Systematic review evaluates landscape observatories' effectiveness in monitoring changes and influencing policy.
Over the past two decades, the notion of landscape observatories has gained prominence as a strategic tool for monitoring, documenting and interpreting landscape change. These entities combine scientific research, policy advice and public engagement, aiming to bridge the gap between territorial knowledge and decision-making. This paper presents a systematic review of the scientific literature on landscape observatories, complemented by an original comparative database of 188 landscape observatories and related initiatives worldwide. Bibliographic searches were conducted in Web of Science, Scopus and ProQuest, using the term “Landscape Observatory” and related expressions. The quantitative analysis reveals a steady growth of publications since the early 2000s, with a marked concentration in Europe, particularly France, Italy, and Spain, where the implementation of the European Landscape Convention fostered institutionalisation. Regional-scale observatories dominate the dataset, while national examples illustrate standardised approaches to landscape monitoring. Methodological diversity is evident, as most initiatives rely on GIS and remote sensing, while others emphasise photographic documentation or participatory perception studies. Despite this richness, the review identifies persistent gaps in impact evaluation, long-term institutional sustainability and methodological integration across physical and social dimensions of the landscape. Landscape observatories are thus positioned as promising but still evolving instruments for multi-scalar governance, capable of connecting observation, policy and collective awareness. To consolidate their role, future efforts should focus on harmonising indicators, ensuring continuity beyond political cycles, and promoting interdisciplinary and participatory frameworks that capture both the material and experiential facets of landscape transformation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Caballero‐Calvo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: