Bringing The Ecosystem Services Concept To Landsc-Groen Kennisnet 387032

Bringing
the ecosystem
services concept
to landscape
architecture
Minor thesis
Marjo van Lierop
Supervisors:
Ingrid Duchhart and Paul Opdam
August, 2011
Wageningen University and Research

Bringing
the ecosystem
services concept
to landscape
architecture
M.J.H.M. van LIEROP
Landscape Architecture Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen
University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands,
MarjovanLierop@gmail.com
*Correspondence: M.J.H.M. van Lierop, Creutzbergstraat 32, 6823EK Arnhem,
The Netherlands, E-mail: MarjovanLierop@gmail.com, Tel: +31 6 55820505,
Fax: +31 26 3576611.
Keywords
landscape planning; landscape design; landscape services; ecosystem functions;
sustainable development.
Index
Part 1 Ecosystem services and its benefits for landscape architecture
Part 2 Ecosystem services in landscape architecture
Part 3 Causes and challenges of the knowledge gap
Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture

M.J.H.M. van Lierop August 2011
1
Ecosystem services and
its benefits for landscape
architecture
Our influence on the environment has developed in such a way that we are now facing a myriad of
environmental problems such as pollution, loss of biodiversity and climate change. This does not only
affect the environment but also has a negative impact on our living conditions and well-being. “Our
modern world presents complex challenges with respect to ecological, social and functional degra-
dation of human settlements and landscapes” (IFLA, 2005, p1). To cope with these challenges, we
are becoming aware that the way we interact with our natural environment needs to become more
sustainable. We see that landscape architecture can make a significant contribution to make our li-
ving environments more sustainable. In order to do so, it is essential for landscape architects to come
up with sustainable solutions for the present and the future (IFLA, 2005).
Landscape architecture is a field that is concerned with the “planning, design and stewardship of
the outdoor environment, both within and beyond the built environment” (IFLA, 2003, p1).The work
of a landscape architect is translating values from society into landscape changes in order to make
landscapes functions as we want them to function. This needs to be done in a balanced approach
that respects the social, cultural, physical and aesthetic values of people and the health of natural
environments to assure sustainable development (IFLA, 2005).
Landscape architects recognized, already for a long time, the importance of incorporating both ecolo-
gical and socio-cultural values in their designs. From our own experience as a landscape designer and
landscape researchers, we got the impression that ecological values are not sufficiently taken into
account in planning and design. This motivates us to gain better understanding of how design and
the natural environment relate to each other and how ecological values can be integrated in design;
in short, to look for ways to bring ecology and design closer together (Koh, 2005; Lierop & Matthijs-
sen, 2010; Meyer, 2008; Nassauer, 1997). One concept that caught our attention is the concept of
ecosystem services. This concept shows the relationship between the health of natural environments
and human well-being and connects spatial structures and ecological processes with the benefits and
values for society (Andersson, 2006; Termorshuizen and Opdam, 2009). Although this concept seems

Ill. 1. The classification of ecosystem services (TEEB, 2010a).
M.J.H.M. van Lierop August 2011

to have great potential of bringing ecology and design together, in professional landscape architec-
ture you hardly come across the topic of ecosystem services.
To gain a better understanding of the relevance of the concept of ecosystem services, a research on
this topic was conducted as a minor thesis for the master Landscape Architecture at Wageningen
University. The article is based on a literature review and a data inquiry and explains the concept of
ecosystem services. We argue in this article the relevance of the concept for landscape architecture
by stating that the landscape architect and planner is better able to create sustainable living environ-
ments that include ecological as well as social and economic values; and to better indicate the values
that ecosystems and landscape changes have for people. Next to that we examine the current state
of practical application of ecosystem services in landscape architecture and present our findings on
relation between the ecosystem services concept and landscape architecture in scientific literature.
However, we show that there is a major gap between the body of knowledge emerging from ecosy-
stem services and the recognition and application of the concept in the domain of landscape archi-
tecture and design. We will discuss the possible causes of this gap by comparing ecosystem services
science with the discipline of landscape design. This will result in research challenges for the concept
of ecosystem services as well as landscape architecture.
Ecosystems services are services that are, directly and indirectly, provided to people by nature
(Costanza et al, 1997; MA, 2003). It is stated that ecosystems provide people with services like food,
water retention, flood protection, pollination and aesthetics. These services can be classified in se-
veral groups. Although there are many types of classifications developed (See Box 1), and continued
to develop, we use the classification of “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” study which
is the most acknowledged classification according to De Groot et al.(2010a). This classification divi-
des the ecosystem services in four groups; provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services
(TEEB, 2010a) (Ill. 1). These services can be provided on local and global scale, they can be tangible
and intangible. Most cultural services, like spiritual experience and aesthetics, are intangible. They
are valued by their intrinsic value.

Although the concept of ecosystem services
Box 1
The classification used by the TEEB-study already originates from the 1970’s, the concept
(2010) is based on the functionality of the dif-
ferent services. However, ecosystem services appeared as a topic in scientific literature in
have been classified in different ways (MA,
the 1990’s (Groot et. al, 2010; Haines-Young
2003; MA, 2005) and the classifications are
still evolving. Some ways of classification could and Potschin, in press.). Since then the amount
be of more use for planning and design the
others. The classification in functions seems of articles about ecosystem services has incre-
to be usable for in planning and design. The ased every year. Especially the Millennium Eco-
classification used by the MA (2003) recogni-
zes more ecosystem services than the TEEB- system Assessment (MA, 2003, 2005) and it’s
classification. This creates the opportunity
follow up the TEEB-study (European Communi-
to be more specific in the use of services in
your design. Moberg and Folke (1999) made ties, 2008) gave the concept of ecosystem ser-
a classification in descriptive groups which is
quite similar to the classification in functional vices a boost. The Millennium Ecosystem As-
groups. This classification distinguishes rene- sessment was the first complete report about
wable resource goods, nonrenewable resource
goods, physical structure services, biotic servi- the implications of changes in biodiversity and
ces, biogeochemical services, information ser-
vices and social and cultural services. Lately, ecosystems for people. They categorized the
Costanza (2008) identified two other ways of services in four groups. The TEEB-study was set
classification. One of them is the classifica-
tion according to the spatial characteristics of up to provide practical guidelines for policy to
ecosystem services. The services are divided in
react and deal with the loss of biodiversity and
five groups: global non-proximal; local proxi-
mal; directional flow related: flow from point ecosystem services (TEEB, 2010a).
of production to point of use; in situ and; user
movement related: flow of people to unique
natural features. For instance, the use of food Ecosystems support human life in this world.
is dependent on one location, while carbon
sequestration is global as it does not matter They are beneficial, even essential, for human
where carbon is stored. This kind of classifi-
well-being. As example, forests provide oxy-
cation could be very useful in planning and
design where spatial characteristics play an gen, store carbon and remove pollutants and
important role. The other classification of Cos-
tanza (2008) is based on whether ecosystem in this way provide us the service of air quality
services are “excludable and rivalness” status
regulation and carbon sequestration, which are
and is dependent on supply and demand. This
makes this classification more suitable for eco- vital for our health. This example shows that
nomic purposes. A classification by Norberg
(1999) in organizational groups seems unsui- a single ecosystem can produce two or more
table for landscape architecture. A problem he ecosystem services. Vice versa, one ecosy-
encountered was to bring the cultural services
into this classification while these services play stem service can be provided by two or more
an important role in planning and design.
functions of ecosystems (Costanza et.al, 1997).
10 M.J.H.M. van Lierop August 2011

Ill. 2. Linkages between ecosystem services and human well-being (MA, 2005)
Illustration 2 from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) shows how ecosystem services are
related to components of human well-being. The influence that ecosystem services have, can differ
from region to region, from ecosystem to ecosystem, and from culture to culture (MA, 2005). Especi-
ally, cultural services can differ among individuals and cultures as these services are closely connec-
ted to human values and behavior (MA, 2003).
One of the key findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) was that around 60% of the
ecosystem services examined, were degraded or used unsustainably. If this degradation of ecosystem
services will not be reversed, it will have major consequences for human well-being. To reverse the
current process it is of great importance to sustain ecosystems and that ecosystems function in order
to provide ecosystem services. Increasing scientific evidence shows that ecosystem functions are to a
great extent dependent on biodiversity for the resilience of ecosystems to changes (Balvanera et. al,
2006; Hooper et.al, 2005; MA, 2003; Loreau, 2001). As more species are lost the higher the possibi-
lity of the loss of ecosystem functionality. A certain amount of biodiversity is needed so that species
Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture 11

with similar ecological roles in an
ecosystem can substitute for one
another when one or more species
are lost in order to keep the ecosy-
stem functioning (Andersson, 2006;
MA, 2003). Ecological networks
or green infrastructure have often
been promoted to prevent loss of
biodiversity (Andersson, 2006).
Ecosystems services have a big
impact on our living conditions.
However, changes in human well-

Ill. 3. Conceptual framework of interactions between
being in return influence ecosystem
biodiversity, ecosystem services, human well-being and
services (See ill. 3, MA, 2005).
drivers of change (MA, 2005).
Changes in the demography, eco-
nomy, socio-politics, technology and culture of an area are indirect drivers to changes in the physical
environment. For instance, when population grows, the demand for food and raw materials increa-
ses. This can lead to changes in land use by turning forest into agricultural land. These changes in the
physical environment have a direct effect on the functioning of ecosystems and on the provisioning
of ecosystem services both locally and globally. The conversion of forest into agricultural land can
have globally an effect on biodiversity and carbon sequestering. Locally, it can have implications for
soil erosion and flood protection and can pose constraints to human well-being. The benefits that
ecosystems offer can be perceived differently by people in time and place (TEEB, 2009). How benefits
are valued strongly depend on where and on which scale ecosystem services are provided and how
ecosystem services are positioned in relation to its users (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Hein, et.al,
2006). A service as carbon sequestration has a global effect. Where this service is supplied is of little
concern for the value it holds for people. A service as food production is off more value when it is
close by its consumers.

The last 50 years a rising demand for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel, gave, with the help of
(agro-)technologies, “provisioning services” like food and raw materials a tremendous boost. Human
welfare and economic development grew along with it. However not everybody gained from this
process. The increase of provisioning services was at the expense of other ecosystem services, often
such as a regulating service like water infiltration, and resulted in ecosystem and biodiversity loss.
Ecosystem services are in this way linked to one another and alterations in one ecosystem service can
have implications for another (MA, 2003, 2005). Ecosystem services can strengthen each other, called
“cumulative effects”, or can weaken each other, “trade-offs” (TEEB, 2010b).
Ecosystems, biodiversity and natural resources are our natural capital, which are of irreplaceable va-
lue for us. The values that ecosystem services provide are often seen as granted, as “free of charge”
or as “common goods” (Costanza et.al, 1997; Daily, 1997; MA, 2005; TEEB, 2009). Services, like clean
air, fresh water and global climate regulation do have economic value and their losses have severe
economic implications (TEEB, 2010a). Their values are nevertheless often not taken into account or
inadequately quantified in market prices or comparable terms for economic measurement. Conse-
quently, values of ecosystem services are given too little weight in decision-making. They are under-
valued, ignored or simply overlooked as the values are not part of the economic system (Costanza
et.al, 1997; TEEB, 2010a). Ecosystem values need to be made clearer and given adequate measu-
rement in monetary terms for instance. Ecosystem services then can be given adequate weight in
decision-making for landscape changes (Costanza et.al, 1997).
By now several ecosystem services have been expressed in monetary values. From the TEEB-study
(2010a) we give an example in Switzerland where pollination ensures agricultural production for an
estimated US$ 213 million per year. Ensuring ecosystem services can be very profitable. Different
methods have been established to estimate the market and non-market components of the value of
ecosystem services (Costanza et.al, 1997). For direct - often provisioning - services, like food and raw
materials, it easier to estimate the monetary value then for indirect services like aesthetic appreci-
ation. In recent years, valuation methods for regulating and cultural services have been improved
(TEEB, 2009). Yet, for some services, like aesthetics and sense of place, it remains difficult to put a
quantifiable value on it. Still, intangible values do have a strong influence on how we change the

landscape. Vejre et.al (2010) describes a case in Copenhagen where a villa residential area with an
estimated value of more than €110 million was cleared by the municipality. This price was estimate
by real estate prices for houses comparable to the demolished villas. The houses were blocking the
view on the sea coast. After clearing the site, all residents were able to enjoy and reach the coast.
This shows that quantifying intangible values can be relevant for altering the natural environment.
To express services in monetary values has its limits. Although progress has been made in valuation
methods, no method is flawless and values, especially of non-market services, are estimations and
change over time (TEEB, 2009). Besides that, monetary values should never be the only input for
decision-making, especially not when it concerns human well-being. According to some, it is even
impossible or unethical to place a price on human life, aesthetics or nature conservation. Placing
value, however, is part of our everyday life. We place values on people, objects and environments
every day and make decisions based on these values (Costanza et.al, 1997; Saito, 2007). To protect
human life from flooding for the rising sea level due to climate change in The Netherlands, The Delta
Commission estimated this would cost the period 2010-2100 at € 1.0-1.5 billion per year (European
Commission).
Another reason to quantify ecosystem services is to provide insight that maintaining ecosystem
services by natural processes is often cheaper than to substitute the loss of an ecosystem service by
heavy infrastructure and technological solutions (TEEB, 2009). If we go back to the example of The
Netherlands, part of the Dutch flood protection is provided for “free” by natural sand dunes. When
these natural sand dunes will disappear, technical solutions are needed to substitute the service that
prevents the Netherlands from flooding. The realization and management of these technical soluti-
ons would increase annual budget for flood protection. That is, if the service can be replaced at all.
It stays attractive to measure ecosystem services in quantifiable terms or at least to take them into
account and compare them with other - financial – costs. It gives the opportunity to make qualities
of natural environments and economic development equal stakeholders in decision-making.
The concept of ecosystem services gives the possibility to understand how natural environments
are related with human well-being. Ill. 4 shows a schematic representation of how ecosystems and

Ill. 4. The pathway from ecosystem structure and processes to human well-being (Adapted from
Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010 and Maltby, 2009 in De Groot, 2010).
biodiversity can contribute to human well-being (De Groot, 2010b). First needs to be recognized that
the biophysical structures and processes of a natural environment affect the functions of an ecosy-
stem. Ecosystem functions are not necessarily beneficial for people but have the potential to deliver
ecosystem services (De Groot, 2010b). If there are no people who can benefit from the ecosystem
functions, no service will be delivered; while the ecosystem function will still be present (Termorshui-
zen and Opdam, 2009). People and institutions have in turn their effect on every aspect of the chain.
The scheme shows how all elements discussed around ecosystem services - ecosystems & biodiver-
sity, structure, service, benefit, values and drivers - are connected.
Costanza (2008) sees ecosystem services as means to the goal of sustainable human well-being.
One of the main goals of landscape architecture stated by the International Federation of Landscape
(2003) is sustainable development of living environments. This asks for designs which have value for
people and secure the health of natural environments, now and in the future. The concept of eco-
system services shows that the natural environment holds a lot of benefits for people. Ecosystems
services explain the interdependency between human-well-being and ecosystems and biodiversity.

The relation between people and their environment plays a key role in landscape architecture.
Landscape architects change the landscape based on values that people have and want to add to
their environment. Designers and planners should be able to make landscape function as we want
them to function by adapting biophysical structures and processes. The functionality of plans can be
improved when we know how biophysical structures support processes that sustain functions valued
by humans. People will benefit from plans in which structures are adapted to create better functio-
ning and therefore added value. Understanding how biophysical structures and related to functions
and how ecosystem functions are related to values from society is essential for landscape architec-
ture. What makes the ecosystem services concept interesting for landscape architecture is that the
concept adds a valuation component to the knowledge on ecosystem functioning. This would allow
landscape architecture “to connect the biophysical structure and functioning of the landscape with
the values demanded” society (Haines-Young, 2000; Termorshuizen and Opdam, 2009). It gives de-
signers and planners the possibility to contribute to sustainable human well being and incorporating
ecological, social and economic values compatible in their designs and plans. It combines the health
of environments with the social benefit for people and its economical value for people.
The concept gives insight in the relevance of the natural environments for human beings. It can show
people the green capital present in their place and show its values to people. These services can be
mapped and be incorporated in when the landscape will be altered. If landscape is altered, it can be
assessed if the present ecosystem services will be increase or decrease. For designers and planners,
the concept can provide knowledge on how spatial structures and processes can be changed to make
efficient use of ecosystem services. Knowledge about ecosystem services also demonstrates that the
use of ecosystem services should be limited to sustainable levels in order to ensure that natural sy-
stems keep functioning to provide these services (De Groot, 2006). These limits can show landscape
architects whether it is possible to improve a function within a planning area or that it is already at
its maximum (or optimum)” (Paetzold et al, 2010). The production of wood has an optimum. If too
much wood is taken out of the ecosystem, this can have a negative effect on other ecosystem servi-
ces. Focus on a single ecosystem services can pose a threat for provisioning of other services. Multi-
ple services need to taken into account when planning. The classifications could serve as a checklist
which ecosystem services are provided by the natural environments and which to incorporate in the

design. The concept of ecosystem services can help designers and planners to identify trade-offs and
cumulative effects and make better use of the potential of multiple benefits (TEEB, 2010b).
The concept of ecosystem services gives insight which benefits people derive from natural environ-
ments. These benefits can be made explicit to people and help so to demonstrate the importance of
ecosystems for human well-being. Yet, the importance of environments is strongly influenced by the
perceptions of human society and the value it places on environments. Decision-making is increa-
singly becoming the domain of not only governmental institutions, but also from different groups of
local actors (Azerrad and Nilon, 2006). This means that also landscape architects need to work with
more and different actors. With the concept of ecosystem services, all stakeholders can be identified.
By using the link between ecosystem function and benefits can be determined who will benefit from
the existing ecosystem functions. In addition, when landscapes are altered, it can be assessed who
will be affected by the landscape changes and need to be included in the decision-making.
Ecosystem services hold a lot of benefits for many stakeholders. But stakeholders can value ecosy-
stem services differently and hold different views on the benefits that environments must provide
to society. These values need to be taken into account in design without creating one optimal design
solution. The ecosystem services concept can be tool for designers and planners to help stakeholders
to find the best suitable landscape change. Designers and planners can develop alternatives with
different ecosystem service or with different spatial structures that deliver about the same function
level. In this way, stakeholders keep room for negotiation and deliberation (Potschin and Haines-
Young 2006). These alternatives also give the possibility for assessments of different solutions while
taking specific characteristics of the planning area and the trade-offs and cumulative effects between
ecosystem services into account. When it is clear which values stakeholders prioritize and which eco-
system services their environment should provide, designers and planners can use the knowledge on
ecosystem services to generate a landscape structure that will support those values (Termorshuizen
and Opdam, 2009). By changing landscapes that functions as stakeholders want them to function, it
is less likely that the plan needs to be altered, making it more sustainable.

With the knowledge on the relation between structure and function and function and value, desig-
ners and planners will be better able to demonstrate the benefits and values that their plans have for
people to stakeholders (TEEB, 2010b). This knowledge it will be easier to assess whether a plan will
be profitable and whether investments will lead to added value (Termorshuizen and Opdam, 2009).
Environments can be analyzed for the provisioning of ecosystem services and being accredited as
green capital. They can been acknowledged as a place that actually generates income or reduces
costs and needs to be secured and maintained to guarantee the provisioning of the benefits it holds
for people. Improving and maintaining the landscape so that if provides ecosystem services can even
become a means of income. The outdoor space can literally become of more value if we understand
the benefits of ecosystem services.
The possibility to demonstrate the economic importance is, as pointed out earlier, one of the key
aspects of the concept of ecosystem services. By quantifying the value of ecosystem services, they
can be given equal weight to material or monetary capital in decision-making (Costanza et. al, 1997).
In a TEEB-report (2009, p11) is stated that “decision-makers with access to information on ecosystem
service values are better placed to make more efficient, cost-effective and fair choices and to justify
their reasons for taking action or for choosing between options”. For planning this would mean that
different alternatives can be compared with each other based not only on material costs, but also
on the benefits that these alternatives have for the quality of life and on the avoided costs when the
environment assures regulatory functions (Termorshuizen and Opdam, 2009).
It may look that ecosystem services can only be provided by natural or semi-natural environments.
But also urban environments can provide ecosystem services. The ecosystem services, of which cities
benefit, are provided by the urban green spaces and the ecosystems beyond the city limits (TEEB,
2009, 2010a; Andersson, 2006; Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999). Under urban ecosystems can be clas-
sified street trees; lawns and parks; urban forests; cultivated land and gardens; wetlands; and open
water like rivers, lakes and shores. Urban ecosystems can in particular help locally generated pro-
blems such as air and noise pollution caused by traffic. Such problems cannot be solved on distance,
but needs to be solved by locally generated services (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999).

Yet, urbanization puts increasing pressure on these urban ecosystems and on the benefits that peop-
le gain from it by altering landscape structures and disturbing ecological processes. Planning and
design can help to ensure people’s access to vital ecosystem services by providing room for urban
ecosystems. Especially in cities the knowledge of ecosystem services can make a large contribution to
create healthier living environments (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999). It is argued that sustainable use
of ecosystem services is one of the aspects of sustainable cities (Andersson, 2006).
Especially in cities, more people are alienating from nature while broad-based support for ecosystem
preservation and more sustainable consumer demands are needed. It becomes even more impor-
tant to create meaningful interactions with the natural environment (Andersson, 2006; Miller, 2005).
Plans, that support people values, can change the perceptions that people have on their natural
environment (Gobster et al, 2007; Meyer, 2008; Nassauer, 1997). It can make the natural environ-
ment of more value to people. In order to do so, not only tangible values need be taken into account
in design and planning, but also intangible values. These intangible values are represented in the
concept of ecosystem services by the component of cultural values as aesthetics, cultural heritage
and recreation. Natural environments make a major contribution to the non-material well-being of
people by providing mental and physical health, spirituality, and cultural identity and diversity (De
Groot, 2006).
We believe that the concept of ecosystem services gives landscape architects a great opportunity to
create sustainable living environments for people. Designers and planners will be better able to in-
corporate ecological, social and economic value in their designs and indicate the added value of their
suggested landscape changes. However, for a good implementation of the ecosystem services con-
cept understanding of it is necessary. Is the discipline of landscape architecture ready for this? Has
the concept of ecosystem services found its way into landscape architecture and planning till now?

2
Ecosystem services in landscape
architecture
The theory on ecosystem services is relatively new - in particular compared with the profession of
landscape architecture (See ill. 6). Yet steps to incorporate the ecosystem services concept into plan-
ning and decision-making have been made. But ecosystems services have always supported human
life. With some services we are all too well familiar even though we are not recognizing them as
ecosystem services. For instance, bees are already kept for centuries for the pollination of our food
crops. It is then not surprising that certain ecosystem services already found its way into landscape
architecture (Termorshuizen and Opdam, 2008). Yet, ecosystem services are frequently not recogni-
zed as such. Solutions to improve provisioning of ecosystem services are frequently seen as soluti-
ons for sustainable development. The TEEB report for Local and Regional Policy Makers (2010b), for
instance, mentions eight potential planning directions for urban zoning identified by UN-HABITAT
and gives examples. The examples given such as the community energy systems in Freiburg are good
examples of sustainable development. But these examples are often not known for their use of
ecosystem services. Although the aim of the ecosystem services concept is sustainable human well-
being, by not using the concept of ecosystem services the full potential of the concept is omitted.
Landscape architecture takes ecosystem services into consideration in plans for a long time and use
the landscape ecological layer as the basis for their designs. Already in the 19th century, Frederick
Law Olmsted, one of the founding fathers of landscape architecture, saw parks as “environmental
cleaning machines with open spaces of healthy sunlight, well-drained soils, shady groves of trees re-
ducing temperatures, absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen” (Meyer, 2008, p6). Over time,
ecological knowledge has been promoted by many; including Leopold, McHarg, and Steinitz, and
numerous methods to take ecology into considerations in design have been developed (Botequilha
Leitão and Ahern, 2002; Linehan and Gross, 1998). With the emerging of sustainable development
and the awareness of climate change, ecological knowledge increasingly gained more weight in land-
scape architecture. However, there are still not enough planners and designers that have sufficient
knowledge about ecosystem services to address the problems arising (TEEB, 2010b). What can be
noticed is that in practice, environmental knowledge is often applied incompletely (Brody, 2003).

Based on our own experience as professionals and an earlier conducted quick scan by Lierop on
design projects in the planning and design office SAB in The Netherlands, we reason that in general
cultural values are more applied in practice then provisioning and regulating services. Only a few
provisioning and regulating services can be found that seem to be incorporated more often. A service
as water regulation is frequently integrated in design. Other services, like food provision and storm
protection, are only taken into account when it is explicitly asked for by stakeholders or sector plan-
ning. Incorporation of provisioning and regulating seems to be done mainly by research firms or firms
with a strong engineering background.
Most research and policies concerning ecosystem services are on national and international level
(e.g. MA, 2005; TEEB) and the concept of ecosystem services is now slowly introduced in the regional
planning (TEEB, 2010b). But implementation of ecosystem services is dependent on the local scale
(Termorshuizen and Opdam, 2009). One example of incorporating ecosystem services into landscape
planning on local scale level is done by The Sustainable Sites Initiative (www.sustainablesites.org;
2009), a partnership that includes the American Society of Landscape Architects. They came up with
guidelines and performance benchmarks that can help designers and planners to incorporate ecosy-
stem services into each project phase of a site development.
When research is done on a local scale level, it is often done within a certain discipline and focusing
on one or a few ecosystem services (Daily, 2009). In research, provisioning services and a few cultu-
ral services (such as recreation and tourism) are better covered than regulating services, although
research on regulating services is developing rapidly (TEEB, 2009). Also in landscape architecture
research, the potentials of regulating services as climate and air quality regulation, carbon sequestra-
tion and water purification, but also provisioning services, are gradually more acknowledged. Gradu-
ates in Landscape Architecture at Wageningen University addressed, in recent years, services as local
climate regulation, waste-water treatment, air quality regulation and flood control in their work.
These studies provide in depth information about the functioning and often resulted in design guide-
lines about the required structure of the environment to provide a certain ecosystem service.

With design guidelines which are based on one singular ecosystem service, landscape architects can-
not make an integrative design. In practice, designers cannot center their attention on a single aspect
of the landscape but should be able to address several aspects related to landscape (TEEB, 2010b). In
reality landscapes provide several services and these services influence one another. An urban forest
has a cooling effect on the city’s climate, captures carbon, reduces air pollution and provides people
with a recreational area and aesthetics while giving habitat to a range of animals. To address multiple
ecosystem services, and their trade-offs or cumulative effects, is extremely complex. Design guideli-
nes for a series of services will therefore never be comprehensive.
One example that shows that working with ecosystem services can be a success is the city of Stock-
holm. The municipality has incorporated the concept of ecosystem services in planning for more than
10 years. Stockholm was selected as the first European Green Capital 2010, the Year of Biodiversity.
The cities nominated were evaluated on the basis of several environmental indications: climate
change, local transport, public green areas, air quality, noise, waste, water consumption, waste
water treatment, sustainable utilization of land, biodiversity and environmental management (www.
international.stockholm.se/Stockholm-by-theme/European-Green-Capital), all elements related to
ecosystem services. Bolund and Hunhammar defined already in 1999 how and which urban ecosy-
stems provided ecosystem services to the citizens of Stockholm and they gave a first estimation of
the –monetary- value these services have for the city.
The valuation of ecosystem services in monetary and non-monetary terms is something that is not
yet picked up by landscape architecture. Institutions as NGO’s and local governance (e.g. in The Net-
herlands: Natuurmonumenten; Waddenacademie (Folmer et.al, 2010)) however, are starting to work
with the idea that ecosystems hold value for people in the area. Incorporating the natural capital into
planning and decision-making can even contribute to a sustainable economic growth (TEEB, 2010b).
The city of Arnhem in the Netherlands, for example, has started to invest in its green spaces despite
the major necessary cuts in the municipal budget. The municipality sees that the green spaces are
one of its major assets to attract people and new investments and in this way generates income for
the municipality. The budget for urban parks is therefore not faced with cuts although the municipa-
lity needs to make major cuts in their budget due to the economic crisis (Seminar “Stedelijk Interi-

eur” “The Value of Green”, 19 May 2011). Despite some successful examples, the potential for using
valuation to inform decision making is still largely unrealized (TEEB, 2010b).
Several tools and instruments have been developed to assess, map and value ecosystem services for
decision-making. Till thus far, these tools have barely been used in landscape architecture. Although
some of these tools could help designers to map ecosystem services before designing; to assess
the functionality of their designs; and to show the value of their proposed landscape changes. Two
instruments that could be of interest for landscape architecture, is the Integrative Cost-Benefit-Ana-
lysis (I-CBA) and ARIES. I-CBA is already used in planning and design and therefore easier to adapt to
incorporate ecosystem services. In the Netherlands, Ruijgrok ‘made a thorough attempt to design a
list of benchmark-values for the main ecosystem-types and their services in the Netherlands’ (Groot
et. al, 2010a, p262). These benchmark-values are input for the I-CBA. ARIES is a Google Earth-based
tool which is currently being developed. The tool puts on additional layer on the map which shows
the ecosystem services of the area and the trade-offs of landscape change. As Google Earth already
has become an important attribute for planners, this tool looks promising (Groot et. al, 2010a).
Despite the fact that functions of ecosystems have been taken into account by the practice of land-
scape architecture already from the 19th century (o.a. Meyer, 2008), and efforts are made to bring
the ecosystem services concept closer to the planning profession, the concept of ecosystem services
has not been well grounded in the landscape architecture profession. As a result, landscape desig-
ners and planners don’t make use of the full potential this concept which can result in designs that
don’t function to provide ecosystem services and is therefore not valued by people. Design professio-
nals cannot make designs based on intuition but knowledge about the natural environment, culture
and the human-environment relationship to make designs that meet both the needs of people and
of the natural environment. The use of scientific knowledge can enhance the credibility of designs.
While examining the use of the concept of ecosystem services in landscape architecture, we won-
dered whether the relation between the science of ecosystem services and the science of landscape
architecture is better established. To find out, we conducted a database inquiry to identify how well
the two research areas are related in scientific literature.

Before our research we developed an analytical framework (fig. 5), based on our assumptions how
the research areas are related and can be related, to focus our research and verify our assumptions.
The terms “ecosystem services” and “landscape architecture” form the central part of the frame-
work. The term “landscape services” was incorporated in this central part as this term, according to
Termorshuizen and Opdam (2009), is a more suitable term to connect the knowledge of ecosystem
services with landscape planning and architecture. For each of these three core terms – “ecosystem
services”, “landscape architecture” and “landscape services” - , we included related terms. Next to
ecosystem services we included the terms “ecosystem functions” and “ecosystem values”. The same
we did for landscape services by including the terms “landscape functions” and “landscape values”
Besides landscape architecture, we took landscape planning and landscape design into account as
these disciplines are interrelated.
On the 15th of August 2011, Lierop made an
inquiry in the research literature database
Scopus for the number of articles concerning
ecosystem services, landscape architecture
and landscape services and related terms. The
search was based on keywords or a combination
of keywords in title, keywords or abstract. Illu-
stration 6 shows the outcomes from the inquiry.
For each keyword or combination of keywords
are given the number of articles and the period Ill. 5. Analytical framework
of time when the articles were published.
This inquiry clearly shows that there are few articles addressing ecosystem services and landscape
architecture, planning or design. Less than 1% of the articles about ecosystem services are also
concerned with landscape planning. For the link between ecosystem functions and landscape ar-
chitecture, planning and design this is even less. Despite the fact that the number of articles about
ecosystem functions far exceeds the number of articles about ecosystem services and the fact that
the term ecosystem functions is almost ten years older than ecosystem services.

24Ͳ8Ͳ2011 Articlesperkeywordorkeywordcombination
Ill. 6. Numbers of articles based on the main keywords or related keywords (Compiled by Lierop).
architecture
ecosystem
ecosystem
ecosystem
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
functions
functions
planning
services
services
design
values
values
3909 418 28 5 17 8 2 34 11
ecosystemservices
1984Ͳ2011 1994Ͳ2011 2007Ͳ2011 2007Ͳ2011 2005Ͳ2011 2006Ͳ2011 2008Ͳ2009 2006Ͳ2011 2006Ͳ2011
x 5061 11 3 18 3 1 14 1
ecosystemfunctions
x 1975Ͳ2011 2002Ͳ2011 2005Ͳ2011 1999Ͳ2011 2007Ͳ2011 2009 1996Ͳ2011 2009
x x 97 0 0 0 0 2 0
ecosystemvalues
x x 1974Ͳ2011 1974Ͳ1989
x x x 27 1 2 0 2 0
landscapeservices
x x x 1988Ͳ2011 2009 2009 2005Ͳ2010
x x x x 259 3 0 31 3
landscapefunctions
x x x x 1986Ͳ2011 2009Ͳ2010 1986Ͳ2011 1997Ͳ2008
x x x x x 247 6 31 4
landscapevalues
x x x x x 1976Ͳ2011 1998Ͳ2011 1982Ͳ2011 2001Ͳ2011
x x x x x x 645 x x
landscapearchitecture
x x x x x x 1843Ͳ2011 x x
x x x x x x x 1939 x
landscapeplanning
x x x x x x x 1970Ͳ2011 x
x x x x x x x x 614
landscapedesign
x x x x x x x x 1929Ͳ2011
15Ͳ8Ͳ2011
3909 = number of articles, 1984-2011 = years of publication of articles, 0 = no articles, X = data not searched
Vice versa, less than 2% of the scientific articles concerning landscape architecture, planning and
design are related to ecosystem services. The number of articles on ecosystem functions, landscape
functions or landscape values and landscape planning is even less. Especially, for landscape architec-
ture and design, the amount of articles related either with ecosystem services or landscape services
is low. Although these numbers do not straight away say that the concept of ecosystem services is
not used in practice of landscape architecture, we can safely say that there is a knowledge gap bet-
ween ecosystem services and landscape architecture in the scientific body of knowledge.
There are only two articles concerned with landscape services andMinorThesisͲMJHMvanLierop
landscape architecture, plan-
ning or design. This is a poor number even considered that the term landscape services is relatively
new and only 27 articles on landscape services are in the database. To compare, there are for each
article on landscape services 145 articles on ecosystem services. Surprisingly, there are also not many
articles concerning the term “ecosystem values” in scientific literature; only 97 articles. We expec-
ted that the amount of articles concerning this topic would be higher as the concept of ecosystem
services not only deals with the functioning of ecosystems but also what value ecosystems have for
people. The term “landscape values” appears more often in scientific articles. Perhaps the reason for
this is because “landscape values” have another meaning than “ecosystem values”. The term “ecosy-
stem values” indicates the often quantifiable value natural systems have for people while landscape
values seems to be more concerned with the perceptions on landscape and the intrinsic values land-

scape have for people (e.g. Antrop 2005; Zube et al. 1982). This would explain why the term “land-
scape values” is relatively more associated with landscape architecture, planning and design than
with ecosystem services, functions and values.
Ill. 7. Numbers of articles based on the main keywords and related keywords in combination with
sustainability
24Ͳ8Ͳ2011 and sustainable development (Compiled by Articlesperkeywordorkeywordcombination
Lierop).
architecture
ecosystem
ecosystem
ecosystem
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
functions
functions
planning
services
services
values
design
values
3909 5061 97 27 259 247 645 1939 614
total
1984Ͳ2011 1975Ͳ2011 1974Ͳ2011 1988Ͳ2011 1986Ͳ2011 1976Ͳ2011 1843Ͳ2011 1970Ͳ2011 1929Ͳ2011
454 194 8 2 23 22 20 141 24
sustainability 1995Ͳ2011 1992Ͳ2011 2002Ͳ2010 2009Ͳ2011 2001Ͳ2011 1993Ͳ2011 1998Ͳ2011 1986Ͳ2011 1999Ͳ2011
11,6% 3,8% 8,2% 7,4% 8,9% 8,9% 3,1% 7,3% 3,9%
389 96 5 1 22 21 31 151 43
sustainabledevelopment 1992Ͳ2011 1992Ͳ2011 2008Ͳ2010 2009 2001Ͳ2011 1997Ͳ2011 1993Ͳ2011 1986Ͳ2011 1995Ͳ2011
10,0% 1,9% 5,2% 3,7% 8,5% 8,5% 4,8% 7,8% 7,0%
15Ͳ8Ͳ2011
15 8 2011
3909 = number of articles, 1984-2011 = years of publication of articles, 11,6% = percentage related to total of articles
To gain a better insight in how the main research topics; ecosystem services, landscape services and
landscape architecture are related to the research scope and to get a better understanding of the
knowledge gap we made further inquiries. The inquiries were made in the same way as the previous
inquiry. The tables also show the total number of articles on the main keywords and the percentage
of articles on the additional keyword related to the total amount of articles.
Illustration 7 shows how the main keywords are related in scientific literature to sustainability or
sustainable development. What can be seen is that the concept of ecosystem services, with 11.6%
and 10.0%, has the strongest relation to sustainability/sustainable developmentt. While the percen-
tage of articles related to ecosystem functions and sustainability/sustainable development is the
least strong, the percentage for articles based on landscape functions and sustainability/sustainable
development is again higher. From the disciplines landscape architecture, landscape planning and
landscape design can be seen that landscape architecture is least connected with sustainable deve-
lopment. Could it be that sustainable development is more concerned with landscape or regional
MinorThesisͲMJHMvanLierop
scale?
We wondered whether there would be a difference in the level on which the two research areas
operate. Landscape architecture and landscape design is mainly focused on the landscape and local
scale and landscape planning on the regional and landscape scale. The concept of ecosystem services

seems to be focused on the global and regional scale as influential documents like the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, the TEEB-study and the most cited article by Costanza et.al (1997) are ad-
dressing ecosystem services at the global scale. However significant differences could not be found
in the literature inquiry (illustration 8). Just a small percentage of articles mentioned of a scale level.
The global level of scale is barely mentioned in combination with the terms related to landscape. In
general the articles are related to the regional or landscape scale, indifferent of the main keyword.
Interesting to see is that there are relatively more articles about the local scale related to ecosystem
services than to landscape architecture, planning or design. This could mean that differences in scale
levels could not be the reason for the knowledge gap.
Ill. 8. Numbers of articles based on the main keywords andArticlesperkeywordorkeywordcombination

24Ͳ8Ͳ2011 related keywords in combination with
keywords based on scale (Compiled by Lierop).

15/8/2011
architecture
ecosystem
ecosystem
ecosystem
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
functions
functions
planning
services
services
values
design
values
3909 5061 97 27 259 247 645 1939 614

total
1984Ͳ2011 1975Ͳ2011 1974Ͳ2011 1988Ͳ2011 1986Ͳ2011 1976Ͳ2011 1843Ͳ2011 1970Ͳ2011 1929Ͳ2011
47 44 1 0 0 0 0 6 0
globalscale 1999Ͳ2011 1990Ͳ2011 2003 2002Ͳ2010
1,2% 0,9% 1,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0%
74 83 1 1 7 2 2 27 3
regionalscale 1995Ͳ2011 1993Ͳ2011 2010 2011 1998Ͳ2011 2007Ͳ2009 2001Ͳ2011 1994Ͳ2011 1999Ͳ2011
1,9% 1,6% 1,0% 3,7% 2,7% 0,8% 0,3% 1,4% 0,5%
83 84 2 0 6 4 1 59 6
landscapescale 2002Ͳ2011 1998Ͳ2011 2004Ͳ2009 1991Ͳ2010 1996Ͳ2007 1999 1979Ͳ2011 2003Ͳ2011
2,1% 1,7% 2,1% 0,0% 2,3% 1,6% 0,2% 3,0% 1,0%
43 36 0 1 3 1 2 14 2
localscale 2005Ͳ2011 2001Ͳ2011 2009 2002Ͳ2009 2009 2011 2003Ͳ2011 1995Ͳ2011
1,1% 0,7% 0,0% 3,7% 1,2% 0,4% 0,3% 0,7% 0,3%
3909 = number of articles, 1984-2011 = years of publication of articles, 11,6% = percentage related to total of articles, 0 = no articles
keywords urban, rural, agricultural and natural (Compiled by Lierop).
architecture
ecosystem
ecosystem
ecosystem
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
functions
functions
planning
services
services
values
design
values
3909 5061 97 27 259 247 645 1939 614

total
1984Ͳ2011 1975Ͳ2011 1974Ͳ2011 1988Ͳ2011 1986Ͳ2011 1976Ͳ2011 1843Ͳ2011 1970Ͳ2011 1929Ͳ2011
381 165 7 3 29 40 169 506 176
urban 1995Ͳ2011 1996Ͳ2011 1999Ͳ2010 2008Ͳ2010 1986Ͳ2011 1976Ͳ2011 1979Ͳ2011 1976Ͳ2011 1979Ͳ2011
9,7% 3,3% 7,2% 11,1% 11,2% 16,2% 26,2% 26,1% 28,7%
195 63 4 4 32 40 33 223 28
rural 1995Ͳ2011 1991Ͳ2011 2004Ͳ2009 1988Ͳ2010 1986Ͳ2011 1983Ͳ2011 1979Ͳ2011 1975Ͳ2011 1983Ͳ2011
5,0% 1,2% 4,1% 14,8% 12,4% 16,2% 5,1% 11,5% 4,6%
737 389 4 11 45 42 23 266 44
agricultural 1992Ͳ2011 1989Ͳ2011 1999Ͳ2010 1989Ͳ2011 1986Ͳ2011 1983Ͳ2011 1979Ͳ2011 1974Ͳ2011 1988Ͳ2011
18,9% 7,7% 4,1% 40,7% 17,4% 17,0% 3,6% 13,7% 7,2%
1334 1198 35 9 65 72 116 458 125
natural 1984Ͳ2011 1977Ͳ2011 1981Ͳ2011 1989Ͳ2011 1986Ͳ2011 1978Ͳ2011 1973Ͳ2011 1973Ͳ2011 1966Ͳ2011
34,1% 23,7% 36,1% 33,3% 25,1% 29,1% 18,0% 23,6% 20,4%
15/8/2011
3909 = number of articles, 1984-2011 = years of publication of articles, 11,6% = percentage related to total of articles, 0 = no articles

Illustration 9 gives a clear image on which type of environment the research areas are focused.
Obviously is that the research area of ecosystem services focuses on the natural environment. With
a percentage of 34.1%, it exceeds the numbers on the other terms. For instance, agricultural is only
mentioned in 18.9% of the articles on ecosystem services. For the terms ecosystem functions and
ecosystem values this is even far less. The amount of articles on ecosystem services and “urban” is
even less than 10%. While more than a quarter of the articles about landscape architecture, plan-
ning or design are concerned with the urban environment. A number that is still surprisingly low if
you think that most of the designs are made for strongly human-dominated areas. The inquiry makes
clear that the focus in landscape architecture, planning and design is on the urban environment.
However, the numbers suggest that landscape architecture, planning and design also have strong
interest in natural environments as the percentage of articles with the term “natural” is around 20%.
The environment that gets the least attention in all research areas is the rural environment. Articles
on ecosystem functions only mention “rural” in 1.2% of the articles.
Based on the former outcomes, we made an inquiry whether the concept of ecosystem services
would be more focused on land use, a term which is closely related to agriculture. In the opposite,
landscape architecture, planning and design deals with changes in the landscape and would be in
that case be more linked with landscape change or land change. However, if we look at illustration
10, we see that both in the concept of ecosystem services and in landscape architecture, planning
and design land use plays a bigger role in literature then “landscape change”. The term “land change”
is negligible as there are such few articles related to the term. To see whether the amount of articles
on land use could perhaps be explained by the term land use change we made an additional inquiry.
This inquiry shows the amount of articles related to the main keywords and land use change and
this amount is related in percentages to the amount of articles concerning land use. We expected to
see that the percentage of articles on land use change would be higher for landscape architecture,
planning and design. However, for landscape architecture none of the articles on land use is discus-
sing land use change. Whereas one third of the articles on ecosystem services, functions or values
is about land use change. Which conclusions can be drawn from this is not clear and maybe needs
further research.

keywords based on landscape change land change, land use and land use change (Compiled by
Lierop).
architecture
ecosystem
ecosystem
ecosystem
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
landscape
functions
functions
planning
services
services
values
design
values
3909 5061 97 27 259 247 645 1939 614
total
1984Ͳ2011 1975Ͳ2011 1974Ͳ2011 1988Ͳ2011 1986Ͳ2011 1976Ͳ2011 1843Ͳ2011 1970Ͳ2011 1929Ͳ2011
61 43 0 2 31 17 9 116 8
landscapechange 1998Ͳ2011 1993Ͳ2011 2009Ͳ2010 1996Ͳ2011 1996Ͳ2011 1997Ͳ2010 1976Ͳ2011 1969Ͳ2009
1,6% 0,8% 0,0% 7,4% 12,0% 6,9% 1,4% 6,0% 1,3%
7 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0
landchange 2007Ͳ2011 2003Ͳ2011 2010 2000Ͳ2006
0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,0%
793 396 11 5 80 55 44 478 51
landuse 1995Ͳ2011 1995Ͳ2011 1974Ͳ2011 2002Ͳ2010 1986Ͳ2011 1977Ͳ2011 1973Ͳ2010 1973Ͳ2011 1980Ͳ2011
20,3% 7,8% 11,3% 18,5% 30,9% 22,3% 6,8% 24,7% 8,3%
314 134 3 3 27 11 0 75 5
landusechange 1998Ͳ2011 1995Ͳ2011 2011Ͳ2010 2007Ͳ2010 1998Ͳ2011 1998Ͳ2010 1995Ͳ2011 1996Ͳ2011
8,0% 2,6% 3,1% 11,1% 10,4% 4,5% 0,0% 3,9% 0,8%
This inquiry gave us an impression of the connection between the concept of ecosystem services and
the discipline of landscape architecture in scientific literature. It answered some questions but also
raised more questions. It gives a first insight in the challenges that are lying ahead to bridge the gap
between the concept of ecosystem services and landscape architecture, but it also raised the ques-
tion why there is a knowledge gap in the first place.

3
Causes and challenges of the
knowledge gap
The concept of ecosystem services and the discipline of landscape architecture are working with the
same means and share the common goal for sustainable development. It is therefore surprising that
there is a knowledge gap between the two sciences. Before examining what needs to be done to
bring the two research areas closer together, a better understanding of possible causes is needed.
Without understanding the causes, it will be hard to come up with suitable solutions. Some differen-
ces we already encountered in the review on the use of ecosystems services in planning and design
and in the inquiries. Underlying these dissimilarities are two main causes; first the different origin;
and second a fundamental discrepancy in worldview. We will discuss these two causes below and
explain how this resulted in further dissimilarities.
Although the ecosystem services concept recognizes the importance of ecosystem services for
sustainable human well-being (MA, 2003, 2005; Costanza, 2008), it is still noticeable that the concept
evolved in the world of natural sciences. A post-positivistic view prevails in this research domain.
Research is often done in a traditional way. Scientists work in an objective on analysis of the natural
world. This is often done by experiments where small discrete reduced ideas are tested (Creswell,
2009). This reductionist approach of environmental science makes clear why most research is done
within specific disciplines, meaning that landscape architects may find relevant information widely
scattered in disciplinary literature. Within most of these disciplines there is a strong preference for
assessment studies, either on the performance of ecosystem services, payments for ecosystem ser-
vices, assessment of policy, valuation of ecosystem services or mapping of ecosystem services (Groot
et al, 2010a; Termorshuizen and Opdam, 2009).
Landscape architecture developed from a practical design discipline for parks and gardens. A prag-
matic or social-constructivist view on the world is generally most common in this discipline. The
discipline’s practical background explains its concern with applications and solutions for problems
(Creswell, 2009). To gain understanding of a problem research is done in a quantitative, but mainly
qualitative manner. Landscape architects tend to look for broader knowledge, instead of narrowing

down (Creswell, 2009). Practical design solutions need to be realistic and take the complexity of the
real world into account. Landscape architecture is therefore interdisciplinary and includes natural
sciences, social sciences and art.
The landscape architecture discipline has however no overarching theoretical framework and has
little to none scientific culture. Even in the database inquiry this is noticeable. The first articles on
landscape architecture date back from the 19th century while the first article on ecosystem services
appeared in 1984 (See Ill. 6) Even though the discipline of landscape architecture is much older than
the concept of ecosystem services the number of articles on ecosystem services (3909) far exceeds
the number of articles on landscape architecture (645) or even landscape planning (1939). This
explains partly why landscape architects don’t pick up new ideas and knowledge from environmental
sciences and why, although ecosystem services have been incorporated in designs for a long time, lit-
tle literature on both topics can be found. Landscape architects do not write their findings in scienti-
fic literature, but use their knowledge in their designs.
The second main reason for dissimilarities is the different views on the role of humans in this world.
The concept of ecosystem services grew out of concern for nature conservation where a eco-centric
lens on the world dominates. Landscapes are considered as eco-physical entities. People are seldom
seen as an integral element of the environment and excluded from research or they are seen as the
cause of disturbances in the environment (Wu, 2008; Zube, 1987). Landscape architecture has a
more anthropocentric view. Logically, without people there is no need for design and planning. Land-
scape is seen as a cultural phenomenon where people are part of (Schaich et al, 2010). Landscape
architects change the landscape to make it function as people value. Cultural context and values are
therefore built-in the research.
This difference in viewpoint makes clear why most environmental science is concerned with the
natural or semi-natural environment. Less than 10% of the articles on ecosystem services are con-
cerned with the urban environment, for articles on ecosystem functions it is even less than 5%.
Information in the major articles and policy documents concerning ecosystem services like the Mil-
lennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), articles of Daily et al. (1997), Costanza et al.(1997) and Groot

(2006, 2010a) are focused on natural and semi-natural environments. Urban environments are seen
as the environment with the least amount of biodiversity (e.g. Braat et al., 2008), as an environment
where ecosystem functions are disturbed and are therefore seen as less relevant for assessment on
ecosystem services. Urban environments don’t have the highest biodiversity but many species have
their habitat in urbanized areas and play so an important role in the human-environment interaction
But environmental science is not concerned with the human-environment interaction. This explains
partly why, within the ecosystem services science, research on provisioning or regulating services
dominates while research on most cultural services stays behind.
Another reason is that post-positivistic research is often concerned with quantitative and objective
assessment on present conditions of environments. Change is little taken into consideration in as-
sessment. Neither, does the importance of services needs to be measured. In landscape architecture,
on the other hand, the focus is on the future conditions of a landscape and many elements needs to
taken in consideration and weighed before application. Landscape designers and planners make choi-
ces clear and visible. However, choices and decisions are not only made based on facts but also on
experience and values. Intrinsic values play an important role in decision-making (Saito, 2007). And
to assess some cultural services in an objective manner can be difficult as the values these services
have differ from individual to individual, and from culture to culture.
The importance of cultural values has always been acknowledged by landscape architects and cul-
tural values have been given great importance in landscape architecture. And although landscape
architects understand the importance of the natural environment for people, tools developed to take
provisioning and regulating services into account can be seen as technical or ecological solutions that
leave little room for the human perspective or aesthetics (Linehan and Gross, 1998; Meyer, 2008).
These tools are often seen as too complex, too prescriptive, too demanding of resources, or not flexi-
ble enough for to be modified to particular places or to incorporate unforeseen or uncertain changes
(Meyer, 2008; Nassauer and Opdam, 2008). Designing with only technical tools and guidelines is use-
ful to incorporate ecological values, but does not make a design. However there are also some good
examples of intentional combinations between ecology and design like the Lurie Garden in Chicago,
the High Line in New York, Westerpark in Amsterdam and the Alumnae Valley in Wellesly.

Ill. 11. Analytical framework of present relations between the concept of ecosystem services and the
discipline of landscape architecture
The differences in viewpoints and approaches makes it is clear why the connection between the
concept of ecosystem services and the discipline of landscape architecture is not well developed yet.
It seems that the discrepancy in viewpoint hides the point that both research areas pursue the same
goal and use the same means as structures and processes, functions and values in their pursuit. Over
the last decade, the concept of ecosystem services has built up en extensive body of knowledge and
environmental scientist has gained more understanding how landscape patterns and functions are
related. Still, little can be found back in relation to landscape architecture in scientific literature and,
at first impression, also little in practice.
Design professionals need science to make designs that meet the needs of people and the natural
environment. To make practical designs broad knowledge is needed. A landscape architect will not be
able to have all the knowledge that is needed to incorporate ecosystem services in a plan successful-
ly. Scientists can provide designers and planners with science, but then they need to know what the
scientific needs of landscape architects are. When scientists are involved in the practical application
of their scientific knowledge, they learn how their information should be structured to be effective
in design. Environmental scientists can so improve the usefulness of their science and stay aware of
emerging research questions. Collaboration could be an effective means to enhance the importance

and credibility of both scientific knowledge and landscape designs (oa Botequilha Leitão and Ahern,
2002; Linehan and Gross, 1998). To enhance collaboration, communication and contact between
landscape architects and scientists need to be improved. Important is also that scientists and practi-
tioners, who are involved in this collaboration, will communicate relevant findings back to their own
research area or practice.
However, it even seems that the knowledge gap is partly caused by a lack of communication between
ecosystem services science and landscape architecture (Nassauer and Opdam, 2008). Although it
appears like we speak the same language, meanings can differ. For instance, the landscape scale as
planners and designers use is a different scale level than the landscape scale ecologist mean. In the
ecological sense the landscape scale can range from 10.000-1.000.000 km2 (Groot et. al, 2010a). The
human scale landscapes, which are used by planners and designers, can be over tens or hundreds
square kilometers (Wu, 2000). This led and still leads to miscommunications prejudgments between
scientists in landscape ecological science and landscape architects. A platform is needed that com-
bines the knowledge and language on ecosystem services and landscape architecture so that a dialo-
gue and collaboration between scientists in ecosystem services and researchers and practitioners in
landscape architecture can be started.
Termorshuizen and Opdam (2009, p1042) proposed landscape services as an appropriate concept
that can help “further specification to make ecosystem services relevant and acceptable for applica-
tion in landscape development”. Landscape is a more comprehensive concept than ecosystem and
emphasizes the spatial pattern that can be changed to meet the need of people (Schaich et al, 2010).
The landscape is both a natural as a cultural object and would therefore be an ideal medium to
integrate provisioning and regulating services as well as cultural services. Landscape is also a concept
that landscape ecological scientists, social scientists, landscape architects and local stakeholders can
relate to (Schaich et al, 2010) and can connect their knowledge with. To address both science and
practice the concept of landscape services needs to be transdisciplinary, not only scientific know-
ledge needs to be incorporated but also practical and local knowledge and use both quantitative and
qualitative data.

The concept of landscape services can enhance collaboration by integrating knowledge on ecosystem
services and landscape architecture and planning. One of the main benefits that the landscape servi-
ces concept has for landscape architecture is that the concept shows the interrelationship between
landscape structures, the functioning of landscape and its benefits to people (Termorshuizen and
Opdam, 2009). How landscape structures can be changed to provide benefits and what the sustaina-
ble limits are of changing the functioning of landscape (Groot, 2006) is important knowledge. To sup-
port landscape architecture, the fragmented knowledge on ecosystem services needs to be brought
together. Better understanding about trade-offs and cumulative effects between landscape services
should be gained. This knowledge is essential for practical implementations of landscape design as
in reality landscape is a complex entity that can provide multiple landscape services. A focus on one
specific landscape service can even be harmful for the environment.
Knowledge on landscape services is still not adequate for landscape architecture and needs to be
translated into practical, applicable, flexible and comprehensible design guidelines and tools. These
should be able to bring scientific knowledge applicable in different physical, socio-cultural and econo-
mic situations. The science of landscape services should also be available for urban environments.
Hence, that understanding on how cities can provide landscape services needs to be improved. It
would be interesting to know as designer if incorporating landscape services in urban environments
needs a different approach then rural or natural environments. Knowledge on landscape services
should also be available on the right spatial scale (Azerrad and Nilon, 2006). Translating the know-
ledge on ecosystem services into the landscape scale is a start to make this scientific knowledge
more understandable and usable for planners and designers. This scale is a nice intermediate bet-
ween the regional and national scale level that is generally used in ecosystem services science and
the local scale of stakeholders.
Now public involvement and understanding of ecosystems becomes more urgent (Andersson, 2006;
Botequilha Leitão and Ahern, 2002), knowledge needs to be relevant on the local scale to involve
people. The local scale is the scale at which stakeholders experience their environment and decide
about changes (Brody, 2003). The landscape scale level can help landscape architects to comprehend
the scientific knowledge on ecosystem services and to use this knowledge for participatory planning.

In order to be relevant for society and landscape architecture, the landscape services concept needs
to incorporate cultural services alongside provisioning and regulating services. Cultural values have
a strong impact on landscape changes, and play an important role in landscape architecture. Nevert-
heless knowledge on cultural services in the ecosystem services science is just starting to emerge.
But as Schaich (2010) remarks is that research on cultural landscapes, its aesthetics and people’s
preferences has been done before by other disciplines among landscape architecture. The availa-
ble knowledge from landscape cultural sciences need be incorporated in the concept of landscape
services and should be further developed by researchers in landscape architecture and other related
disciplines. This asks for a “design science that enhances understanding of why and how humans
manage and change landscapes in particular patterns and compositions relevant for their anticipated
effects on landscape services” (Nassauer and Opdam, 2008, p641)
Ill. 12. Research scope that shows how by better collaboration and communication and by
incorporating “landscape” and “cultural” as conditions in landscape services concept, the concept of
ecosystem services and the discipline of landscape architecture can be brought closer together.

In our research and findings we mentioned several problems and challenges for the concept of
ecosystem services, landscape services and the discipline of landscape architecture. The challenges
that the environmental science is facing has been addressed by many before us (o.a. Groot, 2010;
Schaich, 2010a; Termorshuizen and Opdam; 2009; Vejre et al., 2010). We did distill four challenges
for landscape architecture that we want to address here.
Challenge 1
Improve collaboration and communication between landscape ecological scientists and researchers
and practitioners in landscape architecture. A start can be made by including the concept of land-
scape services into the education program of landscape architecture. Collaborative projects for stu-
dents in landscape architecture and environmental science give students the chance to learn through
communication and collaboration with each other and gain understandings about each other’s
needs. Another important step is to communicate relevant research findings to the landscape archi-
tectural practice. This could be done by writings in relevant magazines for landscape professionals.
Challenge 2
Developing and connecting scientific knowledge on ecosystem services; on the interrelation between
landscape structure, functions and benefits for people; on sustainable use limits; and on trade-offs
and cumulative effects into practical, applicable, flexible and comprehensible design guidelines and
tools on the landscape scale that can be applied in different situations.
Challenge 3
Present knowledge on cultural values within landscape architecture and knowledge on landscape
services needs to be connected and more collaborative research needs to be done on cultural servi-
ces for better understanding of people’s intangible values and provide tools and methods for valua-
tion of cultural services.

Challenge 4
Collaborative testing and improving of present methods and tools of mapping, measuring and valuing
landscape services for application in landscape architecture by modeling, research, design research
and practice
Challenge 5
Developing and testing of tools and methods to incorporate the landscape services concept in par-
ticipatory planning and translating the concept of landscape services into the local scale level and in
comprehensible language to make it understandable for local stakeholders.
To bring the scientific knowledge on ecosystem services to the practice-oriented creative profession
of landscape architecture some challenges need to be taken. Yet we are facing more and even bigger
challenges when we will not be able to make our relation with our natural environment more sustai-
nable. We consider that bringing the ecosystem services concept and the discipline of landscape
architecture closer together can enhance sustainable human well-being. Together they have the po-
tential to improve the benefits from ecosystems that people value without compromising the health
of our environment, for now and in the future.

References
Andersson, E. 2006. Urban landscapes and sustainable cities. Ecology and Society 11(1): 34.
Antrop, M. 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban
Planning, vol. 70, no. 1-2, pp. 21-34.
Azerrad, J.M. & Nilon, C.H. 2006. An evaluation of agency conservation guidelines to better address
planning efforts by local government. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 255-262.
Balvanera, P., Pfisterer, A.B., Buchmann, N., He, J.-., Nakashizuka, T., Raffaelli, D. & Schmid, B. 2006.
Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecology Let-
ters, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 1146-1156.
Bolund, P. & Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29, pp.
293-301.
Botequilha Leitão, A., & Ahern, J., 2002. Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in
sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(2), 65-93.
Braat, L., ten Brink, P., (Eds.), 2008. The cost of policy inaction: the case of not meeting the 2010 bio-
diversity target. Study for the European Commission, DG Environment. Alterra-report 1718, Wage-
ningen.
Brody, S.D. 2003. Implementing the principles of ecosystem management through local land use
planning. Population and Environment, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 511-540.
Costanza R., D’Arge R., De Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O’Neill
R.V., Paruelo J., Raskin R.G., Sutton P., Van Den Belt M., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem
services and natural capital. Nature, 15 May, 387, pp. 253-260.
Costanza, R. 2008. Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conser-
vation, vol. 141, no. 2, pp. 350-352.
Creswell, J.W., 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches,
third ed. SAGE Publications.
Daily, G.C., Alexander, S., Ehrlich, P.R., Goulder, L., Lubchenco, J., Matson, P.A., Mooney, H.A., Postel,
S., Schneider, S.H., Tilman, D, Woodwell, G.M., 1997. Ecosystem services: Benefits supplied to human
societies by natural ecosystems. Issues in Ecology, 2. Washington DC: Ecological society of America.
Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J.
& Shallenberger, R. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 21-28.
European Commission. Country overview and assessment. The Netherlands, in: The economics of
climate change adaptation in EU coastal areas.
European Communities, 2008. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: An interim report.

Gobster, P.H., Nassauer, J.I., Daniel, T.C. & Fry, G. 2007. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics
have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 959-972.
Groot, R.S. de, Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010a. Challenges in integrating the
concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making.
Ecological Complexity, 41, pp. 393-408.
Groot, R.S. de; Fisher, B.; Christie, M.; Aronson, J.; Braat, L.; Haines-Young, R.; Gowdy, J.; Maltby, E.;
Neuville, A.; Polasky, S.; Portela, R.; Ring, I., 2010b. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensi-
ons in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation, in TEEB, Ecological and Economic Foundations.
Londen : Earthscan.
Groot, R. de, 2006. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to asses land use conflicts for sustaina-
ble, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75, pp. 175-186.
Haines-Young, R. Potschin, M., in press. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and hu-
man well-being, inn: Raffaelli, D. & C. Frid (eds.): Ecosystem Ecology: a new synthesis. BES Ecological
Reviews Series, CUP, Cambridge.
Haines-Young, R., 2000. Sustainable development and sustainable landscapes: defining a new para-
digm for landscape ecology. Fennia 178:7-14.
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S. & van Ierland, E.C. 2006. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the
valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 209-228.
Hooper, D.U., Chapin III, F.S., Ewel, J.J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J.H., Lodge, D.M.,
Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setälä, H., Symstad, A.J., Vandermeer, J. & Wardle, D.A. 2005. Ef-
fects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Mono-
graphs, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 3-35.
IFLA, 2005. IFLA Charter for landscape architectural education.
IFLA, 2003. International Labour Office Definition of the Profession of Landscape Architect for the
International Standard Classification of Occupations. Geneva.
Koh, J., 2005. Ecological reasoning and architectural imagination. Wageningen: Blauwdruk in
assoc. with Wageningen University and stichting Lijn in landschap.
Lierop, M.J.H.M. van & Matthijssen, J., 2010. Towards a new language of design: A design language
that fuses ecology and design. Master thesis Landscape Architecture Group, Wageningen.
Linehan, J.R. & Gross, M. 1998. Back to the future, back to basics: The social ecology of landscapes
and the future of landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 42, no. 2-4, pp. 207-223.
Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J.P., Hector, A., Hooper, D.U., Huston, M.A.,
Raffaelli, D., Schmid, B., Tilman, D. & Wardle, D.A., 2001. Ecology: Biodiversity and ecosystem functio-
ning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science, vol. 294, no. 5543, pp. 804-808.

Meyer, E.K., 2008. Sustaining beauty. The performance of appearance. A manifesto in three parts.
Journal of Landscape Architecture, spring 2008, p. 6-23.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being. A framework for assess-
ment. Island press. Washington, DC.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island press.
Washington, DC.
Miller, J.R. 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 430-434.
Moberg, F. & Folke, C. 1999. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecological Econo-
mics, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 215-233.
Nassauer, J.I., 1997. Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and ecology. Placing nature, p. 67-83.
Nassauer, J.I. & Opdam, P., 2008. Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Land-
scape Ecology, [Online] 23, pp. 633-644.
Norberg, J. 1999. Linking nature’s services to ecosystems: Some general ecological concepts. Ecologi-
cal Economics, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 183-202.
Paetzold, A, Warren, Ph.H. & Maltby, L.L., 2010. A framework for assessing ecological quality based
on ecosystem services. Ecological Complexity, 7, pp. 273-281.
Potschin, M. & Haines-Young, R. 2006. “Rio+10”, sustainability science and Landscape Ecology. Land-
scape and Urban Planning, vol. 75, no. 3-4, pp. 162-174.
Ruijgrok, E.C.M., 2006. Kentallen waardering natuur, water, bodem and landschap; hulpmiddel bij
MKBA’s (261pp.). Witteveen & Bos, Rotterdam.
Saito, Y., 2008. Everyday Aesthetics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schaich, H., Bieling, C. & Plieninger, T., 2010. Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape re-
search. GAIA, 19/4, pp. 269-277.
TEEB, 2010a. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Na-
ture: A synthesis
of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
TEEB, 2010b. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers.
TEEB, 2009. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Ma-
kers –Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature.
Termorshuizen, J.W. & Opdam, P.F.M., 2009. Landscape services as a bridge between landscape eco-
logy and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology, 24 (8), pp. 1037 -1052.

The sustainable sites initiative, 2009. Guidelines and performance benchmarks 2009.
Vejre, H., Jensen, F.S. & Thorsen, B.J., 2010. Demonstrating the importance of intangible ecosystem
services from peri-urban landscapes. Ecological Complexity, 7, pp. 338-348.
Wu, J., Qi, Y., 2000. Dealing with scale in landscape analysis: An overview. Geographic Information
Sciences, vol.6, no. 1, pp. 1-5.
Wu, J. 2008. Making the case for landscape ecology. Landscape Journal, 27(1), pp. 41-50.
Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L. & Taylor, J.G. 1982. Landscape perception: Research, application and theory.
Landscape Planning, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1-33.
Zube, E. H., 1987. Perceived land use patterns and landscape values. Landscape Ecology, 1(1), 37-45.


Bringing The Ecosystem Services Concept To Landsc-Groen Kennisnet 387032

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bringing The Ecosystem Services Concept To Landsc-Groen Kennisnet 387032

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bringing

Marjo van Lierop

Wageningen University and Research

Landscape Architecture Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen

University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands,

*Correspondence: M.J.H.M. van Lierop, Creutzbergstraat 32, 6823EK Arnhem,

The Netherlands, E-mail: MarjovanLierop@gmail.com, Tel: +31 6 55820505,

Fax: +31 26 3576611.

landscape planning; landscape design; landscape services; ecosystem functions;

Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture 

environments to assure sustainable development (IFLA, 2005).

Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture 

 M.J.H.M. van Lierop August 2011

ture you hardly come across the topic of ecosystem services.

of ecosystem services as well as landscape architecture.

are valued by their intrinsic value.

Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture 

10 M.J.H.M. van Lierop August 2011

ted to human values and behavior (MA, 2003).

Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture 11

ecosystem can substitute for one

another when one or more species

are lost in order to keep the ecosy-

stem functioning (Andersson, 2006;

MA, 2003). Ecological networks

or green infrastructure have often

been promoted to prevent loss of

biodiversity (Andersson, 2006).

Ecosystems services have a big

impact on our living conditions.

However, changes in human well-

close by its consumers.

12 M.J.H.M. van Lierop August 2011

“cumulative effects”, or can weaken each other, “trade-offs” (TEEB, 2010b).

decision-making for landscape changes (Costanza et.al, 1997).

Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture 13

of natural environments and economic development equal stakeholders in decision-making.

14 M.J.H.M. van Lierop August 2011

Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010 and Maltby, 2009 in De Groot, 2010).

sity, structure, service, benefit, values and drivers - are connected.

Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture 15

16 M.J.H.M. van Lierop August 2011

Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture 17

the benefits of ecosystem services.

environment assures regulatory functions (Termorshuizen and Opdam, 2009).

18 M.J.H.M. van Lierop August 2011

of ecosystem services is one of the aspects of sustainable cities (Andersson, 2006).

Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture 19

Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture 21

with a strong engineering background.

stem services into each project phase of a site development.

22 M.J.H.M. van Lierop August 2011

nes for a series of services will therefore never be comprehensive.

international.stockholm.se/Stockholm-by-theme/European-Green-Capital), all elements related to

the –monetary- value these services have for the city.

Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture 23

valuation to inform decision making is still largely unrealized (TEEB, 2010b).

the two research areas are related in scientific literature.

24 M.J.H.M. van Lierop August 2011

these disciplines are interrelated.

On the 15th of August 2011, Lierop made an

inquiry in the research literature database

Scopus for the number of articles concerning

Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture

Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture

M.J.H.M. van Lierop August 2011

Bringing the ecosystem services concept to landscape architecture