Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 899–911 | Cite as

Implementing green infrastructure policy in agricultural landscapes—scenarios for Saxony-Anhalt, Germany

  • Jenny SchmidtEmail author
  • Jennifer Hauck
Original Article


Green infrastructure (GI) has been identified as helping to protect Europe’s natural capital by fostering environmental protection outside nature reserves and enabling better overall adaptation to changing conditions. The aim of Europe’s green infrastructure strategy is to integrate GI implementation into existing policies. In intensively farmed agricultural areas, this mainly means the greening measures of the Common Agricultural Policy, which are mandatory for farmers wishing to receive full direct payments. We explore how GI implementation might develop under different future scenarios. We use a participatory scenario development approach to explore the benefits and limitations perceived by local actors in the agricultural regions of Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. Limiting factors include ecosystem disservices, economic constraints relating to income, labour costs, investments and land tenure, and social considerations including the farmers’ self-image as primarily food producers and local people’s opinions regarding good farming practices. The limiting factors also include a lack of knowledge about the ecological usefulness of measures, and failings in the design of the measures regarding practicability, flexibility and reliability. Benefits are seen in various ecosystem services, job creation and in fulfilling society’s demands for environmental protection. We conclude by stating that GI implementation in agricultural landscapes requires reliable and flexible measures that fit farming practices and are well communicated, and that landscape level coordination and cooperation could enhance their effectiveness.


Participatory scenario development Green infrastructure strategy Common Agricultural Policy Ecological focus areas Ecosystem services Farmers’ perceptions 



This research was funded by the ERA-Net BiodivERsA, with the national funders BMBF, part of the 2011–2012 BiodivERsA call for research proposals.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10113_2017_1241_MOESM1_ESM.docx (729 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 728 kb)


  1. Ahnström J, Bengtsson J, Berg å, Hallgren L, Boonstra WJ, Björklund J (2013) Farmers’ interest in nature and its relation to biodiversity in arable fields. Int J Ecol 2013:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arndt, O., 2003. Entwicklung der agraren Landnutzung auf der Querfurter-Merseburger Platte. In: Wollkopf, H.-F., Diemer, R., (Eds.), Historische Landnutzung im thüringisch-sächsisch-anhaltinischen Raum. Presentations given at a conference 19.-31.03.2002 at Halle (S). P. Lang, Frankfurt, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, pp 139–152Google Scholar
  3. Baessler C, Klotz S (2006) Effects of changes in agricultural land-use on landscape structure and arable weed vegetation over the last 50 years. Agric Ecosyst Environ 115:43–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baessler C, Klotz S, Durka W (2010) Temporal changes and spatial determinants of plant species diversity and genetic variation. In: Müller F, Baessler C, Schubert H, Klotz S (eds) Long-term ecological research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 279–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benedict MA, McMahon ET (2002) Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the 21st century. Renew Resour J 20(3):12–17Google Scholar
  6. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biggs R, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Atkinson-Palombo C, Bohensky E, Boyd E, Cundill G, Fox H, Ingram S, Kok K, Spehar S, Tengö M, Timmer D, Zurek M (2007) Linking futures across scales: a dialog on multiscale scenarios. Ecol Soc 12:17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. BISE (Biodiversity Information System for Europe) (n.d.) Target 6 - Mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Available from: (accessed May 2017)
  9. Bishop P, Hines A, Collins T (2007) The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques. Foresight 9:5–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. BMEL (Federal Ministry for Food and Agriculture, Germany) (2014) Main features of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and its implementation in Germany. Available from: (accessed February 2015)
  11. Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38:723–739. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buijs AE, Pedroli B, Luginbühl Y (2006) From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: changing social perceptions of the European landscape. Landsc Ecol 21:375–389. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgess J, Clark J, Harrison CM (2000) Knowledges in action: an actor network analysis of a wetland agri-environment scheme. Ecol Econ 35:119–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burton RJF, Paragahawewa UH (2011) Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental schemes. J Rural Stud 27:95–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burton RJF, Wilson GA (2006) Injecting social psychology theory into conceptualisations of agricultural agency: towards a post-productivist farmer self-identity? J Rural Stud 22:95–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jager J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8086–8091. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cormont A, Siepel H, Clement J, Melman TCP, WallisDeVries MF, van Turnhout CAM, Sparrius LB, Reemer M, Biesmeijer JC, Berendse F, de Snoo GR (2016) Landscape complexity and farmland biodiversity: evaluating the CAP target on natural elements. J Nat Conserv 30:19–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davies ZG, Pullin AS (2007) Are hedgerows effective corridors between fragments of woodland habitat? An evidence-based approach. Landsc Ecol 22:333–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. EC (European Commission) (2013a) Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. Available from: (accessed August 2013)
  20. EC (European Commission) (2013b) CAP Reform—an explanation of the main elements. Available from: (accessed February 2015)
  21. EC (European Commission) (2013c) Technical information on Green Infrastructure (GI). Available from: (accessed June 2017)
  22. EC (European Commission) (2015) The mid-term Review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Available from: (accessed May 2017)
  23. EC (European Commission) (2016a) Supporting the implementation of green infrastructure. Final Report. Trinomics B.V., Rotterdam. Available from: (accessed May 2017)
  24. EC (European Commission) (2016b) Agri-environment measures. Available from: (accessed July 2016)
  25. EEA (European Environment Agency) (2005) Environmental policy integration in Europe. State of play and an evaluation framework. EEA technical report No 2/2005. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available from: (accessed June 2017)
  26. EEA (European Environment Agency) (2015a) The European Environment. State and Outlook 2015. 1. The changing context of European environmental policy. Available from: (accessed June 2017)
  27. EEA (European Environment Agency) (2015b) The European Environment. State and Outlook 2015. 3. Protecting, conserving and enhancing natural capital. Available from: (accessed June 2017)
  28. Falconer K (2000) Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: a transactional perspective. J Rural Stud 16:379–394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol 4:e105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fischhoff B, Davis AL (2014) Communicating scientific uncertainty. PNAS 111:13664–13671. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fish R, Seymour S, Watkins C (2003) Conserving English landscapes: land managers and agri-environmental policy. Environ Plan A 35:19–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fleury P, Seres C, Dobremez L, Nettier B, Pauthenet Y (2015) “Flowering meadows”, a result-oriented agri-environmental measure: technical and value changes in favour of biodiversity. Land Use Policy 46:103–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haila Y, Henle K, Apostolopoulou E, Cent J, Framstad E, Goerg C, Jax K, Klenke R, Magnuson W, Matsinos Y, Mueller B, Paloniemi R, Pantis J, Rauschmayer F, Ring I, Settele J, Simila J, Touloumis K, Tzanopoulos J, Pe’er G (2014) Confronting and coping with uncertainty in biodiversity research and praxis. Nat Conserv 8:45–75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hauck J, Schleyer C, Winkler KJ, Maes J (2014) Shades of greening: reviewing the impact of the new EU agricultural policy on ecosystem services. Chang Adapt Socio-Ecol Syst 1:51–62. Google Scholar
  35. Hauck J, Schmidt J, Werner A (2016) Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level. Ecol Soc 21:49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Henle K, Alard D, Clitherow J, Cobb P, Firbank L, Kull T, McCracken D, Moritz RFA, Niemelä J, Rebane M, Wascher D, Watt A, Young J (2008) Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe–a review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 124:60–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Herzon I, Mikk M (2007) Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity and their willingness to enhance it through agri-environment schemes: a comparative study from Estonia and Finland. J Nat Conserv 15:10–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hodge I, Hauck J, Bonn A (2015) The alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies in the European Union: agriculture and nature conservation. Conserv Biol:996–1005.
  39. Home R, Balmer O, Jahrl I, Stolze M, Pfiffner L (2014) Motivations for implementation of ecological compensation areas on Swiss lowland farms. J Rural Stud 34:26–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Juntti M (2012) Implementing cross compliance for agriculture in the EU: relational agency, power and action in different socio-material contexts: implementing cross compliance for agriculture. Sociol Rural 52:294–310. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kettunen, M., Apostolopoulou, E., Bormpoudakis, D., Cent, J., Letourneau, A., Koivulehto, M., Paloniemi, R., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., Mathevet, R., Scott, A. and Borgström, S. (2014) EU green infrastructure: opportunities & the need for addressing scales. In : Henle, K., Potts, S.G., Kunin, W.E., Matsinos, Y.G., Similä, J., Pantis, J.D., Grobelnik, V., Penev, L., Settele, J., (Eds.). Scaling in ecology and biodiversity conservation. Pensoft publishers, Sofia. Available from: (accessed May 2017)
  42. Kirmer A, Pfau M, Mann S, Schrödter M, Tischew S (2016) Erfolgreiche Anlage mehrjähriger Blühstreifen auf produktiven Standorten durch Ansaat wildkräuterreicher Samenmischungen und standortangepasste Pflege. Natur und Landschaft 91:109–118.
  43. Kleijn D, Rundlöf M, Scheper J, Smith HG, Tscharntke T (2011) Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline? Trends Ecol Evol 26:474–481. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kopperoinen L, Itkonen P, Niemelä J (2014) Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into a new place-based methodology. Landsc Ecol 29:1361–1375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kuckartz U (2016) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Beltz Juventa, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  46. Lafortezza R, Davies C, Sanesi G, Konijnendijk C (2013) Green infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. iForest - Biogeosci For 6:102–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lakner S, Bosse A (2016) Mühsames Abwägen. Möglichkeiten zur praktischen Umsetzung der EU-Forderung nach ökologischen Vorrangflächen (ÖVF) gibt es viele. Doch mit welcher Variante fährt man am besten? Bauernzeitung 10:50–51Google Scholar
  48. Lange A, Siebert R, Barkmann T (2015) Sustainability in land management: an analysis of stakeholder perceptions in rural northern Germany. Sustainability 7:683–704. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. LAU (Landesamt für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt) (1997) Die Naturschutzgebiete Sachsen-Anhalts. G. Fischer, JenaGoogle Scholar
  50. Lienhoop N, Brouwer R (2015) Agri-environmental policy valuation: farmers’ contract design preferences for afforestation schemes. Land Use Policy 42:568–577. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Maes J, Barbosa A, Baranzelli C, Zulian G, Batista e Silva F, Vandecasteele I, Hiederer R, Liquete C, Paracchini ML, Mubareka S, Jacobs-Crisioni C, Castillo CP, Lavalle C (2015) More green infrastructure is required to maintain ecosystem services under current trends in land-use change in Europe. Landsc Ecol 30:517–534. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Magliocca NR, Brown DG, Ellis EC (2014) Cross-site comparison of land-use decision-making and its consequences across land systems with a generalized agent-based model. PLoS One 9:e86179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mahmoud M, Liu Y, Hartmann H, Stewart S, Wagener T, Semmens D, Stewart R, Gupta H, Dominguez D, Dominguez F, Hulse D, Letcher R, Rashleigh B, Smith C, Street R, Ticehurst J, Twery M, van Delden H, Waldick R, White D, Winter L (2009) A formal framework for scenario development in support of environmental decision-making. Environ Model Softw 24:798–808. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mante J, Gerowitt B (2007) A survey of on-farm acceptance of low-input measures in intensive agriculture. Agron Sustain Dev 27:399–406. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. March H, Therond O, Leenhardt D (2012) Water futures: reviewing water-scenario analyses through an original interpretative framework. Ecol Econ 82:126–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mayring P (2015) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Beltz, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  57. Mazza, L., Bennett, G., De Nocker, L., Gantioler, S., Losarcos, L., Margerison, C., Kaphengst, T., McConville, A., Rayment, M., ten Brink, P., Tucker, G., van Diggelen, R. (2011) Green Infrastructure Implementation and Efficiency. Final report for the European Commission, DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2010/0059. Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels and LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. McShane TO, Hirsch PD, Trung TC, Songorwa AN, Kinzig A, Monteferri B, Mutekanga D, Thang HV, Dammert JL, Pulgar-Vidal M, Welch-Devine M, Peter Brosius J, Coppolillo P, O’Connor S (2011) Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol Conserv 144:966–972. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Michel-Guillou E, Moser G (2006) Commitment of farmers to environmental protection: from social pressure to environmental conscience. J Environ Psychol 26:227–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. MLU (Ministerium für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt) (ed) (2012) Land-, Ernährungs- und Forstwirtschaft und Tierschutzbericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt 2011/2012 Magdeburg. Available from: (accessed July 2014)
  61. Moilanen A, Laitila J, Vaahtoranta T, Dicks LV, Sutherland WJ (2014) Structured analysis of conservation strategies applied to temporary conservation. Biol Conserv 170:188–197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nilsson M, Zamparutti T, Petersen JE, Nykvist B, Rudberg P, McGuinn J (2012) Understanding policy coherence: analytical framework and examples of sector-environment policy interactions in the EU: understanding policy coherence. Environ Policy Gov 22:395–423. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Oelke E (ed) (1997) Sachsen-Anhalt. Perthes, GothaGoogle Scholar
  64. Pe'er G, Dicks LV, Visconti P, Arlettaz R, Báldi A, Benton TG, Collins S, Dieterich M, Gregory RD, Hartig F, Henle K, Hobson PR, Kleijn D, Neumann RK, Robijns T, Schmidt J, Shwartz A, Sutherland WJ, Turbé A, Wulf F, Scott AV (2014) EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science 344:1090–1092. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pe'er G, Zinngrebe Y, Hauck J, Schindler S, Dittrich A, Zingg S, Tscharntke T, Oppermann R, Sutcliffe LME, Sirami C, Schmidt J, Hoyer C, Schleyer C, Lakner S (2016) Adding some green to the greening: improving the EU’s ecological focus areas for biodiversity and farmers. Conserv Lett. Online first.
  66. Pfeifer C, Sonneveld MPW, Stoorvogel JJ (2012) Farmers’ contribution to landscape services in the Netherlands under different rural development scenarios. J Environ Manag 111:96–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Plieninger T, Bieling C, Ohnesorge B, Schaich H, Schleyer C, Wolff F (2013) Exploring futures of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes through participatory scenario development in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecol Soc 18:39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Prager K, Freese J (2009) Stakeholder involvement in agri-environmental policy making—learning from a local- and a state-level approach in Germany. J Environ Manag 90:1154–1167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Prager K, Nagel UJ (2008) Participatory decision making on agri-environmental programmes: a case study from Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany). Land Use Policy 25:106–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Priess JA, Hauck J (2014) Integrative scenario development. Ecol Soc 19:12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rakow H (2003) Die Separation in der preußischen Provinz Sachsen und in Anhalt. In: Wollkopf, H.-F., Diemer, R., (Eds.), Historische Landnutzung im thüringisch-sächsisch-anhaltinischen Raum. Presentations given at a conference 19.-31.03.2002 at Halle (S). P. Lang, Frankfurt, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, pp 14–26Google Scholar
  72. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90:1933–1949. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Reed MS, Kenter J, Bonn A, Broad K, Burt TP, Fazey IR, Fraser EDG, Hubacek K, Nainggolan D, Quinn CH, Stringer LC, Ravera F (2013) Participatory scenario development for environmental management: a methodological framework illustrated with experience from the UK uplands. J Environ Manag 128:345–362. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Repohl M, Schmidt J, Hauck J, Weiland S (2015) Analyse des Politikintegrationspotentials der EU-Strategie für Grüne Infrastruktur - untersucht am Beispiel der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik der EU. UFZ-Diskussionspapier 10/2015. Helmholtz- Zentrum für Umweltforschung - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany. Available from: (accessed August 2016)
  75. Rindfuss RR, Entwisle B, Walsh SJ, An L, Badenoch N, Brown DG, Deadman P, Evans TP, Fox J, Geoghegan J, Gutmann M, Kelly M, Linderman M, Liu J, Malanson GP, Mena CF, Messina JP, Moran EF, Parker DC, Parton W, Prasartkul P, Robinson DT, Sawangdee Y, Vanwey LK, Verburg PH (2008) Land use change: complexity and comparisons. J Land Use Sci 3:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rösener W (2000) The history of German agriculture. In: Tangermann S (ed) Agriculture in Germany. DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  77. Rosenfeld M (2005) Sachsen-Anhalt als Wirtschaftsstandort. Wie erfolgreich und attraktiv sind das Land und seine Regionen. Geogr Rundsch 57:4–11Google Scholar
  78. Schmidt, T.G., Röder, N., Dauber, J., Limek, S., Laggner, A., de Witte, T., Offermann, F., Osterburg, B., 2014. Biodiversitätsrelevante Regelungen zur nationalen Umsetzung des Greenings der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik der EU nach 2013. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Germany. Available from (accessed June 2017)
  79. Schreier, M., 2014. Qualitative content analysis. In: Flick, U. (Ed.), 2014. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. SAGE, Los Angeles, pp 170–183Google Scholar
  80. Schröter-Schlaack C, Schmidt J (2015) Ökosystemleistungen grüner Infrastrukturen. RaumPlanung 180:16–21Google Scholar
  81. Simoncini R (1999) Agricultural use of natural resources in Europe. In: Oglethorpe JAE (ed) Tenure and sustainable use. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, pp 3–19 Available from: (accessed June 2017)Google Scholar
  82. Statistisches Landesamt Sachsen-Anhalt (2008) Press release of 25.02.2008. Available from: (accessed July 2014)
  83. Statistisches Landesamt Sachsen-Anhalt (2014) Statistische Berichte. Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. Statistisches Landesamt Sachsen-Anhalt, HalleGoogle Scholar
  84. Stoate C, Báldi A, Beja P, Boatman ND, Herzon I, van Doorn A, de Snoo GR, Rakosy L, Ramwell C (2009) Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe—a review. J Environ Manag 91:22–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. SWK (Stiftung Westfälsche Kulturlandschaft, Institut für Landschaftsökologie der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster, AG Angewandte Landschaftsökologie/Ökologische Planung) (eds) (2012) Produktionsintegrierte Naturschutzmaßnahmen, Umsetzungshandbuch für die Praxis. Stiftung Westfälsche Kulturlandschaft, Münster. Additional online material available from: (accessed October 2016)
  86. UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) (2007) Global environment outlook 4. Environment for development. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. Available from: (accessed January 2015)
  87. Van Herzele A, Gobin A, Van Gossum P, Acosta L, Waas T, Dendoncker N, Henry de Frahan B (2013) Effort for money? Farmers’ rationale for participation in agri-environment measures with different implementation complexity. J Environ Manag 131:110–120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wals AEJ, Bawden R (2000) Integrating sustainability into agricultural education: dealing with complexity, uncertainty and diverging worldviews. Interuniversity conference for agricultural and related sciences in Europe. Gent, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  89. Weiss W (2011) Sachsen-Anhalt regional 1990–2010. Ministerium für Landesentwicklung und Verkehr des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, MagdeburgGoogle Scholar
  90. Weiß W, Wolz A, Herzfeld T, Fritzsch J (2013) Sozialökonomische Effekte des demographischen Wandels in ländlichen Räumen Sachsen-Anhalts. Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe, Discussion Paper No. 143 IAOM, Halle. Available from: (accessed October 2016)
  91. Whittingham MJ, Krebs JR, Swetnam RD, Vickery JA, Wilson JD, Freckleton RP (2007) Should conservation strategies consider spatial generality? Farmland birds show regional not national patterns of habitat association. Ecol Lett 10:25–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wurbs D (2005) Vergleichende Untersuchungen zu den Folgewirkungen von Klima- und Landnutzungsänderungen auf den Wasserhaushalt in Flusseinzugsgebieten. PhD-thesis. Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-WittenbergGoogle Scholar
  93. Young JC, Jordan A, Searle KR, Butler A, Chapman DS, Simmons P, Watt AD (2013) Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation? Biol Conserv 158:359–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zinngrebe Y, Pe'er G, Schueler S, Schmitt J, Schmidt J, Lakner S (2017) The EU’s ecological focus areas—how experts explain farmers’ choices in Germany. Land Use Policy 65:93–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department for Environmental Politics, Leipzig, Germany and University of Münster, Institute of Landscape EcologyMünsterGermany
  2. 2.Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department for Environmental Politics and CoKnow Consulting – Coproducing Knowledge for SustainabilityLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations