IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i21p9000-d436981.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The State of the Art of Use of the Concept of Ecosystem Services within Spatial Plans in the Czech Republic

Author

Listed:
  • Jiří Schneider

    (Department of Environmentalistics and Natural Resources, Faculty of Regional Development and International Studies, Mendel University, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Hana Kubíčková

    (Department of Landscape Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Although the use and management of ecosystem services (ES) resources and the promotion of their provision are a standard and necessary part of spatial planning tools and documents, a direct implementation of this concept is exceptional. Researchers and entire projects have so far focused mainly on identification of ecosystem services and their resources in urban environment, or on the analysis of their occurrence in spatial planning documents. That was the goal of our research as well. Spatial planning documents, systematically and methodically re-defined using ecosystem services, are what is still lacking. Our article presents the results of the analysis of the use of ecosystem services in spatial plans of five cities, regional centers in the Czech Republic. We used a text evaluation methodology focused on the explicit and implicit expression of ecosystem services. We analyzed the overall approach to the creation of spatial plans. In addition to the spatial plans, we also analyzed their assignments (SPA). We found that the current spatial planning methodology does not work with the ecosystem services approach (ESA) systemically. It focuses mainly on ES resources and implicitly envisages their provision. SPAs are a more flexible and effective tool for enforcing ESA in spatial planning than the lengthy legislative process. However, this presupposes greater knowledge of SPA among the public and decision makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiří Schneider & Hana Kubíčková, 2020. "The State of the Art of Use of the Concept of Ecosystem Services within Spatial Plans in the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:9000-:d:436981
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9000/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9000/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaczorowska, Anna & Kain, Jaan-Henrik & Kronenberg, Jakub & Haase, Dagmar, 2016. "Ecosystem services in urban land use planning: Integration challenges in complex urban settings—Case of Stockholm," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 204-212.
    2. Hansen, Rieke & Frantzeskaki, Niki & McPhearson, Timon & Rall, Emily & Kabisch, Nadja & Kaczorowska, Anna & Kain, Jaan-Henrik & Artmann, Martina & Pauleit, Stephan, 2015. "The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of European and American cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 228-246.
    3. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    4. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    5. Anna Maria Colavitti & Alessio Floris & Sergio Serra, 2020. "Urban Standards and Ecosystem Services: The Evolution of the Services Planning in Italy from Theory to Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-20, March.
    6. Lam, Sharon T. & Conway, Tenley M., 2018. "Ecosystem services in urban land use planning policies: A case study of Ontario municipalities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 641-651.
    7. Simona R. Grădinaru & Cristian Ioan Iojă & Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Anna M. Hersperger, 2017. "Are Spatial Planning Objectives Reflected in the Evolution of Urban Landscape Patterns? A Framework for the Evaluation of Spatial Planning Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-17, July.
    8. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2018. "Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is there, and what is still needed for better decisions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 298-312.
    9. Jansson, Åsa, 2013. "Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 285-291.
    10. Irena Niedźwiecka-Filipiak & Justyna Rubaszek & Jerzy Potyrała & Paweł Filipiak, 2019. "The Method of Planning Green Infrastructure System with the Use of Landscape-Functional Units (Method LaFU) and its Implementation in the Wrocław Functional Area (Poland)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-23, January.
    11. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Harald Zepp & Luis Inostroza, 2021. "Who Pays the Bill? Assessing Ecosystem Services Losses in an Urban Planning Context," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Rémi Jaligot & Jérôme Chenal, 2019. "Integration of Ecosystem Services in Regional Spatial Plans in Western Switzerland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    3. Lam, Sharon T. & Conway, Tenley M., 2018. "Ecosystem services in urban land use planning policies: A case study of Ontario municipalities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 641-651.
    4. Silvia Ronchi, 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Planning: A Generic Recommendation or a Real Framework? Insights from a Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    5. Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O. & Louda, J. & Arcidiacono, A. & Brzoska, P. & Bue, M. & Cetin, N.I. & Dworczyk, C. & Dubova, L. & Fitch, A. & Jones, L. & La Rosa, D. & Mascarenhas, A. & Ronchi, S. & Schla, 2021. "Lessons learned from implementing the ecosystem services concept in urban planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    6. Thompson, Kate & Sherren, Kate & Duinker, Peter N., 2019. "The use of ecosystem services concepts in Canadian municipal plans," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Francesca Vignoli & Claudia de Luca & Simona Tondelli, 2021. "A Spatial Ecosystem Services Assessment to Support Decision and Policy Making: The Case of the City of Bologna," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    8. Kieslich, Marcus & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2021. "Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    9. Klimanova, O.A. & Bukvareva, E.N. & Yu, Kolbowsky E. & Illarionova, O.A., 2023. "Assessing ecosystem services in Russia: Case studies from four municipal districts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    10. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    11. Linrun Qiu & Yuxiang Dong & Hai Liu, 2022. "Integrating Ecosystem Services into Planning Practice: Situation, Challenges and Inspirations," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    12. Tugjamba, Navchaa & Walkerden, Greg, 2021. "Traditional and modern ecosystem services thinking in nomadic Mongolia: Framing differences, common concerns, and ways forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    13. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2019. "A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Chiara Cortinovis & Grazia Zulian & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Nature-Based Recreation to Support Urban Green Infrastructure Planning in Trento (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, September.
    15. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    16. Sun, Ranhao & Chen, Liding, 2017. "Effects of green space dynamics on urban heat islands: Mitigation and diversification," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 38-46.
    17. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    18. Brzoska, P. & Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O., 2021. "A multi-criteria analytical method to assess ecosystem services at urban site level, exemplified by two German city districts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    19. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    20. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:9000-:d:436981. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.