Advertisement

Learning Landscape Approach Through Evaluation: Opportunities for Pan-European Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research

  • Per AngelstamEmail author
  • Michael Manton
  • Fatima Cruz
  • Mariia Fedoriak
  • Yurij Pautov
Chapter
Part of the Innovations in Landscape Research book series (ILR)

Abstract

Sustainable development as a societal process aimed at securing sustainability is challenging. To encourage the necessary knowledge production and learning in different social-ecological contexts requires a place-based networking research infrastructure that involves multiple academic disciplines and non-academic actors. Long-term socio-ecological research (LTSER) platform is one approach with ~80 initiatives globally. To encourage transdisciplinary learning through evaluation we defined a normative model for ideal performance at both local platform and network levels. Four surveys were then sent out to 67 self-reported LTSER platforms. Focusing on the network level, we analyzed the spatial distribution of both long-term ecological monitoring sites within LTSER platforms, and LTSER platforms across the European continent. Finally, narrative biographies about 18 LTSER platforms in different stages of development were analyzed. While the siting of LTSER platforms represented biogeographical regions well, variations in land-use history and governance arrangements were poorly represented. Ecosystem research (72%) dominated social system research (28%). Maintenance of a platform required 3–5 staff members, was based mainly on national funding and had 1–2 years of future funding secured. Networking with other landscape approach concepts was common. Individually, and as a network, LTSER platforms have good potential for transdisciplinary knowledge production and learning about sustainability challenges. To benefit from the large range of variation among Pan-European social-ecological systems, we encourage collaboration among different landscape approach concepts such as LTSER platform and Model Forest, ecological reference landscapes like zapovedniks as well as traditional systems for landscape stewardship.

Keywords

European continent Landscape approach Learning through evaluation LTSER platform Model forest Social-ecological system Stakeholder engagement Transdisciplinary research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge funding from EU Horizon 2020 for the research infrastructure project eLTER, FORMAS (project number 2017:1342) and to the Lithuanian Science Council [grant number P-MIP-17-210] for the FunGILT project.

References

  1. Angelstam P, Barnes G, Elbakidze M, Marsh A, Marais C, Mills A, Polonsky S, Richardson DM, Rivers N, Shackleton R, Stafford W (2017a) Collaborative learning to unlock investments for functional ecological infrastructure: bridging barriers in social-ecological systems in South Africa. Ecosyst Serv 27:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelstam P, Elbakidze M (2017) Forest landscape stewardship for functional green infrastructures in Europe’s West and East: diagnosing and treating social-ecological systems. In: Bieling C, Plieninger T (eds) The science and practice of landscape stewardship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 124–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Axelsson R, Khoroshev A, Tysiachniouk M, Pedroli B, Tysiachniouk M, Zabubenin E (2019a) Model forests in Russia as landscape approach: demonstration projects or initiatives for learning towards sustainable forest management? Forest Policy Econ 101:96–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angelstam P, Grodzynskyi M, Andersson K, Axelsson R, Elbakidze M, Khoroshev A, Kruhlov I, Naumov V (2013) Measurement, collaborative learning and research for sustainable use of ecosystem services: landscape concepts and Europe as laboratory. Ambio 42(2):129–145PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angelstam P, Manton M, Elbakidze M, Sijtsma F, Adamescu M, Avni N, Beja P, Bezak P, Zyablikova I, Cruz F, Bretagnolle V, Díaz-Delgado R, Ens B, Fedoriak M, Flaim G, Gingrich S, Lavi-Neeman M, Medinets S, Melecis V, Muñoz-Rojas J, Schäckermann J, Stocker-Kiss A, Setälä H, Stryamets N, Taka M, Tallec G, Tappeiner U, Törnblom J, Yamelynets T (2019b) LTSER platforms as a place-based transdisciplinary research infrastructure: learning landscape approach through evaluation. Landscape Ecol On-line 34:1461–1484.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0737-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angelstam P, Munoz-Rojas J, Pinto-Correia T (2019c) Landscape interpretations and landscape approach initiatives can foster knowledge production and learning that sustain multiple ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol 34(7): 1445–1460.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00866-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Angelstam P, Törnblom J (2004) Maintaining forest biodiversity in actual landscapes—European gradients in history and governance systems as a “landscape lab”. In: Marchetti M (ed) Monitoring and indicators of forest biodiversity in Europe—from ideas to operationality. European Forest Institute, symposium No 51. pp 299–313Google Scholar
  8. Angelstam P, Manton M, Pedersen S, Elbakidze M (2017b) Disrupted trophic interactions affect recruitment of boreal deciduous and coniferous trees in northern Europe. Ecol Appl 27(4):1108–1123PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Angelstam P, Roberge J-M, Lõhmus A, Bergmanis M, Brazaitis G, Dönz-Breuss M, Edenius L, Kosinski Z, Kurlavicius P, Lārmanis V, Lūkins M, Mikusinski G, Račinskis E, Strazds M, Tryjanowski P (2004) Habitat modelling as a tool for landscape-scale conservation—a review of parameters for focal forest birds. Ecol Bull 51:427–453Google Scholar
  10. Axelsson R, Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Stryamets N, Johansson K-E (2011) Sustainable development and sustainability: landscape approach as a practical interpretation of principles and implementation concepts. J Landscape Ecol 4(3):5–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Axelsson R, Angelstam P, Myhrman L, Sädbom S, Ivarsson M, Elbakidze M, Andersson K, Cupa P, Diry C, Doyon F, Drotz MK, Hjorth A, Hermansson JO, Kullberg T, Lickers FH, McTaggart J, Olsson A, Pautov Yu, Svensson L, Törnblom J (2013) Evaluation of multi-level social learning for sustainable landscapes: perspective of a development initiative in Bergslagen, Sweden. AMBIO 42(2):241–253PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baker S (2006) Sustainable development. Routledge, London/New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bretagnolle V, Berthet E, Gross N, Gauffre B, Plumejeaud C, Houte S, Badenhausser I, Monceaua K, Allier F, Monestiez P, Gaba S (2018) Towards sustainable and multifunctional agriculture in farmland landscapes: lessons from the integrative approach of a French LTSER platform. Sci Total Environ 627:822–834PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Dawson L, Elbakidze M, Angelstam P, Gordon J (2017) Governance and management dynamics of landscape restoration at multiple scales: learning from successful environmental managers in Sweden. J Environ Manage 197:24–40PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Dick J, Orenstein DE, Holzer JM, Wohner C, Achard AL, Andrews C, Avriel-Avni N, Beja P, Blond N, CabelloJ Chen C, Díaz-DelgadoR Giannakis GV, Gingrich S, Izakovicova Z, Krauze K, Lamouroux N, LecaS MelecisV, Miklós K, Mimikou M, Niedrist G, Piscart C, Postolache C, Psomas A, Santos-Reis M, Tappeiner U, Vanderbilt K, Van Ryckegem G (2018) What is socio-ecological research delivering? A literature survey across 25 international LTSER platforms. Sci Total Environ 622:1225–1240PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Duckett D, Feliciano D, Martin-Ortega J, Munoz-Rojas J (2016) Tackling wicked environmental problems: the discourse and its influence on practice in Scotland. Landscape Urban Plann 154:44–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elbakidze M, Angelstam P, Sandström C, Axelsson R (2010) Multi-stakeholder collaboration in Russian and Swedish Model Forest initiatives: adaptive governance towards sustainable forest management? Ecol Soc 15(2):14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elbakidze M, Hahn T, Mauerhofer V, Angelstam P, Axelsson R (2013) Legal framework for biosphere reserves as learning sites for sustainable development: a comparative analysis of Ukraine and Sweden. Ambio 42(2):174–187PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission (2013) Green Infrastructure (GI)—Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. COM 249. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  20. Fedoriak MM, Angelstam PK, Kulmanov OL, Tymochko LI, Rudenko SS, Volkov RS (2019) Ukraine is moving forward from ‘Undiscovered honey land’ to active participation in international monitoring of honey bee colony losses. BeeWorld.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0005772X.2018.1554279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Furman E, Peltola T (2013) Developing socio-ecological research in Finland: challenges and progress towards a thriving LTSER network. In: Singh SJ, Haberl H, Chertow M, Mirtl M, Schmid M (eds) Long term socio-ecological research (LTSER). Springer, Dordrecht, pp 443–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gingrich S, Schmid M, Dirnböck T, Dullinger I, Garstenauer R, Gaube V, Haberl H, Kainz M, Kreiner D, Mayer R, Mirtl M, Sass O, Schauppenlehner T, Stocker-Kiss A, Martin W (2016) Long-term socio-ecological research in practice: lessons from inter-and transdisciplinary research in the Austrian Eisenwurzen. Sustainability 8(8):743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grove JM, Pickett STA, Whitmer A, Cadenasso ML (2013) Building and urban LTSER: the case of the Baltimore ecosystem study and the D.C./B.C., ULTRA-Ex project. In: Singh JS, Haberl H, Schmid M, Mirtl M, Chertow M (eds) Long term socio-ecological research studies in society nature interactions across temporal and spatial scales. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 369–408Google Scholar
  24. Haberl H, Gaube V, Díaz-Delgado R, Krauze K, Neuner A, Peterseil J, Plutzar C, Singh SJ, Vadineanu A (2009) Towards an integrated model of socioeconomic biodiversity drivers, pressures and impacts. A feasibility study based on three European long-term socio-ecological research platforms. Ecol Econ 68:1797–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haberl H, Winiwarter V, Andersson K, Ayres RU, Boone C, Castillo A, Cunfer G, Fischer-Kowalski M, Freudenburg WR, Furman E, Kaufmann R, Krausmann F, Langthaler E, Lotze-Campen H, Mirtl M, Redman CL, Reenberg A, Wardell A, Warr B, Zechmeister H (2006) From LTER to LTSER: conceptualizing the socioeconomic dimension of long-term socioecological research. Ecol Soc 11(2):13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holzer JM, Carmon N, Orenstein DE (2018) A methodology for evaluating transdisciplinary research on coupled socio-ecological systems. Ecol Ind 85:808–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. IMFN (2008) Model forest development guide. International Model Forest Network Secretariat, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  28. Lähteenmäki-Smith K (ed) (2007) Learning through evaluation: the Nordic experience. Nordregion Report 2007:3Google Scholar
  29. Lambeck RJ (1997) Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conserv Biol 11(4):849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee KN (1993) Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, CoveloGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindelöw D (2018) Running to stand still—the role of travel time in transport planning. SWECO, GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  32. Manton M, Angelstam P (2018) Defining benchmarks for restoration of green infrastructure: a case study combining the historical range of variability of habitat and species’ requirements. Sustainability 10:326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matthews R, Selman P (2006) Landscape as a focus for integrating human and environmental processes. J Agric Econ 57(2):199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Metzger MJ, Bunce RGH, Van Eupen M, Mirtl M (2010) An assessment of long term ecosystem research activities across European socio-ecological gradients. J Environ Manage 91(6):1357–1365PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Mirtl M, Borer ET, Djukic I, Forsius M, Haubold H, Hugo W, Jourdan J, Lindenmayer D, McDowell WH, Muraoka H, Orenstein DE, Pauw JC, Peterseil J, Shibata H, Wohner C, Yu X, Haase P (2018) Genesis, goals and achievements of long-term ecological research at the global scale: a critical review of ILTER and future directions. Sci Total Environ 626:1439–1462PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Mirtl M, Frenzel M, Furman E, Ohl C, Krauze K, Grünbühel C (2008) LTER-EUROPE: Criteria and recommendations. Version 5.2, 2008-05-27. Retrieved from http://www.lter-europe.net/document-archive/central/I3034v02-LTER-Europe-Criteria.pdf
  37. Mirtl M, Orenstein DE, Wildenberg M, Peterseil J, Frenzel M (2013) Development of LTSER platforms in LTER-Europe: challenges and experiences in implementing place-based long-term socio-ecological research in selected regions. In: Singh SJ, Haberl H, Chertow M, Mirtl M, Schmid M (eds) Long term socio-ecological research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 409–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moulaert F, Martinelli F, Swyngedouw E, Gonzales S (2005) Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation. Urban Stud 42(11):1969–1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Naumov V, Manton M, Elbakidze M, Rendenieks Z, Priedniek J, Uglyanets S, Yamelynets T, Zhivotov A, Angelstam P (2018) How to reconcile wood production and biodiversity conservation? The Pan-European boreal forest history gradient as an “experiment”. J Environ Manage 218:1–13PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Neumeier S (2012) Why do social innovations in rural development matter and should they be considered more seriously in rural development research?—Proposal for a stronger focus on social innovations in rural development research. Sociologia Ruralis 52(1):48–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Primdahl J, Kristensen L, Arler F, Angelstam P, Aagaard Christensen A, Elbakidze M (2018) Rural landscape governance and expertise—on landscape agents and democracy. In: Egoz S, Jorgensen K, Ruggeri D (eds) Defining landscape democracy: a path to spatial justice. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  42. Roberge J-M, Angelstam P, Villard M-A (2008) Specialised woodpeckers and naturalness in hemiboreal forests—deriving quantitative targets for conservation planning. Biol Cons 141:997–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sayer J, Margules C, Boedhihartono AK, Dale A, Sunderland T, Supriatna J, Saryanthi R (2015) Landscape approaches, what are the pre-conditions for success? Sustain Sci 10(2):345–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shtilmark F (2003) History of the Russian zapovedniks. Russian Nature Press, ExeterGoogle Scholar
  45. Singh SJ, Haberl H, Chertow M, Mirtl M, Schmid M (eds) (2013) Introduction. In: Singh SJ, Haberl H, Chertow M, Mirtl M, Schmid M (Eds) Long term socio-ecological research: studies in society-nature interactions across spatial and temporal scales. Springer Science and Business Media, Berlin, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  46. Snow CP (1959) The two cultures. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24(8):1037–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Per Angelstam
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Manton
    • 2
  • Fatima Cruz
    • 3
  • Mariia Fedoriak
    • 4
  • Yurij Pautov
    • 5
  1. 1.School for Forest Management, Faculty of Forest SciencesSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)SkinnskattebergSweden
  2. 2.Faculty of Forest Science and EcologyVytautas Magnus UniversityAkademija, KaunasLithuania
  3. 3.Sustainable Forest Management Research Institute, University of ValladolidPalenciaSpain
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and BiomonitoringChernivtsi National UniversityChernivtsiUkraine
  5. 5.Silver Taiga Foundation for Sustainable DevelopmentSyktyvkarRussia

Personalised recommendations