Ecosystem Services For Spatial Planning

Green Energy and Technology
Silvia Ronchi
Ecosystem
Services
for Spatial
Planning
Innovative Approaches and Challenges
for Practical Applications
Climate change, environmental impact and the limited natural resources urge
scientific research and novel technical solutions. The monograph series Green
Energy and Technology serves as a publishing platform for scientific and
technological approaches to “green”—i.e. environmentally friendly and sustain-
able—technologies. While a focus lies on energy and power supply, it also covers
“green” solutions in industrial engineering and engineering design. Green Energy
and Technology addresses researchers, advanced students, technical consultants as
well as decision makers in industries and politics. Hence, the level of presentation
spans from instructional to highly technical.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8059

Silvia Ronchi
Ecosystem Services
for Spatial Planning
Innovative Approaches and Challenges
for Practical Applications
123
Silvia Ronchi
Department of Architecture
and Urban Studies
Politecnico di Milano
Milan, Italy
ISSN 1865-3529 ISSN 1865-3537 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-319-90184-8 ISBN 978-3-319-90185-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90185-5
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018939134
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer International Publishing AG
part of Springer Nature
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Less is More
Allo stare in provincia

Foreword
New Priorities for Spatial Planning: The Challenge

of an Ecosystem Services-Based Approach
Ecological and environmental issues are increasingly highlighted as current prior-

ities for territorial and urban planning. Not only because currently more than half
world’s population lives in urban areas of the planet (with a projection of 75% for
2050), causing more and more intense pressures on the quality of life condition.
However, mainly due to a spatial planning model again widely based on expensive
growth strategies. The constant and persistent increase of urbanisation areas is
causing irreversible impacts on the natural resources availability (air, water, soil);
which greatly effect on hydrogeological structure, air quality, soil vulnerability,
food security, climate change, and generally on human well-being.
A condition that requires urban planning to assume: 1) a different paradigm, able
to address the new challenges for the contemporary city and territory; 2) a new
planning approach demanding an understanding of current social dynamics and
critical environmental, ecological and climatic issues in order to redefine the spatial
governance agenda; 3) an innovative methods to maintenance and redevelopment
of the urban environment, and to design of urban and regional open space network.
An approach where the open spaces design and regulation form the structural features
of the plan in order to limit urbanisation and land take phenomena and to achieve new
ecological, environmental and landscape performances for urban quality.
Nevertheless, to face the impacts of urbanisation on Natural capital are required
integrated approaches considering not only the social, economic and ecological
complexity of urbanisation phenomena but also interdependencies between causes,
pressures, and responses to these processes. Therefore, an innovative paradigm for
planning strongly urges the explicit assumption of a trans-disciplinary approach in
which the different knowledge (environmental, hydraulic, pedological, ecological,
etc.), traditionally relegated to play a secondary role in planning process, become
active and primary in the definition of land use strategies. In this sense, the inte-
gration of ecosystem service (ES) thinking into spatial planning is considered an
vii
viii Foreword
original approach, able to improve the environmental management and to enhance

planning resilience and sustainability, through the inclusion of ES evaluation in the
decision-making process, whereas ES has been already proven and relatively
exhaustively discussed as a useful integrated method.
The evident deterioration of ES due to land take processes requires the under-
standing of the drivers and impacts of changes in modelling future dynamics and in
developing management strategies to prevent further decline of natural resources.
Spatial planning provides a prescriptive framework of land uses and their functions,
also providing zoning regulations and urban transformation that involves land use
conversion/substitution. The impacts delivered by spatial planning decisions must
include consideration and assessment on the ES performances, regarding state and
trends, providing solutions and/or strategies for avoiding ES decline and ensuring
their conservation, protection and enhancement.
The book “Ecosystem Services for Spatial Planning” has explored the current
dynamics between Planning and ES, highlighting critical issues that have limited or
prevented their interaction, and introduced practical proposals not only for guar-
anteeing ES implementation in the planning/assessment process but also for
including ES in defining planning strategies.
Mapping ES becomes a key tool in guiding and supporting decision-making for
ES management from a global to local scale. The recognised importance of map-
ping has determined considerable progress in ensuring high quality of ES maps
essential in providing the most accurate information, even if remains a tool for
“expert side”. This has caused a significant and a recent proliferation of software
and tools to estimate the current state and trends of ES (mainly with a spatial
distribution). The book has highlighted such crucial issues that affect the integration
of ES in planning process. One of the main topics is the scale issue of ES con-
sidered a key “knot to untangle”.
The “lack of fit” or “mismatches” between the scales at which ES is delivered,
demanded and governed is recognised as one of the most important causes of
failures in natural resource management (as a cause of environmental conflict) and
also a critical question in the adoption of an ES approach for spatial planning.
The investigations on the scale definition denote that ES assessment cannot fail
to consider the ecological processes that ensure the provision of goods and services,
and the reference scale is central to any ES evaluation and in the analyses of
environmental changes.
Addressing mismatches requires the adjustment between the ecological pro-
cesses that provide ES, with the scale of management and planning. The adoption
of a multi-scale approach could contribute to surpass or at least reduce this critical
issue.
Mapping and scale issues must be investigated together for ES implementation
in planning and assessment processes considering that often ES assessment and
mapping are not adequately included or considered during the decision-making
process. Therefore, if, on the one hand, significant insights have been made for ES
mapping and assessment; on the other, few experiences were focused on the process
of integration of the ES assessment into the planning process. This limited
Foreword ix
integration is also related to the ES concept that is still unknown in practice or not
yet perceived by broader society as applicable for decision making.
The scale mismatch for ES assessment finds a possible solution (or a suitable
compromise) in the adoption of the “Landscape” as the logical setting due to the
mixture of historical, social, cultural and environmental aspects and dynamics. In
this sense, a “Landscape approach” allows going beyond administrative limits
focusing on the conservation of the homogeneity of the landscape structure.
Moreover, landscape metrics can help assess which benefiting areas rely on which
provisioning areas for the delivery of services.
Despite the scale issue, other key topics emerge in this book: the importance to
include ES consideration in the strategic environmental assessment
(SEA) providing a window of opportunity to formally mainstream ES into
decision-making processes and planning, and the adoption of an ecological com-
pensation method to redefine and improve proposals for land use changes. The
compensation measures are investigated and implemented as a method to sustain or
restore the overall capacity of soils in a certain area to fulfil—most of—their
functions.
These considerations have guided the last part of the book, which includes the
practical proposal methodology called “RES—Restart from Ecosystem Services”.
RES provides an operative methodology for assessing the ecological balance
(based on the ecosystem services capacity) of forecasted Land Uses and Land
Covers (LULC) changes derived by planning decisions based on the ESC as an
indicator of the multifunctional quality forecasting the environmental effects of land
take process on the ES provided by soils.
The ESC assessment was successively integrated with the adoption of three
incremental and hierarchical actions for soil sealing and land take control suggested
by the European Commission (limit, mitigate and compensate). RES acts within
this framework recommending an operative proposal to practically implement these
three actions. The strategy is already defined both at European and national/regional
levels, but, nowadays, does not find suitable application in planning due to the lack
of tools, procedures and methods to apply it.
The adoption of incremental actions has been settled considering the impact of
LULC changes on the ESC. The limitation threshold was identified considering the
statistical correlation between LULC of the forecasted urban transformations and
the weighted average of the ESC, while the definition of what measure should be
taken (mitigative or compensative) considers the adoption of urban planning
parameters for the transformation areas. SEA could be (used as) a tool to guarantee
the implementation of ES and RES methodology in the planning process, consid-
ering that each RES step fits with the SEA process stage in a systematic and
integrated way. More than that, RES acts as a trait d’union between planning and
SEA giving more effectiveness to both processes. The practical integration of the
RES methodology in the planning process is assured by inclusion in the SEA
identifying the main stage in which the cohesion is evident and providing robust
support for the definition of the planning strategies and the evaluation of alternative
scenarios.
x Foreword
The scenario analysis, a typical framework of impact assessment, was fully

criticised for its lack of consideration of reasonable alternatives as one of the key
recurring problems within the environmental assessment.
RES provides consistency to the alternative scenarios analysis, testing it with a
sample case study highlighting the possibility of predicting and understanding
current trends and possible future changes on ES.
The application of RES offers an ex-ante estimation of the predicted impact on
ESC and the appropriate measure to adopt in restoring it giving the possibility of
quantifying the possible economic costs of the interventions. In perspective, a
further relevant contribution from the evaluation and mapping of ecosystem ser-
vices is related to the construction of Green infrastructures (GI), as an innovative
structure for the contemporary planning. Whereas GI constitutes a field of design
experimentation, performing many differentiated functions related to the territorial
characteristics and spatial scale. While implementing an established ecological
network methodological and planning tradition, designed to ensure biodiversity and
connection between highly natural spatial areas, GI go beyond and realigns the
network concept including urban and peri-urban open areas and spaces, of varying
degrees of naturalness, characterised by accessibility and an ecosystem condition
that influences not only structures supporting naturalness but also regulation of
biological soil cycles, verifying its permeability and porosity ratios. An approach
which is able to enhance the different vocations and potential that the soil can play
in improving the environmental conditions of the territory; in which the protection
and valorisation actions are motivated in relation to the actual functionality of the
soils in supplying multiple benefits in terms of regulating, supporting, provisioning
and cultural services, biocultural diversity in cities and nature-based solutions.
The potential of innovative approach through the concept of the green and blue
infrastructures is becoming increasingly important for planning, where these net-
works can shape the new frame of the contemporary urban and territorial structure,
in which systems of open spaces (public and private), urban and peri-urban areas,
agricultural and natural soil, are integrated as pieces of a recreative and environ-
mental project, ecologically oriented and socially inclusive. GI permit moreover the
experimentation of an “inter-scalar” approach to the project, in which the
wide-scale design of the green networks is downscaled at the intercommunal and
local level, able to activate forms of governance and social sharing of the project,
within a common perspective of improving the quality of living conditions.
Milan, Italy Andrea Arcidiacono

Associate Professor of Urban Planning
Department of Architecture
and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano
Preface
The book investigated the relationship between ecosystem services (ES) and spatial
planning questioning possible ways of integrating the two concepts and approaches.
The implementation of ES in Planning requires a precise method of obtaining
significant evidence to aid the decision-making process because the provision of ES
depends on the importance this is given in spatial planning.
In recent years, knowledge on ES mainstream approaches to spatial planning has
increased through research and includes existing mindsets and technical procedures.
Many of these proposals often remain limited to specific aspects of spatial planning
or, in many cases, focused on only a few components of an existing tool. These
modalities, are surely essential in improving the knowledge system but without
impacting the planning process, only acting as tools used in the planning process.
The integration of ES demands operational frameworks in the Planning process that
today is still in its infancy and has precluded its full inclusion.
The book acted within this framework, investigating the reasons behind this gap
and advancing proposals to bridge ES into the planning process to support decision
makers. The work provided a proposal for ensuring the inclusion of ES in Planning
process using the incremental measures of limiting, mitigating and compensating
soil sealing and land take process promoting operational strategies in applying it.
The proposal is supported by a practical application to demonstrate the results, the
limits, the opportunities and further new developments.
The book introduced the main notions of the book as a starting point for further
discussion, as a common basis for all the next considerations. It is dedicated to
presenting important issues that must be considered when dealing with ES in terms
of methodology, approaches and practical experiences. The issues explored concern
the scale, the assessment methods, and the management of Ecosystem Services.
Each topic is investigated always considering the planning perspective, hence
having as a framework that of planning and territorial governance. This part ended
presenting experiences on assessment and mapping ES with two modalities: the first
collected the practical case study elaborated by the book author in order to test and
verify directly opportunities, criticisms and possible improvements in ES
xi
xii Preface
assessment/mapping for planning support; the second presented such innovative

aspects that affect the integration of ES in planning.
The last chapters are the operative proposal called “RES—Restart from
Ecosystem Services”. In this part, all the contents learnt in the previous phases
converged to try to solve such critical aspects and to improve others (e.g. the scale
issues, the methods for ES assessment, and the tools for ES integration) by defining
a methodology (step by step) of adopting ecosystem services for planning support.
The steps of the methodology are explained in a theoretical section and an operative
application in order to give more essence to all the processes and to validate RES.
As a conclusion, the book provided critical reflection on the actual behaviour
of the topics in ES and planning focusing on the social recognition of ES based
essentially on their proper acknowledgement and increased awareness.
Milan, Italy Silvia Ronchi

Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Andrea Arcidiacono, Erika Bianchi, Mattia Brambilla,

Jürgen Breuste, Davide Geneletti, Giulio Giordano, Angela Hof, Carlo
Manfredi, Paolo Pileri, Stefanie Pirker, Stefano Salata, Dirk Tinne, Grazia Zulian
for helpful comments and suggestions provided during the writing of the book.
xiii
Contents
1 Ecosystem Services and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Definitions, Classifications and Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Necessity of Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.1 Land Use Changes and Soil Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.2 Spatial Planning, Land Use Management
and Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 19
1.2.3 Strategic Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . ........ 20
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 23
2 Methodology, Approaches and Innovative Experiences . . . . . . . . ... 27
2.1 The Scale-Dependent of Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 27
2.1.1 Scale for Managing Ecosystem Services: A Literature
Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2 Ecosystem Services Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.2.1 The Importance of Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.3 Ecosystem Services Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.4 Experiences on Assessment and Mapping Ecosystem Services . . . 51
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3 Practical Integration of Ecosystem Services in the Planning
and Assessment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77
3.1 The Application of RES|Restart from Ecosystem Services:
The Case Study of the Metropolitan Area of Milano . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.2 The Methodological Proposal Step by Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.2.1 Scale Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.2.2 Ecosystem Services Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.2.3 Ecosystem Services Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.2.4 Impact Assessment of Land Take Process on Ecosystem
Services Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96
xv
xvi Contents
3.2.5 Incremental Measures to Govern Land Take Process . . . . . 100

3.2.6 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4 The Adoption of RES Methodology in Strategic
Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.1 Validation of RES Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.2 Economic Feasibility of Mitigation and
Compensation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
4.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Chapter 1
Ecosystem Services and Planning
Abstract The concept of Ecosystem Services (ES) was investigated with a

historical overview of the definitions, methods of classification and approaches
proposed over the years, from different disciplines regarding the Services provided
by Ecosystem for Human wellbeing. The concept of ES is strictly related to Land
Use/Land Cover changes that affect ES provision determining a decline of the
global environmental conditions and loss of biodiversity. The generalised decline
requires putting in place governance systems that guarantee long-term delivery and
use of ES. Hence, information on ES is fundamental to support Spatial planning
processes and Strategic Environmental Assessment can be the tool used to integrate
ES in Planning for Sustainable Land use management.
In the last 50 years, humans have altered and modified ecosystems more rapidly
and extensively than in any comparable period and wider impacts are expected
(Daily 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Most of these impacts are
related to Land Use—Land Cover (LULC) changes and their effect on adjacent
lands. The transformation of land has been recognised as one of the main factors in
the decline of the global environmental conditions (Foley et al. 2005) and the major
driving force for biodiversity loss (Vitousek et al. 1997). Changes in LULC are
considered as one of the clearest informative indicators on the state and charac-
teristics of the natural resources and environmental systems.
The ES potentially provided by the LULC is acknowledged as a necessary
framework for linking human and natural systems in environmental management
(Balmford et al. 2002; Howarth and Farber 2002; Daily et al. 2009) for guiding
Spatial planning towards a more sustainable approach (Pileri and Maggi 2010). The
implementation of ES assessment may effectively support societal and political
choices in the Planning process (Farber et al. 2002) for conservation, protection and
management of natural resources.
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 1

S. Ronchi, Ecosystem Services for Spatial Planning, Green Energy
and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90185-5_1
2 1 Ecosystem Services and Planning
1.1 Definitions, Classifications and Approaches
According to the definition of Ecosystem provided in Article 2 of the United Nation

Convention on Biological Diversity,1 ratified by Italy with Law 124/1994:
“Ecosystem means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and microorganism com-
munities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit”. Each
ecosystem contains complex relationships between living (biotic) and non-living
(abiotic) components (resources), sunlight, air, water, minerals and nutrients.
The quantity, quality and diversity of species (regarding richness, rarity, and
uniqueness) perform an important role in a given ecosystem. It is often that func-
tioning centres on some species, or groups of species that achieve a specific
function for example; pollination, defoliation, grazing, predation, seed dispersal or
nitrogen fixing. The functioning of ecosystems depends on Earth system processes
that are understood as changes or reactions occurring in ecosystems (physical,
chemical or biological) as well as decomposition, production, nutrient cycling and
fluxes of nutrients and energy (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
Ecosystem functions are defined as the capacity of ecosystems to provide goods and
services that satisfy human needs, directly and/or indirectly, that are called
Ecosystem Services (ES). The provision of ES depends on biophysical conditions
and changes over space and time due to human-induced changes (Burkhard et al.
2012). In this sense, the two concepts (functions and services) are different.
Ecosystem functions are natural process or characteristic exchanges of energy that
take place in the various animal and plant communities in a biome of the world (for
example the dead organic matter decomposes into humus), while ES are related to
the capacity of an Ecosystem to provide good and services that are directly bene-
ficial to humans (for instance Humus from decomposition of organic matter serve as
natural fertilizer in areas cleared for agricultural uses).
In the scientific literature, ES are commonly defined as “the benefits that humans
obtain from Ecosystem functions (de Groot et al. 2002; Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment 2005), or as direct and indirect contributions from Ecosystems to
Human Well-being” (TEEB 2009). At the least, ES are the set of processes and
conditions that make possible the survival of human life in Natural Ecosystems.
As previously explained, the term “service” is associated to Ecosystem only when
its functions produce benefits for people; this concept is useful to understand the
human relationships with the environment and the dependence of Human wellbeing
on the functioning of ecosystems.
The definition of ES was for a long time at the centre of the scientific debate. The
origins of the concept of ES were to be probably found with Marsh who suggested
that the Earth’s natural resources not be unlimited by pointing to changes in Soil
fertility in the Mediterranean. His observation was taken into consideration until the
late 1940s (Marsh 1864). Following that, an evolution of the concept of ES was
1
http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/principles.shtml.
1.1 Definitions, Classifications and Approaches 3
(established) in the 1970s and related to the utilitarian framing of those Ecosystem
functions that are beneficial to society and in those years the notion of “nature’s
services” has been discussed in the academic literature.
In chronological order, the functioning of an Ecosystem in terms of delivering
services was firstly investigated in 1970 in the Report “Man’s Impact On The Global
Environment” by Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP) sponsored by
the MIT—Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Study of Critical Environmental
Problems (SCEP) 1970).
Originally, scholars have used the term “environmental functions/services” to
capture the concept that now we call Ecosystem services. In 1992, de Groot sug-
gested defining environmental services as “the capacity of natural processes and
components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs (directly and/or
indirectly)” (de Groot 1992). The goods (e.g. resources) are usually provided by the
Ecosystem components (plants, animals, minerals, etc.); the services (e.g. waste
recycling) by the Ecosystem processes (biogeochemical cycling).
De Groot faced the issue of ES at various times during his studies starting from
attempted classification. In 2002 de Groot, Wilson and Boumans (de Groot et al.
2002) expanded the four categories of ES (Regulation functions, Habitat functions,
Production functions, Information functions) into 23 functions and updated the
concept assuming that there is no one-to-one correspondence between Ecosystem
processes and services but multiple and interrelated connections. More recently, in
2006, de Groot introduced another category in addition to the four: the carrier
function as a physical support arguing that “The use of carrier functions usually
involves permanent conversion of the original ecosystem, thus, the capacity of
natural systems to provide carrier functions on a sustainable basis is usually limited
(exceptions are certain types of shifting cultivation and transportation on water-
ways, which, on a small scale, are possible without permanent damage to the
Ecosystem)”(de Groot 2006).
In addition to de Groot studies, in 1990 Pearce and Turner, while working on the
CRITING project—CRITIcal Natural Capital, subdivided environmental functions
into source, sink and service functions (Pearce and Kerry Turner 1990).
At the same time, Noël and O’Connor define the “the five S’s” theory (Noël and
O’Connor 1998) dividing the last of these categories of Scenery, Site and Life
Support functions in order to classify “the specific roles or services provided by
natural systems that support economic activity and human welfare”.
In 1997, Costanza, reorganized the categories proposed by de Groot into sev-
enteen services: gas regulation, climate regulation, disturbance regulation, water
regulation, water supply, erosion control and sediment retention, soil formation,
nutrient cycling, waste treatment, pollination, biological control, refugia, food
production, raw materials, genetic resources, recreation and cultural (Costanza et al.
1997). Daily in 1999 proposed an ES framework suggesting classification of pro-
duction of goods, regeneration processes, stabilising processes, life-fulfilling
functions, preservation of options (Daily 1999).
Until this moment, the uncertainties surrounding ES were related to their defi-
nitions and classification, the international debate was focused on providing a
common reference standard for naming and defining ES. As will be explained later,
the achievement of a recognised definition has moved the debate to another issue:
ES mapping.
The beginning of the 21st century brought the start of the experiences of
international projects based on ES assessment considering the assumption that ES
analysis could orient the decision makers. Firstly, there was the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA)—a project called for by the United Nations
Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2000 and carried out between 2001 and 2005—
with the aim to assess the consequences of Ecosystem change for Human
Well-being and the scientific basis for enhancing the conservation and sustainable
use of those systems and their contribution to Human Well-being (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
The MA was a global assessment aimed at supporting better decision-making at
different levels, 34 regional, national and local scale evaluations (or sub-global
assessments) were included and considered as core project components. The
assessment distinguishes four kinds of ES that provide benefits to people:
“Provisioning services, which are the products obtained from ecosystems; regu-
lating services, which are the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem
processes including for example air quality regulation and climate regulation;
cultural services, which are the non-material benefits that people obtain from
ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recre-
ation and aesthetic experiences; supporting services, which are necessary for the
production of all other ecosystem services” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2005).
The first three categories of services directly affect people, whereas the sup-
porting services are there to maintain the other services. These categories are similar
to the ones introduced in de Groot’s first proposal in 1992 (de Groot 1992), in spite
of the regulation function theorised by de Groot it also comprises the support
function proposed in the MA’ classification, where it is distinct and separate with its
validity. In the MA project, the influence of the ES to Human wellbeing is explicit
and well-articulated and it is referred to as basic material for good life, health, social
relationship, security, freedom of choice and action. People are perceived as inte-
gral part of the Ecosystems.
Despite the practical results, the MA stimulated the international debate on the
links between ecosystems and Human wellbeing, “the project was unable however
to provide adequate scientific information to answer a number of important policy
questions related to ecosystem services and human well-being” (Vandewalle et al.
2008) (Fig. 1.1).
The MA classification can be applied with the use of spatial and temporal
features of ES to identify when and where they are delivered. Fisher and other
scholars in 2008 argued that the MA’s definition of ES be meant as multiple benefits
provided to society by the Ecosystem, including tangible goods such as food,
regulation of the environment, cultural benefits such as recreation and maintenance
of Ecosystem integrity and resilience (Fisher and Turner 2008). Thus, they pro-
posed to define ES as “the aspects of Ecosystems utilized (actively or passively) to
Fig. 1.1 Ecosystem Services and their links to Human wellbeing. Source (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment 2005)
produce Human Well-being” and suggested “the qualifiers intermediate and final as
used in conventional economic accounting systems. For example, food provision is
a final service, whereas pollination is an intermediate service. The benefit here is
food for consumption. In short, ES are the ecological phenomena, and the benefit is
the thing that has a direct impact on human welfare” (Fisher and Turner 2008).
On the same topic, Boyd and Banzhaf (2007) argued that the distinction between
intermediate service, final services, and benefits not be strict, rigid and fixed as
services are often a function of the beneficiary’s perspective.
In addition to this, Boyd and Banzhaf and Wallace pointed out that in the MA
classification the concepts “ends” and “means” are listed under the same category
level and therefore the typologies cannot be used for effective decision-making
(Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Wallace 2007). Moreover, the classification does not
provide accountable information and landscape management guidelines. In this
regard, the scientific community proposed a framework introducing an accounting
system for ES which suggested directly consumed ecological components of
Ecosystems. Consequently, it was debated that further action of turning a con-
ceptual framework into an operational system of accounting is required, shifting
from theory to practical meanings which correspond to the accounting of those
services.
In this context, the landscape perspective has become more relevant, stimulating
first studies on the topic were not carried out until the late 90s in Germany wherein
several landscape surveys base their classification approach on de Groot’s article
“Functions of nature” (de Groot 1992).
The landscape knowledge related to land assessment, landscape functions, and
natural potentials are fundamental for including for a biophysical dimension also
the social aspects and, for consequence, to the Cultural ES related to the aesthetic,
spiritual and enrichment factors.
The Landscape was considered in a multifunctional way as a crucial concept to
consider the biophysical and social issue considering that people are part of the
landscape and that landscapes are changed for their benefit.
This awareness has produced several studies on how the spatial distribution of
human activities influences important landscape processes/structures, and consid-
ering the analysis of landscape processes and the assessment of landscape func-
tionality as a precondition for land use planning (Hermann et al. 2011).
Bastian and Schreiber, for instance, developed a framework for the assessment
of landscape functions to support sustainable land use management (Bastian and
Schreiber 1999). They distinguished the functions provided by the landscape in
three groups: production functions (economic functions), regulation functions
(ecological functions) and habitat function (social function). Each group is again
classified into core functions and sub-functions.
Wallace in 2007 was interested in managing landscape and ecological processes
delivering ES; he proposed two ways of classifying ES taking into consideration the
MA definition of ES: classification according to spatial characteristics and classi-
fication according to “excludability/rivalry” status.
In this case, services could be “excludable” to the same degree as an individual
can be excluded from benefiting from these services, for example in a private
market. Contrary, it is quite impossible to exclude others from the benefits provided
by public goods like air, and heat of the sun.
Similarly, goods and services are perceived as “rival” because the use of certain
goods or services by a person often precludes and confines others from exploiting
these benefits. For that reason, Wallace suggested that it is essential to clearly
separate means (processes) and ends (services) in the original MA classification.
Costanza did not sustain Wallace’s assumption totally but argued that ES not be
ends, while Ecosystem processes are means. This argumentation is “a gross over-
simplification of a complex reality. In the messy world, we do inhabit, we need
multiple classification systems for different purposes. Ecosystems are complex,
dynamic, adaptive systems with non-linear feedbacks, thresholds, hysteresis effects,
etc” (Costanza 2008).
Other authors have investigated the possibility of merging some categories of the
ES trying to find a common agreement on ES classification, for example combining
the regulating and provisioning service categories into a single class of regulating
services, avoiding possible underpinning (Hein et al. 2006). In recent years, new
approaches of ES have been developed by various schools of thought including
methods of mapping and spatialization.
In 2008, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) project
identified 22 types of ES and grouped into four categories, slightly adjusting the
MA ones: provisioning, regulating and cultural and amenity services and a newly
introduced category called “habitat services” that replace the supporting services
defined by MA (due to the fact that they do not directly produce benefits for the
society). The TEEB classification considers these services as “biophysical structure,
processes and functions”. This proposal does not achieve a consensus in the aca-
demic and scientific institutions especially due to the risk of overlooking the role of
Soils in providing services.
As previously mentioned, the need to investigate ES has become a necessity
since the European Biodiversity Strategy requires all European Member States “to
map and assess the state of Ecosystems and their services in their national territory
by 2014, assess the economic value of such services, and promote the integration of
these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national level by
2020 (Target 2: Maintain and restore Ecosystems and their services, Action 5:
Improve knowledge of Ecosystems and their services in the EU)” (European
Commission 2011a). In this regard, a working group on “Mapping and Assessment
of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES)” was created with the main objective to
support the European Member States in undertaking the necessary work.
The MAES working group decided to apply CICES—Common International
Classification of Ecosystem Services2 which will be used throughout Europe (Maes
et al. 2016) considering the need for coherence and compatibility among assess-
ments and to support the integration of ES within environmental accounting.
The CICES was launched by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and
coordinated by the University of Nottingham that would allow MAES within the
European framework of the Biodiversity 2020 Strategy offering a more integrated
and holistic perspective through which to analyse ES.
The initiative also proposed the integration of economic values of ES and
reporting systems at EU and national level. The framework also provides
cross-reference with ES categories used in assessments as a new standard
2
http://cices.eu.
classification of ES that is consistent with accepted categorizations and, at the same

time, allows an easy communicative translation of some statistical data.
The classification recognizes the provisioning, regulating and maintenance
(corresponding to the Regulating services theorized in the TEEB project and the
Regulating and supporting services proposed in the MA classification), and cultural
services, but fails to acknowledge the so-called “supporting services” originally
theorized in the MA experience because the supporting services are treated as part
of the underlying structures, process and functions that characterize Ecosystems
(Potschin and Haines-Young 2013). CICES provides a hierarchical system, build-
ing on the MA and TEEB classifications but predisposed to accounting.
In conclusion, three international classification systems are available: MA,
TEEB and CICES.MA provides a classification that is globally recognised and used
in sub-global assessments, TEEB offers an updated classification, based on the MA,
which is used in current national TEEB studies across Europe and finally, CICES
delivers a hierarchical system, building on the MA and TEEB classifications but
tailored to accounting.
CICES divide ES into three sections articulated in the division and group (at
third level), the classification is explained below and the classes are provided in
Fig. 1.2.
1.2 Necessity of Integration
1.2.1 Land Use Changes and Soil Ecosystem Services
Considering the impact of humans on ecosystem occurred in the last 50 years and
the wider impacts expected (Daily 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005),
LULC changes3 are recognised as one of the main factors in the decline of the
global environmental conditions (Foley et al. 2005) and the major driving force for
biodiversity loss (Vitousek et al. 1997).
At European level, CORINE Land Cover (CLC)4 database shows significant
changes in land use with an impact on Soil (European Environment Agency 2006)
causing Soil sealing and land take process and, for consequence, an effect in the
provision of ES. LULC changes and relative practices influence Natural capital
stocks, the processes that build and degrade these stocks, and on the flow of ES
from the use of these stocks (Dominati et al. 2010). Understanding and adopting an
ES approach to making a decision that involves LULC changes could contribute to
3
Land Use and Land Cover changes are mainly related to the transition from agricultural/natural
areas into artificial surface. Land cover refers to the physical surface characteristics of land (for
example, the vegetation found there or the presence of built structures), while land use describes
the economic and social functions of that land.
4
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover.
1.2 Necessity of Integration 9
Fig. 1.2 Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services, version 4.3 at the “three
digital level”. Source (Haines-Young and Potschin 2011)
forecasting the potential impacts and the consequences of the Human wellbeing
influence derived from specific choices/decisions.
The Soils are major suppliers of critical ES because they contain one-quarter to
one-third of all living organisms on the planet. Only around 1% of Soil microor-
ganisms have been identified compared to 80% of plants (Jeffery et al. 2010).
The Soil is commonly considered as a non-renewable resource, due to its extre-
mely slow rate of regeneration processes and because of its capability to perform
several functions crucial for society and ecosystems. The regeneration process of a
Soil is rare, complex, and requires a significant contribution in terms of energy and a
very long time in restoring the Soil conditions (Pileri 2007) considering that to restore
just 2.5 cm of degraded Soil requires up to 500 years (Pimentel et al. 2010).
As estimated in the European Atlas of Soil Biodiversity, “99% of the world’s
food comes from the terrestrial environment—crops are grown in Soil and livestock
maintained on it. Soils have a real role in shaping our planet. They can absorb
rainwater and act as a buffer against both floods and droughts. Soils also hold more
than twice the amount of carbon that is currently contained in the atmosphere”
(Jeffery et al. 2010). Despite that, “most people are unaware that the key drivers of
Soil ecosystems that control fertility and terrestrial global nutrient cycles are the
quantity and quality of living organisms within the Soil” (Jeffery et al. 2010).
Soil organisms contribute to a wide range of services essential to sustainable
functioning of all Ecosystems (also called Soil functions) (Blum 2005; Commission
of the European Communities 2006), they act as the primary driving agents for
nutrient cycling, water purification, regulating the dynamics of Soil organic matter
and structure, Soil carbon sequestration, and greenhouse gas emissions (Breure
et al. 2012). Moreover, Soil is the foundation of all Terrestrial Ecosystems and the
agricultural and forestry provisioning services, as well as being the structural
medium for supporting the earth’s biosphere and human infrastructure (Fig. 1.3).
In 1997, Daily suggested that Soils are one of the important determinants of a
nation’s economic status and that the inclusion of Soils in ES frameworks and
policy and decision-making is essential (Daily 1997).
The same idea has also been emphasised by other authors promoting a linkage
between Soil ES and land use policy. Soil ES depend obviously on Soil properties
and characteristics, and their interaction (through Soil processes) (Robinson et al.
2013; McBratney et al. 2014), that are mostly influenced by its use and manage-
ment (European Environment Agency 2016).
Soil functions strictly depend on the multi-functionality of Soils and each type
performs specific functions. For example, some Soils have a higher capacity to produce
fuel or fibre than others, depending on their chemical, physical and pedogenetic
characteristics and on the agroclimatic environment, while some Soils differ in their
capacity to filter water, to store carbon, to provide a habitat for biodiversity, and so on.
The capacity of Soils to perform each of Soil functions depends on land use, for
example, carbon sequestration rates are typically higher under grassland than
seminative or agricultural areas.
In addition to this, Soil functions are the basis for Soil quality interpretation.
Following the reasoning of Vrščaj et al. (2008), “The main questions which must be
answered regarding the quality assessment of a particular Soil are: What function is
the Soil performing?, What functions could it perform?, Are these functions the ones
that we want it to perform?, Is this the best use of this Soil?”(Vrščaj et al. 2008).
The Soil capacity to perform functions was defined by (Tóth et al. 2007) as Soil
Functional Ability (SFA). SFA depends on characteristics, both intrinsic and external,
of Soils: the former are defined by physical, biological and chemical parameters (e.g.
texture, organic matter content, PH, cation exchange capacity, porosity etc.), the latter
by natural (e.g. slope, steepness) and/or anthropogenic (Land use and management)
characteristics. In addition to SFA, the Soil Response Properties (SRP) represents the
Soil capability of responding to a disturbance or change, moreover, it is defined as
those “Soil characteristics that determine the Soil’s response to environmental or
human influences and thus mark different potentials of SFA” (Tóth et al. 2007).
1.2 Necessity of Integration
11
Fig. 1.3 Soil Ecosystem services and functions. Source (Haygarth and Ritz 2009)
Soil Functional Ability can be defined as:
SFA ¼ ðFi, n EFi, nÞ=n
where:
Fi, n are the considered functions from i to n
E is the efficiency (level) of how functions from i to n are performed individually
N is the number of functions included in the evaluation
Instead, Soil Response Properties can be defined as:
SRP ¼ Rfi, nðRSCÞ
where:
f is a (non-linear) function describing the response (in both direction and
magnitude) to an impact, determined by the sum of the soil characteristics RSC
The combination of both describes the Soil Quality (SQ) as an indicator of the
“goodness” of Soil with regard to functions and responses.
SQI ¼ SFA SRP
SQI is an account of the ability of Soil to provide Ecosystem and social service
through its capacities to perform functions and respond to external influences.
In other terms, Soil quality is basically “fitness for use”(Pierce and Larson 1993) that
is, the long-term capacity of Soil to perform its functions effectively. SQI is necessary
to understand if: urban transformation occurs on good or bad locations (referring to Soil
quality); how land use changes impact on the environmental condition of Soil; miti-
gation, compensation or restoration occur (Arcidiacono et al. 2015).
Soil quality affects the state of the environment (analogously also to air and water
quality) and thus the provision of ES. Therefore, the concept of Soil functions is an
applied approach to estimate Soil Quality principally for land use and administration
purposes, for assessment of the impact of land use change on the Soil resource.
Indeed, the most common approach to ES mapping for planning is the creation
of a multilayer analysis of SQI, such analyses are focused on the environmental
effect of land take processes to ES provided by natural Soils (Helian et al. 2011),
especially the ones that request integrative analysis across different disciplines
(Breure et al. 2012 ). Besides this indicator, it is possible to also add an evaluation
on the ES of the one-unit area for each land use category obtained by multiplying
the area of each land category by the value coefficient. This indicator, called
Ecosystem Service Capacity (ESC) can be defined as:
ESC ¼ RðAi VCiÞ

where:
ESC is the estimated ESC, Ai is the area (ha) and VCi is the value coefficient for
land use category “i” (Helian et al. 2011; Arcidiacono et al. 2015)
The link of ESC to land use transition matrix allows us to verify the transformations
of LULC as it transitions from one status to another and to extract the compositions, the
permanence, the losses, the gains and the net changes. The square transition matrix
(n n, with n = the number of LULC classes) has the LULC at time t1 as the entry
flow (rows), with the LULC at time t2 as the exit flow (columns).
The matrix sets out the transformations (regarding area) that a certain LULC
existing at time t1 undergoes in a time interval Dt = (t2 − t1). The cells of the matrix
state the value of the area (in hectares or m2) transformed from a cover (a) at time t1
to a cover (b) at time t2 (Pileri and Maggi 2010; Pileri 2012).
With transition matrices, notable changes on ESC can be observed including the
loss (in economic or ecological terms) of specific transitions (for e.g. the reduction
of agricultural or natural covers in favour of newly urbanised land).
New indicators (as the percent decrease of the total ESC) can enforce the evi-
dence of economical long-term effect of land use change and urbanisation. Even
simplified, such method could improve the knowledge of the qualitative effect of
land use changes, thus increasing the attention of cause-effect mechanisms due to
planning options. Moreover, conflicts between different land uses also impact the
shaping of land cover in general and in particular, some impervious surfaces.
For instance, Land use changes influence the provision of several ES such as
(a) nutrient cycling, climate regulation, erosion control and genetic resources;
(b) recreation activities and opportunities; (c) climate regulation and erosion control
and finally (d) Soil fertility and water availability.
Two main threats related to land use changes are:
Soil sealing is understood as the transformation of open areas (natural,
semi-natural or agricultural) into areas for settlement (residential, industrial, tertiary,
etc.) or transport. In other words, when a Soil is permanently covered by an imper-
meable artificial material (for e.g. asphalt or concrete), in such a way that the uppermost
Soil layer, which provides most of the ES, is removed (Prokop 2011; European
Commission 2012). The only part of a settlement area is that remains unsealed are
areas, like gardens, parks and other urban green spaces are not impervious surfaces.
Land take process, defined according to (European Environment Agency 2013),
like the “Change of the amount of agriculture, forest and other semi-natural and
natural land taken by urban and other artificial land development. It includes areas
sealed by construction and urban infrastructure as well as urban green areas and
sport and leisure facilities”.
Hence Land take is the increase of artificial surfaces (such as housing areas;
urban green areas; industrial, commercial and transport units; road and rail net-
works; etc.) over time. Recent Soil sealing has become a most intense form of Land
take, although the UE population is decreasing, the amount of sealed land still rises
(European Commission 2012). Soil sealing as the most visible form of land take is
particularly critical considering the limited exchanges between the pedosphere and
atmosphere which is strongly affected by the coverage of soils, determining an
irreversible degradation of soil and its functions. Therefore, Land take involves soil
sealing, which can lead to soil biodiversity loss and subsequent knock-on effects on
ecosystems, food production and the regulation of water.
Considering the differences between these two concepts, it is possible to argue
that the most dangerous consequences of Land take process is Soil sealing. The EC
(European Commission 2011b) identified eight degradation processes to which
Soils are threatened with: erosion, organic matter decline, contamination, com-
paction, salinization, Soil biodiversity loss, sealing, landslides and flooding. Most
of these threats involve not only Soils but also the landscape (e.g. loss of local
culture and rural traditions, damage of typical agricultural products and biodiver-
sity) which should also be taken into consideration. Moreover, LULC changes are
identified as key drivers of global change with impacts on ecosystems, climate and
the human sphere. Land take process is associated with location-related, accessi-
bility, socio-economic and planning code determinants and it is primarily a con-
sequence of pressure for future land development with potential impacts on the
carbon cycle, on the water cycle and microclimate, on biodiversity, and on agri-
cultural production: potential agricultural crops are heavily and progressively hin-
dered by land take and Soil sealing (Zoppi and Lai 2014). Considering that Land
take is understood as the conversion of open areas into built-up areas (that include
also non-sealed areas, such as gardens, but they are still considered anthropized
because of modification through human action) and the impact of urbanisation
depends on the area of land taken and on the intensity of land use, including Soil
sealing areas, it important to assume the Land take process is a key indicator in
evaluating and assessing its effect on ES in terms of state and trends. In fact, Land
take is often used as a proxy for Soil sealing, interrupting the exchange between the
pedosphere and the atmosphere, and thus determining changes in the natural
functioning of soils. Finally, studying Land take means also including Soil sealing
measurements of the impact on ES, not only on Soil ES, and looking at the urban
morphologies of the phenomenon (e.g. Urban sprawl, compactness, etc.). The
impact on ecosystems depends on Urban form, intentionally driven by Planning,
that could make a difference in limiting the effects of urban expansion (Inostroza
et al. 2013). Once understood, the consequences of LULC changes on the provision
of ES and looking at the causes of this phenomenon, LULC changes depend on
human-induced alterations, determining different and mostly adverse impacts on
both society and the environment. LULC changes are influenced by a variety of
factors (spatial and temporal) that act in a complex way. Initially, LULC changes
occur at the level of individual land parcels when a decision is taken to change the
actual LULC into another perceived as more desirable, mainly for economic and
social benefits, but which frequently comes at a substantial cost to the environment.
In an integrated way, individual decisions (at micro scale) produce LULC
changes at higher spatial levels (at macro scale) also influencing the broader
environmental, socio-economic, institutional, and political settings within which the
land unit is embedded. In Italy, as in many others European countries, changes in
land use are derived mainly from local planning policy/act that is the binding
regulation of land use for their inhabitants and allows a “controlled” spatial
development of a municipality. The development of the cities and the decisions

concerning the use of the land are held by local authority council that has the
responsibility of each single land use change.
From the quantitative point of view of the Land tale phenomenon, the EC
indicates that, between 2000 and 2006, the annual Land take in 36 European
countries was 111,788 ha/year. Comparing to the previous decade (1990–2000), 21
countries covered both by CLC 1990–2000 and 2000–2006 this increased to 53%.
In Italy, Land take parallels the general difficult situation of EU countries and also
holds a negative record. This dominant land take process was particularly important
in Denmark (90%), Slovakia (85%), Italy (74%), Poland (67%), Germany (65%)
and Hungary (65%) and went to the detriment of arable land and permanent crops,
forests, grasslands and open spaces and less to pastures and mosaic farmland.
In the case of Italy, approximately 8,000 ha per year were artificialized between
1990 and 2000, again based on CLC satellite remote sensing (European
Environment Agency 2013). The adoption by Italy of LULC analysis for land take
process is quite problematic because at national level the available geographic
databases provided by ISPRA (Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e Ricerca
Ambientale) do not deliver systemic information on the Land take phenomenon but
on Soil sealing (Copernicus High-Resolution Layer Imperviousness), while at
regional level the problems depend on lack of any database, a database is available
but only for one threshold avoiding the possibility of a temporal comparison of the
changes in LULC, the different method of LULC classification does not correspond
to the common classification approach adopted at EU level.
Recently, in relation to this phenomenon, the EC proposed a Guideline pre-
senting best practices useful to limit, mitigate and compensate Soil sealing and
Land take (European Commission 2012), the document delivers suggestions and
recommendations in order to provide operative examples for preventing the threat
of LULC but without proposed pre-defined indicators required for assessing effi-
ciency. This document is mainly addressed to competent authorities in the Member
States (at national, regional and local levels) but is also useful for planners, soil
managers, policymakers and stakeholders in general. The principal aim is to spread
awareness on the vital functions provided by soil and land and promote good
practices in order to preserve them.
The guidelines also provide a common action framework with a standard defi-
nition starting from the terms Limit meaning “preventing the conversion of green
areas and the subsequent sealing of (part of) their surface. The re-use of already
built-up areas, e.g. brownfield sites, can also be included in this concept. Targets
have been used as a tool for monitoring as well as spurring progress. Creating
incentives to rent unoccupied houses has also helped in limiting soil sealing”.
The terms Mitigate is used for the “adoption of measures to maintain some of the
Ecosystem functions reducing any significant direct or indirect negative effects on
the environment and human well-being”; and Compensate is adopted “when mit-
igation is insufficient, compensation measures are implemented to sustain or restore
the overall capacity of Soils in a certain area to fulfil”.
Recently in Italy, many considerations were related to the issue of LULC data
in order to understand the importance of the phenomenon of land take process
and related impact on ES. Few reflections are dedicated to the common under-
standing of the data, their reliability sources and methods (Romano and Zullo
2014), and to how to integrate that into land use decisions. Considering the actual
trend of Land take (in Italy but also in all the Member States of EU), guidelines
are not sufficient to prevent the phenomenon, but it is necessary to define such
mandatory aspects that protect Soil from threats that compromise this
non-renewable resource.
In this context, a strategy that includes awareness of the threats that affect Soils is
necessary to have an organic and exhaustive view finalised so as to set the
appropriate policy to prevent damage. Although, at European level there are no
quantitative targets for land take for urban development, different documents
suggest and propose approaches for better planning to control urban growth and the
extension of infrastructures. For example, the European Commission’s Roadmap to
a Resource Efficient Europe (COM(2011) 571) introduces an initiative “No net land
take by 2050” (European Commission 2016) that implies all new urbanisation will
occur on brownfields or that any new land take must be compensated by recla-
mation of artificial land, “By 2020, EU policies must take into account their direct
and indirect impact on land use in the EU and globally, and the rate of land take is
on track with an aim to achieve no net land take by 2050; Soil erosion is reduced
and the Soil organic matter increased, with remedial work on contaminated sites
well underway”. Nowadays, for the subsidiarity principle, European policy does not
have a Spatial planning responsibility for Soil protection issues.
A recent contribution edited by Andrea Vettori from the EC (Deputy Head of
Unit Agriculture, Forests & Soil at European Commission) explains what is the
state of Soil protection in Europe and what are the weakness of that approach:
According to the subsidiarity principle, the EU does not have a specific competence
regarding the area of soil and soil protection […] The soil is not subject to a set of
comprehensive and consistent rules across the EU. Only a few EU Member States have
specific soil legislation. Some aspects related to soil protection are included in the European
legislative framework, with various EU policies that contribute, mostly in an indirect way,
to the protection of the soil, for example on water, waste, chemicals, pollution prevention of
industrial origin, nature protection and pesticides. Positive effects on agricultural soils
should be derived from cross compliance with the common agricultural policy and more
generally by the support measures under the EU rural development. […] The rules in force
do not cover all soils and are not able to address all threats to soil in a holistic way. The
ground is integrated into a number of policies (agriculture, forests, water, waste, industrial
emissions, regional policy, etc.) but, due to its “invisibility policy”, is not properly regarded
as a fragile and limited resource in political decisions. This “paradox” is the fundamental
problem for the soil. In fact, besides the absence of an integrated and comprehensive
approach, a healthy soil management policy often lacks political priority (Vettori 2015).
It is already evident that the Land take phenomena are still considered only mar-
ginally by scientific, communication, and land governance agencies (Pileri 2007).
Attempts for Soil protection at EU level were different, starting from the EU
communication COM(2002)0179 “Towards a Thematic Strategy for Soil
Protection” and four years later the “Proposal for a Directive establishing a
Framework for the Protection of Soil” (COM(2006)0232) was drafted. The pro-
posal was approved at first reading by the EU Parliament in 2007 and subsequently
stopped by a “blocking minority” of Member States (Germany, France, The
Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Austria). Hence, the proposal was not
adopted; different Members opposed the proposal on the grounds of the subsidiarity
and proportionality principles, estimated costs and administrative burden. This
minority of Member States blocked further progress on the proposed Soil
Framework Directive and it remained on the Council’s table with the explanation
that “The Commission remains committed to the objective of the protection of Soil,
and will examine options on how to best achieve this” (The proposal had been
pending since 2006, but was finally withdrawn in May 2014). Despite best efforts, a
political agreement was never achieved with a qualified majority to reach a com-
mon position, because: (1) the reference to the subsidiarity principle arguing that
Soils should remain a competence of the Member States and, within them, of local
authorities; (2) the presence in nine of the twenty-seven Member States of legis-
lation on Soil protection and the danger of the Community to develop asymmet-
rically in this sector and also the difficulty to change existing legislation that is
already perfectly adequate; (3) the preference to build best practices, to make use of
good national law where this already exists; (4) the existence of current directive on
other topics (e.g. groundwater and nitrates) that implicitly protect Soil; (5) of the
difficulty of having one general directive to cover all 300 different Soil types; (6) of
the possible overlap with existing agricultural and environmental legislation
(Council of European Union 2007).
In 2014, the EC decided to withdraw its legislative proposal opening up to an
alternative initiative5 also considering that Soil degradation continues, not only at
an EU level but also on a global scale where around 10–20% of drylands and 24%
of productive lands are degraded.6 As a consequence, a new EU Expert Group on
Soil Protection was created to start a confidential and structured dialogue with the
Member States and a popular initiative was conducted in 2016 to require European
institutions to recognise Soil as common goods and protect the resource with
prescriptive legislation for the Member States. The campaign called “People 4 Soil”
has not reached the 1 million of signature required including a minimum number of
at least seven member states.
As explained, the awareness of the importance of Soil was expressed through the
proliferation of studies (e.g. MEA, TEEB,..), data collections (e.g. CORINE Land
Cover), researchers and normative proposals (e.g. People 4 Soil initiative) to protect
it with different level of detail and territorial scale. Fewer analyses are focused on
the environmental effect of Land take on ES, especially using multidiscipline
5
OJ C 163, 21.5.2014, p. 4, and corrigendum OJ C 163, 28.5.2014, p. 15: “The Commission
remains committed to the objective of the protection of soil and will examine options on how to
best achieve this. Any further initiative in this respect will however have to be considered by the
next college”.
6
www.eld-initiative.org.
methods across different scales. Despite that, only in the last year, a great deal of
recent research use ES as a proxy for Planning policy and as a decision-making
process for achieving sustainable Land use management. The majority of experi-
ences, also those included in the EU Guidelines on limits, mitigation and com-
pensation (European Commission 2012), are focused on a specific target trying to
fix a limit to Land take process. For example, introducing a quantitative target or the
definition of a precise boundary as a local prescription for control of the urban
growth or, in the end, the introduction of fiscal measures, as additional taxes, for the
new urban transformation. This typical example of practices for Land use man-
agement are entirely from the quantitative point of view of the lack of a qualitative
aspect that, combined, could assure an integrative approach for ES implementation
into Planning. In fact, LULC change analysis are traditionally based on the quan-
tification of a specific single process without including the cumulative effects that
these changes could provoke on the provision of ES. For example, the ordinary
analysis on LULC changes provides information on the quantitative intensity of the
urbanisation process that is an important phenomenon to know and to set a
quantitative target for policies for Land take limitation but, it could be the only
aspect to be considered because planners must explore the problem through
interdisciplinary research. This means to include qualitative consideration in the
analysis of Land take process providing reliable indicators for applying in Land-use
planning or policies. The exclusive use of a quantitative approach is a natural limit
and a weakness of traditional analysis of LULC changes, also demonstrated with
numerous Plans in which a limitation threshold was interpreted as the objective to
reach and not as the maximum indicative threshold that expresses an alarm, a
warning threshold.
In the end, traditional LULC change analysis is not adequate for the impact
evaluation on ES and therefore is not appropriate to steer policies for land con-
servation and protection. On the contrary, it is necessary to adopt a more global
evaluation on ES decline caused by Land take process using a multidisciplinary
approach that links theoretical targets (as Land take limitation) and the development
of specific patterns of land use management aimed at land take limitation, miti-
gation or compensation requiring reinforcement by multidisciplinary analyses.
As will be explained in the next Chapters, Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA) plays a crucial role in this change of perspective (meaning from quantitative
to qualitative) because SEA is aimed to integrate environmental considerations into
policies, plans and programs also monitoring Land take phenomena assessing
LULC changes due to urbanisation. SEA is based on quantitative environmental
data and therefore is not adequately qualified for multidimensional assessment but,
considering that ES assessment emerged as a crucial need in Spatial planning for
Land use management, SEA is particularly suited to this purpose because only in
this way it can contribute to decision making. SEA with Land use scenarios con-
structed merging qualitative and quantitative analysis in addition to mitigation and
compensation measures could support decision makers for the identification of
environmentally sustainable choices, from the earliest identification of the Plan/
program’s scope and objectives, until final implementation.
1.2.2 Spatial Planning, Land Use Management and Impact

Assessment
The generalised decline of ES (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) requires

putting in place governance systems that guarantee long-term delivery and use of
ES, at different institutional levels. Although the scientific knowledge on ES is
growing (Haase et al. 2014), ES remains poorly implemented in planning policy
and governance requiring a need to bridge assessment and valuation of ES in
decision-making (Primmer and Furman 2012). The maintenance, loss, preservation
or restoration of ES depends on their importance in the planning process.
In this book, there was assumed the Spatial planning as a reference considering the
definition provided by EC as a discipline that aims at “creating a more rational terri-
torial organisation of land uses and the linkages between them, to balance demands for
development with the need to protect the environment and to achieve social and
economic development objectives” (European Commission 1997). As explained by
(Nadin 2006) “Spatial planning includes consideration of built-up areas, natural sys-
tems and human activities across territory going beyond the administrative borders and
including many sectoral policies and actions in public and private sectors, perhaps
within a broad definition of land use. In addition to that, “Strategic planning includes
typical elements of impact assessment as ecological, social/cultural and economic
issues from ES. Instead, Land use planning have direct influence and even control over
land use change through regulation, mostly in reaction to market demands”.
As a comparison, Land use planning is more narrowly focused on land use
regulation and related development, identifying areas of development and protec-
tion, setting rules and regulations and defining performance and design criteria.
Spatial planning is more transversal because it integrates policies and pro-
grammes that influence the nature of spaces and places and how they function,
including those that influence demands/needs for development but cannot be solved
by planning permission alone (Geneletti and Cortinovis 2015) while collaboration
and public participation are seen as fundamental for an efficient spatial planning.
Land use planning is more often referred to land and water resource including
social and economic considerations to identify land-use options; these concerns are
a part of the broader Spatial planning process, in which land use transitions are
organised and regulated. In fact, a crucial issue of Spatial planning regards land and
resource use, the physical organisation of spaces and the integration of sectoral
strategies (agriculture, nature protection, infrastructure and transportation, tourism
development, etc.). Spatial planning leads to spatial changes, which mean change in
ecosystem structure through altering land and water areas (the main resources of
which deals with Land use planning) for new purposes. Moreover, spatial planning
can reconcile competing for policy goals at different scales (local, regional, national
and international) and manage the spatial impacts of various sectors (e.g. transport,
agriculture, and environment) in the medium and long-term. Spatial planning also
includes strategic components with spatial goals and a collaborative political pro-
cess for decisions making to set spatial development goals reconciling various
interest and needs through a participatory process. Spatial planning may affect the
distribution, quality and use of a wide range of ES, that are instrumental to their
conservation and enhancement (TEEB 2010).
In theory, the general framework to adopt in the book is that of Spatial planning in
which the strategies are defined across an institutional scale that influence the future
distribution of activities in space, according to land use management defined using
an ES approach. The approach aims to increase a more rational territorial organi-
sation of land uses and the linkage between them, balancing demand for develop-
ment with the need to protect and restore the environment and to achieve economic
and social objects. Spatial planning embraces measures to coordinate the spatial
impact of other policies and planning instruments, specifically on the conversion of
land and property uses defined in Land use planning. Having defined the planning
framework for ES integration, what is still undefined is how the concept of ES could
be included and implemented in Spatial planning. This field of research is still under
study, investigating different aspects, methods and procedures for assessing ES;
critical evaluation of case studies for applying the ES concept in various fields of
practice and experiences on ES mapping including weaknesses and strengths.
Practices, understanding and methodologies on ES assessment for Spatial planning
are constantly evolving with numerous feasible experiences (Söderman and Saarela
2010; Geneletti 2011; Lamorgese and Geneletti 2013; Partidario and Gomes 2013).
ES assessment can inform a variety of decision-making players (Gómez-Baggethun
and Barton 2012) including a sphere of various pieces of knowledge (communica-
tion, ecosystem accounting, landscape and conservation planning, …).
This awareness was also guided by European Union (EU) Biodiversity Strategy
to 2020 that require the Member States to assess and map ES in their national
territory as a supporting act to maintain and enhance ecosystems (European
Commission 2011a). In this framework, SEA is an on-going systematic process to
assess the environmental effects of alternative decisions in policies, plans and
programs, guaranteeing from the beginning of the decision process, the full inte-
gration of relevant biophysical, economic, social and political considerations. It can
be used to integrate ES in Planning, specifically in Spatial planning for a sustainable
Land use management.
1.2.3 Strategic Environmental Assessment
Impact Assessment (IA) is defined as “the process of identifying the future conse-
quences of a current or proposed action. The impact is the difference between what
would happen with the action and what would happen without it” (International
Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) 2009). Therefore, IA has the task in pro-
viding information, material and data for decision making. In the EU, SEA was
introduced by Directive 2001/42/EC after a long process that began in 1969 with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) passed in the U.S. by Congress, requiring
all federal agencies and departments to consider and assess the environmental effects
of proposals for legislation and other major projects subsequently in 1997 the EC
issued a proposal for a Council Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain
plans and programmes on the environment and, later, the EU Directive was introduced
recognizing that Spatial planning processes need to be supported by the evaluation of
medium and long term effects of policies, plans or programs (PPP). The aim of SEA
was to “to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute
to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of
plans and programs with a view to promoting sustainable development”(European
Parliament 2001). Subsequently, Member States have formally set up the SEA system
in their legislation and developed their SEA framework with some main common
principles (Therivel 2004): SEA is a tool for improving strategic action, starting early
is an integral part of the decision-making process; SEA should promote stakeholders’
participation and ensure transparency in decision-making; SEA should focus on the
main environmental and sustainability concerns that are appropriate for the specific
strategic action considering timescale and resources of the decision-making process;
SEA should include the analysis and comparison of possible options for strategic
action and the identification of the most suitable one(s); SEA should aim at min-
imising negative effects compensating for the loss of valuable features and benefits
and ensuring that irreversible damage is not caused. SEA emerged under the theory of
EIA, which have been applied to a large extent in many countries worldwide, and
inextricably linked to decision-making (Sadler and Verheem 1996; Inostroza et al.
2016). Recent reviews have pointed out different advancements to include ES in SEA
(being both concepts aimed at protecting the environment and promoting Human
Well-being) for higher-level policies but also in Plans and Projects as well as in
specific sectors (for e.g. infrastructure development) (Geneletti 2011, 2016; Helming
et al. 2013; Diehl et al. 2015).
Despite recent publications of methodological guidelines to assess and integrate
ES in decision-making (OECD—Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development 2008; World Resources institute 2008; UNEP—United Nations
Environment Programme 2014), the practice of integration of ES in SEA are still in
its infancy (Geneletti 2013) also with many open challenges, even if the SEA
potentialities are recognised to generate the expected benefits. The problematic
synergy between SEA and ES is due mostly to the lack of the capacity to address
the complexity associated with the valuation of ES in general, and particularly in
strategic contexts, such as in policy and planning decision-making.
The quality and the success of the SEA process depends on the influence on
planners and decision makers on the sustainability of strategic decision, facilitating
the search for the best alternative solution. Moreover, this aim is enhanced through
integrative approaches that link social, economic and environmental factors. Even if
in the last two decades of SEA practice in the EU, the procedure has been partially
criticised for the reduced or absent influence in decision making often due mainly to
non-rational aspects (e.g. economic and social issues) in which Planning acts
(Nilsson and Dalkmann 2001).
As mentioned, Policymakers have to make decisions taking into account the
environmental issue but also the sustainable development principles (based on the
three pillars: social, economic and environment). SEA must balance the three
principles suggesting the most suitable decisions to take including also the
non-deterministic aspects of decisions in policy making (Castellani and Sala 2013).
Therefore, even if SEA deals primarily with the biophysical environment, a shift
toward sustainability will help to integrate the key issues related to both human and
ecological systems (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler 2005; Sheate et al. 2008).
This link between three essential components of society originated in a widely
different point of view on the effectiveness of SEA, such scholars attempt to define
SEA elaborating comprehensive descriptions of motivations, purposes, distribution
of roles and methods (Partidário 2000). On the contrary, others deconstruct SEA on
the level of content, procedure, process, context and outcome (Fischer 2003;
Runhaar and Driessen 2007). In addition to this, a prerequisite for SEA effectiveness
is the existence of certain contextual conditions: (I) a well-established legislative
framework; (II) close inter-institutional co-operation; (III) broad public participa-
tion, and (IV) an effective EIA system being in place (Fischer and Gazzola 2006).
Looking at the Italian context, none of them fully apply, and regional variations
in both institutional capacity and social capital constitute a distinctive feature of the
Italian governance context (Gelli 2001). This condition was also related to the late
Italian approach to the issue. In fact, a research paper by Fischer and Gazzola wrote
in 2006 and dedicated to Italian approaches on SEA, highlighted that up to 2002,
few Italian authors contributed to the international debate and literature on SEA
because of the few practices and limited experiences on SEA (Fischer and Gazzola
2006). In addition to this, another SEA effectiveness criterion for Italy was the
formal requirement to consider various alternatives, including the do-nothing
alternative in the ex-ante SEA as established by the EU directive and related
national legislation. SEA process has to include quantitative assessment of the
current situation and the potential effects derived by specific PPPs under investi-
gation. It provides alternatives for appropriate decisions from an environmental
point of view, creating an equilibrium between development and conservation by
predicting and reviewing the environmental effects of PPP. The potential impacts
are evaluated considering alternatives of choices, even if in recent review this
option was poorly implemented in Spatial planning and that it represents one of the
main recognised weaknesses of SEA (Fischer 2010).
The evaluation of the alternatives must include sufficient information and data to
assess the acceptability of the impacts and, subsequently, propose suitable modi-
fications and mitigations. Most of this information and data are geographically
distributed with cartographic representation (mapping) to be relevant in determining
decisions. In this context, GIS and spatial assessment help to determine the affected
areas and the probability of the visual impact and support decision-making for land
use planning and policies with explicit implications on spatial nature. The working
group of EC on MAES (Maes et al. 2013), affirmed the efficacy of mapping for
spatially explicit prioritisation and problem definition, especially through synergies
and trade-offs among different ES, and between ES and biodiversity. Considering
that ES, potentially provided by the LULC may be affected by LULC changes, so
the impact assessment of Spatial planning must include ES considerations to
quantify state and trends, these argumentations may play a significant role in
supporting SEA as well as other environmental assessments. SEA should be con-
sidered as a way of implementing the concept of ES in making PPP.
References
Arcidiacono A, Ronchi S, Salata S (2015) Ecosystem Services assessment using InVEST as a tool
to support decision making process: critical issues and opportunities. Compu. Sci Appli ICCSA
2015:35–49
Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P et al (2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild nature.
Science 297:950–953. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1073947
Bastian O, Schreiber K-F (1999) Analyse und ökologische Bewertung der Landschaft. Anal und
ökologische Bewertung der Landschaft
Blum WEH (2005) Functions of soil for society and the environment. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
4:75–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-005-2236-x
Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental
accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
Breure A, De Deyn G, Dominati E et al (2012) Ecosystem services: a useful concept for soil policy
making! Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4:578–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.010
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and
budgets. Ecol Indic 21:17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019
Castellani V, Sala S (2013) Sustainability indicators integrating consumption patterns in strategic
environmental assessment for Urban. Planning 3426–3446:00001. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su5083426
Commission of the European Communities (2006) Thematic strategy for soil protection. Com 12
Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv
141:350–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020
Costanza R, D’Arge R, de Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
Council of European Union (2007) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/
EC—Outcome of the European Parliament’s first reading
Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Ecology so: 392
Daily GC (1999) Developing a scientific basis for managing Earth’s life support systems. Conserv
Ecol 3
Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J et al (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to
deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–28. https://doi.org/10.1890/080025
Dalal-Clayton B, Sadler B (2005) Strategic environmental assessment: a sourcebook and reference
guide to international experience. October 28:1347–1352
de Groot R (1992) Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning.
Management and Decision Making, Wolters-Noordhoff BV
de Groot R (2006) Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning
for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75:175–186. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.016
de Groot R, Wilson M, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and
valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
Diehl K, Burkhard B, Jacob K (2015) Should the ecosystem services concept be used in European
Commission impact assessment? Ecol Indic 61:6–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.
07.013
Dominati E, Patterson M, Mackay A (2010) Response to Robinson and Lebron—Learning

from complementary approaches to soil natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ
70:139–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.10.002
European Commission (1997) The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies. Eur
Plan Stud 3:192
European Commission (2011a) The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020
European Commission (2011b) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy
to 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
European Commission (2012) Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing
European Commission (2016) No net land take by 2050 ?
European Environment Agency (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe - The ignored challenge
European Environment Agency (2013) Land take
European Environment Agency (2016) Soil resource efficiency in urbanised areas
European Parliament (2001) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 June 2001, on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the
environment. Off J Eur Communities 197:30–37
Farber SC, Costanza R, Wilson M (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing
ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41:375–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5
Fischer TB (2003) Strategic environmental assessment in post-modern times. Environ Impact
Assess Rev 23:155–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00094-X
Fischer TB (2010) Reviewing the quality of strategic environmental assessment reports for English
spatial plan core strategies. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30:62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eiar.2009.04.002
Fischer TB, Gazzola P (2006) SEA effectiveness criteria—equally valid in all countries? The case
of Italy. Environ Impact Assess Rev 26:396–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2005.11.006
Fisher B, Turner KR (2008) Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation. Biol Conserv
Foley JA, Defries R, Asner GP et al (2005) Global Consequences of Land Use. Science 80
(309):570–574. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772
Gelli F (2001) Planning systems in italy within the context of new processes of “regionalization”.
Int Plan Stud 6:183–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563470123858
Geneletti D (2011) Reasons and options for integrating ecosystem services in strategic
environmental assessment of spatial planning. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag
7:143–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.617711
Geneletti D (2013) Assessing the impact of alternative land-use zoning policies on future ecosystem
services. Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.12.003
Geneletti D (2016) Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in Impact Assessment. Elgar
Geneletti D, Cortinovis C (2015) L’integrazione dei Servizi Ecosistemici nel processo della
Valutazione Ambientale Strategica. In: INU Edizioni (ed) Nuove sfide per il Suolo.
Rapporto CRCS 2016. Roma, pp 50–55
Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN (2012) Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban
planning. Ecol Econ 86:235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
Haase D, Larondelle N, Andersson E et al (2014) A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service
assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43:413–433. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s13280-014-0504-0
Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2011) Common international classification of ecosystem services
(CICES): 2011 Update. Expert Meet Ecosyst Accounts 1:1–17
Haygarth PM, Ritz K (2009) The future of soils and land use in the UK: Soil systems for the
provision of land-based ecosystem services. Land use policy 26, Supple:S187–S197. doi:http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.016
Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot R, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the
valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2005.04.005
References 25
Helian L, Shilong W, Guanglei J, Ling Z (2011) Changes in land use and ecosystem service values
in Jinan, China. Energy Procedia 5:1109–1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.195
Helming K, Diehl K, Geneletti D, Wiggering H (2013) Mainstreaming ecosystem services in
European policy impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:82–87. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.eiar.2013.01.004
Hermann A, Schleifer S, Wrbka T (2011) The concept of ecosystem services regarding landscape
research: a review. Living Rev Landsc Res 5:1–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609104565
Howarth RB, Farber S (2002) Accounting for the value of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41:
421–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00091-5
Inostroza L, Baur R, Csaplovics E (2013) Urban sprawl and fragmentation in Latin America: a
dynamic quantification and characterization of spatial patterns. J Environ Manage 115:87–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.007
Inostroza L, Zasada I, König HJ (2016) Last of the wild revisited: assessing spatial patterns of
human impact on landscapes in Southern Patagonia. Chile. Reg Environ Chang 1–15:0001.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0935-1
International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) (2009) What Is Impact Assessment?
Ghana Conf Proc 1–4
Jeffery S, Gardi C, Jones A et al (2010) European Atlas of Soil Biodiversity
Lamorgese L, Geneletti D (2013) Sustainability principles in strategic environmental assessment: a
framework for analysis and examples from Italian urban planning. Environ Impact Assess Rev
42:116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.12.004
Maes J, Hauck J, Paracchini ML et al (2013) Mainstreaming ecosystem services into EU policy.
Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.002
Maes J, Liquete C, Teller A et al (2016) An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services
in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosyst Serv 17:14–23. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023
Marsh GP (1864) Man and Nature or physical geography as modified by human action.
Cambridge, MA
McBratney A, Field DJ, Koch A (2014) The dimensions of soil security. Geoderma 213:203–213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.08.013
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being
Nadin V (2006) The role and scope of spatial planning. literature review. Spatial plans in practice:
supporting the reform of spatial planning sustain. 29
Nilsson M, Dalkmann H (2001) Decision Making and Strategic Environmental Assessment.
J Environ Assess Policy Manag 3
Noël JF, O’Connor M (1998) Strong sustainability: towards indicators for sustainability. Valuation for
sustainable development: methods and policy indicators. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 75–97
OECD—Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2008) Strategic
Environmental Assessment and adaptation to Climate change. In: Endorsed by members of
the DAC Net—work on Environment and Development Co-operation (ENVIRONET) at their
8th meeting; 2008. pp 1–26
Partidário MR (2000) Elements of an SEA framework—improving the added-value of SEA.
Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:647–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00069-X
Partidario MR, Gomes RC (2013) Ecosystem services inclusive strategic environmental
assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.001
Pearce DW, Kerry Turner R (1990) Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. John
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA
Pierce FJ, Larson WE (1993) Developing criteria to evaluate sustainable land management. In:
USDA-SCS NSSC (ed) Proceedings of the 8th international soil management workshop:
utilization of soil survey information for sustainable land use. Lincoln, pp 7–14
Pileri P (2007) Compensazione Ecologica Preventiva. Carocci Milano
Pileri P (2012) Misurare il cambiamento. Dalla percezione alla misura delle variazioni d’uso del
suolo. In: Regione Lombardia (ed) L’uso del suolo in Lombardia negli ultimi 50 anni. pp 185–207
Pileri P, Maggi M (2010) Sustainable planning? First results in land uptakes in rural, natural and
protected areas: the Lombardia case study (Italy). J Land Use Sci 5:105–122. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1747423X.2010.481078
Pimentel D, Whitecraft M, Scott ZR et al (2010) Will limited land, water and energy control
human population numbers in the future? Hum Ecol 38:599–611
Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2013) Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of
ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol 28:1053–1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9756-x
Primmer E, Furman E (2012) Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: do
measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosyst Serv
1:85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.008
Prokop G (2011) Report on best practices for limiting soil sealing and mitigating its effects
Robinson DA, Hockley N, Cooper DM et al (2013) Natural capital and ecosystem services,
developing an appropriate soils framework as a basis for valuation. Soil Biol Biochem
57:1023–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.09.008
Romano B, Zullo F (2014) The urban transformation of Italy’s Adriatic coastal strip: fifty years of
unsustainability. Land use policy 38:26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.10.001
Runhaar H, Driessen PPJ (2007) What makes strategic environmental assessment successful
environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision-making.
Impact Assess Proj Apprais 25:2–14. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155107X190613
Sadler B, Verheem R (1996) Strategic environmental assessment: status challenges and future
directions. The Hague, The Netherlands
Sheate WR, Do PMR, Byron H et al (2008) Sustainability assessment of future scenarios:
methodology and application to mountain areas of Europe. Environ Manage 41:282–299.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9051-9
Söderman T, Saarela S-R (2010) Biodiversity in strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of
municipal spatial plans in finland. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 28:117–133. https://doi.org/10.
3152/146155110X498834
Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP) (1970) Man’s impact on the global environment
assessment and recommendations for action. Cambridge Massachusetts MIT Press,
Massachusetts
TEEB (2009) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB) for National and International
Policy Makers
TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystem and biodiversity for local and regional policy makers
Therivel R (2004) Strategic Environmental Assessment in action. London
Tóth G, Stolbovoy V, Montanarella L (2007) Soil quality and sustainability evaluation—an
integrated approach to support soil-related policies of the European Union
UNEP—United Nations Environment Programme (2014) Guidance manual on valuation and
accounting of ecosystem services for small island developing states
Vandewalle M, Sykes MT, Harrison PA et al (2008) Review paper on concepts of dynamic
ecosystems and their services—RUBICODE. Environ Res 94. doi:http://www.rubicode.net/
rubicode/RUBICODE_Review_on_Ecosystem_Services.pdf
Vettori A (2015) Sviluppi per un uso sostenibile del suolo nell’Unione europea. In: INU Edizioni
(ed) Nuove sfide per il Suolo. Rapporto CRCS 2016
Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s
ecosystems. Science 277:494–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5
Vrščaj B, Poggio L, Marsan FA (2008) A method for soil environmental quality evaluation for
management and planning in urban areas. Landsc Urban Plan 88:81–94. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.landurbplan.2008.08.005
Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv
World Resources institute (2008) Ecosystem Services. A Guide for Decision Makers
Zoppi C, Lai S (2014) Land-taking processes: an interpretive study concerning an Italian region.
Land use policy 36:369–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.09.011
Chapter 2
Methodology, Approaches
and Innovative Experiences
Abstract This chapter is dedicated to presenting important issues that must be

considered when dealing with Ecosystem Services (ES) in terms of methodology,
approaches and practical experiences. The issues explored concern the scale, the
assessment methods, and the management of ES. Each topic is investigated always
considering the Planning perspective, hence having as a framework that of Planning
and territorial governance. In conclusion there were presented experiences on
assessment and mapping Ecosystem services with a double aims: (1) test and verify
directly opportunities, criticisms and possible improvements in ES assessment/
mapping for Planning support; and (2) present such innovative aspects that affect
the integration of ES in Planning.
2.1 The Scale-Dependent of Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem functions perform different ES and their provision depends on bio-

physical conditions and changes over space and time due to human influences
(Burkhard et al. 2012). The understanding of the scale to be adopted in ES approach
is strictly linked to ES characteristics that require evaluation and consideration.
The scale is important to establish methods and approaches for ES assessment
but, most of all it is mandatory for the mapping assessment that is fundamental for
spatially explicit prioritisation and problem definition, mainly about synergies and
trade-offs among different ES, and between ES and biodiversity.
The functioning of ecosystems depends on earth system processes and is
delimited by the biophysical properties and condition of the area. An ecosystem is
not a closed and isolated system but is affected by its surrounding landscape
through climate, hydrographic and geomorphological conditions, as well as macro
scale biological and geophysical interactions. The slope, the rainfall patterns, the
biotic processes and different conditions influence and delimit the ecosystem.
Considering that ES are heterogeneous in space and evolve through time, it is
important to establish the ES context regarding the provisioning area of a specific
ES and beneficiaries from that ES. Different attempts to define the ES context and

28 2 Methodology, Approaches and Innovative Experiences
the spatial analysis should include both the capacity of the ecosystems to deliver
services to society, the supply-side, and the social demand for using a particular ES
in a specific area, the demand-side (Tallis and Polasky 2009; de Groot et al. 2010;
Bastian et al. 2012). According to Burkhard, the supply side is the capacity of a
particular area to provide ES, this is commensurate to the ES providing area as the
spatial context, the source of an ES including the total collection of organisms and
their traits required to deliver a given ES as well as abiotic ecosystem components.
The demand side is instead the sum of ES currently consumed, used, or valued in a
particular area over a given period.
It is commensurate with the ES benefiting area, even if several intermediate steps
related to complex production and trade schemes may be included (Vandewalle
et al. 2008; Syrbe and Walz 2012; Burkhard et al. 2012).
The benefiting areas are where the benefits of ES are delivered (Syrbe and Walz
2012) and it may be far distant from the relevant ES providing areas. ES benefi-
ciaries are stakeholders who benefit from and demand for ES or who are involved
or affected positively by a given environmental or management public policy
(García-Nieto et al. 2013). These two concepts (supply and demand) are comple-
mentary and strictly linked with spatial relations between the place of service
production and where the benefits are realised.
The supply side is largely determined by ecological processes and characteristics
(e.g., functioning, fragmentation, productivity, resilience or climate), on the con-
trary, the demand side is principally defined by the characteristics of human ben-
eficiaries of ES (population, distance to resources, etc.). If providing and benefiting
areas are not connected, the intervening space affects process variables; this is the
case of a river’s landscape in which river stream, retention spaces, natural flood-
plains, and reservoirs can have a critical effect on any flood wave. On the contrary,
many others services do not have a clear definition with regard to providing and
benefiting areas, and must be identified to handle barriers, to avoid free riders and to
adopt possible solutions. In this condition, artificial mechanisms for connecting
providing and benefiting areas should be taken into account, for example in the case
of the long-distance piping of drinking water to towns or densely settled areas
(Syrbe and Walz 2012). The relationship between the ecological capability to
deliver ES (supply-side) and the use and value by stakeholders (demand-side) are
clearly explained in the scheme proposed by Haines-Young and Potschin in 2010
and considered in this book (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010b; García-Nieto et al.
2013). The diagrams in Fig. 2.1 show the spatial distribution and connotation of ES
associated with contingent socio-cultural properties of the underlying social system,
such as land use, ethics, values, development status, and so on.
Looking at the spatial relation between providers and beneficiaries, the patterns
proposed by Polasky et al. in 2005 and reaffirmed by Fisher in 2009 (Fig. 2.2) show
the spatial-dynamic of ES for understanding and classifying them and, moreover,
for managing a given context/territory based on the provision and beneficiaries of
ES across scales (Polasky et al. 2005; Fisher et al. 2009). The four patterns are
necessary to understand where the services are produced and how the beneficiaries
of ES, also considering the demand of a specific ES are required, to inform decision
makers on where management interventions could be optimised and improved.
2.1 The Scale-Dependent of Ecosystem Services 29
Fig. 2.1 Framework for ES assessment: supply-side and demand-side. Source (Haines-Young
and Potschin 2010b; García-Nieto et al. 2013)
In the first scenario proposed in Fig. 2.2, both the service provision and benefit
occur at the same location; this is the case of local ES with local beneficiaries for
example soil formation, provision of raw materials and microclimate regulation. In
the second scenario, the service is provided omni-directionally, and benefits are
distributed in the surrounding landscape so it is a service that has benefits spreading
out into the surroundings without any directional bias, for instance, pollination and
carbon sequestration.
Fig. 2.2 Possible spatial relationships between service providing areas (P) and service benefit
areas (B). Modified from (Polasky et al. 2005; Fisher et al. 2009)
The last two scenarios (Panels 3 and 4) illustrate services that have specific
directional benefits. In pattern number 3, the service is produced away from the
beneficiaries, for example, the protection from all gravitational hazards made by a
forest in the uphill area or the water regulation services provided by forested slopes.
Case number 4 is called “barrier service” that is the service provided for storm
and flood protection to a coastline. Such condition (e.g. wetland or marsh) or
particular vegetation (e.g. mangrove) could protect or minimise water surges or
inundation providing a natural form of protection (Fisher et al. 2009; Turner 2015).
The relationships between service providing areas and service benefit areas
could be synthesized in four categories: Scenario 1: in situ (where service providing
areas and service benefit areas are realized in the same location); Scenario 2: omni-
directional (service providing areas in one location, service benefit areas in the
surrounding landscape without directional bias); Scenario 3: directional (service
benefit areas in a specific location to flow direction from the providing service);
Scenario 4: decoupled (ES can be traded over long distances, e.g., many provi-
sioning ES).
The knowledge of the dynamics of provisioning area and beneficiaries’ area are
connected to the ecological scale of ES and particularly to the spatiotemporal
dynamics of ecosystems, public-private good aspects, and benefit dependence of
services. Table 2.1 affords details on the topic above discussed, for such ES classified
according to their providers and considering the demand and supply of services.
ES are broadly classified as operating on local, regional, global or multiple scales, and
different providers of the same ES may operate across a range of spatial and temporal
scales (Costanza 2008; Naidoo et al. 2008), for instance, flood control by wetlands or
climate regulation through carbon sequestration (Daily 1997; Costanza 2008). ES pro-
viders are related to the landscape, habitat or ecological community, and characterised by
the component populations, species, functional groups (guilds), food webs or habitat
types that collectively produce the services (Kremen 2005). In this framework, the spatial
scale is necessary to recognise the capacity of a particular area to provide ES and to define
the specific ecosystem component or process that support the provision of ES (“radius of
action” of ES). Moreover, it is also necessary to set the “Functional units” to refer to the
ecological unit of study (such as species, population, communities, ecosystem) to assess
functional contributions of ES providers exploring the role of variability at different levels
of biological organisation and how that variation at different levels affects the provision.
For instance, the microorganisms and earthworms render valuable services to Soil fertility
and they are considered as a whole, not as an individual group, on the contrary, the
pollination services are very insect-specific and must be evaluated for each type.
The adoption of an ecosystem-based approach is dependent on the knowledge of the
different ecosystem and their functioning for human benefits (Maes et al. 2016).
According to the definition proposed in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on
Biological Diversity—ratified in Italy with Law n° 124/1994—ecosystems do not have a
specific spatial unit or scale, on the contrary to “Habitat” definition, and can be defined at
a wide range of spatial scales and are supplied to stakeholders at a different scale and
range of institutional scales (Hein et al. 2006).
Table 2.1 Ecosystem services classification according to: Providers, functional units, spatial scale and typology of spatial relationships between service
providing areas and service benefit areas. Source (de Groot et al. 2002; Haines-Young and Potschin 2009; Burkhard et al. 2014)
Ecosystem Ecosystem service providers Functional units Spatial scale Typology of spatial
services relationships
Aesthetic, cultural All biodiversity Populations, species, Local‐global In situ,
communities, ecosystems omnidirectional,
directional,
decoupled
Ecosystem goods Diverse species Populations, species, Local-global In situ
communities, ecosystems
UV protection Biogeochemical cycles, micro- organisms, plants Biogeochemical cycles, Global Omnidirectional
functional groups
Purification of air Micro-organisms, plants Biogeochemical cycles, Regional-global Omnidirectional
populations, species,
functional groups
2.1 The Scale-Dependent of Ecosystem Services
Flood mitigation Vegetation Communities, habitats Local-regional Directional

Drought mitigation Vegetation Communities, habitats Local-regional Directional
Climate stability Vegetation Communities, habitats Local-regional Omnidirectional
Pollination Insects, birds, mammals Populations, species, Local Omnidirectional
functional groups
Pest control Invertebrate parasitoids and predators and vertebrate Populations, species, Local Omnidirectional
predators functional groups
Purification of Vegetation, Soil micro-organisms, aquatic micro‐ Populations, species, Local-regional Directional
water organisms, aquatic invertebrates functional groups,
communities, habitats
(continued)
31
Table 2.1 (continued)
32
Ecosystem Ecosystem service providers Functional units Spatial scale Typology of spatial
services relationships
Detoxification and Leaf litter and Soil invertebrates, Soil micro‐organisms, Populations, species, Local-regional Omnidirectional
decomposition of aquatic micro organisms functional groups,
wastes communities, habitats
Soil generation and Leaf litter and Soil invertebrates, Soil micro-organisms, Populations, species, Local In situ
Soil fertility nitrogen‐fixing plants, plant and animal production of functional groups
waste products
Seed dispersal Ants, birds, mammals Populations, species, Local Omnidirectional
functional groups
2 Methodology, Approaches and Innovative Experiences
Indeed, ES are generated at all ecological scales. For instance, ecosystem

function of the nitrogen fixation enhances soil fertility at the ecological scale of the
plant, whereas carbon sequestration influences the climate at the global scale (Hein
et al. 2006), but they are not provided homogeneously and regularly across a spatial
landscape and they evolve through time. The understanding of a phenomenon,
especially the ecological one, is strictly influenced by the scale at which it is
investigated and interpreted.
The assessment scale significantly prejudices the problem definition and the
results. The scale refers to the measurable dimensions of phenomena, it is the
spatial, temporal, quantitative, or analytic dimension used by scientists to measure
objects and processes (Gibson et al. 2000; Verburg et al. 2004; Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005b). All scales have an extent (as the size of the spatial,
temporal, quantitative, or analytical dimensions of a scale) and a resolution (un-
derstood as the precision used in measurement, the grain).
The scale cannot be exchanged with the term level, even if they are often used as
synonyms because both are defined within hierarchical frameworks, their meanings
and connotations are fundamentally different. As described by Gibson, “The range
of spatial scales over which the driving forces and associated land use change
processes act correspond with levels of organisation. Level refers to level of
organisation in a hierarchically organised system and is characterised by its rank
ordering in the hierarchical system” (Gibson et al. 2000).
As known, Ecosystem functions perform different ES, therefore understanding
the complex inter-relationships between them is necessary to define the scale
approach which addresses the action for integrating the ES in the process of policy
and planning formulation. For instance, the LULC changes could be defined at a
range of scale over which they have a significant influence on the land use pattern.
The scale issue in ES assessment and the consequential integration in
decision-making was only recently addressed. According to the contents previously
explained, it is possible to recognise two different scale mismatches.
The first one is related to supply and demand of ES. ES depends on the capacity
of the ecosystems to deliver services to society and on the social demand for using a
particular ES in a specific area. These two ways to observe and assess ES do not
have the same spatial scale. For example, the food provision of a city (the demand
side) can not only be fulfilled at a geographical scale but must be expanded beyond
the city boundaries (the supply side) (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013a). Therefore,
ES supply and demand are not aligned.
The second typology of scale mismatch is between the scales of ecosystem
processes and those at which services are used, valued and managed that is the scale
of governance institutions, ranging from community to international level
(Grêt-Regamey et al. 2014).
Following the example proposed below, the food provisioning of a city cannot
be solved inside the administrative boundaries but requires an inter-jurisdictional
cooperation. Hence, ES supply is not aligned with the institutional scale.
As a conclusion, ES supply is not aligned with the ES demand that, in turn, do
not correspond to the institutional scale that manages it.
Focusing on the second typology, Hein showed that ES valuation could change
considerably depending on the stakeholders and the scales of their associated
institutions (Hein et al. 2006). Moreover, ES spatial distribution depends on the
biophysical ecosystem supply and the human demand (Seppelt et al. 2011) at
certain temporal scale.
The services provided by ecosystem take place over a range of spatial scales
varying from the short-term, site level (e.g. amenity services), to the long-term,
global level (e.g. carbon sequestration) (Hein et al. 2006). For instance, the climate
regulation acts at a global level and have a global impact whereas the services
provided by crop pollination depend on habitat type, the wild plant species, and the
time of crop flowering, so the scale is more restricted with micro-local impact.
All things considered, the ecological processes and the production functions
operate at a broader range of two dimensions: (1) Temporal scale: understood as the
time horizon of ecological changes, so ES can be divided into long-term service
(decades), seasonal service (year) and short-term service (hours) (Zhang et al.
2013), but also time horizon scale assumed by policy when confronting ecological
issues. For instance, the decisions that involve LULC changes affecting ES are
made according to different time scales, some decisions are assumed on short-term
dynamics, others are only based on long-term dynamics; (2) Spatial scales: that is
the scale at which ES are supplied considering a range of spatial scales from global
scale, to biosphere, landscape, ecosystem, plot and plant scale (Borgström et al.
2006). Considering that ES assessment cannot fail to consider the ecological pro-
cesses that ensure the provision of goods and services, the reference scale is central
to any ES evaluation and in the analyses of environmental change.
Addressing mismatches of ES supply and demand requires connecting the scale
at which ecological processes support ES with the scale of management.
Understanding the functional scale for ES assessment means directly connecting
human wellbeing, natural capital and ES considering the ecological framework and
establishing a management structure based on the ecosystem capacity.
Nowadays, ES are in many ways influenced by institutions that, as written,
manage natural resources mediating and persuading the transition from the natural
capital in ES. For instance, natural capital can be either used directly or combined
with human and produced capital, to provide other goods and services for human
well-being (Nagendra and Ostrom 2012).
Besides the institutions, there is also the social community defined as “Any
group or individual who can affect or is affected by the ecosystem’s services” (Hein
et al. 2006), a definition in line with that proposed by the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (2005b) denoting that stakeholders on different scales should have
overlapping or conflicting interests in the services that stem from a particular
ecosystem.
It is possible to recognize two different scales according to stakeholders, that are:
(I) the institutional scale with individual, municipal, national, regional, and inter-
national level; and (II) the societal scale that is a number of the main social entities,
beginning from the household as a very basic social unit to community, national,
regional and global level.
The first one is understood as the institutions that manage natural resources
having the largest influence (in a direct or indirect way) on how natural capital is
converted into ES and, in turn, to human wellbeing. The second refers to how civil
society is involved in the access and use of these resources with indirect implication
on human wellbeing, with the community being the most direct link to the
ecosystem (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a).
Therefore, an ecosystem can be of high importance to several groups of local
stakeholders, as well as having international significance to the earth system as a
whole, regarding climate mitigation or biodiversity conservation (Steffen et al.
2007). Moreover, ES at certain spatial and temporal scales refers to specific ben-
eficiaries and thus the value of such ES is highly related to their actions.
This assumption leads us to consider that the institutional boundaries, the
societal context and the ecological scale of ES seldom coincide determining a
disconnection for the management of natural resources across a range of institu-
tional levels and scales. As argued during the MA project, “The challenge of
improving ecosystem management is to develop institutional structures that are
similar in scale to the ecological and social processes they are meant to manage”
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a). The difficulties related to the scale of
governance and management of ES have precluded their implementation also in the
decision-making process and, as a consequence, in Planning since there was no
clear topic of discussion. The problem of mismatch in scale is a potential source of
conflicts in the access of ES (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013b).
2.1.1 Scale for Managing Ecosystem Services: A Literature

Review
Considering the different scales at which ES could be investigated and the problem
of the mismatch in the scale, there is no unique system of evaluation or a single
solution even if during the last years several types of research have been published
trying to address the issue in a direct or indirect way.
The matter of scale is associated with ES mapping, understood as a spatial
distribution of service by assuming a reference scale for data spatialization.
The mapping process is fundamental in estimating the current (baseline scenario)
and expected trends in ES supply and their economic values (Maes et al. 2012). The
recognised importance of mapping and assessment of ES with an integrated
framework was reflected in the proliferation of different mechanisms, methods and
procedures to ensure the visibility of ES value in decision-making.
ES mapping is the first necessary assumption for support Planning and
decision-making process for ES management. Therefore, mapping includes a pre-
liminary determination on the scale that needs to be adopted. The definition of the
scale for ES mapping is related to the different requirements and uses of spatially
explicit information, the spatial resolution of the data and the detail within the data
attribution (Medcalf et al. 2014). Considering the latest reviews on ES mapping that
have addressed the scale issue (Martínez-Harms and Balvanera 2012; Crossman
et al. 2013; Guerry et al. 2015), the topics debated were different such as: a new
methodology proposal, a new software for ES spatial distribution, a comparison of
results in ES assessment using different tools, or the possible practices for the
inclusion of ES mapping in the decision-making process.
In addition to these examinations, a literature review was conducted looking at
the last ES mapping trends in order to identify the typology of scale selected and the
ES investigated. The ES are categorised according to the CICES classification, the
selection was made to identify the most recent peer review publications about ES
mapping using the electronic databases of Science Direct and Scopus.1
The following keywords were used, either alone or in combination: “mapping
ES”, “spatial assessment ES”, “reference scale”. It is evident that others papers might
address some specific issues on ES mapping without mentioning it in the title, abstract
or keywords but with this selection method, it is possible to have a clear overview of
research published in peer-review journals that directly concern mapping. The aim
was to identify what is the most mapped ES and the related reason, define the scale
adopted for ES mapping and the reason for the selection; and verify if there are any
relations between ES mapping and existing policy or plan for possible integration.
The review identified a total of 70 papers published in the last year (2015/2016)
matching the research criteria, 22 papers were excluded since they were only
methodological research without considerations on scale reference or case study. The
analysis was further correlated to the remaining 48 publications (Table 2.2).
From the literature review, the most common ES investigated was the regulating
service, especially for the carbon sequestration and habitat quality model, followed
by provisioning, cultural, and supporting services, as well as the results put forward
in the review proposed by Burkhard in 2013 (Burkhard et al. 2013).
It is possible to suppose that the frequency of ES mapping is linked to topics that
are on the political agenda for decision making (e.g., European policy for biodi-
versity conservation or the different government policy on climate change adaption
and Greenhouse gas emission).
This argumentation was also enforced considering that such fundamental ES, as
primary productivity, are rarely investigated maybe for their lack of evidence in the
decision-making process. Moreover, it is also evident a tendency to map the
intangible services, such as a sense of place, spiritual value, and cultural heritage,
more so than the past time proposing innovative methodologies and approaches to
give a spatial distribution of those services. This tendency reveals a probable
increase in the recognised importance of intangible heritage and cultural diversity
for conservation and preservation. Compared to the others services, the Cultural ES
are not yet fully integrated into operational frameworks due to the lack of data for
large-scale assessments and detailed surveys as the main source of information.
Moreover, the evaluation procedure needs to be with multiple perspectives (for e.g.
ecological, social, behavioural) (Paracchini et al. 2014). Generally, from that
1
https://www.sciencedirect.com/, https://www.scopus.com.
Table 2.2 Ecosystem services mapped and scale adopted according to the literature review
Ecosystem services Ecological/provider Social/beneficiary Institutional
scale scale scale
Provisioning
Water provisioning— ✓✓✓✓
Freshwater
Materials ✓✓
Water retention ✓✓✓*
Timber ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓*
Food supply ✓*
Regulating
Carbon sequestration ✓✓ ✓✓✓✓*
Hydrogeological protection ✓✓✓ ✓
Habitat-forming species ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓*
Air quality regulation ✓ ✓✓✓*
Erosion control ✓ ✓✓
Water flow ✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓
Coastal protection ✓
Pollination ✓ ✓✓*
Cultural
Recreation: tourists ✓✓✓* ✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓*
Natural recreation ✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓
Social ✓✓✓ ✓*
Cultural heritage values ✓✓ ✓✓✓ *
Landscape value ✓✓ ✓✓✓

Note *explicit link with policy or plan, the number of “flags” do not represent the number of papers
investigated
review, it is possible to state that the Institutional scale is predominant for decision
in regards to mapping ES, for which this reference scale was assumed to have a
defined border in which to create the spatial distribution.
The reasons for that selection are different but surely predominant are the
availability of data which strongly affect the choice of the reference scale to be
used. In fact, the institution usually has a database only for the area that it
administers without contemplating possible implications on the neighbourhood area
but only taking into consideration their own jurisdiction. Therefore, the selection of
a methodological approach and related reference scale was constrained by data
availability, especially the LULC database, the topographical information (for e.g.
Digital Elevation Model—DEM or Digital Terrain Model—DTM) and the vege-
tation typologies.
In some cases, the issue of the data availability is explicitly mentioned high-
lighting the problem of a lack of information, in other cases, the availability of data
governs the selection of a case study area without considering another possible
reference scale (ecological, institutional or social scale).
Finally, often the selection of an institutional scale is determined by the fact that
there is a precise stakeholder to address the ES mapping and, in turn, a precise
decision process with which to give a practical application.
Nonetheless, in other reviews (Martínez-Harms and Balvanera 2012; Burkhard
et al. 2013), it was highlighted that most ES mapping was done at large spatial scale
(regional scale as the most considered followed by the national scale and, in minor
cases, provincial scale) with limited and fewer studies at global scale, local scale
and micro scale.
Recent research (Malinga et al. 2014) has shown an increase in assessments on a
local scale arguing that probably is better information for policymakers. In fact,
land use policies that could influence the ES provision are often and in general
developed at the municipal level and later relapse at regional and national level. For
instance, it can be assumed that spatial scale was probably selected to inform of
land use policy considering the level at which decisions are taken.
The social scale is predominant for cultural ES especially for the use of com-
munity maps as a tool to assess the services involving diverse stakeholders for
evaluating and scores highly in assessments of public perceptions, sometimes
sacrificed by decision makers for economic and ecological reasons. For other ser-
vices, it remains underused.
Finally, the ecological scale is less considered in mapping ES probably for the
lack of knowledge on ES providers and beneficiaries but also for the already
mentioned problem of the availability of databases. This trend is not fair for ES
related to “water” (such as water retention, water regulation, water supply) in which
it seems that the concept of the management of water resource at ecological scale
(usually basin scale) has been finally accepted and internalised.
Summarising the findings derived from the papers under investigation, there is
no explicit link with existing policy or plan but just generic mention of the possible
uses or spillover effects on the planning process. These results highlight that the
advances carried out by the scientific community to provide solid support for policy
makers do not find an adequate response in the planning instrument and, subse-
quently, in the decision-making process.
In the majority of papers in which there was an explicit reference to a clear and
immediate integration in the planning process, the assessment was often required by
the policy makers or was a result of an intensive participatory process in which the
awareness on ES was built step by step.
In addition to that, in the other case, the detailed assessment (methodological or
practical) remains an exercise without being included or considered during the
decision-making process; often this depends on the lack of recognition of the value
of ES evaluation and, in turn, on the lower awareness on ES, rather than the absence
of a clear and practical reflection in planning governance.
Even if the mapping is a useful and powerful tool to guide the planning process
and decision makers for ES management ES from global to local scales, often the
adoption of an ES approach is quicker if the policymakers have an economic
reflection and the benefits by assuming it.
In conclusion, considering the emerged assumptions and the results from the
literature review, it ascertains that less attention was attributed to the Multiscale
approach considering ES supply and demand across different spatial scale and
according to the most appropriate representation of a phenomenon. In fact, most of
the ES investigated consider the supply of multiple ES while only recent studies
face up with ES demand-side.
On the contrary, ES are produced and provided in a spatial variable hence it is
central to identify those areas that contribute to service provision, or are essential
for achieving threshold or target levels of service provision. The supply and
demand areas need to be prioritised and managed accordingly.
The multi-scale depends on the scale of ecosystem provider, ecosystem bene-
ficiary, ecosystem service capacity and, finally, ecosystem service management as
previously explained (Zhang et al. 2013). Only after these required steps, it makes
sense to define a compensatory strategy to be truly effective or scale-appropriate
incentive mechanisms that properly identify and protect sites of key ES at their
relevant scales (Fremier et al. 2013).
Nowadays, the different scale for ES assessment (institutional, societal, temporal
horizon and ecological scale) scarcely coincides with the other because the focus of
analysis depends on the outcome of inquiries and often the assessments are con-
ducted to the inadequate scale.
ES assessment is often limited to a single vision and, in most of the cases it does
not represent the phenomenon in its complexity. Therefore, policy makers act in a
context based on precarious foundations.
The most frequent and common case regards the discrepancy between the
ecological scale of ecosystem functioning and the spatial extent of the institutional
arrangements managing them.
The figure expresses clearly what is the scale mismatch problem. The starting
point is the Ecosystem-scale, composed of different ecological units of study (local,
landscape, bioregional, planet/global) and understood as the scale in which
Ecosystem functions perform different ES. The ES compose the Natural Capital as
the stock of physical assets in the environment that influence human wellbeing and,
as a consequence, the beneficiaries of ES (Social community scale). In between
these two scales, there are the institutions that act at a different level (from local to
international) managing the natural resources and affecting ES provision.
This framework upsets the problematic ways in which spatial mismatches exist
between the locations where ES are supplied and where they are consumed or
demanded. This condition is explained as the “lack of fit” or “scale mismatches”
between ecosystems and conventional institutions that manage them derived from
the economy model and causing, in turn, a mismanagement of ecosystems and a
lack of appropriate monitoring frameworks and enforcement frameworks (Bailey
1985; Borgström et al. 2006; Folke et al. 2007; Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013b;
Costanza and Liu 2014). This is recognised as one of the most important causes of
failures in natural resource management (Folke et al. 2007).
This situation is further complicated when services are transferred across mul-
tiple jurisdictional boundaries with multiple scales, such as those between public
and private lands, international borders, and socioeconomic lines (Fremier et al.
2013) having therefore, broader implications for human wellbeing and for
ecosystem governance (Duraiappah et al. 2014).
This required the adoption of a multi-scale approach matching ecological, social
and governance scales for ES management, including spatiotemporal lag between
landscape features that produce ES and the consumers of those services.
In other words, multi-scale means to assess the ES at their proper scale according
to the ecological process and considering the provision of benefits for human
wellbeing.
Resolving or managing these mismatches is a non-trivial task and requires firstly
an improvement in the knowledge of the scale dependence at which ecosystem
processes and functions operate to produce the bundle of provisioning, regulating,
supporting and cultural services, and secondly to involve a broad range of disciplines
for closer collaboration among stakeholders and set the management strategies.
2.2 Ecosystem Services Assessment
After introducing the scale issue of ES and the potential of a Multi-scale approach,
next steps are taken on the possible ES integration in the decision-making process.
A decision involving the management of natural resources takes into account
trade-offs in ecological, social and economic benefits across a range of potential
effects. Moreover, the ES assessment must include all of these fields being a first
important step towards documenting changes in their provision and in turn, on
human benefits, also including the identification of pressures and threats acting on
those services, and on the human populations exposed to the possible effects of their
changes. Understanding the link between the ecosystem and its services and how
individuals perceive them, is the key topic in helping decision-makers at various
levels, from local to regional to global according to the most appropriate ecological
Fig. 2.3 Multi-scale conceptual framework. Modified from Duraiappah et al. (2014)
2.2 Ecosystem Services Assessment 41
scale. The values attributed to ES depend on the stakeholders benefiting from these
services or rather upon the views and needs of stakeholders (Vermeulen and Koziell
2002), in a mutual and dynamic relationship. Figure 2.3 highlights the link between
ecosystems and their functions which provides outputs of goods and services and,
in turn, generates benefits to human populations that can be measured as a con-
tribution to human well-being.
The valuation of ES aims to capture the values that people derive from nature
and to integrate these values into decision-making processes.
An assessment to support decision makers had to inform on the broad range of
ecological, social and economic values that exist and on the possible ecological
degradation of the resources of those services, thus the ES assessment had to
consider necessarily all of these dimensions and define the terms and the typologies
to be used.
Above all considerations on the methods used to assess ES, understanding the
value of ES is required. An important terminological clarification is necessary: in
this book, the term “value” of ecosystems is used according to the definition pro-
vided by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b) as “The contribution of an
action or object to user-specified goals, objectives or conditions”, in addition to that
“Measurement of which could include any kind of metric from various science
fields, including ecology, sociology or economics” (TEEB 2009).
The term should not be confused or used as synonymous of “price” that is
simply the economic side of such evaluation. A common example that explains this
difference is represented by water that is a natural resource fundamental for all
necessities: the value of water is high, but the price for water is very modest and is
not matched in any way to its value (Fisher et al. 2011).
Even if in some cases the price is an absolutely suitable approximation to value,
in many other cases market price and value diverge totally. This spread of evalu-
ation is called “the consumer surplus” that is “the difference between the price
actually paid for a good, and the maximum amount that an individual is willing to
pay for it”.2
Moreover, the term “value” usually represents monetary values, also for the
interchangeable uses of the terms “evaluation”, “economic valuation”, “monetary
evaluation” restricting their meaning and making them quite exclusive for the
economic discipline. Despite the fact that most of the research is focused on the
monetary value of ES (Costanza et al. 1997; Balmford et al. 2002), the ES value is
not uniquely monetary and a partial vision considerably limits the ES assessment.
As promoted by Dendoncker et al. in 2013 “Valuation refers to the understanding of
the worth or importance of something and may be defined as the act of assessing,
appraising or measuring value, as value attribution, or as framing valuation (how
and what to value, who values)” (Dendoncker et al. 2013).
Bearing in mind this distinction, advancements were also made in recognising a
plurality of values expressed by the ES. It was theorised that the valuation of the
2
https://www.ecosystemvaluation.org/glossary.htm.
environment involves multiple and often conflicting valuations, whereby values

may be combined to inform decisions, but may not be reduced to a single metric
(Gómez-Baggethun and Barton 2012).
This assumption requires an interdisciplinary approach with the adoption of this
principle in ES valuation (Costanza et al. 1997; Chan et al. 2012; Dendoncker et al.
2013). The assessment of ES in an integrated way could expand the traditional ES
valuation adopting the view of a pluralistic value as a core foundation
(Gómez-baggethun et al. 2014).
Nonetheless, numerous research on ES has recently recognised, investigated and
studied multiple types of ES value (such as ecological, economic, social, cultural,
spiritual, symbolic, therapeutic, insurance, identity, place values). The distinction
between each single value is not so delimited, while categorization is often blurred.
The book assumed the classification of ES values into three broad categories that
group multiple values: Socio-cultural value: this category recognises important
environmental functions emphasising physical and mental health, education, cul-
tural diversity and identity (as heritage value), freedom and spiritual values;
Ecological value: as the capacity of ecosystems to provide goods and services
depending on the related ecosystem processes and components providing them;
Monetary value: the direct or indirect monetary value with a variety of valuation
methods needed to estimate the economic value of these services (Fig. 2.4).
Considering the three most important categories of values assigned to ES, par-
ticular attention is paid to the scale at which the value of the service is assessed and
the appropriate valuation method that is to be used. Therefore, it is crucial to set and
summarise different methods and approaches used to capture different values in ES
linking valuation methods with the value dimensions representing broader con-
nections and should not be seen to be exclusive.
There are recognised ways to assess the value of nature according to three levels,
as a cumulative model on how services can be evaluated (White et al. 2011):
Qualitative, as a no numerical indications of value such as benefits to mental
and physical health, social benefits from recreation, benefits related to security and
broader wellbeing.
Fig. 2.4 Relations between

ES value and supply and
demand side. Modified from
Gómez-baggethun et al.
(2014)
Quantitative, as all the numerical data, for instance, the quality of water, the
quantity of carbon sequestered or captured, the number of protected areas, the
number of people visiting national parks.
Monetary, as the translation of the qualitative and quantitative aspects into a
particular currency, for example by calculating the revenue generated by visitors to
national parks.
The selection of the valuation approach is strictly connected to a policy problem,
is site specific and assumed on a case by case basis. In addition to this, it depends
on three main variables: Time and resources available; human benefit and
decision-making process in which the benefit is considered; and context (geo-
graphical, institutional, social). The last influences the monetary valuation con-
sidering that the background conditions have an impact on the monetary variable to
be considered (Barton et al. 2012). The monetary evaluation is considered the most
resource intensive, moreover, a limited number of services could be analysed from
that point of view because several ES have a non-market nature.
The first two approaches for ES assessment are quite traditional, while the mon-
etary valuation was for a long time at the centre of the disciplinary debate questioning
the benefit or less in assessing ES from the monetary aspect. Synthetically, the
monetary valuation was usually characterised by a cost-benefit analysis playing an
important role in the effective integration of environmental concerns in Planning but
with limits in integrating ES and associated values that may not be of direct use for
humans, especially the social and cultural values related to intangible ES.
Moreover, some authors consider for ES assessment that only a single mea-
surement approach (usually money) blinds ecological complexity and the plurality
of values and benefits that ecosystems provide to people (Langemeyer et al. 2016).
The majority of these critics come from the ecological discipline arguing that “It is
not always clear whether benefit-cost analysis leads to different and better social
choices, or is only used after the fact to justify decisions driven by politics,
opportunism, or non-economic rationales. Analysts tend to think that analysis
matters, yet it can be argued that most political decisions are driven more by
emotion, stories, and ethical values than by cold, hard numbers” (Boyd 2011).
Ecologists deliberate that the economic valuation encourages the consideration
of natural resources property that can be bought and sold, and thereby lost or
destroyed should their loss or destruction be convenient means. “Nature has an
intrinsic value that makes it priceless, and this is reason enough to protect it […]
Nature conservation must be framed as a moral issue and argued as such to
policy-makers, who are just as accustomed to making decisions based on morality
as on finances” (McCauley 2006).
An assessment made exclusively from the economic or monetary point of view
limits the total comprehension of ES dynamics without understanding the ecolog-
ical and social characteristics of ES.
On the other hand, in a separate case study, the adoption of monetary criteria was
a key element in discouraging practices too costly for the community or for pursuing
the optimal use of natural capital avoiding unnecessary losses in local welfare, city
budgets and business opportunities. It is necessary to maintain a healthy
environment because a degraded ecosystem will cease to supply ES, and the
restoration process can be extremely expensive, time-consuming, and, above all,
sometimes even impossible in restoring ecosystems and/or to find an alternative
solution.
Therefore, the economic value assigned to ES could be used as a proxy for an
unconscious use of natural capital instead of ES needing to be included in planning,
management and budgets to factor in the costs and benefits of the various policy
and strategy options and therefore make better-informed decisions.
Recognising the pros and cons of these evaluation methods, what emerges is the
increasing necessity for more integrated evaluation approaches that are capable of
identifying the diversity of values and stakeholder perspectives. The adoption of an
integrated valuation approach for ES that includes the three perspectives for ES
management (ecological, social and monetary) could also have several advantages
in Planning in raising awareness on the multiple social benefits of ES.
The most used tool for ES integrated assessment is the Multi-criteria analysis
having the potential capacity to accommodate a plurality of values and being
considered a possible instrument to reinforce the links between integrated
approaches to the assessments and valuation of ES and governance (Munda 2002;
Dendoncker et al. 2013; Vollmer et al. 2015; Langemeyer et al. 2016). Moreover,
qualitative and quantitative evaluations, in addition to the use of multi-criteria
analysis, can sufficiently support decision-making whereas a monetary assessment
is necessary to guarantee policy action.
2.2.1 The Importance of Mapping
Besides the recognition of the value of ES and the methods used to assess it, ES
need to be included in a decision-making process. Mapping, in addition to quan-
tification, qualification or economic analysis, could contribute making the impor-
tance of ES evident in the decision-making process.
The first studies on ES mapping started in the 90s with the advancement in GIS
(Geographic Information System) technology. One of the first milestone papers was
edited by Costanza in 1997 with a global map of the value of ES (Costanza et al.
1997). Afterwards, the topic created enormous attention in the scientific debate so
much so that the number of publications has grown exponentially, with almost 60%
being published after 2007 (Schägner et al. 2013).
In recent years, new approaches on ES have been developed including methods
of mapping and spatialization. Several improvements were made on GIS analyses
and mapping using spatial datasets, considering Spatial planning acts on the dis-
tribution of different functions in a defined space in support of the planning process.
The awareness on the importance of mapping was further accelerated by the
European Commission (EC) working group on MAES confirming the efficacy of
mapping for problem definition and to guide Planning and decisions. Policymakers
are increasingly recognizing the potential that mapping ES could have in Spatial
planning, and there are also many experiences to draw from for including ES mapping
into policies [e.g. the EU Water Framework Directive, see (Vlachopoulou et al.
2014)] and national strategy [e.g. Scottish “Getting the best from our land. A Land
Use Strategy for Scotland 2016–2021” see (The Scottish Government 2016)].
The importance of mapping was also recognised in the adoption of an ES
approach, identifying mapping as one important stage for ES integration in Plans
pursuing the following five steps: (1) The framing of key policy issues related to ES
preservation or restoration; (2) Identify ES and users (e.g. the definition);
(3) Mapping and assessing status; (4) Valuation; (5) Assess policy options
including distributional impacts.
Between steps 1 and 2 (framing and identifying) and the last two 4 and 5
(evaluating and assessing policy), there is an in-between phase of mapping
(3) considered crucial for a gradual shift from description to prescription and local
regulation of ES (Arcidiacono et al. 2015).
The experience in mapping arises from the challenges in designing effective
policies that derive from the understanding of the ES complexity. Normally, deci-
sions are founded on information that is transparent, well presented and easy to
appreciate with high degree of certainty. The characteristic of certainty is not typically
used on ecological externalities based on expected impacts, difficulties in interpreting
results/outputs from various disciplines and in transforming ecological knowledge in
a social decision. As previously mentioned, the Monetary valuation could be one of
the possible methods used to overcome such difficulties “It enables the aggregation of
multidimensional costs and benefits of alternative measures within a one-dimensional
welfare measure” (Pearce et al. 2006) even if the practice is subject to debate and
criticisms and nowadays exposed to intensive research activity.
Instead, mapping has several advantages for policy application including among
the other the land use policy evaluation at a regional or national level; the best
resource allocation for supports decision to conduct or not a specific policy mea-
sure, and, most of all, where is better to conduct it.
In the international scientific literature, ES mapping was used in different ways
for: (1) evaluating the spatial congruence between ES and conservation objective
and biodiversity (Chan et al. 2006); (2) verifying the changes in the supply of ES
related to LULC transformations or the prioritisation of areas in Spatial planning
and management (Helian et al. 2011; Lautenbach et al. 2011; Primmer et al. 2013);
(3) analysing trade-offs and synergies of multiple ES in different landscapes (Biggs
et al. 2012; García-Nieto et al. 2013) and (4) comparing supply and demand of ES
in assigning an economic value (Burkhard et al. 2012; García-Nieto et al. 2013).
Nowadays, numerous approaches for mapping ES exist, and reviews of
methodologies are available (Burkhard et al. 2010). According to Martínez-Harms
and Balvanera, it is possible to recognise five different methodological approaches
to map ES:
– The Binary links between information derived from LULC layer and a constant
ES value for supply or demand. The data are obtained from previous research
and adapted to the specific case regarding places and spatial scales. This method
is particularly common for cultural, regulating and provisioning services;
– The use of Causal relationships, based on the understanding of ES and available
data/information. This approach is usually used for mapping cultural and reg-
ulating services;
– The Regression models based on field data and environmental variables. This
method is generally applied for provisioning, regulating, and supporting ES, using
a quantitative method in addition to modelling and extrapolating data at different
spatial scales using biophysical and management layers as explanatory variables;
– The Look-up tables approach has been particularly useful mainly for regulating
ES; such experiences were done on carbon sequestration models estimating the
carbon storage for each biome (Naidoo et al. 2008; Sumarga and Hein 2014);
– The Expert knowledge approach used primarily for cultural ES to incorporate the
perceptions of the different stakeholders with specific territorial competences. The
disadvantage of this method is the high levels of subjectivity in the assessment and
lack of quantitative estimates (Martínez-Harms and Balvanera 2012).
The selection of the method depends on: (1) The availability of data, considering
that ES mapping is data dependent. Having time and resources to collect data, the
expert knowledge approach is seen as a good way to proceed. Otherwise, the look-up
table and the casual relationship are options if there are available secondary data; the
latter requires a good knowledge of the ES and their functioning. (2) The represen-
tativeness of data available for the ES considered. Sometimes the data available do
not provide an accurate map of the ES giving an over-simplification that can mislead
the decision-making process. (3) Currently, mapping ES is becoming a key tool to
guide decision-making. Therefore, considerable progress took place to ensure high
quality of ES maps important in providing the most accurate information.
Other practices were consolidated in ES approach, for instance, the ES scenario
introduced in the decision-making process to understand potential past and future
dynamics of the human-environmental system and advance practical planning
measures. This inclusion requires that ES mapping be well-defined with time
constraints always using the same methodology, to make the results comparable.
The introduction of ES mapping was a significant innovation in addressing ES
issues. The first experiences on ES were mostly on valuation studies associated with
ecological resource types, in other words, attributing a value, mainly economic, to a
particular LULC class without a spatial distribution. This approach limited the ES
inclusion in the decision-making process by not having a visual representation of
choices. Moreover, the results of these investigations remained mostly tabular
making it difficult to be associated with the local context that is the basic approach
adopted in planning in assuming decisions that must contemplate a spatial con-
figuration. Therefore, there was the necessity to integrate this approach with con-
sideration useful for policies. New initiatives focusing on modelling ES were
established (e.g. the Natural Capital Project3 and the Ecosystem Services
3
http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/.
Partnership4 promoting the inclusion of ES in Planning policies that address the use
of natural resources. The use of ES mapping and modelling techniques plays an
ever important role hence accurate and spatially appropriate ES valuations are vital
for decision-makers.
In conclusion, in raising awareness on ES in planning it is necessary to express
the provision and capacity of the ecosystem using mapping in order to bring ES to
the table during negotiations in the process of Spatial planning.
2.3 Ecosystem Services Management
The Scale allows the highlighting of some critical questions in the management and
adoption of an ES approach for Spatial planning.
As previously explained, ES assessment operates across widely different char-
acteristic scales (institutional, societal, temporal and ecological) demonstrating the
many and diverse ways to evaluate and map ES. This framework does not aid in
resolving the tricky ways in which spatial mismatches exist between the locations
where ES are supplied and where they are consumed or demanded and, conse-
quently, there is much uncertainty in what is assessed and the methods used to do
the assessment. In brief, ES scales are important to define (in sequential order):
– The providers of ES and the typology of ES;
– The stakeholders/community may benefit from them;
– The stakeholders/institutions involve in the ecosystem management and the
framework for decision making that reflects the different levels at which deci-
sions on the utilization of capital, labour and natural resources are taken;
– The appropriate method of valuation related to the values attributed to ES;
– The possible strategy to compensate the loss of ES regarding ecosystem
conservation.
The multiple scales of ES and the related problem of mismatch in the scale of
governance and management, require for cross-scale and multi-scale management
for integrated ES considerations both on ES delivery (supply-side) and on the use,
enjoyment and value by stakeholders (demand-side).
Focus on both scale (the supply and demand) allows identify their relation and
set the appropriate scale of governance, often based on the multi-scale.
Multi-scale consents to assess ES at different spatial scale and according to the
most suitable representation scale of a phenomenon.
Using a multi-scaling method means doing a study at several scales simulta-
neously that consider each different and single scale to understand the dynamics of
ES (causes and impacts of ecosystem changes starting from the provider and supply
analysis) with coherent methods and data. The ES analysis made at each scale could
4
http://es-partnership.org/.
often be relatively independent to one another, but they could be conducted in

parallel. It is important to ensure, as far as possible, that the findings at each scale
are comparable with other scales.
Ecosystem management should be by the characteristics of the ecosystem and
multi-scale assessments provide a powerful basis for evaluating the persistence and
robustness of findings across scales and offer insights and results that would
otherwise be missed (Scholes et al. 2013).
The multi-scale approach also comprises the concept of a cross scale; the first
expects the integration of the different individual analysis, while the second, a
cross-scale study, contemplates interaction between various scales during the analysis
for a given result. A cross-scale study is by definition a form of multi-scale study, but
one in which explicit attention is paid to the issue of how the scales interact:
Cross-scale assessments focused on a driver of change and its impacts across
scales, or on how changes in the system percolate across scales. An example
proposed on that topic is that one of the cross-scale interactions include the impacts
of international-scale policies on the collapse of local fisheries and the effects of a
global market on local-scale management practices, or the effects of region-scale
drought on global food prices (Scholes et al. 2013) (Fig. 2.5).
Undertaking the multi-scale approach, decision-making concerning ecosystems
and their services can also be especially difficult because different disciplines and
stakeholders conceive the value of ecosystems differently avoiding a universal
recognition. Multi-scales include consideration on the supply side and also on the
demand side, the latter as where benefits describe the material and non-material
contribution of ecosystems to human wellbeing and values expressing the human
appraisal of these benefits. Benefits and values represent the social system or
demand side of the model with conflicting stakeholder perspectives. Traditional
decision-support tools have limited capacity to capture the diversity of values that
people attribute to ecosystems and related services; much research is focussed on
Fig. 2.5 Concept scheme of Multi-scale and Cross-scale assessments. Modified from Scholes
et al. (2013)
2.3 Ecosystem Services Management 49
developing more integrated valuation approaches for recognising the diversity of

values and stakeholder perceptions (Dendoncker et al. 2013; Gómez-Baggethun
et al. 2013a).
Differently inter and multi-disciplinary approaches have endorsed value plural-
ism as one of their core conceptual foundations (Martinez-Alier et al. 1998). For
instance, in Spatial planning, considerations provided by a multi-disciplinary
approach could increase the awareness on multiple benefits of ES and also prioritise
land use strategies based on ES values and trade-offs.
The weakness of the “boundary” concept of ES could become an opportunity
regarding “transdisciplinary boundary object” engaging different disciplines in
shaping and achieving societal goals and transformative processes in society and
more sustainable human–nature relations. It is evident that the concept of ES
encompasses environmental, economic and human elements determining the crucial
need for multidisciplinary approaches.
The multi-disciplinary approach to be taken for ES assessment necessarily
involves multi-criteria analysis because it can incorporate the plurality of ES values
attributed by different disciplines and, as a consequence, ensuring the plurality of
methods for ES valuation.
The multi-criteria analysis is a tool for an integrated valuation of ES considering
its capacity to assess trade-offs and accommodate value pluralism (Dendoncker
et al. 2013; Martín-López et al. 2014). Moreover, it allows linking of ES assessment
and Planning policy by supporting decision makers according to the most appro-
priate scale. In fact, stakeholders could evaluate the entire solution space or a “band
of options” from which they can identify priority zones to conserve or rehabilitate
that provide the demanded ES.
ES assessment made considering multi-criteria analysis must necessarily start
with the set of scale. Recent literature review shows a tendency in the adoption of
multi-scale assessments for clear problem definitions and boundaries required for
multi-criteria analysis applications (Primmer et al. 2013). As recognised by Munda
in 2002, the identification of scale for multi-criteria analysis has to answer what is
important for different social actors and, therefore, it is necessary
For example in generating evaluation criteria (e.g., in evaluating the impacts building a ski
infrastructure in a mountain region, who are the relevant social actors? The inhabitants of
the mountain region, the potential users in urban areas or even the ecological preserva-
tionists all around the world all are reasonable answers) or in computing the impact scores
(e.g., a contamination indicator has to be computed locally, or should it be computed at a
larger scale? The use of hydrogen cars inside cities is clearly good at a local level, but it is
not that clear at a global level, where the emissions depend on the technology by which
hydrogen is produced, since hydrogen is an energy carrier and not an energy source) or,
finally, in choosing the weight factors. (Munda 2002)
In conclusion, the three multiple approaches related to scale, discipline and

method of inquiry are necessary for an ES assessment to guarantee: the adoption of
an adequate scale to understand and evaluate the complexity of ES; the inclusion of
the multiple values of ecosystems and their services attributed by stakeholders,
considering that stakeholders are the beneficiaries of the services provided by
ecosystem; the selection of a multi-criteria analysis for the consideration of the

values perceived by stakeholders and by the scale that has to be set as a starting
point. The last aspect has feedback to point number 1 considering that scale as the
first and indispensable aspect in defining dealing with ES (Fig. 2.6).
Having understood the three most important pre-condition for ES assessment
and their importance in Planning and decision-making processes, what is now
necessary is to verify how these considerations are solved in practical experiences.
The next Chapters aim to verify the practical application of these approaches. In
this section the author develops some experiences directly on ES assessment and
mapping in order to verify the potentialities for ES implementation faced with
different scales (from regional to site scale), typology of ES (Provisioning, cultural,
supporting,…), methodologies and ways in which these considerations could
support the decision-making process. Recognise a critical case study and experi-
ences that include, in a Planning process, considerations, assessments and mapping
of ES. This catalogue is important to attest, over the world, experiences on ES
integration in the process of planning, looking at all the different phases that have
determined the inclusion and implementation of ES approach, identifying the
weaknesses and opportunities necessary for the operative proposal.
Fig. 2.6 Relation between multi-scale, multi-disciplinary and multi-criteria approach

2.4 Experiences on Assessment and Mapping Ecosystem Services 51
2.4 Experiences on Assessment and Mapping Ecosystem

Services
The practical applications elaborated by the author were made in Lombardy

(Northwest Italy) for two main reasons. The first is the availability of data. In the
90s the Lombardy region created an “Infrastructure for Spatial Information (IIT)”
called “Geoportale”5 with geographic information, free downloadable and up to
date, that converges from different sources, e.g. Local, Provincial, Regional and
National Plans; sectorial Plans; Programs and Projects; research validated by the
Lombardy region; or survey commissioned by the Lombardy region. This archive
of data is one of the most complete in Italy and a powerful resource for different
activities that require explicit spatial information.
The second reason was related to the involvement of the author in the new
Laboratory called “PPTE—Piani, Paesaggio, Territori, Ecosistemi” (in English:
Plans, Landscape, Territory, Ecosystem) of the Department of Architecture and
Urban Studies (DAStU), Politecnico di Milano. This allowed the author to be
involved in a research group working to draw up a new version of the Landscape
Plan (RLP) for the Lombardy region. The research was commissioned in early 2014
by the Regional Unit on “Environment, energy and sustainable development” of
Lombardy and is still in progress. The aim was to provide research support for
methodological and technical innovation on different aspects, among the many:
Land take dynamics, environmental issues adopting an ES approach, landscape
constraints, legislative rules for Landscape regeneration and environmental
improvements. The availability of data and the possibility to directly implement an
ES approach in a planning process allowed the book author to experience and test
the potentialities of ES for use in Planning.
One of the first challenges was ES mapping. The efficacy of ES mapping being
commonly recognised for spatially explicit prioritisation and problem definition, and
considered as the main requirement for implementing ES concept into environmental
institutions and decision making, it was decided to test the approaches on mapping.
Although assessing and mapping ES have grown in the wake of the MA, most
studies develop their own tailor-made methodology, so comparability of results/
output is limited (Vorstius and Spray 2015).
Therefore, the research questions that stimulate this third part of the research are:
(1) What are the requirements of practitioners for a commonly applicable ES
mapping tool? Are the software and tools for mapping friendly and easily to use?
What are strengths and weaknesses of the currently available tools? (2) Is ES
mapping able to guide planning and resource management? How can these tools be
applied in practice? (3) In which way could the ES assessment be integrated into
Planning instruments (PPP)?
5
www.cartografia.regione.lombardia.it.
The practical experiences tried to answer the above questions, taking into
account the findings explained in the previous chapters regarding: scale, mapping
and methods.
Each single case study was based on these main steps:
(1) Recognition of the data available;
(2) Definition of the scale to adopt (considering the assumptions previously
mentioned);
(3) Selection of the software to use;
(4) Validation of the outputs;
(5) Proposal for Planning integration (if necessary and possible).
Considering that steps I and II are already widely discussed, for the selection of
the software to use (step III) a review of the main tools/application/software that
provide information for ES mapping was done. As previously explained, the
importance of ES mapping was also reflected in the proliferation of different
software developed to ensure the visibility of ES in the decision-making process.
Below, is a brief review of the tools/software most used for mapping with
different applications and experiences over the world:
– InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs): software
developed for global application under the National Capital Project, a
Partnership between Stanford University, the University of Minnesota, the
Nature Conservancy and WWF. It is a stand-alone tool free and downloadable
from www.naturalcapitalproject.org and includes well-articulated Guidelines.
The software allows the possibility to assess 17 services based on LULC layer
providing also the possibility to explore different scenarios (current and future).
The application requires considerable expertise and knowledge for the necessary
inputs.
– EcoServ GIS is a GIS toolkit developed by Durham Wildlife Trust and
downloadable from www.durhamwt.co.uk for mapping the capacity of an
ecosystem to supply a service as well as areas of demand for the service on a
National scale. It is not applicable at a local scale, it offers the possibility to use
readily available datasets for which high expert knowledge is not required. The
data set available is designed in the UK and avoids, for example the creation of a
base map assigning a habitat type to each parcel of land. The tool utilises a
modified version of CICES and includes models on provisioning, regulating and
cultural services with an additional tool to grade green space according to the
opportunities they provide for enjoying nature and wildlife.
– SENCE (Spatial Evaluation for Natural Capital Evidence): software developed
by Environment Systems Ltd. and maps ES looking at parcels of land and
considering: LULC, Geology and Soil, landscape characteristics (e.g. steep
slope, next to an urban area) and how it is managed. The outputs are Habitat
maps optimised combining a variety of data sets depending on their availability
and details. There is the possibility to include rules or construction based on
local knowledge and expert understanding of how habitat attributes deliver ES,
for e.g. the value (high, medium, low) assigned to each element in each dataset,
with weightings applied when different datasets are combined.
– ARIES (ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services),is a web application
based on explicit conceptualizations of ES, based on the breakdown of indi-
vidual benefits, each of which is modelled independently. It is possible to select
and use basic ES models that encode ecological production functions for regions
with limited data or model availability. ARIES also serves as a knowledge base
for reasoning algorithms to assemble models that are applied to spatial data for
measuring service provision and use. Moreover, it provides the application only
for certain case studies, Italy is not among them.
– LUCI (Land Utilisation and Capability Indicator): is a GIS toolbox which uses
multiple criteria analysis to explore the impacts of decisions on land use or
management changes. It has been designed as a negotiation tool to enable
engagement with local landowners and stakeholders by incorporating local
knowledge and validation into the model (Jackson et al. 2013). There are six
tools included in the suite which look at current and potential impacts of land
management change and synergies and trade-offs. The Polyscape tool has fre-
quently been used in Wales (Jackson et al. 2013). The tool is not free and the
services available are only related to agricultural production, erosion control,
carbon sequestration, flood mitigation and habitat provision.
– I-Tree (formerly known as Urban Forests Effects—UFORE): is a free software
specifically dedicated to quantifying in biophysical and monetary terms, the ES
“air purification” and “‘global climate regulation,” and the Ecosystem disservice
“air pollution” associated with biogenic emissions. The software has different
versions: I-tree Eco, I-tree Streets and I-Tree Landscape, is provided by the
Forest service of the US Department of Agriculture as a toolbox for city
planners and urban arborists to integrate tree benefits in landscape architecture
and apply urban forest effects model. It has been used in more than 50 cities
across the world, especially in the United States, to assess urban forest structure
and ES. (Nowak et al. 2006; Scholz et al. 2016).
After a careful review of a range of potential tools, there is software that provides
the possibility to assess a group of ES and others that are designed specifically for a
single type of ES. Considering the different potential expressed by the available
software, some limitations were found that make some of them impractical to use
for the selected local context:
(1) non-applicability at regional or local scale (the down-scaling is not permitted);
(2) currently not available or not free;
(3) mapping limited to specific ES;
(4) based on a pre-formulated database not available or suitable for Italian
conditions.
Finally, considering all of these limits, it was decided to test InVEST software
because it offers a comprehensive set of models for ES mapping including the
possibility to also add economic evaluation, to use a multi-layer analysis and to
compare different scenarios (current and future). The input data required depend on
the specific ES analysed, but it is always based on a common layer: the LULC
database. Furthermore, for the evaluation of the air quality, it was decided to
integrate the models of Carbon sequestration proposed by InVEST with I-Tree
software for more detailed considerations on Urban trees storage.
For the process of validation (step IV), the outputs were submitted, in paper
format, to national and international “Call for paper” within the Scientific
Committee to obtain an evaluation of the results.
The aim was to have feedback to understand if:
(1) The methodology used is valid;
(2) The inputs are correct;
(3) The outputs are interesting and remarkable; and
(4) There are aspects not considered that instead deserve to further study.
Most of the material written for the “Call for paper” was already published in
Journals, often with the possibility of presenting this research during a Conference.
Each case study was elaborated in different ways, using the appropriate scale, the
most suitable methodology and method. This evaluation system has allowed
highlighting of opportunities and weaknesses of each typology of case study having
the possibility to improve the assessment in subsequent experiences. For few cases,
it was also possible to propose modalities for implementing ES in Planning
instruments providing a legislative framework and emphasising how mapping could
be considered, for what purpose and in what way (Step V).
Below, it is proposed a summary table of the case study:
• Mapped ES;
• The typology of ES (according to CICES classification);
• The scale adopted;
• The methodology used;
• The explicit proposal for implementing the analysis in Planning, Project or
Program (PPP);
• The outputs (Table 2.3).
During the practical experiences in ES assessment and mapping, four important
issues have emerged and are presented below.
1. The Input Data
As previously mentioned, most of the practical applications were conducted
using InVEST which is a free software developed by the Natural Capital Project, as
a tool for geographic, economic and ecological accounting on ES, according to
specific types of LULC. The InVEST model was tested, with a different scale, for:
Habitat Quality, Carbon sequestration, Recreation and Scenic Quality.
All of these models require the creation of the input dataset that is fundamental
for the quality of the output. The data inputs vary according to the service under
investigation with data formats in GIS raster grids, GIS shapefiles or database tables
(.csv or .dbf). The data are very specific and require an appropriate scientific
knowledge on ecology as well as technical skill with geospatial software.
Table 2.3 Summary of the practical experiences on ES biophysical mapping
Case study #1
Ecosystem services Typology of ser- Software Mapping Scale Methodology Implementation
vices in PPP
Habitat quality / Local (Lodi mu- Local Plan (not
Regulating services InVEST Quantitative
Carbon sequestration nicipality) explicit)
Reference Paper:
Arcidiacono A., Ronchi S., Salata S. (2015), «Ecosystem Services assessment using invest as a tool to support decision making process:
critical issues and opportunities», In Gervasi O., Murgante B., Misra S., Gavrilova M., Torre C., Rocha A. M., Taniar D., Apduhan B. (A
cura di), Computational Science and Its Applications - ICCSA 2015. Pag. 35-49 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-21410-8_3
Testing InVEST software at the local scale for verifying the reliability of the software (weaknesses and opportunity) for integration in local
decision-making process
From the left: Habitat quality, Habitat degradation and Carbon Sequestration
Case study #2
Ecosystem Typology of ser- Software Mapping Scale Methodology Implementation in PPP
services vices
Regional
Regulating ser-
Habitat quality InVEST (Lombardy re- Quantitative Regional Landscape Plan
vices
gion)
Reference Paper:
Salata S., Ronchi S., Ghirardelli F. (2016), «Analisi qualitativa dei valori ambientali e dei servizi ecosistemici a supporto della
pianificazione paesaggistica», Territorio, 77, Franco Angeli, pp.45-52
Salata S, Ronchi S, Arcidiacono A, Ghirardelli F (2017) Mapping Habitat Quality in the Lombardy Region, Italy. One Ecosystem 2:
Adoption of the Habitat Quality (HQ) model as a proxy to review the areas with high natural value located in Mountain region integrating
quantitative approach with qualitative information. HQ was used for framing prescriptive purpose in the RLP of Lombardy region in Italy.
From the left: Habitat quality and overlay of Area with high natural level (defined in the art. 17) and HQ value
Case study #3
Ecosystem Typology of Software Mapping Scale Methodology Implementation in PPP
services services
Habitat quality / Regional Landscape
Regulating Overlapping analysis
Recreation potential Regional Plan
and Cultural InVEST , multiscale
/ Landscape (Lombardy region) Territorial Provincial
services
value Plan
Reference Paper:
Arcidiacono A., Ronchi S., Salata S. (2016), «Managing multiple Ecosystem Services for landscape conservation: a green infrastructure in
Lombardy region», Procedia Engineering, Volume 161, pp. 2297 - 2303
Define a methodological approach for the design of Regional Green Infrastructure (RGI) with a legal framework in the RLP, adopting a
multidisciplinary approach considering three fundamental ES: (natural quality, in terms of biodiversity integrity, cultural and recreation po-
tential landscape value considering the characters of the anthropic landscape).
From the left: Habitat quality, Landscape value and recreation potential
From the left: Multifunctional overlay analysis and selection of high value as a proposal of RGI
Case study #4
Ecosystem Typology of ser- Software Mapping Scale Methodology Implementation
services vices in PPP
Carbon storage & Regulating ser- Site-specific (city of Mi- Local Plan (not ex-
I Tree Quantitative
Air quality vices lano) plicit)
Reference Paper:
Scholz T., Ronchi S., Hof A. (2016), «Ökosystemdienstleistungen von Stadtbäumen in urban-industriellen Stadtlandschaften - Analyse,
Bewertung und Kartierung mit Baumkatastern», AGIT ‒ Journal für Angewandte Geoinformatik, 2-2016, pp. 462-471,
doi:10.14627/537622062
Comparative analysis to verify the functionality of urban ecosystems and demonstrate operational applications for assessment and valuation
of city trees comparative table of data collection methods in urban tree cadastre
Case study #5
Ecosystem Typology of ser- Software Mapping Scale Methodology Implementation
services vices in PPP
Regional Land-
Provincial and supra-local Sequential, qualita- scape Plan
(Varese, Lecco and Son- tive, multi-method, Territorial Provin-
Recreation Potential Cultural services ESTIMAP
drio Province + 3 National World cafè (work- cial Plan
Parks) shop) Park Plan
Local Plan
Reference Paper:
ESTIMAP recreation applied as a multi scale planning tool (paper in progress)
Evaluate the usability of a spatially explicit assessment of Nature-based Recreation and Tourism to inform multi-scale planning through
Practitioners and stakeholder involvement. This research activity was done with the technical support of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of
European Commission.The activity is still ongoing and the different steps of the research are presented below.
th
The activity involved stakeholders from 3 Provinces and four regional parks of Lombardy in a workshop held on 26 June 2016 adopting a
sequential, qualitative, multi-method approach (Creswell 2003) with the aim to:
1) involve practitioners and stakeholder in the co-production of the maps (co-produced);
2) obtain feedback from potential users of the ESTIMAP-recreation model (do the maps inform correctly);
3) adapt the model to fit the specific needs.
The participatory activity was organised following the World Cafe’ methodology (a simple, effective, and flexible format for hosting group
dialogue).
The participatory activity was framed as follows:
1) semi-structured discussion on potential activities in the area
a. participants were asked to list the recreation activities (related to nature and cultural heritage) important in their area;
b. no list of any activities was provided, leaving the participants free to express their ideas;
c. at the end of this round there was a common discussion.
2) semi-structured discussion on the classification of the activities and type of demand
a. hard and Soft recreation (where hard and soft recreation activities are classified in terms of “the level of experience required, the
level of fitness required, and the degree to which the participant is exposed to risk. Examples of soft recreation include wildlife
viewing or moderate hiking, whereas river rafting or rock climbing would usually be considered hard recreation)
b. type of demand and categories of users (recreation vs tourism)” (UNWTO and ATTA 2014).
3) semi-structured discussion on the type of data available
4) semi-structured discussion on what type of planning instruments this model can inform? A Cross-scale integration approach was pro-
posed: from regional planning to provincial plan until local strategies.
Case study #6
Ecosystem ser- Typology of ser- Software Mapping Scale Methodology Implementation
vices vices in PPP
Habitat conserva- Regulating ser- Site-specific (Northern part Local Plan (not ex-
R Quantitative
tion vices of Milano province) plicit)
Reference Paper:
Brambilla M., Ronchi S. (2016), «The park-view effect: residential development is higher at the boundaries of protected areas », Science of
The Total Environment, Volume 569-570, pp. 1402-1407 doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.223
Verify the impact of LULC changes in the surrounds of protected areas on conservation efficacy. The research experience, the multidisci-
plinary integration, for achieving a common goal on biodiversity conservation and environmental protection.
Changes in the occurrence of habitats potentially suitable for skylarks between 1999/2000 and 2012
For example, the Carbon storage and sequestration model aggregate the amount of
carbon stored in 4 pools, as explained in the InVEST user’s guide (Tallis. et al. 2011):
1. “Above-ground biomass. All living biomass above the Soil including stem,
stump, branches, bark, seeds and foliage;
2. Below-ground biomass. All living biomass of live roots. Fine roots of less than
(suggested) 2 mm diameter are sometimes excluded because these often cannot
be distinguished empirically from Soil organic matter or litter;
3. Soil organic matter. Includes organic matter in mineral and organic Soils
(including peat) to a specified depth chosen by the country and applied con-
sistently through the time series;
4. Dead organic matter including litter as well as lying and standing dead wood”.
Moreover “this information is then associated with the LULC type, for each LULC
classes the model requires an estimate of the amount of carbon in at least one of the
four pools. The model aggregates the carbon in each of the four pools providing an
estimated total carbon storage in each grid cell and across the whole area of
interest” (Tallis et al. 2011). Considering the details of data required to “run” the
model, the creation of the input is time-consuming to obtain primarily on the
LULC, to have a detailed layer that includes numerous categories (for example it is
important to have different typologies of wood areas distinguishing deciduous
evergreen, coniferous, chestnut woods, poplars,…), and secondly on the 4 carbon
pools having a scientific knowledge of these processes.
As explained by Arcidiacono et al. (2015), “It is important to specify that the
application of InVEST strictly depends on the territorial context and the degree of detail
of each single data set. For instance, in a low dense residential area, the detection of the
simple LULC change is highly affected by territorial morphology, by settlement
typology, and by infrastructural distribution. Territorial conditions weigh heavily the
production of maps of the model and the organisation of input dataset (e.g. the weights
assigned to each single data) is crucial too. For practical application, it was selected to
experiment the model on the municipality of Lodi6; the choice is due to the presence of
different databases useful to create the required dataset. In this case, the Topographic
Database (DBtop) was elaborated for the Province of Lodi.7 The DBtop is the more
detailed LULC framework used as a cartographic base for town planning instruments.
The survey dates back to 2008 with a map scale up from 1:500 to 1:1.000. Further, for
the Province of Lodi much additional geospatial information is also available with high
resolution (such as the Land Capability Classification—LCC, the constraints (archi-
tectural, historical and natural), the natural protected areas (Natural parks, Natura 200
sites), the slopes and STM) and is freely downloadable from the Geo website of Italian
Government”8 (Arcidiacono et al. 2015).
The data on the four carbon pools were collected after a literature review on
research and projects specifically dedicated to that topic (Ministero delle Politiche
Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Corpo Forestale dello Stato; VV. AA. 2002;
Ponce-Hernandez 2004; Petrella and Piazzi 2005; Metzger et al. 2006; Gardi et al.
6
An Italian town of 44,000 inhabitants with a territorial extension of 41 km2 located in the south
part of the Lombardy region.
7
Research outputs are included in the paper “Arcidiacono et al. (2015), «Ecosystem Services
assessment using invest as a tool to support decision making process: critical issues and oppor-
tunities» , In Gervasi O., Murgante B., Misra S., Gavrilova M., Torre C., Rocha A. M., Taniar D.,
Apduhan B. (A cura di), Computational Science And Its Applications—ICCSA 2015. Page 35–49
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21410-8_3.
8
http://www.dati.gov.it/.
2007; ERSAF 2013). Afterwards, a .csv table was created with the amount of
carbon stored (expressed in mgHa−1) for the four carbon pools and associated to
each LULC of the DBtop. The data required by InVEST are very specific and
detailed, so their assumptions are often simplified with a margin of uncertainty.
This is the principal limit of the InVEST model and, generally, for all the models
that work with a large amount of data.
The same problem with the collection of input data was found using the I-Tree
software where the creation of input data was very time consuming and the research
for the data was challenging. I-Tree software estimates the deposition of air pol-
lutants (expressed in kg for O3, NO2, PM10 and SO2) and air pollution removal
(expressed in kg for NO2, PM10 and VOC) by street tree population (USDA Forest
Service 2008). The application of this software required detailed information on the
tree population with data on Tree species (genus, species and varieties), condition
of the Trees (High, DBH—diameter at breast height, condition of wood and foli-
age), data on the location of the trees (front yard, planting strips, cut out, median,
…) plus additional information on the city cost (annual planting, annual pruning,
annual tree removal and disposal, …) in order to add a cost-benefit analysis.
The necessary data are comparable to those of a tree cadastre, databases quite
common in some European cities (especially in Germany, Austria, Great Britain)
but still little used in Italy. The first Italian experiences on the Tree cadastre, mainly
developed for management and security issues include only tree mapping (e.g. the
city of Pavia) without the detailed information necessary to run the model. The
selection of the city of Milan as a case study for Air quality mapping was related to
the availability of information. A specific study was done comparing different tree
cadastre of the cities of Bochum, Duisburg, Essen and Milano to show the diversity
of the information available and the structure of the database.
The availability of data was not a problem for the Recreation potential assessment
because the mapping was created integrating knowledge from various scientific and
social bodies and individual stakeholders (the stakeholders were involved in a
participatory activity organised following the World Cafe’ methodology, a simple,
effective, and flexible format for hosting group dialogue).
Recreation potential is classified as a Cultural ES (CES), differently, from pro-
visioning and regulating services, CES have not yet been fully integrated into
operational frameworks. One of the reasons for this is the lack of appropriate data,
mostly for large-scale assessments.
The lack of data is also due to the characteristics of CES that, by definition, are
transdisciplinary and need to be analysed from multiple perspectives (Paracchini
et al. 2014). The involvement of stakeholders and practitioners with territorial
knowledge was useful in resolving the lack of data and for the co-production of the
maps with spatially explicit analysis of the Nature-based recreation opportunities
available in the study area.
Moreover, to solve the lack of data, possible useful information may be collected
using another discipline traditionally used for another kind of evaluation, for
example, for the impact assessment of the so-called “Park-view effect”9 (Brambilla
and Ronchi 2016) the evaluation of the LULC changes made by matrix transition
was not sufficient to verify a potential alteration on ES provision (for example
related to the quality of habitat).
The quantitative analysis was associated with the qualitative study regarding the
impact on biodiversity through habitat loss, landscape fragmentation, alteration of
animal dispersal patterns. This method was therefore integrated with data on the
environmental suitability for Skylark (Alauda arvensis; Aves: Alaudidae), consid-
ered one of the commonest species (of bird) in the entire study area for half of the
past Century, occurring almost everywhere in cultivated areas. In this case, the
combination of two different disciplinary approaches (multi-disciplinary method)
has solved the issue of the availability of data producing an interesting result for
both. The collaboration and the sharing of information, often considered at first
glance not available, can allow effective disciplinary integrations.
2. The Scale Definition
The problem of the scale definition of ES, explained in the previous chapters, is
one of the most critical issues from a theoretical point of view and also in the
practical application.
Having understood the problem of the scale mismatch, the case study assumed
the ecological scale of ES supply associated with it, in several cases, to the scale
useful for really supporting ES policies. The aim was to use a Multi-scale or
Across-scale assessment, in which specific attention is paid to the issue of how the
scales interact, by learning from the weaknesses revealed during the Literature
review proposed in Part II.
The proposal for a new Green Infrastructure (RGI) for the Lombardy region was
conceived at the regional scale, giving an overall framework as a strategic approach
to guarantee the preservation of high landscape values, but the application is
through single landscape regeneration project. The scale of the project depends on
the characteristics of the landscape to regenerate/restore. The aim of the RGI is
much more dedicated to steering local projects of landscape valorisation, but within
an overall strategic plan to re-define relations among settlements, open fields,
natural values and rural characters of the territory. In this case study, the research
sought to create a dialogue between the ecological scale of three ES (that compose
the RGI: naturalistic, recreational and landscape function) with the institutional
scale, based on administrative limits, inadequate to respond to landscape regener-
ation. The implementation of the RGI must be managed on scales ranging from the
regional to the local guaranteeing, in this way that interventions and/or investments
for specific regeneration actions are aligned and coordinated in a general strategy.
9
The park-view is defined as the LULC changes in the surrounding of natural protected areas that
might compromise their conservation efficacy, and thus the potential attractive effect that protected
areas may exert on urban development is particularly concerning (Brambilla and Ronchi 2016).
The same concept was also used for mapping the Recreation potential.
Recognizing that these activities are naturally based, it was selected to combine the
information at supra-locale scale (that one of the Regional natural parks where there
are numerous possibilities for recreation/cultural activities) with the provincial scale
(the institution with competencies for the promotion of sustainable development,
tourism and recreation). The final aim of the study was to produce an analysis that
can be integrated into a multiscale-planning system.
3. The Planning Implementation
Considering the results of the Literature review, ES assessment and mapping often
remains a study without being included or discussed during the decision-making
process. The aim of few case studies was to use ES mapping to propose solutions to a
specific need, often acting in normative gaps of planning tools. The idea was to
identify, from the beginning, in which ways ES consideration could support
Planning, proposing a new fact-finding layer and legislative tools. Principally, the
proposals aim to give technical robustness to specific sustainable analysis.
Among the case study, the concept of ES was reprise in the legislative system of the
RLP through the Habitat quality assessment that was included in the cartographic
knowledge of the Landscape Plan in order to provide a current state of ES, scalable at
local level, and to redesign the area with a high degree of nature according to an ES
approach. This inclusion of ES consideration is an important recognition of ES from the
regional institution that decided to protect ES with a specific normative article that
avoids possible LULC changes that can compromise their provision. Moreover, always
in the context of the RLP, the spatial distribution of RGI gives the possibility of
integrating landscaping values as an additional tool of RLP which guarantee the
recognition of multiple ES values. RGI was implemented as one of the main legislative
layers in a regional plan; this implies that all the local administrations had to recount to
this instrument when defining their local plan. The ES promotion at the regional level
could also contribute to raising awareness among decision-makers and stakeholders but
is also necessary to build citizens’ consciousness. The process for integrating these
considerations into a Spatial plan was not immediate and easy. Moreover, the technical
robustness of ES analysis overcame some approaches giving greater credibility to
choices, for example, it changed the way of identifying constraints using only altitude
as a limit for defining borders. Before (in the previous RLP), this choice was related to
the general assumption that the mountain areas preserve a higher natural value because
they are unsuitable for anthropic pressure. This approach excludes the area in the flat
region with high biodiversity value. For these reasons, in the new edition of the RLP a
new methodology base on ES that integrates quantitative and qualitative approaches
was considered. Another aspect that contributes to integrating ES in Planning was
related to some legislative gaps that have tried to be filled with new fact-finding layers.
Differently from the previous ones but with the same purpose, the definition of
the Recreation potential model has involved different stakeholders in the
co-production of maps, and adapted it to their specific needs for actively informing
multi-scale planning reports/documents. The implementation of an ES approach in
planning was different from the RLP experience. In fact, in the RLP case study, the
process of ES implementation was characterised, before by mapping ES by sci-
entific technicians, and then by its validation by the stakeholders (mainly policy
makers), differently, for the recreation potential model, the two steps are carried out
simultaneously with mutual exchange of interests.
4. Awareness, Stakeholders and Competencies
Mapping and assessments ES have increased significantly in the last few years
producing knowledge, especially on ecological functions and economic values,
useful for decision makers. ES assessments are increasingly used in decision ori-
ented processes, including environmental assessments (both EIA and SEA).
What is questioned is the final use of that “new” knowledge and its influence in
the decision-making process. Stakeholder involvement is a key aspect of successful
implementation of ecosystem-based management. In fact, generally, consensus in
the decision process depends on their understood as “Any group or individual who
can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objective”
(Freeman 1984) that includes groups of interest such as representatives of locally
affected communities, national or local government authorities, politicians, civil
society organizations and businesses.
The issue of stakeholder’s involvement is crucial in order to gain traction in
science and policy arenas, facilitating closer engagement between scientists and
stakeholders. The closer collaboration and mutual learning between researchers,
communities and policy makers contribute to building trust for the achievement of
broad acceptance of planning decisions (Fürst et al. 2014).
Regarding that, two main issues emerged: the first is on how stakeholders need
to be involved, and the second on how targeting the ES assessment/mapping to be
relevant for decision making.
During the experiences elaborated by the author, in the assessment of CES
(Recreation potential of natural based areas) the stakeholder involvement was based
on their territorial competences and knowledge information essential for this kind of
mapping. In fact, cultural benefits such as aesthetic values and sense-of-place are
irreplaceable in a landscape (Plieninger et al. 2013), often linked to geographic
features and LULC, moreover CES are the ES more important to people than those
from other categories and potentially leading to enhanced sustainability of local
communities and their overall wellbeing (Plieninger et al. 2015). In mapping
recreation potential, the stakeholder involvement was useful not only in acquiring
“better” information and knowledge regarding the criteria pointed out but also for a
richer awareness, due to the experiential knowledge/familiarity that stakeholders
bring to the context. The participants have different background experiences
including landscape ecology, tourism and recreation, planning, nature and biodi-
versity. Considering the different sources of knowledge and experiences and the
diverse impact on direct inputs for policy improvement, the starting point of the
participatory activity was to set common definitions in order to have a common
language with shared concepts and reference systems. Beyond the participatory
method (types, modalities and tools), the question matter is based primarily on
sharing crucial elements of ES (such as the definition, the classification, the
methodologies adopted for mapping) in order to have common ES knowledge.
The knowledge sharing on ES was the major hurdle to overcome in order to

continue with the later stages of the participatory activity. Without a common
language, the participatory process has no reason to exist. As an example a con-
ceptual dilemma on what is the phenomenon of LULC changes (Soil sealing or
Land take process?) was one of the trivial issues that various disciplines have faced
in recent years causing considerable difficulties. The lack of clearness has led to
significant complications in its knowledge, in the adoption of appropriate policies to
solve problems and in the entire decision-making process.ES is quite a recent topic
and its knowledge is still in progress especially among decision makers.
Therefore any form of terminological and methodological discrepancy must be
discouraged. In fact, even if only recently the ES concept has become quite
prominent, especially in its use in science and policy making, ES is still unknown in
practice and has not been associated in the (planning) decision-making process
(Fürst et al. 2014).
In the end, implementation of an ES approach must include awareness-raising,
mainstreaming and communication essential for both policy-makers and the broader
public. This requires an endeavour paying particular attention to the knowledge
systems and governance models avoiding knowledge discrepancy.
In addition to the practical experiences done by the book author, there was the
necessity to add information from a select crucial case study (at international level)
useful in appreciating the intensity of ES integration in Planning process. The aim
of such selection was to answer the question “How and in which phases must the
ES approach be included in the planning/assessment process?”
Observing the different experiences in the field of ES, relevant practices were
done in mapping ES (such as testing software, applying different methodologies,
evaluating the outputs adopting different scale) and ES assessment (from the
quantitative, qualitative and monetary point of view).
Some case studies were focused on the process of integration; that is how to
render the considerations that emerged in the mapping and assessment phase
operational. Different research and case studies are mainly methodological,
proposing a discussion on the perspectives of integration and/or promoting tools,
maps or software to facilitate this inclusion. In this context, it lacks the practical
application of the methodological proposal testing if the tools/maps/software can
address the decisions and could influence policy makers. The Literature research
was done using the electronic database of Science Direct and Scopus, the combi-
nation of keywords was changed several times using among the many: “ecosystem
services integration planning”, “case study ecosystem services planning”, “SEA
and Planning”. In fact, among the literature, there are great many case studies for
ES integration in Planning and/or Assessment process proposing ES mapping and
assessment but without the last important step: the adoption and the application of
the considerations that emerged. Few case studies have made the ES integration in
Planning feasible, and they are presented below in a summary table composed of
the following information: objectives, main contents, and bibliographical reference.
The selection was made considering few trends and first experiences for ES inte-
gration in Planning, using one sample case that represents a current.
(1) Araucanía (Chile)

Area of 31,842 km2 with a population of 890,000 inhabitants.
Objectives
Construction of land-use scenarios associated with different policies to assess the
future provision of ES.
Main contents
In the research, a method base on the generation of future land-use scenarios that
simulate the implementation of alternative zoning policies was proposed. The effects of
the land-use scenarios on selected ecosystem services are then modelled and compared
to a set of metrics. In Chile, Spatial plan at the regional level is regulated by the Plan
Regional de Ordenamiento Territorial (PROT) that promotes the development of a
land-use zoning policy for defining the preferred land uses for the whole territory,
rather than for an urban area only. The land use scenario is composed of four main
stages: I) land-use change analysis and modelling, II) projecting future land use
quantities, III) setting incentives and constraints to future land-use transitions according
to the different zoning policies, and IV) projecting future land-use scenarios (Fig. 2.7).
Five ES were mapped: carbon sequestration, water purification, Soil retention,
habitat provision and timber production. The first three were performed using InVEST,
the habitat provision was modelled using MaxEnt (Phillips et al. 2004), and the last by
considering the land area covered by plantations. Three alternatives were predicted:
– ZP0: the zero-alternative where no constraints or preferences on the distribution
of future
– ZP1: this policy favours the development of new conifer plantations in the
northern and south-western sectors of the region and promotes new agricultural
areas in the central part
– ZP2: this policy promotes conifer plantations in the eastern and western sectors
and new agricultural areas in larger tracts in the southern and central sectors of
the region (Fig. 2.8).
The following metrics were developed to compare the effects of the zoning
policies on the selected ES:
1. Percentage of change in service provision across the region with respect to the
2007 baseline;
2. Percentage of the landscape where the service is preserved. In any given cell, a
service is considered preserved if its 2050 value is at least equivalent to 90% of its
2007 value;
3. Percentage of the landscape where the service is degraded. In any given cell, a
service is considered degraded if its 2050 value is less than 50% of its 2007 value
(Geneletti 2013).
(2) Southeast Pampas Region (Argentina)
The flat region that comprises more than 50 million ha suitable for crop and cattle
production.
Fig. 2.7 Flow-chart of the analysis conducted to generate the land use scenarios (rectangles show
operations, parallelograms show input/output) (Geneletti 2013)
Fig. 2.8 Results of the ecosystem service modelling for Rate 1 (time horizon: 2050) (Geneletti
2013)
Objectives
Adoption of an ES methodological approach to be used in Land use planning for
agricultural development.
Main contents
The research proposes the assessment of ES variations, as a consequence of land
use changes, for evaluating environmental costs and benefits of different land
planning decisions. SEA can be the tool used to integrate ES in Land use planning.
In this context, the focus was to increase the sustainability of agricultural devel-
opment balancing economic competitiveness, social equity and environmental
health that is the integration of relevant biophysical, economic, social and political
considerations from the beginning of the decision process. Considering SEA pro-
cedure, a methodological protocol presented of five steps was defined to incorporate
ES approach in conjunction with SEA for rural Land use planning (Barral and
Maceira 2012) (Fig. 2.9).
Fig. 2.9 Strategic environmental assessment methodology proposed to be applied in rural land
use planning (Barral and Maceira 2012)
The three social priorities regarding provision and regulation of ES were con-
sidered: water purification and provision, Soil protection and direct goods provision
(food mainly from agriculture).
(3) Thun region (Switzerland)
Area of 18,023 ha with a population of 106,483 inhabitants.
Objectives
Development of a new support tool (called PALM) for the allocation of urban
development zones around ES and locational factors, and its implemented on a
web-based spatial decision support platform.
Main contents
PALM (“Potential Allocation of urban development areas for sustainable Land
Management”) aims to support the debate around and planning of a suitable allo-
cation of building zone reserves and to inform various broader debates about the
trade-offs between environmental, social and economic aspects of land use allo-
cation. In order to determine the suitability of land for a certain use. Multi-criteria
decision analysis (MCDA) approaches have been identified as highly useful, as they
allow integration of different aspects of decision-making and preferences while
maintaining high transparency. PALM was developed in eight steps. The starting
point is the definition of the main goals then operationally divided into fifteen
evaluation criteria including seven ES and eight location factors. The process ends
with a workshop in the frame of a regional planning process with stakeholders from
the case study area.
PALM aims at supporting the involvement of various stakeholders in decision
processes related to the revised Swiss Spatial planning regulation. The support tool
was tested in the Landscape and Spatial planning process in Switzerland that is
organised across three spatial scales (national, cantonal and municipal). The
web-based PALM platform works across the multiscale level.
The interactive PALM tool provides two main contributors required to adapt
planning processes to current challenges: (1) raising awareness about nature’s
limited resources and (2) integrating stakeholder preferences by individual selec-
tions of criteria and weights. PALM demonstrates that ES can only be traded-off for
location factors if the perimeter of the case study ranges across municipalities.
Planning across administrative boundaries is currently required under the revised
Spatial planning regulation in Switzerland, but is still difficult to implement.
(4) Alcochete (Portugal)
Area of 128 km2 with a population of 18,000 inhabitants.
Objectives
Identifying the steps in SEA process for ES integration exploring the role that SEA
can play in placing ES in the decision-making agenda, and to discuss the relevance
and possible approaches to integrating ES in SEA, by positioning bio-diversity, and
the services provided by ES, as a key factor in decision-making.
Fig. 2.10 ES inclusive SEA methodology, based on strategic-based SEA model (Partidário 2000)
Main contents
Alcochete is a municipality aiming to duplicate its population after a new 17 km
bridge, built in the mid-1990s, improved its accessibility to Lisbon City. With only
6% of artificial land, Alcochete lies across a most extensive Portuguese wetland, a
Natura 2000 site of European relevance due to its habitats and migratory species. In
the case study, the methodology for ES consideration in SEA follows three basic
steps: (1) identification and mapping of relevant ES and stakeholders (including
local communities); (2) prioritisation of ES; and (3) assessment of ES for man-
agement and monitoring (Fig. 2.10).
In the SEA process, the research adopts a participatory approach to identify
priority ES in a Spatial planning context of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area. The
approach allows working with stakeholders holding different levels of knowledge
on the spatial plan and ES. This approach can be used as a guiding framework for
stakeholder engagement in ES-focused planning processes. It can also be used for a
scoping process, within SEA, or for an initial/rapid ES assessment, where the goal
could be to conduct a ‘quick and dirty’ assessment that can be further expanded.
(5) Roncegno (Valsugana valley, Italy)
Area of 3805 km2 with a population of 3000 inhabitants.
Objectives
Definition of a method based on multiple scales and species-specific assessment of
habitat quality to support land-use decisions at the local level.
Main contents
For the estimation of the ecological value (composed by Habitat values and con-
nectivity values) a qualitative hierarchical multi-attribute decision model (MADM)
was used for classifying or evaluating options, where a complex decision is
decomposed into smaller and less complex sub-problems, consisting of a
multi-level hierarchic structure of objectives, criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives.
The contribution in urban planning is illustrated assessing the impact of a proposed
urban development in pre- and post-development conditions, which were simulated
by changing the land use to an urban area and re-running the evaluation. Expected
changes in habitat values and connectivity were detected and quantified. The results
of the impact assessment were used to suggest case-specific ecological compen-
sation measures, aimed at achieving no-net-loss of habitat values and connectivity.
The application of a compensation method allows the potential impact of planning
scenarios on habitats to be anticipated and site-specific measures and types of
ecological compensation to be figured out, valuable in the design phase of land-
scape planning (Scolozzi and Geneletti 2012) (Fig. 2.11).
After having summarily presented the case studies considered crucial for process
integration, they could be summarised according to the categories used for a
practical study in order to make the topic of discussion coherent. The categories are:
Fig. 2.11 Planning scenario and ecological compensation proposals (Scolozzi and Geneletti
2012)
1. ES mapped;
2. Typology of ES [according to the CICES (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010a)];
3. Mapping scale adopted; and
4. Methodology assumed.
Also, there were added reflections to (5) Policy consideration and opportunity
for Planning implementation. This last aspect has guided the choice of the case
study to integrate the considerations emerged during the Ph.D. practical experiences
(Table 2.4).
From the literature case study some crucial issues emerged:
The inclusion of ES is mainly related to the SEA process as the arena in which
environmental considerations inform, support and influence decision-making process.
ES are incorporated in a different step of the SEA process, frequently in the
Scenario analysis proposing different alternative solutions due to planning decisions
and make the current state and trends of such ES comparable. Another important
step in which ES are included is for the knowledge system (scoping phase) having a
“new” and different overview that links environment and human wellbeing. ES are
also used for the stakeholder’s involvement in various ways: for the communities,
ES were useful for qualitative mapping including their perceptions, sensitivities and
views in a Plan and in a decision-making process; for policy makers, ES can orient
and clarify decision assumptions in an integrated way. Finally, the monitoring
phase of SEA assumes with ES more efficiency including not only quantitative
indicator but also qualitative considerations.
The scale mismatch of ES assessment also emerges in this case of study in which ES
considerations face the institutional scale typically adopted in Planning.
The differences between the scales assumed for Planning and the characters of ES
have considerably complicated the process in predicting the effects of spatial plans.
What has emerged is a progressive disengagement from the rigidity of the insti-
tutional scale assuming a multi-scale approach for mapping and assessing ES.
Landscape-scale is widely recognised as the logical setting for ES application due
to the combination of historical, social, cultural and environmental aspects and
dynamics. Principally, the assessment is made at the most appropriate ecological
scale; that depends on the specific ES, and after brought back to the Institutional
scale in which decisions are made. This highlight the difficulties already explained
in dealing with environmental issues in the decision-making process in which Plans
are not modelled to host ES considerations correctly.
The adoption of an ecological compensation method to re-define and improve
proposals for land-use change.
The implementation of compensation measure is in line with what is promoted by
EC (European Commission 2012), primary experiences—similar to that proposed
by Scolozzi and Geneletti in the last Literature case study (Scolozzi and Geneletti
2012)—started to include the mitigation and compensation measure for the
restoration of the environmental damage. The incremental measures are included
Table 2.4 Summary table of Literature case study with ES integration in planning process
Ecosystem services Typology of services Mapping scale Methodology
Case study [1] Carbon sequestration, Water purification, Soil Regulating and Regional Quantitative
retention, habitat provision, timber production provisioning services
Policy consideration ∙ Integration of ES in the scenario analysis of SEA. The comparison of alternatives is one of the fundamental tools of SEA, for the
future implementation of plans and policies
∙ The analysis of trade-offs associated to planning choices at the regional scale
Case study [2] Water purification and provision, Soil protection Regulating and Department defined on the natural Quantitative
provisioning services characteristic (no institutional)
Policy consideration ∙ The inclusion of ES in a strategic plan leading to the desired goals and applied by local authorities on a regular basis
∙ Screening and scoping analysis of SEA for the organisation and interpretation of available and generated information on ES, and
for the assessment of environmental impact from land use changes
∙ Definition of land use alternatives according to different social priorities in developmental goals (scenario analysis of SEA)
Case study [3] 7 ES Regulating, Landscape-scale with multiscale Multi-criteria
provisioning and decision
cultural services analysis
Policy consideration ∙ Interactive stakeholder workshop involving the municipalities in supra-municipal planning
∙ Multiple scale approach (national, cantons and regional)
∙ Multi-criteria analysis
2.4 Experiences on Assessment and Mapping Ecosystem Services
Case study [4] n.a. n.a. Institutional scale Qualitative

Policy consideration ∙ Participatory framework for scoping process within SEA
∙ ES assessment for management and monitoring, as legally required in SEA process
Case study [5] Habitat quality Regulating Multi scale/local scale Qualitative
Policy consideration ∙ Compensation method for the potential impact of planning scenarios
∙ Land use scenario in pre- and post-development conditions
∙ Multiscale approach
*
n.a. = not available
71
with a quantitative assessment in addition to the spatial distribution. A new

necessity emerged in this sense to address compensation by looking at a strategic
level of decision-making rather than at the individual project level only. Spatial
plans affect ES setting the frame for urban transformation and consequent land take
process, thus representing a relevant field of application for ecological
compensation.
References
Arcidiacono A, Ronchi S, Salata S (2015) Ecosystem services assessment using InVEST as a tool
to support decision making process: critical issues and opportunities. In: Computational science
and its applications—ICCSA 2015, pp 35–49
Bailey RG (1985) The factor of scale in ecosystems mapping. Environ Manage 9:271–276
Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P et al (2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild nature.
Science 297:950–953. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1073947
Barton DN, Lindhjem H, Magnussen NK, Holen S, Norge S (2012) Valuation of ecosystem
services from Nordic Watersheds
Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K (2012) Ecosystem properties, potentials and services—the
EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol Indic 21:7–16. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.014
Biggs R, Schlüter M, Biggs D et al (2012) Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of
ecosystem services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:421–448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
environ-051211-123836
Borgström ST, Elsqmvist T, Angelstam P, Alfsen-Norodom C (2006) Scale mismatches in
management of urban landscapes. Ecol Soc 11. https://doi.org/10.1097/mcc.
0b013e32807f2aa5
Boyd J (2011) Seminar 3: valuation of ecosystem services-economic valuation, ecosystem
services, and conservation strategy. Measuring nature’s balance sheet 2011 ecosystem services
seminar series: catalyzing a community of practice that integrates nature’s true value into
workable solutions to achieve conservation outcomes. Coastal Quest and Gordon and Betty
Moore Foundation, Palo Alto, pp 178–189
Brambilla M, Ronchi S (2016) The park-view effect: residential development is higher at the
boundaries of protected areas. Sci Total Environ 569–570:1402–1407. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2016.06.223
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F (2010) Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services—a
concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc Online 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3097/lo.
200915
Burkhard B, Crossman N, Nedkov S et al (2013) Mapping and modelling ecosystem services for
science, policy and practice. Ecosyst Serv 4:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.005
Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Müller F (2014) Ecosystem service potentials, flows and
demands-concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landsc Online 34:1–32.
https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434
Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR et al (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services.
PLoS Biol 4:2138–2152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379
Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and
navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
References 73
Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv
Costanza R, Liu S (2014) Ecosystem services and environmental governance: comparing China
and the U.S. Asia Pacific Policy Stud 1:160–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.16
Costanza R, D’Arge R, de Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
Creswell JW (2003) Research design. In: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
California
Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S et al (2013) A blueprint for mapping and modelling
ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 4:4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001
Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Ecology Soc 392
de Groot R, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and
valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408. https://doi.org/
10.1016/s0921-8009(02)00089-7
de Groot R, Alkemade R, Braat L et al (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem
services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex
7:260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
Dendoncker N, Keune H, Jacobs S, Gómez-Baggethun E (2013) Inclusive ecosystem services
valuation. Ecosyst Serv Glob Issues, Local Pract 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-
419964-4.00001-9
Duraiappah AK, Asah ST, Brondizio ES et al (2014) Managing the mismatches to provide
ecosystem services for human well-being: a conceptual framework for understanding the new
commons. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 7:94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.031
ERSAF (2013) Il ruolo dell’agricoltura conservativa nel bilancio del carbonio AgriCO2ltura
European Commission (2012) Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil
sealing
Fisher B, Turner KR, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision
making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
Fisher B, Bateman IJ, Turner RK (2011) Valuing ecosystem services: benefits, values, space and
time. Ecosyst Serv Econ Work Pap Ser 11. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203847602
Folke C, Pritchard L, Berkes F et al (2007) The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions:
ten years later. Ecol Soc 12:30
Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston
Fremier AK, DeClerck FAJ, Bosque-Pérez NA et al (2013) Understanding spatiotemporal lags in
ecosystem services to improve incentives. Bioscience 63:472–482. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.
2013.63.6.9
Fürst 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 29:1435–1446.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0052-9
García-Nieto AP, García-Llorente M, Iniesta-Arandia I, Martín-López B (2013) Mapping forest
ecosystem services: from providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosyst Serv 4:126–138. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.03.003
Gardi C, Brenna S, Solaro S et al (2007) The carbon sequestration potential of soils data from
Northern Italian regions. Ital J Agron—Riv Agron 2:143–150
Gibson CC, Ostrom E, Ahn TK (2000) The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global
change: a survey. Ecol Econ 32:217–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00092-0
Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN (2012) Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban
planning. Ecol Econ 86:235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
Gómez-Baggethun E, Gren Å, Barton DN et al (2013a) Urban ecosystem services
Gómez-Baggethun E, Kelemen E, Martín-López B et al (2013b) Scale misfit in ecosystem service
governance as a source of environmental conflict. Soc Nat Resour 26:1202–1216. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08941920.2013.820817
Gómez-baggethun E, Martín-López B, Barton D et al (2014) State-of-the-art report on integrated
valuation of ecosystem services
Grêt-Regamey A, Weibel B, Bagstad KJ et al (2014) On the effects of scale for ecosystem services
mapping. PLoS One 9:e112601. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112601
Guerry AD, Polasky S, Lubchenco J et al (2015) Natural capital and ecosystem services informing
decisions: from promise to practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:7348–7355. https://doi.org/10.
1073/pnas.1503751112
Haines-Young RH, Potschin MB (2009) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and
human well-being. Ecosyst Ecol New Synth 31. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511750458
Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010a) Common international classification of ecosystem goods
and services (CICES): consultation on version 4, August–December 2012. EEA Framework
Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. Contract 30. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10650
Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010b) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and
human well-being. In: Raffaelli DG, Frid CLJ (eds) Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 110–139
2005.04.005
Helian L, Shilong W, Guanglei J, Ling Z (2011) Changes in land use and ecosystem service values
in Jinan, China. Energy Procedia 5:1109–1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.195
Jackson B, Pagella T, Sinclair F et al (2013) Polyscape: a GIS mapping framework providing
efficient and spatially explicit landscape-scale valuation of multiple ecosystem services. Landsc
Urban Plan 112:74–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.014
Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology?
Ecol Lett 8:468–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00751.x
Langemeyer J, Gómez-Baggethun E, Haase D et al (2016) Bridging the gap between ecosystem
service assessments and land-use planning through multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA).
Environ Sci Policy 62:45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.013
Lautenbach S, Kugel C, Lausch A, Seppelt R (2011) Analysis of historic changes in regional
ecosystem service provisioning using land use data. Ecol Indic 11:676–687. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolind.2010.09.007
Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L et al (2012) Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and
decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv 1:31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoser.2012.06.004
Maes J, Liquete C, Teller A et al (2016) An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services
in support of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Ecosyst Serv 17:14–23. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023
Malinga R, Gordon LJ, Jewitt G, Lindborg R (2014) Mapping ecosystem services across scales
and continents—a review. Ecosyst Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.006
Martinez-Alier J, Munda G, O’Neill J (1998) Weak comparability of values as a foundation for
ecological economics. Ecol Econ 26:277–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00120-1
Martínez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P (2012) Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply:
a review. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 8:17–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.
2012.663792
Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, García-Llorente M, Montes C (2014) Trade-offs across
value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol Indic 37:220–228. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003
McCauley DJ (2006) Selling out on nature. Nature 443:27–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/443027a
Medcalf K, Small N, Finch C et al (2014) Further development of a spatial framework for mapping
ecosystem services
Metzger MJJ, Rounsevell MDA, Acosta-Michlik L et al (2006) The vulnerability of ecosystem
services to land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.
2005.11.025
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a) Dealing with scale. In: Ecosystems and human
well-being: a framework for assessment, pp 107–147
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b) Ecosystems and human well-being
References 75
Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Corpo Forestale dello Stato C per la R e la
S in A Inventario nazionale delle foreste e dei serbatoi forestali di carbonio. http://www.sian.it/
Munda G (2002) “Social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE)”: methodological foundations and
operational consequences. Eur J Oper Res 1–19
Nagendra H, Ostrom E (2012) Polycentric governance of multifunctional forested landscapes. Int J
Commons 6:104–133. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.321
Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R et al (2008) Global mapping of ecosystem services and
conservation priorities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9495–9500. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
0707823105
Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC (2006) Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the
United States. Urban For Urban Green 4:115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.007
Paracchini ML, Zulian G, Kopperoinen L et al (2014) Mapping cultural ecosystem services: a
framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecol Indic 45:371–385.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.018
Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S (2006) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent
developments. France, Paris
Petrella F, Piazzi M (2005) Il carbonio organico negli ecosistemi agrari e forestali del Piemonte:
misure ed elaborazioni. Torino
Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying
cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land use policy 33:118–129. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013
Plieninger T, Bieling C, Fagerholm N et al (2015) The role of cultural ecosystem services in
landscape management and planning. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:28–33. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cosust.2015.02.006
Polasky S, Nelson E, Lonsdorf E et al (2005) Conserving species in a working landscape: land use
with biological and economic objectives. Ecol Appl 15:1387–1401. https://doi.org/10.1890/
1051-0761(2005)15[2209:e]2.0.co;2
Ponce-Hernandez R (2004) Assessing carbon stocks and modelling win-win scenarios of carbon
sequestration through land-use changes. Roma
Primmer E, Furman E, Potschin M et al (2013) Bridging the gap between ecosystem service
assessments and land-use planning through multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Ecol
Econ 4:203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.08.013
Schägner JP, Brander L, Maes J, Hartje V (2013) Mapping ecosystem services’ values: current
practice and future prospects. Ecosyst Serv 4:33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.003
Scholes R, Reyers B, Biggs R et al (2013) Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social–
ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:16–25. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.004
Scholz T, Ronchi S, Hof A (2016) Ökosystemdienstleistungen von Stadtbäumen in
urban-industriellen Stadtlandschaften—analyse, Bewertung und Kartierung mit
Baumkatastern. In: AGIT 2-2016 Journal für Angewandte Geoinformatik, pp 462–471
Scolozzi R, Geneletti D (2012) A multi-scale qualitative approach to assess the impact of
urbanization on natural habitats and their connectivity. Environ Impact Assess Rev 36:9–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.03.001
Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV et al (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service
studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48:630–636. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x
Steffen W, Crutzen J, McNeill JR (2007) The anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the
great forces of nature? Ambio 36:614–621. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[614:-
taahno]2.0.co;2
Sumarga E, Hein L (2014) Mapping ecosystem services for land use planning, the case of Central
Kalimantan. Environ Manage 54:84–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0282-2
Syrbe RU, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing,
benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:80–88. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.013
Tallis H, Polasky S (2009) Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for
conservation and natural-resource management. Ann NY Acad Sci 1162:265–283. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04152.x
Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Sharp R, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S,
Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pennington D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J, Cameron D,
Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes G … PCKR (2011) InVEST 2.0 beta user’s guide.
The Natural Capital Project, Stanford
TEEB (2009) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB) for national and international
policy makers
The Scottish Government (2016) Getting the best from our land: a land use strategy for Scotland, vol 47
Turner KG (2015) Mapping and modelling ecosystem services to explore characteristics of
socio-ecological systems. Aarhus University
UNWTO, ATTA (2014) Global report on adventure tourism, vol 88. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13398-014-0173-7.2
USDA Forest Service (2008) I-Tree vue user’s manual, v.3.0
Vandewalle M, Sykes MT, Harrison PA et al (2008) Review paper on concepts of dynamic
ecosystems and their services—RUBICODE. Environ Res 94. http://www.rubicode.net/
rubicode/RUBICODE_Review_on_Ecosystem_Services.pdf
Verburg PH, Schot PP, Dijst MJ, Veldkamp A (2004) Land use change modelling: current practice
and research priorities. GeoJournal 61:309–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-004-4946-y
Vermeulen S, Koziell I (2002) Integrated global and local value, vol 113
Vlachopoulou M, Coughlin D, Forrow D et al (2014) The potential of using the ecosystem
approach in the implementation of the EU water framework directive. Sci Total Environ
470:684–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.09.072
Vollmer D, Pribadi DO, Remondi F et al (2015) Prioritizing ecosystem services in rapidly
urbanizing river basins: a spatial multi-criteria analytic approach. Sustain Cities Soc 20:237–252.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.10.004
Vorstius AC, Spray CJ (2015) A comparison of ecosystem services mapping tools for their
potential to support planning and decision-making on a local scale. Ecosyst Serv 15:75–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.07.007
VV. AA. (2002) Assorbimento e fissazione di carbonio nelle foreste e nei prodotti legnosi
Zhang Y, Holzapfel C, Yuan X (2013) Scale-dependent ecosystem service. Ecosyst Serv Agric
Urban Landsc 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118506271.ch7
Chapter 3
Practical Integration of Ecosystem
Services in the Planning and Assessment
Process
Abstract In this chapter is illustrated the methodological approach designed by the

book author called “RES (Restart from Ecosystem Services)” for an operative
application of ES during the planning process providing an ecological balance of
the forecasted transformation that involve Land Use Land Cover changes. RES is a
step by step procedure that acts as a practical application of the ES approach.
Nowadays one of the critical aspects concerning ES is not its analytical definition
rather than its implementation for practical purposes in the urban planning disci-
pline and the decision-making process. Considering the knowledge learned in the
previous chapters of this thesis, the operative proposal resumed the crucial issues
and developed them in an integrated way putting ES knowledge directly into the
practical sides of the planning activity, in particular, the ones concerning its
planning contents.
To make more the proposal more tangible, RES was developed considering a
real case study hence all consideration (measurement, assessment, methodology and
planning integration) can be easily judged and, as much as possible, make the RES
methodology credible and feasible.
The proposal assumed the EU strategies to limit, mitigate and compensate soil
loss and related ES as a starting point. The EU guideline (European Commission
2012) and the following handbook that includes measures to avoid, reduce or
compensate land take (European Commission 2016) promote and suggest modal-
ities for the Member States to apply additional legislative instruments specifically
designed to contain the land take process. These strategies could also be addressed
at the nearest administrative levels (in Italy, the municipalities) that regulate and
control the process maintaining the key principles. What is missing is how to make
these guidelines operational.
RES took into account four key points:
I. To adopt ES Mapping and modelling phases as necessary tools to establish the
capacity of each LULC to support and perform crucial functions for society
and ecosystems. The analysis is based on considering the three most important
categories of ES defined by CICES classification (Haines-Young et al. 2010);

78 3 Practical Integration of Ecosystem Services …
II. To analyse the potential consequences of LULC changes1 (determining land

take process) on the ES provision derived from the fulfilment of predicted
Urban transformation forecast by Local Urban Plans (the Transformation
areas—AT);
III. To implement an Ecosystem Services Capacity (ESC) index to express the
ability of each LULC to provide ES;
IV. To define, based on the ESC index, the strategies to maintain, restore or
increment the overall ES capacity, considering the three incremental actions
for soil sealing and land take limitation suggested by the European
Commission in 2012:
(a) to limit the LULC changes (that prevent the conversion);
(b) to mitigate (that is the adoption of measures to maintain some of the
Ecosystem functions reducing “any significant direct or indirect negative
effects on the environment and human wellbeing”);
(c) to compensate (“when mitigation is insufficient, compensation measures
are implemented to sustain or restore the overall capacity of Soils in a
certain area to fulfil (most of) their functions”).
The feasibility of the proposal also depends on, and above all, its integration
with Planning purposes, principally within the consideration of compulsory SEA
processes, therefore identifying for each Planning/Assessment phases the procedure
for RES implementation.
Next chapters are dedicated to explaining in detail how RES works and how it
should be implemented during a Planning procedure.
3.1 The Application of RES|Restart from Ecosystem

Services: The Case Study of the Metropolitan
Area of Milano
The methodological proposal combined different approaches previously explained,

reinterpreting such aspects, modifying others and adding another. The RES
methodology acts as a practical application of the ES approach. It consists of a step
by step procedure which tries to outline a real innovation restarting the planning
process from ES perspective. The name “RES: Restart from Ecosystem Services”
expresses clearly the aim of this methodology.
An important clarification is necessary: the methodology provided a series of
steps for ES integration in planning. To make the application practical, it used a
case study in Lombardy (Northwest Italy) therefore all parameters are set in this
context and based on the territorial conditions and characteristics. Therefore, the
1
In this part the LULC changes are understood as the transition from arable, natural and
semi-natural areas into artificial surfaces.
3.1 The Application of RES|Restart from Ecosystem … 79
methodology is replicable and feasible for all the contexts, but the parameters/
values are site-specific hence they require precise adaptation.
The selection of the case study was considered a crucial issue for matters of
relevance and significance of modelling purposes. In the beginning, the munici-
pality of Milano was selected. Milano is the capital of the Lombardy region located
in the north-western section of the Po Valley. Considering that the application of
RES methodology tests the potential impacts derived by the fulfilment of AT,
Milano was considered less substantial than other potential case studies, because the
AT, defined by the PGT, often involve urbanised areas such as, for example,
abandoned railway yards, military areas and brownfields. Hence, the impact of
these potential transformations is considered less significant regarding the envi-
ronmental effect and the ES capacity. Therefore, the risk that the RES outputs did
not fit with the real territorial issues was relatively high.
Moreover, the selection of the case study considering the administrative
boundaries limits the foundational approach based on ES that acts across the
institutional frame valuing a cumulative impact on the ES capacity.
As a consequence, it was decided to select a homogeneous territorial area from a
Landscape point of view in which potential land use changes affect the entire
stability of the Landscape. These homogeneous areas are called “Landscape Units”
and are referred to as coherent spatial areas with a certain degree of homogeneity on
natural conditions (geology, morphology, soils and climate) and land use.
Therefore, the “Ambiti territoriali di Paesaggio” (Landscape units—AP) were
considered as the territorial areas whose structure and formal lines confer homo-
geneity to their dynamics and physiognomy. The identification of Landscape units
was provided by the Landscape Plan (RLP)2 of Lombardy region recognising
structural elements (such as water system, cultural heritage and anthropogenic
elements) with common morphological characteristics, similar geology connota-
tions and shared LULC dynamics. The AP were also considered to identify different
existing landscapes, their characteristics and importance, and the changes that afflict
them (Bisquert et al. 2015)3.
Landscapes can be defined by seasonal and spatial patterns associated with
vegetation type and phenology, environmental conditions, and human activities
(Bisquert et al. 2015) as the result of long-term interactions between nature and the
human action. Ecosystem and landscape have become a key issue in science and
policy. Planning at the landscape scale especially, is widely perceived and
2
As explained in Arcidiacono et al. (2016) “In Italy, Landscape planning is disciplined at regional
level by law according with national reference guidelines framework. In Lombardy Region the
article 19 of the Planning Law n. 12 of 2005 introduces the Regional Territorial Plan (Piano
Territoriale Regionale) with the aim to provide a regulative framework on different State-Region
competences, according with the national legislation on landscape and environment (Code of
cultural heritage and landscape—Legislative decree 42/2004). The Regional Territorial Plan is
composed by a specific side, which is dedicated to landscape prescriptions. Such part is called
“Regional Landscape Plan” (Piano Paesaggistico Regionale).
3
Other details regarding the scale issue are provided in Step 1: Scale definition.
recognized as most useful and relevant for land use decision-making concerning the
quality, diversity, flow rates, and distribution of ES, as also highlighted in the
Literature case study (Hein et al. 2006; Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009; de Groot
et al. 2010; Albert et al. 2015).
During the process of drawing up a new version of RLP, specific attention was
made to the identification of the AP, confirming or modifying the areas included in
the Plan in force, according to the legislative prescriptions defined by “Codice dei
Beni culturali e del paesaggio” (the Code of cultural heritage and Landscape) in the
articles 135, 136, 142 and 143 of the Legislative Decree 42/2004.
The AP identification includes the involvement of the sub-regional administra-
tive levels with the territorial competence to collaborate and contribute to the
correct delineation of this similar area. The boundary delimitation of this area was
anticipated by the definition of the “Fascia di Paesaggio”4 (Landscape District—FP)
based on the geographical features with a recognized identity and a distinct mor-
phological components.
The FP are:
– “Fascia alpina” (Alps district);
– “Fascia prealpina” (Pre Alps district);
– “Fascia collinare” (Hill district);
– “Fascia dell’alta pianura” (Northen Floodplain);
– “Fascia della bassa pianura” (Southern Floodplain);
– “Fascia dell’Oltrepo” (Oltrepo Pavese district);
– “Fascia delle valli fluviali” (River valleys district);
– “Fasce della valle fluviale del Po” (River valleys of Po) (Fig. 3.1).
Inside the single districts, the AP specifically based on landscape characteristics
were recognised going beyond administrative boundaries (municipal and provin-
cial). There are 57 AP identified and are reported in Fig. 3.2.
The AP were considered the appropriate territorial dimension for a case study
analysis. The selection of which AP was determined considering the LULC changes
in the last decades. The urban metropolitan region of Milano is one that presents the
largest extension of artificial covering among the selected territory.
The Metropolitan area of Milano, with 3,869,037 inhabitants distributed over an
area of 1575 km2, is the third Italian sealed context with a percentage ranging
between 25 and 30 corresponding to an absolute value greater than 40,000 ha
(reporting year: 2015) (ISPRA—Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca
Ambientale 2015). It is composed of 134 municipalities and situated in the
central-western part of Lombardy, in the high Po Valley, between the river Ticino
(on the west side) and the river Adda (on the east side), and crossed by the rivers
4
The identification of the FP provided by the new edition of the RLP confirms what was already
identified in the RLP in force, adding only a supplementary district related on the metropolitan
urbanised area.
Fig. 3.1 The landscape district defined in the RLP (update: September 2016). Source Lombardy
region, Regional Landscape Plan, 2016—Tav. QC 1.1
Olona, Lambro, Seveso, and by the artificial canal network of Milan (Naviglio
Grande, Martesana, Pavese Canal) and some streams (Lura, Bozzente, Molgora).
There has been a continual process of urban development causing fragmentation
of the landscape (European Environment Agency 2006). The LULC changes during
the 1954–2012 period show a high level of expansion in the urban built-up areas.
This occurred notably at the expense of agricultural and forest areas.
Considering the urban morphological characteristic of the Metropolitan region, it
presents different degrees of continuity and “porosity” and a huge heterogeneity of
land use patterns. Even if with a scattered distribution, the continuity of the set-
tlement system goes largely over the boundaries of the selected territory hence there
isn’t a strict relationship between the core and the peripheral areas, rather than a
multicentred regional development of a networked system of the city (Murakami
et al. 2005).
In fact, the north side of the metropolitan region is characterized by a high
continuity of dense urban spaces over the metropolitan area, while the south is
largely dominated by a prevalence of rural areas, with a hard-shaped contrast
between the compact city and the rural land that were not reclaimed by the land take
process and sealing problem.
The pre-Alps district and the flat parts of the southern valley are dominated by
important Natural landscapes preserved by the institution of regional Parks (in the
80s) and, later, by the Natura 2000 sites.
Fig. 3.2 The localisation of the Lombardy region in the northern part of Italy (left) and the
Landscape units of Lombardy defined in the RLP (2016) (right). Source Author’s elaboration
based on the Region Landscape Plan of Lombardy, 2016
The Urban Region presents a high rate of land take outside of the inner city,
some key points that characterise this region are:
– Soil sealing that affects both the north and the south of the Urban Region with
different intensity;
– the Urban Region, in comparison with other national cases, is less affected by
re-use development of urban areas, but the recent regional databases show a rapid
increase of re-use index, in particular between the recent period 2007–2012;
– the settlement system is continuous rather than disperse, even composed of a
mix of different morphologies (leapfrogged, stripped and ribbon development),
and fragmentation also seems to be limited.
Going into deep a detailed analysis of LULC changes, established using the
database provided by ERSAF Lombardia called “DUSAF—Destinazione d’Uso dei
Suoli Agricoli e Forestali” based on two thresholds: 2007 and 2012, reveals that the
largest part of land take in the Milan Urban Region is generated by productive and
commercial functions rather than new residential uses that are mostly characterized
by an urban discontinuous fabric. Other important amounts of Land take is related
to “construction sites” (10%), “urban green parks and urban green areas” (8%),
“degraded, non-vegetated and mined” (8%), “infrastructural system” (5%), “agri-
cultural productive sites” (5%).
Considering this territorial characterisation, the case study area was selected to
evaluate the ES capacity in an area which it has already undergone major processes
of LULC changes. The aim was to verify the potential impacts caused by the
fulfilment of AT established in Urban plans in the provision of ES.
Therefore, six landscape units of the metropolitan area of Milano was
considered:
• “Conurbazione di Milano” (conurbation of Milano, code 26.1);
• “Conurbazione Milanese settentrionale” (conurbation in the northern part of
Milano, code 27.1);
• “Conurbazione Milanese orientale” (conurbation in the east of Milano, code
28.1);
• “Conurbazione Milanese occidentale” (conurbation in the west of Milano, code
30.3);
• “Brianza monzese” (conurbation of Brianza code 7.2);
• “Pianura del Sud milanese” (Floodplain in the southern part of Milano, code
29.1) (Fig. 3.3).
The area of investigation was extended beyond the expected border also
including the neighbouring municipalities to ensure the proper functioning of the
software InVEST selected for ES mapping. The municipalities included in the red
Fig. 3.3 The localisation of the case study area respects Lombardy region (left) and a more
detailed view of the case study area (right)
perimeter are 238 belonging to 9 Provinces: Bergamo (8 municipalities), Como (8

municipalities), Cremona (1 municipality), Lecco (6 municipalities), Lodi (10
municipalities), Milano (133 municipalities), Monza e Brianza (49 municipalities),
Pavia (12 municipalities) and Varese (11 municipalities).
3.2 The Methodological Proposal Step by Step
Below, there are the different steps that compose “RES: Restart from Ecosystem
Services” for guaranteeing the application of an ES approach in Planning.
3.2.1 Scale Definition
According to what is outlined in the previous chapters and successively developed

also in the case study analysis, the definition of scale is the first step for a practical
application of RES. The scale must be assumed considering two aspects:
– The achievement of the “Scale mismatch” problem derived from a different
assumption of the scale between the institution that manages natural resources
and the ecological scale of ES;
– The selection of the appropriate spatial scale based on the provision and ben-
eficiaries of ES.
Considering the first issue, the aim was to surpass the institutional boundaries
when dealing with ES.
The assumption of the Landscape as the appropriate spatial scale for managing ES
admits considering the structural element that composes a territory, their functions,
their patches, their distribution and links in an integrated way. The potential impacts
derived from LULC changes in a homogeneous landscape threaten the stability,
value and identity of a territory as a complex system. This complex system is not
defined a priori considering the institution that governs a specific area but based on
the biophysical characteristics, the morphological aspects and the structural elements
that compose what is called “Landscape metrics”. Therefore, the Landscape
approach does not take into account the administrative limits (municipal, provincial
or regional) but follows the Landscape metrics as the better option for conserving
biodiversity over various approaches that work in isolation. Looking at the second
issue (the scale of ES supply and demand), Landscape metrics can help assess which
of the benefiting areas rely on which provisioning areas for the delivery of services,
and their provisioning area. The selection of the ecological scale is based considering
ES and their ecological functions taking into account the spatial distribution and the
connotation of ES associated with contingent socio-cultural properties of the
underlying social system. Moreover, it is also important to consider the dynamics of
3.2 The Methodological Proposal Step by Step 85
the provisioning area and beneficiaries’ area that are strictly connected to the eco-
logical scale of ES.
As explained in Step 2—ES mapping, to test the functioning of RES 4 ES were
selected to cover at least the categories defined by CICES classification
(Haines-Young et al. 2010). The ES considered are: Habitat quality, Carbon
sequestration, Crop production, and Recreation potential.
The ES selected have different dynamics considering the spatial relationships
between service providing areas and service benefit areas, hence the ecological
scale is different. Studies and research on ES flows are sparse and rather conceptual
(Syrbe and Walz 2012; Bastian et al. 2012) and the main understanding of the
spatial features of flows relies on broad categories of the spatial relations between
provisioning and benefiting areas.
Considering the four patterns that categorised the spatial relations between
provisioning and benefiting areas (which are: (1) in situ; (2) omni-directional;
(3) directional and (4) decoupled), it is possible to associate the related patterns to
such ES. For instance, soil formation and erosion regulation are classified as in situ
services, where providing and benefiting areas overlap completely and ES related to
climate regulation are considered omni-directional because the delivery is global.
The knowledge on provisioning areas with the corresponding benefiting areas
can provide insights into the role of spatial flows in the delivery of ES. Today, only
in some regional studies have the spatial features of ES flows been illustrated and
estimated, e.g. mapping “supply and demand” (Fisher et al. 2011; Burkhard et al.
2012), and directly estimated the perceived benefits from different forested areas to
a given settlement (Palomo et al. 2013). For this study, the aim is to map provi-
sioning areas considering that these are the “source areas” that could be affected by
LULC changes determining an impact in the potential benefits. Therefore, it was
decided to consider the provisioning area for ES mapping based on the Landscape
units as a case study.
Finally, the adoption of a Landscape approach reflects also the numerous
experiences in Landscape-scale developed in recent years, mostly in conservation
strategies. The Landscape-scale was also used and recognised in the Literature case
study as the most appropriate scale for combining different ES (historical, social,
cultural and environmental).
Some recent reviews have emphasised the necessity for Landscape-scale anal-
yses of ES to understand spatial variability in their production and flow (de Groot
et al. 2010). These analyses include the impacts of LULC change on ES at national
(Eigenbrod et al. 2009), regional (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2008; Liu et al. 2010; Li
et al. 2016) and catchment (Martinez-Harms and Gajardo 2008) scales, as well as
inquiries designed to support spatial planning and management decisions.
In this specific case, the cooperation among different local stakeholders is nec-
essary for deciding the changes made in the landscape to better accommodate their
perceptions of value. The landscape is seen as unifying common ground where
scientists from various disciplines are encouraged and stimulated to cooperate in
producing a common knowledge base that can be integrated into multifunctional
and collaborative decision-making process.
3.2.2 Ecosystem Services Mapping
Nowadays, mapping ES is a necessary action to guide decision making for urban

planning purposes, because only a spatial knowledge of ES value distribution helps
planners to understand the effects/impacts of their actions. Incidentally, RES is
based on a preliminary ES mapping, recognising its potential in Strategic and
Spatial planning, and also in a policy-making context. Considering the observations
and opportunities explained in the practical case study, the software selected for
mapping is InVEST version 3.3.0 (released on 14/03/2016).
As previously anticipated, there were 4 selected ES, to cover at least the cate-
gories defined by CICES classification (Haines-Young et al. 2010). These are:
Habitat quality, Carbon sequestration, Crop production, and Recreation potential.
The selection of the key ES is one of the main challenges for efficient integration in
the Planning process. Considering the very extensive list of ES, the aim is to select
the most appropriate ES in influencing Plan making and for addressing specific
decision problems, possibly including ES that could be affected by decisions held in
Local Urban Plan (OECD—Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development 2008).
The Landscape-scale adopted is also useful to fulfil many functions and at the
same time providing a multifunctional view of the landscape that includes both
natural and cultural aspects, because this view enables consideration of the land-
scape as the physical basis for sustainable development.
A detailed description of each ES mapping process is illustrated below.
Habitat Quality
The first mapping model “Uses habitat quality and rarity as proxies to represent the
biodiversity of a landscape, estimating the extent of habitat and vegetation types
across a landscape, and their state of degradation” (Tallis et al. 2013).
As explained by Tallis et al. (2013) “the Habitat Quality (HQ) is the ability of the
Ecosystem to provide conditions appropriate for individual and population persis-
tence. Habitat with high quality is relatively intact and it depends on a habitats
proximity to human land uses and the intensity of these land uses (these elements
are considered as threats)”. The model combines information on LULC with data
on habitat degradation outlying “the quality of a specific species or in a more
generic way (the overall ecological quality) to estimate how common threats affect
a wide range of viable habitats in the selected area” (Arcidiacono et al. 2015; Tallis
et al. 2013).
The input data required for InVEST model are listed below:
(1) LULC with the possibility to differentiate between current, future and baseline
to associate temporality to the data. In this specific case, the LULC database
chosen was “DUSAF—Destinazione d’Uso dei SuoliAgricoli e Forestali”5
5
http://www.territorio.regione.lombardia.it.
made by ERSAF in 2012 and based on Corine Land Cover Legend.6

The DUSAF level of detail up to 1:10.000, the raster resolution use is 5 * 5 m,
the LULC map was made at the third level of legend. This layer will be kept
constant in successive models to have a common base for all mapping.
(2) Threats articulated in:
• maximum distance over which each threat affects HQ, expressed in
kilometres;
• a weighted impact of each threat on HQ about other threats expressed with 1
at the highest to 0 at the lowest;
• the decay of threat, distinguished in linear or potential depending on the
function expressed;
• polygonal maps of threats.
The dataset was created based on scientific literature (Terrado et al. 2016).
The input raster resolution used was 5 * 5 m. The threats are imputed using a .
csv file with the above-mentioned information associated with a spatial GIS raster
file with the attributes value indicated in the User’s Guide (1 for the threats and 0
for the area external to the threats) (Table 3.1).
(3) The Accessibility of habitat to threat.
Accessibility was evaluated with a score from 0 to 1 (1 is fully accessible without
any restrictions—social, political, or geographical and 0 correspond to the territory
less likely to be accessed by threats). The input requires a .csv file with the scores
mentioned above and a shapefile with the spatial distribution of the restriction.
Habitat type and sensitivity of each habitat type to the threats is valued with a score
from 0 to 1. The input is a .csv file with the individual value assignments (Tallis
et al. 2013).
In the case study, the natural protected areas established at national, regional and
local level since the 80s are the restrictions; the urban green areas like urban parks
or recreational parks; and the primary and secondary element of the Regional
ecological network of Lombardy recognized as a priority infrastructure of the PTR
that constitutes a guideline for regional and local planning (according to the pro-
visions of the Regional Committee Resolution n° 10962/2009) (Table 3.2).
(4) Habitat type and sensitivity of each habitat type to threats
The input is a .csv file with the individual value assignments. The value for each
single LULC was established using the Biological Territorial Capacity index based
on: (1) the concept of resistance stability; (2) the principal types of ecosystems of
the ecosphere; (3) their metabolic data (biomass, gross primary production, respi-
ration, R/PG, R/B) (Ingegnoli and Giglio 2008) (Fig. 3.4).
6
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/corine-land-cover-2006-by-country/legend.
Table 3.1 Scores assigned to each category of threats

Threat Max_Dist Weight Decay
Highways and railways (p) 1.50 0.90 Linear
Primary infrastructural system (s) 1 0.70 Linear
Local infrastructural system (l) 0.90 0.60 Linear
111—continuous urban fabric 1.70 0.80 Linear
112—discontinuous urban fabric 1.70 0.80 linear
121—industrial or commercial units 1.70 0.80 Linear
122—road and rail networks and associated land 1.60 0.70 Linear
124—airports 1.70 0.80 Linear
131—mineral extraction sites 1.70 0.80 Linear
133—construction sites 1.70 0.80 Linear
134—non vegetated area 1.70 0.80 Linear
141—green urban areas 1.70 0.80 Linear
142—sport and leisure facilities 1.70 0.80 Linear
211—non-irrigated arable land 1.60 0.70 Linear
213—rice fields 1.60 0.70 Linear
222—fruit trees and berry plantations 1.60 0.70 Linear
224—wood arboriculture 1.60 0.70 Linear
231—pastures 0.60 0.40 Linear
Fig. 3.4 Habitat quality output

Table 3.2 Accessibility to sources of degradation and habitat type and sensitivity
LULC HAB P S L 111 112 121 122 124 131 133 134 141 142 211 213 222 224 231
111 0.02 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
112 0.07 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
122 0.06 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
124 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
131 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
133 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
134 0.04 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
141 0.28 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3
142 0.35 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3
3.2 The Methodological Proposal Step by Step
211 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1
213 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1
222 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1
224 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1
231 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1
311 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5
314 0.8 0.85 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.45
322 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5
324 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5
511 1 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5
512 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5
89
Carbon Sequestration
The InVEST model can be associated with each of the LULC data on carbon
storage and sequestration. Specifically, the carbon stock is valued on the size of four
primary carbon “pools” identified and defined by the IPCC (Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006). The model aggregates the amount of
carbon stored in:
• Above-ground biomass: “All living biomass above the Soil including stem,
stump, branches, bark, seeds and foliage. It is useful to consider that where the
forest understorey is a relatively small component of the above-ground biomass,
it is acceptable to exclude it, provided this is done in a consistent manner
throughout the inventory time series” (Tallis et al. 2013).
• Below-ground biomass: “All living biomass of live roots. Fine roots of less than
(suggested) 2 mm diameter are sometimes excluded because these often cannot
be distinguished empirically from Soil organic matter or litter. May include the
below-ground part of the stump. The country may use a threshold value other
than 2 mm for fine roots, but in such a case the threshold value used must be
documented” (Tallis et al. 2013).
• Soil organic matter: “It includes organic matter in mineral and organic Soils
(including peat) to a specified depth chosen by the country and applied con-
sistently throughout the time series. Live fine roots (of less than the suggested
diameter limit for below-ground biomass) are included with Soil organic matter
where they cannot be distinguished from it empirically” (Tallis et al. 2013).
• Dead organic matter: “This category combines in one section the dead wood—
that includes the volume of all non-living wood not contained in the litter, either
standing, lying on the ground, or in the Soil. Dead wood includes wood lying on
the surface, dead roots, and stumps larger than or equal to 10 cm in diameter or
any other diameter used by the country. Includes dead roots to usually 2 mm
diameter—and litter—that is all non-living biomass with a diameter less than a
minimum diameter chosen by the country (for example 10 cm), lying dead, in
various states of decomposition above the mineral or organic Soil. This includes
litter, fumic, and humic layers. Live fine roots (of less than the suggested
diameter limit for below-ground biomass) are included in litter where they
cannot be distinguished from it empirically” (Tallis et al. 2013).
For each of these pools, the total carbon storage was estimated. Considering that
they are not available in the regional or local databases, different sources were
aggregated.
The input data are:
(1) LULC: the same layer used in the Habitat Quality model previously presented.
(2) A table with data on carbon stored in each of the four fundamental pools for
each LULC class. Carbon storage data can be collected direct from field
campaigns, extracted from meta-analyses on specific habitat types or regions, or
found in general published tables (e.g., IPCC). If information on some carbon
pools is not available, it can be estimated from other pools, or omitted by
leaving all values for the pool equal to 0 (Tallis et al. 2013).
Fig. 3.5 Carbon sequestration output
As for the Habitat Quality model, the input file were elaborated using GIS
platform with a raster resolution of 5 * 5 m cell size, with LULC code as pixel unit,
using the maximum area of the pixel as a proxy to attribute the value. For the four
carbon pool requested by the model, the data were collected from different sources.
Relevant information was provided by the “Inventario Nazionale delle Foreste e dei
Serbatoi forestali di Carbonio”7 (National Inventory of Forests and Forest Carbon
Sinks) in the second annual report of 2005 integrated with data presented in the
research called “Il carbonio organico nei suoli e nelle foreste della Lombardia” by
Silvia Solaro and Stefano Brenna—ERSAF8 (Solaro and Brenna 2005) (Fig. 3.5;
Table 3.3).
Crop Production
Looking at the agroecosystems, two ES are traditionally considered: cropland and
grassland, including cultivated crops (herbaceous and woody, annual and peren-
nial), grasslands, and farmland features as part of farm holdings (hedges, ridges,
field margins, buffer strips, uncultivated land, single trees, woodlots etc.), composed
of natural or semi-natural vegetation. The primary role of agriculture is to provide
food, feed, fibres, and energy, association of agricultural production to provisioning
services is straightforward.
7
http://www.sian.it/inventarioforestale/jsp/dati_introa.jsp?menu=3.
8
http://www.aip-suoli.it/editoria/bollettino/n1-3a05/n1-3a05_07.htm.
Table 3.3 Scores assigned to each carbon pool related to LULC

Above Below Soil Dead LULC
0.39 0.075 12.42 13.56 111
0.85 0.16 26.50 28.93 112
0.067 0.013 2.09 2.28 121
0 0 0 0 122
0 0 0 0 124
0 0 0 0 131
0 0 0 0 133
0 0 0 0 134
0 0 0.02 0.02 141
0.85 0.16 26.50 28.93 142
0 0 56 0 211
0 0 56 0 213
14.65 2.79 56.00 0 222
14.63 2.79 48.00 2.30 224
0 0 68.70 0.75 231
11.43 2.18 57.20 1.50 311
14.65 2.79 43.40 2.40 314
14.65 2.79 43.40 2.40 322
14.65 2.79 43.40 2.40 324
0 0 0 0 511
0 0 0 0 512
Among the 17 models provided by InVEST, there is no model that contemplates

this service revealing a strong limit in the software. To overcome this limit, a
specific methodology for mapping crop production9 was set up.
The input data required are:
– SIARL (Sistema Informativo Agricoltura Regione Lombardia, in English:
Agricultural informatics system of Lombardy region) database that includes
detailed information on agricultural crops based on the cadastral unit (Updated
at 2014);
– Economic profitability values (EPV) based on different agricultural crops. The
information is provided yearly by CREA—Consiglio per la Ricerca e
l’Economica Agraria10 (in English: Council for Research and Economic
Agriculture, ex INEA—Istituto Nazionale di Economia Agraria, in English:
National Institute of Agricultural Economics).
9
The last two versions of InVEST software (3.3.0 and 3.3.1 version) also include the model for
Crop production but temporally was judged “unstable” due to possible bugs, so it was preferable to
estimate the Crop production considering another method of calculation.
10
http://web.inea.it:8080/.
Fig. 3.6 Crop production output (the areas coloured in white are those not covered by the SIARL
database because they are not agricultural areas)
The data were firstly processed in Microsoft Excel associating the economic value
to each agricultural LULC defined in SIARL database. A GIS join operation allows
outlining an average economic value per hectare of each productive land use class.
The formula used was:
X1
Ha of agricoltural crops Economic proditability values
EPV ¼
n¼1
Hatot
The output was finally converted to a raster file with a resolution of 5 * 5 m

(Fig. 3.6).
Recreation Potential
Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are defined as “Non-material benefits people obtain
from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection,
recreation and aesthetic experience” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
Conversely from the other categories of ES, limited attention was given to CES
even if relevant benefits for the communities could be derived from them (La Rosa
et al. 2015).
Examples of this typology of CES are: appreciation of natural scenery, oppor-
tunities for tourism and recreational activities, the inspiration for culture, art and
design, sense of place and belonging, spiritual and religious inspiration, education
and science (de Groot et al. 2010). The InVEST model called “Visitation:
Recreation and Tourism” predicts the spread of person-days for recreation purposes
“based on the locations of natural habitats and other features that factor into
Fig. 3.7 Nature-based recreation potential output
people’s decisions about where to recreate” (Tallis et al. 2013). Considering the
lack of data on visitation, the model uses a proxy based on geotagged photographs
posted to the website Flickr11 from 2005 to 2015. Using photo-user-day estimates,
the model predicts how future changes to natural features will alter visitation rates.
The tool outputs map shows current patterns of recreational use and maps of future
patterns of use under alternative scenarios.
As explained by Tallis et al. (2013), “the tool performs a linear regression,
relating the arrangement of predictor variables in each cell to user-days across all
cells”. The data required are the Area of Interest (AOI), which is the polygonal
shape of the study area, and the cell size resolution with additional global datasets
as a source of better data when these are not available at the local scale: Population
from Ridge National Laboratory LandScan (2010), Open Street Map (2012) fea-
tures, Protected Areas from UNEP-WCMC World Data Base on Protected Areas
(2012), LULC from ESA GlobCover (2008). The raster resolution set was about
250 meters (the minimum cell size required by InVEST software). In this specific
case study, the visitors’ demand for nature-based recreation was analysed.
Nature-based recreation value depends on the environmental quality and landscape
conditions such as climate, LULC, type of vegetation, slope and altitude, water
bodies and lakes, the presence of cultural heritage and attractions. In addition to
these elements, facilities (bicycle paths, services, roads, etc.) and accessibility are
also important factors that influence the potential for recreation activities (Fig. 3.7).
11
www.flickr.com.
3.2.3 Ecosystem Services Capacity
The estimation of the ES capacity was conceived using a multilayer analysis

obtained by a normalised sum of the biophysical values of the four ES mapped
(Habitat quality, Carbon sequestration, Crop production and Recreation potential).
The ESC was calculated using the Spatial analysis function provided by ArcGIS
called “Weighted sum” as a tool to weight and combine multiple inputs to create an
integrated analysis. This function makes it possible to assign numerical weights,
distinguishing between positive and negative criteria and to rank alternatives; for
these reasons it is considered and used to support a spatial decision regarding, for
example, the land suitability assessment.
The variables of the single ES mapping were normalised from values of 0–1, the
ESC formula adopted was:
X
4
ESC ¼ ðBiophysical value normalised coefficientÞ
n¼1
where
The Biophysical value is the value of the raster cell (5 * 5 m) of each ES
mapped
The normalised coefficient is expressed from 0 to 1 by multiplying the
Biophysical value for the higher value, that is:
Habitat quality = 1 (the InVEST output provides values from 0 to 1)
Crop production = 0.000025727377274 (derived from 1/38869.1)
Carbon sequestration = 5.446623094 (derived from 1/0.1836)
Recreation potential = 1 (the InVEST output provides value from 0 to 1)
The raster resolution of the weighted sum output was 5 * 5 m. The output value
ranking from 0 to 2.99122 as a maximum value of this detailed information
(Table 3.4).
Successively, the raster weighted sum output was converted into a vector
shapefile through a series of steps carried out in ArcGIS to maintain all the records
with the maximum degree of detail:
• Spatial Analyst tools/Math/Times: divide the ESC value (decimal number) in an
integer value. In this specific case x/100,000;
Table 3.4 Statistics table of the ESC value generated by weighted sum tool
Number of features/records 379753
Minimum 0
Maximum 2.99122
Sum 487623.65095
Mean 1.284055
Standard deviation 0.579495
Fig. 3.8 ESC weighted sum output
• Spatial Analyst tools/Math/Int: convert each specific cell value of a raster to an

integer by truncation;
• Conversion tools/From raster/Raster to polygon: convert a raster dataset to
polygon features.
Following from that, to return to a decimal number the cell value could be
divided again for 100.000. The vector shapefile allows proceeding with different
functions of analysis tools useful to evaluate the ESC of each single AT established
by the municipalities included in the case study area (that correspond to the 6 AP
previously listed) (Fig. 3.8).
3.2.4 Impact Assessment of Land Take Process

on Ecosystem Services Capacity
Having estimated the ESC capacity in the case study area, the next step was to
verify the potential impacts derived from LULC changes. The LULC changes are
assessed considering the forecasted Transformation area (AT) included in the urban
plans of each municipality belonging to the Landscape Unit (AP) considered.
Before exploring RES, it is necessary to set the Planning framework in which
this proposal acts. In the Lombardy Region, the territorial government content and
background of urban planning discipline is defined by the Regional Law n. 12/2005

“Legge per il governo del territorio” that fixes a regional framework for integrated
planning and programming at different levels. This approach foresees a strong
inter-institutional collaboration among the three main administrative levels (re-
gional, provincial and municipal) and the related instruments for planning and
governance: the “Piano Territoriale Regionale” (Regional Territorial Plan), the
“Piano Territoriale di Coordinamento Provinciale” (Provincial Territorial
Coordination Plan) and the “Piano di Governo del Territorio” (Local Government
Plan). Law 12/2005 introduced significant changes in the planning approach giving
self-regulation of local administration on their planning tools with subsidiarity
principles and inter-institutional cooperation. According to the Law 12/2005, all
municipalities must upgrade the obsolete “Piano Regolatore Generale” (General
Regulatory Plan—PRG), introduced by Law 1150/1942, with the new “Piano di
Governo del Territorio” (Local Government Plan—PGT). The PGT consists of
three separate tools:
– “Documento di Piano” (Planning document—DdP): it contains the general
framework of strategies, analysis, objectives and guidelines for the territorial,
social and economic development of the entire municipality. It is valid for five
years (this time is strictly related to the local Mayor’s electoral period), is always
editable and contains indications that do not have direct effects on the land use
rights. Moreover, there are new areas identified and renovation zones to be
implemented with local plans (Piani Attuativi Comunali—PAC), consisting of
all the implementation tools provided by national and regional legislation.
– “Piano dei Servizi” (Services Plan—PdS): includes qualitative and quantitative
analysis of the public city. It is drawn up to achieve the requirements of hab-
itability and urban quality through the concept of public service. It has no
temporal validity, is always editable and deals specifically with the planning of
public facilities (such as social housing, green areas and other public services)
– “Piano delle Regole” (Rules Plan—PdR): sets the rules of the existent city
(previously urbanised land) fixing the discipline of land use and the regulation
of building activity. It does not concern the areas subjected to specific trans-
formation interventions (Transformation area—AT) identified in the DdP. It has
no temporal limit, is always editable with direct effects on the land use rights
and property effects.
In the case study area, the total territorial surface amount of AT expected is
9409.86 ha divided into 238 areas with different typologies of transformation
(industrial, residential, services, technological services, infrastructures, tertiary,
tourist), dimensions and geographic contexts (urban, peri-urban, agricultural,
natural). The ATs were overlaid to the ESC maps—with an ArcGIS intersect
procedure—to verify the ESC of each AT that could be compromised by LULC
changes (Fig. 3.9).
Fig. 3.9 Forecasted transformation areas (AT) included in local plans (updated: June 2016)
For each AT the weighted average of the ESC value was calculated using the
following formula:
P1
n¼1 ðsqm cluster AT ESCÞ
Weighted average of the ESC ¼
ðSqm tot STÞ
where
Sqm cluster AT is the different territorial surface included in one AT with
different ESC
ESC is the Ecosystem Services Capacity calculated in Step 3
Sqm tot St is the total territorial surface of AT.
After that, the distribution of the weighted average of the ESC was divided into
five classes according to the Natural Breaks (Jenks) classification method provided
by ArcGIS. Natural breaks are based on natural groupings inherent in the data; the
class breaks are identified that best group similar values and that maximise the
differences between classes. The features are divided into classes whose boundaries
are set where there are relatively big differences in the data values. Natural breaks
are data-specific classifications and not useful for comparing multiple maps built
from different underlying information.12
12
Source: http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/documentation/.
The classification of AT according to the level of average ESC provided is

divided into 5 classes (5: high; 4: medium-high; 3: medium; 2: medium-low; 1:
low) to allow the selection of the 10 sample cases (that are AT) belonging to these 5
classes in order to test the incremental approach for limiting, mitigating and
compensating the land take process and soil sealing (Fig. 3.10).
The selection of the AT was made considering two AT for each of the ESC
classes according to the extension of the area, the ESC value distribution, the
geographical context and, finally, the typology of transformation. Below the ten
areas selected with information details and website for the summary table are listed
(Fig. 3.11; Table 3.5).
Fig. 3.10 Spatial distribution of ESC for each AT
Fig. 3.11 Spatial localisation of the AT selected for the practical application of RES
Table 3.5 AT selected for the practical application of the RES methodology
Area (ha) ESC (class)

Typology of
Municipality Province Website link
transformation
The AT with low ESC corresponds, in many cases, to abandoned railway yards, military areas and
brownfields
3.2.5 Incremental Measures to Govern Land Take Process
In the previous Step, the ESC was defined as an indicator of the multifunction
quality adopted for the AP considered and detailed for the ten AT selected (see Step
3). In Step 5 the aim is to give operationally to the three incremental actions for land
take government suggested by European Commission (2012) in the “Guidelines on
best practices to limit, mitigate and compensate soil sealing”. Considering the aim
of the Guidelines, in addition to the most recent report “FUTURE BRIEF: No net
land take by 2050?” (European Commission 2016), is to reach the EU Commission
target of “no net land take by 2050” proposing numerous tools and solutions that
can be implemented to achieve it. The next steps of the RES methodology are based
on the contents provided by these two European strategies.
The incremental model (composed of the three strategies: limit, mitigate and
compensate) was promoted to face different impacts of soil sealing, proposing for
each strategy the appropriate best practices that could be implemented. Starting
from best practice to limit soil sealing is always a priority over mitigation or
compensation measures, considering that soil sealing is an almost irreversible
process. The best practices proposed by the European Commission (2012) for this
strategy include:
• “Improving the quality of life in large urban centres;
• Strengthening public transport infrastructures;
• Increasing protection at the national level of soils with a high or very high
quality regarding soil functions;
• Engaging in the integrated management of the stock of office buildings in cities;
• Enabling or strengthening the cooperation of neighbouring local authorities in
the development of commercial areas;
• Creating incentives for recycling land instead of developing new sites;
• Introducing restrictions and taxes on secondary residences;
• Raising awareness of decision-makers, planners and residents about the value of
soil for creating life quality in urban areas by providing ecosystem services;
• Developing a philosophy of using land economically in nature conservation and

landscape protection;
• Establishing funding programmes as a ‘start-up’ incentive for more sustainable
land management by municipalities;
• Using cost calculator programmes for defining inner-urban development
potential and providing cost transparency for new projects;
• Considering input, achievements and results of innovative research activities”.
Mitigation is necessary where significant effects are unavoidable therefore they
must be minimised taking into account that “building on an area of land will
inevitably affect the ability of the soil at that location to perform its full range of
functions” (European Commission 2012).
The mitigation measures are numerous and include:
• Use of permeable materials and surfaces;
• Green infrastructure urban;
• Natural water harvesting system;
(European Commission 2012)
Finally, Compensation is designed to restore or improve soil functions to avoid
wider adverse impacts of soil sealing. Four measures are promoted:
• re-using the topsoil excavated when carrying out soil sealing in a certain area so
that it can be employed elsewhere;
• de-sealing of a certain area (soil recovery) in compensation for sealing
elsewhere;
• eco-accounts and trading development certificates;
• collecting a fee when soil is sealed, to be used for soil protection or other
environmental purposes.
(European Commission 2012)
RES methodology is founded on this incremental procedure providing a prac-
tical application of these measures. Specifically, the mitigation and compensation
measures are articulated in sub-measures to be considered and included in the
project criteria of the “Piani attuativi” (Urban Implementation Plans) being the tool
used to realise urban transformations, extended to specific areas or zones.
As mentioned, the references to these three incremental measures are provided
by EC as guidelines (European Commission 2012, 2016) and transposed in Italian
National Law related to EIA and SEA without providing a specific enforcement
mechanism for Spatial plans, and without releasing any guidance (issued by
national environmental authorities) on how to determine ecological balance.
Moreover, traditionally, in Italy, the application of the compensation model was
less considered with respect to the traditional identification of high natural value
areas to be protected (including those in National/Regional parks or Natura 2000
sites) without considering impacts occurring elsewhere, particularly on agricultural
land (Magnaghi 2010).
The Methodology RES acts on giving an operational application to the EC

guidelines for its implementation. Hence, the aim is to operationalize an existing
strategy, already defined at both European and National/Regional levels that
nowadays does not find a suitable and direct application due to the lack of tools,
procedures and methods for applying it. The innovative aspect of the operational
proposal was to put in practice this strategy, adopting an ES approach for the
definition of limitations, mitigation and ecological compensation measures and
including all of these considerations in the SEA process for setting an ecological
balance of planning decisions.
Before defining the procedure to adopt for the incremental methods, it is necessary
to fix one priority criteria that must guide planning decisions; that is the definition of
the real need/requirement of new transformations (both residential, commercial or
productive). This means defining, as a precondition, the necessity to proceed or not
with new transformations considering the availability of sufficient areas abandoned,
vacant or unused (partially or totally) that could “host” the new transformation.
Looking at the overall distribution and patterns of vacant urban settlements is a
precondition to recognising and understanding its potential as a resource for new
functions based on the need of the community, and to re-activate them as part of the
broader urban infrastructure.
Considering that the land take process is now a central issue in many disciplines
due to the complex problems involved in the depletion of soil and related ES,
different operative approaches are implemented in planning.
Among these, there is for instance, the regulatory aims that distinguish the
buildable areas and those where transformations are not permitted. In others, the
physical control of LULC changes (a typical English model) project the urbanised
areas and the urban green spaces, or finally the introduction of financial leverage to
encourage the reuse of brownfields or underused areas.
This last aspect is essential for land take control, to preserve the natural/
agricultural areas outside the urbanised spaces requalifying “what is inside” the city
(Arcidiacono et al. 2012) such as the existing building patrimony, the brownfields,
the spaces of public interest. This requires an integrated approach to consider and
combine the economic, social, cultural and environmental development factors.
This approach, based on requalifying urbanised areas/settlements in the city, is in
line with what is promoted by EC to contrast soil sealing and land take process
(European Commission 2013). Among the possible strategies for achieving limi-
tation objects, is one to encourage the re-use of already built-up areas to improve
the quality of life, to strengthen public transport infrastructures, and to preserve
peri-urban agricultural zones.
The need to considerably reduce land take was increasingly recognised at both
Member State and Europe-wide levels, therefore, the re-use and regeneration of
brownfields or abandoned areas is a major building block in strategies to achieve
this objective.
The evaluation of this pre-condition (as an ex-ante Planning consideration) must
involve the supra-local context (i.e. it must not be based on the local scale), and
follows the recent trends in quantitative political objectives promoted by Belgium
and Great Britain prescribing the obligation to build at least 60% of new buildings
in already urbanized areas (with a retroactive application of the rule to the already
approved plans) for relieving the pressure on natural sites and preserve agricultural
areas (Decoville and Schneider 2015).
Another approach with the same aim was adopted in France with the Solidarité
et Renouvellement Urbain act of 2000 (SRU) which assigns a central role to the
planning at regional or metropolitan level (in Italy it is called “area vasta”) because
it is considered the most suitable scale to pursue sustainable development strategies.
The SRU prescribes that the new urbanisation areas be subordinated to full
exploitation of the soil of urbanised areas and a good supply of public transport.
Moreover, a criterion called “inter-compensation” was adopted to share among the
municipalities the revenue provided by territorial transformations that do not have
increased urbanisation on their territory, to discourage the traditional propensity of
municipalities to take land to raise funds.
Having defined its precondition, it is possible to consider the three incremental
measures.
3.2.5.1 Limit
RES acted considering:

1. State indicator: the ESC described in Step 3
2. Pressure indicator: the forecasted AT
3. Response indicator: the adoption of the incremental measures (limit, mitigate or
compensate).
The innovative contribution is the definition of a methodology to set the
appropriate measure to take. Below, a conceptual scheme based on the
State-Pressure-Response model is proposed. The time T0 corresponds to the current
state, hypothetically a territory like the Landscape unit where the ESC is calculated.
The time T1 is the pressure derived by the forecasted AT that affect the provision of
ES. The adoption of the incremental measures (limit, mitigate and compensate) is
necessary to reduce the pressure (the definition on how the measures must be
activated is provided below). The time T2 is, therefore, the response derived from
the application of the incremental measures (Fig. 3.12).
Assuming the pre-condition is based on the real need/requirement of new
transformations and considering the availability of abandoned/vacant/unused areas
that could “host” new functions, what emerges is the necessity to define when to
apply limitation, mitigation and compensation. Starting from the first measure, the
threshold for limiting the LULC changes, derived by the fulfilment of AT, is
forecasted on the ESC (Step 3).
The single AT are preliminarily evaluated considering the level of the ESC, therefore,
this measure is based on the current condition of areas, meaning state of the art.
If the impact derived by the transformations affects an area with high ESC (ESC
value higher than x), RES suggests the revision of the AT indicating the limitation
Fig. 3.12 Conceptual scheme of the state-pressure-response model
as the solution in order to avoid every alteration or interference that could com-
promise the capacity of the area to provide ES, and, for consequence, contributing
to human wellbeing.
To determine the limit threshold, an observation of the ESC distribution to find
out which character/component affects ESC and which aspect contribute to set the
higher ESC value was made. The analysis was extended to all the AT of the case
study area (the AP).
In detail, using GIS platform, with each LULC class (third level of CLC legend)
of AT the average ESC value was associated. This allows an understanding of the
capacity in the provision of ES based on the LULC and to verify the distribution of
the medium ESC. The investigation was done with a statistical correlation formula;
that is a bivariate analysis that measures the strengths of association between two
variables. The statistical correlation index of 0.527 indicates a strong positive
correlation between the two variables (LULC of the AT and ESC), the ESC
increases passing from the urbanised areas to the agricultural land until the natural
classes. Therefore, the more the LULC classes tend to naturalness; the higher will
be the ESC value. In the graph below are the two variables (x-axis: LULC and
y-axis: weighted average ESC) that show the sensitivity of the average ESC value
to LULC classes (Fig. 3.13).
In particular, it is evident the decrease of the average ESC value in the LULC
classes with a high level of the impermeable surface (industrial area, shopping mall)
or with a high level of environmental impact (such as dump sites, quarries, mineral
Fig. 3.13 Statistical linear correlation between LULC of the AT and weighted average ESC
sites). On the contrary, it is evident the increase of ESC in urban green area (0.10)
compared to urbanised areas and the further increase of urban green area dedicated
to sport and leisure facilities (0.37) with ESC value comparable to that of agri-
cultural areas. The calibration of the limit threshold was settled which verifies the
marginal increases and decreases of ESC (always considering all the AT forecasted
in the case study area) depending on LULC classes. The LULC classes are ordered
considering the five main categories of LULC: Urbanised areas, urban green areas,
agricultural areas, natural areas, wetlands and water bodies.
The graph proposed below shows the marginal increase or decrease of ESC
highlighting:
I. The changes in the same LULC category, due to the heterogeneity of eco-
logical conditions, for example, a discontinuous fabric has an ESC value
higher than a dump site because, even if both are considered urbanised areas,
the first has a different degree of porosity due to the urban green areas existing
between settlements. This can affect the capacity of a LULC characterised by
discontinuous fabric to provide ES;
II. The increases/decreases in the transition between one main category of LULC
and another. The most significant (marginal) increase detected is in the tran-
sition between agricultural areas (class 231 “Pastures” of the LULC database)
and natural areas (class 311 “Broadleaved forest”) with 25.8% increase. This
significant increase in the ESC value must be considered to identify the
threshold for limiting the LULC changes denoting a higher deterioration of
ESC in a natural area.
Hence, LULC changes that involve a transition from agricultural to natural areas
implicate a marginal decrease of ESC that is higher than any other transition
impacting significantly on the possibility of providing ES (Fig. 3.14).
The same considerations emerge regarding the marginal decrease or increase
expressed in percentage associated with the average ESC (Table 3.6).
The overall results of the statistical linear correlation analysis in addition to the
marginal increase/decrease study denote that a significant change of the ESC exists
during the transition between agricultural and natural areas, hence between pastures
(with ESC of 0.51) and broadleaved forest (with ESC 0.65).
Moreover, a visual check of the forecasted AT highlighted that the area with
higher ESC value has a LULC different from those with medium-high ESC. The
first has a total land coverage of natural areas (primary woods bushes) while the
second includes a significant portion of arable land which traditionally has a dif-
ferent ecosystem value. Agriculture activity (livestock and food crops) requires a
series of conditions for optimising productivity that is generated by natural eco-
logical components and processes as well as through artificial enhancement.
Modern agricultural technologies have increased food production but determining
high environmental impacts. In fact, agricultural activities remain one of the largest
drivers of genetic erosion, species loss and conversion of natural habitats
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
The conversion of natural habitats to cropland and related uses entails the
replacement of systems rich in biodiversity with monocultures or systems poor in
biodiversity. Agriculture brings ecosystem simplification and loss of (bio)diversity,
thus reducing the potential to provide ES other than food production.
Fig. 3.14 Marginal increase and decrease of ESC based on LULC

Table 3.6 Marginal increase and decrease (expressed in %) of average ESC based on LULC
LULC classes LULC code Average ESC the rate of variation (%)
Continuous urban fabric 111 0.13
Discontinuous urban fabric 112 0.28 117.59
Industrial commercial and public units 121 0.02 – 91.32
Road-rail network and associated land 122 0.03 10.83
Mineral extraction sites 131 0.00 – 91.60
Dump sites 132 0.00
Construction sites 133 0.02
Degradated and non-vegetated areas 134 0.02 – 11.12
Sport and leisure facilities 142 0.10 495.96
Green urban areas 141 0.37 282.57
Non-irrigated arable land 211 0.33 – 10.68
Rise 213 0.40 21.62
Vineyard 221 0.45 11.73
Fruits trees and berries plantation 222 0.48 5.82
Arboriculture 224 0.44 – 7.89
Pastures 231 0.51 17.16
Broadleaved forest 311 0.65 25.80
Coniferous forest 313 0.62 – 3.63
Recent wood plantation 314 0.56 –10.97
Moors and heathland 322 0.55 –1.45
Transitional woods and shrubs 324 0.55 0.12
Inland marshes 411 0.33 –39.13
Water courses 511 0.31 – 8.61
Water bodies 512 0.27 – 12.16
Considering that
(I) the provision of ES changes from agricultural and natural areas and
(II) the preservation of natural habitat and biodiversity is guaranteed if the area
maintains its completeness avoiding fragmentation. This could be criteria to
preserve the ESC of an area entirely.
For these reasons, the threshold of 0.6 was selected as a value in between the two
LULC (arable land and natural areas) to limit the forecasted urban transformation.
In fact, even if hypothetically, the planning parameters of the AT with ESC
higher than 0.6 respect all the best environmental impact mitigating measures, the
Table 3.7 Definition of the AT that must be limited according to the ESC
Typology of
Municipality Province Area (ha) ESC (class) Incremental actions
transformation
Abbiategrasso MI 53.35 0.272 (3) Residential
Agrate Brianza MB 4.69 0.654 (5) Productive Limit
Arese MI 88.09 0.058 (1) Productive
Capriate San G. BG 6.14 0.708 (5) Services Limit
Gaggiano MI 48.18 0.406 (4) Services
Lachiarella MI 79.12 0.375 (4) Productive
Origgio VA 63.54 0.105 (2) Productive
Varedo MB 48.16 0.113 (2) Residential
Vigevano PV 4.78 0.075 (1) Residential
Vimercate MB 25.50 0.280 (3) Tertiary
ESC would be in any case compromised. Therefore, this value is considered the
threshold over which any LULC changes are avoided to guarantee the ES provision.
Considering this threshold two AT need to be excluded from possible urban
transformation (Agrate Brianza and Capriate San Gervasio) (Table 3.7).
3.2.5.2 Mitigate
Furthermore, if the transformation is allowed (evaluated on the ESC and hence with
a value minor of 0.6 points), the next step consists in the assessment of the possible
responses to environmental pressures that are: mitigation and compensation.
The selection of the appropriate measure is based on considering the following
two aspects:
• Location and typology of AT with the aim to answer the question: “what are
the conditions of the area designed for urban transformation?” This aspect
expresses the environmental “pressure” due to human activities that cover
underlying or indirect pressures, which act as driving forces for environmental
issues. It is important to set this information to consider if the transformation act
on area anthropised (entirely or partially), on a brownfield, or on a contaminated
site. This is relevant also to understand if the transformation could be seen as a
remedial intervention compared to the current conditions without the necessity
to include ecological compensation (this is the case for example of brownfield
areas);
• Potential scenario provided by the Urban Plan for each AT. In the “Documento
di Piano” (Planning document—DdP) data and information are provided for the
transformation of the area to be implemented through “Piani attuativi” (Urban
Implementation Plans). The impact of the potential scenario is evaluated through
environmental response indicators that are typically considered in SEA for the
monitoring and management phase (European Commission 1999).
The environmental response indicators, presented below, were adapted to the
core repertoire of contemporary theories of urban planning and design including
planning indexes and parameters. The aim is to guarantee the quality of the urban
transformation, such as the minimum percentage of green areas, or the coverage
ratio (the ratio between the surface area and the unit of area used) and the per-
meability index referred to the buildable surface (degree of soil sealing), or, finally,
the minimum vegetation density (trees and shrubs) for both private and public areas.
The Planning parameters of the forecasted Urban transformation are considered
to verify the intensity of the possible impacts due to the fulfilment of the trans-
formations (e.g. improvement, deterioration or balance compared to the current
situation). According to the impact on ESC, the measures to adopt will be those of
mitigation or those of compensation. The consideration of urban planning param-
eters (hereafter UPP), that combines quantitative parameters with qualitative indi-
cators, could contribute to set the appropriate measure based on the pressure of the
AT. The association of qualitative and quantitative parameters assure an integrative
approach of ES implementation into Planning and to govern Land take processes.
This means starting from the ESC value of the AT (based on current state) and
considering the adoption of UPP to mitigate the impacts thus reducing the pressure.
If the parameters are not sufficient to mitigate the impacts of AT adequately, it is
necessary to adopt compensation measures.
Therefore, to assess mitigation and compensation, RES provides a catalogue of
possible parameters to express the performance of the transformations for envi-
ronmental sustainability.
The evaluation of the UPP is based on the compilation of a table divided into six
categories that reassume the parameters commonly used by decision-makers. The
selection of parameters is not exhaustive but was made selecting information and
indicators often considered in Urban Plans to make calculation much easier. The six
categories considered could be integrated adding other possible parameters specific,
for example, to building projects such as the materials used, the performance-based
approach, the indoor environmental quality for ensuring improved occupant com-
fort, or the water efficiency by evaluating total building water use. Other parameters
could be derived by the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)13
certification, considered as one of the most popular green building certification
programs used worldwide. This system was developed by the nonprofit US Green
Building Council (USGBC) and provides a certification for third-party verification
of a building, home or community considering different aspects: sustainable site
development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor
environmental quality. The aim was to support building owners and operators in
making the most responsible choices for the environment and the rational use of
natural resources. The evaluation of the UPP is inspired by the certification system
provided by GBC ITA, principally dedicated to buildings, for the environmental
sustainability of the urban transformations. The certification system called “GBC
Quartieri”14 (GBC district) was developed in 2016 both for regeneration projects
and new AT promoting the environmental sustainability of the intervention
including infrastructural systems and buildings.
13
http://www.usgbc.org/.
14
http://www.gbcitalia.org/page/show/gbc-quartieri?locale=it.
The aim is to stimulate an integrated approach to quality of life, public health

and respect for the environment. The certificate is based on a scoring system,
depending on the achievement or not of the specific level of performance. The list
of parameters with their values is shown below and is freely downloadable from the
website www.gbcitalia.org (Fig. 3.15).
Fig. 3.15 Scoresheet for the GBC district certification. Source www.gbcitalia.org
As explained, RES operates considering:

1. State indicator: the ESC described in Step 3
2. Pressure indicator: the forecasted AT
3. Response indicator: the adoption of the incremental measures.
The pressure is assessed through a checklist based on the UPP that expresses the
degree of the pressure intensity and, as a consequence, the typology of measure
(mitigate or compensate).
RES methodology balances the factors of pressure and response assigning an
overall value, the first varies from 0 to 1 value while the second could mitigate the
impact up to a maximum of 70%. This percentage is based on the fact that the
impact derived by an urban transformation could not be re-established entirely.
The UPP are divided into six categories:
1. Location of the AT;
2. Typology of transformation;
3. Green areas and water cycle;
4. Public spaces;
5. Accessibility;
6. Urban heat island effect.
Each category is divided into different parameters/requirements that express the
performance of the transformation. The first requirement aims to verify the “loca-
tion of the AT” that is, what kind of LULC is involved in the AT. The other five
categories are instead specifically related on the UPP. To each of these a score is
assigned (higher or lower) depending on the degree of the environmental quality.
The numeric score assigned to the UPP is defined considering the approach
adopted in the LEED and “GBC Quartieri” (GBC district) certification system con-
ducted by LEED-accredited professionals. The check of the UPP is mandatory for the
application of the RES methodology. In the case where there are no UPP the total
score will be 0. Otherwise, the total score is derived by the sum of the single UPP
until the maximum value of 1.15 Below the six categories and relatives’ requirements
that assure impact mitigation using UPP of urban transformations are listed.
Below is provided the Check-list of the Urban Planning Parameters for
mitigating LULC changes.
15
Different typologies of AT could already have a specific form of compensation and mitigation. In
that case is in force the system already prescript.
The remaining eight AT (two of them were already limited) were evaluated
following these UPP categories. The data were deducted by consulting the Urban
Plan, verifying the location and the typology of the AT, and the parameter settled
on for the transformation by assigning the relative scores. As an example, one
sample case study (ATS 2 of Abbiategrasso municipality) is reported below, to
make the procedure adopted for each single AT reasonable. In light-orange the total
scores assigned to each category are reported based on the characteristics of AT,
while in the orange box the details of AT are included and the reasons for the marks
assigned.
Check-list of the Urban Planning Parameters for mitigating LULC changes:
The case of ATS 2 of Abbiategrasso Municipality
The total scores of the six categories compose the so-called “Mitigation index”
(Mi) of Urban Transformations. The UPP checklist was applied for the eight AT, in
Table 3.8 the scores reached in the six categories and the total score (Mi) are provided.
The Mi is a numeric score as a sum of the score reached for each single category in
the UPP checklist. The adoption of UPP determines a reduction of the impact of the
AT on the ESC. Therefore, to each Mi it is possible to assign a percentage of reduction
of the pressure/impact derived by the AT. The relation between the total score of the
UPP (Mi) and the percentage reduction is directly proportional: the increase of the
total score determines, in turn, an increase of the reduction percentage (Fig. 3.16).
Table 3.8 Application of the UPP checklist: to each AT, and total mitigation index
Urban planning parameters
Area (ha) Incremental
Municipality Province ESC (class)
actions 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total (Mi)
Abbiategrasso MI 53.35 0.272 (3) 0 0 0 0.1 0.075 0 0.175
Agrate Brianza MB 4.69 0.654 (5) Limit – – – – – – 0.000
Arese MI 88.09 0.058 (1) 0.3 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.05 0 0.700
Capriate San G. BG 6.14 0.708 (5) Limit – – – – – – 0.000
Gaggiano MI 48.18 0.406 (4) 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.200
Lachiarella MI 79.12 0.375 (4) 0 0 0 0 0.05 0 0.050
Origgio VA 63.54 0.105 (2) 0.3 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.025 0 0.605
Varedo MB 48.16 0.113 (2) 0.3 0.3 0.08 0.1 0.075 0 0.855
Vigevano PV 4.78 0.075 (1) 0 0 0.03 0.1 0.025 0 0.155
Vimercate MB 25.50 0.280 (3) 0 0 0.02 0.1 0.05 0 0.170
Fig. 3.16 Conceptual schema of the mitigation index
As discussed, the UPP could not restore entirely the impact derived by LULC
changes hence the maximum among of impact reduction is estimated at the 70%.
Comparing the Mi (from 0 to 1 score) with the percentage of impact reduction
guarantee (0–70%), it is possible to set different thresholds of reduction (Fig. 3.17;
Table 3.9).
The assessment of the impact reduction derived by the Mi is based on the value
of the ESC at the current situation (T0) that could be compromised.
The combination of the ESC (subjected to pressure) with the impact reduction
percentage (derived from the UPP checklist) is composed of the “Compensation
index (Ci)”.
1
Mi % reduction
70%
60%
0.5 50%
40%
33%
27%
18% 21%
12% 15%
6% 9%
0 3%
Fig. 3.17 Directly proportional relationship between the total score derived by the UPP (Mi) and
the percentage reduction
Table 3.9 The impact reduction thresholds based on the Mi

Mi Impact reduction percentage (%)
0–0.05 3
0.05–0.1 6
0.1–0.15 9
0.15–0.20 12
0.20–0.25 15
0.25–0.30 18
0.30–0.35 21
0.35–0.45 27
0.45–0.55 33
0.55–0.65 40
0.65–0.75 50
0.75–0.90 60
0.90–1 70
The formula used is:

Ci ¼ ½ESC ð% of reductionÞ
where
ESC Ecosystem Service Capacity (normalised in rank between 0 and 1)
derived by the sum of the biophysical values of the four ES maps
(Habitat quality, Carbon sequestration, Crop production and
Recreation potential)
% of reduction the Impact Reduction percentage derived by the total score of the
UPP (Mi).
The Ci was applied to the AT considered; the results are provided in Table 3.10.
From the Ci, two results are possible:
Table 3.10 Application of the compensation index (Ci) for the AT considered
Municipality Province Area (ha) ESC (class) Incremental actions Mi % of reduction Ci

Abbiategrasso MI 53.35 0.272 (3) 0.175 12 0.246
Agrate Brianza MB 4.69 0.654 (5) Limit
Arese MI 88.09 0.058 (1) 0.7 50 0.029
Capriate San G. BG 6.14 0.708 (5) Limit
Gaggiano MI 48.18 0.406 (4) 0.2 12 0.358
Lachiarella MI 79.12 0.375 (4) 0.05 3 0.365
Origgio VA 63.54 0.105 (2) 0.605 40 0.063
Varedo MB 48.16 0.113 (2) 0.855 60 0.046
Vigevano PV 4.78 0.075 (1) 0.155 12 0.066
Vimercate MB 25.50 0.280 (3) 0.176 12 0.247
(1) The impact is appropriately reduced, hence the UPP are sufficient to contain
and decrease the pressure (i.e. the AT is mitigated);
(2) The impact is still relevant, therefore the reduction percentage is lower and
cannot contain the pressure thus is necessary to introduce compensation actions
as a response to the pressure (i.e. the AT must be compensated).
The factors considered in defining the adoption of compensation are based on the
LULC and relative weighted ESC. As well as for the limit threshold, to set when
introducing compensation, it is necessary to consider Fig. 3.13 with the represen-
tation of the Statistical linear correlation between LULC of the AT, and the
weighted average ESC. Considering that:
– The ESC increases from the urbanised areas to the arable ones, therefore, the
pressure derived by the AT increases considering the LULC (that is: the AT
pressure on urbanised areas is less than the pressure on Urban green areas that is,
in turn, less than the pressure on agricultural areas);
– The weighted ESC of the urbanised areas is quite low considering the limited
provision of ES of this typology of LULC;
– The weighted ESC increase considerably in the urban green areas because those
areas maintain a medium-high capacity in providing a range of ES increasing the
quality of the artificial areas;
– The potentialities of the agricultural ecosystems to deliver more diverse ES is
widely recognized (bear in mind their role as a provider of provisioning ser-
vices, such as food, fibre and energy);
– The marginal increase of the weighted ESC between urban green areas and
arable areas is quite reduced. In fact, the marginal increase represents a strong
break in the capacity to provide ES.
Taking into account these considerations, in the urbanised areas the provision of
ES is more compromised as a result of anthropogenic stress. Instead, urban green
areas play a key role in the generation of ES bearing in mind their socio-cultural
functions, their utility in the ecological connectivity of the city, and their ability in
the regulation of the micro-climatic condition. Therefore, urban green spaces are a
generator of ES for the city contributing to increasing the quality and sustainability
of urban context as a service providing units being a fundamental part of the main
ecological structure. Hence, the sustainability of an anthropized area (composed of
urban areas sealed by construction well as by urban green areas and sport and
leisure facilities) depends strictly on urban green areas.
Considering these assumptions, the fulfilment of an AT located in an urbanised
area has less impact on the provision of ES because the ESC is already reduced.
Therefore, the introduction of such mitigation actions as UPP, could avoid the total
damage of the ES capacity and guarantee the maintenance of such functions.
Differently, the fulfilment of an AT in urban green areas or arable areas impacts
notably on the ESC and the adoption of mitigation actions are not sufficient to
guarantee their performance. The high capacity of those areas to provide ES
requires the necessity to adopt a compensation action to restore the damage.
Figure 3.18 sums up the contents discussed. Natural areas with ESC values of
greater than 0.6 were excluded from urban transformation as they guarantee pro-
vision of the ES. Their ESC is guaranteed only if its completeness is preserved
avoiding fragmentation, therefore, the restoration (through mitigation or compen-
sation) is not practicable. The weighted ESC, understood as the potential pressure
derived by AT increases passing from urbanised areas and urban green areas. The
last has a weighted ESC comparable to that of arable areas. Therefore, the con-
tribution of the urban green areas and the arable areas in the provision of ES is
evident and needs to be maintained through compensation actions as a response to
the urbanisation pressure. The urbanised areas have a minor degree of pressure
derived from their ES capacity, therefore mitigation actions could restore the
impact.
Fig. 3.18 Trend of the weighted ESC and the intensity of pressure (AT) associated to LULC
The numeric value adopted to distinguish the two thresholds (mitigation and
compensation) is the average of the potential impact estimated for the urbanised
areas. The potential impact is expressed by the ESC, as the capacity of ES that
could be compromised following the realisation of the AT. The value (0.14) sets the
threshold beyond which it is necessary to compensate the pressure. This threshold
was adopted for the selected AT (Fig. 3.19; Table 3.11).
Fig. 3.19 Conceptual scheme of the procedure to assess how incremental measures are necessary
to adopt to reduce the pressure of AT
Table 3.11 Application of the Compensation index (Ci) for the AT considered
Municipality Province Area (ha) ESC (class) Incremental actions Mi Ci

Abbiategrasso MI 53.35 0.272 (3) Compensation 0.175 0.246
Arese MI 88.09 0.058 (1) Mitigation 0.700 0.029
Gaggiano MI 48.18 0.406 (4) Compensation 0.200 0.358
Lachiarella MI 79.12 0.375 (4) Compensation 0.050 0.365
Origgio VA 63.54 0.105 (2) Mitigation 0.605 0.063
Varedo MB 48.16 0.113 (2) Mitigation 0.855 0.046
Vigevano PV 4.78 0.075 (1) Mitigation 0.155 0.066
Vimercate MB 25.50 0.280 (3) Compensation 0.176 0.247
3.2.5.3 Compensate
From a review of the international literature, the German approach was assumed for the
ecological compensation. This is one of the first and most innovative methodologies for
protecting Nature and the Landscape. The German Eingriffsregelung (Impact
Mitigation Regulation—IMR) includes the hierarchy mitigation strategy in a Law with
a mandatory and precautionary act, with the aim to ensure “no net loss” avoiding any
damage, and including restoration and replacement compensation for remaining
unavoidable impacts. For the latter, two types of compensation must be applied:
1. Restoration of ecological functions and values reducing different impacts in the
right functional context: re-establishing the impaired functions of nature and
re-establishing or newly shaping the natural scenery (both in an adequate way).
This measure involves a direct spatial and functional connection to the lost
components (“in-kind” and “on-site”);
2. Replacement of ecological functions and values in another functional context:
substituting the impaired functions of nature in an equivalent way or newly
shaping the natural scenery in an adequate way.
(Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety
2009).
The two types of compensation are intended in a hierarchal way, therefore if
restoration measures cannot assure full compensation, the addition of a replacement
compensation measure (“out-of-kind” and “off-site”) is required. The additional
measure does not automatically have to restore the same functions while it may only
have a loose spatial and functional relationship to the impacted area. Moreover:
The intervening party shall be obliged to primarily endeavour to offset any unavoidable
impairment through measures of nature conservation and landscape management
[restoration compensation], or to offset them in some other way [replacement compensa-
tion]. Any impairment shall be considered to have been compensated for as soon as the
impaired functions of the ecosystem have been restored and the natural scenery has been
restored or redesigned (landscape) in a manner consistent with the landscape concerned.
Any impairment shall be considered to have been offset in some other way as soon as the
impaired functions of the ecosystem have been substituted in an equivalent manner or the
natural scenery has been re-designed in a manner that is consistent with the landscape
(Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety 2009).
Considering this approach, the Compensation measure includes values ranking

from 0.05 to 1. The incremental threshold starts from restoration, passing through
replacement action (more consistent), until the union of both measures (Table 3.12).
The selection of the possible compensation measures considers the “Repertorio
delle misure di mitigazione e compensazione paesistico-ambientali” (Catalogue of
measures of ecological mitigation and compensation) included in the Territorial
Plan for the metropolitan region of Milano16 (approved by resolution of the
16
http://www.cittametropolitana.mi.it/pianificazione_territoriale/piano_territoriale/PTCP_
VIGENTE/index.html.
Table 3.12 The threshold Compensation index score Typology of compensation

for the definition of the
typology of compensation 0.15–0.30 Restoration
0.30–0.50 Replacement
>0.50 Restoration + replacement
Provincial Council 93/2013). The compensation measure is selected according to

the principle that firstly it is necessary to adopt reforestation actions along natural or
artificial watercourses (or instead, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation land or land
next to anthropized areas) developing areas or wooded corridors of different sizes
and functions (with (naturalistic), productive or naturalistic-recreation vocation). In
the catalogue of the metropolitan area of Milano, the typologies of compensation
measures are defined considering four steps:
Step 1—Reconnaissance
1. Identification of the Landscape types where the transformations are forecasted.
The Landscape type are:
(a) Paesaggio agrario produttivo (productive agricultural landscape)
(b) Paesaggio agrario interessato dalla rete ecologica e/o da aree di rilevanza
naturalistica o paesistica (agricultural landscape with high natural/landscape
quality)
(c) Paesaggio di frangia (peri-urban Landscape)
(d) Paesaggio di rilevanza paesistico-fluviale (river Landscape)
2. Definition of the characteristics of the transformation to outline the possible
indirect impacts.
Step 2—Large-scale assessment
1. Definition of the Landscape Unit;
2. Assessment of the major impacts (direct and indirect) of the AT (based on the
“Impact table” provided by the Territorial Plan.17)
Step 3—Local scale assessment
1. Integration between the characteristics of the context and those of the trans-
formation to identify the reciprocal effects at the local scale and determine the
most significant impacts and the relative improvement objects.
Step 4—Selection of appropriate mitigation and compensation measures.
The Catalogue provides different hypothesis/solutions of mitigation and com-
pensation measures, in this specific case only those of the compensation are
considered.
17
http://www.cittametropolitana.mi.it/pianificazione_territoriale/piano_territoriale/PTCP_
VIGENTE/index.html.
Hedge (reference code: Sm): a set of shrubs and woods of medium and small sizes,
with visual and acoustic filter functions and anti-pollution barrier.
Shrubs, woods and herbaceous vegetation (reference code: M)
Fig. 3.20 Possible types of interventions for compensation. Source Territorial Plan of the
metropolitan region of Milano, 2013. “Repertorio delle misure di mitigazione e compensazione
paesistico-ambientali”
Tree Line (reference code: Fm)
JFig. 3.20 (continued)
Table 3.13 The typology of compensation and possible interventions

Typology of compensation Type of possible interventions
Restoration Hedge
Line trees
Wildlife crossing (under and overpass)
Shrubs, woods and herbaceous vegetation
Green bridge
Replacement Shrubs, woods and herbaceous vegetation
Green bridge
Natural grassland
Rushed and wetland vegetation
Riparial vegetation
Re-naturalisation of river basins
+ decontamination of brownfielda
a
This type of intervention is derived from International scientific literature for the application of
restoration and damage measures (European Commission 2001)
Each type of intervention proposed in the Catalogue could be associated with

restoration or replacement category, below the possible correlation between
typology of compensation and type of intervention is summarised (Fig. 3.20;
Table 3.13).
Table 3.14 Classification of the AT considering the incremental actions: limit, mitigation and
compensation
Municipality Province Area (ha) ESC (class) Incremental actions Mi Ci Typology

Abbiategrasso MI 53.35 0.272 (3) Compensation 0.175 0.246 Restoration
Arese MI 88.09 0.058 (1) Mitigation 0.700 0.029
Gaggiano MI 48.18 0.406 (4) Compensation 0.200 0.358 Replacement
Lachiarella MI 79.12 0.375 (4) Compensation 0.050 0.365 Replacement
Origgio VA 63.54 0.105 (2) Mitigation 0.605 0.063
Varedo MB 48.16 0.113 (2) Mitigation 0.855 0.046
Vigevano PV 4.78 0.075 (1) Mitigation 0.155 0.066
Vimercate MB 25.50 0.280 (3) Compensation 0.176 0.247 Restoration
For each selected AT the specific compensation action according to the contents
discussed above were identified, these are (Table 3.14).
3.2.6 Final Remarks
RES provided an ecological estimation of the impacts derived by new urban

transformation. The introduction of measures to mitigate/compensate urban trans-
formations is a possible way to recreate ecosystems and minimise their negative
consequences and/or impacts. The application of the incremental measures is still
not applied very much in planning also due to the lack of methods for their
implementation in the planning process.
RES aimed to define a methodology for the implementation of corrective actions
to remediate the damage of AT. In this framework, the UPP plays a crucial role in
mitigating the pressure of the transformation on the ES capacity. Differently,
serious transformations which alter the ESC have to be compensated through an
ecologically balanced “therapy”. Considering that Ecological compensation is one
of the main features of Environmental Assessment processes and it is provided for
by EU Directives on EIA and SEA, RES methodology is designed to be included in
the planning process and the SEA. The aim is to link the two processes with a
unique tool to influence decision making, providing knowledge support regarding
quantification, qualification and spatialisation of the decisions that involve LULC
changes. From the environmental point of view, RES supports the planning process
in different phases proposing a way to solve possible trivial issues. Such possible
implementations are proposed below.18 RES should be adopted in:
18
The proposed possible ways to implement RES in planning processes are based only considering
the environmental aspect knowing that different factors could influence the decision-making
process.
1. the Plan revision process

Condition: The design of a new edition of an Urban Plan. Generally, there are
such AT that were not realised therefore, during the process to set up a new
edition of the Plan, it is necessary to decide what to do with these areas.
RES contribution: provides knowledge support to decision makers for the
maintenance, modification or revocation of the AT forecasted but not realised.
One of the possible criteria for guiding the decision-making process should be in
considering the ESC as a proxy to confirm or delete/limit a specific unimple-
mented AT.
2. the definition of new AT
Condition: The real need of new transformation to be included in an Urban
plan.
RES contribution: the decision, through Landscape Commission, should be
taken considering the ESC and selecting the areas with minor impact and
(determining) foreseeing the incremental measures for each AT.
3. the characterization of the AT
Condition: the areas of new urban transformation were already selected, but it is
necessary to set the UPP to be achieved.
RES contribution: provides a preliminary assessment of UPP to ensure the
maximum degree of mitigation. The ex-ante analysis has two advantages:
(1) avoid the urban transformations of an area crucial for the provision of ES;
(2) include the achievement of such mitigation measures in the fulfilment of the
AT to ensure the complete restoration of the damage.
References
Albert C, Galler C, Hermes J et al (2015) Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape

planning and management: the ES-in-planning framework. Ecol Indic 61:100–113. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.029
Arcidiacono A, Di Simine D, Pareglio S et al (2012) Rapporto CRCS 2012, INU Edizioni, Rome
Arcidiacono A, Ronchi S, Salata S (2015) Ecosystem services assessment using InVEST as a tool
to support decision making process: critical issues and opportunities. Comput Sci ApplICCSA
2015:35–49
Arcidiacono A, Ronchi S, Salata S (2016) Managing multiple ecosystem services for
landscapeconservation: a green infrastructure in Lombardy region, Procedia Engineering,
161:2297–2303
Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K (2012) Ecosystem properties, potentials and services—the
EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol Indic 21:7–16. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.014
Bisquert M, Bégué A, Deshayes M (2015) Object-based delineation of homogeneous landscape
units at regional scale based on MODIS time series. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 37:72–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2014.10.004
References 127
de Groot R, Alkemade R, Braat L et al (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem

services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex
7:260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
Decoville A, Schneider M (2015) Can the 2050 zero land take objective of the EU be reliably
monitored? A comparative study. J Land Use Sci 4248:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1747423x.2014.994567
Eigenbrod F, Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR et al (2009) Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting
conservation strategies in a human-dominated region. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:2903–2911.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0528
European Commission (1999) Towards environmental pressure indicators for the EU.
Luxembourg
European Commission (2001) Study on the valuation and restoration of damage to natural
resources for the purpose of environmental liability
European Environment Agency (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe - The ignored challenge
European Commission (2012) Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil
sealing
European Commission (2013) Brownfield regeneration
European Commission (2016) No net land take by 2050?
Federal Ministry for the Environment Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2009) Act on
nature conservation and landscape management
Fisher B, Bateman IJ, Turner RK (2011) Valuing ecosystem services: benefits, values, space and
time. Ecosyst Serv Econ Work Pap Ser 11. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203847602
Grêt-Regamey A, Walz A, Bebi P (2008) Valuing ecosystem services for sustainable landscape
planning in alpine regions. Mt Res Dev 28:156–165. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.0951
Haines-Young, Roy; Potschin M (2010) Common international classification of ecosystem goods
and services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August–December 2012. EEA Framework
Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. Contract 30. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10650
2005.04.005
Ingegnoli V, Giglio E (2008) Landscape biodiversity changes in forest vegetation and the case
study of the Lavazé Pass (Trentino, Italy). Annu di Bot 8:21–29
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2006) Volume 4 agriculture, forestry and
other land use. In: IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories
ISPRA—Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (2015) Il consumo di suolo
in Italia
La Rosa D, Spyra M, Inostroza L (2015) Indicators of cultural ecosystem services for urban
planning: a review. Ecol Indic 61:74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.028
Li J, Jiang H, Bai Y et al (2016) Indicators for spatial–temporal comparisons of ecosystem service
status between regions: a case study of the Taihu River Basin, China. Ecol Indic 60:1008–
1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.002
Liu J, Ye J, Yang W, Yu S (2010) Environmental impact assessment of land use planning in
Wuhan city based on ecological suitability analysis. Procedia Environ 2:185–191. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.proenv.2010.10.022
Magnaghi A (2010) Il Progetto locale. Verso la coscienza di luogo. Torino
Martinez-Harms MJ, Gajardo R (2008) Ecosystem value in the Western Patagonia protected areas.
J Nat Conserv 16:72–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2008.02.002
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being
Murakami A, Zain AM, Takeuchi K et al (2005) Trends in urbanization and patterns of land use in
the Asian mega cities Jakarta, Bangkok, and Metro Manila. Landsc Urban Plan 70:251–259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.021
OECD—Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2008) Strategic environ-
mental assessment and adaptation to climate change. In: Endorsed by members of the DAC
network on environment and development co-operation (ENVIRONET) at their 8th meeting,

pp 1–26
Palomo I, Martín-López B, Potschin M et al (2013) National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding
lands: mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosyst Serv 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.
09.001
Solaro S, Brenna S (2005) Il carbonio organico nei suoli e nelle foreste della Lombardia
Syrbe RU, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing,
benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:80–88. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.013
Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Sharp R, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S,
Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pennington D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J, Cameron D,
Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes PC-KR (2013) InVEST 2. 0 beta user’ s guide :
integrated valuation of ecosystem services and tradeoffs
Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology
and sustainable development. Landsc Ecol 24:1037–1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-
9314-8
Terrado M, Sabater S, Chaplin-Kramer B et al (2016) Model development for the assessment of
terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality in conservation planning. Sci Total Environ 540:63–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.064
Chapter 4
The Adoption of RES Methodology
in Strategic Environmental Assessment
Abstract The RES implementation in the Planning process is associated with the
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) providing valid support for the defini-
tion of the planning strategies across the entire process, especially for the evaluation
of alternative scenarios. The last chapter outlines how SEA should incorporate and
guarantee ES assessment adopting RES methodology for the definition of sustain-
able solutions that avoid impacts on ES provision.
The implementation of RES finds in the SEA a possible tool to guarantee ES

integration in the planning process. RES was designed as a practical instrument that
could be adopted in SEA for computing the impact of Plans and Programmes and to
guarantee the “high level of environmental protection and the promotion of sus-
tainable development” as required by the European Parliament in 2001 (European
Parliament 2001). SEA could adopt the RES methodology for guiding the Planning
process towards decisions sustainable from the environmental point of view. The
main objective of SEA is to guide policy makers to assess environmentally and
sustainability opportunities, and assess the risks of strategic options pursuing sus-
tainable development pathways. Moreover, SEA ensures active stakeholders
engagement through dialogue, strong interaction and collaborative processes from
earliest decision moments, following all the decision cycles, until the final imple-
mentation and monitoring steps. SEA provides a window of opportunity to main-
stream ES into the decision making process and formal planning. RES could be a
practical toolkit in supporting ES Assessment and Planning within and across
disciplines/topics (biophysical, social, institutional and economic). Moreover, RES
could solve such critical aspects that have reduced the influence of SEA in decision
making.
Among the many critical aspects, there are: the lack of consistency of data and
information, in particular relating to the evolution of the baseline; the ineffectual
consideration of reasonable alternatives (including the zero alternative); the limited
understanding of cumulative effects; the exclusive consideration of the environ-
mental issues without also including the other pillars of sustainable development

130 4 The Adoption of RES Methodology in Strategic Environmental …
(social and economic) and the inadequate agreement with the compensation/
mitigation hierarchy (Baker et al. 2013).
Taking into account these criticisms, RES was structured to remedy much of
these aspects.
The aim is to define the indicators and parameters to present information to
decision makers in a manageable way combining those that are traditionally used by
policy makers in Planning and those based on ES. Considering the SEA Directive’s
requirements, it is possible to recognise six main steps in which key analyses are
proposed to mainstream ES information.
In each stage, the public and stakeholders (with different competencies and roles)
must be consulted on the draft PPP and the Environmental Report (the final product
of the SEA) to give an early and efficient opportunity, within appropriate time
frames, to express their opinions.
The integration of ES in SEA must be conducted in parallel with the consultation
process to facilitate the development of a shared vision of problems, objectives and
strategies contributing to the design of a successful Plan or Program. The key SEA
stage for RES implementation is the scenario analysis, a common framework of
impact assessment, used by several studies on ES and easily applied in SEA. SEA
traditionally develops policy scenarios to predict and understand current and pos-
sible future changes and trends on environmental quality, hence this approach is
quite similar to the ES scenario analyses already widely applied in different contexts
and with diverse spatial scale.
SEA stages and relative purpose are provided below in Table 4.1; these phases
are proposed in a linear way even if often the process could have changes
depending on the discussion/confrontation with stakeholders and policy makers.
Considering these six stages, it is possible to determine the way in which ES
could be integrated and how they could support the planning process in the definition
of sustainable development strategies.
Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and
deciding on the scope
This phase coincides with the definition of the scope and the objectives of
the Plan in a planning process. ES could be integrated to address and target
the Plan’s objectives, mapping the provisioning area of key ES including
analysis on the beneficiary stakeholders. ES inclusion also allows collecting
data and baseline information required in this SEA stage by SEA Directive’s,
useful in identifying actual conditions and trends.
In different experiences, the data were compared with information on
population density and socioeconomic conditions to perform a screening of
critical sites (Geneletti et al. 2007).
In this stage, it is also important to set the scale issue to address and orient
the strategies for Planning to understand situations where benefits accrue at
one scale, but costs are borne at another.
4 The Adoption of RES Methodology in Strategic Environmental … 131
Table 4.1 SEA stages and purpose

SEA stages and tasks Purpose
Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope
Identifying other relevant PPP and To establish how the plan or program is affected
environmental protection objectives by outside factors, to suggest ideas how any
constraints can be addressed, and to help to
identify SEA objectives
Collecting baseline information To provide an evidence base for environmental
problems, prediction of effects, and monitoring;
to help in the development of SEA objectives
Identifying environmental problems To help focus the SEA and streamline the
subsequent stages, including baseline
information analysis, the setting of the SEA
objectives, prediction of effects and monitoring
Developing SEA objectives To provide a means by which the environmental
performance of the plan or program and
alternatives can be assessed.
Consulting on SEA scope To ensure that the SEA covers the likely
significant environmental effects of the plan or
program
Stage B: Developing and refining alternatives and assessing effects
Testing the plan or program objectives To identify potential synergies or
against the SEA objectives inconsistencies between the objectives of the
plan or program and the SEA objectives and
help in developing alternatives
Developing strategic alternatives To develop and refine strategic alternatives
Predicting the effects of the plan or To predict the significant environmental effects
program, including alternatives of the plan or program and alternatives
Evaluating the effects including To evaluate the predicted effects of the plan or
alternatives program and its alternatives and assist in the
refinement of the plan or program
Mitigating adverse effects To ensure that adverse effects are identified and
potential mitigation measures are considered
Proposing measures to monitor the To detail the means by which the environmental
environmental effects performance of the plan or program can be
assessed
Stage C: Preparing the Environmental Report
Preparing the Environmental Report To present the predicted environmental effects
of the plan or program, including alternatives, in
a form suitable for public consultation and use
by decision-makers
Stage D: Consulting on the draft plan or program and the Environmental Report
Consulting the public and Consultation To give the public and the Consultation Bodies
Bodies on the draft plan or program and an opportunity to express their opinions on the
the findings of the Environmental Report and to use
it as a reference point in commenting on the plan
or program. To gather more information through
the opinions and concerns of the public
(continued)
Table 4.1 (continued)

Environmental Report Assessing To ensure that the environmental implications of
significant changes any significant changes to the draft plan or
program at this stage are assessed and taken into
account
Making decisions and providing To provide information on how the
information Environmental Report and consultees’ opinions
were taken into account in deciding the final
form of the plan or program to be adopted
Stage E: Monitoring the significant effects of implementing the plan or program on the
environment
Developing aims and methods for To track the environmental effects of the plan or
monitoring program to show whether they are as predicted;
to help identify adverse effects
Responding to adverse effects To prepare for appropriate responses where
adverse effects are identified
Modified from Scottish Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005)
Stage B: Developing and refining alternatives and assessing effects

In this stage, the Plan needs to identify actions to achieve the objectives
defined in Stage A considering proposal for LULC changes, infrastructural
system development, or new regulations. SEA predicts and evaluates possible
impacts and effects, also in a cumulative way, on the main ES, comparing
different alternative actions and proposing measures to enhance and mitigate
them. ES assessment forecasts the effect of LULC changes derived from
direct and indirect decisions testing various options and scenarios and
developing land suitability analysis. The assessment includes quantification
and qualification of changes counting it in biophysical and/or monetary terms,
whenever possible, distinguishing the provision and beneficiary areas of ES
in a spatially explicit form. Moreover, SEA must suggest solutions for mit-
igating and reducing potential impacts (both direct and indirect) of the Plan,
and its dependency on ES, proposing solutions and measures.
Stage C: Preparing the Environmental Report

Having defined and predicted environmental effects of the plan, including
an alternatives scenario analysis, a first draft of the Plan and the
Environmental Report could be registered.
Stage D: Consulting on the draft plan or program and the Environmental

Report
The Environmental Report must be in a form suitable for public consul-
tation and use by decision-makers for assuring that the environmental
4 The Adoption of RES Methodology in Strategic Environmental … 133
implications of any significant changes are assessed and taken into account.
Public participation and consultation is an essential element of both planning
and SEA. ES concepts must be expressed for a clear understanding to
improve stakeholders’ knowledge, spreading awareness and the perception
about it.
Stage E: Monitoring the significant effects of implementing the plan or

program on the environment
After the adoption and approval of the Plan’s proposal, start the moni-
toring stage to assess changes and impacts on ES and set the appropriate
measures to respond and deal with them. ES are useful to test the quality of
the SEA and propose solutions for impact management to steer the plan’s
implementation whenever required.
The possible full internalisation of ES concerns into each SEA stages is quite
clear and this allows ensuring and providing support for policies, plans and pro-
grams making.
Below is proposed a summary scheme of the consideration explaining the
integration of ES in the planning process and SEA stages (Fig. 4.1).
4.1 Validation of RES Methodology
In this Chapter, the RES methodology is tested as a process to confirm if the

procedure employed is suitable for its intended use, that is, to support the decision
making process in the definition of planning strategies. In this specific case, the
validation is considered for the alternative scenario analysis being one of the SEA
phases that could provide evidence of the usefulness of RES.
RES provides a practical methodology for assessing the ecological balance of
forecasted LULC changes derived from the planning decision.
The first regards the precondition of the spatial scale with the aim to surpass
institutional boundaries when dealing with ES. Therefore, it is necessary to define
who are the decision makers. As already explained, ES are provided at different
spatial scales that often do not coincide with the boundaries of the institution that
manages them complicating the process in predicting the effect of Spatial plans.
Therefore, as explained in Step 1, the adoption of RES in Planning goes beyond
the institutional scale considering the landscape scale as the appropriate spatial
reference for managing ES. The landscape is the scale adopted for all steps and
therefore must be maintained until the end of the process to make the entire
methodology effective.
134
Fig. 4.1 ES integration in SEA and Planning process. Modified from Scottish Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) and Geneletti (2011, 2016)
4 The Adoption of RES Methodology in Strategic Environmental …
4.1 Validation of RES Methodology 135
From the practical point of view, the arena for the planning decision could be
that of the co-planning, meaning a shared conference for multilevel governance
with the aim to create consensus among different stakeholders sharing targets and
cognitive frameworks. In this specific case, the tool of the co-planning conference
could be that of the Landscape Commission.
In the Lombardy region, the Landscape Commission is an instrument already
defined that act at a regional level (established with Regional Decree n° 572/2010,
and is composed of selected scientific experts and related to the Landscape districts
(defined by the RLP), at provincial and at municipal level (formulated with the
Code of cultural heritage and landscape n° 42/2004 and included in the Urban
Planning Law 12/2005 Article 81) with the aim of:
• guaranteeing high-quality urban transformation (new and buildings recovery)
from the landscape point of view (regarding morphological, typological, visual,
symbolic, environmental impact);
• releasing landscape authorizations; and
• proposing new real estate property as cultural/historical and architectonical
heritage with remarkable public interest.
Local authorities can establish a Landscape Commission in a consortium or
association considering the landscape specifics identified in the Provincial Territorial
Plan, in the Territorial Plan of Regional parks or the Territorial Regional Plan of the
determined area (such as the Piano Territoriale Regionale d’Area dei Navigli, Piano
Territoriale Regionale d’area Montichiari). The Landscape commissions could be the
arena used to make decisions on the forecasted LULC changes considering the
Landscape as the most appropriate territorial scale. In fact, assuming the Landscape
unit, as an homogeneous entity characterised by structural and formal lines (such as
water system, cultural heritage, anthropogenic elements, …) with common morphol-
ogy, geology, and LULC dynamics, each LULC change affects the entire Landscape
Unit determining a cumulative impact on the stability/consistency of the unit.
The three levels of Landscape Commission (regional, provincial and local) could
be maintained but with different roles: at municipal level, the commission could be
useful for evaluating the landscape quality/integrity of urban transformation, but the
choice of new urban transformation must be adopted at Landscape scale, meaning
aggregating the institutions (municipalities or province) that compose the
Landscape unit.
The second aspect that needs to be clarified is the RES contribution in devel-
oping and assessing alternatives in SEA. To validate the possibilities expressed
using RES methodology, the Alternative scenario analysis must be tested for one
AT (selected from the ten AT previously chosen as a sample case study): ATS 2 of
Abbiategrasso Municipality.
Theoretically, the implementation is quite clear, but it is necessary to verify
practically the real potentialities of RES. In fact, if the construction of the different
steps of RES is evident, the evaluation of the alternative scenario is the only aspect
that was not experimented.
The Alternative scenario analysis was done considering three possible

expectations:
1. Time 0 (T0): the current situation of the AT, means state of the art.
The analysis corresponds to that already elaborated in the previous steps of RES
methodology. The current state is analysed with ES mapping that composes the
ESC. Below are provided in sequence: (1) an orthophoto of the ATS 2; (2) the maps
of the four ES: Habitat quality, Carbon sequestration, Crop production and
Recreation potential; (3) the ESC calculated with the weighted sum analysis of the
previous four maps (Fig. 4.2).
State of Art (orthophoto) Habitat Quality
Carbon sequestration Crop production
Recreation potential ESC T0
Fig. 4.2 ATS 2 at time T0: ES mapping and the ESC

The weighted average ESC value of ATS 2 at time T0 is 0.272 that corresponds
to a Medium value (Class 3). The ESC in addition to the mitigation categories
defined in Step 6 of RES estimated the Mi (0.175) and relative Ci (0.246).
As already discussed, the appropriate measure suggested is compensation, specif-
ically the restoration.
2. Time 1 (T1): corresponds to the pressure state derived by the possible urban
transformations. For this scenario, the UPP defined by the Urban Plan of
Abbiategrasso for the AT selected were considered.
The scenario analysis includes ES mapping (Habitat quality, Carbon seques-
tration, Crop production and Recreation potential) based on the modified LULC
considering the UPP and the parameters included in the Masterplan elaborated by
“Marinoni architecture firm”. On the new ES mapping, there was a quantification of
the ESC calculated with the weighted sum analysis. Below The Planning param-
eters defined for the ATS 2 and the Masterplan’s rendering elaborated in July 2011
are presented (Fig. 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5).
Below are provided in sequence: (1) Masterplan of ATS 2; (2) the maps of the
four ES: Habitat quality, Carbon sequestration, Crop production and Recreation
potential; (3) the ESC calculated with the weighted sum analysis of the previous
four maps.
What emerges is a decrease of the ESC value of ATS 2 i.e. 0.022 (Class 1—Low).
The ESC undergoes a significant reduction (from 0.27 in T0 to 0.022 in T1).
Fig. 4.3 Planning Parameters defined in the Local Urban plan fort ATS2. Source Urban plan of
Abbiategrasso 2010
Fig. 4.4 Masterplan for the area ATS 2: 3D rendering (above) and urban pattern (below). Source
Relazione, Ambito di Trasformazione Strategica ATS2 Progetto urbano coordinato, July 2011.
Available at (http://www.legambienteabbiategrasso.org)
As already detected in the checklist of the UPP, the Mi of 0.175 and relative Ci of
0.246 highlights the need for compensation to restore the damage.
3. Time 2 (T2): Considering the decrease of the weighted ESC in the previous
scenario T1, the last scenario was proposed by the author applying the RES in
order to try to balance the necessity of the new urban transformation (residen-
tial) with the adoption of mitigation actions based on UPPs.
The Scenario T2 starts from the hypothetical assumption that it is not possible to
apply compensation measures, as often occurs. The impossibility could be due to
different reasons, among the others the economic impracticability to acquire an area
of compensation or the lack of public area that could “host” such interventions.
Only the introduction of mitigative measures (through UPP) allows testing the RES
methodology. In fact, this validation is also useful in verifying if the adoption of
Masterplan ATS2 Habitat Quality
Fig. 4.5 ATS 2 at time T1: the ES mapping and ESC
mitigative measures could be sufficient to restore the damage while the RES sug-
gests compensation.
This last scenario aimed to test in a simplified way the RES methodology
providing a new LULC that involves such mitigation measures.
The procedure requires ES mapping based on the new LULC and the estimation
of the ESC.
The scenario T2 includes new residential areas concentrated only on the east side
of the AT characterised by “continuous urban fabric—LULC code 111” with an
area dedicated to sports and leisure facilities and green area. On the right hand side
of the urban transformation, the existing natural areas (LULC code 324) will be
preserved and create a sort of “transition area” between the new residential built-up
Fig. 4.6 ATS 2: Author’s proposal for the new urban pattern
area and the existing road. This area would like to preserve the two secondary
waterbodies with the creation of the appropriate vegetation type (Moors and
shrubs). Finally, the south-eastern part of the ATS2 will be dedicated to woodland
shrubs and natural grassland to create a functional ecological reserve to preserve the
wetland (external of the perimeter of the ATS2 and located in the northern part).
Three basic mitigation measures were considered:
– Woodland and shrubs for 110,000 m2 in addition to the existing one;
– Parking lot made with a permeable surface for 5,000 m2;
– Tree row for 546 ml.
Considering the adoption of mitigative measures in scenario T2, the final ESC in
the Scenario T2 could be:
T0 [ T2
the measures adopted are not sufficient to restore the ESC value in time T0
T0 ¼ T2
A balanced condition that means that adoption measures can recover the
damage entirely
T0 \ T2
Improvement condition means that the measure could entirely replace the ESC,
determining an upgrade in the provision of ES and their capacity.
Considering that for the restoration of the ATS 2, the measure proposed by RES
was compensation, the condition is probably the first where the ESC in T0 is not
entirely restored only with mitigation, but it is necessary to integrate with com-
pensation (Fig. 4.6 and 4.7).
Author’s proposal (simplify) Habitat Quality
Fig. 4.7 ATS 2 at time T2: ES mapping for the ESC
The ES mapping considering this LULC database are provided below.

The weighted average ESC value of ATS 2 at time T2 is 0.17 (class 2—
Medium-Low). The Scenario analysis elaborated considering the RES methodology
shows the changes in the ESC value due to a different design of the AT including
UPP for mitigating impacts in scenario T1. The remarkable decline of ESC in
scenario T1 requires the adoption of compensation measure proposals for
re-establishing a consistent provision of ES that does not assure the full restoration
Ecosystem Service Capacity (ESC)

The complete restora-
0.3 tion of the ESC is
guaranteed only with
0.25 the adoption of com-
pensation measures
0.2
0.15
The increase of the
ESC is due to the
0.1
adoption Urban
planning parameters
0.05 for mitigation
0
T0 T1 T2
Fig. 4.8 The trend of ESC in the three alternative scenario analysis (T0, T1, T2)
of the value but with a different design of the urban transformation the ESC
(proposal T2) increases. Moreover, adding such mitigation measures the final value
could be further improved (Fig. 4.8).
The graph denotes that the ESC at time T0 based on state of the art is altered and
affected by pressure (AT) negatively following the planning parameters established
in the Urban plan (time T1). To restore it, the RES methodology was tested pro-
viding a different scenario introducing mitigation measures even if the methodology
suggests compensation as the appropriate measure to be adopted.
The results show that the ESC is partially restored therefore the suggestions
proposed by RES coincide with the findings. To obtain a balanced condition with
the full restoration of the ESC, it is necessary to include compensation. These
considerations have enabled to test the RES and its potential in the selection of the
appropriate incremental actions in restoring ES. The adoption of UPP for the
transformation of areas is essential in ensuring the provision of certain ES, but if
the impact is significant, it must necessarily be balanced adopting compensation
measures otherwise the risk is only a partial restoration. RES establishes the
appropriate action for an ecological balance of the pressure derived by AT. In the
scenario T2, it emerges very clearly that the action suggested is correct.
4.2 Economic Feasibility of Mitigation and Compensation

Measures
The adoption of mitigation and compensation measures for restoring the capacity of
an area to provide ES depends mainly on the financial means of the operator
(private or public). As already mentioned, the impossibility to apply compensation
4.2 Economic Feasibility of Mitigation and Compensation Measures 143
measures due to different reasons is quite common, among the others the economic
impracticability of the acquired area for compensation or the lack of public areas
where an administration could make available “hosting” such interventions.
Considering the financial means of the operators, it is in their interest try to adopt
solutions that can bring together the need to restore the damage to their economic
feasibility.
It is evident that the relationship between the economic cost of a measure and the
environmental damage is direct. In fact, it means that the growth of damage cor-
responds to an increase in the interventions to be implemented regarding typology,
quantity and ameliorative impacts. The feasibility of the implementation of the
mitigation and compensation measures is strictly related to the financial commit-
ments that an operator is willing to pay. Continuing on the thesis on the economic
cost of mitigative/compensative measures for ES recovery, some measures with
economic cost were proposed to give an effective indication of the estimated costs.
For each category that composes the UPP analysis,1 such project interventions were
proposed. The list is not exhaustive but considers some possible measures that
could be applicable in the sample case study of ATS 2; this is necessary to give a
practical estimation of the cost of the measures adopted (Table 4.2).
Considering these parametric costs and the mitigative measures adopted in
Scenario T2, it is possible to calculate the following economic costs:
– Woodland and shrubs for 110,000 m2
110,000 m2 * 0 = 2,200,000 €
– Parking lot made with permable surface for 5.000 m2;
5000 m2 * 30 = 150,000 €
– Tree row for 546 ml with trees every 7 m for a total of 78 trees. The parametric
cost adopted is between 60–120 € applying a medium cost of 80 €
78 * 80 = 6,240 €
The economic cost for mitigation measures is estimated in 2,356,240 €
Considering that the hypothetical mitigation measures adopted in the scenario T2

fail to restore the ESC of time T0, it is necessary to include actions for compen-
sating the impact. A few possible compensation measures are provided below,
distinguishing between the restoration and replacement typology, plus parametric
costs (Table 4.3).
1
Categories 1 and 2 of the Qualitative standard analysis were not considered because are referred
to the location and typology of the AT in the current situation.
Table 4.2 Parametric cost for mitigation measures

Parametric cost (€)
Category 3|Green areas and water cycle
Mitigation Phytopurification Structural intervention: 3,500 €
measures Vegetation equipment: 2,000 €
Cistern for water recovery 4,000–5,000 €
Shrubs (arboreal and shrubby 20 €/m2
elements in three rows)
Tree row 60–120 € depending on the typology of
trees
Category 4|Public spaces
Mitigation Green roof Structural intervention: 4–40 €/m2
measure Vegetation equipment: 8–200 €/m2
Footpath 12 €/ml
Noise protection walls 500 €/m2
Category 5|Accessibility
Mitigation Tree-lined Avenue Path: 15 €/ml
measure Vegetation equipment: 60–120 €
depending on the typology of trees
Cycle path (with rank, public Monodirectional on both sides of the
lighting, signage) road: 30.28 €/ml
Bi-direction on one side road: 22.52 €/
ml
Bicycle rank 388 € for 9 bicycle
Category 6|Urban heat island effect
Mitigation Tree-lined Walking path
measure Permeable paving with 30 €/m2
interlocking concrete
Source Author’s elaboration based on Territorial Plan of the metropolitan region of Milano (2013).
“Repertorio delle misure di mitigazione e compensazione paesistico-ambientali” (Catalogue of
landscape and ecological mitigation and compensation measures); Prezzario per i lavori e le opere
pubbliche di Regione Lombardia (2011); Agenzia delle entrate, valori medi dei terreni agricoli e
naturali (2015)
Assuming application of compensation measures, in addition to those mitigative,

to restore the damage to ESC of Scenario T1 completely, three typical compen-
satory measures are selected:
– Expropriation of an irrigated natural grassland close to the ATS 2 as the site
where the damage is created.
The territorial extension of the area is 22,000 m2
22,000 * 9.77 = 214,940 €
(the price of the expropriation is less than those proposed in Table 4.3 because
they are adapted to the value estimated for the province of Milan for that LULC)
– Creation of woodland and shrubs in the area expropriated for 10,000 m2
10,000 * 20 = 200,000 €
4.2 Economic Feasibility of Mitigation and Compensation Measures 145
Table 4.3 Parametric cost for compensation measures

Parametric costs (€)
Restoration
Compensation Wildlife underpass Structural intervention: 15,000–20,000 €
measure for the passage under road of 2 lane
Vegetation equipment: 400 €/sqm
Green bridge Structural intervention: 10,000 €/ml
Vegetation equipment: 2,000 €/ml
Expropriation of agricultural 15 €/m2
areas
Shrubs (arboreal and 20 €/m2
shrubby elements in three
rows)
Replacement
Compensation Natural restoration of river 30 €/ml for the riparian areas
measure and water bodies 150 €/mc for river bank
Mine/quarry recovery 30 €/ml for the riparian areas
170 €/mc for mine bank
Shrubs (arboreal and 20 €/m2
shrubby elements in three
rows)
Source Author’s elaboration based on Territorial Plan of the metropolitan region of Milano (2013).
“Repertorio delle misure di mitigazione e compensazione paesistico-ambientali” (Catalogue of
landscape and ecological mitigation and compensation measures); Prezzario per i lavori e le opere
pubbliche di Regione Lombardia (2011); Agenzia delle entrate, valori medi dei terreni agricoli e
naturali (2015)
– Installation of two Wildlife underpasses for guaranteeing the ecological corri-

dors from ATS 2 to the expropriated area underpassing the infrastructural
system.
Structural intervention: 17,000 € * 2 = 34,000 €
Vegetation equipment:
100 sqm for the first underpass 100 * 400 = 40,000 €
50 m2 for the second underpass 50 * 400 = 20,000 € (Fig. 4.9).
The economic cost for compensation measures is estimated as 508,940 €
This exemplification analysis on the economic costs of mitigative and com-

pensative measures demonstrate the huge amount of financial commitment that they
demand and the possibility offered by the RES application to estimate ex-ante the
impact on ESC and the appropriate measure to adopt to restore it.
RES methodology allows “calibrating” the transformation according to the
operator’s economic possibilities and based on the ESC. The application of RES
Ecosystem Service Capacity (ESC)

Balance
condition
0.3
0.25 Compensation
508,940€
0.2
0.15
Mitigation
2,356,240€
0.1
0.05
0
T0 T1 T2
Fig. 4.9 Economic cost for mitigation and compensation measures considering the three
alternative scenarios (T0, T1, T2)
methodology provides an estimation in a presentable way verifying before the

damage that could be provoked by LULC changes and the measures to restore it,
giving suggestions on the possible economic costs of the intervention.
4.3 Results
The validation process of the RES methodology, based on one sample case study
area, is founded on the Scenario analysis of expected changes in ES provision
(established on ESC) following the implementation of a given strategy or proposal.
This approach, opposite to the “static” evaluation of services, is useful in under-
standing the possible future trends of ESC with or without a proposed strategic
action, to verify the most sustainable solution from an environmental perspective
and to set the possible alternatives scenarios adding mitigation measures.
RES methodology fits in with what are the SEA objectives and for what Duinker
and Greig define as “exercise in featuring” (Duinker and Greig 2007) meaning the
exploration of alternative futures providing support to decision processes under-
taken under conditions of uncertainty and scarcity of information.
Considering the different SEA stages explained above, RES is structured as a
“box” that holds together, systematically, all of the main objectives of SEA to:
(1) collect and organise specific data/information in a linear fashion;
(2) address crucial issues such as the scale definition and the selection of key ES;
(3) define the strategic alternatives (required by SEA’s Directive but without the
definition of mandatory criteria to use or the provision of a methodology and
method to assess it);
4.3 Results 147
(4) set the mitigation and compensation measures providing an operative method.
Adopting RES, all of the aims of SEA are solved not in the casual or discretional
way but through a structure that “locks down” content required in the SEA process
to be truly effective for supporting the policy makers in a practical way.
The critics on:
(1) the limited integration of ES in SEA;
(2) the problematic synergy between SEA and ES related to the influence on
planners and decision makers, and
(3) SEA effectiveness to consider various alternatives, are overcome adopting RES
methodology.
The rigid and strict link between one step and another in RES makes ES inte-
gration less subjective and discretionary, being themselves the central and crucial
topics for impact assessment.
Moreover, the adoption of that methodology assures the inclusion of ES con-
sideration in planning and assessment processes and makes the entire SEA process
more efficient giving it a new and operative role, overtaking all the aspects of SEA
that were traditionally criticised for reduced or absent influence in decision making.
The assumption of RES requires a shifting perspective based on the inclusion of ES
as the key topic of SEA giving the basis for a new season of SEA with a proactive
approach that really guides the Planning process setting priorities, targeting the
objectives (credible and realizable) and governing the impact assessment procedure
in a systematic way.
References
Baker J, Sheate WR, Phillips P, Eales R (2013) Ecosystem services in environmental assessment—
elp or hindrance? Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.11.
004
Duinker PN, Greig LA (2007) Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: improving
explorations of the future. Environ Impact Assess Rev 27:206–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eiar.2006.11.001
Geneletti D (2011) Reasons and options for integrating ecosystem services in strategic
environmental assessment of spatial planning. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag
7:143–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.617711
Geneletti D (2016) Handbook on biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessment. Elgar
Geneletti D, Bagli S, Napolitano P, Pistocchi A (2007) Spatial decision support for strategic
environmental assessment of land use plans. A case study in southern Italy. Environ Impact
Assess Rev 27:408–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.02.005
Parliament European (2001) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 June 2001, on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the
environment. Off J Eur Communities 197:30–37
Scottish Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) A Practical guide to the strategic
environmental assessment directive. London
Conclusions
The book has explored the dynamics between Planning and Ecosystem Services
(ES) investigating critical aspects and opportunities for their integration.
Despite the “technical aspects” that have precluded, affected and sometimes
limited the inclusion of ES in planning (among the many are the scale issues, the
lack of data, the absence of a structured methodology for ES assessment), what
emerges is the necessity to change the traditional approach to the environmental
issue used in planning combining it with human needs and wellbeing.
The ES approach is strictly associated with the environment, often considered as
synonymous, without seeing the ecological, economic, and social aspects in politics
and decision-making.
The transdisciplinary nature of ES is based on the anthropocentric view. In fact,
the ES concept provides the opportunity to reconceptualise Nature as a
human-based perception understanding the human dependence on Earth’s
life-support system in a reciprocal relationship.
The important change of perspective in planning, derived by the inclusion of ES,
is related to the anthropocentric framing of the ES concept as a “platform” for
bringing people and nature together. The anthropocentric framework is the principle
foundation of ES and this concept must guide the inclusion of ES in planning and
the process to define suitable policy instruments.
Moreover, one of the main goals of planning is to enhance the lives of people
through development that will be sustainable while preserving the life support
systems of the planet.
ES could be a way to balance anthropocentric utility with ecological purposes,
these two issues were often considered separately or sometimes in opposition,
investigating before one and after the other without full integration and a real
affection. Also in the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) process the
analysis and assessment were often focused on the environment intents as the
collection of data and analysis related to the different components (water, quality of
air, nature,…) without any relation to the human aspect. Such critiques on SEA
were also related to this; that is, the reduced capacity to contribute to the planning
and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90185-5
150 Conclusions
process with analysis that includes the human side and the quality of life, instead
the assessment usually includes environment with consideration only on human
health and security. These two aspects are obviously fundamental but they are not
the only ones whereof planning has to be managed.
The surplus value of ES strategy from this concept: consider the environment in
a human dimension due to the fact that the amount of ES that is actually generated
depends on the natural and anthropogenic contributions.
Implementing the ES concept means taking decisions on the basis of the
ecosystems’ capacity to provide services and take into account different preferences
for particular services in planning and decision-making processes.
From this point of view, ES is a useful concept for a more complete and holistic
approach offering an improvement over the traditional environmental issues pro-
viding a framework based on cumulative effects. In fact, in this way, the envi-
ronmental issue does not remain an isolated question, assessed separately with
specific parameters and without practical validation.
ES is a unifying theory that helps to conceptualise more clearly the relationship
between human wellbeing and the state of ecosystems. This approach is also a way
of informing policy and decision makers better because they become more aware of
the range of benefits provided by ecosystems with the aim of improving
decision-making in nature conservation.
The practical proposal methodology called “RES—Restart from Ecosystem
Services” provides a way to make the dependence on ecosystems (local and distant)
visible and their necessity better into account through decision making processes.
Moreover, RES uses a methodological concept of incremental measures (limit,
mitigate and compensate) for planning purposes assuming ES as an object under
investigation. The measures provide a framework for clearly and consistently
addressing the impacts of proposed planning decisions on ES, and the potential for
mitigating those impacts through protection, conservation and restoration.
The incremental measures are important instruments to preserve Natural and
environmental consequences for ES but they assume more value and significance
when connected with the depletion of resources with evident effects on the quality
of life and wellbeing.
RES methodology defines how to include ES in planning using the incremental
measures in a systematic and combined approach that nowadays is lacking.
Moreover, RES is based on spatially explicit ES analyses managing ES provision
and the LULC overtakes the traditional descriptive approach that has limited their
ability to inform policy makers. In fact, demonstrating the impact in the ES pro-
vision due to urban development with spatialization of the damage and therefore the
cumulative effects on human wellbeing can build evidence and increase awareness
on planning decisions.
The spatially explicit analysis demonstrated how different policies will affect
urban development and ES (this was clearly shown in the Chapter dedicated to the
validation).
Certainly today, science and research has made considerable progress in the
recognition of ES, contributing to highlighting something that has existed, but, for a
Conclusions 151
long time, did not have the proper acknowledgement. The progress on ES has
strengthened the concept, improved its knowledge and increased its awareness.
Nevertheless, it is important to advance not only on ES, but also in studying
uncertainties in planning and implementation.
As explained in the first Chapters of the book, the concept of ES has roots in the
past. This means that the concept is not new and also its existence is not recent.
What is quite recent is the recognition of ES for planning purposes and the
awareness of its importance, over the ecological discipline. Nowadays, this process
is not yet complete because the concept of ES is perceived as abstract and too
complex for practical planning.
In fact, even if ES is visible and the benefits provided are tangible and real, our
sensibility was not (sufficiently) prepared for this change nor to accept it. Similar
difficulties were also present for environmental issues, where cultural and societal
aspects (emergency condition of post-war Italy, the initial experiences of Urban
Plans, the economic development in the 50s and 60s with the acceleration of the
urbanisation process,..) have limited the consciousness on Environment.
Moreover, the decline of the ecosystem and related services were not always
perceived as a priority nor were essential for human wellbeing.
Nowadays, knowledge, experiences (theoretical and practical) and methods on
ES are widely developed (even if such research is currently still in progress) and
have permitted the compensation of the initial lack of information.
The existence of ES and its relevance is not questioned. Therefore, assuming as a
core principle the ES and the dynamics related to them, what is still under inves-
tigation is the application of ES approaches for planning purposes. This could be
controversial.
Considering this basic principle, the thesis was deliberately focused on the
application of ES in planning, considered one of the possible disciplines that could
“accommodate” the concept of ES and “use it” to resolve some outstanding issues
that have not yet found an adequate and satisfactory solution to, for instance, the
environmental issue.
Why do ES need to be included in planning? Why can ES not be integrated into
another discipline, for instance in those that have a more structured tradition on the
environment?
ES must be considered by the discipline that could potentially impact on their
provision.
In the last 50 years, humans have altered ecosystems in a rapid and extensive
way. Most of these impacts are related to LULC changes, recognised as one of the
main factors in the decline of the global environmental conditions and the major
driving force for biodiversity loss. Planning includes decisions that could involve
the LULC changes. Therefore, the maintenance, loss, preservation or restoration of
ES depends on their importance in the planning process. Moreover, the enhance-
ment of human wellbeing and the quality of life is a core issue of planning and their
improvement is strictly related to ES and they could not be dealt with without their
adequate consideration in decision making process.
152 Conclusions
The concept and the approach based on ES could eventually be reinforced in the
disciplines that have already recognised their relevance but deeper inclusion is
needed where it is still absent or less considered, especially in the disciplines that
could affect their potentials.
Planning and related decisions on LULC affect ES, therefore there is significant
interest in including ES within decision support tools.
ES support human life as an integrated part of the environment, depending on it
for its future existence and development. The relationship between environment and
humans is already evident hence human wellbeing depends on the way ecosystems
work.
In this perspective, human needs and ES are considered together in a holistic
framework. The principle of sustainable development (at the basis of the envi-
ronmental assessments, between them there is also SEA) must be combined with
the principle of responsibility for influencing the ES and therefore human wellbe-
ing. Planners and decision makers must act having as a priority the social
responsibility focused on the quality of live and human wellbeing for managing the
ES and the drivers affecting them.
ES are useful in being more aware of what the implications are derived from a
planning decision based on the ES provision (the alternative scenario analysis is an
example) and in guaranteeing high urban living quality.
The social responsibility of decision makers must be focused on developing and
implementing responses to avoid impacts on ES and to set them into practice. The
preservation of ES implies the recognition of the importance of Human wellbeing
as a priority objective for planning purposes.
Assuming ES as a main approach for planning strategies and decision making
process allows bringing human wellbeing considerations into conservation practice
from the planning stage forward. This change is summarised in the name of the
methodology proposed: RES—Restart from Ecosystem Services. This title pro-
motes a revolution in the traditional perspective, having as a main focus ES and, as
a consequence, all the related topics that this concept includes and incorporates.
The ES approach is not an addition to the traditional one but a reverse that assumes
a new one which includes changes in current public policies and public awareness
providing clear subsidies that can be used by decision makers.

Ecosystem Services For Spatial Planning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecosystem Services For Spatial Planning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green Energy and Technology

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8059

ISSN 1865-3529 ISSN 1865-3537 (electronic)

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Printed on acid-free paper

Allo stare in provincia

New Priorities for Spatial Planning: The Challenge

Ecological and environmental issues are increasingly highlighted as current prior-

original approach, able to improve the environmental management and to enhance

The scenario analysis, a typical framework of impact assessment, was fully

Milan, Italy Andrea Arcidiacono

assessment/mapping for planning support; the second presented such innovative

Milan, Italy Silvia Ronchi

The author is grateful to Andrea Arcidiacono, Erika Bianchi, Mattia Brambilla,

1 Ecosystem Services and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3.2.5 Incremental Measures to Govern Land Take Process . . . . . 100

Abstract The concept of Ecosystem Services (ES) was investigated with a

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 1

1.1 Deﬁnitions, Classiﬁcations and Approaches

According to the deﬁnition of Ecosystem provided in Article 2 of the United Nation

classiﬁcation of ES that is consistent with accepted categorizations and, at the same

1.2 Necessity of Integration

1.2.1 Land Use Changes and Soil Ecosystem Services

Soil Functional Ability can be deﬁned as:

SFA ¼ ðFi, n EFi, nÞ=n

ESC ¼ RðAi VCiÞ

development of a municipality. The development of the cities and the decisions

1.2.2 Spatial Planning, Land Use Management and Impact

The generalised decline of ES (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) requires

1.2.3 Strategic Environmental Assessment

Dominati E, Patterson M, Mackay A (2010) Response to Robinson and Lebron—Learning

Abstract This chapter is dedicated to presenting important issues that must be

2.1 The Scale-Dependent of Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem functions perform different ES and their provision depends on bio-

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 27

Flood mitigation Vegetation Communities, habitats Local-regional Directional

Indeed, ES are generated at all ecological scales. For instance, ecosystem

2.1.1 Scale for Managing Ecosystem Services: A Literature

Landscape value ✓✓ ✓✓✓

2.2 Ecosystem Services Assessment

environment involves multiple and often conflicting valuations, whereby values

Fig. 2.4 Relations between

2.2.1 The Importance of Mapping

2.3 Ecosystem Services Management

often be relatively independent to one another, but they could be conducted in

developing more integrated valuation approaches for recognising the diversity of

In conclusion, the three multiple approaches related to scale, discipline and

ecosystem; the selection of a multi-criteria analysis for the consideration of the

Fig. 2.6 Relation between multi-scale, multi-disciplinary and multi-criteria approach

2.4 Experiences on Assessment and Mapping Ecosystem

The practical applications elaborated by the author were made in Lombardy

Table 2.3 Summary of the practical experiences on ES biophysical mapping

The knowledge sharing on ES was the major hurdle to overcome in order to

(1) Araucanía (Chile)

Case study [4] n.a. n.a. Institutional scale Qualitative

with a quantitative assessment in addition to the spatial distribution. A new

Abstract In this chapter is illustrated the methodological approach designed by the

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 77

II. To analyse the potential consequences of LULC changes1 (determining land

3.1 The Application of RES|Restart from Ecosystem

The methodological proposal combined different approaches previously explained,

perimeter are 238 belonging to 9 Provinces: Bergamo (8 municipalities), Como (8

3.2 The Methodological Proposal Step by Step