Linking food systems and landscape sustainability in the Mediterranean region

Abstract

Context
Global dynamics affect the sustainability of agricultural landscapes, but these cross-scale connections are understudied. Therefore, we combine food systems and landscape ecology, focusing on food products that provide a linkage between global consumers and landscapes of production (e.g., Douro Valley wine) which we call landscape products.

Objective
The aim of this study is to characterise Mediterranean landscape products based on experts’ perceptions by analysing their qualities, farming practices, and value chains, and to identify their ecological, cultural, and socio-economic outcomes in the landscapes of production.

Methods
Experts with specific knowledge on a landscape product were surveyed by email and their answers analysed using descriptive and ordination statistics. Fifty-four landscape products were characterised.

Results
Based on the experts’ perceptions, landscape products are high quality products, mainly using traditional knowledge and low intensity farming. They support biocultural diversity in the landscapes of production, but their positive socio-economic outcomes remain limited, with problems of inequity and lack of empowerment among producers and a tendency towards intensification or abandonment of the farming practices. We distinguished three types of products based on their localness and how their qualities were shared with consumers. Local products performed better in the ecological and cultural outcomes and products under certification in the economic. Labelling mechanisms and better organisation of producers could enhance these products and their positive outcomes.

Conclusions
Combining landscape ecology and food systems research allowed us better understand the outcomes of landscape products in the landscapes of production and suggest pathways for fostering landscape sustainability.

Full text

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Linking food systems and landscape sustainability
in the Mediterranean region
Marı
´a Garcı
´a-Martı
´n.Mario Torralba .Cristina Quintas-Soriano .
Johannes Kahl .Tobias Plieninger
Received: 29 January 2020 / Accepted: 19 November 2020 / Published online: 8 December 2020
The Author(s) 2020
Abstract
Context Global dynamics affect the sustainability of
agricultural landscapes, but these cross-scale connec-
tions are understudied. Therefore, we combine food
systems and landscape ecology, focusing on food
products that provide a linkage between global
consumers and landscapes of production (e.g., Douro
Valley wine) which we call landscape products.
Objective The aim of this study is to characterise
Mediterranean landscape products based on experts’
perceptions by analysing their qualities, farming
practices, and value chains, and to identify their
ecological, cultural, and socio-economic outcomes in
the landscapes of production.
Methods Experts with specific knowledge on a
landscape product were surveyed by email and their
answers analysed using descriptive and ordination
statistics. Fifty-four landscape products were
characterised.
Results Based on the experts’ perceptions, landscape
products are high quality products, mainly using
traditional knowledge and low intensity farming. They
support biocultural diversity in the landscapes of
production, but their positive socio-economic out-
comes remain limited, with problems of inequity and
lack of empowerment among producers and a ten-
dency towards intensification or abandonment of the
farming practices. We distinguished three types of
products based on their localness and how their
qualities were shared with consumers. Local products
performed better in the ecological and cultural
outcomes and products under certification in the
economic. Labelling mechanisms and better organi-
sation of producers could enhance these products and
their positive outcomes.
Conclusions Combining landscape ecology and
food systems research allowed us better understand
the outcomes of landscape products in the landscapes
of production and suggest pathways for fostering
landscape sustainability.
Keywords Landscape products Social-ecological
systems Telecouplings Food systems Landscape
ecology Landscape sustainability
Supplementary Information The online version contains
supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10980-020-01168-5.
M. Garcı
´a-Martı
´n(&)T. Plieninger
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural
Development, University of Go
¨ttingen, Platz der
Go
¨ttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Go
¨ttingen, Germany
e-mail: maria.garcia-martin@uni-goettingen.de
M. Torralba C. Quintas-Soriano T. Plieninger
Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of
Kassel, Steinstraße 19, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
J. Kahl
Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of
Kassel, Nordbahnhofstr. 1a, 37213 Witzenhausen,
Germany
123
Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01168-5(0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Introduction
Global change in agricultural landscapes is a major
sustainability concern. Agricultural landscape change
is driven by a multitude of (typically closely inter-
linked) processes. First, agricultural land is expanding
globally, converting natural and semi-natural ecosys-
tems and thus compromising biosphere integrity and
ecological processes in land systems (Steffen et al.
2015). Second, rising societal needs for food, feed,
fibres, and fuels also lead to an intensification of
agriculture (Erb et al. 2013). Third, an increasing
amount of (often fertile) agricultural land is sealed and
converted to cities, with substantial impacts on
agricultural production, biodiversity, and ecosystem
services (Seto et al. 2012). At the same time, large-
scale processes of de-intensification, forest expansion,
and designation of protected areas are taking place,
often leading to a polarisation of intensification and
abandonment of agriculture (Plieninger et al. 2016).
Consequently, competition for land, land-use con-
flicts, and trade-offs between human needs and
agricultural landscape functions have become critical
topics for landscape ecology.
Agricultural landscape changes—though mani-
fested at local levels—are increasingly driven by
globally interconnected economies and markets for
food products and other agricultural commodities
which act across large distances and create interac-
tions between regions (Meyfroidt et al. 2013). The
complexity of these connections between distant
places (so-called telecouplings Liu et al. 2013) pose
not only threats but also opportunities for landscape
sustainability (e.g., regarding biodiversity, land use,
poverty reduction, and water scarcity). For instance,
increased world trade in biofuels triggers agricultural
expansion across large distances, often resulting in
losses of ecosystems and biodiversity. On the other
hand, the growing demand from urban consumers for
high-quality and sustainable food products can drive
land-use decisions in remote places, improving rural
livelihoods and promoting multifunctional landscapes
(Rueda and Lambin 2013). Thus, the characteristics of
food systems, and in particular the trade-offs around
them, show complex linkages to landscape
sustainability.
Food products that originate from specific distinct
landscapes (termed ‘landscape products’ herein) rep-
resent a particular case (Ilbery and Kneafsey 1999).
These products are deeply linked to the local identity
and landscape character of the places of production
and are part of a ‘quality turn’ in food consumption by
parts of society in Europe and beyond (Goodman
2002). Examples of these landscape products from the
Mediterranean region are olive oil produced in the
Greek island of Lesvos; ham from acorn-fed pigs
raised in wooded pastures in Extremadura, Spain; and
wine produced in the Portuguese Alto Douro region.
Although landscape products are usually traded on
niche markets, they can offer leverage points for
promoting sustainable management of producer land-
scapes when they have high market values and
cultivation is tied to specific regions (le Polain de
Waroux and Lambin 2013). However, while the role
of mass-market food products has been widely studied
(e.g., for palm oil or soybeans; Boerema et al. 2016;
Furumo and Aide 2017), little is known about how
these landscape products may contribute to landscape
sustainability in the places of production.
Landscape ecology and food systems are two
research areas in which an interdisciplinary, sys-
tems-oriented research approach is taken, with the
former centred on configuration and functioning of
landscapes (Christensen et al. 2017) and the latter
focussed on the production, processing, retailing, and
consumption of food (Ingram 2011). Food system
studies evidence an interest in studying the places
from which foods originate (Barham and Sylvander
2011; Bowen and Mutersbaugh 2014; Berriss 2019),
and some landscape ecological studies have in turn
investigated the landscape ecological dynamics
around food and agricultural production at large
(Benoı
ˆt et al. 2012; Smith et al. 2013). However,
landscape ecology and food systems studies have not
thus far been linked through a comprehensive and
systematic framework.
The aim of this study is to bring together landscape
ecology and food systems approaches to explore the
connections between different properties of food
systems and multiple landscape sustainability out-
comes in the Mediterranean region, using landscape
products as a critical link between distant places and
processes. To do so, we define the following research
questions:
1. How are Mediterranean landscape products char-
acterised based on the shared attributes of their
food systems?
123
2260 Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2. What are the ecological, cultural, social, and
economic landscape sustainability outcomes of
these landscape products, and what synergies and
trade-offs arise among them?
3. What different types of food systems can be
identified and how do they relate to the landscape
sustainability outcomes?
The assumption underlying this research is that
food systems and landscapes are a crucial but under-
utilized nexus for evaluating the connections between
people and the environment. We consider that an in-
depth understanding of these couplings will benefit
both landscape ecology and food system research to
foster landscape sustainability.
Methods
Study area: the Mediterranean region
We focus on the Mediterranean region to study the
linkages between food systems and landscape sustain-
ability. Mediterranean landscapes are very diverse in
food systems (the Mediterranean diet has been
declared an intangible cultural heritage of humanity;
UNESCO 2013) and are a global hotspot of biological
diversity (Myers et al. 2000). At the same time, the
Mediterranean region is most critically affected by
global environmental changes, in particular by soil
degradation and water shortages (Underwood et al.
2009). Mediterranean farming landscapes have
resulted from a very long human history that interacts
with highly varied physiography, soil, and climate,
thus becoming archetypes of closely coupled social–
ecological systems. Mediterranean traditional agricul-
ture is dominated by agro-silvo-pastoral mosaic sys-
tems that cover approximately 23% of the land (Malek
and Verburg 2017). Spatial–temporal interactions
between agricultural, pastoral, and forestry compo-
nents typically result in a high resource use efficiency,
high biodiversity values, a large assortment of com-
modities, and other ecosystem services. Many
Mediterranean farming systems are thus considered
to be multifunctional and of high nature value (Pinto-
Correia and Vos 2004). It is also a region characterised
by contrasts: While landscapes at the southern fringe
of the Mediterranean (especially in the productive
plains) are predominantly exposed to increasing land-
use pressures and competition for land, many farm-
lands in the northern Mediterranean countries (espe-
cially in the less productive mountain areas) have been
affected by land abandonment (Debolini et al. 2018).
Furthermore, many of the major ongoing socio-
economic challenges are taking place in this region
regarding demographic trends, political stability, and
socio-economic realities (King et al. 2014). Given
these social–ecological contrasts, the Mediterranean
region provides a useful microcosm for the study of
different food systems and agricultural landscapes.
Concepts
According to the Landscape Ecology journal, land-
scape ecology is an interdisciplinary research field that
integrates the biophysical and socioeconomic
sciences, conceptualises landscapes as coupled
human–environment systems, and applies such a lens
in answering research questions around the ecology,
conservation, management, design/planning, and sus-
tainability of landscapes. While investigating the
relationship between spatial pattern and ecological
processes is at the heart of landscape ecology,
sustainability has become a key concept and research
priority in this field (Musacchio 2013;Wu2019).
Landscape ecology informs sustainability through
spatially explicit approaches; consideration of multi-
ple scales; integration of stakeholders’ knowledge,
values, and concerns; and social–ecological systems
thinking (Opdam et al. 2018). The term ‘landscape
sustainability science’ emphasises the linkages
between landscape ecology and sustainability science,
and there is a discussion as to whether landscape
sustainability science should be understood as part of
landscape ecology or as a distinct field (Wu 2013).
Food systems comprise sets of activities that
include production and consumption of food (Ericksen
2008; Ingram 2011). According to UNEP (2016)a
food system approach allows the food chain activities
to be linked to their social and environmental contexts,
including institutional dimensions (rules and regula-
tions), jurisdictional dimensions, and administrative
dimensions (provincial, national, intergovernmental).
Therefore, food systems are recognised as coupled
human–environment systems (Liu et al. 2007) and
especially as complex social–ecological systems
(Ostrom 2009; Foran et al. 2014; Tendall et al. 2015;
Allen and Prosperi 2016). For Ostrom (2009), the
123
Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275 2261
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

challenge of taking a systems approach to food is to
identify and analyse the relationships among multiple
levels of these complex systems at different spatial and
temporal scales. Food systems as complex adaptive
systems are ‘composed of many heterogeneous pieces,
whose interactions drive system behaviour in ways
that cannot easily be understood from considering the
components separately’ (Nesheim et al. 2015, p. 287).
In this view, landscapes may also be taken as an
inherent part of food systems, whether as a pre-
requisite, a driver, or an outcome. Therefore, we go
beyond a food chain approach and study food chain
and landscape sustainability components in
combination.
Figure 1presents the framework used in this study,
which comprises food systems and landscape sustain-
ability as central pillars that are connected through
landscape products. We define landscape products as
products that originate in a distinct landscape and
typically are sold at prices higher than those of usual
agricultural commodities (le Polain de Waroux and
Lambin 2013). In our analysis of food systems and
their linkages to landscape sustainability through
landscape products, the following are of particular
interest‘‘
•the product qualities, such as the geographic origin
of the product, the traits associated with it (e.g.,
healthy, organic, gourmet, or traditional; le Polain
Fig. 1 Elements considered to connect food with landscape sustainability through landscape products
123
2262 Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

de Waroux and Lambin 2013; Renting et al. 2003),
the product identity in reference to the territory of
production, and the existence of any certification;
•the farming practices that are underpinning the
landscape product, as related to the intensity of
production systems and associated land covers, the
size of the producers, and the presence of farmers’
cooperatives (Ostrom 2007);
•the value chain characteristics, including produc-
ing, processing, distributing, and retailing goods to
consumers (Gereffi et al. 2005). These include the
way in which the qualities of the product are
communicated to the consumer (e.g., personal
interaction, regional identity, certifications; Rent-
ing et al. 2003), and aspects related to the length of
the value chain such as the distribution channels
(e.g., farmers sell directly to consumers or farmers
sell to retailers or distributors), where the packag-
ing and processing takes place (i.e., within or
outside the landscape of production), and the
geographic distance to the market (e.g., regional
and local markets or national and international
markets; Schmitt et al. 2016).
As we take a special focus on sustainability, we
refer to sustainable food systems using the consensus
definition of the High Panel of Experts on Food
Security and Nutrition (HLPE 2014, p. 31): ‘Sustain-
able food system (SFS) is a food system that ensures
food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the
economic, social, and environmental bases to generate
food security and nutrition of future generations are
not compromised’. In this study, our focus is on the
sustainability of the food system at a landscape of
production level. We thus divide the landscape
sustainability outcomes of food systems into:
•ecological outcomes which consider how farming
practices contribute to aspects related to biodiver-
sity, water, and soil preservation in the landscapes
of production;
•cultural outcomes which include the role of the
landscape products in the local culture (e.g., by
maintaining traditional ways of farming, the local
ecological knowledge, and links to traditional
festivals and community events), the local identity
associated with landscape products, and local
recipes;
•social outcomes which take into account the age
and gender balance among producers and aspects
connected to the organisation and relationships
along the value chain: farmer empowerment
(whether farmers are involved in the determination
of the operational rules), equity in the distribution
of the profits obtained from the landscape product,
and farmers’ collective action; and
•economic outcomes which look at the importance
of landscape products and associated activities
(cultivation, processing, and retailing/distribution)
for local employment and farmers’ incomes, at
landscape product prices with respect to mass
market equivalents, and at the role of landscape
products for the tourist sector.
Survey design
To study these linkages between food and landscapes,
we performed an online survey that targeted food and
landscape experts from different disciplines and
multiple Mediterranean countries. Experts were asked
to select a landscape product they know well and its
landscape of production and provide information on
all the components presented in Fig. 1. We left it to the
understanding of the respondents as to how they
delimited a production landscape. However, in order
to ensure that all respondents had a similar under-
standing of the objects of the survey, we provided an
extended introduction at the beginning of the survey
that included examples of products and landscapes
from different areas in the Mediterranean. The survey
was created using the online platform ‘Limesurvey’
(https://www.limesurvey.org/) and was structured into
the following main sections: i) identification of the
product and the landscape of production; ii) charac-
terisation of the food system; and iii) sustainability
outcomes in the landscapes of production divided into
ecological, cultural, social, and economic outcomes
(see Supplementary Materials 1 for the full survey).
We also asked respondents about their visions and the
conflicts they identify around their chosen landscape
product.
To select the respondents, we compiled a list of
researchers through internet keyword searches (a
combination of sustainability and food systems con-
cepts) looking at existing literature and the agricul-
ture- and landscape-related departments of
universities across the Mediterranean region. We
targeted the largest research institutes and departments
123
Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275 2263
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

in every Mediterranean country and selected the
profiles of the most relevant respondents based on
their lines of work and publication records. In
addition, we followed a snowball sampling approach
in which respondents were asked to suggest other
contacts. Experts were defined as those survey recip-
ients who had developed a role as a scientist or
practitioner in the topics of food systems or landscape
sustainability for a specific product or landscape in the
Mediterranean.
We sent an email to all of the experts with a non-
personalised link to the survey, which was also
distributed by social media. The survey could only
be started after the participant had read and accepted a
note of consent which explained how their answers
were going to be used and stored. The responses to the
survey were anonymous. The survey campaign took
place from May to July 2019, and two reminders were
sent out during that time. Completion of the survey by
the respondents took between 30 min and one hour. A
total of 286 experts were invited to take the survey, 73
provided answers and after deleting incomplete
responses, 54 cases (representing each a landscape
product and a landscape of production) were kept for
the analysis (response rate of 19%). Most of the
respondents (80%) reported high or medium expertise
on the topic. Eighty percent of the respondents were
scientists and the rest producers and workers in a non-
governmental organizations or local government.
Data analysis
We used frequency analyses to describe the land-
scapes of production and the characteristics shared by
the landscape products as related to their food systems
and the landscape sustainability outcomes in the
landscapes of origin. We performed Multiple Corre-
spondence Analysis (MCA), followed by a cluster
analysis, to identify patterns in the data set related to
the connections between food system characteristics
and landscape sustainability outcomes. The MCA was
carried out with the food system variables in order to
assess associations and patterns across food system
characteristics. Using those factors explaining 65% of
the inertia a cluster analysis was then conducted to
identify consistent groups of landscape products based
on shared food system characteristics (Table A1 and
Fig. A1 in Supplementary Materials 2). Lastly, we
explored the different landscape sustainability
outcomes connected to each cluster using the mean
value of each outcome on a Likert scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Results
Characterisation of the landscape products
and food system types
The spatial distribution of the landscape products
collected across the Mediterranean showed a high
number of cases in the western countries (59% of the
total—Spain, Portugal, Morocco, France), followed
by the central Mediterranean countries (30%—Italy,
Slovenia, Croatia, Albania, Greece, Tunisia) and
eastern Mediterranean countries (11%—Egypt, Tur-
key, Lebanon, Jordan; Fig. 2). The most common type
of landscape products selected by the experts were tree
crops (52% of the total sample—wine, olive oil,
almonds, cherries, apples, chestnuts, carob fruit, cork).
Animal products were also highly represented (24%,
with all but one of the meat products coming from
Spain). Cereals made up 13% of the total sample,
including wheat and rice. There were also some
vegetables (7%), comprising, for example, green
beans, asparagus, and tomatoes, all of them coming
from Spain.
The landscapes of production identified by the
experts were very heterogeneous in terms of size and
socio-demographic and biophysical characteristics
(from mountain areas to hilly landscapes, steep valleys,
or coastal plains; from arid steps to lush valleys; and
from sparsely populated and remoteareas to intensively
used coastal areas). Within this diversity, common
landscape development trends mentioned were: expan-
sion of tourism, increased preservation of the cultural
and natural heritage, and agricultural abandonment or
intensification (additional information about the char-
acteristics of the landscapes of production is given in
the Supplementary Materials 2, Table A2).
Landscape product qualities
Most of the landscape products identified were defined
by the experts as gourmet products (70%) associated
with a distinct landscape and to tradition narra-
tives (62%; Fig. 3a). In half of the cases (46%), the
products were exclusively grown in the area of the
123
2264 Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

landscape of production mentioned in the survey
(Fig. 3b). Half of the products (50%) were under
labelling or certification mechanisms; of these prod-
ucts (Fig. 3b), 70% of the cases had Geographical
Indication labels, while only a few (26%) had organic
agriculture labels. The products that were most often
under certification mechanisms were wine (75% of
wine products were under certification), vegeta-
bles (75%), olive oil (71%), and cheese (67%), while
cereals and fruit trees were not often certified (only
29% and 33% of these products, respectively).
Farming practices in the landscapes of production
Most of the products identified by the experts were
grown using low intensity practices (78%; based on
manual labour, low input of agrochemicals and
machinery, etc.) with very few using high intensity
practices (13%; high input of agrochemicals and
machinery, etc.; Fig. 3c). The most common land
cover associated with the products was mosaic lands
(59%; small cultivated land parcels with different
cultivation types; Fig. 3d. Lands were mostly owned
by multiple smallholders (60%; Fig. 3e). Only in 30%
of the cases were farmers organised into cooperatives.
Value chain characteristics
The value chains of the products were very heteroge-
neous. In how the authenticity of the product was
communicated to the consumer (Fig. 3f), experts most
often mentioned reputation effects (about 60% of the
products). Remarkably, in only 16% of the cases did
the experts respond that there was no communication
of the authenticity of the product to the consumer.
Responses on the distribution channels in which the
product reached the consumer were varied (Fig. 3g).
The most frequent channel was that farmers or
farmers’ cooperatives sell the product to retailers and
distributors (80% of the cases), but it was also very
often the case that farmers and cooperatives sold
directly to consumers (69% of the cases). The
processing and packaging of the product was also
carried out in different ways (Fig. 3h). In most of the
cases (68%), processing and packaging happened
within the landscape of production (the farmers in
46% of the cases and farmers’ cooperatives in 33% of
the cases). As for the geographic distance to the
market (Fig. 3i), in 50% of the cases they were sold in
the local/regional market and in 39% at the national/
international market.
Fig. 2 Map with the geographical distribution of the landscape products by type. The graph at the bottom shows the percentage of each
product type
123
Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275 2265
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Landscape sustainability outcomes
in the landscapes of production
The farming practices associated to the landscape
products were generally regarded by the experts to
lead to positive ecological outcomes in the preserva-
tion of biodiversity (82%) and water resources, not
causing water overuse (65%; Fig. 4). There was also
general agreement on the positive contributions of
landscape products to the preservation of local culture
(91%), local recipes (90%), and identity (89%).
The social outcomes were more heterogeneous. The
percentage of experts who considered that there is
gender or age balance among the food product farmers
was low (23% and 34% of the respondents, respec-
tively), as was the percentage of the experts who
considered that there is a fair profit distribution along
the value chain (27%). Outcomes connected to
collective action and participation of the farmers in
the operational rules were considered positive by
about half of the experts (46% and 53%, respectively).
We also found a variety of responses regarding the
Fig. 3 Main food system characteristics of the landscape
products: The horizontal axis represents the percentage of
landscape products (n = 54). Graphs aand bin blue relate to
product qualities; graphs cto ein green to the farming practices;
and fto iin orange to value chain characteristics
123
2266 Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

economic outcomes. The highest percentages of
agreement were connected to the landscape product
being sold at higher prices than generic/mass market
equivalents (71%) and being the main source of
income for most farmers that cultivate it (70%); and
the lowest with the producers being better off than
other farmers (36%).
Connections between food system types
and landscape sustainability outcomes
Types of landscape products based on the food system
characteristics
The results of the MCA and the cluster analysis
revealed three clusters of products based on the food
system characteristics defined by the experts (see
Supplementary Matterials 2: Table A3 for the cluster
characterisations; Table A1 and Fig. A1 for the results
of the MCA and the dendrogram of the cluster
analysis). The first cluster, named local type with
personal interaction (19 products, 35% of the total
sample), included products that were sold both directly
to consumers (74%) and to local shops and restaurants
(74%), predominately in the local and regional market
(79%), and whose authenticity was communicated to
the consumers through personal interaction and net-
works of trust (84%) and reputation effects (84%). The
packaging and processing of the product was done in
the landscape of production by farmers and farmers’
cooperatives (63%). Characteristics of this cluster
were also low intensity farming practices (95%) and
multiple small producers (79%). Products often
included in this cluster were olive oil, nuts, and cheese.
Cluster 2, named mixed type without communica-
tion (15 products, 28% of the total sample), covered
those products whose authenticity was frequently not
communicated to the consumer (60%). Landscape
products within this cluster reached the consumers
predominately through distributors and retailers (73%)
Fig. 4 Percentage of respondents that considers that the landscape product contributes to the different landscape sustainability
outcomes in the landscapes of production
123
Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275 2267
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

but also directly from the farmers (67%). The pack-
aging and processing was done by both farmers and
farmers’ cooperatives (67%) and by external compa-
nies outside of the landscape of production (40%).
Cluster 3, named international type with certifica-
tion mechanisms (20 products, 37% of the total
sample), represented those products that farmers and
farmers’ cooperatives sold to retailers and distributors
(95% of the products in this cluster), and most of the
produce was sold in national and international markets
(85%). Products were under certification mechanisms
(75%) and the percentage of products that were
exclusively grown in the area was the highest (65%).
Processing and packaging was mainly done by farmers
or farmers’ cooperatives (75%). As for the farming
practices, there was a mix of small and big producers
(65%), and farmers were organised in cooperatives
(75%). The percentage of products that were grown
using low intensity practices was the lowest in this
cluster (65%). A typical product in this cluster was
wine.
We did not observe a clear differentiation between
the sustainability outcomes linked to the different food
system clusters (Table 1). However, products from the
local type performed better in terms of ecological and
cultural outcomes, with mean values of 4.7 for
preservation of the local culture and 4.4 for preserva-
tion of biodiversity, with 5 as the highest value.
Products from the international type performed better
in regard to the economic outcomes, with mean values
of 4.3 for higher prices than mass market equivalents
and 4.1 for being the main source of income for
producers. The lowest levels of performance were
found for the social outcomes in the mixed cluster
type, with mean values of 2.4 for farmers’ participa-
tion in the operational rules of the value chain and 2.4
for a fair profit distribution among the actors of the
value chain.
Discussion
This study represents a first approximation to combine
food systems and landscape ecology approaches to
understand how the qualities, farming practices, and
value chains of Mediterranean landscape products
allow or hinder sustainability in the landscapes of
production. Based on expert perceptions, our analysis
allowed us to identify the main characteristics shared
by particular landscape products, the differences to be
found in their food systems, and the landscape
sustainability outcomes they provide. This methodol-
ogy has previously been shown to be robust and has
been used in sustainability science (Hanspach et al.
2017), but we acknowledge that the different levels of
expertise among the respondents and their different
relations to the products may limit the validity of the
survey. This issue was addressed by including an ‘I do
not know’ option among the answers and excluding
partial surveys from the analysis. Additionally, there
was an overrepresentation of respondents from the
west Mediterranean, so that results may not be fully
representative of the whole Mediterranean.
Characteristics of the landscape products
Landscape products share many characteristics with
gourmet products (e.g., products sold at prices higher
than their mass-market equivalents), and they are also
associated with healthy, organic production, and
sustainable development narratives. Although these
qualities are important, their main trait is the connec-
tion to a distinct landscape. The farming practices
associated to the landscape products (i.e. low produc-
tion intensity, involvement of traditional knowledge
and techniques, cultivation by multiple small produc-
ers, and creation of mosaic landscapes) contribute to
maintain the distinctive character of the landscapes of
origin—that is, ‘what makes one area ‘‘different’’ or
‘‘distinct’’ from another’ (Swanwick 2002). In this
sense, our landscape products framework aligns with
the different initiatives and concepts that have
emerged globally around characteristic agricultural
landscapes, such as the Globally Important Agricul-
tural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) supported by the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO), the Socio-Ecological Production
Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS) promoted under
the Satoyama Initiative, or the High Nature Value
farmlands (HNV) in Europe.
The communication of landscape product qualities
to consumers seems to be of great relevance. Marsden
et al. (2000) brought up the concept of ‘re-spatializing
food’ by embedding the product with information
about the landscape of production as it reaches the
consumer as opposed to ‘placeless food’ (Schmitt et al.
2017). This re-spatialization of food through informa-
tion connects consumers with the place of production
123
2268 Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

and allows them to make conscious and informed
decisions about purchasing a product (Renting et al.
2003). The regional identity of a product was
frequently emphasised in our survey, either through
formal Geographic Indications (GI) or informal com-
munication between producers and consumers. Strate-
gies to re-spatialize products seem crucial in times of
globalisation and increasing distance between con-
sumers and landscapes of production. Thus, recon-
necting people with landscapes is a critical leverage
point for a transition towards sustainability as such
reconnection can foster a feeling of stewardship
towards landscapes (Abson et al. 2016; Garcı
´a-Martı
´n
et al. 2018).
Our survey identified heterogeneous value chains
as another important characteristic of landscape
products. This heterogeneity seems to be inherent in
alternative food systems due to the increasing com-
plexity and diversity in commercialisation options,
organisation of the value chains, and relationships
between producers and consumers (Marsden et al.
2000; Schmitt et al. 2016). The geographic distance to
the consumers of the products in terms of local/
regional or national/international outreach is also
varied. We identified three types of food systems
based on their more local or international reach, the
length of their value chain, and the way the authen-
ticity of the product is communicated to the con-
sumers: local landscape products with short value
chains and authenticity communicated through per-
sonal interaction; international landscape products
with long value chains and authenticity communicated
Table 1 Mean of the values of how the landscape product contributes to the different landscape sustainability outcomes in each of the
three clusters
Outcome
categories
Variables Cluster 1
Local with personal
interacon
(n=19)
Cluster 2
Mixed, no
communicaon
(n=15)
Cluster 3
Internaonal with
cerficaon
(n=20)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Preserves biodiversity 4.368 0.597 4.267 0.961 3.941 1.298
Ecological
outcomes Preserves water resources 4.176 0.943 3.929 1.406 2.824 1.372
Maintains soils 3.529 0.728 3.143 1.072 3.000 1.286
Preserves the local culture 4.789 0.419 4.533 0.640 4.250 1.070
Cultural
outcomes Is a key ingredient in local recipes 4.667 0.686 4.467 0.640 4.350 0.988
People in the area idenfy themselves with it 4.579 0.607 4.400 0.737 4.450 0.759
There is gender balance among producers 2.947 0.705 2.800 1.014 2.579 1.017
There is age balance among producers 2.947 1.079 2.867 0.915 3.412 1.004
Social
outcomes Value chain organisaon contributes to collecve acon 3.263 0.872 2.786 1.188 3.588 0.795
Farmers parcipate in operaonal rules 3.353 0.996 2.429 1.089 3.778 1.003
There is a fair profit distribuon along the value chain 3.059 1.029 2.429 1.284 2.938 1.063
Producers are beer off than other farmers 3.118 1.054 2.933 0.704 3.722 0.895
Aracts tourists 3.611 1.037 3.467 1.060 3.850 1.226
Economic
outcomes Employs an important proporon of local populaon 3.167 1.098 3.600 0.986 3.842 0.958
Is the main source of income of the farmers 3.278 1.074 3.667 0.724 4.150 0.745
Is sold at higher prices than mass market equivalents 3.833 0.924 3.600 0.986 4.316 0.885
Mean values (as translated from the answers to the survey in a Likert scale format from strongly disagree to strongly agree) range from
1 (strongly disagree, dark red) to 5 (strongly agree, dark green), where 5 means strong contribution and 1 means no contribution
123
Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275 2269
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

through certification mechanisms; and mixed products
for which there is no communication of their qualities
to consumers. This ‘local–global hybridity’ (cases in
which the local attributes and values of the product are
promoted but the product is sold in international
markets Schmitt et al. 2017) contests binary assump-
tions about conventional and global versus alternative
and local food systems (Watt et al. 2005; Beriss 2019).
Accordingly, some argue for supply chains’ in which
producers and their supply chain partners ally to
‘distribute significant volumes of high-quality, differ-
entiated food products while maintaining transparent
relationships and fair distribution of revenues’
(Ostrom et al. 2017, p. 7). This raises questions of
embeddedness, i.e. about how the different actors are
connected among each other and with the landscapes
of production (Hinrichs 2003; Renting et al. 2003). In
the case of landscape products, embeddedness goes
beyond the social dimension of producer–consumer
relations and also incorporates notions of territoriality
(sensu Sonnino 2007, p. 63: ‘the ecological and
cultural relationships that a food system has with its
territorial context’). Our findings might call for an
expansion of the concept toward telecoupled land-
scape embeddedness that connects the different actors
along and beyond the value chain through the shared
valorisation of a distinct landscape embodied in the
landscape product.
The local–global hybridity also concerns the scale
of production (Kizos 2013; Chilla et al. 2020).
Landscape products are typically small-scale products
for which entry into international niche markets might
require ‘scaling up’ of production, which may lead to
unintended ecological, socio-economic, and cultural
landscape sustainability outcomes. This also raises the
question of ‘what constitutes local’ (Beriss 2019,
p. 67) and how the locality of the product is conveyed
at different scales. In line with our results, some
authors have distinguished between local products and
localised products. Local products are commer-
cialised through short value chains and convey locality
values (e.g., care, community, and stewardship
between producers and local consumers; cluster 1 in
our sample); while localised products are anchored
within particular territories through ‘socially con-
structed, culturally marketed, and institutionally reg-
ulated’ structures that convey values of locality to
distant consumers (e.g., GIs and Slow Food; cluster 3)
(Bowen and Mutersbaugh 2014, p. 204).
We conclude that the local–global hybridity, with
an emphasis on landscape embeddedness, is one
important characteristic of landscape products.
Acknowledging the distinction between more local
and more international landscape products is impor-
tant as different products and landscapes require
different strategies.
Links between landscape sustainability outcomes
and food system characteristics
Landscape products frequently promote ecological
and cultural outcomes, which tend to happen in
parallel. This is mainly the case when low intensity
farming practices are used (common among the
products in the local cluster). In this sense, landscape
products foster biocultural diversity, ‘sustaining the
biophysical and socio-cultural components of
dynamic, interacting, and interdependent social–eco-
logical systems’’ (Gavin et al. 2015, p. 140). The
realisation of this interdependence of cultural and
biological diversity is especially relevant in the current
context of biodiversity loss and landscapes homogeni-
sation (Hanspach et al. 2020). Therefore, the concept
of landscape products appears useful to explore
linkages between the cultural practices of food
production and the ecological characteristics in the
landscapes of production (Hedberg 2015; Plieninger
et al. 2017).
Landscape products seem to be well integrated in
the socio-economic context of the landscapes of
production, employing an important proportion of
the local population and acting as the main source of
income of the local producers. However, our survey
indicated that there is rarely a fair profit distribution
and farmers often do not participate in the operational
rules. Even when there was general agreement among
respondents that higher prices are paid for landscape
products than for mass market equivalents, the
perception was still that this did not necessarily reflect
in farmersincomes. This might be explained by
aspects such as the lack of empowerment of small
producers and the fact that prices still are too low to
cover the producers’ costs (Polain de Waroux and
Lambin 2013).
Our survey demonstrated that products sold under
certification mechanisms to national and international
markets perform better in terms of economic out-
comes, with prices that probably better reflect their
123
2270 Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

costs of production (Schmitt et al. 2016). However,
labelling was only in place for half of the landscape
products assessed and even then, experts did not
expect that the higher prices paid by consumers would
have a strong positive impact in contributing to a fair
price paid to primary producers. As claimed by some
authors, speciality or niche market products do not
necessarily stimulate endogenous economic develop-
ment (Watts et al. 2005; Kizos 2013). By relying on
international value chains for economic viability, local
producers are subordinated to the interests of the most
powerful actors along the chain that profit from the
added value that, for instance, a certification confers.
In our sample, this lack of empowerment is
especially negative when external companies take
over the processing, packaging, and distribution of the
final product and when the qualities of the product are
not communicated to the consumers, thereby making
the primary producers invisible. Some scientists and
practitioners are calling for the participation of
farmers in partnerships—collaborative arrangements
between various actors—as a way to improve their
economic situation by allowing smallholders to par-
ticipate in more remunerative value chains (Helmsing
and Vellema 2011; Schmitt et al. 2016; Kizos et al.
2017). In fact, collective action among landscape
product farmers seems to have a positive effect in the
fair profit distribution along the value chain. However,
this requires certain levels of trust and social capital
that are often lacking (Kizos et al. 2014), and in our
survey, cooperatives and collective action were not
very common among landscape product actors. Ros-
Tonen et al. (2015, p. 531) stated that farmers’ agency
resides in their capacity to ‘negotiate, interact, position
themselves and make claims vis-a
`-vis companies,
investors, NGOs and donors’. Therefore, there is a
need to understand and improve the socio-economic
situation of the producers by paying attention not only
to their vertical integration in the value chain but also
to their horizontal collaboration with non-chain actors
at a landscape level (Ros-Tonen et al. 2015).
Finally, we found that the typical social problems of
the agricultural sector in the rural Mediterranean
prevail in our sample of landscape products among the
producers, such as a lack of gender and age balance.
The masculinisation of rural areas caused by the
differences in migration behaviour between men and
women is a widespread phenomenon (Camarero and
Sampedro 2016). Gender equality is an essential
component of sustainable economic growth and
poverty reduction (FAO et al. 2010) and thereby is a
keystone in order to promote the sustainable manage-
ment of traditional agricultural landscapes.
Towards the future: How to enhance landscape
products and their sustainability outcomes?
Experts were asked to share their visions about the
future of landscape products. In most of the cases, they
mentioned serious threats to the persistence of the
products and the associated landscapes due to, on the
one hand, the dynamics of abandonment and lack of
age balance and, on the other hand, the expansion of
intensive monoculture lands and the pressures of
urbanisation and tourism; common trends in the
Mediterranean agricultural world (Agnoletti 2014;
Wolpert et al. 2020). Under these circumstances, food
systems that are well embedded in a distinct landscape
of origin can contribute to landscape preservation and
rural development (Schmitt et al. 2016). According to
Sims (2009, p. 322), local products foster sustainable
agricultural practices, local businesses, and ‘build a
‘‘brand’’ that can benefit the region by attracting more
visitors and investment’ and distinguish it from other
destinations. In the case of our landscapes, two aspects
need to be considered to support that claim.
One aspect is that this particularly happens in
association with the development of tourism (Nemes
et al. 2019). Our results showed that tourism is
attracted by those landscapes whose products help
preserve the biocultural diversity and that in those
cases, landscape product farmers are better off than the
other local farmers, revealing interesting synergies
between the benefits of the landscape product and the
tourism sector. However, among our landscapes, we
also observed how the expansion of tourism predom-
inately happens in areas where land abandonment is a
dominant trend. Therefore, the question remains of
whether these benefits can compare to those in rural
nonfarm activities and in cities (le Polain de Waroux
and Lambin 2013). This also poses threats to land-
scape sustainability, such as an uneven distribution of
tourism-generated wealth within the local community,
the appropriation of distinctive traditions by some
actor groups (Bowen and De Master 2011), an
overdependence on tourism (Nemes et al. 2019), and
a ‘Disneyfication’ of landscapes (Bowen and De
Master 2011). To navigate these challenges, the
123
Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275 2271
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

social–organisational context needs to be taken into
account, ‘ensuring the representation of all actors,
privileging local actors in the construction and gov-
ernance of protective arrangements, considering local
needs and priorities’ (Bowen and De Master 2011,
p. 81).
A second aspect to be considered is the importance
of the benefits and recognition that producers obtain as
guarantors of the distinct landscape character. ‘Value-
based food chains’ that build on shared social, cultural,
economic, environmental, or quality related product
values among the actors along the supply chain and the
fair distribution of the benefits are gaining attention
(Ostrom et al. 2017). The shared appreciation of
landscape products and distinct landscapes could act
as a boundary object that carries the values of
community and stewardship for their preservation
and builds ties between the different actors: among the
producers, between the producers and the rest of the
local actors, and between the landscapes and the
consumers (distant or not). In that regard, labelling
mechanisms that allow consumers to be aware of the
qualities of the products, even when they are far away
from the production landscapes, are of great value.
Our respondents reported how labelling contributed to
better prices and market access. An open question is
however, whether there are existing mechanisms that
could capture the qualities of landscape products and
the value of the landscape of origin as a whole to
emphasise the landscape embeddedness of the product
(Mann and Plieninger 2017; Flinzberger et al. 2020)
and include products that are not often under certifi-
cation such as cereals and fruit trees (as opposed to
cheese, olive oil, and wine). GI labelling schemes
often focus on processed (high value-added) foods and
neglect low value-added food products (Watts et al.
2005). Therefore, what we propose here is to revisit
the idea of landscape labelling proposed by Mann and
Plieninger (2017), which considers the differentiation
of the entire landscape rather than of the particular
product, allowing other local products to be consid-
ered under the label. On the one hand, this idea
captures the essence and benefits of the GI—that is,
embedding the products in their socio-cultural and
ecological local contexts, highlighting their added
value to consumers and differentiating them from the
competition, and promoting the collaboration among
producers to define quality standards (Quin
˜ones-Ruiz
et al. 2015; Kizos et al. 2017). On the other hand, it has
at its core the integrated management of the landscape
in which multiple actors and sectors (beyond the value
chain) collaborate in a transparent and proactive way
to preserve the landscape character and multiple
landscape functions and services. Landscape products
can offer ‘all-round social, economic and environ-
mental benefits for hosts and guests’ (Sims 2009,
p. 333) and they might be supported by initiatives such
as GIAHS, SEPLS and HNV farming.
Linking food systems and landscape ecology
The need to combine different approaches to address
food sustainability issues is more and more acknowl-
edged (Hinrichs 2010; Ros-Tonen et al. 2015; Schmitt
et al. 2016). Both food systems and landscape ecology
research provide an integrative and systemic approach
to address complex sustainability challenges that
result from the interaction between ecology and
society across scales. But there are fundamental
differences in their focus and approaches, with
potential for complementarity. Food systems research
typically looks at the interactions along the value
chain and less at the interactions with non-chain actors
or the social–ecological conditions in the areas of
production (Helmsing and Vellema 2011). On the
contrary, landscape ecology originally was dedicated
to the relationships between spatial pattern and
ecological processes at multiple nested scales within
a landscape. While food systems research is usually
focused on specific food products, landscape ecology
rarely pays attention to the resulting products from the
agricultural landscapes it studies. Both fields acknowl-
edge the importance of considering institutional and
governance issues as well as socio-cultural aspects in
the study of sustainability challenges around food and
agricultural production (including knowledge sys-
tems, heritage, perceptions and values, and manage-
ment practices). Landscape ecology does so with a
strong emphasis on the inclusion of all the different
actor groups in the places of production, while food
system research puts the actors directly connected
with the food product at center.
In the framework presented here, we take the food
system as the encompassing structure that articulates
the connections between all of the elements and
processes across the telecoupled systems, linking
production landscapes with distant consumers. The
landscape ecology lens expands the analysis beyond
123
2272 Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

the specific product to capture how it is embedded in
the landscape of production from an ecological,
economic, social, and cultural perspective. Although
not captured in this paper, the study of the ecological
outcomes of production practices is a crucial contri-
bution of landscape ecology to food systems research,
providing the tools for analysing the patterns and
processes manifested at multiple scales. At the same
time, food system approaches can contribute to the
upscaling of local landscape initiatives by reaching out
to global actors, for instance through labelling mech-
anisms and alternative distribution channels.
We conclude that the combination of landscape
ecology and food system research opens new ways to
address the challenges that the integrative analysis of
food systems poses for sustainability science. Both
fields share an interdisciplinary and system-oriented
view that acknowledges the complexity of coupled
human–environment systems but have a different
focus. Food systems provide a well-defined frame-
work to study the interactions along the value chain of
landscape products, connecting places of production
with places of consumption. Landscape ecology
allows for understanding the embeddedness of the
product and its sustainability outcomes in the land-
scapes of production from a holistic perspective by
looking beyond the product, as well as to analyse the
associated ecological processes and structures across
nested scales.
Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the financial
support provided by the German Research Foundation, DFG,
through grant number 426675955. We thank Christian Bunn,
Lukas Flinzberger, and Franziska Wolpert for their contribution
to the survey design. We especially thank all respondents to the
survey. We are also very grateful to the editor and the two
anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback that
considerably improved the relevance of this manuscript. Prof.
Dr. Johannes Kahl passed away on 12 November 2020. He
contributed a thorough food systems perspective to this study.
We remember him as an outstanding colleague and scholar in
the field of organic food quality and food culture.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by
Projekt DEAL. German Research Foundation, DFG, through
grant number 426675955.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit
to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is
not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your
intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Abson DL, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T,
Vilsmaier U, von Wehrden H, Abernethy P, Ives CD, Jager
NW, Lang DJ (2016) Leverage points for sustainability
transformation. Ambio 46(1):30–39
Agnoletti M (2014) Importance of rural landscapes as cultural
products: some notes on research trends and management
approaches from a (southern) European perspective.
Landsc Urban Plan 126:66–73
Allen T, Prosperi P (2016) Modeling sustainable food systems.
Environ Manag 57(5):956–975
Barham E, Sylvander B (2011) Labels of origin for food: local
development, global recognition. CAB International,
Oxfordshire
Benoı
ˆt M, Rizzo D, Marraccini E, Moonen AC, Galli M, Lardon
S, Rapey H, Thenail C, Bonari E (2012) Landscape
agronomy: a new field for addressing agricultural land-
scape dynamics. Landsc Ecol 27(10):1385–1394
Beriss D (2019) Food: location, location, location. Ann Rev
Anthropol 48:61–75
Boerema A, Peeters A, Swolfs S, Vandevenne F, Jacobs S, Staes
J, Meire P (2016) Soybean trade: balancing environmental
and socio-economic impacts of an intercontinental market.
PLoS ONE 11(5):e0155222
Bowen S, De Master K (2011) New rural livelihoods or muse-
ums of production? Quality food initiatives in practice.
J Rural Stud 27(1):73–82
Bowen S, Mutersbaugh T (2014) Local or localized? Exploring
the contributions of Franco-Mediterranean agrifood theory
to alternative food research. Agric Hum Values
31:201–213
Camarero L, Sampedro R (2016) Exploring female over-mi-
gration in rural Spain: employment, care giving and
mobility. In: Wiest K (ed) Women and migration in rural
Europe new geographies of Europe. Palgrave Macmillan,
London, pp 189–208
Chilla T, Fink B, Balling R, Reitmeier S, Schober K (2020) The
EU food label ‘Protected Geographical Indication’: eco-
nomic implications and their spatial dimension. Sustain-
ability 12(14):5503
Christensen AA, Brandt J, Svenningsen SR (2017) Landscape
ecology. In: Richardson D, Castree N, Goodchild MF,
Kobayashi A, Marston RA (eds) International encyclope-
dia of geography. Wiley, New York, pp 1–19
Debolini M, Marraccini E, Dubeuf JP, Geijzendorffer IR,
Guerra C, Simon M, Targetti S, Napole
´one C (2018) Land
123
Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275 2273
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

and farming system dynamics and their drivers in the
Mediterranean Basin. Land Use Policy 75:702–710
Erb KH, Haberl H, Jepsen MR, Kuemmerle T, Lindner M,
Mu
¨ller D, Verburg PH, Reenberg A (2013) A conceptual
framework for analysing and measuring land-use intensity.
Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(5):464–470
Ericksen P (2008) Conceptualizing food systems for global
environmental change research. Glob Environ Change
18(1):234–245
FAO, IFAD, ILO (2010) Gender dimensions of agricultural and
rural employment: differentiated pathways out of poverty.
Status, trends and gaps. Rome. ISBN 978-92-5-106583-9
Flinzberger L, Zinngrebe Y, Plieninger T (2020) Labelling in
Mediterranean agroforestry landscapes: a Delphi study on
relevant sustainability indicators. Sustain Sci
15:1369–1382
Foran T, Butler RA, Williams J, Wanjura WJ, Hall A, Carter L,
Carberry PS (2014) Taking complexity in food systems
seriously: an interdisciplinary analysis. World Dev
61:85–101
Furumo P, Aide T (2017) Characterizing commercial oil palm
expansion in Latin America: land use change and trade.
Environ Res Lett 12(2):024008
Garcı
´a-Martı
´n M, Plieninger T, Bieling C (2018) Dimensions of
landscape stewardship across Europe: landscape values,
place attachment, awareness, and personal responsibility.
Sustainability (Switzerland) 10:263
Gavin M, McCarter J, Mead A, Berkes F, Stepp J, Peterson D,
Tang R (2015) Defining biocultural approaches to con-
servation. Trends Ecol Evol 30:140–145
Gereffi G, Humphrey J, Sturgeon T (2005) The governance of
global value chains. Rev Int Polit Econ 12(1):78–104
Goodman D (2002) Rethinking food production–consumption:
integrative perspectives. Sociol Rural 42(4):271–277
Hanspach J, Abson DJ, Collier NF, Dorresteijn I, Schultner J,
Fischer J (2017) From trade-offs to synergies in food
security and biodiversity conservation. Front Ecol Environ
15(9):489–494
Hanspach J, Haide LJ, Oteros-Rozas E, Olafsson AS, Gulsrud
NM, Raymond CM, Toralba M, Martı
´n-Lo
´pez B, Bieling
C, Garcı
´a-Martı
´n M, Albert C, Beery TH, Fagerholm N,
Dı
´az-Reviriego I, Drews-Shambroom A, Plieninger T
(2020) Biocultural approaches to sustainability: a system-
atic review of the scientific literature. People Nat
2:643–659
Hedberg R (2015) The ecology of alternative food landscapes: a
framework for assessing the ecology of alternative food
networks and its implications for sustainability. Landsc
Res 41(7):795–807
Helmsing A, Vellema S (2011) Governance inclusion and
embedding. In: Helmsing A, Vellema S (eds) Value chains,
social inclusion and economic development: contrasting
theories and realities. Routledge, London, pp 1–19
Hinrichs C (2003) The practice and politics of food system
localization. J Rural Stud 19:33–45
Hinrichs C (2010) Conceptualizing and creating sustainable
food systems: how interdisciplinarity can help. In: Blay-
Plamer A (ed) Imagining sustainable food systems: theory
and practice. Routledge, London, pp 17–36
HLPE (2014) Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable
food systems. Rome. http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/
reports/en/
Ilbery B, Kneafsey M (1999) Niche markets and regional spe-
ciality food products in Europe: towards a research agenda.
Environ Plan A 31(12):2207–2222
Ingram J (2011) A food systems approach to researching food
security and its interactions with global environmental
change. Food Security 3(4):417–431
King R, Proudfoot L, Smith B (2014) The Mediterranean:
environment and society. Routledge, London
Kizos T (2013) Consumers’ and producers’ expectations and
gains from geographical indications: towards a conceptual
context. In: de la Guardia M, Gonzalvez A (eds) Food
protected designation of origin. Methodologies and appli-
cations Comprehensive analytical chemistry. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp 31–47
Kizos T, Detsis V, Iosifides T, Metaxakis M (2014) Social
capital and social-ecological resilience in the Asteroussia
Mountains, southern Crete, Greece. Ecol Soc 19(1):40
Kizos T, Koshaka R, Penker M, Piatti C, Vogl CR, Uchiyama Y
(2017) The governance of geographical indications:
experiences of practical implementation of selected case
studies in Austria, Italy, Greece and Japan. Br Food J
119(12):2863–2879
de Waroux YL, Lambin EF (2013) Niche commodities and rural
poverty alleviation: Contextualizing the contribution of
Argan oil to rural livelihoods in Morocco. Ann Assoc Am
Geogr 103(3):589–607
Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell
AN, Deadman P, Kratz T, Lubchenco J, Ostrom E, Ouyang
Z, Provencher W, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Taylor WW
(2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems.
Science 317(5844):1513–1516
Liu J, Hull V, Batistella M, DeFries R, Dietz T, Fu F, Hertel TW,
Izaurralde RC, Lambin EF, Li S, Martinelli LA, McCon-
nell WJ, Moran EF, Naylor R, Ouyang Z, Polenske KR,
Reenberg A, de Miranda Rocha G, Simmons CS, Verburg
PH, Vitousek PM, Zhang F, Zhu C (2013) Framing sus-
tainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol Soc 18(2):26
Malek Z
ˇ, Verburg PH (2017) Mediterranean land systems:
representing diversity and intensity of complex land sys-
tems in a dynamic region. Landsc Urban Plan 165:102–116
Mann C, Plieninger T (2017) The potential of landscape label-
ling approaches for integrated landscape management in
Europe. Landsc Res 6397:1–17
Marsden T, Banks J, Bristow G (2000) Food supply chain
approaches: exploring their role in rural development.
Sociol Ruralis 40(4):424–438
Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF, Erb KH, Hertel TW (2013) Global-
ization of land use: distant drivers of land change and
geographic displacement of land use. Curr Opin Environ
Sustain 5(5):438–444
Musacchio LR (2013) Key concepts and research priorities for
landscape sustainability. Landsc Ecol 28(6):995–998
Myers N, Mittermeier R, Mittermeier C, da Fonseca G, Kent J
(2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.
Nature 403(6772):853–858
Nemes G, Czuppon VC, Kuja
´ni K, Orba
´nE
´, Fricz A
´S, Lajos V
(2019) The local food system in the ‘genius loci’: the role
123
2274 Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

of food, local products and short food chains in rural
tourism. Stud Agric Econ 121:111–118
Nesheim MC, Oria M, Yih PT (eds) (2015) A Framework for
Assessing Effects of the Food System. IOM (Institute of
Medicine) and NRC (National Research Council). The
National Academies, Washington, DC
Opdam P, Luque S, Nassauer J, Verburg PH, Wu J (2018) How
can landscape ecology contribute to sustainability science?
Landsc Ecol 33(1):1–7
Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond
panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(39):15181–15187
Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustain-
ability of social-ecological systems. Science
325(5939):419–422
Ostrom M, De Master K, Noe E, Schermer M (2017) Values-
based food chains from a transatlantic perspective:
exploring a middle tier of agri-food system development.
Int J Sociol Agric Food 24(1):1–14
Pinto-Correia T, Vos W (2004) Multifunctionality in Mediter-
ranean landscapes: past and future. In: Jongman RHG (ed)
The new dimensions of the European landscape. Springer,
Heidelberg, pp 135–164
Plieninger T, Draux H, Fagerholm N, Bieling C, Bu
¨rgi M, Kizos
T, Kuemmerle T, Primdahl J, Verburg PH (2016) The
driving forces of landscape change in Europe: a systematic
review of the evidence. Land Use Policy 57:204–214
Plieninger T, Kohsaka R, Bieling C, Hashimoto S, Kamiyama C,
Kizos T, Penker M, Kieninger P, Shaw BJ, Sioen GB,
Yoshida Z, Saito O (2017) Fostering biocultural diversity
in landscapes through place-based food networks: a ‘‘so-
lution scan’’ of European and Japanese models. Sustain Sci
13(1):219–233
Quin
˜ones-Ruiz XF, Penker M, Vogl CR, Samper-Gartner LF
(2015) Can origin labels re-shape relationships along
international supply chains? The case of Cafe
´de Colombia.
Int J Commons 9(1):416–439
Renting H, Marsden TK, Banks J (2003) Understanding alter-
native food networks: exploring the role of short food
supply chains in rural development. Environ Plan A
35:393–411
Ros-Tonen MAF, Van Leynseele YPB, Laven A, Sunderland T
(2015) Landscapes of social inclusion: inclusive value-
chain collaboration through the lenses of food sovereignty
and landscape governance. Eur J Dev Res 27(4):523–540
Rueda X, Lambin EF (2013) Linking globalization to local land
uses: how eco-consumers and gourmands are changing the
Colombian coffee landscapes. World Dev 41:286–301
Sims R (2009) Food, place and authenticity: local food and the
sustainable tourism experience. J Sustain Tourism
17(3):321–336
Smith VM, Greene RB, Silbernagel J (2013) The social and
spatial dynamics of community food production: a land-
scape approach to policy and program development.
Landsc Ecol 28(7):1415–1426
Schmitt E, Dominique B, Six J (2017) Assessing the degree of
localness of food value chains. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst
42(5):573–598
Schmitt E, Keech D, Maye D, Dominique B, Kirwan J (2016)
Comparing the sustainability of local and global food
chains: a case study of cheese products in Switzerland and
the UK. Sustainability 8(5):419
Seto KC, Reenberg A, Boone CG, Fragkias M, Haase D, Lan-
ganke T, Marcotullio P, Munroe DK, Olah B, Simon D
(2012) Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 109(20):7687–7692
Sonnino R (2007) Embeddedness in action: saffron and the
making of the local in southern Tuscany. Agric Hum
Values 24:61–74
Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstro
¨m J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I,
Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit
CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM,
Ramanathan V, Reyers B, So
¨rlin S (2015) Planetary
boundaries: guiding human development on a changing
planet. Science 347(6223):1259855
Swanwick C (2002) Landscape character assessment. Guidance
for England and Scotland. The Countryside Agency and the
Scottish Natural Heritage. https://www.nature.scot/
landscape-character-assessment-guidance-england-and-
scotland
Tendall DM, Joerin J, Kopainsky B, Edwards P, Shreck A, Le
QB, Kruetli P, Grant M, Six J (2015) Food system resi-
lience: defining the concept. Glob Food Security 6:17–23
Underwood E, Viers J, Klausmeyer K, Cox R, Shaw M (2009)
Threats and biodiversity in the Mediterranean biome.
Divers Distrib 15(2):188–197
UNESCO (2013) Mediterranean diet. https://ich.unesco.org/en/
RL/mediterranean-diet-00884
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2016)
Annual Report 2016, Engaging people to protect the planet.
https://www.unenvironment.org/annualreport/2016/
?page=0&lang=en
Watts DCH, Ibery B, Maye D (2005) Making reconnections in
agro-food geography: alternative systems of food provi-
sion. Progr Hum Geogr 29(1):22–40
Wolpert F, Quintas-Soriano C, Plieninger T (2020) Exploring
land-use histories of tree-crop landscapes: a cross-site
comparison in the Mediterranean Basin. Sustain Sci
15:1267–1283
Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem ser-
vices and human well-being in changing landscapes.
Landsc Ecol 28(6):999–1023
Wu J (2019) Linking landscape, land system and design
approaches to achieve sustainability. J Land Use Sci
14(2):173–189
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
123
Landscape Ecol (2021) 36:2259–2275 2275
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”),
for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are
maintained. By accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use
(“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or
a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or
a personal subscription (to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the
Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data
internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking,
analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of
companies unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that
Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to
circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil
liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by
Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer
Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates
revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain.
Springer Nature journal content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal
content on a large scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any
information or content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or
without notice. Springer Nature may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature
journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express
or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or
warranties imposed by law, including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be
licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other
manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com