Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Barriers and Bridges for Landscape Stewardship and Knowledge Production to Sustain Functional Green Infrastructures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ecosystem Services from Forest Landscapes

Abstract

Sustainable landscapes and regions require both stewardship and management to sustain the composition, structure and function of ecosystems as a base for delivering human benefits. This complex is captured by the topic of ecosystem services. To deliver these, the concept green (or blue) infrastructure emerged as a tool for spatial planning of networks of natural and semi-natural areas. Such planning requires evidence-based knowledge about both ecological and social systems. For ecosystems, states and trends need be monitored, and improved knowledge must be developed about ecological tipping points for assessment of sustainability, as well as measures for conservation, management and restoration of representative habitat networks for biodiversity and human well-being, i.e. green infrastructures. For social systems, barriers and bridges for stakeholders’ involvement in stewardship and management at multiple levels of governance and spatial scales must be understood. This dual approach requires collaboration among natural and human sciences (i.e. humanities and social sciences) researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. This chapter identifies barriers for place-based collaborative knowledge production and learning and discusses how to bridge them in social-ecological systems. We review results from: (1) long-term place-based initiatives aiming at knowledge production and learning about how to sustain ecosystem services and (2) experiences of human and natural scientists, practitioners and stakeholders about how to bridge barriers for knowledge production and learning. Then, we discuss how coordination and integration of researchers’ and stakeholders’ contributions can be improved through learning by evaluation and traditional knowledge. Seven key actions to promote multilevel learning within and among networks of place-based initiatives aiming at sustainable landscapes are comparative studies, learning by evaluation, landscape approach as tool, train students and professionals to become reflective practitioners, integrated spatial planning, define performance targets for green infrastructure functionality and building a multilevel infrastructure of landscape approach initiatives.

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

  • Andersson K, Angelstam P, Axelsson R, Elbakidze M, Törnblom J (2013a) Connecting municipal and regional level planning: analysis and visualization of sustainability indicators in Bergslagen, Sweden. Eur Plan Stud 21(8):1210–1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson K, Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Axelsson R, Degerman E (2013b) Green infrastructures and intensive forestry: need and opportunity for spatial planning in a Swedish rural–urban gradient. Scand J For Res 28(2):143–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P (1998) Maintaining and restoring biodiversity by developing natural disturbance regimes in European boreal forest. J Veg Sci 9(4):593–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Andersson K (2013) Grön infrastruktur för biologisk mångfald i Dalarna. Har habitatnätverk för barrskogsarter förändrats 2002–2012? Länsstyrelsen Dalarnas län, Rapport 24

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Bergman P (2004) Assessing actual landscapes for the maintenance of forest biodiversity – a pilot study using forest management data. Ecol Bull 51:413–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Dönz-Breuss M (2004) Measuring forest biodiversity at the stand scale: an evaluation of indicators in European forest history gradients. Ecol Bull 51:305–332

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, UK, pp 124–144

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Lazdinis M (2017) Tall herb sites as a guide for the protection and restoration of riparian continuous forest cover. Ecol Eng 103(B):470–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Boutin S, Schmiegelow F, Villard M-A, Drapeau P, Host G, Innes J, Isachenko G, Kuuluvainen M, Mönkkönen M, Niemelä J, Niemi G, Roberge J-M, Spence J, Stone D (2004) Targets for boreal forest biodiversity conservation – a rationale for macroecological research and adaptive management. Ecol Bull 51:487–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Axelsson R, Elbakidze M, Laestadius L, Lazdinis M, Nordberg M, Pătru-Stupariu I, Smith M (2011a) Knowledge production and learning for sustainable forest management: European regions as a time machine. Forestry 84(5):581–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Axelsson R. (2014) Sustainable Bergslagen - a landscape approach initiative in Sweden. Eur Rep 2014:4

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Andersson K, Axelsson R, Elbakidze M, Jonsson B-G, Roberge JM (2011b) Protecting forest areas for biodiversity in Sweden 1991-2010: policy implementation process and outcomes on the ground. Silva Fenn 45(5):1111–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Grodzynskyi M, Andersson K, Axelsson R, Elbakidze M, Khoroshev A, Kruhlov I, Naumov V (2013a) Measurement, collaborative learning and research for sustainable use of ecosystem services: landscape concepts and Europe as laboratory. AMBIO 42(2):129–145

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Andersson K, Isacson M, Gavrilov DV, Axelsson R, Bäckström M, Degerman E, Elbakidze M, Kazakova-Apkarimova EY, Sartz L, Sädbom S, Törnblom J (2013b) Learning about the history of landscape use for the future: consequences for ecological and social systems in Swedish Bergslagen. AMBIO 42(2):150–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Andersson K, Annerstedt M, Axelsson R, Elbakidze M, Garrido P, Grahn P, Jönsson KI, Pedersen S, Schlyter P, Skärbäck E, Smith M, Stjernquist I (2013c) Solving problems in social-ecological systems: definition, practice and barriers of transdisciplinary research. AMBIO 42(2):254–265

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Andersson K, Axelsson R, Degerman E, Elbakidze M, Sjölander P, Törnblom J (2015) Barriers and bridges for Sustainable Forest Management: the role of landscape history in Swedish Bergslagen. In: Kirby KJ, Watkins D (eds) Europe’s changing woods and forests: from wildwood to cultural landscapes. CABI, Wallingford, pp 290–305

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Naumov V, Elbakidze M (2017a) Transitioning from Soviet wood mining to sustainable forest management by intensification: are tree growth rates different in northwest Russia and Sweden? Forestry 90(2):292–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Barnes G, Elbakidze M, Marsh A, Marais C, Mills A, Polonsky S, Richardson DM, Rivers N, Shackleton R, Stafford W (2017b) Collaborative learning to unlock investments for functional ecological infrastructure: bridging barriers in social-ecological systems in South Africa. Ecosyst Serv 27:291–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelstam P, Manton M, Pedersen S, Elbakidze M (2017c) Disrupted trophic interactions affect recruitment of boreal deciduous and coniferous trees in northern Europe. Ecol Appl 27(4):1108–1123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C, Schön DA (1978) Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Landsc Ecol 4(3):5–30

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Y, 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):241–253

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Beery T, Jönsson KI (2015) Inspiring the outdoor experience: does the path through a nature center lead out the door? J Interpret Res 20:67–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Besseau P, Dansou K, Johnson F (2002) The International Model Forest Network (IMFN): elements of success. For Chron 78(5):648–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brukas V (2015) New world, old ideas – a narrative of the Lithuanian forestry transition. J Environ Policy Plan 17:495–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brumelis G, Jonsson BG, Kouki J, Kuuluvainen T, Shorohova E (2011) Forest naturalness in northern Europe: perspectives on processes, structures and species diversity. Silva Fenn 45:807–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2010) The strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the aichi biodiversity target. Available at https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/COP-10/cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf

  • Cheng AS, Mattor KM (2006) Why won’t they come? Stakeholder perspectives on collaborative national forest planning by participation level. Environ Manag 38:545–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claesson S, Duvemo K, Lundström A, Wikberg P-E (2015) Skogliga konsekvensanalyser 2015. Skogsstyrelsen Rapport 2015, p 10

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2000) European landscape convention european treaty series no. 176. Council of Europe, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow RR, Perera AH, Buse LJ (2007) Synthesis: what are the lessons for landscape ecologists? In: Perera AH, Buse LJ, Crow RR (eds) Forest landscape ecology. Transferring knowledge to practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 205–214

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Manag 197:24–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot R, Brander S, van der Ploeg S, Constanza R, Bernard F, Braat L, Christie N, Crossman N, Ghermandi A, Hein L, Hussain S, Kumar P, McVittie A, Portela R, Rodriguez LC, ten Brink P, van Beukering P (2012) Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary unites. Ecosyst Serv 1:50–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degteva SV, Ponomarev VI, Eisenman SW, Dushenkov V (2015) Striking the balance: challenges and perspectives for the protected areas network in northeastern European Russia. AMBIO 44(6):473–490

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Denier L, Scherr S, Shames S, Chatterton P, Hovani L, Stam N (2015) The little sustainable landscapes book. Global Canopy Programme, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:149–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drescher M, Perera AH, Johnson CJ, Buse LJ, Drew CA, Burgman MA (2013) Toward rigorous use of expert knowledge in ecological research. Ecosphere 4(7):1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncker PS, Barreiro SM, Hengeveld GM, Lind T, Mason WL, Ambrozy S, Spiecker H (2012) Classification of forest management approaches: a new conceptual framework and its applicability to European forestry. Ecol Soc 17(4):51

    Google Scholar 

  • Durham E, Baker H, Smith M, Moore E, Morgan V (2014) The BiodivERsA stakeholder engagement handbook. BiodivERsA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Edman T, Angelstam P, Mikusinski G, Roberge J-M, Sikora A (2011) Spatial planning for biodiversity conservation: assessment of forest landscapes’ conservation value using umbrella species requirements in Poland. Landsc Urban Plan 102:16–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbakidze M, Angelstam P (2007) Implementing sustainable forest management in Ukraine’s Carpathian Mountains: the role of traditional village systems. For Ecol Manag 249:28–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbakidze M, Angelstam P (2008) Model Forest in the north west of the Russian Federation: view from outside. Ustoychivoe Lesopolzovanie 1(17):39–47. (In Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbakidze M, Angelstam P, Andersson K, Nordberg M, Pautov Y (2011) How does forest certification contribute to boreal biodiversity conservation? Standards and outcomes in Sweden and NW Russia? For Ecol Manag 262(11):1983–1995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbakidze M, Angelstam P, Sandström C, Stryamets N, Crow S, Axelsson R, Stryamets G, Yamelynets T (2013a) The Biosphere Reserves for conservation and development in Ukraine? Legal recognition and establishment of the Roztochya initiative. Environ Conserv 40(2):157–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbakidze M, Hahn T, Mauerhofer V, Angelstam P, Axelsson R (2013b) Legal framework for biosphere reserves as learning sites for sustainable development: a comparative analysis of Ukraine and Sweden. AMBIO 42(2):174–187

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Elbakidze M, Andersson K, Angelstam P, Armstrong GW, Axelsson R, Doyon F, Hermansson M, Jacobsson J, Pautov Y (2013c) Sustained yield forestry in Sweden and Russia: how does it correspond to sustainable forest management policy? AMBIO 42(2):160–173

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Elbakidze M, Dawson L, Andersson K, Axelsson R, Angelstam P, Stjernquist I, Teitelbaum S, Schlyter P, Thellbro C (2015) Is spatial planning a collaborative learning process? A case study from a rural–urban gradient in Sweden. Land Use Policy 48:270–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbakidze M, Ražauskaite R, Manton M, Angelstam P, Mozgeris G, Brumelis G, Brazaitis G, Vogt P (2016) The role of forest certification for biodiversity conservation: Lithuania as a case study. Eur J For Res 135(2):361–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovitch PJ, Hoffman RR (eds) (2006) The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • ESFRI (European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures) (2016) Strategy report on research infrastructures. Science and Technology Facilities Council. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures

  • European Commission (2000) Directive, 2000/60/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 23rd October 2000. Establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013a) Green Infrastructure (GI) — enhancing Europe’s natural capital. COM 249. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013b) Commission staff working document. Technical information on Green Infrastructure (GI) SWD 155. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013c) A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector. COM 659

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30(1):441–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Biggs R, Norström A, Reyers B, Rockström J (2016) Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol Soc 21(3):41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 443–459

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Garrido P, Elbakidze M, Angelstam P (2017a) Stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem services in Östergötland’s (Sweden) threatened oak wood-pasture landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 157:96–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrido P, Elbakidze M, Angelstam P, Plieninger T, Pulido F, Moreno G (2017b) Stakeholder perspectives of wood pasture ecosystem services: a case study from Iberian dehesas. Land Use Policy 60:324–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavrilova G, Baroniņa V, Sulcs V (2000) Vascular plant flora of the Lake Engures (Engure) drainage basin, Latvia, and the coastal zone of the Gulf of Riga. Proc Latvian Acad Sci B 54(5/6):177–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Grêt-Regamey A, Brunner SH, Altwegg J, Christen M, Bebi P (2013) Integrating expert knowledge into mapping ecosystem services tradeoffs for sustainable forest management. Ecol Soc 18(3):34–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 369–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntsinger L, Oviedo JL (2014) Ecosystem services are social-ecological services in a traditional pastoral system: the case of California’s Mediterranean rangelands. Ecol Soc 19(1):8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IMFN (2008) Model Forest development guide. International Model Forest Network Secretariat, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes J (2009) Is forestry a social sciences? J Trop For Sci 21:V–VI

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN and WRI (2014) A guide to the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM). IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs S, Burkhard B, Van Daele T, Staes J, Schneiders A (2015) “The matrix reloaded”: a review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecol Model 295:21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson M, Henningsson M (2011) Social-psychological factors in public support for local biodiversity conservation. Soc Nat Resour 24:717–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson BG, Ekström M, Esseen PA, Grafström A, Ståhl G, Westerlund B (2016) Dead wood availability in managed Swedish forests – policy outcomes and implications for biodiversity. For Ecol Manag 376:174–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kates RW (2011) What kind of science is sustainability science? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:19449–19450

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustain Sci 1:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopperoinen L, Itkonen P, Niemelä J (2014) Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into a new place-based methodology. Landsc Ecol 29:1361–1375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschke L, Fürst C, Frank S, Makeschin F (2012) A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecol Indic 21:45–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kušová D, Těšitel J, Matějka K, Bartoš M (2008) Biosphere reserves - an attempt to form sustainable landscapes: a case study of three biosphere reserves in the Czech Republic. Landsc Urban Plan 84:38–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laestadius L, Buckingham K, Maginnis S, Saint-Laurent C (2015) Before Bonn and beyond: the history and future of landscape restoration. Unasylva 66:11–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence A (2009) Forestry in transition: imperial legacy and negotiated expertise in Romania and Poland. Forest Policy Econ 11(5):429–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence A (2010) Introduction: learning from experiences of participatory biodiversity assessment. In: Lawrence A (ed) Taking stock of nature: participatory biodiversity assessment for policy and planning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 1–29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence A (2016) Adapting through practice: silviculture, innovation and forest governance for the age of extreme uncertainty. Forest Policy Econ 2017(79C):50–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence A, Gillett S (2011) Human dimensions of adaptive forest management and climate change: a review of international experience. Forestry Commission Research Report. Edinburgh, Forestry Commission, p 52

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence A, Molteno S (2012) From rationalism to reflexivity? Reflections on change in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. In: Brousseau E, Dedeurwaerdere T, Siebenhüner B (eds) Reflexive governance for global public goods. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 283–298

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence A, De Vreese R, Johnston M, van den Bosch CCK, Sanesi G (2013) Urban forest governance: towards a framework for comparing approaches. Urban For Urban Green 12(4):464–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazdinis M, Angelstam P (2005) Functionality of riparian forest ecotones in the context of former Soviet Union and Swedish forest management histories. Forest Policy Econ 7(3):321–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee KN (1993) Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, Covelo

    Google Scholar 

  • Lele S, Springate-Baginski O, Lakerveld R, Deb D, Dash P (2013) Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conserv Soc 11(4):343–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindström M, Johansson M, Herrmann J, Johnsson O (2006) Attitudes towards the conservation of biological diversity. A case study in Kristianstad Municipality, Sweden. J Environ Plan Manag 49:495–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundquist L (1987) Implementation steering. An actor-structure approach. Studentlitteratur, Lund

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson S-E, Magntorn K, Wallsten E, Cronert H, Thelaus M (2004) Kristianstads Vattenrike biosphere reserve nomination form. Kristianstad Kommun, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  • Manton M (2016) Functionality of wet grasslands as green infrastructure. Waders, avian predators and land covers in Northern Europe. Acta Univ Agric Sueciae 2016:119

    Google Scholar 

  • Manton M, Angelstam P, Milberg P, Elbakidze M (2016) Governance and management of green infrastructures for ecological sustainability: wader bird conservation in Southern Sweden as a case study. Sustainability 8(4):340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mariev АN, Kutepov DZ, Mikheev RB, Poroshin ЕА (2005) Recommendations on final felling operations with focus on biodiversity conservation in pristine forests of the Komi Republic. Agency of Forest Management in Komi Republic, Syktyvkar. (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh GP (1864) Man and nature; or, physical geography as modified by human action. Charles Scribner, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauz I, Peltola T, Granjou C, Van Bommel S, Buijs A (2012) How scientific visions matter: insights from three long-term socio-ecological research (LTSER) platforms under construction in Europe. Environ Sci Pol 19:90–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: Minang PA, van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Mbow C, de Leeuw J, Catacutan D (eds) Climate-smart landscapes: multifunctionality in practice. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, pp 103–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Melecis V (2000) Integrated research: renaissance of ecology in Latvia. Proc Latvian Acad Sci B 54(5/6):221–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Melecis V (2011) Project on development of a conceptual integrated model of socioeconomic biodiversity pressures, drivers and impacts for the long-term socioecological research platform of Latvia. Proc Latvian Acad Sci B 65(5/6):206–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Melecis V, Klavins M, Laivins M, Rusina S, Springe G, Viksne J, Krisjane Z, Strake S (2014) Conceptual model of the long-term socio-ecological research platform of Engure ecoregion, Latvia. Proc Latvian Acad Sci B 68(1/2 (688/689)):1–19

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 409–442

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Naturvårdsverket and Skogsstyrelsen (2017) Värdefulla skogar. Redovisning av regeringsuppdrag. Skrivelse 2017-01-31. Available at http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Miljoarbete-i-samhallet/Miljoarbete-i-Sverige/Regeringsuppdrag/Redovisade-2017/Ny-nationell-strategi-for-formellt-skydd-av-vardefulla-skogar/

  • Naumov V, Angelstam P, Elbakidze M (2016) Barriers and bridges for intensified wood production in Russia: insights from the environmental history of a regional logging frontier. Forest Policy Econ 66:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naumov V, Angelstam P, Elbakidze M (2017) Satisfying rival objectives in forestry in the Komi Republic: effects of Russian zoning policy change on forestry intensification and riparian forest conservation. Can J For Res 47:1339–1349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson C, Götmark F (1992) Protected areas in Sweden: is natural variety adequately represented? Conserv Biol 6(2):232–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordberg M, Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Axelsson R (2013) From logging frontier towards sustainable forest management: experiences from boreal regions of North-West Russia and North Sweden. Scand J For Res 28(8):797–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard RB (2010) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69(6):1219–1227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1990) Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. For Ecol Manag 115(2):135–146

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH, Jenkinson DJ, Oakley JE, Rakow T (2006) Uncertain judgements: eliciting experts’ probabilities. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Odum EP (1959) Fundamentals of ecology, 2nd edn. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Perera AH, Drew CA, Johnson CJ (eds) (2012) Expert knowledge and its application in landscape ecology. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Plieninger T, Kizos T, Bieling C, Le Dû-Blayo L, Budniok M-A, Bürgi M, Crumley CL, Girod G, Howard P, Kolen J (2015) Exploring ecosystem-change and society through a landscape lens: recent progress in European landscape research. Ecol Soc 20(2):5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popescu VD, Rozylowicz L, Niculae IM, Cucu AL, Hartel T (2014) Species, habitats, society: an evaluation of research supporting EU’s Natura 2000 network. PLoS One 9(11):e113648

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Power ME, Tilman D, Estes JA, Menge BA, Bond WJ, Mills LS, Daily G, Castilla JC, Lubchenco J, Paine RT (1996) Challenges in the quest for keystones. Bioscience 46(8):609–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price MF, Park JJ, Bouamrane M (2010) Reporting progress on internationally designated sites: the periodic review of biosphere reserves. Environ Sci Pol 13(6):549–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prishchepov AV, Radeloff VC, Dubinin M, Alcantara C (2012) The effect of Landsat ETM/ETM+ image acquisition dates on the detection of agricultural land abandonment in Eastern Europe. Remote Sens Environ 126:195–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quijas S, Jackson LE, Maass M, Schmid B, Raffaelli D, Balvanera P (2012) Plant diversity and generation of ecosystem services at the landscape scale: expert knowledge assessment. J Appl Ecol 49:929–940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauschmayer F, Berghöfer A, Omann I, Zikos D (2009) Examining processes or/and outcomes? Evaluation concepts in European governance of natural resources. Environ Policy Gov 19(3):159–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MG, Egunyu F (2013) Management effectiveness in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves: learning from Canadian periodic reviews. Environ Sci Pol 25:107–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richnau G, Angelstam P, Valasiuk S, Zahvoyska L, Axelsson R, Elbakidze M, Farley J, Jönsson I, Soloviy I (2013) Multi-faceted value profiles of forest owner categories in South Sweden: the River Helge å catchment as a case study. AMBIO 42(2):188–200

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sabogal C, Besacier C, McGuire D (2015) Forest and landscape restoration: concepts, approaches and challenges for implementation. Unasylva 66(3):3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J, Pfund JL, Sheil D, Meijaard E, Venter M, Boedhihartono AK, Day M, Garcia C, van Oosten C (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(21):8349–8356

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz L, Folke C, Olsson P (2007) Enhancing ecosystem management through social-ecological inventories: lessons from Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden. Environ Conserv 34(2):140–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz L, Folke C, Österblom H, Olsson P (2015) Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(24):7369–7374

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour RS, Hunter ML (1992) New forestry in eastern spruce-fir forests: principles and applications to Maine. College of Forest Resources, University of Maine, Orono

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea K, Possingham HP, Murdoch WW, Roush R (2002) Active adaptive management in insect pest and weed control: intervention with a plan for learning. Ecol Appl 12(3):927–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh SJ, Haberl H, Chertow M, Mirtl M, Schmid M (eds) (2013) Long-term socio-ecological research. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokolov V (1981) The biosphere reserve concept in the USSR. AMBIO 2–3:97–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Spetich MA, Kvashnina AE, Nukhimovskya YD, Rhodes OE Jr (2009) History, administration, goals, value, and long-term data of Russia’s strictly protected scientific nature reserves. Nat Areas J 29(1):71–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stighäll K, Roberge J-M, Andersson K, Angelstam P (2011) Usefulness of biophysical proxy data for modelling habitat of a threatened forest species: the white-backed woodpecker. Scand J For 26(6):576–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stummann CB, Gamborg C (2014) Reconsidering social science theories in natural resource management continuing professional education. Environ Educ Res 20:496–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svancara LK, Brannon R, Scott JM, Groves CR, Noss RF, Pressey RL (2005) Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: a review of political targets and biological needs. Bioscience 55:989–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tear TH, Kareiva P, Angermeier PL, Comer P, Czech B, Kautz R, Landon L, Mehlman D, Murphy K, Ruckelshaus M, Scott JM, Wilhere G (2005) How much is enough? The recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives in conservation. Bioscience 55(10):836–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Törnblom J, Angelstam P, Degerman E, Tamario C (2017) Prioritizing dam removal and stream restoration using critical habitat patch threshold for brown trout (Salmo trutta L.): a catchment case study from Sweden. Écoscience. https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.2017.1386523

  • Tuvendal M, Elmberg J (2015) A handshake between markets and hierarchies: geese as an example of successful collaborative management of ecosystem services. Sustainability 7(12):15937–15954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuvendal M, Elmqvist T (2011) Ecosystem services linking social and ecological systems: river brownification and the response of downstream stakeholders. Ecol Soc 16(4):21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udvardy MF (1959) Notes on the ecological concepts of habitat, biotope and niche. Ecology 40(4):725–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (1995) The Seville strategy and the statutory framework of the world network of biosphere reserves. UNESCO, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2008) Madrid action plan for biosphere reserves (2008–2013). UNESCO, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Viksne J (1997) The bird lake Engure. Publ. House Jana Seta, Riga

    Google Scholar 

  • Viksne J (2000) Changes of nesting bird fauna at the Engure Ramsar site, Latvia, during the last 50 years. Proc Latvian Acad Sci Sect B 54(5/6):213–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Viksne J, Janaus M, Mednis A (2011) Factors influencing the number of breeding water birds in Lake Engure. Latvia Sect B 65(5/6):190–196

    Google Scholar 

  • von Carlowitz HC (1713) Sylvicultura oeconomica [Economic forest management] oder Hausswirthliche Nachricht und naturmässige Anweisung zur wilden Baumzucht (reprint from 2000 edited by K. Irmer). Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiburg, Freiburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker B, Salt D (2006) Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallner A, Bauer N, Hunziker M (2007) Perceptions and evaluations of biosphere reserves by local residents in Switzerland and Ukraine. Landsc Urban Plan 83:104–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • With KA, Christ TO (1995) Critical threshold in species’ responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76:2446–2459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Forestry Congress (2009) Forest development: a vital balance, findings and strategic actions. Findings and Strategic Actions. http://foris.fao.org/meetings/download/_2009/xiii_th_world_forestry_congress/misc_documents/wfc_declaration.pdf

  • Yablochkina EM, Romanyuk BD, Chernenkova EA (2007) The WWF project “Pskov Model Forest”. WWF Russia, Moscow and Strugy-Krasnye

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaffee SL (1999) Three faces of ecosystem management. Conserv Biol 13(4):713–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavrl MS, Zeren MT (2010) Sustainability of urban infrastructures. Sustainability 2:2950–2964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhulidov AV, Khlobystov VV, Robarts RD, Pavlov DF (2000) Critical analysis of water quality monitoring in the Russian Federation and former Soviet Union. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57(9):1932–1939

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council Formas (grant number 2011-1737) to Per Angelstam and by the Swedish Institute (grant number 10976/2013) to Marine Elbakidze. We thank Peter Besseau, Lars Laestadius and the editors for constructive and stimulating reviews.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School for Forest Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skinnskatteberg, Sweden

    Per Angelstam & Marine Elbakidze

  2. Scottish School of Forestry, University of Highlands and Islands, Inverness, UK

    Anna Lawrence

  3. Faculty of Forest Science and Ecology, Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Kaunas, Lithuania

    Michael Manton

  4. Institute of Biology, University of Latvia, Salaspils, Latvia

    Viesturs Melecis

  5. Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Canada

    Ajith H. Perera

Authors
  1. Per Angelstam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marine Elbakidze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Lawrence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Manton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Viesturs Melecis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ajith H. Perera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Per Angelstam .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ontario Forest Research Institute, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada

    Ajith H. Perera

  2. Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia

    Urmas Peterson

  3. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina

    Guillermo Martínez Pastur

  4. Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science Northern Research Station, US Forest Service, Delaware, Ohio, USA

    Louis R. Iverson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Angelstam, P., Elbakidze, M., Lawrence, A., Manton, M., Melecis, V., Perera, A.H. (2018). Barriers and Bridges for Landscape Stewardship and Knowledge Production to Sustain Functional Green Infrastructures. In: Perera, A., Peterson, U., Pastur, G., Iverson, L. (eds) Ecosystem Services from Forest Landscapes. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74515-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation