Landscape Indicators—An Inventive Approach for the Sustainability of...

[Full title: Landscape Indicators—An Inventive Approach for the Sustainability of Landscapes]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Rodrigue, Wise, Forest, New, Choice, Doi, June, Basel, Local, Unique, Lsa, North, Aad, Roula, Net, Tanios, Tripoli, Set, View, Present, Issam, Field, Nemer, Great, Development, Time, Main, Edu, Tools, Tool, Nicholas, Fares, Data, Under, Point, Open, Lis, Holy, Nabil, Study, Strong, Tel, Quality, Need, Spirit, Box]

Citation: Aad, R.; el Balaa, R.; Tanios, C.; Nemer, N. Landscape Indicators— An Inventive Approach for the Sustainability of Landscapes Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su 16124887 Academic Editor: Nicholas Wise Received: 13 May 2024 Revised: 31 May 2024 Accepted: 4 June 2024 Published: 7 June 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/) sustainability Article Landscape Indicators—An Inventive Approach for the Sustainability of Landscapes Roula Aad 1 , Rodrigue el Balaa 2 , Challita Tanios 3,4 and Nabil Nemer 1,4, * 1 Department of Agriculture and Food Engineering, School of Engineering, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, Jounieh P.O. Box 446, Lebanon; roula.y.aad@net.usek.edu.lb 2 Department of Agriculture, Issam Fares Faculty of Technology, University of Balamand, Kalhat, Al-Kurah, Tripoli P.O. Box 100, Lebanon; rodrigue.elbalaa@balamand.edu.lb 3 Tannourine Cedar Forest Nature Reserve, Tannourine, Batroun P.O. Box 1400, Lebanon; challita.tanios@gmail.com 4 Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Biodiversity (CRAB), Higher Center for Research, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, Jounieh P.O. Box 446, Lebanon * Correspondence: nabilnemer@usek.edu.lb; Tel.: +961-9-600893 Abstract: Despite the prerequisite tools of sustainability, there is an arising need to particularly assess landscape sustainability (LS). In this regard, no quantitative approach was identified, neither locally nor internationally. The main objective of this current study is to design a new set of Landscape Indicators (LIs) and a new scheme of LS assessment. Accordingly, an inventive mixed research method was adopted, including different techniques, diverse data categories, and extensive analysis 15 potential tools were examined, and 51 indicators were prioritized based on an inventive fourdimensional approach to LS. Diverse landscape experts and local stakeholders were consulted to justify the choice of LIs. Site visits and the different aspects of international and local policies were also considered. The new identified set of LIs was applied at Tannourine Cedar Forest Nature Reserve, North Lebanon. While some LIs showed a need for further attention, transformative management was proposed to actively present the unique identity of the reserve and make it a true sustainable Lebanese landscape. Remarkably, this research led to the establishment, for the first time, of an educational tool for landscape sustainability assessment, the LSA tool, that will help decision-makers towards landscape correction, conservation, or even protection Keywords: tools of assessment; inventive approach; parameters and indicators; holistic assessment; Lebanese landscape; Tannourine Cedar Forest Nature Reserve 1. Introduction Searching for landscape indicators (LIs) that would help transformative action toward landscape sustainability is a necessity, since sustainable indicators used nowadays in the landscape field are either qualitative or ecological [ 1 ]. Even though some can be adapted into the mentioned field, it remains difficult to truly translate—quantitatively—the concept of landscape sustainability Defined in the European Landscape Convention since 2000 and addressed within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the assessment of landscape sustainability is an opportunity to accurately create policies [ 2 ], introduce the protection of quality landscapes [ 3 ], and implement holistic planning and management [ 4 , 5 ] of an entire landscape, not only a particular territory [ 6 ]. From another point of view, sustainable landscape development has great potential as a framework for achieving most of the SDGs [ 7 , 8 ] and provides the setting to enable the unfolding of many difficult problems [ 9 ] and associated solutions in relation to the SDGs [ 10 ]. This article first recalls the main concepts underlying a system of sustainability indicators, then raises the replacement of existing indicators and designs new LIs to address Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887. https://doi.org/10.3390/su 16124887 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Natural, Range, Four, Human, Own, Level, Urban, Matter, Favor, French, Naturel, Agro, Hand, Iii, Saf, Farms, Place, Progress, Severe, Aid, Table, Take, Self, General, Able, Core, Greening]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 2 of 20 landscape sustainability. It also enhances the view towards guiding policies in favor of the landscape and evaluating them. LIs were afterwards used in the context of the Landscape Sustainability Assessment LSA tool [ 1 ], which was established in the first place, to be able to quantify the sustainability of landscapes. This approach raises awareness among reserves and landscape systems about the conception of landscape sustainability through reflection on their own management and practices. Therefore, it aims to evaluate the sustainability of landscape implementation, knowing that the evaluation is not a control measure. It could relate to the verification of the application of a regulation (landscape quality), compliance with a set of requirements (LEED, SDGs), or the justification of aid (urban and rural greening). Hence, it would imply having verifiable information (direct measurements, surveys, etc.) On the other hand, an evaluation aims at estimating the degree of achievement of previously set objectives. Through the LSA method, the assessment is made for the manager or tenants of a landscape to serve as a diagnosis and monitoring tool or as a decisionmaking tool. The information has no need to be verifiable, and the data used to establish it is provided voluntarily and anonymously by the interested party Knowing That LSA is an educational tool, it also eases the understanding to analyze the different perspectives and take the convenient decision in supporting landscape sustainability 1.1. Conceptual Framework Since “Landscape” is the interdisciplinary communication between landscape status, human activities, and natural processes, the landscape is thus the result of driving forces (societal activities, economical revenues and naturel processes) over relevant pressure (exploitation, urban expansion, agricultural production. . .), creating a slight, medium, or severe impact [ 11 ]. But with the uncontrolled interventions and overexploitation [ 12 ] over the Lebanese landscapes [ 1 ], the qualities of Lebanese landscapes are continuously threatened and sometimes lost. In this perspective, we urge us to consider landscape at the core of any intervention, on the corrective level as well as protective measures. This led to an increasing need for a new set of indicators, the LIs In this matter, we have first examined fifteen different tools in (i) general sustainability and (ii) landscape sustainability. Then, we identified the expansion needs of LIs, their roles and their typologies 1.2. Predecessors Yet, most of them were either (i) qualitative, (ii) ecological indicators-based, or (iii) not specific to the landscape [ 1 ]. The interest in landscape assessment approaches mainly targeted European concepts [ 1 ], where landscape diversity is similar to the Lebanese landscapes. Yet, most of them were based on either qualitative or ecological indicators [ 1 ]. We will briefly mention hereafter four of the predecessor tools that were most inspirational to this current research (Table 1 ). 1 Strategic Environmental Assessment SEA consists of a range of analytical and participatory approaches [ 8 ]. We selected SEA since it adopts indicators to prevent territorial trespassing and impacts the landscape [ 1 , 9 , 13 ]. It also focuses on territorial and landscape programs with an effect on the environment [ 1 , 14 ], but unfortunately, it is mostly voluntary for the landscape approach [ 1 , 15 ] and qualitative. Most importantly, SEA takes the visual dimension into account 2 Sustainability Assessment at Farms (known in French by Indicateurs de Durabilit é des Exploitations Agricoles) is a quantitative method [ 1 , 10 ], based on agro-ecological indicators [ 16 ], but not specific to the landscape [ 17 ]. Covering the three dimensions of sustainability, SAF is a 41 indicator-based method used by farmers in a self-assessment process. Also recommended in pedagogic situations [ 1 , 18 , 19 ], SAF is a decisionmaking tool for possible progress in sustainability [ 18 ].

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Just, Ways, Rapid, Lps, Farm, Active, Fields, Areas, Simple, Area, Evolution, Role, Green, Case]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 3 of 20 3 The Landscape Performance Series LPS, purposed towards sustainable landscapes, most particularly helps landscape designers and agencies quantitatively estimate performance [ 1 , 20 ]. Unfortunately, it is used only to transform the landscape design and not the visual dimension 4 Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool METT is a scorecard questionnaire [ 1 , 11 ] on adaptive management, particularly concerning protected areas [ 21 ]. It is an optional evaluation tool [ 11 , 21 ] that helps suggest rapid adaptation Table 1. A brief comparative table showcasing predecessors and relevance to landscape sustainability Tools of Assessment Selected Tool Characteristics and Scale Reasons for Adopting This Research Landscape Relevance Indicator Type Indicator Dimension Qualitative Quantitative Agro-Ecological Landscape Specificity SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment 1 participatory approach 2 territorial & landscape focused 3 site scaled SAF Sustainability at Farms 1 three dimensional; 41 indicators; decision making 2 educational 3 farm scale LPS Landscape Performance Series 1 Transformative approach 2 design development focused 3 site scaled METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool 1 Scorecard questionnaire 2 proposes rapid adaptation 3 protected area scaled 1.3. The Expansion Need for Landscape Indicators Landscape indicators are indices at the service of landscape policies [ 22 ], with the active implementation of which some European nations have demanded indicators [ 23 , 24 ] to effectively represent many aspects of the landscape [ 24 , 25 ]. We can indicate the current status of the landscape [ 26 ], its evolution, the societal attitudes towards it [ 27 ], and the level of awareness and appreciation of the landscape among the population [ 28 ]. LIs are representative, variables that allow us to “measure” (when quantitative, as in our case) or describe a specific phenomenon (when qualitative as the case of prerequisite indicators) in a simple and clear way [ 24 ]. The use of LIs in evaluation was adopted in different fields and scapes, either associated with parameters as in the matter of green open spaces [ 29 ] or independently for a wider assessment by means of landscape quality [ 30 , 31 ] and contingent upon our case Institutions are also aware of the expansion need for LIs [ 32 , 33 ], while stakeholders and policymakers can benefit from knowing and adapting their assessments, and communicating the critical facets Though we must stress the fact that there is not just one landscape sustainability model, the LIs must be adapted to local landscapes before using the LSA method 1.4. Role and Types of Landscape Indicators According to Phondani et al. (2016) [ 24 ], the role of indicators for sustainable landscaping is as tools that can be used in the conceptualization, implementation, and monitoring of nationwide progress. Landscape indicators have three main roles: 1 recognition function (monitoring and measuring conditions and processes); 2 evaluation function (judgement of the value of the condition, the process, and the human action in relation to these); 3 orientation function (supplying indications on the ways in which human action should be implemented) [ 34 ].

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Gap, Key, Long, Show, Cap, Large, Original, Exceptional, Far, Get, Success, Guide, Knowledge, Worthy, Good]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 4 of 20 They must describe, in a simple yet rigorous way, the reality of the landscapes, particularly the Lebanese landscapes-, fully contributing to (i) the identification of problems, (ii) furthering the knowledge of existing challenges in relation to landscape conservation, (iii) management and planning, and thus (iv) enabling research and the finding of suitable and flexible solutions Also, LIs must be purposed to evaluate the effectiveness of the actions of the various levels of the administration in the area of landscape, providing clear signs of the success or failure of those policies adopted and guiding decision-makers towards issues of priority in the area of landscape The types of indicators used in key international and particularly in sustainability landscape studies emphasize systems of social, economic, and ecological indicators [ 4 , 33 ]. Therefore, several LIs can be used as a starting point in the current study. However, the perceptual (visual) dimension that remains absent in the prerequisite tool is taken into account in this current research and will be discussed in the following section 1.5. Quantifying Landscape Indicators The conceptual framework illustrated the relationship between the identified indicators and the overall concept of landscape sustainability. However, despite the increasing need for landscape indicators and in order to reach the main objective of this research, which is creating a holistic tool for landscape sustainability, there remains a notable gap in our understanding of: i a fourth dimension, the perceptual dimension, not previously mentioned in the context of the current study ii quantitatively assess the sustainability of landscapes, unlike any predecessor 2. Materials and Methods The Lebanese landscapes show variability in characteristics, in physical aspects, and in functional requirements, and they present a unique visual identity and genuine natural and built landscapes [ 1 ]. They are an exceptional scenic reprieve in an integrative community, worthy of not only management and design but also conservation The need for a new adaptive set of indicators (LIs) arises from the necessity to objectively and quantitatively assess the landscape sustainability. Therefore, LIs must communicate clearly and precisely about the features of landscape to the citizens of Lebanon, particularly in order to facilitate and improve their understanding. Moreover, they contribute towards raising awareness and educating the population [ 17 ]. This readability will favor a good level of participation Some of the large sets of indicators can be adopted, but an adaptive method should be applied. That is why what has been offered so far in terms of LIs can be a good example for Lebanese Landscape Indicators (Le-LIs) and provide clear signs of the success or failure of proposed projects and policies. That means they will guide decision-makers to prioritize the landscape and identify the weaknesses and discrimination of strengths in the landscape 2.1. Developing a System of Sustainable Landscape Indicators Sustainable indicators are anticipated to be objective, methodically established, relevant to the original problem, easy to get, and immediately understandable [ 17 ]. The concept of sustainability suggests the establishment of indicators combining three dimensions [ 35 ], simultaneously involving the understanding of the economic, environmental, and social aspects [ 36 ]. This systemic aspect of sustainability, well adopted worldwide, is complemented by three other aspects [ 17 ]: (i) the temporal aspect; (ii) the spatial aspect that evaluates the effects in the long term; and (iii) the ethical aspect, clarifying that sustainability is based on a system of values Yet, these three dimensions are not completely satisfactory to describe the LIs [ 37 ]. A fourth dimension is added to this research. Accordingly, a four-key concept can cap-

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Mode, Beauty, Life, Peer, Idea, Inter, Ture, Manner, Market, Rst]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 5 of 20 ture the interdisciplinary relation of LIs through a transformative approach from a threedimensional methodology as conventionally known in sustainable development towards a four-dimensional method describing the proposed inventive landscape indicators in Landscape Sustainability Assessment (Figure 1 ). Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21 2.1. Developing a System of Sustainable Landscape Indicators Sustainable indicators are anticipated to be objective, methodically established, relevant to the original problem, easy to get, and immediately understandable [17]. The concept of sustainability suggests the establishment of indicators combining three dimensions [35], simultaneously involving the understanding of the economic, environmental, and social aspects [36]. This systemic aspect of sustainability, well adopted worldwide, is complemented by three other aspects [17]: (i) the temporal aspect; (ii) the spatial aspect that evaluates the e ff ects in the long term; and (iii) the ethical aspect, clarifying that sustainability is based on a system of values. Yet, these three dimensions are not completely satisfactory to describe the LIs [37]. A fourth dimension is added to this research. Accordingly, a four-key concept can capture the interdisciplinary relation of LIs through a transformative approach from a three-dimensional methodology as conventionally known in sustainable development towards a four-dimensional method describing the proposed inventive landscape indicators in Landscape Sustainability Assessment (Figure 1). Figure 1. Transformative approach from a three-dimensional methodology in sustainable development towards a four-dimensional method describing the proposed inventive landscape indicators in Landscape Sustainability Assessment. Four inter-relations are thus proposed to describe the proposed LIs. We fi rst mentioned viability , which implies, as per sustainable development, securing the sources of income of the agro-ecological production system in the face of the market and uncertainties weighing on direct aid [35]. Equitability in the context of sustainability refers to the idea that all people throughout a community have the same rights and opportunities to maintain an acceptable quality of life [38]. Landscape Resilience is the interrelationship between social awareness, livability, and the landscape dimension. It hereafter represents human well-being, community cohesion, and the aesthetic appeal of the landscape [4]. It captures the combination of perceptual beauty in a landscape and its overall livability. The LIs of this section underline the well-being and engagement of the communities toward the landscape. They will be able to situate the citizens in relation to certain social references, such as the income from the landscape or working time, and will also be able to address more subjective aspects, such as participation in conservation of the landscape or other initiatives. Feasibility is the inter-sectorial dimension between the ecological and environmental dimensions and the landscape dimension. It encompasses the practicality, perceptual acceptability, and conceptual acceptability of a project or action on the considered landscape [27,31]. It suggests not only the possibility or unfeasibility in a tangible manner but also if Figure 1. Transformative approach from a three-dimensional methodology in sustainable development towards a four-dimensional method describing the proposed inventive landscape indicators in Landscape Sustainability Assessment Four inter-relations are thus proposed to describe the proposed LIs. We first mentioned viability, which implies, as per sustainable development, securing the sources of income of the agro-ecological production system in the face of the market and uncertainties weighing on direct aid [ 35 ]. Equitability in the context of sustainability refers to the idea that all people throughout a community have the same rights and opportunities to maintain an acceptable quality of life [ 38 ]. Landscape Resilience is the interrelationship between social awareness, livability, and the landscape dimension. It hereafter represents human well-being, community cohesion, and the aesthetic appeal of the landscape [ 4 ]. It captures the combination of perceptual beauty in a landscape and its overall livability. The LIs of this section underline the wellbeing and engagement of the communities toward the landscape. They will be able to situate the citizens in relation to certain social references, such as the income from the landscape or working time, and will also be able to address more subjective aspects, such as participation in conservation of the landscape or other initiatives Feasibility is the inter-sectorial dimension between the ecological and environmental dimensions and the landscape dimension. It encompasses the practicality, perceptual acceptability, and conceptual acceptability of a project or action on the considered landscape [ 27 , 31 ]. It suggests not only the possibility or unfeasibility in a tangible manner but also if it is considered sensible, reasonable, acceptable, or unacceptable from a perceptual or conceptual point of view 2.2. Adopting a Mixed Methodology Following the establishment of a well-defined framework and highlighting the need for inventive LIs and their advantages, it is important to describe their (i) selection, (ii) mode of calculation, and (iii) implementation method To do so, a mixed methodology was adopted, consisting of merging diverse research techniques, data types, and outcomes as presented in Table 2 .

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Law, Real, Pine, Chain, Held, Age, Gis, Reading, Maxima, Season]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 6 of 20 Table 2. Mixed methodology, including research techniques, data types, indicator types, and outcomes used in the study Technics Data Type Indicator Type Outcomes New Indicators Relevant Indicators Existing Indicators GIS techniques and Google mapping Spatial Selecting LIs, Scoring, and Maxima Landscape visual studies Landscape scenes, Photographs, drawings Selecting LIs, categorization, Scoring, and Maxima Citations and readings Descriptive Selecting LIs, categorization Social perception and surveys Descriptive and statistical Selecting LIs, categorization Documents analysis Selecting LIs, categorization, Scoring, and Maxima Interviews and questionnaires Selecting Lis New indicators were identified through the different techniques except for the citations and reading techniques since, as previously mentioned, they were inventive through this research. Accordingly, different data types (spatial data, landscape readings, and photography) were used to first select and categorize LIs and then establish scoring and maxima As for the relevant indicators and existing indicators, they were detected through readings and prerequisites. For example, we identified the indicators from Lebanese Law 130 (the only Lebanese law related to landscape and protected areas in Lebanon) and others that were previously developed from existing landscape sustainably tools or nominated by observatories and will be clarified in the coming sections However, to tackle the real needs around the landscape indicators, we identified first the stakeholders engaged in LIs and interviewed landscape managers of different reserves as well as experts (Table 3 ), visitors, and local residents of the Tannourine Cedar Nature Reserve, the site selected for the elaboration of LIs Table 3. Some details about the interviews conducted with different managers and experts Interviewees Total Number of Interviewees Type of Reserve Types of Expertise Cedar Reserve Cedar and Pine Reserve Others Landscape Design and/or Management Tools and/or Value Chain Reserve managers 8 4 1 3 Experts 15 5 5 5 Accordingly, we interviewed five managers of eight well-known cedar forests in Lebanon and three managers of other reserve types. Also consulted were fifteen experts in landscape (design and management) and tools (and value chains) At the selected site, we also conducted landscape observations and visual assessments (landscape visual reading, social perception, diagnosis. . .) and collected more data, such as visitors (age, number, time of visits, season of visits), activities held (number, type, availability), social implementation, revenues, paid services, and others All the collected data—from research, interviews, imagery, and on-site—were supported by GIS (Geographic Information System) mapping and imagery, compiled and analyzed, to come up with the new LIs, the development cycle of which is shown in Figure 2 . Yet, the most important and challenging phase of the research was to elaborate a scoring system for each landscape indicator, and later test and monitor the elaborated LIs at the selected site. They will guide investments and adaptive management.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Resources, Broad, Tourism, Land, Ned, Heritage, Play, Non]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 7 of 20 Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21 3   Experts 15 5  5  5  At the selected site, we also conducted landscape observations and visual assessments (landscape visual reading, social perception, diagnosis…) and collected more data, such as visitors (age, number, time of visits, season of visits), activities held (number, type, availability), social implementation, revenues, paid services, and others. All the collected data—from research, interviews, imagery, and on-site—were supported by GIS (Geographic Information System) mapping and imagery, compiled and analyzed, to come up with the new LIs, the development cycle of which is shown in Figure 2. Yet, the most important and challenging phase of the research was to elaborate a scoring system for each landscape indicator, and later test and monitor the elaborated LIs at the selected site. They will guide investments and adaptive management. Figure 2. LIs development cycle. 2.3. Identifying Relevant Stakeholder Involvement and Engagement E ff ective landscape management often requires collaboration and engagement with a diverse set of stakeholders to ensure that various perspectives and interests are considered [39] in decision-making processes. Stakeholder involvement can contribute to more sustainable and well-balanced landscape planning and management initiatives [40]. Landscape architects, environmentalists, and landscape tenants; reserve or protected areas managers; public authorities and policymakers; NGOs, cooperatives, and local communities; higher education institutes are all potential users of LIs …, etc. We considered fi ve main groups of users: 1 Government and regulatory bodies that are responsible for land use planning, environmental protection, regulatory compliance, and policymakers. They can be local, regional, or national government agencies. 2 International and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in landscape sustainability, landscape conservation, and advocacy for sustainable practices, biodiversity conservation, and protection of natural resources. 3 Local communities are de fi ned as residents, community organizations, local businesses, and private landowners (individuals, corporations, or entities) with a direct interest in the quality of life, cultural heritage, and economic well-being of the landscape site. 4 Cultural and touristic groups that often support unique perspectives on conservation and land management. •Collect •Analysis •Results •Weaknesses & Strength •Adaptive Management •Complitation •Analysis •Advantages •Mode of calculation 1. Select relevant landscape indicators 2. Existing Data 3. New additional Data 4. Guidance Figure 2. LIs development cycle 2.3. Identifying Relevant Stakeholder Involvement and Engagement Effective landscape management often requires collaboration and engagement with a diverse set of stakeholders to ensure that various perspectives and interests are considered [ 39 ] in decision-making processes. Stakeholder involvement can contribute to more sustainable and well-balanced landscape planning and management initiatives [ 40 ]. Landscape architects, environmentalists, and landscape tenants; reserve or protected areas managers; public authorities and policymakers; NGOs, cooperatives, and local communities; higher education institutes are all potential users of LIs . . ., etc. We considered five main groups of users: 1 Government and regulatory bodies that are responsible for land use planning, environmental protection, regulatory compliance, and policymakers. They can be local, regional, or national government agencies 2 International and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in landscape sustainability, landscape conservation, and advocacy for sustainable practices, biodiversity conservation, and protection of natural resources 3 Local communities are defined as residents, community organizations, local businesses, and private landowners (individuals, corporations, or entities) with a direct interest in the quality of life, cultural heritage, and economic well-being of the landscape site 4 Cultural and touristic groups that often support unique perspectives on conservation and land management 5 Research, Planning, and Development groups include (i) academic and research institutions such as universities, research organizations, and scholars conducting studies related to landscape ecology, and sustainable development; (ii) environmental consultants and planners, i.e., professionals providing expertise in impact assessments, landscape architecture, and sustainable land management practices and (iii) infrastructure and development agencies, i.e., organizations involved in infrastructure development, urban planning, and transportation that may impact the landscape In addition, businesses and industries operating within or adjacent to the landscape, including agriculture, forestry, tourism, and other sectors that impact land use, as well as media and communication outlets such as journalists, media organizations, and communication platforms that influence public perception and awareness of landscape issues, were identified These landscape stakeholders often play a role in decision-making processes that affect the landscape’s development, conservation, or transformation. They encompass a broad range of individuals, groups, and organizations that have an interest, influence, or involvement in the planning, management, and use of a landscape. Their engagement fosters inclusivity, brings in the insights of local communities, businesses, and organizations, and ensures a more holistic understanding of the landscape.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Europe, Kingdom, Ten, Asia, Sense, Catalonia, Cover, Unity, Legal, Scales]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 8 of 20 2.4. Establishing Key Landscape Indicators Based on a literature review, a landscape visual study, interviews, and stakeholders’ engagement, key indicators (inventive) were identified and established Firstly, the literature reveals available landscape indicator sets, summarized in Table 4 . Their number is limitless [ 41 ], and only a few studies explain how they can be used [ 33 ] and whether the measurement is quantitative or qualitative, with a stress on the choice of appropriate landscape indicators [ 23 , 31 ]. In our study, we adopted many of these indicators, transformed those qualitative into quantitative, compiled those with the existing and additional data, and validate them with experts and managers as previously mentioned Table 4. Categorization of relevant Landscape Indicators 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 sets of indicators 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 the 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 the landscape for your 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 Accordingly, we identified three initial categories of LIs shown in Table 5 . The first category represents the “antecedent research-based indicators” that were selected from previous research, either from other tools or nominated by observatories. We can mention, for example, the space organization, dependencies, ecological diversity, etc. [ 1 ]. The second category of LIs represents those mentioned in the new Lebanese Law, and was specified through official government announcements, legal databases, and by contacting relevant government authorities. These LIs refer to various sectors, such as environmental protection, social welfare, and economic development.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Change, Zone, Falls, Beyond, Offer, Close]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 9 of 20 Table 5. Categories of indicators as per literature review and non-conventional thinking An Example of Antecedent Research-Based Indicators Indicators Mentioned in the New Lebanese Law Some Inventive Indicators to Be Taken into Consideration Ecological diversity Types of protected areas Accessibility and dimension of the site Space organization Buffer zone Number and age of visitors Specificity Limitation Entrance fees and paid services Dependencies Presence inside a private area Neighboring urban agglomerations Revenues Endemism Territorial and landscape diversity Dynamism Rare species Built heritage and cultural landscape Well-being Biodiversity Landscape resources management Social diversity Urban pressure Social contribution and event hosting Agroforestry and agricultural activities The third category is relevant to inventive LIs, selected either from stakeholders’ engagement or from new data analysis. The objective of these LIs is to go beyond conventional indicators and address landscape challenges While the data and mapping captured throughout the latest years will help understand the landscape changes and anticipate the impact of various interventions, the inventive indicators empower decision-makers to make more informed and agile choices. They offer a real-time and adaptive framework for assessing the effectiveness of sustainability initiatives, identifying emerging trends, and proactively addressing potential challenges. Mentioned here below in Table 4 , the first proposal of inventive LIs. Their elaboration, scoring, maxima, and implementation will be discussed in later sections of this research This approach not only enhances the accuracy of landscape sustainability assessments but also promotes a more responsive and collaborative approach to landscape management, aligning with the principles of adaptive governance and resilience. Ultimately, inventive indicators derived from stakeholders’ engagement and new data analysis contribute to a more dynamic, inclusive, and effective paradigm for sustainable landscape management 2.5. Scoring and Weighting A scoring system for each indicator was established. The weighting of different indicators was determined based mainly on their relative importance to overall landscape sustainability, and in close collaboration and validation with experts and stakeholders The overall landscape sustainability score, calculated by summing the scores across all LIs and landscape dimensions, provides a comprehensive assessment [ 42 ] that considers the impact of a «change» on the environment [ 43 ], society, its economic viability, and landscape perception [ 44 ]. After testing and based on regional considerations and stakeholder input, the LIs and scoring levels should be adjusted to align with the goals of the assessment and the characteristics of the landscape under consideration We have selected the Tannourine Cedar Forest Nature Reserve (TCFNR) for the LIs implementation since it shows consideration for factors such as accessibility, ecological diversity, cultural significance, and many others 3. Results After examining around 15 existing sustainability tools (in general sustainability and landscape sustainability) and after settling all the interviews, surveys, and site visits for diagnosis and analysis, 51 inventive landscape indicators were suggested This set of LIs falls within a four-dimensional methodology (ecological, economic, social, and perceptual landscape sustainability dimensions), as shown in Figure 1 , complementing 12 components of landscape sustainability LS (Table 6 ). Each of the components accounts for the same weight, which is 33 or 34 units of the total scoring (also shown in Tables below) and entails several landscape indicators.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Less, Ability, Grade, Energy, Living, Grid, Lower]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 10 of 20 Table 6. Reading grid using 51 landscape indicators Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21 Table 6. Reading grid using 51 landscape indicators. 4 Dimensions 12 Components 51 Landscape Indicators 3.1. Sustainable Landscape Ecological Indicators SLEI The ecological dimension consists of three components (ecological diversity, space organization, and practices e ff ectiveness) and 15 landscape indicators (Table 7). Each of the components accounts for the same weight, which is 33 or 34 units of the total scoring (which is 100). This dimension refers to ecological principles in relation to landscape. It examines the rigidity of the ecological system to make e ffi cient use of the ecology at lower landscape costs. The indicators illustrate the ability of a landscape system or project to be more or less autonomous in their use of natural resources and generate fewer pollutants through their ecological activities. Table 7. The 15 landscape indicators of the landscape sustainability ecological dimension. 3 Components 15 Indicators Maxima Value Total Score Ecological Diversity I.1 Territorial diversity 13 33 units 100 I.2 Land cover diversity 13 I.3 Regional breeds 5 I.4 Endemic species 5 I.5 Habitat quality 13 Space organization I.6 Accessibility 10 33 units I.7 Site dimension 6 I.8 Ecological regulating zone 6 I.9 Urban pressure 6 I.10 Favor of the natural or built heritage 12 Practices effectiveness I.11 Local practices 6 34 units I.12 Integrative activities 6 I.13 Soil resource protection 10 I.14 Energy dependency 10 Reading Matrix landscape sustainability ecological dimension grade/100 Ecological Diversity 5 LIs Space organization 5 LIs Practices effectiveness 5 LIs landscape sustainability economical dimension grade/100 Viability 4 LIs Independency 4 LIs Efficiency 3 LIs landscape sustainability social dimension grade/100 Living environment 4 LIs Esthetic value 4 LIs Dynamism 4 LIs landscape sustainability perceptual dimension grade/100 Perceptual Diversity 4 LIs Perceptual features 4 LIs Perceptual components 5 LIs In the following, we will elaborate on the four dimensions, relevant components, and corresponding landscape indicators. We will also explain the principles of each dimension in relation to the landscape Subsequently, the new set of LIs is implemented at the selected site, and the results of scores and calculations are also presented 3.1. Sustainable Landscape Ecological Indicators SLEI The ecological dimension consists of three components (ecological diversity, space organization, and practices effectiveness) and 15 landscape indicators (Table 7 ). Each of the components accounts for the same weight, which is 33 or 34 units of the total scoring (which is 100). This dimension refers to ecological principles in relation to landscape. It examines the rigidity of the ecological system to make efficient use of the ecology at lower landscape costs. The indicators illustrate the ability of a landscape system or project to be more or less autonomous in their use of natural resources and generate fewer pollutants through their ecological activities Table 7. The 15 landscape indicators of the landscape sustainability ecological dimension 3 Components 15 Indicators Maxima Value Total Score Ecological Diversity I.1 Territorial diversity 13 33 units 100 I.2 Land cover diversity 13 I.3 Regional breeds 5 I.4 Endemic species 5 I.5 Habitat quality 13

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Cont, Return, Goods]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 11 of 20 Table 7. Cont 3 Components 15 Indicators Maxima Value Total Score Space organization I.6 Accessibility 10 33 units 100 I.7 Site dimension 6 I.8 Ecological regulating zone 6 I.9 Urban pressure 6 I.10. Favor of the natural or built heritage 12 Practices effectiveness I.11. Local practices 6 34 units I.12. Integrative activities 6 I.13. Soil resource protection 10 I.14. Energy dependency 10 I.15. Water resources management 3 3.2. Sustainable Landscape Economic Indicators SLEcI The economical dimension consists of three components (viability, independence, and efficiency) and 11 landscape indicators (Table 8 ). This dimension refers to economic practices and principles in accordance with the landscape. It examines competencies and autonomy Table 8. Landscape indicators of the landscape sustainability economic dimension 3 Components 11 Indicators Maxima Value Total Score Viability I.16. Productive resources 15 33 units 100 I.17. Specialty 5 I.18. Landscape resources 15 I.19. Local markets 10 Independency I.20. Tourism and activities 15 33 units I.21. Artisanal and goods 10 I.22. Museum and educational 10 I.23. External dependency 10 Efficiency I.24. Competitiveness 15 34 units I.25. Public/private shares 10 I.26. Revenues 15 The indicators illustrate the ability of landscape to return on investment while at the same time safeguarding its resources. This dimension helps with investing in the landscape and balancing economic activities. It emphasizes responsible resource management to ensure continued economic opportunities without landscape degradation 3.3. Sustainable Landscape Social Indicators SLSI The socio-territorial dimension consists of three components (living environment, esthetic value, and dynamism) and 12 landscape indicators (Table 9 ). This dimension refers to economic practices and principles in accordance with the landscape. It examines competencies and autonomy.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Creation, Pilot, Job]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 12 of 20 Table 9. Landscape indicators of the landscape sustainability social dimension 3 Components 12 Indicators Maxima Value Total Score Living environment I.27. Well-being 12 33 units 100 I.28. Landscape policies 7 I.29. Societal participation 6 I.30. Local job creation 4 Esthetic value I.31. Local reference 5 33 units I.32. Cultural and historical reference 5 I.33. National reference 11 I.34. Patrimonial reference 9 Dynamism I.35. Event hosting 7 34 units I.36. Societal/population evolution 7 I.37. Societal typology/diversity 6 I.38. Parties involved diversity 3 3.4. Sustainable Landscape Visual Indicators SLVI The visual or perceptual dimension consists of three components (diversity, features, and components) and 13 indicators (Table 10 ). This dimension refers to landscape principles It examines the qualifications of the landscape along with the interventions on the landscape and opportunities for advancement Table 10. Landscape indicators of the landscape sustainability visual (perceptual) dimension 3 Components 13 Indicators Maxima Value Total Score Perceptual Diversity I.39. Landscape character 7 33 units 100 I.40. Landscape quality 13 I.41. Landscape coherence 13 I.42. Landscape cover 13 Perceptual features I.43. Composition 10 33 units I.44. Configuration 6 I.45. Appreciated/depreciated 10 I.46. Fragmentation 6 Perceptual components I.47. Anthropogenic intervention 12 34 units I.48. Landscape elements 10 I.49. Landscape integration 10 I.50. Recreational opportunities 10 I.51. Local identity 3 The indicators illustrate the ability of a landscape to positively impact its surroundings This dimension helps invent the landscape and create transformative action to re-evaluate or integrate a project within a landscape 3.5. Implementing Sustainable Landscape Indicators at Tannourine Cedar Forest Nature Reserve Pilot tests were recently conducted at the selected site to evaluate the LIs effectiveness, feasibility, and reliability. The selected landscape for this study is located in the north of

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Trees, Ideal, Tahta, Better, Radar, Rich, Factor, Orange]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 13 of 20 Lebanon, between the villages of Tannourine el-Tahta and Hadath el-Jebbeh. Tannourine Cedar Forest Nature Reserve (TCFNR) is a protected area in Lebanon, dedicated to the conservation and preservation of the Lebanese iconic cedar trees, the Cedrus libani Nestled within a picturesque landscape, the nature reserve stands as a testament to its unique biodiversity rich natural and cultural heritage. Inlaid with outstanding hiking trails, limestone caves, and local community engagement, it encourages the preservation of traditional practices and promotes sustainable tourism The landscape indicators were applied at the nature reserve to assess and evaluate the sustainability of the landscape. Scores and calculations are presented below through the graphical representations from Figures 3 – 10 . Firstly, to be able to identify which dimension would be the limiting factor, we went through the four dimensions of landscape sustainability illustrated in Figure 3 . Comparing the four dimension values to maxima and within each other, we identified the landscape socio-territorial dimension as the limiting factor, having the lowest value (44/100). The landscape economic dimension is not very promising either (value = 48/100), since the value is lower than average. The ecological and perceptual dimensions of the landscape are satisfactory Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21 Figure 3. The four dimensions of LS and the limiting factor (socio-territorial dimension). Secondly, in order to highlight the most sustainable components of the landscape and those whose sustainability would be desirable to improve, weaknesses and strengths of components are observed (Figure 4). In this case, a chart, of the radar type is ideal to observe the multivariate nature of landscape sustainability. This radar, illustrated in Figure 4, helps compare each component to the other and its distribution towards the maxima. We can observe that the space organization, perceptual features, and ecological diversity show the highest grades since they are the closest to the maxima (highlighted in orange). Figure 4. The twelve components of LS: weaknesses and strengths. 100 100 100 100 82 48 44 64 Landscape Ecological Dimension Landscape Economic Dimension Landscape Socioterritorial Dimension Landscape Perceptual Dimension Maxima Ecological Diversity Space Organization Practices effectiveness management Viability Independancy Efficiency Living Environment Esthetic value Dynamism Perceptual Diversity Perceptual Features Perceptual components Score Maxima Value Figure 3. The four dimensions of LS and the limiting factor (socio-territorial dimension) Secondly, in order to highlight the most sustainable components of the landscape and those whose sustainability would be desirable to improve, weaknesses and strengths of components are observed (Figure 4 ). In this case, a chart, of the radar type is ideal to observe the multivariate nature of landscape sustainability This radar, illustrated in Figure 4 , helps compare each component to the other and its distribution towards the maxima. We can observe that the space organization, perceptual features, and ecological diversity show the highest grades since they are the closest to the maxima (highlighted in orange) While viability, efficiency, and dynamism show the lowest scores, when zooming into the sustainable landscape indicators (SLIs), we can recognize the effective development for each component, and thus propose further actions In Figures 5 and 6 , for example, are shown, respectively, the results of some indicators in the ecological and economical components. Even though they present better results than the socio-territorial dimension (the limiting factor), further understanding is possible.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Zoom, Work, See, Still]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 14 of 20 Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21 Figure 3. The four dimensions of LS and the limiting factor (socio-territorial dimension). Secondly, in order to highlight the most sustainable components of the landscape and those whose sustainability would be desirable to improve, weaknesses and strengths of components are observed (Figure 4). In this case, a chart, of the radar type is ideal to observe the multivariate nature of landscape sustainability. This radar, illustrated in Figure 4, helps compare each component to the other and its distribution towards the maxima. We can observe that the space organization, perceptual features, and ecological diversity show the highest grades since they are the closest to the maxima (highlighted in orange). Figure 4. The twelve components of LS: weaknesses and strengths. 100 100 100 100 82 48 44 64 Landscape Ecological Dimension Landscape Economic Dimension Landscape Socioterritorial Dimension Landscape Perceptual Dimension Maxima Ecological Diversity Space Organization Practices effectiveness management Viability Independancy Efficiency Living Environment Esthetic value Dynamism Perceptual Diversity Perceptual Features Perceptual components Score Maxima Value Figure 4. The twelve components of LS: weaknesses and strengths Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21 While viability, e ffi ciency, and dynamism show the lowest scores, when zooming into the sustainable landscape indicators (SLIs), we can recognize the e ff ective development for each component, and thus propose further actions. In Figures 5 and 6, for example, are shown, respectively, the results of some indicators in the ecological and economical components. Even though they present be tt er results than the socio-territorial dimension (the limiting factor), further understanding is possible. Figure 5 particularly shows viability & independency. When digging further, we can observe that landscape resources, museums, and educational institutions have higher values. What is already accomplished to this extent at the reserve must be preserved; however, more needs to be done here. Same for other indicators. While in the case of practices e ff ectiveness management illustrated in Figure 6, energy dependency and water resources have reached their maxima, be tt er maintain their sustainability, and must work on integrative activities. Figure 5. Zoom to Viability and Independence Economical Components. Figure 6. Zoom to Practices E ff ectiveness Management Ecological Component. Furthermore, a holistic overview of the SLIs of the overall landscape dimensions is seen in the histograms below (Figures 7–10). While ecological and perceptual dimensions reached interesting values, when zooming into LIs, we could see that many still needed improvements. To mention here, for example: endemic species, habitat quality, local ecological practices, landscape coherence, landscape cover, anthropogenic intervention, etc. Economic and socio-territorial indicators are less satisfying. Most of them need further a tt ention. 0 5 10 15 Productive resources Specialty Landscape resources Local Markets Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 5 10 15 Artisanals and goods Museum and educational External dependency Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Local ecological practices Integrative activities Soil resources protection Energy dependency Water resources management Maxima value Landscape indicators Figure 5. Zoom to Viability and Independence Economical Components Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21 While viability, e ffi ciency, and dynamism show the lowest scores, when zooming into the sustainable landscape indicators (SLIs), we can recognize the e ff ective development for each component, and thus propose further actions. In Figures 5 and 6, for example, are shown, respectively, the results of some indicators in the ecological and economical components. Even though they present be tt er results than the socio-territorial dimension (the limiting factor), further understanding is possible. Figure 5 particularly shows viability & independency. When digging further, we can observe that landscape resources, museums, and educational institutions have higher values. What is already accomplished to this extent at the reserve must be preserved; however, more needs to be done here. Same for other indicators. While in the case of practices e ff ectiveness management illustrated in Figure 6, energy dependency and water resources have reached their maxima, be tt er maintain their sustainability, and must work on integrative activities. Figure 5. Zoom to Viability and Independence Economical Components. Figure 6. Zoom to Practices E ff ectiveness Management Ecological Component. Furthermore, a holistic overview of the SLIs of the overall landscape dimensions is seen in the histograms below (Figures 7–10). While ecological and perceptual dimensions reached interesting values, when zooming into LIs, we could see that many still needed improvements. To mention here, for example: endemic species, habitat quality, local ecological practices, landscape coherence, landscape cover, anthropogenic intervention, etc. Economic and socio-territorial indicators are less satisfying. Most of them need further a tt ention. 0 5 10 15 Productive resources Specialty Landscape resources Local Markets Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 5 10 15 Artisanals and goods Museum and educational External dependency Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Local ecological practices Integrative activities Soil resources protection Energy dependency Water resources management Maxima value Landscape indicators Figure 6. Zoom to Practices Effectiveness Management Ecological Component Figure 5 particularly shows viability & independency. When digging further, we can observe that landscape resources, museums, and educational institutions have higher values. What is already accomplished to this extent at the reserve must be preserved; however, more needs to be done here. Same for other indicators While in the case of practices effectiveness management illustrated in Figure 6 , energy dependency and water resources have reached their maxima, better maintain their sustainability, and must work on integrative activities.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Hab, Ver, Vit, Ili, Ele, Soc, Ical, Pop, Loc, Logy, Ersi, Alit, Nati, Ogi, Evol, Patri, Parti, Div, Reg, Gul, Bli, Onal, Dep, Prod, Sion, Ion, Nat, Ono, Jobs, Ban, Uti, Cal]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 15 of 20 Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21 Figure 7. Landscape Ecological Dimension, Scores, and Maxima. Figure 8. Landscape Economic Dimension, Scores, and Maxima. Figure 9. Landscape Socio-territorial Dimension, Scores, and Maxima Figure 10. Landscape Perceptual Dimension, Scores, and Maxima. 0 5 10 15 Territorial di ver si ty Land cover di ver si ty Reg ion al breeds Endem ic species Hab itat qu alit y Accessib ili ty Site di men sion Ecol ogi cal re gul atio n… Ur ban pressure /… Favor of th e nat ur al… Local ecological… In tegr ativ e acti vit ies:… Soil resources pr ot ectio n Energy dep enden cy Wat er res ources … Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 5 10 15 Landscap e Ec ono m ic al Dimension Prod uc tive resou rces Spec ialty Landscape resou rces Loc al Markets Tourism and activities Artisanals and goods Museum and educat ional Ex ternal depende n cy Competi v eness Pu bli c/private shares Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 5 10 15 Well-being Landscape policies Soc ietal partici p ation Loc al jobs creati on Loc al reference Cultural & histor ical reference Nati onal reference Patri m onial reference Ev ent hostin g Soc ietal /pop ulation evol uti o n Soc ietal typ o logy/div ersi ty Parti es invol v ed di versi ty Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 5 10 15 Landscape character Landscape qu ality Landscape coherence Landscape cove r Compos ition Configuration Appreci ated/de pr eciated Fragme ntation Anthro pogenic interventio n Landscape ele m ents Landscape integ ration Recreation al opportunities Loc al identi ty Maxima value Landscape indicators Figure 7. Landscape Ecological Dimension, Scores, and Maxima Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21 Figure 7. Landscape Ecological Dimension, Scores, and Maxima. Figure 8. Landscape Economic Dimension, Scores, and Maxima. Figure 9. Landscape Socio-territorial Dimension, Scores, and Maxima Figure 10. Landscape Perceptual Dimension, Scores, and Maxima. 0 5 10 15 Territorial di ver si ty Land cover di ver si ty Reg ion al breeds Endem ic species Hab itat qu alit y Accessib ili ty Site di men sion Ecol ogi cal re gul atio n… Ur ban pressure /… Favor of th e nat ur al… Local ecological… In tegr ativ e acti vit ies:… Soil resources pr ot ectio n Energy dep enden cy Wat er res ources … Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 5 10 15 Landscap e Ec ono m ic al Dimension Prod uc tive resou rces Spec ialty Landscape resou rces Loc al Markets Tourism and activities Artisanals and goods Museum and educat ional Ex ternal depende n cy Competi v eness Pu bli c/private shares Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 5 10 15 Well-being Landscape policies Soc ietal partici p ation Loc al jobs creati on Loc al reference Cultural & histor ical reference Nati onal reference Patri m onial reference Ev ent hostin g Soc ietal /pop ulation evol uti o n Soc ietal typ o logy/div ersi ty Parti es invol v ed di versi ty Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 5 10 15 Landscape character Landscape qu ality Landscape coherence Landscape cove r Compos ition Configuration Appreci ated/de pr eciated Fragme ntation Anthro pogenic interventio n Landscape ele m ents Landscape integ ration Recreation al opportunities Loc al identi ty Maxima value Landscape indicators Figure 8. Landscape Economic Dimension, Scores, and Maxima Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21 Figure 7. Landscape Ecological Dimension, Scores, and Maxima. Figure 8. Landscape Economic Dimension, Scores, and Maxima. Figure 9. Landscape Socio-territorial Dimension, Scores, and Maxima Figure 10. Landscape Perceptual Dimension, Scores, and Maxima. 0 5 10 15 Territorial di ver si ty Land cover di ver si ty Reg ion al breeds Endem ic species Hab itat qu alit y Accessib ili ty Site di men sion Ecol ogi cal re gul atio n… Ur ban pressure /… Favor of th e nat ur al… Local ecological… In tegr ativ e acti vit ies:… Soil resources pr ot ectio n Energy dep enden cy Wat er res ources … Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 5 10 15 Landscap e Ec ono m ic al Dimension Prod uc tive resou rces Spec ialty Landscape resou rces Loc al Markets Tourism and activities Artisanals and goods Museum and educat ional Ex ternal depende n cy Competi v eness Pu bli c/private shares Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 5 10 15 Well-being Landscape policies Soc ietal partici p ation Loc al jobs creati on Loc al reference Cultural & histor ical reference Nati onal reference Patri m onial reference Ev ent hostin g Soc ietal /pop ulation evol uti o n Soc ietal typ o logy/div ersi ty Parti es invol v ed di versi ty Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 5 10 15 Landscape character Landscape qu ality Landscape coherence Landscape cove r Compos ition Configuration Appreci ated/de pr eciated Fragme ntation Anthro pogenic interventio n Landscape ele m ents Landscape integ ration Recreation al opportunities Loc al identi ty Maxima value Landscape indicators Figure 9. Landscape Socio-territorial Dimension, Scores, and Maxima Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21 Figure 7. Landscape Ecological Dimension, Scores, and Maxima. Figure 8. Landscape Economic Dimension, Scores, and Maxima. Figure 9. Landscape Socio-territorial Dimension, Scores, and Maxima Figure 10. Landscape Perceptual Dimension, Scores, and Maxima. 0 5 10 15 Territorial di ver si ty Land cover di ver si ty Reg ion al breeds Endem ic species Hab itat qu alit y Accessib ili ty Site di men sion Ecol ogi cal re gul atio n… Ur ban pressure /… Favor of th e nat ur al… Local ecological… In tegr ativ e acti vit ies:… Soil resources pr ot ectio n Energy dep enden cy Wat er res ources … Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 5 10 15 Landscap e Ec ono m ic al Dimension Prod uc tive resou rces Spec ialty Landscape resou rces Loc al Markets Tourism and activities Artisanals and goods Museum and educat ional Ex ternal depende n cy Competi v eness Pu bli c/private shares Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 5 10 15 Well-being Landscape policies Soc ietal partici p ation Loc al jobs creati on Loc al reference Cultural & histor ical reference Nati onal reference Patri m onial reference Ev ent hostin g Soc ietal /pop ulation evol uti o n Soc ietal typ o logy/div ersi ty Parti es invol v ed di versi ty Maxima value Landscape indicators 0 5 10 15 Landscape character Landscape qu ality Landscape coherence Landscape cove r Compos ition Configuration Appreci ated/de pr eciated Fragme ntation Anthro pogenic interventio n Landscape ele m ents Landscape integ ration Recreation al opportunities Loc al identi ty Maxima value Landscape indicators Figure 10. Landscape Perceptual Dimension, Scores, and Maxima.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Cases, Stan, Lack, Due]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 16 of 20 Furthermore, a holistic overview of the SLIs of the overall landscape dimensions is seen in the histograms below (Figures 7 – 10 ). While ecological and perceptual dimensions reached interesting values, when zooming into LIs, we could see that many still needed improvements To mention here, for example: endemic species, habitat quality, local ecological practices, landscape coherence, landscape cover, anthropogenic intervention, etc Economic and socio-territorial indicators are less satisfying. Most of them need further attention 4. Discussion Following the identification, design, and categorization of the new set of landscape indicators, a new scheme of assessment is now defined [ 45 ]. Landscape indicators will thus replace ecological indicators, and landscape sustainability is becoming quantifiable Through this research, we were able to create a new four-dimensional approach that takes into consideration the ecological, economical, socio-territorial, and perceptual facets of the landscape As implemented on TCFNR, landscape indicators newly identified were calculated and graphically represented. This will ease the understanding of the landscape system by first examining the general situation, and then elaborating on the strengths and weaknesses of the studied landscape to later be able to recommend conservation, elaborate management, propose correction, or, on the contrary, offer protection 4.1. Assessment of the General Situation: The Four Dimensions Two dimensions showed promising results. It is the landscape ecology dimension and the perceptual dimension that reached interesting values, with a respective score of 82/100 and 64/100. While both socio-territorial and economic dimensions showed values less than the average, the landscape socio-territorial dimension was found to be the least satisfying Thus, the later dimensions must be improved. To do so, we need to first identify where his weaknesses stan, and then propose the action(s) to be adopted 4.2. Zoom-in to Landscape Components Now zooming-in on the four dimensions and focusing on the twelve landscape components identified and comparing them to the maxima, we can reinforce and accentuate the strong components and on the other hand, interfere with or correct the weak components These strengths and weaknesses are identified on the charts generated from the calculation of LIs, either radar type or histogram type. In both cases, the more values are separated from the maxima, the less the component sustainability In the case studies here in this research, efficiency and dynamism showed lower values At the same time, perceptual features and practice management showed good results, while space organization reached the highest value. To further elaborate, we need to recognize other relevance, most particularly concentrate on LIs, in accordance with their components 4.3. Zoom-in to Landscape Indicators When going deeper towards the landscape indicators (second zoom-in), we can recognize the effective development for each. Knowing that we identified 51 landscape indicators, their implementation at TCFNR showed variability in results, where some LIs were satisfying and explained good management and practices of the landscape, while others showed the exact opposite For example, the LESD showed the best values, mostly due to the promising ecological diversity and space organization. However, when zooming in on LIs, we mostly recognize mostly a lack of indicators related to endemic species, habitat quality, and urban pressure. Even though trespassing is limited, or visible (according to site observations and reserve management team), the reserve lacks nature-based solutions [ 24 ] and shows some degradation.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Meet, Settle, Vital, Part, Last, Hub]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 17 of 20 While indicators related to accessibility, ecological regulating zones and regional breeds were important. This being due to the site being submissive to the law, respect for limits and zoning at the site are well defined On the economic level, the external dependency and competitiveness indicators are particularly noticeable. Regardless of the important landscape resources available at TCFNR and the remarkable museum and educational activities, the reserve appeared sensitive to aid [ 12 ]. It is dependent mostly on external aid, despite the diverse activities held at the site and in the surroundings. So far, the reserve is not yet self-sufficient economically Additional action must be taken for financial autonomy [ 46 ]. Also, if the TCFNR is considered a hub for landscape sustainability, this can encourage competitiveness in the region, create more jobs and opportunities, and thus enhance the landscape socio-territorial component. More activities can be proposed for TCFNR. For instance, creating connectivity with the cultural surroundings [ 8 , 47 ] can attract more visitors and build new exploration opportunities. In this case, landscape policies and societal participation require great attention. The reserve needs further purposes and contributions from local initiatives [ 8 ]. Last but not least, the results for the perceptual dimension were acceptable; however, further enhancements are possible. This is especially the case of the perceptual diversity component, where the landscape character is strong and the reserve is a habitat for the Lebanese iconic cedar trees, the Cedrus libani . However, landscape coherence and landscape cover require supplementary evaluation and stability [ 28 , 48 ]. It is also the case of the perceptual component, where anthropogenic interventions need further regulatory actions [ 31 ], recreational opportunities [ 28 , 48 ] to be emphasized, and regenerative 5. Conclusions The establishment of this new framework for assessing the sustainability of landscapes highlighted (i) a clear description of the landscape sustainability system, (ii) a normative framework to assess sustainable landscapes, and (iii) a proposal for evaluating the overall sustainability of the landscape The implementation of landscape indicators using the LSA method to assess the overall performance at Tannourine Cedar Forest Nature Reserve was promising. It showed good results, mostly concerning ecological and landscape management. Also, it actively presented the unique identity of the reserve. Though further societal integration and autonomous actions are needed to meet enhanced outcomes at social and economic scales [ 44 ]. However, it is vital to additionally test, apply, and validate the tool on first other reserves and then on different types of landscapes, locally and then internationally. This can, on the one hand, help assess its reliability and adaptability to various typologies of landscapes (nationally and internationally). On the other hand, validation can ensure that the tool produces consistent and meaningful results across different contexts [ 28 , 44 , 46 ]. Few to no prerequisite studies were made on this particular part of the landscape, since, as mentioned previously, most existing tools were qualitative and ecological indicators-based We proposed in this study, for the first time, a quantitative approach to landscape indicators by either transforming the predecessors that can be adaptable to landscape sustainability or by integrating new inventive landscape indicators that consider the local landscape law in addition to international landscape measures However, it wasn’t really easy to settle on maxima and calculation modes. They became feasible and tangible with the many interviews, field visits, observations, and validations. Our prospect is to make these landscape indicators accessible to all users and integrate a participatory approach to reach our aspiration Most importantly, landscape indicators inventively defined (i) an indicative baseline and maxima and (ii) a new dimension, the perceptual dimension, added to the conventional sustainability approach—that is, environmental, socio-territorial, and economical—creating a wider comprehension of the landscape and its interaction with the society within.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Lay, Sunderland, Mayers, Plan, Holmgren, Board, January, Sayer, Day, Isaksson, Goel, Sweden, Int, Nautiyal, Sci, York, Read, Mander, Michalik, Answer, London, Costa, Garcia, Web, Coe, Post, Council, Fischer, Thank, Lemos, Amsterdam, Jones, Author, Baral, Washington, Venter, Zek, Flow, Pavese]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 18 of 20 Furthermore, the landscape indicators will support landscape consultancies, management, and/or education to respond to their increasing interest in landscape-related concepts and answer the need to adopt them in territorial and management policies Yet, this is only the beginning, the main objective of this study was to lay the froundwork for the Landscape Sustainability Assessment. Even though some training might be needed for implementing this method, it can accept a large flow of data, and evolve until a holistic approach is reached Last but not least, further studies must be conducted to test LIs at different sites, achieve necessary adjustments and refinements to reach the holistic tool, and meet our aspirations in supporting landscape consultancies and/or educational institutes Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.A., R.e.B. and N.N.; methodology, R.A., R.e.B., C.T. and N.N.; formal analysis, R.A.; investigation, R.A.; resources, R.A. and C.T.; data curation, R.A. and R.e.B.; writing—original draft preparation, R.A.; visualization, R.A., R.e.B., C.T. and N.N.; supervision, N.N.; project administration, N.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript Funding: This research received no external funding Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available on request Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Doctoral College and the higher Center for Research at the Holy Spirit University of Kaslik for all the logistics support. We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the Tannourine Cedar Forest Nature Reserve Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest References 1 Aad, R.; Nemer, N. Developing a Tool for Landscape Sustainability Assessment—Using a New Conceptual Approach in Lebanon Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 15092. [ CrossRef ] 2 The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012 ; United Nations Development Programme: New York, NY, USA, 2012 3 Sowi ´nska-´Swierkosz, B.; Michalik-´Snie ˙zek, M. Landscape indicators as a tool of assessing landscape quality E 3 S Web Conf 2020 , 171 , 02011. [ CrossRef ] 4 Wu, C.; Isaksson, K.; Antonson, H. The struggle to achieve holistic landscape planning, Sweden Land Use Policy 2017 , 67 , 167–177 [ CrossRef ] 5 Palang, H.; Alumäe, H.; Mander, U. Holistic aspects in landscape development: A scenario approach Landsc. Urban Plan 2000 , 50 , 85–94. [ CrossRef ] 6 Council of Europe Landscape Convention/Official Website—Council of Europe Landscape Convention. Available online: https://www.coe.int/en/web/landscape (accessed on 26 January 2024) 7 Jones, A.; Wolosin, M Branching Up and Out: Options for Integrating Forests into the Post-2015 Development Framework ; Climate Advisors: Washington, DC, USA, 2014 8 Mayers, J. Forests in the sustainable development goals Biores 2014 , 8 , 16–19 9 Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.L.; Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C.; et al Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses Proc. Natl. Acad Sci. USA 2013 , 110 , 8349–8356. [ CrossRef ] 10 Nautiyal, H.; Goel, V. Chapter 3, Sustainability assessment: Metrics and methods. In Methods in Sustainability Science ; Ren, J., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 27–46, ISBN 9780128239872. [ CrossRef ] 11 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, Australia, 2008 12 Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/sustainable-agriculture/4068 0795.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2023) 13 Baral, H.; Holmgren, P A Framework for Measuring Sustainability Outcomes for Landscape Investments ; Center for International Forestry Research: Bogor, Indonesia, 2015. [ CrossRef ] 14 Fischer, T The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards a More Systematic Approach ; Earthscan Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2007.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Van Der Werf, De Oliveira, Liu, Chamas, Art, Lee, Park, Fadl, America, South, Man, Gay, Sala, Northern, Firmansyah, Ilic, Sowinska, Vegas, Almeida, Bhatt, Eds, Marques, Medeiros, Mouchet, Anwar, Ode, Bia, Hal, Nis, Planet, Braz, Val, Loss, Base, Berlin, Fernandes, Peltier, Dudley, December, Cavalcanti, Germany, Ser, Alphan, Butler, Kang, Ing, Aziz, Eichler, Agron, Vilain, Rull, England, July, Gard, Farinha, Girard, Marche, Ghibaudo, Chaker, Spain, Dale, Krstic, Els, Chang, Une, Cohen, Fry, April, Bourdais, Gafsi, Kline, Girardin, Barcelona, Clim, Parks, Parish, Dans, Oliveira, Springer, Viel]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 19 of 20 15 Chaker, A.; El-Fadl, K.; Chamas, L.; Hatjian, B. A review of strategic environmental assessment in 12 selected countries Environ Impact Assess. Rev 2006 , 26 , 15–56. [ CrossRef ] 16 Bockstaller, C.; Girardin, P.; Van der Werf, H. Use of Agro-ecological Indicators for the Evaluation of Farming Systems Eur. J Agron 1997 , 7 , 329–338. [ CrossRef ] 17 Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment—Annual Report 2020. Available online: https://www.eia.nl/ annualreport 2020/ (accessed on 3 April 2024) 18 Briquel, V.; Vilain, L.; Bourdais, J.L.; Girardin, P.; Mouchet, C.; Viaux, P. La m é thode IDEA (indicateurs de durabilit é des exploitations agricoles): Une d é marche p é dagogique Ing. Eau-Agric.-Territ 2001 , 25 , 29–39 19 Cohen, S.; Peltier, C.; Viel, J.-A.; Carayon, C.; Cousini é , P.; Gafsi, M.; Gay, N.; Ghibaudo, S.; Girard, S.; M é chaussie, V.; et al. IDEA 4 dans L’enseignement Technique Agricole. Retours D’exp é riences et Recommandations en Situation P é dagogique. 2023, Volume 36, p. hal-04379842. Available online: https://hal.science/hal-04379842 (accessed on 2 April 2024) 20 Guide to Evaluate Performance|Landscape Performance Series. Available online: https://www.landscapeperformance.org/ guide-to-evaluate-performance (accessed on 14 June 2023) 21 Stolton, S.; Dudley, N.; Hockings, M METT Handbook: A Guide to Using the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) ; Second Edition Guidance for Using METT-4; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2021 22 Sala, P. Els indicadors de paisatge de Catalunya. In Indicadors de Paisatge. Reptes i Perspectives ; Nogu é , J., Puigbert, L., Bretcha, G., Eds.; Landscape Observatory of Catalonia: Barcelona, Spain, 2009; pp. 110–131, ISBN 978-84-613-1327-3 23 Wascher, D. Landscape-indicator development: Steps towards a European approach New Dimens. Eur. Landsc 2004 , 4 , 237–252 24 Phondani, P.; Bhatt, A.; Elsarrag, E.; Alhorr, Y.; El-Keblawy, A. Criteria and indicator approach of global sustainability assessment system for sustainable landscaping using native plants in Qatar Ecol. Indic 2016 , 69 , 381–389. [ CrossRef ] 25 Braz, A.; de Oliveira, I.; Cavalcanti, L.; Almeida, A.; Ch á vez, E. Cluster analysis for Landscape typology Mercator 2020 , 19 , e 19011 [ CrossRef ] 26 Cassatella, C.; Peano, A. (Eds.) Landscape Indicators: Assessing and Monitoring Landscape Quality ; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-94-007-0365-0. [ CrossRef ] 27 Swanwick, C. Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape Land Use Policy 2009 , 26 , 62–75. [ CrossRef ] 28 Butler, A.; Åkerskog, A. Awareness-raising of landscape in practice. An analysis of Landscape Character Assessments in England Land Use Policy 2014 , 36 , 441–449. [ CrossRef ] 29 Firmansyah; Soeriaatmadja, A.R.; Wulanningsih, R. A set of sustainable urban landscape indicators and parameters to evaluate urban green open space in Bandung City IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci 2018 , 179 , 012016. [ CrossRef ] 30 Sowinska-Swierkosz, B.; Michalik-Sniezek, M. The Methodology of Landscape Quality (LQ) Indicators Analysis Based on Remote Sensing Data: Polish National Parks Case Study Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 2810. [ CrossRef ] 31 Ode, A.; Tveit, M.; Fry, G. Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators: Touching Base with Landscape Aesthetic Theory Landsc. Res 2008 , 33 , 89–117. [ CrossRef ] 32 Medeiros, A.; Fernandes, C.; Gonçalves, J.; Farinha-Marques, P. Research trends on integrative landscape assessment using indicators—A systematic review Ecol. Indic 2021 , 129 , 107815. [ CrossRef ] 33 Nogu é , S.; Rull, V.; Vegas-Vilarr ú bia, T. Modeling Biodiversity Loss by Global Warming on Pantepui, Northern South America: Projected Upward Migration and Potential Habitat Loss Clim. Chang 2009 , 94 , 77–85. [ CrossRef ] 34 Cassatella, C.; Voghera, A. Indicators used for landscape. In Landscape Indicators—Assessing and Monitoring Landscape Quality ; Cassatella, C., Peano, A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 31–46 35 Ilic-Krstic, I.; Ilic, A.; Avramovi´c, D. The Three Dimensions of Sustainable Development: Environment, Economy and Society. In Proceedings of the 18 th Conference of the Series Man and Working Environment, Nis, Serbia, 6–7 December 2018 36 Economiesuisse. Sustainable Development Includes Several Dimensions. Available online: https://www.economiesuisse.ch/en/ dossier-politics/sustainable-development-includes-several-dimensions (accessed on 6 July 2023) 37 Kang, N.; Liu, C. Towards landscape visual quality evaluation: Methodologies, technologies, and recommendations Ecol. Indic 2022 , 142 , 109174. [ CrossRef ] 38 Equity|Sustainable Environment Online. Available online: https://sustainable-environment.org.uk/Principles/Equity.php (accessed on 6 July 2023) 39 Gkoltsiou, K.; Terkenli, T.S. Landscape Indicators: S Promising Tool for the Analysis of Tourist Landscape Structure. In Proceedings of the International Conference Studying, Modelling and Sense Making of Planet Earth, Myytilene, Greece, 1–6 June 2008 40 Dale, V.H.; Kline, K.L.; Parish, E.S.; Eichler, S.E. Engaging stakeholders to assess landscape sustainability Landsc. Ecol 2019 , 34 , 1199–1218. [ CrossRef ] 41 Val á nszki, I.; Á gnes, S. A landscape indicator-system for sustainable landscape management J. Landsc. Archit. Gard. Art 2017 , 46 , 44–50 42 Lee, H.-S.; Park, E.-Y. Developing a Landscape Sustainability Assessment Model Using an Analytic Hierarchy Process in Korea Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 301. [ CrossRef ] 43 Alphan, H. Analysis of landscape changes as an indicator for environmental monitoring Environ. Monit. Assess 2017 , 189 , 24 [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 44 Aziz, A.; Anwar, M. Landscape Change and Human Environment Environ. Earth Ecol 2019 , 3 , 7–12. [ CrossRef ]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Mori, Press, Christodoulou, Bruni, Ideas, Miller, Ahern, Property]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4887 20 of 20 45 Botequilha-Leit ã o, A.; Miller, J.; Ahern, J.; McGarigal, K Measuring Landscapes: A Planner’s Handbook ; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006 46 Mori, K.; Christodoulou, A. Review of Sustainability Indices and Indicators: Towards a New City Sustainability Index (CSI) Environ. Impact Assess. Rev 2012 , 32 , 94–106. [ CrossRef ] 47 Moldan, B.; Janouškov á , S.; H á k, T. How to Understand and Measure Environmental Sustainability: Indicators and Targets Ecol Indic 2012 , 17 , 4–13. [ CrossRef ] 48 Bruni, D. Landscape Quality and Sustainability Indicators Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016 , 8 , 698–705. [ CrossRef ] 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.

Other Environmental Sciences Concepts:

[back to top]

Discover the significance of concepts within the article: ‘Landscape Indicators—An Inventive Approach for the Sustainability of...’. Further sources in the context of Environmental Sciences might help you critically compare this page with similair documents:

Transformation, Well-being, Economic development, Holistic approach, Social welfare, Literature review, Conceptual framework, Local initiative, Cultural pattern, Financial autonomy, Sustainable development, Good management, Economic value, Social Dimension, Social contribution, Landscape, Local market, Endemic species, Local communities, Scoring system, Holistic assessment, Living environment, Economic dimension, Sustainable development goal, Stakeholder involvement, Societal integration, National reference, Practice management, Ecological diversity, Mixed methodology, Productive resources, Four dimensions, Adaptable, Unique identity, Ecological dimension, Management policies, Societal participation, Recreational opportunities, Nature reserve, Stakeholder, Landscape Ecology, Landscape Components, Sustainable tourism, Sustainability assessment, Land cover, Local identity, Adaptive governance, Water resource, Esthetic value, Nature Based Solution, Ecosystem service, Landscape fragmentation, Habitat quality, Landscape management, Landscape Diversity, Transformative approach, Ecological Indicator, Stakeholder input, Landscape composition, Landscape element, Landscape perception, Sustainable landscape, Landscape configuration, Territorial diversity, Perceptual dimension, Space organization, Emerging indicator.