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 264

Table 13.4 (continued)

Degree
multi-
funct.

Overlaying
needs/focus
areas

Rules/principles for
generating an
integrative
management concept,
examples of allocated
integrative measures

Area for
measures
(ha)

Percentage
of case
study area

Implem.
costs
(10 years)

Percentage
of
(theoret.)
costs for
implem. all
measures

Erosion
prevent. on
erosive
sites,
objective
fulfillment
(%)

W: N-
reduction
in kg/*a,
objective
fulfillment
(%)

C: reduction
of CO 2 -
emissions in
t objective
fulfillment
(%)

B: upgrading
of Habitat
value points,
objective
fulfillment
(%)

EWCB

3 EF X X X Lead: B, additional

requirements for
rewetting

7,728 11.1 82,824,156 20.9 0 165,701 1,753,987 16,672

(11.0 %) (16.5 %) (22.5 %)

X X X Lead: B, add. requirm.

on allocation of
M12 to achieve
effects for erosion
prevent.; when
M12 also M1

694 1.0 9,123,834 2.3 694 62,423 0 1,825

(3.6 %) (4.2 %) (2.5 %)

X X X Lead: C (M10, M11) 10,905 15.6 45,696,543 11.5 10,905 546,150 908,990 11,084

(55.9 %) (36.4 %) (8.6 %) (15.0 %)

4 EF X X X X Lead: B, add. requirm.

for rewetting
(M16), possibly
implem. of M12 &
M10 within the
same area

6,312 9.0 66,694,725 16.8 6,312 327,479 908,064 18,790

(32.4 %) (21.8 %) (8.6 %) (25.3 %)

59,113 84.6 396,660,724 100 19,506 1,988,931 5,576,918 97,794

(100 %) (132.6 %) (52.6 %) (132.1 %)