Sign Up Submit Enquiry

Policy entrepreneurship in urban planning: Tactics for promoting and engaging the ecosystem services concept for urban environmental sustainability

Home Policy entrepreneurship in urban planning: Tactics for promoting and engaging the ecosystem services concept for urban environmental sustainability

Related Articles

Contact us

Article Content

Abstract

The application of ecosystem services (ES) and related ideas is believed to improve urban environmental planning processes and policy, but the uptake of ES ideas in urban planning is limited. The purpose of this research was to understand the tactics of policy entrepreneurs (PEs) to promote ES and related ideas in urban planning. PEs are persistent and resourceful public policy actors who advocate for ideas and policy proposals they favor with the goal of producing policy change. Research participants employed in urban planning in three Canadian cities were interviewed about their experiences in applying ES and related ideas. After narrowing the criteria for participation in the analysis for this research project, we identified 11 PEs among the participants who were applying a range of tactics to overcome resistance to policy change. Their tactics included framing issues (such as those presented by climate change) with ES to connect with politicians’ concerns and convening cross-disciplinary discussions to bridge divides. We argue that PEs may play important roles in advancing the use of ES and meeting sustainability objectives in urban planning. Recommendations for research include evaluating the success of PEs in policy change and expanding the under-researched area of policy entrepreneurship in planning, including case study research to understand the role of organizational context in enabling policy entrepreneurship.

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

  • Ecosystem Services
  • Public Policy
  • Urban Policy
  • Urban Ecology
  • Urban Economics
  • Urban Politics

Data availability

The data that have been used are confidential.

References

  • Anderson SE, DeLeo RA, Taylor K (2020) Policy entrepreneurs, legislators, and agenda setting: information and influence. Policy Stud J 48:587–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12331.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Arnold G (2022) A threat-centered theory of policy entrepreneurship. Policy Sci 55:23–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09445-z.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Baggio G, Tozer L (2023) Moving Canadian municipalities to the forefront of decarbonization. In: Policy Options. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/january-2023/municipal-decarbonization/. Accessed 9 Mar 2024

  • Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B, Villa F (2013) Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst Serv 4:117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Béland D (2016) Kingdon reconsidered: ideas, interests and institutions in comparative policy analysis. J Comp Policy Anal Res Pract 18:228–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1029770.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Béland D, Cox RH (2016) Ideas as coalition magnets: coalition building, policy entrepreneurs, and power relations. J Eur Public Policy 23:428–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1115533.

    Article Google Scholar

  • BenDor TK, Spurlock D, Woodruff SC, Olander L (2017) A research agenda for ecosystem services in American environmental and land use planning. Cities 60:260–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.09.006.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Birkland TA, DeYoung SE (2012) Focusing events and policy windows. In: Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. Routledge, pp 175–188.

  • Blouin D, Bissonnette J-F, Goyette J-O, et al. (2025) Ecosystem services concept: Challenges to its integration in government organizations. Ecosyst Serv 71:101691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101691.

  • Blum S (2018) The multiple-streams framework and knowledge utilization: argumentative couplings of problem, policy, and politics issues. Eur Policy Anal 4:94–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1029.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Boston J (2020) Enhancing anticipatory governance: strategies for mitigating political myopia in environmental planning and policy making. In: The Routledge Companion to Environmental Planning. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London; New York, pp 130–140.

  • Briassoulis H (1999) Who plans whose sustainability? Alternative roles for planners. J Environ Plan Manag 42:889–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640569910885.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Brouwer S, Huitema D (2018) Policy entrepreneurs and strategies for change. Regional Environ Change 18:1259–1272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1139-z.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Buse K, Mays N, Walt G (2012) Agenda Setting. In: Making Health Policy. McGraw-Hill Education, Budapest

  • Bussola F, Falco E, Aukes E et al. (2021) Piloting a more inclusive governance innovation strategy for forest ecosystem services management in Primiero, Italy. Ecosyst Serv 52: 101380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101380.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Cairney P (2018) Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs. Policy Politics 46:199–215. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318X15230056771696.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Cairney P, Jones MD (2016) Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach: what is the empirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Stud J 44:37–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12111.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Campbell H (2001) Planners and politicians: the pivotal planning relationship? Plann Theory Pract 2:83–100.

    Google Scholar

  • Capano G, Galanti MT (2021) From policy entrepreneurs to policy entrepreneurship: actors and actions in public policy innovation. Policy Polit 49:321–342. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15906842137162.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Chocat B, Ashley R, Marsalek J et al. (2007) Toward the sustainable management of urban storm-water. Indoor Built Environ 16:273–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326×07078854.

  • Cortinovis C, Geneletti D (2018) Ecosystem services in urban plans: what is there, and what is still needed for better decisions. Land Use Policy 70:298–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.017.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L et al. (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?. Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Dearing JW, Singhal A (2020) New directions for diffusion of innovations research: Dissemination, implementation, and positive deviance. Hum Behav Emerg 2:307–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.216.

  • Dolan DA (2021) Multiple partial couplings in the multiple streams framework: the case of extreme weather and climate change adaptation. Policy Stud J 49:164–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12341.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Dunlop CA (2014) The possible experts: How epistemic communities negotiate barriers to knowledge use in ecosystems services policy. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 32:208–228. https://doi.org/10.1068/c13192j.

  • Epstein, H, 2017. Land-Use Planning. Irwin Law, Toronto, CA.

    Google Scholar

  • Faling M, Biesbroek R, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, Termeer K (2019) Policy entrepreneurship across boundaries: A systematic literature review. J Public Policy 39:393–422. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X18000053.

  • Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) (2020) Frontline solutions for Canada’s recovery. Available: https://fcm.ca/en/resources/frontline-solutions-canadas-recovery

  • Ferraro G, Failler P, Trégarot E (2022) Do ideas change policies? Some reflections on ecosystem services in environmental decision-making. J Sustain Res 4:1–18. https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20220009.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Frantzeskaki N, Mahmoud IH, Morello E (2022) Nature-based solutions for resilient and thriving cities: opportunities and challenges for planning future cities. In: Mahmoud IH, Morello E, Lemes de Oliveira F, Geneletti D (eds) Nature-based Solutions for Sustainable Urban Planning: Greening Cities, Shaping Cities. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 3–17

  • Frisch Aviram N, Cohen N, Beeri I (2020) Wind(ow) of change: a systematic review of policy entrepreneurship characteristics and strategies. Policy Stud J 48:612–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12339.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Grant JL, Taylor A, Wheeler C (2018) Planners’ perceptions of the influence of leadership on coordinating plans. Environ Plan C Polit Space 36:669–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654417720798.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Hansen R, Frantzeskaki N, McPhearson T et al. (2015) The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of European and American cities. Ecosyst Serv 12:228–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.013.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Hasan SS, Zhen L, Miah MdG et al. (2020) Impact of land use change on ecosystem services: a review. Environ Dev 34: 100527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100527.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Henstra D (2010) Explaining local policy choices: a Multiple Streams analysis of municipal emergency management. Canadian Public Adm 53:241–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2010.00128.x.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Herbert Y, Dale A, Stashok C (2022) Canadian cities: climate change action and plans. 3:854–873. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.251

  • Hill K (2016) Climate change: implications for the assumptions, goals and methods of urban environmental planning. Urban Plan 1:103–113. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v1i4.771.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Hodge G, Gordon DLA (2014) Planning Canadian Communities, 6th edn. Nelson, Toronto, CA

  • Hoornweg D, Hosseini M, Kennedy C, Behdadi A (2016) An urban approach to planetary boundaries. Ambio Stockh 45:567–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0764-y.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Huitema D, Meijerink S (2010) Realizing water transitions: the role of policy entrepreneurs in water policy change. E&S 15:art26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03488-1502260.

  • Ioannides D (2015) City planners as political entrepreneurs: Do they exist; Can they exist? In: Entrepreneurship in the Polis: Understanding Political Entrepreneurship. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., pp 43–53

  • Jones MD, Peterson HL, Pierce JJ et al. (2016) A river runs through it: a multiple streams meta-review. Policy Stud J 44:13–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12115.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Kerr GL, Holzer JM, Baird J, Hickey Gordon M (2021) Ecosystem services decision support tools: exploring the implementation gap in Canada. FACETS 6:1864–1880. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0090.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Kingdon JW (1984) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Little, Brown, Boston, MA

  • Kingdon JW (2003) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc., Boston

  • Lauria M, Long M (2017) Planning experience and planners’ ethics. J Am Plan Assoc 83:202–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2017.1286946.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Levrel H, Cabral P, Feger C et al. (2017) How to overcome the implementation gap in ecosystem services? A user-friendly and inclusive tool for improved urban management. Land Use Policy 68:574–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.037.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Longato D, Cortinovis C, Balzan M, Geneletti D (2023) A method to prioritize and allocate nature-based solutions in urban areas based on ecosystem service demand. Landsc Urban Plan 235: 104743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104743.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Lumivero (2020) NVivo 13 [Computer software]. https://lumivero.com/

  • Marques AL, Alvim ATB, Schröder J (2022) Ecosystem services and urban planning: a review of the contribution of the concept to adaptation in urban areas. Sustainability 14:2391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042391.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Martínez-López J, Bagstad KJ, Balbi S et al. (2019) Towards globally customizable ecosystem service models. Sci Total Environ 650:2325–2336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.371.

    Article CAS Google Scholar

  • Mehta J (2011) The varied roles of ideas in politics: from “whether” to “how”. In: Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

  • Meijerink S, Huitema D (2010) Policy entrepreneurs and change strategies: Lessons from sixteen case studies of water transitions around the globe. E&S 15:art21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03509-150221.

  • Meraj G, Singh SK, Kanga S, Islam MdN (2022) Modeling on comparison of ecosystem services concepts, tools, methods and their ecological-economic implications: a review. Model Earth Syst Environ 8:15–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-021-01131-6.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Mintrom M, Norman P (2009) Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Stud J 37:649–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00329.x.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Municipal Natural Assets Initiative (MNAI) (2019) What are municipal natural assets: defining and scoping municipal natural assets: Decision Maker Summary. Available: https://naturalassetsinitiative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/SP_MNAI_Report-1-_June2019-2.pdf

  • Muttil N, Nasrin T, Sharma AK (2023) Impacts of extreme rainfalls on sewer overflows and WSUD-based mitigation strategies: a review. Water 15:429. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030429.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci 5:14–37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Opdam P, Coninx I, Dewulf A et al. (2015) Framing ecosystem services: affecting behaviour of actors in collaborative landscape planning?. Land Use Policy 46:223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.008.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Petridou E (2018) Entrepreneurship in the Swedish municipal polis: the case of Mer [*] Östersund. Policy Stud 39:70–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1434872.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Petridou E, Mintrom M (2021) A research agenda for the study of policy entrepreneurs. Policy Stud J 49:943–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12405.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Pyrko I, Dörfler V, Eden C (2019) Communities of practice in landscapes of practice. Manag Learn 50:482–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507619860854.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Qiu L, Dong Y, Liu H (2022) Integrating ecosystem services into planning practice: situation, challenges and inspirations. Land 11:545. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040545.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Reardon L (2018) Networks and problem recognition: advancing the Multiple Streams Approach. Policy Sci 51:457–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9330-8.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Remme RP, Meacham M, Pellowe KE et al. (2024) Aligning nature-based solutions with ecosystem services in the urban century. Ecosyst Serv 66: 101610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101610.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Rogers JS, Maneta MP, Sain SR et al. (2025) The role of climate and population change in global flood exposure and vulnerability. Nat Commun 16: 1287. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-56654-8.

    Article CAS Google Scholar

  • Salzman J, Bennett G, Carroll N et al. (2018) Payments for ecosystem services: past, present and future. Tex AM L Rev 6:199–228.

    Google Scholar

  • Savini F, Majoor S, Salet W (2015) Dilemmas of planning: Intervention, regulation, and investment. Plan Theory 14:296–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095214531430.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Scanu E, Guay L (2019) Climate change and urban transformations: perspectives and case studies. Canadian J Urban Res 28:i–iii.

    Google Scholar

  • Scott A, Carter C, Hardman M et al. (2018) Mainstreaming ecosystem science in spatial planning practice: Exploiting a hybrid opportunity space. Land Use Policy 70:232–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.002.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Seasons, M, 2021. Evaluating Urban and Regional Plans: From Theory to Practice. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C.

    Google Scholar

  • Sharp, R, Tallis, H, Ricketts, TH et al. (2018) InVEST 3.6.0 User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project. Stanford University.

    Google Scholar

  • Sherrouse BC, Semmens DJ, Ancona ZH (2022) Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES): Open-source spatial modeling of cultural services. Environ Model Softw 148: 105259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105259.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Shoemaker DA, BenDor TK, Meentemeyer RK (2019) Anticipating trade-offs between urban patterns and ecosystem service production: Scenario analyses of sprawl alternatives for a rapidly urbanizing region. Comput Environ Urban Syst 74:114–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.10.003.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Silverman, RM, Patterson, KL (2015) Qualitative Research Methods for Community Development. Routledge, New York.

    Google Scholar

  • Simeonova V, van der Valk A (2009) The need for a communicative approach to improve environmental policy integration in urban land use planning. J Plan Lit 23:241–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412208327022.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Sorensen A (2018) New Institutionalism and Planning Theory. In: The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory. Routledge Ltd, New York

  • Spyra M, Kleemann J, Cetin NI et al. (2019) The ecosystem services concept: a new Esperanto to facilitate participatory planning processes?. Landscape Ecol 34:1715–1735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0745-6.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Statistics Canada (2023) Census Profile. 2021 Census of Population, Catalogue no. 98-316-X2021001.

  • Steenberg JWN, Ristow M, Duinker PN et al. (2023) A national assessment of urban forest carbon storage and sequestration in Canada. Carbon Balance Manag 18:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-023-00230-4.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Steger C, Hirsch S, Evers C et al. (2018) Ecosystem services as boundary objects for transdisciplinary collaboration. Ecol Econ 143:153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.016.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Tang Kai NM, Swatuk L, Suffling R, Seasons M (2022) Ecosystem services in Canadian city planning: opportunities for policy and practice in an era of climate change. Canadian Plan Policy J 2022:151–171. https://doi.org/10.24908/cpp-apc.v2022i1.15654.

  • Tanner T, Zaman RU, Acharya S et al. (2019) Influencing resilience: the role of policy entrepreneurs in mainstreaming climate adaptation. Disasters 43:S388–S411. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12338.

  • Thompson K, Sherren K, Duinker PN et al. (2024a) Building the case for protecting urban nature: How urban planners use the ideas, rhetoric, and tools of ecosystem services science. Ecosyst Serv 65: 101579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101579.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Thompson K, Duinker PN, Sherren K (2020) Ecosystem services: a new framework for old ideas, or advancing environmental decision-making? Learning from Canadian forerunners to the ES concept. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien cag.12670. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12670

  • Thompson K, Duinker PN, Sherren K, et al (2024b) The ecosystem services concept in urban planning: the criteria for practical fit. Planning Practice & Research 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2024.2359784

  • Throgmorton J (2000) On the virtues of skillful meandering. Acting as a skilled-voice-in-the-flow of persuasive argumentation. J Am Plan Assoc 66:367–379.

    Google Scholar

  • Throgmorton J (2021) Planners in politics, politicians in planning. Planning Theory Pract 22:495–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1921972.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Timmermans J, Van Der Heiden S, Born MPh (2014) Policy entrepreneurs in sustainability transitions: Their personality and leadership profiles assessed. Environ Innov Soc Transit 13:96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2014.06.002.

  • Tsatsou A, Frantzeskaki N, Malamis S (2023) Nature-based solutions for circular urban water systems: A scoping literature review and a proposal for urban design and planning. Journal Clean Prod 394: 136325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136325.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Value of Nature to Canadians Study (2017) Completing and Using Ecosystem Service Assessment for Decision-Making: An Interdisciplinary Toolkit for Managers and Analysts. Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Governments of Canada

  • Wilkinson C, Sendstad M, Parnell S, Schewenius M (2013) Urban Governance of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In: Elmqvist T, Fragkias M, Goodness J, et al. (eds) Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 539–587

  • Winkel G, Leipold S (2016) Demolishing dikes: multiple streams and policy discourse analysis. Policy Stud J 44:108–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12136.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Zahariadis N (2016) Delphic oracles: ambiguity, institutions, and multiple streams. Policy Sci 49:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9243-3.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Zahariadis N (2014) Ambiguity and Multiple Streams. In: Theories of the Policy Process, 4th edn. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, p 34

Funding

This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship program under grant 752-2017-1833 to the first author, and by the Nova Scotia Research and Innovation Graduate Scholarship program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Planning, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada

    Kate Thompson & Mikiko Terashima

  2. School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada

    Kate Sherren & Peter N. Duinker

  3. Department of Political Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada

    Anders Hayden

Contributions

K.T. was responsible for conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis and investigation, writing (draft preparation and editing) and preparing figures. K.S. and P.D. supervised the research. K.S, P.D., A.H., and M.T. reviewed all drafts and provided editorial suggestions. K.T. was responsible for funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kate Thompson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

About this article

Cite this article

Thompson, K., Sherren, K., Duinker, P.N. et al. Policy entrepreneurship in urban planning: Tactics for promoting and engaging the ecosystem services concept for urban environmental sustainability. Environmental Management (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02228-9

  • Received
  • Accepted
  • Published
  • DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02228-9

Keywords

  • Ecosystem services
  • Policy entrepreneurs
  • Policy change
  • Urban planning
  • Multiple streams approach

Copyright © All rights reserved Designed and Developed by Digital Flavers

WhatsApp