Human-driven landscape changes strongly influence landscape functionality and aesthetics. While landscape planners have access to biophysical data for decision-making, they often do not have the necessary information about social variables, such as aesthetic tastes, feelings, or functions of a place. Visualizing future landscapes under alternative management scenarios could be a valuable tool for aiding land management decisions. Towards these ends, empirical, quantitative ecological data on vegetation composition, pattern, and processes in a Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site in Israel were integrated into a computerized, 3-D representation of current and future landscapes.

Our objectives were (1) to visualize landscape-shaping processes, such as wildfire, grazing, and species colonization, that can assist managers, planners, and the public to envision the long-term visual significance of management alternatives and (2) to validate the similarity between the 3-D model and reality. The visual model we developed is based on 30 years of scientific knowledge and ecological data describing vegetation processes in Ramat Hanadiv, a case study of ecological conditions and processes relevant to the Mediterranean and other complex ecosystems worldwide.

Before studying the role of the 3-D model in decision-making, validation was performed by comparing ‘current state’ model representation with real-world photos from the perspective of the observer. The model was found to be a valid representation of reality.

Looking to the future, we suggest that the ability to create future landscapes using scientific data can assist to improve decision-making processes, balancing ecological and social needs.

Despite a widely agreed necessity for agroecological transition, there are various substantial constraints that hinder the adoption of alternative, more sustainable, practices. We employ the niche management concept to examine the initial phases of transition in the local wine-growing niche in Israel, or specifically, the replacement of herbicides with the use of cover-crops combined with the practice of mowing of herbaceous growth using specialized trimming machines. Our goal is to uncover the triggers, drivers and agents of change in farming practices within the agroecological system in which it happened, despite entrenched, widely recognized risk perceptions among farmers. The problem-oriented research design revolved around a transdiciplinary team that included ecologists and social scientists. We identified three groups of frontrunners who initiated, developed and sustained the adoption of the more sustainable agricultural practices. The two-year study focused on interviewing vineyard farmers who were transitioning to cover crops, and this qualitative research was paralleled with continuous ecological monitoring. The farmers believed that the risks inherent in the new practice, if any, were preventable and manageable. The transdisciplinary research design, which integrated farmers into the social and ecological research process, further assisted in facilitating a transition by creating a forum for stimulating communication between diverse stakeholders during the transition, increasing trust between actors from the various sectors and identifying key issues of concern (e.g., risk and associated costs) to better align the motives of farmers, wine-makers, and ecologists. The research design may have also contributed to the adoption of a more holistic view of the agroecological system by various stakeholders and the belief that one cultivation method clearly benefits the system, particularly in the long-term. We therefore conclude with key-insights on the role of the research itself in agroecological transition processes.

Driven by the increasing awareness that innovative approaches to solving the problems at hand in our complex human-environment interactions require closer collaboration among scientific disciplines and communities, inter- and transdisciplinary integration is continuously gaining importance in R&D agendas and Research Infrastructure (RI) development strategies. In addition, the complexity and costs of RIs have substantively increased in many realms triggered by technological developments and the need to organize beyond national and continental boundaries. This suggests cross-disciplinary collaborations, sharing and multiple usage of infrastructures. Alignments of infrastructure developments needed for this purpose require a conceptual framework for disciplinary integration suited for identifying common approaches and resulting infrastructure design and service components. We will report on recent advancements in building a common theoretical base between major communities that is – inter alia - underlying the ongoing implementation of the Integrated European Ecosystem, critical zone and socio-ecological Research Infrastructure (eLTER RI). An overview of considered theories on within- and cross-scale interactions and feedback loops will be given and the pathway to the “Whole System Approach for in-situ research on Life Supporting Systems in the Anthropocene” (WAILS) will be presented. We will also expand on the potential of such unifying approach in theory-guided integration and division of tasks amongst related environmental RIs. Expected practical implications are answers to questions like where concretely existing and planned European environmental RIs are challenged to interact in response to common overarching questions, and what practical fora and mechanisms (across RIs) would be needed to bridge the gap between research teams driven (bottom-up) efforts and the centralistic RI design and operations.

The Best Practices Manual for Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) platforms is the product of a four-year audit of existing European LTSER Platforms within the framework of the Horizon 2020 (INFRAIA 2014-2015) sponsored research infrastructure project “Integrated European Long-Term Ecosystem & Socio-Ecological Research Infrastructure (eLTER H2020)”. In particular, Work Package 10, Task 3 (WP10.3) called for “Integration of ecosystem, social and economic data and strategic recommendations for the socio-ecological component of the LTER infrastructure”. This tasked the research team to “verify the efficacy of multiple LTSER platforms as a transdisciplinary research infrastructure” through (1) “meta-analysis of results from a network of LTSER Platforms [to determine if they] can deliver data and information relevant to problem-solving; (2) “screen site metadata for a small number of the most advanced LTSER Platforms provided through VA”; (3) “perform exemplary integrated diagnoses of green/blue infrastructure functionality and indicators of human well-being across the selected platforms”; and (4) provide “practical recommendations for LTSER Platforms, targeted at strengthening the convergence of LTSER Platforms as use case areas for socioecological research across Europe.”

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of how ecological considerations can be integrated into campus strategic and statutory spatial planning. A process of developing ecological objectives and guidelines for inclusion in campus strategic and statutory spatial plans is presented. Design/methodology/approach – This case study introduces a three-phase ecological assessment process developed and applied to the Technion – IIT campus. Ecological considerations are reviewed in multiple campus strategic and spatial plans (primarily in North America and Europe) and in institutional sustainability guidelines; biodiversity and ecosystem service surveys of the campus are conducted and considered with regard to planning; university administrative structures that enable the implementation of ecological planning guidelines are also assessed. Findings – Ecological considerations (biodiversity conservation, habitat preservation and ecosystem integrity) play a relatively minor role in sustainability planning on university campuses. The concepts of connectivity and compactness are applied broadly, but generally refer to social and educational considerations. Physical planning provides an opportunity for integrating ecological priorities into the university’s mission. Research limitations/implications – Some of the insights may not be generalizable, so it is crucial to continue accumulating similar studies. It is crucial, too, to conduct follow-up research, reporting on the ecological outcomes of plan implementation. Practical implications – Ecological stewardship is commensurate with the sustainability commitments of universities. Considering their spatial extent and diverse locations, universities can assume an important role in ecological conservation. Originality/value – Relatively little attention has been given to ecological considerations (biodiversity, ecological integrity and ecosystem services) in campus plans and sustainability documents. This paper suggests how universities can move towards fulfilling a role as ecological stewards through strategic and spatial planning.

Over the past decade, long-term socio-ecological research (LTSER) has been established to better integrate social science research and societal concerns into the goals and objectives of the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network, an established global network of long-term ecological monitoring sites. The Horizon 2020 eLTER project, currently underway, includes as one of its key objectives to evaluate the performance of LTSER platforms. This article reflects part of this evaluation: six LTSER platforms were assessed through site visits of the lead author, coupled with reflections and insights of the platform managers, who are also co-authors. We provide background for the mission and goals of LTSER, then assess the six international LTSER platforms—Baltimore Ecosystem Study LTER, USA; Braila Island LTSER, Romania; Cairngorms LTSER, UK; Doñana LTSER, Spain; Omora Ethnobotanical Park Cape Horn LTER, Chile; and Sierra Nevada LTSER, Spain. While based on a strong theoretical foundation in socio-ecological research, there has been a steep learning curve for scientists applying the concept in practice at LTSER platforms. We show positive impacts that have been achieved, including contributions to policy, land-use planning, and natural resource management. We explain key aspects of LTSER platforms that have proven challenging, including management, interdisciplinary integration, and stakeholder collaboration. We characterize the tensions between top-down desires for network harmonization, bottom-up demands such as local policy relevance, and platform-level constraints such as time and budget. Finally, we discuss challenges, such as local context dominating the character of LTSER platforms, and the fact that scientists are often disincentivized from engaging in transdisciplinary science. Overall, we conclude that while the international network offers important advantages to its members, a more productive balance between local and global goals could be achieved, and members may need to temper their expectations of what the network can and cannot offer at the local level.

Understanding the determinants of natural landscape preferences has attracted theoretical and practical interest. Researchers suggest both universal and particular preferences, with particular preferences correlating with ethnicity, age, gender and other variables. In previous work, we found correlations between political opinions and disciplinary expertise and landscape preferences. In the current research, we evaluate the relationship between landscape preferences and two sets of indices, one defining environmental values orientation (Schultz, 2000), and one characterizing nature relatedness (Nisbet et al. 2009). Using a questionnaire and photo album featuring natural and human-altered landscapes in Israel's Negev Desert Highlands, we queried 425 respondents regarding landscape preferences. Respondents included local residents and tourists, and representatives of diverse ages and economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds. The questionnaire also included two sets of environmental/nature values clarification questions. Results revealed significant correlations between landscape preferences and environmental values, on the one hand, and landscape preferences and some demographic characteristics, on the other. Respondents who identified as biospheric (as opposed to altruistic or egoistic) were strongly associated to landscapes devoid of anthropogenic artifacts (e.g. roads, power lines or agricultural fields). Respondents whose attachment to nature was deemed by the nature-relatedness indices as intellectual in character were drawn to landscapes with no obvious human interventions, as were those whose nature relationship was experiential. On the other hand, those whose nature relationship was more spiritual showed higher preference for landscapes with human settlement. Respondents who were considered anthropocentric had a higher appreciation for agricultural landscapes and lower preference for natural landscapes with no discernible human impact. There were significant differences between Bedouin and Jewish respondents, with Bedouin ranking human (Bedouin) landscapes higher and undisturbed landscapes lower than Jewish respondents. Alternatively, local (non-Bedouin) residents ranked human disturbed landscapes lower than visitors (tourists), who ranked agricultural landscapes with high preference value. The research shows that environmental values and nature relatedness indices may be strong predictors of landscape preferences. Underlying environmental values are correlated to positions in favor of or against human intervention in arid landscapes. Demographic profile (Bedouin or Jewish, tourist or resident) also correlates with landscape preferences. Landscape management decisions will thus depend on potentially contradictory desires to contradictory desires to conserve natural landscapes or to develop tourism targeting visitors from out of the region, who prefer green and developed landscapes despite the desert context.

Since its founding in 1993 the International Long-term Ecological Research Network (ILTER) has gone through pronounced development phases. The current network comprises 44 active member LTER networks representing  700 LTER Sites and ~ 80 LTSER Platforms across all continents, active in the fields of ecosystem, critical zone and socio-ecological research. The critical challenges and most important achievements of the initial phase have now become state-of-the-art in networking for excellent science. At the same time increasing integration, accelerating technology, networking of resources and a strong pull for more socially relevant scientific information have been modifying the mission and goals of ILTER. This article provides a critical review of ILTER's mission, goals, development and impacts. Major characteristics, tools, services, partnerships and selected examples of relative strengths relevant for advancing ILTER are presented. We elaborate on the tradeoffs between the needs of the scientific community and stakeholder expectations. The embedding of ILTER in an increasingly collaborative landscape of global environmental observation and ecological research networks and infrastructures is also reflected by developments of pioneering regional and national LTER networks such as SAEON in South Africa, CERN/CEOBEX in China, TERN in Australia or eLTER RI in Europe. The primary role of ILTER is currently seen as a mechanism to investigate ecosystem structure, function, and services in response to a wide range of environmental forcings using long-term, place-based research. We suggest four main fields of activities and advancements for the next decade through development/delivery of a: (1) Global multi-disciplinary community of researchers and research institutes; (2) Strategic global framework and strong partnerships in ecosystem observation and research; (3) Global Research Infrastructure (GRI); and (4) a scientific knowledge factory for societally relevant information on sustainable use of natural resources.

With an overarching goal of addressing global and regional sustainability challenges, Long Term Socio-Ecological Research Platforms (LTSER) aim to conduct place-based research, to collect and synthesize both environmental and socio-economic data, and to involve a broader stakeholder pool to set the research agenda. To date there have been few studies examining the output from LTSER platforms. In this study we enquire if the socio-ecological research from 25 self-selected LTSER platforms of the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network has produced research products which fulfil the aims and ambitions of the paradigm shift from ecological to socio-ecological research envisaged at the turn of the century. In total we assessed 4983 publically available publications, of which 1112 were deemed relevant to the socio-ecological objectives of the platform. A series of 22 questions were scored for each publication, assessing relevance of responses in terms of the disciplinary focus of research, consideration of human health and well-being, degree of stakeholder engagement, and other relevant variables. The results reflected the diverse origins of the individual platforms and revealed a wide range in foci, temporal periods and quantity of output from participating platforms, supporting the premise that there is a growing trend in socio-ecological research at long-term monitoring platforms. Our review highlights the challenges of realizing the top-down goal to harmonize international network activities and objectives and the need for bottom-up, self-definition for research platforms. This provides support for increasing the consistency of LTSER research while preserving the diversity of regional experiences.

Socio-ecological research, as conducted within the Long Term Ecological Research network in Europe (eLTER), is a relatively young field that studies coupled ecological and social systems to advance solutions for contemporary challenges in human-nature interactions. While many research and applied projects have been launched using a socio-ecological conceptual framework, there are few tested protocols to evaluate the effectiveness of such efforts at meeting their goals, e.g., goals relating to knowledge integration and influence on policy and practice, which distinguish this type of research. We suggest that such socio-ecological research may be conceptualized as an expression of the broader trend in science favoring transdisciplinarity, an approach that calls for research that fuses knowledge and methods from academia, practice, and broader society, with the goal of addressing shared public problems.

We conducted a literature review of definitions of transdisciplinarity, and used these definitions to distill the core characteristics of transdisciplinary research. From these characteristics, we developed a list of guiding questions for conducting a second literature review, this time to select evaluation frameworks deemed suitable for assessing transdisciplinary research whose content was socio-ecological in nature.

The resulting evaluative approaches were categorized into five groups: questionnaire models; mixed methods; staged environmental policymaking process review; the Research Embedment and Performance Profile approach; and case studies. Selected elements from these approaches were compiled and synthesized to create a six-stage framework for the assessment of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary socio-ecological research projects and programs. The framework begins with qualitative analysis, followed by: quantitative analysis; data synthesis and visualization; the use of focus groups to reflect on interim conclusions, and, culmination with a final data synthesis and conclusions customized to the intended audience(s) of the evaluation. We provide an example of testing the first two stages of this framework using two Romanian Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) platforms.