Abstract
Context
In 2005 Marc Antrop published the article “Why landscapes of the past are important for the future” that became a milestone for traditional and cultural landscapes research and planning, highlighting their multifunctional role and importance for sustainable development.
Objectives
After 20 years, this paper analyzes the current role of traditional rural landscapes in relation to the concept of Ecosystem Services, to understand if and why these landscapes are still important for the future of rural areas and communities.
Results
Traditional rural landscapes still represent a resource capable of providing a wide range of Ecosystem Services to local communities, having a potential key-role for sustainable development. Institutional initiatives for their conservation and valorization testify a growing interest towards these systems and related ecological knowledge. In the context of climate change, they represent examples of sustainable adaptation and resilient strategies and practices. The preservation of these landscapes often rely only on farmers’ everyday work, while the benefits are enjoyed by the whole society; therefore, adequate support by governments and institutions should be provided to farmers who apply traditional and sustainable practices.
Conclusions
Traditional landscapes should be preserved not as museums, but only making them the multifunctional basis of rural society and economy by applying the principles of dynamic conservation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
In 2005, Marc Antrop published the article entitled “Why landscapes of the past are important for the future” (Antrop 2005) that became a milestone for research and planning related to traditional and cultural landscapes. The article highlighted the key-role and the opportunities of traditional landscapes and associated knowledge for sustainable territorial planning and management. In particular, the paper clarified that landscapes are continuously changing as they are the results of changes in societal needs in terms of products and services, and that during the twentieth century phenomena like depopulation of rural areas and intensification of agricultural activities often led to unsustainable agroecosystems. Antrop pointed out a crucial concept: landscapes of the past cannot be brought back and should not be preserved as museums, but since they are rich in terms of values and of multifunctionality and sustainability they can be preserved becoming functionally embedded in the modern society. The term “landscapes of the past”, according to the author, includes landscapes originated during different historical periods:
-
Traditional landscapes: landscapes originated before the eighteenth century, which still preserve many characteristics going back to a remote past.
-
Landscapes of the revolution age: landscapes originated as a consequence of the expanding industrialization occurred from the nineteenth century to the Second World War, usually with totally new characteristics compared to the traditional ones, which were often replaced.
-
Post-modern new landscapes: landscapes originated after the Second World War and characterized by increasing globalization and urbanization.
The concept of traditional landscape was already introduced in the scientific terminology in 1997 by the same author (Antrop 1997) with reference to the Flanders region. Despite an “official” definition is not available, in the scientific literature traditional landscapes are commonly considered landscapes of historical origin, that preserve historical continuity in landscape forms and practices and that are stable or evolve slowly (Torreggiani et al. 2014). According to Renes (2015), instead, the fact that they are stable or they evolve(ed) slowly does not always correspond to the reality, as in many cases traditional landscapes developments “could be—and have often been—quick and intensive”. Beside the speed with which they formed and evolved to adapt to the needs of the society, authors agree on the fact that traditional landscapes conserve clearly identifiable traits, practices, and characteristics that are the result of an historical process of adaptation to the surrounding environments (Renes et a. 2019).
Considering the above, this paper focuses on traditional landscape, namely rural landscapes of different types (agriculture, forest, pasture, agroforestry, agro-silvo-pastoral) that still preserve characteristics (land uses, landscape structure, practices) going back to a remote past and that have not been essentially modified by mechanization and agricultural industrialization.
Traditional landscapes fall within the “family” of cultural landscapes, whose definition and use in the scientific research and literature are normally traced back to Sauer (1925). According to his definition “a cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a culture group. Culture is the agent, the natural area the medium, the cultural landscape the result”. Indeed, the role of human activities in shaping a territory was already recognized by the German geographer Ratzel around 1890 by using the term Kulturlandschaft (Antrop and Eetvelde 2017). Although the introduction of the term cultural landscape is not recent in landscape studies, the importance of this concept and of related multifunctionality has been recognized quite recently, especially at the institutional level.
The first international initiative specifically dedicated to cultural landscapes protection was established in 1992 by the UNESCO World Heritage Convention with the inclusion of the “cultural landscapes” category within the World Heritage List, as representative properties of the “combined works of nature and of man”, “illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment”. To date, 121 properties with 6 transboundary properties have been included as cultural landscapes within the UNESCO World Heritage List. Although this list cannot be considered representative of the global situation, as some authors (Brumann and Gfeller 2022) highlighted that it is excessively dominated by European countries and that non-European cultural landscapes have struggled to gain expert approval, it still represents the main global initiative for the protection of the combined works of nature and man. Among the cultural landscape types identified and defined by UNESCO, three main sub-categories are recognised:
-
1)
Designed landscapes Created intentionally by man, such as gardens and parks, constructed for aesthetic reasons and often associated with monumental ensembles.
-
2)
Organically evolved landscapes The result of the interactive process between a specific culture in response to the natural environment. They fall into two sub-categories:
-
a.
Relict (or fossil) landscapes Landscapes that still show characteristic material features resulting from the processes that made them, but came to an end;
-
b.
Continuing landscapes Landscapes that are sustained by a still active traditional way of life in the contemporary society;
-
a.
-
3)
Associative cultural landscapes Refer symbolically to powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence.
According to the UNESCO definitions, traditional rural landscapes fall within the subcategory (b) continuing landscapes. It is necessary to highlight that the UNESCO cultural landscape definition applies only to landscapes that are considered of “outstanding universal value”, therefore not considering everyday cultural landscapes. This issue represent a significative difference respect the landscape definition given in 2000 by the European Landscape Convention, that defines landscape as “an area as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (Council of Europe 2000). This definition, in fact, includes all kinds of cultural landscapes, also everyday cultural landscapes. The “traditional landscapes” considered in this paper includes everyday traditional rural landscapes, not only the ones with characters of “outstanding universal value”.
A crucial initiative at the international level for the protection and valorization of traditional rural landscapes was the establishment in 2002 of the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Programme by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Despite this initiative does not specifically address traditional landscapes, at least in the definition and terminology, it is clearly connected to the topic. In fact, the GIAHS Programme aims at identifying and safeguard “remarkable land use systems and landscapes” resulting from the adaptation of rural communities to the surrounding environments through the application of traditional and sustainable techniques. These systems, therefore, can be considered traditional landscapes. GIAHS sites contribute to the preservation of traditional rural landscapes, agrobiodiversity, traditional knowledge, cultural and social values, and still have a key role in providing multiple products and services to the local rural communities (Koohafkan and Altieri 2011). As per May 2024, 86 systems in 26 different countries are inscribed in the GIAHS Programme, making it the most important world program specifically dedicated to agricultural heritage systems and to traditional rural landscapes. After the GIAHS Programme establishment, some countries have developed similar initiatives and lists at the national level, including China (Jiao and Min 2017), Italy (Agnoletti and Santoro 2022a), Korea (Evonne et al. 2016), and Japan (Akira and Evonne 2021), testifying a growing attention to the topic thanks to the opportunities related to sustainable rural development, rural economy diversification, landscape and agrobiodiversity conservation.
Traditional landscape preservation is strictly connected to the continuous application of traditional rural practices, testifying the strong linkages with the local traditional knowledge and with local culture. The importance of culture as a driving force in shaping agricultural landscapes was already highlighted in the scientific literature in 1995 by Nassauer (1995) and Naveh (1995), who evidenced the need of integrating attention for cultural elements in landscape ecology studies for a better understanding of mutual interactions and for sustainable landscape management. More recently, the importance of culture and of applying pluralistic approaches in landscape ecology research has been stressed by Wu (2010; 2011) and by other authors (Slámová et al. 2021; Kruse et al. 2024). At the institutional level, the role of cultural values for landscape planning and management is also highlighted by the joint program between the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and UNESCO signed in 2010 (UNESCO and CBD Secretariat 2010) and by the joint Florence Declaration on the Links between Biological and Cultural Diversity signed in 2014 (UNESCO and CBD Secretariat 2014). According to this Declaration “the current state of biological and cultural diversity in Europe results from the combination of historical and on-going […] processes and cultural heritage” and “the European landscape is predominantly a biocultural multifunctional landscape”. The same document clarifies the importance of involving local communities and their traditional knowledge for a “more effective management and governance of multifunctional biocultural landscapes”.
Meaningful advancement at the institutional level have been made in the last decades and relevant researches have been carried out, especially at the local level, but a comprehensive analysis of the current role of traditional landscapes for the future of rural areas is still lacking, representing a knowledge gap. This paper intends to analyze the multifunctional role of traditional landscapes as intended in this paper in providing various Ecosystem Services (ES) to local communities. The main aim in fact is, 20 years after the publication of Marc Antrop article, to contribute answering to the following question: why and how are traditional landscapes still important to our future?
Traditional landscapes and ecosystem services
The concept of Ecosystem Services (ES) is not particularly recent, as it was originally coined to describe the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems sustain and fulfill human life (Daily 1997). Is only in 2005, with the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Reid 2005), that this concept is extended not only to natural ecosystems, but also to ecosystems intensively managed and modified by humans, such as agricultural land, traditional or cultural landscapes, and even urban areas. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ES are defined as the “benefits people obtain from ecosystems” and can be divided in four different categories: provisioning services, regulating services, cultural services, and supporting services.
Traditional landscapes and provisioning services
Provisioning services refer to the different products obtained from agroecosystems, including food, timber, fiber, natural medicines and pharmaceuticals, but also freshwater and genetic resources. Traditional landscapes’ main role is to produce food and/or other products (i.e. timber, firewood,…) for people or for livestock; therefore, these landscapes can survive to abandonment or to agricultural intensification mainly if the final product is requested by consumers (Lieskovský et al. 2015), otherwise they often became subject to abandonment. Traditional landscapes are still strictly connected to the production of high quality and typical foods (Plieninger et al. 2014). According to Roe (2016), the link between regional landscape and collective identity related to food is increasingly stronger due to its potential for tourism and for the valorization of typical food on local and global markets. The links between traditional landscapes and food are also analyzed by García-Martín et al. (2022) who state that food certification, labelling, product information and awareness raising could promote actions to support landscape conservation and valorization, testifying an almost mutualistic relationship between traditional landscapes and food. Traditional landscapes are nowadays the place of production of different types of typical foods, often considered of higher quality with direct benefits for the health of the consumers as in the case of the Mediterranean Diet recently inscribed in the UNESCO List of Intangible Heritage (Guasch-Ferré and Willett 2021). Although the increased consumption and request of quality and typical foods could demonstrate the current importance of traditional landscapes and can contribute to their preservation even in internal areas (Calabrò et al. 2016), in some cases, as highlighted by Tomé (2021), it could favor the spread of agro-industrial crops exclusively at the service of production, with consequent social and environmental inequalities and with the loss of the main characteristics (land use, agro-silvo-pastoral practices, landscape structure,…) of the traditional landscape itself. For instance, many traditional European vineyard landscapes, where in the past vines where cultivated on small fields intercropped with other cultivations, or on terraces, have been transformed into specialized monocultures of vines (Santoro et al. 2020) as a consequence of the economic and market success of the final product.
Food is not produced solely in purely agricultural landscapes, but also traditional forests and agroforestry systems can represent crucial sources of food, especially in the Global South and in the Mediterranean basin. FAO (2022) recently reported that at least 3.5 billion people around the world commonly use non-wood forest products (NWFP). NWFP include a wide range of products (wild fruits, nuts, wild vegetables or tubers, mushrooms, edible animals and insects, honey, fodder, construction materials, rubber and resin, cork) mainly obtained from forests managed by applying traditional knowledge and practices, and these forests can be considered cultural forest landscapes (Piras and Santoro 2023). Traditionally managed forests for NWFP production also include chestnut groves, a typical cultural forest of southern Europe mountain areas that suffered widespread abandonment during the twentieth century, whose importance for landscape conservation, cultural identity and biodiversity has been largely assessed (Gondard et al. 2006; Gullino et al. 2009). Unfortunately, public and financial support for NWFP-related traditional landscapes is still lacking in most of the countries, despite the potential key-role that these multifunctional forests have for rural development and economic diversification (Sacchelli et al. 2021). Among NWFP, natural medicines and pharmaceuticals have an important role especially in the Global South, but also among some indigenous communities of the boreal forests (Uprety et al. 2012); the knowledge of flora species and their use as medicines rooted in the indigenous communities that still manage these forests according to traditional practice, can also contribute to traditionally managed forests protection and restoration (García-Flores et al. 2019; Hernandez Marentes et al. 2022). Forests managed through traditional practices are not only relevant for NWFP or for natural medicines supply, but also for providing firewood and timber. The traditional coppice management applied since the Roman times to many European forests, nowadays represents a sustainable and traditional forest management system capable of providing firewood or wood chips (in the past also charcoal) that today gains a new meaning for the links with biodiversity protection and climate change adaptation (Johann 2021).
Traditional landscapes and family farming also have a key role in preserving genetic resources (Conversa et al. 2020; Agnoletti and Santoro 2022b). Considering that the decrease of biodiversity and of agrobiodiversity is considered one of the major environmental threats at global level and that there is an urgent need to adopt agroecosytems approaches to enhance food security (Thrupp 2000), the potential role of traditional landscapes for agrobiodiversity preservation is fundamental. Due to climate change, agrobiodiversity preservation is increasingly important as local landraces can strengthen agroecosystems resilience and resistance towards pests, diseases, and drought, with direct benefits on food security of local communities. Traditional landscapes can therefore represent agrobiodiversity and genetic reservoirs of particular importance for the future of rural communities, especially in arid environments as in the case of traditional oases of north Africa (Zaharieva et al. 2014; Jaradat 2015; Santoro 2023). According to Brown and Kothari (Brown and Kothari 2011) the active involvement of indigenous peoples and traditional local communities is crucial in maintaining agricultural biodiversity, as local farmers have been responsible of the evolution, management, and conservation of agrobiodiversity for millennia. In addition, traditional landscapes have also been recognized as important in preserving wild biodiversity; the experience of some protected areas where human activities are practiced since centuries testifies this strict beneficial relation between traditional landscapes and wild biodiversity conservation (Dudley and Stolton 2012).
Traditional landscapes and regulating services
Regulating services include all the benefits obtained from the regulation of agroecosystem processes, such as climate regulation (locally and globally), water regulation and purification, erosion and other natural hazard regulation, pest regulation, and pollination.
Traditional landscapes have been created and evolved in a certain climate, but nowadays they are impacted, directly and indirectly, by climate change (Aktürk and Dastgerdi 2021). Despite this, they can have an important role for the future of rural areas, especially because they proved to be more resilient to climate change compared to agro-industrial landscapes (Plieninger and Bieling 2012). Traditional landscapes can also effectively contribute to climate regulation at the local and landscape level, representing examples of land uses and management practices to be replicated in similar environmental conditions. Traditional agroforestry systems of Southern Europe, according to Mosquera-Losada et al. (2018), can contribute to effective climate regulation, shortening of supply chains and strengthening of the urban-periurban-rural connection. In a context of climate change, traditional agroforestry systems could be promoted also in countries where these systems are less widespread, as resilient agroecosystems that can potentially provide several benefits both at the farm and the landscape level (Mbow et al. 2014; Burgess et al. 2022).
Many traditional landscapes are characterized by terraces (drystone or earth terraces) that are recognized to have positive effects on water regulation and on the reduction of runoff and soil erosion in different parts of the world (Li et al. 2014; Rutebuka et al. 2021; Meliho et al. 2021). Despite their importance for hydrogeological protection, it is worth noticing that the abandonment of terraced landscapes represents a critical issue in many countries; since cultivating on terraces is often more expensive for farmers, terraced cultivations are the first one to be abandoned. This is a major concern regarding hydrogeological hazards considering that, according to Tarolli et al. (2014), abandoned terraced landscapes increase overall slope instability, gully erosion and cause terrace failures. The restoration and re-cultivation of abandoned terraced landscapes under a climate-smart agriculture approach, can also recover their role in reducing hydrogeological hazards, with benefits for the whole society and economy (Sakellariou et al. 2021). In this regard, the intergenerational technical knowledge transfer is fundamental to avoid the loss of competences related to terrace cultivation and maintenance and to ensure the effectiveness of these systems (Gao et al. 2020). Hydrogeological risk is not the only hazard against which traditional landscapes have shown efficiency. In Mediterranean countries forest fires represent a major threat for habitats and people (Turco et al. 2016), and due to climate change and prolonged drought periods, they are likely to become more frequent and intense, not only in Southern Europe, with increasing costs for the society (San-Miguel-Ayanz et al. 2022). Preserving traditional landscapes from abandonment and consequent reforestation, together with the maintenance of diversified traditional forest management instead of continuous unmanaged forest surfaces, are the best strategies to reduce fuel load and for forest fire prevention (Santoro et al. 2021; Wunder et al. 2021).
The role of traditional landscapes in preserving genetic resources is also directly linked to pest regulation, as agroecosystems rich in genetic diversity and agrobiodiversity increase the resistance and resilience towards pests and diseases (Chaudhary et al. 2020). Considering the significant genetic diversity reduction that affected cultivated species during the twentieth century in many parts of the world, traditional landscapes can provide examples of agroecosystems with higher resistance and resilience towards pests. According to Bonnin et al. (2014) who studied genetic diversity of wheat in France, genetic homogenization due to landrace extinction, genetic similarity, and land uses homogenization, lead to an increase of the overall agroecosystem vulnerability. In fact, beside the genetic variability, the preservation of complex and traditional landscape structures (intercropping instead of monocultures, heterogeneous landscape mosaics instead of homogeneous ones) can reduce the mobility of pests and pathogens (Tooker and Frank 2012). Therefore, the maintenance of traditional landscape features (such as ditches, hedgerows, channels, and dry-stone walls) that interrupt the land use continuity, combined with a transdisciplinary approach to landscape planning and management, is not only positive for biodiversity but can also improve pest regulation (Petit et al. 2020).
The preservation of traditional landscape features can also favor pollinators, especially considering that their decline is due to a combination of factors among which the habitat loss is a prominent one (Goulson et al. 2015; Cole et al. 2020). Despite several EU policies aimed at restoring habitats for pollinators in intensively cultivated landscapes, including subsidies for restoring flower strips (often without paying attention to the use of non-native species) or hedgerows around large intensive fields, can be insufficient measures for pollinators conservation at the landscape scale (Kovács-Hostyánszki et al. 2016). To provide suitable habitats for pollinators it is important to preserve traditional landscapes with a heterogeneous and complex landscape mosaic and with the presence of linear features and different land uses; in this regard, seminatural grasslands and pastures represent important nesting habitats for bumble bees and feral honey bees (Kells and Goulson 2003). It is also important to consider the necessity of applying an adequate management to specific traditional landscape features; for instance, Image et al. (2023) reported that a less intensive hedgerows management can offer better nesting places and more floral resources to pollinator communities.
Traditional landscapes and cultural services
Cultural services are the non-material benefits people obtain from agroecosystems, including cultural heritage and diversity, ecological knowledge, aesthetic and religious values, sense of place, recreation and ecotourism. Cultural ecosystem services are, therefore, also connected to inherent and intrinsic landscape values (Antrop 2012).
Traditional landscapes represent an important cultural heritage (Tengberg et al. 2012; Barbera and Cullotta 2016), but their effective conservation shouldn’t be based on transforming them into “museums of rural civilization”. Promoting and adopting the concept and principles of dynamic conservation, which represent the base of the GIAHS Programme (Koohafkan and Cruz 2011) is a more effective strategy. Dynamic conservation principles do not exclude the adoption of sustainable innovations, that can have a key role in the preservation of traditional landscapes, as this is often linked to the necessity of finding a balance between the conservation measures and the modern economic system (Bastian et al. 2013).
Being part of communities’ cultural heritage, traditional landscapes are strictly connected with the sense of place, aesthetics and religious values (inspiration), namely relevant cultural values not necessarily connected to a use-value (Csurgó and Smith 2021). Even if the concept of sense of place evolved over time and is site-specific (Nelson et al. 2020), traditional landscapes and related practices seems to have a crucial role for many rural communities in strengthening their sense of place. Although this issue is not yet deeply studied in terms of connections between traditional landscapes and cultural services (Wartmann and Purves 2018), the analyses of cultural values can represent a significant source of information, especially if approached from a participatory perspective, to inform stakeholders and to properly address territorial and landscape planning (Puren et al. 2018). Moreover, especially in Asian countries, some traditional landscapes are still connected to strong spiritual and/or religious values (Piras et al. 2022), further contributing to strengthening the sense of belonging to a community.
Many traditional landscapes all over the world represent well-known touristic destinations (Ringer 2013) thanks to their aesthetic value. The main threats that are affecting traditional landscapes (abandonment/intensification) are also affecting their aesthetic value and, therefore, their touristic attractiveness and the local economic system. Schirpke et al. (2016) highlight that the abandonment of the traditional mountain landscapes of the Alps can decrease the aesthetic value by 10–15%, suggesting the need of supporting traditional mountain farming for preserving an attractive landscape and related cultural values, considering that tourism is an important entry in the local economy. While qualitative surveys and traditional research approaches are necessary to evaluate the aesthetic values of traditional landscapes, the use of social media can offer new perspective, especially regarding how people interact with the landscape and how these interactions characterize a landscape (Tieskens et al. 2018). The evaluation of the aesthetic value is more and more important to promote the integration of cultural services in landscape planning and conservation at the local or regional scale (van Zanten et al. 2016). An interesting case is represented by Protected Areas, especially in Europe, that are commonly perceived by visitors as natural landscapes, “wild” and “untouched” areas, but whose landscapes are clearly the result of traditional human practices. In this regard, Bele et al. (2024) demonstrated the need to secure the transmission of traditional knowledge and to raise awareness about the synergies between natural and cultural heritage, also promoting the involvement of local communities in management strategies through a holistic approach to protect and valorize semi-natural traditional landscapes.
The relation between traditional landscapes and rural tourism is particularly interesting, but it can turn into a sort of paradox. On one hand, tourism can represent an economic opportunity for rural areas, even for marginal ones, thanks to the capacity of differentiating, increasing, and integrating the incomes of farmers and of rural communities (Torquati et al. 2017; Fang and Fang 2020; Roman et al. 2020). On the other hand, many traditional landscapes are experiencing problems related to overtourism and touristification (Ojeda and Kieffer 2020). These phenomena are clearly dependent on the level of “international fame” of certain traditional landscapes; the inclusion in programs initially aimed at their protection, such as the UNESCO World Heritage List, may became counterproductive as it enormously increases tourist flows in areas that cannot manage a large number of people (Vegnuti 2020; Butler 2020; Ólafsdóttir et al. 2020; Panzera et al. 2021). Traditional landscapes affected by overtourism can experience different socio-environmental problems, including pollution and increase in waste (Chen et al. 2021), new buildings or infrastructure to accommodate tourists or transformations of rural homes into rentals for tourists, soil erosion (Drápela 2023), greater consumption of water resources (Amara 2010; Tawfik 2016), and general negative impact on the quality of life of residents (Buitrago and Yñiguez 2021). Finally, it is important to notice that conflicts between farmers and other stakeholders (e.g., local government, tourism-related entrepreneurs) can arise; farmers are often the only ones that maintain the traditional landscape with limited (or without) access to tourism’s benefits, while other stakeholders greatly benefit from tourism incomes without responsibilities and investments for the preservation of the traditional landscape that attracts the tourists (Gao et al. 2021).
The conservation of traditional landscapes depends on the preservation and application of traditional agro-silvo-pastoral practices (Zhang et al. 2017), but this connection also works the other way around: traditional and cultural landscapes in general can have an important role for the preservation of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). Local actors, especially farmers, acquire a fundamental role in this perspective, as they are the means for the preservation of traditional landscapes, despite the practical contribution of their daily work is not adequately recognized or supported. Local farmers’ knowledge also represents a valuable source of information for traditional landscape management and planning (Calvo-Iglesias et al. 2006); local farmers, in fact, have sustainably managed for centuries different types of traditional landscapes that today can be models for the future in different environmental conditions (Austad 2000). The importance of TEK, namely the knowledge and practice of indigenous people acquired over the centuries thanks to the direct contact with the surrounding environment, is today widely recognized at the scientific level (Henze and Santoro 2024). TEK is, in fact, an important reservoir of different strategies for the sustainable use of local natural resources (i.e. water, biodiversity, soil) that can represent examples of adaptation and mitigation towards current global challenges, above all climate change and (agro)biodiversity loss (Berkes 1993; Molnár and Berkes 2018; Albuquerque et al. 2021). Considering that the lack of interest regarding traditional practices among the younger generations is considered one of the main threat for traditional landscapes as it favours abandonment or replacement with intensive agriculture, it is important to disseminate experience of intergenerational knowledge transfer based on bottom-up participatory strategies, active involvement of local communities, and the adoption of social science derived approaches, that can lead to tangible positive results on the social cohesion, on local identity, and on traditional landscapes preservation (Villa 2023).
Traditional landscapes and supporting services
Supporting services are those that are necessary for the production of all other ES, providing an indirect impact on people over a very long time. They include soil formation and soil fertility conservation, as well as photosynthesis and primary production. Being benefits whose effects are seen over a very long time, it is very difficult to evaluate and measure the role of traditional landscapes regarding supporting services. In general, it is possible to state that traditional landscapes, being based on TEK and on less energetic external inputs, have an important role for the preservation of soil fertility. Different studies, in fact, indicates that the rate of soil erosion and fertility loss accelerated since the expansion of mechanization and of intensive agriculture (Gómez et al. 2014; Vanwalleghem et al. 2017) both at the local and at the landscape level. Therefore, the preservation of traditional landscapes could effectively contribute to a better conservation of soil fertility and to reduced needs for the use of chemical fertilizers, also with benefits on water quality and overall human and environmental wellbeing. Scientific evidence is still lacking on this topic and farmers’ perception may differ from scientific evidence. Gray and Morant (2003) reported that local farmers of southwestern Burkina Faso perceived a decline in soil fertility over time that was not confirmed by laboratory analyses on pH, organic carbon and total nitrogen. This contradiction reflects the methodological difficulty of evaluating the role of traditional management practices for soil fertility preservation, also due to the fact that agricultural practices are rarely completely unchanged over time, as are the traditional landscapes that are shaped by these practices, which are constantly evolving to adapt to everchanging social and environmental conditions.
Conclusions
After 20 years from the publication of Marc Antrop paper, traditional rural landscapes continue to represent a unique resource of examples of strategies, practices, adaptation and resilience to socio-economic and environmental changes. On the other hand, this important heritage is under the pressure of two opposite dynamics: (i) the abandonment of more marginal areas and (ii) agricultural intensification in the areas suitable for agro-industry. Despite traditional landscapes are not addressed by international programmes specifically aimed at their preservation, since they fall within the definition of cultural landscapes they are included in important initiatives for the conservation and valorization of cultural landscapes, both at the international and at the national or regional scale. These initiatives testify a growing interest towards these systems and related TEK for sustainable rural development and climate change mitigation/adaptation.
In the last 20 years important advancement have been made in studying traditional landscapes, also thanks to new approaches, while the active involvement of local rural communities proved to be essential for their management, conservation, or restoration. Although most of the studies are carried out at the local scale, they report similar trends for different parts of the world concerning the main vulnerabilities, but also regarding the different roles that traditional landscapes can have for the sustainable development of rural areas. In the last 20 years it has become clear that humankind is facing, and will have to face in the future, important global challenges, including climate change, food security, equal access to environmental resources, sustainable development of rural areas, and in general the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. In this regard, traditional landscapes can act as good examples capable of providing different ES to rural communities around the world, and their conservation and valorization should be one of the priorities in national and international agendas. It is also important to stress that the preservation of these landscapes rely on farmers’ everyday work and efforts, while the benefits are enjoyed by the whole communities and society; farmers that still apply traditional and sustainable agro-silvo-pastoral practices should receive an adequate support by governments and institutions, i.e. through the rural development fund of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, as already happens in some countries. As Marc Antrop wrote, traditional landscapes cannot be brought back and should not be preserved as museums: they can be maintained and valorized making them the multifunctional and sustainable basis of the rural society and economy. In this regard, the dynamic conservation approach adopted by the FAO GIAHS Programme seems an effective strategy, capable of balancing the need to conserve this heritage and the need to introduce sustainable innovations to support Traditional Ecological Knowledge and the local economic systems. Traditional landscapes are still crucial for the future of our rural areas and for dealing with current and future global challenges, contributing to the wellbeing of rural communities and of the environment.
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Agnoletti M, Santoro A (2022a) The Italian national register of historical rural landscapes. In: Hernik J, Walczycka M, Sankowski E, Harris BJ (eds) Environmental history. Springer, Cham
Agnoletti M, Santoro A (2022b) Agricultural heritage systems and agrobiodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 31(10):2231–2241
Akira N, Evonne Y (2021) Ten years of GIAHS development in Japan. J Res Ecol 12(4):567–577
Aktürk G, Dastgerdi AS (2021) Cultural landscapes under the threat of climate change: a systematic study of barriers to resilience. Sustainability 13(17):9974
Albuquerque UP, Ludwig D, Feitosa IS, de Moura JMB, Gonçalves PHS, da Silva RH, Ferreira WS (2021) Integrating traditional ecological knowledge into academic research at local and global scales. Reg Environ Change 21:1–11
Amara DF (2010) Tourism as a tool of development: the case study of Siwa Oasis-Egypt Western Desert. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 139:537–549
Antrop M (1997) The concept of traditional landscapes as a base for landscape evaluation and planning. The example of Flanders Region. Landsc Urban Plan 38:105–117
Antrop M (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc Urban Plan 70(1–2):21–34
Antrop M (2012) Intrinsic values of landscapes. In: Papayannis T, Howard P (eds) Reclaiming the Greek landscape. Med-INA, Athens
Antrop M, Van Eetvelde V (2017) Landscape perspectives. The holistic nature of landscape. Springer, Landscape series 23, pp. 436. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1183-6
Austad I (2000) The future of traditional agriculture landscapes: retaining desirable qualities. In: Klijn JA, Vos W (eds) From landscape ecology to landscape science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 43–56
Barbera G, Cullotta S (2016) The traditional mediterranean polycultural landscape as cultural heritage: its origin and historical importance, its Agro-Silvo-Pastoral complexity and the necessity for its identification and inventory. In: Agnoletti M, Emanueli F (eds) Biocultural diversity in Europe. Environmental history. Springer, Cham
Bastian O, Walz U, Decker A (2013) Historical landscape elements: part of our cultural heritage—a methodological study from Saxony. In: Kozak J, Ostapowicz K, Bytnerowicz A, Wyżga B (eds) The carpathians: integrating nature and society towards sustainability. Springer, Heidelberg
Bele B, Nielsen VKS, Fairclough G, Herring P (2024) A heritage without boundaries: nature-culture Synergies in and around Norwegian protected landscapes. Hum Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-023-00468-z
Berkes F (1993) Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In: Inglis JT (ed) Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. International Development Research Centre, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa
Bonnin I, Bonneuil C, Goffaux R, Montalent P, Goldringer I (2014) Explaining the decrease in the genetic diversity of wheat in France over the 20th century. Agr Ecosyst Environ 195:183–192
Brown J, Kothari A (2011) Traditional agricultural landscapes and community conserved areas: an overview. Manag Environ Qual 22:139–153
Brumann C, Gfeller AÉ (2022) Cultural landscapes and the UNESCO world heritage list: perpetuating European dominance. Int J Herit Stud 28(2):147–162
Buitrago EM, Yñiguez R (2021) Measuring overtourism: a necessary tool for landscape planning. Land 10(9):889
Burgess AJ, Cano MEC, Parkes B (2022) The deployment of intercropping and agroforestry as adaptation to climate change. Crop Environ 1(2):145–160
Butler RW (2020) Overtourism in rural areas. In: Séraphin H, Gladkikh T, Vo Thanh T (eds) Overtourism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Calabrò F, Cassalia G, Tramontana C (2016) The Mediterranean diet as cultural landscape value: proposing a model towards the inner areas development process. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 223:568–575
Calvo-Iglesias MS, Crecente-Maseda R, Fra-Paleo U (2006) Exploring farmer’s knowledge as a source of information on past and present cultural landscapes: a case study from NW Spain. Landsc Urban Plan 78(4):334–343
Chaudhary P, Bhatta S, Aryal K, Joshi BK, Gauchan D (2020) Threats, drivers, and conservation imperative of agrobiodiversity. J Agric Environ 21:44–61
Chen P, Zhao Y, Zuo D, Kong X (2021) Tourism, water pollution, and waterway landscape changes in a traditional village in the Huizhou Region. China Land 10(8):795
Cole LJ, Kleijn D, Dicks LV, Stout JC, Potts SG, Albrecht M, Scheper J (2020) A critical analysis of the potential for EU common agricultural policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland. J Appl Ecol 57(4):681–694
Conversa G, Lazzizera C, Bonasia A, Cifarelli S, Losavio F, Sonnante G, Elia A (2020) Exploring on-farm agro-biodiversity: a study case of vegetable landraces from Puglia region (Italy). Biodivers Conserv 29:747–770
Council of Europe (2000) The European landscape convention. Council of Europe, Strasbourg
Csurgó B, Smith MK (2021) The value of cultural ecosystem services in a rural landscape context. J Rural Stud 86:76–86
Daily GC (1997) Introduction: what are ecosystem services. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems 1(1).
Drápela E (2023) Creating strategies to mitigate the adverse effects of overtourism in rural destinations: experience from the Czech Republic. Sustainability 15(24):16958
Dudley N, Stolton S (2012) Protected landscapes and wild biodiversity. IUCN, Gland
Evonne Y, Akira N, Kazuhiko T (2016) Comparative study on conservation of agricultural heritage systems in China, Japan and Korea. J Res Ecol 7(3):170–179.
Fang WT, Fang WT (2020) Rural tourism. Tourism in emerging economies: the way we green, sustainable, and healthy, Springer, Singapore. pp. 103–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2463-9_5
FAO (2022) The state of the world’s forests 2022. Forest pathways for green recovery and building inclusive, resilient and sustainable economies. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9360en
Gao X, Roder G, Jiao Y, Ding Y, Liu Z, Tarolli P (2020) Farmers’ landslide risk perceptions and willingness for restoration and conservation of world heritage site of Honghe Hani Rice Terraces, China. Landslides 17:1915–1924
Gao J, Lin H, Zhang C (2021) Locally situated rights and the ‘doing’ of responsibility for heritage conservation and tourism development at the cultural landscape of Honghe Hani Rice Terraces. China J Sustain Tour 29(2–3):193–213
García-Flores J, González-Espinosa M, Lindig-Cisneros R, Casas A (2019) Traditional medicinal knowledge of tropical trees and its value for restoration of tropical forests. Bot Sci 97(3):336–354
García-Martín M, Huntsinger L, Ibarrola-Rivas MJ, Penker M, D’Ambrosio U, Dimopoulos T, Plieninger T (2022) Landscape products for sustainable agricultural landscapes. Nat Food 3(10):814–821
Gómez JA, Infante-Amate J, González de Molina M, Vanwalleghem T, Taguas EV, Lorite I (2014) Olive cultivation, its impact on soil erosion and its progression into yield impacts in Southern Spain in the past as a key to a future of increasing climate uncertainty. Agriculture 4(2):170–198
Gondard H, Romane F, Regina IS, Leonardi S (2006) Forest management and plant species diversity in chestnut stands of three Mediterranean areas. In: Hawksworth DL, Bull AT (eds) Forest diversity and management. Topics in biodiversity and conservation. Springer, Dordrecht
Goulson D, Nicholls E, Botías C, Rotheray EL (2015) Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. SciencExpress. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255957
Gray LC, Morant P (2003) Reconciling indigenous knowledge with scientific assessment of soil fertility changes in southwestern Burkina Faso. Geoderma 111(3–4):425–437
Guasch-Ferré M, Willett WC (2021) The Mediterranean diet and health: a comprehensive overview. J Intern Med 290(3):549–566
Gullino P, Larcher F, Devecchi M (2009) The importance of the chestnut cultivation and its evolution in the piedmont landscape (North-West Italy). In: I European Congress on Chestnut-Castanea. pp. 37–42. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2010.866.1
Henze J, Santoro A (2024) Including traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in agricultural research: guidelines and lessons learned. FOSC—ERA-Net Food Syst Clim Knowl Hub. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10964254
Hernandez Marentes MA, Venturi M, Scaramuzzi S, Focacci M, Santoro A (2022) Traditional forest-related knowledge and agrobiodiversity preservation: the case of the chagras in the indigenous reserve of Monochoa (Colombia). Biodivers Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02263-y
Image M, Gardner E, Clough Y, Kunin WE, Potts SG, Smith HG, Breeze TD (2023) Which interventions contribute most to the net effect of England’s agri-environment schemes on pollination services? Landsc Ecol 38(1):271–291
Jaradat AA (2015) Biodiversity, genetic diversity, and genetic resources of date palm. In: Al-Khayri J, Jain S, Johnson D (eds) Date palm genetic resources and utilization. Springer, Dordrecht
Jiao W, Min Q (2017) Reviewing the progress in the identification, conservation and management of China-nationally important agricultural heritage systems (China-NIAHS). Sustainability 9(10):1698
Johann E (2021) Coppice forests in Austria: the re-introduction of traditional management systems in coppice forests in response to the decline of species and landscape and under the aspect of climate change. For Ecol Manage 490:119129
Kells AR, Goulson D (2003) Preferred nesting sites of bumblebee queens (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in agroecosystems in the UK. Biol Conserv 109:165–174
Koohafkan P, Altieri MA (2011) Globally important agricultural heritage systems: a legacy for the future. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
Koohafkan P, Cruz MJD (2011) Conservation and adaptive management of globally important agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS). J Res Ecol 2(1):22–28
Kovács-Hostyánszki A, Földesi R, Mózes E, Szirák Á, Fischer J, Hanspach J, Báldi A (2016) Conservation of pollinators in traditional agricultural landscapes–new challenges in Transylvania (Romania) posed by EU accession and recommendations for future research. PLoS ONE 11(6):e0151650
Kruse A, Athanasiadou E, Centeri C, Michelin Y, Slámová M, Šmid Hribar M, Ferrario V (2024) Emerging gaps in research on agricultural landscapes. J Eur Landsc 4(1):1–35.
Li XH, Yang J, Zhao CY, Wang B (2014) Runoff and sediment from orchard terraces in southeastern China. Land Degrad Dev 25(2):184–192
Lieskovský J, Bezák P, Špulerová J, Lieskovský T, Koleda P, Dobrovodská M, Gimmi U (2015) The abandonment of traditional agricultural landscape in Slovakia-analysis of extent and driving forces. J Rural Studies 37:75–84
Mbow C, Van Noordwijk M, Luedeling E, Neufeldt H, Minang PA, Kowero G (2014) Agroforestry solutions to address food security and climate change challenges in Africa. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6:61–67
Meliho M, Khattabi A, Nouira A, Orlando CA (2021) Role of agricultural terraces in flood and soil erosion risks control in the high Atlas Mountains of Morocco. Earth 2(4):746–763.
Molnár Z, Berkes F (2018) Role of traditional ecological knowledge in linking cultural and natural capital in cultural landscapes. In: Paracchini ML, Zingari PC, Blasi C (eds) Reconnecting natural and cultural capital: contributions from science and policy. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Mosquera-Losada MR, Santiago-Freijanes JJ, Rois-Díaz M, Moreno G, den Herder M, Aldrey-Vázquez JA, Rigueiro-Rodríguez A (2018) Agroforestry in Europe: a land management policy tool to combat climate change. Land Use Policy 78:603–613
Nassauer JI (1995) Culture and changing landscape structure. Landsc Ecol 10:229–237.
Naveh Z (1995) Interactions of landscapes and cultures. Landsc Urban Plan 32(1):43–54.
Nelson J, Ahn JJ, Corley EA (2020) Sense of place: trends from the literature. J Urban: Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 13(2):236–261
Ojeda AB, Kieffer M (2020) Touristification. Empty concept or element of analysis in tourism geography. Geoforum 115:143–145
Ólafsdóttir R, Tuulentie S, Hovgaard G, Zinglersen KB, Svartá M, Poulsen HH, Söndergaard M (2020) The contradictory role of tourism in the northern peripheries: overcrowding, overtourism and the importance of tourism for rural development. In: McDonagh J, Tuulentie S (eds) Sharing knowledge for land use management: decision-making and expertise in Europe’s northern Periphery. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 86–99
Panzera E, de Graaff T, de Groot HL (2021) European cultural heritage and tourism flows: the magnetic role of superstar World Heritage Sites. Pap Reg Sci 100(1):101–122
Petit S, Muneret L, Carbonne B, Hannachi M, Ricci B, Rusch A, Lavigne C (2020) Landscape-scale expansion of agroecology to enhance natural pest control: a systematic review. Adv Ecol Res 63:1–48
Piras F, Santoro A (2023) Land use changes in globally important cultural forests. The case of two traditionally managed forests for non-wood forest products (NWFPs) in China and Japan. Biodivers Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02690-z
Piras F, Fiore B, Santoro A (2022) Small cultural forests: landscape role and ecosystem services in a Japanese cultural landscape. Land 11(9):1494
Plieninger T, Bieling C (2012) Connecting cultural landscapes to resilience. In: Plieninger T, Bieling C (eds) Resilience and the cultural landscape: understanding and managing change in human-shaped environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–26
Plieninger T, Van der Horst D, Schleyer C, Bieling C (2014) Sustaining ecosystem services in cultural landscapes. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06159-190259
Puren K, Roos V, Coetzee H (2018) Sense of place: using people’s experiences in relation to a rural landscape to inform spatial planning guidelines. Int Plan Stud 23(1):16–36
Reid WV (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, USA
Renes H (2015) Historic landscapes without history? A reconsideration of the concept of traditional landscapes. Rural Landsc: Soc Environ History 2(1):1–11
Renes H, Centeri C, Kruse A, Kučera Z (2019) The future of traditional landscapes: discussions and visions. Land 8(6):98.
Ringer G (2013) Destinations: cultural landscapes of tourism. Routledge, London
Roe M (2016) Food and landscape. Landsc Res 41(7):709–713
Roman M, Roman M, Prus P, Szczepanek M (2020) Tourism competitiveness of rural areas: evidence from a region in Poland. Agriculture 10(11):569
Rutebuka J, Uwimanzi AM, Nkundwakazi O, Kagabo DM, Mbonigaba JJM, Vermeir P, Verdoodt A (2021) Effectiveness of terracing techniques for controlling soil erosion by water in Rwanda. J Environ Manage 277:111369
Sacchelli S, Borghi C, Fratini R, Bernetti I (2021) Assessment and valorization of non-wood forest products in Europe: a quantitative literature review. Sustainability 13(6):3533
Sakellariou M, Psiloglou BE, Giannakopoulos C, Mylona PV (2021) Integration of abandoned lands in sustainable agriculture: the case of terraced landscape re-cultivation in Mediterranean Island conditions. Land 10(5):457
San-Miguel-Ayanz J, Durrant T, Boca R et al (2022) Forest fires in Europe, Middle East and North Africa 2021. Publications Office of the European Union. Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Luxembourg
Santoro A (2023) Traditional oases in Northern Africa as multifunctional agroforestry systems: a systematic literature review of the provided Ecosystem Services and of the main vulnerabilities. Agrofor Syst 97(1):81–96
Santoro A, Venturi M, Agnoletti M (2020) Agricultural heritage systems and landscape perception among tourists. The case of Lamole Chianti (Italy). Sustainability 12(9):35095
Santoro A, Venturi M, Piras F, Fiore B, Corrieri F, Agnoletti M (2021) Forest area changes in Cinque Terre National Park in the last 80 years. Consequences on landslides and forest fire risks. Land 10(3):293
Sauer CO (1925) The morphology of landscape. University of California, Berkeley
Schirpke U, Timmermann F, Tappeiner U, Tasser E (2016) Cultural ecosystem services of mountain regions: modelling the aesthetic value. Ecol Ind 69:78–90
Slámová M, Kruse A, Belčáková I, Dreer J (2021) Old but not old fashioned: Agricultural landscapes as european heritage and basis for sustainable multifunctional farming to earn a living. Sustainability 13(9):4650
Tarolli P, Preti F, Romano N (2014) Terraced landscapes: from an old best practice to a potential hazard for soil degradation due to land abandonment. Anthropocene 6:10–12
Tawfik M (2016) The development of sustainable ecotourism in protected area, case study: Siwa oasis. Int J Sustain Dev Plan 11(3):334–344
Tengberg A, Fredholm S, Eliasson I, Knez I, Saltzman K, Wetterberg O (2012) Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst Serv 2:14–26
Thrupp LA (2000) Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: the valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture. Int Aff 76(2):265–281
Tieskens KF, Van Zanten BT, Schulp CJ, Verburg PH (2018) Aesthetic appreciation of the cultural landscape through social media: an analysis of revealed preference in the Dutch river landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 177:128–137
Tomé P (2021) Unexpected effects on some Spanish cultural landscapes of the Mediterranean diet. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(7):3829
Tooker JF, Frank SD (2012) Genotypically diverse cultivar mixtures for insect pest management and increased crop yields. J Appl Ecol 49(5):974–985
Torquati B, Tempesta T, Vecchiato D, Venanzi S, Paffarini C (2017) The value of traditional rural landscape and nature protected areas in tourism demand: a study on agritourists’ preferences. Landscape Online. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201753
Torreggiani D, Ludwiczak Z, Dall’Ara, Benni S, Maino E, Tassinari P (2014) TRuLAn: a high-resolution method for multi-time analysis of traditional rural landscapes and its application in Emilia-Romagna, Italy. Landsc Urban Plan 124:93–103
Turco M, Bedia J, Di Liberto F, Fiorucci P, von Hardenberg J, Koutsias N, Provenzale A (2016) Decreasing fires in Mediterranean Europe. PLoS ONE 11(3):e0150663
UNESCO, CBD Secretariat (2010) UNESCO–CBD joint program between biological and cultural diversity. UNESCO, Paris
UNESCO, CBD Secretariat (2014) Florence declaration on the links between biological and cultural diversity. UNESCO, Florence
Uprety Y, Asselin H, Dhakal A, Julien N (2012) Traditional use of medicinal plants in the boreal forest of Canada: review and perspectives. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 8:1–14
van Zanten BT, Zasada I, Koetse MJ, Ungaro F, Häfner K, Verburg PH (2016) A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosyst Serv 17:87–98
Vanwalleghem T, Gómez JA, Infante Amate J, Gonzàlez de Molina M, Vanderlinden K, Guzmán G, Giráldez JV (2017) Impact of historical land use and soil management change on soil erosion and agricultural sustainability during the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 17:13–29
Vegnuti R (2020) Cinque Terre, Italy-a case of place branding: from opportunity to problem for tourism. Worldwide Hosp Tour Themes 12(4):471–483
Villa M (2023) Agroecologia e antropologia pubblica nelle Terre Alte: comunità, margini, saperi trasversali. Antropologia Pubblica. https://doi.org/10.1473/anpub.v9i1.296
Wartmann FM, Purves RS (2018) Investigating sense of place as a cultural ecosystem service in different landscapes through the lens of language. Landsc Urban Plan 175:169–183
Wu J (2010) Landscape of culture and culture of landscape: does landscape ecology need culture? Landsc Ecol 25:1147–1150
Wu J (2011) Integrating nature and culture in landscape ecology. In: Kim JE, Kim JE, Hong SK, Nakagoshi N (eds) Landscape ecology in asian cultures. Ecological research monographs. Springer, Tokyo
Wunder S, Calkin DE, Charlton V, Feder S, de Arano IM, Moore P, Vega-García C (2021) Resilient landscapes to prevent catastrophic forest fires: socioeconomic insights towards a new paradigm. Forest Policy Econ 128:102458
Zaharieva M, Bonjean A, Monneveux P (2014) Saharan wheats: before they disappear. Genet Resour Crop Evol 61(6):1065–1084
Zhang Y, Min Q, Zhang C, He L, Zhang S, Yang L, Xiong Y (2017) Traditional culture as an important power for maintaining agricultural landscapes in cultural heritage sites: a case study of the Hani terraces. J Cultural Herit 25:170–179
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Firenze within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. The author declares that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.S. wrote the manuscript text.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Santoro, A. Why traditional rural landscapes are still important to our future. Landsc Ecol 39, 135 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01940-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01940-x