**4. Conclusions**

Our review shows a growing interest in research related to the integration of ILK in landscape approaches. Studies that explore such integration are likely to continue as the value of ILK in biodiversity conservation, landscape managemen<sup>t</sup> and climate change adaptation is further promoted through global mechanisms such as the UNFCCC, IPBES, UNEP and UNESCO (through their Man and Biosphere Reserve program). We found several research themes and fields represented in the case studies we reviewed, with a predominance of studies related to agricultural systems, followed by social-ecological systems, indigenous governance, natural resource management, biodiversity conservation and climate change studies, especially those related to early warning systems for disaster risk reduction. The low number of studies specifically addressing climate change suggests the need for more research at the nexus between ILK, climate change and landscape governance and management. Local landscape users have intimate knowledge of any changes in their environment and landscapes, as well as

knowledge of past and contemporary practices for dealing with some of these changes. Such ILK could play an important role in fostering more climate resilient landscapes. We also found that many of the studies we reviewed were conducted in the global south where some of the greatest landscape challenges are found. Moreover, there is strong support and funding for practical work in landscape managemen<sup>t</sup> in regions like Africa, Asia and South America. The dominance of donor funding for the case studies, sugges<sup>t</sup> that many of the studies may be linked to implementation projects. This is typical of transdisciplinary research that aims to work closely with stakeholders.

We found several factors that supported or created challenges to the integration of ILK in landscape approaches. Important challenges such as ine ffective cross-scale interactions, incomplete representation of key stakeholders/actors in projects and minimal attention paid to local practices and rights of indigenous people were identified. Systematically untangling these components and engaging in best practice towards knowledge integration will help towards paving a more inclusive way forward in the application of the landscape approach. Our review demonstrated that this might be done by improving engagemen<sup>t</sup> between scientific knowledge and ILK through methodologies that bring di fferent stakeholders into the same space. Other potential enablers could include supporting the development of strategies to empower marginalized communities; promotion of social learning based on experiences of past events among local communities; co-production and co-managemen<sup>t</sup> of knowledge systems for landscape studies; adaptable and inclusive governance systems to facilitate collaboration; and a holistic approach to enhance ecosystem resilience and inclusive sustainable knowledge transfer (see Supplementary Materials, Table S1). Recognizing that one of the major objectives of the landscape approach is to e ffectively inform the co-design and implementation of future landscape managemen<sup>t</sup> strategies and governance systems, then there is need to promote a holistic methodological framework that (a) evaluates all forms of knowledge (scientific and traditional knowledge), (b) considers any potential trade-o ffs, (c) supports decision-making that includes multiple perspectives, and finally (d) enhances engagemen<sup>t</sup> of indigenous people and their knowledge in new knowledge creation. Without this systematic inclusion of ILK in landscape managemen<sup>t</sup> it may prove di fficult improve ecosystem health, climate resilience and livelihoods.

In conclusion, our review has demonstrated the growing importance of multi-stakeholder collaborations in local landscape research and the promotion of inclusive consultations that have helped to bring ILK to the fore in the knowledge development process. This, in turn, can support improved landscape management, governance and planning for more climate resilient landscapes. However, more research is needed to explore ways to more e ffectively link ILK and scientific knowledge in landscape studies through collaborative, knowledge co-production processes that give specific attention to the voices of local land users and other stakeholders. Furthermore, more systematic documentation of the experiences, learning and relationships built through such processes and how these influence landscape governance and managemen<sup>t</sup> is required. Lastly, more studies that confirm the usefulness of ILK, recognise multiple landscape values and their interaction with structures and policies dealing with landscape managemen<sup>t</sup> and governance are necessary for wider adoption of landscape approaches that incorporate ILK as a key element.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/9/331/s1, Figure S1: Number of studies according to their content in terms of (a) knowledge co-production, (b) collaboration/ engagemen<sup>t</sup> mentioned, (c) future recommendations given, Table S1: Summary of recommendations from the publications reviewed, Appendix S1: List of publications considered in the review.

**Author Contributions:** P.A.W., L.S. and S.S. conceptualized the study. P.A.W. and L.S. were responsible for design of the study's methodology, data collection and analysis. P.A.W. led writing of the paper with L.S. support. S.S. reviewed the manuscript and provided relevant feedback to improve it. All authors contributed substantially to the writing, reviewing and editing of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding. **Acknowledgments:** We acknowledge the World Universities Network (WUN) for funding our project on "Climate Resilient African Landscapes". It was during workshops under this project that theideas for this review paper, and the special issue which it forms part of, emerged.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
