Ecological Indicators 61 (2016) 100113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and

management: The ES-in-Planning framework
Christian Albert a,b, , Carolin Galler a , Johannes Hermes a , Felix Neuendorf a ,
Christina von Haaren a , Andrew Lovett c
a
Leibniz Universitt Hannover, Institute of Environmental Planning, Herrenhuser Str. 2, 30419 Hanover, Germany
b
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research UFZ, Department Environmental Politics, Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
c
University of East Anglia, School of Environmental Sciences, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Applying ecosystem services (ES) concepts and indicators in landscape planning requires them to be
Received 7 November 2014 linked with models for decision-making by practitioners. The objective of this paper is to introduce an
Received in revised form 28 February 2015 ES-in-Planning framework, which combines ES assessment and valuation indicators with the widely
Accepted 19 March 2015
used Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts and Responses (DPSIR) model. Within this framework, ES
Available online 21 April 2015
indicators become part of landscape planning as a means of assessing the current state of the environment
and for determining how it might change in the future. The implementation and added value of the
Keywords:
framework is illustrated in a case study of planning issues in the Mardorf community bordering the
Ecosystem functions
Ecosystem services
Steinhuder Meer Lake, Northern Germany. Two scenarios of potential landscape changes and possible
Indicators response measures are considered in terms of alterations in a set of ES indicators. The ES examined are
Landscape planning food production (a provisioning ES), climate mitigation (a regulation ES), landscape esthetics (as the
DPSIR basis for many cultural ES), and biodiversity. The ES indicators employed distinguish between services
Decision support valued by humans and those which are actually utilized. Valuation of changes in ES has shown to reect
Landscape societal objectives (as institutionalized in legal requirements) and expert-based estimates. However,
these valuations could be further validated by including economic and social valuation of impacts. The
added value of applying ES in the planning process lies in improved opportunities for developing targeted
response measures, for communicating trade-offs between planning options, and for facilitating joint
implementation by partners.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2013a; Mascarenhas et al., 2014), case study applications (Frank

Both scientists and policy makers are increasingly interested
in applying ecosystem services (ES) concepts and indicators to
support sustainable landscape development. Scientic interest is
reected in the growing number of publications utilizing ES con-
cepts (Albert et al., 2014a), ranging from conceptual challenges
(Cowling et al., 2008; Daily et al., 2009; de Groot et al., 2010b), to
explorations of user requirements (Albert et al., 2014b; Hauck et al.,
Corresponding author at: Leibniz Universitt Hannover, Institute of
Environmental Planning, Herrenhuser Str. 2, 30419 Hanover, Germany.
Tel.: +49 511 726 17949.
E-mail addresses: christian.albert@ufz.de, albert@umwelt.uni-hannover.de
(C. Albert), galler@umwelt.uni-hannover.de (C. Galler),
hermes@umwelt.uni-hannover.de (J. Hermes),
neuendorf@umwelt.uni-hannover.de (F. Neuendorf),
haaren@umwelt.uni-hannover.de (C. von Haaren), A.Lovett@uea.ac.uk (A. Lovett).
et al., 2014; Kopperoinen et al., 2014; Palacios-Agundez et al., 2014),
and examinations of the effects of such integration on knowledge
generation and cooperation among relevant actors (Frst et al.,
2014; Hatton MacDonald et al., 2014; Opdam et al., in press). Policy
makers, on the other hand, increasingly call for a mainstreaming
of the ES concept at all levels of policy making (Maes et al., 2012)
in expectation of additional insights into the importance of biodi-
versity and ES for society, and thus greater support for strategies
and measures for sustainable landscape development (Hauck et al.,
2013b).
ES models and indicators to relate to the existing planning and
governance frameworks in order to be applied in landscape man-
agement. An effective integration of ES models and indicators in
planning requires recognition of democratically legitimized envi-
ronmental objectives at all relevant levels, providing the means
to evaluate anthropogenic pressures and impacts, and to identify
locations where response measures are likely to be most benecial.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.029
1470-160X/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C. Albert et al. / Ecological Indicators 61 (2016) 100113
Most importantly, the application of ES models, indicators, and
evaluation approaches needs to link to a comprehensive frame-
work of intentional landscape change. One of the most widely used
frameworks for landscape planning is the Driving forces, Pressures,
State, Impacts and Responses (DPSIR) model originally proposed by
Smeets and Weterings (1999) in a report to the EEA. DPSIR repre-
sents a framework for studying cause-effect relationships between
socio-economic activities and the environment (Tscherning et al.,
2012). Environmental indicators are required for all elements of
this causal chain in order to meet the information needs of policy
makers (Smeets and Weterings, 1999). Suggestions of how links
between the DPSIR model and ES concepts could be made were
proposed by Mller and Burkhard (2012) in the context of adaptive
management cycles for humanenvironmental systems and by van
Oudenhoven et al. (2012) regarding the effects of land management
on ES. Scher et al. (2010) suggest a model for linking typical ana-
lytical steps of ES analysis to the elements of the DPSIR approach
and Helming et al. (2013) provide a way of linking the ES concept
with impact assessment steps via DPSIR. Spangenberg et al. (2014)
apply the ES concept in a DPSIR-based analysis of rice plantation
management. Although these models and applications have made
important contributions to the intellectual debate, they do not fully
explore the potential of such integration in the context of landscape
planning.
The objective of this paper is to integrate the denition, assess-
ment, and valuation of ES indicators into landscape planning based
on the DPSIR model. The paper addresses three research ques-
tions: (i) How could ES assessments and valuation be integrated
in a DPSIR-based ES-in-Planning framework? (ii) Which indica-
tors are most suitable for applying the framework in practice? (iii)
What is the added-value of such integration for planning, decision-
making, and implementation?
The rst research question is addressed by revisiting the rele-
vant literature on DPSIR and ES evaluation models, and by bringing
the two approaches together in the form of an ES-in-Planning
framework. The second research question is answered by reecting
upon indicators proposed in relevant literature from the Ger-
man planning context (in particular Bastian and Schreiber, 1994;
Gruehn, 2005; Jessel and Tobias, 2002; Mengel, 2011; von Haaren,
2004; von Haaren et al., 2008) and in discussions of ES concepts.
To illustrate the added-value benets mentioned in the third ques-
tion, a landscape-level case study is presented concerning planning
issues in the Mardorf community bordering the Steinhuder Meer
Lake, Northern Germany.
The next section of this paper introduces an ES-in-Planning
framework as an integration of DPSIR and a recently proposed,
practice-oriented ES evaluation model (von Haaren et al., 2014).
Subsequently, a list of suitable indicators is proposed including
references to relevant legislation, which is particularly important
for planning practice. The following section describes methods
and results of the case study in order to illustrate a conventional
approach to landscape planning, and how ES assessment and val-
uation can be integrated in this process. Finally, the effects of such
integration are critically discussed and conclusions drawn concern-
ing future applications and research needs.
2. Combining DPSIR and ES evaluation in the
ES-in-Planning framework for landscape planning
We propose to integrate an evaluation of ES into the DPSIR
model in order to provide a generic structure for a landscape plan-
ning process. A range of different framework methods for landscape
planning exist (e.g. Kato and Ahern, 2008; Steiner, 2000; Steinitz,
1993; von Haaren et al., 2008) but all relate more or less obviously
to the general DPSIR model for assessing intentional landscape
101
Fig. 1. The DPSIR model (Smeets and Weterings, 1999, adapted). The gray arrows
represent the potential paths of inuence by planning.
change. Following the DPSIR model (see Fig. 1), landscape plan-
ners rst identify the social and economic driving forces that exert
pressures on the environment, thus causing changes in its state.
The resulting alterations in the state of the environment over time
(i.e. state(t) state(t+1) ) can have impacts on human well-being
or implications for societal objectives (e.g. sustainable develop-
ment). Information on such changes also provides the basis for
designing responses, for instance new measures or management
strategies. These responses may seek to reduce negative drivers
or pressures, safeguarding or enhancing the state, or mitigating
impacts.
The second key model employed in this paper is an adapted
version of the Practice-Oriented Ecosystem Services Evaluation
(PRESET) framework (von Haaren et al., 2014) which is, in turn,
based on the popular ES cascade originally proposed by Haines-
Young and Potschin (2010) and further developed by de Groot et al.
(2010a) and Potschin and Haines-Young (2011). The adapted model
is specically suited to the requirements of local and regional plan-
ning in Europe. It consists of ve components as shown in Fig. 2.
At the center are ES, understood as the direct and indirect contrib-
utions of ecosystems to human well-being (TEEB, 2010; UK NEA,
2011), consisting of both those offered by ecosystems and those
actually utilized by humans. The offered ES represent the totality
of ecosystem contributions that may provide benets to humans
today or in the future (but need not necessarily be used today).
This provision is dependent on appropriate ecosystem elements
(termed here Natural Capital), including relevant elements, pro-
cesses, and structures as well as geo- and biodiversity. The utilized
ES are those that are actually turned into goods or directly con-
sumed by humans. This transformation often requires human input
(UK NEA, 2011), with examples being fertilizer, energy, pesticide,
labor, or knowledge (cf. Burkhard et al., 2014). The resulting bene-
ts are positive changes in human well-being stemming from the
direct or indirect contributions of offered and/or utilized ES. von
Haaren et al. (2014) argue that distinguishing offered ES, utilized ES,
goods and benets presents different and complementary perspec-
tives about planning and decision-making objectives, the choice
of appropriate landscape development strategies and implemen-
tation that each can usefully inform plan- and decision-making (as
represented in the lower box).
An important addition of the adapted model is the linkage of
ES evaluation to both shared values (as expressed in legislation)
and individual values and preferences (as reected in actual uses
102 C. Albert et al. / Ecological Indicators 61 (2016) 100113
Fig. 2. Further development of the Practice-Oriented ES Evaluation Model (adapted from von Haaren et al., 2014), based on Haines-Young and Potschin (2010), de Groot
et al. (2010a), Potschin and Haines-Young (2011), and UK NEA (2011).
and demand, among others; see the upper box of the model).
Shared values refer primarily to offered ES and are usually rep-
resented in objectives and standards as described in legislation
and interpreted and concretized by planners. Explicitly referring
to this legal valuation basis is essential for applications in planning
and decision-processes in order to ensure transparency and a fair
balancing of public and private/individual interests. Individual val-
ues and preferences can be captured through economic valuation
approaches that employ preferences-based methods and primarily
relate to actually utilized ES and benets.
We suggest integrating the DPSIR framework and the adapted ES
evaluation model within the new ES-in-Planning framework by
using the latter to further differentiate the state conditions within
the DPSIR model as shown in Fig. 3. In this view, pressures can be
either supportive by helping to sustain, enhance or restore ecosys-
tems and their services, or of negative nature in leading to the
deterioration of ecosystems. Historic, current or future state condi-
tions can then be described in terms of sensitivities, natural capital,
offered and utilized ES. Impacts refer to changes in ecosystem ser-
vices, or to changes in human well-being. This interpretation of
impacts deviates from suggestions by Scher et al. (2010) and
Helming et al. (2013) who have continued to consider changes of
ES as parts of the state, and have evaluated impacts only in terms
of changes in human well-being. We argue, however, that ES are
intrinsically dened as contributions to human well-being, and
changes of these ES can therefore be best assessed as parts of the
impacts component.
The formation of responses, in our context the process of plan-
and decision-making, is based on information generated in each
analytic component of the ES-in-Planning framework. However,
the most valuable information is derived from the impact eval-
uation as the key basis for developing and choosing appropriate
response options. The results of the differentiated evaluation of the
pressure, state, and impacts components within the ES-in-Planning
framework tap into new sources of information that provide sig-
nicant added value for plan- and decision making.
3. Suitable indicators for ES valuation within a DPSIR-based
Planning approach
In order to be applicable in DPSIR-based landscape planning
practice, ES indicators need to fulll several requirements: Indi-
cators need to relate to the different components of the DPSIR
framework and recognize existing democratically legitimized envi-
ronmental development objectives as these are currently the key
basis for planning instruments and decision making processes. The
environmental development objectives for each region and site can
be derived from legislation on various governance levels, including
local protected areas and the need for protecting certain species
and habitats listed in the EU Natura 2000 directives. Suitable indi-
cators should at best consider a broad range of different ES in order
to account for trade-offs between ES provision in different land
use options. Furthermore, different indicators are needed to assess
the relevant DPSIR elements of pressures, different aspects of ES
state (i.e. sensitivity to pressures, offered ES, human inputs, and
utilized ES), and impacts in terms of changes in ES and human
well-being. Finally, suitable indicators should allow for providing
sufciently reliable, spatially explicit information that is appropri-
ately detailed for decision-support at landscape scale (Niemeijer
and de Groot, 2008), while acknowledging limited resources for
empirical sampling and modeling in practice and thus necessar-
ily relying on existing, or easily to generate, data. Several lists of
ES indicators have already been proposed in the literature (e.g. de
Groot et al., 2010b; Kandziora et al., 2013), but are not yet differenti-
ated between offered and utilized ES and linked to democratically
legitimated values as suggested here. Employing the ES concept
can help to amend, inform, and rene the list of indicators which
in conventional landscape planning would only consider indica-
tors for pressures, sensitivities, and state in terms of offered ES.
Furthermore, the application of the differentiated ES model intro-
duces the aspects of human inputs, utilized ES and impacts in terms
of changes in ES and human well-being which provide important
information for planning, especially in efforts to convey trade-offs,
 C. Albert et al. / Ecological Indicators 61 (2016) 100113
Fig. 3. The ecosystem services in planning (ES-in-Planning) framework.
conicts and synergies of different management options to diverse
stakeholders.
An overview of ES indicators that fulll these requirements and
address pressures, sensitivities, different ES aspects and benets
for humans is provided in Table 1. The table additionally provides
links to relevant legislations and directives. The list of indicators is
based on research work on landscape functions analysis (in partic-
ular Bastian and Schreiber, 1994; Gruehn, 2005; Jessel and Tobias,
2002; von Haaren, 2004; von Haaren et al., 2008), and recent ES
indicator lists (de Groot et al., 2010b; Kandziora et al., 2013; von
Haaren et al., 2014). The table presents an overview from which
appropriate indicators for applying the ES-in-Planning framework
can be selected and provides a wider context for those indicators
whose application is illustrated in this paper.
4. Case study exploration
4.1. Case study area
The case study areas encompasses the Greater Mardorf area,
consisting of the communities of Mardorf and Schneeren with
about 3350 inhabitants and its surrounding landscape of about
6200 ha. Mardorf is situated at the northern shore of the Steinhuder
Meer Lake, a major tourist attraction in the Hannover region, North-
ern Germany. The case study area is dominated by grasslands and
forests (about 1350 ha), elds and moorlands. About a third of the
soils are degenerated peats.
4.2. Case study methods
4.2.1. Case study research design
The case study research design involves conducting a scenario-
based landscape planning process in two ways: First, we
demonstrate how landscape planning would usually proceed when
following the conventional DPSIR-based approach. Second, we
explore potential procedures and outcomes of amending the
conventional approach with the more differentiated analysis as
suggested by the ES-in-Planning framework. Comparing the out-
comes of both approaches provides us with a better understanding
of the added value of further developing conventional landscape
planning with reference to the ES-in-Planning framework.
Two scenarios are considered. One Scenario, termed unreg-
ulated, assumes likely future landscape development according
to market forces without further policy and planning interven-
tion (see Table 2 for details). This rst scenario thus represents
increased pressures according to the DPSIR framework. The other
scenario, termed regulated, assumes the selection and allocation
of responses in terms of measures to address current and poten-
tial future challenges for sustainable landscape development. The
unregulated scenario is considered plausible given the current
103
pressures for land use intensication due to an increased demand
for bio-energy from wood and maize. The regulated scenario com-
prises of response measures both for safeguarding against negative
impacts of other development options and for enhancing ES pro-
vision in comparison with the status quo situation. Both scenarios
consider only non-settlement land use changes for reasons of clar-
ication. The land use data for the status quo map is derived and
synthesized from a detailed habitat map of the region of Hannover
(Region Hannover, 2013). Land uses in the unregulated and regu-
lated scenarios are simulated by using Table 2 to look-up proposed
landscape changes in different land plot types. The suggested time
scale is 15 years.
Four ES are considered that relate to the Common International
Classication of Ecosystem Services (CICES, see Haines-Young and
Potschin, 2013). These ES have been selected in order to reect
representatives from each of the key ES categories for provision-
ing services, regulation and maintenance services, cultural services,
as well as for biodiversity. The considered ES are food production
potential, climate mitigation with respect to carbon storage in soils,
landscape esthetics as the basis for many cultural ES, and biodiver-
sity in terms of habitats. Suitable indicators were selected from
Table 1 and relate to the policy objectives as outlined in Section 3.
4.2.2. Methods used for applying the conventional DPSIR-based
approach
The DPSIR-based landscape planning process consists of
assessing pressures, sensitivities, and the current state of the land-
scape. This is done with respect to the provision of different ES,
by exploring potential threats through assuming, simulating and
evaluating the impacts of a scenario of how existing pressures will
most likely affect landscape change, and developing appropriate
response measures. Potential impacts are evaluated by compar-
ing maps of the provision of offered ES in the current state, the
hypothetical future scenario, and the responses scenario. These
outcomes are described in Section 4.3.1. For reasons of illustration,
this procedure diverts partially from planning practice where due
to resource constraints often only the status quo is evaluated con-
cerning pressures and the state of the environment as the basis for
developing response measures.
Pressures and sensitivities are assessed for the example of car-
bon storage of soils. We mapped the areas potentially affected by
pressures of all current grassland areas as they could potentially be
converted to elds. Sensitivities were mapped as only those areas
where transitions to elds would have a climate-relevant impact
(namely the elds on hydromorphic or organic soils).
The state of the current situation, as well as that of the two
scenarios, is assessed by evaluating the respective land use con-
gurations according to the delivery of offered ES. To this end,
we select appropriate indicators and conduct a spatial and semi-
quantitative evaluation by representing in a map the relative
 104
Table 1
Proposed indicators for assessing pressures, sensitivities and diverse ES state indicators, focus only on public services addressed by planning.

ES category Driving forces and State indicators Impact indicators Legitimating political
pressures indicators decision (cf. references)

Sensitivities Offered ES Utilized ES Human inputs

Biodiversity - Land use change - Areas with special Safeguarding Safeguarding of natural - n.a. - Loss or impairments At international level:
Changes of site biotope development biodiversity/habitats heritage of habitats - CBD
conditions resp. habitat potential extreme function* Indicators of superior Fragmentation of - Ramsar Convention
conditions through locations for plant and - Occurrence of habitats, levels (e.g. biodiversity habitats, populations - Bern Convention
land use change or animal species bioscenosis and species. strategy) need to be - Bonn Convention
intensication - Areas with specic Criteria or endangerment further rened for At EU level:
habitats or biotope and responsibility, e.g. application at local - EU Biodiversity
network functions species and LRT according level Strategy
to the FFH-directive, - Natura 2000 Network,

C. Albert et al. / Ecological Indicators 61 (2016) 100113

Food and ber - EU Common - Susceptibility to wind Natural yields
provision Agricultural Policy or water erosion; bI for
(CAP) wind erosion on
- Policies supporting mineral soils: soil type,
bioenergy moisture/humus
- Market for content, land cover; bI
agricultural products for water erosion:
(food, fodder, rainfall, soil type,
materials, bioenergy) humus content,
- Agricultural land use skeleton fraction in
management with topsoil, steepness of
relevant periods of the slope, slope length,
uncovered soil land cover; bI for
- Agricultural land use erosion by oods
with heavy farm location within
machinery oodplains, land cover
- Extensication and - Susceptibility to
abandonment of compaction; bI: soil
agricultural land use type/carbon content,
carbon content, coarse
pores fraction, soil
humidity
Europe-wide protective Habitats Directive,
birds after the Birds Birds Directive
directive, Natura 2000 EAFRD Implementing
management plans, Regulation (Regulation
habitats mapping as part of No. 1974/2006/EC)
landscape and
environmental planning,
species surveys programs,
High Nature Value
Farmland indicator (EAFRD
Implementing Regulation)
Quantity of yields - Fertilizer input, Loss of soil fertility Soil Thematic Strategy
- Natural yield - Producible energy tillage, pests - Farmland impacted Soil Protection
potential/capacity; bI: (J/ha) management by erosion Directive (did not
permeability for roots, Quantity and quality of - Farmland impacted become applicable so
Moisture and nutrients producible food and by compaction far)
retention material
Food production -, E.g. of winter barley
potentials* produced, Quantity of
fodder produced
- Quantity of domestic
animals; quantity of
animal products
- Of bers and wood
(e.g. rotation coppice),
quantity of goods
produced that fulll
the organic farming
standards
Freshwater Relevant for quality: - Susceptibility to Groundwater resource Quantity and quality of Measures for reducing Impacts on water Water Framework
provision - Diffuse sources: leaching of nutrient - Groundwater recharge; provided water e.g. for surface run-off, e.g. quantity Directive (WFD) as well
fertilizer use/pesticide and other substances; bI: soil type, depth of drinking water supply unsealing of paved - Lowering of the as included directives
use in the cause of bI: Type and height of groundwater table, relief or irrigation surfaces, increasing aquifer due to such as Nitrates
agricultural land use covering soil and energy/steepness of slopes, - Provided water ood plains. extensive water Directive, Drinking
(diffuse source) subsoil horizons rainfall, land cover (m3 /l), keeping balance Management that extraction/proportion Water Directive
- Point sources: e.g. - Ground water bodies, between abstraction inuences water between abstraction
industrial plants, waste their chemical status and recharge of quality such as and recharge of
water treatment plants according to WFD (e.g. groundwater fertilizer and pesticide groundwater according
Relevant for quantity: nitrates, pesticides, priority - Quality of provided use to WFD
Groundwater substances) water, e.g. suitability Impacts on water
extraction, e.g. for for drinking water use quality
irrigation, for industry (content of pollutants, - Nitrate pollution
nitrate, minerals) - Pollution by other
substances (e.g.

C. Albert et al. / Ecological Indicators 61 (2016) 100113

pesticides)
Surface water - Pollution of surface Susceptibility for Surface water resources Quantity and quality of - Measures for Impacts on water Water Framework
provision water (through nutrient input, e.g. - Natural self-purication provided water reducing surface quality Directive (WFD) and
erosion, esp. caused by erosion; bI: and dynamics of surface - Provided water (m3 /l) run-off, e.g. unsealing - Water pollution included directives
phosphorus, solid e.g. presence/absence waters; e.g. naturalness of with reference to of paved surfaces, (nutrients, chemical such as Nitrates
matters) of buffer strips rivers different quality levels increasing ood plains. substances) Directive, Bathing
- Water extraction - Bio-chemical, chemical, (for drinking, - Management that Impacts on water Water Directive
and hydromorphological irrigation, etc.) inuences water quantity International
indicators quality such as - Drying up of surface agreements on the
fertilizer and pesticide water due to excessive protections of rivers,
use extraction e.g. Convention for the
protection of the Rhine
Flood control - Soil sealing - Natural oodplains Retention function/ood Reduction of frequency - Measures for - Loss of natural ood Floods Directive
- Waterway (according to Floods prevention and severity of oods, reducing surface plains (especially
construction/river Directive) - Floodplains (e.g. 100-year precautionary ood run-off, e.g. unsealing caused by
regulation - Flood formation areas ood inundation areas) protection of paved surfaces, development)
- Removal of structural (as specic parts of a - Surface runoff in the - Reduction of damage increasing ood plains. - Impairments of water
elements that decrease catchment, according catchment basin from ooding retention in the
discharge to Floods Directive) catchment/increased
surface runoff
Climate protection - Cultivation/drying out - Area with organic or Climate protection/carbon - n.a. - n.a. Reduction of carbon United Nations
of fens/moors, drainage hydromorphic soils retention and storage sinks and storages in Framework Convention
and agriculture of with permanent function* the soil (in particular on Climate
hydromorphic soils, in grasslands* - Carbon storage and organic and Change/Kyoto Protocol
particular organic soils, retention potential of soils; hydromorphic soils) on climate change
plowing up of bI: soil type, soil water through land use European Strategy on
grassland retention, depth of changes into climate change
groundwater table, soil croplands*
water regime, land use
- GHG retention potential
of ecosystems (no
applicable methods
available so far)

105
 106
Table 1 (Continued)

ES category Driving forces and State indicators Impact indicators Legitimating political
pressures indicators decision (cf. references)

Sensitivities Offered ES Utilized ES Human inputs

Local climate - Land use change in Areas with bioclimatic Bioclimatic and air quality
areas of cold or fresh or air quality functions function
air production - Areas of cold and fresh air
(reduction of forest and production in proximity
agricultural land) to/within impacted
- Development of linear settlement areas
structures as barrier - Forests with emission
within air corridors in control functions
areas of importance for - Fresh air corridors
air circulation - bI: relief, land use, area
size, surface structure, soil
type and moisture,
vegetation, exposition,
spatial proximity to
impacted areas
- Temperature - n.a. - Loss of areas with SEA Directive, EIA
equalization/cooling of bioclimatic or air Directive
settlement areas ( K) quality functions
- Air quality through land use
Amplitudes changes and barrier
- Air quality standards effects within fresh air
deviation corridors
- Level of Pollutants in - Changes of air quality
the air in used areas

C. Albert et al. / Ecological Indicators 61 (2016) 100113

Renewable energy
Recreation, - Increased - (Unique) natural and
tourism, . . . harmonization of cultural landscapes and
landscapes components of
- Loss of landscape landscape with
elements and character importance for natural
- Impairments through and cultural heritage
visual, acoustic or - Areas of importance
olfactory disturbances for landscape-related
recreational use or
tourism
- Areas and objects of
spiritual value
- Areas and objects of
educational or
scientic value landscape-related
Altering of soils - Geological objects
through land uses and soil characteristics
of specic importance (Geodiversity)
as documents for
natural and cultural
history
- Leaf area index
Usability of renewable
energy
- Potentials for the use of
renewable energy (e.g.
wind conditions, avg.
number of sunshine hours)
- Natural and cultural
landscapes and landscape
components of importance
for the natural or cultural
heritage
- General suitability of
landscapes for recreational
use based on their
character, diversity and
esthetic quality (landscape
character assessment)*
- Specic landscape
structures and components
of importance for different
recreation (e.g. bike paths
and bathing lakes)*
- Spiritual or emotional
aspects that people attach
to local environments or
due to spiritual experience
Archive function of
soils/Geotopes
- Rare geotopes, soil types
and soil forms as
documents of natural and
cultural history
- Provided energy United Nations
(kW/h) Framework Convention
- Saving fossil fuels on Climate
(barrel of oil, m3 Change/Kyoto Protocol
natural gas) on climate change;
- Reduction of European Strategy on
CO2 -emissions (t CO2 ) climate change
Recreational use Presence of human - Impairments of UNESCO World
- E.g. distance to infrastructures with characteristics, esthetic Heritage Convention
residential areas * relevance for and cultural value UNESCO MAB-
- E.g. based on recreation and - Impairments or loss Program/Biosphere
valuations by citizens information such as of natural or cultural reserves
(surveys) or frequency signposts, trails, and heritage European Landscape
of use activities such as Convention (ELC)
Tourism walking, biking,
- Touristically climbing*
used/frequented areas,
results from
Questionnaire
- Turnover from
Tourism
- Number of visitors of
Spiritual performance
of rituals
- Education/Science
Safeguarding of natural Information provisions - Changes in the Soil Thematic Strategy
and cultural heritage morphology of Soil Protection
- Educational facilities geological objects or of Directive (did not
soil conditions become applicable so
- Erosion on sites with far)
importance for archive
function

Sources: Review of indicators for landscape function analysis (in particular Bastian and Schreiber, 1994; Gruehn, 2005; Jessel and Tobias, 2002; von Haaren, 2004; von Haaren et al., 2008), recent ecosystem services indicator
lists (de Groot et al., 2010b; Kandziora et al., 2013; von Haaren et al., 2014), and further suggestions. Please note: bI stands for basic indicators. Indicators which have been exemplarily applied in the case study are noted with
asterisks.
 C. Albert et al. / Ecological Indicators 61 (2016) 100113
Table 2
Land use change assumptions for scenarios.
Soil types Scenarios
Status Quo
[State t]
All soil types Forest (intensively managed)
All soil types Forest (extensively managed)
Non-peat, Grasslands (intensively or
non-hydromorphic soils extensively managed)
Non-peat, Fields
non-hydromorphic soils
Hydromorphic soils Grasslands (intensively or
extensively managed)
Peat soils Bog (degenerated)
Peat soils Grassland
Peat soils Fields
importance of each plot of land for the provision of the respective
ES on a ve-step Likert scale. The method used for assessing offered
ES uses a robust and empirically founded look-up table (Table 3):
Food production is estimated based on the production potential of
different land use types and management intensities. The assess-
ment of carbon storage of soils is based on a method suggested
by Saathoff et al. (2013), and landscape esthetics are examined
based on the method of Khler and Prei (2000) and data from
the regional landscape plan (Region Hannover, 2013). Biodiversity
is assessed in terms of an expert-based valuation of habitat values
derived from an evaluation of rareness and endangerment on the
level of the federal state of Lower Saxony (based on Bierhals et al.,
2004; Bredemeier et al., 2014).
4.2.3. Additional methods used for implementing the
ESin-Planning framework
Implementing the ES-in-Planning framework extends the infor-
mation generated according to the conventional approach outlined
above with a semi-quantitative analysis of ES trade-offs, the con-
sideration of human inputs and utilized ES as well as an estimation
of impacts for human well-being. The analysis of semi-quantitative
trade-offs between scenarios in terms of effects on different ES
considered the share of case study area for each level of signi-
cance. These were determined by calculating the respective areas
for each level of signicance based on GIS data. Human inputs were
exemplarily evaluated with reference to recreation by mapping the
recreational infrastructure such as designated trails, lookout tow-
ers, and information signs as extracted from OpenStreetMap.org.
The utilized ES for recreation were mapped as the areas within
a buffer of 300 m around settlements and trails as these areas are
likely to be most frequently used for recreation purposes (cf. Albert
et al., in press). Quantitative and economic valuation conducted for
the example of carbon storage in soils calculated the approximate
amounts of CO2 emissions as derived from Saathoff et al. (2013) and
avoided societal costs of CO2 emissions based on German Federal
Environmental Agency (2008).
4.3. Case study results
4.3.1. Results of the conventional DPSIR-based approach
The illustration of an approach for mapping pressures and sen-
sitivities using the example of climate protection shows that some
(although in this case study only a few) sites, where pressures for
grassland conversion could become active, are not sensitive to such
conversion in terms of relevance for climate protection (Fig. 4).
More importantly, the evaluation of sensitivity allows an identi-
cation of those areas where grassland conversion would be most
107
Unregulated Regulated
[State t + 1 assuming a [State t + 1 assuming targeted
market-driven development] response measures]
Forests (intensively managed) Forests (extensively managed)
Forests (intensively managed) Forests (extensively managed)
38.2 ha conversion to elds, Grassland (extensively
rest intensication managed)
Fields Fields (eventually organic)
22.5 ha conversion to elds, Grassland (extensively
rest intensication managed)
Bog (degenerated) Moor
189.1 ha conversion to elds, Degraded bog
rest intensication
Fields Grassland (extensively
managed)
negative for climate protection and where response measures for
conserving grasslands or restoring grasslands should be prioritized.
The simulated land use changes of the Unregulated and Regu-
lated scenarios show signicant differences compared to the status
quo (Fig. 5). In accordance to the scenario assumptions, land in the
Unregulated scenario is generally more intensively used. Field-
to-grassland conversions continue and bogs remain exploited or
in a degraded state. In the Regulated scenario, grasslands and
forests are used more extensively. Formerly exploited bogs are
restored and specic measures are taken to enhance recreational
value within areas identied as having particular demand (please
see section on cultural ES below for explanation).
The ES evaluation maps (Fig. 6) illustrate the spatial effects of the
alternative scenarios for each ES. It is obvious that the Regulated
scenario could prevent many of the negative effects of the Unreg-
ulated scenario and even improve the ability of the landscape to
provide different ES compared to the status quo. An exception if
food production which decreased in the regulated scenario in line
with the scenario assumptions. A comparison of the maps for sta-
tus quo and unregulated scenario also allows identication of the
areas in which changes occur and thus provides a useful basis for
allocating response options as reected in the Regulated scenario.
However, trade-off analyses across the different scenarios remain
difcult as no cumulative accounts are provided of the share of land
associated with each level of importance.
4.3.2. Results of implementing the ESin-Planning framework
The semi-quantitative evaluation of offered ES, in terms of the
share of case study area covered by the ve levels of signicance
for different ES (Fig. 7), allows a much better evaluation of trade-
offs across different scenarios compared with the option of only
comparing maps as in conventional DPSIR-based planning. In this
illustration, the differences in impacts between the situation in the
status quo (State 0) and the different scenarios (State 1a or State 1b)
is represented by the differences between the respective evaluation
bars. Areas of high biodiversity and of high cultural value decrease
slightly in the unregulated scenario but increase strongly in the
regulated scenario. Concerning climate mitigation, no effects can
be detected in comparison of the status quo and unregulated, but
great improvements can be seen in the Regulated scenario. While
the Regulated scenarios thus is benecial for biodiversity, climate
mitigation and cultural services, it has negative trade-offs for food
production with signicant decreases in areas of very high, high,
and medium production potential.
The differentiated analysis of ES for recreation results in addi-
tional maps illustrating relevant human inputs and the areas of
particular importance for recreation (Fig. 8). The maps show that
 108
Table 3
Look-up table for evaluating offered ES.

Biodiversity Food production Climate (carbon storage of soils) Cultural

Very high Bog Intensively used Very high retention 26001700 t of Highly structured grassland; lake landscapes; highly structured deciduous or mixed forest
Forest (extensive, elds potential CO2
deciduous) retention per
hectare

C. Albert et al. / Ecological Indicators 61 (2016) 100113

High Grasslands Extensively used High retention 16070 t of Diversied moorlands; highly structured arable land or
(extensive) elds potential CO2 grassland; old, highly structured deciduous or mixed forest
Forest (extensive, retention per
mixed) hectare
Medium Forest (extensive, n.a. Moderate retention No CO2 retention Young deciduous or mixed forest; moderately structured arable land or grassland
coniferous), Forest or emission
(commercial,
mainly coniferous),
Grassland
(intensive)
Low Fields Intensively used No retention or 70160 t of Poorly structured arable land; poorly structured coniferous forest
grasslands emission potential CO2
emission per
hectare
Very low Bog (degenerated) Extensively used Moderate retention 26001700 t of Peat-exhausted moorland
grasslands potential CO2
emission per
hectare
Simplied n.a. Adapted approach, Khler & Prei
approach, based on based on Saathoff (2000), adapted
Bierhals et al. et al. (2013).
(2004) and
Bredemeier et al.
(2014)

Note: the allocation of some land use types to the different levels of signicance for providing an esthetic landscape as the basis for cultural ecosystem services is dependent upon additional information on the condition. Therefore
some land use types appear in multiple categories.
 C. Albert et al. / Ecological Indicators 61 (2016) 100113 109

Fig. 4. Illustration of areas for pressures, sensitivities, and areas of potential changes of the state for the ES climate protection of soils.

Fig. 5. Comparison of the status quo and two land use change scenarios. Unregulated describes plausible future developments without planning interventions; Regulated
incorporates response measures to the identied challenges.
110 C. Albert et al. / Ecological Indicators 61 (2016) 100113

Fig. 6. Differentiated ES state evaluation maps.

only certain areas are currently equipped with infrastructure for explicit information is helpful in allocating response measures into
recreation purposes (in particular along the Steinhuder Meer lake the most appropriate areas, as done in the Regulated scenario
shore) but that the sites actually utilized for recreation are more where recreational measures are proposed for areas of actual recre-
extensive, though do not cover the entire study area. This spatially ational use.
 C. Albert et al. / Ecological Indicators 61 (2016) 100113 111

Fig. 7. Semi-quantitative trade-off analysis results of scenario effects on different ES in terms of share of case study area for each level of signicance.

Fig. 8. Exemplary maps of human inputs and areas utilized for recreational ES.

The quantitative analysis of ES benets exemplarily conducted in a DPSIR-based approach to landscape planning. The framework
for climate mitigation goes one step further than the semi- builds upon prior suggestions for integrating the two concepts by
quantitative analysis (described above) in providing insights into van Oudenhoven et al. (2012), Mller and Burkhard (2012), Scher
the overall amount of CO2 emitted or retained by agricultural areas et al. (2010), and Helming et al. (2013), but differs in linking ES
and respective economic values (Fig. 9). It shows a slight increase of
CO2 emissions for the Unregulated scenario, and a strong increase
of retained CO2 emissions and economic benets for the Regu-
lated scenario. Such quantitative and economic evaluation data
seems promising as benchmark values for monitoring landscape
change and its impacts, and also as input for political decision mak-
ing. However, it should only be used as a supplement (and not
replacement) of the more qualitative or semi-quantitative evalu-
ation approaches described above that better capture the diverse
trade-offs and the in-commensurability of different ES and biodi-
versity (von Haaren et al., 2014).

5. Discussion and conclusions

5.1. Framework for integrating ES in landscape planning

Fig. 9. Quantitative and economic trade-off estimation of ES benets concerning
This paper has introduced the ES-in-Planning framework as an climate mitigation ES of agricultural soils, values based on Saathoff et al. (2013) and
approach for integrating ES indicators assessment and evaluation German Federal Environmental Agency (2008).
112 C. Albert et al. / Ecological Indicators 61 (2016) 100113
analysis and evaluation more closely with established procedures
in existing landscape planning instruments. As such, the suggested
framework method provides an improved entry point for actually
applying ES in the specic eld of landscape planning practice. In
particular, the framework method differs from earlier suggestions
in two ways: First, we adopt a differentiated ES evaluation model
that employs separate indicators for offered ES, human inputs, and
utilized ES in response torecent suggestions from the perspective
of ES indicator application (Albert et al., in press; Burkhard et al.,
2014; von Haaren et al., 2014). This differentiated approach is bet-
ter suited to established planning as it shows that ES analyses partly
consists of evaluations that have already been included in planning
(namely the assessment of many offered ES), and at the same
time extends existing evaluations with new and complementary
considerations of human inputs, utilized ES and ES benets. Sec-
ond, it considers impacts in terms of changes of ES and changes of
respective human well-being. While this conception deviates from
prior suggestions by Scher et al. (2010) and Helming et al. (2013)
who understand impact solely in terms of changes of human well-
being, its application in the case study demonstrates that it aligns
well with the established procedure of landscape planning. In this
way, both the state and impacts can be described in several dif-
ferent terms, i.e. in changes of land uses, changes of the provision
of offered ES, changes of human inputs, utilized ES, or ES-induced
effects on human well-being.
5.2. Indicators proposed for ES assessment and evaluation
The proposed indicators for assessment and evaluation provide
examples of how the ES-in-Planning framework method can be
implemented in practice. At rst sight, the various indicators for
assessing pressures, offered and utilized ES, and human benets,
may seem more complicated than the original categories in CICIES
(Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013). However, planning applica-
tions (especially on regional and local scale) require a greater level
of detail in order to best identify the place-specic situations and
management needs. CICES, in contrast, was developed for account-
ing efforts where several of the difculties of its application in
planning do not play a role. For example, national accounting does
not need to consider if an ES is provided by the ecosystem alone or
if substantial human inputs were required in order to generate the
service.
The list of proposed ES indicators shows how ES can be assessed
and evaluated with respect to legislation and directives. Estab-
lishing this link is an important requirement for application of ES
indicators in planning and management, as it justies accord-
ing to existing planning instruments and procedures why the
consideration of each ES is needed in decision making. There are
of course a broad range of environmental development objectives
and societal preferences that cannot be simply derived from legisla-
tion, but that can become apparent through various social science
methods (i.e. social and economic values). These additional val-
ues provide further justication for the relevance of ES in planning
decision-making, and that legislative objectives do remain of prime
importance.
5.3. Application of selected ES indicators in the case study
The case study focuses on illustrating innovations in integrat-
ing ES indicators in planning practice rather than comprehensively
considering the whole range of ES and potential indicators, which
was not possible in the scope of this paper. The case study shows
how planning can benet from differentiating between offered ES,
human inputs, and utilized ES. Key benets of these amendments
to existing approaches lie in providing a better basis for account-
ing and subsequent decision-making, as the current pressures are
considered and the role of human intervention in actually provid-
ing usable ES is exemplied (for an example of benets ot assessing
offered ES and actually utilized ES, see e.g. Casado-Arzuaga et al.,
2014). Further innovations for planning stemming from the inte-
gration of ES indicators lie in providing a better basis for trade-off
analysis (be it semi-quantitatively, quantitatively, or economically)
as illustrated in the case study. In addition, planning could bene-
t from closer linkage to human well-being that could possibly be
attained by evaluating the benets provided by offered and uti-
lized ES (see e.g. Liu and Opdam, 2014) an issue that the case
study could not address in greater detail.
In taking the innovations together, the ES-in-Planning frame-
work allows for combining the benets of ES analysis and planning
in new and very promising ways: The consideration of pressures
and sensitivities and linking within legislative development objec-
tives allows for ES arguments to nd an entry point into established
decision-making procedures and thus a way of actually being con-
sidered in practice. Emerging challenges from landscape change
can be better detected. Most importantly, it allows for response
options to be allocated in ways that specically target the sites in
greatest need. From a planning perspective, the application of the
ES concept and ES indicators allows for more direct links to human
well-being and, hence, provides pathways for communicating with
stakeholder and decision-makers that can help gaining support for
the identied response measures (Galler et al., in review). Further-
more, benchmark values and quantitative accounting can enhance
objectivity, comparability and transparency of evaluations. More-
over, integrating ES can contribute to a systematic approach in
quantifying trade-offs and synergies and their consequences for
effectiveness and efciency of response options.
5.4. Remaining challenges and research gaps
Despite these potential benets, important challenges remain
that need to be considered and addressed if ES are to be fully inte-
grated in landscape planning. First, given the limited temporal,
nancial and data resources available in planning practice (Albert
et al., 2014b), a true integration of ES in practice would require
formal changes of existing planning instruments. While efforts
are currently underway to integrate ES in Environmental Impact
Regulation, it seems unlikely that the concept of ES will be fully
mainstreamed in suites of planning instruments in the short term.
Depending on national contexts and legislation, mainstreaming of
ES in planning could follow four distinct models (as put forward
by the UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow On Project): (i)
retrotting existing plans and programs with considerations of ES,
(ii) incrementally integrating assessments of ES in existing planning
procedures, (iii) an ES-led approach that embeds ES considerations
at early stages of planning, and (iv) an ecosystem approach-based
model that fundamentally alters planning procedures toward bet-
ter considering ES and their values in decisions. Which of these
models will eventually be adopted in each country and in which
decision-making context, remains an open question. Second, it is
not yet clear if investing more resources in acquiring additional
ES information will actually yield a better consideration of envi-
ronmental aspects in planning. Investigating this issue will require
more case studies, more knowledge exchange with practitioners,
and critical evaluations of the actual inuence of ES information in
different contexts of decision-making practice.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for
their very helpful feedback which has greatly improved the quality
of the paper. We thank Louise von Falkenhayn for polishing the
 C. Albert et al. / Ecological Indicators 61 (2016) 100113
language and Peter Haus for his very helpful support in the GIS-
work. Partial funding has been provided by Leibniz University for
the QUANTIFY project (Project No. 60470187).
References
Albert, C., Aronson, J., Frst, C., Opdam, P., 2014a. Integrating ecosystem services in
landscape planning: requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landsc. Ecol. 29,
12771285.
Albert, C., Hauck, J., Buhr, N., von Haaren, C., 2014b. What ecosystem services
information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among
landscape and regional planners in Germany. Landsc. Ecol. 29, 13011313.
Albert, C., Burkhard, B., Daube, S., Dietrich, K., Engels, B., Frommer, J., Gtzl, M.,
Grt-Regamey, A., Job-Hoben, B., Keller, R., Marzelli, S., Moning, C., Mller, F.,
Rabe,S.-E., Ring, I., Schwaiger, E., Schweppe-Kraft, B., Wstemann, H., in press.
Dis-cussion Paper Development of National Indicators for Ecosystem Services
Recommendations for Germany. Bundesamt fr Naturschutz Bonn.
Bastian, O., Schreiber, K.-F., 1994. Analyse und kologische Bewertung der Land-
schaft. Gustav Fischer, Jena, Stuttgart.
Bierhals, E., von Drachenfels, O., Rasper, M., 2004. Wertstufen und Regenerations-
fhigkeit der Biotoptypen in Niedersachsen. Informationsdienst Naturschutz
Niedersachsen 24, 231240.
Bredemeier, B., von Haaren, C., Rter, S., Reich, M., Meise, T., 2014. Evaluating the
nature conservation value of eld habitats: a model approach for targeting agri-
environmental measures and projecting their effects. Ecol. Modell., http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.010
Burkhard, B., Kandziora, M., Hou, Y., Mller, F., 2014. Ecosystem service potentials,
ows and demand concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantica-
tion. Landscape Online 34, 132.
Casado-Arzuaga, I., Onaindia, M., Madariaga, I., Verburg, P., 2014. Mapping
recreation and aesthetic value of ecosystems in the Bilbao Metropolitan
Greenbelt (northern Spain) to support landscape planning. Landsc. Ecol. 29,
13931405.
Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., OFarrell, P.J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D.J.,
Welz, A., Wilhelm-Rechman, A., 2008. An operational model for mainstream-
ing ecosystem services for implementation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105,
9483.
Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts,
T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making:
time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 2128.
de Groot, R., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Haines-Young, R., Gowdy,
J., Maltby, E., Neuville, A., Polasky, S., 2010a. Integrating the ecological and eco-
nomic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar, P.
(Ed.), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic
Foundations. Earthscan, London, pp. 940.
de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010b. Challenges in
integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,
management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260272.
Frank, S., Frst, C., Witt, A., Koschke, L., Makeschin, F., 2014. Making use of the ecosys-
tem services concept in regional planningtrade-offs from reducing water
erosion. Landsc. Ecol. 29, 13771391.
Frst, C., Opdam, P., Inostroza, L., Luque, S., 2014. Evaluating the role of ecosystem
services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balanced score card.
Landsc. Ecol. 29, 14351446.
Galler, C., Albert, C., von Haaren, C., 2015. From regional environmental planning
to implementation: paths and challenges of integrating ecosystem services.
Ecosyst. Serv. (in review).
German Federal Environmental Agency, 2008. Economic valuation of environmental
damage: metodological convention for estimates of environmental externali-
ties. Dessau-Rolau.
German Federal Environmental Agency, Economic valuation of environmental dam-
age: metodological convention for estimates of environmental externalities.
2008, Dessau-Rolau.Gruehn, D., 2005. Zur Validitt von Bewertungsmetho-
den in der Landschafts- und Umweltplanung. Handlungsbedarf, methodisches
Vorgehen und Konsequenzen fr die Planungspraxis, aufgezeigt am Beispiel
der Validittsprfung praxistauglicher Verfahrensanstze zur Bewertung von
boden-, wasser- und klimarelevanten Landschaftsfunktionen. Berlin, Mensch &
Buch Verlag.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem
services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D.G., Frid, C.L.J. (Eds.), Ecosystem
Ecology A New Synthesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp.
110139.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2013. Common International Classication of Ecosys-
tem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, AugustDecember 2012. EEA
Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003, Download at www.cices.eu and spread
sheet.
Hatton MacDonald, D., Bark, R., Coggan, A., 2014. Is ecosystem service research used
by decision-makers? A case study of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Landsc.
Ecol., http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-10014-10021-10983
Hauck, J., Grg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamki, O., Maes, J., Wittmer, H., Jax, K., 2013a.
Maps have an air of authority: potential benets and challenges of ecosystem
service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosyst. Serv. 4, 2532.
113
Hauck, J., Schweppe-Kraft, B., Albert, C., Grg, C., Jax, K., Jensen, R., Frst, C., Maes,
J., Ring, I., Hnigov, I., Burkhard, B., Mehring, M., Tiefenbach, M., Grunewald,
K., Schwarzer, M., Meurer, J., Sommerhuser, M., Priess, J.A., Schmidt, J., Grt-
Regamey, A., 2013b. The promise of the ecosystem services concept for planning
and decision-making. GAIA: Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 22, 232236.
Helming, K., Diehl, K., Geneletti, D., Wiggering, H., 2013. Mainstreaming ecosystem
services in European policy impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 40,
8287.
Jessel, B., Tobias, K., 2002. kologisch orientierte Planung: Eine Einfhrung in The-
orien, Daten und Methoden. Ulmer, Stuttgart.
Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., Mller, F., 2013. Interactions of ecosystem proper-
ties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicatorsa theoretical matrix
exercise. Ecol. Indic. 28, 5478.
Kato, S., Ahern, J., 2008. Learning by doing: adaptive planning as a strategy to
address uncertainty in planning. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 51, 543559.
Khler, B., Prei, A., 2000. Erfassung und Bewertung des Landschaftsbildes: Grund-
lagen und Methoden zur Bearbeitung des Schutzguts Vielfalt, Eigenart und
Schoenheit von Natur und Landschaft in der Planung. Informationsdienst
Naturschutz Niedersachsen 20.
Kopperoinen, L., Itkonen, P., Niemel, J., 2014. Using expert knowledge in combining
green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into
a new place-based methodology. Landsc. Ecol. 29, 13611375.
Liu, J., Opdam, P., 2014. Valuing ecosystem services in community-based landscape
planning: introducing a wellbeing-based approach. Landsc. Ecol. 29, 13471360.
Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schgner, J.P., Grizzetti, B.,
Drakou, E.G., Notte, A.L., Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F., Luisa Paracchini, M., Braat, L.,
Bidoglio, G., 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision
making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 3139.
Mascarenhas, A., Ramos, T., Haase, D., Santos, R., 2014. Integration of ecosystem
services in spatial planning: a survey on regional planners views. Landsc. Ecol.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-10014-10012-10984
Mengel, A., 2011. Kommentierung 1 BNatSchG (Ziele des Naturschutzes und der
Landschaftspege). In: Frenz, W., Mggenborg, H.-J. (Eds.), Berliner Kommentar
zum Bundesnaturschutzgesetz. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin.
Mller, F., Burkhard, B., 2012. The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv.
1, 2630.
Niemeijer, D., de Groot, R.S., 2008. A conceptual framework for selecting environ-
mental indicator sets. Ecol. Indic. 8, 1425.
Opdam, P., Albert, C., Frst, C., Grt-Regamey, A., Kleemann, J., Parker, D., La Rosa,
D., Schmidt, K., Villamor, G.B., Walz, A., 2015. Ecosystem services for connecting
actors lessons from a symposium. CASES (in press).
Palacios-Agundez, I., Fernndez de Manuel, B., Rodrguez-Loinaz, G., Pena, L.,
Ametzaga-Arregi, I., Alday, J., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Madariaga, I., Arana, X., Onain-
dia, M., 2014. Integrating stakeholders demands and scientic knowledge on
ecosystem services in landscape planning. Landsc. Ecol., http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s10980-10014-19994-10981
Potschin, M.B., Haines-Young, R.H., 2011. Ecosystem services exploring a geo-
graphical perspective. Progr. Phys. Geogr. 35, 575594.
Region Hannover, 2013. Landschaftsrahmenplan der Region Hannover.
Saathoff, W., von Haaren, C., Dechow, R., Lovett, A., 2013. Farm-level assessment of
CO2 and N2 O emissions in Lower Saxony and comparison of implementation
potentials for mitigation measures in Germany and England. Regional Environ.
Change 13, 825841.
Scher, B., Helming, K., Wiggering, H., 2010. Assessing land use change impacts a
comparison of the SENSOR land use function approach with other frameworks.
J. Land Use Sci. 5, 159178.
Smeets, E., Weterings, R., 1999. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview.
Technical Report No. 25. EEA, Copenhagen.
Spangenberg, J.H., Douguet, J.M., Settele, J., Heong, K.L., 2014. Escaping the lock-in
of continuous insecticide spraying in rice: developing an integrated ecologi-
cal and socio-political DPSIR analysis. Ecol. Modell., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolmodel.2014.05.010
Steiner, F., 2000. The living Landscape: An Ecological Approach to Landscape Plan-
ning, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Steinitz, C., 1993. A framework for theory and practice in landscape planning. GIS
Europe 2, 4245.
TEEB, 2010. In: Kumar, P. (Ed.), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity:
Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London and Washington, DC.
Tscherning, K., Helming, K., Krippner, B., Sieber, S., Paloma, S.G.y., 2012. Does
research applying the DPSIR framework support decision making? Land Use
Policy 29, 102110.
UK NEA, 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Find-
ings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Petz, K., Alkemade, R., Hein, L., de Groot, R.S., 2012. Frame-
work for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on
ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 21, 110122.
von Haaren, C., 2004. Landschaftsplanung. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, pp. 527529.
von Haaren, C., Albert, C., Barkmann, J., de Groot, R., Spangenberg, J., Schrter-
Schlaack, C., Hansjrgens, B., 2014. From explanation to application: introducing
a practice-oriented ecosystem services evaluation (PRESET) model adapted
to the context of landscape planning and management. Landsc. Ecol. 29,
13351346.
von Haaren, C., Galler, C., Ott, S., 2008. Landscape Planning. The Basis of Sustainable
Landscape Development. Bundesamt fr Naturschutz, Bonn.