A landscape approach to planetary well-being

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ A landscape approach to planetary well-being © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Merja Elo, Jonne Hytönen, Sanna Karkulehto, Teea Kortetmäki, Janne S. Kotiaho, Mikael Puurtinen, and Miikka Salo; individual chapters, the contributor Published version Duflot, Rémi; Keskinen, Kirsi E.; Eyvindson, Kyle; Raatikainen, Kaisa J. Duflot, R., Keskinen, K. E., Eyvindson, K., & Raatikainen, K. J. (2024). A landscape approach to planetary well-being. In M. Elo, J. Hytönen, S. Karkulehto, T. Kortetmäki, J. S. Kotiaho, M. Puurtinen, & M. Salo (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Planetary Well-Being (pp. 72-85). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003334002-8 2024 Introduction: Landscapes as geographic interfaces between humans and nonhuman beings Landscape as a place-based socio-ecological system A landscape can be defined as a perceivable place of living for human and nonhuman beings. Organisms interact selectively with their surroundings, dependingontheircharacteristicsandbehaviours.People’sinfluenceonnonhumannature is most acute and prevalent on the landscape level, and landscapes also reciprocally affect human activities (Antrop, 2000). For this reason, landscapes provide a conceptual and actual space for human–nature interactions that support planetary wellbeing, as we argue throughout this chapter. Human perceptions of and actions on landscapes are deeply rooted in culture, spirituality, history, and the human–nature relationship, leading to incredibly diverse worldviews and practices (for example, Chapter 3). Ultimately, a great diversity of landscapes has evolved out of these everyday socio-ecological interactions. In this chapter, we approach landscapes as place-based socio-ecological systems (Wu, 2021). Applying the landscape approach within a system analysis involves (at least) three aspects that are also crucial from the planetary well-being perspective. First, the landscape approach emphasizes the spatial nature of various phenomena linked to planetary well-being. For instance, biodiversity loss, which decreases planetary well-being, always occurs somewhere. Second, landscapes are the space where human and nonhuman beings realize and evolve their typical characteristics and capacities in relation to one another and their shared environment. Third, the landscape approach acknowledges the importance of various scale domains, such as the spatial, temporal, and organizational, and is thus able to analyze multiple 5 A LANDSCAPE APPROACH TO PLANETARY WELL-BEING Rémi Duflot, Kirsi E. Keskinen, Kyle Eyvindson and Kaisa J. Raatikainen DOI: 10.4324/9781003334002-8 A landscape approach to planetary well-being 73 scales simultaneously (for example, to evaluate the long-term persistence and spatialdistributionoforganismsunderhumaninfluence).Thisincorporationof multiple scales is crucial to the planetary well-being perspective, as the concept assumes that Earth system and global processes are linked to lower-level phenomena (organismal need satisfaction) and has a temporal dimension (persistence of evolutionary lineages). The purpose of this chapter is to exemplify how the landscape approach integrates spatial thinking into planetary well-being framework, allowing for studies of the interconnectedness of humans, nonhuman organisms, and abiotic nature while placing them in a temporally evolving spatial context. This allows researchers to investigate how decisions relating to the main dimensions of landscape— biophysical elements, processes, and actors—affect both human and nonhuman need satisfaction. Within this conceptualization (Figure 5.1), we specifically emphasize the ecological dimension of landscapes. The ecological characteristics of landscapes Ecologists consider landscapes as consisting of spatially organized, temporally evolving, and interacting biophysical elements. These biophysical elements can be viewed as land uses from the human perspective or as habitat patches from a nonhuman-speciesperspective(Figure5.1).Land-usetypesandintensityreflect human activities, affect the ecological characteristics of the landscape, and, ultimately, determine the suitability of the landscape as a place of living for nonhuman species. Land uses directly impact the heterogeneity of a landscape, which is basedonitscompositionandconfiguration.Theterm“composition”referstothe types, relative amounts, and the diversity of biophysical elements in the landscape, whereas“configuration”denotesthespatialorganizationofthesebiophysicalelements (Fahrig et al., 2011). Landscape composition determines the types of ecosystems and diversity of organisms that can be present in a landscape. Landscape configurationaffectslandscape-levelprocessesthatlinkecosystemsandspecies communitiesacrossthelandscapethroughfluxesofenergyandnutrients,aswell as the movement of organisms (Forman and Godron, 1981). As a result, landscapes are studied as systems of interacting elements that are linked by various processes. These processes are ecological functions that operate within and between ecosystems and can be perceived as ecosystem services by humans when they contribute to human activities (Figure 5.1). Processes are co-produced by actors, i.e., the humans and nonhuman organisms, present in the landscape and supported by the biophysical elements. Certain biophysical elements and processes within landscapes are essential in meeting organismal needs. Therefore, their existence is a prerequisite for planetary well-being (Figure 5.1). A prime example of this is pollination, a process performed by pollinators (actors) inhabitatpatcheswithfloweringplants(biophysicalelements).Itisessentialfor the reproduction of many plants and the feeding of many insects, as well as being 74 Rémi Duflot et al. FIGURE 5.1 Conceptualization of a landscape approach to planetary well-being. Landscapes are an operational arena for planetary well-being because the biophysical elements and processes that meet human and nonhuman needs are situated in landscapes, as are the human and nonhuman beings themselves (hereafter referred to as: Actors). The three basic dimensions of a landscape (actors, processes, and biophysical elements) can be seen from the human and nonhuman perspective (icons). This chapter focuses on the biophysical elements and processes that mediate need satisfaction for humans and nonhumans.FigurecreatedbyMārisGrunskis/@PHOTOGRUNSKIS. an important ecosystem service for humans, as 75% of the world’s food crops are at least partially dependent on pollination (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2016). Pollination illustrates how landscapes host socio-ecological processes. The humansinvolvedinandinfluencedbyanylandscapeprocessarecommonlytermed stakeholders. They are important in land-use planning, i.e., targeting the use of land in a spatially explicit and meaningful manner (Antrop, 2000). The best environmental practices often require collaboration between stakeholders to create functional landscape features that ensure the persistence of nonhuman species and their associated functions and simultaneously meet the objectives of the stakeholders (Vialatte et al., 2019). To illustrate the transformative potential of the landscape approach to planetary well-being, we present three examples of land-use planning principles that acknowledge the role of landscape-level processes and support planetarywell-being.Inthefollowingsections,weexaminethebenefitsofagroecological farming, urban green infrastructure, and multi-objective forest management zoning approaches to planetary well-being. These examples show how to put planetary well-being into practice (Figures 5.2–5.4). A landscape approach to planetary well-being 75 Agroecological farming systems: From field to landscape levels Decades of farming intensification and landscape homogenization have substantially decreased biodiversity in agricultural landscapes (Benton, Vickery and Wilson, 2003). In contrast to industrialized farming systems, which are based on agrochemicals and mechanization, the agroecological approach relies on biodiversity-driven ecological functions to support food production (Jeanneret et al., 2021). Key ecological functions, which are perceived as ecosystem services by humans, include soil fertility (Chapter 6), natural pest control and pollination. Importantly,agroecologicalpracticesbuildonandbenefitfromthelocaldiversity of species and their biotic and abiotic interactions which maintain ecological functions (Dainese et al., 2019). Given the very large extent of agricultural land on Earth and the vital societal importance of agriculture, the agroecological landscape approach has tremendous potential to enhance planetary well-being by supporting biodiversity and various ecosystem services. Figure 5.2 shows how the agroecological landscape approach is linked to planetary well-being, with a focus on organism food provisioning. The biodiversity of agricultural landscapes (including species that co-produce processes useful to humans) depends on the provision of resources needed by the FIGURE 5.2 Conceptualization of a land-use planning principle of agroecological farming, as a landscape approach to planetary well-being, with a focus on food provisioning for humans and nonhuman species. The three basic dimensions of a landscape (actors, processes, and biophysical elements) can be seen from the human and nonhuman perspective (icons). This chapter focuses on the biophysical elements and processes that mediate need satisfactionforhumansandnonhumans.FigurecreatedbyMārisGrunskis/@ PHOTOGRUNSKIS. 76 Rémi Duflot et al. species, such as feeding, shelter, and reproduction and overwintering sites. These areoftennotavailablewithinthecropfieldsbut,rather,intheirsurroundings.Thus, the central process is the movement of species between semi-natural habitats and cropfieldsorbetweencropfieldsofdifferenttypes,enablingspeciestoaccess their required resources at different places and time and adapt to recurrent disturbances (Blitzer et al.,2012).Atthefieldlevel,theintensityoffarmingpractices, e.g., related to the amount of pesticides, determine the suitability of a crop forhostingdiversespeciesandsupportingassociatedecologicalfunctions(Duflot et al.,2022).Typically,organicallyfarmedfieldshavehigherspeciesdiversityand abundance (Puech et al., 2014). At the landscape level, most organisms rely on resources provided by semi-natural habitats (e.g.,floralresourcesoroverwintering sites), therefore, landscapes with a high percentage of such non-crop habitats have higher biodiversity and ecological functions (Duarte et al., 2018). Because most species in agricultural landscapes are very mobile, the agroecological approach acknowledges the need to maintain adequate ecological conditionsatboththelocal-fieldandlandscapelevels(Jeanneretet al., 2021). The synergeticinfluenceoflandscapeheterogeneityandfarmingintensityonbiodiversity and the associated functions (Ricci et al., 2019) suggests that environmentallyfriendlypracticesarerequiredatboththefieldandlandscapelevels.Practices such as less intense soil management (e.g., no tillage and direct seeding), longer and more diversified crop rotations, and crop mixtures have significant potential to maintain biodiversity, functional agroecosystems, and productive farming systems (Duru et al., 2015). At the landscape level, increasing the proportion of semi-naturalhabitats,cropdiversity,andreducingfieldsizepromotebiodiversity and ecological functions that contribute to crop production (Sirami et al., 2019). Complexconfigurationpatternwithmanyedgesbetweendifferenthabitattypes andsmallerfieldswillfacilitatespeciesaccesstomultipleresourcesand,therefore, further enhance biodiversity, related ecological functions, and crop yields (Martin et al., 2019). Agroecological approach also provides a socio-ecological perspective to food production and highlights the leading role of farmers and the importance of selfsufficientfarmsforsustainablelandscapemanagement(Jeanneretet al., 2021). For this purpose, agri-environment-climate policy schemes (such as a part of the EU Common Agricultural Policy) subsidize a selection of agroecological practices aimedat reducing field-levelintensityofpracticesandrestoring some form of landscape heterogeneity (e.g.,throughimplementationofgrassyorflowerstrips). While reducing farmers’ dependency on agrochemicals and promoting biodiversity, the implementation of such agri-environment-climate schemes remains limitedduetolackofinstitutionalsupportandfinancialresources(Pe’eret al., 2020). As agricultural landscapes consist of spatially intermingled networks of farmers andnon-farmers,andcorrespondingfarms,fields,fieldmarginsandotherlandscapeelements,suchschemeswould,however,alsobenefitfromadditionalstrategies for integrated landscape-level cooperation (e.g., through collective contracts; Jeanneret et al., 2021; Vialatte et al., 2019). A landscape approach to planetary well-being 77 Green infrastructure in urban design: Restoring processes inheavily modified ecosystems Over 55% of the world’s human population live in urban landscapes, with further urbanization being projected (United Nations (UN), 2019). Moreover, urban area is increasing twice as fast as the urban population, spreading into other valuable land uses, and is expected to quadruple globally by 2050 as compared to 2000. Urban expansiontransformsvegetatedlandcoversintoartificialsurfaceswithinurbanareas andtheirsurroundings.Urbanlandscapesareheavilymodifiedbyhumans,withan altered biophysical environment and ecosystem functioning, thereby compromising planetary well-being. For instance, urbanization increases the fragmentation and shrinking of green areas, which result in dramatic decline in biodiversity in urban landscapes (Lepczyk et al.,2017).Italsodisruptsimportantecosystemfluxes,asartificialsurfacespreventwaterinfiltration,whichcreatesadryenvironmentandflooding risks (Chapter 6), and increases solar energy absorption and storage, which increases the air temperature in cities (IPBES, 2019). The development of urban landscapes with green infrastructure, i.e., an interconnected network of nature-based elements (hereaftergreenspaces),providesvariousbenefitsforbothhumansandnonhumans (ibid.) and may, thus, support planetary well-being. Figure 5.3 shows how the effects of green infrastructure are linked to planetary well-being, with a focus on organism mobility. FIGURE 5.3 Conceptualization of a land-use planning principle of urban green infrastructure, as a landscape approach to planetary well-being, with a focus on human and nonhuman organism mobility. The three basic dimensions of a landscape (actors, processes, and biophysical elements) can be seen from the human and nonhuman perspective (icons). This chapter focuses on the biophysical elements and processes that mediate need satisfaction for humans andnonhumans.FigurecreatedbyMārisGrunskis/@PHOTOGRUNSKIS. 78 Rémi Duflot et al. Urban green infrastructures offer a variety of habitats, ranging from remnants of native vegetation, vacant land, and gardens to green roofs and managed parks (Lepczyk et al., 2017). In urban landscapes, habitat patches are typically small, and species’ habitat selection is often governed by patch size and landscape heterogeneity (e.g., Pithon et al., 2021). Therefore, green infrastructure is commonly planned in the form of habitat networks, consisting of multiple habitat patches that are connected by corridors to allow organisms to move within the network (Lepczyk et al., 2017). The ability to move is based on landscape connectivity, which is considered a major factor in species survival and the long-term persistence of biodiversity (Crooks and Sanjayan, 2006). Thus, urban biodiversity is best supported by the careful spatial planningofgreenspacesandtheirlanduses,includingspecifichabitatmanagement actions (e.g., infrequent grass mowing). Urban green infrastructure can support populations of species that can adapt to urban environments and provide complementary habitats for species threatened by intensive farming and commercial forestry in rural areas (e.g., Selonen and Mäkeläinen, 2017). Biodiversity also supports ecosystem functioning in urban areas, thereby, promotes planetary well-being. Recreation in green areas benefits human health via three main pathways (Markevych et al., 2017): (1) Reducing harm, e.g., reducing exposure to heat and noise; (2) restoring capacities, e.g., relieving stress (Tyrväinen et al., 2014) and producing positive psychological effects (see Chapter 12); and (3) building capacities, e.g., supporting immune balance (Haahtela, 2019), facilitating social cohesion, and encouraging physical activity. Simultaneously, elements of green infrastructure provide ecosystem services to humans, e.g., by reducing water runoff,theyprovidepeakflowcontrolandfloodalleviationforintenserainfalls and stormwater management (Li et al., 2019). Ideally, green infrastructure is developed at the landscape level during the urban development planning phase. However, elements of green infrastructure can be added to existing urban landscapes. For example, setting aside vacant land to unmanaged or less intensively maintainedgreenareasisshown tobeacost-efficient waytoincreasegreen infrastructure and increase access to green spaces (McKinney and VerBerkmoes, 2020). Furthermore, encouraging residents to turn their yards into gardens with native species can contribute greatly to green infrastructure and support multiple processes (Cameron et al., 2012). Involving stakeholder groups in green infrastructure development and management may increase knowledge for decisionmaking, as well as empowering citizens and the local community to take agency (Grêt-Regamey et al., 2021), but it also requires the consideration of social inclusiveness and the reconciliation of differing views. Multi-objective forest management: Improvements through landscape zoning Managing forest resources while balancing the ecological needs of species living inforestedlandscapesrequireaspecificfocusonthefrequencyandintensityof A landscape approach to planetary well-being 79 forestmanagement.Traditionally,forestmanagementhasprioritizedtimberprofits (Faustmann, 1849), operating on homogenous parcels of forest land. This timberoriented management aims at sustained timber extraction, that is, maximizing forestgrowthwhileensuringanevenflowoftimberfortheforestindustry.Meanwhile, the habitat needs of species living in the forest have been largely ignored in practice, harming forest biodiversity. Innovative management practices intended to enhance the quality and amount of suitable forest habitats strive to mimic natural disturbances and the associated variability of forest structures, i.e., habitat heterogeneity (Kuuluvainen et al., 2021). To reconcile human interests and biodiversity conservation, the division of forest landscape into intensive use, extensive use, and reserve zones has been proposed (Himes et al., 2022). This landscape approach plansandconductsforestoperationsatmultiplelevels,firstvialandscapezones, witheachofthemprioritizingaspecificobjective(i.e., timber production, multiple use, and conservation), and then via locally applying diverse management practices, with varied harvesting intensities and cutting methods (e.g., continuous cover forestry or delayed clear-cut harvests). Such land-use planning of forest management focuses on balancing the societal demand for raw material and energy with the needs of nonhuman species and ecosystems, that is, contributing to planetary well-being itself. Multi-objective forest management zoning is shown in Figure 5.4, which describes how human active and passive management of the forest landscape impacts planetary well-being, focusing on maintaining resource extraction while preserving the processes of the forest ecosystem. The processes of natural disturbance-succession dynamics, i.e., the progress of forest regrowth after partial or total nonhuman tree destruction, is crucial to forest biodiversity, as various species groups depend on the diversity of successional stages and the structure created by disturbances, e.g., deadwood (Hilmers et al., 2018; Tikkanen et al., 2006). Prioritizing biodiversity conservation will, therefore, requireatransformationofhowwe manage human-modified forest landscapes (Arroyo-Rodríguez et al., 2020). The forest management zoning strategy allows landscape processes to proceed along differing disturbance-succession dynamics. Extensive forest management aims at maintaining some level of forest complexity locally and of heterogeneity at landscape level. This can be achieved through substantialadjustmentsinhowforestryisappliedandthediversificationofmanagementpractices(Duflot,FahrigandMönkkönen,2022).However,managedforests are not comparable with natural forests, because the tree species composition, tree age structure, and characteristics of deadwood composition differ considerably, even if forests are managed extensively. Thus, forest reserves must be included in the land-use plan to allow ecological processes without human interference. Meanwhile, some proportion of carefully located areas of intensive forestry, primarily oriented towards timber production, could be used to meet human needs. Intensiveextractiveactivitiesintheforestlandscapecan provideanevenflow of timber, allowing for a shift away from non-renewable resources (e.g., fossil fuels),1 indirectly contributing to enhanced planetary well-being (e.g., climate