Traditional land-use and nature conservation in, krajobraz, trupy z kawiorem, etc, Struktura a piękno krajobrazu
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]//-->environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 317–321available at www.sciencedirect.comjournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsciTraditional land-use and nature conservation inEuropean rural landscapesTobias Plieningera,*,Franz Hochtla, Theo Spekb¨aAlbert-Ludwigs-University, Department of Forest and Environmental Sciences, Institute for Landscape Management,Tennenbacher Str. 4, D-79106 Freiburg, GermanybNational Service for Archaeological Heritage, Department of Landscape and Heritage, P.O. Box 1600,NL-3800 BP Amersfoort, The Netherlandsarticle infoPublished on line 19 April 2006Keywords:CountrysideCultural landscapesEuropeLand-useNature conservationabstractEurope’s countryside is characterised by a rich diversity of cultural landscapes and has beenshaped by traditional land-uses. These landscapes provide numerous ecological services,e.g. the support of high levels of biodiversity. However, many traditional land-use systemshave been lost or diminished in past decades, as land-uses have polarised either towardextensication and land abandonment or intensication. Remaining traditional land-usesystems continue to be at risk. This paper introduces a special issue of six contributions thataddress land-use and landscape changes across Europe. The paper advocates a double-trackstrategy in cultural landscape development: rst, some remaining traditional land-usesystems should be preserved, and new tools for their economic viability be designed.Second, the key elements of traditional land-use that provide ecological services shouldbe identied and integrated into future, more productive land-use systems.#2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.1.IntroductionRural Europe offers a great diversity of cultural landscapes. Thislandscape diversity is, for the most part, a result of the variety ofland-uses that have overlaid, rened or replaced each otherthroughout history. In European landscape history ve basicstages are distinguished (Vosand Meekes, 1999):the natural,prehistoric landscape (from Palaeolithic till ancient Greektimes); the antique landscape (from ancient Greek times tillearly Mediaeval times); the mediaeval landscape (from earlyMediaeval times till Renaissance); the traditional agriculturallandscape (from Renaissance till 19th century, sometimes tilltoday); and industrial landscapes (mostly from mid-18th tillmid-20th century, in many places till today). The analysis of thefunction, the changes and the development of European rurallandscapes has been the commitment of the PermanentConference for the Study of the Rural Landscape (PECSRL) since1957 (Palanget al., 2005).In this issue we present a series ofpapers from PECSRL’s 2004 meeting. The issue focuses on thechanges that traditional rural landscapes have experienced andon the challenges of controlling their development.2.Interactions of traditional land-use andconservationTraditional land-uses include all ‘‘practices which have beenout of fashion for many years and techniques which are notgenerally part of modern agriculture’’ (Bignalet al., 1995).Theyare supposed to have had their maximum extent in the secondhalf of the 19th century (Greenand Vos, 2001).Two commoncharacteristics of most forms of traditional land-use are*Corresponding author.Present address: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jagerstr. 22/23, D-10117 Berlin,¨Germany. Tel.: +49 30 20370 538; fax: +49 30 20370 214.E-mail address:plieninger@bbaw.de(T. Plieninger).1462-9011/$ – see front matter#2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.03.001318environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 317–321Table 1 – Traditional land-use systems in EuropeLivestock systemsLow-intensity livestock raising inupland and mountain areasLow-intensity livestock raising inMediterranean regionsLow-intensity livestock raising inwooded pasturesLow-intensity livestock raising intemperate lowland regionsArable and permanent crop systemsLow-intensity dryland arable cultivationin Mediterranean regionsLow-intensity arable cultivationin temperate regionsLow-intensity rice cultivationMixed systemsLow-intensity mixedMediterranean croppingLow-intensity, small-scale traditionalmixed farmingLow-intensity tree cropsLow-intensity vineyardsSource:Baldock et al. (1995).relatively low nutrient inputs and relatively low output perhectare. Therefore, traditional land-use systems are alsotermed ‘‘low-intensity land-use systems’’ (BignalandMcCracken, 1996).However, ‘‘traditional land-use’’ is not inall cases completely congruent with ‘‘low-intensity land-use’’as there are traditional land-use systems that have been verylabour-intensive and had high nutrient and labour inputs.Examples can be found in late medieval and early modernFlanders, northern Italy, the Netherlands and southwestEngland (and on a more local scale in many densely populatedareas of Europe). These traditional high-intensity systems alsohad a high biodiversity, caused by the many gradients ofnutrient and labour inputs at a local and regional scale.Although traditional land-use techniques vary consider-ably throughout Europe, a rough categorisation into livestocksystems, arable and permanent crop systems, and mixedsystems can be made (Table1).Traditional land-use systemshave mainly persisted in upland and remote areas wherephysical constraints have prevented a modernisation ofagriculture. The most extensive and diverse low-intensityland-use systems can be found in Spain and Portugal (Bignalet al., 1995). Konold et al. (1996)have analysed a number ofbasic principles that are characteristic for traditional land-usesystems. These are important for understanding the function-ing of such systems and, additionally, can serve as guidelinesfor the design of new land-use systems (Herzog,1997):Principle of multiple uses:Traditional land-use systemsoptimise resource use and minimise risks through poly-culture and other forms of multiple uses. Another importantaspect of historical cultural landscapes has always been theinteraction between public, common and private land-use.The extensive use of common lands (forests, heathlands,grasslands and marshes) has been extremely important forbiodiversity in northwest Europe and has changed a lot overthe centuries, due to changes in agricultural systems,economy and common rights (Wilsonand Wilson, 1997).Principle of rotational uses:In traditional systems land-use isintended to meet individual needs more than to maximiseeconomic prot. Therefore, traditional land-use systemsinvolve numerous uses that are spatially and temporallydifferentiated, but applied on the whole land. This leads to adiscontinuous change between periods of human impactand periods of regeneration.Principle of recycling:In traditional land-use, external inputsof agrochemicals or fodder are low. Nutrient emissions andwater losses are minimised, and production wastes are re-used as fertilizers.Principle of low-energy economy:Traditional systems arestamped by a scarcity of energy and transport resources.Principle of spatial fuzziness:In traditional systems differentland-use structures and processes intermingle, althoughecological and land-use settings provide a gradient ofvariation.Baldock et al. (1995)add principles such as a slow rate ofchange that produces long periods of relative stability, man-agement techniques that enhance the structural diversity ofvegetation, the maintenance of a high proportion of semi-natural vegetation, and low use of agrochemicals.The high nature-conservation value of most traditionalland-use systems is without controversy (see, for example,Heath and Tucker, 1995,for a study on birds). Under thesecircumstances it seems paradoxical that the provision of richbiodiversity was never the primary aim of traditional land-use,but that it was nothing more than an unintended by-product(Vosand Meekes, 1999).Today these amenities are consideredexternalities that are uncoupled from agricultural or forestryproduction and must be specially managed and nanced(Greenand Vos, 2001).The fact that traditional land-use inEurope has, instead of damaging biodiversity, even fosteredhabitat and species richness is remarkable as this contrastswith the evidence from most other parts in the world(Hampicke,2006).Correspondingly most non-Europeansunderstand conservation as an activity to restore conditionsof pristine wilderness with a complete absence of humanimpact. What distinguishes traditional cultural landscapes inEurope from other human-shaped landscapes in the world isthe long history of land-use since the retreat of the glaciationthat has facilitated the co-evolution of species, ecosystemsand man (Hampicke,2006).Nowadays European agri-biodi-versity is considered just as valuable as wild biodiversity(Phillips,1998).In addition to their nature-conservation value, culturallandscapes are also appreciated due to their cultural valuesbound to the history of a place and its cultural traditions(Mitchelland Buggey, 2001).There is an increasing recogni-tion of the necessity to include the values and priorities ofpeople in any activity of natural or cultural resourcesconservation. Likewise, cooperation between actors of natureand cultural heritage conservation have been increasingrecently.environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 317–321319A central dilemma of Europe’s traditional cultural land-scapes is their instability, i.e. their dependence on a mediumdegree of human impact. If land-use is extensied orabandoned traditional landscapes are displaced by sponta-neous vegetational succession. In Portugal, for example, landabandonment and consecutive shrub encroachment have ledto the disappearance of more than 245,000 ha of low-intensityfarmland in the 1980s (Bignaland McCracken, 1996).Con-versely, too intensive human impact will lead to the conver-sion of traditional landscapes to more simplied landscapes.For instance, at least 1,400,000 ha of low-intensity farmlandhas been converted into highly productive irrigated elds inSpain since 1973 (Bignaland McCracken, 1996).This polarisa-tion of land-use trends, with extensication or land abandon-ment on one side (MacDonaldet al., 2000)and mechanisationand intensication on the other (see, for example,Kristensen,1999),puts many traditional land-use systems seriously atrisk. Although some agri-environmental schemes providenancial assistance for the maintenance of traditional culturallandscapes, their impact has so far been narrow (GreenandVos, 2001).4.Papers on land-use and conservation inrural areasThis issue collects some of the papers presented at the 21stsession of the Permanent Conference for the Study of the RuralLandscape, held in Lemnos and Lesvos, Greece, in September2004.The array of contributions is opened with a paper byHochtl¨et al. (this issue)having a methodological focus. Against thebackground of a project undertaken in the Italian Alps, theauthors describe and discuss methodological procedures, aswell as the advantages and disadvantages of transdisciplinaryresearch. Transdisciplinarity, that is interdisciplinary inves-tigation engaged in by academic researchers from differentdisciplines and also involving non-academic participants(Tresset al., 2004),is a buzzword currently resoundingthroughout the academic landscape. It would appear to bethe nal destination of applied researchpar excellence.Still, theauthors argue that transdisciplinarity is in no way a panacea.Many problems, especially within basic research, can be betteranalysed by applying the approved methods of one discipline.The concept is well suited to solving problems related to themanagement of public goods, however. This refers to goodsthe holder cannot prevent another from consuming and inwhich numerous and greatly differing individuals partake.One such public good is the landscape.The historical developments that still determine todaythe agricultural landscape dynamics of rural regions in theMediterranean are the subject ofKizos’ and Koulouri’s (thisissue)contribution. Traditional Mediterranean terracedagricultural landscapes, as represented by the authors’study area, the Greek island of Lesvos, have been in a steadystate of decline and in other cases have already beencompletely degraded due to changes in the prevailing land-use systems occurring in the last 150 years. Based on theanalysis of the driving forces behind Mediterranean land-scape change caused by social, political, technological andeconomic developments, the authors dene cornerstones forpolitical intervention to counteract the negative effects ofland-use intensication on the one hand and the completeabandonment of entire landscapes in the Mediterranean onthe other.Since the mid-1980s there has been an intensive debate incentral Europe on the issue of nature-conservation strategiesthat seek to exclude humans and their activities from the rurallandscape. Wilderness advocates have called for the establish-ment of so-called wilderness areas in which nature maydevelop completely unhindered, without human intervention,as a means of combating progressive biodiversity loss (Hochtl¨et al., 2005).Against this backdrop, the paper presented byOlsson and Thorvaldsen (this issue)represents an apparentparadox in that they have demonstrated that nature-con-servation principles based on the exclusion of anthropogenicinuence can even lead to an acceleration in species decline.The results of the authors’ research into eider (SomateriamollissimaL.) population dynamics, its dependence uponhabitat quality, as well as past and present human land-usepractices reveal the hazards associated with focusing on verynarrow guiding principles when dealing with nature con-servation.3.The Permanent Conference for the Study ofthe Rural LandscapeThe Permanent European Conference for the Study of theRural Landscape is an international network of about 350landscape researchers from more than 30 European countrieswhose interests focus on the past, present and future ofEuropean cultural landscapes. It was established in 1957 andhas been a constant factor in European landscape researchsince. Initially, it consisted mainly of historical geographers,but during the last few decades its membership has diversiedto include ecologists, social scientists, rural planners, land-scape architects, human geographers, physical geographers,historians, archaeologists, landscape managers, as well asother scholars and practitioners interested in Europeanlandscapes. Members undertake both fundamental andapplied research on all aspects of the rural landscape or havea position in landscape or heritage management. PECSRLcovers Pan-Europe connecting researchers from all parts of thecontinent. The main objectives of PECSRL are: (1) to facilitatepersonal contacts and information exchange between Eur-opean landscape researchers; (2) to improve interdisciplinarycooperation between landscape researchers from variousscientic and human landscape disciplines; (3) to improvecooperation between landscape researchers and landscapemanagers; (4) to function as a platform for new initiatives inEuropean landscape research and landscape management. Animportant medium for our network is the internationalPECSRL conference, organised every two years in a differentEuropean country. Recent conferences took place in Trond-heim (1998), London/Aberystwyth (2000), Tartu/Otepaa (2002)¨¨and Lesvos/Limnos (2004). The next conference will be inBerlin/Brandenburg (September 2006). More informationabout this European landscape network is available atMembership is free for all those whoare interested in the eld of cultural landscape research andlandscape planning.320environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 317–321How can the ecological and cultural values of Scandinaviansemi-natural grasslands be maintained and developed? This isthe leading question inStenseke’s (this issue)paper entitled‘‘Biodiversity and the local context. Linking semi-naturalgrasslands and their future use to social aspects’’. Over the lastcentury there has been a substantial loss in the area of semi-natural grasslands in Sweden as a consequence of widespreadland abandonment and a drastically diminishing number ofgrazing animals. Therefore, science is required to ndstrategies that ensure the persistence of this valuableecosystem. Stenseke suggests an interdisciplinary researchstrategy, namely the application of a broad spectrum ofgeographical methods which helps to bridge the gap betweensocial and natural science in natural resource managementresearch. Her call for exible landscape policies allowingadaptive management in various local contexts is animportant conclusion in the light of an often stronglyequalising European common agricultural policy.Throughout the world Europe is noted for its art treasures,monuments and also for its multifaceted and impressiverural landscapes. Whereas the book market is inundatedwith art-related tour guides, there is no comparable guide toEurope’s cultural landscapes. This deciency is the fulcrumofZimmermann’s (this issue)article ‘‘Recording rural land-scapes and their cultural associations: some initial resultsand impressions’’. Over a number of years the author hascompiled basic information for a Pan-European visual-cultural guide to be used as a source of information forplanners, educators and the general public. More thansimply informing, it could potentially help to motivatebroader public support for endangered rural landscape typessuch asbocage(hedgerows, enclosed elds),coltura promiscua(central Italian mixed cropping) anddehesas/montados(oakwoodland supporting the Iberian hog–sheep–grain–corkagroforestry system). Furthermore, Zimmermann charac-terises the perceptions of local people in relation to land-scape change and decline as determined from his study tripsthrough Europe and over the course of many informalinterviews.´Taking as an example the Causse Mejan, one of the fewremaining open steppe habitats in France and the hilly,´profoundly ravined Vallee Francaise in the CevennesNational Park,O’Rourke (this issue)calls into question thecommonly held, traditional image of closed, autarchicagrarian societies in upland communities, which was longused to reinforce the equilibrium-centred model of human–nature interdependencies. She argues that landscaperesearch should be geared toward conceptual models inorder to identify future perspectives for upland communities.In contrast to the idealised notion of sustainability, assuggested in equilibrium-based models, this approach repre-sents a more useful theoretical platform based on anawareness of the fact that in complex systems even small-scale changes or random events may have notable repercus-sions for the system as a whole. Against this background, theauthor highlights the exibility and resilience developed overcenturies by mountain communities in their daily strugglewith the environment. Her paper reveals these character-istics as fundamental prerequisites for successful futuremountain landscape policies.5.OutlookWhat is the future of high nature-value rural landscapes such astraditional olive groves on Lesvos, thecoltura promiscuain Italy,thedehesasandmontadoson the Iberian Peninsula or Scandi-navia’s semi-natural grasslands? Are they ‘‘exemplars’’ or‘‘anachronisms’’ (Carruthers,1993)in the modern landscape?The collection of papers shows that land-use, and especiallyagriculture, is the most important driving force that shapeslandscape sceneries. In agreement with the existing landscapeecological literature the papers stress the considerable ecolo-gical amenities that traditional low-intensity land-use deliversto society. At the same time they show that cultural landscapeshave been in constant change, both in history and present. Thepapers give a two-fold orientation: rst, the integrity of theremaining traditional land-use systems should be conserved,and strategies need to be developed so that the ecologicalservices they provide are rewarded by society. We only canpreserve parts of traditional land-use systems well, after wehave a thorough insight into the complex interaction betweenland-use and biodiversity. This leads to a plea for aninterdisciplinary historical–ecological approach in which ecol-ogists and landscape historians closely cooperate. Moreover,there is a need to link these ‘‘old-fashioned landscapes’’ withnew economic objectives, e.g. with rural tourism. Nevertheless,it is neither feasible nor desirable to maintain traditional land-use systems in their historical spatial extent (Herzog,1997).Therefore, second, it will be necessary to determine the keyelements of traditional land-uses that provide ecologicalservices and to integrate these into future land-use systems.Still, there are many potential trajectories of landscapedevelopment, and particular landscapes will develop for eachspecic societal and ecological setting.Vos and Meekes (1999)predicted a complex mosaic of future landscapes, includingcommodity-output oriented industrial landscapes, over-stressed multifunctional landscapes, museum-like landscapes,marginalised vanishing landscapes and wilderness landscapes.One common insight of all authors in this issue is that asustainable landscape development is impossible without theinvolvement of land-users and local people, i.e. of the sculptorsof the landscape. The papers give some hints for a fruitfulexchange between landscape research and the land-usepractice.AcknowledgementThe authors would like to thank Peter Howard for proof-reading all papers in this special issue.referencesBaldock, D., Beaufoy, G., Clark, J., 1995. The Nature of Farming:Low Intensity Farming Systems in Nine EuropeanCountries. Institute for European Environmental Policy,London.Bignal, E.M., McCracken, D.I., 1996. Low-intensity farmingsystems in the conservation of the countryside. J. Appl. Ecol.33 (3), 413–424.environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 317–321321Bignal, E.M., McCracken, D.I., Corrie, H., 1995. Dening Europeanlow-intensity farming systems: the nature of farming. In:McCracken, D.I., Bignal, E.M., Wenlock, S.E. (Eds.), Farming onthe Edge: The Nature of Traditional Farmland in Europe. JointNature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, pp. 29–37.Carruthers, S.P., 1993. The dehesas of Spain—exemplars oranachronisms? Agroforestry Forum 4 (2), 43–52.Green, B.H., Vos, W., 2001. Managing old landscapes and makingnew ones. In: Green, B.H., Vos, W. (Eds.), ThreatenedLandscapes: Conserving Cultural Landscapes. Spon Press,London, New York, NY, pp. 139–149.Hampicke, U., 2006. Efcient conservation in Europe’sagricultural countryside—rationale, methods and policyreorientation. Outlook Agric. 35 (2), in press.Heath, M.F., Tucker, G.M., 1995. Ornithological value andpastoral farming systems. In: McCracken, D.I., Bignal, E.M.,Wenlock, S.E. (Eds.), Farming on the Edge: The Nature ofTraditional Farmland in Europe. Joint Nature ConservationCommittee, Peterborough, pp. 54–59.Herzog, F., 1997. Stand der agroforstlichen Forschung in West-und Mitteleuropa. Z. Kulturtechnik Landentwicklung 38 (4),145–148.Hochtl, F., Lehringer, S., Konold, W., 2005. ‘‘Wilderness’’: what it¨means when it becomes a reality—a case study from thesouthwestern Alps. Landscape Urban Plan. 70, 85–95.Hochtl, F., Lehringer, S., Konold, W. Pure theory or useful tool?¨Experiences with transdisciplinarity in the Piedmont Alps.Environ. Sci. Policy 9 (4), this issueKizos, T., Koulouri, M. Agricultural landscape dynamics in theMediterranean: Lesvos (Greece) case study using evidencefrom the last three centuries. Environ. Sci. Policy 9 (4), thisissue.Konold, W., Schwinekoper, K., Seiffert, P., 1996. Zukunftige¨¨Kulturlandschaft aus der Tradition heraus. In: Konold, W.(Ed.), Naturlandschaft—Kulturlandschaft. Die Veranderung¨der Landschaften nach der Nutzbarmachung durch denMenschen. Ecomed, Landsberg, pp. 289–312.Kristensen, S.P., 1999. Agricultural land and landscape changesin Rostrup. Denmark: process of intensication andextensication. Landscape Urban Plan. 46, 117–123.MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J.R., Wiesinger, D., Dax, T., Stamou, N.,Fleury, P., Gutierrez-Lazpita, J., Gibton, A., 2000. Agriculturalabandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmentalconsequences and policy response. J. Environ. Manage. 59(1), 47–69.Mitchell, N., Buggey, S., 2001. Protected landscapes and culturallandscapes: taking advantage of diverse approaches. GeorgeWright Forum 17 (1), 35–46.O’Rourke, E. Changes in agriculture and the environment in anupland region of the Massif Central, France. Environ. Sci.Policy 9 (4), this issue.Olsson, E.G.A., Thorvaldsen, P. The eider conservation paradoxin Tautra—a new contribution to the multidimensionalityof the agricultural landscapes in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy9 (4), this issue.Palang, H., Helmfrid, S., Antrop, M., Alumae, H., 2005. Rural¨landscapes: past processes and future strategies. LandscapeUrban Plan. 70, 3–8.Phillips, A., 1998. The nature of cultural landscapes—a natureconservation perspective. Landscape Res. 23 (1), 21–38.Stenseke, M. Biodiversity and the local context. Linkingseminatural grasslands and their future use to socialaspects. Environ. Sci. Policy 9 (4), this issue.Tress, G., Tress, B., Fry, G., 2004. Clarifying integrative researchconcepts in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol. 20, 479–493.Vos, W., Meekes, H., 1999. Trends in European culturallandscape development: perspectives for a sustainablefuture. Landscape Urban Plan. 46, 3–14.Wilson, O.J., Wilson, G.A., 1997. Common cause or commonconcern? The role of common lands in the post-productivistcountryside. Area 29 (1), 45–58.Zimmermann, R.C. Recording rural landscapes and theircultural associations: some initial results and impressions.Environ. Sci. Policy 9 (4), this issue.Tobias Plieningerstudied forestry and environmental sciencesand completed his PhD degree at the University of Freiburg (Ger-many) in 2004, specialising in landscape management. He is now aresearch fellow at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciencesand Humanities and investigates how the emergence of bioenergychanges agriculture and forestry in rural areas. His research inter-ests include rural development, land-use planning and landscape-level conservation.¨Franz Hochtl,PhD, graduated in agricultural biology at the Uni-versity of Stuttgart-Hohenheim (Germany) in 1997. Since 1998 hehas been working as a junior scientist at the University of Freiburg.From 1999 to 2003 he was collaborating in two research projectsabout landscape development strategies for alpine communitiesin Piedmont (Italy). At present his work encompasses the analysisof the social and ecological effects of forest expansion in southGermany and the design of instruments for its control. Further-more, he is the coordinator of a research project about the syner-gies of monument and nature conservation in traditionalvineyards and historical parks.Theo Spekis a senior researcher in landscape history and soilscience at the National Service for Archaeological Heritage Man-agement in Amersfoort (the Netherlands), where he also leads aninterdisciplinary research programme at the interface betweenheritage management and landscape studies. His research inter-ests include landscape history of northwest Europe, anthropo-genic soil formation and historical ecology. He is Secretary-General of the Permanent European Conference for the Study ofthe Rural Landscape (PECSRL). [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]