1 Center for Development Research. University of Bonn2 Spatial Planning for Sustainability Lab. University of Trento

3 Laboratorio de Planificación Territorial. Universidad Católica de Temuco

Strategic Environmental Assessment and ecosystem services for regional planning in Chile: From understanding to practice

Methodology

Identifying the variety of understanding/visions about SEA and ecosystem services from thedifferent actors involved in the spatial planning process.

Objective

AcknowledgementsComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (CONICYT-Chile). Programa

Becas Chile.

Daniel Rozas-Vásquez1, Davide Geneletti2, Christine Fürst1, Francisco Muñoz3

“Even the most effective framework, methodology and/or set of methods is of little value in a regional planning context if a common understanding and vision is lacking (Modified

from Noble et al. 2012). This is especially relevant to those responsible for making and implementing the decisions in different institutional scales”

Research context and ecosystem services integration

in spatial planning

Flow of hierarchical interactions starting with the PPP elaboration to the territorial system where they have influence

Research Stages

In current development

General methodological framework

Questionnaire application

Results

Participants in the questionnaire application by region, institution and the principal function.

Region Institution Function

II Ministry of the Environment (Regional office) Person in charge of the natural resources, waste and risk assessment

II Universidad Católica del Norte (University) Researcher

III Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning (Regional office) Person in charge of environment and spatial planning instruments

RM Universidad Central (University) Researcher / Director of the diploma course in SEA

RM Sub Secretary of Regional and Administrative Development (National office) Adviser in the Department of Policies and Decentralization

RM Fundación Chile (Consultant) Environmental project analyst

RM Ministry of the Environment (National office) Professional of the Department of Environmental Economics

RM Ministry of the Environment (National office) Office of Environmental Assessment

RM Ministry of the Environment (National office) Office of Environmental Assessment

RM Universidad de Chile (University) Researcher

VI Regional Government Person in charge of the Spatial Planning Division

VI Regional Government Person in charge of the Spatial Planning Division

VI Ministry of the Environment (Regional office) Professional of the Environmental Coordination Section

VIII Universidad de Concepción (University) Researcher

VIII Regional Government Person in charge of SEA

VIII Ministry of the Environment (Regional office) Person in charge of SEA

VIII Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning (Regional office) Analyst of the Department of Urban Development and Infrastructure

VIII Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning (Regional office) Analyst of the Department of Urban Development and Infrastructure

IX Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning (Regional office) Chief of the Department of Urban Development

IX Regional Government Person in charge of the process of planning and territorial development

IX Instituto de estudios del Hábitat. Universidad Autonoma (Consultant) Environmental coordinator

IX Regional Government Person in charge of the Territorial Information Section

IX Regional GovernmentPerson in charge of the process of planning and territorial development / Secretary of the Regional Commission of the Coastal Land Use

IX Ministry of the Environment (Regional office) Person in charge of SEA and climate change

IX Laboratorio de Planificación Territorial. Universidad Católica de Temuco (Consultant) Project coordinator

IX Laboratorio de Planificación Territorial. Universidad Católica de Temuco (Consultant) Environmental analyst

IX Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning (Regional office) Spatial planning analyst/ Environmental coordinator

IX Centro de estudios TerritorioMayor. Universiad Mayor (Consultant) Director

IX Laboratorio de Planificación Territorial. Universidad Católica de Temuco (University) Researcher / Coordinator of the Laboratorio de Planificación Territorial

XIV Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning (Regional office) Chief of the Department of Urban Development

XIV Ministry of the Environment (Regional office) Person in charge of SEA

XIV Regional Government Professional of the Strategic Analysis Department

XIV Regional Government Person in charge of SEA

XIV Ministry of Public Works (Regional office) Professional of the Planning Department

XIV Universidad Austral de Chile (University) Researcher

X CECPAN (Consultant) Geographer in charge of the spatial planning thematic

X Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning (Regional office) Spatial planning analyst

XI Ministry of the Environment (Regional office) Person in charge of the natural resources, waste and risk assessment

XI Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning (Regional office) Chief of the Department of Urban Development

Geographic distribution of the participants

46.2 %

7.7 % 7.7 %

30.8 %

7.7 %

Environmentalobjectives and

sustainability issues

The point of view ofthe most relevantdecision makers

The environmentalimpacts generated by

the spatial plan

A methodologywhich allows clearand precise results

Null

Key elements to consider during the SEA process

46.2 %

33.3 %

20.5 %

Providing solid information anddecision oriented

Providing a complete and detailedenvironmental report

Providing exact information aboutall the possible environmental

impacts

The most adequate way to support the decisions through SEA

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

The most frequent Second most frequent Third most frequent

Most frequent tools/techniques utilized in SEA

33.3 %

23.1 %25.6 %

7.7 %10.3 %

Essential in thesustainability analysis

Maps to support thedecisions

Complex models"human-ecosystems"

Other No response

Approaches to integrate ecosystem services in SEA and spatialplanning

17.9 %

5.1 %

61.5 %

15.4 %

Payment for ecosystemservices

Biophysical assessmentof ecosystem services

Social assessment ofecosystem services

Other

The most suitable way for integrating ecosystem services inspatial planning

38.5 % 35.9 %

5.1 %

46.2 %

53.8 %

10.3 %

The most challenging issues for the ecosystem servicesintegration in spatial planning

20.5 %

56.4 %

7.7 % 7.7 % 5.2 % 2.6 %

Habitats and landuses

Recreation andflood mitigation

Biogeochemicalcycles

Photosynthesis No response Null

As per your understanding, what is an ecosystem service?

Results (Selected closed questions)

1 2

3 4

5 6

7

Question Answer “others”

4 In the sustainability analysis but not as the essential component

4 Economic diagnosis

4 In the conceptual elaboration of the spatial plan

5 Evaluation of trade-offs and synergies among different ecosystem services

5 The incorporation of the concept in the policy context. Case studies are

needed

5 The ecosystem services should not influence SEA but support an integrated

territorial analysis

5 Loss/degradation matrices of ecosystem services

5 With a clear and solid conceptual definition

6 Considered irrelevant for an effective application

6 Lack of information about spatial modeling of ecosystem services

6 Limited institutional development

6 Political will

7 Soft systemic analysis

7 Economic valuation and environmental assessment

7 Economic valuation of ecosystem services

Other

Government Institutions

Consultants

Universities

Consulted actors

Conceptual relation network in SEAunderstanding among the different actors

Hierarchical representation of the most recognized concepts based ontheir input degree (different size and colors) starting from below to top.

Categories and subcategories of conceptual components identified in the content analysis

Final commentsIn general, the understanding of SEA is relatively close to what is mentioned in the theory. However,there is still an important number of actors with the traditional EIA in mind, instead of a strategicvision.

Regarding to the ecosystem services approach, while most of the respondents involved were able toidentify them in a proper way, there exist elements of confusion amongst almost half of theparticipants.

In relation to the ecosystem services integration in SEA and spatial planning, the most relevant andrecognized aspect is the social evaluation. This should be incorporated in the sustainability analysis ofthe spatial plan.

Finally, the network analysis shows the structure of relations between the identified concepts in SEAand the actors who have recognized them. In this stage, the network analysis for the understandingabout ecosystem services and the interrelation with SEA and Spatial planning is still in process in thisresearch.

Some examples of application with Consultants (a) and public institutions (b,c)

a b c