Search

Landscape stewardship offers a means to put social-ecological approaches to stewardship into practice. The growing interest in landscape stewardship has led to a focus on multistakeholder collaboration. Although there is a significant body of literature on collaborative management and governance of natural resources, the particular challenges posed by multifunctional landscapes, in which there are often contested interests, require closer attention. We present a case study from South Africa to investigate how collaborative stewardship can be fostered in contested multifunctional landscapes. We conducted this research through an engaged transdisciplinary research partnership in which we integrated social-ecological practitioner and academic knowledge to gain an in-depth understanding of the challenges of fostering collaboration. We identified five overarching factors that influence collaboration: contextual, institutional, social-relational, individual, and political-historical. Collaborative stewardship approaches focused on the development of formal governance institutions appear to be most successful if enabling individual and social-relational conditions are in place. Our case study, characterized by high social diversity, inequity, and contestation, suggests that consensus-driven approaches to collaboration are unlikely to result in equitable and sustainable landscape stewardship in such contexts. We therefore suggest an approach that focuses on enhancing individual and social-relational enablers. Moreover, we propose a bottom-up patchwork approach to collaborative stewardship premised on the notion of pluralism. This would focus on building new interpersonal relationships and collaborative capacity through small collective actions. Taking a relational, pluralistic approach to fostering collaborative stewardship is particularly important in contested, socially heterogeneous landscapes. Drawing on our study and the literature, we propose guiding principles for implementing relational, pluralistic approaches to collaborative stewardship and suggest future research directions for supporting such approaches.

Conflicts over forests and trees threaten the sustainability of the resource base. The nature and causes of such conflicts have been documented, but little is known about factors that determine whether interactions result in conflict or cooperation. Particularly, the role of social capital has been underexposed, with existing studies focusing mainly on networks, and less on the role of norms, trust, and reciprocity in conflict mitigation. Our case study addresses these gaps, asking what factors determine whether interactions about timber resources in Ghana's off-reserve forest areas result in conflict or cooperation. Off-reserve areas, which are mosaics of forest, fallow, and farmland patches, contribute significantly to timber for domestic and export markets, despite a rapidly declining resource base since the 2000s. Conflicts over legally required social responsibility agreements and inadequate compensation for crop damage abound, but, in rare cases, peaceful cooperation exists. Based on a literature review, document analysis, key respondent interviews, semistructured interviews, and focus groups, we found that interactions between actors are shaped by a complex mix of socioeconomic, social, orientational, and institutional power resources that actors mobilize to negotiate access to increasingly scarce timber resources and their benefits. Socioeconomic power resources initially determine whether a cooperative relationship between timber operators and communities can be established, but elements of social capital (connectedness, norms, trustworthiness, and reciprocity) determine the further course of the interaction patterns. Communities thereby rely primarily on bonding social capital because their bridging capital is practically absent and their linking capital is limited to people who are potential conflict partners. We conclude that conflicts in forested landscapes go beyond competing claims and benefit sharing, and that norms, trustworthiness, and reciprocity are at least as important dimensions of social capital as networks. This finding implies that more attention is needed toward the cultural context in which interactions are embedded.

A vast literature is now available on ecosystem services (ES), their potential as a tool for analyzing intertwined processes of ecological and social change, and their monetary valuation. Much less is known about the social value of different ES for different social actors (SA), and their links with specific components of biodiversity. We unpack the social aspects of an interdisciplinary and multi-SA methodology that allows us to assess how different SA perceive and value different ES, and how they associate them with different components of biodiversity, ecological attributes, and ecosystem types. We apply the methodology to a study area in the Gran Chaco region of South America, presenting original social-ecological information from the field. Being affected by the rapid and widespread expansion of agribusiness over the woody ecosystems of southern South America, this location provides a policy-relevant context in which to test our approach. We identified six major ecosystem types and five relevant SA. We carried out 163 individual in-depth interviews and ran seven single-actor focus groups. We identified 116 ES, which were then aggregated into 22 more general categories. Although all SA perceived all ecosystem types as multifunctional, they showed markedly different perceptions of and interests in the ES provided by them. Subsistence farmers and extension officers valued a large number of ES primarily provided by the most pristine ecosystems. Members of conservation agencies and policymakers also identified a wide range of ES, spanning all ecosystem types. However, large farmers and cattle ranchers recognized a dependency on only a small number of ES. Therefore, the rapid expansion of agribusiness occurring in this region is a threat to a large number of ES considered valuable by a wide range of SA. Without necessarily having to resort to monetary valuation, our methodology provides a rigorous quantitative-qualitative way to compare the perspective of different SA, including scientists, and is thus useful for social-ecological assessment and action.

Cultural landscapes are appreciated for the plethora of ecosystem services that they provide to society. They are, however, subject to rapid and fundamental transformations across Europe, mainly as a result of intensification or abandonment of land uses. Our objective is to assess the possible future drivers of cultural landscape changes and their likely impacts on ecosystem services provision as perceived by local actors. We present stakeholder-based scenarios for the Swabian Alb, a biosphere reserve in southern Germany, projected to the yr 2040. On their basis, we explore the possibilities and limitations of local civil engagement for landscape conservation and development in the face of increasing global influences. The steps of the process are (a) identifying the key driving forces of landscape change, (b) developing contrasting narratives about alternative landscape futures, (c) refining the narratives, (d) discussing scenario impacts, and (e) exploring local management strategies. Four contrasting scenarios created by the stakeholders are presented. Global-level drivers are state support/regulations vs. free-market economy, and energy-intensive lifestyles vs. low-energy economy. Local-level forces are high vs. low consumer demand for localized food, and high vs. low appreciation of local cultural landscapes. Outcomes show that cultural landscape development may come to a crossroads over the next 30 yrs, with either combined land abandonment and landscape industrialization scenarios or multifunctional, locally distinct landscape futures being possible. The scenario narratives envision that the most powerful way to develop and protect distinct landscapes is to foster local people's links to cultural landscapes, to build social capital around them, and to direct consumption patterns toward localized food production. We find that participatory scenario processes have strengths in terms of the credibility, transferability, and confirmability of the insights gained, but are often weak in ensuring dependability.

In highly developed regions, ecosystems are often severely fragmented, whereas the conservation of biodiversity is highly rated. Regional and local actor groups are often involved in the regional planning, but when making decisions they make insufficient use of scientific knowledge of the ecological system that is being changed. The ecological basis of regional landscape change would be improved if knowledge-based systems tailored to the cyclic process of planning and negotiation and to the expertise of planners, designers and local interest groups were available. If regional development is to be sustainable, goals for biodiversity must be set in relation to the actual and demanded patterns of ecosystems. We infer a set of prerequisites for the effective use of biodiversity goal-setting methods in multi-stakeholder decision making. Among these prerequisites are the requirements that ecosystem patterns are set central and that methods integrate the demands of a suite of species, are spatially explicit, and allow the aspiration level to be modified during the planning process. The decision making must also be enriched with local ecological knowledge. The current methods for setting biodiversity targets lack crucial characteristics - in particular, flexibility - and often require too high a level of ecological expertise. The ecoprofile method we designed combines an ecosystem base with spatial conditions for species metapopulations. We report experiences with this approach in two case studies, showing that the method was understood by policy makers, planners, and stakeholders, and was useful in negotiation processes. We recommend experimenting with applying this approach in a variety of circumstances, to further improve its ecological basis.