Josh van Vianen

Bio: Josh van Vianen is an academic researcher from Center for International Forestry Research. The author has contributed to research in topics: Land use & Livelihood. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 12 publications receiving 609 citations. Previous affiliations of Josh van Vianen include University of Canterbury.

Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the future

Abstract: Poverty, food insecurity, climate change and biodiversity loss continue to persist as the primary environmental and social challenges faced by the global community. As such, there is a growing acknowledgement that conventional sectorial approaches to addressing often inter-connected social, environmental, economic and political challenges are proving insufficient. An alternative is to focus on integrated solutions at landscape scales or ‘landscape approaches’. The appeal of landscape approaches has resulted in the production of a significant body of literature in recent decades, yet confusion over terminology, application and utility persists. Focusing on the tropics, we systematically reviewed the literature to: (i) disentangle the historical development and theory behind the framework of the landscape approach and how it has progressed into its current iteration, (ii) establish lessons learned from previous land management strategies, (iii) determine the barriers that currently restrict implementation of the landscape approach and (iv) provide recommendations for how the landscape approach can contribute towards the fulfilment of the goals of international policy processes. This review suggests that, despite some barriers to implementation, a landscape approach has considerable potential to meet social and environmental objectives at local scales while aiding national commitments to addressing ongoing global challenges.

Conservation Science and Practice Must Engage With the Realities of Complex Tropical Landscapes

Abstract: There is a growing disconnect between the international conferences where grand solutions for tropical conservation are designed and the complex local realities in tropical landscapes where plans need to be implemented. Every tropical landscape is different and no “one size will fit all.” There is a tendency for global processes to prescribe simple generalized solutions that provide good sound bites that can be communicated with political actors and the media. Sustainable outcomes in tropical landscapes require locally adapted, unique approaches supported by long-term processes of learning and adaptation. Tropical biologists and conservationists can play a key role by establishing effective local–global links and by directly engaging in local policy discourses while remaining connected to evolving political imperatives.

Meeting the food security challenge for nine billion people in 2050: What impact on forests?

Abstract: As the world’s population continues to grow, agricultural expansion is expected to increase to meet future food demand often at the expense of other land uses. However, there are limited studies examining the degree to which forest cover will change and the underlying assumptions driving these projections. Focusing on food and forest scenarios for the middle to the end of the current century, we review 63 main scenarios and 28 global modelling studies to address variations in land use projections and evaluate the potential outcomes on forest cover. Further, their potential impacts on greenhouse gases (GHG) emission/sequestration and global temperature are explored. A majority (59%) of scenarios expected a reduction in both forests and pasturelands to make way for agricultural expansion (particularly reference and no mitigation scenarios). In most scenarios, the extent of forest loss is proportional to that of crop gain, which is associated with higher GHG emission and global temperature, loss of carbon sequestration potential and increase in soil erosion. However, 32% of scenarios predicted that meeting food security objectives is possible without leading to further deforestation if there is a global reduction in the demand for energy intensive foods, and improvements in crop yields. Forest gain and lower rates of deforestation are needed to achieve ambitious climate targets over the next decade. Our analysis also highlights carbon taxes (prices), reforestation/afforestation and bioenergy as important variables that can contribute to maintaining or increasing global forest area in the future.

韧性（Resilience）的概念分析

Abstract: 韧性（resilience）是指个人面对生活逆境、创伤、悲剧、威胁及其他生活重大压力的良好适应，也是个人应激（stress）和应对（coping）的正面结果。在过去的数十年，护理学等健康相关领域的学者们一直在关注为什么一些人在逆境、压力、疾病等高危（high risk）经历下也能较好地维持健康，而一些人则被逆境打败，身心健康也随之处于不良状态。近年来，应激心理学、健康心理学、精神医学、教育学、护理学等各学科对韧性概念越来越重视，尤其是临床领域的研究，从过去强调人的缺点和脆弱性的病理模式转变为关注个人的优势和强韧性的健康模式。

Resilience of local food systems and links to food security - A review of some important concepts in the context of COVID-19 and other shocks.

Abstract: The objective of this review is to explore and discuss the concept of local food system resilience in light of the disruptions brought to those systems by the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. The discussion, which focuses on low and middle income countries, considers also the other shocks and stressors that generally affect local food systems and their actors in those countries (weather-related, economic, political or social disturbances). The review of existing (mainly grey or media-based) accounts on COVID-19 suggests that, with the exception of those who lost members of their family to the virus, as per June 2020 the main impact of the pandemic derives mainly from the lockdown and mobility restrictions imposed by national/local governments, and the consequence that the subsequent loss of income and purchasing power has on people's food security, in particular the poor. The paper then uses the most prominent advances made recently in the literature on household resilience in the context of food security and humanitarian crises to identify a series of lessons that can be used to improve our understanding of food system resilience and its link to food security in the context of the COVID-19 crisis and other shocks. Those lessons include principles about the measurement of food system resilience and suggestions about the types of interventions that could potentially strengthen the abilities of actors (including policy makers) to respond more appropriately to adverse events affecting food systems in the future.

Land sparing versus land sharing: Moving forward

Abstract: To address the challenges of biodiversity conservation and commodity production, a framework has been proposed that distinguishes between the integration (“land sharing”) and separation (“land sparing”) of conservation and production. Controversy has arisen around this framework partly because many scholars have focused specifically on food production rather than more encompassing notions such as land scarcity or food security. Controversy further surrounds the practical value of partial trade‐off analyses, the ways in which biodiversity should be quantified, and a series of scale effects that are not readily accounted for. We see key priorities for the future in (1) addressing these issues when using the existing framework, and (2) developing alternative, holistic ways to conceptualise challenges related to food, biodiversity, and land scarcity.

Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia?

Abstract: As landscapes change continuously in a more or less chaotic way, the concept of sustainable landscapes could be viewed as a utopian goal. New landscapes emerge with changing life-styles. Decision making for landscape planning, conservation and management use the concept of sustainability widely. To make it operational, many new associated and more specific concepts have been proposed such as natural and social capital, conservation economy and quality of life capital. Most of these are inspired by economic thinking and rarely refer directly to the landscape. This article reviews the background and meaning of these concepts and shows that landscape is not seen here as an integrating, holistic concept. As landscape changes, also its meaning and significance changes and consequently its management.