Policies at multiple levels pronounce the need to encompass both social and ecological systems in governance and management of natural capital in terms of resources and ecosystems. One approach to knowledge production and learning about landscapes as social–ecological systems is to compare multiple case studies consisting of large spaces and places. We first review the landscape concepts’ biophysical, anthropogenic, and intangible dimensions. Second, we exemplify how the different landscape concepts can be used to derive measurable variables for different sustainability indicators. Third, we review gradients in the three dimensions of the term landscape on the European continent, and propose to use them for the stratification of multiple case studies of social–ecological systems. We stress the benefits of the landscape concepts to measure sustainability, and how this can improve collaborative learning about development toward sustainability in social–ecological systems. Finally, analyses of multiple landscapes improve the understanding of context for governance and management.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0368-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

There are currently competing demands on Europe's forests and the finite resources and services that they can offer. Forestry intensification that aims at mitigating climate change and biodiversity conservation is one example. Whether or not these two objectives compete can be evaluated by comparative studies of forest landscapes with different histories. We test the hypothesis that indicators of wood production and biodiversity conservation are inversely related in a gradient of long to short forestry intensification histories. Forest management data containing stand age, volume and tree species were used to model the opportunity for wood production and biodiversity conservation in five north European forest regions representing a gradient in landscape history from very long in the West and short in the East. Wood production indicators captured the supply of coniferous wood and total biomass, as well as current accessibility by transport infrastructure. Biodiversity conservation indicators were based on modelling habitat network functionality for focal bird species dependent on different combinations of stand age and tree species composition representing naturally dynamic forests. In each region we randomly sampled 25 individual 100-km areas with contiguous forest cover. Regarding wood production, Sweden's Bergslagen region had the largest areas of coniferous wood, followed by Vitebsk in Belarus and Zemgale in Latvia. NW Russia's case study regions in Pskov and Komi had the lowest values, except for the biomass indicator. The addition of forest accessibility for transportation made the Belarusian and Swedish study region most suitable for wood and biomass production, followed by Latvia and two study regions in NW Russian. Regarding biodiversity conservation, the overall rank among regions was opposite. Mixed and deciduous habitats were functional in Russia, Belarus and Latvia. Old Scots pine and Norway spruce habitats were only functional in Komi. Thus, different regional forest histories provide different challenges in terms of satisfying both wood production and biodiversity conservation objectives in a forest management unit. These regional differences in northern Europe create opportunities for exchanging experiences among different regional contexts about how to achieve both objectives. We discuss this in the context of land-sharing versus land-sparing.

Russia sees the need to increase wood production. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the 6 understanding of barriers and bridges in social and ecological systems for intensification of 7 wood production in NW Russia. This requires that past development trajectories are 8 understood. 8VLQJ D ORFDO ORJJLQJ IURQWLHU LQ 5XVVLD ¶V .RPL 5HSXEOLF DV D FDVH VWXG\ ZH 9 employed an environmental history approach to: (1) recreate the wood harvesting history for 10 the period 1719-2014, (2) identify the main actors that produced this history, and (3) analyse 11 what ideologies influenced decision making. First, after a long history of selective harvesting 12 before the Russian Revolution in 1917, forests were rapidly clear-felled during the Soviet 13 period 1921-1991. Following general economic deceleration, and thus severely reduced 14 harvesting activities during 1992-1997, the rate of logging has increased slightly again. To 15 conclude, barriers in ecosystems to intensification include Soviet legacies of large-scale 16 harvesting, which resulted in a very uneven age distribution, limited and poorly conducted 17 silviculture, as well as insufficient transport infrastructure. Additionally, social system 18 barriers are a conservative mind-set at the policy level, unpredictable conditions for forest use 19 rights and ownership, and limited value-added production at local level. Developing 20 predictable rules and norms, forest zoning at local to regional scales, and the emergence of 21 *Manuscript without Author Identifiers Click here to download Manuscript without Author Identifiers: MS_Intensification_Komi_Kortkeros_160203_FINAL_MS_witho Click here to view linked References

The policy term green infrastructure highlights the need to maintain functional ecosystems as a foundation for sustainable societies. Because forests are the main natural ecosystems in Europe, it is crucial to understand the extent to which forest landscape management delivers functional green infrastructures. We used the steep west–east gradient in forest landscape history, land ownership, and political culture within northern Europe's Baltic Sea Region to assess regional profiles of benefits delivered by forest landscapes. The aim was to support policy‐makers and planners with evidence‐based knowledge about the current conditions for effective wood production and biodiversity conservation. We developed and modeled four regional‐level indicators for sustained yield wood production and four for biodiversity conservation using public spatial data. The western case study regions in Sweden and Latvia had high forest management intensity with balanced forest losses and gains which was spatially correlated, thus indicating an even stand age class distribution at the local scale and therefore long‐term sustained yields. In contrast, the eastern case study regions in Belarus and Russia showed spatial segregation of areas with forest losses and gains. Regarding biodiversity conservation indicators, the west–east gradient was reversed. In the Russian, Belarusian, and Latvian case study regions, tree species composition was more natural than in Sweden, and the size of contiguous areas without forest loss was larger. In all four case study regions, 54–85% of the total land base consisted of forest cover, which is above critical fragmentation thresholds for forest landscape fragmentation. The results show that green infrastructures for wood production and biodiversity conservation are inversely related among the four case study regions, and thus rival. While restoration for biodiversity conservation is needed in the west, intensified use of wood and biomass is possible in the east. However, a cautious approach should be applied because intensification of wood production threatens biodiversity. We discuss the barriers and bridges for spatial planning in countries with different types of land ownership and political cultures and stress the need for a landscape approach based on evidence‐based collaborative learning processes that include both different academic disciplines and stakeholders that represent different sectors and levels of governance.

No abstract