IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i2p483-d1313783.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Let’s Do It for Real: Making the Ecosystem Service Concept Operational in Regional Planning for Climate Change Adaptation

Author

Listed:
  • Alessandra Longo

    (Department of Architecture and Arts, Università Iuav di Venezia, 30135 Venice, Italy)

  • Linda Zardo

    (Department of Architecture and Arts, Università Iuav di Venezia, 30135 Venice, Italy)

  • Denis Maragno

    (Department of Architecture and Arts, Università Iuav di Venezia, 30135 Venice, Italy)

  • Francesco Musco

    (Department of Architecture and Arts, Università Iuav di Venezia, 30135 Venice, Italy)

  • Benjamin Burkhard

    (Institute of Physical Geography and Landscape Ecology, Leibniz University Hannover, Schneiderberg 50, 30167 Hannover, Germany)

Abstract

The application of ecosystem service (ES) knowledge to planning processes and decision-making can lead to more effective climate change adaptation. Despite the increased attention given to the ES concept, its degree of integration and use in spatial planning processes are still below the expectations of those who are promoting this concept. Barriers hindering its operationalisation cover a span of aspects ranging from theoretical to procedural and methodological issues. Overall, there is a general lack of guidance on how and at what point ES knowledge should be integrated into planning processes. This study aims to promote the inclusion of ES knowledge into spatial planning practices and decision-making processes to enhance climate change adaptation. A replicable GIS-based methodology is proposed. First, the potential supply of ESs that can support climate change adaptation (ESCCAs) is defined, mapped, and quantified. Then, a need for an ESCCA supply is identified, and territorial capacities to respond to the expected climate change impacts on natural and socio-economic sectors are assessed. The methodology is applied to the Friuli Venezia Giulia Autonomous Region (Italy) as an illustrative case study. The results reveal that areas with similar geomorphological characteristics tend to respond similarly. Forest ecosystems, inland wetlands and specifically salt marshes can potentially supply a greater variety of ESCCAs. In the case study area, about 62% of the supplied ESCCAs can contribute to reducing the impacts in more than 50% of the impacted sectors. The territory of the study site generally shows good preparedness for expected impacts in most of the analysed sectors; less prepared areas are characterised by agricultural ecosystems. This reading approach based on land cover analyses can thus assist in developing policies to enhance different territorial capacities, ultimately leading to better and more sustainable decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandra Longo & Linda Zardo & Denis Maragno & Francesco Musco & Benjamin Burkhard, 2024. "Let’s Do It for Real: Making the Ecosystem Service Concept Operational in Regional Planning for Climate Change Adaptation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-22, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:2:p:483-:d:1313783
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/2/483/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/2/483/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    2. Di Marino, Mina & Tiitu, Maija & Lapintie, Kimmo & Viinikka, Arto & Kopperoinen, Leena, 2019. "Integrating green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning. Results from two Finnish case studies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 643-656.
    3. Steger, Cara & Hirsch, Shana & Evers, Cody & Branoff, Benjamin & Petrova, Maria & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Wardropper, Chloe & van Riper, Carena J., 2018. "Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 153-160.
    4. Zulian, Grazia & Stange, Erik & Woods, Helen & Carvalho, Laurence & Dick, Jan & Andrews, Christopher & Baró, Francesc & Vizcaino, Pilar & Barton, David N. & Nowel, Megan & Rusch, Graciela M. & Autune, 2018. "Practical application of spatial ecosystem service models to aid decision support," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 465-480.
    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. 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).
    2. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    3. Alonso Roldán, Virginia & Galván, David E. & Lopes, Priscila F.M. & López, Jaime & Sanderson Bellamy, Angelina & Gallego, Federico & Cinti, Ana & Rius, Pía & Schröter, Barbara & Aguado, Mateo & M, 2019. "Are we seeing the whole picture in land-sea systems? Opportunities and challenges for operationalizing the ES concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François &, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Constantina Alina Hossu & Simona Raluca Grădinaru & Andreea Nita & Mihai-Sorin Stupariu & Alina Huzui-Stoiculescu & Athanasios-Alexandru Gavrilidis, 2020. "A Review of Changes in Mountain Land Use and Ecosystem Services: From Theory to Practice," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, September.
    6. Shipley, Nathan J. & Johnson, Dana N. & van Riper, Carena J. & Stewart, William P. & Chu, Maria L. & Suski, Cory D. & Stein, Jeffrey A. & Shew, Justin J., 2020. "A deliberative research approach to valuing agro-ecosystem services in a worked landscape," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    7. Cornelis Leeuwen & Jos Frijns & Annemarie Wezel & Frans Ven, 2012. "City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2177-2197, June.
    8. Stefan Liehr & Julia Röhrig & Marion Mehring & Thomas Kluge, 2017. "How the Social-Ecological Systems Concept Can Guide Transdisciplinary Research and Implementation: Addressing Water Challenges in Central Northern Namibia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-19, June.
    9. Yanzi Wang & Chunming Wu & Yongfeng Gong & Zhen Zhu, 2021. "Can Adaptive Governance Promote Coupling Social-Ecological Systems? Evidence from the Vulnerable Ecological Region of Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    10. Breffle, William S. & Muralidharan, Daya & Donovan, Richard P. & Liu, Fangming & Mukherjee, Amlan & Jin, Yongliang, 2013. "Socioeconomic evaluation of the impact of natural resource stressors on human-use services in the Great Lakes environment: A Lake Michigan case study," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 152-161.
    11. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. 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.
    13. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    14. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    16. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    17. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    18. Juliana Hurtado Rassi, 2020. "Gestión conjunta de ecosistemas transfronterizos: la importancia del trabajo articulado entre los Estados para la conservación de los recursos naturales. Análisis del caso particular de la “Reserva de," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1241, October.
    19. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    20. Conway, Tenley M. & Khan, Aliza & Esak, Nasra, 2020. "An analysis of green infrastructure in municipal policy: Divergent meaning and terminology in the Greater Toronto Area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).

    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:16:y:2024:i:2:p:483-:d:1313783. 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.