<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<export-example>
  <doc>
    <id>992</id>
    <completedYear>2025</completedYear>
    <publishedYear/>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>96</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>book</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace>Eberswalde</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation>Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management</contributingCorporation>
    <belongsToBibliography>1</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2025-05-20</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Participatory Strategy Development for Sustainable Biomass Production (PARSCO):  A Practical Guide Using the MARISCO Toolbox</title>
    <abstract language="eng">This guide provides a structured methodology for developing and critically assessing strategies for sustainable food and biomass production through a participatory and systemic approach.  It responds to the limitations of mainstream policies and strategies in agriculture and bioeconomy, which often prioritize technological solutions and lack bottom-up engagement of local stakeholders in knowledge-building and decision-making.&#13;
The PARSCO methodology presented in this guidebook is an adaptation of the MARISCO toolbox (Adaptive MAnagement of vulnerability and RISk at COnservation sites) developed at the Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management. It has been tailored to assess and improve food and biomass production systems based on local knowledge, diverse stakeholder perspectives, and a systemic situation analysis using knowledge mapping and multi-criteria analysis tools. PARSCO is a landscape-based method primarily designed for application in local or regional settings, involving a series of participatory workshops with local stakeholders. It was developed over a period of five years at Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development and tested in workshops with smallholder farmers and other local actors in rural Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Pakistan. &#13;
The guidebook serves as a step-by-step manual for practitioners, planners, and transdisciplinary researchers applying PARSCO in project planning, policy evaluation, and sustainable land management. It emphasizes the importance of systemic thinking—understanding the interconnectedness and complex dynamics of social-ecological systems—and participatory decision-making to ensure inclusive, effective, and context-specific solutions. As a standalone guidebook, it can also be used as a complementary resource to existing MARISCO guides by offering more detailed guidance on the facilitation of participatory processes.</abstract>
    <identifier type="doi">10.57741/opus4-992</identifier>
    <identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-9928</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">true</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">true</enrichment>
    <licence>Creative Commons - CC BY - Namensnennung 4.0 International</licence>
    <author>Michael Spies</author>
    <author>Aksana Zakirova</author>
    <author>Mehwish Zuberi</author>
    <author>Axel Schick</author>
    <author>Henryk Alff</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>participatory methods</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>knowledge co-creation</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>bioeconomy</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>agriculture</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>ecosystem management</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="ddc" number="301">Soziologie, Anthropologie</collection>
    <collection role="ddc" number="630">Landwirtschaft und verwandte Bereiche</collection>
    <collection role="open_access" number="">open_access</collection>
    <collection role="institutes" number="">Fachbereich Wald und Umwelt</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hochschule für nachhaltige Entwicklung Eberswalde</thesisPublisher>
    <file>https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-hnee/files/992/PARSCO_guidebook_final.pdf</file>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>232</id>
    <completedYear>2020</completedYear>
    <publishedYear/>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>18</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue>12</issue>
    <volume>2020</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>MDPI</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>1</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2022-05-24</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>2020-02-04</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Farmers’ Perceptions of Tree Shelterbelts on Agricultural Land in Rural Kyrgyzstan</title>
    <abstract language="eng">The reestablishment of agroforestry systems in Central Asia, combining crop production with protective tree shelterbelts, provides significant potential to improve farming systems. This includes increasing crop yields, additional income from timber, as well as reducing soil degradation and wind erosion. Thus, adopting shelterbelts as a form of pro-environmental behavior provides a number of socio-economic benefits, although some trade-offs need to be considered as well. This paper investigates factors that shape the perception of—and attitude towards—the establishment of tree shelterbelts by farmers in two case study regions in Kyrgyzstan. Applying a conceptual framework distinguishing between extrinsic and intrinsic factors, research methods included semi-structured interviews with farmers and local policy makers. The results show spatial differences in the perception of shelterbelts, both on the regional and on the village scale. In general, shelterbelts were negatively perceived by more than half of the farmers. The main concern raised by farmers was the shading of crops by shelterbelts, resulting in a decrease of yield. In addition, small field sizes and potential conflicts with neighbors were key concerns. Furthermore, rules set by local self-government bodies were inconsistent with the legislative framework, posing significant restrictions to the adoption of sustainable land use practices.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Sustainabilty</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.3390/su12031093</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">2071-1050</identifier>
    <identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-2323</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <licence>Creative Commons - CC BY - Namensnennung 4.0 International</licence>
    <author>Daniel Ruppert</author>
    <author>Martin Welp</author>
    <author>Michael Spies</author>
    <author>Niels Thevs</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>agroforestry</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>agriculture</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Central Asia</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>adoption</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>perception</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>pro-environmental behavior</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="ddc" number="630">Landwirtschaft und verwandte Bereiche</collection>
    <collection role="ddc" number="915">Geografie Asiens und Reisen in Asien</collection>
    <collection role="open_access" number="">open_access</collection>
    <collection role="institutes" number="">Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management</collection>
    <collection role="Hochschulbibliographie" number=""/>
    <collection role="Hochschulbibliographie" number="">Zweitveröffentlichung</collection>
    <collection role="Hochschulbibliographie" number="">Referiert</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hochschule für nachhaltige Entwicklung Eberswalde</thesisPublisher>
    <file>https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-hnee/files/232/sustainability-12-01093-v2.pdf</file>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>339</id>
    <completedYear>2020</completedYear>
    <publishedYear/>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>19</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue>16</issue>
    <volume>12</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>MDPI</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>1</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>2020-08-15</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models</title>
    <abstract language="eng">A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Sustainability</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.3390/su12166617</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">2071-1050</identifier>
    <identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-3395</identifier>
    <licence>Creative Commons - CC BY - Namensnennung 4.0 International</licence>
    <author>Joseph MacPherson</author>
    <author>Carsten Paul</author>
    <author>Katharina Helming</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>agriculture</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>SA</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>ecosystem services</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>SDGs CICES</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>tools</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>models</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>coverage analysis</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="open_access" number="">open_access</collection>
    <collection role="institutes" number="">Fachbereich Landschaftsnutzung und Naturschutz</collection>
    <collection role="Hochschulbibliographie" number=""/>
    <collection role="Hochschulbibliographie" number="">Zweitveröffentlichung</collection>
    <collection role="Hochschulbibliographie" number="">Referiert</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hochschule für nachhaltige Entwicklung Eberswalde</thesisPublisher>
    <file>https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-hnee/files/339/sustainability-12-06617-v2.pdf</file>
  </doc>
</export-example>
