- Email: [email protected]
Does information on landscape benefits influence collective action in landscape governance?
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Does information on landscape benefits influence collective action in landscape governance? Paul Opdam1,2, Ingrid Coninx3, Art Dewulf4, Eveliene Steingro¨ver2, Claire Vos2 and Merel van der Wal5 There is general understanding that collaboration is a key element in the governance for a sustainable environment. In this context knowledge utilization has become a popular research topic. However, the role of information content in enhancing collaboration has been rarely addressed. We consider two types of information on mutual dependencies between actors that result from ecological interdependencies in the landscape: information on landscape sites providing multiple benefits to a range of stakeholders, and information on how these benefits depend on coordinated landscape–level management. Our survey of recent literature indicates that although there is a sound theoretical basis for the assumption that such information would enhance collaboration, the issue has been the subject of little empirical research thus far. We found some supporting studies demonstrating social network building and collective action, but none of them separated the effect of the information content from the effect of the organized social learning process. To increase understanding of the potential for informational governance of landscapes resources, we argue there is a need to integrate recent advances in the analysis of social network building in environmental management with emerging insights in knowledge utilization and spatial interdependencies of landscape benefits. Addresses 1 Wageningen University, Spatial Planning Group, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands 2 Alterra Wageningen UR, Team Nature and Society, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands 3 Alterra Wageningen, Team Regional Development and Sustainable Land Use, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands 4 Wageningen University, Public Administration and Policy Group, Hollandseweg 1, 6706KN Wageningen, The Netherlands 5 Open University of The Netherlands, Faculty of Management, Science and Technology, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT Heerlen, The Netherlands Corresponding author: Opdam, Paul ([email protected]) Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114 This review comes from a themed issue Sustainability governance and transformation 2016: Informational governance and environmental sustainability Edited by Katrine Soma, Bertrum MacDonald, Paul Opdam and Catrien Termeer For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Received 23 March 2015; Revised 9 December 2015; Accepted 11 December 2015 Available online 22nd January 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.12.006 1877-3435/# 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
www.sciencedirect.com
Introduction The local landscape can be seen as the living environment of human communities [1,2]. Humans adapt the landscape to improve conditions for producing food, earning more money by selling products, to strengthen an area’s cultural identity or improve the landscape for any other of the many benefits it may deliver. Such values related to the pattern and functioning of the landscape are called landscape services [3]. Interventions in landscapes to enhance sustainable services, involves reconciling individual and collective demands for landscape benefits, while ensuring the provisioning of services to future generations. While this issue has long been regarded as the responsibility of the state or regional government, more recently collaborative approaches to landscape adaptation involving landowners and citizens, have been advocated. Arguments in favour of collaborative planning include that landscape planning becomes more democratic, combining knowledge from different actors is better to develop solutions to cope with complexity and the outcome is more sustainable [4,5]. For example, higher levels of engagement in conservation projects was associated with more learning [6]. In this paper, we define organized landscape change based on the engagement of local communities as collaborative landscape governance [7,8], including both co-governance (communities co-operating with governments) and self-governance modes [9,10,11]. In this context, we question how information about landscape services can enable, support and trigger local actor groups to build collaboration and collective action with the aim to ensure sustainable utilization of what the landscape system has to offer (Figure 1). The need for collaboration follows from the spatial scale and nature of landscape processes. Services often emerge from the aggregated or combined features of individual plots [12,13]. For example, biological pest control in agricultural crops is provided by networks of semi-natural landscape elements (also called green infrastructure) that entail public land, farms and other private properties [14], implying that various actors have to align individual with collective decisions to ensure that landscape services are effective and reliable. The scientific literature suggests various ways to organize structural connections between actors, for example by scalecrossing brokers [15] and participatory planning approaches [16]. Learning processes in social networks have been put central in such research work [17] with an important role for cognitive processes [18]. However, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
108 Sustainability governance and transformation 2016: Informational governance and environmental sustainability
Figure 1
Informaon about landscape services
Collaboraon
Landscape network
Social network
processes
processes Collecve acon
Intervenons Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
The social–ecological network illustrates how information about landscape services might lead to interventions in the landscape network processes.
little attention has been paid to how information content influences connections between actors. Therefore we address how information on landscape services influences collaboration in landscape governance. Following Prager [19] we mean by collaboration that actors in land management actively meet, work and talk together, to separate it from coordination (working on the same objective individually). The specific form of collaboration in which people make decisions together about landscape change and organize cooperative interventions in the landscape will be called collective action. By this focus we take the diversity of world views and social-economic interests among actors as a given, and focus on the role of information in facilitating collaboration within a group of actors. Note that our review will not cover the role of disagreement or conflicts. To fit within the constraints of this review, we further specify our search to cases in which scientists provide landscape information to a group of actors. We start from the assumption that this information is contextualized and shared by the actors to become knowledge. There is extensive literature discussing under what conditions and with what process tools information can become incorporated into social learning [20,21,22]. Our focus is the information content.
The impact of information on participatory processes Collaboration has been defined as ‘a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible’ [23]. In this paper we see collaboration as Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
a governance process in a social network characterized by multilateral flows of information, deliberation and shared responsibility for decision making and implementation [9]. Collaboration in the process of landscape planning may result in a sequence of group learning impacts such as increased awareness of common interests, understanding possible advantages of collaboration between actors, and creating a common vision on how to maximize common values. These learning effects are captured by the term ‘social learning’ [24]. If successful, the process of collaboration leads to collective action, in this case referring to mutually agreed upon interventions in the landscape. Collaboration becomes a relevant strategy when different actors depend on each other for reaching their own goals. Without this interdependency there is no urge to collaborate. For such interdependencies to lead to collaboration, the need to collaborate must be recognized and accepted by the actors and the actors must perceive there are common interests and opportunities to address a shared problem. Finding this common ground of shared interests is a key task in the initial phases of collaboration. Ostrom [25] and Ansell and Gash [9] found that face to face communication is essential to achieve increased levels of collaboration. At the same time, each actor will at some point ask the question: what’s in it for me? Based on expectations about the extent to which individual interests will be advanced through collaboration, actors will commit more or less strongly to the collaboration [25]. In this process, providing information about landscape structure, landscape services and their benefits is a potentially powerful way to highlight interdependencies in the ecological system and the resulting potential for collaboration between actors in the social network. The efficiency or intensity of collaboration is also influenced by group size, the heterogeneity of participants, and by trust building [9,25]. Many process and structural factors will affect to what extent a collaborative process leads to collective implementation [9,26]. One of the key elements is the identification of a mutually acceptable plan that has a good chance of delivering the expected results [18]. Here, information on how services can be managed through interventions at a landscape level is likely a crucial ingredient. Interdependencies between actors in the social network with respect to landscape benefits are to a great extent due to interdependencies in the ecological system. For theory on landscape benefits we build on literature on ecosystem services [27], but we use the term landscape services instead. This term fits better with collaborative landscape planning because it emphasizes the spatial interconnectedness of humans and their living environment [3,28]. Two types of information on landscape services will be distinguished: information about the www.sciencedirect.com
Information in collaborative landscape management Opdam et al. 109
multitude of benefits provided by a piece of landscape, and secondly the dependency of benefits on landscape level ecological processes.
Information on multiple benefits The first type of information entails not only the provision of a wide variety of services, but also that a single landscape element delivers a multitude of services and benefits. A single landscape service can be associated with several benefits at once, which implies that multiple actors may recognize that managing the landscape is a joint interest [29]. For instance, pollination provides monetary value to farmers, pollinators produce honey of monetary value to bee keepers, whereas local citizens enjoy the social value of a variety of species in their garden. Moreover, a single landscape element, for example a hedgerow, may produce a range of services, for example pollination, landscape identity and wood for energy production. Such multiple values and services are particularly relevant against the background of the variety of preferences for landscape services that exist among actors. Preferences for ecosystem services have been found to depend on the level of education, gender, age, place of residence (urban vs. rural) and environmental behaviour [30]. Moreover, whether or not a service is valued by a particular actor will depend on the relationship of the actor to the landscape: whether the actor is a local inhabitant, a visitor from the nearby city, a local farmer or someone representing a food industry. For example, increasing the amount of naturally occurring dead wood in streams increases the economic value by an order of magnitude of 10–100 [31]. This improvement is
beneficial to nature conservationists, fishers, water quality managers and farmers. Thus, improving the stream-valley conditions may be recognized as a common benefit from widely different points of view. As such it may lead to actors discovering shared interests in the benefits a landscape has to offer. Therefore, the critical type of information is about the services a particular landscape area can deliver, the potential benefits to a variety of actors, and the places in the landscape where these services are (simultaneously) provided (Figure 2).
Information on landscape level provisioning When a group of actors wishes to increase benefits from preferred services, coordinated interventions at the landscape level are required. This is because many landscape services depend on landscape-wide spatial structures. One reason for this landscape scale dependency is because service effectiveness and reliability depend on species diversity [32,33], whereas species diversity depends on the size and spatial configuration of ecosystems in the landscape [34]. Therefore, the value of landscape services that depend on species diversity increases with landscape level management. Using model simulations Cong et al. [35] showed that if crop yields are dependent on landscape services, landscape-scale management is always more profitable to all farmers than farm-scale management. The implication is that it is in the interests of individual property holders to coordinate their interventions in the landscape according to a shared goal. Another reason for collective action is that some services may spatially co-occur while other services involve trade-offs [36]. While forests provide timber and air purification, forests contribute much less to
Figure 2
Informaon on mulple benefits
Parcipatory process
Knowledge processing
Recognion of shared interests Individual interests
Collaboraon
collecve acon
Informaon on landscape level provisioning
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Assumed impact of information. Two types of information are provided to a group of actors involved in a participatory process. If this information leads to a recognition of overlapping individual and shared interests, this may lead to collaboration in the planning group. Note that shared interests may apply to services of a wider public interest. Collaboration may lead to collective interventions in the landscape. www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
110 Sustainability governance and transformation 2016: Informational governance and environmental sustainability
the purification of surface water. In contrast a marsh is well equipped for purifying water but produces little wood. Understanding such synergetic and trade-off relations form the basis for negotiations about prioritizing services and locations. Thus, information about whether multiple services can be delivered by the same parts of the landscape may give rise to collaboration in the design phase of the landscape change process, but may also result in disagreement about which services to prefer. Based on the two types of information, we address the following issues: - How does information on the multiple benefits of landscape services lead to collaboration and subsequently enhance collective action? - How does information on the need to manage landscape services at the landscape scale lead to collaboration and collective interventions in the ecological network?
In reviewing literature that contributes to a greater understanding of these issues, we primarily searched for literature in which either ecosystem services or landscape services are used as a goal to improve the landscape. We also considered literature in which the service concept is not explicit but there was utilization of the natural potential of the landscape to provide common benefits as a motive for landscape change.
Does informing about multiple benefits enhance collaboration? Little is documented about whether multiple service provisioning by green infrastructure affects collaboration. Several studies in green infrastructure planning report consensus building in relation to the use of social media and a contingent valuation survey, but the role of information is not made explicit [37,38]. Steingrover et al. [14] found that by supplying information about the multiple services (natural pest regulation in crops, water purification, landscape identity and habitat for biodiversity) that were provided by the network of semi-natural elements in a farm landscape, the group of collaborating farmers could be enlarged with representatives of the water management board and a citizen group aiming for biodiversity and landscape conservation. These groups developed a shared vision on the management of green infrastructure and used this vision to contribute to implementation. More evidence suggesting that multiple services foster collaboration comes from an analysis by Rathwell and Peterson [39] showing that municipalities more often collaborated in making water management plans for protected areas and performing experiments in managing water quality if they were not only focussed on water management, but also had an interest in the recreation services of the landscape. In an urban landscape in Arnhem (NL) a network of green infrastructure provided Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
microclimate regulation and aesthetic appreciation (social values) as well as health regulation (monetary value to insurance companies); it also increased real estate prices (monetary value to real estate developers and owners). A process of raising awareness of these values resulted in shared plan making [40]. From an analysis of four local case studies in which the ecosystem approach was applied, Haines-Young and Potschin [22] highlighted the use of geographical information systems to identify zones with a favourable cost/benefit estimate for adapting the landscape, so-called ‘Zones of potential agreement’. This information was used to structure discussions among stakeholders, resulting in outcomes involving a bargaining process, shared understandings and a common vision for a catchment area.
Does informing about the need of landscape scale management enhance collaboration? The notion that ecological assets of landscapes have to be managed over a landscape-wide area is widely accepted. The concept of ecological networks, the spatial structure of ecosystems at the landscape level, is recognized in government policy instruments, such as the Green Infrastructure policy of the EU. For instance, Prager et al. [41] proposed to enhance landscape level collaboration among farmers by incorporating a spatially explicit incentive in agri-environmental payments. However, spatial information about the relation between landscape/ecosystem services and landscape structure usually do not link this with values and needs of local users [42]. Recent attempts to map the supply and demand of ecosystem services do not specify actors [43], nor were such maps used in participatory planning [44]. Mapping can become part of a social learning process about interdependencies in the landscape when local knowledge is integrated with scientific knowledge in a participatory mapping method [45]. Garcı´a-Nieto et al. [46] showed that when mapping ecosystem services independently the maps express differences in information, mental maps and values among stakeholders. This shows the importance of mapping as a common activity, including knowledge sharing and negotiations. In collaborative mapping, actors decide which sites in the area are crucial for providing preferred landscape services, a process which could intensify bonds between actors and create a common ground for coordinated action. Pouwels et al. [47] reported on a mediating role of mapping the zones of conflict between habitat for protected species and recreational activities in the New Forest, UK. A participatory process, including the integration of local knowledge in the GIS-models, resulted in consensus about the problem and in commonly agreed solutions to remove a parking lot. Steingro¨ver et al. [14] used a set of spatially explicit design rules to facilitate a self-governance process in an arable farming landscape in the Netherlands, where farmer groups strived to rely more www.sciencedirect.com
Information in collaborative landscape management Opdam et al. 111
on natural crop protection and applying less chemicals. The design method entailed the message that a reliable pest regulation service required amounts of green infrastructure exceeding the scale level of single farms by far. The collective mapping of preferred improvements of the green infrastructure likely contributed to the observed increased cohesion in the group of farmers. The making of a collective management plan for the green infrastructure also involved the water board and the landscape conservation group. The study did not aim for identifying the impact of information on emerging new relationships between actors and various forms of collective behaviour; however, it is likely that part of the collaboration was enabled by working together in three participatory workshops rather than by the information alone. Spatial dependencies may also cause competitive relationships within a landscape area, for example if there is a shortage of resources. Magombeyi et al. [48] used a river basin game to share knowledge on the spatial interdependence of different water users in the Olifants river basin in South Africa. By demonstrating the relationship between the functioning of the catchment and the user value, the tool facilitated negotiations between upstream and downstream water users. This resulted in a shared understanding about which areas and families were affected and led to collective water management by elected committees. Pivotal to assessing whether information influences collaboration is that feedbacks of actors on how knowledge changed their thinking or acting is collected, which was done in two studies. In East Anglia, Southern et al. [49] found that detailed land use maps of a catchment area with the implications of landscape services taken into account, in conjunction with stakeholder engagement, raised a willingness to work together at a landscape scale. Over half of the participants stated that they became ‘more prepared to work towards a designed whole landscape’. However, it was not known whether this willingness was transformed into collective action. In Northern Vietnam, Castella [50] applied a set of methods (including geo-visualization tools and role-playing games) to illustrate landscape–level interactions between individual farmers. Here, foreign and local researchers and local communities worked together. Although the concept of landscape services was not used, the case is instructive because a computer-based role playing game was developed based on the collective process of knowledge generation. This game informed the farmers on how farmbased decisions were reflected at the landscape scale. In interviews, the participants confirmed that they learned much about how their individual management decisions impacted the common landscape, as well as how their neighbours made decisions. ‘Their motivation reached a peak when they realised how they could benefit, collectively and individually’ ([50]:1318). A key insight for them www.sciencedirect.com
was how individual behaviour and collective management were connected. While the study reported collective knowledge generation and understanding, no evidence for collective action was provided. The project Future cities (http://www.future-cities.eu/) illustrates how landscape level information was incorporated in community planning to reduce the city heat island effects exacerbated by global warming [40]. Regional models illustrated how temperatures in the inner city could be reduced by enhancing green infrastructure and making use of cool air flows from the surrounding forest landscape. The actors decided to reduce the urban temperatures by stimulating urban green and urban water and to do so in places where they could take advantage of the geomorphological setting of the city. The green infrastructure concept stimulated a transformation into considering spatially explicit measures in priority areas, thus linking the common landscape level goal (the cooling effect) to local actions. The project also illustrates that multiple landscape services provided by the green infrastructure fostered an extension of the social network, for example, by the addition of real estate developers. These examples not only show the impact of information but also illustrate a variety of ways in which information about the dependency of landscape benefits on landscape level processes was communicated, including maps, visualization tools, green infrastructure design rules, landscape concepts and computer games. In all examples the information was transferred as part of a collaborative process, organized by scientists. This implies that any increased collaboration or collective action found in these cases may be attributed to the participatory approach as well as to the information provided by the scientists.
Perspectives The need for landscape level collaboration in environmental management has been discussed in relation to the need for government coordination (e.g. [51]) or in relation to new policy instruments that reward spatial clustering of measures [52]. Complementarily, we addressed the role of scientific information in fostering collaboration in local level landscape planning. We focussed on information to show that obtaining benefits from the landscape is most effective if there is collaboration and coordinated action. Our survey of recent literature indicated that although there is a sound theoretical basis for the assumption that such information would enhance collaboration, the issue has not been the subject of much scientific research thus far. However, we did find some studies suggesting that perceived interdependence through landscape level connections fostered social network building and collective action. This corroborates the conclusion of Ansell and Gash [9] that interdependence fosters a desire to participate and a commitment to meaningful collaboration. However, there are several reasons to nuance this conclusion. First, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
112 Sustainability governance and transformation 2016: Informational governance and environmental sustainability
the participatory processes in which the information was brought in created social interdependencies that may have facilitated the commitment to collaboration independent of the information content. Secondly, the reported collaboration was rather a by-product of the case studies than an answer to explicit research questions achieved by a transparent method. These studies were not designed to identify indicators of collaborative behaviour and measure them systematically. Thirdly, as it is known from literature that information given in the context of participatory activities also may lead to contestation of information and knowledge conflicts, empirical studies also need to record signs of disagreement and conflict. If information that is provided to actors is understood by some of them to be biased towards interests and priorities of certain other actors, the information itself may become the bone of contention [53]. When the information is presented from an expert perspective that is far removed from how (some of the) the actors understand the situation, the information may remain meaningless [54]. Clearly, the evidence presented here showing that information about the interdependence of individual and common interests in landscape management leads to collaboration needs systematic and critical empirical studies. It is beyond our scope to investigate why there is so little attention on the topic of collaboration among stakeholders in the rapidly growing literature on ecosystem services, notably a concept that explicitly is aimed at stimulating sustainability focused behaviour. One obvious reason is that the ecosystem services field is dominated by an economic view rather than a social view [54]. It seems plausible that the emphasis on monetary values and competitive relationships hampers an information view on the potential for collaboration. For example, Engel and Schaefer [55] argued that if several actors benefit from water-related ecosystem services, this introduces incentives for free riding, but they do not mention possible effects on collaborative relationships. Collaboration is a well-studied topic in social sciences, but with little contribution to ecosystem services research thus far. The significance of landscape information to enhance collaboration is that, in addition to a planning process that maximizes social learning, building collaborative relationships result in strengthened social networks, which accommodate knowledge diffusion and deliberation [56,57]. Such a feed-back mechanism may improve the capacity for collective management and social learning in a socialecological system. Bodin and Crona [58], who discussed the relevancy of the structure of social networks to resource governance, distinguished bonding ties within cohesive groups of network actors and bridging ties between such groups. They suggested that these ties differently influence information flows and conditions for efficient collaboration. From the examples discussed here one may hypothesize that because ecosystem services unite actors Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
with different backgrounds, they could be especially effective in building bridges. In light of the decentralization of environmental policy, the role of information in social network dynamics is therefore important and requires more attention than it has received thus far. Information only turns into action if these informational properties are positively received by the actors [58]. In the examples we presented, the provisioning of information was always part of a collaborative planning process. This suggests that information only leads to collaboration in cases where joint reflection leads to an increased mutual understanding of problems, opportunities and possible solutions. Another essential prerequisite for information to have an impact is that it is perceived as credible, salient and legitimate by the actors [19]. Therefore, information about landscape services should not only be technical and rational but instead flexible enough to be interpreted within the local context of the landscape area and stakeholder networks. This aspect received little attention thus far [59]. Although there is general understanding that collaboration is a key element in the governance for a sustainable environment, collaboration in local landscapes has not been a subject of scientific analysis. Ecosystem services literature is largely focussed on landscape ecological assessment and economic valuation, and is still missing the connection to social processes in local landscape planning [60,61]. The inclusion of local stakeholders and their knowledge in decision making is broadly advocated, leading to many publications that reveal conditions for knowledge utilization [62,63], but lacking insight into the behavioural consequences of the information content. Social networks in environmental management are analysed in relation to social learning and collaborative processes [57,64]. We advocate that these fields of research are connected. As a hypothesis we suggest that if local communities, as part of a common learning process, are informed about the multiple benefits they could gain by a collaborative management of landscapes for ecosystems, this will result in increased collaboration and collective action.
Acknowledgements This paper was written as part of the ‘Informational Governance’ Research Program of Wageningen University and Research Center (Wageningen UR), to contribute to solutions for the most pressing global environmental problems. The program is co-financed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest 1.
Nassauer JI: Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 2012, 106: 221-229. www.sciencedirect.com
Information in collaborative landscape management Opdam et al. 113
2.
Pinto-Correia T, Kristensen L: Linking research and practice: the landscape as the basis for integrating social and ecological perspectives of the rural. Landsc Urban Plan 2013, 120:248-256.
19. Prager K: Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2015, 12: 59-66.
3.
Termorshuizen J, Opdam P: Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc Ecol 2009, 24:1037-1052.
20. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F et al.: Knowledge systems for sustainable environment. PNAS 2003, 100:8086-8091.
4.
Penker M: Landscape governance for or by the local population? A property rights analysis in Austria. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:947-953.
5.
Persha L, Agrawal A, Chhatre A: Social and Ecological Synergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 2012, 331:1606-1608.
Evely AC, Pinard M, Reed MS, Fazey I: High levels of participation in conservation projects enhance learning. Conserv Lett 2011, 4:116-126. Analysis of 8 conservation projects differing in the level of participation, providing strong empirical evidence that participatory approaches enhance learning and result in more collaboration.
6.
7.
Go¨rg C: Landscape governance: the ‘‘politics of scale’’ and the natural conditions of places. Geoforum 2007, 38:954-966.
8.
Beunen R, Opdam P: When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landsc Urban Plan 2011, 100:324-326.
9. Ansell C, Gash A: Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Admin Res Theory 2008, 18:543-571. Thorough and comprehensive review of 137 cases of collaborative governance, providing a clear picture of what it is, what are the advantages and the problems encountered. With an analytical framework that can be used to evaluate conditions for collaborative governance in practice. However, the role of information in the system that is governed is not made explicit. 10. Berkes F: Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage 2009, 90:1692-1702. 11. Ostrom E: A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social–ecological systems. Science 2009, 325:419-422. 12. Opdam P: Incorporating multiple ecological scales into the governance of landscape services. In Scale-Sensitive Governance of the Environment. Edited by Padt F, Opdam P, Polman N, Termeer C. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2014:17-37. 13. LeFebvre M, Espinosa M, Gomez y Paloma S, Paracchini ML, Piorr A, Zasada I: Agricultural landscapes as multiscale public good and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy. J Environ Plan Manag 2015, 58:2088-2112. 14. Steingro¨ver EG, Geertsema W, Van Wingerden WKRE: Designing agricultural landscapes for natural pest control: a transdisciplinary approach in the Hoeksche Waard (The Netherlands). Landsc Ecol 2010, 25:825-838. One of the few case studies suggesting a role of information about landscape services on social network relations. Information about multiple services provided by the network of semi-natural landscape elements stimulated collaborative relations between actors in the planning process. A design tool for improving this network to provide natural pest control in crops enhanced collective action among farmers and other land owners. 15. Ernstson H, Barthel S, Andersson E, Bergstro¨m ST: Scalecrossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: the case of Stockholm. Ecol Society 2010, 15:28 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/ art28/. 16. Shandas V, Messer WB: Fostering green communities through civic engagement: community based environmental stewardship in the Portland area. J Am Plan Assoc 2008, 74:408-418.
21. Jordan A, Russel D: Embedding the concept of ecosystem services? The utilization of ecological knowledge in different policy venues. Environ Plan C: Govern Policy 2014, 32:192-207. 22. Haines-Young R, Potschin M: The ecosystem approach as a framework for understanding knowledge utilisation. Environ Plan C: Govern Policy 2014, 32:301-319. Four cases in which the ecosystem approach, based on ecosystem services, was applied are analysed for their impact on utilising ecosystem knowledge, conflict management, maintaining ecosystem function and recognising the environment as an asset. The emphasis though is on knowledge utilization, not on behavioural change. As for valuation of ecosystem services, a limitation to economic value was reported as counterproductive. 23. Gray B: Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multi-party Problems. Jossey-Bass; 1989. 24. Collins K, Ison R: Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environ Policy Govern 2009, 19:358-373 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/eet.523. 25. Ostrom E: A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. Am Political Sci Rev 1998, 92:1-22. 26. Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Stone MM: The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature. Public Admin Rev 2006, 66:44-55. 27. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA): Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press; 2005. 28. Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe R-U, Walz U, Wende W: Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance. Landsc Ecol 2014, 29:1463-1479. 29. Fu¨rst C, Opdam P, Inostroza L, Luque S: Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balanced score card. Special Issue: integrating Ecosystem Services in Land Use Planning and DecisionMaking Practice. Landsc Ecol 2014, 29:1435-1446. 30. Martı´n-Lo´pez B, Iniesta-Arandia I, Garcı´a-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I et al.: Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:338970. 31. Acunˇa V, Ramon Dı´ez J, Flores L, Meleason M, Elosegi A: Does it make economic sense to restore rivers for their ecosystem services? J Appl Ecol 2013, 50:988-997. 32. Brittain C, Kremen C, Klein AM: Biodiversity buffers pollination from changes in environmental conditions. Global Change Biol 2013, 19:540-547. 33. Wagg C, Bender SF, Widmer F, van der Heijden MGA: Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. PNAS 2014, 111:5266-5270. 34. Klein AM, Brittain C, Hendrix SD, Thorp R, Williams N, Kremen C: Wild pollination services to California almond rely on seminatural habitat. J Appl Ecol 2012, 49:723-732. 35. Cong R-G, Smith HG, Olsson O, Brady M: Managing ecosystem services for agriculture: will landscape-scale management pay? Ecol Econ 2014, 99:53-62. 36. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ: Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 2009, 12:1394-1404.
17. Pahl-Wostl C, Hare M: Processes of social learning in integrated resources management. J Commu Appl Soc Psychol 2004, 14:193-206.
37. Mell IC, Henneberry J, Hehl-Lange S, Keskin B: Promoting urban greening: valuing the development of green infrastructure investments in the urban core of Manchester, UK. Urban Forest Urban Green 2013, 12:296-306.
18. Pennington DD: Cross-disciplinary collaboration and learning. Ecol Soc 2008, 13:8 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/ iss2/art8/.
38. Afzalan N, Muller B: The role of social media in green infrastructure planning: a case study of neighbourhood participation in park siting. J Urban Technol 2014, 21:67-83.
www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
114 Sustainability governance and transformation 2016: Informational governance and environmental sustainability
39. Rathwell KJ, Peterson GD: Connecting social networks with ecosystem services for watershed governance: a socialecological network perspective highlights the critical role of bridging organizations. Ecol Soc 2012, 17:24 http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss2/art24/. Interesting analysis of the collaboration among municipalities in a stream catchment area, showing that collaboration in water management is most frequent among those municipalities which also consider recreation as a landscape benefit. 40. Opdam P, Westerink J, Vos C, De Vries B: The role and evolution of boundary concepts in transdisciplinary landscape planning. Plann Theory Practice 2015, 16:63-78.
52. Banerjee S, Kwasnica AM, Shortle JS: Agglomeration bonus in small and large local networks: a laboratory examination of spatial coordination. Ecol Econ 2012, 84:142-152. 53. Koppenjan JFM, Klijn E-H: Managing Uncertainties in Networks. A Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making. Routledge; 2004. 54. Dewulf A, Mancero M, Cardenas G, Sucozhanay D: Fragmentation and connection of frames in collaborative water governance: a case study of river catchment management in Southern Ecuador. Int Rev Admin Sci 2011, 77:50-75.
41. Prager K, Reed M, Scott A: Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale — rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:244-249.
55. Cowell R, Lennon M: The utilisation of environmental knowledge in land use planning: drawing lessons for an ecosystem services approach. Environ Plan C 2014, 32:263-282.
42. Menzel S, Teng J: Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conserv Biol 2010, 24:907-909.
56. Engel S, Schaefer M: Ecosystem services — a useful concept for addressing water challenges? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2013, 5:696-707.
43. Nedkov S, Burkhard B: Flood regulating ecosystem services — mapping supply, and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecol Ind 2011, 21:67-79. 44. Brown G, de Bie K, Weber D: Identifying public land stakeholder perspectives for implementing place-based land management. Landsc Urban Plan 2015, 139:1-15. 45. Fagerholm N, Ka¨yhko¨ N, Ddumbaro F, Khamis M: Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments-mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol Ind 2012, 18:421-433. 46. Garcı´a-Nieto AP, Quintas-Soriano C, Garcı´a-Llorente M, Palomo I, Montes C, Martı´n-Lo´pez B: Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: the role of stakeholders’ profiles. Ecosys Services 2015, 13:141-152. 47. Pouwels R, Opdam P, Jochem R: Reconsidering the effectiveness of scientific tools for negotiating local solutions to conflicts between recreation and conservation with stakeholders. Ecol Soc 2011, 16:17 http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss4/art17/. 48. Magombeyi MS, Rollin D, Lankford B: The river basin game as a tool for collective water management at community level in South Africa. Phys Chem Earth 2008, 33:873-880. 49. Southern A, Lovett A, O’Riordan T, Watkinson A: Sustainable landscape governance: lessons from a catchment based study in whole landscape design. Landsc Urban Plan 2011, 101:179-189. 50. Castella JC: Assessing the role of learning devices and geovisualisation tools for collective action in natural resource management: experiences from Vietnam. J Environ Manage 2009, 90:1313-1319. A rare example of a field study in which not only environmental information is iteratively transferred into a local planning community by using geographical information models and games, but also attempts were made to assess the impact of information processing on collaboration within the stakeholder group. 51. Pahl-Wostl C, Palmer M, Richards K: Enhancing water security for the benefits of humans and nature — the role of governance. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2013, 5:676-684.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
57. Newig J, Gu¨nther D, Pahl-Wostl C: Synapses in the network: learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecol Soc 2010, 15:24 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art24/. 58. Bodin O¨, Crona BI: The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Global Environ Change 2009, 19:366-374. One of the first papers to introduce social network analysis into natural resource governance, highlighting how the structural characteristics of social networks relate to collective action in different stages of the governance process. The authors offer an explanation for the importance of actor engagement in landscape planning: ‘...for a social network to provide more than just information transfer, and for them to be sustained over time, the relational ties must be voluntary’. 59. Bolderdijk JW, Gorsira M, Keizer K, Steg L: Values determine the (in)effectiveness of informational interventions in promoting pro-environmental behavior. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e83911. 60. Opdam P: Using ecosystem services in community based planning: science is not ready to deliver. In Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture. Edited by Fu je, Bruce Jones KnsK. Springer; 2013:77-101. 61. Dinnie E, Brown KM, Morris S: Community, cooperation and conflict: negotiating the social well-being benefits of urban greenspace experiences. Landsc Urban Plan 2013, 112:1-9. 62. McKenzie E, Posner S, Tillmann P, Bernhardt JR, Howard K, Rosenthal A: Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons from environmental experiences of spatial planning. Environ Plan C Govern Policy 2014, 32:320-340. 63. Raymond MC, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC: Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manage 2010, 91:17661777. 64. Lauber TB, Decker DJ, Knuth BA: Social networks and community-based natural resource management. Environ Manage 2008, 42:677-687.
www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Does information on landscape benefits influence collective action in landscape governance? Paul Opdam1,2, Ingrid Coninx3, Art Dewulf4, Eveliene Steingro¨ver2, Claire Vos2 and Merel van der Wal5 There is general understanding that collaboration is a key element in the governance for a sustainable environment. In this context knowledge utilization has become a popular research topic. However, the role of information content in enhancing collaboration has been rarely addressed. We consider two types of information on mutual dependencies between actors that result from ecological interdependencies in the landscape: information on landscape sites providing multiple benefits to a range of stakeholders, and information on how these benefits depend on coordinated landscape–level management. Our survey of recent literature indicates that although there is a sound theoretical basis for the assumption that such information would enhance collaboration, the issue has been the subject of little empirical research thus far. We found some supporting studies demonstrating social network building and collective action, but none of them separated the effect of the information content from the effect of the organized social learning process. To increase understanding of the potential for informational governance of landscapes resources, we argue there is a need to integrate recent advances in the analysis of social network building in environmental management with emerging insights in knowledge utilization and spatial interdependencies of landscape benefits. Addresses 1 Wageningen University, Spatial Planning Group, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands 2 Alterra Wageningen UR, Team Nature and Society, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands 3 Alterra Wageningen, Team Regional Development and Sustainable Land Use, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands 4 Wageningen University, Public Administration and Policy Group, Hollandseweg 1, 6706KN Wageningen, The Netherlands 5 Open University of The Netherlands, Faculty of Management, Science and Technology, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT Heerlen, The Netherlands Corresponding author: Opdam, Paul ([email protected]) Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114 This review comes from a themed issue Sustainability governance and transformation 2016: Informational governance and environmental sustainability Edited by Katrine Soma, Bertrum MacDonald, Paul Opdam and Catrien Termeer For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Received 23 March 2015; Revised 9 December 2015; Accepted 11 December 2015 Available online 22nd January 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.12.006 1877-3435/# 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
www.sciencedirect.com
Introduction The local landscape can be seen as the living environment of human communities [1,2]. Humans adapt the landscape to improve conditions for producing food, earning more money by selling products, to strengthen an area’s cultural identity or improve the landscape for any other of the many benefits it may deliver. Such values related to the pattern and functioning of the landscape are called landscape services [3]. Interventions in landscapes to enhance sustainable services, involves reconciling individual and collective demands for landscape benefits, while ensuring the provisioning of services to future generations. While this issue has long been regarded as the responsibility of the state or regional government, more recently collaborative approaches to landscape adaptation involving landowners and citizens, have been advocated. Arguments in favour of collaborative planning include that landscape planning becomes more democratic, combining knowledge from different actors is better to develop solutions to cope with complexity and the outcome is more sustainable [4,5]. For example, higher levels of engagement in conservation projects was associated with more learning [6]. In this paper, we define organized landscape change based on the engagement of local communities as collaborative landscape governance [7,8], including both co-governance (communities co-operating with governments) and self-governance modes [9,10,11]. In this context, we question how information about landscape services can enable, support and trigger local actor groups to build collaboration and collective action with the aim to ensure sustainable utilization of what the landscape system has to offer (Figure 1). The need for collaboration follows from the spatial scale and nature of landscape processes. Services often emerge from the aggregated or combined features of individual plots [12,13]. For example, biological pest control in agricultural crops is provided by networks of semi-natural landscape elements (also called green infrastructure) that entail public land, farms and other private properties [14], implying that various actors have to align individual with collective decisions to ensure that landscape services are effective and reliable. The scientific literature suggests various ways to organize structural connections between actors, for example by scalecrossing brokers [15] and participatory planning approaches [16]. Learning processes in social networks have been put central in such research work [17] with an important role for cognitive processes [18]. However, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
108 Sustainability governance and transformation 2016: Informational governance and environmental sustainability
Figure 1
Informaon about landscape services
Collaboraon
Landscape network
Social network
processes
processes Collecve acon
Intervenons Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
The social–ecological network illustrates how information about landscape services might lead to interventions in the landscape network processes.
little attention has been paid to how information content influences connections between actors. Therefore we address how information on landscape services influences collaboration in landscape governance. Following Prager [19] we mean by collaboration that actors in land management actively meet, work and talk together, to separate it from coordination (working on the same objective individually). The specific form of collaboration in which people make decisions together about landscape change and organize cooperative interventions in the landscape will be called collective action. By this focus we take the diversity of world views and social-economic interests among actors as a given, and focus on the role of information in facilitating collaboration within a group of actors. Note that our review will not cover the role of disagreement or conflicts. To fit within the constraints of this review, we further specify our search to cases in which scientists provide landscape information to a group of actors. We start from the assumption that this information is contextualized and shared by the actors to become knowledge. There is extensive literature discussing under what conditions and with what process tools information can become incorporated into social learning [20,21,22]. Our focus is the information content.
The impact of information on participatory processes Collaboration has been defined as ‘a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible’ [23]. In this paper we see collaboration as Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
a governance process in a social network characterized by multilateral flows of information, deliberation and shared responsibility for decision making and implementation [9]. Collaboration in the process of landscape planning may result in a sequence of group learning impacts such as increased awareness of common interests, understanding possible advantages of collaboration between actors, and creating a common vision on how to maximize common values. These learning effects are captured by the term ‘social learning’ [24]. If successful, the process of collaboration leads to collective action, in this case referring to mutually agreed upon interventions in the landscape. Collaboration becomes a relevant strategy when different actors depend on each other for reaching their own goals. Without this interdependency there is no urge to collaborate. For such interdependencies to lead to collaboration, the need to collaborate must be recognized and accepted by the actors and the actors must perceive there are common interests and opportunities to address a shared problem. Finding this common ground of shared interests is a key task in the initial phases of collaboration. Ostrom [25] and Ansell and Gash [9] found that face to face communication is essential to achieve increased levels of collaboration. At the same time, each actor will at some point ask the question: what’s in it for me? Based on expectations about the extent to which individual interests will be advanced through collaboration, actors will commit more or less strongly to the collaboration [25]. In this process, providing information about landscape structure, landscape services and their benefits is a potentially powerful way to highlight interdependencies in the ecological system and the resulting potential for collaboration between actors in the social network. The efficiency or intensity of collaboration is also influenced by group size, the heterogeneity of participants, and by trust building [9,25]. Many process and structural factors will affect to what extent a collaborative process leads to collective implementation [9,26]. One of the key elements is the identification of a mutually acceptable plan that has a good chance of delivering the expected results [18]. Here, information on how services can be managed through interventions at a landscape level is likely a crucial ingredient. Interdependencies between actors in the social network with respect to landscape benefits are to a great extent due to interdependencies in the ecological system. For theory on landscape benefits we build on literature on ecosystem services [27], but we use the term landscape services instead. This term fits better with collaborative landscape planning because it emphasizes the spatial interconnectedness of humans and their living environment [3,28]. Two types of information on landscape services will be distinguished: information about the www.sciencedirect.com
Information in collaborative landscape management Opdam et al. 109
multitude of benefits provided by a piece of landscape, and secondly the dependency of benefits on landscape level ecological processes.
Information on multiple benefits The first type of information entails not only the provision of a wide variety of services, but also that a single landscape element delivers a multitude of services and benefits. A single landscape service can be associated with several benefits at once, which implies that multiple actors may recognize that managing the landscape is a joint interest [29]. For instance, pollination provides monetary value to farmers, pollinators produce honey of monetary value to bee keepers, whereas local citizens enjoy the social value of a variety of species in their garden. Moreover, a single landscape element, for example a hedgerow, may produce a range of services, for example pollination, landscape identity and wood for energy production. Such multiple values and services are particularly relevant against the background of the variety of preferences for landscape services that exist among actors. Preferences for ecosystem services have been found to depend on the level of education, gender, age, place of residence (urban vs. rural) and environmental behaviour [30]. Moreover, whether or not a service is valued by a particular actor will depend on the relationship of the actor to the landscape: whether the actor is a local inhabitant, a visitor from the nearby city, a local farmer or someone representing a food industry. For example, increasing the amount of naturally occurring dead wood in streams increases the economic value by an order of magnitude of 10–100 [31]. This improvement is
beneficial to nature conservationists, fishers, water quality managers and farmers. Thus, improving the stream-valley conditions may be recognized as a common benefit from widely different points of view. As such it may lead to actors discovering shared interests in the benefits a landscape has to offer. Therefore, the critical type of information is about the services a particular landscape area can deliver, the potential benefits to a variety of actors, and the places in the landscape where these services are (simultaneously) provided (Figure 2).
Information on landscape level provisioning When a group of actors wishes to increase benefits from preferred services, coordinated interventions at the landscape level are required. This is because many landscape services depend on landscape-wide spatial structures. One reason for this landscape scale dependency is because service effectiveness and reliability depend on species diversity [32,33], whereas species diversity depends on the size and spatial configuration of ecosystems in the landscape [34]. Therefore, the value of landscape services that depend on species diversity increases with landscape level management. Using model simulations Cong et al. [35] showed that if crop yields are dependent on landscape services, landscape-scale management is always more profitable to all farmers than farm-scale management. The implication is that it is in the interests of individual property holders to coordinate their interventions in the landscape according to a shared goal. Another reason for collective action is that some services may spatially co-occur while other services involve trade-offs [36]. While forests provide timber and air purification, forests contribute much less to
Figure 2
Informaon on mulple benefits
Parcipatory process
Knowledge processing
Recognion of shared interests Individual interests
Collaboraon
collecve acon
Informaon on landscape level provisioning
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Assumed impact of information. Two types of information are provided to a group of actors involved in a participatory process. If this information leads to a recognition of overlapping individual and shared interests, this may lead to collaboration in the planning group. Note that shared interests may apply to services of a wider public interest. Collaboration may lead to collective interventions in the landscape. www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
110 Sustainability governance and transformation 2016: Informational governance and environmental sustainability
the purification of surface water. In contrast a marsh is well equipped for purifying water but produces little wood. Understanding such synergetic and trade-off relations form the basis for negotiations about prioritizing services and locations. Thus, information about whether multiple services can be delivered by the same parts of the landscape may give rise to collaboration in the design phase of the landscape change process, but may also result in disagreement about which services to prefer. Based on the two types of information, we address the following issues: - How does information on the multiple benefits of landscape services lead to collaboration and subsequently enhance collective action? - How does information on the need to manage landscape services at the landscape scale lead to collaboration and collective interventions in the ecological network?
In reviewing literature that contributes to a greater understanding of these issues, we primarily searched for literature in which either ecosystem services or landscape services are used as a goal to improve the landscape. We also considered literature in which the service concept is not explicit but there was utilization of the natural potential of the landscape to provide common benefits as a motive for landscape change.
Does informing about multiple benefits enhance collaboration? Little is documented about whether multiple service provisioning by green infrastructure affects collaboration. Several studies in green infrastructure planning report consensus building in relation to the use of social media and a contingent valuation survey, but the role of information is not made explicit [37,38]. Steingrover et al. [14] found that by supplying information about the multiple services (natural pest regulation in crops, water purification, landscape identity and habitat for biodiversity) that were provided by the network of semi-natural elements in a farm landscape, the group of collaborating farmers could be enlarged with representatives of the water management board and a citizen group aiming for biodiversity and landscape conservation. These groups developed a shared vision on the management of green infrastructure and used this vision to contribute to implementation. More evidence suggesting that multiple services foster collaboration comes from an analysis by Rathwell and Peterson [39] showing that municipalities more often collaborated in making water management plans for protected areas and performing experiments in managing water quality if they were not only focussed on water management, but also had an interest in the recreation services of the landscape. In an urban landscape in Arnhem (NL) a network of green infrastructure provided Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
microclimate regulation and aesthetic appreciation (social values) as well as health regulation (monetary value to insurance companies); it also increased real estate prices (monetary value to real estate developers and owners). A process of raising awareness of these values resulted in shared plan making [40]. From an analysis of four local case studies in which the ecosystem approach was applied, Haines-Young and Potschin [22] highlighted the use of geographical information systems to identify zones with a favourable cost/benefit estimate for adapting the landscape, so-called ‘Zones of potential agreement’. This information was used to structure discussions among stakeholders, resulting in outcomes involving a bargaining process, shared understandings and a common vision for a catchment area.
Does informing about the need of landscape scale management enhance collaboration? The notion that ecological assets of landscapes have to be managed over a landscape-wide area is widely accepted. The concept of ecological networks, the spatial structure of ecosystems at the landscape level, is recognized in government policy instruments, such as the Green Infrastructure policy of the EU. For instance, Prager et al. [41] proposed to enhance landscape level collaboration among farmers by incorporating a spatially explicit incentive in agri-environmental payments. However, spatial information about the relation between landscape/ecosystem services and landscape structure usually do not link this with values and needs of local users [42]. Recent attempts to map the supply and demand of ecosystem services do not specify actors [43], nor were such maps used in participatory planning [44]. Mapping can become part of a social learning process about interdependencies in the landscape when local knowledge is integrated with scientific knowledge in a participatory mapping method [45]. Garcı´a-Nieto et al. [46] showed that when mapping ecosystem services independently the maps express differences in information, mental maps and values among stakeholders. This shows the importance of mapping as a common activity, including knowledge sharing and negotiations. In collaborative mapping, actors decide which sites in the area are crucial for providing preferred landscape services, a process which could intensify bonds between actors and create a common ground for coordinated action. Pouwels et al. [47] reported on a mediating role of mapping the zones of conflict between habitat for protected species and recreational activities in the New Forest, UK. A participatory process, including the integration of local knowledge in the GIS-models, resulted in consensus about the problem and in commonly agreed solutions to remove a parking lot. Steingro¨ver et al. [14] used a set of spatially explicit design rules to facilitate a self-governance process in an arable farming landscape in the Netherlands, where farmer groups strived to rely more www.sciencedirect.com
Information in collaborative landscape management Opdam et al. 111
on natural crop protection and applying less chemicals. The design method entailed the message that a reliable pest regulation service required amounts of green infrastructure exceeding the scale level of single farms by far. The collective mapping of preferred improvements of the green infrastructure likely contributed to the observed increased cohesion in the group of farmers. The making of a collective management plan for the green infrastructure also involved the water board and the landscape conservation group. The study did not aim for identifying the impact of information on emerging new relationships between actors and various forms of collective behaviour; however, it is likely that part of the collaboration was enabled by working together in three participatory workshops rather than by the information alone. Spatial dependencies may also cause competitive relationships within a landscape area, for example if there is a shortage of resources. Magombeyi et al. [48] used a river basin game to share knowledge on the spatial interdependence of different water users in the Olifants river basin in South Africa. By demonstrating the relationship between the functioning of the catchment and the user value, the tool facilitated negotiations between upstream and downstream water users. This resulted in a shared understanding about which areas and families were affected and led to collective water management by elected committees. Pivotal to assessing whether information influences collaboration is that feedbacks of actors on how knowledge changed their thinking or acting is collected, which was done in two studies. In East Anglia, Southern et al. [49] found that detailed land use maps of a catchment area with the implications of landscape services taken into account, in conjunction with stakeholder engagement, raised a willingness to work together at a landscape scale. Over half of the participants stated that they became ‘more prepared to work towards a designed whole landscape’. However, it was not known whether this willingness was transformed into collective action. In Northern Vietnam, Castella [50] applied a set of methods (including geo-visualization tools and role-playing games) to illustrate landscape–level interactions between individual farmers. Here, foreign and local researchers and local communities worked together. Although the concept of landscape services was not used, the case is instructive because a computer-based role playing game was developed based on the collective process of knowledge generation. This game informed the farmers on how farmbased decisions were reflected at the landscape scale. In interviews, the participants confirmed that they learned much about how their individual management decisions impacted the common landscape, as well as how their neighbours made decisions. ‘Their motivation reached a peak when they realised how they could benefit, collectively and individually’ ([50]:1318). A key insight for them www.sciencedirect.com
was how individual behaviour and collective management were connected. While the study reported collective knowledge generation and understanding, no evidence for collective action was provided. The project Future cities (http://www.future-cities.eu/) illustrates how landscape level information was incorporated in community planning to reduce the city heat island effects exacerbated by global warming [40]. Regional models illustrated how temperatures in the inner city could be reduced by enhancing green infrastructure and making use of cool air flows from the surrounding forest landscape. The actors decided to reduce the urban temperatures by stimulating urban green and urban water and to do so in places where they could take advantage of the geomorphological setting of the city. The green infrastructure concept stimulated a transformation into considering spatially explicit measures in priority areas, thus linking the common landscape level goal (the cooling effect) to local actions. The project also illustrates that multiple landscape services provided by the green infrastructure fostered an extension of the social network, for example, by the addition of real estate developers. These examples not only show the impact of information but also illustrate a variety of ways in which information about the dependency of landscape benefits on landscape level processes was communicated, including maps, visualization tools, green infrastructure design rules, landscape concepts and computer games. In all examples the information was transferred as part of a collaborative process, organized by scientists. This implies that any increased collaboration or collective action found in these cases may be attributed to the participatory approach as well as to the information provided by the scientists.
Perspectives The need for landscape level collaboration in environmental management has been discussed in relation to the need for government coordination (e.g. [51]) or in relation to new policy instruments that reward spatial clustering of measures [52]. Complementarily, we addressed the role of scientific information in fostering collaboration in local level landscape planning. We focussed on information to show that obtaining benefits from the landscape is most effective if there is collaboration and coordinated action. Our survey of recent literature indicated that although there is a sound theoretical basis for the assumption that such information would enhance collaboration, the issue has not been the subject of much scientific research thus far. However, we did find some studies suggesting that perceived interdependence through landscape level connections fostered social network building and collective action. This corroborates the conclusion of Ansell and Gash [9] that interdependence fosters a desire to participate and a commitment to meaningful collaboration. However, there are several reasons to nuance this conclusion. First, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
112 Sustainability governance and transformation 2016: Informational governance and environmental sustainability
the participatory processes in which the information was brought in created social interdependencies that may have facilitated the commitment to collaboration independent of the information content. Secondly, the reported collaboration was rather a by-product of the case studies than an answer to explicit research questions achieved by a transparent method. These studies were not designed to identify indicators of collaborative behaviour and measure them systematically. Thirdly, as it is known from literature that information given in the context of participatory activities also may lead to contestation of information and knowledge conflicts, empirical studies also need to record signs of disagreement and conflict. If information that is provided to actors is understood by some of them to be biased towards interests and priorities of certain other actors, the information itself may become the bone of contention [53]. When the information is presented from an expert perspective that is far removed from how (some of the) the actors understand the situation, the information may remain meaningless [54]. Clearly, the evidence presented here showing that information about the interdependence of individual and common interests in landscape management leads to collaboration needs systematic and critical empirical studies. It is beyond our scope to investigate why there is so little attention on the topic of collaboration among stakeholders in the rapidly growing literature on ecosystem services, notably a concept that explicitly is aimed at stimulating sustainability focused behaviour. One obvious reason is that the ecosystem services field is dominated by an economic view rather than a social view [54]. It seems plausible that the emphasis on monetary values and competitive relationships hampers an information view on the potential for collaboration. For example, Engel and Schaefer [55] argued that if several actors benefit from water-related ecosystem services, this introduces incentives for free riding, but they do not mention possible effects on collaborative relationships. Collaboration is a well-studied topic in social sciences, but with little contribution to ecosystem services research thus far. The significance of landscape information to enhance collaboration is that, in addition to a planning process that maximizes social learning, building collaborative relationships result in strengthened social networks, which accommodate knowledge diffusion and deliberation [56,57]. Such a feed-back mechanism may improve the capacity for collective management and social learning in a socialecological system. Bodin and Crona [58], who discussed the relevancy of the structure of social networks to resource governance, distinguished bonding ties within cohesive groups of network actors and bridging ties between such groups. They suggested that these ties differently influence information flows and conditions for efficient collaboration. From the examples discussed here one may hypothesize that because ecosystem services unite actors Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
with different backgrounds, they could be especially effective in building bridges. In light of the decentralization of environmental policy, the role of information in social network dynamics is therefore important and requires more attention than it has received thus far. Information only turns into action if these informational properties are positively received by the actors [58]. In the examples we presented, the provisioning of information was always part of a collaborative planning process. This suggests that information only leads to collaboration in cases where joint reflection leads to an increased mutual understanding of problems, opportunities and possible solutions. Another essential prerequisite for information to have an impact is that it is perceived as credible, salient and legitimate by the actors [19]. Therefore, information about landscape services should not only be technical and rational but instead flexible enough to be interpreted within the local context of the landscape area and stakeholder networks. This aspect received little attention thus far [59]. Although there is general understanding that collaboration is a key element in the governance for a sustainable environment, collaboration in local landscapes has not been a subject of scientific analysis. Ecosystem services literature is largely focussed on landscape ecological assessment and economic valuation, and is still missing the connection to social processes in local landscape planning [60,61]. The inclusion of local stakeholders and their knowledge in decision making is broadly advocated, leading to many publications that reveal conditions for knowledge utilization [62,63], but lacking insight into the behavioural consequences of the information content. Social networks in environmental management are analysed in relation to social learning and collaborative processes [57,64]. We advocate that these fields of research are connected. As a hypothesis we suggest that if local communities, as part of a common learning process, are informed about the multiple benefits they could gain by a collaborative management of landscapes for ecosystems, this will result in increased collaboration and collective action.
Acknowledgements This paper was written as part of the ‘Informational Governance’ Research Program of Wageningen University and Research Center (Wageningen UR), to contribute to solutions for the most pressing global environmental problems. The program is co-financed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest 1.
Nassauer JI: Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 2012, 106: 221-229. www.sciencedirect.com
Information in collaborative landscape management Opdam et al. 113
2.
Pinto-Correia T, Kristensen L: Linking research and practice: the landscape as the basis for integrating social and ecological perspectives of the rural. Landsc Urban Plan 2013, 120:248-256.
19. Prager K: Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2015, 12: 59-66.
3.
Termorshuizen J, Opdam P: Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc Ecol 2009, 24:1037-1052.
20. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F et al.: Knowledge systems for sustainable environment. PNAS 2003, 100:8086-8091.
4.
Penker M: Landscape governance for or by the local population? A property rights analysis in Austria. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:947-953.
5.
Persha L, Agrawal A, Chhatre A: Social and Ecological Synergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 2012, 331:1606-1608.
Evely AC, Pinard M, Reed MS, Fazey I: High levels of participation in conservation projects enhance learning. Conserv Lett 2011, 4:116-126. Analysis of 8 conservation projects differing in the level of participation, providing strong empirical evidence that participatory approaches enhance learning and result in more collaboration.
6.
7.
Go¨rg C: Landscape governance: the ‘‘politics of scale’’ and the natural conditions of places. Geoforum 2007, 38:954-966.
8.
Beunen R, Opdam P: When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landsc Urban Plan 2011, 100:324-326.
9. Ansell C, Gash A: Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Admin Res Theory 2008, 18:543-571. Thorough and comprehensive review of 137 cases of collaborative governance, providing a clear picture of what it is, what are the advantages and the problems encountered. With an analytical framework that can be used to evaluate conditions for collaborative governance in practice. However, the role of information in the system that is governed is not made explicit. 10. Berkes F: Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage 2009, 90:1692-1702. 11. Ostrom E: A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social–ecological systems. Science 2009, 325:419-422. 12. Opdam P: Incorporating multiple ecological scales into the governance of landscape services. In Scale-Sensitive Governance of the Environment. Edited by Padt F, Opdam P, Polman N, Termeer C. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2014:17-37. 13. LeFebvre M, Espinosa M, Gomez y Paloma S, Paracchini ML, Piorr A, Zasada I: Agricultural landscapes as multiscale public good and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy. J Environ Plan Manag 2015, 58:2088-2112. 14. Steingro¨ver EG, Geertsema W, Van Wingerden WKRE: Designing agricultural landscapes for natural pest control: a transdisciplinary approach in the Hoeksche Waard (The Netherlands). Landsc Ecol 2010, 25:825-838. One of the few case studies suggesting a role of information about landscape services on social network relations. Information about multiple services provided by the network of semi-natural landscape elements stimulated collaborative relations between actors in the planning process. A design tool for improving this network to provide natural pest control in crops enhanced collective action among farmers and other land owners. 15. Ernstson H, Barthel S, Andersson E, Bergstro¨m ST: Scalecrossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: the case of Stockholm. Ecol Society 2010, 15:28 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/ art28/. 16. Shandas V, Messer WB: Fostering green communities through civic engagement: community based environmental stewardship in the Portland area. J Am Plan Assoc 2008, 74:408-418.
21. Jordan A, Russel D: Embedding the concept of ecosystem services? The utilization of ecological knowledge in different policy venues. Environ Plan C: Govern Policy 2014, 32:192-207. 22. Haines-Young R, Potschin M: The ecosystem approach as a framework for understanding knowledge utilisation. Environ Plan C: Govern Policy 2014, 32:301-319. Four cases in which the ecosystem approach, based on ecosystem services, was applied are analysed for their impact on utilising ecosystem knowledge, conflict management, maintaining ecosystem function and recognising the environment as an asset. The emphasis though is on knowledge utilization, not on behavioural change. As for valuation of ecosystem services, a limitation to economic value was reported as counterproductive. 23. Gray B: Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multi-party Problems. Jossey-Bass; 1989. 24. Collins K, Ison R: Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environ Policy Govern 2009, 19:358-373 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/eet.523. 25. Ostrom E: A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. Am Political Sci Rev 1998, 92:1-22. 26. Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Stone MM: The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature. Public Admin Rev 2006, 66:44-55. 27. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA): Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press; 2005. 28. Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe R-U, Walz U, Wende W: Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance. Landsc Ecol 2014, 29:1463-1479. 29. Fu¨rst C, Opdam P, Inostroza L, Luque S: Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balanced score card. Special Issue: integrating Ecosystem Services in Land Use Planning and DecisionMaking Practice. Landsc Ecol 2014, 29:1435-1446. 30. Martı´n-Lo´pez B, Iniesta-Arandia I, Garcı´a-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I et al.: Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:338970. 31. Acunˇa V, Ramon Dı´ez J, Flores L, Meleason M, Elosegi A: Does it make economic sense to restore rivers for their ecosystem services? J Appl Ecol 2013, 50:988-997. 32. Brittain C, Kremen C, Klein AM: Biodiversity buffers pollination from changes in environmental conditions. Global Change Biol 2013, 19:540-547. 33. Wagg C, Bender SF, Widmer F, van der Heijden MGA: Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. PNAS 2014, 111:5266-5270. 34. Klein AM, Brittain C, Hendrix SD, Thorp R, Williams N, Kremen C: Wild pollination services to California almond rely on seminatural habitat. J Appl Ecol 2012, 49:723-732. 35. Cong R-G, Smith HG, Olsson O, Brady M: Managing ecosystem services for agriculture: will landscape-scale management pay? Ecol Econ 2014, 99:53-62. 36. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ: Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 2009, 12:1394-1404.
17. Pahl-Wostl C, Hare M: Processes of social learning in integrated resources management. J Commu Appl Soc Psychol 2004, 14:193-206.
37. Mell IC, Henneberry J, Hehl-Lange S, Keskin B: Promoting urban greening: valuing the development of green infrastructure investments in the urban core of Manchester, UK. Urban Forest Urban Green 2013, 12:296-306.
18. Pennington DD: Cross-disciplinary collaboration and learning. Ecol Soc 2008, 13:8 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/ iss2/art8/.
38. Afzalan N, Muller B: The role of social media in green infrastructure planning: a case study of neighbourhood participation in park siting. J Urban Technol 2014, 21:67-83.
www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
114 Sustainability governance and transformation 2016: Informational governance and environmental sustainability
39. Rathwell KJ, Peterson GD: Connecting social networks with ecosystem services for watershed governance: a socialecological network perspective highlights the critical role of bridging organizations. Ecol Soc 2012, 17:24 http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss2/art24/. Interesting analysis of the collaboration among municipalities in a stream catchment area, showing that collaboration in water management is most frequent among those municipalities which also consider recreation as a landscape benefit. 40. Opdam P, Westerink J, Vos C, De Vries B: The role and evolution of boundary concepts in transdisciplinary landscape planning. Plann Theory Practice 2015, 16:63-78.
52. Banerjee S, Kwasnica AM, Shortle JS: Agglomeration bonus in small and large local networks: a laboratory examination of spatial coordination. Ecol Econ 2012, 84:142-152. 53. Koppenjan JFM, Klijn E-H: Managing Uncertainties in Networks. A Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making. Routledge; 2004. 54. Dewulf A, Mancero M, Cardenas G, Sucozhanay D: Fragmentation and connection of frames in collaborative water governance: a case study of river catchment management in Southern Ecuador. Int Rev Admin Sci 2011, 77:50-75.
41. Prager K, Reed M, Scott A: Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale — rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:244-249.
55. Cowell R, Lennon M: The utilisation of environmental knowledge in land use planning: drawing lessons for an ecosystem services approach. Environ Plan C 2014, 32:263-282.
42. Menzel S, Teng J: Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conserv Biol 2010, 24:907-909.
56. Engel S, Schaefer M: Ecosystem services — a useful concept for addressing water challenges? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2013, 5:696-707.
43. Nedkov S, Burkhard B: Flood regulating ecosystem services — mapping supply, and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecol Ind 2011, 21:67-79. 44. Brown G, de Bie K, Weber D: Identifying public land stakeholder perspectives for implementing place-based land management. Landsc Urban Plan 2015, 139:1-15. 45. Fagerholm N, Ka¨yhko¨ N, Ddumbaro F, Khamis M: Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments-mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol Ind 2012, 18:421-433. 46. Garcı´a-Nieto AP, Quintas-Soriano C, Garcı´a-Llorente M, Palomo I, Montes C, Martı´n-Lo´pez B: Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: the role of stakeholders’ profiles. Ecosys Services 2015, 13:141-152. 47. Pouwels R, Opdam P, Jochem R: Reconsidering the effectiveness of scientific tools for negotiating local solutions to conflicts between recreation and conservation with stakeholders. Ecol Soc 2011, 16:17 http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss4/art17/. 48. Magombeyi MS, Rollin D, Lankford B: The river basin game as a tool for collective water management at community level in South Africa. Phys Chem Earth 2008, 33:873-880. 49. Southern A, Lovett A, O’Riordan T, Watkinson A: Sustainable landscape governance: lessons from a catchment based study in whole landscape design. Landsc Urban Plan 2011, 101:179-189. 50. Castella JC: Assessing the role of learning devices and geovisualisation tools for collective action in natural resource management: experiences from Vietnam. J Environ Manage 2009, 90:1313-1319. A rare example of a field study in which not only environmental information is iteratively transferred into a local planning community by using geographical information models and games, but also attempts were made to assess the impact of information processing on collaboration within the stakeholder group. 51. Pahl-Wostl C, Palmer M, Richards K: Enhancing water security for the benefits of humans and nature — the role of governance. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2013, 5:676-684.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:107–114
57. Newig J, Gu¨nther D, Pahl-Wostl C: Synapses in the network: learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecol Soc 2010, 15:24 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art24/. 58. Bodin O¨, Crona BI: The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Global Environ Change 2009, 19:366-374. One of the first papers to introduce social network analysis into natural resource governance, highlighting how the structural characteristics of social networks relate to collective action in different stages of the governance process. The authors offer an explanation for the importance of actor engagement in landscape planning: ‘...for a social network to provide more than just information transfer, and for them to be sustained over time, the relational ties must be voluntary’. 59. Bolderdijk JW, Gorsira M, Keizer K, Steg L: Values determine the (in)effectiveness of informational interventions in promoting pro-environmental behavior. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e83911. 60. Opdam P: Using ecosystem services in community based planning: science is not ready to deliver. In Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture. Edited by Fu je, Bruce Jones KnsK. Springer; 2013:77-101. 61. Dinnie E, Brown KM, Morris S: Community, cooperation and conflict: negotiating the social well-being benefits of urban greenspace experiences. Landsc Urban Plan 2013, 112:1-9. 62. McKenzie E, Posner S, Tillmann P, Bernhardt JR, Howard K, Rosenthal A: Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons from environmental experiences of spatial planning. Environ Plan C Govern Policy 2014, 32:320-340. 63. Raymond MC, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC: Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manage 2010, 91:17661777. 64. Lauber TB, Decker DJ, Knuth BA: Social networks and community-based natural resource management. Environ Manage 2008, 42:677-687.
www.sciencedirect.com