Regional Impact Assessment: A Methodology to Measure the Regional Value Added of Trans-Sectoral Urban Planning

  • Nadja Carius
  • Mike Speck
  • Katharina Laub
Conference paper
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


In times of increasing interest in sustainability topics, as well as their high degree of urgency due to depletion of resources, global warming and social inequalities, concepts and respective projects that meet the goals of sustainable development experience high popularity. Additionally, phenomena like globalization and urbanization have resulted in central, environmentally deprived areas and long, interregional/international value chains with winning global players and an ever growing gap between rich and poor. Often, urban growth has outpaced the ability of governments to build essential infrastructures and create regional value. Regional value creation can be facilitated by using local trans-sectoral synergies and is fundamental to sustainable development and the strengthening of local economies. To assess the regional and sustainable impact of trans-sectoral planning in urban areas, a consistent concept is needed that, not only includes economic performance indicators, but also social and ecological effects within the region. The visualization of the regional economic, environmental and social impacts cannot only support decision-making processes, but can also be used as a political argument to promote and foster trans-sectoral planning and sustainable development. There are various different approaches for measuring the regional value added, mainly focusing on the economic value added and mostly known in the field of renewable energies. To develop a tool measuring the regional impact in terms of economic, social and ecological performance of identified trans-sectoral interfaces and synergies, the authors have chosen the indicator-based approach to a value chain analysis, where a set of economic, social and ecological indicators is used for measuring the sustainability performance of value creation stages in a region. With the right choice of indicators, the tool is able to quantify the impact within a region and support the decision-making processes of urban planners.


Regional value added Regional impact Trans-sectoral planning Sustainability evaluation Performance indicators 


  1. Baccini, P., & Bader, H. -P. (1996). Regionaler Stoffhaushalt: Erfassung, Bewertung und Steuerung. Heidelberg, Berlin, Oxford: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
  2. Bronger, D. (2004). Metropolen, Megastädte, Global Cities: Die Metropolisierung der Erde. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  3. Die Bundesregierung [The federal government of Germany]. (2017). Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie: Neuauflage 2016. Berlin: Die Bundesregierung.Google Scholar
  4. Endlicher, W. (2012). Einführung in die Stadtökologie: Grundzüge des urbanen Mensch-Umwelt-Systems. Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer.Google Scholar
  5. EPA [United States Environmental Protection Agency]. (2002). Nitrogen: Multiple and regional impacts. Washington, DC: EPA.Google Scholar
  6. Freyer, W. (2001). Tourismus: Einführung in die Fremdenverkehrsökonomie, 7th revised ed. Munich and Vienna: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  7. Gallup-Healthways Inc. (2013). Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. Accessed at: July 25, 2013.
  8. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., Kaplinsky, R., & Sturgeon, T. (2001). Introduction: Globalisation, value chains, and development. IDS Bulletin, 32(3), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Graupner, M. (2010). Ansätze zur Messung der regionalen Wertschöpfung als Beitrag zum Aufbau einer Regionalmarke. Korrigierte Fassung der Diplomarbeit, Fakultät Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Technischen Universität Dresden.Google Scholar
  10. GTZ [Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit]. (Ed.). (2007). Value links manual: The methodology of value chain promotion. Eschborn: GTZ.Google Scholar
  11. Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1992). Understanding happiness: A theory of subjective well-being. Melbourne, Australia: Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
  12. Herr, M. L., & Muzira, T. J. (2009). Value chain development for decent work: A guide for development practitioners, government and private sector initiatives. Geneva: ILO [International Labour Office].Google Scholar
  13. Hirschl, B., Aretz, A., Prahl, A., Böther, T., Heinbach, K., Pick, D., & Funcke, S. (2010). Kommunale Wertschöpfung durch Erneuerbare Energien. Schriftenreihe des IÖW 196/10.Google Scholar
  14. Hoffmann, D. (2009). Creation of regional added value by regional bioenergy resources. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(2009), 2419–2429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoppenbrock, C. (2010). Regionale Wertschöpfung. ɳgreen, 04(2010), 26–28.Google Scholar
  16. Hoppenbrock, C., & Albrecht, A. K. (2010). Diskussionspapier zur Erfassung regionaler Wertschöpfung in 100%-EE-Regionen. In Deenet (Ed.), Grundlagen und Beispiele am Beispiel von Fotovoltaik. Arbeitsmaterialien 100 EE Nr. 2.Google Scholar
  17. Horst, F., Giegrich, J., Reinhardt, G., Schmitz, J., Sayer, U., Gretz, M., Seizinger, E., & Lanje, K. (2008). Criteria for a sustainable use of bioenergy on a global scale. Texte 30/08. Dessau-Roßlau: UBA [Umweltbundesamt].Google Scholar
  18. Idso, C. D., Idso, S. B., & Balling, R. C., Jr. (2001). An intensive two-week study of an urban CO2 dome in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Atmospheric Environment, 35, 995–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobson, M. Z. (2010). Enhancement of local air pollution by urban CO2 domes. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(2010), 2497–2502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kajanoja, J. (2002). Theoretical bases for the measurement of quality of life. In: E. Gullone & R. A. Cummins (Eds.), Social Indicators Research Series: Vol. 16. The Universality of subjective wellbeing indicators. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Kaplinsky, R., & Morris, M. (2001). A handbook for value chain research. Accessed at: January 12, 2017.
  22. Kaufhold, S. (2012). Die Regionale Wertschöpfung Erneuerbarer Energien durch Bürgerbeteiligung stärken: Handlungsoptionen zur finanziellen Bürgerbeteiligung am Beispiel der Stadtwerke Meiningen. Masterarbeit, Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Universität Kassel.Google Scholar
  23. Kulig, A., Kolfoort, H., & Hoekstra, R. (2010). The case for the hybrid capital approach for the measurement of the welfare and sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 10(2010), 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. North, K. (1999). Wissensorientierte Unternehmensführung: Wertschöpfung durch Wissen (2nd ed.). Wiesbaden: Dr. Th. Gabler Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Offermann, R., Stinner, W., Baur, F., Wern, B., Fritsche, U., & Künecke, K. (2010). Wertschöpfung durch die energetische Biomassenutzung. Vorlage für Unterarbeitsgruppe im Rahmen des Förderprogramms „Optimierung der energetischen Biomassenutzung“. Unpublished.Google Scholar
  26. Schoenthaler, K., & Pieck, S. (2013). Weiterentwicklung der umweltbezogenen Nachhaltigkeitsindikatoren und des Umwelt-Kernindikatorensystems zur Bilanzierung der Fortschritte in der deutschen Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie. Texte 33/2013. Dessau: UBA [Umweltbundesamt].Google Scholar
  27. Schubert, D., & Bühler, J. (2009). A guideline for the management of regional value added partnerships. Salzwedel, Germany: Regional Planning Authority Altmark.Google Scholar
  28. Susniene, D., & Jurkauskas, A. (2009). The concepts of quality of life and happiness—correlation and differences. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 3(2009), 58–66.Google Scholar
  29. TEEB [The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity]. (2011). TEEB manual for cities: Ecosystem services in urban management.
  30. Trenberth, K. E., Jones, P. D., Ambenje, P., Bojariu, R., Easterling, D., Klein Tank, A., Parker, D., Rahimzadeh, F., Renwick, J. A., Rusticucci, M., Soden, B., & Zhai, P. (2007). Observations: Surface and atmospheric climate change. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, & H. L. Miller (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. UBA [Umweltbundesamt]. (2013). Luftschadstoffe. Accessed at: July 15, 2013.
  32. WHO [World Health Organization]. (2013). Outdoor air pollution. Accessed at: July 10, 2013.
  33. Wilbanks, T. J., Romero Lankao, P., Bao, M., Berkhout, F., Cairncross, S., Ceron, J.-P., Kapshe, M., Muir-Wood, R., & Zapata-Marti, R. (2007). Industry, settlement and society. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 357–390). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Yang, D., Kanae, S., Oki, T., Koike, T., & Musiake, K. (2003). Global potential soil erosion with reference to land use and climate changes. Hydrological Processes, 17(2003), 2913–2928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IZES gGmbHSaarbrueckenGermany

Personalised recommendations