139
7.4.3 Place-Based Solutions for Sustainable Use
and Management of Production Landscapes
and Seascapes
Understanding which place-based solution types are preferred in different socialecological contexts helps improve more purposeful design of SEPLS for multiple
benefits, particularly in considering where optimal ecosystem services are not present and where different solution types might increase synergies or reduce trade-offs
among land-use choices. Social-cultural approaches are more popular in sustainable
use and management of common resources such as forest, while more technical
approaches are preferred in management of cultivated lands, which may be more
tied to individual farmers’ decisions. New sustainable use and management
approaches can utilize existing stakeholder preferences exemplified in place-based
solutions, but also examine how widening values of multiple stakeholders and coordinated responses might create benefits from inclusion of a different solution type
or efforts at a different scale.
For instance, greater engagement of national research institutes and local and
national NGOs in South Asia might help incorporate more tailored technical solutions where appropriate. While catchment management and integrated lake basin
management approaches have benefited from investments in multi-stakeholder governance, knowledge or cognitive solutions that are currently less utilized in the East
and South Asia sub-regions could lift inadequate use of knowledge. Linking integrated management (an institutional solution) with monitoring and evaluation systems (knowledge solution) could help bring about more robust SEPLS management
that integrates multiple knowledge forms from indigenous and practical sources,
and creates local information systems such as participatory monitoring that can
monitor feedbacks across scales.
Some limitations of sustainable use and management approaches in SEPLS can
be improved. While integrated landscape and transboundary approaches are gaining
popularity, we found that place-based solutions are targeted mainly in cultivated and
forest ecosystems. Further, there hasn’t yet been a shift to planning the majority of
agricultural and forest ecosystem transformations at landscape or ecological scales
because the institutional architecture is embodied in village and district or municipality governance systems, while ecosystem services may not have any bearing on
these scales. This may be true particularly in Southeast Asia where the most common composition of stakeholder coalitions in SEPLS is the interaction of sectoral
ministries with communities through planning at social and administrative scales.
Further, mountain ecosystems, drylands, and urban areas do not receive any of the
benefits of planning at an eco-regional scale that might consider the flows of ecosystem services. In some cases, dryland, urban, and island ecosystems may benefit
from more integrated landscape approaches at administrative scales as they are typically tackled at higher scales from district to national levels. Island ecosystems may
correspond to a district or municipality and benefit from synching of ecological and
social scales. This would entail more deliberate spatial planning that bridges social
7 Place-Based Solutions for Conservation and Restoration of Social-Ecological…
7.4.3 Place-Based Solutions for Sustainable Use
and Management of Production Landscapes
and Seascapes
Understanding which place-based solution types are preferred in different socialecological contexts helps improve more purposeful design of SEPLS for multiple
benefits, particularly in considering where optimal ecosystem services are not present and where different solution types might increase synergies or reduce trade-offs
among land-use choices. Social-cultural approaches are more popular in sustainable
use and management of common resources such as forest, while more technical
approaches are preferred in management of cultivated lands, which may be more
tied to individual farmers’ decisions. New sustainable use and management
approaches can utilize existing stakeholder preferences exemplified in place-based
solutions, but also examine how widening values of multiple stakeholders and coordinated responses might create benefits from inclusion of a different solution type
or efforts at a different scale.
For instance, greater engagement of national research institutes and local and
national NGOs in South Asia might help incorporate more tailored technical solutions where appropriate. While catchment management and integrated lake basin
management approaches have benefited from investments in multi-stakeholder governance, knowledge or cognitive solutions that are currently less utilized in the East
and South Asia sub-regions could lift inadequate use of knowledge. Linking integrated management (an institutional solution) with monitoring and evaluation systems (knowledge solution) could help bring about more robust SEPLS management
that integrates multiple knowledge forms from indigenous and practical sources,
and creates local information systems such as participatory monitoring that can
monitor feedbacks across scales.
Some limitations of sustainable use and management approaches in SEPLS can
be improved. While integrated landscape and transboundary approaches are gaining
popularity, we found that place-based solutions are targeted mainly in cultivated and
forest ecosystems. Further, there hasn’t yet been a shift to planning the majority of
agricultural and forest ecosystem transformations at landscape or ecological scales
because the institutional architecture is embodied in village and district or municipality governance systems, while ecosystem services may not have any bearing on
these scales. This may be true particularly in Southeast Asia where the most common composition of stakeholder coalitions in SEPLS is the interaction of sectoral
ministries with communities through planning at social and administrative scales.
Further, mountain ecosystems, drylands, and urban areas do not receive any of the
benefits of planning at an eco-regional scale that might consider the flows of ecosystem services. In some cases, dryland, urban, and island ecosystems may benefit
from more integrated landscape approaches at administrative scales as they are typically tackled at higher scales from district to national levels. Island ecosystems may
correspond to a district or municipality and benefit from synching of ecological and
social scales. This would entail more deliberate spatial planning that bridges social
7 Place-Based Solutions for Conservation and Restoration of Social-Ecological…