IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gadadp/260817.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Vergleichende Bewertung der Nutzung von Biomasse: Ergebnisse aus den Bioenergieregionen Göttingen und BERTA

Author

Listed:
  • Haverkamp, Matthias
  • Henke, Sören
  • Kleinschmit, Christian
  • Möhring, Bernhard
  • Müller, Henrike
  • Mußhoff, Oliver
  • Rosenkranz, Lydia
  • Seintsch, Björn
  • Schlosser, Katharina
  • Theuvsen, Ludwig

Abstract

Vor dem Hintergrund des Klimawandels und der Endlichkeit fossiler Ressourcen steht eine Vielzahl regionaler Landnutzungsentscheidungen an. Hierbei sind unterschiedlichste landwirtschaftliche und forstwirtschaftliche Konfliktfelder zwischen Produzenten, Stakeholdern und der regionalen Governance einzubeziehen. Im Rahmen des Verbundforschungsvorhabens "Bioenergieregionen stärken" beschäftigt sich das Cluster SÖB im Rahmen des Verbundforschungsvorhabens "Bioenergieregionen stärken" (BEST) mit der sozioökonomischen Bewertung von Nutzungskonzepten und regionalökonomischen Wertschöpfungsoptionen. Zentrale Ziele des Clusters sind die sozioökonomische Bewertung der energetischen und stofflichen Nutzung von Biomasse, die Unterstützung der regionalen Governance durch Bereitstellung sozioökonomischer Bewertungsergebnisse, die synoptische regionalökonomische Bewertung konkurrierender Wertschöpfungsoptionen, die betriebswirtschaftliche Bewertung vorhandener Nutzungsoptionen sowie die Bewertung der relativen Vorzüglichkeit klassischer landwirtschaftlicher Produktionsverfahren und Kurzumtriebsplantagen. Für das gesamte Verbundforschungsvorhaben sind zwei Modellregionen in Niedersachsen und Thüringen definiert. Ziele dieses Beitrages sind die Herausarbeitung regionsspezifischer Ergebnisse der beteiligten Teilprojekte und die Ableitung sowie Synthese gemeinsamer Schlussfolgerungen und Handlungsempfehlungen für die regionale Governance. Zur Umsetzung werden im folgenden Kapitel zunächst die Untersuchungsregionen aus soziodemographischer, agrarstruktureller und forstlicher Perspektive näher beschrieben. Hierauf folgt im dritten Kapitel eine Darstellung der verwandten Methodik und der regionsspezifischen Ergebnisse der vier beteiligten Teilprojekte. Der Beitrag wird durch gemeinsame Schlussfolgerungen und Handlungsempfehlungen der vier Teilprojekte beschlossen.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Haverkamp, Matthias & Henke, Sören & Kleinschmit, Christian & Möhring, Bernhard & Müller, Henrike & Mußhoff, Oliver & Rosenkranz, Lydia & Seintsch, Björn & Schlosser, Katharina & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2014. "Vergleichende Bewertung der Nutzung von Biomasse: Ergebnisse aus den Bioenergieregionen Göttingen und BERTA," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260817, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gadadp:260817
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.260817
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/260817/files/S%C3%96B-Cluster-Paper-28-07-2014.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/260817/files/S%C3%96B-Cluster-Paper-28-07-2014.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.260817?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emmann, Carsten H. & Guenther-Lübbers, Welf & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2013. "Impacts of Biogas Production on the Production Factors Land and Labour – Current Effects, Possible Consequences and Further Research Needs," 2013 International European Forum, February 18-22, 2013, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 164768, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    2. Matthias Finkbeiner & Erwin M. Schau & Annekatrin Lehmann & Marzia Traverso, 2010. "Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(10), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Emmann, Carsten H. & Guenther-Lübbers, Welf & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2013. "Impacts of Biogas Production on the Production Factors Land and Labour – Current Effects, Possible Consequences and Further Research Needs," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, July.
    4. Henke, S. & Theuvsen, L., 2014. "Social Life Cycle Assessment: Eine sozioökonomische Analyse der Biogasproduktion," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    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. Eugenio Demartini & Anna Gaviglio & Marco Gelati & Daniele Cavicchioli, 2016. "The Effect of Biogas Production on Farmland Rental Prices: Empirical Evidences from Northern Italy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-23, November.
    2. Guenther-Lübbers, W. & Theuvsen, L., 2015. "Regionalökonomische Effekte der niedersächsischen Biogasproduktion," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    3. Olena Myrna & Martin Odening & Matthias Ritter, 2019. "The Influence of Wind Energy and Biogas on Farmland Prices," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, January.
    4. Andreas Eder & Bernhard Mahlberg & Bernhard Stürmer, 2021. "Measuring and explaining productivity growth of renewable energy producers: An empirical study of Austrian biogas plants," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 48(1), pages 37-63, February.
    5. Venus, Terese E. & Strauss, Felix & Venus, Thomas J. & Sauer, Johannes, 2021. "Understanding stakeholder preferences for future biogas development in Germany," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    6. Xueqing Yang & Yang Liu & Mei Wang & Alberto Bezama & Daniela Thrän, 2021. "Identifying the Necessities of Regional-Based Analysis to Study Germany’s Biogas Production Development under Energy Transition," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-20, February.
    7. Zuzana LAJDOVA & Jan LAJDA & Peter BIELIK, 2016. "The impact of the biogas industry on agricultural sector in Germany," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(1), pages 1-8.
    8. Guenther-Lubbers, Welf & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2014. "Regionalökonomische Effekte Der Niedersächsischen Biogasproduktion," 54th Annual Conference, Goettingen, Germany, September 17-19, 2014 187426, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    9. Zuzana LAJDOVA & Jan LAJDA & Jaroslav KAPUSTA & Peter BIELIK, 2016. "Consequences of maize cultivation intended for biogas production," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(12), pages 543-549.
    10. Bartolini, Fabio & Gava, Oriana & Brunori, Gianluca, 2017. "Biogas and EU's 2020 targets: Evidence from a regional case study in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 510-519.
    11. Ya-Ju Chang & Laura Schneider & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2015. "Assessing Child Development: A Critical Review and the Sustainable Child Development Index (SCDI)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-24, April.
    12. Paolo Prosperi & Iuri Peri, 2014. "Concepts and methods for sustainability assessment: Insights from food security," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1), pages 23-34.
    13. Nik Faizah Nik Mahmood & Herwina Rosnan & Gancar Candra Premananto, 2024. "Building a Greener Future: Can Malaysia’s Property Development Sector Achieve Sustainable Development Goals?," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    14. Kristina Henzler & Stephanie D. Maier & Michael Jäger & Rafael Horn, 2020. "SDG-Based Sustainability Assessment Methodology for Innovations in the Field of Urban Surfaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-32, June.
    15. Haniye Safarpour & Massoud Tabesh & Seyyed Ahmadreza Shahangian & Mohsen Hajibabaei & Robert Sitzenfrei, 2022. "Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Wastewater Systems under Applying Water Demand Management Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-18, June.
    16. Datu Buyung Agusdinata & Wenjuan Liu & Sinta Sulistyo & Philippe LeBillon & Je'anne Wegner, 2023. "Evaluating sustainability impacts of critical mineral extractions: Integration of life cycle sustainability assessment and SDGs frameworks," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(3), pages 746-759, June.
    17. Claudia Tomasini Montenegro & Jens F. Peters & Manuel Baumann & Zhirong Zhao-Karger & Christopher Wolter & Marcel Weil, 2021. "Environmental assessment of a new generation battery: The magnesium-sulfur system," Papers 2104.03794, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2021.
    18. Sierra-Pérez, Jorge & Rodríguez-Soria, Beatriz & Boschmonart-Rives, Jesús & Gabarrell, Xavier, 2018. "Integrated life cycle assessment and thermodynamic simulation of a public building’s envelope renovation: Conventional vs. Passivhaus proposal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 1510-1521.
    19. Rafal Baum & Jerzy Bienkowski & Malgorzata Holka, 2020. "Analysis of Sustainability Performance of Different Farming Types Using Life Cycle Approach," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 2), pages 148-167.
    20. Carolina Villamil & Jesko Schulte & Sophie Hallstedt, 2022. "Sustainability risk and portfolio management—A strategic scenario method for sustainable product development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 1042-1057, March.

    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:gadadp:260817. 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/iagoede.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.