Sustainability Science

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 465–476 | Cite as

Measuring the effectiveness of landscape approaches to conservation and development

  • Jeffrey A. Sayer
  • Chris Margules
  • Agni K. Boedhihartono
  • Terry Sunderland
  • James D. Langston
  • James Reed
  • Rebecca Riggs
  • Louise E. Buck
  • Bruce M. Campbell
  • Koen Kusters
  • Chris Elliott
  • Peter A. Minang
  • Allan Dale
  • Herry Purnomo
  • James R. Stevenson
  • Petrus Gunarso
  • Agus Purnomo
Overview Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Concepts, Methodology, and Knowledge Management for Sustainability Science

Abstract

Landscape approaches attempt to achieve balance amongst multiple goals over long time periods and to adapt to changing conditions. We review project reports and the literature on integrated landscape approaches, and found a lack of documented studies of their long-term effectiveness. The combination of multiple and potentially changing goals presents problems for the conventional measures of impact. We propose more critical use of theories of change and measures of process and progress to complement the conventional impact assessments. Theories of change make the links between project deliverables, outputs, outcomes, and impacts explicit, and allow a full exploration of the landscape context. Landscape approaches are long-term engagements, but short-term process metrics are needed to confirm that progress is being made in negotiation of goals, meaningful stakeholder engagement, existence of connections to policy processes, and effectiveness of governance. Long-term impact metrics are needed to assess progress on achieving landscapes that deliver multiple societal benefits, including conservation, production, and livelihood benefits. Generic criteria for process are proposed, but impact metrics will be highly situation specific and must be derived from an effective process and a credible theory of change.

Keywords

Conservation and development Conservation impact assessment Conservation theories of change Biodiversity-development trade-offs Integrated landscape approaches to conservation 

References

  1. Agostini V, Grantham H, Wilson J, Mangubhai S, Rotinsulu C, Hidayat N, Muljadi A, Muhajir MM, Darmawan A, Rumetna L (2012) Achieving fisheries and conservation objectives within marine protected areas: zoning the Raja Ampat network. The Nature Conservancy, Indonesia Marine Program, Denpasar, InodnesiaGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal A, Chhatre A (2006) Explaining success on the commons: community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Dev 34:149–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldrich M (2007) In practice: landscape outcomes assessment methodology “LOAM”. WWF Forests for Life Programme, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  4. Álvarez-Romero JG, Adams VM, Pressey RL, Douglas M, Dale AP, Augé AA, Ball D, Childs J, Digby M, Dobbs R (2015) Integrated cross-realm planning: a decision-makers’ perspective. Biol Conserv 191:799–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angelsen A, Rudel TK (2013) Designing and implementing effective REDD + policies: a forest transition approach. Rev Environ Econ Policy 7:91–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. APRIL Group (2015) Restorasi Ekosistem Riau [Online]. http://www.rekoforest.org. Accessed 15 June 2016
  7. Atzberger C (2013) Advances in remote sensing of agriculture: context description, existing operational monitoring systems and major information needs. Remote Sens 5:949–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Balint PJ, Stewart RE, Desai A (2011) Wicked environmental problems: managing uncertainty and conflict. Island Press, Washington DC, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bauch SC, Sills EO, Pattanayak SK (2014) Have we managed to integrate conservation and development? ICDP impacts in the Brazilian Amazon. World Dev 64:S135–S148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baylis K, Honey-Rosés J, Börner J, Corbera E, Ezzine-De-blas D, Ferraro PJ, Lapeyre R, Persson UM, Pfaff A, Wunder S (2016) Mainstreaming impact evaluation in nature conservation. Conserv Lett 9(1):58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bensted-Smith R, Kirkman H (2010) Comparison of approaches to management of large marine areas. Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Boedhihartono AK (2012) Visualizing sustainable landscapes: understanding and negotiating conservation and development trade-offs using visual techniques. IUCN, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Boedhihartono AK, Sayer J (2012) Forest landscape restoration: restoring what and for whom?. Forest landscape restoration, Springer, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Brooks N, Anderson S, Burton I, Fisher S, Rai N, Ellam I (2013) An operational framework for Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development (TAMD). IIED climate change working paper, IIED, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Browder JO (2002) Conservation and development projects in the Brazilian Amazon: lessons from the community initiative program in Rondonia. Environ Manag 29:750–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buck LE, Scherr SJ (2009) Building innovation systems for managing complex landscapes. The Sciences and Art of Adaptive Management: Innovating for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources Management. Soil and Water Conservation Society, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Buck LE, Milder JC, Gavin TA, Mukherjee I (2006) Understanding ecoagriculture: a framework for measuring landscape performance. Cornell University, New York and Ecoagriculture Partners, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Campbell B, Sayer JA, Frost P, Vermeulen S, Pérez MR, Cunningham A, Prabhu R (2003) Assessing the performance of natural resource systems. Integrated natural resource management: linking productivity, environment and development. CABI Publ. and Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Wallingford, UK and Bogor, Indonesia, pp 267–292Google Scholar
  19. 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 29:1095–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chambers R (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Dev 22:953–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clark WC, Tomich TP, Van Noordwijk M, Guston D, Catacutan D, Dickson NM, Mcnie E (2011) Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 200900231Google Scholar
  22. Constantino PDAL, Carlos HSA, Ramalho EE, Rostant L, Marinelli CE, Teles D, Fonseca-Junior SF, Fernandes RB, Valsecchi J (2012) Empowering local people through community-based resource monitoring: a comparison of Brazil and Namibia. Ecol Soc 17:22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dale A, Vella K, Pressey RL, Brodie J, Yorkston H, Potts R (2013) A method for risk analysis across governance systems: a Great Barrier Reef case study. Environ Res Lett 8:015037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dale AP, Pressey B, Adams VM, Álvarez-Romero JG, Digby M, Dobbs R, Douglas M, Auge AA, Maughan M, Childs J (2014) Catchment-scale governance in northern Australia: a preliminary evaluation. J Econ Soc Policy 16:6Google Scholar
  25. Defries RS, Ellis EC, Chapin FS, Matson PA, Turner B, Agrawal A, Crutzen PJ, Field C, Gleick P, Kareiva PM (2012) Planetary opportunities: a social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. Bioscience 62:603–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ellis EC, Ramankutty N (2008) Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Front Ecol Environ 6:439–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Endamana D, Boedhihartono AK, Bokoto B, Defo L, Eyebe A, Ndikumagenge C, Nzooh Z, Ruiz-Perez M, Sayer JA (2010) A framework for assessing conservation and development in a Congo Basin Forest Landscape. Trop Conserv Sci 3:262–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Estrada-Carmona N, Hart AK, Declerck FA, Harvey CA, Milder JC (2014) Integrated landscape management for agriculture, rural livelihoods, and ecosystem conservation: an assessment of experience from Latin America and the Caribbean. Landsc Urban Plan 129:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fisher B, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Glew L, Mascia M, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH (2014) Moving Rio forward and avoiding 10 more years with little evidence for effective conservation policy. Conserv Biol 28:880–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Frost P, Campbell B, Medina G, Usongo L (2006) Landscape-scale approaches for integrated natural resource management in tropical forest landscapes. Ecol Soc 11:30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Garnett ST, Sayer J, du Toit J (2007) Improving the effectiveness of interventions to balance conservation and development: a conceptual framework. Ecol Soc 12:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. German L, Mansoor H, Alemu G, Mazengia W, Amede T, Stroud A (2007) Participatory integrated watershed management: evolution of concepts and methods in an ecoregional program of the eastern African highlands. Agric Syst 94:189–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gollin D, Probst LT (2015) Food and agriculture: shifting landscapes for policy. Oxford Revi Econ Policy 31:8–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Görg C (2007) Landscape governance: the “politics of scale” and the “natural” conditions of places. Geoforum 38:954–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grober-Dunsmore R, Pittman SJ, Caldow C, Kendall MS, Frazer TK (2009) A landscape ecology approach for the study of ecological connectivity across tropical marine seascapes. In: Nagelkerken I (ed) Ecological connectivity among tropical coastal ecosystems. Springer, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  36. Gupta A (2010) Transparency in global environmental governance: a coming of age? Glob Environ Politics 10:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hansen M, Potapov P, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova S, Tyukavina A, Thau D, Stehman S, Goetz S, Loveland T (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342:850–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harvey CA, Chacon M, Donatti CI, Garen E, Hannah L, Andrade A, Bede L, Brown D, Calle A, Chara J (2014) Climate-smart landscapes: opportunities and challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture. Conserv Lett 7:77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kapos V, Balmford A, Aveling R, Bubb P, Carey P, Entwistle A, Hopkins J, Mulliken T, Safford R, Stattersfield A (2009) Outcomes, not implementation, predict conservation success. Oryx 43:336–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kissinger G, Moroge M, Noponen M (2015) Private sector investment in landscape approaches: the role of production standards and certification. In: Minang PA, van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Mbow C, de Leeuw J, Catacutan D (eds) Climate-smart landscapes: multifunctionality in practice. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), NairobiGoogle Scholar
  41. Kutter A, Westby LD (2014) Managing rural landscapes in the context of a changing climate. Dev Pract 24:544–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lawrence A, Paudel K, Barnes R, Malla Y (2006) Adaptive value of participatory biodiversity monitoring in community forestry. Environ Conserv 33:325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Manetti G (2011) The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical evidence and critical points. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 18:110–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mansourian S (2016) Understanding the relationship between governance and forest landscape restoration. Conserv Soc 14:267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Margules C, Sarker S (2007) Systematic conservation planning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  46. Milder JC, Buck LE, Declerck F, Scherr SJ (2012) Landscape approaches to achieving food production, natural resource conservation, and the millennium development goals. Integrating ecology and poverty reduction. Springer, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. Milder JC, Hart AK, Dobie P, Minai J, Zaleski C (2014) Integrated landscape initiatives for african agriculture, development, and conservation: a region-wide assessment. World Dev 54:68–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller DC (2014) Explaining global patterns of international aid for linked biodiversity conservation and development. World Dev 59:341–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Minang PA, van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Mbow C, de Leeuw J, Catacutan D (2014) Climate-smart landscapes: multifunctionality in practice. ASB Partnership for The Tropical Forest margins, World Agroforestry center, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  50. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron D, Chan KM, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. OECD-DAC (2002) Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results-based management. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  52. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social–ecological systems. Science 325:419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pfund J-L (2010) Landscape-scale research for conservation and development in the tropics: fighting persisting challenges. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Prinsen G, Nijhof S (2015) Between logframes and theory of change: reviewing debates and a practical experience. Dev Pract 25(2):234–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reed J, van Vianen J, Deakin EL, 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. Glob Change Biol 22:2540–2554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Riggs RA, Sayer J, Margules C, Boedhihartono AK, Langston JD, Sutanto H (2016) Forest tenure and conflict in Indonesia: contested rights in Rempek Village, Lombok. Land Use Policy 57:241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roe D, Day M, Booker F, Zhou W, Allebone-Webb S, Kümpel N, Hill NA, Wright J, Rust N, Sunderland TC (2014) Are alternative livelihood projects effective at reducing local threats to specified elements of biodiversity and/or improving or maintaining the conservation status of those elements?: a systematic review protocol. Environ Evid 3:6. doi:10.1186/2047-2382-3-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rosa I, Ahmed SE, Ewers RM (2014) The transparency, reliability and utility of tropical rainforest land-use and land-cover change models. Glob Change Biol 20:1707–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rounsevell MD, Pedroli B, Erb K-H, Gramberger M, Busck AG, Haberl H, Kristensen S, Kuemmerle T, Lavorel S, Lindner M (2012) Challenges for land system science. Land Use Policy 29:899–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rudel TK, Coomes OT, Moran E, Achard F, Angelsen A, Xu J, Lambin E (2005) Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change. Glob Environ Change 15:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sandker M, Campbell BM, Nzooh Z, Sunderland T, Amougou V, Defo L, Sayer J (2009) Exploring the effectiveness of integrated conservation and development interventions in a Central African forest landscape. Biodivers Conserv 18:2875–2892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sandker M, Campbell BM, Ruiz-Perez M, Sayer JA, Cowling R, Kassa H, Knight AT (2010) The role of participatory modeling in landscape approaches to reconcile conservation and development. Ecol Soc 15(2):13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sarkar S, Dyer JS, Margules C, Ciarleglio M, Kemp N, Wong G, Juhn D, Supriatna J (2016) Developing an objectives hierarchy for multicriteria decisions on land use options, with a case study of biodiversity conservation and forestry production from Papua, Indonesia. Environ Plan Plan Design 0265813516641684Google Scholar
  65. Sayer JA (2009) Reconciling conservation and development: are landscapes the answer? Biotropica 41:649–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sayer J, Campbell BM (2004) The science of sustainable development: local livelihoods and the global environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  67. Sayer J, Bull G, Elliott C (2008) Mediating forest transitions: ‘Grand design’ or ‘Muddling through’. Conserv Soc 6:320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J, Pfund J-L, Sheil D, Meijaard E, Venter M, Boedhihartono AK, Day M, Garcia C (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:8349–8356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sayer J, Margules C, Boedhihartono AK, Dale A, Sunderland T, Supriatna J, Saryanthi R (2014) Landscape approaches; what are the pre-conditions for success? Sust Sci 10(2):345–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sayer J, Margules C, Bohnet I, Boedhihartono A, Pierce R, Dale A, Andrews K (2015) The role of citizen science in landscape and seascape approaches to integrating conservation and development. Land 4:1200–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sayer J, Endamana D, Boedhihartono A, Ruiz Pérez M, Breuer T (2016) Learning from change in the Sangha Tri-national landscape. Int For Rev Spec Issue Valuing Cameroonian For 18(1):130–139Google Scholar
  72. Scherr SJ, Shames S, Friedman R (2012) From climate-smart agriculture to climate-smart landscapes. Agric Food Secur 1:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shames S, Hill Clarvis M, Kissinger G (2014) Financing strategies for integrated landscape investment. Landscapes for People, Food and Nature, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  74. Sloan S (2015) The development-driven forest transition and its utility for REDD+. Ecol Econ 116:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Smith RJ, Veríssimo D, Leader-Williams N, Cowling RM, Knight AT (2009) Let the locals lead. Nature 462:280–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stern E, Stame N, Mayne J, Forss K, Davies R, Befani B (2012) Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluations. Report of a study commissioned by the Department for International Development, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  77. Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Fitoussi J-P (2010) Mismeasuring our lives: why GDP doesn’t add up. New Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  78. Stokes EJ, Strindberg S, Bakabana PC, Elkan PW, Iyenguet FC, Madzoké B, Malanda GAF, Mowawa BS, Moukoumbou C, Ouakabadio FK (2010) Monitoring great ape and elephant abundance at large spatial scales: measuring effectiveness of a conservation landscape. PLoS ONE 5:e10294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sunderland T, Sayer J, Minh-Ha H (2012) Evidence-based conservation: lessons from the Lower Mekong. Routledge, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  80. Tress B, Tress G (2001) Capitalising on multiplicity: a transdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research. Landsc Urban Plan 57:143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vogel I (2012) Review of the use of ‘Theory of Change’ in international development. Department for International Development (DFID), London, UKGoogle Scholar
  82. Wasseige de C, Devers D, de Marcken P, Eba’aatyi R, Nasi R, Mayaux P (2010) The forests of the Congo basin: state of the forest 2008. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  83. Weiss CH (1997) Theory-based evaluation: past, present, and future. New directions for evaluation 1997:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landsc Ecol 17:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Young OR, Berkhout F, Gallopin GC, Janssen MA, Ostrom E, van der Leeuw S (2006) The globalization of socio-ecological systems: an agenda for scientific research. Glob Environ Change 16:304–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey A. Sayer
    • 1
  • Chris Margules
    • 1
    • 2
  • Agni K. Boedhihartono
    • 1
  • Terry Sunderland
    • 3
  • James D. Langston
    • 1
  • James Reed
    • 3
  • Rebecca Riggs
    • 1
  • Louise E. Buck
    • 4
  • Bruce M. Campbell
    • 5
    • 6
  • Koen Kusters
    • 7
  • Chris Elliott
    • 8
  • Peter A. Minang
    • 9
  • Allan Dale
    • 1
  • Herry Purnomo
    • 3
    • 10
  • James R. Stevenson
    • 11
  • Petrus Gunarso
    • 12
  • Agus Purnomo
    • 13
  1. 1.Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, College of Marine and Environmental Sciences James Cook UniversityCairnsAustralia
  2. 2.Research Center for Climate Change University of IndonesiaDepokIndonesia
  3. 3.Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)Bogor BaratIndonesia
  4. 4.EcoAgriculture Partners and Department of Natural ResourcesCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  5. 5.Faculty of Science, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS)University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  6. 6.International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)CaliColombia
  7. 7.Wereld in Woorden–Global Research and ReportingAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  8. 8.Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA)San FranciscoUSA
  9. 9.ASB-Partnerships for the Tropical Forest Margins, World Agroforestry CentreNairobiKenya
  10. 10.Faculty of Forestry Bogor Agricultural UniversityBogorIndonesia
  11. 11.CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council Secretariat, FAORomeItaly
  12. 12.Indonesian Forestry Scholars Association-PERSAKI, PT RAPP APRILJakartaIndonesia
  13. 13.Sinar Mas Agro Resources and Technology (SMART)JakartaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations