Table 1.

Framework overview

Name of framework	Source	Purpose	Key concepts and approach	Workshop One Commentary
Ecosystem services cascade	Haines-Young and Potschin (2010)	Clarify the links and terminology surrounding ecosystem processes and the benefits that humans receive/perceive Address the issue of varying and conflicting typologies and interpretations around ecosystem service provision and value	The cascade represents a “production chain” from ecological process to end-user benefit Services and associated values are context-specific Framed within the Ecosystem Approach and social-ecological systems model	• Leans on ecosystem services as a proxy for well-being • Benefits derived from ecosystem services quantified in anthropocentric, utilitarian terms with an economic emphasis • Absence of direct links to human health
Fragments, Functions, Flows & Urban Ecosystem Services (F3UES)	Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Sustainability (Grafius et al. 2018)	Explore how the biodiversity of towns and cities contributes to the provision of Ecosystem Services (ES), and hence, human well-being	Stocks and flows: Biodiversity is seen as a ‘stock’ (similar to natural capital), from which the ‘flows’ of ES are delivered Relationship between GI and ES: ES in urban areas are often framed in the context of GI and that ES research needs to be consistent with this	• Strong spatial aspect grounded in ecosystem services • No emphasis on valuation • Well-developed consideration of the influence of scale on nature’s benefits to people
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)	IPBES (Diaz et al. 2015)	To frame IPBES activities around its long-term goal of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable development to:  Encourage new knowledge creation  Review/assess existing knowledge  Support policy-making  Build science-policy-practice capacity	Mutual recognition and enrichment among different disciplines and knowledge systems Recognises anthropocentric aspects of assessment of values, open to pluralistic and non-monetary framing Considers roles of time and space and recognises scale dependencies Use of multiple terminologies and open to context dependent alternatives	• Although grounded in anthropocentric concepts of nature conservation, also the only framework to consider relational value as a progression beyond polarised utilitarian versus intrinsic views on the value of nature • Only framework to consider temporal scales in the context of environmental processes and human health
Green Infrastructure, Ecosystem and Human health (GIEH)	(Tzoulas et al. 2007)	Encourage the integration of information among and between disciplines Review, identify and categorise different academic traditions, research methods, specialised language, and theories	Green infrastructure (all green spaces and their physical and functional interconnections) Human health (dynamic state of physical, psychological and social well-being) Human well-being (defined through socio-economic and psychological factors, including connectedness to nature) Ecosystem health (dynamic and resilient to stress, maintaining organisation, productivity, autonomy)	• No emphasis on valuation • Only framework to offer direct links between ecosystems processes and human health • Acknowledgement of influence of different scales of resolution in the assessment of ecological and health indicators • No consideration given to concepts or methods relevant to valuation
Conceptual framework for Multi-functionality in Green Infrastructure Planning for urban areas (MGIP)	Hansen and Pauleit (2014)	Integrate dual-management of co-existing Green Infrastructure, its multi-functionality and Ecosystem Services (ES)	Ecological—assessing current provision of GI (spatial elements and structures) through appropriate ecological indicators Social element addresses demand for services as a key planning consideration Valuation: identification of GI integrity, ES hotspots, trade-offs, supply–demand balance and stakeholder preferences Discrete ecosystem services influence people at different scales (e.g. local, distant, cross-scale, uni-directional)	• Operational focus with some acknowledgement on the role of societal choice and valuation in green space planning • Present examples of a participatory approach though with no clear guidance on its implementation • Strong emphasis on multi-functionality and the effect of local, distant and uni-directional scales of influence in well-being benefits from green space
Valuing Nature Network (VNN) exploratory work	https://valuing-nature.net/	Develop an improved understanding and representation of the complexities which surround the role of the natural environment in both valuation and decision-making processes	Establishing robust measures and methods of valuation of nature (monetary and non-monetary) Consideration of the economic, societal and cultural value of ecosystem services Preferences as a mediating stage influencing realistic valuation of ES	• Driven by a focus on evaluating the possibility of valuing nature in market-based terms • The framework acknowledges the importance of shared values but an emphasis on monetary valuation may create barriers for its application in the context of participatory approaches
Green Space and Health: a conceptual framework (GSaH)	Lachowycz and Jones (2013)	Identify the moderating and mediating factors which affect the relationship between green space and health benefits	Demographic, socio-economic and environmental factors are considered in assessment of benefits of exposure to, and use of, green space. Understanding the mechanisms of moderation is key to interpreting results of research	• No emphasis on valuation • Of all the frameworks considered, the clearest treatment of the mediation of health outcomes by socio-demographic factors • Poor representation of ecological or scale-related factors with a bearing on health