IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i4p804-d1114024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Tools for Inclusive Landscape Governance: Negotiating Land Use, Land-Cover Change, and Future Landscape Scenarios in Two Multistakeholder Platforms in Zambia

Author

Listed:
  • Freddie Sayi Siangulube

    (Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR), University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 VW Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor 16115, Indonesia)

  • Mirjam A. F. Ros-Tonen

    (Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR), University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 VW Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • James Reed

    (Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor 16115, Indonesia
    School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK)

  • Eric Rega Christophe Bayala

    (Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR), University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 VW Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor 16115, Indonesia)

  • Terry Sunderland

    (Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor 16115, Indonesia
    Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Hall, Vancouver, BC V6T 124, Canada)

Abstract

Landscape approaches are being promoted as a form of negotiated governance to help reconcile competing land uses and identify common concerns for planning envisioned future landscapes. Multistakeholder platforms play a key role in these efforts. This paper aims to contribute to an emerging scholarship that explores how spatial tools can be used in such platforms as boundary objects and if and how they can contribute to inclusive landscape negotiations and governance. We used spatial mapping to observe and document stakeholder perceptions about drivers of land-use and land-cover change and desired future scenarios that accommodate competing land uses. We found that land-cover maps derived from satellite images helped participants identify land-use change dynamics and drivers. The ensuing community mapping of desired landscape scenarios in both multistakeholder platforms (MSPs) triggered a process of identifying common concerns and defining actionable priorities. However, in one MSP, stakeholders ultimately reached a compromise on a draft land-use map that was widely regarded as an entry point for further negotiations in Local Area Plans, while the other lacked consensus due to deep-seated social-cultural issues, such as social-class-based disagreements. This paper illustrates, first, that instead of focusing on the end product (participatory maps), understanding negotiation processes helps uncover why spatial tools may fail to achieve the intended purpose of reconciling land uses. Second, spatial tools only work for landscape approaches if MSPs are inclusive and foster a collaborative process that considers the views of all participants. The authors recommend that those steering MSPs stimulate them to evolve from “mere consultation forums” to “innovative, participatory platforms”, encouraging stakeholders to engage in genuine negotiation processes that allow negotiated and alternative outcomes. We contend that such an approach, supported by spatial tools, is likely to contribute to the implementation of landscape approaches. Policymakers and land users can use these spatial tools as boundary objects in user-focused strategies that engender inclusive stakeholder participation and ensure legitimate, acceptable, and sustainable outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Freddie Sayi Siangulube & Mirjam A. F. Ros-Tonen & James Reed & Eric Rega Christophe Bayala & Terry Sunderland, 2023. "Spatial Tools for Inclusive Landscape Governance: Negotiating Land Use, Land-Cover Change, and Future Landscape Scenarios in Two Multistakeholder Platforms in Zambia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:804-:d:1114024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/4/804/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/4/804/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cecilie Friis & Jonas Østergaard Nielsen, 2017. "On the System. Boundary Choices, Implications, and Solutions in Telecoupling Land Use Change Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    2. Milder, Jeffrey C. & Hart, Abigail K. & Dobie, Philip & Minai, Joshua & Zaleski, Christi, 2014. "Integrated Landscape Initiatives for African Agriculture, Development, and Conservation: A Region-Wide Assessment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 68-80.
    3. Pauliina Upla & James Reed & Kaala B. Moombe & Benjamin J. Kazule & Brian P. Mulenga & Mirjam Ros-Tonen & Terry Sunderland, 2022. "Assessing the Potential for Private Sector Engagement in Integrated Landscape Approaches: Insights from Value-Chain Analyses in Southern Zambia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-28, September.
    4. Joyeeta Gupta & Courtney Vegelin, 2016. "Sustainable development goals and inclusive development," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 433-448, June.
    5. Joseph Phiri & Karel Malec & Socrates Kraido Majune & Seth Nana Kwame Appiah-Kubi & Zdeňka Gebeltová & Mansoor Maitah & Kamil Maitah & Kamal Tasiu Abdullahi, 2020. "Agriculture as a Determinant of Zambian Economic Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, June.
    6. Speer, Johanna, 2012. "Participatory Governance Reform: A Good Strategy for Increasing Government Responsiveness and Improving Public Services?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(12), pages 2379-2398.
    7. Michael K. McCall, 2021. "Participatory Mapping and PGIS: Secerning Facts and Values, Representation and Representativity," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 10(3), pages 105-123, July.
    8. Alys Solly, 2021. "Land use challenges, sustainability and the spatial planning balancing act: Insights from Sweden and Switzerland," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(4), pages 637-653, April.
    9. Samuel Kaheesi Kusiima & Anthony Egeru & Justine Namaalwa & Patrick Byakagaba & David Mfitumukiza & Paul Mukwaya & Sylvanus Mensah & Robert Asiimwe, 2022. "Interconnectedness of Ecosystem Services Potential with Land Use/Land Cover Change Dynamics in Western Uganda," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-26, November.
    10. Nadia Bartolini & Caitlin DeSilvey, 2021. "Landscape futures: decision-making in uncertain times, a literature review," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(1), pages 8-24, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bastos Lima, Mairon G. & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Braña-Varela, Josefina & Gupta, Aarti, 2017. "A reality check on the landscape approach to REDD+: Lessons from Latin America," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 10-20.
    2. Peng Zeng & Sihui Wu & Zongyao Sun & Yujia Zhu & Yuqi Chen & Zhi Qiao & Liangwa Cai, 2021. "Does Rural Production–Living–Ecological Spaces Have a Preference for Regional Endowments? A Case of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-21, November.
    3. Joyeeta Gupta & Aarti Gupta & Courtney Vegelin, 2022. "Equity, justice and the SDGs: lessons learnt from two decades of INEA scholarship," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 393-409, June.
    4. Seungyeon Moon & Heesang Lee, 2020. "The Role of Standards-Related Capacity Building on the Sustainable Development of Developing Countries: Focusing on the Korea’s Standards-Related AfT Case in Bolivia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-16, June.
    5. Evelyn Asante-Yeboah & George Ashiagbor & Kwabena Asubonteng & Stefan Sieber & Justice C. Mensah & Christine Fürst, 2022. "Analyzing Variations in Size and Intensities in Land Use Dynamics for Sustainable Land Use Management: A Case of the Coastal Landscapes of South-Western Ghana," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-28, May.
    6. Lily - Trinh Hoang Hong Hue, 2019. "Gender Differences of Citizen Participation in Local Government: The Case of Vietnam," Journal of Public Administration and Governance, Macrothink Institute, vol. 9(3), pages 225-238, December.
    7. Joyeeta Gupta & Louis Lebel, 0. "Access and allocation in earth system governance: lessons learnt in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-18.
    8. Dorota Bednarska-Olejniczak & Jarosław Olejniczak & Libuše Svobodová, 2019. "Towards a Smart and Sustainable City with the Involvement of Public Participation—The Case of Wroclaw," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-33, January.
    9. Johanna Karolina Louise Koehler, 2023. "Not all risks are equal: a risk governance framework for assessing the water SDG," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 179-189, June.
    10. Erin E. Toolis, 2021. "Restoring the Balance between People, Places, and Profits: A Psychosocial Analysis of Uneven Community Development and the Case for Placemaking Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-18, June.
    11. Agni Kalfagianni & Oran R. Young, 2022. "The politics of multilateral environmental agreements lessons from 20 years of INEA," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 245-262, June.
    12. Yuan, Mei-Hua & Lo, Shang-Lien, 2020. "Developing indicators for the monitoring of the sustainability of food, energy, and water," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    13. Herrera, Veronica, 2014. "Does Commercialization Undermine the Benefits of Decentralization for Local Services Provision? Evidence from Mexico’s Urban Water and Sanitation Sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 16-31.
    14. Suwan Lu & Guobin Fang & Mingtao Zhao, 2023. "Towards Inclusive Growth: Perspective of Regional Spatial Correlation Network in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, March.
    15. Mayka, Lindsay & Abbott, Jared, 2023. "Varieties of participatory institutions and interest intermediation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    16. Felipe Arenas-Torres & Miguel Bustamante-Ubilla & Roberto Campos-Troncoso, 2021. "The Incidence of Social Responsibility in the Adoption of Business Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, March.
    17. Bablu Kumar Dhar & Sabrina Maria Sarkar & Foster K. Ayittey, 2022. "Impact of social responsibility disclosure between implementation of green accounting and sustainable development: A study on heavily polluting companies in Bangladesh," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 71-78, January.
    18. Jonathan Pickering, 2023. "Can democracy accelerate sustainability transformations? Policy coherence for participatory co-existence," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 141-148, June.
    19. Salla Eilola & Lalisa Duguma & Niina Käyhkö & Peter A. Minang, 2021. "Coalitions for Landscape Resilience: Institutional Dynamics behind Community-Based Rangeland Management System in North-Western Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-23, October.
    20. Wu, Changyan & Huang, Xianjin & Chen, Bowen, 2020. "Telecoupling mechanism of urban land expansion based on transportation accessibility: A case study of transitional Yangtze River economic Belt, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:804-:d:1114024. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.