IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i10p3962-d357008.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Formulation Matters! The Failure of Integrating Landscape Fragmentation Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Tereza Aubrechtová

    (Department of Physical Geography and Geoecology, Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Chittussiho 10, 10 00 Slezská Ostrava, Czech Republic)

  • Eva Semančíková

    (Department of Ecosystem Biology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Branišovská 1760, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic)

  • Pavel Raška

    (Department of Geography, Faculty of Science, Jan Evangelista Purkyně University, České mládeže 8, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Uncoordinated land development results in landscape fragmentation, which is a complex and serious environmental threat to the Czech landscape. It poses a challenge especially for (post)industrial urban agglomerations with extremely low connectivity of green–blue infrastructure. Environmental and spatial planning strategic policy documents are considered to represent long-term communicative instruments for effective environmental protection. Current experience shows that policy documents are commonly poorly integrated, and burdened by formulation inconsistencies. In this study, we (i) specified the driving factors causing landscape fragmentation, describing how the issue is understood by environmental and spatial planning strategic policy documents and (ii) identified criteria for the formulation of these documents at the national and regional governance levels. A content analysis of 12 strategic policy documents enabled the calculation of internal consistency and an assessment of their inter- and cross-sectoral integration. The results revealed formulation flaws in documents, leading to serious misunderstandings of the meaning of the landscape fragmentation between environmental (biocentric) and planning (anthropocentric) policy domains. This aspect makes the horizontal and further vertical cooperation between policy domains difficult. Guidelines for the formulation of strategic policy documents may improve their intelligibility and support smoother environmental policy integration.

Suggested Citation

  • Tereza Aubrechtová & Eva Semančíková & Pavel Raška, 2020. "Formulation Matters! The Failure of Integrating Landscape Fragmentation Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:10:p:3962-:d:357008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/3962/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/3962/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kivimaa, Paula & Mickwitz, Per, 2006. "The challenge of greening technologies--Environmental policy integration in Finnish technology policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 729-744, June.
    2. Karl Kullmann, 2013. "Green-Networks: Integrating Alternative Circulation Systems into Post-industrial Cities," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 36-58, February.
    3. Van Herten, Loes M. & Gunning-Shepers, Louise J., 2000. "Targets as a tool in health policy. Part II: guidelines for application," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 13-23, August.
    4. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    5. Marija Burinskienė & Dovilė Lazauskaitė & Vytautas Bielinskas, 2015. "Preventive Indicators for Creating Brownfields," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-15, May.
    6. Satish V. Joshi, 2003. "Environmental Policy Analysis for Decision Making," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(3), pages 783-785.
    7. Kusmanoff, Alexander M. & Hardy, Mathew J. & Fidler, Fiona & Maffey, Georgina & Raymond, Christopher & Reed, M.S. & Fitzsimons, James A. & Bekessy, Sarah A., 2016. "Framing the private land conservation conversation: Strategic framing of the benefits of conservation participation could increase landholder engagement," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 124-128.
    8. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    9. Muñoz-Rojas, José & Nijnik, Maria & González-Puente, Marc & Cortines-García, Felipe, 2015. "Synergies and conflicts in the use of policy and planning instruments for implementing forest and woodland corridors and networks; a case study in NE Scotland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 47-64.
    10. Abdelillah Hamdouch & Marc-Hubert Depret, 2010. "Policy integration strategy and the development of the 'green economy': foundations and implementation patterns," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(4), pages 473-490.
    11. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    12. Frank R. Baumgartner & Christine Mahoney, 2008. "Forum Section: The Two Faces of Framing," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(3), pages 435-449, September.
    13. Xu, Z., 2000. "On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 683-687, November.
    14. van Herten, Loes M. & Gunning-Schepers, Louise J., 2000. "Targets as a tool in health policy: Part I: lessons learned," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-11, August.
    15. Busse, Reinhard & Wismar, Matthias, 2002. "Health target programmes and health care services--any link?: A conceptual and comparative study (part 1)," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 209-221, March.
    16. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 426-447, May.
    17. Makkonen, Marika & Huttunen, Suvi & Primmer, Eeva & Repo, Anna & Hildén, Mikael, 2015. "Policy coherence in climate change mitigation: An ecosystem service approach to forests as carbon sinks and bioenergy sources," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 153-162.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    2. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    3. Jongseok Seo & Lidziya Lysiankova & Young-Seok Ock & Dongphil Chun, 2017. "Priorities of Coworking Space Operation Based on Comparison of the Hosts and Users’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, August.
    4. Yagmur, Levent, 2016. "Multi-criteria evaluation and priority analysis for localization equipment in a thermal power plant using the AHP (analytic hierarchy process)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 476-482.
    5. Chalmers, Linda Maree & Ashton, Toni & Tenbensel, Tim, 2017. "Measuring and managing health system performance: An update from New Zealand," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(8), pages 831-835.
    6. Sushil, 2019. "Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1489-1516, December.
    7. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    8. Levary, Reuven R. & Wan, Ke, 1999. "An analytic hierarchy process based simulation model for entry mode decision regarding foreign direct investment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 661-677, December.
    9. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Lucie Lidinska & Josef Jablonsky, 2018. "AHP model for performance evaluation of employees in a Czech management consulting company," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(1), pages 239-258, March.
    11. Scholz, Michael & Pfeiffer, Jella & Rothlauf, Franz, 2017. "Using PageRank for non-personalized default rankings in dynamic markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 388-401.
    12. R. Jothi Basu & Nachiappan Subramanian & Angappa Gunasekaran & P. L. K. Palaniappan, 2017. "Influence of non-price and environmental sustainability factors on truckload procurement process," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 250(2), pages 363-388, March.
    13. Peiro, Rosana & Alvarez-Dardet, Carlos & Plasencia, Antoni & Borrell, Carme & Colomer, Concha & Moya, Carmela & Pasarin, M. Isabel & Zafra, Eduardo, 2002. "Rapid appraisal methodology for `health for all' policy formulation analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 309-328, December.
    14. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    15. Alina Popa & Shahrazad Hadad & Robert Paiusan & Marian Nastase, 2018. "A New Method for Agricultural Market Share Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    16. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    17. Raharjo, Hendry & Xie, Min & Brombacher, Aarnout C., 2009. "On modeling dynamic priorities in the analytic hierarchy process using compositional data analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(3), pages 834-846, May.
    18. Iwaro, Joseph & Mwasha, Abrahams & Williams, Rupert G. & Zico, Ricardo, 2014. "An Integrated Criteria Weighting Framework for the sustainable performance assessment and design of building envelope," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 417-434.
    19. Xiang Ruan & Rong Sheng & Tuo Lin, 2020. "Environmental Policy Integration in the Energy Sector of China: The Roles of the Institutional Context," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-14, December.
    20. Ivan Ligardo-Herrera & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Hannia Gonzalez-Urango, 2019. "Application of the ANP to the prioritization of project stakeholders in the context of responsible research and innovation," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(3), pages 679-701, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:10:p:3962-:d:357008. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.