Landscape approaches across CGIAR centers – who, what and how?

Posted bynecarmonaPosted inUncategorized 
Our team was hands-on during the first trimester of 2021, surveying CGIAR colleagues about their experience and views on landscape approaches

Who answered the survey?

122 researchers from the 13 centers where:

86 (70%) conducted research for designing, implementing, monitoring , or measuring the effectiveness of landscape approaches.

36 (30%) reported not currently working on landscape approaches. Nonetheless, most of them (26 participants) believe their research can enable the successful and long-term functioning of landscape approaches to achieve multi functionality and long-term sustainability. 

How is the engagement with global efforts fostering a landscape approach – LA?

The 86 researchers working on landscape approaches have conducted, on average, research for around 12.4 years (SE=0.92) on the multiple topics of landscape approaches.

Researchers are engaging with some of the global initiatives. Also, respondents (3) mentioned the African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100) listed. Other initiatives mentioned by at least one respondent include the African Resilience Landscapes Initiative (ARLI) led by NEPAD, the Landscape Learning Networks led by People, Food and Nature, the Landscapes for our Future Initiative (MSSI) let by McGILL, and the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) led by FAO. Finally, researchers mentioned the Global Landscapes Forum, Collaborating to Operationalise Landscape Approaches for Nature, Development and Sustainability (COLANDS), Sentinel Landscapes, and the Resilient Landscapes’ Initiative, all led by CIFOR-ICRAF. 

What CRPs support research contributing to landscape approaches?

And what type of research and outcomes does CGIAR research contribute to landscape approaches?

The Sanky diagram shows that WLE, CCAFS and FTA are the three CRPs supporting more the system-based research required for supporting landscape approaches. Among the type of research conducted by colleagues, methods for stakeholder engagement, trade-off and synergies assessment and generating evidence for guiding adaptive management are the most common. Overall, the conducted research aims to improve the conservation of natural resources and biodiversity as well as sustainable production (both have the same proportion, 22% of responses). Notably, outcomes contributing to non material human well being is the least frequent one. 

WLE (22%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
130 
Methods stkh engagement (15%) → sus.prod (22%)
121 
Methods stkh engagement (15%) → conservation (22%)
117 
Methods stkh engagement (15%) → cc (17%)
109 
Methods stkh engagement (15%) → inst.cap (16%)
92 
Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%) → sus.prod (22%)
92 
Baseline/Scenario ES (9%) → conservation (22%)
90 
Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%) → conservation (22%)
89 
CCAFS (14%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
85 
WLE (22%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
85 
Methods stkh engagement (15%) → mat.hwb (15%)
85 
FTA (14%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
81 
Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%) → conservation (22%)
81 
Tools monitoring (8%) → conservation (22%)
79 
Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%) → sus.prod (22%)
77 
Impact assessment/evaluation (8%) → conservation (22%)
75 
Baseline/Scenario ES (9%) → sus.prod (22%)
74 
WLE (22%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
73 
WLE (22%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
71 
Tools monitoring (8%) → sus.prod (22%)
70 
WLE (22%) → Building human capacity (7%)
69 
CCAFS (14%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
67 
WLE (22%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
66 
Identifying det. Adoption (6%) → sus.prod (22%)
66 
Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%) → cc (17%)
66 
Building human capacity (7%) → conservation (22%)
65 
Impact assessment/evaluation (8%) → sus.prod (22%)
65 
WLE (22%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
64 
Baseline/Scenario ES (9%) → cc (17%)
62 
Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%) → cc (17%)
62 
Methods multi-values (8%) → conservation (22%)
61 
WLE (22%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
60 
Methods multi-values (8%) → sus.prod (22%)
60 
WLE (22%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
57 
Building human capacity (7%) → sus.prod (22%)
57 
Methods multi-values (8%) → inst.cap (16%)
56 
Methods multi-values (8%) → mat.hwb (15%)
56 
FTA (14%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
55 
WLE (22%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
55 
Building human capacity (7%) → cc (17%)
55 
FTA (14%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
54 
PIM (9%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
54 
WLE (22%) → Knowledge synthesis (5%)
54 
Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%) → inst.cap (16%)
54 
Methods multi-values (8%) → cc (17%)
54 
Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%) → mat.hwb (15%)
54 
CCAFS (14%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
53 
Impact assessment/evaluation (8%) → inst.cap (16%)
53 
Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%) → inst.cap (16%)
53 
Impact assessment/evaluation (8%) → cc (17%)
52 
Tools monitoring (8%) → cc (17%)
52 
CCAFS (14%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
51 
FTA (14%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
51 
Identifying det. Adoption (6%) → conservation (22%)
51 
Methods stkh engagement (15%) → non.mat.hwb (9%)
50 
Impact assessment/evaluation (8%) → mat.hwb (15%)
49 
CCAFS (14%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
48 
Building human capacity (7%) → inst.cap (16%)
47 
Identifying det. Adoption (6%) → cc (17%)
47 
Tools monitoring (8%) → inst.cap (16%)
47 
FTA (14%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
46 
Cost benefit analysis (5%) → conservation (22%)
46 
Methods multi-values (8%) → non.mat.hwb (9%)
46 
Policy development (5%) → inst.cap (16%)
46 
Baseline/Scenario ES (9%) → mat.hwb (15%)
45 
Cost benefit analysis (5%) → sus.prod (22%)
45 
Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%) → mat.hwb (15%)
44 
Knowledge synthesis (5%) → conservation (22%)
44 
CCAFS (14%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
43 
CCAFS (14%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
43 
Tools monitoring (8%) → mat.hwb (15%)
43 
FTA (14%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
41 
WLE (22%) → Policy development (5%)
41 
Baseline/Scenario ES (9%) → inst.cap (16%)
41 
Building human capacity (7%) → mat.hwb (15%)
41 
Policy development (5%) → sus.prod (22%)
41 
Policy development (5%) → conservation (22%)
40 
FTA (14%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
38 
FTA (14%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
38 
Gender (4%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
38 
CCAFS (14%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
37 
FTA (14%) → Building human capacity (7%)
37 
FTA (14%) → Policy development (5%)
36 
Cost benefit analysis (5%) → mat.hwb (15%)
36 
Impact assessment/evaluation (8%) → non.mat.hwb (9%)
36 
Livestoc (5%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
35 
Knowledge synthesis (5%) → sus.prod (22%)
35 
PIM (9%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
34 
Identifying det. Adoption (6%) → mat.hwb (15%)
34 
PIM (9%) → Policy development (5%)
33 
Cost benefit analysis (5%) → cc (17%)
33 
Knowledge synthesis (5%) → inst.cap (16%)
33 
CCAFS (14%) → Building human capacity (7%)
32 
FTA (14%) → Knowledge synthesis (5%)
32 
Identifying det. Adoption (6%) → inst.cap (16%)
32 
Knowledge synthesis (5%) → cc (17%)
32 
Policy development (5%) → cc (17%)
32 
PIM (9%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
31 
CCAFS (14%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
29 
Baseline/Scenario ES (9%) → non.mat.hwb (9%)
29 
Political economy (3%) → inst.cap (16%)
29 
CCAFS (14%) → Knowledge synthesis (5%)
28 
CCAFS (14%) → Policy development (5%)
28 
PIM (9%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
28 
Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%) → non.mat.hwb (9%)
28 
Policy development (5%) → mat.hwb (15%)
28 
A4NH (5%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
25 
PIM (9%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
25 
PIM (9%) → Building human capacity (7%)
25 
PIM (9%) → Political economy (3%)
25 
WLE (22%) → Buisness models (2%)
25 
Knowledge synthesis (5%) → mat.hwb (15%)
25 
Political economy (3%) → sus.prod (22%)
25 
Livestoc (5%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
24 
non (4%) → Building human capacity (7%)
24 
PIM (9%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
24 
PIM (9%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
24 
PIM (9%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
24 
PIM (9%) → Knowledge synthesis (5%)
24 
WLE (22%) → Political economy (3%)
24 
PIM (9%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
23 
A4NH (5%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
22 
Gender (4%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
22 
Political economy (3%) → conservation (22%)
22 
Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%) → non.mat.hwb (9%)
22 
A4NH (5%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
21 
Livestoc (5%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
20 
Livestoc (5%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
20 
Buisness models (2%) → sus.prod (22%)
20 
Cost benefit analysis (5%) → inst.cap (16%)
20 
Political economy (3%) → mat.hwb (15%)
20 
A4NH (5%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
19 
A4NH (5%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
19 
AAS (3%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
19 
FTA (14%) → Political economy (3%)
19 
Livestoc (5%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
19 
Building human capacity (7%) → non.mat.hwb (9%)
19 
Identifying det. Adoption (6%) → non.mat.hwb (9%)
19 
Knowledge synthesis (5%) → non.mat.hwb (9%)
19 
FTA (14%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
18 
Livestoc (5%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
18 
A4NH (5%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
17 
non (4%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
17 
Buisness models (2%) → mat.hwb (15%)
17 
Tools monitoring (8%) → non.mat.hwb (9%)
17 
GLDC (2%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
16 
Livestoc (5%) → Building human capacity (7%)
16 
BigData (2%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
16 
Cost benefit analysis (5%) → non.mat.hwb (9%)
16 
Policy development (5%) → non.mat.hwb (9%)
16 
Gender (4%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
15 
Livestoc (5%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
15 
Maize (2%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
15 
Buisness models (2%) → inst.cap (16%)
15 
A4NH (5%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
14 
A4NH (5%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
14 
AAS (3%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
14 
AAS (3%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
14 
FTA (14%) → Buisness models (2%)
14 
Gender (4%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
14 
non (4%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
14 
Excellence in breeding (2%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
14 
Political economy (3%) → cc (17%)
14 
Political economy (3%) → non.mat.hwb (9%)
14 
A4NH (5%) → Building human capacity (7%)
13 
A4NH (5%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
13 
AAS (3%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
13 
Fish (2%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
13 
GLDC (2%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
13 
Livestoc (5%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
13 
Rice (2%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
13 
RTB (2%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
13 
Buisness models (2%) → cc (17%)
13 
Buisness models (2%) → conservation (22%)
13 
A4NH (5%) → Policy development (5%)
12 
CCAFS (14%) → Buisness models (2%)
12 
CCAFS (14%) → Political economy (3%)
12 
Fish (2%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
12 
Maize (2%) → Building human capacity (7%)
12 
non (4%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
12 
non (4%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
12 
non (4%) → Policy development (5%)
12 
Excellence in breeding (2%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
12 
Buisness models (2%) → non.mat.hwb (9%)
12 
AAS (3%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
11 
Fish (2%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
11 
Fish (2%) → Building human capacity (7%)
11 
Fish (2%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
11 
Gender (4%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
11 
Gender (4%) → Knowledge synthesis (5%)
11 
Gender (4%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
11 
GLDC (2%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
11 
Humidtropics (1%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
11 
non (4%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
11 
non (4%) → Knowledge synthesis (5%)
11 
non (4%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
11 
Rice (2%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
11 
Wheat (2%) → Building human capacity (7%)
11 
BigData (2%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
11 
BigData (2%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
11 
Gender (4%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
10 
Livestoc (5%) → Policy development (5%)
10 
non (4%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
10 
RTB (2%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
10 
RTB (2%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
10 
Wheat (2%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
10 
Wheat (2%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
10 
Excellence in breeding (2%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
10 
Gender (4%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
9 
Gender (4%) → Political economy (3%)
9 
GLDC (2%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
9 
Humidtropics (1%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
9 
Humidtropics (1%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
9 
non (4%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
9 
Rice (2%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
9 
RTB (2%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
9 
BigData (2%) → Buisness models (2%)
9 
BigData (2%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
9 
BigData (2%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
9 
AAS (3%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
8 
Fish (2%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
8 
Fish (2%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
8 
Genebank (1%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
8 
GLDC (2%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
8 
GLDC (2%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
8 
Livestoc (5%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
8 
Maize (2%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
8 
Maize (2%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
8 
Maize (2%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
8 
non (4%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
8 
Rice (2%) → Building human capacity (7%)
8 
RTB (2%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
8 
A4NH (5%) → Political economy (3%)
7 
AAS (3%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
7 
GLDC (2%) → Building human capacity (7%)
7 
GLDC (2%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
7 
Humidtropics (1%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
7 
Rice (2%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
7 
A4NH (5%) → Knowledge synthesis (5%)
6 
AAS (3%) → Buisness models (2%)
6 
Fish (2%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
6 
Gender (4%) → Building human capacity (7%)
6 
Genebank (1%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
6 
Genebank (1%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
6 
Humidtropics (1%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
6 
Rice (2%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
6 
RTB (2%) → Building human capacity (7%)
6 
RTB (2%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
6 
Wheat (2%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
6 
Wheat (2%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
6 
Wheat (2%) → Methods multi-values (8%)
6 
Wheat (2%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
6 
Excellence in breeding (2%) → Buisness models (2%)
6 
AAS (3%) → Policy development (5%)
5 
AAS (3%) → Political economy (3%)
5 
Fish (2%) → Policy development (5%)
5 
Fish (2%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
5 
Gender (4%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
5 
Genebank (1%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
5 
GLDC (2%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
5 
GLDC (2%) → Policy development (5%)
5 
Humidtropics (1%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
5 
Humidtropics (1%) → Knowledge synthesis (5%)
5 
Livestoc (5%) → Political economy (3%)
5 
Maize (2%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
5 
Maize (2%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
5 
Maize (2%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
5 
Rice (2%) → Knowledge synthesis (5%)
5 
Rice (2%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
5 
Wheat (2%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
5 
BigData (2%) → Knowledge synthesis (5%)
5 
BigData (2%) → Policy development (5%)
5 
Excellence in breeding (2%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
5 
Fish (2%) → Political economy (3%)
4 
Gender (4%) → Policy development (5%)
4 
GLDC (2%) → Political economy (3%)
4 
Livestoc (5%) → Knowledge synthesis (5%)
4 
non (4%) → Buisness models (2%)
4 
Rice (2%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
4 
BigData (2%) → Building human capacity (7%)
4 
BigData (2%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
4 
Excellence in breeding (2%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
4 
AAS (3%) → Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
3 
Gender (4%) → Buisness models (2%)
3 
Genebank (1%) → Buisness models (2%)
3 
Genebank (1%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
3 
Genebank (1%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
3 
Humidtropics (1%) → Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
3 
Humidtropics (1%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
3 
Maize (2%) → Political economy (3%)
3 
Rice (2%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
3 
RTB (2%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
3 
RTB (2%) → Policy development (5%)
3 
Wheat (2%) → Political economy (3%)
3 
Excellence in breeding (2%) → Building human capacity (7%)
3 
Excellence in breeding (2%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
3 
Excellence in breeding (2%) → Policy development (5%)
3 
Excellence in breeding (2%) → Tools monitoring (8%)
3 
A4NH (5%) → Buisness models (2%)
2 
Fish (2%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
2 
Genebank (1%) → Methods stkh engagement (15%)
2 
GLDC (2%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
2 
Livestoc (5%) → Buisness models (2%)
2 
Maize (2%) → Buisness models (2%)
2 
non (4%) → Political economy (3%)
2 
RTB (2%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
2 
Wheat (2%) → Buisness models (2%)
2 
Wheat (2%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
2 
Wheat (2%) → Knowledge synthesis (5%)
2 
BigData (2%) → Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
2 
Humidtropics (1%) → Policy development (5%)
1 
Maize (2%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
1 
Maize (2%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
1 
Maize (2%) → Knowledge synthesis (5%)
1 
Rice (2%) → Cost benefit analysis (5%)
1 
Rice (2%) → Political economy (3%)
1 
Wheat (2%) → Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
1 
BigData (2%) → Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
1 
BigData (2%) → Political economy (3%)
1 
A4NH (5%)
204
A4NH (5%)
AAS (3%)
105
AAS (3%)
CCAFS (14%)
568
CCAFS (14%)
Fish (2%)
96
Fish (2%)
FTA (14%)
560
FTA (14%)
Gender (4%)
168
Gender (4%)
Genebank (1%)
36
Genebank (1%)
GLDC (2%)
95
GLDC (2%)
Humidtropics (1%)
59
Humidtropics (1%)
Livestoc (5%)
209
Livestoc (5%)
Maize (2%)
74
Maize (2%)
non (4%)
157
non (4%)
PIM (9%)
374
PIM (9%)
Rice (2%)
73
Rice (2%)
RTB (2%)
70
RTB (2%)
Wheat (2%)
70
Wheat (2%)
WLE (22%)
874
WLE (22%)
BigData (2%)
87
BigData (2%)
Excellence in breeding (2%)
63
Excellence in breeding (2%)
Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
341
Baseline/Scenario ES (9%)
Building human capacity (7%)
284
Building human capacity (7%)
Buisness models (2%)
90
Buisness models (2%)
Cost benefit analysis (5%)
196
Cost benefit analysis (5%)
Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
354
Evidence-based adaptive mgmt (9%)
Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
249
Identifying det. Adoption (6%)
Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
330
Impact assessment/evaluation (8%)
Knowledge synthesis (5%)
188
Knowledge synthesis (5%)
Methods multi-values (8%)
333
Methods multi-values (8%)
Methods stkh engagement (15%)
574
Methods stkh engagement (15%)
Policy development (5%)
203
Policy development (5%)
Political economy (3%)
124
Political economy (3%)
Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
368
Quantifying trade-offs/synergies (9%)
Tools monitoring (8%)
308
Tools monitoring (8%)
cc (17%)
683
cc (17%)
conservation (22%)
873
conservation (22%)
inst.cap (16%)
618
inst.cap (16%)
mat.hwb (15%)
577
mat.hwb (15%)
non.mat.hwb (9%)
343
non.mat.hwb (9%)
sus.prod (22%)
848
sus.prod (22%)

We will continue sharing more results, in particular the institutional and local bottlenecks and enablers  for conducing research relevant to landscape approaches. Stay tuned….

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: