TY - JOUR

T1 - When we cannot have it all

T2 - Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning

AU - Turkelboom, Francis

AU - Leone, Michael

AU - Jacobs, Sander

AU - Kelemen, Eszter

AU - García-Llorente, Marina

AU - Baró, Francesc

AU - Termansen, Mette

AU - Barton, David N.

AU - Berry, Pam

AU - Stange, Erik

AU - Thoonen, Marijke

AU - Kalóczkai, Ágnes

AU - Vadineanu, Angheluta

AU - Castro, Antonio J.

AU - Czúcz, Bálint

AU - Röckmann, Christine

AU - Wurbs, Daniel

AU - Odee, David

AU - Preda, Elena

AU - Gómez-Baggethun, Erik

AU - Rusch, Graciela M.

AU - Pastur, Guillermo Martínez

AU - Palomo, Ignacio

AU - Dick, Jan

AU - Casaer, Jim

AU - van Dijk, Jiska

AU - Priess, Joerg A.

AU - Langemeyer, Johannes

AU - Mustajoki, Jyri

AU - Kopperoinen, Leena

AU - Baptist, Martin J.

AU - Peri, Pablo Luis

AU - Mukhopadhyay, Raktima

AU - Aszalós, Réka

AU - Roy, S. B.

AU - Luque, Sandra

AU - Rusch, Verónica

PY - 2017/11/27

Y1 - 2017/11/27

N2 - Spatial planning has to deal with trade-offs between various stakeholders' wishes and needs as part of planning and management of landscapes, natural resources and/or biodiversity. To make ecosystem services (ES) trade-off research more relevant for spatial planning, we propose an analytical framework, which puts stakeholders, their land-use/management choices, their impact on ES and responses at the centre. Based on 24 cases from around the world, we used this framing to analyse the appearance and diversity of real-world ES trade-offs. They cover a wide range of trade-offs related to ecosystem use, including: land-use change, management regimes, technical versus nature-based solutions, natural resource use, and management of species. The ES trade-offs studied featured a complexity that was far greater than what is often described in the ES literature. Influential users and context setters are at the core of the trade-off decision-making, but most of the impact is felt by non-influential users. Provisioning and cultural ES were the most targeted in the studied trade-offs, but regulating ES were the most impacted. Stakeholders' characteristics, such as influence, impact faced, and concerns can partially explain their position and response in relation to trade-offs. Based on the research findings, we formulate recommendations for spatial planning.

AB - Spatial planning has to deal with trade-offs between various stakeholders' wishes and needs as part of planning and management of landscapes, natural resources and/or biodiversity. To make ecosystem services (ES) trade-off research more relevant for spatial planning, we propose an analytical framework, which puts stakeholders, their land-use/management choices, their impact on ES and responses at the centre. Based on 24 cases from around the world, we used this framing to analyse the appearance and diversity of real-world ES trade-offs. They cover a wide range of trade-offs related to ecosystem use, including: land-use change, management regimes, technical versus nature-based solutions, natural resource use, and management of species. The ES trade-offs studied featured a complexity that was far greater than what is often described in the ES literature. Influential users and context setters are at the core of the trade-off decision-making, but most of the impact is felt by non-influential users. Provisioning and cultural ES were the most targeted in the studied trade-offs, but regulating ES were the most impacted. Stakeholders' characteristics, such as influence, impact faced, and concerns can partially explain their position and response in relation to trade-offs. Based on the research findings, we formulate recommendations for spatial planning.

KW - Ecosystem use

KW - Property regimes

KW - Real-world case studies

KW - Stakeholder responses

KW - Trade-off analytical framework

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011

DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85034973160

JO - Ecosystem Services

JF - Ecosystem Services

SN - 2212-0416

ER -