Can the construction of sponge cityies be the framework for the development of sustainable urban drainage systems? Case study: Case study: One or two sponge cities in China
fffinal
Theexampleofexcellentdissertation.pdf
1
The added value of Ecosystem Services in
Environmental Assessment: a practitioner’s
perspective
A dissertation submitted to the University of Manchester for the
degree of MSc Environmental Impact Assessment and Management
in the Faculty of Humanities
2018
Student ID: 10230062
School of Environment, Education and Development
2
Declaration of originality
No portion of the work referred to in the dissertation has been submitted in support of an
application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute
of learning.
Intellectual Property Statement
1) The author of this dissertation (including any appendices and/or schedules to this
dissertation) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and he has given
The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative
purposes.
2). Copies of this dissertation, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy,
may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as
amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing
agreements which the University has entered into. This page must form part of any such copies
made.
3) The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other intellectual
property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the
dissertation, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this
dissertation, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such
Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without
the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or
Reproductions. iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication
and commercialisation of this dissertation, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or
Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see
http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=487), in any relevant Dissertation
restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library’s
regulations (see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations) and in The
University’s Guidance for the Presentation of Dissertation.
3
Table of Contents
Table of Illustrations .................................................................................................................. 6
List of Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... 8
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 9
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 10
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 11
1.1 Dissertation structure and important context ................................................................. 12
2.0 Literature review ............................................................................................................. 13
2.1 Scope and background ................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Ecosystem Services in Environmental Assessment ....................................................... 14
2.2.1 EIA background ....................................................................................................... 14
2.2.2 SEA background ...................................................................................................... 15
2.2.3 ES in EA .................................................................................................................. 18
2.3.0 Benefits of ES in EA ................................................................................................... 20
2.3.1 Scoping .................................................................................................................... 22
2.3.2 Mitigation and monitoring ....................................................................................... 22
2.3.3 Stakeholder inclusion .............................................................................................. 22
2.4.0 Barriers in the uptake of ES ........................................................................................ 25
2.4.1 Workload increase ................................................................................................... 25
2.4.2 Concept understanding and knowledge barriers ...................................................... 26
2.4.3 Classifying and valuating ES ................................................................................... 27
2.4.4 Non-statutory legal requirements ............................................................................ 28
2.4.5 Client/developer perceptions of EA ........................................................................ 28
2.5.0 Tools and methods for incorporating ES in EA .......................................................... 29
2.5.1 Web-application tools .............................................................................................. 29
2.5.2 Methods from guidance and case-studies ................................................................ 30
2.6.0 Current uptake of ES in EA: Explicit vs Implicit considerations ............................... 31
2.6.1 Implicit ES consideration ........................................................................................ 31
2.6.2 Explicit ES consideration ........................................................................................ 32
2.7.0 EA Practitioner perspectives and experience: the critical link .................................... 33
4
3.0. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 35
3.1.0 Conceptual framework diagram .................................................................................. 35
3.2.0 Aims and objectives .................................................................................................... 35
3.3.0 Research design: .......................................................................................................... 36
3.4.0 Research design: semi-structured interviews .............................................................. 36
3.5.0 Research design: web-based survey ............................................................................ 37
3.6.0 Data analysis ............................................................................................................... 38
3.7.0 Ethics ........................................................................................................................... 39
3.8.0 Limitations of methods................................................................................................ 39
4.0 Results and discussion ..................................................................................................... 40
4.1.0 Professional background of interview participants ..................................................... 40
4.2.0 Background information of survey respondents ......................................................... 40
4.3.0 General perspectives of the ES concept in practice .................................................... 43
4.4.0 Drivers, added value, and procedural influence perceptions ...................................... 45
4.4.1 Drivers ..................................................................................................................... 45
4.4.2 Added value ............................................................................................................. 46
4.4.3 EA process influence ............................................................................................... 46
4.5.0 What’s preventing practitioners using ES in EA? ....................................................... 47
4.5.1 Difficulties in practice ............................................................................................. 47
4.5.2 Barriers to uptake ..................................................................................................... 49
4.5.3 Workload and EA frameworks ................................................................................ 50
4.5.4 Legislation requirements ......................................................................................... 50
4.5.5 ES trials.................................................................................................................... 51
4.6.0 Policy, guidance and resources to support ES in EA .................................................. 51
4.6.1 ES learning and policy influenced ........................................................................... 51
4.6.2 Guidance for practitioners in ES for EA ................................................................. 53
4.7.0 Practitioners’ outlook on methods and tools for incorporating
ES in EA ............................................................................................................................... 55
4.7.1 Alternative framing vs monetization methods ......................................................... 55
4.7.2 ES explicit consideration in practice ....................................................................... 57
4.7.3 Web-application tools .............................................................................................. 58
4.8.0 Overcoming barriers to uptake in ES .......................................................................... 59
5.0 Recommendations and conclusions ................................................................................ 63
6.0 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 67
5
7.0 Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 78
6
Table of Illustrations
Figures
Figure 1. The four main stages in the EIA process………………………………………….…15
Figure 2. The stages of SEA and strategic decision-making…………………..………………16
Figure 3. The hierarchal relationship between PPPs and projects in EIA and SEA……………17
Figure 4. Ecosystem service categories according to the MEA………..………………………19
Figure 5. New conceptual ecosystem model by IPBES…………………………...…………27
Figure 6. The six steps for integrating ES in EIA……………………..………………….……30
Figure 7. Criteria for explicit consideration of ES………………………………………..……32
Figure 8. Conceptual framework diagram illustrating reasoning for practitioner focus…….…35
Figure 9. Area of EA practitioners were most familiar with……………….…………………..41
Figure 10. Respondents' area of work…………………………………………………………41
Figure 11. Geographic location for majority of respondents' work……………………………42
Figure 12. Number of years' experience……………………………………..……..…………42
Figure 13. Respondents' experience of ES prior to the survey……………..……….…………43
Figure 14. Problems encountered by practitioners using ES……………………………..……48
Figure 15. Reasons for no previous experience in ES…………………………………………49
Figure 16. Means by which practitioners learnt about incorporating ES in EA……..…………52
Figure 17. Policy document influence……………………….………………………………..53
Figure 18. SRs view on usefulness of guidance……………………………………………….54
Figure 19. SRs view on enhancement of ES uptake through increased guidance…….………..54
Figure 20. SRs view on ES framing vs the monetization………………………………...…….56
Figure 21. SRs view on the importance of 'explicit' ES consideration in EA…………………..57
Figure 22. SRs response to ES software tool usefulness………………………………………58
Figure 23. Appealing areas of added value to SR……………………...………………………60
Figure 24. SR response to increase in case studies………………………….…………………61
7
Tables
Table 1. Principal differences between the stages of EIA and SEA……………..…………17
Table 2. Potential problem area entry points for ES……………………….…………………21
Table 3. Examples of positive perceptions of ES concept……………………………………..44
Table 4. Broad guidance frameworks for ES inclusion indicated by SRs…………………..….55
Table 5. SR view of monetization……………………………………………………………..56
Table 6. Themes uncovered from practitioner perceptions of ES in EA……………………….63
Word count: 14,999
8
List of Acronyms
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
EA Environmental Assessment
EC European Commission
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ES Ecosystem Services
EU European Union
IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment
IP Interview Participant
MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PPPs Policies, plans and programmes
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SR Survey Respondent
SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest
UK United Kingdom
WRI World Resources Institute
9
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to thank my dissertation supervisor, Rachel Morrison, for her help and
guidance throughout the dissertation process. I would also like to thank all the practitioners
who took part in the interview and survey stages of the research. Finally, an enormous
amount of thanks goes out to my family, who have encouraged my studies from the very
start.
10
Abstract
This study breaks new ground by exploring the perspectives of UK practitioners on the added
value and incorporation of the ecosystem service concept within Environmental Assessment. It
seeks to test and expand the debates within up-to-date research with primary evidence derived
from interviews and surveys from a range of professionals.
The broad-ranging issues identified and probed through practitioner feedback allow a rich
overview of both the potential benefits and the difficulties of incorporating ecosystem services
in Environmental Assessment. The perspectives of practitioners, clients and stakeholders are
all key to understanding the practical barriers to the more widespread uptake of the ecosystem
service concept.
Against the perceived benefits of a concept that places human well-being at the forefront of
environmental impact processes, this study has confirmed research evaluations that a number
of factors still stand in the way of the system reaching the status of an approved and tested
component in assessments with statutory and economic backing. In particular, this study
highlights the pressing need for more case studies offering best practice, more guidance
documents and formal training, and a culture whereby clients can understand and cost the
benefits and practitioners can achieve earlier environmental assessment outcomes, clearly
communicated to stakeholders.
The evidence compiled in this study allows a more informed debate on the added value of the
ecosystem service concept in EAs and leads the way to more defined research as well as
practical help for practitioners in the future.
11
1.0 Introduction
Over the years, the ecosystem services (ES) concept – “the advantages or benefits that we
receive from healthy, functioning ecosystems” – has become an increasingly used approach to
frame the environment in policies (Baker et al., 2013). A revolutionary study by Daily et al.
(2009), perceiving the ES concept stagnating in policy, ignited a movement from its
conceptual use to “the time for ES to deliver in decision-making” (p. 21). ES is now emerging
in the mainstream of numerous environmental decision-making contexts, including
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).
Today, EIA and SEA are considered critical tools for the integration of both
environmental and sustainability issues, each respectively allowing a transparent and
participatory process for the assessment of projects, and policies, plans and programmes
(PPPs) (Rozas Vasquez et al., 2018). These assessments are regarded as potential “vehicles”
for the incorporation of ES, partly driven by the high pressure and demand for natural
resources upon which the development of our societies depend, an area which both EIA and
SEA can directly impact through influencing decisions made in planning and project
implementation. It is certainly possible to find common entry points for the incorporation of
ES in the different environment assessment types, EIA and SEA. Therefore, the consideration
of both these assessment types has been considered in this study, inclusive under the term
Environmental Assessment (EA).
At present however, ES does not present itself as a standout feature to warrant its
inclusion in EA (Baker et al., 2013). Greater depth needs to be taken to investigate its intrinsic
potential, or in other words, what added value it would provide to assessments. This question
has previously been posed by numerous authors (e.g. Baker et al., 2013; Honrado et al. 2013)
alongside other studies investigating the lack of uptake of ES in EA (Partidario and Gomes,
2013). This study approaches the topic area by providing a current review of the potential
benefits, barriers and level of uptake regarding the incorporation of ES in EA, to infer the
provision of added value from ES. Moreover, it is evident from literature that certain aspects
of ES contribute to an unwillingness from practitioners, those conducting EAs, in using the
concept. Therefore, special focus has been placed on investigating current perspectives of EA
practitioners on ES incorporation, with the aim to provide insights into how it can be
developed further.
12
1.1 Dissertation structure and important context
Firstly, the presentation of the thematic areas concerning the benefits, barriers and uptake of
ES in EA has been produced from an extensive review of relevant literature. Secondly the
methodology is presented for the collection and analysis of primary data (practitioner
interviews and online-surveys). Thirdly, the outcomes of primary data analysis are presented
in a combined results and discussion section, placing linkages to the thematic areas of ES in
EA identified in the literature review. A final recommendations and conclusions section
succinctly summarises key findings and looks towards future actions.
It is important to note that the literature review frames research and experiences of ES
use in EA on an international basis. The results and discussion for the primary data collected,
from EA practitioners’ perspectives, differs in considering United Kingdom (UK) based
experiences only. It has been made sure, however, that supporting themes developed in the
literature review do not follow any country specific bias, only key relevance to general EA
frameworks and associated processes, consultations and public participation elements.
Secondly, in terms of legislation governing EAs, the sole focus for the analysis of primary
data is based on the mandatory and discretionary areas ruled by the European Union (EU)
EIA and SEA Directives (EC, 2001; 2014). The essential principal to understand here is that
the term “ecosystem services” is inclusive of neither Directives; failing to reach a statutory
position in 2014 amendments (Diehl et al., 2013).
13
2.0 Literature review
2.1 Scope and background
This literature review traces the evolving evaluations of the added value of ES in EA through
existing research. Specifically, the review focuses on benefits, barriers, opportunities,
stakeholder perceptions and the current level of uptake of the ES concept presented in academic
literature.
For the purposes of this research, EA comprises two assessment types - EIA and SEA-
under the regulations of the EU Directive (EC, 2001; 2014). EIA is an assessment tool used to
aid environmental decision-making in project development, whilst SEA generally covers the
assessment of policy, plans and programmes (PPPs) (Honrado et al., 2013). The frameworks
for EIA and SEA are further described in Section 2.2. By general definition, ecosystem services
are “the benefits human populations derive from ecosystems, such as goods and products (e.g.
freshwater), regulation of natural processes (e.g. flooding) and non-material benefits (e.g.
aesthetic enjoyment)” (Geneletti, 2016, p.3). The ES concept presents an alternative approach
to framing environmental impacts, connecting the natural environment with human well-being;
evaluating environmental issues in such a way that people can understand and value their
supporting functions to everyday life (Geneletti, 2015).
By general consensus, a substantive goal in both EIA and SEA is for environmental
impacts to be considered in final decision-making outcomes (Loomis and Dziedzic, 2018).
However, trade-offs between multiple competing factors - such as project design, time
constraints and economic development - in EA can result in the environment being poorly
represented in final outcomes (Retief, 2013). ES provides an alternative approach by prioritising
human well-being, so making environmental impacts more relevant and accessible for
stakeholders and decision-makers (Rosa and Sánchez, 2015).
This shifting outlook was elucidated in an initial hypothesis statement for ES, accompanying
the reframing of environmental impacts and associated opportunities for refocusing approaches:
14
“The ES concept allows the framing of environmental impacts in terms of human
well-being, allowing better communication of environmental issues to
stakeholders, and more consideration of environmental issues in decision-
making.”
With this hypothesis statement, it was decided that stakeholders’ perception of ES
within EA should be considered in research to determine how concepts are being
received and used in practice. Research on the benefits and opportunities of ES have
been used to show how that added value in ES transcends the alternative framing of
environmental impacts.
2.2 Ecosystem Services in Environmental Assessment
This section provides a general background to EA and its relevance to ES, allowing greater
context to the benefits and barriers of ES in EA.
2.2.1 EIA background
EIA is commonly defined as “the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating
the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major
decisions being taken and commitments made”. EIA originated from the National
Environmental Protection Act 1969 (NEPA) of the United Nations (UNEP, 2002) and is now
used worldwide for legal decisions on permits, namely for projects, and ensuring public
participation is conducted in decision-making (Hansen et al., 2018). In 1985, EIA became a key
part of European environmental policy under the first EIA Directive (EC, 1985). The Directive
has since undergone three amendments. The most recent legislation is Directive 2014/52/EU
(EC, 2014). The general framework, used to ensure the requirements of the EIA Directive are
met, is shown in Figure 1. Stages of the EIA process include scoping (i.e. whether an EIA is
needed) and screening (i.e. which impacts and issues should be considered). EIA is a cyclical
process, with considerable interaction between the stages shown in Figure 1 (Glasson et al.,
2012).
15
2.2.2 SEA background
In contrast to an EIA, where primary concerns are minimizing the environmental impacts of a
proposed development, SEA “facilitates a proactive approach to ensuring that environmental
and sustainability considerations are taken into account during early stages of decision-making
in plans” (Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012). In other words, SEA is intended to be less reactive than
EIA, covering high-level PPPs allowing the “opportunity to choose alternative developments
during the earlier stages of decision-making” (Geneletti, 2015, p. 3). The Strategic
Environmental Assessment Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC) was introduced in 2001, covering
a wide range of public plans and programmes, including land use, transport and energy (Fischer,
2007). This legislation applies to all EU member states, including the UK.
16
The sequence of activities used to define the framework for SEA is typically dependent
on the decision-making context, however the most commonly referenced stages of SEA are
shown in Figure 2. These include establishing the context, scoping relevant issues, selecting
alternatives and follow-up. Stakeholder engagement occurs throughout each stage (Geneletti,
2015). The relationship between EIA and SEA in terms of PPPs and projects is illustrated in
figure 3, essentially showing how SEA is a higher-level, expanded version of EIA for PPPs
(Honrado et al., 2013).
The principal differences between the EIA and SEA process are shown in Table 1. Some
authors regard SEA as the preferred instrument for integrating ES due to its more strategic role
in the development of PPPs (Geneletti, 2011). However, for the purposes of this study both EIA
and SEA are being considered due to some common entry points. Although the instruments
differ in the stakeholders for participation, the fundamental focus of ES is essentially the same
– using ES to translate environmental impacts into a more understandable language (Helming
et al., 2013).
17
18
2.2.3 ES in EA
The ideology behind ES can be traced back to Greek antiquity, with writings by Plato on the
soil erosion and drying of springs that occurred as a consequence of deforestation in the Attica
region (Moony and Ehrlich, 1997). This early example presents the dependency humans have
on ecosystems (e.g. forests) to regulate natural assets for survival (e.g. springs for drinking
water). ES, and the natural capital stocks they present, are increasingly seen as a useful way to
value, measure and highlight the interactions between humans and nature (Costanza et al.,
2014). ES also serve the purpose of raising public awareness about the critical role ecosystems
play in supporting biodiversity (Spangenberg, 2013). This relationship between human well-
being and nature can also be used as a method to inform local communities and politicians about
sustainable development priorities (Honrado et al., 2013).
The emergence of ES in policy and decision-making was largely driven by international
seminal work, principally the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) and The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB, 2011). The UK National Ecosystem
Assessment Report (UKNEA, 2011) was also influential in driving the ES concept in decision-
making. Because of this assessment, a White paper on ES valuation was published by the UK
Government (UK Parliament, 2011). The ES concept is however, not present, in the EU
Directives for EIA or SEA therefore resulting in UK legislation for SEA and EIA carrying no
statutory requirements for ES inclusion in planning consents (Diehl et al., 2016).
The MEA provided the first conceptual model for the assessment of ES based on its
four classifications of ES: provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural (see Figure 4). A
single service within each of these categories typically links to many constituents of human
well-being. The bundle of services and benefits ES presents is one of its critical strengths in
planning procedures, allowing the opportunity to monetize services based on the benefits they
present to human well-being (Baker et al., 2013). Historically, however, the inclusion of ES in
the decision-making stages of spatial planning has not been well-received (Sheate, 1994) and,
more recently, the difficulty in presenting well-accepted methods for ES valuation is apparent
(MacDonald et al., 2014). Issues with monetizing ES are especially prevalent in SEA due to
the perceived risk of market forces shifting attention away from sustainability (environmental,
economic and social) goals in policies (Rozas-Vásquez et al., 2017). These concerns are
19
particularly relevant when considering non-economic aspects of well-being in assessments
(Partidario and Gomes, 2013). However, there are still many options available for ES valuation
(Eftec, 2010).
The role of ES as a decision support tool is gaining increasing popularity in both EIA
and SEA arenas. This is reflected by the development of international guidance by the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2008) and the World
Resources Institute (WRI, 2013). Furthermore, IEMA (2012) have produced a briefing paper
on the consideration of ES in EIA. When incorporating ES in EA, stakeholder involvement is
essential. The principal stakeholders are known as ‘beneficiaries’, the winners or losers
resulting from impacted ES supply produced by alternative projects (Geneletti, 2011;
Karjalainen et al., 2016). These stakeholders include direct users of a service (e.g. fishermen),
local communities, governments responsible for the supply of a service and bodies outside the
administrative boundary of where a service is used (e.g. water catchment planners’ dependency
on upstream provisions) (Geneletti, 2011).
It is important to note that ES only exist when the benefits to people are apparent.
Therefore, determining whether the supply of an ecosystem function becomes an ES is highly
dependent on its demand in a particular location. This is well-suited to the arena of EA where
the spatial configurations of projects and plans are typically well-defined (Jones et al., 2005).
Hooper et al. (2016) support this, stating that “ES approaches are conceptually well aligned
20
with EIAs as they seek to evaluate the ecological, social and economic implications of change”
(p.258). Once the link between human well-being and ecosystems in a project or plan is
recognized, arguably, at least some measures of the ES concept should be presented in the EA
(Partidario and Gomes, 2013) due to the transparent opportunity to identify winners and losers
and the inequities between stakeholders (Braimon et al., 2009). This link is key to driving the
incorporation of ES in EA.
Some consider the use of benefits from nature, in assessments, as already been
attempted in previous approaches such as Sustainability Appraisal (e.g. Gibson, 2006) and
Quality of Life Capital Approach (e.g. Therivel, 2009). The latter, a UK government approach
to providing economic valuation of the environment in appraisals, has since been abandoned.
This failure gives rise to the question, what will the added value be in incorporating ES into
EA? Arguably, added value first starts with the ability to fully integrate ES into each of the
stages of EIA and SEA, rather than becoming treated as a standalone assessment (Baker et al.,
2013).
As well as its potential to effectively frame the environment, using ES to “present a
more complete, holistic and integrated consideration of the socio-ecological system” in EA is
also a major underlying driver for ES inclusion (Baker et al., 2013, p. 4). However significant
these drivers are to the substantive outcomes of EA, it is important to consider the EA process
as whole, understanding the various aspects ES provides to the various stages of the process
and its stakeholders. The following section tends to this, focusing on how ES can show added
value in EA through the direct benefits it provides to processes and the receiving stakeholders
in EA.
2.3.0 Benefits of ES in EA
In this section, a broad approach is taken to uncovering the benefits that ES can provide to EA.
The benefits presented are intended to be applicable to both EIA and SEA, other than when
stated specifically for an EA type.
Baker et al. (2013) suggest that to recognize the true potential of ES in EA it is important to
first understand inherent problems with EA. Nine main problem areas have been identified in
table 2, accompanied with potential improvements using the ES concept.
21
22
2.3.1 Scoping
It has been proposed that advances towards ES use in EA can make scoping more effective,
provide more detailed identification of impacts, provide a new outlook to mitigation stages and
support methods in determining impact significance (Rosa and Sànchez, 2016). The ability to
prioritize ES according to their significance on human well-being can provide a coherent outline
to scoping procedures (Baker et al., 2013). Furthermore, the prioritization of impacts is an
essential stage of addressing the possible trade-offs and synergies among competing objectives
in SEA and EIA. Therefore, the integration of ES into these processes can enhance analysis by
providing transparency to the situations where the supply of certain ES is evident at the expense
of others (Partidario and Gomes, 2013).
2.3.2 Mitigation and monitoring
A study by Honrado et al. (2013) recognizes that the inclusion of ES can establish a direct link
between societal needs and resource management to help improve the prioritization of resources
for the mitigation and monitoring stages of EA through a hierarchal focus on how impacts affect
the well-being of beneficiaries. However, Baker et al. (2013) identify the complexity of using
ES to serve mitigation proposals for compensation schemes which use quantification methods
for ES loss. This risks large areas of ES loss being perceived equal to the beneficiaries’ preferred
option – avoidance – when in fact another service has just taken its place. Arguably, the risk of
this can be avoided using non-valued ES in mitigation proposals. In contrast, Landsberg et al.
(2013) infer that a shift from the regularly seen outcomes of mitigation (avoidance,
minimization, offsetting) towards the enhancement of impacted areas can be achieved through
a focus on the enhancement of affected beneficiaries.
2.3.3 Stakeholder inclusion
Hooper et al. (2016), among others (Geneletti, 2015; Slootweg, 2016; Mandle and Tallis, 2016;
Partidario and Gomes, 2013; Wensem et al., 2016), suggest “identification of stakeholders’” as
the first, and perhaps most important, step required in taking an ES approach. Reasons for this
include the capacity to uncover services that stakeholders really care about (Daily, 2009) to aid
prioritization of key ES in impact analysis. This also ensures stakeholder representation in the
23
EA process which in turn provides credibility in decision-making (Mandle and Tallis, 2016;
Sheate et al., 2012). Furthermore, identifying and involving stakeholders in the planning
process can lead to a sense of ownership among groups, private and public, towards the areas
of increased conservation and environmental enhancement (Slootweg et al., 2016).
Identifying ES stakeholders using tools such as interviews and social network analysis
enables institutional context to be developed on a given plan or project, resulting in potential
service benefits being established beyond the immediate locale, to regional or even national
benefits (Hooper et al., 2016). However, the different preferences set by stakeholders towards
ES would require detailed analysis for the benefits of ES prioritization, and thus impact
analysis, to be truly revealed. This is particularly relevant when considering the degree of
sensitivity of a beneficiary to a service, to prevent unequal trade-offs between small and large
groups of stakeholders (Rosa and Sànchez, 2015).
Transparency has also been shown in analysis through the incorporation of ES in the
early stages of an EA. Here, important aspects of a plan or project can be identified early on.
This includes socio-economic aspects, such as how a project may impact employment in an
area due to damage to a local service (e.g. fishing) (Hansen et al., 2018). By identifying such
aspects through ES, there is also the possibility of greater acceptance in the final decisions made
due to the focus on benefits to people, in addition to the breadth of relevant stakeholders
required in the process (Hansen et al., 2018).
Accounting for local values towards ES, through engaging with the general public, is
fundamental when considering ES in EA. This can induce a more democratic arena for
discussions on the potential impacts of plans and projects (Hansen et al., 2018). This also allows
for environmental values, which are not typically identified in standard processes, to be brought
into discussion and given equal weight for consideration through teasing out information from
local communities and stakeholders (Baker et al., 2013). In addition, the necessity of including
the perspectives of affected communities at all stages of the assessment process when using ES
(Rosa and Sànchez, 2016) enables a more integrated approach to the inclusion of local
knowledge and the continuous updating of baseline information (Baker et al., 2013).
Baker et al. (2013) only envisage ES being incorporated into EA when clear added value
is established in its procedure and processes. Transparent added value is perhaps best shown
through the deconstruction of “environmental vs economic development” arguments in EA.
This is explored in the ex-post study ‘Heysham Road EIA’, where a hypothetical inclusion of
24
an ecosystem-based approach (EBA) in the EIA was compared to a real-case situation where
ES was absent (DEFRA, 2007). The findings concluded that ES made arguments
(environmental vs economic) between stakeholders less binary and as a result invoked greater
emphasis on the wider economic benefits of certain habitats (e.g. wetlands) perceived by
stakeholders in the process (Baker et al., 2013). In addition to this, the ES approach enabled a
positive diversion away from the normal logic of EA whereby practitioners consider the effect
of a service on their assessment, resulting in the project itself becoming a receptor (Eales et al.,
2011).
In areas where EIA has been criticized for its low consideration of social impacts
(Taylor et al., 2004), the ES approach has the potential to explicitly demonstrate the social
consequences of biophysical change enabling a more complete analysis of social impacts
(Slootweg et al., 2003) and identification of such impacts with greater precision (Honrado et
al., 2013; Rosa and Sànchez, 2015). Fischer et al. (2009) argue that such framing of the
biophysical changes into social impacts on human well-being, creates better communication
between stakeholders and decision-makers (Landsberg et al., 2013). Slootweg et al. support
this notion of effective communication, stating that the inclusion of ES “provides a translation
of complex concepts in biodiversity to more easily understandable facts in everyday life” (2010,
p.141).
2.3.4 Project and plan alternatives
Using the ES concept to equate quantitative estimates to environmental trade-offs can arguably
provide more tangible means to planners and decision-makers in assessing project or plan
alternatives (Albert et al., 2014). Furthermore, Hooper et al. (2016) suggest that ES
incorporation in project development stages can reveal how a project design can benefit from
the surrounding environment, a reversal from the usual mind-set where potential project harm
towards the environment is considered in preliminary stages.
2.3.5 Approaches to uncovering benefits
Authors who have investigated the benefits and barriers to ES in EA generally conclude that
ES is more of a help than hindrance to the assessment process. However, with this, it is
important to consider the two main approaches used for ES in EA. In certain contexts, a “light-
touch ecosystems-thinking mind-set” (Baker et al., 2013, p.3) may be sufficient in presenting
25
some of the benefits, described in sections previously. This differs from a comprehensive
approach where the ES concept guides the entire assessment framework (Baker et al., 2013).
Many authors are supportive of this comprehensive approach, integrating ES into each
sequential task of assessment, however this involves greater barriers to implementation given
its novel approach (Rosa and Sànchez, 2016; Baker et al., 2013). Such barriers are described
below.
2.4.0 Barriers in the uptake of ES
This section consults a range of barriers, identified in literature, to the uptake of the ES concept
in EA.
2.4.1 Workload increase
A crucial barrier noted by many authors (Baker et al., 2013; Grêt-Regamey et al., 2017a;
Partidario et al., 2013) to explain a slow uptake in ES incorporation in EA is the assumption
that it is an additional resource-intensive process (Baker et al., 2013). The three main challenges
Rosa and Sànchez (2015) see in integrating ES into environment assessment support the view
that extra work may be required compared to standard methods:
(i) Preventing the duplication of analysis.
(ii) Quantifying ES supply and applying indicators to aid impact prediction methods.
(iii) Defining appropriate scales for the characterization of beneficiaries.
The perception of increased workload is especially seen among practitioners who may be
required to have knowledge on the identification and spatial configuration of ES for large-scale
plans and projects (Slootweg, 2016). Rosa and Sànchez (2016) support this statement,
recognizing that the ES concept requires the collection and analysis of data at multiple scales.
26
2.4.2 Concept understanding and knowledge barriers
The difficulty for users in understanding the ES concept, due to its varied definitions and
applications is another potential barrier to uptake (Hansen et al., 2018). This, among other
reasons, has increased the demand by practitioners for more unified definitions (Baker et al.,
2013). Mascarenhas et al. (2015) suggest the lack of understanding of the ES vocabulary among
the EA community is preventing its uptake as well as preventing budgets being exceeded.
Partidario and Gomes (2013) suggest the ES concept itself can be a barrier to its uptake due to
the resistance of some actors, namely conservation authorities, who see ES as a threat to the
preservation of traditional conservation language.
Honrado et al. (2018) suggest that a lack of knowledge about ecosystems is preventing
effective uptake of ES. This may attribute to the fact that the use of certain ES in reports are
being favoured by practitioners over others or treated unsatisfactorily in their impact analysis
(Hansen et al., 2018). An example of this is treating protected habitats and vulnerable species
as priority issues for ES assessment, leaving areas such as recreation and cultural value with
lesser focus. Similarly, there is increased complexity in placing values on cultural services
(Chan et al., 2012). Furthermore, Van Buggenhoudt (2017) recognizes the complex interaction
between humans and ecosystems, suggesting the link between ecosystem function and ES
provision has not yet been fully understood, presenting an incomplete scientific basis. Taking
this view, the representation of ES in EA can be perceived as oversimplified, risking errors or
unintended effects becoming apparent at later dates in assessment (Bull et al., 2016), or the
focus on one ES where knowledge is readily accessible. The poor consideration of ES threshold
levels is also a symptom of oversimplification where ES are considered as categorical entities
in the assessment process rather than fully integrated contributions to the well-being of
ecosystems and society (Muradian and Rival, 2012).
To add to complications, a new conceptual model has been produced by the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
(see Figure 5) which may, arguably, replace the ecosystem concept in the future. Here, the
IPBES framework focuses on “nature’s benefits to people” where ES is contained as one of its
six categories (Díaz et al., 2015).
27
2.4.3 Classifying and valuating ES
Different approaches to ES classification (e.g. Haines-Young and Potschin, 2012; TEEB, 2011)
present issues when incorporating ES into EA. Rosa and Sànchez (2016) directly link the
limited application of ES approaches in SEA due to the lack of common understanding and
classification of ES in the impact assessment arena. An added complication is the debate over
whether a single all-encompassing classification is fitting for EA or whether classification
phases should be case-specific and purpose-driven (Costanza, 2008). Guerry et al. (2015)
recognize that the lack of standardized methods for considering ES in assessment is a critical
barrier to its uptake, however, also infer that the increasingly available research on ES
classification should facilitate assessments. Such research includes Söderman et al.’s bespoke
development of ES criteria to improve strategic decisions in an urban context (2012). From the
practitioner’s perspective, mixed classifications and methods for ES incorporation reduce
comparability between assessments, making it difficult to implement similar methods (Fletcher
et al., 2011).
28
The high diversity in quantification measures results in complex and inconsistent
presentations of ES in monetary terms (Saarikoski et al., 2015). This is seen as a critical barrier
to its uptake in EA (Partidario and Gomes, 2013). Rosa and Sànchez present examples where
characterising the beneficiaries of ES adequately is a problem. An additional hindrance is
ensuring stakeholder identification stages are carried out as early as possible in the EA process
(Hansen et al., 2018). Many authors blame such factors on unclear guidance to integrating the
ES concept into EA frameworks (Carpenter et al., 2006; Daily et al., 2009; Landsberg et al.,
2011). An appeal for more uniform approaches to integrating ES into assessment types is also
evident (Presnall et al., 2013).
2.4.4 Non-statutory legal requirements
Many authors consider the use of the ES concept in EA as being in its infancy stages (Hansen
et al., 2018; Partidario and Gomes, 2013). In the case of countries operating under the EU EIA
and SEA Directives, explicitly considering ES in planning procedures is not a legal requirement
and therefore more traditional methods of considering environmental impacts in PPPs and
projects are typically adhered to (Hansen et al., 2018). There is an understandable risk felt
among the practitioner community to whether inclusion of ES would cover the criteria of impact
identification without the risk of deviating from legal and policy requirements (Baker et al.,
2013). The unwillingness of practitioners to diverge and innovate away from well-established
approaches with legal acceptability (Baker, 2012; Campbell and Sheate, 2012) seems
paramount to ES’s slow uptake.
2.4.5 Client/developer perceptions of EA
The project developer, or EA client, is potentially the actor who poses the greatest difficulty in
presenting ES as a useful tool for environmental enhancement and project design when they
often view the entirety of the EIA process as a bureaucratic hurdle (Jay et al.; Shilling et al.,
2007). Tardieu et al. (2015) argue that in cases where emblematic habitats (e.g. SSSIs) or
species (e.g. Great Crested Newts) are not present for assessment in EIA, short-term economic
criteria for project development invariably overcome larger-scale environmental impact
consideration. Arguably, the broad identification of significant environmental impacts from ES
29
loss (Landsberg et al., 2011) could equip developers with better information provision to
consider environmental constraints (Broekx et al., 2013; Geneletti, 2013). Potschin and Haines-
Young (2003) support this, suggesting an ES approach that uncovers impacts on areas such as
“tranquillity” would be likely to influence project proposals on protecting landscape functions
as a measure to make plans more acceptable. The EA process is after all an aid for project
developers and authorities to improve their respective PPPs and projects (Fischer, 2007).
To conclude this section, a statement by Rosa and Sànchez (2016) presents the Achilles’
heel of any integration technique in that the “usefulness and effectiveness of any tool depends
as much on its intrinsic capabilities as on skills of practitioners in applying them” (p. 492).
Practitioners face the problem of insufficient case-studies showing comprehensive inclusion of
ES in either EIA or SEA (Baker et al., 2013). Diehl et al. (2016) support this, suggesting the
development of ES incorporation in ES faces a gap in the academic world as well as its practical
use.
2.5.0 Tools and methods for incorporating ES in EA
This section presents an insight into the availability of web-application tools, or rather lack of,
and methods to aid ES incorporation in ES and how they’re being received by practitioners.
2.5.1 Web-application tools
Proposals to integrate ES into decision-making have resulted in an increase in the number of
web-application tools and models for integrating, quantifying and valuing ES. Such tools
include Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) and Integrated Valuation of
Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs (InVEST) (Bagsted et al. 2013). The main intention of these
tools is to standardize the inclusion of ES in assessments across broad geographic contexts and
ensure that models are user-friendly and easily parameterized. However, cost and time
requirements in the application of web-tools have been noted as high. Specifically, Waage et
al. (2012) found the use of such tools to show no added value in EA practice, even after multiple
applications. In addition, it is expected that practitioners operating in a cooperative setting
would be required to hire supplementary workers to operate ES web-tools (Grêt-Regamey et
al., 2017b).
30
2.5.2 Methods from guidance and case-studies
One of the most cited technical guidance for incorporating ES in EA is by the World Resources
Institute (2013) – “Weaving Ecosystem Services into Impact Assessment”. The method is
outlined by six main stages, shown in figure 6. A further framework, allowing broad entry to
ES in decision-making, includes the National Ecosystem Approach Toolkit (NEAT) by the UK
National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on (Church et al., 2014). However, efforts to produce
bespoke frameworks and guidance explicitly for EIA are poorly evidenced. The only academic
study is by Karjalainen et al. (2013) who propose a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
approach to incorporating ES into EIA.
Proposed frameworks for addressing ES in SEA are more evidenced than EIA. This includes a
stepwise approach developed by Slootweg et al. (2016). There has also been a four-step
approach for considering ES in SEA in guidance issued by the United Nations Environmental
Programme (UNEP, 2014).
31
Although broad frameworks exist for incorporating ES into EIA and SEA, it is very difficult to
find any reference of their use in practice. Many studies have used content-analysis (e.g. Rosa
and Sánchez, 2015) to record the level of ES consideration in environmental reports and
statements, however, there is no academic literature that clearly shows an ES framework being
used in EIA or SEA practice. The lack of case-studies is alarming considering the amount of
research on the topic to-date.
There are case studies which have taken an ES approach at stages of the assessment, such as
the ‘Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Partnership (MGSDP) Implementation Plan
SEA’ (MGSDP, 2011), however there are very limited case studies where a clear ES approach
has been used through all the stages of an EA. Examples of ES in practice are useful to
prospective practitioners, but no one seems to have yet used an ES approach in EIA and SEA
to provide an easily transferable framework. What is most concerning is that five years have
passed since Baker et al. (2013) noted the “limited examples available of the practical
application of ES in EA” (p. 4).
2.6.0 Current uptake of ES in EA: Explicit vs Implicit considerations
This section reveals that an implicit, rather than explicit content is largely reprehensive of the
current uptake of ES in EA.
2.6.1 Implicit ES consideration
Rozas-Vásquez et al. (2018) conducted a study on the implicit and explicit consideration of ES
in SEA reports for spatial planning. In all cases, implicit, rather than explicit, reference to ES
was evident. Another study identified only three, out of 102 reports showing explicit references
to ES, with an ‘implicit’ example including this excerpt; “protection of relevant areas for
hydrological regulation such basin headwaters and wetlands” (ibid, p. 307). Although this has
clear implications for the regulation of ES, it fails to incorporate other critical components that
enable the analysis of how the service is demanded by society and the level at which it should
be prioritized compared to other services. An example of four criteria which may be used to
explicitly define is shown in Figure 7.
32
2.6.2 Explicit ES consideration
Explicit consideration of ES is advantageous to EA due to more transparent opportunities in
evaluating trade-offs between project and plan requirements and their resulting impacts (Rozas-
Vásquez et al., 2018) and identifying conflicts and synergies between ecosystems and human
actions (Honrado et al., 2013). As stated by Honrado et al., “evident and explicit mention of
problems enables quicker understanding, and unless the preoccupation is also explicit, there are
great chances that the implicit issue will pass unnoticed” (p. 21). Mascarenhas et al. support
this, stating that “ES that are not explicitly identified may be over-looked” (2015, p.159).
As reviewed, explicit consideration of ES is, arguably, a necessity but still deviates from
common practice regarding the terms understood by those carrying out (practitioners) and
receiving the results of the EIAs and SEAs (decision-makers). It is therefore imperative that the
explicit consideration of ES is well-defined and appropriately introduced to relevant
stakeholders to prevent ES being presented as a distant mode of thinking, not capable of
affecting the outcome of EAs (Karjalainen et al., 2013). This responsibility is perhaps best owed
to policy-makers and the responsible ‘architects’ of the EIA and SEA Directives (Diehl et al.,
2016; Helming et al., 2013). Arguably, the clear lack of explicit consideration of ES in EA,
evident internationally, is preventing case-studies being produced that show ES as the driving
force to successfully conducted EA.
33
2.7.0 EA Practitioner perspectives and experience: the critical link
The previous sections have demonstrated a range of barriers to the uptake of ES, hindering
opportunities for added value. These barriers – high implicit considerations, legislation
compliance worries, knowledge barriers, perceived extra workload, valuating and classification
difficulties – suggest the perception of EA practitioners needs to be accounted for, as they form
the critical link to advancing ES in EA through experience in practice.
The professional background of practitioners is likely to affect how an EA is perceived
and practised. This is shown in a study by Morgan et al. (2012) who reveal the four main
typically conducting EAs (surveyors, planners, engineers and natural scientists) exhibit
‘cultural imprints’, largely due to the training provided in their respective domains. Such
cultural differences in professions can also be translated to the reception of ES approaches by
practitioners. The idea of deviating from the typically practised silo-based approach to defining
environmental quality (e.g. soil, air quality) to ES, which is inherently broader in application,
may present issues for practitioners who trust “tried and tested methods”. This reflects a culture
of reluctance amongst practitioners to diverge from well-established techniques (Baker et al.,
2013). Rosa and Sànchez (2016) recognise the multidisciplinary nature of ES approaches and
therefore the need to encourage cross-sectoral work, thereby tackling the common lack of
integration in EA (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2014).
Hooper et al. (2016) suggest an increasing acceptance of ES approaches among
practitioners in marine EA, with a study showing 95% of reports incorporating ES elements.
However, a study by Presnall et al. (2015) investigating the views of US Forest Service
Professionals on incorporating ES in environmental impact analysis resulted in respondents
repeatedly commenting that “ES is just a new term for something they already do” (p. 34).
Albert et al. (2014) investigated the type of ES information required by landscape planners to
advance the concept. Planners with prior knowledge of the ES concept generally showed equal,
or less, optimism towards the usefulness compared to new users of the concept. The negative
view of the ES concept may result in the need to develop clearer applications, in conjunction
with access to information provision through workshops and conferences (Albert et al., 2014).
This is supported by a study in Flanders, Germany, were there is large support for more user-
34
friendly, transparent, approaches to incorporating ES in EA through the development of web-
applications (Broekx et al., 2013).
A recurring theme in literature, linking the lack of engagement of practitioners with the
ES concept, is the poor availability of relevant guidance documents (Honrado et al., 2013;
Landsberg et al., 2013). Presnall et al. suggest that the perception of practitioners that “guidance
is unclear and not influential” (2015, p. 7) undermines ES’s application. International examples
of guidance appear most advanced and well-received by practitioners. However, it has been
suggested that more internal, country and sector-specific guidance would advance the ES
concept further (Rosa and Sànchez, 2016).
The request for better guidance reflects practitioner’s views on the added complexity
that the ES concept presents to decision-making (Baker et al., 2013). Honrado et al. (2013)
argue that complexity can be reduced by practitioners at least considering ES typologies they
easily recognise in stages of assessment. Baker et al. (2013) suggest a “lighter approach” to ES
thinking may help to advance the uptake among practitioners, considering ES early on but not
in a prescriptive way – as is generally outlined in comprehensive guidance documents (WRI,
2013 OECD, 2010). Policy developments, funding and more case-studies of ES being used in
policy, plans and projects are further suggestions about how ES may become integrated in EA
(Baker et al., 2013). The benefits of integrating ES into EA are highly dependent on the skills
of practitioners applying the concept, therefore, there is a current need for training, cross-
disciplinary thinking, instructive case-studies, and reassurance about the proven benefits and
legitimacy of ES as it becomes seen as more established.
Numerous benefits, barriers and potential new areas to promote the uptake in ES have
been demonstrated in the above sections. Benefits of ES in EA include its use in stakeholder
engagement and improvement of EA process areas such as scoping and mitigation. Barriers to
its effective use include non-explicit ES considerations and practitioners’ knowledge and
workload perceptions of ES in practice. The combined thematic areas of the literature review
have been reflected upon in detail. This has resulted in the outcome presented in the conceptual
framework below (see Figure 8), a need to understand the perceptions of practitioners, those
conducting EAs, in order to develop the use of ES in EA further, and ensure its added value to
the process. To the best of the author’s knowledge, research on the perspectives of practitioners,
specifically in EIA and SEA, have yet to been investigated.
35
3.0. Methodology
3.1.0 Conceptual framework diagram
Figure 8 shows the conceptual framework developed upon completing the extensive review of
literature on ES in EA. Here, it is proposed that that there may be hidden opportunities to
develop the added value of ES incorporation through increased uptake of the concept by
practitioners. Consequently, the research aims, and objectives have been developed below.
3.2.0 Aims and objectives
Aim: To explore the perspective of UK practitioners on the added value and incorporation of
the ES concept in EA
Objectives:
(i) To review existing understanding of the potential benefits and difficulties of incorporating
ecosystem services in Environmental Assessment.
(ii) To interpret the extent to which the perspectives of practitioners, on the value and
applicability of ES, act as a barrier to uptake of ecosystem services in EA.
36
3.3.0 Research design:
Two steps were taken in the collection of primary data. Firstly, semi-structured interviews were
conducted with five EIA and SEA practitioners to gain contextual insight into their perspective
on ES in EAs. The interview responses were then analysed for thematic language used to
provide a basis for the second stage of research, a web-based survey, where questions were
further developed and deployed to a wider practitioner audience.
3.4.0 Research design: semi-structured interviews
Determining factors for the sampling procedure of interview participants were: (i) they had
practical experience in EIA/SEA; (ii) they were not from the same consultancy or organisation
as previous participants. The directory of the professional networking group ‘LinkedIn’ was
used to find the first two participants using word searches such as “environmental impact
assessment” and “strategic environmental assessment”. Based on profile information, members
who suited the interview criteria were messaged, providing background to the study, and asked
if they would like to be involved in the interview process. The remaining three participants were
sampled using the snowball approach, where participants before them were asked to name any
other people who may be interested in research topic (Scolozzi et al., 2012). As the main
purpose of the interviews were to provide perceptual, technical and contextual information for
the later development of the online survey, five participants were deemed an adequate sample
size considering the time constraints of the study (Rozas-Vásquez et al., 2016).
The interviews were conducted in July 2018. Each interview took approximately 25-50
minutes to complete. The participants were from UK-based environmental or engineering
consultancies. Interview participants were sent a copy of the pre-determined interview
questions a week prior to the interview, to reduce the possibility of poor recall on the day of the
interview (MacDonald et al., 2014). All interviews were conducted over the phone and recorded
using the smartphone app ‘Tape a Call’, to accurately transcribe later. In comparison to
organising face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews are less time-consuming and cheaper
to administer. The benefits of having face-to-face interviews were not considered pressing
given the well-structured, pre-determined, questions (Nueman, 2003). Furthermore, vocal
prompts were used to encourage participants to elaborate on their answers, such as, “Can you
please explain further” (MacDonald et al., 2014).
37
The semi-structured interviews consisted of ten open-ended questions, shown in
Appendix 1. These were developed from the literature review (Hay, 2016), including
practitioner ES perceptions, use of ES in practice and influence of ES guidance documents. The
first two questions were designed to gauge the experience of participants in both EA and the
ES concept, before moving onto questions to how ES can be used in practice. The next questions
were designed to infer whether the participant had used ES, resulting in suitable lead-on
questions for participants with and without experience. The final set of questions were aimed
at uncovering knowledge on ES guidance and policy documents, how these might have
influenced them and whether workshops would enhance their consideration of using the ES
concept in future assessments.
3.5.0 Research design: web-based survey
A web-based survey formed the second part of the research. The survey was created and
launched using the cloud-based software programme ‘SurveyMonkey’ (Survey Monkey inc.,
2018). This service was used for its dependable ‘skip-logic’ performance, effective exportation
of data and its mainstream use by business and corporations, developing trust among
respondents. Skip-logic enabled survey users to be directed to selective pages based on their
response to previous questions (Marra and Bogue, 2006). This function was important to gain
a mixed response from practitioners who had experience in using ES in practice, and those who
did not. For example, respondents who indicated no experience in either EIA or SEA to the
question, “Do you have experience using ES, in practice, for any of the following areas of EA”,
were directed to a page listing questions appropriate for non-experienced ES practitioners. This
was also used to encourage respondents to complete the full survey through preventing
participants scrolling through questions which had no relevance to them (Marra and Bogue,
2006). The structure of the online-survey is shown in Appendix 2.
The survey consisted of 30 questions, however, the total number of questions answered
was dependant on which ‘skip logic’ questions were answered. The average number of
questions, when considering skip logic, was 25 and therefore was quoted as such to prospective
participants. The questions consisted of multiple-choice, open-ended, Likert scales (strongly
agree – strongly disagree) and text boxes for questions requiring further detail.
38
The first question of the survey was designed to prevent people participating in the
survey who have no previous experience in either EIA or SEA. Those who clicked, ‘I have no
experience as a practitioner in EIA or SEA’ were directed to the end of the survey where a
message would appear thanking them or their time. The survey questions were structured to
gain; (i) practitioner background information; (ii) general perspectives of the ES concept (iii)
practitioners’ perspective of added value of ES in EA; (iii) barriers to uptake of ES in EA; (iv)
resources available to support ES in EA. Questions aimed at the general background of
respondents were necessary to demonstrate a wide-ranging sample (e.g number of years’
experience) (Hay, 2016).
Three approaches were taken to distributing the survey: (i) asking interview participants
to distribute it among colleagues; (ii) individually contacting EA practitioners via LinkedIn;
(iii) distribution among environmental organisation networks. Three environmental
organisations agreed to distribute the survey through steering groups, institution members and
LinkedIn pages. These institutions included the Institute of Environmental Management and
Assessment (IEMA), the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
(CIWEM) and the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM).
The survey went live between 23/07/18 – 03/08/18 and reached 38 respondents.
3.6.0 Data analysis
The interview audio recordings were transcribed by uploading files to Nvivo, a qualitative data
analysis computer software package (QSR, 2012). The software includes useful settings such
as audio speed settings and columns stating the time of each text passage entered, increasing
the efficiency of the transcription process. Once all the interviews were transcribed, Nvivo’s
‘word frequency query’ function was applied to each transcript document to reveal useful
themes in practitioner’s perception to ES which had not been identified in the literature review.
The information gained from interview participants was found to be very insightful, and
therefore, has been included as part of the discussion and results.
Responses to the open-ended questions in the survey were grouped into their relevant
categories – see Appendix 1 for groupings - before being uploaded as separate documents to
Nvivo. Here, the ‘word frequency search’ was used again to develop themes present in the
answers presented by respondents. Once a theme was developed - such as ‘client’, ‘guidance’
39
or ‘scoping’ - relevant quotations were stored under these as nodes. The nodes in Nvivo enabled
relevant thematic quotations to be neatly presented and organised for later interpretation. This
method of using frequency-based keyword extraction, for the initial thematic framing of
qualitative results, is based on an approach prescribed by Noh et al. (2015). Individual quotes
have been presented in this study to represent the themes uncovered; in most cases the level of
detail provided by practitioners was quite high.
Responses to qualitative questions (Likert scales, checklists, multiple choice) were presented
as graphs and charts to allow visual interpretations of the findings. The only statistical analysis
conducted was applying percentages to the number of responses to each question category. No
further statistical analysis was deemed appropriate due to the distinctness of all answer
categories for each question.
3.7.0 Ethics
Interview participants were assured that audio files would be deleted once transcribed and their
names numerically coded to store their response data anonymously. Participants were also
asked to sign and return a consent form (see Appendix 3) that defined their information would
only be used for the purpose of the study and their name, and name of work place would, remain
anonymous throughout the process. None of names, or names of workplaces, were collected
from the online survey respondents. To fully ensure their confidentiality, their IP addresses
were also not recorded. Each respondent had to agree to the consent information given at the
start of the survey before proceeding.
3.8.0 Limitations of methods
To encourage respondents to answer as many questions as possible, none of the questions were
made compulsory to answer before proceeding. This can be useful in increasing the frequency
of responses towards the end of the survey, however, this did result in questions being skipped
– namely those open-ended. As a result, the responses for each question are not representative
of the total number of respondents involved in the online survey. Moreover, a greater outreach
would increase the reliability of results (Hays, 2016). However, the qualitative data available
received, from 29 responses, is sufficient for analysis due to a large proportion of practitioner
40
responses who had previous experience using the ES concept in EA; allowing the exploration
of new research territories.
4.0 Results and discussion
In this section the results from the online survey respondents (SR) formed the primary source
for analysis and discussion. Results from the interview participants (IPs) have also been
included, albeit to a lesser degree, to support and contrast themes presented in the survey results.
4.1.0 Professional background of interview participants
The five interview participants had a range of experience of 2-12 years in either EIA or SEA.
All the participants’ main work was based in the UK but their roles varied across global,
regional, environmental, or engineering consultancies. Participant 1 (P1), participant 2 (P2) and
participant 5 (P5) specialised generally in EIA. Participant 3 (P3) had experience in marine
EIAs and SEAs, and participant 4 (P4) specialised in EIA and SEA for the water sector.
4.2.0 Background information of survey respondents
The online-survey reached 38 respondents. After preliminary screening for inconsistencies,
described in this section, and unanswered questions, the results from 29 SRs have been used in
actual analysis. This represents a 76% survey completion rate. It’s important to note that some
SRs did not answer every single question, particularly open-ended responses, and therefore
results to some questions do not reflect the total sample. Because of this, count values have
been used for SRs in charts and tables rather than percentages, to clearly demonstrate the range
of participants answering each question.
The first six questions of the survey were designed to provide an overall background to
the level of experience of practitioners in EA and ES. In the first question SRs were asked to
state their familiarity with EA. Most respondents were either familiar with EIA (50%) or EIA
and SEA (38%). Only one SR indicated SEA only (see Figure 9). The three SRs indicating “no
41
experience as a practitioner in EIA or SEA” were automatically directed to the end of the
survey.
In question 3, SRs were asked “how would you describe your area of work”. “Environmental
Consultant” represented 71%, “other” included work in natural resources, environmental
education, climate change consultancy and the public sector (see Figure 10). Environmental
consultancy represents a broad working sector therefore the high proportion does not suggest
any bias to the study.
42
Question 4 asked SRs, “which country is the majority of your work carried out?”. 96%
of SR indicated the UK (Figure 11). In the other category, two respondents indicated “Middle
East” and the “Middle East and Africa”. Due to the low number of responses for areas other
than the UK, information related to the two Africa and the Middle East SRs has - other than
when stated - been excluded from further analysis in the study. This is to enable the analysis of
results which are purely representative for UK-based practitioners in EA.
In question 5, respondents were asked, “how many years’ experience do you have as a
practitioner?”. The responses demonstrated a variety of experience, with 67% reporting over
five years’ experience in EA (Figure 12).
43
In question 6, respondents were asked, “did you have knowledge of the ES concept prior to this
survey?” Figure 13 shows the results, with the highest response (37%) indicating a “moderate
amount” of prior ES knowledge. Only one respondent had no previous knowledge.
The data collected to reveal the background of SRs has shown a range for practitioners’
familiarity with EIA and SEA, the number of years’ experience and their previous knowledge
of the ES concept. Therefore, enough criteria have been met for practitioners to investigate the
previously mentioned research objectives (see Section 3.2.0).
4.3.0 General perspectives of the ES concept in practice
This section provides insight into the general perspective of SRs towards ES in EA. In an
opened-ended question, SRs with experience using ES in EA were asked:
“What is your perspective on the concept of ES - and its use in EA?”.
Nine out of 11 responses were positive, the others showed negative perceptions. Positive
perceptions were generally supported with comments for improving the practice such as, “It’s
very useful in the right circumstances, although, some work to be done around understanding
and consistency” [SR7]. SR5 showed enthusiasm for the ES concept, however, noting their
44
frustration that “too much time is spent worrying over precise economics which can never be
costed 100% accurately.” Further positive perceptions are shown in Table 3.
Negative perceptions towards the ES concept in EA linked to extra cost for
implementation and its non-statutory requirements in EA legislation, such as, “it is for
professional bodies to lobby for a change in legislation” [SR8]. Moreover, in relation to high-
level PPPs, one respondent stated, “It is difficult to consider ES to a degree of detail that adds
value to the assessment” [R9].
SR’s perception of a lack of consistency in ES use may attribute to the many different
measures used for their quantification (Saarikoski et al., 2013). There is a risk that this
presents a dominant barrier, preventing practitioners looking towards the positive implications
of ES, without monetization. Monetization of ES may be useful in situations where a high
degree of influence is necessary for political and technical decisions (Honrado et al., 2013),
however, if the methods aren’t applied reliably this could result in ES having a damaging
effect to decisions made and present a negative reception to future ES use. In contrast to this,
arguably, the only real way of standardizing and making ES monetization more reliable is
increasing its demand in practice (Wolff et al., 2015).
Some SRs appear to perceive ES use in PPPs in its conceptual phase. This is
concerning, given the strategic influence ES can have in practice at such levels – inducing
natural resource ownership among stakeholders (Partidario and Gomes, 2013).
45
4.4.0 Drivers, added value, and procedural influence perceptions
The analysis for this section was based on the following open-ended survey questions:
• What was the main driver for inclusion of ES in EA?
• Would you use ES again and under what conditions?
• What is your view on the added value of ES in EA?
• Were any procedural stages improved/worsened by using ES in EA?
4.4.1 Drivers
Drivers for ES ranged across emerging policy and guidance, maximising benefit opportunities,
statutory consultee requests and ecosystem protection.
Two SRs were directly influenced by regulations and standards, which includes the “Well-being
of Future Generations (Wales) Act” [SR3] and the “International Finance Corporation (IFC)
performance standards” [SR17]. Here, it is interesting to note the influence of ES incorporation
coming from outside EIA and SEA regulation. In this instance, greater focus in Welsh national
legislation transcends to non-compulsory ES inclusion in EA (WCVA, 2017). This contrasts to
the IFC standards, where the decision-maker demands a comprehensive, explicit, ES approach
to the EA of projects (IFC, 2012).
SR21 referred to the mitigation section of EIA legislation stating that “some of these
aspects can be considered to contribute towards the wider ecosystem services”. Here, EIA
legislation is being shown to invoke consideration of ES, however, may be inferred as implicit.
SR26 and SR7 stated any future use of ES would be determined by “projects where it
adds value i.e. where there is a significant amount of habitat or other creation” and “were
specifics of the project and likely outcomes make it especially worthwhile”. These perceptions
echo schools of thought that the application of ES in EA should be dependent on context, and
not prescribed for in every occasion under legal obligations (Baker et al., 2013).
46
4.4.2 Added value
Responses were largely directed at where SRs could see added value in the future. The main
themes related to cost effective outcomes and monetization of ES. As a representation, SR5
response was based on “increasing cost effective outcomes, which may not be demonstrated
without inclusion of ES”. A statement by IP5 reflects a recurring theme throughout the survey,
“If you can monetize them and demonstrate that impacts from PPPs and projects, then I think
you will start seeing very different decisions being made.”
Numerous respondents associated the relevance of ES with the ability to monetize
services, however, their lack of knowledge or previous unwillingness to use such an approach
does not support any added value towards ES use.
4.4.3 EA process influence
Themes which showed ES influence on ES processes included mitigation, project alternatives,
scoping and consultation.
An important theme included mitigation, and more specifically, how it could be
advanced using ES through, “the visualisation of the likely impacts on the flows of ES” [R17]
and the consideration of “alternative outcomes to enable wider services delivery” [R16]. This
shows that ES consideration has the potential to provide a reference framework for the usual
components of EA, cost-benefits and trade-off analysis, to be improved (Honrado et al., 2013).
Similarly, practitioners viewed the use of ES as beneficial in project alternatives, as IP1
stated, “It could be used as a better tool to decide between alternatives at an earlier stage of the
design process, and there would be tangible cost of the environment”. Other supportive
‘alternative’ themes include SR8 who suggested the use of ES, together with Natural Capital
Accounting (NCA), as a preliminary decision-making tool to inform “different engineering
options (alternatives)” or in “EIA screening to see if an EIA is required”. The interest in the
monetization of services at high levels - almost preceding the EIA process - suggests the
importance of EA collaboration with project engineers and developers, especially when using
ES to make quantitative estimates of environmental trade-offs in project options (Albert et al.,
2014).
47
SR3 suggested an ES approach benefits the scoping stage as “it benefits the consultation
and engagement with stakeholders”. This comment, albeit singular, shows promise to the
intended advances for scoping in an ES approach, suggesting improvement in community
involvement (Rosa and Sánchez, 2016). However, SR5 suggested the benefits of scoping came
with challenges – “for scoping to be comprehensive, ES should integrate a broad range of
services across disciplinary boundaries.” The issue of balancing precaution with efficiency in
scoping (Snell and Cowell, 2006) is likely to be amplified when using an ES approach due to
the difficulty in determining when the scope is broad enough, due to the familiarity of the ES
concept varying in different disciplines.
R24 suggested its use in practice again will depend on whether the “scoping and
consultation stage has successfully engaged stakeholders”, implying that the sole relevance of
ES is for communicating environmental factors to statutory and non-statutory consultees. SR21
noted procedural stages “neither improving or worsening”, however, did mention “the statutory
consultees like it, as it’s their kind of thinking”.
Responses to procedural influence are certainly mixed. However, positive themes
largely relate to ES use early in the EA process and its potential in assessing alternatives,
supporting authors’ views discussed in Section 2.3.4.
4.5.0 What’s preventing practitioners using ES in EA?
In this section barriers to the uptake of ES in EA are revealed from the perspective or
practitioners
4.5.1 Difficulties in practice
In question 13 of the survey, respondents were asked the multiple-choice question, “Did you
encounter any of the following problems when using an ecosystem service approach?” The
results from the multiple choice are shown in Figure 14. As more than one selection can be
made, the results are representative weightings to problems among practitioners, not individual
preferences.
Figure 14 shows “quantifying ES” as the most commonly encountered problem for
respondents using ES in EA. The ‘other’ categories included “lack of regulatory drivers” and
48
“risk of extra cost to carrying out ES assessment”. This high outcome for ‘quantifying ES’ may
indicate there is a deficiency in practical hands-on methods for encouraging the practice of ES
in EA alongside theoretical methods (Slootweg, 2015).
IP4 recognized the benefits of monetary valuation of ES in decision-making, however
hadn’t “found a way to properly align ES with monetary terms in SEA … because you just
don’t do that in SEA”. Only one SR submitted “identifying relevant stakeholders” as a problem,
however, they also supplemented their answer with, “the difficulty is in identifying all the
stakeholders … many are obvious, some are more obscure”. An area of added value driving ES
consideration in EA is a more holistic involvement of stakeholders – to increase democracy and
allow greater acceptance in final decisions (Hansen et al., 2018). There are clear difficulties
among practitioners of knowing exactly what an appropriate scale for stakeholder inclusion is
(Rosa and Sànchez, 2015), as well as ensuring the process is carried out as early as possible
(Hansen et al., 2018).
49
4.5.2 Barriers to uptake
In question 17, respondents who previously indicated they had no experience using ES in EA
were asked, “are there any reasons why you have not used and ecosystem service approach in
practice?” The results, representing multiple choice answers, are shown in Figure 15.
“No client demand” showed the highest weighting (28%) followed by “poor availability of
guidance documents” (18%) and “knowledge of the topic area” (13%). IP4 supported this
outcome, stating, “It’s just whether the client is willing to go for it or not”. “Other” comments
included “lack of understanding by the determining authority and public” [SR4] and “not in
line with standard practice” [SR28].
A lack of client demand is clearly a factor that results in the ES concept being totally
omitted by practitioners in assessments. This suggests the ES concept being considered a major
diversion from standard practie. This is supported by responses to question 20, “What are the
main barriers to added value of ES in EA”, where themes include the lack of client buy-in, no
regulatory drivers and poor guidance and difficulty in monetizing services.
A notable response to barriers also included, “it’s rubbish practice so there are very few
case studies, poor attempts are made to measure biodiversity. The IPBES has had to change ES
since it is such a poor concept” [SR19]. Disagreements in the value of ES as standalone category
50
(Díaz et al., 2015) for representing nature’s benefits to people may be hampering practitioner
efforts to use the ES concept in practice; anticipating future developments in classifications and
definitions which may promote more effective use.
4.5.3 Workload and EA frameworks
Barriers to ES incorporation were also present for IPs. Themes included work-load pressures,
lack of case-studies and questioning of the applicability of the concept to certain sectors
(marine). IP1 developed a natural capital account as part of ES incorporation in SEA and found
that their team were “quite heavily dependent on economists [external]…making it complicated
to manage and explain to the client what is required”. The same participant suggested that “to
go from ideas to fruition in a consultancy you’re looking at 5-10 years down the line”, indicating
the time-lag for consultancies workings and processes as a major barrier to ES uptake.
It is likely practitioners would require extra assistance during initial stages of
deployment of ES in EA, especially in relation to integrating tools for monetization (Grêt-
Regamey et al., 2017b). There is even more emphasis on engaging extra workers and
departments early on when an ES approach is taken, however, some respondents perceived
EIA’s position in the planning cycle too late to make any real influence. IP1 noted that the ES
concept in EIA is inherently flawed due to EIA’s late position in the project lifecycle – “the
EIA comes quite late in the day, after when influence on its outcomes has already been
decided”.
4.5.4 Legislation requirements
All five IPs referred to the non-statutory consideration of ES in EIA and SEA directives as a
fundamental barrier for its uptake in practice. Comments included, “unless it [ES] is required
by legislation it is not going to be pushed very heavily from a practitioner’s point of view” [P1].
Moreover, IP5 stated, “You want to minimize the chances of going to judicial review.” Here,
perceptions of risk towards legislation requirements are, arguably, preventing innovative
practices in EA from developing. Positive perceptions have been repeatedly noted by SRs,
however, normal practice appears to prevail in many instances, arguably mounted by pressures
for an easier trajectory towards planning and development consent (Morgan et al., 2012).
51
4.5.5 ES trials
Both IP1 and IP4 had conducted trials for ES use in SEA, commissioned by a client. In both
cases, the client lacked confidence in the ES proposed by the practitioner. IP1 stated, “because
it was a new thing that we were testing out they weren’t really convinced it should go to the
next stage”. This further demonstrates the perception of risk in using the ES concept, in this
case, clearly originating from the client. Evidence of internal trials being developed does
however show there is interest from the client, but in these cases where trials fail to be deployed,
it suggests their initial funding is based on prospective reputational values for a company or
business, rather than the intrinsic values ES can bring to the ES process.
4.6.0 Policy, guidance and resources to support ES in EA
4.6.1 ES learning and policy influence
Respondents who indicated they had experience incorporating ES in EA were asked how they
learnt to do so (see Figure 16). Colleague interaction was the main learning method. Other
methods included research and knowledge sharing groups, personal research and conferences
and collaborative PhD research. Surprisingly, no respondents indicated learning from internal
or external work training courses. In a later question, SRs not familiar with conferences or
workshops for ES incorporation, were asked if they would consider attending them. 80% of
respondents indicated they would. This, combined with the lack of representative internal and
external training courses, suggests there is interest from practitioners in taking steps to learn
about ES incorporation, however, the learning medium is not there.
52
Survey respondents were asked whether any policy documents had influenced their decision to
consider ES in EA. Out of 26 respondents, 19 answered no; 7 yes. This shows that policy outside
EA is enhancing considerations of ES to some degree. For the interest of prospective
practitioners, the policy documents indicated by respondents are presented below.
53
4.6.2 Guidance for practitioners in ES for EA
Question 27 asked SRs to indicate if they agreed with the following phrase: ‘improved guidance
would enhance my consideration of using ES in EA’. Most SRs agreed with the statement (see
Figure 18). Three participants who ‘neither agree nor disagree’ commented it was legislation
which influences them, not guidance: “I don’t believe it is guidance (or lack of) which is
hindering the uptake of considering ES – its policy and legislation.” [R21]. SR19 commented
that “there is so much bad practice that anything would be an improvement” in contrast to SR6
who stated, “I already use the ES concept irrespective of guidance”.
In questions 25 and 26, respondents were asked if they were aware of any guidance for
incorporating ES in EA, and if so, whether the guidance was useful. Figure 19 shows that most
respondents (65%) were not familiar with guidance. Out of the nine respondents who were
familiar with guidance, five respondents found them useful and four did not.
54
The results on usefulness of guidance is therefore inconclusive, however, in the comments
SR22, who voted no to the usefulness of guidance, indicated that this was because they hadn’t
yet had the opportunity to use it. This may be preventing the development of more bespoke,
sector-specific guidance (Karjalainen et al., 2013) being developed rather than the broad
guidance frameworks for ES inclusion - indicated by SRs in Table 4. However, in some cases
these broad frameworks are being received positively. SR5 stated guidance to be “very
useful…typically relating to the broad framework of ES with different approaches to its
application - also environmental economics provides guidance on monetisation approaches”.
55
Those who were aware of guidance stated the following documents:
IP4 was the only participant who had practical experience using guidance for ES
incorporation in SEA, however, found the initial search quite difficult – “The only decent
guidance I’ve found is the Scottish government one”. They also note an increase in sector-
related guidance “would help practitioners know how to use ES so they can sell it better to
clients”. IP5, however, suggested that any further advances in producing relevant guidance
“needs collaboration by practitioners, who actually use it, with those drawing up the guidance”.
It is difficult to deduce whether it is the lack of quality, accessible and informative
guidance which is preventing uptake of the ES concept, or whether legislation and client
concerns are such strong factors to preventing deviation from normal practice.
4.7.0 Practitioners’ outlook on methods and tools for incorporating ES in
EA
In this section practitioner perceptions are analysed in relation to the fundamental areas which
currently make up methods and tools for ES in EA.
4.7.1 Alternative framing vs monetization methods
Monetary valuation of ES is one of the more difficult approaches to ES incorporation in EA,
and strongly debated (see Section 2.2.3). To gain the perspective of practitioners, respondents
were asked if using ES as an alternative to frame environmental factors was more important
than the monetization of ES in EA. Figure 20 shows most respondents (53%) indicated that
using ES as a framing tool is most important. The positive reception of the ‘framing’ potential
of ES may infer its respectable potential in EA, set aside from the difficulties associated with
the monetization of ES. This was supported by comments presented in Table 5:
56
Two respondents questioned whether there is even a place for the monetization of ES in
SEA. For example, SR9 stated that “placing monetary value would be very difficult at strategic
level, most other topics could not be monetized, and so comparison would be difficult”.
Interview P4 supports this, stating, “SEA does not go anywhere near numerical values and
probably shouldn’t”. These perceptions further support that the “framing’ potential of ES, at
least the starting point for ES consideration, reducing risk of unfair market influence in high
level policies.
Although not intended by the question, two respondents suggested using ES as a
“framing” tool for the environment would pose a threat to previously defined methods of
assessing ecology and biodiversity. This includes the statement by SR19, “Using ES an
alternative is not appropriate as the effects on biodiversity need to be considered with the
Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA)”. SR26 also stated, “ES can’t replace
ecological/biodiversity factors but rather it can support it”.
Although the added value associated with ES monetization is shown to be present in previous
sections, the potential for ES as a “framing tool” is also in high demand.
57
4.7.2 ES explicit consideration in practice
Many authors regard explicit consideration of ES as very important when taking an ES approach
in EA (see Section 2.6.2). Practitioners who previously indicated they had experience using ES
in EA were asked, “how important was an 'explicit consideration' of ES in your assessment”
(Figure 21).
The results are inconclusive, with minor reasoning to “a great deal” and “a lot”, other than,
“Given IFC Performance Standards explicitly state ES should be considered” [SR17]. SRs do
not suggest explicit consideration of ES increasing the quality of assessments, nor its
essentiality in when using an ES approach (Honrado et al., 2013). However, SR16’s moderate
view on explicit ES, included the comment - “The initial question to ask is, Are there added
benefits? – This can be done with little effort. If this initial stage is ignored costs will escalate
with little added value to the product”. This comment appears to suggest that explicit ES
consideration is not such a deterministic step in showing presenting added value in ES. The
importance lies with the early considerations of ES in EA, taking relevant steps to determine
whether the concept should be used at all, otherwise time and resources may be wasted on
efforts to explicitly define ES which have no resulting value to the assessment.
58
4.7.3 Web-application tools
In question 23, respondents were asked, “Have you ever used a web-application/software tool
that supports an ES approach to environmental assessment?” Astonishingly, 100% of the 26
respondents had not. When asked would a user-friendly software tool enhance their
consideration of ES in EA 73% of respondents indicated yes and 27% no (see Figure 22).
Those interested in software applications to support ES stated low cost to be important,
or as SR8 stated, “provided it was freely available like Magic”. Others stated that compatibility
with GIS data would be valuable. SR11, who in previous questions noted their positive
experience using ES in EA, stated “it wouldn’t affect my decision either way”.
IP4 was the only participant aware of existing software-tools to aid ES incorporation in
EA, specifically referring to “InVEST” and “water sector tools developed by the Environment
Agency”. Time and human-resources constraints resulted in IP4 developing their own, land-
based, tool – “It would have probably taken 3-6 months to actually develop the Invest model
before we even thought about doing any assessment out of it”.
Interview P2 and P5 had experience using the “Web-tag tool” in environmental
appraisal work. Both noted its usefulness in business cases using natural capital accounting.
Participants also suggested that if there was monetization of certain parameters (e.g. ecology)
they could see “web-tools being used for ES in EA, as they’re already being widely used for
business cases” [IP5]. IP4 regarded further developments in ES-EA software-tools as important
for the preliminary stages of an EA, stating that “if you already have a good model set up for
59
ES it would be a lot quicker to set up ES alongside part of an EIA or SEA, rather than going
straight into doing a full EA”.
There appears to be an open-market for an ES software tool specifically related to
incorporating ES in EA. Developing opportunities in this area should take note of previously
deployed tools, with similar concepts (e.g. Web-tag). The development of such a tool would
need to be aware of issued previously faced in the deployment of tools generally applied to the
ES concept (see Section 2.5.1).
4.8.0 Overcoming barriers to uptake in ES
In question 19, respondents were asked, “what areas of 'added value' need to be established for
the use of ES to be considered appealing in environmental assessment practice?”. Main themes
revolved around the client, whereby reduced risk and cost should be made to the client whilst
improving their reputation. R16 suggested its added value is in “understanding it does not need
to be used in every situation…practitioners can add smoke and mirrors” to the process
increasing costs without delivering significant benefits”. This expands on the issue of context
as discussed in previous sections. Does the true added value of ES in EA lie in the matter of
fact where, and where not, to use it? If so, it is important that practitioners have the skills to do
so and aren’t constrained learning mediums, as is suggested in Section 4.6.1.
Figure 23 shows the weighting of responses for question 19, supporting statements for
reducing risk to the client. Practitioners are clearly interested in the opportunities to value ES
in EA, with this category having the highest weighting with (27%). However, section 4.5.1
revealed that valuing ES was the biggest problem met by practitioners who used ES in practice,
indicating that developing this area requires further work.
60
In question 18, SRs with no practical experience of using ES in EA were asked “Is there
any situation (e.g. changes in legislation or client demand) where you would consider using an
ES approach in EA? Four respondents found changes in legislation to be crucial, with SR22
emphasising their point with, “the entire EIA process now has oversight by lawyers advising
the client. The emphasis is on doing everything to comply with the legislation, but also not to
do anything not specifically required by legislation”. Six respondents stated the need for more
“client demand” in their comments.
All five interview participants proposed greater “client buy-in” as critical to ES being
seen more widely used in practice. IP4 referred to tenders from local government clients, stating
that “if they’re going to want more money for an ES approach, they’re not going to bother”.
The UK’s recently amended National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) suggests local
governmental bodies may have more of an obligation to include ES, to some degree, in EAs.
Section 15 of the document has expanded the definition for ES consideration in England’s
planning policies to;
“Recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and
the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services –
including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile
agricultural land, and of trees and woodland” (NPPF, 2018, p.49).
61
Revisions in planning law may have a direct knock-on effect to how ES is
considered in EA by practitioners. Perhaps it is the responsibility of local
governmental bodies to take this proactive approach.
An overwhelming majority of respondents (84%) either agreed or strongly agreed that
an increase in relevant case studies would enhance their consideration of ES in EA (see Figure
24). These responses were paired with comments such as, “a good case study showing how the
approach could be implemented would be very useful” [R10] and, “proof it has worked would
greatly help the cause” [P4].
Lack of case-studies can arguably be seen as preventing the added value of ES being
notice by practitioners, discouraging them to present such ideas to a developer or client. Section
XXX uncovered IPs difficulty in access to materials to ES in EA. This perhaps result from
confidentiality agreements within consultancies, locking away well-presented methods for
incorporating ES in EA where proposals haven’t gone past trials. Whatever the case, this study
does show a positive perception of ES in EA among practitioners, however, to further develop
clarity on its added value will depend on the sharing of knowledge and experience of these
groups (Morgan et al., 2012).
Three interview participants (IP1, IP3, IP5) note the UK’s trajectory to leave the EU,
Brexit, as a potential entry point for ES in the future. This reflects their views that significant
institutional change is required for ES to be considered mainstream in EIA or SEA, with views
that the current legislative framework in the EU Directives is not applicable for ES. IP3
62
suggested, “ES has to fit into the existing hierarchy that we’ve already got so there’s potential
that the way post-Brexit goes it could be completely different”. In a scenario where EIA and
SEA is no longer subject to the obligations of the Directives (EC, 2001; EC; 2014) there may
be scope for possible amendments which consider ES. At the time of writing this dissertation,
potential for such matters are still unclear, however, one might expect the thresholds for
screening requirements to increase, reducing pressure on developers to conduct EAs (Bond et
al., 2016). In a scenario where less projects and PPPs are required to undergo EA, arguably,
using the ES concept is more important than ever to identify, protect and preserve areas of the
natural environment which humans essentially depend on for survival.
In line with the themes of Directive amendments, a relevant comment from IP4 includes,
“The SEA Directive is quite old and just looks at the effects of individual receptors. When
you’re looking at ES you can look much better at the long-term and more holistically at the
interactions and linkages of the environment”. Given the holistic nature of ES there may even
be opportunities for developers to see EA as less of a burden; with the possibility of complex
ecosystem interactions positively benefiting projects and PPPs, rather than silo-based impact
measurements which can arguably leave less to interpretation (Baker et al., 2013).
63
5.0 Recommendations and conclusions
Recommendations for further study
In this study, the geographical scope for practitioner perspectives was set for the UK. Analysis
of practitioners’ perspectives and use of ES in EA did, however, uncover specific influences
from subregion countries (e.g. Wales, England, Scotland) policy and legislation. It is therefore
recommended that future studies related to this topic area seek the influence of varying policy
and legislation, separate to EIA and SEA, on the uptake of ES in EA. A content analysis
approach, similar to that proposed by Rosa and Sánchez (2015), may provide a useful method
of analysis.
Conclusions
The findings from this study suggest that the uptake of ES in EA is not as apparent as some
authors predicted in studies five years ago (Baker et al., 2013; Partidario and Gomes et al.,
2013).
This study was inclusive of practitioners with a range of experience and familiarity to the ES
concept. The views presented by practitioners were, in most cases, not specific to a particular
location or sector but rather their previous experience, or lack of, in using the concept in EA.
As an exception, there was particular resistance to the ES concept from a practitioner in the
Ecology sector. Nevertheless, the many insights gained from Environmental Consultant
practitioners resulted in the generation of thematic perceptions towards the added value and
barriers associated with ES in EA. These themes have been presented in Table 6.
There was a general sense of openness from practitioners towards the ES concept,
however, this was met with trends of identifiable conditions, including costs, accuracy, time
constraints in planning cycles, lack of legislation and specific guidance and case studies.
64
Specific factors also exhibited clear trends to encouraging or obstructing the use of ES. These
included perceived benefits in the use of ES for communicating environmental impacts at a
more human level; maximising project opportunities. Further positive perceptions were
measured for ES influence in EA processes, principally revolving around trade-off analysis in
project and mitigation alternatives. This agrees with concepts in literature, where ES allows
practitioners a more tangible means of assessing alternatives (Albert et al., 2014).
Numerous areas preventing the uptake of ES were also measured. Firstly, there was the
perception that ES would not allow cost effective outcomes in assessments. This was
particularly related to the extra costs feared in quantifying ES. Secondly, practitioners,
particularly those less experienced, were dissuaded from using ES due to the poor availability
of guidance. Practitioners with experience using ES in EA showed their methods of learning
came from colleagues rather than internal or external formalised written guidance documents
and legislation. There was a clear call for case-studies with examples of “good practice”,
however, this may be hindered by a lack of knowledge sharing between consultancies. The
combination of ineffective guidance and insufficient case-studies clearly makes it difficult for
practitioners to sell the ES concept to their clients. Generalised issues such as work pressures,
fruition time and perceptions of untested ground were also repeated.
Conflicting views of ES monetization were also apparent. Some practitioners felt that
clients responded mostly to economic factors, but others questioned the place of monetization
in SEA. Moreover, the majority of practitioners showed scepticism towards an entirely market-
driven approach, rather, viewing ES’s use to “frame” environmental impacts as proportionally
more important.
The use of an explicit consideration of ES advocated in literature (Rozas-Vásquez et al.,
2018) does not appear to be of high importance to practitioners using the concept. Standards
and regulations separate to the Directives appeared to steer explicit considerations rather than
its underlying benefits to the EA process (Mascarenhas et al., 2015). Instances where
practitioners have suggested the text written in Directives have supported their decision to
include ES in EA also support the practical implementation of ES is of an implicit nature.
In past literature, stakeholder identification is presented as a difficult step for
practitioners using the ES concept in EA. In this study, practitioners suggested it was not the
identification of stakeholders that was the problem, but rather what is a representable number
of stakeholders. This can be linked to a lack of case-studies for incorporating ES in EA, with
65
no predefined spectrum for what is necessary. Case-studies developed by practitioners, for the
purpose of client trials, adds to the frustration of developing the concept further due to new
integration methods being locked away under business confidentiality.
Lack of client demand is potentially the biggest factor preventing ES being used in EA.
This lack of demand is most likely a symptom of non-inclusive consideration in the Directives
which prescribe EIA and SEA legislation. Some practitioners viewed the UK’s split from the
EU, Brexit, as a potential opportunity for ES to be presented in reformed legislation. This may
pose an opportunity, but alternatively, more case studies will be needed to show the clear
benefits of ES prior to the many bureaucratic hurdles a proposal would face.
Practitioners who valued ES in EA according to its use in context are likely to disagree
to a comprehensive ES approach being applied in every situation. If the consideration of EA
was to be proposed in legislation it may be appropriate to take a screening approach to the level
of ES approach required. This is to prevent the potential added-value of ES being over clouded
by negative experiences in projects and plans where its use is not necessary, such as when no
beneficiaries are present.
Clear concerns were presented by practitioners for the expected long time periods to
implement a new concept which is outside of normal practice. This perhaps does not reflect the
dissuasion of ES use, but rather the lack of flexibility amongst practitioners operating under
EA to experiment with new ideas. This study showed a distinct lack in availability of internal
and external learning opportunities for including ES in EA. The availability of such resources
would be likely to increase the opportunities for practitioners, at varying levels, to present the
ideology behind ES to prospective clients. In the words of SP1, “You might find an enlightened
consultant who sees a very clear way to do it and be able to sell the idea to a client who also
really bought into it”. The concept is already being presented in training courses, such as
“Incorporating natural capital and ecosystem services into environmental assessment” by the
Ecosystem Knowledge Network (EKN, 2018). Arguably similar methods of learning should
be taking place in engineering and environmental consultancies now.
Web-application or software tools which directly support ES incorporation in EA do
not appear to have been created or received by the practitioners interviewed and surveyed. This
presents a real area for innovation, with great potential for a positive reception from EA
practitioners. This study has proved that the ES concept is still relevant to EA and received
with enthusiasm by most practitioners surveyed; albeit under the right circumstances. If
66
developed correctly, a web tool for ES incorporation could transcend the perceived worries of
time constraints and cost of ES implementation; providing a preliminary, inexpensive, method
of determining the context of its further use in assessment. With this, fears of non-compliance
with legislation may be outweighed by the clear benefits presented by the standardized web-
application tool.
If we are to see EA enter legislation then it is perhaps fair to say more clear examples
of its use, and additional benefits, need to be presented in practice. Although many of the
practitioners surveyed demonstrated experience using the ES concept, not a single respondent
provided information to a specific case where ES was used. Reluctance from practitioners to
proudly exhibit their use of ES may be suffocating its development and added value. It appears
we are still at a standpoint similar to that identified by Baker et al. five years ago; “Those
responsible for plans, programmes and projects need to have the courage to allow practitioners
to use and develop it — where appropriate.” (p. 11). One might question if the onus is on
governmental bodies to promote purposeful ES consideration in their PPPs and projects, with
ES increasing its position in governmental planning legislation (NPPF, 2018). It is reasonable
to assume we are still at the stage where soft approaches to ES consideration in EA need to be
further examined, to incentivise entry points, and retain ES’s underlying value to assessment;
framing the environment in terms of human-welling to prevent the deterioration of the natural
environment we depend on to live.
67
6.0 Bibliography
Albert, C. Hauck, J. Buhr, N. and von Haaren, C. (2014). ‘What ecosystem services information
do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among landscape and regional
planners in Germany’, Landscape Ecology, 29, pp. 1301-1313.
Bagstad, K. J. Semmens, D. J. Waage, S. and Winthrop, R. (2013). ‘A comparative assessment
of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation’, Ecosystem
Services, 5, pp. 27-39.
Baker, J. Sheate, W. R. Phillips, P. and Eales, R. (2013). ‘Ecosystem services in environmental
assessment — Help or hindrance?’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, pp. 3-13.
Bond, A. J. Fundingsland, M. and Tromans, S. (2016). ‘Environmental impact assessment and
strategic environmental assessment in the UK after leaving the European Union’. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal. 34(3), pp. 271-274.
Bottom, D.L. Jones, K.K. Simenstad, C.A. and Smith, C.L. (2009) ‘Reconnecting social and
ecological resilience in salmon ecosystems’, Ecology and Society, 14(5), pp. 1-5.
Boyd, J. and Banzhaf, S. (2007). ‘What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized
environmental accounting units’, Ecological Economics, 63(3), pp. 616–26.
Broekx, S. Liekens, I. Peelaerts, W. Nocker, L. D. Landuyt, D. and Staes, J. (2013). ‘A web
application to support the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services’, Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 40, pp. 65–74.
Bull, J.W. Jobstvogt, N. Böhnke-Henrichs, A. Mascarenhas, A. Sitas, N. Baulcomb, C. Lambini,
C. K. Rawlins, M. Baral, H. Zähringer, J. Carter-Silk, E. Balzan, M.V. Kenter, J.O. Häyhä, T.
Petz, K. and Koss, R. (2016). ‘Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT
analysis of the ecosystem services framework’, Ecosystem Services, 17, pp. 99–111.
Campbell, G. and Sheate, W. (2012). ‘Embedding an ecosystems approach?’, Town and Country
Planning. 81. pp. 139-144.
Chan, K.M.A Satterfield, T. and Goldstein, J. (2012). ‘Rethinking ecosystem services to better
address and navigate cultural values’, Ecological Economics, 74, pp. 8–18.
68
Church, A. Fish, R. Haines-Young, R. Mourato, S. Tratalos, J. Stapleton, L. Willis, C. Coates, P.
Gibbons, S. Leyshon, C. Potschin, M. Ravenscroft, N. Sanchis-Guarner, R. Winter, M. and
Kenter, J. (2014). UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on, Work Package Report 5:
Cultural ecosystem services and indicators, UNEP-WCMC, LWEC, UK. Available at:
https://www.cep.co.uk/neafop/, (Date accessed: 06 May 2018).
Costanza, R. (2008). ‘Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed’,
Biological Conservation, 141, pp. 350–352.
Costanza, R. d'Arge, R. Farber S. Grasso M. Hannon B. Limburg, K. Naeem, S. O’Neill, R. V.
Paruelo, J. Raskin, R. G. Sutton, P. and van den Belt, M. (1997). ‘The value of the world's
ecosystem services and natural capital’, Nature, 387, pp. 253–60.
Daily, G.C. Polasky, S. Goldstein, J. Kareiva P.M. Mooney, H.A. and Pejchar, L. (2009).
‘Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver’, Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 7(1), pp. 21–8.
De Groot, R. S. Alkemade, R. Braat, L. Hein, L. and Willemen, L. (2010). ‘Challenges in
integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in planning, management and
decision making’, Ecological Complexity, 7(3), pp. 260 -272.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2007). Case study to develop
tools and methodologies to deliver an ecosystems approach— Heysham to M6 link DEFRA
research project. Available at: http://
randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=NR0110_7329_FRA.pdf, (Accessed:
11/05/2018).
Diehl, K. Burkhard, B. and Jacob, K. (2016). ‘Should the ES concept be used in European
Commission impact assessment?’ Ecological indicators. 61(1), pp. 6–17.
Eales, R., Baker, J., Sheate, W. (2011) Integrating a resilience approach into strategic
environmental assessment. International Association for Impact Assessment, Prague
Conference, 2011, Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266864649_Integrating_a_Resilience_Approach_int
o_Strategic_Environmental_Assessment_SEA (Accessed: 16 July 2018).
Economics for the Environment Consultancy (Eftec). (2010). Economic evaluation of
environmental effects. Available at:
69
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/182376/vt-guidelines.pdf, (Accessed: 25 July 2018).
Ecosystems Knowledge Network (EKN). (2018). Incorporating natural capital and ecosystem
services into environmental assessment: Exploring Best Practice. Available at:
https://ecosystemsknowledge.net/events/training-environmental-assessment, (Accessed 11
August 2018).
European Commission (EC) (1985). Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the
assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Available
at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31985L0337, (Accessed: 22
May 2018).
European Commission (EC). (2001). Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 27 June 2001on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes
on the environment. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm,
(Accessed: 5 August 2018).
European Commission (EC). (2014). Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects
of certain public and private projects on the environment. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0052, (Accessed: 1 August 2018).
Fischer, T. B. (2007). Theory and practice of strategic environmental assessment – towards a
more systematic approach. London: Earthscan.
Fischer, T. B. Therivel, R. Bond, A. Fothergill, J. and Marshall, J. (2016). ‘The revised EIA
Directive – possible implications for practice in England’, UVP-Report. 30(2). pp. 106–12,
[Online]. Available at: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/59986/ (Accessed: 25 July 2018).
Fischer, T. B. Turner, K. R. and Morling, P. (2009). ‘Defining and classifying ecosystem
services for decision making’, Ecological Economics, 7(4), pp. 1-16.
Geneletti D. (2013). ‘Assessing the impact of alternative land-use zoning policies on future
ecosystem services’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, pp. 25-35.
70
Geneletti, D. (2011). ‘Reasons and options for integrating ecosystem services in strategic
environmental assessment of spatial planning’, International Journal of Biodiversity Science,
Ecosystem Services and Management, 7(3), pp. 143–149.
Geneletti, D. (2015). ‘A conceptual approach to promote the integration of ecosystem services in
strategic environmental assessment’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management, 17(4), pp. 1-27.
Geneletti, D. (2016). Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Gibson, R.B. (2006). ‘Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework for effective
integration of economic and ecological consideration in significant decision making’, Journal
of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8(3), pp. 259–80.
Glasson, J. Therivel, R. and Chadwick, A. (2012). Introduction to Environmental Impact
Assessment. 4th eds. Oxon: Routledge.
Grêt-Regamey, A. Altwegg, J. Sirén, E. A. van Strien, M. J. and Weibel, B.
(2017a). ‘Integrating ecosystem services into spatial planning—A spatial decision support
tool’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 165, pp. 206 -219.
Grêt-Regamey, A. Sirén, E. Brunner, S. H. and Weibel, B. (2017b). ‘Review of decision support
tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept’. Ecosystem Services. 26(b), pp. 306-
315.
Guerry, A. D. (2015). ‘Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From
promise to practice, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 112(24), pp.
7348–55.
Haines-Young, R. H. and Postchin, M. P. (2012). Common International Classification of
Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4. EEA Framework Con- tract No
EEA/IEA/09/003. Available at: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2012/07/CICES-
V43_Revised-Final_Report_29012013.pdf, (Accessed: 12 May 2018).
Hansen, K. Malmaeus, M. Hasselström, L. Lindblom, E. Norén, K. Olshammar, M. Söderqvist,
T. and Soutukorva, A. (2018). ‘Integrating ecosystem services in Swedish environmental
71
assessments: an empirical analysis’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 36(3), pp.
1471-5465.
Hay, I. (2016). Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Helming, K. Diehl, K. Geneletti, D. and Wiggering, H. (2013). ‘Mainstreaming ecosystem
services in European policy impact assessment’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
40, pp. 82-87.
Honrado, J.P. Vieira, C. Soares, C. Monteiro, M.B. Marcos, B. Pereira, H.M. and Partidario,
M.R. (2013). ‘Can we infer about ecosystem services from EIA and SEA practice? A
framework for analysis and examples from Portugal’, Environmental Impact Assessment, 40,
pp.14-24.
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). (1999). Principles of environmental
impact assessment best practice. Available at:
https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/principlesEA_1.pdf, (Accessed: 28 July 2018).
International Finance Corporation (IFC). (2012). Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources. Available at:
https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/bff0a28049a790d6b835faa8c6a8312a/PS6_English_20
12.pdf?MOD=AJPERES, (Accessed: 15 July 2018).
Jay, S. Jones, C. Slinn, P. and Wood, C. (2007). ‘Environmental impact assessment: Retrospect
and prospect’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(4), pp. 287-300.
Jones, C., Baker, M., Carter, J., Jay, S., Short, M., and Wood, C. (2005). Strategic
Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning. Oxon: Routledge.
Karjalainen, T. P. Marttunen, M. Sarkki, S. and Rytkönen, A. (2013). ‘Integrating ecosystem
services into environmental impact assessment: An analytic–deliberative approach’,
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, pp. 54-64.
72
Kumar, P. Esen, S.E. and Yashiro, M. (2013). ‘Linking ecosystem services to strategic
environmental assessment in development policies’, Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 40, pp. 75–81.
Loomis, J. J. and Dziedzic, M. (2018). ‘Evaluating EIA systems' effectiveness: A state of the
art’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 68, pp. 29-37.
MacDonald, D.H. Bark, R.H. and Coggan, A. (2014). ‘Is ecosystem service research used by
decision-makers? A case study of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’, Landscape Ecology,
29, pp.1447-1460.
Mandle, L. and Tallis, H. (2016). Spatial ecosystem service analysis for Environmental Impact
Assessment of Projects, in Geneletti, D. (ed.) Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services in Impact Assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Marra, R. M. and Bogue, B. (2006). A Critical Assessment of Online Survey Tools. WEPAN
Conference: The Pennsylvania State University.
Mascarenhas, A. Ramos, T.B. Haase, D. and Santos, R. (2015). ‘Ecosystem services in spatial
planning and strategic environmental assessment – a European and Portuguese profile’, Land
Use Policy, 48, pp. 158–169.
Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Partnership (MGSDP). The Metropolitan Glasgow
Strategic Drainage Partnership. Available at: http:// www.mgsdp.org/2011. (Accessed on 10
July 2018).
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Graphic
Resources. Available at: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/GraphicResources.html,
(Accessed: 25 July 2018).
Mooney, H.A. Ehrlich, P.R. (1997). Ecosystems services: a fragmentary history, in: Daily. G.C.
(ed.). Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island
Press. p.p. 11–22.
Morgan, R.K. Hart, A. Freeman, C. Coutts, B. Colwill, D. and Hughes, A. (2012). ‘Practitioners,
professional cultures, and perceptions of impact assessment’, Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 32, pp. 11-24.
73
Morrison-Saunders, A. Pope, J. Gunn, J.A.E. Bond, A. and Retief, F. (2014). ‘Strengthening
impact assessment: a call for integration and focus’, Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal, 34(1), pp. 2–8.
Muradian, R. and Rival, L. (2012). ‘Between markets and hierarchies: the challenge of
governing ecosystem services’, Ecosystem Services, 1, pp. 93–100.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). (2018). National Planning Policy Framework.
Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Ministry of Housing, Communities and
Local Government by Command of Her Majesty July 2018. Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/733637/National_Planning_Policy_Framework_web_accessible_version.pdf, (Accessed:
11 August 2018).
Netherlands commission for environmental assessment (NCEA). (2016). Environmental
Assessment. Available at: http://www.eia.nl/en/environmental-assessment, (Accessed: 1
August 2018).
Noh, H. Jo, Y. and Lee, S. (2015). ‘Keyword selection and processing strategy for applying text
mining to patent analysis’, Expert Systems with Applications, 42, pp. 4348–4360.
Nueman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods; qualitative and quantitative approaches. 5th
edition. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Partidario, M. R. and Gomes, R. C. (2013). ‘Ecosystem services inclusive strategic
environmental assessment’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, pp. 36-46.
Portman, M. E. (2013). ‘Ecosystem services in practice: challenges to real world implementation
of ecosystem services across multiple landscapes e a critical review’, Applied Geography, 45,
pp. 185-92.
Potschin, M. B. and Haines-Young, R. H. (2011). ‘Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical
perspective’, Progress in Physical Geography, 35, pp. 575.
Presnall, C. López-Hoffman, L. and Miller, M. L. (2013). ‘Adding ecosystem services to
environmental impact analyses: More sequins on a “bloated Elvis” or rockin' idea?’,
Ecological Economics, 115, pp. 29-38.
74
QSR. (2012). NVivo qualitative data analysis Software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 10.
Available for download at: http://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/support-
overview/downloads, (Accessed: 20 July 2018).
Retief, F. Morrison-Saunders, A. Geneletti, D. and Pope, J. (2012). ‘Exploring the psychology of
trade-off decision-making in environmental impact assessment’, Impact Assessment and
Project Appraisal, 31(1), pp. 13-23.
Rosa, C.S.R. and Sánchez, L.E. (2015). ‘Is the ecosystem service concept improving impact
assessment? Evidence from recent international practice?’, Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 50, pp. 134-142.
Rosa, J.C.S. and Sanchez, L.E. (2016). ‘Advances and challenges of incorporating ecosystem
services into impact assessment’, Journal of Environmental Management, 180, pp. 485-492.
Rozas-Vásquez, D. Fürst, C. Geneletti, D. and Almendra, O. (2018). ‘Integration of ecosystem
services in strategic environmental assessment across spatial planning scales’, Land Use
Policy, 71, pp. 303–310.
Rozas-Vásquez, D. Fürst, C. Geneletti, D. and Muñoz, F. (2017). ‘Multi-actor involvement for
integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans’,
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, pp. 135-46.
Saarikoski, H. Jax, K. Harrison, P.A. Primmer, E. Barton, D.N. Mononen, L. Vihervaara, P. and
Furman, E. (2015). ‘Exploring operational ecosystem service definitions: the case of boreal
forests’, Ecosystem Services, 14, pp.144–157.
Scolozzi, R. Morri, E. and Santolini, R. (2012). ‘Delphi-based change assessment in ecosystem
service values to support strategic spatial planning in Italian landscapes’, Ecological
Indicators, 21, pp. 134–144.
Sheate, W. R. (1994). Making an impact: a guide to EIA law and policy. London: Cameron May
Ltd.
Shilling, J.D. Chomitz, K. and Flanagan, A.E. (2007). The Nexus between infrastructure and
environment. From the Evaluation Cooperation Group of the International Financial
Institutions. Available at:
75
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTOED/Resources/infrastructure_environment.pdf,
(Accessed: 4 August 2018).
Slootweg, R. (2016). ‘Ecosystem services in SEA: are we missing the point of a simple
concept?’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 34(1), pp. 79-86.
Slootweg, R. Rajvanshi, A. Mathur, V. B. and Kolhoff, A. (2009). Biodiversity in Environmental
Assessment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Slootweg, R. Rajvanshi, A. Mathur, V. B. Kolhoff, A. (2010). Biodiversity in environmental
assessment: Enhancing ecosystem services for human well-being. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Small, N. Munday, M. and Durance, I. (2017). ‘The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that
have no material benefits’, Global Environmental Change, 44, pp. 57-67.
Snell, T. and Cowell, R. (2006). ‘Scoping in environmental impact assessment: balancing
precaution and efficiency?’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, pp. 359-376.
Söderman, T. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessment – from
components to services. PhD thesis. University of Helsinki.
Spangenberg, J.H. (2013). Ecosystem services in a societal context, in Jacobs, S. Dendoncker, N.
Keune, H. (eds.). Ecosystem Services – Global Issues, Local Practices. San Diego, CA:
Elsevier, pp. 91–95.
Survey Monkey inc. (2018). Survey Monkey Inc. San Mateo, California, USA. Available at:
www.surveymonkey.com, (Accessed: 06 August 2018).
Tardieu, L. Roussel, S. Thompson, J.D. Labarraque, D. and Salles, J.M. (2015). Combining
direct and indirect impacts to assess ecosystem service loss due to infrastructure construction,
Journal of Environmental Management, 152, pp. 145-157.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods sampling in social and
behavioural research. London: Sage Publishing.
Taylor, C. N. Bryan, C.H. and Goodrich, C.G. (2004). Social assessment: theory, process and
techniques. 3rd ed. Wisconsin: Social Ecology Press.
76
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). (2011). The Economics of Ecosystems
and Biodiversity (TEEB) in National and International Policy Making. Available at:
http://www.teebweb.org/publication/teeb-in-national-and-international-policy-making/,
(Accessed: 29 May 2018).
Tetlow, M.F. Hanusch, M. (2012). ‘Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art’,
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), p.p. 15-24.
Therivel, R. (2009). Quality of life capital, in Morris, P. Therivel, R. (eds.). Methods of
environmental impact assessment. 3rd edition. London: Routeldege. p.p. 460–466.
UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UKNEA). (2011). UK National Ecosystem Assessment:
Ecosystem Assessment Concepts. Available at: http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/, (Accessed:
01/07/2018).
UK Parliament. (2011). Ecosystem service valuation, POSTNOTE 378 May 2011, The
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Available at:
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn_378-Ecosystem-Service-Valuation.pdf,
(Accessed: 10 May 2018).
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2002). Environmental impact assessment
training resource manual, 2nd ed. [Online]. [Accessed: 28/07/2016]. Available at:
https://unep.ch/etu/publications/UNEP_EIA_Manual.pdf
Van Buggenhoudt, C. (2017). Assessment of Ecosystem Services in Mining Regions: A case
study in Cajamarca, Peru. Masters. Ghent University.
Waage, S. Hwang, L. Armstrong, K. (2012). The Quiet (R)evolution in Expectations of
Corporate Environmental Performance: Emerging Trends in the Uptake of Ecosystem
Services. BSR, San Francisco, California. Available at:
http://www.bsr.org/reports/Quiet_Revolution_Env_Performance.pdf, (Accessed: 12 August
2018).
Wales Council for Voluntary Action (WCVA). (2017). The Goal of the Wellbeing of Future
Generations (Wales) Act. Available at:
77
https://www.wcva.org.uk/media/5636168/the_goals_of_the_wellbeing_of_future_generations
__wales__act_2015.pdf, (Accessed: 15 July 2018).
Wolff, S. Schulp, C.J.E. and Verburg, P.H. (2015). ‘Mapping ecosystem services demand: a
review of current research and future perspectives’, Ecological indicators, 55, pp. 159–171.
WRI (World Resources Institute). (2013). Weaving Ecosystem Services into Impact Assessment.
A Step-By-Step Method. Version 1.0. Available at: http://www.wri.org/tags/ecosystem-
services, (Accessed: 20 May 2018).
78
7.0 Appendices
Appendix 1: semi-structured interview questions
79
Analysis grouping
Background information
General perspectives
Added value perspectives
Barriers to uptake
Policy, guidance and resources to support ES in EA
Appendix 2: Online survey questions and
themes
Question Type of question Analysis grouping
Q1. If you have read the above information and
give your consent to participate in this survey,
please check the 'agree' tab below.
Consent agreement.
Q2. Considering your experience as a practitioner
(those directly involved in the production of
environmental statements/reports), which area(s)
of environmental assessment are you most familiar
with?
Multiple choice.
Q3. How would you describe your area of work? Multiple choice.
Q4. Where is the majority of your work based? Multiple choice.
Q5. How many years’ experience do you have as a
practitioner?
Multiple choice.
Q6. Did you have knowledge of the ecosystem
service concept prior to this survey?
Multiple choice/open-
ended.
Q7. Which area(s) of impact assessment do you
feel ecosystem services is most relevant?
Multiple choice.
Q8. Do you have experience of using ES, in practice,
for any of the following areas of environmental
assessment.
Multiple choice.
Q9. In which sector(s) did you use ES in
environmental assessment?
Multiple choice. Skip
logic.
Q10. What was the main driver for inclusion of ES
in environmental assessment?
Open-ended.
Q11. What is your perspective on the concept of ES
- and its use in environmental assessment?
Open-ended
80
Q12. How did you learn about incorporating ES in
environmental assessment?
Multiple-choice.
Q13. Did you encounter any of the following
problems when using an ecosystem service
approach?
Multiple-choice.
Q14. How important was an 'explicit consideration'
of ES in your assessment?
Multiple-choice.
Q15. Were any procedural stages (e.g.
consultation, scoping, mitigation)
improved/worsened by using ES in environmental
assessment?
Open-ended.
Q16. Would you use ES again and under what
conditions?
Multiple-choice/open-
ended.
Q17. Are there any reasons why you have not used
an ecosystem service approach in practice?
Multiple-choice.
Q18. Is there any situation (e.g. changes in
legislation, client demand) where you would
consider using an ES approach to environmental
assessment?
Open-ended.
Q19. In your opinion, what areas of 'added value'
need to be established for the use of ES to be
considered appealing in environmental assessment
practice?
Multiple-choice/open-
ended.
Q20. Your view on the added value of ES in
environmental assessment is appreciated. Please
can you summarise the main incentives and
barriers to you taking such an approach, in the box
below.
Open-ended.
Q21. Have any policy documents influenced your
decision to consider ecosystem services
Multiple-choice/open-
ended.
Q22. Which approach to the incorporation of ES in
environmental assessment do you feel is most
necessary?
Multiple-choice/open-
ended.
Q23. Have you ever used a web-
application/software tool that supports an ES
approach to environmental assessment?
Multiple-choice. Skip
logic.
Q24. Would a user-friendly web-
application/software tool that supports an ES
Multiple-choice.
81
approach encourage your consideration of ES in
environmental assessment?
Q25. Are you aware of any guidance documents for
incorporating ES in environmental assessment?
Multiple-choice. Skip
logic.
Q26. Did you find the guidance useful for
incorporating ES in environmental assessment?
Multiple-choice.
Q27. Do you agree/disagree with the following
statement: "Improved guidance would enhance my
consideration of using an ES approach in
environmental assessment."
Likert scale/open-ended.
Q28. Do you agree/disagree with the following
statement: "An increase in relevant case studies
would enhance my consideration of using an ES
approach in environmental assessment."
Likert scale/open-ended.
Q29. Have you attended any workshops and/or
conferences on incorporating ES in environmental
assessment?
Multiple-choice. Skip
logic.
Q30. If workshops and/or conferences were
available on incorporating ES in environmental
assessment, would you consider attending them?
Multiple-choice.
82
Appendix 3: Interviewee consent form template
