342
T. Weith et al.
from the outset (Kanning et al., Zscheischler & Rogga), enabling the co-production of
knowledge. Moreover, greater attention should be paid to indirect effects (Kirschke
et al., Nuissl & Siedentop). For instance, the effects of urbanisation processes go far
beyond urban areas, due to the induced traffic, the consumption of resources and the
demographic/spatial pull effects, and can often only be recognised and detected after
a considerable time lag (Hoffmann). For this reason, analyses should, if possible, be
undertaken also empirically for prolonged periods of time, comparing regions (Hoffmann). In some cases, researchers are totally uncertain as to the key factors driving
these developments, owing to the complexity of the cause-and-effect relationships.
Long-term analyses would then at least enable the uncovering of blind spots, e.g.
concerning the consequences of the impact of demographic change on land use that
often cannot yet be assessed (Hoffmann).
In combination with follow-up activities undertaken in science and practice, this
would also lead to an overall improvement of knowledge in the medium term. In
general, however, there are often complaints about a lack of basic statistical data,
as well as a lack of data on current land use and land use change (Hoffmann).
Although geodata inventories and infrastructures have improved considerably in
recent years, recording and monitoring options should be further improved in this
area (Nuissl). At the same time, there is still, on the one hand, a lack of key basic
data such as comprehensible surveys on ownership of land and property (Kirschke
et al.), while, on the other, there is also a greater need for the stronger aggregation
of empirical knowledge, culminating in enhanced impact models and concepts, also
in combination with socio-economic analyses (e.g. lifestyle analysis: Hoffmann,
Doernberg & Weith).
Enhancing process and knowledge orientation
The authors note that the development and implementation of sustainable land
management should consider the specific design of change processes, paying
particular attention to the generation and provision of different knowledge bases
(co-production of knowledge).
Transdisciplinary processes in particular have a high potential for dealing with
complex land use issues, where normative discourses, conflicting interests, sectoral
as well as disciplinary viewpoints and different knowledge types are to be increasingly integrated in the search for co-designed sustainable solutions (Zscheischler;
Zscheischler & Rogga). Such transdisciplinary processes can be supported by various
conceptual and methodological approaches. The real world labs (as a research
concept) and serious games (as a method) addressed in this book are just two possible
approaches for generating better informed conclusions (Maaß, Kanning et al.). It is
particularly important to enable practitioners to gain access to knowledge sharing
processes and to view matters from the viewpoint of other stakeholders (Kanning
et al.).
Since the demand for knowledge related to land use diverges, the forms of
knowledge provision and sharing should also be diverse, but also manageable for
the stakeholders involved (Pütz & Brassel). In particular, knowledge sharing in a
T. Weith et al.
from the outset (Kanning et al., Zscheischler & Rogga), enabling the co-production of
knowledge. Moreover, greater attention should be paid to indirect effects (Kirschke
et al., Nuissl & Siedentop). For instance, the effects of urbanisation processes go far
beyond urban areas, due to the induced traffic, the consumption of resources and the
demographic/spatial pull effects, and can often only be recognised and detected after
a considerable time lag (Hoffmann). For this reason, analyses should, if possible, be
undertaken also empirically for prolonged periods of time, comparing regions (Hoffmann). In some cases, researchers are totally uncertain as to the key factors driving
these developments, owing to the complexity of the cause-and-effect relationships.
Long-term analyses would then at least enable the uncovering of blind spots, e.g.
concerning the consequences of the impact of demographic change on land use that
often cannot yet be assessed (Hoffmann).
In combination with follow-up activities undertaken in science and practice, this
would also lead to an overall improvement of knowledge in the medium term. In
general, however, there are often complaints about a lack of basic statistical data,
as well as a lack of data on current land use and land use change (Hoffmann).
Although geodata inventories and infrastructures have improved considerably in
recent years, recording and monitoring options should be further improved in this
area (Nuissl). At the same time, there is still, on the one hand, a lack of key basic
data such as comprehensible surveys on ownership of land and property (Kirschke
et al.), while, on the other, there is also a greater need for the stronger aggregation
of empirical knowledge, culminating in enhanced impact models and concepts, also
in combination with socio-economic analyses (e.g. lifestyle analysis: Hoffmann,
Doernberg & Weith).
Enhancing process and knowledge orientation
The authors note that the development and implementation of sustainable land
management should consider the specific design of change processes, paying
particular attention to the generation and provision of different knowledge bases
(co-production of knowledge).
Transdisciplinary processes in particular have a high potential for dealing with
complex land use issues, where normative discourses, conflicting interests, sectoral
as well as disciplinary viewpoints and different knowledge types are to be increasingly integrated in the search for co-designed sustainable solutions (Zscheischler;
Zscheischler & Rogga). Such transdisciplinary processes can be supported by various
conceptual and methodological approaches. The real world labs (as a research
concept) and serious games (as a method) addressed in this book are just two possible
approaches for generating better informed conclusions (Maaß, Kanning et al.). It is
particularly important to enable practitioners to gain access to knowledge sharing
processes and to view matters from the viewpoint of other stakeholders (Kanning
et al.).
Since the demand for knowledge related to land use diverges, the forms of
knowledge provision and sharing should also be diverse, but also manageable for
the stakeholders involved (Pütz & Brassel). In particular, knowledge sharing in a