This document discusses landscape approaches to reconcile competing land uses. It provides an overview of the development of landscape approaches and frameworks. A systematic review was conducted of case studies implementing landscape approaches in the tropics. The review found most studies had positive outcomes but lacked long-term monitoring. Barriers to effective implementation include lack of capacity, weak institutions, short-term funding, and institutional silos. Overcoming these barriers requires coordinated efforts, more evidence of effectiveness, long-term goals, stakeholder engagement, and tools for monitoring and evaluation.

1. Liz Deakin (CIFOR)
Landscape Approaches in Practice seminar, Umeå, Sweden - 17th March 2015
Landscape Approaches to reconcile
competing land uses

2. Outline
• Brief summary of the Landscape
Approach & overlaps with SDGs
• Development of the Landscape
Approach framework
• Systematic Review: What are
Landscape Approaches and how
effectively have they been
implemented in the tropics?
• Barriers between theory and
implementation of Landscape
Approaches
• How do we effectively implement
Landscape Approaches? Multi-functional landscape in
East Nusa Tengerra, Indonesia

3. Landscape
Approach

4. Landscape
Approach
Multiple SectorsAdaptive Management Stakeholder Involvement
ResilienceMulti-functionality Multiple Scales

5. Overlaps with Sustainable
Development Goals
• Calls for “holistic and integrated approaches to
sustainable development that restore the health
and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystems”
• Numerous key objectives of the SDGs overlap
with sentiments of the Landscape Approach
 End hunger, achieve food security and improved
nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture
 Secure water
 Promote strong, inclusive and sustainable economic
growth
 Tackle climate change
 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of
terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests…and
halt biodiversity loss

6. Development of the
“Landscape Approach”

7. Development of the Landscape Approach
1980s 1990s 2000s 2010 - present
1980s: Integrated
Rural Development
1998: Integrated Natural
Resource Management (INRM)
1985 onwards: Integrated
Conservation & Development
projects (ICDPs)
Contributing Sciences:
Ecosystem Management
Landscape Ecology
Island biogeography
Conservation rooted frameworks
e.g. “Ecosystem Approach”
1992: “Landscape Approach”
first documented (Barrett 1992)
Last decade:
(Integrated) Landscape
Approach frameworks

8. Nexus Approach
Multi-functional landscapes
Integrated landscape
management
Climate smart
agriculture
Ecosystem Approach
Community-Based Adaption
Integrated landscape
approaches
Sustainable Intensification
Landscape-scale ecosystem-based
adaptation
Integrated Natural Resource Management
Conservation
agriculture
Green Growth
Landscapes Approach
Green Agricultural Economy
Green Infrastructure
Landscape Mosaics
Terminology Problems
Ecoagriculture

9. • EcoAgriculture Partners
identified 78 (!!) different terms
all alluding to integrated
landscape management
• There remains no single
agreed definition within the
scientific community for a
landscape approach
• Perhaps because one size
does not fit all!
Terminology problems
Halimun Salak National Park
landscape, Indonesia

10. Systematic Review on Landscape
Approaches
What are Landscape Approaches and how effectively
have they been implemented in the tropics?

11. Systematic Review Map
Objectives:
• Mapping the development of the
landscape approach
• Consolidating and synthesizing
existing definitions and
conceptual frameworks
• Synthesizing the current
literature to identify where and
how landscape approaches have
been implemented in practice

12. Systematic Review Maps
• Transparent, repeatable, pre-determined methodology
• Commonly used in medical research
• Recently adopted by natural and social sciences
(see www.environmentalevidence.org)

13. Methods
Evolution of search terms and strategy:
• Internal/external consultation
• Two stakeholder workshops (Kenya and Australia)
• Extensive scoping exercise using Web of Science
• Developed inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies
• Protocol published (see Reed et al. 2015)
Specialist databases:
Scopus
CAB Direct
ISI Web of Knowledge
PubMed
Internet searches:
Google Scholar
Other:
Grey literature search

14. Inclusion criteria
• Clear and repeatable methodology
• Evidence of integrating at least two land uses
• Evidence of integrating at least two stakeholders
• Outcomes measured accurately and reliably
Bantimurung Bulusaraung National Park Landscape, Indonesia

15. Results: peer-reviewed articles
26,303 scoping results in WoK
using 35 revised search terms
13,290 Publications captured with
refined search terms
All TITLES screened
271,974 results from initial 56
main search terms trialed in WoK
1,171 Relevant studies
All ABSTRACTS screened
382 Relevant studies
All FULL TEXTS screened
82 Final studies of relevance

16. Results
Main Project Focus of Case Studies
[VALUE]%
16%
25%
13%
13%
4%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Livelihoods
Water
Forests
Soil
Biodiversity Conservation
Agriculture
Percentage of peer-reviewed studies (%)

17. 48%
21%
9% 9% 9%
4%0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Central
Africa
South Asia South Africa Asia South East
Asia
North
America
Percentageofpeer-reviewedstudies
Results
Geographical Distribution of Case Studies

18. Results
• Majority of case studies started with single objective focus
• 83% of case studies reported positive outcomes
• No cases (thus far) of long term monitoring and evaluation of
landscape metrics
• 37% of papers explicitly acknowledge the need for a
landscape approach

19. Grey literature
• Despite a wealth of information on landscape approaches, there are
very few case study examples in the peer reviewed literature
• This does not mean they are not out there: they are not being
reported!
• Will including the grey literature in our screening provide the bridge
for this gap in our knowledge base?
Arsi Negele landscape, Ethiopia (Liz Deakin)

20. www.cifor.org/landscape-map
Online Interactive Map

21. Barriers to and requirements for
effective implementation of
Landscape Approaches

22. Barriers to Implementation
• Less developed countries often lack
capacity and resources
• Weak institutions and high demand for land
• Private business sector rarely involved in
Landscape Approaches
• Agricultural “land grabbing” can circumvent
local authorities

23. Barriers to Implementation
• Landscape Approaches often funded on short
term or temporary basis (time limited project
investments)
• Lack of collaborative government support
• Institutional barriers - government agencies still
rooted in silos
• Governance concerns, lack of empowerment
given to rural communities

24. Effective implementation of LA
• Need a coordinated effort from scientific community
to deliver coherent message to policy makers
• More tangible evidence needed of the effectiveness
of Landscape approaches
• Need to recognize that landscapes are dynamic
systems and are constantly changing
• Need to recognize the long-term nature of Landscape
Approaches, short term goals not really appropriate

25. Effective implementation of LA
• Recognize that engagement between sectors is key
• Stakeholder engagement and empowerment is critical
(and not just a box ticking exercise)
• Top down, bottom up or mixed governance structures?
• Impact assessments required
• Develop tools for long-term monitoring and evaluation
• Tool kit techniques e.g. simple visualization scenarios (Sayer et al 2006)
land use simulation modeling (Sandker et al 2009)

26. http://www.landscapes.org/
Special thanks to: James Reed, Josh van Vianen, Terry Sunderland