156
J. Zscheischler and S. Rogga
arable land requires little monetary investment and, thus allows experimentation
and many variations. In contrast, the APV plant was rather cost-intensive. Thus,
the margin for processual adaption and innovation was narrow.
2. Improvement of decision-makers’ knowledge base (example: integrated
energy concepts)
Several projects developed instruments to help decision-makers make wellinformed and justified decisions when dealing with complex situations where
stakeholders often have opposing views and where trade-offs between different
societal goals are prevalent. This included integrated and action-oriented
concepts for municipal administrations (usually in the context of energy transformation), decision support systems, and associated tools and instruments
(EnAHRgie, render and ginkoo).
3. Co-management approaches (example: collaborative landscape management)
Another strategy was to establish new alliances, networks and collaborations
for pooling scarce resources, facilitating mutual knowledge exchange and social
learning, and to coordinate collective actions. As an example, in one project,
where the loss of the traditional cultural landscape was defined as a problem
shared by all of the actors involved, the idea of collaborative landscape management was advocated as a promising solution (Zscheischler et al. 2019). In this
case, several partial solutions (also technological innovations) were co-designed
and co-developed by actors from different sectors such as farmers, tourism
providers and nature conservation. These solutions were complemented by the
idea of an integrated management concept that includes new forms of coordination, new co-operation and new networks on a community level. The process
combined a real-word lab approach (for co-designing and testing several partial
solutions) with a transdisciplinary process. This combination facilitated a joint
problem framing, the harmonisation of actors’ different visions and conflicts by
means of a consensual discourse, the initiation of social learning processes, and
the strengthening of actors’ relationships (Fig. 8.1).
4. New Organisations and Institutions
Another type of outcome and innovation was the development and construction of
new organisations and institutions that took responsibilities and (in some cases)
mandates to manage or co-ordinate land resources. Here, a general approach was
to install an administrative or co-ordination position, which we call the “land use
manager”.
These managers worked at the interface between governance and government,
as well as between different land use sectors (vertical and horizontal structures).
From an organisational point of view, the implementation of “land use managers”
can be seen as an adaptation of the current German practice of administrative
units that work at the municipal or regional level based on cross-sectoral tasks,
defined by policy demands. As an example, “climate protection managers” have
been installed in recent decades to accompany the implementation of climate
targets set by the government (at different administrative levels). Climate protection managers work horizontally (cross-sectorally) as well as vertically (between
hierarchical levels) within the administration. They also perform communication
J. Zscheischler and S. Rogga
arable land requires little monetary investment and, thus allows experimentation
and many variations. In contrast, the APV plant was rather cost-intensive. Thus,
the margin for processual adaption and innovation was narrow.
2. Improvement of decision-makers’ knowledge base (example: integrated
energy concepts)
Several projects developed instruments to help decision-makers make wellinformed and justified decisions when dealing with complex situations where
stakeholders often have opposing views and where trade-offs between different
societal goals are prevalent. This included integrated and action-oriented
concepts for municipal administrations (usually in the context of energy transformation), decision support systems, and associated tools and instruments
(EnAHRgie, render and ginkoo).
3. Co-management approaches (example: collaborative landscape management)
Another strategy was to establish new alliances, networks and collaborations
for pooling scarce resources, facilitating mutual knowledge exchange and social
learning, and to coordinate collective actions. As an example, in one project,
where the loss of the traditional cultural landscape was defined as a problem
shared by all of the actors involved, the idea of collaborative landscape management was advocated as a promising solution (Zscheischler et al. 2019). In this
case, several partial solutions (also technological innovations) were co-designed
and co-developed by actors from different sectors such as farmers, tourism
providers and nature conservation. These solutions were complemented by the
idea of an integrated management concept that includes new forms of coordination, new co-operation and new networks on a community level. The process
combined a real-word lab approach (for co-designing and testing several partial
solutions) with a transdisciplinary process. This combination facilitated a joint
problem framing, the harmonisation of actors’ different visions and conflicts by
means of a consensual discourse, the initiation of social learning processes, and
the strengthening of actors’ relationships (Fig. 8.1).
4. New Organisations and Institutions
Another type of outcome and innovation was the development and construction of
new organisations and institutions that took responsibilities and (in some cases)
mandates to manage or co-ordinate land resources. Here, a general approach was
to install an administrative or co-ordination position, which we call the “land use
manager”.
These managers worked at the interface between governance and government,
as well as between different land use sectors (vertical and horizontal structures).
From an organisational point of view, the implementation of “land use managers”
can be seen as an adaptation of the current German practice of administrative
units that work at the municipal or regional level based on cross-sectoral tasks,
defined by policy demands. As an example, “climate protection managers” have
been installed in recent decades to accompany the implementation of climate
targets set by the government (at different administrative levels). Climate protection managers work horizontally (cross-sectorally) as well as vertically (between
hierarchical levels) within the administration. They also perform communication