Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T15:45:04.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - How Landscape Stewardship Emerges Out of Landscape Planning

from Part III - Visions Towards Landscape Stewardship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2017

By
Paul Opdam
Edited by
Claudia Bieling  and
Tobias Plieninger
Claudia Bieling
Affiliation:
Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgart
Tobias Plieninger
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Get access

Summary

In landscape planning as organized by the government, the government coordinates action and takes a key responsibility for values not ensured by market mechanisms. The change from landscape planning to stewardship is a true system transition, involving a change in the human-nature relationship, in responsibility taken by local actors, in governance rules and in the use of knowledge. This chapter explores how social-ecological systems and the knowledge processed in such systems contribute to the development of landscape stewardship. The concepts of landscape services, ecological networks and social networks are discussed. Information on landscape services and green infrastructure may stimulate collaboration. A transition to landscape stewardship requires that governments make space for self-organization, intellectual ownership and trust building. Large enterprises creating a demand for landscape services may speed up the transition process. Scientists are important for delivering information and building social networks, but they must understand how their knowledge facilitates collaborative processes in groups of actors with many different views on the future landscape.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship , pp. 331 - 346
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armitage, D. R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R. I., Charles, A. T., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Diduck, A. P., Doubleday, N. C., Johnson, D. S., Marschke, M., McConney, P., Pinkerton, E. W. & Wollenberg, E. K. (2009). Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 95–102.Google Scholar
Bastian, O., Grunewald, K., Syrbe, R-U., Walz, U. & Wende, W. (2014). Landscape services: The concept and its practical relevance. Landscape Ecology, 29, 1463–1479.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1692–1702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beunen, R. & Opdam, P. (2011). When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 324–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodin, Ö. & Crona, B. I. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change, 19, 366–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgström Hansson, C. & Wackernagel, M. (1999). Rediscovering place and accounting space: How to re-embed the human economy. Ecological Economics, 29, 203–213.Google Scholar
Bourgoin, J., Castella, J. C., Pullar, D., Lestrelin, G. & Bouahom, B. (2012). Toward a land zoning negotiation support platform: ‘Tips and tricks’ for participatory land use planning in Laos. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 270–278.Google Scholar
Brown, G., de Bie, K. & Weber, D. (2015). Identifying public land stakeholder perspectives for implementing place-based land management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 139, 1–15.Google Scholar
Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G. M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D. A., Kinzig, A. P., Daily, G. C., Loreau, M., Grace, J. B., Larigauderie, A., Srivastava, D. S. & Naeem, S. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlsson, L. & Sandström, A. (2008). Network governance of the commons. International Journal of the Commons, 2, 33–54.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S., III & Knapp, C. N. (2015). Sense of place: A process for identifying and potentially contested visions of sustainability. Environmental Science and Policy, 53, 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cong, R-G., Smith, H. G., Olsson, O. & Brady, M. (2014). Managing ecosystem services for agriculture: Will landscape-scale management pay? Ecological Economics, 99, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowell, R. & Lennon, M. (2014). The utilisation of environmental knowledge in land use planning: Drawing lessons for an ecosystem services approach. Environment and Planning C, 32, 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crona, B. & Hubacek, K. (2010). The right connections: How do social networks lubricate the machinery of natural resource management? Ecology and Society, 15, 28. (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art18/).Google Scholar
Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302, 1907–1912.Google Scholar
Dinnie, E., Brown, K. M. & Morris, S. (2013). Community, cooperation and conflict: Negotiating the social well-being benefits of urban greenspace experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 112, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernstson, H., Barthel, S., Andersson, E. & Bergström, S. T. (2010). Scale-crossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: The case of Stockholm. Ecology and Society, 15, 28. (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art28/).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, C., Jansson, Å., Rockström, J., Olsson, P., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., III, Crépin, A-S., Daily, G., Danell, K., Ebbesson, J., Elmqvist, T., Galaz, V., Moberg, F., Nilsson, M., Österblom, H., Ostrom, E., Persson, Å., Peterson, G., Polasky, S., Steffen, W., Walker, B. & Westley, F. (2011). Reconnecting to the Biosphere. Ambio, 40, 719–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Görg, C. (2007). Landscape governance: The ‘politics of scale’ and the ‘natural’ conditions of places. Geoforum, 38, 954–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granek, E. F., Polasky, S., Kappel, C. V., Reed, D. J., Stoms, D. M., Koch, E. W., Kennedy, C. J., Cramer, L. A., Hacker, S. D., Barbier, E. B., Aswani, S., Ruckelshaus, M., Perillo, G. M. E., Silliman, B. R., Muthiga, N., Bael, D. & Wolanski, E. (2009). Ecosystem services as a common language for coastal ecosystem-based management. Conservation Biology, 24, 207–216.Google Scholar
Grashof-Bokdam, C., Cormont, A., Polman, N., Westerhof, E., Franke, J. & Opdam, P. (2017). Modeling shifts between mono- and multifunctional farming systems: The importance of social and economic drivers. Landscape Ecology, 32, 595–607.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. S. (2010). Key principles of community-based natural resource management: A synthesis and interpretation of identified effective approaches for managing the commons. Environmental Management, 45, 52–66.Google Scholar
Hagens, J. E. (2010). The performance of landscape concepts in spatial planning: Branding, bonding and bringing about. PhD thesis. Wageningen: Wageningen University.Google Scholar
Hawkins, V. & Selman, P. (2002). Landscape scale planning: Exploring alternative land use scenarios. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschi, C. (2010). Strenghtening regional cohesion: Collaborative networks and sustainable development in Swiss rural areas. Ecology and Society, 15, 16. (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art16/).Google Scholar
Innes, J. E. & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems – a framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, 412–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klug, H. (2012). An integrated holistic transdisciplinary land use planning concept after the Leitbild approach. Ecological Indicators, 23, 616–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, M. B. & McDonald, G. (2005). Community-based environmental planning: Operational dilemmas, planning principles and possible remedies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48, 709–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linehan, J. R. & Gross, M. (1998). Back to the future, back to basics: The social ecology of landscapes and the future of landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42, 207–223.Google Scholar
Liu, J. & Opdam, P. (2014). Valuing ecosystem services in community-based landscape planning: Introducing a wellbeing-based approach. Special issue: Integrating ecosystem services in land use planning and decision-making practice. Landscape Ecology, 29, 1347–1360.Google Scholar
Loorbach, D. & Rotmans, J. (2010). The practice of transition management: Examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures, 42, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mell, I. C., Henneberry, J., Hehl-Lange, S. & Keskin, B. (2013). Promoting urban greening: Valuing the development of green infrastructure investments in the urban core of Manchester, UK. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12, 296–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassauer, J. (2011). Care and stewardship: From home to planet. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 321–323.Google Scholar
Nassauer, J. (2012). Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106, 221–29.Google Scholar
Nassauer, J. & Opdam, P. (2008). Design in science: Extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology, 23, 633–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, P., Pattberg, P. & Schroeder, H. (2012). Multi-actor governance and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 365–387.Google Scholar
Newig, J., Günther, D. & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2010). Synapses in the network: Learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecology and Society, 15, 24. (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art24/).Google Scholar
Newig, J. & Koontz, T. M. (2014). Multi-level governance, policy implementation and participation: The EU's mandated participatory planning approach to implementing environmental policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 21, 248–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Rayn, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C. & Holling, C. S. (2006). Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11, 18. (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol1/iss1/art18/).Google Scholar
Opdam, P., Steingröver, E. & Van Rooij, S. (2006). Ecological networks: A spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75, 322–332.Google Scholar
Opdam, P. (2013). Using ecosystem services in community based planning: Science is not ready to deliver. In Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture, Fu, B & Jones, K. B (eds.). New York, NY: Springer, pp. 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opdam, P., Nassauer, J., Wang, Z., Albert, C., Bentrup, G., Castella, J-C., McAlpine, C., Liu, J., Sheppard, S. & Swaffield, S. (2013). Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landscape Ecology, 28, 1439–1445.Google Scholar
Opdam, P. (2014). Incorporating multiple ecological scales into the governance of landscape services. In Scale-Sensitive Governance of the Environment, Padt, F., Opdam, P., Polman, N. & Termeer, C. (eds.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, pp. 17–37.Google Scholar
Opdam, P., Westerink, J., Vos, C. & De Vries, B. (2015). The role and evolution of boundary concepts in transdisciplinary landscape planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 16, 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422.Google Scholar
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2005). Information, public empowerment and the management of urban watersheds. Environmental Modelling & Software, 20, 457–467.Google Scholar
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19, 354–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl-Wostl, C., Holtz, G., Kastens, B. & Knieper, C. (2010). Analyzing complex water governance regimes: The management and transition framework. Environmental Science and Policy, 13, 571–581.Google Scholar
Penker, M. (2009). Landscape governance for or by the local population? A property rights analysis in Austria. Land Use Policy, 26, 947–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persha, L., Agrawal, A. & Chhatre, A. (2012). Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science, 331, 1606–1608.Google Scholar
Pouwels, R., Opdam, P. & Jochem, R. (2011). Reconsidering the effectiveness of scientific tools for negotiating local solutions to conflicts between recreation and conservation with stakeholders. Ecology and Society, 16, 17. (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss4/art17/).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M. & Evely, A. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 1766–1777.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. M., Singh, G. G., Benessaiah, K., Bernhardt, J. R., Levine, J., Nelson, H., Turner, N. J., Norton, B., Tam, J. & Chan, K. M. A. (2013). Ecosystem services and beyond: Using multiple metaphors to understand human-environment relationships. Bioscience, 63, 536–546.Google Scholar
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417–2431.Google Scholar
Sandström, A. & Rova, C. (2010). Adaptive co-management networks: A comparative analysis of two fishery conservation areas in Sweden. Ecology and Society, 15, 14. (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art14/).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shandas, V. & Messer, W. B. (2008). Fostering green communities through civic engagement: Community based environmental stewardship in the Portland area. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74, 408–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somanathan, E., Prabhakar, R. & Mehta, B. S. (2009). Decentralization for cost-effective conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 4143–4147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Southern, A., Lovett, A., O'Riordan, T. & Watkinson, A. (2011). Sustainable landscape governance: Lessons from a catchment based study in whole landscape design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101, 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, F. (2000). The Living Landscape: An Ecological Approach to Landscape Planning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Steingröver, E. G., Geertsema, W. & van Wingerden, W. K. R. E. (2010). Designing agricultural landscapes for natural pest control: A transdisciplinary approach in the Hoeksche Waard (the Netherlands). Landscape Ecology, 25, 825–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Termorshuizen, J. & Opdam, P. (2009). Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology, 24, 1037–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnhout, E., Stuiver, M., Klostermann, J., Harms, B. & Leeuwis, C. (2013). New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science and Public Policy, 40, 354–365.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×