Abstract
The future and benefits of mosaic landscapes have been a source of scientific and societal concern due to increasing population growth, climate change, urbanization, and expanding agricultural commodities. There is a growing call for integrated landscape approaches in which landscape actors discuss trade-offs between different land uses with a view to reaching a negotiated decision on the allocation of land uses. Yet, the operationalization of such approaches is still in its infancy, and integrated methodologies to visualize actors’ landscape visions are still scarce. This study therefore presents a participatory spatial scenario-building methodology that uncovers local perceptions of landscape dynamics and needed actions in a mixed cocoa-oil-palm landscape in Ghana’s Eastern Region. The methodology visualizes landscape actors’ perceived plausible changes and desired future landscapes, and is designed to trigger discussions on actions needed to achieve these desired futures. Findings show that farmers and institutional actors are aware of their landscapes with future preferences coming close to actual landscape composition and spatial configuration, and that—contrary to common assumptions—only those in the oil-palm-dominated landscape who already experienced the drawbacks of increasing landscape homogenization desire a mosaic landscape. The paper concludes that the collective mapping process makes actors aware of challenges at landscape level and increases farmers’ negotiation power through active engagement in the process and visualization of their knowledge and visions. Application of the methodology requires dedicated funding, political will, and capacity to apply it as an ongoing process, as well as monitoring feedback loops.
Highlights
Supplementary information The online version of this article contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.Mosaic landscapes1 provide ecosystem services relevant for biodiversity conservation, carbon storage, rural livelihoods, and the sustainable production of food and other products, while enhancing the connectivity needed for the movement of animals and maintenance of natural processes (Van Noordwijk et al 2012; Kremen and Merenlender 2018)
Mosaic landscapes1 provide ecosystem services relevant for biodiversity conservation, carbon storage, rural livelihoods, and the sustainable production of food and other products, while enhancing the connectivity needed for the movement of animals and maintenance of natural processes (Van Noordwijk et al 2012; Kremen and Merenlender 2018)
Concerns exist about their degradation and increasing homogenization due to population growth, 1 “Mosaic landscapes”— referred to as “working landscapes” (Kremen and Merenlender 2018) and “smallholder landscapes” (Clough et al 2016; Grass et al 2020)—are defined in this paper as structurally complex spaces of variable scale that accommodate different interacting land-cover types, of both natural and anthropogenic origin
Summary
The scale is defined by the area used in the participatory mapping exercise (see “Methodology” section) Because of their multifunctional nature, mosaic landscapes offer a greater variety of ecosystem services than more homogeneous landscapes such as those dominated by large-scale monoculture plantations. Environmental Management (2021) 68:701–719 urbanization, climate change, and expanding agricultural commodities (van Vliet et al 2012; Sayer et al 2013; Benefoh et al 2018; Asubonteng et al 2020) This implies a development toward more segregated and specialized landscapes with less variety of ecosystem services, at the cost of the resilience of landscapes and the people depending on them (Tscharntke et al 2005; Castella et al 2013; Grass et al 2020)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
