Publication Details |
| Category | Text Publication |
| Reference Category | Journals |
| DOI | 10.1080/09654313.2025.2582608 |
Licence  |
|
| Title (Primary) | Are spatial plans transformative for biodiversity and ecosystem services? Insights from seven European countries |
| Author | Orta-Ortiz, M.S.; Falco, E.; Batista e Silva, J.; David, N.; Frezzi, S.; Kørnøv, L.; Locher-Krause, K.E.; Loupa Ramos, I.; Hoyos-Rojas, L.M.; Parretta, C.; Partidario, M.R.; Sica, F.; Larsen, S.V.; Wittmer, H.
; Zhu, Y.
; Geneletti, D. |
| Source Titel | European Planning Studies |
| Year | 2025 |
| Department | UPOL |
| Language | englisch |
| Topic | T5 Future Landscapes |
| Supplements | Supplement 1 Supplement 2 |
| Keywords | Sustainability transformations; planning documents; nature-based solutions; biodiversity conservation |
| Abstract | This study explores how spatial plans hold transformative potential for biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) valorisation. It develops a conceptual framework that unpacks transformative change for biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning, analysing plans' components—visions, strategies, information baseline, actions, instruments and regulations—through four analytical elements: governance, mitigation hierarchy, spatial planning provision of sectors and biodiversity/ES. The framework assesses transformative potential using five characteristics: restructuring (i.e., system's components variations), multiscale (i.e., spatial and temporal scales and actors), path-shifting (i.e., redirection of current trends and principles), innovative (i.e., uptake of new knowledge) and phasing-out (i.e., outdated practices' elimination). We tested it through content analysis of 28 plans from seven European countries with good Biodiversity Strategy 2020 performance (Italy, Denmark, Germany, Portugal, Scotland, Spain and Switzerland), spanning NUTS levels. The results reveal varying transformative potential across plan components, with visions and strategies showing higher transformation commitment than other components. While governance and biodiversity/ES considerations demonstrate emerging transformative practices, the mitigation hierarchy and sectoral provisions remain underutilised. Plans tend to favour restructuring over more disruptive changes like path-shifting, innovation and phase-out. We identify critical interventions for fostering biodiversity-inclusive planning, including strengthening sectoral engagement, addressing temporal misalignments, reforming bureaucratic processes and shifting planning paradigms towards net biodiversity gains. |
| Persistent UFZ Identifier | https://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=20939&ufzPublicationIdentifier=31578 |
| Orta-Ortiz, M.S., Falco, E., Batista e Silva, J., David, N., Frezzi, S., Kørnøv, L., Locher-Krause, K.E., Loupa Ramos, I., Hoyos-Rojas, L.M., Parretta, C., Partidario, M.R., Sica, F., Larsen, S.V., Wittmer, H., Zhu, Y., Geneletti, D. (2025): Are spatial plans transformative for biodiversity and ecosystem services? Insights from seven European countries Eur. Plan. Stud. 10.1080/09654313.2025.2582608 |
|