IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v150y2023ics1389934123000291.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Allowing for compensating lost habitats in the forest: Comparing institutional change in Germany and Switzerland

Author

Listed:
  • Schulz, Tobias
  • Eggenberger, Tanja
  • Olschewski, Roland
  • Lieberherr, Eva

Abstract

Forested land can play a critical role as a possible area for biodiversity offsetting projects. This would reduce the pressure on agricultural land caused by spreading settlement area and related offsetting requirements. This raises the following question: to what extent have offset regulation and clearance compensation rules become more flexible to allow for compensation projects in the forest due to increased land-use conflicts? To address this question, we draw on the institutional change literature, which proposes that different modes of institutional change towards a flexibilization of offset regulation can be expected in different institutional contexts. Empirically, we focus on the sub-national contexts of two European countries: Bavaria in Germany and the Berne in Switzerland. Although in both cases the forest comprises one-third of their land cover, the cases exhibit quite different forest policies and biodiversity offset regulations. Making the forest area available for habitat compensation projects generally depends on the need (e.g. due to implementation deficits) and the political will to loosen the mitigation hierarchy in both realms. The analysis demonstrates that the preconditions of such institutional change (veto-power of opponents and discretion in implementation) favoured more radical reforms in German biodiversity offset regulation but allowed only tentative adaptions in Swiss forest clearance regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Schulz, Tobias & Eggenberger, Tanja & Olschewski, Roland & Lieberherr, Eva, 2023. "Allowing for compensating lost habitats in the forest: Comparing institutional change in Germany and Switzerland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:150:y:2023:i:c:s1389934123000291
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2023.102934
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934123000291
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.102934?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. Robert Hahn & Kenneth Richards, 2013. "Understanding the effectiveness of environmental offset policies," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 103-119, August.
    2. Coralie Calvet & Claude Napoléone & Jean-Michel Salles, 2015. "The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Carlos Ferreira & Jennifer Ferreira, 2018. "Political markets? Politics and economics in the emergence of markets for biodiversity offsets," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(3), pages 335-351, July.
    4. Troxler, David & Zabel, Astrid, 2021. "Clearing forests to make way for a sustainable economy transition in Switzerland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    5. Catharina Druckenbrod & Volker Beckmann, 2018. "Production-Integrated Compensation in Environmental Offsets—A Review of a German Offset Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, November.
    6. Michael Howlett & Jeremy Rayner, 2013. "Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 170-182.
    7. Fréchette, Alain & Lewis, Nathalie, 2011. "Pushing the boundaries of conventional forest policy research: Analyzing institutional change at multiple levels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(7), pages 582-589, September.
    8. Silvia Tobias & Bronwyn Price, 2020. "How Effective Is Spatial Planning for Cropland Protection? An Assessment Based on Land-Use Scenarios," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-20, February.
    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. Schulz, Tobias & Ohmura, Tamaki & Troxler, David & Lieberherr, Eva, 2024. "Forest clearances, compensatory afforestation and biodiversity offsetting in forests: Balancing flexibility and equivalency in Switzerland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).

    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. Schulz, Tobias & Ohmura, Tamaki & Troxler, David & Lieberherr, Eva, 2024. "Forest clearances, compensatory afforestation and biodiversity offsetting in forests: Balancing flexibility and equivalency in Switzerland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    2. Sponagel, Christian & Bendel, Daniela & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Weber, Tobias Karl David & Gayler, Sebastian & Streck, Thilo & Bahrs, Enno, 2022. "Integrated assessment of regional approaches for biodiversity offsetting in urban-rural areas – A future based case study from Germany using arable land as an example," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    3. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    4. Caloffi, Annalisa & Freo, Marzia & Ghinoi, Stefano & Mariani, Marco & Rossi, Federica, 2022. "Assessing the effects of a deliberate policy mix: The case of technology and innovation advisory services and innovation vouchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    5. Jeroen van der Heijden, 2021. "When opportunity backfires: exploring the implementation of urban climate governance alternatives in three major US cities [Are LEED-Certified Buildings Energy-Efficient in Practice?]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(1), pages 116-135.
    6. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    7. Ekaterina Domorenok & Anthony R. Zito, 2021. "Engines of learning? Policy instruments, cities and climate governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 507-528, September.
    8. Lorenz Kammermann & Karin Ingold, 2019. "Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles: stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 43-65, March.
    9. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee & Jeremy Rayner, 2014. "The Elements of Effective Program Design: A Two-Level Analysis," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-12.
    10. Troxler, David & Zabel, Astrid & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2023. "Identifying drivers of forest clearances in Switzerland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    11. Philippe Le Coent & Coralie Calvet, 2016. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offsetting through agri-environmental schemes: evidence from an empirical study," Working Papers 16-10, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.
    12. Araz Taeihagh, 2017. "Network-centric policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 317-338, June.
    13. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2019. "Policy-mix evaluation: Governance challenges from new place-based innovation policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    14. Joanna Vince, 2015. "Integrated policy approaches and policy failure: the case of Australia’s Oceans Policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(2), pages 159-180, June.
    15. Paul J. Burke, 2016. "Undermined by Adverse Selection: Australia's Direct Action Abatement Subsidies," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 35(3), pages 216-229, September.
    16. Ohmura, Tamaki & Creutzburg, Leonard, 2021. "Guarding the For(es)t: Sustainable economy conflicts and stakeholder preference of policy instruments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    17. Le Yin & Erfu Dai & Guopan Xie & Baolei Zhang, 2021. "Effects of Land-Use Intensity and Land Management Policies on Evolution of Regional Land System: A Case Study in the Hengduan Mountain Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    18. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    19. Christoph Knill & Yves Steinebach, 2022. "Crises as driver of policy accumulation: Regulatory change and ratcheting in German asylum policies between 1975 and 2019," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 603-617, April.
    20. Caner Bakir & Sinan Akgunay & Kerem Coban, 2021. "Why does the combination of policy entrepreneur and institutional entrepreneur roles matter for the institutionalization of policy ideas?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 397-422, June.

    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:forpol:v:150:y:2023:i:c:s1389934123000291. 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: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.