Exploring Sense of Place Across Cultivated Lands Through Public Participatory Mapping
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Landscape Ecol https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00816-9 (0123456789().,-volV)( 0123456789().,-volV) RESEARCH ARTICLE Exploring sense of place across cultivated lands through public participatory mapping I. Pe´rez-Ramı´rez . M. Garcı´a-Llorente . A. Benito . A. J. Castro Received: 8 October 2018 / Accepted: 26 March 2019 Ó Springer Nature B.V. 2019 Abstract areas, as well as to reveal the public sense of place Context Cultivated lands have undergone a shift attached to cultivated lands and perceptions about towards intensification and increased productivity, future land-use pathways. favoring provisioning services at the expense of Methods This study was conducted in an agrarian regulating and cultural services. Cultivated lands have and rural region of SE Madrid (Spain), where we did rarely been researched as a provider of cultural ecosystem service participatory mapping workshops services. with key stakeholders related to the agrarian sector: Objectives The overarching goal of this study is to farming professionals, land-use decision-makers and assess sense of place across cultivated lands. To do so, planners and other local actors. we used participatory mapping to elicit public knowl- Results We identified linkages between cultivated edge of the past and present coverage of agricultural lands and sense of place as a key cultural service. The locations most pinpointed for its sense of place overlapped with cultivated lands. The future land- I. Pe´rez-Ramı´rez Á M. Garcı´a-Llorente (&) Á A. Benito Department of Applied Research and Agricultural use pathways that showed the highest agreement Extension, Madrid Institute for Rural, Agricultural and between the likelihood and interest in their promotion Food Research and Development (IMIDRA), Ctra. were the increases in green and/or protected areas and Madrid-Barcelona (N-II), KM. 38.200, orchards. Extensive crops and urban areas the land-use 28802 Alcala´ de Henares, Spain e-mail: [email protected] pathways with the highest dissonance. Conclusions The results encourage land planners M. Garcı´a-Llorente and researchers to approach landscape values in Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of relation to the sense of place. We concluded that Ecology, C-201, c. Darwin, 2, Universidad Auto´noma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain cultivated lands present a sense of place, and this link has the possible to root society in agricultural land- A. J. Castro scape through the establishment of belongingness, Social-Ecological Research Lab, Department of stewardship and care connections. Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA Keywords Agricultural landscape Á Cultural value Á A. J. Castro Ecosystems service Á Landscape stewardship Á ´ Centro Andaluz para la Evaluacion y Seguimiento del Participatory mapping Sense of place Cambio Global (CAESCG), Departamento de Biologı´a Á Vegetal y Ecologı´a, Universidad de Almerı´a, La Can˜ada de San Urbano, 04120 Almerı´a, Spain 123 Landscape Ecol Introduction The sustainable land management of agricultural landscape must balance the delivery of multiple In the last decades, there has been an increasing ecosystem services (DeFries et al. 2004; Brown and number of studies that support an approach to the Raymond 2007; Plieninger et al. 2013, 2015; Quintas- sustainable integration of the social-ecological sys- Soriano et al. 2016), which implies a need for a full tems approach in land decision-making (Berkes and accounting of not only the economic and environ- Folke 1998). The social-ecological systems approach mental costs of productive systems but also the considers interactions between human societies and sociocultural dimension that is associated with farm- ecosystems, including processes that determine the ing practices (Garcı´a-Llorente et al. 2016; Quintas- flow and availability of critically important natural and Soriano et al. 2018b). In this regard, the management anthropocentric resources (Bailey 2009; Martı´n- of agricultural landscape has demanded new forms to Lo´pez et al. 2017). Agricultural landscape are com- embrace all dimensions of social perception and the plex social-ecological systems that not only ensure interpretation of landscapes from an emotional, spir- food resources but also guarantee key ecological itual and cognitive perspective (Relph 1976; Jor- processes and preserve cultural and historical values. gensen and Stedman 2006; Gonza´lez-Berna´ldez 2011; Throughout the last decades, agricultural landscape Mora´n et al. 2016). Since then, the literature on sense have changed drastically towards the modernization of of place has increased extensively, considering the set farming systems with the intensification of agriculture, of the core sense of place constructs (Masterson et al. the reduction of the labor force and the promotion of 2017), such as place attachment (understood as to be economic profitability (Altieri et al. 2012; Moraine the emotional bond that is established between the et al. 2017). This trend has driven the decoupling of individual or group and the environment; Altman and social-ecological situations in agricultural landscape Low 1992), place dependence (related to a utilitarian (Pretty 2011; Garcı´a-Llorente et al. 2016). In Europe, connection between people and the environment, agricultural landscape are characterized by the use of including the ability of a setting to satisfy important external inputs, land concentration and difficulties in needs; Tidball and Stedman 2013) or place identity land accessibility for new farmers (Pinto-Correia (related to the construction of personal identity 1993; Franco and Borras 2015). In the case of Spain, through the physical environment; Proshansky agroecosystem have experienced a similar process, 1978). All of these concepts are mixed with real-life with the intensification of the most profitable areas and experiences (Seamon 2014), and during this study, we the abandonment of farming marginalized zones considered these core constructs as factors of a sense (Guzma´n et al. 2012; Renwick et al. 2013). Less of place, thereby understanding sense of place as a profitable areas have been oriented towards a more concept that considers the subjective experience of the extensive use of the land, often for grazing and nature place, the deep emotional bonds and the meaning of conservation purposes (Pinto-Correia 1993), tourism, the place constructed by society (Relph 1976; Tuan industrial, mining, energy interests (Martı´nez-Ferna´n- 1976). Here, we recognize that a sense of place is dez et al. 2015) or abandonment. After the ‘‘green formed through social experiences (Masterson et al. revolution’’ during the second half of the twentieth 2017); we highlight the collective dimension of the century (Naredo 2001), agricultural landscape have place and the relationships between people, identities been managed to maximize the delivery of provision- and their environments. To do so, we used participa- ing services (e.g., food production), which has resulted tory mapping to integrate different sources of knowl- in a decline in regulating and cultural ecosystem edge and generate spatially explicit outputs (Brown services (Matson et al. 1997; Castro et al. 2014, 2015; et al. 2012; Brown and Fagerholm 2015; Scholte et al. Quintas-Soriano et al. 2014). Thus, ecosystem service 2015). The use of participatory mapping has been trade-offs and disservices include negative impacts on extensive in ecosystem service literature, in particular agrobiodiversity (Swinton et al. 2007), nutrient to address cultural ecosystem services. For instance, cycling (Power 2010), pesticide poisoning, water previous studies have measure recreation and eco- pollution, greenhouse gas emissions (Tilman et al. tourism values (Martı´nez-Harms and Balvanera 2012; 2002; Zhang et al. 2007; Castro et al. 2016) and Herna´ndez-Morcillo et al. 2013). However, it has been cultural identity (Hinojosa et al. 2017). remarked that there is a need to acknowledge and map 123 Landscape Ecol a broader variety of cultural ecosystem service for region is composed of fluvial terraces with horticul- their later inclusion in landscape management and tural crops and cereals (mainly cornfields, wheat and governance (Chan et al. 2012; Daniel et al. 2012; barley) and zones with slight inclinations with soils of Setten et al. 2012; Plieninger et al. 2013;Lo´pez- low organic matter with olive groves and vineyards Rodrı´guez et al. 2015). Among all of the cultural interspersed with thyme, rockrose, lavender, rosemary ecosystem service types, sense of place has been or esparto (Go´mez 1987) and dry cereals, legumes and recognized as playing a critical role in shaping and other annual crops in zones with intermediate soil maintaining well-being across rural communities qualities (Bienes et al. 2001). Even though the Tajun˜a (SNEA 2013; Hausmann et al. 2016; Blicharska tributary river has several protection areas, which are et al. 2017). Previous research introduced spatial classified as Community Interest Sites (CIS) and Spe- mapping approach to examine the relationships cial Protection Areas for Birds (SPAB), it is currently between a ‘‘special place’’ and landscape values in a vulnerable condition due to high droughts (during (Brown 2005; Black and Liljeblad 2006; Brown and the year 2017, the reservoir volume did not exceed Raymond 2007). 400 hm3 and the river was declared to be in an The overarching goal of this study is to assess sense emergency state) and water pollution during the last of place across cultivated