Multifunctional landscapes begin with behavior change

Visioning is a participatory process through which communities and other landscape actors define the future they want and the changes needed to reach it. For community development, it creates a shared direction for coordinating land use, livelihoods, and institutions. During the first Landscape Vision to Action (LV2A) session in 2025, stakeholders envisioned a well-governed, multifunctional, and climate-resilient Zambezi Valley. The second session shifted from defining the destination to identifying how to get there: which actors need to behave differently, what enables or constrains those changes, and which existing assets can support them. Within CGIAR’s Science Program on Multifunctional Landscapes (MFL), LV2A helps unpack community priorities and challenges and translate them into actor-specific behaviour changes. This evidence helps align research and implementation activities with the shared vision and shows how existing knowledge, skills, institutions and relationships can be leveraged. Participants developed and consolidated these findings through women’s, men’s and institutional stakeholder groups, a World Café and plenary discussion. Participants working in a facilitated group to identify actor-specific behavior changes, barriers, enablers and assets needed to achieve the shared landscape vision Photo: CIMMYT Different actors require different changes At village and ward levels, proposed changes centered on land-management practices, change in mindset, and local accountability. Participants called for safer management of pesticide containers and residues, soil-erosion control, retention of crop residues, afforestation, regulated tree cutting, regulated gold panning, and community-led gully rehabilitation. Suggested measures included conservation agriculture, intercropping, vegetative barriers, sandbagging, legislation, and tree planting. Traditional leaders and local committees were assigned roles in communicating rules and monitoring compliance. At district and national levels, the emphasis shifted from individual practice to institutional delivery. Participants identified stronger enforcement against streambank cultivation and illegal alluvial mining; irrigation development; alternative household energy; improved waste management; management of invasive species; stronger human–wildlife conflict mitigation; restoration after mining; and improved health, water and road services. Several proposals also required research, including wildlife-conflict mitigation, crop traits less attractive to wildlife and control of invasive species. Enablers and barriers change with scale The results show that barriers were not uniform across the landscape. Lack of knowledge and communication breakdown were prominent in proposals directed at farmers, the public and traditional leadership. For government agencies and development actors, funding, staffing, equipment, research capacity and policy constraints dominated. Human–wildlife conflict, for example, was linked not only to community practices but also to patrol resources, compensation arrangements, legislation and coordination among ZimParks, local government, CAMPFIRE and safari operators. Participants also identified enablers at different scales. At village and ward levels, these included locally available plant materials/natural resources, by-laws and legislation, knowledge, and institutional support. At district and national levels, enablers included policies and penalties, human and financial resources, irrigation and solar-energy infrastructure, trained farmers, research capacity and development partners. Funding and policy appeared as both enablers and barriers depending on their availability and implementation. Building on existing assets Participants identified knowledge, skills, motivations and relationships that could support the desired behavior changes. Available assets included knowledge about crop and livestock farming, forests, rivers, wildlife, environmental management, and indigenous knowledge. Practical skills included farming, carpentry, sewing, baking, beekeeping, gardening, aquaculture, livestock production, tree planting, and gully rehabilitation. Participants also identified shared commitments to food security, education, cultural practices, environmental protection, faith, community gatherings and youth wellbeing. Participants also identified relationships with government departments, traditional leaders, churches, schools, development partners, farmer groups, and other local institutions as important landscape assets. These networks can support information exchange, resource mobilization, coordination, and the uptake of new practices. Together, these assets provide a foundation for achieving the shared vision of a well-governed, climate-resilient and multifunctional landscape. Livelihood skills and enterprises support income generation and food security, while environmental knowledge and restoration practices contribute to healthier ecosystems. Social and institutional relationships enable coordination, knowledge exchange and collective action. By linking these assets, the landscape can support multiple functions including agricultural production, biodiversity conservation, resilient livelihoods and community wellbeing. What the workshop adds to LV2A Four practical lessons emerge. First, a landscape vision must be translated into changes assigned to named actors. Second, barriers and enablers must be diagnosed at the scale where they operate. Third, transition pathways should build on existing capabilities rather than begin only with external inputs. Fourth, relationships determine whether knowledge, finance, authority and services can be mobilised across scales. The workshop outputs now provide inputs for the next LV2A stage. Behaviour-change statements can be linked to specific assets and constraints; weak or missing institutional relationships can become coordination priorities; and bilateral discussions with key agencies can test assumptions about mandate, capacity and political economy. Combined with natural and physical resource mapping, these findings will support the co-design of transition pathways that specify actions, responsibilities and enabling conditions. The next step is to prioritize the proposals, verify their feasibility, assign responsibilities and define indicators of progress towards the ten-year vision.