Publication Details

Reference Category Journals
DOI / URL link
Title (Primary) Scaling policy conflicts in ecosystem services governance: a framework for spatial analysis
Author Albert, C.; von Haaren, C.; Othengrafen, F.; Krätzig, S.; Saathoff, W.
Journal Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning
Year 2017
Department UPOL
Volume 19
Issue 5
Page From 574
Page To 592
Language englisch
Keywords scale; landscape planning; environmental planning; ecosystem services; governance; policy; DPSIR
UFZ wide themes RU6;
Abstract Effective governance for ecosystem services (ES) is not only challenged by trade-offs between services’ provision and conflicts among policies aimed at enhancing individual services, but also by the problem of scale. This paper's objective is to introduce a framework for the systematic analysis of scale issues in ES governance, and to illustrate its application in a case study of bioenergy production. The research questions are: (i) How can the concepts of scale be integrated in an assessment of ES governance? (ii) Which scale effects can be identified in a case study analysis of bioenergy governance? Building upon the DPSIR (driving forces, pressures, state, impacts, and responses) model, a framework for systematically assessing scale effects in ES governance is developed and applied in a nested case study in the region of Hanover, Germany. The case study is the first such study to spatially illustrate scale effects in ES trade-offs and policy conflicts. The results contribute to our understanding of scalar issues in the governance of ES with a differentiated typology of scale effects and their spatial implications within the DPSIR model. The approach supports ex post and ex ante assessments of governance designs, and helps actors considering across-level impacts of policy options in practice.
Persistent UFZ Identifier
Albert, C., von Haaren, C., Othengrafen, F., Krätzig, S., Saathoff, W. (2017):
Scaling policy conflicts in ecosystem services governance: a framework for spatial analysis
J. Environ. Pol. Plan. 19 (5), 574 - 592