Hubbry Logo
Landscape-scale conservationLandscape-scale conservationMain
Open search
Landscape-scale conservation
Community hub
Landscape-scale conservation
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Landscape-scale conservation
Landscape-scale conservation
Landscape-scale conservation
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Landscape scale conservation attempts to reconcile competing pressures on the designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty across the United Kingdom.[1]

Landscape-scale conservation is a holistic approach to landscape management, aiming to reconcile the competing objectives of nature conservation and economic activities across a given landscape. Landscape-scale conservation may sometimes be attempted because of climate change. It can be seen as an alternative to site based conservation.

Many global problems such as poverty, food security, climate change, water scarcity, deforestation and biodiversity loss are connected.[2][3] For example, lifting people out of poverty can increase consumption and drive climate change.[4] Expanding agriculture can exacerbate water scarcity and drive habitat loss.[5][6] Proponents of landscape management argue that as these problems are interconnected, coordinated approaches are needed to address them, by focussing on how landscapes can generate multiple benefits. For example, a river basin can supply water for towns and agriculture, timber and food crops for people and industry, and habitat for biodiversity; and each one of these users can have impacts on the others.[2][3][7]

Landscapes in general have been recognised as important units for conservation by intergovernmental bodies,[8] government initiatives,[9][10] and research institutes.[11]

Problems with this approach include difficulties in monitoring, and the proliferation of definitions and terms relating to it.[3]

Definitions

[edit]
Bureau of Land Management using fire to maintain a landscape in Western Oregon

There are many overlapping terms and definitions,[12][13] but many terms have similar meanings.[3][14] A sustainable landscape, for example, meets "the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."[2]

Approaching conservation by means of landscapes can be seen as "a conceptual framework whereby stakeholders in a landscape aim to reconcile competing social, economic and environmental objectives". Instead of focussing on a single use of the land it aims to ensure that the interests of different stakeholders are met.[2]

The starting point for all landscape-scale conservation schemes must be an understanding of the character of the landscape. Landscape character goes beyond aesthetic. It involves understanding how the landscape functions to support communities, cultural heritage and development, the economy, as well as the wildlife and natural resources of the area. Landscape character requires careful assessment according to accepted methodologies. Landscape character assessment will contribute to the determination of what scale is appropriate in which landscape. "Landscape scale" does not merely mean acting at a bigger scale: it means conservation is carried out at the correct scale and that it takes into account the human elements of the landscape, both past and present.

History

[edit]
Highland cow helping to maintain the landscape near Hilversum in the Netherlands

The word 'landscape' in English is a loanword from Dutch landschap introduced in the 1660s and originally meant a painting. The meaning a "tract of land with its distinguishing characteristics" was derived from that in 1886. This was then used as a verb as of 1916.[15]

The German geographer Carl Troll coined the German term Landschaftsökologie–thus 'landscape ecology' in 1939.[16] He developed this terminology and many early concepts of landscape ecology as part of this work, which consisted of applying aerial photograph interpretation to studies of interactions between environment, agriculture and vegetation.

In the UK conservation of landscapes can be said to have begun in 1945 with the publication of the Report to the Government on National Parks in England and Wales. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 introduced the legislation for the creation Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).[17][18] Northern Ireland has the same system after adoption of the Amenity Lands (NI) Act 1965.[19] The first of these AONB were defined in 1956, with the last being created in 1995.[20]

The Permanent European Conference for the Study of the Rural Landscape was established in 1957.[21][22] The European Landscape Convention was initiated by the Congress of Regional and Local Authorities of the Council of Europe (CLRAE) in 1994, was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 2000,[23] and came into force in 2004.[24]

The conservation community began to take notice of the science of landscape ecology in the 1980s.[3]

Efforts to develop concepts of landscape management that integrate international social and economic development with biodiversity conservation began in 1992.[3]

Landscape management now exists in multiple iterations and alongside other concepts[3][12][25][14] such as watershed management, landscape ecology[26] and cultural landscapes.[27][28]

International

[edit]

The UN Environment Programme stated in 2015 that the landscape approach embodies ecosystem management. UNEP uses the approach with the Ecosystem Management of Productive Landscapes project.[29] The scientific committee of the Convention on Biological Diversity also considers the perspective of a landscape the most important scale for improving sustainable use of biodiversity.[8] There are global fora on landscapes.[30][31] During the Livelihoods and Landscapes Strategies programme the International Union for Conservation of Nature applied this approach to locations worldwide, in 27 landscapes in 23 different countries.[32]

Examples of landscape approaches can be global[12][14][33] or continental, for example in Africa,[34] Oceania[35] and Latin America.[36] The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development plays an important part in funding landscape conservation in Europe.[37]

Relevance to international commitments

[edit]

Some argue landscape management can address the Sustainable Development Goals.[3][38][39] Many of these goals have potential synergies or trade-offs: some therefore argue that addressing these goals individually may not be effective, and landscape approaches provide a potential framework to manage them. For example, increasing areas of irrigated agricultural land to end hunger could have adverse impacts on terrestrial ecosystems or sustainable water management.[39] Landscape approaches intend to include different sectors, and thus achieve the multiple objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals – for example, working within catchment area of a river to enhance agricultural productivity, flood defence, biodiversity and carbon storage.[2]

Climate change and agriculture are intertwined[40] so production of food and climate mitigation can be a part of landscape management.[41] The agricultural sector accounts for around 24% of anthropogenic emissions. Unlike other sectors that emit greenhouse gases, agriculture and forestry have the potential to mitigate climate change by reducing or removing greenhouse gas emissions, for example by reforestation and landscape restoration.[42] Advocates of landscape management argue that 'climate-smart agriculture' and REDD+ can draw on landscape management.[41]

The marketing of products from specific landscapes can assist conservation. This is apple juice from Tukuche village in the Kali Gandaki Gorge, Nepal

Regional

[edit]

Germany

[edit]

Because a large proportion of the biodiversity of Germany was able to invade from the south and east after human activities altered the landscape, maintaining such artificial landscapes is an integral part of nature conservation.[43] The full name of the main nature conservation law in Germany, the Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes, is thus titled in its entirety Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege,[44] where Landschaftspflege translates literally to "landscape maintenance" (see reference for more).[45] Related concepts are Landschaftsschutz, "landscape protection/conservation",[46] and Landschaftsschutzgebiet, a "nature preserve", or literally a (legally) "protected landscape area".[47] The Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege is the main organisation which protects landscapes in Germany. It is an umbrella organisation which coordinates the regional landscape protection organisations of the different German states.[48][49] Classically, there are four methods which can be done in order to conserve landscapes:[50][51] maintenance,[49] improvement,[49] protection[49][52] and redevelopment.[52] The marketing of products such as meat from alpine meadows or apple juice from traditional Streuobstwiese can also be an important factor in conservation.[49] Landscapes are maintained by three methods: biological - such as grazing by livestock, manually (although this is rare due to the high cost of labour) and commonly mechanically.[51]

The Netherlands

[edit]
The ladybird spider, Eresus sandaliatus lives on inland shifting dunes, created by forest clearance and overgrazing on poor, sandy soils. Today backhoe loaders can scrape off topsoil, maintaining the low-nutrient soil that such heath and dune species need.[53]

Staatsbosbeheer, the Dutch governmental forest service, considers landscape management an important part of managing their lands.[54][55] Landschapsbeheer Nederland is an umbrella organisation which promotes and helps fund the interests of the different provincial landscape management organisations, which between them include 75,000 volunteers and 110,000 hectares of protected nature reserves.[56] Sustainable landscape management is being researched in the Netherlands.[57]

Peru

[edit]

An example of a producer movement managing a multi-functional landscape is the Potato Park in Písac, Peru, where local communities protect the ecological and cultural diversity of the 12,000ha landscape.[7][27]

A variety of Peruvian potatoes from the Andes

Sweden

[edit]
See also: Agricultural landscape of southern Öland

In Sweden, the Swedish National Heritage Board, or Riksantikvarieämbetet, is responsible for landscape conservation.[58] Landscape conservation can be studied at the Department of Cultural Conservation (at Dacapo Mariestad) of the University of Gothenburg, in both Swedish and English.[59]

Thailand

[edit]

An example of cooperation between very different actors is from the Doi Mae Salong watershed in northwest Thailand, a Military Reserved Area under the control of the Royal Thai Armed Forces. Reforestation activities led to tension with local hill tribes. In response, an agreement was reached with them on land rights and use of different parts of the reserve.[60]

Doi Mae Salong landscape in Thailand is managed by agreement between the army and local hill tribes.

United Kingdom

[edit]

Among the leading exponents of UK landscape scale conservation are the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). There are 49 AONB in the UK. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has categorised these regions as "category 5 protected areas" and in 2005 claimed the AONB are administered using what the IUCN coined the "protected landscape approach".[1] In Scotland there is a similar system of national scenic areas.[61]

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan protects semi-natural grasslands, among other habitats, which constitute landscapes maintained by low-intensity grazing. Agricultural environment schemes reward farmers and land managers financially for maintaining these habitats on registered agricultural land. Each of the four countries in the UK has its own individual scheme.[62]

Studies have been carried out across the UK looking at much wider range of habitats. In Wales the Pumlumon Large Area Conservation Project focusses on upland conservation in areas of marginal agriculture and forestry.[63] The North Somerset Levels and Moors Project addresses wetlands.[64]

Other

[edit]
The landscape to the left is known as satoyama; a traditional human-influenced secondary forest bordering agricultural fields in Japan. The satoyama conservation movement spread in the 1980s in Japan and by 2001 there were more than 500 environmental groups involved.[65]

Landscape approaches have been taken up by governments in for example the Greater Mekong Subregion project[9][66] and in Indonesia's climate change commitments,[10] and by international research bodies such as the Center for International Forestry Research,[11] which convenes the Global Landscapes Forum.[67]

The Mount Kailash region is where the Indus River, the Karnali River (a major tributary of the Ganges River), the Brahmaputra River and the Sutlej river systems originate. With assistance from the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, the three surrounding countries (China, India and Nepal) developed an integrated management approach to the different conservation and development issues within this landscape.[68]

Six countries in West Africa in the Volta River basin using the 'Mapping Ecosystems Services to Human well-being' toolkit, use landscape modelling of alternative scenarios for the riparian buffer to make land-use decisions such as conserving hydrological ecosystem services and meeting national SDG commitments.[69]

Variations

[edit]

Ecoagriculture

[edit]

In a 2001 article published by Sara J. Scherr and Jeffrey McNeely,[70] soon expanded into a book,[71] Scherr and McNeely introduced the term "ecoagriculture" to describe their vision of rural development while advancing the environment, claim that agriculture is the dominant influence on wild species and habitats, and point to a number of recent and potential future developments they identified as beneficial examples of land use.[70][72] They incorporated the non-profit EcoAgriculture Partners.[73] in 2004 to promote this vision, with Scherr as President and CEO, and McNeely as an independent governing board member. Scherr and McNeely edited a second book in 2007.[74] Ecoagriculture had three elements in 2003.[71]

Integrated landscape management

[edit]

In 2012 Scherr invented a new term, integrated landscape management(ILM), to describe her ideas for developing entire regions, not at just a farm or plot level.[72][2] Integrated landscape management is a way of managing sustainable landscapes by bringing together multiple stakeholders with different land use objectives. The integrated approach claims to go beyond other approaches which focus on users of the land independently of each other, despite needing some of the same resources.[2] It is promoted by the conservation NGOs Worldwide Fund for Nature, Global Canopy Programme, The Nature Conservancy, The Sustainable Trade Initiative, and EcoAgriculture Partners.[2] Promoters claim that integrated landscape management will maximise collaboration in planning, policy development and action regarding the interdependent Sustainable Development Goals.[38] It was defined by four elements in 2013:[75]

  1. Large scale: It plans land uses at the landscape scale. Wildlife population dynamics and watershed functions can only be understood at the landscape scale. Assuming short-term trade-offs may lead to long-term synergies, conducting analyses over long time periods is advocated.
  2. Emphasis on synergies: It tries to exploit "synergies" among conservation, agricultural production, and rural livelihoods.
  3. Emphasis on collaboration: It can not be achieved by individuals. The management of landscapes require different land managers with different environmental and socio-economic goals to achieve conservation, production, and livelihood goals at a landscape scale.
  4. Importance of both conservation and agricultural production: bringing conservation into the agricultural and rural development discourse by highlighting the importance of ecosystem services in supporting agricultural production. It supports conservationists to more effectively conserve nature within and outside protected areas by working with the agricultural community by developing conservation-friendly livelihoods for rural land users.

By 2016 it had five elements, namely:

  1. stakeholders come together for cooperative dialogue and action;
  2. they exchange information systematically and discuss perspectives to achieve a shared understanding of the landscape conditions, challenges and opportunities;
  3. collaborative planning to develop an agreed action plan;
  4. implementation of the plan;
  5. monitoring and dialogue to adapt management.[2]

Ecosystem approach

[edit]

The ecosystem approach, promoted by the Convention on Biological Diversity, is a strategy for the integrated ecosystem management of land, water, and living resources for conservation and sustainability.[76]

Ten Principles

[edit]

This approach includes continual learning and adaptive management: including monitoring, the expectation that actions take place at multiple scales and that landscapes are multifunctional (e.g. supplying both goods, such as timber and food, and services, such as water and biodiversity protection). There are multiple stakeholders, and it assumes they have a common concern about the landscape, negotiate change with each other, and their rights and responsibilities are clear or will become clear.[77]

Criticisms

[edit]

A literature review identified five main barriers, as follows:[3]

  1. Terminology confusion: the variety of definitions creates confusion and resistance to engage. This resistance has emerged, often independently, from different fields.[12][3] As stated by Scherr et al.: "People are talking about the same thing ... This can lead to fragmentation of knowledge, unnecessary re-invention of ideas and practices, and inability to mobilize action at scale. ... this rich diversity is often simply overwhelming: they receive confusing messages"[75] This problem is not unique to landscape approaches: since the 1970s it has been recognised that the constant emergence of new terminology can be harmful if they promote rhetoric at the expense of action.[78] Because landscapes approaches develop from, and aim to integrate, a wide variety of sectors, makes it vulnerable to overlapping definitions and parallel concepts.[75] Like other approaches to conservation, it may be a fad.[79]
  2. Time lags: substantial time and resources are invested in developing and planning, while resources are inadequate for implementation.[3][26]
  3. Operating silos: Each sector pursues its goals without giving consideration to the others. This may arise because of a lack in established objectives, operating norms and funding that effectively bridge different sectors.[3] Working across sectors at the landscape scale requires a range of skills, different from those traditionally used by conservation organisations.[26]
  4. Engagement: Stakeholders may not desire to be engaged in the process,[2][12] engagement may be trivial or inaccessible,[3] and the discussions may hinder efficient decision-making.[2]
  5. Monitoring: There is lack of monitoring to check whether the objectives have been achieved.[3]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Landscape-scale conservation

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Landscape-scale conservation is a management framework that integrates principles of to protect , ecosystem services, and ecological connectivity across large, heterogeneous areas spanning multiple land tenures and administrative boundaries. This approach emphasizes collaborative efforts among public agencies, private landowners, and nongovernmental organizations to address threats like and climate-induced shifts, which operate beyond the confines of isolated protected areas. Key characteristics include the design of wildlife corridors, restoration of degraded habitats at regional extents, and balancing conservation objectives with productive uses such as agriculture and forestry to foster resilient landscapes. Empirical analyses demonstrate that landscape-scale interventions can reduce biodiversity declines from land conversion by maintaining metapopulation dynamics and gene flow among patches. Notable examples encompass multi-state initiatives in the , where unified planning has prioritized core habitats and linkages for diverse taxa, and collaborative agri-environmental schemes that enhance cost-effective outcomes through spatial coordination. Despite these potential benefits, the strategy encounters hurdles in empirical validation and practical execution, with showing variable effectiveness depending on landscape context and stakeholder alignment rather than consistent superiority over finer-scale tactics. Criticisms highlight prolonged timelines for detectable ecological responses, ambiguities in defining optimal scales, and tensions arising from restricting private land uses without commensurate economic incentives, underscoring the need for rigorous, data-driven assessments over advocacy-driven narratives.

Core Concepts

Definitions and Scope

Landscape-scale conservation refers to coordinated efforts to manage and protect ecosystems across large, contiguous areas that encompass diverse land uses, ownership types, and jurisdictional boundaries, rather than isolated reserves or sites. This approach addresses ecological processes—such as wildlife migration, nutrient cycling, and disturbance regimes—that inherently function at broad spatial extents, typically ranging from thousands to millions of hectares or square kilometers. Its scope includes fostering connectivity among habitats to support persistence and , while integrating socioeconomic factors like sustainable resource extraction and rural livelihoods to avoid conflicts between conservation and development. Proponents argue that such scale enables resilience to environmental stressors, including variability, by maintaining heterogeneity and functional linkages, as evidenced by federal initiatives emphasizing science-based restoration across priority watersheds and forests. Unlike finer-scale tactics, it requires multi-stakeholder collaboration to balance objectives such as maintenance, , and carbon storage, often through tools like landscape conservation cooperatives or design frameworks. The concept draws from principles, prioritizing empirical assessment of spatial patterns and causal drivers of ecosystem function over fragmented protections, with applications spanning terrestrial, freshwater, and marine interfaces. For instance, it has been implemented to mitigate fragmentation effects on birds, where site-level efforts alone fail to sustain viable populations amid agricultural intensification. Scope limitations arise from challenges in scaling data collection and enforcement across heterogeneous , underscoring the need for adaptive, evidence-based monitoring.

Underlying Principles

Landscape-scale conservation is predicated on the ecological reality that many and processes, such as migration, , and metapopulation persistence, operate across broad spatial extents, rendering site-specific protections insufficient against threats like and . This approach draws from landscape ecology's core tenet that spatial configuration profoundly influences and function, treating landscapes as heterogeneous mosaics of patches, corridors, and matrices rather than isolated units. Empirical evidence from studies of fragmented habitats demonstrates that disconnection reduces viability, as seen in species reliant on dispersal for recolonization after local extinctions. Interventions thus prioritize restoring connectivity via wildlife corridors and to sustain ecological flows, with models showing that even low-permeability matrices can support viable populations if key linkages are maintained. Multifunctionality emerges as a foundational principle, acknowledging that landscapes must reconcile conservation with productive uses like to achieve , rather than segregating them into rigid zones. This involves managing trade-offs explicitly, where diverse land uses enhance overall resilience by buffering against shocks—such as pests or droughts—through functional diversity, supported by field data from agroecological systems where integrated practices yield both yields and benefits. Resilience is further bolstered by designing for , incorporating heterogeneity to allow ecosystems to absorb disturbances and recover, as opposed to uniform monocultures prone to collapse. operationalizes this by embedding continual learning cycles: monitoring outcomes against baselines, then refining strategies based on data, which has proven effective in countering dynamic threats like spread. Collaborative governance underpins implementation, recognizing that landscapes transcend property boundaries and jurisdictions, demanding inclusive stakeholder processes to align incentives and resolve conflicts. Principles emphasize transparent of and responsibilities, equitable participation, and co-production of to build trust and capacity, avoiding top-down impositions that often fail due to local resistance or incomplete information. For instance, multi-scale analysis integrates local actions with regional feedbacks, ensuring decisions account for upstream-downstream effects, while participatory monitoring fosters shared . These human-centered elements, informed by social-ecological , counter the limitations of purely biophysical models by incorporating causal drivers like land-use . Empirical validations from collaborative initiatives show higher success rates when principles like and innovation are applied, yielding durable outcomes over siloed efforts.

Historical Evolution

Early Foundations (Pre-2000)

The concept of landscape-scale conservation emerged from foundational work in , which emphasized and ecological processes across broad areas rather than isolated sites. German geographer Carl Troll introduced the term "" (Landschaftsökologie) in 1939, drawing on to study interactions between land mosaics, vegetation patterns, and environmental factors, building on Alexander von Humboldt's earlier 19th-century observations of latitudinal vegetation gradients and climatic influences. This interdisciplinary approach shifted focus from plot-level ecology to regional dynamics, providing a theoretical basis for viewing conservation through integrated land units. Mid-20th-century theoretical advances further propelled landscape considerations in conservation. The 1967 theory of island biogeography by and modeled species richness as a function of habitat area and isolation, influencing reserve planning by highlighting extinction risks in fragmented habitats. This sparked the SLOSS debate starting in 1975 at a National Zoo , where ecologists contested whether a single large reserve (SL) preserved more species than several small ones (SS) of equivalent total area, underscoring the need for connectivity, metapopulation dynamics, and landscape permeability to sustain . International frameworks began institutionalizing these ideas. UNESCO's , launched in 1971, designated the first biosphere reserves in 1976 across countries including the (), , and , structuring landscapes into core protected zones for strict conservation, surrounding buffer areas for sustainable resource use, and outer transition zones for human economic activities compatible with ecological integrity. By 1995, over 300 such reserves operated globally, promoting models of harmonizing protection with development at scales encompassing multiple ecosystems. In , practical applications crystallized around iconic regions. The concept gained prominence in the 1970s through research by biologists like the Craighead brothers, who documented wildlife migrations extending beyond Yellowstone National Park's 1872 boundaries into adjacent forests and rangelands, advocating coordinated management of approximately 7.7 million hectares to address threats like from and development. This approach influenced U.S. federal policies, including interagency coordination formalized in the , reflecting a recognition that isolated parks insufficiently maintained large-scale processes such as predator-prey dynamics and fire regimes. By the late 1980s, principles, as articulated in texts like Richard T.T. Forman's works, informed conservation strategies emphasizing corridors and matrix management to bolster resilience.

Modern Developments (2000-Present)

In the early 2000s, landscape-scale conservation increasingly incorporated responses to emerging threats such as and , shifting emphasis toward ecosystem resilience and connectivity across large areas rather than isolated reserves. This evolution was influenced by scientific recognition that small, fragmented protected areas insufficiently supported species migration and genetic flow amid shifting environmental conditions. A pivotal theoretical advancement came with Dave Foreman's 2004 publication Rewilding North America, which proposed a continental framework of core wilderness reserves connected by wildlife corridors and reintroduction of large carnivores to restore ecological processes. Organizational milestones followed, including the establishment of the Shan Shui Conservation Center in in 2007, which advanced integrated protection of mountains, waters, forests, fields, lakes, and grasslands through field-based ecosystem restoration. In the United States, the Department of the Interior launched the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) network in 2010, comprising 22 regional partnerships of federal agencies, states, tribes, and NGOs to deliver science-based tools for collaborative conservation planning at ecoregional scales. These cooperatives facilitated and , though the program faced funding cuts by 2018, leading to transitions into joint ventures and other entities. Europe saw parallel growth with the founding of Rewilding in 2011, a nonprofit promoting restoration of through reintroductions, natural grazing, and river renaturalization across targeted landscapes, aiming for 1 million hectares of rewilded land by 2020. By the mid-2010s, global frameworks reinforced these efforts; for instance, China's Shan-Shui Initiative expanded into 75 large-scale restoration projects by the 2020s, restoring over 6.7 million hectares of degraded ecosystems through government-led integrated management. These developments underscored a consensus on multistakeholder collaboration, with empirical assessments showing improved metrics in connected landscapes compared to fragmented ones, though challenges like land-use conflicts persisted.

Approaches and Methodologies

Integrated Landscape Management


Integrated Landscape Management (ILM) entails long-term collaboration among diverse land managers, farmers, conservation organizations, and policymakers to pursue multiple objectives—such as preservation, food production, and services—within defined landscapes spanning thousands to millions of hectares. This approach prioritizes systems-level integration to identify synergies and mitigate trade-offs across sectors, contrasting with sector-specific strategies that often fragment efforts. Core principles of ILM include stakeholder-inclusive , adaptive informed by continual monitoring and learning, multi-scale to address local and broader dynamics, and negotiated compromises to balance competing land uses like and habitat protection. A 2013 framework distills these into ten operational principles, emphasizing resilience to disturbances, transparency in sharing, and avoidance of stakeholder exclusion to foster equitable outcomes. Implementation typically proceeds through formation of multi-stakeholder partnerships, articulation of a collective vision via participatory processes, development of coordinated action plans, and deployment of monitoring frameworks to evaluate progress against ecological, social, and economic indicators. In practice, ILM has been applied in regions like Nepal's Terai Arc Landscape, a 34,000-square-kilometer area where initiatives since 2001 integrate management, restoration, and community-based resource use to conserve species such as tigers and rhinos, involving over 100,000 households in and sustainable forestry efforts. Similar efforts in African savannas and Southeast Asian mosaics employ tools like joint land-use zoning and payments to align conservation with livelihoods, though success hinges on sustained and institutional support. Empirical assessments reveal ILM's promise in enhancing and human well-being, with case studies documenting reduced rates and improved connectivity in collaborative settings, yet systematic long-term data remain scarce, complicating claims of broad . Reviews from 2015 and 2016 highlight barriers including power imbalances among stakeholders and weak enforcement, suggesting that while ILM outperforms isolated interventions in reconciling objectives, measurable outcomes depend on rigorous protocols rather than anecdotal reports. Ecoagriculture encompasses landscape management strategies designed to simultaneously enhance , conserve , and sustain services such as , , and water regulation. This approach recognizes the interdependence between farming systems and natural s, advocating for diversified land uses that include patches of natural vegetation, corridors for wildlife movement, and reduced-input farming practices to mitigate the fragmentation effects of intensive monocultures. Empirical studies indicate that such integration can support species of intermediate conservation concern, particularly in moderate-intensity systems where crop yields remain viable alongside features like hedgerows and . Key principles of ecoagriculture align with broader approaches, including , multi-stakeholder collaboration, and monitoring of ecological and economic outcomes to reconcile competing land uses. For instance, maintaining 10-20% non-crop within agricultural matrices has been shown to bolster beneficial populations and reduce pest pressures without substantial yield losses in certain crops like and . Evidence from field trials demonstrates that ecoagricultural practices, such as and riparian buffers, can increase farm resilience to variability by enhancing and water retention, with documented gains in and assemblages exceeding those in conventional setups by up to 30% in some tropical landscapes. However, effectiveness depends on site-specific factors, including initial baselines and farmer adoption incentives, as high-input conversions often fail to reverse degradation without support. Related variations extend ecoagriculture's landscape focus through specialized emphases on ecological processes or . applies ecological science to agricultural systems at field-to-landscape scales, promoting diversified polycultures and reduced synthetic inputs to mimic natural dynamics, with meta-analyses showing yield stability improvements of 20-50% under variable conditions compared to monocultures. , a subset emphasizing via no-till, cover cropping, and livestock integration, operates at landscape scales by fostering connectivity between restored pastures and croplands; trials report rates of 0.5-3 tons per annually alongside enhanced microbial diversity, though scalability remains constrained by initial costs and variable profitability. These approaches differ from ecoagriculture in scope— incorporates social dimensions like co-production, while regenerative variants prioritize measurable metrics—but converge on multifunctional landscapes that balance production with conservation, as evidenced by integrated projects yielding comparable outputs to conventional methods with added benefits.

Ecosystem-Based Approaches

Ecosystem-based approaches to landscape-scale conservation prioritize the management of entire ecosystems over isolated species or habitats, integrating ecological processes, human activities, and environmental stressors to enhance resilience and sustain services such as water purification, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity support. This framework, often termed ecosystem-based management (EBM), recognizes the interconnected dynamics within landscapes, including terrestrial, freshwater, and marine components, and aims to address cumulative impacts like habitat fragmentation and climate variability across large spatial scales. Unlike narrower conservation tactics, EBM employs adaptive strategies that evolve with monitoring data and stakeholder input, emphasizing prevention of ecosystem degradation through holistic planning rather than reactive remediation. Core principles of EBM in contexts include:
  • Holistic integration: Accounting for ecological, social, economic, and cultural factors to manage human-environment interactions across sectors.
  • Place-based focus: Tailoring interventions to specific geographies, scales, and threats, such as watershed-level affecting downstream reefs.
  • Interconnectivity: Preserving linkages among components, including migratory pathways and nutrient flows, to maintain functionality.
  • Multi-stakeholder : Engaging diverse participants, from local communities to agencies, for shared and .
  • Adaptive management: Implementing iterative cycles of planning, monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment to handle uncertainties like shifting climate patterns.
  • Diverse knowledge incorporation: Combining scientific data with to inform decisions, as seen in Pacific Island contexts where customary tenure systems guide resource use.
These principles facilitate landscape-scale application by transcending administrative boundaries and promoting coordinated actions, such as networks representing 20-50% of key s to buffer against localized disturbances. typically follows structured steps: stakeholder identification, goal-setting with measurable targets (e.g., population thresholds for ), strategy development including restoration and sustainable use, and ongoing monitoring of indicators like connectivity and service delivery. Tools such as spatial modeling (e.g., Marxan software for reserve design) aid in optimizing configurations that balance conservation with socioeconomic needs. In practice, ecosystem-based approaches have been applied in regions facing multi-jurisdictional threats; for instance, the Partnership in the U.S. integrates habitat restoration across 14 federal agencies, targeting salmon recovery and flood mitigation through ecosystem-level planning since 2010. Similarly, ridge-to-reef initiatives in address upstream impacts on coral ecosystems via community-led zoning, reducing sedimentation by up to 50% in monitored sites as of 2010 assessments. Canadian efforts, aligned with principles, demonstrate EBM's role in conserving forested landscapes by linking policy with on-ground actions like wetland restoration to support migratory birds. Effectiveness hinges on robust and enforcement, with challenges including institutional silos and funding gaps noted in evaluations.

Implementation and Case Studies

International Frameworks

The (CBD), signed at the 1992 in Rio de Janeiro and entering into force on December 29, 1993, establishes a primary international framework for landscape-scale conservation via its ecosystem approach to integrated management of land, water, and living resources. This approach, elaborated in CBD decisions such as II/8 (1998) and V/6 (2000), prioritizes conservation and sustainable use across spatial scales that encompass landscapes, incorporating principles like decentralized management and recognition of ecological boundaries over administrative ones. Further refined in Decision VI/12 (2002, adopted 2004), it outlines 12 operational principles, including the need for responsive to ecosystem dynamics and stakeholder involvement to balance multiple objectives without privileging any single goal. These principles have informed national biodiversity strategies, with landscape approaches explicitly integrated into post-2010 planning, as evidenced by guidance for aligning National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) with landscape-scale integration. The CBD's Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted at the 15th (COP15) on December 19, 2022, reinforces landscape-scale elements through targets such as Target 1, which calls for participatory to conserve 30% of terrestrial areas by 2030, and Target 2, emphasizing restoration of degraded ecosystems via connectivity-focused measures. This framework builds on the ecosystem approach by requiring countries to address in multifunctional landscapes, though implementation varies due to reliance on national commitments without binding enforcement mechanisms. Empirical assessments indicate that landscape approaches under the CBD have facilitated multi-stakeholder coordination in regions like , but challenges persist in scaling due to competing land uses and insufficient monitoring data. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) complements treaty-based efforts with non-binding guidelines on connectivity conservation, stemming from its 2016 World Conservation Congress resolution advocating ecological networks and corridors to maintain landscape permeability for movement. These guidelines, formalized in subsequent publications, recommend identifying priority connectivity areas based on ' habitat needs and threats like fragmentation, drawing on empirical data from global case studies to prioritize interventions over isolated protected areas. IUCN's framework emphasizes evidence-based planning, such as using landscape-level indicators for monitoring, but its effectiveness depends on adoption by governments and NGOs, with critiques noting potential overemphasis on metrics at the expense of socioeconomic viability in human-dominated landscapes. Additionally, UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, initiated in 1971, operationalizes landscape-scale conservation through biosphere reserves—zoned landscapes integrating core protected areas with sustainable buffer and transition zones—numbering 738 sites across 134 countries as of 2023, designed to demonstrate harmonious human-nature interactions at regional scales.

North American Initiatives

The Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y), initiated in 1993 as a collaborative effort among conservation organizations, seeks to maintain habitat connectivity along the from in to the Territory in , covering approximately 1.3 million square kilometers across five U.S. states, two Canadian provinces, two territories, and over 75 Indigenous territories. This transboundary program emphasizes wildlife corridors to facilitate species migration amid and , with key activities including land protection, wildlife crossing infrastructure, and scientific monitoring. By 2023, Y2Y contributed to an over 80% increase in protected areas within the region, reduced the grizzly bear population connectivity gap from 240 kilometers to under 80 kilometers, and supported more than 177 wildlife crossings. In the United States, the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), launched in 2009 by the Department of the Interior, formed a network of 22 regional public-private partnerships involving federal agencies, states, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and universities to address landscape-scale challenges such as species conservation and ecosystem restoration across jurisdictional boundaries. These cooperatives prioritized science-driven strategies for sustaining land, water, and wildlife resources, with some extending collaborations into and , though the formal LCC structure faced funding cuts and transitioned by 2018 into broader cooperative programs under agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Evaluations highlighted their role in integrating data for multijurisdictional issues, such as at-risk species recovery, despite operational challenges from political shifts. Beyond these flagship efforts, North American landscape conservation has proliferated through collaborative initiatives tracked by the Network for Landscape Conservation, which identified 122 such projects in the United States as of 2022, focusing on voluntary , restoration, and across urban-to-rural scales. These include efforts by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to enhance and via targeted programs, often leveraging federal incentives for private landowners. The Center for Large Landscape Conservation has further supported connectivity planning, such as mapping highway impacts on wildlife movement in western states, informing policy for permeable infrastructure. Overall, these initiatives demonstrate a shift toward cross-boundary, stakeholder-driven approaches, though success depends on sustained funding and alignment with property rights.

European and Other Regional Examples

Rewilding Europe, founded in 2011 as a non-profit organization, promotes landscape-scale conservation by restoring natural processes across large areas in partnership with local entities and networks. The initiative targets pioneering rewilding landscapes to enhance , resilience, and socioeconomic benefits, with efforts spanning over 1 million hectares in 10 flagship sites as of recent reports. Empirical outcomes include species reintroductions such as in the and increases in bird populations in the , though success varies by site-specific management. A notable European case is the Oostvaardersplassen reserve in the Netherlands, a 56 km² fenced area established in the 1980s and shifted toward rewilding in the 1990s through introductions of herbivores like konik horses and red deer to mimic prehistoric grazing dynamics. The approach yielded successes in vegetation diversity and avian species richness, challenging traditional climax community models. However, absence of large predators led to overgrazing and mass starvation during severe winters, culminating in thousands of animal deaths in 2018, public protests, emergency culls, and abandonment of the pure rewilding model in favor of supplementary feeding and population controls. This episode underscores causal limitations in applying Pleistocene proxies to modern, enclosed landscapes without full trophic restoration. In , landscape-scale conservation integrates across extensive terrains to address and deliver services, with initiatives like peatland restoration and river basin management enhancing connectivity for such as and waders. Beyond , Australia's National Wildlife Corridors Plan, finalized in 2012, establishes a voluntary national framework for restoring and managing linkages to counter fragmentation from and , prioritizing 10 key corridors covering diverse biomes like the Great Eastern Ranges. Implementation relies on partnerships among governments, landowners, and indigenous groups, with measurable progress in revegetation projects boosting koala and populations in targeted areas. In , the Arc Landscape initiative, launched in 2001 across and , encompasses 2.47 million hectares of forests, wetlands, and grasslands to connect protected areas for conservation. and efforts have restored over 100,000 hectares and tripled Nepal's numbers from 121 in 2009 to 355 by 2022, alongside gains for elephants and rhinos through improved habitat corridors.

Empirical Evidence

Measured Successes

Landscape-scale conservation efforts have yielded quantifiable improvements in habitat protection and biodiversity metrics in several documented cases. The Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative, established in 1993 to maintain ecological connectivity across a 3,200-kilometer corridor in , accelerated protected area designation within its boundaries by 90% relative to surrounding regions, where rates remained flat or declined. This resulted in an overall 80.5% expansion of conserved lands from 1993 to 2018, enhancing wildlife corridors for large mammals and reducing fragmentation effects on species like grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis), as evidenced by increased habitat contiguity and movement data. In agroecosystems, the U.S. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), which enrolls private farmlands into long-term grasslands since the 1990s, has delivered landscape-level gains for ground-nesting birds. Analysis of (Colinus virginianus) populations from 2010 to 2015 in the mid-Atlantic U.S. revealed that elevating CREP coverage from 0% to 10% of the landscape increased male densities by up to 182%, with density-dependent effects extending 3 kilometers from enrollment sites. Projections indicated that sustaining at least 5% landscape enrollment—ideally 10% accounting for re-enrollment variability—could achieve target densities of 0.25 males per , mitigating declines otherwise projected at 10-39% under partial program lapse. China's Grain-for-Green Program, launched in 1999 to convert erodible croplands to forests and grasslands, restored vegetation across 25 million hectares by 2018, boosting provision in degraded regions like the . Empirical satellite and field data show vegetation cover rose by 10-20% in program areas, yielding 20-30% higher soil retention and water yield values, alongside reduced by 40-60% through enhanced root systems and hydrological regulation. These outcomes, verified via and ground surveys, demonstrate causal links between large-scale and biophysical improvements, though biodiversity responses vary by planting selection.

Evaluations of Effectiveness and Gaps

A 2024 systematic review of 186 studies on conservation actions, encompassing landscape-scale efforts, determined that such interventions improved outcomes or slowed declines in 66% of cases, with stronger effects when actions addressed multiple threats simultaneously. Empirical evidence from targeted landscape initiatives, such as pond construction in agricultural regions, has demonstrated reversal of population declines across thousands of hectares, attributing success to increased habitat connectivity and reduced fragmentation. In European farmland contexts, collaborative landscape management via ecological focus areas preserved plant at rates exceeding non-conserved areas, though benefits diminished without farmer coordination. Landscape-scale approaches have also enhanced delivery, including and soil retention, as shown in a 2014 study modeling landscapes where integrated conservation increased service values by up to 20% compared to fragmented efforts. However, projections indicate that even ambitious expansions of protected areas and restoration may fail to offset projected habitat losses from and without complementary measures, potentially exacerbating declines in 40-50% of modeled scenarios. Causal attribution remains challenging due to variables like varying land-use intensities, with meta-analyses highlighting that landscape-level human disturbance correlates with 10-30% reductions in occupancy independent of local protections. Key gaps in evaluation include insufficient long-term monitoring, with most studies spanning under a decade and lacking controls for baseline trends, hindering assessments of durability. Connectivity analyses reveal networks often achieve only 40-50% of natural linkage, particularly in densely populated regions, underscoring failures in . Research biases toward ecological metrics overlook social and economic dimensions, with an "implementation gap" where 70% of strategies lack rigorous post-action , limiting . Taxonomic and geographic underrepresentation—focusing on vertebrates in temperate zones—exacerbates evidence shortfalls for and tropical systems, comprising over 80% of .

Economic and Incentive Structures

Funding and Cost Considerations

Public funding constitutes a primary source for landscape-scale conservation initiatives, particularly in the United States, where programs like the U.S. Service's Landscape Scale Restoration Program provide competitive grants to support collaborative, science-based restoration across priority forest landscapes. Similarly, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers Landscape Conservation Initiatives that leverage voluntary conservation programs to deliver benefits such as improved and on working lands. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), established in 1964, allocates revenues from offshore oil and gas leases toward acquiring and protecting natural areas, with appropriations supporting large-scale efforts to safeguard ecosystems. Annually, U.S. Farm Bill conservation programs disburse approximately $6 billion to enhance and resource quality on private lands, enabling landscape-level coordination. Philanthropic and nonprofit contributions supplement government resources, as seen in the Landscape Conservation Catalyst Fund, backed by foundations including the Doris Duke Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which target collaborative conservation at regional scales. Organizations like the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) facilitate ecosystem restoration through initiatives such as America's Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, which streamlines for voluntary projects nationwide; in December 2024, NFWF announced $122.5 million in for landscape-scale efforts across 42 states and territories. The Legacy Landscapes Fund awards to experienced conservation NGOs for preserving expansive natural areas, emphasizing long-term protection. Costs associated with landscape-scale conservation encompass land acquisition, restoration activities, ongoing management, and monitoring, often requiring economic analyses to assess feasibility. Peer-reviewed studies highlight that while initial outlays for restoration can be substantial, cost-benefit analyses (CBA) frequently demonstrate net economic gains from preserved services, such as maintenance and connectivity in linear landscape elements. For instance, spatial evaluations in regions like Paraguay's Atlantic forests reveal that factoring in opportunity costs—such as forgone agricultural revenue—alters prioritization, with conservation yielding benefits exceeding costs when services like water regulation are monetized. However, systematic reviews note persistent errors in underestimating implementation costs, including landholder incentives and spatial configuration effects, which can undermine project efficiency. Forest restoration assessments indicate variable returns, with benefits from and reduced often offsetting expenses, though data gaps persist on long-term opportunity costs. Return-on-investment (ROI) frameworks in conservation planning emphasize integrating economic costs to avoid inefficient allocations, as prioritizing low-cost sites without benefit metrics may fail to maximize ecological outcomes. Empirical evidence from large-scale designations, such as national monuments, suggests neutral or context-dependent economic impacts on local economies, challenging assumptions of uniform harm or boon. Market-based mechanisms, including conservation auctions, further address gaps by competitively allocating resources based on landscape-scale environmental improvements, though their depends on landholder participation and spatial spillovers. Overall, while public and philanthropic enables scale, rigorous CBA remains essential to balance conservation imperatives against verifiable economic trade-offs.

Market-Based Mechanisms and Private Efforts

Market-based mechanisms in landscape-scale conservation include payments for ecosystem services (PES), conservation auctions, and biodiversity offset markets, which incentivize private landowners to maintain or enhance ecological functions across large areas. PES programs compensate providers for verifiable services such as carbon sequestration, water quality improvement, and habitat connectivity, with global transactions estimated at $36-42 billion annually as of 2019. In the United States, forest-based PES averaged $176 million yearly for carbon, $889 million for water, $1,529 million for wildlife habitat, and $754 million for recreation from 2004 to 2013, often targeting expansive working landscapes to achieve scale. Conservation auctions, a subset of these instruments, procure ecosystem services from private farmlands by competitively bidding for actions like habitat restoration, enabling cost-effective coverage of regional priorities. Biodiversity credits and offset markets extend these approaches by monetizing conservation outcomes, such as protection or recovery, to offset development impacts at a level. Emerging frameworks assess feasibility for credits that quantify avoided loss or enhanced connectivity, with pilots demonstrating potential for scaling beyond site-specific mitigation. Integrated markets coordinate multiple services—e.g., carbon, , and —across regional to national scales, though outcomes vary by funding stability and regulatory enforcement. In agricultural landscapes, market-based instruments like voluntary PES have promoted by rewarding practices such as or reduced tillage over large tracts, with evidence from Latin American coffee regions showing sustained adoption where payments align with opportunity costs. Private efforts complement these mechanisms through tools like conservation easements, which restrict development on vast private holdings to preserve connectivity and integrity. In the U.S., easements have protected millions of acres, contributing substantially to landscape-scale goals by linking protected areas and buffering fragmentation, though they represent a modest fraction of total land base. Organizations such as facilitate easements and private reserves, emphasizing incentives and land trusts to engage large landowners in initiatives spanning multiple properties for species migration and watershed protection. Ranchers and forest owners, motivated by relational values and perceived efficacy, voluntarily adopt practices like or selective logging on expansive properties to support broader conservation corridors, as seen in studies of U.S. Western rangelands. These efforts have advanced goals like the U.S. 30x30 target, with easements proving popular for their permanence without full public acquisition, though success hinges on aligning private incentives with ecological metrics.

Criticisms and Challenges

Scientific and Practical Limitations

Scientific limitations of landscape-scale conservation stem from substantial evidence gaps and uncertainties in predicting ecological outcomes across diverse taxa and dynamic environmental conditions. Empirical studies reveal a lack of on how conservation area configuration—such as the trade-off between large contiguous patches and connected smaller ones—affects at scales relevant to reserves exceeding 10 hectares, particularly in boreal forests where mixed results from smaller-scale clear-cut experiments do not scale reliably. Connectivity-focused approaches, intended to facilitate dispersal, often benefit only a select few human-sensitive species like black bears or mountain lions, while failing to predict movement or occupancy for broader wildlife assemblages, leading to overgeneralized assumptions in planning. Models for functional connectivity, such as least-cost paths or circuit theory, exhibit variable predictive accuracy depending on species-specific alignment, underscoring the risk of misapplying results across ecological contexts. A core arises in biodiversity-friendly landscapes: while heterogeneity and connectivity enhance local resistance to certain stressors, they simultaneously enable the dispersal of "global change winners"—such as invasive thermophytes or eutrophytes—potentially accelerating community homogenization and , with these effects remaining largely unquantified across spatial scales and groups. exacerbates these issues by amplifying degradation and extreme events, where larger sites may buffer some (e.g., post-drought recovery in ringlet ) but connectivity corridors risk propagating disturbances or invasive propagules, as propagule pressure decreases in expansive areas yet monitoring demands intensify. spread is further facilitated by enhanced connectivity and diversity, complicating reserve design without species-specific adaptations for specialists versus generalists. Practical limitations compound these scientific challenges through difficulties in implementation, over vast areas. Scaling conservation requires prioritizing limited resources amid siloed efforts, yet coordinating across multiple landowners or jurisdictions often falters due to insufficient policies, land availability, and supply chains for restoration elements like in rewilding projects. Monitoring large landscapes for invasives, disturbances, or compliance proves resource-intensive, with larger sites harder to surveil than dispersed smaller ones, leading to undetected threats and failures. Evidence on intervention cost-effectiveness and socio-economic outcomes remains scarce, hindering policy evaluation; conventional methods overlook human responses and preferences, while counterfactual approaches—essential for —are underutilized, creating disconnects between ecological gains and feasible deployment.

Property Rights and Economic Critiques

Landscape-scale conservation initiatives often depend on conservation easements to secure private lands for connectivity and protection across vast regions, but these mechanisms have drawn criticism for undermining property rights by imposing perpetual restrictions on without equivalent compensation. Landowners retain but forfeit development rights indefinitely, which economists at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) describe as "dead hand control" that limits future adaptability to economic or ecological changes, potentially conflicting with traditions against such enduring servitudes. By 2019, easements covered approximately 15 million acres, a fifteenfold increase from 1990, enabling large-scale efforts like wildlife corridors but binding subsequent owners to terms they did not negotiate. Ranchers and rural stakeholders frequently oppose easement-driven projects on grounds that they erode economic viability and local control over working landscapes. In the proposed 5.7 million-acre Headwaters Conservation Area, ranchers in 2024 rejected federal plans to acquire easements on 250,000 acres of private land, arguing that restrictions on multiple uses—such as , timber, and —prioritize species habitat over overall , watershed productivity, and community revenues already strained by incomplete federal payments and litigation under environmental laws. Such initiatives, they contend, transform productive private properties into fragmented conservation zones that diminish land values and incentivize sales to outsiders, exacerbating rural depopulation without verifiable long-term gains. Economic critiques highlight inefficiencies in easement programs, particularly through tax incentives that distort markets and invite abuse rather than fostering genuine . Federal deductions, intended to encourage voluntary conservation, have fueled syndicated deals where investor groups inflate appraisals to claim deductions exceeding 2.5 times the investment, costing the U.S. an estimated $36 billion since 2010 and prompting IRS crackdowns listed among top scams. Analyses from the National Center for Public Policy Research note that by 2005, land trusts held easements on 9 million acres amid scandals, including deductions for low-conservation-value properties like courses, which reduce net public benefits while shifting costs to taxpayers. Free-market environmentalists argue that these subsidies crowd out private incentives, where secure property rights already align owner interests with sustainable use, avoiding the allocation failures of centralized, easement-based mandates that overlook opportunity costs like forgone agricultural output. In contexts, this can lead to inefficient protection, as easements fail to internalize spillover effects across ownerships without market-priced mechanisms like tradable credits.

Policy and Ideological Debates

Landscape-scale conservation initiatives often spark debates over the balance between ecological restoration and individual property rights, with critics arguing that expansive policies prioritize environmental goals at the expense of landowners' autonomy. Proponents advocate for coordinated, large-area protections to address and , while opponents contend that such approaches enable overreach, potentially devaluing private land through regulations or easements that restrict development and agricultural uses. For instance, , the "30x30" initiative—aiming to conserve 30% of lands and waters by 2030—has been criticized as facilitating federal control over private properties without adequate compensation, echoing historical tensions like the against federal land dominance. Ideologically, these efforts highlight a clash between collectivist , which views landscapes as shared public goods requiring centralized intervention, and individualist perspectives emphasizing property rights as fundamental to and local decision-making. Research on ranchers' participation in conservation reveals that orientations favoring strict individual property rights—where is seen as the owner's sole prerogative—reduce the likelihood of adopting landscape-scale practices by up to 45%, as they perceive such measures as eroding personal control in favor of collective benefits like removal or riparian protection. This tension manifests in policy preferences: advocates for relational values (e.g., duties to ) support incentives like conservation auctions, whereas skeptics warn of unintended through or mandates that hinder rural economies dependent on farming and extraction. Rewilding, a prominent strategy within landscape-scale conservation, intensifies these debates by reintroducing large herbivores or predators to restore natural processes, but it faces ideological pushback over risks to human safety, cultural practices, and economic viability. Critics point to cases like the 2023 fatal bear attack in Italy's Trentino region, following a 25-year EU-funded reintroduction, as evidence of prioritizing wilderness over community welfare, fueling public opposition and calls for stricter liability on conservation entities. Policy analyses urge evaluating rewilding through lenses of inclusion, such as whose knowledge and rights are prioritized, revealing potential neo-colonial dynamics where elite-driven visions exclude local stakeholders and exacerbate inequalities in costs and benefits. In agricultural contexts, rewilding conflicts with productive land uses, prompting debates over whether it undermines food security or offers synergies via regenerative models, though empirical evidence remains mixed on long-term socioeconomic outcomes. Broader policy controversies center on scales, with proponents favoring national or international frameworks for transboundary effectiveness, while detractors argue for decentralized, voluntary mechanisms to avoid alienating private landowners and rural communities. Evaluations highlight that without addressing participation gaps—such as foregrounding local histories and identities—landscape-scale projects risk and policy failure, as seen in European rewilding sites where private estates drive initiatives amid regional regulatory mismatches. These debates underscore causal trade-offs: while large-scale coordination can yield ecosystem-wide gains, ideological commitments to unrestricted property rights and development often frame such policies as ideologically driven encroachments, necessitating evidence-based compromises like market incentives over mandates to sustain public support.

References

  1. https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB16570.pdf
  2. https://www.environment.gov.scot/our-environment/people-and-the-environment/landscape-scale-conservation/
  3. https://www.wisconservation.org/what-is-landscape-scale-conservation/
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880924000665
  5. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15304-w
  6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35094450/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12403063/
  8. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.12545
  9. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-016-1257-9
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016724001840
  11. https://www.habitatblueprint.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EBM-LSC-FourPager-10_22_14.pdf
  12. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/21829/chapter/4
  13. https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/landscape-scale-restoration
  14. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70171041
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32269427/
  16. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210595110
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204618302354
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8310730/
  19. https://quizlet.com/study-guides/the-sloss-debate-in-conservation-biology-511727fd-428b-4750-ad53-ca4fb904a587
  20. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/geography/chpt/single-large-or-several-small-sloss-debate
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9290967/
  22. https://www.unesco.org/en/mab/wnbr/about
  23. https://www.britannica.com/science/biosphere-reserve
  24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23701641/
  25. https://lawreview.colorado.edu/print/the-greater-yellowstone-ecosystem-revisited-law-science-and-the-pursuit-of-ecosystem-management-in-an-iconic-landscape/
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7115020/
  27. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/2/60/4791429
  28. https://en.shanshui.org/
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5862361/
  30. https://rewildingeurope.com/
  31. https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/shan-shui-initiative
  32. https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202404/23/content_WS6626f011c6d0868f4e8e651a.html
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479720316376
  34. https://www.fao.org/land-water/overview/integrated-landscape-management/en/
  35. https://ecoagriculture.org/resources/scientific-publications/defining-integrated-landscape-management-for-policy-makers
  36. https://assets.landscapefinancelab.org/lfl/LFL/2d603731-861a-42f0-919b-0d9f4acab5a0.pdf
  37. https://www.worldwildlife.org/our-work/funds/wwf-gef/projects/integrated-landscape-management-to-secure-nepals-protected-areas-and-critical-corridors/
  38. https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/2018-06/4.%2520Integrated%2BLandscape%2BManagement__Thaxton_Shames_Scherr.pdf
  39. https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2047-2382-4-2
  40. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13284
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311099737_Measuring_the_effectiveness_of_landscape_approaches_to_conservation_and_development
  42. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2007.2165
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2610165/
  44. https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-021-00233-z
  45. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2022.844261/full
  46. https://landscapes.global/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Regen10-1000LandscapesReport-Final.pdf
  47. https://www.oneearth.org/exploring-the-connections-between-agroecology-and-regenerative-agriculture/
  48. https://www.eopugetsound.org/articles/ecosystem-based-management
  49. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ecosystems/ecosystem-based-fisheries-management
  50. https://www.reefresilience.org/pdf/EBMguide_2010.pdf
  51. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2008/nrcan/Fo4-21-2008E.pdf
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169204697000960
  53. https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/
  54. https://unu.edu/publication/using-landscape-approaches-national-biodiversity-strategy-and-action-planning
  55. https://y2y.net/
  56. https://www.fws.gov/media/landscape-conservation-cooperatives-frequently-asked-questions
  57. https://www.eesi.org/briefings/view/032922fed
  58. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/landscape-conservation-initiatives
  59. https://largelandscapes.org/focus-area/us-program/
  60. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/policy-focus-reports/large-landscape-conservation/
  61. https://iucn.org/our-union/members/iucn-members/rewilding-europe
  62. https://rewildingeurope.com/what-is-rewilding/
  63. https://www.ecos.org.uk/ecos-406-the-golden-rules-of-rewilding-examining-the-case-of-oostvaardersplassen/
  64. https://www.thegryphon.co.uk/2021/01/20/why-the-oostvaardersplassen-rewilding-scheme-may-have-missed-the-mark/
  65. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20251016-the-dutch-rewilding-project-that-took-a-dark-turn
  66. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/27/dutch-rewilding-experiment-backfires-as-thousands-of-animals-starve
  67. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/703338
  68. http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/453833/20875905/1352147781487/6408%2BDSEWPAC%2BNational%2BWildlife%2BCorridor%2BPlan_FA-WEB-p-72%2Bpdf.pdf?token=B8rBLSXRmeCNXEdNLTFubSgqlRE%253D
  69. https://conservationcorridor.org/digests/2012/11/australia-releases-national-wildlife-corridor-plan/
  70. https://www.wwfnepal.org/our_working_areas/tal2/
  71. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/landscapes-heal-nepals-most-iconic-animals-stage-comeback
  72. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10678466/Reforestation-initiative-that-helped-triple-Nepals-tiger-population-recognized-as-one-of-seven-UN-World-Restoration-Flagships
  73. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.588
  74. https://y2y.net/blog/how-y2ys-audacious-conservation-goal-became-authentic/
  75. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.13136
  76. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-29937-7
  77. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JG002820
  78. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac444c
  79. https://www.rewild.org/press/study-definitively-shows-that-conservation-actions-are-effective
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9586276/
  81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880924000665?via%253Dihub
  82. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21513732.2014.883430
  83. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38043-1
  84. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002976
  85. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2688-8319.12028
  86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652624001768
  87. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1542
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12513691/
  89. https://www.doi.gov/lwcf
  90. https://www.trcp.org/farm-bill/
  91. https://landscapeconservation.org/catalyst-fund/
  92. https://www.nfwf.org/programs/americas-ecosystem-restoration-initiative
  93. https://nativephilanthropy.org/blog/national-fish-and-wildlife-foundation-announces-122.5-million-in-conservation-grants-from-the-america-the-beautiful-challenge
  94. https://legacylandscapes.org/grant-program/
  95. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479723020509
  96. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040360
  97. https://academic.oup.com/book/58200/chapter/481599144
  98. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02399-y
  99. https://le.uwpress.org/content/94/3/323
  100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924004063
  101. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13273
  102. https://emlab.ucsb.edu/blog/how-big-are-payments-ecosystem-services
  103. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/63513
  104. https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/items/88b4beb7-718a-40b9-9e6f-85f30fe7be1e
  105. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8754326/
  106. https://pasopacifico.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2014-Market-Based-Incentives-for-the-Conservation-of-Ecosystem-Services-in-Agricultural-Landscapes_-Examples-from-Coffee-Cultivation-in-Latin-America.pdf
  107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320718311984
  108. https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/how-we-work/private-lands-conservation/
  109. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10628
  110. https://www.westernroadto30.org/voluntary-private-conservation
  111. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1617138124001535
  112. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_journals/2025/rmrs_2025_keeley_a001.pdf
  113. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-20370-w
  114. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adt9564
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190052822000219
  116. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1617138123000535
  117. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332219300235
  118. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542519622001486
  119. https://www.perc.org/2019/02/12/the-conservation-easement-conundrum/
  120. https://www.dillontribune.com/commentary/local-ranchers-voice-opposition-to-conservation-area/article_31d3ba22-bef1-11ee-899c-173bb994d5de.html
  121. https://landreport.com/syndicated-conservation-easements
  122. https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/2008/05/01/conservation-easements-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-by-dana-joel-gattuso/
  123. https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/devils-details-bidens-3030-conservation-plan
  124. https://landtrustalliance.org/blog/making-30x30-work
  125. https://greenly.earth/en-us/blog/ecology-news/the-arguments-for-and-against-rewilding
  126. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.70100
  127. https://www.tabledebates.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/TABLE_report_rewilding_final.pdf
  128. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/scaling-conservation-large-landscapes/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.