Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Landscape Science for Natural Resource Management in a Globalised World

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Current Trends in Landscape Research

Part of the book series: Innovations in Landscape Research ((ILR))

  • 919 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter addresses key issues tackled by landscape scientists in the study of natural resource management (NRM). It outlines the nature of landscape science, emphasising that its practitioners originate from several disciplines, but shares a focus on problems occurring at the intersection of the natural and human-created environments. It stresses the role of the modelling of land system dynamics in studies of NRM, but recognises that, increasingly, landscape science has sought to utilise information and knowledge that sits outside traditional scientific data. This is addressed in one of three sections dealing with prominent aspects of landscape science. The first of these addresses the issue of the need to engage with ‘stakeholders’: the land managers and interested parties engaged in or directly affected by NRM. The attitudes, values, behaviour, and knowledge of stakeholders plays a vital part in determining the nature and consequences of NRM, so understanding how these elements can be incorporated into schemes and policies has been a vital facet of landscape science. In Europe, the term NRM is largely synonymous with agri-environment as applied to policy (AEP) or in specific schemes (AES). Again, key stakeholders are land managers, with one aspect of their input addressed here, namely their stewardship of the land. The nature of stewardship is discussed, with different types of stewardship recognised and their significance for the management of cultural landscapes. The next section considers the growing importance of studies focused on ecosystem services (ESS) and their measurement. It is argued that the analysis of changing ESS can be used as a means of assessing the nature of agricultural transformations associated with the impact of both global and local forces. Finally, the need for landscape science to engage both with the general public and policy makers is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson K (2018) From taxing to subsidizing farmers in China post-1978. China Agric Econ Rev 10(1):36–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson K, Rausser G, Swinnen J (2014) Agricultural policy: a global view. pp 179–194. In: Van Alfen NK (ed) Encyclopedia of agriculture and food systems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 464 p

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Antrop M (2000) Geography and landscape science. Belgian Journal of Geography, Belgeo, special issue. In: 29th International Geographical Congress, vol ¼, pp 9–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Antrop M, Van Eetvelde V (2017) Approaches in landscape research, pp. 61–80. In: Antrop M, Van Eetvelde V (eds) Landscape perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht, ISBN 978-94-024-1183-6

    Google Scholar 

  • Bieling C, Plieninger T (eds) (2017) The science and practice of landscape stewardship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 402 pp, ISBN 978-1-107-14226-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjerkes F (2010) Devolution of environment and resources governance: trends and future. Environ Conserv 37:489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloemers T, Daniels S, Fairclough G, Pedroli B, Stiles R (2010) Landscape in a changing world: bridging divides, integrating disciplines, serving society. Science Policy Briefing 41(October). European Science Foundation, Strasbourg, France. http://edepot.wur.nl/161371

  • Bocco G, Napoletano BM (2017) The prospects of terrace agriculture as an adaptation to climate change in Latin America. Geogr Compass 11(10)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brose U, Hillebrand H (2016) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in dynamic landscapes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B: Biol Sci May 19, 371 (1694). pii: 20150267. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton RJF (2014) The influence of farmer demographic characteristics on environmental behaviour: a review. J Environ Manage 135:19–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Castro AJ, Verburg PH, Martín-López B, Garcia-Llorente M, Cabello J, Vaughn CC, López E (2014) Ecosystem service trade-offs from supply to social demand: a landscape-scale spatial analysis. Landsc Urban Plan 132:102–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cliche L, Freeman L (2017) Applying integrated watershed management in Nova Scotia: a community-based perspective from the Clean Annapolis River Project. Int J Water Resour Dev 33(3):441–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L, Sutton P, Farber S, Grasso M (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross R, Ampt P (2017) Exploring agroecological sustainability: unearthing innovators and documenting a community of practice in Southeast Australia. Soc & Nat Resour 30(5):585–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Minin E, Soutullo A, Bartesaghi L, Rios M, Szephegyi MN, Moilanen A (2017) Integrating biodiversity, ecosystem services and socio-economic data to identify priority areas and landowners for conservation actions at the national scale. Biol Cons 206:56–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer J, Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Leventon J, Nshimbi M, Chama F, Kafwifwi A, Muledi JI, Kaumbu JM, Falcao M, Muhorro S (2014) Assessing participatory practices in community-based natural resource management: experiences in community engagement from southern Africa. J Environ Manage 137:137–145

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eden S (1996) Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions. Public Underst Sci 5(3):183–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013) Overview of CAP reform 2014-2020. Agricultural Policy Perspectives Brief No. 5, December 2013. https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/policy-perspectives/policy-briefs/05_en.pdf

  • Everard M (2017) Ecosystem services: key issues. Oxon, Routledge, Abingdon, p 188

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Farm Service Agency (FSA) (2014) Conservation Reserve Program — State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) Approved Projects. FSA, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, Conservation Fact Sheet

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazey I, Bunse L, Msika J, Pinke M, Preedy K, Evely AC, Lambert E, Hastings E, Morris S, Reed MS (2014) Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Glob Environ Change 25:204–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Biggs R, Norström AV, Reyers B, Rockström J (2016) Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol Soc 21(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester J, Cook B, Bracken L, Cinderby S, Donaldson, A (2015) Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems. Appl Geogr 56:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girard N (2015) Knowledge at the boundary between science and society: a review of the use of farmers’ knowledge in agricultural development. J Knowl Manag 19(5):949–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girard C, Pulido-Velazquez M, Rinaudo JD, Pagé C, Caballero Y (2015) Integrating top–down and bottom–up approaches to design global change adaptation at the river basin scale. Glob Environ Change 34:132–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gundersen V, Mäkinen K (2009) Aldo Leopold and stewardship: Lessons for forest planning and management in the Nordic countries? Norsk Geogr Tidsskr 63(4):225–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellerstein DM (2017) The US conservation reserve program: the evolution of an enrollment mechanism. Land Use Policy 63:601–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krzywoszynska A (2016) What farmers know: experiential knowledge and care in vine growing. Sociologia Ruralis 56(2):289–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambin EF, Geist HJ, Rindfuss RR (2006) Introduction: local processes and global impacts. In Lambin EF and Geist HJ (eds) Land-use and landcover change: local processes and global impacts. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-32202-7 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Lastra-Bravo XB, Hubbard C, Garrod G, Tolón-Becerra A (2015) What drives farmers’ participation in EU agri-environmental schemes? Results from a qualitative meta-analysis. Environ Sci Policy 54:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefroy T, Curtis A, Jakeman A, McKee J (eds) (2012) Landscape logic: integrating science for landscape management. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Leifield J (2016) Current approaches neglect possible agricultural cutback under large-scale organic farming. A comment to Ponisio et al. Proc R Soc B—Biol Sci 282(1824), 20151623

    Google Scholar 

  • Leimbach M, Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, Bauer N, Dietrich JD, Klein D (2012) Integrated assessment models: the interplay of climate change, agriculture and land use in a policy tool. In: Dinar A, Mendelssohn R (eds) Handbook on climate change and agriculture. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 204–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Wang Z, Lai C, Wu X, Zeng Z, Chen X, Lian Y (2018) Response of net primary production to land use and land cover change in mainland China since the late 1980s. Sci Total Environ 639:237–247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Liao L, Long H, Qin J (2015) Effects of land use transitions on ecosystem services value—a case study of Hunan province. Geogr Res 34(4):691–700

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovett A, Appleton K, Warren-Kretzschmar B, Von Haaren C (2015) Using 3D visualization methods in landscape planning: an evaluation of options and practical issues. Landsc Urban Plan 142:85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald DH, Bark R, MacRae A, Kalivas T, Grandgirard A, Strathearn S (2013) An interview methodology for exploring the values that community leaders assign to multiple-use landscapes. Ecol Soc 18(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Harms MJ, Bryan BA, Balvanera P, Law EA, Rhodes JR, Possingham HP, Wilson KA (2015) Making decisions for managing ecosystem services. Biol Conserv 184:229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullough EB, Matson PA (2016) Evolution of the knowledge system for agricultural development in the Yaqui Valley, Sonora, Mexico. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(17):4609–4614

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire JM, Morton LW, Arbuckle JG Jr, Cast AD (2015) Farmer identities and responses to the social–biophysical environment. J Rural Stud 39:145–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millington JD, Wainwright J (2016) Comparative approaches for innovation in agent-based modelling of landscape change. Land 5(2):13. https://doi.org/10.3390/land/502001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell LC (1981) Witnesses to a vanishing America: The nineteenth-century response, vol 770. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Moschitz H, Roep D, Brunori G, Tisenkopfs T (2015) Learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture: processes of co-evolution, joint reflection and facilitation. J Agric Educ Ext 21(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munroe DK, McSweeney K, Olson J, Mansfield B (2014) Using economic geography to reinvigorate land-change science. Geoforum 52:12–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green RE, Lehner B, Malcolm TR, Ricketts TH (2008) Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(28):9495–9500. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707823105

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Norberg J, Wilson J, Walker B, Ostrom E (2008) Diversity and resilience of social-ecological systems. In: Norberg J, Cumming GS (eds) Complexity theory for a sustainable future. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 46–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Oostindie H, Van Broekhuizen R, De Roest K, Belletti G, Arfini F, Menozzi D, Hees E (2016) Sense and non-sense of local–global food chain comparison, empirical evidence from Dutch and Italian pork case studies. Sustainability 8(4):319. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plieninger T, Bieling C, Fagerholm N, Byg A, Hartel T, Hurley P, López-Santiago CA, Nagabhatla N, Oteros-Rozas E, Raymond CM, Van Der Horst D (2015a) The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and planning. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:28–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plieninger T, Kizos T, Bielin C, Le Dû-Blayo L, Budniok MA, Bürgi M, Crumley CL, Girod G, Howard P, Kolen J, Kuemmerle T (2015b) Exploring ecosystem-change and society through a landscape lens: recent progress in European landscape research. Ecol Soc 20(2):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07443-200205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rausser GC, Farrell K (eds) (2016) Alternative agricultural and food policies and the Farm Bill. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Rausser GC, Zilberman D, Kahn G (2015) An alternative paradigm for food production, distribution and consumption: a non-economist’s perspective. Ann Rev Resour Econ 7:309–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Spoehr J (2013) The acceptability of climate change in agricultural communities: comparing responses across variability and change. J Environ Manage 115:69–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Brown G, Weber D (2010a) The measurement of place attachment: personal, community, and environmental connections. J Environ Psychol 30(4):422–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Bieling C, Fagerholm N, Martin-Lopez B, Plieninger T, (2016a) The farmer as a landscape steward: Comparing local understandings of landscape stewardship, landscape values, and land management actions. Ambio 45(2):173–184

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Reed M, Bieling C, Robinson GM, Plieninger T, (2016b) Integrating different understandings of landscape stewardship into the design of agri-environmental schemes. Environ Conserv 43(4):350–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC (2010b) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manage 91(8):1766–1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Stringer LC, Fazey I, Evely AC, Kruijsen JHJ (2014) Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. J Environ Manage 146:337–345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Allen K, Attlee A, Dougill AJ, Evans KL, Kenter JO, Ho J, McNab D, Stead SM, Twyman C, Scott AS (2017) A place-based approach to payments for ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 43:92–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley M (2011) Turning farmers into conservationists? Progress and prospects. Geogr Compass 5(6):369–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley M (2016) How does longer term participation in agri-environment schemes [re]shape farmers’ environmental dispositions and identities? Land Use Policy 52:62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson GM (1994) The greening of agricultural policy: Scotland’s Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). J Environ Planning Manage 37:215–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson GM (1997) Community-based planning: Canada’s Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP). Geogr J 172(3):25–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson GM (2018) Adaptation to climate change in farming communities: Observations from two research projects in South Australia. South Australian Geogr J 114(1). https://doi.org/10.21307/sagj-2018-006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson GM, Carson DA (2013) Applying landscape science to natural resource management. Ecol Soc 18(1):32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05639-180132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson GM, Robinson SR (2016) ‘Improving landscape or improving the Picturesque? Historic rural landscapes in the English Midlands’. Belgeo (4). https://doi.org/10.4000/belgeo.19664

  • Robinson GM, Song B (2018) Transforming the peri-urban fringe in China: the example of Xi’an-Xianyang. Sustainability 10:3932. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Servon LJ, Pink S (2015) Cittaslow: going glocal in Spain. J Urban Aff 37(3):327–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw BJ, Draux H, GarciaMartin M, Martin J, Bieling C (2017) Contributions of citizen science to landscape democracy: potentials and challenges of current approaches. Landsc Res 42:831–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuttleworth S, Palang H (2017) Landscape research and knowledge exchange: learning from the HERCULES research project. Landsc Res 42(8):809–818. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1396305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh AK, Dhayani SK (2014) Agroforestry policy issues and challenges. In: Dagar JC, Singh AK, Arunachalam A (eds) Agroforestry systems in India: livelihood security and ecosystem services. Springer India, New Delhi, pp 367–372

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Song X, Peng C, Zhou G, Jiang H, Wang W (2014) Chinese Grain for Green Program led to highly increased soil organic carbon levels: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep: 4460. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04460

  • Song B, Robinson GM, Zhou Z (2017) Agricultural transformation and ecosystem services: a case study from Shaanxi Province, China. Habitat Int 69:114–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner F (2008) The living landscape: an ecological approach to landscape planning, 2nd edn. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA. ISBN-13: 978-1597263962, ISBN-10: 1597263966

    Google Scholar 

  • Stringer LC, Reed MS, Fleskens L, Thomas RJ, Le QB, Lala-Pritchard T (2017) A new dryland development paradigm grounded in empirical analysis of dryland systems science. Land Degrad Dev 28(7):1952–1961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tieskens KF, Schulp CJ, Levers C, Lieskovský J, Kuemmerle T, Plieninger T, Verburg PH (2017) Characterizing European cultural landscapes: accounting for structure, management intensity and value of agricultural and forest landscapes. Land Use Policy 62:29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner BL II, Lambin EF, Reenberg A (2007) The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(52):20666–20671

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Turner KG, Anderson S, Gonzales-Chang M, Costanza R, Courville S, Dalgaard T, Dominati E, Kubiszewski I, Ogilvy S, Porfirio L, Ratna N (2016) A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration. Ecol Model 319:190–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaz E (2016) The future of landscapes and habitats: the regional science contribution to the understanding of geographical space. Habitat Int 51:70–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, Crossman N, Ellis EC, Heinimann A, Hostert P, Mertz O, Nagendra H, Sikor T, Erb KH, Golubiewski N, Grau R (2015) Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: a global land project perspective. Anthropocene 12:29–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Zhou ZX (2014) Evaluation of urban agricultural land use efficiency based on urban agricultural multi-functionality—a case study of Xi’an City. Econ Geogr 34(7):129–134

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Peng J, Zhao M, Liu Y, Chen Y (2017) Significant trade-off for the impact of grain-for-green programme on ecosystem services in North-western Yunnan, China. Sci Total Environ 574:57–64

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JR, Lomonico S, Bradley D, Sievanen L, Dempsey T, Bell M, McAfee S, Costello C, Szuwalski C, McGonigal H, Fitzgerald S (2018) Adaptive co-management to achieve climate-ready fisheries. Conserv Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2017) Thirty years of Landscape Ecology (1987–2017): retrospects and prospects. Landscape Ecol 32:2225–2239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0594-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao J (2014) Satellite evidence for significant biophysical consequences of the “Grain for Green” Program on the Loess Plateau in China. J Geophys Res: Biogeosci 119(12):2261–2275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu J, Grumbine RE (2014) Integrating local hybrid knowledge and state support for climate change adaptation in the Asian highlands. Clim Change 124(1–2):93–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zagaria C, Schulp CJ, Kizos T, Gounaridis D, Verburg PH (2017) Cultural landscapes and behavioral transformations: an agent-based model for the simulation and discussion of alternative landscape futures in East Lesvos, Greece. Land Use Policy 65:26–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Y (ed) (2016) Seeking changes: economic development in contemporary China. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, p 288

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia

    Guy M. Robinson

  2. Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, 16-21 Silver Street, Cambridge, CB3 9EP, UK

    Guy M. Robinson

Authors
  1. Guy M. Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guy M. Robinson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Guest Scientist, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Brandenburg, Germany

    Lothar Mueller

  2. Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Brandenburg, Germany

    Frank Eulenstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Robinson, G.M. (2019). Landscape Science for Natural Resource Management in a Globalised World. In: Mueller, L., Eulenstein, F. (eds) Current Trends in Landscape Research. Innovations in Landscape Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30069-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation