59
providing areas) do not always correspond to the areas where ES can be actually
enjoyed (service benefitting areas) (Syrbe and Walz 2012). This is especially evident
when the two areas are not physically connected, as in the case of food and raw
materials that are traded across the globe, but it applies also for many regulating ES,
including pollination, micro-climate regulation, flood protection, and noise mitigation (Fisher et al. 2009). Characterizing the flow of ES in terms of spatial relation
between providing and benefitting areas is therefore instrumental to understand
where the effects of planning actions are to be expected, hence to identify the associated “winners” and “losers” (Schröter et al. 2012).
While benefitting areas provide a good basis to measure access to ES, contextual
factors restricting the ability of people to enjoy the benefits derived from ES should
also be taken into account. These may include physical barriers, as well as formal
(i.e., laws and regulations) and informal (e.g., social norms and cultural practices)
institutional barriers that limit the access to ES. For example, land tenure can be
used as a proxy to assess formal institutional access, since it provides a basis to
discriminate between different potential users of public, common, and private
spaces. Other aspects, including overcrowding, perception of safety, social bonds,
and community cohesion are more difficult to capture, but can be relevant in determining who actually benefit from ES (Lee et al. 2015). In conclusion, to determine
whether access to ES occurs or not, first, it is crucial to define the flow of ES and the
spatial relation between providing and benefitting areas. Then, it is important to
capture the possible physical and institutional barriers that may limit the access to
benefitting areas, possibly identifying the affected population groups.
Concerning demand, a common practice in ES assessment is to consider it as
equally distributed among all citizens, either by fixing standard thresholds (Kabisch
and Haase 2014) or by relying on population density as a proxy (Baró et al. 2016),
disregarding demographic and socio-economics differences among individuals and
population groups. Yet, equity does not require everybody accessing the same
types and amount of ES. On the opposite, it should be based on the analysis of the
specific needs of each individual or population group (McDermott et al. 2013).
Different people derive benefits from different ES, hence may express differentiated needs (Rodríguez et al. 2006). Understanding “who counts for equity” thus
requires measuring the need for ES of different individuals and population groups
by comparing their capabilities, the costs, benefits, risks, and opportunities associated to ES provision, as well as factoring variables like gender, age, and health
status (Sen 2009).
Besides the “who”, it is equally important to define “where” such demand is
located (McDermott et al. 2013). Methods for mapping ES demand, i.e. describing
how it varies across space, are manifold (Wolff et al. 2015). Applying them to a
spatial analysis of the key variables that affect the demand of different individuals
and population groups provides a disaggregated view that is essential to inform
decision-making. Table 6.1 provides a summary of the elements described in this
section.
6.2 Elements to Assess Equity in the Distribution of ES
providing areas) do not always correspond to the areas where ES can be actually
enjoyed (service benefitting areas) (Syrbe and Walz 2012). This is especially evident
when the two areas are not physically connected, as in the case of food and raw
materials that are traded across the globe, but it applies also for many regulating ES,
including pollination, micro-climate regulation, flood protection, and noise mitigation (Fisher et al. 2009). Characterizing the flow of ES in terms of spatial relation
between providing and benefitting areas is therefore instrumental to understand
where the effects of planning actions are to be expected, hence to identify the associated “winners” and “losers” (Schröter et al. 2012).
While benefitting areas provide a good basis to measure access to ES, contextual
factors restricting the ability of people to enjoy the benefits derived from ES should
also be taken into account. These may include physical barriers, as well as formal
(i.e., laws and regulations) and informal (e.g., social norms and cultural practices)
institutional barriers that limit the access to ES. For example, land tenure can be
used as a proxy to assess formal institutional access, since it provides a basis to
discriminate between different potential users of public, common, and private
spaces. Other aspects, including overcrowding, perception of safety, social bonds,
and community cohesion are more difficult to capture, but can be relevant in determining who actually benefit from ES (Lee et al. 2015). In conclusion, to determine
whether access to ES occurs or not, first, it is crucial to define the flow of ES and the
spatial relation between providing and benefitting areas. Then, it is important to
capture the possible physical and institutional barriers that may limit the access to
benefitting areas, possibly identifying the affected population groups.
Concerning demand, a common practice in ES assessment is to consider it as
equally distributed among all citizens, either by fixing standard thresholds (Kabisch
and Haase 2014) or by relying on population density as a proxy (Baró et al. 2016),
disregarding demographic and socio-economics differences among individuals and
population groups. Yet, equity does not require everybody accessing the same
types and amount of ES. On the opposite, it should be based on the analysis of the
specific needs of each individual or population group (McDermott et al. 2013).
Different people derive benefits from different ES, hence may express differentiated needs (Rodríguez et al. 2006). Understanding “who counts for equity” thus
requires measuring the need for ES of different individuals and population groups
by comparing their capabilities, the costs, benefits, risks, and opportunities associated to ES provision, as well as factoring variables like gender, age, and health
status (Sen 2009).
Besides the “who”, it is equally important to define “where” such demand is
located (McDermott et al. 2013). Methods for mapping ES demand, i.e. describing
how it varies across space, are manifold (Wolff et al. 2015). Applying them to a
spatial analysis of the key variables that affect the demand of different individuals
and population groups provides a disaggregated view that is essential to inform
decision-making. Table 6.1 provides a summary of the elements described in this
section.
6.2 Elements to Assess Equity in the Distribution of ES