Biological Conservation 238 (2019) 108229

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biological Conservation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon

Perspective

Engaging multiple stakeholders to reconcile climate, conservation and T

development objectives in tropical landscapes
⁎
James Reeda,b, , Jos Barlowc, Rachel Carmentad, Josh van Vianena, Terry Sunderlanda,e
a
Center for International Forestry Research, Indonesia
b
Visiting Scholar, University of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
c
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
d
University of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
e
Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Canada

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

Keywords: Achieving equitable and sustainable development that supports climate change mitigation targets and avoids
Landscape governance biodiversity loss remains a leading, and intractable challenge in many tropical countries. Sectorial thinking –
Multi-stakeholder dialogue focusing on just one aspect of the problem or system – is increasingly understood to be inadequate to address
Conservation and development trade-offs linked social-ecological challenges. Holistic approaches that incorporate diverse stakeholders across scales,
Landscape approach
sectors, and knowledge systems are gaining prominence for addressing complex problems. Such ‘integrated
Sustainable development goals
landscape approaches’ have received renewed momentum and interest from the research, donor and practitioner
communities, and have been subsumed in international conventions related to climate, biodiversity, and sus-
tainable development. However, implementation efforts and tangible evaluation of progress continues to lag
behind conceptual development. Failure of landscape approaches to adequately engage diverse stakeholders—in
design, implementation and evaluation—is a contributing factor to their poor performance. Here we draw on
consultation workshops, advances in the literature, and our collective experience to identify key constraints and
opportunities to better engage stakeholders in tropical landscape decision-making processes. Specifically, we
ask: (1) what are the key challenges related to effectively engaging multiple stakeholders in integrated landscape
approaches and (2) what lessons can be learned from practitioners, and how can these lessons serve as oppor-
tunities to avoid duplicating future research efforts or repeating past perceptions of underperformance. We
present our findings within three broad categories: (i) navigating complexity, (ii) overcoming siloed thinking,
and (iii) incentivizing behavioral change; thus providing a useful starting point for overcoming inherent chal-
lenges associated with engaging stakeholders in landscape approaches.

1. Introduction approaches must acknowledge the bio-physical, political, socio-eco-

nomic and cultural processes that comprise social-ecological systems
The persistent global challenges of poverty, food insecurity, climate (Plieninger et al., 2013), consider the significance of cross-scale inter-
change and biodiversity loss must be tackled with global commitments linkages (Folke et al., 2005) and the unique challenges and opportu-
(Koomen et al., 2012). However, implementation strategies for con- nities therein. Transformational shifts seeking to move away from the
servation and development agendas are often nationally formulated ‘business as usual’ approach to agricultural production, forest con-
(Forman, 1995; Ling et al., 2009) and are typically realized, and in- servation and rural development of recent decades should avoid sec-
fluenced, by sectorial approaches and individual-level actions, while torial focus. As often is the case, multiple stakeholders, and their re-
long-term success will be largely dependent on landscape scale pro- presented agencies within the landscape, support and lobby conflicting
cesses and interactions. As such, contemporary efforts to reconcile mandates—often resulting in strategies that are at cross-purposes
conservation and development at the landscape scale have gained re- (Carmenta and Vira, 2018). However, while a more integrated ap-
newed interest and momentum (Berkes et al., 2003; Olsson et al., 2006; proach is conceptually appealing, the application on the ground is not
Sayer et al., 2013; Fischer et al., 2015). without challenges—whether addressing peatland management and fire
Recent research suggests that proper implementation of landscape in Indonesia (Carmenta et al., 2017), bush-meat extraction in Cameroon

⁎
Corresponding author at: Center for International Forestry Research, Indonesia.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Reed).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108229
Received 28 March 2019; Received in revised form 1 August 2019; Accepted 28 August 2019
Available online 05 September 2019
0006-3207/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
J. Reed, et al. Biological Conservation 238 (2019) 108229

(Sandker et al., 2009), or rates of deforestation in the Amazon (Aguiar conservation and development and (2) what lessons can be learned
et al., 2016)—evidence from across the tropics shows that tensions from landscape practitioners for better engagement, and how can these
between multiple stakeholders with disparate conservation or devel- insights serve as opportunities to avoid duplicating future research ef-
opment objectives at the landscape scale remain pervasive. fort or repeating past underperformance. We identified a number of
In recent decades, both natural and social scientists have considered constraints and opportunities facing attempts to engage multiple sta-
how to better integrate conservation and development through a keholders in tropical landscapes that broadly relate to issues of tem-
variety of—often overlapping—analytical lenses, such as: systems dy- porality and willingness to adapt, power dynamics and inclusion, and
namics (Meadows, 1998), political economy (Lemos and Agrawal, potential to stimulate institutional and behavioral change, which we
2006; Ostrom, 1990), political ecology (Blaikie, 1999; Robbins, 2011; have categorized below.
Zimmerer and Bassett, 2003), landscape ecology (Forman and Godron,
1986; Wu and Hobbs, 2002), sustainability science (Kates et al., 2000), 2. Navigating complexity
resilience science (Berkes et al., 2003; Folke, 2006) and conservation
social science (Bennett et al., 2017). Such inter- and trans-disciplinary Landscapes are often highly complex social-ecological systems: they
research has led to the development of numerous conceptual frame- hold poorly understood ecological interactions responding to both fast
works and guiding principles designed to deliver positive outcomes for and slow drivers of change (Fischer et al., 2015), and the impacts of
both society and environment—and more recently climate change mi- multiple—and often contradictory—socio-economic institutions
tigation—by embedding development objectives within pro-environ- (Carmenta and Vira, 2018). Political, environmental, social, and com-
mental agendas, or vice versa. Various associated concepts have gai- mercial interactions at the landscape scale serve to further amplify
ned—and lost—appeal with the research and practitioner communities, system complexity and therefore the degree of difficulty for investiga-
particularly post-Rio Earth Summit 1992 (see for example Reed et al., tion, management and disentanglement (Demek, 1978; Mollinga,
2016). However, while the theorized best practice for integrating con- 2010). This complexity is exacerbated by the expanding spatial scales at
servation and development, and the associated nomenclature, have which contemporary socio-economic interactions take place, due to the
evolved, the objectives have remained largely consistent. Implementa- accelerating processes of urbanization, globalization and teleconnec-
tion efforts have typically attempted to align multiple objectives to tions, which generate telecoupled landscapes (Carrasco et al., 2017;
either deliver win-win outcomes (Christensen, 2004; Muradian et al., Hull and Liu, 2018; Liu et al., 2013). The recognition of social-ecolo-
2013), or to optimise so that desirable outcomes for climate mitigation, gical system complexity in the scientific literature is a relatively recent
conservation or development comes at a minimum cost to the other development (Cash et al., 2006; Cox and Arnold, 2010), however we
objectives (Estrada-Carmona et al., 2014; Ferreira et al., 2018). identify a growing number of conceptual framings and governance and
Here we use the term ‘integrated landscape approaches’ as an um- management responses.
brella term for the many initiatives that represent recent attempts to One approach to managing complexity is framing it as a “wicked
reconcile challenges facing climate mitigation, conservation and de- problem” (Balint et al., 2011; Defries and Nagendra, 2017), within
velopment strategies (Reed et al., 2016). Although variably defined which proposed solutions will neither be perfect nor imperfect. Wicked
(Erbaugh and Agrawal, 2017; Reed et al., 2017; Scherr et al., 2013), a problems invariably mean a satisfactory conclusion is unattainable for
landscape approach is essentially a governance strategy that brings all as any given “solution” will generate new challenges (Rittel and
together multiple stakeholders to identify land-use synergies (e.g. en- Webber, 1973). This should not however discourage current research
gaging local community members in sustainable supply chain in- and scholarship that attempts to provide solutions that are “better” than
itiatives) and balance trade-offs (e.g. land for food or for conservation) those that existed previously – although “better” is subjective and, as
that manifest across scales and sectorial boundaries. Such integrated such, will be open to (mis)interpretation (Carmenta et al., 2017); what
landscape approaches have recently been embraced by the research, is good for one set of stakeholders will not necessarily be positively
donor and practitioner communities, and have been subsumed in in- perceived by others. Disentangling natural resource decision-making at
ternational conventions related to climate (e.g. UNFCCC), biodiversity local or landscape scales need not necessarily be a state-driven initiative
(e.g. CBD), and development (e.g. SDGs). However, despite the bur- due to local communities' capacity to self-organize and recognize
geoning conceptual support, there is thus far limited empirical evidence thresholds of use and the growing role of the private sector and civil
of the performance or process related to the operationalization and society organizations in increasingly polycentric governance arenas
outcomes of landscape approaches in practice (Estrada-Carmona et al., (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999; Ostrom, 1990, Jefferson et al. submitted).
2014; Reed et al., 2017; Sayer et al., 2016a, 2016b). Therefore, the As such, centralized management is increasingly considered a poor fit
question: “why are attempts to integrate conservation and development for complex systems where issues need to be addressed simultaneously
so often unsuccessful?” (Brown, 2003 p. 479) remains largely un- at various scales (Berkes, 2004; Hodge, 2007; Kremen et al., 2000) and
answered as very few assessments have explored the specific challenges hybrid governance approaches are increasingly common (Kozar et al.,
facing these initiatives. Arguably, the question remains even more re- 2014; Viana et al., 2016). Researchers and practitioners must thus not
levant today, given the growing recognition of the vital role that eco- only ask at which scale should land-use decision-making, policies and
systems can play in mitigating climate change and the rapid rate of land management structures be conceived and implemented but also, and
use change across the tropics (Barlow et al., 2016; Griscom et al., 2017). importantly, consider how institutions, sectors and policies intersect,
We address this policy challenge by offering a synthesis of our ex- interact and integrate across the system, and determine the processes
periences—from a comprehensive systematic review (Reed et al., that will enhance recognition, understanding and adequate ameliora-
2016), consultation workshops (Cairns, Australia May 2012, Lake tion of conflicted aspirations and preferences. This is perhaps particu-
Eacham, Australia, June 2015, Bogor, Indonesia, July 2018 amongst larly salient in landscapes of rapid change and transformation – such as
others), practical experience in leading multi-scale social and ecological the agricultural forest frontiers of the global south.
research networks in the Amazon (Gardner et al., 2013) and Mekong The need for a systemic approach to dealing with complexity sug-
delta (Sunderland et al., 2012) amongst others and the evolving lit- gests that navigating—as opposed to strictly managing or planning
erature on social-ecological systems and landscape approaches—to for—complexity will be both more appropriate and preferable
contribute towards the knowledge on integrating climate, conservation (Armitage et al., 2009; Sayer et al., 2016a, 2016b). Indeed, Olsson
and development, and to better understand why the integration of et al.'s (2006) suggestion that transitions within social-ecological sys-
multiple stakeholders remains problematic. Specifically, we ask: (1) tems “can only be navigated, not planned” has been supported by a
what are the key challenges related to effective engagement of multiple number of scholars (Berkes et al., 2003; Folke et al., 2005; Sayer et al.,
stakeholders in integrated landscape approaches for climate, 2008). The inherent complexity of landscapes renders formal

2
J. Reed, et al. Biological Conservation 238 (2019) 108229

management and planning problematic and therefore an element of legitimate ‘boundary objects’ (i.e. maps, reports, protocols) that are
“muddling through” will always be necessary (Chazdon et al., 2017; sufficiently adaptable (to different viewpoints) and robust (to maintain
Lindblom, 1959; Sayer et al., 2008). Such discourse calls for moving identity) to satisfy the intentions of multiple parties (Cash et al., 2003;
beyond disciplinary confinement and in to “transdisciplinary modes of Star and Griesemer, 1989). Recent evidence has demonstrated the in-
inquiry” (Brown et al., 2010 p.4) that encourage adaptive co-govern- corporation of boundary organizations across a range of countries and
ance and polycentric structures. Nevertheless, developing institutions contexts (Clark et al., 2011; Mollinga, 2010; Pohl et al., 2010; Polsky
that can accommodate diverse stakeholders with conflicting interests is and Cash, 2005; Reyers et al., 2015). However, ascertaining effective-
challenging and hints at what Brown (2003) termed a case of institu- ness of such incorporation remains challenging (Clark et al., 2011) and
tional misfit. Multi-stakeholder interactions across scales implies in- the inclusion of boundary organizations will not automatically lead to
stitutional linkages horizontally (across space), vertically (across levels positive change if they themselves lack the necessary credibility or le-
of organizations) (Berkes, 2002) and also diagonally (combining ver- gitimacy or are embedded in unfavorable political economy contexts
tical and horizontal linkages) (Torfing, 2012). Developing greater (Graham and Mitchell, 2016). Further, much is needed to be known
fluidity of actors and institutional interplay across sectors and scales, in about how the work at the boundary can generate policy change, i.e.
many contexts, may require changes to both top-down and bottom-up how the knowledge generated can cross the boundary and result in
governance structures in order to minimize scale conflicts (Foli et al., policy uptake (Clark et al., 2011).
2017; Olsson et al., 2006; Young, 2002).
Transforming to alternative governance arrangements is, however, 3. Overcoming siloed thinking
far from straightforward: entrenched power structures, institutional
stickiness and socio-political inertia are hard to breakdown, requiring Many of the efforts to improve conservation and development out-
significant investment of time and labour (Brockhaus and Angelsen, comes highlight the critical importance of meaningful and long-term
2012). Governance transformations will often require enhanced poli- local stakeholder engagement (Bürgi et al., 2017; Sayer et al., 2013),
tical will and a political “window of opportunity” (Folke et al., 2005). and there is growing evidence to support this. For example, recent re-
Such a window may be opened by a pressing environmental concern views of landscape approaches found community engagement in deci-
(problem-driven) or an administration that seeks a problem to justify sion-making, and inclusion of people-based strategies, to be the most
change (politically-driven) (Kingdon and Thurber, 1984). Olsson et al. significant contributing factor to successful outcomes (Reed et al.,
(2006) suggest that “key leaders and shadow networks can prepare a 2017, Carmenta et al. forthcoming). Similarly, despite mixed re-
system for change by exploring alternative system configurations and sults—in terms of reconciling conservation and development—an as-
developing strategies for choosing from among possible futures” sessment of a long-term landscape approach in the Sangha Tri-National
(Olsson et al., 2006). This is somewhat consistent with the views of landscape found that the participants recognized the value of multi-
Elinor Ostrom and colleagues who recommended deliberate institution stakeholder processes which were considered “vital” to enhance capa-
building to facilitate the emergence of adaptive co-management of so- city to share and comprehend complex challenges (Sayer et al., 2016
cial-ecological systems (Ostrom, 1990; Ostrom et al., 1999; Barrett p.137). These examples are further supported by assertions from the
et al., 2001). Moreover, all these scholars are proponents of building commons and social-ecological systems literature, which stress the
networks that integrate expert and community experiences to “increase value of community engagement and empowerment to the long-term
the knowledge pool for decision-making” (Olsson et al., 2006 p.21) sustainability of joint conservation and development interventions
therefore averting an over-reliance on, or suppression of, either scien- (Ostrom, 1990; Persha et al., 2011).
tific or traditional knowledge. Effective network building that in- However, despite the conceptual recognition and growing evidence
tegrates actors from across disciplines and sectors can improve our on the importance of bridging sectoral and disciplinary divides in de-
understanding of system wide dynamics and enhance our “ability to cision-making dialogue, practical progress remains slow (Agrawal and
exploit economies of scale in shared resources and technical expertise” Gibson, 1999; Lund, 2015; Ribot et al., 2010; Carmenta and Vira, 2018)
(Barlow et al., 2011 p.4). Despite this broad endorsement, the ability of and reporting on the means of implementation—or methods for eva-
researchers to effectively bridge disciplinary divides and link science luation—remains scarce (Stenseke, 2009; Bixler et al., 2016). We
with action has, at best, been only partially successful (Brown, 2003; identify the following key constraints that hinder thinking beyond silos
Clark et al., 2011). One strategy to bridge disciplinary divides is to build and complicate practical implementation of integrated approaches.
networks with a shared thematic or geographic focus (Gardner et al., First, attempts to balance the objectives of multiple stakeholders are
2013), however, overcoming entrenched philosophical and ideological often hindered due to “the political process of decision-making, dif-
differences requires careful, dedicated facilitation and long-term en- fering values and norms, and power imbalances” (Defries and
gagement, and may only be possible within a favorable political Nagendra, 2017) which lack incentives for real change and result in
economy. “elite capture” or the further marginalization of some of the most vul-
A potentially powerful—though by no means novel (Star and nerable people (Viana et al., 2016). Second, practical advances have
Griesemer, 1989)—approach to facilitate dialogue, enhance links be- failed as stakeholder engagement is often being delivered as only a box-
tween disciplines and navigate the ‘space’ between science and policy ticking exercise to satisfy project or donor demands (Enengel et al.,
(c.f. Toomey et al., 2016) involves the incorporation of boundary, or 2011; German et al., 2007; Castella et al., 2012). Participatory forest
bridging, organizations (Cash et al., 2006; Cash and Moser, 2000; Clark management (PFM) programs in Kenya epitomize this challenge– a
et al., 2011; Guston, 2001). Boundary organizations fulfill the complex recent assessment of which found that in practice, the ‘P’, from the PFM
task of considering the objectives of, and being accountable to, actors acronym, for participation was all too often lacking (Mutune and Lund,
from across social-ecological system boundaries, while attempting to 2016). Participation can also fail due to the reluctance of local stake-
remain impartial to other influencing forces (Guston, 2001), therefore holders themselves to engage in what may be perceived as a divisive,
facilitating co-production of knowledge and social order (Jasonoff, threatening, or burdensome intervention (Cheng et al., 2006; Green
1996a, 1996b). Boundary organizations can link global research and et al., 2018). Finally, multi-stakeholder engagement processes have
environmental objectives with national commitments and local socio- high transaction costs (Enengel et al., 2011) and these costs will, of
economic and cultural realities. They support dialogue between experts course, also be borne by local stakeholders. As such, effective—and
and decision-makers through facilitating open communication, aiding sustainable—engagement is only likely to occur if the long-term re-
mutual comprehension of problems and proposed solutions, and med- wards are perceived as having potential to outweigh the initial short-
iating conflicts (Cash et al., 2003). The value of boundary organizations term gains, or cost associated with investments/compliance – whether
therefore depends upon the production of salient, credible and that be monetary or otherwise.

3
J. Reed, et al. Biological Conservation 238 (2019) 108229

Overcoming these issues will require recognizing that multiple Furthermore, a recent study illustrated that external support does not
stakeholder engagement is much more than a function to simply sup- guarantee enhanced equity; in this case internal capacity for cohesive
port or empower local communities. When confronting land-use chal- collective action towards sustainable development already existed and
lenges that cross disciplines and sectors, adequately engaging stake- externally induced programs disrupted rather than accelerated equi-
holders from across scales and levels is likely to influence outcome table stakeholder engagement (Guillaume, 2017). A robust baseline or
pathways, build consensus and enhance sustainability potential. pilot study to determine contextual nuance and social norms and be-
Increasingly, the concept of knowledge co-production—that integrates haviors can therefore be valuable. Encouragingly, some donors have
communities of knowledge with communities of action—is recognized recently recognized this need and are now offering seed money for such
to have significant potential for confronting the kinds of “wicked pro- initiatives.
blems” presented by social-ecological systems (Cash et al., 2003). Effective engagement will require the ability to facilitate dialogue
Further, the effectiveness of engagement should not be measured in and decision making between the diverse range of stakeholders that
terms of numbers of people with increased attendance an insufficient represent a variety of sectors, in order to influence or assist a range of
proxy for meaningful engagement if the discussion is consistently systems (Clark et al., 2016). Engagement processes should therefore be
dominated by a specific group or individual (German et al., 2007), and encouraged that are adapted to specific contexts, structured in a
attendance must therefore not be understood as an outcome (Savedoff manner that is commonly accessible and are cognizant of historic or
et al., 2005). Engagement platforms need to consider ways to confront potential conflict and power hierarchies. Furthermore, the dynamism of
issues of inequity, elite capture avoidance and encourage a more de- complex ecosystems and the associated stakeholders means that system
mocratic form of co-governance. However, the importance of context shocks and fluctuations will inevitably occur, increasing the suscept-
merits attention; although it is often considered that imbalances of ibility to uncertainty and risk over time (Cooke and Kothari, 2001;
power are detrimental to multi-stakeholder dialogue, there may be in- Smith, 2008). As such, engagement structures need to be an iterative
stances when asymmetrical power relationships could facilitate the process of periodically informing, evaluating and updating knowledge
promotion of the agendas of marginalized groups (Hendriks, 2009; and objectives to stimulate feedbacks for principles of adaptive gov-
Moeliono et al., 2014). However, ethically, and to maintain accordance ernance (Carpenter and Gunderson, 2001; Folke et al., 2005; Gunderson
with UN declarations (e.g. Declaration on Human Rights and Declara- et al., 2001) with methods to assess both the satisfaction of participants
tion on the Rights of Indigenous People) attempts should be made to (Enengel et al., 2011) and the effectiveness of governance platforms
dissolve power asymmetries such that power be evenly distributed with (Bixler et al., 2016; Hassenforder et al., 2016; Kusters et al., 2017).
decisions negotiated fairly in order to encourage co-productive gov-
ernance arrangements.
Working effectively across disciplinary and sectoral divides is 4. Incentivizing behavioral and institutional change at the local
fraught with difficulty (Sandbrook et al., 2013), but previous experi- level
ences have provided valuable lessons. One key insight is that inter-
disciplinarity can be enhanced via multiple pathways. For example, Effectively engaging stakeholders to integrate climate, conservation
multi-stakeholder fora can be incentivized through triple loop learning and development goals will be influenced by the application of ap-
(i.e. not only questioning if we are doing things right but also under- propriate incentive structures designed to reduce the overexploitation
standing if we are doing the right things and how to know what is the of natural resources (Fischer et al., 2012). As previously commented,
right thing to do) (Biggs et al., 2011) and seeking consensus on problem “there is little debate over whether incentives for conservation are
definition, objectives, and solutions (Blackstock, 2007). Developing a important – they are” (Berkes, 2004 p.626; Wunder et al., 2018).
robust theory of change in a participatory manner can be useful in this However, determining the “right” or “best” incentives in complex
regard (Qiu et al., 2018; Sayer et al., 2016) as generating a shared landscapes with multiple stakeholders operating locally and remotely is
understanding amongst stakeholders of their respective requirements or far from easy, and requires consideration of a number of issues. Tran-
objectives and the implications of actions can help to highlight poten- sitions to sustainability necessitates interventions across scales and
tial areas of synergy and also enhance empathy and trust amongst sectors, including off-site interventions (e.g. changing the diet pre-
participants. Diverse collectives can then potentially form that are built ferences, redistribution, reducing consumption of processed foods and
upon an acknowledgement of the interdependency of actions (i.e. that waste in GDP rich countries) (Martin et al., 2018; Tilman and Clark,
the actions of one group will likely influence the outcomes of another 2014), yet site level interventions are also part of the solution.
group and therefore in order to achieve goals it is desirable to take in to Incentive effectiveness is highly dependent on the socio-economic,
account the needs of others) and collectively steward towards an agreed cultural and political context, and an adequate incentive in one land-
outcome/end state (Steyaert and Jiggins, 2007). scape – or for one group – may be considered inappropriate or in-
Previous attempts of cross-discipline or sector working have also sufficient elsewhere or for other groups (Luttrell et al., 2013; Newton
shown the importance of issues such as: ensuring venues for public et al., 2013). Incentive structures targeted at either the individual (e.g.
consultation are accessible to all stakeholders (or legitimate re- direct cash payments) or community level (e.g. investment in health
presentatives) and that those stakeholders are duly well informed services or education) will generate variable responses depending on
(Sessin-dilascio et al., 2016), negotiation processes are conducted in a context specificities (e.g. the degree to which they crowd-in or crowd-
common language (Bennett and Dearden, 2014), strategies are devel- out motivations for behavioral change) (Muradian et al., 2013). This
oped to enable equitable participation of all concerned stakeholders, raises questions over the equitable distribution and appropriateness of
such as by including women and marginalized groups (Ling et al., 2009) incentive structures (Dietz et al., 2003; Ostrom et al., 1999). Conse-
and there is genuine potential for the collective development of alter- quently, questions must be posed not just at, but also below, the scale of
native pathways. Independent facilitation and support from external landscape – is the proposed incentive and means of benefit sharing
agencies—whether political, technical, or financial—has been demon- perceived equally across and within stakeholder groups? Oftentimes,
strated to inspire more effective stakeholder engagement processes
(Balint and Mashinya, 2006; Sayer et al., 2016). Commitments need to
(footnote continued)
be long-term, as capacity building can be a lengthy process, at times tenure-rights-devolution?fnl=en
requiring external support for up to 20 years before fruition1,.2 2
Jennie Barron (IWMI/SLU) presentation: Feasibility of green water man-
agement and rainwater harvesting in drylands. Falkenmark Symposium –
Achieving SDG in Africa: Scaling green-blue revolution. World Water Week
1
https://forestsnews.cifor.org/51411/a-promising-but-uncertain-future-for- 2017.

4
J. Reed, et al. Biological Conservation 238 (2019) 108229

the likely answer is no (Cooney et al., 2017; Naidoo et al., 2016). predictive tool, their value is in generating potential outcomes that
Incentives for pro-conservation behavior can take many forms, from enable better comprehension of social-ecological system function.
providing financial compensation or clarifying property or access rights Using participatory modelling can make explicit the assumptions and
to addressing issues of equity, health, infrastructure, or power asym- preferences of a diversity of participants, thereby enabling more
metries of class or gender (Carmenta et al. forthcoming). Again, context transparent decision-making processes (Holling and Chambers, 1973;
is important, for example, market-based incentives rely on market Sayer et al., 2016; Wu and Hobbs, 2002). Importantly they can help to
forces to incentivize behavioral change and may therefore be biased develop a better understanding of the bio-physical and socio-economic
towards middle-income actors with good market access. Furthermore, processes within the landscape, and how they interact (Musacchio,
even within broad classifications, there will be differences in applica- 2009; O'Farrell and Anderson, 2010). Coupled with participatory his-
tion and perception. For example, if an objective is to engage and torical trend analysis—the practice of consulting inhabitants to collect
empower marginalized groups, there are multiple potential approaches historical landscape information—it can be particularly effective for
that will have differential outcomes and even empowerment itself will identifying patterns of change. Understanding both ecological processes
be perceived variably. As “perceptions often condition behavior, com- derived from landscape configuration and function, as well as structural
pliance and engagement” (Carmenta et al., 2017), it is critical that hierarchies, social conflicts, and political agendas can strengthen
sufficient consideration is given to the potential environmental and measures for safeguarding natural resources and enhance the efficacy of
societal pathways that may result from a given incentive. collaborative decision-making (Marlier et al., 2013). The application of
One approach to incentives involves providing alternative liveli- modelling techniques can enable stakeholders to consider the current
hood options that reduce threats to the natural resource base (Roe et al., social-ecological system and negotiate desired future alternative states
2015), for example, encouraging seaweed farming as an alternative to (Fischer et al., 2017). Furthermore, models can be revisited and eval-
artisanal fishing (Hill et al., 2011). However, the effectiveness in deli- uated against to facilitate adaptive management.
vering positive outcomes for conservation or ecosystem services re- However, there remains a number of shortfalls in many modelling
mains poorly understood, largely due to the fact that the impact of such approaches, with projections characterized by a high degree of un-
projects is rarely evaluated (Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006; Sainsbury certainty (Prestele et al., 2016), and seldom capturing real world
et al., 2015). Indeed, a recent review of alternative livelihood projects complexity. Most models retain a large number of assumptions and the
found that less than 20% of the studies sufficiently analyzed or eval- parameters are subject to modeler bias and—particularly for long-term
uated project impacts, while fewer than 10% resulted in positive con- projections—are limited to the known or anticipated variables of the
servation outcomes (Roe et al., 2015). A similar lack of evidence of time. For example, a model designed today to forecast future forest
effectiveness is found when examining the impact of alternative live- cover in Indonesia for the next 30 years would certainly include oil
lihood projects on socio-economic outcomes in Ghana (Hilson and palm production as an independent variable – something that might not
Banchirigah, 2009) and Africa more broadly (Wicander and Coad, have been the case 30 years previously and would (as we now know)
2015). What the available evidence does show however is that, in have represented a significant oversight. A model can never build in all
common with compensatory incentives, alternative livelihood strate- complexity, but it can stimulate debate to enable finding better solu-
gies need to be carefully contextualized. For example, when considering tions. One of the important contributions of participatory modelling is
livelihood options for a bush meat hunter (Chaves et al., 2017), it will to engage multiple stakeholders in voicing their different points of view
often be more than simply a financial or environmental consideration as on the complex socio-ecosystem and thus create a collective under-
a hunter may command a certain social respect within the community standing. Indeed, participatory modelling has been shown to be ex-
that he is reluctant to relinquish (John Fa, personal communication). tremely effective in enhancing stakeholder discussion, helping to il-
Nevertheless, there is evidence of well applied alternative livelihood lustrate potential synergies or trade-offs and stimulating the
programs being effective in empowering local communities, enhancing development of innovative solutions. For example, Castella et al. (2014)
local agency and reducing threats to local biodiversity (Lotter and describe the use of a boundary object (in the form of a 3D model re-
Clark, 2014; Roe, 2015). presenting a Laotian village landscape) to encourage local stakeholder
participation in land use planning. The model enabled those stake-
4.1. Perverse incentives holders lacking the capacity to adequately convey landscape features or
interpret GIS maps to maintain an active role in scenario visualizing.
Research has illustrated the peril of perverse incentives – that is, Model outputs (as GIS maps) were then coupled with simple cost-ben-
well-intended pro-conservation incentives that have the paradoxical efit analyses (with locally determined parameters) so that community
effect of accelerating natural resource depletion, or crowding out in- members could iteratively negotiate potential outcomes and ultimately
trinsic motivations (Ferraro and Kramer, 1995; Langholz, 1999; influence decision-making processes (Sayer et al., 2007).
Wunder, 2001). Perverse incentives are often realized when the op- Modelling and scenario building has developed rapidly in recent
portunity costs of ecosystem conservation are underappreciated and the years and now take various forms (Enfors et al., 2008; Palomo et al.,
financial returns from ecosystem conversion are greater (or even per- 2011; Watts and Colfer, 2011). While not all outcomes can be antici-
ceived as being greater) than those generated from conservation to the pated, planned, or predicted (Folke et al., 2005), it is increasingly ac-
end users. Rudimentary cost-benefit analysis also fails to account for the knowledged that the process of developing models and alternative fu-
broader implications resulting from the action to conserve, or convert. ture scenarios—particularly when performed in a participatory
The challenge is to develop a more nuanced understanding of the manner—can help engage stakeholders to recognize and respond to
complex interactions between people, nature and institutions and then social and biophysical fluctuations, trade-offs and synergies; thus en-
attempt to identify which incentive structure will likely deliver optimal hancing the potential to develop integrated strategies to enhance resi-
outcomes for the highest number of stakeholders, with the objective of lience to future environmental and social disturbance (Trosper, 2003)
achieving more winners and less losers (Sayer et al., 2014) and provide important decision-making support for policy develop-
ment.
4.2. Modelling approaches Final considerations: enhancing engagement to address complex
challenges.
One strategy to facilitate forecasting is via simulation models, which The ability to fulfill internationally agreed commitments to climate,
have long been a feature of joint conservation and development dis- conservation and development will be influenced not only by the ac-
course (Holling and Chambers, 1973; Sandker et al., 2010; Sayer and tions of national governments and international trading companies but
Campbell, 2004; Walters, 1986; Wu and Hobbs, 2002). Rather than a also the local land use decision making of tropical communities and

5
J. Reed, et al. Biological Conservation 238 (2019) 108229

smallholders. Such decision-making for landscape scale land-use man- effort around these emerging themes. As such, this paper can be con-
agement is inherently complex (Furst et al., 2010; Game et al., 2014). sidered a “toolkit” for engaging multiple stakeholders. We hope that it
The evidence presented here suggests that governance that seeks to is of practical use to researchers and practitioners involved in landscape
reconcile climate, conservation and development agendas must first decision-making – and that those involved in complex landscape
reconcile disconnects across scales, sectors, and disciplines such that management continue to record and share their experiences to improve
the grand theories of international policy and academia more closely the evidence about what does and does not work.
align with messier local realties (Barlow et al., 2018; Boedhihartono
et al., 2018). While there are challenges to achieving such reconcilia- Acknowledgements
tion, we have identified important opportunities for future research and
practice. This study is part of the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees
Firstly, a greater recognition and acceptance of the need to navigate and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA). This collaborative programme aims to
complex challenges as opposed to applying rigid management and log enhance the management and use of forests, agroforestry and tree ge-
frame approaches should be encouraged. Careful construction of multi- netic resources across the landscape from forests to farms. CIFOR leads
stakeholder dialogue fora enlisting the support of boundary organiza- CRP-FTA in partnership with Bioversity International, CATIE, CIRAD
tions and independent facilitation that applies established principles and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture and the World
(Brouwer et al., 2016) offers potential in this regard (Larsen et al., Agroforestry Centre. Funding for this study was provided by the
2018). With the right approach, the interaction ‘space’ between stake- International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the Federal Ministry for the
holders can be seen as an opportunity and not just a challenge (Toomey Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety
et al., 2016). (BMUB) grant 18_IV_084 and the United States Agency for International
Second, the sustainability of multi-stakeholder engagement will be Development (USAID) Forest and Biodiversity Office. JB was supported
enhanced through the development of inclusive and transparent the- by National Environment Research Council grant NE/K016431/1. RC
ories of change that identify desired outcomes and measurable process was supported by the Frank Jackson Foundation.
indicators (Qiu et al., 2018). Including local communities and policy
makers in the design and subsequent implementation and monitoring Declaration of competing interest
can bring to light trade-offs and synergies early in the process and
iteratively inform adaptive co-governance. Recent encouraging signs The authors declare no conflict of interest.
have been demonstrated as academia, donors and scientific journals
increasingly recognize the value and potential impact of incorporating References
citizen science, indigenous knowledge and other non-traditional Wes-
tern science approaches in social-ecological system research design and Agrawal, A., Gibson, C.C., 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of commu-
application (Ban et al., 2018; Mistry and Berardi, 2016). nity in natural resource conservation. World Dev. 27 (4), 629–649. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00161-2.
Thirdly, greater effort needs to be made in evaluating the process Aguiar, A.P.D., Vieira, I.C.G., Assis, T.O., Dalla-Nora, E.L., Toledo, P.M., Oliveira Santos-
and impact of multi-stakeholder engagement. This means rather than Junior, R.A., Ometto, J.P.H., 2016. Land use change emission scenarios: anticipating
solely focusing monitoring on social and biophysical indicators of sig- a forest transition process in the Brazilian Amazon. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22 (5),
1821–1840. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13134.
nificance, attention also needs to be paid to the functioning and con- Armitage, D.R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R.I., Charles, A.T., Davidson-Hunt, I.J.,
tribution of the governance platform itself (Bixler et al., 2016; Kusters McConney, P., 2009. Adaptive co-management for social – ecological complexity.
et al., 2017). Front. Ecol. Environ. 7 (2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1890/070089.
Balint, Peter J., Mashinya, J., 2006. The Decline of a Model Community-based
Finally, considerate planning of incentives that reward pro-con- Conservation Project: Governance, Capacity, and Devolution in Mahenye, Zimbabwe.
servation behavior must be encouraged. Incentives are often funda- vol. 37. pp. 805–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.01.011.
mental to influencing perceptions, actions and outcomes and can Balint, P.J., Stewart, R.E., Desai, A., Walters, L.C., 2011. Wicked Environmental
Problems: Managing Uncertainty and Conflict. Island Press, Washington, DC.
therefore lead to both positive and negative or perverse changes.
Ban, N.C., Frid, A., Reid, M., Edgar, B., Shaw, D., Siwallace, P., 2018. Incorporate in-
Engaging stakeholders in forecasting exercises and role-playing games digenous perspectives for impactful research and effective management. Nature
can position actors in unfamiliar roles and decision-making environ- Ecology & Evolution 2 (11), 1680. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0706-0.
ments, simultaneously building knowledge, capacity and empathy. Barlow, J., Ewers, R.M., Anderson, L., Aragao, L.E.O.C., Baker, T.R., Boyd, E., Gardner,
T.A., 2011. Using learning networks to understand complex systems: a case study of
While the challenges and opportunities identified here may have biological, geophysical and social research in the Amazon. Biol. Rev. 86 (2), 457–474.
independent and collective value in terms of moving towards oper- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00155.x.
ationalizing landscape approaches and closing knowledge-practice Barlow, Jos, Lennox, G.D., Ferreira, J., Berenguer, E., Lees, A.C., Nally, R. Mac, Gardner,
T.A., 2016. Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss
gaps, obstacles to progress remain and new challenges will undoubtedly from deforestation. Nature 535 (7610), 144–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/
arise. Innovations in theory, new—and further development of ex- nature18326.
isting—tools, and greater understanding of the precise functioning of Barlow, Jos, França, F., Gardner, T., Hicks, C., Lennox, G., Berenguer, E., Graham, N.,
2018. The future of tropical hyperdiverse ecosystems. Nature 559, 517.
landscape approaches must be encouraged. Crucially, the evidence base Barrett, C.B., Brandon, K., Gibson, C., Gjertsen, H., 2001. Conserving tropical biodiversity
must continue to be developed with robust monitoring of the biophy- amid weak institutions. AIBS Bull. 51 (6), 497–502.
sical, social and governance processes within the landscape; this is vital Bennett, N., Dearden, P., 2014. Why local people do not support conservation: community
perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and manage-
to keep pace with unprecedented global environmental change, and ment in Thailand. Mar. Policy 44, 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.
ensure multiple stakeholder engagement remains effective. 08.017.
Complexity, engagement, and incentivizing behavioral change are Bennett, N.J., Roth, R., Klain, S.C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D.A., Wyborn, C., 2017.
Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to
significant challenges to progress, yet these need not be insurmountable
improve conservation. BIOC 205, 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.
challenges and we have shown that opportunities exist. This article 10.006.
hopefully provides a resource for actors operating across the spectrum Berkes, F., 2002. Cross-scale institutional linkages: Perspectives from the bottom up. In:
of research, policy and practice as we continue to develop the means by The Drama of the Commons, pp. 293–321.
Berkes, Fikret, 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18 (3),
which to fulfill such globally conceived commitments as the New York 621–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x.
declaration on forests, the Aichi biodiversity targets, the Bonn chal- Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2003. Navigating Social-ecological Systems: Building
lenge, and the goals of the climate and development agendas. The Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press.
Biggs, D., Abel, N., Knight, A.T., Leitch, A., Langston, A., Ban, N.C., 2011. The im-
suggestions of this article provide a useful starting point for overcoming plementation crisis in conservation planning: could “mental models” help ? Conserv.
implementation and stakeholder engagement challenges, identifies Lett. 4, 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00170.x.
where further research is required and can also serve to focus research Bixler, R.P., Johnson, S., Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., Reuling, M., Curtin, C., Grove, J.M.,

6
J. Reed, et al. Biological Conservation 238 (2019) 108229

2016. Networks and landscapes: a framework for setting goals and evaluating per- Ferraro, P.J., Kramer, R.A., 1995. A Framework for Affecting Household Behavior to
formance at the large landscape scale. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14 (3), 145–153. https:// Promote Biodiversity Conservation.
doi.org/10.1002/fee.1250. Ferraro, P.J., Pattanayak, S.K., 2006. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation
Blackstock, K.L., 2007. Operationalising Sustainability Science for a Sustainability of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol. 4 (4), e105. https://doi.org/10.
Directive? Reflecting on Three Pilot Projects. 173(4). pp. 343–357. 1371/journal.pbio.0040105.
Blaikie, P., 1999. A review of political ecology. Zeitschrift Für Wirtschaftsgeographie 43 Ferreira, J., Lennox, G.D., Gardner, T.A., Thomson, J.R., Berenguer, E., Lees, A.C., Barlow,
(1), 131–147. J., 2018. Carbon-focused conservation may fail to protect the most biodiverse tro-
Boedhihartono, A.K., Bongers, F., Boot, R.G.A., 2018. Conservation science and practice pical forests. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8 (8), 744–749. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-
must engage with the realities of complex tropical landscapes. Tropical Conservation 018-0225-7.
Science 11 (January), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082918779571. Fischer, Joern, Dyball, R., Fazey, I., Gross, C., Dovers, S., Ehrlich, R., Borden, R.J., 2012.
Brockhaus, M., Angelsen, A., 2012. Seeing REDD+ through 4Is: a political economy Human behavior and sustainability. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 10,
framework. Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. Center for International 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1890/110079.
Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, pp. 15–30. Fischer, J., Gardner, T.A., Bennett, E.M., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., Tenhunen,
Brouwer, H., Woodhill, A., Hemmati, M., Verhoosel, K., 2016. The MSP Guide - How to J., 2015. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social-ecological systems
Design and Facilitate Multi-stakeholder Partnerships. Practical Action Publishing. perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Brown, K., 2003. Integrating Conservation and Development: A Case of Institutional cosust.2015.06.002.
Misfit in a Nutshell. Fischer, Joern, Abson, D.J., Bergsten, A., Collier, N.F., Dorresteijn, I., Hanspach, J., ...
Brown, V.A., Harris, J.A., Russell, J.Y., 2010. Tackling Wicked Problems Through the Senbeta, F., 2017. Reframing the food – biodiversity challenge. Trends Ecol. Evol.
Transdisciplinary Imagination. Earthscan. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.02.009. xx.
Bürgi, M., Ali, P., Chowdhury, A., Heinimann, A., Hett, C., Kienast, F., ... Verburg, P.H., Foli, S., James, M.A.F.R., Terry, R., Sunderland, T., 2017. Natural resource management
2017. Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application. schemes as entry points for integrated landscape approaches: evidence from Ghana
1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081371. and Burkina Faso. Environ. Manag. 0–1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-
Carmenta, R., Vira, B., 2018. Integration for restoration: Reflecting on lessons learned 0866-8.
from the silos of the past. In: Forest Landscape Restoration. Routledge, pp. 16–36. Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social – ecological systems
Carmenta, R., Zabala, A., Daeli, W., Phelps, J., 2017. Perceptions across scales of gov- analyses. Glob. Environ. Chang. 16, 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.
ernance and the Indonesian peatland fires. Glob. Environ. Chang. 46 (November 2006.04.002.
2016), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.001. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive Governance of Social-ecolo-
Carpenter, S.R., Gunderson, L.H., 2001. Coping With Collapse: Ecological and Social gical. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511.
Dynamics in Ecosystem Management. 51(6). pp. 451–457. Forman, R.T., 1995. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landsc.
Carrasco, L.R., Chan, J., Mcgrath, F.L., Nghiem, L.T.P., 2017. Biodiversity conservation in Ecol. 10 (3), 133–142. Retrieved from. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?
a telecoupled world. Ecol. Soc. 22 (3). eid=2-s2.0-0028978611&partnerID=40&md5=
Cash, D.W., Moser, S.C., 2000. Linking Global and Local Scales: Designing Dynamic 63e7efbf85c5d3d147afbdfd6c4b0257.
Assessment and Management Processes. 10. pp. 109–120. Forman, R.T.T., Godron, M., 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., ... Mitchell, Furst, C., Volk, M., Makeschin, F., 2010. Squaring the circle? Combining models, in-
R.B., 2003. Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development. dicators, experts and end-users in integrated land-use management support tools.
Cash, D.W., Adger, W.N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., 2006. Scale and Environ. Manag. 46 (6), 829–833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9574-3.
Cross-scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World. 11(2). Game, E.T., Meijaard, E., Sheil, D., Mcdonald-madden, E., 2014. Conservation in a wicked
Castella, J.C., Bourgoin, J., Lestrelin, G., Bouahom, B., 2014. A model of the science- complex world; challenges and solutions. Conserv. Lett. 7 (3), 271–277. https://doi.
practice-policy interface in participatory land-use planning: lessons from Laos. org/10.1111/conl.12050.
Landsc. Ecol. 29 (6), 1095–1107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0043-x. Gardner, T.A., Ferreira, J., Barlow, J., Lees, A.C., Parry, L., Vieira, I.C.G., ... Cardoso, T.M.,
Chaves, W.A., Valle, D.R., Monroe, M.C., Wilkie, D.S., Sieving, K.E., Sadowsky, B., 2017. 2013. A social and ecological assessment of tropical land uses at multiple scales: the
Changing wild meat consumption: an experiment in the Central Amazon. Brazil. Sustainable Amazon Network. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 368
Conservation Letters 00 (July), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12391. (1619), 20120166. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0166.
Chazdon, R.L., Brancalion, P.H.S., Lamb, D., Laestadius, L., Calmon, M., Kumar, C., 2017. German, L., Mansoor, H., Alemu, G., Mazengia, W., Amede, T., Stroud, A., 2007.
POLICY PERSPECTIVE A Policy-Driven Knowledge Agenda for Global Forest and Participatory integrated watershed management: evolution of concepts and methods
Landscape Restoration. 10. pp. 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12220. in an ecoregional program of the eastern African highlands. Agric. Syst. 94 (2),
(February). 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2006.08.008.
Cheng, A.S., Mattor, K.M., Cheng, A.S., Mattor, Æ.K.M., 2006. Why Won't They Come ? Graham, A., Mitchell, C.L., 2016. The role of boundary organizations in climate change
Stakeholder Perspectives on Collaborative National Forest Planning by Participation adaptation from the perspective of municipal practitioners. Clim. Chang. 381–395.
Level Why Won't They Come ? Stakeholder Perspectives on Collaborative National https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1799-6.
Forest Planning by Participation Level (November). https://doi.org/10.1007/ Green, J.M.H., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Makero, J., Platts, P.J., Robert, N., Balmford, A.,
s00267-005-0124-3. 2018. Local costs of conservation exceed those borne by the global majority. Global
Christensen, J., 2004. Win-win illusions. Conservation in Practice 5 (1), 12–19. Ecology and Conservation 14, e00385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.
Clark, W.C., Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Guston, D., Catacutan, D., Dickson, N.M., e00385.
McNie, E., 2011. Inaugural Article: Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development Griscom, B.W., Adams, J., Ellis, P.W., Houghton, R.A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D.A., Fargione,
Special Feature Sackler Colloquium: Boundary Work for sustainable development: J., 2017. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114 (44), 11645–11650.
Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
Agricultural Research (CGIAR). In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Guillaume, E., 2017. A Case Study on Inclusiveness in Forest Management Decision-
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900231108. Making Mechanisms: A Comparison of Certified and Non-certified Forests in the
Clark, William C., van Kerkhoff, L., Lebel, L., Gallopin, G.C., 2016. Crafting usable Republic of the Congo A Case Study on Inclusiveness in Forest Management Decision-
knowledge for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 (17), 4570–4578. making Mechanisms: A Comparison o. vol. 19. pp. 145–157 (2).
Cooke, B., Kothari, U., 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books. Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., Peterson, G., Pritchard, L., 2001. Resilience. In:
Cooney, R., Roe, D., Dublin, H., Phelps, J., Wilkie, D., Keane, A., Travers, H., 2017. From Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change. vol. 2.
Poachers to Protectors: Engaging Local Communities in Solutions to Illegal Wildlife Guston, D.H., 2001. Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An
Trade. 10. pp. 367–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12294. (May). Introduction. 26(4). pp. 399–408.
Cox, M., Arnold, G., 2010. A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Hassenforder, E., Pittock, J., Barreteau, O., Daniell, K.A., Ferrand, N., 2016. The MEPPP
Resource. vol. 15. pp. 4. framework: a framework for monitoring and evaluating participatory planning pro-
Defries, R., Nagendra, H., 2017. Ecosystem Management as a Wicked Problem. 270. pp. cesses. Environ. Manag. 57 (1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0599-5.
265–270 (April). Hendriks, C.M., 2009. Deliberative governance in the context of power deliberative
Demek, J., 1978. The landscape as a geosystem. Geoforum 9 (1), 29–34. governance in the context of power. Polic. Soc. 28 (3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P.C., 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302 1016/j.polsoc.2009.08.004.
(5652), 1907–1912. Hill, N.A.O., Rowcliffe, J.M., Koldewey, H.J., 2011. The interaction between seaweed
Enengel, B., Penker, M., Muhar, A., Williams, R., 2011. Benefits, efforts and risks of farming as an alternative occupation and fisher numbers in the Central Philippines.
participants in landscape co-management: an analytical framework and results from Conserv. Biol. 26 (2), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01796.x.
two case studies in Austria. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (4), 1256–1267. https://doi.org/ Hilson, G., Banchirigah, S.M., 2009. Are alternative livelihood projects alleviating pov-
10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.12.005. erty in mining communities? Experiences from Ghana are alternative livelihood
Enfors, E., Gordon, L., Peterson, G., Bossio, D., 2008. Making investments in dryland projects alleviating poverty in mining communities ? Experiences from Ghana. J. Dev.
development work: participatory scenario planning in the Makanya catchment, Stud. 45 (2), 172–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380802553057.
Tanzania. Ecol. Soc. 13 (2). Hodge, I.D., 2007. The governance of rural land in a liberalised world. J. Agric. Econ. 58
Erbaugh, J.T., Agrawal, A., 2017. Clarifying the landscape approach: a Letter to the Editor (3), 409–432.
on “Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in Holling, C.S., Chambers, R., 1973. Resource science: the nurture of an infant. BioScience
the tropics.”. Glob. Chang. Biol. 0–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.12426. 13–20.
Estrada-Carmona, N., Hart, A.K., DeClerck, F.A.J., Harvey, C.A., Milder, J.C., 2014. Hull, V., & Liu, J. (2018). Telecoupling: a new frontier for global sustainability. Ecol. Soc.,
Integrated landscape management for agriculture, rural livelihoods, and ecosystem 23(4), art41. doi:https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10494-230441.
conservation: an assessment of experience from Latin America and the Caribbean. Jasonoff, S., 1996a. Is science socially constructed—and can it still inform public policy?
Landsc. Urban Plan. 129, 1–11. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2 (3), 263–276.

7
J. Reed, et al. Biological Conservation 238 (2019) 108229

Jasonoff, S., 1996b. Beyond epistemology-relativism and engagement in the politics of the Doñana social-ecological system in southwestern Spain. Ecol. Soc. 16 (1).
science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 26 (2), 393–418. Persha, L., Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., 2011. Social and ecological synergy: local rule-
Kates, R., Clark, W. C., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J. J., … et al. (2000). making, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 331 (6024),
Sustain. Sci. 1606–1608. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199343.
Kingdon, J.W., Thurber, J.A., 1984. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Little, Plieninger, T., Göttingen, G., Oteros-rozas, E., Olavide, U.P. De, Bieling, C., 2013.
Brown, Boston. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level.
Koomen, E., Opdam, P., Steingröver, E., 2012. Adapting complex multi-level landscape Land Use Policy 33 (July), 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.
systems to climate change. In: Deltas in Times of Climate Change Conference, 013.
Rotterdam, Netherlands, September 2010. 27. pp. 469–527. https://doi.org/10. Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Schneider, F., Speranza, C.I., ... Wiesmann, U.,
1007/s10980-012-9721-8. 2010. Researchers' Roles in Knowledge Co-production: Experience From
Kozar, R., Buck, L.E., Barrow, E.G., Sunderland, T.C.H., Catacutan, D.E., Planicka, C., ... Sustainability Research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. 37. pp. 267–281.
Willemen, L., 2014. Toward Viable Landscape Governance Systems: What Works. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X496628. (May).
Kremen, C., Niles, J., Dalton, M., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., Fay, J., ... Guillery, R., 2000. Polsky, C., Cash, D., 2005. Drought, climate change, and vulnerability: The role of science
Economic Incentives for Rain Forest Conservation Across. vol. 288. pp. 1828–1833 and technology in a multi-scale, multi-stressor world. In: Drought and Water Crises:
(June). Science, Technology, and Management Issues. Marcel Dekker, New York, New York,
Kusters, K., Buck, L., Graaf, M. De, Minang, P., Oosten, C. Van, Zagt, R., 2017. USA, pp. 215–245.
Participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation of multi-stakeholder platforms in Prestele, R., Alexander, P., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Calvin, K., Doelman, J., Eitelberg, D.A.,
integrated landscape initiatives. Environ. Manag. 0–1. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 2016. Hotspots of Uncertainty in Land-use and Land-cover Change Projections: A
s00267-017-0847-y. Global-scale Model Comparison (April). pp. 3967–3983. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Langholz, J., 1999. Exploring the effects of alternative income opportunities on rainforest gcb.13337.
use: insights from Guatemala's Maya biosphere reserve exploring the E V ects of al- Qiu, J., Game, E.T., Tallis, H., Olander, L.P., Glew, L., Kagan, J.S., Weaver, S.K., 2018.
ternative income opportunities on rainforest use: insights from Guatemala's Maya Evidence-based causal chains for linking health, development, and conservation ac-
biosphere rese. Soc. Nat. Resour. 12 (2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/ tions. BioScience 68 (3). https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix167.
089419299279803. Reed, J., Van Vianen, J., Deakin, E.L., Barlow, J., Sunderland, T., 2016. Integrated
Larsen, Rasmus, K., Osbeck, M., Dawkins, E., Tuhkanen, H., Nguyen, H., Nugroho, A., … landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics:
Wolvekamp, P. (2018). Hybrid governance in agricultural commodity chains: insights learning from the past to guide the future. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22 (7). https://doi.org/
from implementation of ‘No Deforestation, No Peat, No Exploitation’ (NDPE) policies 10.1111/gcb.13284.
in the oil palm industry. J. Clean. Prod., 183, 544–554. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ Reed, James, Vianen, J. Van, Barlow, J., Sunderland, T., 2017. Land Use Policy Have
j.jclepro.2018.02.125. integrated landscape approaches reconciled societal and environmental issues in the
Lemos, M.C., Agrawal, A., 2006. Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. tropics? Land Use Policy 63, 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.
31 (1), 297–325. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621. 02.021.
Lindblom, C.E., 1959. The science of “muddling through.”. Public Adm. Rev. 79–88. Reyers, B., Nel, J.L., Farrell, P.J.O., Sitas, N., Nel, D.C., 2015. Navigating Complexity
Ling, C., Hanna, Æ.K., Dale, Æ.A., 2009. A Template for Integrated Community Through Knowledge Coproduction: Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services Into Disaster
Sustainability Planning. pp. 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9315-7. Risk Reduction. 112https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414374112. (24).
Liu, J., Hull, V., Batistella, M., Defries, R., Dietz, T., Fu, F., Naylor, R., 2013. Framing Ribot, J.C., Lund, J.F., Treue, T., 2010. Democratic decentralization in sub-Saharan
sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol. Soc. 18 (2). Africa: its contribution to forest management, livelihoods. Environmental Conservat
Lotter, W., Clark, K., 2014. Community involvement and joint operations aid effective 37 (1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000329.
anti-poaching in Tanzania. Parks 20 (March), 19–28. Rittel, H., Webber, M., 1973. Rittel and Webber 1973 - dilemmas in a general theory of
Lund, J.F., 2015. Paradoxes of participation: the logic of professionalization in partici- planning.pdf. Policy. Sci. 4, 155–169.
patory forestry. Forest Policy Econ. 60, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015. Robbins, P., 2011. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. vol. 16 John Wiley & Sons.
07.009. Roe, D. (Ed.), 2015. Conservation, Crime and Communities. IIED, London.
Luttrell, C., Loft, L., Gebara, M.F., Kweka, D., Brockhaus, M., Angelsen, A., 2013. Who Roe, D., Booker, F., Day, M., Zhou, W., Allebone-Webb, S., Hill, N. A. O., … Sunderland,
should benefit from REDD + ? Rationales and realities. Ecol. Soc. 18 (4). T. C. H. (2015). Are alternative livelihood projects effective at reducing local threats
Marlier, M.E., Defries, R.S., Voulgarakis, A., Kinney, P.L., Randerson, T., Shindell, D.T., ... to specified elements of biodiversity and/or improving or maintaining the con-
Faluvegi, G., 2013. El Niño and health risks from landscape fire emissions in south- servation status of those elements? Environmental Evidence, 4(1), 1–22. doi:https://
east Asia. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1658.El. doi.org/10.1186/s13750-015-0048-1.
Martin, A., Coolsaet, B., Corbera, E., Dawson, N.M., 2018. Land use intensification: The Sainsbury, K., Burgess, N.D., Sabuni, F., Howe, C., Puis, E., Killenga, R., Milner-gulland,
promise of sustainability and the reality of trade-offs. In: Schreckenberg, K., Mace, G., E.J., 2015. Exploring stakeholder perceptions of conservation outcomes from alter-
Poudyal, M. (Eds.), Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation: Trade-offs and native income generating activities in Tanzanian villages adjacent to Eastern Arc
Governance. Taylor & Francis Group. Mountain forests. Biol. Conserv. 191, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.
Meadows, D., 1998. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable. 78. 06.001.
Mistry, B.J., Berardi, A., 2016. Bridging indigenous and scientific knowledge. Science 352 Sandbrook, C., Adams, W.M., Buscher, B., Vira, B., 2013. Social research and biodiversity
(6291), 1274–1276. conservation. Conserv. Biol. 27 (6), 1487–1490. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.
Moeliono, M., Gallemore, C., Santoso, L., Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., 2014. 12141.
Information networks and power: confronting the “wicked problem” of REDD + in Sandker, M., Campbell, B.M., Nzooh, Z., Sunderland, T., Amougou, V., Defo, L., Sayer, J.,
Indonesia. Ecol. Soc. 19 (2). 2009. Exploring the effectiveness of integrated conservation and development in-
Mollinga, P.P., 2010. Boundary Work and the Complexity of Natural Resources terventions in a Central African forest landscape. Biodivers. Conserv. 18 (11),
Management (April). https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2009.10.0570. 2875–2892.
Muradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., Adaman, F., Aguilar, B., Agarwal, B., Urama, K., Sandker, M., Campbell, B.M., Ruiz-Pérez, M., Sayer, J.A., Cowling, R., Kassa, H., Knight,
2013. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. A.T., 2010. The role of participatory modeling in landscape approaches to reconcile
Conserv. Lett. 6 (4), 274–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00309.x. conservation and development. Ecol. Soc. 15 (2), 13.
Musacchio, L.R., 2009. The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: a Savedoff, W., Levine, R., Birdsall, N., 2005. When Will We Ever Learn ? Recommendations
conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed to Improve Social Development Through Enhanced Impact Evaluation. 15 Centre for
landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landsc. Ecol. 24 (8), 993–1013. Global Develoment, Washington DC.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9396-y. Sayer, J.A., Campbell, B.M., 2004. The Science of Sustainable Development: Local
Mutune, J., Lund, J., 2016. Unpacking the impacts of ‘participatory’ forestry policies: Livelihoods and the Global Environment. Cambridge University Press.
evidence from Kenya. Forest Policy Econ. 69, 45–47. Sayer, J., Bull, G., Elliott, C., 2008. Mediating Forest Transitions: ‘Grand Design’ or
Naidoo, R., Weaver, L.C., Diggle, R.W., Matongo, G., Stuart-hill, G., Thouless, C., 2016. ‘Muddling Through’. 6. pp. 320–327 (4).
Complementary Benefits of Tourism and Hunting to Communal Conservancies in Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., ... Buck, L.E.,
Namibia. vol. 30. pp. 628–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12643. (3). 2013. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conserva-
Newton, P., Agrawal, A., Wollenberg, L., 2013. Enhancing the sustainability of com- tion, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110 (21),
modity supply chains in tropical forest and agricultural landscapes. Global 8349–8356.
Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 23 (6), 1761–1772. https:// Sayer, Jeffrey, Margules, C., Boedhihartono, A.K., Dale, A., Sunderland, T., Supriatna, J.,
doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.004. Saryanthi, R., 2014. Landscape approaches; what are the pre-conditions for success?
O'Farrell, P.J., Anderson, P.M.L., 2010. Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: a review Sustain. Sci. 10 (2), 345–355.
to implementation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2 (1–2), 59–65. https://doi.org/10. Sayer, J., Endamana, D., Boedhihartono, A.K., Breuer, T., 2016a. Learning From Change
1016/j.cosust.2010.02.005. in the Sangha Tri-National Landscape. 18. pp. 130–139.
Olsson, P., Gunderson, L.H., Carpenter, S.R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Sayer, J.A., Margules, C., Boedhihartono, A.K., Sunderland, T., Langston, J.D., Reed, J.,
2006. Shooting the Rapids: Navigating Transitions to Adaptive Governance of Social- Sayer, J.A., 2016b. Measuring the effectiveness of landscape approaches to con-
Ecological Systems. 11 (1). servation and development. Sustain. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective 0415-z.
Action. Cambridge university press. Scherr, S.J., Shames, S., Friedman, R., 2013. Defining Integrated Landscape Management
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R.B., Policansky, D., 1999. Revisiting the for Policy Makers.
commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science 284 (5412), 278–282. Sessin-dilascio, K., Centro, I., Irvine, K.N., 2016. The Dynamics of Co-Management and
Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., López-Santiago, C., Montes, C., 2011. Participatory scenario Social Capital in Protected Area Management—The Cardoso Island State Park in
planning for protected areas management under the ecosystem services framework: Brazil The Dynamics of co-Management and Social Capital in Protected Area

8
J. Reed, et al. Biological Conservation 238 (2019) 108229

Management—The Cardoso Island State Park in Brazil (February). https://doi.org/ Viana, C., Coudel, E., Barlow, J., Ferreira, J., Gardner, T., Parry, L., 2016. How Does
10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.004. Hybrid Governance Emerge? Role of the Elite in Building a Green Municipality in the
Smith, J., 2008. A critical appreciation of the “bottom-up” approach to sustainable water Eastern Brazilian Amazon. vol. 350. pp. 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.
management: embracing complexity rather than desirability. Local Environ. 13 (4), 1720. (August).
353–366. Walters, C., 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. In: Biological Resource
Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional ecology,translations' and boundary objects: Management.
Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Watts, J.D., Colfer, C.J.P., 2011. The governance of tropical landscapes. In: Colfer, C.J.P.,
Soc. Stud. Sci. 19 (3), 387–420. Pfund, J. (Eds.), Collaborative Governance of Tropical Landscapes. Earthscan,
Stenseke, M., 2009. Local Participation in Cultural Landscape Maintenance: Lessons from London, pp. 35–54.
Sweden Local Participation in Cultural Landscape Maintenance: Lessons from Wicander, S., Coad, L., 2015. Learning our Lessons: A Review of Alternative Livelihood
Sweden. (April 2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.01.005. Projects in Central Africa. IUCN.
Steyaert, P., Jiggins, J., 2007. Governance of Complex Environmental Situations Through Wu, J., Hobbs, R., 2002. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an
Social Learning: A Synthesis of SLIM's Lessons for Research, Policy and Practice. vol. idiosyncratic synthesis. Landsc. Ecol. 17 (4), 355–365. Retrieved from. http://www.
10. pp. 575–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.01.011. scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0036033445&partnerID=40&md5=
Sunderland, T.C.H., Sayer, J., Hoang, M.-H., 2012. Evidence-based Conservation: Lessons 4194751fad4ef5e8c6dfb2731fbcb89c.
From the Lower Mekong. Routledge. Wunder, Sven, 2001. Poverty alleviation and tropical forests—what scope for synergies?
Tilman, D., Clark, M., 2014. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human World Dev. 29 (11), 1817–1833. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00070-5.
health. Nature 515 (7528), 518–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959. Wunder, S., Brouwer, R., Engel, S., Muradian, R., Pascual, U., Pinto, R., 2018. From
Toomey, A.H., Knight, A.T., Barlow, J., 2016. Navigating the Space between Research and principles to practice in paying for nature's services. Nature Sustainability 1 (March),
Implementation in Conservation. 00(October). pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0036-x.
conl.12315. Young, O.R., 2002. Institutional interplay: The environmental consequences of cross-scale
Torfing, J., 2012. Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. Oxford University interactions. In: The Drama of the Commons, pp. 263–291.
Press on Demand. Zimmerer, K.S., Bassett, T.J., 2003. Political Ecology: An Integrative Approach to
Trosper, R.L., 2003. Resilience in pre-contact Pacific Northwest social ecological systems. Geography and Environment-development Studies. Guildford Press.
Conserv. Ecol. 7 (3), 6. [online] URL. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art6/.