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 271

sectoral biodiversity-objectives (in the case study) costs about 10 times more than
achieving water quality objectives.
We confirmed the hypothesis that integrative management strategies are con-
siderably more effective and efficient than sectoral ones. However, the added value
of an integrated strategy requires a model of integrated environmental politics. The
implementation of multifunctional measures causes a redistribution of resources
among the different environmental policy sectors. The shift mainly enhances
safeguarding biodiversity and climate change mitigation, because the measures
that improve these landscape functions are usually multifunctional and expensive.
In contrast, when funds are distributed equally to each sector, water quality con-
servation measures can be implemented to a greater extent. This is due to the fact
that sectoral measures for water quality conservation are relatively inexpensive,
compared to integrative measures.
Whether or not the potential multifunctional effects can actually be achieved
depends greatly on the allocation of measures. Multifunctional effects can be
optimized within an integrative environmental management strategy by imple-
menting potential multifunctional or synergizing measures on sites that require an
improvement of multiple landscape functions. This leads to efficient landscape
management. However, the implementation of measures that only benefit one
ecosystem function may also be worthwhile, although their cost efficiency related
to the sum of regional objective fulfillment is generally lower. For example,
biodiversity measures that are located in forests cannot be combined with other
objectives because there is generally no need for water, soil or climate restoration
in forests. Furthermore, monofunctional measures are not per se inefficient.
Especially water quality conservation can be efficiently implemented by sectoral
measures that are integrated into land uses.
The case study confirmed that measures for safeguarding biodiversity as well as
measures for climate change mitigation can be used as leading measures for
optimizing effects for all landscape functions. Although no conflicting measures
have been identified in the analysis on the landscape scale, it cannot be ruled out
that conflicts may occur in a more detailed, site-specific analysis. Nevertheless, not
all types of measures for safeguarding biodiversity (that are used as leading
measures within the integrative scenario) generate the maximum effects for cli-
mate change mitigation (e.g. for M16 maximum CO 2 -retention can be asumed,
whereas the implementation of M14 or M13 on cropland contribute reducing CO 2 -
emissions, but do not necessarily lead to an optimal CO 2 -retention. However, the
biodiversity priority areas that can be defined with respect to their international,
national or regional importance, cannot be used as a sole indicator for effectively
and efficiency guiding implementation measures (allocation and time scheduling).
These priority areas include areas of all multifunctionality levels, also those of
low effectiveness and efficiency (monofunctional areas and areas with only two
overlaying improvement requirements). Therefore, measures within areas of
high importance for safeguarding biodiversity are effective and efficient in a
cross-sectoral sense, if they are allocated on sites that have a high level of
multifunctionality.