No. 2 (2023): Ecosystem-based Planning. The contribution of ecosystem services to Urban and Regional Planning innovation

Da “Servizi Ecosistemici” a “Contributi della Natura alle Persone”: un toolkit per attribuire valore alla natura e supportare processi partecipativi su tematiche ambientali.

Cassandra Fontana
Università di Firenze
Andrea Testi
Università di Firenze

Published 2024-05-07


  • valore della natura, transizione ecologica, innovazioni democratiche

How to Cite

Fontana, C., & Testi, A. (2024). Da “Servizi Ecosistemici” a “Contributi della Natura alle Persone”: un toolkit per attribuire valore alla natura e supportare processi partecipativi su tematiche ambientali. Contesti. Città, Territori, Progetti, (2), 16–35.

Funding data


Abstract (Ita)

Affrontare le sfide globali contemporanee richiede una migliore capacità di comunicare e riflettere collettivamente sulle tematiche ambientali e sul delicato rapporto tra natura e società. Il concetto di Servizio Ecosistemico, nato per mettere in luce queste interconnessioni, è stato criticato per l’approccio antropocentrico e tecno-economicista che ne comprometterebbe il potenziale all’interno di un processo partecipativo. La ricerca fa ricorso all’attuale dibattito accademico su questi temi e accoglie la recente proposta di introdurre il complementare concetto di Contributi della Natura alle Persone. Su questa base teorica, il saggio illustra il Collective Ecosystems Toolkit, uno strumento composto di tre componenti: un gioco da tavolo, un’applicazione, e una piattaforma digitale. Lo strumento, concepito per essere utilizzato entro un processo partecipativo su temi ambientali e al momento in fase di sperimentazione, contribuisce al filone di ricerca relativo ai metodi di valutazione del valore della natura da parte delle comunità locali e si pone in linea con i numerosi contributi che sostengono la necessità di ripoliticizzare le questioni ambientali.

Abstract (Eng)

In the face of contemporary global challenges, there is an increasing demand to communicate and reflect on environmental issues and on the delicate relationship between nature and society. The concept of Ecosystem Service, originally conceived to underscore these interconnections, has been criticized for its anthropocentric and techno-economic approach, limiting its potential use within participatory processes. The research draws upon the academic discourse surrounding these topics and acknowledges the recent emergence of the Nature’s Contributions to People concept. On this theoretical basis, the paper introduces the Collective Ecosystems Toolkit, a tool comprising three components: one board game, one application, and one digital platform. The tool has been designed to accompany a participatory process regarding environmental issues and is currently under experimentation. It contributes to the body of research focused on methods for evaluating nature’s values by local communities, and aligns with the numerous studies arguing for the need to repoliticizing environmental issues.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...


  1. Aldeia, J., Alves, F., 2019. Against the Environment. Problems in Society/Nature Relations. Front. Sociol. 4, 29.
  2. Anderson, Christopher B., Pascual, Unai, Baptiste, Brigitte, Lliso, Bosco, Monroy-Sais, Ana Sofía, Guibrunet, Louise, Balvanera, Patricia, Christie, Michael, Athayde, Simone, Barton, David N., Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca, Jacobs, Sander, Kelemen, Eszter, Kumar, Ritesh, Lazos, Elena, Martin, Adrian, Mwampamba, Tuyeni H., Nakangu, Barbara, O’Farrell, Patrick, Raymond, Christopher M., Subramanian, Suneetha M., Termansen, Mette, Van Noordwijk, Meine, Vatn, Arild, Contreras, Victoria, González-Jiménez, David, 2022. Chapter 1. The role of the values of nature and valuation for addressing the biodiversity crisis and navigating towards more just and sustainable futures. Zenodo.
  3. Barnaud, C., Antona, M., 2014. Deconstructing ecosystem services: Uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. Geoforum 56, 113–123.
  4. Boeraeve, F., Dufrene, M., De Vreese, R., Jacobs, S., Pipart, N., Turkelboom, F., Verheyden, W., Dendoncker, N., 2018. Participatory identification and selection of ecosystem services: building on field experiences. E&S 23, art27.
  5. Carnoye, L., Lopes, R., 2015. Participatory Environmental Valuation: A Comparative Analysis of Four Case Studies. Sustainability 7, 9823–9845.
  6. Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J.R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I.A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K.M., Figueroa, V.E., Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., Koetz, T., Leadley, P., Lyver, P., Mace, G.M., Martin-Lopez, B., Okumura, M., Pacheco, D., Pascual, U., Pérez, E.S., Reyers, B., Roth, E., Saito, O., Scholes, R.J., Sharma, N., Tallis, H., Thaman, R., Watson, R., Yahara, T., Hamid, Z.A., Akosim, C., Al-Hafedh, Y., Allahverdiyev, R., Amankwah, E., Asah, S.T., Asfaw, Z., Bartus, G., Brooks, L.A., Caillaux, J., Dalle, G., Darnaedi, D., Driver, A., Erpul, G., Escobar-Eyzaguirre, P., Failler, P., Fouda, A.M.M., Fu, B., Gundimeda, H., Hashimoto, S., Homer, F., Lavorel, S., Lichtenstein, G., Mala, W.A., Mandivenyi, W., Matczak, P., Mbizvo, C., Mehrdadi, M., Metzger, J.P., Mikissa, J.B., Moller, H., Mooney, H.A., Mumby, P., Nagendra, H., Nesshover, C., Oteng-Yeboah, A.A., Pataki, G., Roué, M., Rubis, J., Schultz, M., Smith, P., Sumaila, R., Takeuchi, K., Thomas, S., Verma, M., Yeo-Chang, Y., Zlatanova, D., 2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14, 1–16.
  7. Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R.T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K.M.A., Baste, I.A., Brauman, K.A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P.W., Van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Van Der Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bukvareva, E., Davies, K., Demissew, S., Erpul, G., Failler, P., Guerra, C.A., Hewitt, C.L., Keune, H., Lindley, S., Shirayama, Y., 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272.
  8. Eckert, E., Kovalevska, O., 2021. Sustainability in the European Union: Analyzing the Discourse of the European Green Deal. JRFM 14, 80.
  9. Ehrlich, P.R., Mooney, H.A., 1983. Extinction, Substitution, and Ecosystem Services. BioScience 33, 248–254.
  10. Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S., 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65, 663–674.
  11. Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 68, 643–653.
  12. Fontaine, C.M., Dendoncker, N., De Vreese, R., Jacquemin, I., Marek, A., Van Herzele, A., Devillet, G., Mortelmans, D., François, L., 2014. Towards participatory integrated valuation and modelling of ecosystem services under land-use change. Journal of Land Use Science 9, 278–303.
  13. Gómez-Baggethun, E., De Groot, R., Lomas, P.L., Montes, C., 2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69, 1209–1218.
  14. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Ruiz-Pérez, M., 2011. Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 35, 613–628.
  15. Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., Jax, K., 2013. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: Some stakeholder perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy 25, 13–21.
  16. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES., 2022. Methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo.
  17. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES., 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn.
  18. Kenter, J.O., Hyde, T., Christie, M., Fazey, I., 2011. The importance of deliberation in valuing ecosystem services in developing countries—Evidence from the Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change 21, 505–521.
  19. Koschke, L., Van Der Meulen, S., Frank, S., Schneidergruber, A., Kruse, M., Fürst, C., Neubert, E., Ohnesorge, B., Schröder, C., Müller, F., Bastian, O., 2014. Do you have 5 minutes to spare? The challenges of stakeholder processes in ecosystem services studies. LO 37, 1–25.
  20. Lele, S., Springate-Baginski, O., Lakerveld, R., Deb, D., Dash, P., 2013. Ecosystem Services: Origins, Contributions, Pitfalls, and Alternatives. Conservat Soc 11, 343.
  21. MA, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis; a report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment series. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  22. Norgaard, R.B., 2010. Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69, 1219–1227.
  23. O’Connor, S., Kenter, J.O., 2019. Making intrinsic values work; integrating intrinsic values of the more-than-human world through the Life Framework of Values. Sustain Sci 14, 1247–1265.
  24. Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Muradian, R., 2014. Social Equity Matters in Payments for Ecosystem Services. BioScience 64, 1027–1036.
  25. Peterson, G.D., Harmáčková, Z.V., Meacham, M., Queiroz, C., Jiménez-Aceituno, A., Kuiper, J.J., Malmborg, K., Sitas, N., Bennett, E.M., 2018. Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES: “Nature’s contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services”. E&S 23, art39.
  26. Rose, D.B., Van Dooren, T., Chrulew, M., Cooke, S., Kearnes, M., O’Gorman, E., 2012. Thinking Through the Environment, Unsettling the Humanities. Environmental Humanities 1, 1–5.
  27. Schunz, S., 2022. The ‘European Green Deal’ – a paradigm shift? Transformations in the European Union’s sustainability meta-discourse. Political Research Exchange 4, 2085121.
  28. Scolozzi, R., Schirpke, U., Geneletti, D., 2019. Enhancing Ecosystem Services Management in Protected Areas Through Participatory System Dynamics Modelling. LO 73, 1–17.
  29. Spyra, M., Kleemann, J., Cetin, N.I., Vázquez Navarrete, C.J., Albert, C., Palacios-Agundez, I., Ametzaga-Arregi, I., La Rosa, D., Rozas-Vásquez, D., Adem Esmail, B., Picchi, P., Geneletti, D., König, H.J., Koo, H., Kopperoinen, L., Fürst, C., 2019. The ecosystem services concept: a new Esperanto to facilitate participatory planning processes? Landscape Ecol 34, 1715–1735.
  30. TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations, Edited by Pushpam Kumar. Earthscan: London and Washington.
  31. Weidner, C., Braidotti, R., Klumbyte, G., 2019. The Emergent Environmental Humanities: Engineering the Social Imaginary. Connotations 28.
  32. Westman, W.E., 1977. How Much Are Nature’s Services Worth?.
  33. Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper No. 42. CIFOR, Bogor.