CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,335Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementSocioeconomics of Resources and Conservation

Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses

Open access
Sayer, Jeffrey, Sunderland, Terry, Ghazoul, Jaboury, Pfund, Jean-Laurent, Sheil, Douglas, Meijaard, Erik, Venter, Michelle, Boedhihartono, Agni Klintuni +4 more·2013·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1210595110PMC PMC3666687
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

“Landscape approaches” seek to provide tools and concepts for allocating and managing land to achieve social, economic, and environmental objectives in areas where agriculture, mining, and other productive land uses compete with environmental and biodiversity goals. Here we synthesize the current consensus on landscape approaches. This is based on published literature and a consensus-building process to define good practice and is validated by a survey of practitioners. We find the landscape approach has been refined in response to increasing societal concerns about environment and development tradeoffs. Notably, there has been a shift from conservation-orientated perspectives toward increasing integration of poverty alleviation goals. We provide 10 summary principles to support implementation of a landscape approach as it is currently interpreted. These principles emphasize adaptive management, stakeholder involvement, and multiple objectives. Various constraints are recognized, with institutional and governance concerns identified as the most severe obstacles to implementation. We discuss how these principles differ from more traditional sectoral and project-based approaches. Although no panacea, we see few alternatives that are likely to address landscape challenges more effectively than an approach circumscribed by the principles outlined here.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1210595110

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evaluating aquatic ecosystem change is not well suited to conventional experimental approaches because replicates of large ecosystems are not available.

    “Like other research problems with attributes that vary between landscapes (e.g., planning climate adaptation for food supply), evaluating aquatic ecosystem change is not well suited to conventional experimental approaches because replicates of large ecosystems are not available; although case studies can provide insight, more formal evaluative and predictive methods are needed to provide”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Sayer et al. 2013

    The Discussion (p. 4) describes the complexity of landscape approaches and uses case studies to illustrate methods, but it does not address experimental evaluation of aquatic ecosystem change. Searches for conventional experiments, replication, and large ecosystems found no passage stating that replicates are unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 19 Lawrence A, ed (2010) Taking Stock of Nature (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
  2. 21 Lindblom CE (1959) The science of ' muddling through ' Public Adm Rev 19(2):79 -88.
  3. 22 Wollenberg E, et al. (2007) Facilitating cooperation during times of chaos: Spontaneous orders and muddling through in Malinau District, Indonesia. Ecol Soc 12(1):3.
  4. 24 Sayer JA, Bull G, Elliott C (2008) Mediating forest transitions: ' Grand design ' or ' muddling through. ' Conserv Soc 6(4):320
  5. 26 Stork N, Turton SM (2008) Living in a Dynamic Tropical Forest Landscape (Blackwell, Oxford).
  6. 27 Sayer JA, et al. (2007) Assessing environment and development outcomes in conservation landscapes. Biodivers Conserv 16(9): 2677 -2694.
  7. 29 Balint PJ, Stewart RE, Desai A, Walters LC (2011) Wicked Environmental Problems: Managing Uncertainty and Conflict (Island Press, Washington, DC).
  8. 31 Gignoux J, Davies I, Flint S, Zucker J-D (2011) The ecosystem in practice: Interest and problems of an old de fi nition for constructing ecological models. Ecosystems 14(7):1039 -1054.
  9. 32 Farina A (2000) The cultural landscape as a model for the integration of ecology and economics. Bioscience 50(4): 313 -320.
  10. 33 Laven DN, Mitchell NJ, Wang D (2005) Conservation practice at the landscape scale. George Wright Forum 22(1):5 -9.
  11. 34 Lindenmayer D, et al. (2008) A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation. Ecol Lett 11(1): 78 -91.
  12. 36 Li C, Raffaele L, Chen J (2011) Landscape Ecology in Forest Management and Conservation (Springer, Berlin).
  13. 38 Sunderland T, Sayer J, Minh-Ha H (2012) Evidence-Based Conservation: Lessons from the Lower Mekong (Earthscan/ Routledge, New York).
  14. 39 Reid WV, et al. (2010) Environment and development. Earth system science for global sustainability: grand challenges. Science 330(6006):916 -917.
  15. 40 Noss RF (1983) A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. Bioscience 33(11):700 -706.
  16. 41 Franklin JF (1993) Preserving biodiversity: Species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecol Appl 3(2):202 -205.
  17. 42 Kohm KA, Franklin JF (1997) Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century: The Science of Ecosystem Management (Island Press, Washington, DC).
  18. 44 Sayer JA, Elliot C, Maginnis S (2003) Protect, manage and restore; Conserving forests in multi-functional landscapes. Proceedings, 2003 World Forestry Congress, Synthesis (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy). Available at http://www.fao.org/ docrep/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0484-C3.HTM. Accessed January 18, 2013.
  19. 45 Pfund JL, et al. (2011) Understanding and integrating local perceptions of trees and forests into incentives for sustainable landscape management. Environ Manage 48(2):334 -349.
  20. 48 Smith CB (2011) Adaptive management on the central Platte River -science, engineering, and decision analysis to assist in the recovery of four species. J Environ Manage 92(5):1414 -1419.
  21. 49 Velázquez A, et al. (2009) Building participatory landscape-based conservation alternatives: A case study of Michoacán, Mexico. Appl Geogr 29(4):513 -526.
  22. 50 Lee KL (1993) Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment (Island Press, Washington, DC).
  23. 52 Rist L, Feintrenie L, Levang P (2010) The livelihood impacts of oil palm: Smallholders in Indonesia. Biodivers Conserv 19(4):1009 -1024.
  24. 53 Sayer JA, Collins M (2012) Forest governance in a changing world: Reconciling local and global values. Round Table 101(2): 137 -146.
  25. 54 Endamana D, et al. (2010) A framework for assessing conservation and development in a Congo Basin Forest Landscape. Tropical Conserv Sci 3(3):262 -281.
  26. 55 Walker B, Salt D (2012) Resilience Practice: Engaging the Sources of Our Sustainability (Island Press, Washington, DC).
  27. 57 Salafsky N (2011) Integrating development with conservation: A means to a conservation end, or a mean end to conservation? Biol Conserv 144(3):973 -978.
  28. 58 Sayer J, Wells MP (2004) The pathology of projects. Getting biodiversity projects to work: towards better conservation and development , eds McShane TO, Wells MP (Columbia University Press, New York), pp 35 -48.
  29. 59 Bal P , Nath CD, Nanaya KM, Kushalappa CG, Garcia C (2011) Elephants also like coffee: Trends and drivers of human-elephant con fl icts in coffee agroforestry landscapes of Kodagu, Western Ghats, India. Environ Manage 47(5):789 -801.
  30. 60 Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, Green RE (2011) Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: Land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333(6047):1289 -1291.
  31. 61 Sunderland T, Ehringhaus C, Campbell B (2007) Conservation and development in tropical forest landscapes: A time to face the trade-offs? Environ Conserv 34(4):276 -279.
  32. 62 Price D (2009) Global democracy promotion: Seven lessons for the new administration. Wash Q 32(1):159 -170.
  33. 65 Foley JA, et al. (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478(7369):337 -342.
  34. 66 Koh LP, Levang P, Ghazoul J (2009) Designer landscapes for sustainable biofuels. Trends Ecol Evol 24(8):431 -438.
  35. 69 Brown M, Bonis-Charancle JM, Mogba Z, Sundararajan R, Warne R (2008) Linking the Community Options Analysis and Investment Toolkit (COAIT), Consensys Ò and Payment for Environmental Services (PES): A Model to Promote Sustainability in African Gorilla Conservation. In Conservation in the 21st Century: Gorillas as a Case Study , eds Stoinski TS, Steklis HD, Mehlman PT (Springer, New York), pp 205 -227.
  36. 70 Wollenberg L (1999) Participatory Mapping. Report of Workshop ' Building an Agenda Together ' and Mapping Training. Available at www.cifor.org/acm/methods/pm.html. Accessed May 16, 2012.
  37. 73 Reed M (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141:2417 -2431.
  38. 74 Peterson GD (2002) Estimating resilience across landscapes. Conserv Ecol 6(1):17.
  39. 75 Clayson ZC, Castañeda X, Sanchez E, Brindis C (2002) Unequal power -changing landscapes: Negotiations between evaluation stakeholders in Latino communities. Am J Eval 23(1): 33 -44.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.-L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., Venter, M., Boedhihartono, A. K., Day, M., Garcia, C., van Oosten, C., & Buck, L. E.
Affiliations
  • James Cook University (AU)
  • Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor 16000, Indonesia;
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Fauna, Forests and Nature Service, 2108 Couvet, Switzerland;
  • Mbarara University of Science and Technology (UG)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Center for International Forestry Research (ID)
  • Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen University and Research Centre, 6700 AB, Wageningen, The Netherlands; and
  • Cornell University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2013-05-14
Volume
110
Issue
21
Pages
8349-8356
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1210595110
PMC
PMC3666687
OpenAlex
W2143058578
Cited by
1,335
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 67 · 2025: 89 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 114 · 2022: 117 · 2021: 143 · 2020: 138 · 2019: 123 · 2018: 95 · 2017: 117 · 2016: 75 · 2015: 90 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 20
FWCI
60.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline - JCU (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
  • CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Cross Connect (Southern Cross University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
United States Agency for International Development
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
Keywords
landscape approach, land use planning, biodiversity conservation, adaptive management, stakeholder engagement, poverty reduction, environmental governance, institutional constraints, multiple objectives, good practice principles
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Conservation of Natural Resources, Crops, Agricultural, Biodiversity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review