Land Use Policy 77 (2018) 641–651

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Ecosystem services in urban land use planning policies: A case study of T

Ontario municipalities
⁎
Sharon T. Lama, Tenley M. Conwayb,
a
Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada
b
Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Rd, Mississauga, ON L5L 1C6, Canada

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Land use plans are widely used to guide urban development, which in turn can impact the magnitude, diversity
Cultural ecosystem services and spatial distribution of ecosystem services that occur within urban areas. However, few studies have assessed
Land use planning whether ecosystem services have been included in land use plans. The purpose of this paper is to present a case
Ecosystem functions study of the ten most populous municipalities in Ontario, Canada, to determine whether and how ecosystem
Urban ecosystems
services have been incorporated in each of their land use plans. Through a review of official plans, we found that
Green infrastructure
municipalities have adopted varying approaches in their consideration of ecosystem services, with several
municipalities explicitly adopting an ecosystem-based approach to planning. While the term, ecosystem services,
is rarely used, we found that all official plans made reference to a variety of specific ecosystem services, with
several cultural and supporting services most frequently identified. There is opportunity to enhance the inclusion
of other types of ecosystem services, including provisioning and regulating services, in all of the official plans
examined. Our case study also highlights the importance of incorporating a working definition of ecosystem
services in policy documents that help guide municipalities and urban planners, adopting a broader focus on a
greater variety of ecosystem services, and delineating clearer linkages between specific service providing units
and associated ecosystem services.

1. Introduction The provision of ecosystem services is dependent upon healthy

Cities are complex social-ecological systems where ecological pro-
cesses and human influences intertwine (Alberti et al., 2003; Gómez-
Baggethun and Barton, 2013). As the world’s population is becoming
increasingly urban (United Nations, 2014), there is growing recognition
that urban ecosystems provide critical benefits for human well-being.
These benefits, which are derived from ecological functions and pro-
cesses, are known as ecosystem services (Bolund and Hunhammar,
1999). Ecosystem services are comprised of nature’s provision of goods,
such as food and fresh water, as well as benefits, such as aesthetic value,
cultural heritage significance, mental health benefits and support for
active and passive recreation, among many others (Bolund and
Hunhammar, 1999; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Gómez-
Baggethun and Barton, 2013). With the rapid expansion of ecosystem
services research over the past decade (Haase et al., 2014), the eco-
system services concept has been recognized as a useful tool to identify
and communicate the benefits and values of nature, especially in urban
areas (e.g. Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Andersson et al., 2014;
Woodruff and BenDor, 2016).
ecological systems (Kremen, 2005; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
2005). However, approximately 60 percent of the ecosystem services
examined in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) were con-
sidered degraded or used unsustainably. Urbanization is a key driver
that poses many challenges to the health of ecosystem services through
the removal of natural land cover, increases in the amount of im-
pervious surfaces, concentration of people, and increases in waste dis-
charge and nutrient loading (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005;
Alberti, 2005; Tratalos et al., 2007). There is also a plethora of urban
ecosystem services that exist within cities that are facing many loca-
lized pressures, such as high levels of pollution, limited growth space,
and high levels of human disturbance (Grimm et al., 2008). These
stressors present challenges to the provision of essential, life-supporting
ecosystem services that will be required to meet the demands of our
growing population (Kremen, 2005; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
2005).
While urban planning may lead to land use changes and develop-
ment that can result in negative impacts on natural systems, it can also
contribute to their protection and associated benefits (Gómez-

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sharon.lam@mail.utoronto.ca (S.T. Lam), tenley.conway@utoronto.ca (T.M. Conway).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.020
Received 26 September 2017; Received in revised form 8 February 2018; Accepted 15 June 2018
0264-8377/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.T. Lam, T.M. Conway
Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Cortinovis and Geneletti, 2018). Land use
planning policies, such as Canada’s municipal official plans (similar to
comprehensive plans in the United States), help guide how planning
authorities regulate urban development, which in turn may help protect
and enhance ecosystem services in urban areas. For example, urban
planning policies may provide direction and support for urban heat
island mitigation, stormwater management, and the provision of re-
creational open spaces.
Over the past few decades, a growing body of literature has
emerged, calling for the integration of ecosystem services into land use
planning (e.g. Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Jansson, 2013;
Andersson et al., 2014; Holzinger et al., 2015; Woodruff and BenDor,
2016; BenDor et al., 2017). There has also been a small but growing
body of studies investigating if ecosystem services have actually been
incorporated into urban planning policies, and how they are being in-
tegrated (e.g. Piwowarczyk et al., 2013; Wilkinson et al., 2013; Kabisch
et al., 2015; Hansen et al., 2015; Mascarenhas et al., 2015; Rall et al.,
2015; Woodruff and BenDor, 2016; Cortinovis and Geneletti, 2018).
These studies have helped to address the limited empirical assessment
of planning policies. This paper seeks to contribute to these efforts by
presenting a case study of the ten most populous municipalities in
Ontario, Canada. A review of their local and regional official plans has
been conducted to answer the following questions: (1) to what extent
have ecosystem services and other related concepts been incorporated
in municipal land use planning policies in Ontario, (2) what types of
ecosystem services are represented in these plans, and (3) is there
variation in approaches across different municipalities?
The Province of Ontario offers a unique case study as each muni-
cipality is required by provincial legislation to adopt an official plan,
which offers an opportunity to compare and examine how munici-
palities have interpreted provincial policies and adapted these polices
to suit their local contexts. Furthermore, in recent years the provincial
government has been actively encouraging increased intensification
and the concept of smart growth, while also promoting environmental
conservation and sustainable development (Government of Ontario,
2014). These provincial policies help shape a planning context that is
simultaneously supportive of urban growth and ecosystem protection.
Understanding the planning policies that set the framework for devel-
opment is a first step to identifying potential ways to advance the
management of ecosystem services in urban areas for the mutual benefit
of a healthier environment and human population.
2. Ecosystem services and land use planning
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) has helped to
mainstream the concept of ecosystem services in both the natural and
social sciences. The assessment identified four categories of ecosystem
services: (1) provisioning, including food, fibre, fuel, wood, natural
medicines, and pharmaceuticals; (2) regulating, including climate
moderation, erosion regulation, and water purification; (3) cultural,
including spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, re-
creation, and aesthetic experiences; and (4) supporting, including
photosynthesis, pollination, habitat, nutrient cycling, and hydrological
cycling (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
While the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s (2005) definitions
and classification scheme are the most commonly adopted framework
in ecosystem services research, alternative definitions and classifica-
tions have since been proposed to help operationalize the concept
(Fisher et al., 2009; Schröter et al., 2014). In particular, two inter-
related ideas have emerged through the literature that have helped to
refine the ecosystem services concept. These include: 1) the criterion
that ecosystem services must have connections to human well-being,
and 2) the need to separate means and ends in recognition of differences
in meaning among terms that are closely associated with ecosystem
services, including structure, function, and process.
First, ecosystem services can flow from ecological structures,
642
Land Use Policy 77 (2018) 641–651
processes, or functions, but must have some connection to human well-
being (Fisher and Turner, 2008; Fisher et al., 2009; de Groot et al.,
2010; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010; Hansen and Pauleit, 2014).
For example, trees provide natural shade that can help reduce surface
and air temperatures but without human beneficiaries, the shade pro-
vided by trees would just be a natural function rather than a service.
Fundamentally, the ecosystem services concept is an anthropocentric
one, which carries the objective of advancing ecosystem services to
achieve greater sustainability, and human health and well-being
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Costanza et al., 2007;
Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010).
While the ecosystem services concept has been criticized for its
anthropocentricism, the concept is not limited to promoting the in-
strumental values of nature as it also recognizes values that are inherent
to the existence of nature (e.g. spiritual value; Schröter et al., 2014).
Furthermore, the anthropocentric framing of ecosystem services pro-
vides additional arguments for the protection of the environment that
can be more effective, particularly in urban areas, than arguments
calling for human action to protect the environment for the environ-
ment’s sake (Schröter et al., 2014). Recognizing the benefits and values
of ecological systems can then provide rationales for their protection
from the harmful effects of development (Schröter et al., 2014;
Woodruff and BenDor, 2016).
Second, the need to separate means and ends was first raised by
Wallace (2007) and has subsequently been adopted by several authors
(e.g. Fisher and Turner, 2008; Fisher et al., 2009; Burkhard et al.,
2012). Means refer to the processes through which the services are
achieved, while ends refer to the services themselves (Wallace, 2007). It
has been recognized that this delineation is necessary to help facilitate
the implementation of ecosystem services research (Fisher and Turner,
2008).
This study has adopted this conception of ecosystem services pro-
posed by Fisher and colleagues (2008; 2009) to help differentiate be-
tween terms associated with means (ecosystem structure, functions and
processes) on the one hand, and ends (ecosystem services) on the other
hand. Structure refers to the physical biotic and abiotic elements that
are part of ecosystems (e.g. woodlands, wetlands, and trees; Haines-
Young and Potschin, 2010). These physical components have also been
referred to as service providing units in ecosystem services research and
land use planning practice (Kremen, 2005; Haase et al., 2014). Func-
tions are the naturally-occurring capacities of an ecosystem and its
components (e.g. soil enables the infiltration of rainwater into the
ground; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010). Finally, ecosystem processes
are complex interactions among biotic and abiotic elements of ecosys-
tems (e.g. nutrient cycling, and predation; Wallace, 2007; Haines-
Young and Potschin, 2010). Together, these three components underpin
the provision of ecosystem services (i.e., ends), that can contribute to
people’s health and well-being (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010).
2.1. Integrating ecosystem services in land use planning
Land use planning offers many opportunities to incorporate the
ecosystem services concept in the urban development process (Albert
et al., 2014, 2016; Woodruff and BenDor, 2016). Land use plans often
serve as mechanisms to guide development, which in turn can affect the
health, diversity, and spatial distribution of ecosystem services (Albert
et al., 2014; Cortinovis and Geneletti, 2018). Specifically, ecosystem
service provisioning can be integrated into policies and plans, as well as
the development approvals process, to help avoid negative impacts on
service providing units, enhance their provision of ecosystem services,
and weigh the benefits and drawbacks of different development options
(Jansson, 2013; Mascarenhas et al., 2014; Woodruff and BenDor, 2016).
Using an ecosystem framework in comprehensive planning can provide
a robust approach to facilitate sustainable urban development
(Brauman et al., 2007; Grêt-Regamey et al., 2013; Biggs et al., 2015).
Ideally the planning process translates community goals into land use
S.T. Lam, T.M. Conway
priorities. Explicitly incorporating specific ecosystem services into plans
facilitates the combination of environmental information and commu-
nity values to ensure desired services are protected during urban de-
velopment (Albert et al., 2016).
A study by Woodruff and BenDor (2016) comparing the compre-
hensive plans of Damascus, Oregon and Cincinnati, Ohio found that
Damascus’ plan, which has been framed as an ecosystem service-based
plan, identified over 50 policies related to ecosystem services. Mean-
while, Cincinnati’s comprehensive plan, which has not adopted the
same approach, did not include any policies related to ecosystem ser-
vices. This study helps to illustrate how the adoption of an ecosystem
service-based approach can help guide the integration of ecosystem
service considerations in planning policies.
While the ecosystem services concept can serve as a useful tool,
there remain many barriers to the integration of ecosystem services in
land use plans (Albert et al., 2014; Mascarenhas et al., 2014; Kabisch
et al., 2015; Rall et al., 2015; Woodruff and BenDor, 2016). For ex-
ample, there is a lack of guidance on what information is required to
inform decisions, and when the ecosystem services concept should be
applied in the planning process (Albert et al., 2014; Woodruff and
BenDor, 2016). There also continues to be confusion about the eco-
system services concept among planning practitioners, leading to lim-
ited application of the concept (Albert et al., 2014; Mascarenhas et al.,
2014). Existing studies of ecosystem services and urban planning po-
licies have demonstrated that while few policy and guidance documents
have explicitly referenced ecosystem services, implicit references to
ecosystem services can be found where plans refer to the benefits
provided by nature (e.g. Piwowarczyk et al., 2013; Wilkinson et al.,
2013; Kabisch et al., 2015; Hansen et al., 2015; Mascarenhas et al.,
2015; Rall et al., 2015; Cortinovis and Geneletti, 2018). However, the
inclusion of ecosystem services appears uneven and potentially limited
to a few services when an ecosystem service-based approach has not
been adopted. For example, Wilkinson et al. (2013) conducted a com-
parative review of strategic spatial plans in Melbourne and Stockholm
between 1929 and 2010. Of the 16 plans reviewed, the authors found
that only two types of ecosystem services were included in all plans (i.e.
freshwater provisioning and recreational opportunities), and no re-
ference was made to 11 of the 39 ecosystem services identified by the
authors prior to the review.
BenDor et al. (2017) identify the need to assess the role of ecosystem
services in comprehensive planning processes. Existing studies ex-
amining ecosystem services in urban planning policies have primarily
employed content analysis methods, which are sometimes com-
plemented by stakeholder interviews. Most of these studies have been
conducted within the contexts of Europe and the United States, and
have focused primarily on larger cities such as New York, Seattle, Berlin
and Stockholm (e.g. Kabisch et al., 2015; Hansen et al., 2015; Rall et al.,
2015). More research in different planning contexts is needed to add
further perspectives to existing comparative studies (Cortinovis and
Geneletti, 2018) and/or help validate these findings. Additional com-
parative studies across municipalities, including areas governed by the
same legislation, may also help reveal further patterns and areas for
improvement.
2.2. The land use planning system in Ontario
In Ontario, the land use planning system is a policy-led system,
based on provincial legislation, plans, and policy statements. The
Ontario Planning Act (1990), R.S.O. Chapter P.13 (“Planning Act”) is
the primary piece of planning legislation, requiring municipalities to
develop official plans that contain “goals, objectives and policies es-
tablished primarily to manage and direct physical change and the ef-
fects on the social, economic and natural environment” [Section 16(1)
(a)]. Since 2015, municipalities have been required to undertake a
comprehensive review and revision of their official plans every 10 years
(Government of Ontario, 2015).
643
Land Use Policy 77 (2018) 641–651
The Planning Act establishes a series of guiding planning principles,
including the protection of the natural environment. The purpose of the
legislation is given as: promoting “sustainable economic development
in a healthy natural environment” (Section 1.1a). The Planning Act also
sets out the matters of provincial interest, and the first item in the list
gives emphasis to the environment, calling for “[t]he protection of
ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions”
(Section 2a). That said, this is the only instance in the entire Act where
the term ecological systems is used, although the Act does contain ad-
ditional policies pertaining to the protection of natural features and
areas under its natural heritage policies [section 34(3.2)].
In addition to the Planning Act, matters of provincial interest re-
lating to land use planning are further elaborated in the Provincial
Policy Statement (“PPS”; Government of Ontario, 2014). The PPS in-
cludes requirements and guidelines for municipalities developing offi-
cial plans. It reinforces the Planning Act’s commitments towards a clean
and healthy environment, and the protection of the province’s natural
heritage resources. In addition, the PPS calls for the maintenance, re-
storation and, wherever possible, improvement of natural features and
their long-term ecological functions. Ecological functions are defined as
“the natural processes, products or services that living and non-living
environments provide or perform within or between species, ecosys-
tems and landscapes. These may include biological, physical and socio-
economic interactions” (Government of Ontario, 2014, p.41).
The PPS also provides some reasons for why ecological functions
should be protected, including the need to: “conserve biodiversity,
protect essential ecological processes and public health and safety,
provide for the production of food and fibre, and minimize environ-
mental and social impacts” (Government of Ontario, 2014, p.4). While
the policies in the Planning Act and PPS have not made any explicit
reference to ecosystem services, the PPS does begin to allude to some of
the underlying reasons for why natural features should be protected,
restored, and enhanced, which align with an ecosystem services per-
spective. Presenting these justifications is important to help raise public
awareness, enhance support for environmental protection and stew-
ardship, and help guide municipal policies and development.
Related to ecosystem services is the concept of green infrastructure,
which is also used once in the PPS, calling for planning authorities to
“promote green infrastructure to complement [grey] infrastructure”
(Section 1.6.2). Green infrastructure is defined as the “natural and
human-made elements that provide ecological and hydrological func-
tions and processes” (Government of Ontario, 2014). Examples of green
infrastructure include: “natural heritage features and systems, park-
lands, stormwater management systems, street trees, urban forests,
natural channels, permeable surfaces, and green roofs” (Government of
Ontario, 2014). Since green infrastructure encompasses the ecological
functions and processes that create ecosystem services, the inclusion of
green infrastructure in municipal official plans presents another way of
integrating ecosystem concepts into planning policies. There are,
however, no requirements for municipalities to “promote” or take any
specific actions related to green infrastructure.
The Province has established requirements for the protection of
natural areas, features and functions through the concept of the Natural
Heritage System (NHS). The NHS is defined in the PPS as “a system
made up of natural heritage features and areas, and linkages intended
to provide connectivity (at the regional or site level) and support nat-
ural processes which are necessary to maintain biological and geolo-
gical diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous
species, and ecosystems” (Government of Ontario, 2014, p.45). These
are fundamental to the provision of ecosystem services although no
further guidance is offered on how to integrate the concept of eco-
system services in municipal planning and development. However, it is
important to note that while municipal policies cannot conflict with
provincial policies, municipalities can go beyond these minimum re-
quirements and apply their own innovative approaches to the man-
agement of their urban ecological systems.
S.T. Lam, T.M. Conway
Fig. 1. Map of study area municipalities (in order of population size).
3. Methods
3.1. Study area
This case study involves the ten most populous cities in Ontario
(Canada), which are situated in the southern part of the province
(Fig. 1; Table 1). The cities are also among the 25 most populous mu-
nicipalities in Canada (Government of Canada, 2017). While the cities
vary by population size and density, they represent urbanized areas that
continue to experience population growth, posing threats to ecosystem
structures and functions and their potential to provide ecosystem ser-
vices (Table 2). As relatively large municipalities, they are also more
likely to have the planning resources to implement ideas beyond pro-
vincial requirements, and these ideas often serve as models for smaller
Ontario municipalities.
Half of the ten cities included in the study are single-tier munici-
palities, while the remaining are lower-tier municipalities. Lower-tier
municipalities are governed by an upper-tier municipality which
oversees matters on a regional scale. Since land use planning authority
in Ontario is shared among lower- and upper-tier municipalities, the
relevant upper-tier municipalities (i.e., Peel Region, York Region, and
Waterloo Region) were also included in the analysis.
3.2. Analysis
A content analysis of the official plans of the local and regional
municipalities was completed. Similar to prior research, this study also
employs a content analysis method to explore the extent to which
municipalities have considered ecosystem services in their official plans
as justifications for why urban ecosystems should be protected, re-
stored, or enhanced. To measure the extent of inclusion, this study uses
frequency of mentions as an indicator of the level of integration of
644
Land Use Policy 77 (2018) 641–651
ecosystem services and related concepts within an official plan. As
suggested by Bauler and Pipart, (2013) and Mascarenhas et al. (2015),
the number of mentions of a concept is one indication of the level of
conceptual adoption. Following previous studies (e.g. Piwowarczyk
et al., 2013; Wilkinson et al., 2013; Kabisch et al., 2015; Hansen et al.,
2015; Mascarenhas et al., 2015; Rall et al., 2015; Cortinovis and
Geneletti, 2018), both explicit and implicit references to ecosystem
services and related concepts were analyzed. A total of 13 municipal
official plans were reviewed, all of which are accessible online.
The content analysis was conducted in four parts. First, we devel-
oped a guide to establish a consistent framework for identifying explicit
and implicit references, taking a directed content analysis approach
(Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). The guide sets out four categories of data
pertaining to ecosystem services, functions, service providing units, and
green infrastructure that form the parameters for our data extraction.
These categories were selected based on previous plan analyses
(Wilkinson et al., 2013; Woodruff and BenDor, 2016), as well as past
literature reviews (Haase et al., 2014). Ecosystem functions and service
providing units were included as they are closely related concepts to
ecosystem services. Explicit references were identified based on the
presence or absence of the following terms: ecosystem/ecological ser-
vice, ecosystem/ecological function, and green infrastructure. The
guide includes the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (2005) classifi-
cation of ecosystem services (to help identify types of ecosystem ser-
vices represented) and provides examples of specific ecosystem services
(to help identify any implicit references) (Table 3).
Second, we reviewed the municipal official plans. The 13 plans vary
in length and by date of adoption (Table 1). Eight of the plans have
been adopted since 2010, with the most recently approved official plan
being London’s (2016). The remainder of the 13 plans were adopted or
approved after 2000, with the exception of Peel Region’s official plan
which was approved in 1996. That said, official plans are not static
S.T. Lam, T.M. Conway Land Use Policy 77 (2018) 641–651

Table 1
Overview of the ten most populous cities and associated regions in Ontario.
Sources: Government of Canada (2017); Association of Municipalities of Ontario (2017).
Municipality Municipal Status Official Plan (Year) Length of Official Population % Change Density (Pop. per sq km;
Plan* (2016 Census) (2011 to 2016) 2016)

Single and Lower-Tier Municipalities

Toronto Single-tier 2002 (consolidated 2015*) 120 pages 2,731,571 4.5 4,334.4
(TOR)
Ottawa Single-tier 2003 (consolidated 2003) 144 pages 934,243 5.8 334.8
(OTT)
Mississauga Lower-tier (in Peel Region) 2003 (consolidated 2017) 408 pages 721,599 1.1 2,467.6
(MISS)
Brampton Lower-tier (in Peel Region) 2006 (consolidated 2015) 360 pages 593,638 13.3 2,228.7
(BRAM)
Hamilton Single-tier 2011 (consolidated 2015) 186 pages 536,917 3.3 480.6
(HAM)
London Single-tier 2016 393 pages 383,822 4.8 913.1
(LON)
Markham Lower-tier (in York Region) 2014 244 pages 328,966 9.0 1,549.2
(MAR)
Vaughan Lower-tier (in York Region) 2010 (consolidated 2017) 274 pages 306,233 6.2 1,119.4
(VAU)
Kitchener Lower-tier (in Waterloo 2014 (consolidated 2014) 248 pages 233,222 6.4 1,705.2
(KIT) Region
Windsor Single-tier 2012/13 204 pages 217,188 3.0 1,483.8
(WIN)
Regional Municipalities
Peel Region (PEEL) Upper-tier 1996 (consolidated 2016) 188 pages 1,381,739 6.5 933.0
York Region (YORK) Upper-tier 2010 (consolidated 2016) 152 pages 1,109,909 7.5 585.9
Waterloo Region (WAT) Upper-tier 2010 147 pages 535,154 5.5 390.9

* Implementation and Schedules have not been included in page counts.

Table 2 contexts found in urban and rural areas respectively. Also excluded
Overview of changes in land cover within the census metropolitan areas of the from the review were the policy implementation sections, which de-
study area cities (1971–2011). lineate the requirements of specific municipal planning tools (e.g.
Sources: Statistics Canada (2016). zoning by-laws, site plan control, and community improvement plans)
Census Metropolitan Built-up Area Growth Natural and Semi-natural because the implementation sections tend to be very technical with
Area (City-region (1971 to 2011) Area Decline (1971 to ecosystem services or other desired outcomes not included.
with > 100,000 2011) Third, we conducted an extensive and iterative coding process of all
population)
Square % Square % Change
the documented excerpts for each plan. All excerpts were scrutinized at
kilometres Change kilometres least two times by author SL to ensure consistency in the coding. The
excerpts were assigned coding terms or phrases to account for the types
Toronto CMA* 1189 + 120 749 −11 of ecosystem services, functions/processes, and service providing units,
Ottawa-Gatineau CMA 417 + 191 153 −3
where applicable. The coding system was initially based on the de-
Hamilton CMA 233 + 124 468 −21
London CMA 247 + 148 737 −32 scriptions presented in the review guide, and subsequently evolved to
Kitchener-Cambridge- 163 + 137 284 −23 account for differences in language across the plans. For example, the
Waterloo CMA following coding terms were used to account for the aesthetic values of
Windsor CMA 145 + 128 130 −30
nature: aesthetic, character, and image. The code ‘not specified’ was
assigned to excerpts where no justification was presented for why
* Toronto CMA includes Mississauga, Brampton, Markham and Vaughan.
natural features, functions, or ecosystems should be protected, or when
no specific type of service providing unit was identified. Both authors
documents, and amendments have been made to them over time. Most
reviewed the final set of coding terms to ensure a robust list was uti-
of the official plans have been consolidated by planning staff to include
lized.
these amendments and other updates.
Fourth, after the coding process was completed, we aggregated
Generally, official plans consist of two major components: de-
coding terms that convey the same meaning (e.g. codes relating to
scriptive text and policy provisions. Descriptive text does not have
educational, scientific and research value became “educational”; codes
policy status but serve the important role of elaborating upon the
relating to waterfront, harbour and shore became “waterfront and
meaning of policies. Most official plans’ descriptive text includes vi-
shoreline”) and counted how frequently explicit and implicit references
sion/principles and background sections, while some also have a policy
to ecosystem concepts were made in each official plan. Results of the
objectives section (e.g. Brampton, Windsor and York Region). This
counts for each municipality were then compared.
study reviewed both the descriptive text and policies, documenting
passages relating to environmental features (our unit of analysis), as
well as the sections where they were found (e.g. vision/principle/ob- 4. Results
jective, background, and policy). Identifying passage locations helps to
understand how the ecosystem services concept has been applied Based on our review of the 13 official plans, we found that four
(Cortinovis and Geneletti, 2018). municipalities (i.e. Mississauga, Brampton, London, and Vaughan) have
As this case study focuses primarily on land use planning in the explicitly adopted an ecosystems approach to planning. As stated in
urban context, policies pertaining exclusively to rural lands/areas were Brampton’s official plan, “The ecosystem approach to environmental
excluded from the review in recognition of the distinctive planning planning has been adopted by a number of municipalities and is con-
sistent with the Provincial Policy Statement related to planning in a

645
S.T. Lam, T.M. Conway Land Use Policy 77 (2018) 641–651

Table 3
A review guide for the extraction and documentation of data.
Criteria Description of possible entries

1. What specific ecosystem services are represented and which
categories do these services belong to?
2. Which ecosystem functions or processes are identified?
3. Is the term "ecosystem services" or “ecological services”
mentioned?
4. Is the term "ecosystem function" or “ecological function”
mentioned?
5. Is the term "green infrastructure" mentioned?
6. Which service providing units are identified?
Provisioning services - E.g. Food (agriculture, commercial fishing, wild), water (fresh water, energy,
transportation), biogeochemicals, genetic resources, fibre, fuel, wood, dung and other biological materials,
medicinal resources, ornamental resources
Regulating services - E.g. climate regulation (local, global), air quality regulation, water purification,
water regulation, waste treatment, disease regulation, pest regulation, natural hazard regulation, erosion
regulation, soil retention, pollination, seed dispersal, noise regulation
Cultural services - E.g. social relations, cultural landscape/heritage values, sense of place, aesthetic,
inspirational, recreation and eco-tourism, educational and knowledge, spiritual enrichment, cognitive
development, reflection, inspiration, aesthetic values, amenity (views), comfort
Supporting services - E.g. hydrological cycling, soil formation, nutrient cycling (carbon cycle, nitrogen
cycle, sulfur cycle, phosphorous cycle), primary production, photosynthesis, pollination, biodiversity,
habitat
Not Specified - where no specific benefit or value is identified (e.g. through use of broad terms such as
natural environment, natural heritage features, natural heritage areas)
Naturally-occurring capacities or processes E.g. habitat, drainage, buffer/screening, linkage/connection,
groundwater recharge/discharge, hydrologic functions/processes, not specified (where no specific function
or process is identified)
What is the total number of mentions? (Summary statistic)
Yes - refers to any use of the term “ecosystem service” OR “ecological service”; If Yes, what is the total
number of mentions? (Summary statistic)
No - refers to the absence of these terms
Yes - refers to any use of the term “ecosystem function” OR “ecological function”; If Yes, what is the total
number of mentions? (Summary statistic)
No - refers to the absence of these terms
Yes - refers to any use of the term “green infrastructure”; If Yes, what is the total number of mentions?
(Summary statistic)
No - refers to the absence of the term
Physical biotic and abiotic elements E.g. Forests, urban agriculture, urban parks, waterways/lakes,
cemeteries, urban fabric, allotments, rural surroundings, infrastructure, brownfields, land use mixture,
urban-rural gradient, green infrastructure; other; not specified

coordinated, integrated and comprehensive manner” (City of
Brampton, 2015, 4.6–5). Vaughan’s official plan has defined the eco-
system approach as one that:
“considers the biodiversity contribution of Natural Areas as well as
the added benefits of nature for people, such as clean air, clean water
and flood protection. This approach to planning not only seeks to sus-
tain ecological function for wildlife habitat, but also to maintain critical
ecological processes (e.g. groundwater flow) and urban biodiversity as
an element of community infrastructure to improve human health and
well-being” (City of Vaughan, 2017, p.46).
Thus, some Ontario municipalities have adopted an ecosystem ap-
proach, linking means (functions and processes) with ecosystem ser-
vices (ends). Several other municipalities identify alternative ap-
proaches to planning, such as Ottawa and Hamilton’s “systems”
approach, and Markham’s “environment-first” approach.
We found that the concept of ecosystem functions is explicitly in-
cluded in all official plans (Table 4). Vaughan’s official plan presents
the most number of references to ecosystem functions (75), followed by
Brampton’s (74) and London’s (63). In contrast, only six out of the 13
Table 4
Frequency of terms used explicitly in official plans.
Municipality Ecosystem Functions Ecosystem Services Green Infrastructure
official plans examined explicitly refer to the term, ecosystem services,
although these mentions are rare even within the six plans (Table 5).
York Region’s official plan explicitly mentions ecosystem services most
frequently, but with only three mentions. When both terms are used,
the relationship between functions and services varies between plans.
In some cases, the plans present services as the functions that benefit
humans, while in other cases functions and services are presented as
parallel but different components of an ecosystem, or the two terms are
used but not discussed together (Table 5). Explicit references to green
infrastructure are made by seven municipalities, although rarely.
Meanwhile, four of the 13 remaining official plans do not explicitly
refer to either green infrastructure or ecosystem services, including
Hamilton, Windsor, Peel Region, and Waterloo Region.
Although lower-tier municipalities are required to conform to the
policies of upper-tier municipalities, the alignment between the two
levels of plans are not always straightforward. For example, both lower-
tier Mississauga and Brampton make explicit references to ecosystem
services, while their upper-tier municipality (Peel Region) does not. In
York Region, which uses the term ecological services, Vaughan also
makes an explicit reference to ecosystem services (Table 5), while
Markham’s official plan does not include any explicit references to
ecosystem services but has one of the most number of references to
green infrastructure, a closely related term.

TOR 13 0 2
OTT 36 1 1 4.1. Types of ecosystem functions and processes represented
MISS 36 2 4
BRAM 74 1 8 A variety of ecosystem functions and processes are represented
HAM 15 0 0
across the municipal official plans. The most commonly occurring of
LON 63 1 4
MAR 36 0 5 these include: habitat functions, corridor/linkage, buffer/screening,
VAU 75 1 0 groundwater recharge and storage, filtration and drainage, shade, the
KIT 36 0 2 movement of plants and animals, and evapotranspiration. Passages
WIN 19 0 0 were assigned the code, not specified, where functions are stated very
PEEL 43 0 0
broadly with no specific functions mentioned. For example, one of
YORK 31 3 0
WAT 42 0 0 Brampton’s policies states that “The City of Brampton will strive to
create communities that have a high quality of development by…ii)

646
S.T. Lam, T.M. Conway Land Use Policy 77 (2018) 641–651

Table 5
Explicit references to ecosystem services.
City/ Region Quotation
(Section and location of the passage within the plan)

OTT “All natural features perform an array of natural functions, resulting from natural processes, products or services such as groundwater recharge, provision of
wildlife habitat, temperature moderation, natural cleansing and filtration of surface water, and carbon sequestration (carbon sinks)” (Strategic Directions –
Background, p.2-34)
MISS “The Green System provides many important functions and services and provides the fundamental necessities of life - clean air, land and water.” (Direct Growth –
Background, p.5-3)
“The City will promote the Green System to public and private stakeholders as being integral to protecting the city's natural heritage features, particularly its role
in providing ecological linkages and ecosystem services” (Value the Environment – Policy, p.6-7)
BRAM “…to achieve a sustainable and functioning diverse ecosystem that can provide the ecological goods and services for a healthy community” (Sustainable City
Concept – Background, p.3-3)
LON “Woodlands in parks will be managed for long-term sustainability and multiple woodland benefits, goods, and services.” (Forest City – Policy, p.93)
VAU “Ecosystem functions provide a wide variety of environmental benefits. Specific functions that provide benefit to people may also be referred to as ecosystem
services.” (Environment – Background, p.46)
YORK “Ecological gain means achieving an ecological benefit or improvement in the Regional Greenlands System. This could include improvement in ecological
services or functional capacities, providing trails and passive recreational amenities, or enhancing a degraded part of the System and providing linkages.”
(Sustainable Natural Environment – Background, p.13)
“Regional Greenlands ecological services include: climate regulation, soil retention, habitat for flora and fauna, recreation, water management, nutrient cycling,
genetic resources, food production” (Sustainable Natural Environment – Background, p.15)
“…considering the value of ecological services in all infrastructure investment decisions” (Servicing Our Population – Policy, p.141)

Fig. 2. Frequency and breadth of most common ecosystem functions represented.

N.B. The list of functions is not intended to be exhaustive, rather it is illustrative of the major functions represented in the plans.

Contributing to the existing natural features functions and linkages such
as woodlands, valley lands, ponds, creeks and streams” (City of
Brampton, 2015, 4.2–23), however no specific functions or examples
are provided, offering limited guidance on what needs to be protected.
Not specified functions or processes were by far the most common oc-
currence (Fig. 2).
4.2. Types of ecosystem services represented
While explicit references to the term ecosystem services are in-
frequent, we identified between 80 and 213 occurrences of specific
ecosystem services across the official plans (Fig. 3). Amongst the four
categories of ecosystem services, cultural services are most frequently
mentioned by local official plans, followed by supporting services (ex-
cept Mississauga) and then by regulating or provisioning services. In
contrast, supporting services are the most frequently mentioned by
regional official plans, followed by cultural services (except Waterloo
Region) and then by regulating or provisioning services.
Almost all official plans mention recreational opportunities (cultural
service) most frequently, with the exceptions of Vaughan and the
Regions of Peel and Waterloo where references to habitat (supporting
service) are most frequent. Variations were found across official plans
in terms of the second and third most frequently mentioned ecosystem
services, suggesting that municipalities have placed varying emphases
on specific ecosystem services in their local contexts.
Several ecosystem services received very few mentions. Across local
official plans, these included pollination (supporting service), timber
(provisioning service), food (provisioning service), water supply (pro-
visioning service), air and water purification (regulating service), flood
reduction (regulating service), stormwater management (regulating
service), heritage (cultural service), although frequencies varied across
local official plans. For example, London and Vaughan are the only
municipalities to make references to pollination in their official plans.
Meanwhile for regional official plans, few or no references were
made to pollination (supporting service), air and water purification
(regulating service), flood reduction (regulating service), and climate
regulation (regulating service). In addition, we found many instances
where official plans do not provide justifications for why natural fea-
tures, functions, and ecosystems should be protected, which have been
assigned the code, not specified. For example, London’s official plan
provides the direction for “Strengthen[ing] our urban forest by mon-
itoring its condition, planting more, protecting more, and better
maintaining trees and woodlands,” (City of London, 2016, p.23)
without explaining why these actions are needed. Thus this excerpt was
assigned the code, not specified, for ecosystem services. In all 13 plans,
the ‘not specified’ code was found in approximately equal frequency as

647
S.T. Lam, T.M. Conway Land Use Policy 77 (2018) 641–651

Climate
RegulaƟon
Stormwater
Management
Air and Water
PuriĮcaƟon
Flood
ReducƟon
Provisioning 3 6 7 13 3 22 14 22 9 1 19 15 38
Water Supply
Food
Timber
Not SpeciĮed 78 117 117 217 81 228 180 186 63 83 99 76 80

Legend > 41 31 to 40 21 to 30 11 to 20 1 to 10 0

Fig. 3. Frequency and breadth of ecosystem services represented.

the total references to specific ecosystem services.
The majority of documented passages are located within the policy
sections of the plans (except Ottawa; Table 6). Only a small portion of
the reference passages are part of the vision, principles and/or objec-
tives. Windsor’s official plan had the highest proportion of passages that
were part of its vision, principles and/or objectives sections at 21
percent. Meanwhile, Vaughan, Mississauga and Markham contained the
lowest percentage of reference passages as part of their vision, princi-
ples and/or objectives (1 to 2 percent). The share of the number of
references to ecosystem services in the background sections varied
widely across the plans, ranging from 10 percent (Windsor) to 46
percent (Ottawa).
vegetation and landscaping, urban forests and woodlands, trees, ravines
and valleys, wetlands, watersheds, landforms, green roofs and com-
munity gardens, soil, and waterfront and shoreline (Fig. 4). However,
the official plans most frequently made references to potential service
providing units that were not specified, including references to nature,
natural features, natural areas, habitat, and land. The most frequently
specified types of service providing units within local official plans were
greenspaces, watercourses and water bodies, and vegetation and land-
scaping. Meanwhile for regional official plans, the most frequently re-
ferenced types of service providing units were watercourses and water
bodies, urban forests and woodlands, and wetlands. Finally, few refer-
ences were made to green roofs, gardens, and soils.

4.3. Types of service providing units identified 5. Discussion

Many potential service providing units were identified across the Specific ecological functions, ecosystem services and service pro-
official plans, including: watercourses and water bodies, greenspaces, viding units were included in all 13 official plans. However, the

Table 6
Percentage of passages from different sections of the plans (%).
TOR OTT MISS BRAM HAM LON MAR VAU KIT WIN PEEL YORK WAT

Vision, Principles, Objectives 6 7 2 10 3 10 2 1 9 21 11 5 6

Background 28 46 28 35 22 21 30 21 14 10 33 29 18
Policy 66 47 70 55 75 69 68 78 77 69 56 65 77

648
S.T. Lam, T.M. Conway
Fig. 4. Frequency and breadth of most common service providing units represented.
frequency of the terms ecological functions and ecosystem services
appearing in the plans varied, with the number of explicit references to
ecosystem functions surpassing the use of the term ecosystem services
across all official plans. The PPS may offer one explanation for this
variation, as it explicitly calls for the protection of natural features and
their long-term ecological functions. It has also provides a definition
explaining the term, ecological functions. Meanwhile, there is no
mention of ecosystem services in the PPS, much less a working defini-
tion. Green infrastructure is defined, but this was only added to the PPS
in 2014, so municipalities may not yet have adjusted their official plans
to include green infrastructure. While the protection of ecological
functions is obviously important, and is one of the components that
underlie the provision of ecosystem services, the inclusion of ecosystem
services offers additional opportunities to bridge the connection be-
tween the natural environment and human well-being. Many ecosystem
services are actually referenced in the plans, but by not explicitly using
the term ecosystem services an opportunity is missed to highlight the
linkage between the environment and humans that implicitly exist
within the plans. Given that this anthropocentric rationale can be ef-
fective at generating support for environmental protection (Schröter
et al., 2014), explicit inclusion of the ecosystem service concept may
also lead to better ecosystem protection in general.
Even when plans explicitly use both terms the relationship between
functions and services was not always clear. The lack of a definition in
the PPS and limited mention within municipal plans support
Mascarenhas et al. (2014) and Albert et al.’s (2014) arguments that
ecosystem services, as a concept, is not always clearly understood by
land use planners. Thus, inclusion of a working definition in the PPS
and similar documents guiding local and regional land use planning is
needed to promote informed inclusion of ecosystem services in land use
plans.
Looking at specified ecosystem services, Mississauga, London,
Brampton, and Vaughan have the highest number of ecosystem services
coded and also represent three of the four plans that explicitly adopted
an ecosystem approach to planning. They also all explicitly refer to
ecosystem services. This indicates that the adoption of the ecosystems
services concept may enhance the integration of ecosystem services into
649
Land Use Policy 77 (2018) 641–651
land use planning. Similar findings have been illustrated by Woodruff
and BenDor (2016) in their comparison of Damascus’ and Cincinnati’s
comprehensive plans.
Across all local official plans, we found that the majority of refer-
ences to ecosystem services were for cultural services. The frequent
references to cultural services can be attributed primarily to mentions
of recreational opportunities, aesthetic values, active living, and edu-
cational opportunities. Our findings are similar to several previous
studies including: Wilkinson et al.’s (2013) review of Melbourne and
Stockholm; Hansen et al.’s (2015) review of Berlin, New York, Salzburg,
Seattle and Stockholm; Rall et al.’s (2015) review of New York and
Berlin; and Cortinovis and Geneletti’s (2018) review of Italian cities.
The focus on cultural services is notable as a recent literature review by
Haase et al. (2014) found that cultural services have been neglected in
research assessing ecosystem services in urban areas, while nearly half
of the articles they reviewed have focused on regulating services.
As suggested by Cortinovis and Geneletti (2018), the emphasis on
cultural services in official plans may be due to the long associations
between cultural services and urban design and planning. Urban design
shapes the physical design and layout of spaces, meanwhile land use
planning includes the provision of green spaces and recreational spaces.
Cultural services are distinctive from other categories of ecosystem
services as they are more directly related to how people use physical
spaces. For example, creating recreational opportunities (cultural ser-
vice) in the form of parks is closely associated with basic land use
planning. Thus, several cultural services have long been part of land use
planning, even if they are not identified as cultural services (Cortinovis
and Geneletti, 2018). This may also help explain the large number of
references to habitat (supporting service) as it also aligns with the
protection of natural greenspaces and predominant focus on the
structural aspects of ecosystems.
Additionally, we hypothesize that the lack of emphasis on other
types of ecosystem services is likely at least partly due to limited eco-
logical expertise within many municipal planning departments, and
inadequate ecological information in the scientific literature that is
useful to planners. For example, Yli-Pelkonen and Niemelä (2006)
found that many planning practitioners lack basic knowledge about
S.T. Lam, T.M. Conway
ecosystem concepts, thus they may be less aware of the regulating and
provisioning services that could benefit from informed land use plan-
ning.
The disproportionate focus on cultural services in the Ontario mu-
nicipal plans, as compared to recent academic literature, also indicates
that there may be little research guiding how to design and protect
urban natural features to ensure meaningful contribution to cultural
services (Cortinovis and Geneletti, 2018). The indicators that do exist to
help assess the provision of cultural ecosystem services are not very
useful for urban planners because of a lack of operational clarity (La
Rosa et al., 2016). Furthermore, in Kaczorowska et al.’s (2016) study of
Stockholm, urban planners identified a science-policy gap such that
even when planners have access to the ecosystem services literature,
they found it to be of little use because it was not specific to the context
they were working in. This gap between science and policy was not just
limited to cultural services. Thus, better explanation of the ecosystem
services concept alongside concrete case studies and local pilot projects
is needed to support planners in effectively integrating a variety of
ecosystem services into land use policy.
Interestingly, cultural services were not the most prominent eco-
system service type referenced in regional official plans, where sup-
porting services, specifically habitat for species, actually feature more
frequently. This difference between the local and regional plans may be
related to regional municipalities’ role in overseeing large conservation
areas. Provisioning services, namely water supply, also appear to have
received greater emphasis in regional plans compared to local official
plans, which again may be partly due to regional municipalities’ re-
sponsibilities coordinating water and wastewater systems.
Our case study also found many instances where ecosystem services
were not specified even though most references to ecosystem services
were in policy sections rather than broader vision or objective sections.
References to ecological functions were also frequently not specified.
The broad language that is characteristic of land use planning policies
may be one reason for the high quantities of ‘not specified’ designa-
tions. Since development varies on a case-by-case basis, policies need to
be sufficiently broad to encompass different scenarios. Another poten-
tial explanation may be that there is an underlying normative as-
sumption that the protection of natural features and areas is inherently
good, so few reasons have been provided for why they should be pro-
tected. Oftentimes, official plans would simply state the need to protect
natural areas and features, or the need to ensure no negative impacts
without specifying the reasons behind these proposed actions. In con-
trast, an ecosystem services-based approach may help communicate
benefits to the community by conveying a rationale for environmental
protection that is linked with human well-being.
More concurringly, it was often not clear from the plans where the
identified ecosystem services would be derived from, as the corre-
sponding service providing units were frequently not specified or given
only in a general sense through terms such as natural environment and
watercourses. Although there is potential for service providing units to
be multi-functional, offering multiple benefits, different types of service
providing units are likely better at producing some ecosystem services
than others. Increased specification of service providing unit-ecosystem
services relationships would help highlight co-benefits and better link
desired services with the specific types of service providing units that
can best provide those services. In Ontario, this may be best im-
plemented at the provincial level to ensure that all municipalities are
aware of these relationships.
While this study has conducted an extensive review of the largest
Ontario municipalities’ official plans, a plan content analysis is limited
in that it does not enable an evaluation of the impacts and outcomes of
the official plans (Woodruff and BenDor, 2016). In order to determine
whether ecosystem-based plans have actually performed better in pro-
tecting the environment, additional research needs to be conducted to
assess the intent of policies against implementation results. In addition,
while it is suggested that official plans should be read in their entirety,
650
Land Use Policy 77 (2018) 641–651
this document review has examined each sections separately. This
means that when the document is read as a whole, meaning may be
implied or inferred from a previous section that has not been captured
by the individual excerpts that we have identified. Nonetheless, we
found that many ecosystem services were absent from most of the plans
or references were not specified, suggesting that basic inclusion of these
services is lacking.
Official plans may also make references to other municipal plans
such as urban forestry management plans, parks master plans and urban
design guidelines, which may include references to ecosystem services
that were not considered in this study. That said, given the lack of re-
ferences to provisioning and regulating services across the local and
regional official plans, there is opportunity to further integrate these
various types of services into land use planning policies to ensure clarity
in the relationship between ecosystem service provisioning and land
use. The review guide presented in this study can also be used to help
municipalities identify areas to further enhance the inclusion of eco-
system services in land use planning policies.
6. Conclusion
Our case study of municipal official plans in Ontario has revealed
that all four categories of ecosystem services currently do exist in local
and regional official plans, but that the term ecosystem services is rarely
used, missing an opportunity to clearly present the link between en-
vironmental protection and human well-being. Moreover, many of the
specific benefits, functions and service providing units have not been
explicitly articulated, suggesting a lack of clarity regarding prioritized
services and the means to ensure that they are protected. Finally, re-
ferences are made mostly to the cultural services provided by natural
features, while less consideration has been given to other categories of
ecosystem services including provisioning, regulating and supporting
services (except habitat). Again, more explicit references to these other
types of ecosystem services may help strengthen policies calling for
increased protection, restoration, and improvement of natural features
and areas.
The case highlights the importance for clear definitions of key
terms, such as ecosystem function and ecosystem services, in guiding
documents to facilitate municipal incorporation of an ecosystem service
approach into land use planning. Additionally, accessible, research-
based information on the relationship between specific ecosystem ser-
vices and service providing units, as well as ecosystem services not
traditionally considered by planners, is necessary to ensure the promise
of an ecosystem services approach to land use planning is achieved.
References
Albert, C., Aronson, J., Fürst, C., Opdam, P., 2014. Integrating ecosystem services in
landscape planning: requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landsc. Ecol. 29 (8),
1277–1285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0085-0.
Albert, C., Galler, C., Hermes, J., Neuendorf, F., von Haaren, C., Lovett, A., 2016.
Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and management: the
ES-in-planning framework. Ecol. Indic. 61, 100–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2015.03.029.
Alberti, M., 2005. The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev.
28 (2), 168–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0160017605275160.
Alberti, M., Marzluff, J.M., Shulenberger, E., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., Zumbrunnen, C.,
2003. Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying
urban ecosystems. BioScience 53 (12), 1169–1179.
Andersson, E., Barthel, S., Borgström, S., Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Gren, Åsa.,
2014. Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: stewardship of green infrastructure and
urban ecosystem services. Ambio 43 (4), 445–453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s13280-014-0506-y.
Association of Municipalities of Ontario, 2017. Ontario Municipalities. Retrieved from.
https://www.amo.on.ca/AMO-Content/Municipal-101/Ontario-Municipalities.aspx.
Bauler, T., Pipart, N., 2013. Chapter 12 - ecosystem services in Belgian environmental
policy making: expectations and challenges linked to the conceptualization and va-
luation of ecosystem services. In: Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Keune, H. (Eds.),
Ecosystem Services. Elsevier, Boston, pp. 121–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-
0-12-419964-4.00012-3.
BenDor, T.K., Spurlock, D., Woodruff, S.C., Olander, L., 2017. A research agenda for
S.T. Lam, T.M. Conway
ecosystem services in American environmental and land use planning. Cities 60,
260–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.09.006.
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Schoon, M.L., 2015. Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining
Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems. University Press, Cambridge.
Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 29 (2),
293–301.
Brauman, K.A., Daily, G.C., Duarte, T.K., Mooney, H.A., 2007. The nature and value of
ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Ann. Rev. Environ.
Resour. 32 (1), 67–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.031306.
102758.
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F., 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply,
demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 21, 17–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.
2011.06.019.
City of Brampton, 2015. City of Brampton’s Official Plan. Retrieved from. http://www.
brampton.ca/EN/Business/planning-development/policies-master-plans/Pages/
Official-Plan.aspx.
City of London, 2016. London’s Official Plan. Retrieved from. https://www.london.ca/
business/Planning-Development/Official-Plan/Pages/OfficialPlanDocument.aspx.
City of Vaughan, 2017. Vaughan Official Plan - Volume 1 and 2. Retrieved from.
https://www.vaughan.ca/projects/policy_planning_projects/Pages/Vaughan-
Official-Plan—Volume-1-and-2.aspx.
Cortinovis, C., Geneletti, D., 2018. Ecosystem services in urban plans: what is there, and
what is still needed for better decisions. Land Use Policy 70 (Supplement C),
298–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.017.
Costanza, R., Graumlich, L., Steffen, W., Crumley, C., Dearing, J., Hibbard, K., et al.,
2007. Sustainability or collapse: what can we learn from integrating the history of
humans and the rest of nature? Ambio 36 (7), 522–527.
de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in in-
tegrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, man-
agement and decision making. Ecol. Complexity 7 (3), 260–272. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., 2008. Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol.
Conserv. 141 (5), 1167–1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.02.019.
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for
decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68 (3), 643–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2008.09.014.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for
urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2012.08.019.
Government of Canada, 2017. Population and Dwelling Count Highlight Tables, 2016
Census. Retrieved April 30, 2017, from. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-
recensement/2016/dp-pd/hlt-fst/pd-pl/Table.cfm?Lang=Eng&T=301&SR=1&S=
3&O=D&RPP=25&PR=0&CMA=0#tPopDwell.
Government of Ontario, 2014. Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from. http://
www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=10463.
Government of Ontario, 2015. Streamlining Land Use Planning and Appeals in Ontario.
Retrieved from. https://news.ontario.ca/mah/en/2015/03/streamlining-land-use-
planning-and-appeals-in-ontario.html.
Grêt-Regamey, A., Celio, E., Klein, T.M., Hayek, U.W., 2013. Understanding ecosystem
services trade-offs with interactive procedural modeling for sustainable urban plan-
ning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 109 (1), 107–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2012.10.011.
Grimm, N.B., Faeth, S.H., Golubiewski, N.E., Redman, C.L., Wu, J., Bai, X., Briggs, J.M.,
2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319 (5864), 756–760.
Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., et al.,
2014. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts,
models, and implementation. Ambio 43 (4), 413–433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s13280-014-0504-0.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services
and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D.G., Frid, C.L.J. (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology: A
New Synthesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 110–139.
Hansen, R., Pauleit, S., 2014. From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A
conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for
urban areas. AMBIO 43 (4), 516–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-
0510-2.
Hansen, R., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Rall, E., Kabisch, N., Kaczorowska, A.,
651
Land Use Policy 77 (2018) 641–651
et al., 2015. The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of
European and American cities. Ecosyst. Serv. 12 (Supplement C), 228–246. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.013.
Holzinger, O., Laughlin, P., Grayson, N., 2015. Planning for Sustainable Land-Use - The
Natural Capital Planning Tool Project. RICS Research Trust.
Hsieh, H., Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual.
Health Res. 15 (9), 1277–1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.
Jansson, Å., 2013. Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of
ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 86, 285–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2012.06.013.
Kabisch, N., Qureshi, S., Haase, D., 2015. Human–environment interactions in urban
green spaces — A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future
research. Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 50, 25–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.
2014.08.007.
Kaczorowska, A., Kain, J.-H., Kronenberg, J., Haase, D., 2016. Ecosystem services in
urban land use planning: integration challenges in complex urban settings—Case of
Stockholm. Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 204–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.04.
006.
Kremen, C., 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their
ecology?: Ecology of ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 8 (5), 468–479. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00751.x.
La Rosa, D., Spyra, D., Inostroza, L., 2016. Indicators of cultural ecosystem services for
urban planning: a review. Ecol. Indic. 61, 74–89.
Mascarenhas, A., Ramos, T.B., Haase, D., Santos, R., 2014. Integration of ecosystem
services in spatial planning: a survey on regional planners’ views. Landsc. Ecol. 29
(8), 1287–1300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0012-4.
Mascarenhas, A., Ramos, T.B., Haase, D., Santos, R., 2015. Ecosystem services in spatial
planning and strategic environmental assessment—A European and Portuguese pro-
file. Land Use Policy 48 (Supplement C), 158–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2015.05.012.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Ontario Planning Act, 1990. R.S.O. Chapter. P.13 Retrieved from. https://www.ontario.
ca/laws/statute/90p13.
Piwowarczyk, J., Kronenberg, J., Dereniowska, M.A., 2013. Marine ecosystem services in
urban areas: Do the strategic documents of Polish coastal municipalities reflect their
importance? Landsc. Urban Plan. 109 (1), 85–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2012.10.009.
Rall, E.L., Kabisch, N., Hansen, R., 2015. A comparative exploration of uptake and po-
tential application of ecosystem services in urban planning. Ecosyst. Serv. 16
(Supplement C), 230–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.005.
Schröter, M., Zanden, E.H., Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Remme, R.P., Serna‐Chavez, H.M.,
Groot, R.S., Opdam, P., 2014. Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis
of critique and counter‐arguments. Conserv. Lett. 7 (6), 514–523. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/conl.12091.
Statistics Canada, 2016. The Changing Landscape of Canadian Metropolitan Areas.
Retrieved from. Government of Canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-201-x/
16-201-x2016000-eng.pdf.
Tratalos, J., Fuller, R.A., Warren, P.H., Davies, R.G., Gaston, K.J., 2007. Urban form,
biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plan. 83 (4), 308–317.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.003.
United Nations, 2014. World Urbanization Prospects, the 2014 Revision: Highlights.
Retrieved from. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. http://
proxy.uqtr.ca/login.cgi?action=login&u=uqtr&db=ebsco&ezurl=http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&AN=857993.
Wallace, K.J., 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol.
Conserv. 139 (3–4), 235–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015.
Wilkinson, C., Saarne, T., Peterson, G., Colding, J., 2013. Strategic spatial planning and
the ecosystem services concept – an historical exploration. Ecol. Soc. 18 (1). http://
dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05368-180137.
Woodruff, S.C., BenDor, T.K., 2016. Ecosystem services in urban planning: comparative
paradigms and guidelines for high quality plans. Landsc. Urban Plan. 152, 90–100.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.003.
Yli-Pelkonen, V., Niemelä, J., 2006. Use of ecological information in urban planning:
experiences from the Helsinki metropolitan area, Finland. Urban Ecosystems 9 (3),
211–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11252-006-8591-8.