For international climate policy the point at issue is: Will the nations be able to work out a binding post-Kyoto agreement with stringent policy targets and will this be translated into action within a reasonable time frame? In other words, what are the determining factors of cooperative behavior within international climate negotiations, and how can global cooperation among sovereign nations be fostered? To deal with these questions, our conceptual paper proposes to strongly link justice psychology and environmental economics, in particular game theory.Game theory interprets the interaction of nations resp. of representing actors as a public goods (PG) game identifying a social dilemma situation. The aim is to identify the conditions under which a sufficient rate of cooperation can be realized to provide the PG. Game theory thereby focuses on structural conditions in order to reach a sufficient and efficient rate of cooperation to provide the PG at stake. Also searching for determinants of cooperation, psychology follows a different path: it takes a variety of possible human motives into account and analyzes their impact on cooperative decisions empirically. Within that, our approach focuses on subjective justice perceptions: Can justice motives foster cooperative behavior within international negotiations? And if so, towards whom and under which structural conditions?On a conceptual and methodological level, we focus on individual political actors representing national interests within international climate negotiations and dealing with international cooperation tasks. The empirical approach of psychology intertwined with game-theoretical modeling allows important conclusions for the support of international environmental cooperation. Additionally, we consider our integrative perspective as fundamental for further theoretical and empirical advancements of the interdisciplinary as well as disciplinary approaches.

Although wind power is currently the most efficient source of renewable energy, the cost of wind electricity still exceeds the market price. Subsidies in the form of feed-in tariffs (FIT) have been introduced in many countries to support the expansion of wind power. These tariffs are highly debated. Proponents say they are necessary to pave the way for decarbonising energy production. Opponents argue they prevent a welfare-optimal energy supply. Thus, in a case study we try to shed light on the welfare economic aspect of FIT by combining spatial modelling and economic valuation of landscape externalities of wind turbines. We show for the planning region West Saxony, Germany, that setting FIT in a welfare optimal manner is a challenging task. If set too high the production costs are overly increased, lowering social welfare. If set too low energy production targets may not be reached and/or external costs are overly increased, again lowering social welfare. Taking a closer look at the tariffs offered by the German Renewable Sources Energy Act we find for West Saxony that the tariffs quite well meet economic welfare considerations. One should note, however, that this finding might apply only to the present data set.

Although wind power is currently the most efficient source of renewable energy, the installation of wind turbines (WT) in landscapes often leads to conflicts in the affected communities. We propose that such conflicts can be mitigated by a welfare-optimal spatial allocation of WT in the landscape so that a given energy target is reached at minimum social costs. The energy target is motivated by the fact that wind power production is associated with relatively low CO2 emissions. Social costs comprise energy production costs as well as external costs caused by harmful impacts on humans and biodiversity. We present a modeling approach that combines spatially explicit ecological–economic modeling and choice experiments to determine the welfare-optimal spatial allocation of WT in West Saxony, Germany. The welfare-optimal sites balance production and external costs. Results indicate that in the welfare-optimal allocation the external costs represent about 14% of the total costs (production costs plus external costs). Optimizing wind power production without consideration of the external costs would lead to a very different allocation of WT that would marginally reduce the production costs but strongly increase the external costs and thus lead to substantial welfare losses.

In Europe and North America, long-term ecological research (LTER) networks are changing their treatment of human activity from exogenous 'disturbances' to endogenous behaviour. The engagement of social scientists in LTER networks currently takes forms ranging from nonexistent, to research in parallel with ecological research but with minimal interaction, to truly collaborative long-term socio-ecological research (LTSER). Successful collaboration of social and ecological scientists can be facilitated by a 'jazz band' approach that allows shifting multidisciplinary leadership along with disciplinary research solos. Socio-ecological simulation modelling can serve as a common tool for analysing complex dynamics of the interacting systems. The design criteria for an LTSER network should include socio-economic as well as ecological factors in order to ensure that findings can be extrapolated in both dimensions, an approach currently being followed in Europe. However, due to evolving societal needs, socio-ecological research should also be occurring outside the network of LTSER sites. New governmental initiatives on both sides of the Atlantic have the potential to enable more and better socio-ecological research than in the past.

Land-use conflicts arise if land is scarce, land-use types are mutually exclusive, and vary in their effects with regard to more than one incongruent policy objective. If these effects depend on the spatial location of the land-use measures the conflict can be mediated through an appropriate spatial allocation of land use. An example of this conflict is the welfare-optimal allocation of wind turbines (WT) in a region in order to achieve a given energy target at least social costs. The energy target is motivated by the fact that wind power production is associated with relatively low CO2 emissions and is currently the most efficient source of renewable energy supply. However, it is associated with social costs which comprise energy production costs as well as external costs caused by harmful impacts on humans and biodiversity. We present a modelling approach that combines spatially explicit ecological-economic modelling and choice experiments to determine the welfare-optimal spatial allocation of WT in Western Saxony, Germany. We show that external costs are significant. The welfare-optimal sites are therefore not those with the highest energy output (i.e., lowest production costs). However, they show lower external costs than the most productive sites. A sensitivity analysis reveals that the external costs represent about seven percent of the total costs (production costs plus external costs). Increasing the energy production target increases both production and external costs. The absolute (percentage) increase of production costs is higher (lower) than that of external costs.

Recently, the long-term ecological research (LTER) program in the US was evaluated. In its 20-year review report, the National Science Foundation recognizes the achievements of the past and specifies guidance for future development. Among other aspects, research activities of the next decade should concentrate on a new core area: biological diversity, and, to inform environmental policy on the interrelationships and reciprocal impacts of ecological and human systems, LTER is requested "to partner with social scientists" at all existing or newly selected research sites (http://www.nsf.gov/od/Ipa/news/ 02/pr0265.htm). In Europe, LTER activities head in the same direction. To create durable integration of European biodiversity research capacity and to address biodiversity policy needs, long-term socio-ecological research (LTSER) sites should serve as real-world laboratories for interdisciplinary and policy relevant research (http://www.lter-europe.ceh.ac.uk and www.alter-net.info). In this paper, we explore how LTER could meet the challenges of the future: the increase of knowledge on issues of biological diversity and of partnership approaches among the natural and social sciences in common research facilities - the LTSER sites.Regarding biological diversity we explore, in particular, the advantages for improving: (1) ecological-economic modelling, a powerful technique for analysing complex human-nature interaction, (2) the design of choice experiments, a rather new evaluation method for assessing the benefits of conservation and (3) the understanding of biodiversity as complex social dilemma. Regarding the issue of research collaboration, we focus on the geographical scale of LTSER sites and, on a more general level, on the demands of research management in terms of project design, common knowledge and organisation of research teams. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

This article develops eleven criteria focusing on the relative importance and strength of different, especially socio-economic drivers of and pressures on biodiversity. These refer to the syndrome concept designed to assess global environmental risks and the DPSIR framework developed to guide integrative assessment of links between human activities and degradation of the natural environment. The aim is (a) coordinating inter-disciplinary research on distinguishing characteristics of drivers and pressures, (b) structuring interdisciplinary discussions on scale and cross-scale dynamics in assessment of biodiversity change as well as (c) setting priorities in policy making and implementation of response actions.

The expansion of renewable energy is a central element of the German Federal Government's climate and energy policy. The target for 2020 is to produce 30% of the electricity from renewable energies. Wind power has been selected to be a major contributor to this change. Replacing old wind turbines by modern ones and building new turbines on land will be crucial in meeting this target. However, the expansion of onshore wind power is not universally accepted. In several regions of Germany residents are protesting against setting up new wind turbines. To determine the negative effects two choice experiments were applied in Westsachsen and Nordhessen, Germany. In both regions the externalities of wind power generation until 2020 based on today's state of technology were measured. The results show that negative landscape externalities would result from expanding wind power generation. Using latent class models three different groups of respondents experiencing different degrees of externalities were identified.

In future, wind power is to contribute decisively toward achieving climate policy goals. It can accomplish this, however, only if sufficient space for erecting wind turbines (WTs) is made available. In Europe we currently observe the trend that administrative landscape protection counteracts the desired development. Especially in Germany, the country that leads the world thus far in terms of installed capacity for wind power, the planning authorities are moving toward limiting locally available sites by designating so-called priority and suitability areas. These areas give the erection of WTs priority over other types of land uses but prohibit the erection of WTs outside these areas. The scale and the placement of these areas will be of great significance in future for securing wind energy supply at the regional level and thus for accomplishing national goals in climate policy. According to the regulations in the law revising the legal status of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz, EEG, 2009), payment for wind power feed-in to the grid is granted only if, with regard to energy production, the WT to be erected yields at least 60% of a pre-defined standard performance level. With this regulation, the EEG wishes to prevent erecting WTs at locations inefficient for energy production. At the same time, however, higher standards are placed on the allocation of VE areas (priority and suitability areas) as a result. This poses the question: Does regional planning conform to such standards? With the example of the planning region West Saxony, we will evaluate the role the designation of VE areas plays in achieving Germany's wind energy ambitions. The case study reveals that the strategic search of VE areas by the regional planning authorities, involving local stakeholders and the public, hampers investment in state-of-the-art WTs as fostered by the EEG (2009). This leads us to the general conclusion that, even with a participatory design of strategic planning and a determined governmental policy, deployment of the wind resource is not a fast-selling item that in future may contribute decisively toward achieving the ambitious goals in energy and climate policy.

Among the measures discussed as remedies for CO2 emissions reduction renewable energies are prominent as they already provide marketable alternatives to fossil fuels. This holds true especially for wind power, which has multiplied more than twelve-fold on the global scale from 4,800 MW to over 59,000 MW between 1995 and 2005. This is the highest growth rate compared to all other sources of renewable energy. However, is this impressive expansion expected to continue in the near future? Although wind power as a clean technology helps to combat global warming and, as a renewable energy reduces the dependency on the supply of exhaustible fossil fuels, it is not without flaws. There are concerns over adverse effects on human beings, on wildlife and on the landscape. This paper discusses the limits for wind power generation and highlights important conflict areas that may roadblock further expansion of wind power and thus its potential to combat global warming.

Compensation payments for voluntary conservation measures have become an important tool for biodiversity conservation worldwide. Each year substantial financial resources are spent on such measures, particularly in the context of agri-environmental schemes. In Europe, a debate has started on whether this money is spent effectively. In response to this debate it has been suggested that a portfolio of measures leading to habitat heterogeneity be implemented. Although payments for heterogeneous conservation measures have been analysed in the literature, it has never been questioned that payments can be designed in a way that encourages enough land users to carry out each conservation measure within a portfolio of measures. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that such payments do not always exist. Moreover, in cases where payments for habitat heterogeneity exist the payment scheme may require overcompensation of the land users, posing a limit to both efficiency and fairness considerations.

Human activity affects ecosystem functions through the disruption of pattern and rate of matter as well as energy flow through ecosystems. Extraction, transport and transformation of resources driven by societal and economic pressures change our landscape. These processes influence biodiversity, redefine the ecological state of ecosystems and impact both on society and the economy. Thus the inclusion of socio-economic dimensions into standard ecological research has been identified as a challenge in a new phase of development in Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER). Transformation from LTER to LTSER – Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research – raises questions about the comparability and compatibility of research, the need for indicators linking environmental and socio-economic processes as well as criteria for launching research sites that focus on interaction between society and nature. In this paper we propose criteria developed within A Long-Term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Awareness Research Network (ALTER Net). These criteria are designed to support the process of transformation of traditional research sites, with the aim of broadening their scope to a socio-economic dimension. They may also be used for identifying and launching new sites — the LTSER-sites. We suggest that apart from criteria for selection of specific sites, the whole pool of different sites (the network database) is crucial for recognizing cross-scale processes, general socio-ecological and economic trends as well as resource management. Therefore the paper distinguishes between two sets of criteria: local “site criteria” and network “pool criteria”. They may be used both as a quality label for transition of traditional ecological sites and as a matrix for establishing and developing new research areas.

Many endangered species depend on certain types of agricultural or other forms of human land use. To conserve such species, schemes are set up in which land users receive payments for voluntarily managing their land in a biodiversity-enhancing manner. We developed a model-based framework for designing cost-effective payment schemes that generate spatiotemporal habitat heterogeneity to maximize the survival of multiple species under budget constraints. The framework integrates ecological and economic knowledge and consists of the derivation of an ecological benefit function and a budget function that are then combined to determine the cost-effective degree of spatiotemporal habitat heterogeneity. The ecological benefit function considers the timing of conservation measures, the induced habitat dynamics, and different degrees of substitutability among species. The budget function considers that the conservation agency may lack information about land users' individual conservation costs and personal attitudes and that land users can choose among different conservation measures. We applied the framework to a case study of grassland management, where the survival of three endangered species protected by the EU Habitats Directive depends on different types of land use. The lack of information available to the agency and the choice options of land users reduced the amount of conservation that can be financed with a given budget. Neglecting such findings may lead to an overestimation of the benefits of conservation programs.

Chemicals indisputably contribute greatly to the well‐being of modern societies. Apart from such benefits, however, chemicals often pose serious threats to human health and the environment when improperly handled. Therefore, the European Commission has proposed a regulatory framework for the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) that requires companies using chemicals to gather pertinent information on the properties of these substances. In this article, we argue that the crucial aspect of this information management may be the honesty and accuracy of the transfer of relevant knowledge from the producer of a chemical to its user. This may be particularly true if the application of potentially hazardous chemicals is not part of the user's core competency. Against this background, we maintain that the traditional sales concept provides no incentives for transferring this knowledge. The reason is that increased user knowledge of a chemical's properties may raise the efficiency of its application. That is, excessive and unnecessary usage will be eliminated. This, in turn, would lower the amount of chemicals sold and in competitive markets directly decrease profits of the producer. Through the introduction of chemical leasing business models, we attempt to present a strategy to overcome the incentive structure of classical sales models, which is counterproductive for the transfer of knowledge. By introducing two models (a Model A that differs least and a Model B that differs most from traditional sales concepts), we demonstrate that chemical leasing business models are capable of accomplishing the goal of Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals: to effectively manage the risk of chemicals by reducing the total quantity of chemicals used, either by a transfer of applicable knowledge from the lessor to the lessee (Model A) or by efficient application of the chemical by the lessor him/herself (Model B).

The introduction of conservation-friendly farming measures is an important tool for biodiversity conservation. Recently, a debate has started whether this money is spent effectively, i.e. whether it successfully contributes to conserve biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Several types of criticism have been raised that are adequately responded by environmental policies leading to spatially and temporally heterogeneous habitats. However existing policies for species conservation are still designed to support one conservation measure only by paying an equal amount of compensation to all land-users carrying out the corresponding measure. Regarding ecological findings we firstly point out in which cases environmental policies have to be differentiated in space and time. Secondly, we analyse the necessary and sufficient conditions for transfer schemes to exist that are able to introduce a spatio-temporally heterogeneous land use and land cover type. Thirdly, we reveal that strategic considerations of land-owners limit efficiency and fairness considerations of the policy makers when determining the ecologically accurate payment scheme. However ' surprisingly ' if policy makers seek to minimise their budget required for implementing the desired policy goal, this at the same time guarantees that the individual profits of the land-owners (when performing with the desired policy goal) are as equal as feasible.