EESUS/
Articles/
2512002421
  • Open Access
  • Opinion

From Overlapping Claims to Shared Futures: Addressing Land Use Conflicts through Spatially-Explicit Scenario Planning

  • Eduardo Gomes

Received: 01 Jul 2025 | Revised: 18 Nov 2025 | Accepted: 01 Dec 2025 | Published: 05 Jan 2026

Abstract

Land use conflicts are increasingly widespread and complex, driven by overlapping spatial claims, intensifying competition over natural resources, and growing socio-environmental vulnerabilities. These conflicts are particularly acute in territories where economic, ecological, and social priorities intersect, and where planning systems often lack the spatial sensitivity and participatory mechanisms necessary to mediate competing interests. This study focus on spatially-explicit scenario planning as a key approach for anticipating, identifying, and managing land use conflicts. Grounded in geospatial analysis, participatory foresight, and sustainability science, this approach enables the co-production of spatially grounded narratives of possible futures, while enhancing territorial governance, stakeholder engagement, and transparency in decision-making processes. Emphasis is placed on the dual role of spatial scenarios: both as technical tools for mapping conflict dynamics and as platforms for dialogue among actors with divergent claims. This study advocates a paradigm shift in land use planning that is forward-looking, spatially informed, and socially inclusive. Such a shift is essential to support sustainability transitions and promote more resilient, and negotiated territorial futures.

References 

  • 1.

    Qin, S.; Wang, C.; Yan, Y. Identification of Conflict and Its Evolution between Land Use and Land Suitability during Urban Expansion: A Case of Guangzhou, China. Ecol. Front. 2024, 44, 1306–1319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecofro.2024.08.006.

  • 2.

    Froese, R.; Schilling, J. The Nexus of Climate Change, Land Use, and Conflicts. Curr. Clim. Chang. Rep. 2019, 5, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-019-00122-1.

  • 3.

    Mijailoff, J.D.; Giessen, L.; Burns, S.L. Local to Global Escalation of Land Use Conflicts: Long-Term Dynamics on Social Movements Protests against Pulp Mills and Plantation Forests in Argentina and Uruguay. Land Use Policy 2023, 134, 106884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106884.

  • 4.

    Meyfroidt, P.; De Bremond, A.; Ryan, C.M.; et al. Ten Facts about Land Systems for Sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2109217118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118.

  • 5.

    Wang, C.; Wu, J.; Li, M.; et al. Evaluation of Spatial Conflicts of Land Use and Its Driving Factors in Arid and Semiarid Regions: A Case Study of Xinjiang, China. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 166, 112483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112483.

  • 6.

    Cegielska, K.; Różycka-Czas, R.; Gorzelany, J.; et al. Land Use and Land Cover Conflict Risk Assessment Model: Social and Spatial Impact of Suburbanisation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2025, 257, 105302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105302.

  • 7.

    Curtis, P.G.; Slay, C.M.; Harris, N.L.; et al. Classifying Drivers of Global Forest Loss. Science 2018, 361, 1108–1111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3445.

  • 8.

    Ahani, S.; Dadashpoor, H. Land Conflict Management Measures in Peri-Urban Areas: A Meta-Synthesis Review. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021, 64, 1909–1939. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1852916.

  • 9.

    Abrantes, P.; Fontes, I.; Gomes, E.; et al. Compliance of Land Cover Changes with Municipal Land Use Planning: Evidence from the Lisbon Metropolitan Region (1990–2007). Land Use Policy 2016, 51, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.10.023.

  • 10.

    García-Martín, M.; Quintas-Soriano, C.; Torralba, M.; et al. Landscape Change in Europe. In Sustainable Land Management in a European Context; Weith, T., Barkmann, T., Gaasch, N., et al., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50841-8_2.

  • 11.

    Ramirez, J.; Böhm, S. Transactional Colonialism in Wind Energy Investments: Energy Injustices against Vulnerable People in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 78, 102135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102135.

  • 12.

    Dunlap, A.; Arce, M.C. ‘Murderous Energy’ in Oaxaca, Mexico: Wind Factories, Territorial Struggle and Social Warfare. J. Peasant Stud. 2022, 49, 455–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1862090.

  • 13.

    Morgado, P.; Gomes, E.; Costa, N. Competing Visions? Simulating Alternative Coastal Futures Using a GIS-ANN Web Application. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 101, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.09.022.

  • 14.

    Gomes, E.; da Costa, E.M.; Abrantes, P. Spatial Planning and Land-Use Management; MDPI: Basel, Switzerland, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-7258-0139-8.

  • 15.

    Gomes, E.; Inácio, M.; Bogdzevič, K.; et al. Future Scenarios Impact on Land Use Change and Habitat Quality in Lithuania. Environ. Res. 2021, 197, 111101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111101.

  • 16.

    Gregory, A.J.; Atkins, J.P.; Midgley, G.; et al. Stakeholder Identification and Engagement in Problem Structuring Interventions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2020, 283, 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.10.044.

  • 17.

    Dick-Sagoe, C.; Lee, K.Y.; Odoom, D.; et al. Stakeholder Perceptions on Causes and Effects of Public Project Failures in Ghana. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01497-7.

  • 18.

    Acosta, L.; Klein, R.J.T.; Reidsma, P.; et al. A Spatially Explicit Scenario-Driven Model of Adaptive Capacity to Global Change in Europe. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 1211–1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.008.

  • 19.

    Duguma, D.W.; Schultner, J.; Abson, D.J.; et al. From Stories to Maps: Translating Participatory Scenario Narratives into Spatially Explicit Information. Ecol. Soc. 2021, 27, art13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13200-270213.

  • 20.

    Gomes, E.; Banos, A.; Abrantes, P.; et al. Chapter 2—Future Land Use/Cover Changes and Participatory Planning. In Mapping and Forecasting Land Use; Pereira, P., Gomes, E., Rocha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90947-1.00001-6.

  • 21.

    Hilson, G. An Overview of Land Use Conflicts in Mining Communities. Land Use Policy 2002, 19, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00043-6.

  • 22.

    Abouelmagd, D.; Elrawy, S. Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development: The Case of Port Said city in Egypt. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2022, 8, 2088460. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2088460.

  • 23.

    Reed, J.; Ros-Tonen, M.A.F.; Adeyanju, S.; et al. From Conflict to Collaboration through Inclusive Landscape Governance: Evidence from a Contested Landscape in Ghana. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2024, 88, 102909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102909.

  • 24.

    Antwi, S.H.; Stephens, C.G.; Rolston, A.; et al. Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making: A Water Sector Perspective. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2025, 26, 100656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2025.100656.

  • 25.

    Magsi, H.; Sabir, M.; Torre, A.; et al. Management Practices to Minimize Land Use Conflicts on Large Infrastructure Projects: Examples of Dams Construction in Pakistan. GeoJournal 2022, 87, 4851–4861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10532-0.

  • 26.

    Ma, J.; Tian, L.; Zhang, Y.; et al. Global Property Rights and Land Use Efficiency. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 8525. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-52859-5.

  • 27.

    Milczarek-Andrzejewska, D.; Zawalińska, K.; Czarnecki, A. Land-Use Conflicts and the Common Agricultural Policy: Evidence from Poland. Land Use Policy 2018, 73, 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.016.

  • 28.

    Bekele, A.E.; Drabik, D.; Dries, L.; et al. Large-Scale Land Investments and Land-Use Conflicts in the Agro-Pastoral Areas of Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 2022, 119, 106166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106166.

  • 29.

    Bontempi, A.; Venturi, P.; Del Bene, D.; et al. Conflict and Conservation: On the Role of Protected Areas for Environmental Justice. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2023, 82, 102740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102740.

  • 30.

    Bousfield, C.G.; Morton, O.; Edwards, D.P. Climate Change Will Exacerbate Land Conflict between Agriculture and Timber Production. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2024, 14, 1071–1077. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02113-z.

  • 31.

    Kennedy, C.M.; Fariss, B.; Oakleaf, J.R.; et al. Indigenous Peoples’ Lands are Threatened by Industrial Development; Conversion Risk Assessment Reveals Need to Support Indigenous Stewardship. One Earth 2023, 6, 1032–1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.07.006.

  • 32.

    Krumins, J.; Klavins, M. Scenario-Based Modeling of Land-Use and Land-Cover Changes to Promote Sustainability in Biosphere Reserves: A Case Study from North Vidzeme, Latvia. Front. Remote Sens. 2025, 6, 1567002. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsen.2025.1567002.

  • 33.

    Wu, B.; Wang, S.; Zou, Y.; et al. Multi-Scenario Simulation of Land Use Spatial Conflicts: A Spatially Explicit Model Integrating Conflict Risk and Ecological Impact. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-025-06329-7.

  • 34.

    Lacher, I.; Fergus, C.; McShea, W.J.; et al. Modeling Alternative Future Scenarios for Direct Application in Land Use and Conservation Planning. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2023, 5, e12940. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12940.

  • 35.

    Henríquez, C.; Morales, M.; Qüense, J.; et al. Future Land Use Conflicts: Comparing Spatial Scenarios for Urban-Regional Planning. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2023, 50, 332–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083221111404.

  • 36.

    Oliveira, E.; Meyfroidt, P. Strategic Spatial Planning in Emerging Land-Use Frontiers: Evidence from Mozambique. Ecol. Soc. 2022, 27, art5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13001-270205.

  • 37.

    D’Alberto, R.; Zavalloni, M.; Pagliacci, F. The Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts of the Italian National Parks: Time and Spillover Effects across Different Geographical Contexts. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2024, 86, 102838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102838.

  • 38.

    de Assis Barros, L.; Venter, M.; Ramírez-Delgado, J.P.; et al. No Evidence of Local Deforestation Leakage from Protected Areas Establishment in Brazil’s Amazon and Atlantic Forest. Biol. Conserv. 2022, 273, 109695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109695.

  • 39.

    Lambin, E.F.; Furumo, P.R. Deforestation-Free Commodity Supply Chains: Myth or Reality? Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2023, 48, 237–261. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-121436.

  • 40.

    da Silva, R.F.B.; Moran, E.F.; Millington, J.D.A.; et al. Complex Relationships between Soybean Trade Destination and Tropical Deforestation. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 11254. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38405-1.

  • 41.

    Cordova-Pozo, K.; Rouwette, E.A.J.A. Types of Scenario Planning and Their Effectiveness: A Review of Reviews. Futures 2023, 149, 103153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103153.

  • 42.

    Abou Jaoude, G.; Mumm, O.; Carlow, V.M. An Overview of Scenario Approaches: A Guide for Urban Design and Planning. J. Plan. Lit. 2022, 37, 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/08854122221083546.

  • 43.

    Schwarz, J.O.; Ram, C.; Rohrbeck, R. Combining Scenario Planning and Business Wargaming to Better Anticipate Future Competitive Dynamics. Futures 2019, 105, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.10.001.

  • 44.

    Galang, E.I.N.E.; Bennett, E.M.; Hickey, G.M.; et al. Participatory Scenario Planning: A Social Learning Approach to Build Systems Thinking and Trust for Sustainable Environmental Governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 2025, 164, 103997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.103997.

  • 45.

    Hao, H.; Wang, Y.; Chen, J. Empowering Scenario Planning with Artificial Intelligence: A Perspective on Building Smart and Resilient Cities. Engineering 2024, 43, 272–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2024.06.012.

  • 46.

    Symstad, A.J.; Fisichelli, N.A.; Miller, B.W.; et al. Multiple Methods for Multiple Futures: Integrating Qualitative Scenario Planning and Quantitative Simulation Modeling for Natural Resource Decision Making. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 17, 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.07.002.

  • 47.

    Ariza-Álvarez, A.; Soria-Lara, J.A. Participatory Mapping in Exploratory Scenario Planning: Necessity or Luxury? Futures 2024, 160, 103398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2024.103398.

  • 48.

    Weck, S.; Ali, M.; Schmitt, P. Place-Based Development and Spatial Justice. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2022, 30, 791–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1928038.

  • 49.

    Hessel, R. et al. Linking Participatory and GIS-Based Land Use Planning Methods: A Case Study from Burkina Faso. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 1162–1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.02.008.

  • 50.

    Pereira, P.; Gomes, E.; Rocha, J. Preface. In Mapping and Forecasting Land Use; Pereira, P., Gomes, E., Rocha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. xvii–xviii. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90947-1.00023-5.

  • 51.

    Brown, G.; Raymond, C.M. Methods for Identifying Land Use Conflict Potential Using Participatory Mapping. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 122, 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.007.

  • 52.

    Wang, D.; Wang, M.; Zheng, W.; et al. A Multi-Level Spatial Assessment Framework for Identifying Land Use Conflict Zones. Land Use Policy 2025, 148, 107382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107382.

  • 53.

    Star, J. et al. Supporting Adaptation Decisions through Scenario Planning: Enabling the Effective Use of Multiple Methods. Clim. Risk Manag. 2016, 13, 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2016.08.001.

  • 54.

    Waldick, R.; Bizikova, L.; White, D.; et al. An Integrated Decision-Support Process for Adaptation Planning: Climate Change as Impetus for Scenario Planning in an Agricultural Region of Canada. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017, 17, 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0992-5.

  • 55.

    Nygrén, N.A. Scenario Workshops as a Tool for Participatory Planning in a Case of Lake Management. Futures 2019, 107, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.10.004.

  • 56.

    Van Wynsberghe, R.; Moore, J.; Tansey, J.; et al. Towards Community Engagement: Six Steps to Expert Learning for Future Scenario Development. Futures 2003, 35, 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00054-X.

  • 57.

    Rigo, R.; Martin, P.; Verburg, P.H.; et al. Contributions of Local LUCC Spatially Explicit Scenarios for Water Management: Lessons Learned from an Ex-Post Evaluation. Futures 2022, 139, 102937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.102937.

  • 58.

    Karner, K.; Cord, A.F.; Hagemann, N.; et al. Developing Stakeholder-Driven Scenarios on Land Sharing and Land Sparing—Insights from Five European Case Studies. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 241, 488–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.050.

  • 59.

    Hersperger, A.M.; Oliveira, E.; Pagliarin, S.; et al. Urban Land-Use Change: The Role of Strategic Spatial Planning. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 51, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.001.

  • 60.

    Lü, G.; Michael, B.; Josef, S.; et al. Reflections and Speculations on the Progress in Geographic Information Systems (GIS): A Geographic Perspective. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2019, 33, 346–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2018.1533136.

  • 61.

    Gomes, E.; Banos, A.; Abrantes, P.; et al. Future Land Use Changes in a Peri-Urban Context: Local Stakeholder Views. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718, 137381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137381.

  • 62.

    Bonnevie, I.M.; Hansen, H.S.; Schrøder, L.; et al. Engaging Stakeholders in Marine Spatial Planning for Collaborative Scoring of Conflicts and Synergies within a Spatial Tool Environment. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2023, 233, 106449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106449.

  • 63.

    Verburg, P.H.; Soepboer, W.; Veldkamp, A.; et al. Modeling the Spatial Dynamics of Regional Land Use: The CLUE-S Model. Environ. Manag. 2002, 30, 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2630-x.

  • 64.

    Zhao, J.; Cao, Y.; Yu, L.; et al. Future Global Conflict Risk Hotspots between Biodiversity Conservation and Food Security: 10 Countries and 7 Biodiversity Hotspots. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2022, 34, e02036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02036.

  • 65.

    Neugarten, R.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Sharp, R.P.; et al. Mapping the Planet’s Critical Areas for Biodiversity and Nature’s Contributions to People. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 261. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43832-9.

  • 66.

    de Jong, J.; Spaans, M. Trade-Offs at a Regional Level in Spatial Planning: Two Case Studies as a Source of Inspiration. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.04.005.

  • 67.

    Carvalho Ribeiro, S.; Fereira, E.; Paula, L.G.; et al. What Can Be Learned from Using Participatory Landscape Scenarios in Rio Doce State Park, Brazil? Landsc. Ecol. 2024, 39, 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01860-w.

  • 68.

    Davret, J.; Trouillet, B. How Do Stakeholders Engage with Critical Cartography in Planning? Analysis of a Decision-Making Process in Marine Governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 2025, 169, 104083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104083.

  • 69.

    Wang, A.; Zheng, W.; Tan, Z.; et al. Synergies and Trade-Offs in Achieving Sustainable Targets of Urban Renewal: A Decision-Making Support Framework. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2024, 52, 490–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083241261750.

  • 70.

    Marondedze, A.K.; Mutanga, O.; Cho, M.A. Promoting Inclusion in Urban Land Use Planning Using Participatory Geographic Information System (PGIS) Techniques: A Systematic Review. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 370, 123099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123099.

  • 71.

    Asante-Yeboah, E.; Koo, H.; Ros-Tonen, M.A.F.; et al. Participatory and Spatially Explicit Assessment to Envision the Future of Land-Use/Land-Cover Change Scenarios on Selected Ecosystem Services in Southwestern Ghana. Environ. Manag. 2024, 74, 94–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-01943-z.

  • 72.

    Lingua, V.; Caruso, E. Futures Literacy as a Reading Key for Strategic Spatial Planning: A Community Learning Process for Defining Shared Futures in the Ombrone River Agreement. Futures 2022, 140, 102935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.102935.

  • 73.

    Cieślak, I. Identification of Areas Exposed to Land Use Conflict with the Use of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods. Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104225.

  • 74.

    Tress, B.; Tress, G. Scenario Visualisation for Participatory Landscape Planning—A Study from Denmark. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 64, 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00219-0.

  • 75.

    Galparsoro, I.; Montero, N.; Mandiola, G.; et al. Assessment Tool Addresses Implementation Challenges of Ecosystem-Based Management Principles in Marine Spatial Planning Processes. Commun. Earth Environ. 2025, 6, 55. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01975-7.

  • 76.

    Gomes, E.; Costa, E.M.; Abrantes, P. Spatial Planning and Land-Use Management. Land 2024, 13, 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010094. 

  • 77.

    Lerouge, F.; Gulinck, H.; Vranken, L. Valuing Ecosystem Services to Explore Scenarios for Adaptive Spatial Planning. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 81, 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.018.

  • 78.

    Bacău, S.; Domingo, D.; Palka, G.; et al. Integrating Strategic Planning Intentions into Land-Change Simulations: Designing and Assessing Scenarios for Bucharest. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 76, 103446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103446.

  • 79.

    Suchá, L.; Vaňo, S.; Jančovič, M.; et al. Collaborative Scenario Building: Engaging Stakeholders to Unravel Opportunities for Urban Adaptation Planning. Urban Clim. 2022, 45, 101277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101277.

  • 80.

    Kariuki, R.W.; Munishi, L.K.; Courtney-Mustaphi, C.J.; et al. Integrating Stakeholders’ Perspectives and Spatial Modelling to Develop Scenarios of Future Land Use and Land Cover Change in Northern Tanzania. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245516. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245516.

  • 81.

    Andersen, P.D.; Hansen, M.; Selin, C. Stakeholder Inclusion in Scenario Planning—A Review of European Projects. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 169, 120802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120802.

  • 82.

    Cheng, J.; Richter, A.; Cong, W.F.; et al. Stakeholder Perspectives on Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes: A Case Study in the North China Plain. Agric. Syst. 2025, 223, 104187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104187.

  • 83.

    Vitálišová, K.; Murray-Svidroňová, M.; Jakuš-Muthová, N. Stakeholder Participation in Local Governance as a Key to Local Strategic Development. Cities 2021, 118, 103363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103363.

  • 84.

    Mussehl, M.L.; Horne, A.C.; Webb, J.A.; et al. Purposeful Stakeholder Engagement for Improved Environmental Flow Outcomes. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 9, 770272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.770272.

  • 85.

    Geneletti, D. Environmental Assessment of Spatial Plan Policies through Land Use Scenarios: A Study in a Fast-Developing Town in Rural Mozambique. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012, 32, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.015.

  • 86.

    Karimi, A.; Adams, V.M. Planning for the Future: Combining Spatially-Explicit Public Preferences with Tenure Policies to Support Land-Use Planning. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.033.

  • 87.

    Bouw, E.; Ilya, Z.; de Bruijn, E. Multilevel Design Considerations for Vocational Curricula at the Boundary of School and Work. J. Curric. Stud. 2021, 53, 765–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1899290.

  • 88.

    Lin, T.J.; Buckley, J.; Gumaelius, L.; et al. The Potential for Spatial Ability Development through the Swedish Technology and Craft Compulsory Curricula. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2025, 35, 1409–1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09958-7.

  • 89.

    Banaszewska, M.; Bischoff, I.; Bode, E.; et al. Does Inter-Municipal Cooperation Help Improve Local Economic Performance?—Evidence from Poland. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2022, 92, 103748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2021.103748.

  • 90.

    Di Gregorio, M.; Fatorelli, L.; Paavola, J.; et al. Multi-Level Governance and Power in Climate Change Policy Networks. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 54, 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.003.

  • 91.

    Ros-Tonen, M.A.F.; Reed, J.; Sunderland, T. From Synergy to Complexity: The Trend Toward Integrated Value Chain and Landscape Governance. Environ. Manag. 2018, 62, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1055-0.

  • 92.

    Weber, M.; Strijbis, J.; Osner, N.; et al. An Open-Source Method for Spatially and Temporally Explicit Herbivory Monitoring in Semi-Arid Savannas. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 377, 124690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124690.

  • 93.

    Boeing, G.; Higgs, C.; Liu, S.; et al. Using Open Data and Open-Source Software to Develop Spatial Indicators of Urban Design and Transport Features for Achieving Healthy and Sustainable Cities. Lancet Glob. Health 2022, 10, e907–e918. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00072-9.

  • 94.

    López-Rodríguez, M.D.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Ruiz-Mallén, I.; et al. Visualizing Stakeholders’ Willingness for Collective Action in Participatory Scenario Planning. Ecol. Soc. 2023, 28, art5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14101-280205.

  • 95.

    Soria-Lara, J.A.; Ariza-Álvarez, A.; Aguilera-Benavente, F.; et al. Participatory Visioning for Building Disruptive Future Scenarios for Transport and Land Use Planning. J. Transp. Geogr. 2021, 90, 102907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102907.

  • 96.

    Crispim-Mendes, T.; Marques, A.T.; Valerio, F.; et al. Using Spatially Explicit Individual-Based Models to Prioritize Conservation Strategies: A Case Study on the Little Bustard. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 379, 124790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124790.

  • 97.

    Pan, H.; Zhang, L.; Cong, C.; et al. A Dynamic and Spatially Explicit Modeling Approach to Identify the Ecosystem Service Implications of Complex Urban Systems Interactions. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 102, 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.02.059.

  • 98.

    Muiderman, K.; Zurek, M.; Vervoort, J.; et al. The Anticipatory Governance of Sustainability Transformations: Hybrid Approaches and Dominant Perspectives. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2022, 73, 102452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102452.

  • 99.

    Bina, O. A Critical Review of the Dominant Lines of Argumentation on the Need for Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2007, 27, 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.003.

  • 100.

    Wedding, L.M.; Pittman, S.J.; Lepczyk, C.A.; et al. Integrating the Multiple Perspectives of People and Nature in Place-Based Marine Spatial Planning. NPJ Ocean Sustain. 2024, 3, 43. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-024-00071-9.

  • 101.

    Palacios-Agundez, I.; Onaindia, M.; Potschin, M.; et al. Relevance for Decision Making of Spatially Explicit, Participatory Scenarios for Ecosystem Services in an Area of a High Current Demand. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.002.

  • 102.

    Butler, A.; Sinclair, K.A. Place Matters: A Critical Review of Place Inquiry and Spatial Methods in Education Research. Rev. Res. Educ. 2020, 44, 64–96. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20903303.

  • 103.

    Koldasbayeva, D.; Tregubova, P.; Gasanov, M.; et al. Challenges in Data-Driven Geospatial Modeling for Environmental Research and Practice. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 10700. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-55240-8.

  • 104.

    Ren, Y.; Lü, Y.; Comber, A.; et al. Spatially Explicit Simulation of Land Use/Land Cover Changes: Current Coverage and Future Prospects. Earth Sci. Rev. 2019, 190, 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.01.001.

  • 105.

    Forsius, M.; Kujala, H.; Minunno, F.; et al. Developing a Spatially Explicit Modelling and Evaluation Framework for Integrated Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversity Conservation: Application in Southern Finland. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 775, 145847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145847.

  • 106.

    Rădulescu, M.A.; Wim, L.; Arts, J. Co-Creation in Spatial Planning: Analysing the Different Forms and Natures of Interactions between Multiple Actors. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2025, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2025.2490121.

  • 107.

    Lazurko, A.; Schweizer, V.; Pintér, L.; et al. Boundaries of the Future: A Framework for Reflexive Scenario Practice in Sustainability Science. One Earth 2023, 6, 1703–1725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.10.023.

  • 108.

    Kankam, S.; Koo, H.; Inkoom, J.N.; et al. Modeling Coastal Land Use Scenario Impacts on Ecosystem Services Restoration in Southwest Ghana, West Africa. NPJ Ocean Sustain. 2025, 4, 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-025-00105-w.

  • 109.

    Finch, M.; Older, M.; Mahon, M.; et al. Climate Action and the Vantage Point of Imagined Futures: A Scenario-Based Conversation. NPJ Clim. Action 2024, 3, 45. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-024-00123-3.

  • 110.

    La Rosa, D.; Pappalardo, V. Planning for Spatial Equity—A Performance Based Approach for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 53, 101885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101885.

  • 111.

    Pickerill, J.; Chitewere, T.; Cornea, N.; et al. Urban Ecological Futures: Five Eco-Community Strategies for More Sustainable and Equitable Cities. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2024, 48, 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.13209.

  • 112.

    Volkery, A.; Ribeiro, T. Scenario Planning in Public Policy: Understanding Use, Impacts and the Role of Institutional Context Factors. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2009, 76, 1198–1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.009.

  • 113.

    Aro, K.; Jyrki, A.; Ville, L.; et al. The Use of Scenarios in Climate Policy Planning: An Assessment of Actors’ Experiences and Lessons Learned in Finland. Clim. Policy 2023, 23, 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2123773.

  • 114.

    Eilola, S.; Käyhkö, N.; Fagerholm, N. Lessons Learned from Participatory Land Use Planning with High-Resolution Remote Sensing Images in Tanzania: Practitioners’ and Participants’ Perspectives. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105649.

  • 115.

    Zhong, Y.; Yan, B.; Yi, J.; et al. Global Urban High-Resolution Land-Use Mapping: From Benchmarks to Multi-Megacity Applications. Remote Sens. Environ. 2023, 298, 113758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2023.113758.

  • 116.

    Sabri, S.; Witte, P. Digital Technologies in Urban Planning and Urban Management. J. Urban Manag. 2023, 12, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2023.02.003.

  • 117.

    Piniarski, W. Challenges of a GIS-Based Physical-Geographical Regionalization of Poland. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195, 1125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11734-4.

  • 118.

    Duckett, D.G.; McKee, A.J.; Sutherland, L.A.; et al. Scenario Planning as Communicative Action: Lessons from Participatory Exercises Conducted for the Scottish Livestock Industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 114, 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.034.

  • 119.

    Perez, T.S. Anticipating Workshop Fatigue to Navigate Power Relations in International Transdisciplinary Partnerships: A Climate Change Case Study. Curr. Sociol. 2020, 69, 1051–1068. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392120927778.

  • 120.

    Avin, U.; Robert, G.; Murnen, L. From Exploratory Scenarios to Plans: Bridging the Gap. Plan. Theory Pract. 2022, 23, 637–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2022.2119008.

  • 121.

    Gomes, E.; Banos, A.; Abrantes, P.; et al. Agricultural Land Fragmentation Analysis in a Peri-Urban Context: From the Past into the Future. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 97, 380–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.10.025.

  • 122.

    Colombi, C.; Zindato, D. Design Scenarios and Anticipation. In Handbook of Anticipation: Theoretical and Applied Aspects of the Use of Future in Decision Making; Poli, R., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 821–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91554-8_52.

  • 123.

    Kuzdas, C.; Wiek, A. Governance Scenarios for Addressing Water Conflicts and Climate Change Impacts. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 42, 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.06.007.

Share this article:
Download PDF
DOI
10.53941/eesus.2026.100002
Issue
Volume 2, Issue 1
How to Cite
Gomes, E. From Overlapping Claims to Shared Futures: Addressing Land Use Conflicts through Spatially-Explicit Scenario Planning. Earth: Environmental Sustainability 2026, 2 (1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.53941/eesus.2026.100002.
RIS
BibTex
Copyright & License
article copyright Image
Copyright (c) 2026 by the authors.