**7. Conclusions**

What strategies could increase the importance of landscapes and local/regional research to policy makers? Given the diversity of climatic conditions and global ecosystems, no uniform scheme can be sufficient. The place-based, human scale approach of historical ecology, paired with its flexible toolbox, can increase support from planners and administrators, elected officials, citizen-powered associations, and the public.

The need to anchor the elements that comprise landscapes within broader physical and social contexts is a key feature of historical ecology. Considerable landscape research is already addressing many topics of enduring interest to managers. We have seen projects in Sicily and France that anticipate climate change, and additional examples address the global comparison of innovation in agricultural economies [121,122]; the genetic history of crops and contemporary food security [123]; and the economic and environmental consequences of agriculture, forestry, and other practices [124,125]. Engelhard and colleagues' six policy themes (climate change, biodiversity conservation, habitat integrity, ecosystem structure and function, food security, socioeconomic considerations, and more democratic governance) offer some good ideas for increasing this trend and adapting them to landscapes. By consolidating the interests of multiple local and regional stakeholders, thematic research can catch the interest of funding entities and policy makers.

Another important theme of historical ecology is the investigation of baselines. With shared research and clear policy goals, landscape ecology/archaeology can routinely extend baselines, examine contexts, and compare managemen<sup>t</sup> and policy strategies [90]. This is particularly useful for conservation planning, to evaluate species health, abundance, and social/economic contexts under different managemen<sup>t</sup> regimes. Species that evoke contentious community response (e.g., wolves, boars, deer) have long been of interest to environmental historians, geographers, and cultural anthropologists whose work links well with zooarchaeology and genomics. Engelhard and colleagues' [109] six policy themes (climate change, biodiversity conservation, habitat integrity, ecosystem structure and function, food security, socioeconomic considerations, and more democratic governance) offer some good ideas for increasing this trend and adapting them to landscapes.

Contentious issues such as these need not end badly; there are means to adjudicate disputes [126–128]. The Harvard University Law School's Program on Negotiation publishes the Negotiation Journal and other teaching materials [129]. Trade-offs can be examined against payoffs [130,131] and ways forward can be found. While environmental regulation is often controversial, it is imperative that solid science and stakeholder voices be a critical component of good policy.

Wherever they work, historical ecological researchers have concentrated on supporting communities that, together with their scholarly collaborators, set goals. These alliances include citizen scientists (especially young people and knowledgeable elders) whose local knowledge enhances discovery, monitoring, and other activities. Collaborative heritage managemen<sup>t</sup> benefits diverse actors.

Both marine historical ecology and landscape ecology/archaeology communities have found allies in like-minded funding agencies and alliances with international and global entities. Such alliances can offer many forms of support (e.g., funding, publicity, logistics, advice, access). While the MHE researchers were building networks and exploring citizen science, landscape researchers have focused on managemen<sup>t</sup> technologies and training the next generation of scholars. Of course, the MHE projects were also training scholars, and the landscape projects were reaching out to communities; both have, quite rightly, been fine-tuning important arenas of competence and engagemen<sup>t</sup> with funders.

Taken together, they are building an increasingly integrated historical ecology. A research design that uses a complex systems approach (that is, to identify multiple temporal and spatial drivers of systemic change) integrates researchers across disciplinary boundaries and encourages the participation of other stakeholders. However, if all this work is meant to benefit the future, it is now time to wade into areas of conflict, not as proponents of one side or another but to offer peer-reviewed, stakeholder-supported assessments and managemen<sup>t</sup> options for landscapes and waterscapes across time and space. This is the power of the past for the future.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable. **Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author has no conflict of interest.
