Using a multi-lens framework for landscape decisions

1. Landscape decisions are multi-faceted. Framing landscape decision-making as a governance process that requires a collective approach can encourage key stakeholders to come together to co-inform a discussion about their priorities and what constitutes good governance, leading to more holistic landscape decisions. 2. In this paper, we recognise that a suite of complementary and multi-dimensional approaches are in practice used to inform and evaluate land use decisions. We have called these approaches ‘lenses’ because they each provide a different perspective on the same problem. The four lenses are: i) Power and Market Gain, ii) Ecosystem Services, iii), Place based Identity and iv) Ecocentric. Each brings a different set of evidence and viewpoints (narrative, qualitative and experiential, as well as quantitative metrics such as monetary) to the decision-making process and can potentially reveal problems and solutions that others do not. 3. Considering all lenses together allows dialogue to take place which can reveal the true complexities of landscape decision-making and can facilitate more effective and more holistic decisions. Employing the lenses requires governance structures that give equal weight to all lenses, enable dialogue and coexistence between top down and bottom up approaches, and permit adaptation to local and granular place specifics rather than developing “one-size-fits-all” solutions. 4. We propose that formalising the process of balancing all the lenses requires public participation, and that a lens approach should be used to support landscape decisions alongside a checklist that facilitates transparency in the conversation, showing how all evidence has been considered and critically assessed

The circular benefits of participation in nature-based solutions

Nature-based solutions (NbS) provide direct benefits to people who live in areas where these approaches are present. The degree of direct benefits (thermal comfort, reduced flood risk, and mental health) varies across temporal and spatial scales, and it can be modelled and quantified. Less clear are the indirect benefits related to opportunities to learn about the environment and its influence on personal behaviour and action. The present study, based on survey data from 1955 participants across 17 cities worldwide, addressed whether participation in NbS through two types of interactions (a passive learning experience about NbS and a more active experience based on Citizen Science) stimulates motivation and willingness to be more environmentally sustainable. Over 75% of participants improved their understanding of environmental sustainability and were highly motivated and more confident in their ability to improve sustainability in their local environment/nature. Similar percentage improvements arose from both types of activity across all cities. Those NbS that had elements of both blue and green infrastructure rated higher than those that had predominantly green NbS. Interestingly, a large percentage of the participants did not live near the NbS that were the focus of these activities. This indicated that expected spatial limitations between benefit and recipient may be overcome when dedicated programmes involve people in learning or monitoring NbS. Therefore, opportunities have arisen to expand inclusion from the immediately local to the larger community through participation and Citizen Science, with potential benefits to social cohesion and urban sustainability

Using a multi-lens framework for landscape decisions

1. Landscape decisions are multi-faceted. Framing landscape decision-making as a governance process that requires a collective approach can encourage key stakeholders to come together to co-inform a discussion about their priorities and what constitutes good governance, leading to more holistic landscape decisions. 2. In this paper, we recognise that a suite of complementary and multi-dimensional approaches are in practice used to inform and evaluate land use decisions. We have called these approaches ‘lenses’ because they each provide a different perspective on the same problem. The four lenses are: i) Power and Market Gain, ii) Ecosystem Services, iii), Place based Identity and iv) Ecocentric. Each brings a different set of evidence and viewpoints (narrative, qualitative and experiential, as well as quantitative metrics such as monetary) to the decision-making process and can potentially reveal problems and solutions that others do not. 3. Considering all lenses together allows dialogue to take place which can reveal the true complexities of landscape decision-making and can facilitate more effective and more holistic decisions. Employing the lenses requires governance structures that give equal weight to all lenses, enable dialogue and coexistence between top down and bottom up approaches, and permit adaptation to local and granular place specifics rather than developing “one-size-fits-all” solutions. 4. We propose that formalising the process of balancing all the lenses requires public participation, and that a lens approach should be used to support landscape decisions alongside a checklist that facilitates transparency in the conversation, showing how all evidence has been considered and critically assessed

Adapting genetic algorithms for multifunctional landscape decisions: a theoretical case study on wild bees and farmers in the UK

1. Spatial modelling approaches to aid land-use decisions which benefit both wildlife and humans are often limited to the comparison of pre-determined landscape scenarios, which may not reflect the true optimum landscape for any end-user. Furthermore, the needs of wildlife are often under-represented when considered alongside human financial interests in these approaches. 2. We develop a method of addressing these gaps using a case-study of wild bees in the UK, an important group whose declines may adversely affect both human economies and surrounding ecosystems. By combining the genetic algorithm NSGA-II with a process-based pollinator model which simulates bee foraging and population dynamics, Poll4pop, we ‘evolve’ a typical UK agricultural landscape to identify optimum land cover configurations for three different guilds of wild bee. These configurations are compared to those resulting from optimisations for farm income alone, as well as optimisations that seek a compromise between bee populations and farm income objectives. 3. We find that the land cover proportions in landscapes optimised for each bee guild reflect their nesting habitat preferences rather than foraging preferences, highlighting a limiting resource within the study landscape. The spatially explicit nature of these optimised landscapes illustrates how improvement for a given target species may be limited by differences between their movement range and the scale of the units being improved. Land cover composition and configuration differ significantly in landscapes optimised for farm income and bee population growth simultaneously and illustrate how human agents are required to compromise much more when the multifaceted nature of biodiversity is recognised and represented by multiple objectives within an optimisation framework. Our methods provide a way to quantify the extent to which real-life landscapes promote or compromise objectives for different landscape end-users. Our investigation suggests that optimisation set-up (decision-unit scales, traditional choice of a single biodiversity metric) can bias outcomes towards human-centric solutions. It also demonstrates the importance of representing the individual requirements of different actors with different landscape-level needs when using genetic algorithms to support biodiversity-inclusive decision-making in multi-functional landscapes

A framework for identifying and selecting long term adaptation policy directions for deltas

Deltas are precarious environments experiencing significant biophysical, and socio-economic changes with the ebb and flow of seasons (including with floods and drought), with infrastructural developments (such as dikes and polders), with the movement of people, and as a result of climate and environmental variability and change. Decisions are being taken about the future of deltas and about the provision of adaptation investment to enable people and the environment to respond to the changing climate and related changes. The paper presents a framework to identify options for, and trade-offs between, long term adaptation strategies in deltas. Using a three step process, we: (1) identify current policy-led adaptations actions in deltas by conducting literature searches on current observable adaptations, potential transformational adaptations and government policy; (2) develop narratives of future adaptation policy directions that take into account investment cost of adaptation and the extent to which significant policy change/political effort is required; and (3) explore trade-offs that occur within each policy direction using a subjective weighting process developed during a collaborative expert workshop. We conclude that the process of developing policy directions for adaptation can assist policy makers in scoping the spectrum of options that exist, while enabling them to consider their own willingness to make significant policy changes within the delta and to initiate transformative change.</p

Map comparison methods that simultaneously address overlap and structure

Categorical, Map comparison, Fuzzy, Accuracy assessment, Landscape structure,

Visualization and classification of urban change patterns on the basis of state-space transitions

Descriptive models of urban patterns are, by large, based on static situations i.e. single moments in time. They may present us with surprising regularities in space and time, such as the rank size distribution of city populations (Ioannides &amp; Overman, 2003), the cluster size distributions of urban areas (Benguigui et al, 2006) and fractal relations i