整合地景-海景取徑 (ILSAs) 是一種多面向的綜合策略，旨在將多元權益關係人聚集在一起，為地景或海景範圍內的多個永續發展目標提供整合性的解決方案。雖然ILSAs 在實現「與自然和諧共生」的 2050 願景方面具有巨大潛力，但仍面臨著許多挑戰，例如：地景-海景的邊界設定和調整、多元權益關係人參與及合作、確定優先行動措施、有效監測和評估、以及ILSAs實施歷程的持久性和連續性。
2016 年 10 月起，花蓮豐濱鄉新社村啟動「森-川-里-海」生態農業倡議（新社倡議），引入ILSA為操作架構，旨在保全活用在地的「社會-生態-生產地景和海景（SEPLS, 地方)。新社倡議由多元權益關係人平台（MSP, 人）協力開展的一項為期十年的願景工程（2016-2019年為短程階段、2020 年為過渡階段、2021-2026年為中程階段，進展），希望回應基於地方的、具有時間敏銳度的環境、社會和經濟目標（ABCDE, 問題），並以調適性協同經營（ACM, 過程）為指導。多年來，國立東華大學（NDHU）的研究團隊（包括本文研究者）一直扮演著新社倡議的橋接權益關係人（協力者）。
本研究著眼於「新社取徑」，它代表研究團隊在2016年10月至2021年12月期間，為實施新社倡議而發展及應用的協力工具之組合（群集）。本研究的「內向」目的是為了發展和應用新社取徑以操作化新社倡議，促進新社SEPLS的福祉；「外向」目的則是致力於「烹調」和推廣新社經驗於其它地方、區域、國家和全球範圍的ILSA案例。本研究的目標是說明和分析新社取徑中協力工具組合（群集）的角色，並根據上述內向和外向目的，開發「新社食譜」。
這是一項具行動性、紮根的、應用性的案例研究，它採用了質性研究資料蒐集和分析的多元方法。以下三個研究問題是透過紮根理論發展出來的，為研究結果和討論部分提供了一個邏輯架構和跨章節的連貫性：(1) 2016年10月至2021年 12月期間，如何藉助新社取徑的協力工具組合（群集）來操作化新社倡議？(2)新社取徑如何解決新社倡議的五個ILSA議題（地方、人、問題、過程和進展）？獲得了哪些經驗教訓？(3)新社取徑的經驗如何有助於「烹調」和推廣（應用和參照）到不同尺度的ILSAs？
研究結果顯示，首先，概念的、調適性經營的、以及補充性的協力工具組合（群集）在實踐新社倡議方面發揮了目的導向性和實用性的指導作用；其次，應用這些協力工具組合（群集）來「烹調」新社ILSA的當地「食材」，可以回應相關挑戰並激發出新社倡議的意義和具體呈現；最後，將新社取徑重新概念化為新社「食譜」，有助於推廣和應用到其它不同尺度的ILSAs在地實踐中。

Integrated landscape-seascape approaches (ILSAs) are multifaceted integrated strategies that aim to bring together multiple stakeholders to provide solutions to multiple sustainability objectives at a landscape or seascape scale. Despite their high potential to realise the 2050 Vision of “living in harmony with nature”, ILSAs yet face a number of challenges related to the landscape-seascape boundary setting and checking, multi-stakeholder engagement and cooperation, identification of priority interventions, effective monitoring and evaluation, and longevity and continuity of ILSAs’ efforts.
In October 2016, the Xinshe “Forest-River-Village-Ocean” Eco-Agriculture Initiative (the Xinshe Initiative) was introduced as an ILSA aimed at a socio-ecological revitalisation of the Xinshe socio-ecological production landscape and seascape (SEPLS, place), located in Xinshe Village, Fengbin Township, Hualien County, Taiwan. It was projected as a 10-year-long effort (2016-2019 short-term phase, 2020 transition phase and 2021-2026 mid-term phase, progress) carried out by the multi-stakeholder platform (MSP, people) in reflection of the place-based and time-sensitive environmental and socio-economic objectives (ABCDE, problems) and guided by the adaptive co-management (ACM) processes. Over the years, the research team from National Dong Hwa University (NDHU) (the researcher) has been engaged as a bridging stakeholder (facilitator) of the Xinshe Initiative.
This study looks at the Xinshe Approach, which represents a combination (“constellation”) of facilitation tools that were developed and applied by the facilitation team for the purpose of operationalising the Xinshe Initiative over the October 2016-December 2021 period. The “inward” purpose of this work is aimed at developing and applying the Xinshe Approach for operationalising the Xinshe Initiative for the benefit of the Xinshe SEPLS, while the “outward” purpose is dedicated to making the Xinshe experiences helpful for “cooking” other ILSAs locally, regionally, nationally, and globally. The research objective is to demonstrate and analyse the role of the “constellation” of facilitation tools of the Xinshe Approach and to develop the Xinshe Recipe in line with the “inward” and “outward” purposes.
This is a case study, action, grounded, applied research, which employs mixed qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. The three research questions, developed by the means of a grounded theory, provide a logical structure and a cross-chapter connectivity for the results and discussion section. 1) How did the “constellation” of facilitation tools of the Xinshe Approach enable operationalisation of the Xinshe Initiative throughout October 2016-December 2021? 2) How did the Xinshe Approach address the five ILSA ingredients (place, people, problems, process, and progress) of the Xinshe Initiative and what lessons were derived from this experience? 3) How can the experiences of the Xinshe Approach be useful (applicable and replicable) for “cooking” ILSAs in other localities “from -scape to scale”?
The findings reveal that, firstly, the “constellation” of conceptual, ACM-based and supplementary facilitation tools played an imperative – purpose-oriented and practical – role in operationalising the Xinshe Initiative over the researched period (October 2016-December 2021). Secondly, application of them as the “cooking” tools for the Xinshe ILSA’s local ingredients allowed to address relevant challenges and stimulate the meaningfulness and tangibility of the Xinshe Initiative. Finally, the Xinshe Approach, reconceptualised into the Xinshe Recipe to be useful to the place-based realities of other ILSAs, was introduced and discussed in the context of its “from -scape to scale” applicability and replicability potential.

1. Introduction.....1
1.1 Our Greatest Opportunity and integrated landscape-seascape approaches (ILSAs).....1
1.2 The Xinshe integrated landscape-seascape approach (ILSA): the Xinshe “Forest-RiverVillage-Ocean” Eco-Agriculture Initiative .....5
1.3 The Xinshe Opportunity and my research purposes .....8
2. Literature Review.....13
2.1 Integrated landscape-seascape approaches (ILSAs).....13
2.1.1 Definition of integrated landscape-seascape approaches (ILSAs).....13
2.1.2 Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS).....14
2.1.3 Characteristics, themes and principles of integrated landscape-seascape
approaches (ILSAs) .....15
2.2 Socio-ecological resilience in integrated landscape-seascape approaches (ILSAs).....19
2.3 Adaptive co-management (ACM) in integrated landscape-seascape approaches
(ILSAs)..... 23
2.4 Challenges faced by integrated landscape-seascape approaches (ILSAs).....28
3. Conceptualisation and Methodology.....31
3.1 Conceptual framework of the Xinshe Approach.....31
3.2 Research objective and research questions ..... 33
3.3 Methods of data collection and analysis ..... 35
3.4 Research type and researcher’s role..... 38
4. The Xinshe Approach to the purpose/ people/ processes/ practicality of the
Xinshe Initiative or The “constellation” of facilitation tools of the Xinshe
Approach .....41
4.1 Conceptual facilitation tools ..... 43
4.1.1 Eco-agriculture and its four pillars .....44
4.1.2 The Satoyama Initiative and its five ecological and socio-economic
perspectives .....45
4.1.3 Socio-ecological resilience as SEPLS health.....47
4.2 Adaptive co-management (ACM)-based facilitation tools .....49
4.2.1 Multi-stakeholder platform (MSP) meetings.....50
4.2.2 SEPLS health check: resilience assessment workshops (RAWs) .....60
4.2.3 Taking stock of the past.....67
IV
4.2.4 Looking ahead into the future .....76
4.3 Supplementary facilitation tools .....79
5. The Xinshe Approach to addressing the five ILSA ingredients of the Xinshe
Initiative or Lessons learned from the Xinshe Approach (October 2016-
December 2021).....87
5.1 Place (SEPLS): Boundary setting and checking .....89
5.2 People (MSP): Multi-stakeholder engagement and cooperation .....93
5.3 Problems (ABCDE): Environmental and socio-economic objectives and resource
allocation.....98
5.4 Process (ACM): Monitoring, evaluation and learning .....102
5.5 Progress (>time 2026+): Longevity and sustainability of efforts .....105
6. The Xinshe Approach to promoting the Xinshe experiences “from -scape to
scale” or The Xinshe Recipe for other ILSAs .....109
6.1 The Xinshe Recipe ..... 110
6.2 Cooking tips for the cook.....115
6.3 The Xinshe Recipe “from -scape to scale”..... 119
7. Conclusions and Recommendations.....123
7.1 Back to my research questions and purposes.....123
7.2 Ways forward for the Xinshe Approach.....124
References.....127
Appendixes .....135
Appendix A. Adaptive co-management (ACM)-based and supplementary facilitation tools of
the Xinshe Approach in chronological order (October 2016-December 2021)................ 135
Appendix B. Five perspectives (ABCDE) and 40 action tasks (A1-E10) of the short-term action
plan of the Xinshe Initiative (2016-2020) (translated from the Chinese language).....142
Appendix C. Five perspectives (ABCDE), 10 thematic priority areas and 44 action tasks (A1-
E9) of the mid-term action plan of the Xinshe Initiative (2021-2026) (translated from the
Chinese language).....144
Appendix D. Five ecological and socio-economic perspectives of the Xinshe Initiative and 20
localised indicators of resilience in the Xinshe SEPLS (translated from the Chinese
language).....147
Appendix E. Ten priority themes of the mid-term action plan of the Xinshe Initiative (2021-
2026) (translated from the Chinese language) ..... 148
Appendix F. Taking stock of the past (2019): Initial Multi-Stakeholder Platform (MSP) SelfEvaluation of short-term phase (2016-2019): successes, challenges, suggestions (as reported on December 18th, 2019) (translated from the Chinese language).....149
Appendix G. Review of the Past (2021): Implementation outputs of activities relevant to the
five perspectives (ABCDE) and 40 actions tasks (A-1 to E-10) of the short-term action
plan (2016-2020) of the Xinshe Initiative (translated from the Chinese language).....151
Appendix H. Review of the Past (2021): Implementation outputs of activities relevant to the
five perspectives (ABCDE) and 40 actions tasks (A-1 to E-10) of the short-term action
plan (2016-2020) of the Xinshe Initiative on Google My Maps platform ..... 160
Appendix I. Looking ahead into the future (2019): “Xinshe SEPLS Vision” for the mid-term
phase (by 2026) the four government agencies (as reported on December 18th, 2019)
(translated from the Chinese language)..... 161

Armitage, D. (2005). Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environmental Management, 35(6), 703-715.
Arts, B., Buizer, M., Horlings, L., Ingram, V., Oosten, C. & Opdam, P. (2017). Landscape approaches: a state-of-the-art review. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 42, 439-463.
Attenborough, D. (2020). A Life on Our Planet: My witness statement and vision for the future. London: Penguin Random House.
Bergamini, N., Dunbar, W., Eyzaguirre, P., Ichikawa, K., Matsumoto, I., Mijatovic, D., Morimoto, Y., Remple, N., Salvemini, D., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes. Rome, Italy: IGES, UNDP, UNU-IAS, Bioversity International.
Berkes, F. (2003, July). Can Cross-Scale Linkages Increase the Resilience of Social-Ecological Systems? Paper presented at the RCSD International Conference, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Berkes, F. (2007). Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking. Natural Hazards, 41, 283-295.
Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1692-1702.
Bormann, B. & Haynes, R. (2007). Adaptive management of forest ecosystems: did some rubber hit the road? BioScience, 57(2), 186-191.
BrainyQuote. (2022). Maya Angelou Quotes. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/maya-angelou-quotes
Brown, K. (2016). Resilience, development, and global change. London: Routledge.
Bürgi, M., Ali, P., Chowdhury, A., Hett, C., Kienast, F., Mondal, M. K., Upreti, B. R., & Verburg, P. H. (2017). Integrated landscape approach: closing the gap between theory and application. Sustainability, 9(1371), 1-13.
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4, 765-781.
Davidson-Hunt, I. (2006). Adaptive learning networks: developing resource management knowledge through social learning forums. Human Ecology, 34(4), 593-614.
Denier, L., Scherr, S., Shames, S., Chatterton., P., Hovani., L., & Stam, N. (2015). The Little Sustainable Landscapes Book, Global Canopy Programme: Oxford.
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wildlife and Heritage. (2014). Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service. Retrieved April 10, 2021, from https://parks.tas.gov.au/Documents/The_adaptive_management_system_for_the_Tasmanian_Wilderness_World_Heritage_Area_linking_management.pdf
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., et al. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14, 1-16.
Dodge, R., Daly, A., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. (2012). The challenge of defining wellbeing, International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3), 222–235.
Downs, P. (2002) Post-project appraisal in adaptive management of river channel restoration. Environmental Management, 29(4), 477-496.
Dudley, N. (Ed.). (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Duff, G., Garnett, D., Jacklyn, P., Landsberg, J., Ludwig, J., Morrison, J., Novelly, P., Walker, D., & Whitehead, P. (2008). A collaborative design to adaptively manage for landscape sustainability in north Australia: lessons from a decade of cooperative research. Landscape Ecology, 24(8), 1135-1143.
Dunbar, W., Subramanian, S. M., Matsumoto, I., Natori, Y., Dublin, D., Bergamini, N. et al. (2019). Lessons learned from application of the “Indicators of resilience in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) under the Satoyama Initiative”. In: Managing Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes for Sustainable Communities in Asia, O. Saito, S. Subramanian, S. Hashimoto, K. Takeuchi (Eds.). Tokyo, Japan: UNU-IAS.
Erbaugh, J., & Agrawal, A. (2017). Clarifying the landscape approach: a letter to the editor. Global Change Biology, 23(11), 4453-4454.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., & Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio, 31(5), 437-440.
Ford, J. D., King, N., Galappaththi, E. K., Pearce, T., McDowell, G. & Harper, S. L. (2020). The resilience of indigenous peoples to environmental change. One Earth, 2(6), 532-543.
Forestry Bureau. (2022). Taiwan Ecological Network 2022-2025. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://www.forest.gov.tw/0002812
Frankl, V. (1962). Man’s search for meaning: an introduction to logotherapy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Freeman, O., Duguma, L., & Minang, P. (2015) Operationalizing the integrated landscape approach in practice. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 24.
Garcia-Martin, M., Bieling, C., Hart, A., & Plieninger, T. (2016). Integrated landscape initiatives in Europe: multi-sector collaboration in multi-functional landscapes. Land Use Policy, 58, 43-53.
Gu, H., & Subramanian, S. M. (2014). Drivers of change in socio-ecological production landscapes: implications for better management. Ecology and Society 19(1): 41.
Guthrie, G. (2010). Basic research methods: an entry to social science research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Hasselman, L. (2016). Adaptive management; adaptive co-management; adaptive governance: what’s the difference? Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 24(1), 31–46.
Healey, P. (2002). Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan.
Hill, H., & Madhere, S. (1996). Exposure to community violence and African American children: a multidimensional model of risks and resources. Community Psychology, 24(1), 26-43.
Holling, C.S. (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York, USA: Wiley.
Holling, C.S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390-405.
Horn, S. van der, & Meijer, J. (2015). The landscape approach: the concept, its potential and policy options for integrated sustainable landscape management. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Hague.
Hsu, S. U., Yen, G. E, Pan K. C., & Lee, K. C. (2021). Constructed wetlands as a landscape management practice for nutrient removal from agricultural runoff – a local practice case on the east coast of Taiwan. Water, 13, 2973-2973.
Hualien Natural Education and Ecology Consultant Co. Ltd. (2020). Eco-restoration of the Jialang River, Project Report, commissioned by Hualien Forest District Office of the Forestry Bureau.
Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio E.S., H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. Roy Chowdhury, Y. J. Shin, I. J. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas (Eds.). IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.
International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative. (2022). Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://satoyama-initiative.org/
International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative Secretariat. (2013). Strategy for the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI). Tokyo: INU-IAS. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from: http://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:6020/IPSI_Strategy.pdf
International Union for the Conservation of Nature. (2020). Guidance for using the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. A user-friendly framework for the verification, design and scaling up of Nature-based Solutions. First edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature. (2021). Marine Protected Areas MOOC. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from: https://mooc-conservation.org/courses/course-v1:mooc-conservation+marine-areas+2021_T1_EN/about
Jurjonas, M., & Seekamp, E. (2017). Rural coastal community resilience: assessing a framework in eastern North Carolina. Ocean & Coastal Management, 162, 137-150.
Karimova, P. G., & Lee, K. C. (2019). Realizing society in harmony with nature through the Taiwan Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative. Taiwan Insight. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from: https://taiwaninsight.org/2019/10/09/realising-society-in-harmony-with-nature-through-the-taiwan-partnership-for-the-satoyama-initiative/
Karimova, P.G., & Lee, K.C. (2021). The Good, the Bad and the Adaptive: resilient local solutions to tourism-related system-shifts in eastern rural Taiwan. Taiwan Insight. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from: https://taiwaninsight.org/2021/07/31/the-good-the-bad-and-the-adaptive-resilient-local-solutions-to-tourism-related-system-shifts-in-eastern-rural-taiwan/
Karimova, P. G., & Lee, K. C. (2022). An integrated landscape-seascape approach in the making: facilitating multi-stakeholder partnership for socio-ecological revitalisation in eastern coastal Taiwan (2016–2021). Sustainability, 14(7), 4238: 1-23.
Karimova, P. G., Yan, S. Y., & Lee, K. C. (2022). SEPLS well-being as a vision: co-managing for diversity, connectivity and adaptive capacity in Xinshe Village, Hualien County, Taiwan. In: M. Nishi, S. M. Subramanian, & H. Gupta (Eds.). Nexus among biodiversity, health, and sustainable development in managing socioecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS). Satoyama Initiative Thematic Review vol. 7. Singapore: Springer Nature.
Kay, J., Regier, H., Boyle, M., & Francis, G. (1999). An ecosystem approach for sustainability: addressing the challenge of complexity. Futures, 31, 721-742.
Kirmayer, J.L., Dandeneau, S., Marshall, E., Phillips, M. K., & Williamson, K. J. (2012). Toward an ecology of stories: indigenous perspectives on resilience. In: The Social Ecology of Resilience: A Handbook of Theory and Practice, M. Ungar (Ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Kusters, K., Buck, L., Graaf, de M., Minang, P., Oosen, van C., & Zagt, R. (2018). Participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation of multi-stakeholder platforms in integrated landscape initiatives. Environmental Management, 62, 170–181.
Laws, K., & McLeod, R. (2004, July). Case study and grounded theory: sharing some alternative qualitative research methodologies with systems professionals. In: M. Kennedy, G. W. Winch, R. S. Lager, J. I. Rowe, & J. M. Yanni (Eds.). Proceedings of 22nd International Conference of the Systems Dynamics Society, Oxford, UK.
Lee, K. C., & Karimova P. G. (2021). From cultural landscape to aspiring geopark: 15 years of community-based landscape tourism in Fengnan Village, Hualien County, Taiwan (2006-2021). Geosciences, 11(310), 1-24.
Lee, K. C., Karimova, P. G., & Yan, S.Y. (2019). Towards an integrated multi-stakeholder landscape approach to reconciling values and enhancing synergies: a case study in Taiwan. In: UNU-IAS and IGES (Eds.) Understanding the multiple values associated with sustainable use in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS). Satoyama Initiative Thematic Review vol. 5. Tokyo, Japan: UNU-IAS.
Lee, K. C., Karimova, P. G., Yan, S. Y., & Li, Y. S. (2020). Resilience assessment workshops: an instrument for enhancing community-based conservation and monitoring of rural landscapes. Sustainability, 12(1), 408-422.
Lee, K. C., Sun (Karimova), X. T. (P. G.), Yan, S. Y., & Chiu, Y. H. (2021a). A guidebook for conducting resilience assessment workshops (RAWs) in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) of Taiwan Partnership for Satoyama Initiative. Hualien, Taiwan: NDHU, Forestry Bureau, IGES. (In Chinese).
Lee, K. C., Sun (Karimova), X. T. (P. G)., Lo, Y. C., Shih, C. C., Chang, Y. L., & Chiu, Y. H. (2021b). 2021-2030 Transformative strategy framework for the Satoyama Initiative in Taiwan. Taiwan Forestry Journal, 47(2), 15-22. (In Chinese).
Lee, K. C., & Yan, S. Y. (2019). Participatory planning and monitoring of protected landscapes: a case study of an Indigenous rice paddy cultural landscape in Taiwan. Paddy Water Environment, 17, 539–548.
Leys, A., & Vanclay J. (2011). Social learning: a knowledge and capacity building approach for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes. Land Use Policy, 28, 574-584.
Lindblom, C.E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.
Lisa, E., Schipper, F., & Langston, L. (2015). A Comparative Overview of Resilience Measurement Frameworks. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.
Liu, J. G., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., Pell, A. N., Dadman, P., Kratz, T., Lunchenco, J., Ostrom, E., Ouyang, Z. Y., Provencher, W., Redman, C. L., Schneider, S. H., & Taylor, W. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317(5844), 1513-1516.
Lovell, S. T., & Johnston, D. M. (2009). Creating multifunctional landscapes: how can the field of ecology inform the design of the landscape? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(4), 2012-220.
Maxwell, J. (2013) Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. George Mason University, VA: SAGE Publications.
Maxwell, D., Constas, M., Frankenberger, T., Klaus, D., & Mock, M. (2015). Qualitative Data and Subjective Indicators for Resilience Measurement. Resilience Measurement Technical Working Group, Technical Series No. 4, Food Security Information Network. Rome, Italy.
Meijer, J., Oosten, van C., Subramanian, S. M., Yiu, E., Kok, M. (2021). Seizing the landscape opportunity to catalyse transformative biodiversity governance: A contribution to the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Milder, J., Hart, A., Dobie, P., Minai, J., & Zaleski, C. (2014). Integrated landscape initiatives for African agriculture, development, and conservation: a region-wide assessment. World Development, 54, 68-80.
Minang, P. A., Noordwijk, van M., Freeman, O. E., Mbow, C., Leeuw de J., & Catacutan, D. (Eds.) (2015). Climate-smart landscapes: multi-functionality in practice. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
Moombe, K., Siangulube, F., Mwaanga, B. M. et al. (2020). Understanding landscape dynamics: a case study from Kalomo District. In: J. Reed, M. Ros-Tonen, T. Sunderland. Operationalizing integrated landscape approaches in the tropics. Indonesia: CIFOR.
Nishi, M., Natori, Y., Dublin, D. (2021). Resilience in landscapes and seascapes: building back better from COVID-19. UNU-IAS Policy Brief, 26, 1-4.
Nishi, M., & Yamazaki, M. (2020). Landscape approaches for the post-2020 biodiversity agenda: perspectives from socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes. UNU-IAS Policy Brief, 21, 1-4.
Olsson, P., Galaz, V., & Boonstra, W. (2014). Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspective. Ecology and Society, 19(4), 1.
Padgett, D. (2016) Qualitative methods in social work research. SAGE Publications.
Pahl-Wostl, C., & Hare, M. (2004). Processes of social learning in integrated resources management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 193-206.
PANORAMA: Solutions for a Healthy Planet. (2021). An integrated landscape approach to revitalisation of Indigenous socio-ecological production landscape and seascape in Xinshe Village, Hualien County, Taiwan. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://panorama.solutions/en/solution/integrated-landscape-approach-revitalisation-indigenous-socio-ecological-production
Pascoe, B. (2017). Dark emu. Broome, WA: Magabala Books Aboriginal Corporation.
Pereira, L. M., Davies, K. K., Belder, E., Ferrier, S., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S., Kim, H., J. J., Kuiper, Okayasu, S., Palomo, M. G., Pereira, H. M., Peterson, G., Sathyapalan, J., Schoolenberg, M., Alkemade, R., Ribeiro, S. C., Greenaway, A., Hauck, J., King, N., Lazarova, T., & Ravera, F. (2020). Developing multiscale and integrative nature-people scenarios using the Nature Futures Framework. People and Nature, 2, 1172-1195.
Pörtner, H. O., Scholes, R. J., Agard, J., Archer, E., Arneth, A., Bai, X., Barnes, D., Burrows, M., Chan, L., Cheung, W. L., Diamond, S., Donatti, C., Duarte, C., Eisenhauer, N., Foden, W., Gasalla, M. A., Handa, C., Hickler, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Ichii, K., Jacob, U., Insarov, G., Kiessling, W., Leadley, P., Leemans, R., Levin, L., Lim, M., Maharaj, S., Managi, S., Marquet, P. A., McElwee, P., Midgley, G., Oberdorff, T., Obura, D., Osman, E., Pandit, R., Pascual, U., Pires, A. P. F., Popp, A., Reyes-García, V., Sankaran, M., Settele, J., Shin, Y. J., Sintayehu, D. W., Smith, P., Steiner, N., Strassburg, B., Sukumar, R., Trisos, C., Val, A. L., Wu, J., Aldrian, E., Parmesan, C., Pichs-Madruga, R., Roberts, D.C., Rogers, A.D., Díaz, S., Fischer, M., Hashimoto, S., Lavorel, S., Wu, N., & Ngo, H. T. (2021). Scientific outcome of the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate change. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany.
Rainforest Alliance. (2021). The LandScale Project. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/in-the-field/landscale-project/
Reed, L., Ros-Tonen M., & Sunderland T. (2020). Operationalizing integrated landscape approaches in the tropics. Indonesia: CIFOR.
Reed, J., Vianen van J., Deakin, E., Barlow, J., & Sunderland, T. (2016). Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the future. Global Change Biology, 22, 2540-2554.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C, Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J.A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472-475.
Satoyama Development Mechanism. (2021). Development of locally-sensitive indicators of resilience as a tool for adaptive landscape management in Taiwan’s SEPLS. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://sdm.satoyama-initiative.org/projects/2020_chinese-taipei-taiwan/Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J-L., & Sheil, D. (2013). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. PNAS, 110(21), 8349-8356.
Sayer, J.A., Bull, G., & Elliott, C. (2008). Mediating forest transitions: “Grand design” or “muddling through.” Conservation and Society, 6(4), 320.
Scheyvens, H., Shaw, R., Endo, I., Kawasaki, J., Ngoc-Bao, P., Shivakoti, B. R., Samejima, H., Mitra, B. K., & Takahashi, Y. (2017). Promoting the landscape approach in Asia-Pacific countries: key concepts and ways forward. IGES Policy Brief, 37, 1-12.
Scherr S., & McNeely J. (2008) Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of ‘eco-agriculture’ landscapes, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, vol. 363, pp. 477-494.
Scherr S., Buck, L., Willemen, L., & Milder, J. C. (2014). Ecoagriculture: integrated landscape management for people, food, and nature. In: N. Van Alfen (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 3. San Diego: Elsevier, 1-17.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2020). Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://www.cbd.int/gbo5
Sharifi, A., & Yamagata, Y. (2016). Urban resilience assessment: multiple dimensions, criteria, and indicators. In: Urban Resilience, Advanced sciences and technologies for security applications. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Sterling, E.J., Filardi, C., Toomey, A., Sigouin, A., Betley, E., Gazit, N., Newell., J., Albert, S., Alvira, D., Bergamini, N., et al. (2017). Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 1(12), 1798-1806.
Stringer, L., Dougill, A., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, K., & Reed, M. (2006). Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social-ecological systems: a critical review. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 39.
Suit, K. C., Parizat, R., Friis, A. E., Kaushik, I., Larson, D., Nash, J., & Di Persio, J. (2021). Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives (English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.
Sun (Karimova), X. T. (P. G.), Yan, S. Y., & Lee, K. C. (2020). Localised resilience indicators for adaptive management: building up resilient SEPLS in Xinshe Village, Hualien County, Taiwan. Taiwan Forestry Journal, 46(6), pp. 58-80. (In Chinese).
Sunderland, T., Reed, J., & Ros-Tonen, M. (2020). Conclusion and the way forward. In: J. Reed, M. Ros-Tonen, T. Sunderland (Eds.). Operationalizing integrated landscape approaches in the tropics. Indonesia: CIFOR.
Taima, M, & and Asami, Y. (2020). Determinants and policies of native metropolitan young workders’ migration toward non-metropolitan areas in Japan. Cities, 102(102733).
Taiwan Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative. (2022). Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://conservation.forest.gov.tw/EN/0002150
Takahashi, Y., Schauffele, N., Mengrani, S., Mader, A., Scheyvens, H., Dasgupta, R., & Lopes-Casero, F. (2019). Achievements, challenges and ways forward for the Satoyama Development Mechanism: a self-assessment by the SDM Secretariat. IGES, UNU-IAS.
Takeuchi, K. (2019). Satoyama Initiative and its Partnership: Lessons learned for the Post-2020 Framework. Report at the side event at the CBD Regional Consultation Workshop on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework for Asia and the Pacific, Nagoya, Japan.
Takeuchi, K., Ichikawa, K., & Elmqvist, T. (2016). Satoyama landscape as social–ecological system: historical changes and future perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 19, 30-39.
Tengberg A., Gustafsson M., Samuelson L., & Weyler E. (2021). Knowledge production for resilient landscapes: experiences from multi-stakeholder dialogues on water, food, forests and landscapes. Forests, 12(1), 1.
Tengö M., Hill R., Malmer P., Raymond C., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T., Folke, K. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond – lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27, 17-25.
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. (2021). First draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/abb5/591f/2e46096d3f0330b08ce87a45/wg2020-03-03-en.pdf
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. (2022). National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs). Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/
United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. (2022). Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/
United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability. (2019, September). The Kumamoto Report on landscape approaches for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Outcome of the Expert Thematic Workshop on Landscape Approaches for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, Kumamoto, Japan.
Viktor Frankl Institute of Logotherapy (2022). Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://www.viktorfranklinstitute.org/
Walker, B. H., & Salt, D. (2012). Resilience practice: Building capacity to absorb disturbance and maintain function. Washington, D. C.: Island Press.
Waylen, K. A., Blackstock, K. L., Hulst van, F. J., Damian, C., Horvath, F., Johnson, R., Kanka, R., Kulvik, M., Macleod, C. J.A., Meissner, K., Oprina-Pavelescu, M. M., Pino, J., Primmer, E., Risnoveanu, G., Satalova, B., Silander, J., Spulerova, J., Suskevics, M., Uytvanck, J. Van. (2019). Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: Does it support adaptive management in socio-ecological systems? Science of the Total Environment, 662, 373-384.
Wikipedia. (2022). Action research. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_research
Williams, B. K., & Brown, E. D. (2018). Double-loop learning in adaptive management: the need, the challenge, and the opportunity. Environmental Management, 62, 995-1006.
Williams, P., Sikutshwa, L., & Shackleton, S. (2020). Acknowledging Indigenous and local knowledge to facilitate collaboration in landscape approaches – lessons from a systematic review. Land, 9(331), 1-17.
Wollenberg, E., Iwan, R., Limberg, G., Moeliono, M., Rhee, S., & Sudana, M. (2007). Facilitating cooperation during the times of chaos: Spontaneous orders and muddling through in Malinau District, Indonesia. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 3.