Society, Culture And People In Landscape Research
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Society, culture and people in landscape research
Elisabeth Conrad; Ioan Fazey; Mike Christie
E. Conrad; I. Fazey (corresponding author); M. Christie
Institute of Rural Sciences
University of Wales, Aberystwyth,
Llanbadarn Fawr,
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion,
Wales SY23 3 AL,
United Kingdom
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 0044 (0)1970 621612
Fax: 0044 (0)1970 611264
Date of manuscript draft: 27th April, 2007
Manuscript word count (including text, references, tables and caption): 6, 832
1 Abstract
If landscape research is to effectively inform environmental policy, it must adequately reflect both biophysical and socio-cultural aspects. This study assesses the degree to which socio- cultural elements are given consideration in landscape research. 931 articles published in landscape research journals during two three-year periods (1995-97 and 2004-06) were examined to assess three socio-cultural aspects, namely: (1) topics of study and the disciplinary basis of research; (2) the degree to which stakeholders are involved in research; and (3) where and by whom landscape research is conducted. Results indicate that there is significant consideration of socio-cultural components in terms of topics and disciplines, but physical concerns still dominate the literature. Furthermore, stakeholder involvement is limited, and there is bias in the distribution of research and researchers, with poor representation of lower income countries. Despite some optimistic trends, it is evident that there is a need for more integration of approaches from the natural and social sciences, greater involvement of stakeholders, and increased capacity building for research in lower income countries.
Keywords landscape research, socio-cultural aspects, stakeholders, representativeness, integration
2 Introduction
Environmental and ecological dynamics are regulated by physical boundaries and are not
constrained by human-imposed limits (Rosenbaum 1998; Elnakat 2002), and operate at
broad, even global, scales. Nevertheless, environmental and ecological systems are affected
5not only by the physical and biological framework within which they function, but also by so-
cio-economic concerns (Reagan et al 2006). Humans have become the first species on Earth
to interact as a whole with the global ecosystem (Eldrege 1995), and the human footprint has
more than tripled in the last 40 years (WWF 2006). Adequate management is therefore best
achieved by means of employing a spatial framework which includes people as members of a
10reasonably scaled, naturally bounded, ecologically defined territory (Thayer 2003). The wide
spatial focus of the discipline of landscape ecology employs physical landscape boundaries,
together with a broad conceptual outlook that incorporates a variety of ecological, biophysi-
cal and human-related considerations, thus contributing to a practical and holistic basis for
analysis of ecological and environmental problems. The inclusion of socio-cultural elements
15is of particular relevance given increasing recognition of the interdependencies of the re-
silience of social and ecological systems. Societies are dependent on ecological systems that
provide services essential to human livelihoods and wellbeing (UNEP 1992; Hassan et al
2005; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Similarly, ecological resilience is depen-
dent, in part, on the ability of human societies to regulate and manage activities that may be
20detrimental to the ecological processes on which people depend (Vos and Klijn 2000; Millen-
nium Ecosystem Assessment 2005); this consideration is of increasing relevance given the
scale of human impacts on the environment in recent decades. Research in the landscape sci-
ences must therefore necessarily address the socio-cultural dimension if it is to contribute to
the resolution of present-day ecological and environmental challenges. The latter concern
25pervades ecological and environmental debates, and there is increasing recognition of the ur-
3 gent need for research which ensures a sustainable future for the coexistence of humans with-
in natural systems (Palmer et al 2005). Landscape sciences are uniquely placed to contribute
such expertise (Naveh 2000) as the concept of landscape bridges the man-nature and ecology-
society divides at a fundamental level. However, it has been argued that landscape research
30has failed to live up to its potential to address real-world policy and management problems
and that it has contributed little in terms of practical applications (Hobbs 1997). If this is in-
deed the case, inadequate consideration of socio-cultural components may be partly to blame.
This paper aims to assess the extent to which landscape research takes into
35consideration the socio-cultural elements which shape and influence landscapes. To address
this aim, we evaluate the degree to which three broad dimensions are considered in the
research literature: (1) the type of studies published and their disciplinary basis; (2) the
degree to which stakeholders are involved in research; and (3) where, and by whom, research
is conducted. The first dimension considers whether socio-cultural aspects are directly
40addressed or whether research is restricted primarily to bio-physical elements. This includes
an assessment of the relative combinations of disciplines and of different topics studied. The
second dimension determines the degree to which stakeholders’ opinions, values and
preferences are included in research as a measure of the degree to which direct human
concerns and local knowledge are considered. Stakeholder involvement is increasingly
45recognized not only as a human right, but also as a means to tap into important knowledge,
accumulated over generations and which is often inaccessible through other means
(Gorjestani 2000), and to increase the likelihood of support and cooperation (Ghimire and
Pimbert 1997) in management initiatives. Recognition and understanding of the different
perspectives of different stakeholders is also fundamental to successful management
50(Blackmore and Ison 1998). Methods used for involving stakeholders are also evaluated, as
4 different techniques involve stakeholders to different degrees and in different capacities
(OECD 2004). The third dimension appraises the degree to which research is representative
by considering where research is conducted and by whom. Representativeness is in this case
considered to be the degree to which the situations being studied act as a microcosm of the
55wider global setting (Allen 1998), both in terms of the location of study areas and in terms of
who is involved in doing research. Addressing these questions provides an indication of the
spatial biases of research, specifically the extent to which research incorporates the global
variation in socio-cultural contexts and the level of inclusion of locally-based authors, who
are likely to be the most familiar with the particular ecological, geographic, and socio-
60cultural contexts (Fazey et al 2005; Pitman et al 2007).
Methods
Overview
This review employs some of the methodological ideas presented in guidelines for producing
systematic reviews from evidence-based conservation (Fazey et al 2004; Pullin and Stewart
652006). Such methods aim to increase rigour during the process of: (1) searching for
appropriate studies; (2) deciding whether individual studies should be included in a review;
and (3) during the process of integrating information from different studies, including
statistical analysis (Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation 2006). While this study is not a
systematic review per se, ideas have been used to improve replicability and reliability of the
70results.
Identifying and selecting studies
All research articles from the years 1995 to 1997, and 2004 to 2006, published in three
landscape research journals, namely Landscape Ecology (LE), Landscape and Urban
5 5 75Planning (LUP) and Landscape Research (LR), were included in the study. Two year groups
were selected in order to enable examination of changes and trends over the last decade. The
earlier years were selected to represent the state of affairs at the time of the last review
(Hobbs 1997). The selected journals are the three most widely read periodicals specifically
dedicated to landscape research, being the only three journals with ‘landscape’ in their title
80that are either currently, or about to be, included in the Web of Knowledge database of 7500
journals. LE and LUP have impact factors of 2.17 and 1.4 respectively (The Thomson
Corporation 2005). LR has recently been included in the database and hence does not yet
have an impact factor. The journals reflect a range of concerns. LE focuses on the
relationships between pattern and processes and their consequences, predominantly within
85ecological, nature conservation, environmental management, landscape planning, and
landscape restoration domains. LUP is concerned with conceptual, scientific, and design
approaches to land use, emphasising in particular ecological understanding and a multi-
disciplinary approach to analysis, planning and design. LR addresses a range of topics
including design, management, ecology, geology, archaeology and cultural studies. There are
90likely to be studies relevant to landscape research in other journals, such as ones from
ecology, geography, sociology, forestry and agriculture (e.g. Biological Conservation,
Journal of Environmental Management, Ecology and Society, Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, Forest Policy and Economics, amongst several others). However,
identifying and selecting relevant landscape studies from such a wide range of disciplinary
95foci is difficult. We therefore argue that studies from LE, LUP and LR provide a sufficient
overview of the current status of socio-cultural considerations in landscape research.
Data collection
6 100A total of 931 research articles were reviewed (Table 1) by the primary author (EC) through
skim-reading and full reading of relevant sections, such as aims and methodological
descriptions, where necessary. Numerous questions were asked of each paper, with questions
having been derived by all authors from a preliminary review of approximately 90 papers,
evenly distributed between the three journals and six years, i.e. 5 papers from each journal for
105each year. These papers were read in full in order to enable identification of questions. The
papers were subsequently re-read as part of the full review. Questions covered a range of
concerns, intended to provide answers to the questions about the three main dimensions that
this paper investigates (Table 2).
110#Table 1#
#Table 2#
Data analysis
All categorical data was re-coded into numeric values and data from the two year groups was
115separately analysed through descriptive statistics using SPSS (version 14.0). As the number
of papers published was considerably higher in the later year group, results were analysed
both in terms of absolute values (number of papers) and also in terms of relative proportions,
and are presented accordingly below.
Results
120Dimension 1: What are the main topics of study and the disciplinary bases of research?
Topics of study
In 1995-97, 43.5% of studies addressed a topic with a predominantly physical focus, a
proportion which increased to 51.6% in 2004-06 (Figure 1a). The percentage of studies
7 addressing a predominantly socio-cultural topic of research increased slightly from 10.8% to
12516.4% between the two year groups (Figure 1a). The proportion of studies addressing both
physical and socio-cultural topics declined considerably, from 45.7% of studies in 1995-97,
to 32% of all studies in 2004-06. There were significant differences in the distribution of
topic types between year groups (χ2 = 19.2, p < 0.005). Of studies including a socio-cultural
topic, the majority considered landscape policy and management issues (Figure 1b); however,
130the proportion of studies addressing this topic declined in the time span considered (from
59.3% of studies with a socio-cultural topic in 1995-97, to 46.4% in the latter year group).
The proportion of studies considering implications of landscape issues for humans increased
(6% of studies with a socio-cultural topic in 1995-97 to 11.4% in 2004-06), as did studies
assessing human perceptions of landscape (with an increase from 8% to 14.3% of studies
135with a socio-cultural topic, between the two year groups). 26.6% of studies in 1995-97 and
27.9% of studies in 2004-6 including a socio-cultural topic, addressed more than one sub-
topic. Differences between the distribution of sub-topics in different year groups were found
to be significant (χ2 = 11.3 p < 0.01).
140# Figure 1#
Disciplinary basis of research
There were more studies, in both year groups, with a physical science disciplinary focus than
ones involving with a social science disciplinary focus (33.5% and 44.3% of all studies
145involved physical science disciplines in 1995-97 and 2004-06 respectively; 17.1% and 21%
of all studies involved a social science discipline in the earlier and later year groups
respectively) (Figure 2a). The proportion of studies considering both a physical and a social
science discipline decreased from 49.4% in 1995-97 to 34.7% in 2004-06 (even if absolute
8 numbers of such studies increased) (Figure 2a). Differences in the relative proportions of
150studies between year groups were significant (χ2 = 19.62, p<0.001). The majority of studies
involving social sciences included outlooks from the disciplines of planning and management
(Figure 2b); nevertheless, the contribution of these disciplines declined slightly between the
two year groups (from 36.3% to 33.2% of studies involving social disciplines). There were
slight increases in the proportion of studies from anthropology and sociology (7.7% to 12.7%
155of studies involving social science disciplines), economics (0.9% to 1.2%), history (5.1% to
6.8%) and design (1.3% to 1.9%) (Figure 2b) between year groups. The 2004-06 studies also
included the disciplines of philosophy and law, which were absent from studies in the earlier
year group. The proportion of studies addressing more than one social science discipline
declined between the two year groups, from 48.7% to 43.5% of studies including a social
160science discipline (Figure 2b). The change in the relative contributions of different social
science disciplines between 1995-97 and 2004-06, should however, be interpreted with
caution given lack of statistical significance (χ2 = 4.2, p>0.75).
# Figure 2#
165 Dimension 2: To what extent are stakeholders involved in research?
Extent of involvement of stakeholders
The percentage of studies involving stakeholders increased from 13.6% in 1995-97 to 17.4%
in 2004-06. Of these studies, the majority fit within the moderate degree of participation
170(Table 2) (62.5% of studies involving stakeholders in 1995-97 and 85.2% in 2004-06) (Figure
3). Correspondingly, there has been a decline in the percentage of studies involving
stakeholders either for eliciting and/or testing data (minimal participation) (from 22.9% of
studies involving stakeholders to 6.9%), and in those studies where stakeholder involvement
9 is limited to professionals, academics and/or official agencies (minor participation) (from
17512.5% of studies involving stakeholders to 6.9%). The percentage of studies which may be
considered truly participatory (high participation) is very limited in both year groups (2.1%
and 1 % of studies involving stakeholders respectively). Significant changes have occurred in
the relative proportion of different stakeholder involvement classes over the time-span of this
review (χ2 =12.1, p<0.05).
180 # Figure 3#
Methods used to involve stakeholders
The dominant research methods used to involve stakeholders are interviews and
185questionnaires (Figure 4). Use of the latter has increased by 10.3% between the two year
groups, whilst use of the former has declined by 24.8%. The 2004-06 studies are also
characterised by the use of group methods, such as focus groups and workshops, (largely
absent from the earlier year group except in the case of some studies utilizing more than one
method) and the emergence of more novel techniques such as those relating to Participatory
190Rural Appraisal (PRA), and Visitor Employed Photography (VEP), the latter as part of
studies utilizing multiple methods. 19.6% and 29.8% of studies actively involving
stakeholders, in 1995-97 and 2004-06 respectively, utilized more than one method. Changes
in the relative distribution of methods between year groups are not statistically significant (χ2
=9.3, p>0.05) and need to be interpreted with caution.
195 # Figure 4#
Dimension 3: To what extent is research and its researchers representative of the global
10 10 setting?
200Where is research conducted?
198 studies in 1995-97 and 371 studies in 2004-06 were conducted in North America and
Europe (Figure 5), representing 79.5% and 77.8% respectively, of all research events
conducted in different countries. In the earlier year group, the dominant geographical areas of
study were located in North America (38.6% of research events in different countries),
205Northern Europe (18.1% of research events in different countries) and Western Europe
(17.7% of research events in different countries). The top 3 regions in the latter 2004-06 year
group remained unchanged, except for a reversal of the placings of Western and Northern
Europe (North America, Western Europe, and Northern Europe with 31.7%, 21%, 15.9% of
research events conducted in different countries respectively). The contributions of Eastern
210Asia, Australia and New Zealand and Southern Europe increased substantially between year
groupings whilst that of Southern Africa decreased, with 12 studies conducted in the earlier
year group and only 2 conducted in the latter year group. Changes in the geographical
distribution of studies between year groups are significant (χ2 = 47.5, p<0.001).81.6% and
84.3% of studies in 1995-97 and 2004-06 respectively, were conducted in high income
215countries. Changes in distribution of studies between income groups over the time-span of
the review are not significant (χ2 = 6.3, p>0.09)
# Figure 5#
220To what extent are local researchers involved?
Data on the relationship between authorship and country of study is presented in Figure
6.There was little difference between the proportion of studies conducted by primary authors
from high income countries between 1995-97 and 2004-06 (87% and 90% respectively). Of
11 studies conducted in lower income countries, few have local involvement (Figure 6). Only
2250.4% of studies in low income countries had an author from that country in 1995-97, and the
increase to 0.7% in 2004-06 is negligible. The involvement of authors from lower middle
income countries is likewise low (4% in 1995-97 and 5.8% in 2004-06). Research in high
income countries appears to involve local researchers to a very large degree (85.9% in 1995-
97 and 88.9% in 2004-06). When research involves authors who are not from the same
230country as the primary author, the dominance of high income countries is again evident, with
80% of secondary authors in 1995-97 and 88.68% in 2004-06 originating from high income
countries.
# Figure 6#
235Discussion
Disciplines and topics
It is evident from the results of this review that there is more extensive consideration of
physical topics and of insights from the physical sciences, than of socio-cultural counterparts
(Figures 1 and 2). However, the socio-cultural component is far from insubstantial. In
240particular, there is a clear interest in research on landscape planning and management issues.
The concerns expressed by Hobbs (1997) in relation to the true applicability of landscape
research would therefore appear to be less pertinent on the basis of this review. However, it
should be noted that firstly, this review is based on a wider range of journals (with Hobbs’
review having been based solely on LE), and secondly, that theoretical and academic
245consideration of planning and management issues does not necessarily translate into practical
applicability. Nevertheless, there are some encouraging trends, such as the increased
proportion of research focusing on human perceptions (Figure 1), and thus suggesting
12 increased consideration of the socio-cultural component at a more fundamental level, i.e.
assessing what people think, rather than merely how to manage their activities. The trend
250towards a broader social science disciplinary base is also encouraging, with the inclusion of
new disciplines in the later years of the review (Figure 2) suggesting that advances are being
made towards the development of a truly holistic discipline. The proportional increase in
several social science disciplines, including anthropology and sociology, economics and
history, in landscape research is likewise encouraging. On a less positive note, the
255considerable decrease in the proportion of studies considering both physical and social
science disciplines, or both physical and socio-cultural topics, between the two year groups,
suggests that Hobbs’ concerns about landscape ecology’s failure to live up to its potential as
an integrative science may be increasingly relevant. Analysis of physical aspects in isolation
will have limited applicability in the real-world, particularly given the increasing realization
260of the true extent of human influence on the planet’s biophysical and ecological systems (Des
Jardins 2001; Christensen 2006). At the same time, socio-cultural aspects need to be
considered in relation to the physical setting in which they occur, and on which human life
ultimately depends.
265Stakeholder involvement
Despite the proportional increase between the two year groups reviewed, of studies directly
involving stakeholders, the extent of such involvement is still very limited. In terms of the
nature of involvement, the focus is primarily on obtaining views (Figure 3), and hence
research is primarily extractive, deriving knowledge and data from respondents, with little
270consideration of stakeholder perceptions and opinions. True participatory research, which
aims to facilitate, empower and build capacity is extremely limited. This participatory form
of stakeholder involvement should arguably be the ultimate target of research which aims to
13 relate to the real-world, as ecological and environmental futures will be determined by the
actions of a wide range of stakeholders, rather than merely by those of an academic elite
275(Mannigel 2004; Renn and Oppermann 1995). The academic commmunity has an
opportunity to contribute towards empowering people to be able to make well-informed
decisions, an achievement which would be all the more notable given our bleak
environmental situation globally and the lack of success of related measures at various
societal levels (Brand 2000). However, achieving true participation and empowerment is
280dependent on more than the goodwill of researchers, being intrinsically tied to the wider
social and political context; it is therefore recognized that, in particular contexts, even less
extensive forms of stakeholder involvement may represent significant achievements. The
methods used to involve stakeholders were also considered, as these also vary in the extent to
which they are extractive and/or facilitative. Techniques of the former group still
285predominate (Figure 4). However, the uptake of more novel research techniques which
involve people more intensively, and which question traditional assumptions about the nature
of stakeholder involvement in research (such as techniques from Participatory Rural
Appraisal and Visitor-Employed Photography) present a positive sign. Nevertheless, use of
such techniques is still very limited, and much stakeholder involvement seems to be
290dependent on the more traditional extractive techniques of interviews and questionnaires.
Representativeness of research
There is clearly some cause for concern about the distribution of research efforts. Although it
is understandable that there is more research carried out in countries where there are more
295funding sources, landscape is a global resource and a global concern. Furthermore, different
societies have their own distinctive view of landscape and its values (Phillips 2000), and
threats to landscapes, although universal, will be unique within a particular social context.
14 This emerges partly from the discipline of landscape ecology itself. The views taken by the
two different schools of landscape ecology very much reflect the different physical
300environments; on the one hand, the North American school is more concerned with natural
ecosystems, relating to American society’s concern with ever-dwindling natural landscapes,
whilst the European school focuses on transformed landscapes, reflecting the extent of
modified landscapes in the region (Farina 2000). It is therefore evident that the management
approach needs to be tailored to the unique social setting. It follows that the insights derived
305from research in North America and Europe may not necessarily be applicable to the rest of
the world, and at worst, extrapolation of methods ‘wholesale’ to different social contexts may
do more harm than good (e.g. Altieri 1989; Thrupp 1989; Stevens 1997). There is therefore a
critical need for a focus on the local level, and the involvement of local specialists is likewise
important, not only because of their better understanding of the setting but also because
310management solutions will need to be implemented by locals if they are to be sustainable. In
particular, scientific capacity needs to be developed the world over, as landscape
management initiatives will be dependent on such local scientific expertise. There are
presently large differences in the scientific investment of different nations in all aspects of
science (May 1998), with 31 (mostly high-income) countries accounting for more than 98%
315of the world’s highly cited papers (King 2004). There is therefore an evident need for more
collaboration at an international level and capacity building in lower income countries. It is
acknowledged that the results of this study may oversee some local involvement, as the
country of primary author was defined based on the address of his or her institution;
researchers from one country publishing under an institution in another country were
320therefore not catered for. There may also be specialists involved who are not directly
involved as authors in the publication process. Nevertheless, it is evident that research in the
landscape field is dominated by high income countries, even when such research is carried
15 15 out in countries within the lower income categories (Figures 5 and 6). This suggests that there
is an element of ‘appropriation’ of research in lower income countries, which tends to be
325extractive. Furthermore, when results are compared to those derived by Fazey et al (2005) in
a similar review of research efforts in conservation biology, the bias towards high income
countries appears to be far more marked with reference to landscape research, with 56% of
studies conducted in high income countries in the conservation biology review, and over 80%
of studies conducted in high income countries in this review.
330
Are socio-cultural dimensions adequately represented in landscape research?
The objective of this research in assessing the extent to which social and cultural concerns
feature on the landscape research agenda is not intended to detract from the importance of the
study of physical aspects, patterns and processes. The latter provide a necessary basis for
335real-world planning and management efforts. However, these should be coupled with an
understanding of the social and cultural. Landscape is, by definition, both a physical and a
social construct. The contributions of both natural and social sciences are therefore
indispensable in the pursuit of a better understanding of landscapes and a solid foundation for
their management.
340
Although this study indicates that there are mixed trends in research in the field, there
is clearly scope for more inclusion of socio-cultural concerns on the research agenda. This is
particularly the case given the increasing shift towards science that is publicly accountable
(O’Riordan 2000), and that involves ethical and judgmental issues. A number of
345commentaries have contended that increasingly, academic practice privileges abstract and
scientific knowledge over practical and policy-oriented knowledge (Ward 2005). This is not
16 to say that the measure of academic research should be merely its ability to provide answers
to our environmental and social concerns. However, the scientific community does have a
responsibility to ensure that research is relevant to the concerns of society at large and to the
350resolution of urgent ecological and environmental problems; the consideration of socio-
cultural dimensions of landscape is a clear positive step in this regard. The importance of
such considerations has indeed been reiterated by several authors (Naveh 1994; Hughes 1999;
Decamps 2000; O’Rourke 2005; Ermischer 2004). Practical results however demonstrate a
far less resolute commitment. In part this may arise out of difficulties in bridging the
355philosophical and methodological divides between the natural and social sciences, and the
tendency to judge scientific research more within parameters of the former than those of the
latter. This is undoubtedly due, at least to some extent, to the fact that landscape ecology has
its origins in the natural sciences (Makhzoumi and Pungetti 1999). However, socio-cultural
research should not be expected to conform to the methodological norms of the natural
360sciences, as it deals with different systems and operates within different constraints. Whilst
natural sciences seek to derive universal truths and generalisations (Beck 1949), socio-
cultural research is not necessarily amenable to reductionism or to extrapolation, and indeed,
researchers may seek to study factors of uniqueness rather than generalisability (Dyson and
Brown 2006). Taken together, both natural and social sciences can provide the basis for a
365functional understanding of the real world, enabling successful management initiatives. On
the basis of the findings of this review, there is clearly potential for landscape research to
progress in this regard, through (i) increased consideration of socio-cultural aspects of study;
(ii) increased focus on aspects of study which combine physical and socio-cultural
dimensions; (iii) increased inclusion of stakeholders in the research process; (iv) increased
370uptake of diverse methods for involving stakeholders, (v) increased research in lower income
countries, and (vi) increased collaboration with authors from lower income countries,
17 Conclusion
The major challenge ahead for the landscape research community appears to lie in successful
integration of approaches from the natural and social sciences. The calls for integration are
375certainly not new, and many authors have highlighted the need for more transdisciplinary and
interdisciplinary landscape research (e.g. Allesch 1990; Nassauer 1995; Makhzoumi and
Pungetti 1999; Naveh 2000; Fry 2001; Tress et al 2003; Wu and Hobbs 2002). Nevertheless,
the issue of integration still appears to be as relevant as ever. Beyond the need for integration
across disciplines, however, there is also a need for integration between researchers and the
380broader community of stakeholders, as well as integration between research efforts and
researchers in different parts of the world. Redclift’s (1992) observations on the
preconditions for sustainable development are worth bearing in mind. He notes that first, the
social target groups, structures and systems have to be assessed and involved in research and
decision making, and second, the competence to perform and implement decisions among the
385groups involved has to be developed. At present, landscape researchers’ contributions appear
to fare rather weakly on both counts.
18 References
Allen P. 1998. Public participation in resolving environmental disputes and the problem of representa- tiveness. RISK: Health, Safety and Environment 9: 297-308.
390Allesch C.G. 1990. The space of landscape and the space of geography. In Svoboda H. (ed.), Cultural aspects of landscape, pp. 17-23. Pudoc, Wageningen.
Altieri M.A. 1989. Rethinking the role of US development assistance in Third World agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 6: 85-91.
Beck L.W. 1949. The “natural science ideal” in the social sciences. Scientific Monthly 68: 386-394.
395Blackmore C.P. and Ison R.L. 1998. Boundaries for thinking and action. In Chataway T. A. and Wuyts M. (eds.), Finding out fast - investigative skills for policy and development, pp. 41-66. Sage Publications, London.
Brand K.W. 2000. Environmental consciousness and behaviour: the greening of lifestyles. In Redclift M. and Woodgate G. (eds.), The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Edward Elgar, 400Cheltenham.
Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation 2006. Introduction to Systematic Review. University of Birmingham.
Chambers R. 1994. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience. World Development 22: 1253-1268.
405Christensen J. 2006. What does "wild" really mean? Conservation in Practice 7: 48-49.
Decamps H. 2000. Demanding more of landscape research (and researchers). Landscape and Urban Planning 47: 105-109.
Des Jardins J.R. 2001. Environmental Ethics: An introduction to environmental philosophy. Wadsworth, Belmont.
410Dyson S. and Brown B. 2006. Social theory and applied health research.
Eldrege N. 1995. Dominion: Can nature and culture coexist? Henry Holt and Company, New York.
Elnakat A.C. 2002. Science based policies: How can scientists communicate their points across? In WM Conference, Tucson, Arizona.
Ermischer G. 2004. Mental landscape: landscape as idea and concept. Landscape Research 29: 371- 415383.
Farina A. 2000. Landscape Ecology in Action. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Fazey I., Fischer J. and Lindenmayer D.B. 2005. Who does all the research in conservation biology? Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 917-934.
Fazey I., Salisbury J.G., Lindenmayer D.B., Maindonald J. and Douglas R. 2004. Can methods ap- 420plied in medicine be used to summarize and disseminate conservation research? Environmental Con- servation 31: 190-198.
19 Fazey I.F., J.A. and Fazey D.M.A. 2005. Learning more effectively from experience. Ecology and So- ciety.
Fry G. 2001. Multifunctional landscapes - towards transdisciplinary research. Landscape and Urban 425Planning 57: 159-168.
Ghimire K.B. and Pimbert M.P. 1997. Social change and conservation. Environmental politics and impacts of national parks and protected areas. Earthscan, London.
Gorjestani N. 2000. Indigenous Knowledge for Development: Opportunities and Challenges.
Hassan R., Scholes R. and Neville A. (eds.) 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current state 430and trends. Findings of the Conditions and Trends Working Group of the Milllennium Ecosystem As- sessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Health Canada 2000. Health Canada policy toolkit for public involvement in decision making.
Hobbs R. 1997. Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Plan- ning 37: 1-9.
435Hughes E. 1999. Community participation in landscape planning and management. In The Heritage Council (ed.), Policies and priorities for Ireland's landscape: Conference papers. The Heritage Coun- cil, Kilkenny, Ireland.
Kapoor I. 2001. Towards participatory environmental management? Journal of Environmental Man- agement 63: 269-279.
440King D.A. 2004. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430: 311-316.
Makhzoumi J. and Pungetti G. 1999. Ecological Landscape Design and Planning: The Mediterranean context. E&FN Spon, London.
Mannigel E. 2004. Integrating parks and neighbours: Participation and protected areas in three case studies in the Mata Atlantica Region of Brazil, University of Greifswald: Greifswald.
445May R.M. 1998. The scientific investments of nations. Science 281: 49-51.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Nassauer J.I. 1995. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 10: 229-237.
Naveh Z. 1994. Interactions of landscape and cultures. Landscape and Urban Planning 32: 43-54.
450Naveh Z. 2000. What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction. Landscape and Urban Planning 50: 7-26.
Nelson N. and Wright S. 1995. Power and Participatory Development. Intermediate Technology Pub- lications, London.
O’Rourke E. 2005. Socio-natural interaction and landscape dynamics in the Burren, Ireland. Land- 455scape and Urban Planning 70: 69-83.
OECD 2004. Stakeholder involvement techniques. OECD, Paris.
20 20 Oku H. and Fukamachi K. 2006. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landscape and Urban Planning 75: 34-42.
O'Riordan T. 2000. Environmental Science for Environmental Management. Prentice Hall, Essex.
460Palmer M.A., Bernhardt E.S., Chornesky E.A., Collins S.L., Dobsons A.P., Duke C.S., Gold B.D., Ja- cobsons R.B., Kingsland S.E., Kranz R.H., Mappin M.J., Martinez M.L., Micheli F., Morse J.L., Pace M.L., Pascual M., Palumbi S.S., Reichman O.J., Townsend A.R. and Turner M.G. 2005. Ecological science and sustainability for the 21st century. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 4-11.
Phillips A. 2000. International policies and landscape protection. In Benson J. F. and Roe M. H. 465(eds.), Landscape and sustainability. Spon Press, London.
Pitman N.C.A., Loyola Azaldegui M., Salas K., Vigo G.T. and Lutz D.A. 2007. Written accounts of an Amazonian landscape over the last 450 years. Conservation Biology 21: 253-262.
Poolman M.I. and van de Giesen N.C. 2006. Participation; rhetoric and reality. The importance of un- derstanding stakeholders based on a case study in Upper East Ghana. Journal of Water Resources De- 470velopment 22: 561-573.
Pretty J., Guilt I., Thompson J. and Scoones I. 1995. A Trainer’s Guide for Participatory Learning and Action. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Pullin A.S. and Stewart G.B. 2006. Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environ- mental Management. Conservation Biology In press.
475Reagan D.P. 2006. An ecological basis for integrated environmental management. Human and Eco- logical Risk Assessment 12: 819-833.
Redclift M. 1992. A framework for improving environmental management: beyond the market mech- anism. World Development 20: 255-259.
Renn O. and Opperman B. 1995. 'Bottom-up" statt 'Top-down" - Die Forderung nach Burger- 480mitwirkung als (altes und neues) Mittel zur Losung von Konflikten in der raumlichen Planung. Zeit- schrift fur angewandte Unweltforschung Sonderheft 6: 257-276.
Rosenbaum W.A. 1998. Environmental Politics and Policy. CQ Press, Washington, D.C.
Rowe G. and Frewer L.J. 2004. Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology and Human Values 29: 512-556.
485Slocum R. 1995. Power, process and participation. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Stedman R., Beckley T., Wallace S. and Ambard M. 2004. A Picture and 1000 Words: Using residen- t-employed photography to understand attachment to high amenity places. Journal of Leisure Re- search 36: 580-606.
Stevens S. 1997. Conservation through Cultural Survival: Indigenous peoples and protected areas. Is- 490land Press, Washington D.C.
Thayer R.L. 2003. LifePlace: Bioregional thought and practice. University of California Press, Berke- ley.
The Thomson Corporation 2006. Journal Citation Reports 2005.
The World Bank 2006. World Bank list of economies (July 2006). The World Bank.
21 495Thrupp L.A. 1989. Legitimizing local knowledge: from displacement to empowerment for Third World people. Agriculture and Human Values 6: 13-24.
Tress B., Tress G., Van der Valk A. and Fry G. 2003. Interdisciplinary and Trandisciplinary Land- scape Studies. In Delta Series 2, Wageningen.
United Nations Environment Program 1992. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
500United Nations Statistics Division 2006. Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings.
Vos W. and Klijn J. 2000. Trends in European landscape development: prospects for a sustainable fu- ture. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Wageningen.
Ward K. 2005. Geography and public policy: a recent history of 'policy relevance'. Progress in Human 505Geography 29: 310-319.
World Wildlife Fund 2006. Living Planet Report. WWF International, Gland.
Wu J. and Hobbs R.J. 2002. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecology 17: 355-365.
22 Table 1. Details of research articles reviewed.
Journal Year group Number of research articles 1995-1997 89 LE 2004-2006 217 1995-1997 46 LUP 2004-2006 223 1995-1997 291 LR 2004-2006 65 Total 931
23 Table 2. Questions and categories requiring detailed definition.
Questions Definitions/categories Defined as the issue being addressed directly by the research. A distinction is made between topics of research with a physical focus Topic of study: and those with a socio-cultural focus. The former include physical and biological properties of landscape and human impacts on physical landscapes whilst the latter include studies of implications of landscape matters for humans, of human perceptions of landscape issues, together with studies relating to planning and management of landscapes. Studies addressing topics with both physical and socio-cultural topics were classified within a separate category. Defined as a set of paradigmatic structures, and shared philosophical and/or methodological approaches, which give validity to the work produced within those structures. A distinction is made between disciplines of the physical sciences (namely physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics) and those which are more social science-oriented, (namely anthropology, sociology, history, Disciplinary basis of study: philosophy, law and economics. Design and planning and management were also included in this latter category as they are concerned with anthropogenic elements and with the control of anthropogenic activities). Studies with more or less equal input from both physical sciences and the social sciences were classified within a separate category. 4 categories were defined, based on two broad criteria, namely inclusivity (Poolman and Van de Giesen 2006; Nelson and Wright 1995; Slocum 1995; Kapoor 2001) and the nature of information flow (Rowe and Frewer 2004; Pretty et al 1995; OECD 2004; Health Canada 2000). Minimal participation involves stakeholders solely for the purpose of obtaining data that is otherwise Extent of involvement of unavailable/inaccessible, and/or for testing data or methodologies. Minor participation considers stakeholders’ views, concerns and stakeholders: knowledge. However, stakeholders are limited to the research community, academics, professionals and official agencies. Moderate participation incorporates the views, concerns, and knowledge of a wide range of stakeholders, including the general public. High participation goes beyond the extractive process of eliciting views and actively seeks to facilitate and empower stakeholders and/or to build capacity for stakeholders to undertake analysis and management. Methods identified were questionnaires, interviews, group methods (i.e. focus groups, group meetings and workshops), Methods used to involve Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods (e.g. Chambers 1994) and Visitor Employed Photography (VEP) (Stedman et al stakeholders: 2004; Oku and Fukamachi 2006) These were categorized as per the World Bank List of Economies (2006) and the United Nations classification of geographical regions (2006). Economic categories are based on Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, as follows: low income, i.e. ≤$875 (e.g. Country of study/country of Kenya, India), lower middle income, i.e. $876-$3 465 (e.g. Brazil, Philippines), upper middle income, i.e. $3 466-$10 725 (e.g. author/s’ institution/s: Russian Federation, Turkey), and high income, i.e. ≥$10 726 (e.g. USA, Germany). The main geographical groupings comprise the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania, with sub-groupings within each category.
24 Figure captions
Figure 1 (a). Percentage of studies within each year group by topic of study. Categories are: (i) studies
with a physically-focused topic of study only, (ii) studies with a socio-culturally focused topic of
study only, and (iii) studies with both. Figure 1 (b). Distribution of all studies including a socio-
cultural topic (n=199 in 1995-97; n=280 in 2004-06), by sub-topic, for each year group.
Figure 2 (a) Percentage of studies within each year group by disciplinary focus. Categories are: (i)
studies with a physical science disciplinary focus only, (ii) studies with a social science disciplinary
focus only, and (iii) studies with both. Figure 2 (b) Distribution of all studies including a social
science discipline (n=234 in 1995-97; n=322 in 2004-06), by discipline, for each year group.
Figure 3. Distribution of studies involving stakeholders, in 1995-97 and 2004-06, by category of
involvement (n= 48 in 1995-97; n=101 in 2004-06).
Figure 4. Distribution of studies actively involving stakeholders, by method used (n=46 in 1995-97;
n=97 in 2004-06; 2 studies in the earlier year group and 4 studies in the latter year group engaged
stakeholders in a passive capacity, e.g. physiological testing).
Figure 5. Distribution of studies in 1995-97 and 2004-06 by geographical region. Total number of
studies involving a country of study = 726 (249 in 1995-97 and 477 in 2004-06), of which 21
involved 2 countries of study, 6 involved 3 countries of study, 1 involved 4 countries of study and 1
involved 7 countries of study. Total number of research events in different countries = 753
Figure 6 (a) Distribution of studies in 1995-97 and 2004-06 by income group of country of study
(n=753 research events in different countries). Figure 6 (b) Percentage of studies conducted within
each income group involving a primary author from the country of study in 1995-97 and 2004-06
(n=number of studies involving primary author/total number of studies in income group). Figure 6 (c)
Percentage of studies conducted within each income group involving any author from the country of
study in 1995-07 and 2004-06 (n=number of studies involving any author/total number of studies in
income group).
25 25 Figure 1a/b
26 Figure 2a/b
27 Figure 3
28 Figure 4
29 Figure 5
30 30 Figure 6a/b/c
31