6 Urban-Rural Interrelations—A Challenge for Sustainable Land …
115
6.4 Discussion About Potential Improvements
After presenting the strengths and shortcomings of the two concepts of flows (Stead
2002) and telecoupling (Liu et al. 2013; Eakin et al. 2014), we now introduce two
additional analytical layers that are of relevance to urban-rural relations. The first
layer relates to the functional flow of ecosystem services, and ties in with questions
of governance and environmental justice. The second layer refers to land uses, and
draws attention to the relation between multiple land uses (multi-functionality) and
interconnections.
6.4.1 The Ecosystem Service Concept and Urban-Rural
Relations
Both the Stead (2002) model and the telecoupling model by Liu et al. 2013 refer
more or less explicitly to ecosystem services (ESS) as an essential flow or interaction between urban and rural areas. However, ESS may also provide a good reference frame when discussing the questions of sustainability, the quality of life and
environmental justice in regional and global contexts.
A common definition of ESS is that introduced by Constanza et al. (1997), who
defined them as “the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from
ecosystem functions” (Constanza et al. 1997: 253). Examples of ESS include food,
raw material production, flood protection and cultural services such as aesthetic and
recreational services (MEA 2005).
While the concept of ESS has become very prominent in science over the last
two decades, practitioners and policy-makers have difficulty putting the concept into
practice, due, among other things, to a lack of a framework that links the valuation
of ESS with “effective policy instruments and governance arrangements” (Bouma
and van Beukering 2015: 4).
Since the delivery of ESS and the distribution of social benefits and costs occur
in different spatial units and at different scales (local, regional and global) (Bouma
and van Beukering 2015), the concept is quite useful when discussing questions
concerning urban–rural relations, land use competition around land-based ecosystem
services (Müller et al. 2016) or environmental justice (Agyeman, et al. 2016). Its
potential for supporting decision-making in planning and policy is widely acknowledged (Fürst et al. 2017). On the other hand, the multi-level nature of ESS and
the spatial mismatch between many ESS and administrative boundaries impede the
governance of ESS (Bouma and van Beukering 2015) and the implementation into
practice. Moreover, criteria are still required to decide in which planning contexts are
conducive to applying the ESS concept (Fürst et al. 2017). This could also weaken
the applicability of the concept in the management of urban-rural relations.
Many authors and policy documents refer to the role that rural areas play in
providing ESS to cities (Augère-Granier 2016; Schröter-Schlaack et al. 2016). For
115
6.4 Discussion About Potential Improvements
After presenting the strengths and shortcomings of the two concepts of flows (Stead
2002) and telecoupling (Liu et al. 2013; Eakin et al. 2014), we now introduce two
additional analytical layers that are of relevance to urban-rural relations. The first
layer relates to the functional flow of ecosystem services, and ties in with questions
of governance and environmental justice. The second layer refers to land uses, and
draws attention to the relation between multiple land uses (multi-functionality) and
interconnections.
6.4.1 The Ecosystem Service Concept and Urban-Rural
Relations
Both the Stead (2002) model and the telecoupling model by Liu et al. 2013 refer
more or less explicitly to ecosystem services (ESS) as an essential flow or interaction between urban and rural areas. However, ESS may also provide a good reference frame when discussing the questions of sustainability, the quality of life and
environmental justice in regional and global contexts.
A common definition of ESS is that introduced by Constanza et al. (1997), who
defined them as “the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from
ecosystem functions” (Constanza et al. 1997: 253). Examples of ESS include food,
raw material production, flood protection and cultural services such as aesthetic and
recreational services (MEA 2005).
While the concept of ESS has become very prominent in science over the last
two decades, practitioners and policy-makers have difficulty putting the concept into
practice, due, among other things, to a lack of a framework that links the valuation
of ESS with “effective policy instruments and governance arrangements” (Bouma
and van Beukering 2015: 4).
Since the delivery of ESS and the distribution of social benefits and costs occur
in different spatial units and at different scales (local, regional and global) (Bouma
and van Beukering 2015), the concept is quite useful when discussing questions
concerning urban–rural relations, land use competition around land-based ecosystem
services (Müller et al. 2016) or environmental justice (Agyeman, et al. 2016). Its
potential for supporting decision-making in planning and policy is widely acknowledged (Fürst et al. 2017). On the other hand, the multi-level nature of ESS and
the spatial mismatch between many ESS and administrative boundaries impede the
governance of ESS (Bouma and van Beukering 2015) and the implementation into
practice. Moreover, criteria are still required to decide in which planning contexts are
conducive to applying the ESS concept (Fürst et al. 2017). This could also weaken
the applicability of the concept in the management of urban-rural relations.
Many authors and policy documents refer to the role that rural areas play in
providing ESS to cities (Augère-Granier 2016; Schröter-Schlaack et al. 2016). For