IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i6p795-d825996.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addressing Goal Conflicts: New Policy Mixes for Commercial Land Use Management

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah Kosow

    (ZIRIUS Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies, University of Stuttgart, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Sandra Wassermann

    (ZIRIUS Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies, University of Stuttgart, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Stephan Bartke

    (German Environment Agency, 06844 Dessau-Roßlau, Germany)

  • Paul Goede

    (ILS—Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development & County Government, 48143 Münster, Germany)

  • Detlef Grimski

    (German Environment Agency, 06844 Dessau-Roßlau, Germany)

  • Ines Imbert

    (European Institute for Energy Research, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany)

  • Till Jenssen

    (Ministry of the Environment, Climate Protection and the Energy Sector Baden-Württemberg, 70182 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Oliver Laukel

    (Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Northern Black Forest, 75173 Pforzheim, Germany)

  • Matthias Proske

    (Regional Association Northern Black Forest, 75172 Pforzheim, Germany)

  • Jochen Protzer

    (Economic Development Corporation of the Northern Black Forest, 75172 Pforzheim, Germany)

  • Kim Philip Schumacher

    (Institute of Geography, Osnabrück University, 49074 Osnabrück, Germany)

  • Stefan Siedentop

    (ILS—Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development & County Government, 48143 Münster, Germany
    Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development, TU Dortmund University, 44227 Dortmund, Germany)

  • Sandra Wagner-Endres

    (German Institute of Urban Affairs, 10969 Berlin, Germany)

  • Jürgen Wittekind

    (Institut Raum und Energie, 22880 Wedel, Germany)

  • Karsten Zimmermann

    (Faculty of Spatial Planning, Department of European Planning Cultures, TU Dortmund University, 44227 Dortmund, Germany)

Abstract

Commercial land use management that focuses on a future-oriented urban and regional development must address multiple goals. Effective policy mixes need to simultaneously (1) improve city-regional and inter-municipal cooperation, (2) reduce land take, and (3) assure the long-term economic development of a region. Using the Northern Black Forest in Germany as a case study, we brought together planning and land use research with public policy analysis. We applied cross-impact balances (CIB) to build and analyze a participatory policy-interaction model. Together with a group of 12 experts, we selected effective individual measures to reach each of the three goals and analyzed their interactions. We then assessed the current policy mix and designed alternative policy mixes. The results demonstrate that current approaches to commercial land use management present internal contradictions and generate only little synergies. Implementing innovative measures on a stand-alone basis runs the risk of not being sufficiently effective. In particular, the current practice of competing for municipal marketing and planning of commercial sites has inhibiting effects. We identified alternative policy mixes that achieve all three goals, avoid trade-offs, and generate significant synergy effects. Our results point towards a more coherent and sustainable city-regional (commercial) land-use governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah Kosow & Sandra Wassermann & Stephan Bartke & Paul Goede & Detlef Grimski & Ines Imbert & Till Jenssen & Oliver Laukel & Matthias Proske & Jochen Protzer & Kim Philip Schumacher & Stefan Siedent, 2022. "Addressing Goal Conflicts: New Policy Mixes for Commercial Land Use Management," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-26, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:6:p:795-:d:825996
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/6/795/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/6/795/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jürgen Kopfmüller & Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle & Tobias Naegler & Jens Buchgeister & Klaus-Rainer Bräutigam & Volker Stelzer, 2021. "Integrative Scenario Assessment as a Tool to Support Decisions in Energy Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-34, March.
    2. Harlan Koff & Antony Challenger & Israel Portillo, 2020. "Guidelines for Operationalizing Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) as a Methodology for the Design and Implementation of Sustainable Development Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-25, May.
    3. Måns Nilsson & Dave Griggs & Martin Visbeck, 2016. "Policy: Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals," Nature, Nature, vol. 534(7607), pages 320-322, June.
    4. Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S. & Howlett, Michael, 2019. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    5. Michael Schneider & Bernhard Gill, 2016. "Biotechnology versus agroecology: Entrenchments and surprise at a 2030 forecast scenario workshop," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 74-84.
    6. Maurizio Carbone & Niels Keijzer, 2016. "The European Union and Policy Coherence for Development: Reforms, Results, Resistance," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 28(1), pages 30-43, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    9. Vincent Nadin & Dominic Stead, 2013. "Opening up the Compendium: An Evaluation of International Comparative Planning Research Methodologies," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(10), pages 1542-1561, October.
    10. Måns Nilsson & Nina Weitz, 2019. "Governing Trade-Offs and Building Coherence in Policy-Making for the 2030 Agenda," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 254-263.
    11. Michael Howlett, 2014. "From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 187-207, September.
    12. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    13. Thomas Niaounakis & Jos Blank, 2017. "Inter-municipal cooperation, economies of scale and cost efficiency: an application of stochastic frontier analysis to Dutch municipal tax departments," Local Government Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 533-554, July.
    14. Reichardt, Kristin & Negro, Simona O. & Rogge, Karoline S. & Hekkert, Marko P., 2016. "Analyzing interdependencies between policy mixes and technological innovation systems: The case of offshore wind in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 11-21.
    15. Jakob Wachsmuth, 2015. "Cross-sectoral integration in regional adaptation to climate change via participatory scenario development," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 387-400, October.
    16. Ortwin Renn & Alexander Jager & Jurgen Deuschle & Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle, 2009. "A normative-functional concept of sustainability and its indicators," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(4), pages 291-317.
    17. Dirk Scheer & Maike Schmidt & Marion Dreyer & Lisa Schmieder & Annika Arnold, 2022. "Integrated Policy Package Assessment (IPPA): A Problem-Oriented Research Approach for Sustainability Transformations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-18, January.
    18. Vanessa J. Schweizer, 2020. "Reflections on cross-impact balances, a systematic method constructing global socio-technical scenarios for climate change research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 1705-1722, October.
    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. Zizhan Jiang & Burrell Montz & Thomas Vogel, 2023. "Comprehensive Evaluation of Land Use Planning Alternatives Based on GIS-ANP," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, July.
    2. Haocong Wang & Kening Wu & Zhe Feng & Huafu Zhao & Hua Ai & Chao Meng, 2023. "Evaluation of Urban Commercial Land Use Intensification Based on Land Parcels: Taking Wuxi City as an Example," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, August.

    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. Nuñez-Jimenez, Alejandro & Knoeri, Christof & Hoppmann, Joern & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2022. "Beyond innovation and deployment: Modeling the impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies in Germany's solar policy mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    2. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    3. Schmidt, Tobias S. & Sewerin, Sebastian, 2019. "Measuring the temporal dynamics of policy mixes – An empirical analysis of renewable energy policy mixes’ balance and design features in nine countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    4. Samson Afewerki & Asbjørn Karlsen, 2021. "Policy mixes for just sustainable regional development in industrially overspecialized regions: the case of two Norwegian petro-maritime regions," PEGIS geo-disc-2021_02, Institute for Economic Geography and GIScience, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    5. Lindberg, Marie Byskov & Markard, Jochen & Andersen, Allan Dahl, 2019. "Policies, actors and sustainability transition pathways: A study of the EU’s energy policy mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    6. Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S. & Howlett, Michael, 2019. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    7. Karoline S. Rogge & Elisabeth Dütschke, 2017. "Exploring Perceptions of the Credibility of Policy Mixes: The Case of German Manufacturers of Renewable Power Generation Technologies," SPRU Working Paper Series 2017-23, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    8. Lisa Scordato & Markus M Bugge & Teis Hansen & Anne Tanner & Olav Wicken, 2022. "Walking the talk? Innovation policy approaches to unleash the transformative potentials of the Nordic bioeconomy [Derfor har vi brug for en national bioøkonomistrategi. By the Danish Agriculture & ," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 324-346.
    9. Jiang, Zihao & Shi, Jiarong, 2023. "Government intervention and technological innovation in the wind power industry in China: The role of industrial environmental turbulence," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 344(C).
    10. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    11. Barbanente, Angela & Grassini, Laura, 2022. "Fostering transitions in landscape policies: A multi-level perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Bjerkan, Kristin Ystmark & Seter, Hanne, 2021. "Policy and politics in energy transitions. A case study on shore power in Oslo," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    14. Hilde Nykamp, 2020. "Policy Mix for a Transition to Sustainability: Green Buildings in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    15. Raven, Rob & Walrave, Bob, 2020. "Overcoming transformational failures through policy mixes in the dynamics of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    16. Eric Brouillat & Maïder Saint Jean, 2020. "Mind the gap: Investigating the impact of implementation gaps on cleaner technology transition," Post-Print hal-03490256, HAL.
    17. Trotter, Philipp A. & Brophy, Aoife, 2022. "Policy mixes for business model innovation: The case of off-grid energy for sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    18. Khatoon, Tohmina & Kivimaa, Paula & Brisbois, Marie Claire & Saadi, Shah Abdul, 2024. "A global south perspective on the interplay between innovation policy mix and technological innovation systems dynamics: The case of Dhaka City's road passenger transport system," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    19. Kivimaa, Paula & Rogge, Karoline S., 2022. "Interplay of policy experimentation and institutional change in sustainability transitions: The case of mobility as a service in Finland," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    20. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2019. "Policy-mix evaluation: Governance challenges from new place-based innovation policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).

    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:11:y:2022:i:6:p:795-:d:825996. 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.