Talk:Integrated landscape management

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles

Environment

This environment-related redirect is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles

Urban studies and planning

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles

[Untitled][edit]

Having read the Wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest, I declare a COI in that I'm doing freelance work for the NGO Global Canopy Programme (GCP), which is one of the five organisations that published one reference used in the article.Hazel Gough (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I suggest that landscape-scale conservation could potentially be merged into integrated landscape management. The landscape-scale conservation page is relatively minimalist in terms of focus (predominantly UK/Europe focused), with limited resources. The page does not clearly show the real uptake or importance of landscape-scale conservation as an approach.Hazel Gough (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, given the page content suggests a different focus for each of the pages; these are distinct and independently notable concepts. Klbrain (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Landscape-scale conservation is an independently notable application of integrated landscape management. Trialpears 21:46, 18 April 2019
Oppose, the discussion has been continuing in other areas but still seems current. The topic indeed seems separately notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has problems[edit]

Sorry to always be so critical! This article is problematic -not saying it has no validity to exist- but it needs help. I first just wanted to clean up the prose, but after going through 10 of the sources, here's the thing: besides Scherr, no one uses the terminology ILM! So we have Wikipedia saying Reed et al. and CIFOR's "integrated landscape approach", CIFOR's "sustainable landscapes", Indonesia's Nawacita development goals or the Core Environment Program's "ecosystem-based adaptation" approach (including transboundary landscape management of it's "Transboundary Biodiversity Landscapes") in the Mekong Delta region are ILM, but there is no evidence for this. See table 1 in Reed et al. Many of these programs existed before Scherr came up with the terminology. In the case of CEP's EbA, it is patently different, focussing on environmental conservation, not including rural development. A solution could be to rename this article "Landscape conservation" and rewrite it in general terms. Or maybe "Integrated landscape conservation" to restrict it to approaches that specifically include rural development? Either that, or get rid of everything not specifically using this terminology, otherwise it is misleading to ascribe all these slightly similar concepts to ILM. Respectfully, Leo Breman (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the most widely-used term for this is Landscape-scale conservation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so contrarian regarding the discussion above, but that does seem more universal, with Google finding mostly British webpages for me, but also a few from Germany & the USA -and a wide variety of organisations use that terminology. And that title doesn't suffer from the branding promotion inherent to this. Then, my suggestion would be to have a section "different approaches", "approaches", "individual approaches" or something. Then we can have subsections "United Kingdom" for the British stuff, "ILM" for Scherr's stuff, and maybe just "Other" for the rest. Also there needs to be a section on "Criticisms" - Reed et al. mention two pertinent ones we are glossing over here -win-win outcomes ("synergies" in Scherr's terminology) are often not achieved, and all the fancy terminology and well-made promotional folders are really just a way of attracting donor funding (obvious, but needs mention). Another criticism could also be the confusion of terminologies (mentioned here as a "barrier" in Scherr's terminology). Lastly, many of the references are in a journal template, but are actually not peer-reviewed studies, merely press releases, magazine articles or promotional folders.

Scherr's body of work has not been entirely consistent. One of the case studies in her first work about "ecoagriculture" (Common Dreams or something), for example, is the worldwide vaccination program which has rendered rinderpest extinct (advantageous biodiversity loss, hehe), on the basis it had "synergies" in saving pastoralists much trouble while at the same time saving wild ruminants from possible vectors (domestic cattle) of disease: fair enough, only I do not see how landscapes are really saved or impacted here. Leo Breman (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your plan for Landscape-scale conservation seems very sensible ... there is (as you can see from the bluelink) a short article there already, not much more than a stub (underlinked, undercited), so it can probably blend in with your plan without too much trouble. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Breman - I understand correctly that you are going to merge Integrated landscape management into Landscape-scale conservation? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? I thought you said it seemed like a good idea above. I'm almost done there: I want to reorganise the sections into subsections and alphabetically. And I want to add a nice citation for the UK about extensive grazing landscapes & government subsidies for landscape preservation I read a month ago. There is still a big chunk of uncited stuff in the lede, maybe after the two are merged it can be gotten rid of for something from here or in that book I left at the talk page. Otherwise there are more than enough references out there to construct something proper, fide the Google search above. Leo Breman (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good. Looking forward to seeing the merged article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done over there. So I'll give merging a try then? Never done that before (properly -I screwed up once before). Leo Breman (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

copy-paste-and-adapt any materials from here that will work over there, adding edit comments that you're merging to/from <named article>. Then delete all the text from the source article and replace it with #REDIRECT [[Landscape-scale conservation]]. That's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I did it, can you check if it's kosher? Leo Breman (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]