Integrated landscape approaches in the tropics: A brief stock-take

Reed, J. Michael; Ickowitz, Amy; Chervier, Colas; Djoudi, Houria; Moombe, K.B.; Ros-Tonen, M.A.F.; Yanou, Malaika; Yuliani, L.; Sunderland, Terry

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104822

Cited by 109 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Project results must be monitored to quantify the benefits and identify both successful strategies and aspects for improvement of FLR initiatives. Monitoring is highlighted for the activities encompassed in FLR, such as forest restoration and income, and more recent publications highlight this need and provide guidelines ( [103] and references in [104]). Nonetheless, part of the literature sampled and reviewed here does not reinforce the need to use landscape-level monitoring indicators.…”

Section: Gaps and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, part of the literature sampled and reviewed here does not reinforce the need to use landscape-level monitoring indicators. Reed et al [104] mentioned that, while most study cases of integrated landscape management claim to be successful, only 6% of the study cases in the grey literature provided robust evidence of success. The difficulty and bias in FLR evaluation may be caused by (i) varying perceptions of what is a successful outcome among stakeholders, (ii) lack of a common standard of evidence for success, (iii) demotivation to report on project failures, (iv) lack of resources for monitoring and evaluation, (v) short-term funding (2-3 years) of projects [104].…”

Section: Gaps and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Forest and Landscape Restoration: A Review Emphasizing Principles, Concepts, and Practices

César

Belei

Badari

et al. 2020

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) is considered worldwide as a powerful approach to recover ecological functionality and to improve human well-being in degraded and deforested landscapes. The literature produced by FLR programs could be a valuable tool to understand how they align with the existing principles of FLR. We conducted a systematic qualitative review to identify the main FLR concepts and definitions adopted in the literature from 1980 to 2017 and the underlying actions commonly suggested to enable FLR implementation. We identified three domains and 12 main associated principles—(i) Project management and governance domain contains five principles: (a) Landscape scale, (b) Prioritization, (c) Legal and normative compliance, (d) Participation, (e) Adaptive management; (ii) Human aspect domain with four principles: (a) Enhance livelihoods, (b) Inclusiveness and equity, (c) Economic diversification, (d) Capacity building; (iii) Ecological Aspects domain with three principles: (a) Biodiversity conservation, (b) Landscape heterogeneity and connectivity, (c) Provision of ecosystem goods and services. Our results showcase variations in FLR principles and how they are linked with practice, especially regarding the lack of social aspects in FLR projects. Finally, we provide a starting point for future tools aiming to improve guidance frameworks for FLR.

show abstract

Section: Gaps and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Gaps and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest and Landscape Restoration: A Review Emphasizing Principles, Concepts, and Practices

César

Belei

Badari

et al. 2020

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They provide a way of better integrating different stakeholders and different interests when it comes to land use planning and change. Landscapes also represent a spatial scale that is sub-national but beyond individual sites [ 265 , 266 ]. In countries with long-held traditions of forestry, however, the focus is on stand-level assessments, processes and monitoring with little awareness of landscape approaches.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Landscape approaches are advanced as superior to sectoral approaches that often result in conflicting and multiple demands for the same land resources [ 76 , 292 ]. Landscapes are large and complex, providing different habitats where diverse uses can be accommodated [ 41 , 266 ]. Despite calls for restoring ecological complexity [ 293 ], landscapes are socio-ecological systems that present particularly difficult conditions of dynamism and change.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest landscape restoration: state of play

Stanturf

Mansourian

2020

R. Soc. open sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tree planting has been widely touted as an inexpensive way to meet multiple international environmental goals for mitigating climate change, reversing landscape degradation and restoring biodiversity restoration. The Bonn Challenge and New York Declaration on Forests, motivated by widespread deforestation and forest degradation, call for restoring 350 million ha by 2030 by relying on forest landscape restoration (FLR) processes. Because the 173 million ha commitments made by 63 nations, regions and companies are not legally binding, expectations of what FLR means lacks consensus. The frequent disconnect between top-level aspirations and on-the-ground implementation results in limited data on FLR activities. Additionally, some countries have made landscape-scale restoration outside of the Bonn Challenge. We compared and contrasted the theory and practice of FLR and compiled information from databases of projects and initiatives and case studies. We present the main FLR initiatives happening across regional groups; in many regions, the potential need/opportunity for forest restoration exceeds the FLR activities underway. Multiple objectives can be met by manipulating vegetation (increasing structural complexity, changing species composition and restoring natural disturbances). Livelihood interventions are context-specific but include collecting or raising non-timber forest products, employment and community forests; other interventions address tenure and governance.

show abstract

“…Given this context, to understand the relationships between forest and agrarian changes with the concomitant livelihood outcomes, it is necessary to consider a broader landscape scale approach that encompasses a more systematic socio‐ecological approach (Sunderland et al, 2017). Although broad definitions are largely lacking, landscapes represent a complex mosaic of natural resources (forest and non‐forest land uses) which is managed for achieving multiple objectives (Reed et al, 2020). Landscape approaches as they relate to conservation, agriculture and other land uses seek to address the increasingly complex and widespread environmental, social and political challenges that transcend traditional management boundaries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing land use changes and livelihood outcomes of rural people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts region, Bangladesh

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land use change is a pressing concern for the livelihoods of people in tropical developing countries. Changes in land use from swidden (shifting cultivation) agriculture to smallholder tree‐dominated areas producing timber, fruits and cash crops can result in changing livelihood outcomes for rural communities. This paper examines land use patterns of rural households and the association with food production and income across three different zones of various forest proximity across a landscape gradient (remote, intermediate and on‐road) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts region of Bangladesh. We conducted in‐depth semi‐structured surveys of households (175–300) and farm owners (30) to collect information on people's perceptions of land use change, present land use patterns and contributions to food production and income. Our research found that more than half of the surveyed households experienced a decline in the land available for food production over the past 30 years. The land use patterns revealed decreasing crop lands (mainly swidden shifting cultivation/land rotation farms) and an increase in areas of planted trees within this landscape. However, household use of the reduced crop land has not affected food production in the on‐road zone, whereas the diversity of food sources has declined. People living in more remote areas engaged in swidden farming and used larger areas of crop and fallow lands, fruit orchard and accessed natural forest lands that provide a diverse reservoir of food sources. The current land uses contribute to variations in annual household income across zones, with remote dwelling people earning less to those living closer to urban areas in the intermediate and on‐road zones. In summary, this transition of land uses over three decades and changes in income and food availability cannot be generalised across the region because of zone specific differences. We recommend a broader and context‐reliant landscape management approach in consideration of the diversity of forest and tree benefits for the livelihoods of people in the region.

show abstract

Integrated landscape approaches in the tropics: A brief stock-take

Cited by 109 publications

References 85 publications

Forest and Landscape Restoration: A Review Emphasizing Principles, Concepts, and Practices

Forest and Landscape Restoration: A Review Emphasizing Principles, Concepts, and Practices

Forest landscape restoration: state of play

Assessing land use changes and livelihood outcomes of rural people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts region, Bangladesh

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About