Explore the vast range of titles available.

Landscape corridors are narrow strips of land that differ from the matrix on either side. In addition to providing connectivity between fragmented landscapes, these corridors serve scenic, cultural, social, ecological, and recreational purposes. We systematically reviewed reports and studies related to 92 cultural and ecological landscape corridors in Europe, focusing, in particular, on their planning and management, problems addressed, approaches and tools used, stakeholders involved and spatial scales. Biodiversity conservation was found to be the most frequently stated aim (67% of the cases), followed by recreation and tourism (62%). The planning processes for cultural and ecological landscape corridors were dominated by similar, quite narrow, stakeholder groups, but via a wide variety of approaches and tools. Ecological corridors existed at larger and more variable scales relative to cultural landscape corridors. Significant differences were found in many aspects of the two types of corridors, although a complete separation of the two categories was difficult since most of the cases reviewed were designed to serve multiple aims. We close the paper by making a few recommendations for decision makers concerning future corridor planning.

Rural landscape dynamics are challenging existing policy regimes for a number of reasons and new approaches to landscape governance are needed [...]

Landscape corridor planning (LCP) has become a widespread practice for promoting sustainable regional development. This highly complex planning process covers many policy and planning issues concerning the local landscape, and ideally involves the people who live in the area to be developed. In China, regional planners and administrators encourage the development of landscape corridor planning. However, the current LCP process rarely considers ideas from local residents, and public participation is not recognized as beneficial to planning outcomes. We use a specific Chinese case of LCP to analyze how citizen involvement may enrich sustainable spatial planning in respect to ideas considered and solutions developed. To this end, we compare a recently approved landscape corridor plan that was created without public participation with alternative solutions for the same landscape corridor, developed with the involvement of local residents. These alternatives were then evaluated by professional planners who had been involved in the initial planning process. We demonstrate concrete differences between planning solutions developed with and without public participation. Further, we show that collaborative processes can minimize spatial conflicts. Finally, we demonstrate that public participation does indeed contribute to innovations that could enrich the corridor plan that had been produced exclusively by the decision-makers. The paper closes with a discussion of difficulties that might accompany the involvement of local residents during sustainable LCP in China.

This paper focuses on a three-year rural landscape strategy-making process, which was driven by a Danish municipality and involved a large number of stakeholders. The project was part of an action research program aimed at developing new approaches to collaborative landscape planning. Gaining experiences with such approaches was part of this aim. During the course of the project, the focus and scale of the strategy changed significantly. The process developed in interesting ways in respect to three dimensions of collaborative landscape planning: collaboration, scale, and public goods. After a brief review of the three dimensions and their links to landscape planning, the case story is unfolded in three sections: (1) The planning process, (2) the process outcome (the strategy), and (3) the aftermath in terms of critical reflections from participating planners and local stakeholders. The process and outcome of the landscape strategy-making process is discussed in the context of collaboration, scale, and public goods, including a brief outline of the lessons learned.

Food production on the urban-rural fringe is under pressure due to competing land uses. We discuss the potential to improve resilience for urban-rural regions by enhancing food production as part of multifunctional land use. Through studies of peri-urban land in the regions of Gothenburg (Sweden), Copenhagen (Denmark) and Gent (Belgium), recent developments are analysed. Arable farming has been declining since 2000 in all three areas due to urban expansion and recreational land use changes. In city plans, networks of protected areas and green spaces and their importance for human wellbeing have been acknowledged. Policies for farmland preservation in peri-urban settings exist, but strategies for local food production are not expressed in present planning documents. Among the diversity of peri-urban agricultural activities, peri-urban food production is a developing issue. However, the competing forms of land use and the continuing high dependence of urban food on global food systems and related resource flows reduces peri-urban food production and improvements in urban food security. The positive effects of local food production need to be supported by governance aiming to improve the urban-rural relationship. The paper discusses the resilience potential of connecting urban-rural regions and re-coupling agriculture to regional food production.

In Europe most conservation values, from biodiversity to scenic sites, are integral parts of agricultural landscapes. When these landscapes change as a result of agricultural policies, natural values - species, habitats, landscapes - are usually affected. Until recently however, these values have not been part of agricultural policies. The impacts of such new policies are difficult to evaluate because landscapes are complex and diverse, and the effects of policy are rarely immediate or causal. This paper evaluates the potential effects of Agri-environmental Regulation EC 2078/92 on European agricultural landscapes through the use of agri-environmental indicators (AEIs) on policy effects. After discussing the general framework of the evaluation methodology through the use of AEIs, we distinguish two types of agri-environmental policy (AEP) effects: policy performances and policy outcomes. The impediments to direct measurement of policy outcomes are stated. The potential for measuring policy performances are checked in two case study areas, one in Spain and one in Denmark, characterized by extensive agricultural land-uses and by the dual process of intensification/abandonment that is threatening their natural values. Both study areas are currently targeted by agri-environmental schemes under Reg. 2078/92. The realisability or availability of suitable statistical data to construct and report each AEI is stated for both types of effects. A problem of scale and content is found in most of the available statistics for assessing policy outcomes and the need for data at farm level is concluded to be indispensable if policy performances are to be measured. Effects of policy performance are measured for key selected AEIs in each study area on the basis of the results of a field survey based on questionnaires of participating and non-participating farmers in the AEP schemes. The main effects may be catalogued as improvement effects or protection effects since they represent a change in participant over non-participant farmers' decisions. Finally, the importance of this type of policy evaluation approach is discussed in the light of the likely future development of AEP in the European Union.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

The socioeconomic gap in survival after cancer is pronounced among patients with head and neck cancer. Understanding the mechanisms of this gap is crucial to target intervention strategies. To investigate socioeconomic differences in survival after oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) according to human papillomavirus (HPV) status and the extent to which smoking, comorbidity, clinical stage, and treatment intent explain the survival gap. This nationwide, population-based cohort study was based on prospectively collected information on all patients with a diagnosis of OPSCC from the Danish Head and Neck Cancer Group database and administrative registries. The study included 4600 patients born in 1921 or later, aged 30 years or older, and residing in Denmark 1 year prior to OPSCC diagnosis. Patients with missing information (547 [12%]) were excluded. Patients were diagnosed between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2019, and followed up until December 31, 2021. Data were analyzed from June 6 to October 4, 2022. Socioeconomic position (educational level, disposable income, or cohabiting status). Socioeconomic differences in 5-year overall survival were estimated in Cox proportional hazards regression models by HPV status. The indirect effect and proportion mediated by smoking, comorbidity, clinical stage, and treatment intent were estimated based on a counterfactual approach. The analyzed cohort comprised 4053 patients (1045 women [26%] and 3008 men [74%]). The median age was 61 years (IQR, 55-68 years), and 2563 patients (63%) had HPV-positive OPSCC while 1490 patients (37%) had HPV-negative OPSCC. The 5-year standardized overall survival was 10% to 15% lower among patients with a lower educational level, with low disposable income, or who were living alone (patients with HPV-positive OPSCC, 68%-71%; patients with HPV-negative OPSCC, 31%-34%) than patients with a higher educational level, high disposable income, or a cohabiting partner (patients with HPV-positive OPSCC, 81%-86%; patients with HPV-negative OPSCC, 43%-46%). Among patients with HPV-positive OPSCC, a considerable part of this survival gap was estimated to be associated with differences in smoking (27%-48%), comorbidity (10%-19%), clinical stage (8%-19%), and treatment intent (16%-28%). Among those with HPV-negative OPSCC, comorbidity (12%-22%) and treatment intent (16%-42%) were the primary potential mediators. This cohort study suggests that, regardless of HPV status, patients with low socioeconomic position had 10% to 15% lower 5-year overall survival than patients with high socioeconomic position. A substantial part of this survival gap was associated with differences in smoking, comorbidity, clinical stage, or treatment intent at diagnosis.