IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i8p808-d606655.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expert-Based Maps as a Regional Planning Tool Supporting Nature Conservation and Production-Integrated Compensation—A German Case Study on Biodiversity Offsets

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Sponagel

    (Department of Farm Management (410b), Institute of Farm Management, University of Hohenheim, Schwerzstraße 44, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Andre Raichle

    (Raichle-Ecology, Stahlbrunnstraße 20, 73266 Bissingen an der Teck, Germany)

  • Martin Maier

    (Flächenagentur Baden-Württemberg GmbH, Gerhard-Koch-Straße 2, 73760 Ostfildern, Germany)

  • Susanne Zhuber-Okrog

    (Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU) Stuttgart e. V., Charlottenplatz 17, 70173 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Ulrike Greifenhagen-Kauffmann

    (Landwirtschaft/Grundstücksverkehr, Liegenschaftsamt, Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart, Heustraße 1, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Elisabeth Angenendt

    (Department of Farm Management (410b), Institute of Farm Management, University of Hohenheim, Schwerzstraße 44, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Enno Bahrs

    (Department of Farm Management (410b), Institute of Farm Management, University of Hohenheim, Schwerzstraße 44, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany)

Abstract

Many countries worldwide have developed guidelines for offsetting impacts on nature and landscape. Suitable locations are the prerequisite for the implementation of these measures, and this might lead to conflicts with agriculture. In addition, comprehensive planning is often lacking and potential added values for nature conservation are not exploited. Concepts such as the so-called production-integrated compensation (PIC) have been introduced to give farmers the opportunity to actively participate in the offsetting process and improve cooperation. However, up to now, PIC has only rarely been put into practice. Against this backdrop, we have developed a regional planning tool for the implementation of PIC in practice. Based on geodata such as soil data, agricultural structure, or natural conditions at the field and landscape level, the general suitability, and specific measure-based recommendations for each plot can be verified with the help of a decision support system. These factors are assessed from both a nature and an agricultural perspective. The goal here is to highlight synergy effects and increase the likelihood of the proposed measures being implemented. Our tool facilitates the integrated planning of biodiversity offsets at regional level. In this way, it can promote the bundling and networking of measures. However, on-site analyses should be undertaken to complement the implementation of measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Sponagel & Andre Raichle & Martin Maier & Susanne Zhuber-Okrog & Ulrike Greifenhagen-Kauffmann & Elisabeth Angenendt & Enno Bahrs, 2021. "Expert-Based Maps as a Regional Planning Tool Supporting Nature Conservation and Production-Integrated Compensation—A German Case Study on Biodiversity Offsets," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:8:p:808-:d:606655
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/8/808/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/8/808/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Le Coent, Philippe & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2017. "Compensating Environmental Losses Versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-129.
    2. Paola Gullino & Luca Battisti & Federica Larcher, 2018. "Linking Multifunctionality and Sustainability for Valuing Peri-Urban Farming: A Case Study in the Turin Metropolitan Area (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Goldman, Rebecca L. & Thompson, Barton H. & Daily, Gretchen C., 2007. "Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: Inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 333-343, December.
    4. Anne-Charlotte Vaissière & Léa Tardieu & Fabien Quétier & Sébastien Roussel, 2018. "Corrigendum: Preferences for biodiversity offset contracts on arable land: a choice experiment study with farmers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(4), pages 675-675.
    5. Anne-Charlotte Vaissière & Léa Tardieu & Fabien Quétier & Sébastien Roussel, 2018. "Preferences for biodiversity offset contracts on arable land: a choice experiment study with farmers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(4), pages 553-582.
    6. 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.
    7. Joseph William Bull & Niels Strange, 2018. "The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(12), pages 790-798, December.
    8. Giulio Malorgio & Francesco Marangon, 2021. "Agricultural business economics: the challenge of sustainability," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-4, December.
    9. Maria Busse & Nico Heitepriem & Rosemarie Siebert, 2019. "The Acceptability of Land Pools for the Sustainable Revalorisation of Wetland Meadows in the Spreewald Region, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Sponagel, Christian & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Piepho, Hans-Peter & Bahrs, Enno, 2021. "Farmers’ preferences for nature conservation compensation measures with a focus on eco-accounts according to the German Nature Conservation Act," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    11. Oliver Taherzadeh & Peter Howley, 2018. "No net loss of what, for whom?: stakeholder perspectives to Biodiversity Offsetting in England," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1807-1830, August.
    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. 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).
    2. Sponagel, Christian & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Piepho, Hans-Peter & Bahrs, Enno, 2021. "Farmers’ preferences for nature conservation compensation measures with a focus on eco-accounts according to the German Nature Conservation Act," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Calvet, Coralie & Le Coent, Philippe & Napoleone, Claude & Quétier, Fabien, 2019. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 113-125.
    5. Sergei Schaub & Jaboury Ghazoul & Robert Huber & Wei Zhang & Adelaide Sander & Charles Rees & Simanti Banerjee & Robert Finger, 2023. "The role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers' participation in voluntary agri‐environmental schemes: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 617-660, September.
    6. Vaissière, Anne-Charlotte & Quétier, Fabien & Calvet, Coralie & Levrel, Harold & Wunder, Sven, 2020. "Biodiversity offsets and payments for environmental services: Clarifying the family ties," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    7. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    8. Gastineau, Pascal & Mossay, Pascal & Taugourdeau, Emmanuelle, 2021. "Ecological compensation: How much and where?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    9. Huber, Robert & Zabel, Astrid & Schleiffer, Mirjam & Vroege, Willemijn & Brändle, Julia M. & Finger, Robert, 2021. "Conservation Costs Drive Enrolment in Agglomeration Bonus Scheme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    10. Millon, Lara & Barré, Kévin & Julliard, Romain & Compère, Pierre & Kerbiriou, Christian, 2021. "Calculation of biodiversity level between different land-uses to improve conservation outcomes of biodiversity offsetting," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    11. Keisaku Higashida & Kenta Tanaka & Shunsuke Managi, 2024. "Who pays and who should pay for the uncertain conservation cost in biodiversity banking programs: evidence from a laboratory experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(9), pages 22473-22498, September.
    12. Nguyen, Chi & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Hanley, Nick & Schilizzi, Steven & Iftekhar, Sayed, 2022. "Spatial Coordination Incentives for landscape-scale environmental management: A systematic review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    13. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Bostedt, Göran & Stenger, Anne, 2019. "Determinants of forest owners attitudes towards wood ash recycling in Sweden - Can the nutrient cycle be closed?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Philippe Coent, 2023. "Payment for environmental services related to aquifers: a review of specific issues and existing programmes," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 273-310, December.
    16. Bougherara, Douadia & Lapierre, Margaux & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2021. "Do farmers prefer increasing, decreasing, or stable payments in Agri-environmental schemes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    17. Cole, Scott & Hasselström, Linus & Jönsson, K. Ingemar & Lindblom, Erik & Söderqvist, Tore, 2022. "Expert guidance for environmental compensation is consistent with public preferences – Evidence from a choice experiment in Sweden," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    18. Nthambi, Mary & Wätzold, Frank & Markova-Nenova, Nonka, 2018. "Quantifying benefit losses from poor governance of climate change adaptation projects: A discrete choice experiment with farmers in Kenya," MPRA Paper 94678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Marie Asma Ben-Othmen & Mariia Ostapchuk, 2023. "How diverse are farmers’ preferences for large-scale grassland ecological restoration? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 341-375, December.
    20. Romy Greiner, 2023. "Examining Participation in and Supply of Private Land for Voluntary Conservation in Australia’s Tropical Savannas: A Discrete-Continuous Choice Experiment," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, 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:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:8:p:808-:d:606655. 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.