7
© The Author(s) 2020
D. Geneletti et al., Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities, SpringerBriefs
in Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20024-4_2
Chapter 2
Reviewing Ecosystem Services in Urban
Plans
2.1 Introduction
The incorporation of ecosystem services (ES) in urban plans is considered an indicator of their quality (Woodruff and BenDor 2016) and, ultimately, of their capacity to
put in place strategic actions towards more sustainable and resilient cities
(Frantzeskaki et al. 2016). Using Italy as a case study, this chapter explores how
urban plans integrate knowledge on ES to secure or improve ES provision by conserving, restoring, and enhancing urban ecosystems. The ultimate objective is to shed
light on what ES information is already included in current urban plans to support
planning actions, and what is still needed to improve their content and decisions.
Scientists have monitored the uptake of ES in planning practices mainly following
two approaches. The first approach investigates how practitioners, policy- makers,
and stakeholders understand the concept of ES. Perceived opportunities and limitations in the use of ES in planning are usually elicited from key informants through
interviews (see examples in Beery et al. (2016); Hauck et al. (2013a); Niemelä et al.
(2010)). The results of similar studies are useful to understand the mechanisms
through which the uptake of ES can occur. However, being based on self-reported
perceptions and opinions, these studies do not measure the actual level of implementation of the ES concept into planning practices. The second approach reviews the
content of documents, including strategic plans (Piwowarczyk et al. 2013), environmental policies (Bauler and Pipart 2013; Maczka et al. 2016), and urban plans
(Hansen et al. 2015; Kabisch 2015) using content or keyword analysis.
Text and graphics of this chapter are based on: Cortinovis C,
Geneletti D (2018) Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is
there, and what is still needed for better decisions. Land use policy
70:298–312. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.017
© The Author(s) 2020
D. Geneletti et al., Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities, SpringerBriefs
in Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20024-4_2
Chapter 2
Reviewing Ecosystem Services in Urban
Plans
2.1 Introduction
The incorporation of ecosystem services (ES) in urban plans is considered an indicator of their quality (Woodruff and BenDor 2016) and, ultimately, of their capacity to
put in place strategic actions towards more sustainable and resilient cities
(Frantzeskaki et al. 2016). Using Italy as a case study, this chapter explores how
urban plans integrate knowledge on ES to secure or improve ES provision by conserving, restoring, and enhancing urban ecosystems. The ultimate objective is to shed
light on what ES information is already included in current urban plans to support
planning actions, and what is still needed to improve their content and decisions.
Scientists have monitored the uptake of ES in planning practices mainly following
two approaches. The first approach investigates how practitioners, policy- makers,
and stakeholders understand the concept of ES. Perceived opportunities and limitations in the use of ES in planning are usually elicited from key informants through
interviews (see examples in Beery et al. (2016); Hauck et al. (2013a); Niemelä et al.
(2010)). The results of similar studies are useful to understand the mechanisms
through which the uptake of ES can occur. However, being based on self-reported
perceptions and opinions, these studies do not measure the actual level of implementation of the ES concept into planning practices. The second approach reviews the
content of documents, including strategic plans (Piwowarczyk et al. 2013), environmental policies (Bauler and Pipart 2013; Maczka et al. 2016), and urban plans
(Hansen et al. 2015; Kabisch 2015) using content or keyword analysis.
Text and graphics of this chapter are based on: Cortinovis C,
Geneletti D (2018) Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is
there, and what is still needed for better decisions. Land use policy
70:298–312. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.017