Challenges to implementing the urban ecosystem service concept in green infrastructure planning: a view from practitioners in Swedish municipalities

Abstract

In building a sustainable society, numerous ecosystem services have shown to play important roles for the benefit of urban residents. The distinct concept of Urban Ecosystem Services (UES) to accentuate and enhance the value of urban ecosystems has been proposed, primarily in research, with implementation in practice still at an early stage. This study examined challenges to future implementation of the UES concept in municipal planning and management of urban green spaces. Based on interviews in six Swedish municipalities, we identified four overall discourses challenging implementation of UES in municipal practice. These included (i) a need to prioritize UES in municipal planning in order to address the contemporary challenges of e.g., urbanization and biodiversity loss. This in turn creates (ii) a need for increased holistic thinking within the municipal organization, based on (iii) further documentation and standards, which should help (iv) initiate organizational transition and cross-sectorial approaches. These discourses provide interrelated challenges that could also act as opportunities for scientists and practitioners collaborations to advance integration of UES into planning and management, thereby increasing the sustainability of urban environments. This work provides a starting point for introduction of the UES concept into municipal planning.

Urban ecosystem services in strategic planning in Swedish municipalities

“…Recent findings on governance challenges to the implementation of ecosystem services in the same municipalities studied here, indicate that political priority is often lacking, which in turn could explain the focus by practitioners on politically salient regulatory services such as climate adaptation and extreme weather regulation (e.g. stormwater management) (Hagemann et al 2020).…”

Seven approaches to research in socio-ecological practice & five insights from the RWC–Schön–Stokes model

“…In addition, the Schön–Stokes model and its undergirding ideas have inspired many other inquiries. These include, inter alia , demonstrating the differences between theories of practice and theories of science, between practitioner–theorists and academic theoreticians (Xiang 2020b , pp.122–123); explaining “a gulf [that] commonly divides theory and practice in scholarly literature” (Bryant & Turner 2019 , p.328); substantiating a “crucial” paradigm shift “from the traditional Bohr's quadrant to Pasteur's quadrant” in ecosystem services research (Feng et al 2019 , p.111); characterizing the knowledge domain of ecopracticology —the study of socio-ecological practice (Xiang 2019a , pp.8–9) and categorizing research article types for the journal Socio-Ecological Practice Research (Xiang 2019b , pp.1–2); showcasing exemplary works of Scottish-American scholar-practitioner Ian McHarg (Bryan & Turner 2019 , p.328, p.335; Xiang 2019c , pp.362–363; Yang & Li 2019 , p.210); advocating the key yet overdue action to “overhaul entrenched mindset and inertia” in urban forestry practice and research (Jim 2019 , p.49); justifying the need for knowledge brokering in the socio-ecological practice of urban green infrastructure planning and analyzing the challenges (La Rosa 2019 , pp.89–90; Wang et al 2018 , p.141); conceptualizing an empirical survey in urban green infrastructure research (Hagemann et al 2020 , p.286); and developing a “problem-research-practice framework” for improving the practical relevance of ecosystem services mapping (Chen et al 2019 , p.2). …”

“…conceptualizing an empirical survey in urban green infrastructure research (Hagemann et al 2020 , p.286); and…”

Environmental benefits of blue ecosystem services and residents’ willingness to pay in Khulna city, Bangladesh

“…A well-functioning ecosystem provides various services ( Chien, 2022 ; Jaung et al., 2022 ). In urban areas, ecosystem services components are broadly divided into two parts; the green ecosystem components and the blue ecosystem components ( Caro-Borrero and Carmona-Jiménez 2019 ; Hagemann et al., 2020 ; Mukherjee and Shaw 2021 ; Sang et al., 2021 ). The green components include all sorts of green infrastructures and the blue components include all sorts of natural water structures/systems ( Caro-Borrero and Carmona-Jiménez 2019 ; Kazmierczak and Carter 2010 ).).…”

“…More generally, the nature-based solution is a term that can be used to describe an alternative and non-traditional approaches to environmental issues, like flooding, water scarcity, or soil erosion, by harnessing natural capital ( Haase 2017 ; Chen et al., 2022 ). They also provide a wide range of other important benefits, such as cleaner air and water, economic benefits, and increased biodiversity ( Amini et al., 2019 ; Hagemann et al., 2020 ; Sang et al., 2021 ). Nature-based solutions span a wide range of practices, and people sometimes disagree about exactly what counts as a nature-based solution.…”