Author/Contact:
University of Trento; Aalborg University; Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; University of Lisbon – Instituto Superior Técnico
Resource description:
This deliverable investigates how to address biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (ES) values in spatial planning processes that contribute to transformative change.
1. Biodiversity/nature values:
We started by acknowledging the plurality of nature’s values and understanding whether and how values can be directly compared, made compatible, or considered in parallel (when making decisions). Though the ES concept provides a fertile ground to mainstream biodiversity values into spatial planning, there is a need to elicit and articulate values across the whole spectrum, including intrinsic and relational values. Valuation uptake can be improved by increasing analytical capacities (e.g., bridging scientific and non-scientific knowledge) and prioritizing participatory and deliberative methods for envisioning alternative futures inclusive of diverse worldviews and knowledge systems. Comprehensive approaches should be based on (i) understanding the context and purpose of the assessment early on, by ensuring effective stakeholder engagement; (ii) identifying the trade-offs through a collaborative review of possible interventions, which calls for building credibility, relevance, and legitimacy to the process, instilling a sense of co-ownership over the assessment and its outcomes; and (iii) reflecting on the outcomes by fostering co-learning.
2. ES Assessments:
We performed a review of the operational 10-step Framework for ES assessment from the MAES initiative in Europe. Our analysis acknowledges the importance of setting the context of the assessment and identifying the ES to be assessed as a first step, preferably promoting knowledge sharing and stakeholder engagement as early as possible. We acknowledge that selection within the multitude of methods available to map and assess ES (biophysical, social, and economic) should be guided not only by data and resource availability (including institutional capacity) but also by the plurality of values that should be reflected in the array of ES selected in that specific context (which will help decide the level of engagement required), as well as the purpose of the assessment (which will help determine the necessary depth and accuracy). Finally, we acknowledge that using the ES assessment results to support decision-making requires purposeful integration methods.
3. Decision-making for transformative spatial planning:
Lastly, in reviewing the capacity of ES assessments to support decision-making for transformative spatial planning, we concluded that (i) ES assessments should be set out in a context that addresses at least one of the three ambitions that define the visions for transformative change; and (ii) ES assessments should provide material support to the spatial planning instruments (or other planning solutions) that lead to the pathways of impact for each of the three ambitions. Additionally, we expanded from the criteria for transformative spatial planning (referring to BioValue’s D1.1) to determine the most prominent features that an ES assessment should contain to better contribute to decision-making. These features are referred to as PIECES of a transformative assessment, and include: Pluralizing, Impacting, Empowering, Contextualizing, Engaging and Scaling.
Based on these aspects, in this deliverable we propose a 5-stages ES mapping and assessment framework to mainstream biodiversity values in spatial planning and management decisions for transformative change, and present examples of application for each stage.