Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Heidi Wittmer is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Heidi Wittmer.


Journal of Land Use Science | 2007

Comparison of empirical methods for building agent-based models in land use science

Derek T. Robinson; Daniel G. Brown; Dawn C. Parker; Pepijn Schreinemachers; Marco A. Janssen; Marco Huigen; Heidi Wittmer; Nicholas Mark Gotts; Panomsak Promburom; Elena G. Irwin; Thomas Berger; Franz W. Gatzweiler; Cécile Barnaud

The use of agent-based models (ABMs) for investigating land-use science questions has been increasing dramatically over the last decade. Modelers have moved from ‘proofs of existence’ toy models to case-specific, multi-scaled, multi-actor, and data-intensive models of land-use and land-cover change. An international workshop, titled ‘Multi-Agent Modeling and Collaborative Planning—Method2Method Workshop’, was held in Bonn in 2005 in order to bring together researchers using different data collection approaches to informing agent-based models. Participants identified a typology of five approaches to empirically inform ABMs for land use science: sample surveys, participant observation, field and laboratory experiments, companion modeling, and GIS and remotely sensed data. This paper reviews these five approaches to informing ABMs, provides a corresponding case study describing the model usage of these approaches, the types of data each approach produces, the types of questions those data can answer, and an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of those data for use in an ABM.


(April 2013) | 2013

Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services: An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020

Joachim Maes; Anne Teller; Markus Erhard; Camino Liquete; Leon Braat; Pam Berry; Benis Egoh; P Puydarrieux; Christel Fiorina; Fernando Santos; Maria Luisa Paracchini; Hans Keune; Heidi Wittmer; Jennifer Hauck; I Fiala; Peter H. Verburg; Sophie Condé; Jan Philipp Schägner; J San Miguel; Christine Estreguil; Ole Ostermann; José I. Barredo; Henrique M. Pereira; A Stott; Valérie Laporte; Andrus Meiner; Branislav Olah; E Royo Gelabert; R Spyropoulou; Jan-Erik Petersen

In the EU, many ecosystems and their services have been degraded 1,2 . Target 2 focuses on maintaining and enhancing ecosystem services and restoring degraded ecosystems by incorporating green infrastructure in spatial planning. This will contribute to the EUs sustainable growth objectives and to mitigating and adapting to climate change, while promoting economic, territorial and social cohesion and safeguarding the EUs cultural heritage. It will also ensure better functional connectivity between ecosystems within and between Natura 2000 areas and in the wider countryside. Target 2 incorporates the global Aichi target 15 agreed by EU Member States and the EU in Nagoya to restore 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020. It is also a direct response to Aichi targets 2 and 14 of the Global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, 2011-2020 of Convention of Biological Diversity 3 .


Environment and Planning C-government and Policy | 2004

On the ‘Efficient Boundaries of the State’: The Contribution of Transaction-Costs Economics to the Analysis of Decentralization and Devolution in Natural Resource Management

Regina Birner; Heidi Wittmer

Decentralization and devolution—also referred to as ‘rolling back the boundaries of the state’—are important policy trends in natural resource management. Drawing a parallel with the efficient-boundary problem in industrial organization, the authors show how transaction-costs economics can be applied to identify the efficient boundaries of the state in natural resource management. The following extensions of the transaction-cost framework are proposed: (1) introduction of care intensity and contest intensity as additional key attributes of transactions; (2) introduction of cooperative types of organization as a third governance structure besides market and hierarchies; and (3) introduction of natural resource characteristics, social capital, and state capability as contextual variables. The authors also discuss the possibilities for empirical application.


Ecology and Society | 2015

Assessing ecosystem services for informing land-use decisions: a problem-oriented approach

Johannes Förster; Jan Barkmann; Roman Fricke; Stefan Hotes; Michael Kleyer; Susanne Kobbe; Daniel Kübler; Christian Rumbaur; Marianna Siegmund-Schultze; Ralf Seppelt; Josef Settele; Joachim H. Spangenberg; Vera Tekken; Tomáš Václavík; Heidi Wittmer

Assessments of ecosystem services (ES), that aim at informing decisions on land management, are increasing in number around the globe. Despite selected success stories, evidence for ES information being used in decision making is weak, partly because ES assessments are found to fall short in targeting information needs by decision makers. To improve their applicability in practice, we compared existing concepts of ES assessments with focus on informing land use decisions and identified opportunities for enhancing the relevance of ES assessments for decision making. In a process of codesign, building on experience of four projects in Brazil, China, Madagascar, and Vietnam, we developed a step-wise approach for better targeting ES assessments toward information needs in land use decisions. Our problem-oriented approach aims at (1) structuring ES information according to land use problems identified by stakeholders, (2) targeting context-specific ES information needs by decision makers, and (3) assessing relevant management options. We demonstrate how our approach contributes to making ES assessments more policy relevant and enhances the application of ES assessments as a tool for decision support.


Biodiversity and Conservation | 2016

Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy

Andrew S. Pullin; Geoff K Frampton; R.H.G. Jongman; Christian Kohl; Barbara Livoreil; Alexandra Lux; György Pataki; Gillian Petrokofsky; Aranka Podhora; Heli Saarikoski; Luis Santamaría; Stefan Schindler; Isabel Sousa-Pinto; Marie Vandewalle; Heidi Wittmer

Responding to different questions generated by biodiversity and ecosystem services policy or management requires different forms of knowledge (e.g. scientific, experiential) and knowledge synthesis. Additionally, synthesis methods need to be appropriate to policy context (e.g. question types, budget, timeframe, output type, required scientific rigour). In this paper we present a range of different methods that could potentially be used to conduct a knowledge synthesis in response to questions arising from knowledge needs of decision makers on biodiversity and ecosystem services policy and management. Through a series of workshops attended by natural and social scientists and decision makers we compiled a range of question types, different policy contexts and potential methodological approaches to knowledge synthesis. Methods are derived from both natural and social sciences fields and reflect the range of question and study types that may be relevant for syntheses. Knowledge can be available either in qualitative or quantitative form and in some cases also mixed. All methods have their strengths and weaknesses and we discuss a sample of these to illustrate the need for diversity and importance of appropriate selection. To summarize this collection, we present a table that identifies potential methods matched to different combinations of question types and policy contexts, aimed at assisting teams undertaking knowledge syntheses to select appropriate methods.


International Review of Administrative Sciences | 2006

Better public sector governance through partnership with the private sector and civil society: the case of Guatemala’s forest administration

Regina Birner; Heidi Wittmer

Improving public sector governance is an important challenge for developing countries. Taking the case of Guatemala’s forest administration, the Instituto Nacional de Bosque (INAB), as an example, this article analyses an innovative option for public sector reform: the delegation of authority to an independent agency that is jointly managed by professionals from the public sector, the private sector and civil society. The article develops an analytical framework, based on transaction cost economics and politics. The analysis shows that delegation and partnership have considerable potential to reduce political interest capture, but they involve potential problems of ‘delegatee drift’ and ‘legitimacy drift’. In view of this trade-off, the comparative advantage of delegation and partnership is influenced by the level of organization among the stakeholders, their managerial capacity and the degree to which they share common interests. The article also discusses the political dimension of the reform process that led to the creation of the INAB.


Environmental Conservation | 2008

Managing international 'problem' species : why pan-European cormorant management is so difficult

Vivien Behrens; Felix Rauschmayer; Heidi Wittmer

Stakeholder analysis as a specific tool in social science can be used to explain why environmental conflicts arise or persist and identify steps to resolve these. This paper considers the conflict over the great cormorant, a fish-foraging bird with a rapidly growing population, a conflict previously treated only at a local, subnational or national level. The measures taken have sometimes mitigated the conflict, but have not addressed the damage and conflicts owing to the rapid cormorant population expansion. As the population is mobile at the scale of Europe, management of the population needs to be considered at the European level. In the 1990s, the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) drew up a management plan, which was never endorsed. Interviews with authorities, scientists and other stakeholders revealed they considered the CMS management plan inappropriate because some thought it compromised national autonomy while others thought there was insufficient cormorant protection. A possible step-wise solution to developing a pan-European management plan is proposed, requiring agreement on common objectives and strategies.


Biodiversity and Conservation | 2016

The Network of Knowledge approach: improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe

Carsten Nesshöver; Marie Vandewalle; Heidi Wittmer; Estelle Balian; Esther Carmen; Ilse R. Geijzendorffer; Christoph Görg; R.H.G. Jongman; Barbara Livoreil; Luis Santamaría; Stefan Schindler; Josef Settele; Isabel Sousa Pinto; Katalin Török; Jiska van Dijk; Allan D. Watt; Juliette Young; Klaus Peter Zulka

The absence of a good interface between scientific and other knowledge holders and decision-makers in the area of biodiversity and ecosystem services has been recognised for a long time. Despite recent advancements, e.g. with the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), challenges remain, particularly concerning the timely provision of consolidated views from different knowledge domains. To address this challenge, a strong and flexible networking approach is needed across knowledge domains and institutions. Here, we report on a broad consultation process across Europe to develop a Network of Knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services (NoK), an approach aiming at (1) organising institutions and knowledge holders in an adaptable and responsive framework and (2) informing decision-makers with timely and accurate biodiversity knowledge. The consultation provided a critical analysis of the needs that should be addressed by a NoK and how it could complement existing European initiatives and institutions at the interface between policy and science. Among other functions, the NoK provides consolidated scientific views on contested topics, identification of research gaps to support relevant policies, and horizon scanning activities to anticipate emerging issues. The NoK includes a capacity building component on interfacing activities and contains mechanisms to ensure its credibility, relevance and legitimacy. Such a network would need to ensure credibility, relevance and legitimacy of its work by maximizing transparency and flexibility of processes, quality of outputs, the link to data and knowledge provision, the motivation of experts for getting involved and sound communication and capacity building.


Environmental Research Letters | 2013

Science?policy challenges for biodiversity, public health and urbanization: examples from Belgium

Hans Keune; C. Kretsch; G. de Blust; Marius Gilbert; L. Flandroy; K. Van Den Berge; V. Versteirt; Terry Hartig; L. De Keersmaecker; Hilde Eggermont; D. Brosens; J. Dessein; Sophie O. Vanwambeke; A. H. Prieur-Richard; Heidi Wittmer; A. Van Herzele; Catherine Linard; Patrick Martens; Elisabeth Mathijs; Ilse Simoens; P. Van Damme; Filip Volckaert; Paul Heyman; Thomas Bauler

Internationally, the importance of a coordinated effort to protect both biodiversity and public health is more and more recognized. These issues are often concentrated or particularly challenging in urban areas, and therefore on-going urbanization worldwide raises particular issues both for the conservation of living natural resources and for population health strategies. These challenges include significant difficulties associated with sustainable management of urban ecosystems, urban development planning, social cohesion and public health. An important element of the challenge is the need to interface between different forms of knowledge and different actors from science and policy. We illustrate this with examples from Belgium, showcasing concrete cases of human–nature interaction. To better tackle these challenges, since 2011, actors in science, policy and the broader Belgian society have launched a number of initiatives to deal in a more integrated manner with combined biodiversity and public health challenges in the face of ongoing urbanization. This emerging community of practice in Belgium exemplifies the importance of interfacing at different levels. (1) Bridges must be built between science and the complex biodiversity/ecosystem–human/public health–urbanization phenomena. (2) Bridges between different professional communities and disciplines are urgently needed. (3) Closer collaboration between science and policy, and between science and societal practice is needed. Moreover, within each of these communities closer collaboration between specialized sections is needed.


Journal for Nature Conservation | 2016

‘Ecosystem service opportunities’: A practice-oriented framework for identifying economic instruments to enhance biodiversity and human livelihoods

Julian Rode; Heidi Wittmer; Lucy Emerton; Christoph Schröter-Schlaack

Economic instruments that promise “win-win” solutions for both biodiversity conservation and human livelihoods have become increasingly popular over recent years. There however remains a gap in terms of practical and policy-relevant guidance about appropriate approaches that take into account the local needs and the specific cultural, legal, and ecological context in which such instruments are being developed and applied. This paper presents a step-by-step framework that helps conservation and development planners and practitioners to identify economic instruments that can promote pro-conservation behaviour in a specific setting. The concept of ‘ecosystem service opportunities’ builds on, and brings together, general economic principles and an ecosystem services perspective. The framework was designed to also address a number of concerns regarding economic approaches in order to help practitioners recognise the potentials and limits of economic approaches to nature conservation. The framework is illustrated by its application within the realm of a biodiversity conservation project in Thailand.

Collaboration


Dive into the Heidi Wittmer's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Felix Rauschmayer

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Marie Vandewalle

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Bernd Hansjürgens

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Regina Birner

University of Göttingen

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Hans Keune

Research Institute for Nature and Forest

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jennifer Hauck

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Augustin Berghöfer

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Carsten Nesshöver

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Christoph Görg

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Irene Ring

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge