Tools and methods for the implementation of ecosystem services in land development projects : A developers' perspective

Abstract: This study explores the understanding of the concept ecosystem services (ES) within Swedish land developers with a focus on knowledge, drivers and interests, practical experience, as well as challenges land developers experience for the implementation of solutions providing ecosystem services in projects. The research is based on interviews to representatives of eight land developers operating in Sweden and completed by the interviews of representatives from two consultancy companies. In addition to this, tools, methods and certifications systems available in the Swedish context for working with ES in detailed planning, land allocation, and further steps of a development project are analyzed from a user’s perspective based on a literature study and interviews results. The results show an important heterogeneity among developers, with different levels of knowledge and experience depending on the type of developer. Build and manage, well-established companies with a sound sustainability policy appear to be forerunners, whereas size, type of buildings managed, geographical implantation or private/public ownership showed little relevance. Both proactive and reactive attitudes towards ES were detected, the role of municipalities setting ES requirements being a major driver for ES implementation, together with the company’s sustainability policy and business opportunities. The fragmented panorama of available tools for ES implementation and the lack of available inventories explains the little knowledge and experience developers showed about existing tools. If GYF and ESTER tools are used, there is as of today a lack of a reference tool at national level, setting recognized standards for ES implementation. The research results suggest a need for a nationally recognized reference tool, simple to use, serving as a basis for dialogue, allowing scenario comparison at early phases, and including a cost perspective. Certification systems appear as a possible way forward, but further and comprehensive integration of the concept is still needed.