IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ieaple/v18y2018i4d10.1007_s10784-018-9407-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nomination and inscription of the “Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” as natural World Heritage: multi-level governance between science and politics

Author

Listed:
  • Janina Heim

    (Bundesamt für Naturschutz)

  • Max Krott

    (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen)

  • Michael Böcher

    (Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg)

Abstract

In 2011, five German beech forest areas were declared to be part of the World Heritage property “Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and the Ancient Beech Forests of Germany.” Thus, they now share the same status as Australia’s Great Barrier Reef and East Africa’s Serengeti. This paper analyzes the science–policy interface behind the nomination and inscription process in the multi-level governance setting of the World Heritage Convention. Using the Research–Integration–Utilization (RIU) model of scientific knowledge transfer, we identify and analyze different actors’ roles in the spheres of Research, Integration and Utilization across different governance levels, from the German federal states to the World Heritage Committee. In addition, the RIU model serves to normatively examine the process and determine quality criteria that were useful for a successful inscription as World Heritage. The paper highlights the opportunities of using scientific knowledge in the multi-level governance of international conventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Janina Heim & Max Krott & Michael Böcher, 2018. "Nomination and inscription of the “Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” as natural World Heritage: multi-level governance between science and politics," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 599-617, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:18:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s10784-018-9407-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10784-018-9407-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10784-018-9407-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10784-018-9407-z?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. Nagasaka, Kenji & Böcher, Michael & Krott, Max, 2016. "Are forest researchers only scientists? Case studies on the roles of researchers in Japanese and Swedish forest policy processes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 147-154.
    2. Lasse Steiner & Bruno S. Frey, 2011. "Imbalance of World Heritage List: did the UNESCO strategy work?," ECON - Working Papers 014, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    3. Stevanov, Mirjana & Böcher, Michael & Krott, Max & Krajter, Silvija & Vuletic, Dijana & Orlovic, Sasa, 2013. "The Research, Integration and Utilization (RIU) model as an analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: Case studies of publicly funded forest research ins," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 20-28.
    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. Do, Thi Huong & Krott, Max & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Multiple traps of scientific knowledge transfer: Comparative case studies based on the RIU model from Vietnam, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, and Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(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. Salomaa, Anna & Paloniemi, Riikka & Hujala, Teppo & Rantala, Salla & Arponen, Anni & Niemelä, Jari, 2016. "The use of knowledge in evidence-informed voluntary conservation of Finnish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 90-98.
    2. Do, Thi Huong & Krott, Max & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Multiple traps of scientific knowledge transfer: Comparative case studies based on the RIU model from Vietnam, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, and Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    3. Koch, Susanne, 2018. "“Identifying enabling factors of science-policy interaction in a developing country context: A case study of South Africa's environment sector”," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 36-45.
    4. Real, Alejandra & Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "Publicly funded research: A participative experience from the Chilean Native Forest Research Fund," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 37-43.
    5. Zeigermann, Ulrike & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Challenges for bridging the gap between knowledge and governance in sustainability policy – The case of OECD ‘Focal Points’ for Policy Coherence for Development," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    6. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Böcher, Michael & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Forest Policy Analysis: Advancing the analytical approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-6.
    7. Martina Dattilo & Fabio Padovano & Yvon Rocaboy, 2020. "Is beauty defined by victors? An analysis of colonial sites of the UNESCO WHL," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2020-04-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.
    8. Vujcic, Maja & Tomicevic-Dubljevic, Jelena, 2018. "Urban forest benefits to the younger population: The case study of the city of Belgrade, Serbia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 54-62.
    9. Martina Dattilo & Fabio Padovano & Yvon Rocaboy, 2023. "More is worse: the evolution of quality of the UNESCO World Heritage List and its determinants," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 47(1), pages 71-96, March.
    10. Stevanov, Mirjana & Dobšinska, Zuzana & Surový, Peter, 2016. "Assessing survey-based research in forest science: Turning lemons into lemonade?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 105-117.
    11. Edwards, David M. & Meagher, Laura R., 2020. "A framework to evaluate the impacts of research on policy and practice: A forestry pilot study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    12. Teder, Meelis & Kaimre, Paavo, 2018. "The participation of stakeholders in the policy processes and their satisfaction with results: A case of Estonian forestry policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 54-62.
    13. Bayan F. El Faouri & Magda Sibley, 2022. "Heritage-Led Urban Regeneration in the Context of WH Listing: Lessons and Opportunities for the Newly Inscribed City of As-Salt in Jordan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-24, April.
    14. Klenk, Nicole Lisa & Wyatt, Stephen, 2015. "The design and management of multi-stakeholder research networks to maximize knowledge mobilization and innovation opportunities in the forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 77-86.
    15. Soler, Rosina & Lorenzo, Cristian & González, Joel & Carboni, Lucas & Delgado, Juan & Díaz, Mayra & Toro Manríquez, Mónica D.R. & Alejandro, Huertas Herrera, 2021. "The politics behind scientific knowledge: Sustainable forest management in Latin America," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    16. Bayan F. El Faouri & Magda Sibley, 2024. "Balancing Social and Cultural Priorities in the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for UNESCO World Heritage Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-23, July.
    17. Rahman, Md Saifur & Sarker, Pradip Kumar & Sadath, Md. Nazmus & Giessen, Lukas, 2018. "Policy changes resulting in power changes? Quantitative evidence from 25 years of forest policy development in Bangladesh," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 419-431.
    18. Hasanagas, Nikolaos D., 2016. "Managing information in forest policy networks: Distinguishing the influential actors from the “postmen”," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 73-80.
    19. Krott, Max & Giessen, Lukas, 2014. "Learning from practices — implications of the “practice based approach” for forest and environmental policy research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 12-16.
    20. Hidemichi Fujii & Masayuki Sato & Shunsuke Managi, 2017. "Decomposition Analysis of Forest Ecosystem Services Values," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-14, April.

    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:spr:ieaple:v:18:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s10784-018-9407-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.