IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i9p3701-d353630.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science–Policy Interfaces Related to Biodiversity and Nature Conservation: The Case of Natural Capital Germany—TEEB-DE

Author

Listed:
  • Markus Leibenath

    (Research area “Landscape Change and Management”, Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, 01217 Dresden, Germany)

  • Markus Kurth

    (Research area “Landscape Change and Management”, Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, 01217 Dresden, Germany)

  • Gerd Lintz

    (Research area “Landscape Change and Management”, Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, 01217 Dresden, Germany)

Abstract

Responding to the UN programme “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (TEEB), TEEB-DE (2012–2018) was a science–policy interface (SPI) set up in Germany with the objective of mobilising scientific expertise for a better consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in political and corporate decision-making. The aim of this paper is to contribute to an assessment of TEEB-DE by analysing its objectives, structure, processes and outputs. The analysis is guided by a theoretical framework that takes credibility, relevance and legitimacy (CRELE) as normative criteria for examining SPIs. Methodologically, the paper relies on a fine-grained analysis of published documents and interviews with key figures of TEEB-DE. The results allow for a preliminary assessment of TEEB-DE in regard to CRELE and illuminate how its conceptual foundation—namely the ecosystem services concept—was discussed in the public realm. We also consider a number of trade-offs which the coordinators of TEEB-DE had to negotiate. In conclusion, we identify some proposals for designing future SPIs in the domain of biodiversity and nature conservation in Germany such as paying greater attention to policy windows, broadening the thematic scope beyond economics and providing better opportunities for debate and contestation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:9:p:3701-:d:353630
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3701/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3701/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kowarsch, Martin & Flachsland, Christian & Garard, Jennifer & Jabbour, Jason & Riousset, Pauline, 2017. "The treatment of divergent viewpoints in global environmental assessments," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 225-234.
    2. 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.
    3. Hedden-Dunkhorst, Bettina & Braat, Leon & Wittmer, Heidi, 2015. "TEEB emerging at the country level: Challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 37-44.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    3. 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.
    4. Ruijs, Arjan & van Egmond, Petra, 2017. "Natural capital in practice: How to include its value in Dutch decision-making processes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 106-116.
    5. Binbin Yang & Sang-Do Park, 2023. "Who Drives Carbon Neutrality in China? Text Mining and Network Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-24, March.
    6. 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).
    7. Verburg, René & Selnes, Trond & Verweij, Pita, 2016. "Governing ecosystem services: National and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 186-197.
    8. 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.
    9. Agnieszka Lorek & Paweł Lorek, 2021. "Social Assessment of the Value of Forests and Protected Areas on the Example of the Silesian Voivodeship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-12, March.
    10. Adam P. Hejnowicz & Murray A. Rudd, 2017. "The Value Landscape in Ecosystem Services: Value, Value Wherefore Art Thou Value?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-34, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    13. Schwaiger, Fabian & Poschenrieder, Werner & Biber, Peter & Pretzsch, Hans, 2019. "Ecosystem service trade-offs for adaptive forest management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    14. Schaafsma, Marije & Eigenbrod, Felix & Gasparatos, Alexandros & Gross-Camp, Nicole & Hutton, Craig & Nunan, Fiona & Schreckenberg, Kate & Turner, Kerry, 2021. "Trade-off decisions in ecosystem management for poverty alleviation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    15. Zanchi, Giuliana & Brady, Mark V., 2019. "Evaluating the contribution of forest ecosystem services to societal welfare through linking dynamic ecosystem modelling with economic valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    16. 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).
    17. Dastan Bamwesigye & Petra Hlavackova & Andrea Sujova & Jitka Fialova & Petr Kupec, 2020. "Willingness to Pay for Forest Existence Value and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, January.
    18. Secco, Laura & Pisani, Elena & Da Re, Riccardo & Rogelja, Todora & Burlando, Catie & Vicentini, Kamini & Pettenella, Davide & Masiero, Mauro & Miller, David & Nijnjk, Maria, 2019. "Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 9-22.
    19. 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.
    20. Emanuela Lombardo, 2023. "Analysis of the propensity of Italian and German forest owners towards forest certification for ecosystem services," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 69(6), pages 266-276.

    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:9:p:3701-:d:353630. 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.