124
sure included the use of a pre-defined set of values for many of the variables in the
data collection sheet to reduce error in data entry, and the aforementioned guide to
definitions and response types for the remaining open entry cells. Finally, after data
entry, responses were standardized with consistent terms, and various consistency
checks performed.
Types of data collected included case study information (publication year, location, scale, institutional author); socioeconomic and biophysical information (sectors, stakeholders, institutions, livelihoods, threats, ecosystems, and ecosystem
products); program information (goals, institutional and legal environment, outcomes, knowledge mechanisms); and solutions (solution, solution type). We defined
a solution as any activity, intervention, innovation, practice, strategy, or policy that
has been proposed or applied in the case study area to address the given problem.
Data for 91 cases was recorded. A minimum criteria was set for each case study
to include at least one solution and at least one value for all data categories in the
socioeconomic and biophysical section. One case was excluded that did not meet
the minimum criteria. A data cleaning protocol was applied to the remaining 90
cases. During the data cleaning, data from case studies in the same location and with
the same institutional author were merged in 2 cases, resulting in a total of 88 cases.
The final number of case studies and their geographical locations are shown in
Table 7.1. A total of 23 cases are located in South Asia, 29 cases in Southeast Asia,
and 36 cases in East Asia, representing 18 countries in these regions. Fifty-two
local-scale cases were identified by reviewing these 88 case studies, and those countries with local-scale cases are indicated in bold script in Table 7.1.
For step 3, the filtering process for selection of solutions to apply in a particular
context, we did not discuss or evaluate solutions based on their effectiveness for a
particular place. Rather, we applied a framework to filter the solutions by solution
type (adapted from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) in order to understand which type of solutions societal actors might prioritize in different socialecological contexts.
Table 7.1 Location and number of study cases from the International Partnership for the Satoyama
Initiative (IPSI)
Southeast Asia
South Asia
East Asia
Cambodia (8)
Bangladesh (1)
China (15)
Indonesia (6)
Bhutan (2)
Japan (18)
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
(1)
India (9)
Mongolia (2)
Myanmar (1)
Iran (1)
South Korea (1)
Philippines (5)
Nepal (7)
Total 36
Vietnam (4)
Pakistan (2)
Thailand (4)
Sri Lanka (1)
Total 29
Total 23
Bold font indicates countries with local-scale case studies. Numbers in parenthesis indicate the
number of case studies included in the total 88 cases of the review
R. Kozar et al.
sure included the use of a pre-defined set of values for many of the variables in the
data collection sheet to reduce error in data entry, and the aforementioned guide to
definitions and response types for the remaining open entry cells. Finally, after data
entry, responses were standardized with consistent terms, and various consistency
checks performed.
Types of data collected included case study information (publication year, location, scale, institutional author); socioeconomic and biophysical information (sectors, stakeholders, institutions, livelihoods, threats, ecosystems, and ecosystem
products); program information (goals, institutional and legal environment, outcomes, knowledge mechanisms); and solutions (solution, solution type). We defined
a solution as any activity, intervention, innovation, practice, strategy, or policy that
has been proposed or applied in the case study area to address the given problem.
Data for 91 cases was recorded. A minimum criteria was set for each case study
to include at least one solution and at least one value for all data categories in the
socioeconomic and biophysical section. One case was excluded that did not meet
the minimum criteria. A data cleaning protocol was applied to the remaining 90
cases. During the data cleaning, data from case studies in the same location and with
the same institutional author were merged in 2 cases, resulting in a total of 88 cases.
The final number of case studies and their geographical locations are shown in
Table 7.1. A total of 23 cases are located in South Asia, 29 cases in Southeast Asia,
and 36 cases in East Asia, representing 18 countries in these regions. Fifty-two
local-scale cases were identified by reviewing these 88 case studies, and those countries with local-scale cases are indicated in bold script in Table 7.1.
For step 3, the filtering process for selection of solutions to apply in a particular
context, we did not discuss or evaluate solutions based on their effectiveness for a
particular place. Rather, we applied a framework to filter the solutions by solution
type (adapted from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) in order to understand which type of solutions societal actors might prioritize in different socialecological contexts.
Table 7.1 Location and number of study cases from the International Partnership for the Satoyama
Initiative (IPSI)
Southeast Asia
South Asia
East Asia
Cambodia (8)
Bangladesh (1)
China (15)
Indonesia (6)
Bhutan (2)
Japan (18)
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
(1)
India (9)
Mongolia (2)
Myanmar (1)
Iran (1)
South Korea (1)
Philippines (5)
Nepal (7)
Total 36
Vietnam (4)
Pakistan (2)
Thailand (4)
Sri Lanka (1)
Total 29
Total 23
Bold font indicates countries with local-scale case studies. Numbers in parenthesis indicate the
number of case studies included in the total 88 cases of the review
R. Kozar et al.