T2 / IRT-2

Recognizing the value of ecosystem services in land use decisions

  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Czech Republic
  • Europe
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Italy
  • Netherlands
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Slovakia
  • Slovenia
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • United Kingdom



Czech Republic

Hana Urbancova
xyhana.urbancova@cazv.czhttp://eagri.cz/public/web/en/mze/consultancy-research/yespossiblynoNational Agency for Agricultural Research manages R&D for the entire agricultural sector, and invests significant funding into its support and development. Thanks to this funding, the results produced by some Czech research teams rank them among the best in their field both in Europe and worldwide.
Lukas Kacena
xylukas.kacena@tacr.czhttps://www.tacr.cz/index.php/en/yespossiblynoTechnology Agency of the Czech Republic, section for management of research




Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Marion BARDYmarion.bardy@agriculture.gouv.frhttp://www,agriculture.gouv.frunknownyesyesHow to manage the multifunctionality of agricultural soils, also takes into account in the decision making - transverse to several themes. What means of action / levers for actors managing agricultural ecosystems
Better assessment of soil ES funded in metaprogram INRA Ecoserv (axis 2 map and assess ES) yesmc.dictor@brgm.fr


Federal Ministry of Education and Resarch
Dr. Kristina Grossk.gross@fz-juelich.dewww.ptj.deyeayesyes
Urban and rural areas are closely interrelated and depending heavily on to each other. Urbanization and digitization - these and other trends urgently need to redefine functional urban areas and the urban-rural relationships. Coping with conflicts and initiating sustainable land use is of central importance. As part of the initiative “Future Cities” urban-rural relationships are part of intensive research activities in Germany. The BMBF is therefore interested to exchange in an international dialogue.possiblyuwe.ferber@stadtland.eu


Regione Emilia Romagna
Nicola Dall'Olionicola.dallolio@regione.emilia-romagna.itwww.regione.emilia-romagna.ityespossiblyyesRegione Emilia Romagna is interested in co-funding and being a partner of H2020 projects and other UE funding programme
Reduce land take and preserve fertile soils. Regione Emilia Romagna is currently co-funding on this issure the LIFE project SOS4Lifecurrently fundingmatteo.tabasso@siti.polito.it
Michele Munafòmichele.munafo@isprambiente.itwww.isprambiente.itYesyesno
Mapping and evaluating soil ecosystem services, Activity started within LIFE program and continued with own funds. currently fundingmatteo.tabasso@siti.polito.it


implementation programme soil and subsurface
Leo Hamerlinck (via Linda Maring)linda.maring@deltares.nlhttps://www.bodemplus.nl/onderwerpen/bodem-ondergrond/bodemconvenant/thema/kennis/uitvragen/uitvraag-2017/aanbestedingsvormen/xxxpossiblypossiblyThis programme has budget untill (10 mln between 2017-2020) for soil and subsurface. They use the Dutch knowledge agenda soil and subsurface (which is the same as the dutch contribution to the INSPIRATION agenda) as leading research questions. They set out different calls (next call is on climate / rural area, nature / infrastructure or energy, max 150 KEUR, 50% cofininancing needed, deadline Nov 29 2017 ) They are open for collaboration in europe. how and on which topics is not specified yest. Probably theyw ant to arrange this via the Knowledge and Innovation Program Soil and Subsurface (also entered in this database)



Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
Maria MaiaMaria.Maia@fct.ptwww.fct.ptPermission for what?yesyes
possibly, already funded, currently fundingtpanago@ualg.pt
Center on Spatial and Organizational Dynamics
Thomas Panagopoulostpanago@ualg.pthttp://cieo.pt/mission.phpyespossiblyyes
António José Conde Buzio Sampaio Ramos
outside our remittpanago@ualg.pt





IHOBE Basque Environment Agency
Ana Alzola +34 94 423.07.43ana.alzola@ihobe.euswww.ihobe.eusyes but only within the interested partiespossiblyyesIhobe is the public agency for environmental management of the Basque Country. As such the organization has limited funding capacity. However Ms Alzola has tried to reflect in her responses the potential interest of the Department of Environment of the Basque Government with respect to the SRA. She is willing to participate in an online match making / meeting in the medium term though.
very much interested Medium term 20-2025yesgemma.garcia@tecnalia.com


The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agrucultural Sciences and Spatial Planning
Elisabet Goranssonelisabet.goransson@formas.sewww.formas.seyespossiblypossiblyMay be a change of Contact person


Swiss National Science Foundation SNSF
c/o Marco Pützmarco.puetz@wsl.chwww.snf.chnonono
Swiss Federal Office for the Environment FOEN
c/o Marco Pützmarco.puetz@wsl.chwww.bafu.admin.chnonono

United Kingdom

Assessing magnitude and societal distribution of costs and benefits of land use options (e.g. through cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis or multi-criteria analysis) can help mainstream the value of ecosystem services into decision-making.

  • For founders
  • For endusers
  • For researchers
  • For citizens
For ecosystem services to be adequately accounted for in decision making, an agreed means is needed for valuing the benefits that nature provides and comparing their worth with other services. Investment in this topic will help advance the appropriate consideration given to ecosystem services in land use management and decision making.
Research in this area will facilitate an improved recognition of the values people hold for nature and its services in decision-making at different levels. This will strengthen often overlooked long-term public benefits of land use. It will also help reducing impacts of business activities, setting the scene for new markets and the design of public incentives and regulation.
Identification, assessing and integrating the values of nature, in particular the non-marketable ecosystem services affected by changes in land use and land use intensity. This requires a transdisciplinary approach to achieve convergence of behavioural economy, sociology, psychology and ecological sciences.
Only by acknowledging and assessing the many benefits of clean air, fresh water, healthy soil, green spaces and beautiful landscapes can such "ecosystem services" be properly valued and taken into account when making decisions about land use and soil management.

Ecosystem services underpin human well-being and economic prosperity. The main challenge is to develop integrated ecological indicators that can be used alongside established socio-economic indicators by planning instruments and tools to ensure ecosystem services are given appropriate consideration in land use decision making. • What new metrics are required to assess socio-economic, socio-cultural and environmental impacts and benefits of different land management strategies in response to (new) challenges, e.g. climate change mitigation & adaptation, demand for food, fuel, forest & fiber, housing, tourism & recreation, nature conservation?
• How can a new “value” framework, enabling better balance of benefits vs costs could look like? Valuation tools should give more weight to health, environmental and cultural parameters and should take ethical considerations into account.
• How to map and assess soil ecosystem services? How to value soil ecosystem services? How can the “bundle” of ecosystem services be gathered and evaluated? All stakeholders (including policymakers) need to take into account the value of the different soil ecosystem services in their processes and projects: how to do that?
• How can the accessibility and resolution of data on ecosystem services at relevant levels of decision-making (and in particular at local and regional level) be enhanced?
• How do stakeholders value ecosystem services and how can these result in social, economic and environmental development?
• What are the impacts of policies, regulations and incentives for resources, ecosystem service provision and society – e.g. for agricultural policies, infrastructure development, housing subsidies?

Background: Ecosystem services underpin human well-being and economic prosperity. Land use, such as agricultural production or forestry, and land use change, such as urban development, agricultural intensification or afforestation is influencing the bundle of ecosystem services provided. Few ecosystem services have explicit prices or are traded in markets and more often than not these marketable ecosystem services (typically, provision services such as crops or timber) are preferred over non-marketable services (e.g. regulating and cultural services, such as freshwater provision, mitigation of hazardous events or landscape beauty) in decisions about land use and land use intensity. Yet also these non-marketable ecosystem services are important to human well-being and people may hold substantial values for them, irrespectively whether they can be sold on markets or not. There is thus a huge challenge to identify and assess the benefits of such non-marketable ecosystem services affected by changes in land use and land use intensity. While many past and ongoing research projects are contributing to the assessment of the manifold values of ecosystem services, there is still a lack of consent on how these yet neglected values can be integrated (e.g. via hybrid valuation methodologies) and thoroughly recognized in decision-making. Thus, understanding driving forces of decision-making at different levels (local to national and even global), such as market trends, institutional settings, knowledge diffusion, technology development and policy incentives is another prerequisite to design land use policies that support the provision of better balanced ecosystem service bundles.
Goal: Explore on options, how the importance of the whole range of ecosystem services linked to changes in land use and land use intensity can be assessed, integrated and better recognized in decision-making and developing land use policies. Concepts should be based on recent studies, such as the MEA, TEEB and CICES systems.
Rationale from the themes: Demand: Our society has a huge demand for ecosystem goods and services. In order to safeguard ecosystem service provision it is absolutely essential that the demand does not overexploit ecosystems. A severe damage of ecosystem functions and services would trigger a number of negative feedback loops on society. Consequently, research on a well equilibrated balance between demand and the potential provision of ecosystem services is essential for a sustainable development.
Natural Capital: Some ecosystem services provided by natural capital can hardly be quantified; occasionally even a qualitative assessment is challenging because the connection between biodiversity, ecosystem functions and service provision is not fully understand. As a consequence, a decrease of the quantity and quality of the natural capital is often ignored in decision-making. Particularly in intensifying agriculture or greenfield development for housing, industry or traffic there is a tendency to overlook the decline of natural capital, even if it’s irreversible. Research on structures, functions and interactions within ecosystems is essential. Research on natural capital should consider the interaction of disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology, etc. but also sociology, economics and law etc.) and systems (soil, water, atmosphere, etc.)

Land Management: Private land management decisions are mainly taken on economic reasoning, thereby neglecting the impact of management on non-marketable ecosystem services that do not resonate in private cost benefit considerations. Moreover, existing land management instruments, e.g. to enhance biodiversity protection have to compete with a strong incentives provided by market signals, production structures and policy incentives to (further) intensify agriculture production. Assessing the impacts that the disregard of certain ecosystem services pose on society (e.g. groundwater contamination, soil erosion or reduced landscape aesthetics) could help to identify counterproductive policies. Understanding the cost benefit considerations of farmers would also help to develop more effective policy responses in order to support the provision of better balanced ecosystem service bundles.
Net Impact: By now, there are only few economic assessments which appraise the value of selected ecosystem services affected by land use decisions. What is more, neither is there an agreed upon standard on if and how economic valuation of ecosystem services can be carried out, nor a shared understanding on how an integration of different value dimensions (e.g. economic, social, health, ecological) inherent to ecosystem services could be realized. Hence, there are huge gaps in understanding the net impact of different land uses and changes in land use intensities as well as the net impact of policies and regulations aiming at steering land use decisions.
So what? Assessing magnitude and societal distribution of costs and benefits of different land use options (e.g. through cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis or multi-criteria analysis) can help mainstreaming the values of nature and ecosystem services into decision-making.
Links to other fields: The key problem of valuing ecosystem services and value integration is evident in a number of conflicts at the interface society/economy/environment. For example (i) intensity of agricultural production (ii) greenfield development for housing, industry or traffic, (iii) forest management and afforestation or (iv) seep sea fishing versus fish diversity and abundance of fish populations to name but a few.

Activities: knowledge transfer, knowledge creation

Goals: No poverty, Zero hunger, Good health Quality, Education, Clean water & sanitation, Affodable and clean energy, Decent work and economic growth, Industry innovation and infrastructure, Sustainable cities and communities, Responsible consumption, Climate action, Life below water, Life on land

... back