IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v25y2017icp69-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An economic perspective on land use decisions in agricultural landscapes: Insights from the TEEB Germany Study

Author

Listed:
  • Albert, Christian
  • Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph
  • Hansjürgens, Bernd
  • Dehnhardt, Alexandra
  • Döring, Ralf
  • Job, Hubert
  • Köppel, Johann
  • Krätzig, Sebastian
  • Matzdorf, Bettina
  • Reutter, Michaela
  • Schaltegger, Stefan
  • Scholz, Mathias
  • Siegmund-Schultze, Marianna
  • Wiggering, Hubert
  • Woltering, Manuel
  • von Haaren, Christina

Abstract

Agricultural landscapes safeguard ecosystem services (ES) and biodiversity upon which human well-being depends. However, only a fraction of these services are generally considered in land management decisions, resulting in trade-offs and societally inefficient solutions. The TEEB Study (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) spearheaded the development of assessments of the economic significance of ES and biodiversity. Several national TEEB follow-ups have compiled case studies and derived targeted policy advice. By synthesizing insights from “Natural Capital Germany – TEEB DE†and focusing on rural areas, the objectives of this study were (i) to explore causes of the continued decline of ES and biodiversity, (ii) to introduce case studies exemplifying the economic significance of ES and biodiversity in land use decisions, and (iii) to synthesize key recommendations for policy, planning and management. Our findings indicate that the continued decrease of ES and biodiversity in Germany can be explained by implementation deficits within a well-established nature conservation system. Three case studies on grassland protection, the establishment of riverbank buffer zones and water-sensitive farming illustrate that an economic perspective can convey recognition of the values of ES and biodiversity. We conclude with suggestions for enhanced consideration, improved conservation and sustainable use of ES and biodiversity.

Suggested Citation

  • Albert, Christian & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph & Hansjürgens, Bernd & Dehnhardt, Alexandra & Döring, Ralf & Job, Hubert & Köppel, Johann & Krätzig, Sebastian & Matzdorf, Bettina & Reutter, Mich, 2017. "An economic perspective on land use decisions in agricultural landscapes: Insights from the TEEB Germany Study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 69-78.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:25:y:2017:i:c:p:69-78
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041616302492
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hansjürgens, Bernd & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph & Berghöfer, Augustin & Lienhoop, Nele, 2017. "Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 9-17.
    2. Grolleau, Gilles & McCann, Laura M.J., 2012. "Designing watershed programs to pay farmers for water quality services: Case studies of Munich and New York City," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 87-94.
    3. Bredemeier, Birte & von Haaren, Christina & Rüter, Stefan & Reich, Michael & Meise, Thomas, 2015. "Evaluating the nature conservation value of field habitats: A model approach for targeting agri-environmental measures and projecting their effects," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 113-122.
    4. Wüstemann, Henry & Bonn, Aletta & Albert, Christian & Bertram, Christine & Biber-Freudenberger, Lisa & Dehnhardt, Alexandra & Döring, Ralf & Elsasser, Peter & Hartje, Volkmar & Mehl, Dietmar & Kante, 2017. "Synergies and trade-offs between nature conservation and climate policy: Insights from the “Natural Capital Germany – TEEB DE†study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 187-199.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bösch, Matthias & Elsasser, Peter & Franz, Kristin & Lorenz, Martin & Moning, Christoph & Olschewski, Roland & Rödl, Anne & Schneider, Heike & Schröppel, Bettina & Weller, Priska, 2018. "Forest ecosystem services in rural areas of Germany: Insights from the national TEEB study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 77-83.
    2. Markus Leibenath & Markus Kurth & Gerd Lintz, 2020. "Science–Policy Interfaces Related to Biodiversity and Nature Conservation: The Case of Natural Capital Germany—TEEB-DE," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, May.
    3. Gebeltová, Z., 2017. "Exploitation of Agricultural Land in the Czech Republic and EU Countries," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 9(4).
    4. Bethwell, Claudia & Sattler, Claudia & Stachow, Ulrich, 2022. "An analytical framework to link governance, agricultural production practices, and the provision of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    5. Carolus, Johannes Friedrich & Hanley, Nick & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2018. "A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 282-295.
    6. Keenan, Rodney J. & Pozza, Greg & Fitzsimons, James A., 2019. "Ecosystem services in environmental policy: Barriers and opportunities for increased adoption," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    8. Marcos-Martinez, Raymundo & Bryan, Brett A. & Schwabe, Kurt A. & Connor, Jeffery D. & Law, Elizabeth A. & Nolan, Martin & Sánchez, José J., 2019. "Projected social costs of CO2 emissions from forest losses far exceed the sequestration benefits of forest gains under global change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.

    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. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Kozak, Robert & Markum,, 2016. "Certification of forest watershed services: A Q methodology analysis of opportunities and challenges in Lombok, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 51-59.
    3. Matthew C. LaFevor & Alexandra G. Ponette-González & Rebecca Larson & Leah M. Mungai, 2021. "Spatial Targeting of Agricultural Support Measures: Indicator-Based Assessment of Coverages and Leakages," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Hérivaux, Cécile & Grémont, Marine, 2019. "Valuing a diversity of ecosystem services: The way forward to protect strategic groundwater resources for the future?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 184-193.
    5. Cameron Hepburn & Brian O’Callaghan & Nicholas Stern & Joseph Stiglitz & Dimitri Zenghelis, 2020. "Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 36(Supplemen), pages 359-381.
    6. Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Corbera, Esteve & Lapeyre, Renaud, 2019. "Payments for Environmental Services and Motivation Crowding: Towards a Conceptual Framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 434-443.
    7. Hong-Zhen Zhang & Ling-Yun He & ZhongXiang Zhang, 2023. "Can Transverse Eco-compensation Mechanism Correct Resource Misallocation in Watershed Environmental Governance? A Cost-benefit Analysis of the Pilot Project of Xin’an River in China," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(4), pages 947-973, April.
    8. Christian Albert & Johannes Hermes & Felix Neuendorf & Christina Von Haaren & Michael Rode, 2016. "Assessing and Governing Ecosystem Services Trade-Offs in Agrarian Landscapes: The Case of Biogas," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-17, January.
    9. Huang, Dayan & Liu, Chengyi & Yan, Zehao & Kou, Aiju, 2023. "Payments for Watershed Services and corporate green innovation," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 541-556.
    10. Castillo-Eguskitza, Nekane & Hoyos, David & Onaindia, Miren & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2019. "Unraveling local preferences and willingness to pay for different management scenarios: A choice experiment to biosphere reserve management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    12. Lee, Jongyeol & Kim, Hyungsub & Song, Cholho & Kim, Gang Sun & Lee, Woo-Kyun & Son, Yowhan, 2020. "Determining economically viable forest management option with consideration of ecosystem services in Korea: A strategy after successful national forestation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    13. Peter W. J. Batey & Joon Sik Kim, 2021. "Special issue on comprehensive watershed management: sustainability, technology, and policy," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 523-530, June.
    14. Grainger, Daniel & Stoeckl, Natalie, 2019. "The importance of social learning for non-market valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Dulce Rodrigues & Paulo Oliveira & Teodorico Alves Sobrinho & Eduardo Mendiondo, 2013. "Hydrological benefits in the context of Brazilian environmental services program," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 1037-1048, August.
    16. McCann, Laura, 2013. "Transaction costs and environmental policy design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 253-262.
    17. Faccioni, G. & Sturaro, E. & Ramanzin, M. & Bernués, A., 2019. "Socio-economic valuation of abandonment and intensification of Alpine agroecosystems and associated ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 453-462.
    18. Lienhoop, Nele & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph, 2018. "Involving multiple actors in ecosystem service governance: Exploring the role of stated preference valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 181-188.
    19. G. Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi & Sophie Thoyer, 2015. "Using monetary incentives in agri-environmental policies: Can we do more with less? [Les incitations monétaires dans la politique agro-environnementale : peut-on faire mieux avec moins ?]," Post-Print hal-01884947, HAL.
    20. Bösch, Matthias & Elsasser, Peter & Franz, Kristin & Lorenz, Martin & Moning, Christoph & Olschewski, Roland & Rödl, Anne & Schneider, Heike & Schröppel, Bettina & Weller, Priska, 2018. "Forest ecosystem services in rural areas of Germany: Insights from the national TEEB study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 77-83.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:ecoser:v:25:y:2017:i:c:p:69-78. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.