Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Ecosystem Services in Energy Crop Production - A Concept for Regulatory Measures in Spatial Planning? Cover

Ecosystem Services in Energy Crop Production - A Concept for Regulatory Measures in Spatial Planning?

Journal of Landscape Ecology
Volume 4 (2011): Issue 3 (August 2011)
By: ,  ,   and    
Open Access
|Aug 2012
References

References

  1. Agrargenossenschaft Radeburg (2010).Retrieved 11.7.2011, from:
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, K.P., Oertel, H. & Umlauf, B. (2008)."Moritzburger Kleinkuppenlandschaft" Denkschrift "Landwirtschaft und Naturschutz" 2007. Retrieved 11.7.2011, from
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. Bardt, H. (2008).IW-Trends - Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft Köln. 35(1).
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. Bastian, O., Corti, C. & Lebboroni, M. (2007). Determining Environmental Minimum Requirements for functions provided by agro-ecosystems.27:1-13.
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. Bastian, O., Lütz, M., Röder, M. & Syrbe, R.-U. (2006). The assessment of landscape scenarios with regard to landscape functions. In: Meyer, B.C. (Ed.).pp. 15-22. Landscape Europe, Alterra Report No. 1338, Wageningen.
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. Bastian, O., Röder, M. (1999). Analyse und Bewertung anthropogen bedingter Landschaftsveränderungen - anhand von zwei Beispielsgebieten des sächsischen Hügellandes. In: Haase, G. (Ed.).Abhandl. Sächs. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig, math.-nat. Klasse, vol. 59(1):75-149.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Bastian, O., Schreiber, K.-F. (1999).Spektrum Heidelberg - Berlin. 2. ed., 564 pp. (1. ed. 1994).
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. BDLA (Bund Deutscher Landschaftsarchitekten) (2005).Freising
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. Börjesson, P. (1999A). Environmental effects of energy crop production - Part I: Identification and quantification.16, 137-154.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  10. Börjesson, P. (1999B). Environmental effects of energy crop production - Part II: Economic valuation.16, 155-170.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  11. BMELV (2009).Eine Strategie des BMELV für die Erhaltung und nachhaltige Nutzung der biologischen Vielfalt für die Ernährung, Land-, Forst- und Fischereiwirtschaft. Berlin.
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. BMELV, BMU (2009).Beitrag der Biomasse für eine nachhaltige Energieversorgung. Berlin.
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. BMU (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety) (2007).Berlin
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. Bringezu, S., Steger, S. (2005).Global Issue Papers 20, Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Berlin.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. Bruell, A. (2007). Complementary biomass strategy - applying the ecosystem services concept in sustainable landscape management. In: Bunce, R.G.H., Jongman, R.H.G., Hojas, L. & Weel, S. (Eds.).(404-408 pp.). Proc. 7th IALE World Congress 8-13 July Wageningen, The Netherlands
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. Burger, F. (2005). Energiewälder und Ökologie.48:26-27.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. Cherubini, F., Stromman, A.H. (2010). Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: State of the art and future challenges., in press
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  18. Ciriacy-wantrup, S. (1952).Univ. of California, Div. of Agriculture Sciences. Berkeley, Los Angeles.
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. Commission of the european UNION (1999).Communication of the Commission of the European Communities, COM (1999) 22 final, in reference to Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 (common rules for direct support schemes), Article 2, Brussels.
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. Commission of the european communities (2007).Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Brussels.
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. Costanza, R. (1991).Columbia University Press, 525 pp.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. Costanza, R., D'arge, R., DE Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P. & Van Den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital.387:253-260.
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. DBFZ (German Biomass Research Centre) (2009).1. prelim. Report, Leipzig.
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. DE Groot, R., Wilson, M. & Boumans, R. (2002). A typology for description, classification and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services.41:393-408.
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. Deutsches maiskomitee (2010).Bonn: DMK. Retrieved 10.6 2010, from http://www.maiskomitee.de/web/intranet/news.aspx?news=69004569-424f-4edf-b6b0-7c45995cbeee
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. Drewag (2010).Nonstop. Kundenmagazin 1, Dresden. Retrieved 10.6. 2010, from
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. EEA (European Environment Agency) (2006).Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. EEA Report 7/2006.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Ekardt, F., Heym, A. & Seidel, J. (2008). Die Privilegierung der Landwirtschaft im Umweltrecht.19:169-177.
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. Ericsson, K., Rosenqvist, H. & Nilsson, L. J. (2009). Energy crop production costs in the EU.33: 1577-1586.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. European commission (1997).Communication from the Commission, Brussels.
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. European commission - OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2004)., Brussels.
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. George, K. (2004).APUS, Beiträge zur Avifauna Sachsen-Anhalts, Halle/S.
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. Ginzky, H. (2008). Der Anbau nachwachsender Rohstoffe aus Sicht des Bodenschutzes. Gegenwärtige Rechtslage und Änderungsbedarf.19:188-194.
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. Göransson, G. (1994). Bird fauna of cultivated energy shrub forests at different height.6: 49-52.
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. Greiff, K.B., Weber-blaschke, G., Faulstich, M. & Von Haaren, C. (2010). Förderung eines umweltschonenden Energiepflanzenanbaus.42:101-107.
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. Hall, R.L., Allen, S.J., Rosier, P.T.W., Smith, D.M., Hodnett, M.G., Roberts, J.M.; Hopkins, R. & Davies, H.N. (1996).Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford, UK.
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. Hampicke, U. (1992).UTB für Wissenschaft 1650, Ulmer: Stuttgart, 342 pp.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  38. Haslett, J.R., Berry, P.M., Bella, G., Jongman, R.H.G., Pataki, G., Samways, M.J. & Zobel, M. (2010). Changing conservation strategies in Europe: A framework integrating ecosystem services and dynamics.19/10, pp 2963-2977
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  39. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons.162:1243-1248.
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. Heidmann, T., Thomsen, A. & Schelde, K. (2000). Modelling soil water dynamics in winter wheat using different estimates of canopy development.129:229-243.
    Search in Google Scholar
  41. Hillier, J., Whittaker, C., Dailey, G., Aylotts, M., Casella, E., Richter, G.M., Riche, A., Murphy, R., Taylor, G. & Smith, P. (2009). Greenhouse gas emissions from four bioenergy crops in England and Wales: Integrating spatial estimates of yield and soil carbon balance in life cycle analysis.1:267-281
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  42. Janssen, G., Albrecht, J. (2008).Dessau-Roßlau (UBA-Texte 10/2008).
    Search in Google Scholar
  43. Kavalov, B., Peteves, S.D. (2005).Mission of the Institute for Energy Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
    Search in Google Scholar
  44. Kort, J., Collins, M. & Ditsch, D. (1998). A review of soil erosion potential associated with biomass crops.14:351-359.
    Search in Google Scholar
  45. Lee, Y. H., Bückmann, W. & Haber, W. (2008). Bio-Kraftstoff, Nachhaltigkeit, Natur- und Bodenschutz., pp. 821-831.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  46. Liesebach, M., Mulsow, H. (2003). Der Sommervogelbestand einer Kurzumtriebsplantage, der umgebenden Feldflur und des angrenzenden Fichtenwaldes im Vergleich.54:27-31.
    Search in Google Scholar
  47. Londo, M., Roose, M., Dekker, J. & Degraaf, H. (2004). Willow short-rotation coppice in multiple land-use systems: evaluation of four combination options in the Dutch context.27:205-221.
    Search in Google Scholar
  48. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005)., Vol. 2. Findings of the Scenarios Working Group. Island Press: Washington, Covelo, London.
    Search in Google Scholar
  49. Mclaughlin, S.B., Walsh, M.E. (1998). Evaluating environmental consequences of producing herbaceous crops for bioenergy.14:317-324.
    Search in Google Scholar
  50. Müller, F., Burkhard, B. (2007). An ecosystem based framework to link landscape structures, functions and services. In: Mander, U., Wiggering, H. & Helming, K. (Eds.):pp 37-64. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
    Search in Google Scholar
  51. NABU (Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V.) (2005).NABU Positionspapier 04/2005. (online:
    Search in Google Scholar
  52. NABU (Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V.) (2007).NABU: Berlin.
    Search in Google Scholar
  53. Peters, W. (2009).FuE-Bericht im Auftrag des Sächsischen Landesamtes für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie (unpublished), Bosch & Partner, Berlin.
    Search in Google Scholar
  54. Petrak, M. (2009). Schwarzwild - Gewinner in der Kulturlandschaft: Wildbiologische Grundlagen und Empfehlungen für die Praxis von Jagd und Naturschutz, Forstwirtschaft und Landwirtschaft.7:255-267.
    Search in Google Scholar
  55. Rode, M., Schneider, C., Ketelhake, G. & Reißhauer, D. (2005).BfN-Scripten 136, Bonn.
    Search in Google Scholar
  56. Rowe, R.L., Street, N.R. & Taylor, G. (2009). Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the EU.13: 271-290.
    Search in Google Scholar
  57. Schrack, M. (2001).StUFA: Naturschutz regional - Beiträge zum Naturschutz im Oberen Elbtal/Osterzgebirge. pp. 70-82, Radebeul.
    Search in Google Scholar
  58. Spangenberg, J.H. (2008). Second order governance: learning processes to identify indicators.15:125-139.
    Search in Google Scholar
  59. SRU (Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen) (2007).Sondergutachten, Bonn.
    Search in Google Scholar
  60. Stegner, J. (2010).Abschlussbericht im Auftrag des Sächsischen Staatsministeriums für Umwelt und Landwirtschaft (unpublished), Dresden, 154 p
    Search in Google Scholar
  61. TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) (2009).Responding to the value of nature.
    Search in Google Scholar
  62. UFOP (Union zur Förderung von Energie- und Proteinpflanzen e.V.) (2006).Stand und Entwicklungsperspektiven. UFOP, Berlin.
    Search in Google Scholar
  63. Vetter, A. (2001). Qualitätsanforderungen an halmgutartige Bioenergieträger hinsichtlich der energetischen Verwertung. In: Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe (Ed.):Gülzower Fachgespräche 17:36-50.
    Search in Google Scholar
  64. Wachendorf, M., Grass, R. & Richter, F. (2008).Proc. 16th Europ. Biomass Conf., Valencia, pp. 1-6.
    Search in Google Scholar
  65. Windhorst, W., Müller, F. & Wiggering, H. (2004).Geowissen und Umwelt. Springer, pp 345-373
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10285-012-0043-y | Journal eISSN: 1805-4196 | Journal ISSN: 1803-2427 (formerly 1805-4196)
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 49 - 66
Published on: Aug 8, 2012
Published by: Czech Society for Landscape Ecology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
Renewable Energy,
Biomass,
Maize,
Short Rotation Coppices,
Biogas,
Protected Areas,
Moritzburg Small-Hill Landscape,
energy crops,
nature conservation,
regulatory measures,
planning instruments
Related subjects:
Geosciences,
Geosciences, other

© 2012 Gerd Lupp, Juliane Albrecht, Marianne Darbi, Olaf Bastian, published by Czech Society for Landscape Ecology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.

Volume 4 (2011): Issue 3 (August 2011)
Previous article
Next article