Abstract
The debate on Ecosystem Services (ESs) focuses mainly on theoretical research aimed at providing methodological coherence between ES definition, classification, mapping and utilization. Such increasing knowledge is fundamental in the generation of consensus among researchers, public administrators and technicians considering the different aspects and possible use of ESs in many fields: social and environmental studies, geography, urban planning disciplines and land use planning. In regards to the latter two fields, it seems that ES assessment is still considered to be in its infancy when use thereof is aimed at providing a prescriptive framework for land use regulation. From this perspective, the LIFE SAM4CP research project is aimed at generating better solutions for the communities and their environment using ES assessment at the municipal level as a proxy for local land use planning (the Italian PRGC). Also, SAM4CP practices the multilevel governance to engage all the various stakeholders involved in the dynamics of land use planning thanks to the Co-planning Conference procedure within which the ES paradigm is experimented to evaluate the contents/actions of the urban plans. This paradigm is adequate for comparison with both plans, policies and projects at different scales (regional, metropolitan and local levels) and with the forms of organization and decision-making of the territorial government. The research assumes that, according to local land use regulations, building permits and other authorization for possible land use transformation on the territory are generated by public decision; in fact, land use regulations should take into account the potential effects that land use alteration may have on ecosystems on the local scale. This is particularly evident about the agricultural land in respect of which the land take process completely cancels the Crop production ES. Thus, within this paper, we aim to outline that ecosystem services-based planning framework provide sustainability for land use transformations because it improves the understanding of planned actions consequences.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the sense of obliging Regional territorial and landscape planning, the structural planning of metropolitan cities, that of Province coordination and above all the Urban Plans of the Union of smaller municipalities to express, through structural interpretations of the territory, “invariant” and precise rules and regulations aimed at avoiding the transformation of non-urbanised territories unless found necessary following careful evaluation of the alternative possible reuse of abandoned or under-used areas or the possibility of renewal of the areas and the necessary parameters of ecological sustainability and limitation, mitigation and compensation.
- 2.
Refers to the procedure conceived and regulated by Regional Legislation of Piedmont with Regional Laws 1/2007 and 3/2013.
- 3.
The Project (see: http://www.sam4cp.eu/en/) has been coordinated by the Metropolitan City of Turin with the Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning of the Polytechnic and the University of Turin (DIST), ISPRA, CREA and CSI Piemonte.
References
Alam, M., Dupras, J., & Messier, C. (2016). A framework towards a composite indicator for urban ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators,60, 38–44.
Antrop, M. (2004). Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning,67, 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00026-4.
Barbieri, C. A. (2017). Legiferare sul contrasto al consumo di suolo, ma come e chi? In A. Arcidiacono, D. Di Simine, F. Oliva, S. Ronchi, & S. Salata (Eds.), La dimensione europea del consumo di suolo e le politiche. Rapporto CRCS 2017 (pp. 247–250). Rome: INU Edizioni.
Barbieri, C. A., & Giaimo, C. (2015). A new model of institutional governance for new planning policies in Italy. Urbanistica,153, 92–97.
Butsic, V., Shapero, M., Moanga, D., & Larson, S. (2017). Using InVEST to assess ecosystem services on conserved properties in Sonoma County, CA. California Agriculture,71(2), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2017a0008.
Clerici, N., Paracchini, M. L., & Maes, J. (2014). Land-cover change dynamics and insights into ecosystem services in European stream riparian zones. Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology,14, 107–120.
European Commission. (2012). Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing. Commission Staff Working Document, SWD (2012), 101 final, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/soil_sealing_guidelines_en.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2018.
Grêt-Regamey, A., Altwegg, J., Sirén, E. A., van Strien, M. J., & Weibel, B. (2017). Integrating ecosystem services into spatial planning—A spatial decision support tool. Landscape and Urban Planning,165, 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.003.
Kaczorowska, A., Kain, J.-H., Kronenberg, J., & Haase, D. (2016). Ecosystem services in urban land use planning: Integration challenges in complex urban settings—Case of Stockholm. Ecosystem Services,22, 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.04.006.
Langemeyer, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Haase, D., Scheuer, S., & Elmqvist, T. (2016). Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Environmental Science and Policy,62, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.013.
Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R., & Mermet, L. (2013). Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot. Journal of Environmental Management,119, 208–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.008.
Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J. P., et al. (2012). Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services,1, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004.
Mubareka, S., Koomen, E., Estreguil, C., & Lavalle, C. (2011). Development of a composite index of urban compactness for land use modelling applications. Landscape and Urban Planning,103, 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.08.012.
Partidario, M. R., & Gomes, R. C. (2013). Ecosystem services inclusive strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,40, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.001.
Pulighe, G., Fava, F., & Lupia, F. (2016). Insights and opportunities from mapping ecosystem services of urban green spaces and potentials in planning. Ecosystem Services,22, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.004.
Salata, S. (2017). Land use change analysis in the urban region of Milan. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal,28(6), 879–901. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-07-2016-0049.
Salata, S., & Gardi, C. (2014). From quantitative to qualitative analysis of Land-Take. The application of a Composite Indicator for targeted policies of Land Take reduction. City Safety Energy, 1, 15–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.12896/cse20150010041.
Salata, S., Garnero, G., Barbieri, C., & Giaimo, C. (2017). The Integration of ecosystem services in planning: An evaluation of the nutrient retention model using InVEST software. Land,6, 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/land6030048.
Saarikoski, H., Primmer, E., Saarela, S.-R., Antunes, P., Aszalós, R., Baró, F., et al. (2018). Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice. Ecosystem Services,29, 579–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019.
Schröter, M., Remme, R. P., Sumarga, E., Barton, D., & Hein, L. (2015). Lessons learned for spatial modelling of ecosystem services in support of ecosystem accounting. Ecosystem Services,13, 64–69.
Setälä, H., Bardgett, R. D., Birkhofer, K., Brady, M., Byrne, L., de Ruiter, P. C., et al. (2014). Urban and agricultural soils: Conflicts and trade-offs in the optimization of ecosystem services. Urban Ecosystems,17, 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0311-6.
Silvennoinen, S., Taka, M., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Koivusalo, H., Ollikainen, M., & Setälä, H. (2017). Monetary value of urban green space as an ecosystem service provider: A case study of urban runoff management in Finland. Ecosystem Services,28, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.013.
Tallis, H., Ricketts, T., & Guerry, A. (Eds.). (2011). InVEST 2. Beta user’ s guide. Stanford: The Natural Capital Project.
Turkelboom, F., Thoonen, M., Jacobs, S., & Berry, P. (forthcoming). In M. Potschin & K. Jax (Eds.), OpenNESS Reference Book. EC, FP7 Grant Agreement no. 308428. Available via: www.openness.project.eu/library/reference.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Giaimo, C., Barbieri, C.A., Salata, S. (2019). Ecosystems Services and Spatial Planning: Lessons Learned from the Life SAM4CP Project. In: Gottero, E. (eds) Agrourbanism. GeoJournal Library, vol 124. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95576-6_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95576-6_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95575-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95576-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)