No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This paper develops a method to explore how alternative scenarios of the expansion of maize production for biogas generation affect biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES). Our approach consists of four steps: (i) defining scenario targets and implementation of assumptions; (ii) simulating crop distributions across the landscape; (iii) assessing the ES impacts; and (iv) quantifying the impacts for a comparative trade-off analysis. The case study is the region of Hannover, Germany. One scenario assumes an increase of maize production in a little regulated governance system; two others reflect an increase of biogas production with either strict or flexible environmental regulation. We consider biodiversity and three ES: biogas generation, food production and the visual landscape. Our results show that the expansion of maize production results in predominantly negative impacts for other ES. However, positive effects can also be identified, i.e., when the introduction of maize leads to higher local crop diversity and, thus, a more attractive visual landscape. The scenario of little regulation portrays more negative impacts than the other scenarios. Targeted spatial planning, implementation and appropriate governance for steering maize production into less sensitive areas is crucial for minimizing trade-offs and exploiting synergies between bioenergy and other ES.

No abstract

For the restoration of medium and small rivers, the reintroduction of large wood (LW) is crucial. Despite the wide communication of the ecological key functions of LW, residents rejected its reintroduction in a restoration project at the river Mulde (Dessau‐Roßlau, Germany). To determine whether this is a local or widespread phenomenon in Germany, we investigated (a) the German population's attitude toward LW, (b) preferred quantities of LW introduction, and (c) the effects of flood experiences and other sociodemographic characteristics on these preferences. We conducted a nationwide and representative online survey (n = 2,100), including rating‐scale statements and a choice experiment (CE). Regarding the rating statements, we found that a majority of respondents (57–67%) is convinced of the advantages of LW reintroduction. However, 47–60% considered LW to be dangerous for canoeists or during floods. For the CE (n = 743), we defined an LW attribute and added information on possible effects. Conditional logit models showed a strong preference for the highest amount of LW, with an odds ratio 5.47 times higher than for the status quo without LW. We also found that personal flood experiences reduce the preferred LW quantities. In contrast, females, higher educational levels, the youngest and oldest age groups, and especially frequent river visitors preferred higher LW amounts. Since the commitment of young people to environmental issues is currently increasing, we believe that specific environmental education opportunities for this group located along the river can contribute significantly to increase acceptance.