Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 75–82

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Perspective Essay

The potential for integrated landscape management to fulfil Europe’s T

commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals
⁎
Carsten Manna, , Maria Garcia-Martinb, Christopher M. Raymondc, Brian J. Shawd,e,
Tobias Plieningerf
a
Chair of Sustainable Forest Resource Economics, Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development, Alfred-Möller-Str. 1, D-16225 Eberswalde, Germany
b
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, Germany
c
Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Sweden
d
Institute of Social Sciences in Agriculture, University of Hohenheim, Germany
e
Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
f
Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, Germany

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The aim of this perspective essay is to discuss how integrated landscape management (ILM) can contribute to the
Integrated landscape management implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) agenda in Europe. Challenges for sustainable
Sustainable Development Goals development become evident in the emergence of land-use conflicts. Facing multiple, and in sometimes con-
Europe flicting, land-use objectives and policies, we elaborate on the potential of ILM to support multifunctionality and
Land-use conflicts
integration across sectors and scales. Based on three recent land-use conflict cases from distinct European
Landscape research
contexts, we empirically identify and discuss key characteristics of ILM for land-use conflict resolution as a
means for SDG implementation. These conflicts are (1) agricultural production versus nature conservation, (2)
urban sprawl and rural land abandonment versus landscape integrity, and (3) renewable energy generation
versus landscape aesthetics. In our cases we find common concerns of decreasing landscape quality as a basis for
actors to engage in collective action, the need for multi-actor/multi-sector collaboration, and the assignment of
clear rights and responsibilities for land management. In contrast, issues of capacity building, transparency in
decision-making and flexibility for adaptations are found lacking. Finally, we discuss ways how ILM can improve
policy and practice to handle ambiguous interests and goals, and highlight the future role of landscape research
in supporting SDG implementation at the landscape level in Europe.

1. Introduction
Three decades after its international appearance in the Brundtland
report, the quest for sustainable development remains high on policy
agendas from the regional to the global level. Continuously pressing
environmental problems such as natural resource exploitation and land
degradation underscore the need for a systemic understanding of en-
vironmental and social problems, and the creation of adaptive man-
agement and policy solutions (West et al., 2014). The Millennium De-
velopment Goals (MDGs) were recently superseded by the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) which, different to their precursors, apply to
all countries regardless of their level of development. At their core, the
17 SDGs and their 169 associated targets propose a global transfor-
mative agenda towards sustainable development and a transition to
sustainable lifestyles (Hajer et al., 2015; Keesstra, Quinton, van der
Putten, Bardgett, & Fresco, 2016). They highlight the close inter-
connection between healthy ecosystem management and sustainable
economic growth (Milder, Hart, Dobie, Minai, & Zaleski, 2014), and
foster the integration of environmental and societal agendas at all scales
for improved coordination of policy and civil society initiatives (Mbow,
Neely, & Dobie, 2015). The implementation of the SDG agenda (from
here on referred to as SDG implementation) builds on three basic
principles: Indivisibility – all goals need to be implemented; inclusion –
all people shall benefit; and acceleration – the need for actions that
have multiple development dividends. While these principles serve as a
universal orientation, it is at the level of landscapes where farmers,
foresters, agencies, non-governmental organisation (NGOs), businesses
and civil society encounter concrete development demands, and where
land management systems have to balance the trade-offs between them
(cf. Thaxton et al., 2015).

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: carsten.mann@hnee.de (C. Mann), maria.garcia-martin@uni-goettingen.de (M. Garcia-Martin), christopher.raymond@slu.se (C.M. Raymond),
brian.shaw@vu.nl (B.J. Shaw), plieninger@uni-kassel.de (T. Plieninger).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.04.017
Received 4 October 2017; Received in revised form 12 March 2018; Accepted 30 April 2018
0169-2046/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
C. Mann et al.
Local actions of land managers can either directly or indirectly align
with most land-related SDGs (cf. Bouma, 2014), for example by con-
tributing to food security and an end to hunger (SDG 2), to healthy lives
and well-being (SDG 3), to sustainable water management (SDG 6), to
modern energy supply (SDG 7), to combat climate change (SDG 13),
and to the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15) (cf. Reed,
Van Vianen, Deakin, Barlow, & Sunderland, 2016). As land resources
are limited and many European landscapes have to accommodate
multiple land uses, we propose the promotion of multifunctional, in-
tegrated, and collaborative management solutions as an essential
component for SDG implementation in Europe.
Although the debate on SDG implementation has not fully emerged
yet in the European context, there are reasons to assume that it will
prove challenging. While a lack of appropriate institutions often hinder
SDG implementation in developing countries, barriers for Europe are
more anchored in sectoral approaches, path dependent agency re-
sponsibilities, and institutionalised land-use conflicts (cf. Hersperger,
Ioja, Steiner, & Tudor, 2015). Even though there is growing acknowl-
edgement that sectoral approaches to addressing interconnected social-
ecological problems are insufficient (Freeman, Duguma, & Minang,
2015), the institutional context in Europe is largely characterised by a
lack of synchronised policy objectives and interagency collaboration
(Young et al., 2005). It has been anticipated that many regions will be
unable to achieve sustainable development objectives without mod-
ifying current policy frameworks and land-use practices (Mbow et al.,
2015; Seto & Reenberg, 2014). Other authors even raise fundamental
doubts about the overall compatibility of economic and environmental
developments (e.g. Redclift, 2005). In addition, neither a theoretical
framework for SDG implementation nor guidance for SDG prioritisation
exists for different context, which makes trade-off analysis problematic.
Expected challenges for SDG implementation in Europe become already
visible in the emergence and intensification of land-use conflicts that
are largely caused by distributed responsibilities among sectors and
scales, diverging land development objectives, and the lack of en-
forcement of existing sustainable development strategies (e.g. Keesstra
et al., 2016; Reed et al., 2016).
Taking these challenges as a starting point for our essay, we argue
that implementing agencies may consider integrated approaches to land
management that have the potential to bridge different SDGs. We draw
on recent contributions from landscape research where concepts of
integrated landscape management (ILM) are currently on the rise (e.g.
Opdam, Luque, Nassauer, Verburg, & Wu, 2018; Plieninger et al., 2015;
Shuttleworth & Palang, 2017).
The aim of this perspective essay is to explore the potential of ILM in
three different European contexts as case study examples to highlight
how ILM can resolve conflict and contribute to SDG implementation in
Europe. ILM refers to a range of management concepts that promote
stakeholder collaboration to address linked social-ecological chal-
lenges. It can support the implementation of the SDG agenda in Europe
as landscapes represent a suitable operational scale for sustainability
goals, linking local actions to the global context (Estrada-Carmona,
Hart, DeClerck, Harvey, & Milder, 2014; Wu, 2013). The sustained
delivery of multiple benefits for natural and human wellbeing can be
elaborated in concrete contexts, landscape challenges assessed, and
ways for conflict resolution among development objectives debated in a
participatory way (Mbow et al., 2015; Milder et al., 2014). In this re-
gard, we focus on terrestrial land-uses and ecosystem service provision,
and analyse which ILM approaches can support land-use conflict re-
solution. Each of the examples highlights a particular challenge for land
management in Europe, i.e., targeting a typical land-use conflict, and
highlighting ways how integrated management can – or seeks to - foster
multi-actor and multi-sector collaboration for enabling a transition to-
wards achieving the SDGs. More particularly, we address the following
two objectives:
1) To identify main characteristics of ILM based on insights from
76
Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 75–82
landscape research;
2) To analyse the role these characteristics have played in land-use
conflict resolution in three different European contexts. The analysis
then serves as a basis to derive recommendations on how ILM can
contribute to SDG implementation in Europe.
This paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, we introduce the
main characteristics of ILM. From these we derive a list of eight ana-
lytical questions and select three ‘typical’ cases of land-use conflicts in
Europe to explore how ILM is used for conflict resolution and the extent
ILM characteristic have played out (Section 3). In Section 4, we discuss
the potential and limitations of ILM approaches for SDG implementa-
tion across cases, and in Section 5 we draw conclusions for European
landscape policy and practice.
2. Approach
2.1. Main characteristics of integrated landscape management
ILM has become a new strategy for landscape governance to address
growing land-use conflicts in response to multifunctional management
of landscapes worldwide (Freeman et al., 2015). Compared to con-
ventional landscape planning approaches, ILM is more holistic, flexible,
and coherent with a range of land uses and sectors (Reed et al., 2016).
Its aim is to involve a range of stakeholders and to combine policies,
information, planning, control, and negotiation for multiple land-use
objectives, such as agricultural production, rural livelihoods, and
nature conservation. ILM explicitly considers land rights, restrictions,
and responsibilities (Estrada-Carmona et al., 2014).
Generally, ILM builds on four central characteristics: (a) It promotes
multifunctional land uses and fulfills a range of land use objectives (cf.
Mastrangelo et al., 2014); (b) it works at the landscape scale and in-
cludes deliberative planning and co-design of management approaches
(Milder et al., 2014); (c) it incorporates inter-sectoral cooperation and
the alignment of activities, policies, or investments, acknowledging
conflicts and interference with other policy sectors and actors
(Stenseke, 2016); and (d) it is participatory, in that it supports colla-
borative management within a social learning framework (García-
Martín, Bieling, Hart, & Plieninger, 2016).
The underlying rationale for ILM is to achieve conflict resolution
with the help of participation, collaboration, and learning. The appeal
of ILM has resulted in the production of manifold concepts over the past
20 years that mainly differ in their management focus (e.g. Milder et al.,
2014; Sayer et al., 2013; Scherr, Shames, & Friedman, 2012). Examples
include Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM), the Eco-
system Approach, Integrated Rural Development (IRD), and Integrated
Natural Resource Management (INRM) (Reed et al., 2016). Related
discourses in Europe have used terms such as Collaborative Landscape
Planning, Landscape Approach, Landscape Governance, or Landscape
Stewardship (e.g. Angelstam et al., 2013). Out of these more regional
and sectorial approaches, ILM has developed as an umbrella discourse
that is applicable globally and in science, practice, as well as policy (cf.
García-Martín et al., 2016; Zanzanaini et al., 2017).
Landscape research has suggested central concepts for landscape
approaches and principles of ILM for their better operationalisation and
use. Sayer et al. (2013) were among the first who set up a compre-
hensive list of ten ILM principles. Based on a systematic review of
hundreds of ILM cases, Freeman et al. (2015) recently identified six
cross-cutting concepts that all guide the design and conduct of decision-
making processes in landscape contexts as ‘good practices’. These, ac-
cording to Mbow et al. (2015), can be further distinguished between
principles that are related to overall stakeholder needs and aims, while
others function as prerequisites or action items. Building on these
conceptual considerations, we investigate whether ILM may overcome
challenges related to SDG implementation in Europe due to its capacity
to collaboratively achieve land-use conflict resolution.
C. Mann et al.
Table 1
Main characteristics of ILM approaches (defined by Milder et al. (2014), Sayer et al. (2013), and Freeman et al. (2015)) as a basis to derive analytical questions.
Process step Sayer et al. (2013) Milder et al. (2014)
Aims Resilience
Prerequisites Common concern entry point Addressing the landscape scale
Action items Multifunctionality Multifunctionality
Multiple stakeholders Participation
Multiple scales Cross-sectoral approaches
Negotiated, transparent change logic
Clarification of rights, responsibilities
Continual learning, adaptive
management
Participatory monitoring
Strengthen stakeholder capacity
To analyse the links between the challenges of SDG implementation,
land-use conflicts, and ILM, we derived a list of eight questions based on
the main characteristics of ILM approaches, to be empirically tested in
distinct European contexts (Table 1). These characteristics are seen as
an ideal-typical model of ILM which needs to be further adapted to
implementation contexts.
2.2. Case study selection and analysis
Selection criteria for cases include, first, the representation of major
European land-use trends that cause land-use conflicts. Chosen trends
are increasing urbanisation pressures, renewable energy demands, and
agricultural intensification. All of these trends and related land-use
conflicts are closely linked to differing and in part diverging SDGs.
Second, cases were selected where the implemented land management
solution shows characteristics of an ILM approach. An extensive scan-
ning of land management approaches has been carried out by the FP7
European landscape research project HERCULES (www.hercules-
landscapes.eu). As a result of the scan, three cases were deemed sui-
table as they, in addition to the two selection criteria, are spread across
a gradient of land use (intensively managed to abandoned/protected)
and biogeographic conditions (northern/temperate to southern/
Mediterranean). The three cases are:
• Conflict between agricultural production (SDG2) and sustainable
ecosystems/nature conservation (SDG15): Dartmoor National Park,
United Kingdom.
• Conflict caused by increasing urbanisation pressure, aesthetics/re-
creation needs, and land abandonment (SDG3, 11) and landscape
integrity (SDG15): Colmenar Viejo, Spain.
• Conflict between wind energy uses (SDG7) and cultural landscapes/
aesthetics/recreation needs (SDG3): Soonwald Nature Park,
Germany.
All cases were empirically surveyed through intensive interaction
with stakeholders in the form of workshops, expert interviews, and
structured surveys with local residents. This provided a deep under-
standing of the social-ecological context, for example on how values
and changes in the landscape are perceived and how conflict manage-
ment solutions are developing. Next, the three land-use conflicts cases
are described, followed by an elaboration of the characteristics of the
ILM approach that have played a decisive role (or lack thereof) for
conflict resolution for achieving multiple land-use objectives in the
realm of SD.
77
Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 75–82
Freeman et al. (2015) Derived analytical questions
Sustainability 1. Does the approach build on a common landscape concern/
Complexity problem understanding?
Holism 2. Does it allow for multiple land-use objectives?
Participation 3. Does it host multiple stakeholders and foster collaboration?
4. Does it take multiple administrative scales into account?
Tradeoffs 5. Is the development of the solution and identification of
tradeoffs transparent?
6. Are clear rights and responsibilities assigned in the process?
Transdisciplinary 7. Does adaptive management and learning (knowledge
integration) occur?
8. Are participatory monitoring and capacity-building activities
in place?
3. Results
3.1. Three cases of land-use conflicts and ILM solutions
3.1.1. Dartmoor National Park, United Kingdom
The Dartmoor Farming Futures Initiative in Dartmoor National
Park, South West Devon, illustrates how land-use conflicts between
agricultural production and nature conservation can be eased with the
help of an integrated landscape management plan. The analysis is based
on semi-structured interviews conducted at land managers’ residences
in the area (Raymond, Reed, Bieling, Robinson, & Plieninger, 2016).
The main challenge for conflict resolution is to align the landscape
management priorities of Natural England and the Department of
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA (the public bodies re-
sponsible for England’s natural environment), and those of the com-
mons owners and hill farmers. Often there are conflicting views on land
management between these groups; for example, regarding the op-
timum livestock stocking rates on moorlands. As a result of lowering
stocking rates on Dartmoor, hill farmers have had to increase the area
of land they lease or manage (to maintain the same head of stock). This
demands the purchase of more leases, which adds to debt in an industry
that traditionally does not have a high profit margin. Many hill farmers,
therefore, rely on higher levels of agri-environment subsidies for sur-
vival. Adding value to livestock produce (e.g., encouraging organic
cooperatives) may be one way of countering such trends, and increasing
demand for land. Also, trees had colonised the open moor landscape
and gorse had begun to obscure substantial above-ground archae-
ological remains, thus endangering heritage values.
To address these challenges, land management plans are being de-
veloped. As part of a specific plan for the commons, farmers can
identify a range of outcomes that could be delivered from the land –
these cover the full spectrum of ecosystem services from food produc-
tion to water management where applicable. The farmers then use their
expertise and experience to identify the management required to de-
liver these outcomes, which after much negotiation, are included in an
integrated management plan signed by both Commons Association and
various State agencies. The activities included in the farm-scale plan
may be very different to the generic, top-down activities imposed by
Natural England and DEFRA through more traditional agri-environ-
mental schemes, as they are tailored to the needs of the individual
farmer, the specific assets present on his/her hill farm and the collective
interests of the Commons Association in which that farm is located.
Currently, around 15–20% of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) pay-
ments to farmers are for agri-environment schemes. It is this component
of the CAP which has been renegotiated through the Dartmoor Future
Farming Initiative; not affecting the Basic Payment Scheme which is
paid in accordance with the area in which land managers farm.
3.1.2. Colmenar Viejo, Spain
Colmenar Viejo, a municipality in central Spain close to Madrid, is
C. Mann et al.
characterised by increasing urbanisation pressure parallel to processes
of land abandonment, which is in conflict with landscape integrity,
local peoples’ landscape identity, recreation needs, and well-being.
Insights to this case were gained through a series of workshops, oral
history interviews, and participatory GIS approaches (Garcia-Martin
et al., 2017; Kizos et al., 2018).
The landscape of Colmenar Viejo has historically been shaped by
extensive farming. The main activity today is services, and the area’s
main asset is its proximity to Madrid and the capital’s labour markets.
In recent decades, the population has increased fivefold. Parallel to the
growth in the urban area, the surrounding rural landscape has become
increasingly abandoned. This abandonment is apparent in many ways: a
decrease in farming activity, an increase in woodlands and scrublands,
and the abandonment of drystone walls. Increasingly, the landscape
surrounding the city is considered to be a recreational asset rather than
a productive and multifunctional landscape. The municipality’s current
policy involves encouraging further population growth, the aim of
which is to give its inhabitants access to the facilities that are the pri-
vilege of big cities (such as communication infrastructure and health
facilities). At the same time, the local administration does not have a
clear vision for the future development of its rural landscapes.
Local initiatives in the area aim to integrate multiple uses and
maintain high quality rural landscapes, especially by reconnecting
urban people with the countryside through improved outdoor recrea-
tion possibilities and awareness/knowledge about local ecosystems and
cultural heritage. To this end, the land management strategy followed
by the Environment Department of the municipality includes the
maintenance, designation, and promotion of the walking trails that
cross the rural landscape starting from the city centre; providing re-
commendations on how to collect wild vegetables without putting
ecosystems at risk; restoring native vegetation, maintaining traditional
drystone walls, and developing an interactive website where people can
experience the landscapes of Colmenar Viejo through the sounds and
images captured by people from the town. In addition, cultural heritage
restoration efforts have been implemented to raise people’s awareness
of the municipality’s past and its landscape values.
3.1.3. Soonwald Nature Park, Germany
The Soonwald Nature Park in Southwestern Germany illustrates a
growing land-use conflict between infrastructural developments for
wind energy and landscape aesthetics/recreation demands. Insights
have been generated from interviews with key actors in the region
conducted by Arifi, Winkel, and Ruppert-Winkel (2017), as well as from
secondary sources (Boos & Steffen, 2016).
The Soonwald Nature Park includes large, contiguous forest areas,
which are valued for their aesthetics, biodiversity, and recreational
opportunities. Due to its topography, the area has some of the highest
potential for wind energy development in inland Germany. Many vil-
lages have sought additional income by renting sites to energy com-
panies for wind energy development. A conflict has emerged as wind-
farms are perceived to threaten the aesthetics of the landscape. Forest
must be cleared to allow construction access, and when completed, the
turbines rise high above the forest line. The legal and planning process
for wind energy is complicated as, while each local village can enter
into agreements with energy companies to lease their land, permission
for such developments is granted by the municipal associations of
which each village is a member.
Landscape-level “solidarity pacts” have been developed as a solu-
tion to facilitate the negotiation of agreements between member vil-
lages and their municipal associations. These agreements restrict wind
energy development to a selection of sites and ensure the distribution of
wind energy income, also to member villages that are denied devel-
opment permission. Payments into a joint fund range from 10% to 50%
of the income derived from wind energy. These funds are then redis-
tributed amongst disadvantaged villages and used to develop alter-
native income streams such as tourism. Solidarity pacts reduce the
78
Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 75–82
impact of wind turbines on the landscape scenery, while generating
income for all villages in the area. Furthermore, the villages without the
potential for wind energy development then gain an advantage as they
become comparatively more attractive for nature tourism.
3.2. Characteristics of ILM approaches for conflict resolution
The three cases show commonalities and differences regarding the
characteristics of the implemented ILM approaches that have an influ-
ence on the success or failure for conflict resolution. Commonly, and
most obviously, characteristics that relate to a multiplicity of land-use
objectives and land users are decisive in all three case studies, even
though there are differences in terms of scope and intensity. In contrast
ILM characteristics that relate to process quality such as transparency,
adaptation, and capacity-building, are differently integrated or even
absent in the cases. This influences their conflict resolution potential, as
detailed below following our eight analytical questions.
3.2.1. Does the approach build on a common landscape concern/problem
understanding?
A perceived decrease in landscape quality is a common stakeholder
concern in all three cases. For example, changing from open moorland
to closed woodlands and forests in Dartmoor is disliked by farmers
seeking to preserve primary production values. Similarly, in Colmenar
Viejo, increasing urbanisation and land abandonment prompted local
residents to demand that the typical rural landscape and features of the
area, such as drystone walls, be maintained. Demands to preserve the
landscape also form the starting point in the Soonwald Nature Park,
where local people feel their quality of life is threatened when wind
turbines are built. In all three cases, conflict arose due to different
stakeholder interests, but a shared understanding of the landscape
problems and need for solution formed a common starting point.
3.2.2. Does the approach allow for multiple land-use objectives?
A second common element across cases is to manage for multi-
functional land uses. The Dartmoor Vision for 2030 resulted in an
agreement being reached between public and private actors to support
a range of ecosystem services provided by the National Park. In
Colmenar Viejo the municipality made its multiple landscape qualities
an asset. Its rich cultural heritage and farming identity, the diverse
geology and Mediterranean ecosystems, as well as the privileged loca-
tion between Madrid and the Guadarrama Mountains triggered various
ILM activities. These included activities such as regulating grazing ac-
tivity, creating a sustainable water supply system for livestock, re-
storing cultural heritage and native vegetation cover, creating recrea-
tion opportunities based on the existing path network, and recovering
vineyards. The value of the Solidarity Pacts of the Soonwald Nature
Park is at the landscape level, that functions and incomes are diversi-
fied, while at the village level, limiting wind energy development to
specific sites results in forest areas being perceived as remaining un-
disturbed and of high aesthetic and nature conservation value. The
common aim of all initiatives is to fulfill multiple land management
objectives, which requires negotiation of tradeoffs between actors who
have varied visions and interests. However, the way negotiation pro-
cesses have been organised varies, ranging from an intended bottom-up
process (Dartmoor) to top-down management decisions (Colmenar
Viejo, Soonwald).
3.2.3. Does the approach host multiple stakeholders and foster
collaboration?
Cooperation between public and private actors, such as land man-
agers, agency representatives, and other stakeholders or civil society
groups becomes institutionalised in the form of plans (Dartmoor,
Colmenar Viejo) and contracts (Soonwald). The management plan in
Dartmoor involves multiple stakeholders (e.g., land managers, land-
owners, commons associations, and DEFRA), and there is a clear
C. Mann et al.
process for them to collaborate on development and funding. As well as
that, there are many opportunities for civil society to engage via the
Commons Association. Similarly, the different activities present in
Colmenar Viejo involve a range of stakeholders: administrative staff,
experts and professionals, civil and cultural associations, schools, and
the general public are involved as designers and participants in the
activities for raising awareness and enhancing the cultural and natural
heritage, whereas farmers, hunters, and other land users are part of an
advisory board for the management of the countryside. The solidarity
pacts bring in stakeholders from villages and municipal association
authorities, as well as other stakeholders such as the state forest service.
Thus, all initiatives involve multiple stakeholders, but to differing de-
grees and differences in decision-making power. Commonly, power
rests with administrations while other stakeholder opinions are taken as
contributions.
3.2.4. Does the approach take multiple administrative scales into account?
Although each case focuses primarily on local level landscape
management, higher administrative levels such as the regional
(Soonwald) or State/national level (Dartmoor, Colmenar Viejo) are
included. For example, the land management plan in Dartmoor enables
collaboration between local farmers and the state agencies (Natural
England and DEFRA) for the provisioning of various ecosystem services.
A management committee is formed to agree on suitable outcomes,
which takes into account the land-based ecosystem services that are
provided on the local to regional scale. Multiple scales are also in-
tegrated in Colmenar Viejo, i.e. the local, regional and national level. A
problem is that even when multiple scales are involved they largely
follow a sectorial approach related to the restoration of heritage, e.g.,
regional and national heritage boards and EU schemes for nature con-
servation. The Solidarity Pacts in Soonwald recognise and connect at
least two administrative scales (village and municipal association), and
are often facilitated by representatives from the state administration.
These multi-level governance characteristics are a common feature of
all the cases. In how far multi-level refers also to multiple policy sectors
varies.
3.2.5. Is the development of the solution and identification of tradeoffs
transparent?
As land-use decision-making requires trade-offs in priority setting
and management objectives, differences in transparency are note-
worthy. The integrated management initiative in Dartmoor provides the
most explicitly transparent process for land managers to agree on land
management actions that are aligned with specific management out-
comes. The process enables managers to debate pathways and negotiate
trade-offs. In the case of Colmenar Viejo, management decisions for
recreational uses, nature conservation, and hunting and grazing activ-
ities are largely prescribed in a top-down manner with little room for
negotiation. The advisory board for countryside management offers a
platform for the different stakeholders to express their opinions on
these management decisions, but the administration is under no ob-
ligation to make any changes. The case in Soonwald remains unclear in
this regard. One legal agreement has been published on a municipal
association website, but the process of developing the agreement has
not been published, only the result. For all cases, even though the
process of reaching the decisions is lacking in transparency and/or
room for maneuver for negotiations (more for Colmenar Viejo,
Soonwald, less for Dartmoor), the end results are binding for all.
3.2.6. Are clear rights and responsibilities assigned in the process?
Even though diverse stakeholders cooperate over a range of scales
and contexts, they rely on clearly defined structures and processes. This
is most explicit in Dartmoor, where land managers and commons-rights
owners enter into a contract with the management committee. The
solidarity pacts, which are agreements that may last for thirty years, are
also contract-based. While rights for wind energy development are not
79
Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 75–82
an inherent part of the contracts, they state that each signatory that
benefits from wind energy must pay a certain percentage into the pot.
In Colmenar Viejo, the different stakeholder groups’ rights and re-
sponsibilities are clearly defined in the Management Plan for most
rangelands owned by the municipality (regulating, for example, the
number of livestock, the months when hunting and grazing are allowed,
and the methods and materials to be used for restoring drystone walls).
The cases demonstrate that land management rights and responsibilities
are clearly assigned. But the scope of these rights is relatively narrow
for single functions, levels, and duties.
3.2.7. Does adaptive management and learning occur?
Adaptive management as a way to adapt to changing context con-
ditions (Folke, Hahn, Olsson, & Norberg, 2005) is recognised in the
Dartmoor management plans, which are usually of five years duration
and are reviewed on an annual or bi-annual basis. All parties are ex-
pected to visit sites prior to the review in order to obtain first-hand
experience of the challenges and opportunities faced. A review of the
program in 2013 revealed that the approach has led to a greater un-
derstanding of what agri-environmental schemes are trying to achieve
(Silcock, Brunyee, & Pring, 2013). In contrast, a planned strategy for
adaptive management is absent in Colmenar Viejo and in the solidarity
pacts contracts. In the latter case, a reason can be their rather simple
structure as they regulate mainly cash flows which should provide ra-
ther stability than flexibility. Also, wind energy development requires
lasting administrative decisions and substantial investments in infra-
structure that cannot easily be adapted to new circumstances. It appears
in the three cases that the degree of flexibility and adaptation of
management measures is highly determined either by the needs of
participating stakeholders for stability (Soonwald, long-time contracts)
versus flexible adjustments (Dartmoor). In Colmenar Viejo, the absence
of adaptation can be explained by a lack of tradition in bottom-up
landscape management.
3.2.8. Are participatory monitoring and capacity-building activities in
place?
Monitoring and capacity building activities are not explicitly ad-
dressed in any of the three cases, but they all refer to awareness raising
efforts as an important element for landscape management. In
Dartmoor, activities are oriented towards raising awareness among
farmers about sustainable land management. For example, the
Dartmoor Hill group invites speakers to talk about the concepts of
natural capital and ecosystem services. Colmenar Viejo established,
among many activities for public outreach, an annual Environment Day
where hundreds of residents participate in conferences, photo contests,
and guided walks organised by the Department of Environment of the
municipality. For the solidarity pacts in Soonwald, we found no docu-
mented evidence of awareness raising activities. The defined range of
participants may explain why such kind of capacity-building activity is
not central to the surveyed ILM initiatives. Their local application scope
suggests a lack of resources for monitoring as deficit.
Table 2 gives an overview of the decisive key characteristics of ILM
identified in the cases, and their degree of influence for conflict re-
solution.
4. Discussion
Our conflict cases highlight the challenges of sustainable landscape
management to fulfill diverse land-use objectives as called for in the
SDGs (cf. Le Blanc, 2015). On the one hand there is the ideal of in-
tegrated thinking and systemic management solutions (cf. Milder et al.,
2014; Sayer et al., 2013). On the other hand, these ideals are confronted
with diverse realities and contexts that pose challenges for im-
plementation. As we argued, land-use conflicts are expressions of di-
verse societal demands, which mirror the range of (in parts antag-
onistic) SDGs (Nilsson, Griggs, & Visbeck, 2016). These differences
C. Mann et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 75–82

Table 2
Key characteristics and their impact/scope in the three ILM cases.
Key characteristics Dartmoor National Park, UK Colmenar Viejo, Spain Soonwald Nature Park, Germany

SDG related land-use conflict
ILM initiative
1. Common concern/problem
understanding
2. Strives for
multifunctionality
3. Multi-stakeholders for
cooperation
4. Multiple scales
5. Transparent development
6. Clear rights and
responsibilities
7. Adaptive management
8. Monitoring and capacity
building
Conflict between farming (SDG2) and nature
conservation (SDG15)
Land management plan that will conform to all
appropriate regulations, including those arising from
cross‐compliance, the National Park and the Dartmoor
Commoners' Council
High. Loss of typical landscape characteristics due to
overstocking
Multiple objectives for providing a range of landscape
services
Highly diverse. Multiple stakeholders collaborate on
the development and funding of land management
plans
Local to national level on management requirements
Yes. Clear process for land managers to agree on land
management actions and outcomes
Clear rights for process and contracts
In place. Management plans regularly revised and
adapted
Some. Mainly for awareness raising
Conflict caused by increasing pressure from
urbanisation, recreation needs and land
abandonment (SDG3, 11) and landscape
integrity (SDG15)
Land management plan for the Navalvillar
Dehesa and initiatives developed by the
Environment Department of the municipality
High. Loss of typical landscape characteristics
due to land abandonment and urbanisation
Multiple objectives for food production,
heritage restoration, nature conservation, sense
of place enhancement, and awareness raising
Limited range. Limited inclusion of some
groups, mainly for information, but not for
joint design of management
Local to EU level (mainly for funds)
Partly. The advisory board for the management
of the countryside participates in landscape
management decisions, but administration not
obligated to act
Partly. Clear rights fixed in designated areas of
special natural and agricultural importance;
unclear in the rest of the municipality
Partly in place, but top-down
Some. Mainly for awareness raising
Sustainable (wind) energy (SDG7) vs.
cultural landscapes/ aesthetics for
recreation (SDG3)
Solidarity pacts ensuring multi-level
development coordination between
local villages and associations
High. Loss of typical landscape
characteristics due to renewable
energy infrastructure
Multiple objectives, such as
alternative income source, nature
conservation, tourism, wind energy
development
Limited range. Stakeholders from
village and municipal association
authorities and forest agencies
Local to state level for fund transfer
Published legal agreement, but no
documented development process
Clear rights for contracts
Not in place
Very little evidence of such

require dedicated formats for stakeholder exchange on management
objectives and participatory decision-making processes for developing
context sensitive solutions (e.g. Mann & Absher, 2014; Voß & Kemp,
2006). While ILM theoretically has the potential to identify tradeoffs
and ease land-use conflicts, in practice, fulfilling the ILM requirements
for conflict resolution is difficult (Hák, Janoušková, & Moldan, 2016).
In the following, we discuss the preconditions for ILM that appear most
important in the study cases for conflict resolution.
governance requires dedicated resources to professionally take the di-
verse needs of actors, sectors and decision-making levels into account,
which seems particularly problematic at the local and municipal level.
Such lack of resources might be mitigated by State and national sup-
port.
4.2. A need for hybrid modes of landscape governance

The aim of landscape governance is to expand cooperation between

4.1. A common concern for landscape quality as a precondition for
collaboration
Continuous landscape degradation and a common concern for
landscape quality were among the main reasons for stakeholder colla-
boration, serving as a point of entry for ILM initiatives (cf. Kozar, Buck,
& Barrow, 2014). Land managers at the local level had a vital interest in
sustaining their resource basis. Public authorities were interested in
development, while also obliged to fulfill additional policy objectives,
for instance, contributing to the transformation of the energy system or
nature conservation. With the help of ILM approaches, the diversity of
these traditional and newly emerging land-use objectives have been put
explicitly into focus underlining the need for more open debate and
collaboration. Although the analysed ILM approaches vary regarding
the scope and responsibilities of participants, the idea is the same: To
generate alternative solutions with help of multi-level and inter-sectoral
coordination, and multi-stakeholder collaboration based on a shared
problem understanding and mutual benefits (Keesstra et al., 2016).
Collaboration then provides the basis for shared agreement, col-
lective action and the formation of alliances and networks that build on
trust. The rationale for ILM is to develop ownership, which might in-
crease the chances of achieving these multiple land-use objectives.
Ideally, stakeholder involvement occurs as co-designed approaches,
starting from common problem identification, via visioning and prior-
itisation, up to co-implementation and monitoring (e.g. Klein, 2008;
Mitchell, Cordell, & Fam, 2015). However, such collaborative
the state, as a central actor for guiding the provision of landscape ser-
vices, and non-state actors (e.g. Beunen & Opdam, 2011). The design of
the surveyed ILM solutions is characterised by hybrid modes of gov-
ernance, which allows stakeholder participation, but also incorporates
forms of hegemonic decision-making and closure of design processes.
Examples are the case of Colmenar Viejo, where the local administra-
tion designs the management plan in a top-down way, similar to the
contracts in Soonwald between villages and village associations. The
opportunities for stakeholders to co-design these measures are varying.
More advanced are the land management plans in Dartmoor. Here, the
high degree of professionalism stems from the leading role played by
national agencies in charge of the National Park which have resources
and experience in developing co-operative and collaborative partner-
ships with diverse stakeholder groups (Raymond et al., 2016).
Besides the degree of professionalism, also questions of design
complexity played a decisive role. A lesson learned from the solidarity
pact in Germany is that, compared to the other two cases, solidarity
pacts are relatively simple measures as their application scope is nar-
rowly defined. At their core, they enable the transfer of money for
leasing land for development, assign clear responsibilities and connect a
defined range of actors as contract parties. They do not need to in-
corporate exchange platforms for negotiating tradeoffs or build on in-
formal rules for choosing land management options. Either a munici-
pality decides to become part of them or not. On the other hand, as the
same type of solidarity pact is applied for a range of different munici-
palities, they are less flexible for adaptation once they have been set up.

80
C. Mann et al.
In contrast, the more complex ILM approaches in Dartmoor and
Colmenar Viejo build on their adapatability to take particular social-
ecological particularities into account. As such, tradeoffs in ILM design
become necessary to find a balance between standardised formats, on
the one hand, and taking context variations into account, on the other.
Here, the cases demonstrate that rather than a need for integrating all
key characteristics for successful ILM design, it seems important to
create solutions that fit the stakeholder needs and the application
contexts with which management is supposed to work (cf. Waage et al.,
2015).
4.3. ILM as a land-use conflict resolution approach
How can ILM solve land-use conflicts and contribute as an im-
plementation strategy for fulfilling SDG commitments in Europe? Due
to continuous land use changes and the further diversification of land
uses and users, the potential for land-use conflict is likely to increase.
Many of the SDG objectives push also conflicting land-use trends for-
ward in parallel, which has implications in particular on local and re-
gional level. What seems appropriate for sustainable development is
strongly contextual and determined by the actors concerned. As such,
integration of objectives and collaboration of actors is key to im-
plementing the SDGs (Stafford-Smith et al., 2017).
No blue print approach exits for ILM, or precise definitions of con-
crete formats (Reed et al., 2016). Rather we have shown that niches for
experimentation, learning, and a constant improvement of measures is
needed to find ways how to include the range of interests for the de-
velopment of embedded management solutions “that work”. As such,
the new landscape management plans and contracts are experiments
with governance forms for generating more sustainable land manage-
ment solutions (cf. Mann & Plieninger, 2017). This experimental
character of ILM approaches underlines the need for careful monitoring
and adaptation, which remains to be improved as in the Soonwald and
Colmenar Viejo case. Hence the focus of ILM as a mean for SDG im-
plementation need to be strengthened for experimentation and
learning, which brings actors and organisations together for collective
action and conflict resolution in relation to landscape management. As
a way forward, more systematic assessment and adaptive land man-
agement approaches are needed (cf. Folke et al., 2005), which in-
corporate system dynamics, uncertainty and surprise in their design by
using approaches that mobilize and combine different types of knowl-
edge, feedback loops, and learning arrangements (Waltner-Toews &
Kay, 2005). Insights gained from previous ILM approaches on landscape
policy and practice could be systematically evaluated and used as the
basis for designing and executing SDG appropriate measures (Freeman
et al., 2015).
5. Conclusion
While a scientific discourse on SDG implementation has gained
momentum in the past few years (e.g. Hák et al., 2016; Stafford-Smith
et al., 2017), a socio-political discourse on SDG implementation in
Europe is largely absent as much of the debate still focuses on the de-
veloping world. However, as the SDGs apply to all nations (e.g. Griggs
et al., 2013; Le Blanc, 2015), implementation demands are about to
come. ILM helps to foster debates about multiple landscape functions,
services, and visions among concerned actors and inspires an explora-
tion of a range of land-use options and synergies. It allows hetero-
geneous actors with different motivations and roles to constructively
exchange options for landscape development and hence their visions of
sustainable development that have been previously often left outside of
decision-making processes. Furthermore, coordinated knowledge gen-
eration that better link social-ecological landscape research with prac-
titioners knowledge and citizen science initiatives would improve not
only the relevancy of research (Bonney & et al., 2014; Shaw, Draux,
Garcia Martin, Martin, & Bieling, 2017), but also its societal embedding
81
Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 75–82
in working towards sound SDG implementation in European land-
scapes.
Acknowledgement
This study has received funding from the European Community’s
Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. 603447
(Project HERCULES).
References
Angelstam, P., Grodzynskyi, M., Andersson, K., Elbakidze, M., Khoroshev, A., Kruhlov, I.,
& Naumov, V. (2013). Measurement, collaborative learning and research for sus-
tainable use of ecosystem services: Landscape concepts and Europe as laboratory.
Ambio, 42(2), 129–145.
Arifi, B., Winkel, G., & Ruppert-Winkel, C. (2017). Landscape stewardship in wind energy
conflicts: Between cultural myths and interests. In C. Bieling, & T. Plieninger (Eds.).
The science and practice of landscape stewardship (pp. 167–181). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Beunen, R., & Opdam, P. (2011). When landscape planning becomes landscape govern-
ance, what happens to the science? Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 324–326.
Bonney, R., Shirk, J. L., Phillips, T. B., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H. L., & Miller-Rushing, A. J.
(2014). Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343(6178), 1436–1437.
Boos, M., & Steffen, A. (2016). Energiewende vor Ort: Bürgerbegehren zum Bau von
Windkraftanlagen im Soonwald. In M. Glaab (Ed.). Politik mit Bürgern-Politik für
Bürger (pp. 303–316). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Bouma, J. (2014). Soil science contributions towards sustainable development goals and
their implementation: Linking soil functions with ecosystem services. Journal of Plant
Nutrition and Soil Science, 177(2), 111–120.
Estrada-Carmona, N., Hart, A. K., DeClerck, F. A. J., Harvey, C. A., & Milder, J. C. (2014).
Integrated landscape management for agriculture, rural livelihoods, and ecosystem
conservation: An assessment of experience from Latin America and the caribbean.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 129, 1–11.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-
ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.
Freeman, O. E., Duguma, L. A., & Minang, P. A. (2015). Operationalizing the integrated
landscape approach in practice. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 24.
García-Martín, M., Bieling, C., Hart, A., & Plieninger, T. (2016). Integrated landscape
initiatives in Europe: Multi-sector collaboration in multi-functional landscapes. Land
Use Policy, 58, 43–53.
Garcia-Martin, M., Fagerholm, N., Bieling, C., Gounaridis, D., Kizos, T., Printsmann, A., ...
Plieninger, T. (2017). Participatory mapping of landscape values in a Pan-European
perspective. Landscape Ecology, 32(11), 2133–2150.
Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M. C., Shyamsundar,
P., ... Noble, I. (2013). Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet.
Nature, 495, 305–307.
Hajer, M., Nilsson, M., Raworth, K., Bakker, P., Berkhout, F., de Boer, Y., ... Kok, M.
(2015). Beyond cockpit-ism: Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of
the sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 7(2), 1651–1660.
Hák, T., Janoušková, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: A need for
relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators, 60, 565–573.
Hersperger, A. M., Ioja, C. I., Steiner, F., & Tudor, C. A. (2015). Comprehensive con-
sideration of conflicts in the land-use planning process: A conceptual contribution.
Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 10(4), 5–13.
Keesstra, S. D., Quinton, J. N., van der Putten, W. H., Bardgett, R. D., & Fresco, L. O.
(2016). The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United
Nations sustainable development goals. Soil, 2(2), 111–128.
Kizos, T., Plieninger, T., Iosifidis, T., Garcia-Martin, M., Girod, G., Karro, K., ... Budniok,
M.-A. (2018). Responding to landscape change: Stakeholder participation and social
capital in five European landscapes. Land, 7(1), 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
land7010014.
Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A lit-
erature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), 116–123.
Kozar, R., Buck, L. E., & Barrow, E. G. (2014). Toward Viable Landscape Governance
Systems: What Works? EcoAgriculture Partners, on behalf of the Landscapes for
People. Food, and Nature Initiative, Washington, DC.
Le Blanc, D. (2015). Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a
network of targets. Sustainable Development, 23(3), 176–187.
Mann, C., & Absher, J. D. (2014). Strategies for adjusting policies to institutional, cultural
and biophysical context conditions: The case of conservation banking in California.
Land Use Policy, 36, 73–82.
Mann, C., & Plieninger, T. (2017). The potential of labelling approaches for integrated
landscape management in Europe. Landscape Research, 42, 904–920.
Mastrangelo, M. E., Weyland, F., Villarino, S. H., Barral, M. P., Nahuelhual, L., & Laterra,
P. (2014). Concepts and methods for landscape multifunctionality and a unifying
framework based on ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 29(2), 345–358.
Mbow, C., Neely, C., & Dobie, P. (2015). How can an integrated landscape approach
contribute to the implementation of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and
advance climate-smart objectives? In P. A. Minang, M. van Norordwijk, O. E.
Freemann, C. Mbow, J. de Leeuw, & D. Catacutan (Eds.). Climate-smart landscapes:
Multifunctionality in practice (pp. 103–116). Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry
Center (ICRAF).
C. Mann et al.
Milder, J. C., Hart, A. K., Dobie, P., Minai, J., & Zaleski, C. (2014). Integrated landscape
initiatives for african agriculture, development, and conservation: A region-wide
assessment. World Development, 54, 68–80.
Mitchell, C., Cordell, D., & Fam, D. (2015). Beginning at the end. The outcome spaces
framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary research. Futures, 65, 86–96.
Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., & Visbeck, M. (2016). Map the interactions between sustainable
development goals. Nature, 534, 320–322.
Opdam, P., Luque, S., Nassauer, J., Verburg, P. H., & Wu, J. (2018). How can landscape
ecology contribute to sustainability science? Landscape Ecology, 33, 1–7.
Plieninger, T., Kizos, T., Bieling, C., Le Du-Blaya, L., Bundiniok, M.-A., & Bürgi, M. (2015).
Exploring ecosystem-change and society through a landscape lens: Recent progress in
European landscape research. Ecology and Society, 20(2), 5.
Raymond, C. M., Reed, M., Bieling, C., Robinson, G. M., & Plieninger, T. (2016).
Integrating different understandings of landscape stewardship into the design of agri-
environmental schemes. Environmental Conservation, 43, 350–358.
Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable development (1987–2005): An oxymoron comes of age.
Sustainable Development, 13, 212–227.
Reed, J., Van Vianen, J., Deakin, E. L., Barlow, J., & Sunderland, T. (2016). Integrated
landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics:
Learning from the past to guide the future. Global Change Biology, 22(7), 2540–2554.
Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J. L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., ... van Oosten,
C. (2013). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, con-
servation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 110(21), 8349–8356.
Scherr, S. J., Shames, S., & Friedman, R. (2012). From climate-smart agriculture to cli-
mate-smart landscapes. Agriculture & Food Security, 1(1), 1.
Seto, K. C., & Reenberg, A. (2014). Rethinking global land use in an urban era. Cambridge
Mass: MIT Press.
Shaw, B. J., Draux, H., Garcia Martin, M., Martin, J., & Bieling, C. (2017). Contributions
of citizen science to landscape democracy: Potentials and challenges of current ap-
proaches. Landscape Research, 42, 831–844.
Shuttleworth, S., & Palang, H. (2017). Landscape research and knowledge exchange:
Learning from the HERCULES research project. Landscape Research, 42(8), 808–818.
Silcock, P., Brunyee, J. & Pring, J. (2013). Dartmoor Farming Futures Project: An
Independent Evaluation. Commissioned Report, Worcestershire, UK: Cumulus
Consultants Ltd. Retrieved December 4, 2016 from https://ecosystemsknowledge.
82
Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 75–82
net/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2014/6/Dartmoor-Farming-Futures-
Independent-Project-Evaluation.pdf.
Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Reyers, B., Kanie, N., ... O’Connell,
D. (2017). Integration: The key to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals.
Sustainability Science, 12(6), 911–919.
Stenseke, M. (2016). Integrated landscape management and the complicating issue of
temporality. Landscape Research, 41, 199–211.
Thaxton, M., Forster, T., Hazlewood, P., Mercado, L., Neely, C., Scherr, S. J., ... & Zandri,
E. (2015). Landscape Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Achieving the SDGs
through Integrated Landscape Management. Retrieved October 15, 2016 from http://
peoplefoodandnature.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/LPFN_WhitePaper_
112415c_lowres.pdf.
Voß, J.-P. & Kemp, R. (2006). Sustainability and reflexive governance: Introduction. In J.-
P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.) Reflexive governance for sustainable de-
velopment (pp. 3–28), Edward Elgar Publishing.
Waage, J., Yap, C., Bell, S., Levy, C., Mace, G., Pegram, T., Unterhalter, E., Dasandi, N.,
Hudson, D., Kock, R., Mayhew, S. H., Marx, C., & Poole, N. (2015). Governing
Sustainable Development Goals: Interactions, infrastructures, and institutions. In J.
Waage & C. Yap (Eds.) Thinking Beyond Sectors for Sustainable Development (pp.
79–88). London: Ubiquity Press.
Waltner-Toews, D., & Kay, J. (2005). The evolution of an ecosystem approach: The dia-
mond schematic and an adaptive methodology for ecosystem sustainability and
health. Ecology and Society, 10(1), 38.
West, P. C., Gerber, J. S., Engstrom, P. M., Mueller, N. D., Brauman, K. A., Carlson, K. M.,
... Siebert, S. (2014). Leverage Points for improving global food security and the
environment. Science, 345(6194), 325–328.
Wu, J. (2013). Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-
being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28, 999–1023.
Young, J., Watt, A., Nowicki, P., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Henle, K., ... Niemela, J. (2005).
Towards sustainable land use: Identifying and managing the conflicts between human
activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodiversity & Conservation, 14(7),
1641–1661.
Zanzanaini, C., Trần, B. T., Singh, C., Hart, A., Milder, J., & DeClerck, F. (2017).
Integrated landscape initiatives for agriculture, livelihoods and ecosystem con-
servation: An assessment of experiences from South and Southeast Asia. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 165, 11–21.