Talking about services of ecosystems presupposes an assessment of ecosystem states. In the course of time different standards about the valuation of landscapes especially for planning purposes arose in different countries. For example in the beginning of the 20th century silvicultural mapping was used for a valuation of forest sites in order to achieve a forest management as profitable as possible. This anthropocentric point of view still existed in the 1970s and for example became apparent in the planning of natural parks which also had its main focus on human needs. Thus, recreational institutions, hiking paths etc. were built. Environmental aspects were not considered until environmental damages became more obvious. By that, landscape valuation had to focus not only on the suitability of landscapes for certain ways of utilisation by man anymore, but to take care of the nature protection, which means to safe the functions and potentials of landscapes and therefore the base of life. (cf. Marks et al. 1989: 24)
In the following a number of different approaches as they arose in the different countries are introduced.
Haase - Potentials of landscapes
Around the 1960s of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) continuously increased agricultural yields are claimed by society. The potentials of landscapes are supposed to be used to full capacity by intensified fertilization. For a sensible planning, guidance and realisation of maximum yield increase, W. Kasch (1962) and G. Haase (1968: 309) consider an exact recording and mapping of natural yield factors as an essential prerequisite, following the example of silvicultural mapping, which had been practised in GDR by that time for several years.
According to Haase (1978), it is a societal obligation to achieve a rational and effective use of all available natural goods. For this purpose, the mechanisms of interactions between nature and society have to be known, as well as the social and economic conditions. The base of investigation should not be nature by itself, but the claims of society towards nature as base of life. Since these claims depend on the stage of development of society's productivity, it is necessary to investigate the connection by which society's activity affects the 'equipment of natural landscape units' (i.e. all substances, processes and properties which characterise a natural space) and dynamics of the natural environment. (cf. Haase 1978: 113)
The term 'Potentials of landscapes' is introduced as an interpretation of the natural supply. The natural supply describes the matters, processes and properties of natural landscape units which may be considered for societal use under given conditions. This interpretation refers to the demands of society towards landscapes to contribute to societal reproduction. (cf. ib: 114 et seq.) While in the 1960s the focus is mainly on the potential of landscapes to increase productivity, until the late 1980s the consideration of the landscape as an eco- or geosystem becomes of steadily increasing importance in planning. Due to the intensification of all processes which would have led to collapse of the system soon, the question arises what is needed to conceive the functions and keep the system work. (cf. Haase 1989: 29)
The growing demands on agriculture to consistently increase yields implicates an intensive use of natural resources, which leads due to overusing nature potentials and consequently less productivity “to a tense situation in the further development of the national economy and social life” (ib.). Thus, in planning regional developments it is considered necessary to think about the properties and potentials of the landscape to achieve a balance of economic, social, geo- and bio-ecological conditions. Therefore a classification scheme has been developed to identify mappable landscape objects which represent the patterns of potential use and the limits on usages. (cf. ib.) This scheme aims to create a map which can be used for decision processes because it does not concentrate only “on the interest of one individual industry or demand”, but identifies the relevant landscape components (ib.)
In summary, it can be said that agricultural mapping of landscapes aims to create a necessary documentation for agricultural and other economic sectors to enable maximum increase of yield under a balance of economic, social, geo- and bioecological conditions.
Marks - Efficiency of the landscape budet
In the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), the working group “Geo-ecology” of the Central Committee for German Regional Studies expresses the requirement to develop more practical working aid, e.g. for planning groups and other practitioners, to enable an estimation of the landscape budget efficiency by valuing ‘factors of landscapes’. For this purpose a geo-ecologic recording method has been developed, composed of a mapping instruction for a geo-ecological map (“KA GÖK 25”) and an instruction for landscape valuation (“BA LVL”) based on the mentioned map (“GÖK”). The GÖK is seen as a precondition to ensure that the complex interactions of the geosystem are taken into consideration adequately (also) for valuation. This method is considered the first attempt to derive an overall estimation of the “efficiency of the landscape budget” directly from geo-ecological factors. (cf. Marks et al. 1989: 5)
The projects of KA GÖK 25 and BA LVL are based on a landscape-ecological approach which deals with the relations between nature, technology, and society. The object of this approach is the landscape ecosystem, defined as a section of the bio-geosphere, realised as a highly complex material and energetic system of factors, regulators and processes which can be distinguished into three stages: natural, anthropogenically influenced or anthropogenic. The anthropogenic regulators of landscape functions and potentials express the demands of humans to their environment; humans use, and thereby alter, the landscape and therewith the landscape ecosystem. The different demands of usage are considered in the BA LVL by the definition of individual efficiencies and potentials. (cf. ib. 21 et seq.)
The working group considers the existing valuation of nature as too anthropocentric because the environment is regarded as an object “to be used” by humans. So they call for a right of existence for plants and animals which causes on itself and not on the benefits humans gain from it. Furthermore, also humans need an intact nature budget to be adequately supplied. However, nature budget cannot be regarded without valuing, because it brings benefits for humans, plants and animals. (cf. ib: 32)
The “efficieny of the landscape budget” is suggested as the subject of valuing procedures. It results from spatial-material structures, functions and dynamics as well as from substances, energies and processes of landscape ecosystems which are important for all living organisms.
It is composed of partial capabilities (functions and potentials) which have to be assessed and valued individually by special instructions. Moreover, the landscape budget efficiency consists of the sum of its functions and potentials, whereas 'functions' express the tasks and services of the nature budget, and 'potentials' describe the resources of use for economy. Functions and potentials describe the ability of the landscape budget to enable certain services of ecosystems and to provide them for use. (cf. ib: 32 et seq.)
After valuation and classification, functions and potentials are planned to be presented in so-called maps of the “efficieny of the landscape budget”, which in turn would be the basis for planning or political decisions (cf. ib: 23).
Bastian/ Schreiber - Analysis, assessment and management of landscapes
O. Bastian and K.-F. Schreiber (cf. 1994: 7) comment on the applicability of methods to analyse and assess landscapes. This includes informing about states and potentials of nature, functions of landscapes, ecological stress and risks and kinds of land use. Their results are addressed to all who are related to environmental issues, such as landscape planners and architects, ecologists, administrative bodies, organisations for nature protection and engineers.
In the 1980s – 90s the main ecological problems like pollution of atmosphere and waters, extinction of plant and animal species, degradation of soils, desertification and climate change are recognized as risks for human well-being. “In the end of this century environmental protection became to a question of survival for humankind” (ib: 16). Thus, the authors consider it a political and social business to avert the imminent danger. Therefore ecology shall be deemed as an essential condition for a sustainable land use and a foresighted environmental planning and management. Its branches, such as ecosystem research and landscape ecology play part in contributing to comprehend the complex relationships within nature and landscapes. Both focus on ecosystems, on the one hand vertically by analysing their matter cycles and functions, on the other hand horizontally by looking at spatial, material and energetic relationships. (cf. ib.: 32)
Especially landscape ecology is considered an important tool because it deals with “structures, processes and changes in the landscape with a view to yielding a scientifically funded base in support of a sustainable land use which conserves the natural resources” (ib.: 17). Having determined the environmental state, landscape planning is used to conserve and support nature functions. Its principal tasks are “conserving, maintaining and developing nature potentials, the benefits of nature goods, plant and animal species and the diversity, character and beauty of nature and landscape as livelihood of man and precondition for his recreation” (ib.: 22). Landscape assessment and prognosis as results of landscape analysis determine the potentials of landscapes in respect of social demands by using criteria like threshold values and thereby prepare a suitable landscape management. (cf. ib.: 32)
The meaning of landscape potential derives from the comparison of usage demands and specific usage aims on the concrete nature supply. The potential can be characterized in categories like availability, capacity and suitability. These refer on the one hand to planning, commercial and economic purposes (natural-spatial approach), such as water or housing potential, and on the other hand to current and future kinds of (area) usage (landscape-spatial approach) which have to be assessed in respect to their effectiveness and environmental compatibility. To determine the efficiency of landscapes both approaches have to be integrated. In doing so it is possible to interpret and treat nature as historical, man-made landscapes and assess its functions, which can be classified in economical (e.g. suitability for production of biomass or availability of non-renewable resources), ecological (e.g. regulation of matter and energy cycles like soil protection against erosion or autopurification of waters) and social (e.g. aesthetic functions or bio-indication of environmental states) ones. This functional-oriented approach of landscape structures coined the term landscape functions. It considers nature potentials functionally and identifies its limits. Thus, it corresponds particularly to the principle of sustainability. (cf. ib.: 37 et seq./ 188)
Figure 1 Use of nature and protective goods, altered according to Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung (2008)
De Groot - Evaluation of nature functions
In 1992, R. de Groot presents an environmental evaluation method which is based on different environmental assessment techniques. His purpose is to design a comprehensive and universally applicable evaluation method, which translates environmental characteristics into functions provided by natural and semi-natural ecosystems and the wildlife they contain, taking both ecological and economic factors into account. Environmental functions in this case are defined as “the capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs (directly or indirectly)” (De Groot, 1992: 7). Human needs may be categorised into physiological and psychological needs. To meet these needs, humans engage in different types of activities (e.g. house building, industry, transport, recreation), which depend, as well as the satisfaction of needs, on certain environmental conditions. Also the cultural and socio-economic setting should be taken into account for the assessment and evaluation of the importance of environmental functions for human society. Functions thus build a bridge between natural processes and components and human needs and activities. Often, the author uses the term ‘functions’ synonymously with ‘goods and services’.
Many functions are interlinked by environmental characteristics, since most of those influence more than one function. The dependence of functions on the integrity of the entire ecosystems which provide them and the competition between functions introduce the economic dimension, since scarce goods and services satisfying human wants are part of economic theory. (cf. ib. 15-16) Sustainable use levels of environmental functions can be assessed under the distinction of functions into biotic versus abiotic and renewable versus non-renewable functions, whereas also the existence of ‘non-quantifiable’ functions should be kept in mind. (cf. ib. 16)
The concept of functions is suggested as a tool “to determine the ‘full value’ (economic, monetary, social and ecological) of natural areas and the functions they provide” (cf. ib. 129), since it provides an indicator for both environmental quality and quality of life. Types of values which can be attributed to environmental functions are conservation value, existence value, value to human health, option value, consumptive and productive use value of environmental functions. (cf. ib. 132-138) A clear need to express the socio-economic values of natural goods and services in monetary terms is pointed out, as due to missing markets, many benefits of natural ecosystems are taken for granted, which leads to an exploitation and a loss of functions. A number of methods to assess the monetary value are introduced (cf. ib. 138-151) which allow to describe and quantify the socio-economic value of individual environmental functions. (cf. ib. 151)
The emphasis in the presented model is put on natural ecosystems as spatial units, which are only one aspect of the total environment but can easily be recognised as elements in planning and decision making processes. (cf. ib. 13 et seq.) The availability of functions is largely controlled and sustained by ecological processes operating in ecosystems of different sizes, which each contribute to regulate and maintain the 'ecological balance' on earth (cf. ib: 13), therefore it is important to increase the knowledge on the functions provided by ecosystems.
Costanza - Valuation of ecosystem services
Like R. de Groot, R. Costanza (1997) sees the danger of ecosystem services being too less considered in decision-making, due to the fact that they can hardly be valued economically and therefore are little integrated in commercial markets. Thus, a study is conducted to estimate the annual value of ecosystem services worldwide, though intangible things like human life or ecosystem services are generally classified as invaluable. R. Costanza in contrast alleges the example that a monetary value could be imagined by calculating the costs for replicating ecosystem services technologically. (cf. Costanza 1997: 253 et seq.)
Here the different terms of ecosystem functions, goods and services are defined like in the following: “Ecosystem functions refer variously to the habitat, biological or system properties or processes of ecosystems. Ecosystem goods (such as food) and services (such as waste assimilation) represent the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions” (ib.: 253). Ecosystem services again “consist of flows of materials, energy, and information from natural capital stocks which combine with manufactured and human capital services to produce human welfare” (ib.: 254). For human welfare ecosystem services and therefore natural capital are essential because they are not artificially producible either due to the high costs or sometimes because it is patently impossible. This gives them an infinite value. Natural capital is defined to be the material which provides ecosystem services. Without natural capital no human welfare can arise. So the question is in which way changes in the quality or quantity of different types of natural capital may influence human welfare. (cf. ib.: 254 et seq.)
The valuation of ecosystem services bases on the “willingness-to-pay” of the society (ib.). This willingness arises due to the fact, that changes in natural capital and therefore in ecosystem services lead to changes either in human activities ( = benefits) or in the costs of these. But if society knew perfectly about their connectedness to and the value of ecosystem services, both the prices and the willingness to pay would increase. So it is difficult to find a concrete value. In the end a list of the current global land use and the total extend of ecosystems is compiled. The total value is determined about US$ 16-54 trillion with upward tendency because natural capital and ecosystem services are considered becoming more stressed and scarcer in future. (cf. ib.)
Research projects
Conceptualising and Quantifying Urban Ecosystem Services and Quality of Life for the City Region of Leipzig, Germany
The Centre of Environmental Research in Leipzig assesses urban ecosystem services and quality of life in the region of Leipzig.
Several investigations showed that especially in this region (and probably these results are valid for other regions and countries, too) the population density and therefore the settlement density is shrinking. In result the city is getting perforated. Moreover there is a general effort to settle down in rural areas so urban sprawl takes place. This again leads to a situation of increased land take in the environs. (cf. Haase 2008: 1)
In policy the term “shrinkage” is negatively connoted. But it is to be presumed that because of various events like wars, natural catastrophes or epidemics in former times and aging or out-migration nowadays “phases of shrinkage are as much a part of urban development as are phases of growth“ (ib.). So the project aims to show that “from an environmental scientist’s perspective [..] a perforation of the land use structure in densely built-up cities can have some substantially positive implications”, such as an increased “quality of housing and urban green infrastructure supply” or biodiversity of plant and animal species which benefit from “the perforating land use patterns” (ib.) like fallow land or built structures, such as parks and cemeteries (cf. ib.: 3).
Compared to the positive impacts of urban shrinkage urban sprawl is deemed to be a result of an “inappropriate subsequent or interim use of [.. a] waste/demolished site, such as leaving [.. an] area unused and retaining its impervious surface” (ib.). By this the area becomes less attractive. The lack of services which can be gained from nature (e.g. recreation) leads to an ongoing out-migration into adjacent rural regions. (cf. ib.)
At last urban shrinkage can be regarded as a process which offers the possibility of gaining ecosystem services. In doing so negative impacts on the environment by urban sprawl can be avoided because by providing more “urban greenery in the form of temporary gardens at core city demolition sites [… or] spontaneous and ruderal nature on former brownfields“ people are attracted to stay in the city centres (ib.: 6).
Adaptability of Ecosystem Services - Concept of a Potential Graduate School
The University of Kiel is planning a concept of interdisciplinary research training groups which are instituted by universities to prepare young scientists, such as PhD students and post docs for the job market.
The training groups are intended to focus on topics concerning the provision of ecosystem goods and services, especially in regard of climatic, demographical and energy-political changes which additionally lead to changes in land use (e.g. cultivation of energy crops) and the question, if human-environmental system will be able to adapt to these. To monitor and assess current and future developments the DPSIR-model is to be used which also includes the necessity to derive and integrate (new) indicators. In doing so, human-environmental interactions can be shown and simulations of scenarios and developments in temporal scales of up to 50 years will be possible.
The training program is intended to include the promotion of contacts (e.g. visiting scientists), the providing of further education (e.g. workshops and excursions) and the exchange of knowledge and interim results (supervision of PhD theses or development of scenarios). As a result, national and international cooperation will be supported and environmental issues can be worked on more comprehensively. (cf. Müller 2008: oral)
Building a US online atlas of ecological goods and services
The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is developing an atlas of environmental goods and services to “support place-based and national activities with mapping and modelling” and thereby get a “nationwide mapping of ecosystem services” (Wickham 2008: oral).
The atlas is part of the Ecological Research Program (ERP) and intended to be an online, permanently updated digital mapping of ecosystem services, such as water provisioning, flood attenuation, nutrient retention, drinking water sustainability, carbon cycling and storage, wetland services, air quality and habitat services. The gained information shall be provided especially to decision makers to enable them assessing “the benefits of ecosystem services to human well-being for inclusion in management alternatives” (ib.). The project aims to consistently incorporate a “comprehensive theory and practice for characterizing, quantifying, and valuing ecosystem services, and assuring their relationship to human well-being into environmental decision making” (ib.). Therefore it will include scenarios displaying consequences of choices.
The project is going to be implemented on three steps. Firstly, teams are to establish to develop methods for mapping individual ecosystem services. Secondly, relationships and agreements with other agencies, organisations and academia for mapping ecosystem services are to make. Thirdly, a National Atlas workshop is to conduct. The atlas will be publicly available. So the public will be allowed to gain information about ecosystem states, goods and services, as well as decision-makers, planners and scientists. To make sure that everyone knows about this tool, it is scheduled to publicise the atlas by a high-visibility venue like National Geographic. (cf. ib.)
Conclusion
While in former times nature was only valued according to its potential benefits for humans (e.g. increase of agricultural yields), later the valuation became less anthropocentric and ecosystem functions were appreciated more than ecosystem potentials or resources. It has been realized that humans benefit more from intact ecosystems which are able to maintain by themselves sustainably because they are not getting overused and by this destroyed.
In current projects it is aimed to find, provide and value ecosystem services in a moral, aesthetic or monetary way. But it is arguable, whether in this context especially a monetary value makes sense. Apart from the difficulty to value intangible things like human lives (which also may be considered crude), the question arises, whether things just as they have a monetary value will not have to be paid sometime. Provocatively it can be asked: a soil formation tax in future?
Questions
- In what further ways can be called society’s attention to the benefits of intact ecosystems and the services they provide?
- What is needed to implement the projects successfully?
Useful links and literature
Ecological Research Program Web Site (U.S. online atlas of ecological goods and services)
Haase, Günter et al. (1987): Naturraumerkundung und Landnutzung. Geochorologische Verfahren zur Analyse, Kartierung und Bewertung von Naturräumen. In: Heinzmann, Joachim (ed., 1991): Beiträge zur Geographie. Vol. 34. Berlin
Peri-urban Land Use Relationships - Strategies and Sustainability Assessment Tools for Urban-Rural Linkages (Conceptualizing and Quantifying Urban Ecosystem Services and Quality of Life for the City Region of Leipzig)
Register of Illustrations
Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung (2008): Strategische Umweltprüfung. In: Natur und Grün. Umweltprüfungen, Berliner Leitfaden für die Stadt- und Landschaftsplanung. [access: 01.12.2008]
References
Bastian, Olaf (ed.)/ Schreiber, Karl-Friedrich (1994): Analyse und ökologische Bewertung der Landschaft. Jena
Costanza, Robert/ d´Arge, Ralf/ de Groot, Rudolf/ Farber, Stephen/ Grasso, Monica/ Hannon, Bruce/ Limburg, Karin/ Naeem, Shahid/ O´Neill, Robert. V./ Paruelo, Jose/ Raskin, Robert G./ Sutton, Paul/ Belt, Marjan van den (1997): The value of the world´s ecosystem services and natural capital. In: Nature. Vol. 387, pp. 253-260
De Groot, Rudolf S. (1992): Functions of Nature. Evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making. Amsterdam
Haase, Dagmar (2008): Urban Ecology of Shrinking Cities: An Unrecognized Opportunity? Leipzig
Haase, Günter (1968): Inhalt und Methodik einer umfassenden landwirtschaftlichen Standortkartierung auf der Grundlage landschaftsökologischer Erkundung. In: Wiss. Veröff. des Dt. Inst. für Länderkunde. N. F., Vol. 25/ 26, pp. 309-349. Leipzig
Haase, Günter (1978): Zur Ableitung und Kennzeichnung von Naturpotentialen. In: Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen. 122 (1978) 2, pp. 113-125
Haase, Günter (1989): Medium scale landscape classification in the German Democratic Republic. In: Landscape Ecology. Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 29-41
Kasch, W. (1962): Methodik einer komplexen landwirtschaftlichen Standortkartierung. D. Dt. Landw.. Vol. 13, No. 11. Berlin
Marks, Robert/ Müller, Manfred J./ Leser, Hartmut/ Klink, Hans-Jürgen (ed.) (1989): Anleitung zur Bewertung des Leistungsvermögens des Landschaftshaushaltes. In: Forschungen zur deutschen Landeskunde, Band 229. Trier
Müller, Felix et al. (2008): oral [14.05.2008, Salzau]
Wickham, James (2008): oral [14.05.2008, Salzau]