Cultural Landscape Preservation and Social–Ecological Sustainability

sustainability

Editorial Cultural Landscape Preservation and Social–Ecological Sustainability

María Fe Schmitz and Cristina Herrero-Jáuregui *

Department of Biodiversity, Ecology and Evolution, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]

1. Introduction Cultural landscapes are the result of social–ecological processes that have co-evolved throughout history, shaping high-value sustainable systems. They are an interface between nature and culture, characterized by the conservation and protection of ecological processes, natural resources, landscapes, and cultural biodiversity [1]. The adaptation to the environment and the social–ecological resilience of cultural landscapes depends, to a great extent, on the transmission of culture associated with the so-called traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of recognized importance in the sustainable use of natural resources and the conservation of ecological processes and biodiversity [2]. Therefore, the conservation of naturalness and culturalness must be considered together within the socioecological framework of biocultural heritage, which requires adequate protection and management [3,4]. The current processes of global change, such as agricultural intensification, rural abandonment, urban sprawl, and socioeconomic dynamics, are threatening cultural landscapes worldwide. Even though this loss is often unstoppable because of rapid and irreversible Citation: Schmitz, M.F.; social–ecological changes, there are also examples where rational protection measures can Herrero-Jáuregui, C. Cultural preserve cultural landscapes while promoting the sustainability of social–ecological sys- Landscape Preservation and tems. In Europe, significant efforts have been made in recent decades to preserve TEK and Social–Ecological Sustainability. cultural landscapes [5]. However, not all conservation policymaking processes consider Sustainability 2021, 13, 2593. the value of cultural landscapes, which makes their preservation even more difficult. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052593 Indeed, protected areas (PAs) designed to safeguard remaining habitats and species represent the cornerstone of conservation efforts [6], and their effectiveness can range from Received: 18 February 2021 areas with inclusive and adaptive programs for sustainable management to areas with Accepted: 22 February 2021 Published: 1 March 2021 no active management, known as “paper parks” [7,8]. Land conservation policies have frequently been defensive, and management plans have often neglected or even restricted

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral traditional rural activities, forgetting the local population, which has contributed to the high with regard to jurisdictional claims in conservation values recognized in cultural landscapes [9]. These nature conservation efforts published maps and institutional afﬁl- based on wilderness and naturalness have resulted in the decline of functional species iations. composition and plant diversity of pasture systems [10], loss of natural and biocultural diversity and, ultimately, in the abandonment of the rural landscape and the reduction or disappearance of traditional knowledge [9]. Additionally, management plans of PAs are too often dependent on administrative boundaries and political legislation, and not on social–ecological relationships, biophysical processes, and ecosystem services ﬂuxes, Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. which reduces their effectiveness in protecting landscapes based on social–ecological Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article interactions [1,11]. distributed under the terms and Therefore, there is a growing need of developing innovative theoretical and method- conditions of the Creative Commons ological approaches that are focused on management strategies for preserving cultural Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// landscapes and natural heritage. creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

Sustainability 2021, 13, 2593. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052593 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 5

Sustainability 2021, 13, 2593 2 of 5

2. Focus of This Special Issue 2. FocusWith of the This aim Special of opening Issue up the debate on how cultural landscapes are protected aroundWith the the world, aim of openingin this Special up the debateIssue, we on howpublish cultural state-of-the-art landscapes areresearch protected concerning around themanagement world, in this of cultural Special Issue, landscapes we publish and natura state-of-the-artl heritage. research We included concerning thirteen management papers in ofthis cultural Special landscapes Issue, accepted and natural out of heritage.all the submitted We included works thirteen and after papers the review in this process. Special Issue,The accepted accepted papers out of allcan the be submitted divided into works four and main after groups the review depending process. on The their accepted focus. papersWhile, canas expected, be divided most into of four papers main focus groups on depending cultural landscapes, on their focus. heritage, While, and asexpected, sustaina- mostbility of (Figure papers 1), focus five onof them cultural specially landscapes, emphasize heritage, the andneed sustainability for local participation, (Figure1 ), three five of of themthem speciallyfocus on urban emphasize development the need and for localcultural participation, heritage, two three talk of about them tourism, focus on and urban two developmentare descriptive. and cultural heritage, two talk about tourism, and two are descriptive.

FigureFigure 1.1.Word Word cloudcloud generatedgenerated fromfrom thethe publicationspublications of the Special Issue on on Cultural Cultural Landscape Landscape PreservationPreservation and and Social–Ecological Social–Ecological Sustainability. Sustainability.

3.3. OverviewOverview ofof thethe PapersPapers InIn the the first first group, group, authors authors highlight highlight the the need need for for local local participation participation in decisionin decision making mak- ining order in order to manage to manage cultural cultural landscapes landscapes around around the world. the world. Indeed, Indeed, they demonstrate they demonstrate in the differentin the different contexts contexts of China, of China, Sweden, Sweden, Spain, Spain, Canada, Canada, and South and South Africa Africa that management that manage- strategiesment strategies and conservation and conservation policies policies based exclusively based exclusively on decision-makers’ on decision-makers’ criteria are criteria coun- terproductiveare counterproductive for the conservation for the conservation of cultural of landscapes, cultural landscapes, particularly particularly if they are influenced if they are byinfluenced the wilderness by the paradigm. wilderness Specifically, paradigm. XuSpecifically, et al. use aXu Chinese et al. use case a ofChinese landscape case corridor of land- planningscape corridor to analyze planning how to citizen analyze involvement how citizen may involvement enrich sustainable may enrich spatial sustainable planning spain respecttial planning to ideas in consideredrespect to ideas and consider solutionsed developed. and solutions The developed. authors demonstrate The authors concrete demon- differences between planning solutions developed with and without public participation, strate concrete differences between planning solutions developed with and without pub- showing that collaborative processes can minimize spatial conflicts and demonstrating that lic participation, showing that collaborative processes can minimize spatial conflicts and public participation does indeed contribute to innovations that could enrich the corridor demonstrating that public participation does indeed contribute to innovations that could plan that had been produced exclusively by the decision-makers. On the other hand, Öster- enrich the corridor plan that had been produced exclusively by the decision-makers. On lin et al. identify that the dominance of a wilderness discourse influences both the objectives the other hand, Österlin et al. identify that the dominance of a wilderness discourse influ- and management of the protected areas in Sweden. They demonstrate how this wilderness ences both the objectives and management of the protected areas in Sweden. They demon- discourse functions as a barrier against including cultural heritage conservation aspects strate how this wilderness discourse functions as a barrier against including cultural her- and local stakeholders in management, as wilderness-influenced objectives are defining itage conservation aspects and local stakeholders in management, as wilderness-influ- protected areas as environments “untouched” by humans. Moreover, Marine et al. assess enced objectives are defining protected areas as environments “untouched” by humans. the management effectiveness of several cultural landscapes by quantifying the evolution ofMoreover, the spatial Marine pattern et inside al. assess and outside the manageme protectednt landscapes effectiveness in Spain. of several They concludecultural land- that thescapes land by protection quantifying approach the evolution adopted isof not the useful spatial for pattern the protection inside ofand cultural outside landscapes, protected particularlylandscapes ofin theSpain. most They rural conc oneslude and that that the the land concepts protection of uniqueness approach and adopted naturalness is not use- are notful appropriatefor the protection to preserve of cultural cultural landscapes, landscapes. particularly They recommend of the most that differentrural ones protection and that measuresthe concepts focused of uniqueness on the needs and and naturalness desires of are the not rural appropriat populatione to are preserve taken into cultural account land- in orderscapes. to They protect recommend cultural landscapes that different that areprotec shapedtion measures by traditional focused rural on activities. the needs In and fourth de- place,sires of Hudson the rural and population Vodden demonstrateare taken into that account Inuit-led in order planning to protect efforts cultural can strengthenlandscapes community sustainability planning interests and potential in Canada. They suggest that Sustainability 2021, 13, 2593 3 of 5

decolonizing efforts must be understood and updated within an Indigenous-led research and sustainability planning paradigm that facilitates autonomous place-based decision making. Finally, Nthane et al. explore how information and communication technologies (ICTs) in South African small-scale fisheries are leveraged towards value chain upgrading, collective action, and institutional sustainability—key issues that influence small-scale fishery contributions to marine resource sustainability. Authors demonstrate that Abalobi’s ICT platform has the potential to facilitate deeper meanings of democracy that incorporate socioeconomic reform, collective action, and institutional sustainability in South Africa’s small-scale fisheries. The second group of papers focuses on cultural heritage around cities and how urban development is affecting its conservation and thus, its potential as tourist attraction. Authors offer innovative strategies and solutions in order to achieve a win–win balance where heritage is preserved in the context of urban renewal, contributing to the sustainable development of cultural heritage landscape and urbanization. Chen et al. explore the coexistence between the protection and management of cultural heritage landscapes in Japan and urban development in cities from a novel perspective. They propose an indicator of landscape morphology, namely sky view factor, that predicts the perception of tourists in heritage gardens in an urban context. Authors find that tourists’ attitudes towards the high-rise buildings outside the traditional gardens are increasingly diversified, and the impact of this phenomenon is not necessarily negative. Meanwhile, Udeaja et al. recommend a thoughtful integration of sustainable heritage urban conservation into local urban development frameworks and the establishment of approaches that recognize the plurality of heritage values in India. Their paper reveals a myriad of challenges such as inadequacy of urban conservation management policies and processes focused on heritage, absence of skills, training, and resources amongst decision makers and persistent conflict and competition between heritage conservation needs and developers’ interests. Furthermore, they denounce that values and significance of Surat’s tangible and intangible heritage are not fully recognized by its citizens and heritage stakeholders. In addition, Molina et al. emphasize the need of specially considering urban and peri-urban riverbanks as landscapes in expansion due to the continuous growth of built-up spaces. Their paper characterizes four urban Mediterranean riverbanks describing the richness and composition of bird species and examines the interventions and urban planning criteria applied. Authors infer the need to reassess urban planning in river areas to ensure its compatibility with their operation, values, and possible uses of these systems. In the third group of papers, authors focus on tourism development and offer innovative solutions for the sustainable preservation of cultural landscapes. On the one hand, Martin et al. foster cultural identity preservation and responsible communal living in nature by presenting a set of architectural actions for the integration of campsites in cultural landscapes along the Catalan coast. The paper highlights the capacity of these settlements to preserve the identity of the place and its culture, organizing communities based on itinerancy and temporality with a high degree of respect for the environment. On the other hand, Pollice et al. show the first results of what they define as a “maieutic reworking of local heritage” in Cape Verde through the sharing of narrative and symbolic artifacts. They highlight the use of Placetelling® as a particular type of storytelling of places that promotes local development and helps to develop a sense of identity and belonging among the members of the community. They defend Placetelling®for supporting local communities to become directly engaged in the preservation of their common legacy in order to transmit it to coming generations and promote it as a particularly useful tool for sustainable tourism development. The last group of papers is descriptive. This group characterizes and describes cultural landscapes and TEK in different contexts (China, Hungary, and Japan) as a first step to understanding social–ecological dynamics and, thus, design appropriate land management policies to protect them and promote sustainable tourism. Li et al. explore changes in the relationship between humans and land in the farming area of the unique farming Sustainability 2021, 13, 2593 4 of 5

settlements in the Chengdu plain (China). Their study introduces the concept of “demand” and “restriction” in sustainable development to explore a future strategy for maintaining the cultural landscape, which is expected to provide a basis for future policy formulation to protect the traditional rural landscape. Chrastina et al. characterize a landscape colonized by Slovaks at the beginning of the 18th century as part of the cultural heritage of the Slovaks in Hungary, showing that a long-term stable cultural landscape has a similar potential for the development of ecotourism as a landscape protected by its wilderness. Finally, Tokuoka et al. examine the spatial distribution, uses, and folk nomenclature of farmland demarcation trees planted in the Niyodo River area in Japan. Authors highlight both the commonalities and uniqueness of demarcation tree culture in different regions of Japan, deepening our understanding of this agricultural heritage.

4. Conclusions The presented papers cover a wide spectrum of topics from community management to urban heritage preservation and TEK with different methodological approaches and involving regions from all over the world. Therefore, in our opinion, this Special Issue can be interesting for both researchers and practitioners. The presented papers also suggest management policies that we believe can be of interest for further increasing sustainability in cultural landscapes.

Author Contributions: All authors have contributed equally. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This work was funded by the project LABPA-CM: Contemporary Criteria, Methods and Techniques for Landscape Knowledge and Conservation (H2019/HUM-5692), funded by the European Social Fund and the Madrid Regional Government. Acknowledgments: The authors, as Guest Editors, acknowledge the constant support from all managing editors that handled submissions, review, and publishing processes. Also, special thanks go to the reviewers, who with their time and valuable suggestions contributed to the enhancement of those papers accepted in this Special Issue. The authors want to thank all those scholars who have participated by sharing their cutting-edge ideas in this Special Issue. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

References 1. Sarmiento-Mateos, P.; Arnaiz-Schmitz, C.; Herrero-Jáuregui, C.; Pineda, F.D.; Schmitz, M.F. Designing protected areas for social–ecological sustainability: Effectiveness of management guidelines for preserving cultural landscapes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2871. [CrossRef] 2. Berkes, F.; Folke, C.; Gadgil, M. Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Biodiversity, Resilience and Sustainability. In Biodiversity Conservation; Perrings, C.A., Mäler, K.G., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Jansson, B.O., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 281–299. 3. Gavin, M.C.; McCarter, J.; Mead, A.; Berkes, F.; Stepp, J.R.; Peterson, D.; Tang, R. Deﬁning biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015, 30, 140–145. [CrossRef][PubMed] 4. Vlami, V.; Kokkoris, I.P.; Zogaris, S.; Cartalis, C.; Kehayias, G.; Dimopoulos, P. Cultural landscapes and attributes of “culturalness” in protected areas: An exploratory assessment in Greece. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 595, 229–243. [CrossRef][PubMed] 5. Plieninger, T.; Höchtl, F.; Spek, T. Traditional land-use and nature conservation in European rural landscapes. Environ. Sci. Policy 2006, 9, 317–321. [CrossRef] 6. DeFries, R.; Hansen, A.; Newton, A.C.; Hansen, M.C. Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15, 19–26. [CrossRef] 7. Nagendra, H.; Lucas, R.; Honrado, J.P.; Jongman, R.H.; Tarantino, C.; Adamo, M.; Mairota, P. Remote sensing for conservation- monitoring: Assessing protected areas, habitat extent, habitat condition, species diversity, and threats. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 33, 45–59. [CrossRef] 8. Arnaiz-Schmitz, C.; Herrero-Jáuregui, C.; Schmitz, M.F. Losing a heritage hedgerow landscape. Biocultural diversity conservation in a changing social-ecological Mediterranean system. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 637, 374–384. [CrossRef][PubMed] 9. Schmitz, M.F.; Matos, D.G.G.; De Aranzabal, I.; Ruiz-Labourdette, D.; Pineda, F.D. Effects of a protected area on land-use dynamics and socioeconomic development of local populations. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 149, 122–135. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021, 13, 2593 5 of 5

10. Peco, B.; Sánchez, A.M.; Azcárate, F.M. Abandonment in grazing systems: Consequences for vegetation and soil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 113, 284–294. [CrossRef] 11. Schmitz, M.F.; Herrero-Jáuregui, C.; Arnaiz-Schmitz, C.; Sánchez, I.A.; Rescia, A.J.; Pineda, F.D. Evaluating the Role of a Protected Area on Hedgerow Conservation: The Case of a Spanish Cultural Landscape. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017, 28, 833–842. [CrossRef]