Sustainable Agroforestry Landscape Management: Changing the Game
1.1. Agroforestry and the Forest–Water–People Nexus
1.2. Use of Serious Games: Issues Arising
- Games are commonly ad hoc, case dependent with poorly defined extrapolation domains for responsible use, and therefore less relevant of applicable in other contexts;
- Games often require heavy research investment from intervention experts to be constructed in ways that are relevant for important local discussions;
- Games have untested cultural limitations in where and how they can be used ;
- Game users lack clarity on where and how games relate to policy making in local and/or global issue cycles, negotiations and reforms of governance instruments.
2. Frameworks for Understanding Social-Ecological System Change
- The natural resource governance ‘issue cycle’ concept [30,31] in five boundary work steps that clarify the R of DPSIR: (a) Agenda setting, (b) Better and widely shared understanding of what is at stake, (c) Commitment to principles, (d) Details of operation, devolved to (newly created or existing) formal institutions that handle implementation and associated budgets, and (e) Efforts to monitor and evaluate effects (‘outcomes’); it thus relates to the ‘Responses’ part of DPSIR, and
3. Representativeness and Diagnostic DPSIR Analysis of the SESAM Landscape Portfolio
4. Unpacking the Forest–Water–People Nexus
5. Cultural Diversity in Response to Forest–Water–People Nexus Issues
6. Action Orientation: Game Typology and Prototypes
7. Discussion: the Four Challenges to Use of Serious Games
7.1. Providing a Scaffold for Scenario Evaluation Games in the Forest–Water–People Nexus
7.2. Optimizing Research Investment in Game Development
7.3. Culture-Sensitive Gaming
7.4. Game Relevance in the Policy Domain
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Brief Descriptions of the SESAM Landscapes
Appendix A.1. Upstream Remote Forests of the Suriname River Basin
Appendix A.2. Upstream Forests of the Amazon in Madre de Dios, Peru
Appendix A.3. Mangrove Coasts of Suriname
Appendix A.4. Amazonian Agroforestry Mosaics in Para State, Brazil
Appendix A.5. Tropical Peatland Restoration in Indonesia
Appendix A.6. A Tropical Mountain Lake: Singkarak in Sumatra, Indonesia
Appendix A.7. Water Tower for Adjacent Drylands: Mount Elgon, Uganda
Appendix A.8. Water Tower for Adjacent Drylands: the Ewaso Ng’iro River NW of Mount Kenya
Appendix A.9. Mountain Farming in the Andes, Peru
Appendix A.10. Farming Drylands on the Mossi Plateau, Burkina Faso
Appendix A.11. Upland Agroforestry Mosaics in Kali Konto, East Java, Indonesia
Appendix A.12. Water Tower for a Metropole: Rejoso, East Java, Indonesia
Appendix A.13. Rehabilitating a Water Tower Under Pressure: Brantas, East Java, Indonesia
- van Noordwijk, M.; Coe, R.; Sinclair, F.L. Agroforestry paradigms. In Sustainable Development through Trees on Farms: Agroforestry in its Fifth Decade; van Noordwijk, M., Ed.; World Agroforestry (ICRAF): Bogor, Indonesia, 2019; pp. 1–12. Available online: http://www.worldagroforestry.org/trees-on-farms (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Sustainable Developent Goals. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs (accessed on 21 June 2020).
- Taleb, N.N.; Douady, R. Mathematical definition, mapping, and detection of (anti) fragility. Quant. Financ. 2013, 13, 1677–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Meadows, D. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. 1999. Available online: http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/ (accessed on 21 June 2020).
- Minang, P.A.; van Noordwijk, M.; Freeman, O.E.; Mbow, C.; de Leeuw, J.; Catacutan, D. (Eds.) Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF): Nairobi, Kenya, 2015; p. 405. [Google Scholar]
- Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice. Available online: http://www.worldagroforestry.org/publication/climate-smart-landscapes-multifunctionality-practice (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- van Noordwijk, M.; Lusiana, B.; Villamor, G.B.; Purnomo, H.; Dewi, S. Feedback loops added to four conceptual models linking land change with driving forces and actors. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16. Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/resp1/ (accessed on 20 July 2020). [CrossRef]
- van Noordwijk, M. Prophets, Profits, Prove It: Social Forestry under Pressure. One Earth 2020, 2, 394–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creed, I.F.; van Noordwijk, M. Forest and Water on a Changing Planet: Vulnerability, Adaptation and Governance Opportunities: A Global Assessment Report (No. 38); International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO): Vienna, Austria, 2018; p. 188. Available online: https://www.iufro.org/fileadmin/material/publications/iufro-series/ws38/ws38.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Creed, I.F.; Jones, J.A.; Archer, E.; Claassen, M.; Ellison, D.; McNulty, S.G.; van Noordwijk, M.; Vira, B.; Wei, X.; Bishop, K.; et al. Managing Forests for both Downstream and Downwind Water. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Nobre, C.A. Land-use and climate change risks in the Amazon and the need of a novel sustainable development paradigm. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 10759–10768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Page, S.E. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies (New Edition); Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2008; p. 448. [Google Scholar]
- Walker, B. Resilience management in social-ecological systems: A working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conserv. Ecol. 2002, 6, 14. Available online: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14 (accessed on 20 July 2020). [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 2417–2431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scholz, G. An Analytical Framework of Social Learning Facilitated by Participatory Methods. Syst. Prac. Action Res. 2013, 27, 575–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Andersson, K.; Annerstedt, M.; Axelsson, R.; Elbakidze, M.; Garrido, P.; Grahn, P.; Jönsson, K.I.; Pedersen, S.; Schlyter, P.; et al. Solving problems in social–ecological systems: Definition, practice and barriers of transdisciplinary research. Ambio 2013, 42, 254–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Tschakert, P. Anticipatory Learning for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 11. Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art11 (accessed on 20 July 2020). [CrossRef]
- Rodela, R.; Ligtenberg, A.; Bosma, R. Conceptualizing Serious Games as a learning-Based Intervention in the Context of Natural Resources and Environmental Governance. Water 2019, 11, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- García-Barrios, L.E.; Speelman, E.N.; Pim, M. An educational simulation tool for negotiating sustainable natural resource management strategies among stakeholders with conflicting interests. Ecol. Model. 2008, 210, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villamor, G.B.; van Noordwijk, M. Social role-play games vs individual perceptions of conservation and PES agreements for maintaining rubber agroforests in Jambi (Sumatra), Indonesia. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Speelman, E.N.; García-Barrios, L.E.; Groot, J.C.J.; Tittonell, P. Gaming for smallholder participation in the design of more sustainable agricultural landscapes. Agric. Syst. 2014, 126, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Speelman, E.N.; van Noordwijk, M.; Garcia, C. Gaming to better manage complex natural resource landscapes. In Co-investment in Ecosystem Services: Global Lessons from Payment and Incentive Schemes; Namirembe, S., Leimona, B., van Noordwijk, M., Minang, P., Eds.; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF): Nairobi, Kenya, 2017; pp. 480–489. [Google Scholar]
- García-Barrios, L.; Cruz-Morales, J.; Vandermeer, J.; Perfecto, I. The Azteca Chess experience: Learning how to share concepts of ecological complexity with small coffee farmers. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Mayer, I.; Bekebrede, G.; Harteveld, C.; Warmelink, H.; Zhou, Q.; Van Ruijven, T.; Lo, J.; Kortmann, R.; Wenzler, I. The research and evaluation of serious games: Toward a comprehensive methodology. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2014, 45, 502–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstede, G.J. One game does not fit all cultures. In Organizing and Leaning through Gaming and Simulation, Proceedings of ISAGA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 9–13 July 2007; Mayer, I., Mastik, H., Eds.; Eburon Uitgeverij BV: Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 103–110. [Google Scholar]
- Jann, W.; Wegrich, K. Theories of the policy cycle. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007; Volume 125, pp. 43–62. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, W.C.; Tomich, T.P.; van Noordwijk, M.; Guston, D.; Catacutan, D.; Dickson, N.M.; McNie, E. Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 4615–4622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kristensen, P. The DPSIR framework. In Workshop on a Comprehensive/Detailed Assessment of the Vulnerability of Water Resources to Environmental Change in Africa Using River Basin Approach; UNEP Headquarters: Nairobi, Kenya, 2004; p. 10. Available online: http://enviro.lclark.edu:8002/rid%3D1145949501662_742777852_522/DPSIR%20 Overview.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Svarstad, H.; Petersen, L.K.; Rothman, D.; Siepel, H.; Wätzold, F. Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR. Land Use Policy 2008, 25, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaz, S.; Settele, J.; Brondízio, E.; Ngo, H.; Guèze, M.; Agard, J.; Arneth, A.; Balvanera, P.; Brauman, K.; Butchart, S.; et al. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES: Bonn, Germany, 2020; p. 56. [Google Scholar]
- van Noordwijk, M. Integrated natural resource management as pathway to poverty reduction: Innovating practices, institutions and policies. Agric. Syst. 2019, 172, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mithöfer, D.; van Noordwijk, M.; Leimona, B.; Cerutti, P.O. Certify and shift blame, or resolve issues? Environmentally and socially responsible global trade and production of timber and tree crops. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2017, 13, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hofstede, G.J. GRASP agents: Social first, intelligent later. Ai Soc. 2019, 34, 535–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- van Noordwijk, M.; Dewi, S.; Leimona, B.; Lusiana, B.; Wulandari, D. Negotiation-Support Toolkit for Learning Landscapes; World Agroforestry Centre: Bogor, Indonesia, 2013; p. 285. Available online: http://www.worldagroforestry.org/publication/negotiation-support-toolkit-learning-landscapes (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- van Noordwijk, M.; Leimona, B.; Jindal, R.; Villamor, G.B.; Vardhan, M.; Namirembe, S.; Catacutan, D.; Kerr, J.; Minang, P.A.; Tomich, T.P. Payments for Environmental Services: Evolution towards efficient and fair incentives for multifunctional landscapes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012, 37, 389–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shyamsundar, P.; Ahlroth, S.; Kristjanson, P.; Onder, S. Supporting pathways to prosperity in forest landscapes–A PRIME framework. World Dev. 2020, 125, 104622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewi, S.; van Noordwijk, M.; Zulkarnain, M.T.; Dwiputra, A.; Hyman, G.; Prabhu, R.; Gitz, V.; Nasi, R. Tropical forest-transition landscapes: A portfolio for studying people, tree crops and agro-ecological change in context. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2017, 13, 312–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Noordwijk, M.; Bruijnzeel, S.; Ellison, D.; Sheil, D.; Morris, C.E.; Sands, D.; Gutierrez, V.; Cohen, J.; Sullivan, C.A.; Verbist, B.; et al. Ecological rainfall infrastructure: Investment in trees for sustainable development. In ASB Policy Brief 47; World Agroforestry Centre: Nairobi, Kenya, 2015; p. 6. Available online: http://www.asb.cgiar.org/Publications%202015/PBs/ASB_PB47.p (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Ellison, D.; Morris, C.E.; Locatelli, B.; Sheil, D.; Cohen, J.; Murdiyarso, D.; Gutierrez, V.; van Noordwijk, M.; Creed, I.F.; Pokorny, J.; et al. Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 43, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Noordwijk, M.; Creed, I.F.; Jones, J.A.; Wei, X.; Gush, M.; Blanco, J.A.; Sullivan, C.A.; Bishop, K.; Murdiyarso, D.; Xu, J.; et al. Climate-forest-water-people relations: Seven system delineations. In Forest and Water on a Changing Planet: Vulnerability, Adaptation and Governance Opportunities: A Global Assessment Report (No. 38); International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO): Vienna, Austria, 2018; pp. 27–58. [Google Scholar]
- van Noordwijk, M.; Tanika, L.; Lusiana, B. Flood risk reduction and flow buffering as ecosystem services: I. Theory on a flow persistence indicator. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 2321–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- van Noordwijk, M.; Tanika, L.; Lusiana, B. Flood risk reduction and flow buffering as ecosystem services II. Land use and rainfall intensity effects in Southeast Asia. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 2341–2352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- van der Ent, R.J.; Savenije, H.H.G.; Schaefli, B.; Steele-Dunne, S.C. Origin and fate of atmospheric moisture over continents. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46, W09525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ellison, D.; Wang-Erlandsson, L.; van der Ent, R.; van Noordwijk, M. Upwind forests: Managing moisture recycling for nature-based resilience. Unasylva 2019, 251, 14–26. [Google Scholar]
- Teuling, A.J.; Taylor, C.M.; Meirink, J.F.; Melsen, L.A.; Miralles, D.G.; Van Heerwaarden, C.C.; Vautard, R.; Stegehuis, A.I.; Nabuurs, G.J.; de Arellano, J.V.G. Observational evidence for cloud cover enhancement over western European forests. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 14065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Tuinenburg, O.A.; Staal, A. Tracking the global flows of atmospheric moisture and associated uncertainties. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2020, 24, 2419–2435. Available online: https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/24/2419/2020/ (accessed on 17 July 2020). [CrossRef]
- van Noordwijk, M.; Bargues-Tobella, A.; Muthuri, C.W.; Gebrekirstos, A.; Maimbo, M.; Leimona, B.; Bayala, J.; Ma, X.; Lasco, R.; Xu, J.; et al. Agroforestry as part of nature-based water management. In Sustainable Development through Trees on Farms: Agroforestry in its Fifth Decade; van Noordwijk, M., Ed.; World Agroforestry (ICRAF): Bogor, Indonesia, 2019; pp. 261–287. [Google Scholar]
- Guswa, A.J.; Tetzlaff, D.; Selker, J.S.; Carlyle-Moses, D.E.; Boyer, E.W.; Bruen, M.; Cayuela, C.; Creed, I.F.; van de Giesen, N.; Grasso, D.; et al. Advancing ecohydrology in the 21st century: A convergence of opportunities. Ecohydrology 2020, e2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kadykalo, A.N.; López-Rodriguez, M.D.; Ainscough, J.; Droste, N.; Ryu, H.; Ávila-Flores, G.; Le Clec’h, S. Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’. Ecosyst. People 2019, 15, 269–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- van Noordwijk, M. Did Mother Nature consent in the human ‘appropriation’ of ‘gifts’ so sweet, or would a #MeToo hashtag get flooded if she could tweet? Sci. E-Lett. 2019, 359, 270. [Google Scholar]
- Beugelsdijk, S.; Welzel, C. Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2018, 49, 1469–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Minkov, M. A revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture: Old evidence and new data from 56 countries. Cross Cult. Strateg. Manag. 2018, 25, 231–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Dimension Data Matrix. Available online: https://geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/dimension-data-matrix/ (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, G.J.; Minkov, M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2010; p. 561. [Google Scholar]
- Hofstede, G.J. Culture’s causes: The next challenge (Distinguished scholar essay). Cross Cult. Manag. 2015, 22, 545–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstede, G.J.; Murff, E.J. Repurposing an Old Game for an International World. Simul. Gaming 2012, 43, 34–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hofstede, G.J.; de Caluwé, L.; Peters, V. Why Simulation Games Work-In Search of the Active Substance: A Synthesis. Simul. Gaming 2010, 41, 824–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villamor, G.B.; Badmos, B.K. Grazing game: A learning tool for adaptive management in response to climate variability in semiarid areas of Ghana. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Barreteau, O. Our companion modelling approach. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 2003, 6, 1. Available online: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/1.html (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- International Simulation and Gaming Association. Available online: https://www.isaga.com/ (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Reed, M.S.; Graves, A.; Dandy, N.; Posthumus, H.; Hubacek, K.; Morris, J.; Prell, C.; Quinn, C.H.; Stringer, L.C. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1933–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Etienne, M.; Du Toit, D.R.; Pollard, S. ARDI: A co-construction method for participatory modeling in natural resources management. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16. Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art44/ (accessed on 20 July 2020). [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Vanwindekens, F.M.; Baret, P.V.; Stilmant, D. A new approach for comparing and categorizing farmers’ systems of practice based on cognitive mapping and graph theory indicators. Ecol. Model. 2014, 274, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langston, J.; McIntyre, R.; Falconer, K.; Sunderland, T.; Van Noordwijk, M.; Boedhihartono, A.K. Discourses mapped by Q-method show governance constraints motivate landscape approaches in Indonesia. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0211221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amaruzaman, S.; Leimona, B.; van Noordwijk, M.; Lusiana, B. Discourses on the performance gap of agriculture in a green economy: A Q-methodology study in Indonesia. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2017, 13, 233–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, C.L.; Dray, A.; Perez, P.; Garcia, C. Exploring how knowledge and communication influence natural resources management with ReHab. Simul. Gaming 2016, 47, 257–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreotti, F.; Speelman, E.N.; Van den Meersche, K.; Allinne, C. Combining participatory games and backcasting to support collective scenario evaluation: An action research approach for sustainable agroforestry landscape management. Sustain. Sci. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ligtenberg, A.; van Lammeren, R.J.A.; Bregt, A.K.; Beulens, A.J.M. Validation of an agent-based model for spatial planning: A role-playing approach. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2010, 34, 424–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Oel, P.R.; Mulatu, D.W.; Odongo, V.O.; Willy, D.K.; Van der Veen, A. Using data on social influence and collective action for parameterizing a geographically-explicit agent-based model for the diffusion of soil conservation efforts. Environ. Model. Assess. 2019, 24, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Aubert, A.H.; Bauer, R.; Lienert, J. A review of water-related serious games to specify use in environmental Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 105, 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meinzen-Dick, R.; Janssen, M.A.; Kandikuppa, S.; Chaturvedi, R.; Rao, K.; Theis, S. Playing games to save water: Collective action games for groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh, India. World Dev. 2018, 107, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marini, D.; Medema, W.; Adamowski, J.; Veissière, S.P.; Mayer, I.; Wals, A.E. Socio-psychological perspectives on the potential for serious games to promote transcendental values in IWRM decision-making. Water 2018, 10, 1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Buyinza, J.; Nuberg, I.K.; Muthuri, C.W.; Denton, M.D. Psychological Factors Influencing Farmers’ Intention to Adopt Agroforestry: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. J. Sustain. For. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guyot, P.; Honiden, S. Agent-based participatory simulations: Merging multi-agent systems and role-playing games. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 2006, 9, 8. Available online: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/4/8.html (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Speelman, E.N.; Rodela, R.; Doddema, M.; Ligtenberg, A. Serious gaming as a tool to facilitate inclusive business; a review of untapped potential. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2019, 41, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zafra-Calvo, N.; Balvanera, P.; Pascual, U.; Merçon, J.; Martin-Lopez, B.; van Noordwijk, M.; Heita Mwampamba, T.; Lele, S.; Ifejika Speranza, C.; Arias-Arévalok, P.; et al. Plural valuation of nature for equity and sustainability: Insights from the Global South. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2020, 63, 102115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leimona, B.; Lusiana, B.; van Noordwijk, M.; Mulyoutami, E.; Ekadinata, A.; Amaruzaman, S. Boundary work: Knowledge co-production for negotiating payment for watershed services in Indonesia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 15, 45–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ouboter, P.E. (Ed.) The Fresh Water Ecosystems of Suriname; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993; p. 315. [Google Scholar]
- Misiedjan, D.J.E. Towards a Sustainable Human Right to Water: Supporting Vulnerable People and Protecting Water Resources with Suriname as a Case Study. Ph.D. Thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2017; p. 220. [Google Scholar]
- Nurmohamed, R.; Naipal, S.; Becker, C. Changes and variation in the discharge regime of the Upper Suriname River Basin and its relationship with the tropical Pacific and Atlantic SST anomalies. Hydrol. Process. 2008, 22, 1650–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramirez, S.O.I.; Verweij, P.; Best, L.; van Kanten, R.; Rambaldi, G.; Zagt, R. P3DM as a socially engaging and user-useful approach in ecosystem service assessment among marginalized communities. Appl. Geogr. 2017, 83, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Census Statistics: Population by Resort; Statistics Bureau Suriname: Paramaribo, Suriname, 2012.
- Keys, P.W.; van der Ent, R.J.; Gordon, L.J.; Hoff, H.; Nikoli, R.; Savenije, H.H.G. Analyzing precipitationsheds to understand the vulnerability of rainfall dependent regions. Biogeosciences 2012, 9, 733–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Global Forest Watch. Dashboard by Country and Region. Available online: https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/PER (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Climate-data, Puerto Maldonado Climate. Available online: https://en.climate-data.org/south-america/peru/madre-de-dios/puerto-maldonado-27856/ (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Madre de Dios Web Portal, Ríos y Quebradas. Available online: https://madrededios.com.pe/rios-y-quebradas.html (accessed on 20 June 2020).
- Madre de Dios, Compendio Estadistico; Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI): Puerto Maldonado, Peru, 2018.
- Finer, M.; Mamani, N.; García, R.; Novoa, S. MAAP: 78: Deforestation Hotspots in the Peruvian Amazon. 2017. Available online: http://maaproject.org/2018/hotspots-peru2017/ (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Rojas, R. Vulnerabilidad al cambio climático en el sector agropecuario de la región Madre de Dios; Proyecto Especial Madre de Dios; Consorcio Madre de Dios: La Molina, Peru, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Stickler, C.; Duchelle, A.E.; Nepstad, D.; Ardila, J.P. Subnational jurisdictional approaches. In Transforming REDD; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2018; pp. 145–159. [Google Scholar]
- Lovejoy, T.E.; Nobre, C. Amazon tipping point. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaat2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Tropical Forest Alliance (TFA). Available online: https://www.tropicalforestalliance.org/ (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Censo Demográfico; Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE): Brasilia, Brasil, 2010.
- Smith, N.J.; Falesi, I.C.; Alvim, P.D.T.; Serrão, E.A.S. Agroforestry trajectories among smallholders in the Brazilian Amazon: Innovation and resiliency in pioneer and older settled areas. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 18, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saes, M.S.M.; Silva, V.L.; Nunes, R.; Gomes, T.M. Partnerships, learning, and adaptation: A cooperative founded by Japanese immigrants in the Amazon rainforest. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2014, 5, 131–141. [Google Scholar]
- Salafsky, N. Drought in the rain forest: Effects of the 1991 El Niño-Southern Oscillation event on a rural economy in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Clim. Chang. 1994, 27, 373–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlson, K.M.; Curran, L.M.; Ratnasari, D.; Pittman, A.M.; Soares-Filho, B.S.; Asner, G.P.; Trigg, S.N.; Gaveau, D.A.; Lawrence, D.; Rodrigues, H.O. Committed carbon emissions, deforestation, and community land conversion from oil palm plantation expansion in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 7559–7564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Farida, A.; Jeanes, K.; Kurniasari, D.; Widayati, A.; Ekadinata, A.; Hadi, D.P.; Joshi, L.; Suyamto, D.; van Noordwijk, M. Rapid Hydrological Appraisal (RHA) of Singkarak Lake in the Context of Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services (RUPES); World Agroforestry Centre: Bogor, Indonesia, 2005; p. 119. [Google Scholar]
- Burgers, P.; Farida, A. Community management for agro-reforestation under a voluntary carbon market scheme in West Sumatra. In Co-Investment in Ecosystem Services: Global Lessons from Payment and Incentive Schemes; Namirembe, S., Leimona, B., van Noordwijk, M., Minang, P., Eds.; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF): Nairobi, Kenya, 2017; Available online: http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sites/default/files/chapters/Ch29%20Collective%20action_ebookB-DONE2.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Musau, J.; Sang, J.; Gathenya, J.; Luedeling, E. Hydrological responses to climate change in Mt. Elgon watersheds. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2015, 3, 233–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Shames, S.; Heiner, K.; Kapukha, M.; Kiguli, L.; Masiga, M.; Kalunda, P.N.; Ssempala, A.; Recha, J.; Wekesa, A. Building local institutional capacity to implement agricultural carbon projects: Participatory action research with Vi Agroforestry in Kenya and ECOTRUST in Uganda. Agric. Food Secur. 2016, 5, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Muhweezi, A.B.; Sikoyo, G.M.; Chemonges, M. Introducing a Transboundary Ecosystem Management Approach in the Mount Elgon Region. Mt. Res. Dev. 2007, 27, 215–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mugagga, F. The Effect of Land Use on Carbon Stocks and Implications for Climate Variability on the Slopes of Mount Elgon, Eastern Uganda. Int. J. Reg. Dev. 2015, 2, 58–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nsubuga, F.N.W.; Namutebi, E.N.; Nsubuga-Ssenfuma, M. Water Resources of Uganda: An Assessment and Review. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2014, 6, 1297–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Mugagga, F.; Buyinza, M. Land tenure and soil conservation practices on the slopes of Mt Elgon National Park, Eastern Uganda. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 2013, 6, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sassen, M. Conservation in a Crowded Place: Forest and people on Mount Elgon Uganda. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2014. Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/293853 (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Mutiga, J.K.; Mavengano, S.T.; Zhongbo, S.; Woldai, T.; Becht, R. Water allocation as a planning tool to minimise water use conflicts in the Upper Ewaso Ng’iro North Basin, Kenya. Water Resour. Manag. 2010, 24, 3939–3959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ngigi, S.N.; Savenije, H.H.; Gichuki, F.N. Land use changes and hydrological impacts related to up-scaling of rainwater harvesting and management in upper Ewaso Ng’iro river basin, Kenya. Land Use Policy 2007, 24, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chepyegon, C.; Kamiya, D. Challenges faced by the Kenya water sector management in improving water supply coverage. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2018, 10, 85–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Climate-Data, Puno Climate. Available online: https://en.climate-data.org/search/?q=puno (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Fagandini, R.F. Distribution des parents sauvages du quinoa cultivé en lien avec les pratiques et usages des communautés andines dans la région de Puno au Pérou. Ph.D. Thesis, AgroParisTec, Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- International Year of Quinoa 2013. Available online: http://www.fao.org/quinoa-2013/iyq/en/?no_mobile=1 (accessed on 25 June 2020).
- Winkel, T.; Álvarez-Flores, R.; Bertero, D.; Cruz, P.; Castillo, C.D.; Joffre, R.; Parada, S.P.; Tonacca, L.S. Calling for a reappraisal of the impact of quinoa expansion on agricultural sustainability in the Andean highlands. Idesia 2014, 32, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Diarisso, T.; Corbeels, M.; Andrieu, N.; Djamen, P.; Douzet, J.-M.; Tittonell, P. Soil variability and crop yield gaps in two village landscapes of Burkina Faso. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2016, 105, 199–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hengl, T.; de Jesus, J.M.; Heuvelink, G.B.; Gonzalez, M.R.; Kilibarda, M.; Blagotić, A.; Shangguan, W.; Wright, M.N.; Geng, X.; Bauer-Marschallinger, B. SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0169748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Chikowo, R.; Zingore, S.; Snapp, S.; Johnston, A. Farm typologies, soil fertility variability and nutrient management in smallholder farming in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2014, 100, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tittonell, P.; van Wijk, M.T.; Herrero, M.; Rufino, M.C.; de Ridder, N.; Giller, K.E. Beyond resource constraints–Exploring the biophysical feasibility of options for the intensification of smallholder crop-livestock systems in Vihiga district, Kenya. Agric. Syst. 2009, 101, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Wijk, M.T.; Tittonell, P.; Rufino, M.C.; Herrero, M.; Pacini, C.; de Ridder, N.; Giller, K.E. Identifying key entry-points for strategic management of smallholder farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa using the dynamic farm-scale simulation model NUANCES-FARMSIM. Agric. Syst. 2009, 102, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grillot, M.; Guerrin, F.; Gaudou, B.; Masse, D.; Vayssières, J. Multi-level analysis of nutrient cycling within agro-sylvo-pastoral landscapes in West Africa using an agent-based model. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 107, 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Rufino, M.C.; Dury, J.; Tittonell, P.; van Wijk, M.T.; Herrero, M.; Zingore, S.; Mapfumo, P.; Giller, K.E. Competing use of organic resources, village-level interactions between farm types and climate variability in a communal area of NE Zimbabwe. Agric. Syst. 2011, 104, 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrieu, N.; Vayssières, J.; Corbeels, M.; Blanchard, M.; Vall, E.; Tittonell, P. From farm scale synergies to village scale trade-offs: Cereal crop residues use in an agro-pastoral system of the Sudanian zone of Burkina Faso. Agric. Syst. 2015, 134, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baudron, F.; Delmotte, S.; Corbeels, M.; Herrera, J.M.; Tittonell, P. Multi-scale trade-off analysis of cereal residue use for livestock feeding vs. soil mulching in the Mid-Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. Agric. Syst. 2015, 134, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meteorological, Climatological, and Geophysical Agency of Karangploso. Rainfall Data of Karangploso Station Year 2013–2017; BMKG Karangploso: Malang, East Java, Indonesia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Kurniawan, S.; Prayogo, C.; Widianto, M.; Zulkarnain, M.T.; Lestari, N.D.; Aini, F.K.; Hairiah, K. Estimasi Karbon Tersimpan di Lahan-lahan Pertanian di DAS Konto, Jawa Timur: RACSA (Rapid Carbon Stock Appraisal). Working Paper no.120; World Agroforestry Centre: Bogor, Indonesia, 2010; p. 59. [Google Scholar]
- Lusiana, B.; van Noordwijk, M.; Cadisch, G. Land sparing or sharing? Exploring livestock fodder options in combination with land use zoning and consequences for livelihoods and net carbon stocks using the FALLOW model. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 159, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BPS (Central Bureau of Statistics). Malang Regency in Figures 2018; BPS-Statistic of Malang Regency: Malang, East Java, Indonesia, 2018.
- Andriyanto, C.; Sudarto, S.; Suprayogo, D. Estimation of soil erosion for a sustainable land use planning: RUSLE model validation by remote sensing data utilization in the Kalikonto watershed. J. Degrad. Min. Lands Manag. 2015, 3, 459–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, L.; Bawa, K.; Pascual, U.; Perrings, C. Agro-Biodiversity–A New Science Agenda for Biodiversity in Support of Sustainable Agroecosystems; Diversitas: Paris, France, 2005; p. 40. Available online: http://www.diversitasinternational.org/ cross_agriculture.html (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Rijsdijk, A.; Bruijnzeel, L.S.; Sutoto, C.K. Runoff and sediment yield from rural roads, trails and settlements in the upper Konto catchment, East Java, Indonesia. Geomorphology 2007, 87, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pasuruan Regency in Figures; BPS-Statistics of Pasuruan Regency: Pasuruan, Indonesia, 2019.
- Pasuruan City in Figures; BPS-Statistics of Pasuruan City: Pasuruan, Indonesia, 2019.
- Ross, H.; Adhuri, D.S.; Abdurrahim, A.Y.; Phelan, A. Opportunities in community-government cooperation to maintain marine ecosystem services in the Asia-Pacific and Oceania. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 38, 100969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charles, A.; Loucks, L.; Berkes, F.; Armitage, D. Community science: A typology and its implications for governance of social-ecological systems. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 106, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Noordwijk, M.; Tomich, T.P.; Verbist, B. Negotiation support models for integrated natural resource management in tropical forest margins. Conserv. Ecol. 2001, 5, 21. Available online: http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art21 (accessed on 17 July 2020). [CrossRef]
- Perhutani. KPH Pasuruan; Jakarta, Indonesia. Available online: https://perhutani.co.id/tentang-kami/struktur-organisasi-perum-perhutani/divisi-regional/jatim/kph-pasuruan/ (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Suprayogo, D.; van Noordwijk, M.; Widianto; Hairiah, K.; Meilasari, N.; Rabbani, A.L.; Ishaq, R.M. Infiltration-Friendly Land Uses for Climate Resilience on Volcanic Slopes in the Rejoso Watershed, East Java, Indonesia. Land 2020, 9, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amaruzaman, S.; Khasanah, N.; Tanika, L.; Dwiyanti, E.; Lusiana, B.; Leimona, B. Landscape Characteristics of Rejoso Watershed: Land Cover Dynamics, Farming Systems, and Community Strategies; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program: Bogor, Indonesia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Leimona, B.; Khasanah, N.; Lusiana, B.; Amaruzaman, S.; Tanika, L.; Hairiah, K.; Suprayogo, D.; Pambudi, S.; Negoro, F.S. A Business Case: Co-Investing for Ecosystem Service provIsions and Local Livelihoods in Rejoso Watershed; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program: Bogor, Indonesia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Tanika, L.; Khasanah, N.; Leimona, B. Simulasi Dampak Perubahan Tutupan Lahan Terhadap Neraca Air di DAS dan Sub-DAS Rejoso Menggunakan Model GenRiver; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program: Bogor, Indonesia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Mahzum, M.M. Analisis Ketersediaan Sumber Daya Air dan Upaya Konservasi SUb DAS Brantas Hulu Wilayah Kota Batu; Civil Engineering and Planning Facultry, Institut Tehnologi Sepuluh November: Magister, Surabaya, 2015; p. 187. [Google Scholar]
- Batu Municipality in Figures; BPS_Statistical Bureau: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2020; p. 151.
- Maryudi, A.; Citraningtyas, E.R.; Purwanto, R.H.; Sadono, R.; Suryanto, P.; Riyanto, S.; Siswoko, B.D. The emerging power of peasant farmers in the tenurial conflicts over the uses of state forestland in Central Java, Indonesia. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 67, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witjaksono, A.; Surjono, S.; Suharyanto, A.; Muhammad, B. Spatial analysis of land use in Bumiaji subdistrict, Batu city, East Java, Indonesia. Int. J. GEOMATE 2018, 15, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nurrizqi, E.; Suyono, S. Pengaruh Perubahan Penggunaan Lahan Terhadap Perubahan Debit Puncak Banjir Di Sub DAS Brantas Hulu. Jurnal Bumi Indonesia 2012, 1, 363. [Google Scholar]
|Context||Location||Coordinates||Hydro-Climate||Mean Annual Rainfall, mm||Human Population Density, km−2||Forest Cover, %||Forest Transi-tion Stage||Scale:||Area of Focus, km2|
|Core forests, upriver||1. Suriname upriver||3–4°N,|
|2. Madre de Dios, Peru||12°36’ S, 69°11’ W||Per-humid||2221||1.3||95||1||W||85300|
|Mangrove coast||3A. Nickerie, Suriname||5°51’N, 55°12’W||Per-humid||1800||6.4||90||1||C, District||5353|
|3B. Paramaribo, Suriname||5°56’N, 57°01’W||Per-humid||2210||1297||19||3||C, District||182|
|Agroforestry mosaic||4. Tomé Açu, Pará, Brazil||2°25’S, 48°09′W||Per-humid||2371||10||37||2||Municipality||5145|
|Coastal peatland||5. Ketapang, Indonesia||1°27′–2°0′S, 110°4′–110°8 E||Per-humid||3169||20||34||2||Peatland Hydrolo-gical Units||948 and 1048|
|Mountain lakes||6. Singkarak, Indonesia||0°30′–°45′N 100°20′–100°43′E;||Water-tower||1700–3200||338||16||3||W||1135|
|Watertower/Semi-arid gradient||7. Mount Elgon, Uganda||01°07′ 06″ N, 34°31′ 30″ E||Water-tower||1600||355 (up),606 (md),870 (lw)||25 (up), 63(md) 36(lw)||4||W||4200|
|8. Ewaso Ng’iro, Mt Kenya||0°15′S–1°00′N, 36° 30′– 37°45′ E||Water-tower||600 (lw), 1600 (up)||150 (up), 12 (lw)||18||4 or 6||W||15,200|
|Mountain farms||9. Andes, Peru||15°50′S, 70°01′W||Dry-sub humid||700||5.1||0.1||5||W||8490|
|Dryland farming||10. Mossi plateau, Burkina Faso||12°45′– 13° 06′N, 0°.99–1°33′W||Semi-arid||400–700||148||10||5 or 6||Village territory|
|Agroforestry mosaic||11. Kali Konto, Indonesia||7°45′–7°57′S, 112°19′–112°29′E||Water tower||2995–4422||453||20||6||Sub-watershed||240|
|Water towers under pressure||12. Rejoso, Indonesia||7°32′–7°57′S, 112°34′–113°06′E||Water tower||2776||414 (up), 693 (md), 1925 (lw)||11||6||W||628|
|13. Upper Brantas, Indonesia||7°44′–8° 26′S, 112°17′–112°57′E||Water tower||875–3000||1042||24||6||Sub-watershed||180|
|Location||Drivers of Land-use Change||Pressure/System State: Plot-Level Land Use||Pressure/System State: Landscapes, Watersheds||Pressure/System State: Policy Interactions||Impacts on Forest–Water–People Nexus|
|1. Suriname upriver||Pressures: Shifting cultivation, logging, road infrastructure, encroaching gold mining. |
Drivers: income generation, weak law enforcement.
|Agriculture in the landscape is basically all shifting cultivation. Traditionally within the plot there are more crops and only a few trees (usually palm-fruit trees).||A multifunctional landscape with agriculture, forestry, nature-based tourism|
Good water quality, availability of drinking water and maintaining water levels in the streams and rivers for agriculture.
|Forestry is the better regulated sector than agriculture sector|
No sector-coordinated policy. Low capacity in district government institutions.
|High vulnerability of rain-fed agriculture and water security, forest degradation due to logging and shifting cultivation, increasing deforestation in the Guiana Shield.|
|2. Madre de Dios, Peru||Illegal gold mining and informal agricultural expansion along the recently paved Inter-Oceanic Highway.||Diverse agroforestry systems are expected to increase hydraulic redistribution, soil macroporosity and in general to represent a sustainable alternative to gold mining.||Degraded or deforested areas, when dedicated to farming, can be agro(re-)forested to increase the tree cover|
at landscape level while improving socioecological resilience.
|Regional governments are supporting market-oriented low-diversity agroforestry systems as an alternative to the illegal gold mining and slash-and-burn farming. |
Land-use planning does not take the impact on watershed functions into account, and vulnerability to droughts (fires).
|Increase in drought and flooding episodes, drought-related fires, mercury contamination of rivers resulting from gold-mining activities.|
|3. Mangrove coast, Suriname||Drivers: Population growth (urbanization), income generation (for different actors such as fishermen, tour operators), |
poor law enforcement.
|The mangrove forest along the coast prevent erosion and its ecosystems also serves as a potential water source for the nearby agriculture land mainly used for rice cultivation.||Unsustainable use of the mangrove ecosystem services and the removal of mangrove trees for various purposes (building infra-structure, housing, etc.) resulting in saltwater intrusion, reducing water quality land inwards.||There is poorly integrated coordination among the different stakeholders (direct and indirect users) to foster mangrove conservation.||Mangrove forest degradation affecting coastal resilience.|
Excessive and unsustainable use of mangrove ecosystem service
|4. Tomé Açu, Pará, Brazil||Poor environmental governance and enforcement, migration, rural poverty.||Logging, extensive grazing, slash and burn farming (cassava and annual crops), monocrop oil palm.||Oil palm drives contamination of waterways through chemical fertilizer/pesticide use and mill effluents. Fire, low-yielding extensive grazing and land degradation influence water flow regimes.||Lack of coordination between various levels of government (municipal, state and federal) and lack of landscape-level land-use planning.||Oil palm drives contamination of waterways through chemical fertilizer/pesticide use and mill effluents. Different land-use types have different implications on water flows at the plot and landscape scale.|
|5. Ketapang, Indonesia||Increase in number of migrant communities and expansion of plantations in peat-swamp forest that led to massive canal construction.||Maintain soil infiltration for water level in the agricultural area in the peatland.|
Control drainage (smart ‘canal blocking’) for more constant water levels.
|Converting the burnt areas surrounding protected forests into agro-forestry system will restore the functions as well as improving local peoples’ livelihood. Saltwater intrusion in coastal zone when peat domes are drained.||Managing the land-use planning in peatland area based on peat depth and characteristics: Areas with peat depth > 3 m have protected forest status; with peat depth < 3 m plantation or agroforestry systems are allowed; with peat depth < 0.5 m and sapric peat (open-field) agriculture is allowed.||Haze episodes from the forest fire of the degraded peatland ecosystem, as an impact of decreasing groundwater level during dry season.|
|6. Singkarak, Indonesia||Highly intensified agriculture, population increment, urbanization.||Soil erosion occurs in the agricultural land (highly intensive horticulture) which is located in the upstream and hillslope area.||Land-use change into highly intensive agri-culture and residential in upper basin impact on water quantity and quality of the lake.||There is no single integrated authority for watershed and lake management.||Water resource, forest and land-use change impact on the lake (water quantity, quality and biodiversity), impact of climate variability (dry years) on river basin.|
|7. Mount Elgon, Uganda||High population, High poverty levels (low income generating activities), Land fragmentation (land tenure system),|
Urban extension, food gap, Conflicting policies.
|Due to the topography of the region, soil erosion is common;|
Planting shade trees in existing coffee fields/systems controls soil erosion and boosts coffee production hence enhancing and sustaining crop yield and food security.
|Fragmented forests due to population growth and increased agricultural activities;|
Subsistence farmers cultivating wooded areas and practicing agroforestry (with other crops and coffee);
The degraded soil/land needs to be rehabilitated in order to promote ecosystem services of the mountainous forests (East Africa’s water tower).
|Empowering the local agroforestry communities and cooperatives to plant more trees; Supporting payments to local communities to avoid deforestation and restore forest inside the park; Joint environment policy Implementation—as community motivation to encroach into park forest is dependent on policy, commodity prices, law enforcement and political interests; Enforcement of forest/environment bylaws, and resource use agreements.||LULC changes—High deforestation levels (urban area extension and agricultural land expansion); Upstream–downstream conflicts (decreasing rivers base flow); Human encroachment (national park, riparian zones of riverbanks and swamps); Riverbank degradation and Land degradation (soil erosion and declining soil fertility); Seasonal downstream floods and landslides|
|8. Ewaso Ng’iro, Mt Kenya||Increasing irrigation water demands, increasing human population, changing weather patterns (erratic rainfall, prolonged droughts), poor governance, political interference.||Sustainable Land Management practices that reduces soil erosion and increase water infiltration. |
The area under water-demanding crops affects irrigation de-mands. Increasing rainwater harvesting and storage at plot level would reduce water demands.
|Land cover/use changes at watershed level affects water retention/water yields |
Climate change and variability (P, PET) affects distribution of water resources
Excessive abstraction of river water upstream affects river flows downstream.
|Watershed planning and governance needs to be improved by capacity building community level structures such as Water Resources Users Association (WRUA) in Kenya. Irrigation water management efficiency is constrained by lack of knowledge, understanding and technology access for farmers.||Uncontrolled abstraction of water, human encroachment (e.g., farming in riverbank protected/riparian areas, limited downstream flows (dry riverbeds); |
Poor enforcement of policies (metering, riparian corridors), local politics versus national government interests, climate change/variability
|9. Andes, Peru||Agricultural boom: quinoa production for export supported by cooperatives and NGOs.||Highland agroecological zone with good soil organic matter. Depending on the on exposure, soils and drainage, agricultural activity remains in the high altitude.||A multifunctional landscape with agroecological practices quinoa with their crop wild relatives and diverse activities as silvo-pastoral systems.||This landscape is recognized from the United Nations Organization as Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) valorizing the ancestral systems of cultivation of quinoa.||Increased drought, soil fertility loss, loss of cultivated diversity—the export market only includes few quinoa varieties.|
|10. Mossi plateau, Burkina Faso||Demography, climate variability and land degradation||Onset of rainy season, soil quality, infiltration, crop water use, yield formation.||Overland flow capture, Village level transfers of biomass, (fodder), farmer groups.||Land and water use rights, local institutions for collective action, grazing management.||Low and unstable biomass production.|
|11. Kali Konto, Indonesia||Agricultural and dairy products demand (market), poor land management, and population increment.||Intensive agricultural farming with minimum tree cover in hillslope increase soil surface exposure, increase on livestock.||Land-use change from forested area to open field (including grassland for fodder), reservoir siltation due to high sedimentation which affect water quality and quantity.||There is lack of integrated coordination among stake holder (government, farmers, and water beneficiary) for achieving sustainable watershed conservation effort.||Increase on horticultural area, soil fertility lost, landslide (debris flows), reservoir filled with muds.|
|12. Rejoso, Indonesia||Population growth (all), changes in forest and agricultural crop commodity prices (all), deforestation for horticulture (upland), rock and sand mining (midland), groundwater exploitation (lowland)||Upper zone erosive Andisols used for intensive vegetable production with low tree cover. Local communities are not allowed to use forest resources or use forest areas for farming and raising livestock; Community only carries out agricultural activities outside the state forest area.||Local communities are involved in planting trees allowed to farm among tree stands (intercropping) in production forests with the rules of cooperation for the results. Negative impacts of forest conversion to agri-culture; increasing tourism, stone mining, uncontrolled water use for paddy rice||The implementation of recent Community Based Forest Management Programs |
Collaboration between stakeholders
A PES (Payment for Ecosystem Services) scheme began to be implemented
|Land conversion and commodity change without planning, reduced flowing springs, drought in the dry season, flooded and landslides in the rainy season, an explosion of agricultural pests almost every year, overexploiting downstream use of bore wells and potential conflicts, environmental damage due to central rock mining and potential conflicts.|
|13. Upper Brantas, Indonesia||Population growth (0.95%/year), urbanization; upland vegetable markets, tourism industry.||Upland vegetable area, degraded state-owned forest soil erosion and sedimentation, intensive use of fertilizer and chemical pesticides.||Gradient land-use change from grand forest protected area, production forest, upland vegetable, settlement and tourism are. Deficit water balance in dry season triggering water conflict.||There is no coordination and comprehend Policy of Land and (Ground) Water Resource.||Land-use change, ground water and deep well extraction, water user conflict, flood, water supply and demand.|
|Buffering Peak Flow||Infiltra-|
|Coastal Protec-tion||Rainfall Trigger-|
|Upper Suri- name River||v||V||v||V||v|
|Madre de Dios, Peru||v||V||V||V||V|
|Mangrove coast, Suriname||V||V||V|
|Starting Point||Dynamic||Targeted/Expected End Point|
|An issue of public concern that involves water and people, and in which forests and trees may play a role.||One or more journalist/detective teams are formed and have opportunity to interact with stakeholders.||The various pieces of the puzzle come together and start to give an ’emergent’ perspective on what’s going on.|
|Multiple stakeholders of the issue have diverse interpretations of what is at stake, how it works, what are (alternative) facts.||Stakeholder groups have their own interpretation, e.g., deforestation, climate change, technical failures, water grabs, of underlying causes of the issue and possible solutions.||A first ‘agenda setting’ conclusion may well be that the issue is indeed an important one, that it is ‘wicked’ (no easy way out), requiring deeper analysis.|
|There is no consensus on ‘what’s going on’, tensions may be rising, conflicts emerging.||If the journalists/detectives interact appropriately with a stakeholder group, they may get ‘a piece of the puzzle’.||Depending on how the process is managed, an overarching ‘framing’ of the issue may emerge that is shared by all.|
|Starting Point||Dynamic||Targeted/Expected End Point|
|A locally recognizable functional terminology of land uses along the forest transition curve.||Land users (farmers, communities) make choices with direct consequences for their livelihoods, leading to an emerging ‘land-use mosaic’.||Patterns of change in land (and water) use mosaic that are made visible along with the multiple ‘causes’ that were at play.|
|A spatial representation of topography, soils and water flows as interaction ‘arena’.||B1: Focus on plot- and farm-level decisions, including trees and tree diversity.||Reported experience of players in various roles, (partially) achieving their goals.|
|Characterization of local livelihoods, on-farm and off-farm, leading to ‘land use’.||B2: Focus on external agency, pulling and pushing local land-use decisions according to various agendas.||Clarity, within the game, on what are ‘externalities’ for the various actors and how this contributes to an overall result.|
|Identification of external agents, influences and pressures that shape land-use decisions.||B3: Focus on collective action in land and/or water use and the decision making that can enhance synergy.||Depending on physical landscape context, a better understanding of its role in shaping land use.|
|Starting Point||Dynamic||Targeted/Expected End Point|
|A climate plus topography description of abiotic context.||C1: Focus on water quality (‘pollution’), consequences for health, sedimentation.||As follow-up to games A and B, clarify the consequences for a wider range of ‘stakeholders.|
|Pre-human vegetation interacting with abiotic context.||C2: Focus on water quantity and flow regime: water yield, floods, droughts.||C1–C5: Identify downstream people influenced by decisions made upstream: ‘who cares?’|
|Human land use modifying vegetation, soils, drainage pat-terns (as shaped in games B).||C3: Focus on (blue) water availability and its allocation to (appropriation by) competing users.||C6: Identify downwind people influenced by decisions made upwind: ‘who cares?’|
|Awareness (based on game A) of the ‘down-stream’ issues land-use change can influence.||C4: Focus on groundwater recharge and availability through springs and wells.||Identify vulnerability to climate change (trend, increased variability).|
|A technical water balance model that may stay in the background, but provides ‘ballpark’ rules for the game.||C5: Focus on wetland and peat drainage and its consequences for subsidence and/or fire risk.||Identify the contributors to ‘buffering’ that reduce impacts of external variability.|
|Climate variability and climate change scenarios that provide challenges to existing land use.||C6: Focus on atmospheric moisture recycling, downwind effects on rainfall.||Reflect on the ‘wicked’ nature of the underlying issue (game A).|
|Starting Point||Dynamic||Targeted/Expected End Point|
|Current land (and water) use is a direct cause of problems downstream/downwind.||D1: Land-use planning and water use rights negotiations modify future land-use change and incentives (incl. PES?).||Unexpected winners and losers of various ‘feedback loops’, deepening the sense of ‘wicked’ problems.|
|Current land use is a resultant of local + external forces that expect to benefit from their choices, but don’t take ‘externalities’ into account.||D2: Global trade as driver of land-use change becomes aware of its social and ecological ‘footprint’ and starts to take responsibility, e.g., by standards and ‘certification’.||Deeper understanding of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ in resolving issues at landscape, national and/or global scale.|
|Those affected by ‘externalities can take action, depending on power relations, political and cultural context.||D3: Global climate action expands from its current carbon focus to concerns over water cycles and downwind effects of tree cover change.||Need to balance ‘efficiency’ and ‘fairness’ in interacting with social-ecological systems in a given cultural context.|
© 2020 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/).
van Noordwijk, M.; Speelman, E.; Hofstede, G.J.; Farida, A.; Abdurrahim, A.Y.; Miccolis, A.; Hakim, A.L.; Wamucii, C.N.; Lagneaux, E.; Andreotti, F.; et al. Sustainable Agroforestry Landscape Management: Changing the Game. Land 2020, 9, 243. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9080243
van Noordwijk M, Speelman E, Hofstede GJ, Farida A, Abdurrahim AY, Miccolis A, Hakim AL, Wamucii CN, Lagneaux E, Andreotti F, et al. Sustainable Agroforestry Landscape Management: Changing the Game. Land. 2020; 9(8):243. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9080243Chicago/Turabian Style
van Noordwijk, Meine, Erika Speelman, Gert Jan Hofstede, Ai Farida, Ali Yansyah Abdurrahim, Andrew Miccolis, Arief Lukman Hakim, Charles Nduhiu Wamucii, Elisabeth Lagneaux, Federico Andreotti, and et al. 2020. "Sustainable Agroforestry Landscape Management: Changing the Game" Land 9, no. 8: 243. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9080243