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 268

Fig. 13.6 Average costs for implementing measures on 1.000 ha (sectoral management
strategies: erosion prevention (E), water quality conservation (W), climate change mitigation
(C), safeguarding biodiversity (B); integrative management strategy (I))
It has to be noticed that the average effect on N-reduction of the selected sectoral
water quality conservation measures (28.5 kg N/ha*a) is lower than the average
effect on N-reduction of the integrative measures (34.5 kg N/ha*a). Nevertheless,
related to their effects the costs for integrative measures are still higher than costs
for the selected set of most efficient water quality conservation measures.
Cost Efficiency Related to Regional Objective fulfillment
Figure 13.7 shows costs for implementing (integrative) measures allocated in
different areas of action to fulfill 1 % of the regional quality objectives. It illus-
trates, that the costs for measures needed to fulfill 1 % of the regional objectives
decrease when multifunctional effects are achieved. The figure shows that multi-
functional measures are not per se more efficient. A specific measure becomes
more efficient (i.e. the implementation costs related to 1 % regional objective
fulfillment), the more multifunctional effects are generated. However, the imple-
mentation costs in monofunctional areas for nitrogen reduction or erosion pre-
vention (W, E) as well as in Level-2 areas with needs for both, nitrogen-reduction
and erosion prevention (EW), are lower, compared to measures with multifunc-
tional effects on biodiversity or climate protection (e.g. EB, WB, WC). This is due
to the fact, that costs for implementing (integrative) biotope conservation measures