## 4 Discussion
While there are problems and obstacles with respect to the implementation of spatial planning in Germany, they seem to be related to decisions not being taken or a lack of political enforcement and are not a problem of the system itself. The European planning systems largely follow a precautionary, proactive principle. In comparison, for example, the planning approach in the United States of America is more reactive. The consequences are visualized in Figure 10. In Norfolk, West Virginia, US, the highest astronomical tides of the year (King Tides) cause water levels of about 0.6 m above mean sea level. The consequence was an extensive temporary flooding of the city. Climate-change-induced sea level rise will steadily worsen the situation and increase the frequency of flooding. Despite that, a protection and adaptation approach for the entire city does not exist. Adaptation is largely an individual responsibility and results in different approaches, reaching from an acceptance of the flooding to technical solutions for one's own property. In contrast, the European planning system is strategic and exhaustively avoids problems for society via counteractive protection or adaptation measures. At the same time, the development of the strategic spatial programs is slow, which lies in the nature of political planning that takes into account objections from stakeholders and individuals. This slow process may be regarded as a disadvantage in the light of a rapidly changing climate and the need to adapt quickly. On the other hand, it does provide a platform to discuss and gauge the dis(advantages) of protection, adaptation or retreat from specific areas. At the same time, it provides an instrument to implement parliamentary decisions, e.g., the decision taken at the national level in Germany for designating a percentage of each state's area to wind energy. Spatial planning is thus reflective of and influenced by societal discourses and decisions, which can require time because of opposing positions. In order to decide which areas should be used for which purpose and taking into account the respective societal consequences or benefits, the ecosystem service concept can provide valuable information. It may be utilized by decision-makers to raise awareness of the societal benefits, e.g., of rewetting a moor and to justify their decisions. The question is whether a holistic approach, where all ecosystem services are assessed as performed in the Hutelmoor and in Ahrenshoop, is the way forward or if single services, in particular those important for an area, should be assessed in detail, including monetary valuation. In the case of the Hutelmoor for example, the process for deciding on and implementing the renaturation measures might have developed smoother if the benefits of carbon sequestration (benefits at a larger societal scale) and nature tourism (benefits at a local to regional scale) had been clearer and had been expressed in monetary terms. Assessing ecosystem services at the scale of Ahrenshoop or the Hutelmoor, or even at a regional level and their integration into spatial plans in Germany, depends currently on individuals in spatial planning and nature protection authorities who see the need and benefits for such assessments and have the time and resources to carry them out. Another driver could be requirements from the EU level, which is a driving force for environmental planning and nature protection, e.g., the Natura 2000 network and the development of management plans for the areas would not have been possible to that extent without EU legislation. While ecosystem services are mentioned in several EU legislations [42], there is, however, a lack of enforcement when it comes to implementing the concept. Figure 10: Examples of individual adaptation strategies to flooding in Norfolk, West Virginia, US. These pictures were taken during the highest astronomical tide of the year (King Tide; 0.6 m above mean sea level) on 5. Nov. 2017.