Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

Despite growing recognition of the role of ecosystems in supporting water, energy, and food (WEF) sectors, there is limited research on how ecosystems are defined and operationalised into the WEF Nexus in practice. This article explores how the concept of ecosystems was understood and integrated in the European Union Horizon 2020 project NEXOGENESIS (NXG) that sought to incorporate ecosystems into an expanded WEFE Nexus. Based on semi-structured interviews with the project coordinator and respondents from five case studies in Europe and South Africa, the study identifies lessons learned and insights for future integration of ecosystems into similar projects. The findings reveal that most of the NXG case studies did not explicitly define ecosystems at the outset of the project and instead treated the concept as presumed background knowledge with a variety of interpretations. Ambiguity surrounding ecosystem definitions, overlaps with other sectors, and limited data availability made it challenging to operationalise and integrate ecosystems. This suggests that even a project with explicit aims to incorporate ecosystems into the WEF Nexus can remain limited in defining, measuring, and incorporating them into its work. The lessons learned from the NXG experience are developed into a practical guide for similar projects seeking to incorporate ecosystems into the Nexus. These reflective insights are intended to support future efforts to strengthen the role of ecosystems within Nexus research and practice.

Multifunctionality is increasingly recognized as key to promoting biodiversity and delivering diverse benefits at the landscape level. However, varying interpretations in research and policy create challenges for practical implementation. This study examines how multifunctionality is understood and governed across five landscape types in Sweden: forest, agricultural, coastal and marine, urban, and mountain. By combining a review of scientific and policy literature with insights from policymakers and practitioners, we identify key challenges and opportunities for applying multifunctionality in landscape planning and management. While Swedish authorities support the concept, implementation remains limited due to weak political backing, unclear roles, and lack of coordination across sectors. Addressing conflicting interests and enhancing cross-sectoral governance are essential. The study highlights the need for clearer discourse, stronger tools, and greater attention to collaboration, values, and decision-making processes. The EU Nature Restoration Regulation presents an opportunity to integrate biodiversity and connectivity into spatial planning more effectively.

Ecosystem restoration is crucial for reversing environmental degradation, yet contemporary approaches often frame restoration as a technical, science-driven endeavour, neglecting the social and political processes through which communities mobilise for landscape revitalisation. This paper develops the concept of restorative commoning, which we define as a bottom-up creative process in which communities envision and enact new futures for their landscapes in pursuit of collective thriving. We ground this concept in an ethnographic study of Langholm in Scotland, where local residents organised a landmark community buyout of private land, establishing the Tarras Valley Nature Reserve. Through interviews, participant observations, and transect walks, we analyse how residents engaged with restoration not just as an ecological project but as a social, political, and affective act, redefining relationships with place, community, and ecosystems. Our findings reveal how restorative commoning emerges from grassroots mobilisation, historical solidarity, and supportive policy frameworks, particularly land tenure reforms that enable collective ownership. The Langholm case demonstrates that such ownership acts as a catalyst, transforming reactive resistance into proactive reimagination of landscapes. Beyond ecological outcomes, the process nurtures civic revitalisation, challenging dominant paradigms of privatisation and expert-led restoration. We argue that restorative commoning shifts restoration from a return to past conditions to a forward-looking, collective process of socio-ecological change. The study highlights the need for policies that create enabling conditions for community-led restoration, emphasising the interdependence of ecosystem health and social well-being. By centering local agency, affective ties to place, and democratic governance, restorative commoning offers a pathway for more inclusive and sustainable approaches to landscape revitalisation.

A remarkable programme of land reform through community ownership is unfolding in Scotland. Engaging with themes of experimentation, transformation and direct democracy, an increasing number of land and asset-owning community groups are enacting postcapitalist alternatives to traditional models of private landownership in both rural and urban areas. Although globally the definitions of community property are diverse, Scotland is unusual in creating new forms of property ownership by a community: private ownership that usually refers to legal ownership of title by a company or charitable organisation with a constitutional type tightly defined by Scottish law. This is unlike the ownership of land by municipal organisations and the more traditional commons, both of which are widely found in continental Europe.

The land reform movement in Scotland began with grassroots action driven by insecurity and disempowerment and has been enacted and justified by Scottish Government policy on the grounds of fairness, public good and sustainable development. Community organisations in both rural and urban Scotland have legal rights to buy land and other property (largely buildings, but including assets such as piers, slipways, and river fishing rights), as well as financial support via the Scottish Land Fund. Through a desire to reinvent and reinvigorate ownership of land and assets away from prevailing top-down and elite models, the outcomes of communities taking ownership of land or assets may be considered an important component of a shift towards ‘postcapitalist commons’. However, this raises important questions, both in relation to the process of acquiring land and assets (for example, fairness, legitimacy, conflict), and how the different routes to ownership affect participants’ experiences of collective action and empowerment.

With these points in mind, this chapter explores the lived experiences of people in communities in Scotland that have sought community ownership, to gain deeper understanding of the barriers and opportunities for a future with postcapitalist alternatives to traditional private landownership models. The findings are based on commissioned research that assessed both the effectiveness of community ownership mechanisms and the potential to improve and simplify these mechanisms to enable the expansion of community ownership in Scotland. Through qualitative interviews and workshops with both rural and urban people, this research provides a fresh perspective on the experiences of communities seeking routes to empowerment and collective action through property ownership. 

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are increasingly promoted as responses to interconnected climate, biodiversity, and societal challenges. This report explores what NbS are, clarifies where conceptual confusion arises, and outlines their benefits and limitations, focusing on decision-making, knowledge and justice. The themes in the report were shaped at a workshop held in May 2025 with a newly established NbS network.  

The NbS network, supported by UUniCORN catalyst funding, is investigating how the use of NbS might help mitigate conflicts related to biodiversity protection and natural resource use. Its vision is to develop new research collaborations within UU that contribute to healthy, resilient, and biodiverse landscapes while also meeting diverse societal needs. Insights from network members are featured throughout the report. 

This study explores if and how natural capital approaches can support collaborative landscape governance. We selected six initiatives across the UK that have taken varied approaches to working with natural capital. We assessed how they have articulated, described and valued their landscapes and natural systems, and the consequences of doing so. We found that processes of systematically describing natural assets and their benefits can stimulate local investment in ecosystem markets and bring people together to co-produce plans. However, efforts to monetarily value natural capital assets were not always necessary: in some cases, new partners and resources were enroled without monetary valuations. These findings challenge the current emphasis on valuation framings in natural capital approaches. They show how natural capital approaches can help address the simultaneous challenges of connecting disparate priorities and securing new funding sources. This offers insights for international efforts to support collaborative landscape governance that delivers multiple benefits for people and nature.

Mission-led governance has emerged as a popular policy approach to address complex societal challenges through ambitious, cross-sectoral goals. However, concerns persist about its top-down nature, lack of spatial sensitivity and potential incompatibility with place-based approaches. A particular concern is that it might marginalise rural areas. This commentary examines whether mission-led governance can deliver for rural communities by fostering vertical (multi-level) and horizontal (cross-departmental) policy integration to advance rural well-being. We juxtapose mission-led approaches with outcome-oriented well-being frameworks, highlighting lessons from international experiences in the United Kingdom and Europe. While both approaches share ambitions for systemic change, each faces challenges in their application to diverse places. Rural policy faces particular challenges, many of which require place-sensitive responses: siloed governance, urban-centric biases and loss of institutional capacity. We critique conventional rural proofing as reactive and consider three potential pathways for mission-led rural policy: (1) a dedicated rural mission to prioritise place-based needs, (2) embedding rural considerations within existing missions, or (3) a hybrid model combining mission-led steering with well-being framework principles. We argue for the third approach, emphasising participatory governance, flexible local targets that reflect place diversity, and cross-departmental accountability. Key lessons include the need for political leadership, aligned institutional incentives and co-creation with rural stakeholders. Without deliberate attention to rural spatial justice, mission-led policies risk perpetuating inequalities. We conclude that missions could revitalise rural governance if reconfigured as collaborative, multi-level endeavours, offering a timely alternative to fragmented policy. The paper also identifies future research directions.

Forests are increasingly recognized as providing key nature-based solutions for societal challenges related to climate change, biodiversity loss, and sustainable development. This is driving a shift towards greater consideration of alternative forest management (AFM) approaches that promote ecological integrity and social values alongside economic viability. This study investigates constraints and opportunities influencing the adoption of AFM practices in contexts dominated by intensive management. Using a case study of Sweden, we conducted a literature review and a workshop with 53 expert participants to identify 26 topic clusters related to the transition from intensive management to AFM. Key findings reveal that knowledge gaps, socio-cultural norms, and institutional support are perceived as the most significant factors affecting AFM adoption. Participants highlighted conservative traditions and inadequate advisory services as major constraints, while increasing interest among forest owners and potential regulatory support from the European Union were recognized as opportunities for change. Notably, economic and biophysical factors were ranked as less important than socio-cultural, institutional, and knowledge/technology themes. The results indicate that AFM has not yet gained sufficient traction in Sweden to challenge intensive practices, suggesting that incremental change is the most likely outcome in the short term. However, growing public awareness of the limitations of intensive management, societal demands for sustainability, and changes in ownership demographics may catalyse more substantial changes. These opportunities have received less attention in the reviewed literature and the findings therefore emphasize the need for enhanced knowledge dissemination, collaborative networks, and supportive policy and economic instruments to facilitate uptake of AFM. The Swedish case also offers insights for international efforts to support a transition away from intensive forest management.

Completely revised and updated to reflect the current debates in Scotland’s natural environment

• Why have Scotland’s landscapes and wildlife been the focus of such persistent disagreement?
• Why is it so difficult to reconcile the competing demands of society and nature?
• Is it possible to meet our needs for food and energy while also satisfying our desire to protect and enhance the natural heritage?
• To what extent can the management of the various land uses be effectively integrated?
• Does the imperative of tackling climate change require a radically different approach to environmental management?

Written in the light of international thinking on environment management, this third edition tackles the hottest debates of recent years – deer management, the post-Brexit future of farming, land reform, rewilding v. repeopling, windfarms and conflicts between game sport and conservation. Underlying all the practical and policy choices are intriguing ethical and philosophical considerations which the book addresses head on, including debates about the goals of conservation in a pervasively humanised world.

This is an ideal text for those studying Scotland’s environment at an undergraduate and graduate level, as well as for those already involved in – or interested in – managing land and nature in Scotland. Throughout, it is well illustrated with photographs and specially prepared maps and diagrams.

The mountains and uplands of Scotland are a valuable natural asset with a range of land uses including forestry, game management, and biodiversity conservation. As the need to address climate change becomes more urgent, there is increased pressure on landowners and land managers to find ways of integrating land uses and collaborating at a landscape scale to deliver wider societal benefits alongside local socioeconomic goals. Land reform policy in Scotland has promoted the role of communities in contributing to a more sustainable future in upland areas. Given the diversity of private, public, NGO, and community-owned land in the uplands, there are many different land use objectives and priorities. The Scottish Government is working toward the implementation of Regional Land Use Partnerships that will seek consensus between stakeholders and the development of frameworks to deliver optimal benefits at the regional scale. A key role of such partnerships is to tackle long-standing polarization and conflict on key issues such as deer management, woodland expansion, and ecological restoration.