Research, part of a special feature on Learning from Doing: Closing Knowledge Gaps in Integrated Landscape Research

INTRODUCTION

Integrated landscape approaches (ILAs), a negotiated form of governance (Ros-Tonen and Willemen 2021, Siangulube et al. 2023), foster collaboration among diverse stakeholders, sectors, and perspectives (Sayer et al. 2013, Reed et al. 2020) and are gaining traction in academia and environmental organizations. There are numerous alternative terms for these approaches (see Scherr et al. 2013 for an overview), all of which are embedded in the broader concept of landscape governance. Despite their popularity, the practical application of these approaches remains limited, with a persistent gap between theory and implementation (Reed et al. 2016, Toomey 2016, Bürgi et al. 2017).

Although integrated approaches to reconcile conservation and development are widely recognized, the opportunity costs of mobilizing stakeholders and navigating cultural barriers to transcend sectoral “silos” are high (Zanzanaini et al. 2017, Angelstam et al. 2019, Bayala et al. 2024). Several authors suggest that locally embedded entry or leverage points are needed, starting small, for instance, with a natural resource management or certification scheme, to assess whether an initiative can be scaled into a full landscape approach once stakeholder trust is established (Deans et al. 2018, Foli et al. 2018, Langston et al. 2019).

However, indicators to assess the potential and limitations of such initiatives as entry points for ILAs are lacking. Although the ILA principles developed by Sayer et al. (2013) are widely cited, they have seldom been operationalized into indicators. This paper addresses that gap by presenting a set of principles, criteria, and indicators (PC&I) to assess whether and to what extent landscape initiatives align with the intentions of ILAs. The PC&I set was developed through a systematic literature review to extract criteria and formulate indicators.

METHODS

This paper is based on a systematic literature review guided by the following questions:

1. How are landscape approaches, initiatives, and governance defined?
2. What principles and criteria define a governance approach as a landscape approach?

The literature search was conducted in August 2022 and updated in December 2024. It used the search terms (“landscape approach*” OR “landscape initiatives” OR “landscape governance”) AND (principles OR criteria OR factors OR indicators) applied to the Web of Science and Scopus databases. Articles were included if they (1) operationalized landscape approaches, (2) listed principles and criteria or governance requirements, and (3) focused on tropical countries.

We acknowledge the considerable work done on PC&Is in the forestry sector (e.g., van Bueren and Blom 1997, Lindenmayer et al. 2000, Mendoza and Prahbu 2000, Morgan et al. 2022, Mackey et al. 2024). However, we excluded articles on PC&Is developed for specific sectors because we focus on principles for integrated landscape approaches that transcend sectoral silos. The focus on tropical countries reflects our contribution to a broader initiative to operationalize landscape approaches in rural tropical areas: the Collaborating to Operationalise Landscape Approaches for Nature, Development and Sustainability (COLANDS) initiative (https://www.cifor-icraf.org/colands/). Moreover, conditions in the tropics differ from those in non-tropical and urban contexts, as deforestation and biodiversity loss in the Global South intersect with poverty, food insecurity, and generally more severe effects of climate change.

The search yielded 830 peer-reviewed articles, including eight from other sources (Fig. 1). After removing duplicates, 509 remained for screening. Instead of using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) framework commonly applied in health and quantitative studies, we adopted the Population, phenomenon of Interest, and Context (PICo, with a lowercase o) framework (Table 1) to define the scope of the literature review and the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The PICo framework is considered “equally useful” for qualitative studies, where comparators and outcomes are less central (Stern et al. 2014).

After screening 509 titles and abstracts, we narrowed the sample to 79 articles relevant for full-text review. During full-text screening, 48 articles were excluded for the following reasons: a focus on urban or European landscapes (n = 4); no discussion of principles, criteria, or constraints that could serve as a basis for extracting criteria (n = 17); emphasis on planning tools like models or Geographical Information Systems (n = 4); a sectoral rather than landscape focus (n = 14); exclusive focus on multi-stakeholder forums (n = 6), or being non-peer-reviewed (n = 1). Additionally, outcome-focused papers were excluded (n = 2) because we focus on identifying feasible entry points for implementing ILAs. Ultimately, 31 articles were included as the most relevant for defining principles and criteria for landscape governance, approaches, and initiatives. The screening process is summarized in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram (Fig. 1).

Excel sheets were used to systematically track the exclusion and inclusion of articles. Separate sheets covered the identification stage, duplication removal, and eligibility and inclusion stages. During the eligibility screening process, each excluded article received a specific code indicating the reason for exclusion. The sheet containing the included articles listed the full references, abstracts, justification for linking principles and criteria to those of Sayer et al. (2013), and the principles and criteria addressed. We took the 10 principles for ILAs developed by Sayer et al. (2013) as a starting point and added two frequently cited principles, good governance and financial capacity, that did not fully align with Sayer et al.’s framework. Appendix 1 presents the full references, their geographical and thematic focus, the principles addressed, the justifications for linking them to Sayer et al.’s principles and the two additional ones, and the criteria derived from each paper.

To identify relevant principles and criteria, we searched PDFs and our Mendeley library using keywords: “principle,” “criteri*,” “need,” “condition,” “require,” and “essential.” In some cases (e.g., Reed et al. 2017, Sayer et al. 2017, Vermunt et al. 2020, Riggs et al. 2021), criteria were derived from lessons learned, success factors, or implementation barriers in landscape initiatives.

When principles were framed differently from those in Sayer et al.’s framework, we rephrased them to align with the 12 principles used in this review, justifying each “translation.” Similarly, criteria based on lessons, implementation barriers, or success factors without explicit reference to principles were matched to the extended Sayer et al. principles based on our interpretation. Appendix 1 outlines the process by which these matches were made.

After extracting principles and criteria, we grouped similar criteria under common denominators. The author team then defined indicators, drawing on both the reviewed literature and our collective insights. This initially led to overlapping indicators, which the authors then assigned to the best-fitting criterion. As the indicators aim to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and feasibility of interventions as entry points for implementing landscape approaches, rather than to evaluate long-term impacts, we focused on process indicators rather than outcome indicators.

DEFINITIONS

“Principles” are foundational guidelines that outline the core concepts and values of a given approach or methodology. In landscape approaches, principles refer to the conceptual underpinnings or rules that guide landscape management and governance (Sayer et al. 2013). As Morgan et al. (2022) explain, “Principles are typically normative statements that reflect desires and values within a given system; they are ideational and non-measurable.” Several principles for landscape governance and ILAs (Sayer et al. 2013) align with Ostrom’s (1990) design principles for governing common-pool resources, emphasizing local knowledge, participation, and adaptive management as key to sustainable and equitable resource governance.

“Criteria” support the evaluation of principles and represent conditions, procedures, or activities that contribute to their realization (Cadman 2012, Morgan et al. 2022). Positioned one tier below principles, criteria demonstrate alignment with principles and serve as tools for evaluating governance systems (Cadman 2012). Consistent fulfilment of a criterion strongly suggests the realization or maintenance of the related principle (Cadman 2012, Morgan et al. 2021).

“Indicators,” the next level down, are quantitative or qualitative measures that show how a governance system performs in relation to a criterion (Cadman 2012). They serve as measurable signals, helping researchers, practitioners, and policy makers assess the performance or progress of an initiative. According to Medeiros et al. (2021), “Indicators are usually understood as part of a conceptual or assessment framework that establishes relations between them and makes sense of the information.”

Together, PC&I are essential for understanding, assessing, and implementing collaborative landscape governance. They form a coherent set that links principles to specific criteria and indicators (Cadman 2012), providing a structured standard for evaluating and continuously improving initiatives.

Finally, a distinction must be made between landscape approaches and landscape initiatives. Although often used interchangeably (Ros-Tonen et al. 2018), we define landscape initiatives as single-domain projects or programs that affect a landscape without necessarily adopting an integrated, multi-stakeholder, or multi-scalar approach (Ros-Tonen et al. 2018, cf. Carmenta et al. 2020). The PC&I set presented here offers a tool for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of such initiatives.

RESULTS

The evidence base

The PC&I set draws on insights from a comprehensive review of 31 peer-reviewed articles that examine the principles and criteria of landscape approaches. These articles include both empirical case studies of implemented landscape approaches and theoretical reviews of PC&I. This scholarly foundation ensures that the criteria are well-supported and reflect current academic discourse on landscape governance. The aim is to enhance the rigor and credibility of evaluating landscape initiatives by drawing on established expertise in the field.

The studies included in the semi-systematic literature review employed various methods to analyze principles and criteria for landscape approaches. Of the 31 articles, 16 were literature reviews, and 15 were case studies. Table 2 provides an overview of the geographical and thematic focus of the reviewed studies. Most reviewed articles focused on specific countries, mainly Indonesia, Ghana, Uganda, and Myanmar, with 35% of study locations in Africa and 24% in Asia. Several others did not target a specific country but conducted cross-country comparisons (Table 2).

Thematically, some studies aim to contribute to the operationalization of landscape approaches (e.g., Freeman et al. 2015). Other studies have developed methods and guidelines for monitoring and evaluating landscape approaches. Various studies assessed the implementation of landscape initiatives based on Sayer et al.’s (2013) 10 principles, or a subset of those. Some studies have conducted such assessments, focusing on specific criteria, for instance, related to mitigating climate impacts on livelihoods (Duncan et al. 2021), the capabilities required for ILA implementation (Arts et al. 2017), inclusiveness (Bayala et al. 2024), or multi-stakeholder engagement (Kusters et al. 2018). Finally, some studies focused on constraints to implementing ILAs from which we derived criteria and indicators (Table 2).

A categorization of the principles

We took the 10 ILA principles developed by Sayer et al. (2013) as a starting point for developing criteria and indicators. The literature review identified two additional principles not fully aligned with Sayer et al.’s (2013) framework, which were treated separately: financial capacity (Ros-Tonen et al. 2014, Carmenta et al. 2020, Vermunt et al. 2020) and good governance (Sayer et al. 2015, Duncan et al. 2021, Forsyth and Springate-Baginski 2021, Morgan et al. 2021). We grouped the 12 principles into five categories: foundational conditions, stakeholder engagement, orientation toward landscape outcomes, negotiation processes, and monitoring, evaluation, and learning (Fig. 2). This categorization guides the presentation of criteria synthesized from the literature in the following sections.

After synthesizing the criteria, indicators were developed based on the literature and the authors’ experiences (see Tables 3-12). These indicators are mainly qualitative and represent observable actions or steps that indicate how a landscape initiative performs in relation to each criterion.

Criteria and indicators for foundational conditions

We added two principles to the 10 developed by Sayer et al. (2013): good governance and financial stability (Table 3). These are frequently cited as conditional to the success of landscape initiatives but are not explicitly mentioned in Sayer et al.’s principles, despite several being broadly related to governance (e.g., multi-stakeholder engagement, common concerns, negotiated change logic, participatory monitoring, adaptive management).

Good governance

Good governance involves recognizing legitimate governing institutions, fostering public trust in governance processes, promoting transparent decision making (e.g., regarding land allocation and benefit sharing), and encouraging inclusive deliberation. The indicators to assess this principle are evidence that multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) and landscape initiatives uphold good governance principles, including legitimacy, transparency, accountability, the rule of law/absence of corruption, and democracy (Table 3). Legitimacy is secured when all stakeholders are represented in MSPs and able to articulate their perspectives (Langston et al. 2019). Transparency entails informing stakeholders about the rationale behind decision making, including the risks, uncertainties, and opportunities involved (Sayer et al. 2013). Accountability is measured by mechanisms that hold public and private actors responsible (Kusters et al. 2018). Although corruption, which is defined as deriving personal gain through procedures such as permit issuance (Langston et al. 2019), is difficult to measure, intentions to avoid it can be inferred from the presence of rules and sanctions to deter it.

Debates continue about how to assess transparency, the rule of law, and accountability in diverse political and cultural contexts (Grindle 2011). Similarly, applying concepts like democracy requires nuance, as ideals such as freedom of speech and inclusive deliberation may be unattainable in authoritarian regimes (Forsyth and Springate-Baginski 2021). There is growing criticism of imposing Western democratic standards on low-income countries, including those in Eastern Europe (Weiss 2000, Ansell and Torfing 2022).

Some criteria suggested by Kusters et al. (2018), such as stakeholder representation, active participation, and equity, are included under stakeholder-related principles. Information sharing to promote transparency will be discussed in later sections under other principles, such as multiple scales and negotiated and transparent change logic.

Financial capacity

The principle emphasizes the importance of securing funding for long-term landscape governance that is independent of donor support. The review identified several avenues, including community-led activities such as ecotourism, government sources (Omoding et al. 2020, Riggs et al. 2021), and investments by private sector actors (Deans et al. 2018, Ros-Tonen et al. 2018, Reed et al. 2020).

This principle comprises two criteria. The first is a demonstrated commitment to securing long-term funding for both the MSP and the broader initiative. The corresponding indicator is a defined and actionable strategy for sustained financing. The second criterion concerns embedding the initiative in local institutions or joint actions. Aligning with local entry points can provide access to community or government funds, thereby reducing dependence on external donor funding (Ros-Tonen et al. 2018, Vermunt et al. 2020). The related indicator assesses whether the initiative is co-financed by local government or private initiatives (Table 3). For example, advanced value chain collaboration between government, NGOs, and private actors in Ghana’s cocoa sector generated co-financing for farmer training, environmental payments, and certification schemes, thereby embedding landscape goals within existing institutional and funding structures (Deans et al. 2018).

Stakeholder-related principles

In landscape approaches, involving diverse stakeholders is essential to reach a consensus among those who affect or are affected by landscape initiatives (cf. Freeman 1984). The three stakeholder-related principles include multiple stakeholders, multiple scales, and strengthening stakeholder capacity (Table 4).

Multiple stakeholders

This principle requires the active participation of governmental entities, local communities, and private actors and comprises four criteria (Table 4). The first criterion is embracing stakeholder diversity and recognizing the value of inclusive engagement for addressing sustainability challenges. This requires conducting a stakeholder inventory to reveal the values, priorities, and concerns of individuals and groups (Sayer et al. 2017, Reed et al. 2021). The related indicator is a prior stakeholder analysis, including their interests, needs, and aspirations (e.g., Sayer et al. 2013). Additional indicators assess the inclusion of marginalized groups (women, youth, and minorities), policy actors, and the private sector. Marginalized actor involvement can also be assessed by venue accessibility (Ros-Tonen et al. 2018, Reed et al. 2019), as long travel distances and associated costs can limit the participation of poorer stakeholders (van Ewijk and Ros-Tonen 2021). The second criterion is trust and connectedness, key components of social capital, encompassing bonding capital at the community level, bridging capital across sectors, and linking capital across scales (Ros-Tonen et al. 2014, Deans et al. 2018). A lack of trust and connectedness reduces stakeholders’ willingness to engage in negotiations (Kusters et al. 2020), creating an interaction problem that hinders the implementation of landscape approaches (Vermunt et al. 2020). Indicators include stakeholders’ willingness to sit around the table (Kusters et al. 2020) and evidence of interpersonal interactions (Morgan et al. 2022). Several authors emphasize the value of context-specific participatory approaches, such as participatory mapping and modeling, as examples to enhance both the inclusion of marginalized actors and interpersonal interaction (e.g., Freeman et al. 2015, Reed et al. 2019, Waeber et al. 2023).

The third criterion is coordination across sectors and horizontal collaboration. Indicators include (i) recognition of both customary and statutory rules, (ii) collaboration between customary and statutory institutions, and (iii) coordination among decision makers. These indicators are particularly relevant in tropical landscapes with polycentric governance, where multiple centres of decision making, customary and statutory, coexist and influence land and resource management.

The final criterion concerns long-term stakeholder engagement, which is assessed through evidence of structured, sustained partnerships among stakeholders. Riggs et al. (2021) provide compelling examples from Indonesia that showcase cross-sectoral coordination and horizontal collaboration in MSPs involving government agencies, customary authorities, and local communities, supported by long-term financial commitment. This sustained engagement fostered dialogue, built institutional trust, and aligned land-use objectives across sectors.

Multiple scales

The first criterion for the multiple scale principle (Table 5) concerns stakeholders’ willingness to interact, collaborate, and coordinate actions across sectors, levels, and geographical scales. Indicators include cross-scale collaboration to address both local needs and global goals, and alignment with national and global policies, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Global Biodiversity Framework as well as Agenda 2030’s sustainable development goals (SDGs).

A forest restoration program in Ghana illustrates these indicators. Forestry officials and farmers collaborate to plant trees that yield both livelihood benefits and environmental gains. In the short term, farmers grow interplanted food crops; in the long term, they benefit from timber revenues. The initiative contributes to national restoration goals aimed at securing future timber stocks and supports global commitments to forest and biodiversity conservation as well as carbon sequestration (Foli et al. 2018, Acheampong et al. 2020). In contrast, the Congo Basin Forest Partnership shows the risk of limited stakeholder buy-in when landscape initiatives prioritize data collection on wildlife populations while overlooking indicators meaningful to local communities, such as nutrition, health, or education (Sayer et al. 2015).

The second criterion concerns information flows across scales. In line with good governance and transparency, this includes open access to information and knowledge sharing across scales. MSPs or similar frameworks can facilitate these exchanges.

The final criterion relates to “bridging actors,” who are essential for linking efforts across scales and levels. These include civil society organizations that mobilize funding, coordinate stakeholder engagement, and enhance their governance capacities. With ties both within communities and to external networks, bridging actors can enhance local initiatives and influence broader policy processes (Sayer et al. 2013, Kusters et al. 2020). The corresponding indicator assesses whether such an actor is actively facilitating cross-sector and cross-scale coordination. Examples include NGOs facilitating small-scale initiatives in Indonesia, bringing diverse stakeholders together, and mobilizing funding (Riggs et al. 2021).

Strengthened stakeholder capacity

Engaging in integrated landscape approaches requires capacity building, which is the sole indicator of this principle (Table 6). Stakeholders must actively engage with diverse landscape actors in negotiations shaped by power dynamics (Kusters et al. 2018, Vermunt et al. 2020). Thus, the first indicator concerns training in advocacy and negotiation skills to empower stakeholders to articulate their needs. Empowerment goes beyond knowledge acquisition—it also involves learning from past challenges to support future adaptation and mitigation (Vermunt et al. 2020). For example, building the capacity of small and medium forest enterprises can strengthen their bargaining power and political influence, potentially advancing sustainability goals (Riggs et al. 2021).

The second indicator relates to knowledge of landscape management and the establishment of resilient systems for adaptive management (e.g., Kusters et al. 2020). This requires a context-sensitive approach that considers natural-ecological characteristics and sociocultural identity while aligning existing or new institutions with landscape objectives (e.g., Arts et al. 2017, Vermunt et al. 2020, Riggs et al. 2021). The indicator assesses whether stakeholders adopt a holistic view that considers ecological, social, and cultural landscape elements within both regional and global contexts.

The third indicator assesses support from civil society, government agencies, or donors for institutional capacity building and local stakeholder empowerment (Sayer et al. 2013, Acheampong et al. 2020, Kusters et al. 2020, Riggs et al. 2021). A strong example is the work of Kayapó NGOs and the Xingu+ Network in Brazilian Amazonia, which enhances training while blending Indigenous and scientific expertise (Garcia et al. 2024).

Several authors also highlight the importance of legal options for self-organization (e.g., Deans et al. 2018) and negotiation platforms that enhance stakeholders’ bargaining power (e.g., Langston et al. 2019, Forsyth and Springate-Baginski 2021, Morgan et al. 2022). We decided to link this indicator to the principle of transparent and negotiated change logic, discussed below.

Principles related to an orientation toward landscape outcomes

This category comprises two principles: multifunctionality and resilience (Table 7).

Multifunctionality

Landscapes provide multiple functions, services, and values. The multifunctionality principle recognizes trade-offs between these and the need to negotiate them to accommodate diverse stakeholder interests (Sayer et al. 2013). This principle includes two criteria (Table 7).

The first criterion is that stakeholders are willing to reconcile different needs, goals, and land uses. This involves a commitment to overcoming differences in how land uses are valued and to reconciling varying perspectives and aspirations. The corresponding indicator assesses whether stakeholders negotiate trade-offs, such as through an MSP (Kusters et al. 2018). For example, the COLANDS initiative held Theory of Change workshops in Ghana, Zambia, and Indonesia, bringing together stakeholders from government, communities, NGOs, the private sector, and academia to analyze drivers of landscape change and co-define short-, medium-, and long-term goals and actions (Reed et al. 2023, 2024, Moeliono 2024).

The second criterion is horizontal collaboration across sectors. The corresponding indicator, based on Kusters et al. (2020), provides evidence of coordinated action across sectors, a commitment to working across disciplinary divides, and the recognition of landscapes as interconnected social-ecological systems.

Resilience

Landscapes are dynamic and subject to unpredictable change. Maintaining resilience is, therefore, critical to sustainable management and multifunctionality (Sayer et al. 2013). This principle includes three criteria (Table 7). The first criterion is stakeholders’ capacity to understand landscapes as social-ecological systems. The corresponding indicator is the use of local, expert, or scientific knowledge to support both conservation and livelihoods. This includes identifying stakeholders who understand the integrated and dynamic nature of landscapes and the need for adaptive governance (Arts et al. 2017, Bürgi et al. 2017, Duncan et al. 2021, Morgan et al. 2021).

The second criterion is stakeholders’ awareness of threats, vulnerabilities, and dynamics. The existence of a baseline vulnerability assessment of the landscape’s status and drivers of change serves as an indicator (Sayer et al. 2017, Reed et al. 2021, Riggs et al. 2021). Such assessments examine landscape threats through both social and ecological lenses and must be grounded in previous research, including historical and contemporary studies (see also the section on criteria and indicators related to continual learning). Riggs et al. (2021) emphasize the value of reports that track socioeconomic, environmental, and governance changes for learning, monitoring, and evaluation purposes.

The third criterion is stakeholders’ ability to navigate risks and changing conditions. Freeman et al. (2015) describe this as sustainagility—the ability to adapt, navigate trade-offs across scales, and remain resilient while pursuing sustainability goals (Jackson et al. 2010). Two main strategies emerge from the reviewed literature: (i) promoting sustainable practices (Freeman et al. 2015, Kusters et al. 2020) and (ii) enhancing economic resilience through income-generating activities and securing the future availability of food and non-timber forest products (Omoding et al. 2020, Pedroza-Arceo et al. 2022, Garcia et al. 2024). The two indicators are, therefore, evidence of (i) activities that promote sustainable practices and (ii) interventions that enhance stakeholders’ economic empowerment.

Principles related to negotiation processes

At the core of ILAs, three principles are related to negotiation processes, together encompassing 13 criteria and 19 indicators (Tables 8–10).

Common concern entry point

Two criteria underpin this principle (Table 8). The first is trust and open-mindedness (Sayer et al. 2013, Forsyth and Springate-Baginski 2021), assessed by whether stakeholders respect and consider each other’s input, questions, or ideas (Kusters et al. 2020). This attitude helps avoid “problem closure” (Forsyth and Springate-Baginski 2021), an exclusive focus on a single goal, such as nature conservation, while neglecting persistent livelihood challenges in surrounding communities.

The second criterion concerns the development of shared problem definitions, values, and goals that lay the foundation for collaborative landscape management. This includes both agreement on the nature of landscape challenges and a collective sense of urgency to address landscape-level issues. Identifying shared concerns may involve compiling, ranking, and prioritizing a stakeholder-informed inventory of landscape issues and drivers. Theory of Change workshops in Zambia and Ghana facilitated such collaborative identification (Reed et al. 2023, 2024). Motivation for engagement in ILAs often increases when stakeholders perceive similar challenges and an urgent need for solutions (Kusters et al. 2020). Joint actions taken after agreeing on problems, such as developing an action plan or adjusting exploitation rules, serve as indicators for shared problem definition.

Negotiated and transparent change logic

This principle centers on transparent decision making grounded in consent and traceability. With eight criteria (Table 9), it is, alongside multi-stakeholder engagement, one of the most central components of ILAs.

The first criterion is free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), which involves clearly communicating the rationale, legitimacy, and potential risks associated with a proposed course of action. Transparent communication at early stages fosters trust, builds a shared understanding, and can strengthen stakeholders’ commitment (Sayer et al. 2013, Kusters et al. 2020). The key indicator here is whether stakeholders are well-informed about the initiative’s intentions, processes, and potential outcomes. Although this may seem evident, practice suggests otherwise. In Ghana, for example, 82% of surveyed members of Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs)—considered promising entry points for implementing a landscape approach (Foli et al. 2018)—had no understanding of the CREMA concept, despite being formally affiliated as members (Bayala et al. 2025).

The second criterion is a context-specific institutional structure for equitable negotiation. These platforms help facilitate inclusive and participatory decision making that accommodates multiple interests and perspectives. The presence of an institutional platform is crucial for transparent negotiations within landscape governance initiatives (Sayer et al. 2013, Foli et al. 2018); therefore, it is considered an indicator of equitable negotiations.

Third, trusted, visionary facilitation and leadership are critical to ensure constructive engagement among stakeholders with diverse interests. Effective facilitators foster collaboration, build trust, encourage constructive and open discussions, mediate conflicts, and guide solution-oriented conversations (Kusters et al. 2020). The corresponding indicator is a bridging actor or organization capable of mobilizing and connecting stakeholders across sectors and scales (e.g., Ros-Tonen et al. 2014, Deans et al. 2018, Kusters et al. 2020). Examples include NGOs and research organizations (Ros-Tonen et al. 2018).

The fourth criterion for achieving a negotiated and transparent change logic is the willingness to address trade-offs and competing interests and demands. Balancing competing interests, such as those of local users and global goals embedded in international agreements, is essential. A simple indicator to assess such willingness is stakeholders’ actual participation in platforms where trade-offs are actively discussed.

The fifth criterion and associated indicator concern agreement on a pathway for change, including shared goals and steps to achieve them, reflected in a collaboratively developed and agreed-upon action plan or Theory of Change (ToC). These serve not only to define steps toward shared goals but also to monitor progress and impacts of changes, track objectives, and assess the impact of landscape initiatives on people and ecosystems.

Criterion and indicator six concern conflict management mechanisms, which are essential for maintaining collaboration, especially when disputes and grievances arise. Formal conflict management processes and mechanisms for securing rights and distributing benefits help minimize the risks associated with conflict-resolution costs and ensure long-term collaboration (Ros-Tonen et al. 2014, Kusters et al. 2020).

Seventh, meaningful participation and deliberation in decision making and planning are hallmarks of transparent change logic. Indicators include internally driven negotiation processes; transparent decision making; a forum that facilitates information sharing, joint learning, negotiation, decision making, and collaboration; participation of all members in decision making; openness to exchanging diverse viewpoints; commitment to the decisions made; and institutionalized long-term facilitation. Garcia et al. (2024) document how the Kayapó people and NGOs in Brazilian Amazonia, which engage in a large-scale conservation project, promote deliberation by building on Indigenous decision-making processes, organizing language training for women, and digital information, ensuring inclusion, transparency, and accountability despite geographic isolation. Continuous consultation occurs within and across communities, with conflicts resolved in general assemblies and community meetings (Garcia et al. 2024).

Finally, sustained facilitation is crucial as ILAs require time to mobilize actors, build trust, secure political support, and secure funding. The Kayapó case illustrates the importance of sustained NGO presence and support, which were crucial to the success of the conservation effort (Garcia et al. 2024). Continuous engagement supported the Kayapó in protecting traditional ways of life while navigating and adapting to the outside world without exploitation. Institutionalized long-term support is thus a key indicator of long-term facilitation.

Clarification of rights and responsibilities

This principle emphasizes clear rights, defined roles and responsibilities, as well as transparent incentives and benefit sharing (Table 10). The first criterion emphasizes clear rules for accessing and using land and resources. Unclear rights can discourage participation in landscape approaches due to fears of losing culturally rooted production and conservation systems (Riggs et al. 2021). The corresponding indicator is clearly defined tenure and resource access rights. An example is the right of farmers to plant food crops in a reforestation scheme in Ghana, until canopy closure (Ros-Tonen et al. 2014, Acheampong et al. 2020).

The second criterion is clarity on roles and responsibilities. Indicators include clear and agreed-upon roles and responsibilities, as well as effective rule enforcement and sanctions. Ghana’s modified taungya system, the reforestation scheme discussed in Ros-Tonen et al. (2014), Foli et al. (2018), and Acheampong et al. (2020), is a case in point. It has a co-management agreement between participating communities and the Ghana Forestry Commission that clearly stipulates what is expected from each party. Non-compliant farmers, for instance, those who fail to replace dead seedlings or neglect the trees, can be removed from the program (Acheampong et al. 2020).

The third criterion involves transparent incentives and benefit-sharing mechanisms, which are essential to retain stakeholder motivation. These can include cash or non-cash incentives, such as healthcare, education, or access to sanitation services (Reed et al. 2019). In Ghana’s cocoa sector, incentives may also take the form of improved market access, transparent communication between buyers and sellers, and clear information on product sources (Deans et al. 2018).

Principles related to monitoring, evaluation, and learning

In this category, we observe the interplay of participatory monitoring and evaluation and continual learning for adaptive management (Tables 11 and 12).

Participatory and user-friendly monitoring

Monitoring and evaluation are essential to negotiated governance processes (Sayer et al. 2017, Kusters et al. 2018, Carmenta et al. 2020, Vermunt et al. 2020). This involves stakeholders’ willingness to monitor progress during implementation and address emerging challenges. Participatory monitoring involves local stakeholders in designing the monitoring process, collecting data, defining rules, and linking field-level activities to scientific knowledge (Reed et al. 2016, 2021, Morgan et al. 2021). This process offers learning opportunities grounded in diverse experiences and knowledge systems, contributing to adaptive collaborative management (Sayer et al. 2013), which closely aligns with the principle of continual learning and adaptive management. Four criteria and related indicators emerged from the review (Table 11).

The first criterion requires that all stakeholders have access to updated information, including on goals and impacts. This is assessed through the presence of a baseline assessment of the social-ecological status of the landscape, governance structures, and drivers of change, often linked to a theory of change (Bürgi et al. 2017, Reed et al. 2017, 2021, Sayer et al. 2017, Riggs et al. 2021). All stakeholders should have access to this information to facilitate shared learning. Relatedly, and forming the second indicator, is the integration of multiple knowledge systems and information sources, which fosters meaningful engagement of local knowledge holders and makes available knowledge more effective (Sayer et al. 2013, 2017, Reed et al. 2016, 2017, 2019, Kusters et al. 2018, Riggs et al. 2021).

The second criterion addresses collaborative monitoring of landscape change. The first indicator is an agreed-upon plan, such as a Theory of Change, with measurable objectives, targets, and steps to guide monitoring (e.g., Reed et al. 2017, Sayer et al. 2017, Kusters et al. 2018). The second indicator is whether active monitoring is in place (e.g., Vermunt et al. 2020, Riggs et al. 2021, Garcia et al. 2024).

Monitoring requires simple, context-specific metrics. Therefore, the third criterion and indicator is the availability of process metrics to monitor implementation. These may include the number of active stakeholders, the inclusiveness of the MSP, and the frequency of interactions (Duncan et al. 2021). Although it is equally important to have outcome indicators to evaluate the effects on forest cover, soils, biodiversity, livelihoods, and well-being (Duncan et al. 2021, Morgan et al. 2021), we excluded them because of our focus on process indicators.

The final criterion addresses stakeholders’ willingness to follow up on issues raised through monitoring and evaluation. The indicator assesses concrete actions in response to monitoring results. A case in point is Ghana’s reforestation scheme, where rules and benefit-sharing mechanisms were revised after evaluations revealed that farmers had destroyed trees because of a lack of decision-making power and profit-sharing. This led to the development of the modified taungya system (Ros-Tonen et al. 2014, Acheampong et al. 2020).

Continual learning and adaptive management

This principle emphasizes learning as a foundation for governance and encompasses three criteria (Table 12). The first is the existence of context-specific engagement structures, such as MSPs, which enable knowledge sharing and joint learning. These platforms are increasingly viewed as essential for guiding the design, planning, monitoring, and evaluation of landscape approaches (Kusters et al. 2018).

The second criterion concerns stakeholders’ willingness to learn from the past to plan for the future. In Ghana and Uganda, many stakeholders expressed appreciation for the learning processes (Acheampong et al. 2020, Omoding et al. 2020). Learning, as an iterative process in landscape governance, acknowledges that landscapes are context-specific and necessitate adaptive strategies (Sayer et al. 2013, Arts et al. 2017). The corresponding indicator is whether stakeholders apply newly acquired knowledge to change behavior or practices. One example includes farmers adopting sustainable cropping systems co-developed through prototyping (Bürgi et al. 2017). This process can involve different levels of learning, including single-loop learning (adjusting actions), double-loop learning (reframing assumptions), and triple-loop learning (transforming norms and governance protocols; Armitage et al. 2008, Pahl-Wostl 2009). Learning may also be driven by normative change, such as aligning farming practices with sustainability norms (Ros-Tonen et al. 2014, Deans et al. 2018).

The third criterion is the combination of multiple (local and scientific) knowledge and management systems. The indicator is evidence of the integration of local and scientific knowledge. Waeber et al. (2023), for instance, describe how researchers in Madagascar collaborated with fishers, miners, market vendors, and charcoal producers to co-produce knowledge and deepen their understanding of social-ecological systems in the Alaotra landscape.

DISCUSSION

Indicators for Sayer et al.’s principles

This paper presents a set of principles, criteria, and indicators (PC&Is) to assess whether landscape initiatives can evolve into integrated, multi-sector, and multi-stakeholder landscape approaches. Following Cadman (2012) and Morgan et al. (2022), principles are understood as overarching governance norms, criteria are defined as “conditions or processes that contribute to the principle” (Morgan et al. 2022), and indicators are operationalized criteria for assessment. The PC&I set offers a transparent and replicable method for evaluating the strengths, weaknesses, and potential of landscape initiatives to mature into integrated, multi-stakeholder, and multi-sector landscape approaches.

Given this specific aim, the focus was on developing indicators for the 10 principles developed by Sayer et al. (2013). A systematic literature review of articles that elaborate on these principles and their associated criteria informed the development of indicators. To our knowledge, this is the first study to translate all 10 ILA principles into indicators. Although previous studies have developed criteria, only a few have extended these to the indicator level. For example, Kusters et al. (2020) proposed indicators for four governance criteria: inclusive decision making, a culture of collaboration, cross-sector and cross-level coordination, and sustainability-focused decision making. Riggs et al. (2021) provided indicators for both governance aspects (stakeholder engagement, connection to policy, good governance, transparency, and institutions) and outcomes (livelihoods, conservation, and production). Morgan et al. (2022) developed a planning framework based on principles of shared learning, holistic integration, and situated justice, combining process criteria (knowledge integration, collaboration, and accessibility) and outcomes (shared understanding, coordination, and improved capabilities). Each study defined its own set of principles. Although overlaps exist with those of Sayer et al. (2013), none cover the full set.

Our review showed strong alignment with the 10 principles proposed by Sayer et al. (2013). However, two additional principles, good governance and financial capacity, emerged as foundational conditions for effective landscape governance. Although widely acknowledged, these are often treated as supporting factors rather than core principles. Given their importance, we propose that they be recognized as such. The reviewed studies provided input for developing the corresponding criteria and indicators.

However, a note of caution is warranted regarding the normative nature of “good governance.” Most reviewed articles were led or supervised by scholars from the Global North, often reflecting specific ideas of what good governance should entail. Forsyth and Springate-Baginski (2021), in a study of Myanmar, demonstrate that landscape initiatives can proceed even under authoritarian regimes and amid prevailing inequality. In such settings, Western notions of good governance may be less applicable, while principles such as multifunctionality, stakeholder engagement, and deliberation remain relevant. In Indigenous and local communities that rely on customary governance systems, good governance may be interpreted differently. In these cases, participatorily developed and context-specific verifiers, as suggested by López-Casero et al. (2016), are more fitting. This consideration extends to other indicators as well; they should be adapted to diverse socioeconomic and political contexts rather than assumed to be universally applicable.

Among the principles, multiple stakeholders and transparent and negotiated change logic received the most attention in the reviewed literature. This aligns with the core of ILAs, which emphasize cross-level and cross-sector negotiations to reconcile competing goals and land uses (Sayer et al. 2013, Reed et al. 2016, 2020). A functional institutional framework spanning scales and sectors emerged as a recurring indicator, present in 27 of the 31 reviewed articles (see Table 9). These frameworks, such as MSPs, enable joint problem identification, information sharing, shared learning, negotiation, decision making, and collaboration. They also facilitate advocacy and empower local stakeholders, ensuring their voices are heard in decision making. For such arrangements to be meaningful, processes must be grounded in free, prior, and informed consent, with all stakeholders fully aware of their rights, responsibilities, and the nature of proposed actions.

Another recurring criterion is the involvement of the private sector. Companies in sectors like timber and oil palm have considerable influence on the landscape (Sayer et al. 2015), while others can contribute to the goals of landscape initiatives by providing financial resources through corporate social responsibility projects or efforts to make commodity chains deforestation-free and more sustainable (Sayer et al. 2015, Reed et al. 2016, 2020, Arts et al. 2017, Ros-Tonen et al. 2018, Kusters et al. 2020, Vermunt et al. 2020). However, risks associated with private sector involvement, such as greenwashing and a narrow focus on commodity production, must be acknowledged (Arts et al. 2017, Ros-Tonen et al. 2018, Pedroza-Arceo et al. 2022). Some companies may use landscape approaches to gain control over resources while making only superficial adjustments to their practices (Arts et al. 2017). Their prioritization of short-term gains and sector-specific goals may conflict with the collaborative, multi-stakeholder ethos of ILAs (Reed et al. 2020).

To address this tension, we added a requirement for comprehensive opportunity and risk assessment. Such assessments should move beyond the earlier proposed “value propositions” (Ros-Tonen et al. 2018) or “business cases” (Kusters et al. 2020) from a company perspective and explicitly consider risks to community rights and resource access (Clay 2016). Ensuring the private sector’s constructive involvement requires both inclusivity and safeguards to protect local interests.

Study limitations

The primary aim of the PC&I set presented in this paper is to assess the feasibility and quality of landscape initiatives as entry points for implementing ILAs rather than to evaluate their long-term impacts. Accordingly, the focus is on process indicators rather than outcome indicators. Process indicators provide insights into how landscape initiatives are being implemented and help determine whether key principles, such as multi-stakeholder negotiations and continual learning, are in place and functioning. This focus reflects our understanding of ILAs as iterative governance processes (Reed et al. 2020).

This is not to downplay the importance of outcome indicators. Scholars are increasingly emphasizing the need to monitor changes in landscapes and well-being (Kusters 2020, Duncan et al. 2021, Morgan 2022). Morgan et al. (2022), for instance, advocate for indicators of improved economic well-being, while Duncan et al. (2021) highlight tools that assess or predict outcomes, especially related to climate impacts on livelihoods. Reed et al. (2021) note, however, a tendency in ILA research to prioritize governance and socio-political dimensions at the expense of evaluating ecological outcomes. At the same time, Pedroza-Arceo et al. (2022) caution that outcome-based evaluations, especially those focused narrowly on ecological indicators, may overlook slower, intangible social changes within social systems and their impact on well-being. Such assessments risk being unjust, especially given the diversity of local landscape contexts. We argue that both types of indicators are essential: the indicators developed in this paper serve to track ILAs as governance processes, while outcome indicators are needed to assess goal achievement and landscape-level impacts. Although designing and applying outcome indicators falls beyond the scope of this study, we emphasize the need for clear targets and activities, such as those outlined in a culture- and context-specific action plan or theory of change, to steer the landscape governance process toward outcomes.

This review may be subject to some study bias, as many landscape approach studies involve overlapping research teams, study sites, and methods. Consequently, the extracted criteria and indicators may reflect dominant perspectives rather than the full spectrum of governance contexts. The relevance of this PC&I set should, therefore, be critically assessed prior to application, as landscapes differ significantly in their history, biophysical features, social and landscape dynamics, policy trajectories, economic drivers, and social-ecological interrelationships (Freeman et al. 2015, Bürgi et al. 2017, Reed et al. 2017, Sunderland et al. 2017, Vermunt et al. 2020).

Adapting the PC&I set to local conditions requires contextual knowledge, which can be acquired through baseline studies that incorporate local knowledge and capture how people adapt to change and depend on ecosystem services (Yanou et al. 2023a, 2023b). As noted earlier, López-Casero et al. (2016) recommend participatory development of context-specific verifiers. As with the 10 principles themselves, criteria and indicators should serve foremost as flexible guidance rather than a rigid checklist. We thus stress the need for flexibility, adaptability, iterative refinement, and contextual validation to ensure that indicators reflect local realities and serve as adaptable rather than prescriptive tools.

CONCLUSION

The literature review provided valuable insights into the principles, criteria, and indicators for assessing whether landscape initiatives effectively mobilize actors to negotiate trade-offs between conservation and development. Numerous studies highlight the importance of involving multiple stakeholders, dismantling hierarchical decision-making structures, and embracing inclusive approaches. Among the principles, multiple stakeholders and transparent and negotiated change logic received the most attention in the literature. Key indicators include the presence of a functional platform for deliberation, knowledge exchange, and decision making, as well as a willingness to learn and adapt. Another recurring indicator is the integration of diverse knowledge systems to address the complex needs, interests, and values within landscapes.

Although many initiatives influence landscapes, not all qualify as ILAs. They may lack integration across sectors or scales or fail to engage stakeholders meaningfully. Examples include sectoral policies aimed at improving natural resource management and local participation, as well as corporate strategies to reduce deforestation or enhance the sustainability of their supply chains. The PC&I set developed in this paper helps assess how well such initiatives align with ILA principles, identifying their strengths, weaknesses, and potential as entry points for broader landscape approaches. To enable a more comprehensive evaluation of ILAs, future research should develop outcome indicators that complement the process indicators proposed here and help assess their landscape-level effects.

LITERATURE CITED

Acheampong, E. O., J. Sayer, C. Macgregor, and S. Sloan. 2020. Application of landscape approach principles motivates forest fringe farmers to reforest Ghana’s degraded reserves. Forests 11(4):411. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11040411

Angelstam, P., J. Munoz-Rojas, and T. Pinto-Correia. 2019. Landscape concepts and approaches foster learning about ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 34(7):1445-1460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00866-z

Ansell, C. K., and J. Torfing. 2022. Introduction to the handbook on theories of governance. Pages 1-17 in C. Ansell and J. Torfing, editors. The handbook on theories of governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371972.00007

Armitage, D., M. Marschke, and R. Plummer. 2008. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change 18(1):86-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002

Arts, B., M. Buizer, L. Horlings, V. Ingram, C. van Oosten, and P. Opdam. 2017. Landscape approaches: a state-of-the-art review. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42:439-463. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060932

Bayala, E. R. C. 2024. Stakeholder perceptions on landscape governance in Northern Ghana: a Q-study to identify common concern entry points for integrated landscape approaches. Environmental Management 74:31-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01881-2

Bayala, E. R. C., M. Ros-Tonen, M. P. Yanou, H. Djoudi, J. Reed, and T. Sunderland. 2024. Towards more inclusive community landscape governance: drivers and assessment indicators in northern Ghana. Forest Policy and Economics 159:103138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103138

Bayala, E. R. C., M. Zida, K. O. Asubonteng, M. A. F. Ros-Tonen, J. Reed, F. S. Siangulube, A. Ickowitz, H. Djoudi, and T. Sunderland. 2025. Assessing CREMAs’ capacity to govern landscape resources in the Western Wildlife Corridor of Northern Ghana. Environmental Management 75(5):1055-1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02155-9

Bürgi, M., P. Ali, A. Chowdhury, A. Heinimann, C. Hett, F. Kienast, M. K. Mondal, B. R. Upreti, and P. H. Verburg. 2017. Integrated landscape approach: closing the gap between theory and application. Sustainability 9(8):1371. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081371

Cadman, T. 2012. Evaluating the quality and legitimacy of global governance: a theoretical and analytical approach. International Journal of Social Quality 2(1):4-23. https://doi.org/10.3167/IJSQ.2012.020102

Carmenta, R., D. A. Coomes, F. A. J. DeClerck, A. K. Hart, C. A. Harvey, J. Milder, J. Reed, B. Vira, and N. Estrada-Carmona. 2020. Characterizing and evaluating integrated landscape initiatives. One Earth 2(2):174-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.01.009

Clay, N. 2016. Producing hybrid forests in the Congo Basin: a political ecology of the landscape approach to conservation. Geoforum 76:130-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.09.008

Deans, H., M. A. F. Ros-Tonen, and M. Derkyi. 2018. Advanced value chain collaboration in Ghana’s cocoa sector: an entry point for integrated landscape approaches? Environmental Management 62(1):143-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0863-y

Duncan, J. M. A., B. Boruff, E. M. Biggs, B. T. Haworth, N. Wales, and E. Bruce. 2021. Do integrated landscape approaches moderate climate impacts on livelihoods? A review of the evidence from agricultural landscapes. Regional Environmental Change 21:25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01754-6

Foli, S., M. A. F. Ros-Tonen, J. Reed, and T. Sunderland. 2018. Natural resource management schemes as entry points for integrated landscape approaches: evidence from Ghana and Burkina Faso. Environmental Management 62(1):82-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0866-8

Forsyth, T., and O. Springate-Baginski. 2021. Are landscape approaches possible under authoritarianism? Multi-stakeholder governance and social transformation in Myanmar. Environmental Science and Policy 124:359-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.07.010

Freeman, O. E., L. A. Duguma, and P. A. Minang. 2015. Operationalizing the integrated landscape approach in practice. Ecology and Society 20(1):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07175-200124

Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192675

Garcia, B., E. A. Morgan, M. Aruch, I. R. Ferreira, A. Jerozolimski, B. Mackey, and S. Hugh. 2024. Large-scale forest protection: the successful case of the Kayapo people in the Brazilian Amazon. Regional Environmental Change 24(4):148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-024-02304-6

Grindle, M. S. 2011. Good enough governance revisited. Development Policy Review 29:s199-s221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2011.00526.x

Jackson, L., M. van Noordwijk, J. Bengtsson, W. Foster, L. Lipper, M. Pulleman, M. Said, J. Snaddon, and R. Vodouhe. 2010. Biodiversity and agricultural sustainagility: from assessment to adaptive management. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2(1-2):80-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.007

Kusters, K., L. Buck, M. de Graaf, P. Minang, C. van Oosten, and R. Zagt. 2018. Participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation of multi-stakeholder platforms in integrated landscape initiatives. Environmental Management 62(1):170-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0847-y

Kusters, K., M. de Graaf, L. Buck, K. Galido, A. Maindo, H. Mendoza, T. H. Nghi, E. Purwanto, and R. Zagt. 2020. Inclusive landscape governance for sustainable development: assessment methodology and lessons for civil society organizations. Land 9(4):128. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9040128

Langston, J. D., R. McIntyre, K. Falconer, T. Sunderland, M. Van Noordwijk, A. K. Boedhihartono. 2019. Discourses mapped by Q-method show governance constraints motivate landscape approaches in Indonesia. PLoS ONE 14(1):e0211221. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211221

Lindenmayer, D. B., C. R. Margules, and D. B. Botkin. 2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology 14(4):941-950. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98533.x

Löhr, K., S. B. Eshetu, H. M. Njoya, J. A. Hagan, A. T. Gebremedhin, K. Hounkpati, H. Raharinaivo, H. Rakoto Ratsimba, T. Bekele, K. Adjonou, K. Kokou, and S. Sieber. 2024. Toward a social-ecological forest landscape restoration assessment framework: a review. Discover Sustainability 5(1):155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00342-y

López-Casero, F., T. Cadman, and T. Maraseni. 2016. Quality-of-governance standards for forest management and emissions reduction: developing community forestry and REDD+ governance through a multi-stage, multi-level and multi-stakeholder approach. Discussion paper, Institute for Global Environmental Studies (IGES), Hayama, Japan. https://www.iges.or.jp/en/publication_documents/pub/discussionpaper/en/5257/Discussion_paper_Governance_Standard_20160331_FLC_final_A4.pdf

Mackey, B., E. Morgan, and H. Keith. 2024. Evaluating forest landscape management for ecosystem integrity. Landscape Research 49(2):246-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2023.2284938

Medeiros, A., C. Fernandes, J. F. Gonçalves, and P. Farinha-Marques. 2021. Research trends on integrative landscape assessment using indicators: a systematic review. Ecological Indicators 129:107815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107815

Mendoza, G. A., and R. Prabhu. 2000. Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: a case study. Forest Ecology and Management 131(1-3):107-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00204-2

Moeliono, M. 2024. Update from the field: Indonesia May 2024. CIFOR-ICRAF, Bogor, Indonesia. https://www.cifor-icraf.org/colands/update-from-the-field-indonesia-may-2024/

Morgan, E. A., T. Cadman, and B. Mackey. 2021. Integrating forest management across the landscape: a three pillar framework. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 64(10):1735-1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1837747

Morgan, E. A., N. Osborne, and B. Mackey. 2022. Evaluating planning without plans: principles, criteria and indicators for effective forest landscape approaches. Land Use Policy 115:106031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106031

Omoding, J., G. Walters, S. Carvalho, M. Cracco, C. D. Langoya, G. K. Kiyingi, C. Kumar, F. Reinhard, E. Ssenyonjo, and L. Twinomuhangi. 2020. Implementing a landscape approach in the Agoro-Agu region of Uganda. Parks 26(1):99-110. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.PARKS-26-1JO.en

Pahl-Wostl, C. 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change 19(3):354-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001

Pedroza-Arceo, N. M., N. Weber, and A. Ortega-Argueta. 2022. A knowledge review on integrated landscape approaches. Forests 13(2):312. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13020312

Reed, J., J. Barlow, R. Carmenta, J. van Vianen, and T. Sunderland. 2019. Engaging multiple stakeholders to reconcile climate, conservation and development objectives in tropical landscapes. Biological Conservation 238:108229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108229

Reed, J., C. Chervier, J. R. Borah, D. Gumbo, K. B. Moombe, T. M. Mbanga, A. O’Connor, F. Siangulube, M. Yanou, and T. Sunderland. 2023. Co-producing theory of change to operationalize Integrated landscape approaches. Sustainability Science 18(2):839-855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01190-3

Reed, J., A. Ickowitz, C. Chervier, H. Djoudi, K. Moombe, M. Ros-Tonen, M. Yanou, L. Yuliani, and T. Sunderland. 2020. Integrated landscape approaches in the tropics: a brief stock-take. Land Use Policy 99:104822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104822

Reed, J., K. Kusters, J. Barlow, M. Balinga, J. R. Borah, R. Carmenta, C. Chervier, H. Djoudi, D. Gumbo, Y. Laumonier, K. B. Moombe, E. L. Yuliani, and T. Sunderland. 2021. Re-integrating ecology into integrated landscape approaches. Landscape Ecology 36(8):2395-2407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01268-w

Reed, J., M. A. F. Ros-Tonen, S. Adeyanju, A. W. Arimiyaw, K. Asubonteng, B. N. Baatuwie, E. R. C. Bayala, D. Tom-Dery, A. Ickowitz, Y. B. Issaka, K. B. Moombe, J. Mumuni, G. Wakesho, M. Zida, and T. Sunderland. 2024. From conflict to collaboration through inclusive landscape governance: evidence from a contested landscape in Ghana. Global Environmental Change 88:102909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102909

Reed, J., J. van Vianen, J. Barlow, and T. Sunderland. 2017. Have integrated landscape approaches reconciled societal and environmental issues in the tropics? Land Use Policy 63:481-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.021

Reed, J., J. Van Vianen, E. L. Deakin, J. Barlow, and T. Sunderland. 2016. Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the future. Global Change Biology 22(7):2540-2554. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13284

Riggs, R. A., R. Achdiawan, A. Adiwinata, A. K. Boedhihartono, A. Kastanya, J. D. Langston, H. Priyadi, M. Ruiz-Pérez, J. Sayer, and A. Tjiu. 2021. Governing the landscape: potential and challenges of integrated approaches to landscape sustainability in Indonesia. Landscape Ecology 36(8):2409-2426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01255-1

Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., M. Derkyi, and T. F. G. Insaidoo. 2014. From co-management to landscape governance: whither Ghana’s modified taungya system? Forests 5(12):2996-3021. https://doi.org/10.3390/f5122996

Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., J. Reed, and T. Sunderland. 2018. From synergy to complexity: the trend toward integrated value chain and landscape governance. Environmental Management 62(1):1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1055-0

Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., and L. Willemen. 2021. Editorial: spatial tools for integrated and inclusive landscape governance. Environmental Management 68(5):605-610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01548-w

Sayer, J., C. Margules, A. K. Boedhihartono, A. Dale, T. Sunderland, J. Supriatna, and R. Saryanthi. 2015. Landscape approaches: what are the preconditions for success? Sustainability Science 10(2):345-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0281-5

Sayer, J. A., C. Margules, A. K. Boedhihartono, T. Sunderland, J. D. Langston, J. Reed, R. Riggs, L. E. Buck, B. M. Campbell, K. Kusters, C. Elliott, P. A. Minang, A. Dale, H. Purnomo, J. R. Stevenson, P. Gunarso, and A. Purnomo. 2017. Measuring the effectiveness of landscape approaches to conservation and development. Sustainability Science 12(3):465-476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0415-z

Sayer, J., T. Sunderland, J. Ghazoul, J. L. Pfund, D. Sheil, E. Meijaard, M. Venter, A. K. Boedhihartono, M. Day, C. Garcia, C. van Oosten, and L. E. Buck. 2013. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(21):8349-8356. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210595110

Scherr, S. J., S. Shames, and R. Friedman. 2013. Defining integrated landscape management for policy makers. Eco Agriculture Partners, Oakton, Virginia, USA. https://ecoagriculture.org/resources/scientific-publications/defining-integrated-landscape-management-for-policy-makers

Siangulube, F. S., M. A. F. Ros-Tonen, J. Reed, H. Djoudi, D. Gumbo, and T. Sunderland. 2023. Navigating power imbalances in landscape governance: a network and influence analysis in southern Zambia. Regional Environmental Change 23(1):41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-02031-4

Stern, C., Z. Jordan, and A. McArthur. 2014. Developing the review question and inclusion criteria. AJN The American Journal of Nursing 114(4):53-56. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000445689.67800.86

Sunderland, T., R. Abdoulaye, R. Ahammad, S. Asaha, F. Baudron, E. Deakin, J. Y. Duriaux, I. Eddy, S. Foli, D. Gumbo, K. Khatun, M. Kondwani, M. Kshatriya, L. Leonald, D. Rowland, N. Stacey, S. Tomscha, K. Yang, S. Gergel, and J. van Vianen. 2017. A methodological approach for assessing cross-site landscape change: understanding socio-ecological systems. Forest Policy and Economics 84:83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.013

Toomey, A. H. 2016. What happens at the gap between knowledge and practice? Spaces of encounter and misencounter between environmental scientists and local people. Ecology and Society 21(2):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08409-210228

van Bueren, E. M. L., and E. M. Blom. 1997. Hierarchical framework for the formulation of sustainable forest management standards. Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://slunik.slu.se/kursfiler/SH0113/40173.1112/CI_framework_PF.pdf

van Ewijk, E., and M. A. F. Ros-Tonen. 2021. The fruits of knowledge co-creation in agriculture and food-related multi-stakeholder platforms in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic literature review. Agriculture Systems 186:102949 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102949

Vermunt, D. A., P. A. Verweij, and R. W. Verburg. 2020. What hampers implementation of integrated landscape approaches in rural landscapes? Current Landscape Ecology Reports 5(4):99-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-020-00057-6

Waeber, P. O., R. Carmenta, N. E. Carmona, C. A. Garcia, T. Falk, A. Fellay, J. Ghazoul, J. Reed, L. Willemen, W. Zhang, and F. Kleinschroth. 2023. Structuring the complexity of integrated landscape approaches into selectable, scalable, and measurable attributes. Environmental Science & Policy 147:67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.06.003

Weiss, T. G. 2000. Governance, good governance and global governance: conceptual and actual challenges. Third World Quarterly 21:795-814. https://doi.org/10.1080/713701075

Yanou, M. P., M. A. F. Ros-Tonen, J. Reed, K. B. Moombe, and T. Sunderland. 2023b. Integrating local and scientific knowledge: the need for decolonizing knowledge for conservation and natural resource management. Heliyon 9(11):e21785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21785

Yanou, M. P., M. Ros-Tonen, J. Reed, and T. Sunderland. 2023a. Local knowledge and practices among Tonga people in Zambia and Zimbabwe: a review. Environmental Science & Policy 142:68-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.02.002

Zanzanaini, C., B. T. Trần, C. Singh, A. Hart, J. Milder, and F. DeClerck. 2017. Integrated landscape initiatives for agriculture, livelihoods and ecosystem conservation: an assessment of experiences from South and Southeast Asia. Landscape and Urban Planning 165:11-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.010