• Energy Research

AbstractLandscape simplification is a worldwide phenomenon that impacts biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Humans benefit greatly from nature’s contributions to people in both material and immaterial ways, yet landscape simplification can undermine these contributions. Landscape simplification can have negative consequences, for example, for human–nature connectedness and other relational values. Major and rapid land-use change, together with a declining appreciation of nature by individuals and societies, in turn, could cause a downward spiral of disconnections. Our empirical research combined a comprehensive assessment of five dimensions of human–nature connectedness with the lens of relational values to assess how these are influenced by landscape simplification. Focusing on two rural landscapes with differing agricultural development in Lower Saxony (Germany), we conducted 34 problem-centred interviews. We found that landscape simplification, especially if rapid, negatively influenced human–nature connectedness and particular relational values such as social relations, social cohesion or cultural identity. We postulate that human–nature connectedness might have a balancing influence on preserving relational values, buffering negative impacts of landscape simplification. Losing connections to nature could potentially foster conflicts among actors with different values. We conclude that combining the notions of human–nature connectedness and relational values can generate valuable insights and may help to uncover new ways to foster sustainability.

AbstractLandscape simplification is a worldwide phenomenon that impacts biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Humans benefit greatly from nature’s contributions to people in both material and immaterial ways, yet landscape simplification can undermine these contributions. Landscape simplification can have negative consequences, for example, for human–nature connectedness and other relational values. Major and rapid land-use change, together with a declining appreciation of nature by individuals and societies, in turn, could cause a downward spiral of disconnections. Our empirical research combined a comprehensive assessment of five dimensions of human–nature connectedness with the lens of relational values to assess how these are influenced by landscape simplification. Focusing on two rural landscapes with differing agricultural development in Lower Saxony (Germany), we conducted 34 problem-centred interviews. We found that landscape simplification, especially if rapid, negatively influenced human–nature connectedness and particular relational values such as social relations, social cohesion or cultural identity. We postulate that human–nature connectedness might have a balancing influence on preserving relational values, buffering negative impacts of landscape simplification. Losing connections to nature could potentially foster conflicts among actors with different values. We conclude that combining the notions of human–nature connectedness and relational values can generate valuable insights and may help to uncover new ways to foster sustainability.

Ongoing land use change, including both land abandonment and agricultural intensification and expansion, not only present a threat for biodiversity and ecosystem health but also for the persistence of cultural landscapes. However, farmland abandonment and the resulting loss of traditional cultural landscapes is an under-researched topic in the literature. Our work in a transdisciplinary action research project in the Spreewald Biosphere Reserve suggested that challenges to preserve the cultural landscape are rooted in diverging landscape understandings and future aspirations. Dealing with and integrating different perceptions and viewpoints is a key challenge in landscape governance. Narratives as storylines about a topic or an issue have a structural and temporal dimension and can help understand land-use conflicts and different viewpoints. We adopted a social constructivist perspective on landscape to engage with meanings and perceptions (including values) that constitute landscape to diverse stakeholders. To understand these differences in meaning, we drew on Q-methodology and conducted 38 interviews with key stakeholders. We elicited three co-existing and partly overlapping landscape narratives. These differ with regard to meanings of the term cultural landscape, including how stakeholders characterise the landscape, how they appreciate it, and what they perceive as threats. We show how such differences in meanings and values attributed to the landscape translate to different problem framings and future aspirations and thus present a barrier for collaborative management and governance. We highlight how participatory vision development could help address narrative tensions and argue that a more integrative perspective would better include cultural aspects.

Ongoing land use change, including both land abandonment and agricultural intensification and expansion, not only present a threat for biodiversity and ecosystem health but also for the persistence of cultural landscapes. However, farmland abandonment and the resulting loss of traditional cultural landscapes is an under-researched topic in the literature. Our work in a transdisciplinary action research project in the Spreewald Biosphere Reserve suggested that challenges to preserve the cultural landscape are rooted in diverging landscape understandings and future aspirations. Dealing with and integrating different perceptions and viewpoints is a key challenge in landscape governance. Narratives as storylines about a topic or an issue have a structural and temporal dimension and can help understand land-use conflicts and different viewpoints. We adopted a social constructivist perspective on landscape to engage with meanings and perceptions (including values) that constitute landscape to diverse stakeholders. To understand these differences in meaning, we drew on Q-methodology and conducted 38 interviews with key stakeholders. We elicited three co-existing and partly overlapping landscape narratives. These differ with regard to meanings of the term cultural landscape, including how stakeholders characterise the landscape, how they appreciate it, and what they perceive as threats. We show how such differences in meanings and values attributed to the landscape translate to different problem framings and future aspirations and thus present a barrier for collaborative management and governance. We highlight how participatory vision development could help address narrative tensions and argue that a more integrative perspective would better include cultural aspects.

The United Nations (UN) recently declared 2021 to 2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Against this background, we review recent social-ecological systems research and summarize key themes that could help to improve ecosystem restoration in dynamic social contexts. The themes relate to resilience and adaptability, ecosystem stewardship and navigation of change, relational values, the coevolution of human and ecological systems, long-range social-ecological connections, and leverage points for transformation. We recommend two cross-cutting new research foci; namely: (i) post hoc cross-sectional assessments of social-ecological restoration projects; and (ii) transdisciplinary social-ecological 'living labs' that accompany new restoration projects as they unfold. With global agendas increasingly taking a social-ecological perspective, the recasting of ecosystem restoration as a social-ecological endeavor offers exciting new opportunities for both research and practice.

The United Nations (UN) recently declared 2021 to 2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Against this background, we review recent social-ecological systems research and summarize key themes that could help to improve ecosystem restoration in dynamic social contexts. The themes relate to resilience and adaptability, ecosystem stewardship and navigation of change, relational values, the coevolution of human and ecological systems, long-range social-ecological connections, and leverage points for transformation. We recommend two cross-cutting new research foci; namely: (i) post hoc cross-sectional assessments of social-ecological restoration projects; and (ii) transdisciplinary social-ecological 'living labs' that accompany new restoration projects as they unfold. With global agendas increasingly taking a social-ecological perspective, the recasting of ecosystem restoration as a social-ecological endeavor offers exciting new opportunities for both research and practice.

To create the science we need for the ocean we want in this United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development and to support the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) value assessment, we systematically reviewed literature from the past 20 years (N = 375) that used conceptualizations of relational values in coastal and marine ecosystems of the Global South. We found four clusters of research highlighting specific characteristics. Cluster one (participatory and qualitative approaches) was defined by a focus on the relational value of cultural heritage and the production of qualitative social science data, often with a participatory approach. Cluster two (Indigenous and local ecological knowledges held by fishers and gatherers) linked to the explicit inclusion of Indigenous and local knowledges in research and to aspects of biodiversity and marine resources. Cluster three (ecological and environmental change) was determined by relational values of social relations and identity of residents and community members through the use of anthropological and ethnographic methods and linked to ecological and environmental change. Cluster four (recreation and quantitative data) was characterized by a variety of relational values, such as recreation and enjoyment, aesthetics and inspiration, or stewardship, and based on quantitative empirical social research methods mainly elicited from coastal users (such as tourists). We highlight (1) the most prevalent relational values; (2) the necessity to bridge dispersed research approaches; and (3) the possible negative impact of globalization, market pressure, and ecological degradation on relational values. Our lessons learnt are the challenge of conflating relational values with structures, institutions, or emotions; the necessity of accounting for dynamic influences on relational values; and finding ways to comparably quantify relational value categories. Our recommendations for future research are: (1) specificity regarding relational values and their object of value; (2) using transdisciplinary and participatory approaches; and (3) strengthening pro-environmental relational values for sustainability transformation.