Cover der Ausgabe: GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics Jahrgang 70 (2021), Heft 03
, um zu prüfen, ob Sie einen Vollzugriff auf diese Publikation haben.
Ausgabe Kein Zugriff

Jahrgang 70 (2021), Heft 03

GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics
Autor:innen:
Zeitschrift:
GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics
Verlag:
 2021

Über die Zeitschrift

Das German Journal of Agricultural Economics (GJAE) ist im deutschsprachigen Raum die führende Fachzeitschrift für Beiträge aus dem Bereich der Agrarökonomie und ihrer Nachbardisziplinen.In deutscher und englischer Sprache wendet sie sich an Autoren und Leser im In- und Ausland. Das GJAE ist eine doppelt-blind referierte wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift, die sowohl anspruchsvollen Beiträgen aus dem Bereich der Grundlagenforschung als auch der anwendungsorientierten Forschung offensteht.Dank seiner Grundlagen- wie auch Anwendungsorientierung ist das GJAE für Wissenschaftler, Lehrende sowie wissenschaftlich interessierte Vertreter von Unternehmen und Behörden interessant. Als Online-Journal erreicht das GJAE einen weltweiten Leserkreis.

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

ISSN-Print
2191-4028
ISSN-Online
2191-4028
Verlag
dfv Mediengruppe, Frankfurt am Main
Sprache
Deutsch
Produkttyp
Ausgabe

Artikel

Cover der Ausgabe: GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics Jahrgang 70 (2021), Heft 03
Artikel
Kein Zugriff

Seite 139 - 164
Animal-source foods are a major component of global diets and are increasingly criticised because of their adverse impacts on environment, climate and health. A shift in diets towards plant-based foods is a discussed option to overcome these...
Deutscher Fachverlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main 2021
Autor:innen:
Cover der Ausgabe: GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics Jahrgang 70 (2021), Heft 03
Artikel
Kein Zugriff

Seite 165 - 181
We calibrate Linear and Mixed Integer Programs with a bi-level estimator, minimizing under First-order-conditions (FOC) conditions a penalty function considering the calibration fit and deviations from given parameters. To deal with non-convexity, a...
Deutscher Fachverlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main 2021
Autor:innen:
Cover der Ausgabe: GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics Jahrgang 70 (2021), Heft 03
Artikel
Kein Zugriff

Seite 182 - 191
The paper investigates the influence of different model specifications for interpreting the results of discrete choice experiments when investigating heterogeneous public landscape preferences. Comparing model specifications based on the Mixed...
Deutscher Fachverlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main 2021
Autor:innen:
Cover der Ausgabe: GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics Jahrgang 70 (2021), Heft 03
Artikel
Kein Zugriff

Seite 192 - 207
Im vorliegenden Artikel wurde mithilfe eines Discrete-Choice-Experiments bestimmt, welche Faktoren die Entscheidung von Landwirten beeinflussen, an einem hypothetischen Förderprogramm zur Ansäuerung von Gülle bei der Feldausbringung teilzunehmen....
Deutscher Fachverlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main 2021
Autor:innen:

Literaturverzeichnis (218)

  1. AFSHIN, A., …, C.J.L. MURRAY (2019): Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. In: The Lancet 393 (10184): 1958-1972. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  2. AGUIAR, A., M. CHEPELIEV, E L. CORONG, R. MCDOUGALL and D. VAN DER MENSBRUGGHE (2019): The GTAP Data Base: Version 10. In: Journal of Global Economic Analysis 4 (1): 1-27. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  3. ALEKSANDROWICZ, L., R. GREEN, E.J.M. JOY, P. SMITH and A. HAINES (2016): The Impacts of Dietary Change on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use, Water Use, and Health: A Systematic Review. In: PLoS ONE 11 (11): e0165797. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  4. ALEXANDRATOS, N. and J. BRUINSMA (2012): WORLD AGRICULTURETOWARDS 2030/2050. The 2012 Revision. ESA Working paper No. 12-03. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  5. ALFREDSSON, E.C. (2004): “Green” consumption—no solution for climate change. In: Energy 29 (4): 513-524. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  6. AMELUNG, D., H. FISCHER, A. HERRMANN, C. AALL, V.R. LOUIS, H. BECHER, P. WILKINSON and R. SAUERBORN (2019): Human health as a motivator for climate change mitigation: results from four European high-income countries. In: Global Environmental Change 57: 101918. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  7. ARAUJO-ENCISO, S.R., I. PÉREZ-DOMINGUEZ, F. SANTINI and S. HÉLAINE (2015): Documentation of the European Comission’s EU module of the Aglink-Cosimo modelling system. JRC SCIENCE AND POLICY REPORTS. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Luxembourg. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  8. ASTON, L.M., J.N. SMITH and J.W. POWLES (2012): Impact of a reduced red and processed meat dietary pattern on disease risks and greenhouse gas emissions in the UK: a modelling study. In: BMJ Open 2 (5): e001072. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  9. BARNARD, N., S. LEVIN and C. TRAPP (2014): Meat consumption as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes. In: Nutrients 6 (2): 897-910. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  10. BEHRENS, P., J. . KIEFTE-DE JONG, T. BOSKER, J.F.D. RODRIGUES, A. de KONING and A. TUKKER (2017): Evaluating the environmental impacts of dietary recommendations. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114 (51): 13412-13417. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  11. BENNETT, M.K. (1941): International Contrasts in Food Consumption. In: Geographical Review 31 (3): 365. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  12. BENTON, T.G., C. BIEG, H. HARWATT, R. PUDASAINI and L. WELLESLEY (2021): Food System Impacts on Biodiversity Loss. Three levers for food system transformation in support of nature. Chatham House, London. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  13. BERNERS-LEE, M., C. KENNELLY, R. WATSON and C.N. HEWITT (2018): Current global food production is sufficient to meet human nutritional needs in 2050 provided there is radical societal adaptation. In: Elementa Science of the Anthropocene 6 (1): 52. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  14. BIESBROEK, S., H.B. BUENO-DE-MESQUITA, P.H.M. PEETERS, W.M. VERSCHUREN, Y.T. VAN DER SCHOUW, G.F.H. KRAMER, M. TYSZLER and E.H.M. TEMME (2014): Reducing our environmental footprint and improving our health: greenhouse gas emission and land use of usual diet and mortality in EPIC-NL: a prospective cohort study. In: Environmental health : a global access science source 13 (1): 27. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  15. BLANCO, M. (2019): Support for Policy Relevant Modelling of Agriculture (SUPREMA). D.1.5 Documentation of the SUPREMA model tools. European Union’s Horizon 2020. https://www.suprema-project.eu/images/Deliverable_D15_-_final_version.pdf, accessed June 2, 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  16. BOHRER, B.M. (2017): Review: Nutrient density and nutritional value of meat products and non-meat foods high in protein. In: Trends in Food Science & Technology 65: 103-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.04.016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  17. BONNET, C., Z. BOUAMRA-MECHEMACHE, V. RÉQUILLART and N. Treich (2020): Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare. In: Food Policy 97: 101847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101847. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  18. BOUVARD, V., D. LOOMIS, K.Z. GUYTON, Y. GROSSE, F E. GHISSASSI, L. BENBRAHIM-TALLAA, N. GUHA, H. MATTOCK and K. STRAIF (2015): Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. In: The Lancet Oncology 16 (16): 1599-1600. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  19. BREUER, B., L. MARTIN, M. WIERIG and E. SAGGAU (2019): Drivers of change and development in the EU livestock sector. Meta-Analysis as basis for future scenario building. German Federal Office for Agriculture and Food, Bonn. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  20. BRITZ, W. and H.P. WITZKE (2014): CAPRI Model Documentation 2014. University of Bonn. http://www.capri-model.org/docs/capri_documentation.pdf, accessed April 14, 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  21. BZL (2019): Versorgung mit Fleisch in Deutschland seit 1991. https://www.ble.de/DE/BZL/Daten-Berichte/Fleisch/fleisch_node.html;jsessionid=84D90275799AAC74449E50294034167E.1_cid325#doc9091258bodyText1, accessed April 14, 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  22. CARLSSON-KANYAMA, A., R. ENGSTRÖM and R. KOK (2005): Indirect and Direct Energy Requirements of City Households in Sweden: Options for Reduction, Lessons from Modeling. In: Journal of Industrial Ecology 9 (1-2): 221-235. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  23. CASHMAN, K.D. and A. HAYES (2017): Red meat's role in addressing 'nutrients of public health concern'. In: Meat science 132: 196-203. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.011. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  24. CASTELLANA, M., E. CONTE, A. CIGNARELLI, S. PERRINI, A. GIUSTINA, L. GIOVANELLA, F. GIORGINO and P. TRIMBOLI (2020): Efficacy and safety of very low calorie ketogenic diet (VLCKD) in patients with overweight and obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders 21 (1): 5-16. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  25. CLUNE, S., E. CROSSIN and K. VERGHESE (2017): Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. In: Journal of Cleaner Production 140: 766-783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.082. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  26. CORDTS, A., N. DUMAN, H. GRETHE, S. NITZKO and A. SPILLER (2014): Potenziale für eine Verminderung des Fleischkonsums am Beispiel Deutschland und Auswirkungen einer Konsumreduktion in OECD-Ländern auf globale Marktbilanzen und Preise für Nahrungsmittel. In: Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V., German Association of Agricultural Economists 49. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  27. CORDTS, A., N. DUMAN, H. GRETHE, S. NITZKO and A. SPILLER (2013): Auswirkungen eines verminderten Konsums von tierischen Produkten in Industrieländern auf globale Marktbilanzen und Preise für Nahrungsmittel. Sicherung der Welternährung bei knappen Ressourcen. Rentenbank, Frankfurt/M.: 103-135. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  28. COX, D.R. (1972): Regression Models and Life-Tables. In: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 34 (2): 187-202. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  29. EC (2019): EU agricultural outlook for markets and income, 2019-2030. European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Brüssel. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  30. EHRMANN, M. (2016): Modellgestützte Analyse von Einkommens- und Umweltwirkungen auf Basis von Testbetriebsdaten. Dissertation. Thünen Report No. 48, Braunschweig. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  31. EZZATI, M. (2000): Methodology for assessment of Environmental burden of disease. Annex 4.1.: Comparative risk assessment in the global burden of disease study and the environmental health risks. World Health Organization, Buffalo. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  32. FAO (2003): Measurement and Assessment of Food Deprivation and Undernutrition. Keynote Paper: FAO methodology for estimating the prevalence of undernourishment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/y4249e/y4249e06.htm#b m06. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  33. FAO (2006): Livestock's long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  34. FAO (2017): Livestock solutions for climate change. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  35. FAO (2020): FAOSTAT Statistical Database. New Food Balances. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  36. FRIEL, S., …, A. HAINES (2009): Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture. In: The Lancet 374 (9706): 2016-2025. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  37. GERBER, P.J., H. STEINFELD, B. HENDERSON, A. MOTTET, C. OPIO, J. DIJKMAN, A. FALCUCCI and G. TEMPIO (2013): Tackling climate change through livestock - A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  38. GODFRAY, H.C.J., P. AVEYARD, T. GARNETT, J.W. HALL, T.J. KEY, J. LORIMER, R.T. PIERREHUMBERT, P. SCARBOROUGH, M. SPRINGMANN and S.A. JEBB (2018): Meat consumption, health, and the environment. In: Science (New York, N.Y.) 361 (6399). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  39. GRABS, J. (2015): The rebound effects of switching to vegetarianism. A microeconomic analysis of Swedish consumption behavior. In: Ecological Economics 116: 270-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.030. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  40. HAENEL, H.-D., …, R. FUß (2020): Berechnung von gas- und partikelförmigen Emissionen aus der deutschen Landwirtschaft 1990 - 2018: Report zu Methoden und Daten (RMD) Berichterstattung 2020. Thünen Report 77. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institute, Braunschweig. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  41. HAß, M., …, M. ZIRNGIBL (2020): Thünen-Baseline 2020 - 2030: Agrarökonomische Projektionen für Deutschland. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institute, Braunschweig. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  42. HEDENUS, F., S. WIRSENIUS and D.J.A. JOHANSSON (2014): The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. In: Climatic Change 124 (1-2): 79-91. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  43. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2019): Climate Change and Land: an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. In: Shukla, P.R.,…, J. Malley (eds.). In press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  44. JENSEN, H. and I. PÉREZ DOMÍNGUEZ (2019): Scenario: A protein shift in the EU. EU agricultural outlook for markets and income, 2019-2030. European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Brussels. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  45. JOHANSSON, D.J.A. (2011): Temperature stabilization, ocean heat uptake and radiative forcing overshoot profiles. In: Climatic Change 108 (1-2): 107-134. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  46. KAVALLARI, A. (2008): Agricultural policy reforms and trade liberalisation in the Mediterranean Basin : A partial equilibrium analysis of regional effects on the EU-27 and on the Mediterranean Partner Countries. Inaugural-Dissertation. Fachbereich Agrarwissenschaften, Ökotrophologie und Umweltmanagement, Justus-Liebig Universität, Gießen. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  47. KLÜMPER, W. (2014): Das Problem der Welternährung: Simulationen zu Einflussfaktoren, die Bedeutung von Agrartechnologien und gesellschaftliche Einschätzungen in Deutschland. Dissertation. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  48. KOCH, F., T. HEUER, C. KREMS and E. CLAUPEIN (2019): Meat consumers and non-meat consumers in Germany: a characterisation based on results of the German National Nutrition Survey II. In: Journal of nutritional science 8 (21): 1-13. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  49. LENZEN, M. and C.J. DEY (2002): Economic, energy and greenhouse emissions impacts of some consumer choice, technology and government outlay options. In: Energy Economics 24 (4): 377-403. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  50. LOCK, K., R.D. SMITH, A.D. DANGOUR, M. KEOGH-BROWN, G. PIGATTO, C. HAWKES, R.M. FISBERG and Z. CHALABI (2010): Health, agricultural, and economic effects of adoption of healthy diet recommendations. In: The Lancet 376 (9753): 1699-1709. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  51. LOFGREN, H., R.L. HARRIS and S. ROBINSON (2002): A STANDARD COMPUTABLE GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM (CGE)MODEL IN GAMS. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  52. MARQUES, A.C., J.A. FUINHAS and D.F. PAIS (2018): Economic growth, sustainable development and food consumption: Evidence across different income groups of countries. In: Journal of Cleaner Production 196: 245-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.011. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  53. MAYEN, F. (2016): Livestock in protracted crises: The importance of livestock for resilience-building and food security of crisis-affected populations. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  54. MEKONNEN, M.M. and A.Y. HOEKSTRA (2012): A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. In: Ecosystems 15 (3): 401-415. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  55. MENSINK, G.B., C.L. BARBOSA and A.-K. BRETTSCHNEIDER (2016): Verbreitung der vegetarischen Ernährungsweise in Deutschland. In: Journal of Health Monitoring 1 (2). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  56. MERCIAI, S. and J. SCHMIDT (2018): Methodology for the Construction of Global Multi-Regional Hybrid Supply and Use Tables for the EXIOBASE v3 Database. In: Journal of Industrial Ecology 22 (3): 516-531. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  57. MRI (Max-Rubner-Institut) (2008): Verzehrsstudie II. Ergebnisbericht, Teil 2. Die bundesweite Befragung zur Ernährung von Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen. Max-Rubner-Institut, Bundesforschungsinstitut für Ernährung und Lebensmittel, Karlsruhe. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  58. OECD (2012): OECD-Umweltausblick bis 2050. Die Konsequenzen des Nichthandelns. OECD publications, Paris. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  59. OECD/FAO (2015): Aglink-Cosimo Model Documentation. A partial equilibrium model of world agricultural markets. Paris. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  60. OECD/FAO (2019): OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2019-2028. OECD Publishing, Paris/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  61. ORLICH, M.J., …, G.E. FRASER (2015): Vegetarian dietary patterns and the risk of colorectal cancers. In: JAMA internal medicine 175 (5): 767-776. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  62. PAIS, D.F., A.C. MARQUES and J.A. FUINHAS (2020): Reducing Meat Consumption to Mitigate Climate Change and Promote Health: but Is It Good for the Economy? In: Environmental Modeling & Assessment 25 (6): 793-807. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  63. PAOLI, A. (2014): Ketogenic diet for obesity: friend or foe? In: International journal of environmental research and public health 11 (2): 2092-2107. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  64. POORE, J. and T. NEMECEK (2018): Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. In: Science (New York, N.Y.) 360 (6392): 987-992. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  65. POPKIN, B.M. (1993): Nutritional Patterns and Transitions. In: Population and Development Review 19 (1): 138. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  66. RANGANATHAN, J., D. VENNARD, R. WAITE, P. DUMAS, B. LIPINSKI, T. SEARCHINGER and GLOBAGRI-WRR AUTHORS (2016): Shifting Diets for a Sustainable Food Future. Working Paper, Installment 11 of Creating a Sustainable Future. World Resources Institute, Washington. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  67. REVELL, B.J. (2015): One Man's Meat … 2050? Ruminations on Future Meat Demand in the Context of Global Warming. In: Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (3): 573-614. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  68. RIVERA-FERRE, M.G., F. LÓPEZ-I-GELATS, M. HOWDEN, P. SMITH, J.F. MORTON and M. HERRERO (2016): Re-framing the climate change debate in the livestock sector: mitigation and adaptation options. In: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 7 (6): 869-892. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  69. ROBINSON, S., D. MASON-D’CROZ, S. ISLAM, T.B. SULSER, R. ROBERTSON, T. ZHU, A. GUENEAU, G. PITOIS and M. ROSEGRANT (2015): The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT). Model Description for Version 3. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 01483. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  70. ROHRMANN, S., …, J. LINSEISEN (2013): Meat consumption and mortality-results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. In: BMC medicine 11: 63. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/63. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  71. RÖÖS, E., B. BAJŽELJ, P. SMITH, M. PATEL, D. LITTLE AND T. GARNETT (2017): Greedy or needy? Land use and climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures. In: Global Environmental Change 47: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.001. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  72. RÖÖS, E., C. SUNDBERG, P. TIDÅKER, I. STRID AND P.-A. HANSSON (2013): Can carbon footprint serve as an indicator of the environmental impact of meat pro-duction? In: Ecological Indicators 24: 573-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.004. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  73. ROSEGRANT, M.W., N. LEACH and R.V. GERPACIO (1999): Alternative futures for world cereal and meat consumption. In: The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 58 (2): 219-234. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  74. SANS, P. and P. COMBRIS (2015): World meat consumption patterns: An overview of the last fifty years (1961-2011). In: Meat science 109: 106-111. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  75. SANTINI, F., T. RONZON, I. PEREZ DOMINGUEZ, S.R. ARAUJO ENCISO and I. PROIETTI (2017): What if meat consumption would decrease more than expected in the high-income countries? In: Bio-based and Applied Economics 6 (1). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  76. SCARBOROUGH, P., S. ALLENDER, D. CLARKE, K. WICKRAMASINGHE and M. RAYNER (2012): Modelling the health impact of environmentally sustainable dietary scenarios in the UK. In: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 66 (6): 710-715. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  77. SCHMITZ, M. (2019): Globale Auswirkungen einer rein pflanzlichen Ernährung. Konsequenzen für Wirtschaft, Umwelt und Welternährung. Studie erstellt auf Anregung und mit finanzieller Unterstützung der Dr. Alhard von Burgsdorff-Stiftung (Bonn). Institut für Agribusiness, Gießen. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  78. SEARCHINGER, T., R. WAITE, C. HANSON and J. RANGANATHAN (2019): Creating a sustainable food future. A Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050. Final report. World Resources Report. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  79. SORET, S., A. MEJIA, M. BATECH, K. JACELDO-SIEGL, H. HARWATT and J. SABATÉ (2014): Climate change mitigation and health effects of varied dietary patterns in real-life settings throughout North America. In: The American journal of clinical nutrition 100 (100 Suppl 1): 490S-5S. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  80. SPRINGMANN, M., H.C.J. GODFRAY, M. RAYNER and P. SCARBOROUGH (2016): Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113 (15): 4146-4151. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  81. SPRINGMANN, M., L. SPAJIC, M.A. CLARK, J. POORE, A. HERFORTH, P. WEBB, M. RAYNER and P. SCARBOROUGH (2020): The healthiness and sustainability of national and global food based dietary guidelines: modelling study. In: BMJ 2020:370:m2322. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  82. SPRINGMANN, M., K. WIEBE, D. MASON-D'CROZ, T.B. SULSER, M. RAYNER and P. SCARBOROUGH (2018): Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. In: The Lancet Planetary Health 2 (10): 451-461. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  83. STANKUNIENE, G., D. STREIMIKIENE and G.L. KYRIAKOPOULOS (2020): Systematic Literature Review on Behavioral Barriers of Climate Change Mitigation in Households. In: Sustainability 12 (18): 7369. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  84. STEHFEST, E., L. BOUWMAN, D.P. VAN VUUREN, M.G.J. DEN ELZEN, B. EICKHOUT and P. KABAT (2009): Climate benefits of changing diet. In: Climatic Change 95 (1-2): 83-102. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  85. TILMAN, D. and M. CLARK (2014): Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. In: Nature 515 (7528): 518-522. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  86. TONSTAD, S., T. BUTLER, R. YAN and G. E. FRASER (2009): Type of vegetarian diet, body weight, and prevalence of type 2 diabetes. In: Diabetes care 32 (5): 791-796. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  87. UMWELTBUNDESAMT (2019): Beitrag der Landwirtschaft zu den Treibhausgas-Emissionen. ttps://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/land-forstwirtschaft/beitrag-der-landwirtschaft-zu-den-treibhausgas#massnahmen-in-der-landwirtschaft-zur-senkung-der-treibhausgas-emissionen. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  88. UN (2019): World Population Prospects 2019. Highlights. New York. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  89. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2011): Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Decision 1/CP.16 The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. COP 16 Report: FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1. United Nations. Available at: https://unfccc.int/documents/6527, accessed April 14, 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  90. USDA-NASS (2017): Overview of U.S. Livestock, Poultry, and Aquaculture Production in 2017. National Agricultural Statistics Service and U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/downloads/Demographics2017.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  91. VELTHOF, G.L., D.A. OUDENDAG and O. OENEMA (2007): Development and application of the integrated nitrogen model MITERRA-EUROPE. Alterra, Wageningen UR. https://edepot.wur.nl/30636, accessed April 14, 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  92. WBAE (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat für Agrarpolitik, Ernährung und gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutz beim BMEL )(2020): Politik für eine nachhaltigere Ernährung: Eine integrierte Ernährungspolitik entwickeln und faire Ernährungsumgebungen gestalten. Gutachten. Berlin. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  93. WESTHOEK, H., J.P. LESSCHEN, T. ROOD, S. WAGNER, A. DE MARCO, D. MURPHY-BOKERN, A. LEIP, H. VAN GRINSVEN, M.A. SUTTON and O. OENEMA (2014): Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe's meat and dairy intake. In: Global Environmental Change 26: 196-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.004. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  94. WILKINSON, J.M. (2011): Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. In: Animal: an International Journal of Animal Bioscience 5 (7): 1014-1022. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  95. WILLETT, W., …, C.J.L. MURRAY (2019): The EAT-Lancet Commission Summary Report. No. 10170. https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/eat-lancet-commission-summary-report/, accessed April 14, 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  96. WOLTJER, G. and M. KUIPER (2014): The MAGNET model. Module description. LEI Report 14-057. LEI Wageningen UR (University & Research centre), Wageningen. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  97. WOOD, R., …, A. TUKKER (2015): Global Sustainability Accounting—Developing EXIOBASE for Multi-Regional Footprint Analysis. In: Sustainability 7 (1): 138-163. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  98. WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme) (2018): The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-Based Solutions for Water. UNESCO, Paris. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.139-164
  99. ARATA, L. and W. BRITZ (2019): Econometric mathematical programming: an application to the estimation of costs and risk preferences at farm level. In: Agricultural Economics 50 (2): 191-206. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  100. BRITZ, W. and P. WITZKE (2012): CAPRI model documentation 2012. University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Bonn. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  101. BRITZ, W., M. FERRIS and A. KUHN (2013): Modeling water allocating institutions based on multiple optimization problems with equilibrium constraints. In: Environmental Modelling & Software 46 (Aug. 2013): 196-207. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  102. BRITZ, W., B. LENGERS, T. KUHN and D. SCHÄFER (2016): A highly detailed template model for dynamic optimization of farms-FARMDYN. University of Bonn. Institute for Food and Resource Economics. http://www.ilr.uni-bonn.de/em/rsrch/farmdyn/farmdyn_docu.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  103. BRITZ, W., M. VAN ITTERSUM, A. OUDE LANSINK and T. HECKELEI (2012): Tools for Integrated Assessment in Agriculture. State of the Art and Challenges. In: Bio-based and Applied Economics 1 (2): 125-150. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  104. BRITZ W. (2021): Comparing penalty functions in balancing and dis-aggregating Social Accounting Matrices. In: Journal of Global Economic Analysis 6 (1): 34-81. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  105. BUYSSE, J., G. VAN HUYLENBROECK and L. LAUWERS (2007): Normative, positive and econometric mathematical programming as tools for incorporation of multifunctionality in agricultural policy modelling. In: Agriculture, ecosystems & environment 120 (1): 70-81. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  106. DE FRAHAN, B.H. (2019): Towards Econometric Mathematical Programming for Policy Analysis. In: Msangi, S. and D. Mac Ewan (eds.): Applied Methods for Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Springer, Cham: 11-36. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  107. FERRIS, M.C. and GAMS DEVELOPMENT (2009): GAMS/NLPEC Solver Manual. GAMS, Solver Descriptions. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  108. FERRIS, M.C., S.P. DIRKSE, J.-H. JAGLA and A. MEERAUS (2009): An extended mathematical programming framework. In: Computers and Chemical Engineering 33 (12): 1973-1982. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  109. GOCHT, A. and W. BRITZ (2011): EU-wide farm type supply models in CAPRI - How to consistently disaggregate sector models into farm type models. In: Journal of Policy Modeling 33 (1): 146-167. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  110. HECKELEI, T., W. BRITZ and Y. ZHANG (2012): Positive mathematical programming approaches–recent developments in literature and applied modelling. In: Bio-based and Applied Economics 1 (1): 109-124. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  111. HECKELEI, T., R.C. MITTELHAMMER and T. JANSSON. (2008): A Bayesian alternative to generalized cross entropy solutions for underdetermined econometric models. Discussion Paper 2008: 2. Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University Bonn. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  112. HOWITT, R.E., J. MEDELLÍN-AZUARA, D. DUNCAN MACEWAN and J.R. LUND (2012): Calibrating disaggregate economic models of agricultural production and water management. In: Environmental Modelling & Software 38 (Dec. 2012): 244-258. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  113. HOWITT, R.E. (1995): Positive mathematical programming. In: American Journal of Agricultural economics 77 (2): 329-342. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  114. JANSSEN, S. and M.K. VAN ITTERSUM (2007): Assessing farm innovations and responses to policies: a review of bio-economic farm models. In: Agricultural systems 94 (3): 622-636. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  115. JAYET, P.A., A. PETSAKOS, R. CHAKIR, A. LUNGARSKA, S. DE CARA, E. PETEL, P. HUMBLOT, C. GODARD, D. LECLÈRE, P. CANTELAUBE and C. BOURGEOIS (2020): The European agro-economic model AROPAj. UMR Economie Publique INRA-210-AgroParisTech Université Paris-Saclay. https://www6.versailles-grignon.inrae.fr/economie_publique/content/download/3630/38558/version/1/file/ArticlAROPAj.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  116. JANSSON, T. and T. HECKELEI (2011): Estimating a primal model of regional crop supply in the European Union. In: Journal of Agricultural Economics 62 (1): 137-152. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  117. KANELLOPOULOS, A., P. BERENTSEN, T. HECKELEI, M. VAN ITTERSUM and A.O. LANSINK (2010): Assessing the forecasting performance of a generic bio‐economic farm model calibrated with two different PMP variants. In: Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 (2): 274-294. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  118. KUHN, A., W. BRITZ, D.K. WILLY and P. VAN OEL (2016): Simulating the viability of water institutions under volatile rainfall conditions–The case of the Lake Naivasha Basin. In: Environmental modelling & software 75 (Jan. 2016): 373-387. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  119. LOUHICHI, K., P. CIAIAN, M. ESPINOSA, L. COLEN, A. PERNI and S. GOMEZ Y PALOMA (2015): An EU-wide individual farm model for common agricultural policy analysis (IFM-CAP): JRC Report. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC92574/jrcreport_jrc92574.pdf Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  120. LOUHICHI, K., S. JANSSEN, A. KANELLOPOULOS, H. LI, N. BORKOWSKI, G. FLICHMAN, H. HENGSDIJK, P. ZandER, M.B. FONSECA, G. STOKSTAD and I.N. ATHANASIADIS (2010): A generic farming system simulator. In: Brouwer, Floor M. and M.K. van Ittersum (eds.): En-vironmental and Agricultural Modelling. Springer, Dordrecht: 109-132. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  121. MÉREL, P. and S. BUCARAM (2010): Exact calibration of programming models of agricultural supply against exogenous supply elasticities. In: European Review of Agricultural Economics 37 (3): 395-418. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  122. RODRIGUES, J. (2014): A Bayesian approach to the balancing of statistical economic data. In: Entropy 16 (3): 1243-1271. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  123. SCHÄFER, D. and W. BRITZ (2017): Estimating impacts of the revised German fertilizer ordinance on manure transport flows within North Rhine-Westphalia. Poster presented at the EAAE XVth Congress, Parma (Italy). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  124. SCHMID, E. and S. SINABELL (2005): Using the positive mathematical programming method to calibrate linear programming models. Universität für Bodenkultur, Department für Wirtschafts-u. Sozialwissenschaften, Institut für Nachhaltige Wirtschaftsentwicklung, Wien. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  125. TROOST, C. and T. BERGER (2014): Dealing with uncertainty in agent-based simulation: farm-level modeling of adaptation to climate change in Southwest Germany. In: American Journal of Agricultural Economics 97 (3): 833-854. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  126. VICENTE, L.N. and P.H. CALAMAI (1994): Bilevel and multilevel programming: A bibliography review. In: Journal of Global optimization 5 (3): 291-306. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.165-181
  127. ARNBERGER, A. and R. EDER (2011): Exploring the Heterogeneity of Rural Landscape Preferences: An Image-Based Latent Class Approach. In: Landscape Research 36 (1): 19-40. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  128. BARROSO, F.L., T. PINTO-CORREIA, I.L. RAMOS, D. SUROVÁ and H. MENEZES (2012): Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: Photo-based questionnaires in the Mediterranean context. In: Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (3): 329-342. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  129. BOXALL, P.C. and W.L. ADAMOWICZ (2002): Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach. In: Environmental and Resource Economics 23 (4): 421-446. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  130. CARLSSON, F., P. FRYKBLOM and C.J. LAGERKVIST (2005): Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. In: Economics Letters 89 (2): 147-152. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  131. DAVIS, K.J., M. BURTON and M. KRAGT (2016): Discrete choice models: scale heterogeneity and why it matters. Working Papers. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ags:uwauwp: 235373. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  132. DE AYALA BILBAO, A., D. HOYOS RAMOS and P. MARIEL CHLADKOVA (2012): Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections. Working Paper 2012-03. Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  133. DESTATIS (Statistisches Bundesamt) (2017a): Einkommen, Einnahmen und Ausgaben privater Haushalte 2015. Wiesbaden. https://www.statistischebibliothek.de/mir/servlets/MCRFilNodeServlet/DEHeft_derivate_00032431/2150100157004_Korr20062017.pdf. Last accessed: 04.07.2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  134. DESTATIS (Statistisches Bundesamt) (2017b): Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. Wiesbaden. https://www.statistischebibliothek.de/mir/servlets/MCRFilNodeServlet/DEHeft_derivate_00048509/2010130157004_ergaenzt19072017.pdf. Last accessed: 04.07.2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  135. FIEBIG, D.G., M.P. KEANE, J. LOUVIERE and N. WASI (2010): The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity. In: Marketing Science 29 (3): 393-421. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  136. GHARADJEDAGHI, B., R. HEIMANN, K. LENZ, C. MARTIN, V. PIEPER, A. SCHULZ, A. VAHABZADEH, P. FINCK and U. RIECKEN (2004): Verbreitung und Gefährdung schutzwürdiger Landschaften in Deutschland. In: Natur und Landschaft 79 (2): 71-81. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  137. GRAMMATIKOPOULOU, I., E. POUTA, M. SALMIOVIRTA and K. SOINI (2012): Heterogeneous preferences for agricultural landscape improvements in southern Finland. In: Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2): 181-191. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  138. HÄFNER, K., I. ZASADA, B.T. van ZANTEN, F. UNGARO, M. KOETSE and A. PIORR (2018): Assessing landscape preferences: a visual choice experiment in the agricultural region of Märkische Schweiz, Germany. In: Landscape Research 43 (6): 846-861. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  139. HESS, S. and K. TRAIN (2017): Correlation and scale in mixed logit models. In: Journal of Choice Modelling (23): 1-8. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  140. HOWLEY, P. (2011): Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ preferences towards rural landscapes. In: Ecological Economics (72): 161-169. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  141. HOWLEY, P., C.O. DONOGHUE and S. HYNES (2012a): Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. In: Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (1): 66-74. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  142. HOWLEY, P., S. HYNES and C.O. DONOGHUE (2012b): Countryside Preferences: Exploring Individuals’ Willingness to Pay for the Conservation of the Traditional Farm Landscape. In: Landscape Research 37 (6): 703-719. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  143. HOYOS, D. (2010): The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. In: Ecological Economics 69 (8): 1595-1603. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  144. HULL IV, R.B. and G.R.B. REVELL (1989): Issues in sampling landscapes for visual quality assessments. In: Landscape and Urban Planning 17 (4): 323-330. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  145. HYNES, S. and D. CAMPBELL (2011): Estimating the welfare impacts of agricultural landscape change in Ireland: a choice experiment approach. In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54 (8): 1019-1039. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  146. JOHNSTON, R.J., D. JARVIS, K. WALLMO and D.K. LEW (2015): Multiscale Spatial Pattern in Nonuse Willingness to Pay: Applications to Threatened and Endangered Marine Species. In: Land Economics 91 (4): 739-761. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  147. KALTENBORN, B.P. and T. BJERKE (2002): Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. In: Landscape and Urban Planning 59 (1): 1-11. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  148. KEANE, M. and N. WASI (2013): Comparing Alternative Models of Heterogeneity in Consumer Choice Behavior: Models of Heterogeneity in Consumer Choice Behavior. In: Journal of Applied Econometrics 28 (6): 1018-1045. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  149. KJÆR, T. (2005): A review of the discrete choice experiment-with emphasis on its application in health care. Health Economics Papers 2005:1. University of Southern Denmark, Odense. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  150. KOMOSSA, F., E.H. VAN DER ZANDEN and P.H. VERBURG (2019): Characterizing outdoor recreation user groups: A typology of peri-urban recreationists in the Kromme Rijn area, the Netherlands. In: Land Use Policy (80): 246-258. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  151. LÓPEZ-RODRÍGUEZ, A., R. ESCRIBANO-BOMBÍN, V. HERNÁNDEZ-JIMÉNEZ and S. BELL (2019): Perceptions of ecological and aesthetic quality by natural resource professionals and local people. A qualitative exploration in a mountainous landscape (La Rioja, Spain). In: Landscape Research 44 (2): 241-255. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  152. LOUVIERE, J.J., HENSHER, D.A. and SWAIT, J.D. (2000): Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  153. MCFADDEN, D. and K. TRAIN (2000): Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response. In: Journal of Applied Econometrics 15 (5): 447-470. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  154. NOTARO, S., G. GRILLI and A. PALETTO (2019): The role of emotions on tourists’ willingness to pay for the Alpine landscape: a latent class approach. In: Landscape Research 44 (6): 743-756. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  155. POUTA, E., I. GRAMMATIKOPOULOU, T. HURME, K. SOINI and M. UUSITALO (2014): Assessing the Quality of Agricultural Landscape Change with Multiple Dimensions. In: Land 3 (3): 598-616. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  156. R CORE TEAM (2016): R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  157. RAMBONILAZA, M. and J. DACHARY-BERNARD (2007): Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiment method? In: Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (4): 318-326. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  158. ROSE, J.M. and M.C.J. BLIEMER (2009): Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs. In: Transport Reviews 29 (5): 587-617. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  159. SARRIAS, M. and R. DAZIANO (2017): Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R : The gmnl Package. In: Journal of Statistical Software 79 (2). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  160. SCHAAK, H. and O. MUSSHOFF (2020): Public preferences for pasture landscapes in Germany - A latent class analy-sis of a nationwide discrete choice experiment. In: Land Use Policy (91): 104371. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  161. SCHMIDT, K., A. WALZ, B. MARTÍN-LÓPEZ and R. SACHSE (2017): Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences. In: Ecosystem Services (26): 270-288. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  162. SERRANO-MONTES, J.L., E. MARTÍNEZ-IBARRA and J. ARIAS-GARCÍA (2019): How Does the Presence of Livestock Influence Landscape Preferences? An Image-Based Approach. In: Landscape Online (71): 1-18. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  163. SOINI, K., H. VAARALA and E. POUTA (2012): Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural-urban interface. In: Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (1): 124-134. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  164. SOLIVA, R., J. BOLLIGER and M. HUNZIKER (2010): Differences in Preferences towards Potential Future Landscapes in the Swiss Alps. In: Landscape Research 35 (6): 671-696. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  165. SONNIER, G., A. AINSLIE and T. OTTER (2007): Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. In: Quantitative Marketing and Economics 5 (3): 313-331. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  166. SUROVÁ, D. and T. PINTO-CORREIA (2008): Landscape preferences in the cork oak Montado region of Alentejo, southern Portugal: Searching for valuable landscape characteristics for different user groups. In: Landscape Research 33 (3): 311-330. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  167. TRAIN, K.E. (2009): Discrete choice methods with simulation. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  168. VECCHIATO, D. and T. TEMPESTA (2013): Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments. In: Forest Policy and Economics (26): 111-120. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  169. ZÁKOVÁ KROUPOVÁ, Z., M. HAVLÍKOVÁ, P. HÁLOVÁ and M. MALÝ (2016): Economic Valuation of Mountain Landscapes and Ecosystems: A Meta-Analysis of Case Studies. In: Agris on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics VIII (3): 103-112. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  170. VAN BERKEL, D.B. and P.H. VERBURG (2014): Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. In: Ecological Indicators (37): 163-174. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  171. VAN ZANTEN, B.T., P.H. VERBURG, M.J. KOETSE and P.J.H. VAN BEUKERING (2014): Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: A meta-analysis of case studies. In: Landscape and Urban Planning (132): 89-101. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  172. VAN ZANTEN, B.T., I. ZASADA, M.J. KOETSE, F. UNGARO, K. HÄFNER and P.H. VERBURG (2016): A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. In: Ecosystem Services (17): 87-98. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.182-191
  173. ANASTASSIADIS, F. und O. MUßHOFF (2014): Berücksichtigen Landwirte bei ihren Investitionsentscheidungen die damit verbundenen Auswirkungen auf die finanzielle Flexibilität ihres Betriebes?. In: German Journal of Agricultural Economics 63 (4): 240-258. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  174. AUSPRUNG, K. und U. LIEBE (2011): Choice-Experimente und die Messung von Handlungsalternativen in der Soziologie. In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 63 (1): 301-314. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  175. BIRKMOSE, T. und A. VESTERGAARD (2013): Acidification of slurry in barns, stores and during application: Review of Danish Research, Trials and Experience. Proceedings from the 15th RAMIRAN Conference,Versailes. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  176. BLASCH, J., B. VAN DER KROON, B. VA BEUKERING, R. MUSTER, S FABIANI, P. NINO und S. VANINO (2020): Farmer preferences for adopting precision farming technologies: a case study from Italy. In: European Review of Agricultural Economics: 1-49. doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbaa031. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  177. BLUNK GMBH (2016): Fördergeld für emissionsarmes, fristgerechtes Gülle-Ausbringen und Lagern. http://www.blunk-gmbh.de/allgemeines/guelle-foerderung/, Abruf: 21.11.2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  178. BULL, I. (2016): Verminderung von Ammoniak-Emissionen durch pH-Wert Regulierung - Die Dänen machen es vor. Bericht der Landesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Fischerei Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Gülzow-Prüzen. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  179. DÄNISCHES PARLAMENT (2012): Order on commercial Livestock, Livestock Manure, Silage etc. (the Livestock Manure Order). Order No. 764, 28/06/2012. https://eng.mst.dk/media/mst/Attachments/Orderoncommerciallivestocklivestockmanuresilageetc.pdf, Abruf: 18.04.2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  180. DANNE, M. und O. MUßHOFF (2017): Analysis of farmers’ willingness to participate in pasture grazing programs: Results from a discrete choice experiment with German dairy farmers. In: Journal of Dairy Science 100 (9): 7569-7580. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  181. DÜNGEVERORDNUNG (2017): Verordnung über die An-wendung von Düngemitteln, Bodenhilfsstoffen, Kultursubstraten und Pflanzenhilfsmitteln nach den Grund-sätzen der guten fachlichen Praxis beim Düngen. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/d_v_2017/BJNR130510017.html, Abruf: 18.04.2021 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  182. FANGUEIRO, D., M. HJORTH und F. GIOELLI (2015): Acidification of Animal Slurry -A Review. In: Journal of Environmental Management 149 (1): 46-56. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  183. GEBREZGABHER, S.A., M.P.M. MEUWISSEN, G. KRUSEMAN, D. LAKNER und A.G.J. OUDE LANSINK (2015): Factors influencing adoption of manure separation technology in the Neatherlands. In: Journal of Environmental Management 150 (1): 1-8. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  184. GREENE, W.H. und D.A. HENSHER (2003): A latent Class Model for Discrete Choice Analysis: Contrasted by Mixed Logit. In: Transportation Research Part B Methodological 37(8): 681-698. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  185. HENSHER, D.A. und W.H. GREENE (2003): The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice. Transportation 30: 133-146 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  186. HENSHER, D.A., J.M. ROSE und W.H. GREENE (2018): Applied Choice Analysis. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  187. HOLE, A.R. (2015): Statalist - The StataForum. dcreate: a new module for creating efficient designs for discrete choice experiments. https://www.stata.com/meeting/nordic-and-baltic16/slides/norway16_hole.pdf, Abruf: 21.11.2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  188. KELLY-EDWARDS, Q. (2018): Eco-Innovations for Air Quality. 21th European Forum on Eco Innovations, 05.-06.02.2018, Sofia (Bulgarien). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  189. KTBL (Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft) (o.J.): Goßvieheinheitenrechner. https://www.ktbl.de/webanwendungen/grossvieheinheitenrechner/, Abruf: 1.2.2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  190. KUHFELDT, W.F. (Hrsg.) (2010): Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications. In:. Marketing Research Methods in SAS. Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint and Graphical Techniques. SAS Institute, Cary. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  191. KUPPER, T. (2017): Beurteilung der Ansäuerung von Gülle als Maßnahme zur Reduktion von Ammoniakemissionen in der Schweiz - aktueller Stand. Berner Fachhochschule, Bern. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  192. LATACZ-LOHMANN, U. und J. SCHREINER (2019) Assessing Consumer and Producer Preferences for Animal Welfare Using a Common Elicitation Format. In: Journal of Agricultural Economics 70 (2): 293-315 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  193. LANDWIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER NIEDERSACHSEN (2019): Festlegung der "roten Gebiete" für Niedersachsen. https://www.lwk-niedersachsen.de/index.cfm/portal/58/nav/2145/article/34670.html, Abruf: 12.12.2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  194. LYNGSO, H. (2016): Policy brief- Slurry Acidification has wide benefits. Baltic Slurry Acidification. http://balticslurry.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Policy-Brief-Benefits.pdf, Abruf: 18.04.2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  195. MAGYLA, R. (2017): Lithuania. In: Rohde, L., J. Casimir und E. Sindhöj (Hrsg.): Baltic Slurry Acidification - Possibilities and bottlenecks for implementing slurry acidification techniques in the Baltic Sea Region. RISE report: 33. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  196. MARIEL, P., D. HOYOS, J. MEYERHOFF, M. CZAJKOWSKI, T. DEKKER, K. GLENK, J. BREDAHL JACOBSEN, U. LIEBE, S.B. OLSEN, J. SAGEBIEL und M. THIENE (2021): Environmental Valuation with Discrete Choice Experiments. Guidance on Design, Implementation and Data Analysis. Springer, Cham. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  197. MCBRIDE, W.D. und S.G. DABERKOW (2003): Information and the Adoption of Precision Farming Technologies. In: Journal of Agribusiness 21 (1): 21-38. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  198. NESER, S., F. LEIPPERT und M. HONISCH (2010): Technik zur Ausbringung flüssiger Wirtschaftsdünger – wirtschaft-liche und umweltgerechte Lösungen. Güllebehandlung und Güllezusätze. Bodenseekonferenz, 2010, Kempten. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  199. OLSEN, S. und J. MEYERHOFF (2017): Will the alphabet soup of design criteria affect discrete Choice experiments results? In: European Review of Agricultural Economics 44 (2): 309-316. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  200. ROHLMANN, C., M.VERHAAG und S. EFKEN (2020): Steckbriefe zur Tierhaltung in Deutschland: Ferkelerzeugung und Schweinemast. Thünen Institut, Braunschweig. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  201. RAVNBORG, H. (2016): Slurry acidification in a danish environmental regulation scheme. International Seminar on slurry Acidification, 28.9.2016, Munkebjerg. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  202. SCHREINER, J. und S. HESS (2017): The role of non-use values in dairy farmers’ willingness to accept a farm animal welfare program. In: Journal of Agricultural Economics 68 (2): 553-578. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  203. SCHREINER, J. und U. LATACZ-LOHMANN (2015): Farmers’ valuation of incentives to produce genetically modified organism-free milk: Insights from a discrete choice experiment in Germany. In: Journal of Dairy Science 98 (11): 7498-7509. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  204. SEIDEL, A., A. PACHOLSKI, T. NYORD, A. VESTERGAARD, I. PAHLMANN, A. HERRMANN und H. KAGE (2017): Effects of acidification and injection of pasture applied cattle slurry on ammonia losses, N2O emissions and crop N uptake. In: Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 247 (1): 23-32. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  205. SINDHÖJ, E. und K. MASUR (2017): 4. Description of slurry acidification techniques (SATs) and how it is practiced. In: Rohde, L., J. Casimir und E. Sindhöj (Hrsg.): Baltic Slurry Acidification - Possibilities and bottlenecks for implementing slurry acidification techniques in the Baltic Sea Region. RISE report: 9-21. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  206. TAMM, K., R. VETTIK und J.T.I. SINDHÖJ (2013): 4. Slurry Acidification. In: Sindhöj, E. und L. Rodhe (Hrsg.): Knowledge Report - Examples of Implementing Manure Processing Technology at Farm Level: 22-30. Swedish Institute of Agriculture and Environmental Engineering, Uppsala. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  207. TERGAST, H., L. SCHICKRAMM, T. LINDENA, R. ELLßEL und H. HANSEN (2019): Steckbriefe zur Tierhaltung in Deutschland: Milchkühe. Thünen Institut, Braunschweig. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  208. TZEMI, D. und J. BREEN (2019): Climate change and the agricultural sector in Ireland: examining farmer awareness and willingness to adopt new advisory mitigation tools. In: Climate Policy 19 (5): 611-622. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  209. STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT (2019): Fachserie 3, Reihe 4.1 Viehbestand. Vorbericht. Wiesbaden. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  210. STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT (2020a): Viehbestand 3. Mai 2020. 2.2 Schweine. Tabelle 2.2.3 Betriebe mit Haltung von Zuchtsauen nach Größenklassen der gehaltenen Tiere in Deutschland und den Bundesländern (ohne Stadtstaaten). Fachserie 3 Reihe 4.1. Wiesbaden. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  211. STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT (2020b): Viehbestand. 3. Mai 2020. 2.2 Schweine. Tabelle 2.2.1 Betriebe mit Haltung von Schweinen und Schweinebestände in Deutschland und den Bundesländern (ohne Stadtstaaten). Fachserie 3 Reihe 4.1. Wiesbaden. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  212. UMWELTBUNDESAMT (Hrsg.) (2017): Umweltschutz in der Landwirtschaft. Hausdruckerei des Umweltbundesamtes, Berlin. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  213. VENKATESH, V. und F.D. DAVIS (2000): A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. In: Management Science 46 (2): 186-204. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  214. VERA (Verification of Environmental Technologies for Agricultural Production) (2012): VERA Vertification Statement for SyreN. Vertification of Environmental Technologies for Agricultural Production. https://www.vera-verification.eu/app/uploads/sites/9/2019/05/VERA-Statement001_SyreN.pdf, Abruf: 15.12.2020. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  215. VESTERGAARD, A. (2017): Baltic Slurry Acidification - status, economy and consideration by acidification of slurry -SEGES report. SEGES. http://balticslurry.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SEGES-review-Slurry-acidification.pdf, Abruf: 21.11.2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  216. WEBB, J., B. PAIN, S. BITTMANN und J. MORGAN (2010): The impact of manure application methods on emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide and on crop response - A review. In: Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 137 (1): 39-46. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  217. WULF, S., C. RÖSEMANN, B. EURICH-MENDEN und E. GRIMM (2017): Ammoniakemissionen in der Landwirtschaft Minderungsziele und Potentiale. Aktuelle recht-liche Rahmenbedingungen für die Tierhaltung. KTBL Jahrestagung, 2017, Hannover. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207
  218. ZACHARIAS, M. (2017): 6.4. Germany. In: Rohde, L., J. Casimir und E. Sindhöj (Hrsg.): Baltic Slurry Acidification - Possibilities and bottlenecks for implementing slurry acidification techniques in the Baltic Sea Region. RISE report: 28. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.30430/70.2021.3.192-207

Neuesten Ausgaben

GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics
Alle Ausgaben anzeigen
Cover der Ausgabe: GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics Jahrgang 72 (2023), Heft 03-04
Ausgabe Kein Zugriff
GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics
Jahrgang 72 (2023), Heft 03-04
Cover der Ausgabe: GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics Jahrgang 72 (2023), Heft 02
Ausgabe Kein Zugriff
GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics
Jahrgang 72 (2023), Heft 02
Cover der Ausgabe: GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics Jahrgang 72 (2023), Heft Supplement
Ausgabe Kein Zugriff
GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics
Jahrgang 72 (2023), Heft Supplement
Cover der Ausgabe: GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics Jahrgang 72 (2023), Heft 01
Ausgabe Kein Zugriff
GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics
Jahrgang 72 (2023), Heft 01
Cover der Ausgabe: GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics Jahrgang 71 (2022), Heft 04
Ausgabe Kein Zugriff
GJAE - German Journal of Agricultural Economics
Jahrgang 71 (2022), Heft 04

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Feedback geben

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback zu Inhalten und Funktionen. Ihre Nachricht hilft uns, unseren Service stetig zu verbessern.

Bewertung
Bild anhängen
oder hier ablegen
PNG oder JPG (max. 3 MB)

Anmelden

Passwort vergessen?
Login über Ihre Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS