Content uploaded by Lalisa A Duguma
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lalisa A Duguma on Dec 12, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A restored Ngitili system in the Shinyanga Region, Tanzania. Photo credit: Lalisa A. Duguma
Landscape restoration in social-ecological systems
63
Landscape restoration from a social-
ecological system perspective?
Lalisa A. Duguma, Peter A. Minang, Mathew Mpanda, Anthony Kimaro
and Dieudonne Alemagi
CHAPTER
5
Highlights
Ecosystem degradation is increasingly creating concerns about the provisions of
various services (e.g., food, feed, wood, water, etc.)
Landscape restoration is being done in different parts of the world with different
implementation frameworks
The Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) provides a good basis for
assessing progress made by landscape-scale restoration programmes despite
having its own challenges
The HASHI programme in Tanzania was used to illustrate SESF application at
the landscape level
1. Introduction
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) revealed that around 60% of ecosystem
services that are heavily relied on by humans are either degraded or being used
unsustainably. This is alarming as the majority of the people who directly depend on such
functions and services are the poor, rural communities who are disproportionately being
affected by the degradation. The extent of the problem is severe in developing countries
where measures to curb the problem are often marred by shortage of resources (e.g.,
finances, infrastructure, technology) and the required capacity to handle the problems.
For instance, land degradation remains a key challenge that is hampering the production
potential of rural landscapes. A landscape can be degraded due to a number of reasons,
for example, overuse (e.g., exploitation), natural disasters (e.g., landslides, flood effects,
drought, etc.), and misuse (e.g., pollution, improper land use practices, etc.). Degradation
often occurs when the replenishment potential of the landscape is exceeded by utilization
and/or when this feature of the landscape is severely depleted by natural forces such
as flooding, fire, landslides, etc. As a result, communities may engage in exploiting
nearby resources such as natural forests and biodiversity conservation areas to gain more
farmlands that are productive and to extract tree products such as timber and fuelwood to
generate additional income to sustain their families (Duguma et al., 2009). What makes
the degradation problem even worse is the strong interdependence among the different
Duguma, L. A., Minang, P. A., Mpanda, M., Kimaro, A., & Alemagi, D. (2015). Landscape restoration from a
social-ecological system perspective? In Minang, P. A., van Noordwijk, M., Freeman, O. E., Mbow, C., de Leeuw,
J., & Catacutan, D. (Eds.) Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice, 63-73. Nairobi, Kenya:
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality In Practice
64
ecosystem services. For example, forest clearing for creation of new agricultural lands
affects the habitat services provided by the forest and influences the hydrology of the
landscape thereby negatively affecting the water supply of the area.
The extent to which the different functions and services could be provided by a landscape
depends on its management state. Three possible states of a landscape can be identified:
1) a landscape that is functioning properly and well managed, 2) a landscape that is being
degraded due to unsustainable exploitation, and 3) a landscape that is severely degraded
where the net worth of restoration outcomes may not be greater than the efforts and
resources required to restore it. It is necessary to note that even these categories are very
subjective. Of the three landscape states, in this chapter we mainly look at those needing
restoration with some inherent restoration potential.
Realizing the degradation problems, a number of restoration actions were taken in different
parts of the world ranging from global programmes such as the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), global forest landscape restoration programme, natural
resource management programmes by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the
Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) restoration programmes focusing on local level
restoration efforts by the affected communities and national governments. However, most
of such efforts have their own frameworks of implementation and evaluation regarding the
restoration activities, and thus pose a challenge on how to uniformly assess the progress
made by such systems and its sustainability. Another key concern in most restoration
programmes is they largely emphasize ecological processes and provide limited space
for socioeconomic attributes (Wortley et al., 2013). Recognizing the limitations of such
restoration efforts of the past, recent restoration programmes and projects are focusing
on inclusive processes where the local communities’ societal/development needs are also
taken into account. However, this effort to embrace the societal needs within restoration
programmes is not done using a consistent framework. That is why the call for a coherent
framework that captures the two dimensions (socioeconomic and ecological) while
also guiding the monitoring of landscape management is increasing. In our view, the
Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) (Ostrom, 2009) would be a very helpful
approach for landscape-level restoration initiatives. Restoration in this context refers to
efforts made to bring back the functions that the landscape used to provide before the
degradation processes started and hence our emphasis is largely on functional restoration
(see Crow, 2014; Olivier, 2014).
In this chapter, we examine how applicable the SESF is to landscape restoration schemes
and highlight some of the limitations of the framework under such contexts. We illustrate
the applicability and usefulness of the SESF using the HASHI (Hifadhi Ardhi Shinyanga
- Shinyanga Soil Conservation) programme in Tanzania as a case study example.
2. Landscape restoration for multiple objectives
The landscape is a complex system (Parrot et al., 2012) composed of biophysical, social,
economic, and governance elements. It is the dynamic equilibrium resulting from the
interactions between these different components and processes (Meinig, 1979). A
landscape comprises a multitude of functions, actors, sectors and units. The functions
and the units that provide those functions are often delimited from the perspective of the
actors and sectors active within the landscape. Functions here refer to “…the capacity
Landscape restoration in social-ecological systems
65
of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human
needs directly or indirectly” as defined by De Groot et al. (2002). They are classified
broadly as provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting functions (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Service is defined as “…the aspects of ecosystems
utilized directly or indirectly to produce human well-being”, according to Fisher et al.
(2009). In managed landscapes, there is often some stake from humans that link with
landscape features, components or outputs. Even abandoned areas are associated with
a certain type of function/service linked to human interests. This, in most cases, is due
to the presence of both ‘active’ and ‘passive’ stakeholders in a given landscape. The
former includes communities and institutions currently living/working in the landscape,
local governments, and other relevant landscape actors. The latter includes national
governments, international organizations and other global community actors whose link
with the landscape is through functions such as climate regulation, hydrological effects
and biodiversity conservation that often go beyond the ‘boundary’ of the landscape.
The interactions and interdependences among the components in the landscape are strong
determinants of the magnitude of functions/services a given landscape could deliver.
Interaction is more related to the tradeoffs between the different functions/services,
hence, looking more to how the functions/services negatively influence each other.
Interdependence, on the other hand, is more in line with ‘symbiotic’ relations between
functions/services whereby the extent of a given function/service depends on how
well the function(s) it depends on is managed. For example, if a landscape is to deliver
ecological functions such as habitat for wildlife, it is necessary to have the woodlands
or forests managed properly. There should also be a water source for the animals, the
extent of which is determined by the hydrological functions from the components of
the landscape. Thus, there is a strong interdependence between habitat management,
hydrological functions, wildlife presence and economic benefits from tourism to mention
a few. Such objectives on the other hand could also influence each other negatively when
wild animals damage crops grown by the farmers/agropastoralists (e.g., Gillingham &
Lee, 2003; Wang et al., 2006). Wild animals could also transmit diseases to domestic
animals (e.g., livestock) if they interact closely (Daszak et al., 2000; Martin et al., 2011).
Running such interdependent functions and dealing with those that interact negatively in
the same landscape requires a well-planned management strategy that is considerate of
such relationships.
Ostrom (2009) argues that communities may not see the added value of conserving
resources if there is abundance or if they believe the resource is severely exhausted.
Though this notion is realistic, it seems to be confined to the two extremes under which
restoration efforts could possibly happen. At times restoration can also be thought of
when supply of products required fails to meet the associated demand especially under
conditions where alternative options to satisfy that specific demand are absent or more
expensive to choose. This means that communities may not always wait until the resource
is exhausted, particularly if there is no alternative. Besides, in areas where people are largely
dependent on land resources (e.g., agrarian or pastoral communities in the developing
nations), they may engage in restoration efforts even before the level of degradation
becomes irreversible. Restoration may happen as far as the inherent restoration potential
of the landscape is there (Figure 5.1). To achieve a restoration objective, it requires
Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality In Practice
66
resources amounting to the differences between the inherent potential of the landscape
and the resources required to achieve the set objective. Such resources are derivatives of
the management interventions (practices and technologies), time and any material and
financial inputs required to achieve the restoration objective. For example, it is less likely,
or at least very expensive, to start restoration in a landscape where the soil parent material
is exposed with no capability of supporting regeneration/growth of plants. The context of
exhaustion expressed by Ostrom (2009) is also very general in that it does not qualify the
extent explicitly. There are some levels of exhaustion that could possibly be rehabilitated
while in cases with sever exhaustion (i.e., where the inherent restoration potential is so
minimal), restoration may not be possible or at least too costly and time consuming to
achieve.
As illustrated in Figure 5.1, efforts required to restore a landscape very much depend
on where you start along the degradation trajectory, which largely is based on an in-
depth understanding of the resource systems and resource units. Examining the resource
systems and resource units helps to understand the current state of the landscape and
estimate the restoration efforts required to get the landscape closer to the reference state.
Restoration efforts require resources, which are largely determined by a governance
system through negotiations and consultations with the actors in and outside the landscape.
The governance system (a core component of SESF as discussed in the following section)
also includes monitoring frameworks that can help alert the necessary actors to take
timely action to sustain or restore functions and services provided by the landscape.
Such timely actions could considerably reduce the efforts required to restore a landscape.
For instance, restoration trajectory A (Figure 5.1) requires less effort and resources than
Figure 5.1 Hypothetical degradation-restoration schematic in natural resources management
at scales such as a landscape. A, B and C represent hypothetical restoration trajectories that
respectively might be taking place at tA, tB and tC. The line represented by Y stands for the reference
state. YA, YB and YC stand for hypothetical achievable targets for restoration trajectories A, B and C
respectively.
Landscape restoration in social-ecological systems
67
trajectories B and C because in the latter two cases the inherent restoration potential of
the landscape is less than in the former one. In a landscape affected by deforestation for
instance, the reference state is the undisturbed forest and due to specific activities (e.g.,
excessive timber extraction and charcoal production, slash and burn, mining), forest cover
decreases. If at time tA, restoration is not done following trajectory A, additional parcels
of forests will be cleared and the degradation will continue, resulting in most functions
associated with the forest diminishing. The more delayed the restoration is, the more
resources required to achieve results closer to the reference state, and hence the difference
between the reference state and what could practically be achievable through restoration,
increases. This is largely because there are functions that may not easily rehabilitate in
the landscape even after extensive restoration. For instance, wild animals may go extinct
if there are no more habitats for them. This is why in Figure 5.1, we see after trajectory A,
B or C is taken, the corresponding results achieved YA, YB or YC is lower than the original
state, Y. It is important to note here that through restoration some functions may exceed
the reference state case if complementary new technologies are used in the process, but in
general this is not a common occurrence.
3. The social-ecological systems: a brief introduction
Berkes and Folke (1998) define social-ecological systems (SES) as nested multi-systems
that provide essential services (e.g., food, fiber, energy, water, habitat, etc.) to societies
associated with them. Broadly, the definition has a utility perspective and is thus
anthropocentric, making the contextualization of functions in a system to be deliberated
from the perspective of human benefits. Ostrom (2009) states that resources used
by humans are embedded in complex SESs composed of multiple subsystems having
their own attributes. Ostrom (2007; 2009) came up with a framework, the SESF that
can help address this social and ecological coupling. Some of the components of the
framework were borrowed from Agrawal (2001), which attempted to elicit the critical
enabling conditions for sustainability of the commons. Binder et al. (2013) examined
the extent to which the social and ecological dimensions are addressed in the different
frameworks claiming to be addressing SESs and found that SESF is the one that treats the
two components at comparable level besides its multi-tiered variables to describe the key
components of the SESs. The social system in SESF is mainly addressed through resource
users and the governance structure composed of rules and regulations that determine
the extent of the right to use the resources. The ecological system on the other hand is
captured through the resource systems composed of different resource units.
SESF has six primary components: four core subsystems comprising of resource systems,
resource units, governance systems and users; and two elements, i.e., the social, economic
and political setting and related ecosystems that help to understand the linkages between
the system (landscape in our case), and bigger subnational and national administrative
units (Ostrom 2007; 2009). It is the interplay among the six components that yield an
outcome that either benefits the society or affects other ecosystems in a given social,
economic and political setting. The outcome has a feedback mechanism for each of the
four core subsystems, which contribute to potential improved performance of the SES.
Each of the core subsystems are again addressed through a number of specific variables
(including at least 50 indicators) which can be referenced in Ostrom (2007; 2009)’s work.
Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality In Practice
68
4. The application of SESF to the HASHI programme
in the Shinyanga Region, Tanzania
The HASHI programme was implemented since 1980s in the Shinyanga Region in
response to ecosystem degradation problems. The programme officially closed in 2004
though the project activities continued to be carried out by Natural Forest Resources
and Agroforestry Management Centre (NAFRAC) and the community members after its
closure. The Shinyanga Region is home to Wasukuma people, and covers approximately
5.4% of the total land area of Tanzania in its pre-2005 extent, but hosts over 80% of the
country’s livestock population. Between 1980 and 2003 the region’s population doubled
reaching about 2.8 million (Mlenge, 2004). The Wasukuma are agropastoral communities
dependent on mix of livestock rearing and sedentary agriculture, relying predominantly
on the former one. The area is semiarid and the vegetation type is mostly acacia and
Miombo woodlands (Mlenge, 2004). Ngitili is an indigenous fodder management system
for the dry seasons using enclosure systems wherein farmers enclose a piece of land
with trees, grasses, shrubs and forbs to increase fodder production and supply of tree
products (Kamwenda, 2002).Two major types of Ngitili exist: household Ngitili owned
by individual families and communal Ngitili that is often managed by a group of people,
usually community leaders.
The Shinyanga region has undergone a number of processes in terms of the land use
characteristics and the associated practices (Figure 5.2). The period before the 1930s,
referred to as the reference state, was when the landscapes in the region were considered
sustainably managed, before becoming intensely degraded during the period between the
1930s-1980s due to a number of drivers indicated in Figure 5.2 (the degradation phase).
The degradation created huge social and ecological problems, which needed restoration
measures using practice and action portfolios shown in Figure 5.2’s restoration phase. As
discussed in Duguma et al. (2014) the restoration effort through the HASHI programme
received considerable political support at the national level, in particular, with the
government making a number of policy provisions (e.g., revisions of land tenure policies)
and financial resources mobilization to support restoration efforts.
Figure 5.2 Schematic showing elements that characterized the gradual changes in the Shinyanga
Region, Tanzania.
Landscape restoration in social-ecological systems
69
4.1 The resource system and the resource units
Resource systems mark a designated area, which encompasses a number of resource
units that are governed by certain rules and regulations developed by the community
(resource users) and/or by governmental bodies. The expansion after the programme
almost covered around 377,756 ha benefiting directly or indirectly approximately
2.8 million people in 833 villages (Monela et al., 2005). HASHI was a multi-sectoral
approach addressing woodland reclamation, pasture management, soil conservation and
water resource management. Each of the sectors entails resource units such as croplands,
pasturelands, woodlands, ponds and mini-dams, that respond to the various needs of the
community, for example, providing food, pasture, wood and/or water functions. As the
community living in the Shinyanga Region rely strongly on the outcome of the landscapes
to meet their basic resource needs (e.g., food, wood, herbal medicines, income sources,
etc.) (Mlenge, 2004; Monela et al., 2005), restoring the productivity of the system was
mandatory to ensure that the community livelihoods were not threatened. Though so far
the system dynamics, particularly the re-emergence of woody species, is being viewed as
an achievement, there is a need to examine the expansion limit of such activities as there
is a likelihood that the canopy may close at some point in time and limit grass growth. The
restoration came with a positive aggregate benefit to the local community estimated at a
per capita economic value of around 168 USD per year (Monela et al., 2005).
4.2 The governance system
As an entry point the HASHI programme strongly emphasized empowering local
communities to make their voices heard leading to the promotion of the indigenous
fodder management practices such as Ngitili together with other agroforestry practices
(see Figure 5.2, the restoration phase). This boosted the community’s trust of the
programme leading to their self-initiated integration of their local resource management
practices into the programme by revamping local institutions such as Dagashida (a local
unit tasked with conflict resolution through dialogue involving elders), Baraza le Wazee
(an elders council serving as a mediator between the traditional and formal institutions)
and Sungusungu (a traditionally organized local unit composed of youth and adults
tasked with law enforcement) (Monela et al., 2005). The villages also established village
environmental committees, which were trained by the HASHI programme to monitor
the restoration activities (Mlenge, 2004). The village environmental committees together
with the village elders maintained the links between the local community and the formal
institutions like the village government and the district-level authorities and representatives
overseeing the project. A considerable number of governmental and nongovernmental
organizations took part in this programme including the Ministry of Environment and
Natural Resources of Tanzania (by facilitating the programme implementation process
at national level including policy reforms), NAFRAC (by implementing the project
at regional level), local district authorities (by facilitating project implementation and
approval of by-laws proposed at the village level), NORAD (Norwegian Agency for
Development Cooperation) (by financially supporting the programme), ICRAF (World
Agroforestry Centre) (by providing technical support to the programme from planning
to the implementation phase), village governments (by facilitating implementation and
monitoring the progress of the programme at the grassroots level), and others. The village
environmental committee was the central body in making sure the networks among the
Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality In Practice
70
different actors remained intact. In order to encourage communities in managing the
resources sustainably, the government enacted the 1997 Land Policy and the 1999 Land
and Village Land Acts, which created a framework for local communities to possess land
title deeds, and hence, reducing tenure insecurity.
4.3 The users and the interactions
Local communities are the principal users and beneficiaries of restoration efforts though
the benefit accrued by a given community largely depended on the level of engagement
in implementing the interventions. For instance, in the case of the communal Ngitili,
there are specific rules and regulations put in place by the local leaders and the village
government to ensure it is only those who engage in the specific management activities
that benefit from it. This Ngitili type is actually managed by groups of communities, and
thus, portraying a number of strong self-organizing activities. For those not involved in
the restoration process, there is an option of paying for the services or products collected
from the Ngitili. However, as expressed by the village environmental committees, there
are cases of illegal uses, though the majority of the community respects the local norms
and values. The village environmental committee and local leaders determine the level of
harvest by different users and the Dagashida and Sungusungu make sure this decision is
properly implemented on the ground.
4.4 The outcomes
The communities have rules and regulations on how much of the products are to be
harvested by whom under what circumstances. This is a strong indicator to avoid
overharvesting which later affects the sustainability of the system. The programme
ensures there is fair and equitable sharing of the benefits among group members engaged
in managing parcels of the landscape. Often the benefits go to public infrastructure (e.g.,
schools, roads, etc.) and whenever there is any additional remaining cash, it is shared among
the members. Discussion with the communities revealed that the current management
system of the restoration programme is fair and accountable as there is a monitoring
scheme in place. Still, there are concerns in communal Ngitilis on the unequal benefit
sharing as reported in Selemani et al. (2012). Tradeoffs should also be considered as parts
of the outcome in SESF. The following are some key tradeoffs observed in Shinyanga
region. When the tsetse fly problem declined in the area the livestock population increased
significantly, hence, resulting in overstocking and overgrazing. Also, due to the clearance
of the woodlands and conversion to cotton and other cash crops, wood scarcity increased
and thus leading to the exploitation of the remnant woodlands for wood products.
5. Reflections on the applications of the SESF to the
HASHI programme
The SESF proved to be a promising analytical tool to understand different characteristics
of the landscape. First, the fact that SESF is more or less a holistic diagnostic tool
encompassing social, ecological and governance dimensions, makes it a very practical
tool for use at the landscape level. Second, its ability to deconstruct the landscape into
various components, as highlighted in the core subsystems of the framework, provided
a good basis to understand how landscape management is working from both the social
and ecological perspectives. With the often-mentioned ‘complexity’ of landscapes, this
option of deconstruction makes the SESF an ideal framework to understand landscape
Landscape restoration in social-ecological systems
71
management from multiple perspectives such as the resource systems and resource units,
the users, the governance systems, and the interactions among these variables. Third,
such deconstruction also helps landscape managers to understand where the strengths and
weaknesses are within the landscape, and hence, giving a clue on intervention areas to
change any negative future outcomes.
From the application of the framework to the HASHI programme we identified a number
of potential areas of future research and for further refinement of the framework in the
context of landscape restoration. These are as follows:
1. The SESF is a diagnostic/analytical framework that helps to understand the landscape
largely from its current state, and hence, is not a planning tool though it significantly
complements the planning processes.
2. Not all the elements in the SESF, as of now, have specific measurable indicators. This
poses a challenge when it comes to the metrics for monitoring progress/change in the
management of SESs landscapes.
3. The SESF puts resource systems and resource units as core subsystems. However,
decisions that largely affect land use behaviours are associated with the functions and
services the users gain from the landscapes. Importance to resource users appears in
SESF as one element in the users subsystem, which in fact, should be given more
emphasis.
4. Another context of special interest in contexts like landscapes is the issue of tradeoffs.
Actors in a landscape make their collective or individual decisions based on the
functions and services the landscape provides. Not every function and service is a
priority for all users and often decisions are made based on prioritizations among the
benefits also resulting in tradeoffs. The SESF, being such a holistic tool, should have
had a component specifically addressing this element.
5. Particularly within the landscape restoration context, drivers of change and historical
land use patterns play crucial roles in understanding what is happening in the landscape,
when, by whom and under what conditions. Such knowledge is important to define the
reference state for the landscape and set the objectives to be achieved based on the
landscape’s capacity. However, the SESF in its current framing gives limited emphasis
to such drivers of change and how they relate to the context of the specific objectives
identified within the SESF.
6. Concluding thoughts
Looking at landscapes from multi-tiered, hierarchical processes as in the SESF has a
number of advantages particularly in restoration efforts. First, it helps to disaggregate,
to some extent, the complexity that is often associated with managing landscapes. Such
possibilities of disaggregation help to identify where the challenges to sustainability
within the different components of the landscape lie, particularly looking at the four core
subsystems, which together make up the SESF. Second, it gives a hint about what level of
effort is required, at what point in time to avoid the ‘tragedy of the commons’ in landscapes
(Ostrom, 2009). Third, viewing landscapes from the SES perspective brings in the largely
underemphasized social and economic dimensions while addressing landscape-level
actions. Thus, viewing landscapes from the SES perspective has a number of advantages
in promoting successful restoration and sustainable landscape management.
Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality In Practice
72
From the Shinyanga case study, the regional restoration programme in Tanzania can be
well described using the SESF, though the initial designs of the project were not based
on this framework. Nevertheless, some important elements still need further attention to
promote the restoration effort in the way it addresses the social and ecological objectives.
Such elements include the predictability of the system dynamics, the future investment
behaviours, addressing and exploring the tradeoffs, and the efficiency of the restoration
scheme in terms of understanding the benefits and costs for further replication. Current
assessment of the outcomes are also mostly based on the direct resulting benefits and
need to capture the indirect benefits of such restoration schemes and their relation to other
regional processes such as mesoclimatic effects and cross-border hydrological impacts.
In applying the SESF to the HASHI programme, a number of issues surfaced which need
further attention particularly on the way the framework looks at those key indicators;
these include 1) the framework in itself is more of an analytical tool than a planning
tool, which is more sought after these days especially in view of the increasing resource
degradation in many parts of the globe, and 2) the limited emphasis on functions and
services, tradeoffs, metrics and drivers of change.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of the CGIAR Research Program on ‘Forests, Trees and
Agroforestry’ for the technical and financial support. The authors also thank the editors and anonymous
reviewers for the useful comments and suggestions that helped improve the text substantially.
References
Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World
Development, 29(10),1649-1672.
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and
sustainability. In Berkes, F., & Folke,C. (Eds.) Linking social and ecological systems:
management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience, 13-20.
Binder, C. R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P. W., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Comparison of Frameworks for
Analyzing Social-ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 26.
Crow, T. R. (2014). Functional Restoration: From Concept to Practice. Journal of Sustainable
Forestry, 33(sup1), S3-S14.
Daszak, P., Cunningham, A. A., & Hyatt, A. D. (2000). Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife--
threats to biodiversity and human health. Science, 287(5452), 443-449.
De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. (2002). A typology for the classification,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics,
41(3), 393-408.
Duguma, L. A., Hager, H., & Gruber, M. (2009). The community-state forest interaction in
Menagesha Suba area, Ethiopia: the challenges and possible solutions. Forests, Trees and
Livelihoods, 19(2), 111-128.
Duguma, L. A., Minang P. A., & van Noorwidjk, M. (2014). Climate Change Mitigation and
Adaptation in the Land Use Sector: From Complementarity to Synergy. Environmental
Management, 54(3), 420-432.
Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for
decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643-653.
Gillingham, S., & Lee, P. C. (2003). People and protected areas: a study of local perceptions of
wildlife crop-damage conflict in an area bordering the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Oryx,
37(03), 316-325.
Kamwenda, G. J. (2002). Ngitili agrosilvipastoral systems in the United Republic of Tanzania.
Unasylva, 53(4), 46-50.
Martin, C., Pastoret, P. P., Brochier, B., Humblet, M. F., & Saegerman, C. (2011). A survey of the
transmission of infectious diseases/infections between wild and domestic ungulates in Europe.
Veterinary Research 42, 70.
Landscape restoration in social-ecological systems
73
Meinig, D. W. (1979). The beholding eye: Ten versions of the same scene. The interpretation of
ordinary landscapes. Geographical essays, 33-48.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mlenge, W. (2004). Ngitili: An Indigenous Natural Resources Management System in Shinyanga,
Tanzania. Nairobi, Kenya: Arid Lands Information Network - Eastern Africa.
Monela, G. C., Chamshama, S. A. O., Mwaipopo, R., & Gamassa, D. M. (2005). A study on the
social, economic and environmental impacts of forest landscape restoration in Shinyanga
Region. Tanzania, Final Report. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Oliver, C. D. (2014). Functional Restoration of Social-Forestry Systems across Spatial and
Temporal Scales. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, accepted.
Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181-15187.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems.
Science, 325, 419-422.
Parrott, L., Chion, C., Gonzalès, R., & Latombe, G. (2012). Agents, individuals, and networks:
modeling methods to inform natural resource management in regional landscapes. Ecology and
Society, 17(3), 32.
Selemani, I. S., Eik, L. O., Holand, Ø., Ådnøy, T., Mtengeti, E., & Mushi, D. (2012). The role
of indigenous knowledge and perceptions of pastoral communities on traditional grazing
management in north-western Tanzania. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(40), 5537-
5547.
Wang, S. W., Curtis, P. D., & Lassoie, J. P. (2006). Farmer perceptions of crop damage by wildlife
in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(2), 359-365.
Wortley, L., Hero, J. M., & Howes, M. (2013). Evaluating ecological restoration success: a review
of the literature. Restoration Ecology, 21(5), 537-543.
