**1. Introduction**

Globally, multiple human drivers, degrading biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services [1] have significantly altered ecosystems. To prevent further decline and restore ecosystems, there is a need for transformation and change for socioeconomic development to strengthen the delivery of ecosystem services (ES) [2]. ES are defined generally as the functions performed by nature that directly or indirectly benefit humankind and contribute to well-being (e.g., water regulation, air regulation, recreation) [1]. Agenda 2030 states that ES and biodiversity are relevant to all sustainable development goals (SDGs) and emphasizes the need for action [3].

Urban areas are rapidly growing in Europe, for example, Berlin, Malaga, and Stockholm [4]. The increasing number and expansion of urban areas underline the importance of integrating ES in spatial planning [5,6]. Strategic decisions on land use allocations made during the planning process can have significant impacts on urban green spaces and their capacity to support the provision of ES. The integration of ES into urban planning processes is considered to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the values at stake and of the synergies and trade-offs that might arise from land-use decisions [7].

Although the knowledge and awareness of the relevance of ES has increased, there remains a gap in the mainstreaming and implementation of ES in practical planning and decision-making [8,9].

Spatial planning in Europe varies amongs<sup>t</sup> the di fferent countries, influenced by the governance arrangements and institutional settings [10,11]. In Sweden, municipalities have the main responsibility for spatial planning [12] and local managemen<sup>t</sup> practices play a key role in sustaining urban ES [13]. Decisions that consider ES at the local planning level can enhance the provision of biodiversity and ES and generate benefits that occur at multiple levels from local to global [14,15]. Also, a ffiliated planning instruments like strategic environmental assessment (SEA) have been recognized as opportunities to enhance decision-making by including the ES approach [16,17].

The importance of governance systems that have the potential to safeguard the long-term delivery and use of ES at di fferent levels of governance is emphasized [6]. Di fferent challenges confronted when implementing ES into practical governance have been identified in the literature related to awareness and interest among practitioners, coordination between planning departments, as well as processes and routines [18,19]. In a study from Berlin, based on qualitative content analysis and semi-structured interviews, several governance challenges for the implementation of ES were identified, including financial constraints, loss of expertise, and insu fficient communication about benefits from urban green spaces to key decision-makers [20]. In Rotterdam, the main challenges included a lack of coordination between planning departments and a lack of evaluation of and learning from pilot projects [21]. The governance challenges for the implementation of ES can be di fferent depending on the countries' governance arrangements. However, current ES approaches often do not take existing governance structures and practices as a starting point, and tend to focus on issues such as the spatial extent of ES [22]. Hence, to assimilate the ES framework in urban planning practice rather than in single projects, it is important to gain an understanding of the governance context including institutional frameworks, existing policies, and planning systems [23]. Furthermore, the views of practitioners and decision-makers involved in the planning process are important for the implementation of ES, particularly on the potentials and added value of using the concept and what tools could be used in practical integration [24]. In light of the transition towards decentralized governance in many European countries [25] and the uniquely strong position of Swedish municipalities in planning [26], the Stockholm case provides an interesting context to examine and contribute to the knowledge on ES implementation in local planning practice.

In our study, drawing on empirical experiences of practitioners in Swedish municipal planning, we explored and analyzed local spatial planning practices to identify key factors for advancing ES implementation in planning processes focusing on municipalities in Stockholm County as a case study. The following research questions formed the basis of this paper:


#### **2. Theoretical Framework**

#### *Urban Governance and Spatial Planning*

Governance can be defined as the institutions, structures, and processes that determine who make decisions, how and for whom decisions are made, whether, how, and what actions are taken and by whom [27]. In urban regions, spatial planning is a key component of governance e fforts to guide development processes [28]. To achieve changes for planning [29] emphasizes that the use of knowledge is a central element. More specifically, [30] highlights the role of expert knowledge in order to take planning and development systematically in directions for contributing to the achievement of defined goals. The authors emphasize that it is important to note that various forms of knowledge interplay in planning processes, with actors from di fferent sectors and levels involved. Therefore, even with the existence of the relevant expert knowledge, it may be overruled by the knowledge of actors involved. In the context of planning for ES, new knowledge about ES does not necessarily influence decisions, because complex interactions within and across governance systems may have implications for the actual implementation in policies and plans [31,32]. [33] also discuss that environmental knowledge alone does not shift priorities from unsustainable practices to sustainable development since priority setting is influenced by competing interests and political agendas, power relations and modes of governance, regulatory frameworks, and property rights.

Furthermore, multiple governmental and non-governmental actors and institutions are involved in planning for ecosystem services and decision-making, which can lead a heterogeneity of practices dependent on the governance context [34]. This involves that the managemen<sup>t</sup> of ecosystems and landscapes requires an integration of various sources of information and knowledge from various levels and sectors of society [22,35]. Moreover, coordination between involved actors is required to create coherent action and strengthen the role of ES in spatial planning. However, changing land-use patterns, diverse interests, and values of actors on different scales poses challenges for the governance and planning of ES when negotiating the trade-offs in the provision of such ES [36,37].

Lastly, many methods, approaches, and tools have been tested to support decision-making in applying the ES concept [38]. Actions and tools are said to constitute the core of a plan [39], and the probability of success of an action depends on the type of tools used [40]. However, [41] emphasizing that tools and methods alone are not enough to support ES, there remains a need to encourage better ES management. For example, there is a need to provide access to the tools and foster their use through knowledge exchange and application in practice [38–42].

Overall, as highlighted by [43] more attention should be given on how to facilitate change that moves the concept of ES from an "ideal into reality". According to [31], empirical evidence is needed on the governance of ecosystem services, including issues of decision-making and policy implementation. Our paper contributes to the above research gap by providing insight on practices and experiences of ES implementation from a decentralized governance setting and presenting key factors for advancing ES in planning practice.

#### **3. Swedish Governance Context**

In Sweden, ES was introduced in the 2010 Swedish Environmental Policy (Government Bill 2009/10:155) and was further elaborated in 2012 [44]. More specifically, two milestone targets related to the implementation of ES were added in 2012 [44]. Furthermore, in 2013, the Swedish governmen<sup>t</sup> assigned an inquiry (SOU:2013:68) to analyze actions and propose methods and measures to better evaluate ES and integrate the importance of biodiversity and the value of ES into economic plans and other decisions in society [45]. As a result, the ES concept has been implemented to varying degrees in the different parts and at different levels of Swedish society. In 2018, two additional targets regarding ES were added which called for municipalities to (i) have access to a developed method for utilizing and integrating urban greenery and ecosystem services in urban environments, in planning, construction and managemen<sup>t</sup> by 2020, and (ii) shall utilize and integrate urban greenery and ecosystem services in urban environments in planning, construction and managemen<sup>t</sup> by 2025 [46]. Hence, at a national level, there is a strong political will to implement ES approaches as a strategy for urban sustainable development in Sweden.

The local level of governance, consisting of 290 municipalities, has an important role in meeting the sustainability targets related to ES. More specifically, the municipalities hold a planning monopoly, where regional and national authorities can intervene when national regulations are at risk of being violated [47]. Spatial planning in Sweden is regulated through the Planning and Building Act (PBA) (National Board of Housing, Building, and Planning) and the Environmental Code (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) (SEPA) [48]. The PBA mainly regulates exploitation, while the Environmental Code mainly addresses the conservation/protection of land or water [49]. Municipal comprehensive plans (MCP) and detailed development (local) plans are the main statutory planning instruments in Swedish spatial planning [50]. In accordance with the PBA, municipalities have an important role in coordinating their comprehensive plans with plans and policies at other levels of governmen<sup>t</sup> and demonstrating how the international, national, regional, and local goals will be met. A recent analysis of the integration of ES in the MCPs revealed that these plans are increasingly addressing concrete strategies or measures for the provision and/or conservation of ES [51].

#### **4. Materials and Methods**

#### *4.1. Case Study Area*

The geographic scope for this study was set as Stockholm County, which is Sweden's largest urbanized region, consisting of 26 municipalities [52]. The planning practices and challenges presented in this study are gathered from six municipalities within Stockholm County: Huddinge, Haninge, Nacka, Stockholm, Täby, and Upplands Väsby (Figure 1). The selection of municipalities represents a mix of rapidly growing urban and peri-urban areas with extensive ongoing urban densification. Moreover, these municipalities have initiated different activities to strengthen ES in their planning practice by, for example, developing approaches and tools for ES mapping, applying for external funding for ES projects, and developing ES strategies. Table 1 provides a brief description of the municipalities studied including population size, projected population size by 2030, percentage of population growth between 2018 and 2030, population density, total land area, and percentage of developed land.

**Figure 1.** Map of Sweden, zoomed to Stockholm County and municipalities comprised in the study.




**Table 1.** *Cont.*

#### *4.2. Research Design*

The empirical basis of the paper is a qualitative research study, including a mixed set of methods: one focus group, three workshops, and five semi-structured interviews between June 2018 and September 2019. Gathering data and information through different methods provides divergent perspectives, which according to [53] creates a more complex understanding of the phenomena studied. The study began with a focus group, which allowed for in-depth exploration and discussion on ES practice in spatial planning, and aided in the development of the discussions for the workshops in accordance with [54]. With support from the theoretical framework, themes for improved ES practices were derived and refined through an iterative process based on the information and discussions in the focus group, workshops and semi-structured interviews. Throughout the research process, at least two researchers documented discussions as written notes, which were compiled and cross-checked.

#### *4.3. Focus Group Discussion*

An exploratory focus group discussion was organized in accordance with [54] with three experienced municipal practitioners from three municipalities in June 2018, with the aim to discuss future directions for ES in municipal planning. The size of focus groups can vary, however, according to [55], a group size of between 3 and 5 is easy to manage and provides opportunities for all participants to discuss and share views and experiences. The participants were selected based on purposeful sampling, which is a strategy in which particular settings, persons or activities are selected deliberately to provide information that is of relevance to the research questions [56]. The selected participants were three of the most experienced municipal practitioners working with ES in their respective municipalities. More specifically, in their respective municipalities, they had experience of working closely with several research projects regarding ES implementation, as well as in other municipalities and governance levels from which they shared their experiences. The discussions were centered on two questions formulated by the research team: (i) what are the lessons and experiences of ES implementation from ongoing or completed urban development projects? (ii) What are the future directions for ES in municipal planning practice? The outcome of the focus group provided a basis for the topics of discussion for the following workshops, as well as insight into the municipal practitioner's experiences of working with ES.
