344
T. Weith et al.
in which supposedly opposing stakeholder groups assume joint responsibility for the
intended integrated use at an early stage.
More importantly, land use conflicts will likely be managed much more efficiently
on the basis of co-designed use and development processes than conventional decision processes in which conflicts are detected at a later stage, or specifically addressed
at a later stage for the public.
Defining institutional frameworks and, in particular, governance approaches
In the context of European institutional frameworks, the outlined handling of different
demands to land and of land use conflicts simultaneously suggests a specific understanding of governance. Building on regional political agenda setting (Nuissl &
Siedentop; Fürst), the interaction of different stakeholder groups (collaboration)
plays an important role. In this connection, the early coordination of activities as
co-design, the involvement of civil society stakeholders (Nuissl & Siedentop) and
the nomination of persons with regional responsibility (minders) are of particular
importance.
System solutions at different scales should be sought (Heck). Where possible,
the approaches take up existing production and governance systems, and take into
account their inherent logics and structures. Different regulatory approaches (statedriven hierarchical, market-based, cooperative) interact in the process. It is also
important that the specific governance approaches are suitable for establishing and
developing decentralised network systems (Heck). In the process, local stakeholders
must also be able to possess or acquire the relevant skills required for decision
processes.
The conceptual approaches named include nature-based solutions, focusing on
green infrastructures, greater consideration of ecosystem services, and a combination of these approaches (Haase). In light of this, consideration must be taken of
developments in all communities of the city, on the urban fringe, and in rural regions,
including also interlinkages on the regional scale (Doernberg & Weith) as well as the
global scale (telecoupling) (Haase, Schulz et al.). This then also facilitates de facto
sharing and even fair burden-sharing (Specht et al.). In consequence, this results in
much more resilient solutions (Heck). Care should be taken that the different regulatory approaches do not hinder or obstruct each other (Kirschke et al.). Each approach
should be assessed for effectiveness, particularly with regard to implementation, not
least because of the complexity of the challenges and the spatial differentiation
(Heck).
Knowledge management processes play a significant role in this respect. In the
context of co-design processes, it is not only the involvement of regional know-how
that plays a major role, but also regional values and the advancement of existing practices by initiating and continuing social learning processes (Nuissl & Siedentop) that
address practical recommendations (Fürst). At the same time, it is evident that solutions based purely on the development and use of information and communication
technologies, while often helpful and expandable, fall short of what is required, and
only take effect in the process-related interactive interplay with key players (Fürst).
T. Weith et al.
in which supposedly opposing stakeholder groups assume joint responsibility for the
intended integrated use at an early stage.
More importantly, land use conflicts will likely be managed much more efficiently
on the basis of co-designed use and development processes than conventional decision processes in which conflicts are detected at a later stage, or specifically addressed
at a later stage for the public.
Defining institutional frameworks and, in particular, governance approaches
In the context of European institutional frameworks, the outlined handling of different
demands to land and of land use conflicts simultaneously suggests a specific understanding of governance. Building on regional political agenda setting (Nuissl &
Siedentop; Fürst), the interaction of different stakeholder groups (collaboration)
plays an important role. In this connection, the early coordination of activities as
co-design, the involvement of civil society stakeholders (Nuissl & Siedentop) and
the nomination of persons with regional responsibility (minders) are of particular
importance.
System solutions at different scales should be sought (Heck). Where possible,
the approaches take up existing production and governance systems, and take into
account their inherent logics and structures. Different regulatory approaches (statedriven hierarchical, market-based, cooperative) interact in the process. It is also
important that the specific governance approaches are suitable for establishing and
developing decentralised network systems (Heck). In the process, local stakeholders
must also be able to possess or acquire the relevant skills required for decision
processes.
The conceptual approaches named include nature-based solutions, focusing on
green infrastructures, greater consideration of ecosystem services, and a combination of these approaches (Haase). In light of this, consideration must be taken of
developments in all communities of the city, on the urban fringe, and in rural regions,
including also interlinkages on the regional scale (Doernberg & Weith) as well as the
global scale (telecoupling) (Haase, Schulz et al.). This then also facilitates de facto
sharing and even fair burden-sharing (Specht et al.). In consequence, this results in
much more resilient solutions (Heck). Care should be taken that the different regulatory approaches do not hinder or obstruct each other (Kirschke et al.). Each approach
should be assessed for effectiveness, particularly with regard to implementation, not
least because of the complexity of the challenges and the spatial differentiation
(Heck).
Knowledge management processes play a significant role in this respect. In the
context of co-design processes, it is not only the involvement of regional know-how
that plays a major role, but also regional values and the advancement of existing practices by initiating and continuing social learning processes (Nuissl & Siedentop) that
address practical recommendations (Fürst). At the same time, it is evident that solutions based purely on the development and use of information and communication
technologies, while often helpful and expandable, fall short of what is required, and
only take effect in the process-related interactive interplay with key players (Fürst).