Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Developing a Tool for Landscape Sustainability Assessment—Using a New Conceptual Approach in Lebanon

Altmetrics

Downloads

94

Views

56

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

31 August 2023

Posted:

04 September 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
In the absence of a holistic view of Landscape Sustainability, credible data and consistent information are needed to help decision making and support adaptive management. However, consolidated tools (system of standards and controls) of assessment exist, but show a complexity of the references on one hand, and are mostly qualitative and environmental indicators based on the other hand. This review article deals with the theme of both environmental and landscape indicators in general, the principles and the fundamental definitions. The main models used, the prerequisites and various fields of application are also taken into consideration. Last but not least, various environmental and landscape indicators are presented and compared.
Keywords: 
Subject: Environmental and Earth Sciences  -   Ecology

1. Introduction

The expression «Landscape» was considered in many disciplines as: environmental sciences, agroecological sciences, socioeconomical sciences, and territorial policies. It is multipurposed [1], thus many theories are applied. Forman and Gordon [2] considered it as an area, geographically wide and correlates with human perception, while the New Oxford American Dictionary defined landscape as the aesthetic appearance, the many visible structures of a territory.
Landscape has a unique value [3] and plays a vital role in one’s health, economy and international reputation. However, it is impacted by Man [4] and shaped over millennia by his activities along with natural processes. Landscape is dynamic and in continuous change [5,6,7]. It is also a tool for integration [8].
The landscape plays a rudimentary role in, and reflects, the environmental, ecological, social and cultural aspects [9] affecting populations. At the same time, it is the result of how a population use and perceive the landscape [6,10]. Landscape develops interactively with human societies occupying it [11], so it became a necessity for everyone to claim their right and responsibility toward landscape protection, management and planning [9].
Landscape is crucial for the quality of life in both urbanscape and ruralscape, in degraded and in high quality scapes, in outstanding beauty scape and in everyday scape.
So «looking after landscape is no longer about preservation ... change can be positive if planned and managed well» [5]. Furthermore, landscape can (i) return broad commodities that are essential to humans like resources (as raw materials, wood or food), (ii) support climate regulation (iii) fulfil aesthetic, recreational and even educational prospects (iv) create conservation opportunities [12].
But to fulfil landscape remit, we need to discuss all landscape facets, starting from Landscape policies, to landscape management planning, providing robust means of measuring sustainability outcomes of landscape, and Landscape assessment systems.

1.1. Landscape Policies and framework

In accordance with the awareness about natural resources, many innovations started to show at the landscape level. It became essential to integrate any agriculture activities, all environmental effects and the rural livelihood outcomes with the landscape [13]. Here arises the need to «Measure» the Landscape and identify actions, thus the need for Landscape policies.
Firstly, when it comes to protecting the landscape, actions are directed toward preserving the distinctive features of this landscape. Differently from when it comes to landscape planning actions, strong progressive actions are needed in this case, to improve, correct or even create landscapes. This is a turning point intended to integrate landscape into the local planning policies, and then into surrounding policies and regional planning.
In other words, policies and activities must take landscape values into account. In Europe for instance, two regulations represent landscape policies [9]: The European Landscape Convention (ELC) and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive. They are meant to regulate any plan or program affecting territorial and landscape plans [14].
More recently, the article 5 of the 11th Council of the Europe (CoE) mentioned that landscapes should be recognized in the law as a drastic component of people’s surroundings. Also, the article 6 entitled implementation of specific measures set out, can establish landscape policies beyond protection and aimed at landscape management and planning.
In the case of Portugal, the Law 80/2015 establishes the necessary measures when it comes to landscape heritage, and takes into account the transactions between private owners of rural areas.
In few words, landscape must be adopted in the territorial management system. it is a key to sustainable living environment and successful territorial policy, yet the role of regional and inter-municipal or municipal spatial plan must be considered on this matter. We recommend (i) the integration of the landscape in policies at both local and regional level, (ii) promoting the value of the landscape and most importantly, (iii) considering and incorporating the landscape in the natural resources and territory management.
Nevertheless, as landscapes are constantly changing, collecting information, identifying and evaluating landscapes can help monitor the evolution of landscapes and their role in the territorial dynamics. To do so, we must consider the different facets of the landscape and identify a method to assess the changing landscape.

1.2. Landscape facets

Landscape is where geography and ecology converge [15], an approach to spatial development [9], the quality of the surroundings of individuals and societies [15]. Landscapes have their own order, rhythm and temporality, different from human life cycles but in relation to them [16]. Landscape shows different dimensions, different themes, different facets. Facets of the landscape were examined by the CoE and some are briefed in Table 1. As per examination of the Council of Europe, landscape shows different facets. It can vary between spatial thinking, to collective spaces and cultural asset, or even awareness, educational and designed landscape.
We mentioned so far the different perceptions of landscape since it is impacted by the society, either directly or indirectly. We also mentioned the perpetual change in the landscape, that can sometimes lead to its degradation, and the need for considering landscape policies to properly improve the landscapes. Still, there is no holistic view of Landscapes nor their Sustainability.
Consolidated tools of assessment are needed to (i) help decision making and (ii) support adaptive landscape management. Yet, regardless of the complexity of the references, tools to assess the landscape do exist, but the existing tools are mostly qualitative and environmental indicators based.
We will describe and discuss in the below sections, the relevant philosophies about landscape sustainability and assessment, the main models, prerequisites and the various fields of application.

2. Materials and methods

We reviewed papers published in international scholarly & peer-reviewed publication indexed by USEK library search engine, from January 2012 to December 2022, with the focus on articles examining the use and development of landscape indicators, and how they can be weight and aggregated.
We considered a key term literature review and adopted «Landscape indicators», «Landscape Sustainability» and «Landscape assessment» from Sowińska-Świerkosz [17]. These key terms were allied by «or» to take account of all commonly used designations for landscape indicators, landscape indicators type and landscape indicators development. We also combined to our search, the term «tools» to end up with the following key search: «((«LANDSCAPE INDICATOR» OR «LANDSCAPE SUSTAINABILITY» OR «LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT») AND («TOOLS»))».
This review was limited to disciplines as Agriculture, Architecture, Ecology, and Environmental Sciences. Most results were relevant to tool applied in land changes, environmental indicators and agriculture. While our aim was mainly on landscape indicators, their use, their development and participation in tools of assessment.
This methodology was adapted from Moher et al. [18] and described in Table 2. Only 171 articles were identified from the search. Each result was evaluated to compile recent literature and relevance to the use and development of landscape indicator, as a tool for landscape quality and sustainability.
Accordingly, 110 articles were excluded for being non-relevant about sustainability tools, landscape sustainability, landscape indicators or not accessible. No duplicates were noticed. 10 additional articles were also identified from other sources. After excluding non-relevant articles, 71 articles were identified as relevant to our research objectives.

3. Results

Landscape is starting to be included in the policies themes and in the assessment framework. Still, there is a lack in tools adopting landscape indicators and only 71 were articles were relevant to our research objectives: sustainability, tools of assessment, landscape sustainability assessment and landscape indicators.
To this matter, we will present firstly what is sustainability and then emphasize on measuring sustainability outcomes, and focus on landscape level sustainability assessments.

3.1. Meaning of Sustainability

Two perspectives on sustainability concept are commonly known in the field of sustainable development and environment literature [19]. The first considers sustainability as an aspirational rather than a state [19], in the sense that sustainability is the «direction towards the goal», and not measured in absolute terms [20,21], while the second considers sustainability as «an achievement». In this second case, sustainability is well-defined and can be measured with the use of particular criteria and defined indicators [22,23].
Remarkably, the two mentioned perspectives consider the definition of sustainability as the «three pillar concept» i.e. consider at a time, the three dimensions of sustainability: social, economic and environment [24,25].

3.2. Sustainability assessment approaches and tools

Sustainability assessment is a process [24], that help decision-makers and policy makers to reach sustainability, and decide what should or should not be made to reach a more sustainable society [26,27]. Shortly, Sustainability assessment provides decision makers with integrative environmental – social systems [27]. It considers micro and macroscales to anticipate the short and long term implications of a proposed project, a suggested plan or intended policy [28].
In other terms, it is a dynamic process that considers alternative trajectories to prioritize sustainable actions at a particular time and place [29]. To assess sustainability, there is a wide range of approaches and tools, depending on the context and scale of analysis [30] and they were discussed by Buytaert et al. [31]. Some of the commonly used sustainability assessment approaches and tools are briefed in Table 3.

3.3. Landscape sustainability assessment

To define Landscape sustainability, we should firstly consider the landscape-specific ecosystem service on a long term run. Secondly, the landscape must be able to constantly provide services that are essential to maintain and improve human well-being [35].
But regardless of the absence of common methods for (and indicators of) assessments, and despite the heterogeneity of the approaches, landscape sustainability assessment offered great opportunities to be adopted in new policies or to renew political and planning culture.
The first sustainability assessment used in this regard, was the Environmental Impact Assessment EIA for intervention projects, and reinvented as Strategic Environmental Assessment SEA for territorial programs and landscape programs with an effect on the environment [36]. This latest showed importance in strategic decisions on plans, policies, and programs but unfortunately, it remains mostly voluntary for the landscape approach [36]. Brief descriptions and details about both of these tools, in addition to other environment and landscape sustainability assessment tools, are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5.
Most tools known about general sustainability and Landscape sustainability were based on qualitative approaches. We noticed a diversity of uses, going from adaptive, transformative to managerial and development but, none of the tools was holistic.
While sustainability at agriculture level greatly inspired our research into landscape indicators. this is the case of FSA (Known in French as IDEA or Indicateurs de Durabilité des Exploitations Agricoles) that, as other Agri-based policies and quantitative assessments, establishes the multipurposing use of agriculture and attributes the significance of ecological values, in addition to scenic and recreational value of the rural landscape [37].
Nevertheless, our interest in this study emphasis on the use of landscape indicator-based assessments, as is the case of SEA. However, there is a need for quantitative formalization of the landscape, without excluding the qualitative part. According to Fisher [38], landscape plans in Germany were prepared to be used as a state of the environment and help defining development objectives.
It is only since the mid-1990s that landscape plans were used, in parallel to land use plans, to identify and overcome potential impacts [29,37]. Still, achieving landscape sustainability entails persistent corrections, as a result to changing societal priorities [19].

3.4. Defining landscape indicators and their arising need

The need for landscape indicators (LIs) resulted from the necessity to evaluate and monitor the various landscape aspects and their interconnection nature – human over time, since landscape the interaction between the different social aspects of a population, and a geographical area [42]. But the different components of the landscape trace a specific identity, and subject it to considerable pressure. LIs are thus vital tools in identifying the qualities, criticalities of a particular area [10], and single features that express landscape change over space or time [39].
However, covering all landscape facets (so called dimensions of a landscape), needs interdisciplinary approach, that is a rarity in the previous studies, where most published papers focused only on one or two dimension. Also, most landscape assessments using indicators, relied on the ecological indicators, that differ greatly from (LIs).
Even though transferable (not universal), LIs are favored by landscape characters (related to the characteristics of an area) as mentioned by Wascher [39] and are an ideal reference of assessment and monitoring [43]. In that, they provide decision makers and restoration practitioners with a greater understanding of modifying landscape patterns [44].
Considered as indexes – numerical values based – LIs have quantifiable characteristics [45] allowing a large set of data to be minimized to a simple measure [46]. Like all indicators and indices that were developed to measure sustainable development [47], LIs are used in key international sustainability, particularly in landscape sustainability studies [48,49].

3.5. Relevant landscape indicators and categorization

Differently from ecological indicators that use field observations, landscape indicators emphasis on land cover [44], landscape character [45], aspects of landscape perception, and can define social perception [46]. Most importantly, they take into consideration the objective and subjective approach of landscape [50].
Also, indicators and indices developed for sustainable agriculture, were applicable to landscape sustainability studies, but remain copious and difficult to measure [19] especially that landscape is interpreted as a scheme of eco-mosaics with a perceptive and identity realm. Therefore, we should merge to the sustainability indicators mentioned above, with historic [51], visual - social perceptions indicators [52], and land use indicators [53], to be able to explain all landscape facets, and meet the current study objectives.
Literature reveals available landscape indicator sets and summarized in Table 6, and provides a categorization of indicators. According to Valánszki [54], their number is limitless and only few studies explain how they can be used [52], and whether the measurement is quantitative or qualitative, with a stress on the choice of appropriate landscape indicators [45,55].
The Landscape Observatory of Catalonia (CLoT) for example, proposed a set of indicators that measure the physical changing of the landscape, the social perception, and the implementation of landscape policies [56]. Other sets, dealt with only one aspect [39].
In general, indicators that describe well the landscape, particularly the characterization of landscape, are well studied in Europe [52], particularly for the rural landscape. The objectives here were to evaluate the effects of agricultural policies, favoring land use and ecological aspects, discarding landscape related indicators, and ignoring urban and cultural landscapes.
In the following, the categories used in the main European studies, in the common models of landscape quality, and those elaborated by the Landscape Observatory of Catalonia will be presented.

3.6. Landscape indicators in the European studies

The practical use of landscape indicators is becoming familiar in European assessments [55]. The interest relies on two main points: (i) the large diversity of landscape characteristic in a specific region (ii) landscape-related concepts increasingly expressed by policy institutes.
Several countries followed the European countries and developed advanced methods to trace policies and land use mapping, but landscape indicators were still not well adopted. Although, several technics were developed and now commonly used in determining landscape structure (case of Geographic Information System GIS), mostly in countries that implemented Landscape Character Assessments [55].

3.7. The four indicators sets of performance

The Center for International Forestry Research CIFOR prepared a simple set of four groups of indicators of performance [19]. They can be applied across landscapes at different scales.
According to Baral and Holmgren [19], « If all four of these are stable or improving, then we are making progress to meet sustainability targets », and using indicators from each of these groups, can together assess landscape performance to stakeholders, decision makers, land owners and policy makers. Applicable to any landscape system, this framework defined sustainability measures in landscape in order to identify whether a landscape is sustainably managed, or yet any changes are needed to reach landscape sustainability.

3.8. Selection of indicators by Landscape Observatory of Catalonia CLoT

Ten indicators were developed by CLoT creating a basic proposal for landscape quality defined for Catalonia [56], as a reduced list to guarantee their effectiveness (Table 7).

3.9. Case studies from Netherland, Italian and English landscapes

Landscapes in the mind set of Netherland, Italian and English studies are not reduced to a physical aspect that can be measured, analyzed, monitored, or mapped. It is a human being relation to his environment through beliefs, emotions and senses. This explains the objective or physical qualities of a landscape in correlation with the subjective perceptual and sensory qualities [57].
The qualitative participation in the Netherlands was based on Landscape appreciation and perception [58]. Using the Scales for Landscape Perception and Assessment SLPA methodology, the description by the public was adopted to explain all social, physical and functional factors that influence them [59]. The outcome was the « seven qualities of landscape »: unity, functional organization, possibility of using landscape for own activities, historical character, natural character, spatial dimensions and sense impressions.
From the Italian perspective, landscape is also considered as what is perceived by the population, and results from natural factors and human action in a given area. Italian landscape indicators for sustainable management only became consolidated with the new cultural context of the ELC [60].
What was just mentioned in the Netherland and Italian methodology is unlikely to the regulatory of UK environmental standards, that monitors against a set of indicators designated criteria. However, they were able to develop 158 « emerging indicators » for future monitoring at landscape scale [61].

4. Discussions

This study firstly showed the increasing interest in landscape-related concepts and adoption in policies, and landscape indicators can be developed to help assessing the sustainability of landscapes. They are a non-conventional approach that can be developed at local, national and regional scales.
Large sets of landscape indicators do exist, but a holistic approach for assessing sustainability of landscapes is still missing. It also might be difficult to select indicators aimed at managing and monitoring the landscape, but it is crucial to select a new set of non-conventional indicators, that can (i) take into account visual and social indicators (ii) express qualitative and quantitative values and (iii) give a holistic overview on the different landscape dimensions.
The interest in the European landscape assessment approach relied mainly on the similarity in the diversity of landscapes with the country of this current study, Lebanon. Unlikely, there is a gap in the studies about Lebanese landscapes and their sustainability and assessment. They were only mentioned in the National Master Plan of Lebanese Territory NPMLT, that underlines the most important Landscapes of Lebanon and emphasis on the importance of being « a part of a general policy » [62].
No more than this was found. And Lebanon – a full voting member in the United Nations General Assembly since 1945 has established several international agreements and ratifications in this course (Table 8), but mostly related and within the framework of sustainable development and resources conservation of Lebanese Terrestrial Landscapes.
Most agreements are used at either territory or reserve level. In the first case, agreements are meant for preservation or protection purposes while in the second case, for management purposes. An exceptional national commitment for Sustainable development goals SDGs must be highlighted, since Integrated Landscape Management is applied.
Nevertheless, the Lebanese 130/2019 law reinforces the establishment of new protected landscapes (Table 9). Considered as an essential pillar of development policy and ecotourism, the law 130/2019 consists of 23 articles aiming the prevention and protection of the natural areas in Lebanon. Five main categories are observed while no clear consideration to landscape integration, rehabilitation or enhancement.
Community contribution is highlighted in the above table, mainly in the Hima category, where protection and management of site is initiated from the community. The different existing laws haven’t yet mention landscape preservation. However, with citizens’ participation, the Lebanese state can enhance, classify and protect landscapes.
Last but not least, we must underline the drastic need for a reference to the value of Lebanese landscapes, both in urban and rural areas, defining all landscape strategic framework. Preserving the landscape suggested hereby, goes for preservation of the visual identity and the genuineness of the natural and built landscapes of Lebanon.

5. Conclusion

Many issues have been raised, including the increasing interest in landscape-related concepts and the need to adopt them in territorial and management policies. Also, in the presence of different tools, a complexity of reference is shown with a chaotic fields of application. Yet, most approaches are qualitative and environmental indicators based.
Therefore, to objectively and quantitatively assess landscape sustainability, arise a need for a new tool, based on new adaptive set of indicators.
Landscape indicators showed the best reference to landscape sustainability, and on different scales. Some of the large sets of indicators can be adopted to the Lebanese landscape indicators, but an adaptive method should be applied. That’s why, what is offered so far as landscape indicators, can be a good example for Lebanese Landscape Indicators (LLIs), to provide clear signs of the success or failure of proposed project or policies and guiding decision-makers to prioritize the landscape. They must communicate clearly and precisely about the features of landscape to the citizens of Lebanon, in order to facilitate and improve their understanding.
Accordingly, a mixed and holistic methodology will be applied and different data types will be needed to fully contribute to the identification of landscapes, furthering the knowledge of existing challenges and relate further to conservation, management and planning.
One must know that Lebanese Landscapes show variability in characteristics, in physical aspects and in functional requirements, they present a unique visual identity and a genuine natural and built landscapes. They are an exceptional scenic reprieve in an integrative community, worthy not only management and design, but also worthy conservation.
Last but not least, the development of a non-conventional and holistic assessment of landscape sustainability is widely needed. Landscape indicators are the main component for the success and further studies will follow to ensure the development of this tool, and further enhancement.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Talento, K.; Amado, M.; Kullberg, J.C. Landscape—A Review with a European Perspective. Land 2019, 8, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Forman, R.T.; Godron, M. Landscape Ecology; John Wiley and Sons Ltd.: New York, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gerber, J.-D.; Hess, G. From Landscape Resources to Landscape Commons: Focussing on the Non-Utility Values of Landscape. International Journal of the Commons 2017, 11, 708–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Aziz, A.; Anwar, M. Landscape Change and Human Environment. Environment, Earth and Ecology 2019, 3, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Biodiversity Route Map to 2020 - Final Report https://www.nature.scot/doc/biodiversity-route-map-2020-final-report.
  6. Hedblom, M.; Hedenås, H.; Blicharska, M.; Adler, S.; Knez, I.; Mikusiński, G.; Svensson, J.; Sandström, S.; Sandström, P.; Wardle, D. A. Landscape Perception: Linking Physical Monitoring Data to Perceived Landscape Properties. Landscape Research 2019, 45, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Antrop, M. Sustainable Landscapes: Contradiction, Fiction or Utopia? Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 75, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pinto-Correia, T. Landscape Identity, a Key for Integration. In Landscape - Our Home, Pedroli, B. Ed.; Freies Geistesleben/Indigo, Stuttgart/Zeist, 2000; pp.145-150, ISBN-13: 978-9060384909.
  9. The European Landscape Convention: Challenges of Participation; Jones, M., Stenseke, M., Jones, M., Eds.; Landscape Ser.; 2011; Vol. 13.
  10. Bruni, D. Landscape Quality and Sustainability Indicators. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 2016, 8, 698–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Förster, F.; Grossmann, R.; Iwe, K.; Kinkel, H.; Larsen, A.; Lungershausen, U.; Matarese, C.; Meurer, P.; Nelle, O.; Robin, V.; Teichmann, M. ; What is Landscape? Towards a Common Concept within an Interdisciplinary Research Environment. eTOPOI 2012, 3, 169–179. [Google Scholar]
  12. Baral, H.; Keenan, R. J.; Sharma, S. K.; Stork, N. E.; Kasel, S. Economic Evaluation of Ecosystem Goods and Services under Different Landscape Management Scenarios. Land Use Policy 2014, 39, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Defining Integrated Landscape Management for Policy Makers, https://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/10/IntegratedLandscapeManagementforPolicymakers_Brief_Final_Oct24_2013_smallfile.pdf.
  14. Cassatella, C.; Peano, A. (Eds.). Landscape Indicators. Assessing and Monitoring Landscape Quality. Springer, Dordrecht-HeidelbergLondon-NewYork, 2011.
  15. Freitas, S. R. de. Landscape: where geography and ecology converge. Holos Environment 2003, 3, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sütünç, H. Dimensions of the Landscape. In Advances in Scientific Research: Engineering and Architecture; St. Kliment Phrodski University Press, 2020; pp. 72-78.
  17. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B.; Michalik-Śnieżek, M. The Methodology of Landscape Quality (LQ) Indicators Analysis Based on Remote Sensing Data: Polish National Parks Case Study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moher, D. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 2009, 151, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Baral, H.; Holmgren, P. A framework for measuring sustainability outcomes for landscape investments, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. 2015. [CrossRef]
  20. Bell, S. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?; 2008. [CrossRef]
  21. Pollesch, N.; Dale, V. H. Applications of Aggregation Theory to Sustainability Assessment. Ecological Economics 2015, 114, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dahl, A. L. Achievements and Gaps in Indicators for Sustainability. Ecological Indicators 2012, 17, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moldan, B.; Janoušková, S.; Hák, T. How to Understand and Measure Environmental Sustainability: Indicators and Targets. Ecological Indicators 2012, 17, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hacking, T.; Guthrie, P. A Framework for Clarifying the Meaning of Triple Bottom-Line, Integrated, and Sustainability Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2008, 28, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mori, K.; Christodoulou, A. Review of Sustainability Indices and Indicators: Towards a New City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2012, 32, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. How Green Is the City?: Sustainability Assessment and the Management of Urban Environments; Devuyst, D., Ed.; 2001.
  27. Ness, B.; Urbel-Piirsalu, E.; Anderberg, S.; Olsson, L. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics 2007, 60, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pope, J.; Annandale, D.; Morrison-Saunders, A. Conceptualizing sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2004, 24, 595–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dale, V. H.; Efroymson, R. A.; Kline, K. L.; Langholtz, M. H.; Leiby, P. N.; Oladosu, G. A.; Davis, M. R.; Downing, M. E.; Hilliard, M. R. Indicators for Assessing Socioeconomic Sustainability of Bioenergy Systems: A Short List of Practical Measures. Ecological Indicators 2013, 26, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Acosta-Michlik, L.; Lucht, W.; Bondeau, A.; Beringer, T. Integrated Assessment of Sustainability Trade-Offs and Pathways for Global Bioenergy Production: Framing a Novel Hybrid Approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011, 15, 2791–2809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Buytaert, V.; Muys, B.; Devriendt, N.; Pelkmans, L.; Kretzschmar, J. G.; Samson, R. Towards Integrated Sustainability Assessment for Energetic Use of Biomass: A State of the Art Evaluation of Assessment Tools. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011, 15, 3918–3933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wood, C. Environmental Impact Assessment: A comparative Review, 2nd ed.; Longman, Harlow.
  33. Briquel, v.; Vilain, L.; Bourdais, J.L.; Girardin, P.; Mouchet, C.; Viaux, P. La méthode IDEA (indicateurs de durabilité des exploitations agricoles) : une démarche pédagogique. Ingénieries eau-agriculture-territoires 2001, 25, p–29. [Google Scholar]
  34. Leverington, F.; Hockings, M.; Pavese, H.; Lemos Costa, K.; Courrau, J. Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas – A global study. Supplementary report No.1: Overview of approaches and methodologies. The University of Queensland, Gatton, IUCN WCPA, TNC, WWF, AUSTRALIA, 2008.
  35. Wu, J. Landscape Sustainability Science: Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being in Changing Landscapes. Landscape Ecology 2013, 28, 999–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment - Annual report 2020 https://www.eia.nl/annualreport2020/.
  37. Peano, A.; Cassatella, C. Landscape Assessment and Monitoring. Landscape Indicators 2011, 1, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fischer, T. The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment Towards a More Systematic Approach, Earthscan Publications Ltf, London, 2007.
  39. European Landscape Character Areas – Typologies, Cartography and Indicators for the Assessment of Sustainable Landscapes. Wascher, D.M. Ed., Final Project Report as deliverable from the EU’s Accompanying Measure project European Landscape Character Assessment Initiative (ELCAI), funded under the 5th Framework Programme on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development, 2005.
  40. Download LAF’s Guide to Evaluate Landscape Performance https://mailchi.mp/lafoundation/landscape-performance-guidebook.
  41. Institute, L. L.; I.E.M.A. Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; Routledge, 2013.
  42. Antrop, M. Geography and landscape science. Belgeo 2000, 1-2-3-4, 9-36. [CrossRef]
  43. Vallega, A. Indicatori per il Paesaggio, 1st ed.; FrancoAngeli: Milan, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  44. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. UMRR Upper Mississippi River Restoration; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Illinois, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ode, Å.; Tveit, M. S.; Fry, G. Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators: Touching Base with Landscape Aesthetic Theory. Landscape Research 2008, 33, 89–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B.; Michalik-Śnieżek, M. Landscape indicators as a tool of assessing landscape quality, In E3S Web of Conferences, 2020, vol. 171. [CrossRef]
  47. Mitchell, G. Problems and fundamentals of sustainable development indicators. Sustainable Development 1996, 4, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nogué, S.; Rull, V.; Vegas-Vilarrúbia, T. Modeling Biodiversity Loss by Global Warming on Pantepui, Northern South America: Projected Upward Migration and Potential Habitat Loss. Climatic Change 2009, 94, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. The European Landscape Convention - Council of Europe Landscape Convention - www.coe.int https://www.coe.int/en/web/landscape/the-european-landscape-convention.
  50. Weinstoerffer, J.; Girardin, P. Assessment of the Contribution of Land Use Pattern and Intensity to Landscape Quality: Use of a Landscape Indicator. Ecological Modelling 2000, 130, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Volpiano, M. Indicators for the assessment of historic landscape features. In Landscape Indicators – Assessing and Monitoring Landscape quality, Cassatella, C., Peano, A., Eds.; Springer, Netherlands, 2011; pp. 77-104.
  52. Cassatella C. & Voghera A. Indicators used for landscape. In Landscape Indicators – Assessing and Monitoring Landscape quality, Cassatella, C., Peano, A., Eds.; Springer, Netherlands, 2011; pp. 31-46.
  53. Bottero, M. Indicators assessment systems. In Landscape Indicators – Assessing and Monitoring Landscape quality, Cassatella, C., Peano, A., Eds.; Springer, Netherlands, 2011; pp. 31-46.
  54. Valánszki, I. .; Ágnes S. A landscape indicator-system for sustainable landscape management. Journal of Landscape Architecture and Garden Art 2017, 46, 44–50. [Google Scholar]
  55. Wascher, D. Landscape-indicator development: steps towards a European approach. The new dimensions of the European Landscapes 2004, 4, 237–252. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sala, P. Els indicadors de paisatge de Catalunya. In Indicadors de paisatge. Reptes i perspectives, Nogué, J., Puigbert, L., Bretcha, G., Eds. ; Olot: andscape Observatory of Catalonia; Barcelona, 2009; pp. 110-131, ISBN: 978-84-613-1327-3.
  57. Pelitero, A. The phenomenological experience of the visual landscape. Research in Urbanism Series 2011, 2, 57–71. [Google Scholar]
  58. Farjon, H.; van der Wulp, N.; Crommentuijn, L. Monitoring program of perception and appreciation of landscapes in the Netherlands. In, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  59. Coeterier, J. F. Dominant Attributes in the Perception and Evaluation of the Dutch Landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 1996, 34, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Malcevschi, S.; Poli, G. Indicatori per il paesaggio in Italia. Raccolta di esperienze, CATAP Coordinamento Associazioni tecnico-scientifiche per l’Ambiente ed il Paesaggio. Available online: http://www. catap.eu/CATAP_Rapporto%20Indicatori%20Paesaggio.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2022).
  61. Horswill, E.; Martin, J.; Guy, J. A. Establishing a Functional Framework for Monitoring Protected Landscapes; with a Case Study of English Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Ecological Indicators 2020, 119, 106806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. CDR - National physical master plan https://www.cdr.gov.lb/en-US/Studies-and-reports/National-physical-master-plan.aspx.
  63. https://cil.nus.edu.sg/databasecil/1992-convention-on-biological-diversity/ https://cil.nus.edu.sg/databasecil/1992-convention-on-biological-diversity/.
  64. Heritage Centre, U. W. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/.
  65. Changbaishan Biosphere Reserve, China https://www.unesco.org/en/mab/changbaishan-biosphere-reserve-china.
  66. Convention on Climate change 2015, updated in 2020. Unfccc.int. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement (accessed 2023-08-2).
  67. National Action Program to Combat Desertification. Available online: https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/naps/lebanon-eng2003.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2023).
  68. Land Degradation Neutrality of Mountain Landscapes in Lebanon. Available online: https://www.undp.org/lebanon/projects/land-degradation-neutrality-mountain-landscapes-lebanon-0 (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  69. Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://lebanon.un.org/en/sdgs (accessed on 12 July 2023).
  70. The Forest and Landscape Restoration Mechanism. Available online: https://www.fao.org/in-action/forest-landscape-restoration-mechanism/our-work/countries/lebanon/ar/ (accessed on 26 April 2023).
Table 1. Facets of the landscape.
Table 1. Facets of the landscape.
Facets of the landscape Description Referencing CoE expert
1.
 
 Urban, suburban & peri-urban landscapes where the city is considered through spatial thinking as a whole, and integration with the landscape will be held vertically and horizontally Bruns D.
2.
 
 Road landscapes are collective spaces with a character of their own, hosting daily life and creating positive scenery through valuable landscapes Echániz I.
3.
 
 Tree-lined avenues in the landscape are landscape feature and cultural asset meriting conservation, relevant to offering safety, improving the landscape and the avenue climate Pradines C., Association «Trees and Roads»
4.
 
 European local landscape circle studies are analytical studies of 7-steps where groups or individuals can analyze their landscape and be aware of change in their landscape, and thus participate in the process O’Regan T.
5.
 
 Landscape and education for children is education on general aspects of the landscape applied in primary and secondary schools Castiglioni B.
6.
 
 Training of landscape architects recommendations on curricula and educational structures, combining natural and social sciences with skills in planning and landscape design Sarlöv-Herlin I., European Council of Landscape Architecture Schools
7.
 
 Landscapes and ethics instrument for regulation of social relations, and protection rights in landscape management and preservation Kuleshova M. & Semenova T.
Table 2. Methodology adopted for the search review.
Table 2. Methodology adopted for the search review.
Identification Screening Included
From search From other sources Duplication removal Search result excluded Reason to exclude Qualitative synthesis
171 10 181 screened 0 duplicates 50 No tools data 71
20 No landscape indicator
15 No landscape data
10 Not accessible
9 Not related to sustainability of landscapes
5 No landscape policies data
Table 3. Common tools of assessment: context and scale of analysis.
Table 3. Common tools of assessment: context and scale of analysis.
Common tools Context Scale of analysis References
(i) EIA Environmental Impact Assessment Before decisions are taken Sites or processes [32]
(ii) FSA Farm Sustainability Assessment Self-assessed Farm [33]
(iii) METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool Scorecard questionnaire Protected area [34]
Table 4. Common tools of assessment of General Sustainability: description and use.
Table 4. Common tools of assessment of General Sustainability: description and use.
Tools Brief description Use Qualitative/Quantitative Reference
EIA Environmental impact Assessment Environmental decision making that provides all needed information on the expected impacts of projects prior to execution, thus intended to prevent potential negative impacts and propose alternative solutions Facilitate informed and transparent decision-making on whether or not a proposal should be given approval to proceed Qualitative [32]
FSA v4 Farm Sustainability Assessment
(version 4)		 Covering three dimensions of sustainability, IDEA is a 41 sustainability indicators based method, used by farmers in a process of sustainability at farm self-assessment, for possible progress towards increased sustainability Educational, research, farmers, agro-ecological development Qualitative and Quantitative [33]
METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool Scorecard questionnaire on management of protected area to propose rapid adaptation effectiveness and adaptive management Qualitative [34]
Table 5. Some common tools conventionally used in the assessment of particularly Landscape Sustainability.
Table 5. Some common tools conventionally used in the assessment of particularly Landscape Sustainability.
Tools Brief description Use Qualitative/Quantitative Reference
LCA Landscape Character Assessment recognize and classify the uniqueness of a landscape, based on distinctive elements or characteristics, and monitor changes and understand development region-specific and stakeholder orientated, identifying the basic structures of landscape biophysical components and cultivation patterns Qualitative [39]
LPS Landscape Performance Series Propose solutions to reach sustainable landscape, through the platform to help landscape designer and landscape agency weigh performance Transform landscape in design and development process Quantitative [40]
LQ Landscape Quality Relevant to values and direct use of landscape resources Analyzing and combining what the public is perceiving, the opinion of stakeholder, and the requirements proposed by an expert Qualitative [9]
LVIA Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment Help professionals identify impact of new projects on landscape views involved in design of the landscape and subsequent proposals of management Qualitative [41]
SEA Strategical Environmental Assessment Evolution of EIA towards sustainable outcomes, and takes landscape in the account in landscape management, enhance multi-stakeholder dialogues Qualitative & semi-quantitative [38]
Table 6. Categorization of relevant Landscape Indicators LIs according to countries .
Table 6. Categorization of relevant Landscape Indicators LIs according to countries .
Country of origin Methodology Relevant Landscape indicators Uses
Europe Policies establishment Landscape diversity
Landscape quality
Landscape character		 Landscape-related concepts
Asia Four indicators sets of performance Improved landscape livelihoods
Improved ecosystem services
Improved resource efficiency in land use
Supply of food and other products		 Landscape at different scales
Landscape sustainability management
Catalonia Ten indicators Transformation of landscape
Landscape diversity
Landscape fragmentation
Economic value of the landscape
Knowledge of the landscape
Landscape satisfaction
Landscape sociability
Landscape and communication
Public and private action in the field of conservation
Application of instruments of the landscape legislation		 Landscape quality
Netherland Landscape Perception and assessment Unity
Functional organization
Possibility of using landscape for own activities
Historical character
Natural character
Spatial dimensions
Sense impressions		 Landscape appreciation
Landscape perception
Italy European Landscape Character Coherence
Openness
Diversity		 Landscape character
Landscape policy
United Kingdom Emerging indicators Land cover
Cultural pattern 		Future monitoring at Landscape scale
Table 7. Relevant landscape indicators from Landscape Observatory of Catalonia CLoT.
Table 7. Relevant landscape indicators from Landscape Observatory of Catalonia CLoT.
Indicator Brief description
1.
 
 Transformation of landscape Analysis of changes in the natural and cultural characteristics of landscape which alter its value or its appearance
2.
 
 Landscape diversity Evolution of the richness of landscape configurations.
3.
 
 Landscape fragmentation The result of a process of breaking and splitting into pieces the continuity of a landscape and its coherence
4.
 
 Economic value of the landscape The capacity of a landscape to convert its features into productive resources of diverse economic value
5.
 
 Knowledge of the landscape The level of recognition and interaction with the landscape which a given population experiences
6.
 
 Landscape satisfaction The level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their landscape of the population living in a given area
7.
 
 Landscape sociability Makes it possible to ascertain social relations in its widest sense in relation to the landscape and generated by the landscape
8.
 
 Landscape and communication Approximation to the communicative dimension of the landscape
9.
 
 Public and private action in the field of conservation Monitoring public policies and private actions in the field of landscape conservation, management and planning
10.
 
 Application of instruments of the landscape legislation Evaluating instruments such as landscape catalogues or guidelines real contribution to public policies in landscape conservation, management and planning
Table 8. International agreements that apply to the Lebanese Terrestrial Landscapes.
Table 8. International agreements that apply to the Lebanese Terrestrial Landscapes.
Agreement Publishing by Lebanese Government Brief Description Use Reference
1.
 
 National Physical Master Plan of the Lebanese Territory Decree 2009 defines the principles of developments of territory and proposes facilities and sites of planned activities Territory [62]
2.
 
 Convention on Biological Diversity Ratification 1994 Law 360 sustainably use BD and develop national strategies and action plans Reserve [63]
3.
 
 UNESCO Convention on Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage Adhesion in 1990 Law 19 Identification, protection and preservation Reserve [64]
4.
 
 The UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program Develop and strengthen models of sustainable development, communicate experiences and lessons learned Biosphere reserve [65]
5.
 
 Convention on Climate change 2015, updated in 2020 Adhesion Reducing greenhouse gas concentrations to avoid manmade interference with the climate system Territory [66]
6.
 
 Convention on Combat Desertification Ratification 1996 strategic and technical recommendations for mitigating the impact of desertification Territory [67]
7.
 
 Land Degradation Neutrality Initiative the implementation of sustainable land management practices and institutional and legislative measures Territory [68]
8.
 
 Sustainable development goals National commitments Accomplishing the SDGs with Integrated Landscape Management Territory [69]
9.
 
 Forest and landscape restoration Initiative encouraging an integrated landscape management restoring resources and services provided by the landscape Forest [70]
Table 9. The protected areas in the Lebanese Law.
Table 9. The protected areas in the Lebanese Law.
Category Description Party involved Legal instrument
1.
 
 Nature Reserves (Mihmiyat) A terrestrial or marine zone created to conserve an ecosystem or endemic species Supervised by Ministry of Environment MoE Law
2.
 
 Natural Sites and Monuments An area encompassing sites of natural or cultural importance Protected by MoE Decree
3.
 
 Protected Forests Protected sites by decision of Ministry of Agriculture MoA Law 85 / 1991
4.
 
 Protected sites (Hima) Managed and assorted by Community by decision of Ministry of Agriculture MoA Municipal Decision
5.
 
 Natural Parks A partially inhabited rural territory, with exceptional natural and cultural heritage, with the combined «strict conservation» and «sustainable use» system applied Under the supervision of Ministry of Environment MoE Law 130/2019
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated