340
T. Weith et al.
simultaneously taking up and implementing the conceptual approach of co-design
formulated at the start of the book in a variety of forms.
All of the authors who contributed to this volume stress that the current use of land,
and combined functions and ecosystem services, cannot be described as sustainable.
The limited space and the services provided by land for society are being handled
in a way that will make it difficult for future generations in particular to use them
sustainably in a better way (García-Martín et al.). As urbanisation processes progress,
more and more land is used for settlement and infrastructure, leading to an irreversible
loss of soils (Haber). In addition, agricultural and forestry land is also being damaged
by erosion and leaching (Haber; Nuissl & Siedentop). At the same time, there is a
large-scale loss of biodiversity, and landscapes lose their character as multifunctional
cultural landscapes, due in part to fragmentation and to focusing on a one-sided use
of land (García-Martín et al.).
Yet changes and burdens do not occur consistently across the whole area. Rather,
they are characterised by a patchwork of the considerable intensification of use in the
context of agricultural intensification, urbanisation and a strong demand for land in
specific places, with a simultaneous abandonment of land and extensification elsewhere (García-Martín et al.; Doernberg & Weith.) It is not only this concurrence
of opposing developments that makes it so difficult to develop suitable responses.
There are also diverse functional and spatial linkages (see also “telecoupling”) that
have an impact beyond the regional, national and European context, up to the international scale. These interrelations show connections to global developments such as
economic globalisation processes and digitalisation. Added to this are often unforseeable impacts of urbanisation, as well as shrinking processes, which cannot be represented by means of simple cause-and-effect relationships (Nuissl & Siedentop). The
previously and currently emerging competition for land use and land use conflicts are
therefore often very difficult to analyse fully due to their complexity, and it is difficult to draw distinctions between them, particularly with regard to spatial designation
(e.g. urban, rural) (Kanning et al.).
While single conflicts such as between settlement development and protection
of open space appear to be obvious, it is more difficult to identify interconnections in the case of agricultural biodiversity conservation (agriculture versus nature
conservation?) or the promotion of sustainable energy use (Kirschke et al., Nuissl &
Siedentop). In heterogeneous fields of impact such as demographic change, in fact,
they are sometimes even impossible to determine (Hoffmann).
This is also the case because various contemporary governance activities that
influence land use are responsible for creating land use conflicts to a large extent in
the first place. For example, besides mitigating climate change, current energy transition policies also cause land use conflicts to a considerable extent, whether between
different forms of use (wind energy) or within a particular use such as agriculture
(food versus fuel) (García-Martín et al.). Often, these conflicts are only recognised
early on in part due to the limited knowledge in connection with a lack of impact
assessment (processes relating to land use conflicts). This is compounded by the
fact that integrative perspectives reflecting the complexity of the matter are rarely
implemented due to persistent interest-led perspectives focusing on specific sectors
T. Weith et al.
simultaneously taking up and implementing the conceptual approach of co-design
formulated at the start of the book in a variety of forms.
All of the authors who contributed to this volume stress that the current use of land,
and combined functions and ecosystem services, cannot be described as sustainable.
The limited space and the services provided by land for society are being handled
in a way that will make it difficult for future generations in particular to use them
sustainably in a better way (García-Martín et al.). As urbanisation processes progress,
more and more land is used for settlement and infrastructure, leading to an irreversible
loss of soils (Haber). In addition, agricultural and forestry land is also being damaged
by erosion and leaching (Haber; Nuissl & Siedentop). At the same time, there is a
large-scale loss of biodiversity, and landscapes lose their character as multifunctional
cultural landscapes, due in part to fragmentation and to focusing on a one-sided use
of land (García-Martín et al.).
Yet changes and burdens do not occur consistently across the whole area. Rather,
they are characterised by a patchwork of the considerable intensification of use in the
context of agricultural intensification, urbanisation and a strong demand for land in
specific places, with a simultaneous abandonment of land and extensification elsewhere (García-Martín et al.; Doernberg & Weith.) It is not only this concurrence
of opposing developments that makes it so difficult to develop suitable responses.
There are also diverse functional and spatial linkages (see also “telecoupling”) that
have an impact beyond the regional, national and European context, up to the international scale. These interrelations show connections to global developments such as
economic globalisation processes and digitalisation. Added to this are often unforseeable impacts of urbanisation, as well as shrinking processes, which cannot be represented by means of simple cause-and-effect relationships (Nuissl & Siedentop). The
previously and currently emerging competition for land use and land use conflicts are
therefore often very difficult to analyse fully due to their complexity, and it is difficult to draw distinctions between them, particularly with regard to spatial designation
(e.g. urban, rural) (Kanning et al.).
While single conflicts such as between settlement development and protection
of open space appear to be obvious, it is more difficult to identify interconnections in the case of agricultural biodiversity conservation (agriculture versus nature
conservation?) or the promotion of sustainable energy use (Kirschke et al., Nuissl &
Siedentop). In heterogeneous fields of impact such as demographic change, in fact,
they are sometimes even impossible to determine (Hoffmann).
This is also the case because various contemporary governance activities that
influence land use are responsible for creating land use conflicts to a large extent in
the first place. For example, besides mitigating climate change, current energy transition policies also cause land use conflicts to a considerable extent, whether between
different forms of use (wind energy) or within a particular use such as agriculture
(food versus fuel) (García-Martín et al.). Often, these conflicts are only recognised
early on in part due to the limited knowledge in connection with a lack of impact
assessment (processes relating to land use conflicts). This is compounded by the
fact that integrative perspectives reflecting the complexity of the matter are rarely
implemented due to persistent interest-led perspectives focusing on specific sectors