Karsten Grunewald.Pdf

Ecosystem Services – Concept, Methods and Case Studies Karsten Grunewald Olaf Bastian Editors

Ecosystem Services – Concept, Methods and Case Studies

1 C Editors Karsten Grunewald Olaf Bastian Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development and Regional Development Dresden Dresden

ISBN 978-3-662-44142-8 ISBN 978-3-662-44143-5 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-44143-5

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015940761

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) V

Preface

Humankind is a part of nature. It depends on nature for its existence, its well-being and its economic activity, and is connected with it by numerous ties. Nature provides food and water for our daily existence, the raw materials for handicrafts and industry and medicinal plants for healthcare. Forests not only supply us with wood, berries, mushrooms and wild game, but also protect us against soil erosion and flooding, create the oxygen we breathe and bind greenhouse gases that endanger our climate. Natural ecosystems act as water filters, and habitats for a large variety of plant and animal species, including the wild bees which are important for the pollination of our crops. People find spiritual inspiration and fulfillment in nature together with a esthetic pleasure, rest and recreation.

In recent years, the term ‘ecosystem services’ has become popular as the designation for all these benefits which are useful to people. Nature provides many effective, low-cost and sustainable solutions for human needs. Often however, people are not even aware of the role of natural resources or ecosystem services, or they see nature simply as an endlessly bubbling, never slacking fountain of human prosperity. Careful dealing with nature and investment in an intact natural environment is often considered a luxury, and conservation is generally a secondary issue. No wonder biodiversity is declining at a rapid pace worldwide–and also in Germany–and that the capacity of ecosystems to provide services is also being reduced to such a degree as to cause major concern.

Generally, growing economic use of nature involves a reduction of the regulatory and sociocultural services rendered. One goal of the concept of ecosystem services is to better demonstrate these contexts and move them into the public consciousness. It is therefore important to recognise and improve the standing of the non-marketable services of nature by improving the understanding for the systemic context and the dynamics between ecosystem properties, functions and services, natural capital and their beneficial effects in various spatial and temporal scales, and in connection with their multiple drivers. Valuating the services provided by ecosystems and landscapes–i. e. assigning economic/monetary value to them–is in accordance with the widespread tendency of our times. Often, the argument is raised that ‘concrete’ arguments need to be developed to persuade political leaders, and to gain broad acceptance by business and society at large. After all, monetary value and supposedly ‘hard’ figures are the language that is most easily understood, especially outside of the conservationist community. However, can we and should we really reduce nature, in all its complexity and its immeasurable significance for us human beings, to monetary values?

The reason and goal of the first comprehensive German-language discussion of this issue in 2013 was to present the multiple relationships between economics, ecology and ethics in a theoretically well-grounded manner, and to provide practical recommendations for the analysis, evaluation, control and communication of ecosystem services. We seek to address all those interested in building bridges and crossing borders between disciplines: both scientists and practitioners in the administrative, volunteer and professional spheres, especially those who deal with the environment, conservation and regional and land-use planning; experts from the business community, activists in politics, students, and all those interested in fundamental ecological, economic, ethical and environmentalist issues and issues which affect ecosystems and landscapes. VI Preface

After a very positive reception of the German book, the English translation has now been completed. Springer-Spektrum as editor has initiated this project and made it possible; the organisation and the cooperative effort were carried out in a notably pleasant atmosphere. We would like to thank the numerous authors, from Dresden to Bonn and from Freiburg to Greifswald, for their contributions, and also apologise to those of our colleagues working in this and similar areas whom we were unable to accommodate for reasons of space. We hope that the present treatment will spark a constructive discussion with them. The length of the book was strictly limited, so that, in our view, while a number of very essential aspects of this highly complex topic have been addressed, others unfortunately have not.

Most of the authors provided their own translations; Phil Hill of Berlin translated the rest, and the publisher provided the final redaction. Our sincere thanks to all.

Phil Hill passed away suddenly on 22nd of December 2014. With the book we want say thank you to you, Phil, for the wonderful years of collaboration.

Karsten Grunewald and Olaf Bastian Dresden, January 2015 VII

Contents

1 Ecosystem Services (ES): More than Just a Vogue Term? ...... 1

2 Development and Fundamentals of the ES Approach ...... 13 2.1 Key Terms ...... 14 2.2 ES in Retrospect ...... 19 2.3 Values and Services of Nature for Humans...... 25 References ...... 31

3 Conceptual Framework ...... 35 3.1 Properties, Potentials and Services of Ecosystems ...... 36 3.1.1 The Cascade Model in the TEEB Study ...... 36 3.1.2 The EPPS Framework ...... 36 3.1.3 The Application of the EPPS Framework–The Example ‘Mountain Meadow’ ...... 44 3.2 Classifi cation of ES ...... 45 3.2.1 Introduction ...... 45 3.2.2 Provisioning Services ...... 46 3.2.3 Regulation Services ...... 46 3.2.4 Sociocultural Services ...... 46 3.2.5 Additional Classifi cation Aspects ...... 49 3.3 Space and Time Aspects of ES ...... 53 3.3.1 Fundamentals, Control Scheme ...... 53 3.3.2 Case Study: EU-Water Framework Directive (WFD) and ES ...... 59 3.4 Landscape Services ...... 65 References ...... 69

4 Ascertainment and Assessment of ES ...... 75 4.1 Indicators and Quantifi cation Approaches...... 76 4.1.1 Introduction ...... 76 4.1.2 Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand Assessment at the Landscape Scale–the ‘Matrix’ . . . . 77 4.1.3 Conclusions and Outlook ...... 82 4.2 Approaches to the Economic Valuation of Natural Assets ...... 85 4.2.1 Principles of Economic Valuation ...... 85 4.2.2 The Total Economic Value ...... 90 4.2.3 Valuation Methods and Techniques ...... 91 4.2.4 Conclusion ...... 103 4.3 Scenario-Development and Participative Methods ...... 104 4.3.1 Basics and Fields of Application ...... 104 4.3.2 Framework of Scenario Development ...... 105 4.3.3 Participation and the Case Study Görlitz ...... 108 4.4 Complex Analyses, Evaluation and Modelling of ES ...... 110 4.4.1 Background ...... 110 4.4.2 Energy Crop Production–A Complex Problem for Assessing ES ...... 112 4.4.3 Application of Models of InVEST to Assess Ecosystem Services ...... 118 4.5 Communicating ES ...... 126 VIII Contents

4.5.1 The Importance of Communication ...... 126 4.5.2 ‘Ecosystem Services’ as an Umbrella Term for Communicative Intent ...... 127 4.5.3 Government and the Market Instead of Communications? ...... 128 4.5.4 Communications Eff orts as an Approach to the Shaping of Environmental Sciences ...... 129 References ...... 136

5 Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision ...... 145 5.1 Policy Mixes for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Service Management . . . . . 146 5.1.1 Why Use a Policy Mix? ...... 146 5.1.2 A Well-Equipped Toolbox of Policy Instruments ...... 147 5.1.3 Assessing Instruments for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Service Management in Policy Mixes ...... 148 5.2 Selected Financial Mechanisms: Payments for Ecosystem Services and Ecological Fiscal Transfers ...... 155 5.2.1 Payments for Ecosystem Services ...... 156 5.2.2 Ecological Fiscal Transfers ...... 160 5.3 Integrating the Concept of Ecosystem Services into Landscape Planning ...... 165 5.3.1 Linking Ecosystem Services with the Landscape Plan ...... 166 5.3.2 Implementation in Practice–Testing the Example of the Service ‘Erosion Protection’ ...... 167 5.4 Governance in Nature Conservation ...... 172 5.4.1 Governance and Protection of Biodiversity ...... 172 5.4.2 The Project GEM-CON-BIO ...... 173 References ...... 180

6 Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES ...... 185 6.1 Concept for the Selection of Case Studies ...... 187 6.2 Assessment of Selected Services of Agro-Ecosystems ...... 189 6.2.1 Introduction ...... 189 6.2.2 Agri-Environmental Measures: The AEMBAC Methodology ...... 189 6.2.3 Agro-economic Evaluation of Landscape Plans ...... 196 6.2.4 Species-Rich Grassland Services ...... 200 6.3 Economic Benefi t Valuation of the Infl uence of a Forest Conversion Programme on Ecosystem Services in the Northeastern Lowlands of Germany ...... 208 6.3.1 Introduction ...... 208 6.3.2 Raw Wood Production ...... 209 6.3.3 Carbon Sequestration ...... 211 6.3.4 Scenic Beauty and Recreation Values ...... 212 6.3.5 Synopsis and Discussion ...... 213 6.4 Urban Ecosystem Services: Leipzig as a Case Study ...... 216 6.4.1 Urban Ecosystem Services and Urban Land Use: A Complex Nexus ...... 217 6.4.2 An Example of Local Climate Regulation ...... 218 6.4.3 An Example of Flood Regulation ...... 218 6.4.4 An Example of Carbon Sequestration in the Urban Area–Reducing the Ecological Backpack of the City? ...... 220 6.4.5 An Example of the Recreational and Nature Experience ...... 221 6.5 Cultural Landscapes and their Ecosystem Services ...... 224 6.5.1 The Example of Orchard Meadows in the Swabian Alb Biosphere Reserve...... 224 IX Contents

6.5.2 Calculation of Landscape Management Measures and Costs ...... 231 6.6 Specifi c Nature Protection and Development Strategies ...... 240 6.6.1 Nature Conservation and Ecosystem Services ...... 240 6.6.2 Soil and Water Protection ...... 258 6.6.3 Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services–The Case of Wetland Restoration Along the German Elbe River ...... 264 6.6.4 Peatland Use in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany: Monetarization of the Ecosystem Service Climate Protection ...... 273 6.7 Systematisation of the Case Studies ...... 280 References ...... 283

7 Recommendations and Outlook ...... 293 7.1 Work Steps for the Analysis and Evaluation of ES ...... 294 7.2 Future Challenges Regarding ES...... 299 References ...... 304

Index ...... 307 XI

Contributors

Dr. Kenneth Anders Dr. habil. Karsten Grunewald Büro für Landschaftskommunikation, Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Neutornow 54, Regional Development, Weberplatz 1, 16259 Bad Freienwalde, Germany 01217 Dresden, Germany [email protected] [email protected]

Dr. habil. Olaf Bastian Prof. Dr. Dagmar Haase Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Department of Regional Development, Weberplatz 1, Geography, Rudower Chaussee 16, 12489 Berlin, 01217 Dresden, Germany Germany and [email protected] Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany Dr. Claudia Bieling [email protected] University of Freiburg, Chair for Landscape Management, Tennenbacher Straße 4, Prof. Dr. Volkmar Hartje 79106 Freiburg, Germany TU Berlin, FG Landschaftsökonomie, [email protected] EB 4-2, Straße des 17. Juni 145, 10623 Berlin, Germany Dr. habil. Benjamin Burkhard [email protected] Kiel University, Institute for Natural Resource Conservation, Department Ecosystem Dipl.-Ing. Michael Holfeld Management, Olshausenstr. 75, 24118 Kiel, Mary-Wigman-Straße 2, Germany 01069 Dresden, Germany [email protected] [email protected]

Dr. Peter Elsasser Dr. Markus Leibenath Thuenen Institute / WF, Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Leuschnerstrasse 91, Regional Development, Weberplatz 1, 21031 Hamburg, Germany 01217 Dresden, Germany [email protected] [email protected]

Hermann Englert Dr. Gerd Lupp Thuenen Institute / WF, TU München, Chair for Strategic Landscape Leuschnerstrasse 91, Planning and Management, 21031 Hamburg, Germany Emil-Ramann-Str. 6, 85354 Freising, Germany [email protected] [email protected]

Malte Großmann Prof. Dr. Karl Mannsfeld TU Berlin, FG Landschaftsökonomie, Ahornweg 1, 01328 Dresden-Pappritz, Germany EB 4-2, Straße des 17. Juni 145, 10623 Berlin, [email protected] Germany Prof. Dr. Bettina Matzdorf [email protected] Institute of Socio-Economics, Leibniz Centre M.Sc. Anja Grünwald for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Burgkstraße 30, 01159 Dresden, Eberswalder Straße 84, 15374 Müncheberg, [email protected] Germany [email protected] XII Contributors

Dr. Melanie Mewes Dr. Christoph Schröter-Schlaack Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Dept. – UFZ, Dept. of Economics, Permoserstraße 15, of Economics, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, 04318 Leipzig, Germany Germany [email protected] [email protected]

Prof. Dr. Felix Müller Dr. Christian Schleyer Kiel University, Institute for Natural Resource Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Re- Conservation, Department Ecosystem search – UFZ, Dept. of Environmental Politics, Management, Olshausenstr. 75, 24118 Kiel, Germany Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany [email protected] [email protected]

Bettina Ohnesorge Dr. Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft Warthestraße 17, 12051 Berlin, Germany Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, unit I 2.1 [email protected] “Legal Affairs, Economics and Ecologically Sound Regional Development”, Konstantinstr. 110, Dr. Tobias Plieninger 53179 Bonn, Germany Department of Geosciences and Natural [email protected] Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg Dr. Ralf-Uwe Syrbe C, Denmark, Germany Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and [email protected] Regional Development, Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden, Germany Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Michaela Reutter [email protected] Institute of Socio-Economics, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Juliane Vowinckel Eberswalder Straße 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Lößnitzstraße 21, 01097 Dresden, Germany Germany [email protected] [email protected] PD Dr. habil. Ulrich Walz PD Dr. habil. Irene Ring Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Regional Development, Weberplatz 1, – UFZ, , Dept. of Economics, Permoserstraße 15, 01217 Dresden, Germany 04318 Leipzig, Germany [email protected] [email protected] Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Wende Matthias Rosenberg Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Head of Research Area Regional Development, Weberplatz 1, Landscape Change and Management, 01217 Dresden, Germany Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden, Germany [email protected] and Technische Universität Dresden, Chair Urban Achim Schäfer Development, Zellescher Weg 17, 01062 Dresden, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität Greifswald, Germany Lehrstuhl für Allgemeine Volkswirtschaftslehre und Landschaftsökonomie, Soldmannstraße 15, 17487 Greifswald, Germany [email protected] 1 1

Ecosystem Services (ES): More Than Just a Vogue Term? K. Grunewald and O. Bastian

K. Grunewald, O. Bastian (eds.), Ecosystem Services – Concept, Methods and Case Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-44143-5_1, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 2 Chapter 1 • Ecosystem Services (ES): More than Just a Vogue Term?

“Western civilization [is] the union of exquisitely analogous to the study of vegetation, where Tüxen 1 sophisticated crowning achievements and a saw natural vegetation as the integral that charac- nervous, senselessly extravagant consumption.” terised the totality of growth conditions at a given Peter Høeg: Miss Smilla’s Feeling for Snow. site (Tüxen 1956). In two points in particular, the ES approach dif- During the 1990s, with the increasing demands fers from the concept of natural spatial potential of humankind upon the limited resources of the and landscape functions, previously established earth, and in view of the growing burdens upon particularly in the German-speaking area; this has the balance of nature, manifested, too, in biodiver- strongly emphasised the concept of landscape ecol- sity loss and in the problem complex of energy and ogy (Grunewald and Bastian 2010): the climate, the concept of ecosystem services (ES) 55 First, ES evaluation is expressly anthropocen- entered into the international environmental dis- tric, i.e. with regard to human quality of life. cussion (e.g. de Groot 1992; Daily 1997; Costanza 55 Second, the different functions, goods and ser- et al. 1997). Important milestones included the vices of nature, which often constitute ‘public Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005), goods’, are measured (if possible) with the aid The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity of a single standard that integrates the interests studies (‘TEEB studies’; TEEB 2009), the RUBI- of the ecology, of the economy, and of social CODE project (Rationalising Biodiversity Con- sustainability. For this purpose, a monetary servation in Dynamic Ecosystems; e.g. Luck et al. valuation is the proposed goal to be achieved 2009), the EASAC policy report (Ecosystem Ser- by means of a methodological mixture of di- vices and Biodiversity in Europe; EASAC 2009) and rect and indirect market evaluation (Costanza the Strategic Plan for 2011–2020 adopted at the 10th et al. 1997). However, there are still serious Conference of the Parties of the Convention on points of criticism with regard to a market- Biodiversity (CBD 2010) in Nagoya (October 18–29, like evaluation of non-market related assets 2010), which used the term ecosystem services some (e.g. Spangenberg and Settele 2010; Schröter 200 times. et al. 2014), as a result of which there has re- The significance of the concept of ES is to en- cently been a tendency to move away from able greater account to be taken for the ecologi- the concept of evaluating ES primarily or even cal services–the services provided to us by nature, exclusively in monetary terms, and towards free of charge–in decision-making processes, and using a broader spectrum of indicators instead to ensure sustainable land use, in order to coun- (UNEP-WCMC 2011). ter overconsumption and degradation of the natural conditions of life. The attractiveness of the ES In the business community, too, there is growing re- concept is based on its integrative, interdisciplinary alisation that scarcity of natural resources, reduced and transdisciplinary character, as well as its link- biodiversity and the degradation of ES not only ing of environmental and socio-economic elements bear a growing level of risk for companies, inves- (Müller and Burkhard 2007). tors, banks and insurance companies, but also that The ES concept is not, however, entirely new; solving these problems may open up opportunities the ecology movement had at an early date laid the of great financial significance. Leading companies foundations for it (e.g. Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1974; are increasingly realising that the maintenance and Westman 1977). The fact that nature and/or eco- protection of nature is not merely a marginal issue, systems provide free services to humankind, e.g. nor is it something that can be dealt with by the the decomposition of matter, the balance of water commitment of volunteers. Rather, biodiversity and runoff, or the production of oxygen, has long been ES must be firmly rooted in their business models known (Graf 1984). We may recall that Bobek and and core strategies, as a key precondition for ensur- Schmithüsen (1949) introduced the concept of ‘po- ing sustainable growth and success (BESWS 2010). tential’ (7 Chap. 2), as the ‘spatial arrangement of Seeing nature as a productive force–along naturally provided possibilities for development’, with capital and labour–makes the ES approach 3 Ecosystem Services (ES): More than Just a Vogue Term? 1 relevant for the public, government decision- makers and administrative bodies (. Fig. 1.1). Ac- cordingly, the economic sciences have for some years made an effort to develop methods to permit ecosystems and the changes in them to be evaluated economically. In resource economics, the concepts of ‘external effects’ and ‘economic total value’ have been created for this purpose. Especially, if the efforts for so-called ‘total environmental economic calculation’ have to date met with little success, especially in Germany, Schweppe-Kraft (2010 ) has nonetheless summed up the situation as follows:

“The economic evaluation of ecosystem services, including existence, option and bequest values, conceptually permits the complete ascertainment of the effects of land-use and biotope changes upon societal welfare”. . Fig. 1.1 Nature conservation and economy–a new alliance? Ecosystem Services (ES) describe the services rendered by nature and used by humankind. According to the MEA on ES has been shown dramatically by the example 2005, these are supporting services (such as of pollination by wild bees, upon which 15 to 30 % soil formation, photosynthesis), and following of US food production, with a total value of $30 bil- provisioning services (such as food), regula- lion, depends (Kremen 2005; EASAC 2009). tion services (such as erosion control) and Nonetheless, ascertaining the scope of ES and cultural services (such as landscape aesthet- the societal negotiation of its value priority, in- ics as basis of recreation and tourism). We cluding an economic assessment of its value, still recommend a trinomial classification, with faces numerous challenges. Numerous ES, such as provisioning, regulation and sociocultural the beneficial effects of biological diversity, have services; 7 Chap. 3.2), since these correspond been little investigated to date (Mosbrugger and with sustainability categories. Effects vitally Hofer 2008). In particular, there has been a lack necessary for human well-being are based on of quantitative systemic understanding, i.e. of com- these services, including provision with food, prehensive knowledge of the process interconnec- protection from natural hazards, with the tions. supply of clean water. Societal value creation ES is such a current, exciting, complex, integra- is to be weighted by means of the ES concept, tive, and open-end issue that numerous scientists and evaluated in part–but not entirely–mon- and practitioners worldwide have been involved etarily (cost-benefit calculations), so as to with it. . Figure 1.2 shows that the number of scien- promote commitment to the preservation of tific papers on ES in recent years has risen exponen- nature for economic reasons as well (Jessel et tially. There have been numerous attempts to index, al. 2009). quantify, and map ES. However, recent meta-analyses in that area (e.g., Elsasser and Meyerhoff 2007; Goldman et al. 2008; Feld et al. 2009; Jacobsen and At the latest since the study by Costanza et al. Hanley 2009; Seppelt et al. 2011; Brouwer et al. 2013) (1997), in which worldwide ES were calculated, have shown that there is as yet no comprehensive, their significance for humankind is no longer deni- generally accepted methodological system. able. The extent of the dependence of humankind 4 Chapter 1 • Ecosystem Services (ES): More than Just a Vogue Term?

1 The ES Concept has Received Considerable Recognition from the Scientific Community and from Political Decision-Makers

However, what that means locally landscape, environment, function, “One important challenge is to is usually not clear; in any case, space, time or value, from a num- quantitatively ascertain the biogeo- such labels as ‘the economisation ber of perspectives. The following chemical turnover processes which of conservation’, or ‘improvement quote from the Senate Commission drive global material cycles. These of the quality of life’ are misleading on Future Directions in Geoscience processes are called ‘ecosystem and short-sighted. In this context, of the German Research Foundation functions’ and ‘ecosystem ser- we will repeatedly be dealing with (DFG; cf. DFG 2011) shows some of vices’. They are of great significance complex, ambiguous terms, such the stumbling blocks: for humankind and for climate as ecosystem, service, capital, change”.

500 450 In the EU and Germany, biodiversity goals, i.e. 400 the goal of stopping the decline of biodiversity, have 350 not been achieved to date, which has had a nega- 300 tive effect on such services provided by ecosystems 250 as pollination services. Investigations have shown 200

No. of Papers 150 that without new policy approaches, the loss of 100 biodiversity will continue (PBL 2010). Everybody 50 realises that ‘in a prosperous world with approxi- 0 mately 7 billion people (2011), a powerful advance 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 of innovation must be initiated in order to secure Year ES and to make a resource-saving development

. Fig. 1.2 Growth in number of papers on ecosystem possible’ (WBGU 2011). services since 1990. The graph is based on searching ISI The Term Ecosystem web of science using the terms ecologicalor ecosystem service(s). Most ES-related papers were published in the goes back to the British biologist and plant journal Ecological Economics. (Source: Peterson 2010) ecologist Arthur George Tansley, who introduced it as a fundamental principle in the ecology (Tansley 1935). An ecosystem contains zz How Endangered are our Ecosystems? Why the structure of interrelationships of living are ES and Biodiversity Often Mentioned in beings to one another and to their inorganic the Same Breath? environment. In the less abstract sense, an The approximately 1300 participants in the ecosystem is characterised by its long-term international study MEA (2001–2005) reached the relationship (biocenosis) and its habitat (bio- conclusion that a sufficient supply of ES for future tope) (Ellenberg et al. 1992). Since Tansley, an generations cannot be assured, because ecosystems international interdisciplinary and transdis- are being changed, damaged, and transformed. In ciplinary ecosystem research community has a survey by the Austrian Forum for Science and emerged and has attempted to develop and the Environment, experts gave a largely nega- apply holistic and systemic concepts. Ecosys- tive assessment of the development of our habi- tem research is a conceptual approach with tats (‘Die Presse’, print version, 1.4.2010). Human which particularly natural scientists identify, use of nature is causing a death of species at 100 since analytic models of the structure and dy- to 1000 times the natural rate (Rockström et al. namics of spatial segments can be processed. 2009). 5 Ecosystem Services (ES): More than Just a Vogue Term? 1

Calls for Valuation of ES

‘We need strong awareness of the tion of Nature, in: umwelt aktuell, through their supply chains, and value of ecosystems and their ser- April 2010). that they need to plan for the vices. Moral appeals and alarmism ‘The loss of natural capital impact of new regulation’. (Colin are of little help to nature. What can (including ecosystems, biodiversity Melvin, Hermes Equity Ownership help counter species loss is effective and natural resources) has direct Services Ltd., in: Demystifying Mate- management of well networked and widespread negative effects riality: Hardwiring Biodiversity and protected areas, and new land-use on financial performance. Climate Ecosystem Services into Finance, models with synergy effects. Primar- change and the financial crisis UNEP-CEObriefing, October 2010). ily however, the economic value of suggest that significant systemic ‘Maybe the ecology move- ‘green infrastructure’ must at long risk requires coordinated policy ment shouldn’t always just ap- last be accorded recognition’. (Beate intervention. The financial markets pealed to people’s consciences, but Jessel, President of the German do not yet understand that many rather view the issue from the point Federal Agency for the Conserva- companies face specific risks from of view of the market economy’ disruptions of vital ecosystems (Ebert 2011).

Biodiversity or Biological Diversity, sometimes a lower number of species is favourable according to the Convention on Biological or sufficient, and sometimes a higher number. Diversity (CBD), means ‘the variability among Jessel (2011) describes the differences between living organisms from all sources including, the terms biodiversity and ES as follows: inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic 55 ES is broader than biodiversity (e.g. sociocul- ecosystems and the ecological complexes tural ES). of which they are part; this includes diver- 55 The perspectives are fundamentally different: sity within species, between species and of ES focuses on properties of ecosystems for the ecosystems’ (CBD 2010). According to this purpose of maintaining their services, whereas definition, which is binding under interna- biodiversity focuses on the number and char- tional law, biodiversity consists of the diversity acteristics of the biotic components of nature. of species, the diversity of ecosystems, and 55 The ES approach is more strongly anthropo- genetic diversity. centrically oriented. 55 The protection of biodiversity implicitly pre- supposes the preservation of variety in all Since the diversity of ecosystems, biotic associa- its components, and is hence fundamentally tions and landscapes are part of biodiversity, ES and statically oriented; for ES, by contrast, not all biodiversity are often mentioned in the same breath components of the ecosystem are in all cases (e.g. Ridder 2008; TEEB 2009). Biodiversity par- necessary in order to maintain services. ticularly supports the ‘functioning of ecosystems’; however, it can also be defined as an ES in its own “A planning guide for the loss of biological diver- right–the ecosystem service of providing biodiversity is difficult to define, due to the large number of sity. While both concepts overlap, they are in no species, the extreme difference of their significance sense identical. Undoubtedly, the continued loss of for the functioning of the ecosystem, and our huge biodiversity will also have an impact on ES; how- knowledge gaps” (WBGU 2011). The worldwide ever, generally, no simple, linear relationship can network of protected areas, which has been consid- be assumed (Giller and O’Donnovan 2002; IEEP erably expanded in recent decades (. Fig. 1.3), and 2009; Trepl 2012). For many ES evaluated, maxi- which is to be expanded further from the current mum possible biodiversity is not necessary; rather, 12 % of the world’s land area (+ 10 % of the maritime 6 Chapter 1 • Ecosystem Services (ES): More than Just a Vogue Term?

1,80,000 1 International Protected Areas 1,60,000

National Protected Areas 1,40,000

1,20,000

1,00,000

80,000

60,000

40,000 Total number of protected areas number of protected Total 20,000

0 1911 1916 1921 1926 1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 Year

. Fig. 1.3 Growth in number of nationally and internationally designated protected areas (1911–2011). © IUCN and UNEP- WCMC. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA): February 2012 (7 http://www.wdpa.org/Statistics.aspx, assessed on 9.1.2014)

area) to 17 % by 2020 (CBD 2010), will certainly Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on have a positive effect on ES and biodiversity, but has Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) of not been able to halt, much less reverse, the rate of the UN was established, as analogous to the Inter- loss with respect to most biodiversity parameters, governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). especially species development and habitat condi- Building upon the above-mentioned MEA 2005, tions (. Fig. 1.4). For this reason, the focus will in the European Commission funded an interna- future be increasingly upon issues of ‘sustainable tional project for assessing ‘The Economics of land use’ on more or less intensively managed areas Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB 2009), which of land. recommended taking into account the economic Clearly, even though humankind has since value of biodiversity in decision-making processes, time immemorial used the services of the ecosys- accounting and reporting, in order to ensure the tems and landscapes, and experts are increasingly sustainable use and preservation of ES. This recom- conscious of the value of the natural processes in mendation was proclaimed at the 10th Conference ecosystems, society is still far from any general ac- of the Parties to the CBD in Nagoya, Japan, in the ceptance of these facts, and from any action to be autumn of 2010, as a key point for the strategic plan derived from them. for the coming decade. The EU biodiversity target for 2020 is, among zz Political Backgrounds and Stipulations other things, to contribute to Action 5 of the Bio- The preservation and improvement of ES are re- diversity Strategy, ‘Improving knowledge of ecosys- quired not only by the EU’s targets for sustainable tems and their services in the EU’: growth and for climate protection and climate adaptation, but also by economic, spatial and social “Member States, with the assistance of the Com- contexts; moreover, they serve to protect Europe’s mission, will map and assess the state of ecosys- cultural heritage. The great political relevance of tems and their services in their national territory ES is shown, e.g. by the fact that in June 2010, the 7 Ecosystem Services (ES): More than Just a Vogue Term? 1

Population Index 1970 = 100 120

Terrestrial Index 100

Marine Index 80

Freshwater Index 60

40 Living Planet Index

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

. Fig. 1.4 Global Living Planet Index 1970–2000, aggregated by terrestrial, freshwater, and marine indices. © World Wide Fund for Nature and UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre by 2014, assess the economic value of such ser- Many practical problems, such as how to perform a vices, and promote the integration of these values comprehensive and full coverage calculation of ES, into accounting and reporting systems at EU and remain unsolved. national level by 2020.” (EC 2011) The goal of taking the role of ecosystems and ES into account in all future decision-making pro- Behind the targets set by various policy levels is cesses is, however, also viewed critically, due to the the fact that in view of the virtually unhampered fear that it will come into conflict with the goals worldwide loss of biodiversity, and the growing an- of deregulation and the simplification of decision- thropogenic load upon ecosystems, it is ever more making. For example, certain interest groups want urgent to control the multifarious and increasing no additional restrictions on business and transport demands on our limited resources and to ensure infrastructures, e.g. in the context of the expansion sustainable land use (see above). In future, ES and of long-distance power lines needed for renewable biodiversity are to be taken into account in all de- energies. The Federal Council (the upper house of cision-making processes (EC 2011). However, do the German Parliament) has therefore made an ap- we have available to us the necessary knowledge peal not to call into question the foundations of the and an appropriate methodological toolkit? To harmony of ecology, economy and social interests date there is a lack of indicators and instruments as the worldwide approved goals of a sustainability for the integration of ES that could be broadly ap- strategy (Bundesrat 2011). It is therefore important plied at the national and regional levels, so that ES to ascertain the resilience of the ES concept as a pil- are still difficult to appropriately be taken into ac- lar of policy-making, and to provide substantiation count in political decision-making processes. Both for the advantages of the integration of ES assess- the monetary and the spatially explicit analysis of ment in decision-making. potential and existing ES have proven to be very A number of projects in various countries, in- time-consuming, high-effort tasks (Kienast 2010). cluding in Europe, are currently involved in the 8 Chapter 1 • Ecosystem Services (ES): More than Just a Vogue Term?

process of the inventory and evaluation of ES, in- ES can be spatially concretised and introduced into 1 cluding the UK National Ecosystem Assessment regional and national planning processes. Analo- (UKNEA 2011), or the study ‘Indicators for Eco- gously, linkage concepts between government and system Services: Systematics, Methodology and finance will be raised (7 Chap. 5). Implementation Recommendations for a Welfare- We can choose among four different perspec- Related Environmental Reporting System’, by the tives for the practical integration and communica- Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU tion of ES: the ecosystemic perspective, the service 2011). The German Federal Ministry for the En- related perspective, the spatial perspective, and vironment (BMU) and the Federal Agency for the stakeholder perspective. Of these, the spatial the Conservation of Nature (BfN) have, under and stakeholder perspectives are more typical for the heading ‘TEEB Germany’, implemented a re- the political decision-making processes (Haines- search project to systematically ascertain ES at the Young and Potschin 2010; Grünwald 2011; Wende national level and develop an economic accounting et al. 2012). Planning processes that incorporate ES system for it, to an extent (TEEB DE 2012; Hedden- from these perspectives will primarily address the Dunkhorst et al. 2014). following key issues: The complex issue of ES is being addressed by 55 Which ES in the territory are important for scientists from a wide variety of disciplines; their human well-being? approaches, terminologies and methodologies are 55 What is the source of the ES (local or from accordingly variegated, sometimes to the point of outside of the planning area)? causing misunderstandings. For example: what 55 Which actors depend upon these services, and does the ‘service capacity of nature’, what does ‘nat- with what kind of capacity (local or from out- ural capital’ mean? What is the difference between side of the planning area)? potential, functional and service approaches? 55 Which value and which priority does each ser- Which services of nature should we analyse, and vice have (is replacement or exchange possible; how should we evaluate them? Can all services re- reference of the service from elsewhere)? ally be quantified or even monetarised? 55 How can management and other activities In the following chapters, these problems will improve the services (especially positive or be raised and discussed. The concept of ES will be negative effects upon other services)? explained, terminology elucidated, categories pre- 55 Who benefits from management and activity sented and methodological framework for analysis options and measures? and evaluation of ES in its facets shown, and represented on the basis of case studies and applicability. The Task of Analysis and Evaluation of ES The primary point is to gain a better understanding The concept of ecosystem services (ES) is increas- of systemic context and dynamics between natural ingly determining the debate over the issues of capital, ecosystem structures and processes, ecosys- biodiversity and sustainable land use. ES can be tem services/welfare effects of various scales, and ascertained with the methods of a variety of scien- in the context of multiple drivers. For that purpose, tific disciplines in order to develop the term into a approaches of complexity research, the work of usable evaluations standard for policy-makers. For various levels and scales, and the approximation of dealing with the problem of ES, a well-founded and various perspectives will be used. . Figure 1.5 shows broadly accepted conceptual framework will be the various levels that are to be addressed and dis- necessary. Clear terminology is especially impor- cussed in the following chapters. The conceptual tant. Currently, the main issue is the development considerations are compiled at the end in a Guide of methods for the ascertainment and evaluation for analysis and evaluation of ES (7 Chap. 7.1). of the endangerment, and procedures for preserva- The focus will be on the central European area, tion/restoration of ES, and also the demonstration and the existing system of ecological spatial plan- of ‘public acceptance’ for the concept of ES, with ning in Germany. Among the questions this raises its possibilities and limitations, and, if necessary, will be that of how the societal or macroeconomic its integration into planning and decision-making use of measures for the improvement of quantifiable processes. 9 References 1

conflict level driving forces risks moderation factual level DPSIR-approach decision level data pool institutional, economic, analysis indicators social, and legal framework accuracy stakeholder

assessment value level ES model level valorisation planning key parameters monetarisation system connections questioning complexity valuation approach of ES potentials

space level time level dimension land-use scenarios hierarchy landscape development range environmental change scales dynamics

. Fig. 1.5 Scheme of an approach to ES (multi-level approach), including both multiple socio-economic and scientific methods, numerous interdisciplinary technical terms (incomplete selection) © Karsten Grunewald

Central to the ES approach is the issue: what BESWS–Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Work Stream (2010) Demystifying materiality: hardwiring biodiversity are human use demands with regard to the ser- and ecosystem services into finance. UNEP FI CEO Brief- vices which nature provides, and how can these ing, Genève demands be made visible and integrated into BfN–Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2007) Die Lage der biolo- rational activity? Will we be better able, with the ES gischen Vielfalt 2. Globaler Ausblick. Naturschutz und concept, to communicate the importance of nature biologische Vielfalt, Heft 44, Bonn Bobek H, Schmithüsen J (1949) Die Landschaft im logischen for humankind, and to better take it into account, System der Geographie. Erdkunde 3:112–120 when balancing it against other goals? How can ES Brouwer R, Brander L, Kuik O, Papyrakis E, Bateman I (2013) A be secured, developed further, and protected from synthesis of approaches to assess and value ecosystem derogation? services in the EU in the context of TEEB. TEEB follow-up study for Europe. University Amsterdam Bundesrat (2011) Lebensversicherung und Naturkapital: Eine Biodiversitätsstrategie der EU für das Jahr 2020. Druck- References sache 309/11 vom 25.5.11, Berlin CBD–Convention on Biological Biodiversity (2010) Global BAFU–Bundesamt für Umwelt (2011) Indikatoren für Biodiversity Outlook 3. CBD Secretariat, Montreal Ökosystemleistungen. Systematik, Methodik und Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon Umsetzungsempfehlungen für eine wohlfahrtsbezo- B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J et al (1997) gene Umweltberichterstattung. Herausgegeben vom The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural Bundesamt für Umwelt BAFU, Bern capital. Nature 387:253–260 10 Chapter 1 • Ecosystem Services (ES): More than Just a Vogue Term?

Daily G (ed) (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on economic accounting (V1). Report to the European 1 natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DC Environment Agency DFG–Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (2011) DFG-Se Hedden-Dunkhorst B, Braat L, Wittmer H, Hundorf J, Hen- natskommission für Zukunftsaufgaben, 10.4–Struktur, driks K, Rizzotti N, Grunewald K, Panis J, Erhard M, Singh Funktion und Dynamik von Ökosystemen. 7www. R, Bradburne R, Kümper-Schlake L, Hu L, Rančić IP (2014) sk-zag.de/10.4_Struktur_Funktion_und_Dynamik_von_ TEEB Country Studies–Implementation, Integration and Oekosystemen.html. Accessed 29 Dec 2011 Utilisation. Policy Brief. 7 http://www.teebweb.org/ EASAC–European Academies Science Advisory Council wp-content/uploads/2013/12/TEEB__Policy_Brief_Vilm_ (2009) Ecosystem services and biodiversity in Europe. Workshop_May_2013.pdf EASAC policy report 09, Cardiff IEEP–Institute for European Environmental Policy, Alterra, Ebert V (2011) Machen Sie sich frei. Rowohlt Taschenbuch Ecologic, PBL–Netherland Environmental Assessment Verlag, Reinbek Agency und UNEP-WCMC (2009) Scenarios and models Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH (1974) The end of affluence. Ballantine for exploring future trends of biodiversity and eco- Books, New York system services change. Final report to the European Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Düll R, Wirth V, Werner W, Paulißen D Commission, DG Environment on Contract ENV.G.1/ (1992) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa, 3. Aufl. ETU/2008/0090r Scripta Geobotanica 18, Göttingen Jacobsen JB, Hanley N (2009) Are there income effects on Elsasser P, Meyerhoff J (2007) A bibliography and data base on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation? environmental benefit valuation studies in Austria, Ger- Environ Resource Econ 43:137–160 many and Switzerland, Part I: Forestry studies. Arbeits Jessel B (2011) Ökosystemdienstleistungen. In: BBN (ed) bericht Institut für Ökonomie, 2007/01, Hamburg Frischer Wind und weite Horizonte. Jb Natursch Land- European Commission (EC) (2011) Our life insurance, our schaftspfl 58:72–87 natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Jessel B, Tschimpke O, Waiser M (2009) Produktivkraft Natur. Communication from the Commission to the European Hoffmann und Campe, Hamburg Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Com- Kienast F (2010) Landschaftsdienstleistungen: ein taug- mittee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, liches Konzept für Forschung und Praxis? Forum für 3.5.2011. 7 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ Wissen:7–12 biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_ Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we v7%5B1%5D.pdf need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479 Feld CK, da Silva PM, Sousa JP, de Bello F, Bugter R, Grandin Luck GW, Harrington R, Harrison PA, Kremen C, Berry PM, U, Hering D, Lavorel S, Mountford O, Pardo I, Pärtel M, Bugter R, Dawson TP, de Bello F, Dia S, Feld CK, Haslett Römbke J, Sandin L, Jones KB, Harrison P (2009) Indica- JR, Hering D, Kontogianni A, Lavorel S, Rounsevell M, tors of biodiversity and ecosystem services: A synthesis Samways MJ, Sandin L, Settele J, Sykes MT, Van de Hove across ecosystems and spatial scales. Oikos 118:1862–1871 S, Vandewalle M, Zobel M (2009) Quantifying the con- Giller PS, O’Donnovan G (2002) Biodiversity and ecosystem tribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem function: Do species matter? Biol Environ Proc Royal services. Bioscience 59:223–235 Irish Acad 102B:128–138 MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystem Goldman RL, Tallis H, Kareiva P, Daily GC (2008) Field and human well-being: scenarios, vol 2. Island Press, evidence that ecosystem service projects support Washington biodiversity and diversify options. Proc Natl Acad Sci Mosbrugger V, Hofer H (eds) (2008) Biodiversitätsforschung USA 105:9445–9448 in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft: Eine nationale Aufgabe. Graf D (1984) Gratisleistungen und Gratiseffekte. In: Graf D Leibniz-Gemeinschaft, Bonn, 48 pp (ed) Ökonomie und Ökologie der Naturnutzung. Gustav Müller F, Burkhard B (2007) An ecosystem based framework Fischer, Jena, pp 42–45 to link landscape structures, functions and services. de Groot RS (1992) Functions of nature: evaluation of nature In: Mander Ü, Wiggering H, Helming K (eds) Multifunc- in environmental planning, management and decision tional land use–meeting future demands for landscape making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen goods and services. Springer, Berlin, pp 37–64 Grünwald A (2011) Zukunft Landschaftsplan. Perspektiven PBL–Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2010) einer methodischen Weiterentwicklung unter Anwen Rethinking global biodiversity strategies. Exploring dung des Konzepts der Ökosystemdienstleistungen. structural changes in production and consumption to Masterarbeit, TU Dresden reduce biodiversity loss. PBL, Biltvoven Grunewald K, Bastian O (2010) Ökosystemdienstleistungen Peterson G (2010) Growth of ecosystem services concept. analysieren–begrifflicher und konzeptioneller Rahmen 7 http://rs.resalliance.org/2010/01/21/growth-of-ecosys- aus landschaftsökologischer Sicht. GEOÖKO 31:50–82 tem-services-concept/. Accessed 10 April 2012 Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) Proposal for a common Ridder B (2008) Questioning the ecosystem services argu- international classification of ecosystem goods and ment for biodiversity argumentation. Biodivers Conserv services (CICES) for integrated environmental and 17:781–790 11 References 1

Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin III FS, of local landscape plans. Landsc Res 37:483–500 doi:10.1 Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhu- 080/01426397.2011.592575 ber H, Nykvist B, De Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw Westman W (1977) How much are nature’s services worth? S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Science 197:960–964 Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker BH, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen C, Foley J (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472–475 Schröter M, van der Zanden EH, van Oudenhoven APE, Remme RP, Serna-Chavez HM, de Groot RS, Opdam P (2014) Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conserv Lett. doi:10.1111/conl.12091 Schweppe-Kraft B (2010) Ökosystemdienstleistungen: ein Ansatz zur ökonomischen Bewertung von Natur. Local land & soil news 34/35 II/10, The Bulletin of the European Land and Soil Alliance (ELSA) e. V., pp 11–14 Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48:630–636 Spangenberg JH, Settele J (2010) Precisely incorrect? Mon- etising the value of ecosystem services. Ecol Complex 7:327–337 Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16:284–307 TEEB DE–Naturkapital Deutschland (2012) Der Wert der Natur für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft–Eine Einführung. München: Ifu-Plan; Leipzig: Helmholtz-Zentrum für Um- weltforschung–UFZ; Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz TEEB–The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2009) An interim report. Europ. Comm., Brussels (7 www. teebweb.org) Trepl L (2012) Biodiversitätsbasierte Ökosystemdienstleis- tungen. 7 www.scilogs.de/chrono/blog/landschaft- oekologie/biodiversitat-und-aussterben/2012–02-20/ biodiversit-tsbasierte-kosystemdienstleitungen. Accessed 22 Feb 2012 Tüxen R (1956) Die heutige potentielle natürliche Vegetation als Gegenstand der Vegetationskartierung. Ange- wandte Pflanzensoziologie 13:5–42 UKNEA–UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) Synthesis of the key findings. Information Press, Oxford UNEP-WCMC–World Conservation Monitoring Centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (2011) Devel- oping ecosystem service indicators: experiences and lessons learned from bus-global assessments and other initiatives. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD Technical Series 58 WBGU–Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung. Globale Umweltveränderungen (2011) Welt im Wandel: Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation, Berlin Wende W, Wojtkiewicz W, Marschall I, Heiland S, Lipp T, Reinke M, Schaal P, Schmidt C (2012) Putting the plan into practice: implementation of proposals for measures 13 2

Development and Fundamentals of the ES Approach

2.1 Key Terms – 14 K. Grunewald and O. Bastian

2.2 ES in Retrospect – 19 K. Mannsfeld and K. Grunewald

2.3 Values and Services of Nature for Humans – 25 K. Grunewald and O. Bastian

References – 31

K. Grunewald, O. Bastian (eds.), Ecosystem Services – Concept, Methods and Case Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-44143-5_2, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 14 Chapter 2 • Development and Fundamentals of the ES Approach

2.1 Key Terms to the choice of the metaphorical term ‘service’, which is subject to natural and legal persons in the K. Grunewald and O. Bastian national economy as well as in the daily linguistic 2 usage, which provides the services (‘Nature as a ser- “We know the price of everything and the value of vice provider’). Services or goods always have a spe- nothing (adapted from Oscar Wilde).” cific purpose, usually according to an individual’s requirement. Nature exerts negative effects on hu- Despite, or perhaps because of the wide distribution mans (so-called disservices), for example volcanic and almost inflationary use of the ES term there is eruptions, earthquakes, floods, or avalanches. no question that a clear and uncontroversial, uni- In the current scientific literature, mainly the versally accepted definition does not exist. For ex- following definitions of ES are cited: ES are the con- ample, what distinguishes the service of an arable ditions and processes through which natural eco- land from the service of a natural ecosystem? What systems and the species they represent, sustain and are the limitations of what we may call ‘service’? fill human life (Daily 1997); advantage or benefit What is an ecosystem property of the underlying of ecological systems for humans (Costanza et al. service? What do we mean by a potential and what 1997b; MEA 2005) or direct and indirect contribu- is meant by a function? tions of ecosystems to human well-being (de Groot In the context of an integrative ES concept, it is et al. 2010). important to create a concept system, similarly un- Other authors explicitly differentiate between derstood and accepted by economics, ecology, and ES and the benefits from these, for example, Boyd sociology, by scientists, practitioners, and policy- and Banzhaf (2007): ‘Benefits = the welfare the makers. That this only partly succeeded is partly services generate’. According to Boyd and Banzhaf due to the distinct subject-specific names (delim- (2007) ES are ‘ecological components’ in physical itation of a field of knowledge through technical terms (not monetarily measurable). The authors ar- terms). On the other hand, there are differences gue things or characteristics as well as end products between regional common definitions and their of nature (i.e. in fact ‘goods’) that are consumed contents. An example of this is the concept of func- directly or that can be enjoyed and produce human tion, which is described in German as the service of well-being. They complain that many of the ser- the ecosystem for humans (Bastian and Schreiber vices mentioned by Daily (1997) or the Millennium 1994), but is mostly used in English as ‘functioning’ Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) are ecosystem of the ecosystem (see below). processes in fact. The simultaneous use of the terms As the environmental debate presently as far is functions and services, without clarity to define largely determined by climate change and energy both and to distinguish from each other, is not un- policy issues in Central Europe, the concept of sus- common (e.g. Vejre 2009; Willemen et al. 2008). tainable development is overlayed by the ecosys- The definitions have in common that ES are tem service term (definition, 7 Chap. 1). The term always defined by the societal view on the ecosys- ecosystem service was introduced by Ehrlich and tem, biophysical processes, and functions (Fisher Ehrlich (1981) respectively Ehrlich and Mooney et al. 2009). However, the authors provide different (1983). Probably in the knowledge of the, inter alia, views on how functions and ES can be differenti- by Neef (1966) and Haase (1978) developed ap- ated analytically and how they can be heuristically proach of ‘natural potential’, van der Maarel and distinguished between ES and the benefits or the colleagues designed in the Netherlands a ‘global- value of ES (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Wallace 2007; ecological model’ (van der Maarel and Dauvellier Costanza 2008; Fisher et al. 2009; Loft and Lux 1978), which later was further developed to the ES 2010). Following and in particular in the context concept (Albert et al. 2012) by de Groot (1992) and of the case studies (7 Sect. 6.1), common features working groups in the USA (Daily 1997). and definitional boundaries of the ES term and its The ES concept has the political agenda to foster content will be further specified in relation to bio- awareness in society in regards to the position and diversity and sustainability. importance of the environment. This corresponds 15 2.1 • Key Terms 2 zz Ecosystem (Nature, Resources and One difficulty is to separate methodologically Landscape) explicitly between services of nature (ecosystem With focus on ‘nature’, the ecosystem term (defini- processes, natural capital) and activities of humans tion, 7 Chap. 1) has been established in the inter- (means of production, technological processes, national ES debate. The term ‘nature services’, pro- human capital). Therefore Matzdorf and Lorenz posed by Westman (1977), did not gain acceptance. (2010) use the term ‘environmental services’, as the An important basis for the ecosystem concept realisation of benefits (e.g. crops, biomass) of cul- was developed in the context of a major research tural shaped ecosystems (arable land, grassland) in project carried out in West Germany in the 1960s addition to the ecological processes human work under the influence of a crisis, which was in rela- and artificial matter input (farming, fertilisation, tion to the forest dieback in the Central German maintenance, etc.) is required. mountain ranges. The ‘Solling Project’ carried out From landscape ecology and landscape plan- in Lower Saxony under the leadership of Heinz El- ning the term landscape services was introduced lenberg (1973) examined the structures, functions, into the discussion (Termorshuizen and Opdam and processes of a Central European beech forest. 2009; Grunewald and Bastian 2010; Kienast 2010; Since then the ecosystem has been understood as an Hermann et al. 2011; Albert et al. 2012), among oth- interactive structure between organisms and the en- ers, to assess better the spatial relationships of ES vironment, which is open to other systems, but dif- or cultural landscapes with their characteristic ele- fers from these in terms of its own structures and its ments (7 Sect. 3.4). In this regard, the question of the own composition (Haber 2004; Nentwig et al. 2004; usefulness of a further term is not entirely unjusti- Steinhardt et al. 2011). Therefore, structures and fied, especially as the decades-long and sometimes processes of the earth system at different levels of controversial running discussions on landscape scale play the main role in the ecosystem approach. cannot be overlooked and today there remains no However, the resource term in the strictest sense unanimity regarding the content and application of includes raw materials and energy, whereas in a the landscape concept, but there are quite differ- broader sense the natural basis of human life, such ent patterns of interpretation. Thus, landscape can as air, water, soil, flora, fauna, and the interactions be understood as a territorial entity a ‘manageable between them. The latter correspond to the (envi- space’, which can be seen as positivistic (landscape ronmental) protection goods of nature protection as an ecosystem complex; e.g. Neef 1967), and con- in accordance with § § 1 and 10 of the German Fed- structivistic (as an aesthetic phenomenon or even eral Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG 2009). mental construct; Leibenath and Gailing 2012) or Natural resources are divided into renewable and as a space of action (Blotevogel 1995, Kirchhoff et non-renewable. There is a differentiation from the al. 2012). ES concept that focuses in general only on renew- According to the MEA 2005, a landscape is able resources (MEA 2005; 7 Chap. 1). typically composed of a number of different eco- As a metaphor for biotic and abiotic compo- systems, each generate a whole bundle of different nents of the earth, the term natural capital is used. ES. Therefore, it is justified to identify landscapes In a broader sense, ecosystems, biodiversity, and with similar or alike overall character (or to use as natural resources are included therein (BESWS reference units) in order to interpret their condi- 2010). Thereby the connection between nature and tions for effective and at the same time sustainable economy and the generation of values for human use by society (Bernhardt et al. 1986; Hein et al. society due to the condition and processes of na- 2006; TEEB 2010). ture should be expressed. Natural capital provides Also, new terms such as ‘Green or Blue infra- as capital in kind a stock for services (Common and structure’ finally mean properties, functions, or Stagl 2005). ES can be regarded as components of services that are provided through a network of natural capital. The latter can be partially replaced suitable ecosystems, with a particular focus on the by work performance (e.g. water treatment), which connectivity. is associated with economic costs. 16 Chapter 2 • Development and Fundamentals of the ES Approach

zz Potentials of Nature and Ecosystems international preferred term is ‘capacity’ of ecosys- The ‘geographical concept of potential’ was in- tems (to sustain a specific function) (e.g. Führer troduced in the German literature by Bobek and 2000; Burkhard et al. 2012). 2 Schmithüsen as early as 1949, initially as a ‘spatial ‘Land-use suitability’ on the other hand, focuses arrangement of naturally provided possibilities more on a certain use claim, which is considered for development’. The technical literature more- primarily in societal, less in scientific terms. To de- over contains such concepts as ‘natural potential’ termine land-use suitability, reference to the type (Langer 1970; Buchwald 1973) and ‘natural perfor- of land use is definitely necessary (Niemann 1982). mance power’ (Buchwald 1973); Lüttig and Pfeiffer According to Messerli (1986), land use represents a (1974) drew ‘maps of nature potentials’ (for related ‘decisive hinge position between societal and natu- attempts Durwen 1995 and Leser 1997). In botany, ral processes (. Fig. 2.4, 7 Chap. 6), … by mediating the term ‘potential’ appeared in the form of ‘poten- as a link between processes in the socio-economic tial natural vegetation’, which was an integral used and natural systems. It enables the transfer of pro- to indicate the totality of growth conditions at a cesses of an economic, social and cultural nature, given site (Tüxen 1956). which are describable in factual dimensions, to By making natural landscape potentials scientific spatial dimensions, thus making them relevant categories and having them ascertained according to ecologically, and in a reversed direction, of ecologi- specific parameters of natural processes, they can be cal, aesthetic and emotional information to society’. distinguished from natural resources, which repre- Land-use suitability can be seen ‘potentially’ (‘use sent an economic category (Mannsfeld 1983). Haase possibility’), e.g. the suitability of a field or a land- (1973, 1978) offered a way out of this hardly manage- scape for maize cultivation (without having maize able complexity by suggesting that instead of a sum- actually being cultivated there at present), or an ex- mary energy standard for a theoretically conceivable isting maize field can be assessed as to whether it is overall potential specific factors (properties, indica- really suitable for such use, e.g. maize cultivation tors) should be addressed in a particular case, and might involve intolerable risks. so-called partial natural spatial potentials defined This is illustrated in . Fig. 2.1 exemplarily. with a clear focus on more specific socio-economic Thanks to the fertile loess soil, the Lommatzscher or societal goals and basic functions. These would Pflege landscape in Saxony not only has the po- include for example biotic yield potentials and regu- tential for productive agriculture, but that potential latory potentials, water supply and disposal poten- has in fact long been used, so that it fulfils a societal tials, and construction and recreational potentials. function (or provides ES). However, the increasing The ‘concept of potential’ assesses nature’s gifts from intensification, particularly the expansion of rape- the point of view of the potential user, by means of a seed and maize cultivation, is giving rise to conflicts, primarily scientific mode of operation. It elaborates e.g. with regard to protection of the soil and water the service capacities of an ecosystem or physical (erosion, eutrophication), species and biotope pro- landscape as a field of options available to society for tection (reduction of biodiversity), and the value use, and also to take into account resilience, which of the landscape as an experience (monotony). The limits or may even exclude certain intended uses hill fortification of Zschaitz, which was already set- (Grunewald and Bastian 2010). tled during the early Iron Age (800–500 B.C.), and Parallel to that, van der Maarel (1978) and La- refortified once more during the tenth century AD, haye et al. (1979) in the Netherlands addressed is not suitable for agriculture–although it is at pres- ‘landscape potencies’, which might contribute to ent so used–since soil removal is severely damaging the fulfilment of certain societal needs (!). The term this nationally significant archaeological site. Since, ‘potential’ is also found e. g. in Bierhals (1988), Finke unlike the crops produced in this area, ideational (1994) and Durwen (1995), while e.g. Marks et al. or scientific values (or services) have no market, it (1992) and Leser (1997) prefer the terms ‘service ca- is difficult to gain acceptance for any restriction of pability’ or ‘capacity’ of the landscape balance. The agricultural use. 17 2.1 • Key Terms 2

. Fig. 2.1 The increasingly intensive use (= social function) of the fertile loess soils of Lommatzscher Pflege landscape in Saxony (high production potential) leads to an impairment of archaeological sites on the plateau of the hill fortification of Zschaitz by soil erosion © Olaf Bastian

zz Functions the determination of the multiple ecological, social, While potentials describe the possibility of the and economic functions of the landscape (multi- use of nature, the reality of the use of nature is ex- functionality) in their regional differentiation is the pressed in the functional concept. According to prerequisite for sustainable land use. The protec- this functional-spatial viewpoint, every part of the tion of efficacy and functionality is today provided earth’s surface fulfils societal functions. The Latin by, e. g. the German Federal Conservation Law and term ‘function’ (fungi) generally means ‘carrying the Federal Soil Protection Act. out’ ‘managing’ or ‘task’ or ‘activity’ (Brockhaus However, the term ‘function’ is not used uni- Encyclopaedia 1996). formly in the literature, frequently leading to ter- Thus, Speidel (1966) described the multifarious- minological uncertainties and misunderstandings ness of the functions of the forest, which benefit hu- (Jax 2005). Thus, a purely ecological interpretation mankind, and which go far beyond wood produc- is common, in the sense of ecosystemic ‘function- tion. Niemann later designed a methodology for ing’ or the ‘manner of function’, as a scientifically ascertaining the degree of functional performance determined organisation of structural-procedural of landscape elements and units (Niemann 1977, contexts (e.g. food chains and nutrient cycles; 1982). Preobrazhenski (1980) referred to the natu- cf. Forman and Godron 1986, where function is ral functions of landscape, De Groot (1992) gener- ‘the interactions among the spatial elements, that ally to ‘functions of nature’. In spatial and regional is, the flows of energy, materials, and species planning, functions are defined as ‘tasks which an among the component ecosystem’). In the TEEB area is to fulfil for the needs of life of the people’ study (TEEB 2009), functions are also regarded (ARL 1995). According to Wiggering et al. (2003), as purely ecological phenomena. According to 18 Chapter 2 • Development and Fundamentals of the ES Approach

Costanza et al. (1997b), and in the MEA (2005), Another example illustrates . Fig. 2.3: Due to functions can support ecosystem services (ES). For centuries of withdrawal of fallen conifer needles as Boyd and Banzhaf (2007), functions are ‘interme- straw for cattle stables (straw use: a function and 2 diate products’ of ES. Eliáš (1983) distinguished ES), the forest soils in question have been degraded, between two basic groups of functions: ecological accompanied by a reduction of its biotic yield po- functions (important for the existence of the eco- tential. Such forest forms have now become rare, systems, regardless of concrete societal use claims), and represent not only a habitat for animal and and social functions (which reflect societal needs). plant species in decline but also a valuable cultural- Additional imprecisions of definition appear in historical relict of past methods of economic use– the widespread blurring of the difference between with a potential for environmental education and function and potential. Thus, Marks et al. (1992) tourism that has hardly been utilised to date. refer to the ‘functions and potentials of the landscape balance’ without providing any logical, con- zz Governance of ES clusive differentiation between the two. De Groot Spatial distributions and socio-economic aspects et al. (2002) see ‘ecosystem functions’ as ‘the capac- are of particular interest for benefits and welfare ef- ity of natural processes and components to provide fects of ecosystems in the sense of the ES approach. goods and services which directly and/or indirectly This is reflected in . Fig. 2.4 on the one hand by the satisfy human needs’. change of land use and on the other by the delta of Petry (2001) sees the distinction between func- the incentive structures originated from the social tions and potentials as a discussion within German- side. Conceptually, the ecosystem structures and speaking, geographically oriented landscape ecolo- processes are related to ecology, the benefits and gy, which, while highlighting theoretical differences values to social and economic sciences. ES should in meaning, causes more confusion than clarity at be bridging both (for more details see 7 Sect. 3.1). the international level, and with regard to applica- The control and regulating system for ES is not tion. Mannsfeld too (in Bastian and Schreiber 1994) only dominated by the State, so that the term gover- noted: “A juxtaposition of the concept of natural nance comes into play. Governance refers not only landscape potentials as a structural aspect, and the to the structure and process organisation of gov- performancev possibilities of the ecosystemic func- ernment, administration, and community but also tional viewpoint based on the gifts of nature, … by private or public organisations (Ostrom 2011). shows that a sharp separation of the two approaches Governance processes take place at several levels is neither useful nor appropriate.” Here, however, and need to be coordinated through the institu- the objection is that it is not at all inconsequen- tions acting in accordance to the principles of (1) tial whether one refers to the capacity of ability to accountability, (2) responsibility, (3) openness and render socially utilisable services (the potential transparency of structures and processes, and (4) concept), or of its actual realisation, or the actual fairness (Ostrom 2011; 7 Sect. 5.4). rendering of such a service (the function concept). The difference between potential and function Ecosystem Services (ES) can be illustrated as follows, using an example: An ES has become established as a conceptual frame- undeveloped South Sea island might have a high work on the international stage. In German-speak- recreational potential; however, its recreational ing countries the conceptual system is oriented to function will only be fulfilled if it is actually discov- functions and ‘objects of protection’ of nature so far ered and visited by tourists. (BNatSchG 2009), so it should be adjusted and fur- . Figure 2.2 shows a coastal section (ecosystem ther developed. Although the distinction between and landscape) in Mecklenburg-Western Pomera- functions, services and benefits, is to be regarded nia. The recreational potential (possibility) is used as important especially for the economic evalu- by many tourists (realisation of the recreational ation, often no consistent classifications can be function), and contributes to the well-being of the made, because smooth transitions, overlaps, and visitors (beneficial relevance of ES). different interpretations of these terms exist. 19 2.2 • ES in Retrospect 2

. Fig. 2.2 Many visitors use the recovery potential of the Baltic Sea beach in Kühlungsborn–the potential has turned to ES. The visitors have benefits (recreation, health). The potential remains depending on the ecosystem structures and processes. © Karsten Grunewald

ES generate human well-being in combination from the functions and capabilities of the ecosys- with the means of production and human capital. tem, then it is important to consider the lengthy The largest welfare effect results from the opti- evolution of the basic concepts behind this modern mum interaction between them. Individual ES can terminology for a fundamental societal goal. First be replaced by technology and labour up to a cer- empirically and then increasingly systematically, tain extent. At a complete loss, the welfare effect humankind has experienced the benefits, poten- is equal to zero and human existence cannot be tials, and also the risks and hazards associated with maintained. Changes in the natural capital of any the use of nature, and, with increasing knowledge, kind lead to changes of costs or benefits for ensur- has begun to put these insights to use. ing human well-being. A holistic view of our ambient spatial structures as a synthesis of natural and societal processes is indispensable in order to fully grasp the entire 2.2 ES in Retrospect context of ecosystem services. The earliest signs for such a view can possibly be attributed to Ale K. Mannsfeld and K. Grunewald xander von Humboldt (1769–1859), who, by means of observation and measurement, sought to deter- zz Scientific-Historical Roots mine the ‘Totalcharakter’ (translating roughly as Currently, the concept of ecosystem services is one total character) of the region of the earth, and who of the central themes in the scientific and environ- therefore, in his later works, observed that only mental policy debates over the goal of preserving research that keeps the balance between speciali- our natural resources. If, as stated above, this term is sation and integration in nature as a whole could meant to encompass the benefits that society draws guarantee the desirable conditions for human life. 20 Chapter 2 • Development and Fundamentals of the ES Approach

“Hence, landscape ecology, although oriented toward the natural-scientific order of matter, must incorporate all factors which stem from the work 2 of humankind and which will impact the natural balance.”

In the decades after Humboldt’s death, the analyses and interpretations of his ‘total character of spatial phenomena on the Earth’s surface’ began to increasingly–albeit hesitantly–consider the factor humankind, and, conversely, recognise the positive and negative effects of natural factors on human desires for utilisation. However, it was a lengthy process for the research-historical uni- lateralism, which only considered anthropogenic effects in the landscape when they were clearly dependent on the balance of nature to be overcome, especially in geological and biological sciences. One milestone in overcoming this deterministic view with regard to the anthropogenic component in the real environment was the influence of late nineteenth-century economists on the theoretical conceptualisation of the footprint of humankind in nature and environment. They pointed out a problem in the then-accepted views of the . Fig. 2.3 Bizarre pines in the protected area Königs- relationships between humankind and nature, and brücke Heath, Saxony: Straw use has reduced the biotic should therefore be seen as ‘contributors’ to today’s yield potential but formed the potential for environmental education and tourism. © Olaf Bastian modern ES concepts. Specifically, they emphasised labour processes as the key factor in the interaction between humankind and nature, by which Hence, Humboldt’s basic concept of the character the necessary conditions for human existence of nature as a whole with reference to societal and were generated and upheld–entirely on the basis natural-scientific aspects is still a fundamental and of natural and environmental conditions. In this challenging question in the present day (Neef 1971). respect, we should mention not only Adam Smith, Only shortly thereafter, Ernst Haeckel (1866), Johann Heinrich von Thünen and others, but also who approached the issue from the biological point Karl Marx in particular. of view, coined the term ‘ecology’ to describe this Marx used the term ‘metabolism between so- ‘interaction’ between the animate and inanimate ciety and nature’ to describe the category under elements in nature; later, with Troll’s (1939) land- which he subsumed the role of humankind in with- scape ecology, the term would very consciously drawing those materials from the landscape which incorporate the inseparable links between the bio- were needed for its economic activity, so as to fulfil logical and the geological components of our en- the necessities of life. He wrote: vironment, by encompassing anthropogenic effect factors, and thus describing and emphasising the “Labour is, in the first place, a process in which systemic context, which the theory of landscape both man [sic] and Nature participate, and in ecology saw in the effective connection between which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and nature, technology, and society (Neef 1967, p. 41). controls the material re-actions between himself Neef describes this complex as follows: and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one 21 2.2 • ES in Retrospect 2

Land use

Ecosystem Use values Processes Services Benefits Values structures Nonuse Biodiversity Biodiversity Biodiversity Society Economics values

Social context Legal and institutional Ecology context

Economy

Incentive structures

. Fig. 2.4 Identification and evaluation of ES as well as integration into instruments and incentive structures. © Ring 2010 based on Brouwer et al. 2011 of her own forces.” (Marx 1867; 7 https://www. tect the forces of nature. His conceptual proximity marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07. to the instrument of compensation/offsetting the htm) impacts of human use of natural resources–which is still in use today–or the environmental impact In this context, he also pointed to the so-called assessment can hardly be overlooked. ‘free services’ of nature, which positively affected The key realisation upon which this history-of- the process of this metabolism. He noted that, as science oriented reflection is based is that if Marx’s a result of the effects of natural forces–i.e. with no metabolic process becomes critical, which is the labour effort–such services of nature as photosyn- case today on both local and global levels, the ef- thesis, pollination, groundwater recharging, etc. fects caused by use processes must be ascertained positively accompany this metabolism, and thus systematically and according to a number of differ- substitute for human activity. ent standards. Otherwise, given the continued over- We can credit Carl Ritter (1779–1859; quoted in taxing of nature’s ‘free services’ the healthy develop- Leser and Schneider-Sliwa 1999), with calling upon ment of ecosystems, i.e. a development subjected the predominant specialised research activities in to only low levels of disturbance and detrimental the geographic disciplines not to neglect the practi- interference, can no longer be guaranteed. In this cal interests of their results. Later, Alfred Hettner respect, it is no coincidence that the ES concept and (1859–1941) raised the postulate of a ‘practical geog- its numerous predecessors (see below) have placed raphy’ (Hettner 1927), the core statement of which the preservation of the precious forces of nature at was to evaluate and predict the effects of human im- the centre of their considerations. pacts and changes on the basis of knowledge of the With reference to the global character of the causal contexts of natural processes. From that, he growing imbalance between availability of natu- drew the conclusion that such an evaluation should ral resources and the degree of utilisation and the primarily be derived from the given state of the nat- resulting destruction of landscape structures and ural systems in the cultural landscape, and that sci- their ecosystems, the report prepared by the World entifically grounded proposals for improving utili- Commission on Environment and Development sation should include concepts to preserve and pro- (WCED) at the end of the twentieth century gave 22 Chapter 2 • Development and Fundamentals of the ES Approach

a stern warning for humankind to reconsider its tial pattern of arrangements for naturally provided dealings with nature from an economic, social and development possibilities (societal use intentions). ecological viewpoint. The core statement of the so- Schultze (1957) defined the suitability of certain 2 called Brundtland Report (WCED 1987) is as fol- earth regions for use purposes even more concrete- lows: Sustainable development is a development ly, and suggested that this determination of suit- which meets the requirements of the present with- ability be reformulated into a determination of the out endangering the ability of future generations to cultural-geographical potential of an area. meet their own requirements. The growing exploitation of natural resources, This basic statement of sustainable develop- with the well-known consequences for the condi- ment has proven to be of great relevance with tion of ‘protected goods’, as we would call them to- regard to setting goals for a permanent environ- day, confronted society and hence a number of sci- mentally appropriate economic and social order. entific disciplines with the task of seeking answers On the other hand, there has to this day been no and proposing solutions as to how to ascertain the feasible methodological concept following up on service capacity of natural systems and how to pre- this sustainability triad; it is largely a regulatory serve and secure them over the long term. Within idea, a guiding concept characterised by the ethi- the geographic community which, as we know, has cal principle of generational justice. Nonetheless, to deal with hybrid material systems in the cultural today the term carries significant meaning when- landscape surrounding us (abiotic, biotic and so- ever policy-makers, business leaders or academics cietal/cultural components), Neef (1966) presented employ it to identify the linkage between economic an initial study for the evaluation of the potentials development and ecological carrying capacity as a of natural systems, the essence of which involve the major goal of today’s societal policy, so as to be able idea of making all aspects of natural factors com- to leave a liveable and usable environment to future parable with the anthropogenic creations in the generations. Indisputably, the ES approach, which cultural landscape, and similarly capable of valua- is currently being widely discussed, is viewed as a tion, by defining their various elements in terms of fundamentally suitable instrument for the imple- energy content. He entitled this study in which he mentation of the idea of sustainability. describes the use of this energy content concept for the elucidation of the relationships between natu- zz The Substantive and Methodological rally related and economic components of societal Precursors of ES activity in the natural environment ‘Questions of Especially, the German geographic community regional economic potentials’, clearly highlighting has, by way of a number of small steps, begun to what he believed was involved. He saw it as an im- approach the question of the extent to which it is portant part of this concept and also an absolute necessary and possible to refer to the service ca- necessity to transfer natural scientific findings into pacity of a natural abundance (natural balance) societally familiar, i.e. primarily economic, catego- which functions in a manner appropriate to the ries if utility, sustainability, resilience and protec- ecosystem (7 Sect. 2.1). One early source is an es- tion of natural resources were to be considered as say by Schmithüsen (1942) on site ecology and its societal activities at all. importance for the cultural landscape, in which he The epistemological phenomenon which he explains that people use the service possibilities ex- describes as the ‘transformation problem’ became isting in the natural plan of a landscape to secure part of the application-oriented foundations of their livelihoods, by drafting a ‘cultural service plan’ East German landscape research. Neef saw his proof natural and labour processes for distinguishable posal as an important bridge towards objectifying spatial structures. A few years later, Bobek and the various processes of nature and society, and Schmithüsen (1949) designated ‘regional nature’ the transition from one causal area to another, and (Landesnatur; a term meaning the totality of natu- towards making the metabolism between human rally provided interactive contexts) in the cultural society and nature, which had up to that time been landscape as a range of potentials, and hence a spa- described only as a fairly general phenomenon, us- 23 2.2 • ES in Retrospect 2 able for such purposes as balancing-of-interests de- These brief examples describing the properties of cisions (Neef 1969). Over 45 years later, the German potentials indeed show that the occasionally uttered Federal Government’s Advisory Council on Global opinion that the concept of natural spatial potential Change (WBGU 2011) has now used the term trans- puts too much emphasis on its natural-scientific el- formation research in a study titled Zukunftspro- ements and fails to sufficiently capture societal or jekt Erde[The earth as a project for the future], al- economic aspects is unfounded. A broad range of beit with a more specialised meaning–and without methodological procedures have been developed mentioning the preceding ideas. by von Haase (1991), Jäger et al. (1977), Mannsfeld However, the proposed exclusive use of an en- (1983), and others through which the advantages ergy scale (Neef 1966) lead to methodological dif- and disadvantages of potential utilisation interests ficulties of implementation, especially with regard can be clearly fleshed out on the basis of an initially to the specific-use demands of society upon the unbiased and value-neutral analysis of space. The natural-spatial service capacity. The later propos- potential approach was at an early stage also adopt- als by von Haase (1973, 1978) provided a way out: ed into the system of landscape management and Instead of energy as the standard of measurement landscape planning (Langer 1970; Buchwald 1973; for service capacity, a thorough analysis of the char- Lüttig and Pfeiffer 1974). acteristics of the ‘Naturkapital’ (natural capital) was Complementary to the derivation of suitability to be employed in order to evaluate the fulfilment for utilisation potentially provided by the abun- of basic societal functions. Only when the scien- dance of nature, a functional-spatial paradigm be- tific and social goals were clearly defined did ma- gan to be developed, according to which certain terial and energetic properties of the services of landscape spaces are to fulfill societal functions. nature become ‘potentials’, since they referred to This involves not so much the functioning of eco- the specific distribution of such service possibilities systems as the scientifically determined organisa- in the spatial context, ‘natural-spatial potentials’ tion of structural procedural contexts (Forman and (7 Sect. 2.1). Thus, the concept is able to illustrate Godron 1986). The German Federal Conservation not only the actual degree of tolerance towards so- of Nature Law underscores in § 1 Item 5 the man- cietal utilisation, but also the resilience, especially date to preserve the service provision and function- under the conditions of realistic multiple utilisa- ality of landscapes (BNatSchG 2009). tions. The spatially differentiated service capacity of Particularly Niemann (1977), also van der nature suitable for societal development processes Maarel (1978), Bastian (1991), de Groot (1992), has been defined as the natural-spatial potential. Marks et al. (1992), Durwen (1995), Willemen et Due to the different demands placed upon this ca- al. (2008) and others have addressed this func- pacity by society, it is, for methodological reasons, tional approach thoroughly and in great depth. As structured into a number of sub-potentials (partial a result, these and other authors have developed natural spatial potentials), including for example: often closely corresponding categorisations into 55 The Biotic Yield Potential, or the capacity to main and partial functions, for example produc- produce organic substances and to regenerate tion (economic) functions, regulatory (ecological) the conditions for such production (site fertil- functions, and habitat (social) functions–a struc- ity). turing that clearly reflects a proximity to the three 55 The Biotic Regulation Potential, or the capacity pillars of the sustainability thought discussed ear- to sustain biological processes and to regulate lier. The more recently introduced suggestion to them once again after disturbances (the biodi- follow a transparent action plan that seeks to secure versity aspect). ES at the interface between conservation of nature 55 The Recreation Potential, or the capacity of na- and societal/economic goals is based, similarly to ture to contribute to the recreation and health the landscape function concept, on the economic, of people by psychological and physical effects. ecological, and sociocultural services provided by ecosystems, and this pragmatic subdivision reflects a great conceptual proximity to fundamental 24 Chapter 2 • Development and Fundamentals of the ES Approach

concepts that were already conceived two or three also expressive in financial terms. Even though this decades prior. process is quite involved, the approach itself might The concept of landscape functions was widely serve as a real conceptual model for how the ‘wel- 2 accepted in West German landscape planning dur- fare services’ of natural potentials could be directly ing the 1980s (e.g. Langer et al. 1985), since it had translated into monetary quantities. However, the proven itself advantageous in communications example also shows that technological and human with political decision-makers (Albert et al. 2012). labour inputs are made to optimise ES, and have However, landscape functions in general only see to be treated methodologically separately (in the those aspects of the landscape that are ignored by sense of ‘environmental services’ ▶Sect. 2.1 and 4.2). the commercial markets, and hence need to be Haber (2011) noted in this regard: managed by public planning (von Haaren 2004; Albert et al. 2012). “A wheat field–or, for that matter, any other field The knowledge gained from landscape ecologi- upon which corn, potatoes, or beets are grown–is cal studies about the natural processes are generally not an ecosystem from the ‘natural-ecological’ not suited for incorporation into economic calcu- point of view, for no such thing could exist in lations, due to which reason they are not usually nature. It is an ‘artificial’ food production system considered in spatial planning decisions. Hence, a created by people; it would not and could not exist correct handling of the transition of natural quanta without them, so that it does not really fit into the into economic data (the transformation problem) concept of ecosystem services. Of course, it is put remains indispensable. Neef, in an essay published together of natural components, […].” in 1969, wrote the following in this regard: Ultimately, ecological economics claims to have “The role of natural functions in economic con- decisively contributed to the development of the texts, and the feedback effects of societal impacts ES approach (Røpke 2004, 2005), with its roots es- into the natural balance can only be properly un- pecially in the American scientific debate, which derstood if both are placed into a relationship with should be more broadly considered with respect to one another. In order to derive a foundation for its cultural historical development framework and the evaluation of natural potentials, it is necessary its applicability to central Europe. The arguments to juxtapose the potential quanta to the effort of are made that the independent evolution of ecology societal labour that needs to be performed (Neef and economy and their growing apart into two spe- 1969)”. cial and independent sciences is an ill development that should be overcome (cf. the Full World Model With the results of a large-scale exemplary project of the Ecological Economic System of Costanza involving the regions north of Dresden (Mannsfeld 1997a), and that economics must learn from ecol- 1971) an attempt was made to find an economic ogy the limitations that human economic activity standard for the implementation of these basic must take into account in a non-growing biophysi- concepts. A method was developed to indirectly cal world. Jetzkowitz (2011) notes in this context ascertain the suitability of a natural space for agri- that ecological economics, which sees nature as the cultural utilisation in terms of service capacity and ultimate limiting characteristic for economic pro- functionality by analysing its lack of suitability in cesses, must be distinguished from neoclassical en- that regard. For this purpose, agricultural sites were vironmental economics. The latter, he argues, while evaluated according to their deficits in terms of a de- it does depend on the ES concept, nonetheless at- fined optimum (e.g. fertile loess soil), and the costs tempts to economise nature as much as possible. of upgrading them to a higher level of yield were The ES concept found its way into the interna- ascertained. By multiplying the theoretical costs for tional political limelight by way of the Millennium drainage or irrigation, removal of stones, fertilisa- Ecosystem Assessment (Synthesis Report, MEA tion, deep-loosening of the soil, and humus enrich- 2005). The Report was drafted between 2001 and ment with the area shares of the respective sites, a 2005 under the auspices of the UN, and coordinat- standard of comparison could be obtained that is ed by the UN Economic Program (UNEP). It pur- 25 2.3 • Values and Services of Nature for Humans 2 sues the goal of identifying the consequences from should be accepted as natural assets of limited self- changes in the ecosystems for human well-being generating capacity. Precisely this realisation has and to thus create the scientific basis for the neces- opened the way to a systematic review of the service sary activities for the sustainable use of the eco- capacity of nature, in order to be able to target and systems. For this purpose, no primary knowledge implement a sustainable and optimal use of ES. was developed; rather, the report depended on the For today’s ES concept and the problems of its existing scientific literature, relevant data and mod- implementation–such as the repeatedly mentioned els, and knowledge from the private sector, local transformation from the material level to the val- communities and indigenous peoples. The acute ues level, etc.–a look back at older methodological deterioration of no less than 15 of the 24 ES exam- approaches may provide necessary indicators. Eco- ined worldwide, and the resulting negative effects systems and their services for society consist not on future human well-being, were a key message only of elements, such as sinks, regulators, or proof the report. cesses, which function as a system, they also have a Based on the idea that the perception and ap- spatial reference. A sufficient accounting for these preciation of nature changes when it is also per- factors–as in Neef’s (1963) ‘theory of geographical ceived from an economic point of view, novel dimensions’–in the form of standardisation is still conceptual approaches have emerged in the envi- absent, for small-scale overviews, while they may ronmental and conservationist community which be appropriate for awakening consciousness with are further discussed in 7 Chap. 5. In this context regard to the actual problems, are little suited for we would like to refer to the study The Economics providing concrete proof of spatial service avail- of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) carried out ability. A methodological differentiation of the ES in 2007 with the support of the German Federal approach into local/regional and global scopes of Ministry of the Environment. This was an impor- standards is hardly apparent, although it would be tant international initiative designed to direct at- necessary, e.g. for the categories of ecological plan- tention towards the global utility of ecosystems and ning. But also the already discussed concepts of to highlight the growing costs generated by the loss natural spatial potentials and landscape functions of biodiversity and ES. In the reports, expert knowl- currently lack any adequate ‘knobs’ to properly edge from the scientific community, and business handle and incorporate the continually emerging and policy-makers were brought together in order use of nature-dependent changes in ecosystem to develop concepts for sustainable solutions (re- quality–e.g. in climate change. The ES concept, ports and information under 7 www.teebweb.org). even in its international dimension, will only be Even if one were to accept the premise that the successful in preventing further overuse and even current ES approach places particular emphasis on destruction of the free services of nature if such and the preservation of biodiversity and the economic similar fundamental methodological questions are valuation of the services of ecosystems, the relevant settled and taken into account. literature on the procedural foundations (including Costanza 1991; de Groot 1992; Daily 1997) contained no reference to such conceptual models as ‘natural 2.3 Values and Services of Nature spatial potential’ or ‘landscape functions’. Recently, for Humans Gomez-Baggethun et al. (2010) argued that the source of the ES concept is to be found in the late K. Grunewald and O. Bastian 1970s, and they refer primarily to Dutch, American and Spanish authors. However, it would seem ap- ‘Better living and increase our wealth’, are important propriate to also identify the other intellectual and drivers of human existence. Nature provides the methodological forerunners (see above), the credo basis for that and is considered to be a significant of whose research was that the intensive use of re- growth generator, which brings prosperity to the generable, natural resources often has negative ef- extent that its elements are protected and devel- fects to such an extent that they could no longer– oped (Jessel et al. 2009). Human societies require without naivety–be seen as free services; rather, they resources from nature. The regional value creation 26 Chapter 2 • Development and Fundamentals of the ES Approach

in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, measures of Banzhaf and Boyd (2012) refer to a fundamental landscape management, or tourism in national difference between ES (per se) and the values they parks and other protected areas are solid economic present. ES are biophysical qualities and quantities 2 variables of society. However, renewable resources that are directly related to market goods and ser- such as food, wood or fiber are counted as ecosys- vices. It is initially not an evaluation in the strictest tem services and goods but not fossil row materials sense. This occurs only when a stronger relation to such as oil or coal (7 Sect. 2.1). a benefit is given, especially on monetary values. There is also the benefit that individuals or Following value concepts are to be distinguished society derive from a variety of indirect (support- with reference to biodiversity (Potthast 2007): ing) services of nature: maintenance of soil fertility, 55 Exchange value: economic; measures the value biodiversity, clean air, fixation of carbon by photo- of an object against which you can trade on the synthesis, groundwater recharge, nitrogen fixation, market; measuring value is usually the price, aesthetically attractive landscapes and the innova- which does not necessarily say something tion potential of nature for technical innovations or about the ‘real’ value. pharmaceutical development. 55 Value in use: instrumental; ‘useful for something…’; biodiversity is valuable because of its zz Values and Value Shift function as a resource for human economic An effective, yet democratically legitimised sustain- purposes; substitutability as an essential fea- ability policy must be accepted by the majority of ture of the value in use; monetised utility people to give consent and enable people to par- values are substantial arguments–but more ticipate. One aspect of the eco-ethical value level is important than their absolute level is their that ‘nature is full of values’, which are subsequently distribution. discovered and recognised by valuing people (Ott 55 Intrinsic value: inherent; biodiversity has in- 2010). Accordingly, basic values are assessments trinsic value for me when I appreciate them for that are shared by the vast majority of the popula- their own sake, not for their use of sake, simply tion. This includes in principle the benefit foun- because they exist (existence value), because it dations of ES (health, food provisioning, security, has for me biographical or cultural significance etc.). Basic values can be associated with standards (reminder value, home), because it is unique and–important for ES–collective goods. and special (character), because it allows experiences for me (e.g. wilderness), because it is to Values be preserved for posterity (‘heritage’) (bequest are in the sense of Emanuel Kant, what is value); intrinsic values evades a monetisation highly valued, what is respected, what is dear in principle, but they are communicable, that to us. Societies are always also a community of means, they are comprehensible for others, values, i.e. a society without value orientations they need to be weighed with each other and is not conceivable. People feel bound by and against each other; and the value lies in the to values, but at the same time they are not specific relationship. unfree to act or transform their value systems (apparent paradox according to Joas 1997). While an anthropocentric basic position, according Values affect wishes, interests, and preferenc- to persuasive environmental and nature conserva- es. However, a value is not a standard or rule. tion rationales finally must always refer to human Value orientations describe relatively stable interests, needs, etc. (‘nature conservation is hu- preferences with respect to different values man protection’), represents a natural or physio- of individual persons (Häcker and Stapf 1994). graphic focused position the view that some or all They are always linked to a cultural and social of the natural beings are to be protected for their context and need negotiations and disputa- own sake (ethical naturalism, according to which tions in pluralistic societies. the various natural objects or in the sense of this position ‘natural subjects’ have an intrinsic value, 27 2.3 • Values and Services of Nature for Humans 2

Value of City Trees

Even if they are planted by people residential property. Trees contrib- The example of city trees also and their habitats are not very ute to the natural experience of shows that it is neither possible nor close to nature–city trees provide the urban population and generate useful to calculate all these services numerous services and benefits. emotions, for example by flowers in euros. However, a quantifica-

They sequester CO2 and produce and leaves sprouting in spring or tion–Where city green is missing, O2, improve the urban climate, by colourful fall foliage. In this case, how does it evolve (see, e.g. city of generate biomass, serve wildlife not everything is perceived as a Berlin; Hermsmeier and Marrach (e.g. birds, bats, insects) as habitat whole positive by the population 2012)–and in individual cases also and enhance the scenery of cities. (e.g. falling leaves or bird droppings monetisation, can raise awareness Furthermore, urban districts with under the trees). in dealing with nature. lots of trees increase the value of

which is in doubt validity also independent of hu- Value is generated in various relationships and man interests). The pathocentrism (Teutsch 1985) interactions between humans and nature, which recognises only pain-sensitive beings (humans and happen less and less successfully in our mechanised higher animals) have this intrinsic value. The bio- and increasingly urban world. Not all of these re- centrism, however, gives it to all living things, while lationships and interactions are adequately ad- holism to all of nature involved (even inanimate dressed as ‘utilisation’. Subjective, qualitative value and system wholes), so the landscape. The German judgments are sometimes more meaningful than Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG 2009, (often supposedly) objective, quantitative values § 1) expressly refers to the “protection of nature and (7 Chap. 4). landscape due to their inherent value and for future Since the beginning of modern times atti- generations”. tudes and positions designed for individual utility Focusing too much on one of the two basic po- maximisation have prevailed. We have got used in sitions is not helpful, since one would be a ‘natural- today’s industrial society that the basic resources forgotten anthropocentrism’, the other a ‘forgotten for life, the daily supply of food, water, and all the human environmentalism’. It is finally the second- necessities of civilisation have become a matter of ary sources from which comes the moral justifica- course (Haber 2011). With the advent of industrial tion for the protection of nature (and landscape), mass production ‘good life’ was increasingly equat- if more from religious or secular reasons. A seri- ed with material wealth (WBGU 2011). Rational ous respect to anthropocentric nature conservation cost-benefit calculations provide in industrial so- obligations would have approximately the same cieties such as Germany action-bearing patterns of results as the strictest compliance of biocentric or interpretation. Thus, money and monetary values theological rules–nature would just as well be pre- are of paramount importance in our economically served (Ott 2010). driven world. Money is among other things a sym- Ott (2010) proposes pragmatic solutions to the bolic medium, it is also for nature conservation. But ‘self-value problem’. He argues finally that not too it must not be an end in itself but only a means to an much is to be focused on the question “whether all end in the sense of social benefit. the grains of sand, every drop of water, all the blades Appreciations for ES (Ott 2010): of grass, all soil bacteria, all blueberries, all squid, 55 can be evaluated by surveys (e.g. the accep- etc. have a self-value”. All this distracts from the tance of nature conservation), actual environmental challenges (climate change, 55 articulate themselves within value judgments water supply, agriculture and fisheries, protection (“I like mountains rather than the sea.”), of forests and wetlands, wildlife conservation, and 55 are of different intensities (e.g. different feel- ecological urban redevelopment). ings at the sight of a sunset or a spider–graded joy, happiness, aversion, indifference, etc.). 28 Chapter 2 • Development and Fundamentals of the ES Approach

Commons Don’t Simply Exist; They are Created

Silke Helfrich (in Ostrom 2011), to ownership and–above all–to of the commons debate: Everyone 2 writes: resources themselves. The old Ger- who belongs to a particular com- ‘Resources are free. They know man word for commons, ‘Allmende’, munity and collectively uses its neither property rights nor borders. preserves this nexus for us, because, resources needs to agree on how to Resources do not know if we need ‘Allmende’ derives from words for share. But to agree on usage rules them to live or if we don’t. We, ‘all’ and ‘community’, according to for resources and monitor their however, are tied in one way or language historians. Thus the term compliance is anything but ‘child’s another to these things: to limits, itself conveys the core challenge play’.

However, according to a survey of the Emnid The uncompensated impact of economic decisions Institute on behalf of the Bertelsmann Foundation on unaffiliated market participants is referred as an published in autumn 2010 (Bertelsmann Founda- external effect in economics. External means that tion 2010) a value shift is to be noted. Thus, growth the effects (side effects) of a behaviour are not ad- and material prosperity isn’t (no longer) every- equately reflected in the market. They are not in- thing: a prosperity which is bought by damaging cluded in the calculation or decision of a causer. the environment or high national debt, more than In economic terms they are a cause of market fail- 80 %, are principle that Germans do not accept. ure and thus government intervention can become Nine out of ten people are demanding a new necessary. Negative externalities are also referred to economic order which takes the social balance as external or social costs, positive externalities as and the careful handling of our livelihoods and external benefits or social income (Mankiw 2004). finances stronger into account. zz Implementation of Biodiversity and ES Conclusion The aim of the ES concept is to prioritise and to A mere economic efficiency focused policy seems assess services of nature, in particular also in mone- to have lost its appeal and plausibility. However, tary terms (cost-benefit calculation) to advocate for the perception of the problem leads not automati- economic reasons the conservation of nature (Jessel cally to “right choices” of people, for example to et al. 2009). As attractive and new this approach environmentally friendly actions (Kuckartz 2010). may be, it must be complemented by the ethical This is partly caused due to lack of long-term orien- principles of protecting nature for its own sake, laid tation and loss aversion (WBGU 2011), on the other down in the German Federal Nature Conservation hand, goods and services of nature are mostly ‘pub- Act (BNatSchG 2009, § 1). lic goods’ characterised by non-excludability and ES are supported by markets if their base prod- non-rivalry (7 Table 3.5). The recreation effect of ucts are manufactured (free market, such as purely landscapes, biodiversity as gene pool or ‘intrinsic agricultural products). Many public goods and value’ are examples of public goods in the sense of services are, however, exploited, overused and de- the ES concept. In case of such goods and services stroyed because market mechanisms do not work it is best for the individual, if he profits, but is not (‘market failure’). Here, market-based instruments involved in providing (‘free riders’). Those who wish can help–if they are placed correctly–to create in- to participate in principle to the provision fear that centives for codes of behaviour. Currently, there are due to the ‘free rider’ only a minimal level of provi- two main economic instruments for environmental sion at high individual costs comes about, so it is policy in order to maintain and enhance ES and not worth participating in the provision (‘the real- thus biodiversity: ists’). In addition, one does not want to be the fool 1. Positive incentives aimed to make nature and who participates in the provision, and the other free environmental protection lucrative in financial benefit (‘those who do not want to be exploited’). 29 2.3 • Values and Services of Nature for Humans 2

Can Biodiversity and Cultural Landscape be Profitable?

Nature and landscape are scarce bour and cost-intensive. Who would in financially reasonable limits. The resources, as well as public goods, want to process the steep slopes return is in an identity-creating which in many cases are beyond mechanically and effectively, would landscape with a high feel good fac- conventional market mechanisms have to destroy the dry stone walls. tor for locals and visitors. This re- (allocation of public goods, market But so the charm of the landscape quires an intersubjective agreement failure). Maintenance of a stone wall would be lost. A simple profit and on drafts for future, the resilience of landscape in the Ore Mountains or loss account almost always ends up ecosystems but also about the cost. the old wine cultural landscape in in the red. It is the duty of society/ the Elbe valley near Dresden is la- the state to preserve such heritage

terms (example: remuneration of special envi- benefits of nature. The economic value of a good or ronmental services from agriculture); service results from the appreciation by individuals 2. Negative price signals in form of price control and the scarcity of the resource and must not neces- (user fees, environmental taxes, compensation) sarily be monetary. Empirical studies show that the

or quantity control (example: CO2-emission nonuse values often account for the largest part of certificates), which increase the costs of envi- the human appreciation for threatened ecosystems. ronmentally damaging behaviour. For this, however, no tax is paid as a general rule, which means, users of nature are not adequately Ideally, a ‘common good market’ is developing, e. g. involved in the coverage of costs. The ES concept for landscape maintenance. In this context the in- is seen as a promising way to achieve substantial stitutional side is important. In general, the State improvements regarding this dilemma. must act as buyers of services of general interest, Potthast (2007) points out the limits of the com- and it must also be a ‘provider’ of the service, for modification of biodiversity (7 Sect. 4.2). He calls: example, in the form of a farm or landscape main- 55 Moral limitations: What commodification? tenance associations (7 Sect. 6.5). Clarification of the normative presuppositions, Biodiversity and many ES have not been cal- man and nature images. culated in conventional economic evaluations and 55 Methodological limitations: determining the were generally accepted as free of charge. However, ‘right’ monetary value for nature as home or these services have a high value but which can be for feelings. What can be ‘measured’ and how determined often only indirectly, as it is only inad- does it correlate with actions? equately reflected in markets and prices. Scientists 55 Empirical limitations: feasibility and limits make every effort to assign a real value to natu- of determination of all partial sums of total ral capital. Examples are illustrated in Jessel et al. economic value. Commodification and mon- (2009) or TEEB (2010). In all questions concern- etisation are always partial and task-/interesting the methodological and assessment approach- related. es, the attempt is to recognise ES and not only to 55 Strategic limitations: complete substitutability address it, but to quantify and evaluate them in a (by money) is objectively and strategically holistic manner, so that they are comparable with wrong; option of complete renunciation always economic goods. threatens, if the price is too low or high. Economists use the concept of ‘total economic 55 Political limitations: a rationally well-founded value’ to determine the economic value of ecosys- price of nature does not provide the security tems and biodiversity (7 Sect. 4.2.2). It includes both of conservation. Economic rationality is not the ‘potential’ and ‘real use values’ as well as the so- regularly correlated with appropriate political called nonuse values. This means that the economic rational decisions, which is the case individu- evaluation of natural captures are not only the direct ally and socially. 30 Chapter 2 • Development and Fundamentals of the ES Approach

. Table 2.1 Overview of concepts for welfare and sustainability measures. (Source: WBGU 2011)

Type of the measurement Name of the index/indicator Economical Social Ecological concept dimension dimension dimension 2 Extensions of GDP: monetised Measure of economic welfare + + + indicators/indices Index of sustainable economic + + + welfare (ISEW)

Genuine progress indicator (GPI) + + +

Full costs of goods and services + − + (FCGS)

National welfare index + (NWI) + + +

Extensions of GDP: integrated Integrated environmental and + − + environmental and economic economic accounting/UN system accounting/satellite systems of environmental and economic accounting (SEEA)

Non-monetised indicators/ Ecological footprint − − + indices Living planet Index − − +

Composite indicators/indices Human development index (HDI) + + − (integration of monetised and Index of economic well-being + + + non-monetised values) Happy planet indexa − + +

KfW-Nachhaltigkeitsindikator + + + (sustainability indicator)

Sustainable development indica- + + + tors (Eurostat)

Index of economic freedom + + −

Environmental sustainability + − + index (ESI)

Environmental performance − − − index (EPI)

Gross national happinessa (GNH, + + + Bhutan)

Canadian index of well-beinga − − − (CIW)

Corruption perception index − + − (CPI)

National accounts of well-beinga − + −

aIndex encloses subjective indicators 31 References 2

zz Welfare and Sustainability Measurement References The search for alternatives to gross domestic product (GDP) as a welfare indicator is an expression of Albert C, von Haaren C, Galler C (2012) Ökosystemdienst change in values. Current concepts are presented leistungen. Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen oder ein Impuls für die Landschaftsplanung? Naturschutz und in . Table 2.1; in each case the sustainability dimen- Landschaftsplanung 44:142–148 sions are assigned. ARL–Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ed) The GDP per capita is a measure for all econom- (1995) Handbuch der Raumordnung. Hannover ic activities transacted on markets and in monetary Banzhaf HS, Boyd J (2012) The architecture and measurement terms. Goods and services which have no market of an ecosystem services index. Sustainability 4:430–461 Bastian O (1991) Biotische Komponenten in der Landschafts- prices or real traded–as most ES–are not recorded forschung und -planung. Probleme ihrer Erfassung und in GDP. A rising GDP leads not automatically to an Bewertung. Habilitations-Schrift Martin-Luther-Univer- increase in subjective well-being (Inglehart 2008). sität Halle, Wittenberg, 214 p The debate on the latest indicators shows on Bastian O, Schreiber KF (eds) (1994) Analyse und ökologische the one hand that measure for welfare and sustain- Bewertung der Landschaft. G Fischer, Jena. (2., erheblich veränderte Aufl. 1999. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, ability are necessary beyond the GDP and will be Heidelberg) developed (. Table 2.1). On the other hand, the Bernhardt A, Haase G, Mannsfeld K, Richter H, Schmidt R political decision on which an alternative is given (1986) Naturräume der sächsischen Bezirke. Sächsische preference is still under discussion. This depends Heimatblätter 4/5 on the orientation of the goals as well as on data Bertelsmann-Stiftung (2010) Bürger wollen kein Wachstum um jeden Preis. 7 www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/cps/ availability and data quality. Thus, for example, the rde/xchg/SID-1CE81901-A2FDE973/bst/hs.xsl/nachrich- introduction of an ‘ecosystem index’ by the Ger- ten_102799.htm. Accessed 5 Jan 2011 man Federal Statistical Office failed, because this BESWS–Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Work Stream was scientifically not tenable (Radermacher 2008). (2010) Demystifying materiality: hardwiring biodiver- Here too, new, especially methodological impulses sity and ecosystem services into finance. UNEP FI CEO Briefing, Genf are expected regarding the ES concept. Bierhals E (1978) Ökologischer Datenbedarf für die Land- schaftsplanung. Landschaft und Stadt 10:30–36 Implementation of ES Blotevogel HH (1995) Raum. In: Akademie für Raumfor It is the intention to give environmental policy better schung und Landesplanung (ed) Handwörterbuch der strategic orientation, focusing on the benefit of the Raumordnung. ARL, Hannover, pp 733–740 people. ES deliver such benefits, e.g. recreation ser- BNatSchG–Bundesnaturschutzgesetz (2009) Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. BGBl. I, p 2542 vice for health and well-being or protection against Bobek H, Schmithüsen J (1949) Die Landschaft im logischen floods for the security needs. Economic arguments System der Geographie. Erdkunde 3:112–120 are intended to supplement the classical ethical ra- Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The tionales for conservation, without replacing them. need for standardized environmental accounting units. In addition to economic values (based on efficiency Ecol Econ 63:616–626 Brockhaus Enzyklopädie (1996) 20., 2nd edn., Gütersloh and cost-effectiveness) there are always environ- Brouwer R, Oosterhuis FH, Ansink JH, Barton DN, Lienhoop mental values (based on ecological sustainability/ N (2011) POLICYMIX WP4: Guidelines for estimating load capacity), and sociocultural values (based on costs and benefits of policy instruments for biodiversity justice and perception as well as ethical consider- conservation. POLICYMIX Technical Brief 6. 7 http:// ations) necessary. Decisions on land use, for example policymix.nina.no Buchwald K (1973) Landschaftsplanung und Ausführung in connection with the energy turnaround in Ger- landschaftspflegerischer Maßnahmen. In: Buchwald K, many, with all its normative questions are concerned Engelhardt W (eds) Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz with genuinely ethical and legal dimensions and de- in der Praxis. BLV-Buchverlag, München termine much about the future structure and func- Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping sup- tion of ecosystems, the existence and spread of ani- ply, demand and budgets of ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 21:17–29 mal and plant species as well as the life chances of Common M, Stagl S (2005) Ecological economics. An intro- people. All this poses great challenges for the analy- duction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge sis of ES and their complex, integrative evaluation. 32 Chapter 2 • Development and Fundamentals of the ES Approach

Costanza R (ed) (1991) Ecological economics: the science Führer E (2000) Forest functions, ecosystem stability and and management of sustainability. Columbia University management. For Ecol Manage 132:29–38 Press, New York Gomez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C (2010) Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification The history of ecosystem services in economic theory 2 systems are needed. Biol Conserv 141:350–352 and practice: from early notions to markets and pay- Costanza R, Cumberland JC, Daly HE, Goodland R, Norgaard ment schemes. Ecol Econ 69:1209–1218 R (1997a) An introduction to ecological economics. St. Grunewald K, Bastian O (2010) Ökosystemdienstleistungen Lucie Press, Boca Raton analysieren–begrifflicher und konzeptioneller Rahmen Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot RS, Farber S, Grasso M, Han- aus landschaftsökologischer Sicht. GEOÖKO 31:50–82 non B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J et al. Haase G (1973) Zur Ausgliederung von Raumeinheiten der (1997b) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and chorischen und der regionischen Dimension–dar natural capital. Nature 387:253–260 gestellt an Beispielen aus der Bodengeographie. Daily G (ed) (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on Petermanns Geogr Mitt 117:81–90 natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DC Haase G (1978) Zur Ableitung und Kennzeichnung von de Groot, RS (1992) Functions of nature: evaluation of nature Naturraumpotenzialen. Petermanns Geogr Mitt in environmental planning, management and decision 22:113–125 making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen Haase G (1991) Naturraumerkundung und Bewertung des de Groot RS, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002) A typology for Naturraumpotentials. Schriftenreihe des dt. Rates für description, classification and valuation of ecosystem Landespflege 59, Hannover, pp 923–940 functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408 Haaren C von (ed) (2004) Landschaftsplanung. UTB, Eugen de Groot R, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Gowdy J, Ulmer, Stuttgart Haines-Young R, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, Portela Haber W (2004) The ecosystem–power of a metaphysical R, Ring I (2010) Integrating the Ecological and Economic construct. Schriftenreihe Landschaftsökologie Weihen- Dimensions in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Valu- stephan 13:25–48 ation. In: Kumar P (ed) The Economics of Ecosystems Haber W (2011) Umweltpolitikberatung–eine persönliche and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Bilanz. Studienarchiv Umweltgeschichte 16:15–25. Earthscan, London, Washington, S 9–40 7 www.iugr.net Durwen KJ (1995) Naturraum-Potential und Landschaftspla- Haeckel E (1866) Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. nung. (Landschaftsökologie und Vegetationskunde als G. Reimer, Berlin, 2 vol (Anatomie der Organismen und Grundlage der Landnutzung). Nürtinger Hochschul- Entwicklungsgeschichte der Organismen) schriften 13:45–82 Häcker H, Stapf KH (1994) Dorsch: Psychologisches Wörter- Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH (1981) Extinction: The causes and buch. Hans Huber, Bern consequences of the disappearance of species. Random Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) House, New York Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosys- Ehrlich PR, Mooney HA (1983) Extinction, substitution, and tem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228 the ecosystem services. BioScience 33:248–254 Hermsmeier L, Marrach K (2012) Schauen Sie mal, wie grün Eliáš P (1983) Ecological and social functions of vegetation. Ihr Bezirk ist. Neue Zahlen vom Berliner Senat: In Ekológia (ČSSR) 2:93–104 Steglitz-Zehlendorf stehen die meisten Straßenbäume. Ellenberg H (1973) Die Ökosysteme der Erde: Versuch einer BZ–Berliner Zeitung vom 25. Mai 2012 Klassifikation der Ökosysteme nach funktionalen Hermann A, Schleifer S, Wrbka T (2011) The concept of eco- Gesichtspunkten. In: Ellenberg H (ed) Ökosystem- system services regarding landscape research: a review. forschung. Springer, Berlin, S 235–265 Living Rev Landscape Res 5. 7 http://landscapere- Ellenberg H, Zeller O (1951) Die Pflanzenstandortkarte am search.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrlr–2011–1/. Accessed Beispiel des Kreises Leonberg. Forschungs- u. Sitzungs- 1. April 2011 bericht der Akademie für Raumforschung u. Landespla- Hettner A (1927) Die Geographie–ihre Geschichte, ihr Wesen, nung II, Hannover, S 11–49 ihre Methoden. Hirt-Verlag, Breslau, 466 S Finke L (1994) Landschaftsökologie. Das geographische Inglehart R (2008) Changing values among western publics Seminar, Braunschweig from 1970 to 2006. West European Politics 31:130–146 Fisher B, Turner RK, Morlin P (2009) Defining and classify- Jax K (2005) Function and “functioning” in ecology: what ing ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ does it mean? OIKOS 111:641–648 68:643–653 Jäger KD, Mannsfeld K, Haase G (1977) Bestimmung von Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, partiellen und komplexen Potentialeigenschaften für New York chorische Naturräume. (Methoden und Beispielsun- Fry G (2000) The landscape character of Norway–land- tersuchungen). F/E-Bericht, Institut f. Geographie u. scape values today and tomorrow. In: Pedroli B (ed) Geoökologie, Leipzig, Sächsische Akademie der Wis- Landscape-our Home. Lebensraum Landschaft, Indigo senschaften, Leipzig, 125 p Zeist, S 93–100 33 References 2

Jessel B, Tschimpke O, Waiser M (2009) Produktivkraft Natur. Mannsfeld K (1981) Landeskulturelle Auswirkungen moderner Hoffmann und Campe, Hamburg Agrarproduktion an Beispielen aus dem Westlausitzer Jetzkowitz J (2011) Ökosystemdienstleistungen in sozio Hügelland. Wiss. Abhandl. Geogr. Gesellschaft DDR 15 logischer Perspektive. In: Groß M (ed) Handbuch Mannsfeld K (1983) Landschaftsanalyse und Ableitung von Umweltsoziologie. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Naturraumpotentialen. Abhandl. Sächsische Akademie Wiesbaden, S 303–324 der Wissenschaften, Leipzig, math.-nat. Kl., vol 35, Joas H (1997) Die Entstehung der Werte. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt Akademie-Verlag, Berlin a. M. Marks R, Müller MJ, Leser H, Klink HJ (eds) (1992) Anlei- Kienast F (2010) Landschaftsdienstleistungen: ein taug- tung zur Bewertung des Leistungsvermögens des liches Konzept für Forschung und Praxis? Forum für Landschaftshaushaltes, 2. edn. Forsch. zur Deutschen Wissen:7–12 Landeskunde, vol 229, Trier Kirchhoff T, Trepl L, Vicenzotti V (2012) What is landscape Matzdorf B, Lorenz J (2010) How cost-effective are result- ecology? An analysis and evaluation of six different oriented agri-environmental measures? An empirical conceptions. Landscape Res. doi:10.1080/01426397.2011 analysis in Germany. Land Use Policy 27:535–544 .640751 MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystem Kuckartz U (2010) Nicht hier, nicht jetzt, nicht ich–Über die and human well-being: Scenarios, vol 2. Island Press, symbolische Bearbeitung eines ernsten Problems. In: Washington Welzer H (ed) KlimaKulturen: soziale Wirklichkeiten im Messerli P (1986) Modelle und Methoden zur Analyse der Klimawandel. Campus, Frankfurt a. M., pp 144–160 Mensch-Umwelt-Beziehungen im alpinen Lebens- und Lahaye P, Harms B, Stortelder A, Vos W (1979) Grundlagen für Erholungsraum. Erkenntnisse und Folgerungen aus die Anwendung landschaftsökologischer Erkenntnisse dem schweizerischen MAB-Programm Nr. 25, Bern in der Raumplanung. Verh Ges Ökol 7:79–84 Neef E (1963) Dimensionen geographischer Betrachtung. Langer H (1970) Zum Problem der ökologischen Landschafts- Forschungen und Fortschritte 37:361–363 gliederung. Quaest Geobiol 7:77–95 Neef E (1966) Zur Frage des gebietswirtschaftlichen Poten- Langer H, von Haaren C, Hoppenstedt A (1985) Ökologische tials. Forschungen und Fortschritte 40:65–70 Landschaftsfunktionen als Planungsgrundlage–ein Neef E (1967) Die theoretischen Grundlagen der Landschafts Verfahrensansatz zur räumlichen Erfassung. Landschaft lehre. Haack, Gotha + Stadt 17:1–9 Neef E (1969) Der Stoffwechsel zwischen Gesellschaft und Leibenath M, Gailing L (2012) Semantische Annäherung Natur als geographisches Problem. Geogr Rundsch an die Worte “Landschaft” und “Kulturlandschaft”. In: 21:453–459 Schenk W, Kühn M, Leibenath M, Tzschaschel S (eds) Neef E (1971) Über das Weiterwirken der Ideen Alexander von Suburbane Räume als Kulturlandschaften. ARL, Han- Humboldt in der Geographie. Acta Historica Leopoldina nover, pp 58–79 6:17–29 Leser H (1997) Landschaftsökologie. 4. edn. Eugen Ulmer, Nentwig W, Bacher S, Brandl R (2004) Ökologie kompakt Stuttgart, 644 p (3. edn. 2011). Spektrum Akad. Verlag, Heidelberg Leser H, Schneider-Sliwa R (1999) Geographie: Eine Einfüh- Niemann E (1977) Eine Methode zur Erarbeitung der Funk- rung. Westermann, Braunschweig tionsleistungsgrade von Landschaftselementen. Arch Loft L, Lux A (2010) Ecosystem Services–Ökonomische Ana Naturschutz Landschaftsforschung 17:119–158 lyse ihres Verlusts, ihre Bewertung und Steuerung. BiK-F Niemann E (1982) Methodik zur Bestimmung der Eignung, Knowledge Flow Paper 10 Leistung und Belastbarkeit von Landschaftselementen Lüttig G, Pfeiffer D (1974) Die Karte des Naturraumpoten- und Landschaftseinheiten. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilung tials. Ein neues Ausdrucksmittel geowissenschaftlicher d. Instituts f. Geographie u. Geoökologie, Akademie Forschung für Landesplanung und Raumordnung. N der Wissenschaften der DDR, Leipzig, Sonderheft 2 Arch f Nds 23:3–13 Ostrom E (2011) Was mehr wird, wenn wir teilen. Vom gesell- Maarel E van der (1978) Ecological principles for physical schaftlichen Wert der Gemeingüter. Oekom, München planning. In: Holdgate W, Woodman MJ (eds) The break- Ott K (2010) Umweltethik zur Einführung. Junius, Hamburg down and restoration of ecosystems. Conf Ser I Ecology Petry D (2001) Landschaftsfunktionen und planerische 3, Plenum Press, New York, pp 413–450 Umweltvorsorge auf regionaler Ebene. Eine landschafts- Maarel E van der, Dauvellier PJ (1978) Naar een globaal ökologische Verfahrensentwicklung am Beispiel des ecologisch model voor de ruimlijke entwikkeling van Regierungsbezirkes Dessau. UFZ-Bericht Nr. 10/2001, Niederland. Studierapp. Rijksplanologische Dienst, Den UFZ-Umweltforschungszentrum Leipzig-Halle Haag, 9 Potthast T (2007) Biodiversität–Schlüsselbegriff des Natur- Mankiw NG (2004) Grundzüge der Volkswirtschaftslehre, schutzes im 21. Jahrhundert? Naturschutz und Biolo- 3. edn. Schäffer Poeschel, Stuttgart gische Vielfalt 48, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn Mannsfeld K (1971) Landschaftsökologie und ökonomische Preobraženskij VS (1980) Issledovanie landšaftnyh system Wertung der Westlausitzer Platte. Dissertation, TU Dres- dlja celej ochrany prirody–struktura, dinamika i razvitie den, Fakultät Bau-, Wasser-und Forstwesen, Dresden 34 Chapter 2 • Development and Fundamentals of the ES Approach

landšaftov. Inst. Geografii AN SSSR (Akadademie der Westman W (1977) How much are nature’s services worth. Wissenschaften der UdSSR), Moskau Science 197:960–964 Radermacher W (2008) Beyond GDP–A Ecosystem services Wiggering H, Müller K, Werner A, Helming K (2003) The as part of environmental economic accounting. 7 www. concept of multifunctionality in sustainable land devel- 2 uni-kiel.de/ecology/users/fmueller/salzau2008/Ab- opment. In: Helming K, Wiggering H (eds) Sustainable stracts_Salzau2008.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2011 development of multifunctional landscapes. Springer, Ring I (2010) Die Ökonomie von Ökosystemen und Biodiver- Berlin, pp 3–18 sität–die TEEB-Initiative. Vortrag auf dem 5. Dresdener Willemen L, Verburg PH, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF (2008) Landschaftskolloquium, Wert und Potenziale sächsi Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landsc scher Landschaften, Dresden. 7 www.ioer.de/aktuelles/ Urb Plan 88:34–43 veranstaltungen/19-november–2010–5-dresdner-landschaftskolloquium/. Accessed 19. Nov 2010 Røpke I (2004) The early history of modern ecological economics. Ecol Econ 50:293–314 Røpke I (2005) Trends in the development of ecological economics from the late 1980s to the early 2000s. Ecol Econ 55:262–290 Schmithüsen J (1942) Vegetationsforschung und ökologische Standortslehre in ihrer Bedeutung für die Geographie in der Kulturlandschaft. Z Ges Erdkunde, Berlin, pp 113–157 Schultze HJ (1957) Die wissenschaftliche Erfassung und Bewertung von Erdräumen als Problem der Geographie. Die Erde 88:241–298 Speidel G (1966) Zur Bewertung von Wohlfahrtswirkungen des Waldes. Allg Forstzeitschr 21:383–386 Steinhardt U, Blumenstein O, Barsch H (2011) Lehrbuch der Landschaftsökologie, 2 edn., Elsevier, Spektrum Akade- mischer Verlag, Heidelberg TEEB–The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Kumar P (ed). Earthscan, London Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24:1037–1052 Teutsch GM (1985) Lexikon der Umweltethik. Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Düsseldorf Troll C (1939) Luftbildplan und ökologische Bodenforschung. Z Ges Erdkunde, Berlin 7/8:241–298 Tüxen R (1956) Die heutige potentielle natürliche Vegeta- tion als Gegenstand der Vegetationskartierung. Angew Pflanzensoziol (Stolzenau) 13:5–42 Vejre H (2009) Quantification and aggregation of landscape functions/services in periurban landscapes. Proc Europ IALE Conf, Salzburg. Breuste J, Kozová M, Finka M (eds), pp 430–432 Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–246 WBGU–Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung. Globale Umweltveränderungen (2011) Welt im Wandel: Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation. Berlin WCED–World Commission on Environment and Develop- ment (1987) Our common future. University Press, Oxford 35 3

Conceptual Framework

3.1 Properties, Potentials and Services of Ecosystems – 36 O. Bastian and K. Grunewald 3.1.1 The Cascade Model in the TEEB Study – 36 3.1.2 The EPPS Framework – 36 3.1.3 The Application of the EPPS Framework–The Example ‘Mountain Meadow’ – 44

3.2 Classification of ES – 45 O. Bastian, K. Grunewald and R.-U. Syrbe 3.2.1 Introduction – 45 3.2.2 Provisioning Services – 46 3.2.3 Regulation Services – 46 3.2.4 Sociocultural Services – 46 3.2.5 Additional Classification Aspects – 49

3.3 Space and Time Aspects of ES – 53 K. Grunewald, O. Bastian and R.-U. Syrbe 3.3.1 Fundamentals, Control Scheme – 53 3.3.2 Case Study: EU-Water Framework Directive (WFD) and ES – 59

3.4 Landscape Services – 65 O. Bastian, K. Grunewald, M. Leibenath, R.-U. Syrbe, U. Walz and W. Wende

References – 69

K. Grunewald, O. Bastian (eds.), Ecosystem Services – Concept, Methods and Case Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-44143-5_3, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 36 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

3.1 Properties, Potentials and the international scientific discussions into and Services of Ecosystems account, we consider the framework depicted in . Fig. 3.2 appropriate for ES issues. According O. Bastian and K. Grunewald to this, the ‘functions’ in the sense of ecosystem integrity are directly attributed to the left pillar 3.1.1 The Cascade Model in the TEEB (‘properties of ecosystems’), while the societal 3 Study functions are subsumed in the ES. This better corresponds with the German understanding of the Anyone wants to analyze and evaluate ecosystem term ‘function’ (7 Sect. 2.1). In the cascade model services is going to be challenged finding the suit- of Haines-Young and Potschin (2009) (. Fig. 3.1), able methodology. Due to the complexity of the is- functions represent their own intermediate step be- sue ‘services of nature for society’, this is no simple tween the structure and processes on the one side feat. Generally valid methodical requirements refer and the ES on the other side. This subgroup of eco- to the scientific foundations, intersubjective com- system processes is essential for and directly con- prehensibility, and communicability. The interdis- tributes to the generation of ES (Albert et al. 2012). ciplinary approach is not only the terminology, but The potentials of an ecosystem (or a landscape) rather the diversity of methods and the different show its performance and possible utilisation and, perspectives and approaches (7 Fig. 1.5), which thus, they are a logical intermediate step between must be geared to specific, quite concrete ques- the properties (structure and processes) and the tions. It is necessary to distinguish between general ES themselves (real use of nature and landscape, or principles and concepts on the one side and specific demand). This conceptual concept is called EPPS investigation methods on the other side. framework (derived from Ecosystem Properties, Po- In view of the complexity and multidiscipli- tentials and Services, cp. Grunewald and Bastian narity of the problem area ecosystem service (ES) 2010; Bastian et al. 2012b). it is no surprise that different scientific-theoretical The basic elements of the EPPS framework will approaches and practical methods have emerged be explained in the following section. over time, which complement each other, or which are partially congruent or divergent. This Ecosystem Properties is reflected in the classification of ES (7 Sect. 3.2), On the left side of the EPPS framework (. Fig. 3.2) but also in the different theoretical-methodical are the properties of ecosystems–individual ob- concepts. jects, parts of objects and even entire ecosystem The cascade model of Haines-Young and complexes–and the structures and processes (e.g. Potschin (2009) and Maltby (2009) is a frequently soil qualities, nutrient cycles, biological diversity), cited framework and was also adopted by TEEB which form the basis for all ES and, moreover, for (2010) (. Fig. 3.1). The graph presents the chain from the existence of humans and of human society in the ecosystems to human well-being. The ES medi- general. According to van Oudenhoven et al. (2012), ate between the structures, processes and functions ecosystem properties are the set of ecological con- (functioning) of ecosystems and the benefits and ditions, structures, and processes that determine values belonging to the human well-being. In the whether an ES can be supplied. Since this ecologi- real world, however, the relation is not so simple cal endowment is, first of all, scientifically based, it as the graph might communicate. Nevertheless, the has to be assigned mainly to the factual level. The general structure proposed by the scheme is widely (scientific) analysis of ecosystem properties is the accepted among experts. research starting point as it enables an understanding of the functional principles of nature. It is the matter of the performance basis, i.e. 3.1.2 The EPPS Framework those components of nature that provide services, e.g. the particular components of specifications Based on this scheme (. Fig. 3.1) and taking the of ecosystems, which ensure primary production, knowledge of various schools of landscape ecology floodregulation or aesthetic values. As a component 37 3.1 • Properties, Potentials and Services of Ecosystems 3

. Fig. 3.1 The chain from ecosystem structures and processes to human well-being (from TEEB 2010; 7 www.teebweb. org/EcologicalandEconomicFoundationDraftChapters/tabid/29426/Default.aspx, Chap. 1, p. 11)

dŝŵĞĂƐƉĞĐƚƐ͗ƟŵĞƐĐĂůĞƐ͕ĚƌŝǀŝŶŐĨŽƌĐĞƐ͕ĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ͕ƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ

ĂƐŝƐ KƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐ hƟůŝƐĂƟŽŶ sĂůƵĂƟŽŶ ,ĂŶĚůŝŶŐ ;ƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůͿ ;ĞĐŽů͘ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͿ ;ƐŽĐŝŽͲĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐͿ ;ƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐͿ

3K\VLFDOOHYHO,QWHUPHGLDWHOHYHO 6RFLRHFRQRPLFDOOHYHO WƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ WŽƚĞŶƟĂůƐ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĞŶĞĮƚƐ͕ hƐĞƌƐ͕ ;ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ͕ ĨŽƌůĂŶĚƵƐĞ ǀĂůƵĞƐ ďĞŶĞͲ ͲWƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶŝŶŐ ĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐ͕ ;ŝŶĐů͘ ĮĐŝĂƌŝĞƐ ͲZĞŐƵůĂƟŽŶ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞƐ͕ŇƵǆĞƐͿ ƌĞƐŝůŝĞŶĐĞͿ ;ǁĞůůďĞŝŶŐͿ ;ŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐͿ Ͳ^ŽĐŝŽĐƵůƚƵƌĂů ^ƵƉƉůǇ ĞŵĂŶĚ

^ƉĂƟĂůĂƐƉĞĐƚƐ͗ƐƉĂƟĂůƐĐĂůĞƐ͕ĚŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶƐ͕ƉĂƩĞƌŶƐ

hƐĞ͕ŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͕ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ͕ƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŽŶ͕ƐƚĞĞƌŝŶŐ

&ĂĐƚƵĂůůĞǀĞů;ĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞͿ

sĂůƵĂƟŽŶůĞǀĞů;ŚƵŵĂŶƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞͿ

. Fig. 3.2 Conceptual framework for the analysis and evaluation of ES with a particular focus on space and time aspects (from Grunewald and Bastian 2010, modified) 38 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

Functional Traits

Sometimes only specific parts of membership) for service provision. control of plant pests can be pro- ecosystems, single species, indi- Later, the SPU concept was com- vided by various generalist and viduals or parts of them (roots bined with the concept of ESPs to specialist predators and parasitoids. or leafs of plants) are relevant form the SPU–ESP continuum (Luck Bees are the dominant taxon pro- 3 to ES. The issue that functional et al. 2009), which was simplified by viding crop pollination services, but groups, populations, communi- Rounsevell et al. (2010) as the ser- birds, bats, moths, flies, and other ties and different genotypes or vice provider (SP) concept. insects can also be important. The species may contribute to service Despite their potential value multiple service provision by subal- provision to different degrees at for ecosystem service assessments, pine grasslands depends on plant different times or in different places very little is known about the role functional groups; recreational has been discussed for several years of the functional, structural, and services, such as birdwatching or (de Bello et al. 2010). This involves genetic components of biodiver- duckhunting rely on specific animal the concepts of functional traits sity (Diaz et al. 2007). Examples for taxonomic groups. The literature (Lavorel et al. 1998) and service the role of functional groups are also mentions examples of ESs pro- providing units (SPU–Luck et al. known in soil formation where vided by such single species as the 2003; Harrington et al. 2010; Haslett key taxa exist, such as legumes, Eurasian jay (Garrulus glandarius), et al. 2010): a SPU is ‘the collection of which are able to fix atmospheric which ensures oak seed dispersal, or organisms and their characteristics nitrogen and build up nitrogen the Eurasian wildcat (Felis silvestris), necessary to deliver a given ecosys- stores in the soil. An other example whose presence makes it a flagship tem service at the level required by is deep-rooted species that can species in terms of recreational/ service beneficiaries’. Kremen (2005) relocate nutrient elements from touristic value (Vandewalle et al. emphasised the importance of key the parent material to the surface 2008; Haines-Young and Potschin ecosystem service providers (ESPs) layers. At a finer scale, sequestra- 2009). The loss of an important and functional groups of species tion of carbon in stable aggregates functional group may cause drastic (e.g. population abundance and depends on the activity of the soil changes in the functioning of eco- spatiotemporal variation in group fauna: in many managed systems, systems.

of nature, this basis for services is materially mani- and changes (e.g. in the framework of the ‘Ecosys- fested and can, in principle, be measured (Staub et tem Research Germany’–Fränzle 1998), as well as al. 2011). scientific literature (e.g. Leser and Klink 1988; Bas- Hence, the analysis of ecosystem properties is tian and Schreiber 1999). predominantly driven by natural scientific methods Valueless categories like complexity, diversity, using analytical indicators. Indicators can be rather rarity, ecosystem integrity, ecosystem health or re- easily analyzed and they illustrate the concerned silience also belong to the category of ‘ecosystem problem especially well. Without them it is almost properties’ (de Groot et al. 2002). The concept of impossible to decipher the complicated network ‘ecological integrity’ as a precondition for the sup- of relationships of ecosystems (and landscapes) ply of ES is applied by the assessment method of (Durwen et al. 1980; Walz 2011). One category of Burkhard et al. (2009), and Müller and Burkhard indicators is bioindicators: organisms, whose living (2007, 7 Sect. 4.1). According to Barkmann (2001) functions can be correlated with certain environ- the ‘ecological integrity’ describes the maintenance mental factors in such a manner that they can be of those structures and processes that are necessary used as a specific indicator for them. As indicators for the ecosystems’ self-regulation capacity. The may simplify informations and present them com- ecological integrity is mainly based on variables of prehensively, they enable decision-makers to give energy and matter balance, as well as on structural convincing reasons for their decisions. properties of whole ecosystems. These components There is now extensive experience in the field are similar to those defined in other ES-studies as of analyzing ecosystems, their structures, processes supporting services (e.g. in MEA 2005). 39 3.1 • Properties, Potentials and Services of Ecosystems 3

Biomass Potentials

The concept of potentials will be landscape management measures of Saxony, an amount sufficient for described in Sect. 4.4.2 using the shall make a tangible contribution workable realisation concepts. example of the ‘energetic use of to satisfy our energy needs. This example shows how the biomass’ as a presently widely dis- By order of the Saxon State feasibility of natural resources cussed topic (utilisation of the biot- Office for Environment, Agriculture usage may be analyzed and evalu- ic productivity, the so-called ‘biotic and Geology (LfULG), the consulting ated. This provides an important yield potential’ to produce energeti- firm Bosch & Partner has calculated basis for planning purposes. On this cally usable biomass, 7 Sect. 4.4.2). the biomass potential of the Free basis, the existing but still almost The land potential for bioenergy in State of Saxony (Peters 2009). For not used potential may be used Germany is c. 3–4 million ha (SRU this purpose, databases for the rel- properly–in this case for bioenergy 2007), including energy crops and evant area types like grassland, wa- production–if there are appropri- biomass from landscape manage- ter margins, and roadside greenery ate framework conditions (e.g. ment, the application of which were established (. Fig. 3.3). This po- technology, logistics, remunera- can be honored by a so-called tential was regionalised with the aid tion). Not only would the energy landscape management bonus of a geographic information system sector benefit from it, but also the under the Renewable-Energies- (GIS). Thus, biomass potentials of c. socio-economic significance and Act–EEG 2009). In the future, region- 204,000 ha with c. 667,500 t annual the social standing of nature con- ally energetic use of biomass from yield are available in the Free State servation.

Ecosystem Potentials–The Capacity the carrying capacity, meaning the range of a pos- or Supply Side sible use should be mentioned. It indicates to which Depending on their properties, ecosystems are able extent particular utilisations may be tolerated. For to supply services; they have particular potentials example, high (natural) soil fertility allows the as- or capacities for that. Potentials (7 Chap. 2) have sumption of a high potential for farming, though, consciously been included as the second, so as to this alone is not sufficient if, for example, risk fac- distinguish between the possibility of use and an tors like high erosion disposition may damage the actual use, which is the expression of the real ser- topsoil at some point, which eventually causes the vice (Bastian et al. 2012a). Potentials can be regard- loss of the usability for farming. ed and quantified as stocks of ES, while the services The assessment of ecosystem potentials also themselves represent the actual flows (Haines- pursues the goal of ascertaining the potential use Young et al. 2012). of particular services, and is more normative than In terms of ecosystem potentials, various pre- a mere accounting of ecosystem properties. It con- conditions need to be considered, e.g. the ecologi- stitutes an important basis for planning, e.g. for the cal carrying capacity and the resilience, which is implementation of sustainable land-use systems: defined as ‘the capacity of a system to absorb and the suitability of an ecosystem to carry different utilise or even benefit from perturbations and forms of land use can be established, the available changes that attain it, and so to persist without a but still unused potentials can be put to actual use, qualitative change in the system’ (Holling in Ring and risks can be estimated. et al. 2010). This is closely related to the ecological stabil- Ecosystem Services ity, i.e. the persistence of an ecological system and Only human needs or demands actually convert a its capacity to return to the initial situation after potential into a real service. ES, the third pillar of changes. Within the ‘stability’, we can distinguish the framework (. Fig. 3.2), reflect an even stronger between constancy and cyclicity (without extra- human perspective (value level), since the services neous factors), as well as between resistance and (and goods) are in fact currently valued, demanded, elasticity (with extraneous factors). In this regard, or used. In other words, the status of an ES is influ- 40 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

landscape basic yield of management units biomass X First pillar (ha) (t· ha−1 ·a−1) (ecosystem properties)

theoretical potential energetically usable (or capacity) to part produce biomass per [%] - analyzing - unit [t·a−1] X

energetically usable potential Second pillar of biomass per unit (ecosystem potentials) [t·a−1]

- planning and decision step - - assessing -

demand of biomass / production of energy from landscape management Third pillar [kWh or €] (ecosystem services)

. Fig. 3.3 Algorithm for the calculation of the biomass potential for energetic use. (According to Peters 2009)

enced not only by its provision of a certain service, example being economic valuation (e.g. Costanza but also by human needs and the desired level of et al. 1997; Spangenberg and Settele 2010). provision for this service by society, which connects Intact ecosystems provide a wide variety of inseparably supply and demand of ES (Burkhard et ES that are characterised by complex interrela- al. 2012; Syrbe and Walz 2012). tions (trade-offs, see below). Some ES are strictly We regard services and (societal) functions as related or occur in bundles and, therefore, are in- synonyms. The term ‘function’ stands for a benefit- fluenced positively or negatively if a particular ES oriented view, not for the functioning of ecosys- is enhanced (e.g. the maximisation of the yield tems in the sense of processes, cycles, etc. We pre- of an arable field at the expense of regulation ES, fer a tripartite classification of functions (Bastian like carbon sequestration, or habitat services). The and Schreiber 1999) or ES (Grunewald and Bastian manner of connections and interrelations between 2010): provisioning, regulation and sociocultural single ES is still an issue with significant knowledge services (7 Sect. 3.2). gaps (MEA 2005). The analysis of ES always involves a valuation Although the EPPS framework focuses on the step, e.g. scientific findings (facts) are transformed benefits produced, it also implicitly includes nega- into human driven value categories. The decisive tive social or economic effects of ecosystems (and factor is the combination of the various causal areas landscapes) to human well-being, so-called ‘disser- in the relationship between society and nature, one vices’ (Lyytimäki and Sipilä 2009; Dunn 2010). 41 3.1 • Properties, Potentials and Services of Ecosystems 3

Classification of ES-Related Values 7( Sects. 2.3 and 7 4.2)

ES-related values can be classified Option values und quasi- of future generations) also belong into two categories: use values and option values are connected with to this heading. It is often difficult nonuse values. Use values refer to information and uncertainty. As to differentiate the single categories the present, future, or potential use humans are not sure what are their of nonuse values, both conceptually of an ES. They encompass direct future demands, circumstances of and empirically (Hein et al. 2006). and indirect use, option, and quasi- life and then available information, Quasi-option values represent option values. they evaluate the option of a pos- the value of irreversible decisions, Values for hunting, fishery, and sible future use, and they take the until new information is not avail- medical plants are examples for use expected information growth into able, which may indicate today still values. All provisioning and some account. unknown values of ecosystems. sociocultural services (e.g. recre- Society attributes nonuse Quasi-option values, too, are dif- ation) provide direct use values. values to the mere existence of an ficult to assess in practice (Hein Indirect use values refer especially ecosystem regardless of the use et al. 2006). They are strongly cor- to the positive effects of ecosys- of its services (existence values). responding with the concept of tems. Examples are the values of Altruistic values (benefits of exis- natural potentials. pollination and decomposition of tence for other people) and bequest toxic substances. values (benefits for the well-being

As previously stated, the term ES is only jus- yield benefits and values (fourth pillar of the EPPS tified if ecosystems and their processes generate framework), which contribute to human well- a benefit for humans. Status and value of ES are being. The benefit is the sociocultural or economic determined by the demand depending on the so- welfare gain provided through the ES, such as cietal conditions. The actual land use reflects such health, employment, and income. Moreover, the a demand. For the application of the ES concept, benefits of ES must have a direct relationship to the demand side plays a crucial role. Nevertheless, human wellbeing (Fisher and Turner (2008). Value in contrast to ‘ecological’ assessments and plan- is most commonly defined as the contribution of nings (e.g. within landscape planning, cp. Wende ES to goals, objectives or conditions that are speci- et al. 2011a; Albert et al. 2012), spatially precise rep fied by a user (van Oudenhoven et al. 2012). Actors resentations of the demand or the comparison of in society can attach a value to these benefits. supply and demand are still rarely implemented Monetary value can help to internalise so-called (7 Sect. 5.3). The demand for services, however, externalities (impacts and side effects) in economic is the basis of an appropriate spatial planning. To valuation procedures so that they can be better analyze the demand, information about the ac- taken into account in decision-making processes at tual, intended or desired use of ES is needed, e.g. all levels. It should be noted that not all dimensions through socio-economic modelling, statistics, or of human well-being can be expressed in monetary questionnaires (Burkhard et al. 2012). Suitable data terms, e.g. cultural and spiritual values. is often only available to a limited extent. They For human well-being factors like health, pre- must be specifically collected, which mostly entails vention of psychological damages, aesthetic plea- a significant amount of work. sure, recreation, food supply, and economic pros- Both sections 7 Chaps. 4 and 7 5 and the case perity are crucial. They are influenced positively studies give an overview of common methodological by ES. For the Millennium Ecosystem Assess- approaches for assessing ES (7 Chap. 6). ment (MEA 2005) and several other authors (e.g. Costanza et al. 1997; Wallace 2007) ES and benefits Benefits, Values and Welfare are identical. Through the link ‘ecosystem services’, human beings In order to measure benefits and values, an eval- benefit from ecosystems. That means, ecosystems uation step is necessary. Generally, an evaluation 42 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

is a relation between an evaluating subject and an scriptive consideration). In other words: it is not object of evaluation, or the degree of fulfilment in possible to derive value judgments from ecological comparison with predetermined objectives. This findings or to answer respective questions such as relation has two dimensions: ‘Which nature we want to protect?’ or ‘How nature 55 Factual dimension: facts on the object to be shall be protected?’ Things are not valuable per se, evaluated for the reflection of the reality but because we appreciate them and decide so. 3 55 Value dimension: value system or basic values Already Hume (1740) referred in his ‘A Trea- as a normative basis for the value judgment tise of Human Nature’ to the problem of the di- (Bechmann 1989, 1995) chotomy between what is and what ought to be. As a term for the derivation of norms from nature, The evaluation shows the extent to which the pre Moore introduced the term ‘naturalistic fallacy’ in sent state differs from the desired or planned one his ‘Principa Ethica’ in 1903 (see Erdmann et al. (Auhagen 1998). The literature often uses the term 2002). Terms like naturalness, rarity, etc. don’t nec- ‘evaluation’ ambiguously (Wiegleb 1997), e.g. in essarily prejudge a value decision. The protection the sense of basic assessment (scaling), judgment, of rare species must be justified because not all rare ranking (relative comparison), or plan/actual com- things are per se worthy of protection. A near-nat- parisons (= evaluation sensu stricto). ural vegetation is not generally desirable, e.g. from An evaluation is the crucial step to process the farmer’s point of view if he looks at his weedy analytical data concerning decision-making and arable field. However, from a nature conservation action, i.e. to convert scientific parameters into point of view, a near-natural vegetation can also socio-political categories. be undesired if, for instance, a colourful flowering An evaluation sensu stricto indicates the extent meadow owing its existence to human influences and the manner of necessary measures. It provides shall be conserved and not become fallow-field, the norms and orientations for the concrete action, shrubland or forest. which is always a decision between several options. The sense of formalised evaluation algorithms If an evaluation shall be generally valid, the consen- is to rationalise the (landscape) planning process sus of the human society is necessary; it is a matter and to increase the acceptance of the results by so- of conventions and, thus, depending on the situa- ciety. tion and time. Therefore, evaluation can never be For the analysis of benefits and values in the objective. The skill of evaluation is the combination ES context, monetary valuation is often regarded of facts and standards of value with sensible judge- as the method of choice. The sole orientation to the ment. Evaluations are always based on the compe- monetary valuation of ES, however, is increasingly tence of the evaluating subject. On no account does regarded critical (Spangenberg and Settele 2010). subjectivity mean arbitrariness or irrationality since On the other side, studies on the implementation an evaluation is or should be also comprehended of measures and their financial consequences (e.g. by other subjects (intersubjectivity). Necessary pre- Lütz and Bastian 2000; von Haaren and Bathke conditions for this are disclosed facts and standards 2008; Grossmann et al. 2010), have shown that a of value that are combined in a systematical man- monetary valuation of services may provide incen- ner, i.e. using well-defined assessment procedures tives for alterations in existing management rules (Bechmann 1995; Bastian and Steinhardt 2002). or decision support for certain problem solutions. There are quite different motivations to valu- Monetary values served to internalise so-called ate ES. These motivations heavily depend on moral, externalities (external influences, impacts) in eco- aesthetic, and other cultural perspectives (Hein et nomic valuation methods in order to take them al. 2006). better into account in decision processes at all levels It is often neglected that scientific findings are (7 Sect. 4.2). in principle free of value. That means that there is In addition to the economic evaluation, other no logical conclusion on the desired situation (nor- approaches must also be observed to show the mative consideration) from being (actual state, de- importance of ES. Other dimension of human 43 3.1 • Properties, Potentials and Services of Ecosystems 3 well-being that cannot be expressed in monetary 55 Regional and cross-border benefits: regula- values, e.g. cultural and spiritual values, should also tion of climate and floods, mitigation of wild be integrated. Participative methods have a great fires, provisioning and purification of water in significance, i.e. the participation of stakeholders. transnational river basins, etc. Thepreferences for certain ES are negotiated within 55 International/global public benefits: a site’s society. As a basis, adequate background knowl- provision of habitat for a migratory species at edge is indispensable, which entails ecological as some point in its annual cycle, regulation of well as economic information (7 Sect. 4.3). climate (carbon capture and storage), mainte- In principle we distinguish between three nance of global species and genetic diversity, types of methods for the evaluation of ES etc. (7 Sect. 4.1, 7 Sect. 4.2 and 7 Sect. 4.3): quantitative 55 International private benefits: new pharma- expert methods (mainly ecologically or physically ceutical or medicinal product derived via bio- based), economic/monetary methods and partici- prospecting, etc. pative, scenario-based methods. Complex methods as combinations of these three methods are dis- Trade-Offs, Limit Values, Driving cussed in 7 Sect. 4.4. Forces and Scenarios Other very important points of view regarding ES Beneficiaries of ES/Actors are related e.g. to the so-called trade-offs. They de- An ecosystem service is only a service if there is scribe the multiple interactions and linkages among a human benefit. Without human beneficiaries, services; this means that management aimed at pro- there are no ES (Fisher et al. 2009). Accordingly, viding a single service (e.g. food, fibre, water) often a disservice only exists if humans suffer harm. The reduces biodiversity and the provision of other ser- stakeholders, providers, users or beneficiaries of vices (Ring et al. 2010). Some ES co-vary positively ecosystems and their services (pillar 5 of the EPPS but others negatively. For example, the increase of framework) can be single persons, groups, or soci- provisioning ES may reduce many regulation ES. ety as a whole. Not only do they depend or benefit Thus, the growth of agricultural production may from ecosystems, they in turn react upon ecosys- reduce carbon storage in the soils, water regulation tems through land use, management, decision, and/or sociocultural ES. The TEEB study (TEEB regulation, etc. (7 Chap. 5). 2009) distinguishes between: 1. Temporal trade- The identification of beneficiaries of ES helps offs: Benefits now–costs later, 2. Spatial trade-offs: to develop environmental-political steering instru- benefits here–costs there, 3. Beneficiary trade-offs: ments to set incentives in a targeted manner for a Some win–others lose, 4. Service trade-offs: En- more careful management of ecosystems and the hancing one ES–reduces another. services they deliver. The key question is: Who ben- All pillars or categories of the framework can efits where from which ES? The following cases can or should be analyzed and differentiated in terms be distinguished (Kettunen et al. 2009): of space (e.g. scale, dimension, patterns) and time 55 Local public benefits: a site’s role in supporting (e.g. driving forces, changes, scenarios) aspects local identity, local recreation, local nonmarket (7 Sect. 3.3). forest products and the local ‘brand’, etc. Ecosystems can go through fairly big changes: If 55 Local private benefits: a site’s support to critical thresholds or limit values are exceeded, sub- natural water purification resulting in lower stantial changes cannot be excluded, e.g. the eutro- pretreatment costs to the local water supply phication of lakes, the degradation of farmland, the company, etc. collapse of fish stocks or coral reefs. 55 Local public sector benefits: a site’s abilities Ecosystem changes can be triggered by vari- to mitigate floods resulting to lower public ous, partly superposed driving forces. Artner et al. investment in flood control and/or flood dam- (2005) distinguished between fixed factors or driv- age, etc. ers, e.g. the ongoing globalisation, the demographic change and variable factors like the economic 44 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

development, the societal governance, leisure be- cal substances (spignel plants–Meum atha- haviour, the traffic volume, the consumption of re- manticum–and other herbs), drinking water sources and the structural development. 55 Regulation services: cold air production, water The status of ES can be predicted or analyzed retention and flood prevention, erosion con- under the assumption of different scenarios. In control, habitat services trast to a prognosis, a scenario is no forecast and 55 Sociocultural services: aesthetic values (e.g. 3 not correlated with a statement on the probability scenery), recreation and eco-tourism, culture- of occurrence. Instead it represents a possible de- historical aspects velopment under defined, predictable conditions. A set of scenarios can be used to simulate possible Not all of these potentials are really used. There is al- long-term effects and consequences of decisions most no demand for the biomass from species-rich (Dunlop et al. 2002) (7 Sect. 4.3). Scenarios inform but low yielding meadows since the current dairy the decision-maker about possible welfare gains cattle farming trimmed for high-performance has and losses. Not only do the changes in ecosystems no use for it. The energetic use of scrap materials and ES have to be considered, but also the variabili- from landscaping is not very advanced either. Until ty of values. Value orientations are subject to cycles a market or customers for such materials will come and trends (one of the best examples are fashion into existence, no benefit or value in an economic trends). The future development of societal values sense can be attributed. The situation with biodiver- depends on many factors. As the value scales, e.g. sity and aesthetic values is quite different, although a the value of money, may change, monetary valua- quantification or even monetisation is anything but tions of future states are subject to considerable un- easy. Irrespective of this, colourful flowering mead- certainties (see the discounting of ES, 7 Sect. 4.2). ows contribute to human well-being because of their beauty and if their occurrence is related to the attractiveness of holiday regions, economic values can be 3.1.3 The Application of the EPPS derived, for instance, in the form of the number of Framework–The Example tourists traveling there just because of these attrac- ‘Mountain Meadow’ tive mountain meadows. In this case, tourists and touristic enterprises can be regarded as beneficia- Finally, the application of the EPPS framework will ries, with regard to the maintenance of biodiversity be demonstrated with an example, the ecosystem the whole society or even the European Community (type) ‘mountain meadow’. (in the case of Natura 2000, 7 Sect. 6.6.1). Mountain meadows are species-rich, extensive- Mountain meadows seem to be natural, but they ly used meadows of fresh to medium moist sites of represent ecosystems created by humans through mountains above c. 500 m a.s.l. Depending on the regular cutting. Hence, an adequate usage or man- geographical situation, nutrient content, moisture agement must be ensured so that the mountain balance of soils, type and intensity of use or man- meadows as such and the related/relevant ES are agement, e.g. cutting frequency and fertilisation, maintained. This requires human labour, e.g. of mountain meadows occur in different specifica- agricultural enterprises, landscape management tions. associations, or nature conservation organisations. For the capacity of mountain meadows to de- The ones ensuring the ongoing existence of the liver ES, particular characteristics, combinations of meadows and the provision of ES with their activi- them or parts of ecosystems (functional traits–see ties are not always identical with the beneficiaries. above) are crucial, e.g. nutrient and water balance, However, as society is interested in, for example, the the combination of species and usage intensity. conservation of biodiversity, which is reflected in Mountain meadows have the potential to deliver many laws, contracts, conventions and strategies at manifold ES of all three classes–provisioning, regu- different levels, the expense is remunerated in mon- lation and sociocultural services, among them: etary terms (7 Sect. 6.2). Simultaneously, society en- 55 Provisioning services: provision of fodder sures for necessary legal instruments in the form of plants for livestock, biochemical/pharmaceuti- protected areas (nature reserves, Natura 2000, etc.). 45 3.2 • Classification of ES 3

All these levels, starting from the ecosystem accepted, and meets broad requirements. With re- ‘mountain meadow’ (physical level, factual level) spect to the classification of ecosystem and land- over the ES (intermediate level) to the benefits and scape functions, potentials and services, there are beneficiaries (socio-economic level) are subjected numerous proposals, classification systems and to manifold space and time aspects (7 Sect. 3.3). partly divergent opinions. Depending on the goals Thus, at the ecosystem level, the size of the moun- of the assessment, spatial scales and specific deci- tain meadow or its arrangement in the biotope mo- sion-making context, they all show both strengths saic is important, so that the requirements of par- and weaknesses. ticular species are met. As a rule, a large mountain For the past decades science has been trying to meadow delivers more services than a small one, determine a way of classifying ecosystem functions if the other properties are more or less identical; a (and services). In 1977, Niemann distinguished big flowering meadow has a higher aesthetic effect four groups of functions: production, landscape- as a smaller one. Also, benefits and beneficiaries shaping (ecological), human-ecological, and aes- are subject of strong spatial relationships. Thus, the thetic ones. Van der Maarel and Dauvellier (1978) local landscape management association ensures declared production, carrier, information, regula- the maintenance of the mountain meadow, and the tion and reservoir functions as societal functions of travelling tourists benefit from its aesthetic values. the physical landscape. Bastian and Schreiber (1999) The effect of the ‘conservation of biodiversity’ is divided landscape functions into three groups: so- difficult to narrow down in terms of its effective called production functions (economic functions), radius, but it may refer–as with Natura 2000–to the regulation functions (ecological functions) and whole EU and even other countries. habitat functions (sociocultural functions). Each In terms of time aspects, first of all the changes group was again classified into main-functions and to which the ecosystems are subjected should be sub-functions. regarded, this is especially the case with mountain De Groot et al. (1992, 2002) defined regulation, meadows due to improper or missing usage or man- production, habitat, and information functions (or agement. Over time attitudes and value systems of services). The TEEB study also identifies the habitat people may change. services as a separate category to stress the impor- Changes are triggered by driving forces: globali- tance of ecosystems to provide habitat for migrato- sation and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) ry species and gene-pool ‘protectors’ (TEEB 2010). of the EU, but also technological progress reducing Using the definition of Costanza et al. (1997), the the attractiveness of mountain meadows for agricul- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) ture. Demographic change goes hand in hand with a provided a simple typology of services that has shortage of personnel in voluntary nature conserva- been widely taken-up in the international research tion, i.e. less actors are available who will take care and policy literature: of the mountain meadows (Wende et al. 2012). Cli- 55 Provisioning services, e.g. food, drinking wa- mate change, too, will doubtless have some measure ter, timber of impact on such sensible ecosystems. 55 Regulating services, e.g. flood protection, air pollution control 55 Cultural services, e.g. recreation services 3.2 Classification of ES 55 Supporting services: all processes that ensure necessary preconditions for the existence of O. Bastian, K. Grunewald and R.-U. Syrbe ecosystems, e.g. nutrient cycle.

3.2.1 Introduction The ES classification systems outlined above shows numerous commonalities, mainly in the three In view of the diversity and complexity of ecosys- classes provisioning, regulating and cultural servic- tems and the services they supply, it is difficult to es. There is disagreement about the assignment of develop a classification of ES which is clear, widely phenomena, which are the basis for the services of 46 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

the three other classes. This applies to the support- 3.2.2 Provisioning Services ing services (or basic services, ecosystem integrity– e.g. Müller and Burkhard 2007). We consider sup- Ecosystems may provide many goods and services porting services an intermediate (analytical) stage. from oxygen and water to food and energy to medic- They are a prerequisite for defining the other three inal and genetic resources, and materials for cloth- groups of services, but they are more related to the ing and shelter. As a rule, these goods and services 3 first pillar of our EPPS framework (7 Sect. 3.1), that refer to renewable biotic resources, i.e. the products of ecosystem properties. Other authors (e.g. Pfis- of living plants and animals. Abiotic resources (raw terer et al. 2005, Burkhard et al. 2009, Hein et al. materials near the earth’s surface), wind and solar 2006, OECD 2008, Haines-Young and Potschin energy cannot be assigned to particular ecosystems; 2010) also suggest treating them differently from hence, they are not, in our view, to be considered the other ES, which provide their benefits directly ecosystem goods and services. Especially in ecosys- to humans. Due to thematic overlaps with regulat- tems strongly modified by humans (e.g. farmland) ing ES there is a high risk of double-counting (Hein it is difficult to differentiate between the natural and et al. 2006, Burkhard et al. 2009, see Box p. 51). human inputs in labour, material and energy to a The breakdown into productive (economic), service or a good (. Table 3.1). regulating (ecological), and societal functions or services (Bastian and Schreiber 1999, Bastian et al. 2012b) has the advantage that it can be linked to 3.2.3 Regulation Services both fundamental concepts of sustainability and risk using the established ecological, economic, The biosphere and its ecosystems are the main pre- and social development categories. We adjust the conditions for human life. Processes like energy supporting services–depending on the respective transformation mainly from solar radiation into situation–to the regulative services or the ecologi- biomass, storage and transfer of mineral material cal processes (e.g. nutrient cycles, food chains). and energy in food chains, bio-geochemical cycles, Ultimately, the classification depends on the re- mineralisation of organic matter in soils and cli- spective researcher. As a rule, three or four groups mate regulation are essential for life on earth. On with a total of 15 to 30 functions or services are dis- the other hand, these processes are influenced and tinguished. For useful results, they must be further enabled by the interaction of abiotic factors with specified. Moreover, information on suitable indi- living organisms. The existence and functioning of– cators that describe these ES is necessary. In this particularly natural and semi-natural–ecosystems respect there are still severe deficits in the literature must be ensured so that people will be able to con- (Jessel et al. 2009, TEEB 2009). tinue benefiting from these processes in the future. Below we present an overview of ES sup- Due to the ‘merely’ indirect benefits of regulation plied by terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems based services (. Tab. 3.2), they are often overlooked and on current knowledge (e.g. Costanza et al. 1997, not sufficiently considered until they are damaged de Groot et al. 2002, Müller and Burkhard 2007, or lost, although they are the basis for human life on Vandewalle et al. 2008) and on our own experi- earth (De Groot et al. 2002). ences and reflections (. Tab. 3.1–3.3). We classify 30 ES according to three main categories: provisioning, regulation and sociocultural services 3.2.4 Sociocultural Services -each with subdivisions. Furthermore, we provide a short definition and description with examples Especially natural and semi-natural ecosystems and mention selected indicators for the analysis provide manifold opportunities for enjoyment, or the assessment of the ES with no claim to com- inspiration, intellectual enrichment, aesthetic de- pleteness. light and recreation. Such ‘psychological-social’ services are no less important to people than regulation and provisioning services; however, they 47 3.2 • Classification of ES 3

. Table 3.1 Provisioning services

Code/Name of the Definition/Description Examples Selected ecosystem services indicators

I Food (provision of plant and animal materials)

P.1 Food and forage Cultivated plants as food/ Cereals, vegetables, fruits, Harvested yields (dt ha−1), plants forage for humans and edible oil, contribution margin animals hay (€ ha−1)

P.2 Livestock Slaughter and productive Cattle, pigs, Stock density (livestock livestock horses, poultry units per ha), contribution margin (€ ha−1)

P.3 Wild fruits and game Edible plants and animals Berries, mushrooms, game Shooting quota (animals from the wilderness per ha), yields (€ ha−1)

P.4 Wild fish Fishes and seafood caught Eels, herrings, shrimps, Catch quota and numbers, in waters shells harvest amounts (t ha−1), revenues (€ ha−1)

P.5 Aquaculture Fishes, shells or algae Carps, shrimps, oysters Produced amounts (t ha−1), growing in ponds or farm- revenues (€ ha−1) ing installations

II Renewable raw materials

P.6 Wood and tree Raw materials from trees Timber, cellulose, resin, Stock, growth, yields products in forests, plantations or natural rubber (m3 ha−1, t ha−1), revenues agro-forest systems (€ ha−1)

P.7 Vegetable fibres Fibres from herbaceous Cotton, hemp, flax, sisal Yields (t ha−1), revenues plants (from nature or (€ ha−1) cultivated)

P.8 Regrowing energy Biomass from energy Fire wood, charcoal, Yields (t ha−1), energy sources crops and wastes maize, rape, dung, liquid amount (MJ ha−1) manure

P.9 Other natural materi- Materials for industry, Leather, flavorings, pearls, Sold units (e.g. furs per als crafts, decoration, arts, feathers, ornamental year), revenues (€ ha−1) souvenirs fishes

III Other renewable natural resources

P.10 Genetic resources Genes und genetical Seeds, resistance genes Number of species information for breeding and biotechnology

P.11 Biochemicals, natural Raw materials for medi- Etheric oils, tees, Echina- Yields, amounts of active medicine cine, cosmetics and others cea, garlic, food supple- substance (kg ha−1), rev- to enhance health and ments, leeches, natural enues (€ ha−1) well-being crop protection products

P.12 Freshwater Clean water in ground- Rain, spring and fountain Raw water, drinking water and surface waters, discharge, bank filtrate (Tm³ a−1), revenues (€ ha−1) precipitation and in the underground for private, industrial and agricultural use 48 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

. Tab. 3.2 Regulation services

Code/Name of the Definition/Description Examples Selected ecosystem services indicators

I Climatologic and air hygienic services 3 R.1 Air quality regula- Air cleaning, gas exchange Filter effects (fine dust, Proportion of forests tion aerosols), oxygen pro- (%), leaf area index duction

R.2 Climate regulation Impacts on the maintenance of Cold air production, Proportion of forests natural climatic processes and humification, reducing and open areas (%), on reducing the risks of extreme temperature by the slope (°), albedo weather events vegetation, weakening of extreme temperatures and storms

R.3 Carbon sequestra- Removing carbon dioxide from Photosynthesis, fixation Proportion of vegetation the atmosphere and relocation in the vegetation cover tion areas (%), soil forms into sinks and in soils (e.g. peat)

R.4 Noise protection Reducing noise immissions by Noise protection effects Vitality, layering and vegetation and surface forms of vegetation density of vegetation

II Hydrological services

R.5 Water regulation Balancing impacts on the water Natural irrigation, soil Slope (°), land use (land level of watercourses and the storage, leaching/ cover) (%), soil types height, duration, delay and groundwater recharge avoiding floods, droughts and (forest) fires, protection against tidal flooding (e.g. by coral reefs, mangroves), water as transport medium, water power

R.6 Water purification Filter effects, storage of nutri- Nitrogen retention, Land cover (%), soil ents, decomposition of wastes denitrification, self- type, water structure purification of rivers and and stream margins lakes

III Pedological services

R.7 Erosion protection Effects of vegetation on soil Protection against land- Slope (°), soil types, land erosion, sedimentation, capping slides and avalanches, use, permanent land and silting breaking winds cover, slope protection forests, crop spectrum

R.8 Maintenance of Regeneration of soil quality by Nitrogen fixation, waste Crop diversity, soil types, soil fertility the edaphon (soil organisms), decomposition, humus removal of harvest soil generation (pedogenesis) formation and accumu- remnants and wood and nutrient cycles lation

IV Biological services (habitat functions)

R.9 Regulation of Mitigating influences on pests Songbirds, lacewings, la- Biocides applied, pests and diseases and the spread of epidemics dybirds, parasitic wasps, naturalness and vital- tics (Encephalitis) ity of the vegetation, proportion of (semi-) natural vegetation areas (%), species spectrum (parasites, predators, pests) 49 3.2 • Classification of ES 3

. Tab. 3.2 Continued

Code/Name of the Definition/Description Examples Selected ecosystem services indicators

R.10 Pollination Spread of pollens and seeds of Honey and wild bees, Proportion of (semi-) wild and domestic plants bumblebees, butterflies, natural vegetation areas syrphid flies (%), biocide application, proportion of flowering plants, genetically modified organisms

R.11 Maintenance of Conservation of wild species and Refuge and reproduc- Natural/semi-natural biodiversity breeds of cultivated plants and tion habitats of wild vegetation (proportion livestock plants and animals, %), naturalness struc- partial habitats of mi- tural diversity, biotope grating species, nursery compound, number of spaces (e.g. spawning species, rarity, endan- grounds for fishes), gering cattle breeds

are often neglected or not fully appreciated. One astonishment, as even an intensively used arable reason is the difficulty of valuating them economi- field may represent a habitat for several plant and cally, especially in monetary terms. A second group animal species. Arable land has a better infiltration includes information services, i.e. the contribu- rate and, hence, groundwater recharge compared tion of ecosystems to knowledge and education to forests! Biodiversity in cities may be high. Of (. Tab. 3.3). course, there are methodical specifications regarding the ES of highly modified or man-made ecosystems (e.g. urban ES, 7 Sect. 6.3). 3.2.5 Additional Classification Aspects Hermann et al. (2011) present a classification that distinguishes between two main groups, Classification systems that combine both ecosys- namely the active and passive functions. Whereas tem processes and the results of these processes the passive functions are divided into ‘regulating cause redundancy (Box ‘The problem of double- and life sustaining functions’ of the natural systems counting’). Hence, it should be strictly distin- (environmental regulation, habitat protection, guished between the benefit people enjoy (or the biomass generation) and the ‘potentials’ (biomass, so-called ‘final services’) on the one hand and the raw material production and provision of terri- mechanisms that give rise to that benefit, the so- tory for the different land uses and provision of called ‘intermediate services’, on the other hand. information and aesthetics), the active functions Any classification system containing both ecosys- are the services provided by human activities and tem processes and the outcomes of those processes artificial territories (settlements, infrastructure within the same set will produce redundancy (Wal- networks, recreation sites and agricultural sur- lace 2008). faces, etc.). Apart from the fact that it is difficult The literature also raises the question whether in practice to draw a sharp distinction between ES are delivered only by natural or semi-natural cultivated and natural ecosystems, most of the ES ecosystems or if they can also be delivered by cul- of Central European cultural landscapes would be tivated areas (Cowling et al. 2008). This may cause excluded by such a narrow ES concept. Instead, we 50 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

. Tab. 3.3 Sociocultural services

Code/Name of the Definition/Description Examples Selected ecosystem services indicators

I Psychological-social goods and services 3 C.1 Ethical, spiritual, Possibility to live in harmony Bioproducts, sacred Natural/semi-natural vegeta- religious values with nature, Integrity of places tion (%), extinct/threatened, Creation, freedom of choice, genetically modified organisms, fairness, generational equity biocide application

C.2 Aesthetic values Diversity, beauty, singularity, Flowering mountain Land use, vegetation types, crop naturalness of nature and meadows, harmoni- diversity, relief diversity/slopes landscape ous landscape

C.3 Identification Possibility for personal Natural and cultural Natural and cultural monu- bonds and sense of home in heritage, places of ments, historical landscape a landscape memory, traditional elements, architectural styles, knowledge persistence/continuity of landscape

C.4 Opportunities Conditions for sports, recre- Accessibility, security, Level of accessibility, carrying for recreation and ation and leisure activities in stimuli capacity, snow cover, number (eco)tourism nature and landscape and area of waters, attractive species, number of visitors

II Information services

C.5 Education and Opportunities to gain Natural soil profiles, Natural and cultural monu- training values, knowledge about natural functioning ecosys- ments, land-use forms, natural- scientific insights interrelations, processes and tems, rare species, ness genesis, scientific research traditional land and technological innova- knowledge tions

C.6 Mental, spiritual Stimulating fantasy and Impressive land- Natural and cultural monu- and artistic inspira- inventiveness, inspiration scapes, mounts, rivers, ments, diversity of the land tion in architecture, painting, cliffs, old trees photography, musics, dance, fashion, folklore

C.7 Environmental Gaining knowledge of Indication with Species spectrum (ecologi- indication environmental condi- lichens (air quality), cal groups), number of lichen tions, changes and threats indicator plants (site species, indicator organisms, by visually perceptible conditions) naturalness structures, processes and species

should follow an ES definition which does not dis- pointed out that conventional agriculture requires tinguish between both ecosystem types (Loft and various inputs (soil quality, fertiliser application, Lux 2010). human labour) that influence the yield. This, how- It is not possible to simply dismiss the problem ever, makes the identification and assessment of that some ES are not only resulting from ecosys- ES difficult, as too many non-natural factors are ef- tem effects, but that natural effects interfere with fective. In contrast, the amount of harvestable end- human influences. Thus, Boyd and Banzhaf (2007) products of nonactively cultivated ecosystems may 51 3.2 • Classification of ES 3

The Problem of Double-Counting

A clear distinction between the service; its indirect value is included basis the same ES may be intermedi- ecological phenomena on one in the value of the drinking water ate or final. Thus, the lake with drink- hand and their direct and indirect (cp. Wallace 2007). The focus of ES ing-water quality mentioned above contributions to human well-being classifications on final ES does not may be regarded as a final product on the other hand is necessary to mean to abstain from a comprehen- of nature, and a direct societal avoid double-counting, especially sive consideration and appreciation benefit can be attributed if the lake when considering the various ES as of ecosystem structures, processes serves as water reservoir (final ES). a whole or a sum, e.g. as the Total and cause-effect interrelationships. In another context, the same lake Economic Value. Double-counting But the regulative services are may be regarded as a supplier of may arise due to the fact that often also included in other ES, e.g. an intermediate ES, i.e. if the direct certain ES serve as prerequisite for pollination, which is important for benefit consists of fishing for leisure others and become a part of them the maintenance of fruit-growing and the special water quality only (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007, Balmford in the ES ‘food provision’. Mäler et ensures the fish stock in the lake et al. 2008, Wallace 2008). al. (2008) classified only provision- enabling fishing in the first place. In Intermediate ES are basing ing and cultural ES to final ES but this case, the indirect benefit of the on complex interactions between regulative and supporting ES to special water quality is included in ecosystem structures and processes the ‘final’ ES as both provisioning the direct benefit, which delivers the and contribute to final ES, which and cultural ES would influence fish stock for the angler (Boyd and directly provide human benefits human well-being directly, whilst Banzhaf 2007, Loft and Lux 2010). and well-being (Fisher et al. 2009). the other two would do so only Generally, there are quite For example, clean drinking water indirectly. controversial expert opinions with (e.g. from a lake) is traded on mar- After Costanza (2008) all ES respect to a clear classification kets and is included as a product in are ‘only’ means to achieve human of intermediate and final ES, and the calculation of welfare, but not well-being. Ecosystem processes agreement may hardly be achieved. the upstream process of natural may appear also as ES (the roles of Finally, the respective context and water filtering. This process can process or service are not mutually pragmatic points of view are crucial. be described as an intermediate exclusive), hence, on a case-by-case

be a measure for the assessment of ES. Also, the may be regarded as a final environmental good, for example of sport fishing mentioned above shows its production both human and ecosystem impacts the difficulty while analyzing and evaluating ES. are necessary. Hence, the evaluation, especially in Often, they can deliver benefits only through in- monetary terms, the anthropogenic part (human teractions with other goods and services since the performance = private costs) must be subtracted. recreation value arising through sport fishing con- This means that agriculture delivers environmen- sists of natural conditions (landscape, lake, fishes) tal services but no ES. Instead it uses them for the and artificial goods (fishing rods, boat, etc.). In production of demanded environmental goods other words: without technical tools like the fish- (7 Sect. 6.2.4). ing rod the recreation value would not come into The method developed for a welfare-oriented effect (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Loft and Lux 2010). perspective of the Swiss environmental report- For cases where for the provision of benefits ing, defines altogether 23 final ES (Final Ecosystem for humans not only ecosystem processes are Goods and Services–FEGS) in the benefit categories necessary, but also human impacts, Matzdorf et al. ‘health’, ‘safety’, ‘natural diversity’ and ‘economic per- (2010) suggested the term ‘environmental services’. formances’ (BAFU 2011). The attribute ‘service type’ For example, the maintenance of semi-natural indicates whether the provided service: meadows with their ES relies on regular mowing. 1. Is a directly usable ES Conscious exclusion of permitted actions, such as 2. Is an input factor for the production of market the application of fertilisers can be regarded as a goods by the economy human performance, too. Species-rich grassland 52 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

. Table 3.4 Ecosystem services classified ac- . Tab. 3.5 Classification of ecosystem services cording to their spatial characteristics (adapted according to their excludability and rivalness (after from Costanza 2008) Costanza 2008)

ES group Examples Excludable Nonexcludable

1. Global non-proximal Climate regulation Rival Market goods and Open access re- 3 (does not depend on Carbon sequestration, services (most sources (some proximity) carbon storage provisioning provisioning Cultural/existence value services) services)

2. Local proximal (de- Disturbance regulation/ Nonrival Club goods Public goods pends on proximity) storm protection (some recreation and services Waste treatment services) (most regulato- Pollination ry and cultural Biological control services) Habitat/refugia

3. Directional flow Water regulation/flood related: flow from point protection useful if they are used as a basis for decisions on of production to point Water supply different scales, or if Service Providing Area and of use Sediment regulation/erosion control Service Benefiting Area are not congruent (Fisher Nutrient cycle regulation et al. 2009, 7 Sect. 3.3). Costanza (2008) grouped ES into five cate 4. In situ (point of use) Soil formation Local food production gories according to their spatial characteristics (. Table 3.4). For example, he classified carbon se- 5. User movement re- Genetic resources lated: flow of people to Recreation potential questration (CO2 and other greenhouse gases; an unique natural features Cultural/aesthetic values intermediate input to climate regulation) as global: non-proximal since the spatial location of carbon sequestration does not matter. Local proximal services, however, are dependent on the spatial prox- 3. Is provided by a natural/healthy habitat (eco- imity of the ecosystem to the human beneficiaries. system) For example, ‘storm protection’ requires that the 4. Contributes to final ES as an intermediate ES ecosystem performing the protecting is proximal to the human settlements being protected. Directional (1) Directly usable ES cause discrete benefits to hu- flow related services are related to the flow from mans (e.g. recreation service). Input factors (2) are upstream to downstream as is the case for water final services of the ecosphere; they are integrated supply and water regulation. in a market product (e.g. timber growth), they Another way to classify ES is according to their belong to the benefit category ‘economic perfor- excludability and rivalness status (Costanza 2008, m a n c e’. The performance type (3) natural/healthy . Tab. 3.5). Thus, individuals can be excluded from habitat (ecosystem) contains welfare contributions benefiting from excludable goods and services. Most of the environment, which–in contrast to the clas- privately owned, marketed goods and services are sical ES–are not ‘produced’ by ecosystems but they relatively easily excludable. One can prevent oth- rather represent qualities of the habitat enabling ers from eating the tomatoes one has grown or the humans’ health life (e.g. air quality). The (4) inter- fish one caught unless they pay for these goods. But mediate ES are considered only exceptionally (e.g. it is difficult or impossible to exclude other people

CO2 sequestration), namely if the resulting ES oc- from benefiting from many public goods like a well- cur only with long delay, and therefore cannot be regulated climate, fish in the ocean, or the beauty of measured at the moment, yet. a forest. Goods and services are rival if one person’s The classification of ES according to spatial benefiting from them interferes with or is rival with characteristics is another possibility. This can be other people benefiting from them. If one person 53 3.3 • Space and Time Aspects of ES 3 eats the tomato or the fish, another cannot. But if repeatedly in the literature, but so far relatively few one person benefit from a favourable climate, other operationalised and systematised in terms of con- people can also do the same. There are cultural and ceptual and methodological aspects (e.g. Hein et al. institutional mechanisms available to enforce exclu- 2006; Bastian et al. 2012a). However, there are more sion, while rivalness is a function of demand (How and more international publications that operate do benefits depend on other users?). spatially explicit, e.g. the results of the PEER project (PEER Research on EcoSystem Services, 7 www.peer. Conclusion eu/projects/press/). All attempts to develop a generally applicable clas- The term ‘space’ is used and considered very sification system must be viewed with caution as important and constitutive in a wide range of sci- they are not targeted to a certain extent. ES arise entific disciplines, e.g. philosophy, mathematics and through complex interactions of the biotic and physics, but also history, medicine, theology, archae- abiotic environment, claims on utilisation and the ology, education science and sociology. Of course, expectations of the users. An inappropriate clas- this term is especially important for the inter- and sification system as a basis of assessments hardly multidisciplinary spatial sciences, such as geography, leads to reliable results. If decisions shall be taken environmental sciences, urban development and on an economic evaluation, the classification after architecture, spatial planning, traffic sciences and also the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) sociology and economics (cf. Müller 2005). Accord- is less useful since multiple counting may occur. ing to Blotevogel (1995) we understand ‘space’ as a: For this purpose, a classification should distinguish a. tangible physical space (pattern of different between intermediate and final services and ben- ares and cubes), which can be described objec- efits. Nevertheless, there is striving for internation- tively; ally consistent classification systems. The European b. the natural human environment (e.g. land- Environmental Agency (EEA) is promoting the Com- scape); and mon International Classification of Ecosystem Goods c. social space (social construction of reality, spaces and Services (CICES). The goal of CICES is, starting of collective actions, areas of spatial allocations). from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, to develop a new classification system, which is compat- Various main research questions need to be re- ible with the already existing national accounting solved in order to better integrate ES into landscape systems (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010). planning, management and decision-making, as identified by De Groot et al. (2010), who calls for a focus on aspects such as: ‘How can ecosystem/ 1 3.3 Space and Time Aspects of ES landscape functions and services be spatially defined (mapped) and visualised?’, and: ‘What is the K. Grunewald, O. Bastian and R.-U. Syrbe influence of scaling-issues on the economic value of ecosystem and landscape services to society?’ 3.3.1 Fundamentals, Control Scheme The arrangement patterns and spatial relationships of ecosystems are hardly ever taken into ac- “Space and time are modes in which we think, not count (Blaschke 2006), and ‘spatial and temporal conditions in which we exist (A. Einstein).” dimensions of ecosystem service production, use, and value are not well understood’ (TEEB 2010). There are significant deficits in knowledge and If the space–time dimensions of the ES concept many open questions concerning spatial aspects are not well understood, the conclusion is inevi- of ES. Ecosystems and their services are always table that nature and its services cannot be inte- linked to space and time. This issue was addressed grated adequately into political decision-making processes. This is especially true of cases involving 1 Sect. 3.3 is in main parts based on the paper of Bastian distribution options. et al. (2012a) There are further questions, e.g.: to what extent specific methods are necessary for analyses and 54 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

. Table 3.6 Physical and social space perspective and EPPS approach as a framework methodology

Space Pillar 1: Pillar 2: Pillar 3: Ecosystem properties Ecosystem potentials Ecosystem services

Terms/types/reference Definition, identification and delimitation of spatial units units Scales, hierarchy, homogeneity/heterogeneity

3 Causal relations, interde- Matter and energy fluxes Suitable units, risk space Trade-offs (e.g. flows pendences between ecosystems, of values) between ES, neighbourhood effects, overlapping, supply and functioning demand

Complementary spatial Extended perspective, e.g. Specifics of landscape Benefit-transfer, costs of approaches, landscape by means of ethical and units, planning alterna- planning alternatives, perspective aesthetic aspects tives assessment approaches based on cultural landscape aspects, complex and integrative approaches

evaluations in the particular scales? How can spa- to supply ES, special areal requirements (minimum tial approaches in the areas of nature and society areas) of the ecosystems concerned are necessary. be harmonised? How can we define clear space and For example, animal populations need specific time relations, especially with regard to distribution minimum areas of appropriate quality for their sta- options? bility and their survival; a forest must have a size of Within the EPPS-framework (7 Sect. 3.1) prin- several hectares to be able to influence the micro- ciple solutions for capturing spatially relevant as- climate in the vicinity; a body of groundwater must pects are offered;. Table 3.6 gives an orientation for have a minimum size or rate of groundwater re- it. Appropriate representations and visualisations of charge in order to be able to supply usable amounts spatial aspects of ES should also be considered. of drinking water. Sometimes only single parts of Time aspects are of great relevance related to ecosystems, single (organism) species, individuals space. ES are subject to various temporal dynam- or parts of them (roots or leafs of plants) are re- ics. Of particular importance are the different, for sponsible for ES generation. the formation of the respective services necessary Frequently, a specific spatial composition or pat- time spans, the nonsimultaneity in the multifunc- tern of several ecosystems is necessary to generate tional use, and the temporary differences between ES. Composition aspects are also manifested in the the provision and use of services or goods (Fisher spatial congruence or divergence of ES (e.g. Ander- et al. 2009). The changes in individual services over son et al. 2009), or in mutual influences. There can time are very relevant because functional effects of be spatial concordance among different services. interventions, plans and other policy measures can Some ES co-vary positively: for example, maintain- be evaluated either retrospectively or may be esti- ing soil quality may promote nutrient cycling and mated in advance (scenarios and forecasts). Anoth- primary production, enhance carbon storage and er aspect is the variability of individual and societal hence climate regulation, help regulate water flows value systems. and water quality and improve most provisioning services, notably food, fibre and other chemicals Spatial Aspects of Ecosystems (Ring et al. 2010). Other services co-vary negatively The spatial reference of ES appears in many ways. (7 Sect. 3.1). The generation of ES requires ecosystems with spe- Multiple ES can be interconnected and inter- cific (including spatial) characteristics. To be able linked in ‘bundles’ (MEA 2005). Willemen (2010) 55 3.3 • Space and Time Aspects of ES 3 refers to interactions between landscape functions where a service is provided in one location for the (or ES), which can be categorised into three classes: benefit of another. This creates a relation between 1. Conflicts: the combination of several land- the ES provider (the person/or group responsible scape functions reduces the provision of ser- for an ES or environmental responsibility) and the vices to society of a particular landscape func- ES beneficiary, or between winner/s and loser/s tion (Ring et al. 2010). 2. Synergies: the combination of functions en- There are often distinct spatial differences hances a particular function between areas where ES are generated (SPA–Service 3. Compatibility: landscape functions co-exist Providing Areas) and areas which benefit from the without reducing or enhancing one another ES (SBA–Service Benefiting Areas, correspond to the SPU 7 Sect. 3.1.2). If providing and benefiting Whether different ES co-vary positively or nega- areas (SPA and SBA) do not adjoin, there will neces- tively often depends on the configuration of the eco- sarily be a space between them, the so-called Service systems or landscape elements involved at a specific Connecting Area (SCA) (Syrbe and Walz 2012). For scale. Productive land uses require compensation instance, flood protection is provided mainly in the areas for the maintenance of key ecosystem provid- mountains (by water storage reservoirs) and ben- ers. By contrast, sensible ecosystems need buffers efits cities along the middle and lower stretches of a to shelter them from harmful side effects. None- river. In between, the river course can alter a flood theless, in places without enough space for all de- wave. The SCA should be identified to support the sired functions in a landscape to operate equally, transmission from the SPA to the SBA, for instance complex structures and sophisticated sequences of by avoiding or removing barriers (e.g. in water different ecosystems might be able to maintain the streams or in biotope networks). Thus, a natural majority of them. In practice, mainly at local levels floodplain, which is connected with the river and rather than at regional scales, we are familiar with not separated by dams, can be regarded as a SCA, structural environmental quality standards, such too. It can contribute to flood mitigation in favour as buffer stripes, habitat connection, wildlife corri- of downstream settlements. The identification of dors and SCA concepts, as described below. A well- SP and beneficiaries helps to avoid free riders or at known example is the zoning within large protected least to reduce their effect on ES consumption. areas (national parks, biosphere reserves), where Fisher et al. (2009) proposed a classification core zones (wilderness) are buffered by managed, scheme that describes relationships between ser- near natural zones, which in turn provides a gradi- vice provision and benefit (i.e. where and by whom ent to the more intensively used areas (e.g. farm- benefits are realised): land) outside the protected areas. a. both the service provision and benefit occur at the same location (e.g. soil formation, provi- Spatial Aspects of ES Providers and ES sion of raw materials) Beneficiaries (Functional Connections) b. the service is provided omni-directionally and In spatial analyses of ES, not only the source area benefits the surrounding landscape (e.g. pol- of a service is interesting but also the demand area, lination, carbon sequestration) i.e. the areas where the benefits are required and c. specific directional benefits, e.g. down slope realised. Hence, we need to address both provid- units benefit from services provided in uphill ers and beneficiaries of ES: who provides the ES? areas in mountains; the service provision unit For whom are they provided or who benefits from could be coastal wetlands providing storm and them? Within which spatial position is the ES gen- flood protection to a coastline erated and supplied and where is it used (where are providers and beneficiaries located)? We should An additional case could be added to these classes also consider spatial cost/benefit relationships, such as the counterpart to (b): as spatial, ‘benefits here–costs there’ trade-offs, 56 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

d. the service is provided in large (hardly limited) tation costs can change, which leads to new spatial areas and benefits small, discrete locations (e.g. and economic relationships between SP and benefi- a settlement). ciaries. Methods are needed to reveal natural fluctuations or changes of ecosystems more detailed in The cases described in (b) and (c) necessarily lead order to be able to better adapt impacts caused by to scale transfers (7 Sect. 3.3.1 Scale and Dimension). human utilisations. 3 According to such spatial characteristics, Costanza Systematically, the following time aspects are (2008) groups ES into five categories. For example, especially important: services like carbon sequestration are classified as 1. The minimum time requirements for the ‘global: non-proximal’, since the spatial location of generation of particular ES carbon sequestration does not matter. Nowadays, 2. The disparity in the multifunctional use re-

due to carbon trades spatial scales in CO2 storage quirement for adequate temporal sequences in area are becoming more crucial and need to be con- the provision and utilisation of ES (e.g. con-

sidered on a finer scale. When one pays for CO2 cerning water sampling, flood runoff, fishing) storage, e.g. by planting trees, he would like to know 3. The temporal differences between supply and where the trees are planted and how much carbon demand or use of goods and services, so-called will be sequestrated. ‘Local proximal’ services, on time lags (e.g. between water sampling from the other hand, are dependent on the spatial prox- the water bodies and water consumption, or imity of the ecosystem to the human beneficiaries. between water accumulation in the moun- For example, ‘storm protection’ requires that the tains and the crisis situation in the valley; e.g. ecosystem doing the protecting be proximal to the Grunewald et al. 2007). human settlements being protected. ‘Directional flow related’ services are dependent on the flow Functional traits (or SPU, ESP–see above) may con- from upstream to downstream, as is the cases of tribute to service provisions to a different degree, water supply and water regulation. Other services not only in different places, but also at different are ‘in situ (point of use)’ (e.g. soil formation) or times (De Bello et al. 2010). ‘user movement related: flow of people to unique To consider the capacity of ecosystems to sup- natural feature’ (e.g. recreational potential). ply ES sustainably is a basic issue for the development of the ES concept and also needs to be fun- Aspects of Time damentally implemented in its methodology. Thus, Ecosystems do not only need special time spans for it is also crucial to adjust the sequence of different their regeneration, they are also subject to natural land uses in an intelligent manner to minimise fluctuations and trends, which can alter their func- impacts. For instance, crop rotation can influence tionality and capacity (to supply ES) periodically, flood regulation. A tight crop rotation, adapted episodically or permanently. The Millennium Eco- intercrops, or conservative cultivation can close system Assessment (MEA 2005) predicts a decline critical bare fallow periods to reduce erosion and of many ES. Land use (intensification) is or will be surface runoff. a major reason for this (EASAC 2009). Changes in One of the most important issues refers to the ecosystems and the ES they supply are increasingly sometimes huge differences between the periods caused by humans. The knowledge of time-depen- in which natural developments occur and the time dent changes of ES are of great practical importance frames of social processes (public awareness, politi- since it helps to evaluate practical consequences of cal opinion-making, parliamentary terms, human impacts, plans and policies for humans and socie lifetimes). ties either ex-post or ex-ante (scenarios and prog- Ring et al. (2010) highlight the question of noses). Not only ecosystems or ecological proper- temporal trade-offs: benefits now–costs later. Such ties can change; so, too, can economic values and trade-offs represent the central tenet of sustainable the values that different stakeholders attach to the development stipulating that it ‘… meet the needs services. For example, infrastructure and transpor- of the present generation without compromising 57 3.3 • Space and Time Aspects of ES 3

living space, commercial space, operational space, geographical space, functional space

local-/ regional-/ global-/ micro- meso- macro-

planning space

community macro-economy onstructed space place making land cover area country international

microeconomy national continental farm landscape

ecosystem biome habitat catchment, river basin

ec climate-region bio-region individuum geological building type site, plot

nature/physical spac m² Mio km² multi-/cross-/bridging scale

. Fig. 3.4 Selected spatially relevant phenomena reflecting different scales. © Grunewald the needs of future generations …’ Therefore, even ural processes and components to provide goods the inter-generational time lags need to be ad- and services which directly and/or indirectly sat- dressed (7 Sect. 2.2). isfy human needs’, and the Millennium Ecosystem Time differences between the supply of ES on Assessment (MEA 2005) refers to ‘the capacity of the one hand and the use of goods and services on the natural system to sustain the flow of economic, the other can usefully be expressed by the concept ecological, social and cultural benefits in the future’ of natural potentials (7 Chap. 2 and 7 Sect. 3.1). The (see also option values, 7 Sect. 3.1 and 7 Sect. 4.2). concept of natural potentials (see Neef 1966; Haase 1978; Mannsfeld 1979, Bastian and Steinhardt 2002; Scale and Dimension Burkhard et al. 2009; Grunewald and Bastian 2010; The scale dependence of ES is an additional but Bastian et al. 2012b) aims to display the service rather poorly investigated aspect (MEA 2005; Hein capacities of an area as a field of options available et al. 2006). Recent research emphasises that both to society to use while taking different categories the manner in which we are dissecting our reality into account, which limit or even exclude certain and the scale of investigation influence the results intended uses, such as risks, carrying capacity, and significantly (Blaschke 2006). Ecological structures the capacity to handle stress (increasingly sum- and processes as well as ES manifest themselves at marised today in the term ‘resilience’). Analogously, different scales and in quite different manners at the e.g. de Groot et al. (2002) and Willemen (2010) use local, the regional and the global scale (. Fig. 3.4). the term ‘capacity’ and define ‘ecosystem functions’ According to its original definition, ecosys- (and ‘landscape functions’) as ‘the capacity of nat- tems can be defined at a wide range of spatial scales 58 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

(Tansley 1935), from the level of a small ephemeral particular ecological level can be provided to sunlit spot on the forest floor up to a whole forest stakeholders at a range of institutional scales, ecosystem spanning several thousands of kilome- from the individual and household to the local/ tres and persisting for decades or centuries (Forman municipal, state/provincial, national and inter- and Godron 1986). The supply of ES depends on the national/global community levels. Stakeholders functioning of ecosystems, which is in turn driven at a particular institutional scale can receive ES 3 by ecological processes operating across a range of generated at a range of ecological scales (Hein scales (MEA 2003; Hein et al. 2006). Hence, ES de- et al. 2006; de Groot et al. 2010). pend on several scale issues. Often, specific ES are 55 The fact that ES rea generated and supplied at generated and supplied at particular scales (Hein et various spatial scales has a strong impact on al. 2006; Costanza 2008; Bastian et al. 2012a). the value that various stakeholders attach to As an example, carbon sequestration and cli- the services as the scale at which the system mate regulation are related more to the global service is supplied determines which stake- scale–notwithstanding the fact that the global holders may benefit from it and what their balance will be improved by a multitude of local interests would be. measures. On the other hand, protection against 55 Spatial trade-offs in terms of local costs and floods by coastal or riparian ecosystems as well as regional or global benefits and vice-versa (e.g. regulation of erosion and sedimentation requires of water purification, carbon sequestration, various scales. Pollination (for most plants) and biodiversity conservation), so-called spatial ex- regulation of pests and pathogens refer to the eco- ternalities (Ring et al. 2010), are also a question system level or the local scale (Hein et al. 2006). of scale. The costs of conserving ecosystems According to various scale levels, scale-de- and biodiversity fall mostly on local land users pendent process variables and magnitudes require and communities whereas the beneficiaries of scale-adapted methods of analysis and evaluation, conservation are not only found at the local which has already been addressed by the dimen- level but also far beyond it at the national and sion theory (Neef 1963). Using this, the approaches global scales. developed at the local and regional scales can be 55 There are also various scales at which deci- transferred (adapted, applied and checked) to the sions on natural resources and ES are made. supra-regional or even to the global context (bot- The identification of scales and stakeholders tom-up strategy). But the reverse approach (top- allows an analysis of potential conflicts in down) is possible as well. For example, the results environmental management, in particular of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA between local stakeholders and those at larger 2005) (global scale) need to be underpinned by case scales. Considering scale issues in ecosystem studies at the local to regional levels (Neßhöver et management can be important as a basis for al. 2007) (7 Chap. 6). Due to the fact that the com- establishing compensation payments to local bination and processing of data from quite different stakeholders who face opportunity costs of temporal and spatial scales and the transition from ecosystem conservation. Furthermore, they one scale to another can cause problems concern- provide insight into the appropriate institu- ing the expressiveness and interpretation of data tional scales for decision-making on ecosystem and information (Neef 1963), the choice of a suit- management (Hein et al. 2006). able dimension is essential for any conceptual and/ or methodological ES framework. There is a strong need to examine the various scales It is necessary to distinguish between scales re- at which ES are generated and used and, subse- lated to socio-economic and ecological issues: quently, how the supply of ES affects the interests of 55 Ecological and institutional boundaries seldomly stakeholders at various scales (Tacconi 2000; MEA coincide and stakeholders of ES often cut 2003; Turner et al. 2003; Hein et al. 2006). Hence, across a range of institutional zones and scales the possible scale transitions of ES and the relevant (de Groot et al. 2010). Services generated at a traits need to be examined carefully. 59 3.3 • Space and Time Aspects of ES 3

Scale trade-offs are very difficult to manage Control Scheme for ES Space (7 Sect. 3.1.2 Trade-offs, Limit Values, Driving Forces and Time Considerations and Scenarios), because they include, in both space In order to check and improve the given method- and time, shifts of costs and benefits transcending ological ES frameworks and studies concerning the levels of magnitude–small- and large-scale, as well consideration of important space and time aspects, as short- and long-term. Threats on biodiversity and we propose the following check list (. Table 3.7). It climate, deforestation, and desertification do not can help avoid overlooking or missing important imply simple transfers of costs from just one area to aspects, and it provides a guideline for the quality other regions or continents. Most likely there will control of ES assessments as well as for the analysis be transfers to later periods and future generations. of the aspects taken into consideration. The relevant This problem can render ecosystem payment sys- issues (space, time and scale aspects) have been de- tems as well as immediate political reactions dif- scribed above (The relevant key words are in italic). ficult or even impossible. Regarding time scales it We explicitly intend to introduce the check list even is very important that ‘analyses of the dynamics of into fields that have not been affected by the ES ES supply require consideration of drivers and pro- concept to date. The scheme is demonstrated by the cesses at scales relevant for the ES at stake’ (de Groot example of the European Water Framework Direc- et al. 2010). Due to the scale trade-off problem, the tive (WFD 2000), which addresses many space and transfer of ES assessments over the different scales time aspects. In fact, it does not mention the ES (‘glocal valuation’) needs to analyze the specific concept and terminology, but implicitly aims to units and scales of Service Providing Areas (SPA) maintain and improve several ES. and Service Benefiting Areas (SBA) (7 Sect. 3.3.2). Scale issues lead to the question of reference units. Adequate spatial reference units are necessary 3.3.2 Case Study: EU-Water for the sampling, analysis, and assignment of data, Framework Directive as well as for the assessment and modelling of ES (WFD) and ES (Bastian et al. 2006). The reference units should be related to scales that are ecologically reasonable and WFD–Contents policy relevant and they should express the com- The application of the EU Water Framework Di- plexity of facts and relationships. Examples for eco- rective (WFD 2000) implies consideration for logical units are ecosystems, watersheds, landscapes many space and time aspects, as we seek to demon and geo-chores (Haase and Mannsfeld 2002; Bastian strate below, using the example of the Elbe River et al. 2006; Blaschke 2006). For example, the sup- management plan (. Tab. 3.8). The WFD is a direc- ply of the hydrological service depends on a range tive designed to harmonise the legal framework of of ecological processes that operate, in particular, water policy in the EU. It also aims at a stronger at the scale of the watershed (de Groot et al. 2010). orientation of the water policy towards a sustain- Examples for socio-economic reference units are: able and environment-friendly use of water. Due to administrative units (municipality, district, state, the quite heterogeneous natural conditions within country) and land-use units. The mismatch of ad- the EU, the WFD is confined to establishing gen- ministrative/socio-economic and ecological units eral quality goals and to indicating methods for and data is a crucial problem (e.g. population statis- meeting those goals and achieving favourable wa- tics on administrative units not matching catchment ter quality. boundaries), which needs special attention. The core of this directive is the establishment of Ecological reference units can be used for the WFD of environmental goals including sustain- benefit transfers (benefit-transfer, 7 Sect. 4.2; e.g. able land use (long-term sustainable water manage- Plummer 2009): Ecological data and analyses from ment basing on a high level of protection for the a particular reference unit can be transferred to a aquatic environment), and also the optimisation of certain degree to ecologically similar and therefore ES (e.g. human health protection, economic con- comparable units (incl. the capacity to supply goods sequences). and services). 60 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

. Table 3.7 General check list of space and time issues related to ES (Bastian et al. 2012a)

Pos. Issue Criteria, examples

1 Space aspects

1.1 Areal requirements Minimum area (for the supply of ES) with a special quality (structure, abiotic 3 characteristics, biodiversity) 1.2 Spatial composition Completeness of required partial habitats of animals, land cover diversity, patch richness, a set of ESP

1.3 Spatial configuration Shape, core areas, buffers, land-use gradients, proximity, mesh size

1.4 General: functional Supply-transfer-demand relations, transmission and transfer likelihood (e.g. connection habitat networks, river–floodplain relations)

2 Time aspects

2.1 Time requirements Minimal process time, regeneration time (of ecosystems and ES)

2.2 Temporal sequences Natural oscillation, land-use time pattern and interferences, storage capacity for ES

2.3 Time lags Precaution measures, risks, option values, inter-generational time lags (the present generation benefits, the next pays for environmental damages)

3 Scale and dimension

3.1 Suitable dimension Compatibility of scale and measures, reference units, areal and temporal resolution

3.2 Transition Consideration of upper/ lower scale effects (up-scaling, down-scaling), analysis of transition risks, transfer offsets

. Tab. 3.8 Scheme of spatial levels in the Elbe River management plan

Scale Physical level Institutional level

Macro Total catchment area, watershed-related International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe coordination units River, countries/states

Meso Partial catchment areas, coordination and States, counties, catchment areas, area-specific panels planning units

Micro Small catchment areas, study areas, sur- Districts, municipalities, working groups and commodity face waters and groundwater bodies teams, clearing meetings

The ‘translation’ of normative regulations in the 55 Human health protection by water-related WFD into numerical class limits of a ‘favourable utilisations, e.g. bathing-water quality, drink- state’ applies scientific methods. Socio-economic ing-water quality aspects are also taken into consideration by the 55 Lower costs for water purification WFD in the form of ‘exceptions’ from the goals, 55 Maintenance of water supply and of cost efficiency analyses. 55 Improvement of life quality by increasing the The goals of the WFD imply mainly the follow- recreation value of surface waters ing benefits, reflecting a whole bundle of ES: 55 Coping with conflicts and regional damages through the balance of interests among different social groups 61 3.3 • Space and Time Aspects of ES 3

The precautionary principle, information and Management plans for large-scale river ba- transparency shall be considered consequently. The sin units, e.g. the plan for the Elbe watershed in WFD contains mechanisms to assure that socio- Germany, contain, due to these large dimensions, economic effects are considered in decision-making specifically for the dimensions, strongly aggregated processes and that cost-effective options are pre- statements. They refer to such questions as: ‘Who ferred. The implementation of the environmental provides the ES and who pays for them?’ They also goals, however, can cause additional costs but it can consider the specific spatial categories for ecologi- be profitable for some beneficiaries (e.g. landscape cal analyses, planning and decision-making. management companies) and–in the long run– As EFTEC (2010) noticed, the spatial analysis of for the whole society. According to the particular the management plans: watershed, the goals depend on the difference be- 55 Helps better organise locally specific data on tween the actual and the target state as well as on the water bodies and provides a consistent basis choice of instruments and management measures. for accounting the context-specific nature Space-time approaches play a decisive role. of economic values, in particular in terms of spatial variation Selected Spatial and Scale Aspects 55 Allows better representation of WFD imple- of the WFD mentation impacts (e.g. in identifying the The spatial orientation towards river basins is de- location of improvements in environmental cisive. Until recently, Germany’s water body man- quality) agement was organised predominantly according 55 Provides a basis for assessing spatial variation to political borders and administrative units. The in economic values. This implies that more water policy changed first in Great Britain and in robust estimates of aggregate costs and benefits France where it was oriented on watershed units. can be obtained and additionally, that the dis- This gave the impulse for a European regulation. tributional impacts can also be examined. As the watersheds of many large European rivers (Meuse, Rhine, Elbe, Oder, Danube) exceed state The real planning and implementation of measures borders, a common European regulation was ad- takes place at the regional and local levels within visable. A similar situation applies to groundwater meso- and microscale spatial subunits. For this bodies, which are also independent of political bor- purpose, combined top-down and bottom-up ap- ders. proaches are necessary: supra-regional environ- The international Elbe river basin unit contains mental goals and needs must be down-scaled to 146,828 km2 and it is divided into 10 coordina- regional and local action targets. In contrast, the tion units. The Czech Republic is responsible for measures must be aggregated according to the re- five coordination units (Upper and Middle Bohe- lated river basin units and coordination units. mian Labe/Elbe, Upper Vltava/Moldau, Berounka, After EFTEC (2010), a key aspect of the WFD Lower Vltava/Moldau, Ohře/Eger), while Germany implementation is concerned with the spatial and is responsible for the other five coordination units geographic aspects of water bodies. It is necessary (Mulde-Elbe-Black Elster, Saale, Havel, Middle to understand how the impacts of measures may Elbe/Elde, Tidal Elbe). Except for the coordina- vary over spatial scales. These effects will not only tion unit Lower Vltava/Moldau, minor parts of the have an impact on the direct benefits related to the coordination units with Czech responsibility are water bodies themselves but can also have indirect situated in Germany (Ohře/Eger and Lower Bohe- beneficial or detrimental impacts elsewhere. In mian Labe/Elbe, Berounka, Upper Vltava/Moldau), the case of water quality, and in particular rivers, Austria (Upper Vltava/Moldau) and Poland (Up- most of the relationships between ES production per and Middle Bohemian Elbe). The International areas and benefit areas are ‘directional’ in a down- Commission for the Protection of the Elbe River stream direction (rather than ‘in situ’). In some (ICPER) has the role of a supra-national coordina- cases the beneficial effects can be spatially very re- tion agency (e.g. water monitoring, supra-regional mote from the area of a targeted intervention. For goals and strategies). 62 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

example, reducing diffuse pollution may enhance . Table 3.9 Expected reductions of nutrient terrestrial biodiversity, soil quality and erosion loads of the Elbe River for the protection of the control in addition to the water quality benefits North Sea in tributary rivers, by country/ Ger- man state (reference year: 2006; measurements downstream (Grunewald et al. 2005, 2008; EFTEC between 2009 and 2015; nutrient inputs into 2010) (. Table 3.7 und . Tab. 3.10, line 3.2: scale primary flowing waters, as per FGG Elbe 2009) transition). 3 Accordingly, for management purposes (assess- Country/ Nitrogen Phosphorus ments of the state, targeting) the Elbe river basin state has been divided into 61 planning units ranging in % t a−1 % t a−1 size from 300 to 5600 km2 , 3896 surface water bodies and 327 groundwater bodies. The institutional Czech Re- 5 ~ 3 120 7 ~ 150 public levels and the information levels, including the accuracy of data, should be in reference to these Brandenburg, 0,8 ~ 47 1.5 ~ 8 scales (. Table 3.7 und . Tab. 3.10, line 3.1: suitable Berlin Bavaria 3.5–7.5 ~ 195 2–5 ~ 3 dimension). Hamburg 10 ~ 85 10 ~ 3 The chemical, biological and ecological quality Mecklenburg- 19 ~ 400 5 ~ 5 of waters depends on a variety of influences. In or- Western der to assess them and to take action, an integrated Pomerania approach and a broad database are the key necessi- Lower Saxony 2.7 ~ 270 2.7 ~ 12 Schleswig- 16.6 ~ 1 650 18.7 ~ 70 ties. The WFD prescribes consistent and therefore Holstein comparable criteria for the provision and updating Saxony 10–11 ~ 2 740 11–13 ~ 75 of these data. For example, Article 10 of the WFD Saxony-Anhalt 3.9 ~ 625 13.4 ~ 60 prescribes that the loads from point sources (es- Thuringia 5 ~ 600 23.6 ~ 80 pecially industrial wastes and from sewage purification works) and diffuse sources (especially from agricultural land) should be considered together. or soil protection against erosion are provided for This is based on spatially-specific analyses and all arable fields, or if they are concentrated on fo- documentations of loads (main sources). Typi- cus areas. Analyses of efficiency and acceptance are cal questions are: Which waters (surface waters, necessary for this (Grunewald and Naumann 2012). groundwater) are polluted by nutrients (N, P) and It is also essential to make arrangements for coop- to which extent? What is the contribution of parts of erative efforts and to negotiate solutions between catchment areas or of countries/states to the eutro- the land users (farmers) and the beneficiaries of ES phication of the North Sea and what are the specific (here society as a whole). potentials for reducing these loads? Such spatially relevant distribution options were traded off in the Time Aspects of the WFD framework of the Elbe river basin Agency (Flussge- The WFD outlines several time limits for the legal bietsgemeinschaft Elbe–FGG Elbe 2009). It is obvi- implementation of the Directive itself, the analyses, ous that the efforts to reduce N can and should be the monitoring programme, the management plans especially high in the German states of Schleswig and the specific programmes (time tables) for the -Holstein and Saxony, while the potentials to reduce undertaken measures. More important, it is estab- P are especially high in Thuringia, Schleswig-Hol- lished until when a ‘favourable state’ of the water(s) stein, Saxony-Anhalt and Saxony (. Table 3.9 and has to be reached. Time aspects are especially con- . Table 3.10, 1.4: functional connection). sidered with respect to the practical implementa- This supra-regional distribution of nutrient re- tion of the WFD. The clear requirements for ES ductions must be further underpinned in the wa- providers and beneficiaries correspond to the time ter basin subunits. In terms of spatial aspects, for spans for the realisation of measures, e.g. for reduc- example, it needs to be clarified whether agro-en- ing nutrient loads or the reporting obligation of the vironmental payments, e.g. for intermediate crops, countries/states (. Table 3.10, line 2.1: Time require- 63 3.3 • Space and Time Aspects of ES 3

. Table 3.10 Check list of space and time issues exemplified by WFD 2000( )

Pos. Issue Implementation in WFD (examples) ES–example: Groundwater Recharge

1 Space aspects

1.1 Areal re- Minimum sizes of standing waters (50 ha) and catch- Mapping areas and state of quirements ments (of flowing waters: 10 km2) in the WFD taken into groundwater bodies account; catchment alignment instead of administrative units

1.2 Spatial com- Combined consideration of surface and groundwater, Mapping groundwater re- position management of entire catchments charge (supply) and groundwater extraction (demand), accounting balance

1.3 Spatial con- Configuration issues only partially implemented with Hydrogeological maps, land figuration mappings of the waters’ structure; fish migration ability use, etc. considered; confined to big- and medium-sized water bodies (i.e. two-third of streams are not considered in terms of their structure)

1.4 General: Orientation towards human health, quality of life, joint Maps of groundwater functional consideration of biological, chemical and ecological protection connection quality

2 Time aspects

2.1 Time require- Differentiating management measures by graduated Time aspects of groundwater ments time periods flows, monitoring (water level gauge)

2.2 Temporal Targets in accordance with ecological processes are dif- Natural conditions can vary sequences ferentiated according to specific time periods; flexible (precipitation necessary management priorities for water infiltration, crop rotation), trends (e.g. climate change)

2.3 Time lags Strict application of the precautionary principle, (flood) e.g. water protection areas risk minimisation

3 Scale and dimension

3.1 Suitable Combined top-down and bottom-up approach, plan- Hierarchy of catchment areas dimension ning and management regional, but measured locally

3.2 Transition Partly considered: influences on adjoining seas and Many local measures can estuaries as well as effect on climate protection goals– effect groundwater recharge rather good; on floodplains and floods:poor regionally (or regarding the whole water body)

ments). The concrete, super-ordinate timetable with It must be considered that waters need time to milestones is obligatory for all parties concerned: reach such goals after development measures (time- beginning with the transformation of the WFD into span until results of the measures are achieved). national legislation in 2003 and ending with the The temporal sequence (. Table 3.10, line 2.2) of achievement of the ‘good ecological state in river requirements refers to the duration of natural pro- basins’ in 2015, with the possibility of extending this cesses, as well as to the time needed to accomplish time limit until 2021 or 2027 (WFD 2000). 64 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

management measures. In fact, WFD aims at a ferentiation of measures in terms of space and time. ‘good ecological state’ of all waters by 2015. But the On the other hand, the table also reveals possible directive also allows exceptions: extensions of time deficits, such as the incomplete consideration of or reduced environmental targets, if they cannot be spatial configuration or of scale transition aspects. achieved in time for objective reasons. The exceptions are designed to avoid excessively high costs Conclusion 3 of management measures. Without valid cost cal- ES demonstrate a wide range of space, time and culations it is difficult to justify exceptions. For the scale dependent relations. practical implementation of the WFD, the countries In respect to the analysis and evaluation steps as (in Germany also the federal states) are responsible. well as to the supply and demand perspectives, not All countries interpret the directive independently, only the ecological aspects are concerned, but also but they have implemented working groups to har- socio-economic and cultural ones. Often, space and monise the national regulations to a certain extent. scale effects are related mainly to ecological phe- The WFD puts an end to previous time lags, nomena. According to our concept of space, we have it contributes to ensuring water-related ecosystem tried to widen this perspective and to include socio- potentials for the future. The precautionary princi- economic aspects as well. This is in line with the UK ple is already implemented since the WFD ensures National Ecosystem Assessment (UKNEA 2011), which water reasonable quality. But even economic time notes that institutional mechanisms linking across lags (i.e. the next generation has to pay for our suc- spatial scales (from small- to large-scale in terms of cess now) will be avoided. area) would ‘provide opportunities for stakeholder The member states of the EU were obligated to engagement and greater collaboration between implement an appropriate water fee policy by 2010 actors, and for the involvement of local groups and with incentives for water users to use the resources nongovernmental organisations’. From the perspec- economically. The various water users (industry, tive of ecological regional development, the ES con- households, agriculture, etc.) are to contribute ad- cept is of particular importance because the human- equately to cover the costs of water ES including environment relationship is emphasised. Thereby costs related to the environment and the resources the social concept of space (perception, area for in- (Article 9 WFD). The evaluation of financial dis- teraction) can be associated with physical concepts proportions (cost excessiveness) also needs the bal- of space (order, place, location, spatial intersections, ancing of costs and benefits, i.e. typical core aspects distances, boundaries in space). of the ES approach are considered (7 Sect. 4.2). The All main aspects of the ES approach can be WFD also mandates that the water supply was to be found in the European Water Framework Directive organised in such a way by 2010 that all costs were (EU-WFD), e.g. conflict relevance, focus on prob- covered (the cost-covering principle). The question lems, goal setting, environmental and economic is: ‘Who pays?’ Formerly, the general public paid data, quantitative and model-based approaches, for the protection of drinking water. Now, the waste integrated approach, participatory approaches, de- producer has to pay but the principle of solidar- cision support systems, cost-benefit considerations, ity is applied. It must be noted that to date these and solutions-oriented approach. Even in terms of regulations and obligations have been only partially space and time approaches, the WFD represents implemented. an enormous advance over previous approaches, simply because of clear definitions and concep- Control Scheme for ES Space and Time tual hierarchies. Some of the special questions Considerations in the WFD concerning space, time and scale relationships in The check list for space and time aspects ES assessments could be solved and discussed by (. Table 3.7) was completed and exemplified by reference to the example of the WFD and the Elbe means of relevant aspects of the European Water river watershed, e.g. spatial configuration and com- Framework Directive. . Table 3.10 shows that the position (patterns), reference units, concordance of directive meets most of the space and time issues physical and socio-economic space concepts, the concerned, e.g. the size of catchments and the dif- spatial position of services providers and service 65 3.4 • Landscape Services 3 beneficiaries, service connecting areas, the role dimensions and scales. Critical voices have claimed of temporal sequences (of land uses, supply and that to date there has been little or no localisation, demand) and time lags (precautionary principle, i.e. that the pattern of arrangements and relation- intergenerational lags), the shift from one scale to ships of ES in space has hardly been taken into ac- another and practical consequences resulting from count at all (Syrbe and Walz 2012), and that merely these factors. statistical information, such as land cover, has been In order to take space, time and scale effects included instead (Blaschke 2006). Moreover, it is into consideration adequately, a check list is use- claimed that the practical applicability and the con- ful, which we have developed and tested success- nections of ES to the planning process have been fully using the example of the WFD. Such a check insufficient (Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009). list can be applied to all frameworks and studies One promising way to eliminate these deficits where ES are to be assessed. This check list is a flex- is to link ES to the landscape approach and to the ible scheme that can be modified according to the definition of landscape services in order to empha- particular situation. sise the spatial connection and to arrive at state- Space, time and scale aspects of ES are of great ments, which can better be used in the planning practical interest, e.g. for land-use and landscape and/or practical context (Burkhard et al. 2009; Ter- management, for spatial planning, regional devel- morshuizen and Opdam 2009; Frank et al. 2012; opment and financial policies (balancing of costs Schenk and Overbeck 2012). and benefits arising from ES). After EFTEC (2010), This is true in spite of the fact that the term land- spatial analysis improves the economic valuation scape has been highly controversial in the scientific and it can help to ‘target’ policies (e.g. maximise discourse, with a broad spectrum of interpretations aggregate benefits given a resource budget, or to and substantive meanings existing, depending not redistribute benefits to disadvantaged groups). The only on levels of education, socialisation and pro- example of the WFD reveals the practical relevance fessional backgrounds, but also on language and in many ways, e.g. the choice of relevant reference cultural area. ‘The landscape’ has been an object of units, the spatial and temporal distribution of costs investigation for various scientific disciplines, and and benefits, time frames for reaching particular also of other areas of life, such as aesthetics, painting, goals with consideration for ecological precondi- literature, philosophy, geography, conservation and tions (e.g. the regeneration capacity of waters) and landscape care, agriculture and silviculture, etc. A also of economic scales (economic carrying capac- farmer, a geologist, a forester, a recreation seeker– ity, payments over adequately great time periods). each of them sees the landscape differently and fo- The WFD takes ecological periods into account (de- cuses on something different (Jessel 1998). velopment, seasonality, regeneration, matter trans- In common parlance landscape is usually seen fers) and it gives a clear orientation in terms of time as a piece of land that can be perceived all at once horizons, which is important for users and other with the naked eye. The word ‘landscape’ comes stakeholders. In the WFD, such issues are better ad- from the old Germanic lantscaf, with scaf having dressed than–for instance–in the EU Habitats Direc- developed to ‘shape’ in English and ‘schaffen’ (‘to tive and other regulations (7 Sect. 6.6.1). create’, ‘to achieve;’ in some dialects, ‘to work’) in German (Haber 2002). Hence, the landscape is literally the ‘land shaped’ or created by people. 3.4 Landscape Services However, the landscape as a dimension that can be visually experienced was for centuries only to O. Bastian, K. Grunewald, M. Leibenath, R.-U. Syrbe, a lesser extent a consciously created object. It was U. Walz and W. Wende merely seen as a product of the top-priority activity: the provision of the food supply. Nonetheless, As explained in 7 Sect. 3.3, the creation and also even at an early date landscapes were often shaped the use of ES is always tied to concrete spaces. It is in such a way that various positive side effects were manifested in spatial differentiation, and in various realised. Examples include the rows of fruit trees on 66 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

embankments, which are otherwise difficult to uti- between societies and cultures and their natural lise, so as to provide fruit for food and at the same environment. In this context, landscape can also be time shade for the peasants on their long walks to seen as a section of the earth’s shell of varying or- the work in the fields, or else, in the proximity of ders of magnitude, prepared by natural conditions, farms and villages, as planted groves which served overformed to varying degrees by human activity, as a windbreak and improved the microclimate. perceived or felt by people as characteristic, and de- 3 Aesthetic aspects, too, may certainly have played limited according to rules which are to be stipulated a part. The consciously shaped landscape, which (Bastian 2006, 2008, modified). would later also be marketed as a tourist attraction According to the Millennium Ecosystem As- had its roots in the Enlightenment–the ideal of the sessment (MEA 2005), a landscape is typically com- English landscape garden–and culminated in park posed of a number of different ecosystems, each of designs of major cities in the nineteenth century, which generates a whole package of different ES. such as New York’s Central Park. Today, this con- Hence, it is certainly justified to certify landscape stant is a firm part of landscape and spatial plan- areas of identical or similar overall character–or to ning (Kienast 2010). use them as units of reference–in order to interpret According to Leibenath and Gailing (2012), their characteristics for an effective but gentle use landscape can be interpreted in any of four differ- by society (Bernhardt et al. 1986; Hein et al. 2006; ent ways: TEEB 2009). 1. The landscape as a physical space or complex Most landscape definitions fulfill the require- of ecosystems ment of spatial reference or of spatial expanse, 2. The cultural landscape in the context of the and of holism in accordance with Alexander von human-environment relationship Humboldt’s ‘total impression of a region’, or of the 3. The cultural landscape as a metaphor; and ‘landscape-like’ (Humboldt 1847, pp. 92, 97). Of- 4. The cultural landscape as a social construct, or ten, landscape and people are seen as two opposite as an object of communication. poles, an attitude which, by the way, is promoted even by a term such as ‘people and nature’. It is easy Backhaus and Stremlow (2010) distinguish the fol- to ignore the fact that people are also part of nature lowing four basic disciplinary approaches to land- (Oldemeyer 1983, in Gebhard 2000). Increasingly, scape: however, material and intellectual aspects are being 1. The ecosystemic and geomorphological ap- taken into account in a more balanced way, and proach people are being directly involved. 2. The psychological and phenomenological ap- For the ES concept, we see the definition of proach landscape as a physical space or an ecosystem com- 3. The constructivist/cultural-scientific approach plex as particularly helpful. Many ES are influenced 4. The political and social scientific approach by the landscape structure and the geographic context, for instance by the arrangement of landscape An understanding of landscape as an intermedi- elements or land-use units. Landscape structure ate phenomenon between natural-scientifically as- largely determines flows and cycles of waters, nu- certainable objective reality on the one hand and a trients and organisms. The spatial relationship be- mental construct on the other is expressed in such tween biotic factors, such as vegetation, and abiotic definitions as that of the Council of Europe in the factors, such as soil, is decisive for the manner in European Landscape Convention (Article 1; Czy- which many ES are provided, so that the whole–the bulka 2007 [Engl: 7 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cul- landscape and the ecological mosaic linked to it–is tureheritage/heritage/Landscape/default_en.asp]): more significant than the sum of its parts (Odum ‘…an area, as perceived by people, whose character 1971; Haber 2004). The matrix of the landscape de- is the result of the action and interaction of natu- termines the effectivity and significance of its biotic ral and/or human factors; or by Fry (2000): …’ a components to a much greater degree than would physical and mental reflection of the interaction 67 3.4 • Landscape Services 3

Landscape vs. Ecosystem

In view of the multiplicity of mean- energy, materials and information homogeneity is often assumed. This ings of the term ‘landscape’ and in ecological systems. simplification overlooks some of the the difficulty in delimiting concrete Noss (2001) sees ecosystems essential properties of the system, landscape areas, the concept of as functional systems with their for precisely heterogeneity is the landscape may appear as too nonspatial boundaries either undefined precondition for the lives of these concrete, fuzzy and unscientific or defined more or less arbitrarily. organisms. Another major failing compared with the concept of eco- In his opinion ecosystems are open of the paradigm of ‘natural’ ecosys- systems. However, is the ecosystem systems between which the ex- tems is, he says, the common prac- paradigm really that unproblematic, change of materials, energies and tice of categorizing human activity by comparison? Certainly not, for it, organisms take place. as an external disturbance. too, is subject to the criticism that Naveh (2010) raises serious Nonetheless, it may certainly it is too diffuse and contradictory issues regarding the ecosystem be useful to generally prefer the (O’Neill et al. 1986) and suffers from paradigm with respect to their abstract term ‘ecosystem’ for the methodological deficits in its ap- spatial aspects: first, he says, what ES concept, (7 Chap. 1, 7 Chap. 2, plication in research and practice. is at issue is the assumption that 7 Chap. 3) since it emphasises the Naveh and Lieberman (1994) raise interactions and feedback loops natural structures and processes the question of whether ecosystems exist within ecosystemic boundar- more strongly and does a better could indeed be considered real ies. In reality, however, the spatial job of creating the connections to existing phenomenon or whether dissemination of the participat- ‘ecology’ as a category of sustain- they were not simply conceptual ing organism populations may ability, and/or as a class of functions aids for the analysis of the flows of be much broader. Second, spatial and services.

be the case if these components were merely added land-use units in their spatial context, struc- together (Frank et al. 2012; Syrbe and Walz 2012). tural and process-determined interactions, the Landscape services constitute the link between spatial difference of supply and demand–in the landscape and human well-being. They imply a form of so-called ‘service-providing areas’ and strong spatial orientation and regional differentia- ‘service-benefiting areas’–or the reference to tion, as well as a reference to actors, planners and different dimensions and scales (7 Sect. 3.3). decision-makers. The concept of landscape ser- Interactions between spaces and ES can be vices is also of particular significance inasmuch shown with reference to many functional as it raises the issue of the human-environment aspects relevant for practice: the problem of relationship and of anthropogenic transformation the conflicting needs of upstream vs. down- more strongly, and hence links the societal concept stream residents in watersheds, the relation- of space–space for perception, and also space for ship between cities and their surrounding action–with the physical concept of space. countrysides, or the relationship between eco- The incorporation of landscape services as a nomic areas, impact areas and places used for special form of the ES approach has the following compensation and offsetting measures, etc. To advantages: some extent, the ES generated at certain places 55 Landscapes as units of reference enhance the can only be transferred to the areas of demand perspective beyond the services provided by via specific spaces, known as ‘service-connect- ecosystems and place a greater emphasis on ing areas’, e.g. the feeding of cold air into cities the aesthetic, ethical and sociocultural aspects, via cold-air corridors; (7 Sect. 3.3). as well as on the anthropogenic modification 55 The emphasis on the reference to a landscape (e.g. land use) and the overall character of an improves the interaction (or integration) of area (peculiarities of the landscape). various disciplines since nature, culture, and 55 Spatial aspects are expressed more strongly, for use aspects all have to be addressed in equal example the arrangement of ecosystems and measures–even though the definitions of 68 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

‘landscape’ differ between the various academ- but also to a peculiar degree aesthetic, ic disciplines. Especially the physical landscape cultural, psychological, as well as other approach enhances the relevance for practical aspects. In this case we are examining spatial planning, including landscape plan- services with a specific connection to the ning, as well as for the landscape development landscape. Thus, we explicitly emphasise of management, and favours participatory ap- the analysis and evaluation of landscape 3 proaches, which recognise the landscape as an services as it is usually already implied element providing identity and as an area for in the main focus of the work: landscape action, with a connection to the actors. planning, landscape care, evaluation of the cultural landscape and the appearance Another advantage of the reference to landscapes of the landscape (cf. 7 Sect. 5.3 and particu- is provided by the fact that in spite of the contro- larly 7 Sect. 6.5). versial scientific discourse on the definition of ‘landscape’, the sustainable use and protection of The term ‘landscape’ moreover has a strong con- landscapes is gaining growing support worldwide, nection to planning and is especially familiar to in the first European environmental report, the so- spatial planners. Likewise, the broader public has called Dobřiš Assessment of the European Envi- a greater understanding of this term than of ‘eco- ronmental Agency, and in the European Landscape system’. According to Termorshuizen and Opdam Convention of the Council of Europe of 2000. One (2009), landscape planners have for decades viewed of the demands is that visions, or models, for Euro- landscape as a human-ecological concept and have pean landscapes are established, and that landscape addressed its economic, cultural and ecological val- protection be integrated into sectoral policy, e.g. in ues. the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy and its re- Rather than treating single components or pro- gional policy, in order to support regional identities tected assets as isolated from one another, land- and landscape peculiarities (Czybulka 2007). scape planning is taking the complexity of the in- In the Territorial Agenda of the European vestigated object into account, which is one of its Union of 2007 (EU 2007, p. 7), cultural landscapes fundamental requirements. Even during the 1970s are designated as the ‘foundation for environmen- and 1980s landscape and spatial planning assigned tally and culturally oriented development … which potential functions to the landscape, which were offers development perspectives … particularly for the most part cartographically recorded. In that in regions that are lagging behind or undergoing respect, landscape and spatial planning was actu- structural changes’. Fürst et al. (2008) call for plac- ally very close to the concept of landscape services, ing greater emphasis–once again–on seeing cul- even if the landscape-specific functions were not tural-landscape development as a catalyst and as a yet called ‘services’ (7 Sect. 2.2). vehicle, i.e. as ‘the essential element for new kinds The selected landscape approach (see above) of problem-solving in regional development’. The not only enhances the relevance for practical concept of the landscape must be integrated into all spatial planning, including landscape planning relevant policy areas in this context, e.g. in connec- (7 Sect. 5.3), and for landscape development and tion with the Common Agricultural Policy of the management (7 Sect. 6.5), it also favours partici- EU after 2013, in Natura 2000, and with regard to patory approaches, which see the landscape as an issues of bio-energy. identity-providing element and as a space for action (7 Sect. 4.3; Fürst and Scholles 2008). The land- >>We consider landscape services to be a scape, not the ecosystem, is the space of reference special case within the overall concept of for public participation; it permits a large number ES (analogously to Kienast 2010; Hermann of local stakeholders to identify with the landscape et al. 2011). However, the landscape ap- in which they live, work and enjoy life, and to have proach is broader and more complex since an influence upon it, to take responsibility for it and it includes not only ecological aspects to help shape it. By contrast, the term ‘ecosystem’ 69 References 3 often means new natural, more or less untouched und ihre Lösung in der Landschafts- und Grünordnung- splanung. Bericht zur wissenschaftlichen Arbeitstagung areas, often associated with a protected status, with am 14. und 15. November 1997. Dresden, 137 S recreational function, with species diversity and Backhaus N, Stremlow M (2010) Handlungsraum Landschaft: with undisturbed natural processes (Termorshui- Wege zur Förderung transdisziplinärer Zusammenar- zen and Opdam 2009). The landscape is also a pub- beit. Nat Landsch 85:345–349 lic-relations factor; it can be ‘sold’ as a good place BAFU–Bundesamt für Umwelt (2011) Indikatoren für Ökosys- temleistungen. Systematik, Methodik und Umsetzungs- where recreation can be found and where people empfehlungen für eine wohlfahrtsbezogene Umweltb- can live and work (Wascher 2005). erichterstattung. Herausgegeben vom Bundesamt für Umwelt BAFU, Bern Conclusion Balmford A, Rodrigues ASL, Walpole M, ten Brink P, Kettunen In the final analysis, ecosystem and landscapeser - M, Braat L, de Groot R (2008) The economics of biodi- vices cannot be fundamentally distinguished. The versity and ecosystems: scoping the science. European Commission, Cambridge latter emphasises spatial aspects more and is ori- Barkmann J (2001) Angewandte Ökosystemforschung ented towards complex approaches by reference zwischen Biodiversitäts-, Landschafts- und Ressour- to interfaces of ecological, economic and social censchutz. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen aspects. Moreover, it is more oriented towards 145:16–23 spatial planning, communications and the partici- Bastian O (2006) Landschaft als Basiskonzept für integrative Forschungsansätze in der Geographie. (Vortrag pation of actors and stakeholders, of ‘local people’. im Institut für Länderkunde Leipzig. Workshop “Raum– Methods for ascertaining and evaluation are large- Landschaft–Region als Bezugsgrößen integrativer ly similar or identical; however, landscape services Projekte in der Geographie”, 14./15.7.2006 in Leipzig) as a result of broader, more multidisciplinary ap- Bastian O (2008) Landscape classification–between fact proaches take a more comprehensive spectrum and fiction. In: Lechnio J, Kulczyk S, Malinowska E, Szumacher I (eds) Landscape classification. Theory and of methodologies into account. A thorough and practice. Warsaw, S 13–20 detailed discussion of the landscape services issue Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe RU (2012a) Space and time is published in the Journal of Landscape Ecology in aspects of ecosystem services, using the example of the 2014 (Bastian O et al. 2014). European Water Framework Directive. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosys Services Manage 8(1–2):5–16 Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe RU, Walz U, Wende W (2014) Landscape services–concept and practical relevance. References Landsc Ecol 29(6):1463–1478. DOI 10.1007/s10980-014- 0064-5 Albert C, von Haaren C, Galler C (2012) Ökosystemdienst Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K (2012b) Ecosystem proper- leistungen. Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen oder ein ties, potentials and services–the EPPS conceptual Impuls für die Landschaftsplanung? Nat Schutz Landsch framework and an urban application example. Ecol Plan 44:142–148 Indic 21:7–16 Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Eigenbrod F, Thomas CD, Gill- Bastian O, Krönert R, Lipsky Z (2006) Landscape diagnosis ings S, Heinemeyer A, Roy DB, Gaston KJ (2009) Spatial on different space and time scales–a challenge for covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem landscape planning. Landsc Ecol 21:359–374 service priorities. J Appl Ecol 46:888–896 Bastian O, Schreiber KF (eds) (1994) Analyse und ökologische Artner A, Frohnmeyer U, Matzdorf B, Rudolph I, Rother J, Bewertung der Landschaft. Fischer, Jena, 502 S Stark G (2005) Future Landscapes. Perspektiven der Bastian O, Schreiber KF (eds) (1999) Analyse und ökologische Kulturlandschaft. Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raum Bewertung der Landschaft, 2. edn. Spektrum Akade- ordnung, Bonn mischer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, 564 pp. Auhagen (1998) Verbal-Argumentation oder Punkte- Bastian O, Steinhardt U (eds) (2002) Development and Ökologie–Bewertungsverfahren unter der Lupe des perspectives of landscape ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Planers. Sächsische Akademie für Natur und Umwelt im 498 pp. Sächsischen Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Landes Bechmann A (1989) Die Nutzwertanalyse. In: Storm P-C, entwicklung in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Lehr- und Bunge T (eds) Handbuch der Umweltverträglich- Forschungsgebiet Landschaftsplanung der Technischen keitsprüfung. Schmidt, Berlin, S 1–31 Universität Dresden (eds) Dresdner Planergespräche– Bechmann A (1995) Anforderungen an Bewertungsverfahren Vom Leitbild zur Quantifizierung–Bewertungsprobleme im Umweltmanagement–Dargestellt am Beispiel der 70 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

Bewertung für die UVP-Dokumentation zu den 11. Pill- EASAC–European Academies Science Advisory Council nitzer Planergesprächen am 29./30.9.1995, pp 6–39 (2009) Ecosystem services and biodiversity in Europe. de Bello F, Lavorel S, Diaz S, Harrington R, Cornelissen JHC, EASAC policy report 09, London Bardgett RD, Berg MP, Cipriotti P, Feld CK, Hering D, da EEG (2009) Gesetz zur Neuregelung des Rechts der Erneuer- Silva PM, Potts SG, Sandin L, Sousa JP, Storkey J, Wardle baren Energien im Strombereich und zur Änderung DA, Harrison PA (2010) Towards an assessment of mul- damit zusammenhängender Vorschriften. Bundesge- tiple ecosystem processes and services via functional setzblatt 2008, Teil I(49), Bonn, 21.10.2008 3 traits. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531–010-9850–9 EFTEC (2010) Scoping study on the economic (or non- Bernhardt A, Haase G, Mannsfeld K, Richter H, Schmidt R market) valuation issues and the implementation of (1986) Naturräume der sächsischen Bezirke. Sächsische the Water Framework Directive. Final Report for the EU Heimatblätter 4, 5 Comm. DGE (ENV.D1/ETU/2009/0102rl) (Economics for Blaschke T (2006) The role of the spatial dimension within the Environment Consultancy–eftec, Ozdemiroglu E, the framework of sustainable landscapes and natural Provins A, Hime S), London capital. Landsc Urban Plan 75:198–226 Erdmann KH, Shell C, Todt A, Küchle-Krischun J (2002) Natur Blotevogel HH (1995) Raum. In: Akademie für Raumfor und Gesellschaft: Humanwissenschaftliche Aspekte schung und Landesplanung (ed) Handwörterbuch der zum Naturschutz. Nat Landsch 77:101–104 Raumordnung, Hannover, pp 733–740 EU–European Union (2007) Territorial Agenda of the Euro- Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The pean Union. 7 http://www.eu-territorial-agenda.eu/ need for standardized environmental accounting units. Reference%20Documents/Territorial-Agenda-of-the- Ecol Econ 63:616–626 European-Union-Agreed-on-25-May-2007.pdf. Accessed Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W (2009) Landscapes’ 22 April 2014 capacities to provide ecosystem services–a concept FGG Elbe (2009) Nationales Überwachungsprogramm Elbe for land-cover based assessments. Landscape Online 2009– Deutscher Teil des internationalen Messpro- 15:1–22 gramms, aufgestellt: Wassergütestelle Elbe, 1/09. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping 7 www.fgg-elbe.de. Accessed 3 Jan 2011 ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Fisher B, Turner RK (2008) Ecosystem services: classification Indic 21:17–29 for valuation. Biol Conserv 141:1167–1169 Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: Multiple classification Fisher B, Turner RK, Morlin P (2009) Defining and classify- systems are needed. Biol Conserv 141:350–352 ing ecosystem services for decision-making. Ecol Econ Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon 68:643–653 B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J, et al (1997) Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural New York capital. Nature 387:253–260 Frank S, Fürst C, Koschke L, Makeschin F (2012) A contri- Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT, O’Farrell PJ, Reyers B, bution towards a transfer of the ecosystem service Rouget M, Roux DJ, Welz A, Wilhelm-Rechman A (2008) concept to landscape planning using landscape met- An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem rics. Ecol Indic 21:30–38 services for implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA Fränzle O (1998) Grundlagen und Entwicklung der Ökosys- 105:9483–9488 temforschung. Handbuch der Umweltwissenschaften, 3. Czybulka D (2007) Die Europäische Landschaftskonvention. Erg. Lfg. 12/98, pp 1–24 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht Fry G (2000) The landscape character of Norway–landscape (EurUP) 6:250–258 values today and tomorrow. In: Pedroli B (ed) Landscape Díaz S, Fargione J, Chapin FS, Tilman D (2007) Biodiversity our Home/Lebensraum Landschaft. Indigo, Zeist, loss threatens human wellbeing. PLoS Biol 4:e277. pp 93–100 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277 Fürst D, Gailing L, Pollermann K, Röhring A (eds) (2008) Dunlop M, Turner G, Foran B, Poldy F (2002) Decision points Kulturlandschaft als Handlungsraum–Institutionen und for land and water futures. Resource Futures Program Governance im Umgang mit dem regionalen Gemein- Working Document 2002/08, CSIRO Sustainaible Ecosys- schaftsgut Kulturlandschaft. Rohn, Dortmund, 328 pp tems, Canberra, Australia Fürst D, Scholles F (eds) (2008) Handbuch Theorien und Dunn RR (2010) Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: Methoden der Raum- und Umweltplanung, 3. edn. the unspoken reality that nature sometimes kills us. Rohn, Dortmund Biotropica 42:555–557 Gebhard U (2000) Naturschutz, Naturbeziehung und psy- Durwen KJ, Schreiber K-F, Thöle R (1980) Ein pragmatischer chische Entwicklung. Nat Schutz Landsch Plan 32:45–48 Ansatz zur Aufbereitung ökologischer Determinanten de Groot RS (1992) Functions of nature: evaluation of nature für die Raumplanung. Arb.-Ber. Landschaftsökologie, in environmental planning, management and decision Münster 2:3–12 making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen de Groot RS, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002) A typology for description, classification and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408 71 References 3

de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Haines-Young RH, Potschin MB (2010) Proposal for a Com- Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem ser- mon International Classification of Ecosystem Goods vices and values in landscape planning, management and Services (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272 Economic Accounting (V1). Report to the European Grossmann M, Hartje V, Meyerhoff J (2010) Ökonomische Environment Agency Bewertung naturverträglicher Hochwasservorsorge an Haines-Young RH, Potschin M, Kienast F (2012) Indicators of der Elbe, Abschlussbericht des F + E-Vorhabens “Natur- ecosystem service potential at European scales: map- verträgliche Hochwasservorsorge an der Elbe und ping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecol Indicators Nebenflüssen und ihr volkswirtschaftlicher Nutzen. Teil: 21:39–53 Ökonomische Bewertung naturverträglicher Hochwas Harrington R, Anton C, Dawson TP, de Bello F, Feld CK, Has- servorsorge an der Elbe und ihren Nebenflüssen”, BfN 89 lett JR, Kluvánkova-Oravská T, Kontogianni A, Lavorel Grunewald K, Bastian O (2010) Ökosystemdienstleistungen S, Luck GW, Rounsevell MDA, Samways MJ, Settele J, analysieren–begrifflicher und konzeptioneller Rahmen Skourtos M, Spangenberg JH, Vandewalle M, Zobel M, aus landschaftsökologischer Sicht. GEOÖKO 31:50–82 Harrison PA (2010) Ecosystem services and biodiversity Grunewald K, Naumann S (2012) Bewertung von Ökosystem- conservation: concepts and a glossary. Biodiv Conserv. dienstleistungen im Hinblick auf die Erreichung von doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9834–9 19, 10: 2843–2853 Umweltzielen der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie am Beispiel Haslett J, Berry P, Bela G, Jongman RG, Pataki G, Samways M, des Flusseinzugsgebietes der Jahna in Sachsen. Nat Zobel M (2010) Changing conservation strategies in Eu- Landsch 1:17–23 rope: a framework integrating ecosystem services and Grunewald K, Weber C, Schröder K (2005) Schadstoffbelas- dynamics. Biodivers Conserv 19:2963–2977. doi:10.1007/ tung und Auennutzung nach dem Elbehochwasser 2002 s10531-009-9743-y in Sachsen–eine Synopse. In: Steinberg C, Calmano W, Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Klapper H, Wilken R-D (eds) Handbuch Angewandte Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosys- Limnologie. 22. Erg.Lfg. 7/05, 42 pp tem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228 Grunewald K, Scheithauer J, Monget JM, Nikolova N (2007) Hermann A, Schleifer S, Wrbka T (2011) The concept of eco- Mountain water tower and ecological risk estimation of system services regarding landscape research: a review. the Mesta-Nestos transboundary river basin (Bulgaria- Living Rev Landscape Res 5. 7 http://landscapere- Greece). J Mt Sci 4:209–220 search.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrlr-2011-1/, 01.04.2011 Grunewald K, Dehnert J et al (2008) Nährstoffmodellierung Humboldt A von (1847) Kosmos. Entwurf einer physischen zur Aufstellung der Maßnahmenprogramme nach WRRL Weltbeschreibung, Bd 2. Cotta, Stuttgart, Tübingen, in Sachsen. Wasser + Abfall 3:15–19 544 pp Haaren C von, Bathke M (2008) Integrated landscape Jessel B (1998) Landschaften als Gegenstand von Planung. planning and remuneration of agri-environmental Schmidt, Berlin services, Results of a case study in the Fuhrberg region Jessel B, Tschimpke O, Waiser M (2009) Produktivkraft Natur. of Germany. J Environ Manage 89:209–221. doi:10.1016/j. Hoffmann und Campe, Hamburg jenvman.2007.01.058 Kettunen M, Bassi S, Gantioler S, ten Brink P (2009) Assessing Haase G (1978) Zur Ableitung und Kennzeichnung von socioeconomic benefits of Natura 2000–a toolkit for Naturraumpotenzialen. Petermanns Geogr Mitt practitioners. Institute for European Environmental 22:113–125 Policy, London, Brussels Haase G, Mannsfeld K (2002) Naturraumeinheiten, Kienast F (2010) Landschaftsdienstleistungen: ein taugliches Landschaftsfunktionen und Leitbilder am Beispiel Konzept für Forschung und Praxis? Forum Wiss 2010:7–12 von Sachsen. Deutsche Akademie für Landeskunde, Kontogianni A, Luck GW, Skourtos M (2010) Valuing ecosys- Flensburg tem services on the basis of service-providing units: a Haber W (2002) Kulturlandschaft zwischen Bild und Wirklich- potential approach to address the ‘endpoint problem’ keit. In: Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und and improve stated preference methods. Ecol Econ Sozialwissenschaften, Bern, Akademievorträge, Heft IX, 69:1479–1487. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.019 19 pp Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we Haber W (2004) Über den Umgang mit Biodiversität. In: need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479 Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz und Land- Lavorel S, McIntyre S, Landsberg J, Forbes TDA (1997) Plant schaftspflege (ANL): Schwerpunkte: Leitbilddiskussion: functional classifications: from general groups to spe- Traditionen und Trends/Biodiversität als Aufgabe/Bio- cific groups based on response to disturbance. Trends grafie: Alwin Seifert. Berichte der ANL, 28:25–43; Laufen/ Ecol Evol 12:474–478 Salzach (Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz und Lavorel S, Touzard B, Lebreton JD, Clement B (1998) Identify- Landschaftspflege) ing functional groups for response to disturbance in an Haines-Young RH, Potschin MB (2009) Methodologies for abandoned pasture. Acta Oecol 19:227–240 defining and assessing ecosystem services. Final Report, JNCC, Project Code C08–0170-0062, 69 pp 72 Chapter 3 • Conceptual Framework

Leibenath M, Gailing L (2012) Semantische Annäherung land use–meeting future demands for landscape goods an die Worte “Landschaft” und “Kulturlandschaft”. In: and services. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 37–64 Schenk W, Kühn M, Leibenath M, Tzschaschel S (eds) Naveh Z (2010) Ecosystem and landscapes–a critical com- Suburbane Räume als Kulturlandschaften. ARL, Han- parative appraisal. J Landsc Ecol 3:64–81 nover, pp 58–79 Naveh Z, Lieberman AS (1994) Landscape ecology. Theory Leser H, Klink HJ (Hrsg) (1988) Handbuch und Kartieranlei- and application. 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin tung Geoökologische Karte 1: 25000 (KA GÖK 25). Forsch Neef E (1963) Dimensionen geographischer Betrachtungen. 3 z. dt. Landeskunde 228 Forsch Fortsch 37:361–363 Loft L, Lux A (2010) Ecosystem Services–eine Einführung. Neef E (1966) Zur Frage des gebietswirtschaftlichen Poten- BiKF–Biodiversität und Klima. Knowledge Flow Paper 6 tials. Forsch Fortschr 40:65–70 Luck GW, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (2003) Population diversity Neßhöver C, Beck S, Born W, Dziock S, Görg C, Hansjürgens and ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol 18:331–336 B, Jax K, Köck W, Rauschmeyer F, Ring I, Schmidt-Loske Luck GW, Harrington R, Harrison PA, Kremen C, Berry PM, K, Unnerstall H, Wittmer H, Henle K (2007) Das Millen- Bugter R, Dawson TP, de Bello F, Diaz S, Feld CK, Haslett nium Ecosystem Assessment–eine deutsche Perspek JR, Hering D, Kontogianni A, Lavorel S, Rounsevell M, tive. Nat Landsch 82:262–267 Samways MJ, Sandin L, Settele J, Sykes MT, van den Niemann E (1977) Eine Methode zur Erarbeitung der Funk- Hove S, Vandewalle M, Zobel M (2009) Quantifying the tionsleistungsgrade von Landschaftselementen. Arch contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosys- Nat Schutz Landsch Forsch 17:119–158 tem services. BioScience 59:223–235 Noss RF (2001) Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a time Lütz M, Bastian O (2000) Vom Landschaftsplan zum Be- of rapid climate change. Conserv Biol 15:578–590 wirtschaftungsentwurf. Z Kulturtech Landesentwick Odum EP (1971) Fundamentals of ecology, 3. edn. Saunders, 41:259–266 Philadelphia, 574 pp Lyytimäki J, Sipilä M (2009) Hopping on one leg–The OECD (2008) Strategic environmental assessment and challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green ecosystem services. DAC Network on Environment and management. Urban For Urban Green 8:309–315 Development Co-operation (ENVIRONET), Paris Maarel E van der, Dauvellier PJ (1978) Naar een globaal O’Neill RV (2001) It is time to bury the ecosystem concept? ecologisch model voor de ruimlijke entwikkeling van Ecology 82:3275–3284 Niederland. Studierapp. Rijksplanologische Dienst, Den O’Neill RV, DeAngelis DL, Waide JB, Allen TFH (1986) A hier- Haag, 9 p archical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Mäler KG, Aniyar S, Jansson A (2008) Accounting for ecosys- Press, Princeton tem services as a way to understand the requirements van Oudenhoven APE, Petz K, Alkemade R, Hein L, de Groot for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA RS (2012) Framework for systematic indicator selection 105:9501–9506 to assess effects of land management on ecosystem Maltby E (Hrsg) (2009) Functional assessment of wetlands: services. Ecol Indicators 21:110–122 towards evaluation of ecosystem services. Woodhead Peters W (2009) Biomassepotenziale aus der Landschafts Publishing, Cambridge pflege in Sachsen. FuE-Bericht im uftragA des Säch- Mannsfeld K (1979) Die Beurteilung von Naturraumpoten- sischen Landesamtes für Umwelt. Landwirtschaft und tialen als Aufgabe der geographischen Landschafts- Geologie (unpubl.), Bosch & Partner, Berlin forschung. Petermanns Geogr Mitt 123:2–6 Pfisterer AB, Balvanera P, Buchmann N, He JS, Nakashizuka Matzdorf B, Reutter M, Hübner C (2010) Gutachten-Vorstudie: T, Raffaelli D, Schmid B (2005) The role of biodiversity Bewertung der Ökosystemdienstleistungen von HNV- for ecosystem services: current knowledge. Institute of Grünland (High Nature Value Grassland)–Abschluss Environmental Sciences, University of Zurich bericht im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz, Plummer M (2009) Assessing benefit transfer for the valua- Bonn (z2.zalf.de/oa/46452aad –17c1–45ed –82b6- tion of ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 7:38–45 fd9ba62fc9c2.pdf) Ring I, Hansjürgens B, Elmqvist T, Wittmer H, Sukhdev P MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems (2010) Challenges in framing the economics of ecosys- and human wellbeing: a framework for assessment. tems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative. Curr Opin Island Press, Washington DC Environ Sustain 2:15–26 MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems Rounsevell DA, Dawson TP, Harrison PA (2010) A concep- and human wellbeing. Synthesis. Island Press, Washing- tual framework to assess the effects of environmental ton DC change on ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv Müller B (2005) Stichwort “Raumwissenschaft”. In: Hand- 19:2823–2842 wörterbuch der Raumordnung. 4. Aufl. ARL, Hannover, Schenk W, Overbeck G (2012) Suburbane Räume als Kul- S 906–911 turlandschaften–Einführung. In: Schenk W, Kühn M, Müller F, Burkhard B (2007) An ecosystem based framework Leibenath M, Tzschaschel S (eds) Suburbane Räume als to link landscape structures, functions and services. In: Kulturlandschaften. ARL, Hannover, 1–12 pp Mander Ü, Wiggering H, Helming K (eds) Multifunctional 73 References 3

Spangenberg JH, Settele J (2010) Precisely incorrect? Mon- Wende W, Kästner A, Bastian O, Walz U, Blum A, Oertel etising the value of ecosystem services. Ecol Complex H (2011) Analyse des ehrenamtlichen und privaten 7:327–337 Naturschutzes in Sachsen. Abschlussbericht im Auftrag SRU (2007) Klimaschutz durch Biomasse. Sondergutachten des Sächsischen Staatsministeriums für Umwelt und des Sachverständigenrates für Umweltfragen (SRU). Landwirtschaft. 7 www.umwelt.sachsen.de/umwelt/ Schmidt, Berlin download/Abschlussbericht_Ehrenamt_01_09_2011_ Staub C, Ott W et al (2011) Indikatoren für Ökosystemleistun- mit_Anlagen.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2012 gen: Systematik, Methodik und Umsetzungsempfehlun- Wende W, Wojtkiewicz W, Marschall I, Heiland S, Lipp T, Rein gen für eine wohlfahrtsbezogene Umweltberichterstat- ke M, Schaal P, Schmidt C (2012) Putting the plan into tung. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Bern. Umwelt-Wissen practice: implementation of proposals for measures of 1102, 106 S local landscape plans. Landscape Res 37: 483–500 doi:10. Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assess- 1080/01426397.2011.592575 ment of ecosystem services: Providing, benefiting and Wiegleb G (1997) Leitbildmethode und naturschutzfachliche connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic Bewertung. Z Ökol Nat Schutz 6:43–62 21:80–88 Willemen L (2010) Mapping and modeling multifunctional Tacconi L (2000) Decentralization, forests and livelihoods: landscapes. PhD- Thesis, Wageningen, 152 pp theory and narrative. Global Environ Chang 17:338–348 WFD–Water Framework Directive (2000) Directive 2000/60/ Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational con- EG of the European Parliament and of the Council es- cepts and terms. Ecology 16:284–307 tablishing a framework for the Community action in the TEEB–The economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2009) field of water policy.- published in the Official Journal An interim report. Europ. Comm., Brussels. 7 www. (OJ L 327) on 22 December 2000 teebweb.org. Assessed 20 June 2013 TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Kumar P (ed) Earthscan, London, Washington Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Ecol Soc 16(4):17. 7 http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ ES –04191–160417 Territoriale Agenda der Europäischen Union (2007) Für ein wettbewerbsfähigeres nachhaltiges Europa der vielfälti- gen Regionen. Angenommen anlässlich des Informel- len Ministertreffens zur Stadtentwicklung und zum territorialen Zusammenhalt in Leipzig am 24./25. Mai 2007. 7 http://www.bmvbs.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/ SW/territoriale-agenda-der-europaeischen-union.html. Accessed 10 July 2012 UKNEA–UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) Synthesis of the key findings. Information Press, Oxford Vandewalle M, Sykes MT, Harrison PA, Luck GW, Berry P, Bugter R, Dawson TP, Feld CK, Harrington R, Haslett JR, Hering D, Jones KB, Jongman R, Lavorel S, Martins da Silva P, Moora M, Paterson J, Rounsevell MDA, Sandin L, Settele J, Sousa JP, Zobel M (2008) Review paper on concepts of dynamic ecosystems and their services. RUBICODE Deliverable D2.1. 7 www.rubicode.net/rubicode/RUBICODE_e-conference_report.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2009 Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–246 Wallace KJ (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classifications or confusion? Biol Conserv 141:353–354 Walz U (2011) Landscape structure, landscape metrics and biodiversity. Living Rev Landsc Res 5:3–23 Wascher DM (Hrsg) (2005) European landscape character areas–typologies, cartography and indicators for the assessment of sustainable landscapes. Final Project Report. Alterra Report 1254 75 4

Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

4.1 Indicators and Quantification Approaches – 76 B. Burkhard, F. Müller 4.1.1 Introduction – 76 4.1.2 Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand Assessment at the Landscape Scale–the ‘Matrix’ – 77 4.1.3 Conclusions and Outlook – 82

4.2 Approaches to the Economic Valuation of Natural Assets – 85 B. Schweppe-Kraft, K. Grunewald 4.2.1 Principles of Economic Valuation – 85 4.2.2 The Total Economic Value – 90 4.2.3 Valuation Methods and Techniques – 91 4.2.4 Conclusion – 103

4.3 Scenario-Development and Participative Methods – 104 R.-U. Syrbe, M. Rosenberg, J. Vowinckel 4.3.1 Basics and Fields of Application – 104 4.3.2 Framework of Scenario Development – 105 4.3.3 Participation and the Case Study Görlitz – 108

4.4 Complex Analyses, Evaluation and Modelling of ES – 110 4.4.1 Background – 110 K. Grunewald, G. Lupp 4.4.2 Energy Crop Production–A Complex Problem for Assessing ES – 112 G. Lupp, O. Bastian, K. Grunewald 4.4.3 Application of Models of InVEST to Assess Ecosystem Services – 118 M. Holfeld, M. Rosenberg

4.5 Communicating ES – 126 K. Anders 4.5.1 The Importance of Communication – 126 4.5.2 ‘Ecosystem Services’ as an Umbrella Term for Communicative Intent – 127 4.5.3 Government and the Market Instead of Communications? – 128 4.5.4 Communications Efforts as an Approach to the Shaping of Environmental Sciences – 129

References – 136

K. Grunewald, O. Bastian (eds.), Ecosystem Services – Concept, Methods and Case Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-44143-5_4, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 76 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

4.1 Indicators and Quantification ments for the implementation of the ES concept Approaches1 in environmental institutions and decision-making processes (Daily and Matson 2008). B. Burkhard, F. Müller One key problem of each ES quantification is, besides the difficult and comprehensive data acquisition, the selection of an ES categorisation system 4.1.1 Introduction which is appropriate for the specific study region and the particular research question. Most of the 4 The need for applications and tools of the–fre- currently available ES classification systems (e.g. de quently mainly conceptually used–ecosystem ser- Groot et al. 2010a; Wallace 2007) distinguish the vice (ES) ideas has become more and more obvious three classes with regulating ES, provisioning ES during the last years (Daily et al. 2009). Practical and cultural ES. Some authors additionally include applications are necessary to further develop and habitat services (de Groot et al. 2010a; TEEB 2010). improve the conceptual base of ES on the one hand. Habitat services are, however, often assigned to On the other, tools for environmental and resource the category of ecosystem functions, which in the management are needed in order to further estab- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005a) lish ES in decision-making processes (Kienast et al. were called supporting ecosystem services. Many 2009). The recognition and the appropriate quanti- ecosystem functions or habitat properties do not fication of ES are fundamentals for their valuation, deliver direct or final ES. Therefore, the distinction independently whether the valuation is conducted between ecosystem functions and ES has become with biophysical, social or economic methods. more common and accepted. This distinction also Their application and integration is one of the big- proved to be advantageous for the avoidance of gest challenges of contemporary ES science (Wal- double counting of closely correlating functions lace 2007). and services, for example in monetary valuations. The supply of ES is based on geo-biophysical Numerous methods and tools for the charac- structures and processes, which are changing in terisation of ecosystem functions and services in intensity as well as in spatial and temporal distribu- landscapes have been developed especially within tion. Anthropogenic impacts, especially land-use the last 10 years. Additionally, existing methods and land-cover changes or climatic variations are and data collection programmes are ready to be among the major factors determining the qualities integrated in the ES concept due to their thematic and quantities of ES supply. Land-use patterns and diversity (e.g. monitoring within the long-term changes in land cover can be surveyed, spatially an- ecological research (LTER) network; Müller et al. alysed and regionally assessed. They deliver direct 2010). They include measurements, monitoring measures for human activities (Riitters et al. 2000) programmes, mapping activities, expert interviews, and clearly demonstrate the relations between ES statistical analyses, model applications or transfer- supply and demand (Burkhard et al. 2012). Spa- functions (de Groot et al. 2010b). Natural structures tially explicit identification and mapping of ES and processes (e.g. flows of energy, matter and wa- distributions and the analysis of their spatio-tem- ter) are central in biophysical assessments. These poral dynamics therefore enable the aggregation approaches are different from monetary valuations, of highly complex information. The respective ES where the actual assessment of values is carried out visualisations can support decision-makers in the by monetisation. Monetary ES approaches such as environmental sector by providing powerful tools cost-benefit analyses (CBA) or willingness-to-pay to support sustainable landscape planning and ES (WTP) surveys are applicable and well-established trade-off assessments (Swetnam et al.2010 ). Spa- concepts (Farber et al. 2002). However, results are tially explicit ES quantification and mapping have often disappointing especially for nonmarket goods therefore been named as one of the key require- and services such as many regulating ES, ecosystem functions or biodiversity characteristics (Ludwig 1 Section 4.1 is in main parts based on the paper of Burk 2000; Spangenberg and Settele 2010). hard et al. (2012). 77 4.1 • Indicators and Quantification Approaches 4

Suitable ES indicators are needed for all quan- ferent geospatial units (e.g. different land-cover tification approaches. These indicators have to be types). Based on this interrelation analysis, re- quantifiable, sensitive for land-use changes, tempo- sulting ecosystem function and ES scores can be rally and spatially explicit and scalable (van Ouden- visualised in maps. Differentiations between ES hoven et al. 2012). Indicators are tools for commu- supply and demand but also between ES potential nication, enabling the reduction of information and de facto flows (ES actually used by humans) about highly complex human-environmental sys- are needed (see below). Supply and demand of/for tems. After Wiggering and Müller (2004), indica- different ecosystem goods and services are often tors in general are variables delivering aggregated spatially and temporally decoupled and managed information about certain phenomena. They are by transport, trade and storage opportunities in selected to support specific management purposes today’s globalised world. Nevertheless, calculations by providing integrating synoptic values, depicting of these two variables deliver data that are highly not directly accessible qualities, quantities, states or relevant for ES budget assessments for specific spa- interactions (Dale and Beyeler 2001; Turnhout et al. tial or temporal units. Self-sufficiency rates and ES 2007; Niemeijer and de Groot 2008). flows within and between regions can be calculated on this basis. Ecosystem functions and several regulating ES such as nutrient regulation, erosion con- 4.1.2 Ecosystem Service Supply and trol and natural hazard protection are exceptions. Demand Assessment at the They are normally not transportable and therefore, Landscape Scale–the ‘Matrix’ a physical connection between the service providing unit (SPU) and service benefiting/demand Different landscapes can be characterised by dif- area (SBA) must exist (Nedkov and Burkhard 2012; ferent ecosystem structures, functions and conse- Syrbe and Walz 2012; 7 Sect. 3.3). quently by varying capacities to supply ES (Burk Such information, especially in a region- hard et al. 2009), depending on the natural settings alised form, and the related ecological and socio- as well as human activities (e.g. land use) within economic data are highly relevant for environ- the research area. Different land-use patterns, mental management and for ES-based landscape heterogeneous population distributions as well as planning. Thus, requests for appropriate tools are multiple ecological and socio-economic conditions numerous (Kienast et al. 2009). When assessing the cause varying demands for ES (7 Fig. 3.2). potential of a landscape, a land-use type or an eco- In this chapter, a method for the assessment system, usually the (hypothetical) maximum of ES of different land-cover types’ capacities to sup- supply under the given conditions is being assessed. port ecosystem functions (assessed based on the Often it is not considered whether there is a human ecological integrity concept and respective indi- use of these ES or not. Flows of ES on the contrary cators for ecosystem structures and processes; for describe the capacity of a defined spatial unit to sup- detailed information see Müller 2005; Burkhard et ply a specific ES set (ES bundle) actually used by hu- al. 2009, 2012), to supply multiple ES and to iden- mans within a given time period (after Burkhard et tify demands for ES will be shortly introduced. The al. 2012; see Box). This distinction becomes relevant method has been applied in different case studies, for certain ES, for example when assessing protect- for example for the assessment of ES in boreal for- ed ecosystems. These systems undoubtedly supply est landscapes in northern Finland (Vihervaara et numerous goods and services. However, e.g. in the al. 2010), in urban–rural regions in central eastern case of core zones in national parks, where any hu- Germany (Kroll et al. 2012) or for the calculation man activity may be prohibited, many of these ES of flood regulation capacities in a Bulgarian moun- (e.g. timber, game) cannot be used. Of course, eco- tainous region (Nedkov and Burkhard 2012). system functions, such as nutrient cycling or bio- The approach is based on an assessment matrix, diversity, take place anyway. They provide positive which links relative and mainly non-monetary ES effects on ecological integrity within the protected supply capacities or ES demand intensities to dif- area itself, but often also on adjacent ecosystems. 78 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

Conceptual Background for ES Supply and Demand (after Burkhard et al. 2012)

44 ES supply refers to the capacity currently consumed or used in concept; Rees 1992) calculates of a particular area to provide a particular area over a given the area needed to generate a specific bundle of ecosystem time period. Up to now, de- particular ecosystem goods and goods and services within a mands are assessed not consid- services demanded by humans given time period. For detailed ering where ecosystem services in a certain area and a certain analyses, a differentiation be- actually are provided. These time. Different aspects of eco- tween ES potentials and actual detailed provision patterns are system service generation are 4 ES flows is needed. part of the considered (production capaci- 44 ES demand is the sum of all 44 ES footprint which (closely re- ties, waste absorption, etc.) for ecosystem goods and services lated to the ecological footprint assessing the ES footprint.

For many regulating ES, it can be assumed that ES ter bodies are characterised by high ES capacities. potentials and flows are comparable 7( Sect. 2.1). Strongly anthropogenically influenced ecosystems, Ecosystem functions, ES supply, ES demand such as urban fabrics, industrial or commercial and ES budgets in different land-use types can be units and transport units (in the upper part of the assessed by the help of ES matrices. The first matrix matrix), show comparably low ES capacities. Of in . Fig. 4.1 contains ecosystem functions (ecologi- course, these areas also supply ES, but in compari- cal integrity) and ES on the x-axis. The geospatial son with the other land-cover types, their ES supply units (here CORINE land-cover types; EEA 1994) is rather low (7 Sect. 6.4). are placed on the y-axis (after Burkhard et al.2009 , The whole ES concept is a highly anthropocen- 2012). All relevant ES capacity scores are entered, tric approach. Fisher et al. (2009) defined that only using a relative scale between 0 (equivalent to no those services with a clear benefit to human societ- relevant capacity to support the respective ecosys- ies can be denoted as ES. Services without direct tem function or to supply the respective ES), 1 (low human benefits should be termed as ecosystem relevant capacity), 2 (relevant capacity), 3 (medium functions or intermediate services. Thus, a societal relevant capacity), 4 (high relevant capacity) and demand should be identifiable for all individual 5 (maximum capacity in the study area) at the in- ES. Data about actual anthropogenic uses of each tersections. Based on the 44 different CORINE ES are needed for their assessment (see definitions land-cover classes and 39 ecosystem functions and in Box 1). Major parts of this information can be services, altogether 1716 capacity scores have to be derived from statistics, modelling, ecological and given (. Fig. 4.1). Due to this high number of scores socio-economic monitoring or from interviews. needed and the related high assessment efforts, ex- . Figure 4.2 shows a respective matrix, which, com- isting databases or expert evaluations need to be parable to the ES supply matrix (. Fig. 4.1), provides harnessed. These data can successively be checked exemplary information about the ES demands and replaced by more exact information resulting within the different CORINE land-cover classes. from modelling, measurement, monitoring or in- The y-axis contains regulating, provisioning and depth interviews (Burkhard et al. 2009). cultural ES. The ecological integrity variables are The matrix in. Fig. 4.1 shows clear patterns of not relevant here because they (per definition) do ES capacity distributions across the different land- not provide direct benefits to humans. The scores cover types. Especially, the forest land-cover types were given in a similar manner as in the ES supply (including broad-leaved, coniferous and mixed for- matrix; 0 (light pink) denotes no relevant human ests) show high scores for a multitude of ES. Such demand within the particular land-cover type and multifunctionality is typical for forest ecosystems. 5 (dark red) illustrates maximum demand. Also the other generally more natural land-cover . Figure 4.2 clearly shows that the overall high- types such as natural grasslands, wetlands and wa- est demands for manifold ES are located within the 79 4.1 • Indicators and Quantification Approaches 4

Crops Biomass for energy Fodder ** Livestock (domestic ) Fibr e Timber Wood Fuel Fish, seafood & edible algae Aquaculture Wild foods & resources Biochemicals & Medicine Freshwater Mineral resources *** Abiotic energy sources *** Recreation & Tourism Landscape aesthetics & Inspiration Knowledge systems Religious & Spiritual experience Cultural heritage & diversity Natural heritage & diversit y Exergy capture Entropy production Storage capacity Cycling & Nutrient loss reduction Biotic water flows Metabolic efficiency Heterogeneit y Biodiversity Global climate regulation Local climate regulation Air quality Regulatio n Water flow regulation Water purification Nutrient regulation Erosion regulation Natural hazard regulatio n Pollination * Pest and disease control * Regulation of waste * Cultural service s Ecological integrity Regulating services Provisioning services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 21 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 1 Continuous urban fabric 00000000 00000000 000 010000000000 01 331 5 10 2 Discontinuous urban fabric 11111111 00000000 0 00 11100 0000100 01 3 215 1 0 3 Industrial or commercial units 00000011 00000000 0 00 010000000000 0 1 0 1 0010 4 Road and rail networks 0 0 000022 00000000 000 00000 0000000 00 000010 5 Port areas 00000011 00000003 0 00 00000 000000000120010 6Airports 1 1 021111 00000000 000 001000000000 00 000010 7Mineral extraction sites 00000022 00000000 000 00000 0000000 55 001000 8Dump sites 005 00021 00000000 000 010000000000 00 000000 9 Construction sites 00000021 00000000 000 000000000000 10 000000 10 Green urban areas 43232133 12121120 111 000000100100 00 331020 11 Sport and leisure facilities 43232122 11121110 1 11 000000000000 00 5 10010 12 Nonirrigated arable land 5 4413432 12010001 0 22 5 230 5 0000010 00 1 12030 13 Permanently irrigated land 5 4 315 232 13000001 0 12 5 120 2 0000010 00 1 12030 14 Ricefields 5 4 315 132 02020000 0 11 5 020 0 0000000 00 1 12040 15 Vineyards 3 2 203132 11010000 0 11 41000 0100000 00 5 220 5 0 16 Fruit trees and berries 3 2 324243 22221122 5 32 5 100 0 4400000 00 5 22040 17 Olive groves 3 2 313232 11111110 0 32 41000 4400000 00 5 22040 18 Pastures 5 5 424 5 22 11010041 0 24 01550 0000000 00 3 22030 19 Annual and permanent crops 4 3 323222 12110011 0 22 5 1 555 0000010 00 1 12020 20 Complex cultivation patterns 4 3 313243 12010001 0 32 41304 0000020 00 2 22030 21 Agriculture & Natural vegetation 3 2 323233 23121031 0 32 32234 3300310 01 2 23023 22 Agro-forestry areas 4 3 444344 12111121 3 33 32232 3300000 00 3 22030 23 Broad-leaved forest 5 4 555 434 4 552 555 3 5 44 01100 5500550 00 5 55335 24 Coniferous forest 5 4 554 434 4 552 555 3 5 44 01100 5500550 00 5 55345 25 Mixed forest 5 4 555 435 4 552 555 3 5 55 01100 5500550 00 5 55345 26 Natural grassland 4 3 55443 5 3201555 1012 00130 00005 00 0 0 3 4 5 143 27 Moors and heathland 4 3 554 5 34 34024302 2 23 02020 0200100 00 5 4 5 125 28 Sclerophyllous vegetation 3 2 242334 12010001 2 23 00020 0200130 00 2 34124 29 Transitional woodland shrub 3 2 242334 01000000 2 23 01021 0200100 00 2 34122 30 Beaches, dunes and sand plains 1 0 101133 0001000 5 0 11 01000 0000000 10 5 44022 31 Bare rock 0 0 000033 00011001 0 00 00000 0000000 10 4 34020 32 Sparsely vegetated areas 1 1 111023 01010001 0 11 00000 0000000 00 0 14020 33 Burnt areas 0 0 300021 01000000 0 01 00000 0000000 00 0 0 5 000 34 Glaciers and perpetual snow 0 0 0 00021 33040 0 00 0 11 00000 0000005 00 5 5 320 0 35 Inland marshes 4 3 5 34432 22020404 0 23 005 2 0 0000000 00 0 24020 36 Peatbogs 4 3 554 434 5 4034303234 02000 0000000 00 4 23024 37 Salt marshes 3 2 5 34323 0100020 5 0 22 00020 0000000 00 3 23020 38 Salines 0 0 000011 02000000 0 11 00000 0000000 00 2 23020 39 Intertidal flats 1 1 140223 0100010 5 0 23 01000 0000000 00 4 23020 40 Water courses 3 1 130344 01013302 0 3 5 03000 0030405 0 5 4 44035 41 Water bodies 4 2 430444 12020101 0 3 5 00000 003 5 405 0 5 5 44034 42 Coastal lagoons 5 4 430 5 44 01000004 0 3 5 01000 004 5 400 00 4 44024 43 Estuaries 5 4 230 5 33 00003303 0 4 5 02000 0055400 00 4 5 402 3 44 Sea and ocean 3 2 140322 5 30005 00 0 3 5 03100 0055000 13 4 5 404 2 * These ecosystem services are named because they can be of high importance in some ecosystems although the potential of double-counting must be noted. ** Potential double-counting when fodder is used for feeding on the same farm. *** These services are often not counted as ecosystem services; but they can be of high importance for policy decisions, land-use management strategies and scenarios.

. Fig. 4.1 Land-cover types (y-axis) and ecosystem functions and services (x-axis) illustrating the capacities of different land-cover types to support ecosystem functions and to supply ES on a scale from 0 (no relevant capacity; pink) to 5 (maximum relevant capacity; dark green); exemplarily assessed for a central European ‘normal landscape’ (after Burkhard et al. 2009, 2012) highly human-modified land-cover types in the up- sion control). Similarly to the ES supply matrix, ES per part of the matrix. Urban areas as well as indus- demand maps can also be compiled based on the ES trial and commercial areas are the land-cover types demand matrix. with the highest demand scores. It also becomes Taking the information from the ES supply and obvious that in the more natural land-cover types demand matrices as starting points, sources and (lower part of the matrix), generally lower demands sinks for individual ES can be identified. As both for ES can be found. This can of course be justi- components–supply and demand–were normalised fied by the lower population numbers and related to the same relative units (0–5), ES budgets can be lower consumption rates in these areas. Agrarian calculated by subtracting the ES demand scores land-cover types show high demands for regulating from the ES supply scores. And also the resulting ES (e.g. nutrient regulation, water purification, ero- ES budget scores can be illustrated in a matrix and 80 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

e y n Regulating services Provisioning services Cultural services Global climate regulation Local climate regulation Air quality regulatio Water flow regulation Water purification Nutrient regulatio n Erosion regulation Natural hazard regulation Pollination Pest and disease control Regulation of waste Crops Biomass for energy Fodde r Livestoc k Fibre Timbe r Wood fuel Fish, seafood & edible alga Aquaculture Wild foods & resources Biochemicals / medicine Freshwate r Mineral resources Abiotic energy sources Recreation& tourism Landscape aesthetics Knowledge systems Religious experience Cultural heritage & diversity Natural heritage & diversit 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4 1 Continuous urban fabric 3 5541115 3 5 3 551 5 332 5 5555 42 443442 2 Discontinuous urban fabric 3 555 2214 4424424333444 55 33 443323 3 Industrial or commercial units 5 1 5 43315 434 5555555 444 55 55 11413 1 4 Road and rail networks 424 40034120 0 40002000 00120221110 5 Port areas 322 5 304 5 14325 222 5 2221133122 2121 6 Airports 5 2412115 0 5 125 021 1011113 20 111110 7 Mineral extraction sites 00020 043003 03001200000210000000 8 Dump sites 223 02005 035 01000000000200000000 9 Construction sites 0212222 3012 040044000002 40 000000 10 Green urban areas 02100002 23011010000000200442021 11 Sport and leisure facilities 02301003 030 23121 112223311331020 12 Nonirrigated arable land 22120323 3 32 110000000 010 01 00101 0 13 Permanently irrigated land 22125 323 332 120000000015 01 001010 14 Ricefields 431 553 5 3132 120000000015 00 002030 15 Vineyards 2 5 10435 3231 12001100002400002030 16 Fruit trees and berries 12102313 5 3 112 001100002300002020 17 Olive groves 12102203 23111 0010000021 00 002 020 18 Pastures 31012102 013 01310100001202001010 19 Annual and permanent crops 11112 5 1 2231 120 00000001101001010 20 Complex cultivation patterns 11112 5 12 332120000000011 00 001010 21 Agriculture & natural vegetation 21102311 23112 0000000 01202001000 22 Agro-forestry areas 11102301 2 10 11000000001200000000 23 Broad-leaved forest 00000 000000 00000110010000 000000 24 Coniferous forest 0 0000000 000000001100100 00 000000 25 Mixed forest 000 0000000 0000001 10010000000000 26 Natural grassland 0000000 0000 000 000000000 02 000000 27 Moors and heathland 0 0000000000 000000000000 02 00000 0 28 Sclerophyllous vegetation 00000000 00000000000000001000000 29 Transitional woodland shrub 00000000 0 00 000000000000 00 00000 0 30 Beaches, dunes and sand plains 00000 000000 0000000 0 000000110001 31 Bare rock 00000000 0000000 0 000000000000000 32 Sparsely vegetated areas 000 0000000 0000000000000 01 000000 33 Burnt areas 0000000 0000 0000000000000000 0000 34 Glaciers and perpetual snow 00000000 00000000000000000000000 35 Inland marshes 00000000 00000000000000000000000 36 Peatbogs 0 0000000000 00000 0000000 00 000000 37 Salt marshes 00000000 000 00000000000000000000 38 Salines 00000000 00000000000000000001010 39 Intertidal flats 000 00000000 00000 000000000000000 40 Water courses 0000000 0000 000000010 00003000000 41 Water bodies 000 00000000 00000001000000000000 42 Coastal lagoons 00000 000000 00000001000000 000000 43 Estuaries 00000000 0 00 00000 0010000000000 00 44 Sea and ocean 00000000 000000000 01000004000000

. Fig. 4.2 Demand for ecosystem services (x-axis) within different land-cover types (y-axis) on a scale from 0 (no relevant demand; light pink) to 5 (maximum demand; dark red); exemplarily assessed for a central European ‘normal landscape’ (after Burkhard et al. 2012)

in maps. . Figure 4.3 shows the ES budget matrix mand = supply (neutral budget), to + 5 = supply for the different CORINE land-cover types. Each clearly exceeds demand (oversupply). Empty fields field in the ES budget matrix was calculated based indicate land-cover types with neither a relevant ES on the scores in the ES supply matrix (. Fig. 4.1) supply nor a relevant demand for ES. and the ES demand matrix (. Fig. 4.2). Therefore, . Figure 4.3 shows a clear pattern of ES un- the assessment scale ranges from −5 = demand dersupply in the regions with high anthropogenic clearly exceeds supply (undersupply), via 0 = de- 81 4.1 • Indicators and Quantification Approaches 4

Provisioning services Regulating services Cultural services Global climate regulation ocal climate regulatio n Air quality regulation Water purification Nutrient regulation Erosion regulation Natural hazard regulation Pollination Pest and disease control Regulation of waste Crops Biomass for energy Fodder Livestock Fibre Timber Wood fuel Capture fisherie s Aquaculture Wild foods & resources Biochemicals / medicine Freshwate r Mineral resource s Abiotic energy sources Recreation& tourism Landscape aesthetic s Knowledge systems Religious experienc e Cultural heritage & diversity Natural heritage & diversity Water flow regulation 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

1 Continuous urban fabric-3 -5 -5 -4 -1 -1 -1 -5 -3 -5 -3 -5 -4 -1 -5 -3 -3 -2 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -4 -1 -1 -1 -2 1-3-2 2 Discontinuous urban fabric -3 -5 -5 -5 -2 -2 -1 -4 -4 -4 -2 -3 -3 -1 -4 -3 -3 -3 -4 -4 -3 -5 -5 -3 -2 -1 -2 -22-1-3 3 Industrial or commercial units -5 -1 -5 -4 -3 -3 -1 -5 -4 -3 -4 -5 -4 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -4 -4 -4 -5 -5 -5 -4 -1 0-4-1-2-1 4 Road and rail networks -4 -2 -4 -4 00-3 -4 -1 -2 -4 -2 -1 -2 -2 -2 -1 -1 0 5 Port areas -3 -2 -2 -5 -3 -4 -2 -1 -4 -3 -2 -5 -2 -2 -2 -5 -2 -2 -2 -1 -1 -3 -3 -1 -1 0-2-1-1-1 6 Airports -5 -2 -4 -1 -2 -1 -1 -5 -5 -1 -2 -5 1-2-1-10-1 -1 -1 -1 -3 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 7 Mineral extraction sites -2 -4 -3 -3 -3 -1 -2 -2 45 1 8 Dump sites -2 -2 -3 -2 -5 -3 -5 0-2 9 Construction sites -2 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3 -1 -2 -4 -4 -4 -2 -3 10 Green urban areas 1002112-2-1-21 -1 -1 -1 11-2 -1 -1 -1 0-1 11 Sport and leisure facilities 1-1-22 011-31-2 1-2-3-1-2-1-1-1-2-2-2-3-3-1-12-2 -1 -1 12 Nonirrigated arable land -10-1-1-3-2-2-3-10 413 5 0-1111 2 13 Permanently irrigated land -11-1-2 -5 -3 -2 -2 -3 -2 04-1 22 0 -5 -1 1112 14 Ricefields -4 -1 -1 -3 -5 -3 -5 -3 -1 -2 -1 4-22 -1 -5 1101 15 Vineyards -1 -4 -1 1-4-3 -5 -3 -2 -2 03-1 -1 -1 1-2-4 5 20 2 16 Fruit trees and berries 1012-1 -2 1-1001 4-1-13 4-2-3 5 20 2 17 Olive groves 0-10 1-1-11-3 -2 01 30 -1 44 -2 -1 5 20 2 18 Pastures -2 00-2 -1 4-111024 -1 -1 -2 -2 3212 19 Annual and permanent crops 0100-2 -5 0-1-2-11 4-1 555 0-1-1111 1 20 Complex cultivation patterns 01-1 0-2 -5 -1 -1 -3 00 3-13 41-1 2212 21 Agriculture & natural vegetation 0202-1 -3 20 -2 01 202343330-2-1222 23 22 Agro-forestry areas 0101-1 -2 20 1232123233 -1 -2 3223 23 Broad-leaved forest 4 552 555 3 5 44 11 44 4 5555335 24 Coniferous forest 4 552 555 3 5 44 11 44 4 5555345 25 Mixed forest 4 552 555 3 555 11 44 4 5555345 26 Natural grassland 32 1 555 11213 5 -2 345 143 27 Moors and heathland 34 24322232221-2 5 4 5 125 28 Sclerophyllous vegetation 12 112232213-1234124 29 Transitional woodland shrub 1223 1212 1234122 30 Beaches, dunes and sand plains 1 5 11 1143421 31 Bare rock 11 1 1434 2 32 Sparsely vegetated areas 11 111-1142 33 Burnt areas 11 5 34 Glaciers and perpetual snow 33 411 555 32 35 Inland marshes 22 24423 5 2242 36 Peatbogs 5 4343 3234 2423 24 37 Salt marshes 125 22 2323 2 38 Salines 211 2221 39 Intertidal flats 115 23 1423 2 40 Water courses 1133 235 324 5 2444 3 5 41 Water bodies 1 221135 2 5 4 555 44 34 42 Coastal lagoons 143 5 135 4444 24 43 Estuaries 33 345 245 445 423 44 Sea and ocean 5 3 5 3 5 31 4 5 1-145 442

. Fig. 4.3 Ecosystem service supply-demand matrix showing budgets in the different land-cover types; based on matrices in Figs. 4.1 and 4.2. Scale from − 5 (dark red) = demand clearly exceeds supply = undersupply; via 0 (pink) = demand = supply = neutral budget; to 5 (dark green) = supply clearly exceeds demand = oversupply. Empty fields indicate land cover types with neither a relevant ES supply nor a relevant demand for ES (after Burkhard et al. 2012)

influences, especially in the urbanised areas and the related flows to areas of ES demand (SBAs) could be industrial and commercial units. The more natu- integrated in ecosystem service footprint calcula- ral land-cover types, particularly the forests, show tions (see Box 1). No experience with this approach characteristic patterns where the ES supply often is available up to now. Highly complex import and exceeds the demand. More detailed information export balances would be needed, for which data about the locations of actual ES supply (SPUs) and on required scales are not easily available. 82 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

The following case study application from the for energy was generally decreasing by 20 % be- central eastern German region Leipzig-Halle shows tween 1990 and 2007, mainly due to the decline of how empirical ES quantifications can be transferred energy-intensive industrial activities and energy to the relative 0–5 scale, and how the results can be saving measures. The ES supply–demand budget illustrated in spatially explicit ES maps. The study maps (. Figs. 4.4 and 4.5, bottom right) illustrate took place as a part of the EU project PLUREL the abovementioned source-sink functions of the (Peri-urban Land Use Relationships, 7 www.plurel. rural and urban areas. Based on such information net/). More detailed information about the differ- and data, decisions for regional ES provision and 4 ent ES quantification methods and the map com- landscape planning can be supported. pilation can be found in Kroll et al. (2012) and in Burkhard et al. (2009, 2012). The following maps from the Leipzig-Halle case study region include 4.1.3 Conclusions and Outlook CORINE land-cover maps for the years 1990 and 2006 and spatial distributions of the provisioning The high applicability of the ES matrix approach ES ‘energy’ supply, demand and supply–demand presented here arises from its potential for visu- budgets (. Figs. 4.4 and 4.5). The quantifications for alisation and from the comparison of the effects of the ES ‘energy’ refer to final energy units in giga- different land-use activities on ecosystem functions joule per hectare per year. Lignite as the major en- and services. Thereby, assessments of trade-offs be- ergy source in this region was included within the tween different land-use types are possible. Various provisioning ES category. We are aware that current ecosystem functions and services can be displayed ecosystem functions are not involved in the gen- and huge amounts of data resulting for example eration of lignite and that the integration of natu- from expert interviews, statistics, measurements ral resources is seen critical by many authors. We and modelling can be integrated. The normalisa- are following the CICES system (7 http://cices.eu/) tion to the standardised relative 0–5 scale integrates here, which includes abiotic outputs from natural different biophysical dimensions (e.g. Joule, tons, systems in their accompanying ES classification. diversity indices) or economic units (e.g. Euro, Moreover, open-pit lignite mining has enormous Yuan) and makes them (to a certain degree) com- impacts on ecosystem structures and processes in parable. the study area’s landscapes. Thus, this ES is of high The application of freely available spatial data relevance for landscape planning and therefore can- such as CORINE enables the coverage of large land- not be neglected. scape units with a unified land-cover classification The energy supply map from the year 1990 system in almost all European countries. Issues (. Fig. 4.4, top right) shows that the large lignite with the land-cover classification system, the spatial open-pit mines were the only regional energy data resolution and generalisation problems lead to source at this time with a final energy contribution uncertainties of the assessments. Further data with of 20,000 GJ ha−1 year−1. In the year 2007 (. Fig. 4.5, higher spatio-temporal or thematic resolution can, top right), a clear reduction of the open-pit mine like in the ES assessments, easily be integrated. areas and their energetic outputs are visible. New The matrix approach is also linked with techni- energy sources such as wind power, biomass, solar cal and thematic uncertainties, especially if the ma- energy or waterpower were developed, resulting in jority of the ES scores are based on expert opinions. a more heterogeneous distribution of energy supply The uncertainties are based upon the selection of in the region. a suitable and representative case study area, the The demands for the energy provisioning ES selection of relevant land-cover classes (matrix y- (. Figs. 4.4 and 4.5, bottom left) show a clear sink axis), spatial and geo-biophysical data acquisition, function of the industrial and commercial units the selection of relevant ecosystem functions and and the urban areas. The pit mines themselves services (matrix x-axis) and related indicators, the also have a high demand for energy. The demand indicator quantification in the matrices based on 83 4.1 • Indicators and Quantification Approaches 4

N ; after Burkhard −1 a −1 -20000 - -10000 -10000 - -1000 -1000 - -100 -100 - -10 -10 - -0.1 0 0.1 - 10 10 - 100 100 - 1000 1000 - 10000 10000 - 20000 no supply or demand 0 0.01 - 10 10 - 100 100 - 1000 1000 - 10000 10000 - 20000 Energy Supply/Demand Budget 1990 [GJ/ha] Energy Supply 1990 [GJ/ha] Water bodies Water rest ) and left demand map ( bottom ) and right ), energy supply map ( top left990 ( top ); energy ed forest rest rous fo ansitional woodland shrub Wetlands Coni fe Broad-le av fo Mixed Agriculture with natural vegetation Natural grassland Moors and heathland Tr areas Sparsely vegetated ilometers s 0K s rk tion patte rn il net wo ra traction sites CORINE land-cover map 1 land-cover CORINE 04 ex 2012 ) x culti va al or commercial units

uit trees and berries Dump sites Construction sites Green urban areas Sport and leisure facilities land Nonirrigated arable Fr Pastures Airports Mineral Continuous urban fabric urban fabric Discontinuous Indust ri Road and 0 0.1 - 10 10 - 100 100 - 1000 1000 - 10000 10000 - 20000 Comple Fig. 4.4 Fig.

Energy Demand 1990 [GJ/ha] Land Cover 1990 Land Cover 02 et al. 2009 , et al. . in GJ ha data (energy 1990 in the year region the Leipzig-Halle right ) for budget map ( bottom energy 84 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

4 N ; after Burkhard −1 a −1 d -20000 - -10000 -10000 - -100 0 -1000 - -100 -100 - -1 0 -10 - -0.1 0 0.1 - 10 10 - 100 100 - 1000 1000 - 10000 10000 - 20000 no supply or deman 0 0.1 - 10 10 - 100 100 - 1000 1000 - 10000 10000 - 20000 Energy Supply/Demand Budget 2007 [GJ/ha] Energy Supply 2007 [GJ/ha] b ru ) and left demand map ( bottom ) and right ), energy supply map ( top lefttop ); energy ter bodies Wa rest rest rest culture with natural vegetation tlands ri ansitional woodland sh Sparsely vegetated areas Sparsely vegetated We Natural grassland Moors and heathland Tr Coniferous fo Coniferous fo Broad-leaved Mixed fo Mixed Ag 0 Kilometers ns s cilities CORINE land-cover map 2006 ( land-cover CORINE traction sites 04

ex x cultivation patter x cultivation r 2006 stures ve uit trees and berries 0 0.1 - 10 10 - 100 100 - 1000 1000 - 10000 10000 - 20000 Continuous urban fabric Discontinuous urban fabric Industrial or commercial units Road and rail netwo rk Airports Mineral Dump sites Construction sites Green urban areas Sport and leisure fa land Nonirrigated arable Fr Pa Comple Fig. 4.5 Fig.

Energy Demand 2007 [GJ/ha] Land Co ) for the Leipzig-Halle region in the year 2007 (energy data in GJ ha data 2007 (energy in the year region the Leipzig-Halle right ) for budget map ( bottom energy . et al. 2012 ) et al. 02 85 4.2 • Approaches to the Economic Valuation of Natural Assets 4 the 0–5 scale, the linkage of the assessment values 4.2 Approaches to the Economic with the spatial units (map compilation) and the Valuation of Natural Assets interpretation of the results by the end user. A detailed discussion of the different sources of uncer- B. Schweppe-Kraft, K. Grunewald tainties can be found in Hou et al. (2013). Further developmental steps are needed to tack- le these problems. One key issue is the inclusion of 4.2.1 Principles of Economic Valuation additional ES in the quantitative classifications, as shown in the energy budget case study example. “It is not with money that things are really pur- Direct measurements, official statistics, simulation chased. (John Stuart Mill 1848)” models or specific surveys, for example in the class of cultural ES, are needed to fill these data gaps. Economic science is, briefly put, the art of the ra- Moroever, regional geological, geomorphological, tional and economical use of scarce resources for pedological, climatic and geobotanical site condi- the fulfillment of human values and needs. Since tions as well as additional human system inputs ecosystem services are limited and their use is of- (e.g. fertiliser, energy, materials) strongly influence ten at least partially mutually exclusive (trade-offs), ES potentials and flows. These effects should be in- rules are needed to make rational choices between tegrated in future assessments (besides land-cover alternatives that affect ES more or less strongly. and land-use intensity) in order to minimise the Here, economic science seeks to maximise the gen- assessments’ uncertainties. Thereby, more exact ES eral welfare, taking into account intergenerational scores (0–5) can be provided for example to actors welfare, distribution and consensual ethical rules. in participatory processes. Ecosystem services become economic goods, or Nevertheless, there are limits of intersubjec- obtain economic value, by providing benefits, and tivity in such an optimisation. Related to the high by being scarce. Not only such goods as food, water amount of data needed to derive the different ES and recreational opportunities provide benefits; so, matrices, it will probably not be possible to com- too, do the nonmaterial assets that are part of hu- pletely abdicate from expert opinions. This state- man preference and thus relevant as benefits. The ment can of course be interpreted as a critical ar- right of species to exist and the value we ascribe to gument. But it can also be seen positively because that right are–besides other more direct benefits– expert-based approaches have the advantage of of economic importance, as soon as they become relatively rapidly delivering target-oriented results a part of individual preference. Thus, the habitat which immediately can be applicable in decision- function of an ecosystem for wild species may con- making processes. stitute a sociocultural ES in this sense. One major demand from environmental plan- Scarcity means that the provision or mainte- ning is to make predictions about potential future nance of an ES is associated with costs (Baumgärt- developments’ effects. Therefore, one key step in ner 2002). An example are the costs of measures to the future improvement of the matrix approach is maintain ‘healthy’ landscapes that provide sufficient the coupling with computer models (7 Sect. 4.4.3). opportunities for recreation, fertile soils, fresh water, This would enable assessments of scenarios and etc. (7 details in Sect. 6.5). Almost 50 % of the bio- their spatial specifications regarding the supply logical diversity in Germany relies on traditional or and demand of ES. This would seriously increase nonintensive forms of land use that are usually not the applicability of the ES concept in practice. Due economically competitive on the world market. The to the enormous complexity of such efforts, only resources for conserving such anthropogenic bio- common, transdisciplinary and cross-regional ef- topes and habitats are scarce. Costs can arise even if forts will lead to positive outcomes. no money is paid, for example from the limitation of agricultural and forestry use in protected areas. These so-called opportunity costs are, generally speaking, 86 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

benefits which the society or the individual must do centric perspective (Hampicke 1991). In addition, without, in favour of other goals or benefits. economic valuation is based on ‘methodological Ecosystems continually provide people with ser- subjectivism’ (Baumgärtner 2002). All valuations vices. They are similar in this respect to the human- must (or at least should, see below) build on the made productive assets that are used to provide us preferences of each individual citizen. with goods and commodities. Such assets are the Economic assessments are always focused on basis of our welfare, unless they are consumed or choices between alternatives. Ecosystem services, destroyed. The same holds true for natural assets like any other goods and services assessed in an 4 as well: ‘We must live from the interest, and should economic cost-benefit-analysis, are not evaluated not consume [natural capital]’ (Hampicke and Wät- in isolation, but always in terms of their relative zold 2009). Destroyed or degraded ecosystems are advantage in comparison with other goods, which, restorable, if at all, only after a long period of time. due resource scarcity, must be dispensed with. The The costs of restoration generally exceed the cost relative advantage of one asset compared with oth- of maintenance many times over. The genetic in- ers is its economic valuation, which, for practi- formation lost by species extinction is irreversible. cal reasons, is not expressed in terms of specific Nonetheless, the economic value of the depreciation goods (e.g. ‘How many glasses of beer is something of natural capital is not easy to determine. worth to me?’), but rather in terms of the maxi- Unlike buildings, industrial plants or machin- mum amount of income which one will forego, or ery, natural capital usually provides us with a num- the maximum willingness-to-pay/ minimum will- ber of different benefits simultaneously, each of ingness-to-accept, of individuals. All methods of which has to be evaluated separately. These general- economic evaluation, including the market-based ly include so-called public goods, such as air quality and cost-based methods, try in principle to value regulation, recreation in the open countryside, etc. (real) income changes and willingness-to-pay more One of the characteristics of public goods is that or less accurately, or at least to find plausible proxies they cannot be privately appropriated. Therefore, for such valuations. there are no functioning markets which could lead Economic valuation, must, in accordance with to an optimum level of supply based on individual its own principles and methodological standards, supply and demand. Market prices can be inter- always focus on specific alternatives, e.g. restora- preted as values in the sense of willingness-to-pay tion or no restoration of an alluvial floodplain; and as costs, expressing scarcity. All this is lacking maintaining a grassland or converting it into farm- in the absence of markets. land; urban living conditions with or without an In addition, each single ecosystem is embedded adjacent park, etc. Economic valuations of ES are in a tight network of ecological dependencies with often part of a so-called cost-benefit analysis, which other natural assets. In such a situation, the assess- attempts, as far as possible, to evaluate all the eco- ment of physical changes can already be a prob- nomic impacts of the implementation and of the lem, long before we arrive at the point of valuation. nonimplementation of a project or programme, Moreover, there are also creeping impacts which or of various project or programme alternatives. occur later, and when they occur, then sometimes To this end, all relevant effects of the various alter- in an erratic and irreversible way. Which means, natives must first be predicted. As regards public that methods, like the discounting method, are re- goods, such as recreation, urban living conditions quired to compare current and future costs and the or urban climate, this encompasses an assessment difficult problem of valuing nonmarginal changes of the number of persons who will benefit or suf- has to be solved. fer disadvantages due to a change with respect to If economists valuate goods or services, they these goods. Moreover, all costs, savings, income as a rule assign them instrumental value, based on increases and income declines must be determined, their usefulness for achieving a defined objective. including all costs and benefits measured in income This means that both economic valuation and the equivalents (willingness to pay or to accept) which ES concept approach the issue from an anthropo- will result from the changes in public goods. 87 4.2 • Approaches to the Economic Valuation of Natural Assets 4

Discounting Future Costs and Benefits

The future development of costs discounting would be obsolete. In making them more valuable per and benefits can vary significantly such a case, additional sustainabil- unit, or that consumer demand for between different project alterna- ity criteria for each of the different environmental goods will increase tives. Dike-shifting involves high in- periods could act as limits showing with growing incomes. vestment costs; the future benefits where discounting is still feasible However, it should be noted include flood damage avoidance, and where it is not. Nevertheless, a that the tendency to support low reduced nutrient concentration in generally accepted method for such interest rates for environmental and the water and restored habitats. No a case does not exist yet. growth-critical reasons, can also dike-shifting means more financial The choice of the interest rate have negative results for environ- scope for consumption today, but depends, among other factors, on mental and natural assets in the higher damage cost, higher spend- the type of investment that con- context of concrete decisions. In the ing on prevention of nutrient loads stitutes the basis for comparison. abovementioned example of dike and less benefit from additional Private investments in innovative shifting, a low discount rate leads biodiversity in subsequent years. goods can achieve a very high to high values for all future benefits, In order to make differences in return on capital. The rate of return such as avoided flood damage, temporal cost-benefit distributions of saving deposits marks the lower extended habitat areas, reduced comparable, all future values are limit of interest rates for private maintenance costs, or additional discounted to their present value investments. A prerequisite for opportunities for recreation. But a and then summed up (the discount- the operation of private markets low discount rate also means that ed cash-flow method, illustrated by are complementary products pro- the time of taking action, e.g. mak- the example of nature conservation; vided by the public sector, such as ing an investment in natural capital, see Herrmann et al. 2012). infrastructure, education, jurisdic- becomes ever more irrelevant to The discounting of future val- tion, social security, etc. If all these the value of its outcomes. At a ues is justified by the consideration costs were attributed to private discount rate of 3 %, the net present that (a) investments help increase market activities, the real value of value (NPV) of an infinite constant production; and (b) people are will- the return of investments could be stream of benefits to begin imme- ing to forego consumption today to reduced further. diately is 80 % higher than one that save and invest in order to ensure a The German Federal Environ- is to start in 20 years. At an interest higher level of supply in the future. ment Agency suggests using inter- rate of 1 %, the value of the stream The model of discounting is thus est rates of between 3 and 1.5 % of benefits beginning today would fundamentally based on the as- in cost-benefit analyses, the latter only be 20 % higher than one which sumption of future growth. If the figure for cross-generational consid- were to start in 20 years. Hence, a availability of goods and services is erations of over 20 years (UBA 2007). low interest rate can also be taken to increase in the future, it makes Some authors (Baumgärtner as a reason for reluctance to initiate sense to rate the same quantity of et al. 2013) propose working with environmental projects. goods higher in the present than in different interest rates, arguing that Conclusion: It is the state of the the future, when the quantity and environmental goods and ecosys- art to use different discount rates quality of available goods and ser- tem services should be discounted and different costing/calculation vices will have risen, due to invest- at lower interest rates than other periods, and to compare the differ- ment and growth. A no-growth per- goods. The underlying assumption ent outcomes with a critical view of spective, however, does not per se is that the supply of environmen- the underlying assumptions. mean that any calculation based on tal goods and ES will deteriorate,

The final step in a cost-benefit analysis, as in itat function of its ecosystems for flora and fauna any economic evaluation, is the aggregation of indi- is nothing but the sum of individual willingnesses vidual values to a total value. This is done by adding to forego income in favour of the maintenance of all positive and negative income effects (costs and these functions. The social value of a land develop- benefits) including the observed income equiva- ment project, e.g. an industrial plant, would result lents (willingness to pay). This means that, for from the net income growth caused by the new example, the social value of the preservation of the plant, minus the willingness to pay for the lost rec- recreational function of a landscape and of the hab- reation and conservation functions, minus the agri- 88 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

cultural land rent (which is usually included in the 55 Are based on individual preferences price paid for the land by the new owner), minus 55 Assess values as relative advantages, expressed all other external costs not included in the price, in terms of changes in income or income such as increased flood damage or flood regulation equivalents (willingness-to-pay) costs caused by the additional water run-off due to 55 Involve the formation of a social value by imperviousness of the land surface. simple aggregation of individual values The process of evaluation and aggregation is somewhat similar to an election (Osborne and They do not mean that economic valuation com- 4 Turner 2007), but with some differences: pletely denies the notion of values that are not 55 The individual can only vote in accordance simply individual, but which rather have supra- with the scope of his own interests (How often individual worth, such as divine commandments, does he really use a recreational area? What is animal rights, or the notion of binding rules for a the share of the income generated that accrues harmonious human-nature relationship. Cost-ben- to him?). efit analysis accepts such values, but treats them as 55 The strength of a vote can differ (a greater or individual ones, assuming that they are solely valid lesser increase in individual incomes or of for the person that proclaims them. A person who income equivalents measured by willingness- assumes, for example, that animal rights should be to-pay). ranked higher than the pursuit of any additional 55 The individual is not directly asked to vote; welfare gains, cannot demand that all economic rather, his ‘vote’ is ascertained from the extent advantages measured in a cost-benefit analysis be (positive or negative) of the net income effect set to zero. He can, however, demand that his own accruing to him. individual foreseeable future income growth be 55 The net income effect does not have to be assessed as his willingness-to-pay against e.g. any investigated for each person individually, it is further species extinction. sufficient if the sum is known. >>Accordingly, individuals and their choices 55 Representative sampling methods are applied based on individual preferences tied to to determine the benefits of public goods their economic limits (income) on the one (7 Sect. 4.2.3). hand constitute elementary declarative units. That means that the economic value Economic valuation methods differ from the ‘one is determined by the subjective evaluation man, one vote’ rule, inasmuch as every individu- of individuals ascertained by means of a al valuation of public goods is in fact tied to the survey of representative samples. In the amount of individual earnings, i.e. valuation results strict sense, expert judgments can only can depend on income distribution. Normally, it be integrated into cost-benefit analyses if is not the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis to ex- they can be interpreted as approximations amine the fairness of distribution. In industrialised to the preferences of individuals which countries, this is no problem, for income distribu- cannot be measured directly. In this view, tion is as a rule irrelevant to the results of a cost- the economic value assigned to an ES is benefit analysis. Different weightings for individual not a quality that is inherent to that object willingness to pay in order to compensate for in- (e.g. an ecosystem), but rather a value come disparities usually affect the overall results which depends on the overall context, not only slightly. This may be different if the effects only the economic context. of an international scope are assessed. Ignoring income inequalities on an international scale can The valuation of the ES ‘fresh drinking water’, easily result in ethically unacceptable valuation ap- can, for example, depend on the following aspects proaches. (Baumgärtner 2002): How much clean water is there The abovementioned principles of economic in total? How is the supply of clean drinking water valuation: distributed in space and time? How is the access to 89 4.2 • Approaches to the Economic Valuation of Natural Assets 4 this resource regulated? What competing demands ion more precisely and make individual preferences for water exist, besides its use in households? What more obvious than can be done by general elections kind of institutional restrictions exist? What kind only. In addition, it can reveal a malfunction of the of alternatives are there to water use in various use democratic system, for example, the lopsided influ- areas, and what would they cost? How much would ence of powerful interest groups which are able to it cost to import clean water from other regions? effect political decisions against the public interest How much does technical water purification cost? (e.g. environmentally counter-productive subsi- The failure of the market, private production dies; Brown et al. 1993). and private consumption to generate socially-ac- Economic valuations need not necessarily ceptable or optimal results–i.e. a market failure–is, be carried out with monetary units (Abeel 2010). according to economic doctrine, the occasion for Money can even be a hindrance. It can, for in- an economic evaluation. This may be the case if: stance, promote the idea that only the world of 55 Production and consumption cause losses of market goods (production and consumption) re- benefits or price increases for others (so-called ally counts, whereas the actual goal is to correct the negative external effects). Examples: intensify- results of the market, by making it clear that the ing agriculture by removing hedgerows im- production of goods entails hidden costs that can pairs the recreational capacity of a landscape; obscure their true prices. Often, we are persuaded diking along a river can prevent flooding of to produce things that we would rather do with- areas behind the dike, but increases the flood out for other, nontraded goods, e.g. for biodiversity risk upstream and downstream. and healthy ecosystems, if we knew enough about 55 Public goods are involved, i.e. those which ben- the issues, or if it became obvious that national in- efit a large number of people without or with come consists to a considerable degree of the costs only limited possibilities of excluding anyone of repair of damage to the environment and nature from those benefits. Example: recreational use (Leipert 1989). of the open landscape, of public bathing waters, Money as a valuation unit may moreover sug- the existence value of species/biodiversity, or gest that the valuated goods will in fact be priced possible future pharmaceutical use of a certain and thereafter traded. Nonetheless, the decision as kinds of species. In such cases, due to the lack to how to deal with market failure is up to policy of user payment, there are no incentives for makers, and is completely independent of the valu- market activities to maintain the provision, to ation process. Whether market failure is to be cor- prevent overexploitation, or to protect the asset rected by public supply, by do’s and don’ts, by incen- from detrimental external effects. tives, by taxes, duties or user fees or by the creation 55 The costs of current activities accrue over of markets, is a matter for public decision making. the long term, e.g. to future generations, and Economic valuation does not imply converting therefore are not taken into account by present public goods into commodities to be traded on the market participants. For example soil erosion, market, either directly or indirectly.

CO2 emissions by intensive agricultural use of Another misconception may be that the value peat soils. of an ES that is calculated and determined for a specific social, economic or ecological environ- In the case of market failure, economic valuation ment could be transferred to other situations with has the function of informing about all costs and no adaption, like the price of a good trade on the benefits accruing to people now and in the future, world market, for instance a smart phone. Such an and enables decision-makers to reduce external understanding, however, would overlook the fact costs and maintain provisioning with public goods that many ecosystem services are tied to their point to an optimal extent, thus maximising welfare un- of origin, so that no distribution can take place. der consideration of all relevant costs and benefits. However, distribution in response to demand is a Like public surveys and public participation, prerequisite for the emergence of a common price cost-benefit analysis can help ascertain public opin- level on the market. 90 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

On the other hand, valuation in monetary area through dyke-shiftings (7 Sect. 6.6.3). They terms can be highly practical. A monetary value calculated the avoidance of flood damage, valu- allows a trade-off involving costs, income and vari- ated the water purification effect of an enlarged ous other goods, including public goods, based on alluvial floodplain by comparing it with the cost of the views of a representative sample of citizens. alternative measures for reducing water pollution, Other valuation methods, such as benefits analysis and asked people about their willingness-to-pay (Zangemeister 1971; Hanke et al. 1981) and similar for the benefit of the enhancement of conservation types of so-called multi-criteria analysis (Zimmer- and recreation. The value of the ES thus assessed 4 mann and Gutsche 1991), also use decision-making was three times as high as the cost of the measures. models based on trade-offs (7 Sect 4.1.). However, such models often depend on the opinions of a limited selection of experts and/or ‘citizen experts’ 4.2.2 The Total Economic Value (Dienel 2002), which are not representatives. Al- though in certain cases, expert-based models may The most widely accepted approach for the eco- have a high problem-solving competence, the so- nomic valuation of ES is the concept of Total cial values upon which they often implicitly build Economic Value (TEV, Pearce and Turner 1990) have not been validated. (. Fig. 4.6). The various benefits of ecosystems Various decision-support instruments, such as are classified as either use values or nonuse values. cost-benefit-analyses, expert-based multi-criteria Use values are further subdivided into direct and analyses or discursive processes of active citizen- indirect use values and option values. Nonuse val- ship, should be used in accordance with their re- ues are broken down into existence values and be- spective strengths and weaknesses. A representa- quest values. tive group of citizens mixed with some experts could for instance provide useful advice for the best zz Direct Use Values use of a fixed local budget for various urban green- Direct use values accrue from the direct use of ES for space management measures; however, when it consumption and production, e.g. food, firewood, comes to the preparation of a concept for reducing medicine, timber, drinking water, cooling water, soil erosion in a district (Grunewald and Naumann etc. The use of a landscape for recreation, leisure ac- 2012), an expert-based cost-effectiveness analysis tivities, tourism or scientific or educational purpos- would likely be better grounds for sound decision- es is also considered a direct use of ES (Baumgärt- making. The cost-benefit analysis, after all, shows ner 2002). Direct use can be consumptive–example: its strengths when actions are to be taken that firewood–or nonconsumptive, as with recreation. might affect a great number of people physically Direct use values are linked to provisioning services and financially in very different ways. This is the and goods, as well as with some sociocultural ES, case, for instance, when decision support is need- such as for recreation, cultural identity, landscape ed on the question as to how much money a city aesthetics and knowledge services. should spend overall on green-space management. Another example would be the design of a well- Total Economic Value (TEV) balanced programme of measures for reducing soil ES erosion that should also take into account other ef-

fects, e.g. upon species preservation, the landscape, Use values Option values Nonuse values or water pollution, in such a way that the costs of the measures will best be outweighed by their benefits. Direct use values Bequest values

Example Indirect use values Existence values Grossmann et al. (2010) applied a cost-benefit analysis on proposals for a bundle of nature-based flood . Fig. 4.6 The concept of total economic value (TEV). prevention measures by increasing the retention (Adapted from Pearce and Turner 1990; Bräuer 2002) 91 4.2 • Approaches to the Economic Valuation of Natural Assets 4 zz Indirect Use Values These different kinds of values, named above, Indirect use values arise when ecosystem services are conclusive. Their sum is the overall economic interact directly or indirectly with human activi- value of an ecosystem. However, in field studies, it ties. Examples are flood control by means of wa- is often impossible to clearly separate the different ter-retention measures in alluvial floodplains, the values from one another. self-purification effect of water bodies, or the water- Investigations at Natura 2000 sites have revealed filtration capacity of soils. The so-called regulatory that more than 50 % of their TEV were constituted services generally fall into this category. The eco- by indirect use values and nonuse values (Jacobs nomic value of these services is measured as the 2004). That means that from a conservationist change in the costs and benefits of the use that is af- point of view, these values, especially the option, fected by them, e.g. reduction of flood damage, ben- bequest and existence values, are the most critical efits from additional use as a swimming location, or ones. On the other hand, the problems of reliable the decreased costs of the drinking water supply; evaluation increase as one moves from direct use see, by analogy, the concept of final ecosystem ser- values to nonuse values. vices by Boyd and Banzhaf (2007) (7 Sect. 3.2). zz Option Values 4.2.3 Valuation Methods and Option values express the fact that there is a will- Techniques2 ingness to preserve the possibility of later use of ES, regardless of whether this will really take place or Use Values not. Option values and values to be realised in the future correspond largely to the so-called Potential zz Market Prices ansatz (capacity approach) in German landscape If assets provided directly by nature can also be planning (7 Chap. 2 and 7 Sect. 3.1). The option found on markets in the same or a similar quality– value can also be interpreted as an insurance pre- e.g. mushrooms, fish, game–the market price can mium that people are willing to pay to maintain the be used as a proxy for their value (the market-price possibility of future use (Weitzman 2000). Option method). One important precondition for the ap- values are especially significant in the context of plicability of this method is that product qualities landscapes and ecosystems of high cultural signifi- and the demand for marketed and non-marketed cance and singularity, such as the Brocken peak in products are similar. This is not always the case, the Harz Mountains in Germany, or with respect to however. For example, experience shows that blue- the uncertainty of a future economic use of species berries which are picked in the woods on a hike and their genomes (e.g. Norton 1988). taste particularly good, this special kind of appro- priation seems to give them an extraordinary qual- zz Bequest Values ity, so that they could be rated considerably higher The bequest value expresses the willingness of than purchased blueberries. On the other hand, people to forego parts of their present income in the picking is an activity that is incidentally per- order to preserve things for future generations. This formed, without significant additional effort. One heritage can refer to sociocultural ES, but also to might also pick the berries when demand is low, provisioning services. and therefore have to valuate them at a price well below their market price. The same is true of self- zz Existence Values caught fish. As an actively appropriated product, it Existence value reflects the willingness-to-pay for might have a higher value than comparable market the preservation of things regardless of whether products, but it could also serve as an incidental there is any likelihood of their future use or not, just by-product of the fishing activity itself, which is the in order to preserve their existence. Such values are often ascribed to assets thought to have an intrinsic 2 For a systematic presentation of economic valuation value, such as living species, e.g. in the concept of methods that is also addressed to noneconomists see animal rights. 7 www.ecosystemvaluation.org. 92 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

. Fig. 4.7 The economic value of the provisioning service of a field (here cornfield near Sulingen in Lower Saxony) can be measured on the basis of the income loss resulting from abandoned agricultural use. © Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft

actual ES provided–recreational activity. If the fish wood products, food, etc., is produced in combi- is used by the family of the angler, their possibly nation with labour and capital. If the ES change, differing preference for fish may also be important e.g. additional land used for agricultural produc- for the valuation. tion, causes increased sales of goods, the additional The market-price method could, for example, value of sales is not the only determining factor for be suitable for the valuation of the effect of an al- their valuation; rather, it is the difference between teration in forest management on all the wild fruits the additional sales and the costs of the use of capi- to be found there, or it could be appropriate for the tal, precursor products, production facilities and valuation of the improved water quality in a lake on labour power, including a normal remuneration of the composition of its fish population (less biomass, the labour input of the entrepreneur. The difference but a higher proportion of game fish). In both cases, remaining after this calculation corresponds in the the changes on the supply side are only one side of case of e.g. cropland more or less to the cost for the the coin, for the extent to which the additional sup- lease of the land being assessed, or a comparable ply will really be used must also be assessed. Finally, plot. Therefore, the ground rent (lease) is often used the question should be answered, e.g. on the basis of as a proxy for the net value of the productive input surveys, to what extent the value of the products is of ecosystem services that are combined with cer- thought to lie above or below the market price level. tain plots of land (Hampicke et al. 1991).

zz Change of Value Added, Profits, Return on Example Sales Minus Cost of Production What loss in the value of agricultural production The majority of market goods created with the would result from the abandonment of this field help of ecosystem services, such as drinking water, (. Fig. 4.7)? From the total loss of market reve 93 4.2 • Approaches to the Economic Valuation of Natural Assets 4 nue, one must first subtract the variable costs. In from the value created, to calculate the net yield. addition, adjustments with respect to labour and In the case of provisioning services, this means the capital inputs will occur in the mid- or long-term respective earnings minus the wages for the work and have to be considered in the evaluation. After of the contractor plus the rent paid for the land (see these adjustments, the loss of ground rent (lease) environmental services 7 Sect. 2.1). remains as a permanent loss. This is determined on Implicitly, the above calculation of provision- the basis of various favourable and unfavourable ing services involving profits or rents is based on factors, such as soil fertility, water supply, climate, the assumption that the labour thus ‘freed’ and–at slope, etc. When evaluating large-scale soil loss in least in the medium to long term, even the capital developing countries, one would have to assume thus ‘freed’–will find uses elsewhere, and will there significantly higher income losses, due to a lack of generate added value that corresponds to the costs. alternative employment opportunities. Nothing in Cost-benefit analyses carried out in industrialised the world would suffice to persuade us to do with- countries are, due to the flexibility of the markets out the entirety of the agricultural land on earth–its for labour and capital, generally based on this sim- loss would have a value of ‘minus infinity’ (Costanza plifying assumption. Deviations should be clearly et al. 1998). identified and explained. In many regions in developing countries, however, the necessary alternative If a corn (maize) field is converted into a species- opportunities are not available, particularly for the rich damp meadow, for example due to conserva- factor labour. If the destruction of the services of an tion measures, a comparison of these two differ- ecosystem, e.g. the loss of soil fertility, or overfish- ent provisioning services–corn and hay, respec- ing, drives the people who had depended on these tively–would require a calculation of the difference services into long-term unemployed, the cost- between the proceeds from the sales of these two benefit analysis would have to include as the value products, and of the above-described production of the supply service concerned not only the lost costs. For the corn, this difference would be posi- profits, but the entire value, including labour and tive; for the hay, probably neutral or even negative. possibly capital costs. In industrialised countries For a comparison of the total economic value like Germany, adjustment problems and deadlines (TEV) of intensive–e.g. corn–and extensive farming are more likely to be the factors to be taken into ac- systems–e.g. a meadow–a correct valuation of the count with respect to the factor capital. services corn and hay could be critical. The differ- Therefore, when determining the cost of a ence between the profits is often significantly less change in agricultural production or the abandon- than the difference between the sales proceeds, one ment of agricultural use the calculations for the reason being that intensive farming systems often short or medium term are often based on contribu- require higher inputs. The different valuation of pro- tion margins. A contribution margin is the market visioning services, in one case on the basis of sales revenue minus the variable costs. As the term im- proceeds, in the other on the basis of sales proceeds plies, the contribution margin per hectare states the minus costs, explains why in the study by Ryffel and contribution that the production on one hectare of Grêt-Regamey (2010), the calculated total value of land makes to cover the fixed costs of a business, for species-rich grassland is less than that of intensively example, to the interest payments due on the loan used grassland, while in the study by Matzdorf et for stables (see case study in 7 Sect. 6.2.3). A con- al. (2010), the species-rich grassland comparatively tribution-margin calculation assumes that unused outperforms the farmland (7 Sect. 6.2.4). capital is inflexible, i.e. it cannot be used elsewhere An assessment of provisioning services on the just as profitably. In the short term, such a method basis of sales proceeds would mean that not only of calculation is justified; in the medium term how- ES would be evaluated, but the value added by la- ever, adaptation possibilities have to be assumed. bour and capital, too, would be included. A cor- After the technical depreciation period of the capi- rect application of the cost-benefit analysis must tal involved–at the latest–it is advisable to shift to always subtract the costs necessary for production such values as lease or long-term profit outlook for 94 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

If, due to the currently high total economic value (TEV) of grassland, ever more farmland were to be transformed into meadowland, the supply of the various public and private goods produced using these land areas would gradually increase so greatly that the prices and the willingness-to-pay for any additional margins of these goods would fall. The total economic value per unit of converted farm- 4 land could pull even with the TEV per additional unit of grassland, and then even exceed it. This could in fact be accomplished relatively quickly, for example in the case of the species-protection function/service. For the preservation of biodiversity often optimally requires a mix of grassland and farmland, and not a grassland monoculture. . Fig. 4.8 Fruit growing areas are particularly depen- This also shows why the value of the sum of all dent on pollination services. © Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft ES cannot be calculated from the value to be set for a relatively small change to be assessed. Multiply- the calculation of production losses. The correct ing the total stock of farmland in the industrialised handling of the costs of capital can be crucial for the countries by the respective lease values per hectare, actual calculated results. For example, in a case of the result is by no means the value that society would the rewetting and use abandonment of previously be willing to pay for the preservation of the agri- farmed peat soils, Röder and Grützmacher (2012) cultural production output of these areas; the true

calculated costs of € 40/t of saved CO2 emissions, figures would be significantly higher. With the in- on the basis of contribution margins. If only the creasing loss of production areas, prices would rise lease costs of, say, € 250/ha were used in the calcula- to an extreme degree, and the social upheaval thus tion, a much more favourable value of around € 9/t provoked would have uncontrollable consequences.

of CO2 would result. Assuming a 20-year adjustment period with adaptation rates at a consistent Example level and a calculated interest rate of 3 %, costs of Within the EU, the service pollination is estimated over € 17/t would result. Calculation examples from at a value of some € 14 billion (Gallai et al. 2009). studies based on all three types of calculations can This is the value of agricultural products which are be found in the literature. This shows that major highly dependent on insect pollination. This knowl- methodological differences occur not only in the edge does not help much for concrete valuations. evaluation of ES generally, but also that great ten- In assessing the changes in pollinator populations sion is possible simply with the very conventional in specific growing regions, the decisive factor is cost calculations, which are based on different, and whether the populations there already constitute a often highly questionable, assumptions. limiting factor for production, or whether they are The example of using land-lease as an approxi- extant in abundance. So far for example, we know mation for the long-term value of the agricultural relatively little about how flower strips within fruit- production function of an ecosystem (provision- growing areas impact on the net yields (. Fig. 4.8). ing services) again shows dramatically that economic valuations generally apply only to relatively zz Change in Production Costs small changes: The higher total value of grassland The cost of production method also ascertains the compared to farmland, which can be calculated change in the difference between the sales pro- on the basis of the study by Matzdorf et al. (2010) ceeds and costs of production, but it does so for the (7 Sect. 6.2.4), applies only to the case of the cur- special case that product quantities and revenues rent distribution between grassland and farmland. remain constant, and that only the costs of produc- 95 4.2 • Approaches to the Economic Valuation of Natural Assets 4 tion change. The typical example of this case is the Often, only a portion of the value of an ecosys- reduced effort required to provide clean drinking tem services can be quantified by damage or repair water if a farm field, which generates pollution is costs, just as medical costs often reflect only the cost replaced by grassland. Another example would be of treatment, but not the physical or mental suffer- an increased use of fertilisers to compensate for re- ing of the patient. If, due to increased use intensi- duced soil fertility, which has resulted, for example, fication in an area, there are no more skylarks or from intensive use, or soil erosion caused by the partridges there, the cost of resettlement or avoid- removal of hedgerows and other small structures. ance of that loss may be significantly less than its In these cases, the production cost method was ethical and aesthetic significance. Other methods, used directly to valuate the supply capacity of eco- such as willingness-to-pay analyses, should be used systems (water supply, agricultural production), if damage or avoidance costs can measure only part and also indirectly to assess the impact of regula- of the total economic value of a service. tory services (reduction of soil pollution, and of soil erosion by small structures) upon the respective Example provisioning service. During the mid-1990s, Pimentel et al. (1995) assessed the on-site and off-site costs of erosion in the USA, zz Damage Costs, Mitigation Costs, Adjustment, and arrived at a figure of about $100/ha/yr. If this or- Repair, Replacement Costs der of magnitude of replacement and damage costs Many regulating services influence the effects of is compared with the cost of erosion-mitigation natural hazards (flooding, avalanches and mud- measures, a very positive cost-benefit ratio of 1:5 re- flows, storm damage, etc.) and anthropogenically sults; the soil erosion hazards due to water and wind −1 −1 −1 −1 induced risks (climate change, air pollution, urban are thus reduced from 17 t/ha a to 1 t/ha a . Us- climate stress). For the evaluation, the damage and ing an analogous approach for a loess-covered, pre- damage prevention costs and the adaptation, repair, dominately agricultural area in Saxony, Grunewald replacement or avoidance cost can often be used. and Naumann (2012) ascertained a cost-benefit ratio Here, the extent to which damages (including medi- of approximately 1:2 (7 Sect. 6.6.2). cal expenses), or the cost of prevention and repair (rehabilitation) can be changed by ecosystems and zz Alternative Costs ES is examined. Examples include the prevention Closely connected with the above methods is the so- of flood damage through restoration of floodplains, called alternative-cost approach. This method often or avoidance costs for the treatment of respiratory valuates not the costs in fact incurred, but rather diseases caused by the dust-filtration effect of urban those of theoretically possible options which might green spaces. be used in order to achieve a goal in an alternative It is a general economic principle that a goal manner. An example might be the evaluation of the should be achieved at minimum cost. If a damaged additional self-cleaning capacity of a renaturated item is of lower value than the cost of its repair, it water body, using the two potential alternatives of, is more beneficial to all concerned to monetarily on the one hand, the measures necessary to reduce compensate the aggrieved person than have the pollutant input from agriculture, and on the other, damage repaired. This principle applies not only the building of additional wastewater treatment to the compensation for damage to passenger cars, capacity to achieve the same water-quality effect. but also to evaluation in the determination of to- The erosion protection provided by hedgerows and tal economic value (TEV). The same applies if the small structures could, for example, be valuated not damage-avoidance costs are higher than the dam- only via the production-cost method, as above, but age. Here, too, it is cheaper to pay the lower insur- also on the basis of the cost of soil conservation ance compensation for a damaged asset than the measures on the field which are equally effective. higher cost of completely avoiding the potential Whether or not a corresponding alternative- cause of damage. Such situations are referred to as cost approach is permissible depends on whether the least-cost principle. the social goals are formulated in a sufficiently 96 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

binding manner or not. Strictly speaking, the alter- current low prices on the carbon market. Achieving native-cost approach only leads to correct results the goal at these costs is thus unrealistic. Measures

if the objectives are formulated in such a binding in the cost category of CO2 avoidance through wind manner that the necessary measures for their al- power would seem, for example, to be more realis- ternate achievement will actually be implemented tic. If we assume, moreover, that the goal of limiting in the not-too-distant future. An example of such the temperature increase to 2°C will fail to be at- a binding social goal is the EU Water Framework tained by a wide margin, which seems increasingly Directive (WFD), which mandates the attainment likely, even the € 70 damage costs would have to be 4 of a certain level of water quality (7 Sects. 3.3.2 and considered too low. The example shows that even 6.6.2). If farmland is converted to grassland, the with realistic assumptions, there can be very wide- nutrient input into the groundwater and the sur- ly divergent evaluation approaches. Evaluations face waters is reduced, and the specified goals of should therefore always disclose the assumptions the WFD become more attainable. A correspond- upon which they are based, and whenever possible, ing contribution to the reduced water pollution can alternative calculations under different assump- be achieved by various measures in farming, or by tions should be undertaken. improvements in the treatment stages. Under the least-cost principle, an alternative measure, which Example allows both similar relief at the lowest cost and at At the beginning of the 1990s, the city of New York the same time has a realistic chance of implementa- was forced to take action, since it no longer met tion should be selected as the value of reduction of the established drinking-water quality standards. nutrient immissions due to conversion into grass- A water filtration and treatment plant was to be land. Matzdorf et al. (2010) used a value of between built for $ 6–8 million, and operating costs of about € 40/ha and € 120/ha for the valuation of the re- $ 300 million per year would have been added. As duced nutrient inputs through the preservation of an alternative, the issue of improving the ecological grassland, based on the evaluation of data of cost- functions of ecosystems in the Catskill Mountains, effective measures to reduce nitrogen emissions by the drinking-water catchment area for the city, was Osterburg et al. (2007) (7 Sect. 6.2.4). examined. This cost was estimated at a one-time Measures for rewetting and restoring formerly investment of € 1–1.5 billion. Faced with a balanc- farmed peat soils halt the mineralisation of organic ing of interests between the cost of improving the soil components, and thus lead to a significant reduc- ecosystems on the one hand and the development tion of greenhouse-gas emissions. The evaluation of of purification technology as a substitute for the this regulatory service ‘rewetted peat soils’ is possible reduced ES of degraded ecosystems on the other, both on the basis of damage costs and on the basis the decision was made in favour of the ES option of alternative cost. In accordance with the Stern Re- (Chichilnisky and Heal 1998). port, the methodological convention of the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA 2007) suggests zz Real Estate Prices–Hedonic Pricing a preliminary cost estimate of approximately € 70/t The evaluation approaches presented above have,

of CO2, based on a combined damage-/mitigation- under the MEA (2005a) system and the ES clas- cost analysis. In case of the use of wind power, 1 t sification (7 Sect. 3.2), respectively, been oriented

of avoided CO2 emissions costs approximately € 40; primarily towards provisioning and regulating on the European carbon market, a ton of CO2 cost services. The hedonic pricing method is oriented to- € 6–7 in early April 2012. Which of the above values wards the sociocultural services recreation and aes-

is to be used for the valuation of the CO2 emissions thetics, or beyond that and in more general terms, saved by rewetting will depend on how future devel- towards the subjectively evaluated welfare functions opments are to be assessed (7 Sect. 6.6.4). of green elements and green spaces in the residen- It can be assumed that the required reduction tial environment.

of CO2 emissions cannot be implemented solely us- Under the hedonic pricing method, the goal ing the current favourable measures that enable the is to ascertain the effect of near-residential green 97 4.2 • Approaches to the Economic Valuation of Natural Assets 4 spaces on real-estate prices by statistical analysis. them; however, as discussed above in connection Hoffmann and Gruehn (2010) come to the conclu- with the costs for the production of agricultural sion that in densely populated inner-city districts, products, the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis is the green features of the residential environment to ascertain the difference, or the ratio of costs to accounts for 36 % of the property value. In less benefits, for each alternative. With such a difference densely populated, smaller towns, the effect is less ascertainment, the result of a recreational activity (7 Sect. 6.4). the benefits of which are just as high as the costs, The hedonic pricing method covers only that would always be neutral; the net benefit, i.e. the dif- portion of the use of urban green spaces that ac- ference between benefits and costs, would always crues indirectly to the property owners. Any bene- be zero. This result would emerge in all studied al- fits above this portion would have to be ascertained ternatives, regardless of whether the recreation ar- by other methods, by carrying out an additional eas were of average quality, are actually upgraded, willingness-to-pay analysis, or on the basis of the or would be devalued by impacts. For it we dis- statistical data estimates of a demand function, pense with the counterbalancing of the costs, and similarly to a travel-cost analysis. show the cost only in their indicator function for the minimum benefit, we will arrive at completely zz The Travel-Cost Approach nonsensical evaluation results when comparing op- The term travel-cost analysis covers a whole pack- tions. For example, if the construction of a bypass age of different methodological options, which are road were to lead to an increase in the expense of primarily used for the evaluation of recreation ar- money or travel-time to be paid by the inhabitants eas. Here, the relationships between the number of for access to their recreation areas, this would not trips to a region or a certain type of area and the be recorded as an obstacle to their recreation, but amount of the cost per trip are analysed statisti- rather as an increase in their recreational benefits. cally. In the newer versions of the method–also the Hence, the simple calculation of cost is unsuitable quality of the area for recreation (e.g. landscape, for the evaluation of recreational benefits. The goal landscape diversity, facilities with recreational in- must be to calculate the consumer surplus, the dif- frastrucure) are taken into account. On this basis, a ference between the benefits (or willingness-to- demand function for recreation in the area or area pay) and the costs. type in question is assessed. Based on a comparison Under the travel-cost method, which uses this of the behaviour of visitors with high- and low-ac- approach, willingness-to-pay is derived from the cess costs, respectively, it is possible to deduce that observed actual behaviour of a large number of dif- the willingness-to-pay for the first visit undertaken ferent recreation-seekers, using statistical methods. within a given monitoring period to a particular This, like the land-price method, is one of the so- area or type of area is higher than for later visits. called revealed-preference methods, based on an Visitors with low access costs do not need to exer- investigation of factually evident preferences, in cise this higher willingness-to-pay for the first visit contrast to the stated-preference methods, in which in real terms, and thus realise a so-called consumer the preferences are directly queried. surplus. The sum of all consumer surpluses yields the total net benefits of recreation in the assessed Example areas. The consumer surplus constitutes the will- In the Eibenstock-Carlsfeld region in the western Ore ingness-to-pay that an individual has for a recre- Mountains of Saxony, a survey was carried out via ational activity, minus its actual cost. interviews among visitors and tourist-service provid- In some proposed methods and evaluation ers on their appreciation of the landscape scenery studies (Ewers and Schulz 1982; UBA 2007; to some (Grunewald et al. 2012). The questions concerned the extent too, Getzner et al. 2011), the actual costs of qualitative landscape characteristics and preferences, a recreational activity are regarded as its benefits. travel expenses and willingness-to-pay for the main- Certainly, assuming rational behaviour, the benefits tenance and appearance of the landscape. For this must generally be at least as high as the cost paid for purpose, the monetisation approaches of the travel- 98 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

cost and willingness-to-pay methods were used. conditions for recreational use, to always also as- The study comprised face-to-face interviews with certain the possibilities of substitution. Generally, 95 summer and 105 winter tourists; travel costs were there are also other places where recreational activ- recorded for a total of 584 individuals. The goal was ities may be carried out. In such cases, the increase the analysis and monetary valuation of sociocultural in travel costs to remaining alternative fishing or ecosystem services related to landscape aesthetics, in hunting areas would be a first rough measure for order to provide a foundation for the improved land- the welfare loss caused by the degradation or the scape planning and management. loss of another area. With a more precise travel- 4 The tourists’ aesthetic perception of the land- cost analysis, it would be possible to capture also scape elements in the region is influenced primarily the ‘consumer surplus’ over and above simple cost by visible, near-natural landscape elements, such as effects. the forest and water bodies, and by their harmonic composition. An undisturbed landscape was the zz Admission Prices principal reason for travelling to the region and A method for calculating leisure and recreational spending vacations there. Altogether, tourists paid use which was in the past particularly common is about € 5.5 million per year in travel costs (extra the admission-price method. Here, the recreational polated to the total number of tourists visiting the opportunity to be valuated–from city parks to na- region), they are willing to pay € 170,000 per year tional parks–is compared with similar recreational in addition for the protection and management activities for which a price of admission is charged. of ecosystems. The results show that the visitors One problem with this method is that people who valued public goods and services highly, a factor spend time in fee-based recreational facilities, such which will have to be considered more strongly in as former horticultural exhibitions or amusement future planning (Grunewald et al. 2012). parks, may have different preferences from those of people who use free leisure facilities, such as urban zz Hunting Leases, Fishing Licences, etc. forests or natural parks, so that it is difficult to find For some recreational activities, such as hunting or truly comparable situations. For example, admis- fishing, there are prices to be paid in the form of sion-charging swimming pools and guarded beach- fishing licences and hunting leases. These, unlike es often have a distinctly different character than such expenses as those for fishing equipment or the free swimming spots. Moreover, the price of admis- fuel used to reach a fishing spot, are an expense as- sion reflects the lowest level of willingness-to-pay sociated with no real costs, or only minimal ones. A among those who avail themselves of the service; payment that is not remuneration for any labour or some visitors would be willing to pay a higher ticket capital cost is referred to as a ‘surplus.’ Even the rent price. Because of these problems, a valuation based for agricultural land is such a ‘surplus.’ By paying on admission prices should also be supplemented for a hunting lease or fishing licence, the sportsman by some other alternative valuation method, such shows that his benefit from the fishing or hunting as travel-cost or willingness-to-pay analysis. activity is at least equal in value to that payment. In this case, as with the land-price method, this zz The Willingness-to-Pay Analysis (Contingent share of the benefits accrues not to him, the user, Valuation), Choice Analysis but rather to the owners of the land leased. The ben- In addition to, or as an alternative to the above efits that can be calculated from fishing or hunting methods, any direct or indirect use value can leases is the lower limit of the actual benefits from theoretically be assessed on the basis of direct in- that activity. terviews using contingent valuation or the choice If we also wish to ascertain the net benefits to analysis. These valuation techniques are used for the anglers and hunters over and above this mini- the ascertainment of both use and nonuse values mum, it would be necessary to apply other meth- (see below). Applied to the same evaluation ob- ods, such as the travel-cost approach or contingent ject, travel-cost and willingness-to-pay analyses valuation. It is important in cases of changes in the often provide relatively similar results (Löwenstein 99 4.2 • Approaches to the Economic Valuation of Natural Assets 4

1994; Luttmann and Schroeder 1995; Whitehead et grams for the conservation of biodiversity al. 1995). In cases where specialised knowledge is (an average of € 231 per household per required for an evaluation, e.g. for the evaluation year) down to such local activities as mea- of changes in soil fertility, erosion, effects on water sures for the conservation of the dusky quality, flood damage, etc., complementary expert- large blue butterfly on 64 ha in Landau, based methods should also be used, in addition to the Palatinate (€ 22 per household per the willingness-to-pay analysis, in which, since it is year). The fact is that today, every house- a representative approach, largely nonexperts are hold pays an average of around € 16–20 interviewed. per year for conservation via public expenditures for nature conservation that are Methods for the Detection of Nonuse based on their tax payments. Values Some authors argue that concrete locally visible zz Contingent Valuation, Choice Analysis measures should be queried as much as possible, Preferences for nonuse values, such as the desire to this provides a more realistic assessment of will- preserve species and habitats as a ‘value in and of ingness-to-pay (Fischer and Menzel 2005). On the itself’ (existence value), or so that they can be used other hand, results regarding smaller, more specific and experienced by future generations (bequest measures always leave the question unanswered value), can, like option values, currently only be as to how the group of those questions regarding ascertained by direct, representative surveys. The willingness-to-pay is to be defined: only at the mu- main methods for this are the willingness-to-pay nicipality level, or that of the district, of the entire analysis and the choice analysis. state, or nationwide? When questioned at the local The willingness-to-pay analysis asks how much level, one has to deal with the effect that measures money or income an individual would be willing to in sparsely populated areas tend to always obtain do without, as a maximum, in the form of a gen- a lower value than measures in densely populated erally mandatory landscape-maintenance tax, so areas, because of the smaller population, and hence that nature might be preserved, or a specific con- the smaller potential willingness-to-pay group. For servation programme might be implemented. In a the valuation of nature as an ‘intrinsic value,’ this choice analysis, the respondents are presented with would be a substantively unacceptable result. More- different options about the future, which they can, over, it has been demonstrated that the evaluation by means of various procedures, either accept or of specific measures always includes the implicit reject. Each option here describes various condi- distributional assumptions of the respondents (‘If tions related to the natural environment, and an I pay for Measure A, I assume that others will pay income-relevant quantum, such as a surcharge or for Measure B’; Degenhardt and Gronemann 1998). deduction for income tax purposes. By means of As an evaluation of . Fig. 4.9 shows, a lower will- statistical analysis, willingness-to-pay with respect ingness-to-pay does tend to be expressed for special to the various parameters can be derived from the measures than for comprehensive measures; how- various ‘decisions’ thus made. ever, at the local and regional levels, the willingness- There is an extensive body of scientific literature to-pay per measures unit is considerably higher. In on the validity of stated preference methods and the the case of the preservation of the dusky large blue possibilities for improving and securing their valid- butterfly (Glaucopsyche nausithous) in Landau, the ity (e.g. Hoevenagel 1994; Marggraf et al. 2005). conversion of the willingness-to-pay results of the population to a per-ha of measure-implementation >>A number of results regarding will- value yields € 6656/ha/yr. However, in a nationwide ingness-to-pay for conservation mea- programme examined by Meyerhoff et al. (2012), sures in Germany are now available values of only € 1000/ha for the specific grassland- (. Fig. 4.9; 7 Sect. 6.6.1). They involve part of the programme, exclusively, were obtained extensive activities, such as national pro- and 300 €/ha if the whole programme was valued. 100 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

. Fig. 4.9 Willingness-to-pay for conservation programmes encompassing various spatial and substantive factors (in €/mo.). When comparing the data, one matter to consider is that no adjustment was made for inflation. (Adapted and supplemented from BfN 2012 (references other than Meyerhoff et al. 2012 see there))

Actual per ha costs of conservation measures are detailed expert-based scoring methods (Schweppe- usually below these figures. Kraft 1998). For concrete decisions on conservation projects or interventions at the state or federal levels, the ef- zz Restoration-Cost Method fect due to different population densities, regional A nonpreference-based method for the assessment preferences or implicit distributional assumptions of existence values is the restoration-cost method. are not particularly helpful. Such decisions should It is especially applied for the evaluation of the therefore be based on willingness-to-pay analyses, functions or services of habitats for the preserva- with which comprehensive programmes have been tion of biodiversity. Under this method, the costs evaluated. Special willingness-to-pay for individual which would accrue if one were to first destroy a measures within these programmes could then be habitat and then restore it, are ascertained. roughly evaluated on a pro rata basis, for instance If restoration is required by law, this method is per area segment, or, more accurately, through more only used to ascertain what a measure, such as the 101 4.2 • Approaches to the Economic Valuation of Natural Assets 4 construction of a road, would additionally cost in however, other quanta are often determi- the form of mandatory compensatory measures. If nant, such as the effect on regional income restoration is not required, it ascertains the costs and employment, as assessed by Job et al. which would be incurred if society were to recog- (2005, 2009) for selected protected areas nise in the future that restoration were necessary (. Table 4.2). or desirable. Under economic theory, this approach is acceptable, since international conventions and Benefit Transfer policy statements such as the European Biodiver- Here, results from other primary studies in which sity Strategy have made a commitment to a ‘no-net- ES-values have already been collected are trans- loss’ strategy with respect to the conservation of ferred to the study area and to the services to be biological diversity. This means that we can–hope- tested. There are four stages of benefit transfer fully–assume with a relatively high degree of prob- (Wronka 2004; TEEB 2010): direct transfer, cor- ability that such a restoration will in fact occur in rected transfer, transfer of evaluation functions the future. and meta-analysis. However, this distinction is of A particular challenge in restoration-cost a more or less technical nature. Whether a direct methodology is the monetisation of interim losses transfer leads to acceptable results, or whether a of function. Unlike technical infrastructure, the transfer with an evaluation function is required, restoration of the biodiversity of ecosystems is not depends on the particular problem. completed with the conclusion of the restoration Standard values and simplified evaluation of physical initial conditions (e.g. termination of method for the transmission of the value of ES are intensive use, rewetting), but rather well, beyond relatively easy to determine, if the value of eco- that, require a number of years or even centuries. system services is independent of the respective

A number of different methods exist for evaluating location. One example of this is the value of CO2 the interim loss of function (Schweppe-Kraft 1998; emissions and carbon sequestration. Both have Dietrich et al. 2014). In the USA, a discounting global effects that are independent of the source. procedure within the framework of the so-called The problem in this case more likely involves the habitat equivalency analysis has been widely used correct estimation of the physical effects, which, for since about 1995 for the quantification of damag- example, in the case of the conversion of grassland es. Previously, this method had already also been to farmland, depends on the scope and on the share proposed for use in Germany for the assessment of organic matter in the soil. Standard restoration of tree damage and damage to habitats (Buchwald costs for the species and habitat-protection func- 1988; Schweppe-Kraft 1996; 7 Sect. 6.6.1). The res- tions or services must be defined relatively inde- toration-cost approach is also used in the German pendently of the location, since the place of com- impact-regulation system (Köppel et al. 2004). pensation is almost always different from the place If this method is used to assess the approxi- of impact. For example, nutrient inputs such as mately 10 % of Germany, which are of particular nitrates and phosphorus pollute not only the local significance for the conservation of biological di- waters, but ultimately end up in the North or Baltic versity, we obtain values of between 50 cents/m2 Seas. Hence, for the nutrient decomposition and for farmland with endangered segetal plants and fixing services too, uniform values make sense. The almost € 200/m2 for intact raised bogs. The to- same is true for soil erosion (7 Sects. 5.3 and 6.6.2). tal value of this 10 % of the land area in Germany The long-term preservation of the safety of the food comes to approximately € 740 billion, which, at the supply is a global issue. Long-term shortages or sur- time of calculation, equaled some 80 % of the value pluses can therefore also be evaluated on a global of German productive capital (. Table 4.1). scale. The locally differentiating feature would then be the respective agricultural suitability, including >>Such economic valuation methods as soil fertility as an essential input factor. cost-benefit analyses have the goal of Benefit transfer becomes more problematical if evaluating the macroeconomic benefits the value of the service is highly site-dependent. of measures. For local decision-making, 102 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

. Table 4.1 Compensation values for habitats in Germany, calculated analogously to the Habitat Equivalancy Analysis method, taking into account average recovery costs and times (Schweppe-Kraft 2009)

Habitat type € per sqm Area ratio in % Total value in € million

Heath 41.83 0.22 34,790

Dry and nutrient-poor grassland 8.06 0.27 8037

Molinia meadows 18.51 0.04 2591 4 Dump floodplain meadows and tall herb communities 6.14 0.10 2315 Extensively used hay meadows 6.14 0.48 10,991

Fens and swamps 9.80 0.03 1088

Extensively used grassland 2.66 1.19 11,897

Extensively used arable land 0.49 1.26 2318

Extensively used vineyards 13.31 0.02 982

Orchard meadows 9.75 0.93 34,125

Extensively used fish ponds 48.93 0.01 1541

Hedges, shrubberies and copses 16.28 2.00 122,100

Natural and near-natural forests 18.44 1.96 135,430

Wood-pastures 20.64 0.09 6594

Low and medium forests 4.47 0.49 8172

Natural and semi-natural forest edges 22.79 0.01 786

Natural and semi-natural forest borders 2.82 0.00 22

Raised bog, natural and near-natural 195.46 0.18 131,914

Transitional bogs and degraded raised bogs 127.42 0.21 100,023

Near-natural standing waters and streams 48.93 0.66 120,698

Total – 9.48 736,416

. Table 4.2 Economic effects of protected area tourism. (Job et al. 2005, 2009)

Berchtesgaden National Park (2002) Altmühltal Nature Park (2005)

Number of visitors 114,100 910,000

Average daily expenditure per capita € 44.27 € 22.80

Gross sales € 51 million € 20.7 million

Income 1st and 2nd sales stages € 4.4 million € 10.3 million

Employment equivalent 206 people 483 people

Examples are the recreational performance of land- it is located near a metropolitan area, within a fa- scapes and the prevention of flood damage. A com- miliar tourist area, or in a sparsely populated rural parably attractive landscape will provide very dif- area. The value of the water-retention capacity of ferent recreational services, depending on whether forests or floodplains is critically dependent on how 103 4.2 • Approaches to the Economic Valuation of Natural Assets 4 extensively and densely populated the flood-prone higher than what citizens would have to pay in the areas in the drainage portion of the respective wa- form of lost income for the maintenance or the pro- tershed are (7 Sect. 3.3). vision of these goods. In assessing the capacity of ecosystems to con- To date, we are still a long way from having eas- serve biodiversity using contingent valuation, the ily applicable valuation approaches for all ES. The question of transferability depends, among other criticism that economic valuations address only things, on whether the the biodiversity target or some aspects of problems therefore often has less programme assessed was local or regional/national to do with the concept of economic valuation. The in scope (see above). underlying concept of ‘total economic value’ (TEV) is based on the preferences of the individual–which is certainly not the worst premise in a democra- 4.2.4 Conclusion cy–but within that limitation, it sees a very broad range of needs, desires, and motives with respect Economic valuation should be viewed as one de- to the protection and utilisation of nature, which cision-supporting method among others. Its main may well also have an altruistic or ecocentric base. focus of application should be in cases in which If only some of the relevant aspects are to be as- the issue is to balance environmental assets and sessed, as is often the case, this is more likely due to aspects of long-term sustainability, e.g. recreation, the lack of opportunity, or the necessary resources, biodiversity protection, quality of the residential to fully ascertain all the effects of the alternatives environment, the self-cleaning capacity of the wa- to be evaluated and assessed. Scientific/ecological terways or soil fertility, against short-term income impact assessment is often more problematic than prospects. It can be used both in decision-making economic valuation, as the case of flood protection with regard to projects and programmes with nega- shows. tive effects on ES, and for such issues as the amount In the development of transferable standard of money one should invest for the restoration and assessments or assessment procedures, we are still maintenance of ES. at the beginning of the development. On the one Some methods of economic valuation are not hand, more primary studies are needed in many particularly controversial; for example, there is areas on which reliable benefit transfer methods little doubt that it is useful to have a monetary es- could be developed–the travel-cost analysis, which timate of the damage costs available when imple- ascertains the quality of areas, has hardly been used menting measures that affect the risk of flooding. at all in Germany; on the other, the development of Nor should there be any fundamental objection standards with which those primary studies can be against the comparison of costs for reducing the checked for validity is necessary. nutrient inputs in agricultural operations into the Economic valuation is an ‘art’ that requires a water, with equivalent measures to increase the self- high level of knowledge in the environmental and purification capacity of water bodies. economic area. Not every economic valuation However, other methods–particularly the meets scientific standards. For the uninitiated, this stated-preference methods–are indeed controver- is rarely visible, which can lead to an impression sial. Can we really assume that the statements made of arbitrariness. De Groot et al. (2002) pointed by respondents with regard to their willingness-to- out that depending on the methods and spatial pay for maintaining public assets actually reflect characteristics in each case, the monetary results of their real preferences? How should questions be the evaluation of individual ES will vary widely (cf. formulated, and which assets should one ask about, also above, for the evaluation of agricultural supply so that the results will be useful in real standard capacity). Scientific minimum standards for evalu- decision-making situations? There is certainly still ations could prevent apparent arbitrariness and a great deal of research that needs to be done. Ac- thus facilitate the acceptance of economic evalua- cording to the existing results, the willingness-to- tions–especially among those who are not support- pay for environmental public goods is usually much ers of the interests of the environment and nature. 104 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

One of these standards would be the require- tion of intergenerational justice requires a reason- ment for a generally comprehensible, nontechnical able view into the future and studies about long summary, in which not only the total economic periods. Last but not least, the scenario method is value and/or the overall cost-benefit ratio, but also a bridging framework for interdisciplinary collabo- the respective partial values including the explana- ration on the field of social-environmental research tion of the methods used and their key assumptions (Santelmann et al. 2004). would be documented. Scenarios may be used ‘to explore plausible fu- Overall, the ES studies which are now extant in tures for ecosystems and human well-being based 4 large numbers, and which compare the costs and on different assumptions about driving forces the benefits of measures for the protection of na- of change and their possible interactions’ (MEA ture and biodiversity, have shown that the useful- 2005b). A simple definition is ‘scenarios are hypo- ness of such measures often significantly exceeds thetical sequences of events, constructed for the the associated costs. Hence, more conservation and purpose of focusing attention on causal processes safeguarding of ES lead to an overall gain in welfare. and decision-points’ (Rotmans et al. 2000). The A critical practice of economic valuation which aim of a scenario is, therefore, to identify and to discloses its assumptions and methods could help compare possible options of action. Instead of only business and society find a more sustainable way to following a single future trend, a tree of possibilities manage nature, ecosystem services and biodiversity. can be explored (Oppermann 2008) enabling to assess the desired and manageable ones among them. Due to their decision-preparing function, sce- 4.3 Scenario-Development and narios are part of an action framework and, there- Participative Methods fore, suitable tools: 55 To draft capabilities in order to prepare for R.-U. Syrbe, M. Rosenberg, J. Vowinckel coming occurrences 55 To estimate the risk potential of strategies in order to demand for action 4.3.1 Basics and Fields of Application 55 To draft options for action and to compare them in order to choose the most feasible Our ecosystems underlie accelerating transitions 55 To describe the effects of individual measures (Bernhardt and Jäger 1985; Antrop 2005). Some of to other fields of action in order to evaluate the the reasons are the increased utilisation of renew- suitability of that measures in a broader area of able energies, globalisation, demographic change consideration and the irresistible urban sprawl. Using scenarios, we can analyse the consequences of these changes Depending on the application purpose, the elabo- for ecosystem services and determine how people ration of scenarios can be done by experts alone are able to intervene in terms of control (Carpenter (analytically) or by participation together with ac- et al. 2006). tors from policy, economy, NGOs, and the public. The development of scenarios is only one ap- The following description of the methodical frame- proach to investigate future trends. Other examples work is restricted to the analytical version. Selected of methods of foresight research are Delphi stud- participative procedures are presented in a case ies (Dörr 2005), prognoses (Jessel 2000), forward study below. Both versions can be applied in two projections (Bork and Müller 2002), the analysis of forms of expression: Either scenarios are narrated planning documents, and landscape experiments in so-called storylines (Rotmans et al. 2000) using (Oppermann 2008). However, the discussion of mainly qualitative statements, or quantitative sce- scenarios is deemed to be the key method for ar- narios are calculated depending above all on model gument about sustainability (Walz et al. 2007). It simulations. Analytical scenarios are often quanti- allows a comprehensive examination of the tempo- tative, whereby participative approaches have got ral, spatial, and dimensional aspects of ecosystem predominantly a qualitative character. There is services (7 Sect. 3.3.) since particularly the evalua- also a difference between projective and normative 105 4.3 • Scenario-Development and Participative Methods 4

Well-Known Scenarios About Environmental Issues

Environmental issues were often (Dunlop et al. 2002; Nassauer et al. and Reisinger 2008) of the Intergov- central for scenarios with both 2002; Haberl et al. 2004; Bastian et ernmental Panel on Climate Change quantitative and qualitative ap- al. 2006; Bolliger et al. 2007; Lütz et (IPCC) addresses the effects of cli- proaches according to the over- al. 2007; Tappeiner 2007; Tötzer et mate and socio-economic changes views given by Alcamo (2008) and al. 2007). But also shoreline and sea to a large number of ecosystem ser- Albert (2009). The first quantitative issues were central for scenarios, vices at the global level. Examples scenarios used hydrological mod- such as the North Sea (Burkhard of integrated man-environmental els (Aurada 1979). A more recent and Diembeck 2006) or the Great research through scenarios are the prominent example is the so-called Barrier Reef near Australia (Bohnet Millennium Ecosystem Assessment World Water Vision (Gallopin and et al. 2008). (MEA 2005b), which includes fore- Rijsberman 2000). The study of Wolf An increasing number of recent sight and backsight analyses of 50 and Appel-Kummer (2005), funded publications evaluate environmen- years, and the Global Environment by the German Federal Agency for tal scenarios using landscape func- Outlooks of UNEP, of which the Nature Protection, addressed con- tions or ecosystem services such as fourth generation is available (UNEP sequences of demographic change Dunlop et al. (2002), Nassauer et al. 2007) and the fifth one is under revi- to nature protection. Several (2002), Fidalgo and Pinto (2005), and sion (UNEP 2011). analyses dealt with the impacts of Seppelt and Holzkämper (2007). The land-use change within rural areas Fourth Assessment Report (Pachauri

scenarios. The former searches for the implications have to be run-through completely. . Figure. 4.10 of assumed trends and the latter starts with (de- gives an overview of this method. sired) future goals and explores how to act in order Step 1 comprises, first, the organisational prepa- to meet them (Nassauer and Curry 2004). ration of scenario process, second, the formulation of a principal question and, third if necessary, a specification by core topics. The principal question 4.3.2 Framework of Scenario defines the overall objectives. A time horizon and Development the delineation of the study area belong to that. If the principal question is rather complex, the object The methodical framework presented below is par- of investigation should be confined by core topics. ticularly designed for scenarios of landscape devel- Regarding the case study, the time horizon (2050) opment that should be evaluated by ecosystem ser- and the study area (Görlitz County) were fixed, but vices. The framework was tested on the county of the principal question was defined rather broadly Görlitz within the Landscape Saxony 2050 research as ‘How will the ecosystem services be altered due project (funded by the Saxon Department of Sci- to future landscape change?’ Therefore, the princi- ence and Arts). The scenario methodology consists pal question had to be specified using the two core on a combination of approved single procedures topics ‘biodiversity’ and ‘renewable energy’ that and fits them to the problems of landscape devel- were treated separately. Both topics were very im- opment. The methodical basis includes the works portant in political and social debates. of Reibnitz (1991), Gausemeier et al. (2009) from Step 2 consists of the selection of driving forces business science and Alcamo (2008) from environ- and ecosystem services that should be considered. mental science. That is, the scenario expert team has to select which The framework uses an explorative forecast ap- drivers are interesting to the principal question in proach. This approach is open-ended, i.e. there is no respect to the core topic and the impacts they have direction and range of developments set from the on the ecosystem services (ES). Therefore, the selec- beginning. Quantitative and qualitative approaches tion of drivers and ES has to be done simultaneously can dominate or be combined. The framework con- since both depend on each other. A good selection sists maximum of seven steps. Depending on the and precise definition of driving forces is crucial main question and application task, not all steps for the whole scenario development because if the 106 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7

Scoping Current Scenario Archetypes Storylines Scenario Commu- state & logic evaluation nication trends

------

Participation

. Fig. 4.10 Working steps of the described scenario framework. © IÖR/Syrbe

selection is to broad it hampers the communicabil- curately as possible using also external prognoses ity of scenarios. If the drivers are too imprecise and or expertises. On the contrary, the variable drivers cannot be described by clear indicators, they will open up the possibility space of scenarios and, thus, complicate the discussion as well as the quantitative are called key drivers. processing. One bad example would be choosing Step 4 implements the abovementioned logical ‘energy and mining’ as a driving force since sev- scenario structure. Therefore, an overview of the eral directions of development could be implied. current situation is needed. An initial ES assessment On closer consideration, hundreds of driving forces should be made using the middle pillar of the EPPS can be identified. But only a small number (< 10) framework (7 Sect. 3.1.2) unless it already exists. The must be considered and each of them should be key drivers have to be connected through a small describable by a single measure and a known actual number (commonly two by four) of trends concern- value. For this, thorough investigations are neces- ing their future development as it is interesting for sary, which will also be useful later on. the principal question and also relevant for alter- Step 3 defines the logical scenario structure. The ing the ES under consideration. The trends may not main purpose of scenario development is to draft only be linear but can also be defined accelerating, different future visions. To do so, the drivers that retarding or erratic. The description does not need are to be variable within the scenario process need to be exact, but rather generic. An established way of to be chosen. A differentiation can be achieved description is using pictograms for the several trend connecting the variable drivers with diverse trends. types (. Fig. 4.11). Not all trend combinations can Of course, this differentiation is only possible for be combined because contradictions are possible. a small number of drivers. Empirically it does An appropriate number of plausible combinations not make sense to use and vary more than three (so-called bundles) must be selected. These bundles key drivers concerning the amount of work and guide the initial ways to develop and describe sce- the straightforwardness of the whole process. The narios in detail, which will be done in step 5. other drivers are defined to be unvaried between Step 5 contains the wording and specification several trajectories. The unvaried drivers are called of scenarios. The selected bundles enable to deri- framework conditions and must be described as ac- vate several future trajectories. They receive short 107 4.3 • Scenario-Development and Participative Methods 4

Constant Accelerating Alternating Saltational Driver Driver DriverDriver

0 t 0 t 0 t 0 t

Uniform Retarding S-shaped Chaotic

Driver Driver DriverDriver

0 t 0 t 0 t 0 t

. Fig. 4.11 Pictograms for the trend types of key drivers; strait line: positive alteration; dashed line: negative alteration; white background: basing types; grey background: combined types. © IÖR/Syrbe

Future possibilities

Scenario Technology + Energy Scenario Business As Usual (BAU)

Real development Scenario (unknown) Greening

2010 2030 2050

Timeline

. Fig. 4.12 Scenario funnel with schematically hinted trajectories. © IÖR/Syrbe names characterising the assumable end points tion (sometimes also the steps towards it) and that in future, the so-called archetypes. For instance, give reasons for the most important conclusions. To the archetypes of Landscape Saxony 2050 scenar- achieve this goal, the interdependencies between all ios read ‘Business as usual (BAU)’, ‘Greening’ and drivers (variable and framework conditions) have ‘Techno + Energy’ . Fig. 4.12. The core result of this to be analyzed. The so-called cross-impact analysis step is a storyline that describes the future situa- can be treated with the help of a matrix to ensure 108 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

Nonlinear Phenomena of Scenario Development

There are some known nonlinear arise e.g. from exhausting resources so-called ‘wild cards’ should be but nevertheless typical phenom- or decision of a competition. Some- discussed separately from the main ena in connection to scenario times one option among compet- round because many participants method: First, particular situations ing technologies can win and out- are not frank enough to accept may lead to a strong determination live all the others. Second, a seldom them, even though their treatment of a previously open development. but powerful incident could change may be important for taking pre- The so-called lock-in-phenomena all options of development. These cautions for the future. 4

that all possible two-dimensional effects are consid- cerned actors (or customers). The participation ered. Simulation models, balances, and other quan- tools are specified in the next section 7( Sect. 4.3.3). titative methods resulting in tables and numerical Although it is placed as the last step, participation values are frequently used in expert scenarios to shall start with the beginning of a scenario develop- figure out multidimensional interdependencies. ment and pervade throughout the whole process. The participative scenario framework prefers stake- This way, the methodology can have some loops be- holder discussions to work out qualitative results. tween mainly expert-oriented steps and steps with Admittedly, these results are not quantitatively rep- more participation. At the interface between both resentable but often more complex. A proven tool modes of work, data must be translated into easily to facilitate the discussion is scenario mapping. To comprehensible presentations, and meanings have draw items into a map gives an overview of spatial to be quantified the other way around. Lastly, the dependencies and helps to figure out possible envi- scenario results have to be published at the end of ronmental conflicts as well as the points of interest the process to enhance public awareness and (hope- for the actors. These maps are an essential basis for fully!) application. a subsequent evaluation (step 6) and instructive abstracts of scenario outcome. Step 6 is the evaluation part of scenario out- 4.3.3 Participation and the Case come. Storylines, tables and maps underlie a com- Study Görlitz paring evaluation to give answers to the principal question and to ensure the scenario process qual- ‘Participation’ is the cooperation of actors, stake- ity. The evaluation can be spatial or nonspatial holders or interested individuals within a scenario depending on how the scenarios are mapped. The development or during an assessment; the concern- evaluation of scenario outcome regarding ecosys- ing method is called participative. The main reason tem services does not need to be restricted to sin- for the inclusion of decision makers by participa- gular values. Rather, the future cross-impacts of tive methods within an assessment or a scenario the services, their so-called trade-offs (7 Sect. 3.1.2) development is the social appreciation of the re- as well as synergies should also be unfolded. Risks sults. Another good reason for participation is that and suitability areas should be delineated and com- assessments are most helpful if the users take part pared. The main purpose of this step is to draw in it (Carpenter et al. 2006). Additionally, participa- conclusions from scenario results for management tive scenario workshops reveal educational effects options and possible future strategies. The aim is for the participants (Alcamo 2008). Therefore, it is not only to figure out the best storyline but also the recommendable to involve young people, particu- best measures that will accomplish this. It is possi- larly if long-term scenarios are being developed. ble that a repetition from step 4 onward is necessary The cooperation with participants that are lay to specify them anew and to rethink the scenarios people within methodically sophisticated methods therewith. is challenging regarding the quality of communica- Step 7 comprises all measures of scenarios’ tion. Experts must be able to interest people and en- communication and participation with the con- gage them to get involved in the cause. The crucial 109 4.3 • Scenario-Development and Participative Methods 4 problem is to ensure a comprehensible flow of information from scientific knowledge to messages in 55 Suggestion talk(s) by experts normal language and vice versa. Therefore, a pool 55 Ballot about alternative proposals (e.g. by of hints shall be proposed, which may be extended stick points) in several ways. 55 Plenar discussion for central decisions 55 Working groups developing particular scenarios Types of Participation for Development 55 Breaks with social events (e.g. dinner) of Scenarios or Ecosystem Services 55 Plenar presentation of working group’s Assessment results with final discussion 55 Workshops (with group work, presenta- 55 Protocol shipment of the final esultsr to all tions and perhaps stage discussion) participants 55 Small group participation events such as world café or focus group interview 55 Personal interviews (survey with prepared The actual scenario exercise can consist of several questions or thematic guideline) elements (7 Box ‘Elements of a Scenario Exercise’). 55 Public surveys (oral, by letter or on the web) All essential information including the time frame 55 Stalls at exhibitions, fairs or congresses must be communicated with the invitation before- 55 Excursions (empirically with high motiva- hand to avoid the worst case: unsatisfied participants tional effect) frequently discussing off-topic issues or query the 55 Culturale events (cinema show, theatre meaning of the exercise in general. The first impor- and suchlike) with following discussion tant topic on the schedule should be an introduc- 55 Teaching units in schools, other educa- ing explanation of sense, aim, and background of tional institutions, or outdoor the exercise, eventually completed by a short lesson 55 Internet forum, blog, etc. on scenarios. Second, a so-called mind opener can help to get the participants in the right mood to bear The participative work on scenarios, mainly using a creative ideas and to break away from their every- workshop, is called a scenario exercise. It is the me- day problems, as well as to prevent them from judg- thodical core of the whole scenario development. ing prematurely. Therefore, unexpected questions, The most important steps of 7 Sect. 4.3.2. have to a quiz, or a flashback into the past can be recom- be handled therein. The scenario exercise should mended. These elements can also be used later to be combined with the working steps that are ex- make the event less formal. The actual scenario dis- ecuted only among experts as well as with alterna- cussion shall be done preferably in working groups. tive forms of participation (7 Box ‘Types of Partici- Intermediate results have to be retained periodically pation’), in order to minimise time exposure for the to ensure the progress of discussion. Spontaneous participants, to activate them without boring them, ideas should be recorded neutrally at this point and and to ensure a high degree of involvement also for systematised only later. Because one-day workshops those who are not keen on debates. can be very exhausting and will only be successful for good teams, Ringland (1997) recommend two half- day rounds instead, which can be separated by an in- Elements of a Scenario Exercise formal evening event. Graphical, textual, cinematic 55 Invitation of genuinely interested partici- and interactive media help to facilitate the discussion pants if they are specially geared to the participants. 55 Introduction: explanation of aims and Some of frequently made mistakes should be methodical steps mentioned. A possible participants’ irritation due 55 Mind opener to stimulate creativity (e.g. to incomplete information has already been noted. quiz) Additionally, frustration can arise from overload- 55 Brain-storming to catch maverick ideas ed presentations, a boring schedule, or too slow 110 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

progress in scenario elaboration. To avoid such undesirable situations, breaks should be inserted 55 Risks and problems for future that can be used by the scenario experts to develop Key note lectures from scenario team and intermediate results further and enrich them by external experts additional information (i.e. from simulation mod- 55 Participants get comparable information els) to get a faster progress and make the meeting as basis for discussion more interesting for the participants. The hope to 55 Sharing the most recent state of the art get quantitative data by a negotiation among actors about trends and drivers would be mostly disappointed: data requested from 4 55 Current state of the study area participants remain often incomplete and vague; therefore, they must be completed and sophisti- Group work to draw particular scenarios cated by experts work. Often, a successful partici- 55 Avoid strong/weak division of working pation process needs more preparation time than groups to not confine the creativity of the execution time (Walz et al. 2007). weak group 55 Group division should consider the inter- Tips for Planning a Successful Scenario ests of members Exercise 55 Each group needs a moderator from the Timely invitation of participant scenario team 55 Information about the venue, aims, dura- 55 Job description must be prepared for tion, and fee as well as possible cost reim- groups and moderators burse 55 Each group elects a presenter at the begin- 55 Invitation shall be motivating, provoking, ning exciting, or funny 55 Homework (i.e. a questionnaire) can save a During two projects (‘Landscape Saxony 2050’ and working step and prepare for the topic ‘LÖBESTEIN’) in the East Saxon county Görlitz, Introduction by the scenario team Germany, additional experiences from scenario 55 Aims and schedule of the whole project workshops were collected and will be shared below and of the particular event (7 Box ‘Experiences from Görlitz as Regional Exam- 55 Introduction should be short, but include ple’). The authors developed participative scenarios organisational information (breaks, meals, about the increasing use of renewable energies and etc.) the protection of biodiversity there. 55 Introduction highlights the possibilities of participation 4.4 Complex Analyses, Evaluation Mind opener to activate creativity (possibilities) and Modelling of ES 55 Enquiring wishes or nightmares for future 55 Asking to draw an own desire scenario 4.4.1 Background 55 Provoking (i.e. through theses or artistic illustrations) K. Grunewald, G. Lupp 55 ‘Fairy question’: ‘What do you want to ask a “To make simple things complicated, is daily rou- time traveler from the future?’ tine, to make the complicate things simple, this Brain storm to obtain creative ideas before simply is creativity. (Charles Mingus)” people hear lectures Nature, our environment, and society are complex 55 Ballot about drivers or evaluation criteria systems. Complexity means that, the reaction of 55 Nomination of surprising incidents to be a system is not predictable as a whole even if we regarded (‘wild cards’) know single reactions and interactions of its components precisely. The characteristics of complex- 111 4.4 • Complex Analyses, Evaluation and Modelling of ES 4

Experiences from Görlitz as Regional Example

In the beginning, a world café were sent out in order to involve for a full auditorium and should be event, where participants visited all interested actors. However, long implemented in other ways (see several thematic tables to discuss word/excel query catalogues could suggestions above). A good scope input variables (drivers, trends, not be used succesfully since they was to deliver several proposals that wishes, aims, standards, values) in were not returned on time and fully the actors could choose by partici- brief sequence, was organised. completed except by the respective pation in specific working groups The workshop preparation was expert team. or table discussions. After a certain done by Internet surveys. Online In the workshop, statements period of difficult discussions, a tools such as 7 http://kwiksurveys. from several experts were dis- change through playful insertion com/ are available that are easy cussed and enriched by additional was appreciated. Group works with to design and able to provide thoughts. However, the self-in- about 5 participants each were most statistically edited results. Unfor- troduction round of participants efficient. Many participants were tunately, a personal email address occasionally escalated to time- skilled in handling maps and used of all participants must be known. consuming talks. Good experiences them to discuss allocation questions Preconditions to use this tool are were made with three questions intensively. Therefore, well-prepared the participants’ accordance and asking for one-sentence answers maps and drawing utensils were engagement. The tool worked well from all participants in the begin- valuable. The moderators must keep among the internal and external ning (who are you, how do you feel in mind the time frame as well as experts but not with the other about the topic, what is your inten- those participants who don’t im- participants. Therefore, survey tion). The selection of trends, driv- pose themselves in discussion and forms (as PDF, per email of fax) ers, and trajectories is not suitable activate them directly.

ity are numerous elements that interact with each The aim of the ES concept is to cope with the chal- other and the reaction as a whole is unpredictable lenge of interactions and complexity of ecosystems (Riedel 2000). Examples for complex systems and and to describe impacts and consequences for hu- limitations for their predictions are, for instance, man well-being. A comprehensive assessment of weather forecasts, the prediction of market trends ES demands enormous efforts and is only partial- at the stock exchange, but also the reactions of ES. ly adequate to serve as a basis for politicians and Disturbance of complex ecosystems might lead to stakeholders to support decisions by involving all severe and irreversible new states (SRU 2007). Land different demands. management can be considered a complex system. By breaking down, abstracting and weighting Land use and forestry affect nature in many ways, complex issues are simplified. Therefore, just like in e.g. water cycling, soil fertility, biodiversity or re- a caricature, they are easier to understand through gional value adding (7 Chap. 6). simple and concise means. With simple means and a few lines, significant and striking attributes of a person or a situation can be drawn. Complex systems Complex or Complicated? can only be determined by observations of patterns. An airplane is a complicated thing. It consists of They can be observed in the abiotic and biotic envi- many different parts. However, it does not contain a ronment or in society (e.g. different soil substrates, real secret. This means, difficult tasks can be solved by knowledge. routines, behaviour). ES patterns can be analysed A five-course meal is complex. You have to know with a matrix of supply and demand for certain the different ingredients. But when you prepare the land-use types (7 Sect. 4.1) and within Contingent different dishes, it does not necessarily means that Economic Assessments (Examples in 7 Sect. 4.2 you are getting a delicious meal. Systems with many and 7 Chap. 6). different interactions not working on a simple ‘if-then’ principle are dynamic and multilayered and, thus, are Visions and intentions like the concept of ‘sus- complex. tainability’ and the ‘ES-concept’ could be seen as a tool to influence patterns and types of land uses. If 112 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

new patterns occur in complex systems, a tipping respect to conflicts and minimising impacts, the EU point has been crossed. One of the goals of research commission has developed a biomass action plan on ES is to figure out tipping points and how they and requested all member states to develop national are influenced by human activities. It is one of the biomass action plans. The German biomass action core challenges to determine the development of plan (BMELV/BMU 2009) emphasises climate pro- those systems (scenarios, alternatives, 7 Sect. 4.3; tection, regional value adding, the strengthening of modelling, 7 Sect. 4.4.3) and forms a basis for regu- rural and peripheral regions, and the protection of lation and steering (policy, incentives, planning, biodiversity, soil fertility, waters as well as air quality 4 governance 7 Chap. 5). as the core goals for biomass production using an- The ES concept is intended to support solving nual energy crops or woody biomass. and balancing complex problems with tools and To achieve these goals and to minimising con- methods. It strives for integrated approaches by flicts, stakeholders have to be included, and the ac- analysing, assessing, and weighting ES based on ceptance for biomass has to be increased by inform- scientific methods by using all available informa- ing and involving the lay public through adequate tion while including human needs. The ES concept communication and consultation (BMELV/BMU requires weighting between quick and cheap assess- 2009). Although ES are not explicitly mentioned ment procedures (e.g. rough estimations based on in the document, ES have to be secured and en- ‘rapid evaluation tools’) and more detailed, elabo- hanced in a sustainable way when energy crops or rated, time demanding, as well as more expensive woody biomass are cultivated. This document al- examinations (intensive assessment of all different ready indicates possible methodological steps and ES aspects). approaches for assessing impacts of biomass pro- In the following section, a broad application of duction on ES. the ES concept will be presented using a case study In order to improve ES and biodiversity pro- on ‘impacts of an increased biomass production for tection in sustainlable land-use management energy purposes’. It shows how ES can be selected practices, we suggest the following steps (see also and assessed, how different approaches for evalua- . Fig. 4.13 and Lupp et al. 2011): tion ES can be used, and how regional stakeholder First, relevant economic and ecological ele- can participate in these processes. Finally, the ES ments, especially ES, have to be selected. In the model ‘InVest’ is presented demonstrating its use case study food and feed production, provision of and describing strengths and weaknesses of this energy derived from wood and energy crops, vari- model. able cross margins for farms, biodiversity, carbon fixation, pollination, provisioning of drinking water, water discharge regulation, erosion control and 4.4.2 Energy Crop Production–A outdoor recreation opportunities were chosen. Complex Problem for Assessing ES In our work, we follow the ‘DPSIR-steps’ (Driv- ing Forces, Pressures, State, Impact, Response) ac- G. Lupp, O. Bastian, K. Grunewald cording to the OECD (2003). This approach involves a system-analysis view and describes a The increased production of biomass for energy methodological procedure for characterising the purposes is a prime example for the increased use of impacts of socio-economic activities on the envi- ecosystems driven by strong political interest. The ronment and ways to reduce or halt these impacts European Commission has set mandatory targets (BAFU/BFS 2007). for all member states for the use of renewable ener- In the first step, the Driving Forces of an in- gies. The share of renewables has to double between creased energy crop cultivation and timber ex- 2010 and 2020 according to this policy. Half of the re- traction are assessed by analysing energy policies, newables share is to be derived from biomass (Com- regulations set by legal instruments and incentives mission of the European Communities 2007). With 113 4.4 • Complex Analyses, Evaluation and Modelling of ES 4

1 Correlation ES – Biomass Production for energy purposes ES – Biomass D (Driver) 2 General conditions: policy, laws, planning instruments, economic and climate Scenario 3Forming scenarios development

4 Land-use structures resulting from scenario Land use and Stakeholder involvement and knowledge transfer P (Pressure) assumptions and farmers and foresters striving scenarios to to maximise profits under scenario conditions determine regulation needs

5 Impacts on the environment by biomass I (Impact) cultivation Ecologic and 6 Socio-economic impacts S (State) sociocultural 7 Integrated assessment of impacts on ES functions and impacts on ES

8 Description of management actions to be taken Options to secure to secure ES with thresholds or minimum and enhance ES standards 9 Description of management options and reviewing incentives, spatial steering and legal Determination of R (Response) regulations demands for management actions to be taken

10 Recommendation for policy makers and Evaluation of planning better considering all ES steering instruments

. Fig. 4.13 Schematic approach to assess and evaluate ES in different scenarios as well as economic situations and climate condi- To address dimension and different landscape tions. Based on these findings, land-use scenarios scales, different types of units should be assessed are developed. By using scenarios, future land-use reaching impacts on regional level down to individ- patterns (State), their impacts (Impacts), and Pres- ual land parcels. The latter is important for putting sures on ES can be determined. Using this data, objectives into practice by farmers and foresters necessary actions to maintain or improving the to carry out precise management actions to sup- provisioning of ES can be identified and possible port certain species, e.g. to maintain deadwood in options for improved regulations (Responses) can forests for birds and insects or provide patches for be developed (. Fig. 4.13). skylark (Alauda arvensis) in intensively managed To cope with the challenges and adaptation of fields as nesting habitats. land management concepts, regional approaches Different energy crops and the way they are cul- at the landscape level seem to be among the most tivated lead to specific impacts on ES, some exam- promising since influencing factors and the de- ples can be found in . Table 4.3. But also different mand for specific solutions may differ (Rode and natural conditions or landscape character might Kanning 2006). Case study regions to be selected influence impacts on ES. should provide heterogeneity. Although certain In an integrated assessment, different ES can be factors might have global impact, different land- compared with each other. For example, so-called scape units might react completely different. spider-web diagrams can be a suitable instrument to describe them (. Fig. 4.14). 114 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

4 Substitution of fossil fuels; energy input increases, when when input increases, fuels; energy Substitution of fossil technical (e.g. additional treatments chips receive SRC wood drying) Can be used as carbon sink,Can humus and subsoil biomass is when emitted, gases are greenhouse however, accumulated, are forests SRC or high-growth for drained are wetlands SRC to converted coppices (SRC) coppices Lower leaching rates compared to annual crops to compared leaching rates Lower - is con grassland value impacts, when high nature negative verted SRC to - depending on incen however gain revenues, New options to under the German act; Renewable Energy and payments tives no flexibility 20–30 years, for change crops No possibilities to demands react on changing to - grass value In of SRC on high nature some cases cultivation land Almost permanent cover by woody plants reduces erosion erosion reduces plants woody by permanent cover Almost penetration root quick and Intensive wind and rain, caused by from SRC neighbouring fields benefit soil erosion, lowers Groundwater level and regeneration rates may be lower since since be lower may rates and regeneration level Groundwater rates; higher interception and have water SRC demand more fertilising and herbicide quality use lower due to water Better Substitution of fossil fuels, however quite a lot of energy a lot of energy quite however fuels, Substitution of fossil of annual crops cultivation input for Greenhouse gases are emitted when high nature value value when high nature emitted gases are Greenhouse on cultivated are crops energy converted, are grasslands additional greenhouse bogs, marshlands and drained fertilisers used gas emissions when nitrogenous are Impacts of annual energy crops (corn, rape or cereals) rape Impacts (corn, crops of annual energy in short Impact biomass cultivation rotation of woody High nutrient leakage for some crops and inappropriate High and inappropriate nutrient leakage some crops for farming practices Often high nutrient input and excessive use of biocidesOften high nutrient input and excessive annual crops; to nutrient input compared lower SRC have Increased opportunities to gain revenues for farmers, farmers, for Increased opportunities gain revenues to un - and payments incentives by mainly driven however react der the German Act; option to Renewable Energy market demands every period vegetation different to and land buy; crop diversity is reduced, monocultures monocultures and land buy; is reduced, diversity crop value of high nature in some cases conversion increase, fields into grassland High risks for erosion by wind and rain, when there is no is no when there wind and rain, by High erosion risks for crops by cover Groundwater levels depend on cultivated crops, water water crops, depend on cultivated levels Groundwater fertilisersby quality and pesticides can be affected tion on ES on the example of corn, rape and cereals compared to cultivation of woody biomass in short rotation coppices (derived (derived biomass in short of woody coppices cultivation to rotation compared and cereals rape of corn, tion on ES the example - -sink, emission of 2 CO Energy input for planting, planting, input for Energy pesticide treat fertilizing, and harvestment greenhouse gases greenhouse Factor Nutrient leaching Nutrient input Income of farmers, Income of farmers, for land tenure by income land owners Land use, crop rotation crop Land use, land tenure for prices increasing prices, Increasing food Vegetation cover Vegetation Groundwater level, mois - level, Groundwater in soils content ture Impacts cultiva crop of energy

- -storage Table 4.3 Table 2

ES . from Lupp et al. 2011 , modified) et al. Lupp from Nutrient and Nutrient and - humus regula tion Provisioning Services Provisioning Providing biomass for pur energy poses Reduction of soil erosion - provi Water sioning Regulatory Services CO 115 4.4 • Complex Analyses, Evaluation and Modelling of ES 4 - coppices (SRC) coppices Lower water runoff, water retention effects increase with with effects increase retention water runoff, water Lower of SRC and size height increased Lower nutrient input in groundwater and water purification purification and water nutrient input in groundwater Lower annual crops to compared Lower groundwater recharge rates due to dense vegetation dense vegetation due to rates recharge groundwater Lower annual crops, to compared rates higher interception cover, be lowered might levels groundwater Higher resilience for pests, pest infestation is often less harm - pest infestation pests, for Higher resilience ), with rust ( Melampsora problems however perennials, ful for mice) (e.g. beetles ( Melasoma populi ) and rodents Trees are harvested before they are mature, some willow spe some willow mature, they are harvested before are Trees cies can be used as nectar source Habitat and nesting for bird species depending on hedges species depending on hedges bird and nesting for Habitat mainly ubiquist species; conversion however and woodland, nesting birds ground for habitat reduce of fields Few high yield (hybrid) species, genetically modified species, genetically modified species, species, high yield (hybrid) Few periods longer rotation structures within a SRC, however few with 2–5 (20) years - - Impacts of annual energy crops (corn, rape or cereals) rape Impacts (corn, crops of annual energy in short Impact biomass cultivation rotation of woody Intensive water runoff when there is no vegetation cover cover vegetation is no runoff when there water Intensive corn) especially for (relevant High nutrient input in groundwater leads to increased increased leads to High nutrient input in groundwater quality not fulfill might water purification, water for costs be provided has to water law, set by minimum standards regions less affected from Higher groundwater recharge rates compared to perellial perellial to compared rates recharge Higher groundwater SRC or forests crops, Higher pest risks, greater hazards due to increased increased due to hazards Higher greater pest risks, ( Ostrinia) nubilalis borer corn of European spreading vir virgifera ( Diabrotica rootworm corn or western use of biocides or genetically modified ), increased gifera plants Corn and cereals are wind pollinated and provide no no and provide wind pollinated are and cereals Corn has only a insects, rape pollinating nourishment for crop energy short periodIntensive in spring, flowering therefore vegetation, accompanying reduces cultivation pollinating for of permanent sources amount no larger insects Intensive cultivation provides little habitat for species species for little habitat provides cultivation Intensive practices, land management on less intensive dependent ortolan ( Emberiza hortulana bunting e.g. ), skylark ( Alauda arvensis matureness ), early harvest in summer before migrat (e.g. species depending on grains for feed reduce like geese) ing birds Intensive cultivation, few different species, genetically genetically species, different few cultivation, Intensive harvestvegetation, few accompanying modified species, maturation before Factor Water runoff Water Pesticides in groundwater in groundwater Pesticides water for cost bodies, purification Groundwater level Groundwater Resilience of biocides used Amount Amount of pollinating of pollinating Amount insects Bird species Bird Cultivated species, types types species, Cultivated - cultiva and proveniences, of and forms tion patterns land use Continued

Table 4.3 Table . ES - reten Water tion Water purifica - Water tion Groundwater Groundwater recharge Pest control Pest Pollination Biodiversity 116 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

4 Accompanying vegetation and fauna increases but mainly but mainly and fauna increases vegetation Accompanying periods, ubiquist species; when managed with longer rotation structuring some extent for landscapes to SRC can contribute loss of however infrastructure; a green to and contribute or fallow impact low agriculture, when SRC replace habitats, grasslands value land or high nature marginal coppices (SRC) coppices No direct ethical conflicts, since woody biomass derived from from woody biomass derived since No direct ethical conflicts, con - Farmland is indirect effects: SRC is non edible; however production food production and lost for energy verted for New landscape elements, can sometimes pick up traditional can sometimes pick up traditional New landscape elements, culti - willow or actland-use forms as modern interpretations, landscape element be a common ( Salix) used to vation spec. of in the context today in the past, basket-weaving used for production modern, sustainable energy research No visibility, vistas are blocked except a few months after after months a few blocked except vistas are No visibility, after months harvesting a few and for initial planting Can structure large agricultural landscapes agricultural structure large Can - - ; Windhorst 2004 ; Windhorst et al. 2003 ; Londo 2000 ; Liesebach and Mulsow ; Heidmann et al. b ment and biocides ment Few accompanying vegetation, few habitats for animals animals for habitats few vegetation, accompanying Few insects soil treat and small mammals), Intensive (e.g. Impacts of annual energy crops (corn, rape or cereals) rape Impacts (corn, crops of annual energy in short Impact biomass cultivation rotation of woody The use of cereals and other plants suiting for human nu - suiting for and other plants use of cereals The an ethical perspective from negative trition is perceived and starvation food in developing for prices (increasing countries) Traditional land-use forms and specialised crops disap and specialised crops land-use forms Traditional species diminish of less productive cultivation pear, Only few species, research mainly on increasing yields mainly on increasing research species, Only few object and multidisciplinary New land-use form, of numerous Visibility is reduced and vistas blocked in summer (e.g. and vistas blocked in summer (e.g. is reduced Visibility in winter views stands), distant high corn Mainly monocultures and large unstructured fields, unstructured fields, and large Mainly monocultures seasonality and dif - however shortened rotation, crop year;attractive of fields during the appearance ferent blooming in spring rape yellow - - vegeta Accompanying tion and fauna Factor compared to energy crop crop energy to compared cultivation - tradi heritage, Cultural tional farming practices Energy crops in research in research crops Energy projects Visibility, vistas, view vistas, Visibility, ing unique, landscape landscape ing unique, features Diversity of landscape of landscape Diversity patterns Continued

Table 4.3 Table . ES Sociocultural Services valuesEthical production of food Share Identity Education Education value Landscape Landscape aesthetics , ; Börjesson 1999a 1998 Walsh Kort; McLaughlin collected by and Based on data 1998 et al. ; Rowe et al. 2009 ; et al. 2009 ; HillierRowe 2008 ; Ericsson et al. et al. et al. 2008 ; Lee 2005 ; SRU 2007; Bardt 2005 ; NABU Rode et al. 2005 ; Burger 2004 ¸Bringezu and Steger et al. 2010 et al. 2010 ; Greiff Cherubini and Stromman 117 4.4 • Complex Analyses, Evaluation and Modelling of ES 4

Current land use Increased cultivation of corn for energy purposes Cultivation of short rotation coppice

Biomass production for energy purposes 5 Raw materials for Fodder for livestock 4 industrial needs

3 Spiritual value of Profit for farmers landscapes 2

1 Provision of drinking Carbon fixation 0 water

Prevention of soil Outdoor recreation erosion opportunities

Water retention Pollinating insects

Biodiversity

. Fig. 4.14 Exemplary diagram of ES modification yb energy crop cultivation

zz Scenarios All three scenarios lead to different land-use pat- Scenario analyses aim to determine impacts of bio- terns. In the ‘Biomass’ scenario, the share of corn mass production. Undesirable effects (Trade-offs, increases. High-nature-value grassland along riv- disservices) should be eliminated or at least be mini- ulets will be replaced by short-rotation coppice. mised. As demonstrated in 7 Sect. 4.3, scenarios are Land use will be intensified to compensate the loss suitable to evaluate the time and space aspect and of agricultural land needed for biomass production. to compare and weight different resulting develop- The third scenario ‘optimising ES’ will result in di- ments or different options for action. Scenarios also versified land-use patterns. provide many possibilities to involve stakeholders. In the Moritzburg small-hilly landscape 10 km zz Biophysical Approaches north of Dresden, expert-based scenarios were cre- To assess the impacts of an increased cultivation of ated describing impacts of different policies result- energy crops on biodiversity and ES, expert-based ing in distinct laws and incentives like EU common approaches of landscape planning can be used. agricultural payments for farmers. These assump- They are described in many methodological hand- tions lead to scenarios allowing for impact assess- books e.g. in Bastian and Schreiber (1999). Usu- ments for different possible developments. The ally, semiquantitative assessments of the landscape three scenarios are: functions, a subject of protection, a potential or 55 First scenario: Abandonment of livestock risks, or–speaking in terms of provisioning–ES are 55 Second scenario: Biomass production for en- carried out. Usually a five-step Lickert scale is used ergy purposes stretching from ‘very good condition’ to ‘very bad 55 Third scenario: Optimising ES from a nature condition’. Items evaluated are e.g. erosion sensi- conservation point of view tivity, scenic quality or biodiversity that might be affected by large scale monocultures like rape or 118 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

corn (. Table 4.3). Often impacts on eye-catching other interest groups in decision-making (UBA species like skylark or lapwing are analyzed. They 2000; Förster et al. 2001). Therefore, it is useful to serve as umbrella species for certain types of habi- integrate key stakeholders in each research step, to tats or groups. Choosing them helps raising aware- let them participate, and to involve them actively ness among different stakeholder groups and lay in the project process. For example, it is possible to persons for more conceptual approaches like bio- involve them in the scenario work, e.g. by letting diversity or ES. them decide about key drivers (7 Sect. 4.3). To mo- bilise stakeholders from different institutions, ac- 4 zz Monetary Approaches tivating interviews can be conducted to see which Many ES can have economic values, e.g. a demand way the wind is blowing and to produce interest in for ES on markets exists or the provisioning or an active participation in workshops (L.I.S.T. 2011). maintenance has costs (Baumgärtner 2002), e.g. Our own results in the Upper Lusatian Land- forest growth simulators like SILVA 2.2 also inte- scape and the Ore Mountains showed that stake- grate economic evaluations (Pretzsch 2001). For holders and land users often do not decide on agriculture, econometric decision models exist and the basis of maximising profits, but also consider also provide information on economic effects of dif- non-monetary values like traditions, attitudes, and ferent management objectives (Kächele and Zander even ethical values. They are often convinced that 1999). With these models, decisions of foresters and providing different ES for society is very important, farmers can be described and effects of legal or regu- even if they are unfamiliar with the concept of ES. latory frameworks can be implemented (e.g. mix of different tree species or crop rotation). The models zz Regulation of Energy Crop Cultivation describe developments when managers would sole- The cultivation of energy crops and woody bio- ly act in rational profit maximising terms. mass is mainly regulated by market prizes, incen- Another option is to use opportunity costs tives paid to farmers under the European Union (7 Sect. 4.1). They quantify losses, which derive Common Agricultural Policy and direct or indirect from maintaining low impact practices on fields in payments under the German renewable energy favour of biodiversity. For example, it can be calcu- act (EEG 2008). It is therefore necessary to assess lated how much money would be lost if a farmer different steering instruments to see whether they does not cultivate small patches in large-scale fields can regulate energy crop production effectively and to provide habitat for skylark (Brüggemann 2009). what impacts occur on ES. It can be stated that only single ES are consid- zz Demand-Based Approaches ered in laws and incentives in Germany, and they One option to assess the demand for ES are sur- not as a whole. Often, no Safe Minimum Standards veys among the population. For example, the au- are defined. Laws often demand that ‘deterioration thor-conducted interviews at different locations has to be prevented’ or ‘good farming practices’ within the study area led to interesting results. have to be used. However, ‘good farming practices’ The provisioning of drinking water and habitat are more a mere code of conduct rather than safe for plants and animals is considered to be very minimum standards (Hafner 2010). important for the interviewees, while providing renewable energy from biomass is almost irrelevant. 4.4.3 Application of Models of InVEST to Assess Ecosystem Services zz Transdisciplinarity and Participation Transdisciplinary approaches are characterised by M. Holfeld, M. Rosenberg close cooperation between researchers and practitioners. The idea is to implement the work to solve Models are representations of reality. They might real-life problems (Müller et al. 2000). Participa- be images, intellectual and linguistic constructs or tion means active involvement of stakeholders and mathematical formulas. The modelling of ecosys- 119 4.4 • Complex Analyses, Evaluation and Modelling of ES 4 tem services initially provides an abstract repre- bination with ArcGIS (ESRI), which provides the sentation of ecosystems, of processes taking place cartographic representation of the ecosystem ser- and of potential changes. This is already covered by vices evaluation. Meanwhile, a cooperation with ecosystem models to a quite good extent. The chal- Idrisi is also under development (7 www.clarklabs. lenge, however, is to incorporate the demand and org/about/Clark-Labs-Receives-Grant-from-Moore- benefit into the models. Foundation.cfm). In this respect, the following model approaches The development and administration of the me- are currently of special relevance: Integrated Valu- ta-model is realised by the Natural Capital Project ation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST, with participation of several well-known American 7 www.naturalcapitalproject.org), Artificial Intel- research institutions, as well as by Nature Conser- ligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES, 7 www. vancy and by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) (Nat- ariesonline.org), the BGS ecosystem services model ural Capital Project 2012). Depending on the needs (7 www.bgs.ac.uk) and Multi-scale Integrated Mod- and expertise of the user different models with els of Ecosystem Services (MIMES, 7 www.uvm. varying levels of complexity will be provided–from edu). All these approaches aim to simplify reality the simple analysis of existing relationships using a so that the integrated relationships of ecosystem small amount of data up to a complex model, which services can be considered. includes different scenarios and feedback on the In this section, the open source modelling ap- comprehensive analysis of ecosystem services (Nel- proach InVEST will be introduced and experiences son et al. 2008; Daily et al. 2009). However, current- of its application for a case study will be discussed. ly only simplified procedures are offered, so that the According to the developers, InVEST is suitable models only require a small amount of input data. to be used for an integrated assessment of ecosys- Nevertheless, the open source model InVEST is tem services at a local, regional or global scale. It already taking into account significant aspects of a has been used around the world in numerous lo- two-dimensional modelling approach of ecosystem cal and national projects and studies, as well as in services. These include the spatial mapping and lo- day-to-day decision-making processes (Daily et al. calisation of services and welfare effects in GIS, an 2009; Nelson et al. 2009; Tallis and Polasky 2009; integrated view of supply services, regulatory ser- Bhagabati et al. 2012). Examples of its application vices as well as sociocultural services (TEEB 2009; include the Willamette Basin in Oregon, Oahu on Tallis et al. 2011). Furthermore, basic abiotic and Hawaii, British Columbia, California, Puget Sound biotic environmental parameters are incorporated in Washington State, the Eastern Arc Mountains of into the assessment process. Thus, the quantifica- Tanzania, the upper Yangtze River Basin in China, tion of ecosystem services within the individual Sumatra, the Amazon Basin and the Northern An- models is not only based on the land use of the past, des in South America as well as Ecuador and Co- present and future, but incorporates additional pa- lombia. In the course of the realisation of the case rameters when necessary. studies, the focus is set on the identification and Based on the 14 models currently included, protection of important areas for biodiversity and InVEST enables a biophysical and partly economic ecosystem services, as well as on the demonstration evaluation of a selection of ecosystem services of of their relations. terrestrial as well as maritime systems. In . Table 4.4 the seven terrestrial models for the description of Characterisation of the Model Approach services and products of land and freshwater are of InVEST presented and assigned to corresponding classes of InVEST was developed as a scenario tool to sup- ecosystem services. port decision-making in environmental planning In addition to the final results of the individual processes. The basis of the evaluation of ecosystem models, partial results and intermediates are also services is ecological characteristics and methods taken into account. However, those partial results of assessing economic values (Nelson et al. 2009; cannot be clearly assigned in every case to an eco- Tallis and Polasky 2009). InVEST is usable in com- 120 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

. Table 4.4 Terrestrial InVEST-models for assessment of ecosystem services (Tallis et al. 2011; date: May 2012)

InVEST-Modules Ecosystem Services Indicators, partial results and intermediates 7 Sect. 3.2

Biodiversity Habitat quality – Habitat quality R.11 – Relative level of habitat degradation – Relative habitat rarity

Carbon storage Economic value of car- – Amount of carbon stored V.6; V.8; R.2; R.3 and sequestra- bon sequestered – Difference of carbon stored in future and tion current landscape 4 – Volume and biomass of forest management

Reservoir Economic benefit of hy- – Total water yield per sub-watershed V.12; R.5 hydropower dropower production – Mean water supply yield volume per sub- production watershed – Total energy produced per watershed (in kWh)

Water purifica- Economic benefit of – Total water yield per sub-watershed R.5; R.6 tion: nutrient nutrient retention by – Total amount of nutrient retained by each retention filtration sub-watershed (in kg) – Mean amount of nutrient retained

Sediment reten- Avoiding costs of sedi- – Total potential soil loss per sub-watershed R.7 tion mentation (for dredging – Mean sediment retained on each sub- and water treatment) watershed

Managed timber Net present economic – Volume and biomass of forest management V.6; V.8 production value of timber production

Crop pollination Potential value of the – Potential likely abundance of a pollinator R.10 pollinator supply for each species nesting in the landscape, given the agricultural land use to availability of nesting sites there and of food crop production – Relative farm value of crop production on each agricultural cell due to wild pollinators

system service as presented in 7 Sect. 3.2. An assign- has to meet certain requirements. For example, the ment of models according to productive, regulatory regional and language settings need to be changed or sociocultural ecosystem services or welfare ef- to ‘English (USA)’ in the system panel. This ensures fects will not occur. Nevertheless, each individual that decimals are determined by a point, not a com- model and its background is explained briefly. A ma (as with German settings). Otherwise, incor- categorisation according to the welfare effect is not rect results or even system crashes can be caused as possible as some of the models do not describe a di- the model scripts are unable to collect and process rect performance, product, or process of ecosystem commas of the input parameters. Furthermore, services, but rather demonstrate risks–and, there- a recent ArcGIS licence is required, while some fore, describe impacts on the functionality of an models even require the ArcInfo licence level. In area at a certain land use (e.g. sediment trapping). addition, installation and activation of the ArcGIS The programme language of all models listed is Spatial Analyst extension is required. Moreover, the Python, which is also usable within ArcGIS. How- model for the assessment of pollination as well as all ever, for calculations based on InVEST basically models for assessing the maritime system require no knowledge of Python programming is needed, additional Python library extensions, such as Nu- instead the usage of InVEST-models requires basic meric Python, Scientific Library for Python, Python to intermediate skills in handling ArcGIS (Tallis et for Windows and Matplotlib as well as for ArcGIS al. 2011). Furthermore, the computer system used 9.3, the Geospatial Data Abstraction Library. 121 4.4 • Complex Analyses, Evaluation and Modelling of ES 4

Model InVEST

The scenario tool InVEST can be or background knowledge. To apply for objects according to the instruc- downloaded from the website of InVEST to your own research the in- tions of the user manual, also taking the Natural Capital Project (7 www. put data for each individual model into account general limitations of naturalcapitalproject.org). The needs to be adjusted to the specific data management in geoinformat- installation of the programme is study area according to the require- ics. Furthermore, it needs to be very user-friendly as an entire folder ments for each model. Partly, some considered that the computation structure with all scripts and train- of these data can be found in open time of the models depends on the ing data will be unpacked–given source databases of different state resolution of the raster data at the the appropriate installation file is agencies or individual studies. For beginning and at the end of the selected for downloading. New us- such data, the format needs to be modelling process. Thus, in order to ers of InVEST benefit from a struc- adjusted in analogy to the demo- accelerate the calculation a lower tured data provision, as they can data. This includes compliance spatial resolution (grid cell size) is open the programme and test the with the original names of column recommended. models without a lot of prior skills headers and with the conventions

Continuous development of the individual by adopting variables for land use as defined in the models of InVEST aims to lead to a steady improve- matrices (i.e. as in the fixation of carbon), and end ment in modelling. In this context, users need to with aggregated, buffered, overlaid calculations (as consider the increasing demands on hardware and in biodiversity) or with neighbourhood analysis (as software. Currently, an ArcGIS 9.3 or 10 licence is in aesthetics), where a decreasing influence is com- required, because specific calculation algorithms of puted based on land use. Results are either rela- it are used in the models of InVEST. tive values between 0 and 1, absolute values with indicators and/or economised assessments of the Example of Use provided ecosystem services in the form of raster While working on the project ‘Landscape Saxony maps and tables. 2050’ (7 www.ioer.de/index.php?id=812) at the In the following example, the biodiversity Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional model and its calculation has been selected out of Development almost all terrestrial and one mari- the mentioned InVEST models for assessments of time model of InVEST were selected and applied ecosystem services, and will be processed for the to the study area–the district of Görlitz in Eastern district of Görlitz. This particular model has been Saxony, Germany. Those models include reser- chosen as it is characterised by high complexity, but voir hydropower production, sediment retention, also because of its variety of possibilities to integrate aesthetic quality, biodiversity–habitat quality and additional parameters in the calculation process, rarity, carbon storage and sequestration, managed and, furthermore, because of the key significance timber production and crop pollination. When of biodiversity as well as the possibility to represent the simplest level of complexity in InVEST is a comprehensive topic in a highly simplified form. used, most of these models are based on a matrix Using the model biodiversity, two assessments in which average performance parameters are as- can be carried out: habitat quality and the degree of signed to the individual land use. The variables can exposure of habitat rarity. The latter describes the represent both absolute values like stored carbon current decrease of the area of a habitat (in this case of in tons per hectare, as well as relative values, with land use) within a certain space compared to an earli- the highest value usually being defined as 1, while er time. However, the actual risk or the consequences all other values are represented in their proportion of habitat rarity are not determined or identified. to that. Depending on the programming of the in- The selected area of investigation with an extent dividual models calculations are taking place at dif- of approximately 2106 km2 is located in the border ferent levels of complexity. These calculations begin area of Germany, the Republic of Poland and the 122 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

. Fig. 4.15 Land-use classes, habitat value and sensitivity of habitat types to each threat (screenshot of the example of use of InVEST in the district of Görlitz)

Czech Republic. The district has a wide variety of to simplify the modelling, the classes are all com- habitats, which reach from lowlands to highlands. bined into one aggregated BTLNK mapping with 25 Open brown coal mining and recultivation have classes (BTLNK_25). Eventually, their contents are brought large-scale changes. Noteworthy are cul- provided in a grid with a resolution of 20 m. tural and historical particularities, such as folk ar- In addition, a relative habitat value (Habitat) chitecture (Umgebindehäuser) and the culture of for each land-use class needs to be defined with- the Sorbs, a Slavic ethnic group. Rare species such in a spreadsheet in relation to the other classes as otters, cranes, eagles and more recently even (. Fig. 4.15). Those values range from 0 (unsuit- wolves, find suitable habitats here. In addition, the able) to 1 (perfectly suitable as Habitat). In order to region is both demographically and economically define the habitat values for this case study, non- affected by a strong change 7( Sect. 4.3). species-specific information according to Bastian By selecting the chosen model from the tool- and Schreiber (1999) are used. These are param- box of InVEST, a dialogue box opens. There, the eters that do not document habitat qualities of spe- input data and the folders for the results need to cific species or groups of species (species of open be defined. Thus, the existing paths of the sample land, forest or of aquatic and wetland sites), but data provided by InVEST need to be replaced with assign general assessments to individual habitat actual data of the chosen study area. The input data types with regard to their importance for species for the delineation of habitats are based on maps and area protection. of land use and land cover, for which the habitat In addition to determining the general habitat types and land use mapping (BTLNK) of the Free quality of each land-use, threats that may affect this State of Saxony from 1992 and 2005 are used. These habitat quality are also determined such as high- maps reflect a variety of land use classes. In order ways, federal roads, state roads, district roads and 123 4.4 • Complex Analyses, Evaluation and Modelling of ES 4 local roads as well as railway lines, which were ex- greater than 0. The output of the calculation results tracted from the Digital Landscape Model (ATKIS in a grid, which values of Rj are each projected onto Base-DLM) on a scale of 1:25,000 for both years of all present land-use areas (i.e. for the second point the investigation and converted into a raster for- of time). A partial result of this calculation step is mat. The areal threats of additionally considered a map representing the area development of land- urban and agricultural areas are based on the cov- use classes (a so-called exposure of change in use) erage of BTLNK_25. between a base year (here 1992) and a later point in Thus, the dimension of degradation, which is time (in this case study 2005). solely caused by the respective sensitivity of habitat Taking into account the sensitivities of each types to each threat, has been defined between 0 present land use (. Fig. 4.15), the impact of each and 1 (. Fig. 4.15) based on an evaluation of the grid cell on its surrounding grid cells is determined influence of the mentioned threats on the habitat within a second step by using the maximum range quality of the identified land-use classes. The value and impact across space for each threat and each 1 presents the highest impact, the value 0 no or im- grid cell. The individual effects of each threat on the perceptible degradation. Thus, a land use that is not grid cells are then summed up, which may show the displayed as Habitat (Habitat = 0) has no coefficient impact of a threat on habitat quality. Considering of degradation by threat. the weights of the individual threats (. Fig. 4.15) the Finally, the threats have been characterised impacts of the threats on habitat quality are aggre- based on their relative importance or weight and gated. The result of the summed degradation (Dxj impact across space–range in kilometers and as degradation of habitats) can be represented and whether the impact of the threat decreases linearly compared in a raster map for the respective refer- or exponentially across space. A value of 1 is a linear ence year. decline in impact and 0 an exponential decline. The In the last step, according to Eq. 4.2, the spe- maximum range is based on the findings of Baier cific habitat quality (Qzj) is calculated as an index (2000); the remaining parameters were defined by by merging the aggregated degradation Dxj (includ- the authors. ing the half-saturation value k) with the reclassi- After completing and confirming the input fied land-use classes represented as habitat quality data, the calculation is started. In this process, the values (Hj). The half-saturation value is determined individual steps are recorded in a separate process as half of the highest grid cell degradation value in window. Based on the information provided by the the study area. The exponent z corresponds to the habitat values of individual land-use classes from value 2.5. . Fig. 4.15, a reclassification of land-use maps is tak- z ing place (H as general habitat quality). Simultane- Dzj (4.2) j QH=−1  ously, the area sizes of individual land-use classes in zj j zz Dkzj + the study area for the base year 1992 are compared to 2005 (the degree of hazard habitat rarity). For this application, the Eq. 4.1 is used. As a first result of the modelling of the biodiversity by InVEST, the risk level of the habitats (in this N case of the land-use classes) is presented in terms j (4.1) R j =−1 of their area sizes. In the context of the case study N j base year in the district of Görlitz, it was found that between 1992 and 2005 in particular the following land-use

Rj represents the degree of change of the individual categories were affected by a strong reduction of land uses in the study area compared to the base their extent in proportion to their respective to- year, Nj defines the area size of individual land tal area in the base year: reforested areas, fallow uses in the base year and the current year. Is ground, mining areas as well as areas for transport

Nj ≥ Nj base year , so Rj ≤ 0 and the result is Rj = 0, and infrastructure. In addition, a decrease of the otherwise there is a change in land use and Rj is extent of meadows and pastures was discovered. 124 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

. Fig. 4.16 Results of the assessment of InVEST model habitat quality in the diestrict of Görlitz for 1992 (left) and 2005 (right)

Next, the aggregated degradation as impact of between the base year 1992 and the year 2005 based threats is presented for the study area. Thus, the on bluegray-scale values in the map (. Fig. 4.16, left highest negative influences are detected at the versus right) is hardly possible and also not possible border of urban areas and along main traffic in- as they rely on different databases. In order to com- frastructure (highways and federal roads). The in- pare the habitat quality of both points in time, the termediate areas show no or hardly any perceptible sum over all grid cells of a year must be calculated. threats. The same is found for the urban areas of the The model completes this calculation automatically study area, which cannot be affected by any threat and writes its result into a log file, in which all input as they have not been assigned to the habitat func- parameters are logged as well. Thus, the summed tion in the model. quality for 5,304,420 grid cells in the base year 1992 Based on the result of the degradation, and is 2,857,030. The total value for 2005 is 2,884,710. taking into account the given habitat value of each The habitat quality as an overall value for the dis- land use, the specific habitat quality of each grid cell trict of Görlitz has improved slightly between the is mapped (. Fig. 4.16). Thus, the highest habitat two assessment years, although spatially differenti- values are found mainly in the wooded north com- ated large-scale degradation in habitat quality is de- pared to the strongly agricultural influenced south termined, for example, due to changes in land use. of the district. However, their scope has been fully compensated The lowest habitat values are found in the large by other sub-areas within the study area. Many urban areas as well as in a linear manner in the steps are similar to the approaches of conventional settlements along the main roads. A comparison landscape planning. 125 4.4 • Complex Analyses, Evaluation and Modelling of ES 4

Discussion basis for the study area. Thus, it is possible to evalu- The results of the analysis of biodiversity with ate the ecosystem services appropriately despite InVEST offer a simplified representation of the real spatially separated locations for the demand and habitat quality in the study area. Using the input the provision of a service. However, the demand data of Bastian and Schreiber (1999) average habi- oriented approach is currently not available for all tat values depending on the habitat type have been models contained in InVEST. Likewise, it needs to used for the district of Görlitz. be considered if, for example, there is no water res- As an intermediate the degradation of habitats ervoir (modul: hydropower production), no service (degree of threats of habitats) was calculated, which of energy can be provided. show the downgrading of the habitat quality due to The modelling with graded levels of complexity selected infrastructural threats. Within the model- based existing approaches for specific modelling of ling, it is basically assumed that the impacts of indi- landscape functions–such as SWAT or USLE (Tallis vidual threats are adding up. In reality, however, their and Polasky 2009), allows to define the choice of effect might be significantly higher (Tallis et al. 2011). the model complexity on the availability of data or Furthermore, it should be mentioned that the result on the user group. While simple models contribute is only one example out of many concerning habitat to a better understanding of the relationships of the qualities, depending on the selection and consider- ecosystem services, the more complex models are ation of individual threats as well as the considered intended to estimate the precisely measured ser- habitats or species (Nelson et al. 2008, 2009). vices. Along with the desired development of the Due to the manner of spatial location, the ex- models, including further parameters, the demand amination of habitat rarity seems hardly useful. for providing better data as well as the operabil- However, the consideration of the change in land ity of InVEST increases (Tallis and Polasky 2009). use within the biodiversity model is to be regarded Therefore, the provision of data and data sources in as absolutely reasonable. But for this, a simple tran- a central database would be desirable for different sition matrix between the different land uses would study areas in order to minimise the research work. be sufficient. The current form of presentation is Due to the relevance to ArcGIS, results can be to be considered as very critical. Land-use types, represented spatially in different scales (Daily et al. which experience no absolute reduction or absolute 2009). In order to do so it is crucial to have suf- increase in areal extent for the entire study area, are ficient specific and differentiated information as not assigned any degree of hazard. This includes input data for a certain study area. Furthermore, land uses that are subject to areal change in land it has to be noted that the size of the study area de- use in one part of the study area being fully com- pends on the considered ecosystem services (Tallis pensated in another part. and Polasky 2009). For example, water-based ser- As shown by the example of the biodiversity vices or pollination are of greater importance at model, due to the low complexity of its individ- a local scale (7 Sect. 3.3) while climate-regulating ual models InVEST is easy to operate–as long as processes require a global scale. the user has at least basic working knowledge of In addition to cartographic outcomes, results geographic information systems. Through the re- can be exported in a tabular form. The present results, some simplified relationships between land sults, however, are not suitable for professional use, use and biodiversity or ecosystem services can be such as in the development of detailed water and discovered (Polasky et al. 2008; Daily et al. 2009; landscape plans or environmental audits as many Nelson et al. 2009; Tallis and Polasky 2009). Here functions and interactions are still negligible (Tallis the focus is more directed at the ecosystem services et al. 2011). Similarly, the balance of costs and bene considering supply and demand than on biophysi- fits of differentodels m of InVEST is controversial cal processes. According to the current state of de- even among developers, and certain ecosystem velopment of the models, an economic value can be services, such as biodiversity (habitat quality), can- assigned to an individual basis for a produced unit not be represented economically. The monetisation or for a specific process, which is used as a valuation 126 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

is furthermore criticised, because its assessment different questions of content, spatial and/or tem- depends on spatial, temporal and sociocultural as- poral nature and still show significant deficits pects that within InVEST cannot yet be considered (Nelson et al. 2009). as differentiated as their findings (Tallis and Polasky With InVEST, an instrument is currently be- 2009). In general, average parameters are used for ing developed, which is close to achieving the ex- each evaluation of ecosystem services, which limit isting requirements for an evaluation of ecosystem the validity of the result depending on the aspect to services. In contrast to Burkhard et al. (2009) and be researched and the scale of the study area. Koschke et al. (2012), who already allow a holistic 4 With InVEST, the Natural Capital Project pro- view of the ecosystem services within demarcated vides an evaluation process with great potential, areas, the InVEST approach is also observing other even though it currently still has certain modelling biotic and abiotic parameters in addition to land weaknesses. One positive aspect is that InVEST is use. However, the integration of those parameters offered as an open source model, although its al- is still at the beginning and needs further develop- gorithms are sometimes highly complex. The open ment in order to allow differentiated analyses of the approach also allows less-experienced program- ecosystem services (Nelson et al. 2009). Besides the mers to understand the calculation steps. The open development of computational algorithms within development of the individual models ensures that the models, well structured access to quantifiable both experts and laymen may submit suggestions to data needs to be build up as the data availabil- improve the modelling. At the same time, provid- ity is still quite limited. Simultaneously, methods ing InVEST free of charge is supporting the rapid are required, which allow the often individually spread and development. The disadvantage of the evaluated ecosystem services to be compared and continuous development of the models is that de- weighed up against other and to communicate their velopers are always focussing on the latest versions results (Holfeld et al. 2012). of ESRI ArcGIS in order to incorporate the latest features from ArcGIS. Thus, increased system requirements of hardware are needed, but also the 4.5 Communicating ES latest ArcGIS licences. In conclusion, despite the identified criticism K. Anders and existing weaknesses, it can be summarised that InVEST is a remarkable method to evaluate small as well as large-scale ecosystem services and to compare 4.5.1 The Importance of different regions, especially as the effort to define the Communication input data is still small and the use of the individual models is relatively easy. However, the modelling In recent years, an entire new field of research, procedures and results always need to be examined that of sustainability communication, has emerged critically in order to avoid false conclusions. which investigates the possibilities of communication regarding environmental issues. It encom- Conclusion passes a broad gradient of the issues which have Models provide exceptional opportunities to ana been handled in various ways in various disciplines, lyse and evaluate ecosystem services. With them, in terms of their theoretical foundations, method- the landscape change that has already taken place ological approaches, and practical areas of applica- as well as scenarios of future developments can be tion (Michelsen and Godemann 2005). In the pres- subject of an assessment. Therefore, decision-mak- ent chapter, we will be able to examine only a few ers as well as the affected population can identify systemic decisions. The basic fact is that without relationships and interactions of their action. Thus, appropriate communication, ecological issues will the knowledge and communication of ecosystem have no chance of validation in society. Only by way services is strengthened. The various existing ap- of communication can the relevant information in proaches to evaluate ecosystem services focus on the social systems even be selected, informed and 127 4.5 • Communicating ES 4 understood. Communication is therefore the key ous levels having been clearly defined. Wilson and process of societal autopoiesis for social systems, Piper (2010) characterised the ES use of language i.e. it is through communication that they produce ‘as a route to better understanding their importance and reproduce themselves (based on Luhmann, and also of improving their protection.’ this range of issues has e.g. been precisely circum- As a result, the term ‘services’ has been vari- scribed by Schack 2004). ously used, and the term broadly stretched. The However, how this process actually proceeds authors of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment can be influenced only to a limited degree (Zie- admit as much: ‘The condition of each category is mann 2005). The feasibility of communication is evaluated in somewhat different ways, although in widely overestimated; the definition of communi- general a full assessment of any service requires cation is often mechanically reduced to a more or consideration of stocks, flows and resilience of less complicated relationship between the broad- the service’ (MEA 2005a, p. 29). While the term casters in the receiver. The German phrase com- in such areas as supply functions has generally re- monly used today, ‘I’m communicating this or that,’ mained relatively closely oriented towards the usual erroneously even suggests the possibility of engag- use of the language about a service (for people; the ing in communication with no counterpart. How- implicit anthropomorphism is justified pragmati- ever, the difficulties involved in being in control of cally), cultural services must be located more in the the communications process do not imply that it network of interrelationships between humankind, is fundamentally unshapeable. Rather, one’s own nature and the landscape (MEA 2005a; Freese and role as a participant in that process can certainly Anders 2010). Regulatory services, on the other provide opportunities to put forward arguments, hand, involve first of all the self-organisational ca- positions and assessments. In order to identify free pacity of an ecosystem; the advantages for people spaces for the societal validation of ES for a num- are thus indirect. ber of very different fields of application–from ad- This leads to a difficulty of operationalisation: vertising to discourse–i.e. if we are to assume that various processes incorporated under ES are to be communications, in spite of its internal dynamics, found in particular landscapes and very different is a shapeable process (Schack 2004), we will first qualities, which resulted a problem of evaluation have to take a more detailed look at the intentions criteria. There are ES which can basically be pro- connected with the term ‘ecosystem services.’ vided in unlimited quantity (e.g. soil formation), while others undoubtedly violate the principles of sustainability, if their activation is not kept within 4.5.2 ‘Ecosystem Services’ as an limits. Often, these services are rendered at the cost Umbrella Term for of others (Trade-offs; Stallmann 2011; 7 Sect. 3.1.2), Communicative Intent resulting in requirements for a balancing of interests which have to date remained methodologically The concept of ecosystem services is based on a unresolved as long as the concept of planning con- very large number of different properties of ecosys- texts is to be used. This series of imprecisions recalls tems and landscapes. The initially very summary Luhmann’s assessment of ecological communica- systematics of supply, regulation and sociocultural tions in the sciences (. Fig. 4.17): ES (7 Sect. 3.2) does not follow any scientific–ana- “The carelessness in the choice of words and the lytical or systematic–necessity; rather, it is designed lack of awareness of theory-related decisions of to ensure that asymmetric processes and perspec- great consequence are among the most notable tives attained public recognition within the context characteristics of this literature–as if care for the of a certain topicality. A similar strategy was used environment could justify carelessness in the several years earlier around the concept of bio- speech concerning it. (Luhmann 2008, p. 8)” logical diversity, in which genetic diversity, species diversity and landscape diversity were brought to- Whether ecosystem services have indeed become gether without the relationship between these vari- part of a discursive framework or pattern of inter- 128 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

. Fig. 4.17 At the meeting of the German section of the International Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE-D) in 2010 in Nürtingen, the artists Christiane Wartenberg and Robert Lenz presented a shelf with two kinds of honey. One set of jars contained real bees’ honey, labeled with the exact information regarding the place of production and also regarding the landscape development issues connected with it. Next to it was ‘artificial honey’–jars with drypoint etchings of the most common terms in environmental research, from ‘acceptance’ to ‘invasive art.’ What was kept apart in this art exhibi- tion–natural space, use, and scientific research–should also be separated more carefully in the debate over ‘ecosystem services.’ © Kenneth Anders

pretation, as described, e.g. by Brand and Jochum 4.5.3 Government and the Market (2000), in other words, whether for example the Instead of Communications? expectation that aspects of the protection of nature and resources might better be validated has indeed The term communications itself is not a factor in been fulfilled, is a question that deserves closer ex- the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Rather, amination. the scientific community sees itself as a communi- The attractiveness of the concept within the cating actor in this context; its target system is the environmental sciences, the business and finan- policy-making establishment. While the executive cial world and also among policy-makers, would summary of the study for ‘decision-makers’ does any case appear to be still on the increase, which raise the issue of participation and transparency should, however, not be confused with greater vali- as ‘ecosystem-services’-related demands directed dation for the processes thus described. It is cer- towards policy-makers, this is framed merely in tainly possible, that the term ‘ecosystem services’ terms of the requirements of administration, not will become established without this fact having as the constituent element of societal communi- any consequences for society’s relationship with cations (MEA 2005b). Even a theoretically rooted the environment. concept of ‘the public’ is something which is not to be found in the debate around ES. Once in a 129 4.5 • Communicating ES 4 while, there are merely indications about the use the scientific system. Here, a changed self-con- of publicly available information (Ruhl et al. 2007), sciousness is palpable in environmental research, which do correspond to basic demands for trans- where communications efforts have been massively parency in such areas as planning processes. The enhanced in recent years. Today, we often expect reason for this systematic blindness may be found that, given a general feeling of insecurity, environ- in economic calculation: Unlike the ‘tragedy of the mental scientists should not so much bring particu- commons,’ the tragedy of ecosystem services is seen lar ascertainments into the discourse, but should not as a problem of overconsumption, but rather of rather enter into an exchange with policy-makers underproduction (Ruhl et al. 2007). regarding the weighing of ecosystemic contexts, As a result, it would appear that the societal ap- and should assume a vanguard position in that preciation for ES will become tangible only when respect. In this context, the term ‘pro-active’ has the market conditions for the same have been cre- become fashionable. ated. Communication is thus not excluded; rather, An author such as Luhmann would doubt that it is assumed that for ecological problems, the tool this new awareness is based on any realistic analysis is available: the successfully established, symboli- of the possibilities of the scientific community, for cally generalised communications medium known ‘… other functional systems must assume the task as ‘money’. That is not the place to pass judgment of sorting out what is useful and what is useless’ on the prospects for the success of this idea. How- (Luhmann 2008, p. 108). Precisely this step towards ever, the identification recognition of ecologi- action is usually taken only rarely (Bechmann and cal processes and services, and the emergence of Stehr 2004), which is in turn no coincidence, for re- corresponding markets, can only be achieved search after all, due to the construct of ‘consensual through communication, in other words, the me- knowledge’ (Bechmann and Stehr 2004, p. 30), is dium money cannot be transferred to ecological always in danger of weakening its own position as plans and actions merely on the basis of an asser- a systemic element by giving up its own medium, tion to that effect. The authors of the Millennium according to which information is selected accord- Ecosystem Assessment evidently assume that it is ing to the criterion of true/false. In other words, only necessary to convince policy-makers of the the core business of the scientific community is the plausibility of their arguments, in order to create question: ‘Is this statement true, or is it not true?’ the necessary laws and regulations. Büscher and Once one abandons the realm of this core busi- Japp (2010) pointed out in this context “that in the ness, one is treading on slippery ground. In order current public debates over problem solutions with to survive in such a situation, scientists ultimately respect to the ‘ecological crisis’, sociological argu- have to assume two roles: one as communicators in ments play no role. The salvation of the world is, as the sustainability discourse, and another as com- it were, to be carried out with no concept whatever municators within the scientific system. One good of ‘society’”. example is the Stern Report, The Economics of Cli- mate Change (Stern 2007), in which, especially with regard to the effects of disturbed climate-regulatory 4.5.4 Communications Efforts as an functions, a political agenda ranging from the trade Approach to the Shaping of in emissions rights through a reduction in defor- Environmental Sciences estation to targeted climate adaptation has been developed from out of the scientific community, in In order to be able to arrive at a statement in spite spite of a high degree of uncertainty. of these yet uncertain questions, let us use the term Kuckartz and Schack (2002) pointed out that ‘communications efforts’ in order to do justice to the goal of environmental communication encom- the reasonable desire for the shaping of communi- passes a broad range of gradients which is not suffi- cations. ‘Communications efforts’ means the intent ciently reflected: the attempt to achieve acceptance to effectualise scientific knowledge with respect to for laws or to promote ecological products, in- the significance of ecosystems for people outside volves very different consequences than the desired 130 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

changes in behaviour, or even the claim to enable In all these cases of knowledge transfer, what people to orient themselves amongst the complex is needed is not so much professional marketing issues of ecological action. In one case, public rela- strategies and campaigns, as clear statements and tions and advertising predominate; in the second, a generally comprehensible language based in pre- by contrast, education. This diversity also applies cisely this kind of clarity. There are enough histori- to communications regarding ES. In the following, cal models for this, in which environmental sci- we will therefore discuss several more or less estab- entists convey information directly, and, for good lished forms of scientific or planning related com- reason, do without any aggregated preparation of 4 munications efforts with regard to their suitability the same by means of ‘communications profiles.’ to generate societal responses for certain ES. Knowledge transfer has traditionally been carried out with a high level of quality under the Leitmo- zz The Classical Transfer of Knowledge tiv of ‘welfare effects’ (e.g. Albert 1932; Hornsmann The transfer of knowledge should build an elemen- 1958; Altrogge 1986). The discontent around this tary bridge between the scientific community and classical role of science is often described as disillu- other systems by ‘publishing’–literally: ‘making sionment regarding its societal effect. There are two public’–the results of research. In other words, a variants of this; while for example, Barkmann and communication is to be made available beyond Schröder (2011) target the lack of the reception of the bounds of professional circles. In this area too, scientific knowledge in society, many other authors the efforts of environmental research and planning assume that environmental knowledge is basically have been greatly enhanced in recent years. The sufficient, but that there is a lack of corresponding goal of eliminating knowledge gaps (e.g. Schmidt behaviour resulting from it (e.g. Wehrspaun and et al. 2010) is appropriate, since the preparation and Schoembs 2002). Indeed, the attitude of classical accessibility of sufficient information ultimately knowledge transfer does not ensure that the knowl- permits communication–even if such activity is edge provided will also be societally used. On the in and of itself not communication. It is for pre- other hand, the question is justified, in terms of the cisely this reason that totalitarian systems denied concept explained at the outset: To what extent is it the release of information, since they will be unable even possible to force such an assurance? to control the results in the public communicative sphere. Beyond the concept of public participation zz The Transfer of Knowledge and in planning (Schmidt et al. 2010), it is according Transdisciplinary Contexts to the participatory intent of the authors necessary Beyond the ‘classical’ domain of knowledge trans to ascertain that public opinion comes into being fer will–in the context of transdisciplinarity, i.e. with in the first place only through communication, regard to the methods used and even with regard to and that this is precisely what the task of planning the concrete research questions of a partially open processes consist of. Communication efforts are process–conceptual deficits once again dominate the realised through the fact of the accessibility of in- picture (a systematisation approach of Jenssen and formation; hence, it is demonstrated that certain Anders 2010). While knowledge transfer is correctly functions of ecosystems are indispensable for hu- criticised with regard to obsolete models of the re- man beings, or that the loss of the same would affect lationship between the broadcaster and the receiver the general interest. Here, environmental scientists (Karmanski et al. 2002), there is a lack of dialogic can certainly assume an active role without depart- work methods in most research processes in which ing from their home turf. This includes the descrip- actors determinant for the landscape can weigh the tion of ecosystemic contexts such as soil formation, relevance of the research knowledge produced and water retention or important nutrient chains (i.e. bring their own forms of knowledge–hence also regulatory services), and also knowledge on land their relationship to various ES–into play. Under the and water use (supply services), or descriptions conditions of transdisciplinarity, knowledge trans- of the wealth of interaction between people in the fer thus becomes an active communication task, i.e. landscape (sociocultural services). scientists have to accept the existing heterogeneity 131 4.5 • Communicating ES 4

. Fig. 4.18 By means of just four positions on forest development, we can already gain a hint of the contradictions one encounters with respect to ES, if one wishes to communicate about them. In the Schorfheide-Chorin Landscape Workshop, held in the state of Brandenburg between 2006 and 2009 as part of the BMBF collaborative research project Sustainable Development of Forest Landscapes in the North German Plain (NEWAL-NET), there were over 100 such positions. Much could be gained by bringing some order into this diversity in order to create space to help enunciate aspects hitherto ignored © Kenneth Anders of knowledge, and subject their own work to the edge is only monopolised within the scientific com- resulting validity conflicts (. Fig. 4.18). For reasons munities, and that nonscientific perspectives cannot of quality, too, debates will become necessary, for claim any knowledge-related status, but are only de- where representatives of various disciplines and ar- scribed in terms of identity, habit, individual expe- eas of practice collide, it is difficult to manage the rience, interest or sensitivity. What then remains of professional standards introduced, so that valid communication is understood as a means for gener- knowledge can only be selected by means of inten- ating acceptance of consensus (critically assessed by sive and critical discussion. With regard to ES, this Adomßent 2004), which again moves closer to the means that those contradictions are invisible which mechanistic understanding described at the outset. emerge from the fact that landscapes are used, enjoyed and protected simultaneously. Environmental zz Social Marketing and Considering Lifestyles sciences can therefore not themselves per se assume with Respect to Consumer Behaviour the role of the advocate of various ES. The appel- One approach common in Germany for raising lative stance of the Millennium Ecosystem Assess- societal awareness of sustainability issues is so- ment proves ineffective in the face of the reality of cial marketing (e.g. Buba and Globisch 2009). The such processes. Rather, environmental scientists methods developed here can also be used for vari- need to clearly defined their role in communications ous ES. For example, their recognition for the area processes, i.e. either withdraw to the relatively pas- of agriculture could occur by seeing not farmers, sive position of the ‘classical scientist’ (and add to but rather the consumers themselves, as the perpe- that the internal dynamics of communications), or trators of reduced biological and landscape diversi- else subject themselves to the contradictions that in ty (Adomßent 2004)–at least as long as the farmers fact emerged from the social, economic and ecolog- lack any possibility of financing practices for the ical dimensions of sustainability–in the landscape preservation of forms of diversity on the market. and elsewhere. The latter occurs only rarely, and is Diversity is thus seen as a product to be created, the result of an understanding that posits the knowl- 132 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

and no longer as an issue existing and endangered; pirically that the actors in environmental commu- in that way, it can become an object of marketing. nication no longer even see changes in attitude and Compared with social-scientific analyses of en- consciousness as a task to be addressed. In view vironmentally relevant consumer behaviours and of the various ES, this situation is becoming ever the societal complexity upon which they are based more acute, since not all processes compiled under (e.g. Brand et al. 2001), social marketing consti- its heading can be affected directly by individual tutes a narrowing of the perspective, with the goal consumer behaviour. Moreover, since a major share of linking social-scientific research with business of our actions result not from lifestyle-related pat- 4 concepts of customer acquisition in order to ulti- terns, but rather from overall societal ones, the mately effect behaviour change. This too is accom- decision regarding the use of certain ES–especially panied by a changed self-awareness on the part of regulatory services–can under no circumstances be the scientific community–away from critical analy- left to the free market, but rather must be regulated sis and towards ‘change management’ (Buba et al. by law (Bilharz 2009). For example, soil protection 2009). First of all, social groups with certain value can vary obviously be better provided by legislation patterns, consumer habits and some culturally de- than by a market for intact soils. termined characteristics are identified, using a pro- In this respect, social marketing, too, deserves cess similar to that of ‘sinus-Milieus’ (everyday-life to be handled with greater care with respect to its worlds; cf. e.g. Theßenvitz 2009). Subsequently, the expected effects and to the suitable fields for its ap- identifications obtained are used to construct target plication than is currently the case. The represen- groups which are then to be won to the intended tatives of this school of thought emphasised that goals by means of adapted media codes; in com- in addition to a designing of social groups as the mon parlance, one might say, ‘if you want to reach object of marketing, they are expressly working to- people, you have to go to where they’re at.’ This ap- wards the self-determined assumption of respon- parently simple truth becomes a distortion if one sibility by these groups (Buba and Globisch 2009). realises that communication is a process in which However, it is doubtful that the tautology of con- all participants are moving, and no one is waiting ventional marketing can be broken by the awaken- ‘at’ anywhere. ing and satisfaction of needs, for the selected infor- From the point of departure of lifestyle research, mation and its preparations already anticipate the Lange (2005) described social marketing as a mod- principles of power and validity established in the est, and hence realistic, horizon of expectations, by respective lifestyle circles–precisely what we have means of which consumer behaviour could be in- to thank for the lack of sustainability in the practice fluenced; a thorough examination of the range of of our lives. It is conceivable that representatives of possibilities available to consumerism is provided ‘Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability’ (LoHaS), or a e.g. by Bilharz (2009). However, even Lange has ‘consumer materialist’ might be motivated by social doubts about the expectation that such consump- marketing to make a certain decision with respect tion patterns could be permanently rooted by to items of purchase; however, the expectation that means of the targeted influencing of lifestyles. For representatives of these target groups will as a result lifestyles can neither be politically controlled, nor is change their attitudes simply because we have tried it possible to constructively use distinction effects, to speak to them in their language, is misplaced, e.g. for the role of eco-pioneers. Social distinction since just that avoids calling into question the guid- is part of social dynamics, and therefore contributes ing ideas and mythologies of the hitherto dominant just as much to the erosion of cultural patterns as it institutional practices (Brand 2005, p. 153). More- does to their formulation. The weak correlation of over, the fact is that the actors participating in com- lifestyle and action moreover points to the limited munication ultimately are always open in terms of possibilities in our society to even practice sustain- their decision-making (Ziemann 2005), and also, able consumer habits at all, so that the ball is now in communication necessarily causes changes in one’s the court of the structural-policy decision-makers. own perception, as a result of which the scientists Kuckartz and Schack (2002) have confirmed em- involved themselves emerge from the process with 133 4.5 • Communicating ES 4 modified perspectives. In other words: if one wants zz Education for Sustainable Development and to promote communication while at the same time Education for Landscape Policy excluding its internal dynamics, we will fail to com- The goal of education for sustainable development, municate. a transgenerational, self-organising debate, and personal skills in addressing the issue of sustain- zz Campaigns ability, would appear to be close to the intent of In this context, efforts to generate public validation the concept of ES, and even to offer an adequate of ES by means of campaigns are conceivable. Here, solution to the above-described asymmetry of the conceptual lack of clarity of the term is initially subsumed functions: Placing concepts in relation- an obstacle. As Lisowski (2006) has demonstrated, ship with one another, permitting diversity of per- at least in the European context, the linear sequence spective, and acting responsibly constitute the key of planning, strategy and campaigns as a way of points within which adapted and adequately con- achieving democratic influence is rarely encoun- textualised accesses to this issue could be created. tered; rather, campaigns develop ‘evolutionarily,’ What is meant here is not education for sustainable along existing financial and professional spaces. development as an ‘advertisement for sustainabil- Hence, certain aspects may be successful, while ity’ (Siemer 2007), as a sub-function of social mar- others fade into the background. The precondition keting, or as self-praise for environmental policy, is the existence of organisations, which represent but rather as communication. However, that would a certain interest for the public. Their practice is require that the autopoietic process in education it- also known in the area of environmental commu- self be promoted, in other words, that its results not nications. Campaigns for the establishment of wil- be prejudiced. Yet it is precisely this precept that is derness areas, for the preservation of endangered violated by many works purporting to promote ‘ed- species and habitats, for the protection of certain ucation for sustainable development’, instead, they landscape types, for food produced under condi- rely on old concept of environmental education, tions respecting the ecosystems, etc. are an every- albeit in new garb. For example, role-playing in day occurrence. They may affect decisions and help which children basically provide a ‘constructive so- promote societal developments, as in the Stand-By lution’ to a conflict have nothing to do with the pur- Campaign (Schack 2004). Finally, Frankel (1998) pose of the concept as described here–to promote demonstrated a ‘greening of communications’ for open learning processes. The frequent restriction industrial advertising. However, it is precisely the of the approach to questions of consumerism, too, term ES that shows us clearly that while advertis- ultimately does not result in a satisfactory proxim- ing refers effectively to the respective organisations ity to the ecological aspects of the service involved. or companies that control certain landscape pro- Communication of ES through education for sus- cesses, it hardly refers at all to the ecosystems them- tainable development thus does not automatically selves (cf. the WWF Tiger campaign, described in lead to success, but rather depends on the concrete Conta Gromberg 2006). In this respect, this form formulation of the programme. It may even cause of communication suffers from an authenticity confusion and frustration, if the individual scopes problem, since suspicion regarding motives always for action ultimately remain schematic which has, arises (Japp 2010). Moreover, organisations with in personal experience, often proven to be the case. conflicting purposes are free to promote their own Such approaches suffer most from their own ab- respective campaigns, in which ultimately different straction and lack of spatial rootedness, for action environmental goals are pursued and addressed. always takes place in spaces of action upon which Since not all functions and processes in the uti- the contents are to refer in their full complexity. lised landscape are per se mutually noncontradic- Scenarios which do not incorporate the logic of the tory, campaigns may certainly be a possible tool for locality remain ineffective. World cafés, in which highlighting ES, but they are an unlikely tool for the moderators stifle critical positions which stem use in planning processes–contradictions are not from spatial contexts, rather than seizing upon considered campaign-capable. them and using them, thereby miss their chances 134 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

for success. It is not sufficient to sow a species-rich ing of ES, i.e. a specific ecosystemic balance or meadow or to wet a low-lying area, even if these dis-balance, as its point of departure are, beyond any doubt, good deeds. Rather, the re- 2. Seeks a connection with the perception of lationship to the landscape space and the relation- the landscape held by its own inhabitants; i.e. ships existing within them is indispensable, even if based on the communication process, it quali- the resulting balance sheet may be depressing. The fies, processes and develops further precisely logic of the school garden is useful; however, it does those potentials which have a prospect for not yet yield any understanding of the relationship gaining a response from the communicative 4 of tension between various ES. counterpart De Haan and Kuckartz (1998) describe a ‘distance gap’ with respect to the perception of criti- An orientation towards the simple and internally cal environmental situations which they interpret logically structured agenda of the landscape con- from various perspectives–the role of the media, vention for communications regarding various ES interest in faraway places, or a globalised environ- is to be recommended, even if the demands raised mental consciousness. According to this thesis, en- herein have not yet been politically established. vironmental impacts increase with distance, while Such and orientation can be easily prepared by one’s own surroundings remain intact. This is in fact means of education about the landscape; it allows often unwittingly reinforce by certain manners of for the integration of partners such as artists, land work in education for sustainable development, due users, conservationists, local politicians, etc., and it to a predominant focus on global contexts which af- is evidently–like all development of the landscape– fect humankind as a whole (cf. the development of open-ended with regard to outcome. In the context the problem horizon in Rieß 2010, or the main syn- of concrete landscapes, there is no need for pro- dromes of global change in de Haan and Harenberg tection against cheap arguments, since the contra- 1999), and the corresponding environmental be- dictions and interdependencies of one’s own space haviour generally begins and ends in the perception are considerably more easily recognisable than are of consumer options. In order to make use of the globally conveyed contexts: behind every practi- methods of education for sustainable development cal action in the landscape is an actor with societal for the communication of ES and make them fer- conditions demanding a certain action. Michelsen tile in the participatory planning process, precisely (2002) states in this regard ‘that the context of this principle needs to be reversed. Sustainability knowledge acquisition is also a decision-making conflicts are primarily to be found before one’s own factor about the relevance of knowledge for action.’ door. Such a paradigm shift would however require Precisely this situation makes landscape an ideal a critical debate, a fearless scientific description of context for education. The fact that such approach- this conflict and open questions. It seems that such es are nonetheless the exception in Germany is on precepts tend to be an exception in the present en- the one hand due to the lack of any correspond- vironmental communications process. ing discursive framework–the term ‘landscape’ is One promising path in this concept is provid- hardly present at all in the German discourse over ed by the European Landscape Convention (ELC sustainability–and on the other, to the mistaken 2000), which Germany has never signed or rati- idea that dealing with particular landscapes will fied, and which as a matter of course sees a spatial ultimately lead to a dissipation of forces, so that connection in education on landscape policy (as the overarching whole–global change–risks getting justified in a case example tested by Kulozik 2009). lost in the process. To this, one might respond that This approach, oriented towards the peculiarity of skill in dealing with ES can only emerge in the car- concrete landscapes and the changes taking place ing dealing with particular cases and, once it has within them also promotes development of the taken shape, will always grow beyond its original topic of ES (7 Sect. 3.4), since it: dimensions. 1. Takes the particular landscape conditions of various processes subsumed under the head- 135 4.5 • Communicating ES 4 zz Landscape Workshops–A Point of crete local space are few in number–generally, this Attachment for Local Discussions, Regional is only done successfully on a temporary basis by Debates and Societal Discourses the appearance of prominent political figures–over- As social beings, we have various social connec- all societal contributions to the debate usually by- tions. We live in a family, share in the life of a village pass the regions. In such cases, still there is a pos- community or an urban neighbourhood, belong to sibility of combining local aspects into perspectives a professional grouping, and are citizens of a coun- for action at the concrete level, and to thus inject try. In the communications regarding ecological them into the debate. This approach is close to an matters, the various levels, languages, logics and understanding of communications science as com- issues emerging from this situation have not been municating science (Ivanišin 2006), which is ulti- sufficiently considered to date. The oft-cited slogan mately oriented towards the qualification of space- ‘Think globally–act locally,’ which was also used for related discourse. the Agenda 21 campaign, easily blurs the various communications processes which, while occurring Outlook parallel to one another, often occur without mutual Let us here summarise the essential statements as reference, and with each constructing its own en- theses: vironment. 55 Communication is a precondition for the vali- For the inhabitants of a major city, rural space dation of ES; however, it can only be shaped to is their nearby environment, while the inhabitants a limited extent, i.e. the initiator of a commu- of those rural areas tend to see it as their own space nications process does not have sole control which they themselves shape. Depending on the over its outcome. circumstances, different sustainability issues may 55 The term ‘ecosystem services’ brings together, use different symbolic places. Issues which have with communicative intent, various processes become established in society as a whole by way of of ecosystems and landscapes which have not the mass media may have been completely ignored hitherto been satisfactorily linked, a fact which by village communities; on the other hand, soci- has ultimately resulted in confusion in com- etal discourses often screen off regionally specific munication. conditions. The limits to scientific communications 55 The political sphere and the market cannot efforts resulting from this situation cannot here be replace communication; rather, they are them- systematically developed, but it is certainly recom- selves societal subsystems, differentiated by mended that the level at which an ES is to be vali- communications. There are approaches in the dated be precisely identified. environmental sciences to use the media of A local conflict, e.g. regarding a rewetting proj- these systems, which requires considerable ect, will have to use the scope of communications change in the self-understanding of science, existing in a certain place; the rhetoric of climate but for which there has to date been no suffi- change will seldom be of use here. On the other cient justification. hand, if an international agreement on climate pro- The legitimate demand to nonetheless shape com- tection is at issue, the situation is reversed. Con- munications has resulted in the formation of various siderable problems may arise even at the point of schools and approaches in the context of sustain- transition from the space of action at the level of a ability communications: cultural landscape to that of the purely local level. It 55 Classical knowledge transfer is today often dis- is possible, by means of landscape workshops (An- missed as ‘popular science.’ However, the means ders and Fischer 2010), to attempt over a lengthy available here permit a precise provision of period of time to continually link local, regional scientific results for extra-scientific communica- and societal discourses, and to thus influence them tion, and should therefore continue to be used. with regard to their perception of ES. 55 Transdisciplinary knowledge transfer is a worth- Since actors who can convincingly convey such while undertaking, but it does require that the matters as topics from the mass media into a con- 136 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

environmental sciences abandon, for the sake Proceedings of the IHDP open meeting, the 7th interna- of communication, their claim to a monopoly tional science conference on the human dimensions of global environmental change. Bonn, Germany over the concept of knowledge. Without de- Alcamo J (2008) Environmental futures: the practice of envi- bates, transdisciplinary processes will moreover ronmental scenario analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam suffer from a loss of quality due to the erosion Altrogge D (1986) Die Wohlfahrtswirkungen des Waldes in of professional standards. Zahlen. Beiträge zur Lebensqualität, Walderhaltung 55 Social-marketing and target-group-specific com- und Umweltschutz, Volksgesundheit, Wandern und Heimatschutz. Siegen, Heft 13 munications strategies should be critically exam- Anders K, Fischer L (2010) Landschaftswerkstatt Schlaben- 4 ined with respect to the extent of their reach. dorfer Felder. In: Hotes S, Wolters V (eds) Wie Biodiver- Their core business is that of consumer patterns sität in der Kulturlandschaft erhalten und nachhaltig and behaviour forms which are very close to genutzt werden kann. Fokus Biodiversität, Oekom, consumerism–e.g. the acceptance of laws and München, pp 262–272 Antrop M (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important societal practices. for the future. Landsc Urban Plan 70:21–34 55 Campaigns can be used effectively, but ulti- Aurada KD (1979) Ergebnisse geowissenschaftlich ange- mately they constitute more of a service institu- wandter Systemtheorie (Vorhersage und Steuerung tion than an ecosystem service. lang- und kurzfristiger Prozeßabläufe). Petermanns 55 In the context of education for sustainable de- Geogr Mitt 20:409–413 BAFU–Bundesamt für Umwelt/BFS–Bundesamt für Statistik velopment, global perspectives often dominate; (ed) (2007) Umwelt Schweiz 2007. Bern, Neuchâtel they are important, but they should be con- Baier H (2000) Die Bedeutung landschaftlicher Freiräume veyed in their own space. The communication für Naturschutzfachplanungen. In: Bundesamt für regarding particular ES in their mutual interrela- Naturschutz (ed) Vorrangflächen, Schutzgebietssysteme tionships can be very successful in the context und naturschutzfachliche Bewertung großer Räume in Deutschland. Schriftenreihe Landschaftspflege Natur- of landscape-policy education. schutz 63:101–116 55 Local regional and societal discourses are very Bardt H (2008) Entwicklungen und Nutzungskonkurrenz difficult to link, since they constitute different bei der Verwendung von Biomasse in Deutschland. IW- environments and establish different issues. Trends, Vierteljahresschrift zur empirischen Wirtschafts- In place of the question, ‘Which target groups forschung. Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft Köln, p 35 Barkmann J, Schröder K (2011) Workshop “Ökosystem do I want to address?’ It is more promising for dienstleistungen”. Warum ein sperriges Konzept Karriere communication to ask, ‘Which public do I want macht. Endbericht zum F & E-Vorhaben. Georg-August- to address, i.e. within which issue contexts will Universität Göttingen I want to place a contribution which is to be Bastian O, Schreiber K-F (1999) Analyse und ökologische communicated?’ Bewertung der Landschaft, 2nd edn. Spektrum Akade- mischer Verlag, Heidelberg Bastian O, Lütz M, Röder M, Syrbe R-U (2006) The assessment of landscape scenarios with regard to landscape References functions. In: Meyer BC (ed) Sustainable land use in intensively used regions. Landscape Europe, Wagenin- Abeel K (2010) Diverse methods in cost-benefit analysis: gen. Alterra Report 1338, pp 15–22 searching for adept practices in the face of environmen- Baumgärtner S (2002) Der ökonomische Wert der biolo- tal and economic problems. Glossalia 2(1):13–18 gischen Vielfalt. In: Bayerische Akademie für Natur- Adomßent M (2004) Umweltkommunikation in der Land- schutz und Landschaftspflege (ed) Grundlagen zum wirtschaft. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin Verständnis der Artenvielfalt und seiner Bedeutung und Albert R (1932) Der Einfluß des Waldes auf den Stand der Maßnahmen, dem Artensterben entgegenzuwirken. der Gewässer und den Bodenzustand. Die Wohl- Laufener Seminarbeiträge 2, Laufen, Salzach, pp 73–90 fahrtswirkungen des Waldes. Vorträge und Aussprache Baumgärtner S, Klein A, Thiel D, Winkler K (2013) Ramsey dis- auf der 9. Vollversammlung des Reichsforstwirtschafts- counting of ecosystem services. European Association rates am 3. Februar 1932 in Berlin. Sonderdruck aus of Environmental and Resource Economists: 20th an- Heft 34 vom 15.3.32 der Mitteilungen des Reichsforst- nual conference European Association of Environmental wirtschaftsrates and Resource Economists. 7 http://www.webmeets. Albert C (2009) Scenarios for sustainable landscape com/EAERE/2013/prog/viewpaper.asp?pid=354. Ac- development–a comparative analysis of six case studies. cessed 15 May 2014 137 References 4

Bechmann G, Stehr N (2004) Praktische Erkenntnis: Vom Projekts zum Thema “Sustainable Development/Nach- Wissen zum Handeln. In: BMBF (ed) Vom Wissen zum haltige Entwicklung–Zur sozialen Konstruktion globaler Handeln? Die Forschung zum Globalen Wandel und ihre Handlungskonzepte im Umweltdiskurs”. Münchner Umsetzung. Bonn, Berlin, pp 27–30 Projektgruppe für Sozialforschung e. V. Bernhardt A, Jäger K-D (1985) Zur gesellschaftlichen Ein- Brand KW, Gugutzer R, Heimerl A, Kupfahl A (2001) Sozialwis- flussnahme auf den Landschaftswandel in Mitteleuropa senschaftliche Analysen zu Veränderungsmöglichkeiten in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Sitzungsberichte der nachhaltiger Konsummuster. UBA-FB 000330, München Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Bräuer I (2002) Artenschutz aus volkswirtschaftlicher Sicht. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse 117(4):5–56 Die Nutzen-Kosten-Analyse als Entscheidungshilfe. BfN–Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2012) Daten zur Natur. Hochschulschriften, Metropolis, Marbug Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn Bringezu S, Steger S (2005) Biofuels and competition for Bhagabati N, Barano T, Conte M, Ennaanay D, Hadian O, global land use. Global Issue Papers 20, Heinrich-Böll- McKenzie E, Olwero N, Rosenthal A, Suparmoko, Shapiro Stiftung, Berlin A, Tallis H, Wolny S (2012) A green vision for Sumatra: Brown K, Pearce D, Perrings C, Swanson T (1993) Econom- using ecosystem services information to make recom- ics and the conservation of global biological diversity. mendations for sustainable land use planning at the The global environment facility: Working Paper Nr 2, province and district level. A report by The Natural Washington Capital Project, WWF-US, and WWF-Indonesia. 7 www. Brüggemann T (2009) Feldlerchenprojekt–1000 Fenster ncp-dev.stanford.edu/~dataportal/pubs/Sumatra%20 für die Lerche. Landesamt für Natur, Umwelt und InVEST%20report%20combined%20Feb%202012_final. Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen. Natur in NRW pdf. Accessed 12 July 2012 3:20–21 Bilharz M (2009) “Key Points” nachhaltigen Konsums. Ein Buba H, Globisch S (2009) Kommunikation und Social Mar- strukturpolitisch fundierter Strategieansatz für Nach- keting von Nachhaltigkeitskultur am Beispiel pädago- haltigkeitskommunikation im Kontext aktivierender gischer Initiativen. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau Verbraucherpolitik. Metropolis, Marburg Buba H, Globisch S, Grötzbach J (2009) Anregungen für die BMELV/BMU (2009) Nationaler Biomasseaktionsplan für Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation aus kulturpolitischer Deutschland. Beitrag der Biomasse für eine nachhaltige Perspektive. Bausteine eines Orientierungsrahmens zu Energieversorgung. 7 www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allge- einem kulturbezogenen Konzept der Nachhaltigkeits- mein/application/pdf/broschuere_biomasseaktions- kommunikation. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau plan_anhang.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2012 Buchwald HH (1988) Wertermittlung von Ziergehölzen–Ein Bohnet I, Bohensky E, Waterhouse J (2008) Future scenarios neuer methodischer Vorschlag. Schriftenreihe des for the great barrier reef catchment. CSIRO Water for a Hauptverbandes der landwirtschaftlichen Buchstel- Healthy Country National research flagships.7 www. len und Sachverständigen e. V., Pflug und Feder, St. clw.csiro.au/publications/waterforahealthycoun- Augustin, Heft 122 try/2009/wfhc-future-scenarios-GBR-catchment.pdf. Burger F (2005) Energiewälder und Ökologie. LWFaktuell Accessed 12 July 2012 48:26–27 Bolliger J, Kienast F, Soliva R, Rutherford G (2007) Spatial sen- Burkhard B, Diembeck D (2006) Zukunftsszenarien für die sitivity of species habitat patterns to scenarios of land deutsche Nordsee. Forum Geoökologie 17:27–30 use change (Switzerland). Lands Ecol 22:773–789 Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W (2009) Landscapes’ Börjesson P (1999a) Environmental effects of energy crop capacities to provide ecosystem services–a concept for production–part I: identification and quantification. land-cover based assessments. Lands Online 15:1–22 Biomass Bioenerg 16:137–154 Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping sup- Börjesson P (1999b) Environmental effects of energy crop ply, demand and budgets of ecosystem services. Ecol production–part II: economic valuation. Biomass Bioen- Indic 21:17–29 erg 16:155–170 Büscher C, Japp KP (eds) (2010) Ökologische Aufklärung. Bork HR, Müller K (2002) Landschaftswandel von 500 bis 25 Jahre “Ökologische Kommunikation”. VS Verlag für 2500 n. Chr. Offenhaltung der Landschaft. Hohenheimer Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden Umwelttagung. Günter Heimbach, Stuttgart, pp 11–26 Carpenter SR, Bennett EM, Peterson GD (2006) Editorial: Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The special feature on scenarios for ecosystem services. Ecol need for standardized environmental accounting units. Soc 11:32 Ecol Econ 63:616–626 Cherubini F, Stromman AH (2010) Life cycle assessment of Brand KW (2005) Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation: eine bioenergy systems: state of the art and future chal- soziologische Perspektive. In: Michelsen G, Godemann lenges. Bioresour Technol 102:437–451 J (eds) Handbuch Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation: Chichilnisky G, Heal G (1998) Economic returns from the Grundlagen und Praxis. Ökom, München, pp 149–159 biosphere. Nature 391:629–630 Brand KW, Jochum G (2000) Der Deutsche Diskurs zu Commission of the European Communities (2007) Renew- Nachhaltiger Entwicklung. Abschlussbericht eines DFG- able energy road map–renewable energies in the 21st 138 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

century: building a more sustainable future. Commu- und Interpretation/Future Landscape, ein länder nication from the Commission to the Council and the übergreifendes Projekt des Forschungsschwerpunktes European Parliament: Brussels Kulturlandschaft KLF2 im Auftrag des Österreichischen Conta Gromberg E (2006) Handbuch Sozial-Marketing. Wissenschaftsministeriums. Arp-Planning.Consulting. Cornelsen, Berlin Research, Wien Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon Dunlop M, Turner G, Foran B, Poldy F (2002) Decision points B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J et al (1998) for land and water futures. Resource Futures Program The value of ecosystem services: putting the issues in Working Document 2002/08, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosys- perspective. Ecol Econ 25:67–72 tems, Canberra, Australia Daily GC, Matson PA (2008) Ecosystem services: from theory EEA–European Environment Agency (1994) Corine Land Cov- 4 to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9455– er Report–Part 2: Nomenclature. 7 www.eea.europa.eu/ 9456 publications/COR0-part2. Accessed 12 March 2012 Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, EEG (2008) Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG). FNA: 754-22; Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R (2009) Artikel 1 G. v. 25.10.2008 BGBl. I S 2074; zuletzt geändert Ecosystem services in decision making–time to deliver. durch Artikel 2 Abs. 69 G. v. 22.12.2011 BGBl. I S 3044 Front Ecol Environ 7:21–28 ELC (2000) European landscape convention. 7 www.conven- Dale VH, Beyeler SC (2001) Challenges in the development tions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/176.htm. Accessed and use of ecological indicators. Ecol Indic 1:3–10 12 March 2012 de Groot RS, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002) A typology for Ericsson K, Rosenqvist H, Nilsson LJ (2009) Energy crop pro- description, classification and valuation of ecosystem duction costs in the EU. Biomass Bioenerg 33:1577–1586 functions, goods and services. Environ Econ 41:393–408 Ewers HJ, Schulz W (1982) Die monetären Nutzen gewässer- de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010a) qualitätsverbessernder Maßnahmen, dargestellt am Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem ser- Beispiel des Tegeler Sees in Berlin. Umweltbundesamt vices and values in landscape planning, management Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin, Berichte 3/82 and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272 Farber SC, Costanza R, Wilson MA (2002) Economic and de Groot RS, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Haines- ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Young R, Gowdy J, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, Econ 41:375–392 Portela R, Ring I (2010b) Integrating the ecological and Fidalgo B, Pinto LM (2005) Linking landscape functions and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem preferences in forest landscapes–a tool for scenario service valuation (Chap. 1). In: Kumar P (ed) The eco- building and evaluation. In: Lange E, Miller D (eds) Pro- nomics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB): ecologi- ceedings of our shared landscape: integrating ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London, cal socio-economic and aesthetic aspects in landscape pp 9–40 planning and management. A contribution from the de Haan G, Harenberg D (1999) Expertise “Förderprogramm VisuLands Project. Ascona, Switzerland, pp 34–35 Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung” im Auftrage des Fischer A, Menzel S (2005) Die Eignung von Gütern für Bundesministeriums für Bildung. Wissenschaft For Zahlungsbereitschaftsanalysen. In: Marggraf R, Bräuer schung und Technologie, Freie Universität Berlin I, Fischer A, Menzel S, Stratmann U, Suhr A (eds) de Haan G, Kuckartz U (1998) Die Bedeutung der Umwelt- Ökonomische Bewertung bei umweltrelevanten Ent kommunikation im Kontext der Nachhaltigkeit. In: Um- scheidungen. Einsatzmöglichkeiten von Zahlungsbe weltkommunikation und Lokale Agenda 21, Ergebnisse reitschaftsanalysen in Politik und Verwaltung. Metropo- eines Fachgesprächs im Umweltbundesamt am 11. und lis, Marburg, pp 113–147 12. Dezember 1997, Berlin, pp 30–53 Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classify- Degenhardt S, Gronemann S (1998) Die Zahlungsbe ing ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ reitschaft von Urlaubsgästen für den Naturschutz. 68:643–653 Theorie und Empirie des Embedding-Effektes. Lang, Förster R, Christian P, Scheringer M, Valsangiacomo A (2001) Frankfurt a. M. Partizipation in der transdisziplinären Forschung–Eine Dienel PC (2002) Die Planungszelle. Der Bürger als Chance, Positionierung und die Ankündigung des nächsten 5th edn. Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden SAGUFNET-Workshops. Schweizerische Akademische Dietrich K, Schweppe-Kraft B, Haarnacke S (2014) Methods to Gesellschaft für Umweltforschung und Ökologie. GAIA calculate offsets to compensate for time lags in the re- 10:146–149 covery of ecosystems and biodiversity. German Federal Frankel C (1998) In earth’s company: business, environ- Agency for Nature Conservation. http://www.bfn.de/ ment, and the challenge of sustainability. New Society, fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/oekonomie/Foff- Gabriola Island setting_time_lags_2014.pdf. Zugegriffen 24. Sept. 2014 Freese J, Anders K (2010) Kulturelle Dienstleistungen von Dörr H (2005) Die Zukunft der Landschaft in Mitteleu- Ökosystemen–was kann man sich darunter vorstellen? ropa–Verantwortung für die Kulturlandschaft im 21. In: Hotes S, Wolters V (eds) Wie Biodiversität in der Kul- Jahrhundert–Delphi-Umfrage 2002: Dokumentation 139 References 4

turlandschaft erhalten und nachhaltig genutzt werden Herrmann S, Kliebisch C, Schmitt F, Schweppe-Kraft B (2012) kann. Fokus Biodiversität. Oekom, München, pp 194–199 Naturschutz–effizient planen, managen und umsetzen. Gallai N, Salles JM, Settele J, Vaissière BE (2009) Economic Methodenhandbuch und Ratgeber für Wirtschaftlich- valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture con- keit im Naturschutz. Bundesamt für Naturschutz/ fronted with pollinator decline. Ecol Econ 68:810–821 Bundesverband Beruflicher Naturschutz e. V., Bonn Gallopin GC, Rijsberman F (2000) Three global water sce- Hillier J, Whittaker C, Dailey G, Aylotts M, Casella E, Richter narios. Int J Water 1:16 GM, Riche A, Murphy R, Taylor G, Smith P (2009) Gausemeier J, Plass C, Wenzelmann C (2009) Zukunftsori- Greenhouse gas emissions from four bioenergy crops entierte Unternehmensplanung–Strategien, Ge- in England and Wales: integrating spatial estimates of schäftsprozesse und IT-Systeme für die Produktion von yield and soil carbon balance in life cycle analysis. GCB morgen. München Bioenergy 1:267–281 Getzner M, Jungmeier M, Köstl T, Weiglhofer S (2011) Hoevenagel R (1994) An assessment of the contingent valu- Fließstrecken der Mur–Ermittlung der Ökosystemleis- ation method. In: Pethig R (ed) Valuing the environ- tungen–Endbericht. Studie im Auftrag von: Landes ment: methodological and measurement issues. Kluwer umweltanwaltschaft Steiermark, Bearbeitung: E.C.O. Academic, Dordrecht Institut für Ökologie, Klagenfurt, 86 p Hoffmann A, Gruehn D (2010) Bedeutung von Freiräumen Greiff KB, Weber-Blaschke G, Faulstich M, von Haaren C und Grünflächen in deutschen Groß- und Mittelstädten (2010) Förderung eines umweltschonenden Energie für den Wert von Grundstücken und Immobilien. Tech- pflanzenanbaus. Natschutz Landschplan 42:101–107 nische Universität, Lehrstuhl Landschaftsökologie und Grossmann M, Hartje V, Meyerhoff J (2010) Ökonomische Be- Landschaftsplanung, Dortmund, LLP-Report 010 wertung naturverträglicher Hochwasservorsorge an der Holfeld M, Stein C, Rosenberg M, Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2012) Elbe. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, Naturschutz Entwicklung eines Landschaftsbarometers zur Visua und Biologische Vielfalt 89 lisierung von Ökosystemdienstleistungen. In: Strobl J, Grunewald K, Naumann S (2012) Bewertung von Ökosystem- Blaschke T, Griesebner G (eds) Angewandte Geoinfor- dienstleistungen im Hinblick auf die Erreichung von matik 2012, Beiträge zum 24. AGIT-Symposium Salzburg. Umweltzielen der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie am Beispiel Wichmann, Berlin, S 646–651 des Flusseinzugsgebietes der Jahna in Sachsen. Nat Hornsmann E (1958) Allen hilft der Wald. Seine Wohl- Landsch 1:17–23 fahrtswirkungen. BLV, München Grunewald K, Syrbe RU, Wachler C (2012) Analyse der ästhe- Hou Y, Burkhard B, Müller F (2013) Uncertainties in landscape tischen und monetären Wertschätzung der Landschaft analysis and ecosystem service assessment. J Environ am Erzgebirgskamm durch den Tourismus. GEOÖKO Manag 127:117–131 33:34–65 Ivanišin M (2006) Regionalentwicklung im Spannungsfeld Haberl H, Fischer-Kowalski M, Krausmann F, Weisz H, von Nachhaltigkeit und Identität. Deutscher Univer- Winiwarter V (2004) Progress towards sustainability? sitätsverlag, Wiesbaden What the conceptual framework of material and energy Jacobs (2004) An economic assessment of the costs and flow accounting (MEFA) can offer. Land Use Policy benefits of Natura 2000 sites in Scotland. Final report. 21:199–213 7 www.scotland.gov.uk/resource/doc/47251/0014580. Hafner S (2010) Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen für eine pdf an den Klimawandel angepasste Landwirtschaft. UPR Japp KP (2010) Risiko und Gefahr. Zum Problem authenti (Umwelt- und Planungsrecht) 30:371–377 scher Kommunikation. In: Büscher C, Japp KP (eds) Hampicke U (1991) Naturschutz-Ökonomie. Ulmer, Stuttgart Ökologische Aufklärung. 25 Jahre “Ökologische Kommu- Hampicke U, Wätzold F (Sprecher der Initiative) (2009) nikation”. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden Memorandum: Ökonomie für den Naturschutz– Jenssen M, Anders K (2010) Wald und Wirtschaft. Ein syste Wirtschaften im Einklang mit Schutz und Erhalt der matischer Blick auf unseren Umgang mit einer nach- biologischen Vielfalt. Greifswald. 7 www.bfn.de/ wachsenden Ressource. In: Helmholtz-Zentrum für Um- fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/oekonomie/ weltforschung–UFZ (ed) Nachhaltige Waldwirtschaft. MemoOekNaturschutz.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2012 Ein Förderschwerpunkt des BMBF in der Bilanz. Leipzig Hampicke U, Horlitz T, Kiemstedt H, Tampe K, Timp D, Jessel B (2000) Von der “Vorhersage” zum Erkenntnisgewinn. Walters M (1991) Kosten und Wertschätzung des Arten- Aufgaben und Leistungsfähigkeit von Prognosen in der und Biotopschutzes. Umweltbundesamt Erich Schmidt Umweltplanung. Natschutz Landschplan 32:197–203 Verlag, Berlin, Berichte 3/91, 629 p Job H, Harrer B, Metzler D, Hajizadeh‐Alamdary D (2005) Hanke H, Boese P, Ophoff W, Rauschelbach B, Schier V (1981) Ökonomische Effekte von Großschutzgebieten. Unter- Handbuch zur Ökologischen Planung, vol 1. Umwelt- suchung der Bedeutung von Großschutzgebieten für bundesamt Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin, Berichte 3/81 den Tourismus und die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung der Heidmann T, Thomsen A, Schelde K (2000) Modelling soil wa- Region. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, Bad Godes- ter dynamics in winter wheat using different estimates berg, BfN-Skripten 135 of canopy development. Ecol Model 129:229–243 140 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

Job H, Woltering M, Harrer B (2009) Regionalökonomische Lisowski R (2006) Die strategische Planung politischer Kam- Effekte des Tourismus in deutschen Nationalparken. pagnen in Wirtschaft und Politik. Isensee, Oldenburg, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, Bad Godesberg, Bremen Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 76 L.I.S.T. Stadtentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (ed) (2011) Kächele H, Zander P (1999) Der Einsatz des Entscheidungs Handbuch zur Partizipation. Berlin hilfesystems MODAM zur Reduzierung von Konflikten Londo M, Roose M, Dekker J, de Graaf H (2004) Willow short- zwischen Naturschutz und Landwirtschaft am Beispiel rotation coppice in multiple land-use systems: evalua- des Nationalparks “Unteres Odertal”. Schriften der tion of four combination options in the Dutch context. Gesellschaft für Wirtschaft- und Sozialwissenschaften Biomass Bioenerg 27:205–221 des Landbaus, Agrarwirtschaft in der Informationsge- Löwenstein W (1994) Die Reisekostenmethode und die 4 sellschaft, Bd. 35. Münster-Hiltrup, pp 191–198 Bedingte Bewertungsmethode als Instrumente zur Karmanski A, Jacob K, Zieschank R (2002) Integration des monetären Bewertung der Erholungsfunktion des Wal- sozialwissenschaftlichen Wissens in die Umweltkom- des. Ein ökonomischer und ökonometrischer Vergleich. munikation: Verbesserung des Wissenstransfers JD Sauerländer’s, Frankfurt/Main zwischen den Sozialwissenschaften und den umweltpo- Ludwig D (2000) Limitations of economic valuation of eco- litischen Akteuren. Forschungsbericht. UNESCO-Verbin systems. Ecosystems 3:31–35 dungsstelle im Umweltbundesamt, Berlin Luhmann N (2008) Ökologische Kommunikation. Kann die Kienast F, Bolliger J, Potschin M, de Groot RS, Verburg PH, moderne Gesellschaft sich auf ökologische Gefährdun- Heller I, Wascher D, Haines-Young R (2009) Assessing gen einstellen? 5. Aufl. Verlg für Sozialwissenschaften, landscape functions with broad-scale environmental Wiesbaden data: insights gained from a prototype development for Lupp G, Albrecht J, Bastian O, Darbi M, Denner M, Gies M, Europe. Environ Manag 44:1099–1120 Grunewald K, Kretschmer A, Lüttich K, Matzdorf B, Köppel J, Peters W, Wende W (2004) Eingriffsregelung, Um- Neitzel H, Starick A, Steinhäußer R, Syrbe R-U, Tröger weltverträglichkeitsprüfung, FFH-Verträglichkeitsprü- M, Uckert G, Zander P (2011) Land use management, fung. Ulmer, Stuttgart ecosystem services and biodiversity–developing regula- Kort J, Collins M, Ditsch D (1998) A review of soil erosion tory measures for sustainable energy crop production potential associated with biomass crops. Biomass (LOBESTEIN). In: Frantál B (ed) Exploring new landscapes Bioenerg 14:351–359 of energies. Collection of extended abstracts of papers Koschke L, Fürst C, Frank S, Makeschin F (2012) A multi- from the 8th International Geographical Conference & criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based Workshop CONGEO 1.–5. August, Brno, Czech Republic. assessment of ecosystem services provision to support Institute of Geonics, Academy of Science of the Czech landscape planning. Ecol Indic 21:54–66 Republic, pp 51–52 Kroll F, Müller F, Haase D, Fohrer N (2012) Rural-urban gradi- Luttmann V, Schröder H (1995) Monetäre Bewertung der ent analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand Fernerholung im Naturschutzgebiet Lüneburger Heide. dynamics. Land Use Policy 29:521–535 JD Sauerländer’s, Frankfurt/M Kuckartz U, Schack K (2002) Umweltkommunikation ge- Lütz M, Bastian O, Röder M, Syrbe R-U (2007) Szenarienana stalten. Eine Studie zu Akteuren, Rahmenbedingungen lyse zur Veränderung von Agrarlandschaften. Natschutz und Einflussfaktoren des Informationsgeschehens. Landschplan 39:205–211 Leske und Budrich, Opladen Marggraf R, Bräuer I, Fischer A, Menzel S, Stratmann U, Suhr Kulozik A (2009) Focus on Landscape–Ein Beitrag zur A (eds) (2005) Ökonomische Bewertung bei umwelt Stärkung des Landschaftsbewusstseins von Bewohnern relevanten Entscheidungen. Einsatzmöglichkeiten von der North Isles in Shetland durch ein umweltbild- Zahlungsbereitschaftsanalysen in Politik und Verwal- nerisches Programm für Grundschulkinder. Diplomar- tung. Ökologie und Wirtschaftsforschung 55, Metropo- beit, FH Osnabrück lis, Marburg, 380S Lange H (2005) Lebensstile–der sanfte Weg zu mehr Matzdorf B, Reutter M, Hübner C (2010) Gutachten-Vorstudie: Nachhaltigkeit? In: Michelsen G, Godemann J (eds) Bewertung der Ökosystemdienstleistungen von HNV- Handbuch Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation: Grundlagen Grünland (High Nature Value Grassland)–Abschluss und Praxis. Ökom, München, pp 160–172 bericht im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz, Lee YH, Bückmann W, Haber W (2008) Bio-Kraftstoff, Nach- Bonn. 7 http://www.z2.zalf.de/oa/46452aad-17c1- haltigkeit, Natur- und Bodenschutz. NuR 30:821–831 45ed-82b6-fd9ba62fc9c2.pdf Leipert C (1989) Die heimlichen Kosten des Fortschritts–Wie McLaughlin SB, Walsh ME (1998) Evaluating environmental Umweltzerstörung das Wirtschaftswachstum fördert. consequences of producing herbaceous crops for Fischer, Frankfurt/Main bioenergy. Biomass Bioenerg 14:317–324 Liesebach M, Mulsow H (2003) Der Sommervogelbestand MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a) Ecosystems einer Kurzumtriebsplantage, der umgebenden Feldflur and human well-being: policy responses, vol. 3. Island, und des angrenzenden Fichtenwaldes im Vergleich. Die Washington Holzzucht 54:27–31 141 References 4

MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b) Our human commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape planet: summary for decision-makers. Island, Washing- scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11 ton Niemeijer D, de Groot R (2008) A conceptual framework Meyerhoff J, Angeli D, Hartje V (2012) Valuing the benefits for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol Indic of implementing a national strategy on biological 8:14–25 diversity–The case of Germany. Environmental Science Norton B (1988) Commodity, amenity, and morality: the & Policy 23:109–119 limits of quantification of valuing biodiversity. In: Wilson Michelsen G (2002) Bildung und Kommunikation für eine EO (ed) Biodiversity. National Academy, Washington, DC nachhaltige Entwicklung: Sozialwissenschaftliche (Chap. 22) Perspektiven. In: Beyer A (ed) Fit für Nachhaltigkeit? OECD (2003) Environmental indicators–development, mea- Biologisch-anthropologische Grundlagen einer Bildung surement and use. OECD Environment Directorate, Paris für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Leske und Budrich, Op- Oppermann B (2008) Zur Kunst der Landschaftsvorhersage. laden, pp 193–216 Gedanken anlässlich des FLL-Fachforums zum Thema Michelsen G, Godemann J (eds) (2005) Handbuch Nach- Zukunftslandschaften. Stadt und Grün 57:35–38 haltigkeitskommunikation: Grundlagen und Praxis. Osborne JM, Turner MA (2007) Cost benefit analysis vs. refer- Oekom, München enda. University of Toronto, Department of Economics. Mill JS (1848) The principles of political economy with some Working Paper 286. 7 http://www.economics.utoronto. of their applications to social philosophy. London, ca/index.php/index/research/workingPaperDetails/286 7th edn. 1909 by Longmans, Green and Co. Osterburg B, Rühling I, Runge T, Schmidt TG, Seidel K, Müller F (2005) Indicating ecosystem and landscape orga Antony F, Gödecke B, Witt-Altfelder P (2007) Kostenef- nisation. Ecol Indic 5:280–294 fiziente Maßnahmenkombinationen nach Wasserrah- Müller K, Bork HR, Dosch A, Hagedorn K, Kern J, Peters J, menrichtlinie zur Nitratreduktion in der Landwirtschaft. Petersen HG, Nagel UJ, Schatz T, Schmidt R, Toussaint In: Osterburg B, Runge T (eds) Maßnahmen zur Redu V, Weith T, Wotke A (eds) (2000) Nachhaltige Landnut- zierung von Stickstoffeinträgen in die Gewässer–eine zung im Konsens. Ansätze für eine dauerhaft-umwelt- wasserschutzorientierte Landwirtschaft zur Umsetzung gerechte Nutzung der Agrarlandschaften in Nordost- der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. Landbauforschung Völken- deutschland. Focus, Gießen, 190 S rode, Sonderheft, p 307 Müller F, Baesler C, Schubert H, Klotz S (eds) (2010) Long- Oudenhoven APE van, Petz K, Alkemade R, de Groot RS, Hein term ecological research–between theory and applica- L (2012) Indicators for assessing effects of management tion. Springer, Dordrecht on ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 21:110–122 NABU–Naturschutzbund Deutschland e. V. (2005) Nach- Pachauri RK, Reisinger A (2008) Contribution of working wachsende Rohstoffe und Naturschutz: Argumente des groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of NABU an einen naturverträglichen Anbau. NABU Posi- the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC, tionspapier 04/2005. 7 http://www.nabu.de/imperia/ Geneva md/content/nabude/energie/biomasse/1.pdf. Accessed Pearce DW, Turner RK (1990) Economics of natural resources 7 June 2010 and the environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York Nassauer JI, Corry RC (2004) Using normative scenarios in Pimentel D, Harvey C, Resoosudarmo P, Sinclair K, Kurz D, landscape ecology. Lands Ecol 19:343–356 McNair M, Crist S, Shpritz L, Fitton L, Saffouri R, Blair R Nassauer JI, Corry RC, Cruse RM (2002) The landscape in (1995) Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion 2025: alternative future landscape scenarios: a means and conservation benefits. Science 267:1117–1123 to consider agricultural policy. J Soil Water Conserv Polasky S, Nelson E, Camm J, Csuti B, Fackler P, Lonsdorf 57:44A–53A E, Montgomery C, White D, Arthur J, Garber-Yonts B, Natural Capital Project (2012) Startseite. 7 http://www.natu- Haight R, Kagan J, Starfield A, Tobalske C (2008) Where ralcapitalproject.org/. Accessed 28 March 2012 to put things? Spatial land management to sustain Nedkov S, Burkhard B (2012) Flood regulating ecosystem biodiversity and economic returns. Biol Conserv services–mapping supply and demand in the Etropole 141:1505–1524 municipality, Bulgaria. Ecol Indic 21:67–79 Pretzsch H (2001) Modellierung des Waldwachstums. Parey, Nelson E, Polasky S, Lewis DJ, Plantinga AJ, Lonsdorf E, Berlin White D, Bael D, Lawler JJ (2008) Efficiency of incentives Rees WE (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carry- to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species ing capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environ conservation on a landscape. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA Urban 4:121–130 105:9471–9476 Reibnitz U von (1991) Szenariotechnik. Instrumente für die Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron unternehmerische und persönliche Erfolgsplanung. DR, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lons- Gabler, Wiesbaden dorf E, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw MR (2009) Modeling Riedel R (2000) Strukturen der Komplexität–Eine Morpholo- multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, gie des Erkennens und Erklärens. Springer, Heidelberg 142 Chapter 4 • Ascertainment and Assessment of ES

Rieß W (2010) Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Theo- techniques of land use scenario development. Proceed- retische Analysen und empirische Studien. Waxmann, ings 7. IALE World Congress. p. Wageningen Münster Siemer SH (2007) Das Programm der Bildung für nachhaltige Ringland G (1997) Scenario planning. Managing for the Entwicklung. Eine systemische Diagnose mit den future. Wiley, Chichester Schemata Qualität und Nachhaltigkeit. Dissertation, Riitters KH, Wickham JD, Vogelmann JE, Jones KB (2000) Lüneburg National land-cover pattern data. Ecology 81:604 Spangenberg JH, Settele J (2010) Precisely incorrect? Mo Rode M, Kanning H (2006) Beiträge der räumlichen Planung netising the value of ecosystem services. Ecol Complex zur Förderung eines natur- und raumverträglichen Aus- 7:327–337 baus des energetischen Biomassepfades. Informationen SRU–Sachverständigenrat für Umwelt (2007) Umweltschutz 4 zur Raumentwicklung 1:103–110 im Zeichen des Klimawandels. Umweltgutachten. Berlin Rode M, Schneider C, Ketelhake G, Reißhauer D (2005) Stallmann HR (2011) Ecosystem services in agriculture: Deter- Naturschutzverträgliche Erzeugung und Nutzung von mining suitability for provision by collective manage- Biomasse zur Wärme- und Stromgewinnung. BfN- ment. Ecol Econ 71:131–139 Skripten 136, Bonn Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change. The Stern Röder N, Grützmacher F (2012) Emissionen aus land- review. Cambridge University, Cambridge wirtschaftlich genutzten Mooren–Vermeidungskosten Swetnam RD, Fisher B, Mbilinyi BP, Munishi PKT, Willcock und Anpassungsbedarf. Natur und Landschaft 87:56–61 S, Ricketts T, Mwakalila S, Balmford A, Burgess ND, Rotmans J, Asselt M van, Anastasi C, Greeuw S, Mellors J, Marshall AR, Lewis SL (2010) Mapping socio-economic Peters S, Rotman D, Rijkens N (2000) Visions for a Sus- scenarios of land cover change: a GIS method to en- tainable Europe. Futures 32:809–831 able ecosystem service modelling. J Environ Manag Rowe RL, Street NR, Taylor G (2009) Identifying potential 92:563–574. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.09.007 environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assess- dedicated bioenergy crops in the EU. Renew Sust Energ ment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and Rev 13:271–290 connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic Ruhl JB, Kraft SE, Lant CL (2007) The law and policy of ecosys- 21:80–88 tem services. Island, Washington Tallis H, Polasky S (2009) Mapping and valuing ecosystem Ryffel A, Grêt-Regamey A (2010) Bewertung der Ökosys- services as an approach for conservation and natural- temdienstleistungen von Trockenwiesen und -weiden. resource management. The Year in Ecology and Conser- Vortrag an der internationalen Naturschutzakademie vation Biology. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1162:265–283 Insel Vilm. 7 http://www.bfn.de/0610_v_oekosystemdi- Tallis H, Ricketts T, Guerry A (2011) InVEST 2.1 beta user’s enstleistunge.html guide–integrated valuation of ecosystem services and Santelmann MV, White D, Freemark K, Nassauer JI, Eilers JM, tradeoffs. 7 http://www.invest.ecoinformatics.org/ Vaché KB, Danielson BJ, Corry RC, Clark ME, Polasky S, tool-documentation/InVEST_Documentation_v2.1.pdf/ Cruse RM, Sifneos J, Rustigian H, Coiner C, Wu J, Debin- preview_popup/fil. Accessed 12 July 2012 ski D (2004) Assessing alternative futures for agriculture Tappeiner U (2007) Land-use change in the European Alps: in Iowa, U.S.A. Lands Ecol 19:357–374 effects of historical and future scenarios of landscape Schack K (2004) Umweltkommunikation als Theorieland- development on ecosystem services. Heinz Veit, Univer- schaft. Eine qualitative Studie über Grundorientierun- sität Bern–Thomas Scheurer, ICAS/ICAR–Günter Köck, gen, Differenzen und Theoriebezüge der Umweltkom- Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed) munikation. Ökom, München Proceedings of the ForumAlpinum 2007, 18.–21. April, Schmidt C, Hage G, Galandi R, Hanke R, Hoppenstedt A, ÖAW, Engelberg/Switzerland, pp 21–23 Kolodziej J, Stricker M (2010) Kulturlandschaft gestal TEEB–The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2009) ten–Grundlagen. Landwirtschaftsvlg Münster, Bonn (In: TEEB Climate Issues Update. 7 http://www.teebweb. Bundesamt für Naturschutz (ed)) org/Portals/25/Documents/TEEB-ClimateIssuesUpdate- Schweppe-Kraft B (1996) Bewertung von Biotopen auf der Sep2009.pdf Basis eines Investitionsmodells–Eine Weiterentwicklung TEEB–The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010) der Methode Koch. Wertermittlungsforum 1 Ecological and economic foundations. In: Kumar P (ed) Schweppe-Kraft B (1998) Monetäre Bewertung von Bioto- Earthscan, London pen. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn Theßenvitz S (2009) Wer interessiert sich für Umwelt?–Le Schweppe-Kraft B (2009) Natural capital in Germany–state benswelten und Zielgruppen in Deutschland. In: Bayer. and valuation; with special reference to Biodiversity. In: Landesamt für Umwelt (ed) Für Natur und Umwelt Döring R (ed) Sustainability, natural capital and nature begeistern. Umweltkommunikation Fachtagung des LfU conservation. Metropolis, Marburg am 28.04.2009. LfU, pp 5–7 Seppelt R, Holzkämper A (2007) Multifunctional use of land- Tötzer T, Köstl M, Steinnocher K (2007) Scenarios of land scape services. Applications and results of optimization use change in Europe based on socio-economic and demographic driving factors. In: Schrenk M, Popovich 143 References 4

VV, Benedikt J (eds) Real Corp: to plan is not enough: Wronka TC (2004) Ökonomische Umweltbewertung. Ver- strategies, plans, concepts, projects and their successful gleichende Analysen und neuere Entwicklungen der implementation in Urban, Regional and Real Estate kontingenten Bewertung am Beispiel der Artenvielfalt Development. Proc. Corporation, Competence Center und Trinkwasserqualität. Vauk, Kiel of Urban and Regional Planning, Wien, 20.–23.5.2007, Zangemeister C (1971) Nutzwertanalyse in der Systemtech- pp 141–150 nik. Eine Methodik zur multidimensionalen Bewertung Turnhout E, Hisschemöller M, Eijsackers H (2007) Ecological und Auswahl von Projektalternativen, 4th edn. (1976), indicators: between the two fires of science and policy. Dissertation, Technische Universität Berlin, 1970, Wit- Ecol Indic 7:215–228 temann, München, 370 S UBA–Umweltbundesamt (2000) Weiterentwicklung und Ziemann A (2005) Kommunikation der Nachhaltigkeit. Eine Präzisierung des Leitbildes der nachhaltigen Entwick- kommunikationstheoretische Fundierung. In: Michelsen lung in der Regionalplanung und regionalen Entwick- G, Godemann J (eds) Handbuch Nachhaltigkeitskom- lungskonzepten. Texte 59/00. Umweltbundesamt, Berlin munikation: Grundlagen und Praxis. Ökom, München, UBA–Umweltbundesamt (2007) Ökonomische Bewer- pp 121–131 tung von Umweltschäden. Methodenkonvention zur Zimmermann H-J, Gutsche L (1991) Multi-Criteria Analyse. Schätzung externer Umweltkosten. Umweltbundesamt, Einführung in die Theorie der Entscheidungen bei Dessau. 7 http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/ Mehrfachzielsetzungen. Springer, Berlin fpdf-l/3193.pdf UNEP (2007) GEO-4–Global Environment Outlook. 7 www. unep.org/geo/geo4.asp. Accessed: 30. Juni 2012 UNEP (2011) Keeping track of our changing environment: From Rio to Rio + 20 (1992–2012). Division of Early Warn- ing and Assessment (DEWA), United Nations Environ- ment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi Vihervaara P, Kumpula T, Tanskanen A, Burkhard B (2010) Ecosystem services–a tool for sustainable management of human–environmental systems. Case study Finnish Forest Lapland. Ecol Complexity 7:410–420 Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–246 Walz A, Lardelli C, Behrendt H, Grêt-Regamey A, Lundström C, Kytzia S, Bebi P (2007) Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling. Lands Urban Plan 81:114–131 Wehrspaun M, Schoembs H (2002) Die Kluft zwischen Um- weltbewusstsein und Umweltverhalten als Herausfor- derung für die Umweltkommunikation. In: Beyer A (ed) Fit für Nachhaltigkeit? Biologisch-anthropologische Grundlagen einer Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Leske und Budrich, Opladen, ppk 141–162 Weitzman M (2000) Economic profitability versus ecological entropy. Q J Econ 115:237–263 Whitehead C, Phaneuf D, Dumas CF, Herstine J, Hill J, Buerger B (2010) Convergent validity of revealed and stated recreation behavior with quality change: a comparison of multiple and single site demands. Environ Resour Econ 45:91–112 Wiggering H, Müller F (eds) (2004) Umweltziele und Indika- toren. Springer, Berlin Wilson E, Piper J (2010) Spatial planning and climate change. Taylor Francis, New York Windhorst W, Müller F, Wiggering H (2004) Umweltziele und Indikatoren für den Ökosystemschutz. Geowissen und Umwelt. Springer, Berlin, pp 345–373 Wolf A, Appel-Kummer E (2005) Demografische Entwicklung und Naturschutz. Perspektiven bis 2015. BfN 145 5

Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

5.1 Policy Mixes for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Service Management – 146 I. Ring and C. Schröter-Schlaack 5.1.1 Why Use a Policy Mix? – 146 5.1.2 A Well-Equipped Toolbox of Policy Instruments – 147 5.1.3 Assessing Instruments for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Service Management in Policy Mixes – 148

5.2 Selected Financial Mechanisms: Payments for Ecosystem Services and Ecological Fiscal Transfers – 155 I. Ring and M. Mewes 5.2.1 Payments for Ecosystem Services – 156 5.2.2 Ecological Fiscal Transfers – 160

5.3 Integrating the Concept of Ecosystem Services into Landscape Planning – 165 A. Grünwald and W. Wende 5.3.1 Linking Ecosystem Services with the Landscape Plan – 166 5.3.2 Implementation in Practice–Testing the Example of the Service ‘Erosion Protection’ – 167

5.4 Governance in Nature Conservation – 172 O. Bastian 5.4.1 Governance and Protection of Biodiversity – 172 5.4.2 The Project GEM-CON-BIO – 173

References – 180

K. Grunewald, O. Bastian (eds.), Ecosystem Services – Concept, Methods and Case Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-44143-5_5, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 146 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

“The best way to secure the future is to secure the of ecosystems and species involves heterogeneous present (Franz Kafka).” objectives that naturally call for a range of different instruments capable of addressing the multidimensional aspects of biodiversity loss and ecosystem de 5.1 Policy Mixes for Biodiversity gradation (Gunningham and Young 1997). Policies Conservation and Ecosystem for biodiversity conservation and the sustainable Service Management provision of ES contrast with the homogeneous characteristics of other environmental solutions that may I. Ring and C. Schröter-Schlaack need to address just a single pollutant. Ignorance, uncertainties and informational failures are central in a way that successful conservation policies need to 5 5.1.1 Why Use a Policy Mix? account for the precautionary principle, the idea of safe minimum standards, and adaptive management The ecosystem service concept is closely linked to to prevent major irreversible losses (OECD 1999). the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity The focus on policy mix analysis is even more (MEA 2005a, b). By focusing on the direct and indi- relevant for the sustainable provision of ES. When rect benefits humans derive from nature the concept assessing the institutions influencing ES provision, may bridge the gap between nature conservation a wide(r) range of policy sectors has to be consid- and economic development and help mainstream ered. As mentioned above, some of these sectorial the sustainable management of ecosystems and their regulations may have positive impact on biodiver- services into public policies and private decision- sity and other ES, while others may cause negative making. However, it has been emphasised by most impact, thereby aggravating trade-offs between dif- authors that biodiversity itself is not an ecosystem ferent policy goals (Elmqvist et al. 2010; Ring and service, although there is evidence of a central role Schröter-Schlaack 2011a). For example, a reduction of biodiversity in the functioning and resilience of or ban on fertilizer use to safeguard drinking water ecosystems (MEA 2005b; Elmqvist et al. 2010). provision will also have positive effects for biodi- There may be neutral, but also positive (syner- versity conservation. Agricultural subsidies, on the gies) or negative (trade-offs) interactions between contrary, may foster provisioning services, i.e. crop biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) as well as yield, but may negatively impact biodiversity and between the provision of different ES (Elmqvist et other agricultural ES, e.g. soil fertility or landscape al. 2010; Ring et al. 2010). For example, the MEA beauty. Promoting the expansion of renewable en- (2005b) showed that the emphasis on provisioning ergies may lead to land-use intensification in ag- services within the past decades, e.g. intensification riculture that reduces crop rotation and depletes in agricultural production, has had negative impact biodiversity. Moreover, other provisioning services, on biodiversity as well as on regulating and cultural such as production of food crops, may be crowded ES. Fostering the provision of specific ES may thus out due to subsidies for energy crops (7 Sect. 4.4.2). not always be beneficial for biodiversity conserva- Against the background of these interactions any tion. In turn, biodiversity conservation may not assessment of policy responses with regard to biodi- equally contribute to ecosystem service provision. versity conservation and ecosystem service manage- This complex relationship has to be considered ment has to consider the existing mix of policy in- when analysing policies and governance regimes struments (see 7 Box for a definition of a policy mix). for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem ser- Although most of the existing studies on instrument vice provision. choice and design focus on single policy instru- Real-world policies for conservation and sus- ments, we argue in favour of a three-step policy mix tainable management of biodiversity typically apply analysis. The first step comprises the identification multiple instruments at the same time. Justifications of the context and the main challenges for a policy for using a policy mix emphasise the distinctive response. The second step includes criteria and rec- character of biological diversity as inherently com- ommendations regarding the choice of instruments, plex and dynamic (OECD 1999). The heterogeneity about the functional role different instruments 147 5.1 • Policy Mixes for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Service Management 5

Government Market

`Direct regulation´ (Dis-)Incentives Facilitation of self-regulation Price-based Quantity-based

Subsidies, Tradable Information- Rights to Public Liability rules payments & permits & Standards Taxes & fees based tools & environmental provision & offsets fiscal habitat certification information transfers banking

. Fig. 5.1 Continuum of policy instruments for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service management. © Schröter-Schlaack and Ring 2011 might play in addressing the challenges highlighted 55 Incentive-based approaches, such as environ- in step 1 and how interactions between instruments mental taxes, fees or levies that impose a price in policy mixes could be considered. Lastly, the third on environmentally harmful activities thereby step elaborates specific design issues in order to max- internalising external effects of consumption imise the value added by single instruments within or production patterns. For biodiversity con- policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and eco- servation and the sustainable management of system service management (Schröter-Schlaack and ecosystem services, internalising positive ex- Ring 2011). Before presenting these steps in more de- ternalities is of equal importance (TEEB 2011). tail, the following section provides a short overview Such measures include payments for environ- about the potential policy responses. mental services and ecological fiscal transfers (Ring 2011, 7 Sect. 5.2). What is a Policy Mix? 55 Instruments to support self-regulation of mar- A policy mix is a combination of policy instru- kets by informing and educating people about ments, which has evolved to influence the the environmental impacts of their behaviour quantity and quality of biodiversity conserva- or provide motivation towards conservation tion and ecosystem service provision in public and sustainable use of ES in consumption or and private sectors (Ring and Schröter- investment decisions. Schlaack 2011b, p. 15). In practical politics, several instruments from these categories can often be found in combination. Some instruments may have been introduced 5.1.2 A Well-Equipped Toolbox of on purpose to enhance the outcome of another in- Policy Instruments strument. Informational instruments, for example, are often introduced to provide relevant addressees Single instruments that may compose a policy mix with the knowledge necessary to enhance the out- can be classified following their distinct functional- come of regulatory or incentive-based instruments. ity. Economic literature on instrument choice and In other cases, incentive-based instruments are in- design typically uses the three following categories troduced as compensation for the costs imposed by (e.g. Michaelis 1996; Gunningham and Young 1997; regulatory instruments, such as restricted land-use Sterner 2003) (see . Fig. 5.1): intensity in drinking water catchments or nature 55 Direct regulation, i.e. command-and-control protection areas. instruments that directly steer the policy ad- In economic literature on instrument choice dressee’s behaviour by standards, best available and design a multitude of criteria has been sug- technology requirements or spatial planning, gested to analyse and assess policy instruments. In including protected area designation. 148 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

tal services and forest certification) as well as main Challenges and Context for Policy Instru- findings on the performance of the different ap- ments for Biodiversity Conservation and proaches (Schröter-Schlaack and Ring 2011, p. 178 Ecosystem Service Management et seq.). For a detailed discussion of payments for 1. What are the important characteristics of biodi- environmental or ecosystem services (PES) and versity and ecosystems that will influence appro- ecological fiscal transfers (EFT) see also 7 Sect. 5.2. priateness, applicability and success of certain instruments and their combinations? 2. What are the policy objectives regarding biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service 5.1.3 Assessing Instruments for management? Biodiversity Conservation and 3. What are the drivers of biodiversity loss and Ecosystem Service Management 5 ecosystem degradation and how might these be in Policy Mixes adequately addressed?

In the following sections we develop a stepwise ap- the following, these criteria are grouped into four proach to assess instruments for biodiversity conser- main clusters: vation and a sustainable management of ES in policy 1. Environmental effectiveness, i.e. whether the mixes. This will be based on existing frameworks for environmental goal was reached by the use of policy mix assessment in other policy sectors (Ring the instrument. and Schröter-Schlaack 2011b) and the specific charac- 2. Cost-effectiveness, i.e. whether the environ- teristics of biodiversity and ES. The framework’s three mental goal was reached at the lowest costs. fundamental steps are built up by the criteria to eval- Besides opportunity costs this also comprises uate the underlying problem, the policy instrument implementation and transaction costs associ- or the relevant policy mix (. Table 5.2). These broad ated with the specific instrument. assessment categories can be further subdivided into 3. Social and distributional impact, i.e. whether relevant issues to consider in steps 1 and 2, and into there are positive or negative social impacts fine grain assessment criteria for the detailed evalua- associated with the use of the instrument and tion and design of policy instruments in step 3. how the benefits and costs are distributed among actors and social groups. Step 1: Identifying Challenges 4. Institutional arrangements, i.e. institutions and Context necessary for the successful implementation When it comes to analysing policy mixes, the focus and operation of the instrument. is not on maximising effectiveness or efficiency of individual policy measures but on the complemen- In textbook economics, incentive-based approach- tarity of the instruments involved, their interplay es are deemed to be more flexible and cost-effective and the ability of the policy mix to address all driv- than command-and-control-type measures (Mi- ers of the underlying problem (Ring and Schröter- chaelis 1996; OECD 2007). A comprehensive litera- Schlaack 2011b). The appropriate mix of instruments ture review of policy instruments for biodiversity and actors will hence depend upon the nature of conservation and a sustainable provision of ecosys- the environmental problem, the target groups and tem services showed, however, that policy mixes are wider contextual factors (Gunningham et al. 1998). not only a matter of fact in real-world policy, but Against this backdrop, the first step of the pro- combining instruments can also be theoretically posed framework consists in gaining a thorough justified for efficiency reasons and a range of other understanding of the policy object, i.e. biodiver- motives (Ring and Schröter-Schlaack 2011a). Build- sity conservation and ES management. Although ing on that work, . Table 5.1 presents characteristics we believe the questions listed in the 7 Box to be of the instruments reviewed (including regulatory neither comprehensive nor exclusive, they may instruments, offsets, habitat banking and tradable cover the most relevant questions to be answered development rights, easements and tax reliefs, eco- in a preparatory screening phase of the policy mix logical fiscal transfers, payments for environmen- analysis. 149 5.1 • Policy Mixes for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Service Management 5

National forestry forestry National certiregulation, - process fication most often and progressive adaptive Private actors actors Private (consumers) Forest certifica - Forest tion Promote Promote and biodiversity environmentally friendly forest production in with accordance and legal codes certification requirements - - viron or biodiversity conser or biodiversity Land-use practice without Land-use practice without PES schemes by incentives (business as usual could declining be either static, or improving) Mostly private actors/land actors/land Mostly private users mental servicesmental (PES) Incentivising land users Incentivising land users f vation and ecosystem and ecosystem vation service e.g. provision, as - for compensating by opportunitysociated and costs management Payments for en for Payments - - +)

Deforestation and and Deforestation rates degradation without REDD (i.e. business as usual by his - e.g. defined, or forecasted torical rates deforestation - circum or national stances) Multinational and and Multinational policies multilevel re to and measures deforestation duce - degrada and forest tion and associated carbon emissions in developing (REDD), countries while consider ing conservation and co-benefits (REDD actors Reducing emis - sions from and deforestation (REDD degradation and REDD PA coverage coverage PA when instrument is introduced Compensating Compensating decentralised for governments opportunity and/ or management as as well costs benefits spillover areas of protected (PA) transfers - Taxpayers Taxpayers behaviour without the tax (business relief as usual might be biodiver sity friendly anyhow) Account positive for environmental externalities by provided land users Private actorsPrivate actors Public and private Public Tax reliefsTax fiscal Ecological ; based on Schröter-Schlaack and Ring conservation. biodiversity Schröter-Schlaack 2011 ; based on Schröter-Schlaack (Source: for single instruments ted - Impact allowed Impact allowed (manage by ment/emission/ performance) standards Account for and and for Account inevi - mitigate table impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems Private and and Private public actors Offsets, habitat habitat Offsets, banking and permit trading - - Protection Protection by provided other primary instruments emission/ (e.g. management or standards) PA existing network, very often no pro tection all at Safeguard im - Safeguard portant areas species and for conser habitat vation Private and and Private public actors ‘Direct- regula e.g. tion’, area protected - designa (PA) tion Hypotheses on performance of selec

Table 5.1 Table

Baseline Baseline and policy context Goal Actors adressed . Instrument type ; Porras et al. 2011 ; Kaechele2011 ) et al. et al. 2011 ; Oosterhuis 2011 ; RingPorras et al. et al. 2011 ; Santos and Blumentrath 150 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

Medium–admin - costs istrative of certification scheme may be substantial (in particular in forests) tropical Medium–impact on dependent rigorousness of standard and framing such conditions, of as intensity investment, in difficulties transport and land licensing, and tenure conflicts with land competing uses Forest certifica - Forest tion - - viron

5 Medium high–no up- to public investment front auction- buying land, for limit based programmes however rents; excessive high transac potentially tion costs Low to high–depending to Low design on instrument and baseline, regarding leakage, additionality, and participermanence - pation mental servicesmental (PES) Payments for en for Payments - +)

Potentially me Potentially high–pilot dium to have schemes may im - underestimated and plementation transaction costs of fully developed REDD architecture Potentially medium medium Potentially high–dependto - ing on actual (additional - design of avoidance ity, leakage, perma - and carbon nence accountability) of scheme once established Reducing emis - sions from and deforestation (REDD degradation and REDD Medium low– to transaction low as it builds costs on existing mechanism (fiscal schemes transfer - designa and PA tion) Medium to Medium to high–increase in quantity and quality of PAs likely (especially when beneficiary can of transfers quan - influence tity and quality of PAs) transfers - Medium–low Medium–low transaction as resting costs on existing administrative procedure; very however, often incentives are provided insufficient required for change in land- use practice - Low–depend ing on tax relieved burden of (existence tax, actual enforcement of payments, and sufficient non tax rate); ap targeted proach Tax reliefsTax fiscal Ecological - - High–in particu - lar the option to mitigation trade measures significantly op reduces portunity costs; some however, ecosystem/hab typesitat may costly be (too) restore to Medium–al - though typically to designed ‘no a for allow net loss‘ goal, arise problems in assuring equivalence of mitigation and measures their long-term monitoring Offsets, habitat habitat Offsets, banking and permit trading - Medium– though PAs very often a positive show benefit-cost- relationship, local opportu - nity can costs be substantial High–increase High–increase in/conser of vation biodiversity and ecosystem service- provi sion; however, effectiveness risk be at may weak due to or enforcement in erode may due the future changing to environmental conditions climate (e.g. change) ‘Direct- regula e.g. tion’, area protected - designa (PA) tion Continued

Table 5.1 Table Associated Associated and costs for proxies cost-effec - tiveness - Conserva tion effec - tiveness Instrument type . 151 5.1 • Policy Mixes for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Service Management 5

- - Medium high– to forest effective legislation/laws on property rights; architec distribute to ture benefits in case of community involvement Low to me to Low dium–difficult smaller reach to except operators subsi - through dised schemes; are communities often ben - through efited workforce participation and in engagement co-benefits Forest certifica - Forest tion - - viron Medium high–defini to - of tion and enforcement property rights key for more success, programme programmes effective high up-front require baseline setting, for costs fund- and negotiations, raising awareness erty rights and transaction effect on mixed costs, poverty alleviation Medium–support of resource livelihoods, rural and social management capacities; coordination numbers but enrolment prop insecure by limited mental servicesmental (PES) Payments for en for Payments - - - +)

Medium high– to need countries be able to to participate inter nationally/imple and national ment subnational-level this programmes; broad require may stakeholder par of reform ticipation, laws forest national of new and creation institutions Potentially high– Potentially depending on the institutional at infrastructure and international level national enable broad to participation of and within developing countries Reducing emis - sions from and deforestation (REDD degradation and REDD - - Medium–re existing quires fiscal equalisa - tion scheme; of introduction often indicator PA - needs constitu tional changes and new laws, political requiring majorities Medium–depend - ing on entry point in fiscal of PAs systems; transfer fiscal transfers as such address inequalities jurisdicbetween tions transfers - Low–tax deduc Low–tax tions are likely likely tions are be politi - to cally accepted; - implementa tion builds on existing administrative structures Medium–com - for pensation opportunity - of envi costs ronmentally friendly land- use practices; only however, applicable to (e.g. tax debtors landowners) Tax reliefsTax fiscal Ecological - - - High–strong High–strong public sector involvement necessary in setting standard and monitoring of mitigation high measures, up-front invest - trad for ment ing architecture Medium–in - in crease education/job op and income portunities for - landown rural ers market ing offsets; compensation of opportu - nity of land cost conservation (TDR) Offsets, habitat habitat Offsets, banking and permit trading - - - - Medium to Medium to high–easily in - for troducible unique a few - spots; increas ingly difficult implement to if demand for land is highly competitive Medium–eco ser system protected vices may PAs by benefit (local) population; however, substantial opportunity and risk costs infor revoke to mal rights (e.g. access/abstrac tion) in area designation ‘Direct- regula e.g. tion’, area protected - designa (PA) tion Continued

- Table 5.1 Table . Legal and and Legal institutional require ments Social impacts Instrument type 152 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

. Table 5.2 A three-step framework for assessing and designing policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service management. (Soure: Schröter-Schlaack and Ring 2011, p. 184)

Assessment category Issues to consider

First step

Identifying challenges Characteristics of Potential trade-offs between biodiversity and ecosystem and context biodiversity and services ecosystem services Scoping phase Irreversibility of biodiversity loss

Tipping points and threshold effects

Lacking property rights for biodiversity and many ecosystem 5 services

Defining ecosystem service in question

Objectives regarding Range of ecosystem services utilisation biodiversity conserva- Trade-offs between different ecosystem services tion and ecosystem service management

Drivers of biodiversity Direct and indirect drivers from various sectors loss and ecosystem Negative impact of drivers amplified by sectorial policies degradation

Actors and governance Public and private actors levels Local to global level actors

Alteration of decision-making processes and inputs across scales–and thus necessary policies

Cultural and constitu- Local knowledge and traditional practices tional settings Relative appropriateness of monetary valuation and market- based conservation in cultural context

Constitutional options and constraints

Second step

Identifying gaps and Policies in place versus Policy mix across sectors and governmental levels (national/ choosing instruments new instruments under federal versus regional/local) for analysis consideration Experience with policy instruments Evaluating the functional role of instru- Persistence of existing instruments ments in the policy mix Context-specific Dealing with uncertainty and ignorance strengths and weak- Lacking property rights nesses of instruments Spatial targeting of instrument

Additionality

Type of ecosystem service

Instrument interac- Inherently complementary interaction tions Inherently negative interaction

Sequencing/path-dependency

Context-dependent interaction 153 5.1 • Policy Mixes for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Service Management 5

. Table 5.2 Continued

Assessment category Issues to consider

Third step

Policy evaluation and Conservation E.g. trend in numbers of endangered species and others design effectiveness

Impact evaluation for Cost-effectiveness E.g. increase in transaction costs in relation to higher conser- existing (ex post) and and further efficiency vation effectiveness of measures and others scenario analysis for criteria new instruments (ex ante) Distributive impact E.g. beneficiaries and benefactors of a certain conservation and legitimacy measure and others

Institutional options E.g. constitutional fit and administrative practicability and and constraints others

Within this first step, it is necessary to iden- one hand, they could aim at improving the existing tify relevant actors–both private and public–in the mix of instruments by explicitly considering the ef- affected political and economic sectors on the rel- fects of instrument interaction in fine grain design evant governance levels. Moreover, constitutional of single components of the mix (ex post analysis). and legal requirements as well as the cultural per- On the other hand, policy-makers may opt for in- ceptions of biodiversity and ecosystem services troducing a new instrument into the existing mix may open up options or impose constraints on the in order to account for yet unconsidered aspects of implementation of potential policy instruments the problem (ex ante analysis). This may include, (Brondízio et al. 2010). e.g. actors, activities or sectors so far not explicitly addressed or the acknowledgement of recently Step 2: Identifying Gaps and Choosing evolved ecological knowledge. Policy Instruments for Analysis Second, the different strengths and weaknesses During the second step of the proposed framework of instruments are of different importance for dif- gaps in the implemented policy mix have to be iden- ferent conservation and management goals. ‘Direct tified and potential instrument alternatives or com- regulation’ will have to play a crucial role in safe- plements have to be chosen, as further assessed in guarding a minimum level of biodiversity to avoid step 3. In this respect, it is necessary to first identify crossing critical thresholds of ecosystem function- the policies already in place, as most aspects of bio- ing. Incentive-based instruments merit particular diversity are already covered or at least influenced by consideration for managing marketable ES, and existing policies. These policies will not always orig- sustainably using ES within safe margins that do inate from environmental policies only, but might not endanger ecosystem functioning. Motivational, stem from different sectorial policies, e.g. agri- and educational and informational instruments are al- silviculture, energy, transport or trade policy as well. ways an important component of the policy mix as Taking stock of existing policies may point to short- they raise awareness for biodiversity conservation comings, unaccounted trade-offs and blind spots of and the consequences of continued loss of biodi- the currently applied instruments (7 Box). versity and ecosystem service degradation, enhance Based on such assessment, policy-makers may acceptance of policies, and increase participation have two options or pathways to enhance the over- in voluntary conservation and management mea- all performance of the policy mix (. Fig. 5.2): on the sures. In contrast to other fields of environmental 154 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

Assessing Existing Policies Against the Challenges for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Service Management

1. Do the policies in place ad- the one hand and between dif- 5. What is the scope of new in- equately address the irreversibil- ferent ecosystem services on the struments judged on available ity of biodiversity loss as well as other? experience of policy‐makers thresholds of ecosystem resil- 3. Are the drivers of biodiversity and policy‐addressees and the ience that–once crossed–will loss and ecosystem degradation overall attitude of the society result in a failure of the ecosys- identified and addressed by regarding biodiversity conserva- tem to deliver its services? existing policies? tion, ecosystem service manage- 2. Do the instruments in place 4. Are all relevant actors addressed ment and public regulation? address the trade‐offs between by policy instruments or who is 5 biodiversity conservation and missing? ecosystem service provision on

regulation (e.g. in controlling air pollution, see Step 3: Policy Evaluation and Design OECD 2007) overlap of instruments in biodiversity The third step of the proposed framework turns conservation and ecosystem service management the focus to the evaluation and design of single constitutes an insurance against knowledge gaps, instruments so that the additional value of the rel- policy and implementation failures and should thus evant instrument to the existing policies is maxi- not be treated as generally inefficient (Gunning- mised. To develop policy recommendations we ham and Young 1997). The spatial heterogeneity refer to the policy instrument evaluation criteria of biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service mentioned above: conservation effectiveness; cost- provision potential often requires a mix of instru- effectiveness; social impact, fairness and policy le- ments to be applied. Incentive-based instruments gitimacy; and institutional aspects. When dealing may be linked to regulation or planning (eligible with policy mixes, the ultimate goal for instrument areas for PES may be linked to, e.g. protected ar- design is no longer to develop first-best or second- eas), or provide spatial bonuses in areas targeted best single policy solutions, but to optimise design for special conservation efforts. The performance regarding the functional role of the instrument in of ‘direct regulation’ can in turn be supported by the policy mix. incentive-based instruments when actors are incentivised to provide conservation and manage- Conclusion ment action beyond regulatory minimum require- Real-world policies and environmental policy in ments. particular are characterised by the existence of Lastly, if instruments are applied simultane- policy mixes. This holds especially true for policy ously they will not only work towards the desired responses to the ongoing biodiversity loss and policy goal, e.g. biodiversity conservation, but the associated degradation of ecosystems’ ability they may also interact and thereby influence the to provide ES. Despite this observation, most of performance of the policy mix. Thus, it is neces- the literature on instrument choice has focused on sary to reconsider the classifications of instrument the analysis of individual instruments rather than interactions available, identify the functional role policy mixes. Building on the existing literature on of each approach within a policy mix and choose policy mixes and a number of reviews on selected complementary instruments to the policies already individual policy instruments, this chapter has de- in place (Schröter-Schlaack and Ring 2011). veloped a stepwise framework for assessing instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity conservation 155 5.2 • Selected Financial Mechanisms 5

Step 1. Identifying challenges and context Policy mix Situations

a. Ex post b. Ex ante

Step 2. Identifying gaps and choosing instruments for analysis

2a. Functional role evaluation 2b. Prospective functional role of existing policy mix evaluation incl. new instrument Instrument interactions Instrument interactions

Step 3. Policy evaluation and design

3a. Impact evaluation of 3b. Scenario analysis for selected existing instrument new instrument

Policy outcomes Policy outcomes

. Fig. 5.2 Three-step-framework for ex post and ex ante analysis of policy mixes. © Schröter-Schlaack and Ring 2011 and ecosystem service provision (Ring and 5.2 Selected Financial Mechanisms: Schröter-Schlaack 2011a, . Fig. 5.2). Payments for Ecosystem Services As in any other policy field, there will be no and Ecological Fiscal Transfers ‘blueprint’ for optimally designing a policy mix for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service I. Ring and M. Mewes management as each country is different and relies on biodiversity and ES to a different extent (TEEB The loss of biodiversity and ES is often due to mar- 2010a). Moreover, ecosystems may be in different ket failures concerning public goods. On the one stages of degradation and thus in different prox- hand, the destruction and deterioration of habitats imity to tipping points of critical ecosystem service as well as pollution (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus provision. Finally, each country deals with a differ- inputs in water bodies) lead to negative impact and ent set of policies already in place. Nevertheless, represent so-called negative external effects, which two recommendations on mainstreaming biodiver- are not internalised or not sufficiently internalised. sity conservation and ecosystem service manage- Economic production and consumption, which ment may apply in almost all cases, irrespective of negatively influences the environment, is still too the specific setting (TEEB 2011): cheap. This also holds for the intensive production 55 The policy mix should not be limited to ‘envi- of many provisioning services of ecosystems such ronmental’ or ‘conservation’ policies but should as agricultural use at the expense of their regulating also encompass other sectorial policies, such as services. The social costs of this behaviour are not agriculture, energy or transport. reflected in the prices of the corresponding goods 55 A policy mix can be developed using a stepwise and services. approach that starts with the more easily avail- On the other hand, services of land users and able opportunities. public actors for biodiversity conservation and the conservation of ecosystems and their services are 156 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

conversion to forest forest conservation pasture conservation with service payment(s)

payment(s) private minimum payment benefits to land owners

reduced water payment for service social costs services 5 loss of biodiversity carbon maximum payment emissions

. Fig. 5.3 Background of introducing payments for ecosystem services: the conversion of forest to pasture leads both to a higher private benefit to the land owner and social costs due to the loss of ecosystem services. The land owner can be offered a payment to conserve the forest, which has to equal at least his gain in private benefit by a conversion to pasture. (Adapted from Engel et al. 2008)

often linked to positive externalities, representing goals through greater use of economic instruments? social benefits. Because of the inadequate internali- Here, clear incentives, goals, market creation and sation of such positive external effects these social making use of win-win effects (synergy) play an benefits do not often pay off for the suppliers of such important role. In this section, two economic in- services under the current social framework and struments are presented in more detail: payments market conditions. They are not paid adequately for for ecosystem services (PES) and ecological fiscal the costs of their implemented measures. Therefore, transfers (EFT). these socially desirable services are not sufficiently provided, both regarding measures for the conservation of endangered species and the conservation 5.2.1 Payments for Ecosystem Services of regulation functions of ecosystems (Ring 2011). 7 Section 5.1 on policy mixes already intro- For quite some time now, payments for environ- duced potential instruments to solve such prob- mental or ecosystem services (PES) have become lems, including regulatory approaches (law and widely known at a global scale (Wunder 2005; order), planning law, economic instruments such Wunder et al. 2008; Gundimeda and Wätzold 2010; as taxes, charges or payments for environmental Porras et al. 2011; Ten Brink et al. 2011). The goal services, as well as informational, motivational of this instrument is the development of economic and educational instruments. Why economic in- incentives for the protection of biodiversity and struments also make sense in nature conservation the provision of ES. In general, opportunity and and the conservation of ES, has impressively been management costs are compensated (. Fig. 5.3). presented by the results of the global TEEB-study Scientists have discussed this instrument in special (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) issues of scientific journals (e.g. Ecological Econom- (Ring et al. 2010b; TEEB 2010b, 2011). ics 2008 (65), 2010 (69)) in a broad manner. In Germany, the memorandum ‘Economics for Examples for the implementation of PES exist Nature Conservation’ focused in the same direction worldwide on a local, regional or national level. In (Hampicke and Wätzold 2009). How can economic Europe due to the EU common agricultural policy activities be harmonised with nature conservation since 1992 agri-environment schemes are manda- 157 5.2 • Selected Financial Mechanisms 5

Case Study 1: KULAP, Brandenburg and Berlin

The goal of the agri-environment scape). Agri-environment schemes detail.php/bb1.c.213972.de). With a scheme of Berlin and Brandenburg of the German federal states are part view to the concept of ecosystem is the ‘Förderung umweltgerechter of the European Agricultural Fund services the scheme addresses the landwirtschaftlicher Produktions- for Rural Development (EAFRD). The environmentally friendly provision verfahren und die Erhaltung der scheme comprises amongst others of provisioning services as well as Kulturlandschaft’ (KULAP 2012) (pro- measures to protect the environ- the protection of regulating services. motion of environmentally sound ment as well as to conserve natural EU, national state and federal states agricultural production and the resources (more information under: finance the scheme. In general farm- conservation of the cultural land- 7 www.mil.brandenburg.de/cms/ ers are providers.

tion of such payments does not per se guarantee Case Study 2: Northeim Project, Lower goal achievement (e.g. Klejn et al. 2003). Therefore, Saxony criteria are necessary to evaluate the schemes. Sub- In the Northeim project (7 www.zlu.agrar.uni- sequently, we present some of the important criteria. goettingen.de/index.php?option=com_content&vi ew=article&id=47&Itemid=56&lang=de) a tender in Definitions and Design Options form of an auction for a result-oriented remuneration In literature the term PES in general means a mar- was tested (Bertke 2005; Klimek et al. 2008). The pilot project was initiated by the University of Göttingen, ket-based instrument and follows the definition of Germany, in cooperation with the responsible public Wunder (2005, p. 3) ‘(a) a voluntary transaction authorities. The goal of the pilot project was the where (b) a well-defined environmental service (or conservation of agro-biodiversity in grassland. There- a land use likely to secure that service) (c) is before, farmers received a payment for the provision of ing ‘bought’ by a (minimum one) service buyer (d) a defined number of species in the study region. from a (minimum one) service provider (e) if and only if the service provider secures service provision (conditionality)’. tory for the EU member states in the framework The first precondition, thus is, that the partici- of plans for rural development (7 http://ec.europa. pation in a scheme with PES is voluntary. Further eu/agriculture/envir/measures/index_de.htm; Hart- important preconditions to clarify the following mann et al. 2006; 7 Box case study 1). Land users questions resulting out of the definition, are: can conclude contracts to implement measures 1. What is paid for? offered in the corresponding agri-environment The goal of the instrument is in general the schemes and get payments for ES (due to simplifi- provision of a defined ecosystem service, e.g. cation reasons we also include biodiversity there- clean water. Therefore, one has to determine, under). Such agri-environment schemes are di- how to measure the service and thus the goal rected especially to payments for opportunity costs achievement. There are services, which are for the implementation of specific measures in the directly measurable, e.g. carbon sequestra- agricultural sector. As the success and results of tion, but also services one can determine only such schemes remain mixed at best, for some years by using a proxy, e.g. impacts on biodiversity result-oriented schemes have been increasingly (Gundimeda and Wätzold 2010). Herewith the tested that directly reward the relevant ecological question is also narrowly linked if a payment services (Freese et al. 2011, 7 Box case study 2). should be action- or result-oriented. If the pay- In the following sections we first provide a gen- ment follows the implementation of a measure eral overview of the instrument PES. The introduc- (action-oriented), it can happen that the ex- 158 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

pected and desired result, e.g. more species or Besides the direct negotiation of the scheme a defined, better water quality is not achieved. and contracts between buyer and service A generous definition (FAO 2007) concern- provider, intermediaries between the parties ing the service to be performed guaranties are also possible, e.g. a certification office or payments for ES, as soon as the provided per- research institute. formance by the management increases the 5. When is it paid? performance provided without payment. Also, It is important to exactly define in the scheme, the possibility exists to bundle the provision of when the payment is to be made, that means several ES in one payment. only under the condition that the perfor- 2. Who pays? mance is actually provided as contracted In general the one, who attains a benefit of (= conditionality). 5 the provided ecosystem service(s) pays. There are two different forms: (1) Private It becomes apparent that each definition plays an user-financed programmes: in these pro- important role in the design for PES and has to be grammes private interests and benefits are determined carefully. Due to the different design represented, e.g. if a water company offers options different types of programmes/schemes are land users payments for a better water quality possible. Overviews can be found, e.g. by Wunder and availability in its water catchment, usu- et al. (2008), Nill (2011) or Porras et al. (2011). In ally a company or non governmental organ- which case what kind of design should be chosen, isation pays. (2) Government-financed pro- depends especially on the fitting of short-, medi- grammes: such programmes represent public um- or long-term time horizon as well as the spatial interests. The governmental site as ‘buyer’ (local, regional or national) level for buyer, provider normally does not benefit by the programme and ecosystem service provision. Many factors in- but the ‘society’ as a whole benefits, e.g. con- fluence the success of PES schemes. In the follow- cerning carbon dioxide or biodiversity. The ing different factors are introduced, which can be government finances the programme (and used to evaluate the scheme. pays). 3. How is it paid? Ecological Effectiveness In industrialised countries the mode of pay- One important criterion to evaluate the success of ment is usually money, but in principle allow- a PES scheme is its ecological effectiveness. In what ance in kind is possible. The amount of the way does the scheme contribute to an improvement/ payment mostly equals the opportunity costs increase of the ecosystem service or the halt/stop of of the provider, which occur due to the provi- deterioration (e.g. stop of biodiversity loss)? The de- sion of the ecosystem service. Additionally, gree of goal achievement is not always easy to deter- administrative costs can be considered. The mine. It depends especially on the measurability of payment can be calculated once and be fixed the ecosystem service (see above: what is paid for?) in the contract or be variable. One payment and the handling of uncertainty. The ecological effec- or continuous permanent payments are pos- tiveness can be low to high depending on the design sible. There are also different design options of the scheme, whereas the following factors play a concerning the time frame such as monthly, crucial role: yearly, ex ante or ex post payments. The du- 1. Monitoring: In order to evaluate the goal ration of the contract has to be determined achievement a monitoring of the ecosystem (short-, middle- or long-term). Last but not service(s) is necessary. Different methods are least a spatial differentiation can be done. available, e.g. measurements in laboratories, 4. Who gets paid? on-the-spot inspections, indicators, etc. It has Addressees of schemes with PES are mainly to be clear which kind of monitoring can and private actors/land users, who are named (eco- should be implemented, its frequency, who is system service/service) provider or deliverer. responsible for the monitoring and who pays 159 5.2 • Selected Financial Mechanisms 5

for it. Also, rules have to be defined before- forest additional unit hand in the case that the monitoring reveals carbon with payment that the service provider violates the contract. stock One can think of no payment at all, only a part without payment of the payment or as the case may be a fine or time other sanctions. a payment system 2. Additional benefit, that means the determina- forest additional unit tion of the baseline/reference situation and carbon with payment scenarios in conjunction with an additional stock ecological benefit through the scheme (ad- without payment ditionality; . Fig. 5.4): It has to be guaranteed time that in fact an additional unit of ecosystem b payment system service due to the payment arises, which would not exist without the scheme. In order forest additional unit carbon with payment to determine this additional benefit, the refer- stock ence situation and its expected development without an incentive payment has to be deter- without payment time mined. One has to make sure that not before- c payment system hand of an expected scheme implementation the reference situation is damaged on purpose, . Fig. 5.4 Three different scenarios for PES systems: e.g. by an expanded afforestation, in order to a static, b deteriorating and c improving the service- gain a higher additional benefit after the start delivery baseline of the reference scenario. Dash-dot lines show the service delivery with payment systems, solid of an ‘increase-in-forest’ scheme. lines without. The additional unit is the increase in service 3. Leakage or spillover: It can happen that the in- delivery through the payment system compared to the troduction of a scheme with PES only leads to reference scenario (baseline). (Adapted from Wunder a spatial shift of the land use which negatively 2005, 2007) affects the environment. Therefore, altogether no ‘plus’ of the desired ecosystem service is achievement is maximised (Wätzold and Schwerdt- provided, because while at one place the eco- ner 2005). The cost efficiency of schemes is influ- system service increases due to a payment at enced by different factors: a different place it decreases due to the new 1. Insufficient owledgekn of the costs of the ser- derogation of the land-use shift. vice provider: If a buyer has no or insufficient 4. Permanence: A scheme should come along information about the real opportunity costs with a long-term conservation of or increase of service providers, the payments can be too in ES, especially desirable if the payments run high and the cost efficiency of the scheme out. This depends crucially on the duration of decreases. This problem can be solved, e.g. by the negative externality, which the payments the implementation of auctions in which the should internalise (Wunder et al. 2008). service providers make an offer for the provision of a service and reveal their costs (7 Box Example 2; Ferraro 2008). Such differentiated Costs and Cost Efficiency payments can help to better spend the avail- One important requirement for the design of able budget for the scheme, that means, e.g. schemes is that they should be cost-efficient. For more contracts can be closed. However, trans- this purpose goals (e.g. good water quality, high action costs (administration and negotiation level of biodiversity) should be achieved with a costs) increase with auctions, leading to con- minimal budget, or the other way round the avail- flicts or so-called trade-offs between additional able budget should be spent in a way, that the goal costs of instrument choice and design and the 160 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

cost savings within the payments (Wätzold et often difficult mainly in so-called developing al. 2010). Possible trade-offs should be consid- countries. In Germany and Europe it is more ered by the design of schemes. important, how far the tenure of agricultural 2. Necessity of weighing up (trade-offs) between areas results in that schemes or individual different cost categories: a higher participation measures are not implemented. of potential service providers in the design phase of PES schemes leads in general to higher costs for the buyer beforehand but also to a 5.2.2 Ecological Fiscal Transfers high acceptance by the later service-providers (e.g. Perrot-Maître 2006). Greening Intergovernmental Fiscal 3. An insufficient link between ecological and Relations in Germany 5 economic knowledge: It has been shown that By way of fiscal transfers, intergovernmental fiscal the integration of economic and ecological relations distribute and allocate public revenues knowledge in combined models (Wätzold et al. between and across different governmental levels. 2006) is a promising approach to design pay- In the German federal system, the vertical dimen- ments in a way that they are ecologically effec- sion of intergovernmental fiscal relations distrib- tive and cost-efficient. For example a software- utes and allocates public revenues between the based decision support software can be helpful national and the state level (the German Länder) (e.g. Mewes et al. 2012), which not only can as well as between each state and the local level evaluate existing schemes but also can make (district-independent cities, districts, municipali- suggestions for new, cost-efficient schemes ties). In addition, fiscal relations fulfil a crucial and with the help of optimisation algorithms. constitutionally anchored redistributive function in Germany because an important goal is to reduce fiscal inequalities between the various jurisdictions. Further Criteria In their horizontal dimension, fiscal relations lead Further criteria are social and distributive effects as to fiscal equalisation between financially strong and well as legal and institutional requirements: financially weak states and local municipalities by 1. Social and distributive impacts: Besides the redistributing public revenues from the former to criterion of cost efficiency the question of the latter. For the calculation of fiscal transfers, the fairness of the payment systems plays an usual procedure is to contrast the fiscal need of a important role (e.g. concerning acceptance). jurisdiction with its fiscal capacity, based on its own One should bear in mind critically who can revenues. As the number of inhabitants is com- participate in the scheme/participates, if there monly used as an abstract indicator for fiscal needs are obstacles for potential participants and reflecting the provision of various public goods how to deal with them. This also holds for the and services, it is above all populous jurisdictions participation by the design of the schemes. that mostly benefit from fiscal transfers today. This Questions of distribution are especially makes sense, of course, insofar as numerous public meaningful, if PES are implemented in struc- services are provided for the inhabitants of these turally weak rural areas or so-called develop- jurisdictions. ing countries. If the institutional and legal Another purpose of such schemes is to com- preconditions can be designed appropriately, pensate jurisdictions for expenditures incurred in payments can support the rural population the provision of public goods and services with and contribute to poverty reduction in so positive effects on inhabitants in jurisdictions called developing countries (Gundimeda and beyond their boundaries. Traditionally, district- Wätzold 2010). independent and large cities provide various 2. Legal and institutional requirements: For educational, health-related and cultural services payment systems to function, property rights for adjacent areas and their inhabitants, e.g. uni- must be defined and be enforceable, which is versities and secondary schools, hospitals, theatres 161 5.2 • Selected Financial Mechanisms 5 and operas. The benefits of these services, reaching beyond city borders (so-called spillover ben- Different Possible Rationales for Ecological efits), come along with costs that the city itself has Fiscal Transfers (Ring et al. 2011) to cover. In order to compensate for such spatial 1. Compensation of management costs for provid- externalities relating to costs and benefits and to ing ecological public goods and services account for services brought to other areas, many 2. Compensation of opportunity costs of biodiversity conservation and the conservation of ES German Länder apply weighting factors for urban 3. Payments for spillover benefits of biodiversity compared to rural dwellers in the calculation of the conservation and the conservation of ES beyond relevant fiscal needs, thereby artificially increasing the boundaries of a jurisdiction urban populations. 4. Vertical or horizontal fiscal equalisation between However, rural and remote as well as subur- financially strong and financially weak jurisdictions considering ecological indicators (distribu- ban areas likewise provide a variety of services for tive fairness) cities. They provide food and drinking water (provisioning services), regulate the climate through their forests, provide areas for flood retention (regulating services) and serve as recreational space for cal transfer system can have different rationales the urban population (cultural services). Besides (7 Box) (Ring et al. 2011). Ecological fiscal trans- providing many ES, rural and remote areas also fers can be specific-purpose transfers, being only fulfil important ecological public functions, which allocated for the provision of specific public goods benefit the entire population (Ring 2004). For this and services. They can also be designed as gen- reason the inclusion of ecological indicators into eral purpose or lump-sum transfers without be- intergovernmental fiscal relations has been de- ing tied to any conditions. Finally, combinations of manded for some time in Germany. A prominent general lump-sum and specific-purpose transfers advocate was the German Advisory Council on the are possible, depending on the relevant costs to be Environment (SRU) in its 1996 report (SRU 1996). compensated. According to studies by Ring (2001, 2002, 2008a), Opposite to payments for ES portrayed above, ecological public sector functions are already part- which address mostly private actors, ecological ly taken into account by way of specific-purpose fiscal transfers provide economic incentives for transfers in some of the state fiscal transfer laws to public actors. Depending on their design, the in- the local level. These relate foremost to end-of-pipe tegration of ecological indicators into the German and infrastructure-related public functions of the fiscal transfer system could create incentives for local governments such as the provision of drink- the German states and compensate for their above- ing water, sewage and waste disposal. Precautionary average contribution for nature conservation or and intergenerational public functions such as na- the provision of ES. The integration of ecological ture and landscape conservation, protection of wa- indicators in communal fiscal transfer laws of the ter bodies and soil conservation only play a minor Länder would provide the incentives at the local role (Ring 2002). level, respectively. International experiences with ecological in- Design Options and International dicators included in fiscal transfer schemes have Experiences been gained since the beginning of the 1990s in Apart from the commonly used socio-economic some Brazilian states (May et al. 2002; Ring 2008b). indicators, fiscal transfer schemes should system- So far, 16 out of 26 states introduced ecological atically take into account ecological indicators that indicators in their respective state fiscal transfer reflect the provision of ecological public goods and laws for the redistribution of state value-added tax services (Ring 2002). These ecological indicators from the state to the local level (ICMS Ecológico). are the basis for the distribution of ecological fis- 13 states use protected areas for biodiversity con- cal transfers (EFT). Their integration into the fis- servation as their basic indicator; additionally, 162 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

. Table 5.3 Relevance of ecological fiscal transfers for local budgets of selected municipalities in Portugal (2008). (Source: Santos et al. 2012)

Municipalities Share of fiscal Share of eco- Share of conser- transfers as a logical fiscal vation areas to proportion of transfers (%) total municipal total municipal area (%) revenue (%)

Municipalities with more Campo Maior 89 25 100 than 70 % conservation areas Murtosa 78 6 80

Porto de Mós 75 11 76

5 Aljezur 70 16 73

Barrancos 97 26 100

Terras de Bouro 94 22 95

Freixo de Espada à Cinta 93 21 91

Castro Verde 90 34 76

Municipalities with less than Lisboa 25 0 0 70 % conservation areas Grândola 71 2 9

Viana do Castelo 60 0.5 24

Lamego 80 1 33

Almeirim 62 0 0

Peso da Régua 87 0.4 12

Évora 62 1 16

Vimioso 96 8 38

some states take other ecological indicators into other indicators (mostly the number of inhabitants, account (Ring et al. 2011). In Europe, Portugal is but also municipal area in general or social bur- the first country to introduce protected areas as den), the share of ecological fiscal transfers in the indicators for fiscal transfers from the national to municipal budget is not proportional to the share the local level. According to the new local finances of protected areas in relation to the municipal area. law from 2007, Natura 2000 sites as well as further Hence, municipalities whose area is completely nationally protected areas are considered (Santos made up of protected areas can have a lower pro- et al. 2012). portion of ecological fiscal transfers in their budget . Table 5.3 illustrates how especially rural than Castro Verde. municipalities with a high share of protected areas benefit from ecological fiscal transfers. In the What Would Be the Effect of Ecological municipality of Castro Verde, for instance, which Fiscal Transfers on the Local Level in has 76 % of its municipal area designated as pro- Germany? tected areas, 34 % of the municipal budget stems Concrete suggestions for greening the fiscal transfer from these new ecological fiscal transfers due to the system in Germany mostly aim at including nature municipality’s share of protected areas. Since fiscal conservation in the communal financial transfer transfers to municipalities depend also on various scheme (Perner and Thöne 2005; Ring 2008a). Na- 163 5.2 • Selected Financial Mechanisms 5 ture conservation is an important building block national park is considered with 100 % of its area in the protection of ES, above all regulating and (1 ha CU) whereas one hectare of a landscape re- cultural services. Nature conservation is a public serve is only considered with 30 % of its area (0.3 ha task, which is beneficial at the national and inter- CU). Comparable to the treatment of general area- national levels, thus reaching far beyond munici- related indicators in states such as Brandenburg and pal boundaries. At the same time, costs of nature Saxony-Anhalt, one hectare CU is set equivalent to conservation are unequally distributed in terms of a certain number of inhabitants. . Figure 5.5 shows space. This is, amongst others, due to the unequal the resulting relative changes of general lump-sum distribution of protected areas (Ring 2004). transfers to the municipalities in Saxony if, besides Ring (2008a) suggested two alternatives to in- the number of inhabitants and schoolchildren, pro- clude nature conservation as an indicator for fis- tected areas as well were considered for calculating cal transfers from the state level to the local level fiscal need and one hectare CU corresponded to within the Saxon communal fiscal transfer system. one inhabitant. These alternatives were modelled as scenarios for Saxony. Their impacts were illustrated in a spatially Evaluation of the Environmental explicit manner using geographical information Performance of Ecological Fiscal Transfers systems (GIS). The results are based on administra- Ecological fiscal transfers as a comparably new in- tive boundaries and further data for the calculation strument, which has been introduced only in a few of fiscal needs (principal approach: number of in- countries so far, is still lacking thorough investiga- habitants; additional approach: number of school- tion. Ring et al. (2011) evaluated ecological fiscal children) as well as fiscal capacities (municipal rev- transfers for the first time according to the criteria enues) as relevant for the Saxon communal fiscal of environmental effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, transfer system as of 2002. social impacts, institutional context and legal re- In the variant presented here, the fiscal need is quirements. In the following text, the first two expanded with an approach to nature conservation, criteria will be addressed exemplarily. Further, the which reflects the local ecological services that cre- status quo of implementation in conjuncture with ate spillover benefits beyond municipal boundaries. the legal requirements in Germany will be briefly The approach to nature conservation is based on presented. the designated protected areas measured in stan- The evaluation of the effectiveness of ecologi- dardised conservation units (CUs) while avoiding cal fiscal transfers is closely linked to the rationales double counts due to overlapping protected areas of behind their implementation (7 Box above). It is different categories within municipal boundaries. appropriate to evaluate the effectiveness by looking Without any overlaps means the following: If a spe- at the development of the chosen indicator after its cial area of conservation (SAC) according to the actual implementation. For instance, after the Bra- EU Habitats Directive, being more valuable from zilian state Paraná introduced protected areas as an a nature conservation perspective, is located in a indicator for fiscal transfers in 1992, the protected nature park, the SAC is counted while the area of area in the state has increased by about 165 % (May the nature park is reduced accordingly in order to et al. 2002; Ring et al. 2011). avoid double counting. For this purpose, the differ- As for the cost-effectiveness, usually costs of an ent protected area categories existent according to environmental policy instrument are contrasted the Saxon nature conservation law (national park, with its environmental effectiveness. Which cost Natura 2000 site, nature reserve, biosphere reserve, categories (management costs, opportunity costs, nature park and landscape reserve) are overlayed transaction costs) apply depends again on the ratio- with municipal boundaries. The categories are nale behind the implementation of the instrument weighted according to their relevance to nature (7 Box above). However, transaction costs such as conservation and the associated land-use restric- costs associated with the introduction and imple- tions (Ring 2008a). For instance, one hectare of a mentation of ecological fiscal transfers are compa- 164 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

. Fig. 5.5 Percentage change in general lump-sum transfers when the Saxon fiscal transfer system 2002 was expanded to include designated protected areas. In this model, conservation units (CUs) are used in addition to inhabitants and schoolchildren to calculate the fiscal need of a municipality, assuming one hectare CU is equal to one inhabitant. (Source: Ring 2008a). Based on protected area data, Saxon State Office for Environment and Geology 2004; Administrative boundaries VG 250, Federal Agency for Cartography and Geodesy 2002. Cartography and GIS: Hartmann and Kindler, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ)

rably low as this instrument builds up on existing federal to the state level as well as illustrating the intergovernmental fiscal relations with familiar relevant consequences. Czybulka and Luttmann administrative structures and procedures. This is (2005) discuss arguments in favour of considering especially the case if accessible indicators such as state-provided services for natural heritage in the protected areas are used (Ring et al. 2011). federal fiscal transfer system. Schröter-Schlaack The situation in Germany can be summarised et al. (2013) present for the first time the results as follows: ecological fiscal transfers exist within of including different ecological indicators in the communal fiscal transfer laws in the form of spe- German federal fiscal transfer system from the fed- cific-purpose transfers for mostly end-of-pipe and eral to the state level. Yet without broad political infrastructure-related ecological tasks (Ring 2001, support, the necessary constitutional changes for 2008a). However, there is an increasing number an ecological fiscal transfer system will not take of academic and political voices asking to sys- place. In this sense, it is at least a start that pro- tematically include ecological services also in the posals in this regard are seriously examined also intergovernmental fiscal transfer system from the in the political sphere. For instance, Till Backhaus, environmental minister of Mecklenburg-Western 165 5.3 • Integrating the Concept of Ecosystem Services into Landscape Planning 5

Pomerania, repeatedly calls to include services of by various stakeholders, clients and administrative his state supportive of biological diversity into the offices. fiscal transfer system (e. g. Backhaus 2008). Like- In Germany, the municipal landscape plan is wise, the German Green Party (Bundestagsfraktion the valid local landscape policy tool for the carto- Bündnis 90/Die Grünen 2012) has formulated in its graphic representation of environmental concerns position paper ‘Biodiversity 2020’ as one of their within the borders of municipalities and commu- core goals, to check ‘how a financial equalisation nities (von Haaren 2004; von Haaren et al. 2008; mechanism between the German Länder can be Heiland 2010). The persuasive and informational designed with respect to their different nature con- effect of this plan with regard to environmental servation expenditures’. aspects, regardless of whether or not it has been integrated into the preparatory land-use planning Conclusions process, should not be underestimated (Gruehn In 7 Sect. 5.2, two economic instruments were pre- and Kenneweg 1998; Wende et al. 2012). Never- sented that aim to better align activities of private theless, landscape planning can, at least theoreti- and public actors with biodiversity conservation cally, be optimised by ES assessment approaches. and the provision of ES. PES schemes serve primar- From the authors’ point of view, the anchorage of ily to set incentives for private actors. They are used ES within spatial planning and the decision-mak- for a variety of ES now. The comparably new instru- ing toolkit would appear necessary if the concept ment ‘ecological fiscal transfers’ addresses public ac- of ES is to be successful. Which tools could, in ad- tors. It compensates for their costs stemming from dition to spatial planning instruments (particu- nature conservation or the provision of ES or, in larly the municipal landscape plan), incorporate other words, rewards these efforts. these approaches usefully? Hence, the following chapter deals with the practical methodological possibilities for the integration of ES into the Ger- 5.3 Integrating the Concept man landscape planning structure. of Ecosystem Services into Landscape Planning zz A Methodological Development of Municipal Landscape Planning? A. Grünwald and W. Wende Landscape planning is, apart from several specialist terms, very close to the concept of ecosystem/ Looking at international trends and discussions landscape services1 (Kienast 2010). Moreover, like of new ways to assess landscape ecology and pro- the concept of ES, it aims at preserving and devel- tect biodiversity, one necessarily encounters the oping elements of nature using universally accepted concept of ES (Jessel 2011, 7 Chap. 1). For an en- assessment scales. hanced focus on the management of ES, it would clearly appear necessary to improve the methods zz Term for planning instrumental aspects (Vasishth 2008; In their comparison of landscape planning and the Jedicke 2010; Kienast 2010; von Haaren and Albert concept of ES, von Haaren and Albert (2011) and 2011). Endlicher (2011) argues that optimizing in- Albert et al. (2012) show there are not only many teractions between humans and the environment should be a priority (Breuste et al. 2011; Richter and Weiland 2012). Hence, the question is whether 1 Landscape services (7 Sect. 3.4): Here, the perspective is broadened beyond ecosystems and emphasises and how the concept of ES can be transferred to aesthetic, ethical and sociocultural aspects as well as planning practice, and above all how it can be ‘spa- anthropogenic changes. Because of the stronger spatial tialised’. Moreover, there are difficulties involved in orientation, it can have a higher relevance for practical integrating the ES concept into the legally embed- spatial planning, particularly landscape planning, and ded planning tools and planning practices accepted support participative approaches (Kirchhoff et al. 2012). 166 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

commonalities, but also different theoretical and for new building areas with the lowest indirect costs methodological emphases. These include primarily (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2008), the cost-related advan- the scales, the consideration of public and private tages of a flood protection solution, which consid- goods, and the economic assessment and partici- ers the values of ES (Grossmann et al. 2010), or the pation of all stakeholders. Landscape planning can effects of various land use options (e.g. Vihervaara profit by using the strengths of the ecosystem ser- et al. 2010; Swetnam et al. 2010). However, to the au- vice approach and vice versa. The concept of ES thors’ knowledge, there has as yet been no instance can be positively influenced by the tried-and-tested of the direct incorporation of ES into the landscape methods from landscape planning. planning process. Landscape planning can improve the strategies for the communication and implementation 5 of planning measures, for example by embed- 5.3.1 Linking Ecosystem Services with ding economic considerations (Stokman and von the Landscape Plan Haaren 2012). Conversely, normative legal standards and formal political/administrative decision- The municipal landscape plan is already a well-de- making procedures can, in the process of establish- veloped planning tool. It fulfils highly professional ing and enacting a landscape plan, provide the basis standards and requirements. The landscape plan for transparent and monetary assessment processes examines the social values and natural assets for which emphasise on ‘natural capital’. Therefore, it which a public interest exists, and brings together would seem evident, or at least worth discussion, to the knowledge of experts. Measures for the protec- combine both approaches. tion, maintenance and development of natural as- The advantages and disadvantages of embed- sets are derived from the professional demands of ding the concept at the local level generally, and the conservation of nature. at that of local landscape planning in particu- In a landscape plan, the central elements of lar, have been addressed, e.g., in TEEB (2010a), planning are the protected assets and the functions Jedicke (2010) or NeFo (2011). There is a broad of the ecosystem and the landscape, i.e., primarily consensus that the changed mode of communica- assets of public interest. By contrast, the concept of tion with both the lay public and with decision- ES also covers public and private goods and ser- making stakeholders resulting from ES assess- vices for human existence and human well-being. ments has been positive. One persistent problem To date, the monetary quantification of nature and is the lack of significance accorded to biodiver- the landscape and their functions, and measures for sity, in comparison with other ES (Anderson et their protection, maintenance and development, al. 2009; NeFo 2011), and is the risk involved in have not been the object of municipal landscape the assignment of monetary values, both within plans. the ES system, and with respect to commercial Landscape planning and ecosystem service as- market goods. Another is that of communicating sessment initially have different focuses, and can of these factors with the stakeholders (von Haaren therefore not be directly linked. The municipal and Albert 2011). landscape plan remains as a planning tool at the To date, how ES are to be incorporated in the local administrative level and should retain the practice of the drafting of a municipal landscape accustomed quality and complexity of ecological plan, and how that is then to be implemented in information. A comprehensive method approved in detail has been specified only rudimentarily. Stud- practice for the integration of ES into the landscape ies at the local and regional levels have addressed plan has to date been outlined only rudimentarily, only partial aspects, and have not been covered by if at all. Given that an established planning tool is to the formal planning instruments of German plan- be developed further by means of a concept that is ning law. Within the broad framework of spatial currently being broadly discussed, but is not to be and ecological planning, various examples have fundamentally changed, the acknowledged devel- been investigated, such as the choice of locations opment steps will in this case have to constitute the 167 5.3 • Integrating the Concept of Ecosystem Services into Landscape Planning 5 framework for the linkage. Therefore, the assess- to give the stakeholders a reason for their deci- ment of ES should be carried out in parallel with, sion for the implementation of measures of pro- and according to, the main development steps of tection, maintenance and development of nature the landscape plan (7 Box). and landscape. In addition, the results of the local ecosystem service assessments can be used as a basis for communication with the stakeholders The Main Development Steps of the Land- and for better understanding landscape planning. scape Plan Conversely, the data collected on the condition of At the stage of the ‘Basic evaluation/inven- nature and landscape constitute the basis for the tory acquisition’, primarily the framework operationalization of ES. Hence, not all data need conditions of planning, and beyond that, to be gathered anew, but if necessary, they still have the condition of nature and the landscape to be monetised. and the existing and foreseeable land uses are ascertained. The ascertainment of the services extant in the planning area, of the 5.3.2 Implementation in Practice– associated stakeholders, and of the demand Testing the Example of the for ES can then follow. That is then followed Service ‘Erosion Protection’ by the ‘Analysis of conflicts, the prediction of conflicts, and the assessment’. The capacity of In a model segment area in the city of Dippoldiswal- nature and the landscape and the tolerance of de, Saxony, the authors tested whether the theoreti- present and future utilizations are assessed by cally composed framework could be used in prac- using indicator-based methods, according to tice for the integration of the ES approach into the normative requirements. Concurrently, the es- local landscape plan, and examined the difficulties timation of ecosystem services with respect to which might arise. For this test, the working steps quantity, quality and spatial distribution, and ‘Analysing conflicts’ and ‘Assessment’ were chosen. their present and future users as measured by Because the examinations of this selected as- demand and by the conceptual goals can take pect focus on the methodology, the investigation place. The quantification of services builds the of a representative part of landscape is initially suf- base for the translation into monetary values, ficient. By implication, it is possible to transfer the and hence for the spatial mapping of natural methodology to the entire area of the municipality. capital as one possibility of presentation. The In the area investigated, agricultural use pre- following step is that of designing the devel- dominates, particularly on sloped surfaces. The opment and the conception measure–’target borders of the investigation are based on the sheet and measure concepts’–sectoral for particular line system of the topographical map of a scale of natural assets, and integrated into the overall 1:10,000, and on the borders of the municipality. concept. The emphasis there is on the natural The ecosystem service selected for the investiga- assets. tion, ‘erosion protection’ (from the class regulating services; 7 Sect. 3.2), was chosen on the one hand due to the special problems in that area–soil ero- The connection and feedback between these two sion by water–and on the other to the data needed concepts can take place at various positions. The for the operationalization and acquisition effort. ES approach complements the statements of land- The authors of this paper stress that their analysis scape planning, but does not replace its legally of erosion protection addressed only one compo- required working steps. A better knowledge of nent of ES. The results of this study cannot readily the ES in a certain local area and of their condi- be transferred to other ES. Particularly, the operation and their economic value can also be used tionalization and monetary assessment of services to prioritise the measures of the landscape plan, associated with biodiversity remain difficult if not to determine cost-benefit ratios of measures, and impossible in the context of landscape planning. 168 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

The ultimate goal of the application of the concept on average soil erosion in t ha−1 a−1, which in turn, of ES cannot consist exclusively of monetary as- as the flow value used in this example, constitute sessment. the basis for monetization. For the following monetary assessment, the re- zz Data and Methods placement cost method was used. In this case, the The spatial variations of many landscape functions damage caused by soil erosion and the costs for and services can already be explained with aggre- their restoration or replacement, oriented towards gated data of soil type, land use and topography current market prices, are considered. The assess- (Willemen et al. 2008). Therefore, for the ecosystem ment includes both on-site costs, i.e., for the pres- service assessment in the landscape plan, the basic ervation of the current condition, and off-site costs, data already gathered was to be used, and not pro- i.e., those generated outside of the erosion areas, for 5 cured anew. For certain questions, an estimate in the elimination of sediments in various forms and monetary terms and the connection of these values at various places. with economic indicators could then ensue. The removal of organic substance by the ero- De Groot et al. (2010) and Burkhard et al. (2011) sion of the surface soil reduces the soil fertility and propose the ‘amount of retained soil’ or the ‘loss the water-retaining capacity, or water availability. of soil particles by wind or water’ as indicators for Moreover, the thickness of the topsoil decreases, an operationalization of the service ‘Erosion pro- leaving only soil with rocky content. A study from tection’. In the present example, the quantification the USA (Pimentel et al. 1995) on the calculation of the service was carried out by spatial classifi- of on-site costs considered compensation for lost cation into so-called erosion resistance classes, by nutrients, water and removed soil, as well as the means of indicators for the description of the me- off-site costs of measures for such infrastructure as chanical erosion resistance of the soil. Bastian and roads, tracks, buildings, pipelines or flood and wa- Schreiber (1999) have proposed these for use even ter reservoirs, where sedimentation reduced effica- for landscape planning at the municipal level. For cy; it did not include the cost caused by damage to, this purpose, the natural soil erosion in tonnes per or effects upon biodiversity, or the financial losses hectare and year (t ha−1 a−1) has been ascertained of fish farms. There is no technologically based way on the basis of erosion resistance by soil type and to provide short-term effective alternatives for the slope angle, taking precipitation into account. The characteristic species assemblage lost due to dam- usage-dependent soil erosion, again in tonnes per age to terrestrial or aquatic habitats. Moreover, the hectare and year, can then be calculated by mul- effects depend to a great extent on the nature of the tiplication of the natural soil erosion by a usage- biotope affected and on other conditions. There- dependent factor. This procedure uses a simplified fore, it is very difficult to calculate these costs by technique (Bastian and Schreiber 1999, pp. 216 ff.) using the replacement cost method. Moreover, based on the universal soil loss equation. In this no commercial fish farms or fishing grounds are case, only soil erosion by water was considered. known in the examination area, so this calculation As described in the valid landscape plan (status: was not relevant. draft 2009), susceptibility to soil erosion by wind The on-site costs include all the positions named is slight to very slight, no model for calculating above. For the calculation of the off-site costs for soil erosion in t ha−1 a−1 (e.g. by means of the re- the damages which typically occur in the planning vised wind erosion equation), analogous to the soil area, an average value was generated, since it would erosion by water, was carried out here. However, be too complex at this level of scale to carry out a this means that the ecosystem service ‘total ero- calculation for each area segment. The calculation sion protection’ would be even higher than in the was based on current prices in the gardening/land- following example. scaping industries (application/removal of soil) and In landscape plans, erosion resistance is gener- in agriculture (irrigation, fertilizing). ally rated in Classes I–VI, or in erosion sensitivity The calculation of on-site replacement costs per levels of 0–5, i.e., in status values, which are based tonne of lost soil comes to € 58.84 per year, and off- 169 5.3 • Integrating the Concept of Ecosystem Services into Landscape Planning 5 site replacement costs are € 15.83 per year; the total given examination area, an assessment of the entire is thus € 74.67 t−1 (Grünwald 2011). natural capital of the municipality can be shown. The service was quantified by the two-dimen- Generally, such maps indicate that nature and the sionally and spatially precise mapping of usage- landscape have significant social value, which is of- dependent soil erosion. The link to monetary val- ten not noticed. But they are not an assessment of ues was accomplished on the basis of the average the service itself, nor do they provide any informa- value of soil erosion in t ha−1 a−1, in accordance tion about the multi-functionality of a landscape. with the erosion resistance classes. The ascer- They may prove helpful as guides for decisions tained replacement cost of approximately € 75 t−1 on certain issues, and they can, e.g. in case of the of soil erosion was transferred inverted to the ero- development of a strategy, constitute the basis for sion resistance classes, so as to illustrate benefits building scenarios or for comparing alternatives lost. The decrease of harvest on-site and the ascer- with regard to the benefits of ecosystems for hu- tainment of the damage off-site can be compensat- mans. ed by technological means (replacement). Hence, The service ‘erosion protection’ is quite easy to the calculated costs equal the value of the ES, had ascertain, since its assessment builds on data pro- they been preserved and generated by nature. That vided in the landscape plan, which may already have means that the lowest erosion resistance class (VI– been quantified. The calculation of monetary values ‘very low resistance’) is assumed to have the ben- can then flow directly from that. Nevertheless, the efit ‘zero’, so that the monetary value of natural additional effort needed to ascertain the amount capital in such areas equals €0. On the basis of of soil erosion and economic valuation is high. If this linkage, the value of the service–natural capi- this procedure is to be consistently applied to all tal could be spatially precisely mapped (. Fig. 5.6). services, a high input of effort and documentation In order to avoid excessive generalization due is necessary, and will require a detailed knowledge to overlaying the relief, the soil type and the land of the concept of ES by the planner. Moreover, it use at the outset, the operationalization used a basic is not possible for all services to be identified in grid size of 15 × 15 m2. With respect to the aggrega- terms of their spatial characteristics with accurately tion of the values, additional services and greater defined boundaries (Willemen et al. 2008). Some- generalization should be carried out, as a result of times models must be used which require special which the relatively detailed information for the knowledge of other scientific fields. several services would be lost again. The concept of ES is complex, and makes high The grid in. Fig. 5.6 is therefore still 15 × 15 m, demands on the planner, particularly with regard so that changes of the service within the same land to operationalization, the calculation and transfer use type, e.g. farm fields, are still visible, due to a of the values of ES into economic values, and the difference in the slope. The calculated monetary interpretation and analysis of the results. At pres- values are per hectare and year. ent, decision-makers at the municipal level and also planners who develop local landscape plans are zz Discussion probably not adequately familiar with the concept. In this example erosion protection, quantification No legal requirement for implementation exists. and monetary valuation of ES at the communal lev- Regarding the assessment of the benefits of el is generally possible. Various additional studies ecosystems for humans, the concept of ES is deter- (Egoh et al. 2008; de Groot et al. 2010; Willemen et mined, amongst others, by objectively verifiable, al. 2010) show how the spatial precise delineation, preferably numerical or monetizable factors, whilst quantification, and linkage to monetary values can the landscape plan is to some extent also affected also be realised for other services (7 Chap. 4). by normative-qualitative standards, and by stan- The map in . Fig. 5.6 shows the spatial arrange- dards of evaluation. For the integration of the eco- ment of the existing natural capital of the ecosys- system service approach into the landscape plan, tem service ‘erosion protection’. Provided there is the latter should focus more strongly on quantita- such a spatial arrangement for all services in the tive and monetizable standards of evaluation. 170 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

. Fig. 5.6 Capital of ES ‘erosion protection’–spatial arrangement of monetary values in tonnes per hectare and year compared to soil erosion caused by water © IÖR/Grünwald, Witschas 171 5.3 • Integrating the Concept of Ecosystem Services into Landscape Planning 5

Therefore, the ES approach in its present form the spatial relations considered. Values calculated is not fully suitable to the concerns and framework for ES containing decimal places are nonetheless requirements for broadly based practical use in the only approximate, so that these fractions should be legally established landscape planning process, in- passed on only in the totals. That raises the ques- cluding use by nature conservation authorities. The tion as to whether a monetary assessment is gener- following preconditions will have to be fulfilled to ally necessary, or makes sense, and if so, in what enable use of the concept in practice in future, in detail. order to guarantee high planning quality and to Quantification and monetization ensure that make the contents comparable: especially regulation services and cultural and 55 Standardization/rules for a clear delineation recreation prevention services are assigned a mon- and traceability of concepts and methods etary value. This information provides a weighty (quantification as well as monetization) argument for political decision-makers for the im- 55 Standardization of the availability and quality plementation of nature conservation measures. To of data, and/or the examination of data this extent, the ES approach definitely delivers ad- 55 Formulation and anchorage of the standards of ditional and possibly far-reaching important argu- evaluation of ES ments in favour of the implementation of measures 55 Professional training of the planners and, as for the protection, maintenance and development appropriate, also the policy-makers who de- of nature and the landscape. velop the plans 55 Establishment of a payment base for the ad- Conclusion ditional expenses resulting from this kind of Landscape planning as a planning instrument is planning (e.g. in the fee structure for architects generally appropriate for the integration of at least and engineers). certain ES. The standard practical application of the concept is still in its initial stages. The testing of only The analyses (Grünwald 2011) have shown that no one service for practicability has already raised nu- overall ascertainment of all cost factors is possible. merous questions. For example, the damage to terrestrial habitats re- For an application of the ES approach to the sulting from the input of soil and nutrients could landscape plan, additional methods for the opera- not be calculated, since the effects of nutrient input tionalization of single services and for economic depend on a variety of factors, and cannot be reassessment must be adopted. Syrbe and Walz (2012) solved by a standardised technical solution. There- mention landscape structure indices as an example fore, this component was not calculated, so that real of a favourable possibility for a location-based esti- replacement costs would be higher than the costs mation of certain ES by GIS. With such landscape- ascertained. based measures of habitats, surfaces and landscape The attempt carried out for that purpose to structure as a cost-effective indicator, the assess- transfer values via ‘benefit transfers’ from an ex- ment can be realised more easily and accurately. If isting study should also be assessed critically; the concept is to be implemented in planning prac- however, it appears to be the only practicable way, tice over the long term, planning tools need to be considering the budget of German landscape plan- developed, incentives for implementation provided, ning. Independent investigations of costs in the or legal requirements established. In Switzerland, planning area are not provided in the present scope the Federal Office for the Environment has already of services of the fee structure for architects and published such a recommendation for implemen- engineers. It is also clear that the stated costs, par- tation (Staub et al. 2011). In addition to the general ticularly if they need to get interpolated on larger classification of the ES relevant to Switzerland, it areas, suggest a degree of accuracy, which is not also includes the criteria for operationalization and given in this case. The overall monetary assessment the data sources for those criteria. of natural capital ultimately depends on the size of 172 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

Another special challenge, which, like compre- Landscape planning depends on a greater ap- hensive quantification, can be realised only with preciation for nature and the landscape as a basis great effort, is the monetization of services. More- for the cultural, social and economic development over, monetary values can be calculated only ap- of a society. With the integration of the concept of proximately, both for single services, and in sum ES into municipal landscape planning, it is possible for all services. On the one hand, it makes sense to enhance this appreciation. The local landscape to use the specific values for the planning area; plan is already an important tool for the develop- on the other, the high cost and effort in relation ment of nature and the landscape at the municipal to the result to should be viewed critically. For rea- level in Germany, and it can, in combination with sons of labour economy, the effort and complexity a further establishment of the ES concept, gain in used to calculate monetary values should be kept importance. Despite the existing difficulties, it is 5 low. On the other hand, if the effort is reduced worthwhile to continue this debate over whether too greatly, e.g. by an overly great approximation and how the concept of ES might be integrated into in the estimation of values, or by benefit transfer spatial and ecological planning. from other contexts, the validity of the results will be limited. Fundamentally, the concept of ES aims at em- 5.4 Governance in Nature phasizing the beneficial effects of ecosystems for Conservation humans. The conversion of natural capital into monetary values is only one aspect, however. As O. Bastian one addresses ES, the stakeholder moves ever more into focus, and participation becomes more important. Emphasizing the services per se, and, 5.4.1 Governance and Protection of the more intensive contact with the stakeholders Biodiversity can give the intended incentives for incorporation of the ecosystem service approach into landscape In view of the ongoing loss of biodiversity, the de- planning. The total abandonment of monetiza- struction of natural ecosystems, and the reduced tion would be possible, but would then fail to ex- supply of ES, it is becoming increasingly urgent to haust the potentials which this approach offers. identify suitable strategies to conteract these un- Therefore, the conclusions should not depend favourable trends. It is necessary to apply a wide exclusively on the results of monetization, but range of policy instruments: state rules (laws, regu- should rather in certain cases see these results as lations, etc.), the engagement and the participation an important basis for the guidance of decision- of (groups of) persons and organizations, as well as making. property and market-based approaches (Kenward Moreover, the problem remains that ES such et al. 2011; Southern et al. 2011; 7 Sect. 5.1). as biodiversity, which are difficult or impossible People are acknowledging at a progressive rate to quantify or monetise, are systematically under- that regional and local actors cannot rely only represented in the overall assessment of ES in the on solutions provided by state authorities. State spatial contexts selected, or are even completely activities have to be complemented by voluntary ‘blanked out’. Here, a certain degree of overall im- local and regional efforts to improve urban and balance of assessment between abiotic and biotic regional development and to foster innovations services is apparent, due to inevitable methodolog- and creativity. Consequently, practitioners and ical deficits. Jessel (2011) points to the fundamental researchers alike pay due attention to the concept differences between the two concepts of ‘ES’ and of regional governance in its manifold manifesta- ‘biodiversity’, and stresses primarily the fact that the tions (e.g. Danson et al. 2000; Diller 2002; Kniel- anthropocentric perspective of ES is incompatible ing 2003; Wirth et al. 2010). with the concept of ‘biodiversity’. Governance in its broadest sense can be understood as ‘a process of coordination of actors, 173 5.4 • Governance in Nature Conservation 5 social groups and institutions in order to attain complex and nuanced phenomena than one may appropriate goals that have been discussed and imagine. Regardless of formal authority, decisions collectively defined in fragmented, uncertain envi- (concerning biodiversity and ES) may be influ- ronments’ (Le Galès 1998; see also the definition enced by history and culture, access to informa- in 7 Sect. 2.1). It is important to distinguish between tion, basic economic outlook, among other things different types or mechanisms of coordination (e.g., (UNDP 1999). markets, hierarchies, networks, hybrid forms of co- . Table 5.4 gives an overview of the various ordination), institutional levels (e.g., local, regional, governance types, which differ greatly in parts de- state), and between actors from different spheres pending on the role of actors, the decision level, and of society (e.g., economy, education, politics, and other factors (Hahn et al. 2008; Kenward et al. 2011). so forth). By providing a framework the concept of governance helps to analyse the complicated constellation of actors in a social-ecological system 5.4.2 The Project GEM-CON-BIO (Wirth et al. 2010). While management describes the actions in a The CBD recommends to using not only legal but certain area or ecosystem governance tackles the also economic and social instruments for an effec- questions of responsibility: who is responsible, tive protection of biodiversity and ES. However, the who is making the decisions, and how this is done pros and cons of the instruments are still being dis- (Kenward et al. 2011). Graham et al. (2003) define cussed, e.g. protection regulations versus social and governance as ‘the interactions among structures, economic incentives (James et al. 1999; Ferraro and processes, and traditions that determine how power Kiss 2002; Adams et al. 2004). Many of these regula- is exercised, how decisions are taken on issues of tive instruments (like access or restrictions), social public concern, and how citizens or other stakehold- and economic instruments (like moratoria, taxes, ers have their say.’ Collaborative governance is the and subventions) are applied, but their effectiveness integration of values (economic, social, as well as en- has not been fully investigated and underpinned vironmental ones) through “…a collaborative, multi- by enough studies, yet. To decrease this deficit the partner decision-making process” (Lamont 2006). EU-project GEM-CON-BIO (Governance and Eco- Government and governance have similar roots, systems Management for the Conservation of Biodi- but government refers only to bodies and process- versity–Manos and Papathanasiou 2008; Simoncini es that are largely separate from citizens, the pri- et al. 2008; Kenward et al. 2011), in which the author vate sector and civil society. Governments are key was involved, was launched. The project addressed players in governance processes, but are only one the question, which governance types and institu- among the many possible players. In other words: tions are most suited to contribute to sustainable ‘Governance includes the state, but transcends development and the maintenance of biological di- it by taking in the private sector and civil society. versity. All three are critical for sustaining human development. The state creates a conducive political and le- Objectives gal environment. The private sector generates jobs In GEM-CON-BIO 34 case studies were analysed and income. And civil society facilitates political on two scales to identify governance strategies that and social interaction–mobiliziling groups to par- may benefit three outcomes, namely: (1) enhancing ticipate in economic, social and political activities. delivery of ES; (2) ensuring sustainable use of natu- Because each has weaknesses and strengths, good ral resources; and (3) maintaining biodiversity. This governance is to promote constructive interaction so-called biodiversity governance was defined as the among all three’ (Kenward et al. 2011). way, how society on all levels aligns and regulates its Governance settings depend in large part on political, economic and social concerns with regard formal mandates, institutions, processes, and rel- to the use and the protection of biodiversity and ES. evant legal and customary rights. But they are more 174 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision Variable Objectives Objectives towards oriented returns economic - devel Economic opment - incen Economic tives Private Low Market based Market -

5 Objectives and poli - negotiated cies are and implemented among local stake holders, government government holders, agencies and NGOs Regulatory- compli ecosystem ance, economic resilience, development Mixture Policy Network Network Policy based - High Objectives and Objectives and main processes of ESM are by defined self-organised communities depending on for ecosystems their livelihood - resil Ecosystem economic ience, development Decentralised Decentralised and infor formal mal institutions Community/mix State/mix Variable Community Community based - Low Management Management through employed agree negotiated state between ment - and organ agents interested isations Medium Management Management a to delegated - non governmen e.g. tal body, NGO, academic, sector. private Remains within policy govt. objectives State/mix Medium Management Management to delegated - most appropri - administra ate level tive ypes identified within the GEM-CON-BIO project, and their defining characteristics. (from Hahn et al. 2008 ) Hahn et (from project, and their defining characteristics. within the GEM-CON-BIO ypes identified Regulatory development and economic compliance Legislation and policy guidance Legislation State High agencies) (with state Low - central Strong over ised control management State through agencies State controlled State National/federal Decentralised Delegated Corporatist Governance t Governance -

- Table 5.4 Table

. Main manage - ment objec tives Key policy Key instruments ship structure Main Owner Level of verti - Level integration cal Level of of Level horizontal integration Description 175 5.4 • Governance in Nature Conservation 5 Low Low Unimportant High Low High Market based Market High Variable High Policy Network Network Policy based Low High Variable Important Important Unimportant Low Variable Medium Community Community based Medium Low Low Medium Low High Low Low Possible Possible Variable Medium Medium Medium Limited Limited Low Low Low Medium High Low State controlled State National/federal Decentralised Delegated Corporatist Continued

Table 5.4 Table Multilevel Multilevel governance Leadership Societal tools - com Local munity partici - pation Adaptive man - Adaptive agement - Market/finan cial tools Regulatory tools . of Generation knowledge

176 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

a ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK

Representation in Priorities Processes Impacts models Capacity

governance ecological economic economic management societal priorities societal societal

ecological socio-economic regulatory ecological decision- making 5

Evaluation

b MODEL VARIABLES

Predictor variables Response variables

state management (%) economic priorities adaptive management ecosystem services

private ownership (%) ecological priorities regulatory tools resource sustainability

knowledge leadership societal priorities biodiversity

. Fig. 5.7 a Conceptual framework for analysing the performance of different governance strategies; b model variables. (According Kenward et al. 2011)

zz Methods techniques (IT) to examine which factors, whether An analytic framework (. Fig. 5.7) was developed on their own or in combination, best explain the to assess the relative importance of a suite of gover- various circumstances with regard to ES, sustainable nance strategies for effective biodiversity conserva- resource management, and maintenance of biodi- tion, based on measuring indicator variables in four versity. main categories: Using standardised questionnaires and expert 1. initial capacity; judgment, we collected continuous and categori- 2. management priorities; cal data for 34 case studies on two different scales. 3. main processes and tools aimed at those pri- A total of 26 cases examined the management of orities; and study areas from the local to subnational scale: 15 of 4. environmental response variables that poten- these studies came from eight European countries, tially depend on (1)–(3). 2 from the USA, and 9 from different developing countries. Eight additional case studies involved For statistical analyses, we selected those variables the use of specific ES at an international scale, in- that represent the logical structure of the analyti- cluding organic agriculture around the Baltic Sea, cal framework. We used information modelling North Sea fisheries, and a 27-country European 177 5.4 • Governance in Nature Conservation 5

Union-wide survey of six recreational activities de- Natura 2000 sites can be promoted by mixed strat- pendent on wild resources (hunting, bird watching, egies being able to develop long-term strategies collecting berries, etc.). and to prepare and implement management plans. For each of the case studies, 70 research ques- In the future, adaptive management may be- tions split in five clusters were answered. Natural, come increasingly important. Adaptive manage- social, economic, institutional resources, external ment can be defined as the structuring of policy and driving forces, and pressures in the study areas management options as a set of empirically testable were considered as key factors of the governance hypotheses, which help to learn from the imple- initial capacity and as a basis for management goals mentation of decisions and to achieve a higher and decision-making. Initial capacity has a decisive adaptation capacity regarding unavoidable system influence on the applied governance types, which, changes (Lamont 2006 in Manos and Papathana- in turn, retroact on the economic, financial, social, siou 2008). Adaptive management, incorporating and ecological situation in the areas. monitoring and feedback, have long been proposed as powerful tools to ensure successful conserva- zz Results tion outcomes (Holling 1978; Walters 1986). The In the analysed case studies from the EU and the case studies confirm this high efficiency. Various USA, the following governance types were impor- recent international agreements take the fact into tant (. Table 5.4): consideration that implementing adaptive manage- 1. State controlled (a) national/federal, (b) decen- ment and concomitant devolution of governance tralised, (c) delegated, (d) corporatist are needed to ensure the sustainable use of biodi- 2. Community-based versity (Convention on Biological Diversity 2004; 3. Politicy network-based Bern Convention 2007). 4. Market-based Most of the studies showed that it is relatively easy to reach positive results for biodiversity and ES The case studies showed that it is useful to in areas where state property and forest cover pre- 55 consider and coordinate natural, social, cultur- dominate. Governance structures can be improved al, economic and institutional resources and when capable and engaged persons and/or organi- capacities as comprehensively as possible, to zations take strong leadership. Sustainable use and reach a high level of governance with respect maintenance of biodiversity and ES benefit from to the protection of biodiversity the existence of effective institutions, especially if 55 apply a mixture of different governance types there is a high level of vertical and horizontal inte- for ecosystem management according to the gration between them. specific ecological, social, and economic de- The protection and development goals must be mands, as it is also useful for the protection of formulated clearly, combined with social and eco- biodiversity. Mixed governance types are more nomic goals, and fixed in management and sector efficient than individual types. plans. Suitability and appropriateness of the goals are an important guarantee for their success. All An appropriate mixture includes regulative, par- relevant ES should be included. If only provisioning ticipatory and economic/financial, social/cultural services are included, which have the character of instruments, and it involves public administration, private goods, without considering regulation ser- citizen participation and market-based approach- vices based on public goods, and being fundamental es. Market instruments and/or quasi-market mea- for human well-being, serious risks for biodiversity sures (e.g. agri-environmental measures) are es- and ES will rise. For example, in agriculture the pro- pecially useful if conservation measures cause op- duction of goods but not of general interest services portunity costs and compete with economic activ- are regulated by markets. For those services com- ities. Thus, markets can influence biodiversity and pensation payments are offered, but these are often ES both positively and negatively. For example, the too low and economically not attractive, whereas the implementation of biotope connections between one-sided orientation towards provisioning services 178 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

is stimulated by incentives, recently additionally for of the biodiversity values as a precondition of hu- energy cropping, which further distorts the missing man life quality and economic activities. In 2007, a balance between the various ES (7 Sect. 6.2). survey showed that, only 35 % of European citizens The case studies have also underpinned that knew what the term biodiversity means (Manos there is a strong demand for regulations and envi- and Papathanasiou 2008). ronmental standards (e.g., Water Framework Di- rective, Natura 2000), if negative impacts on eco- zz Case Study Moritzburg Hilly Landscape systems and ES as well as serious risks and dangers One of the case studies of the GEM-CON-BIO exist. Where markets for biodiversity and ES can project was located in the Moritzburg hilly land- be used (e.g., organic farming, tourism) or quasi- scape north of the Saxon capital Dresden (charac- markets for the exchange of a public good between teristics of the study area 7 Sect. 6.2). 5 businessmen and states can be created (e.g., spe- The vicinity of Dresden has land-use interfer- cific agri-environmental measures), market mecha- ences between agriculture, settlement, traffic, tour- nisms may be effective. Vice-versa, higher pressures ism/recreation, and the demands of nature conser- on biodiversity can be observed where market in- vation. struments are not used sufficiently and where the The most important initial conditions and avail- actors have insufficient knowledge. able resources, which are influencing the results of Even though the protection of biological diver- governance in terms of biodiversity conservation sity benefits from the setting of ecological priori- for this case study are as follows: the main ES is the ties and suitable regulations, it became obvious that production of food (crops or livestock) by private the supply of ES from the local to the international farmers and a huge agricultural enterprise. External level is strictly bound to economic priorities. These drivers, especially economic ones, which are main- results confirm the necessity of a dual approach, ly affected by the EU-Common Agricultural Policy which includes both protection and use. (CAP) (market prices, subsidies), are influencing Targeted monitoring is useful to successfully the management to a large extent. Due to the rights apply adaptive management strategies, to exclude of landowners in terms of use and management or at least diminish negative influences and to of natural resources and the low enforcement of support positive ones. The question is: What is available regulations concerning nature conserva- the effect of biodiversity and ES on management tion issues, the external drivers push back most of measures? Effective monitoring of biodiversity the state or private endeavours for governance for needs the development and application of new gov- biodiversity conservation. The overriding interests ernance indicators (e.g., type- and quality-related of economic development also have effects on the variables to evaluate participation). To stop the loss major threats on biodiversity, such as agro-indus- of biodiversity, not only pressures and their driving trial farming, e.g. large field plots, monocultures, forces but also the speed and efficiency of policy mechanization, increased use of chemicals, maize reactions must be considered (Manos and Papatha- and rape for energy production, and infrastructure nasiou 2008; Kenward et al. 2011). development/traffic routes. No blanket solutions can be prescribed, but Regarding the ecosystem management ob- governance and management of ecosystems have jectives and decision-making, a huge number to take the diversity of ecological, social, economic, of partially overlapping sector plans governing cultural, historical, and institutional aspects within the use and management of natural resources and between countries into account. It is also im- we have to mention also here. In reality, most of portant to enhance the communication on deci- these nature- or biodiversity-related plans do not sions on governance and ecosystem management have a significant influence on the management. taken on national and international levels in order The management of the area is predominantly to improve the cooperation of stakeholders on the governed by individual economic decisions of different levels (horizontal and vertical). Moreover, landowners or leaseholders according to the there is an urgent need to enhance public awareness legal framework. Only some of the small areas 179 5.4 • Governance in Nature Conservation 5 influenced by contracts about the environmen- terms of biodiversity management results from tally friendly management of natural resources the continuous work of the very active ‘NGO between land users and state agencies are man- of ornithologists in Großdittmannsdorf’ (bot- aged directly for biodiversity conservation. Sev- tom-up approach). This organization success- eral monitoring activities, especially on birds, fully keeps contact with and cooperates with are carried out. So far, the results, e.g. the rapid all stakeholders involved, and, therefore, holds decline of field-birds, do not influence the main the leadership role in local biodiversity man- agricultural activities. agement processes. Unfortunately, its influence Generally, all sector plans with a focus on on the dominant resource management activi- biodiversity are developed by the state to counter ties of the farmers or agriculture enterprises the economics-based individual decisions about is limited. But the participatory processes management that mainly cause the loss of biodi- exercised for more than 30 years have resulted versity. Some plans are oriented strongly towards in positive social effects in the area. It is mainly the ecological dimension (contracts regarding the caused by their constant, collaborative and management of natural resources, the Natura 2000 successful work in nature conservation issues. management plan, ordinances for protected areas, Since the NGO has established contacts to etc.), others are looking for a well-balanced trade- the responsible state agencies, also the level off between the economic, ecological and social of vertical trust within the managed area has dimension (land-use planning, regional plan, etc.). increased. This continuous growth of hori- The plans are developed by state agencies under zontal as well as vertical trust is generating a voluntary involvement of local stakeholders. How- permanent background for further endeavors ever, despite the contracts about the management in nature conservation. The described social of natural resources, the plans are weakly imple- effects generated by this local NGO distinguish mented in real management activities. the ‘Moritzburg hilly landscape’ from other Among the governance processes related to areas, where no or only few stakeholders en- biodiversity and ecosystem management in the gaged in nature conservation and claim com- area, the following factors belonging to three compliance with the law. plexes are the most widely implemented: 1. Economic/financial instruments (market tools Nevertheless, also in the Moritzburg hilly land- and incentives): funds as subsidies or financial scape negative changes concerning the state of incentives are the most relevant instruments biodiversity and the supply of ES occurred. Moni- for the stimulation of nature-related manage- toring data show losses or population declines of ment measures in this area. As it is usual in the most significant bird species for which the area Germany, the financial means for landscape is especially worthy of protection, and for which management and biodiversity conservation a European bird conservation site (Special Protec- are provided by state authorities and benefit tion Area–SPA, in the framework of Natura 2000) private land users (compensation for income had been designated. A major cause is the ongoing losses). intensification of agriculture, such as the recently 2. Legislative tools, regulations: the management increasing cultivation of energy crops, particularly of ecosystems is also driven by regulations for maize and rape (Bastian and Schrack 2007; Schrack protected areas according to the Saxon Nature 2008; Lupp et al. 2011). Conservation Act and the Federal Soil Con- The impacts described above are mainly caused servation Act and other derived regulations as by the influence of external drivers on the local eco- well as by agricultural regulations related to system management, which is dominated by inten- CAP: Cross Compliance. sive agricultural practices. Particular governance 3. Social processes collaboration among local activities do not lead to essential success in biodi- stakeholders; leadership role in management versity conservation. Despite the high biotic value processes): comprehensive cooperation in of the ‘Moritzburg hilly landscape’, the extensive 180 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

network of different protected sites and the num- Bastian O, Schreiber K-F (1999) Analyse und ökologische Bewertung der Landschaft (2. edn.). Spektrum Akade- ber of sector plans regarding or respecting nature mischer Verlag, Heidelberg conservation issues, in fact the described efforts in Bern Convention (2007) European charter on hunting nature conservation, are too weak to meet the huge and biodiversity (Council of Europe, Strasbourg, challenge of biodiversity loss. The effectiveness of France) 7http://www.facenatura2000.net/conference the governance processes in relation to the official– 2009/2.4.Lasen-Dias.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2012 Bertke E (2005) Ökologische Güter in einem ergebnisorien- mostly well balanced–management objectives, tierten Honorierungssystem für ökologische Leistungen named in the sector plans, is low. Besides the for- der Landwirtschaft. Herleitung – Definition – Kontrolle. mal planning, there are no adequate instruments PhD-thesis, University Göttingen, ibidem Verlag, for implementing their contents. Economic inter- Stuttgart ests are mostly dominating practical management Breuste J, Haase D, Elmqvist T (2011) Urban landscapes and 5 ecosystem services. In: Sandhu H, Wratten S, Cullen R, decisions. The endeavours in ecosystem manage- Costanza R (eds) ES2: ecosystem services in engineered ment for biodiversity by state agencies and by farm- systems. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford ers do not meet the challenges of land use, which Brondízio ES, Gatzweiler FG, Zografos C, Kumar M (2010) preserves biodiversity and ES. Based on voluntary Socio-cultural context of ecosystem and biodiversity work, the leading nature protection association is evaluation: biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services. In: Kumar P (eds) The economics of ecosystems not able to fill this gap. and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London, pp 149–181 Conclusion Bundestagsfraktion Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (2012) Biodiver- Maintenance and development of biodiversity sität 2020. Das grüne Handlungskonzept zum Schutz and ES may be, in principle, taken forward by suit- der biologischen Vielfalt. 7 www.gruene-bundestag.de/ able governance structures and processes. This is themen/biologische-vielfalt/der-gruene-aktionsplan- fuer-den-schutz-der-biologischen-vielfalt.html particularly the case for regulation and sociocultural Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2011) Mapping ES, while provision ES follow market-based mecha- ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol nisms. Altogether the case studies from many coun- Indic 21:17–29 tries show that the application of a wide range of Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) Addis Ababa interlinked instruments and governance types, from Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. Secretariat Conv Biol Divers, Montreal, economic via legal to social and participatory ap- 7 www.cbd.int/doc/publications/addis-gdl-en.pdf. proaches, are the most fruitful ones. Accessed 19 July 2012 Czybulka D, Luttmann M (2005) Die Berücksichtigung von Leistungen der Länder für das Naturerbe im Finanzaus- gleichssystem des Bundes. Natur und Recht 2:79–86 References Danson M, Halkier H, Cameron G (eds) (2000) Governance, institutional change and regional development. Ash- Adams WM, Aveling R, Brockington D, Dickson B, Elliott J, gate, Aldershot Hutton J, Roe D, Vira B, Wolmer W et al (2004) Biodi- de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) versity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Challenges in integration the concept of ecosystem ser- Science 306:1146–1149 vices and values in landscape planning, management Albert C, von Haaren C, Galler C (2012) Ökosystemdienst- and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272 leistungen. Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen oder ein Diller C (2002) Zwischen Netzwerk und Institution. Eine Impuls für die Landschaftsplanung? Nat Schutz Landsch Bilanz regionaler Kooperationen in Deutschland. VS- Plan 44:142–148 Verlag, Opladen Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Eigenbrod F, Thomas CD, Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Richardson DM, Le Maitre DC, Gillings S, Heinemeyer A, Roy DB, Gaston KJ (2009) van Jaarsveld AS (2008) Mapping ecosystem services Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other for planning and management. Agric Ecosyst Environ ecosystem service priorities. J Appl Ecol 46:888–896 127:135–140 Backhaus T (2008) Backhaus begrüßt Erklärung des Bundes Elmqvist T, Maltby E, Barker T, Mortimer M, Perrings C, und der Länder zur biologischen Vielfalt. Natur & Um- Aronson J, de Groot R, Fitter A, Mace G, Norberg J, welt vom 7. Mai 2008, 7 www.mv-schlagzeilen.de/ Sousa Pinto I, Ring I (2010) Biodiversity, ecosystems and Bastian O, Schrack M (2007) Energie vom Acker – Traum oder ecosystem services. In: Kumar P (ed) The economics of Albtraum? – Mitt. Landesverein Sächs. Heimatschutz ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic 3:57–66 foundations. Earthscan, London, Washington, pp 41–111 181 References 5

Endlicher W (2011) Introduction: from urban nature studies Haaren C von (ed) (2004) Landschaftsplanung. Eugen Ulmer, to ecosystem services. In: Endlicher W et al (eds) Per- Stuttgart spectives in urban ecology. Springer, Heidelberg Haaren C von, Albert C (2011) Integrating ecosystem services Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments and environmental planning: limitations and synergies. for environmental services in theory and practice: an Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosys Services Manage 7. doi:10.1080/ overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65:663–674 21513732.2011.616534 FAO–Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na- Haaren C von, Galler C, Ott S (2008) Landscape planning. The tions (2007) The state of food and agriculture. Paying basis of sustainable landscape development. Bundes farmers for environmental services. FAO Agriculture amt für Naturschutz, Bonn Series No. 38. Rome, Italy Hahn T, Galaz V, Terry A (2008) The GEM-CON-BIO analysis Ferraro PJ (2008) Asymmetric information and contract framework. In: Manos B, Papathanasiou J (eds) GEM- design for payments for environmental services. Ecol CON-BIO Governance and ecosystem management for Econ 65:810–821 the conservation of biodiversity. Aristoteles-Universität Ferraro PJ, Kiss A (2002) Direct payments to conserve biodi- Thessaloniki, Griechenland, pp 39–52 versity. Science 298:1718–1719 Hampicke U, Wätzold F (Spokeperson for the initiative) Freese J, Klimek S, Marggraf R (2011) Aktionen- und ergeb- (2009) Memorandum economics for nature conserva- nisorientierte Honorierung bei Agrarumweltmaßnah- tion–harmonising economic activities with protecting men. Nat Landsch 4:156–159 and conserving biodiversity, Greifswald, Leipzig, Bonn. Graham J, Amos B, Plumptre T (2003) Governance principles 7 www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/ for protected areas in the 21st century, a discussion. oekonomie/MemoOekNaturschutz.pdf 7 www.earthlore.ca/clients/WPC/English/grfx/sessions/ Hartmann E, Thomas F, Luick R (2006) Agrarumweltpro- PDFs/session_1/Amos_plenary.pdf. Accessed 8 June gramme in Deutschland. Anreiz für umweltfreundliches 2012 Wirtschaften in der Landwirtschaft und Koopera- Grêt-Regamey A, Walz A, Bebi P (2008) Valuing ecosystem tionen mit dem Naturschutz. Nat.schutz Landsch.plan services for sustainable landscape planning in Alpine 38:205–213 regions. Mt Res Dev 28:156–165 Heiland S (2010) Landschaftsplanung. In: Henckel D, Grossmann M, Hartje V, Meyerhoff J (2010) Ökonomische Kuczkowski K v, Lau P, Pahl-Weber E, Stellmacher F (eds) Bewertung naturverträglicher Hochwasservorsorge Planen – Bauen – Umwelt. Ein Handbuch. VS-Verlag, an der Elbe, Abschlussbericht des F + E-Vorhabens Wiesbaden, pp 294–300 “Naturverträgliche Hochwasservorsorge an der Elbe Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environment assessment and und Nebenflüssen und ihr volkswirtschaftlicher Nutzen. management. Wiley, London Teil: Ökonomische Bewertung naturverträglicher Hoch James AN, Gaston KJ, Balmford A (1999) Balancing the wasservorsorge an der Elbe und ihren Nebenflüssen”. earth’s accounts. Nature 401:323–324 BfN-Heft 89 Jedicke E (2010) Kann die TEEB-Studie den Landschaftsplan Gruehn D, Kenneweg H (1998) Berücksichtigung der reanimieren? Nat Schutz Landsch Plan 42:289 Belange von Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege in Jessel B (2011) Ökosystemdienstleistungen – Potenziale und der Flächennutzungsplanung. Ergebnisse aus dem F + Grenzen eines aktuellen umweltpolitischen Konzepts. E-Vorhaben 80806011 des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz. In: BBN (ed) Frischer Wind und weite Horizonte – Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BfN-Schriftenvertrieb im Jahrbuch für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege, Bd 3, Landwirtschaftsverlag Naturschutz und Gesellschaft, Bonn, pp 72–87 Grünwald A (2011) Zukunft Landschaftsplan – Perspektiven Kaechele K, May P, Primmer E, Ludwig G (2011) Forest einer methodischen Weiterentwicklung unter Anwen- certification: a voluntary instrument for environmental dung des Konzeptes der Ökosystemdienstleistungen. governance. In: Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) Instru- Masterarbeit, TU Dresden ment mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICY MIX Report Gundimeda H, Wätzold F (2010) Payments for ecosystem 2/2011. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – services and conservation banking. In: Wittmer H, UFZ, Leipzig, pp 162–174. 7 http://policymix.nina.no Gundimeda H (coordinators), TEEB (eds) The economics Kenward R, Whittingham M, Arampatzis S, Manos B, Hahn of ecosystems and biodiversity for local and regional T, Terry A, Simoncini R, Alcorn J, Bastian O, Donlan M, policy makers (Chap. 8, pp 141–160). (7 www.teebweb. Elowe K, Franzén F, Karacsyonyi Z, Larsson M, Manou org) D, Navodaru I, Papadopoulou O, Papathanasiou J, von Gunningham N, Young MD (1997) Toward optimal environ- Raggamby A, Sharp R, Söderqvist T, Soutukorva A, mental policy: the case of biodiversity conservation. Vavrova L, Aebischer N, Leader-Williams N, Rutz C (2011) Ecol Law Quart 24:243–296 Identifying governance strategies that effectively sup- Gunningham N, Sinclair D, Grabosky P (1998) Smart regula- port ecosystem services, resource sustainability, and tion: designing environmental policy. Clarendon, biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:5308–5312 Oxford 182 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

Kienast F (2010) Landschaftsdienstleistungen: Ein taug- zum Schutz gefährdeter Arten und Lebensraumtypen liches Konzept für Forschung und Praxis? Forum für im Grünland. UFZ-Bericht 01/2012. Helmholtz-Zentrum Wissen:7–12 für Umweltforschung – UFZ, Leipzig Kirchhoff T, Trepl L, Vicenzotti V (2012) What is landscape Michaelis P (1996) Ökonomische Instrumente der Umweltpo- ecology? An analysis and evaluation of six different litik. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg conceptions. Landscape Res (38:33–51). doi:10.1080/0142 NeFo–Netzwerkforum zur Biodiversitätsforschung Deutsch- 6397.2011.640751 land (2011) Endbericht zum F & E-Vorhaben. Workshop: Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are Euro- Ökosystemdienstleistungen – warum ein sperriges pean agri-environment schemes in conserving and Konzept Karriere macht. Georg-August-Universität promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969 Göttingen, 7 www.biodiversity.de/index.php/de/ Klimek S, Richter-Kemmermann A, Steinmann H-H, Fresse fuer-presse-medien/experteninterviews/1657-interview- J, Isselstein J (2008) Rewarding farmers for deliver- barkmann-2. Accessed 10 Feb 2012 ing vascular plant diversity in managed grasslands: a Nill D (2011) Bezahlung von Ökosystemdienstleistungen für 5 transdisciplinary case-study approach. Biol Conserv den Erhalt der landwirtschaftlichen genetischen Vielfalt. 131:2888–2897 Konzepte, Erfahrungen und Relevanz für die Entwick- Knieling J (2003) Kooperative Regionalplanung und Regional lungszusammenarbeit. GIZ, Bonn Governance: Praxisbeispiele, Theoriebezüge und OECD (1999) Handbook of incentive measures for biodiver- Perspektiven. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung sity: design and implementation. OECD, Paris 8/9:463–478 OECD (2007) Instrument mixes for environmental policy. Krönert R, Steinhardt U, Volk M (eds) (2001) Landscape bal- OECD, Paris ance and landscape assessment. Springer, Berlin Oosterhuis F (2011) Tax reliefs for biodiversity conservation. KULAP–Kulturlandschaftsprogramm (2012) Richtlinie des In: Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) Instrument Mixes Ministeriums für Infrastruktur und Landwirtschaft des for Biodiversity Policies. POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Landes Brandenburg zur Förderung umweltgerechter Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, landwirtschaftlicher Produktionsverfahren und zur Leipzig, pp 89–97. 7 http://policymix.nina.no Erhaltung der Kulturlandschaft der Länder Brandenburg Perner A, Thöne M (2005) Naturschutz im Finanzausgleich. und Berlin (KULAP 2007) vom 27. August 2010, geändert Erweiterung des naturschutzpolitischen Instrumentari mit Erlass vom 29. Juli 2010 und vom Erlass 30. Januar ums um finanzielle Anreize für Gebietskörperschaften. 2012 FiFo-Berichte Nr. 3, Mai 2005, Finanzwissenschaftliches Lamont A (2006) Policy characterization of ecosystem man- Forschungsinstitut an der Universität zu Köln agement. Environ Monit Assess 113:5–18 Perrot-Maître D (2006) The Vittel payments for ecosystem Le Galès P (1998) Regulations and Governance in European services: a “perfect” PES case? International Institute for Cities. Int J Urban Regional 22:482–506 Environment and Development, London Lupp G, Albrecht J, Darbi M, Bastian O (2011) Ecosystem Pimentel D, Harvey C, Resoosudarmo P, Sinclair K, Kurz D, services in energy crop production–a concept for McNair M, Crist S, Shpritz L, Fitton L, Saffouri R, Blair R regulatory measures in spatial planning? J Landscape (1995) Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion Ecol 4:49–66 and conservation benefits. Science 267:1117–1123 Manos B, Papathanasiou J (2008) GEM-CON-BIO Govern Porras I, Chacón-Cascante A, Robalino J, Oosterhuis F (2011) ance and Ecosystem Management for the Conserva- PES and other economic beasts: assessing PES within a tion of Biodiversity. Aristotle University Thessaloniki, policy mix in conservation. In: Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack Greece C (eds) Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. May PH, Veiga Neto F, Denardin V, Loureiro W (2002) Using POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Helmholtz-Zentrum für fiscal instruments to encourage conservation: Municipal Umweltforschung – UFZ, Leipzig, pp 119–144. 7 http:// responses to the “ecological” value-added tax in Paraná policymix.nina.no and Minas Gerais, Brazil. In: Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell- Richter M, Weiland U (eds) (2012) Applied urban ecology – a Mills N (eds) Selling forest environmental services: global framework. Wiley-Blackwell, West-Sussex Market-based mechanisms for conservation and Ring I (2001) Ökologische Aufgaben und ihre Berücksich- development. Earthscan, London, pp 173–199 tigung im kommunalen Finanzausgleich. Z Angew MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a) Ecosystems Umweltforschung 13:236–249 and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Ring I (2002) Ecological public functions and fiscal equalisa- Resources Institute, Washington DC tion at the local level in Germany. Ecol Econ 42:415–427 MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b) Ecosys- Ring I (2004) Naturschutz in der föderalen Aufgabenteilung: tems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Zur Notwendigkeit einer Bundeskompetenz aus ökono- Washington DC mischer Perspektive. Nat Landsch 79:494–500 Mewes M, Sturm A, Johst K, Drechsler M, Wätzold F (2012) Ring I (2008a) Compensating municipalities for protected Handbuch der Software Ecopay zur Bestimmung areas. Fiscal transfers for biodiversity conservation in kosteneffizienter Ausgleichszahlungen für Maßnahmen Saxony, Germany. GAIA 17(S1):143–151 183 References 5

Ring I (2008b) Integrating local ecological services into inter- for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, pp 175–208. governmental fiscal transfers: the case of the ecological 7 http://policymix.nina.no ICMS in Brazil. Land Use Policy 25:485–497 Schröter-Schlaack C, Ring I, Möckel S, Schulz-Zunkel C, Ring I (2011) Economic Instruments for Conservation Policies Lienhoop N, Klenke R, Lenk T (2013) Assessment of exist- in Federal Systems. UFZ Habilitation Nr. 1/2011; zugleich ing and proposed policy instruments for biodiversity Habilitationsschrift, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche conservation in Germany: The role of ecological fiscal Fakultät der Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, 219 p. 7 www. transfers. POLICY MIX Report No. 1/2013. Helmholtz ufz.de/index.php?de†=13920 Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, 95 p. Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) (2011a) Instrument Mixes for 7 http://policymix.nina.no Biodiversity Policies. POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Helm- Simoncini R, Borrini-Feyerabend G, Lassen B (2008) Policy holtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig. guidelines on governance and ecosystem management 7 http://policymix.nina.no for biodiversity conservation. GEM-CON-BIO project Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (2011b) Justifying and Assessing report, IUCN Regional Office for Europe, Brüssel Policy Mixes for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Gover- Southern A, Lovetta A, O’Riordana T, Watkinson A (2011) nance. In: Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) Instrument Sustainable landscape governance: lessons from a Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. POLICY MIX Report catchment based study in whole landscape design. 2/2011. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – Landsc Urban Plan 101:179–189 UFZ, Leipzig, pp 14–35. 7 http://policymix.nina.no SRU–Der Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen (1996) Ring I, Drechsler M, van Teeffelen AJ, Irawan S, Venter O Konzepte einer dauerhaft-umweltgerechten Nutzung (2010a) Biodiversity conservation and climate mitiga- ländlicher Räume, Sondergutachten. Stuttgart tion: what role can economic instruments play? Curr Staub C, Ott W, Heusi F, Klingler G, Jenny A, Häcki M, Hauser Opin Environ Sustain 2:50–58 A (2011) Indikatoren für Ökosystemdienstleistungen: Ring I, Hansjürgens B, Elmqvist T, Wittmer H, Sukhdev P Systematik, Methodik und Umsetzungsempfehlung für (2010b) Challenges in framing the economics of eco- eine wohlfahrtsbezogene Umweltberichterstattung. systems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative. Curr Opin Bundesamt für Umwelt, Bern. Umwelt-Wissen Nr. 1102 Environ Sustain 2:15–26 Sterner T (2003) Policy instruments for environmental and Ring I, May P, Loureiro W, Santos R, Antunes P, Clemente natural resource management. RFF Press, Washington P (2011) Ecological fiscal transfers. In: Ring I, Schröter- DC Schlaack C (eds) Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Stokman A, von Haaren C (2012) Integrating science and Policies. POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Helmholtz Centre creativity for landscape planning and design of urban for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, pp 98–118. areas. In: Richter M, Weiland U (eds) Applied urban 7 http://policymix.nina.no ecology–a global framework. Wiley-Blackwell, West- Santos R, Clemente P, Antunes P, Schröter-Schlaack C, Ring I Sussex, pp 170–185 (2011) Offsets, habitat banking and tradable permits for Swetnam RD, Fisher B, Mbilinyi BP, Munishi PKT, Willcock biodiversity conservation. In: Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C S, Ricketts T, Mwakalila S, Balmford A, Burgess ND, (eds) Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICY Marshall AR, Lewis SL (2010) Mapping socio-economic MIX Report 2/2011. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental scenarios of land cover change: a GIS method to enable Research – UFZ, Leipzig, pp 59–88. 7 http://policymix. ecosystem service modelling. J Environ Manage 92:1–12 nina.no Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assess- Santos R, Ring I, Antunes P, Clemente P (2012) Fiscal transfers ment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and for biodiversity conservation: the Portuguese local connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic finances law. Land Use Policy 29:261–273 21:80–88 Schrack M (eds) (2008) Der Natur verpflichtet. Projekte, TEEB–The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (2010a) Ergebnisse und Erfahrungen der ehrenamtlichen Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature. A synthesis Naturschutzarbeit in Großdittmannsdorf. Veröff. Mus. of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of Westlaus. Kamenz, Sonderheft, 180 p TEEB. 7 www.teebweb.org Schröter-Schlaack C, Blumentrath S (2011) Direct regula- TEEB–The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (2010b) tion for biodiversity conservation. In: Ring I, Schröter- The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for local Schlaack C (eds) Instrument mixes for biodiversity and regional policy makers. 7 www.teebweb.org policies. POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Helmholtz Centre TEEB–The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (2011) for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, pp 36–58. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in na- 7 http://policymix.nina.no tional and international policy making. Ten Brink P (ed), Schröter-Schlaack C, Ring I (2011) Towards a framework for Earthscan, London assessing instruments in policy mixes for biodiver- ten Brink P, Bassi S, Bishop J, Harvey CA, Ruhweza A, Verma sity and ecosystem governance. In: Ring I, Schröter- M, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S (2011) Rewarding benefits Schlaack C (eds) Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity through payments and markets. Section 1: payments Policies. POLICY MIX Report 2/2011. Helmholtz Centre for ecosystem services. In: TEEB–the economics of eco- 184 Chapter 5 • Governing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision

systems and biodiversity in national and international Willemen L, Verburg PH, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF (2008) policy making. Ten Brink P (ed), Earthscan, London, Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landsc pp 181–199 Urban Plan 88:34–43 Termorshuizen J, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a Wirth P, Hutter G, Schanze J (2010) Flood risk management bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable and regional governance–the case of Weisseritz Regio development. Landsc Ecol 24:1037–1052 (Germany). In: Kluvánková-Oravská T et al (eds) From Troy A, Wilson MA (2006) Mapping ecosystem services: government to governance? New governance for water practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and biodiversity in an enlarged Europe. Alfa Nakladatel- and value transfer. Ecol Econ 60:435–449 ství, Prague, pp 128–141 UNDP–United Nation Development Programme (1999) Wunder S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some Human development report 1999–globalisation with a nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper No. 42, Center for human face. united nations development programme, International Forestry Research, Nairobi, Kenya. 7 www. New York cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/occpapers/op-42.pdf 5 Vasishth A (2008) A scale-hierarchic ecosystem approach to Wunder S (2007) The efficiency of payments for environ- integrative ecological planning. Progress in Planning mental services in tropical conservation. Conserv Biol 70:99–132 21:48–58 Vihervaara P, Kumpula T, Tanskanen A, Burkhard B (2010) Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S (2008) Taking stock: a compara- Ecosystem services–a tool for sustainable management tive analysis of payments for environmental services of human–environment systems. Case study in Finish programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Forest Lapland. Ecol Complex 7:410–420 Econ 65:834–852 Walters K (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan, New York Wätzold F, Schwerdtner K (2005) Why be wasteful when preserving a valuable resource? A review article on the cost-effectiveness of European conservation policy. Biol Conserv 123:327–338 Wätzold F, Drechsler M, Armstrong CW, Baumgärtner S, Grimm V, Huth A, Perrings C, Possingham HP, Shogren JF, Skonhoft A, Verboom-Vasiljev J, Wissel C (2006) Ecological-economic modeling for biodiversity management: potential, pitfalls, prospects. Conserv Biol 20:1034–1041 Wätzold F, Mewes M, van Apeldoorn R, Varjopouro R, Chmielewski TJ, Veeneklaas F, Kosola MJ (2010) Cost- effectiveness of managing Natura 2000 sites: an explor- atory study for Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland. Biodivers Conserv 19:2053–2069 Wende W, Reinsch N, Jülg D, Funke J (2005) Kommunale Landschaftspläne – Rahmenbedingungen der prak- tischen Umsetzung von Erfordernissen und Maßnah- men. Landschaftsentwicklung und Umweltforschung – Schriftenreihe der Fakultät Architektur Umwelt Gesellschaft TU Berlin, Nr. 126 Wende W, Marschall I, Heiland S, Lipp T, Reinke M, Schaal P, Schmidt C (2009) Umsetzung von Maßnahmenvorschlä- gen örtlicher Landschaftspläne – Ergebnisse eines hochschulübergreifenden Projektes in acht Bundeslän- dern. Nat Schutz Landsch Plan 41:145–149 Wende W, Wojtkiewicz W, Marschall I, Heiland S, Lipp T, Reinke M, Schaal P, Schmidt C (2012) Putting the plan into practice: implementation of proposals for measures of local landscape plans. Landscape Res. 37:483-500 Willemen L, Hein L, Verburg PH (2010) Evaluating the impact of regional development policies on future landscape services. Ecol Econ 69:2244–2254 185 6

Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

6.1 Concept for the Selection of Case Studies – 187 K. Grunewald and O. Bastian

6.2 Assessment of Selected Services of Agro-Ecosystems – 189 6.2.1 Introduction – 189 O. Bastian 6.2.2 Agri-Environmental Measures: The AEMBAC Methodology – 189 O. Bastian 6.2.3 Agro-economic Evaluation of Landscape Plans – 196 O. Bastian 6.2.4 Species-Rich Grassland Services – 200 M. Reutter and B. Matzdorf

6.3 Economic Benefit Valuation of the Influence of a Forest Conversion Programme on Ecosystem Services in the Northeastern Lowlands of Germany – 208 P. Elsasser and H. Englert 6.3.1 Introduction – 208 6.3.2 Raw Wood Production – 209 6.3.3 Carbon Sequestration – 211 6.3.4 Scenic Beauty and Recreation Values – 212 6.3.5 Synopsis and Discussion – 213

6.4 Urban Ecosystem Services: Leipzig as a Case Study – 216 D. Haase 6.4.1 Urban Ecosystem Services and Urban Land Use: A Complex Nexus – 217 6.4.2 An Example of Local Climate Regulation – 218 6.4.3 An Example of Flood Regulation – 218 6.4.4 An Example of Carbon Sequestration in the Urban Area–Reducing the Ecological Backpack of the City? – 220 6.4.5 An Example of the Recreational and Nature Experience – 221

K. Grunewald, O. Bastian (eds.), Ecosystem Services – Concept, Methods and Case Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-44143-5_6, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 6.5 Cultural Landscapes and their Ecosystem Services – 224 6.5.1 The Example of Orchard Meadows in the Swabian Alb Biosphere Reserve – 224 B. Ohnesorge, C. Bieling, C. Schleyer and T. Plieninger 6.5.2 Calculation of Landscape Management Measures and Costs – 231 K. Grunewald, R.-U. Syrbe and O. Bastian

6.6 Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies – 240 6.6.1 Nature Conservation and Ecosystem Services – 240 O. Bastian 6.6.2 Soil and Water Protection – 258 K. Grunewald 6.6.3 Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services–The Case of Wetland Restoration Along the German Elbe River – 264 V. Hartje and M. Grossmann 6.6.4 Peatland Use in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany: Monetarization of the Ecosystem Service Climate Protection – 273 A. Schäfer

6.7 Systematization of the Case Studies – 280 K. Grunewald and O. Bastian

References – 283 187 6.1 • Concept for the Selection of Case Studies 6

6.1 Concept for the Selection of actively created for centuries. Recent developments Case Studies of global changes like demographic change, climate change plus globalization of economic systems K. Grunewald and O. Bastian constitute enormous challenges with this limited resource to treat. Besides the area of nutrition this “Nature does not rate.” also concerns the supply of energy and habitat or preservation of ecosystems. The ES concept is not designed to end in itself, Predominantly land use and driving forces of but also helps to develop and implement better land-use changes constitute a socio-economic cat- activity for utilization and protection of nature. egory. Humans as acting entity of interventions in Links and differences between ES and biodiversity nature are set to land utilization (Ott 2010). This were already pointed out in 7 Chap. 1. . Figure 6.1 implies it is not about whether but how the inter- illustrates that ES, biodiversity, sustainability and vention into ecosystems is made and how certain land-use management including natural resources interventions can be evaluated. The ES concept and the protection of soil, water and climate are shall and can help to understand contexts. Again presenting different accesses in the area of tension references to biodiversity are relevant, especially and “ensure growing needs of human and ecosys- within the German National Strategy on Biodiver- tem/natural capacity” which are overlapping to a sity (BMU 2007) and within the Federal Biological greater or lesser extent. One should indicate the Diversity Programme (BMU 2011). complementary in its issue not simply differenti- Drawbacks in the natural environment like loss ating concept whereby considering the indicators of animal and plant species, penetration of Neobio- and methods are different in its main focuses and ta, enhanced pollutant concentrations in soils, wa- perspectives. ter and air, soil erosion, sealing and fragmentation Science and politics need to ensure that the of natural habitats, loss and damage of landscape el- practical part will be supported: What is actually ements or increasing noise because of traffic routes meant, which interactions are relevant, what is im- is mostly due to cause of land uses of humans. For portant? For example, the National Committee for decades these ecosystem changes are subject of en- Global Change Research (NKGCF 2011) demands vironmental research discussions, but to what ex- good practise definition of regionally specific intent are they influencing utilization, user and the dicators and monitoring strategies, including the human well-being? Even if objective facts of land comparison of measurable variables of biodiversity, use are analysed, systematised and represented ac- functions and services of ecosystems, land-use and cording to scientific categories (biophysical meth- socio-economic trends, or “development and veri- ods, 7 Sect. 4.1), troubleshootings and decisions fication of models and concepts in sustainability re- are taking place in public discourse. In this specific search with a view to biodiversity and ecosystem ser- aspect the integrative ES concept is said to help and vices” (ES). As a result high research policy expecta- enable innovative realizations (7 Sect. 4.5). tions are aroused in a complicated, integrated area. In democratic countries like Germany, land use It is possible that different target systems, e.g. of agri- or cause of potential abuses (see above) are con- culture and protection of species, might show differ- trolled on the basis of rules of what they should and ent behaviour. Therefore, fundamentals need to be should not do. The legislation can be considered developed to negotiate considerations (. Fig. 6.1). extremely great in the EU and Germany. Tedious Sustainable land management and landscape social negotiation processes are normally preced- conservation are crucial factors of our basis of life. ed to legal regulations. These assume ecological That’ is why we focused on ES case studies concern- analysis as well as perception and estimation of the ing the subject land use/land-use changes as well as risks or the hazards for humans and environment protection and maintenance of landscapes. (= constructivistical social process). Condition for The land surface represents the primary hu- adequate social trade is the timely recognition of man habit at which mankind has influenced and land-use problems but it is not a guarantee for ‘right’ responses. 188 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

Ecosystem services

Climate protection Biodiversity Nature- Society Human- Land- Benefit- Environment- Soil protection scape Nature conservation Interaction Well-being

Sustainibility

Land use

6 Water protection

. Fig. 6.1 Scheme of overlying terms and concepts in the human-environment sector. © Grunewald

Integrative management which in addition is The different professional backgrounds of the case made to contribute a balance between objectives study authors caused various perspectives and em- of protection, sustainable use and equitable shar- phases. Articles had to be kept as short as possible ing of gains derived by use, is the matter of the in- so that individual problems could not be presented terface ES–land use (Jessel 2011). Mankind is con- explicitly and in a detailed manner. In accordance sidered an explicit part of ecosystems (landscape to settings of priorities on land use and ecosystem approach, 7 Sect. 3.4). This corresponds to the prin- types the case studies have initially been classified ciples of the ecosystem approach of the Convention to areas of the main land cover categories in Ger- on Biological Diversity (CBD 2010), the so-called many (agrarian, forestry and urban ecosystems). Malawi-Principles (Häusler and Scherer-Lorenzen Marine, coastal and high mountain ecosystems 2002). were left aside. All ecosystems are representing a The objective target, which is linked to case production, living and regeneration space although studies presented hereafter, is mainly consistent of: with different emphases so, in principle, all three 1. Demonstration of multifaceted applications of categories are relevant in ES. the ES concept: terms, categories, approaches Wherever humans need to intervene in nature of analysis and assessment, cost-benefits con- to protect their own existence, a target-orientated siderations, mechanisms for controlling and landscape management is necessary for the finance (aspects of methodology) preservation of values and services of ecosystems. 2. Presentation of possibilities, how ES ap- The necessary expenses are describing a minimum- proaches could contribute to sustainable land indicator for the valuation of ecosystems, because use (new way of looking at concepts, design their existence is not secured without these accom- options, possibilities and limits of the concept) plishments. Such analyses are focused in the land- 3. Discussion of the current status of ES captur- scape management (Landschaftspflege) accounting ing in Germany (regional and ecosystem-/ evaluations (7 Sect. 6.5). Completing specific as- land-use type specific aspects). pects of nature conservation, soil-, water-, and flood protection as well as climate- and peat protection 189 6.2 • Assessment of Selected Services of Agro-Ecosystems 6 will be discussed. Thereby, aspects of hemeroby, plementation of the ES concept is suggestive for a structural characteristics but also processes and number of reasons (Plieninger and Schleyer 2010): matter balances are figured. 55 No other ecosystem has been as well re- Furthermore, the case studies have been select- searched in how management measures may ed according to the following criteria: influence ES (e.g. reduction of the input of 55 ES are assessed in projects and the results have fertilisers and pesticides into surface waters been discussed in public (‘wealth of existing through growing of woods in the agro-cul- data’). ture). 55 Representation and transferability: ES were pro- 55 Many ES are placed as paddock jointly with cessed on a regional basis, they are typical, veri- agro-products; in few cases entire waiver on fied and validated (‘exemplary representation’). agricultural production is required to support ES. . Figure 6.2 illustrates the location of the case 55 In the European agriculture significant experi- studies, which are mainly situated in Central and ences with economic incentive instruments, East Germany (states Saxony and Mecklenburg- which can specifically be targeted as supply for Western Pomerania/Brandenburg, urban area of ES, are already available. Leipzig, county Goerlitz, Ore Mountains, Mulde- 55 Many agro-ecosystems are disposed of high Loesshuegelland, floodplain and catchment area potential to strengthen ES. Agriculture relies Elbe). In 7 Chap. 3, 4 and 5 individual cases of highly on ES (regulation capacities), otherwise methods and techniques with regional examples it provides efforts in significantly extents (pro- have already been visualised (. Fig. 6.2). vision performances). The community might impose external costs according to cultivation management in terms of habitat losses, nutri- 6.2 Assessment of Selected Services ent translocations or greenhouse gas emis- of Agro-Ecosystems sions.

6.2.1 Introduction Still, it should be noted that the ES term is not very common in the European agricultural policy so far. O. Bastian In the following sections three case studies on ES or comparable issues in the area of agriculture Utilised agricultural areas are currently taking up will be presented: about half of the territory of the EU. Over many 1. The development of local agri-environmental centuries, due to ongoing development created by programmes and measures (7 Sect. 6.2.2) humans, these agro-ecosystems have been and are 2. The agro-economic evaluation of implement- partly still treasured for their biological variety and ing a landscape plan (7 Sect. 6.2.3) and as producers of diverse ES. However, the continu- 3. The identification of ES in extensively used ous and ever-increasing intensification of agricul- grassland rich in species (so-called High Na- tural production in favourable areas (land consoli- ture Value-Farmland, HNV; 7 Sect. 6.2.4) dation, large-scale application economy, mechanization, chemical-based approach) plus the mission and reforestation in disadvantaged regions has re- 6.2.2 Agri-Environmental Measures: sulted in serious decline of biodiversity and many The AEMBAC Methodology regulating and (socio)cultural ES over decades–a process which is expected to continue. O. Bastian To give the farmers and to spread public understanding of the biological diversity, as well as the To maintain or enhance biodiversity, ES and sus- positive effects and achievements coming from nu- tainability of agro-ecosystems, the European Union merous gentle cultivated agricultural lands, the im- provides incentives for environmentally friendly 190 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Fig. 6.2 Spatial location of the case studies. The number in brackets refers to the section where they are discussed. © IÖR/Grunewald and Witschas

farming. The Common Agricultural Policy of the and forestry, biodiversity, environment and land- EU (CAP) consists of two main pillars: Pillar 1 in- scape, and the living conditions in rural areas. cludes direct payments to the farmers (to support Payment mechanisms are set into force, so- their income under the condition that they respect called Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), for minimum requirements of environmental compat- which well-defined services are performed (direct- ibility, so-called Cross-Compliance rules). Pillar 2 ly or indirectly) on a voluntary basis against paying aims to improve the competitiveness of agriculture a defined monetary amount. 191 6.2 • Assessment of Selected Services of Agro-Ecosystems 6

. Fig. 6.3 Working steps of the AEMBAC methodology on the example of study areas in Saxony

Agri-environmental programmes include a of local agri-environmental programmes for biodiver- wide range of measures to improve the ecologi- sity and landscape conservation) (Bastian et al. 2003, cal situation in agricultural areas and, finally, the 2005, 2007; Lütz et al. 2006). maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity and The consideration of regional/local peculiari- ES. For example, the conservation soil tillage shall ties or the character of an area and the consider- reduce soil erosion, and the use of meadows ac- ation of existing ecosystem properties, potentials cording to nature conservation viewpoints shall and functions (or ES) belongs to the key points of maintain and increase the diversity of species in the AEMBAC methodology. It can be divided into grassland ecosystems. As Plieninger and Schleyer three phases (. Fig. 6.3): (2010) argue, however, the specific ES to be deliv- 55 Phase I: Assessment of the ecological capacity ered are mostly not defined clearly. of the agricultural landscape based on vari- Apart from the fact that agri-environmental ous landscape functions (or ES, with the main programmes hardly refer to ES, their reference to areas of focus ‘biodiversity’, ‘scenery’, ‘soils’, landscape units is also poor, i.e. the regional pecu- ‘waters’), analysis of positive and negative liarities and requirements are not taken into con- environmental impacts and assessment of the sideration enough. To overcome such deficits, the ecological sustainability of the current agricul- AEMBAC methodology provides a promising ap- tural production in the study areas proach that was developed in the framework of an 55 Phase II: Identification of local agri-environ- EU-project and tested in several European coun- mental measures tries, including Germany (AEMBAC = Definition of 55 Phase III: Agreement of the suggestions with a common European framework for the development farmers and authorities 192 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

Agricultural Areas (Arable Fields and Grassland)

Agricultural areas’ main task is the of provision, regulation, and socio to compensation for reduced yields production of food and raw materi- cultural ES. The management of and income losses. These claims als (provisioning ES). In addition, agricultural lands has to avoid the against society are justified as they contribute to the provision of one-sided orientation towards society benefits from the ES. Society drinking water through groundwa- maximum yields on the costs of can stimulate farmers by financial ter recharge, they provide habitats other ES. The ‘normal’ level of these means that they voluntarily meet for wild plant and animal species of demands is prescribed by the ‘good higher requirements of nature unwooded areas, and they shape agricultural practice’. If the farmer conservation. This is done by means the character of landscapes. In provides services going beyond this of agri-environmental measures or short, they supply a large number ‘normal’ level, he can make claims whole programmes.

6 Phase I Includes the Following Steps: tion relating to this state indicator are detected. 1. Identification of important ecosystem services In this case (or, if the actual state is even better (or landscape functions) and suitable indica- than the EMR), the specific land-use practice tors based on the Pressure-State-Response- or measure responsible for this situation can Model of the OECD (Eckert et al. 2000). State be regarded as sustainable in relation to the indicators describe the state of the environ- particular state indicator or landscape function ment (e.g. species diversity, water quality; under consideration. One and the same EMR . Fig. 6.4 and . Table 6.1). By comparing tar- value of a state indicator can be applied for a gets that are given or have to be specified for specific ES for two or even more ES. EMR or the specific situation, the state of the environ- environmental targets for agricultural land- ment can be assessed (. Table 6.2). Pressure scapes are listed in literature (e.g. Breitschuh indicators address risks for the environment et al. 2000; Knickel et al. 2001). Several targets and the reasons for them (e.g. N-balance, ap- are also written into laws (e.g. nature conser- plication of fertilisers and biocides, nitrate vation acts) and the different instruments of loads of groundwater, disposition for erosion, spatial planning (e.g. regional plans, land-use crop diversity, size of field-plots, crop rotation, plans), mostly following a process of political methods of livestock breeding). Response in- consideration. The definition of local EMR dicators address the consequences society and should be oriented on specific–first ecologi- politics are ready to bear to improve the given cally justified–EMR tailored for the particular situation. areas. The so-called good agricultural practice 2. Definition ofEnvironmental Minimum Re- is not identical with EMR. The current good quirements (EMR) for selected indicators agricultural practice may well cause ecological with respect to the maintenance of ecosystem damages and violate the principles of sustain- functioning (including agro-ecosystems) to ability. facilitate the definition of agri-environmental 3. Analysis and evaluation of (negative but also targets and measures. EMR are referring to the positive) environmental impacts caused by carrying capacity of a landscape. agriculture. It is interesting whether an ag- An EMR is a single value (a threshold), a ricultural system or a measure (in form of a range, or a set of values of a state indicator pressure indicator) impairs one or several ES. that is assumed to be sufficient for the satisfac- Based on this analysis, priorities can be set tory performance of the landscape function towards negative/positive influences (from ag- analysed. If the actual value of a state indicator ricultural practices), which have to be curbed achieves its EMR, no impacts (either positive or encouraged urgently. or negative) on the particular landscape func- 193 6.2 • Assessment of Selected Services of Agro-Ecosystems 6

. Fig. 6.4 Ecological impact matrix: comparison of pressure and state indicators (or landscape functions/ES) and assessment of sustainability

4. Assessment of the carrying capacity of the (provisioning services) without hampering other agro-ecosystems/the landscape against ag- ES of the agro-ecosystem or of adjacent ecosys- ricultural activities and evaluation of their tems, i.e. production and the maintenance of the sustainability, based on the comparison (deficit environment are not considered as contradic- analysis) between the current state (state and tions. In agro-ecosystems, assessment standards pressure indicators) and the EMR (. Fig. 6.4). that only consider the natural environment are Statements about sustainability aim to assess equally questionable as such standards which whether the current land-use practices are only count the economic success. The compari- long-term compatible for nature and society son between the current state and Environmental or whether alterations are necessary, e.g. by the Minimum Requirements reveals deficits, which implementation of agri-environmental measures. should be remedied by agri-environmental mea- Sustainability in this context means the long- sures. If the current state is in line with the EMR term maintenance of agricultural production value, no measure is necessary. 194 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Table 6.1 Blending single action recommendations to a multifunctional package of actions in the study area “Jahna” (Central Saxonian Loess Area; Agreement of measures for several state indicators, avoiding reduncancies)

Measures Quantity (ha)

Bufferung through grassland stripes: 265 – Near-natural, valuable floodplains – Near-natural, wooded wet biotope complexes – Existing wood structures including orchards

Establishment and management of orchards on arable fields 580

Establishment of linear or areal woods in accordance with the poten- 1000 tial natural vegetation

Conversion of arable land to extensively used permanent grassland in 3500 floodplains and on arable land (hollows) endangered by erosion

6 Establishment of permanent field margins (without plant protection, 250 N-fertilisers, and with wider plant spacing)

Introduction of organic farming 2000

Conservation soil cultivation (including 1000 ha organic farming) 6500

Reduction of fertiliser impacts per area (further investigation on cur- – rent and desired state necessary)

Comparison of current and desired state

Area (ha) Area (%)

Arable land (status quo) 19,770 100

Arable land (target) 14,425 73 including 250 ha field margins, 2000 ha organic farming, 5500 ha conservation soil cultivation (assumption that in organic farming applies conservation soil cultivation)

Grassland (status quo) 1751 100

Grassland (target) 5516 315

Conversion 1570 8 % Withdrawal of arable land from agricultural (of arable land) prodcution for the plantation of coppices and orchards

Phase II Includes the Following Steps: agricultural landscape. A scientifically valid 1. Definition of local agri-environmental targets quantification of the extent of an AEM for basing on minimum requirements (EMR from a specific area, however, seems to be almost phase I) and socio-economic conditions in the impossible. Therefore, it seems appropriate to study areas. define grey areas and safety margins, which 2. Definition of the most suitable EMR to achieve have to operate without secured knowledge, these targets. if–from a nature conservation point of view– One should be aware, however, that it is pos- with sufficient probability inacceptable impair- sible to identify the need for action and the ments may be expected after the limit zone is content of agri-environmental measures reached or surpassed (precautionary principle) (AEM) leading to more sustainability in the (Dröschmeister 1998). Priority should be given 195 6.2 • Assessment of Selected Services of Agro-Ecosystems 6

. Table 6.2 Ecological demands of the landscape plan for the rural municipality Promnitztal and their possible implementation by agricultural measures

Requirements of landscape plan Modelled measures

Arable fields General decrease of production intensity Reduction of nitrogen fertilisers and biocides by 20 %

Field margins Establishment on all plots of land No nitrogen fertilisers and biocides

Buffer zones Establishment around valuable biotopes Natural succession or planted woods on 50 % of all (running waters, woods, wet areas) buffer areas, reduction of nitrogen fertilisers and biocides by 40 % on the remaining 50 % of buffer areas

Protection of Reduction of land-use intensity at some Arable fields: reduction of nitrogen and biocide ap- reptiles places plication by 40 % grassland: development of rough grassland, renunciation of nitrogen and biocide application

Grassland General decrease of production intensity Reduction of nitrogen and biocide application by 20 %, mowing pasture (two cuts + pasturing)

Planting of Development of hedges typical for the Calculation of income-losses due to land aban- woods area as well as rich-structured forest edges donment, consideration of positive influences of hedges on yields

to such measures, which counteract especially 3. Proposition of legal and/or economic stim- serious environmental loads, while improving uli: Assessing the applicability of economic several ES (e.g. increasing biological diversity (market-oriented), legal and controlling tools + the aesthetic value of the landscape), and as incentives for farmers to maintain environ- remaining financially feasible. An intelligent mental goods and to give up unsustainable selection of AEM (e.g. the plantation of hedge- agricultural practices. rows) may influence several indicators or ES positively at the same time. The definition of Phase III Includes the Following Tasks: specific AEM (disclosed separately accord- 1. Analysis of the acceptance and feasibility of the ing to single indicators or ES) may also lead proposed agri-environmental measures (AEM) to redundancies, partly even to an oversized by farmers and authorities claiming of agricultural area for nature conser- 2. Calculation of the costs for the authorities vation and landscape management. Therefore, (implementation of agri-environmental pro- it is important to blend the single proposals to grammes) and farmers (economic aspects, a package of action purged from redundancies. gross margins) These measures have to be located within the 3. Overall evaluation of all economic or financial study areas (. Table 6.1). An action plan results aspects of the implementation of AEM. from this, which, first, incorporates only environmental considerations. It is an intermediate Through interviews with farmers and authori- step, which has to be evaluated in monetary ties measures are identified, which may contrib- terms during a following working step (phase ute especially effectively to improving the state of III) and which is provided to the farmers and the environment. Obstacles are revealed, and–if other stakeholders to check their acceptance. necessary–corrections or alternatives for certain measures are identified (participatory approach). 196 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

Checklists serve to assess the economic efficiency objectives and stipulations of a landscape plan are and applicability of the suggested measures. realistic, i.e. if and under which preconditions the agricultural enterprises would be able to meet the Conclusion demands. The AEMBAC methodology is in general suitable to For this purpose, an agro-economic evaluation analyse agri-environmental problems comprehen- of the measures laid down in the landscape plan sively, to link ecological and socio-economic aspects was performed. Taking the economic frame condi- by referring to environmental functions or ES, and tions into consideration, and basing on the land- to show and strengthen the relation between the scape plan, concepts for a nature-compatible and natural environment and human well-being. The ap- economically sustainable land use were elaborated. proach may contribute to maintain the diversity of It was shown that the integration of nature conser- rural regions and to support the competitiveness of vation objectives into the agricultural production agriculture against the background of the increasing may be reasonable also from an economic point of 6 liberalization and globalization of agricultural mar- view (Lütz and Bastian 2000, 2002). kets. Although AMEBAC was developed for agricul- The project area, the former rural community tural areas, in principle it can also be applied to oth- Promnitztal–independent until 31 December 1998, er economic branches, e.g. to forestry and fishery. now part of the small town Radeburg–is immediately north and adjacent to the Saxon state capital Dresden and covers c. 2085 ha. The territory of 6.2.3 Agro-economic Evaluation of Promnitztal is almost totally protected (landscape Landscape Plans protection area ‘Moritzburg small-hill landscape’) and belongs–from a physical-geographical point of O. Bastian view–to the Western Lusatian Hills and Low Moun- tain Range. The ‘Moritzburg small-hill landscape’ For the implementation of proposed agri-environ- is characterised by a small-scale pattern of small mental or nature conservation measures it is neces- hills and low ridges with exposed rocks and flat hol- sary to determine the costs and to reach a consen- lows. The bedrock is dominated by monzonits, but sus between the involved stakeholders. granodiorite, sandy and holocene substrates also For the integration of nature conservation ob- occur. The basic geomorphological pattern causes jectives into land use, the instrument of landscape a high diversity of soil, water and climatic condi- planning can be used. As the guiding planning of tions which is responsible for the present vegeta- space-related environmental protection, landscape tion cover and land use. Effective agricultural pro- planning pools the various specific activities and duction is hampered by complicated natural site specialist contributions of environmental protec- conditions. Forests and woods are concentrated on tion and nature conservation. The present practical the crests of the rocky and stony hills, arable fields implementation of landscape plans in rural regions, on slopes and grassland in moist hollows. Land however, cannot satisfy (7 Sect. 5.3). One point of improvements (especially drainage) have tried to criticism is that proposed measures are often rea- diminish this natural heterogeneity but with little soned only from a nature conservation point of success. Drainage facilities fell into disrepair after view without taking the interests and economic a few years, and the thin soil cover on the hills is capacities of land users into account (Geisler 1995; an insuperable obstacle for ploughing. The result Marschall 1998). is a rich-structured rural landscape with a notably Thus, it may be useful to underpin landscape high biodiversity and interesting scenery. The area plans (and protected areas concepts) by economic is particularly rich in species which are adapted to evaluations. In the following section, an investiga- less intensive agriculture, e.g. rare arable weeds, tion on the example of the (former) rural commu- plants of field margins, edges and small coppices, nity Promnitztal (State of Saxony, Germany) will be birds breeding in hedges, woods, grassland and ar- presented, to which extent the nature conservation 197 6.2 • Assessment of Selected Services of Agro-Ecosystems 6 able fields; amphibians, reptiles and many insect The demands and restrictions of the existing species (Neef 1962; Mannsfeld 1972; Bastian and landscape plan (. Table 6.2) were incorporated Schrack 1997; Schrack 2008). into the variable margins and fodder evaluations. During the investigation period (1999) six full- The consequences of the landscape plan implemen- time and four part-time farmers had fields within tation were expressed by the difference from the the study area. Mainly market crops and fodder initial situation. The losses in yields were calculated plants (for milk production) were cultivated. The according to Zeddies et al. (1997; the production proportion of crops between 1996 and 1998 was function), and by comparisons with data from lit- as follows: 55 % cereals (winter rye, winter wheat, erature (e.g. Diercks and Heitefuß 1990; Mährlein winter barley, oats), 20 % oilseeds (sunflowers, rape, 1993). flax) and 25 % field-fodder plants (maize). The pro- A constraint assumption in the study was that portion and pattern of crops were determined by the sum of energy supply from the basic fodder natural conditions, variations in crop rotations, the areas (maize, grassland) should stay constant, i.e. need for animal food, and environmental restric- the stock of cattle and the milk production should tions through the programme “Agriculture harmless not be affected by these measures. To compensate to the environment” of the Federal State of Saxony. the reduced yields, the increase of maize fields was The latter compensates for environmental measures assumed (3x higher fodder production than on in the cultural landscape, financial compensations grassland). Agricultural subsidies were considered for economically deprived areas, subsidies and actu- as well (. Table 6.3). al market prices. The predominating crop rotations in the 1990s were as follows: winter wheat–winter zz Economic Evaluation of the Landscape Plan barley–rape–winter rye or maize on soils better The application of all the proposed measures led to provided with water and nutrients; winter rape or an increase of the variable margin on arable fields. maize–cereals (no wheat) on hills and near cow- The reason for this was the high level of compen- sheds. sation payments provided for arable field margins (strips at the margins of arable fields which are zz Methods not treated with chemicals to favour the develop- To evaluate the effects of the nature conservation ment of a rich community of arable weeds). The measures proposed or demanded by the landscape average variable margin of arable fields increased plan, a business management analysis in selected in this model from 104 €/ha (20 %) up to 629 €/ha enterprises was carried out (. Fig. 6.5). The stan- (. Table 6.3). dard variable margin (= gross margin) per hectare These positive influences on the variable mar- was used as the basis for the evaluation of arable gin, however, were balanced by other demands of crops. This was done by comparing the inputs and the landscape plan: creation of hedges, forests and the outputs of each production method. Thus, the forest edges, areas for natural successions, buffer variable margin is: Agricultural yield (sum of mar- zones, grassland and revitalization of waters. To ket prices, subsidies from the EU including agri- compensate for the measures of extensification environmental incentives, and compensations for (especially, the reduction of utilization intensity) deprived areas), less costs of production (seeds, fer- 69 ha of arable fields were needed for additional tilisers, biocides, costs for machines and human la- field-fodder cultivation (maize). The effect of split- bour). The variable margin was established for each ting these area losses on the variable margin was an crop for three consecutive years (between 1995 and annual monetary loss of 59,465 € totally or 131 €/ 1998) and generalised to the average variable mar- ha of remaining arable fields. The average variable gin per hectare over the 3 years. The evaluation for margin, therefore, decreased by 26 €/ha (5 %) to grassland and maize was not carried out in mon- 498 €/ha. etary terms as for the arable crops, but with the The calculations showed that an almost income method of fodder supply of metabolizable energy neutral realization of the landscape plan was possi- (‘net-energy lactation’). 198 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Fig. 6.5 Steps of economic evaluation of the landscape plan

ble (. Table 6.4). In order to compensate for financial out negative influences on the income of the farmers. losses (which are not acceptable from the farmers’ This fact contradicted the usually poor perception of point of view), it was necessary to reduce the 49.7 ha landscape plans (not only) among farmers. of land removed from agricultural production in favour of hedges and other ecological measures as zz The Acceptance of the Farmers proposed in the landscape plan to only 45.1 ha. This The resulting new management concept was pre- means that by this calculation 5.8 % of the agricul- sented as a whole to farm-managers for examina- tural area could be withdrawn from cultivation with- tion, and the acceptability of the proposed mea- 199 6.2 • Assessment of Selected Services of Agro-Ecosystems 6

. Table 6.3 Economic effects of the demands set up in the landscape plan Promnitztal

Measures area Benefit/loss Share of the variable (ha) (€ ha−1) margin (%)

Arable fields (without maize) (N-fertiliser and 373.9 − 3.9 − 0.2 biocide reduction by 20 %)

Buffer zones and ‘reptile protection area’ (1.4 ha) 17,1 (21 km × 18 m) − 18.3 − 3.5 (N-fertiliser and biocide reduction by 40 %)

Field margin (without maize plots) (total renun- 81,7 (45 km × 18 m) + 389.7 + 74.2 ciation of N-fertilisers and biocides)

Average variable margin of arable fields – + 104.3 + 20.0

Losses of area – − 130.9 – Direct losses: 49.7 ha Reduction of intensity (indirect losses): 69.1 ha

Average total variable margin – − 27.1 − 5.0

. Table 6.4 Economic evaluation of the measures (selection)

Measure Evaluation parameters Gain/loss (€)

Intercropping and Subsidies and nitrogen saving–Costs of the measures undersown crops – autumn catch crops + 61 bis + 82 – winter catch crops −31 bis + 37 – undersown crops + 5 bis + 26

Less application of N- Subsidies and nitrogen saving–Changes in yields + 8 fertilisers in farming

Field margins Subsidies and nitrogen saving–Changes in yields – normal sowing density + 383 – reduced sowing density + 547

Fallow-land Subsidies–gross margin – temporal set-aside − 97 – permanent set-aside Gain on poor sites

Grassland Subsidies and cost saving–Loss of arable land for fodder cultivation – no use of synthetic N-fertilisers − 26 – extensive pasture + 41 – extensive meadow + 56

Plantation of hedge- Losses in arable land–higher yields by wind-breaks rows – yearly effect per 100 m hedge (width: 10 m) −46 sures was ascertained. The attitude of farmers to Conclusion the proposed concepts was not based only on eco- The existing incentives of the agri-environmental nomic aspects. Of course, their receptiveness was programmes can be regarded as the reason for the greater for such measures when compensating pro- positive economic balance. As in the period of in- grammes supported them. If agricultural land was vestigation the farmers did not use all incentives demanded irreversibly (e.g. for woods), the farm- consequently despite potential income gains; there ers’ attitude was less favourable. was a favourable constellation for the assessment 200 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

of the landscape plan in terms of its economic fea- 6.2.4 Species-Rich Grassland Services sibility. Thus, agri-environmental programmes may be effective mechanisms to integrate objectives M. Reutter and B. Matzdorf of nature conservation/environmental protection into the agricultural land management, because Introduction farmers receive compensation payments from so- Internationally, the stated objective is to halt the ciety for income losses caused by an increased sup- loss in biodiversity (European Commission 2011). ply of (regulation and sociocultural) ES. One of the consequences for agricultural land- Supported by stated subsidies, deprived agri- scapes is that species linked to agricultural use that cultural regions may maintain nature-compatible are typical for European cultivated landscapes are agriculture. This is all the more important as such to be maintained (BMU 2007). Species-rich grass- areas are often very valuable for nature conserva- land plays a crucial role in this context (EEA 2004; tion. Farmers, however, are less willing to partici- BfN 2008; BMU 2010a). According to the latest sta- 6 pate in agri-environmental programmes and to tus review of high nature value (HNV) farmland, manage their land in the sense of multifunctional- species-rich grassland accounts for some 16.8 % of ity and ES, the higher the chances of income gener- the total grassland area in Germany (BfN 2010), ation from market crops (fertile soils) and/or higher corresponding to an area of approximately 1 mil- demands, e.g. through the boom of energy crops, lion hectares (with regard to ATKIS, data basis for if–at the same time–the financial allocation of the the status review) or 0.8 million hectares (as regards environmental programmes stagnate or decrease. the statistical data) (. Fig. 6.6 and 6.7). Based on Only the monetary evaluation of the measures the definition in the context of HNV mapping, spe- and the following discussion with the farmers en- cies-rich grasslands are extensively used grassland abled the implementation of selected measures expressions that are particularly species-rich by by better participation in agri-environmental pro- regional standards (BfN 2008). The abundance of grammes. Although subjective reasons played a species is identified via indicator species in terres- role in the decisions of farmers, they assessed the trial mapping. This type of identification is already proposed measures mainly from an economic per- used in a number of federal states (Briemle and Op- spective. permann 2003; Keienburg et al. 2006; Matzdorf et The growing interest of society in multifunc- al. 2008). The method was primarily devised for tional and ecologically intact (agricultural) land- mesophilic, moist and moderately dry grassland; in scapes should extend the spectrum of tasks and this way, all species-rich grassland areas and those the responsibility of land users in future significant- that are valuable from a nature conservation per- ly (Vos and Meekes 1999). In view of the partially spective are captured together with FFH habitat low ecological efficiency, the high administration types (BfN 2009). expense and the low allocation of financial means . Figure 6.7 shows the distribution of species- in the existing subsidy programmes, the financial rich grassland in Germany as a result of HNV map- means should be moved to defined benefit plans ping. The spatial basis of the survey is site-specific for environmental protection in agriculture (Bron- space structuring (BfN 2004). The percentages de- ner et al. 1997). Conversely, environmental damages termined range from 5 to 30 % within the spatial caused by land-use practices, which are not in line units. In this connection, regions rich in grassland with the professional standards, should lead more are not always those with a high proportion of to monetary consequences for those who cause the species-rich grassland. The relatively small propor- damages (Simoncini 1998). Finally, land-use forms, tions in grassland-rich regions in the northern part in which the maintenance of ecosystems and their of Lower Saxony and in the foothills of the Alps manifold services and sustainable, resource-eco- are striking in this respect. The uplands of south- nomical production are an inherent part should be ern and central Germany exhibit particularly high identified. proportions. 201 6.2 • Assessment of Selected Services of Agro-Ecosystems 6

. Fig. 6.6 Grassland (green) in Germany (authors’ design, data basis CORINE 2000)

Irrespective of the current proportion of valu- The aim of the following article is to highlight able grassland, the aim in all regions is at least to the services provided by HNV grassland areas to maintain it. Ultimately, however, the goal is not human beings. In particular, the monetary assess- only to preserve species diversity of the agricultural ment of individual services is explored. If the con- landscape, but to achieve a trend reversal. One of cept of ES is applied in the case of cultivated land- the measures that seeks to achieve this is to increase scape, account must be taken of the fact that many the total percentage of HNV farmland from the such services are not merely ES. It goes without say- current level of 13 to 19 % (BMU 2010a). Against ing that ecosystem processes are necessary for the this backdrop, it is also interesting to address po- species diversity of grassland, in addition to human tential synergies with regard to other environmen- services. In Germany, grassland is predominantly tal objectives, not least to provide arguments in not a pure ‘natural product’–it only arises and ex- favour of maintaining biodiversity in connection ists on account of the human impact on natural, with the financial resources required to this end. ecosystem processes. 202 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Fig. 6.7 Species-rich grassland as a percentage of all grassland (authors’ design on the basis of site-specific space structuring, BfN 2004, and data from initial mapping of HNV farmland, BfN 2010)

Selection of Services and Assessment targets are an expression of a socio-political prefer- Approach ence (UBA 2007), and hence an expression of such The following two criteria were taken into consid- a demand. We regard the implementation of the eration in the selection of services: which services Water Framework Directive and the implementa- are produced by species-rich grassland, and for tion of the Kyoto Protocol to be two key socially which services there is a specific demand. and economically relevant target agreements. Agri- In accordance with the Methodological Con- cultural use plays a role in both cases (BMU 2010b; vention of the Federal Environment Agency, agreed UBA 2011). Social relevance is highlighted by the 203 6.2 • Assessment of Selected Services of Agro-Ecosystems 6 fact that “improving the status of groundwater and emissions regardless of the geography, the demand surface waters” and ‘climate change’ are considered for avoiding emissions under the Water Framework important challenges besides the objective of main- Directive is dependent on the specific location of taining and developing biodiversity when it comes the areas. With regard to the implementation of the to the allocation of financial resources from the Water Framework Directive, social preference only second pillar of agricultural policy (The Council exists, strictly speaking, in areas in which the emis- of the European Union 2009). These objectives are sions generated would endanger the good status of ideal for highlighting synergies generated by the water bodies. preservation of species-rich grassland. The physical supply (potential or capacity) de- If one assumes, given the current pressure on termined in the first step serves as the basis for the agricultural land (Lind et al. 2008; Nitsch et al. economic assessment. The materials and methods 2012), that species-rich areas would possibly be used are explained in further detail in the respec- used as intensive grassland or arable land if no ad- tive sections below. ditional protective measures were taken, then this would be likely to result in a potential increase in Quantifying Emissions Reduced due to water- and climate-relevant emissions, based on Species-Rich Grassland the current state of knowledge (Kühbauch 1995; zz Contribution to the Protection of Kersebaum et al. 2006; Osterburg et al. 2007; UBA Groundwater Bodies 2010). This can have a negative impact on achiev- kCapacity of Areas ing the objectives mentioned above; conversely, Within the context of the Water Framework Direc- the preservation of species-rich areas can have a tive, measures are to be taken in virtually all coor- positive effect. Owing to the current high level of dination areas in Germany to reduce diffuse inputs importance of these potential services, these two of substances for groundwater bodies (BMU 2010b). ES (‘groundwater protection’ and ‘climate protec- The results generated by Osterburg et al. (2007) are tion’) were selected with the aim of determining built upon in order to assess the service provided by their value below. species-rich grassland. These authors assessed differ- Note that these services can only be recorded ent agriculturally relevant measures in terms of their if a more intensive land use is assumed for refer- potential for reducing nitrate in groundwater against ence purposes. The assumption that all species-rich the backdrop of the Water Framework Directive. grassland would be intensively used or converted Variabilities for the impact of extensive use, typical into arable land does not appear to be realistic unfor species-rich grassland, were assessed at the level der the present conditions. In the context of this of Germany compared to intensive use or the impact analysis, therefore, a more conservative scenario of converting arable land to grassland. We use these was taken as an example in which it was assumed values below to demonstrate the capacity of species- that around 50 % of species-rich grassland would rich grassland for groundwater protection. be used as more intensive grassland and some 5 % According to Osterburg et al. (2007), extensive would be converted into arable land. On the basis of use reduces the nitrogen load in the leachate by 0 information available about the spatial distribution to 20 kg ha−1 compared to intensive use. Abstain- of HNV grassland, a total of approximately 1 mil- ing from sward renovation with ploughing up and lion hectares was specified. resowing, which would be necessary to maintain The economic value of the climate-relevant species-rich grassland, increases the value by 40 to emissions that could potentially be avoided is 80 kg ha−1. Compared to use as arable land, it is balanced on the basis of damage costs and set as assessed that extensive grassland use decreases this opportunity costs and market values in the com- value by 30 to 70 kg ha−1. parison with avoidance costs. An avoidance cost If one assumes, based on these figures, that some approach was chosen as the method used to quan- 50 % of the estimated extent of species-rich grass- tify the services for groundwater. Whilst climate- land is intensively used and a further 5 % would be relevant emissions involve the avoidance of any converted into arable land, then up to 13,500 t of 204 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Table 6.5 The impact and costs of an alternative land use of species-rich grassland as well as an alternative measure to reduce the nitrogen load in the leachate. Data source: Osterburg et al. 2007

Impact and costs compared to extensive grassland use

Additional kg N ha−1 Costs in € ha−1

Alternative land use min. max. min. max.

Intensive grassland use 0 20 80 150

Sward renovation 40 80 20 50

Use as arable land 30 70 370 600

Alternative for reducing the nitrogen load from utilised agriculture areas

Reduction in kg N ha−1 Costs in € ha−1 6 min. max. min. max. Catch crops as winter greening as opposed to winter fallow 25 50 40 120

additional nitrogen load could occur annually in essary, then the prevention measures calculated the leachate or 40,000 additional tonnes for sward above under the assumption of the lowest costs renovation associated with intensive grassland use. may under certain circumstances be considerably more expensive. Maintaining species-rich areas kkEconomic Value therefore becomes increasingly more profitable. Costs would be incurred if the additional emissions In summary, the value of species-rich grass- of 13,500 t of nitrogen in the leachate would have land for water quality must be determined with to be saved elsewhere. If, in turn, one assumes the full knowledge of the location and characteristics range of measures described in Osterburg et al. of areas, the load situation and other development (2007) is taken, it would make sense to grow catch objectives. However, the values show how impor- crops with relatively good cost-effectiveness. De- tant species-rich grassland is in implementing the pending on the cost-effectiveness relation, costs of Water Framework Directive (. Fig. 6.8). € 10.8 million (cost-effectiveness relation: 50 kg N per € 40) or costs of € 64.8 million (cost-effective- zz Contribution to Climate Protection ness relation: 25 kg N per € 120) are yielded for the kCapacity of Areas avoidance of 13,500 t of nitrogen. . Table 6.5 shows Below we use a simplified method of climate re- that the preservation of extensive grassland use can porting (area of land-use change; UBA 2010), tak- by all means constitute a cost-effective avoidance ing into account the current distribution of spe-

of emissions, depending on the concrete situation. cies-rich grassland, to show how much CO2 would The avoidance costs are particularly important be released if 5 % of such grassland was converted in regions where contaminated groundwater bod- into arable land. The 5 % scenario was chosen be- ies already exist. . Figure 6.8 designates the chemi- cause such ploughing up of grassland is permitted cal status of groundwater bodies in Germany, and at the federal state level in the current CAP funding shows where excessive levels of contamination al- period. Federal states must only take action to pre- ready exist. It must be said, however, that the il- vent a further net loss if the 5 % level is exceeded. lustration is an overall assessment that does not Scientists are currently of the opinion that explicitly reveal the necessity of a reduced nitrogen converting grassland into arable land leads to the

load in the leachate. No further correction of the release of CO2, and hence to the loss of organic car- values calculated above is undertaken. bon (UBA 2010). The quantity released is depen- If, however, nitrogen emissions are too high at dent not only on use, but also on site factors such present and mitigation measures are already nec- as the soil type, hydromorphy, plants and climate. 205 6.2 • Assessment of Selected Services of Agro-Ecosystems 6

. Fig. 6.8 Chemical status of groundwater bodies in Germany (the red areas indicate poor status). Source: BMU 2010b

In this connection, moor soils have the highest car- The key data basis for the calculation was the bon stocks. If management is changed from grass- general soil map for Germany (BÜK 1000), which land to arable land, it is assumed, so far with great combines different types of location into soil as- uncertainty, that the annual release increases from sociations. Each soil association is described in a an estimated value of approximately 5 to 11 t ha−1 guiding profile. On the assumption that these guid- (UBA 2010); for mineral soils, a loss of 30.43 % of ing profiles are considered to be representative, the carbon stocks is assumed following the conversion data given was used to calculate site-differentiated of grassland into arable land. carbon stocks. The Corg contents were multiplied by the respective crude densities and horizon thick- 206 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

−1 . Fig. 6.9 Average loss of organic carbon stocks Corg (t ha ) in the conversion of grassland to arable land (authors’ calculation on the basis of site-specific space structuring by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN); area-weighted mean calculated from blending BÜK 1000 with CORINE 2000)

nesses, from which the skeleton fraction was then specific units is distributed evenly across grassland subtracted. Horizon stocks were added to a depth occurrence, a conversion of 5 % respectively would

of up to 30 cm. In order to integrate the estimat- release approximately 6 million tonnes of CO2. ed value for moor soils mentioned above into the It should be borne in mind that this is a simpli- calculation, we used a period of 10 years. Carbon fied calculation method compared to the method stocks were determined specifically for grassland involved in climate reporting. The result should be areas by blending the general soil map with land- considered as an approximate value that neverthe- use data. Due to the high computational effort in- less attempts to integrate the resulting highly deci- volved with ATKIS, the relation to land use was sive locational capacities. It is particularly difficult– achieved using CORINE 2000. but crucial–to identify moor locations. The Ger- . Figure 6.9 shows the area-weighted, average man-wide general soil map is highly generalised. loss of organic carbon stocks resulting from the cal- Emission levels and a better understanding of car- culation in the event of a conversion from grassland bon stocks are currently being investigated scien- to arable land within site-specific spatial units. If tifically in various projects. In particular the data one assumes that species-rich grassland within site- basis and assumptions concerning release rates are 207 6.2 • Assessment of Selected Services of Agro-Ecosystems 6 to be improved further in connection with climate it is also influenced in this case by the alternative reporting (UBA 2010). On the other hand, there is possibilities and costs involved in compensating a barrier because little specific location information for the emission of climate-relevant gases or to en- exists for species-rich areas. The uniform distribu- sure they are not increased by an alternative land tion used within site-specific spatial units has not use. In any case, the maintenance of species-rich yet been verified. Consequently, the calculation was grassland exhibits an undoubtedly interesting im- made based on the latest available information, but portance for the implementation of climate objec- ought to be improved further (. Fig. 6.9). tives, particularly since it arises as an add-on effect for water protection and biodiversity objectives. kkEconomic Value

If damage costs of € 70 per tonne of CO2 equivalent Discussion and Outlook (CO2 eq.) published in the Methodological Con- Maintaining species-rich grassland is a declared ob- vention of the Federal Environment Agency (UBA jective of the national biodiversity strategy (BMU 2007) to estimate external environmental costs are 2007). The social significance of this objective is assumed, then the calculated conversion of 5 % of also illustrated by the fact that of HNV-Farmland regional species-rich grassland would entail costs is an indicator in the context of allocating financial of € 420 million. Owing to the major uncertain- resources to promote rural development. The suc- ty about damage costs, the Federal Environment cess of rural development programmes is therefore Agency recommends considering the potential measured in terms of the maintenance of these arrange from € 20 to 280 per tonne of CO2 eq. The eas, amongst other things (The Council of the Eu- damage costs would then have a margin of uncer- ropean Union 2005). tainty from € 120 to 1680 million. The analyses demonstrate that economically

Avoidance costs are set at € 20 per tonne of CO2 relevant, environmental services in the area of for hydro electric power plants, for example, and climate and water-body protection are associated

€ 40 per tonne of CO2 for biomass power plants with the maintenance of species-rich grassland. The or wind turbines (Herminghaus 2012). If, however, amount depends on the concrete local situation. the average prices of auctioning emission permits Thereby the avoidance of additional emissions may in Germany are assumed, then this is just under € 7 be of particular economic importance in regions (DEHSt 2012). Hence the range of monetary value that already have an unfavourable status of water is very wide. For this reason, we renounce from bodies. The avoidance of climate-relevant carbon the subsequent method of discounting. It would be emissions on these areas is in principle also eco- more sensible to specify orders of magnitude. nomically relevant. It is essential that emissions are Based on the initially specified average damage reduced further, which means avoiding additional costs of € 70 per tonne of CO2 eq., an area-related, emissions. regional mean value between around € 6000 and It must be borne in mind that the services con- 13,000 per hectare is yielded, without taking into sidered cannot be offset equally for all species-rich account discounting (a sum that, in view of those grassland areas and the references assumed for bal- of current premiums within the framework of agri- ancing are crucial. In the context of this study, a environment measures, for example, such as in the scenario was applied that assumes that intensive range mentioned above in . Table 6.5, no longer grassland is used on around 50 % of the land and appears to be particularly high). If the figure of € 7 approximately 5 % of the land is converted. Partic- specified above is assumed to be the “market value”, ularly for ‘extreme locations’ that are very valuable then area-related, regional mean values of around from a nature conservation perspective, such as wet (only) € 650 and 1300 per hectare are yielded, with- meadows, arid grassland or hillside locations, for- out taking into account discounting. estation and the formation of scrub constitute an In summary, the value of species-rich grassland alternative option, which may even be more real- for the climate is dependent to a great extent on its istic. If the current payment for species-rich grass- current level of stored organic carbon. In addition, land were abandoned, some areas would be taken 208 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

out of use completely under the current framework such as for the habitat types that constitute impor- conditions under certain circumstances, and scrub tant target areas in the Habitats Directive, also re- encroachment would occur leading to the succes- quested by Schweppe-Kraft (2009), would also be sive development of woodlands. In case of this ref- legitimate from an economic perspective. erence (succession), there are no synergies between the maintenance of species-rich grassland areas Conclusion and environmental services in the area of climate Species-rich grassland is not only important regard- and groundwater protection, because forest devel- ing biodiversity objectives. Avoiding the intensive opment is not assessed as negative for these envi- use of grassland or conversions into arable land can ronmental services, and may even be considered support the objectives of implementing the Water positive. Thus locational differences would have Framework Directive and climate change mitiga- to be taken into greater account to achieve more tion targets. The potential involved depends on the precise balancing. It must also be borne in mind specific local situation. Based on the calculation of 6 that the reference depends crucially on political avoidance costs, potential damage costs and will- and economic framework conditions. For example, ingness to pay, we demonstrated that species- sustained pressure on grassland areas due to the rich grassland generates a range of considerable production of biomass can also lead to changed ref- benefits. These monetary values can be included in erence scenarios. Then greater proportions of more the line of argument to support the desired main- intensive use or the ploughing up of grassland than tenance of particularly species-rich grassland. In this applied here would have to be assumed. connection, the ES concept encourages a holistic In everyday decision-making, for example in- view of these areas that are valuable from a nature volving funds to promote ecologically sound grass- conservation perspective. With pro active use via a land use, it is therefore crucial to factor the original systematic, locationally differentiated assessment, it value of diversity into the equation. In this connec- could be very useful as decision-making support for tion, a differentiation must be made between the nature protection, particularly as part of targeted direct value of biodiversity and the value that di- financial support, e.g. via agri-environment mea- verse habitats provide for tourism and recreation, sures. for example. However, the direct value can only be estimated methodologically in economic terms as the so-called nonuse value via contingent valuation 6.3 Economic Benefit Valuation or stated preference methods (7 Sect. 4.2). Great res- of the Influence of a Forest ervations are often harboured against these methods Conversion Programme in Germany. Against this backdrop, it will continue on Ecosystem Services to be necessary, particularly in the area of traditional in the Northeastern Lowlands nature protection, to include other forms of assess- of Germany ment as the foundation for decision-making. This could be possible in a monetary and verbally ar- P. Elsasser and H. Englert gumentative manner on the basis of nonuse values. Databases are available as guidance for Germany in the form of contingent valuation by Hampicke et 6.3.1 Introduction al. (1991) and recent studies by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN 2012c, Meyerhoff et Increasing the naturalness and the resilience of al. 2012). With regard to methods, it must be noted forests through ‘forest conversion’ is an important with these studies that the calculated values by all topic in German forestry for a number of reasons means reproduce the nonuse value, as well as util- (Knoke et al. 2008). Many of today’s forests con- ity values for local recreation, for example. If one sist of rather uniformly structured conifer stands follows the argumentation that objectives enshrined which may be easier to manage, but which feature in law are assessed as politically framed social low biodiversity rates and are often particularly preferences (UBA 2007), then reinstatement costs 209 6.3 • Economic Benefit Valuation of the Influence of a Forest Conversion … 6 damaged in disasters like storms, fire, and insects. The‘leitbild’ scenario was envisaged as a continuous Moreover, droughts are of growing concern, es- reduction of the conifer area in the region, from pecially in the eastern part of the North German an original 76 % in 2006 down to only 13 % in 2100 Plain which already suffers from low annual pre- and correspondingly enhancing the area of mixed cipitation–a situation which might be even further and deciduous forests up to 87 % in 2100. In the aggravated due to climate change. Public as well as ‘bau’ scenario a reduction in conifer area was also private forest enterprises aim to stabilise homog- planned, however at a much more conservative rate enously structured forests by investing in large for- (from 76 % in 2006 to 67 % in 2100). In this scenar- est conversion programmes which convert purely io, the final share of mixed and deciduous forests is coniferous stands into mixed and broadleaved 23 % in 2100. forests. These efforts are financially supported by The goal of the project partners was to use this subsidisation programmes at federal and at state generated data from the scenario modelling to level (BMELV 2011b). Arguments in favour of quantify and analyse, according their expertise, the such forest conversion programmes are that they impact of applying the ‘leitbild’ concept in practice not only reduce risks through the diversification and compare this to the ‘bau’ situation. The cen- process, but also enhance the supply of ecologi- tral question for the economists in the project is: cal services like watershed and climate protection, Are there substantial changes in the range of ser- biodiversity and recreation opportunities for the vices provided by the forest and their subsequent population (Fritz 2006). economic values and does this speak for or against This case study analyses the economic value implementing the concept of “climate adaptive of ES which is modified through a forest conver- deciduous mixed forest”? Thus, the focus was on sion programme in the northeastern lowlands of the ‘benefits’ side of the problem, specifically on Germany. The background information used in the impacts on regional timber and biomass sup- this case study comes from the interdisciplinary ply, landscape values, recreational values, and car- research project ‘Newal-Net’, funded by the Fed- bon sequestration, rather than on the ‘cost’ side of eral Research Ministry between 2005 and 2009. The forest conversion. The remainder of this chapter Newal-Net project involved silviculturists, clima- summarises the main results of the study (the de- tologists, ecologists, cultural and education scien- scription is partly based on Elsasser et al. (2010a); tists, and economists as well as practitioners. Pro further details on methods, analyses and results can ject partners and stakeholders developed an overall be found in Elsasser et al. (2010b). concept (‘leitbild’) of future landscape development for a region in northeastern Germany which is currently dominated by purely pine forests. 6.3.2 Raw Wood Production The region abuts Berlin to the north and extends 17,500 km2, encompassing about a third of The production of raw wood as a “provisioning eco- the federal states of Brandenburg and Mecklen- system service” (MEA 2003) is the basic source of in- burg-West Pomerania. 30 % of the region is covered come for most forest enterprises. Methodologically, by forests. The ‘leitbild’ (called “climate adaptive de- the valuation of raw wood production was based on ciduous mixed forest”) was discussed and further forest development and forest utilisation models in developed together with regional stakeholders. Fol- combination with price data derived from market lowing these discussions two scenarios for regional observations. Note, a similar approach was used for forest development, up until 2100, were modelled. valuing the carbon sequestration service in the next Specifically the scenarios were chapter. To simulate forest development until the 1. A stepwise realisation of the ‘leitbild’ whenever year 2100 we used forest growth models based on a forest stand is harvested yield tables, which include assumptions about for- 2. The continuation of the current forest man- est management planning. The results from the sce- agement plans, i.e. ‘business as usual’ (‘bau’) narios revealed different development outcomes. These results are primarily dependent on the spe- 210 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Fig. 6.10 Development of raw wood (in 1000 m3 of merchantable timber) and biomass potential (in 1000 m3)

cific tree species compositions in the respective the ‘pine and larch’ area. In contrast, the tree species scenarios. Our estimates of the expected raw wood groups ‘beech’ and ‘spruce, fir, douglas fir’ evolve revenues were based on forest condition descrip- similarly until 2080 under both scenarios, differing tions, which are derived from the forest growth only in the year 2100. models in the reference years 2006, 2020, 2040, . Figure 6.10 compares the development of the 2060, 2080 and 2100. Starting from each reference raw wood and biomass potential in both scenarios. year, we simulated potential harvests in each forest The potential raw wood volume is approximately stand for 5-year periods using the same yield tables 3.5 million m3 in the starting year, 2006. Until the and rotation cycles which were applied in the for- year 2060, the raw wood potential of the scenarios est development models. The potential yield of raw do not differ substantially. It becomes apparent that wood and biomass (called ‘raw wood potential’ and even a significant change in the management con- ‘biomass potential’, respectively) was calculated by cept (as is simulated in the ‘leitbild’ scenario) only aggregating the estimated yield volumes. affects the potential raw wood volume appreciably The potential yield of raw wood and further after a time lag of 50 years. The potential raw wood aboveground biomass was then allocated to differ- volume in 2060 is more or less similar to that in ent assortments according to common assortment the starting year. Only from 2080 onwards the raw tables. These assortments are the actual products of a wood potential develops differently under both sce- forest enterprise and therefore comprehensive price narios: it increases under ‘bau’, but remains at the data is available. Total biomass volume was extrapo- same level under the ‘leitbild’ scenario. The biomass lated from coarse wood volume using tree species potential develops in a similar manner (. Fig. 6.10) and age specific expansion functions (Dieter and but constantly exceeds the raw wood potential by Elsasser 2002). Finally, the value of the raw wood about 18 to 20 %. and biomass potential was calculated by combining The long-term impact of altered silvicultural the price data with the assortment specific volumes. concepts also becomes apparent when comparing The different silvicultural concepts, which both the development of the assortment structure over scenarios are based on, particularly affect the de- time. Only from 2080 onwards, the smallwood velopment of the forest area stocked with the tree supply from broadleaves increases considerably. A species group ‘pine and larch’. In the ‘leitbild’ sce- corresponding increase in the supply of large di- nario, the area stocked with ‘oak and other decidu- mension hardwood is not (yet) visible within the ous trees’ increases considerably at the expense of analysed period. 211 6.3 • Economic Benefit Valuation of the Influence of a Forest Conversion … 6

. Fig. 6.11 Value development of the raw wood potential compared to the year 2006

. Figure 6.11 shows the development of the raw was brought into wide public awareness by the UN wood potential’s economic value. Here the total framework convention on climate change. As has volume of the raw wood potential has been evalu- been discussed in the previous section, the change ated at 2005 prices (ZMP 2009; due to the lack of in the tree species composition clearly affects tim- price information for wood residues, we assumed ber and biomass stocks and therefore the amount a respective price of 15 €/m3 (exempt from harvest of carbon stored. In order to describe the carbon costs). The curve therefore reveals only those value stock development, the volume of the aboveground changes which are caused by changes in the quan- tree biomass (merchantable wood, lop and needles) tity or the structure of the raw wood potential due as well as the tree root biomass was extrapolated to the assumption of constant timber prices during from the standing stock of merchantable wood. the period under consideration. Volumes were converted into masses according to The value development is different between their respective wood density (Kollmann 1982). The both scenarios. Under ‘bau’, values increase from carbon content was then transferred according to € 120 m in 2006 to € 171 m in 2100, an increase of Lamlom and Savidge (2003). 43 %. In contrast, values slightly sink by 14 % under The development of carbon stocks is very simi- the ‘leitbild’-scenario during this time, amounting lar to that of the raw wood stocks. Carbon contin- to only € 103 m in 2100. The average revenues from a ues to accumulate in both scenarios until 2040 due cubic metre of raw timber remain broadly constant to the age structure in the project area. However, in both scenarios during the given period (this can net carbon sequestration decreases continually be concluded from the fact that quantity and value over this period. Starting in circa 2060, the harvest developments are almost proportional; . Fig. 6.10 of mature forest stands will cause net emissions of and 6.11). At least until 2100, the reduced raw timber carbon in both scenarios. The reduction is more supply in the ‘leitbild’ scenario is not compensated pronounced in the ‘bau’ than in the ‘leitbild’ sce- by higher values of the produced hardwood; rather nario. Accordingly, the ‘leitbild’ scenario causes less it results in a loss, amounting to € 70 m in 2100. sequestration in the beginning (by 200 Gg C/a in the period 2006–2020), but fewer net emissions in the end (the difference to ‘bau’ amounting to just 6.3.3 Carbon Sequestration under 150 Gg C/a in the period 2080–2100). In regards to the monetary value of the se- The sequestration of carbon in trees is a ‘regulating questration service, some important caveats have ecosystem service’ according to MEA (2003) which to be kept in mind, especially given the length of 212 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

the period under consideration. First, the influence Choice experiments are a method of preference of altering silvicultural concepts in northeastern determination where respondents choose between Germany on global climate is only marginal, given alternative bundles of goods (7 Sect. 4.2.3). Each of the global dimension of the problem. Thus the im- these goods is characterised by different attributes pact of mitigation on the local population will be which assume varying levels. Multinomial logit almost negligible. Second, prices for certificates at models are then used to estimate how much a change the carbon markets emerging under the European in the level of each attribute has influenced the choice Trading System and the framework convention on probability of the respective goods. If one of the at- climate change may be used as value indicators; tributes is the price or the cost of a good, then a mar- however forest sink certificates are not (yet) being ginal willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the other attri- accepted. Their acceptance depends on complex butes can be calculated from the obtained statistical international negotiations and it is therefore uncer- measures (see e.g. Hensher et al. 2005 for details). tain if this will change in the future. Even if it does, In this study, 999 inhabitants were selected for 6 the agreements reached in these negotiations will the survey. We displayed to each respondent choice heavily influence the scarcity, and thus the price, of cards describing three alternative residential envi- carbon emission permits. As a consequence of both ronments. In each alternative, three attributes were considerations, assigning a positive monetary value varied, namely the view of the landscape (as visu- to regional forest sequestration services is based on alised by computer generated images), the possibil- optimistic assumptions. ity of entering meadows and forests for recreation We addressed the associated uncertainty by al- purposes, and the cost of living there (as a price in- lowing for a broad value range for the sequestration dicator). The computer images showed various land- service. These are oriented at avoided damage costs, scape views typical of the region in summer or in on the one hand, and at prices at the various markets winter. Alternatively, a pine forest, a deciduous forest for emission permits, on the other. However, even or a mixed forest, each with high or low structural

when we assumed a value of 100 €/t CO2 for the diversity or a meadow without trees were shown. In- whole time span until 2100 (a value which appears terviewees were asked to choose their most preferred rather extreme from today’s perspective), the effect landscape among the three presented choice options. on the total value balance was quite small. In com- The analysis showed that the ecosystem service parison to the ‘bau’ scenario, a forest conversion fol- ‘recreation’ (here defined as the possibility to enter lowing the ‘leitbild’ scenario would cause a seques- meadows and/or forests for recreation purposes) tration value loss of about 5.5 m €/year in the period has a substantial monetary value. It amounts be- 2006–2020. By the end of the considered period (i.e. tween 55 and 90 € per household and year. This is in 2080–2100), it would lead to a gain of about 4 m in line with the result of comparable studies. The €/year. In comparison to the losses in raw timber valuation of the landscape views revealed that all values described above, this effect is negligible. alternatives which contained forests were clearly preferred over the situation without trees. This result is independent of tree species and the level of 6.3.4 Scenic Beauty and Recreation structural diversity in the forest images. A closer Values comparison between the various forest images show that households have a significant WTP for decidu- The MEA counts a landscape’s scenic beauty and ous and mixed forests rather than coniferous ones– its recreation service as ‘cultural ecosystem service’. but only if the images show forests in their summer In order to value these, we conducted a regional aspect. Summer aspect WTP ranged between more population survey. The survey asked several basic than 40 and more than 85 €/household/year. If the questions about the respondents’ attitudes towards images additionally showed high structural diver- the landscape where they live and its management. sity, this resulted in an extra 20 €/household/year. It also contained a choice experiment to determine In contrast to this finding, no general preference for a monetary valuation for changes in the scenic deciduous and mixed forests in their winter aspect beauty and recreation in the landscape. could be confirmed. However, structural diversity 213 6.3 • Economic Benefit Valuation of the Influence of a Forest Conversion … 6 of forest stands played an even more important role spective temporal development reveals that no ap- in winter than in summertime: The additional WTP preciable monetary losses occur until about 2060, for high structural diversity under winter condi- if the ‘leitbild’ scenario is put into practice; the tions was between 90 and 160 €/household/year. balance is even slightly positive in the ‘diversified’ Based on these results, it was possible to ex- variant of landscape development which assumes a amine the long-term impacts of forest conversion conversion into highly diverse forest stands. After on the landscape views over time and then to ex- 2060 however, neither the positive influences on trapolate WTP of the regional population. For this landscape values nor the (weakly) positive influ- purpose we weighted the valuation results for the ences on carbon sequestration are able to compen- summer and winter aspect, respectively, at a rate sate the significant losses due to decreased wood of 7:5 (according to the length of the vegetation production. This is true even if unrealistically high period). Two variants were calculated in order to sequestration values are being assumed: in 2100, account for the influence of structural diversity on the realisation of the ‘leitbild’ scenario would cause results. For a ‘lower’ variant we supposed that fu- a utility loss of 30–50 m €/year in comparison to ture forest conversion will always produce forests ‘bau’-oriented silviculture, depending on calcula- of low diversity. In contrast, a ‘diversified’ variant tion variant. . Figure 6.12 illustrates this finding (a: was calculated using the forest views which showed without carbon sequestration values; b: assuming a high structural diversity. For simplicity we assumed carbon sequestration value of 100 €/t CO2. The very the pace of the forest conversion will be driven by small differences between both parts of the figure silvicultural considerations only (i.e. no concentra- demonstrate how weakly the carbon sequestration tion along settlement centres, for example), and service impacts the overall result) (. Fig. 6.12). that population numbers as well as their prefer- Although the losses uncovered here will be rel- ences remain constant over time. evant in a more distant future only, such a result According to this extrapolation, landscape val- violates norms of sustainability as well as intergen- ues will increase over time in both scenarios because erational justice–even if substitutability between both envisage a forest conversion of purely conifer different forest services is permitted, as is implied stands into stands with higher shares of deciduous by ‘weak’ sustainability approaches. When inter- trees (even though the extent of the conversion is preting this result it should be kept in mind that considerably lower in the ‘bau’ scenario). Because the value balance presented here, and its temporal of the stepwise realisation of the conversion pro- development, are based on a number of simplifying grammes, landscape values are highest at the end of assumptions: the period. In a short to medium term view the con- 1. In the absence of more reliable information, sumer surplus difference between both scenarios is the long-term considerations above assume comparatively small; for 2020 it amounts to 3.0 m €/ continuousness in the overall economic de- year in the ‘lower’ variant (or 6.2 m €/year respec- velopment, in the sense of constant value relatively, if high diversity of the converted stands is as- tions between timber market values (which sumed for both scenarios). Until 2100 the difference dominate the overall result) and other goods increases to 16.0 m €/year (or 34.1 m €/year respec- and services, including the forest ES valued tively, in the ‘diversified’ variant). When interpreting here. these last-mentioned numbers it should however be 2. Constancy in the long run is assumed with kept in mind, that such projections into a distant regard to growth conditions for trees, too. If future inevitably imply substantial uncertainties. tree growth will decrease in the future due to changing environmental conditions (e.g. because of increasing drought stress), then the 6.3.5 Synopsis and Discussion influence of wood production on the overall result will diminish in relation to other forest The balance of the monetary values of all forest ES ES–at least under the condition that the value considered here changes over time. A look at the re- of these other services will be less affected 214 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Fig. 6.12 Development of the value balance of wood production, landscape view and carbon sequestration service

under forest conversion according to the ‘leitbild’ as compared to the ‘bau’ scenario (a: CO2 base price = 0 €/t; b: 100 €/t)

by the growth decrease, or not affected at all. known risks and may be economically rational Under enhanced growth conditions for trees in this sense (see e.g. Knoke et al. 2008), thus (e.g. due to extended annual growth periods) qualifying the long-term utility loss associated this will be the other way round. with a realisation of the ‘leitbild’. However, the 3. Production risks as well as their possible shifts present silvicultural strategies underlying the due to climate change are not taken into ac- ‘bau’ scenario provide for some forest conver- count in the present investigation–neither sion, too, albeit to a lesser extent. It is not pos- natural risks (e.g. droughts, fire, storms, in- sible to determine objectively which degree sect calamities) nor financial ones (including of forest conversion is most advantageous changing price relations between tree species). for distributing production risks, since this Generally, forest conversion in the sense of the depends also on the risk aversion of today’s ‘leitbild’ can lead to a better distribution of un- decision-makers. 215 6.3 • Economic Benefit Valuation of the Influence of a Forest Conversion … 6

4. In addition to timber markets the present 5. Finally it must be stressed that the present investigation captures landscape views, recre- investigation did not aim at a comprehensive ation and carbon sequestration as important benefit-cost analysis. Specifically, investment ES which would be affected if the ‘leitbild’ was costs of forest conversion have not been an issue realised. Nevertheless important impacts on here; therefore the presented value balances do other potentially affected ES remain uncon- not contain such costs. The higher these costs sidered, like e.g. water supply and consump- are in reality (e.g. for planting and maintain- tive use of forest biodiversity. However, a well ing deciduous trees, protecting them against comparable study on the influence of a forest damage from game animals, etc.), the more conversion programme on regional biodi adverse will the balance become with regard to versity values is available from two regions in a realisation of the ‘leitbild’ of ‘climate adaptive Lower Saxony (Liebe et al. 2006 in Meyerhoff deciduous mixed forest’. Likewise it will become et al. 2006). According to the mentioned increasingly questionable whether the positive study, a third to half of the respondents in balance indicated here until 2060 under inclu- the regions of Lüneburger Heide and Solling sion of public goods (and under partly optimis- were generally prepared to pay for increasing tic assumptions about their values) will persist the amount of deciduous trees and related at all. Even when allowing for positive impacts biodiversity improvements (the programme on ES it can be inferred, that a forest conversion provided for increasing the share of deciduous according to the ‘leitbild’ will most probably trees from 30 and 40 %, respectively, to 60 %, only be compatible with economic and sustain- corresponding to the state forest administra- ability goals if conversion costs can be restricted tion’s conversion programme LÖWE (Nie- to a minimum. dersächsische Landesregierung 1991). With regard to the motives for the decision to pay, Conclusion the attributes ‘biotope protection’ and ‘species What are the conclusions which can be drawn from protection’ ranked highest, even higher than this case study, for MEA’s ecosystem approach (MEA ‘increasing landscape diversity’. This finding 2003) and for the economic valuation of ES in gen- emphasises the relevance of biotope protection eral? The MEA approach focuses at the entirety of services. Nonetheless, mean WTP for the con- services which may be affected by management and version programme (about 6 to 15 €/person/ utilisation (here: of forests), and thus it helps keep- year depending on valuation method) was ing essential environmental aspects in view, which in the same order of magnitude as the WTP go beyond mere production goals. Thereby the MEA identified in the present study for landscape approach takes up the important concern of envi- views, even slightly lower. This implies that ronmental economics that external effects be iden- even if biodiversity values were additionally tified and quantified, in order to be incorporated in included here, the abovementioned sustain- decisions of environmental relevance. Even though ability violation would likely not be dispelled: including every ecosystem service possibly affected It persists even if it is assumed that the ‘leitbild’ by any intervention might turn out impossible due scenario’s positive influences on biodiversity to data limitations, the present case study demon- values might be much higher than those on strates that quantifying and valuing important pro- landscape values.1 visioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services (CES) is indeed possible. Generally this is also true 1 The overall balance becomes positive over the whole for ‘supporting services’. However, most supporting period only if the most optimistic of each calculation services do not have direct consumption benefits, variants is chosen (i. e. the ‘diversified’ variant for land- but rather serve as inputs for the production of oth- scape view valuation, and a carbon sequestration value er goods. Thus their value should not be added to of 100 €/t CO2) and if a biodiversity value of at least 108 €/household/year is assumed (which is more than three the values of the produced goods, in order to avoid times the value determined by Liebe et al. 2006). All double counting (7 Sect. 3.2.5). three assumptions are quite unrealistic. 216 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Table 6.6 Urban ecosystem services and indicators for the quality of life in sustainability dimensions

Sustainability dimension Urban ecosystem service Indicator for urban quality of ilfe

Ecology Air filtering Health (clean air, protection against respiratory ill- Climate regulation nesses, death from heat exposure and hypothermia) Noise reduction Safety Rainwater drainage Drinking water Water supply Food Wastewater purification Food production

Social Landscape Aesthetics of the environment Recreation Recreation, stress reduction Cultural values Intellectual enrichment Environmental education Communication 6 Living area Economy Allocation of land for eco- Accessibility nomic activities and transport Income

Own compilation from Haase (2011) after the MEA (2005), TEEB (2010), Fisher et al. (2009) as well as Santos and Martins (2007)

6.4 Urban Ecosystem Services: non-monetary models and assessment approaches Leipzig as a Case Study (as presented in the following) are very well suited to emphasise the importance of urban ES. D. Haase According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005), the TEEB study Manual Urban ecosystem services (Bolund and Hunham- for Cities (2010) as well as Fisher et al. (2009), mar 1999; TEEB 2010; Elmqvist et al. 2013; Haase et urban ecosystem services can be divided into four al. 2014) describe ecosystem functions (processes, categories (. Table 6.6): provisioning services structures), which are provided by nature or the ur- (food, water, raw materials, genetic resources, me- ban ecosystem and used by the inhabitants of a city dicinal resources, etc.), regulating services (regu- and/or a metropolitan area. Examples of urban ES lation of climatic extremes such as heavy precipi- are the provision of freshwater and drinking water tation or extreme summer heat, floods, diseases, from precipitation and the natural filtration of soils, water and air quality, waste management, etc.), the regulation of peak run-off during periods of ex- cultural services (recreation, aesthetics, spiritual treme precipitation and the resultant reduction of fulfilment, environmental education, etc.), and high water in urban areas, food production (fruit, supporting services (in the broader sense, eco- vegetables) in urban gardens or garden allotments, system processes and functions such as soil for- the pollination of fruit trees by urban bees or the mation, biodiversity, pollination, nutrient cycles, provision of fresh (cool) air from open spaces and etc.). Urban ES are very closely to the urban qual- recreational areas. ity of life (Schetke et al. 2012; Santos and Martins Without ES, our life as we know it today, would 2007), which is based on the three dimensions of not be possible in the city (Guo et al. 2010; Haase sustainability and rather expresses city dwellers 2011). Some studies have attempted to express ‘needs’ for services, which are partially covered urban ES in terms of monetary value to empha- by ecosystems and/or ecosystem functions. The sise the economic importance of and dependency complementary role of both concepts is presented on nature–particularly in cities (Gómez-Bagget- in . Table 6.6. hun et al. 2010; Bastian et al. 2012). In addition, 217 6.4 • Urban Ecosystem Services: Leipzig as a Case Study 6

Space of appropriate patterns

Degree impervious cover to ensure urban quality of life LAND USE to ensure urban quality of life Degree ecosystem services

in the multifunctional city

. Fig. 6.13 The nexus between urban land use and urban ecosystem services–the options for defining urban land use to secure urban ecosystem services will always be a compromise to suit both socio-economics and the ecosystem. This ‘search’ for compromises has to be (re-)negotiated. Multi-criteria assessment, trade-offs as well as partial optimisation can all be useful methods in defining compromise

. Fig. 6.14 Restriction and potential of urban ecosystem services from urban development and land sealing (Munich, left) as well as land-use perforation from shrinkage (Rabet in Leipzig, right). © Dagmar Haase 2010

6.4.1 Urban Ecosystem Services and cant effects (mostly of a negative ecological nature) Urban Land Use: A Complex all over the world, with such effects often being -ir Nexus reversible. The rural–urban gradient that is emerging is characterised by dispersed land-use develop- Urban ES are very closely linked to urban land use ment with an increasing amount of land sealing in (. Fig. 6.13). On a global scale, urban land use con- city centres (Haase and Nuissl 2010). Sealed/partly stitutes at the most 4 % of the Earth’s surface, and sealed soils can no longer (or at least only to a re- yet more than half of the world’s population now stricted degree) fulfil the urban ES described above live in cities; with trend still on the rise (Seto et al. (Haase and Nuissl 2007; . Fig. 6.13 and 6.14). 2011). From an economics point of view, 95 % of Therefore, possible courses of action in the field today’s cumulative global gross domestic product of urban land use to secure ES are always part of is generated in cities. The sealing and conversion a multi-criteria compromise, which has to be (re-) of semi-natural areas and agricultural land into negotiated time and again (7 Sect. 5.1, 5.4). settlements and roads belong to the most signifi- 218 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

In particular, the land-use types of urban open 6.4.2 An Example of Local Climate spaces, urban green and forests provide the most Regulation diverse urban ES for urban residents. For example, wooded areas and parks contribute to regulat- The current discussion about adaptation to climate ing extreme temperatures, by reducing surface ra- change in cities aims at reducing the temperature diation and temperature by casting shadows and of existing open spaces (green areas, waterbodies, from increased evapotranspiration (Bowler et al. floodplains) in the city (Bowler et al. 2010; Gill et 2010, Kottmeier et al. 2007). Moreover, all kinds al. 2007; Jin et al. 2005; Tratalos et al. 2007). Urban of urban green areas, even urban wastelands or green areas and waterbodies are able to produce cool brownfields and waterbodies can contribute to the air due to their specific heat evaporation and coun- well-being of urban residents. Undeveloped flood- teract high summer temperatures (Gill et al. 2007). plains primarily regulate flooding (Haase 2003). In addition, shaded areas play an important role: Unsealed land surfaces are suitable for rainwater here the temperature reduction compared to a sunny 6 retention and percolation, and are therefore able location can be up to a maximum of 5 K per 10-min- to regulate rapid aboveground discharge runoff ute interval during diurnal variation. As shown in from heavy rain events. Rainwater seepage in- . Fig. 6.15 for the City of Leipzig, an increase in the stallations especially designed for this purpose in amount of shade (i.e. the percentage of park areas residential areas can additionally serve as in situ with tree cover and/or the number of trees in parks) rainwater utilisation (Haase 2009). With respect of urban green spaces benefits the temperature regu- to the increasingly more important debate on an- lation effect (Bowler et al. 2010). The cooling effect thropogenically induced climate change, urban of 3 K (on average) in the diurnal variation from green areas (above all trees and forests) can con- shading is thereby empirically determined: on the tribute to local carbon sequestration. Admittedly, one hand it is measured and on the other hand it is current studies only refer to 1–2 % of the emis- extrapolated to the urban area by using data from the sions resulting from cities that can be neutralised aerial photography of shaded areas in parks. by urban vegetation (Strohbach and Haase 2012 Using indicators such as shade, but also surface for Leipzig, Nowak and Crane 2002 for US cit- emissivity or f-evapotranspiration, the effects of local ies). In spite of this small contribution, however, climate regulation of urban areas and land use pat- land uses with tree cover still contribute towards terns can be estimated. Schwarz et al. (2010) quanti- reducing the ‘ecological footprint’ of a city. fied the effects of town-planning measures for the Recently, another process (that is moving in the local government District of Leipzig such as eco- opposite direction from urban growth) has been nomic development, the designation of industrial given increasingly more attention: urban shrink- land, land reclamation from open-cast mining as age. Cities labelled with economic problems and well as the effect of regional green belts (. Fig. 6.16). population losses are characterised worldwide by a decrease in the intensity of urban land use, vacant premises as well as urban wastelands (. Fig. 6.14; 6.4.3 An Example of Flood Regulation Haase et al. 2007). This land-use perforation (Lüt- ke-Daldrup 2001) provides the unique opportunity The urban ecosystem service `flood regulation’ that for the revitalization of (inner)-city areas (Lorance is particularly important in cities, can be simplified Rall and Haase 2011) and an associated ‘revitaliza- by the following eq. 6.1, in which the precipitation

tion’ of urban ES (Haase 2008). N is the sum of discharge A (base runoff [Ab], in- A prime example of simultaneous urban growth termediate [interflow iA ] and surface runoff [Ao]), and shrinkage is the city of Leipzig situated in one evaporation ETP and intermediate storage S: of the new German federal states of the Federal Republic of Germany (Lütke-Daldrup 2001). The N = ()A+bi A+ Ao +ETP +S (6.1) following examples of the analysis and evaluation of urban ES refer to Leipzig and are internationally Unlike river catchment areas, the amount of sealing published. and the size of the sewer systems play an important 219 6.4 • Urban Ecosystem Services: Leipzig as a Case Study 6

. Fig. 6.15 The temperature difference between areas exposed to the sun and shaded areas of urban parks in late summer in Leipzig (own data from data collection in August 2009). Air temperature was measured with temperature sensors and recorded by means of a data logger. An average temperature difference of 3 K was empirically calculated between shaded and nonshaded areas for different parks and the 40 % shade determined by remote-sensing data was transferred to all parks in the city. Hence, it was possible to simulate the effect of increased and/or decreased shade on the regulation of the local climate (cooling) in public parks for scenarios of urban shrinkage, urban restructuring and re-urbanisation. Apart from which, the urban ecosystem services effect “climate regulation from shading” could be calculated for various reforestation measures in urban parks role, as they determine how much precipitation wa- which are determined by the land use, soil sealing ter is available to the ecosystem and/or how much and soil type: directly gets into the receiving water from direct n runoff (Haase 2009). Here, it applies: the higher dETa  ETa the degree of soil sealing, the lower the base and/ =−1 (6.2) dN  ETp or intermediate runoff, the higher the surface runoff and the lower the flood water regulation. Urban ecosystems are very vulnerable to discharge points From the base runoff it is then possible to calculate and local flooding and/or ground water flooding. the direct runoff by determining the proportion p An efficient method for calculating water regu- of surplus water (the difference between precipi- lation within an urban area is the empirically deter- tation and evaporation), where p is derived from mined Bagrov-relationship (eq. 6.2), with which the the initial parameters, slope inclination, soil type, total runoff (Q) is calculated from the real evapo- depth to the water table and the land use and/or the transpiration (ETa) of an area (Glugla and Fürtig degree of sealing (eq. 6.3; Haase 2009): 1997). The total runoff (Q) is calculated by the difference between the real evapotranspiration (ETa) and the long-term precipitant (N). With increasing ANo =−()ETap/100 (6.3) N, ETa is closer to the potential evaporation (ETp), while with decreasing N, ETa is closer to this. The intensity, with which these boundary conditions One of the results from calculating flood regulation are reached, is altered by the storage properties of is shown in . Fig. 6.17 using the example of the City the evaporating surface (effectiveness parameter n), of Leipzig over the period 1870–2006. 220 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Fig. 6.16 The effects of different planning instruments on the urban ecosystem service ‘local climate regulation’ for the local government District of Leipzig (compared with Corine Land Cover Data in the base year 2000 (= CLC 2000)). On the right the indicator surface emissivity (*), in the center the indicator f-evapotranspiration (**) and on the right the aggregated indicator values for CLC2000 and the planning measures considered. Land-use changes resulting from planning measures were incorporated into the GIS, by editing the areas with measures as polygons and accepting an appropriate new/altered land-use form. © Schwarz et al. 2011

6.4.4 An Example of Carbon For this a stratified random sample of 190 locations Sequestration in the Urban was laid over 19 land-cover classes, for which the Area–Reducing the Ecological percentage of trees, the age of the trees, the species Backpack of the City? as well as the DBH were all determined. Moreover, the tree crown cover was derived from colour-in- On the one hand, cities belong to the main emitters frared images (CIR) by means of object-oriented of carbon dioxide (Churkina 2008). On the other, random forest algorithms (for details on the method they are also able to fix some of these carbon diox- see Strohbach and Haase 2012). The tree crown cov- ide emissions–primarily in soils and trees. Carbon er of the entire city area was quantified with 19 %. sequestration belongs to the global most important Using the data on the tree trunk diameter, it was urban ES that are provided in cities, even if this possible to determine the aboveground biomass of contribution is quite small in terms of figures. How the trees as well as stored carbon by means of al- can one assess the contribution (balance) of a city lometric equations. to the global carbon balance? By applying the above methodology, a total For the city of Leipzig carbon storage from ur- carbon storage of 316,000 Mg C or 11 Mg C per ban vegetation (trees) was empirically determined hectare could be determined in the aboveground and modelled with the goal of tree biomass of Leipzig. The highest values were 55 Obtaining a spatially explicit representation of determined for residential areas and floodplain carbon storage and areas (. Fig. 6.18). Compared to values from US 55 Establishing comparative values of carbon se- American and Chinese cities (Hutyra et al. 2011)

questration from trees for typical urban land- and compared with the annual CO2 emissions of use types (Strohbach und Haase 2012). the city, the carbon storage values for Leipzig are 221 6.4 • Urban Ecosystem Services: Leipzig as a Case Study 6

. Fig. 6.17 Change in the surface runoff oA in the City of Leipzig between 1870 and 2006, calculated after the procedure explained in 7 Sect. 6.4.3. The urban ecosystem services in this case are the difference between the values from 2006 to 1870, displayed in the legend below. One notices a considerable loss of flood regulation services due to sealing in Leipzig, shown as positive differences (growth)

rather small–and yet they should not be underes- little or no tree cover and successional wastelands. timated. This quantification method is particularly Even the green spaces along the sides of roads act suitable for assessing the carbon mitigation po- as urban biotopes (Breuste et al. 2007). In addition, tential of urban restructuring projects for cities in there are also private urban green spaces such as decline, as Strohbach et al. (2012) found for the de- back gardens, allotment gardens or golf courses. molishing and subsequent use projects ‘dark forest’ Their significance in terms of their function not and ‘floodlit grove’ in the east of Leipzig. only as habitats but also as regulators is by far underestimated. Generally speaking, the urban ES of urban green spaces range from the biotope 6.4.5 An Example of the Recreational formation function in the true sense to the nature and Nature Experience conservation function (species diversity), the bio- indicator and information function (clean air), the Urban green areas (including their habitats and climate regulation function (provision and storage biotopes) provide a multitude of ecological func- of cool air), the soil protection function (filtering, tions and thus also provide many urban ES (Haase buffering) as well as some particularly important 2011). Public green spaces include urban forests, functions for urban inhabitants including recre parks with tree cover, cemeteries, sports fields with ation, noise buffering, the townscape, as well as 222 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Fig. 6.18 Spatial distribution of the carbon sequestration capacity of the urban vegetation in Leipzig after urban structure and/or land-use types (Strohbach and Haase 2012). The lowest values came from urban agricultural areas, the highest came from the floodplain forest that runs through the city. Similarly, areas with Wilhelminian architecture and villas showed above average values for carbon sequestration. The locations were determined by random sampling and the carbon data were recorded in the field by measuring the DBH of trees as well as the respective allometric curves of the relationship between DBH and aboveground biomass established

educational and historical functions (Burgess ernment statistics (Comber et al. 2008). Indicators, 1988; Bolund and Hunhammar 1999). Parks, play- which were determined for the City of Leipzig on grounds, meadows, cemeteries, green wastelands the other hand (. Fig. 6.19) are area of, percentage of and urban forests secure the recreational function and per capita area of urban green as well as its ac- of humans in the city. They help to maintain men- cessibility (buffer or network analysis). Many cities tal and physical health as well as making it possible have specified threshold values for these indicators to experience nature (Yli-Pelkonen and Nielemä (Kabisch and Haase 2011). Furthermore, gradient 2005; Chiesura 2004). Consequently, they need analyses of green area requirements and potential to be classed as considerable determinants of the demand as well as dissimilarity indices such as Gini urban quality of life (Santos and Martins 2007). or Theil are suitable for describing the concentra- Besides which, they provide aesthetic pleasure and tion (fairness) of the recreation function. inspiration in the city (Breuste 1999). Gruehn et al. (2006) analysed the effect of ur- One can determine the supply and demand of ban green spaces on the value of properties and real urban green spaces for recreation very efficiently estate (7 Sect. 4.2). The results show that there are using geographical information systems (e.g. Arc- numerous positive effects from open spaces and GIS) on the basis of land-use data and local gov- green spaces on the standard land value of up to 223 6.4 • Urban Ecosystem Services: Leipzig as a Case Study 6

1,00 Demand 1990 0,90 Supply 1990 0,80 Demand 2000 Supply 2000 0,70 Demand 2007 Supply 2007 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 135791113151719212325 Distance to city center (m)

Central Central 250 400 300 N N NE 200 NE 200 150 100 0 100 100 old W 50 E old W 200 E 300 0

W SE W SE 1997 1997 SW S 2003 2003 SW S

Green space per capita (m²) Distance to next green space (m)

. Fig. 6.19 Recreation function in Leipzig: portrayed as a green area map for 2003 (upper left), as a gradient of supply and demand (top right) as well as equity on the municipality level for two land-use time steps (below)

tergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiver- 20 %, depending on the function, configuration, ac- sity and Ecosystem Services) but contrary to the USA, cessibility, residence quality and spatial configura- the UK, the Netherlands (Termorshuizen and Op- tion of the area. It should be noted however that dam 2009) or Switzerland (Staub et al. 2011) for ex- these values depend on the city in question and are ample there are still no generally applicable guide- therefore to be taken as approximate values. lines for the implementation of approaches using The Status of Urban Ecosystem Services Imple- urban ecosystem services for (urban) landscape mentation in Germany planning. Nevertheless, governance structures of Despite the heated international discussion on ES town and city development and landscape/nature and their enhancement (see MEA 2005; TEEB 2010), protection often apply the principles of the urban so far administrative institutions responsible for the ES concept like for example the temporary use planning of German cities have been hesitant to projects in Berlin or Leipzig (here: licence agree- take up the issue. There is a German participation ments on interim land use, Lorance Rall and Haase and numerous activities on the IPBES-platform (In- 2011). 224 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

6.5 Cultural Landscapes and their The cultural services should, thus, be taken Ecosystem Services especially into account whenever the ES concept is applied to cultural landscapes. Despite the cen- 6.5.1 The Example of Orchard tral influence cultural services have on well-being Meadows in the Swabian Alb and quality of life, they are still only marginally Biosphere Reserve accounted for in studies capturing and valuing ES. One reason is that they are hard to grasp, to quan- B. Ohnesorge, C. Bieling, C. Schleyer and T. Plieninger tify or to spatially represent, compared to most regulating or provisioning services (Chan et al. Introduction 2012). In the following chapter, we use the example Europe’s land cover has been shaped to become a of orchard meadows in the Swabian Alb Biosphere mosaic of cultural landscapes by wide-ranging and Reserve to demonstrate the importance of cultural comprehensive human use for centuries (Schaich services and introduce a method for the spatial re- 6 et al. 2010). The term ‘cultural landscape’, on the cording of their manifestations. We explain some one hand, emphasises the aspect of anthropogenic examples of instruments and initiatives for the cultivation and visible changes to the natural land- conservation of orchard meadows (Payments for scape due to continuous use. On the other hand, Ecosystem Services) and discuss the implementa- it includes a cognitive dimension pointing to the tion of the ecosystem service concept in landscape cultural meaning (7 Sect. 3.4) humans assign to the management. space surrounding them and to the natural and anthropogenic elements therein (Jones 2003). Human From Efficient Food Production to influence on natural landscapes is often associated Threatened Cultural Heritage: Orchard solely with disturbance and negative influences. Meadows in the Course of the Centuries But mankind can also contribute in many ways to Orchard meadows are common landscape ele- the diversity and uniqueness of a landscape, be it ments in eleven European countries and comprise through socio-economic, emotional or intellectual a total of about 1 million hectares. Their distri- input (Moreira et al. 2006). butional range extends from Northern France to While a large part of scientific literature deals Southern Germany and Switzerland to Poland. In with capturing ES on the ecosystem scale, this the German state of Baden-Württemberg, orchard chapter points to ES delivered on the landscape meadows cover approximately 116,000 ha and 7.1 % scale. Cultural landscapes usually embrace a mul- of the agricultural land. The largest contiguous area titude of different habitats. Forest patches, mead- of orchard meadows occurs at the northwestern ows, hedgerows and streams, for example, all de- border of the Swabian Alb Biosphere Reserve, ap- liver specific ES locally. Their composition on the proximately 30 km southeast of Stuttgart, situated landscape scale delivers additional services such in the foothills of the Swabian Alb mountain range. as the regulation of the landscape water regime, This region exhibits a mild climate and a diverse groundwater renewal or pollination of cultural landscape scenery, which is characterised by ex- crops by wild insects. On this scale, the CES play tensive, richly structured orchard meadows around an important role. Due to the long history of hu- settlements, small-scale agriculture, and deciduous man use and the intense interaction between man hillside forests. Due to its location within the Stutt- and nature, cultural landscapes are closely linked gart metropolitan area, the area has a high popula- to a sense of place and cultural heritage, but also tion density of 719 inhabitants per km2. Therefore, to values, biographies and identities (Schaich et al. the orchard meadow landscapes are not only of 2010). Moreover, recreation, inspiration and spiri- importance for biodiversity conservation but also tual edification by enjoying cultural landscapes for landscape-related recreation (LUBW 2009). The become ever more important, as most Europeans ecoregion harbours around 600,000 scattered fruit spend an increasing amount of their time in cities trees and 6,000 ha of orchard meadows. and inside buildings. 225 6.5 • Cultural Landscapes and their Ecosystem Services 6

Orchard Meadows

Scattered fruit tree or orchard landscape also brings forward intervals on fields, meadows and meadows are an excellent study considerable cultural services such pastures. The term also includes area as they combine many attri- as recreation and a ‘sense of place’ singular trees along paths, roads butes of traditional cultural land- (. Fig. 6.20). and slopes, small groups of trees, scapes: a mixture of low-intensity Lucke et al. (1992) define scat- tree rows and extensive sites with orchards and agricultural use, a tered fruit trees as “generally tall trees standing in regular, but large small-scale landscape mosaic and growing trees of different fruit intervals”. Apple, pear, prune plum structural richness favour a high species, varieties and age brackets, and sweet cherry are the most com- biological diversity. This type of standing ‘scattered’ in irregular mon species.

Orchard meadow landscapes are appreciated century. The last large-scale plantations of orchard for the diverse ES that they provide to society. meadows took place during and shortly after World Among the provisioning services fruit production War II, in order to supply people with fresh fruit is important–despite a widespread conversion to (Müller 2005). high-performance fruit plantations (Weller 2006). Orchard meadows have been strongly declin- Appreciated products are dessert fruit, fruit juices, ing since the 1950s. While agricultural statistics cider and liquors. Also, orchard meadows provide for the federal state of Baden-Württemberg re- cultural services as scattered fruit trees are out- corded 18 million scattered fruit trees in 1965, only standing components of an aesthetically pleasing 11.4 million trees were counted in 1990 and 9.3 mil- landscape. Due to their location close to villages lion trees in 2009 (MLR 2009). Many orchard and towns, they contribute to recreation and often meadows were replaced systematically by modern attract day tourists. Substantial regulation services and intensive fruit plantations, which allow a ratio- are supplied by positively influencing local climates nal management based on machinery. In the 1960s (e.g. through wind protection or shading), by halt- and 1970s the federal state of Baden-Württemberg ing soil erosion on hillsides, and by reducing nutri- and the European Economic Community subsi- ent inputs into water bodies. The large diversity of dised the clearing of orchard meadows in order fruit varieties (more than 3000 fruit varieties have to promote the ‘modernisation’ of orcharding. In been recorded in Germany; MLR 2009) represents consequence, approximately 15,700 ha of orchard an important genetic resource. Finally, orchard meadows were removed between 1957 and 1974 meadows offer habitats to many plant and animal (Weller 2006). Many of the orchard meadows close species (Herzog 2000). to urban areas vanished through establishment of Orchard meadows were introduced in many settlements and industrial areas. The construction German regions as innovative land-use systems in and upgrading of roads implied a loss of many scat- the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, often sup- tered fruit tree rows. ported by the respective government. The principal The conservation of orchard meadows depends aim was to improve profitability of agriculture and on active management, in particular regular prun- the provision of food to local people. In a first stage, ing and renewal of trees. With the rising compe- fruit trees were planted in home gardens and on tition of intensive plantations and changing con- crop fields; at a later stage, these were often consumption patterns (e.g. increasing quality demands verted from croplands to meadows. Important land towards dessert fruit), traditional orcharding uses on the ground were livestock grazing as well practices often lost profitability. Due to land aban- as cultivation of fodder, cereals, root crops, horti- donment and lacking regeneration of trees, many cultural crops, and berries. The orchard meadow orchard meadows were encroached by bushes and economy culminated in the middle of the twentieth shrubs while many fruit tree stands are overaged 226 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

and deceased through lack of management. The re- zz Manifestations of CES in the Foothills of the maining scattered fruit tree stands are usually not Swabian Alb managed by professional fruit growers, but by hob- The method applied begins with the consideration by and self-sustaining farmers (Weller 2006). The that, like in the case of agricultural land use, the use fruit trees are overwhelmingly found on meadows of cultural services also leaves traces in the land- and pastures, while scattered fruit trees have largely scape. Campfire places indicate recreational use, vanished from croplands. wayside crosses reflect religious values, and well- tended historical features show that cultural heri- Manifestations of Cultural Ecosystem tage is relevant. These are visible manifestations of Services of Orchard Meadows CES, and the basic idea of the proposed approach Despite, or maybe because of their decline, the is to record such visible signs of people actually us- significance of orchard meadows as an extremely ing ecosystem features in an intangible manner. The valuable landscape feature is increasingly stressed approach corresponds with the notion highlighted, by the local population, but also by particular for example, by Eiter (2010) and Stephenson (2008) stakeholder groups like conservationists or repre- that the experiencing of landscapes, i.e. their use, is sentatives of tourist associations. Their values are a crucial constituent for landscape values. most commonly described in terms of CES like We explored the potentials and constraints of aesthetics, sense of place and cultural heritage. In this approach using the example of an area cov- the following section, we present an approach that ered with orchard meadows. In a systematic field- delivers concrete insights into the character and walking procedure, all visible signs of use, which prevalence of CES related to an area covered with are predominantly related to intangible services, orchard meadows in the foothills of the Swabian were recorded and documented in a map, which Alb in southwestern Germany. was later transferred to a GIS (for a detailed de- 227 6.5 • Cultural Landscapes and their Ecosystem Services 6

. Fig. 6.21 Bench as manifestation of aesthetic and recreational services. © Claudia Bieling scription of methods and results see Bieling and CES as described in the MEA 2005 (. Table 6.7). Plieninger 2013). In the investigated area, mani- Manifestations of recreational values and identity fold and numerous manifestations of CES were were particularly frequent, whereas inspiration and identified and were grouped into seven categories spiritual/religious values seemed to be of little rel- of similar uses: benches (. Fig. 6.21), subsistence evance in the investigated area. gardens, hunting facilities, recreational facilities Two aspects have to be considered when draw- (e.g. small private huts, barbecue places), mani- ing conclusions from these findings: first, this ex- festations indicative of cultural ties to the past ploratory study shows that visible manifestations (e.g. commemorative plaques), trails and signs for are good indicators for some, but not for all types hikers and cyclists as well as ‘other’ (e.g. a small of CES. For instance, it was not possible to find any Christmas tree plantation likely to indicate reli- indicator for inspirational services, even though it gious values, but as a source of subsistence also is highly probable that people do actually derive in- connected to identity) (. Table 6.7). Subsistence spiration from the investigated orchard meadows. gardens and hunting facilities were interpreted In this regard, the landscape is probably not the as predominantly indicating intangible services, right place to look for manifestations, and indica- because gardening and hunting entail strong con- tors might be better found in places like local art ex- nections to questions of identity, but also to so- hibitions, regional literature and poetry or children’s cial relations and recreation, which typically out- kindergarten drawings. Second, manifestations of weighs the significance of the products obtained CES are highly context-dependent, and it would (e.g. vegetables, game meat). not be appropriate to compare results between dif- In a second step, the categories of recorded ferent natural and cultural contexts. For instance, manifestations were connected with the types of we hardly found any manifestation for spiritual/ 228 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Table 6.7 Types of cultural ecosystem services (CES), associated visible manifestations and their relevance in the investigated area

CES types Associated visible manifestations Relevance (recorded manifestations/ total number of manifestations) (%)

Identity Subsistence gardens, hunting facilities, pond, 28 Christmas tree plantation

Cultural heritage Memorials, commemorations, historical sites 5

Spiritual/religious services Christmas tree plantation 1

Inspiration – 0

Aesthetic services Benches 11

Recreation Hiking trails and signs; recreational facilities; 55 6 benches; subsistence gardens; hunting facilities

religious values in our case study area, which be- zz Cultural Ecosystem Services as a Facilitator longs to a predominantly Protestant municipality. of Sustainable Land-Use Practices In Protestant culture it is not common to express The example of the orchard meadows shows that religious values through manifestations such as cultural landscapes are tightly linked to CES. This wayside crosses, which can often be observed in applies to tourists, but even more to the local Roman Catholic-dominated areas. However, this population and particularly land owners, which does not necessarily mean that people in this Prot- are most relevant for the implementation of sus- estant municipality attach less spiritual values to tainable land-use practices. Nonmaterial values their surroundings than their Catholic neighbours play an outstanding role in land owners’ land-use a few kilometres away, where one would certainly decisions. This is, for instance, revealed in a study find more indicators of spiritual services. on how nonindustrial private forest owners view Visible manifestations can be analysed in a so-called close-to-nature management practices. spatially explicit way, which offers several benefits: It concludes that the implementation of such ap- On the one hand, hot spots of CES provision are proaches is not so much driven by financial incen- revealed, on the other hand, places are indicated tives like subsidies, but depends on the compliance which have relatively little relevance in this regard. of management practices with nonmaterial values Moreover, as can be seen from visualising the re- and cultural background (e.g. family traditions) sults in a GIS and applying statistical analyses, the held by the land owner (Bieling 2004). Therefore, approach helps to identify common overlaps of CES may be seen as a starting point and most rel- different ES. In our example, places that provided evant argument in incentives that strive for man- recreational services typically also were important agement approaches which sustain a broad range in terms of identity and cultural heritage. Likewise, of ES. Another important issue in this context is the linkages between CES and variables like topog- that CES, in contrast to most provisioning and raphy or exposition may be investigated. However, regulating services, are typically linked to a spe- the complexity of assigning CES to a specific place cific place and cannot be replaced by technical or has to be considered. For example, aesthetics like socio-economic solutions (MEA 2005). In Central a beautiful view depend both on the place of ‘con- Europe, the high economic standard allows to im- sumption’ (the place where the view is enjoyed) port agrarian goods from all regions of the world. and the place of provision (i.e. the landscape being Services like local recreation, sense of place or cul- viewed). tural heritage, however, are inextricably linked to 229 6.5 • Cultural Landscapes and their Ecosystem Services 6 the cultural landscapes people are attached to in often fails because they are much harder to grasp their daily life–if they are not sustained in these compared to provisioning and regulatory services places, they are lost (compare Guo et al. 2010 for as well as more difficult to link to specific forms of the increased dependence on CES in economically land management and to quantify. well-developed countries). Preservation of orchard meadows is mainly supported by the agri-environmental programme Policy Instruments and Civil Society of Baden-Württemberg (MEKA III). Land users Initiatives for Preserving the Manifold receive 2.50 € per tree for the mandatory manage- Services Provided by Orchard Meadows ment and maintenance of grassland under and be- Given the manifold cultural and other ES provided tween the fruit trees and for the regeneration of by orchard meadows, political and economic in- standard fruit trees. Other grants for the conser- struments are critical to counter the degradation vation and maintenance of meadow orchards, but and drastic decline of these important elements also for planting new fruit trees are available in of the regional cultural landscape. Unlike in other certain funding and project areas in the context of German federal states like Saxony, orchard mead- either land consolidation measures or the Direc- ows in Baden-Württemberg are not protected by tive on Countryside Conservation (Landschafts specific regulatory state policies. However, orchard pflegerichtlinie) of the federal state of Baden-Würt- meadows are often either part of Natura 2000 ar- temberg. In the future, establishing and maintain- eas, situated within nature protection or landscape ing orchard meadows will be considered as com- protection areas, or can be found in the so-called pensation measures for interventions in nature and buffer or transition zones of biosphere reserves. landscapes and will entitle to obtain appropriate Outside nature protection areas, orchard meadows compensation payments (so-called eco-accounts can be used for agricultural purposes, yet only in or habitat banking). a nonintensive manner and in compliance with Other state-funded assistance programmes further specific nature protection regulations. support the processing and marketing of fruits Such land-use restrictions, however, are often from orchard meadows in the biosphere area and perceived by land users as unduly intervention by beyond: This includes promoting investments in state authorities. Even more importantly, these le- diversification measures of agricultural enterprises, gal restrictions do not contain any obligations to for example for establishing small distilleries, but carry out the necessary maintenance of the orchard also for creating efficient networks of (juice) winer- meadows through nonintensive land management ies and for the purchase of mobile juice presses and in a regular fashion. bottling machines (MLR 2008, 2009). To counteract the decline and increasing deg- Other incentive-based forms of promoting or- radation of orchard meadows, a number of pub- chard meadows in the biosphere reserve are initia- lic and private funding programmes and other tives where, for example, apple juice from scattered incentive-based instruments have been launched fruit trees is marketed at a premium to compen- in recent years. These reward mechanisms–in the sate for maintenance efforts. Here, the redemption international scientific literature usually referred to price for the producer is higher than the current as ‘Payments for Ecosystem Services’–provide fixed or normal price if the fruits come from orchard payments for land users to voluntarily carry out meadows that are managed nonintensively or even concrete measures, such as a specific bird-friendly ecologically and/or that are situated in specific re- pruning. In Baden-Württemberg, the state govern- gional production areas. For example, in the context ment is spending about 10 million Euros per year of the PLENUM project (which started in 2001) of for direct and indirect measures for the preserva- the federal state of Baden-Württemberg which aims tion of orchard meadows (MLR 2009). While in to preserve and develop nature and the environment many cases CES are positively affected by these the apple juice and liqueur brand ‘ebbes Guad’s’ was preservation measures, they are hardly targeted developed in collaboration with local (juice) winer- directly. Promoting cultural services more directly ies and fruit-growing associations. Here, the fruits 230 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

come from about 200 ha of orchard meadows where financed schemes. Third, the farming requirements only specific production practices are used and land that have to be met to receive payments through users receive a premium of 3 €/dt beyond the cur- these schemes as well as the funding periods are rent market price. PLENUM funds are also used to often very inflexible and the measures are hardly support the apple juice initiative ‘Feines von Reut tailored to the specifics of the regional ecosystems linger Streuobstwiesen’ (‘Fine fruits from orchard and farming systems. meadows in Reutlingen’) where land-users receive Further, competing policies, such as schemes an even higher premium to adhere to additional promoting the cultivation of energy crops, also in- and more stringent ecological criteria. In addition crease the opportunity costs of managing orchard to these premium price initiatives, in the PLENUM meadows and, thus, increase the land-use pressure area Swabian Alb also infrastructure measures for in areas with orchard meadows (cf. Schleyer and cider and wineries are cofinanced as well as proj- Plieninger 2011). Finally, before the background of ects promoting the integration of actors along the an increasingly rigid government spending it seems 6 entire value chain (producers, processors, retailers, useful to make more use of private financial sources restaurants, and consumers) and improving public for such programmes. Here, price premium initia- relations and fostering the education and training tives, private investments in marketing and proof orchard farmers (PLENUM 2008). cessing infrastructures as well as compensatory The wide range of payment and reward pro- payments for interventions in nature and land- grammes to promote orchard meadows illustrates scapes have a high potential. the increasing importance of incentive-based instruments for the conservation of cultural land- Conclusion scapes. This seems all the more ‘trend-setting’ since Orchard meadows combine many features of tradi- the majority of ES provided by traditional orchard tional cultural landscapes and deliver a multitude of meadows are public goods which are not traded ES. Although they were originally developed for the at ‘free markets’. Without any doubt, the funding sake of efficient food production, today especially schemes and initiatives mentioned above have cer- their cultural services are acknowledged, such as a tainly provided a number of impulses for the pres- sense of place, recreation and inspiration. But these ervation and maintenance of orchard meadows. landscapes are also subject to the comprehensive Due to a number of reasons, however, it appears land-use trends we could observe during the last to be doubtful that the existing incentive-based decades: intensification of production, settlement instruments–both, content-wise and with respect and infrastructure development on the one hand, to the financial resources available–will be able to urbanisation and land abandonment on the other stop or even reverse the decline and degradation (Plieninger et al. 2006) pose a threat to the survival of orchard meadows. For example, only 1.67 mil- of these meadows. lion of altogether 9.3 million scattered fruit trees in The ES approach can offer valuable perspectives Baden-Württemberg were promoted in the frame- in the struggle for conserving traditional cultural work of the agri-environmental programme MEKA landscapes and in balancing different demands on III (MLR 2010). land use. In order to understand the societal value The poor uptake of this funding instrument is of a landscape comprehensively, its cultural services caused, first, by the fact that a large part of the or- must be taken into account adequately. chard meadows is not maintained by farmers, but by We introduced mapping of landscape elements amateur cultivators who are not eligible to receive which represent the cultural meaning of the land- payments from EU cofinanced agri-environmental scape as a possible way of operationalising cultural programmes. Second, the plantation and mainte- services. Deliberately linking values such as rec- nance of orchard meadows are associated with high reation, identity, cultural heritage and a sense of investment and production costs, which are only place to tangible landscape elements may result in a partly covered by the respective premiums of state- stronger motivation to conserve the landscape than 231 6.5 • Cultural Landscapes and their Ecosystem Services 6 what could be achieved by directives and financial an indicator of the economic valuation of ecosys- incentives alone. The ES concept in landscape tems, since their existence is not secure without management bears great potential for visualising these performances. Apart from ethical, aesthetic the links between cultural landscapes and human and informational values, which are very difficult well-being. Awareness-raising for the interrelation to determine in monetary terms, landscape man- between land use and the immaterial parameters agement accounting as a tool for indicating the of well-being must be just as strong as it is for the need of action to maintain ecosystems can help material aspects in order to conserve cultural land- to negotiate the level of socially agreed demand scapes’ ES and to foster them by means of targeted for nature as well as the willingness to pay for na- policies or initiatives. ture protection. The ES approach addresses calls for incorporation of such economic valuations in ecological management decisions (Carpenter and 6.5.2 Calculation of Landscape Turner 2000; Farber et al. 2006). Management Measures and Landscape management is defined as the total- Costs ity of all measures for the safeguarding, maintenance and development of natural habitats for in- K. Grunewald, R.-U. Syrbe and O. Bastian digenous species of plants and animals, and for the maintenance and renaturalization of ecosystems Objectives and Methodology and landscapes in the event of damage (Jedicke A broad social consensus exists for the perma- 1996). In this context, one important task is the nent preservation and development of our cultural preservation and development of ecological and landscapes and habitats, which expresses itself in a landscape diversity. Landscape management is growing demand for biodiversity and intact cultural particularly concerned with the safeguarding and landscapes, as well as in the willingness to provide provision of general interest services for society the financial means to do this (e.g. Hampicke 2006; (particularly regulation and sociocultural ES). Spangenberg and Settele 2010). However, in order Even if appropriate databases have gradually to secure their own existence, human beings have to been improved, comprehensible calculation mod- intervene in nature, altering it by various forms of els relating to the valuation of landscape mainte- land use. In addition to provisioning services (e.g. nance services are not very common. However, generation of foodstuffs and raw materials through knowledge of the magnitude of required financial agriculture and forestry), cultural landscapes and resources are necessary to plan and to ensure the their ecosystems also furnish many regulation and expenses for an extensive land management, at least sociocultural services. To make the broad range of in part, and/ or additional use, maintenance and ES permanently available, i.e. to ensure that biodi- development of habitats. Payments for ecosystems versity and productivity of the ecosystems are pre- and benefits from ES must be considered in conserved, targeted landscape management is neces- text (allocation options). For example, if farmers sary, something which entails financial expenditure get payments for landscape conservation measures, for society (Grunewald et al. 2014). such as the extensive use of grassland, they should If we take the politically specified need for the have entitled only to the compensation of addi- preservation of species and habitats as contained tional expenses or income compensation. As they in treaties, guidelines, laws and regulations into are participants in the market, distortion must be account (e.g. Convention on Biological Diversi- avoided in favour of payments, which are justified ty, EU-Natura 2000 Guidelines, EU Biodiversity by adequate performances and not by appropriate Strategy, Measures Program for Biological Di- consideration covered subsidies. versity, etc.), then suitable measures have to be Any investigation of the requirements for land- taken in accordance with the technically derived scape management includes a comprehensive re- requirements. The social expenditures and costs cording of landscape management objects or tasks for landscape management therefore represent (habitats, structures, species, as well as any existing 232 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Fig. 6.22 Scheme of the key aspects of a landscape management accounting system. (According to Grunewald and Syrbe 2013; Grunewald et al. 2014)

deficits) and an estimation of the management costs of the EU with regard to nature conservation and (related to year, type and object). The total financial landscape management. requirements consist of the costs for the manage- The data sources which could be used for the ment, developmental and investment measures for creation of a landscape management accounting each type of habitat, as well as of special expendi- system are of varying quality (survey status, re- tures for the protection of particular species. gionally different mappers, etc.). This applies to Based on approaches of LfUG (1999) and the whole analytic section of the landscape man- Döring (2005), we developed a methodology for agement accounting, which is based on facts and a regional (state-wide) calculation of landscape assignments. Consequently, error margins and management measures and costs. It was compiled uncertainties have to be taken into account in the in an exemplary manner for the Federal State of overall context. However, the results were verified Saxony (ca. 18,420 km2) in Germany. . Figure 6.22 using both data obtained from literature and al- illustrates the contents and the focal points of such ternative approaches (in particular expert knowl- a regional landscape management accounting sys- edge), and may be regarded as generally reliable, tem with the possibility of regional differentiation as well as providing a sufficient level of accuracy on the administrative level and on the level of the for the purposes of the landscape management ac- physical region (. Fig. 6.22). counting system (Grunewald and Syrbe 2013). The objective fields of practical action of a The first step in the frame of the methodology is landscape management strategy include, above all, the mapping of management-relevant habitat types open-land areas, water structures, woods, as well as of a region or of a country as “regional scenario measures for species protection relating to object of habitat types, which are relevant for the land- and habitat. In this context, reference must be made scape management” (groups of habitat types, see to the funding practices of individual countries and Grunewald et al. 2014): 233 6.5 • Cultural Landscapes and their Ecosystem Services 6

55 Determination of habitat areas on the basis of as grassland, heathland and neglected grassland, if existing habitat mappings: selective mapping these were rated only in preservation condition ‘C’ of the habitats (biotopes) in Saxony (SBK; (bad). In such cases the cost expenditure of approxi- German: Selektive Biotopkartierung), which are mately 1000 €/ha (plus rate of increase) is distributed important for nature conservation over an implementation period of 10 years. 55 Expansion in accordance with the habitat Not all habitat types are covered by measures types mapped within the Natura 2000 sites of and costs in FFH management planning. In such the EU (Habitat Directive 1992), as far as these cases, plausible cost estimations were undertaken surpass the SBK-habitat mappings by means of comparisons. Among other factors, 55 Integration of the so far almost neglected ar- this concerns the habitat types YS (clearance cairns) able land, which (still) does not comply with and UR (vineyard extensively), whose manage- the criteria of the habitat type “extensively ment costs are taken as analogous to BH/BA (field used fields rich in wild herbs”, but which could hedge/field trees) or YM (natural stone walls). contribute to the preservation of important The cost rates specific to regular management species of our cultural landscapes by means of measures were determined on the basis of the cur- careful agricultural management: estimation rently valid funding rates for habitat management of a realistic area using the HNV (High Nature (EU funds, combined with cofinancing by the Value) farmland indicator of the German country). In addition, the 5242 individual funding Federal Agency for Nature Conservation measures for the Saxon guidelines NE (“Natural (7 http://www.bfn.de/0315_hnv.html). Heritage” 2007) and AuW (“Agricultural Envi- ronmental Measures and Forestation” 2007) were Subsequently, the maintenance status of habitats evaluated in the year of reference 2009. is to be estimated and subdivided into regular and The records were filtered according to habitat periodic measures. ‘Regular management’ refers to types requiring maintenance. Subsequently, the management of 100 % of the habitat areas at least claimed area per measure and the corresponding twice or more often per decade. ‘Periodic manage- funding area for each habitat type were determined. ment’ (investment costs) refers to either so-called The possibility of adaptations of premiums on the once-off measures, e.g. land clearance or treetop basis of cost increases occurs regularly in the speci- pruning in the case of old fruit trees, or to cases fied planning period of 10 years (at least once upon where the management interval is so large that the expiry of the funding period) as well as irregularly, relevant habitat type is ‘affected’ by a measure once according to special adaptation requirements. A at most within the usual period of 10 years, e.g. in total increase of the premium rates of 10 % was the case of hedge/copse maintenance. assumed for the period under consideration (10 Depending on the evaluations in the frame- years), which gives a mark-up of 5 % on the current work of the Fauna-Flora-Habitat (FFH) monitor- calculation sum. ing activities within the framework of Natura 2000, Furthermore, an estimation of 5 % transac- the additional devolvement requirements were es- tion costs was stipulated. Transaction costs are timated for each habitat or habitat type. described as “expenses which arise in order to In the case of habitat areas in a condition of pre obtain information, to make decisions or conduct servation which can be rated as average to bad con- negotiations, to monitor agreements and rules, as dition (C), regular management measures are not well as implementing them or adapting them to sufficient to restore an excellent (A) or a good (B) modified framework conditions” (Masten 2000). condition of preservation of the habitat type. In these Therefore, within the framework of landscape cases, some once-off management measures with a management, expenses which arise in connection greater expenditure of time and cost are necessary, with information, consultation, conclusion and such as land clearance and repeated mowing. Con- accompanying bureaucracy within the environ- sequently, once-off management measures (= in- mental programmes should be remunerated at a vestment) are designed for open land habitats such general rate per hectare. 234 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

In the case of premium rates in the field of habi- tive habitat (biotope) mapping have now also been tat use and management, we are dealing with fixed integrated. cost rates. Neither planning and management costs It has been calculated that about 49 million nor incentive components are contained therein. euros are needed annually to cover the costs of Calculation of an incentive component (actually management and development of habitats in Sax- held to be necessary) was not carried out as this has ony (Grunewald and Syrbe 2013). Of this, more been excluded by the EU for the foreseeable future than 17 million euros per year would be needed as (period under consideration). compensation payments for “arable land which is to be used less intensively”. Focal points of action Results Exemplified for Saxony were identified at the district, physical region, and zz Measures and Cost Calculation for Habitat natural region level, indicating a need for resources Management and accountability. Accordingly, in rural districts The habitat area in Saxony relevant in terms of with a large surface area and a high proportion of 6 landscape management was identified at about habitats, which require maintenance, a sum of up to 162,000 ha. This is equivalent to 9.3 % of the total 7.7 million euros per year must be spent, while in area of Saxony. More than half of the relevant habi- the urban municipalities of Leipzig, Dresden, and tat area is to be balanced with regular management Chemnitz, a considerably lower level of financial measures (grassland habitats, heathland and ne- need exists in this regard. That would be a start- glected grassland) and with use and management ing point for the reorganization of ecological fiscal in keeping with conservation objectives (arable equalization discussed in Sect. 5.2.2. land, grassland). The management measures described as episodic are relevant for approximately zz Restructuring Requirements for Landscape half of the identified habitat area in Saxony, in- Elements and Habitat Structures cluding all forest habitat types. The habitat types of The agricultural landscape offers various points of near natural lakes/ponds, orchard meadows, dwarf approach with regard to restructuring (Syrbe and shrub heathland, fen and marsh require both regu- Grunewald 2013). First the watercourses including lar and episodic management measures. their accompanying structures, should be in a good A landscape management assessment for the ecological condition, so as to fulfil habitat functions Federal State of Saxony was first put forward in and to contribute to a steady water and mass bal- 1999 (LfUG 1999). At that time, an area was iden- ance. Second apart from the bodies of water, agri- tified whose habitat management requirements cultural areas with low amounts of forest and water were lower by 4.1 % in comparison to today (2011). also need field trees, lines of trees, hedges and vari- The difference is caused principally by the pres- ous sorts of linear or field margin structures (Ring- ent inclusion of the category “arable land which ler et al. 1997), in order to provide cover, food and is to be used less intensively”, since the intensity nesting opportunities to the organisms of agricul- of use and, therefore, the necessity of action in the tural ecosystems, to upgrade the landscape, and to area of arable land have increased significantly. avert the dangers of erosion. The objectives of land- This caused, among other factors, the need for im- scape management demonstrate that, among other provement of the population of ground-breeding tasks, the edges of forests are to be upgraded by species or the protection of rare segetal weeds. The means of staged boundary structures, a minimum arable land which should be used less intensively proportion of wetland habitats are to be preserved alone represents 33,000 ha, that is, approximately in meadows, and terraces and clearance cairns/ 3 % of Saxony’s agricultural area. But the propor- stone walls are to be conserved or reconstructed in tions of forest habitats, trees, hedges and bushes the mountains. requiring maintenance have also increased, and In the case of running waters and their ac- the habitat types of the FFH Directive which were companying structural elements, there was a need formerly only partially recorded by means of selec- for the opening of piped flowing water sections at 235 6.5 • Cultural Landscapes and their Ecosystem Services 6

300 km, the restructuring of trees along approxi- protection of habitats is not sufficient to the preser- mately 680 km of watercourses, and the discontin- vation of this species in the long term. At present uance or modification of uses on 21.3 thousand ha conservation programmes exist for freshwater pearl in the environment of the water body. In addition, mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera), white stork a quantitative deficit analysis suggests the reestab- (Ciconia ciconia) and otter (Lutra lutra) in Saxony. lishment of 2500 km of linear structural elements Necessary costs to address specific issues of species in the agricultural landscape, which is a wholly re- protection in Saxony were estimated at 2.43 million alistic dimension when compared with activities of euros per year (approximately 1.7 million euros for reestablishment previously carried out, e.g. in con- regional and 0.75 million euros for state-wide sig- nection with impact mitigation regulation. In this nificant species). Substantial additional funds for way, a structural density characterizing the land- these types of protective measures can be generated scape before agricultural collectivization would be via the engagement and compensation scheme or achieved, at least in regard to the wooded areas. project funding and endowments. The suggested measures are qualitatively supplemented by a determination of focal regions zz Aspects of Implementation and Financing within Saxony for extensive restructuring mea- Undeniably, many successes have been made sures. Because of acute lack, it is recommended through the recent efforts of the landscape main- that additional field trees and extensively used areas tenance stakeholders. Thus, the preservation of should be established there (Syrbe and Grunewald semi-natural habitats, such as dry and medium-dry 2013). Some landscape regions display very high grassland, dwarf shrub heath and Nardus-grass- restructuring requirements with above-average lands, mountain and marsh meadows or stone and costs. In total, annual restructuring costs of 12 mil- vineyard walls was a success. Also, populations of lion euros were assessed for Saxony, which are to previously highly threatened species, such as sea be implemented over an area of 25,000 ha. This eagles, have recovered and once extinct species includes both changes of use as well as linear mea- such as wolves have returned to Saxony, or they sures, which have been applied generally to all areas could be resettled, as in the case of salmon. in order to avoid double payments. On the other hand, the statement must be made With regard to restructuring, the areas in ques- that a fundamentally nature-friendly orientation of tion have increased in comparison with the assess- farming has not yet been reached, at all. The in- ment made in 1999 (LfUG 1999). The cost estima- ventories in the FFH habitat sites underline this tion, however, turns out to be moderately lower, fact. For example, six of 15 FFH habitat types of since the focus is now on the transformation of the agricultural ecosystems, occurring in Saxony, have use of arable land, instead of the more comprehen- an unfavourable state (Hettwer et al. 2009). sive planting of trees as planned in 1999, which has In the context of agricultural management a sat- so far been partially implemented. With regard to isfactory distinction between necessary use process- the restructuring of water bodies, it is important es and ecologically disadvantageous engagement is to note that significant individual tasks within the insufficiently resolved till this day, especially as the framework of the measure plans according to the management intensity and, thus, the risks to nature EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) are mean- have steadily increased in recent years. The refer- while being executed and are no longer being as- ence level of ‘good practice’ is not yet defined in a signed to landscape management in the cost as- satisfactory manner in terms of the requirements sessment, although they still have to be performed of nature conservation and landscape management (Grunewald et al. 2014). both in the agricultural and the forestry sector. For that reason alone the recognition of ecological ser- zz Specific Measures for Species Protection vices in agriculture and forestry is difficult, e.g. as Special conservation measures for endangered compensation and restoration measure. animal and plant species are necessary if the man- Thus, land users can be obtained as reli- agement as part of ‘Good Practice’ or the care and able partners of nature conservation. In order to 236 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Table 6.8 Expenditure (state budget titles) for nature conservation and landscape management of selected German states. (Source: Statistics of the federal states; SMUL 2010; Gottschall 2011; StMUG 2011)

Baden-Wuerttemberg Bavaria Saxony

State budget (2011) 35.1 billion € 42.5 billion € 15.5 billion €

Thereof nature conservation and landscape ca. 30 million € ca. 39 million € ca. 10 million € management

% 0.09 0.09 0.06

€ per inhabitant 2.78 3.11 2.44

€ per km2 840 553 544

6 reach conservation goals together, a correspond- Saxony. Although the main part of funding is now ing range of flexible, goal-oriented and actionable being paid from EU funds, in the last decade Sax- conservation funding measures is needed, because ony has increased expenditure by about 2 million these measures are the central elements for the euros (from approximately 8 million euros in 1999 implementation of objectives of nature conserva- to ca. 10 million euros in 2011). The state funding tion and landscape management on substantial also contributes to the preservation of jobs and re- proportions of land. Through financial means a gional development, especially in rural areas. Note high commitment and importance is achieved. In the so-called leverage for the financing of nature this way, the protection of natural elements and conservation and landscape management. In the cultural landscapes can be ensured through a co- next EU funding period starting in 2014, Saxony operative approach. will only receive 50 % co financing share instead For the implementation of objectives of nature of the previously 75 %. This is already the case in conservation and landscape management, a range Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria in the current of financing instruments is available, especially EU funding period. with programmes in the fields of environment and The measures of landscape management are not nature conservation, agriculture, forestry, fishing arranged (principle of voluntariness). However, the and rural development. The impact of interna- administrative procedures for promotion are usu- tional legal standards to funding offers by the fed- ally very expensive simply due to the requirements eral states has risen in recent years. The 2007–2013 of the integrated administration and control sys- period was largely financed by European sources. tem (IACS) of the EU (application, examination, The main basis for the use of EU funds for nature control). Efforts to maximise simplification of conservation and landscape management is the measures and related management and monitoring European Agricultural Fund for Rural Develop- procedures cannot always agree with the demand ment (EAFRD). Tools that contribute to tasks of for customised solutions. The limited availability biodiversity and nature conservation in cultural of funds is another reason for the discrepancy be- landscapes are available in the rural development tween actual funding and calculated needs (target). programmes with its variety of areas, measures and The fact that the EU has failed its set goal to project-related subsidies and funding. halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010 requires new The tasks of landscape management are co fi- or modified approaches to be successful in the cur- nanced by German federal states. . Table 6.8 gives rent decade. Starting from the social responsibility an orientation to the (relatively small) expenses of ownership it seems urgently necessary to specify for nature conservation and landscape manage- the regulatory framework of land use. In economic ment in state budgets by comparing the German competition, the guiding principle of voluntariness federal states of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria and can work only if the limits of use are fixed. To pre- 237 6.5 • Cultural Landscapes and their Ecosystem Services 6 vent nature damaging procedures, a new definition They are predominantly attributable to careful land of ‘good practice’ is necessary as well as the set- use and habitat management. Nature conservation ting of obligatory treatment guidelines, do’s and measures have been implemented in about 36,000 don’ts in protected areas including Natura 2000 hectares of land in Saxony during the reference pe- sites. Since a strong political will and a high social riod (Grunewald and Syrbe 2013). demand for biodiversity and ES exist, it should not Koch et al. (2011) have analysed and evaluated be left solely to the discretion of the relatively small the status of current participation in nature conser- group of land owners and land managers, whether vation funding in the State of Saxony. Key messages they correspond to this concern. are: 55 The currently funded habitat management area zz Target-Actual Comparison on the Example of is approximately 1900 ha and therefore around Saxony 1000 ha below the number funded in the years It has been calculated that about 67.4 million euros 2003 to 2006. The delayed entry into force and per year are currently needed for landscape man- early exposure of the funding opportunity, the agement in Saxony (estimated minimum cost of costs of biomass disposal and pre financing of landscape maintenance; Grunewald and Syrbe management measures are to be seen as prob- 2013). Of this total, the management and devel- lematic in this context. opment of habitats was calculated with 49 million 55 In about 14 % of permanent grassland the euros, restructuring measures with 16 million euros conservation-oriented grassland management and specific measures for endangered species with is currently being funded, a slight increase 2.4 million euros. compared to the previous programme (despite Overall, the required target sum is about the criticism of the inflexibility of the funding 23.4 million euros higher than the one calculated scheme compared to the former programme). a decade ago. This is due to a larger scope of land- 55 The trend of participation in measures of na- scape management tasks, the rate of inflation, but ture conservation-oriented agricultural use is also due to methodological differences. Among the positive, but the area of nature conservation strategically defined areas of action, the ranking of fallow fields is much too small to address the needs is as follows: first habitat management, sec- loss of biodiversity on arable land. Less than ond restructuring and third protection of species. 0.5 % of arable land in Saxony is supported The focus has continued to change in the direction by measures of nature conservation-oriented of maintenance (habitat management: four fifths of management and arrangement. the cost requirements) compared to development 55 For years, the funding area of nature conserva- (restructuring). The maintenance of grassland con- tion-oriented management of ponds has been tinues to play an important role, but has signifi- at a high level, covering 84 % of Saxon pond cantly exceeded by the financial resources needed surface currently. for “arable land which is to be used less intensively” 55 The implementation of investments in nature (see above) in the current assessment. conservation measures in open spaces, in wa- The utilization of funding in the State of Sax- ters, in forests and species protection measures ony was exemplarily analysed for the reference year is far below the determined nature conserva- 2009, for which the data of the agricultural report tion needs (targets). (SMUL 2009b) as well as the funding guidelines “Agricultural environmental measures and foresta- With regard to ES, these facts can be interpreted tion” (RL AuW/2007), “Timber and forestry” (RL as follows: Participation in funding programmes is WuF/2007) and “Natural heritage” (RL NE/2007) currently not very attractive; most likely it is associ- have been evaluated. Overall, the actual flow was ated with forms of use, which in this way can help to approximately 12.5 million euros in the field of na- cover costs and income security (grassland, ponds), ture conservation and landscape management for while in agriculture relatively high profits can be the reference year 2009 from these programmes. made through the sale of food crops and biomass 238 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

(leaving aside funding resources and without deal- main instrument of government action in the sense ing with the complicated application). of compensation for costs and benefits, as well as opportunity payment for loss of earnings to those zz Challenges and Future Tasks of Landscape which implement landscape management. Management But it must not be overlooked that in addition The targeted goal of landscape management con- to funding a variety of other fields of action must be sists of the preservation and stimulation of wild used to achieve the conservation objectives. Such species of plants and animals, as well as their alternative instruments include (Grunewald and habitats and biocoenoses, and the identification, Syrbe 2013): preservation and stimulation of ecosystem (com- 55 The contractual maintenance of state-owned plexes) worthy of protection, landscape elements, land, land acquisition and possibly also ex- landscape sections or even complete landscapes. change of areas to fine tune the location and Measures and funding to achieve these goals must distribution of these focus areas to the man- 6 be readjusted again in accordance with the avail- agement objectives (applies, inter alia, in the able resources. forest); an additional effort free of charge to The quantitative, normative fixing of values more ecological services is demanding for state is helpful to policy makers and administration in and local governments because of the exem- terms of implementation and supervision. Within plary role of the public sector on state-owned the framework of the landscape management strat- land compared to private lands. egy, situation analyses and justification contexts 55 The targeted arrangement of offerings in the in particular were drawn up and specific nature context of eco-accounts, where funding and conservation goals were proposed. However, the measures of eco-accounts exclude each other. question how far certain conditions or effects can 55 The award (or upport)s of regional or eco- be classified as desirable requires the formation of labels and certification of nature-friendly pro- public opinion and cannot be ascertained on the ducing companies and their products; this can basis of scientific reasons alone (Valsangiacomo help to cover the abovementioned costs via a 1998). It should also be remembered that the goals market with growing ethical demands. of nature conservation repeatedly come up against 55 Regulatory options for action of any kind with the limits of the possible in a narrow system frame- prohibitions and requirements up to the ap- work, in the form of so-called practical constraints. plication of the protection of objects and ter- This can result in individual cases that environmen- ritories, such as the legal protection status of tal authorities abandon ambitious and comprehen- care-depending habitat types. sive targets. 55 Projects for compensation for ES, in which Landscapes are changing rapidly. Turnaround the beneficiaries of such services (for example, in energy policy, climate change, economic globali- tourism providers, water companies, associa- sation and demographic changes will be the main tions) reimburse certain expenses or loss of drivers in this respect in Germany in the coming profits by the land users on the basis of private decade. A predictive location-based planning and law agreements. control should help to make this development in 55 Nature conservation law governing of land an environmentally friendly way. New challenges management as legal requirements of ‘good from the perspective of nature conservation and practice’. landscape management relate mainly to the bal- 55 Providing support and acquisition of alterna- ance between protection and managing the cultural tive funding: sponsorship, professional volun- landscape with increasing pressure on land surface. teer management. Landscape management as a societal task requires the cooperation of many actors, especially The integration of nature conservation objectives on a voluntary basis. For this purpose, the finan- in the area of management of farmers (as all land cial support of nature conservation measures is the users–a requirement of the Federal Program on 239 6.5 • Cultural Landscapes and their Ecosystem Services 6

Biological Diversity; BMU 2011) involving the uti their staff carry out measures for long periods while lisation of funding is to estimate as not sufficient. financing only compensates for the effort. After all, One reason for this is the agro-economic condi- companies that generate low profit might go bank- tions and the high requirements when participat- rupt and, thus, will not be available as partner for ing in EU-funded support programmes. Number landscape management. and scope of funding programmes are appropriate As long as incentive components cannot be to the diversified nature conservation goals and financed by EU funding, other sources of fund- the related landscape maintenance tasks. The ap- ing need to be developed. Hence, two successfully plication for the promotion of voluntary services is tested systems can be considered: privately funded connected with large efforts for the actors (partly bonus payments and (regional) eco-labels. From due to EU requirements). In contrast to large agri- the perspective of agricultural economic addi- cultural cooperatives with specialised employees, tional revenues through environmentally certified private managers are often overstrained and may (quality upgraded, higher-priced) agricultural pass on requesting important nature conservation products of food, beverage and spa market could measures. The effort in the context of conservation cover at least half of the cost for services of public funding is estimated to be very high for control welfare provided by agriculture. Recent surveys authorities as well (Koch et al. 2011). Therefore, as of the Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and part of the programme planning 2014–2020, ap- Regional Development (IOER) show that a large propriate attention should be paid to aspects of number of consumers would be willing to con- simplification of programme participation. Koch tribute to a compensation of ES to such services et al. (2011) demand the following additional re- by purchasing certified products (Grunewald et quirements from the State of Saxony for the next al. 2012). funding period: 55 For measures of nature-friendly land use and Conclusion habitat management, the targeted steering of Landscape management contributes, in particular, nature conservation funding should be main- to secure and deliver public goods and services to tained at suitable sites. In particular on arable society. This includes the right to know how much land a major expansion of funding should be nature conservation costs. Monetary aspects play achieved. an important role in the landscape management 55 There is greater flexibility in funding required, accounting system, since money is a measure of such as the general possibility of change in a the achievement of structural and functional goals. more appropriate nature conservation mea- However, in addition to the sum, the institutional sure. It should be easy and uncomplicated to side is of decisive importance for a better imple- have a certain proportion of fallow-fields in or- mentation. der to create suitable habitats for wild animals. In the meantime a large amount of ES-related studies exist which includes the costs and benefits The goal of nature conservation funding is, inter of measures for the protection of nature and bio- alia, to stimulate the interest of stakeholders in diversity. The usefulness of such measures often the success of working long-term nature friendly. significantly exceeds the associated costs. More Thus, a system of incentives for such services in nature protection and protection of ES, therefore, the sense of adequate remuneration of ES and not lead to human welfare. Unfortunately, it does not only the pure reimbursement of expenses is re- work ‘automatically’ because in the context of ES quired to cover at least the transaction costs. The and biodiversity, especially due to the problem of priority should be a nature conservation consulting ‘public goods’, the economic principles can only instead of too high control expenses (mandatory by have an inadequate impact here. EU laws), which can be perceived as patronizing. It In detail, different degrees of states of main- should not be expected that farms responsible for tenance and operating conditions affect the costs 240 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

and lead to a great number of possible variations. 6.6 Specific Nature Protection and Basically, however, the developed accounting ap- Development Strategies proach appears to be suitable for estimating the costs that are necessary for the preservation and 6.6.1 Nature Conservation and development of target species and habitats at re- Ecosystem Services gional, state-wide level (Grunewald et al. 2014). The basic procedure should be transferable to other re- O. Bastian gions, albeit priorities, habitat types and cost rates may vary. Introduction The management of landscape development Nature conservation is often regarded simply as a is actor-, action- and goal-oriented and is marked negative cost factor. Such an opinion ignores the re- by political, economic and institutional conditions alities of the situation. Rather, nature conservation (norms, rules, patterns of behavioral, concepts, is, in many respects, extremely useful to human 6 leitbilder, etc.). Nature conservation policy is the society, also from an economic point of view (cp. result of many negotiations between numerous Jessel et al. 2009). Nature conservation measures state, public and private actors (governance of may contribute to value creation or to create jobs, ES–Sect. 5.4). The interconnections are often very for example, in the areas of ecological landscape complex and difficult to understand. Therefore, management, care of protected areas, or in the in- the landscape management strategy needs to be creasing tourism in national parks. readjusted continually. A decadal rhythm for reori- The TEEB study (TEEB 2009) analysed that entation of landscape management accounting ap- USD 10–12 billion are spent annually on the pro- pears to be adequate in this regard. tection of the approximately 100,000 protected The global approach to improving the services areas. For effective nature conservation, however, of the landscape and their contribution to the bio- US$ 40 billion would be needed. This amount is diversity programme of a state leads to the conclu- low in comparison to the US$ 5 trillion, the ecosys- sion that, overall, a greater commitment of society tems of these protected areas are worth by suppling for nature and biodiversity is urgently needed at natural goods and other services. This is more than all levels. Furthermore, it must be possible to cre- automotive, steel and IT industries of the world ate a partnership manner of cooperation between produce together. the state and private conservationists and the land Protected areas, such as national parks, biosphere users, which is not achievable solely through the in- reserves and others can be a framework for success- strument of a reasonable fee for services rendered. ful sustainable rural development, and can contrib- Finally, a landscape management strategy can ute to safeguarding jobs, especially in economically develop a high effectiveness, only if it is possible to lagging areas. As many studies have shown (e.g., further integrate the goals of nature conservation Getzner et al. 2002; Popp and Hage 2003; Job and and the maintenance of the ES in land use. Nature Metzler 2005; Neidlein and Walser 2005; Kettunen conservation and landscape management must et al. 2009; Gantioler et al. 2010), they can provide find consideration in all areas of policy. It is, there- the basis for various forms of economic activity in fore, a priority task to upgrade and develop the in- a region, such as in agriculture and forestry, nature- struments of nature conservation as a whole, which based tourism and environmental education. It has means–if necessary–designation and management been estimated that around 125,000 jobs in the EU of protected areas, investments concerning land were supported through conservation-related ac- purchase, improving compensation and replace- tivities in 1999 and that this trend was increasing; ment instruments, expanding the contractual around 100,000 of these were direct jobs and 25,000 nature conservation, tendering of nature conser- indirect, with around two thirds of the direct jobs vation achievements, monitoring and promoting related to operational expenditures and one third result-oriented successes (Jedicke 2010). related to investments (IEEP 2002). 241 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6

Thus, eco-tourism shows annual growth rates side, the mountains slope steeply down towards the of 20–30 %, compared to 9 % of tourism in general Ohře river valley. On the northern side, they drop (EU Kommission 2008). Natura 2000 has become a away gradually over a distance of 30–45 km to the label for an attractive landscape–on a European lev- foothills. The ridge of the Ore Mountains, averag- el! Some future-oriented tourism managers already ing between 800 and 1000 m above sea level, has recognised this and advertise with the label. long constituted the border between Saxony and In the following, the application of the ES con- Bohemia, and today between the Federal Republic cept will be shown on the example of case studies of Germany and the Czech Republic. Acid rocks in Natura 2000 sites of the Ore Mountains, namely such as gneiss, phyllite and granite are typical as 1. On analyses of potentials of FFH sites are the raw climate, many raised bogs, mountain 2. Referring to FFH habitat types and species meadows and spruce forests. It is a traditional cul- 3. With regard to several economic aspects tural landscape of European significance, especially shaped by ore mining. The investigations were performed mainly in the The Ore Mountains are rich in beautiful land- framework of the Ore Mountains Green Network scapes and natural assets with characteristic ecosys- project funded by the European Union (EFRE Ob- tems, such as raised bogs and bog forests that give jective 3/INTERREG IV A). The goal of this project the impression of pristine nature, but also ‘man- was to apply the concept of ES to Natura 2000 sites made’ mountain meadows with their blooming in the Ore Mountains on both sides of the German- and smelling herbs, matgrass meadows, tall subal- Czech border. The study aimed to reveal the various pine herbaceous vegetation, agricultural clearance services and benefits such protected areas provide cairns mixed mountain forests and near-natural and to identify and strengthen synergies between watercourses (. Fig. 6.23). nature conservation (Natura 2000) and rural devel- Several rare and threatened species are among opment, especially in the spheres of conservation- the remarkable flora, such as arnica (Arnica mon- friendly agriculture and forestry, eco-tourism and tana), ragged pink (Dianthus seguieri) and sev- environmental education. The project area con- eral orchid species. The local fauna includes the sisted of the ridge area of the Ore Mountains in the black grouse (Tetrao tetrix) and the corncrake three districts Sächsische Schweiz-Osterzgebirge, (Crex crex). The black grouse .( Fig. 6.24), which Mittelsachsen and Erzgebirgskreis in the German is threatened by extinction, is very important on Federal State of Saxony and the Bohemian districts the European scale. The biggest Central European of Ústecký kraj and Karlovarský kraj in the Czech black grouse population outside the Alps lives in Republic. the Ore Mountains, especially on the Czech side Starting from the present situation of selected of the border. The birds prefer large undisturbed Natura 2000 sites, a SWOT analysis revealed the landscapes covered by sparse woods with berry strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats bushes (bilberries/Vaccinium myrtillus) and pio- with regard to interdependencies between nature neer shrubs (rowan/Sorbus aucuparia, birch/Betula conservation and rural development. Strategies pendula). The major reasons for the decline of and concepts were prepared in close cooperation black grouse populations include the afforestation with local stakeholders to enhance the status of of clearings and forest meadows with spruce mono- Natura 2000 in rural development. These concepts cultures, the increase in predator populations (e.g. were designed to show how Natura 2000 sites can red fox, wild boar) and disturbance, e.g. by tourists be maintained in a favourable state by permanently and wind turbines. integrating economic and educational aspects. zz Analysis of Selected Potentials of Natura Study Area 2000 The Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge/Krušné hory) have Regarding the manifold services of nature (not the shape of a slanted writing desk some 150 km in only in protected areas), it is necessary to dis- length, formed by tectonic forces. On the southern tinguish between the supply, which is not or 242 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Fig. 6.23 Landscape with agricultural clearance cairns in the Eastern Ore Mountains with mount Geisingberg. © Olaf Bastian

risks, carrying capacity and the capacity to handle stress (increasingly summarised today in the term ‘resilience’), which limit or may even exclude certain intended uses (. Table 6.9; Bastian et al. 2010). In the classification of ES and potentials, we follow a trinomial scheme. This breakdown into provision, regulation, and sociocultural services has the advantage that it can be linked to the concept of sustainability using the established ecological, economic and social development categories (7 Sect. 3.2). The information used stems from the manage- . Fig. 6.24 Great efforts are necessary to maintain the ment plans for the Natura 2000 sites (SCI)(only Ore Mountains’ black grouse population, which is the big- for the German part) and nature reserves (elabo- gest in Central Europe outside the Alps. © Jan Gläßer rated–as a rule–by consultants by order of the state environmental authorities) and from governmental not yet used (potentials, 2nd pillar of the EPPS agencies. The results confirm that the range of po- framework, 7 Sect. 3.2.2), and the actually used tentials and services delivered by the Natura 2000 or demanded services (3rd pillar of EPPS). The sites in the Ore Mountains is very wide and diverse, goal is to display the service capacities of an area which goes far beyond the original purpose of Na- as a field of options available to society for use, tura 2000 to protect endangered species and habi- and also to take into account such categories as tats. 243 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6

Natura 2000

Natura 2000 is an EU-wide ecologi- occur naturally in EU member state In principle, the selection of cal network of conservation areas territories and to secure adequate FFH sites should follow only nature with the goal of maintaining and stocks to allow their survival and conservation aspects. The FFH habi- restoring endangered habitats and reproduction over time. Annex I tat types of Annex I of the directive species of Community importance, of the Birds Directive lists species were selected according to the i.e. Europe’s most important spe- that are at special risk and subject following criteria: cies and habitats. Since its creation, to special conservation measures, 44 Representativeness of the natu- nearly 20 % of Europe’s territory and currently includes 190 species ral habitat type in the region has been included in the network– and subspecies. Almost 100 of these 44 Relative size of the habitat type about 25,000 sites in all 27 member occur in Germany (BfN 2012b). with respect to the total stock states. Natura 2000 represents Germany has proposed 4619 in the EU member state one of the world’s most ambitious FFH sites of three bio geographical 44 Conservation status of struc- approaches for halting the loss of regions (Alpine, Atlantic and Conti- ture and functions of the habi- biodiversity. nental) to be registered at the EU in tat type and its recoverability The main focus of Natura 2000 Brussels. This corresponds to a share 44 Overall evaluation of the site is to select targets of conservation, of 9.3 % of the whole German ter- with regard to the maintenance such as certain natural and semi- restrial territory. 740 bird sanctuaries of the habitat type concerned natural habitat types and also spe- (11.2 % of the terrestrial area) must cies, which are endangered Europe- be added, as well as 21,222 km2 of The selection of FFH species ac- wide. These tasks are covered by large waters (Lake Constance, open cording to Annex II of the Habitats the European Habitats Directive Sea, Bodden and Wadden Sea) (state: Directive were based on the follow- 92/43/EEC (listed in Annexes I and II) 30.09.2011). Among the protected ing criteria: and the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC marine areas, 943,984 ha belong 44 Population size and density of (listed in Annex I). to the exclusive economic zone of the species in relation to the Consideration must also be Germany. FFH sites and bird sanctu- entire population in the EU given to flora and fauna of Com- aries may overlap spatially. Together member state munity importance in need of strict they cover 15.4 % of the terrestrial 44 Conservation status and protection (Annex IV of the Habitats and 45 % of the marine territory of recoverability of the habitat Directive), and to flora and fauna Germany (BfN 2012b). Natura 2000 elements important for this of Community importance whose sites in Saxony cover approximately species taking in the wild and exploitation 2930 km2. This corresponds to 15.9 % 44 Degree of isolation of the may be subject to management of the territory of the country. population occurring in the measures (Annex V of the Habitats The 25,000 Natura 2000 sites of area in relation to the total Directive). The annexes to the the EU cover c. 18 % of the member natural range of this species Habitats Directive List 231, natural states’ territory (state 2009). The 44 Overall evaluation of the site for Habitat Types (Annex I) include situation varies from country to the protection of the species more than 1000 animal and plant country: the lowest is 7.2 % FFH concerned species (Annexes II, IV and V). The sites in Great Britain and the high- lists contained in Annexes I and II of est 35.5 % in Slovenia (with regard For the Natura 2000 sites, conser- the Habitats Directive differentiate to the whole terrestrial area); the vation objectives were identified, according to priority and nonprior- European average is 13.6 %. The which are important for the man- ity species and habitats. Classifica- marine areas (131,459 km2) are not agement and to assess the compat- tion is subject to extremely strin- included in the percentages (BfN ibility of projects. The conservation gent protection requirements to 2012a). Germany bears a special status of habitat types and species is deal with potential impacts (Article responsibility for the protection of monitored regularly. Regular moni- 6, Habitats Directive). 91 habitat types and 133 plant and toring and submitting the results The goal of the Birds Directive animal species (without birds). to the EU shall ensure the practical is to preserve all bird species that implementation of Natura 2000. 244 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES s s sp p s s s S s Sr sp S Sr s p RE Sp Sr sp sp sp Sr Sp s Sp Sr Sr Sr Sp Sr sp Sp Sr sp S Sp Sr Sr sp Sr Sp Sr Sr Ae S Sp Sp s SF sp s s S Ec s Sp Sp s S S sp Sp Sp Sp Sr Sp Sr Sp Sp Sp sp Sp Sr sp sp sp Sp 6 SS sr s s s sr Sp sp sr sp sp S s S Sr S s SS Sp Sr S s SS SSSS S S S s S s S S p s p p s s s p s pr pr pr sp pr s r s sr sr sr sr s s s Sp sr S Sp sr Sp Sr Sr Sr s Sr Sr Sr Sp Sp Sp sr sp Sp Sr Sp sp Sp Sr sp s LGTMBSWAF a-Habitat sites (FFH) along the Ore Mountains ridge, and their role for supplying ES (potentials, services, risks) supplying ES (potentials, for and their role Mountains ridge, (FFH) along the Ore sites a-Habitat telbergwiesen Bergwiesen um Dönschten Bergwiesen Bergwiesen um SchellerhauBergwiesen und Altenberg Georgenfelder Hochmoor Georgenfelder Kahleberg bei Altenberg Gimmlitztal Fich tenbrunn Wiesen um Halbmeil und Brei Wiesen - Heide und Grenz Fürstenauer wiesen Fürstenau Mittelgebirgslandschaft um Mittelgebirgslandschaft um Oelsen Hemmschuh - und Geisingberg Geisingberg wiesen Erzgebirgskamm am Großen Erzgebirgskamm am Großen Kranichsee Zweibach Erzgebirgskamm am Kleinen Kranichsee Mothäuser Heide Buchenwälder und Moorwald Buchenwälder bei Neuhausen und Olbernhau Name Selected Fauna-Flor

Table 6.9 Table

177 176 174 084E 083E 071E 070E 044E 042E 040 039E 016E 012 010E 007E FFH sites at the German at side FFH sites 004E . Declaration number 245 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6 p p p S p p s Sp sp sr sp S sr sr S S s S Sr sp S s RE s Sr Sr sp sp sp sp Sp S p p Sp s s Sp SS Sr Sp Ae Ss s S s p s S Sp Sp SF sp S s S s p sp s s S Ec sp S Sp s Sp Sp S Sp Sp Sp Sp sp sp sp sr Sp sp sp sp sp Sp sr s sp Sp s S s S s F s s s s SS S s S s SS s s s s SS sp p s p S S p S S p p p p S p p s s s s sr r r sr sr sr Sr r r Sr r s sp p p s Sp sr sp sp sp sp Sr sp sr Sr Sr Sr Sr Sp Sr Sr sr Sp Sr LGTMBSWAF

Grünwaldské vřesoviště Grünwaldské Rašeliniště U jezera–Cínovecké Rašeliniště U jezera–Cínovecké rašeliniště Na loučkách Krušnohorské plató Vysoká Pec Šibeniční vrch Mittelgebirgslandschaft bei Johanngeorgenstadt Kalkbruch Hammerunterwie senthal Pöhlbachtal Preßnitz- und Rauschenbachtal Preßnitz- Kriegwaldmoore Moore und MoorwälderMoore bei Satzung Bergwiesen um Rübenau, Kühn um Rübenau, Bergwiesen haide und Satzung Oberes Freiberger Muldetal Freiberger Oberes Name Continued

Table 6.9 Table CZ0420074 CZ0420053 CZ0420035 CZ0420021 Kokrháč–Hasištejn CZ0414110 CZ0410168 CZ0410046 FFH sites at the Czech side the Czech at FFH sites CZ0410040 Pernink CZ0410155 Rudné 283 271 266 265 264 263 262 252 . Declaration number 246 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES p RE Sp Sr Ae SF s s s s p Ec Sp sp 6 S s S S s p sp Sp sp sp Sr sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp Sp sr sp SS s s s p s s s s s s s p p p S p p p p r sr sr sp sr sp sp Sr sp sp Sr s s LGTMBSWAF Východní Krušnohoří Východní Bezručovo údolí Bezručovo Klínovecké KrušnohoříKlínovecké Údolí Hačky Novodomské a polské a polské Novodomské rašeliniště Name Continued

Table 6.9 Table Categories: S, s–services (high/medium significance) development) p–potentials (for r–essential threats risks, services: (economic) Provisioning W–drinking water (seeds), S–genetic resources B–biochemical/medicinal resources, mushrooms), M–wild fruits (berries, T–timber, (husbandry), G–game, L–livestock services:Regulation (ecological) waters SF–self-purification of Ec–erosion F–flood protection, control, regulation, quality/localA–air climate Sociocultural services: education eco-tourism, (scenery), E–environmental Es–aesthetic values R–recreation, CZ0424127 CZ0424030 CZ0420528 CZ0420171 CZ0420160 Podmilesy CZ0420144 . Declaration number 247 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6

Among the provisioning services are the cat- reserves. Both the state and the private forest enter- egories “Provision (or production) of animal and prises are geared towards economic benefits. Con- plant biomass” and the “provision of drinking wa- flicts with nature conservation result from timber t e r ”. harvesting, including in valuable forest habitats, Regarding animal products like milk, meat and heavy machines, construction of excessively sized wool of domestic animals it is relevant that numer- forest roads, the lack of lumbermen (who would ous Natura 2000 sites in the upper Ore Mountains be necessary for manual work), drainage, tillage contain grassland biotopes, especially mountain of forest soils, afforestation with foreign tree spe- meadows, which depend on careful use and man- cies. Other threats (also in SCI 263) are caused by agement: regular removal of biomass by mow- large-scale liming of acidic forest soils from aircraft, ing, including hay-making or pasturing cattle and which damages the pH-balance and the vegetation sheep. At least some parts of mountain meadows of raised bogs and bog forests, and afforestation in several FFH sites are managed (cut), but deficits of open areas, including the black grouse habitats. (no mowing; abandonment) exist and potentials The Natura 2000 sites provide essential potentials and opportunities for careful economic exploita- for sustainable forestry, but almost no reserves for tion are unused. Even if the mowing of mountain intensification. Conflicts result from the efforts of meadows can be organised, in some cases no cus- nature conservation to recover the original hydro- tomers for the harvest can be found. The results of regime in wet biotopes, and to close ditches in insufficient grassland management are not only a raised bogs. decline in sensitive meadow species, but also un- Wild berries and mushrooms are collected in al- used economic potentials. Production and market- most all forest areas, with sporadic threats to sensi- ing of high-quality hay from mountain meadows tive biotopes and animals. The exploitation of bio- may be extended, as well as the utilisation of plant chemical and medicinal resources has hardly been biomass from landscape management for energetic developed at all. Some mountain meadow reserves purposes (cp. Peters 2009). have potentials for harvesting spignel and other Fishery is not well developed in the Ore Moun- medicinal plants. However, dangers of overexploi- tains Natura 2000 sites. However, anglers could tation and risks for the biotopes and the popula- cause vegetation damage along the river banks. tions should not be ignored. There is no potential for more intensive forms of With regard to the high biodiversity of the Na- fishery. tura 2000 sites, the use of genetic resources should The situation ofhunting is quite different. Al- be considered. At present, the seeds of such forest though hunting takes place in all forests, even in trees as bog pine, spruce, beech and fir are harvest- protected areas, the stock of game, especially red ed at several sites. deer, row deer and wild boar, is too high, and ex- Numerous Natura 2000 sites contribute to the ceeds the carrying capacity of the forest ecosystems. provision of drinking water since they are also wa- Vegetation damage due to peeling and reduced nat- ter protection and headwater areas. Increased wa- ural regeneration of forest trees are the result. Red ter recovery would conflict with the goals of nature deer like to wallow in sensitive raised bog waters. conservation. Feeding game in higher altitudes of the mountains Among the category of regulation services, air during winter can impair valuable biotopes (eutro- purification and local climate regulation (especially phication, dissemination of invasive plant species) by forests) should be mentioned. The vitality and and sensitive animals (e.g. black grouse). Therefore, filtering function of forests are threatened by dif- hunting should be intensified to reduce the stock of fuse inputs of nutrient and other matters, and game, which would also develop economic poten- supra-regional climate changes. Already today, tials not sufficiently exploited to date. spruces show essentially reduced growth in periods Most of the Natura 2000 sites are covered by of extreme weather conditions (especially heat and forests, at least partially. The forests are used more drought) (SMUL 2009b). or less intensively, with the exception of very small 248 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

Due to the steep slopes, the capacity for run- minerals. Additional opportunities for nature- off regulation in mountain areas is very important. based tourism arise especially from the network- Natural forests, meadows, swamps and especially ing between the German and the Czech side. bogs balance water runoff, store water during dry However, it has to be noted that overexploitation periods and prevent flooding. To increase the ca- problems (e.g. trampling valuable vegetation cover, pacity for water balancing, various measures have disturbance of black grouse and other animal spe- been proposed and in fact carried out: changing cies, waste disposal) already exist. Conflicts result the tree composition in forests, closing ditches in from the increasing utilization of the landscape raised bogs (see above for the conflicts with inten- for sports, especially for skiing, mountain-biking sive forestry interests and with the drinking water and even quad-biking. Especially Natura 2000 sites concerns mentioned), but also providing necessary with black grouse populations are not suitable for financial resources. touristic developments. Forests have a high potential to prevent soil ero- In the area of environmental education, the ex- 6 sion. This capacity can be increased by restructuring perience of rare and valuable species and ecosys- the forests towards a more natural state. Sometimes tems is the main aspect. There are nature trails (e.g. there are conflicts with demands for more intensive across raised bogs) and presentation signboards. forestry. Grassland can also reduce erosion risks Guided tours are offered, and school education but harmful damages caused by trampling (over- includes Natura 2000 sites. ‘Scientific’ tourism has grazing) may occur. also developed but in some cases this poses serious As natural, richly structured streams are better threats to the fragile ecosystems (mountain mead- suited for self-purification than canalised waters, ows–SCI 039E, 071E) and sensitive species (black their potential can be improved by establishing hy- grouse). drological buffer zones, supporting water dynam- Conclusion: The Natura 2000 sites of the up- ics, and reducing nutrient inputs from adjoining per Ore Mountains do not represent pristine nature farmlands and settlements. Presently, such objec- but they have been shaped and changed by humans tives are conflicting, e.g. with technical flood pre- for centuries. Also today, they are used for mul- vention measures. tiple purposes, and they provide a wide range of In the category of sociocultural services, aesthetic provisioning, regulation and sociocultural services. values are very important, especially for enjoying Partly there are still development opportunities and the scenery and for eco-tourism. The large forests of unused potentials, but the objectives of nature con- the Ore Mountains at higher altitudes support such servation under the conditions of NATURA 2000 goals. Beech forests, to some extent spruce forests, must be respected. and bog forests are of great interest. The landscape’s attractiveness, especially for tourism, stems from a zz The Role of FFH Habitat Sites and Natura small-scale pattern of various biotopes, e.g. raised 2000 Relevant Species bogs, bog forests, headwater areas, mountain mead- The FFH habitat types represent the core of the ows and pastures and stone walls, which are also FFH sites, They are embedded like a mosaic in the habitats for rare and beautiful species. There are also ‘matrix’ of the entire area. In addition to the as- Natura 2000 sites with historically valuable cultural sessment of ES supply (analysis of potentials) of landscape elements, such as monuments dedicated the respective site, it is interesting to which extent to the transportation and mining history, and also the specific habitat types and species contribute to ancient forests which are cultural monuments. The this. The supply of ES by habitat types of the upper development of tourism can suffer from the con- Ore Mountains was estimated semiquantitatively struction of wind turbines on the mountain ridge. according to three scores. . Table 6.10 shows the There is a wide variety of touristic activities in results on the example of some forest types. the Natura 2000 sites of the Ore Mountains: walk- It is obvious that many ES, especially several pro- ing, cycling, mountain-biking, swimming, climb- visioning and regulation services, depend on ‘rough’ ing and collecting wild berries, mushrooms and vegetation structures or land-use forms, while other 249 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6 LH 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 REI 2* 2* 2* 2* 2* 2* 2* 1* 2* 1* 1* 2* 2* 2* 2* Sociocultural Ae H Po SF Ec Salicion albae) Regulation CAF 22222111211 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 22222112211 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 EW 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 TMBSW 2* 2* 2* 2* 2* 2* 1* 2* 1* 2* 1* 1* 1* 2* 2* 2* 2* 2* , Alnion incanae (Alno-Padion, excelsior and Fraxinus CF es provided by Habitats of Community Interest of Natura 2000 sites (FFH) in the upper Ore Mountains (Saxony, Germany). Valuation: 2–high and 2–high and Valuation: Germany). Mountains (Saxony, (FFH) in the upper Ore 2000 sites of Natura Interest of Community Habitats by es provided oniferous forests oniferous G 2 2* 2* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 2* 2* nbeam forests (Stellario-Carpinetum) nbeam forests ope Fi Ecosystem servicEcosystem ion forests of slopes, screes and ravines screes of slopes, ion forests

L Ecosystem services Ecosystem Provisioning Bog woodland Sub-Atlantic oak-hor Sub-Atlantic Alnus glutinosa with Alnus forests Alluvial Tilio-Acer Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests Asperulo-Fagetum Luzulo-Fagetum beech forests Luzulo-Fagetum

Temperate mountainous c mountainous Temperate Table 6.10 Table Forests of Boreal Eur of Boreal Forests FORESTS

very high; 1–medium; without score–low or insignificant; * considerable conflicts (with other services, esp. with habitat function/biodiversity) with habitat conflicts veryconsiderable (with other services, * esp. high; 1–medium; without score–low or insignificant; . Habitat Habitat types 9 91 9110 9130 9160 9180 91D 91E0 94 9410 91E0 9160 9130 Habitat typesHabitat 9 9110 94 91D0 91 9180 250 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES LH REI Sociocultural Ae H

6 Po SF Ec Regulation CAF EW tane to alpine levels (Vaccinio-Piceetea) alpine levels tane to TMBSW CF G Fi Continued

L Ecosystem services Ecosystem Provisioning Acidophilous Picea forests of the mon forests Picea Acidophilous

Table 6.10 Table

. Habitat Habitat types 9410 Ecosystem services Ecosystem services Provisioning Supply of animal products (products: milk, wool) L Livestock meat, Fish Fi G Game products Supply of plant fodder CF Crops, T Timber mushrooms) fruits (berries, Wild M Meum athamanticum– and other herbs) Spignel– (e.g. B Biochemical/ medicinal resources mulching) hay breeding, plant for (e.g. grasses herbs, trees, Seeds of forest of genetic resources: S Provision headwaters) areas/ protection W Drinking (water water power water EW from Energy services Regulating (ecological) sequestration C Carbon regulation climate qualityA Air regulation/local (flood mitigation) regulation balance Water F control Erosion Ec SF Self-purificationwaters of Pollination Po functionH Habitat Sociocultural services scenery) (e.g. values Aesthetic Ae and eco-tourism R Services recreation for aspects) cultural-historical (e.g. education E Services environmental for servicesInformation I Bioindication pollen analysis) LH Landscape history (e.g. 251 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6

ES, particularly several sociocultural ones, also de- of empirical and modelling studies that few studies pend on specific habitat or vegetation types. supported the hypothesis that there was a simple, A remarkable number of particularly animal direct linear relationship between species richness species listed in the Annexes of the Habitats Di- and some aspects of ecosystem functioning, such rective live in the Ore Mountains. They all have as productivity, biomass, nutrient cycling, carbon quite different demands upon their habitats and flux or nitrogen use. They concluded that biodi- environmental conditions. Only a few species can versity as represented by measures of species rich- be unambiguously assigned to particular habitat ness may be important for ecosystem functioning, types. Either they live equally in several habitat but other aspects of ecosystem structure might be types–in some cases using them for different parts equally significant. The results also seem to support of their life cycles, e.g. habitats for breeding and for the criticism of the ES concept by Ridder (2008), feeding–or, as in the case of bats, they are bound to who argues that this approach as a justification for certain vegetation structures, vegetation classes or conservation is flawed, as only a relatively small land-use forms. For example, the otter (Lutra lutra) number of species provide services. Mostly, these needs intact standing and running waters (3150, are not rare species, but rather particular groups 3260). Bats need old beech forests (9110, 9130), as of species with specific functional characteristics. do the black stork (Ciconia nigra) and the black He argues that land management practices have a woodpecker (Dryocopus martius). The corncrake much greater effect on most ES. For example, he (Crex crex) prefers semi-natural tall-herb humid notes, many ES supplied by forests, such as carbon meadows (6410, 6430), the great crested newt sequestration, supply of drinking water, flood miti- (Triturus cristatus) lives in standing waters (3150) gation, and erosion control, depend principally on and the European bullhead (Cottus gobio) and the the presence of trees and undergrowth. While these brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri) in favourable processes have a great impact on biodiversity, di- running waters (3260). The dusky large blue but- minished biodiversity does not in itself constitute a terfly (Glaucopsyche nausithous) needs lowland threat to these services. meadows (6510) with flowering great burnets (San- That should, however, not suggest that diversity guisorba officinalis). Thus, only some of these spe- of habitat types and species are dispensable since cies can be regarded as indicators of Natura 2000 we must be aware that all species and habitat types habitat types and related ES (. Table 6.11). constitute the assets of several regulating and socio- Both the literature survey and the case study of cultural services. Service-providing species are em- Natura 2000 habitat types in the Ore Mountains bedded in an ecosystem and to separate out some has enabled us to show many strong relationships species from the rest is generally biologically unre- between habitat types and ES regarding some regu- alistic as many unobserved interactions take place lating and sociocultural services, but not for most (e.g. food chains). There is also the necessity for of the provisioning and regulating services. For large numbers of species to fulfil the inherent multi- these ES ‘rough’ vegetation structures, vegetation functionality of ecosystems (Haslett et al. 2010). classes and land cover are generally more impor- Therefore, the entire ecosystem or habitat should tant. It could also be shown that only a small por- be considered in terms of its supporting role for the tion of the particular Natura 2000 species (listed SPs (Rounsevell et al. 2010). in the Annexes of the Habitats directive) is bound Greater species diversity within an ecosystem to particular Natura 2000 habitat types. Most of obviously implies a potentially even greater supply these species cannot be regarded as indicators for of ecosystem goods which might be used, e.g. me- (changes in) particular habitat types and the ES dicinal plants (Mertz et al. 2007). Inasmuch as the provided by them (Bastian 2012). provision of genetic diversity can be viewed as a The fact that some services are not depen- service in itself, biodiversity is fundamental to that. dent on particular species is in agreement with Due to remaining knowledge gaps, it may still not Schwartz et al. (2000), who found among a range be possible to determine conclusively whether a 252 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Table 6.11 Habitat requirements (Natura 2000 habitat types) of several plants and animals of Community importance (Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and Birds Directive 79/409/EEC) in the upper Ore Mountains. (Data from Steffens et al. 1998; Hauer et al. 2009)

Species Preferred Habitat Types

Waters Heaths Grassland Swamps, Forests bogs Annex II Habitats Directive Mammals Otter (Lutra lutra) 3150, 3260 Greater Mouse-ear Bat (Myotis myotis) 9110, 9130 Barbastelle Bat (Barbastellus barbastellus) 6 Bechstein’s Bat (Myotis bechsteinii) 9110, 9130 Amphibians Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) 3150 Fishes European Bullhead (Cottus gobio) 3260 Brook Lamprey (Lampetra planeri) 3260 Insects Green Club-tailed Dragonfly (Ophiogomphus cecilia) 3260 Jersey Tiger (Euplagia quadripunctaria) 6430 Dusky Large Blue (Glaucopsyche nausithous) 6510 Annex IV Habitats Directive + Annex I Birds Directive + other species to be protected (selection) Mammals Dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) 91 Birds Corncrake (Crex crex) 6410, 6430 Meadow Pipit (Anthus pratensis) 6230, 6410 7110, 7140 White-throated Dipper (Cinclus cinclus) 3260 Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus) 9410, (9110) Eurasian Pygmy Owl (Glaucidium passerinum) 9410 Black Grouse (Tetrao tetrix) 4030 64, 65 71 Black Stork (Ciconia nigra) 9110 Black Woodpecker (Dryocopus martius) 9110 Grey-headed Woodpecker (Picus canus) 9110, (91) Red-breasted Flycatcher(Ficedula parva) 9110, 9130 (91E0, 9180) Insects Large White-faced Darter (Leucorrhinia pectoralis) 3160

Legend of habitat types . Table 6.12 3150–Eutrophic standing waters; 3160–Dystrophic standing waters 64–Tall herb communities; 65–Mesophilic grassland; 71–Acidic Sphagnum bogs; 91–Boreal European forests 253 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6 high level of biodiversity is in fact necessary for the willingness-to-pay for the degree of the existing en- supply of a certain ecosystem service. vironmental damages (UBA 2007). Taking the complexity of ecosystems and the The value of Natura 2000 sites and species is variety of interactions with the natural human also expressed in the consensus of the society to socio-economic environment into account, to date maintain them (revealed public preferences). This it is impossible to identify all benefits that might is underpinned both by EU and national legisla- arise from biodiversity. The same is true for pre- tions. It is clear that from the obligation to main- dicting the effects that the loss of a single species or tain a ‘favourable conservation state’ follows the a population and/or ecosystem service has. Hence, need of costly management measures (Schweppe- a precautionary approach is required, and ecosys- Kraft2009 ), among them labour costs, e.g. incen- tems should be maintained intact as far as possible tive payments for farmers or wages for persons to ensure continued service provision in the face performing these measures. This is also an ex- of changing environmental conditions and biotic pression for job and business opportunities in ru- interactions, even if there is presently insufficient ral regions. The costs calculated for management supporting scientific evidence (Cooney and Dick- measures in selected FFH sites of the upper Saxon son 2005). Ore Mountains (14 FFH sites, total area 6054 ha) can be seen in . Table 6.13. The size of these sites zz Monetary Aspects is between 21 ha (Georgenfeld raised bog) and It is known that the goal to assess nature and bio- 999 ha (Großer Kranichsee). Not all costs were diversity economically is limited, because we are clearly defined, partly rather wide ranges were dealing mostly with nonuse values, which are not presented. traded on markets (7 Sect. 4.2). These values arise The total financial need (just under € 2 mil- from the ethical or religious will to maintain nature lion for only 14 FFH sites in Saxony) is very high for its own sake (existence value) or for posterity compared to the actually available financial means. (bequest value). Empirical studies have shown that Güthler and Orlich (2009) identified annual fi- nonuse values represent the greater part of human nancial requirements for Natura 2000 in Germany appreciation of threatened ecosystems. Therefore, for the amount of c. € 620 million (52.7 €/ha), i.e. alternative evaluation methods must be applied € 4.34 billion for the EU funding period 2007–2013. (Macke and Schweppe-Kraft 2011). Within this funding, which represents the most The calculation of costs for maintaining and important financial source of nature conservation, restoring habitat types through the willingness-to- only € 1.86 billion are dedicated to nature conserva- pay approach is common, as the readiness of soci- tion measures in Germany. This is only 3–4 % of the ety is reflected to provide financial means for Na- total agricultural budget in Germany. ture conservation for ethical or aesthetical reasons Kettunen et al. (2009) estimated the financial (Spangenberg and Settele 2010). need for the management of the Natura 2000 sites If evaluations on the base of individual prefer- in the EU at € 5.8 billion annually, which is four- ences are not possible or appropriate, evaluations fold of the current budget. The European Com- by society (e.g. sustainability goals) or expert judg- mission calculates the costs for Natura 2000 sites ments should be used as orientation. Reasons for in Europe with an average of 63 €/ha; this amount it are e.g. effects affecting several generations, high is by far exceeded by the benefits from Natura uncertainty, or damages hidden to individual per- 2000 (e.g. CO2-fixation, tourism), even though sons. There may also exist overarching goals, e.g. not all ES are included in the calculation of the for emission reductions (climate protection) or total benefit. biodiversity targets (CBD, National Biodiversity There are interesting WTP analyses (Hampicke Strategy, Natura 2000). The costs to reach these et al. 1991), which found that the German citizens goals may be regarded as a measure for the society’s would be ready to spend between € 99 and 123 per 254 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Table 6.12 Calculated costs for management measures in FFH habitat types (HT) in 14 selected FFH sites of the upper Saxon Ore Mountains. (Source: FFH management plans, Saxon State Office for Environment, Agriculture and Geology, data research: M.-L. Plappert)

HT-No. HT-Name Occurrence of Number of FFH sites Total costs the HT in the with data on the costs per HT (€) 14 FFH sites for HT management 3260 Water courses of plain to montane 1 1 8000–16,000 levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation 4030 European dry heaths 5 5 27,585– 30,360 6010 Basophilic pioneer meadows 1 1 1806 6230 Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on silicious 10 10 83,875– 6 substrates in mountain areas 98,722 6410 Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or 2 2 646–1964 clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) 6430 Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities 4 4 5407 6510 Lowland hay meadows 3 3 16,885 6520 Mountain hay meadows 10 10 222,796– 223,023 7110 Active raised bogs 2 1 39,100 7120 Degraded raised bogs still capable of natu- 4 3 284,304 ral regeneration 7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs 7 6 4247 8150 Medio-European upland siliceous screes 2 2 4441 8160 Medio-European calcareous scree of hill 1 1 126 and montane levels 8210 Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic 1 1 1164 vegetation 9110 Luzulo-Fagetum beech forests 6 4 120,592– 178,910 9130 Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests 1 0 – 9180 Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and 2 1 20,460– ravines 22,705 91D1 Bog woodland with downy birches 5 3 91,559– 283,003 91D3 Bog woodland with mountain pines 3 2 88,861 91D4 Bog woodland with spruces 5 4 132,969– 377,098 91E0 Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and 2 1 239,41–31,833 Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) 9410 Acidophilous Picea forests of the montane 9 6 203,325 to alpine levels (Vaccinio-Piceetea) Total sum 1,380,500– 1,979,900 255 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6 a 5.6 0.0884 Se (€) x Se (€) x 10,000 € 14.0 1.64 0.656 2.24 0.896 0.47 13.02 5.208 10.23 4.092 25.37 10.148 64.13 25.652 321.16 128.464 195.32 78.128 4479.44 1791.776 Se (P) 10,000 Se 10,000 (P) scores ) −2 41 43 Se (P m 897.0554 Sc (€) ) −2 k. A. k. A. 95,888 €/a (discounted over 20 years) over 95,888 €/a (discounted 111.6 6.1 1.9 33 30,927.40 L (€) Sc (€ m ) −1 570 689.7 41.8 50.6 53 570 22.80 320 3.2 48.9 0.49 47 200 62 18.4 5.7 42 200 2116 18.4 195.1 42 444.36 177.74 200 1036 18.4 95.9 62 200 1028 18.4 94.8 38 360 390 113.1 127.4 31.85 56 390 113.1 127.4 5.1 56 k. A. k. A. k. A. k. A. L (€ ha % annual discount rate 8 rate % annual discount

0.01

1.59 1.58 3.25 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.09 0.08 0.09 < FFH site) (%) FFH site) , per total area of the habitat type of the habitat (10,000 P) and monetary type area of the habitat (€ 10,000 €, the , per total area per total value 2 aluation and the maintenance of FFH habitat types on the example of the FFH site ‘Geisingberg und Geisingbergwiesen’ und Geisingbergwiesen’ ‘Geisingberg types of FFH habitat of the FFH site on the example and the maintenance aluation 1.21 0.31 5.14 5.18 0.31 0.01 0.25 0.59 0.04 0.04 91,41 28.13 67.75 20.85 380 25,745 6.1 416.0 50 3387.5 1355 10.58 Area (ha)Area (of the Share

total value of € 17,917,760 corresponds with 5 corresponds of € 17,917,760 value total a Selected monetary aspects of the ev

Alluvial forests with Alnus gluti - with Alnus forests Alluvial excelsior nosa and Fraxinus Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, of slopes, forests Tilio-Acerion and ravines screes Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests Asperulo-Fagetum Luzulo-Fagetum beech forests Luzulo-Fagetum Medio-European upland sili - screes ceous Alkaline fens Transition mires and quaking mires Transition bogs Mountain hay meadows Mountain hay Lowland hay meadows hay Lowland Species-rich Nardus grasslands Species-rich Nardus Ranunculion flui - with the Ranunculion Water tantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation Natural eutrophic lakes eutrophic Natural Habitat typeHabitat – no information Table 6.13 Table – biotope values (scores–P) after ( 2010 ) per m Sejak et al. (scores–P) values – biotope ) (Habitat-Equivalency-Investment- Model) (in €/m and in € 10,000 for the total area of the habitat type) of the habitat area afterthe total values Schweppe-Kraft Model)– biotope (in €/m and in € 10,000 for ( 2009 ) (Habitat-Equivalency-Investment-

– annual costs of managing the habitat type per hectare (€/ha) and per total area of the habitat type (€); data from the “Landscape Management Strategy Saxony 2020” 2020” Saxony “Landscape Management Strategy the type of the habitat from type (€); data the habitat area per hectare of managing (€/ha) and per total – annual costs Total 91E0 9180 9130 9110 8150 7230 7140 6520 6510 6230 3260 3150 value of 1 score amounts € 0.4), amounts of 1 score value n. i. Se (Eastern Ore Mountains, Saxony) Mountains, Ore (Eastern Code 2013 ) and Syrbe (Grunewald Sc . L 256 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

household and year (total € 3.9–4.9 billion) for a Based on a biotope assessment method elabo- conservation programme to maintain biodiversity rated in the German federal state Hesse (the so- in Germany (only ethical and aesthetic aspects are called ‘Hessian Model’), which was recommended reflected). This amount is double of the estimated by the EU to be applied in Natura 2000 sites, Sejak costs of all measures necessary for the maintenance et al. (2010) created a scoring system for biotope of biodiversity (€ 1.7–2.3 billion). More recent in- types basing on data from 136 restoration projects vestigations (Meyerhoff et al. 2010; Schweppe-Kraft in the Czech Republic. They awarded scores be- 2009) showed a higher WTP (€ 192 per household tween 1 and 6 each for the criteria age (maturity), and year). Each hectare protected area would ben- naturalness, diversity, species diversity, rarity of efit from c. € 1000 annually. the biotope type, rarity of species, vulnerability, Why are such nature conservation pro- impacts on the biotope type. The authors assigned grammes not implemented into practice? The monetary values to the scores (1 score = € 0.40). general mistrust of contingent valuations and the The financial value of a score corresponds to the 6 lack of ‘hard’ facts in the area of biodiversity–un- arithmetic means of the costs of all analysed res- like with the problem area flood protection, etc.– toration projects in the Czech Republic spent to may be one of the reasons (Schweppe-Kraft 2009). improve the ecological state by one score. They Closely related with management costs are, for combined the scores representing the ‘ecological instance, monetary values used for habitat types benefit’ with the biotope-specific restoration costs in the Impact Mitigation Regulation. If values and (. Table 6.14). functions of nature are impaired by an avoidable impact (e.g. by construction measures), the dam- Case Study Mount Geisingberg age can be calculated as the equivalent of the costs On the example of the FFH site ‘Geisingberg und (substitution and compensation costs) of compen- Geisingwiesen’ (325 ha, identification number DE sation and replacement measures necessary for the 5248-303) different value and cost calculations recovering of the functions of nature (replacement will be shown and compared (. Table 6.13, 6.14, costs). The starting point for the derivation of . Fig. 6.23). This protected area is situated north monetary values are nature conservation require- of the small towns Altenberg and Geising in the ments on the dimension of compensation and re- rural district Sächsische Schweiz–Osterzgebirge, in placement measures (nature conservation right of the physical region Eastern Ore Mountains at the compensation obligation, German Nature Conser- altitude between 545 and 824 m a. s. l. (on average vation Act–§ 8). This obligation can be seen as the 700 m). This FFH site overlaps with other catego- consensus of society to maintain the functions of ries of protected areas: the landscape protection nature (or the ES). The costs of the compensation area ‘Oberes Osterzgebirge’ (Upper Ore Moun- measures are adequate to society’s willingness-to- tains), the bird sanctuary (SPA) ‘Geisingberg und pay. With regard to the evaluation of impacts on Geisingbergwiesen’ and the nature reserve ‘Gei the one side and compensation measures on the singberg’. other side, such numbers set quite general bench- The specific conservation targets are listed in marks that let enough freedom of action for type- the FFH management plan (Böhnert et al. 2005): and single case-related planning solutions (UBA e.g. “maintaining the supra-regional important 2007). The value of natural and semi-natural eco- ‘basalt cap’ of the Geising mount with different systems in Germany calculated with the Habitat succession phases of species-rich montane spruce- Equivalency-Investment-Model (Schweppe-Kraft (fir-)beech forests, surrounded by a large complex 2009, 7 Sect. 4.2) (9.5 % of the country’s surface of species-rich montane grassland communities of area) amounts to € 740 billion (restoration costs different levels of trophy and moisture, with ag- while taking the necessary time or duration of de- ricultural clearance cairns, mountain meadows, velopment into account). moist and wet meadows, fen areas and mat grass- 257 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6 land, including the flora and fauna typical for this € 17,917,760 with an annual discount rate (5 %) region. The site is part of the characteristic clear- 895,888 €/a (x20 years). ance cairns landscape of the Eastern Ore Moun- tains with traditional, small-scale landscape struc- Discussion tures and extensive land use”. Protected areas, among them the FFH and SPA The maintenance and development of selected sites of the European Natura 2000 network, supply biotopes is particularly important: a wide range of ES. The reference to the manifold 55 Protection, maintenance, management and services being very important for humans, may partly restoration of an important complex of support the arguments of nature conservation. species-rich mountain grassland communi- A key challenge for the evaluation of the bene- ties, particularly mountain meadows, mat fits of a Natura 2000 site is to be able to present and grassland, moist meadows, wet meadows rich interpret the full range of its benefits. The general in sedges and rushes, and fens of high impor- underlying idea is that the total (long-term) bene- tance for flora, vegetation and fauna, especially fits provided by an ecosystem increase with conser- considering the extremely rare chalk fens, and vation and sustainable use. . Figure 6.1 presents an 55 Maintenance and targeted development of overview of how the different value derived from a near-natural tree species combinations, age given system change with increased conservation and spatial structure of the forest, and with efforts. In general, despite of the costs of conser- special promotion of the richness in old and vation and reduced extraction of biodiversity re- dead wood and White Fir. sources it is foreseen that the net socio-economic benefits provided by the ecosystem remain positive The FFH site ‘Geisingberg und Geisingbergwiesen’ (Kettunen et al. 2009). (total area 325 ha, among them 91.41 ha FFH habi- If the focus is only on benefits that can tat types) includes 67.75 ha mountain meadows be estimated in monetary terms the overall (= 20.85 % of the total area). If 380 €/ha are estimat- socio-economic picture might not appear favour- ed for the annual management, the need of financial able to the sites conservation. It is also important to means amounts to 25,745 € per year. To manage understand, for example, how the identified benefits all FFH habitat types of the site, the financial need relate to the conservation goals of the site (e.g. do would amount at 30,927 € annually. This number they conflict with site management plans) and how is not necessarily in line with the costs mentioned different stakeholders are affected by these benefits. in the management plan as the Saxon management It was already mentioned that several dimen- strategy lists average costs for Saxony while the sions of nature cannot or should not be measured in management plan refers to the specific situation. monetary terms (7 Sect. 4.2, TEEB 2009). As many The Habitat-Equivalency-Investment-Model ES cannot be traded on markets this would result after Schweppe-Kraft (2009) assigns values of in them being under evaluated from an economic 6.14 €/m2 of extensively used grassland; this cor- perspective (Mertz et al. 2007; Bayon and Jenkins responds to € 4,160,000 for the total area of the 2010; de Groot et al. 2010). A monetary valuation is habitat type ‘Mountain meadow’ in this FFH site. generally accepted as nonfeasible for environmen- The Czech model after Sejak et al. (2010) assigns tal goods and services with a religious or spiritual 50 scores per m2 for mountain meadows. Thus, the value or amenity (Spangenberg and Settele 2010). habitat type ‘mountain meadow’ at the Geising- There are societal reasons for not defining nature berg reaches 3.387.5 × 104 scores or € 13.55 billion. conservation through market mechanisms only The reason for the difference to Schweppe-Kraft (Ring et al. 2010). (2009) is the much lower amount calculated for The idea of exact monetary values may appear meadows. fascinating but the examples of different results for After Schweppe-Kraft (2009) all FFH habitat mountain meadows (see above) indicate funda- sites at the Geisingberg mount combined would mental and methodical weaknesses. Moreover, the reach a value of € 8,970,554, after Sejak et al. (2010) restoration of destroyed biotopes is not always pos- 258 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

sible especially if the site conditions are changed irreversibly and if some species became extinct. The calculated value of natural and semi-natural ecosystems in Germany of € 740 billion (Schweppe- Kraft 2009) may appear very high. But: is the value of these ecosystems really below the value of the fixed capital and the production facilities in Ger- many? And: is it even justified to compare this? Nevertheless, economic valuation can help policy-makers by shedding light on the contribution made by various ES, whether directly or indirectly, and, thus, serve an informational function. Economic valuation, however, is not the adequate . Fig. 6.25 Land use induced soil erosion on arable 6 method for determining the goals or priorities of land and matter input into the waters of the Kleine Jahna conservation policies. Nonetheless, economic in- rivulet near the town Riesa. It is hard to define the on-site- und off-site damages and costs. © Karsten Grunewald struments can be applied as effective incentives for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management to maintain ES (Spangenberg and Settele and maintenance of soil fertility) form separat- 2010). In nature conservation, economic valuation ed subgroups within the group of regulatory ES of biodiversity and ES is an essential element for (7 Sect. 3.2). Moreover, freshwater presents one of making conservation efforts financially sustain- the essential supply ES (direct market good). Less able over longer periods of time as it stimulates attention is mostly paid to indirect, usage-inde- the perceived need for investing in conservation, pendent ES, for example, natural soil profile as an be it through the establishment and management education ES. Soil and Water conservation form of protected areas, through traditional economic an inseparable unit (. Fig. 6.25), e.g. the soil type is instruments such as taxation, licence fees, etc., or an indicator for both the ES water regulation and through the development of markets and agree- water purification 7( Sect. 3.2). ments on payments (incentives) for environmental Soils are natural components of nature. The services (Mertz et al. 2007). processes of soil formation and regeneration of soils occur extremely slowly. Therefore, soils are rated as one of the nonrenewable resources. Currently, land 6.6.2 Soil and Water Protection use (increase in the amount of land used for human settlements and the transport infrastructure K. Grunewald and dissection of the landscape), erosion and compaction, soil contamination and impoverishment of Functions and ES of Soils and Waters soil biodiversity must be considered as the main Soil and water are components in the landscape sys- problems of soil protection in Central Europe. The tem, characterised by high complexity and numer- deterioration of soil quality has a direct impact on ous interfaces with the other geo-components. The the quality of water and air, biodiversity and climate resulting significance in ecosystems is expressed on change. Furthermore, this can affect the health of the one hand in the environmental goal of soil and the population and the safety of the production water conservation in the Federal Nature Conser- of food and feed. Particularly affected by this are vation Act (§ 1 BNatSchG 2009). On the other hand, soils of very different capacity and functionality soil and water are essential prerequisites for the (Grunewald 1997). Thus, in addition to site-specific generation of diverse use functions (ES) and, thus, use preventive soil protection needs to include above gain an existential importance for human society. all, the protection of the natural soil functions. This Hydrological ES (water regulation and water is important especially from the point of view of purification) as well as pedological ES (erosion 259 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6 the functional importance of soils in the landscape Core of the law is a strictly functional definition balance (Kramer et al. 1999). of soil with the distinction between natural func- Land use-related influences have led to more tions (as foundation for life and habitat, part of the homogeneous soil physical and chemical condi- ecosystem, and decomposition, compensation and tions of topsoils over natural, place-based soil pat- generation medium for material impacts, thanks terns, for example, in large-area farming. Land use to its filtering, buffering and transforming proper- associated with constant supply of substances and ties), functions as an archive of natural and cultural energy (soil threatening, tillage, fertilization) and history as well as utility functions (source of raw the removal of forms of disadvantage (land im- materials, location for various uses as well as areal provement, e.g. hydro-melioration) cause relatively for human settlement and recreation). homogeneous crop stocks under normal weather In this context a counteractive effect between processes. Much effort is needed for that. There- the natural soil functions and use functions in terms fore, for example, modern techniques of modern of the environmental impact should be noted. The precision agriculture differentiate small plots so utilisation of specific use functions of soils, e.g. the that negative consequences are reducible. Howev- function as source of raw materials, causes the limi- er, they do not lead to the abolition of patterns of tation in terms of natural functions. The conflict properties among others in sub-soils so that risks between soil integrity and specific forms of land use of destructive processes increase compared to soils is also expressed in problems such as soil erosion, with natural vegetation cover. As a result of agricul- which overloads natural soil functions and initiates tural land use, regarded processes have led to a large damage processes in ecosystems (Grunewald and heterogeneity of soil-forming substrates and, thus, Mannsfeld 1999). soil properties to this effect, e.g. through erosion The fact of harmful soil changes is of particular (extensive capped profiles and completely eroded importance in this context (§ 2(3) BBodSchG 1998), areas on upper slopes or slope shoulders). Certainly which are related to impairments of soil functions. it is spatially differentiated whether heterogenizing Consequently, this leads to the obligation to avoid or homogenizing processes dominate. Statements damages (§ 4 (3) (4) BBodSchG 1998) and area- in this regard are generally related to individual based soil protection. For the implementation of aspects of soil characterization and assessment. particular importance as subordinate regulation is However, the heterogenizing, unwanted side ef- the Federal Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites fects increase the management effort and, thereby, Ordinance (Bundesbodenschutz- und Altlasten- burden the economics of land use. Therefore, busi- verordnung; BBodSchV 1999). ness management calculations weigh up the costs Another point to note is that soil is a limit- and benefits. In that regard a short-term calcula- ed resource and their functionality is affected by tion without follow-cost analysis or the ignoring of various forms of exploitation. Its regeneration, is external costs arising from the land-use system is extremely difficult, if not impossible, and some- dishonest and unsustainable. These ratings cannot times very costly. Basically, in countries such as be uniform and unambigious, since they are crop- Germany or Austria the question is arising how dependent, in the production system differentiated the previously strictly functional managed soil and market-determined (7 Sect. 6.2.3). protection can be transformed and updated to the In respect to soil functions another question is ES concept. of concern: is enhanced pedodiversity (analogous A European Soil Framework Directive with the to biodiversity) valuable, beneficial and preferable? aim of protecting soils is rejected among others This question, however, cannot be answered con- by the government of Germany, in particular for sistently with respect to partial functions and for reasons of subsidiarity (subordination of rules to different soil landscapes. others, e.g. WFD). In addition, it is also feared that With the German Federal Soil Protection Act the implementation of a Soil Framework Directive the implementation of soil conservation has been causes a disproportionate administrative burden placed on a uniform legal basis at national level. and high consequential costs (Kluge et al. 2010). 260 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

Water protection is defined as the totality of reduction in nutrient input into waters (details in efforts, conserving waters (coastal waters, surface Grunewald and Naumann 2012). waters and groundwater) for the purpose of purification of water for drinking or industrial water and zz Ecosystem Properties and Selected the protection of aquatic ecosystems as a subtask Pollutions in the Catchment Area of nature protection. Water protection is operated The catchment area of the river Jahna is 244 km2 partly usage-oriented, partly detached by user in- in size, located between the towns of Döbeln and terests and between the commercial and conserva- Riesa (. Fig. 6.2), is part of the natural region tion interests numerous areas of conflict exists. Lößgefilde (loess-region) in Saxony and has a ru- However, the benefits of ES for water protection ral typical, relatively low population density. Due have become a high priority in policy making: to the very fertile soils the river basin is primarily 55 The Water Framework Directive (WFD, Direc- used for agricultural purposes since time immemo- tive 2000/60/EC) follows the principle of cost rial. About 90 % of the land is occupied by agricul- 6 recovery of water services, including environ- tural land. The share of only 6% grassland suggests mental and resource costs, which requires a that pure arable farms are predominantly located in balancing of the costs and benefits (explained the study area. Main crops grown are wheat, corn, in 7 Sect. 3.3.2). rapeseed and root crops (sugar beet). About 14 % of 55 The EU’s strategy for protection of the marine the Jahna catchment is designated as protected area environment (2005) requires the implementa- which partially overlap (7 % drinking water protection of cost-benefit-analyses. tion areas, 6.1 % areas of protected landscape, 3.8 % 55 The Marine trategyS Framework Directive bird protection areas (SPA), 2.4 % habitat protec- (RL 2008/56/EG) requires Member States to tion areas (FFH), 0.2 % Nature Reserves). produce an economic and social analysis of the Luvisols occur as soil types over a large area, use of their marine waters and of the cost of Cambisols, Albeluvisols and Luvisol-Planosols/St- degradation of the marine environment. agnosols are also found in smaller plots. In the val- leys and depressions partly mighty colluvisols are ES Valuation on the Example of the found. That indicate a high erosion deposition in Jahna River Catchment in Saxony the area. Accordingly, at the upper slope or slope The catchment area of the Jahna River in Saxony shoulder locations extensively capped profiles and (Germany), mainly used for agriculture, was se- completely eroded areas are distributed. Water ero- lected as the study area for assessing of ES in order sion is a problem in the study area since the begin- to achieve environmental objectives of the WFD, ning of the intensive land use of the landscapes. since it has already been studied extensively. The This is documented in the colluviums and high- goal of the case study was to analyse the cost-ef- flood loams respectively in the altered sediment fective combination of measures of agriculture to load of waters. reduce water erosion and diffuse nutrient inputs in The river Jahna has a length of about 35 km water and to assess selected, mainly not market- and flows into the Elbe River in Riesa. Numerous based ES. The fundamental approach is based on interventions in the water system were undertaken the EPPS conceptual framework (7 Sect. 3.1.2). The in the catchment area, such as longitudinal and core is, that through the (natural) scientific bases transverse profile barriers, run-straightening and the professional requirements of use/conservation relocations, melioration, etc. About 40 dams/reser- of natural resources can be expressed (interdisci- voirs respectively ponds currently characterise the plinary, multiple political consideration). These surface water system; the reservoir Baderitz with characteristics and pressures on ecosystems are 15.8 ha is the largest among them. analysed using ecological indicators and reduction According to the WFD, the biological compo- potentials are simulated by models. Furthermore, nents fish, macroinvertebrates and macrophytes/ changes in agricultural land use and management phytobenthos are relevant for assessing the surface form are also evaluated monetarily in regard to water bodies. Without exception, all of these were 261 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6 assessed as deficient in the catchment area of the load of 3.9 t y−1, and P concentrations from 0.09 to Jahna River in the period 2005–2007. The nutrient 0.23 mg L−1 were determined for the surface waters. pollution reflects the poor biological evaluation in Modelling results for nitrogen (N): According the catchment. With the exception of one river wa- to the assessment by the STOFFBILANZ model ter body, the guidance values for total-P and ortho- in average 95 % of total N-emissions in the catch- phosphate-P were exceeded two to threefold in all ment area Jahna (574 t yr−1) originate from agri- years. Currently there are no reference values for cultural land. In contrast to phosphorus, nitrogen the WFD-relevant elements total-N and nitrate-N is discharged almost all dissolved on the different available. Compared to the nitrate-quality standard flow types. The underground drainage compo- for the chemical status it is clear, however, that all nent baseflow dominates followed by intermediate surface water bodies are significantly affected by and drain discharge. If a catch crop of 4 % (as in nitrogen. With a mean of 97 mg L−1 during the 2005/2006 normal) of arable land in the catchment period 2007–2009, the quality standard for nitrate area Jahna is considered, STOFFBILANZ calcu- (50 mg L−1) is significantly exceeded in the ground- lated a reduction of the total diffuse N-emissions water body Jahna. The monitoring results of the (including from settlements) on watershed level of inventory lead to the conclusion that the objectives about 8 to 11 % (N-removal by the intercrops of 80 of the WFD cannot be achieved in the groundwa- or 100 kg yr−1). Based on the N-loads (including up- ter body Jahna and all eight river water bodies in stream), there were emissions-based N-concentra- the catchment area Jahna by 2015 (Grunewald and tions from 11 to 23 mg L−1. Taking an average reten- Naumann 2012). tion of 62 % into account, a total load of 208 t yr−1 Cause analysis for the diffuse nutrient sources (immission) and total N-concentrations between 4 were calculated using the model STOFFBILANZ. and 8 mg L−1 were calculated. With respect to the The Web-GIS-based model STOFFBILANZ groundwater flow in the Jahna aquifer an N-input (7 www.stoffbilanz.de) is a method for quanti- of 349 t yr−1 in the surface waters was determined. fication of sources and path-related nonpoint This corresponds to an average load of 7.9 kg ha−1 source pollution (nitrogen, phosphorus and sedi- yr−1. An average N-concentration of approximately ment) from the surface (emission) in catchments 69 mg t L−1 in groundwater discharge results from a of mesoscale size. In addition, the quantification modelled average base flow of 51 mm yr−1. of the immission resulting from matter inputs to Different agricultural measures and sets of surface waters is possible using simple estimation activities were simulated to estimate the nutrient- methods. reduction potential (. Table 6.14). The reduction Modelling results for phosphorus (P): in aver- of P-input is shown on the basis of PP-emission age 52 % of the total P-emissions of 14.5 t yr−1 of (particulate phosphorus) since a large proportion the Jahna catchment originate from agricultural of the agricultural P-discharge takes place via this land. The majority of the agricultural P-discharge path (Pimentel et al. 1995; Halbfaß and Grunewald is caused by particulate phosphorus (PP) input via 2003). For nitrogen, however, the total diffuse N- water erosion (Haygarth et al. 1998, . Fig. 6.25). Al- emissions are shown. most 80 % of PP-inputs into surface waters are from The individual measures with the greatest re- the critical source areas. This means the majority of duction potential of P-input (40–70 %) are the con- loss comes from a small part of the catchment where version of arable land into grassland on the CSAs areas of high potential for supply (source) and trans- (Halbfaß and Grunewald 2008), conservation till- port (e.g. surface runoff) overlap. These areas were age and buffer zones (water protection stripes). If termed critical source areas (CSAs, cf. Heathwaite measures are combined, however, a reduction of et al. 2005; Halbfaß and Grunewald 2008; Qui PP-emission of 90 % is possible. 2009). The estimation of P-concentrations from The measures intercropping and reduced fer- the total P-loads (including upstream) resulted in tilization have the largest reduction potential for a span from 0.33 to 0.73 mg L−1 for emissions. By N-input with 30–50 %. The combination of mea- an average P-retention of about 70 % an immission sures can reduce N-input up to 77 %. Looking at 262 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Table 6.14 Selected results of scenarios for the river catchment Jahna modelled with STOFFBILANZ for the Jahna river catchment. (Grunewald and Naumann 2012)

No. Scenario/variant Particulate P-input Diffuse N-input

[t a-1] [kg ha-1 a-1] [%]* [t a-1] [kg ha-1 a-1] [%]*

1 Increase of conservation tillage to 3.5 0.14 −31 537 21.9 −3 100 % on CSAs

2 Increase of conservation tillage to 2.8 0.11 −45 451 18.4 −19 100 % on the whole arable land

3 No maize and root crop cultivation 3.7 0.15 −27 555 22.7 0 on CSAs

4 Greened runoff pathways on CSAs 4.6 0.19 −9 553 22.6 0 6 5 Water protection stripes (buffer zones) 2.7 0.11 −47 543 22.2 −2 6 Land-use change on CSAs 1.6 0.07 −68 538 22.0 −3

7 Land-use change on areas with the 5.0 0.20 −2 489 20.0 −12 highest N-leaching

8 Catch crop cultivation–actual state –– – 449 18.3 −19 + 5 % in the catchment

9 Catch crop cultivation–actual state 4.9 0.20 –3 324 13.2 −42 + 16 % in the catchment (max.)

* decrease of P- or N-input compared to the actual state; CSAs–critical source areas

the reduction potential of the measures in each system. As targets for the WFD implementation, river water body, the amount depends on grown the reduction of N- and P-inputs into the waters crops and the location of CSAs. Thus, the effect of and the costs and acceptability of measures plays conservation tillage on the P-leaching is stronger in an important role. Utility functions between 0 (no the upper catchment area Jahna than in the lower benefit) and 1 (highest benefit) are defined for these one due to the higher number of CSAs. The same target variables, which in case of the nutrients are applies to the other measures on the CSAs: ‘conver- determined by environmental quality standards sion of arable land into grassland’, ‘grassed drain- or guidance values (Naumann and Kurzer 2010). age channels’ and ‘renunciation of maize and root The part-worth utilities of the various scenarios crop cultivation’. The N-discharge shows greater were determined for the target variables with these differences on plots with highest N-leaching due utility functions. The total benefit of the different to crop-specific intercropping systems and reduced measure scenarios to be compared was the result of nitrogen fertilization. adding the part-worth values of the target variables, whereby a weighting of the target variables was still zz ES Assessment carried out by the agent (. Table 6.15). One way to evaluate and prioritise different mea- By an equal weighting of the target variables sure scenarios provides the utility analysis accord- conservation tillage on the CSAs represents the ing to Zangemeister (1971). The different target measure with the highest total utility in the Jahna variables can be better compared with each other catchment area. The reasons for this are the low through their transmission in a common value costs, the relatively low P-concentration by the 263 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6

. Table 6.15 Part and total utility values of target variables of measures scenarios for the river catchment Jahna. (Grunewald and Naumann 2012)

Target variables Particulate P Diffuse N Costs Accep- Total Measure scenarios tance utility

Conservation tillage on CSAs (100 %) 0.80 0.2 0.29 0.07 0.90 0.23 0.5 0.13 0.63

Conservation tillage on the arable 1.00 0.25 0.57 0.14 0.21 0.05 0.5 0.13 0.57 land (100 %)

Greened runoff pathways on CSAs 0.40 0.1 0.25 0.06 0.49 0.12 0 0 0.28

Water protection stripes (buffer 1.00 0.25 0.27 0.07 0.92 0.23 0 0 0.55 zones)

Conversion of arable land into 1.00 0.25 0.29 0.07 0.72 0.18 0 0 0.50 grassland on CSAs

Conversion of arable land into 0.20 0.05 0.45 0.11 0.72 0.18 0 0 0.34 grassland on areas with the highest N-leaching

Catch crop cultivation 9 % 0.20 0.05 0.57 0.14 0.87 0.22 0.5 0.13 0.54

Catch crop cultivation 20 % 0.30 0.08 0.97 0.24 0.60 0.15 0.5 0.13 0.60

CSAs critical source areas

modelled PP-input and the mean acceptance of be estimated. In this case it is questioned whether the measure by the farmers. This is followed by the the cost-benefit analysis is sufficiently precised to measure 20 % catch crops, whose high total util- capture concrete effects of projects, measures and ity is mainly due to the high part of the benefit in policies. Crop yields on eroded soils are lower than N-concentration, and the measure catchment-wide those on protected land as erosion reduces the ES implementation of conservation tillage. If more soil fertility and water availability. Erosion affects emphasis is placed on the nutrient input, the exten- soil quality and productivity adversely by reduc- sive conservation tillage farming is the preferred ing water infiltration rates, water-holding capac- option, followed by catch crop. The high part-worth ity, nutrients, organic matter, soil biota and soil utility of P-concentration of the conservation till- depth. Moderately eroded topsoils absorb from age and the high part-worth utility of N-concen- 10 to 300 mm less water per hectare per year than tration of intercropping contribute to this result. If uneroded soils (correspond to 7–44 % of total rain- the costs, however, have the highest priority despite fall, see Pimentel et al. 1995). A ton of fertile agricul- the high relative cost water protection strips (buffer tural topsoil typically contains 1 to 6 kg N and 1 to zones) gain in importance, as due to the small area 3 kg P, which can be lost through runoff. These are the total costs for the watershed Jahna are low. The so-called on-site damages, which land owners and measures ‘greened runoff pathways’ and ‘conversion users wants to keep as low as possible. As shown in of arable land to grassland’ on areas with highest N- the previous sections the losses can be significantly leaching occupy by all weights only lower ranking reduced by erosion control measures. positions due to the low modelled contribution to The off-site costs of erosion must also be con- matter input reduction and low acceptance. sidered. The soil loss not only represents a loss for Theenvironmental costs of erosion and nutrients farmers but also can affect habitats on neighbour- emission are not precisely known. Likewise, the so- ing areas adversely or block the public sewage sys- cial benefits of erosion protection and the reduc- tem, which must then be cleaned with financial tion of nutrient translocation/leaching can only expense. The hydroecological damages were out- 264 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

lined (sediment and nutrient input, eutrophication, Conclusion increased water treatment costs, etc.). The real costs A monetary assessment cannot capture all values of of this are not exactly quantifiable and the persons an ecosystem. But by applying economically orient- responsible are hard to make liable, even for small, ed planning methods and usage of a benchmark, localizable erosion events. Nevertheless, the entity such as money exchange values of planning, vari- shall presume that both the individual and the so- ants are more visible and more conscious. Changes ciety are interested to keep off-site damages (and of characteristics and services of soils and waters therefore costs) as low as possible. can be quantified, modelled and represented in Pimentel et al. (1995) estimated the on-site simulated scenarios. Values are assessable using ES and off-site costs of erosion in the USA to about approaches. This can lead to new insights in regard US $ 100 per hectare per year in the mid-1990s. of the mediation between land use and conserva- If one estimates the so-called replacement costs of tion interests. soil and fertiliser (according to internet research a The major criticism of the presented and for the 6 ton of topsoil costs about 10 € and current fertiliser catchment area of the Jahna exemplified ES ap- prices are to be set at about 600 € t −1 for N respec- proach is that the data required for the operation- tively 750 € t−1 for P; Source: AMI 2010) and dam- alisation of quantitative models and the monetisa- age costs (cleaning of roads, land, properties after tion (benefit transfer method in this case) is meth- erosion damages, desludging of reservoirs, ponds, odologically uncertain. Only few of the ES have canals, etc.), one arrives at a similar monetary mag- an economic value, which land users can realise nitude of on-site and off-site damages for the Jahna on markets. Numerous ES of catchment areas are catchment area (benefit transfer). in economic terms public goods. This means that Accordingly, replacement and damage costs of markets do not adequately reflect the costs and € 1.4 million per year would be calculated for the benefits associated with a change in supply. Fur- nearly 20,000 ha of agricultural land in the Jahna thermore, it is unfortunate that social, aesthetic and catchment area (with USD/EUR exchange rate of health values are underrepresented in the ES evalu- 1.4). A comparison of this order of magnitude with ation and planning. erosion reduction measures revealed a very positive benefit-cost ratio in areas with high erosion threats. Pimentel et al. (1995) give this example for the USA 6.6.3 Economic Valuation of with 5 to about 1; thereby reducing soil erosion by Ecosystem Services–The Case of water and wind from 17 t ha−1 yr−1 to 1 t ha−1 yr−1. A Wetland Restoration Along the benefit-cost ratio of about 2 to 1 would result for the German Elbe River society assuming the costs of most effective measures in the watershed Jahna with 760,000 € (100 % V. Hartje and M. Grossmann conservation tillage on CSAs and catch crops on 20 %, and current funding rates: 85 € ha−1 for inter- Introduction cropping, 68 € ha−1 for conservation tillage). This case study has been developed in the context The assessment of the benefits is primarily of the debate on the restoration of riverine wet- oriented to the objectives of the WFD in the case lands to achieve nature conservation objectives. study. Tangent goals concern soil protection, nature In Germany, the debate ignited on the question conservation, agricultural productivity and others. to what extent the relocation of dikes in riverine An integrated assessment and planning takes the wetlands as a measure for floodplain restoration impact of measures on all relevant target dimen- has positive effects on flood protection or whether sions into account. The area under consideration– they even would constitute a better flood protec- in this case the catchment area of Jahna–therefore, tion strategy than a programme to construct flood represents a common field of action for water polders. This paper contributes to the debate by management, agriculture and nature conservation comparing a dike relocation programme with a (Grunewald and Naumann 2012). polder construction programme, with a cost-ben- 265 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6

. Fig. 6.26 Map of the study area showing the location of the potential retention areas

efit-analysis based on the quantification and mon- The Relocation of Dikes as a Component etisation of selected associated changes of ES. The of a Wetland Restoration Policy at the Elbe covered ES include the reduction of the risks of The focus of this article is an integrated analysis flooding, the reduction of nutrient discharges and of dike relocation as part of a wetland restoration the cost-benefit-analysis includes the maintenance policy instead of being part of three separate sec- of wetlands habitats and species. In the following, toral policies: Preventative flood protection, nature the alternative programmes of measures are pre- conservation and water quality control. The follow- sented before the specific approaches to estimate ing chapter summarises the policy debate in Ger- the changes of the ES and their economic valuation many and describes the valuation scenarios. are explained and the results are presented. Finally, The German part of the Elbe .( Fig. 6.26) can be the article concludes. characterised as a lowland river in a broad alluvial valley downstream of the city of Dresden with a high degree of losses of floodplain wetlands. The 266 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

loss of the wetlands in the floodplain in the up- are drawn from a number of sources (Merkel et al. per and middle range of the Elbe varies with the 2002; Ihringer et al. 2003; IKSE 2004; Förster et al. breadth of the river valley. In the narrower valley of 2005, BfG 2006). If the estimates of the area of the the southern part, the losses of the floodplain wet- sites differ among the sources, the larger alterna- lands have been smaller. When the river enters the tive has been included. A detailed description of broader valley between 50 and 90 % of the historical the sites can be in found in Grossmann et al. (2010). wetlands have been lost due to diking (Brunotte et Here, two options to restore wetlands in the al. 2009). Despite these large losses of the riverine floodplain are considered: Dike relocation and pol- wetlands, the Elbe is still one of the larger free-flow- der. Dike relocations consist of the removal or the ing rivers in Central Europe. cutting of the old dike, and the construction of a The Federal Ministry of the Environment new dike further away from the river which may be (BMU) and the Federal Office for Nature Conserva- shorter in a number of cases. Dike relocations involve tion (BfN) actively support the concept of integrat- a permanent change in land use and imply a reintro- 6 ed management of riverine wetlands (BMU, BfN duction of the functions of the natural wetland. Pol- 2009). With this concept, the mutual advantages ders are designed for a controlled flooding of an area of maintaining and restoring riverine wetlands in enclosed by dikes where the inflow is controlled by the area of flood protection, water quality control, weirs. The advantage of polders is that they are built nature conservation and climate change mitigation to control the inflow into retention areas which allows shall be realised. them to be used to cut the peak of a flood wave effec- Already in the 1990s, Neuschulz and Purps tively. Furthermore, as the polders are only flooded (2000, 2003) surveyed potential large area sites at in extreme cases, continued agricultural land use is the Elbe with a high nature conservation value. possible, but cropping areas have to be converted to They identified 52 potential areas with a total of grassland uses. Thus, retention polders can be viewed 23,249 ha including 11 summer polders. Follow- as a partial restoration strategy. The retention polders ing the great floods in the Elbe basin in the year can be operated in an ‘ecological’ manner by being 2002, the public debate about wetland restoration opened for regular flood events as well, but in extreme via dike relocation intensified considerably. The In- cases they will be closed before the peak of the flood ternational Commission for the Protection of the wave arrives. In the case of an ‘ecological’ operation, Elbe River developed a Flood Protection Action the natural habitats of the riverine wetlands and their Plan (IKSE 2004), which included a comprehensive ecological functions can be restored completely. strategy for flood risk management. In this analysis, the focus is on seven combinations of measures which have been selected to il- Alternative Programmes for Wetland lustrate the scale of the effects of different combina- Restoration tions of sites at varying locations with different areas Here, seven programmes will be analysed and com- (. Table 6.16). These measures will be compared to a pared, summarising various surveys and alterna- baseline which represents the situation according to tive project proposals which were undertaken in the Flood Protection Action Plan of the year 2000. the recent past. However, potential relocation sites The changes of the recent past are not included. involving the risks of life or settlement areas with The programmes of measures have the follow- larger real estate assets were not included. From ing characteristics: these surveys, only those sites were included where 55 Dike R large: Dike relocation without control agricultural and forestry land use could be con- of all 60 potential sites at the Elbe between km verted into wetlands. The total number, the precise 117–536 in the database, independent of their location and the retention volume have been put to origin as a dike relocation. The total restored an intensive public debate afterwards, and they are wetlands cover an area of 34,658 ha with a subject to changes in the planning phases if they are storage volume of 738 Mio. m3. The purpose of to be implemented. For this analysis, the proposals this scenario is to test the potential effect of a for the relocation of dikes and the construction of dike relocation programme which is consider- polders, and the estimates of their retention volume 267 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6

. Table 6.16 Properties of programmes of measures for wetlands restoration

Short Pro- Description Operation of Range Number Polder area Restored wet- gramme title polder (Elbe km) of sites (ha) land area (ha)

Dike R large Dike relocation – 117–536 60 0 34,658 (large area)

Dike R small Dike relocation – 120.5–536 33 0 9432 (small area)

Polder large Controlled polder Flooded at 117–427 31 25,576 0 (large area) peak of extreme floods

Polder small Controlled polder Flooded at 180 5 3248 0 (small area) peak of extreme floods

Polder (ecol) Controlled polder Flooding with 180 5 3248 0 small (small area) with natural water ecological flooding regime

P + Dike R Multifunctional Flooded at 117–536 17 4143 3402 combination peak of extreme floods

P(ecol) + Dike R Multifunctional Flooding with 117–536 17 4143 3402 combination natural water regime

ably larger than the 15,000 ha, which has been assess the hypothetical maximum of damage analysed by Merkel et al. (2002). prevention made possible by increased reten- 55 Dike R small: Dike relocations without con- tion. trol of 33 potential sites recommended in the 55 Polder small: Controlled operation of the five ICPER Flood Protection Action Plan (IKSE largest sites for polder identified by Ihringer 2004) for the section of the Elbe between km et al. (2003) at km 180 with a total area of 120.5 and 536. The total acreage amounts to 3248 ha and a storage volume of 138 Mio. m3. 9432 ha with a storage volume of 251 Mio. m3. The intention of this scenario is to assess the The purpose of this scenario is to assess a pro- contribution of the largest sites compared to a gramme which is considered to be politically maximum potential programme of polders. realistic to implement. 55 Polder (ecol) small: This programme includes 55 Polder large: Controlled operation of 31 po- the sites of Polder small but the flooding imi- tential sites for retention-polder identified tates the natural flooding regime. by the ICPER (2004) at the Elbe between km 55 P + Dike R: This scenario contains a multifunc- 117–427 with a total area of 25,576 ha and a tional programme based on the results of a de- total retention volume of 494 Mio. m3. The tailed study of a federal Water Research Insti- polders in the state of Sachsen-Anhalt have tute, the Bundesanstalt fuer Gewaesserkunde characteristics corresponding to Ihringer et al. (BFG 2006). It includes the construction and (2003), and the included polders at the Havel controlled operation of six polders at the up- comply with the specification of Förster et per part of the Elbe at km 117–180 with a total al. (2005). The purpose of this scenario is to acreage of 4143 ha and a storage volume of 92 Mio. m3. In addition, 11 dike relocations 268 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

with an area of 3402 ha are included. The In the following section, the results of the calcu- polders are operated only for flood protection lation of the individual components are discussed criteria to reduce the peak water level. before they are presented as a summary. 55 P (ecol) + Dike R: This scenario is identical to P + Dike R, only the polders are operated to zz Benefits from a Reduction of Flood risk imitate the natural flooding regime. The benefits of the changed flood risks are measured as avoided average annual flood damages. In Valuation Methods and Data the literature, the changes of the expected values zz Cost-Benefit Analysis of Wetland Restoration of average annual damages are considered as the The cost-benefit analysis is based on the standard adequate method to measure the benefits of flood procedure of a comparison of the programme with protection within a cost-benefit analysis (Penning- the no-programme situation, e.g. in this case the Rowsell et al. 2003; NRC 2000). In a risk-based comparison of the discounted net benefits of the approach, the flood risk is conceptualised as the 6 selected programme of measures with the baseline. product of the physical flood risk (e.g. properties of The costs of the programmes are the sums of the extreme events and the probability of occurrence) individual sites and they consist of three compo- and of the resulting damages. The assessment of nents: First, the costs of the programmes contain the effects of flood protection measures requires a the costs of investments, their maintenance and methodology applicable to a large scale watershed. operations. The costs of maintaining the existing For this paper, a methodology has been used which dikes are identical in the baseline and programme has been developed specifically for the Elbe which scenarios with two exceptions: The construction is described in more detail in de Kok and Gross- and operating costs of the necessary new dike sec- mann (2010). It is a one-dimensional hydraulic tions are counted as project costs, while the saved model which allows to model the effects of planned rehabilitation and maintenance costs of the existing (controlled and noncontrolled) and unplanned re- dikes, which are to be removed or abandoned, are tention (as a consequence of dike failures) for peak calculated as benefits. An additional cost category discharge value. This model is complemented by are the opportunity costs resulting from the loss a model of the topping of the dike‘s crest and by of the original land use, the loss of land rents, here a macro-scale economic model to estimate the re- from the losses of agricultural and forest land rents. sulting damages differentiated according to water In this analysis, four categories of benefits are level as a consequence of the dike’s topping and included. First, the saved costs from reduced re- land-use category. This method permits a compari- habilitation and maintenance of the dikes to be re- son of the flood risks for the range of the whole moved or abandoned are calculated as benefits. In Elbe which has not been possible so far. However, addition, two benefits are based on the change of there are limits to the approach, as additional local ES of the restored wetlands; reduction of the flood lowering of the water table for dike relocation can- damages and nutrient retention. Furthermore, the not be modelled. These models have been applied additional value of the biodiversity of the wetlands to calculate the expected average damage changes is calculated as a benefit. for each programme. The flood risks have been cal- The net benefits are presented as the present value culated on the basis of flood events with a return of the sum of the single net benefits of each programme period of 2, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500 and 1000 years of measures for wetland restoration, compared to the at the gauge in Dresden. baseline scenario, discounted over the lifespan of the The avoided average annual damage is calcu- projects. For this analysis, a discount rate of 3 % is lated as the difference between the damage risks applied and a lifespan of the measures of 100 years with the programme and on the basis of the base- assumed. With the help of a sensitivity analysis, the line scenario. Comparing the total effects, the large effects of a lower discount rate of 1 % and a shorter polder programme (Polder large) is the most effec- lifespan of 30 years of the measures are assessed. tive programme as it causes the highest reduction in expected annual flood damages (. Table 6.17). If 269 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6

. Table 6.17 Avoided average annual damage per area of different programmes of measures

Programmes of measures Restored wetland Avoided average annual damages (€ ha−1) Total area (ha) Share of controlled polder (%)

Dike R large 34,659 0 165

Dike R small 9432 0 68

Polder large 25,576 100 1015

Polder small/P(ecol) small 3248 100 4120

P + Dike R/P(ecol) + Dike R 7545 55 1825

one looks at the specific effects of the larger polder Here, the results of a model are used which es- sites upstream which are included in the large pol- timated the replacement costs as a shadow price der programme, it becomes clear that the small pol- of the retention services of the riverine wetlands der accounts for 50 % of the avoided damages of the on the basis of a cost minimization model to re- larger polder programme. The results show also the duce nutrient discharges in a river basin. The study economies of scale as the additional storage volume is based on the nutrient quality objectives which does reduce the avoided damages significantly. Fur- have been developed in the context of the man- thermore, it becomes clear that the avoided dam- agement plan of the Elbe to achieve the objectives ages due to the dike relocations are considerably of the EU Water Framework Directive of achiev- smaller without a control of the retention (Dike R ing a good ecological status of riverine and coastal large and Dike R small). waters (FGG Elbe 2009). The current objective is formulated to reduce the phosphorus and nitrogen zz Benefits from Nutrient Retention discharges stepwise by a total of 24 %, with each For the valuation of the benefits from the reten- step achieving a third of the total objective in the tion of nutrient, an indirect method on the basis of reporting period ending in 2014, 2021 und 2027. avoidance costs is used. The method of avoidance The details of the minimization model and its ap- or replacement costs relies on the consideration plication to the Elbe are presented in more detail in that the willingness to pay for an improvement of Grossmann (2012a). environmental quality is at least equal or higher . Table 6.18 shows the results of the estimates of than the costs that environmental policy is pre- the shadow price of the restored riverine wetland. pared to incur to improve environmental quality. The shadow price reflects the change of the total Values estimated on the basis of the replacement costs when an additional unit of the “average, annu- costs method do not constitute a direct estimate ally flooded wetland” becomes available or is miss- of the benefits of ES for the society (e.g. the value ing. The results show the effects of the increasing of cleaner water). But this method can be used as minimum requirements and the size of the wetland an indirect method of valuing ES if the following restoration programme on the shadow price: First, conditions are fulfilled (NRC2005 ; Turner et al. the shadow price increases with increasing stringen- 2008): (1) The alternative used as an replacement cy of the water quality objective and secondly, the generates a similar ecosystem service as a natural shadow price falls with increasing restored wetland wetland, (2) the alternative used in comparison is area. The shadow price for a marginal increase of the the least-cost option and (3) there should be con- area from the current level with a reduction rate of vincing evidence that a social demand for the ser- 5 % with a value of 1716 €/ha increases with the re- vices exists on the basis of the least-cost alternative. duction rate up to 35 % up to a value of 52,914 €/ha. 270 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Table 6.18 Shadow price (limit value) of nutrient retention of additional area of restored riverine wetlands of the Elbe (in € per ha for the average annually flooded area)a

Additional areab Reduction objectives for total load of nitrogen and phosphorus (ha) 5 % 15 % 25 % 35 %

1 1716 € ha−1 12,218 € ha−1 23,416 € ha−1 52,914 € ha−1

1500 1531 € ha−1 11,849 € ha−1 19,809 € ha−1 40,407 € ha−1

a with a retention rate of 0,8 kg P ha−1 d −1 and 1,5 kg N ha−1d−1 for the flooded wetland area b wetland area on average flooded annually

The shadow price for an additional marginal in- wetlands along the Elbe river. Detailed information 6 crease after the restoration of 1718 ha increases then has been presented in two publications (Meyerhoff from 1531 €/ha with a reduction objective of 5 % up 2003, 2006). These studies estimate the annual WTP to 40,407 €/ha for a reduction objective of 35 %. of the German population for a programme of riverine wetlands restoration, consisting of the main- zz Benefits from an Improvement of the tenance of 40,000 ha of existing floodplain wetlands Habitat and Biodiversity Function and the reconstruction of additional 15,000 ha wet- To value the restoration of the wetland habitats and lands via dike relocation. These studies found an their biodiversity, the results of WTP studies are average annual willingness to pay per household of used to cover the share of benefits resulting from 5.30 €. The figure includes protest answers as true nonconsumptive uses. Nonconsumptive uses arise zero answers, it is adjusted for outliers and it takes when the ecosystem is used without the withdrawal account of the embedding effect. of biomass. They are based on the enjoyment qual- Assuming that wetlands are a normal good, ity of the ecosystem and on recreational activities economic theory proposes that the values of the (such as the enjoyment of a view of a landscape) wetlands depend on the amount of the proposed and on the ‘nonuse’-values of maintaining the nat- measures. Therefore, the above mean WTP, which ural heritage for future generations, independent constitutes a point value, is complemented with an of individual considerations for own use, e.g. for estimate of the demand elasticity, based on a meta- recreational purposes (Turner et al. 2008). The eco- analysis of valuation studies of wetlands. This al- nomic values of nonuse of biodiversity and habitats lows to develop a valuation function depending on can be of considerable magnitude, but they are very the size of the programme. To save space, the de- difficult to measure. Revealed preference methods, tails of the meta-analytical estimates can be found as the travel cost methods and hedonic pricing ap- in Grossmann (2012b). The results show that the proaches, have not been applied to value changes estimates of the WTP depend on the size of the proof biodiversity, as they require a basis on terms posed measures of wetlands protection, measured of use which is usually related to recreation. But in terms of the area of the wetlands, and that the these methods are not able to measure nonuse val- average willingness to pay increases with the size of ues of changes in the landscape. Stated preference the area, but with a declining rate. The meta-anal- methods as the WTP or choice experiments are ysis is specified in a log-linear form, with both the the only techniques appropriate to value changes dependent variable (WTP) and the independent in biodiversity which contain elements of nonuse variable, the size of the included wetlands, formu- (7 Sect. 4.2). lated logarithmically. In this case, the coefficients For the valuation of this benefit component, of the variables can be interpreted as the demand the results of two studies are used. First, the results elasticity, here estimated to be 0.3. Combined with of a primary study are used which estimated the the point estimate of the WTP from the primary willingness to pay for the restoration of the riverine study at the Elbe, the value of the demand elasticity 271 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6

. Table 6.19 Estimated willingness-to-pay for the maintenance and restoration of riverine wetlands habitats and their biodiversity at the Elbe river

Unit Restored wetland area (ha)

5000 15,000 20,000 35,000 45,000 55,000

WTP per household €/householda 3.1 3.8 4.3 4.7 5.0 5.3

Aggregated WTP per area €/hab 5142 2142 1461 1134 936 810

a on the basis of an average WTP per household of 5.30 € (2005) for an wetland protection programmes of 55,000 ha and a price elasticity of 0.3. b on the basis of a population of 18.5 Mio. in the Elbe river basin and 2.2 persons per household. used to derive the WTP as a function of the area of changes. For the conversion of agricultural land the restored wetlands (. Table 6.19). into a polder which will only be flooded in extreme events, an agricultural land use can continue. Here, zz Cost Estimates it is assumed that cropland will be converted into The largest share of the financial costs of dike relo- grassland so that the opportunity costs can be cal- cations typically consists of the construction costs culated on the basis of the lowered contribution and the costs of acquiring the land from the current margin. Additional opportunity costs arise from the landowners. Here, the economic costs are used as a irregular flooding of the polder areas. The loss de- basis for calculation: the costs of the construction, pends of the expected frequency during the growth maintenance and operation of the flood protection period which is assumed to be every 20 years. infrastructure and the opportunity costs of the re- The total costs have been calculated for each of sulting land-use changes. The costs of the construc- the 60 sites on the basis of a dataset which contains tion and the maintenance of the flood protection information about the size, the share of grassland, infrastructure are the capital and labour costs for of cropland, of forested area, the length of the new the construction of the new dikes, the cutting of the dike, the number of the new weirs, the length of the old dikes and the dike improvement and the weirs old dikes which can be cut or removed and their of the polder as well as the construction works for status with respect to rehabilitation. The data about the adjusted landscape. Then, the maintenance and the dike infrastructure are based on a survey under- operation cost of the weirs, the dikes and landscape taken by the ICPER (IKSE 2001) which takes into changes are added. account the status of the infrastructure as of 2000. The opportunity costs of the change of agricultural land use are differentiated in two categories: Results of the Cost-Benefit Analysis First, the permanent change from agricultural land The most important results of the cost-benefit use to nature conservation in the restored wetland analysis are presented in . Table 6.20. The results and, second, the permanent change from cropping are shown as Net Present Value (NPV) and as Ben- to grassland uses in the polder areas. In the case of efit Cost Ratio (BNR) from two valuation perspec- the conversion to nature conservation, the oppor- tives: First, only from a flood protection perspective tunity costs of agricultural and forestry land uses and, second, with an integrated floodplain manage- are equivalent to the accumulated value of the lost ment perspective. The programmes with the high- production, less the variable production costs. This est NPV have the highest economic net benefit and, corresponds roughly to the purchase price of land. thus, the highest contribution to an improvement of Thus, the purchase prices for forested areas, crop- potential social welfare. When a restriction of the land and grazing land have been used to estimate available funds exists which prevents the whole pro- the opportunity costs of the permanent land-use gramme from being implemented, then the benefit 272 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Table 6.20 Net Present Value and Benefit Cost Ratio of the wetlands restoration programmes

Programme Area Flood protec- Integration Ecosystem Flood pro- Integration Ecosystem tion only services, biodiversity tection only services, biodiversity, NPV NPV BCR BCR

(ha) (Mio. €)a (Mio. €)a (–) (–)

Dike R large 34,659 −128 2520 0.8 5.8

Dike R small 9432 −69 1465 0.7 7.6

Polder large 25,577 354 354 1.8 1.8

Polder small 3248 331 331 5.0 5.0

P(ecol) small 3248 352 1396 6.6 23.1 6 P + Dike R 7545 300 1375 2.8 9.0 P(ecol) + Dike R 7545 326 1481 3.2 11.2

a discount rate 3 %, lifespan of 100 years

costs ratio is a helpful indicator in ranking the proj- R small; Polder + Dike R) enter the higher ranks ects for which funds are available. because of larger BCR. The programmes which do From a flood protection perspective, the BCR not offer additional ES (Polder large, Polder small) for the small polder programme in the upstream obtain only lower ranks. area of the German part of the river is the highest The total net present value gives an indication (polder small and P(ecol). The BCR for the proof the potential absolute increase of social wel- gramme with the imitation of the natural flood- fare which can be achieved with the various pro- ing regime is the highest because the additional grammes. With the perspective of an integrated benefits add up. The combination of the polder floodplain management, the increase is the largest in the upstream area with a dike relocation (P + with the large dike relocation programme (Dike Dike/ P(ecol) + Dike R) reduces the BCR since the R large) with 35,000 ha. The other programmes dike relocation programmes (Dike R large; Dike R with dike relocation or other programmes with small) have a BCR smaller than one from a flood components to restore wetlands (Dike R small; protection perspective. The programme with the Polder (ecol) small; Polder + Dike R; P(ecol) + Dike additional number of polder along the river (Pol- R) with smaller areas, varying between 3200 and der large) has a lower BCR as well as the additional 9400 ha, generate high net present values as well. reduction of flood damages is relatively small. Finally, a sensitivity analysis of the results has The picture changes when the perspective is been performed to analyse the influence of assump- broadened to an integrated floodplain management tions of key variables: (a) discount rate (b) lifespan perspective, and the economic values of the biodi- (c) costs and benefits of the ES. The first interesting versity and the ecosystem service nutrient retention result is that all programmes have a positive NPV are included. First, the BCR of those programmes when the lifespan of the projects are reduced by 30 are higher which generate additional benefits with years, roughly a third of the expected economic life the restoration of the floodplain wetlands. Second, of the dikes. A lower discount rate increases the the ranking changes since they generate biodiver- NPV further. The effects of changes of the assumed sity and nutrient retention benefits additional to costs and of the benefits of ES are disproportional, the high flood protection net benefits due to their and they do not cause a change of the NPV to a neg- imitation of the natural flooding regime. The pro- ative value with one exception: The size of the effect grammes with dike relocations (Dike R large; Dike depends on the project types in the programme and 273 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6 the share of the benefit they generate. For the pro- methods to a German river basin illustrating the grammes which restore wetlands habitats, halving economic advantages of restoring riverine wetlands the benefits from biodiversity maintenance reduces on a larger scale. But it remains to note that for a the total results by 24–35 %, a halving of the benefits broader application in public decision-making an from nutrient retention reduces the total net ben- improvement of the methods and the data basis is efits by 4–19 % and a halving of the flood protection required as well as the quantification and modelling benefits lowers the results by 1–16 %. An increase of of the biophysical dimensions of ES and their eco- the costs by 50 % reduces the NPV only between 3 nomic valuation. and 6 %. Finally, a joint increase of the costs by 50 % and a halving of all ES lead to a reduction of the NPV between 55 and 62 %. The sensitivity analysis 6.6.4 Peatland Use in shows that the core results of this study concern- Mecklenburg-Western ing the positive economic effects of a floodplain Pomerania, Germany: wetland restoration are stable, even under a broad Monetarization of the Ecosystem range of alternative assumptions concerning costs Service Climate Protection and benefits. A. Schäfer Policy Implications and Conclusions It is possible to include the economic value of bio- Natural water-saturated peatlands bind the car- diversity and ES in a cost-benefit analysis, com- bon contained in dead plants as peat. Peatlands paring dike relocations with a polder-based flood are an important component of the global carbon protection policy. This potential can be a contri- cycle; they store twice as much carbon as do forests bution to include the economic perspective in the (Joosten and Couwenberg 2008). Drainage and ag- decision-making process with efficiency as an ob- ricultural use rob them of their original ecosystem- jective. The main result of this empirical study is ic function, since the aeration of the soil initiates a that the large-scale restoration of riverine wetlands process of mineralisation which, together with the leads to an increase of efficiency. The integration peatland subsidence caused by the compaction of of additional benefit categories, as the economic the peat, leads to peat depletion. As a result, the value of biodiversity and ES, allows a better evalu- nutrients–N and P–bound within the peat, and ation of the multifunctional quality of projects the humins in adjacent bodies of water, as well as and to identify priorities for decision-making for climate-relevant trace gases, are emitted into the an integrated floodplain management approach. atmosphere. The result is that an accumulating eco- The results presented here only cover two ES of system becomes an ecosystem which releases nu- wetlands in general and riverine wetlands in par- trients into the environment (Koppisch 2001; Au- ticular. The literature lists more ES which should gustin 2001; Grunewald et al. 2011; Zak et al. 2011). be included for a complete valuation of riverine Modern agricultural use, which depends on wetlands (Turner et al. 2008). Especially the bene- continual drainage, causes an additional degrada- fits from the sequestration of greenhouse gases are tion of peatland sites, with the result of the level expected to be of substantial importance (Jenkins of the peatland surface drops ever further below et al. 2010). that of the natural runoff capacity, so that its water- management regulation requirement–drainage in Conclusion the spring and water input in the summer–becomes It should be clear that the standard cost-benefit ever more costly (Kuntze 1983; Succow 1988). In analysis commonly applied for flood protection addition to the other existing site related difficul- purposes needs to be extended to include the ben- ties, the agricultural production conditions have efits from ES, providing a basis for an integrated changed greatly during the past two decades. As a floodplain management. This study is an example result of breeding and technological progress, and for the applicability of the existing approaches and 274 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Table 6.21 Land use and GHG emissions of peatlands in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. (Source: own calculations after MSK Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 2009, p. 29)

Land use ha TCDE ha−1a−1 TCDE

Close to nature management 38,445 2.2 83,142

Unused 51,760 14.4 746,214

Forest 44,178 17.8 787,572

Agricultural usage 171,307 26.0 4,449,789

– Humid grassland, 20,790 16.5 343,035 salt meadows

– Grassland (extensive) 17,516 15.0 262,740 6 – Grassland (intensive) 96,439 24.0 2,314,536 – Field 36,562 43.2 1,579,478

Total area 305,690 20.1 6,158,303

the structural transformation in dairy farming, the gas) emissions of peat mineralization into account, use of grassland for raw feed production has de- maize cultivation on drained peatlands for the pro-

clined in importance in recent years. Overall, we duction of biogas causes emissions of 880 g CO2/MJ have for years seen a decline in the stock of cattle (Couwenberg 2007). and at the same time, increased demands on the The peatland areas in Mecklenburg-Western quality of the basic fodder in Mecklenburg-West- Pomerania cover 305,690 ha (MSK Mecklenburg- ern Pomerania–and not only there. The estimated Vorpommern 2009). A small part of that surface requirement for grassland, based on the stock of is in near-natural condition and/or not used. To- cattle, is considerably lower than the potential of gether with the drained forest peatlands, peatland grassland areas available in Mecklenburg-Western surfaces account for approximately one quarter of Pomerania. Purely arithmetically, an excess of GHG emissions in the state, the bulk of which is grassland of 66,800 ha existed in 2009 (Benecke caused by intensively used grassland and farmland 2009). for the cultivation of grass silage and maize (corn) Due to high requirements for grassland, dairy for dairy and biogas production (. Table 6.21). operations with very high outputs of milk have Hence, there is a clear trade-off between two wel- caused fodder production to shift increasingly to fare-relevant ES: climate protection on the one farmland. Extensive animal husbandry with suckler hand and the productive function for the genera- cows, which has been significant in Mecklenburg- tion of agricultural products (meat and milk) and Western Pomerania in terms of the area used, is, as biomass for energy crops (biogas) on the other. an “economically fragile form of land use,” highly dependent on subsidies (Müller and Heilmann Economic Valuation of the ES 2011). Opportunities are seen in the use of grassland An economic valuation of peatland-use-associated plants as energy crops (MLUV MV 2011). However, ES always involves a balancing of considerations these opportunities should be viewed very critically between various alternatives, under conditions of on drained fen sites, since drainage-based agricul- scarcity (7 Sect. 4.2). ES are welfare relevant, since ture overall releases considerably more greenhouse they provide utility and reduce scarcity. Prices are gases than the direct burning of peat. In terms of an important indicator for scarcity, ensuring thrifty heating value, the emission factors of peat are 106 g management of goods in short supply. A compre-

CO2/MJ. Taking site-related GHG (greenhouse hensive accounting for the monetary effects can 275 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6 ensure that the economic costs and benefits of peat- 2007), but is clearly a failure of policy, since, due to land use and possible measures for climate protec- policy decisions, the polluter-pays principle, which tion (rewetting and land-use change) are revealed. is fundamental to environmental policy, has been Thus, the monetarisation of ES is an important turned upside down. foundation for policy decision-making and the for- More than 42 million tons of CO2 equivalents mulation of economic-policy control instruments. (MTCDE) are emitted in Germany every year due That is especially important if there are competing to nonsustainable peatland use. These emissions use possibilities between various ES. considerably exceed the reduction obligations in- Many environmental problems arise due to the cumbent upon Germany’s energy and industrial fact that the goods and services provided by nature enterprises (15 MTCDE), and the private house- have no price–they are cost-free. As a result, the de- hold and transportation sectors (22 MTCDE) mand exceeds the available supply, resulting in an (UBA 2009). This generates external costs, since it overuse of scarce resources. According to the prin- means that considerable funds need to be spent in ciple of the primacy of sustainability, the long-term other parts of the economy to achieve climate goals effects of actions must be taken into account in the (abatement costs). case of climate-relevant scarcity problems. Accord- ing to the concept of sustainable development, the Quantification of GHG Emissions natural absorption capacity of ecosystems should and of Reduction Potentials not be exceeded, and the functionality of ecosys- The external costs of peatland use and the ES for tems not be eliminated due to economic activity climate protection induced by land-use change (Geisendorf et al. 1998; Ott and Döring 2004). The can be monetarised with the instruments of cost- concept of sustainable development demands that benefit analysis (Schäfer and Degenhardt 1999; scarce natural resources are used in an environ- Schäfer 2009). The monetarisation of the costs of mentally compatible and economically sensible peatland use and the associated environmental manner, and that prices express ‘ecological truth’ damage thus provides important information for (von Weizsäcker 1989). the internalization of external effects. The precon- The current agricultural use of peatlands in- dition for the estimation of climate-change costs is volves costs, since there are competing or mutually that the GHG emissions of traditional agricultural exclusive use possibilities between the two welfare- peatland use and the potential for GHG reduc- relevant ES, production or supply ES versus climate tions as a result of rewetting is estimated with suf- protection ES (opportunity costs). Moreover, the ficient precision. use of peatland, dependent as it is on drainage, The quantification of GHG flows caused by causes negative external effects in the form of cli- peatland use depends on various site parameters, mate damage, and also detracts from other impor- e.g. water level, temperature, or vegetation growth, tant ecosystem functions (e.g. nutrient input, or the which vary considerably on a seasonal basis, as well water balance of the landscape). as from year to year (Roulet et al. 2007; Maljanen et According to the polluter-pays principle, the al. 2010). For the establishment of GHG account- costs of environmental use which occur as a result ing, long-term measurements are needed in order of economic activity are to be assigned to the party to cover the daily, seasonal and annual variability. causing that activity. While in other economic sec- Direct measurement procedures for full-scale as- tors with suitable market-economic instruments, certainment of GHG flows are very costly, and can- such as the eco-tax or certificate trading, an inter- not be applied on a full-scale basis. However, they nalisation of external costs already exists, the ag- can be used on selected areas in order to develop, ricultural use of peatland is in fact promoted by calibrate and verify simple and pragmatically ap- subsidies–especially direct payments and allow- plicable models (indicators or proxies), with which ances under the German Renewable Energies Act. GHG flows can then be quantified in practice in Government support for agricultural peatland-use much larger areas. is not due to any failure of the market (Fritsch et al. 276 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

. Fig. 6.27 GHG emissions, mean water level and land use. (Modified after Couwenberg et al. 2008)

Meta analyses of the large number of data from plants with coarse aerenchyma; however, nutrient all over the world have shown that the mean annual levels, pH values and land use were also observed. water level is the best single quantum for explain- With the GEST approach, GHG flows of drained ing annual GHG flows from peatlands. Evaluation and rewetted peatlands could be quantified, trends

of the data indicated that the measurement of N2O and regularities between emissions and site pa- flows is more difficult, due to the greater variabil- rameters recorded, sites with similar emissions ity over time. Measurement results provided in the behavior categorised, and hence climate-relevant literature are to some extent contradictory, and ES estimated. Figure 6.27 scatter very erratically. Since N2O emissions always . shows the connection between drop after rewetting, nonconsideration of this fac- drainage depth, agricultural and silvicultural use tor yields a conservative estimate of savings poten- possibilities and GHG emissions. It shows clearly tials (Couwenberg et al. 2008, 2010). that the mean water level is closely correlated to the On the basis of the vegetation-form concept use of peatlands (. Fig. 6.27). of Koska et al. (2001), Couwenberg et al. (2011) In case of water levels of more than 20 cm below established an overview of all possible vegetation surface, GHG emissions are determined exclusively

types in central European peatlands. These vegeta- by CO2 emissions. If the water level is higher, CH4 tion types clearly represent the mean water levels emissions also occur, and the downward curve of

of peatland sites. In the context of meta-studies, CO2 emissions is deflected, although it continues vegetation types were merged with a large num- to drop overall. The annual emissions of deeply ber of greenhouse-gas emissions measurements. drained peatlands (water stage 2 +, mean water lev- The resulting matrix permitted extrapolation and els 50 to 140 cm below surface) amount to some 22–

interpolation of measured flow rates along various 24 TCDE/ha, not counting N2O emissions. For an axes of site conditions. The resulting greenhouse- extensive pasturing and conservation-appropriate gas emissions site types (GEST) were based pri- grassland use, mean water levels of 5–35 cm below marily on water levels and presence/absence of surface (water stages 3 + through 4 +) are required. 277 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6

The GHG emissions here are approximately 10 to 15 engendered by the emission of additional TCDE, TCDE/ha/yr (Couwenberg 2011). and should not be confused with the overall cost of Site-adapted wet farming procedures are pos- climate change, or with the average costs of GHG sible at considerably higher mean water levels (wa- emissions. Damage costs are calculated with the ter stages 4 + through 5 +; mean water level 5–15 cm aid of integrated evaluation models, with which below surface). The rewetted peatland sites can be climate systems and their interactions with the utilised for growing biomass–red, canarygrass, socio-economic system are modelled in scenarios, sedge and bulrush stands (Wichtmann and Schäfer and the damage costs ascertained, dependent on 2005; Wichmann and Wichtmann 2011)–both for the various stabilization goals, GHG emissions and energy-crop and material use, or for the cultiva- GHG paths. tion of high grade alderwood (Schäfer and Joosten The amount of the cost depends on the point 2005). In this way, fossil fuels can be substituted, in time of emissions, the development of the over- and additional climate-relevant GHG emissions re- all GHG emissions, and a number of assumptions, ductions realised. such as time horizons, discount rates, or regional damage distributions. In view of the long-term ef- Monetarisation of ES and its External fects of climate change, the ascertainment of GHG Effects damage costs by means of various methods involves With respect to the monetarisation of the two various methodological difficulties (Kuick et al. welfare-relevant ES which we are focusing on here, 2008) and normative assumptions which are dif- the production function and the climate protection ficult to justify (Schelling 1995; Lind and Schuler function, the question arises from an economic 1998; Hampicke 2011). Due to the different as- point of view: What monetary value is generated by sumptions, the results also vary within a relatively traditional farming of peatlands, and what climate- broad spectrum between € 14 and € 300/TCDE damaging effects might that cause? An economic (Clarkson and Deyes 2002; Pearce 2003; Downing valuation of the external costs accompanying agri- et al. 2005). Various authors point to the fact that cultural peatland use can be carried out by means existing studies underestimate the cost of climate of the value-added method. Under this method, the change because they take into account singular and value added by the production process is compared extreme events with serious implications, and the to the costs engendered by GHG damage. The val- cost of adaptation to climate change are only being ue-added method does not claim to ascertain the minimally taken into account (Tol 2005; Watkiss et entire economic utility–the total economic value al. 2005; Stern 2007). (Pearce 1993; 7 Sect. 4.2.2). Rewetting and land-use In spite of the existing insecurities, practical change are connected with further welfare-relevant economic policy requires an orientation quan- use benefits, e.g. biodiversity, stabilisation of the tum with which to evaluate the effects of climate water balance of the landscape, or support for the change. The methodological convention for the microclimate. A monetarisation of this additional economic valuation of the environmental damage utility includes not only use-dependent value, but presented by the German Federal Environment also nonuse-dependent values which can be ascer- Agency requires that the external costs of public in- tained by using the suitable methods (e.g. WTP vestments be incorporated into the decision-mak- analyses). The avoided damage costs as a result of ing process (UBA 2007). Based on an evaluation rewetting and land-use change can thus be inter- of the extensive literature on the cost of climate preted as the lower limit of the utility of the mea- change, the methodological convention recom- sures. mends the use of marginal damage costs of € 70/ Damage costs are the current value of climate TCDE as the best estimate value. The consistent change damage which the unit (TCDE) of the use of the methodological convention will result in greenhouse gas emitted today will cause in the fu- this estimated value also being taken into account ture. These costs are marginal costs, i.e. the costs for the calculation of external costs for nonsustain- 278 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

able peatland use. Intensive farming and pasturing surface in operational use in the period from 2005 in the area under investigation cause the emission through 2010. For an overall economic analysis, al- of 20 MTCDE/yr (Schäfer 2009). lowances and subsidies must be subtracted from The nationwide farm accountancy data net- that. These farms received an average of € 370/ha in work is an important database to the evaluation allowances and subsidies during the operating years of the economic success of agricultural operations 2005 through 2010. Without these payments, these (BMELV 2011a). Evaluation of added value based farms thus generated an added value of € 287/ha. on market prices has the advantage that it can be For the pasturing farms with no particular carried out on the basis of very reliable databases. major emphasis, average operational income was The economic results of representatively evaluated € 324/ha, considerably less than the intensively agricultural enterprises are gathered in the German operating dairy farms. These operations received states by the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture € 388/ha in allowances and subsidies, somewhat and Consumer Protection according to uniform, more than the dairy farms. Without these govern- 6 annually updated methods in the context of its ac- ment payments, the operational value added is counting process for testing and requirements. In negative. However, it should be noted that these addition to other economic success indicators, op- payments are to some extent compensation for erational revenue is a very well-suited indicator for services rendered in the context of the agriculture/ the value added by an enterprise, since it also con- environmental programmes for the implementa- tains medium and long-term effective operational tion of conservation goals, such as the Natura 2000 expenses from the fixed costs. The added value is Network or the Habitats Directive. This involves the amount available for the payment of all income income from state payments made directly from factors used in the enterprise. In the national ac- the public purse which is both product and cost/ countancy, the operational revenue of the added operationally referenced. value of an enterprise corresponds to the gross do- A juxtaposition of the value-added and the mestic product. external damage costs related to climate change The enterprises operating on peatland sites –€ 595/ha/yr. versus € 1680/ha/yr.–shows that the in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania are largely value added by drainage-based agricultural use is specialised forage growing farms, while the dairy considerably higher than the value added by meat farms can be classified as either primarily milk- and milk production (. Table 6.22). cow dairy farms, or as pasturing cattle farms with no particular major emphasis. The classification of Avoided Damage Costs by Means of an enterprise is determined according to the rela- Rewetting and Environmentally tive shares of various types of production in the Compatible Use company’s overall standard gross margin. Inten- The ES situation could be improved by a change in sively operating dairy farms require deeply drained land use. This could reduce the cost of damage due surfaces (water stage 2 +, 2−) with a functioning to climate change. It should be noted that the avoid- runoff capacity. Pasturing farms run sites with sim- ance of the cost of damage is to be interpreted as the ply regulatable water conditions (water stage 3 +, lower limit for the utility of the measures; however, 3−). Extensive utilisation of hydrologically diffi- they should not be confused with abatement costs. cult peatland sites is practiced by farms in order The latter are costs to the national economy orient- to maintain the minimum care condition that is a ed towards stipulated minimum goals or reduction precondition for eligibility for premiums (Müller obligations. They reflect the opportunity costs of and Heilmann 2011). possible alternative uses due to rewetting and land- According to the evaluation of the farm account use change. data network in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania After rewetting of the drained peatland sites, (LFA o. J.), intensively operating dairy farms had various measures for these sites may be considered: an average operating income of € 657/ha of land 55 Rewetting of farmland, grassland or unused fallow land (wilderness) 279 6.6 • Specific Nature Protection and Development Strategies 6

. Table 6.22 GHG emissions of conventional agricultural use on drained peatlands

Utilization categorya Water level GHG emissionsb Damage costc (TCDE ha−1a−1) (€ ha−1a−1)

Dairy cows 2 +, 2− 24.0 1680

Yearling bulls, dry and suckler cows 3 +, 3− 15.0 1050

Continuous grazing with low stocking rates and meadows 4 + to 3 +/3− 8.5 595

a Utilization category according to Müller and Heilmann 2011 b GHG emissions after Couwenberg et al. 2008 c after UBA 2007

55 Extensive grassland-use after rewetting of If the area is not to be used further, there may be farmland and heavily drained grassland further costs for the purchase of other land. When 55 Rewetting of farmland, grassland or fallows ascertaining economic abatement costs at the na- with environmental use of biomass (reed, tional level, costs for land purchase can only be canarygrass and sedge beds taken into account if the price of the land reflects 55 New forest formation by afforestation and/or the consumption value of the production factor succession after rewetting soil that is consumed. However, since land prices receive a high level of subsidies–often climate- Depending on the initial situation and the inten- damaging subsidies–this ascertainment of the na- sity of the rewetting achieved, the implementation tional economic abatement costs must include the of the measures yields a broad spectrum of pos- subtraction of subsidies (e.g. single-area payments) sibilities for GHG reduction potentials (Schäfer and other transfer payments, since they are pro- 2009). Between 2000 and 2008, some 30,000 ha of vided as transfer payments with no quid pro quo. peatland were rewetted in Mecklenburg-Western The abatement costs of site-appropriate use al- Pomerania. In these areas, an average of 10 TCDE/ ternatives, on the other hand, are considerably low- ha are saved annually (MSK Mecklenburg-Vor- er, because there are no costs for land purchase. In pommern 2009). the case of environmentally compatible high-qual- The cost of the implementation of these mea- ity alderwood production, abatement costs, very sures involves primarily planning and construction conservatively estimated, are between € 0 and € 4/ costs. The costs for the 33 rewetting measures car- TCDE (Schäfer and Joosten 2005). A comparison ried out in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania prior of abatement costs with other climate-protection to 2003 came to an average of € 1070/ha (Schäfer measures in bioenergy production (Isermeyer et al. and Joosten 2005). In the Müritz National Park, 2008) shows that wetland production procedures various measures for the restoration of a near-nat- are certainly an interesting alternative, even from ural water balance have been carried out in recent an economic point of view. years. The area-referenced costs for the implementation of the measures come to € 832/ha (Rowinski Conclusion and Kobel 2011). The annual costs can be ascer- The economic valuation of the ES connected with tained as a perpetuity. At an interest rate of 2 % agricultural peatland use can constitute an im- (4 %), these come to € 41.60 (€ 83.20)/ha. Assuming portant foundation for policy-goal definition and that these measures could save 10 TCDE annually, the formulation of economic policy control instru- the abatement costs of € 4.16 (€ 8.32)/ha would be ments. The methodological basis for the evaluation considerably lower than those of other climate- is based on an expanded national economic cost- protection measures (Enkvist et al. 2007). benefit analysis in which external factors are also taken into account. 280 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

An important precondition for the evaluation Grassland in Germany, 7 Sect. 6.2.4) there was no is the physical quantification of GHG emissions, primary focus on a specific region. Since typical which can be represented with the aid of the GEST ecosystems and problems have been assessed, fun- approach. The welfare effects of the external ef- damental statements and knowledge are applicable fects and of the ES can then be shown in monetary context-specific. quanta with the aid of value-added amounts and According to the specific issues and objectives climate-damage costs. In that way, the demands for respective methods, procedures and techniques sustainable land use can be taken into account and (7 Chap. 4 and 5) were selected and used to analyse the additional use of possible alternatives revealed. and assess the ES. However, the case studies had A monetarisation of climate damage according mostly ‘pilot or test character’ for the ES concept. to the methodological convention of the German Therefore it was important to present the data, in- Environment Agency shows that the marginal dam- dicators and linkage rules to be comprehensible. age costs are many times greater than the value- Several case studies (7 Sect. 6.2.2, 7 Sect. 6.5.2) have 6 added with traditional agricultural peatland use. not had the aim evaluating the ES in the first place. The abatement costs of sustainable use alternatives, However, containing essential facets of the ES con- on the other hand, are relatively low, and associated cept, they have been part of the discussions. with additional welfare-relevant use provisions. In 10 out of 11 cases regulation-ES have been the centre of attention like illustrated in . Table 6.23. Also, (socio)cultural ES have been processed in 6.7 Systematisation of the Case more than half of the examples even though these Studies are economically difficult to capture. Only few individual ES have been evaluated. Consequent analysis K. Grunewald and O. Bastian of the so-called ‘total values’ and of all ‘trade-offs’ seems unrealistic with the selected studies. In the previous chapters eleven case studies with Qualitative and quantitative ES assessments various ES-application aspects have been shown. have represented the fundamentals of the selected Together with the examples in 7 Chap. 3, 7 Chap. 4 studies of ES investigations which most likely had and 7 Chap. 5 they are definitely representative for been imbedded in research projects. Economic/ the present situation in Germany, but they do not monetary observations of costs and/or benefits of make a claim for completeness. services and values have been taken into account in According to the dominant land-use character almost all case studies (. Table 6.23). However, the in Central Europe the focus was based on agro-, assessments of urban ES (7 Sect. 6.4) and (socio) forest- and urban-ecosystems (. Table 6.23). Pro- cultural ES of the meadow orchards (7 Sect. 6.5.1) tected areas have been discussed by means of the indicate that economic accounting is not necessary Natura−2000 network (7 Sect. 6.6.1). They cover a in every case. significant share of the German territory, too, and To achieve practical efficiency and acceptance are of great importance to the provision and con- of the stakeholders it is appropriate to get the public, servation of ES and biodiversity as well as to the particularly the users, owners and decision makers sustainable land utilization. involved into the assessment process right from In the case studies, the concept and classifica- the beginning. In this respect alternative land-use tion system, explained in previous chapters (e.g. scenarios with their ES or disservices (7 Sect. 2.1) EPPS-framework, 7 Sect. 3.1.2), has been used should be addressed in their effects and space-time mainly. Space and time aspects were explicitly structure. applied each whereby the reference units are as- The presented case studies verify that the ES sociated to the local/regional level. Particularly concept can be applied for very different questions in the assessment of cultural landscape/landscape in the areas of land use, landscape management and management (7 Sect. 6.5) the landscape approach nature-/environment protection. We do not share was consciously used. Only in one case (HNV- the opinion that the approach is more suitable for 281 6.7 • Systematization of the Case Studies 6 ), tourists Landschaftspflegeverbände Farmer Regional communities/local people communities/local Regional – Farmer, Environmental Authority Environmental Farmer, – – – Environmental Authority, landscape landscape Authority, Environmental - ( Land associations maintenance schaftspflegeverbände ) landscape maintenance associations associations landscape maintenance ( Farmer, authorities Farmer, – Stakeholder groups involved in the in the involved groups Stakeholder assessments x x x x x x x x x x tion (monetary) Costs Benefits x (x) (x) x x x x Considered ESConsidered - valua Economic x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (x) x Ecosystem Ecosystem type u a f P R C forestry (socio)cultural ES (socio)cultural - ) 2 ) ) 2 2 ) 2 ) 2 agricultural, f agricultural, ) in Germany regulation-, C regulation-, 2 ) 2 ) 2 urban; a ) 2 esented ES case studies esented ) provisioning, R provisioning, 2 Sect. 3.2): P HNV-Grassland (ca. 10‘000 kmHNV-Grassland City of Leipzig in Saxony (ca. 300 km in Saxony City of Leipzig Model region (17,599 km²) (17,599 in the North-EastModel region ern German Lowland Floodplains in the Elbe river basin (350 km in the Elbe river Floodplains State of Saxony (18,400 km of Saxony State Biosphere reserve Swabian Alb (853 km Alb reserve Swabian Biosphere Czech Republic, ca. 1500 km Republic, Czech Region (size) Region Jahna river catchment in Saxony (244 km in Saxony catchment Jahna river Saxony (21 km Saxony Pomerania (3057 km Pomerania Jahna river catchment in Saxony (244 km in Saxony catchment Jahna river Systematisation of the pr Systematisation

Table 6.23

6.2.4 (Reutter/ Matzdorf) Considered ES classes ( 7 Considered 6.4 (Haase) 6.3 (Elsasser/ Englert) 6.6.3 (Hartje) 6.5.2 (Grunewald/ /Bastian) Syrbe 6.5.1 (Ohnesorge 6.5.1 (Ohnesorge et al.) Ecosystem type land use type): (dominating u Ecosystem 6.6.1 (Bastian) Mountains (Germany/ of Ore Upper range . Section (author) 6.6.2 (Grunewald) 6.2.3 (Bastian) in community Promnitztal rural (former) 6.6.4 (Schäfer) Mecklenburg-Western in the State Peatlands 6.2.2 (Bastian) 282 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

near-natural ecosystems (Matzdorf et al. 2008) or tion have changed irreversibly or individual species agro-ecosystems not matching this concept (Haber have become extinct. 2011). Also, ecosystems modified or characterised However, an economic valuation of nature can by humans contain natural components (organ- provide important additional information for na- ism species, soils, water, etc). Ultimately–despite all ture conservation to decision-makers. However, it changes–it trades about agro- or urban ecosystems is not the appropriate method to define priorities but still ecosystems and why should not they de- of protection or goals. But economic instruments liver services? can be applied as effective incentive instruments for Food and forage plants grow on arable land and nature and landscape conservation to maintain ES meadows, water seeps and cooling and fresh air is (Spangenberg and Settele 2010). In this way, they generated. The well-being of urban population is will help to design and establish financial efforts for not least depending on ecosystem structures and long-term conservation due to expressed expecta- processes (e.g. climate regulation and air-quality tions towards perceived needs for investigations in 6 improvement by trees). Urban ecosystems may conservation either through installation and treat- also show high biodiversity. But the application of ment of protection areas or through traditional the ES concept for sustainable development of ur- economic instruments like taxes, licences or the ban regions is still in its initial stage (7 Sect. 6.4). development of markets and conventions of pay- Nonetheless, the services rendered in these ments (incentives) for ES (7 Sect. 6.5.2). cases are not exclusively reduced to the ecosystem, In nature conservation the interest in social but humans have a significant part, e.g. through the norms and institutions to make decisions is in- cultivation of fields or the preservation of green creasing, too. Societies and citizens value certain areas. Therefore it is required (although challeng- goods appropriately because of cultural or religious ing) to distinguish between the quantification and reasons or preferences; either it is a rare species or evaluation of services originated by ecosystems or a special cultural landscape and they will not con- humans. This has not yet succeeded convincingly. stantly check the cost-value-calculations. In or- It has already been mentioned that some di- der to achieve balanced and sustainable solutions mensions of the nature could and should not be processes of discourse are necessary. In addition, measured in monetary terms (7 Sect. 4.2). Many ES there is need for integrated assessments of ecologi- are not marketable so that it would lead into a latent cal, social and economic systems as well as the ne- undervaluation–even if only the economic perspec- gotiation between stakeholders in consideration of tives are valid (Mertz et al. 2007; Bayon and Jenkins a broader range of objectives as only the economic 2010; de Groot et al. 2010). A monetary evaluation efficiency (Gómez-Baggethun and Kelemen 2008; is not considered in case of religious, spiritual and de Groot et al. 2010; Ring et al. 2010; Spangenberg amenity values to be expedient (Spangenberg and and Settele 2010; Oikonomou et al. 2011). Suit- Settele 2010). Ecological as well as social reasons able political instruments for biodiversity, nature are objected to define nature conservation solely conservation and ES revert to diverse valuation via market mechanisms (Ring et al. 2010). Alterna- methods, like ecological value analysis or ranking tives were shown with (socio)cultural services (case definition, detection of preferences and intentions study meadow orchards, 7 Sect. 6.5.1). as well as citizen participation (Ring and Schröter- However, the imagination of exact monetary Schlaack 2011). An offensive application of the ES values may be tempting as they already feature concept in the field of nature conservation (e.g. partly significant differing results (according as part of landscape planning) could help these to Schweppe-Kraft2009 versus Seják et al. 2010 to the be better respected in commonplace weighing-up valuation of mountain meadows, 7 Sect. 6.6.1) to processes, by systematically demonstrating and if fundamental as well as methodical weaknesses–de- possible quantifying the different services of con- pending upon calculation base. Furthermore, the servation areas. Such evaluation is promising espe- recovering of destroyed habitats is not always pos- cially for targeted funding of nature conservation, sible, particularly if the conditions relating to loca- e.g. through agro-environmental schemes. 283 References 6

Our understanding is that analysis and evalua- BBodSchG (1998) Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetz vom 17. März 1998 (BGBl. I S. 502) tion of ES will play an important role in planning, BBodSchV (1999) Bundes-Bodenschutz- und Altlastenver organisation and use of landscapes to the chang- ordnung. Bundesgesetzblatt, J. 1999, Teil I, Nr. 36, Bonn, ing demographical, climatical, energy, political and 16.7.1999 technological basic conditions. The land use is a key Benecke R (2009) Grünland im Umbruch. Vortrag an der factor in this context. ES are able to help capture, Internationalen Akademie für Naturschutz auf der Insel Vilm am 28.04.2009. 7 www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/ demonstrate, communicate and balance opportu- documents/ina/vortraege/2009-Gruenland-Benecke.pdf nities in either synergies or goal conflicts, for exam- BfG–Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde (2006) Modellge- ple between enhanced cultivation of energy crops stützter Nachweis der Auswirkungen von geplanten and climate protection/biodiversity aims. This re- Rückhaltemaßnahmen in Sachsen und Sachsen-Anhalt quires complex analysis and evaluation of ES on auf Hochwasser der Elbe. BfG-Bericht 1542, Koblenz BfN–Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2004) Daten zur Natur. the basis of easily manageable standards for which Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn equivalent instruments (e.g. ES models) must be BfN–Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2008) Endbericht zum developed further. F + E-Vorhaben “Entwicklung des High Nature Value Farmland-Indikators” (FKZ 3507 80 800) des Bundesam- tes für Naturschutz. Bonn-Bad Godesberg, 107 p BfN–Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2009) Erfassungsanleitung References für die HNV-farmland-Probeflächen. Stand 15.4.2009 BfN–Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2010) Anteile von HNV- AMI (2010) Marktinfo Düngemittel. Bericht Nr. 4 der Agrar- Grünland innerhalb der Naturräume. Schriftliche markt Informations-Gesellschaft mbH (AMI), Bonn Information Augustin J (2001) Emission, Aufnahme und Klimarelevanz BfN–Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2012a) BfN For von Spurengasen. In: Succow M, Joosten H (eds) Land- schungsprojekte: “Klima-Benefits” (FKZ: 3508 81 2100) schaftsökologische Moorkunde. 2. edn. Schweizerbart, sowie “Ländlicher Raum und naturschutzbezogene Stuttgart, pp 28–37 Anpassungsstrategien an den Klimawandel” (FKZ: 3508 AuW (2007) Richtlinie des Sächsischen Staatsministeriums 88 0700) für Umwelt und Landwirtschaft zur Förderung von BfN–Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2012b) Natura 2000. flächenbezogenen Agrarumweltmaßnahmen und der Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn. 7 www.bfn.de/0316_ ökologischen Waldmehrung im Freistaat Sachsen. natura2000.html. Accessed 25 April 2012 SächsABl. Jg. 2007, Blatt-Nr. 49 BfN–Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2012c) Daten zur Natur. Bastian O, Schrack M (eds) (1997) Die Moritzburger Kleinkup- Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn penlandschaft–einmalig in Mitteleuropa! Veröff. Mus. Bieling C (2004) Non-industrial private-forest owners: possi- Westlausitz Kamenz, Tagungsband, 118 p bilities for increasing adoption of close-to-nature forest Bastian O, Corti C, Lebboroni M (2007) Determining Environ- management. Eur J Forest Res 123:293–303 mental Minimum Requirements for functions provided Bieling C, Plieninger T (2013) Recording manifestations of by agro-ecosystems. Agronon Sustain Dev 27:1–13 cultural ecosystem services in the landscape. Landscape Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K (2012) Ecosystem proper- Research 38(5):649–667 ties, potentials and services–the EPPS conceptual BMELV (2008) BMELV-Bericht zum Klimaschutz im Bereich framework and an urban application example. Ecol Land- und Forstwirtschaft. 7 www.bmelv.de/Shared- Indic 21:7–12. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.014 Docs/Standardartikel/Landwirtschaft/Klima-und-Um- Bastian O, Lütz M, Unger C, Köppen I, Röder M, Syrbe R-U welt/Klimaschutz/BerichtKlimaschutz.html (2003) Rahmenmethodik zur Entwicklung lokaler Agrar- BMELV (2011a) Die wirtschaftliche Lage der landwirtschaftli- Umweltprogramme in Europa–1. Das Indikatorkonzept. chen Betriebe. Buchführungsergebnisse der Testbe- Landnutzung und Landentwicklung 44:229–237 triebe. 7 http://berichte.bmelv-statistik.de/BFB-0111101- Bastian O, Lütz M, Unger C, Röder M, Syrbe R-U (2005) Rah- 2011.pdf menmethodik zur Entwicklung lokaler Agrar-Umwelt- BMELV (2011b) Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe “Ver- programme in Europa–2. Ableitung von Agrar-Umwelt- besserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes” zielen und -maßnahmen. Wasser-Wirtschaft 95:27–34 für den Zeitraum 2011 bis 2014. Bonn, 111 p Bastian O, Neruda M, Filipová L, Machová I, Leibenath M BMU–Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und (2010) Natura 2000 sites as an asset for rural devel- Reaktorsicherheit (2007) Nationale Strategie zur Biolo- opment: the German-Czech Ore Mountains Green gischen Vielfalt. Berlin, 178 p Network Project. J Landscape Ecol 3:41–58 BMU–Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Bayon R, Jenkins M (2010) The business of biodiversity. Reaktorsicherheit (2010a) Indikatorenbericht 2010 zur Nature 466:184–185 Nationalen Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt. Berlin 284 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

BMU–Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und CBD–Convention on Biological Biodiversity (2010) Global Reaktorsicherheit (2010b) Die Wasserrahmenrichtlinie– Biodiversity Outlook 3. CBD Secretariat, Montreal Auf dem Weg zu guten Gewässern. Berlin Chan KMH, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking eco- BMU–Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und system services to better address and navigate cultural Reaktorsicherheit (2011) Bundesprogramm Biologische values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18 Vielfalt. Berlin Chiesura A (2004) The role of urban parks for the sustainable BMU/BfN (2009) Außenzustandsbericht. Flussauen in city. Landscape Urban Plan 68:129–138 Deutschland. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Natur- Churkina G (2008) Modeling the carbon cycle of urban schutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) und Bundesamt für systems. Ecol Model 216:107–113 Naturschutz (BfN), Berlin, Bonn Clarkson R, Deyes K (2002) Estimating the Social Cost of Car- Böhnert W, Franz U, Walter S, Kamprad S, Henze A (2005) bon Emissions. Government Economic Service Working FFH-Managementplan für das FFH-Gebiet SCI 5248–303, Paper 140. HM Treasury, London Landesmeldenummer 039E Geisingberg und Geising- Comber A, Brunsdon C, Green E (2008) Using a GIS-based wiesen, Weißeritzkreis. Abschlussbericht. Sächsisches network analysis to determine urban green space Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie, Dresden accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Bolund P, Hunhammar S (1999) Ecosystem services in urban Landscape Urban Plan 86:103–114 6 areas. Ecol Econ 29:293–301 Cooney R, Dickson B (2005) Precautionary principle, pre- Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali L, Knight TM, Pullin AS (2010) Urban cautionary practice: lessons and insights. In: Cooney greening to cool towns and cities: a systematic review R, Dickson B (eds) Biodiversity and the precautionary of the empirical evidence. Landscape Urban Plan principle: risk and uncertainty in conservation and 97:147–155 sustainable use. Earthscan, London, pp 287–298 Breitschuh G, Eckert H, Kuhaupt H, Gernand U, Sauerbeck D, Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot RS, Farber S, Grasso M, Han- Roth S (2000) Erarbeitung von Beurteilungskriterien und non B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin Messparametern für nutzungsbezogene Bodenqua RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the litätsziele. Anpassung und Anwendung von Kriterien world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature zur Bewertung nutzungsbedingter Bodengefährdun- 387:253–260 gen. Umweltbundesamt Berlin (ed), UBA-Texte 50–00 Couwenberg J (2007) Biomass energy crops on peatlands: Breuste J (1999) Stadtnatur–warum und für wen? In: Breuste on emissions and perversions. IMCG-Newsletter J (ed) 3. Leipziger Symposium Stadtökologie ”Stadtna- 2/2007:12–14 tur–quo vadis?” Natur zwischen Kosten und Nutzen. Couwenberg J (2011) Vegetation as a proxy for greenhouse UFZ-Bericht 10, Leipzig gas fluxes–the GEST approach. In: Tanneberger F, Breuste J, Feldmann H, Uhlmann O (eds) (1998) Urban eco Wichtmann W (eds) Carbon credits from rewetting. logy. Springer, Berlin Schweizerbart, Stuttgart, pp 37–42 Breuste J, Niemelä J, Anuchat P, Triet T (2007) Urban Eco- Couwenberg J, Augustin J, Michaelis D, Wichtmann W, system Management. Handbook and manual. Helsinki Joosten H (2008) Entwicklung von Grundsätzen für University Press, Helsinki eine Bewertung von Niedermooren hinsichtlich ihrer Briemle G, Oppermann R (2003) Von der Idee zum Pro- Klimarelevanz. DUENE e. V., Greifswald gramm: Die Förderung artenreichen Grünlandes in Couwenberg J, Dommain R, Joosten H (2010) Greenhouse MEKA II. In: Oppermann R, Gujer HU (eds) Artenreiches gas fluxes from tropical peatlands in South-East Asia. Grünland bewerten und fördern–MEKA und ÖQV in der Glob Change Biol 16:1715–1732 Praxis. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, pp 65–70 Couwenberg J, Thiele A, Tanneberger F, Augustin J, Bärisch Bronner G, Oppermann R, Rösler S (1997) Umweltleistungen S, Dubovik D, Liashchynskaya N, Michaelis D, Minke M, als Grundlage der landwirtschaftlichen Förderung– Skuratovich A, Joosten H (2011) Assessing greenhouse Vorschläge zur Fortentwicklung des MEKA-Programms gas emissions from peatlands using vegetation as a in Baden-Württenberg. Nat Schutz Landsch Plan proxy. Hydrobiologia 674:67–89 29:357–365 Czybulka D, Hampicke U, Litterski B, Schäfer A, Wagner A Brunotte E, Dister E, Günther-Diringer D, Koenzen U, Mehl (2009) Integration von Kompensationsmaßnahmen in D (2009) Flussauen in Deutschland–Erfassung und Be die landwirtschaftliche Produktion. Nat Schutz Landsch wertung des Auenzustandes. Bundesamt für Natur- Plan 41:245–255 schutz, Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 87, Bonn Daily GC (ed) (1997) Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence Burgess J (1988) People, Parks and Urban Green. A Study of on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DC Popular Meanings and Values for Open Spaces in the Daly HE (1992) Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an City. Urban Studies 25:455–473 economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable. Ecol Carpenter SR, Turner M (2000) Opening the black boxes: Econ 6:185–193 Ecosystem science and economic valuation. Ecosystems DEHSt–Deutsche Emissionshandelsstelle (2012) Versteige 3:1–3 rung von Emissionsberechtigungen in Deutschland. Periodischer Bericht, Januar 2012, 8 p 285 References 6

de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Endlicher W, Jendritzky G, Ficher J, Redlich JP (2008) Heat Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem ser- waves, urban climate and human health. In: Marzluff vices and values in landscape planning, management J et al (eds) Urban ecology–an international perspec- and decision making. Ecol Complexity 7: 260–272 tive on the interaction between humans and nature. de Kok JL, Grossmann M (2010) Large-scale assessment of Springer, New York flood risk and the effects of mitigation measures along Enkvist PA, Nauclér T, Rosander J (2007) A cost curve for the River Elbe. Nat Hazards 52: 143–166 greenhouse gas reduction. The McKinsey Quarterly Diercks R, Heitefuss R (1990) Integrierter Landbau: Systeme 1:35–45 umweltbewußter Pflanzenproduktion. BLV Verlagsge- EU Kommission (2008) Natura 2000. Newsletter “Natur” der sellschaft, München europäischen Kommission GD Umwelt 24:4 Dieter M, Elsasser P (2002) Carbon stocks and carbon stock EU Kommission (2011) Our life insurance, our natural capital: changes in the tree biomass of Germany’s forests. Forst- an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020–COM (2011) 244 wiss Centralbl 121:195–210 final–Brüssel, 20 p Döring J (2005) Hinweise zur Landschaftspflege. Materialien Farber S, Costanza R, Childers DL, Erickson J, Gross K, Grove zu Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. Sächsisches M, Hopkinson CS, Kahn J, Pincetl S, Troy A, Warren P, Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie (ed) Abteilung Wilson M (2006) Linking ecology and economics for Natur, Landschaft, Boden ecosystem management. Bioscience 56(2):117–129 Downing TE, Anthoff D, Butterfield B, Ceronsky M, Grubb M, FGG Elbe (2009) Hintergrundpapier zur Ableitung der Guo J, Hepburn C, Hope C, Hunt A, Li A, Markandya A, überregionalen Bewirtschaftungsziele für die Ober- Moss S, Nyong A, Tol RSJ, Watkiss P (2005) Social cost of flächengewässer im deutschen Teil der Flussgebietsein- carbon: a closer look of uncertainty. DEFRA, London heit Elbe für den Belastungsschwerpunkt Nährstoffe. Dröschmeister R (1998) Aufbau von bundesweiten Monitor- Flussgebietsgemeinschaft Elbe, Magdeburg ingprogrammen für Naturschutz–welche Basis bietet Fisher B, Turner K, Morling P (2009) Defining and classify- die Langzeitforschung? Schriftenreihe Landschafts ing ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ pflege Naturschutz 58:319–337 68:643–653 Druckenbrod C, van Elsen T, Hampicke U (2011) Produktions Förster S, Kneis D, Gocht M, Bronstert A (2005) Flood risk integrierte Kompensation: Umsetzungsbeispiele und reduction by the use of retention areas at the Elbe River. Akzeptanz. Nat Landsch 43:111–116 Int J River Basin Management 3:21–29 DVL–Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege e. V. (2007) Fritsch M, Wein T, Ewers HJ (2007) Marktversagen und Natura 2000–Lebensraum für Mensch und Natur–Leit- Wirtschaftspolitik. Mikroökonomische Grundlagen faden zur Umsetzung. DVL-Schriftenreihe “Landschaft staatlichen Handelns. 7. edn. Vahlen, München als Lebensraum”, Heft 11 Fritz P (ed) (2006) Ökologischer Waldumbau in Deutschland. Eckert H, Breitschuh G, Sauerbeck D (2000) Criteria and Fragen, Antworten, Perspektiven. Oekom, München standards for sustainable agriculture. J Plant Nutr Soil Gantioler S, Rayment M, Bassi S, Kettunen M, McConville A, Sci 163:337–351 Landgrebe R, Gerdes H, ten Brink P (2010) Costs and so- EEA–European Environment Agency (2004) High nature cio-economic benefits associated with the Natura 2000 value farmland characteristics, trends and policy chal- network. Final report to the European Commission, DG lenges. EEA Report No 1, 26 p Environment. Institute for European Environmental Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH (1981) Extinction: the causes and Policy/GHK/Ecologic, Brussels consequences of the disappearance of species. Random Geisendorf S, Gronemann S, Hampicke U (1998) Die Bedeu- House, New York tung des Naturvermögens und der Biodiversität für Eiter S (2010) Landscape as an area perceived through eine nachhaltige Wirtschaftsweise. Möglichkeiten und activity: implications for diversity management and Grenzen ihrer Erfassbarkeit und Wertmessung. Erich conservation. Landscape Res 35:339–359 Schmidt Verlag, Berlin Elmqvist T, Fragkias M, Güneralp B, et al (2013) (eds) Global Geisler E (1995) Grenzen und Perspektiven der Landschafts- urbanisation, biodiversity and ecosystem services: chal- planung. Nat Schutz Landsch Plan 27:89–92 lenges and opportunities. Springer, New York Getzner M, Jost S, Jungmeier M (2002) Naturschutz und Re- Elsasser P, Englert H, Hamilton J (2010a) Landscape benefits gionalwirtschaft: Regionalwirtschaftliche Auswirkungen of a forest conversion programme in North East Ger- von Natura-2000-Gebieten in Österreich. Peter Lang, many: results of a choice experiment. Ann Forest Res Frankfurt a. M. 53:37–50 Gill S, Handley JF, Ennos AR, Pauleit S (2007) Adapting cities Elsasser P, Englert H, Hamilton J, Müller HA (2010b) Nach- for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. haltige Entwicklung von Waldlandschaften im Nord Built Environ 33:115–33 ostdeutschen Tiefland: Ökonomische und sozioöko- Glugla G, Fürtig G (1997) Dokumentation zur Anwendung nomische Bewertungen von simulierten Szenarien der des Rechenprogramms ABIMO. Bundesanstalt für Landschaftsdynamik. Hamburg: von-Thünen-Institut. Gewässerkunde, Mimeograph, Berlin Arbeitsbericht vTI-OEF 2010/1, 96 p 286 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

Gómez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C (2010) Guo Z, Zhang L, Li Y (2010) Increased dependence of humans The history of ecosystem services in economic theory on ecosystem services and biodiversity. PLoS One 5:1–7 and practice: from early notions to markets and pay- Güthler W, Oppermann R (2005) Agrarumweltprogramme ment schemes. Ecol Econ 69:1209–1218 und Vertragsnaturschutz weiter entwickeln. Natur- Gómez-Baggethun E, Kelemen E (2008) Linking institutional schutz und Biologische Vielfalt 13, Bonn, 226 p change and the flows of ecosystem services. Case stud- Güthler W, Orlich I (2009) Naturschutzförderung in Deutsch- ies from Spain and Hungary. Proc. Book of the THEMES land im Rahmen der EU-Agrarpolitik. Analyse der Summer School, Vysoké Tatry, Slovakia, pp 118–145 Mittelausstattung in den Bundesländern. Nat Schutz Gottschall M (2011) Energiegewinnung und Landschafts Landsch Plan 41:133–138 pflege–Ein Entwicklungskonzept für das Föhrenried. Haase D (2003) Holocene floodplains and their distribution Diplomarbeit (unpublished), TU Dresden in urban areas–functionality indicators for their reten- Grossmann M (2012a) Economic value of the nutrient retention potentials. Landscape Urban Plan 66:5–18 tion function of restored floodplain wetlands in the Elbe Haase D (2008) Urban ecology of shrinking cities: an unrec- River basin. Ecol Econ 83:108–117 ognised opportunity? Nature and Culture 3:1–8 Grossmann M (2012b) Economic Valuation of Wetland Eco- Haase D (2009) Effects of urbanisation on the water system Services. Case studies from the Elbe River Basin. balance–a long-term trajectory. Environ Impact Assess 6 Dissertation, Berlin (opus4.kobv.de/opus4-tuberlin/ Rev 29:211–219 files/3311/grossmann_malte.pdf. Accessed 12.12.2014) Haase D (2011) Urbane Ökosysteme IV-1.1.4. Handbuch der Grossmann M, Hartje V, Meyerhoff J (2010) Ökonomische Umweltwissenschaften. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim Bewertung naturverträglicher Hochwasservorsorge an Haase D, Larondelle N, Andersson E et al (2014) A quantitative der Elbe. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Naturschutz und review of urban ecosystem services assessment: con- Biologische Vielfalt 89, Bonn cepts, models and implementation. AMBIO 43(4):413–433 Gruehn D, Budinger A, Baumgarten H (2012) Bedeutung des Haase D, Nuissl H (2007) Does urban sprawl drive changes Stadtgrüns für den Wert von Grundstücken und Immo- in the water balance and policy? The case of Leipzig bilien. Stadt und Grün 61:9–13 (Germany) 1870–2003. Landscape Urban Plan 80:1–13 Gruehn D, Kenneweg H (2002) Wirksamkeit der örtlichen Haase D, Nuissl H (2010) The urban-to-rural gradient of land Landschaftsplanung im Kontext zur Agrarfachplanung. use change and impervious cover: a long-term trajec- BfN-Skripten 59, 156 p tory for the city of Leipzig. Land Use Sci 5:123–142 Grunewald K (1997) Großräumige Bodenkontaminationen– Haase D, Seppelt R, Haase A (2007) Land use impacts of Wirkungsgefüge, Erkundungsmethoden und Lösungs demographic change–lessons from eastern German ansätze. Springer, Berlin urban regions. In: Petrosillo I, Müller F, Jones KB, Zurlini Grunewald K, Mannsfeld K (1999) Landschaftsökologische G, Krauze K, Victorov S, Li BL, Kepner WG (eds) Use of Ansätze für Konfliktlösungsstrategien im inter- landscape sciences for the assessment of environmen- disziplinären Dialog–Erfordernisse, Möglichkeiten, tal security. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 329–344 Grenzen. In: Böhm H-P, Dietz J, Gebauer H (eds) Nach- Haber W (2011) Umweltpolitikberatung–eine persönliche haltigkeit als Leitbild für die Wirtschaft? TU Dresden, Bilanz. Studienarchiv Umweltgeschichte 16:15–25. ZIT, pp 149–157 7 www.iugr.net Grunewald K, Naumann S (2012) Bewertung von Ökosystem- Habitat Directive (1992) COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/43/EECof 21 dienstleistungen im Hinblick auf die Erreichung von May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of Umweltzielen der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie am Beispiel wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7) des Flusseinzugsgebietes der Jahna in Sachsen. Nat Halbfaß S, Grunewald K (2003) Räumliche Variabilität der Landsch 1:17–23 Phosphorgehalte im Oberboden landwirtschaftlich Grunewald K, Scheithauer J, Sudbrack R, Heiser A, Freier K, genutzter Flächen in kleinen Einzugsgebieten. Plant Andreae H (2011) Untersuchungen zum Wasser- und Nutr Soil Sci 166:197–203 Stoffhaushalt in Einzugsgebieten mit degradierten Halbfaß S, Grunewald K (2008) Ermittlung räumlich verteilter Hochmooren im oberen Erzgebirge, Talsperre Carlsfeld. SDR-Faktoren zur Modellierung von Sedimenteinträ- TELMA 41:171–190 gen in Fließgewässer im mittleren Maßstab. Wasser- Grunewald K, Syrbe R-U (2013) Bilanzierung der Landschafts- Wirtschaft 3:31–35 pflege in Sachsen. Schriftenreihe des Landesamtes für Hampicke U (2006) Anreiz. Ökonomie der Honorierung Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie, Heft 17, Dresden. ökologischer Leistungen. BfN-Skripten 179, Bonn 7 https://publikationen.sachsen.de/bdb Hampicke U (2011) Climate change economics and dis- Grunewald K, Syrbe R-U, Bastian O (2014) Landscape man- counted utilitarianism. Ecol Econ 72:45–52 agement accounting as a tool for indicating the need of Hampicke U, Horlitz T, Kiemstedt H, Tampe K, Timp D, Wal- action for ecosystem maintenance and restoration–ex- ters M (1991) Kosten und Wertschätzung des Arten- und emplified for Saxony. Ecol Indicators 37(Part A):241–251 Biotopschutzes. Berichte des Umweltbundesamtes Nr. Grunewald K, Syrbe R-U, Wachler C (2012) Analyse der ästhe- 3/91, Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin tischen und monetären Wertschätzung der Landschaft am Haslett JR, Berry PM, Bela G, Jongman RHG, Pataki G, Sam- Erzgebirgskamm durch den Tourismus. GEOÖKO 33:34–65 ways MJ, Zobel M (2010) Changing conservation strate- 287 References 6

gies in Europe: a framework for integrating ecosystem Jenkins A, Murray B, Kramer R, Faulkner S (2010) Valuing services and dynamics. Biodivers Conserv 19:2963–2977 ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Hauer S, Ansorge A, Zöphel U (2009) Atlas der Säugetiere Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecol Econ 69:1051–1061 Sachsens. Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Land- Jessel B (2011) Ökosystemdienstleistungen, In: BBN (ed) wirtschaft und Geologie, Dresden Frischer Wind und weite Horizonte. Jb Natursch Land- Häusler A, Scherer-Lorenzen M (2002) Nachhaltige Forst- schaftspfl 58:72–87 wirtschaft in Deutschland im Spiegel des ganzheitli- Jessel B, Tschimpke O, Walser M (2009) Produktivkraft Natur. chen Ansatzes der Biodiversitätskonvention. BfN-Skrip- Hoffmann & Campe, Hamburg ten 62, Bonn Jin M, Dickinson RE, Zhang DL (2005) The footprint of urban Haygarth PM, Hepworth L, Jarvis SC (1998) Forms of phos- areas on global climate as characterized by MODIS. J phorus transfer in hydrological pathways from soil Clim 18:1551–1565 under grazed grassland. Eur J Soil Sci 49:65–72. Job H, Metzler D (2005) Regionalökonomische Effekte von Heathwaite AL, Quinn PF, Hewett, CJM (2005) Modelling and Großschutzgebieten. Nat Landsch 80:465–471 managing critical source areas of diffuse pollution from Jones M (2003) The concept of cultural landscape: discourse agricultural land using flow connectivity simulation. J and narratives. In: Palang H, Fry G (eds) Landscape inter- Hydrol 304:446–461 faces: cultural heritage in changing landscapes. Kluwer Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied choice anal- Academic, Dordrecht, pp 21–51 ysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Joosten H, Couwenberg J (2008) Peatlands and carbon. In:

Herminghaus H (2012) CO2-Vermeidungskosten für Was- Parish F, Sirin A, Charman D, Joosten H, Minaeva T, Silvius serkraft, Windenergie, Biomasse, Photovoltaik. 7 www. M (eds) Assessment on peatlands, biodiversity and cli- co2-emissionen-vergleichen.de/Vermeidungskosten/ mate change. Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur Vergleich-CO2-Vermeidungskosten.html. Accessed 14 and Wetlands International, Wageningen, pp 99–117 March 2012 Kabisch N, Haase D (2011) Gerecht verteilt? Grünflächen in Herzog F (2000) The importance of perennial trees for the Berlin. Zeitschrift für amtliche Statistik Berlin Branden- balance of northern European agricultural landscapes. burg 6:2–7 Unasylva 200:42–48 Kersebaum KC, Matzdorf B, Kiesel J, Piorr A, Steidl J (2006) Hettwer C, Malt S, Schulz D, Warnke-Grüttner R, Zöphel U Model-based evaluation of agri-environmental mea- (2009) Berichtspflichten zur europäischen Fauna-Flora- sures in the Federal State of Brandenburg (Germany) Habitat-Richtlinie in Sachsen. Naturschutzarbeit in concerning N pollution of groundwater and surface Sachsen 51:36–59 water. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 169:352–359 Hutyra LR, Yoon B, Alberti M (2011) Terrestrial carbon stocks Keienburg T, Most A, Prüter J (2006) Entwicklung und across a gradient of urbanization: a study of the Seattle, Erprobung von Methoden für die ergebnisorientierte WA region. Glob Change Biol 17:783–797 Honorierung ökologischer Leistungen im Grünland IEEP (ten Brink P, Monkhouse C, Richartz S) (2002) Promoting Nordwestdeutschlands. NNA-Berichte 19:3–19 the socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000. Background Kettunen M, Bassi S, Gantioler S, ten Brink P (2009) Assess- Report, Institute for European Environmental Policy ing socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000–a toolkit (IEEP), Europ. Conference, Brussels, November 28–29, 2002 for practitioners (September Edition). Output of the Ihringer J, Büchele B, Mikovec R (2003) Untersuchung von European Commission project Financing Natura 2000: Hochwasserretentionsmaßnahmen entlang der Elbe im cost estimate and benefits of Natura 2000. Institute for Bereich der Landkreise Wittenberg und Anhalt-Zerbst. European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brüssel Studie im Auftrag des Landesbetriebes Hochwasser- Kluge HG, Ley F, Wittberg V (2010) Gutachten zur Abschät- schutz und Wasserwirtschaft Sachsen-Anhalt. Institut zung der Verwaltungskosten. 7 www.unserboden.at/ für Wasserwirtschaft und Kulturtechnik, Universität files/gutachten_zur_abschaetzung_der_verwaltungs- Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe kosten_final.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2012 IKSE–Internationale Kommission zum Schutz der Elbe (2001) Knickel K, Berhold J, Schramek J, Käppel K (2001) Naturschutz Bestandsaufnahme des vorhandenen Hochwasser- und Landwirtschaft: Kriterienkatalog zur “Guten fachli- schutzniveaus im Einzugsgebiet der Elbe. Internationale chen Praxis”. Angew Landschaftsökologie 41, 152 p Kommission zum Schutz der Elbe, Magdeburg Knoke T, Ammer C, Stimm B, Mosandl R (2008) Admixing IKSE–Internationale Kommission zum Schutz der Elbe (2004) broadleaved to coniferous tree species: a review on Aktionsplan Hochwasserschutz. Internationale Kommis- yield, ecological stability and economics. Eur J Forest sion zum Schutz der Elbe, Magdeburg Res 127:89–101 Isermeyer F, Otte A, Christen O, Dabbert S, Frohberg K, Koch A, Deussen M, Hüttinger A, Mathaj M, Goldberg R Grabski-Kieron U, Hartung J, Heißenhuber A, Hess J, (2011) Naturschutzförderung im Freistaat Sachsen–Um- Kirschke D, Schmitz PM, Spiller A, Sundrum A, Thoroe C setzungsstand und erste Ergebnisse zur Wirksamkeit. (2008) Nutzung von Biomasse zur Energiegewinnung. In: Naturschutzarbeit in Sachsen 2011:20–37. 7 https:// Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster-Hiltrup publikationen.sachsen.de/bdb/artikel/15192 Jedicke E (ed) (1996) Praktische Landschaftspflege–Grundla- Kollmann F (1982) Technologie des Holzes und der Holzwerk- gen und Maßnahmen (2. edn.). Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart stoffe (2. edn.). Springer, Berlin 288 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

Köppen I (2002) Die ökologische Wirksamkeit des Lind RC, Schuler RE (1998) Equity and discounting in climate- Agrarumwelt-Programms gemäß EU-Verordnung change decisions. In: Nordhaus WD (eds) Economics 1257/1999: Anwendung und Umsetzung nach dem and policy issues in climate change. Resources for the Gießkannenprinzip oder regionalspezifisch angepasst? future, Washington DC, pp 59–96 Untersuchung am Beispiel des Freistaates Sachsen. Lorance Rall ED, Haase D (2011) Creative intervention in a dy- Diplomarbeit TU Berlin, Institut f. Landschafts- u. Um- namic city: a sustainability assessment of an interim use weltplanung, Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften strategy for brownfields in Leipzig, Germany. Landscape zu Leipzig, Ast. Dresden Urban Plan 100:189–201 Koppisch D (2001) Torfbildung. In: Succow M, Joosten H LUBW–Landesanstalt für Umwelt, Messungen und Natur- (eds) Landschaftsökologische Moorkunde (2. edn.). schutz Baden-Württemberg (2009) Naturraumsteckbrief Schweizerbart, Stuttgart, pp 8–17 Nr. 101– Mittleres Albvorland. Landesanstalt für Umwelt, Koska I, Succow M, Clausnitzer U, Timmermann T, Roth Messungen und Naturschutz Baden-Württemberg, S (2001) Vegetationskundliche Kennzeichnung von Stuttgart Mooren (topische Betrachtung). In: Succow M, Joosten Lucke R, Silbereisen R, Herzberger E (1992) Obstbäume in der H (eds) Landschaftsökologische Moorkunde (2. edn.). Landschaft. Ulmer, Stuttgart Schweizerbart, Stuttgart, pp 112–184 Lütke-Daldrup E (2001) Die perforierte Stadt. Eine Versuchs 6 Kottmeier C, Biegert C, Corsmeier U (2007) Effects of urban anordnung. Stadtbauwelt 150:40–45 land use on surface temperature in Berlin: Case Study. J Lütz M, Bastian O (2000) Vom Landschaftsplan zum Urban Plan Dev, pp 128–137 Bewirtschaftungsentwurf. Z Kulturtech Landentw Kramer M, Brendel J, Gebel M, Grunewald K, Haubold F, 41:259–266 Kaulfuß W (1999) Ableitung von Bodenfunktionen- Lütz M, Bastian O (2002) Implementation of landscape karten für Planungszwecke aus dem Fachinformations- planning and nature conservation in the agricultural system Boden. Dresdener Geographische Beiträge, landscape–a case study from Saxony. Agric Ecosyst Heft 8, Im Selbstverlag der TU Dresden, Institut für Environ 92:159–170 Geographie, 109 p Lütz M, Bastian O, Weber C (2006) Rahmenmethodik zur Ent- Kühbauch W (1995) Grenzen für die Verwertung von Stick wicklung lokaler Agrarumweltprogramme in Europa– stoff durch die Grasnarbe.Vorträge der 47. Hochschulta- Akzeptanz und Monitoring von Agrarumweltmaßnah- gung der Landwirtschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität men. Wasser-Wirtschaft 10:34–40 Bonn vom 21. Februar 1995 in Bonn. Landwirtschaftsver- Macke S, Schweppe-Kraft B (2011) Ökonomisches Denken lag GmbH, Münster-Hiltrup für den Naturschutz–ein Plädoyer für gemeinsame Kuick O, Buchner B, Catenacci M, Goria A, Karakaya E, Tol RSJ Argumente. Nat Landsch 86:146–147 (2008) Methodological aspects of recent climate change Mährlein A (1993) Kalkulationsdaten für die Grünlandbe- damage cost studies. Integr Assess J 8:19–40 wirtschaftung unter Naturschutzauflagen. KTLB Ar Kuntze H (1983) Probleme bei der landwirtschaftlichen beitspapier 179, Darmstadt Moornutzung. TELMA 13:137–152 Maljanen M, Óskarsson H, Sigurdsson BD, Guðmundsson J, Lamlom SH, Savidge RA (2003) A reassessment of carbon Huttunen JT, Martikainen PJ (2010) Greenhouse gas bal- content in wood: variation within and between 41 North ances of managed peatlands in the Nordic countries– American species. Biomass Bioenerg 25:381–388 present knowledge and gaps. Biogeoscience 7:2711–2738 LFA Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, laufende Testbetriebs Mannsfeld K (1972) Das Naherholungsgebiet Moritzburg. ergebnisse des Landes Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Sächs Heimatblätter 2:49–56 7 www.landwirtschaft-mv.de/cms2/LFA_prod/LFA/con- Marschall I (1998) Wer bewegt die Kulturlandschaft? Vol 1, 2, tent/de/Fachinformationen/Betriebswirtschaft/index. Bauernwissenschaft, ABL Bauernblatt Verlags-GmbH, jsp?&artikel=970 Rheda-Wiedenbrück LfUG–Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie, Abteilung Masten SE (2000) Transaction-Cost Economics and the Natur- und Landschaftsschutz (1999) Landschafts Organization of Agricultural Transactions. Ind Organ pflegekonzeption für den Freistaat Sachsen. Dresden 9:173–195 (unpublished) Matzdorf B, Kaiser T, Rohner MS (2008) Developing biodi- Liebe U, Preisendörfer P, Meyerhoff J (2006) Nutzen aus versity indicator to design efficient agri-environmental Biodiversitätsveränderungen. In: Meyerhoff J, Hartje schemes for extensively used grassland. Ecol Indic V, Zerbe S (eds) Biologische Vielfalt und deren Be 8:256–269 wertung am Beispiel des ökologischen Waldumbaus MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems in den Regionen Solling und Lüneburger Heide. and human well-being. A framework for assessment. Forschungszentrum Waldökosysteme (Selbstverlag), Island Press, Washington DC, 212 p Göttingen, pp 101–155 MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems Lind B, Stein S, Kärcher A, Klein M (2008) Where have all the and human well-being. Synthesis. Island Press, Washing- flowers gone? Grünland im Umbruch. Hintergrundpa- ton DC pier und Empfehlungen des BfN, Bonn, 16 p 289 References 6

Merkel U, Helms M, Büchele B, Ihringer J, Nestmann F (2002) und zur Entwicklung der Moore. Ministerium für Land- Wirksamkeit von Deichrückverlegungsmaßnahmen auf wirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Mecklen- die Abflussverhältnisse entlang der Elbe. In: Nestmann burg-Vorpommern, Schwerin F, Büchele B (eds) Morphodynamik der Elbe. Institut Müller J (2005) Landschaftselemente aus Menschenhand. für Wasserwirtschaft und Kulturtechnik, Universität Biotope und Strukturen als Ergebnis extensiver Nut- Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe zung. Elsevier, München Mertz O, Ravnborg HM, Lövei GL, Nielsen I, Konijnendijk CC Müller J, Heilmann H (2011) Stand und Entwicklung der (2007) Ecosystem services and biodiversity in develop- agrarischen Nutzung von Niedermoorgrünland in ing countries. Biodivers Conserv 16:2729–2737 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. TELMA, Beiheft 4:235–248 Meyerhoff J (2003) Verfahren zur Korrektur des Embedding- Naumann S, Kurzer HJ (2010) Etablierung eines Entschei Effektes bei der Kontingenten Bewertung. Agrar- dungshilfesystems zur Erstellung von Management wirtschaft 52:370–378 plänen auf Einzugsgebietsebene. Schriftenreihe des Meyerhoff J (2006) Stated willingness to pay as hypothetical LfULG (Heft 7):144 pp behaviour: can attitudes tell us more? J Environ Plan NE (2007) Richtlinie des Sächsischen Staatsministeriums Manage 49:209–226 für Umwelt und Landwirtschaft für die Förderung von Meyerhoff J, Hartje V, Zerbe S (eds) (2006) Biologische Viel- Maßnahmen zur Sicherung der natürlichen biolo- falt und deren Bewertung am Beispiel des ökologischen gischen Vielfalt und des natürlichen ländlichen Erbes im Waldumbaus in den Regionen Solling und Lüneburger Freistaat Sachsen. SächsABl. 2008(5):218 Heide. Forschungszentrum Waldökosysteme (Selbstver- Neef E (1962) Der Reichtum der Dresdener Landschaft. Geogr lag), Göttingen, 240 p Berichte 24:256–269 Meyerhoff J, Angeli D, Hartje V (2010) Social benefits of Neidlein HC, Walser M (2005) Natur ist Mehr-Wert. Zum implementing a national strategy on biological diversity ökonomischen Nutzen des Naturschutzes. Bundesamt in Germany. Paper presented to the 12th International für Naturschutz, BfN-Skripten 154 BIOECON Conference “From the Wealth of Nations to Neuschulz F, Purps J (2000) Rückverlegung von Hochwas- the Wealth of Nature: Rethinking Economic Growth” serschutzdeichen zur Wiederherstellung von Überflu- Venedig, 27.–28. September. 7 www.bioecon.ucl. tungsflächen. In: Friese B, Witter G, Miehlich G, Rode M ac.uk/12th_2010/Angeli.pdf (eds) Stoffhaushalt von Auenökosystemen. Springer, Meyerhoff J, Angeli D, Hartje V (2012) Valuing the benefits of Berlin implementing a national strategy on biological diver- Neuschulz F, Purps J (2003) Auenregeneration durch Deich sity–the case of Germany. Environ Sci Pol 23:109–119 rückverlegung–ein Naturschutzprojekt an der Elbe MLR–Ministerium für Ernährung und Ländlichen Raum bei Lenzen mit Pilotfunktion für einen vorbeugenden Baden-Württemberg (2008) Maßnahmen- und Ent- Hochwasserschutz. Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege wicklungsplan Ländlicher Raum Baden-Württemberg in Brandenburg 12:85–91 2007–2013. Ministerium für Ernährung und Ländlichen Niedersächsische Landesregierung (1991) Langfristige Raum Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart ökologische Waldentwicklung in den Landesforsten. MLR–Ministerium für Ernährung und Ländlichen Raum Programm der Landesregierung Niedersachsen Baden-Württemberg (2009) Streuobstwiesen in Baden- (2. edn.). Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung, Württemberg. Daten, Handlungsfelder, Maßnahmen, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Hannover, 49 p Förderung. Ministerium für Ernährung und Ländlichen Nitsch H, Osterburg B, Roggendorf W, Laggner B (2012) Cross Raum Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart compliance and the protection of grassland–illustrative MLR–Ministerium für Ernährung und Ländlichen Raum analyses of land use transitions between permanent Baden-Württemberg (2010) Halbzeitbewertung grassland and arable land in German regions. Land Use “Maßnahmen- und Entwicklungsplan Ländlicher Raum Pol 29:440–448 Baden-Württemberg 2007–2013 (MEPL II)” nach der VO NKGCF–Nationales Komitee für Global Change Forschung (EG) 1698/2005. Ministerium für Ernährung und Ländli- (2011) Ökosystemare Dienstleistungen und Biodiversität chen Raum Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart 2020: ökologische, soziale und ökonomische Entwick- MLUV MV–Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und lungen und Gestaltungsoptionen im globalen Wandel. Verbraucherschutz Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (2011) 7 http://www.nkgcf.org/files/downloads/ESS_Bio- Agrarbericht des Landes Mecklenburg-Vorpommern div2020_Final_inclAnhang.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2012 (Berichtsjahr 2009–2010). Schwerin Nowak DJ, Crane DE (2002) Carbon storage and seques- Moreira F, Queiroz AI, Aronson J (2006) Restoration prin- tration by urban trees in the USA. Environ Pollut ciples applied to cultural landscapes. J Nat Conserv 116:381–389 14:217–224 NRC–National Research Council (2000) Risk and uncertainty MSK–Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Ver in flood damage reduction studies. National Academy braucherschutz Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (2009) Press, Washington DC Konzept zum Schutz und zur Nutzung der Moore. NRC–National Research Council (2005) Valuing ecosystem Fortschreibung des Konzeptes zur Bestandssicherung services. Toward better environmental decision-making. National Academy Press, Washington DC 290 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

Oikonomou V, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Troumbis AY (2011) Incor- Ridder B (2008) Questioning the ecosystem services argu- porating ecosystem function concept in environmental ment for biodiversity conservation. Biodivers Conserv planning and decision making by means of multi-crite- 17:781–790 ria evaluation: the case-study of Kalloni, Lesbos, Greece. Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) (2011) Instrument mixes Environ Manage 47:77–92 for biodiversity policies. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. Osterburg B, Rühling I, Runge T, Schmidt TG, Seidel K, 2/2011, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Antony F, Gödecke B, Witt-Altfelder P (2007) Kostenef- UFZ, Leipzig. 7 http://policymix.nina.no. 01 Aug 2011 fiziente Maßnahmenkombinationen nach Wasserrah- Ring I, Hansjürgens B, Elmqvist T, Wittmer H, Sukhdev P menrichtlinie zur Nitratreduktion in der Landwirtschaft. (2010) Challenges in framing the economics of ecosys- In: Osterburg B, Runge T (eds) Maßnahmen zur Redu tems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative. Curr Opin zierung von Stickstoffeinträgen in die Gewässer–eine Environ Sustain 2:15–26 wasserschutzorientierte Landwirtschaft zur Umsetzung Ringler A, Rossmann D, Steidl I (1997) Hecken und Feldge- der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. Landbauforschung Völken- hölze. BayStMLU, ANL (eds.) rode, Sonderheft 307 Roulet NT, Lafleur PM, Richard PJH, Moore TR, Humphreys Ott K (2010) Umweltethik zur Einführung. Junius, Hamburg ER, Bubier J (2007) Contemporary carbon balance and Ott K, Döring R (2004) Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltig- late Holocene carbon accumulation in a northern peat- 6 keit. Metropolis, Marburg land. Glob Change Biol 13:397–411 PAN–Planungsbüro für angewandten Naturschutz, IFAB– Rounsevell MDA, Dawson TP, Harrison PA (2010) A concep- Institut für Agrarökologie und Biodiversität, INL–In- tual framework to assess the effects of environmental stitut für Landschaftsökologie und Naturschutz (2011) change on ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv Umsetzung des High Nature Value Farmland-Indikators 19:2823–2842 in Deutschland–Ergebnisse eines Forschungsvorhabens Rowinski V, Kobel J (2011) Erfassung, Bewertung und Wie- (UFOPLAN FKZ 3508 89 0400) im Auftrag des Bundesa- dervernässung von Mooren im Müritz-Nationalpark. mtes für Naturschutz. Bearbeitung durch: PAN, IFAB, TELMA, Beiheft 4:49–72 INL. München, Mannheim, Singen, 54 p Santos LD, Martins I (2007) Monitoring urban quality of life– Pearce DW (1993) Economic values and the natural world. the porto experience. Soc Indic Res 80:411–425 MIT Press, London Schäfer A (2009) Moore und Euros–die vergessenen Mil- Pearce DW (2003) The social cost of carbon and its policy lionen. Arch Forstwes Landschaftsökol 43:156–160 implications. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 19:1–32 Schäfer A, Degenhardt S (1999) Sanierte Niedermoore und Penning-Rowsell EC, Johnson C, Tunstall S, Tapsell S, Morris Klimaschutz–Ökonomische Aspekte. Arch Nat Schutz J, Chatterton J, Coker A, Green C (2003) The Benefits of Landsch Forsch 38:335–354 flood and coastal defence: techniques and data. Flood Schäfer A, Joosten H (eds) (2005) Erlenaufforstung auf wie- Hazard Research Center, Middlesex University, United der vernässten Niedermooren. DUENE e. V., Greifswald Kingdom Schaich H, Bieling C, Plieninger T (2010) Linking ecosys- Peters W (2009) Biomassepotenziale aus der Landschafts tem services with cultural landscape research. GAIA pflege in Sachsen. FuE-Bericht im uftragA des Säch- 19:269–277 sischen Landesamtes für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Schelling TC (1995) Intergenerational discounting. Energy Geologie (unveröffentlicht), Bosch & Partner, Berlin Policy 23:395–401 Pimentel D, Harvey C, Resosudarmo P et al (1995) Environ- Schetke S, Haase D, Kötter T (2012) Innovative urban land mental and economic costs of soil erosion and conser- development–a new methodological design for imple- vation benefits. Science 267:1117–1123 menting ecological targets into strategic planning of PLENUM (2008) Regionalentwicklungskonzept PLENUM the City of Essen, Germany. Environ Impact Assess Rev Schwäbische Alb 2008–2013. PLENUM, Reutlingen 32:195–210 Plieninger T, Schleyer C (2010) Konzept der Ökosystemleis- Schleyer C, Plieninger T (2011) Obstacles and options for tungen im Kontext der Europäischen Landwirtschaft. the design and implementation of payment schemes Agrarische Rundschau 6:12–15 for ecosystem services provided through farm trees in Plieninger T, Höchtl F, Spek T (2006) Traditional land-use Saxony, Germany. Environ Conserv 38:454–463 and nature conservation in European rural landscapes. Schrack M (eds) (2008) Der Natur verpflichtet. Projekte, Environ Sci Policy 9:317–321 Ergebnisse und Erfahrungen der ehrenamtlichen Popp D, Hage G (2003) Großschutzgebiete als Träger einer Naturschutzarbeit in Großdittmannsdorf. Veröff. Mus. naturverträglichen, nachhaltigen Regionalentwicklung. Westlaus. Kamenz, Sonderheft, 180 p Nat Landsch 78:311–316 Schwartz MW, Bringham CA, Hoeksema JD, Lyons KG, Mills Qui Z (2009) Assessing critical source areas in watersheds for MH, van Mantgem PJ (2000) Linking biodiversity to eco- conservation buffer planning and riparian restoration. system function: implications for conservation ecology. Environ Manage 44:968–980. doi:10.1007/s00267-009- Oecologia 122:297–305 9380-y Schwarz N (2010) Urban form revisited–selecting indicators for characterising European cities. Landscape Urban Plan 96:29–47 291 References 6

Schwarz N, Bauer A, Haase D (2011) Assessing climate im- Strohbach MW, Arnold E, Haase D (2012) The carbon miti- pacts of local and regional planning policies—quantifi- gation potential of urban restructuring–a life cycle cation of impacts for Leipzig (Germany). Environ Impact analysis of green space development. Landsc Urban Assess Rev 31:97–111 Plan 104:220–229 Schweppe-Kraft B (2009) Natural capital in Germany–state Succow M (1988) Landschaftsökologische Moorkunde. and valuation; with special reference to Biodiversity. In Gustav Fischer, Jena Döring R (eds) Sustainability, natural capital and nature Syrbe R-U, Grunewald K (2013) Restrukturierungsbedarf für conservation. Beiträge zur Theorie und Praxis starker regionaltypische Landschaftselemente und Biotop- Nachhaltigkeit (Vol 3). Metropolis, Marburg, pp 193–216 strukturen am Beispiel Sachsens. Natur und Landschaft Seják J, Dejmal I et al (2010) Method of monetary valuation 88(3):103–111 of territorial ecological functions. Mscr., J. E. Purkyne TEEB–The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2009) University, Ústí nad Labem, Tschechische Republik TEEB for National and International Policy Makers. Seto KC, Fragkias M, Güneralp B, Reilly MK (2011) A meta- Rewarding benefits through payments and markets. analysis of global uban land expansion. PLoS One 6: 7 www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=vYOqLx- e23777. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023777 i7aOg%3d&tabid=1019&language=en-US. Accessed 28 Simoncini R (1998) The IUCN/European Sustainable Special- June 2010 ist Group/Agricultural Working Group Pan-European TEEB–The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010) Project. Manuscript (unpublished), Florence Mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis SMUL–Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und of the approach, conclusions and recommendations Landwirtschaft (2009a) Programm zur Biologischen of TEEB. 7 www.teebweb.org/TEEBSynthesisReport/ Vielfalt im Freistaat Sachsen des Sächsischen Staatsmi tabid/29410/Default.aspx nisteriums für Umwelt und Landwirtschaft. Dresden Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as SMUL–Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable Landwirtschaft (2009b) Waldzustandsbericht 2009. development. Landsc Ecol 24:1037–1052 Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Land- The Council of the European Union (2005) Council Regula- wirtschaft (ed) Sachsenforst, Dresden tion (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on sup- SMUL–Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und port for rural development by the European Agricultur- Landwirtschaft (2009c) Agrarbericht in Zahlen 2009, al Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Official Journal Mai 2010. 7 www.smul.sachsen.de/umwelt/…/BioDiv_ of the European Union, L 277/1. 21.10.2005 Prog_ Mrz09_fin.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2009 The Council of the European Union (2009) Council Regula- SMUL–Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und tion (EC) No 74/2009 of 19 January 2009 amending Landwirtschaft (2010) Maßnahmenplan des Sächsischen Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural de- Staatsministeriums für Umwelt und Landwirtschaft zur velopment by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Biologischen Vielfalt im Freistaat Sachsen. Dresden,18 p Development (EAFRD). Official Journal of the European Spangenberg JH, Settele J (2010) Precisely incorrect? Mon- Union, L 30/100. 31.1.2009 etising the value of ecosystem services. Ecol Complex Tol RSJ (2005) The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide 7:327–337 emissions: an assessment of uncertainties. Energy Staub C, Ott W et al (2011) Indikatoren für Ökosystemleistun- Policy 33:2064–2074 gen: Systematik, Methodik und Umsetzungsempfehlun- Tratalos J, Fuller RA, Warren PH, Davies RG, Gaston KJ (2007) gen für eine wohlfahrtsbezogene Umweltberichterstat- Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem tung. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Umwelt-Wissen Nr. 1102, services. Landsc Urban Plan 83:308–17 Bern Turner K, Georgiou S, Fisher B (2008) Valuing ecosystem ser- Steffens R, Saemann D, Größler K (1998) Die Vogelwelt vices. the case of multifunctional wetlands. Earthscan, Sachsens. Fischer, Jena, Stuttgart London Stegmann H, Zeitz J (2001) Bodenbildende Prozesse entwäs- UBA–Umweltbundesamt (2007) Ökonomische Bewer- serter Moore. In: Succow M, Joosten H (edn) Land- tung von Umweltschäden. Methodenkonvention zur schaftsökologische Moorkunde (2. edn). Schweizerbart, Schätzung externer Umweltkosten. Umweltbundesamt, Stuttgart, pp. 47–57 Berlin Stern N (2007) The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge UBA–Umweltbundesamt (2009) National Inventory Report University Press, Cambridge for the German Greenhouse Gas Inventory under the StMUG–Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Gesundheit (2011) Mehr Geld für Vertragsnaturschutz Change 1990–2007. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau und Landschaftspflege. Nat Landsch 86:172 UBA–Umweltbundesamt (2010) Nationaler Inventarbe Strohbach MW, Haase D (2012) Estimating the carbon stock richt Deutschland–2010. Berichterstattung unter der of a city: a study from Leipzig, Germany. Landsc Urban Klimarahmenkonvention der Vereinten Nationen, 668 p. Plan 104:95–104 7 www.waldundklima.net/klima/klima_docs/uba_nir_ dtl_2010.pdf. Accessed 16 june 2012 292 Chapter 6 • Land Use, Maintenance and Protection to Ensure ES

UBA–Umweltbundesamt (2011) Daten zur Umwelt. Umwelt und Landwirtschaft, Bonn, 98 p Valsangiacomo A (1998) Die Natur der Ökologie: Anspruch und Grenzen ökologischer Wissenschaften. vdf, Zürich Vos W, Meekes H (1999) Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future. Landsc Urban Plan 46:3–14 Watkiss P, Anthoff D, Downing T, Hepburn C, Hope C, Hunt A, Tol R (2005) The social cost of carbon (SSC). review– methodological approaches for using SCC estimates in policy assessment. Final Report. AETA Technology Environment, Harwell Weizsäcker EU von (1989) Erdpolitik–Ökologische Realpolitik an der Schwelle zum Jahrhundert der Umwelt. Wissen- schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt Weller F (2006) XI–2.11. Streuobstwiesen. In: Konold W, 6 Böcker R, Hampicke U (eds) Handbuch Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, pp 1–42 Wichmann S, Wichtmann W (2011) Paludikultur: Standort- gerechte Bewirtschaftung wiedervernässter Moore. TELMA, Beiheft 4:215–234 Wichtmann W, Schäfer A (2005) Energiegewinnung von ertragsschwachen Ackerstandorten und Niedermooren. Nat Landsch 80:421–425 WRRL (2000) Richtlinie 2000/60/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 23. Oktober 2000 zur Schaffung eines Ordnungsrahmens für Maßnahmen der Gemeinschaft im Bereich der Wasserpolitik. Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaft vom 22.12.2000 L 327/1 WuF (2007) Richtlinie des Sächsischen Staatsministeriums für Umwelt und Landwirtschaft zur Förderung der naturnahen Waldbewirtschaftung, forstwirtschaftlicher Zusammenschlüsse und des Naturschutzes im Wald im Freistaat Sachsen. SächsABl. Jg. 2007, Bl.-Nr. 44, p 1449 Yli-Pelkonen V, Nielema J (2005) Linking ecological and social systems in cities: urban planning in Finland as a case. Biodivers Conserv 14:1947–1967 Zahrnt V (2010) Eine Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik für eu- ropäische Gemeingüter: Deklaration einer Gruppe führender Agrarökonomen. 7 www.reformthecap.eu/ Declaration-on-CAP-reform. Accessed 02 Nov 2010 Zak D, Augustin J, Trepel M, Gelbrecht J (2011) Strategien und Konfliktvermeidung bei der Restaurierung von Nieder- mooren unter Gewässer-, Klima- und Naturschutzas- pekten, dargestellt am Beispiel des nordostdeutschen Tieflandes. TELMA, Beiheft 4:133–150 Zangemeister C (1971) Nutzwertanalyse in der Systemtech- nik. Eine Methodik zur multidimensionalen Bewertung und Auswahl von Projektalternativen (4. edn). Disserta- tion, TU Berlin, 1970, München, 370 p Zeddies J, Kazenwadel G, Löthe K (1997) Auswirkungen einer Steuer auf mineralische Stickstoffdünger. Agrar- wirtschaft 46:214–224 ZMP (2009) ZMP-Marktberichterstattung der Jahre 2005 und 2006. 7 www.zmp.de. Accessed 24 April 2009 293 7

Recommendations and Outlook

7.1 Work Steps for the Analysis and Evaluation of ES – 294 O. Bastian and K. Grunewald

7.2 Future Challenges Regarding ES – 299 K. Grunewald and O. Bastian

References – 304

K. Grunewald, O. Bastian (eds.), Ecosystem Services – Concept, Methods and Case Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-44143-5_7, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 294 Chapter 7 • Recommendations and Outlook

7.1 Work Steps for the Analysis and hardly be possible to address the more high-effort Evaluation of ES tasks, particularly the quantitative evaluation of ES. The latter may for example be useful in protected O. Bastian and K. Grunewald areas, especially if these have a high socio-economic or a significant development potential, if a pollu- “You would not find out whether something is suc- tion or danger thereof due to inappropriate land- cessful or not by thinking about it; only by trying use practices exists, or if alternatives are sought or it out.” protective goals are to be formulated (especially Methodological recommendations for action are with regard to land-use changes, e.g. forest restruc- extremely helpful for the practical application of turing; 7 Sect. 6.3). The calling of ES to attention is the ES concept, for example in the form of a guide- useful if stakeholders are to be won over to the pro- line which identifies the most important work tective effort, and if financial resources need to be steps in order, and provides and explains suitable secured. A clear setting of goals is also useful in order approaches to solutions for each one. to find suitable indicators and to avoid mistaken in- However, it would hardly be realistic to stipu- terpretations with regard to ES as much as possible. late a schematic, generally applicable process plan, 7 like a cooking recipe, for the ascertainment and/ zz 2) Characteristics of the Area to be or evaluation of ES. The respective problems and Investigated the substantive ecological, economic, sociocultur- Ideally, we should start by obtaining an overview al and spatial configurations and contexts are too of the area under investigation: its size, for exam- different. For that reason, the guideline presented ple in order to establish the suitable scale for the here (. Table 7.1) is based on the EPPS framework ascertainment; properties and natural capacity of methodology (7 Sect. 3.1), and should first of all be important ecosystems, its dominant land uses and seen as an orientation which indicates important the overall socio-economic situation; known uses work steps and points out significant aspects and/or based on the ecosystem and the beneficiaries of requirements, without being able to go into any de- those uses; existing conflicts, problems or pollution tail. It should also be noted that completeness need situations; expired or expected changes or trends, not always be achieved, but that rather the program existing planning procedures, or pending decisions. for the investigation should be tailored very spe- The fundamental factor is knowledge of the cifically to the particular task at hand, among other data situation: Have ES already been recorded in the things in order to keep the effort required for the area, or are ES-relevant data available? Which data work within limits. sources are available (e.g. maps, databases remote This guideline is based both on the experiences sensing, GIS, landscape plans, local knowledge, of the authors and the evaluation of the following expert knowledge or ascertainment of resources)? sources from the literature: Bastian and Schreiber Existing information gaps should also be identified. (1999); OECD (2008); Haines-Young and Potschin (2009); Kettunen et al. (2009); Grunewald and Bas- zz 3) Clear Definition of the Terminology tian (2010); TEEB (2010); UNEP-WCMC (2011); In order to develop a clear and comprehensible Bastian et al. (2012); Burkhard et al. (2012); Seppelt investigative approach, to correctly interpret and et al. (2012). communicate the results, and to avoid having the experts from different disciplines and scientific zz 1) Definition of the Task schools, and the practitioners, talk past each other, First of all, the purpose of the investigation needs to a definition and explanation of the terminology to be defined, and the concrete task definition clearly be used is indispensable (7 Sect. 2.1). Otherwise, formulated. The question as to why the ES need to misunderstandings may arise, for to this day there be evaluated in the first place should be answered, is no system of terminology for the ES area which and also which advantages this would have in com- is clear in detail and generally accepted. That in- parison with traditional approaches in the concrete cludes the term ES itself, and also the term ‘func- case. Without a deeper purpose, it will in most cases tion,’ among others. Moreover, to date there is no 295 7.1 • Work Steps for the Analysis and Evaluation of ES 7

. Table 7.1 Work steps for the analysis and ture? If only for reasons of the work effort involved, evaluation of ES (explanation in the text) it would appear to be hardly possible to process a very large number of ES, let alone the entire spec- Point Work step trum (see case studies, 7 Chap. 6). However, the 1 Definition of the task representative selection of ES should be considered 2 Characteristics of the area to be investi- important–and not only provisioning ES such as gated food and fibres should be represented, but also 3 Clear definition of the terminology regulatory and sociocultural ES, including those relevant for the preservation of biological diversity. 4 A balanced selection of the ES Functioning properly ecosystems often yield a 5 Selection of suitable evaluation proce- whole bundle of different ES. Their shares vary from dures and indicators one ecosystem to the other, from place to place and 6 Selection and processing of ecological/ from time to time. It is important to keep track of biophysical assessment approaches the totality of ES and their linkages, in order, e.g. to 7 Realisation of monetary evaluation–if pos- avoid establishing financial incentives for the ben- sible and necessary efit of a single ES at the expense of others, which are 8 Differentiated view of ES and cost/benefit then damaged. This often occurs in the interaction between provisioning ES and regulatory ES, e.g. en- 9 Consideration of dangers, risks, limit ergy crop cultivation vs. biodiversity. The consider- values, trade-offs ation of a broad spectrum of ES is also necessary in 10 Consideration for space/time aspects order to arrive at statements on sustainability. 11 Identification of stakeholders and institutions zz 5) Selection of Suitable Evaluation 12 Analysis of drivers and scenarios Procedures and Indicators When ascertaining or evaluating ES, the question 13 Conveying knowledge, communication about ES frequently arises: What are the most appropriate procedures for the concrete situation? As explained 14 Recommendations for need for action and in 7 Sect. 4.2, using the example of the travel cost ES management method, the inappropriate application of a proce- 15 Monitoring ES dure may lead to nonsensical results. The numbers do not indicate a mandatory sequence; Minimum demands must be placed on evalua- however, Points 1 to 5 can be attributed to the initial tion procedures: phase, Points 6 to 12 to the main processing phase, 1. The basic precondition is that the procedure and Points 13 to 15 to the final phase. be logically structured, clear and of significant explanatory power. 2. The selected procedure should be equivalent consensus regarding the most useful classification with the spatial segment under examination, of ES. It can therefore be noted as clearly as pos- the criteria of evaluation and the precision of sible why a certain classification system has been the results. decided upon. The corresponding proposals have 3. The latest tates of information and the current been presented in 7 Sect. 3.2. value criteria should be taken into account. 4. The input values and ecological contexts zz 4) A Balanced Selection of the ES should be scientifically secured to the maxi- A representative selection should be made from mum extent possible (validity). the wide variety of possible ES. What are the most 5. It should be possible to gather the basic data important ES upon which society depends and/or within a reasonable period of time. needs? Which ES are endangered, and which are 6. The ascertainment and processing of the data subject to changes, or will be in the foreseeable fu- should be transparent. 296 Chapter 7 • Recommendations and Outlook

7. The procedure should be understandable and The pyramid of ES valuation methods designed flexible. by ten Brink (2008) depicts the step-by-step nar- 8. The evaluation results should be clearly and rowing down of the quantum of investigation from comprehensibly presented. the qualitative overview to the monetary evaluation; the latter is a very high-effort procedure, and ES evaluations should not ignore risks and uncer- hence not always used (. Fig. 7.1). tainties or knowledge gaps with regard to the effect Theecological ascertainment of ecosystem struc- of people on ecosystems and ES, and their signifi- tures and processes, e.g. based on data, maps, field- cance for human well-being. work, experiments, measurements and modelling, On the one hand, it is necessary to simplify, e.g. is necessary in order to gain an understanding of in order to communicate with political leaders or how ES are generated, and in order to provide a the broad public; on the other, misguided simple scientifically based framework within which the solutions to complex problems should be avoided, actual valuation will take place. in order not to cause more harm than good, thus for example causing mistakes in the decision-making zz 7) Realisation of Monetary Evaluation: If process. The most useful solution appears to be a Possible and Necessary 7 medium level of complexity, or differentiation ac- Thepros and cons of economic (monetary) valuation cording to various levels of complexity (as in the methods have already been addressed (7 Sect. 4.2). model InVEST, 7 Sect. 4.4). They require not only economic expertise, but are The determination of suitable indicators also usually very high-effort, and can be usefully (7 Sect. 4.1) has proven to be helpful. These should applied only in certain situations. Economic valu- have a high level of explanatory potential for the ations can however contribute to a greater consid- problem to be solved, and also be politically rele eration for ES in economic calculations, balancing vant in order to be able to correctly interpret and of interests and planning processes, for instance in apply the results of the investigations. cost-benefit analyses, and also in the internalisation of environmental impacts. zz 6) Selection and Processing of Ecological/ Certain services attributed to ecosystems are Biophysical Assessment Approaches not provided by them alone, but require human in- Every ES evaluation starts with a compilation of put. For example, the crops grown on farmland are existing knowledge, the ascertainment/measure- the product of ES, dependent upon site conditions ment needed to obtain the necessary basic data, and potentials; they provide utility for people and and a qualitative evaluation which is generally, but contain value. They are planted, cared for, fertilised, not always followed by a quantification. Not all ES irrigated, etc., in order to secure increased yields. are easy to quantify. Also suitable are qualitative If appropriate, reference should be made to such measures (see the example of the orchard mead- environmental services (7 Sect. 2.1, 4.2, 6.2.4). ows, 7 Sect. 6.5.1). Where no direct measures are In general, valuation methods–and not only available, and/or possible, and where there are also economic ones–should be seen as part of a broad no exact data, it may be necessary to work with spectrum of diagnostic instruments and of insti- estimated values. These steps do not however con- tutional and policy mechanisms (including legal stituted evaluation in the strict sense. stipulations, participatory methods, and gover- The principle of the distinction between mea- nance; 7 Sect. 4.3, 5.1, 5.4) which facilitate an un- surement and evaluation, or between the factual derstanding of complex socio-ecological systems level (the structures and current processes exist- and provide decision-makers with the necessary ing within ecosystems), and the value level is often background knowledge. ES evaluations require a overlooked. Both descriptive and normative work strong interdisciplinary perspective which integrates steps are necessary in ES investigations, and must not only ecological and economic factors, but also be embedded into a broader socio-ecological con- a wide variety of natural, planning and social-sci- text. entific disciplines. 297 7.1 • Work Steps for the Analysis and Evaluation of ES 7

monetary: e. g. avoided costs of water treatment, money terms of carbon sequestration, Monetarisation value of collected medicinal plants

quantitative: e. g. volume of treated water (in m³), stored carbon (in t), amount of collected Quantitative assess medicinal plants (in kg)

qualitative: number/amount of services based on ecosystems, benefits Qualitative overview (e. g. health, income, well-being) as well as existing knowledge gaps

Full range of ecosystem services

. Fig. 7.1 Basic approaches of ecosystem services evaluation. Adapted from ten Brink 2008 zz 8) A Differentiated View of ES and cost/ zz 9) Consideration of Dangers, Risks, Limit Benefit Values and Trade-Offs ES are the link between ecosystems/landscapes Important questions in this context include: and the utility and/or values which they provide 55 Which limit and threshold values are known, to people. It is important to understand whether a and need to be addressed? service is simply being ‘supplied’ by the ecosystem, 55 Which causal contexts are there between cer- or whether this service is actually being ‘demand- tain ES? ed’ by people. In the former case, the service is a 55 Are any of the ascertained uses endangered, potential of the ecosystem and/or of the landscape declining, or subject to serious risks? Knowl- (7 Sect. 3.1). Whether the utility corresponds to the edge of such matters could help establish direct potential, whether overuse exists which constitutes or long-term measures in order to secure the a burden on the ecosystem, or whether there is lee- maintenance of ES. way for further-reaching utilisation is helpful for 55 What are possible trade-offs between various the evaluation and planning process. uses which have to be considered? A focus on There are also values which cannot be assigned increasing the level of certain ES and of their to a certain ES, but which should nonetheless not be associated utility can have negative effects on neglected, e.g. the existence of rare animal and plant other ES. The ascertainment of existing and species, regardless of their role with respect to ES. potential trade-offs can help make a determi- The effect of ES on human well-being should nation as to which uses or utilities could be be demonstrated: Is that well-being being affected supported and which should not, in accor- by the increase or decrease in ES, and what policy dance, too, with the principle of sustainability. abilities to ES provide to increase that well-being? How, for example, would an improvement of the zz 10) Consideration for Space/Time Aspects percolation and water-retention capacity of soil in For ES, there is a high level of relevance of scales the watershed of a river increase the safety of the with respect to space, time and complexity. That inhabitants by reducing the risk of flooding, or preis true of data ascertainment, models, evaluations, venting it altogether? utilities and values, institutions and economic and 298 Chapter 7 • Recommendations and Outlook

political processes alike. The dependency on scales er also raises the issue of the often complex struc- should always be taken into account, including in- tures and interactions of ES-relevant stakeholders teractions between scales and their subordinated and institutions (7 Sect. 4.3, 5.1). If the utility for the hierarchies. user provided by ES is known, suitable options can The problem of scales is reflected for example in be ascertained for maintaining these ES by involv- the reference units for ES and the compatibility of ing these beneficiaries. scales and measures. Also to be taken into account Important questions include: are transitions of scales, including upscaling and 55 Who is dependent on which ES? Who profits? downscaling and tipping points. Who pays for or suffers from disadvantages? Since ES and economic values are context- Who is responsible for maintaining ES? Who specific, and also spatially and temporally specific, has caused the deterioration? each ES analysis and/or evaluation should be car- 55 Which institutional factors–laws, ordinances, ried out in appropriate temporal and spatial scales standards and rules, incentive systems, prop- relevant for scientific ascertainment, and also for erty relationships, traditions and customs, political decision-making and for policy measures. decision-making structures, etc.–affect the Important spatial aspects include (7 Sect. 3.3): condition of the ecosystems and of the ES? 7 55 Area requirement: A minimum area for the 55 Which actors are relevant at the various levels supply of ES, with a specific quality (structure, of decision-making? abiotic characteristics, biodiversity) 55 Who can or should contribute financially to 55 Spatial composition: Land cover diversity, maintaining ES? How can stakeholders be patch richness incorporated into the ES concept, e.g. through 55 Spatial configuration: Zonation of protected the identification and evaluation of relevant areas (core areas, buffers), land-use gradients ES, or the development of management op- 55 Functional connections: Supply–transfer–de- tions and their practical implementation? mand relationships, likelihood of transmission and transfer (e.g. habitat networks, river-flood- zz 12) Analysis of Drivers and Scenarios plain relationships). Changes in ecosystems and/or ES are triggered by direct and indirect drivers, which should be iden- Far too few ES studies to date are taking the so-called tified. Important drivers include globalisation, de- off-site effects into consideration: the provision of mographic change, climate change and also policy ES in certain area can be affected by decisions made decisions, incentive mechanisms, legislation, au- in other areas or at another level;regional, national thorities and institutions. or global. ES evaluations should be placed into the con- Time aspects especially refer to: text of contrasting scenarios (7 Sect. 4.3, 6.2.4, 6.3), 55 Time requirements: Minimal process time, with the aid of which questions such as the follow- regeneration times of ecosystems and ES ing can be answered: 55 Temporal sequences: Changes in ecosystems 55 What could the future of the ecosystems or the and ES (trends) ES concerned look like (development of so- 55 Time lags: Precautionary measures, risks, op- called storylines) tion values, intergenerational time lags (the 55 Would the economic development and well- present generation benefits, the next pays for being of various stakeholders in the area be the environmental damage). influenced by an increase or a decrease of ES? 55 How will various policy options affect develop- zz 11) Identification of Stakeholders and ment drivers? How will changes in the drivers Institutions affect ES? The ascertainment/evaluation of ES typically does 55 How might the state of knowledge and the not stop with the analysis of natural-scientific facts appreciation of the values of ES change in the or at the provision of services (potentials), but rath- future? 299 7.2 • Future Challenges Regarding ES 7 zz 13) Conveying Knowledge and tion’; avoidance of conflict between protective Communications Regarding ES and use aspects One key limiting factor in the preservation of 55 Trade-offs: Balancing the improvement of one natural capital is the widespread ignorance about ES against the possible deterioration of an- how ecosystems function and contribute to human other ES well-being. These deficits could be overcome by tar- 55 Equal rights among stakeholders, different geted and continual educational activity in general, dependencies of stakeholders on ES, and use in and by appropriate information regarding particu- property rights with regard to ES lar projects, such as renaturation, protected-area 55 Incorporation of relevant stakeholders at the certification, etc., and particularly by cooperation local, regional, national and global levels in on the basis of trust between various stakeholders. the formulation of management goals for the In 7 Sect. 4.5, difficulties and also opportunities, implementation of measures such as knowledge transfer, campaigns, discourses etc. are discussed in this regard. zz 15) Monitoring ES An effective and efficient monitoring process is zz 14) Recommendations for Need for Action necessary in order to observe changes in ecosys- and ES Management tems and ES, contract implementation and success One of the most important goals in ES evaluation (or failure) of measures, and, if necessary, to draw involves optimising and improving the ES in an the necessary conclusions, e.g. adaptive manage- area. Instruments possible for this purpose include: ment, or modification of control instruments. 55 Adoption of suitable legislation and other For the modern meaning of changes with regard regulations to ES, biodiversity, economic and social goals and 55 Payments for ecosystem services (PES): Dem- requirements, suitable key indicators are necessary. onstrated socio-economic utility can persuade The frequency of monitoring should correspond to beneficiaries to agree to new models for as- the respective factual situation and the issues at one suming the cost of protection (7 Sect. 5.2) hand, and it should be sufficiently flexible at the 55 Elimination of harmful policies and incentive other hand, so as to be able to permit modifications, mechanisms which favour the degradation of ES e.g. in the measurement process. 55 Compensation mechanisms for losses due to impacts Conclusion 55 Dialogues with stakeholders Finally, let us emphasise: This guideline is designed 55 Establishment of protected areas to convey an overview of important aspects of ES 55 Development of capacities (jobs, funding), e.g. ascertainment and evaluation, without any claim conservation and landscape care of completeness. It should also be noted that there 55 Support for research to improve the ascertain- are no evaluation methods suitable for all possible ment and evaluation methodology. cases. Ultimately, the specific task at hand in the respective context of the investigations will de- The ES management should meet certain criteria termine which specifications of the procedure are and comply with certain principles: necessary and sensible. 55 Effectivity and efficiency, political and economic viability 55 Risks concerning ES, application of the pre- 7.2 Future Challenges Regarding ES cautionary principle 55 Possible balancing of interests between dif- K. Grunewald and O. Bastian ferent ES, or else prioritisation (but not only taking supply ES into account); possibly re- “For human beings, ‘existence’ in the sense of weighting of priorities from supply towards merely ‘subsisting’ on earth is not enough. People regulatory services; sustainable level of ‘utilisa- have their desires, and often, their greed knows no 300 Chapter 7 • Recommendations and Outlook

limits. Humankind must experience its existence. nature to the role of a provider of services under In pain, in ecstasy, in failure, in triumph (after Zeh the signboard of ES? Should we not be developing 2009).” and supporting extra-economic approaches in decision-making and alternative patterns of thinking, We have formulated the following key issue of the such as communication, the rules of sustainable ES concept (7 Chap. 1): How can the services of lifestyles, and free spaces for creativity, indepen- nature be ascertained? What are the use claims of dent of the interests of added value and of profit? people with regard to the services which nature can How are cultural traditions, political ideals, obliga- provide, and how can these claims be ascertained tions towards future generations, ideas about the and integrated into rational action? moral self-value of natural beings, a spiritual view Unlike animals, humans can at least to some of nature, existential attitudes, such as fascination extent raise themselves above the constraints of na- amazement or respect, and, yes, the multiplicity of ture. However, ever more growth does not neces- environmental-ethical arguments and the totality sarily bring more well-being, for the ‘good life’ is of the wealth of humankind’s relationship with na- not definable solely by means of material param- ture (Ott 2012) to obtain the high degree of atten- eters. Even if traditional thought patterns, manners tion beyond thinking in mere economic categories 7 of behaviour and economic models demonstrate that they deserve? How can we avoid the term ES greater capacity for resilience, the end of the non- from becoming a meaningless shell, due to careless sustainable path to development is foreseeable; overuse, as has already happened, for instance, to however that will require time, and the actors to the term ‘sustainability’? carry out change. In this context, the line of thought Overall, terms, concepts, indicators and skills in associated with the concept of ES can be seen both the context of the human-environment-technology as a political and as an economic concept for action. debate are multilayered and multifaceted, and not The goal of the ES approach is to obtain a high- sufficiently coordinated with one another. Holistic er appreciation for the value of our natural foun- integrative views in general, and those on ES in par- dations for life. The concept ‘ecosystem services’ ticular, are necessary in order to observe interac- is relatively new, a ‘fashionable term’ (7 Chap. 1); tions to direct one’s view towards the essential, and however, the intents and approaches behind it are to avoid irrationality. However, how can an integra- not, to a large extent (7 Chap. 2). Since the con- tive perspective in an extremely complex world be cept is not a revolutionary new one, it can hardly realised despite the specialisation of the sciences? be expected to solve fundamental conflicts in the The idea that we can live ‘in harmony with na- relationship between humankind and nature. The ture’ (Succow 2011) is, according to Haber (2011) an ES concept has no patent remedy to offer policy- illusion, and the efforts to ‘ecologise society’ will makers, nor can it relieve them of the burden of probably not be very successful. Why are the term decision-making. and the concept of ES nonetheless attaining a high Ever more voices (e.g. Fatheuer 2012; level of political and scientific attention, both na- Löschmann 2012; Schröter et al. 2014) are sounding tionally and internationally? Is it the attractiveness the warning against providing further support for of the large sums of money with which the values the commercialisation of nature under the disguise of nature and biodiversity are suddenly being mea- of a ‘green economy’ to be increasingly subjugated sured? Is it the possibility of making the costs and to the crisis-prone, non-sustainable and non-fu- benefits of alternative courses of action clearer by ture-capable global turbo capitalist financial mar- way of the ascertainment of ES? More economics ket system. Does not the ES approach correspond in conservation (Schweppe-Kraft 2010)–is that the with precisely those mechanisms and instruments right way? which have shaken the financial system and essen- The fact is that the ES concept can demonstrate tially caused the debt crisis, which is so in need of and valuate the dependency of human beings on na- reform? The question is how do we avoid having a ture and the landscape more clearly than has hith- new business sector opened up which would reduce erto been the case. Thus, we at least have a vision of 301 7.2 • Future Challenges Regarding ES 7

‘making the world a better place’, for wrong deci- The economic evaluation methods 7( Sect. 4.2) sions are a problem, since knowledge of ES is insuf- are particularly based on alternatives for decisions ficient (Armsworth et al. 2007; TEEB 2010). What is around the provision and use of ES, and are trans- new in this context is that compared with previous lated into changes in human well-being by means evaluations (e.g. Bastian and Schreiber 1999), the of monetary values. This occurs, among other demand side (utility, users, beneficiaries), i.e. the things, via surveys of citizens on their willingness desires and sensitivities of people, have been moved to pay for public goods. However, do the results re- more strongly into focus. This requires a degree of ally reflect their true preferences? The willingness social-scientific competence, because ES can con- to pay for a little-known species may be very low, tribute to a more sustainable societal development and yet its value may not be low at all. For that rea- (Jetzkowitz 2011). son, the use of economic evaluation methods for In order to enhance the effectiveness of the ES assessing the value of assets remote from the mar- concept, however, suitable basic conditions will ket, such as aspects of biodiversity, or the beauty be needed, which means a functional economic, of landscapes, can only play a supportive role, but financial and monetary system not exclusively ori- cannot be the sole standard for options for action. ented towards growth. Although people develop Here, caution, control and a sense of measure are their environment primarily according to eco- appropriate (7 Sect. 4.2 and 5.2). It is no question nomic and to some extent sociocultural aspects that cost-benefit analyses improve the comparabil- (Adam 1996), this necessarily leads to changes in ity of alternative options. In some cases, however, ecological characteristics and the integrity of eco- where monetary values can be assigned only with systems and the landscape. It is therefore necessary difficulty or not at all, it is better to ascertain ES to perceive and to administer them in an economic in some other manner, such has been shown in context, since these impacts generate numerous the case of the sociocultural ES orchard meadows socio-economic effects. This also affects all catego- (7 Sect. 6.5.1). But monetary and non-monetary ries of protected areas. But not everything can be measures, such as participatory approaches and evaluated according to aspects of economic viabil- the negotiation of priorities, are important for the ity. For example, one should not, in this context, decision-making process. overlook spontaneous development of ecosystems The various different perspectives shown and and landscape. the possibility of participation and formulation are Knowledge about action or inaction must be essentially what make the ES concept attractive. understood and considered very precisely. In gen- Ecologists and economists quantify, map, model eral, action in nature is successful if efficient goals and evaluate ES (7 Chap. 4); political scientists and are achieved (Ott 2010). Shrinkage and nonuse can- planners address the issues of institutions, ES con- not be economically exploited, but they can be as- trol instruments, management and governance; sessed and evaluated. However, the ES concept is and financial experts handle PES (7 Chap. 5). And not primarily about nonuse, but rather about pric- participation, coordination, ethics, communica- ing ancillary and follow-up effects. For that reason tions and implementation are the factors that we future developments will increasingly have to en- definitely cannot do without. sure that: ‘The consistent engagement of the environ- 55 The costs and benefits of measures in ecosys- mental movement has sensitised our awareness for tems and the landscape are internalised as the destruction of nature and for overexploitation. much as possible. We’ve happily accepted the restrictions on our per- 55 The incentives for economic use are formulated sonal freedom in order to improve conditions. And in such a way that they serve the goals of biodi- with success: Today, our rivers are cleaner, our air is versity and conservation in equal measure. clearer and our forests are healthier than ever’, writes 55 Market distortions which have a negative effect Ebert (2011), not someone whom anyone would sus- on biodiversity are reduced. pect of being an ecologist or an environmental scientist. This positive environmental conclusion for 302 Chapter 7 • Recommendations and Outlook

Germany–it could be supplemented by such other instance to which sustainability, biodiversity or success stories as toxic site cleanup–should not blind energy concepts are submitted, is itself heteroge- us to the fact that we have not succeeded in stopping neous, split into parties, departments, lobbies, etc. fragmentation of the landscape, loss of biodiversity Nonetheless, we are convinced that the ES concept and land consumption for housing and infrastruc- can reinforce the understanding of broad sections ture. The omission of climate-destructive gases is of the population for protection of nature and the continuing, the German ‘energy-policy turnaround’ environment. still needs to be completed, and the growing recre- The implementation of the model of ‘sustain- ational and tourism sector is certainly not always able development’ should be oriented towards ES ‘compatible with nature’. The same is true of agri- and multifunctional landscapes, in other words, culture. Here, the ambivalence between the above- one of the things it must do is analyse which ES are described efficiency, biological diversity and food compatible and/or combinable with one another, security and/or consumer protection are particularly where services can be integrated, where conflicts evident (7 Sect. 6.2; Trepl 2012). exist, and where they can be resolved. That particu- Preservation of nature and the landscape starts larly requires farsighted land-use policy, control of at the middle level, in the consciousness, in the land use and the creation of societal awareness for 7 heads of people, where we ‘learn to feel our home- the development of ecosystems and landscapes. The land as part of the world as a whole, as something conveyance of knowledge is an important social that gives us a place in the world’ (Václav Havel, component of sustainability in this regard. quoted in Weinzierl 1999). We need to understand that many ecosystems and landscapes are part of zz What New Impulses can be Ascertained? our cultural heritage. Even the ‘Green Charter of In May 2011, the German Federal Agency for Na- Mainau Island’ (Grüne Charta von der Mainau) ture Conservation found in the Competence Cen- of 1961 saw ‘the dignity of humankind threatened ter ‘Natural Capital Germany’. The international wherever its natural environment is impaired’, and TEEB study (TEEB 2010) is to be implemented at demanded ‘reorientation of thinking of the entire the national level. This involves particularly the fur- population through an enhanced education of the ther development of the ascertainment and evalua- public regarding the importance of the landscape, tion of ecosystem services and biodiversity for the both urban and rural, and the dangers threatening economy and society. The explanation of concepts, it’ (DRL 1997). terms, methods and regional case studies in this The goal of dealing responsibly with natural book can provide a basis for that. resources in the interest of humankind itself is German scientists are also strongly involved the basis of the model of sustainable development in the international scientific community, e.g. in adopted by the community of nations at the 1992 the context of the Ecosystem Services Partnership Conference on Environment and Development in (7 www.fsd.nl/esp). The fact that Bonn was selected Rio de Janeiro. In 1994, the German Parliament of- as the site of the office of the Secretariat of the Inter- ficially made sustainability a goal of the state under governmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiver- the constitution, and all federal governments and sity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in 2012 can be many interest groups have since then expressly con- seen as a milestone. The main task of the IPBES is to firmed their support for it. However, about 20 years provide policy decision-makers with reliable, inde- later, where do we stand (Rio + 20)? pendent and credible information on the state and The model fo sustainable development is cer- the development of biodiversity, in order to sup- tainly true and important for the twenty-first cen- port their decision-making processes. However that tury. However, it has been accepted by the broad alone is not enough to achieve biodiversity goals. mass of the population only very hesitantly. Who Implementation and measure-oriented approaches knows the sustainability indicators in detail? Who based on the ES concept are needed for that. keeps track of the changes in them? The politi- Finally, the establishment of a national research cal sphere as a generator of impulses and as the centre for the area of biodiversity at the associated 303 7.2 • Future Challenges Regarding ES 7

Universities of Halle, Jena and Leipzig by the Ger- The assessment of ES is carried out for certain man Research Foundation (DFG) and the current services, which are generally classed in the catego- scientific activities initiated for implementation ries provisioning, regulatory and sociocultural ES by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (7 Sect. 3.2). They are subjected to selection and and the Federal Ministry for Education Research weighing in accordance with the task at hand, and (BMBF) provide clear evidence that the ES concept the possibilities. The foundations for investigation will in the future assume a prominent role for the are provided by geobiophysically based ecological sustainable activation of the potentials of land- and–if appropriate–economic/monetary classifica- scapes in Germany. This will involve building upon tions. In this regard, ES-specific standards (proce- the high level of the ecological and environmental/ dures, techniques, models) have not yet been suf- economic and spatial-planning sciences, and also ficiently developed and tested 7( Sect. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, taking into account the complex, change-resistant 4.4). That involves particularly the comprehensive systems of business, finance, administration and taking into account of interactions between various governance. ES (trade-offs), and the delimitation of ecosystemic and human/technological services. zz What Must be Taken into Account in the Within the framework of the Ecosystem Ser- Future? vices Partnership and other networks, working The concept of ES has become established in the groups are currently being formed in order to cognitive orientation of both the scientific com- prepare and collect regional, and especially type- munity and the practitioners, and the awareness in referenced ES values (e.g. the SERVES-database, the population for the problem that our lives and 7 www.esvaluation.org). This also includes data- our well-being depend on nature is being strength- bases with ES values and valuations currently be- ened. The approach has been positively received ing established. In TEEB (2010), some 1300 mon- by the public; that fact should be put to use by etary values were calculated for 11 biomes world- the ‘sustainability trinity’, and not watered down wide. For each biome, e.g. a wetland or a meadow, by semantical or turf battles. It may be irrelevant 22 ES were included in the data collection–in the- which exact label we place on ES; what is not trivial ory; in the case studies, however, as few as a single is the distinction between functions and services ES might then be evaluated (7 www.teebweb.org). (7 Chap. 2). In case of doubt, one should always This indicates a high degree of regional heteroge- explain what exactly is meant. Dealing with meta- neity–for example, the ES values assigned to lakes morphous, multi-meaning terms such as ES–or and rivers vary between $ 13,448 and $ 1779 per ecosystem and landscape, natural capital, biodiver- hectare and year–and are hardly transferable to the sity, sustainability, and resilience or governance–is local conditions in central Europe. What, for ex- difficult, controversial in the scientific community ample, does such a monetary value for the ES, e.g. and often confusing for policymakers and practi- for a lake ecosystem, actually tell us? Do not such tioners. vague monetary statements feed the fundamental Conceptually, the framework of assessment/ critique of the economisation of nature? Should evaluation of ES has been staked out (7 Sect. 3.1). not the search for alternative value measurement Ecosystems provide services for people which systems be accelerated? need to be translated into the categories of use and Numerous ES case studies on methodologi- welfare. The claim and evaluation of services are cal development and procedural application are manifested especially in the manner and intensity currently being realised. Since many facts relevant of land use, and feeds back upon the structures for conservation can be attributed to the properties and processes of ecosystems, which in turn affects of nature and land use, the case studies in 7 Chap. 6 their potential capacity to render services. Portray- have been selected accordingly. The framework ing this complex interaction in terms of its causes, conditions for land use/land-use decision-making effects and consequences, and controlling it ‘cor- are a key to the formulation of the future and for rectly’ is the actual challenge. securing ES. For that, a corresponding further 304 Chapter 7 • Recommendations and Outlook

development of the ecological planning approach, DRL–Deutscher Rat für Landespflege (1997) Betrachtungen zur “Grünen Charta von der Mainau” im Jahre 1997. the environment and welfare accounting, the fi- Schriftenreihe d. Deutschen Rates f. Landespflege, Heft nancial and subsidy practice in the context of value 68 discussions, and comparison with alternatives are Ebert V (2011) Machen Sie sich frei. Rowohlt Taschenbuch, needed. Reinbek Simply reforming the highly complex envi- Fatheuer T (2012) In Rendite vereint–Ökonomie und Natur: Die Geschichte einer schwierigen Beziehung. Böll. ronmental, planning and tax law in Germany with Thema 1 (Magazin der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Berlin), regard to new framework conditions and require- pp 5–7 ments, and not making it even clumsier, more Grunewald K, Bastian O (2010) Ökosystemdienstleistungen complicated and harder to handle byte integrating analysieren–begrifflicher und konzeptioneller Rahmen the ES concept into it, is a task which is difficult to aus landschaftsökologischer Sicht. GEOÖKO 31:50–82 Haber W (2011) Umweltpolitikberatung–eine persönliche solve, yet worthwhile. Ideas for how to do that, have Bilanz. Studienarchiv Umweltgeschichte 16:15–25 been provided at various points (7 Chap. 5). (7 www.iugr.net) Options for action have to be negotiated in pub- Haines-Young RH, Potschin MB (2009) Methodologies for lic discourse. The analysis and evaluation of ES with defining and assessing ecosystem services. Final Report, scenarios decision-making alternatives can be very JNCC, Project Code C08‐0170‐0062, 69 pp 7 Jetzkowitz J (2011) Ökosystemdienstleistungen in sozi- helpful in this process of balancing of interests. The ologischer Perspektive. In: Groß M (Eds) Handbuch task of scientists is not to make society’s decisions Umweltsoziologie. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, for it. What they do have a right to do is to make Wiesbaden, pp 303–324 recommendations and to participate in action in Kettunen M, Bassi S, Gantioler S, ten Brink P (2009) Assessing the context of their citizens’ rights. socio-economic benefits of natura 2000–a toolkit for practitioners (September 2009 Edition). Output of the Even though ES valuations are not patent reci- European Commission project Financing Natura 2000: pes, they can help overcome the lack of economic Cost estimate and benefits of Natura 2000. Institute for perceptibility of nature, which has often led to European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brüssel, 191 pp wrong political and economic decisions, and ulti- Löschmann H (2012) Die Geister, die ich rief–Das riskante mately to the destruction of nature, of ecosystems Spiel auf dem Geld- und Finanzmarkt. Böll. Thema 1 (Magazin der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Berlin), pp 9–11 and of biodiversity, and will continue to do so in OECD (2008) Strategic environmental assessment and the future. ecosystem services. DAC Network on Environment and Development Co-operation (ENVIRONET), Paris, 26 pp Ott K (2010) Umweltethik zur Einführung. Junius, Hamburg References Ott K (2012) Ein wenig mehr Bescheidenheit, bitte!–Über die Verführung, Kosten-Nutzen-Kalküle zur höchsten menschlichen Weisheit zu erklären. Böll. Thema 1 Adam T (1996) Mensch und Natur: das Primat des Ökono- (Magazin der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Berlin), pp 33–35 mischen. Entstehen, Bedrohung und Schutz von Kultur- Schröter M, van der Zanden EH, van Oudenhoven APE, landschaften aus dem Geiste materieller Interessen. Nat Remme RP, Serna-Chavez HM, de Groot RS, Opdam P Landsch 71:155–159 (2014) Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a syn- Armsworth PR, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Kremen thesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conservation C, Ricketts TH, Sanjayan MA (2007) Ecosystem-Service Letters. doi:10.1111/conl.12091 science and the way forward for conservation. Conserv Schweppe-Kraft B (2010) Ökosystemdienstleistungen: ein Biol 21:1383–1384 Ansatz zur ökonomischen Bewertung von Natur. Local Bastian O, Schreiber KF (Eds) (1999) Analyse und ökologische land & soil news 34/35 II/10, The Bulletin of the European Bewertung der Landschaft. Spektrum Akad. Verlag, Land and Soil Alliance (ELSA) e. V., pp 11–14 Heidelberg Seppelt R, Fath B, Burkhard B, Fisher JL, Grêt-Regamey A, Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe RU (2012) Space and time Lautenbach S, Pert P, Hotes S, Spangenberg J, Verburg aspects of ecosystem services, using the example of the PH, Van Oudenhoven APE (2012) Form follows function? EU water framework directive. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments Serv Manage 8:5–16 based on reviews and case studies. Ecol Indic 21:145–154 Burkhard B, de Groot R, Costanza R, Seppelt R, Jørgensen Succow M (2011) “… warum mir der Naturschutz so am Her- SE, Potschin M (2012) Solutions for sustaining natural zen liegt!” Nat. Landsch. 1:19–23 capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 21:1–6 305 References 7

TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. In: Kumar P (Eds) Earthscan, London ten Brink P (2008) Ecological losses to economic losses. Presentation at the workshop on the economics of the global loss of biological diversity, 5–6 March, Brussels Trepl L (2012) Biodiversitätsbasierte Ökosystemdienstleis- tungen. 7 www.scilogs.de/chrono/blog/landschaft- oekologie/biodiversitat-und-aussterben/2012–02–20/ biodiversit-tsbasierte-kosystemdienstleitungen. Accessed 22 Feb 2012 UNEP-WCMC (2011) Developing ecosystem services indicators: experiences and lessons learned from sub-global assessments and other initiatives. CBD Technical Series 58 Weinzierl H (1999) Land und Leute. Die Zukunft der Landnut- zung in Bayern. Nationalpark 4:39–43 Zeh J (2009) Corpus Delicti: Ein Prozess. Schöffling und Co., Frankfurt a. M. 307

Index

K. Grunewald, O. Bastian (eds.), Ecosystem Services – Concept, Methods and Case Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-44143-5, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 308 Index

Benefit Common Agricultural Policy A –– additional 159, 272 (CAP) 45, 178 Abatement costs 275, 278, 279 –– components 270 Common International Classifica- Acceptance 6, 8, 15, 16, 27, 42, 62, –– economic 247 tion of Ecosystem Goods and 153, 160, 195, 212, 263, 280 –– transfer 171, 172, 264 Services (CICES) 53 Accounting 6, 8, 25, 39, 61, 188, 231, Benefit-cost Communal 232, 239, 274, 278, 304 –– analysis 215 –– budget 161, 163 Adaptive management 146, 177, –– ratio 264 –– financial equalization 162 178, 299 Bequest values 41 Convention methods 44 Additional benefit 159, 272, 273 Biodiversity AEMBAC methodology 191, 196 –– value 178, 215 Agrarian landscape 188 Bioenergy 39, 279 Agricultural land 62, 189, 192, Biological diversity 3, 5, 36, 146, D 199, 203, 217, 224, 259–261, 264, 165, 173, 178, 189, 195, 225, 295, Damage 266, 271 302 –– costs 203, 207, 208, 212, 264, 277, Agricultural policy 68, 156, 189, 203 Biomass 15, 44, 46, 49, 207–211, 278, 280 Agricultural use 16, 155, 167, 200, 220, 237, 247, 270, 279 Decision 202, 225, 237, 273, 275, 278 –– potentials 39 –– support 42, 64, 160 Agri-environmental measures Biotope area 4, 221, 256 Decision-making processes 2, 7, 8, (AEM) 177, 178, 190, 192–194 Birds Directive 243 41, 53, 61, 273, 277, 296, 301, 302 Agri-environmental programs 191, Bottom-up strategy 58 Definition of terms 294 195, 199, 200, 230 Business management assess- Demand 36, 40, 41, 44, 53, 55, 56, Agro-biodiversity 157 ment 259 65, 67, 301 Agro-economic evaluation 189 Demand side 41 –– of landscape plans 196, 197 Design options 158, 188 Agro-ecosystem 189, 192, 193, 282 Dike relocation 264, 266, 269–273 Air quality 52, 216 C Dimension 25, 42, 58, 62, 65, 160, Alternative land use 207, 280 Capital 2 179, 210, 212, 224, 235, 256 Altruist values 41 Carbon Direct use values 41 Analysis and evaluation of ES 8, –– markets 212 Discount rate 257, 268, 272, 277 283, 304 –– sequestration 40, 52, 56, 58, 157, Discounting 207 –– task of 8 209, 211, 213, 215, 218, 220, 251 Disservices 40, 280 –– work steps for 294 –– stocks 205, 211 Double-counting 46, 49, 51 Appreciation of nature 25 –– storage 43, 54, 220 Driving forces 43, 45, 177, 178, 187 Arable land 14, 15, 49, 203–205, 208, Cascade model 233–235, 237, 239, 261, 262, 282 –– in TEEB study 36 Area requirements 222, 298 Certificates 29, 212 Assessment Change in values 31 –– approaches 29, 165, 216, 296 Checklist, to spatial and temporal E Earth 2, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 46, 217 –– business management 197, 259 aspects 65 Ecological –– economic 3, 166, 171, 203 Choice –– backpack 220 –– integrated 264, 282 –– experiment 212, 270 –– economics 24 –– monetary 166–168, 171, 201, 264 Citizen participation 177, 282 –– fiscal equalization 234 –– of ES 50, 248, 303 Civil society 173, 229 –– integrity 38 –– of selected services of agro- Classification 3, 18, 36, 40, 46, 49, –– reference units 59 ecosystems 189, 190, 192, 193, 51–53 Ecology 2, 4, 7, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 195–197 –– of ES related values 41 36, 165 –– procedures 42 –– systems 45 Economic Awareness 14, 56, 153, 178, 211, 231, Climate –– assessment 3, 166, 171, 203 301–303 –– change 14, 25, 27, 45, 187, 208, –– benefits 247 211, 214, 238, 258, 266, 277, 278, –– control instruments 275, 279 298 –– efficiency 28, 196, 282 –– protection 6, 203, 204, 207, 209, –– evaluation 18, 29, 42, 53, 196, 253, 274, 275, 277 B 274, 277, 279, 301 –– contribution to 204, 207 Balance of nature 2, 20 –– incentives 156, 161, 173 –– regulation 46, 52, 54, 58, 218, Basic –– instruments 156, 173, 229, 258, 221, 247, 282 –– concepts 19, 24 275 Collective goods 26 –– services 46 –– interests 180 Commodification 29 309 A–I Index

–– performance 52 –– term 14, 189 –– value 6, 29, 31, 44, 56, 61, 169, –– value 303 G 204, 207, 209, 264, 272, 273 European Landscape Conven- Genetic diversity 5, 43, 251 Economization 303 tion 66, 68 GEST approach 280 Ecosystem European Union (EU) 68, 177, Governance 44, 146, 180, 303 –– complex 15, 36, 66 189, 241 –– in nature conservation 172, 173 –– functioning 153, 192, 251 Exchange value 26, 264 –– of ES 18 –– functions 18, 45, 57, 216, 275 Existence value 26, 41, 253 –– strategies 176 –– integrity 36, 46 Expert judgment 176, 253 –– structures 223 –– processes 14, 15, 36, 49, 51, 201, Externalities 28, 41, 42, 58, 147, 161 –– types 173, 177, 180 216 Government 3, 8, 18, 28, 158, 161, –– properties 36, 39, 46, 191 173 –– research 4 Grassland 15, 39, 197, 201 –– service bundle 60, 295 –– habitat 234 –– services (ES) 2, 3, 8, 18, 40, 172 F –– use 203, 204, 208, 237, 266, 276 Farm 29, 169, 278 –– services partnership (ESP) 302, –– conservation-oriented 237 Farmers 62, 157, 178, 179, 189–191, 303 Greenhouse gas (GHG) 195, 263 –– structure 8, 18, 51, 251, 296 –– damage costs 277 Fauna-Flora-Habitat (FFH) 200, 233 Effectiveness 148, 154, 163, 173, 180, –– emissions 274–277, 280 –– areas 235 204, 240, 301 –– reduction potential 279 –– directive 234 –– ecological 158, 159 Gross domestic product (GDP) 31 –– sites 243, 247, 253 Embedding effect 270 Groundwater bodies 203, 204 Federal Soil Protection Act (BBod- Energy Guideline 59, 223, 231, 237, 294, 299 SchG) 259 –– crops 39, 146, 179, 200, 230, Fen 234, 256, 274 274, 283 Fields of action 238 –– supply 197 Final services 49, 52, 53 Environmental Financial –– costs 207, 263 H –– allocation 200 Habitat –– economics 24, 215 –– compensation 197 –– equivalency investment –– effectiveness 148, 163 –– instruments 179 model 256 –– goods 51, 195, 257 –– mechanisms 155, 156 –– function 45, 234 –– impact assessment 21 –– needs 234, 253, 257 –– management 233, 234, 237, 239 –– policy instruments 163 –– system 300 –– protection services 49, 260 –– services 24, 29, 51, 147, 156, 207, Flood –– requirements 251 208, 258, 296 –– control benefits 43 –– services 40, 44, 45 Environmentalism 27 –– damage 43, 268, 272 –– type 208, 233, 234, 240 Environmentally ethical argu- –– protection measures 268 Habitats Directive 243, 251 ments 300 –– regulation 36, 56, 218, 219 Harmful soil changes 259 EPPS framework 36, 40, 43, 44, 46, –– risk 266, 268 Hedonic prices 270 242, 294 Floodplain management 271–273 High nature value (HNV) 189, Erosion Food production 3, 216, 230 200, 233 –– protection 167–169, 263 Forces of nature 21 High Nature Value Farmland (HNV- ES Forest Farmland) 207 –– analysis 298 –– conversion 209, 212–215 HNV-grassland 280 –– approach 2, 5, 9, 22, 24, 25, 64, –– program 209 Human capital 15, 19 67, 300 –– development modeling 209, –– beneficiaries 55 210 –– case studies 187, 303 –– enterprise 209, 210, 247 –– concept 14, 15, 28, 29, 187, 188, –– image 212 259, 282 –– management 209 I –– evaluation 2, 296, 298, 299 Identity 68, 227, 228, 230 Free natural forces 21 –– management 299 Imagined Free service 2, 21, 25 –– providers 62 –– scenarios 43, 44, 211, 268, 298 Fruit production 225 –– studies 298 Incentives 28, 42, 64, 156, 165, 171, Funding instruments 230 –– supply 59 178, 197, 199, 228 310 Index

–– components 234, 239 –– requirements 41 –– value 207 –– financial 295 –– types 218, 220 Matrix 66 –– for biodiversity conserva- Landscape 2, 5, 15–17, 20–22 Measures scenarios 263 tion 258 –– approach 65, 68, 280 Metabolism 20–22 –– instruments 189, 282 –– change 271 Methodological recommendations –– structures 18 –– development 209, 213, 240 for action 294 Indicators 2, 7, 16, 31, 38, 46, 222, –– ecosystem 6 Millennium Ecosystem Assess- 260, 278, 300 –– functions 5 ment (MEA) 2–4, 6, 8, 14, 15, 18, –– area-related 163 –– maintenance 29, 231, 235, 239 24, 41, 45, 53, 56–58 –– ecological 161, 164 –– management 23, 26, 39, 188, Minimum environmental require- –– socioeconomic 161 231, 232, 234, 236–240 ments 154, 190 Indirect use values 41 –– calculations 231 Model InVest 296 Initiatives 224, 229, 230 –– fiscal aspects of 231 Model region 2, 25 Institutions 18, 146, 173, 223, 282, –– implementation 236 Monetary 297, 298, 301 –– measures 26, 232 –– aspects 239, 253 Instruments –– objectives 234 –– valuation 2, 42, 44, 212, 257 –– diagnostic 296 –– scope of 237 –– value 27, 29, 41, 43, 169, 171, 172, –– economic 3, 28, 165 –– strategies 188, 240 211, 216, 256, 257, 303 –– fiscal policy 148 –– perception 25 –– of ES 27, 303 –– incentive-based 153, 154 –– planning 23, 24, 41, 53, 68, Monetization 26, 29, 44, 171, 172, –– legal 44 165–167, 172, 196 265 –– market-based 28 –– plans 165–167, 197 Money 27, 44, 300 –– of environmental policy 28 –– economic evaluation of 197 Monitoring 61, 62, 158, 178, 187, Integrity –– services 15, 65, 67–69, 165 233, 236, 261 –ecological 36 –– structure 66, 171, 257 –– of ES 299 Interdisciplinary perspective 296 Legal regulations 187 Moor use 205 Interest rate 279 Leitbild 209–211, 213, 215 Motivation 42, 153, 230 Intergenerational equity 65, 161, Lifestyle Mountain meadow 44, 45, 241, 213 –– sustainable 300 247, 248, 257, 282 Intergovernmental Platform on Load capacity 31 Multi-level approach 8 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Loads 62, 261 services (IPBES) 6, 302 Intermediary services 45, 49, 51, 52 Interventions 54, 187, 229, 260 Interviewees 212 N National Biodiversity Strategy Intrinsic value 26, 28 M Management 176 (NBS) 207, 253 –– costs 149, 156, 163 Natura 2000 44, 68, 177, 179, 229, –– ecosystem 178, 179 231, 233, 237, 241–243, 247, 248, –– goals 153, 177 251, 253, 257 K –– measures 39, 61, 64 –– management plan 179 Key driving forces 43 –– options 177 Natural Keyword 59 –– plans 61, 62 –– basis 15 Knowledge transfer 299 –– requirements 22, 36, 45 –– capital 8, 15, 19, 23, 29, 166, 167, –– tools 51 169, 171, 172, 299, 303 Mapping 63, 169, 200, 232, 234 –– potential 16, 24, 57 Market –– resources 2, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, –– agricultural 196 25, 39, 58, 157, 173, 178, 179, 260, L –– based approaches 172, 177 275, 302 Land sealing 217 –– based ES 260 Naturalness 42, 208, 256 Land use 65 –– based instruments 275 Nature conservation 26, 27, 39, 44, –– alternative 2, 8, 16 –– crops 200 146, 156, 161, 162, 165, 171, 178, 179, –– change 275, 277, 294 –– distortions 301 191, 194, 196, 239, 240, 247, 256, –– data 206 –– evaluation 2 258, 265, 271, 282 –– decisions 31 –– failure 155 –– governance in 172, 173 –– management 187 –– instruments 177 Nature experience 221, 223 –– sustainable 187 –– mechanisms 178, 180, 257, 282 Need for action 194, 299 –– options 166 –– prices 168, 197, 230 –– patterns 218 311 I–S Index

Need for restructuring 234, 235, Pollination 3, 4, 21, 38, 41, 51, 55, 58, –– measures 256 237, 248 216, 224 Resilience 7, 16, 22, 38, 39, 57, 146, Negotiation processes 187 Polluter-pays principle 275 208, 242, 300, 303 Net present value (NPV) 271 Potential concept 18 Resource economics 3 No net loss 204 Poverty 160 Resources Nonuse values 41, 253, 270 Preferences 26, 43, 208, 213, 253, –– natural 2, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 25, 39, Nutrient 282, 301 58, 157, 173, 178, 187, 260, 275, 302 –– emission 29, 204 Pressure indicators 192, 193 –– renewable 15, 26 –– reduction 62 Pricing 301 Restoration costs 256 –– retention 268–270, 272, 273 Production Restructuring measures 235 –– benefits from 269, 270 –– costs 230, 271 Reward 157, 165 Productive force 3 Rewetting 275, 277, 278 Profit 166, 300 Risks 16, 19, 39, 57, 187, 242, 247, Prosperity 25, 28, 41 259, 268, 299 Protected goods 22 Rural development 157, 207, 236, O Protection and development 240, 241 Off-site costs 168, 263 goals 177 On-site costs 168 Provisioning services 3, 44–46, 54, Operationalization 167–169, 171, 146, 155, 157, 161, 177, 193, 216 264 Public goods 2, 28, 52, 155, 160, 161, Opportunity cost 58, 148, 157–159, 177, 215, 230, 264, 301 S 161, 163, 177, 230, 268, 271, 275, 278 Scale 8 Public relations 230 Optimization of ES 59 –– aspects 59, 61, 65 Option value 41, 57, 298 –– level 58 Options for action 238, 301, 304 –– relevance 6, 54, 68, 163, 215, 297 Orchard –– transfers 56 –– landscape 224–226, 229, 230, Q –– transitions 58, 298 301 Quality of life 2, 216, 222 Scarcity 2, 29, 274, 275 –– meadows 224–226, 229, 230 Quantification 44, 169, 171, 194, 261, Scenario Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge) 241 273, 280, 296 –– analyses 153 –– calculations 43 –– creation 22, 65 Scenery 44, 191, 196, 248 Sealed surfaces 217 P R Selection analysis 202, 295 Participatory Rarity 42, 256 Self-interest 2 –– approach 64, 68, 180, 195, 301 Raw timber 211 Self-value problem 27 –– processes 179 Raw wood 210, 211 Sensitivity 268, 272, 273 Payment Recommendations for action 294 Service Benefiting reasA (SBA) 52, –– and reward programs 230 Recovery potential 18 55, 59 –– for Ecosystem Services Recreation Service Connecting Areas (PES) 148 –– potential 52 (SCA) 55, 65 –– systems 59, 160 –– service 31, 45, 52, 212 Service Providing Areas (SPA) 52, Peat 188, 273, 274 Reduction potentials 260, 279 55, 59 Performance 15–17, 36, 44, 51, 231 Reference scenario 208 Settlement growth 56, 178, 217, Planning Reference units 15, 59, 64, 280, 298 224, 230, 258, 266 –– alternatives 54 –– ecological 59 Shaded area 218 –– tool 165, 166, 171 Regulating services 45, 155, 157, Shading 218, 225 Policy 161, 167, 216, 228, 251 Shadow price 269 –– implications 273 Regulation potential Silvicultural concepts 210, 212 –– instruments 146–148, 153, 154 –– biotic 23 Site capacity 8, 16, 22, 23, 39 –– mix 146–148, 153, 155 Renewable Social –– recommendations 154 –– raw materials 46 –– processes 56, 179 –– sectors 146, 148 –– resources 15, 26 Sociocultural services 3, 23, 40, –– solutions 154 Replacement 41, 44, 46, 231, 242, 248, 251 –– costs 168, 171, 256, 264, 269 Soil 16, 24, 26, 27, 36, 38, 43, 66, 161, –– methods 168 168, 248, 258 312 Index

–– changes 259 –– harmful 259 T V –– Framework Directive 259 Target variables 262 Validity 27 –– functions 258, 259 Target-actual comparison 237, 238 Valuation 2, 40, 59 –– loss 263 Temperature reduction 218 –– methods 42, 268, 282, 296 –– protection 62, 221, 258, 259 Temporal sequences 56, 65, 298 Value –– quality 48, 50, 54, 62, 258, 263 Term –– added 161, 277, 278, 280 Space 23, 43, 53 –– ecosystem services 14, 300 –– balance 19 –– configuration 55, 223, 298 –– function 17, 36, 40 –– dimension 16, 42 Space aspects –– landscape 65 –– level 26, 39, 296 –– checklist 64 –– space 53 Vegetation –– examples 59 The Economics of Ecosystems and –– near nature 42 Spatial Biodiversity (TEEB) 25 –– potential nature 16 –– interactions 15, 20, 46, 64, 67 Threats 59, 247, 264 –– layers 4 Thresholds 43, 153, 154 –– planning 8, 24, 41, 53, 65, 66, 68, Tillage 191, 247, 259, 262 165, 192 Time aspects –– relationships 15, 45, 53 –– checklists 59 W Water Framework Directive –– structure 19, 22, 257 Time requirements 56, 63, 298 (WFD) 59, 235 Spatialization 165 Tipping point 155, 298 Water protection 207, 247, 260, 263 Species conservation 156 Total impression 66 Weighing Species-rich grassland 51, 200, 203, Total value –– models 303 204, 206–208 –– economic 3 Weighing-up 160, 282 Spiderweb diagrams 27 Transaction costs 148, 150, 151, 153, Welfare Stability 159, 163, 239 –– and sustainability measure- –– ecological 39 Transformation problem 22, 24 ment 31 Stakeholders 43, 56, 58, 65, 69, 166, Transparency 18, 61 –– effects 8, 18, 280 167, 173, 178, 179, 196, 209, 241, Travel cost –– indicator 31 257, 280, 282, 294, 298 –– method 270, 295 –– services 24 Standardization 25, 171 Trend scenario 44 Well-being 3, 8, 14, 18, 19, 25, 31, Standards 21, 25, 26, 42, 146, 147, Trends 56, 165, 230, 294 166, 196, 297, 299, 303 169, 178, 200, 213, 262, 298, 303 Typologies 45 Wildlife State indicators 192 –– conservation 27 States 44, 62, 157, 162, 178, 236 –– corridors 55 Storylines 298 Willingness to pay (WTP) ana- Strategies 2, 44, 61, 166, 172, 173, lyzes 208, 231, 269, 270, 301 187, 241 U Uniqueness 224 Structural elements 234 Urban Subsidies 146, 178, 197, 228, 236, –– Ecosystem Services (UES) 2, 3 278, 279 –– growth 218 Support programs 239 –– land use 217, 218 Y Supporting services 3, 38, 45, Yield potential –– shrinkage 218 215, 216 –– biotic 16, 18, 23, 39 Usage Surface runoff 56, 218, 261 –– possibilities 14 Sustainability –– requests 44 –– strategy 7 Use independent values 300 Sustainable development 14, 22, Use of space 59 56, 173, 275 Use values Sustainable land manage- –– direct 41 ment 187 –– indirect 41 Sustainable land use manage- Use-dependent values 277 ment 2, 6–8, 17, 39, 59 Utility 22, 25, 27, 213, 259, 297, 301 Swabian Alb Biosphere Re- serve 224