**6. Discussion**

Our study explored and analyzed practitioner's views and experiences of local spatial planning practices in municipalities in Stockholm County in order to identify key factors for supporting the integration of ES in municipal planning practice. We found a heterogeneity of practices and experiences amongs<sup>t</sup> municipalities studied. This is expected in light of the strong local planning monopoly and the responsibility of each individual municipality to derive strategies and measures to reach the national and regional goals. Consequently, it may lead to the consideration of relevant goals for ES to be applied

differently across municipalities [49]. Also, the diverse development patterns within the municipalities put forth different prerequisites and challenges that each municipality must work with [51]. Similarly, it has been observed in European countries, that the differences in methods, policy mandates and funding mechanisms for ES implementation, results in heterogeneous practices and needs [70].

As discussed in the preceding sections, urban governance systems have the potential to facilitate the use of ES at different levels of governance [6]. However, many factors can influence the uptake of ES, such as political priorities, available knowledge base, and the municipal arrangements [30–34]. In the Swedish local planning context, we identified 10 key factors divided into three themes for supporting the integration of ES in the municipal planning practice (See Table 3). The factors are linked to the identified challenges and needs based on the practitioner's views and experiences.

Our findings indicate that regulatory frameworks that set mandatory requirements for a range of ES are important for supporting the implementation of ES in local planning practice. This is in line with [33] emphasis on the importance of integrating ES into EU level regulatory frameworks such as the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment and other regulatory frameworks that guide spatial planning and natural resource management. Also, [71] argues that the managemen<sup>t</sup> of biodiversity has binding instruments, for example, the Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) for specific species and non-binding instruments such as the Biodiversity Strategy 2020, but there remains a need for a specific EU policy devoted to governing urban ES. In line with supporting EU regulation, as a legally required instrument, Strategic Environmental Assessment has been identified to be a good entry point for integrating ES in spatial planning, as it is already established as a widespread (often mandatory) process to assess effects of policies, programs and plans [6,72]. For example, the SEA of spatial plans can ensure that ES is taken into account when evaluating different planning alternatives [73]. Furthermore, although the municipalities have a local planning monopoly, political support and resources are necessary in order to enable local initiatives to be implemented, such as local municipal action plans for ES or the development of new tools. Therefore, communication with local decision-makers is important, also emphasized by [74], who sugges<sup>t</sup> that the values of ES should be communicated to decision-makers in a transparent and viable way. A development coordinator, similar to the example provided in the eight southern municipalities in Stockholm County, can facilitate communication between the municipalities and local politicians.

Furthermore, developing and maintaining the knowledge base related to ES in municipal organizations and their daily practices is needed to strengthen the implementation of ES. This is especially important with the frequent transition of employees in municipal organizations. A study of ES planning in Australia [75] highlighted that the turnover of governmen<sup>t</sup> staff combined with factors such as weak regulatory support resulted in stagnation in the development and adoption of ES policies and practices. Measures for organizational capacity building can aid in confronting the challenges associated with the changing knowledge bases. For example, the development of meeting platforms between municipalities can provide a means for knowledge exchange amongs<sup>t</sup> the practitioners working with ES. Also, clearly established roles and responsibilities can aid in maintaining the ES knowledge throughout a long and extensive planning process. Previous studies have also highlighted the importance of individuals who take an active role in promoting the ES approach in municipal organizations [33,62]. Additionally, our findings indicate the important role of regional authorities (CAB) to enhance local knowledge exchange and learning.

Adapting existing tools to different contexts and challenges faced is also important for supporting the implementation of ES as emphasized by the practitioners. In Berlin, a governance challenge identified when implementing ES was how to address certain groups of stakeholders (e.g., private property owners), which have the ability to implement strategic goals [20].

In this context, existing tools such as the points system implemented in Upplands Väsby or the green space factor can be adopted and adapted to enable dialogue with the groups of stakeholders. In the Swedish context, these tools aided in facilitating dialogue with the developers to work with sustainability issues in the development projects. Furthermore, the points system invited the local

community to contribute to ideas. However, it is important to have an understanding of the limits of the planning tools. For example, a risk that may occur with the use of tools such as the Green Space Factor at the local project scale is the possibility to lose the overall regional perspective on green infrastructure.

A common finding in previous studies is the need for structured monitoring and learning from experiences [20,21]. Developing routines for monitoring and evaluation of ES in the planning process following the examples of Täby and Huddinge can provide a way forward for strengthening monitoring and facilitating learning. However, it is important to note that incorporating follow-up procedures in the planning process also requires the process to be evaluated in order to learn from the experiences [76]. According to [74], data and information regarding ecosystem services and the impact of development on them should continuously be gathered and integrated with the goal of learning, adapting and better-informing policy. Overall, our study was directed towards practitioners in the municipalities due to their active role and responsibility for implementing ES in their daily practice. Examining the views and experiences of the practitioners involved in the planning and decision making processes for implementing ES in the local planning context allowed us to gain insight on the bridges and barriers for operationalizing ES. However, future studies directed towards citizens and local actor's perceptions of ES could further contribute to the understanding of challenges for ES implementation by practitioners.
