Have integrated landscape approaches reconciled societal and environmental issues in the tropics?

Abstract

Landscape approaches to integrated land management have recently gained considerable attention in the scientific literature and international fora. The approach is gaining increasing support at governmental and intergovernmental levels, as well as being embraced by a host of international research and development agencies. In an attempt to determine whether, and how, these approaches compare with previous conservation and development paradigms, we reviewed the implementation of integrated landscape approaches across the tropics. Within the scientific literature we fail to find a single applied example of the landscape approach in the tropics that adequately—that is with reliable, in depth collection and reporting of data—demonstrated the effective balancing of social and environmental trade-offs through multi-scale processes of negotiation for enhanced outcomes. However, we provide an assessment of 150 case studies from unpublished grey literature and 24 peer-reviewed studies that exhibit basic characteristics of landscape approaches. Our findings indicate that landscape approaches show potential as a framework to reconcile conservation and development and improve social capital, enhance community income and employment opportunities as well as reduce land degradation and conserve natural resources. However, comprehensive data on the social and environmental effects of these benefits remain elusive. We identify key contributing factors towards implementation, and progress, of landscape approaches and our findings suggest that multi-level, or polycentric, governance structures relate well with intervention success. We conclude that landscape approaches are a welcome departure from previous unsuccessful attempts at reconciling conservation and development in the tropics but, despite claims to the contrary, remain nascent in both their conceptualization and implementation.

Full text

Land
Use
Policy
63
(2017)
481–492
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Land
Use
Policy
j
o
ur
na
l
ho
me
page:
www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
Have
integrated
landscape
approaches
reconciled
societal
and
environmental
issues
in
the
tropics?
James
Reeda,b,∗,
Josh
van
Vianena,
Jos
Barlowb,
Terry
Sunderlanda,c
aCenter
for
International
Forestry
Research,
Bogor,
Indonesia
bLancaster
Environment
Centre,
Lancaster
University,
UK
cCenter
for
Tropical
Environmental
and
Sustainable
Science,
School
of
Marine
and
Environmental
Sciences,
James
Cook
University,
Cairns,
Qld
4870,
Australia
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
8
November
2016
Received
in
revised
form
4
February
2017
Accepted
14
February
2017
Keywords:
Integrated
landscape
approach
Conservation
and
development
Society/environment
trade-offs
Social-ecological
systems
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Landscape
approaches
to
integrated
land
management
have
recently
gained
considerable
attention
in
the
scientific
literature
and
international
fora.
The
approach
is
gaining
increasing
support
at
governmental
and
intergovernmental
levels,
as
well
as
being
embraced
by
a
host
of
international
research
and
develop-
ment
agencies.
In
an
attempt
to
determine
whether,
and
how,
these
approaches
compare
with
previous
conservation
and
development
paradigms,
we
reviewed
the
implementation
of
integrated
landscape
approaches
across
the
tropics.
Within
the
scientific
literature
we
fail
to
find
a
single
applied
example
of
the
landscape
approach
in
the
tropics
that
adequately—that
is
with
reliable,
in
depth
collection
and
reporting
of
data—demonstrated
the
effective
balancing
of
social
and
environmental
trade-offs
through
multi-scale
processes
of
negotiation
for
enhanced
outcomes.
However,
we
provide
an
assessment
of
150
case
stud-
ies
from
unpublished
grey
literature
and
24
peer-reviewed
studies
that
exhibit
basic
characteristics
of
landscape
approaches.
Our
findings
indicate
that
landscape
approaches
show
potential
as
a
framework
to
reconcile
conservation
and
development
and
improve
social
capital,
enhance
community
income
and
employment
opportunities
as
well
as
reduce
land
degradation
and
conserve
natural
resources.
However,
comprehensive
data
on
the
social
and
environmental
effects
of
these
benefits
remain
elusive.
We
identify
key
contributing
factors
towards
implementation,
and
progress,
of
landscape
approaches
and
our
find-
ings
suggest
that
multi-level,
or
polycentric,
governance
structures
relate
well
with
intervention
success.
We
conclude
that
landscape
approaches
are
a
welcome
departure
from
previous
unsuccessful
attempts
at
reconciling
conservation
and
development
in
the
tropics
but,
despite
claims
to
the
contrary,
remain
nascent
in
both
their
conceptualization
and
implementation.
©
2017
The
Authors.
Published
by
Elsevier
Ltd.
This
is
an
open
access
article
under
the
CC
BY
license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
1.
Introduction
Landscape
approaches
to
integrated
land
management
have
recently
gained
considerable
attention
in
the
scientific
literature
and
international
fora
(Sayer
et
al.,
2013;
Kusters,
2015;
Reed
et
al.,
2016)
and
represent
the
latest
in
a
series
of
attempts
to
reconcile
broad-scale
conservation
and
development
objectives
(Glamann
et
al.,
2015;
Reed
et
al.,
2016).
With
the
aim
of
enhancing
social
and
environmental
outcomes,
there
is
increasing
support
for
the
inte-
gration
of
previously
distinct
sectors
such
as
agriculture,
energy,
forestry,
and
industrial
supply
chains
to
manage
land
and
resources
more
sustainably.
The
landscape
approach
is
appealing
as
a
frame-
∗Corresponding
author
at:
Center
for
International
Forestry
Research,
Bogor,
Indonesia.
E-mail
address:
j.reed@cgiar.org
(J.
Reed).
work
because
it
explicitly
calls
for
the
engagement
of
multiple
stakeholders
from
across
sectors
to
better
negotiate
trade-offs
and
maximize
synergies
within
the
landscape
(Görg,
2007;
Sayer
et
al.,
2013;
Chia
and
Sufo,
2015).
The
approach
has
been
adopted
and
recognized
at
governmental
(Indonesia,
for
example)
and
inter-
governmental
levels
(Convention
on
Biological
Diversity,
United
Nations
Environment
Programme),
as
well
as
being
embraced
by
a
host
of
international
research
and
development
agencies
and
non-
governmental
organizations.
Yet
despite
this
growing
theoretical
support
for
the
landscape
approach
as
a
concept,
there
remains
both
a
lack
of
consensus
on
definition
and
limited
attempts
to
apply
these
approaches
on
the
ground
(Pfund,
2010;
Scherr
et
al.,
2013;
Chia
and
Sufo,
2015).
Furthermore,
it
has
recently
been
sug-
gested
that
the
approach
remains
under-theorized
(Reed
et
al.,
2016)
and
that
there
is
a
lack
of
evidence
of
the
effectiveness
of
the
approach
in
practice
(Sayer
et
al.,
2016a).
To
determine
to
what
extent
landscape
approaches
differ
from
previous
concepts
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.021
0264-8377/©
2017
The
Authors.
Published
by
Elsevier
Ltd.
This
is
an
open
access
article
under
the
CC
BY
license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

482
J.
Reed
et
al.
/
Land
Use
Policy
63
(2017)
481–492
that
sought
to
reconcile
conservation
and
development
agendas,
we
reviewed
their
implementation,
and
maintenance,
across
the
tropics.
Essentially,
we
wanted
to
consider
whether
landscape
approaches
represent
an
important,
novel
conceptualization
of
how
conservation
and
development
can
be
more
holistically
real-
ized,
or
are
they
merely
a
re-branding
of
old
ideas
(Redford
et
al.,
2013)?.
Landscape
approaches
are
primarily
rooted
in
conservation
and
the
science
of
landscape
ecology
(Forman,
1995;
Lindenmayer
et
al.,
2008;
Sayer,
2009).
Biodiversity
conservation
in
particular
has
been
addressed
in
a
“landscape
context”
over
recent
decades
(cf.
Sunderland
et
al.,
2012).
Despite
the
emphasis
on
reserves
and
protected
areas
in
the
1980s,
some
authors
were
introduc-
ing
the
concept
of
landscapes
into
the
conservation
narrative
(Forman
and
Godron,
1981;
Noss,
1983),
and
early
conservation
theory
promoted
landscape-scale
thinking
through
the
princi-
ples
of
island
biogeography
(Kingsland,
2002),
albeit
not
without
criticism
(Margules
et
al.,
1982).
Concurrently,
systems
approach
thinking
was
developing
new
ways
to
manage
common
pool
resources
(Ostrom,
1990).
The
expanded
focus
of
conservation
efforts
in
the
late
1980s
and
early
90s—driven
by
international
agendas
such
as
the
Brundtland
report
(Brundtland
et
al.,
1987)
and
the
largely
universal
acceptance
of
the
requirement
for
sus-
tainable
development
(Schubert
and
Láng,
2005)—to
move
beyond
protected
areas
and
integrate
broader
societal
needs
and
aspira-
tions
led
to
the
design
of
“integrated
development
and
conservation
projects”
(ICDPs)
(Hughes
and
Flintan,
2001).
However,
the
much
anticipated
“win-win”
outcomes
remained
hard
to
achieve
(or
even
measure)
and
often
resulted
in
win-lose
or
even
lose-lose
sce-
narios
for
both
conservation
and
development
agencies
(Wells
and
McShane,
2004).
ICDPs
were
lamented
as
being
too
local-
ized
in
focus—often
targeting
buffer
zones
surrounding
protected
areas—and
heavily
biased
towards
achieving
conservation
targets
alone
(Sunderland
et
al.,
2012).
Such
a
focus
was
regarded
as
sub-optimal
for
improving
rural
economic
development
(McShane
et
al.,
2011),
could
lead
to
unforeseen
environmental
degradation
(Garnett
et
al.,
2007;
Wells
and
McShane,
2004),
and
failed
to
take
into
account
the
inherent
trade-offs
between
social
and
environ-
mental
concerns
(Sunderland
et
al.,
2008).
Recent
decades
have
seen
the
development
of
a
variety
of
landscape
frameworks
by
multiple
authors
(Frost
et
al.,
2006;
Fischer
et
al.,
2008;
Sayer
et
al.,
2013;
Ros-Tonen
et
al.,
2014;
Freeman
et
al.,
2015),
with
the
aim
of
embedding
single-sector
conservation,
agricultural
production
and
other
land
uses
within
broader
landscape-scale
management
strategies.
Such
approaches
are
epitomized
by
the
“Ecosystem
Approach”
of
the
Convention
on
Biological
Diversity,
but
also
include
a
plethora
of
landscape-
scale
initiatives
developed
by
multiple
development
agencies
and
conservation
NGOs
−
for
example:
integrated
water
resource
management,
integrated
rural
development,
and
forest
landscape
restoration
to
name
a
few.
More
recently,
the
emerging
inter-
disciplinary
field
of
sustainability
science
has
strengthened
the
call
for
improved
integration
between
research
disciplines,
pol-
icy,
and
practice
to
better
comprehend
the
complexities—and
connectedness—of
interactions
between
human
and
environmen-
tal
systems
(Kates
et
al.,
2001;
Clark,
2007).
As
developments
in
landscape-scale
management
strategies
continue
to
emerge,
the
sheer
volume
of
approaches
has
resulted
in
a
somewhat
florid
and
confusing
terminologies,
that
has
been
suggested
as
a
contributing
factor
inhibiting
progress
on
implementation
(Scherr
et
al.,
2013;
Waylen
et
al.,
2014;
Mastrangelo
et
al.,
2014;
Reed
et
al.,
2016).
This
has
arguably
led
to
fragmentation
of
knowledge,
unnecessary
re-invention
of
ideas
and
practices,
and
slow
progress
in
gaining
policy
traction
(Scherr
et
al.,
2013).
To
contribute
to
a
resolution
of
this
confusion,
it
is
seemingly
important
to
define
what
a
landscape
approach
is,
and
what
it
is
trying
to
achieve.
This
is,
however,
far
from
straightforward
as
land-
scape
approaches,
and
even
the
term
landscape
itself,
will
mean
different
things
to
different
actors
(Tress
et
al.,
2001).
A
‘landscape’
can
refer
to
either
spatial
and
ecological
characteristics
that
help
define
conservation
and
development
targets,
or
to
governance
and
other
social
interactions
and
mechanisms
that
minimize
conserva-
tion
and
development
trade-offs
(Redford
et
al.,
2003).
A
landscape
approach
can
be
defined
as
a
framework
to
integrate
policy
and
practice
for
multiple
competing
land
uses
through
the
implemen-
tation
of
adaptive
and
integrated
management
systems
(Reed
et
al.,
2015).
However,
as
landscapes,
their
individual
components,
and
the
stakeholders
within
and
around
them
are
unique
and
dynamic,
a
single
management
framework
applied
at
the
landscape
scale
cannot
be
expected
to
be
successfully
applied
across
different
land-
scapes.
Such
frameworks
that
are
proven
to
be
optimal
in
one
landscape
may
well
be
sub-optimal
in
another
and
implementers
must
be
cognizant
of
the
context
specific
nuances
of
their
landscape
of
interest
(Ward
and
Shackleton,
2016).
A
landscape
approach
is
best
considered
as
a
process—as
opposed
to
a
project—but
in
order
to
progress
towards
“outcome”
objectives,
it
is
important
to
recognise
what
those
objectives
are,
who
defines
them,
and
what
mechanisms
can
facilitate
progress
towards
them.
The
general
overarching
objectives
of
the
landscape
approach
are
enhancing
sustainability
and
multi-functionality
within
the
landscape
to
achieve
multiple
outcomes.
Sustainability
should
encompass
social,
economic,
environmental,
cultural,
and
often
political
objectives
and
relate
to
the
ability
of
the
system
of
interest
to
increase
resistance
to
stochastic
changes
and
resilience
to
future
shocks—whether
natural
or
market-induced.
Meanwhile
multi-
functionality
can
refer
to
spatial
segregation
(the
configuration
of
separate
land
units
with
different
functions);
temporal
segregation
(different
functions
on
the
same
unit
of
land
over
time);
or
func-
tional
integration
(multiple
concurrent
functions
operating
on
the
same
unit
of
land)
(Brandt,
2003).
The
landscape
approach
is
more
often
related
to
functional
integration
or
“real
multi-functionality”
and
therefore
implementation
efforts
should
address
the
complex-
ity
of
balancing
the
objectives
of
multiple
stakeholders—potentially
across
a
range
of
sectors
(e.g.
extractive
resources
to
forest
conser-
vation)
and
scales
(e.g.
indigenous
community
to
multi-national
industry
or
policy)
(see
also:
De
Groot,
2006;
Scherr
and
McNeely,
2008;
O’Farrell
and
Anderson,
2010;
Freeman
et
al.,
2015).
The
key
to
landscape
approach
effectiveness
or
progress
therefore,
is
understanding,
and
balancing,
the
needs
and
aspirations
of
land-
scape
stakeholders,
appreciating
that
perceptions
of
what
defines
success
will
vary
amongst
stakeholders,
and
incorporating
these
into
formal
or
informal
decision-making
processes.
This
allows
the
identification
of
situations
where
trade-offs
and
synergies
are
likely
to
occur,
facilitating
negotiation
and
the
application
of
appropriate
adaptive
management
mechanisms.
Such
regular
processes
of
con-
sultation
should
seek
to
aid
the
navigation
of
landscape
change,
ideally
reducing
vulnerability
while
enhancing
resilience
(Folke
et
al.,
2010).
However,
we
acknowledge
that
much
of
the
complex-
ity
is
likely
beyond
the
realms
of
management,
and
a
degree
of
“muddling
through”
will
invariably
be
necessary
(Lindblom,
1959;
Sayer
et
al.,
2008).
Here,
we
aim
to
contribute
to
a
better
understanding
of
the
practicalities
of
implementing
a
landscape
approach
and
the
mech-
anisms
required
for
an
effectively
functioning
process;
thereby
contributing
to
the
ongoing
discourse
on
reconciling
conserva-
tion
and
development
by
evaluating
to
what
extent
landscape
approaches
represent
a
departure
from
the
much-criticized
prior
interventions.
To
achieve
this,
we
critically
reviewed
both
the
scientific
peer-reviewed
and
non-published
(grey)
literature
to
determine
1)
where
terrestrial
landscape
approaches
have
been
applied
in
the
tropics,
2)
whether
conservation
and
development
objectives
have
been
integrated
with
successful
outcomes
for
both,

J.
Reed
et
al.
/
Land
Use
Policy
63
(2017)
481–492
483
3)
whether
landscape
approaches
have
been
effective
in
securing
societal
and
environmental
improvements
(if
any),
4)
which
com-
ponents
of
landscape
approaches
have
contributed
towards
these
improvements,
and
5)
what
are
the
governance
structures
in
place.
The
tropics
represent
a
highly
relevant
focus
area
as
they
con-
tain
many
globally
significant
biodiversity
hotspots
(Myers
et
al.,
2000)
but
also
often
exhibit
high
levels
of
social
and
political
com-
plexity
and
dynamism
(Wilshusen
et
al.,
2002).
While
the
review
process
cannot
uncover
all
of
the
evidence
related
to
integrated
landscape
approaches,
we
understand
this
process
to
be
the
first
attempt
to
aggregate
the
existing
published—and
grey—scientific
knowledge
on
the
subject.
As
such,
this
review
can
complement
local
knowledge
and
other
reviews
that
engage
more
directly
with
practitioners
on
the
ground
(Estrada-Carmona
et
al.,
2014;
Milder
et
al.,
2014;
Kusters,
2015).
Ultimately,
we
aim
to
help
inform
the
development
of
a
clear
strategy
on
landscape-scale
management,
contribute
to
the
integration
of
conservation,
agriculture
and
other
land
uses
into
future
land-use
policies
and
identify
how
landscape
approaches
can
be
best
implemented
to
support
national
commit-
ments
towards
the
Sustainable
Development
Goals
(Van
Vianen
et
al.,
2015)
(https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org).
2.
Methods
This
review
of
landscape
approach
case
studies
in
the
rural
tropics
is
based
upon
a
robust
and
thorough
systematic
assess-
ment
of
both
the
peer-reviewed
and
grey
literature.
This
involved
analysing
16,832
peer-reviewed
articles
retrieved
from
searches
performed
in
September
2014
and
updated
in
November
2015
using
the
specialist
databases
Web
of
Knowledge,
the
Centre
for
Agriculture
and
Bioscience
International
(CABI),
and
Scopus,
with
Google
and
Google
scholar
used
to
test
for
completeness.
A
total
of
488
grey
literature
documents
were
retrieved
via
a
number
of
methods:
a
specific
call
for
grey
literature
distributed
to:
key
research
organisations
(see
supplementary
material
for
details),
the
listserv
Biodiversity-L,
and
international
conferences
(Global
Landscapes
Forum,
Association
for
Tropical
Biodiversity
Conservation,
World
Forestry
Congress);
screening
the
web-
sites
of
key
research
organisations
(as
above)
using
the
search
string:
site:
file:pdf
(“landscape
approach”|“multifunctional
land-
scapes”|“sustainable
agriculture”|“environment
and
development
reconciliation”);
identification
of
documents
via
the
author
group
and
partners
(snowballing
method);
bibliography
screening
of
rel-
evant
peer
and
non-peer-reviewed
articles
(see:
Reed
et
al.,
2015
for
a
detailed
methodology).
At
the
outset
of
the
review,
the
inclusion
criteria
was
necessar-
ily
rudimentary
(see
Table
1).
However,
completing
a
systematic
review
is
an
iterative
process
and
modifications
to
the
protocol
may
be
necessary
(Moher
et
al.,
2014).
We
found
this
to
be
the
case
as
due
to
inconsistencies
in
use
of
terminology
and
a
lack
of
a
universal
definition
for
landscape
approaches,
screening
of
full
text
articles
became
increasingly
subjective
when
limited
to
the
initial
criteria.
As
a
result,
the
review
team
had
multiple
consulta-
tions
throughout
the
screening
process,
discussed
issues
with
other
experts
in
the
field
and
ultimately
used
our
collective
judgement
to
determine
inclusion.
Table
1
presents
both
the
initial
(applied
to
all
articles
at
title
and
abstract
screening)
and
amended
inclusion
cri-
teria
(applied
to
all
articles
at
full
text
screening).
It
is
important
to
note
here
that
studies
that
conformed
to
the
initial
criteria
would
be
included
in
the
review.
The
amended
criteria
was
developed
more
as
a
guide
for
the
reviewers
and
to
encourage
more
detailed
data
extraction
at
full
text
screening.
While
it
was
hoped
for,
it
was
not
a
requirement
that
studies
must
meet
all
of
these
amended
criteria
in
order
to
be
included.
All
studies
were
reviewed
by
at
least
two
reviewers
and
if
consensus
between
the
two
reviewers
was
failed
Table
1
initial
and
adapted
screening
criteria
for
all
peer-reviewed
studies
examined.
Initial
inclusion
criteria
Study
aims
to:
balance
competing
sectorial
or
stakeholder
demands
on
land
at
the
landscape
scale
within
the
tropics
Study
documents:
•evidence
of
integrating
at
least
two
land
uses
•evidence
of
integrating
at
least
two
stakeholders
•outcomes
on
social,
agronomic,
environmental,
or
economic
variables
Amended
inclusion
criteria
Study
details:
an
attempt
to
reconcile
social
and
environmental
objectives
at
the
landscape
scale.
NB:
We
do
not
provide
a
set
scale,
or
spectrum
of
scales,
that
would
define
a
landscape
but
rather
suggest
that
the
landscape
is
a
socio-ecological
system
that
is
large
enough
to
display
heterogeneity
of
land
characteristics
and
small
enough
to
maintain
a
degree
of
manageability
(Berkes
and
Folke,
1998;
Ostrom,
2009;
Torquebiau,
2015;
Denier
et
al.,
2015)
Study
aims
to:
•integrate
agriculture
and
forest
conservation
or
other
competing
land
uses
for
more
optimal,
or
at
least
bet-
ter
balanced,
outcomes.
•assess
and
refine/reform
existing
governance
struc-
tures
within
the
landscape
in
order
to
identify
the
optimal
arrangement
that
encourages
inclusive
nego-
tiation
to
maximize
participation
and
manage
for
potential
conflict.
•be
a
long-term
commitment
to
better
managing
social
and
environmental
concerns
within
the
landscape,
typically
beyond
the
1–3
year
project
cycle.
Study
documents:
evidence
of
engaging
multiple
stakeholders
from
across
scales.
Such
processes
should
illustrate
an
effort
to
assess
the
needs
and
aspirations
of
stakeholders,
and
therefore
be
integral
to
identifying
potential
trade-offs
and
synergies.
NB:
Stakeholders
can
be
defined
“as
people
or
organizations
either
affected
by
the
management
process
or
who
can
affect
it”
(Glicken,
2000;
Hassenforder
et
al.,
2016).
Study
identifies
(and
ideally
implements):
a
set
of
metrics
to
evaluate
progress
and
change
within
the
landscape.
to
achieve
with
regard
to
study
inclusion,
a
third
review
would
be
completed
before
a
consultation
to
determine
inclusion.
The
final
suite
of
studies
for
analysis
comprised
of
24
land-
scape
approach
examples
from
the
peer-reviewed
literature
and
150
from
the
grey
literature
(see
supplementary
material).
These
“landscape
approaches”,
however,
were
often
labelled
differently
within
the
captured
documents
−
for
ease
of
understanding,
if
they
conformed
to
the
criteria
they
were
included
and
are
here-
after
referred
to
as
landscape
approaches.
The
initial
objectives
for
this
review
were
to
first,
identify
where
within
the
tropics
land-
scape
approaches
had
been/were
being
implemented,
and
second,
to
determine
the
characteristics
of
the
interventions.
We
did
not
seek
to
identify
a
measure
of
success
as
landscape
approaches
are
long-term
processes
and
the
interventions
would
likely
be
ongo-
ing,
and
landscape
approaches
are
notoriously
difficult
to
evaluate
due
to
their
complexity.
However,
during
the
screening
of
the
peer-reviewed
documents
we
increasingly
encountered
articles
that
were
indeed
reporting,
or
alluding
to,
successful
outcomes.
Consequently,
we
became
interested
in
both
the
“effectiveness”
of
landscape
approaches
and
also
the
quality
of
the
reporting
of
land-
scape
approaches
−
for
example:
how,
and
by
whom,
is
success
determined;
what
attributes
of
conservation
and
development
are
being
influenced;
and
is
there
sufficient
and
verifiable
data?

484
J.
Reed
et
al.
/
Land
Use
Policy
63
(2017)
481–492
In
order
to
further
explore
these
interests,
we
developed
some
simple
indicators
that
could
represent
positive
characteristics
of
a
landscape
approach
in
practice.
Our
previous
assessment
of
the
lit-
erature
(Reed
et
al.,
2016)
enabled
us
to
identify
a
very
broad
set
of
guidelines,
enabling/pre-conditions,
and
indicators
that—from
a
theoretical
perspective—should
facilitate
progress
on
the
ground.
For
the
purposes
of
this
review
and
in
the
interest
of
manageabil-
ity
and
capacity
we
condensed
these
to
a
few
key
criteria
against
which
to
evaluate
the
implementation
and
progress
of
landscape
approaches
in
the
tropics.
We
consider
landscape
approaches
ought
to
(at
a
minimum)
display
evidence
of
some
or
all
of
the
following:
•Good
pan-tropical
coverage
(to
establish
that
uptake
of
landscape
approaches
is
occurring)
•System
of
governance
(it
is
anticipated
that
a
multi-scale
gov-
ernance
system
would
be
optimal
but,
at
a
minimum,
some
indication
that
some
sort
of
structure
of
governance
in
place)
•Baseline
assessment
(not
limited
to
biophysical
data
collection,
this
might
include
a
negotiated
theory
of
change,
identified
com-
mon
concerns,
evaluation
of
tenure/rights,
household
surveys,
use
of
national
inventory
data
etc.)
•Attempt
to
integrate
conservation
and
development
concerns
at
a
landscape
scale
•Regular
stakeholder
engagement
(this
might
take
the
form
of
a
multi-stakeholder
platform
or
similar)
•Ongoing
assessment
(metrics
and
indicators
for
regular
assess-
ment
of
conservation
and
development
impacts,
mechanisms
to
account
for
dynamic
processes,
use
of
adaptive
management)
•Impact
(does
the
landscape
approach
report
a
measure
of
suc-
cess/failure/lessons
learned)
•Outcome
data
(robust
and
verifiable
qualitative/quantitative
data
to
support
claims
of
success)
While
we
did
not
expect
studies
to
consistently
report
on
all
of
the
criteria
detailed
above,
we
developed
an
Excel
database
to
systematically
capture
any
relevant
information
observed
during
the
literature
screening
process.
Where
possible,
within-cell
drop-
down
options
were
provided
to
enhance
consistency
and
enable
comparative
analysis.
However,
in
part
to
acknowledge
the
diver-
sity
of
landscapes,
the
database
was
“live”
and
reviewers
were
encouraged
to
develop
additional
variable
columns,
or
provide
fur-
ther
comments
of
interest
beyond
the
scope
of
the
outlined
criteria,
as
and
when
required.
This
process
resulted
in
a
final
datasheet
with
a
large
number
of
variables
of
potential
interest
(n
=
76)
but
it
was
rarely
the
case
that
studies
sufficiently
reported
on
all
or
even
the
majority
of
these
variables
and
there
were
numerous
empty
cells
or
missing
data
points
which
is
a
recurring
issue
for
systematic
reviews
within
the
environmental
sciences
(J.
Oldekop,
personal
communication).
This
high
percentage
of
missing
data
limits
our
ability
in
some
elements
of
our
analysis
(see
Results
section
below).
Literature
searches
were
conducted
in
September
2014
and
captured
13,290
peer-reviewed
articles
of
potential
interest.
Sequential
screening
at
title,
abstract,
and
full
text
filtered
this
number
to
82
relevant
articles
from
which
we
found
22
case
studies
for
inclusion.
A
total
of
488
grey
literature
documents
were
retrieved
from
the
following
sources:
call
for
grey
literature
(57
documents);
web
screening
(293
documents);
author
group
and
partners
(56
documents);
bibliographies
of
key
articles
(82
documents).
From
the
488
grey
literature
documents,
150
were
accepted
for
inclusion.
An
updated
literature
search
was
conducted
in
November
2015
to
capture
any
literature
produced
during
the
screening
process.
This
search
produced
3542
articles,
from
which
a
further
two
case
studies
were
included,
giving
a
final
figure
of
16,832
documents
screened
with
174
case
studies
(24
peer-
reviewed)
included
in
the
final
review.
3.
Results
3.1.
Geographic
coverage
of
landscape
approaches
We
found
evidence
of
landscape
approaches
being
implemented
across
the
tropics,
with
51
of
169
tropical
countries
represented
in
the
review
(Fig.
1).
However,
reports
of
landscape
approaches
were
far
more
prevalent
in
the
grey
literature
(n
=
150)
than
in
the
peer-reviewed
literature
(n
=
24).
Furthermore,
both
the
fragmen-
tary
and
simplified
nature
of
the
study
details
in
the
grey
literature
limited
our
ability
to
perform
comparative
analysis
between
the
grey
and
peer-reviewed
for
each
of
our
research
questions
−
in
such
instances
analysis
was
only
performed
on
the
peer-reviewed
material.
For
example,
information
regarding
the
configuration
of
land
uses
within
the
landscape
was
largely
absent
from
the
grey
literature
(see
supplementary
material);
reports
were
often
lim-
ited
to
anticipated,
pilot,
or
recently
formulated
projects;
and
in
many
existing
projects
outcomes
were
reported
but
often
not
sup-
ported
with
the
necessary
data.
As
such,
it
was
often
the
case
that
our
analysis
of
the
data
was
restricted
to
just
the
peer-reviewed
material.
3.2.
Evidence
of
integrating
conservation
and
development
objectives
Due
in
large
part
to
the
focus
of
the
study
being
on
inte-
grated
projects,
overall,
there
was
consistency
across
both
the
peer-reviewed
and
grey
literature
in
attempting
to
integrate
con-
servation
and
development
objectives.
However,
of
note,
we
found,
particularly
from
the
peer-reviewed
material,
that
it
was
often
the
case
(peer
reviewed:
n
=
14)
that
a
project
initially
had
a
single
sector
focus
and
then
evolved—often
in
response
to
chal-
lenges
encountered—to
incorporate
other
objectives
and
thus
developed
characteristics
more
closely
aligned
with
a
landscape
approach
(see
suppplementary
material).
We
found
further
consis-
tency
in
the
reporting—or
more
accurately
lack
thereof—of
baseline
assessements.
Across
the
studies,
evidence
of
any
form
of
basline
assessment
was
rarely
reported
and
when
there
was,
this
typically
consisted
of
“identifying
a
common
concern”
(n
=
16)
as
opposed
to
evidence
of
any
robust
social
or
biophysical
baseline
data.
There
was
insufficient
data
and
reporting
in
the
grey
literatue
to
develop
any
further
analysis
here.
3.3.
Effectiveness
of
landscape
approaches
A
large
proportion
of
both
grey
literature
(44%)
and
peer-
reviewed
(54%)
documents
described
successful
outcomes,
that
is
claiming—typically
within
the
conclusion
of
the
report—that
the
landscape
approach
had
been,
or
was
proving
to
be,
success-
ful
in
the
delivery
of
either,
or
both,
societal
or
environmental
enhancement.
However,
in
the
majority
of
cases
the
evidence
of
reliable
monitoring
and
ongoing
assessment
of
landscape
approach
effectiveness
was
lacking.
We
did
not
identify
any
unsuccessful
examples.
However,
8%
reported
“mixed”
outcomes;
these
were
typically
interventions
that
had
reported
positive
socio-economic
effects
(i.e.
improved
livelihoods)
but
negative
environmental
effects
(i.e.
increased
deforestation)
or
vice
versa.
3.4.
Evidence
of
environmental
or
social
change
“Success”
was
often
unsupported
with
empirical
data,
relying
instead
on
self-reporting
of
anecdotal
evidence
alone.
The
peer-
reviewed
material
presented
numerous
issues
when
it
came
to
the
quality
of
reporting
and
the
presentation
of
reliable
data
with
only
one
quarter
(n
=
6)
of
the
studies
providing
relatively
com-
parable,
reliable
data
(although
only
nine
of
the
150
grey
literature

J.
Reed
et
al.
/
Land
Use
Policy
63
(2017)
481–492
485
Fig.
1.
Geographic
distribution
showing
number
of
integrated
landscape
approaches
in
the
tropics.
a.
peer-reviewed
studies
b.
grey
literature
studies.
The
first
number
indicates
the
amount
of
ILAs
the
point
represents,
the
number
in
brackets
represents
the
number
of
countries
that
have
the
corresponding
amount
of
ILAs.
*Transboundary
studies
are
not
indicated
(peer-reviewed
=
8,
grey
literature
=
14).
documents
provided
similar
evidence).
From
the
peer-reviewed
lit-
erature
we
were
able
to
determine
which
attributes
of
conservation
and
development
had
been
reported
as
being
positively
influenced
through
these
proportedly
successful
interventions.
Despite
this
analysis
only
being
possible
for
half
of
the
24
peer-reviewed
stud-
ies,
the
findings
indicate
that
landscape
approaches
offer
potential
to
positively
influence
a
range
of
socio-economic
and
environmen-
tal
variables
(Fig.
2).
However,
the
small
sample
size—due
to
a
lack
of
sufficient
reporting—should
be
noted
when
interpreting
the
results
presented
in
Fig.
2.
3.5.
Factors
contributing
to
intervention
success
The
results
suggest
that
stakeholder
engagement,
sufficient
institutional
support,
and
effective
structures
of
governance
were
considered
necessary
across
most
case
studies
that
were
reported
as
being
successful
(Fig.
3).
However,
details
of
how
to
effectively
engage
stakeholders
or
utilise
institutional
support
were
mostly
lacking.
3.6.
Evidence
of
governance
structure
in
place
Where
possible
to
determine
(n
=
126–peer-reviewed
and
grey
literature
combined)
we
found
that
a
multi-level
sys-
tem
of
governance—a
hybrid
system
that
marries
traditional
top-down
authoritarian
structures
with
bottom-up
democractic
processes—was
both
most
common
(59%)
and
most
highly
corre-
lated
with
reported
success
(Fig.
4).
Despite
rhetoric
supporting
bottom-up
governance
(see
discussion
below),
we
found
few
exam-
ples
in
practice
(3%)
and
top-down
structures
remain
prevalent
throughout
the
tropics
(38%).
It
is
important
to
note
here
that
stud-
ies
rarely
made
explicit
reference
to
the
governance
structure
in
place
and
reviewers
often
made
an
informed
judgement
call.
The
double
screening
that
was
performed
helped
to
achieve
consen-
sus
between
at
least
two
reviewers.
If
after
consultation
within
the
author
group,
some
doubt
as
to
the
governance
structure
remained
the
study
was
classified
as
not
determined.
4.
Discussion
Recent
papers
present
evidence
suggesting
that
integrated
landscape
approaches
that
aim
to
enhance
conservation
and
devel-
opment
are
being
embraced
across
the
tropics
(Estrada-Carmona
et
al.,
2014;
Milder
et
al.,
2014).
Meanwhile,
conservation
funding
is
increasingly
targeted
at
integrating
conservation
with
devel-
opment
(Miller,
2014)
and
there
is
burgeoning
support
for
the
implementation
of
landscape
approaches
from
international
con-
servation
and
development
agencies,
and
within
global
policy
discussion.
Despite
this,
we
were
unable
to
identify
a
single
landscape
approach
that
adequately
reported—that
is
with
reli-
able,
in
depth
collection
and
reporting
of
data—proven
effective
balancing
of
social
and
environmental
trade-offs
through
multi-
scale
processes
of
negotiation
for
enhanced
outcomes.
Instead,
we
recorded
a
limited
number
of
interventions
from
the
peer-
reviewed
literature
that
displayed
basic
characteristics
of
the
landscape
approach—albeit
often
labeled
differently—and
a
num-

486
J.
Reed
et
al.
/
Land
Use
Policy
63
(2017)
481–492
Fig.
2.
Reported
(a)
environmental
and
(b)
socio-economic
improvements
from
peer-reviewed
studies
(n
=
12).
*Studies
often
reported
on
multiple
outcomes
and
therefore
the
total
number
of
data
points
is
greater
than
the
number
of
studies
resented
here.
ber
of
grey
literature
documents
that
were
either
in
a
formative
stage
or
failed
to
provide
a
level
of
reporting
necessary
for
analysis.
First,
we
question
why
there
is
a
clear
lack
of
evi-
dence
of
the
effectiveness
of
the
landscape
approach
in
the
literature.
We
then
consider
the
significance
of
scale,
structure,
and
objectives
when
attempting
to
integrate
conservation
and
development,
and
finally
we
examine
the
challenges
of
col-
lecting
evidence
of
the
benefits
of
implementing
a
landscape
approach.
4.1.
Lack
of
evidence
of
the
effectiveness
of
landscape
approaches?
Here
we
identify
three
key
reasons
why
there
is
a
lack
of
evi-
dence
about
the
effectiveness
of
landscape
approaches.
First,
the
fact
that
only
15%
of
the
total
number
of
case
studies
identi-
fied
in
this
review
came
from
the
peer-reviewed
literature
could
point
to
a
lack
of
evidence
of
implementation.
While
we
cap-
tured
150
grey
literature
documents,
these
largely
comprised
of
landscape
approaches
that
were
still
in
a
developmental
stage.

J.
Reed
et
al.
/
Land
Use
Policy
63
(2017)
481–492
487
Fig.
3.
Identified
contributing
factors
towards
successful
outcomes
of
peer-reviewed
(n
=
13)
and
grey
literature
studies
(n
=
66).
We
could
speculate
that
landscape
approaches—despite
gaining
support—are
as
yet,
not
being
widely
implemented
in
the
tropics.
It
could
be
that
integrated
landscape
approaches
are
still
evolving
as
a
concept
and
as
such,
implementing
organisations—lacking
the
sufficient
knowledge
that
enables
capacity—retain
a
certain
reluc-
tance
to
commit.
Other
concepts
and
frameworks
that
attempt
to
integrate
conservation
and
development
have
experienced
simi-
lar
“teething
problems”
(Pahl-Wostl,
2002;
Medema
et
al.,
2008),
although,
perhaps
a
key
difference
is
that—as
yet
and
to
the
best
of
our
knowledge—there
appears
little
theoretical
resistance
to
the
concept
of
a
landscape
approach
as
a
viable
implementing
frame-
work.
Yet
it
is
apparent
that
barriers
to
implementation
persist
(Reed
et
al.,
2016)
and
strong
support
for
land
sparing
approaches
to
conservation
remain,
which
is
reflected
in
this
review
in
the
low
number
of
peer-reviewed
landscape
approach
studies
captured.
The
grey
literature
offers
some
cause
for
optimism
in
this
regard
however
with
many
of
these
documents
detailing
pilot
studies,
pro-
posals,
or
implementing
agendas
suggesting
that
commitments
to
implementation
may
be
forthcoming.
The
findings
from
the
peer-reviewed
literature
led
us
to
ques-
tion
further—is
there
a
lack
of
empirical
evidence
of
effectiveness
or
is
the
evidence
simply
not
being
effectively
reported?
The
results
would
suggest
that
there
is
support
for
both
of
these
statements.
It
has
been
reported
previously
that
field
project
implementing
agen-
cies
may
lack
either
the
capacity
to
report
findings
of
sufficient
scientific
rigor
(Sunderland
et
al.,
2009)
or
the
motivation
to
report
failures
in
order
to
not
jeopardize
future
funding
opportunities
(Knight,
2006;
Pullin,
2015).
This
review
found
only
a
small
percent-
age
of
case
studies
in
the
scientific
literature
that
provided
robust
empirical
data
(25%)—despite
often
reporting
successful
project
outcomes
(54%).
An
even
greater
discrepancy
was
found
in
the
grey
literature,
only
6%
of
which
provided
robust
data
while
44%
claimed
success.
Furthermore,
we
did
not
find
a
single
study
that
categorically
demonstrated
a
landscape
approach
that
had
failed
in
its
objectives.
As
a
result,
while
examples
of
lessons
learned
do
exist,
they
remain
disappointingly
few
and
far
between
(Browder,
2002;
Laumonier
et
al.,
2008;
Nyame
et
al.,
2012;
Sunderland
et
al.,
2012;
Castella
et
al.,
2014).
Moreover,
the
lack
of
negative
out-
comes
suggests
a
reporting
bias
(see:
McGauran
et
al.,
2010)
that
could
be
partly
explained
by
both
the
tendency
of
scientific
studies
to
favour
reporting
of
positive
findings
and
the
continued
trend
of
short-term,
small-scale
projects
that
rarely
demand
evidence
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
interventions
(Pullin,
2015).
The
typical
three
year
time
horizon
is
sufficient
for
the
production
of
a
summary
paper,
methods
paper,
or
recommendation
for
future
research
but
it
is
perhaps
insufficient
for
documenting
and
detailing
any
long-term
change
induced
from
the
intervention.
Conversely,
long-term
interventions
across
large
landscapes
that
are
difficult
to
assess
will
require
greater
human
and
financial
investment
to
mon-
itoring
and
evaluation
(M&E)
in
order
to
identify
outcomes
that
may
not
be
immediately
obvious
or
available
and
will
likely
change
over
time.
In
both
scenarios,
there
is
a
significant
disincentive
to
invest
in
inclusive
monitoring
and
reporting
of
results.
This
paucity
of
“scientifically
supported”
landscape
approach
case
studies
could
further
be
attributed
to
the
lack
of
a
universal
definition
and
guiding
framework
for
implementation
(Sayer
et
al.,
2013).
Although
multiple
authors
have
proposed
definitions
(e.g.
Barrett
and
Peles,
1994;
Sandker
et
al.,
2010;
Kutter
and
Westby,
2014;
Reed
et
al.,
2015),
they
have
mostly
failed
to
capture
the
bal-
ance
of
providing
the
necessary
level
of
detail
with
sufficient
brevity
that
will
likely
be
required
to
garner
universal
support.
Similarly,
the
scientific
literature
is
replete
with
examples
of
guiding
frame-
works,
implementing
proposals
and
recommended
future
research
agendas
(Brandon
and
Wells,
1992;
Naveh,
2001;
Fischer
et
al.,
2006;
Frost
et
al.,
2006;
Keough
and
Blahna,
2006;
Chazdon
et
al.,
2009;
McShane
et
al.,
2011;
Sayer
et
al.,
2013;
Milder
et
al.,
2014;
Freeman
et
al.,
2015)
which
despite
showing
overlaps
have
failed
to
instill
consensus
within
the
research
or
practitioner
communi-
ties.
We
have
previously
speculated
that
the
clamour
to
define,
refine,
and
re-brand
seemingly
replicate
iterations
of
landscape
approaches
may
ultimately
be
impeding
efforts
towards
imple-
mentation
and
in
fact
disengaging
policymakers
(Redford
et
al.,
2013;
Scherr
et
al.,
2013;
Reed
et
al.,
2016;
Chazdon
and
Laestadius,
2016).
While
we
accept
the
need
to
further
develop
guiding
cri-

488
J.
Reed
et
al.
/
Land
Use
Policy
63
(2017)
481–492
Fig.
4.
reported
successes
of
all
landscape
interventions
(grey
literature
and
peer-reviewed)
and
the
proportion
of
governance
structure
types
that
the
interventions
used
(n
=
174).
teria
for
implementation,
we
encourage
collaborative
efforts
that
subsequently
follow
up
with
commitments
to
implement.
More-
over,
the
fundamental
importance
of
recognising
context-specific
nuances
(Ward
and
Shackleton,
2016)—reduces
the
relevance
of
an
unambiguous
definition
or
universal
framework
as
a
degree
of
pluralism
is
always
likely
to
exist
and
should
perhaps
even
be
encouraged.1
1http://blog.cifor.org/23834/landscape-approach-defies-simple-definition-and-
thats-good#.VPgbrzSUdKo.
4.2.
The
significance
of
scale,
structure,
and
objectives
Recognising
a
common
concern
when
implementing
a
land-
scape
approach
links
to
both
the
contributing
factors
to
success
and
project
focus
findings
of
this
review.
An
agreed
acknowledge-
ment
of
a
resource
limitation
(common
concern)
was
identified
as
being
a
factor
towards
project
success
in
38%
of
peer-reviewed
studies.
Meanwhile,
the
project
focus
findings
suggest
that
inte-
grated
approaches
may
still
retain
a
limited
spatial
and
sectoral
focus.
For
example,
from
across
the
24
peer-reviewed
studies,
there
were
18
landscape
features
(see
supplementary
material)
docu-
mented
as
being
forested
areas
that
were
under
some
form
of
protection
(PAs,
NPs,
reserves,
or
exclosures).
This
raises
questions

J.
Reed
et
al.
/
Land
Use
Policy
63
(2017)
481–492
489
of
whether
landscape
approaches
are
restricted
by
administra-
tive
boundaries
and
whether
we
have
learned
from
the
lessons
of
previous
efforts
at
integrating
conservation
and
development,
such
as
ICDPs
for
example
that
were
criticized
for
being
too
local-
ized
in
focus
(Wells
and
McShane,
2004;
McShane
et
al.,
2011).
It
has
been
suggested
that
maintaining
a
narrow
focus
primarily
on
protected
areas
for
forest/biodiversity
conservation
or
buffer
zone
management
inadequately
accounts
for
local
social
develop-
ment
and
therefore
risks
further
marginalizing
vulnerable
groups
(Adams
et
al.,
2004;
Lockwood
et
al.,
2012).
We
acknowledge
that
the
project
focus
findings
could
be
conceived
as
a
limitation
in
the
search
strategy.
For
example,
had
we
included
REDD/REDD+
in
the
search
strings
we
would
clearly
have
generated
many
more
projects
with
an
emissions
reduction
focus.
However,
when
we
designed
the
search
stategy
it
was
with
the
objective
of
capturing
landscape
approaches
that
were
distinct
from
both
prior
integrated
approaches
to
conservation
and
development
and
the
REDD
dis-
course,
despite
some
evidence
of
their
potential
connectedness
(Blom
et
al.,
2010;
McCall,
2016).
Implementing
a
landscape
approach
requires
managing
mul-
tiple
layers
of
complexity
and
in
all
likelihood
the
ability
to
align
local
needs
and
capacities
with
regional,
national,
and
global
objec-
tives
and
commitments
(Browder,
2002;
McShane
et
al.,
2011;
Chia
and
Sufo,
2015;
Reed
et
al.,
2015).
Multi-level
structures
that
foster
cross-scale
and
cross-sectoral
dialogue
may
be
the
most
appro-
priate
method
for
governance
of
multiple
resources
(Colfer
and
Pfund,
2011;
Torfing,
2012;
Ros-Tonen
et
al.,
2014).
It
is
encour-
aging
that
we
found
a
significant
proportion
of
studies
reporting
a
multi-level
governance
structure.
Further,
multi-level
governance
appears
to
translate
well
to
the
delivery
of
positive
conserva-
tion
and
development
outcomes.
Given
the
rhetoric
in
support
of
bottom-up
approaches
to
landscape
management
(Ostrom
et
al.,
1999;
Pretty,
2003)—which
is
also
supported
in
part
by
the
factors
for
success
identified
in
this
review
below—it
is
perhaps
surprising
that
we
found
so
few
examples
of
community-based
or
bottom-up
approaches.
However,
it
could
be
speculated
that
where
bottom-
up
approaches
have
been
effective
there
may
not
be
the
capacity
or
motivation
to
monitor
or
report
on
them.
Furthermore—although
perhaps
not
so
surprising
given
the
ongoing
trajectory
of
devel-
opment
and
governance
reform
within
the
tropics—we
found
top-down
governance
structures
maintain
a
high
degree
of
preva-
lence.
Some
of
the
literature
suggests
that
top-down
governance
can
be
effective
for
addressing
sector-specific
conservation
goals
(Ibrahim
et
al.,
2010;
Nepstad
et
al.,
2014),
and
our
analysis
shows
there
to
be
a
good
relationship
with
48%
of
studies
adopting
this
system
reporting
successful
outcomes.
However,
landscape
approaches
that
adopt—or
are
embedded
within—a
top-down
gov-
ernance
structure
are
counter
to
its
basic
premise
that
promotes
open
and
transparent
negotiation
processes
across
all
scales
from
the
outset.
If
the
implementing
agency
enters
negotiations
with
a
pre-conceived
agenda
and
list
of
objectives,
it
needs
to
be
ques-
tioned
whether
the
intervention
actually
represents
a
landscape
approach
−
i.e.
an
approach
that
attempts
to
balance
trade-offs
across
multiple
actors
and
scales
and
in
particular
recognizes
the
needs
and
aspirations
of
local
stakeholders.
Ideally
landscape
approaches
should
have
continual
adjustment
with
short
and
mid-term
objectives
to
assess
progress
(Sayer
et
al.,
2013).
Therefore
the
production
of
(regular)
progress
assessment
reports
that
detail
both
successes
and
also
failings
would
be
use-
ful
to
enhance
understanding
of
what
works
and
why.
Our
findings
clearly
suggest
there
is
a
requirement
for
further
evidence
of
what
works,
but
that
there
is
perhaps
a
greater
need
for
examples
of
lessons
learned
when
projects
might
have
failed
in
their
objec-
tives
or
produced
unexpected
outcomes
(Knight,
2006;
Sunderland
et
al.,
2009;
Clark
et
al.,
2016).
Only
trial
by
experimentation
will
enable
us
to
measure
effectiveness
and
only
by
identifying
fail-
ures
will
we
be
able
to
adapt.
While
it
is
important
to
evaluate
the
cost-benefit
trade-offs
when
the
approach
is
applied
(in
terms
of
balancing
social
and
environmental
objectives)
we
should
also
acknowledge
the
cost/benefit
trade-off
of
actually
applying
the
approach
(in
terms
of
success
and
failure).
Knowledge
will
not
only
be
informed
by
success
and
so
the
cost
of
applying
the
approach
may
actually
be
traded
off
against
the
benefit
of
the
knowledge
acquired
from
a
“failed”
attempt
at
implementation.
4.3.
Collecting
and
reporting
the
evidence
In
light
of
the
difficulties
surrounding
monitoring
of
landscape
approaches
(Sunderland
et
al.,
2012),
the
number
of
studies
cap-
tured
in
this
review
that
reported
project
successes
was
surprising.
At
conception
the
review
objective
was
to
merely
report
where
and
how
landscape
approaches
were
being
implemented.
A
mea-
sure
of
success
or
project
outcome
was
not
considered
a
priority
as
we
anticipated
the
projects
we
found
would
be
largely
ongo-
ing
processes—an
acknowledgement
of
landscape
approaches
as
long-term
endeavors.
However,
we
increasingly
found
projects
reporting
or
alluding
to
measured
outcomes—albeit
often
not
sup-
ported
by
empirical
data.
While
it
is
encouraging
to
show
that
landscape
approaches
have
the
capacity
to
positively
influence
societal
and
environmental
attributes,
the
large
proportion
of
suc-
cessful
outcomes
demands
some
scrutiny.
There
is
definite
concern
of
publication
and
methodological
bias
here
(Dickersin,
1990)
−
are
journals,
researchers
and
organisations
more
likely
to
pub-
lish
positive
findings?
And
if
this
is
the
case,
should
research
be
judged
on
its
ability
to
achieve
a
set
of
pre-conceived
criteria?
While
for
small-scale
studies
over
short
time
frames
this
may
be
an
acceptable—although
not
preferable—model,
if
a
landscape
approach
is
to
be
accepted
as
a
process
and
not
a
project
(Reed
et
al.,
2016)
then
a
model
that
does
not
explicitly
demand
out-
come
results
should
be
considered.
While
such
a
model
may
cause
alarm
for
donors
or
investors
in
landscape
approaches,
we
con-
tend
that
an
inclusive
and
regular
process
of
defining
objectives,
measuring
progress,
and
re-evaluating
will
better
maintain
com-
mitment
to
the
approach
(see
Sayer
et
al.,
2016b).
Longer
term
outcomes
will
inevitably
change
over
time
as
different
driver
and
actor
constellations
form
and
should
necessarily
be
revisited
and
reconsidered.
Options
to
improve
reporting
of
results
have
been
identified
and
must
continue
to
be
developed
to
both
enhance
current
under-
standing
and
inform
future
implementation
efforts
and
policy
recommendations
(Shanley
and
López,
2009).
There
is
certainly
a
need
to
produce
sets
of
reliable
metrics
and
indicators
for
assess-
ing
landscape
approaches
and
there
appears
to
remain
an
element
of
an
inability
to
measure
restricting
the
ability
to
report
(Stiglitz
et
al.,
2010).
However,
the
growing
body
of
literature
on
monitoring
tools
for
integrated
approaches
(Bond
and
Mukherjee,
2002;
Buck
et
al.,
2006;
Kusters
et
al.,
2006;
Aldrich
and
Sayer,
2007;
Sayer
et
al.,
2008;
Belcher
et
al.,
2013)
ought
to
provide
better
means
for
meeting
these
requirements
and
tackling
the
issues
going
forward
that
this
review
has
identified.
A
further
challenge
lies
in
building
and
maintaining
local
capacity
to
commit
to
long-term
monitoring
initiatives
−
particularly
beyond
the
typical
project
time
horizon.
However,
emerging
evidence
from
REDD+
pilot
projects
suggests
that
when
such
commitment
can
be
achieved,
community
col-
lected
data
can
contribute
significantly
to
monitoring
and
reporting
efforts
(Bellfield
et
al.,
2015).
Finally,
it
may
also
be
the
case
that
insufficient
investment
in
monitoring
either
historically
or
cur-
rently
may
have
contributed
to
projects
failing
to
reliably
test
effectiveness.
Certainly
if
are
we
to
use
conservation
as
a
guide,
a
recent
survey
supports
this
assertion
with
only
five
percent
of
projects
performing
robust
monitoring
and
evaluation
(Muir,
2010).
Similarly,
recent
estimates
of
the
financial
investment
in

490
J.
Reed
et
al.
/
Land
Use
Policy
63
(2017)
481–492
monitoring
have
also
been
estimated
as
five
percent
of
the
total
project
spend.
From
the
peer-reviewed
articles
captured
in
this
review,
it
was
surprising
that
despite
the
fact
that
there
are
so
few
papers
with
examples
of
landscape
approaches
in
the
tropics,
there
is
such
inconsistency
in
reporting.
We
encountered
numerous
examples
of
studies
not
providing
reliable
social
(qualitative)
or
biophysical
(quantitative)
data;
not
reliably
detailing
the
landscape
configura-
tion;
and
not
providing
the
necessary
detail
on
type
of
governance
structure
or
reform
process
(see
also
Kusters
et
al.
in
review).
Per-
haps
this
is
due
to
the
lack
of
previous
studies
and
therefore
an
identifiable
“gold
standard”
or
prototype
for
reporting
remains
lacking
but
clearly
the
monitoring
and
reporting
of
such
interven-
tions
demands
greater
attention.
Again,
acknowledging
landscape
context
renders
the
development
and
application
of
a
monitoring
or
reporting
blueprint
unlikely,
and
even
unwelcome.
However,
if
projects
are
not
being
sufficiently
analyzed,
reported
and
sub-
jected
to
the
peer-review
process,
it
is
difficult
to
draw
conclusions
or
make
meaningful
policy
recommendations
−
from
the
limited,
robust,
peer-reviewed
evidence
we
have
collected
we
can
outline
a
normative
set
of
recommendations
but
until
these
are
tested
in
contextualized
situations,
we
cannot
be
sure
of
their
effectiveness
(see
also
McCall,
2016).
5.
Conclusion
This
review
of
landscape
approaches
in
the
tropics
suggests
that
this
latest
attempt
to
reconcile
societal
and
environmental
concerns
has
considerable
potential
as
an
implementing
frame-
work.
While
we
have
failed
to
provide
a
series
of
quintessential
examples
of
the
approach
in
practice,
we
have
identified
numer-
ous
examples
of
interventions
that
show
positive
characteristics
of
a
landscape
approach.
Our
findings
suggest
that
contextual-
ized
landscape
approaches
can
enhance
multiple
socio-economic
and
environmental
outcomes.
This
synthesis
also
makes
a
signifi-
cant
contribution
to
future
implementation
efforts
by
tentatively
identifying
which
factors
are
likely
to
influence
social
and
envi-
ronmental
change.
However,
we
have
also
identified
a
number
of
concerns.
Foremost
amongst
these
is
that
landscape
approaches
remain
an
attractive
concept
in
theory
but
the
current
evidence
base
is
lacking
in
the
necessary
precision
to
adequately
assess
the
effectiveness
in
practice.
There
have
been
suggestions
that
the
landscape
approach
might
possibly
represent
the
latest
conserva-
tion/development
“fad”
(Redford
et
al.,
2013).
However,
until
the
concept
has
been
further
tested
and
evaluated
this
is
at
best
redun-
dant
and
at
worst,
an
impediment
to
making
real
progress
towards
integrating
conservation
and
development.
Attempts
to
implement
a
landscape
approach
are
inherently
complex
as
they
are
often
large-scale
and
encompass
multiple
stakeholders
from
across
sectors
and
therefore
are
likely
to
involve
marked
asymmetries
in
power
and
influence.
They
are
also
very
dif-
ficult
to
assess
requiring
both
biophysical
and
social
data
collection
and
analysis,
as
well
as
the
analysis
of
existing
governance
struc-
ture,
and
understanding
the
processes
of
governance
reform
and
possible
drivers
of
change.
Landscape
approaches
are
also
risky
as
they
are
often
expensive
and
yet
may
fail
to
deliver
tangible
social,
economic,
or
environmental
outcomes,
especially
over
the
short
term.
However,
without
innovative
and
long-term
commitments
to
implement,
test,
and
evaluate,
there
is
a
danger
of
being
caught
in
a
cycle
of
continually
defining
and
re-fining
the
conceptualization
of
landscape
approaches
until
interest
is
lost
or
the
next
iteration
of
integrated
resource
management
and
social
development
is
con-
ceived
(cf.
Redford
et
al.,
2013).
Such
efforts
at
implementation
should
be
cognizant
of
these
challenges,
have
mechanisms
embed-
ded
that
acknowledge
the
potential
for
unsatisfactory
outcomes,
and
apply
the
principles
of
adaptive
management
accordingly.
While
landscape
approaches
remain
epistemologically
contentious
(Sayer
et
al.,
2016a),
researchers
must
be
afforded
the
time
to
fur-
ther
develop
their
conceptualization,
and
yet
all
stakeholders
must
be
encouraged
to
utilize
the
current
body
of
knowledge
to
apply
and
evaluate
the
approach
in
practice.
If
we
cannot
translate
knowl-
edge
into
practice,
how
can
we
ever
expect
to
translate
science
into
policy?
Acknowledgements
This
study
is
part
of
the
CGIAR
Research
Program
on
Forests,
Trees
and
Agroforestry
(CRP-FTA).
This
collaborative
programme
aims
to
enhance
the
management
and
use
of
forests,
agroforestry
and
tree
genetic
resources
across
the
landscape
from
forests
to
farms.
CIFOR
leads
CRP-FTA
in
partnership
with
Bioversity
Inter-
national,
CATIE,
CIRAD
and
the
International
Center
for
Tropical
Agriculture
and
the
World
Agroforestry
Centre.
Funding
for
this
study
was
provided
by
the
United
Kingdom’s
Department
for
Inter-
national
Development
(DfID)
and
the
United
States
Agency
for
International
Development
(USAID).
We
are
very
grateful
for
the
comments
provided
by
two
anonymous
reviewers
that
improved
this
manuscript.
References
Adams,
W.M.,
Aveling,
R.,
Brockington,
D.,
Dickson,
B.,
Elliott,
J.,
Hutton,
J.,
Roe,
D.,
Vira,
B.,
Wolmer,
W.,
2004.
Biodiversity
conservation
and
the
eradication
of
poverty.
Science
(80-.)
306,
1146–1149,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.
1097920.
Aldrich,
M.,
Sayer,
J.,
2007.
Practice:
Landscape
Outcomes
Assessment
Methodology
LOAM.
WWF
Forests
for
Life
Programme.
Barrett,
G.W.,
Peles,
J.D.,
1994.
Optimizing
habitat
fragmentation:
an
agrolandscape
perspective.
Landsc.
Urban
Plan.
28,
99–105.
Belcher,
B.,
Bastide,
F.,
Castella,
J.C.,
Boissiere,
M.,
2013.
Development
of
a
Village-Level
Livelihood
Monitoring
Tool
A
Case-Study
in
Viengkham
District,
LAO
PDR:
Desarrollo
de
una
herramienta
de
monitoreo
de
medios
de
subsistencia
a
escala
de
comunidad:
un
estudio
de
caso
del
distrito
de
Viengkham,
RDP
Lao.
Int.
For.
Rev.
15,
48–59.
Bellfield,
H.,
Sabogal,
D.,
Goodman,
L.,
Leggett,
M.,
2015.
Case
study
report:
community-based
monitoring
systems
for
REDD+
in
Guyana.
Forest,
133–156,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f6010133.
Blom,
B.,
Sunderland,
T.,
Murdiyarso,
D.,
2010.
Getting
REDD
to
work
locally:
lessons
learned
from
integrated
conservation
and
development
projects.
Environ.
Sci.
Policy,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.01.002.
Bond,
R.,
Mukherjee,
N.,
2002.
Livelihood
asset
status
tracking:
an
impact
monitoring
tool?
J.
Int.
Dev.
14,
805–815.
Brandon,
K.E.,
Wells,
M.,
1992.
Planning
for
people
and
parks:
design
dilemmas.
World
Dev.
20,
557–570,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(92)90044-V.
Brandt,
J.,
2003.
Multifunctional
landscapes
−
perspectives
for
the
future.
J.
Environ.
Sci.
15,
187–192.
Browder,
J.O.,
2002.
Conservation
and
development
projects
in
the
Brazilian
Amazon:
lessons
from
the
community
initiative
program
in
Rondonia.
Environ.
Manag.
29,
750–762,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-001-2613-3.
Brundtland,
G.,
Khalid,
M.,
Agnelli,
S.,
Al-Athel,
S.,
Chidzero,
B.,
Fadika,
L.,
Hauff,
V.,
Lang,
I.,
Shijun,
M.,
de
Botero,
M.M.,
et
al.,
1987.
Our
common
future
($$’brundtland
report$$’).
Buck,
L.E.,
Milder,
J.C.,
Gavin,
T.A.,
Mukherjee,
I.,
2006.
Understanding
Ecoagriculture:
a
Framework
for
Measuring
Landscape
Performance.
Ecoagriculture
Landsc.
Meas.
Proj.
Intl.
Steer.
Commiteee,
USA.
Castella,
J.C.,
Bourgoin,
J.,
Lestrelin,
G.,
Bouahom,
B.,
2014.
A
model
of
the
science-practice-policy
interface
in
participatory
land-use
planning:
lessons
from
Laos.
Landsc.
Ecol.
29,
1095–1107,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-
014-0043-x.
Chazdon,
R.L.,
Laestadius,
L.,
2016.
Forest
and
landscape
restoration:
toward
a
shared
vision
and
vocabulary.
Am.
J.
Bot.
1
(103),
1869–1871,
http://dx.doi.org/
10.3732/ajb.1600294.
Chazdon,
R.L.,
Harvey,
C.A.,
Komar,
O.,
Griffith,
D.M.,
Ferguson,
B.G.,
Martínez-Ramos,
M.,
Morales,
H.,
Nigh,
R.,
Soto-Pinto,
L.,
Breugel,
M.,
Philpott,
van,
2009.
Beyond
reserves:
a
research
agenda
for
conserving
biodiversity
in
human-modified
tropical
landscapes.
Biotropica
41,
142–153,
http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2008.00471.x.
Chia,
E.L.,
Sufo,
R.K.,
2015.
A
situational
analysis
of
Cameroon’s
Technical
Operation
Units
(TOUs)
in
the
context
of
the
landscape
approach:
critical
issues
and
perspectives.
Environ.
Dev.
Sustain.
1–14,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-
015-9688-0.
Clark,
W.C.,
van
Kerkhoff,
L.,
Lebel,
L.,
Gallopin,
G.C.,
2016.
Crafting
usable
knowledge
for
sustainable
development.
Proc.
Natl.
Acad.
Sci.
113,
4570–4578.

J.
Reed
et
al.
/
Land
Use
Policy
63
(2017)
481–492
491
Clark,
W.C.,
2007.
Sustainability
science:
a
room
of
its
own.
Proc.
Natl.
Acad.
Sci.
104,
1737.
Colfer,
C.J.P.,
Pfund,
J.-L.,
2011.
Collaborative
Governance
of
Tropical
Landscapes.
Routledge.
De
Groot,
R.,
2006.
Function-analysis
and
valuation
as
a
tool
to
assess
land
use
conflicts
in
planning
for
sustainable:
multi-functional
landscapes.
Landsc.
Urban
Plan.
75,
175–186.
Denier,
L.,
Scherr,
S.,
Shames,
S.,
Chatterton,
P.,
Hovani,
L.,
Stam,
N.,
2015.
The
Little
Sustainable
Landscapes
Book.
Global
Canopy
Programme,
Oxford.
Dickersin,
K.,
1990.
The
existence
of
publication
bias
and
risk
factors
for
its
occurrence.
JAMA
263,
1385–1389.
Estrada-Carmona,
N.,
Hart,
A.K.,
DeClerck,
F.A.J.,
Harvey,
C.A.,
Milder,
J.C.,
2014.
Integrated
landscape
management
for
agriculture,
rural
livelihoods,
and
ecosystem
conservation:
an
assessment
of
experience
from
Latin
America
and
the
Caribbean.
Landsc.
Urban
Plan.
129,
1–11.
Fischer,
J.,
Lindenmayer,
D.B.,
Manning,
A.D.,
2006.
Biodiversity,
ecosystem
function,
and
resilience:
ten
guiding
principles
for
commodity
production
landscapes.
Front.
Ecol.
Environ.
4,
80–86.
Fischer,
J.,
Brosi,
B.,
Daily,
G.C.,
Ehrlich,
P.R.,
Goldman,
R.,
Goldstein,
J.,
Lindenmayer,
D.B.,
Manning,
A.D.,
Mooney,
H.a.,
Pejchar,
L.,
Ranganathan,
J.,
Tallis,
H.,
2008.
Should
agricultural
policies
encourage
land
sparing
or
wildlife-friendly
farming?
Front.
Ecol.
Environ.
6,
380–385,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/070019.
Folke,
C.,
Carpenter,
S.R.,
Walker,
B.,
Scheffer,
M.,
Chapin,
T.,
Rockstrom,
J.,
2010.
Resilience
thinking:
integrating
resilience,
adaptability
and
transformability.
Forman,
R.T.,
1995.
Some
general
principles
of
landscape
and
regional
ecology.
Landsc.
Ecol.
10
(3),
133–142.
Freeman,
O.E.,
Duguma,
L.A.,
Minang,
P.A.,
2015.
Operationalizing
the
integrated
landscape
approach
in
practice.
Ecol.
Soc.
20,
24ff.
Frost,
P.,
Campbell,
B.,
Medina,
G.,
Usongo,
L.,
2006.
Landscape-scale
approaches
for
integrated
natural
resource
management
in
tropical
forest
landscapes.
Centre
Int.
For.
Res.
11.
Görg,
C.,
2007.
Landscape
governance:
the
politics
of
scale
and
the
natural
conditions
of
places.
Geoforum
38,
954–966,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoforum.2007.01.004.
Garnett,
S.T.,
Sayer,
J.,
Du
Toit,
J.,
2007.
Improving
the
effectiveness
of
interventions
to
balance
conservation
and
development:
a
conceptual
framework.
Ecol.
Soc.
12,
2
([online]
URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
2).
Glamann,
J.,
Hanspach,
J.,
Abson,
J.,
Collier,
N.,
Fischer,
J.,
2015.
The
intersection
of
food
security
and
biodiversity
conservation:
a
review.
Reg.
Environ.
Change,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0873-3.
Glicken,
J.,
2000.
Getting
stakeholder
participation
right:
a
discussion
of
participatory
processes
and
possible
pitfalls.
Environ.
Sci.
Policy
3,
305–310,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(00)00105-2.
Hassenforder,
E.,
Pittock,
J.,
Barreteau,
O.,
Anne,
K.,
Ferrand,
N.,
2016.
The
MEPPP
framework:
a
framework
for
monitoring
and
evaluating
participatory
planning
processes.
Environ.
Manag.
57,
79–96,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-
0599-5.
Hughes,
R.,
Flintan,
F.,
2001.
Integrating
Conservation
and
Development
Experience:
A
Review
and
Bibliography
of
the
ICDP
Literature
(Report).
International
Institute
for
Environment
and
Development,
London,
UK.
Ibrahim,
M.,
Porro,
R.,
Mauricio,
R.M.,
2010.
Brazil
and
Costa
Rica:
deforestation
and
livestock
expansion
in
the
Brazilian
Legal
Amazon
and
Costa
Rica:
drivers,
environmental
degradation,
and
policies
for
sustainable
land
management.
Livestock
in
a
changing
landscape,
Volume
2:
experiences
and
regional
perspectives.
CABI,
pp.
74–95.
Kates,
R.W.,
Clark,
W.C.,
Corell,
R.,
Hall,
J.M.,
Jaeger,
C.C.,
Lowe,
I.,
McCarthy,
J.J.,
Schellnhuber,
H.J.,
Bolin,
B.,
Dickson,
N.M.,
et
al.,
2001.
Sustainability
science.
Science
(80-.)
292,
641–642.
Keough,
H.L.,
Blahna,
D.J.,
2006.
Achieving
integrative,
collaborative
ecosystem
management.
Conserv.
Biol.
20,
1373–1382,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-
1739.2006.00445.x.
Kingsland,
S.E.,
2002.
Creating
a
science
of
nature
reserve
design:
perspectives
from
history.
Environ.
Model.
Assess.
7,
61–69,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
A:1015633830223.
Knight,
A.T.,
2006.
Failing
but
learning:
writing
the
wrongs
after
redford
and
taber.
Conserv.
Biol.
20,
1312–1314,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.
00366.x.
Kusters,
K.,
Achdiawan,
R.,
Belcher,
B.,
Pérez,
M.R.,
2006.
Balancing
development
and
conservation?
An
assessment
of
livelihood
and
environmental
outcomes
of
nontimber
forest
product
trade
in
Asia,
Africa,
and
Latin
America.
Ecol.
Soc.
11.
Kusters,
K.,
2015.
Climate-smart
Landscapes
and
the
Landscape
Approach
−An
Exploration
of
the
Concepts
and
Their
Practical
Implications.
Tropenbos
International,
Wageningen,
the
Netherlands.
Kutter,
A.,
Westby,
L.D.,
2014.
Managing
rural
landscapes
in
the
context
of
a
changing
climate.
Dev.
Pract.
24,
544–558.
Laumonier,
Y.,
Bourgeois,
R.,
Pfund,
J.,
2008.
Accounting
for
the
ecological
dimension
in
participatory
research
and
development:
lessons
learned
from
Indonesia
and
Madagascar.
Ecol.
Soc.
13
(1),
15.
Lindblom,
C.E.,
1959.
The
science
of
“muddling
through”.
Public
administration
review,
pp.
79–88.
Lindenmayer,
D.,
Hobbs,
R.J.,
Montague-Drake,
R.,
Alexandra,
J.,
Bennett,
A.,
Burgman,
M.,
Cale,
P.,
Calhoun,
A.,
Cramer,
V.,
Cullen,
P.,
Driscoll,
D.,
Fahrig,
L.,
Fischer,
J.,
Franklin,
J.,
Haila,
Y.,
Hunter,
M.,
Gibbons,
P.,
Lake,
S.,
Luck,
G.,
MacGregor,
C.,
McIntyre,
S.,
Nally,
R.M.,
Manning,
A.,
Miller,
J.,
Mooney,
H.,
Noss,
R.,
2008.
A
checklist
for
ecological
management
of
landscapes
for
conservation.
Ecol.
Lett.
11,
78–91.
Lockwood,
M.,
Worboys,
G.,
Kothari,
A.,
2012.
Managing
Protected
Areas:
a
Global
Guide.
Routledge.
Margules,
C.,
Higgs,
A.J.,
Rafe,
R.W.,
1982.
Modern
biogeographic
theory:
are
there
any
lessons
for
nature
reserve
design?
Biol.
Conserv.
24,
115–128,
http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(82)90063-5.
Mastrangelo,
M.E.,
Weyland,
F.,
Villarino,
S.H.,
Barral,
M.P.,
Nahuelhual,
L.,
Laterra,
P.,
2014.
Concepts
and
methods
for
landscape
multifunctionality
and
a
unifying
framework
based
on
ecosystem
services.
Landsc.
Ecol.
29,
345–358,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9959-9.
McCall,
M.K.,
2016.
Beyond
landscape
in
REDD+:
the
imperative
for
territory.
World
Dev.
85,
58–72,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.05.001.
McGauran,
N.,
Wieseler,
B.,
Kreis,
J.,
Schüler,
Y.-B.,
Kölsch,
H.,
Kaiser,
T.,
2010.
Reporting
bias
in
medical
research
−
a
narrative
review.
Trials
11,
37,
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-11-37.
McShane,
T.O.,
Hirsch,
P.D.,
Trung,
T.C.,
Songorwa,
a.N.,
Kinzig,
a.,
Monteferri,
B.,
Mutekanga,
D.,
Thang,
H.V.,
Dammert,
J.L.,
Pulgar-Vidal,
M.,
Welch-Devine,
M.,
Brosius,
J.P.,
Coppolillo,
P.,
O’Connor,
S.,
2011.
Hard
choices:
making
trade-offs
between
biodiversity
conservation
and
human
well-being.
Biol.
Conserv.
144,
966–972,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038.
Medema,
W.,
McIntosh,
B.S.,
Jeffrey,
P.J.,
2008.
From
premise
to
practice:
a
critical
assessment
of
integrated
water
resources
management
and
adaptive
management
approaches
in
the
water
sector.
Ecol.
Soc.
29.
Milder,
J.C.,
Hart,
A.K.,
Dobie,
P.,
Minai,
J.,
Zaleski,
C.,
2014.
Integrated
landscape
initiatives
for
african
agriculture,
development,
and
conservation:
a
region-wide
assessment.
World
Dev.
54,
68–80,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2013.07.006.
Miller,
D.C.,
2014.
Explaining
global
patterns
of
international
aid
for
linked
biodiversity
conservation
and
development.
World
Dev.
59,
341–359,
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.01.004.
Moher,
D.,
Liberati,
A.,
Tetzlaff,
J.,
Altman,
D.G.,
2014.
Preferred
reporting
items
for
systematic
reviews
and
meta-analyses.
Ann.
Intern.
Med.
151,
264–269,
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.
Muir,
M.J.,
2010.
Are
We
Measuring
Conservation
Effectiveness.
Conservation
Measures
Partnership,
Bethesda,
Maryland.
Myers,
N.,
Mittermeier,
R.A.,
Mittermeier,
C.G.,
Fonseca,
G.A.B.,
da,
Kent,
J.,
2000.
Biodiversity
hotspots
for
conservation
priorities.
Nature
403,
853–858,
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1038/35002501.
Naveh,
Z.,
2001.
Ten
major
premises
for
a
holistic
conception
of
multifunctional
landscapes.
Landsc.
Urban
Plan.
57,
269–284.
Nepstad,
D.,
McGrath,
D.,
Stickler,
C.,
Alencar,
A.,
Azevedo,
A.,
Swette,
B.,
Bezerra,
T.,
DiGiano,
M.,
Shimada,
J.,
Seroa
da
Motta,
R.,
Armijo,
E.,
Castello,
L.,
Brando,
P.,
Hansen,
M.C.,
McGrath-Horn,
M.,
Carvalho,
O.,
Hess,
L.,
2014.
Slowing
Amazon
deforestation
through
public
policy
and
interventions
in
beef
and
soy
supply
chains.
Science
(80-.)
344,
1118–1123,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.
1248525.
Noss,
R.F.,
1983.
A
regional
landscape
approach
to
maintain
diversity.
Bioscience
33,
700–706,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1309350.
Nyame,
S.K.,
Okai,
M.,
Adeleke,
A.,
Fisher,
R.,
2012.
Small
Changes
for
Big
Impacts:
Lessons
for
Landscapes
and
Livelihoods
from
the
Wassa
Amenfi
West
Landscape,
Ghana.
IUCN.
O’Farrell,
P.J.,
Anderson,
P.M.L.,
2010.
Sustainable
multifunctional
landscapes:
a
review
to
implementation.
Curr.
Opin.
Environ.
Sustain.
2,
59–65,
http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.005.
Ostrom,
E.,
Burger,
J.,
Field,
C.B.,
Norgaard,
R.B.,
Policansky,
D.,
1999.
Revisiting
the
commons:
local
lessons,
global
challenges.
Science
(80-.)
284,
278–282.
Ostrom,
E.,
1990.
Governing
the
Commons:
The
Evolution
of
Institutions
for
Collective
Action.
Cambridge
University
Press.
Ostrom,
E.,
2009.
A
general
framework
for
analyzing
sustainability
of
social-ecological
systems.
Science
(80-.)
325,
419–422,
http://dx.doi.org/10.
1126/science.1172133.
Pahl-Wostl,
C.,
2002.
Participative
and
stakeholder-based
policy
design,
evaluation
and
modeling
processes.
Integr.
Assess.
3,
3–14,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/iaij.
3.1.3.7409.
Pfund,
J.-L.,
2010.
Landscape-scale
research
for
conservation
and
development
in
the
tropics:
fighting
persisting
challenges.
Curr.
Opin.
Environ.
Sustain.
2,
117–126,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.002.
Pretty,
J.,
2003.
Social
capital
and
the
collective
management
of
resources.
Science
(80-.)
302,
1912–1914.
Pullin,
A.S.,
2015.
Why
is
the
evidence
base
for
effectiveness
of
win?win
interventions
to
benefit
humans
and
biodiversity
so
poor?
Environ.
Evid.
4,
1.
Redford,
K.H.,
Coppolillo,
P.,
Sanderson,
E.W.,
Da
Fonseca,
G.A.B.,
Dinerstein,
E.,
Groves,
C.,
Mace,
G.,
Maginnis,
S.,
Mittermeier,
R.A.,
Noss,
R.,
Olson,
D.,
Robinson,
J.G.,
Vedder,
A.,
Wright,
M.,
2003.
Mapping
the
conservation
landscape.
Conserv.
Biol.
17,
116–131,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.
2003.01467.x.
Redford,
K.H.,
Padoch,
C.,
Sunderland,
T.,
2013.
Fads,
funding,
and
forgetting
in
three
decades
of
conservation.
Conserv.
Biol.
27,
437–438,
http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/cobi.12071.
Reed,
J.,
Deakin,
L.,
Sunderland,
T.,
2015.
What
are
Integrated
Landscape
Approaches
and
how
effectively
have
they
been
implemented
in
the
tropics:
a
systematic
map
protocol.
Environ.
Evid.
4,
1–7,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/
2047-2382-4-2.
Reed,
J.,
Van
Vianen,
J.,
Deakin,
E.L.,
Barlow,
J.,
Sunderland,
T.,
2016.
Integrated
landscape
approaches
to
managing
social
and
environmental
issues
in
the
tropics:
learning
from
the
past
to
guide
the
future.
Global
Change
Biol.
22,
2540–2554,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13284.

492
J.
Reed
et
al.
/
Land
Use
Policy
63
(2017)
481–492
Ros-Tonen,
M.A.F.,
Derkyi,
M.,
Insaidoo,
T.F.G.,
2014.
From
co-management
to
landscape
governance:
whither
Ghana’s
modified
taungya
system?
Forests
5,
2996–3021,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f5122996.
Sandker,
M.,
Campbell,
B.M.,
Ruiz-Pérez,
M.,
Sayer,
J.A.,
Cowling,
R.,
Kassa,
H.,
Knight,
A.T.,
2010.
The
role
of
participatory
modeling
in
landscape
approaches
to
reconcile
conservation
and
development.
Ecol.
Soc.
15
(art
13).
Sayer,
J.,
Buck,
L.,
Scheer,
S.,
2008.
The
lally
principles
ArborVitae
spec.
issue.
Learn.
Landsc.,
4.
Sayer,
J.,
Sunderland,
T.,
Ghazoul,
J.,
Pfund,
J.-L.,
Sheil,
D.,
Meijaard,
E.,
Venter,
M.,
Boedhihartono,
A.K.,
Day,
M.,
Garcia,
C.,
van
Oosten,
C.,
Buck,
L.E.,
2013.
Ten
principles
for
a
landscape
approach
to
reconciling
agriculture,
conservation,
and
other
competing
land
uses.
Proc.
Natl.
Acad.
Sci.
U.
S.
A.
110,
8349–8356,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210595110.
Sayer,
J.,
2009.
Reconciling
conservation
and
development:
are
landscapes
the
answer?
Biotropica
41,
649–652,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.
00575.x.
Sayer,
J.A.,
Margules,
C.,
Boedhihartono,
A.K.,
Sunderland,
T.,
Langston,
J.D.,
Reed,
J.,
Riggs,
R.,
Buck,
L.E.,
Campbell,
B.M.,
Kusters,
K.,
Elliott,
C.,
2016a.
Measuring
the
effectiveness
of
landscape
approaches
to
conservation
and
development.
Sustain.
Sci.,
1–12.
Sayer,
J.,
Endamana,
D.,
Boedhihartono,
A.K.,
Ruiz-Perez,
M.,
Breuer,
T.,
2016b.
Learning
from
change
in
the
Sangha
Tri-national
landscape.
Int.
For.
Rev.
18
(S1),
130–139.
Scherr,
S.J.,
McNeely,
J.A.,
2008.
Biodiversity
conservation
and
agricultural
sustainability:
towards
a
new
paradigm
of
ecoagriculture
landscapes.
Philos.
Trans.
R.
Soc.
Lond.
B
Biol
Sci.
363,
477–494,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.
2007.2165.
Scherr,
S.J.,
Shames,
S.,
Friedman,
R.,
2013.
Defining
Integrated
Landscape
Management
for
Policy
Makers
(No.
10),
Ecoagriculture
Policy
Focus
No.
10.
Washington,
DC.
Schubert,
A.,
Láng,
I.,
2005.
The
literature
aftermath
of
the
brundtland
report
‘Our
Common
Future’.
a
scientometric
study
based
on
citations
In
science
and
social
science
journals.
Environ.
Dev.
Sustain.
7,
1–8,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10668-003-0177-5.
Shanley,
P.,
López,
C.,
2009.
Out
of
the
loop:
why
research
rarely
reaches
policy
makers
and
the
public
and
what
can
be
done.
Biotropica
41,
535–544,
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00561.x.
Stiglitz,
J.E.,
Sen,
A.,
Fitoussi,
J.-P.,
2010.
Mismeasuring
Our
Lives:
Why
GDP
Doesn’t
Add
up.
The
New
Press.
Sunderland,
T.C.H.,
Ehringhaus,
C.,
Campbell,
B.M.,
2008.
Conservation
and
development
in
tropical
forest
landscapes:
a
time
to
face
the
trade-offs?
Environ.
Conserv.
34,
276–279,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0376892908004438.
Sunderland,
T.,
Sunderland-Groves,
J.,
Shanley,
P.,
Campbell,
B.,
2009.
Bridging
the
gap:
how
can
information
access
and
exchange
between
conservation
biologists
and
field
practitioners
be
improved
for
better
conservation
outcomes?
Biotropica
41,
549–554,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.
2009.00557.x.
Sunderland,
T.C.H.,
Sayer,
J.,
Hoang,
M.-H.,
2012.
Evidence-based
Conservation:
Lessons
from
the
Lower
Mekong.
Routledge.
Torfing,
J.,
2012.
Interactive
Governance:
Advancing
the
Paradigm.
Oxford
University
Press
on
Demand.
Torquebiau,
E.,
2015.
Whither
landscapes?
Compiling
requirements
of
the
landscape
approach,
in:
Climate-Smart
Landscapes:
Multifunctionality
in
Practice.
Minang,
P.A.,
van
Noordwijk,
M.,
Freeman,
O.E.,
Mbow,
C.,
de
Leeuw,
J.,
Catacutan,
D.
(Eds.).
(2014)
pp.
21–35.
Tress,
B.,
Tress,
G.,
Décamps,
H.,
D’Hauteserre,
A.M.,
2001.
Bridging
human
and
natural
sciences
in
landscape
research.
Landsc.
Urban
Plan.
57,
137–141,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00199-2.
Van
Vianen,
J.,
Reed,
J.,
Sunderland,
T.,
2015.
From
global
complexity
to
local
reality:
Aligning
implementation
pathways
for
the
Sustainable
Development
Goals
and
landscape
approaches.
doi:
10.17528/cifor/005864.
C.D.
Ward,
C.M.
Shackleton,
2016.
Natural
Resource
Use,
Incomes,
and
Poverty
Along
the
Rural
−Urban
Continuum
of
Two
Medium-Sized
South
African
Towns,
78,
80–93.
doi:
10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.025.
Waylen,
K.A.,
Hastings,
E.J.,
Banks,
E.A.,
Holstead,
K.L.,
Irvine,
R.J.,
Blackstock,
K.L.,
2014.
The
need
to
disentangle
key
concepts
from
ecosystem-approach
jargon.
Conserv.
Biol.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12331.
Wells,
M.P.,
McShane,
T.O.,
2004.
Integrating
protected
area
management
with
local
needs
and
aspirations.
Ambio
33,
513–519.
Wilshusen,
P.R.,
Fortwangler,
C.L.,
West,
P.C.,
2002.
Beyond
the
square
wheel:
toward
a
more
comprehensive
understanding
of
biodiversity
conservation
as
social
and
political
process.
Soc.
Nat.
Resour.
15
(1).