Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Participatory landscape sustainability assessment: where do we stand? A systematic literature review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

In line with inter- and transdisciplinary approaches promoted in Sustainability Science, Participatory Landscape Sustainability Assessments (PLSA) are developing at a rapid pace. PLSA approaches share with other assessments the aim of standardizing observations, while sharing with participatory processes place-based and context-specific viewpoints from diverse stakeholders.

Objective

This literature review presents different PLSA approaches identified in studies, and argues that the lack of a coherent framework and poor substantive theorization can limit the development of PLSA research.

Methods

The study involved a systematic literature review on a corpus of 425 publications, combining bibliographic mapping on the full corpus and a content analysis of a sub-corpus of 138 full texts.

Results

The review of the literature showed that (i) PLSA studies lie at the intersection of ecology, landscape planning and sociocultural approaches, (ii) PLSA indicators evaluate on average 4.7 categories of sustainability, but most are applied at a local level and provide a snapshot of a situation, (iii) stakeholders tend not to be involved in the choice of indicators (only 28.9% of studies) and even more rarely in assessment design (7.2%). When stakeholders are included, they are usually only asked to populate preidentified indicators (63.9%). (iv) Diverse viewpoints are taken into consideration mainly by using indicators (67.3%) rather than by promoting discussion (39.8%). Three types of PLSA study can be differentiated: the participation-oriented approach, the contributive approach (rooted in positivism) and the collaborative approach (rooted in constructivism).

Conclusion

We advocate that future PLSA studies pay more attention to consistency between their objectives, the methods they employ, and the theoretical grounding they enlist. This might help to avoid confusion about different participatory approaches and to understand their respective contributions to Landscape Sustainability Science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abeywardana N, Schütt B, Wagalawatta T, Bebermeier W (2019) Indigenous agricultural systems in the dry zone of Sri Lanka: management transformation assessment and sustainability. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altaba Tena P, García-Esparza JA (2019) The heritagization of a mediterranean vernacular mountain landscape: concepts. Probl Process Heritage Soc 11(3):189–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Antrop M (2000) Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis. Agr Ecosyst Environ 77(1–2):17–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachi L, Faria DMCP, Barreiros Horta M, Carvalho-Ribeiro S (2021) Mapping cultural ecosystem services (CESs) and key urban landscape features: a pilot study for land use policy and planning review. Int J Urban Sustain Dev 13(2):420–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balfour NJ, Durrant R, Ely A, Sandom CJ (2021) People, nature and large herbivores in a shared landscape: a mixed-method study of the ecological and social outcomes from agriculture and conservation. People Nat 3(2):418–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baral N, Heinen JT (2007) Resources use, conservation attitudes, management intervention and park-people relations in the Western Terai landscape of Nepal. Environ Conserv 34(1):64–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnaud C, van Paassen A (2013) Equity, power games, and legitimacy: dilemmas of participatory natural resource management. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05459-180221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann MD, Zimmerer KS, van Etten J (2020) Participatory seed projects and agroecological landscape knowledge in Central America. Int J Agric Sustain 18(4):300–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayne KM, Höck BK, Spence HR, Crawford KA, Payn TW, Barnard TD (2015) New Zealand school children’s perceptions of local forests and the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators: comparing local and international value systems. NZ J Forest Sci 45(1):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Bélisle AC, Wapachee A, Asselin H (2021) From landscape practices to ecosystem services: landscape valuation in Indigenous contexts. Ecol Econ 179:106858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanco J, Ollivier G, Alignier A, Aviron S, Sirami C, Kernéïs É, Durant D, Sabatier R (2022) How ecological research on human-dominated ecosystems incorporates agricultural and forestry practices: a literature analysis. Ambio 51:1143–1157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boafo YA, Saito O, Takeuchi K (2014) Provisioning ecosystem services in rural savanna landscapes of Northern Ghana: an assessment of supply, utilization, and drivers of change. J Disaster Res 9(4):501–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohnet IC, Roebeling PC, Williams KJ, Holzworth D, van Grieken ME, Pert PL, Kroon FJ, Westcott DA, Brodie J (2011) Landscapes Toolkit: an integrated modelling framework to assist stakeholders in exploring options for sustainable landscape development. Landscape Ecol 26(8):1179–1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J. and Wilderman, C. C. (2009). Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Online submission.

  • Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Reinert F, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bravo-Monroy L (2021) Coffee and potato agroecosystems: social construction of spaces as a concept to analyse nature’s contributions to people. Front Ecol Evol 9:87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brédif H, Arnould P (2004) Evaluer n’est pas gérer: considérations pour rompre le pouvoir des critères et des indicateurs. Revue Forestière Française 56(5):485–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calderon C, Butler A (2019) Politicising the landscape: a theoretical contribution towards the development of participation in landscape planning. Landsc Res 45(2):152–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty A, Joshi PK, Sachdeva K (2018) Capturing forest dependency in the central Himalayan region: variations between Oak (Quercus spp.) and Pine (Pinus spp.) dominated forest landscapes. Ambio 47(4):504–522

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Ryan ME, Reid RS, Riechers M, Serban A, Bennett NJ, Cvitanovic C, Fernández-Giménez ME, Galvin KA, Goldstein BE, Klenk NL, Tengö M, Brennan R, Cockburn JJ, Hill R, Munera C, Nel JL, Österblom H, Pickering T (2021) Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat Sustain 4(11):983–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8059

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen MJ (2017) A systematic review of urban sustainability assessment literature. Sustainability (switzerland) 9(11):2048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2000). European Landscape Convention. European Treaty Series No. 176.

  • Dale VH, Kline KL, Parish ES, Eichler SE (2019) Engaging stakeholders to assess landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecol 34(6):1199–1218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Shirayama Y (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359(6373):270–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbie MF (2013) Public aesthetic preferences to inform sustainable wetland management in Victoria, Australia. Landsc Urban Plan 120:178–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englund O, Berndes G, Cederberg C (2017) How to analyse ecosystem services in landscapes—a systematic review. Ecol Ind 73:492–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, A. (2005). Towards sustainable land use: Public demand for plant diversity in agricultural landscapes of central Germany. In Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Convention on Biological Diversity, 205–220.

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbes C, Hopkins AL, Díaz AI, Jimenez-Osornio J (2020) Defining and measuring sustainability: a systematic review of studies in rural Latin America and the Caribbean. Environ Dev Sustain 22(1):447–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gullino P, Battisti L, Larcher F (2018) Linking multifunctionality and sustainability for valuing peri-urban farming: a case study in the turin metropolitan area (italy). Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS (2018) ROSES reporting standards for systematic evidence syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ Evidence. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang X, Sherk JT (2014) Evaluation and comparison of sustainability performance and visual preference of residential landscape elements. HortTechnology 24(3):318–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang L, Wu J, Yan L (2015) Defining and measuring urban sustainability: a review of indicators. Landscape Ecol 30(7):1175–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husson F, Lê S, Pagès J (2017) Exploratory multivariate analysis by example using R, vol 15. CRC Press, Boca Raton. https://doi.org/10.1201/B21874

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Martín-López B, Barton DN, Gomez-Baggethun E, Boeraeve F, Washbourne CL (2016) A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst Serv 22:213–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karjala MK, Dewhurst SM (2003) Including aboriginal issues in forest planning: a case study in central interior British Columbia. Can Landsc Urban Plan 64(1–2):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Karner K, Cord AF, Hagemann N, Hernandez-Mora N, Holzkämper A, Jeangros B, Lienhoop N, Nitsch H, Rivas D, Schmid E, Schulp CJE, Strauch M, van der Zanden EH, Volk M, Willaarts B, Zarrineh N, Schönhart M (2019) Developing stakeholder-driven scenarios on land sharing and land sparing—insights from five European case studies. J Environ Manage 241:488–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kates RW (2011) What kind of a science is sustainability science? Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(49):19449–19450

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kivinen S (2015) Many a little makes a mickle: cumulative land cover changes and traditional land use in the Kyrö reindeer herding district, northern Finland. Appl Geogr 63:204–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • König HJ, Podhora A, Zhen L, Helming K, Yan H, Du B, Wübbeke J, Wang C, Klinger J, Chen C, Uthes S (2015) Knowledge brokerage for impact assessment of land use scenarios in inner Mongolia, China: extending and testing the FoPIA approach. Sustainability (switzerland) 7(5):5027–5049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korpilo S, Jalkanen J, Virtanen T, Lehvävirta S (2018) Where are the hotspots and coldspots of landscape values, visitor use and biodiversity in an urban forest? PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203611

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kühne O (2019) Landscape theories: a brief introduction. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25491-9

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lê S, Josse J, Husson F (2008) FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. J Stat Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepart, J. and Marty, P. (2013). Évaluer la durabilité des paysages. In L’évaluation de la durabilité (pp. 113–134). Éditions Quæ.

  • Liao C, Agrawal A, Clark PE, Levin SA, Rubenstein DI (2020) Landscape sustainability science in the drylands: mobility, rangelands and livelihoods. Landscape Ecol 35(11):2433–2447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loos J, Benra F, Berbés-Blázquez M, Bremer LL, Chan KM, Egoh B, Winkler KJ (2023) An environmental justice perspective on ecosystem services. Ambio 52(3):477–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marques MJ, Schwilch G, Lauterburg N, Crittenden S, Tesfai M, Stolte J, Zdruli P, Zucca C, Petursdottir T, Evelpidou N, Karkani A, AsliYilmazgil Y, Panagopoulos T, Yirdaw E, Kanninen M, Rubio JL, Schmiedel U, Doko A (2016) Multifaceted impacts of sustainable land management in drylands: a review. Sustainability (switzerland) 8(2):177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medeiros A, Fernandes C, Gonçalves JF, Farinha-Marques P (2021) Research trends on integrative landscape assessment using indicators—a systematic review. Ecol Indic 129:107815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metallinou MM (2020) Emergence of and learning processes in a civic group resuming prescribed burning in Norway. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12145668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A (2016) The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106(1):213–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moraine M, Grimaldi J, Murgue C, Duru M, Therond O (2016) Co-design and assessment of cropping systems for developing crop-livestock integration at the territory level. Agric Syst 147:87–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill J, Holland A, Light A (2008) Environmental Values. Routledge, England

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oudes D, Stremke S (2020) Climate adaptation, urban regeneration and brownfield reclamation: a literature review on landscape quality in large-scale transformation projects. Landsc Res 45(7):905–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palacios-Agundez I, Onaindia M, Potschin M, Tratalos JA, Madariaga I, Haines-Young R (2015) Relevance for decision making of spatially explicit, participatory scenarios for ecosystem services in an area of a high current demand. Environ Sci Policy 54:199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pistorius T, Carodenuto S, Wathum G (2017) Implementing forest landscape restoration in Ethiopia. Forests. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8030061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pullin AS, Stewart GB (2006) Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 20(6):1647–1656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Puskás N, Abunnasr Y, Naalbandian S (2021) Assessing deeper levels of participation in nature-based solutions in urban landscapes—a literature review of real-world cases. Lands Urban Plan 210:104065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ (2006) An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecol Econ 59(4):406–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe M (2013) Landscape and participation. the routledge companion to landscape studies. Routledge, England, pp 335–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapkota LM, Jihadah L, Sato M, Greijmans M, Wiset K, Aektasaeng N, Daisai A, Gritten D (2021) Translating global commitments into action for successful forest landscape restoration: lessons from Ing watershed in northern Thailand. Land Use Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sébastien L, Lehtonen M, Bauler T (2017) Introduction. Les indicateurs participatifs tiennent-ils leurs promesses? Participations 2:9–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selman P (2008) What do we mean by sustainable landscape? Sustain: Sci Prac Policy 4(2):23–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaaban M, Schwartz C, Macpherson J, Piorr A (2021) A conceptual model framework for mapping, analyzing and managing supply–demand mismatches of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Land 10(2):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma D, Holmes I, Vergara-Asenjo G, Miller WN, Cunampio M, Cunampio RB, Cunampio MB, Potvin C (2016) A comparison of influences on the landscape of two social-ecological systems. Land Use Policy 57:499–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheikhnejad Y, Yigitcanlar T (2020) Scientific landscape of sustainable urban and rural areas research: a systematic scientometric analysis. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speelman EN, García-Barrios LE, Groot JCJ, Tittonell P (2014) Gaming for smallholder participation in the design of more sustainable agricultural landscapes. Agric Syst 126:62–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Team, R. C. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2012

  • Tekken V, Spangenberg JH, Burkhard B, Escalada M, Stoll-Kleemann S, Truong DT, Settele J (2017) “Things are different now”: Farmer perceptions of cultural ecosystem services of traditional rice landscapes in Vietnam and the Philippines. Ecosyst Serv 25:153–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terêncio DPS, Varandas SGP, Fonseca AR, Cortes RMV, Fernandes LF, Pacheco FAL, Monteiro SM, Martinho J, Cabral J, Santos J, Cabecinha E (2021) Integrating ecosystem services into sustainable landscape management: a collaborative approach. Sci Total Environ 794:148538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24(8):1037–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart J, Acott T (2014) A Sense of place in cultural ecosystem services: the case of cornish fishing communities. Soc Nat Resour 27(1):3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eck, N. J. and Waltman, L. (2011). Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2058v1

  • Vaca RA, Rodiles-Hernández R, Ochoa-Gaona S, Taylor-Aquino NE, Obregón-Viloria R, Díaz-García DA, Navarrete-Gutiérrez DA (2019) Evaluating and supporting conservation action in agricultural landscapes of the Usumacinta River Basin. J Environ Manage 230:392–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vallés-Planells M, Galiana F, van Eetvelde V (2014) A classification of landscape services to support local landscape planning. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06251-190144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallet A, Locatelli B, Levrel H, Dendoncker N, Barnaud C, Conde YQ (2019) Linking equity, power, and stakeholders’ roles in relation to ecosystem services. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10904-240214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bueren EML, Blom EM (1997) Hierarchical framework for the formulation of sustainable forest management standards. Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Vera-Baceta MA, Thelwall M, Kousha K (2019) Web of science and scopus language coverage. Scientometrics 121(3):1803–1813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vialatte A, Barnaud C, Blanco J, Ouin A, Choisis JP, Andrieu E, Sheeren D, Ladet S, Deconchat M, Clément F, Esquerré D, Sirami C (2019) A conceptual framework for the governance of multiple ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Landsc Ecol 34(7):1653–1673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2006) Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity, and sustainability science. Landsc Ecol 21(1):1–4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol 28(6):999–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2021) Landscape sustainability science (II): core questions and key approaches. Landsc Ecol (issue Ii). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01245-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulff Barreiro F, Brito Gonzalez O (2020) The production of intercultural urban landscapes, a multi-scalar approach: the case of Ballarò Palermo. Urban Design Int 25(3):250–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang G, Yu Z, Zhang J, Søderkvist Kristensen L (2021) From preference to landscape sustainability: a bibliometric review of landscape preference research from 1968 to 2019. Ecosyst Health Sustain 7(1):1948355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou BB, Wu J, Anderies JM (2019) Sustainable landscapes and landscape sustainability: A tale of two concepts. In Landscape and Urban Planning 189:274–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the « Laboratoire Mixte International » « Vers un observatoire collaboratif des paysages et de leurs durabilités à Madagascar » (LMI Paysages) for its financial and technical support.

Funding

This study was supported by the French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (Institut de Recherche pour le Développement).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1SENS, IRD, CIRAD, UMR SENS, Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3, St Charles, Route de Mende, 34199, Montpellier, France

    Clémence Moreau, Julien Blanco & Stéphanie M. Carrière

  2. Ecole Superieure des Sciences Agronomiques, Universite d’Antananarivo, Mention Eaux et Forets, BP 175, 101, Antananarivo, Madagascar

    Josoa Randriamalala

  3. Espace-Dev (IRD, Univ. Montpellier, Univ. Guyane, Univ. La Réunion, Univ. Antilles, Univ. Nouvelle Calédonie), Antananarivo, Madagascar

    Anne-Elisabeth Laques

Authors
  1. Clémence Moreau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julien Blanco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Josoa Randriamalala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne-Elisabeth Laques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stéphanie M. Carrière
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: Study conception and design: CM, JB, SMC. Data collection: CM. Analysis and interpretation of results: CM, JB. Draft manuscript preparation: CM. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clémence Moreau.

Ethics declarations

Competing interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1865 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moreau, C., Blanco, J., Randriamalala, J. et al. Participatory landscape sustainability assessment: where do we stand? A systematic literature review. Landsc Ecol 38, 1903–1918 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01695-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01695-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation