IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/daredp/1405.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.

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," DARE Discussion Papers 1405, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:daredp:1405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/102949/1/797030735.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Matthias Finkbeiner & Erwin M. Schau & Annekatrin Lehmann & Marzia Traverso, 2010. "Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(10), pages 1-14, October.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    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. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Hannah Karlewski & Annekatrin Lehmann & Klaus Ruhland & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2019. "A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-60, August.
    15. Ming Tang & Huchang Liao & Zhengjun Wan & Enrique Herrera-Viedma & Marc A. Rosen, 2018. "Ten Years of Sustainability (2009 to 2018): A Bibliometric Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    16. Oana Țugulea, 2017. "City Brand Personality—Relations with Dimensions and Dimensions Inter-Relations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-22, December.
    17. Robin Hogrefe & Sabine Bohnet-Joschko, 2023. "The Social Dimension of Corporate Sustainability: Review of an Evolving Research Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-22, February.
    18. Cristina López & Rocío Ruíz-Benítez & Carmen Vargas-Machuca, 2019. "On the Environmental and Social Sustainability of Technological Innovations in Urban Bus Transport: The EU Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-22, March.
    19. Miro Ristimäki & Seppo Junnila, 2015. "Sustainable Urban Development Calls for Responsibility through Life Cycle Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-25, September.
    20. Mauro Sciarelli & Mario Tani & Giovanni Landi & Ornella Papaluca, 2019. "The Impact of Social Responsibility Disclosure on Corporate Financial Health: Evidences from Some Italian Public Companies," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(3), pages 109-122, March.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:daredp:1405. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (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.