IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aesc09/51074.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Prospects for climate friendly peatland management – Results of a socioeconomic case study in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Schaller, Lena
  • Kantelhardt, Jochen

Abstract

In the current debate on climate protection, agricultural production has become a focal point of interest. This study introduces the climate effectiveness of agricultural management of peat-soils. Agriculture on peatland demands a water-level drawdown that causes aerobe degradation of the soils. The resulting trace-gas emissions have a negative impact on the greenhouse-gas balance. In Germany more than 80% of peatland is used agriculturally; the resulting emissions account for 2.3 – 4.5% of Germany’s overall emission. Climate-friendly peatland management strategies, however, demand enhanced groundwater tables and decreased land-use intensity. With regard to agricultural income, severe economic consequences are to be expected. Against this background we analyse opportunities to reorganise agricultural use of peatland. As it is assumed that the potential to reduce land-use intensity greatly depends on local socio-economic conditions which are likely to vary across different regions, six representative sample regions are surveyed. To analyse microeconomic effects with simultaneous consideration of local diversity, stakeholder workshops and extensive farm surveys were undertaken in all regions. First results indicate that a reorganisation of peatland use causes severe loss of agricultural income and necessitates financial compensation for farmers. However the results also show that the potential of rearrangement varies significantly according to regional conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Schaller, Lena & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2009. "Prospects for climate friendly peatland management – Results of a socioeconomic case study in Germany," 83rd Annual Conference, March 30 - April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland 51074, Agricultural Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aesc09:51074
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.51074
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/51074/files/schaller_kantlehardt64.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.51074?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John M Bryson, 2004. "What to do when Stakeholders matter," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 21-53, March.
    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. Schaller, Lena & Kantelhardt, Jochen & Droesler, Matthias & Hoper, Heinrich, 2011. "Agricultural Costs of Carbon Dioxide Abatement via Land-use Adaptation on organic soils," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 120393, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Roeder, Norbert & Osterburg, Bernhard, 2011. "Reducing GHG Emissions by Abandoning Agricultural Land use on Organic Soils - A Cost Assessment," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115983, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Roder, Norbert & Osterburg, Bernhard, 2010. "Reducing Ghg Emissions By Abandoning Agricultural Land Use On Organic Soils," 2010: Climate Change in World Agriculture: Mitigation, Adaptation, Trade and Food Security, June 2010, Stuttgart-Hohenheim, Germany 91270, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.

    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. Bert George, 2017. "Does strategic planning ‘work’ in public organizations? Insights from Flemish municipalities," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(7), pages 527-530, November.
    2. Martin Luštický & Martin Musil, 2016. "Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of Tourism Policy Priorities: The Case of the South Bohemian Region," Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2016(3), pages 3-23.
    3. Jolanta MAJ, 2015. "Diversity Management’S Stakeholders And Stakeholders Management," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 780-793, November.
    4. Franco-Trigo, L. & Fernandez-Llimos, F. & Martínez-Martínez, F. & Benrimoj, S.I. & Sabater-Hernández, D., 2020. "Stakeholder analysis in health innovation planning processes: A systematic scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1083-1099.
    5. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    7. Christophe Favoreu & David Carassus & Christophe Maurel, 2015. "Strategic management in the public sector: a rational, political or collaborative approach? [Le management stratégique en milieu public : approche rationnelle, politique ou collaborative ?]," Post-Print hal-02152509, HAL.
    8. Sandra Ricart & Antonio M. Rico-Amorós, 2022. "Can agriculture and conservation be compatible in a coastal wetland? Balancing stakeholders’ narratives and interactions in the management of El Hondo Natural Park, Spain," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 589-604, June.
    9. Ashton W. Merck & Khara D. Grieger & Alison Deviney & Anna-Maria Marshall, 2023. "Using a Phosphorus Flow Diagram as a Boundary Object to Inform Stakeholder Engagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-10, July.
    10. Ogunlowo, Olufemi O. & Bristow, Abigail L. & Sohail, M., 2017. "A stakeholder analysis of the automotive industry's use of compressed natural gas in Nigeria," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 58-69.
    11. Austen Agata, 2012. "Stakeholders management in public hospitals in the context of resources," Management, Sciendo, vol. 16(2), pages 217-230, December.
    12. Sandra Ricart & Anna Ribas & David Pavón, 2016. "Qualifying irrigation system sustainability by means of stakeholder perceptions and concerns: lessons from the Segarra‐Garrigues Canal, Spain," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1-2), pages 77-90, February.
    13. Cathy Macharis & Peter Nijkamp, 2013. "Multi-actor and multi-criteria analysis in evaluating mega-projects," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 11, pages 242-266, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Maciej Dobrzyñski & Krzysztof Dziekoñski & Arkadiusz Jurczuk, 2015. "Stakeholders Mapping - A Case Of International Logistics Project," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 11(2), pages 17-26, June.
    15. Szymaniec-Mlicka Karolina, 2016. "Impact of strategic orientation adopted by an organisation on its performance, as shown on the example of public healthcare entities," Management, Sciendo, vol. 20(2), pages 278-290, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.
    18. Marco Taliento, 2022. "The Triple Mission of the Modern University: Component Interplay and Performance Analysis from Italy," World, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-24, July.
    19. Isabella M. Lami & Stefano Moroni, 2020. "How Can I Help You? Questioning the Role of Evaluation Techniques in Democratic Decision-Making Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-17, October.
    20. Tsoutsos, Theocharis & Drandaki, Maria & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Iosifidis, Eleftherios & Kiosses, Ioannis, 2009. "Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1587-1600, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:aesc09:51074. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aesukea.html .

    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.