1 A Knowledge-Based European Perspective on Sustainable Land …
3
and Fina 2010; Weber and Höferl 2009; Plieninger et al. 2016; EEA 2017), there is
no accepted model that provides a comprehensive explanation of land use change.
One important factor for land use change is interaction between population and
economic dynamics (cf. Storper and Scott 2009). On a global scale, the population
is increasing, particularly in economically prosperous regions and in metropolitan
areas (UN 2014), putting pressure on the land by using space for settlement activities. In Europe—the spatial focus of our book—75% of the population live in urban
areas, which is expected to increase to over 80% by 2020 (EEA 2017: 29). Due to
urban–rural linkages, rural areas are likewise affected by this development. Land use
and environmental impacts therefore depend not only on the size of the population,
but also on its spatial distribution (Zasada 2011).
The persistent gap between the sustainability goals and spatial developments that
are noncompliant with those goals raises questions about methods of governance to
ensure compatibility with the goals. At first glance, the land use system in Europe,
including Germany, seems to be organised within sophisticated land use policy frameworks, comprising land use planning and impact analysis tools. This assumption
also seems to reinforce the fact that, against the backdrop of the aforementioned, the
annual land use change rate is low relative to the total amount of land (EEA 2017).
However, land use is influenced by a complex interaction of more or less coordinated governance patterns, referring to a variety of sectoral administrative and
disciplinary activities. Quite often, there is no integration of these complex factors.
Although functional perspectives are required, territorial and sectoral powers dominate (Hooghe and Marks 2003; Blatter 2004; Sikor et al. 2013). In 2002, Young
mentioned deficits with respect to fit, interplay and scale that hamper the successful
implementation of sustainable land use strategies, e.g. in settlement development.
He explained governance mismatches as drivers of land use conflicts by referring
to incongruity between ecosystems and institutional arrangements (fit), a lack of
adequate interaction between institutions (interplay), as well as a lack of interrelations
between temporal and spatial scales.
As yet, there is no integrated approach to land use governance that provides
applicable inter-sectoral governance to handle multi-stakeholder interrelations. In
particular, current land use decisions are based on an insufficient poly-rational understanding of actors’ positions (Davy 2012, 85), as well as deficits in knowledge provision (Salet 2014; Frantzeskaki and Kabisch 2015; Giebels et al. 2016). This includes
knowledge gaps, also related to the complexity in land use governance, which is
characterised by high levels of uncertainty (unpredictable developments and interrelations), disagreement (conflicting aims and demands) and distributed capacities
(multi-actor landscape) (cf. Hummelbrunner and Jones 2013, 2).
In conclusion, contemporary land use governance systems are characterised by
gaps, mismatches, or other dysfunctionalities that lead to the promotion of unsustainable land use. Above all, integrative land use regulations are lacking, particularly
at the EU level. This deficit can be traced back to path dependencies (Getimis et al.
2014), based on closed disciplinary debates in science that are continued and reflected
by sectoral perspectives in land use governance.
3
and Fina 2010; Weber and Höferl 2009; Plieninger et al. 2016; EEA 2017), there is
no accepted model that provides a comprehensive explanation of land use change.
One important factor for land use change is interaction between population and
economic dynamics (cf. Storper and Scott 2009). On a global scale, the population
is increasing, particularly in economically prosperous regions and in metropolitan
areas (UN 2014), putting pressure on the land by using space for settlement activities. In Europe—the spatial focus of our book—75% of the population live in urban
areas, which is expected to increase to over 80% by 2020 (EEA 2017: 29). Due to
urban–rural linkages, rural areas are likewise affected by this development. Land use
and environmental impacts therefore depend not only on the size of the population,
but also on its spatial distribution (Zasada 2011).
The persistent gap between the sustainability goals and spatial developments that
are noncompliant with those goals raises questions about methods of governance to
ensure compatibility with the goals. At first glance, the land use system in Europe,
including Germany, seems to be organised within sophisticated land use policy frameworks, comprising land use planning and impact analysis tools. This assumption
also seems to reinforce the fact that, against the backdrop of the aforementioned, the
annual land use change rate is low relative to the total amount of land (EEA 2017).
However, land use is influenced by a complex interaction of more or less coordinated governance patterns, referring to a variety of sectoral administrative and
disciplinary activities. Quite often, there is no integration of these complex factors.
Although functional perspectives are required, territorial and sectoral powers dominate (Hooghe and Marks 2003; Blatter 2004; Sikor et al. 2013). In 2002, Young
mentioned deficits with respect to fit, interplay and scale that hamper the successful
implementation of sustainable land use strategies, e.g. in settlement development.
He explained governance mismatches as drivers of land use conflicts by referring
to incongruity between ecosystems and institutional arrangements (fit), a lack of
adequate interaction between institutions (interplay), as well as a lack of interrelations
between temporal and spatial scales.
As yet, there is no integrated approach to land use governance that provides
applicable inter-sectoral governance to handle multi-stakeholder interrelations. In
particular, current land use decisions are based on an insufficient poly-rational understanding of actors’ positions (Davy 2012, 85), as well as deficits in knowledge provision (Salet 2014; Frantzeskaki and Kabisch 2015; Giebels et al. 2016). This includes
knowledge gaps, also related to the complexity in land use governance, which is
characterised by high levels of uncertainty (unpredictable developments and interrelations), disagreement (conflicting aims and demands) and distributed capacities
(multi-actor landscape) (cf. Hummelbrunner and Jones 2013, 2).
In conclusion, contemporary land use governance systems are characterised by
gaps, mismatches, or other dysfunctionalities that lead to the promotion of unsustainable land use. Above all, integrative land use regulations are lacking, particularly
at the EU level. This deficit can be traced back to path dependencies (Getimis et al.
2014), based on closed disciplinary debates in science that are continued and reflected
by sectoral perspectives in land use governance.