Participatory decision making on agri-environmental programmes: A case study from Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany)

Land Use Policy

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 106-115

  Prager, Katrin ^a   Nagel, Uwe Jens ^a  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Agri environmental programmes; Communication processes; Conflict resolution; Participation and decision making

Indexed keywords

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; DECISION MAKING; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; STAKEHOLDER; STRATEGIC APPROACH; TRADE-OFF;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; GERMANY; SAXONY-ANHALT;

EID: 34447092881     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.03.003     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Aarts N., and van Woerkum C. The communication between farmers and government about nature. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 2 (1995) 1-11
2. Albrecht, H., 1992. Sozialwissenschaftliche Aktionsforschung in Entwicklungsprogrammen: Bedeutung und Bedingungen. Zeitschrift für Ausländische Landwirtschaft 7 (1), 1963, 4-21. Reprinted in: Hoffmann, V. (Ed.), 1992. Beratung als Lebenshilfe: Humane Konzepte für eine ländliche Entwicklung. Margraf, Weikersheim, pp. 113-128.
3. Bills N., and Gross D. Sustaining multifunctional agricultural landscapes: comparing stakeholder perspectives in New York (US) and England (UK). Land Use Policy 22 (2005) 313-321
4. Bogumil J. Neue Formen der Bürgerbeteiligung an kommunalen Entscheidungsprozessen: Kooperative Demokratie auf dem Vormarsch!?. Der Städtetag 6 (2001) 32-36
5. Cary J., and Webb T. Landcare in Australia: community participation and land management. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 56 (2001) 274-278
6. Dienel P.C. Wie können die Bürger an Planungsprozessen beteiligt werden?. Der Bürger im Staat 3 (1971) 151-156
7. Dobbs, T.L., Pretty, J.N., 2001. Future Directions for Joint Agricultural Environmental Policies: Implications of the United Kingdom. Experience for Europe and the United States. University of Essex, Centre for Environment and Society, Occasional Paper 2001-5.
8. Feindt P.H. Rationalität durch Partizipation? Das Mehrstufige Dialogische Verfahren als Antwort auf gesellschaftliche Differenzierung. In: Feindt P.H., Gessenharter W., Birzer M., and Fröchling P. (Eds). Konfliktregelung in der offenen Bürgergesellschaft (1996), Verlag Dr. Röll, Dettelbach 169-190
9. Freese J. Naturschutz in der intensiv genutzten Agrarlandschaft-Akzeptanzuntersuchungen im Projekt "Lebensraum Börde". In: Korn H., and Feit U. (Eds). Treffpunkt Biologische Vielfalt IV (2004), Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn 137-142
10. Grafen A., and Schramek J. Germany: complex agri-environmental policy in a federal system. In: Buller H., Wilson G.A., and Höll A. (Eds). Agri-environmental Policy in the European Union (2000), Ashgate, Aldershot 119-143
11. Greenwood D.J., and Levin M. Introduction to Action Research. Social Research for Social Change (1998), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
12. Hanley N., Whitby M., and Simpson I. Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 16 (1999) 67-80
13. Hilts S.G. Achieving sustainability in rural land management through landowner involvement in stewardship programmes. In: Ilbery B.W., Chiotti Q., and Rickard T. (Eds). Agricultural Restructuring and Sustainability: a Geographical Perspective (1997), CAB International, Wallingford 267-277
14. Illsley B.M. Fair participation-a Canadian perspective. Land Use Policy 20 (2003) 265-273
15. Kästner, K., 2005. Personal communication. Ministerium für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt Sachsen-Anhalt, Magdeburg.
16. Kirschke, D., Häger, A., Jechlitschka, K., Wegener, S., 2004a. Priority setting for rural development: an interactive PC-based programming approach. In: Petrick, M., Weingarten, P. (Eds.), The Role of Agriculture in Central and Eastern European Rural Development: Engine of Change or Social Buffer? Halle (Saale): IAMO, Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Central and Eastern Europe 25, pp. 398-412, also: 〈www.iamo.de/dok/sr_vol25.pdf〉.
17. Kirschke D., Daenecke E., Häger A., Kästner K., Jechlitschka K., and Wegener S. Entscheidungsunterstützung bei der Gestaltung von Agrarumweltprogrammen: Ein interaktiver, PC-gestützter Programmierungsansatz für Sachsen-Anhalt. Berichte über Landwirtschaft 82 2 (2004) 494-517
18. Kirschke, D., Häger, A., Jechlitschka, K., Wegener, S., 2005. Co-financing implications for regional policy-making: a case study for the agri-environmental programme in Saxony-Anhalt. Sutra Working Paper No. 5. Humboldt-University of Berlin. also: 〈http://www.agrar.hu-berlin.de/sutra/workingpaper/wp5/wp5.htm〉.
19. Knierim A., and Nagel U.J. Challenges and constraints for cooperative conflict management among land use stakeholders. In: Peters G.H., and Pingali P. (Eds). Tomorrow's Agriculture: Incentives, Institutions, Infrastructure and Innovations: Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth International Conference of Agricultural Economists (2001), Ashgate, Hants, UK 527-537
20. Korf B. Making sense of "Bottom-up" in rural development. In: Verbeke W., et al. (Ed). New Policies and Institutions for European Agriculture (2003), Elsevier, Amsterdam 423-437
21. Lind A.E., and Tyler T.R. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice (1988), Plenum Press, New York
22. Ministerium des Inneren des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, 1998. Beschluß der Landesregierung über die Gemeinsame Geschäftsordnung der Ministerien-Allgemeiner Teil. Ministerialblatt LSA Nr.3/1998 vom 21.1.1998.
23. Ministerium für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (MLU), 2005. Agrarbericht 2005. 〈http://www.sachsen-anhalt.de/LPSA/index.php?id=1809〉.
24. Morris C. Networks of agri-environmental policy implementation: a case study of England's Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Land Use Policy 21 (2004) 177-191
25. Morris C.J., Mills J., and Crawford I.M. Promoting farmer uptake of agri-environment schemes: the Countryside Stewardship Arable Options Scheme. Land Use Policy 17 (2000) 241-254
26. O'Hara S., Shandas V., and Vazquez J. Communicating sustainable development options-who evaluates the trade-offs?. In: Ring I., Klauer B., Waetzold F., and Mansson B. (Eds). Regional Sustainability. Applied Ecological Economics Bridging the Gap Between Natural and Social Sciences (1999), Physica Verlag, Heidelberg 65-87
27. In: Reason P., and Bradbury H. (Eds). Handbook of Action Research (2001), Sage Publications, London
28. Renn O., Webler T., Rakel H., Dienel P., and Johnson B. Public participation in decision making: a three-step procedure. Policy Science 26 (1993) 189-214
29. Rubin H.J., and Rubin I.S. Qualitative Interviewing. The Art of Hearing Data (1995), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
30. Scott J. Social Network Analysis (1991), Sage, London
31. Smithers J., and Furman M. Environmental farm planning in Ontario: exploring participation and the endurance of change. Land Use Policy 20 (2003) 343-356
32. Tyler, T., 2001. Obeying the law in America: procedural justice and the sense of fairness. Issues of Democracy, July.
33. Wessels B. Condemned to co-operate. Mitbestimmung International Edition 8 (2000) 47-50
34. White S.S. Public participation and organizational change in Wisconsin land use management. Land Use Policy 18 (2001) 341-350
35. In: Whyte W.F. (Ed). Participatory Action Research (1991), Sage Publications, Newbury Park
36. Wilson G.A. Factors influencing farmer participation in the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. Journal of Environmental Management 50 (1997) 67-93
37. Wilson G.A. The Australian Landcare movement: towards 'post-productivist' rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies 20 (2004) 461-484
38. Wilson G.A., Buller H., and Höll A. Conclusions: agri-environmental policy beyond Regulation 2078. In: Buller H., Wilson G.A., and Höll A. (Eds). 2000; Agri-environmental Policy in the European Union (2000), Ashgate, Aldershot 255-260
39. Zilleßen H., and Barbian T. Neue Formen der Konfliktregelung in der Umweltpolitik. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte B 39-40 (1992) 14-23