What are landscape approaches and how are they applied?
An Q-analysis on the experiences of the International Partnership of the Satoyama Initiative
In this blog, we have often reported how rapid environmental and socio-economic changes are leading to dramatic changes in human-dominated landscapes. The limited success of conventional efforts to halt biodiversity loss and ecosystems degradation has led to a surge of landscape approaches as a way to address the multi-scalar pressures on social-ecological systems, and to reconcile economic development with the conservation of natural and social values.
Landscape approaches distinctively focus on a territorial scale for capturing human-nature interactions. They use inter- and transdisciplinary methods to consider and integrate the multi-faceted complex character of landscapes, and characteristically consider the context-specificity of social-ecological systems to promote landscape sustainability.
An example of such a landscapes approach would be the use of collaborative agroforestry systems in Western Spain to boost landscape resilience towards wildfires (see our recent posts on this topic).
However, whereas the use of landscape approaches remains a relatively agreed-upon overall objective, the term comprise a multitude of concepts and principles, which are in part similar, and in some parts different or even contradictory. In practice, what landscape sustainability really means in each specific context can greatly differ. In a recent study (Torralba et al. 2023), we explored how landscape approaches are understood and employed in 45 case studies of socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes, as well as the motivations for employing them.
To do so, we capitalized on the case studies belonging to the International Partnership of the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI). IPSI is a network that was established during the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD/COP), held in Nagoya in 2010. The IPSI cases studies are very diverse and represent some of the most archetypal examples of cultural landscapes around the world. They are all characterized by long-term profound interactions between people and nature, which have generated over time a multifunctional landscape that maintains or enhances biodiversity, while sustaining the human well-being of the local community. Some examples of IPSI cases would include Satoyama landscapes in Japan or the Traditional fruit-tree orchard meadows in Germany.
Over the rich IPSI repertoire of case studies, we used Q-method surveys to interview local representatives of 45 case studies. Q-method is a semi-quantitative technique to explore different human perspectives over complex and multi-layered topics (Zabala et al. 2018). In this case, we used Q-method to assess what aspects of landscape sustainability have been directly and indirectly promoted in the IPSI cases studies.
Our analysis revealed that landscape approaches generally pursued very similar goals, which collectively would define the core elements of landscape sustainability.
These goals are ensuring local communities as landscape stewards, preserving the identity and context-specific values of the landscape, and boosting resilience in the face of socio-economic and environmental changes. The tools for reaching these goals build upon people and nature interactions what as a result, generate rich biodiversity and local ecological knowledge.
However, our analysis also showed that the means to reach those goals differed depending on many contextual factors, such as the dominant ecosystems and socio-economic activities in the landscape, the constellation of actors, or the most relevant drivers of change affecting the social-ecological system. In particular, we identified four distinct lenses in which landscapes approaches are applied in practice to landscape sustainability:
(1) for the preservation of natural values,
(2) for the preservation of socio-cultural values,
(3) for the promotion of social justice and participatory governance, and
(4) for securing food security and local livelihoods.
Each of these lenses refers to a shared understanding on the objectives of landscape approaches and pathways necessary to find a balance between conservation and development. Whereas each of the four lenses focuses primarily on one specific set of elements, this does not mean that the less prioritized targets are considered irrelevant. Instead, it is normally assumed that they would be organically promoted alongside those selected as central in the landscape approach. For example, through Lens 1, socio-cultural values are promoted by protecting natural values such as agrobiodiversity, while in Lens 2, natural values are meant to emerge from upholding socio-cultural values.
To some extent, the different lenses replicate the sustainability trade-offs between preservation and transformation — Lenses 1 and 2 underline the preservation side, but diverge on the particular set of landscape values to be protected (sociocultural or natural values). In contrast, Lenses 3 and 4 highlight transformation, (Lens 2 building on inclusiveness and participation through bottom-up initiatives, and Lens 4 by securing material wellbeing through top-down assistance and regulatory processes). Interestingly, we found that where respondents associated to landscapes that were more degraded, landscape approaches were more likely to opt for transformation pathways (Lens 3 and 4).
Similarly, we observed a direct relation between how coupled communities and ecosystems were, and the choice made for a particular landscape approach (see figure below). For example, participants from Lenses 1 and 2 more often expressed the importance of people and nature connection through relational values (Chan and Gould 2018). Relational values refer to the importance associated to the meaningfulness of relationships, such as those between nature and people and among people within nature or fostered by nature. In contrast, relational values were expressed less frequently by participants associated with Lenses 3 and 4, who were often representing landscapes with a legacy of social-ecological pressures resulting in landscape degradation and loss of human-nature relationships. Instead, participants associated to Lenses 3 and 4 typically expressed the need to develop new strategies that foster reconnecting society and ecosystems, while highlighting the current importance of the instrumental value domain. Instrumental values usually represent the importance of nature as a means to achieve human ends or satisfy human needs, interests or preferences.
Our study highlights the relevant and beneficial role of landscape approaches as a concept that facilitates communication across disciplinary boundaries. While some core principles about what a landscape approach entail are shared, these principles are assembled in many different ways.
In every case, the chosen approach for a landscape initiative would depend, on the one hand, on local contextual factors and, on the other hand, on what the local community considers most pressing. For landscape approaches to become relevant, they must put local actors at the forefront.
For more information, see our recent publication:
Torralba M, Nishi M, Cebrián-Piqueras MA, Quintas-Soriano C, García-Martín M, Plieninger T. 2023. et al. Disentangling the practice of landscape approaches: a Q-method analysis on experiences in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes. Sustainability Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01307-2
References:
Chan, K. M., & Gould, R. K. (2018). Editorial overview: Relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, A1–A7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSUST.2018.11.003
López-Casero, F., Michaelis, C., Okayasu, S., Ichikawa, K., Kawai, A., Manago, C., & Dunbar, W. (2015). IPSI Case Study Review: a review of 80 case studies under the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI). Tokyo, Japan. http://satoyama-initiative.org/
Zabala, A., Sandbrook, C., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Conservation Biology, 32(5), 1185–1194. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13123
