Abstract
This chapter provides an overview on relevant concepts, such as ecosystem services, sustainability, multifunctionality and social-ecological systems/frameworks applied in land use sciences. Current discussions, political debates and challenges in terms of methodological aspects, actor enrolment or project design are raised. Future research topics particularly related to the often non-coherent UN Sustainable Development Goals and their mutual trade-offs are raised and challenges in how to advance land use science are provided. An outlook is provided how co-development of knowledge and co-design of land use system research could be conceived in the future.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
Land use science or land system science turned out to be one of the key concepts in the recent years to integrate an inter- and transdisciplinary perspective in the sustainable management of our earth’s natural resources and ecosystems (Müller and Monroe 2014; Rounsevell et al. 2012; Verburg et al. 2013, 2015). Disciplines that found entrance in this concept include geography, landscape ecology, environmental economics, behavioural sciences, social sciences, and biology, to name only few (Zscheischler and Rogga 2015). A key aspect of land use science consists in co-developing new and integrative methods in systemic modelling, multi-actor participation and in the appraisal of potential social-ecological impacts of changes in land use and land management (Fürst et al. 2017).
A number of concepts is closely related and meanwhile part of the methodological toolkit of land use science that should be shortly defined at the beginning. The concepts social-ecological systems and the major approaches for assessing the impact of their changes, namely sustainability, ecosystem services, land use functions and multifunctionality have been selected since they are broadly referred and often used in parallel.
Social-ecological systems or system frameworks are one of the key approaches for enhancing the understanding of complex and multi-tiered human-environmental interactions at multiple scales and their outcomes (Ostrom 2007). The transition to a “framework” approach was suggested to form an umbrella for comparing in a metalanguage different theories on the systemic interactions and cause-effect relationships in social-ecological models and thus contribute to highly generic systemic approaches (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). Related to land use science, social-ecological systems or frameworks provide the theoretical background for identifying key system components and sub-systems and classify their relationships and interactions to come from a case-study and observation based understanding to generic system architectures that are a relevant basis for modelling land (use) systems (e.g. Tett et al. 2013).
For assessing the performance of land use systems, a number of assessment frameworks can be used (O’Farrell and Anderson 2010; Wu 2013). Assessment approaches and frameworks closely related to land use science are, among others, sustainability, ecosystem services (and synonymous terms), land use functions and multifunctionality. All of them are used in parallel, often with similar understanding but different relevance for land use sectors. By sustainability, we understand since the Brundtland report (1987) and the Rio Declaration in 1992 the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland report 1987) including the balancing of ecological, social and economic sustainability aspects. Anyhow, this understanding was developed more from a political and societal perspective (Lélé 1991) that missed in some aspects the relation to land use due to its high level of abstractness, even if it was broken down to sectors, using the Ministerial Conference for Pan-European Forestry (MCPFE) as an example (Mayer 2000). The novel concept of sustainability suggested by Von Carlowitz (1713) was much closer to land use since it was simply developed from a resource economic perspective to optimize over long time the harvesting of forest biomass to generate enough energy for ore smelting (Basiago 1995; Mebratu 1998; Wiersum 1995). There were manifold attempts to make the concept less abstract and break it down to indicators to support its implementation in practice (e.g.; forestry: Raison et al. 2001; agriculture: Harwood 1990; Zinck and Farshad 1995). A key criticism resulting from these attempts were the assessment efforts through too many, often redundant indicators and the high data demands (e.g. Ceron and Dubois 2003; Niemeijer and de Groot 2008; Hák et al. 2016).
The origin of the ecosystem services concept dates back to the 1970s, where Westman (1977) highlighted the social value of benefits provided by ecosystems to society (nature’s services) as a basis for informed decisions. Subsequently, ecosystem services were mainstreamed in literature with a peak in the 1990s (e.g. Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 1997). Only little later, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) became an important milestone in the conceptual development of ecosystem services and their relevance for policy consulting by synthesizing globally knowledge on the state of ecosystems. Since then, the number of publications addressing ecosystems and their services increased exponentially (Fisher et al. 2009; Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2010; Vihervaara et al. 2010). Ecosystem services found their entrance in political agenda setting through the UN science-policy process “Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IBPBES), which was established in 2012 in Panama (Larigauderie and Mooney 2010; Larigauderie et al. 2012) and is currently (2019) ratified by 132 countries. Since the introduction of ecosystem services as an assessment framework e.g. in the context of the European Biodiversity Strategy (Maes et al. 2012a, b; Schägner et al. 2013), a multitude of definitions have been developed and discussed (Fisher et al. 2009). Definitions that reached highest interest, are, “Conditions and Processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill human life” (Daily 1997); “Benefits human populations derive directly or indirectly from ecosystem functions” (Costanza et al. 1997); “Components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human well-being” (Boyd und Banzhaf 2007); “Aspects of ecosystems utilised actively or passively to produce human well-being” (Fisher et al. 2009); “Direct or indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being” (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, see e.g. Ring et al. 2010). Still, the definition formulated in MEA (2005) is acknowledged as most important one, defining ecosystem services as “The benefits people obtain from ecosystems”. These include provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as regulation of floods, drought, land degradation, and disease; supporting services such as soil formation and nutrient cycling; and cultural services such as recreational, spiritual, religious and other nonmaterial benefits.”
However, the division of ecosystem services as suggested by MEA (2005) is critically discussed and, for instance, The Common International Classification of Ecosystem services (CICES, Potschin and Haines-Young 2011; Haines-Young and Potschin 2012) suggest reducing the number of groups to regulating, provisioning and cultural services. They suggest assessing separately bio-geophysical structures, processes and ecosystem functions along a cascade that facilitates separating intrinsic values of nature from yielded services. Among the diverse suggestions how to best implement ecosystem services in support of policy consulting, the CICES cascade in combination with the DPSIR (Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Responses) framework (Müller and Burkhard 2012) and the IPBES framework (Díaz et al. 2015a, b) are promising and acknowledged suggestions. Both support strongly to separate the assessment of intrinsic values of nature and their benefits for human well-being, based on indicator sets, but also accounting for qualitative information. Anyhow, most recent terminological discussions on the use of “Nature´s contributions to people” (Díaz et al. 2018) instead ecosystem services and resulting critical responses (Braat 2018; de Groot et al. 2018) indicate that the concept as such is not yet in its final stage to really support the assessment of outcomes of land use systems.
Consequently, there were attempts to make the concept suitable for a more integrative systemic perspective referring to landscapes as a holistic entity were multiple land uses are meeting (Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009; Termorshuizen et al. 2007) to address better human-nature interactions and landscape configuration as decisive factors for services generation. Other attempts, such as the concept of land use functions (Pérez-Soba et al. 2008) suggest a more reductionist approach, focusing on those functions (or services) that are decisive in a regional context.
In contrast, multifunctionality was conceived as a concept to assess land use systems and landscapes in terms of their performance from an integrative transdisciplinary perspective (Antrop 2005; Fry 2001). Their relevance consists particularly in supporting a holistic (cultural) landscape (von Haaren 2002) and land use system planning (Selman 2009) and development including sectorial applications in agricultural (Renting et al. 2009) and forest management planning (Schmithüsen 2007) and in rural development (Knickel and Renting 2000). Table 17.1 summarizes the major aspects and differences in the applicability and usefulness of the assessment concepts.
2 Current International Debates and Political Discourses
Land use science is highly relevant to support consulting environmental and other policies, ensure their coherence and develop governance instruments at multiple scales for ensuring a sustainable development (Sterk et al. 2009; see ongoing discussions e.g. in: Weith et al. 2019). Most relevant international debates rank currently around the topics of Climate Change, Global Change and tele-coupling, the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and biodiversity losses considering their impacts on the resilience and vulnerability of our land use systems (Allen et al. 2016; Bahn et al. 2018; Olesen and Bindi 2002). Since Climate Change (CC) was brought into the policy and public perspective through the endorsement of the International Panel for Climate Change by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 (From Noordwijk 1990), it found most recently a culmination point in public perception through the grass root movement “Fridays for Future” (Wahlström et al. 2019). However, this public expression of needs to start quickly with instruments to realize the outcomes and of the Paris Agreement in 2015 (van den Bergh 2017) originates and is conducted mostly in the developed world and not in the Global South, where CC impacts are much more dramatic and relevant for peoples survival. Land use systems as an intrinsic factor in regulating the global climate through carbon sequestration are not really in the focus of the public perception and adapted behaviour (van de Ven et al. 2018) yet, even if certification systems that could further afforestation or halt losses of tropical forest areas are known and proven to be highly efficient (Brancalion et al. 2017; Kongsager et al. 2016). In contrast, policy changes, for instance in Brazil, foster the degradation and destruction of the Amazonian forest (Freitas et al. 2018), while in the boreal forests, large areas are burnt, for instance, in Russia in the recent years through missing monitoring and mismanagement, whose capacities to regulate the large subsurface Carbon resources in permafrost soils are now destroyed (Schaphoff et al. 2016; Shuman et al. 2017. The current debates on stopping CC are more focussing on replacing the critical use of fossil energy and related technologies by other critical technologies (e-Mobility) with increasingly disastrous social and ecological impacts on land use systems through the extraction of rare metals and particularly of lithium (Agusdinata et al. 2018; Lee and Wen 2017). In contrast, approved and traditionally developed strategies related to land use as a means to mitigate CC or to adapt to the not-anymore manageable impacts are lost in the societal and political discourse (Eguavoen et al. 2015; Knutti et al. 2016).
Global change and tele-coupling are not yet publicly perceived topics but anyhow found entrance in the political discourse on equitable polycentric international governance and the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Bowen et al. 2017; Vasseur et al. 2017), but also in the discussion on global migration trends and how to co-manage them between Global North and Global South (Oberlack et al. 2018; Radel et al. 2019). Known interactions are the increasing consumption of meat in developed and transitioning economies, the globalization of production processes, land grabbing for resource extraction, the cultivation of renewable resources for energy production and the compensation of CO2 emissions trough certificate trade (e.g. Fiske and Paladino 2016; Garrett and Rueda 2019; Harvey and Pilgrim, 2011; Hull and Liu 2018). These lead to highly negative impacts particularly on land use systems in the Global South and here particularly in weak economies in Africa or transitioning economies in Latin America, South-East and Central Asia (Liu et al. 2013; Gasparri et al. 2016). In result, highly valuable and native ecosystems are irreversibly degraded with huge consequences for the global loss of biodiversity (IPBES 2019) and its relevance for climate regulation, regulation of CC impacts and the intergenerational equity in the access to highly relevant natural resources (Cardinale et al. 2012; Redclift and Sage 1998; Tacconi and Bennett 1995). Since the role of all organisms threatened by the degradation of land use systems is not fully understood, negative consequences for the resilience not only of singular ecosystems, but the system earth and for the vulnerability of land use systems from local to global scale are not yet known (Bonan and Doney 2018).
The 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; UN SDGs 2015) address directly or indirectly land use systems, such as SDG 17 “Life on Land”. Anyhow, the achievement of many of them provokes critical trade-offs for the sustainable development of land use systems, e.g. through soil sealing (SDG's 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), and 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)). This requires planning and policy instruments that reduce such trade-offs through spatial prioritization of areas foreseen to contribute to the SDGs and strategies to make them ecologically less problematic (e.g. through keeping green infrastructures, greening of facades and roofs, etc. (e.g. Ignatieva and Anrné 2013; Keesstra et al. 2016; Norton et al. 2015). An open question remains, how the land use systems in highly different political, cultural, social and economic surroundings can contribute not only locally but globally to the achievement of these goals and what kind of criteria need to be defined to correspond to the diverse contextual situations when judging how far adapted land use has contributed to or improved the achievement of the SDGs.
In this complex and interwoven areas of political and societal discourse, land use science has the potential to reveal dependencies of the different political areas and the interlinkages of the land use systems and subsystems from local to cross-continental scale referring to the theories of social-ecological systems and their tele-coupled connections (Friis et al. 2016; Liu et al. 2014; Schlueter et al. 2012). This theoretical frame can help to identify which intervention strategies, either through regulating or financial governance instruments or community-efforts can be most efficient in reducing CC, CC impacts and biodiversity losses (Carter et al. 2014; Pereira et al. 2012). Policy and planning recommendations need to stretch over all the above raised topics and reflect through an assessment of their impacts on the sustainable development by the use of approaches such as sustainability criteria or ecosystem services how relevant trade-offs, but also synergies are for local populations and in a global context (Costanza et al. 1991; Kumar et al. 2013).
3 Topics for Future Research Areas
Land use science and its methodological concepts can contribute largely to make societies aware of future challenges and risks in their development. Refocussing on social-ecological systems, for instance, health and medical treatments are at high risk to get lost including regulating and provisioning ES, taking waterborn diseases and not yet explored medical substances as examples (Alves and Rosa 2007; Romanelli et al. 2015). This poses also a problem for the long-term achievement of UN SDG 3 “Health and Human Well-being”. Besides the public and political discourse on such highly relevant topics, there is a number of other research areas, where land use science is called to contribute from an inter- and transdisciplinary perspective.
One of them is urbanization; currently, roughly 55% of the world's population is living in a city or in an urban/metropolitan area. This is expected to be increased in the upcoming decades to an amount of 68% (UN World Populations Prospects 2019), which means that the major part of the global population has no direct access to natural resources and no direct relation to more natural land use systems such as agriculture or forestry. Concentration in urban areas might be sustainable from the perspective of health, education, access to clean water and energy and can boost urban and industrial development (SDGs 3 (Good Health and Well-being), 4 (Quality Education), 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), 9 (Industry Innovation and Infrastructure) and 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities); UN SDGs 2015) through more efficient bundling or resources and infrastructures. On the other hand, there might be huge trade-offs for poverty, hunger, gender equity, the relation between life and work, and sustainable consumption (SDGs 1 (No Poverty), 2 (Zero Hunger), 5 (Gender Equality), 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), 13 (Climate Action) and 15 (Life on Land); UN SDGs, 2015) through abandonment and lack of working power in rural areas as well as selective rural–urban migration of young people/young men, losses in cultural identity, and higher consumption needs in terms of changes in the diets (more meat) and energy consumption/mobility (Cutter 2017; Reckien et al. 2017; Springmann et al. 2018) (Fig. 17.1).
Related to this topic, rural–urban and cross-continental migration remains for the next decades one of the key research topics, where the question of how land use opportunities could counteract migration and how CC is driving migration are subject to recent research activities (Cattaneo et al. 2019; Pelling et al. 2018). “Attractive” land use opportunities require generally achieving a lower vulnerability and higher resilience towards climate and global change (Froese and Schilling 2019; Javadinejad et al. 2019). In many cases, cash-cropping instead of subsistence farming is considered to be an appropriate solution (e.g. Friend et al. 2019; Gentle et al. 2018). However, this provokes a higher dependency on markets considering the purchase of the seeds or seedlings, potentially higher efforts in fertilization and irrigation, and in selling the products (Amrouk et al. 2019; Robinson 2018). Globalized markets thus gain more and critical influence on highly vulnerable local systems and are prone to accelerate negative impacts on the ecological-economic resilience of the systems (Reyers and Selomane 2018; Rosa-Schleich et al. 2019). Failures in successfully cultivating cash crops due to either climate or market variabilities can destroy in very short time farming systems in the Global South and accelerate poverty-driven migration (e.g. McKeon 2018; Mustafa et al. 2019).
A highly relevant integrative research area will thus be to focus less on agricultural adaptation strategies alone, but on the water-energy-food-biodiversity nexus (Fürst et al. 2017; Stoy et al. 2018; Venghaus and Hake 2018). The nexus approach as suggested, for instance, in the Future Earth initiative Food-Energy and Water (https://futureearth.org/networks/knowledge-action-networks/water-energy-food-nexus) delivers an integrative concept similar to the synergy-trade-off considerations in social-ecological systems, sustainability and ecosystem services assessments (e.g. Karabulut et al. 2018; Nhamo et al. 2019). Research in the sectors of water management, efficient energy production and accessibility, food systems and biodiversity is so far often highly segregated and solutions to overcome scarcity or losses in quality are missing to be coherent with each other sector (Fader et al. 2018) since causal interactions between these sectors are often not directly visible. The most recent calls for scoping as suggested by IPBES therefore enhance the system-overarching perspective and will trigger research that transitions from inter- and transdisciplinary approaches focussing on a specific topic or question to connecting similar disciplines and actor types across sectors regarding a multitude of questions. Part of these across-sector research demands will be the consideration of societal transformations concerning their capacities to contribute to a sustainable development and come up with related social and systemic innovations. Societal transformations are known to be key processes that impact land use systems in terms of their performance in providing a multitude of services and resources and equitable access to them (Ehrensperger et al. 2019; Long and Qu 2018) Expressions of social transformations in their land use context can range from changes in community living styles (e.g. from hunting to herding, Bergman et al. 2013), ecosystem management practices (Olsson et al. 2004), to changes from land use to land development rights (Zhu 2004). Land use planning as an integrative discipline needs to take into account such transformations concerning the prioritization of areas in regional spatial and urban planning for delivering the requested amounts of food, clean water, recreational areas and green infrastructure, areas for protecting settlements against CC driven extreme events and other demands. These can change dramatically along socio-cultural-economic transformations through rural–urban migration and informal settlements or changed diets and living styles (Bardsley and Hugo 2010; Lerner and Eakin 2011).
4 Challenges in Research Practice
An important challenge in land use science is an equal enrolment of social and natural sciences (Müller and Munroe 2014) and the development of an original set of inter- and transdisciplinary research methods (Rounsevell et al. 2012). Current research attempts are often either focussed on one of the disciplinary fields (natural/social sciences) and consider the other instead of coming to a fully integrative approach (Zscheischler and Rogga 2015). Reasons for this might consist in funding strategies that are in many countries worldwide still set up from a highly disciplinary point of view and train researchers that fail to understand the philosophies and theoretical-methodological backgrounds of other disciplines (Bromham et al. 2016). A huge hampering factors for land use sciences consists in the historically separately developed research in land use sectors, such as agriculture and forestry, that often have similar disciplinary approaches, but fail in the cross-sectoral integration and fail in cooperation from a systemic, landscape perspective that is essential for deriving suitable policy recommendations (e.g. Klein et al. 2005; Mickwitz et al. 2009). The lack in a systemic understanding is another challenge in further developing land use sciences. Many of the data acquisition, monitoring and modelling approaches are still oriented towards the micro-scale, miss spatial representativeness and thus fail to contribute to integrative assessments at superior scales and decision levels (e.g. Anderson 2018; De Palma et al. 2018). There is often no real valid relation between spot-oriented sampling or monitoring regarding up-scaling approaches to regional or global scales, but vice versa, also no real attempts to down-scale and validate outcomes from global assessments and modelling approaches with regard to their local reliability (e.g. Kolosz et al. 2018; Le Clec’h et al. 2018; Malenovský et al. 2019). Most of the modelling approaches in land use sciences are purely data driven and miss making use of such theoretical frameworks as provided by the social-ecological system concept (Colding and Barthel 2019). Sustainability and ecosystem services assessments focus often too narrowly on singular ecosystems or ecosystem types and thus do not contribute to holistic and integrative landscape-oriented planning and policy recommendations (von Haaren et al. 2019). Consequently, one of the most important challenges consists in an improved implementation of a systemic perspective and in the focussing of systemic architectures including all subsystems, subcomponents, their interrelations and the quality of these interrelations (e.g. Langhammer et al. 2019). Graph-node theory based approaches such as Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) or Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) would provide adequate solutions that can either make use of local, indigenous and expert knowledge in drafting the system architecture (BBN), or make use of artificial intelligence algorithms to harvest data sets (ANN) (e.g. Marcot and Penman 2018; Schmidt et al. 2018). While ANN are reliant on the amount and quality of the available data, BBN and similar approaches hold the huge potential to serve also as a transdisciplinary method to approach the understanding of land use systems, integrate multiple knowledge types and data sets and combine qualitative and quantitative data sets. This is of even higher relevance, since challenges for land use science called by Future Earth are the co-design of research and subsequently the co-development of new knowledge (Liu et al. 2018). Using system architectures as a starting point in the discourse between science and practice reveals knowledge gaps and research needs in understanding specific land use systems and—in the sense of social-ecological frameworks—in generalizing their structure and functioning (Gu et al. 2018). The identified “nodes” (i.e. sub-systems) can be critically reflected considering the availability of data or methods to parameterize them. Finally, by the step-wise integration of knowledge to parameterize the subsystems and describe their interactions helps to co-develop knowledge on the system, but also knowledge on potential intervention scales or decision levels to accomplish sustainable development (see e.g. Kampelmann et al. 2018). A remaining challenge will however consist in the enrolment of actors from practice to bridge or potentially close the gap between land use science and land use practice (e.g. Partelow et al. 2019).
5 Outlook
Transdisciplinary methods alone will not solve the problem how to realize a permanent engagement of actors from practice. There is a need for a new understanding and conception in how land use systems research should be conceived for delivering relevant practical recommendations without losing its scientific character. If co-design of research and co-development of knowledge are taken serious, traditional “project-oriented” research might not be appropriate since the period between the start, where research questions and hypotheses are (co-) formulated and the end, where outputs are presented remains often non-transparent and inaccessible for actors from practice due to time, economic or methodological constraints (e.g. Hansson and Polk 2018). Also, their priorities and questions might undergo changes during the research project. An opportunity to overcome these discrepancies between science and practice would be to agree not on singular questions or projects, but on agenda-based approaches referring to the impact pathway strategy. This would include coming to a joint agreement on final impacts expected by policy, planning and practice (e.g. achievement of the UN SDGs) in a medium to long-term perspective and on outcomes that are perceived to be relevant to accomplish them (e.g. through societal transformations and the way how these can be initiated, supported and put into action). The agreed research agenda could then start with an initial set of outputs (i.e. singular projects) that are serving to succeed in the outcomes (e.g. scenario model-based recommendations that inform on optimal intervention scales and decision levels in land use systems regarding the UN SDGs). New relevant outputs could be added and existing ones should be subject to a critical review in reasonable time spans, so that a co-learning approach can be established. This could help to overcome the difficulties between day-to-day management in practice and the time lapse in conducting research. Certainly, the coordination of such an agenda-based approach will require a higher and very holistic coordination effort, which leaves enough decision and financial space for adjustment over the agenda process and that will require conducting some pre-assessments of financial ranges including uncertainties in which final budgets will range. On the other hand, it would be much more dynamic and adaptive, would offer much larger participation opportunities from practice, but also from scientific actors and would finally benefit both sides through more synergetic results instead of segregated results in a multitude of smaller (even joint research) projects. Such agenda-based processes could also be implemented on an international scale, calling for applications that deliver expected outputs from regions where these are perceived to be requested to fulfil the agenda, so that a synthesis across continents could be supported.
References
Agusdinata, D. B., Liu, W., Eakin, H., & Romero, H. (2018). Socio-environmental impacts of lithium mineral extraction: Towards a research agenda. Environmental Research Letters, 13(12), 123001.
Allen, C. R., Angeler, D. G., Cumming, G. S., Folke, C., Twidwell, D., & Uden, D. R. (2016). Quantifying spatial resilience. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(3), 625–635.
Alves, R. R., & Rosa, I. M. (2007). Biodiversity, traditional medicine and public health: Where do they meet? Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 3(1), 14.
Amrouk, E. M., Grosche, S. C., Heckelei, T. (2019). Interdependence between cash crop and staple food international prices across periods of varying financial market stress. Applied Economics, pp. 1–16.
Anderson, C. B. (2018). Biodiversity monitoring, earth observations and the ecology of scale. Ecology letters, 21(10), 1572–1585.
Antrop, M. (2005). From holistic landscape synthesis to transdisciplinary landscape management. In B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, P. Opdam (Eds.), From landscape research to landscape planning.
Bahn, M., Erb, K., Harris, E., Hasibeder, R., Ingrisch, J., Mayr, S., Niedertschneidert, M., Oberhuber, W., Oberleitner, F., Tappeiner, U., Tasser, E., Viovy, N. (2018). ClimLUC–climate extremes and land-use change: Effects on ecosystem processes and services. Aspects of integration, education and application, pp. 27–50. https://epub.oeaw.ac.at/0xc1aa5576%200x003a37a5.pdf. Accessed online July, 22, 2019.
Bardsley, D. K., & Hugo, G. J. (2010). Migration and climate change: examining thresholds of change to guide effective adaptation decision-making. Population and Environment, 32(2–3), 238–262.
Basiago, A. D. (1995). Methods of defining ‘sustainability.’ Sustainable development, 3(3), 109–119.
Bergman, I., Zackrisson, O., & Liedgren, L. (2013). From hunting to herding: Land use, ecosystem processes, and social transformation among Sami AD 800–1500. Arctic Anthropology, 50(2), 25–39.
Bonan, G. B., Doney, S. C. (2018). Climate, ecosystems, and planetary futures: The challenge to predict life in Earth system models. Science, 359(6375), eaam8328.
Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3), 616–626.
Bowen, K. J., Cradock-Henry, N. A., Koch, F., Patterson, J., Häyhä, T., Vogt, J., & Barbi, F. (2017). Implementing the “sustainable development goals”: Towards addressing three key governance challenges—Collective action, trade-offs, and accountability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 90–96.
Braat, L. (2018). Five reasons why the science publication “assessing nature’s contributions to people” (Díaz et al. 2018) would not have been accepted in Eco-system Services. Ecosystem Services, 30, A1–A2.
Brancalion, P. H., Lamb, D., Ceccon, E., Boucher, D., Herbohn, J., Strassburg, B., Edwards, D. P. (2017). Using markets to leverage investment in forest and landscape restoration in the tropics. Forest Policy and Economics, 85, 103–113.
Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., Hua, X. (2016). Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature, 534(7609), 684.
Brundtland, G., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., Chidzero, B., Fadika, L., Hauff, V., Lang, I., Shijun, M., Morino de Botero, M., Singh, M., Oktito, S., (1987). Our Common Future (\'Brundtland report\’).
Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., et al. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 59.
Carter, N., Viña, A., Hull, V., McConnell, W., Axinn, W., Ghimire, D., Liu, J. (2014). Coupled human and natural systems approach to wildlife research and conservation. Ecology and Society, 19(3).
Cattaneo, C., Beine, M., Fröhlich, C. J., Kniveton, D., Martinez-Zarzoso, I., Mastrorillo, M., et al. (2019). Human migration in the era of climate change. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 13(2), 189–206.
Ceron, J. P., & Dubois, G. (2003). Tourism and sustainable development indicators: The gap between theoretical demands and practical achievements. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(1), 54–75.
Colding, J., Barthel, S. (2019). Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecology and Society, 24(1).
Costanza, R., Daly, H. E., Bartholomew, J. A. (1991). Goals, agenda and policy recommendations for ecological economics. Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability, (s 525).
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K, Naeem, S., O’Neill, RV., and l'aruelo, J. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.
Cutter, S. L. (2017). The forgotten casualties redux: Women, children, and disaster risk. Global Environmental Change, 42, 117–121.
Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington DC: Island Press.
de Groot, R., Costanza, R., Braat, L., Brander, L., Burkhard, B., Carrascosa, J.L., Crossman, N., Egoh, B., Geneletti, D., Hansjuergens, B., Hein, L., Jacobs, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., Leimona, B., Li, B., Liu, J., Luque, S., Maes, J., Marais, C., Maynard, S., Montanarella, L., Moolenaar, S., Obst, C., Quintero, M., Saito, O., Santos-Martín, F., Sutton, P., van Beukering, P., van Weelden, M., Willemen, L. (2018). Ecosystem services are nature’s contributions to people: Response to: Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science Progress, 359 (6373).
De Palma, A., Sanchez-Ortiz, K., Martin, P. A., Chadwick, A., Gilbert, G., Bates, A. E., Börger, L., Contu, S., Hill, S.S.L., Purvis, A. (2018). Challenges with inferring how land-use affects terrestrial biodiversity: Study design, time, space and synthesis. In Advances in Ecological Research (Vol. 58, pp. 163–199). Academic Press.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikuri, J.R., Arico, S., Baldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I.A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K.M.A., Figueroa, V.E., Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., Koetz, T., Leadley, P., Lyver, P., Mace, G.M., Martin-Lopez, B., Okumura, M., Pacheco, D., Pascual, U., Perez, E.S. (2015a). The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Joly, C., Lonsdale, W. M., & Larigauderie, A. (2015b). A Rosetta stone for nature’s benefits to people. PLoS Biology, 13(1), e1002040.
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R. T., Molnár, Z., et al. (2018). Assessing nature’s contributions to peopleAssessing nature’s contributions to people. Science, 359, 270–272.
Eguavoen, I., Schulz, K., de Wit, S., Weisser, F., Müller-Mahn, D. (2015). Political dimensions of climate change adaptation: Conceptual reflections and African examples. In Handbook of climate change adaptation, pp. 1183–1199.
Ehrensperger, A., de Bremond, A., Providoli, I., & Messerli, P. (2019). Land system science and the 2030 agenda: exploring knowledge that supports sustainability transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 38, 68–76.
Fader, M., Cranmer, C., Lawford, R., Engel-Cox, J. (2018). Toward an understanding of synergies and trade-offs between water, energy, and food SDG targets. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 6(NREL/JA-6A50–72168).
Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643–653.
Fiske, S. J., Paladino, S. (2016). Introduction: Carbon Offset Markets and Social Equity: Trading in Forests to Save the Planet. In The Carbon Fix (pp. 25–46). Routledge.
Freitas, F. L., Sparovek, G., Berndes, G., Persson, U. M., Englund, O., Barretto, A., & Mörtberg, U. (2018). Potential increase of legal deforestation in Brazilian Amazon after Forest Act revision. Nature Sustainability, 1(11), 665.
Friend, R. M., Thankappan, S., Doherty, B., Aung, N., Beringer, A. L., Kimseng, C., Cole, R., Immuong, Y., Mortensen, S., Nyunt, W.W., Paavola, J., Prombhakping, B., Salamanca, A., Soben, K., Win, S., Win, S., Yang, N. (2019). Agricultural and food systems in the Mekong region: Drivers of transformation and pathways of change. Emerald Open Research, 1(12), https://doi.org/10.12688/emeraldopenres.13104.1.
Friis, C., Nielsen, J. Ø, Otero, I., Haberl, H., Niewöhner, J., & Hostert, P. (2016). From teleconnection to telecoupling: Taking stock of an emerging framework in land system science. Journal of Land Use Science, 11(2), 131–153.
Froese, R., & Schilling, J. (2019). The Nexus of climate change, land use, and conflicts. Current Climate Change Reports, 5(1), 24–35.
From Noordwijk, R. (1990). United Nations Activities. In Environmental Policy and Law, (vol. 20, p. 71).
Fry, G. L. (2001). Multifunctional landscapes—Towards transdisciplinary research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57(3), 159–168.
Fürst, C., Luque, S., & Geneletti, D. (2017). Nexus thinking–How ecosystem services can contribute to enhancing the cross-scale and cross-sectoral coherence between land use, spatial planning and policy-making. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management, 13(1), 412–421.
Garrett, R., Rueda, X. (2019). Telecoupling and consumption in agri-food systems. In Telecoupling (pp. 115–137). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Gasparri, N. I., Kuemmerle, T., Meyfroidt, P., Polain, Le., de Waroux, Y., & Kreft, H. (2016). The emerging soybean production frontier in Southern Africa: Conservation challenges and the role of south–south telecouplings. Conservation Letters, 9(1), 21–31.
Gentle, P., Thwaites, R., Race, D., Alexander, K., Maraseni, T. (2018). Household and community responses to impacts of climate change in the rural hills of Nepal. Climatic Change, 147(1–2), 267–282.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., De Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1209–1218.
Gu, Y., Deal, B., & Larsen, L. (2018). Geodesign processes and ecological systems thinking in a coupled human-environment context: an integrated framework for landscape architecture. Sustainability, 10(9), 3306.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. (2012). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES, Version 4.1). European Environment Agency (vol. 33).
Hák, T., Janoušková, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators, 60, 565–573.
Hansson, S., & Polk, M. (2018). Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact. Research Evaluation, 27(2), 132–144.
Harvey, M., & Pilgrim, S. (2011). The new competition for land: Food, energy, and climate change. Food Policy, 36, S40–S51.
Harwood, R. R. (1990). A history of sustainable agriculture. In: Edwards, C.I., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R.H., House, G. (Eds.) Sustainable Agricultural Systems, pp. 3–19.
Hull, V., Liu, J. (2018). Telecoupling: A new frontier for global sustainability. Ecology and Society, 23(4).
Ignatieva, M., & Ahrné, K. (2013). Biodiverse green infrastructure for the 21st century: From “green desert” of lawns to biophilic cities. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 37(1), 1–9.
IPBES (Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem services). (2019). Global Assessment—Summary for Policy Makers. https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/spm_unedited_advance_for_posting_htn.pdf. Accessed online, July, 22, 2019.
Javadinejad, S., Eslamian, S., Ostad-Ali-Askari, K., Nekooei, M., Azam, N., Talebmorad, H., Hasantabar-Amiri, A., Mousavi, M. (2019). Relationship between climate change, natural disaster, and resilience in rural and urban societies. In Handbook of Climate Change Resilience, pp. 1–25.
Kampelmann, S., Kaethler, M., Hill, A. V. (2018). Curating complexity: An artful ap-proach for real-world system transitions. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 27, 59−71.
Karabulut, A. A., Crenna, E., Sala, S., & Udias, A. (2018). A proposal for integration of the ecosystem-water-food-land-energy (EWFLE) nexus concept into life cycle assessment: A synthesis matrix system for food security. Journal of cleaner production, 172, 3874–3889.
Keesstra, S. D., Bouma, J., Wallinga, J., Tittonell, P., Smith, P., Cerdà, A., et al. (2016). The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Soil, 2, 111–128.
Klein, R. J., Schipper, E. L. F., & Dessai, S. (2005). Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: Three research questions. Environmental Science and Policy, 8(6), 579–588.
Knickel, K., & Renting, H. (2000). Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of multifunctionality and rural development. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 512–528.
Knutti, R., Rogelj, J., Sedláček, J., & Fischer, E. M. (2016). A scientific critique of the two-degree climate change target. Nature Geoscience, 9(1), 13.
Kolosz, B. W., Athanasiadis, I. N., Cadisch, G., Dawson, T. P., Giupponi, C., Honzák, M., et al. (2018). Conceptual advancement of socio-ecological modelling of ecosystem services for re-evaluating Brownfield land. Ecosystem Services, 33, 29–39.
Kongsager, R., Locatelli, B., & Chazarin, F. (2016). Addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation together: A global assessment of agriculture and forestry projects. Environmental Management, 57(2), 271–282.
Kumar, P., Brondizio, E., Gatzweiler, F., Gowdy, J., de Groot, D., Pascual, U., et al. (2013). The economics of ecosystem services: From local analysis to national policies. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 78–86.
Langhammer, M., Thober, J., Lange, M., Frank, K., & Grimm, V. (2019). Agricultural landscape generators for simulation models: A review of existing solutions and an outline of future directions. Ecological Modelling, 393, 135–151.
Larigauderie, A., & Mooney, H. A. (2010). The Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1), 9–14.
Larigauderie, A., Prieur-Richard, A. H., Mace, G. M., Lonsdale, M., Mooney, H. A., Brussaard, L., et al. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services science for a sustainable planet: The DIVERSITAS vision for 2012–20. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(1), 101–105.
Le Clec’h, S., Sloan, S., Gond, V., Cornu, G., Decaens, T., Dufour, S., Grimaldi, M. Oszwald, J. (2018). Mapping ecosystem services at the regional scale: The validity of an upscaling approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 32(8), 1593–1610.
Lee, J. C., & Wen, Z. (2017). Rare earths from mines to metals: Comparing environmental impacts from China’s main production pathways. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(5), 1277–1290.
Lélé, S. M. (1991). Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development, 19(6), 607–621.
Lerner, A. M., & Eakin, H. (2011). An obsolete dichotomy? Rethinking the rural–urban interface in terms of food security and production in the global south. The Geographical Journal, 177(4), 311–320.
Liu, J. Q., Hull, V., Batistella, M., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Fu, F., Hertel, T. W., Izaurralde, C. R., Lambin, E. F., Li, S., Martinelli, L. A., McConnell, W. C., Moran, E. F., Naylor, R., Ouyang, Z., Polenske, K. R., Reenberg, A., De Miranda Rocha, G., Simmons, C. S., Verburg, P. H., Vitousek, P. M., Zhang, F., Zhu, C. (2013). Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world.
Liu, J., Hull, V., Moran, E., Nagendra, H., Swaffield, S. R., Turner, B. (2014). Applications of the telecoupling framework to land-change science. In Rethinking global land use in an urban era (pp. 119–140). MIT Press.
Liu, J., Hull, V., Godfray, H. C. J., Tilman, D., Gleick, P., Hoff, H., et al. (2018). Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 1(9), 466.
Long, H., & Qu, Y. (2018). Land use transitions and land management: A mutual feedback perspective. Land Use Policy, 74, 111–120.
Maes, J., Paracchini, M. L., Zulian, G., Dunbar, M. B., & Alkemade, R. (2012a). Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biological Conservation, 155, 1–12.
Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J. P., et al. (2012b). Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 31–39.
Malenovský, Z., Homolová, L., Lukeš, P., Buddenbaum, H., Verrelst, J., Alonso, L., Schaepman, M.E., Lauret, N., Gastellu-Etchegorry, J. P. (2019). Variability and uncertainty challenges in scaling imaging spectroscopy retrievals and validations from leaves up to vegetation canopies. Surveys in Geophysics, 40(3), 631–656.
Marcot, B. G., Penman, T. D. (2018). Advances in Bayesian network modelling: Integration of modelling technologies. Environmental Modelling and Software.
Mayer, P. (2000). Hot spot: Forest policy in Europe: achievements of the MCPFE and challenges ahead. Forest Policy and Economics, 1(2), 177–185.
McGinnis, M., Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2).
McKeon, N. (2018). ‘Getting to the root causes of migration’in West Africa–whose history, framing and agency counts? Globalizations, 15(6), 870–885.
MEA. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/. Accessed online July, 18, 2019.
Mebratu, D. (1998). Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18(6), 493–520.
Mickwitz, P., Aix, F., Beck, S., Carss, D., Ferrand, N., Görg, C., Jensen, A., Kivimaa, P., Kuhlicke, C., Kuindersma, W., Máñez, M., Melanen, M., Monni, S., Pedersen, A.B., Reinert, H., Van Bommel, S. (2009). Climate policy integration, coherence and governance (No. 2). Helsinki: PEER (PEER Report 2)—ISBN 9789521133794–92.
Müller, D., & Munroe, D. K. (2014). Current and future challenges in land-use science. Journal of Land Use Science, 9(2), 133–142.
Müller, F., & Burkhard, B. (2012). The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 26–30.
Mustafa, M. A., Mayes, S., Massawe, F. (2019). Crop diversification through a wider use of underutilised crops: A strategy to ensure food and nutrition security in the face of climate change. In Sustainable Solutions for Food Security (pp. 125–149). Springer, Cham.
Nhamo, L., Mabhaudhi, T., Mpandeli, S., Nhemachena, C., Senzanje, A., Naidoo, D., Liphadzi, S., Modi, A.T. (2019). Sustainability indicators and indices for the water-energy-food nexus for performance assessment: WEF nexus in practice–South Africa case study.
Niemeijer, D., & de Groot, R. S. (2008). A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecological Indicators, 8(1), 14–25.
Norton, B. A., Coutts, A. M., Livesley, S. J., Harris, R. J., Hunter, A. M., & Williams, N. S. (2015). Planning for cooler cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 127–138.
Oberlack, C., Boillat, S., Brönnimann, S., Gerber, J. D., Heinimann, A., Ifejika Speranza, C., Messerli, P., Rist, S., Wiesmann, U. M. (2018). Polycentric governance in telecoupled resource systems. Ecology and Society, 23(1).
O’Farrell, P. J., & Anderson, P. M. (2010). Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: a review to implementation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1), 59–65.
Olesen, J. E., & Bindi, M. (2002). Consequences of climate change for European agricultural productivity, land use and policy. European Journal of Agronomy, 16(4), 239–262.
Olsson, P., Folke, C., Hahn, T. (2004). Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 9(4).
Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104.
Partelow, S., Fujitani, M., Soundararajan, V., & Schlüter, A. (2019). Transforming the social-ecological systems framework into a knowledge exchange and deliberation tool for comanagement. Ecology and Society, 24(1), 15.
Pelling, M., Leck, H., Pasquini, L., Ajibade, I., Osuteye, E., Parnell, S., et al. (2018). Africa’s urban adaptation transition under a 1.5 climate. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 10–15.
Pereira, H. M., Navarro, L. M., Martins, I. S. (2012). Global biodiversity change: The bad, the good, and the unknown. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37.
Pérez-Soba, M., Petit, S., Jones, L., Bertrand, N., Briquel, V., Omodei-Zorini, L., et al. (2008). Land use functions—a multifunctionality approach to assess the impact of land use changes on land use sustainability. In K. Helming, M. Pérez-Soba, & P. Tabbush (Eds.), Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes (pp. 375–404). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Potschin, M. B., & Haines-Young, R. H. (2011). Ecosystem services Exploring a geographical perspective. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5), 575–594.
Radel, C., Jokisch, B. D., Schmook, B., Carte, L., Aguilar-Støen, M., Hermans, K., et al. (2019). Migration as a feature of land system transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 38, 103–110.
Raison, R. J., Brown, A. G., Flinn, D. W. (Eds.). (2001). Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management IUFRO Research Series 7, p. 469.
Reckien, D., Creutzig, F., Fernandez, B., Lwasa, S., Tovar-Restrepo, M., McEvoy, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (2017). Climate change, equity and the Sustainable Development Goals: An urban perspective. Environment and Urbanization, 29(1), 159–182.
Redclift, M., & Sage, C. (1998). Global environmental change and global inequality: North/South perspectives. International Sociology, 13(4), 499–516.
Renting, H., Rossing, W. A. H., Groot, J. C. J., Van der Ploeg, J. D., Laurent, C., Perraud, D., et al. (2009). Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework. Journal of environmental management, 90, S112–S123.
Reyers, B., Selomane, O. (2018). Social-ecological systems approaches: Revealing and navigating the complex trade-offs of sustainable development. In Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation (Open Access) (pp. 39–54). Routledge.
Ring, I., Hansjürgens, B., Elmqvist, T., Wittmer, H., & Sukhdev, P. (2010). Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: The TEEB initiative. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1–2), 15–26.
Rio Declaration. (1992). Rio declaration on environment and development. https://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/RIO_E.PDF. Accessed online July, 18, 2019.
Robinson, G. M. (2018). Globalization of agriculture. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 10, 133–160.
Romanelli, C., Cooper, D., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Maiero, M., Karesh, W.B., Hunter, D., Golden, C.D. (2015). Connecting global priorities: Biodiversity and human health: A state of knowledge review. WHO/CBD 344p. ISBN 978 92 4 150853 7. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/67397. Accessed online July, 22, 2019.
Rosa-Schleich, J., Loos, J., Mußhoff, O., & Tscharntke, T. (2019). Ecological-economic trade-offs of Diversified Farming Systems–A review. Ecological Economics, 160, 251–263.
Rounsevell, M. D., Pedroli, B., Erb, K. H., Gramberger, M., Busck, A. G., Haberl, H., et al. (2012). Challenges for land system science. Land Use Policy, 29(4), 899–910.
Schägner, J. P., Brander, L., Maes, J., & Hartje, V. (2013). Mapping ecosystem services’ values: Current practice and future prospects. Ecosystem Services, 4, 33–46.
Schaphoff, S., Reyer, C. P., Schepaschenko, D., Gerten, D., & Shvidenko, A. (2016). Tamm Review: Observed and projected climate change impacts on Russia’s forests and its carbon balance. Forest Ecology and Management, 361, 432–444.
Schlueter, M., McAllister, R. R. J., Arlinghaus, R., Bunnefeld, N., Eisenack, K., Hoelker, F., et al. (2012). New horizons for managing the environment: A review of coupled social-ecological systems modeling. Natural Resource Modeling, 25(1), 219–272.
Schmidt, A., Creason, W., & Law, B. E. (2018). Estimating regional effects of climate change and altered land use on biosphere carbon fluxes using distributed time delay neural networks with Bayesian regularized learning. Neural Networks, 108, 97–113.
Schmithüsen, F. (2007). Multifunctional forestry practices as a land use strategy to meet increasing private and public demands in modern societies. Journal of Forest Science, 53(6), 290–298.
Selman, P. (2009). Planning for landscape multifunctionality. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 5(2).
Shuman, J. K., Foster, A. C., Shugart, H. H., Hoffman-Hall, A., Krylov, A., Loboda, T., et al. (2017). Fire disturbance and climate change: implications for Russian forests. Environmental Research Letters, 12(3), 035003.
Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B. L., Lassaletta, L., et al. (2018). Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature, 562(7728), 519.
Sterk, B., Carberry, P., Leeuwis, C., Van Ittersum, M. K., Howden, M., Meinke, H., et al. (2009). The interface between land use systems research and policy: Multiple arrangements and leverages. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 434–442.
Stoy, P. C., Ahmed, S., Jarchow, M., Rashford, B., Swanson, D., Albeke, S., et al. (2018). Opportunities and trade-offs among BECCS and the food, water, energy, biodiversity, and social systems nexus at regional scales. BioScience, 68(2), 100–111.
Tacconi, L., & Bennett, J. (1995). Economic implications of intergenerational equity for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Economics, 12(3), 209–223.
Termorshuizen, J. W., & Opdam, P. (2009). Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology, 24(8), 1037–1052.
Termorshuizen, J. W., Opdam, P., & Van den Brink, A. (2007). Incorporating ecological sustainability into landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(3), 374–384.
Tett, P., Sandberg, A., Mette, A., Bailly, D., Estrada, M., Hopkins, T. S., Ribeira d'Alcala, M., McFadden, L. (2013). Global Challenges in Integrated Coastal Zone Management. In Mokness, E., Dahl, E. Støttrup, J. (eds.), Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 229–243.
UN SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals). (2015). Sustainable Development Goals, Knowledge Platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300. Accessed online July, 22, 2019.
UN World Populations Prospects. (2019). UN DESA Population Division. https://population.un.org/wpp/. Accessed online, August, 25, 2019.
van de Ven, D. J., González-Eguino, M., & Arto, I. (2018). The potential of behavioural change for climate change mitigation: A case study for the European Union. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 23(6), 853–886.
van den Bergh, J. C. (2017). Rebound policy in the Paris Agreement: instrument comparison and climate-club revenue offsets. Climate Policy, 17(6), 801–813.
Vasseur, L., Horning, D., Thornbush, M., Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Barrow, E., et al. (2017). Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: Bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN sustainable development goals. Ambio, 46(7), 731–742.
Venghaus, S., & Hake, J. F. (2018). Nexus thinking in current EU policies–The interdependencies among food, energy and water resources. Environmental Science & Policy, 90, 183–192.
Verburg, P. H., Erb, K. H., Mertz, O., Espindola, G. (2013). Land system science: Between global challenges and local realities.
Verburg, P. H., Crossman, N., Ellis, E. C., Heinimann, A., Hostert, P., Mertz, O., et al. (2015). Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: A global land project perspective. Anthropocene, 12, 29–41.
Vihervaara, P., Kumpula, T., Tanskanen, A., Burkhard, B. (2010). Ecosystem services–A tool for sustainable management of human–environment systems. Case study Finnish Forest Lapland. Ecological complexity, 7(3), 410–420.
von Carlowitz, H.C. (1713). Sylvicultura oeconomica, oder haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung zur wilden Baum-Zucht. Bibliothecia Regia Monacencis, Leipzig.
von Haaren, C. (2002). Landscape planning facing the challenge of the development of cultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2), 73–80.
von Haaren, C., Lovett, A. A., Albert, C. (2019). Landscape Planning and Ecosystem Services: The Sum is More than the Parts. In Landscape Planning with Ecosystem Services (pp. 3–9). Springer, Dordrecht.
Wahlström, M., Sommer, M., Kocyba, P., de Vydt, M., De Moor (2019, Eds.). Protest for a future: Composition, mobilization and motives of the participants in Fridays for future climate protests on March 15, 2019 in 13 European cities. https://eprints.keele.ac.uk/6536/1/Protest%20for%20a%20future_GCS%2015.03.19%20Descriptive%20Report-2.pdf. Accessed online August, 20, 2019.
Weith, T., Warner, B., & Susman, R. (2019). Implementation of international land use objectives-discussions in Germany. Planning Practice and Research, 34(4), 454–474.
Westman, W. (1977). How much are nature’s services worth? Science, 80(197), 960–964.
Wiersum, K. F. (1995). 200 years of sustainability in forestry: Lessons from history. Environmental management, 19(3), 321–329.
Wu, J. (2013). Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 999–1023.
Zhu, J. (2004). From land use right to land development right: institutional change in China’s urban development. Urban Studies, 41(7), 1249–1267.
Zinck, J. A., & Farshad, A. (1995). Issues of sustainability and sustainable land management. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 75(4), 407–412.
Zscheischler, J., & Rogga, S. (2015). Transdisciplinarity in land use science–a review of concepts, empirical findings and current practices. Futures, 65, 28–44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fürst, C. (2021). Upcoming Challenges in Land Use Science—An International Perspective. In: Weith, T., Barkmann, T., Gaasch, N., Rogga, S., Strauß, C., Zscheischler, J. (eds) Sustainable Land Management in a European Context. Human-Environment Interactions, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50841-8_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50841-8_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-50840-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-50841-8
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)