Landscape approaches for sustainable development, water and land resource management

World Water Week, Stockholm, 26th August 2015

What are integrated landscape approaches and how effectively have they been implemented in the tropics?

What are integrated landscape approaches?

A response to the failings of sectorial land management approaches

The latest in a series of attempts to concurrently address conservation and development challenges

A refinement of previous approaches

A method to integrate stakeholders at multiple scales

A framework to integrate policy and practice

An attempt to reconcile traditional scientific disciplinary divides

A land management strategy to fulfill social, economic, ecological & cultural objectives

A tool to assess performance and manage trade-offs within the landscape

All of the above?

Development of the “Landscape Approach”

1980s 1990s 2000s 2010 - present

1980s: Integrated Rural Development

1998: Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM)

1985 onwards: Integrated Conservation & Development projects (ICDPs)

Contributing Sciences:Ecosystem ManagementLandscape EcologyIsland biogeography

Conservation rooted frameworks e.g. “Ecosystem Approach”

1992: “Landscape Approach” first documented (Barrett 1992)

Last decade: (Integrated) Landscape Approach frameworks

Landscapes are complex socio-ecological systems

Hypothesis:

The confusion over the conceptualization and application of integrated landscape approaches is impeding policy traction and practitioner uptake.

Terminology confusion (from Google):

“We use the same words but we aren’t speaking the same language”

Objective:

Systematically map the available evidence to provide clarity

Systematic Review Maps

• Transparent, repeatable, pre-determined methodology

• Commonly used in medical research

• Recently adopted by natural and social sciences

(see www.environmentalevidence.org)

Methods

Evolution of search terms and strategy:

• Internal/external consultation

• Two stakeholder workshops (Nairobi, Kenya & Cape Tribulation, Australia)

• Extensive scoping exercise using Web of Science

• Developed inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies

• Protocol published. See Reed et al.

2015http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/2047-2382-4-2.pdf

Specialist databases:

Scopus

CAB Direct

ISI Web of Knowledge

PubMed

Internet searches:

Google Scholar

Other:

Grey literature search

Screening results: peer-reviewed articles

26,303 scoping results in WoK

using 35 revised search terms

13,290 Publications captured with

refined search terms

All TITLES screened

271,974 results from initial 56

main search terms trialed in WoK

1,171 Relevant studies

All ABSTRACTS screened

382 Relevant studies

All FULL TEXTS screened

82 Final studies of relevance

Preliminary results: geographic coverage

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Africa Central Asia South America SubContinental

Asia

Multiple SE Asia Australasia CentralAmerica

No

. of

case

stu

die

s

Region

Preliminary results: entry point

29%

16%

25%

13%

13%

4%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Livelihoods

Water

Forests

Soil

Biodiversity Conservation

Agriculture

Percentage of peer-reviewed studies (%)

Preliminary results (peer-reviewed literature only)

Success of implementation Reasons identified for success

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Successful Not determined Mixed

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Successful Mixed

Lessons learned

• Often funded on short term or temporary basis (time limited project investments)• Terminology issues• Landscape approach remains relatively under-theorized• Lack of true integration across scientific disciplines• Institutional barriers - government agencies still rooted in silos• Governance concerns• Empowerment and engagement concerns• Lack of appropriate metrics and monitoring• Stop making assumptions, start acting…but how?!

www.landscapes.orgwww.cifor.org