Reg Environ Change
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1241-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Implementing green infrastructure policy in agricultural
landscapes—scenarios for Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
Jenny Schmidt 1 & Jennifer Hauck 2
Received: 31 January 2017 / Accepted: 23 October 2017
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017
Abstract Green infrastructure (GI) has been identified as
helping to protect Europe’s natural capital by fostering envi-
ronmental protection outside nature reserves and enabling bet-
ter overall adaptation to changing conditions. The aim of
Europe’s green infrastructure strategy is to integrate GI imple-
mentation into existing policies. In intensively farmed agricul-
tural areas, this mainly means the greening measures of the
Common Agricultural Policy, which are mandatory for
farmers wishing to receive full direct payments. We explore
how GI implementation might develop under different future
scenarios. We use a participatory scenario development ap-
proach to explore the benefits and limitations perceived by
local actors in the agricultural regions of Saxony-Anhalt,
Germany. Limiting factors include ecosystem disservices,
economic constraints relating to income, labour costs, invest-
ments and land tenure, and social considerations including the
farmers’ self-image as primarily food producers and local peo-
ple’s opinions regarding good farming practices. The limiting
Editor:Nicolas Dendoncker.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1241-2) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
* Jenny Schmidt
jenny.schmidt@uni-muenster.de
Jennifer Hauck
jennifer.hauck@CoKnow.de
1
Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department
for Environmental Politics, Leipzig, Germany and University of
Münster, Institute of Landscape Ecology, Münster, Germany
2
Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department
for Environmental Politics and CoKnow Consulting – Coproducing
Knowledge for Sustainability, Leipzig, Germany
factors also include a lack of knowledge about the ecological
usefulness of measures, and failings in the design of the mea-
sures regarding practicability, flexibility and reliability.
Benefits are seen in various ecosystem services, job creation
and in fulfilling society’s demands for environmental protec-
tion. We conclude by stating that GI implementation in agri-
cultural landscapes requires reliable and flexible measures that
fit farming practices and are well communicated, and that
landscape level coordination and cooperation could enhance
their effectiveness.
Keywords Participatory scenario development . Green
infrastructure strategy . Common Agricultural Policy .
Ecological focus areas . Ecosystem services . Farmers’
perceptions
Introduction
Having identified failings in biodiversity-related policies aimed
at protecting Europe’s rich natural capital in agricultural land-
scapes (Benton et al. 2003; Henle et al. 2008; Kettunen et al.
2014), the European Union is currently seeking to mainstream
environmental protection in other sectoral policies in order to
achieve the goals of the United Nations Convention on
Biological Diversity and the European Biodiversity Strategy
to 2020 (BISE n.d.; EEA 2015a). One proposed pathway is to
promote green infrastructure solutions, which appear in the
European Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (BTarget 2: By 2020,
ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by
establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15 % of
degraded ecosystems^, EC 2015) and in the Resource
Efficiency Roadmap (EC 2013a). The term green infrastructure
(GI) can either be used to refer to actual green structures such as
green rooftops, parks and treelines along roads or else as a

concept that treats such green structures as an important infra-
structure in which investments are made and which fulfil mul-
tiple functions (Schröter-Schlaack and Schmidt 2015).
Complementary to small-scale nature reserves, GI aims to fos-
ter connectivity between these natural and semi-natural habi-
tats, i.e. making the landscape more permeable for migrating
species (EC 2013a; Maes et al. 2015) while simultaneously
enabling sustainable land use and planning (Benedict and
McMahon 2002; Lafortezza et al. 2013).
In 2013, the European Commission (EC) released its green
infrastructure strategy, which aims at Bintegrating green infra-
structure (GI) into key policy areas^ (EC 2016a: 6) and de-
fines GI as: Ba strategically planned network of natural and
semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed
and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services^
(EC 2013a: 3). The strategy aims at mainstreaming GI objec-
tives in other policy areas (Mazza et al. 2011; EC 2013a;
2016a) through horizontal policy integration, and thus achiev-
ing coherence between different sectoral policies’ objectives,
e.g. between environmental and agricultural policies (EEA
2005; Nilsson et al. 2012; EEA 2015b). This is required be-
cause although environmental protection is addressed
Bthrough existing EU legislation and policies to protect the
environment (e.g., directives on habitats, birds, water, nitrates,
and sustainable use of pesticides), […] the CAP [Common
Agricultural Policy] has a much broader influence^ (Pe'er
et al. 2014: 1090): a large portion of the EU’s budget is ded-
icated to the CAP, and the CAP affects a much larger area. The
aim of integrating environmental measures into the CAP—
e.g. via GI implementation (EC 2013a; Repohl et al.
2015)—is to use some of its budget to offer incentives to
achieve environmental objectives and to reduce the negative
environmental impacts of sectoral policies and subsidies
(EEA 2005). Indeed, in addition to the CAP’s cross-
compliance mechanism, which enforces agricultural standards
for soil and landscape protection (EEA 2005; Juntti 2012), the
reformed CAP of 2013 includes measures relevant to GI.
Three mandatory greening measures need to be fulfilled by
farmers in order to receive the full area-based direct payments:
(1) crop diversification, (2) maintenance of permanent grass-
lands and (3) establishment of ecological focus areas (EFAs).
The implementation of EFAs requires that farms of more than
15 ha use 5% of their land for ecologically beneficial land use,
e.g. growing nitrogen fixing or catch crops, or maintaining
field margins, hedgerows or fallow land (EC 2013b).
Through these greening measures, 30% of the direct payments
to farmers are linked to fulfilling Bthe provision of environ-
mental public goods^ (EC 2013b: 1). This is crucial, given
that in Germany, for example, up to 40% of farmers’ income is
derived from direct payments (BMEL 2014). However, the
ecological benefit gained from greening measures is contested
(Pe'er et al. 2014; for Germany: Schmidt et al. 2014). The
EFAs have been criticised in particular because two of the
J. Schmidt, J. Hauck
three implementation options most often chosen by farmers
are not considered helpful for environmental protection (Pe'er
et al. 2016).
Previous research on environmental policy measures has
found that regional and local level perspectives are particularly
important for their successful implementation (Whittingham
et al. 2007; Stoate et al. 2009; Cormont et al. 2016), and re-
searchers recommend linking top-down legislation like the
CAP with Bbottom up judgements representing preferences
and trade-offs at more local levels^ (Hodge et al. 2015:
1003). The EC included this consideration when formulating
its GI strategy: BThe establishment and maintenance of GI will
not be possible without the full and engaged commitment of
stakeholders and resource holders, NGOs and interest groups
within civil society^ (EC 2013c: 10). And, financial incentives
might not be the only factor influencing local actors in their
decisions regarding the implementation of environmental mea-
sures. Local through to global environmental, economic, polit-
ical and cultural contexts also play a role (e.g. Rindfuss et al.
2008; Magliocca et al. 2014). Like Rindfuss et al. (2008),
Hauck et al. (2016) found that social interactions and commu-
nity networks affect decision making and associated behaviour.
Additionally, the place-based and tacit knowledge of local ac-
tors can also be important to consider (Cash et al. 2003; Reed
et al. 2013).
In our study, we explored local and regional perspec-
tives regarding the use of EFAs as part of GI implementa-
tion using a Bparticipatory scenario development^ ap-
proach in four research sites. In doing so we used the def-
inition of policy implementation formulated by Nilsson
et al. (2012: 397) as Bthe arrangements by authorities and
other actors for putting policy instruments into action^.
The relevant research questions are:
& What might GI implementation scenarios look like on the
regional scale?
& What benefits and limitations do local actors perceive in
relation to different GI implementation scenarios?
& What are the implications of the perceived benefits and
limitations of GI for the future implementation of GI
measures?
The four case study sites
The four local research sites are located in Saxony-Anhalt,
Germany, near to or including the villages Wanzleben,
Friedeburg, Greifenhagen and Schafstädt (Fig. 2 online) and
are each 4 × 4 km in size. They offer a gradient of structural
landscape richness ranging from very poor at the most inten-
sively farmed site, towards more structured, partly extensively
farmed sites featuring meadows, wet grasslands, overgrown
ditches and vegetation alongside small streams. The site near
Implementing green infrastructure policy in agricultural landscapes—scenarios for Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
Schafstädt exhibited the fewest existing GI structures (defined
here as all natural and semi-natural elements), occupying only
about 1% of the total area. This percentage was higher at the
other sites (Wanzleben 16%, Friedeburg 23% and
Greifenhagen 26%). The study sites are part of the LTSER
platform Leipzig Halle and the TERENO research network,
and were selected due to the availability of historical vegeta-
tion inventories (see Baessler et al. 2010).
Our study region is located between the Harz mountains in
the West and the river Saale in the East, in the transition zone
between a maritime and a continental climate; it therefore
exhibits a temperate climate with warm summers and mild
winters. Soils are dominated by rich loess and are prone to
erosion due to most areas experiencing heavy rainfall during
the summer months (Oelke 1997; Wurbs 2005). The area has
long been influenced by human activity (Fig. 3 online), and
remnants of natural habitats are more or less restricted to areas
assigned to environmental protection (LAU 1997; Weiss
2011).
Due to the rich soils in Saxony-Anhalt, agriculture has
always played an important role here (Weiß et al. 2013), with
above average farm sizes (Rosenfeld 2005) and farms occu-
pying 60% of the land (Statistisches Landesamt Sachsen-
Anhalt 2014). The large field and farm sizes have evolved
historically over several centuries (Oelke 1997; Rösener
2000). In the 1930s, a large proportion (30–> 50%) of farms
operated on 100 ha or more (Oelke 1997). The Prussian State
pursued the policy of consolidating fields and dividing up the
remaining common land (Rakow 2003). Pastures declined in
favour of arable fields and linear GI elements in the landscape,
such as unploughed strips, small forests and hedgerows, dis-
appeared (Arndt 2003). A land reform was conducted during
the initial years of the German Democratic Republic, of which
Saxony-Anhalt was a part. Large landowners were expropri-
ated and land was redistributed in many small plots, so that
80% of farms operated on areas less than 20 ha (Oelke 1997).
After 1952, collectivisation began, and large agricultural co-
operatives were established (Baessler and Klotz 2006). The
number of field paths was drastically reduced (e.g. the area
around Schafstädt saw a 50% decrease) and hybrid poplar
trees were planted around the perimeter of large fields to pro-
tect soils from wind erosion (Arndt 2003). From 1990 on-
wards German and European agricultural policies and regula-
tions were applied, and the number of privately owned farms
grew rapidly (Baessler and Klotz 2006). Livestock farming
(especially cattle) and crop diversity decreased (Oelke 1997;
Arndt 2003; Baessler and Klotz 2006). Today, farming is
dominated by crops sold directly to wholesale markets
(Oelke 1997). In 2011, the main crops in Saxony-Anhalt were
grain (57%, of which 60% was wheat), rape seed (16%), fod-
der plants (15%), sugar beet (5%) and potatoes (1%) (MLU
2012). There are around 4500 farms managing arable land
totalling 1,173,085 ha. Half the farms are around 100 ha.
The other half manages larger areas, with 6.6% of farms work-
ing arable land of more than 1000 ha each (MLU 2012). On
average, only 20% of a given farm area is owned by the res-
ident farmer, while 80% is leased (MLU 2012); the ownership
structure of farmland is still very fragmented (Statistisches
Landesamt Sachsen-Anhalt 2008).
Methods
The methods section is presented here as an abridged summa-
ry. Please refer to the supplementary online material for a full
description.
The participatory scenario development approach makes it
possible to explore potential future developments by eliciting
the perceptions of local actors regarding land use changes
(Biggs et al. 2007; Reed et al. 2009; Plieninger et al. 2013).
Based on several overviews of scenario methods and tech-
niques (provided by Börjeson et al. 2006; Bishop et al.
2007; Mahmoud et al. 2009; Reed et al. 2009; March et al.
2012; Priess and Hauck 2014), we combined the concept of
multi-scale scenarios (Biggs et al. 2007) with the integrated
scenario approach developed by Priess and Hauck (2014).
Prior to this, we conducted a social network analysis at the
regional and local level, to identify the most important actors
for GI implementation in the agricultural landscapes of
Saxony-Anhalt (Fig. 1; Hauck et al. 2016). This revealed that
farmers have the greatest influence on local GI implementa-
tion. Other important actors at the local level included the
federal state agency for agriculture and forests, landowners,
agricultural journals and local communities. At the regional
level, administrative institutions were important, such as the
federal state ministry for agriculture and the environment,
both the federal state and regional nature conservation author-
ities, as well as farmers’ associations and landscape manage-
ment associations. The social networks were identified in re-
lation to three categories—information, regulation and social
pressure—to establish what kinds of influence actors exert,
and what kinds of relationship exist. The information was
used to decide whom to invite to the participatory scenario
development workshop and field visits.
Step 1: boundary conditions
Many scenario approaches use Bdriver trajectories at the glob-
al scale (…) as boundary conditions to frame developments
within the regional-scale scenarios^ (Biggs et al. 2007: 8). We
used Central German land use scenarios (Priess and Hauck
2014), based on the Global Environment Outlook (GEO4,
UNEP 2007), as boundary conditions to inform the regional
stakeholder workshop. Literature on the history of the study
sites was reviewed to get an understanding on the develop-
ment of agriculture in the area.
 J. Schmidt, J. Hauck

Step 2: establishing framework conditions and limitations (see supplementary online material). Using
aerial photographs of the research sites and a set of light-
In step 2 (Fig. 1), all regional stakeholders identified in the coloured permanent marker pens, we marked the structures
social network analysis were invited to a 1-day workshop, to and changes mentioned by the participants. We tried to orga-
discuss the boundary conditions and to develop regional GI nise the field visits in groups of farmers to provide the oppor-
implementation scenarios. The 18 attendees were introduced tunity for them to discuss with each other how they might
to the research design and then asked to identify the factors that jointly develop GI across plots. We were only able to do this,
influence GI implementation (for an overview of the results, see however, at Wanzleben and Friedeburg.
supplementary online material). We then presented the two
broad societal trends identified in step 1: (1) a dominant focus
Step 4: analysing the benefits and limitations of GI
on economic growth; (2) a growing focus on sustainability. The
implementation scenarios
participants then identified assumptions about how the factors
influencing GI implementation would develop under one or the
All but one of the field visit discussions were recorded and
other trend. After the workshop the assumptions were trans-
later transcribed. After each discussion, postscripts were writ-
formed into two compelling storylines: (1) changes to green
ten to record the most important observations. The analysis
infrastructure under radical market forces and (2) sustainable
was done following the methodology of Bcategory-driven text
and inclusive development of green infrastructure. (For the
analysis^ (Mayring 2015: 13). The text was read numerous
summarised storylines, see supplementary online material).
times, topics were marked with different colours and assigned
to categories (cf. Kuckartz 2016) such as Bfinancial incentives
Step 3: eliciting perceived benefits and limitations
and income^. This inductive coding (Schreier 2014) was re-
concerning different GI implementation scenarios
peated with each text until no new text passages were marked.
Relevant comments were grouped into the categories, which
In step 3, the regional GI scenario storylines provided the
were then further differentiated into subcategories. Because
framework for discussions with farmers and other local land
the amount of data was manageable this way, the coded pas-
users, and helped in developing the key questions for the field
sages were copied into tables and the actual statements used
visits. The CAP reform and the introduction of greening mea-
for the analysis. The analysis was conducted qualitatively, first
sures (see Introduction) were made public in the period be-
because the data was collected to extract topics in an explor-
tween the regional and local level interactions, and so we
atory way, and second because the descriptive results were
developed a third scenario where the greening measure
intended to be as close to the wording of the original data as
Becological focus area^ (see EC 2013b) was set as a GI im-
possible (cf. Kuckartz 2016). The categories used for coding
plementation pathway. The three scenarios were (a) no finan-
were then used as headings to describe the data. Topics that
cial or any other (political) support for conserving or develop-
were mentioned by all or most interviewees were deemed to
ing GI in the landscape, (b) GI is conserved and developed in
be the most important ones (cf. Mayring 2015). However, the
the context of the CAP greening measure B5% ecological
other topics were also included in the results, as the aim of this
focus areas^, and (c) the EU has set up a strong framework
study was to explore all the issues that need to be considered
directive for the development of GI, with an independent pro-
in GI implementation, without any claim of representativeness
gramme and funding mechanism.
or quantifiability. The categories derived from the data were
For the field visits, all the farmers within the research area
used to structure the following results and discussion sections.
and the actors identified in the social network analysis were
The direct quotes found in the results section derive from our
considered possible interview partners and contacted via tele-
interview partners during the local level field visits.
phone. The number of farmers contacted differed between the
sites, ranging from two to eight farm businesses identified per
research site. Not all land users were willing to participate in our
study, but for each research site at least one third of the farmed Results
area was covered by the participatory scenario exercise.
Additionally to farmers, one mayor, one representative of the Having presented the scenarios of GI implementation in the
farmers’ association and tworepresentatives of the landscape previous section, this section presents perceived benefits and
management association agreed to participate in our research. limitations of GI implementation at the local level. The results
Each research site was visited for about 3 h, the locations are presented according to ecological, economic and social
being chosen by the participants. In order to discuss the im- factors. We used the concept of ecosystem services and dis-
plementation scenarios, we asked the farmers how they would services to structure the ecological aspects of GI. Economic
change the setup of their land based on the three scenarios and aspects are related to income, labour costs, investments and
we used a set of key questions to probe the associated benefits land tenure. Social aspects include broader societal views
Implementing green infrastructure policy in agricultural landscapes—scenarios for Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
about agriculture, the changing role of farmers and issues re-
garding the design of GI measures.
Ecological issues related to ecosystem services associated
with GI
Although we did not use the concept of ecosystem services
during our field visits, when analysing the qualitative data, a
number of benefits and limitations emerged that fit well into
the framework of ecosystem services and disservices. This
resonates also with the GI strategy and may help to make
our results more accessible for other studies.
Cultural ecosystem services in particular were mentioned
frequently as positive aspects related to GI implementation.
Agricultural landscapes in general are used for outdoor activ-
ities, e.g. cycling, and GI was repeatedly mentioned as en-
hancing landscape aesthetics as well as providing people with
a sense of place. In this respect, the whole or parts of the
landscape were considered as cultural or natural heritage
worth saving. One example was a piece of forest within the
agricultural landscape that provided a historic boundary be-
tween two administrative districts; another was provided by a
farmer who said that linear structures were important as Ba
structure for oneself and for others^—for example, hunters
need landscape elements to indicate their hunting ground
boundaries. Most of the structures were also associated with
habitats for certain wild species and were thus considered
valuable e.g. for bird watching or hunting.
Regulating ecosystem services were mentioned particular-
ly often as being beneficial in the scenarios aimed at improv-
ing or establishing GI elements (Fig. 4 online). These included
services that prevent water and wind erosion or snow drifts:
BWe have very good soils in this region and the existing
hedgerows are very important for protecting them^. For effi-
ciency reasons, farmers often choose to establish new struc-
tures alongside existing elements or in places where it would
suit their needs. Protection from manure leaching into the
groundwater was mentioned besides the maintenance of soil
fertility, soil structure and soil moisture. While the importance
of GI for habitat connectivity in the wider landscape was not
mentioned, conflicting views were expressed regarding the
potential of GI to provide habitats for species helpful in pest
control or pollination. A landscape management association
representative told us that this beneficial aspect might be un-
known to farmers: BOne problem surely is that there are
knowledge gaps on the side of the farmers. Integrated pest
control, this topic has not reached the farmers yet. We are
trying to address this in our seminars but the decision makers
on the farm, they send their workers to the seminar and with
the size of farms we have here, like 4000 or 5000 hectares,
even a small farmer has 1000 hectares, and the people decid-
ing, they don’t really have the time to deal with topics like
that^. However, an organic farmer who participated in our
study stressed that a single hedgerow would probably not be
of much benefit. He explained that such measures would only
be useful if the whole management system was organic or
provided enough habitats within the fields. A conventional
farmer who had established a flower strip next to his rapeseed
crop was likewise sceptical, as he could not directly observe
pollination services that would likely lead to an increased
rapeseed production.
Only three provisioning services were mentioned during
the field visits, all of them perceived as beneficial: crop pro-
duction, fodder production on pastures and fruit production by
trees alongside fields.
Despite giving mostly positive feedback about GI, farmers
also identified a number of disservices. One limiting issue
mentioned was that using land for GI competes with using it
for crop production. Hedgerows were mentioned as compet-
ing for nutrients and water with adjacent crops. Hedgerows
also block access to fields or prevent field paths from drying
out after rain, which leads to the paths being more frequently
damaged by manoeuvring machinery. While not a disservice
as such but a limiting effect in terms of usefulness for GI, old
hedgerows with few autochthonous species and old populous
trees were deemed to be of little ecological value and to cause
more maintenance work than they were worth. Farmers also
stated that often they did not understand the ecological use-
fulness of some measures. One example given was a field
lying fallow as a compensation measure: the farmer explained
that he did not see Bhow an area full of stinging nettles and
thistles^ was beneficial for environmental protection. While
being a habitat for supportive species, GI was also perceived
as a habitat for weeds and pests or animals potentially harmful
to crops, such as large groups of birds that feed on crops or
hamsters burrowing under the fields. Unmaintained GI such
as hedgerows which are not regularly cut or contain weeds
were perceived as looking untidy and disturbing the aesthetics
of the landscape for the farmers themselves or other people.
Both aspects were mentioned as substantially lowering the
acceptability of GI measures.
In general, the results indicate that farmers have a positive
attitude towards existing GI. Most interview partners agreed
that they would only make minimal changes in scenario (a)
with no financial or any other (political) support for conserv-
ing or developing GI, as the benefits would prevail. However,
they also mentioned a number of trade-offs and costs associ-
ated with scenarios (b) and (c), discussed in the section on
economic factors below.
Economic aspects related to income, labour costs,
investments and land tenure
A direct economic benefit of GI implementation was men-
tioned only once. One farmer saw opportunities for creating

or securing jobs if the establishment and maintenance of GI
were supported financially.
Farmers in all four research areas identified economic lim-
itations mainly with regard to income, labour costs, invest-
ments and land tenure. GI implementation option (b) (5%
EFAs) in particular is considered detrimental to income, as
farm production on GI areas is severely limited while income
from direct payments remains constant. Increasing crop diver-
sity, also seen as beneficial for GI, was generally considered
possible both under scenario (b) and (c), but it was argued that
the crops currently farmed in the area are gaining the highest
prices and therefore compensation would be needed to farm
other crops.
Poorly maintained GI may affect farm production beyond
the actual GI area. Hedgerows which are not regularly cut
back, for example, may extend into the fields, reducing effec-
tive productive area. Besides reduced productivity of the land,
direct payments are coupled to the area farmed, and if differ-
ences are detected between the reported area and the area
measured during monitoring visits or via remote sensing, the
direct payments may be reduced. In order to avoid this,
labour-intensive and therefore costly maintenance of hedge-
rows and other elements was considered necessary by the
stakeholders of all four research sites, not least to avoid some
of the disservices mentioned above. However, participants
had differing views concerning the responsibility for mainte-
nance. Some farmers agreed in principle to take on mainte-
nance tasks as long as they were adequately compensated, as
intended in option (c). Some farmers even saw financially
supported maintenance as a means of securing employment
for their farm workers and therefore favoured scenario (c).
Others argued that responsibility should be taken by trained
staff at local government or other administrative levels.
GI also interferes with optimal workflows. In the context of
scenario (c), for example, farmers often mentioned that setting
up additional structures that reduce field size would create
difficulties, as modern agricultural machinery is often built
for large fields. Practical concerns like the accessibility of
fields were also mentioned frequently when considering sce-
nario (a) and discussing which elements would be removed if
allowed (Fig. 4 online).
Limiting issues associated with scenarios (b) and (c) were
related to investments. During two field visits, a flower strip
programme was mentioned that had been implemented as an
agri-environment measure (AEM) in the past. The programme
included support for establishing a flower strip with ten target
species over 5 years. Farmers explained that it was difficult to
always meet the targets. BWe had the problem that there had to
be specific species present or a certain number of species. And
if (…) something e.g. weather conditions, led to these not
being there anymore after two years, then the farmer needed
to pay it all back, even though he had nothing to do with it.
That did not really enhance the attractiveness of the
J. Schmidt, J. Hauck
programme^. Another problem reported in the context of the
design of agri-environment measures and other conservation
programmes was the uncertainty associated with the continu-
ity of measures and programmes. Farmers complained that
programmes were often unreliable and changed over time,
leaving the farmers unable to plan ahead. If the timespan
was too short, measures like the establishment of hedgerows
(as foreseen in GI implementation scenario (c)) become im-
practicable. For the establishment of permanent or long-term
GI structures, farmers stated the need for programmes to offer
a secure perspective where their economic investment would
pay off, not least in terms of land tenure and the competition
for land. At the same time, farmers also stated that many
measures in the past required a long-term commitment which
interfered with their usual short-term planning cycles and
lacked the flexibility required to react to changing conditions,
e.g. economic or climatic variables or changes in the land
tenure system, where short to medium term lease contracts
often restrict farmers to applying measures that can be easily
reversed or cancelled.
One aspect involving economic as well as social factors is
related to the structure of land ownership and the tenure sys-
tem and was mainly perceived in relation to GI implementa-
tion scenario (c). First, due to the mixed ownership structure,
farmers stated that they would have to convince several land-
owners per field to allow GI to be implemented. One farmer
explained: BWe would need to speak to more than 300 people
for the area we farm if we would like to establish new struc-
tures on our fields^. Second, the establishment of GI could
lead to a permanent re-classification into land use categories
with lower lease payments. A third problem is related to the
length of lease contracts, the majority being no longer than
10 years. One farmer explained: BIf I plant a hedgerow now
but have only leased the field for five years, then I am off after
five years and I gain nothing from the hedgerow anymore. I
had a lot of work convincing the owner, I’ve made a lot of
effort and even applied for the subsidies, and in five years I
have to say goodbye because I’m not farming the patch
anymore^. The situation is made worse by the intense com-
petition for land in recent years, particularly due to growing
demand for bioenergy production and financial investment.
This competition results in higher prices as well as higher
leasing rates for land. Because of this, farmers look to Bkeep
their fields tidy^ so that landlords have no reason to complain
or to lease the field to another farmer.
Social aspects related to GI implementation
Both benefits and limitations of GI implementation were seen
in relation to the local communities of which the farmers con-
sider themselves a part. With increasing awareness among the
general public concerning the many different services derived
from agricultural landscapes, social control and associated
Implementing green infrastructure policy in agricultural landscapes—scenarios for Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
complaints also increase. BIf I have ploughed too close to the
field path, I have to explain myself^ one farmer said. In an-
other case, farmers even reported that they took voluntary
measures to prevent soil erosion in order to avoid Bsomeone
having mud slide down the hill and into their living room^.
Farmers also mentioned that they had thought about measures
to please the local public. BI had the idea of planting a flower
strip alongside the path, about 3 meters wide. People like that^
a farmer told us. However, another farmer reported that fields
containing weeds are also criticised, as at least parts of the
community and other farmers prefer their countryside Bclean
and tidy^.
One limiting factor is that farmers’ self-perception still in-
cludes a strong sense of responsibility to supply food to soci-
ety at affordable prices. Most of the farmers consider this
possible only with continuous modernisation and
mechanisation of production, which they associate mostly
with scenario a). However, in addition to food production,
they see themselves confronted with increasing demands by
society to conserve biodiversity and to contribute to many
other (cultural) ecosystem services. In addition to these in-
creasing demands, they also feel they are being made respon-
sible for the loss of biodiversity and also face criticism
concerning their everyday work. While some farmers engage
in public relations, e.g. open days, to counter both types of
criticism and to counteract a growing negative image of agri-
culture, some explained that combining the two goals of in-
creasing production on the one hand and conserving land-
scapes and biodiversity on the other was challenging, partic-
ularly under scenario (b), where no additional funding was
provided for the latter goal.
A limiting factor associated with scenario (c) was voiced
concerning information and the transparency and process of
implementation. Farmers stated that they had not heard, for
example, of some AEM options. They also reported cases
where land had been converted from arable to protected land
under the EU habitats or birds directives, without them having
been informed or invited to discuss the measures. Similar
experiences were reported with compensation measures for a
new train route, where farmers had not been included in the
decision making, even though the land they had leased was
used for environmental compensation measures.
With regard to societal goals, one farmer saw a paradox
between spending money on man-made structures such as
traditional orchards when the aim was to protect nature and
its processes. He stated: BMaybe it would also be useful to just
leave nature be in the areas where no agriculture can be done
or has to be done. Regarding the so-called cultural landscape,
land use has constantly been changing. We are currently trying
to preserve a status quo. On the one hand we want to leave
everything natural and on the other hand we want to conserve
one small detail of cultural land use. There needs to be a
societal debate about this^.
Discussion
In the following, we discuss the implications of the perceived
benefits and limitations of GI for the future implementation of
GI measures. Our results show that a successful implementa-
tion of GI policy is linked to economic as well as ecological
and social factors, some of which are specific to local or re-
gional conditions (such as the land tenure system). They also
reveal differing viewpoints in relation to some issues: some
farmers would be willing to assume responsibility for main-
taining GI if they were adequately recompensed for doing so,
while others felt this task was more suitable for trained per-
sonnel. One issue that revealed conflicting standpoints was
whether GI provides a habitat for useful species or rather for
harmful pests. Most other questions were agreed upon quick-
ly, though, and it is from these that we extrapolate three key
implications for the implementation of GI: (1) important ele-
ments to be included in the design of GI measures, (2) aware-
ness raising and transparency about the benefits of GI mea-
sures and (3) a society-wide debate about the roles and respon-
sibilities of farmers. We discuss these points by reference to
the literature on voluntary agri-environment measures avail-
able since the 1980s (EC 2016b).
Important elements for the design of GI measures
As highlighted in the results, one crucial issue for farmers is
the reliability and also the flexibility of measures. Farmers
need to be able to plan ahead with a reliable set of longer term,
guaranteed measures (cf. Burgess et al. 2000). Those who
lease land are limited to applying easily reversible or cancel-
lable measures, due to short to medium term leases (see
Lienhoop and Brouwer 2015 for afforestation programmes
in Germany), as otherwise their investments will not pay off
(cf. Falconer 2000). As Pe’er et al. (2014) show, longer term
programme contracts would also be more effective in terms of
environmental protection. At the same time, the degree of
complexity of the measures plays a key role in farmers’ rea-
sons for adopting (or not adopting) them (Van Herzele et al.
2013). As shown by the example of the flowering strips pro-
gramme, rigid indicators for success that are not practically
feasible for farmers, can lead to a low take-up rate (see also
Kirmer et al. 2016). The farmers stressed how important the
practicability of the measures is, e.g. how readily they can be
implemented alongside other farming activities or fit into the
spatial set-up of fields (cf. Van Herzele et al. 2013; Fleury et al.
2015).
Another key point voiced by farmers in our research was
the need to be transparent about possible (land use) changes
along with the demand for greater participation in the design
of programmes and measures, as suggested by Prager and
Nagel (2008), Prager and Freese (2009) and Young et al.
(2013). However, Prager and Nagel (2008) also found that

participatory design can be complicated, requiring consider-
able time and effort due to the different levels of administra-
tion involved. Closely related to the demand for transparency
is the need for appropriate information about existing and
planned programmes and measures. Extension or advisory
services focused on GI, for example, might help in selecting
suitable programmes or measures and explaining the benefits
for the farmer, and thereby facilitate greater uptake as well as
reduce the costs of establishing permanent GI structures
(Falconer 2000; Lienhoop and Brouwer 2015). In addition,
best farming practices could be shared, e.g. on the basis of
farmers’ experiences with production-integrated measures
(SWK 2012). This might also be helpful for improving coor-
dination between farmers, as many measures are more effec-
tive when conducted over a wide area and not just by individ-
ual farmers. (For an analysis of information networks showing
how information was received and shared, see Hauck et al.
2016.) Pfeifer et al. (2012: 96) explored different scenarios for
landscape services linked with on-farm decision making and
found that Bonly increased cooperation between government,
farmers and citizens appears to result in a general increase of
all landscape services across the entire landscape^. Our study
shows that cooperation at landscape level, combining different
levels of administration and land use, would be welcomed by
the various stakeholder groups and could enhance effective-
ness as well as the acceptability and practicality of the mea-
sures. This would be hugely important for GI implementation,
especially as its aim is to achieve habitat connectivity at a
landscape scale.
In order to ensure that the measures themselves and impor-
tant elements of their design are practicable, it could be helpful
to incorporate local knowledge (cf. Hauck et al. 2014).
Regarding the spatial setup of measures, most farmers voiced
a preference for new structures alongside existing ones and
rated the quality of existing structures as unsatisfactory for
environmental protection. They suggested improving them
by, for example, planting autochthonous species in
hedgerows or improving maintenance. This is backed up by
Davies and Pullin (2007) who recommend improving the
quality of existing hedgerows using appropriate management
regimes. Including local knowledge could help to identify
areas, where new structures could be established, e.g. sandy
soils on former sand pits or dry points on elevated areas. It
could also help to elicit options to improve the ecological
quality of existing structures. This site selection would then
need to be checked against larger scale conservation objec-
tives, as areas selected by farmers due to their unsuitability for
farming might not match conservation requirements; they
might be special sites with conditions that are atypical for
the area. Prager and Nagel (2008) found that including local
knowledge and involving farmers in the design of measures
increased farmers’ willingness to adopt them. Existing conser-
vation measures that dovetail with both conservation
J. Schmidt, J. Hauck
requirements and farming practices—e.g. dynamic protection
sites (e.g. Moilanen et al. 2014) or production-integrated mea-
sures (e.g. Mante and Gerowitt 2007)—are especially useful
for intensively farmed landscapes, as their purpose is to pro-
tect agro-ecosystems. While local knowledge can be consid-
ered essential, both farmers learning about ecological interre-
lations and raising farmers’ awareness about the proposed
benefits of measures can be seen as equally important for the
design process.
Awareness raising and transparency
regarding the benefits of GI measures
Our results show that the ecological usefulness of measures is
not always clear to the actors involved. Fish et al. (2003) show,
however, that awareness of the ecological benefits of mea-
sures can play an important role in their adoption and the
way they are executed. Doubts raised by the farmers in our
study can perhaps be linked to a lack of communication and
awareness raising, on the part of all-level administration and
policy makers, coupled with the farmers’ limited exposure to
ecological issues during their training or education (Wals and
Bawden 2000). Farmers’ interest in nature can be diverse and
influence the uptake of environmental protection measures
(Ahnström et al. 2013). It is worth noting that the ecological
usefulness of measures is a point of debate among academics
and policy experts too (Kleijn et al. 2011; Pe'er et al. 2014)—
further research could thus prove beneficial for gaining an
improved understanding of ecological processes, not just for
communication purposes but also for the design of conserva-
tion measures (Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006). Nonetheless, a
degree of uncertainty and certain trade-offs—e.g. between
certain ecosystem services (Hauck et al. 2014) or between
conservation and other land uses—will probably remain
(McShane et al. 2011). Perhaps the way forward might be to
communicate uncertainties while at the same time
emphasising the need to find solutions for improving environ-
mental protection in agricultural landscapes (cf. Fischhoff and
Davis 2014; Haila et al. 2014).
Roles and responsibilities of farmers
Farmers still see their role and responsibilities by and large in
the reliable production of affordable food. This came up often
during the field visits. The agricultural landscapes farmers
help shape (including biodiversity) are seen as a by-product
which may be harmed by the necessary intensification of ag-
ricultural practices (cf. Burton and Wilson 2006). Also, con-
servation practices that may be perceived by other farmers or
villagers as detrimental to productive agriculture are less
favoured as they might be taken to indicate that the farmer is
not farming effectively. This fits with the findings of Burton
and Paragahawewa (2011: 99) who found that Bthe outcomes
Implementing green infrastructure policy in agricultural landscapes—scenarios for Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
of skilled conservation production (…) are antithetical to the
outcomes of skilled conventional farming performances^.
However, farmers are also observing a change in society’s
preferences regarding the conservation of a particular type of
agricultural landscape and biodiversity (cf. Buijs et al. 2006;
Home et al. 2014; Fleury et al. 2015; Lange et al. 2015).
Farmers’ adoption of pro-environmental behaviours can in
part Bbe linked more to the necessity of protecting the public
image of their profession, and consequently their own social
identity, than to protecting the environment itself^ (Michel-
Guillou and Moser 2006: 234). One manifestation of these
changes in society’s preferences is the inclusion of environ-
mental protection in the CAP via greening measures. While
farmers agree with agri-environment measures in principle,
they perceive the CAP greening measures as causing extra
costs for which they feel they are not adequately compensated.
Landscape and environmental protection becomes part of the
farmers’ roles and responsibilities rather than being a side
effect of their land use. Simoncini (1999: 10) even sees this
dual role as inherent: Bfarmers have a dual indivisible role, the
first being that of an entrepreneur trying to maximise his/her
benefits, the other being that of a manager of public goods: the
environment^. Naturally, this change in self-perception en-
counters resistance, particularly because perceptions of land-
scape aesthetics and demands for environmental protection
are not considered in the same way by different societal
groups (e.g. Buijs et al. 2006; Herzon and Mikk 2007;
Burton and Paragahawewa 2011) and are not included in the
dominant market driven economy (Simoncini 1999).
The new GI policy and the CAP greening measures go
beyond the scope of agri-environment programmes in that
they are mandatory for farmers wishing to receive direct pay-
ments in full. Even though farmers could opt out, initial indi-
cations are that they are fulfilling the greening requirements
(Pe'er et al. 2016). With regard to EFAs, though, they can
choose between different options that offer more or fewer
benefits for environmental protection. Initial results regarding
the implementation of EFAs show that farmers often choose
EFA-options that are less beneficial to environmental protec-
tion, such as catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops, rather than
options that are rated by ecologists to be of higher value, such
as field margins or landscape elements (Lakner and Bosse
2016; Pe'er et al. 2016; Zinngrebe et al. 2017). Our research
on the benefits and limitations of GI implementation has
identified possible reasons behind these decisions. From
here on, the next step would be to determine, together with
all the actors involved , what could promote the
implementation of measures that are more favourable for
biodiversity. As Kopperoinen et al. (2014) show, the inclusion
of expert knowledge can help in identifying the multifunction-
al key areas of GI, and in examining the provisioning potential
of various ecosystem services. The inclusion of local and re-
gional actors could further enhance their understanding of
both GI and the ecosystem services associated with it. The
co-design of measures, as suggested by Prager and Nagel
(2008), may well help in this situation, but a society-wide
debate about the role and responsibilities of farmers, and about
what society expects from environmental protection, can still
be considered essential nonetheless.
Conclusions
Our findings show that there is potential for improvement in GI
policy implementation from the perspective of local and region-
al actors, and that farmers and other local actors are willing to
contribute under certain conditions. The main factors condu-
cive to the successful introduction and maintenance of GI are
linked to economic, ecological and social factors. The way the
measures are implemented needs to be both reliable and flexi-
ble; they need to fit into the farm’s operating procedures, they
need to be transparent and well communicated, and they need
to be compatible with society’s expectations (which need first
to be debated and formulated as such). The effectiveness of
measures could be enhanced through landscape level coordina-
tion, and by including measures that improve the quality of
existing structures or foster the establishment of high quality
structures. This is especially important as the main thrust of GI
policy is to achieve connectivity between the remnants of nat-
ural or semi-natural habitats in the landscape, as well as to make
the general matrix more suitable and permeable for species.
This characteristic distinguishes it from AEM. GI is conceived
as a long-term infrastructure, similar perhaps to grey infrastruc-
ture. Achieving long-term, large scale connectivity requires not
only coordination, but also cooperation, which could be
achieved by adjusting measures to local and regional needs.
Here, the long-term perspective is important again, as the ex-
penditure required to establish proper structures of coordination
and cooperation can be considerable. Also, the social aspects of
farmers’ self-perception, and the feedback they receive directly
about their work, play a role that must not be neglected.
While we are aware that the findings cannot be generalised
or upscaled, they can perhaps provide some important indica-
tions of which factors to consider when seeking to implement
GI successfully. However, further case study examples in dif-
ferent geographical locations would be needed to draw con-
clusions about GI implementation at a pan-European level.
Funding This research was funded by the ERA-Net BiodivERsA, with
the national funders BMBF, part of the 2011–2012 BiodivERsA call for
research proposals.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict
of interest.

References
Ahnström J, Bengtsson J, Berg å, Hallgren L, Boonstra WJ, Björklund J
(2013) Farmers’ interest in nature and its relation to biodiversity in
arable fields. Int J Ecol 2013:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/
617352
Arndt, O., 2003. Entwicklung der agraren Landnutzung auf der
Querfurter-Merseburger Platte. In: Wollkopf, H.-F., Diemer, R.,
(Eds.), Historische Landnutzung im thüringisch-sächsisch-
anhaltinischen Raum. Presentations given at a conference 19.-
31.03.2002 at Halle (S). P. Lang, Frankfurt, Berlin, Bern,
Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, pp 139–152
Baessler C, Klotz S (2006) Effects of changes in agricultural land-use on
landscape structure and arable weed vegetation over the last 50
years. Agric Ecosyst Environ 115:43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agee.2005.12.007
Baessler C, Klotz S, Durka W (2010) Temporal changes and spatial
determinants of plant species diversity and genetic variation. In:
Müller F, Baessler C, Schubert H, Klotz S (eds) Long-term ecolog-
ical research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 279–297
Benedict MA, McMahon ET (2002) Green infrastructure: smart conser-
vation for the 21st century. Renew Resour J 20(3):12–17
Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is
habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00011-9
Biggs R, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Atkinson-Palombo C, Bohensky E, Boyd
E, Cundill G, Fox H, Ingram S, Kok K, Spehar S, Tengö M, Timmer
D, Zurek M (2007) Linking futures across scales: a dialog on
m u l t i s c a l e s c e n a r i o s . E c o l S o c 1 2 : 1 7 h t t p : / / w w w.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art17/
BISE (Biodiversity Information System for Europe) (n.d.) Target 6 - Mid-
term review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Available from:
http://biodiversity.europa.eu/mtr/biodiversity-strategy-plan/target-6-
details/#_ftn25 (accessed May 2017)
Bishop P, Hines A, Collins T (2007) The current state of scenario devel-
opment: an overview of techniques. Foresight 9:5–25. https://doi.
org/10.1108/14636680710727516
BMEL (Federal Ministry for Food and Agriculture, Germany) (2014)
Main features of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and its
implementation in Germany. Available from: http://www.bmel.de/
EN/Agriculture/EU-AgriculturalPolicy/_Texte/GAP-Reform-
Entwicklung.html (accessed February 2015)
Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006)
Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38:
723–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002
Buijs AE, Pedroli B, Luginbühl Y (2006) From hiking through farmland
to farming in a leisure landscape: changing social perceptions of the
European landscape. Landsc Ecol 21:375–389. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10980-005-5223-2
Burgess J, Clark J, Harrison CM (2000) Knowledges in action: an actor
network analysis of a wetland agri-environment scheme. Ecol Econ
35:119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00172-5
Burton RJF, Paragahawewa UH (2011) Creating culturally sustainable
agri-environmental schemes. J Rural Stud 27:95–104. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.11.001
Burton RJF, Wilson GA (2006) Injecting social psychology theory into
conceptualisations of agricultural agency: towards a post-
productivist farmer self-identity? J Rural Stud 22:95–115. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.07.004
Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH,
Jager J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable
development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8086–8091. https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1231332100
Cormont A, Siepel H, Clement J, Melman TCP, WallisDeVries MF, van
Turnhout CAM, Sparrius LB, Reemer M, Biesmeijer JC, Berendse
J. Schmidt, J. Hauck
F, de Snoo GR (2016) Landscape complexity and farmland biodi-
versity: evaluating the CAP target on natural elements. J Nat
Conserv 30:19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2015.12.006
Davies ZG, Pullin AS (2007) Are hedgerows effective corridors between
fragments of woodland habitat? An evidence-based approach.
Landsc Ecol 22:333–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-
9064-4
EC (European Commission) (2013a) Green Infrastructure (GI) –
Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. Available from: http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0249:FIN:
EN:PDF (accessed August 2013)
EC (European Commission) (2013b) CAP Reform—an explanation of
the main elements. Available from: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_MEMO-13-937_en.htm (accessed February 2015)
EC (European Commission) (2013c) Technical information on Green
Infrastructure (GI). Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0155 (accessed
June 2017)
EC (European Commission) (2015) The mid-term Review of the EU
Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Available from: http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0478
(accessed May 2017)
EC (European Commission) (2016a) Supporting the implementation of
green infrastructure. Final Report. Trinomics B.V., Rotterdam.
Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/
ecosystems/studies/index_en.htm (accessed May 2017)
EC (European Commission) (2016b) Agri-environment measures.
Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/measures/
index_en.htm (accessed July 2016)
EEA (European Environment Agency) (2005) Environmental policy in-
tegration in Europe. State of play and an evaluation framework.
EEA technical report No 2/2005. Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg. Available from: https://www.eea.
europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2005_2 (accessed
June 2017)
EEA (European Environment Agency) (2015a) The European
Environment. State and Outlook 2015. 1. The changing context of
European environmental policy. Available from: https://www.eea.
europa.eu/soer-2015/synthesis/report/1-changingcontext (accessed
June 2017)
EEA (European Environment Agency) (2015b) The European
Environment. State and Outlook 2015. 3. Protecting, conserving
and enhancing natural capital. Available from: http://www.eea.
europa.eu/soer-2015/synthesis/report/3-naturalcapital (accessed
June 2017)
Falconer K (2000) Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme
participation: a transactional perspective. J Rural Stud 16:379–394.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00066-2
Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empir-
ical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol
4:e105. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105
Fischhoff B, Davis AL (2014) Communicating scientific uncertainty.
PNAS 111:13664–13671. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317504111
Fish R, Seymour S, Watkins C (2003) Conserving English landscapes:
land managers and agri-environmental policy. Environ Plan A 35:
19–41. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3531
Fleury P, Seres C, Dobremez L, Nettier B, Pauthenet Y (2015)
BFlowering meadows^, a result-oriented agri-environmental mea-
sure: technical and value changes in favour of biodiversity. Land
Use Policy 46:103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.
02.007
Haila Y, Henle K, Apostolopoulou E, Cent J, Framstad E, Goerg C, Jax K,
Klenke R, Magnuson W, Matsinos Y, Mueller B, Paloniemi R,
Pantis J, Rauschmayer F, Ring I, Settele J, Simila J, Touloumis K,
Tzanopoulos J, Pe’er G (2014) Confronting and coping with
Implementing green infrastructure policy in agricultural landscapes—scenarios for Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
uncertainty in biodiversity research and praxis. Nat Conserv 8:45–
75. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.8.5942
Hauck J, Schleyer C, Winkler KJ, Maes J (2014) Shades of greening:
reviewing the impact of the new EU agricultural policy on ecosys-
tem services. Chang Adapt Socio-Ecol Syst 1:51–62. https://doi.org/
10.2478/cass-2014-0006
Hauck J, Schmidt J, Werner A (2016) Using social network analysis to
identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance
and related land-use decisions at regional and local level. Ecol Soc
21:49. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08596-210249
Henle K, Alard D, Clitherow J, Cobb P, Firbank L, Kull T, McCracken D,
Moritz RFA, Niemelä J, Rebane M, Wascher D, Watt A, Young J
(2008) Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture
and biodiversity conservation in Europe–a review. Agric Ecosyst
Environ 124:60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.09.005
Herzon I, Mikk M (2007) Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity and their
willingness to enhance it through agri-environment schemes: a com-
parative study from Estonia and Finland. J Nat Conserv 15:10–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2006.08.001
Hodge I, Hauck J, Bonn A (2015) The alignment of agricultural and
nature conservation policies in the European Union: agriculture
and nature conservation. Conserv Biol:996–1005. https://doi.org/
10.1111/cobi.12531
Home R, Balmer O, Jahrl I, Stolze M, Pfiffner L (2014) Motivations for
implementation of ecological compensation areas on Swiss lowland
farms. J Rural Stud 34:26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.
2013.12.007
Juntti M (2012) Implementing cross compliance for agriculture in the EU:
relational agency, power and action in different socio-material con-
texts: implementing cross compliance for agriculture. Sociol Rural
52:294–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2012.00564.x
Kettunen, M., Apostolopoulou, E., Bormpoudakis, D., Cent, J.,
Letourneau, A., Koivulehto, M., Paloniemi, R., Grodzińska-
Jurczak, M., Mathevet, R., Scott, A. and Borgström, S. (2014) EU
green infrastructure: opportunities & the need for addressing scales.
In : Henle, K., Potts, S.G., Kunin, W.E., Matsinos, Y.G., Similä, J.,
Pantis, J.D., Grobelnik, V., Penev, L., Settele, J., (Eds.). Scaling in
ecology and biodiversity conservation. Pensoft publishers, Sofia.
Available from: http://ab.pensoft.net/article/1169/list/9/ (accessed
May 2017) https://doi.org/10.3897/ab.e1169
Kirmer A, Pfau M, Mann S, Schrödter M, Tischew S (2016) Erfolgreiche
Anlage mehrjähriger Blühstreifen auf produktiven Standorten durch
Ansaat wildkräuterreicher Samenmischungen und
standortangepasste Pflege. Natur und Landschaft 91:109–118.
https://doi.org/10.17433/3.2016.50153383.109-118
Kleijn D, Rundlöf M, Scheper J, Smith HG, Tscharntke T (2011) Does
conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity de-
cline? Trends Ecol Evol 26:474–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.
2011.05.009
Kopperoinen L, Itkonen P, Niemelä J (2014) Using expert knowledge in
combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use
planning: an insight into a new place-based methodology. Landsc
Ecol 29:1361–1375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0014-2
Kuckartz U (2016) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis,
Computerunterstützung. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim
Lafortezza R, Davies C, Sanesi G, Konijnendijk C (2013) Green infra-
structure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban
regions. iForest - Biogeosci For 6:102–108. https://doi.org/10.
3832/ifor0723-006
Lakner S, Bosse A (2016) Mühsames Abwägen. Möglichkeiten zur
praktischen Umsetzung der EU-Forderung nach ökologischen
Vorrangflächen (ÖVF) gibt es viele. Doch mit welcher Variante
fährt man am besten? Bauernzeitung 10:50–51
Lange A, Siebert R, Barkmann T (2015) Sustainability in land manage-
ment: an analysis of stakeholder perceptions in rural northern
Germany. Sustainability 7:683–704. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su7010683
LAU (Landesamt für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt) (1997) Die
Naturschutzgebiete Sachsen-Anhalts. G. Fischer, Jena
Lienhoop N, Brouwer R (2015) Agri-environmental policy valuation:
farmers’ contract design preferences for afforestation schemes.
Land Use Policy 42:568–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.
2014.09.017
Maes J, Barbosa A, Baranzelli C, Zulian G, Batista e Silva F,
Vandecasteele I, Hiederer R, Liquete C, Paracchini ML, Mubareka
S, Jacobs-Crisioni C, Castillo CP, Lavalle C (2015) More green
infrastructure is required to maintain ecosystem services under cur-
rent trends in land-use change in Europe. Landsc Ecol 30:517–534.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0083-2
Magliocca NR, Brown DG, Ellis EC (2014) Cross-site comparison of
land-use decision-making and its consequences across land systems
with a generalized agent-based model. PLoS One 9:e86179. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086179
Mahmoud M, Liu Y, Hartmann H, Stewart S, Wagener T, Semmens D,
Stewart R, Gupta H, Dominguez D, Dominguez F, Hulse D, Letcher
R, Rashleigh B, Smith C, Street R, Ticehurst J, Twery M, van
Delden H, Waldick R, White D, Winter L (2009) A formal frame-
work for scenario development in support of environmental deci-
sion-making. Environ Model Softw 24:798–808. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envsoft.2008.11.010
Mante J, Gerowitt B (2007) A survey of on-farm acceptance of low-input
measures in intensive agriculture. Agron Sustain Dev 27:399–406.
https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2007038
March H, Therond O, Leenhardt D (2012) Water futures: reviewing
water-scenario analyses through an original interpretative frame-
work. Ecol Econ 82:126–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2012.07.006
Mayring P (2015) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken.
Beltz, Weinheim
Mazza, L., Bennett, G., De Nocker, L., Gantioler, S., Losarcos, L.,
Margerison, C., Kaphengst, T., McConville, A., Rayment, M., ten
Brink, P., Tucker, G., van Diggelen, R. (2011) Green Infrastructure
Implementation and Efficiency. Final report for the European
Commission, DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2010/
0059. Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels and
London
McShane TO, Hirsch PD, Trung TC, Songorwa AN, Kinzig A,
Monteferri B, Mutekanga D, Thang HV, Dammert JL, Pulgar-
Vidal M, Welch-Devine M, Peter Brosius J, Coppolillo P,
O’Connor S (2011) Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodi-
versity conservation and human well-being. Biol Conserv 144:966–
972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038
Michel-Guillou E, Moser G (2006) Commitment of farmers to environ-
mental protection: from social pressure to environmental con-
science. J Environ Psychol 26:227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2006.07.004
MLU (Ministerium für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt) (ed) (2012) Land-,
Ernährungs- und Forstwirtschaft und Tierschutzbericht des Landes
Sachsen-Anhalt 2011/2012 Magdeburg. Available from: http://
www.mlu.sachsen-anhalt.de/fileadmin/Bibliothek/Politik_und_
Verwaltung/MLU/MLU/Master-Bibliothek/Landwirtschaft_und_
Umwelt/A/Agrarbericht/Agrarbericht_2012_Internet.pdf (accessed
July 2014)
Moilanen A, Laitila J, Vaahtoranta T, Dicks LV, Sutherland WJ (2014)
Structured analysis of conservation strategies applied to temporary
conservation. Biol Conserv 170:188–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2014.01.001
Nilsson M, Zamparutti T, Petersen JE, Nykvist B, Rudberg P, McGuinn J
(2012) Understanding policy coherence: analytical framework and
examples of sector-environment policy interactions in the EU:

understanding policy coherence. Environ Policy Gov 22:395–423.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1589
Oelke E (ed) (1997) Sachsen-Anhalt. Perthes, Gotha
Pe'er G, Dicks LV, Visconti P, Arlettaz R, Báldi A, Benton TG, Collins S,
Dieterich M, Gregory RD, Hartig F, Henle K, Hobson PR, Kleijn D,
Neumann RK, Robijns T, Schmidt J, Shwartz A, Sutherland WJ,
Turbé A, Wulf F, Scott AV (2014) EU agricultural reform fails on
biodiversity. Science 344:1090–1092. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1253425
Pe'er G, Zinngrebe Y, Hauck J, Schindler S, Dittrich A, Zingg S,
Tscharntke T, Oppermann R, Sutcliffe LME, Sirami C, Schmidt J,
Hoyer C, Schleyer C, Lakner S (2016) Adding some green to the
greening: improving the EU’s ecological focus areas for biodiversity
and farmers. Conserv Lett. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.
12333
Pfeifer C, Sonneveld MPW, Stoorvogel JJ (2012) Farmers’ contribution
to landscape services in the Netherlands under different rural devel-
opment scenarios. J Environ Manag 111:96–105. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.019
Plieninger T, Bieling C, Ohnesorge B, Schaich H, Schleyer C, Wolff F
(2013) Exploring futures of ecosystem services in cultural land-
scapes through participatory scenario development in the Swabian
Alb, Germany. Ecol Soc 18:39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05802-
180339
Prager K, Freese J (2009) Stakeholder involvement in agri-environmental
policy making—learning from a local- and a state-level approach in
Germany. J Environ Manag 90:1154–1167. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2008.05.005
Prager K, Nagel UJ (2008) Participatory decision making on agri-
environmental programmes: a case study from Sachsen-Anhalt
(Germany). Land Use Policy 25:106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.landusepol.2007.03.003
Priess JA, Hauck J (2014) Integrative scenario development. Ecol Soc 19:
12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06168-190112
Rakow H (2003) Die Separation in der preußischen Provinz Sachsen und
in Anhalt. In: Wollkopf, H.-F., Diemer, R., (Eds.), Historische
Landnutzung im thüringisch-sächsisch-anhaltinischen Raum.
Presentations given at a conference 19.-31.03.2002 at Halle (S). P.
Lang, Frankfurt, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien,
pp 14–26
Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell
C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of
stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J
Environ Manag 90:1933–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2009.01.001
Reed MS, Kenter J, Bonn A, Broad K, Burt TP, Fazey IR, Fraser EDG,
Hubacek K, Nainggolan D, Quinn CH, Stringer LC, Ravera F
(2013) Participatory scenario development for environmental man-
agement: a methodological framework illustrated with experience
from the UK uplands. J Environ Manag 128:345–362. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.016
Repohl M, Schmidt J, Hauck J, Weiland S (2015) Analyse des
Politikintegrationspotentials der EU-Strategie für Grüne
Infrastruktur - untersucht am Beispiel der Gemeinsamen
Agrarpolitik der EU. UFZ-Diskussionspapier 10/2015. Helmholtz-
Zentrum für Umweltforschung - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany. Available
from: http://www.ufz.de/index.php?de=14487 (accessed August
2016)
Rindfuss RR, Entwisle B, Walsh SJ, An L, Badenoch N, Brown DG,
Deadman P, Evans TP, Fox J, Geoghegan J, Gutmann M, Kelly
M, Linderman M, Liu J, Malanson GP, Mena CF, Messina JP,
Moran EF, Parker DC, Parton W, Prasartkul P, Robinson DT,
Sawangdee Y, Vanwey LK, Verburg PH (2008) Land use change:
complexity and comparisons. J Land Use Sci 3:1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17474230802047955
J. Schmidt, J. Hauck
Rösener W (2000) The history of German agriculture. In: Tangermann S
(ed) Agriculture in Germany. DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt, pp 1–16
Rosenfeld M (2005) Sachsen-Anhalt als Wirtschaftsstandort. Wie
erfolgreich und attraktiv sind das Land und seine Regionen. Geogr
Rundsch 57:4–11
Schmidt, T.G., Röder, N., Dauber, J., Limek, S., Laggner, A., de Witte, T.,
Offermann, F., Osterburg, B., 2014. Biodiversitätsrelevante
Regelungen zur nationalen Umsetzung des Greenings der
Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik der EU nach 2013. Johann Heinrich
von Thünen-Institut, Germany. Available from literatur.thuenen.de/
digbib_extern/bitv/dn053406.pdf (accessed June 2017)
Schreier, M., 2014. Qualitative content analysis. In: Flick, U. (Ed.), 2014.
The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. SAGE, Los
Angeles, pp 170–183
Schröter-Schlaack C, Schmidt J (2015) Ökosystemleistungen grüner
Infrastrukturen. RaumPlanung 180:16–21
Simoncini R (1999) Agricultural use of natural resources in Europe. In:
Oglethorpe JAE (ed) Tenure and sustainable use. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, pp 3–19 Available from: https://
portals.iucn.org/library/node/7532 (accessed June 2017)
Statistisches Landesamt Sachsen-Anhalt (2008) Press release of
25.02.2008. Available from: http://www.statistik.sachsen-anhalt.de/
Internet/Home/Veroeffentlichungen/Pressemitteilungen/2008/02/
23.html (accessed July 2014)
Statistisches Landesamt Sachsen-Anhalt (2014) Statistische Berichte.
Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. Statistisches Landesamt
Sachsen-Anhalt, Halle
Stoate C, Báldi A, Beja P, Boatman ND, Herzon I, van Doorn A, de Snoo
GR, Rakosy L, Ramwell C (2009) Ecological impacts of early 21st
century agricultural change in Europe—a review. J Environ Manag
91:22–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005
SWK (Stiftung Westfälsche Kulturlandschaft, Institut für
Landschaftsökologie der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster,
AG Angewandte Landschaftsökologie/Ökologische Planung) (eds)
(2012) Produktionsintegrierte Naturschutzmaßnahmen,
Umsetzungshandbuch für die Praxis. Stiftung Westfälsche
Kulturlandschaft, Münster. Additional online material available from:
http://www.kulturlandschaft.nrw/web/datenbank/ (accessed October
2016)
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) (2007) Global envi-
ronment outlook 4. Environment for development. UNEP, Nairobi,
Kenya. Available from: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4.asp
(accessed January 2015)
Van Herzele A, Gobin A, Van Gossum P, Acosta L, Waas T, Dendoncker
N, Henry de Frahan B (2013) Effort for money? Farmers’ rationale
for participation in agri-environment measures with different imple-
mentation complexity. J Environ Manag 131:110–120. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.030
Wals AEJ, Bawden R (2000) Integrating sustainability into agricultural
education: dealing with complexity, uncertainty and diverging
worldviews. Interuniversity conference for agricultural and related
sciences in Europe. Gent, Belgium
Weiss W (2011) Sachsen-Anhalt regional 1990–2010. Ministerium für
Landesentwicklung und Verkehr des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt,
Magdeburg
Weiß W, Wolz A, Herzfeld T, Fritzsch J (2013) Sozialökonomische
Effekte des demographischen Wandels in ländlichen Räumen
Sachsen-Anhalts. Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in
Central and Eastern Europe, Discussion Paper No. 143 IAOM,
Halle. Available from: https://www.iamo.de/fileadmin/documents/
dp143.pdf (accessed October 2016)
Whittingham MJ, Krebs JR, Swetnam RD, Vickery JA, Wilson JD,
Freckleton RP (2007) Should conservation strategies consider spa-
tial generality? Farmland birds show regional not national patterns
of habitat association. Ecol Lett 10:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1461-0248.2006.00992.x
Implementing green infrastructure policy in agricultural landscapes—scenarios for Saxony-Anhalt, Germany

Wurbs D (2005) Vergleichende Untersuchungen zu den Folgewirkungen
von Klima- und Landnutzungsänderungen auf den Wasserhaushalt
in Flusseinzugsgebieten. PhD-thesis. Martin-Luther-Universität
Halle-Wittenberg
Young JC, Jordan A, Searle KR, Butler A, Chapman DS, Simmons P,
Watt AD (2013) Does stakeholder involvement really benefit
biodiversity conservation? Biol Conserv 158:359–370. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.018
Zinngrebe Y, Pe'er G, Schueler S, Schmitt J, Schmidt J, Lakner S (2017)
The EU’s ecological focus areas—how experts explain farmers’
choices in Germany. Land Use Policy 65:93–108. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.027