Holistic and multidisciplinary approaches where both conservation and development goals are in place is one of the global orientations towards sustainability. Science has come together with practical experiences and lessons learned that highlight the critical importance of working at a ‘Landscape’ level. Landscapes are a pivotal scale for both sustainability and sustainable development. Because landscapes are needed to articulate and interconnect local, subnational, national, and therefore, global goals. International efforts in regards to sustainable rural development are not new; however, they are currently pointing to an Integrated Landscape Approach (ILA). Despite that, there is not yet a universal definition of the ILA; there are some principles or prescriptions that are useful for the assessment of current specific efforts of ILA implementation. In the present thesis, a multi-criteria policy analysis of ILA in Mexico was performed with the aims to identify and analyze multi-level governance initiatives, and policy frameworks, and contribute to the investigation if the landscape approach makes a difference in terms of conservation and sustainable development goals. International frameworks, national policies, and in particular Mexican landscape initiatives were analyzed and discussed. Along with the document analysis, key informant interviews were carried out. The findings confirm that the Landscape Sustainability science framework can be adequate to sustain further multidisciplinary research on ILA. Additionally, the ILA in Mexico has been promoted through at least 10 national policies and 15 landscape initiatives with evident signs of consistency with the ILA aims and principles. It was found that there are several challenges for effective ILA implementation, such as long-term finance and planning and inter-sectorial collaboration within common policy goals. Among these, major “bottlenecks” of effective ILA implementation lie on a Good Landscape Governance and the Willingness of Government (“political will”) and Stakeholders to pursue the ILA. The ILA is not the one and only solution for sustainability and sustainable development at the landscape level. Indeed, the ILA still needs scientifically sound research and more long-term capital investments. The findings of this study help to understand that the ILA is an alternative to interconnect the human, social, environmental and economic dimensions within each particular landscape for an effective problem solving, decision-making and implementation of sustainable development.:1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1. Integrated Landscape Approach for Sustainable Forestry.................................................... 8
1.2. Justification on the study focus on Policy and Multilevel Governance in Mexico............. 11
2. Objectives..................................................................................................................................... 15
2.1. Overall research objective ................................................................................................... 15
2.2. Specific research objectives and Research questions per specific research objective ...... 15
3. Theoretical Framework................................................................................................................ 16
3.1. The science behind: Integrated Landscape Approaches..................................................... 16
3.2. Conceptual Framework: Integrated Landscape Approach ................................................. 19
3.3. Principles and criteria for Integrated Landscape Approaches............................................ 24
3.4. Environmental and Forestry context in Mexico.................................................................. 26
4. Methodological Framework......................................................................................................... 31
4.1. Research Design ................................................................................................................... 31
4.2. Indicator matrix assessment for the study.......................................................................... 32
4.3. Stakeholders and key informants interviews...................................................................... 33
4.4. Data analysis......................................................................................................................... 34
5. Results........................................................................................................................................... 35
5.1. National framework for ILA ................................................................................................. 35
5.2. ILA Initiatives in Mexico....................................................................................................... 39
5.3. Findings from interviews analysis with key Informants..................................................... 46
6. Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 49
6.1. The international vision ....................................................................................................... 49
6.1.1 Synthesis knowledge for Integrated Landscape Approaches............................................ 51
6.2. The national vision and the initiatives experiences............................................................ 53
6.3. Lessons learned and barriers for implementing ILA: the Mexican experience.................. 60
7. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 64
7.1 Summation ................................................................................................................................. 64
7.2 Suggestions for further research ............................................................................................... 65
7.3 Limitations of the study and methodological critique.............................................................. 66
8. References.................................................................................................................................... 68
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:DRESDEN/oai:qucosa:de:qucosa:76696 |
| Date | 22 November 2021 |
| Creators | Pedroza Arceo, Norma Mercedes |
| Contributors | Weber, Norbert, Ortega Argueta, Alejandro, Technische Universität Dresden |
| Source Sets | Hochschulschriftenserver (HSSS) der SLUB Dresden |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, doc-type:masterThesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis, doc-type:Text |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0029 seconds