When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning

Francis Turkelboom*, Michael Leone, Sander Jacobs, Eszter Kelemen, Marina García-Llorente, Francesc Baró, Mette Termansen, David N. Barton, Pam Berry, Erik Stange, Marijke Thoonen, Ágnes Kalóczkai, Angheluta Vadineanu, Antonio J. Castro, Bálint Czúcz, Christine Röckmann, Daniel Wurbs, David Odee, Elena Preda, Erik Gómez-BaggethunGraciela M. Rusch, Guillermo Martínez Pastur, Ignacio Palomo, Jan Dick, Jim Casaer, Jiska Van Dijk, Joerg A. Priess, Johannes Langemeyer, Jyri Mustajoki, Leena Kopperoinen, Martin J. Baptist, Pablo Luis Peri, Raktima Mukhopadhyay, Réka Aszalós, S.B. Roy, Sandra Luque, Verónica Rusch

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

76 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)566-578
JournalEcosystem Services
Volume29
Issue numberpt. C
Early online date27 Nov 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2018

Keywords

  • Trade-off analytical framework
  • Ecosystem use
  • Property regimers
  • Stakeholder responses
  • Real-world case studies

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Projects

    Cite this

    Turkelboom, F., Leone, M., Jacobs, S., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., Baró, F., Termansen, M., Barton, D. N., Berry, P., Stange, E., Thoonen, M., Kalóczkai, Á., Vadineanu, A., Castro, A. J., Czúcz, B., Röckmann, C., Wurbs, D., Odee, D., Preda, E., ... Rusch, V. (2018). When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosystem Services, 29(pt. C), 566-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011