This article was downloaded by: [Colmex]

On: 31 March 2013, At: 13:32

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Biodiversity Science,

Ecosystem Services & Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbsm21

Integrating ecosystem services and environmental

planning: limitations and synergies
a a
Christina von Haaren & Christian Albert
a
Department of Environmental Planning, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover,
Germany
Version of record first published: 22 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: Christina von Haaren & Christian Albert (2011): Integrating ecosystem services and environmental
planning: limitations and synergies, International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 7:3,
150-167

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.616534

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,
claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
Vol. 7, No. 3, September 2011, 150–167

Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies

Christina von Haaren* and Christian Albert
Department of Environmental Planning, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany

Environmental planning offers an important approach to dealing with the concept of ecosystem services (ESS) in practice.
Nonetheless, spatial planning science has failed to connect with the international ESS discussion. Thus, the purpose of this
paper is twofold: first, to make relevant environmental planning experience available to ESS researchers; second, to offer
conceptual and methodological suggestions for future ESS assessments that consider key insights from European planning
science. A systematic literature analysis was used to juxtapose several theoretical and methodological aspects of ESS assess-
ment and environmental planning concepts in order to identify comparative benefits and potentials for an integration of
the two approaches. To illustrate the limitations and potentials of the approaches, the example of German landscape plan-
ning is described. A better integration of the two approaches has the potential to (i) strengthen the spatial concreteness and
scale relation of ESS on low tiers; (ii) foster accounting and monetary valuation in environmental planning, especially for
applications on supra-regional scale; (iii) reflect on underlying values in the ESS approach and overcome a latent nature
determinism; (iv) more clearly differentiate between public and private goods for better targeting implementation strate-
gies; (v) help in developing context-dependent classification categories that can accommodate all implementation relevant
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013

services and relate services to beneficiaries; and (vi) frame communication and participation processes by reflecting their
constitutional role in the political decision-making process.
Keywords: ecosystem services; environmental planning; landscape planning; scale; economic valuation

Introduction 2009; Eigenbrod et al. 2009; Termorshuizen and Opdam

The concept of ecosystem services (ESS) is increas-
ingly employed by research groups around the world to
assess the contributions and/or benefits that human popu-
lations derive from ecosystems (cf. MEA 2005; Carpenter
et al. 2009; Fisher et al. 2009; Burkhard et al. 2010;
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 2010).
Environmental planning could arguably contribute sub-
stantially to the emerging science of ESS assessment.
Systems for environmental planning and management were
introduced in several European states in the 1970s. Since
then, planning theory and methods have been continu-
ously further developed, taking into account new scientific
insights, improved data (e.g. from remote sensing) and
experiences from introducing planning results into deci-
sion processes and public participation.
The theoretical and methodological approaches used
in contemporary environmental planning are similar to
and partly overlapping with the theories and methods
employed in ESS assessments. Environmental planning
can therefore be considered an important form of deal-
ing with ESS in practice. However, environmental plan-
ning has so far failed to connect with the interna-
tional debate around ESS (cf. Kanning 2005), whereas
some researchers in the field of ESS assessment have
begun to consider planning applications (e.g. Bastian
2004; Chan et al. 2006; Hein et al. 2006; Troy and
Wilson 2006; Willemen et al. 2008; Burkhard et al.
2009).
The objectives of this paper are to share the experi-
ences made with approaches to ESS assessment in the
implementation of environmental planning and to offer
conceptual and methodological suggestions for future ESS
assessments in different application contexts.
To meet these objectives, this paper first juxtaposes
the concepts for ESS assessment and environmental plan-
ning with respect to (i) goals and purposes, (ii) definitions
and characteristics, (iii) methodologies and procedures and
(iv) the role and means of communication and monetary
valuation. An emphasis is put on the description of the
planning approach, as the reader of this journal will pre-
sumably know the ESS theory well. Then, similarities and
differences between the two concepts and the pros and
cons of each concept are identified and discussed. Finally,
suggestions are offered on how ESS assessment and envi-
ronmental planning can benefit from integrating aspects of
the respective other approach.
For the literature analysis, which forms the method-
ological basis of the paper, two issues had to be
addressed. First, the ESS concept is presented in an abun-
dance of international literature. However, its descrip-
tion remains inconsistent. This paper draws on recently
published reviews of ESS concepts (in particular Boyd
and Banzhaf (2007); Fisher et al. (2009)) and selected
seminal publications (Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 1997;

*Corresponding author. Email: haaren@umwelt.uni-hannover.de

ISSN 2151-3732 print/ISSN 2151-3740 online

© 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.616534
http://www.tandfonline.com
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
MEA 2005). The summary of the ESS concept presented
here is confined to a very short account of the topics
that are important for the comparison with environmental
planning.
Second, international literature about the theory and
methodologies of environmental planning and manage-
ment create a diverse picture (e.g. Steinitz 1990; McHarg
1992; Slocombe 1993; Turner 1998; United States
Environmental Production Agency 2000). The majority of
publications are intended for practice and written in native
languages. Environmental planning depends greatly on the
planning system of the respective country. Even if we con-
centrate on Europe, the systems are quite heterogeneous
(Shaw et al. 1995).
In the context of diverse planning systems, German
landscape planning (LP) serves as a good example and
prototype for this discussion. LP as a term and type of
planning has been recently strengthened by the European
Landscape Convention. The ratification of this Convention
means that LP is accepted as a mandatory planning tool
by more than 30 European states in and outside of the
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
European Union. There are also other environmental plan-
ning types that focus on an individual environmental
medium such as air (pollution) or water bodies. However,
German LP is a very comprehensive environmental plan-
ning based on information about ecosystem goods and
services. It covers most subjects of environmental pro-
tection in their spatial relevance and has been developed
in Germany as a separate field of planning in the frame-
work of spatial planning since decades. Therefore, LP
is suitable for demonstrating the limitations and poten-
tials of a planning approach to ESS assessment. The
characterisation of LP in this paper is based on official
government documentation (especially the German Nature
Conservation Act 2010; the Federal Agency for Nature
Conservation cited as von Haaren et al. (2008)) as well
as on a set of scientific publications (especially Haber
1971; Buchwald 1979; Langer et al. 1985; Bastian and
Schreiber 1994; Jessel 1998; Heiland 1999; Luz 2000;
Bastian 2004; von Haaren 2004; Gruehn 2005; Wende
et al. 2009). In many other European states, LP exists
in different forms, although often its contents are not
discernable because they are integrated into comprehen-
sive spatial planning (Shaw et al. 1995; von Haaren
et al. 2001).
Juxtaposition of approaches for ESS characterisation
and LP
Decision and implementation context
Objectives, purposes and implementation of ESS
assessments
Generally, ESS are described using quantitative accounting
and monetary values for services that ecosystems provide
(Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 1997, 2000; Fisher et al. 2009;
on a smaller scale: Naidoo et al. (2006)). These approaches
are supposed to enhance understanding and education, to
contribute to environmentally conscious decision-making
151
and to support equity in human welfare (Fisher et al.
2009). The scale of ESS assessments varies and their
emphasis is on global and national studies (e.g. MEA
2005). Furthermore, landscape management has recently
been proposed as a possible area of application of ESS
assessments (Hein et al. 2006; Fisher et al. 2009: 650).
Objectives, purposes and implementation of LP
The purposes and areas of application of LP in Germany
are fewer than those of ESS assessment in the international
debate. Two prerequisites of LP are relevant concerning a
comparison with approaches to ESS assessment:
First, the terminology and structure of LP is influ-
enced by its objectives and applications. The goals of LP
are to generate information that supports the inclusion
of environmental objectives in spatial decision-making.
Consequently, LP functions as the interface between sci-
ence and the implementation of environmental goals in
practice (cf. Nassauer and Opdam 2008). In detail, LP
serves as
• precautionary tool for integrating environmental con-
siderations into regional and local land use planning
(Gruehn and Kenneweg 1998; Reinke 2002);
• information basis for day-to-day decision-making
of local and regional nature conservation authori-
ties. Landscape plans propose numerous alternatives
for improving the landscape (Wende et al. 2009);
this includes targeting landscape related funding
programmes (like agri-environmental measures) or
developing habitat networks;
• spatial information basis for environmental impact
assessments and the precautionary guiding of inter-
ventions to less valuable and sensitive sites as well as
pointing out adequate mitigation options and com-
pensation sites if interventions are carried out;
• information platform for NGOs and the public in
order to enable active participation in environmental
decisions as well as for sectoral land use adminis-
trations (e.g. traffic and agriculture) and land users
to raise environmental awareness and to improve
land use adaptation to environmental objectives (Luz
2000; von Haaren et al. 2008).
In view of these objectives and applications, it is clear
that LP must strive to promote the acceptance of plan-
ning objectives and to clearly communicate findings to the
public and decision-makers.
Second, LP is a governmental planning instrument
which is committed to supporting public interests in the
environment (Council of Europe 2000; cf. Olschowy 1976;
Faludi 1985; Runge 1998), although its results are rele-
vant for many different user groups. Therefore, LP reflects
societal values which are grounded in the legislation and
objectives of different tiers of political decision-making.
Individual commercial land use interests are not the prior-
ity of LP. It is assumed that private interests are achieved
 152 C. von Haaren and C. Albert
through the efforts of private individuals. However, they are
relevant as influences that shape the landscape and the con-
text for implementation. LP helps to identify these interests
and conflicts and to provide a basis for political decisions.
Theoretical basis: definitions
Definitions of ESS
Existing definitions of ESS are often broad and encom-
pass multiple, conflicting meanings (cf. Boyd and Banzhaf
2007; Fisher et al. 2009). They range from conditions and
processes through which natural ecosystems sustain human
life to the benefits people derive from the ecosystems
(Daily 1997; MEA 2005). Also the term function is used
(de Groot et al. 2002), for example, in the context of clas-
sifying ESS along ‘functional’ lines (MEA 2005). Fisher
et al. (2009) defined ESS as ‘the aspects of ecosystems uti-
lized (actively or passively) to produce human well-being’
and emphasised that ESS must be ecological phenomena
that only become services if humans benefit from them,
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
either directly or indirectly. This definition provides a good
basis for relating LP to the ESS concept.
Definitions of terms corresponding to ESS in LP
In German LP, the term corresponding to ESS is ‘landscape
function’. It is defined as
the capacity of a landscape and its subspaces to sustain-
ably fulfil basic, lasting and socially legitimised material
or immaterial human demands. A landscape function is
characterised by its value (with regard to satisfying the
demands), its specific sensitivity against different pressures
and the state of impairment. Landscape functions may also
be described as development potential (Langer et al. 1985;
von Haaren 2004).
One task of LP is to spatially and explicitly define land-
scape functions.
The understanding of ‘landscape’ in the context of LP
and geography has been debated since the nineteenth cen-
tury (cf. Riehl 1862; Seyfert 1903; Passagre 1920; Troll
1950; Schmithüsen 1976; Trepl 1995; Jessel 1998). The
European Landscape Convention defines landscape as ‘an
area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result
of the action and interaction of natural and/or human
factors’ (Council of Europe 2000: chapter I, article I).
Similarly in German LP, landscape is interpreted as ‘a
region of the Earth and aesthetic, cultural, ecological and
economic system which reflects the human perception and
realisation’ (von Haaren 2001). Both definitions stress the
human influence on and the human perception and under-
standing of landscape. The term ‘landscape’ is thus not
strictly defined, nor is it precisely differentiated from the
terms ‘territory’ and ‘space’ or ‘ecosystem’. Therefore, the
term ‘landscape’ may be misunderstood: on the one hand,
it has mental associations with scenery, and on the other
hand, it has been defined using the descriptive classification
approach of geography. However, an alternative is difficult
to find, if a connection should be made to the collective
historical associations, usefulness for practise and the vari-
ability of territory in time (Buchecker 1999: 32). The term
‘landscape’ can help in communicating planning purposes
and objectives because it carries positive connotations, pro-
vides the human perspective and emphasises spatial aspects
of the landscape.
The idea of societal benefits from ecosystem processes
has for long been an issue for discussion in European
geography and spatial planning (e.g. in the concept of
natural territorial potentials by Bobeck and Schmithüsen
(1949); Troll (1950); Neef (1966); Haase (1978)). Also
the ‘functioning capacity’ of ecosystems is given nor-
mative connotations in the German Nature Conservation
Act (BNatSchG 2010). This normative understanding of
‘function’ differs from prevailing interpretations of the
term in the ESS approach. The ESS concept usually
restricts functions to ‘operations’ (Fisher et al. 2009). In
this view, functions describe natural capacities, properties
and processes in ecosystems (Costanza et al. 1997: 253)
that form the basis for satisfying human needs (de Groot
1992). Thus the ESS approach uses function predominantly
in a descriptive or explanatory way. This implies that every
ecosystem is functioning, also, for example, a waste water
ditch.
Altogether it can be stated that the definition of ‘land-
scape function’ in LP is overlapping with the understand-
ing of ecosystem service in the ESS concept, however, it
emphasises the role of underlying values and the depic-
tion of the spatial reality under stronger selection criteria
concerning the underlying societal demands (Figure 1).
Since the international discussion around the ESS con-
cept uses similar terms, the meaning of ‘landscape func-
tion’ must always be clarified in order to provide a shared
understanding. In the remainder of this paper, the term
‘landscape function’ stands for normative functions used in
planning, comparable to the ‘final ESS’ in the classification
of Fisher et al. (2009: 646).
Theoretical basis: inclusion of values
Values in the ESS concept
Underlying societal values of ESS assessments are not
explicitly elaborated in publications on the ESS concept.
Some economists such as Boyd and Banzhaf (2007) or
Fisher et al. (2009) acknowledge that the understanding
of ESS depends on the potential benefits for humans that
are the focus of interest in the respective assessment.
However, the role of laws, social processes or political
decision-making is not mentioned.
Values in the LP concept
For LP, a normative base, explicit or implicit, is indispens-
able for assessing landscape processes and components
with respect to their contribution to landscape functions.
LP is committed to ensuring public interests (see sec-
tion ‘Objectives, purposes and implementation of LP’);
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
Capacities
for
perception,
measuring,
explanation
Measurable
Real percievable
complex world environment
Ecosystem
processes,
components
Landscape
Figure 1. Landscape functions are defined by human needs and societal norms.
therefore its guiding principles reflect societal values. The
interests of private landowners should be kept in check by
regulations that guarantee the long-term usability of natu-
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
ral resources. Larger issues, such as the interests of future
generations or supra-local societal needs, must be con-
sidered although they may conflict with short-term, local
demands.
The selection and evaluation standards for landscape
function assessment are predominantly defined by govern-
ments (as elected, legitimised institutions) in international
agreements (e.g. Agenda 21), legal frameworks (e.g. the
EU’s Water Framework and Habitat Directives (EC 1992,
2000)) as well as national and state environmental leg-
islation. The implementation of these general goals into
valuation standards is based on predefined values set by
the government (e.g. protected species), reference mean
values (e.g. national average) and/or expert estimation
of endangerment (e.g. red lists). Impact assessments are
based on threshold standards for pollution or impairment.
Ecosystems equilibria and ‘tipping points’ are factors that
help to set standards but they do not replace societal deci-
sions about the preferred state of a system. Such goals or
standards are translated by LP into spatially explicit objec-
tives. This reliance on legally legitimised norms is without
an alternative. The questions ‘Who defines the objectives
and extent of environmental protection? How much is
enough?’ can be addressed on an individual basis or in
the scientific discussion. However, such statements are not
binding for others. Moreover, the consequential transparent
differentiation between compulsory and not-binding, desir-
able objectives is necessary in a state planning, as planning
objectives may result in mandatory obligations for land
owners which cannot be imposed on the subjects without
a strong legitimisation. Landscape planners should be able
to provide convincing reasons for their assessments and
objectives and explain when and why private parties are
obliged to comply because public planning often conflicts
with individual interests.
This approach contrasts with the thinking of Daily et al.
(2000) that values used in decision-making (and thus also
in valuation assessment) should not to be imposed by the
153
Human Actual
demands, land use
legitimised Historic
societal land use
goals
Individual utility
welfare:
Actually produced,
Landscape used goods:
functions drinking water,
vine, wood,
Value, potential, foodstuff, subjective
sensitivity, pleasure and so on
impairment
Ecosystem services
state, but rather that we should infer people’s values which
are revealed by actual decisions. Of course, participation
is and must be part of planning and political decisions.
However, other than in the approach of Daily et al. (2000),
the scope of participation in LP is determined by com-
petencies and limits. In political and land use decisions,
legitimised standards frame what can be decided on the
specific political decision tier. Some laws frame the deci-
sion arena for the sake of reducing conflicts and achieving
short decision times. For example, local communities can-
not decide about species protected by the EU, but farmers
can freely choose their crop growing patterns as long as
they comply with the legally defined good farming prac-
tice. However, the rules of good practice should comply
with the precondition that the demands should be satisfied
in a sustainable way (Agenda 21, EU Gothenburg strategy,
national sustainability goals). If resources are overused
beyond their capacities for regeneration, LP will stress this
problem.
Theoretical basis: inclusion of human influence
Integration of human influences in ESS assessments
Most definitions of ESS and ecological functions refer to
their natural character and do not mention human fac-
tors (e.g. Westman 1977; Daily 1997). References are
made to the theoretical construct of a stable equilibrium of
ecosystems and the role of humans as disturbance factors
(Limburg et al. 2002: 410, 414). Boyd and Banzhaf (2007:
625) explicitly argued against including human influences
in the context of the ‘green GDP’ to avoid overlaps with
the conventional GDP.
Integration of human influences in LP
LP includes land use and other human influence on the
environment in the inventory and assessment of the actual
state of normative landscape functions. Human influ-
ence is seen as a determining factor of the territorial
shaping. Landscape functions comprise human elements
 154 C. von Haaren and C. Albert
and influences, for example, (beneficial) human influence
on a biotope can generate high species diversity. A theoret-
ically constructed ‘natural’ state is neither necessarily used
as the point of reference in evaluation nor used as the aim
of landscape development. Scientifically, the natural state
is difficult to reconstruct. Also such a nature deterministic
goal is not open to democratic decision-making.
Land management practices such as fertilising and har-
vesting are considered separately from the description of
the state and value of landscape functions. These influences
or ‘pressure’ factors may be much more variable than their
combined impact on the landscape. Furthermore, they are
considered as variables which may be changed by plan-
ning proposals. Thus the separated analysis of the human
influence is needed for implementation-oriented planning.
Theoretical basis: handling of public and private goods
Public and private goods in ESS
ESS classifications and definitions include public goods as
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
well as private goods or market and non-market goods.
Public and private goods in LP
LP considers non-market landscape functions and related
goods because governmental interventions focus on sup-
porting public interests. Functions that are important for
the private economy are assumed to be satisfied by mar-
ket mechanisms. The landscape function concept should
accompany as well as confront economic approaches that
view ecosystems as mere production factors and ignored
long-term effects and non-market functions (similar: de
Groot (1992)). However, landscape functions may be the
preconditions for current or future market goods. Decision-
making and public participation processes benefit from a
clear differentiation between societal and private interests
and concerns.
General methodological approach
Methodologies used in ESS assessment
Approaches to ESS assessment include methodologies for
measuring ecosystem processes as well as for assessing
their value. The (descriptive) measurement of ecosystem
processes follows ‘function analysis’ to identify and quan-
tify ecosystem processes as a basis for economic valuation
(de Groot and Hein 2007). It considers scientific ecological
categories such as energy, matter fluxes or proxies (of the
latter) (Fisher et al. 2009: 648).
Accounting and monetary valuation of ESS require
transferring different issues and assessments into one sin-
gle measuring unit (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; cf. Costanza
et al. 1997). Valuation criteria are usually benefits ‘per-
ceived to be important by the specific users of an ecosystem
services evaluation’ (Limburg et al. 2002; Fisher et al.
2009: 650). Common accounting methodologies calculate
rehabilitation costs or determine stakeholder preferences
(see Barkmann and Marggraf 2007; Fisher et al. 2009;
Rajmis et al. 2009). Problems with measuring and assign-
ing values to ESS include complexity and double count-
ing that arise from assessing both a broad variety of
intermediate ecosystem processes and individual benefits.
Complexity also stems from the merging of methodologies
of two disciplines (ecology and economy), often without a
defined application context that would limit methodologies
to the ones relevant for implementation.
Methodologies used in LP
In LP, only those ecosystem properties are selectively mea-
sured or represented by proxies which are relevant for
(area) specific landscape functions. The methods used are
determined by LP’s role as an interface between natu-
ral science and governance (Bastian and Schreiber 1994)
and Gruehn (2005); see section on goals). Basic scien-
tific knowledge is transformed into operative knowledge,
mainly via indicator-based methodologies. By that, the
general environmental objectives (e.g. of the legislation)
are translated into spatially explicit objectives and mea-
sures (von Haaren and Bathke 2008; von Haaren et al.
2008). Spatially explicit recommendations can be made
based on the classification of the landscape into spatially
overlapping and functionally interconnected compartments
(e.g. soil, water, climate, flora) and subsequently into
functionally characterised areas (e.g. biotopes, climatopes,
water catchment areas). Furthermore, when possible, eco-
logical processes can be assigned to spatial areas. For
example, migration paths of an amphibian species are
depicted as an area with special temporal importance for
the maintenance of biodiversity, and it can be safeguarded
by spatially concrete measures.
Landscape functions are assessed on an area-wide
basis using methods adapted to the respective data situa-
tion. Moreover, the assessment distinguishes between areas
of different importance. The ‘measurement’ of the rele-
vant function properties results in quantitative (cardinally
scaled) or qualitative descriptions of the characteristics.
The valuation transforms these different units into ordinal
scales (Figure 2). The assessment of the state of land-
scape functions covers their assigned value as well as their
sensitivity against environmental loads, impairments and
development potentials.
In comparison to the ESS methodologies, LP focuses
less on basic ecosystem science, the measurement of indi-
vidual benefits and accounting. Instead, it uses methods
generating spatially explicit starting points for planning
implementation measures.
Classification of ecosystem processes and their benefits
for society
Classifications used in ESS assessments
Several different classification approaches for ESS
exist. The diversity of classification and classification
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 155

Ground water
Water provision function (importance and recharge rate
in mm Valuation
vulnerability of ground water resources),
retention function (flood protection) landscape
Transformation from
plan Koenigslutter am Elm 500
cardinal to ordinal
scale 400

300
High sensitivity against nitrate pollution
of ground water 200

100
High retention, flood
protection function land
cover, regulating run off, river
discharge

Pressure, impairment high:

High ground
flood plains without permanent
water
vegetation cover
replenishment
rate

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 km

Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013

Figure 2. Water retention function: cardinal values are transformed into ordinal scales in the process of valuation.

inconsistencies hamper, for example, the identification of
joint products (added functions and services (Costanza
et al. 1997: 253; Fisher et al. 2009: 651)). Fisher et al.
(2009) suggested that the choice or design of ESS
classifications should be based on the respective deci-
sion context (the purpose). Examples of such purpose-
driven classifications are provided by Boyd and Banzhaf
(2007) and the MEA (2005). Furthermore, Fisher et al.
(2009: 646) provided an overview framework of differ-
ent classifications that hold potential to bridge the gap to
the LP classifications.
Classifications used in LP
LP differentiates the broad field of ESS (as defined
above) into basic information about ecosystem processes
and components, normative landscape functions and indi-
vidual benefits and consumption (see Figure 1 and
Table 1). LP concentrates on the following normative
landscape functions which are insufficiently capitalised
by commercial markets and thus need to be covered
by public planning:
• The yields or production function for food and renew-
able raw materials is differentiated and evaluated
based on criteria of environmental sustainability.
This covers the production factors that are consti-
tuted by soil, geomorphology, climate as well as
habitats in their function for pest control. The sus-
tainable, long-term conservation especially of fertile
soils (e.g. by protection from urban land uses or by
erosion prevention) is not rewarded at present by
market mechanisms.
• The geodiversity function represents soil,
morphological and geological units according
to their rareness, scientific and cultural value as an
archive of landscape history.
• The water provision function rates spatial units
according to the quantity and accessibility of ground
or surface water. Also this function is partly included
in commercial markets. In LP, the allocation of water
provision functions concerns the water supply in
the landscape, not the actual demand for drinking
water.
• The water retention function covers the importance
of the landscape for flood protection by differentiat-
ing (i) spatial units according to their soil, morphol-
ogy and vegetation properties and (ii) floodplains
according to location and size.
• The climate protection function differentiates spatial
units according to their function as sink, storage or
source of greenhouse gases.
• The bioclimatic function represents the micro- and
meso-climate qualities of spatial units functioning as
source areas for cool or fresh air from which humans
may benefit.
• The biodiversity function characterises and assesses
spatial units according to their (potential and actual)
function for supporting and safeguarding biodiver-
sity (understood as diversity, variation and repre-
sentation on the levels genome, species, population,
bioceonosis, biotopes/ecosystem, ecosystem com-
plex, concerning structure, processes, interaction and
compositions (Noss 1990; Waldhardt and Otte 2000;
BNatSchG 2010). This information is supplemented
with information about selected target species.
 Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013

156

Table 1. Classification of landscape planning functions, mapped to the categories of ecosystem services (ESS) suggested by Fisher et al. (2009).

ESS categories after Fisher et al. (2009)

Intermediate services Final services Benefits

Corresponding categories of landscape planning

Ecologic functions: ecosystem/landscape processes,
structures, components, descriptive, explanatory
knowledge
(Normative) landscape functions: capacities of
landscapes to sustainably fulfil basic, lasting and
socially legitimised material or immaterial human
demands
Individual benefits: individual utility welfare,
individual activated benefits, market goods,
actually used goods (can constitute pressure for
landscape functions)
C. von Haaren and C. Albert

Pollination Yields function for food and renewable raw
materials (soil fertility)
Primary production (Conversion of solar energy into
biomass)
Water regulation
Soil retention
Soil formation (material degradation) variety in Renewable energy function (capacities of the
(bio)chemical substances landscape)
Variety of biota in natural ecosystems Water provision function
Nutrient dispersal and cycling. Water retention function
Seed dispersal Climate protection function (maintenance of a
favourable global climate by achievements of
landscape/climatopes for carbon sequestration
and storage)
Decomposition and detoxification, greenhouse gas Bioclimatic functions (for a meso- and
(GHG) emission/storage/sequestration micro-climate favourable for human well-being)
Geodiversity function
Other services Biodiversity functions (diversity, variation and
representation on the levels genome, species,
population, bioceonosis, biotopes/ecosystem,
ecosystem complex, concerning structure,
processes, interaction and composition)
Landscape aesthetic/experience function (valuation
of the function is based on knowledge about
collective preferences)
Other functions
Food (including seafood and game), fodder
Fuel (including wood and dung)
Timber, fibres and other raw materials
Fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, biochemicals and
industrial products
Spices
Energy (hydropower, biomass, biofuels, geothermy,
solar)
Clean water (drinking water, irrigation water)
Flood prevention, property protection, decreased
livelihood vulnerability,
stable macro climate
Cool and fresh air, favourable micro- and
meso-climate for housing and recreation
Scientific and educational information, spiritual and
historic information
Happiness, ethical and spiritual principles fulfilled,
well-being, adventure, information
Pollination of crops
Hunting, gathering, fishing
Drugs and pharmaceutical use
Biological control
Aesthetic and educational information
Recreation and (eco)tourism
Cultural and artistic inspiration
Spiritual and historic information
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 157

• The landscape aesthetic/experience function consti-
tutes landscape units according to their beauty as
perceived by humans.
Most services mentioned in other classifications (e.g. de
Groot et al. 2002; MEA 2005; Boyd and Banzhaf 2007;
Kienast et al. 2009) can be included in the categories in
Table 1, either as information about basic ecosystem pro-
cesses, normative landscape functions or their vulnerability
or as individual benefits. Some ecosystem properties which
are classified as a separate service or function in many ESS
approaches (e.g. soil protection function, waste treatment
function) are treated in LP only as a property of a land-
scape functions. For example, low soil erodibility is not a
value in itself. Depending on the functions of the site, soil
erodibility may be either a threat to the yields function or
an important aspect of a pioneer biotope.
The differentiated categorisation of ESS (in Table 1) is
relevant for targeted implementation and efficient assign-
ment of resources (Haber 1971).The need, for example,
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
benefiting) or directional (benefits occur only in one direc-
tion from source, e.g. downstream). Hein et al. (2006:
210, 225) gave an example for addressing the differences
between the spatial scale of ESS generation and institu-
tional scale of stakeholder benefits. As shown by Zaccarelli
et al. (2008), ecological cross-scale effects must be
an important aspect of ESS assessments.
Scales in LP
LP is carried out on different spatial scales which are
determined by political decision tiers and the respective
spatial boundaries of political influence. Scale matters in
LP concerning evaluations of the importance of a specific
landscape function as well as the selection of appropri-
ate measures for sustaining the provision of this function.
The importance of a landscape function depends on its
scarcity/endangerment on different scales (international,
national, regional or local importance). The landscape
plan should propose development measures that reflect the

responsibilities and accountability of decision-makers on

for financially supporting environmental protection activi-
ties depends on their capitalisation on commercial markets.
Also synergies of measures can be identified in assess-
ing the importance of an area for multiple landscape
functions/final services (joint products).
Methodological approach: dealing with scale
ESS and scale
Up to now, ESS have been evaluated on large spatial
scales (e.g. Costanza et al. 1997; Kienast et al. 2009).
Fisher et al. (2009: 650) suggested to consider spatial
relationships between ESS provision and benefit areas
which can be identical, omni-directional (surrounding area
the respective planning tier (Schedler 1999). Moreover, LP
can point out responsibility discrepancies, if environmen-
tal impacts of decisions affect areas beyond the territory
where the respective decision-makers are competent and
responsible (Figure 3).
Transboundary landscape functions and planning mea-
sures (e.g. supra-regional habitat networks, river rehabil-
itation areas or national parks) are treated as planning
problems on the respective higher decision tier, which
covers a larger area. In the local landscape plan the land-
scape functions that have supra-local relevance, such as
endangered biotopes, are usually adopted from the regional
landscape plan and marked as ‘not available’ for local dis-
cretion. However, the benefits of planning are frequently
seen at spatial and temporal scales that are different from

Reasons for deciding on higher political levels:

Impact on higher tier than pressure;
functional areas cross border, cumulative effects of decisions;
species, other landscape functions endangerd on higher scale

Global EU National State Region Local Farm

Globally Nationally Locally endangered

Value

Figure 3. Scale dependence of valuation and accountability for environmentally relevant decisions.
 158 C. von Haaren and C. Albert
the actual planning area and timeframe. For example, a
species that is locally abundant may be valuable because it
is rare and endangered in a global context. Another case in
point is the adaptation of land use to meet climate protec-
tion goals. This may involve restrictions for local farmers
and foresters, but it benefits the global community and
future generations.
Role of public participation
ESS and participation
Principle objectives of the ESS approach are to enhance
understanding and to facilitate education (Costanza et al.
1997; Daily 1997; MEA 2005; Fisher et al. 2009). Target
groups are often decision-makers and the public on
national and supra-national level. Participation also seems
to be used as a tool for the evaluation of ESS (Daily et al.
2000). The influence of participation on political or land
use decision-making is not elaborated.
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
LP and participation
In LP, only legitimised (usually elected) representatives
make final planning decisions. However, environmen-
tal planning contributes information to decision-making.
Public participation is needed for gaining additional
information about local problems and citizen’s prefer-
ences. Furthermore, mutual exchange of information and
collaboratively addressing an issue provide an opportu-
nity to increase the public’s sense of responsibility towards
nature and to better adapt goals to local contingencies
Figure 4. Theoretical production potential for nature conservation products, calculated on the basis of the landscape framework plan
Diepholz.
(see Heiland 1999; Luz 2000; von Haaren and Warren-
Kretzschmar 2006; Schipper 2010).
Role of monetary valuation and cost benefit analysis
Monetary valuation in the ESS concept
Monetary valuation has always been an important objective
of the ESS approach which resulted in several method-
ologies (cf. Fisher et al. 2009: 649). Especially on the
national and supra-national level, the calculations of mon-
etary value seem to have more influence on policymaking
than scientific information or lamentations about the loss of
ecosystem functions. For example, the Stern report (2006)
about the cost of climate change finally stimulated an active
political discussion after years of fruitless debate among
climate researchers. Likewise, the recent synthesis publi-
cation of the study ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity’ (2010) that highlighted the potential contri-
butions of ESS for regional development has received wide
interest among the media, policymakers and stakeholder
groups.
Monetary valuation in LP
A landscape plan can be used as a basis for monetary
valuation, for example, to identify areas suitable for pro-
ducing nature conservation goods as well as to calculate
production potentials (cf. Figure 4).
In general, German landscape planners are suspicious
of monetary valuation. The early 1980s saw an exten-
sive debate about monetary valuation (e.g. Hampicke et al.
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
1991) that culminated in the confrontation of Kant’s state-
ment that pricing something (by that making it exchange-
able) and dignity exclude each other (Kant 1785; cf. Radke
1998) and the antithesis of Frederic Vester (1984) who val-
ued a Bluethroat with 154.09 Euro per year. Thereafter, the
German debate halted. It has been revived only recently
with the emergence of international ESS research.
Nonetheless, accounting methods and even monetary
valuation thrived in a subfield of LP application: The envi-
ronmental impact regulation (under the Federal Nature
Conservation Act 2002 Art. 18 and the Federal Building
Code) requires standardised methods for calculating the
need for compensation in individual cases (Rundcrantz and
Skärbäck 2003; Wende et al. 2005). The application of
these methods in German planning practice since 1976
sheds light on the potentials and difficulties of account-
ing and monetary valuation of ESS. The basic procedure
of the impact regulation is a decision cascade that aims
to avoid impairments and to determine material compen-
sation for lost functions of the ecosystem (cf. similar
requirements at the European level, European Council
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
(2001, 2004)).
In the standard case, the function should be restored
to the same area and in the same manner and value
(impact: compensation area = 1:1) (Figure 5). The val-
uation of the landscape functions in LP can be used as
an information basis for this step. If that is not possible,
for example, because the lost function needs too much
time for restoration, material substitution for the lost func-
tions is allowed in a different manner but with the same
value. For this step the principles of planning methodol-
ogy are abandoned and area is multiplied by value in order
to calculate the area needed for substitution by different
measures.
This procedure also allows for implementing eco-
banking and compensation pools. An alternative method
for calculating the substitution amount, although not wide
spread, is to use the restoration cost as a reference unit
and to calculate the compensation measures accordingly.
Figure 5. Procedure of the intervention regulation according to the German Federal Nature Conservation Act.
159
Advantages of both accounting systems are that (i) money
can be spent on a small site in order to establish high
value function or vice versa and (ii) developers as well
as municipalities have an incentive to look for the least
vulnerable areas for development (in the landscape plan).
The compensation of ecosystems with long development
times and demanding rehabilitation requirements is more
expensive.
The ultima ratio of the decision cascade is the mon-
etary substitution. However, the practice until now has
several difficulties: Prices are mostly politically deter-
mined and they are not calculated using the restoration
cost approach. In summary, the environmental manage-
ment accounting methods have been developed for the
local scale whereas the ESS accounting focuses on the
supra-regional level.
Discussion
Comparing the concepts of LP and ESS assessment reveals
limitations and potentials of the LP approach, which are
summarised in Table 2. As LP and the ESS approach both
seem to expand their applications and methodologies to
new tasks and spatial scales (e.g. Hein et al. 2006), the
two approaches can benefit from merging their respective
strengths.
LP differs from ESS in definition, classification, the
role of values and human influence on ecosystems, the
scale of decision competencies as well as the integration of
public participation. Such differences stem primarily from
the early, practical implementation of environmental plan-
ning on local and regional scales. The related potentials and
limitations of LP in comparison to the ESS approach can
be interpreted as follows:
(1) Definitions and categories of classification used in
environmental planning stress not only that ESS
are (and in Europe even rarely) produced by nat-
ural ecosystems, but that human influence is part
of the ecosystems as well as the desired services.
 Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
Table 2. Specific limitations and potentials of the landscape planning (LP) approach to ecosystem services (ESS).
ESS approach
Decision, implementation context
Objectives, purposes, Communication, tendency
applications regulation (not case specific or
area specific);
Illustration of economic
contributions of ecosystems to
Green GDP Influence of
application low; terminology and
classification defined by
traditions in economic and
ecologic sciences
Theoretical basis
Definition, characteristics, Most definitions restricted to
dealing with normativity, natural ecosystem properties;
human influence, public, Discussion about underlying values
private goods aspects is not very developed: stressing
of individual values and
stakeholder preferences on the
one hand, danger of nature
determinism on the other;
Legal framework and political
(representative) system not
systematically included;
Public as well as private goods are
covered
160
Specific approach (and
limitations) of LP Potential benefits of merging
Public environmental planning; Broaden application options, better connection
Maintenance, rehabilitation of to governance approaches on different scales,
ecosystem functions; support of both tendency and detail regulation
C. von Haaren and C. Albert
approaches;
Supporting spatial decision-making Support of new planning applications like
summative accounting on different scales
Normative character of functions Reflection about underlying values in ecosystem
based on goals and standards set service approach;
by legitimised political decisions Development of ways how to include individual
(usually in legislation); benefits into public planning
Identification of limits of local,
regional decision competencies,
preparation of political
decisions;
Functions characterised by
potential, sensitivity and
impairments; human influence
may be part of value as well as
impairment of function;
Influence of application has been
strong (from the beginning) on
terminology and structure;
Stresses public goods; considers
non-rival goods if these are
sustainably used

Methodological approach
Methodologies, assessment
proceedings
Classification, selection of
relevant properties
Spatial concreteness
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
ESS are measured in physical and
biological terms or by
user-centred proxies (often
willingness to pay);
High complexity arises from
accounting ecosystem processes
as well as individual benefits
- Spectrum of services very wide;
distinction between intermediary,
final services and benefits
proposed (Fisher et al. 2009)
- Intermediate services are/should
be usually spatially concrete; for
accounting final benefits and
goods are not spatially specified
In principle LP is restricted to
measuring only public services;
it covers state, value, sensitivity,
potential, impairment by
indicator-based methods
(ecological risk assessment or
the Driving forces, Pressures,
States, Impacts and Responses
(DPSIR) Model);
Uses legally based valuation
standards
- Selection of functions: a) only
non-commercial market,
long-term human demands,
legally legitimised b) preceding
ecosystem processes, properties
are included as preconditions;
- LP includes user-dependent end
benefits very rudimentary, not
systematically, and only as an
information important for
communication or
implementation
- Spatially concrete and specified,
different spatial boundaries of
different functional
characteristics
Ecological risk assessment of LP can foster a
better integration of recent condition and threats
into ESS assessment; methodologies and
standards of LP can help to better integrate
spatial and temporal disparities in valuation of
ESS (needs of future generations and
supra-local interests)
- Reduction of number of services to be
counted and prevention of double counting by
excluding intermediate services; better
differentiating of public and private goods and
including them for different
planning/accounting purposes
- Use of LP data as a base for aggregation into
non-spatial accounting units
(Continued)
International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
161

Table 2. (Continued)
Multifunctionality
Reference, relation to spatial
scales
Role and ways of communication
Public participation
Monetary valuation, cost
benefit
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
ESS approach
- Joint production
- Mostly on upper political scales,
(national, international)
- Communication usually on high
political decision tiers
- Supra-regional scale
predominant
Specific approach (and
limitations) of LP
- Spatial geographic information
system (GIS) intersection leads to
multifunctional measures,
identification of synergies
- Mostly on lower political scales
(local, regional, state)
- Communication mostly on local,
regional scale;
- Public participation for preparing
decisions;
- High importance of acceptability
of planning objectives
- Calculation of cost of measures;
- Methods for impact and
compensation accounting on
local, regional scale
162
Potential benefits of merging
C. von Haaren and C. Albert
- Methods of LP can contribute to
systematically identify potentials for
synergies
- Connecting the ESS approach to
government on regional and local
scale; more accounting in LP
- Use communication potential of ESS
monetary valuation for LP; use
experiences of LP concerning selecting
topics of public participation, multi
channel communication for ESS on
local, regional level
- Methodological supplementation from
ESS: economic monetary valuation
methods (planning has to prepare data
accordingly)
- Contributions from LP: Assessment
methods, intervention regulation
methods for accounting, monetary
valuation (cost of re-establishment)
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
This is underpinned by using the term ‘landscape’.
Methods and application focus on the (norma-
tive) landscape functions (termed ‘final services’
in Fisher et al. (2009)) and not on the individ-
ual benefits. The synopsis of the two approaches
reveals that the LP approach deals with the role
of values in a more transparent way. LP explicitly
acknowledges the influence of values already in
the selection of ecosystem properties for character-
ising ESS. The bases for valuation are normative
thresholds and standards set by legislation and
political decisions. This approach may have poten-
tial for a more transparent valuation of ESS and
can also help to avoid nature determinism, assum-
ing that the ESS approach aims at human welfare
(see Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009).
(2) The characterisation of landscape functions is
always location-dependent and includes the devel-
opment potential as well as the specific sensitivity
of the functions to different types and intensities of
pressure. This procedure has potential for a wider
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
ESS approach because it provides a place-based
implementation, for which pressure factors as well
as potentials have to be addressed. Consequences
for the classification are that sensitivities (e.g. for
soil erosion) are not addressed as separate services.
(3) The LP classification categories can embed a wide
range of ESS and provide orientation for dif-
ferent implementation strategies. This approach
may stimulate the discussion about whether the
pre-normative basic ecosystem components and
processes should be called services. LP method-
ologies that identify and assess normative land-
scape functions could also be used for accounting.
More scientific investigation is needed in order to
substantiate these methods.
(4) LP as a governmental action focuses on pub-
lic goods and excludes many commercial market
goods from the accounting. This approach has pros
and cons, which depend on the application pur-
pose. Integrating the accounting of market goods
could help LP to choose strategies for commu-
nication and implementation. In turn, practical
applications of ESS accounting could gain from
separating public and private goods. This would
help to avoid double counting, but also to clarify
public and private interests in stakeholder partici-
pation processes and to choose appropriate imple-
mentation instruments (i.e. when do we need to use
legislation or tax money for incentives?).
(5) In comparison to the ESS approach, LP method-
ologies are more focused on small- to medium-
scale management problems. They do not usually
involve quantitative accounting. However, as land-
scape functions are always spatially explicit, the
step to accounting (in area units) is small.
(6) As for participation, tier-specific competencies
and limits of participation are clarified and
163
illustrated in LP. Respective principles could also
be applied in ESS-accounting approaches. It is
important that the terminology is understandable
for laymen: the term ‘landscape function’ has been
successfully used in German LP. However, inter-
national ecological research interprets the term
differently, giving cause for misunderstandings.
(7) Accounting and monetary valuation are more
developed in the ESS approach. In LP, gen-
eral reservations about monetary valuation in the
impact regulation hinder a wider use. However,
the potential benefits of monetary valuation
for communication have not been sufficiently
explored.
The results of the comparison of the two approaches (based
primarily on literature analysis and examples from German
LP) cannot be generalised without considering specific
limitations. German LP may be one of possible models
for new LP systems in countries which have ratified the
European landscape convention (cf. the regional landscape
plan of Sardinia (Abis 2010)). However, LP represents
an example of the ‘conservative continental’ welfare and
planning system (Dühr et al. 2010: 378). Spatial plan-
ners in Germany as in many European countries are not
accustomed to viewing their own position within the per-
spective of the European or global spatial planning struc-
ture as a whole (Dühr et al. 2010: 379). A broader view
of the use of ESS accounting at higher decision levels
may support positioning planning projects not only into
a broader geographical but also a broader governance
context.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the further development of ESS theory may
benefit from LP’s practical experiences in the assessment
and application of information on ESS at the local scale.
Vice versa, environmental planning may find interesting
insights in the approaches to economic valuation employed
in the most often regional and (inter-)national approaches
to ESS assessments. Up to now LP methodologies seem to
be better adapted to support ESS assessment on lower gov-
ernance tiers. Thus they may contribute to a comprehensive
ESS methodology toolbox, which covers all governance
levels. A number of suggestions can be made for stimu-
lating discussions and supporting the further development
of such an integrated approach.
With regard to a general ESS theory, the following
propositions can be made from the perspective of LP:
• The reference state for valuations should not be
the untouched natural world, but rather normative
standards that consider anthropogenic influences.
• As the ESS concept is normative and focuses on
normatively selected properties of the environment,
ESS definitions in democratic systems need to relate
to societal and human demands and decisions about
 164 C. von Haaren and C. Albert
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
Figure 6. Assignment of implementation strategies to the ecosystem service categories.
values that are determined in legitimised political
processes.
• Individual benefits should be separated from the soci-
etal interests and benefits in ESS. In this way, the
transparency and efficiency of regulation activities
can be better supported or targeted (Figure 6).
• Spatial depiction of ESS, which environmental plan-
ning offers, can improve the validity of accounting
results (Urban et al. 2011). Furthermore, the inte-
gration of methods for assessing human impact may
improve relevance of accounting outcomes for imple-
mentation.
• Considering the discretion level of the planning or
decision tier helps to define the scope of public par-
ticipation. Reflecting about decision competencies
also sheds light on the context of using methods to
elicit stakeholder preferences such as ‘willingness to
pay’. These approaches can be used to determine and
legitimise taxes, levies or entrance fees. However, it
may not be used to assign monetary values to public
goods in cases where the value for global populations
or future generations cannot be determined.
• The choice of methodologies for practical applica-
tion of monetary valuation depends on the strategic
objective of the specific decision context, and it
must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the
methodology.
On lower governance tiers where planning is usu-
ally the predominant tool for considering ESS accounting
of individual benefits and monetary valuation offer the
opportunity to
• better include private interests in the analysis of
implementation conditions,
• integrate economic consequences in the impact eval-
uation of land use scenarios,
• support regulation activities which require aggre-
gated non-spatially explicit results and
• develop a methodological approach for parallel
monetary ‘bookkeeping’, especially in Strategic
Environmental Assessments (SEA).
Until now, some basic questions remain unanswered.
They refer to monetary valuation and how it is communi-
cated to citizens and politicians.
• How to tackle risks of playing off ESS values against
each other and against commercial market values
(weak sustainability)? Especially in local decisions,
the pros and cons of monetary valuation have to be
carefully weighed.
• Will monetary valuation and respective practical
pricing of biodiversity and landscape beauty lead
to a depreciation of ESS because people may be
disenchanted with nature?
The bottom line is that a stronger methodological coopera-
tion among ESS theorists, ecologists, economists and plan-
ning scientists offers promising theoretical and method-
ological potential for all. Furthermore, the application of
the ESS concept in communication and practical decision-
making on all decision tiers holds much potential for
improvement.
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
References
Abis E. 2010. Sustainable planning: landscape, environment,
energy. The Cagliari Metropolitan Area case study. Roma
(Italy): Gangemi Editore.
Barkmann J, Marggraf R. 2007. Weil wir Geld nicht essen
können: Zur ökologischen Katastrophenvorsorge durch
biologische Vielfalt. In: Sandhoff K, Engel A, Ert
G, Linsenmair KE, Nüsslein-Volhard C, Sackmann E,
Schwab ME, Donner W, Stetter J, editors. Vom Urknall
Lzum Bewusstsein: Selbstorganisation der Materie. Stuttgart
(Germany): Thieme. p. 175–191.
Bastian O. 2004. Functions, Leitbilder, and Red Lists-expression
of an integrative landscape concept. In: Brandt J, Vejre H, edi-
tors. Multifunctional landscapes: theory, values and history.
Southhampton (UK): WIT Press. p. 75–96.
Bastian O, Schreiber K-F. 1994. Analyse und Ökologische
Bewertung der Landschaft. Stuttgart (Germany): Gustav
Fischer.
BNatSchG. 2010. Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspf-
lege. Bundesgesetzblatt I S. 2542.
Bobeck H, Schmithüsen J. 1949. Die Landschaft im logischen
System der Geographie. Erdkunde. 3:112–120.
Boyd J, Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need
for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ.
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
63(2–3):616–626.
Buchecker M. 1999. Die Landschaft als Lebensraum der
Bewohner - Nachhaltige Landschaftsentwicklung durch
Bedürfniserfüllung, Partizipation und Identifikation.
Theoretische Begründung, empirische Untersuchung
und Evaluation von Methoden zur praktischen Umsetzung
[dissertation]. [Bern (Switerland)]: Universtität Bern.
Buchwald K. 1979. Die ökologische Orientierung der
Raumplanung: Referate und Diskussionsbericht anlässlich
der wissenschaftlichen Plenarsitzung 1978 in Saarbrücken.
Hannover (Germany): Schroedel.
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W. 2009. Landscapes,
capacities to provide ecosystem services – a concept for land-
cover based assessments. Landsc Online. 15:1–22.
Burkhard B, Petrosillo I, Costanza R. 2010. Ecosystem ser-
vices: bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecol
Complex. 7(3):257–259.
Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS,
Díaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira
HM, et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services:
beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Nat Acad
Sci. 106(5):1305–1312.
Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC.
2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. Public
Library Sci Biol. 4(11):e379.
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon
B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, et al. 1997.
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural
capital. Nature. 387(6630):253–260.
Council of Europe. 2000. European landscape convention.
Florence (Italy): Council of Europe.
Daily GC. 1997. Nature’s services. Washington (DC): Island
Press/Shearwater Books.
Daily GC. 2000. Management objectives for the protection of
ecosystem services. Environ Sci Policy. 3(6):333–339.
Daily GC, Söderqvist T, Aniyar S, Arrow K,
Dasgupta P, Ehrlich PR. 2000. Ecology – the
value of nature and the nature of value. Science.
289(5478):395–396.
de Groot RS. 1992. Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in
environmental planning, management, and decision-making.
Groningen (The Netherlands): Wolters Noordhoff BV.
de Groot RS, Hein L. 2007. Concept and valuation of land-
scape functions at different scales. In: Mander Ü, Wiggering
165
H, Helming K, editors. Multifunctional land use – meet-
ing future demands for landscape goods and services. Berlin
(Germany): Springer. p. 15–36.
de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ. 2002. A typol-
ogy for the classification, description and valuation of
ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ. 41(3):
393–408.
Dühr S, Colomb C, Nadin V. 2010. European spatial planning
and territorial cooperation. London (UK), New York (NY):
Routledge.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. 2010. The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: mainstreaming
the Economics of Nature: a synthesis of the approach, con-
clusions and recommendations of TEEB. Mriehel (Malta):
Progress Press.
Eigenbrod F, Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Heinemeyer A,
Jackson SF, Parnell M, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ. 2009.
Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strate-
gies in a human-dominated region. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci.
276(1669):2903–2911.
[EC] European Council. 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild fauna and flora. Brussels (Belgium): European Council.
[EC] European Council. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000
establishing a framework for community action in the field of
water policy. Brussels (Belgium): European Council.
[EC] European Council. 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC on strate-
gic environmental assessment. Luxembourg from 27 June
2001. Brussels (Belgium): European Council.
[EC] European Council. 2004. Directive 2004/35/CE of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004
on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and
remedying of environmental damage. Brussels (Belgium):
European Council.
Faludi A. 1985. A decision-centred view of environmental plan-
ning. Landsc Plan. 12(3):239–256.
Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. 2009. Defining and classi-
fying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ.
68(3):643–653.
Gruehn D. 2005. Zur Validität von Bewertungsmethoden in der
Landschafts- und Umweltplanung. Handlungsbedarf,
methodisches Vorgehen und Konsequenzen für die
Planungspraxis, aufgezeigt am Beispiel der Validitätsprüfung
praxistauglicher Verfahrensansätze zur Bewertung von
boden-, wasser- und klimarelevanten Landschaftsfunktionen.
Berlin (Germany): Mensch & Buch Verlag.
Gruehn D, Kenneweg H. 1998. Berücksichtigung der
Belange von Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege in der
Flächennutzungsplanung. Ergebnisse aus dem F+E-
Vorhaben 808 06 011 des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz.
Münster (Germany): Landwirtschaftsverlag.
Haase G. 1978. Zur Ableitung und Kennzeichnung von
Naturraumpotentialen. Petermans Geogr Mitt. 112(2):
113–125.
Haber W. 1971. Landespflege durch differenzierte Bodennutzung.
Bayer Landwirtschaftliches Jahrb. 48(1):19–35.
Hampicke U, Tampe K, Kiemstedt H, Horlitz T, Walters
M, Timp D. 1991. Kosten und Wertschätzung des Arten-
und Biotopschutzes. Forschungsbericht 10103110/04. Berlin
(Germany): Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Heiland S. 1999. Voraussetzungen erfolgreichen Naturschutzes.
Landsberg (Germany): Ecomed-Verl.-Ges.
Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC. 2006.
Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem
services. Ecol Econ. 57(2):209–228.
Jessel B. 1998. Landschaften als Gegenstand von Planung:
Theoretische Grundlagen ökologisch orientierten Planens.
Berlin (Germany): Erich Schmidt.
 166 C. von Haaren and C. Albert
Kanning H. 2005. Brücken zwischen Ökologie und Ökonomie:
Umweltplanerisches und ökonomisches Wissen für ein nach-
haltiges regionales Wirtschaften. Muenchen (Germany):
Oekom.
Kant I. 1785. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Riga
(Latvia): Bey Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.
Kienast F, Bolliger J, Potschin M, de Groot R, Verburg P,
Heller I, Wascher D, Haines-Young R. 2009. Assessing land-
scape functions with broad-scale environmental data: insights
gained from a prototype development for Europe. Environ
Manage. 44(6):1099–1120.
Langer H, Cv H, Hoppenstedt A. 1985. Ökologische
Landschaftsfunktionen als Planungsgrundlage - Ein
Verfahrensansatz zur räumlichen Erfassung. Landsc Stadt.
17:1–9.
Limburg KE, O’Neill RV, Costanza R, Farber S. 2002. Complex
systems and valuation. Ecol Econ. 41(3):409–420.
Luz F. 2000. Participatory landscape ecology – a basis for accep-
tance and implementation. Landsc Urban Plan. 50(1–3):
157–166.
McHarg IL. 1992. Design with nature (25th anniversary ed.). New
York (NY): Wiley.
[MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems
and human well-being: synthesis. Washington (DC): Island
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
Press.
Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH,
Rouget M. 2006. Integrating economic costs into conserva-
tion planning. Trends Ecol Evol. 21(12):681–687.
Nassauer JI, Opdam P. 2008. Design in science: extend-
ing the landscape ecology paradigm. Landsc Ecol. 23(6):
633–644.
Neef E. 1966. Zur Frage des gebietswirtschaftlichen Potentials.
Forsch Fortschr. 40(3):65–70.
Noss RF. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierar-
chical approach. Conserv Biol. 4(4):355–364.
Olschowy G. 1976. The development of landscape planning in
Germany. Landsc Plan. 3(4):391–411.
Passagre S. 1920. Die Grundlagen der Landschaftskunde:
Die Oberflächengestaltung der Erde. Hamburg (Germany):
Friederichsen.
Radke V. 1998. Zum Naturverständnis der Ökonomie. In: Institute
of Science and Technology Studies, editor. Graduiertenkolleg
‘Genese, Strukturen und Folgen von Wissenschaft und
Technik’. Die Natur der Natur. Bielefeld (Gremany):
University of Bielefeld.
Rajmis S, Barkmann J, Marggraf R. 2009. User community
preferences for climate change mitigation and adaptation
measures around Hainich National Park, Germany. Clim Res.
40:61–73.
Reinke M. 2002. Qualität der kommunalen Landschaftsplanung
und ihre Berücksichtigung in der Flächennutzungsplanung
im Freistaat Sachsen. Berlin (Germany): Logos Verlag.
Riehl WH. 1862. Culturstudien aus drei Jahrhunderten.
Stuttgart/Augsburg (Germany): Cotta.
Rundcrantz K, Skärbäck E. 2003. Environmental compensa-
tion in planning: a review of five different countries with
major emphasis on the German system. Environ Policy Gov.
13(4):204–226.
Runge K. 1998. Entwicklungstendenzen der Landschaftsplanung.
Vom frühen Naturschutz bis zur ökologisch nachhaltigen
Flächennutzung. Berlin (Germany): Springer.
Schedler A. 1999. Conceptualizing accountability. In: Schedler
A, Diamond L, Plattner MF, editors. The self-restraining
state: power and accountability in new democracies. London
(UK): Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 13–28.
Schipper S. 2010. Interaktive Öffentlichkeitsarbeit in der
Landschaftsplanung [dissertation]. [Hannover (Germany)]:
Leibniz University of Hannover.
Schmithüsen J. 1976. Allgemeine Geosynergetik. Grundlagen der
Landschaftskunde. Berlin (Germany), and New York (NY):
de Gruyter.
Seyfert R. 1903. Die Landschaftsschilderung: ein fachwis-
senschaftliches und psychogenetisches Problem, dargestellt
an der heimatkundlichen Literatur über das Königreich
Sachsen. Leipzig (Germany): Verlag von Ernst Wunderlich.
Shaw D, Nadin V, Westlake T. 1995. The compendium of
European spatial planning systems. Eur Plan Stud. 3(3):
390–395.
Slocombe D. 1993. Environmental planning, ecosystem science,
and ecosystem approaches for integrating environment and
development. Environ Manage. 17(3):289–303.
Steinitz C. 1990. A framework for theory applicable to the educa-
tion of landscape architects (and other environmental design
professionals). Landsc J. 9(2):136–143.
Stern N. 2006. The economics of climate change: the Stern
review. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
Termorshuizen J, Opdam P. 2009. Landscape services as a bridge
between landscape ecology and sustainable development.
Landsc Ecol. 24(8):1037–1052.
Trepl L. 1995. Die Landschaft und die Wissenschaft. In: Erdmann
K-H, Kastenholz HG, editors. Umwelt- und Naturschutz
am Ende des 20 Jahrhunderts: Probleme, Aufgaben und
Lösungen. Berlin, Heidelberg (Germany) and New York
(NY): Springer. p. 11–26.
Troll C. 1950. Die geografische Landschaft und ihre Erforschung.
Studium Gen. 3(4–5):163–181.
Troy A, Wilson MA. 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: prac-
tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value
transfer. Ecol Econ. 60(2):435–449.
Turner T. 1998. Landscape planning and environmental impact
design. London (UK): Routledge.
[USEPA] United States Environmental Production Agency.
2000. Environmental planning for communities: a guide
to the environmental visioning process utilizing a geo-
graphic information system (GIS). Cincinnati (OH): U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development.
Urban B, von Haaren C, Kanning H, Krahl J, Munack A. 2011.
Methode zur Bewertung der Arten- und Biotopvielfalt
(Biodiversität) in Ökobilanzen am Beispiel biogener
Kraftstoffe - Aussagemöglichkeiten und -grenzen für
Ökobilanzen auf Bundesebene auf der Basis vorhandener
Daten. Umwelt und Raum, Band 3. Göttingen (Germany):
Cuvillier Verlag.
Vester F. 1984. Der Wert eines Vogels: ein Fensterbilderbuch.
München (Germany): Kösel Verlag.
von Haaren C. 2001. Landscape planning in Europe: frame-
work and survey. In: von Haaren C, von Kügelgen B,
Warren-Kretzschmar B, editors. Landscape planning in
Europe report international conference 27091999-01101999
in memoriam Prof Dr Hans Kiemstedt. Hannover (Germany):
Institut für Landschaftsplanung und Naturschutz, Universität
Hannover. p. 1–18.
von Haaren C, editor. 2004. Landschaftsplanung. Stuttgart
(Germany): Eugen Ulmer.
von Haaren C, Bathke M. 2008. Integrated landscape planning
and remuneration of agri-environmental services: results of
a case study in the Fuhrberg region of Germany. Environ
Manage. 89(3):209–221.
von Haaren C, Galler C, Ott S. 2008. Landscape planning.
The basis of sustainable landscape development. Bonn
(Germany): Bundesamt für Naturschutz.
von Haaren C, von Kügelgen B, Warren-Kretzschmar B.
2001. Landscape planning in Europe. Report inter-
national conference 27.09.1999-01.10.1999 in
memoriam Prof. Dr. Hans Kiemstedt. Hannover (Germany):
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
Institut für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz, Universtiät
Hannover.
von Haaren C, Warren-Kretzschmar B. 2006. The interactive
landscape plan: use and benefits of new technologies in
landscape planning and discussion of the interactive land-
scape plan in Koenigslutter am Elm, Germany. Landsc Res.
31:83–105.
Waldhardt R, Otte A. 2000. Zur Terminologie und wis-
senschaftlichen Anwendung des Begriffs Biodiversität.
Wasser Boden. 52(1–2):10–13.
Wende W, Herberg A, Herzberg A. 2005. Mitigation banking and
compensation pools: improving the effectiveness of impact
mitigation regulation in project planning procedures. Impact
Assess Proj Apprais. 23(2):101–111.
Downloaded by [Colmex] at 13:32 31 March 2013
167
Wende W, Marschall I, Heiland S, Lipp T, Reinke M, Schaal P,
Schmidt C. 2009. Umsetzung von Maßnahmenvorschlägen
örtlicher Landschaftspläne: Ergebnisse eines hochschulüber-
greifenden Evaluierungsprojektes in acht Bundesländern.
Nat Landsc. 41(5):145–149.
Westman W. 1977. How much are nature’s services worth?
Science. 197:960–964.
Willemen L, Verburg PH, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF. 2008.
Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landsc
Urban Plan. 88(1):34–43.
Zaccarelli N, Petrosillo I, Zurlini G, Riitters KH. 2008.
Source/sink patterns of disturbance and cross-scale mis-
matches in a panarchy of social-ecological landscapes. Ecol
Soc. 13(1):26.