Document [original]

Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity:

An issue of political implications, framing,

descriptiveness and interdisciplinarity?

Marianne Hachtmann1

1 Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Corresponding author: Marianne Hachtmann ([email protected])

This is an open access article distributed under

terms of the Creative Commons Attribution

License (Attribution 4.0 International –

CC BY 4.0).

Review Article

Abstract

The dramatic loss of biodiversity is caused by the use of resources and land. One strat-

egy aiming at reducing the use of resources and land is sufficiency, which consequently

could be a strategy for protecting biodiversity. This article therefore examines the ex-

tent to which sufficiency in the context of biodiversity conservation is already being ad-

dressed by nature conservation associations and the scientific community. To this end,

publications were analysed firstly with regards to the understanding of sufficiency, sec-

ondly with regards to the considered links between sufficiency and biodiversity as well

as thirdly with regards to the considered fields of action. The systematic identification

and evaluation of scientific publications (for the years 2017–2021) and publications

by German and international nature conservation associations shows that few publica-

tions address the link between sufficiency and biodiversity. And when they do, the link

often remains unspecific. Possible reasons are that sufficiency potentially has broader

political implications, that the term is not descriptive and that other terms are used to

describe similar strategies. Other potential explanations are that several framings for

the need for sufficiency are possible and that linking sufficiency and biodiversity requires

interdisciplinarity. Drawing on the results and the discussion, an argument in favour of

using the term ‘sufficiency’ and further research is presented. Moreover, a sufficiency

typology is developed and questions are raised that could form the basis for future re-

search on linking biodiversity conservation and the various aspects of sufficiency.

Key words: Biodiversity conservation, biodiversity loss, sufficiency, sustainability strategies

Introduction

The loss of biodiversity, as described in the Living Planet Report (WWF 2020) or

the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES

2020), is dramatic. Land-use change, direct exploitation, invasive species, cli-

mate change and pollution are named as the main drivers of biodiversity loss

(see e.g. IPBES 2020, p. 245). These are caused by human activities such as

agriculture, forestry, fishing, farming, mining and energy production, among

others (IPBES 2020). This means that the loss of biodiversity is largely due to

human use of resources and land which consequently needs to be reduced.

Academic editor: Felix Ekardt

Received:

4 January 2024

Accepted:

25 February 2024

Published:

28 March 2024

ZooBank: https://zoobank.org/

FAD422E7-7353-4B22-B148-

25194D245DEE

Citation: Hachtmann M (2024)

Linking sufficiency and the protection

of biodiversity: An issue of political

implications, framing, descriptiveness and

interdisciplinarity? Nature Conservation

55: 83–102. https://doi.org/10.3897/

natureconservation.55.118243

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024)

DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

One strategy that aims at an absolute reduction of resource consumption is

‘sufficiency’. As a term for a sustainability strategy, besides ‘efficiency’ and ‘con-

sistency’ it was first used in the German-speaking world by Sachs (1993). He

describes sufficiency as a “principle of self-restraint” (Sachs 2015, p. 4), which

includes ‘deceleration’, ‘regionality’, ‘common good economy’, ‘reinvention of

the commons’ and a modified or specific ‘art of living’. Linz (2002) explains

that in the “narrower understanding [sufficiency] forms the counterpart to effi-

ciency, is directed towards the reduced consumption of resources and is thus

quantitatively oriented. The broader understanding [of sufficiency] is directed

towards a new sense of prosperity and towards cultural change, which is both

its precondition and its result” (Linz 2002, p. 13, own translation). Fischer et

al. (2013) describe sufficiency as “changes in consumption patterns that help

to stay within the Earth’s ecological carrying capacity, changing utility aspects

of consumption” (Fischer et al. 2013, p. 13, own translation). Finally, the IPCC

2022 report defines sufficiency policy as “a set of measures and daily practices

that avoid demand for energy, materials, land and water while delivering human

wellbeing for all within planetary boundaries” (IPCC 2022, p. 31). Although there

are a variety of definitions, the term sufficiency seems to stand for a strategy

to reduce resource consumption, which can simultaneously include aspects

of social change, social justice and the consideration of planetary boundaries.

The fact that, firstly, a reduction in resource consumption is imperative for

the conservation of biodiversity and, secondly, sufficiency is a strategy that

aims to reduce resource consumption suggests that sufficiency contributes to

the conservation of biodiversity. This raises the question of the extent to which

sufficiency as a strategy for the conservation of biodiversity is addressed by

the scientific community, and in particular by the disciplines that deal with na-

ture conservation, as well as by nature conservation associations. In order to

investigate this systematically, scientific publications and publications by na-

ture conservation associations were analysed under the following questions:

1. How is sufficiency understood or defined?

2. How are sufficiency and biodiversity linked?

3. Which sufficiency action field is the focus of the publication?

Following the answers to these questions, the results are discussed and a

typology of sufficiency is proposed.

Methodology

To answer the research questions, a systematic literature review was conduct-

ed. The procedure is based on the content structuring analysis as described

by Kuckartz (2018): Firstly, the publications to be examined are systematical-

ly identified and narrowed down, secondly, deductive-inductive categories are

formed and a word environment analysis is carried out (cf. Fig. 1).

Identification of relevant publications

Both scientific publications and publications by nature conservation organisations

were included in the analysis. The scientific literature was identified using the

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

search engines BASE, OAIster and Google Scholar using the keywords ‘sufficien-

cy’, ‘biodiversity’, ‘nature conservation’ and ‘consumption’ or ‘production’. Only pub-

lications that were published between 2017 and 2021 as well as written in German

or English were evaluated. This temporal restriction was made in order to deter-

mine the current state of discussion. In order to filter out non-relevant publications,

the search settings were adjusted (where possible) so that publications with terms

such as ‘self-sufficiency’, ‘insufficient’ and ‘sufficiency of’ were not displayed.

Nature conservation associations were analysed both at the national level in

Germany and internationally. To determine the publications of German nature

conservation associations and foundations, the websites of German nature con-

servation organisations with a strong presence in the public debate and high

membership numbers were analysed. These are: Naturschutzbund Deutschland

(NABU), Greenpeace Deutschland, World Wide Fund for Nature Deutschland

(WWF Deutschland) and Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND).

This search was carried out via the websites of these organisations at federal and

federal state level. In the search for publications of international nature conser-

vation organisations and networks, the main pages of Greenpeace, WWF, Inter-

national Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Friends of the Earth were

searched. These organisations or networks were selected partly because of their

Figure 1. Methodology.

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

size and partly because they are the ‘umbrella organisations’ of the German or-

ganisations surveyed. The IUCN is an exception to this but was selected addition-

ally as assessing and protecting Biodiversity is a focal point of the organisation.

The keywords used in the search for publications of the nature conserva-

tion associations were ‘Suffizienz’ (German) and ‘Sufficiency’ (English) and

‘Biodiversität’ (German) and ‘Biodiversity’ (English). A restriction to a specific

time period, as in the search for scientific publications, was not possible in the

search on the websites of the nature conservation associations and was there-

fore not carried out. The evaluation was also not limited to specific years, as the

year of publication was not specified in some cases.

The publications identified in this way were subjected to a relevance screen-

ing based on their tables of contents and summaries as well as a keyword

(‘sufficiency’ as well as ‘biodiversity’) search. For the further evaluation, only

publications were considered that firstly dealt with sufficiency as a sustain-

ability strategy in the sense described above and secondly established a link

between biodiversity and sufficiency.

Content analysis

For conducting the content analysis categories were defined. These were de-

rived from the research questions mentioned above. The sub-categories were

then developed deductively-inductively.

Category ‘Understanding of sufficiency’

As mentioned above, sufficiency can be defined and understood in different

ways. Therefore, it is also necessary to consider the respective understanding

of sufficiency. Due to the large number of different definitions and following

Linz (2002), a first step is to distinguish between a qualitative and a quantita-

tive understanding of sufficiency.

A quantitative understanding of sufficiency refers to views in which sufficien-

cy is aimed exclusively at the mere reduction of resource consumption. The

qualitative understanding of sufficiency encompasses this quantitative aspect,

but goes beyond it by also including socio-cultural change. This may involve a

redefinition of prosperity, among other things.

In the next step, the qualitative understanding of sufficiency was further dif-

ferentiated and it was examined whether the authors of the publications see

sufficiency as being linked to a profound transformation of economic condi-

tions and society. A critical attitude towards economic growth and capitalism,

statements on the necessity of ‘degrowth’ and ‘post-growth’, as well as remarks

on far-reaching changes in power structures and the distribution of property

were evaluated as indications for such an understanding.

Category ‘Link between sufficiency and biodiversity’

In this category, a distinction was made between specific and non-specific con-

nections.

The subcategory ‘unspecific connection’ includes publications that mention

biodiversity loss as a reason for the need for sufficiency or imply that sufficiency

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

is necessary for the protection of biodiversity, without explaining this further.

Publications that describe how sufficiency contributes to the conservation of

biodiversity in greater detail are assigned to the category ‘specific context’.

Category ‘Fields of action’

The publications were – if possible - assigned to a field of action based on the

system of Demuth and Heiland (2020). Fields of action are understood here as

economic and socially significant areas that are distinguished from one anoth-

er by functions or tasks. The fields of action were then supplemented by the

inductive formation of subcategories.

The fields of action considered are: Consumption, energy, mobility, housing,

work, agriculture and food, forestry, mining, travel and tourism, research and

teaching, regional development and spatial planning, and nature conservation.

With regard to the field of action ‘nature conservation’, it should be noted

that, since only publications that establish a connection between biodiversity

and sufficiency were evaluated, the publications ultimately deal with the field

of action ‘nature conservation’, since biodiversity conservation is a central as-

pect of nature conservation. However, the field of action ‘nature conservation’

as defined here encompasses the explicit engagement with social issues of

nature conservation, nature conservation policy demands or nature conser-

vation narratives.

The evaluation of the texts in relation to fields of action was carried out

through the qualitative evaluation of the text sections dealing with sufficiency.

In the case of the scientific texts, the one field of action that was considered

was assigned. If several fields of action were considered as examples, no allo-

cation was made. Several fields of action were not assigned to one publication,

as the scientific publications did not take an in-depth look at several fields of

action. It should, however, be noted that there are overlaps between the fields

of action. For the purpose of classifying the content of the publications, and

because almost all fields have points of contact with each other, a correspond-

ing differentiation of the fields while at the same time making the classification

unambiguous seems heuristically sensible.

The publications of the nature conservation associations were treated dif-

ferently from the scientific publications with regard to the allocation of fields of

action, as these publications often considered fields of action such as mining

in relation to nature conservation. In the case of the evaluation of the publica-

tions of the nature conservation associations, the assignment to a further field

of action was therefore made in addition to the assignment to the field of ac-

tion nature conservation, provided that this second field of action was a central

object of consideration of the publication.

Content analysis procedure

The paragraphs in which the terms biodiversity or sufficiency appeared were

systematically analysed and the content was classified according to the cate-

gories described above.

In addition to the methodology described above, the translation assistance

of DeepL, an AI assistant tool, was used in the preparation of the manuscript.

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

Results

The search for scientific publications yielded a total of 494 hits for the years

from 2015 to 2021. These were narrowed down to 44 publications after the

screening described above (see Suppl. material 1), which is strikingly low. In 20

of these publications, sufficiency and biodiversity or one of the two terms was

mentioned only in passing, i.e., only once and/or without explaining it in more de-

tail. Eleven publications are in English, whereby these are predominantly written

by German authors, and 33 are in German. Furthermore, the type of documents

differs: There are four articles in journals (three of which have gone through a

review process), two anthologies with several contributions on the topic, seven

contributions in anthologies, five dissertations, four master’s theses, three bach-

elor’s theses, six monographs and thirteen publications that fall into the catego-

ry of ‘grey literature’ (research reports, conference/event documentation, etc.).

The search for publications by nature conservation associations yielded 286

hits. The screening reduced the material classified as relevant to twelve publica-

tions (see Suppl. material 1). This was due to duplications in the respective hit lists

and the use of the term sufficiency in the sense of ‘sufficient’. The material classi-

fied as relevant includes both web pages and pdf documents. These are published

exclusively by NABU, BUND and WWF (Germany) and are written in German.

In the following, the results are presented first for the scientific publica-

tions and then for the publications and websites of the nature conservation

organisations.

Understanding of sufficiency

Scientific publications

Sufficiency is understood quantitatively in eleven of the 44 publications accord-

ing to the definition presented above, and qualitatively in 24 cases. In nine other

publications the understanding remains unclear. Here, the term is mentioned

without further explanation. Of the 24 scientific texts with a qualitative under-

standing of sufficiency, 13 mention biodiversity loss/biodiversity only once or

twice and 19 only make a general connection between biodiversity/biodiversity

loss and sufficiency.

Eleven publications mention that there is a conflict between sufficiency and

economic growth (Keck et al. 2017; Pufé 2017; Schiemann and Wilmsen 2017;

Sperfeld et al. 2017; Witt 2017; Zahrnt, 2017; Miehe 2018; Biermann and Erne

2020; Dallmer 2020; Berger et al. 2021; Wyborn et al. 2021), so it can be con-

cluded that for them sufficiency is linked to a profound transformation.

Publications by nature conservation associations

In the twelve publications of nature conservation associations examined, suffi-

ciency is understood quantitatively in five cases and qualitatively in four cases.

Three publications cannot be clearly assigned.

The extent to which a profound transformation is seen as a prerequisite for

sufficiency is not noted in the NABU publications. A BUND publication (2022c)

states: “Policies that are primarily oriented towards the goal of economic

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

growth are in stark contradiction to sustainable development and the world’s

limited resources” (BUND 2022c, own translation). The WWF publications do

not address more fundamental changes in political and economic structures.

One exception to this is WWF Germany’s publication by Kind and Engel (2018)

which states: “Alternative economic concepts to growth-oriented capitalism in-

clude the zero-growth, growth-reduction and sufficiency concepts” (Kind and

Engel 2018, p. 76, own translation).

Link between sufficiency and biodiversity

Scientific publications

When looking at the links between sufficiency and biodiversity established in the

scientific publications, it is striking that the necessity of sufficiency for the pres-

ervation of biodiversity is mentioned non-specifically in 32 of 44 publications.

The authors of twelve publications make specific links between the need for

sufficiency in the face of biodiversity loss and the positive effects of sufficien-

cy for biodiversity conservation: five publications describe the threat to biodi-

versity posed by agricultural practices and diets and consider sufficiency as a

strategy for reducing this threat (Fehrenbach et al. 2017; Antos 2018; Fabricius

2018; Mok-Wendt 2020; Cohors-Fresenborg et al. 2021; Schlatzer et al. 2021).

Three publications (Fehrenbach et al. 2017; Fabricius, 2018; Schlatzer et al.

2021) address the pressure on land use and sufficiency as a strategy to reduce

this pressure. Other publications mention the positive and negative impacts

on biodiversity that can result from sufficiency in tourism and recreational use

(Schrader 2017; Zahrnt 2017; Antos 2018). Concrete positive correlations be-

tween sufficiency and biodiversity are shown in two publications for the forest-

ry sector (Lippe et al. 2017; Creutzburg et al. 2020).

Publications by nature conservation associations

In contrast to the scientific publications, the publications of the nature con-

servation organisations more often consider the cause(s) of biodiversity loss

and sufficiency as a way to combat those causes in more detail. For instance,

they outline the negative impacts of chemicals (BUND 2022b), resource use in

a bioeconomy (NABU 2022) and mining on biodiversity (BUND 2017; Kind and

Engel 2018).

NABU publications also problematise the impacts of the energy transition on

biodiversity: They highlight that the energy transition must be linked to energy

sufficiency (Sothmann 2014; NABU Schleswig-Holstein 2019).

Fields of action

Fig. 2 shows the number of publications broken down by field of action. It

should be noted that 17 scientific texts and two publications by nature conser-

vation associations could not be assigned to a specific field of action. In these

publications, fields of action are mentioned in passing. Haase (2020), for exam-

ple, explains sufficiency in terms of mobility, Holzbaur (2020) in terms of agri-

culture and nutrition. The publications of the nature conservation associations

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

that are not assigned to any field are a statement by BUND (2022a), and a text

on the economy of transformation by the WWF (Zwiers et al. 2022).

The figure illustrates that in the publications of the associations in which

sufficiency and biodiversity are linked the field of action ‘nature conservation’

is most frequently considered. In the scientific publications, the focus is most

frequently on ‘consumption’ and ‘agriculture and food’.

Statements and demands on the subject of sufficiency in publications

on the field of action ‘nature conservation’

A central aspect of this work is the consideration of the integration of sufficiency

into biodiversity protection. As this is an essential task of nature conservation ac-

tors, central statements and demands on sufficiency from scientific publications

on the field of action ‘nature conservation’ are presented below. Since biodiversi-

ty protection is also dependent on the spatial management of various anthropo-

genic land uses, the contents of publications on spatial planning are also listed.

• For effective environmental protection (as well as fair prices and wages),

the “Western consumption model of constant increase cannot be contin-

ued” (Zahrnt 2017, p. 43, own translation). Thus, Sufficiency is necessary

(see also Immovilli and Kok 2020, p. 21).

• Nature conservation (and conservationists) would have to discuss and

reflect on its embedding in the imperial mode of living, “[f]or a sustain-

able social and economic system will not be achieved with efficiency

and consistency strategies alone [...]. Sufficiency strategies are needed

that pursue the goal of lower energy and material requirements and raise

awareness of the non-material - i.e., emotional and social - dimensions of

a ‘good life’” (Leibenath et al. 2021, p. 147, own translation).

Figure 2. Fields of action.

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

• Sufficiency will increase the importance of nature and thus increase the pres-

sure on nature through uses such as domestic tourism and sport. Hence it is

suggested to develop sufficiency strategies in the context of nature conser-

vation as well as compensation measures for non-use (Zahrnt 2017, p. 43).

• For the implementation of sufficiency strategies, spatial planning and de-

velopment, especially with regard to land-intensive economic and settle-

ment developments, will play a decisive role (Hofmeister et al. 2021, p. 8).

• Sufficiency could reduce contradictions between climate protection and na-

ture conservation caused by the energy transition (Sperfeld et al. 2017, p. 8).

Eight out of twelve texts from nature conservation associations focus on the

field of action ‘nature conservation’. Concrete statements or demands of the

associations that link biodiversity conservation and sufficiency can be sum-

marised under the following keywords:

• Nature-friendly energy transition by saving energy (Sothmann 2014; NABU

2021).

• Absolute resource reduction targets (WWF Deutschland 2020; BUND 2022c).

• Putting a stop to deep-sea mining (BUND 2017).

The other demands or statements of the conservation associations such as

“a stronger focus should be placed on social and ecological innovations (suffi-

ciency) for a truly sustainable economy” (NABU 2022, own translation) are less

concrete.

Nevertheless, these publications contain proposals such as “no-go areas”

for the protection of biodiversity (Kind and Engel 2018, p. 67), which are, how-

ever, not linked to sufficiency by the authors.

Discussion

The discussion focuses on the one hand on possible reasons for the small

number of publications dealing with the link between biodiversity and sufficien-

cy and the fact that the description of the link, when addressed, often remains

unspecific, and on the other hand on the critical reflection on categorisation for

the understanding of sufficiency.

Number of publications and specificity of the links

The result show, that the overall number of publications linking biodiversity with

sufficiency is low. This also becomes evident when comparing the sustainabili-

ty strategies sufficiency and efficiency with regard to biodiversity: a search with

Google Scholar and the keywords ‘sufficiency’ and ‘biodiversity’ yielded 1.410 hits,

whereas a search with the keywords ‘efficiency’ and ‘biodiversity’ yielded 9.320 hits

(as of September 14th 2023). What could be the causes of these discrepancies?

Political implications

One reason could be controversies about the political implications of suf-

ficiency as suggested by the following statement by a BUND expert: “[S]uf-

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

ficiency is […] questioning […] the current economic system and the growth

paradigm. And that goes against the fundamental core logic of this society,

this economy, this policy” (quoted in Huber 2023, p. 37). In other words, the

term ‘efficiency’ is met with greater acceptance because it does not imply a

restructuring of the existing economic and social conditions - and is there-

fore preferred. In contrast, the use of the term ‘sufficiency’ may imply this

transformation. Spengler (2018) argues similarly: “In [...] several literature

sources, there is talk of sufficiency ‘policies’, which are not policy instru-

ments in the strict sense, but refer to broader socio-economic developments

that would require a fundamental change in values and entire programmes of

far-reaching political reforms. Examples are the “exit from growth policies”,

the “reduction of working hours [...] and the reduction of social inequality

in order to reduce luxury and ‘conspicuous’ consumption” [...], which could

indeed have significant effects in terms of mainstreaming sufficiency” (Spen-

gler 2018 p. 37).

Descriptiveness

The lack of clarity of the term sufficiency could be another reason why it is

used much less frequently. Linz (2004) for example, writes: “To the uninitiated,

[the term sufficiency] says nothing or something wrong” (Linz 2004 p. 47, own

translation). For Linz (2004), the meaning of sufficiency is therefore unclear for

people who are not familiar with the term, or a completely different meaning is

attributed to it. Making the term effective in the public sphere is consequently

unpromising in his eyes (Linz 2004, p. 47,).

In this context, however, it is noteworthy that the French government adopt-

ed a ‘plan de sobriété énergétique’ (energy sufficiency plan) in autumn 2022

(Gouvernement français 2022). Sufficiency is presented as one of three pillars

of the decarbonisation strategy. Energy sufficiency is thus very much present

in the French public. Hence, the mainstreaming of the term sufficiency, at least

in the area of energy sufficiency, should be possible (cf. also Ore 2022). How-

ever, in this plan sufficiency is hardly associated with the need for a ‘deeper

transformation’ or ‘growth critique’ by the government. Rather, the use of the

term seems to focus primarily on a purely quantitative reduction in energy

consumption. Moreover, France seems to be the only country in Europe with a

focus on energy sufficiency (Messad 2023). Nevertheless, sufficiency policies

are recently taken up more prominently in Germany as well, as publications

such as those by Reese et al. (2023) on sufficiency and environmental law or

by Nawothnig et al. (2023) on sufficiency as a ‘booster’ for reaching climate

protection targets show.

Different terminology

Another possible explanation for the low number of publications dealing with

sufficiency and its links to biodiversity is that scientists and/or conservation

organisations write about the related issues without using the term ‘sufficien-

cy’, either paraphrasing similar strategies and analyses, or using other terms.

Examples of paraphrases without the use of other terms can be found, in

Moranta et al. (2022) and Otero et al. (2020).

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

Moranta et al. (2022) write that economic growth, which is linked to human

activity and resource use, is the main cause of biodiversity loss. In order to

counteract this, a fundamental change in social values and a downsizing of

the economy are required. Otero et al. (2020) make a similar argument. They

point out, again without explicitly using the term sufficiency, that “economic

growth contributes to biodiversity loss via greater resource consumption and

higher emissions” (Otero et al. 2020 2). Therefore, they suggest that the con-

flict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation needs to be ac-

knowledged in policies (Otero et al. 2020, 2). Thus, both Moranta et al. (2022)

and Otero et al. (2020) put forward arguments that - given the diversity of the

sufficiency definition - could also be put forward for sufficiency.

One example of a strategy with similarities to sufficiency is degrowth. Hickel

characterises degrowth as “a planned, coherent policy to reduce ecological im-

pact, reduce inequality, and improve well-being [by, inter alia, scaling] down eco-

logically destructive and socially less necessary production (i.e. the production

of SUVs, arms, beef, private transportation, advertising and planned obsoles-

cence), while expanding socially important sectors like healthcare, education,

care and conviviality” (Hickel 2021, p. 1108). Another concept with similarities

to sufficiency is the concept of consumption corridors. In accordance to Fuchs

et al. (2021) consumption corridors “describe a space between minimum con-

sumption standards that provide every individual with the ability to live a good

life, and maximum consumption standards that keep individuals from consum-

ing in quantities or ways that hurt others’ chances to do the same” (Fuchs et

al. 2021 p. 4). It can be concluded from this that strategies with characteristics

that could be attributed to sufficiency are discussed in the research without the

term ‘sufficiency’ itself being mentioned. However, it is questionable whether

the authors are familiar with the concept of sufficiency and whether or not they

intentionally use other terms.

Framing and difficulties in in quantifying biodiversity loss

Another reason why only a small number of authors of scientific publications

have used the term sufficiency to date could be that a discursive link between

sufficiency and biodiversity has rarely been established. An expert from BUND

Youth provides a possible explanation as to why this is the case: “This also rais-

es the question of framing. So, on the one hand, what are the central problems

we are actually referring to? Are we doing this for reasons of global justice, cli-

mate justice, biodiversity loss? All of those can be named. What does one refer

to? And also: does one use the term sufficiency or not?” (cited in Huber 2023,

p. 56). Thus, in addition to raising questions on terminology discussed above,

this BUND Youth expert raises the question on how to frame sufficiency, sug-

gesting that a variety of framings are possible. From this argumentation - and in

view of the few publications that establish the connection between sufficiency

and biodiversity - it can be concluded that the necessity of sufficiency is justi-

fied differently, i.e. other links are made between sufficiency and, for example,

climate change. Is that the case? And if so, why?

When doing a Google search with the keywords ‘sufficiency’ and ‘climate

change’ as well as ‘sufficiency’ and ‘biodiversity loss’ the number of hits for ‘suf-

ficiency’ and ‘climate change’ is almost eleven times as high as the number for

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

sufficiency’ and ‘biodiversity loss’ (972.000 hits and 88.700 hits, as of Decem-

ber 18th 2023). The conclusion that the need for sufficiency is more frequently

justified by climate change than by the loss of biodiversity thus appears to be

substantiated, although it should be noted that the content of the hits just men-

tioned was not analysed.

One possible explanation for the difference in the number of hits is that

it is easier to assess the benefits of sufficiency as a strategy for mitigating

climate change by calculating the savings in greenhouse gas emissions or

energy consumption (see for example Burke 2020; Cordroch et al. 2022).

However, even with rather practical approaches to measure biodiversity loss

caused by land use, like proposed by Durán et al. (2020), quantifying im-

pacts on biodiversity is more complex. The complexity and the associated

difficulty in quantifying the loss of biodiversity could therefore be another

reason for the small number of publications that establish a link between

biodiversity and sufficiency. Furthermore, this could also be a reason why,

even when a link between biodiversity and sufficiency is established, it often

remains unspecific.

Another explanation indicated by the keyword search mentioned above as

well as by looking at the Google hits for the keywords ‘biodiversity crisis’ com-

pared to the keywords ‘climate crisis’ (74.200.000 hits and 864.000.000 hits,

as of February 21st 2024), is that the climate change crisis appears to be more

anchored in the public consciousness than the biodiversity crisis, despite both

crises being related and should therefore be considered together (Pörtner et

al. 2021).

Need for interdisciplinarity

Another reason for general statements on the link between biodiversity and

sufficiency may be that biodiversity as a topic is primarily researched by natu-

ral scientists, especially biologists. Sufficiency, on the other hand, is a strategy

aimed at changing individual lifestyles and social lifestyles, i.e., it deals with

social behaviour. Sufficiency is therefore first and foremost an object of study

for sociology. The link between sufficiency and biodiversity therefore requires

an interdisciplinary perspective.

However, various factors make an interdisciplinary perspective difficult.

According to Russels (2022) and MacLeod (2018), these factors include:

• different methodological approaches and technical terminology

• difficulties in reading and receiving texts from outside the discipline

• different conceptions of what the object of study is (or should be)

Moreover, according to Russels (2022), experts tend to focus on what they know.

An additional explanation for general statements about the link between

biodiversity and sufficiency that affect both disciplinary and interdisciplinary

research is provided by Leipold et al. (2024): They argue that underlying val-

ues and disciplinary paradigms influence collective science, constraining it and

thus limiting its potential to contribute to inform and shape societal changes.

They therefore propose a reflection on values and paradigms through a ‘narra-

tive led dialogue’ (Leipold et al. 2024).

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

Understanding of sufficiency – and the need for a comprehensive

typology

The results of this study show that the term sufficiency is defined, interpreted

and understood in different ways. In order to be able to systematically identify

and discuss the similarities and differences of sufficiency, a typology of suffi-

ciency is essential.

A comparison of the typology proposed here with that of Lage (2022), which

was published after the content evaluation for this paper, shows that a differen-

tiation of the ‘quantitative understanding of sufficiency’ would also have been

interesting for the analysis of the publications.

According to Lage (2022), a distinction should be made between ‘suffi-

ciency as consumption corridors’ and ‘sufficiency as a pathway towards a

post-growth economy’. According to this differentiation, a distinction is made

between, firstly, “[s]ufficiency [...] concepts in the sense of having the mini-

mum necessary to live well and as limits to social practices that cause eco-

logical damage, especially to consumption” (Lage, 2022 p. 5) and, secondly,

concepts that, in addition to limiting consumption through corridors, strive for

the development of an “a-growth or degrowth society or a steady-state econ-

omy, where societal prosperity is independent of economic growth” (Lage

2022, p. 6).

Comparing those sufficiency goals with the categories that were used here

it becomes clear that the aspect of having ‘enough’, aimed at with the goal of

‘sufficiency as consumption corridors’ has not sufficiently been considered. A

modified typology would therefore be useful for future studies of sufficiency.

Accordingly, a distinction would have to be made as to whether sufficiency in-

cludes the following aspects:

1. reduction of resource consumption and environmental damage

2. changes in lifestyles and the meaning of wealth (e.g., the ‘decluttering’ or

‘deceleration’ mentioned by Sachs (1993))

3. social justice (especially with regard to the right of all people to a materi-

ally secure life)

4. explicit critique of growth or aspirations for an economy that is not depen-

dent on economic growth

According to this typology, an understanding of sufficiency that only includes

the first aspect would correspond to the ‘quantitative understanding of suffi-

ciency’ examined here, whereas all understandings of sufficiency that include

another aspect in addition to aspect 1 would correspond to the ‘qualitative un-

derstanding of sufficiency’.

Conclusion

The systematic identification and evaluation of scientific publications (for the

years 2017–2021) and publications by various nature conservation associa-

tions show that very few publications to date have addressed the link between

sufficiency and biodiversity. And when they do, this linkage often remains un-

specific and thus superficial.

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

Possible reasons for why very few publications deal with sufficiency are its

political implications, the lack of descriptiveness of the term as well as the use

of other terms. Moreover, the lack of, or unspecific linkages between sufficien-

cy and biodiversity could be due to the fact that, firstly, several framings of the

need for sufficiency are possible and, secondly, that sufficiency and biodiversity

belong to different ‘scientific spheres’. Linking the two terms thus requires a

reflective, interdisciplinary perspective.

In the author’s opinion, however, it nonetheless makes sense to further ex-

plore the potentials of sufficiency. Reasons are:

1. The biodiversity crisis is primarily caused by land use changes and direct ex-

ploitation. It therefore is caused by the mode of living and can consequently

be mitigated through a change of that mode of living and the associated

consumption of resources. Hence through a strategy such as sufficiency.

2. Sufficiency, depending on how it is understood, also raises questions of

justice and the meaning of prosperity, and thus enables a joint consider-

ation of social and biodiversity conservation concerns. This joint consid-

eration is necessary for a just transformation towards sustainability.

3. For the reasons already mentioned, an interdisciplinary, if not transdisci-

plinary, perspective is in any case necessary in order to preserve biodiversity.

4. The fact that different framings for the necessity of sufficiency are pos-

sible, for example for the mitigation of climate change, does not make it

less, but more sensible to take sufficiency into account.

5. Moreover, the example of the French ‘plan de sobriété énergétique’ shows

that a mainstreaming of the term is possible.

Accordingly, and in view of the small number of publications that deal

with the topic, sufficiency in the context of biodiversity protection should be

researched in greater depth in the future. Starting points for further research

could be the presented results under 3.3. as well as the typology and research

questions presented in the following table (Table 1):

Table 1. Research questions on the link between sufficiency and biodiversity.

Sufficiency typology

(as developed under 4.2) Research questions

1Reduction of resource consumption (incl.

land use) and environmental damage.

To what extent, where and how must resource use (including land use and intensi-

ty of use) be reduced to avert (further) negative effects on biodiversity?

2Changing lifestyles and the meaning of

wealth (e.g., the ‚decluttering‘ or ‚deceleration‘

mentioned by Sachs (1993)),

How does a change in lifestyles affect biodiversity (e.g. increased pressure on

nature) and how can precautions be taken against potential negative impacts?

3Social justice (especially with regard to the

right of all people to a materially secure life)

How can both social impacts and impacts on biodiversity be taken into account

in the consumption/use of resources (incl. land)? How must social impacts be

taken into account when reducing resource use (with the aim of protecting biodi-

versity and considering that an increase in resource use, e.g., in the global south

might also be necessary)?

Which groups of people are affected by the reduction of resource use? Are they

already marginalised in material terms, in terms of access to resources (e.g.

green spaces, water, etc.)?

4Explicit critique of an economic growth

paradigm or aspirations for an economy not

dependent on economic growth

Where are conflicts between economic interests on the one hand and biodiversity

protection on the other? Or: Where do economic interests prevent biodiversity

protection?

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Stefan Heiland, Markus Günter, Carina Zell-

Ziegler and Rüdiger Hachtmann for feedback and support as well as Regi-

na Cuevas-Dobler and Josefina Schnabel for their assistance with the data

collection.

Additional information

Conflict of interest

The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

Ethical statement

No ethical statement was reported.

Funding

The author acknowledges support by the Open Access Publication Fund of the TU

Berlin.

Author contributions

The author solely contributed to this work.

Author ORCIDs

Marianne Hachtmann https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4052-2948

Data availability

All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the main text or

Supplementary Information.

References

Antos P-E (2018) Urban Gardening im internationalen Städtevergleich: Eine Analyse der

Auswirkungen des neuen Gärtnerns auf die Lebensqualität im Hinblick auf ökolo-

gische, ökonomische und soziale Faktoren am Beispiel der Städte Berlin und Detroit.

Bachelor thesis, Hochschule Bremen.

Berger L, Ober S, Huwe V (2021) Bürgerdialog Bioökonomie: Ein Beitrag zur sozial-ökol-

ogischen Transformation. Bundesamt für Natur BfN, BfN-Skripten 615, 1–43. https://

www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/biooekonomie/211021-bfn-skript_

buergerdialog_biooekonomie.pdf [Accessed 11 January 2022]

Biermann B, Erne R (2020) Nachhaltiges Produktmanagement: Wie Sie Nachhaltigkeit-

saspekte ins Produktmanagement integrieren können. Springer Fachmedien Wies-

baden, Wiesbaden, 368 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31130-8

BUND [Eds] (2017) NGOs rufen zum weltweiten Stopp des Tiefseebergbaus auf. https://

www.bund.net/themen/aktuelles/detail-aktuelles/news/ngos-rufen-zum-weltweiten-

stopp-des-tiefseebergbaus-auf/ [Accessed 22.12.22]

BUND [Eds] (2022a) BUND-Expertendienst: Konsequenzen aus dem Krieg in der Ukraine

/ Interviewpartner*innen beim BUND. https://www.bund.net/service/presse/pres-

semitteilungen/detail/news/bund-expertendienst-konsequenzen-aus-dem-krieg-in-d

er-ukraine-interviewpartnerinnen-beim-bund/ [Accessed 22.12.22]

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

BUND [Eds] (2022b) Nachhaltige Stoffpolitik. https://www.bund.net/ueber-uns/organi-

sation/arbeitskreise/umweltchemikalientoxikologie/ [Accessed 22 December 2022]

BUND [Eds] (2022c) Nachhaltige Umweltziele – mit der Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie. https://

www.bund.net/ueber-uns/nachhaltigkeit/nachhaltigkeitsstrategie/ [Accessed 22 De-

cember 2022]

Burke MJ (2020) Energy-Sufficiency for a Just Transition: A Systematic Review. Energies

13(10): 2444. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13102444

Cohors-Fresenborg D, Friege H, von Gleich A, Kuhlmann J, Molthan V, Große Ophoff M,

Körner W, Steinhäuser KG, Kirberger P (2021) Nachhaltige Stoffpolitik zum Schutz

von Klima und Biodiversität, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland. https://

digital.zlb.de/viewer/fulltext/34758588/1/ [Accessed 11 January 2022]

Cordroch L, Hilpert S, Wiese F (2022) Why renewables and energy efficiency are not

enough - the relevance of sufficiency in the heating sector for limiting global warming

to 1.5 °C. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 175: 121313 [1–12]. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121313

Creutzburg L, Ohmura T, Lieberherr E (2020) A gift programme for sustainable forest

management? A Swiss perspective on public policies and property rights. Geograph-

ica Helvetica 75(2): 69–80. https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-75-69-2020

Dallmer J (2020) Glück und Nachhaltigkeit: Subjektives Wohlbefinden als Leitmo-

tiv für nachhaltige Entwicklung (Edition 1). Transcript Verlag, 356 pp. https://doi.

org/10.1007/978-3-658-31130-8

Demuth B, Heiland S (2020) Naturschutz und Suffizienz: Gutachten im Rahmen des

F+E-Vorhabens Naturverträgliche Ausgestaltung der Energiewende (FKZ 3517 86

0100).

Deutschland WWF [Ed.] (2020) Nachhaltiges, sozial-ökologisches Wirtschaften in Plane-

taren Grenzen: Entwurfsfassung - 8. Version 12.08.2020 [Online], 24 pp. https://www.

wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/Innovation/Nachhaltiges-sozial-oekol-

ogisches-Wirtschaften-in-planetaren-Grenzen.pdf [Accessed 27 December 2022]

Durán AP, Green JMH, West CD, Visconti P, Burgess ND, Virah-Sawmy M, Balmford A

(2020) A practical approach to measuring the biodiversity impacts of land conversion.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution 11(8): 910–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-

210X.13427

Fabricius C (2018) Solidarische Landwirtschaft in der Großstadt – Alternativen für eine

nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung am Beispiel des Reyerhofes in Stuttgart. Master thesis,

Hochschule für Öffentliche Verwaltung und Finanzen Ludwigsburg, Ludwigsburg.

Fehrenbach H, Köppen S, Kauertz B, Detzel A, Wellenreuther F, Breitmayer E, Essel R,

Carus M, Bienge K, von Geibler J (2017) Biomassenkaskaden: Mehr Ressourcenef-

fizienz durch stoffliche Kaskadennutzung von Biomasse - von der Theorie zur Prax-

is 53/2017. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/1410/

publikationen/2017-06-13_texte_53-2017_biokaskaden_abschlussbericht.pdf

[Accessed 03 January 2024]

Fischer C, Grießhammer R, Barth R, Brohmann B, Brunn C, Heyen DA, Keimeyer F, Wolff F

(2013) Mehr als nur weniger - Suffizienz: Begriff, Begründung und Potenziale. Öko-In-

stitut Working Paper 2/2013. https://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1836/2013-505-de.pdf

[Accessed 03 January 2024]

Fuchs D, Sahakian M, Gumbert T, Di Giulio A, Maniates M, Lorek S, Graf A (2021) Con-

sumption Corridors: Living a Good Life within Sustainable Limits. Roduledge Abing-

don and New York, 93 pp.

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

Gouvernement français (Eds) (2022) Plan de sobriété énergétique: Une mobilisation

générale. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/dp-plan-sobriete.pdf

[Accessed 6 September 2023]

Haase H (2020) Genug, für alle, für immer. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden,

189 pp.

Hickel J (2021) What does degrowth mean? A few points of clarification. Globalizations

18(7): 1105–1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1812222

Hofmeister S, Warner B, Ott Z [Eds] (2021) Nachhaltige Raumentwicklung für die große

Transformation - Herausforderungen, Barrieren und Perspektiven für Raumwissen-

schaften und Raumplanung. ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leib-

niz-Gemeinschaft, Forschungsberichte der ARL. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstre

am/10419/232299/1/1752353854.pdf [Accessed 11 January 2022]

Holzbaur U (2020) Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Der Weg in eine lebenswerte Zukunft.

Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 457 pp.

Huber B (2023) Sufficiency within and around nature conservation associations in Ger-

many. The role of major German conservation associations as change agents for

a sufficiency-oriented transformation. Master thesis, Technical University of Berlin,

Berlin.

Immovilli M, Kok MTJ (2020) Narratives for the “Half Earth” and “Sharing The Planet”

scenarios: A literature review, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agen-

cy, PBL publication 4226. https://library.wur.nl/webquery/wurpubs/fulltext/531250

[Accessed 11 January 2022]

IPBES (Eds) (2020) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: The global assessment report.

https://www.ipbes.net/document-library-categories [Accessed 11 January 2022]

IPCC (Eds) (2022) Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. https://www.ipcc.

ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf [Accessed 8

November 2023]

Keck M, Faust H, Fink M, Gaedke M, Reeh R [Eds] (2017) Transformationsräume: Loka-

le Initiativen des sozial-ökologischen Wandels. Universität Göttingen, ZELTForum –

Göttinger Schriften zu Landschaftsinterpretation und Tourismus Band 9. https://doi.

org/10.17875/gup2017-1067

Kind T, Engel K (2018) Rohstoffboom zwischen Gewinnen und Verlusten: Deutsch-

lands ökologischer Fußabdruck durch Stahl und Aluminium. https://www.wwf.de/

fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/Unternehmen/WWF-Analyse-Stahl-und-Al-

uminium-Rohstoffboom-zwischen-Gewinnen-und-Verlusten.pdf [Accessed 27 De-

cember 2023]

Kuckartz U (2018) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützu-

ng. 4th edn., Beltz Verlagsgruppe Weinheim, 240 pp.

Lage J (2022) Sufficiency and transformation – A semi-systematic literature review of

notions of social change in different concepts of sufficiency. Frontiers in Sustainabil-

ity 3: 954660. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.954660

Leibenath M, Eser U, Katz C, Kurth M, Ober S, Poblocki A, Wessel MJ (2021) Natur-

schutz in Zeiten sozial-ökologischer Transformationen: Triebkraft oder Getriebener?

GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 30(3): 144–149. https://doi.

org/10.14512/gaia.30.3.3

Leipold S, Luo A, Simoens M, Helander H, Petit-Boix A (2024) Can we talk? Disrupting

science circles with narrative-led dialogs. Environmental Science and Policy 153:

103683 [1–8]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103683

100

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

Linz M (2002) Warum Suffizienz unentbehrlich ist. In: Linz M (Ed.) Von nichts zu viel:

Suffizienz gehört zur Zukunftsfähigkeit, 7–14.

Linz M (2004) Weder Mangel noch Übermaß?: Über Suffizienz und Suffizienzforschung,

Wuppertal Papers.

Lippe M, Lewandowski I, Unseld R, Pucher J, Bräutigam K-R (2017) Die Herkunft der Bio-

masse. In: Pietzsch J (Ed.) Bioökonomie für Einsteiger, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,

11–65.

MacLeod M (2018) What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of do-

main specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese 195(2): 697–720. https://doi.

org/10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4

Messad P (2023) Energy sufficiency, a French political concept still misunderstood

in Europe – EURACTIV.com, EURACTIV.fr, 5 June. https://www.euractiv.com/

section/energy-environment/news/energy-sufficiency-the-french-political-con-

cept-that-is-still-misunderstood-in-europe/ [Accessed 30 July 2023]

Miehe R (2018) Methodik zur Quantifizierung der nachhaltigen Wertschöpfung von

Produktionssystemen an der ökonomisch-ökologischen Schnittstelle anhand aus-

gewählter Umweltprobleme. Frauenhofer Verlag, Stuttgart, 439 pp. https://doi.

org/10.18419/opus-9703

Mok-Wendt C (2020) Notwendigkeit einer philosophischökologischen Lebenskunst –

Wie ein ökosophes Leben aussehen könnte. PhD thesis, Universität Konstanz, Kon-

stanz.

Moranta J, Torres C, Murray I, Hidalgo M, Hinz H, Gouraguine A (2022) Transcending

capitalism growth strategies for biodiversity conservation. Conservation biology: the

journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 36: 13821. https://doi.org/10.1111/

cobi.13821

NABU [Eds] (2021) Alles im Rückblick - der NABU-Blog zur Bundespolitik 2021. http://

www.nabu.de/umwelt-und-ressourcen/gesellschaft-und-politik/deutschland/bunde-

spolitik/32501.html [Accessed 20 December 2022]

NABU [Eds] (2022) NABU-Projekt Bürgerdialog Bioökonomie: Chancen und Risiken für

die biologische Vielfalt. https://www.nabu.de/umwelt-und-ressourcen/nachhaltig-

es-wirtschaften/biooekonomie/28654.html [Accessed 20 December 2022]

NABU Schleswig-Holstein [Ed.] (2019) Forderungskatalog kollidiert mit naturschutzfach-

lichen Anforderungen Stellungnahme des NABU Schleswig-Holstein zu „10 Punkte

für den Ausbau der Windenergie“ von Organisationen der Energiewirtschaft und des

Umweltschutzes. http://schleswig-holstein.nabu.de/politik-und-umwelt/energie/win-

denergie/aktuelles/26988.html [Accessed 20 December 2022]

Nawothnig L, Best B, Sachs W, Fischedick M (2023) Suffizientpolitik als Booster zum Er-

reichen der Klimaschutzziele. Zukunftsimpuls Nr. 27 | September 2023. https://wup-

perinst.org/fa/redaktion/downloads/publications/ZI27_Suffizienz.pdf [Accessed 23

February 2024]

Ore S (2022) The Slippery Slope of the Energy Descent. Green European Journal, 30

November. https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/the-slippery-slope-of-the-energy-

descent/ [Accessed 30 July 2023]

Otero I, Farrell KN, Pueyo S, Kallis G, Kehoe L, Haberl H, Plutzar C, Hobson P, García-

Márquez J, Rodríguez-Labajos B, Martin J-L, Erb K-H, Schindler S, Nielsen J, Skorin

T, Settele J, Essl F, Gómez-Baggethun E, Brotons L, Rabitsch W, Schneider F, Pe’er

G (2020) Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conservation Letters 13(4):

e12713. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12713

101

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

Pörtner HO, Scholes RJ, Agard J, Archer E, Arneth A, Bai X, Barnes D, Burrows M, Chan

L, Cheung WL, Diamond S, Donatti C, Duarte C, Eisenhauer N, Foden W, Gasalla MA,

Handa C, Hickler T, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Ichii K, Jacob U, Insarov G, Kiessling W, Lead-

ley P, Leemans R, Levin LLM, Maharaj S, Managi S, Marquet PA, McElwee P, Midgley G,

Oberdorff T, Obura D, Osman E, Pandit R, Pascual U, Pires APF, Popp A, Reyes-García

V, Sankaran M, Settele J, Shin YJ, Sintayehu DW, Smith P, Steiner N, Strassburg B,

Sukumar R, Trisos C, Val AL, Wu J, Aldrian E, Parmesan C, Pichs-Madruga R, Roberts

DC, Rogers AD, Díaz S, Fischer M, Hashimoto S, Lavorel S, Wu N, Ngo HT (2021) Scien-

tific outcome of the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate

change; IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Pufé I (2017) Nachhaltigkeit, 3rd edn, UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH mit UVK/Lucius,

Konstanz, München, 322 pp.

Reese M, Köck W, Markus T [Eds] (2023) Zukunftsfähiges Umweltrecht II: Suffizienz im

Recht. Erfordernisse, Ansätze und Instrumente zur Begrenzung des gesamten Res-

sourcenverbrauch. In: Degenhart C, Faßbender K, Köck W (Eds) Leipziger Schriften

zum Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, vol. 45, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG,

Baden Baden, 164 pp.

Russels YI (2022) Three Problems of Interdisciplinarity. Avant (Torun) XIII(1): 1–19.

https://doi.org/10.26913/avant.202206

Sachs W (1993) Die vier E‘s: Merkposten für einen massvollen Wirtschaftsstil. Politische

Ökologie 11(33): 69–72.

Sachs W (2015) Suffizienz. Umrisse einer Ökonomie des Genug, UmweltWirtschaftsFo-

rum and Springer 23(1–2): 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-015-0350-y

Schiemann C, Wilmsen F (2017) Umsetzungsmöglichkeiten postwachstums-ökono-

mischer Suffizienz- und Subsistenzansätze in der urbanen Praxis? Geographie Univer-

sität Bremen, Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsgeographie und Regionalentwicklung, 1–2017.

Schlatzer M, Drapela T, Lindenthal T (2021) Die Auswirkungen des österreichischen Im-

ports ausgewählter Lebensmittel auf Flächenverbrauch, Biodiversität und Treibhaus-

gasemissionen in den Anbauregionen des globalen Südens, Forschungsinstitut

für biologischen Landbau. https://www.regenwald-statt-palmoel.de/images/pdf/

fibl_2021.pdf [Accessed 11 January 2022]

Schrader D (2017) Suffizienz im und durch Tourismus – Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten einer

Tourismustransformation durch Produzenten und Konsumenten touristischer Leis-

tungen. Bachelor thesis, Hochschule Wirtschaft und Umwelt Nürtungen-Geislingen.

Sothmann L (2014) Erhaltung der Biodiversität auf allen Ebenen: Standpunkt. In: LBV

(Eds) Vogelschutz: Magazin für Arten- und Biotopschutz, 4–5. https://www.lbv.de/

files/user_upload/e-paper/vogelschutz/2014/02/files/lbv_vogelschutz_2_2014.pdf

[Accessed 22 December 2022]

Spengler L (2018) Sufficiency as Policy: Necessity, Possibilities and Limitations. Nomos

Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, 327 pp.

Sperfeld F, Kai N, Klostermeyer T, Hauke E (2017) Winning the Campaign but Losing the

Planet – Environmental NGOs on Their Way Towards a Grown-Up Society. https://

www.degrowth.de [Accessed 27 April 2023]

Witt G (2017) Tourismus in einer Postwachstumsgesellschaft: Annäherung an eine

wachstumsunabhängige Zukunftsperspektive für das System Tourismus in Deutsch-

land. Master thesis, Oldenburg, Carl von Ossiezky Universität.

WWF (2020) Living Planet Report 2020: Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss. https://

www.wwf.de/living-planet-report [Accessed 11 January 2021]

102

Nature Conservation 55: 83–102 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243

Marianne Hachtmann: Linking sufficiency and the protection of biodiversity

Wyborn C, Montana J, Kalas N, Clement S, Davila F, Knowles N, Louder E, Balan M, Cham-

bers J, Christel L, Forsyth T, Henderson G, Izquierdo Tort S, Lim M, Martinez-Harms

MJ, Merçon J, Nuesiri E, Pereira L, Pilbeam V, Turnhout E, Wood S, Ryan M (2021)

An agenda for research and action toward diverse and just futures for life on Earth,

Conservation biology: the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 35(4):

1086–1097. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13671

Zahrnt A (2017) „Das muss man sich erst mal leisten können“: Wie lassen sich soziale

Gerechtigkeit und Suffizienzpolitik vereinbaren? In: Eser U (Ed.) Naturschutz und

soziale Gerechtigkeit: Dokumentation des Expertengesprächs am 1. und 2. Februar

2017 in Bonn, 42–44.

Zwiers J, Hackfort S, Büttner L (2022) Ökonomie der Transformation: Ansätze zukunfts-

fähigen Wirtschaftens, IZT – Institut für Zukunftsstudien und Technologiebewertung

gemeinnützige GmbH. https://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/

Innovation/WWF-Studie-Oekonomien-der-Transformation.pdf [Accessed 22 Decem-

ber 2023]

Supplementary material 1

Analysed publications

Authors: Marianne Hachtmann

Data type: xlsx

Explanation note: This appendix contains information on the publications analysed as

part of the literature review. It therefore contains both baseline information and infor-

mation about the content. Baseline information includes information on the authors,

the year of publication, the title, the document type and the search engine used to

find the publication. The information on the content is organised according to the

categories described in the Methodology section (see also Fig. 1). Thus it contains

information on the link between sufficiency and biodiversity, the understanding of

sufficiency and the field of action the publication focuses on.

(http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License

(ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and

use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the

original source and author(s) are credited.

Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.55.118243.suppl1