Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans

EIR-06067; No of Pages 12 Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans Daniel Rozas-Vásquez a,b,⁎, Christine Fürst c, Davide Geneletti d, Francisco Muñoz b a

Center for Development Research, Dept. Ecology and Natural Resources Management, University of Bonn, Walter Flex Str. 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany Laboratorio de Planificación Territorial, Universidad Católica de Temuco, Rudecindo ortega 02950, Temuco, Chile Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Dept. Natural Sciences III, Institute for Geosciences and Geography, Von Seckendorff-Platz 4, 06120 Halle-Saale, Germany d University of Trento, Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, via Mesiano, 77, Trento 38123, Italy b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 1 June 2016 Accepted 8 September 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Multi-actor involvement Ecosystem services Strategic environmental assessment Spatial planning

a b s t r a c t Integrating the ecosystem services (ES) approach into the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of spatial plans is seen as a suitable option for considering the value of nature in decision making and policy processes. However, there is increasing concern about the institutional context and a lack of a common understanding of SEA and ecosystem services for adopting them as an integrated framework. This paper addresses this concern by analyzing the current understanding and network relations in a multi-actor arrangement as a first step for moving towards a successful integration of ES in SEA and spatial planning. We based our analysis on a case study in Chile, where we applied a questionnaire survey aimed at the principal actors behind the planning process. The questionnaire focused on issues such as network relations among actors and on conceptual understanding, perceptions and challenges for integrating ES in SEA and spatial planning, knowledge on methodological approaches, and the connections and gaps in science-policy. The main findings suggest that a common understanding of SEA and especially of ES is still in an initial stage in Chile when we consider the context of multiple actors. Additionally, the lack of institutional guidelines and methodological support is considered the main challenge for integration. We conclude that preconditions exist in Chile for integrating ES in SEA and the spatial planning practice, but they strongly depend on an appropriate governance scheme which encourages a close interaction science-policy as well as collaborative work and learning. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Integrating the principles of sustainability in the elaboration of policies, plans and programs (PPP) is recognized as a key issue in achieving the UN development goals (UN, 2014; UNDP, 2010). However, this integration requires the alignment of a multi-actor arrangement of different sectors and institutions under a country's specific scheme in terms of planning and decision-making structures (Ahmed and Sánchez-Triana, 2008; UN, 2012). In this context, spatial planning aims at ensuring a harmonized allocation of physical space, land uses and their interactions by integrating economic, social and environmental objectives across sectoral policies (Fürst et al., 2013a; UN, 2008). Consequently, spatial planning potentially generates a range of impacts on the land system by driving changes in the quality, quantity and spatial distribution of ecosystems services (ES), which support human activities and well-being (Geneletti, 2011). ⁎ Corresponding author at: Center for Development Research, Dept. Ecology and Natural Resources Management, University of Bonn, Walter Flex Str. 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Rozas-Vásquez).

Worldwide, many countries have adopted strategic environmental assessment (SEA) as an instrument for integrating environmental and sustainability objectives into PPP (OECD, 2006; UNEP, 2004). Particularly in spatial planning, SEA plays a fundamental role by strategically addressing impacts on biophysical, institutional, social and economic settings (Partidario, 2012). The concept of ES is increasingly being recognized as a suitable framework for communicating and mainstreaming the value of nature in decision-making and policy processes. Making use of ES in SEA for spatial planning provides a number of benefits for a more efficient planning process and a more reliable consensus building considering existing advantages: 1) the legal status of SEA as a policy instrument in most of the countries allows a formal integration of ES into the planning process; 2) ES and SEA both consider an integrated approach beyond only biophysical components; 3) the indicator and model-based assessment of ES fits well into the analytical framework of SEA; 4) the information provided by ES analysis can be highly beneficial for enhancing the quality of SEA (Geneletti, 2011; Kumar et al., 2013). Fig. 1 illustrates the interrelations among ES, SEA and spatial planning, starting with the premise of developing a strategic and longterm vision in spatial planning, which in the end requires a collective understanding and consensus building among the multiple actors

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.001 0195-9255/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Rozas-Vásquez, D., et al., Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans, Environ Impact Asses Rev (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.001

2

D. Rozas-Vásquez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Conceptual model for integrating ES in spatial planning through SEA.

involved. SEA provides a legal and institutional frame for translating the ES approach as a valuable information source into the decisional space and as a communication strategy into the territorial system. Finally, multi-actor arrangements, which are specific for each territorial system, influence the definition of key ES and their relevance for development as well as for shaping the decisional processes behind SEA and spatial planning. Some examples of the use of ES in decision-making are provided by Balvanera et al. (2012) in Latin America, where the most common applications have been through public or private programs of payment for ecosystem services. In North America, a similar situation is described based on the research made by Goldstein et al. (2012) where the focus is on the economic implications of alternative scenarios of planning. In the case of Europe, Fürst et al. (2013a) consider an integrated analysis for supporting regional planning which goes beyond only economic components. Finally, as an illustration from Australia, Raymond et al. (2008) used the approach of community values for mapping ES in order to inform planning for conservation and environmental management. Thus, at present there are a number of applications on ES available in the literature, but many of them consider only one specific target, in some cases with a single focus on either economic, biophysical or social aspects, or even with a missing link between purpose and procedures as described by Nahuelhual et al. (2015). At this point, mainstreaming the ES approach in SEA offers the advantage of a more holistic and integrated consideration of the socio-ecological system as well as an effective framework of communication for promoting sustainability and informing PPP (Geneletti, 2015). Additionally, this process is framed under a strategic analysis which is decision centred and tailor-made in terms of flexibility and adaptation to the context and objectives of each decision-making scheme (Partidario, 2012). Despite the increasing amount of research on this integrated framework, practical applications are still limited, and moving from theory to real-life decisions is recognized as an urgent need (Geneletti, 2011). However, in this transition towards real-life applications, there is a critical concern about the institutional context and the lack of collective grounds on key conceptual elements of ES and SEA among the different actors related to the planning process (Acharibasam and Noble, 2014; Nahlik et al., 2012; Noble et al., 2012). Consequently, it is fundamental to connect institutional structures and knowledge systems in order to facilitate and promote informed decisions in policy making and to evolve in a sustainable natural resource governance (Daily et al., 2009). At present, a shift from government as a single actor towards a multi-actor and community-based governance can be observed in

spatial planning. In this emerging paradigm, an appropriate flow of information and collective understanding might enhance the possibilities for collaborative planning and decision-making as well as social network relations (Opdam et al., 2015). The ES approach is particularly suitable for this purpose through bridging differences in sectoral philosophies on how to assess social-ecological impacts of adapted land use as well as on strengthening network relations among scientists, decision makers and stakeholders for improving the credibility and legitimacy in spatial planning (Ruckelshaus et al., 2015). The aim of this research is to analyze the current understanding and network relations in a multi-actor arrangement as a first step towards a successful integration of ES in SEA and spatial planning. We consider the following research questions: 1) Who are the key actors to be included to enable the implementation of ES in spatial planning through the SEA process, and which are the current network relations based on their associated conceptual understanding? 2) How is the integration of ES in SEA and spatial planning perceived by the different actors, and which challenges are recognized? 3) Which methodological approaches are identified for SEA, and which are considered as shared between SEA and ES? 4) Which are the critical connections and gaps in the relation science-policy, and which channels of communication/information are used by the actors for their knowledge and understanding of ES and SEA? In addressing these questions, we present results from a case study in Chile, a Latin American country which in 2014 started a pilot program of Experimental Ecosystem Accounting conducted by UNEP. Under this program, the concept of ES has progressively been introduced into the political discourse. Currently, the Ministry of Environment (MMA) has included for the first time the ES idea in national guidelines for sustainable spatial planning (MMA, 2015). Besides, SEA has been legally required since 2010 as a policy instrument for assessing the effects on the environment of spatial plans (Rozas-Vásquez et al., 2014). Therefore, given the window of opportunity that opens this new perspective in the country, we consider Chile as an interesting case for exploring the current state of understanding, network relations and challenges for integrating ES in SEA and spatial planning. 2. Methodology 2.1. Case study region Chile (Fig. 5) is characterized by highly centralized decision-making structures in spatial planning that still result in economic, social, cultural

Please cite this article as: Rozas-Vásquez, D., et al., Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans, Environ Impact Asses Rev (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.001

D. Rozas-Vásquez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

and ethnic inequalities (OECD, 2013). The administrative arrangement is organized in a hierarchical structure comprising four different scales: national, regional, provinces (territorial units inside the region consisting of a number of municipalities) and municipalities (OECD, 2013). In practice, however, the spatial planning process is mostly conducted at regional, inter-municipal and municipal levels, while the national level only indicates broad principles and guidelines, and the province scale is not addressed in spatial terms. In Chile, spatial planning and environmental assessment are mainly conducted by either the Regional Government or the regional office of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development as promoters (in regional or inter-municipal/municipal planning, respectively), and the regional environmental authority in all the cases in addition to other sectoral entities which support specific aspects of the regional development (e.g. water, forests, soils, indigenous issues, emergencies). The overall process of conducting a spatial plan is shared among three principal types of actors: 1) government institutions, which are the promoters and final decision makers. Most of the institutions belong to the specific region, but there is also participation from the national level; 2) consultants who normally support the plan elaboration or in some cases are the people in charge of the plan elaboration itself. Usually, there is an open call, then the best proposal adjudicates on the plan elaboration even if the consultant team does not belong to the region; and 3) universities or research institutions at regional/national level, which offer expert support either to the government institutions or to consultants. In some cases, research actors act as consultants on their own (for a more detailed definition of the actors, see Section 2.2.1). 2.2. Methods Our method is based on three sequential stages: 1) identification of key actors (Section 2.2.1); 2) collection of information about an actor's understanding and perceptions through a questionnaire (Section 2.2.2), and 3) data processing (Section 2.2.3). Based on the questionnaire and

3

data processing, we adopted a mixed method including qualitative and quantitative analyses so that representativeness, but also individual perceptions of our actors, could be addressed. Fig. 2 illustrates the methodological design of our study. 2.2.1. Identification of actors The aim of this step was identification of the different types of actors involved in the process of spatial planning and environmental assessment at different levels. Throughout this paper we use the term “actor” for people who belong to formal entities with an official affiliation and known location/contact and whose work/research is related to ES, SEA, spatial planning or the integration of these. In the same way, the term “institution” is used here for making reference to the entity with which the actor is affiliated. We focused on actors from government, consultants and research institutions given their above-described key role in conducting and/or supporting spatial planning and SEA. Other actors, such as NGOs, land owner associations, indigenous people, among others, were not included given the broader scope of this research. For identifying these actors (stage 1), we used three sources of information: 1) we reviewed the current legislation on spatial planning and environmental issues in order to identify actors explicitly mentioned; 2) in the case of researchers, we searched in national scientific databases (non-public database from the Ministry of Environment) and relevant published papers; and 3) we organized a series of initial meetings in order to apply a snowball method by asking each participant to mention others they consider to be relevant (Scolozzi et al., 2012).The snowball application started with the most relevant actors indicated in the legislation, recognized research teams/person in the fields of interest, or experts' recommendations, and it was stopped when the names started repeating themselves. The process took place during October and November 2015. Through these three sources, we identified 56 suitable actors who were addressed with a one-time survey based on a questionnaire

Fig. 2. Methodological flow.

Please cite this article as: Rozas-Vásquez, D., et al., Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans, Environ Impact Asses Rev (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.001

4

D. Rozas-Vásquez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

application. The results were aggregated by government, consultants and research institutions instead of single actors. 2.2.2. Questionnaire design and structure As argued by Geneletti (2015) and Fisher et al. (2009), planning and policy-making contexts play a fundamental role in adopting theoretical frameworks into real practice. Therefore, before drafting the questionnaire, we conducted a round of interviews (stage 1) with a reduced set of experts/experienced practitioners to compile perceptual, technical and contextual information as an input for the questionnaire in stage 2. The participants were selected by considering experts' recommendations in the snowball process. We applied semi-structured interviews because this is the most suitable option to address specific topics and questions with a limited level of previous information (Taylor and Bogdan, 1998). The interviews were conducted during October and December 2015 involving a total of 13 key actors who were defined in the previous section and available to participate: government institutions (7), consultants (3) and universities (3). The general interview structure was focused on 1) an overall view of the spatial planning process in Chile and sustainability considerations; 2) the view about the current application of SEA in Chile considering the most applied methodological approaches and the possibilities for ES integration; 3) institutional limitations for integrating the ES approach into the SEA and spatial planning process; and 4) key factors in the science-policy dialogue relevant for integrating ES into planning. In this way we were able to include theoretical aspects taken from literature reviews and individual / institutional perceptions in the subsequent questionnaire elaboration. Based upon the interviews, we elaborated a semi-structured questionnaire (stage 2) using as reference previous works about the relation theory, understanding and practice (Lobos and Partidario, 2014; Noble et al., 2012). It consisted of 13 questions including multiple-choice, open-ended and questions based on a Likert scale. The questionnaire focused on: 1) network relations between actors and their associated conceptual understanding of SEA and ES; 2) perceptions about integrating SEA and ES in the spatial planning process, and current challenges; 3) knowledge on methodological approaches for SEA and ES analysis; and 4) critical connections and gaps in the relation science-policy and most frequent channels of communication/information used by the actors. Structure of the questionnaire is presented in Annex 1 of the supplementary material. The questionnaire was applied to 56 participants identified in Section 2.1.1. The application was mainly online; however, depending on the feasibility and availability of the contacted people, we also proceeded with face-to-face meetings in order to develop a working network. In this last case, the same questionnaire as the one used online was applied, and any additional conversation was carried out after it was finished in order to maintain transparency and neutrality in the answers. 2.2.3. Data processing We used a mixed approach (stage 3) for analyzing the questionnaire given the different types of questions (Fig. 2, stage 3). For open-ended questions, we categorized answers and codified keywords in order to generate quantitative information for statistics and network analysis. In this research, we understand a keyword as a word or phrase which describes a concept/idea and the different dimensions which constitute it. In the case of closed questions and the Likert scale, we registered the frequencies of each answer for statistical analysis. 2.2.3.1. Open-ended questions related to conceptual definitions (questions 1 and 2). The analysis was structured according to Noh et al. (2015) and Dierckx de Casterlé et al. (2012) using a free version of QDA Miner 4, a text analytic software (http://provalisresearch.com). We identified keywords in the answers by utilizing two different approaches in order to perform a subsequent network analysis between actors/keywords and actors/actors: 1) The first approach consisted of

a detailed literature review on SEA and ES to derive keywords from research papers and international guidelines (da Silva et al., 2014; Fürst et al., 2014; Geneletti, 2015; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2009; Lamarque et al., 2011; MA, 2005; Nahlik et al., 2012; Partidario, 2012). Thus, we generated an initial list of relevant keywords related to the mainstream definitions in SEA and ES and the associated dimensions for each concept such as functions, goals, classifications, target, and timing, among others. 2) In the second approach, we screened each open-ended question to identify additional significant keywords which might be representative of this specific country context. For this, we used a frequency-based keyword extraction technique considering also how well these keywords matched the main theme of the question (Noh et al., 2015). After sequentially performing both approaches, we generated the final list of keywords that we used for the coding process and subsequent network analysis. For the coding process, each keyword was used as a code. Then, the different codes were grouped into larger categories or “family of keywords” based on their closeness to a similar dimension of the conceptual definition. Fig. 3 presents the process of coding. The final step was a network analysis for detecting and interpreting patterns of interactions among “entities” (e.g. actors v/s actors; actors v/ s events). This is based on a mathematical approach called graph theory where a graph represents the structure of the network and its components are nodes (or vertices) and arcs (or lines) which connect these nodes (de Nooy et al., 2005). In this work, we have utilized the involved actors and the keywords as “nodes” and the relations between them as “arcs” (see Fig. 4 for additional explanation). For analyzing the network, we used the free software “Pajek” (http://mrvar.fdv.uni-lj.si/pajek/) that allows calculation of metrics of centrality related to indegree, outdegree and betweenness. Indegree is defined as the number of arcs received by a node, here a keyword (who and how many people mentioned that node). Outdegree means the number of arcs sent by a node, in this case an actor (which and how many concepts are recognized by that node). Betweenness was applied only for actors and it indicates how often a node is located on the shortest path between other pairs of actors in the network. This is also a measure of how important a node in the network for the flow of information is: “possible bridge actor” (Bodin and Crona, 2009; de Nooy et al., 2005). Fig. 4 shows schematically how network analysis and the utilized metrics work and how the results are represented in the subsequent figures. The values of indegree and outdegree are displayed by circles with different sizes to demonstrate how important a node is (actor or keyword). The metric betweenness is represented as a node's centrality in the network and its capacity to connect other nodes or groups of them. Thus, a node with a high betweenness has a relevant influence in transmitting information throughout the network. Finally, we present the results in a simplified illustration for an integrated view of the keywords, the respective categories or dimensions where they are associated, and the network relations actors/actors and actors/keywords (Figs. 6 and 7). 2.2.3.2. Open-ended questions related to actors' perception (questions 3, 7, 11, 12, Annex 1). Through text analysis techniques we extracted the perceptions (positive, negative or neutral) from the actors for each question and the reason for such perceptions. Then, we grouped the central idea of each response to create unique categories of statements (Taylor and Bogdan, 1998). Finally, we computed the frequencies of these categories for statistical analysis. 2.2.3.3. Closed questions and based on Likert scale (questions 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, Annex 1). We proceeded with statistical analysis of frequencies for each response, since this type of questions were basically alternatives with answers previously defined. In the questions based on a Likert scale, respondents indicated their level of agreement to a particular statement by considering a scale of five levels from strong disagreement

Please cite this article as: Rozas-Vásquez, D., et al., Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans, Environ Impact Asses Rev (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.001

D. Rozas-Vásquez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

5

Fig. 3. Schematic flow of the coding process and category generation.The example is based on one of the SEA definitions.

to strong agreement. Subsequently, we carried out statistical analysis as mentioned above. 3. Results 3.1. Questionnaire results A total of 56 actors were identified and 39 responded to the questionnaire. They represented 30 institutions with a geographical range of 9 regions (Fig. 5). The results are presented in the same sequence as our research questions in order to better guide the reader through the analysis and subsequent discussion. 3.2. Network relations among actors and the associated conceptual understanding in SEA and ES Figs. 6 and 7 display a simplified illustration of the structure of the relations between actors/keywords and actors/actors. More detailed information on the entire network analysis results is provided in Annex 2, Figs. 1 and 2 of the supplementary material.

The relation actors/keywords showed differences between SEA and ES in terms of the arrangement of the different type of actors as a single group based on the keywords they recognized in common. In the case of SEA, the three types of actors represented a single group (Fig. 6) while for ES, research institutions were slightly disconnected from government and consultants, generating two different groups (Fig. 7). Regarding the metric outdegree, the average value in SEA is larger than in ES but at the same time with a higher variability (SEA: X = 6,4; σ = 3,8 / ES: X = 5,7; σ = 2,3). In both cases, the dominant type of actor were government institutions, especially in the case of SEA with a total outdegree of 141 compared to 104 for ES. In both SEA and ES, the metric indegree showed only a small number of dominating keywords that were most frequently mentioned by the actors. In the SEA network, 35 keywords were identified where “PPP” and “environmental considerations” presented the highest indegree, more than three times the average value of 5.5 (indegree 24 and 17, respectively). In the other extreme, keywords like “participative process”, “scenarios” and “analytic tool” were rarely mentioned, and showed an indegree value of 1. As regards the ES network, the situation is similar with 32 identified keywords, where “benefits”, “ecosystems”, “goods and services”, “society” and “human being ”

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of the network analysis and the metrics utilized in the case study. The actors are displayed as dark grey circles, the keywords as light grey circles. A) represents the structure of nodes and arcs in relation to actors and the keywords they mentioned; B) presents how outdegree and indegree metrics work, providing an example where actors and keywords have different sizes depending on the metric values; C) represents the metric betweenness starting in I: different groups of actors connected by a common understanding, and moving to II: the identification of a possible bridge actor that connects these groups.

Please cite this article as: Rozas-Vásquez, D., et al., Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans, Environ Impact Asses Rev (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.001

6

D. Rozas-Vásquez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Fig. 5. Geographical distribution and affiliation of the involved actors.

were the most mentioned, again with indegree values close to three times the average of 5.3 (indegree 19, 15, 15 and 13, respectively). In this network, the number of keywords hardly ever mentioned was higher than in SEA: “conservation”, “sustainability”, “natural landscapes”, “social” “non-economic”, “socio-ecological integration” and “environmental functions”, all of them with an indegree value of 1. When we analyze the relevance of the different categories or dimensions associated with each conceptual definition, it can be observed that the most frequently recognized keywords belong to “functions (25%)”, “target (25%)” and “goals (13%)” in the case of SEA, and to “classification (30%)”, “concept (22%)” and “source of ES generation (18%)” in the case of ES. For details and statistics for the complete set of categories and the associated keywords see Annex 2, Figs. 3 and 4 of the supplementary material. In Figs. 6 and 7, the size of the pie charts represents different ranges of indegree values. The maximum value is 30, which is the total number of institutions represented by the three types of actors, and the minimum is 1 when the key word is mentioned only once. The pie charts illustrate the proportion of each type of actor mentioning each concept. In these simplified versions of the networks not all the identified keywords are present, and the cut-off point was defined as the minimum indegree value which makes it possible to include all the dimensions included in each conceptual definition (complete list of keywords and entire networks in Annex 2). In the case of the outdegree values, the situation is similar where the size of the circles represents the total value for each type of actor.

The metric betweenness showed a higher average value in the case of SEA but at the same time a larger variability in relation to ES (SEA: X = 2,3; σ = 1,7 / ES: X = 1,6; σ = 0,6). With respect to type of actors, the higher betweenness in SEA corresponds with government institutions, while in the case of ES it corresponds with the consultant teams. In contrast, universities/research institutions have the lowest average of betweenness in both cases indicating they are not relevant actors in relation to the flow of information (Table 3). Individual numbers indicate that maximum values are present in government institutions in both SEA and ES (betweenness 5.8 and 2.7 respectively) which means they present actors that are better connected than all the others (details in Annex 2, Table 1).

3.3. Integration of ES and SEA in the spatial planning process In terms of the perception of the actors regarding the integration of ES in SEA, over 90% of the participants believe that integrating the ES approach into the spatial planning process is fundamental. Among the reasons they provided, the ES approach would be a means for enhancing the value of territorial resources as well as the value of nature for the society (20.5% and 15.4%, respectively). Additionally, they also see the ES approach as a way for combining conservation and development (10.3%), protecting ecosystems (10.3%) and helping to solve conflicts in land-use decisions (5.1%), among others (Question 3, Annex 1).

Please cite this article as: Rozas-Vásquez, D., et al., Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans, Environ Impact Asses Rev (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.001

D. Rozas-Vásquez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

7

Fig. 6. Simplified network structure of the relations among the different type of actors and the identified keywords in the definition of SEA. The size of the circles represents the outdegree in the case of actors and the indegree in the case of keywords. The circles in indegree are displayed as a pie chart which shows the proportion of each type of actor in identifying the respective keyword. The red dashed line represents the arrangement of the different types of actors based on the similarity of the keywords they recognized. The grey squares are the respective categories or dimensions associated with each keyword. The numbers beside the pie charts correspond to the respective following keywords: 1: PPP; 2: Environmental considerations; 3: Environmental management instrument; 4: Sustainability; 5: Sustainability considerations; 6: Public policies; 7: Early start; 8: Environment integration; 9: Strategic decisions; 10: Social considerations; 11: Environmental impact prevention; 12: Projects; 13: Support planning process; 14: Economic considerations; 15: Long-term; 16: Participative; 17: Social actors; 18: Strategic support instrument; 19: Support decisions; 20: Environmental Law. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

In this sense, from the actor's perspective the most appropriate way for integrating the ES approach into the decision-making process in SEA and spatial planning would, firstly, be by especially considering the social assessment of ES (61.5%), and, secondly, through an economic approach as the traditional payment for ES (17.9%) (Question 4, Annex 1). More in details, the vision of how ES should be specifically integrated in SEA of spatial plans, makes reference in the first place as a component of the sustainability analysis of the plan (33.3%), where the ES approach would play an essential role. In the second place they mentioned the modeling of socio-ecological systems (25.6%), and finally in the elaboration of maps for supporting decisions (23.1%) (Question 5, Annex 1). Table 2 presents the perceptions of the actors (% of participants based on a Likert scale) based on three key aspects related to the integration of ES in SEA and spatial planning: 1) the perception regarding a bundle of ES versus the most dominant productive activities, 2) spatial, institutional and stakeholder scales, and 3) planning boundaries. The analysis was carried out under a regional perspective in order to provide the spatial context to the actors. More than 65% of the actors disagree or strongly disagree about the idea that development and well-being depend basically on strengthening only productive activities (e.g. agriculture, forestry), regardless of the maintenance of a bundle of ES. However, still 30% of the actors agree on that idea, or neither agree nor disagree. Regarding scale issues, 74% agree or strongly agree that the ES integration in SEA and spatial planning requires the consideration of multiple scales in order to better consider different perceptions on value and priority for determined ES. In the case of planning boundaries, the level of consensus is the highest in terms of agreement or strong agreement (85%) regarding the idea of

considering existing natural boundaries to carry out the spatial planning process, especially at a regional level. Finally, a series of advantages and challenges were recognized by the actors for this integration (Question 7, Annex 1). First, 56.4% of the actors consider that the integration of ES in SEA and spatial planning would not be an obstacle in terms of a quick and free decision-making process. In contrast, 33.3% perceived that it could be an obstacle, while 10.3% did not answer the question. The actors supporting this integration mainly argued that there are advantages related to the improvement of the spatial planning process (23.1%) and the strengthening of the underlying decision-making process (20.5%). Moreover, the actors who believe it could be an obstacle mentioned the lack of widely accepted methods (7.7%), a high complexity in real applications (7.7%), and the lack of experts in both ES and SEA (5.1%) as their principal reasons. When we explore in detail the most challenging issues recognized in the local context, a lack of institutional guidelines (53.8%) and knowledge in terms of information and methods (46.2%) arise as the most critical elements. 3.4. Methodological approaches identified for SEA and ES analysis Table 3 presents a ranking in relative number of participants with respect to the most frequent methodological approaches identified for SEA in Chile, and which of them are considered as shared with ES analysis. Participatory techniques, GIS, multicriteria analysis and key actor analysis are the most relevant, whereby the participatory techniques in particular are the best positioned either in first or second place. Less attention was paid to more quantitative-oriented methods, as in the

Please cite this article as: Rozas-Vásquez, D., et al., Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans, Environ Impact Asses Rev (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.001

8

D. Rozas-Vásquez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Fig. 7. Simplified network structure of the relations among the different type of actors and the identified keywords in the definition of ES. The size of the circles represents the outdegree in the case of actors and the indegree in the case of keywords. The circles in indegree are displayed as a pie chart which shows the proportion of each types of actor in identifying the respective keyword. The red dashed line represents the arrangement of the different type of actors based on the similarity of the keywords they recognized. The grey squares are the respective categories or dimensions associated with each keyword. The numbers beside the pie charts correspond to the respective following keywords: 1: Benefits; 2: Goods and services; 3: Ecosystems; 4: Human being; 5: Society; 6: Unknown; 7: Regulating; 8: Cultural; 9: TEEB; 10: Provisioning; 11: MEA; 12: Direct; 13: Indirect; 14: Natural ecosystems; 15: Natural resources; 16: CICES; 17: Well-being; 18: Support development; 19: Economic approach; 20: Economic; 21: Ecosystem functions; 22: Environmental components; 23: Nature; 24: Supporting; 25: FEGS. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

case of SWOT, and cost–benefit analysis, which showed lower values in all the positions in the ranking. In relation to shared methods for coupling SEA and ES, scenario development, participatory techniques and spatial modeling (GIS) were identified as the most relevant, even though there was still a small portion of actors who did not see any relation between them. 3.5. Critical connections and gaps in the relation science-policy and channels of communication/information for integrating ES in SEA and spatial planning Effective coordination between science and policy was considered relevant and needed by most of the actors involved in this research (35.9%). In all cases, the perception regarding this coordination was positive because they believe that science complements the spatial planning process (23.1%) as well as it strengthens the decision-making process (23.1%), which in the end improves the development of public policies (15.4%) (Question 11, Annex 1). Additionally, the actors defined the main role of research institutions/universities as supporting the integration of ES, SEA and spatial planning under their perceptions. 48.7%

Table 1 Average values and variability for the metric betweenness by type of actors. Type of actor

SEA_Average

SEA_St. Desv

ES_Average

ES_St. Desv

Estate Consultant Research All the actors

2.57 2.4 1.54 2.33

1.71 2.07 1.44 1.71

1.65 2 1.28 1.63

0.74 0.66 0.34 0.68

argued that the role of science is primarily to offer theoretical and methodological support and to generate conceptual bases. Only 7.7% of the actors visualized the role of science as being involved in the decisionmaking process (Question 12, Annex 1). Finally, we asked the actors about the most common channels of communication and information they use for improving their knowledge, understanding as well as for refreshing concepts and ideas in relation to ES and SEA. In this case, execution of the profession was the dominant channel (71.8%) followed by formal studies like Master's Degree, PhD and others (Question 13, annex 1). 4. Discussion 4.1. Strengths and weaknesses of the methodological approach We conducted a snapshot approach which consisted of a one-time survey based on a questionnaire application. The main advantage of this approach is its quick and easy application over a short period of time, which normally fits well with the time available by the participants, thus preventing their withdrawal. Given the same reasons it is also affordable in economic terms; therefore, it can be applied to a larger sample (Levin, 2006). However, it presents some limitations, especially at present, regarding the drawing of inferences about causal relationships from the results, because it only provides a static picture of the present situation (Levin, 2006). Despite this, the approach has already been successfully applied in obtaining relevant conclusions about the existing state of guidance and supporting methods in the case of SEA in the Canadian system (Noble et al., 2012), and for perceptions and demands of ES in Spain (Casado-Arzuaga et al., 2013). In the present

Please cite this article as: Rozas-Vásquez, D., et al., Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans, Environ Impact Asses Rev (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.001

D. Rozas-Vásquez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

9

Table 2 Perceptions of the actors on a Likert scale regarding key aspects for the integration of ES in SEA and spatial planning under a regional perspective. Key aspects

Strongly agree (%)

Agree (%)

Neither agree Disagree Strongly nor disagree (%) (%) disagree (%)

The regional economic development and the community well-being do not depend on the maintenance of a bundle of ES but rather on the encouragement of productive activities like agriculture, forestry, livestock, mining and others. SEA in regional planning should consider different spatial, institutional and stakeholder scales in the ES analysis given the possible variation in the perceptions and value for determined ES through these scales. The spatial planning process should consider natural boundaries as a unit of analysis in order to improve the provision of relevant ES for human activities and regional development.

0

10.3

20.5

23.1

43.6

46.2

28.2

10.3

7.7

5.1

59.0

25.6

2.6

5.1

5.1

research, we also obtained valuable information reflecting the current performance and understanding of processes under development for the past six years in Chile, particularly since 2010 in the case of SEA in spatial planning instruments (Rozas-Vásquez et al., 2014). Regarding the questionnaire application, one limitation is given by the broad scope of this study, which mostly focused on the actors that conduct the process of spatial planning in Chile while excluding others with an important role in real practice and decision-making such as NGOs, land owner associations, indigenous people and sectoral offices from the government (MMA, 2015). Moreover, the participants presented an unbalanced proportion, which could lead to confusion in interpreting the results if these are not carefully analyzed. These considerations should be taken into account in future studies to gain a more precise view of the complete system. Another point is related to the mix between online application of the questionnaire and personal meetings. In the last case, we could have influenced some responses, however, we restricted any conversation on the topic to the time after completion of the questionnaire to avoid any type of bias as much as possible. This was possible since we introduced the scope and objectives of the work in advance by email. Finally, we consider network analysis as a suitable and easy-toimplement tool for analyzing the structure of relations among actors and their associated understanding as well as for identifying possible bridge actors. 4.2. Network relations among actors and the associated conceptual understanding in SEA and ES The network structures between SEA and ES presented clear differences in terms of the metrics evaluated, where SEA appears as a more consolidated concept among the participants. These differences can be explained because SEA, unlike ES, has been mandatory since 2010, and thus far it has involved a range of multiple actors in the elaboration of different spatial plans, making SEA a well-known instrument, and, as a consequence, the knowledge and information is more equitably distributed. In both networks government institutions were the dominant Table 3 Ranking of methodological approaches identified for SEA in Chile and the most recognized methods shared between SEA and ES. Most frequent method identified in SEA

Ranking (%) 1

2

3

Participatory techniques GIS Multicriteria analysis Key actor analysis Vulnerability analysis SWOT analysis Cost–benefit analysis Sensitivity analysis Network analysis Checklist Other No response

30.8 10.3 12.8 17.9 5.1 5.1 2.6 2.6 0 0 5.1 2.6

23.1 12.8 20.5 12.8 10.3 7.7 0 0 0 5.1 0 2.6

7.7 28.2 15.4 10.3 5.1 12.8 5.1 5.1 0 0 2.6 2.6

Methods shared with ES analysis

%

Participatory techniques Spatial modeling – – – – Trade-offs analysis – – – Scenario development No relation observed

71.8 64.1 – – – – 30.8 – – – 76.9 2.6

actors, basically because they are the main promoters of SEA in any type of spatial plan, and because the Ministry of Environment has, since 2014, been in charge of a program of Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (UNEP, 2014). This fact also explains the higher values of the metric betweenness in this group of actors, which certainly presents a stronger influence on the flow of information and is subsequently more suitable for exploring possible bridges actors. Unexpectedly, research institutions showed a minimum relevance for the flow of information in both SEA and ES. However, the participants in this group were able to identify specific components in the case of ES – for instance a range of classification systems such as CICES, MEA, FEGS and TEEB – which are not widely recognized by the other participants, but are of major relevance for framing any ES intervention depending on the goal and the decision-making context (Fisher et al., 2009). This leads to concern about how well established the relation science-policy is, and whether or not adequate channels for communication exist. Regarding the identified keywords, in general they are properly connected with the mainstream conceptualizations in SEA and ES. However, there is still disjointed understanding among the different actors and also misconceptions about what is and what is not SEA and ES. In our case study, these misconceptions or partial understandings are generated by 1) inaccurate ideas about the concept and its components, and/or by 2) insufficient knowledge. An example from the first case is the idea of “project” still present in the discourse of the three types of actors as the target of SEA and whose implications and limitations for a successful SEA implementation have been well documented in Lobos and Partidario (2014). Another example is the confusion in some cases in defining ES as “ecosystem functions” or as an “economic approach”. Additionally, for all the actors, the source of ES generation is associated only with natural systems without considering at all, for instance, multifunctional landscapes as a source of ES provision as described by Elmqvist et al. (2011) and Laterra et al. (2012). In the second case, we argue that many of the most recognized keywords are of general knowledge rather than a more deep understanding of core aspects in SEA and ES. Examples are keywords that are ignored by most of the participants but fundamental in the conceptualization of SEA (Gauthier et al., 2011; Geneletti, 2013; Partidario and Gomes, 2013) such as “participatory process”, “flexibility” and “scenario development”. Therefore, collective multi-actor understanding is seen as a critical need in the Chilean context for moving towards an effective adoption of the ES approach coupled in SEA and spatial planning, as is also suggested by Acharibasam and Noble (2014) and Grunewald and Bastian (2015). 4.3. Integration of ES and SEA in the spatial planning process Even though the ES approach has been recently incorporated as such in national guidelines for sustainable spatial planning (MMA, 2015), there is a global consensus by the actors in terms of the relevance of integrating ES in SEA for improving the spatial planning process. The link conservation-development and protection of ecosystems were strongly appreciated under this approach; however, the principal reason for this positive perception is based on an economic perspective regarding the

Please cite this article as: Rozas-Vásquez, D., et al., Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans, Environ Impact Asses Rev (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.001

10

D. Rozas-Vásquez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

possibility to value nature in monetary terms. This is a critical issue because an adoption of this view in policies might shift the sustainability focus into a market economy of natural resources with the consequent risk of mismanagement and territorial conflicts (Häyhä and Franzese, 2014). In this way, even when social assessment of ES was considered the most suitable way to influence the decision making process in SEA and spatial planning, it could be risky to consider only an economic view since well-being also includes non-economic aspects (Partidario and Gomes, 2013). On the one hand, most of the actors were aware that development and human well-being depend on the management of a bunch of different ES in a multifunctional landscape as it is also supported by a number of scholars (e.g. Foley et al., 2005; Laterra et al., 2012). However, on the other hand, there seems to be a mismatch between these perceptions and the government subsidies, which promote productive monocultures in order to facilitate development (Pena-Cortes et al., 2011). At this point, a multiscale perspective on ES values from ecological, to stakeholders, to institutional levels as suggested by Hein et al. (2006), has been missing in the policy and guideline development in Chile over the past decades. Nevertheless, the general picture we have obtained seems to show a shift in the paradigm induced by the actors' high level of awareness concerning these issues. The same awareness is recognized regarding the use of administrative boundaries, as in the current practice, which does not encourage improvement in the generation of important ES for human activities and regional development. This change in the paradigm can open huge possibilities for this integrated framework. Whereas there is a positive global perception, there are still some challenges to overcome in order to increase the possibility of embracing this integrated framework. One relevant aspect is a lack of institutional guidelines and methodological support, both which were pointed out as critical challenges. This suggests that incorporating ES in the SEA process of spatial planning could represent an obstacle. Even though this is not the predominant view, the findings confirm the results of previous works which mention some constraints on the transfer of these ideas from theory to practice. The most relevant ones are related to scientific uncertainties and multiple conceptual understandings of different actors, which lead to inconsistent terms, terminologies and definitions (Barnaud and Antona, 2014; da Silva et al., 2014; Nahlik et al., 2012). Once again, the relation science-policy has relevance for an effective adoption of this framework. 4.4. Methodological approaches identified for SEA and ES analysis A wide range of current practices, moving from more quantitativeoriented approaches (typical in EIA) such as check lists and cost–benefit analyses to more participatory techniques, were identified for SEA. Contrary to previous works (e.g. Lobos and Partidario, 2014), in this study participatory techniques, GIS modeling, and multicriteria analysis (MCA) were the most recognized, while more deterministic and dataoriented analyses were less relevant, similar to the findings of Noble et al. (2012). For us, that is a signal that SEA is finally providing a more significant contribution to influencing PPP based on a strategic and collaborative-oriented approach, which opens great possibilities for including ES in spatial planning (Partidario and Gomes, 2013). This can also be observed by looking at the methods considered to be shared with ES, where collaborative work among different actors as well as the spatial context plays an important role for the participants. 4.5. Critical connections and gaps in the relation science-policy and channels of communication/information for integrating ES in SEA and spatial planning A strong coordinating science-policy was highlighted as fundamental, given the need for scientific and technical evidence for the development of consistent institutional guidelines and the improvement of the

decision-making processes in spatial planning. However, even when the actors are aware of the relevance of this collaborative work, in practice they are usually unconnected entities with a low degree of interaction and communication. The predominant view still seems to place science in its traditional disciplinary role, while only in a few cases is science seen as a support for the real-life decision-making process and for communication of knowledge. This can also be observed in the most common channels of communication and information, where the possibilities for interaction and discussion – such as in workshops, conferences or seminars – have not yet become a high priority. In this sense, in 2014 Chile started to develop a program of Experimental Ecosystem Accounting prompted by UNEP, where a close interaction in sciencepolicy in the endorsement of the ES integration in the development of PPP is expected. To be successful, an appropriate governance scheme is needed considering an inter- and transdisciplinary approach in the context of co-evolution science, policy and practice beyond the traditional sectoral boundaries (Fürst et al., 2013b; Österblom et al., 2010; Primmer and Furman, 2012).

5. Conclusions The results of our case study show that a snapshot approach can contribute to the identification of key actors for integrating ES in SEA and spatial planning, providing valuable information regarding present network structures among actors and their conceptual understanding. In this sense, we recommend paying attention to these structures and strengthening those network relations, because they exert significant impact on the behavior of the actors and make it more feasible to deal with environmental and sustainability issues (Bodin and Crona, 2009). The findings suggest a globally positive perception, but also some limitations to be overcome in increasing the possibilities for successful integration. First, when we consider a context of multiple actors, a common understanding of SEA and especially of ES is still in an initial stage in Chile. In this sense, even though the conceptual appropriation is in general close to theory, there are still some misunderstandings which need to be clarified and other concepts that need to be reinforced. Second, although government institutions are the dominant actors, at the moment it is not possible to identify a specific key actor who is capable of bridging information across different institutions and/or sectoral boundaries and who can move towards a governance network of ES as suggested by Vignola et al. (2013). Third, the lack of institutional guidelines and methodological support is considered to be the main challenge for this integration. Given this uncertainty in procedural terms, incorporation of ES in SEA and spatial planning is seen as a possible obstacle for a free and clear decision-making process. Here, even when a strong coordination policy-science is recognized as being fundamental, mostly unconnected entities with a low degree of interaction and communication still exist. In Chile, preconditions exist for integrating ES in SEA and the spatial planning practice, but they strongly depend on an appropriate governance scheme which encourages a close interaction science-policy as well as collaborative work and learning. Active and formal scientific support is crucial in order to address the current challenges – especially in terms of understanding, development of guidelines, and a general increase in the plausibility of this integrated approach. An important requirement for facilitation of this integration is to create as explicitly as possible the links between spatial planning and SEA, which then would make it feasible to apply the ES approach in a decision-making process. Our actual work focuses, therefore, on exploring these relations by considering the ecosystem services cascade and how the planning process and SEA interact with each of its components. Pilot applications in real planning contexts are also needed to generate information, awareness and knowledge, which should be disseminated at multiple institutional scales.

Please cite this article as: Rozas-Vásquez, D., et al., Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans, Environ Impact Asses Rev (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.001

D. Rozas-Vásquez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Acknowledgments The authors are grateful for the support provided by the Commisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (CONICYT), through the program Becas Chile. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.001.

References Acharibasam, J.B., Noble, B.F., 2014. Assessing the impact of strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 32, 177–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 14615517.2014.927557. Ahmed, K., Sánchez-Triana, E., 2008. Strategic Environmental Assessment for Policies an Instrument for Good Governance. World Bank, Washington, DC. Balvanera, P., Uriarte, M., Almeida-Leñero, L., Altesor, A., DeClerck, F., Gardner, T., et al., 2012. Ecosystem services research in Latin America: the state of the art. Ecosyst. Serv. 2, 56–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.006. Barnaud, C., Antona, M., 2014. Deconstructing ecosystem services: uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. Geoforum 56, 113–123. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.07.003. Bodin, Ö., Crona, B.I., 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Glob. Environ. Chang. 19, 366–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002. Casado-Arzuaga, I., Madariaga, I., Onaindia, M., 2013. Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J. Environ. Manag. 129, 33–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.059. da Silva, A., Selig, P., de Avila, A., Viegas, C., 2014. Strategic environmental assessment: one concept, multiple definitions. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 8, 53–76. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., et al., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 21–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/080025. de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., Batagelj, V., 2005. Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek. Cambridge, New York. Dierckx de Casterlé, B., Gastmans, C., Bryon, E., Denier, Y., 2012. QUAGOL: a guide for qualitative data analysis. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 49, 360–371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ijnurstu.2011.09.012. Elmqvist, T., Tuvendal, M., Krishnaswamy, J., Hylander, K., 2011. Managing Trade-offs in Ecosystem Services, Ecosystem Services Economics (ESE). Working Paper Series vol. 4 (Nairobi). Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008. 09.014. Foley, J.A., Defries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., et al., 2005. Global Consequences of Land Use. p. 570 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772. Fürst, C., Frank, S., Witt, A., Koschke, L., Makeschin, F., 2013a. Assessment of the effects of forest land use strategies on the provision of ecosystem services at regional scale. J. Environ. Manag. 127, S96–S116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.020 (Suppl.). Fürst, C., Helming, K., Lorz, C., Müller, F., Verburg, P.H., 2013b. Integrated land use and regional resource management—a cross-disciplinary dialogue on future perspectives for a sustainable development of regional resources. J. Environ. Manag. 127, S1–S5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.015 (Suppl.). Fürst, C., Opdam, P., Inostroza, L., Luque, S., 2014. Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balanced score card. Landsc. Ecol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0052-9. Gauthier, M., Simard, L., Waaub, J.-P., 2011. Public participation in strategic environmental assessment (SEA): critical review and the Quebec (Canada) approach. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 31, 48–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.006. Geneletti, D., 2011. Reasons and options for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial planning. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 37–41. Geneletti, D., 2013. Assessing the impact of alternative land-use zoning policies on future ecosystem services. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 40, 25–35. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.eiar.2012.12.003. Geneletti, D., 2015. A conceptual approach to promote the integration of ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 17, 1550035. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1464333215500350. Goldstein, J.H., Caldarone, G., Duarte, T.K., Ennaanay, D., Hannahs, N., Mendoza, G., et al., 2012. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 7565–7570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201040109. Grunewald, K., Bastian, O., 2015. Ecosystem Services. Concept, Methods and Case Studies. p. 312 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44143-5. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2009. Methodologies for Defining and Assessing Ecosystem Services. Final Report, JNCC, Project Code C08-0170-0062. Häyhä, T., Franzese, P.P., 2014. Ecosystem services assessment: a review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective. Ecol. Model. 289, 124–132. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.07.002.

11

Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S., van Ierland, E.C., 2006. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 57, 209–228. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005. Kumar, P., Esen, S.E., Yashiro, M., 2013. Linking ecosystem services to strategic environmental assessment in development policies. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 40, 75–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.002. Lamarque, P., Quétier, F., Lavorel, S., 2011. The diversity of the ecosystem services concept and its implications for their assessment and management. C. R. Biol. 334, 441–449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2010.11.007. Laterra, P., Orúe, M.E., Booman, G.C., 2012. Spatial complexity and ecosystem services in rural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 154, 56–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. agee.2011.05.013. Levin, K.A., 2006. Study design III: cross-sectional studies. Evid. Based Dent. 7, 24–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400375. Lobos, V., Partidario, M., 2014. Theory versus practice in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 48, 34–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar. 2014.04.004. MA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human well-being. Ecosystems, Millenium Assessments 5, pp. 1–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.1439.003. MMA, 2015. Guia de orientación para incorporar la dimensión ambiental en procesos de ordenamiento territorial sustentable. Gobierno de Chile, Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Santiago. Nahlik, A.M., Kentula, M.E., Fennessy, M.S., Landers, D.H., 2012. Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecol. Econ. 77, 27–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.01.001. Nahuelhual, L., Laterra, P., Villarino, S., Mastrángelo, M., Carmona, A., Jaramillo, A., et al., 2015. Mapping of ecosystem services: missing links between purposes and procedures. Ecosyst. Serv. 13, 162–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03. 005. Noble, B.F., Gunn, J., Martin, J., 2012. Survey of current methods and guidance for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 30, 139–147. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/14615517.2012.705076. Noh, H., Jo, Y., Lee, S., 2015. Keyword selection and processing strategy for applying text mining to patent analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 4348–4360. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.eswa.2015.01.050. OECD, 2006. Applying strategic environmental assessment. Good practice guidance for development co-operation. DAC Guidelines and Refrence Series. OECD Publishing, Paris (Available at: http://www.oecd.org/environment/environment-development/ 37353858.pdf. Accessed: 14.12.2015). OECD, 2013. OECD urban policy reviews, Chile 2013. OECD Publishing, Paris http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/9789264191808-en. Opdam, P., Coninx, I., Dewulf, A., Steingröver, E., Vos, C., van der Wal, M., 2015. Framing ecosystem services: affecting behaviour of actors in collaborative landscape planning? Land Use Policy 46, 223–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.008. Österblom, H., Gårdmark, A., Bergström, L., Müller-Karulis, B., Folke, C., Lindegren, M., et al., 2010. Making the ecosystem approach operational—can regime shifts in ecological- and governance systems facilitate the transition? Mar. Policy 34, 1290–1299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.05.007. Partidario, M.R., 2012. Strategic Environmental Assessment Better Practice Guide - Methodological Guidance for Strategic Thinking in SEA. Portuguese Environment Agency and Redas Energetics Nacionais, Lisboa. Partidario, M.R., Gomes, R.C., 2013. Ecosystem services inclusive strategic environmental assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 40, 36–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar. 2013.01.001. Pena-Cortes, F., Pincheira-Ulbrich, J., Bertran, C., Tapia, J., Hauenstein, E., Fernandez, E., et al., 2011. A study of the geographic distribution of swamp forest in the coastal zone of the Araucania Region, Chile. Appl. Geogr. 31, 545–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. apgeog.2010.11.008. Primmer, E., Furman, E., 2012. Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 85–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser. 2012.07.008. Raymond, C.M., Bryan, B.A., Hatton, D., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., et al., 2008. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 68, 1301–1315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006. Rozas-Vásquez, D., Peña-Cortés, F., Geneletti, D., Rebolledo, G., 2014. Scenario modelling to support strategic environmental assessment: application to spatial planning of coastal wetlands in La Araucanía Region, Chile. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 16, 1450014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1464333214500148. Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H., Guerry, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., et al., 2015. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ. 115, 11–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2013.07.009. Scolozzi, R., Morri, E., Santolini, R., 2012. Delphi-based change assessment in ecosystem service values to support strategic spatial planning in Italian landscapes. Ecol. Indic. 21, 134–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.019. Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R., 1998. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods. A Guidebook and Resource. 3rd ed. Wiley, New York. UN, 2008. Spatial Planning. Key Instrument for Development and Effective Governance with Special Reference to Countries in Transition. United Nations, Geneva (Available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/hlm/documents/Publications/spatial_ planning.e.pdf. Accessed: 06.11.2015). UN, 2012. Back to our Common Future. Sustainable Development in the 21st Century (SD21) Project. Summary for Policymakers. United Nations, New York (Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/UN-DESA_Back_ Common_Future_En.pdf. Accessed: 06.11.2015).

Please cite this article as: Rozas-Vásquez, D., et al., Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans, Environ Impact Asses Rev (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.001

12

D. Rozas-Vásquez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

UN, 2014. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2014. United Nations, New York (Available at: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2014%20MDG%20report/MDG% 202014%20English%20web.pdf. Accessed: 09.11.2015). UNDP, 2010. Beyond the Midpoint. Achieving the Millennium Development Goals. United Nations Development Programme, New York (Available at: http://www.uncdf.org/ gfld/docs/midpoint-mdg.pdf. Accessed: 21.09.2015). UNEP, 2004. Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach. 1st ed. (Geneva, Availble at: http://www.unep.ch/ etu/publications/text_ONU_br.pdf. Accessed: 03.11.2015). UNEP, 2014. Impulso a al contabilidad experimental de ecosistemas del sistema de contabilidad ambiental y economica (SCAE) en paises piloto. Oficina regional para Latino América y el Caribe (ORPALC), Panamá. Vignola, R., McDaniels, T.L., Scholz, R.W., 2013. Governance structures for ecosystembased adaptation: using policy-network analysis to identify key organizations for bridging information across scales and policy areas. Environ. Sci. Pol. 31, 71–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.03.004. Daniel Rozas-Vásquez is a PhD researcher at the Center for Development Research of the University of Bonn, Germany. He is working on the integration of the ecosystem services approach into the spatial planning process by considering the advantages of strategic environmental assessment. He is also working at Territorial Planning Laboratory of Catholic University of Temuco, Chile, in the thematic of spatial planning, ecosystem services, land-use change and landscape ecology.

Davide Geneletti is Associate Professor of Spatial Planning at the University of Trento. Specialised in impact assessment of projects, plans and policies; ecosystem services; multicriteria analysis and spatial decision support systems. Formerly Research Fellow at Harvard University’s Sustainability Science Program (2010 − 11), and Visiting Scholar at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment (2014). He has consulted for private and public bodies internationally, including the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), UN-HABITAT, and the European Commission. Editor of the Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management and Deputy Editor and co-founder of the journal One Ecosystem.

Francisco Muñoz-Vera is graduated as sociologist and Master in social research and development at University of Concepción, Chile. Currently he is working as a methodologist and young researcher in areas of: poverty, social vulnerability, social representations, displaced populations and citizen participation at Territorial Planning Laboratory of Catholic University of Temuco, Chile.

Christine Fürst is graduated as forest engineer at LudwigMaximilian-University München and did her PhD in forest soil sciences at Dresden University of Technology. She did her habilitation with venia legendi in Natural Resource Management at University of Bonn. Currently, she is working as senior scientist at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research, Atmospheric Environmental Research, Group: Regionalization of Biogenic Trace Gas Fluxes and as visiting professor at Martin-Luther University Halle, Institute for Geosciences and Geography, Dept. Spatial and Environmental Planning (Sustainable Landscape Development), Germany.

Please cite this article as: Rozas-Vásquez, D., et al., Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans, Environ Impact Asses Rev (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.001