Just Accepted Manuscripts
Review Articles

Policy mixes in rural areas: a scoping literature review

Just Accepted
  • Naomi di Santo,
  • Teresa Del Giudice,
  • Roberta Sisto
Naomi di Santo
University of Foggia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/rea-15149

Published 2024-12-18

Keywords

  • Sustainability transition,
  • Policy mix,
  • Rural areas,
  • Rural ecosystems,
  • Scoping review

How to Cite

di Santo, N., Del Giudice, T., & Sisto, R. (2024). Policy mixes in rural areas: a scoping literature review. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics (REA). https://doi.org/10.36253/rea-15149

Copyright (c) 2024 Naomi di Santo, Teresa Del Giudice, Roberta Sisto

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

While public policy guidelines emphasise the need to consider sustainability issues as interconnected, policymakers often focus on specific problem areas. The concept of “policy mix” was introduced to highlight that adopting a single policy instrument is insufficient for effective territorial development and socio-technical transition. Starting with the need to foster a transition to sustainability and considering the synergies of a policy mix and the fundamental role of rural areas, this study aimed to explore the existing literature to determine the main topics on policy mixes in rural areas, the commonly used methodologies, the key features of policy mixes, and the suggested future research directions. This study was conducted using a scoping literature review and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology; it included 78 articles. This review revealed important gaps, such as the lack of ex-post evaluations of policies and assessments of governance impacts on policy mix implementation. This paper contributes to advancing the literature by helping the scientific community and policymakers understand the importance of implementing policy mixes.

Just Accepted

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Ahlmeyer F., Volgmann K. (2023). What Can We Expect for the Development of Rural Areas in Europe? Trends of the Last Decade and Their Opportunities for Rural Regeneration. Sustainability, 15(6), 5485. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065485.
  2. Albert C., Fürst C., Ring I., Sandström C. (2020). Research note: Spatial planning in Europe and Central Asia–Enhancing the consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning, 196, 103741. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103741.
  3. Alden D. (1997). Recreational user management of parks: an ecological economic framework. Ecological Economics, 23(3): 225-236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00581-8.
  4. Azungah T. (2018). Qualitative research: deductive and inductive approaches to data analysis. Qualitative research journal, 18(4): 383-400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-18-00035
  5. Banerjee O., Crossman N., Vargas R., Brander L., Verburg P., Cicowiez M., Hauck J., McKenzie E. (2020). Global socio-economic impacts of changes in natural capital and ecosystem services: State of play and new modeling approaches. Ecosystem Services, 46, 101202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101202.
  6. Bartolini F., Gava O., Brunori G. (2017). Biogas and EU’s 2020 targets: Evidence from a regional case study in Italy. Energy Policy, 109: 510-519. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.039.
  7. Barton D.N., Benavides K., Chacon‐Cascante A., Le Coq J.F., Quiros M.M., Porras I., Primmer E., Ring, I. (2017). Payments for Ecosystem Services as a Policy Mix: Demonstrating the institutional analysis and development framework on conservation policy instruments. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(5): 404-421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1769.
  8. Barton D.N., Blumentrath S., Rusch G. (2013). Policyscape  a spatially explicit evaluation of voluntary conservation in a policy mix for biodiversity conservation in Norway. Society & Natural Resources, 26(10): 1185-1201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.799727.
  9. Barton D.N., Ring I., Rusch G.M. (2017). Policy Mixes: Aligning instruments for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provision. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(5): 397-403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1779.
  10. Behrens D.A., Bednar-Friedl B., Getzner M. (2009). Sustainable management of an alpine national park: handling the two-edged effect of tourism. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 17: 233-253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-009-0087-1.
  11. Bhandari A.K., Jana C. (2010). A comparative evaluation of household preferences for solar photovoltaic standalone and mini-grid system: An empirical study in a costal village of Indian Sundarban. Renewable Energy, 35(12): 2835-2838. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.05.006.
  12. Blamey R.K., Bennett J.W., Louviere J.J., Morrison M.D., Rolfe J.C. (2002). Attribute causality in environmental choice modelling. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23: 167-186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021202425295.
  13. Bock B.B. (2016). Rural marginalisation and the role of social innovation; a turn towards nexogenous development and rural reconnection. Sociologia ruralis, 56(4): 552-573. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12119.
  14. Borrás S. (2008). The widening and deepening of innovation policy: What conditions provide for effective governance?.
  15. Bouma J.A., Verbraak M., Dietz F., Brouwer R. (2019). Policy mix: mess or merit?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(1): 32-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2018.1494636.
  16. Braito M., Leonhardt H., Penker M., Schauppenlehner-Kloyber E., Thaler G., Flint C.G. (2020). The plurality of farmers’ views on soil management calls for a policy mix. Land Use Policy, 99, 104876. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104876.
  17. Broberg T., Brännlund R. (2008). On the value of large predators in Sweden: A regional stratified contingent valuation analysis. Journal of environmental management, 88(4): 1066-1077. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.05.016.
  18. Cartwright N., Hardie J. (2012). Evidence-Based Policy. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199841608.001.0001.
  19. Cong R.G., Thomsen M. (2021). Review of ecosystem services in a bio-based circular economy and governance mechanisms. Ecosystem Services, 50, 101298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101298.
  20. Cook H., Couldrick L., Smith L. (2017). An assessment of intermediary roles in payments for ecosystem services schemes in the context of catchment management: An example from South West England. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 19(01), 1750003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S146433321750003X.
  21. Costa J., Matias J.C. (2020). Open innovation 4.0 as an enhancer of sustainable innovation ecosystems. Sustainability, 12(19), 8112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198112.
  22. Cozzi M., Prete C., Viccaro M., Riccioli F., Fagarazzi C., Romano S. (2020). Towards sustainable and inclusive communities: an integrated approach to assess sustainability in rural areas. Aestimum, 2020: 81-102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13128/aestim-8206.
  23. D’Adamo I., Gastaldi M., Morone P. (2022). Solar collective self-consumption: Economic analysis of a policy mix. Ecological Economics, 199, 107480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107480.
  24. Davenport R.B., Vivan J.L., May P.H., Nunes P.C., de Vargas L.N., Costa W.L.S., Ribeiro Oliveira A., Rajão R.L. (2017). Adaptive forest governance in Northwestern Mato Grosso, Brazil: pilot project outcomes across agrarian reform landscapes. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(5): 453-471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1772.
  25. Davidova S. (2011). Semi‐subsistence farming: an elusive concept posing thorny policy questions. Journal of agricultural economics, 62(3): 503-524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/eec-2013-0010.
  26. Droste N., Ring I., Schröter‐Schlaack C., Lenk T. (2017). Integrating ecological indicators into federal‐state fiscal relations: a policy design study for Germany. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(5): 484-499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1774.
  27. Eberhard R., Coggan A., Jarvis D., Hamman E., Taylor B., Baresi U., Vella K., Dean A.J., Deane F., Helmstedt K., Mayfield, H. (2021). Understanding the effectiveness of policy instruments to encourage adoption of farming practices to improve water quality for the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 172, 112793. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112793.
  28. Edmondson D.L., Kern F., Rogge K.S. (2019). The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 48(10), 103555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.010.
  29. European Commission (2021). A Long-Term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas - Towards Stronger, Connected, Resilient and Prosperous Rural Areas by 2040. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0345.
  30. Farjalla V.F., Pires A.P., Agostinho A.A., Amado A.M., Bozelli R.L., Dias B.F.S., Dib V., Faria B.M., Figueiredo A., Gomes E.A.T., Lima A.J.R., Mormul R.P., Ometto J.P.H.B., Panosso R., Ribeiro M.C.L.B., Rodriguez D.A., Sabino J., Scofield V., Scarano F.R. (2021). Turning water abundance into sustainability in Brazil. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, 727051. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.727051.
  31. Fedrigo-Fazio D., Schweitzer J.P., Ten Brink P., Mazza L., Ratliff A., Watkins E. (2016). Evidence of absolute decoupling from real world policy mixes in Europe. Sustainability, 8(6), 517. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060517.
  32. Filipović S., Lior N., Radovanović M. (2022). The green deal–just transition and sustainable development goals Nexus. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 168, 112759. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112759.
  33. Flanagan K., Uyarra E., Laranja M. (2011). Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’ for innovation. Research policy, 40(5): 702-713. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.005.
  34. Geels F.W. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 39: 187-201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009.
  35. Geisendorf S., Klippert C. (2022). Integrated sustainability policy assessment–an agent-based ecological-economic model. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 32(3): 1017-1048. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-021-00749-0.
  36. Ghinoi S., Junior V.J.W., Piras S. (2018). Political debates and agricultural policies: Discourse coalitions behind the creation of Brazil’s Pronaf. Land Use Policy, 76: 68-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.039.
  37. Hailu A., Mammo S., Kidane M. (2020). Dynamics of land use, land cover change trend and its drivers in Jimma Geneti District, Western Ethiopia. Land use policy, 99, 105011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105011.
  38. Henderson D., Roche N. (2020). Examining the policy mix for broadband deployment in Wales: The role of informal coordination in the last mile. Local Economy, 35(1): 48-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094219883396.
  39. Howland F. (2022). Local climate change policy and rural development in Colombia’s post-peace agreements context. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 20(7): 1260-1277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2022.2098641.
  40. Howlett M., Rayner J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’. Policy and society, 26(4): 1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1449-4035(07)70118-2.
  41. Huber R., Rebecca S., François M., Hanna B.S., Dirk S., Robert F. (2017). Interaction effects of targeted agri-environmental payments on non-marketed goods and services under climate change in a mountain region. Land Use Policy, 66: 49-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.029.
  42. Izquierdo‐Tort S. (2020). Payments for ecosystem services and conditional cash transfers in a policy mix: Microlevel interactions in Selva Lacandona, Mexico. Environmental Policy and Governance, 30(1): 29-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1876.
  43. James J. (2021). Confronting the scarcity of digital skills among the poor in developing countries. Development Policy Review, 39(2): 324-339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12479.
  44. Jeannerat H., Crevoisier O. (2022). From competitiveness to territorial value: transformative territorial innovation policies and anchoring milieus. European Planning Studies, 30(11): 2157-2177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2042208.
  45. Kivimaa P., Kern F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research policy, 45(1): 205-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008.
  46. Köhler J., Geels F.W., Kern F., Markard J., Onsongo E., Wieczorek A., Alkemade F., Avelino F., Bergek A., Boons F., Fünfschilling L., Hess D., Holtz G., Hyysalo S., Jenkins K., Kivimaa P., Martiskainen M., McMeekin A., Mühlemeier M.S., Nykvist B., Pel B., Raven R., Rohracher H., Sandén B., Schot J., Sovacool B., Turnheim B., Welch D., Wells P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 31: 1-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.
  47. Könnölä T., Eloranta V., Turunen T., Salo A. (2021). Transformative governance of innovation ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121106.
  48. Kuberska D., Mackiewicz M. (2022). Cluster policy in Poland  Failures and opportunities. Sustainability, 14(3), 1262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031262.
  49. Kubo H., Wibawanto A., Rossanda D. (2019). Toward a policy mix in conservation governance: A case of Gunung Palung National Park, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Land use policy, 88, 104108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104108.
  50. Li L.H. (2017). Balancing rural and urban development: Applying coordinated urban–rural development (CURD) strategy to achieve sustainable urbanisation in China. Sustainability, 9(11), 1948. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111948.
  51. Liberati A., Altman D.G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P.C., Ioannidis J.P.A., Clarke M., Devereaux P.J., Kleijnen J., Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Annals of internal medicine, 151(4): W-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
  52. Lindberg M.B., Markard J., Andersen A.D. (2019). Policies, actors and sustainability transition pathways: A study of the EU’s energy policy mix. Research policy, 48(10), 103668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.09.003
  53. Lockwood A.C.M. (2000). Landcare and catchment management in Australia: lessons for state-sponsored community participation. Society & Natural Resources, 13(1): 61-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/089419200279243
  54. Lopolito A., Sica E. (2022). Designing Policy Mixes to Address the World’s Worst Devastation of a Rural Landscape Caused by Xylella Epidemic. Land, 11(5), 763. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050763.
  55. Mann C., Plieninger T. (2017). The potential of landscape labelling approaches for integrated landscape management in Europe. Landscape Research, 42(8): 904-920. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1335863.
  56. Mantino F., Vanni F. (2019). Policy Mixes as a Strategy to Provide More Effective Social and Environmental Benefits: Evidence from Six Rural Areas in Europe. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11(23). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236632.
  57. Meinard Y. (2017). What is a legitimate conservation policy?. Biological Conservation, 213: 115-123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.042.
  58. Menotti V. (1998). Globalization and the acceleration of forest destruction since Rio. The Ecologist, 28(6): 354-363.
  59. Milhorance C., Sabourin E., Le Coq J.F., Mendes P. (2020). Unpacking the policy mix of adaptation to climate change in Brazil’s semiarid region: enabling instruments and coordination mechanisms. Climate Policy, 20(5): 593-608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1753640.
  60. Milios L. (2018). Advancing to a Circular Economy: three essential ingredients for a comprehensive policy mix. Sustainability science, 13(3): 861-878. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0502-9.
  61. Miller K.A., Belton V. (2014). Water resource management and climate change adaptation: a holistic and multiple criteria perspective. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 19(3): 289-308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9537-0.
  62. Montoya-Zumaeta J., Rojas E., Wunder S. (2019). Adding rewards to regulation: The impacts of watershed conservation on land cover and household wellbeing in Moyobamba, Peru. PLoS One, 14(11), e0225367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225367.
  63. Mugabe P.A., Renkamp T.M., Rybak C., Mbwana H., Gordon C., Sieber S., Löhr K. (2022). Governing COVID-19: Analyzing the effects of policy responses on food systems in Tanzania. Agriculture & food security, 11(1): 47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-022-00383-4.
  64. Ngan S.P., Ngan S.L., Lam H.L. (2022). The Role of Policy Mix in Driving Sustainable Development: Idealism or Realism?. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 94: 1363-1368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2294227.
  65. Niemeyer J., Vale M.M. (2022). Obstacles and opportunities for implementing a policy-mix for ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change in Brazil’s Caatinga. Land Use Policy, 122, 106385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106385.
  66. Nimubona A.D., Pereau J.C. (2022). Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, 55(3): 1507-1538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12605.
  67. Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D., Shamseer L., Tetzlaff J.M., Akl E., Brennan S.E., Chou R., Glanville J., Grimshaw J.M., Hróbjartsson A., Lalu M.M., Li T., Loder E.W., Mayo-Wilson E., McDonald S., McGuinness L., Stewart L.A., Thomas J., Tricco A.C., Ka Shing L., Welch V.A., Whiting P., Moher D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Medicina Fluminensis, 57(4): 444-465. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21860/medflum2021_264903.
  68. Potter C., Burney J. (2002). Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTO  legitimate non-trade concern or disguised protectionism?. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(1): 35-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(01)00031-6.
  69. Quitzow R. (2015). Assessing policy strategies for the promotion of environmental technologies: A review of India’s National Solar Mission. Research Policy, 44(1): 233-243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.09.003.
  70. Reddy A.K. (2002). A generic Southern perspective on renewable energy. Energy for Sustainable Development, 6(3): 74-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60327-0.
  71. Reside A.E., Beher J., Cosgrove A.J., Evans M.C., Seabrook L., Silcock J.L., Wenger A.S., Maron M. (2017). Ecological consequences of land clearing and policy reform in Queensland. Pacific Conservation Biology, 23(3): 219-230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/PC17001.
  72. Rezende C.L., Fraga J.S., Sessa J.C., de Souza G.V.P., Assad E.D., Scarano F.R. (2018). Land use policy as a driver for climate change adaptation: A case in the domain of the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Land Use Policy, 72: 563-569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.027.
  73. Rogge K.S., Reichardt K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research policy, 45(8): 1620-1635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004.
  74. Santos R., SchrÖTer-Schlaack C., Antunes P., Ring I., Clemente P. (2015). Reviewing the role of habitat banking and tradable development rights in the conservation policy mix. Environmental Conservation, 42(4): 294-305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892915000089.
  75. Sarker P.K., Fischer R., Tamayo F., Navarrete B.T., Günter S. (2022). Analyzing forest policy mixes based on the coherence of policies and the consistency of legislative policy instruments: A case study from Ecuador. Forest Policy and Economics, 144, 102838.102838. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102838.
  76. Scarano F.R. (2017). Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: concept, scalability and a role for conservation science. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 15(2): 65-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2017.05.003.
  77. Schader C., Lampkin N., Muller A., Stolze M. (2014). The role of multi-target policy instruments in agri-environmental policy mixes. Journal of environmental management, 145: 180-190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.06.016.
  78. Schrader H. (1994). Impact assessment of the EU structural funds to support regional economic development in rural areas of Germany. Journal of Rural Studies, 10(4): 357-365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(94)90045-0.
  79. Scordato L., Klitkou A., Tartiu V.E., Coenen L. (2018). Policy mixes for the sustainability transition of the pulp and paper industry in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183: 1216-1227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.212.
  80. Scullion J.J., Vogt K.A., Winkler-Schor S., Sienkiewicz A., Pena C., Hajek F. (2016). Designing conservation-development policies for the forest frontier. Sustainability Science, 11: 295-306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0315-7.
  81. Sharma R.K., Sarwal D., Arora N.D. (2007). Rehabilitation and resettlement policy of Tehri Dam Project  Meeting the needs & aspirations of the people. Water and Energy International, 64(1): 442-451. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296504705_Rehabilitation_and_resettlement_policy_of_Tehri_Dam_Project_-_Meeting_the_needs_aspirations_of_the_people.
  82. Simões F., Rocca A., Rocha R., Mateus C., Marta E., Tosun J. (2021). Time to get emotional: Determinants of university students’ intention to return to rural areas. Sustainability, 13(9), 5135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095135.
  83. Tinbergen J. (1956). Economic Policy: Principles and Design. North Holland, Amsterdam. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2228014.
  84. Tønnesen A., Knapskog M., Rynning M.K., Groven K. (2022). Planning for climate-friendly transport in Norwegian rural areas. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 102, 103156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103156.
  85. Trotter P.A., Brophy A. (2022). Policy mixes for business model innovation: The case of off-grid energy for sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa. Research Policy, 51(6), 104528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104528.
  86. United Nations (2016). Trasforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Arsenic Research and Global Sustainability  Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Arsenic in the Environment, AS 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/b20466-7.
  87. Urgenson L.S., Prozesky H.E., Esler K.J. (2013). Stakeholder perceptions of an ecosystem services approach to clearing invasive alien plants on private land. Ecology and Society, 18(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05259-180126.
  88. Ürge-Vorsatz D., Kelemen A., Tirado-Herrero S., Thomas S., Thema J., Mzavanadze N., Hauptstock D., Suerkemper F., Teubler J., Gupta M., Chatterjee S. (2016). Measuring multiple impacts of low-carbon energy options in a green economy context. Applied Energy, 179: 1409-1426. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.027.
  89. Uyarra E., Shapira P., Harding A. (2016). Low carbon innovation and enterprise growth in the UK: Challenges of a place-blind policy mix. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 103: 264-272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.008.
  90. Van den Bergh J.C. (2020). Six policy perspectives on the future of a semi-circular economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 160, 104898. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104898.
  91. Van den Bergh J.C., Castro J., Drews S., Exadaktylos F., Foramitti J., Klein F., Konc T., Savin I. (2021). Designing an effective climate-policy mix: accounting for instrument synergy. Climate Policy, 21(6): 745-764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2021.1907276.
  92. Vávra J., Dlouhá J., Pospíšilová M., Pělucha M., Šindelářová I., Dvořáková Líšková Z., Hartych M., Dlouhý J., Cudlínová E. (2022). Local action groups and sustainable development agenda: Case study of regional perspectives from Czechia. Frontiers in Sustainability, 3, 846658. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.846658.
  93. Venturini G., Karlsson K., Münster M. (2019). Impact and effectiveness of transport policy measures for a renewable-based energy system. Energy Policy, 133, 110900. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110900.
  94. Verde Selva G., Pauli N., Kiatkoski Kim M., Clifton J. (2019). Can environmental compensation contribute to socially equitable conservation? The case of an ecological fiscal transfer in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Local Environment, 24(10): 931-948. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1663800.
  95. Vlačić E., Dabić M., Aralica Z. (2018). National Innovation System: Where do Government and Business Diverge?. Društvena istraživanja, 27(4): 649-669. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5559/di.27.4.04.
  96. vonHedemann N., Wurtzebach Z., Timberlake T.J., Sinkular E., Schultz C.A. (2020). Forest policy and management approaches for carbon dioxide removal. Interface focus, 10(5), 20200001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2020.0001.
  97. Wiebelt M., Schweickert R., Breisinger C., Böhme M. (2011). Oil revenues for public investment in Africa: targeting urban or rural areas?. Review of World Economics, 147: 745-770. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-011-0101-2.
  98. Willemen L., Hein L., Verburg P.H. (2010). Evaluating the impact of regional development policies on future landscape services. Ecological economics, 69(11): 2244-2254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.012
  99. Wilts H., O’Brien M. (2019). A policy mix for resource efficiency in the EU: key instruments, challenges and research needs. Ecological economics, 155: 59-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.004.
  100. Wong G.Y., Loft L., Brockhaus M., Yang A.L., Pham T.T., Assembe‐Mvondo S., Luttrell C. (2017). An assessment framework for benefit sharing mechanisms to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation within a forest policy mix. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(5): 436-452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1771.
  101. Zabala A., Barrios L.E.G., Pascual U. (2022). From participation to commitment in silvopastoral programmes: Insights from Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological Economics, 200, 107544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107544.
  102. Zang D., Xie Y., Barbero S., Pereno A. (2023). How Does Systemic Design Facilitate the Sustainability Transition of Rural Communities? A Comparative Case Study between China and Italy. Sustainability, 15(13), 10202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310202.
  103. Zhang J., Yu B. (2019). Policy Mixes for the Sustainability Transition of the Battery Industry in China. In: 2019 8th International Conference on Industrial Technology and Management (ICITM) (pp. 61-64). IEEE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITM.2019.8710658.
  104. Zhang Q., Wang G., Mi F., Zhang X., Xu L., Zhang Y., Jiang X. (2019). Evaluation and scenario simulation for forest ecological security in China. Journal of Forestry Research, 30(5): 1651-1666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-018-0773-8.
  105. Zhenghui F., Zhang Y., He S., Wang H., Jiang X., Wang S. (2022). Multi-Objective Programming for Economy – Energy – Environment System and Policy Mix with Dual Constraints of Carbon Emission and Water Consumption Based on Multi-Scenario Analysis. Energy Reports 8: 7884-7891. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.06.022.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>