, O.; Jokinen, P.; Sørensen, P.B.; Breeze, T.; Potts, S. A multilevel analysis on pollination-related policies. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 14, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saarikoski, H.; Primmer, E.; Saarela, S.-R.; Antunes, P.; Aszalós, R.; Baró, F.; Berry, P.; Blanko, G.G.; Goméz-Baggethun, E.; Carvalho, L.; et al. Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 579–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buijs, A.; Elands, B.; Havik, G.; Ambrose-Oji, B.; Gerőházi, E.; van der Jagt, A.; Mattijssen, T.; Møller, M.S.; Vierikko, K. Innovative Governance of Urban Green Spaces: Learning from 18 Innovative Examples across Europe; EU FP7 GREEN SURGE Project; Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 441–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Loft, L.; Mann, C.; Hansjürgens, B. Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 16, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammer, M.; Bonow, M.; Petersson, M. The role of horse keeping in transforming peri-urban landscapes: A case study from metropolitan Stockholm, Sweden. Nor. J. Geogr. 2017, 71, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patenaude, G.; Lautenbach, S.; Paterson, J.S.; Locatelli, T.; Dormann, C.F.; Metzger, M.J.; Walz, A. Breaking the ecosystem services glass ceiling: Realising impact. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 2261–2274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brody, S.D.; Highfield, W.; Carrasco, V. Measuring the collective planning capabilities of local jurisdictions to manage ecological systems in southern Florida. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cortinovis, C.; Geneletti, D. Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is there, and what is still needed for better decisions. Land Use Policy 2018, 70, 298–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rounsevell, M.D.A.; Metzger, M.J.; Walz, A. Operationalising ecosystem services in Europe. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 2143–2149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schoonover, H.A.; Grêt-Regamey, A.; Metzger, M.J.; Ruiz-Frau, A.; Santos-Reis, M.; Scholte, S.S.K.; Walz, A.; Nicholas, K.A. Creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust: A practical framework for stakeholder engagement based on experience in 12 ecosystem services case studies. Ecol. Soc. 2019, 24, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braat, L.C.; De Groot, R. The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ministry of Environment. Swedish Environmental Objectives—Clarification of Environmental Quality Objectives and a First Set of Targets; Ds 2012:23; Ministry of the Environment: Stockholm, Sweden, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Environment. Making the Value of Ecosystem Services Visible; SOU 2013:68; Ministry of Environment: Stockholm, Sweden, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- SEPA. Fördjupad Utvärdering av Miljömålen 2019; Swedish Environment Protection Agency: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Hedström, R.T.; Lundström, M.T. Swedish Land-use Planning Legislation. In Planning and Sustainable Urban Development in Sweden; Lundström, M.J., Fredriksson, C., Witzell, J., Eds.; Swedish Society for Town & County Planning: Stockholm, Sweden, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Persson, C. Deliberation or doctrine? Land use and spatial planning for sustainable development in Sweden. Land Use Policy 2013, 34, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lidmo, J.; Bogason, Á.; Turunen, E. The Legal Framework and National Policies for Urban Greenery and Green Values in Urban Areas—A Study of Legislation and Policy Documents in the Five Nordic Countries and Two European Outlooks; Nordregio Report 2020:3; Nordregio: Stockholm, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Koglin, T.; Pettersson, F. Changes, problems, and challenges in Swedish spatial planning—An analysis of power dynamics. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khoshkar, S.; Hammer, M.; Borgström, S.; Dinnétz, P.; Balfors, B. Moving from vision to action-integrating ecosystem services in the Swedish local planning context. Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SCC. Regional Utvecklingsplan fo¨r Stockholmsregionen. RUFS 2050. Europas Mest Attraktiva Storstadsregion; Stockholm County Council, SCC: Stockholm, Sweden, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Greene, J.C. Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Bryman, A. Social Research Methods, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Peek, L.; Fothergill, A. Using focus groups: Lessons from studying daycare centers, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina. Qual. Res. 2009, 9, 31–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palys, T.; Given, L. Purposive Sampling. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; p. 698. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Ørngreen, R.; Levinsen, K. Workshops as a research methodology. Electr. J. e-Learn. 2017, 15, 70–81. [Google Scholar]
- Kvale, S.; Brinkmann, S. Interviews, Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Wihlborg, M.; Sörensen, J.; Olsson, J.A. Assessment of barriers and drivers for implementation of blue-green solutions in Swedish municipalities. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 233, 706–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huddinge Municipality. Environment Barometer. 2019. Available online: http://miljobarometern.huddinge.se/ (accessed on 1 October 2019).
- Blicharska, M.; Hilding-Rydevik, T. “A thousand flowers are flowering just now”—Towards integration of the ecosystem services concept into decision making. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 30, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Board of Housing, Building and Planning. Ecosystem Services in the Built Environment. 2019. Available online: https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kunskapsbanken/Allmant-om-PBL/teman/ekosystemtjanster/ (accessed on 1 October 2019).
- Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Guide for Valuing Ecosystem Services; Rapport 6690; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: Stockholm, Sweden, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Jakobsson, A.; Kofoed Schröder, J.; Balfors, B. Tools and Working Methods for Managing Ecosystem Services in Detailed Planning; Report TRITA-ABE-RPT-202; KTH Royal Institute of Technology: Stockholm, Sweden, 2020; ISBN 978-91-7873-538-9. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Borgström, S. Appendix 4: Ecosystem Services perspective in Swedish Environmental policy and practice, potentials, barriers and ways for integration. In SOU 2013:68 Synliggöra Värdet av Ekosystemtjänster. Åtgärder för Välfärd Genom Biologisk Mångfald Och Ekosystemtjänster; Regeringen: Stockholm, Sweden, 2013; pp. 245–258. [Google Scholar]
- Upplands Väsby. The Point System. 2019. Available online: http://upplandsvasby.se/minisajter/fyrklovern/om-fyrklovern/poangsystemet.html (accessed on 2 October 2019).
- Kruuse, A. The green space factor and green points system. Town Country Plan. J. 2011, 80, 287–290. [Google Scholar]
- Juhola, S. Planning for a green city: The Green Factor tool. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 34, 254–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schröter, M.; Albert, C.; Marques, A.; Tobon, W.; Lavorel, S.; Maes, J.; Brown, C.; Klotz, S.; Bonn, A. National ecosystem assessments in europe: A review. BioScience 2016, 66, 813–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bouwma, I.; Schleyer, C.; Primmer, E.; Winkler, K.J.; Berry, P.; Young, J.; Carmen, E.; Špulerová, J.; Bezák, P.; Preda, E.; et al. Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helming, K.; Diehl, K.; Geneletti, D.; Wiggering, H. Mainstreaming ecosystem services in European policy impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 40, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slootweg, R. Ecosystem services in SEA: Are we missing the point of a simple concept? Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2015, 34, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costanza, R.; De Groot, R.; Braat, L.; Kubiszewski, I.; Kubiszewski, I.; Sutton, P.C.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keenan, R.J.; Pozza, G.; Fitzsimons, J.A. Ecosystem services in environmental policy: Barriers and opportunities for increased adoption. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 38, 100943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gustafsson, S.; Andréen, V. Local Spatial Planning Processes and Integration of Sustainability Perspective Through a Broad Systems Perspective and Systematic Approach; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 567–580. [Google Scholar]
Municipality | Population Size (2018) | Projected Population Size by 2030 | % of Population Growth (2018–2030) | Population Density (Inhabitants/km2) | Total Land Area (km2) (2015) | Built-up Land (%) (2015) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Haninge | 89,989 | 121,160 | 35 | 42 | 455 | 12 |
Huddinge | 111,722 | 145,698 | 30 | 790 | 131 | 28 |
Nacka | 103,656 | 119,205 | 15 | 800 | 94 | 37 |
Stockholm | 962,154 | 1,050,660 | 9 | 5200 | 187 | 55 |
Täby | 71,397 | 81,783 | 14 | 1000 | 60 | 36 |
Upplands Väsby | 45,543 | 58,374 | 28 | 2653 | 75 | 18 |
Workshop | Number of Participants | Constellation of Participants |
---|---|---|
April 2019 | 16 | Municipal practitioners, environmental consultants, construction sector, academia. |
May 2019 | 30 | Municipal practitioners, environmental consultants, construction sector, Stockholm County Administrative Board (SCAB), National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, municipal politicians, academia |
June 2019 | 18 | Municipal practitioners, environmental consultants, construction sector, Stockholm County Administrative Board (SCAB), National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, municipal politicians, academia |
Themes | Challenges and Needs | Keys Factors for Strengthening ES Implementation |
---|---|---|
Regulatory framework and political support | ES still regarded as an aesthetic question, rather than a technical requirement in legislation Lack of clear standards related to size and number of blue/green space, placing them at risk in land-use decision-making processes Lack of political support | Strengthen EU policies and regulations National legislation and regulations Communication and local support |
Organizational capacity building for implementation of ES in municipal planning | Different levels of knowledge of ES in the municipal organization Frequent change of employees in the municipalities Need for structured monitoring and learning from experiences | Increase local knowledge on ES Platforms (local and regional) for knowledge exchange and learning Strengthen support and advisory role of the regional (county level) Develop routines for monitoring and evaluation of ES in the planning process |
Tools and practices for ES implementation in the local context | Long and extensive planning process with different expertise involvedLack of clear roles and responsibilitiesNeed for tailored tools and routines to implement ES in local development projects | Develop action plans on how to implement ES strategies Established individual roles and responsibilities Develop, test and adapt existing tools including maps/GIS, point systems to the local context |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Khoshkar, S.; Hammer, M.; Borgström, S.; Balfors, B. Ways Forward for Advancing Ecosystem Services in Municipal Planning—Experiences from Stockholm County. Land 2020, 9, 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9090296
Khoshkar S, Hammer M, Borgström S, Balfors B. Ways Forward for Advancing Ecosystem Services in Municipal Planning—Experiences from Stockholm County. Land. 2020; 9(9):296. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9090296
Chicago/Turabian StyleKhoshkar, Sara, Monica Hammer, Sara Borgström, and Berit Balfors. 2020. "Ways Forward for Advancing Ecosystem Services in Municipal Planning—Experiences from Stockholm County" Land 9, no. 9: 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9090296