Till Hermanns

Mr. Till Hermanns


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

12Years (2015-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
11 March 2021 in Conservation Science and Practice
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HKHannes König
Hannes König
SCSilvia Ceaușu
Silvia Ceaușu
MRMark Reed
Mark Reed
HKHelen Kendall
Helen Kendall
KHKaroline Hemminger
Karoline Hemminger
AFAdam T. Ford
Adam T. Ford
As wild areas disappear and agricultural lands expand, understanding how people and wildlife can coexist becomes increasingly important. Human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) are obstacles to coexistence and negatively affect both wildlife populations and the livelihood of people. To facilitate coexistence, a number of frameworks have been developed to both understand the drivers of conflict and then to find solutions that mitigate conflict. However, each framework has different foci and strengths in particular stages of analysis. Here, we propose an integrated framework that leverages the individual strengths of previously fairly isolated methodologies, allowing for holistic HWC analysis. The framework for participatory impact assessment ( FoPIA ) provides a toolset for developing wildlife scenarios, selecting assessment indicators and assessing the impact of different scenarios. The social‐ecological framework of ecosystem services and disservices ( SEEDS ) analyzes the ecosystem services trade‐offs related to scenarios, and the 3i stakeholder analysis approach, supports the identification of stakeholders and provides a mechanism to explore, in detail stakeholders' interests, relative influence, and how outcomes of research are likely to impact different stakeholders. We apply these approaches to eastern Germany, where the increase in several wildlife populations (i.e., wild boar, common crane, gray wolf, and European bison) has contributed to conflict with people. We demonstrate the complementarity of FoPIA, SEEDS, and 3i in identifying stakeholder needs and showing how wildlife dynamics may affect coexistence and create imbalanced ecosystem service and disservice distributions. The integrated framework introduced here provides guidelines for analyzing the multistage process of stakeholder participation and enables a comprehensive approach to the complex challenge of HWCs.

1 August 2017 in Ecosystem Services
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
THTill Hermanns
Till Hermanns
KHKatharina Helming
Katharina Helming
HKHannes König
Hannes König
KSKatharina Schmidt
Katharina Schmidt
QLQirui Li
Qirui Li
HFHeiko Faust
Heiko Faust

1 June 2016 in World Development Perspectives
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
QLQirui Li
Qirui Li
ZLZhen Liu
Zhen Liu
PZPeter Zander
Peter Zander
THTill Hermanns
Till Hermanns
JWJijun Wang
Jijun Wang

14 September 2015 in Land
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
THTill Hermanns
Till Hermanns
Katharina HelmingKatharina Helming
Katharina Helming
KSKatharina Schmidt
Katharina Schmidt
HKHannes König
Hannes König
HFHeiko Faust
Heiko Faust
Despite scientific progress in operationalizing sustainable development (SD), it is still hampered by methodological challenges at the regional level. We developed a framework to analyse stakeholder based, SD targets for future land use, which are characterized by different impact levels and spatial references. The framework allows for the analysis of land use demands in the context of SD. We identified societal use targets in north-eastern Germany, particularly for the area type’s lowland fens and irrigation fields, represented through strategy documents. We used frame analysis to aggregate and condense the targets into land use claims. Results present a framework for the ex-ante Sustainability Impact Assessment of land use changes at the regional level and the determination and regionalization of the future societal demand for land use functions. For future land use at the regional level, manifold land use claims exist, but on smaller scales, area-specific targets are less apparent. Six key main-use claims and 44 side-use claims were identified at the regional level and for area types. Possible trade-offs among land use claims for land use functions can be identified at each governance level. Implications of the methodological approach are discussed according to moving development targets and SD as multi-sector and multi-level governance issues.