Servizi ecosistemici in chiave progettuale e proattiva Alice Franchina KCity - rigenerazione urbana, Italy This is a section of I servizi ecosistemici nella pianificazione bioregionale(DOI: 10.36253/978-88-5518-050-4) by Daniela Poli Firenze University Press Firenze 2020 https://doi.org/10.36253/978-88-5518-050-4.08

Available for academic research purposes

Open Access

Copyright Author(s)

Content licence CC BY 4.0

Metadata licence CC0 1.0

This is original content, published for academic research purposes

 Digital edition XML powered by Booksflow

Having ascertained that the ecosystem service paradigm is a scientific rather than a “natural” one, the text criticizes the purely analytical attitude with which it is usually used; such an attitude, together with the dominance of a purely economic evaluation, is hiding the risk of a real commodification of nature. This highlights the need to progress towards the use of the ecosystem service instrument within a transformative design framework, aiming at social equity, and which adopts an inclusive evaluation system of the local actors.

 scientific paradigm evaluation system planning project social equity

It is available online at https://doi.org/10.36253/978-88-5518-050-4.08

References Boyd J., Banzhaf S. (2007), “What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units”, Ecological Economics, vol. 63, n. 2-3, pp. 616-626. Cowell R., Lennon M. (2014), “The utilisation of environmental knowledge in land-use planning: drawing lessons for an Ecosystem Services approach”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol. 32, n. 2, pp. 263-282. Elmqvist T., Fragkias M., Goodness J., Güneralp B., Marcotullio P.J., McDonald R. I., Parnell S., Schewenius M., Sendstad M., Seto K.C., Wilkinson C. (2013 - a cura di), Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. Gómez-Baggethun E., Ruiz-Pérez M. (2011), “Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services”, Progress in Physical Geography, vol. 35, n. 5, pp. 613-628. Haase D., Frantzeskaki N., Elmqvist T. (2014), “Ecosystem services in urban landscapes: practical applications and governance implications, Ambio, n. 43, pp. 407-412. Haase D., Larondelle N., Andersson E. et Al. (2014a), “A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation”, Ambio, n. 43, pp. 413-433. Hansen R., Frantzeskaki N., McPhearson T., Rall E., Kabisch N., Kaczorowska A., Kain J.H., Artmann M., Pauleit S. (2015), “The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of European and American cities”, Ecosystem Services, n. 12, pp. 228-246. Jacobs S., Martín-López B., Barton D.N. et Al. (2017), “The means determine the end. Pursuing integrated valuation in practice, Ecosystem Services, n. 29, pp. 515-528. Kenter J. (2016), “Deliberative and non-monetary valuation”, in Potschin M., Haines‐Young R., Fish R., Turner K.R. (a cura di), Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services, Routledge, London, pp. 271-287). McKenzie E., Posner S., Tillmann P., Bernhardt J.N., Howard K., Rosenthal A. (2014), “Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons from international experiences of spatial planning”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, n. 32, pp. 320-334. Norgaard R.B. (2010), “Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder”,. Ecological Economics, vol. 69, n. 6, pp. 1219-1227. Santos-Martín F., Kelemen E., García-Llorente M., Jacobs S., OterosRozas E., Barton D.N., Palomo I., Hevia V., Martín-López B. (2016), “Socio-cultural valuation approaches”, inBurkhard B., Maes J. (a cura di), Mapping ecosystem services, Pensoft Publishers, Sofia. Schlosberg D. (2007), Defining environmental justice: theories, movements and nature, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Scott A.J., Carter C., Hardman M., Grayson N., Slaney T. (2018), “Mainstreaming ecosystem science in spatial planning practice: exploiting a hybrid opportunity space”, Land Use Policy, n. 70, pp. 232-246.