Twenty-five years into “our common future”: are we heading in the right direction?

For a quarter of a century, sustainable development has been on the political and research agendas. Within the field of landscape ecology, a wide array of research has documented the effects of alternative land uses, analysed driving forces of land use change and developed tools for measuring such changes, to mention but a few developments. There have also been great advances in technology and data management. Nevertheless, unsustainable land use continues to occur and the science of landscape ecology has had less influence on landscape change than aimed for. In this paper we use Norwegian examples to discuss some of the reasons for this. We examine mismatches in the spatial and temporal scales considered by scientists, decision-makers and those who carry out land use change, consider how this and other factors hinder effective communication between scientists and practitioners, and urge for a stronger focus on what it is that motivates people to action. We suggest that the concept of landscape services can be useful not only for researchers but also provide valuable communication and planning tools. Finally, we suggest more emphasis on applying adaptive management in landscape ecology to help close the gaps, both between researchers and policy and, even more crucially, between researchers and practitioners.     

Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research

Within the field of restorative environments research, it is commonly assumed that restorative responses, triggered by exposure to natural elements and settings, are ultimately adaptive traits originating from our species’ long evolutionary history in natural environments. The aim of this article is to critically investigate the viability of this evolutionary view on restoration. In doing so, we specifically focus on Stress Recovery Theory (SRT), as this theoretical framework has most extensively elaborated on the supposed evolutionary origins of restoration. A detailed analysis of SRT's psycho-evolutionary framework shows that neither current empirical evidence nor conceptual arguments provide any strong support for the hypothesis of restorative responses to nature as an ancient evolved adaptive trait. Based on this conclusion we put forward an alternative model for restorative responses to nature based on processing fluency, which prima facie circumvents some of the pitfalls associated with evolutionary accounts for restoration. The Discussion section reflects on the implications of our critical discussion for the theory and practice of urban forestry and urban greening.