Planning Multifunctional Measures for Efficient Landscape Management: Quantifying and Comparing the Added Value of Integrated and Segregated Management Concepts - Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture - page 261

13.4.1.4 Sectoral Scenario for Safeguarding Biodiversity
To meet the objectives of the landscape master plan's biotope concept, targets and
measures were assigned to biotopes that are being impaired by current land use or
whose quality could be improved. If the landscape master plan proposed alter-
native objectives, we allocated the alternative target biotope types in equal area
proportions.
In order to meet the total biodiversity quality objectives, measures must be
implemented on 24,725 ha (35.4 % of the case study area, Table 13.3 ). The
benefits of these measures are expressed in habitat value points, in this case 63,995
VP. The implementation of all the measures would cost approximately 289.38
Mio. € for a 10 year period. For a limited budget, measures should be implemented
in high priority areas. For the case study this means that a budget of 10 Mio. € can
achieve about 2,212 VP (3.5 % of the target).
13.4.1.5 Unintentional Multifunctional Effects of the Sectoral
Scenarios
Table 13.3 gives an overview of effects of the sectoral management strategies.
This includes (1) the sectoral (intended) effects, (2) additional benefits for other
landscape functions (global effects, that occur even if the measures are not quite
similar), (3) effects of unintentional multifunctional measures (when similar or
synergizing measures spatially overlap).
When the unintentional side-effects (additional benefits) of the different sectoral
scenarios are compared, it becomes clear that the scenario for climate change mit-
igation has by far the highest additional effects on other landscape functions. The
implementation of this sectoral scenario achieves more than 100 % of the target for
water quality protection. Furthermore, 88.3 % of erosion prone sites are improved
by this management strategy, and it achieves half of the optimized gain in habitat
value of the sectoral biodiversity scenario. In addition to the climate protection
scenario, the biodiversity strategy produces unintentional benefits for other land-
scape functions that are significantly higher than those of water and erosion pro-
tection scenarios. The implementation of the sectoral biodiversity scenario can
satisfy *25 to *54 % of other sectoral objectives. In contrast, the optimized sec-
toral scenarios for erosion and water quality conservation do not have comparable
benefits for other sectoral scenarios. They have only little effects on the objectives
for climate change mitigation (4 % within erosion scenario) and safeguarding bio-
diversity (*8 % within water scenario). However, the erosion prevention scenario
does fulfill the water conservation objectives to *27 %, and the water quality
scenario contributes the regional objectives for erosion prevention to *13 %. It
should be noted that the area of measures in the sectoral scenarios differs from
15,610 ha (for erosion prevention) to 52,667 ha (for water quality conservation).
The analysis of the actual location of measures in the case study shows that
there are areas where measures overlap that are per se multifunctional and where