Minding the research practitioner gap: The implementation of
integrated landscape approaches
Global Landscapes Forum, Lima Peru
7th December 2014
‘Integrated Landscape Approaches’:
A systematic map

• EcoAgriculture Partners
identified 78 (!!) different terms
all alluding to integrated
landscape management
• There remains no single agreed
definition within the scientific
community for a landscape
approach
• Perhaps because one size does
not fit all!
The terminology problem

Landscapes
Multi-functional landscapes
Integrated landscape
management
Climate smart
agriculture
Ecosystem Approach
Community-Based Adaption
Integrated landscape
approaches
Landscape-scale ecosystem-based
adaptation
Integrated natural resource management
Conservation
agriculture
Green Growth
Landscapes
Approach
Green Agricultural Economy
Green Infrastructure
Landscape Mosaics
Sustainable Intensification
(…just some of the) Current
Terminology

Systematic Maps
• Transparent, repeatable, pre-determined methodology to review a given
research topic
• Commonly used in medical research
• Recently adopted by natural and social sciences (environmentalevidence.org)

Our (current) primary research questions:
What is the landscape approach, and
how has it evolved into current
discourse and practice?
How, and where, is it actually being
implemented?
Three key objectives:
 Map the development of landscape approach theory
 Review and synthesize current terminology
 Review integrated landscape research by documenting current (and
prior) examples of landscape-scale initiatives in the tropics
Objectives of the systematic map

Methods
Evolution of search terms and strategy:
 Internal/external consultation
 Two stakeholder workshops (Kenya and Australia)
 Extensive scoping exercise using Web of Science
 Development of inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies
 Protocol published in peer-reviewed journal [in press]
Specialist databases:
• Scopus
• CAB Direct
• ISI Web of Knowledge
• PubMed
Internet searches:
• Google Scholar
Other:
• Call for grey literature

Methods
Specific criteria for case studies:
 Clear and repeatable methodology
 Evidence of integrating at least two land uses
 Evidence of integrating at least two institutional/sectorial stakeholders
 Outcomes measured accurately and reliably

Progress
271,974 Main terms expanded and
trialed in WoK
13,290Publications captured with
refined search terms
47 Final studies of relevance
382Relevant after abstract
screening
1,171 Relevant studies after title
screening
26,303 Initial scoping in WoK using
main search terms
Title screening
Abstract screening
Full text screening
Study quality

Preliminary Findings
No.ofpeer-reviewedarticles
13,290
1,171
382 47
48%
21%
9% 9% 9%
4%

Preliminary Findings
• Majority of studies started
with single objective focus
• 83% of case studies reported
positive outcomes
• No cases (thus far) of long
term monitoring and
evaluation of landscape
metrics
• 37% of papers explicitly
acknowledge the need for a
landscape approach
Main Project Focus
27% 27%
16%
13% 13%
4%

Preliminary Findings
• Despite the wealth of information on landscape approaches, there
are very few case study examples in the peer reviewed literature
• This does not mean they are not out there: they are not being
reported!
• Will including the grey literature in our screening provide the bridge
for this gap in our knowledge base?

www.cifor.org/landscape-map
Online Interactive Map

http://www.landscapes.org/
Special thanks: James Reed, Liz Deakin, Josh van Vianen