The Protected Landscape Approach - Centre for Mediterranean ...

17. Conclusions – the protected landscape approach
of cultural landscapes into the World Heritage arena has made people aware that sites are not
isolated islands, but that they are part of larger ecological systems and have cultural linkages in
time and space beyond single monuments and strict nature reserves.” In this way, “the cultural
landscape concept has contributed to the evolution in environmental thought, protected area
management strategies, and heritage conservation as a whole.”
The large scale for conservation requires consideration of a complex mosaic of designations
and land use, and a diversity of landownership and management goals. Consequently, the
geographic focus for conservation has shifted from isolated protected areas to networks and
interconnected systems of protected areas, inclusive of rural settlements and urban areas. These
areas include a mixture of private and public land as well as designated protected areas and
stewardship by owners and communities without formal designations. Claudio Maretti reports
an “…increasing emphasis on integration – into bioregions, mosaics of protected areas,
ecological networks and conservation corridors, and individual protected areas considered as
part of systems of protected areas.” In Nepal’s protected area system the designation of buffer
zones and conservation areas, which are managed in cooperation with local communities,
serves to reconnect the strictly protected areas into a network. Jones, Okello and Wishitemi
note that the protected landscape approach can sustain wildlife dispersal areas and migration
corridors on the land of Maasai pastoralists.
2. The protected landscape approach embraces the
interrelationship of nature and culture.
Many authors discussed the critical recognition of social and cultural values in accomplishing
natural resource conservation, the value of cultural heritage, and the connection between
natural and cultural diversity. Rössler, in writing about cultural landscapes, observes that each
is “a unique complex of cultural and natural values.” That biological diversity often coincides
with cultural diversity has been widely documented (e.g., Harmon, 2002) and is illustrated by
many of the case studies in this volume. Hughes describes landscapes as “constantly evolving
through a combination of natural processes and human activities that are inextricably inter -
woven.” The Philippine Rice Terraces, as Augusto Villalón writes, provide many examples of
culture-nature connections, such as the management of muyong, private forests that cap each
terrace group and are managed as a collective effort through traditional tribal practices. This
interrelationship is illustrated in Australia where “landscapes represent wild nature, are the
product of Indigenous peoples, and have been extensively shaped by Europeans” as Jane
Lennon writes. In both the US and Canada, recognition of the value of lived-in landscapes has
increased, along with a growing appreciation for community engagement.
There are many areas around the world, including previously identified natural areas “ …
where it is now clear that the landscape has been moulded by human activity and where this
activity is an essential component of a healthy ecosystem”, according to Hughes. Phillips cites
well documented evidence that some areas thought of previously as wilderness have, in fact,
been modified by people over long periods of time (Phillips 1998). Rössler writes of the
importance of recognising cultural land-use systems that represent continuity of people work -
ing the land over centuries and sometimes millennia to adapt the natural environment and retain
or enhance biological diversity. Miroslav Kundrata and Blaena Hukov use the term
“secondary biodiversity” to describe species richness in areas that have been conditioned by
centuries of human influence and where intervention now sustains many species. The sacred
235