Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes

The future of humanity depends on whether or not we have a vision to guide our transition toward sustainability, on scales ranging from local landscapes to the planet as a whole. Sustainability science is at the core of this vision, and landscapes and regions represent a pivotal scale domain. The main objectives of this paper are: (1) to elucidate key definitions and concepts of sustainability, including the Brundtland definition, the triple bottom line, weak and strong sustainability, resilience, human well-being, and ecosystem services; (2) to examine key definitions and concepts of landscape sustainability, including those derived from general concepts and those developed for specific landscapes; and (3) to propose a framework for developing a science of landscape sustainability. Landscape sustainability is defined as the capacity of a landscape to consistently provide long-term, landscape-specific ecosystem services essential for maintaining and improving human well-being. Fundamentally, well-being is a journey, not a destination. Landscape sustainability science is a place-based, use-inspired science of understanding and improving the dynamic relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes under uncertainties arising from internal feedbacks and external disturbances. While landscape sustainability science emphasizes place-based research on landscape and regional scales, significant between landscape interactions and hierarchical linkages to both finer and broader scales (or externalities) must not be ignored. To advance landscape sustainability science, spatially explicit methods are essential, especially experimental approaches that take advantage of designed landscapes and multi-scaled simulation models that couple the dynamics of landscape services (ecosystem services provided by multiple landscape elements in combination as emergent properties) and human well-being.     

Revisiting futures: integrating culture,care and time in landscapes

Context

Two approaches to study landscape change have been exploited: one that tries to study the developments that have happened in the past, and another that tries to foresee future.

Objectives

We analyse how this dual approach can help understanding landscape change, how people relate to it in general, what their expectations and preferences are. We also discuss the usefulness of path dependency theory, cultural sustainability, and cultural ecosystem services approaches in understanding the management of a historical cultural landscape.

Methods

First, we revisit a 1999 scenario study that outlined the possible trajectories of change prior Estonian accession to the European Union in 2004. Then, through series of studies we track the wider context of the landscape changes, analysing the results from the interviews and combining those with the visible results. We seek to answer whether or not the landscape changes that occurred followed any of the past scenarios, and if people’s preferences changed.

Results

The dynamics of realisation of different scenarios was not straightforward. However, people showed clear preference towards landscapes that carried signs of the continuation of rural life. What was not foreseen when designing the scenarios was the upsurge of local identity creating the links with the past.

Conclusions

In this Estonian traditional cultural landscape, stewardship, culture and cultural ecosystem services, or nature’s contribution to people as IPBES prefers to call this now, define what caring for the landscape involves.

     

The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: A conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability

Landscape researchers and practitioners, using the lens of sustainability science, are breaking new ground about how people’s behaviors and actions influence the structure, function, and change of designed landscapes in an urbanizing world. The phrase—the scientific basis of the design for landscape sustainability—is used to describe how sustainability science can contribute to translational landscape research and practice about the systemic relationships among landscape sustainability, people’s contact with nature, and complex place-based problems. In the first section of this article, important definitions about the scientific basis of the design for landscape sustainability are reviewed including the six Es of landscape sustainability—environment, economic, equity, aesthetics, experience, and ethics. A conceptual framework about the six Es of landscape sustainability for designed landscapes is introduced. The interrelatedness, opportunities, contradictions, and limitations of the conceptual framework are discussed in relation to human health/security, ecosystem services, biodiversity, and resource management. The conceptual framework about the six Es of landscape sustainability for designed landscapes follows the tradition in which landscape researchers and practitioners synthesize emerging trends into conceptual frameworks for advancing basic and applied activities.     

The ecology and culture of landscape sustainability: emerging knowledge and innovation in landscape research and practice

Landscape researchers and practitioners, using the lens of sustainability science, are breaking new ground about how people’s behaviors and actions influence the structure, function, and change of designed landscapes in an urbanizing world. The phrase—the scientific basis of the design for landscape sustainability—is used to describe how sustainability science can contribute to translational landscape research and practice about the systemic relationships among landscape sustainability, people’s contact with nature, and complex place-based problems. In the first section of this article, important definitions about the scientific basis of the design for landscape sustainability are reviewed including the six Es of landscape sustainability—environment, economic, equity, aesthetics, experience, and ethics. A conceptual framework about the six Es of landscape sustainability for designed landscapes is introduced. The interrelatedness, opportunities, contradictions, and limitations of the conceptual framework are discussed in relation to human health/security, ecosystem services, biodiversity, and resource management. The conceptual framework about the six Es of landscape sustainability for designed landscapes follows the tradition in which landscape researchers and practitioners synthesize emerging trends into conceptual frameworks for advancing basic and applied activities.     

Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes

Growing a resilient landscape depends heavily on finding an appropriate match between the scales of demands on ecosystems by human societies and the scales at which ecosystems are capable of meeting these demands. While the dynamics of environmental change and ecosystem service provision form the basis of many landscape ecology studies, enhancing landscape resilience is, in many ways, a problem of establishing relevant institutions that act at appropriate scales to modify and moderate demand for ecosystem services and the resulting exploitation of ecosystems. It is also of central importance for landscape sustainability that institutions are flexible enough to adapt to changes in the external environment. The model provided by natural ecosystems suggests that it is only by encouraging and testing a diversity of approaches that we will be able to build landscapes that are resilient to future change. We advocate an approach to landscape planning that involves growing learning institutions on the one hand, and on the other, developing solutions to current problems through deliberate experimentation coupled with social learning processes.     

People’s preferences and perceptions toward low-input versus conventional park design approaches using 3D images and interview-based questionnaires

Future urban planning and public satisfaction will be significantly impacted by understanding people's preferences and perceptions of urban landscape design scenarios, particularly innovative sustainable development approaches. This study examined residents' preferences in Mashhad, Iran, for low-input park design versus conventional park design techniques. The research method integrated questionnaire-based interviews with 3D-simulated images of a site designed with the two approaches. Ninety-three respondents answered validated questions regarding their preference towards the planting and architecture of the parks, their perceptions about social sustainability, psychological feelings, and their perceptions of low-input and maintenance of the spaces. T-test analyses showed that people preferred the low-input park design more than the conventional design for the first four factors. However, the respondents needed to recognize significant differences between the two plans for the low-input and maintenance character of the parks. These results showed that people have positive views and perceptions toward sustainable design approaches like low-input park design. This approach can attract the public and meet their social, psychological, and aesthetic needs with appropriate planning and designs. However, people require education and awareness about the maintenance and sustainability aspects of landscape design approaches. Architecture and planting design visual preferences were suitable predictors for people's overall preference toward the low-input park design approach. The research outputs and the applied method provide insights into sustainable landscape planning in the urban environment.     

Expanding the conservation toolbox: conservation planning of multifunctional landscapes

An area of convergence appears to be emerging between the approaches of conservation planning and the concepts of multifunctional landscapes, which if exploited correctly may assist in overcoming the resource and other constraints faced by biodiversity conservation, while at the same time furthering the aims of multifunctional landscapes to improve production abilities and overall sustainability. Using a multi-zone conservation planning approach, we explore the conservation costs, benefits to biodiversity conservation and possible ecosystem service payments associated with various land-use configurations, in the Little Karoo of South Africa, in order to develop and showcase a multifunctional landscape planning approach and its data requirements, as well as the possible cost savings to conservation agencies. The study uses four conservation planning scenarios, five land-use types, their conservation costs and biodiversity benefits, as well as possible payments from carbon sequestration and tourism. We find that the costs and biodiversity benefits associated with different land-uses varies substantially between land-uses, and also spatially within a land-use type. By incorporating this variation into a multi-zone conservation planning approach land-uses can be allocated in a way that achieves biodiversity targets while at the same time reducing costs by up to 50?% when compared with traditional binary approaches to conservation. Despite some challenges presented by cost and ecosystem service value data and the determination of land-use impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, the ability of conservation planning approaches to reflect differential contributions of particular land-uses to biodiversity targets and ecosystem services holds much potential for conservation planning, for multifunctional landscape objectives and for growing the resources and partnerships available to the establishment of sustainable and resilient landscapes.     

Consequences of spatial heterogeneity for ecosystem services in changing forest landscapes: priorities for future research

Changes in key drivers (e.g., climate, disturbance regimes and land use) may affect the sustainability of forest landscapes and set the stage for increased tension among competing ecosystem services. We addressed two questions about a suite of supporting, regulating and provisioning ecosystem services in each of two well-studied forest landscapes in the western US: (1) How might the provision of ecosystem services change in the future given anticipated trajectories of climate, disturbance regimes, and land use? (2) What is the role of spatial heterogeneity in sustaining future ecosystem services? We determined that future changes in each region are likely to be distinct, but spatial heterogeneity (e.g., the amount and arrangement of surviving forest patches or legacy trees after disturbance) will be important in both landscapes for sustaining forest regeneration, primary production, carbon storage, natural hazard regulation, insect and pathogen regulation, timber production and wildlife habitat. The paper closes by highlighting five general priorities for future research. The science of landscape ecology has much to contribute toward understanding ecosystem services and how land management can enhance—or threaten—the sustainability of ecosystem services in changing landscapes.     

Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into a new place-based methodology

Green infrastructure (GI) is a strategic planning instrument to achieve sustainable development. The main functions of GI are to protect biodiversity and safeguard and enhance the provision of ecosystem services (ES). In this paper we present the development of a semi-quantitative place-based method, aiming at assessing GI based on the provision potential of all main ES. Our method combines a wide spectrum of GIS data with expert assessments. Here we focus especially on how interaction with experts and local and regional actors impacted the method development. Our results showed that involving experts in dataset selection is very useful in compiling the most relevant data for the assessment of ES. Expert knowledge is also valuable in evaluating the actual coverage and quality of datasets. By involving both experts and local and regional actors in assessing ES provision potential we can add local knowledge to the general scientific understanding. Qualitative assessments can be complemented with quantitative data in our method. The resulting maps support land use planning, as they assist in identifying the multifunctional key areas of GI and in examining the provision potential of various ES. The group discussions involved in our method provided an additional benefit, as the experts and local and regional actors felt that this discussion platform enhanced their understanding of both GI and ES.     

Can a problem-solving approach strengthen landscape ecology’s contribution to sustainable landscape planning?

The need to avert unacceptable and irreversible environmental change is the most urgent challenge facing society. Landscape ecology has the capacity to help address these challenges by providing spatially-explicit solutions to landscape sustainability problems. However, despite a large body of research, the real impact of landscape ecology on sustainable landscape management and planning is still limited. In this paper, we first outline a typology of landscape sustainability problems which serves to guide landscape ecologists in the problem-solving process. We then outline a formal problem-solving approach, whereby landscape ecologists can better bring about disciplinary integration, a consideration of multiple landscape functions over long time scales, and a focus on decision making. This framework explicitly considers multiple ecological objectives and socio-economic constraints, the spatial allocation of scarce resources to address these objectives, and the timing of the implementation of management actions. It aims to make explicit the problem-solving objectives, management options and the system understanding required to make sustainable landscape planning decisions. We propose that by adopting a more problem-solving approach, landscape ecologists can make a significant contribution towards realising sustainable future landscapes.     

Is landscape sustainability a useful concept in a changing world?

The world is changing rapidly, challenging the sustainability of landscapes and the resources and ecosystem services they provide to people and to plants and animals. Changes in land use and climate will alter the structure and composition of landscapes, and landscape functions may also be disrupted if the changes drive systems past thresholds into novel, no-analog configurations. Although landscapes will persist in some form, it is unlikely that they will provide the same values to people or habitat for wildlife that are the focus of current sustainability efforts. Tradeoffs among services to people or resources for wildlife will be inevitable. For the concept of sustainability to be relevant under these conditions, we must ask, “Sustainability of what, for whom?” Landscapes cannot be all things to all people (or organisms). Decisions about how to balance competing needs and goals and set priorities requires an understanding of landscape structure, function, and change—the foundation elements of landscape ecology.     

Integration of ecosystem services into a conceptual spatial planning framework based on a landscape ecology perspective

Context

The study of ecosystem services has extended its influence into spatial planning and landscape ecology, the integration of which can offer an opportunity to enhance the saliency, credibility, and legitimacy of landscape ecology in spatial planning issues.

Objectives

This paper presents a conceptual framework suitable for spatial planning in human dominated environments supported by landscape ecological thinking. It seeks to facilitate the integration of ecosystem services into current practice, including landscape metrics as suitable indicators.

Methods

A literature review supported the revision of existing open questions pertaining to ecosystem services as well as their integration into landscape ecology and spatial planning. A posterior reflection of the current state-of-the-art was then used as a basis for developing the spatial planning conceptual framework.

Results and conclusion

The framework is articulated around four phases (characterisation, assessment, design, and monitoring) and three concepts (character, service, and value). It advocates integration of public participation, consideration of “landscape services”, the inclusion of ecosystem disservices, and the use of landscape metrics for qualitative assessment of services. As a result, the framework looks to enhance spatial planning practice by providing: (i) a better consideration of landscape configuration in the supply of services (ii) the integration of anthropogenic services with ecosystem services; (iii) the consideration of costs derived from ecosystems (e.g. disservices); and (iv) an aid to the understanding of ecosystem services terminology for spatial planning professionals and decision makers.

     

Towards sustainable forest management in the European Union through polycentric forest governance and an integrated landscape approach

Context

Achieving sustainable development as an inclusive societal process, and securing sustainability and resilience of human societies as well as the natural environment are wicked problems. Realising sustainable forest management (SFM) policy in local landscapes is one example.

Objectives

Using the European Union as a case study for the implementation of SFM policy across multiple governance levels in different contexts, we discuss the benefits of adopting an integrated landscape approach with place and space, partnership and sustainability as three pillars.

Methods

We map the institutional frameworks for implementing SFM policy within all EU member states. Next, we analyse whether or not there is EU-level forest governance, and how power is distributed among EU, member state and operational levels.

Results

Mechanisms to steer a centralized forest governance approach towards SFM in the EU are marginal. Instead, there is a polycentric forest governance with 90 national and sub-national governments, which create and implement own and EU-wide SFM-related policies. Additionally, both among and within regional governance units there is a large variation in governance arrangements linked to land ownership at the operational level.

Conclusions

To effectively translate EU-wide SFM and SFM-related policies into action in local landscapes, it is crucial to acknowledge that there are different land ownership structures, landscape histories and alternative value chains based on multiple ecosystem services. Therefore regionally adapted landscape approaches engaging multiple stakeholders and actors through evidence-based landscape governance and stewardship towards sustainable forest landscape management are needed. Model Forest, Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research platform and Biosphere Reserve are three of many examples.

     

Informing landscape planning and design for sustaining ecosystem services from existing spatial patterns and knowledge

Over the last decade we have seen an increased emphasis in environmental management and policies aimed at maintaining and restoring multiple ecosystem services at landscape scales. This emphasis has resulted from the recognition that management of specific environmental targets and ecosystem services requires an understanding of landscape processes and the spatial scales that maintain those targets and services. Moreover, we have become increasingly aware of the influence of broad-scale drivers such as climate change on landscape processes and the ecosystem services they support. Studies and assessments on the relative success of environmental policies and landscape designs in maintaining landscape processes and ecosystem services is mostly lacking. This likely reflects the relatively high cost of maintaining a commitment to implement and maintain monitoring programs that document responses of landscape processes and ecosystem services to different landscape policies and designs. However, we argue that there is considerable variation in natural and human-caused landscape pattern at local to continental scales and that this variation may facilitate analyses of how environmental targets and ecosystem services have responded to such patterns. Moreover, wall-to-wall spatial data on land cover and land use at national scales may permit characterization and mapping of different landscape pattern gradients. We discuss four broad and interrelated focus areas that should enhance our understanding of how landscape pattern influences ecosystem services: (1) characterizing and mapping landscape pattern gradients; (2) quantifying relationships between landscape patterns and environmental targets and ecosystem services, (3) evaluating landscape patterns with regards to multiple ecosystem services, and (4) applying adaptive management concepts to improve the effectiveness of specific landscape designs in sustaining ecosystem services. We discuss opportunities as well as challenges in each of these four areas. We believe that this agenda could lead to spatially explicit solutions in managing a range of environmental targets and ecosystem services. Spatially explicit options are critical in managing and protecting landscapes, especially given that communities and organizations are often limited in their capacity to make changes at landscape scales. The issues and potential solutions discussed in this paper expand upon the call by Nassauer and Opdam (Landscape Ecol 23:633–644, 2008) to include design as a fundamental element in landscape ecology research by evaluating natural and human-caused (planned or designed) landscape patterns and their influence on ecosystem services. It also expands upon the idea of “learning by doing” to include “learning from what has already been done.”     

Mapping recreation and aesthetic value of ecosystems in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt (northern Spain) to support landscape planning

This paper presents a method to quantify cultural ecosystem services (ES) and their spatial distribution in the landscape based on ecological structure and social evaluation approaches. The method aims to provide quantified assessments of ES to support land use planning decisions. A GIS-based approach was used to estimate and map the provision of recreation and aesthetic services supplied by ecosystems in a peri-urban area located in the Basque Country, northern Spain. Data of two different public participation processes (frequency of visits to 25 different sites within the study area and aesthetic value of different landscape units) were used to validate the maps. Three maps were obtained as results: a map showing the provision of recreation services, an aesthetic value map and a map of the correspondences and differences between both services. The data obtained in the participation processes were found useful for the validation of the maps. A weak spatial correlation was found between aesthetic quality and recreation provision services, with an overlap of the highest values for both services only in 7.2 % of the area. A consultation with decision-makers indicated that the results were considered useful to identify areas that can be targeted for improvement of landscape and recreation management.     

Concepts and methods for landscape multifunctionality and a unifying framework based on ecosystem services

The potential of landscapes to supply multiple benefits to society beyond commodities production has received increasing research and policy attention. Linking the concept of multifunctionality with the ecosystem services (ES) approach offers a promising avenue for producing scientific evidence to inform landscape planning, e.g., about the relative utility of land-sharing and land-sparing. However, the value for decision-making of ES-based multifunctionality assessments has been constrained by a significant conceptual and methodological dispersion. To contribute towards a cohesive framework for landscape multifunctionality, we analyse case studies of joint ES supply regarding ten criteria designed to ultimately answer four aspects: (i) the multifunctionality of what (e.g., landscapes), (ii) the type of multifunctionality (e.g., based on ES synergies), (iii) the procedure of multifunctionality assessments, and (iv) the purpose of multifunctionality. We constructed a typology of methodological approaches based on scores for criteria describing the evaluation method and the level of stakeholder participation in assessments of joint ES supply. Surveyed studies and underlying types of methodological approaches (spatial, socio-spatial, functional, spatio-functional) differed in most criteria. We illustrate the influence of methodological divergence on planning recommendations by comparing two studies employing contrasting approaches (spatial and functional) to assess the joint supply of wildlife habitat and agricultural production in the Argentine Chaco. We distinguish between a pattern-based and process-based multifunctionality, where the latter can only be detected through approaches considering the ecological processes (e.g., ES complementarities) supporting the supply of multiple ES (functional and spatio-functional). Finally, we propose an integrated approach for assessing a socially-relevant process-based multifunctionality.     

Habitat connectivity for pollinator beetles using surface metrics

Measuring habitat connectivity in complex landscapes is a major focus of landscape ecology and conservation research. Most studies use a binary landscape or patch mosaic model for describing spatial heterogeneity and understanding pattern-process relationships. While the value of landscape gradient approaches proposed by McGarigal and Cushman are recognized, applications of these newly proposed three dimensional surface metrics remain under-used. We created a gradient map of habitat quality from several GIS layers and applied three dimensional surface metrics to measure connectivity between 67 locations in Indiana, USA surveyed for one group of ecosystem service providers, flower longicorn beetles (Cerambycidae: Lepturinae). The three dimensional surface metrics applied to the landscape gradient model showed great potential to explain the differences of lepturine assemblages among the 2,211 studied landscapes (between site pairs). Surface kurtosis and its interaction with geographic distance were among the most important metrics. This approach provided unique information about the landscape through four configuration metrics. There were some uniform trends of the responses of many species to some of surface metrics, however some species responded differently to other metrics. We suggest that three dimensional surface metrics applied to a habitat surface map created with insight into species requirements is a valuable approach to understanding the spatial dynamics of species, guilds, and ecosystem services.     

Landscape phenology: an integrative approach to seasonal vegetation dynamics

This brief report addresses the theory and methodology of landscape phenology (LP), along with synopsis of a case study conducted in the northern Wisconsin temperate mixed forest. LP engages questions related to ecosystem phenology, landscape genetics, and vegetation change science across multiple scales, which have rarely been addressed by existing studies. Intensive in situ observations, remote sensing data, and spatiotemporal analysis are employed for understanding patterns and processes within the complexity of seasonal landscape dynamics. A hierarchical upscaling approach is also introduced. Results from the case study suggest that plot-scale phenology lacks spatial autocorrelation and varies individualistically, with genetic heterogeneity overriding small microenvironmental gradients. However, at the landscape level, forest phenology responds coherently to weather fluctuations. The resultant LP index confirms the relative reliability of moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS)-based land surface phenology (LSP). Due to technological advancement in spatial data acquisition and analysis, LP has the ability to connect conventional plant phenology studies back to their intricate ecological context, and provides a new approach to validating coarse-scale monitoring and modeling of LSP and other seasonal ecosystem processes.     

Targeting and evaluating biodiversity conservation action within fragmented landscapes: an approach based on generic focal species and least-cost networks

The focus of biodiversity conservation is shifting to larger spatial scales in response to habitat fragmentation and the need to integrate multiple landscape objectives. Conservation strategies increasingly incorporate measures to combat fragmentation such as ecological networks. These are often based on assessment of landscape structure but such approaches fail to capitalise on the potential offered by more ecologically robust assessments of landscape function and connectivity. In this paper, we describe a modelling approach to identifying functional habitat networks and demonstrate its application to a fragmented landscape where policy initiatives seek to improve conditions for woodland biodiversity including increasing woodland cover. Functional habitat networks were defined by identifying suitable habitat and by modelling connectivity using least-cost approaches to account for matrix permeability. Generic focal species (GFS) profiles were developed, in consultation with stakeholders, to represent species with high and moderate sensitivity to fragmentation. We demonstrated how this form of analysis can be used to aid the spatial targeting of conservation actions. This ‘targeted’ action scenario was tested for effectiveness against comparable scenarios, which were based on random and clumped actions within the same landscape. We tested effectiveness using structural metrics, network-based metrics and a published functional connectivity indicator. Targeting actions within networks resulted in the highest mean woodland area and highest connectivity indicator value. Our approach provides an assessment of landscape function by recognising the importance of the landscape matrix. It provides a framework for the targeting and evaluation of alternative conservation options, offering a pragmatic, ecologically-robust solution to a current need in applied landscape ecology.