Collaborative Landscape Planning: Co-Design of Ecosystem-Based Land Management Scenarios
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Collaborative Landscape Planning Using Scenarios
2.1. Case Study Area
2.2. Methodological Approach
3. Results
3.1. Collaborative Landscape Planning
We recognize that we have reached the maximum capacity of our pumping station. The increasing frequency and intensity of rain events and the spread of impervious surfaces lead to faster water run-off. Therefore, we have to pump around the clock as we cannot wait to discharge the water during ebb tide. We experienced extreme situations in the last years. Although we used our whole pumping capacity, the hinterland could not be kept to an appropriate water level. Despite the unprecedented safety of our dike system, our drainage system just barely underwent a critical point.
The need for polders to attenuate extreme situations is indisputable. We all agree about it; and In the future, we can manage excess rainwater situations with polders to prevent flooding.
In the future it is not possible to enforce single sided maximum claims. Different forms of land use have to be combined, and multifunctional landscapes will become more and more important.(Administrator Chamber of Agriculture)
As it is very important to find synergies, different forms of land use have to be weighed against each other to avoid conflict situations.(Administrator County of Aurich)
3.2. Implementation
Small polder areas contribute to relieve the drainage system. It is definitely wise to think about the usefulness of low lying areas to serve as polders for a manageable threshold level of damage.(Director of the Water Board Emden)
With the determination of priority areas for flood protection and water storage, the county of Aurich includes the risk of storm surges and dike security, and considers the problems of the drainage system. Nowadays it is already necessary to create polders to store rainwater from extreme events. The designation of such areas took place in close collaboration with all institutions responsible for water management and coastal protection, nature conservation, and the municipality.
4. Discussion
4.1. The Co-Design Process
Initially, some followed the process rather critically. But over the long term we recognized that we discussed very reasonable issues.(Director Farmer Association East Frisia)
We farmers are willing to incorporate flexible nature conservation measures. Provided it is not considered from one side only, and without exclusively restricted conservation areas.(Chairman Farmer Association East Frisia)
The actor-based scenario is a compromise in terms of a nature conservationist´s viewpoint. However, small scale fragmentation leading to minimum habitats is no option.(Administrator National Park Authority)
Every expert in the group delivered an important contribution to the process. The group work promotes a mutual understanding of different viewpoints.(Administrator Lower Nature Conservation Authority)
The inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration during this process is a precondition for sustainable development.(Administrator Biosphere Reserve Authority)
One of the main strengths is that we brought all actors and interests together and discussed taboo topics as well.(Administrator Chamber of Agriculture)
Although it was challenging to get into future scenarios, it was an impressive experience getting the possibility to think about the probable future development of the region. Especially beyond daily business and other means. We had a lot of fun.(Director Tourism Association East Frisia)
4.2. Comparison of the Land Management Scenarios
5. Conclusions
- -
- developing narratives, telling the different stories how the future of the case study region could be designed for the future, and transforming them into spatially explicit scenarios;
- -
- conceiving resource units as land use elements with specific ecosystem service outputs and scenarios as resource systems with characteristic spatial patterns of resource units;
- -
- employing participatory mapping including simple illustrations to foster creativity and understanding; and
- -
- guiding an assessment process to evaluate the outcomes leading to the design of a final landscape plan.
Supplementary Materials
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Reise, K. Coast of change: Habitat loss and transformations in the Wadden Sea. Helgol. Mar. Res. 2005, 59, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, D.C.; Hessl, A.; Davis, S.C. Complexity, land-use modeling, and the human dimension: Fundamental challenges for mapping unknown outcome spaces. Geoforum 2008, 39, 789–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viglizzo, E.F.; Paruelo, J.M.; Laterra, P.; Jobbágy, E.G. Ecosystem service evaluation to support land-use policy. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 154, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerselaers, E.; Rogge, E.; Vanempten, E.; Lauwers, L.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. Changing land use in the countryside: Stakeholders’ perception of the ongoing rural planning processes in Flanders. Land Use Policy 2013, 32, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliott, M.; Cutts, N.D.; Trono, A. A typology of marine and estuarine hazards and risks as vectors of change: A review for vulnerable coasts and their management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 93, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pachauri, R.K.; Allen, M.R.; Barros, V.R.; Broome, J.; Cramer, W.; Christ, R.; Church, J.A.; Clarke, L.; Dahe, Q.; Dasgupta, P. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report; Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Alcamo, J.; Moreno, J.M.; Shvidenko, A. Europe. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter12.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2017).
- Weisse, R.; Von Storch, H.; Niemeyer, H.D.; Knaack, H. Changing north sea storm surge climate: An increasing hazard? Ocean Coast. Manag. 2012, 68, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacob, D.; Göttel, H.; Kotlarski, S.; Lorenz, P.; Sieck, K. Klimaauswirkungen und Anpassung in Deutschland—Phase 1: Erstellung Regionaler Klimaszenarien für Deutschland; Umweltbundesamt: Dessau-Roßlau, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Spekat, A.; Enke, W.; Kreienkamp, F. Neuentwicklung von Regional Hoch Aufgelösten Wetterlagen für Deutschland und Bereitstellung Regionaler Klimaszenarios auf der Basis von Globalen Klimasimulationen mit dem Regionalisierungsmodell WETTREG auf der Basis von Globalen Klimasimulationen mit EECHAM5/MPI-OM T63L31 2010 bis 2100 für die SRESSzenarios B1, A1B und A2; Umweltbundesamt: Dessau-Roßlau, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Oude Essink, G.H.P.; Van Baaren, E.S.; De Louw, P.G.B. Effects of climate change on coastal groundwater systems: A modeling study in the Netherlands. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blotevogel, H.H.; Danielzyk, R.; Münter, A. Spatial planning in Germany: Institutional inertia and new challenges. In Spatial Planning Systems and Practices in Europe: A Comparative Perspective on Continuity and Changes; Reimer, M., Getimis, P., Blotevogel, H.H., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 83–108. [Google Scholar]
- Opdam, P. Using ecosystem services in community-based landscape planning: Science is not ready to deliver. In Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013; pp. 77–101. [Google Scholar]
- Opdam, P.; Nassauer, J.I.; Wang, Z.; Albert, C.; Bentrup, G.; Castella, J.C.; McAlpine, C.; Liu, J.; Sheppard, S.; Swaffield, S. Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1439–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsson, L.; Berkes, F. Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. J. Environ. Manag. 2005, 75, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 441–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fürst, C.; Opdam, P.; Inostroza, L.; Luque, S. Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: Proposing a balanced score card. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 1435–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Posner, S.M.; McKenzie, E.; Ricketts, T.H. Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 1760–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rounsevell, M.D.A.; Metzger, M.J. Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2010, 1, 606–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, J.R.; Wiek, A.; Swanson, F.J.; Carpenter, S.R.; Fresco, N.; Hollingsworth, T.; Spies, T.A.; Foster, D.R. Scenario studies as a synthetic and integrative research activity for long-term ecological research. BioScience 2012, 62, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albert, C.; Aronson, J.; Fürst, C.; Opdam, P. Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: Requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 1277–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- UK National Ecosystem Assessment. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-On: Synthesis of the Key Findings; UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Opdam, P.; Coninx, I.; Dewulf, A.; Steingröver, E.; Vos, C.; Van der Wal, M. Framing ecosystem services: Affecting behaviour of actors in collaborative landscape planning? Land Use Policy 2015, 46, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peterson, G.D.; Cumming, G.S.; Carpenter, S.R. Scenario planning: A tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conserv. Biol. 2003, 17, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, R.D.; Charles, A.; Stephenson, R.L. Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management. Mar. Policy 2015, 57, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Partelow, S.; Winkler, K.J. Interlinking ecosystem services and ostrom’s framework through orientation in sustainability research. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smythe, T.C.; Thompson, R. Conceptualizing coastal ecosystem-based management: A mental models approach. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2014, 28, 38–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Consultation on Cices Version 4, August–December 2012. Report to the European Environment Agency, EEA Framework Contract No: EEA/IEA/09/003. Available online: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seearev/GCComments/CICES_Report.pdf (accessed on 9 August 2013).
- Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grothmann, T.; Petzold, M.; Ndaki, P.; Kakembo, V.; Siebenhüner, B.; Kleyer, M.; Yanda, P.; Ndou, N. Vulnerability assessment in african villages under conditions of land use and climate change: Case studies from Mkomazi and Keiskamma. Sustainability 2017, 9, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, G.; Vogt, J.; Mincey, S.; Cox, M.; Fischer, B. Missing ecology: Integrating ecological perspectives with the social-ecological system framework. Int. J. Commons 2013, 7, 432–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, E.M.; Cramer, W.; Begossi, A.; Cundill, G.; Díaz, S.; Egoh, B.N.; Geijzendorffer, I.R.; Krug, C.B.; Lavorel, S.; Lazos, E. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: Three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyers, B.; Biggs, R.; Cumming, G.S.; Elmqvist, T.; Hejnowicz, A.P.; Polasky, S. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: A social—Ecological approach. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 11, 268–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eppink, F.V.; Werntze, A.; Mäs, S.; Popp, A.; Seppelt, R. Land management and ecosystem services how collaborative research programmes can support better policies. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2012, 21, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKenzie, E.; Posner, S.; Tillmann, P.; Bernhardt, J.R.; Howard, K.; Rosenthal, A. Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: Lessons from international experiences of spatial planning. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2014, 32, 320–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, T.R.; Wiek, A.; Sarewitz, D.; Robinson, J.; Olsson, L.; Kriebel, D.; Loorbach, D. The future of sustainability science: A solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain. Sci. 2014, 9, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGinnis, M.; Ostrom, E. Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Partelow, S. Coevolving ostrom’s social—Ecological systems (ses) framework and sustainability science: Four key co-benefits. Sustain. Sci. 2016, 11, 399–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landkreis Aurich. Regionales Raumordnungsprogramm 2015: Beschreibende Darstellung—Entwurf; Landkreis Aurich: Lower Saxony, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Rabionet, S.E. How I learned to design and conduct semi-structured interviews: An ongoing and continuous journey. Qual. Rep. 2011, 16, 563. [Google Scholar]
- Mayring, P. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Available online: http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/39517/ssoar-2014-mayring-Qualitative_content_analysis_theoretical_foundation.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2017).
- Colucci, E. “Focus groups can be fun”: The use of activity-oriented questions in focus group discussions. Qual. Health Res. 2007, 17, 1422–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1999, 65, 412–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karrasch, L.; Klenke, T.; Woltjer, J. Linking the ecosystem services approach to social preferences and needs in integrated coastal land use management—A planning approach. Land Use Policy 2014, 38, 522–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cebrián-Piqueras, M.A.; Karrasch, L.; Kleyer, M. Coupling stakeholder assessments of ecosystem services with biophysical ecosystem properties reveals importance of social contexts. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 23, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, N.J.; Blythe, J.; Tyler, S.; Ban, N.C. Communities and change in the anthropocene: Understanding social-ecological vulnerability and planning adaptations to multiple interacting exposures. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2015, 16, 907–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Available online: https://islandpress.org/author/millennium-ecosystem-assessment (accessed on 18 September 2017).
- Wichtmann, W. Nutzung von Schilf (phragmites australis). Arch. Naturschutz Landschaftsforsch. 1999, 38, 217–232. [Google Scholar]
- Brix, H.; Sorrell, B.K.; Lorenzen, B. Are phragmites-dominated wetlands a net source or net sink of greenhouse gases? Aquat. Bot. 2001, 69, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behre, K.E. Coastal development, sea-level change and settlement history during the later holocene in the clay district of lower saxony (niedersachsen), northern Germany. Quat. Int. 2004, 112, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witte, S.; Giani, L. Greenhouse gas emission and balance of marshes at the southern north sea coast. Wetlands 2016, 36, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karrasch, L. Matching an ecosystem services approach with social impact assessment. In Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment; Geneletti, D., Ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2016; pp. 86–112. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, W.C.; Van Kerkhoff, L.; Lebel, L.; Gallopin, G.C. Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 4570–4578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cash, D.W.; Clark, W.C.; Alcock, F.; Dickson, N.M.; Eckley, N.; Guston, D.H.; Jäger, J.; Mitchell, R.B. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8086–8091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rijke, J.; Brown, R.; Zevenbergen, C.; Ashley, R.; Farrelly, M.; Morison, P.; van Herk, S. Fit-for-purpose governance: A framework to make adaptive governance operational. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 22, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cebrián-Piqueras, M.A.; Trinogga, J.; Grande, C.; Minden, V.; Maier, M.; Kleyer, M. Interactions between ecosystem properties and land use clarify spatial strategies to optimize trade-offs between agriculture and species conservation. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2017, 13, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minden, V.; Scherber, C.; Piqueras, M.A.C.; Trinogga, J.; Trenkamp, A.; Mantilla-Contreras, J.; Lienin, P.; Kleyer, M. Consistent drivers of plant biodiversity across managed ecosystems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2016, 371, 1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hering, J.G. Do we need “more research” or better implementation through knowledge brokering? Sustain. Sci. 2016, 11, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanders, E.B.N.; Stappers, P.J. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 2008, 4, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyberg, J.B. Adaptive Management: Strategies for Coping with Change and Uncertainty. Available online: http://www.eolss.net (accessed on 21 June 2017).
- Seppelt, R.; Lautenbach, S.; Volk, M. Identifying trade-offs between ecosystem services, land use, and biodiversity: A plea for combining scenario analysis and optimization on different spatial scales. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 458–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Notten, P.W.F.; Rotmans, J.; van Asselt, M.B.A.; Rothman, D.S. An updated scenario typology. Futures 2003, 35, 423–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stead, D. Urban planning, water management and climate change strategies: Adaptation, mitigation and resilience narratives in the netherlands. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2013, 21, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Brugge, R.; Rotmans, J.; Loorbach, D. The transition in dutch water management. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2005, 5, 164–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malinga, R.; Gordon, L.J.; Lindborg, R.; Jewitt, G. Using participatory scenario planning to identify ecosystem services in changing landscapes. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carpenter, S.; Bennett, E.; Peterson, G. Scenarios for ecosystem services: An overview. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sector | Expert | Organization | Level |
---|---|---|---|
Water management | Engineer | Water Board Emden | Autonomous public corporation (local) |
Director | Water Board Emden | Autonomous public corporation (local) | |
Director | Dike Board Krummhörn | Autonomous public corporation (local) | |
Nature conservation | Administrator | National Park Authority, Lower Saxony | State authority (regional) |
Administrator | Biosphere Reserve Authority, Lower Saxony | State authority (regional) | |
Administrator | Lower Nature Conservation Authority | Autonomous public corporation (regional) | |
Agriculture | Director | Farmer Association East Frisia | Registered association (regional) |
Chairman | Farmer Association East Frisia | Registered association (local) | |
Administrator | Chamber of Agriculture, Lower Saxony | Autonomous public corporation (regional) | |
Policy | Major | Krummhörn Municipality | State authority (local) |
Coordinator | State Estate Agency, Norden | State authority (regional) | |
Administrator | County of Aurich | Public corporation (regional) | |
Government administrator | Krummhörn Municipality | Public corporation (regional) | |
Tourism | Director | Tourism Association East Frisia | Independent limited liability company (local) |
Land Management Scenario | Land Use Elements | Change in Spatial Distribution | Key Ecosystem Services (Classification) | Land Use Change |
---|---|---|---|---|
Trend | Pumping stations | Increase | Food production (provisioning) Forage production (provisioning) Recreation and tourism (cultural) | None |
Embankments for polder | No embankments | |||
Arable land | No change | |||
Grassland, intensive use | Increase | |||
Drainage system | No change | |||
Peat areas | No peat areas | |||
Polder areas | No polder areas | |||
Water management | Pumping stations | No change | Biomass for energy (provisioning) Freshwater (provisioning) Hazard regulation by water retention (regulation and maintenance) Prevention of saltwater intrusion (regulation and maintenance) | Development of a large freshwater polder |
Embankments for polder | Increase | |||
Arable land | Decrease | |||
Grassland, intensive use | Decrease | |||
Drainage system | Adaptation with polder areas | |||
Peat areas | Adaptation with polder areas | |||
Polder areas | Large polder areas in low-lying areas | |||
Carbon sequestration | Pumping stations | No change | Reduction of greenhouse gases (regulation and maintenance) Hazard regulation by water retention (regulation and maintenance) Prevention of saltwater intrusion (regulation and maintenance) | Development of a freshwater polder with rich reed stands Development towards natural former vegetation |
Embankments for polder | Increase | |||
Arable land | Decrease | |||
Grassland, intensive use | Decrease | |||
Drainage system | Adaptation with polder areas | |||
Peat areas | Large peat areas in low-lying areas | |||
Polder areas | Peat areas serving as polders | |||
Actor-based | Pumping stations | No change | Food production (provisioning) Forage production (provisioning) Freshwater (provisioning) Hazard regulation by water retention (regulation and maintenance) Prevention of saltwater intrusion (regulation and maintenance) Recreation and tourism (cultural) Community identification (cultural) | Development of small freshwater polder Multifunctional land use |
Embankments for polder | Small increase | |||
Arable land | No change | |||
Grassland, intensive use | Decrease | |||
Drainage system | Adaptation with polder areas | |||
Peat areas | No peat areas | |||
Polder areas | Small polder areas in low-lying areas |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Karrasch, L.; Maier, M.; Kleyer, M.; Klenke, T. Collaborative Landscape Planning: Co-Design of Ecosystem-Based Land Management Scenarios. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1668. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091668
Karrasch L, Maier M, Kleyer M, Klenke T. Collaborative Landscape Planning: Co-Design of Ecosystem-Based Land Management Scenarios. Sustainability. 2017; 9(9):1668. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091668
Chicago/Turabian StyleKarrasch, Leena, Martin Maier, Michael Kleyer, and Thomas Klenke. 2017. "Collaborative Landscape Planning: Co-Design of Ecosystem-Based Land Management Scenarios" Sustainability 9, no. 9: 1668. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091668