Cultural Landscapes: The Future in the Process

Abstract

The cultural dimension of any cultural landscape embodies various aspects associated with the local community that act as a generating force. Conversely, cultural landscapes play a crucial role in people’s quality of life and sense of belonging, their features contributing to the overall landscape perception and character.

Therefore, all heritage management and conservation approaches ought to be based on the identification and consideration of this interrelationship and provide a shared vision—within a global context—through the adoption of cross-disciplinary methods of analysing, evaluating and monitoring cultural landscapes in all their dimensions over time.

Within the above conceptual framework, this article attempts to present a meaningful contribution for specific challenges and opportunities connected with the management of cultural landscapes reflecting their multifunctional acceptation.

Considering that the development of a management plan is part of a higher management process as well as an essential tool for creating agreement among stakeholders and professionals, the article concludes with an outlook on landscape future scenarios, highlighting those forward-looking approaches that are more effective in governing change in such a way that cultural landscapes’ significant functions and values endure, along with supporting cultural and human sustainable development based on a balanced and critical assessment of the community interests.

Keywords

Cross-disciplinary knowledge cultural landscapes heritage management local communities sustainable development

Introduction

There is a universal acquired cultural landscape paradigm playing a leading role in the delivery of key sustainable development outcomes, which is also able to foster community well-being and promote quality of life. It requires a tailored research framework, a system of governance well equipped to embrace a reality composed of many competing stakeholders and the establishment of an ongoing process of capability building. Accordingly, it calls for a new synthesis of natural and cognitive systems, therefore, for a high level of cross-disciplinary knowledge, which requires the interrelation of different disciplines, as well as of experts and practitioners.

The management and stewardship of cultural landscapes are directly linked to the way people experience and interpret their own environment and influenced by their historical, cultural and social backgrounds. As wisely noted by Keith Basso (1996), ‘senses of place also partake of cultures, of shared bodies of “local knowledge” with which persons and whole communities render their places meaningful and endow them with social importance’.¹ Nevertheless, ‘people, not cultures, sense places […] and they do so in varying ways’ (pp. i–xiii). One of the ways in which we connect to a place is through our own memory of the specific site, but also as a result of the collective memory bequeathed to us at birth:² we grow with this particular gift of place knowledge—which provides a shared local vision of being in space and time—and, at the same time, we constantly nourish and enrich this common sense of place with new stories, values and meanings, revising the past and the present of the place we belong to through our own cultural perception of the world.

There’s a mana³ in the air of historic places

Intangible yet present.

Distinct.

Sometimes abrupt.

A secret storyteller.

Resolute. Forceful. Needy in its urge to share

Happenings, unfoldings, chains of events that led there,

To its vibratory memory marking what occurred. (The Mana of Place, n.d.)

Referring to the notorious poet and writer Ralph Waldo Emerson (1977 [1903–04]), whose writings give insights on the relationship between memory and man—but also between the past and the sense of place that unfolds in the ‘active mind, through the incessant purification and better method of its memory’ (p. 273)—we recognize that the true meaning we give to the term ‘memory’ is linked to its plastic faculty, which allows us to shape our personal life daily and ‘without which none other can work; the cement, the bitumen, the matrix in which other faculties are embedded’ (pp. 271–272).⁴

A cultural landscape, for being ‘illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time […] under the influence of social, economic and cultural forces’ (UNESCO, 2016, Annex III, p. 47), is a three-dimensional manifestation of our collective memory; a memory that is also selective, leaving behind what does not comply with its nature (Pietropoli, 2016); that is, the reason for which experiencing a cultural landscape allows us to evoke and retain a forgotten past, to link people and things, to raise our awareness of being part of a world of meanings, which gives sense to our lives. Cultural landscapes, as particular types of landscapes in which the human and non-human aspects dynamically interact, have a broad range of roles: they contribute to the character and perception of a place, they develop identity and sense of belonging, they facilitate contact with the environmental and social spheres and they improve the quality of citizen participation, just to mention a few (Jørgensen, Clemetsen, Thorén, & Richardson, 2016, p. 47). If we consider their different contributions, cultural landscapes are characterized by multifunctionality and multidimensionality, which are crucial traits of theirs to recognize in order to adopt the more appropriate methods of analysing, evaluating and monitoring them in all their dimensions: physical, functional and associative. When managing continuously changing cultural landscapes, focusing on their functions has become necessary in the day-to-day research endeavour. Consequently, it has become apparent that studies related to them need to involve different disciplinary fields, as well as different cross-disciplinary approaches, tailored to the specific research questions (pp. 24–26).

Since heritage stewardship, as stated by Jukka Jokilehto (1994), implies ‘recognizing this spirit, this “non-physical” essence and authenticity of the heritage, and its relation with the society’ (p. 34) is the narrative we commonly offer about cultural landscapes and the tools we use in a process-oriented cultural resource management adequate and appropriate to address their multifunctional acceptation and the multifaceted interrelation between them and society? Which are the challenges and the opportunities connected with the above premises? How do we prevent the fragmentation of the landscape environment into a number of components problematic to control?

The author’s argumentation is centred on the assumption that only through a holistic approach to the cultural landscape (Bagnara Milan, 2016b), based on a ‘new understanding of its materiality’ (Moore, 2016, p. 284) in his connection with society—which is made of individuals, societies and nations—we are going to reconcile it with the broader cultural and social contexts of our lives. From this kind of perspective, a cultural landscape becomes an integral part of human identity and life dynamics, reflecting ‘the lived experiences of people and communities, their different values, and their particular cultural and intellectual backgrounds; or—referring to a more recent and non-semantic approach—their individual feelings of well-being’ (Bagnara Milan, 2016a, pp. 42–43).

International Doctrine on Conservation, Sustainability and Development

The properties on the World Heritage List, such as cultural landscapes⁵ of outstanding universal value, are protected and managed through the implementation of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 1972), which has as one of its major goals the well-being and development of societies, and the contribution to their mutual understanding and dialogue, as pointed out in the Budapest Declaration (UNESCO, 2002), in which the World Heritage Committee invited all States Parties ‘to ensure an appropriate and equitable balance between conservation, sustainability and development, so that World Heritage properties can be protected while the quality of life of our communities is improved, through appropriate activities such as sustainable tourism’ (pp. 3–4).

The shift of focus on cultural values and different belief systems as a way of reinforcing the link between cultural heritage and cultural identity had already been established by the Nara Document on Authenticity (ICOMOS, 1994)—the first international document for diverse cultural values in conservation—which introduced the principle of ‘collective memory of humanity’ and the related requirements for the protection and enhancement of cultural heritage, among which that the ‘responsibility for cultural heritage and management of it belongs, in the first place, to the cultural community that has generated it, and subsequently to that which cares for it’ (pp. 1–2).

The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 2003) broadened the concept of heritage with the recognition of intangible cultural values; most importantly for our study, it enriched the discourse on social identity as an important constituent of cultural heritage (Laviolette, 2005, p. 24) through the enucleation of the various domains of the ‘intangible cultural heritage’, and by emphasizing its crucial role in providing communities ‘with a sense of identity and continuity’, as well as allowing for the intangible cultural heritage the constant recreation of its essence and authenticity by the same groups or individuals ‘in response to their environment’ (UNESCO, 2003, p. 2).⁶

The Burra Charter (ICOMOS, 2013), adopted 10 years later, promoted the assessment of the significance of a place as a framework for developing conservation and management strategies compatible with the cultural significance of a place by formulating a values-led process of understanding, policy development and fitting management of all types of places, including natural, indigenous and historic places with cultural values.⁷

Calling on governments and policymakers to shape a new global agenda for sustainable development policies, and elaborating on the universal principles concerning cultural diversity,⁸ the Hangzhou Declaration (UNESCO, 2013) reaffirmed the role of culture to ‘foster and enable truly sustainable development’ through an integrated ‘people-centred and place-based approach’ (p. 2) applied to development programmes and peace-building initiatives. Furthermore, recognizing once again the role of heritage being ‘a critical asset for our well-being and that of future generations’, it encouraged governments and policymakers to strengthen national policies and programmes accordingly to the ‘inherited systems of values and cultural expressions as part of the shared commons, while giving it a central role in the life of societies’ (p. 5).

The Kotor regional meeting (UNESCO, 2012), in occasion of the 40th anniversary of the UNESCO Convention, offered the opportunity to explore community involvement as a crucial medium for local socio-economic development, thus contributing to the discourse on the enhancement of local governance processes through integrated heritage management and planning processes as means of balancing conservation and community interests.

Literature Review

This research study initially stems from a synthesis of the international doctrine regarding the theory of ‘cultural landscapes’ as defined in numerous charters, declarations and conventions as well as in additional documents drafted and published by Council of Europe, International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), UNESCO, United Nations (UN) and other international organizations.

The premise for this work is set out in the theoretical contribution of Moore (2016), offering a redefinition of landscape based on a new holistic perspective, fostering sustainable development; in Aldo Leopold’s thinking (1939, 1947, 1949) on conservation and economics, specifically in his ecological and aesthetic interpretation of the nature of human–land relationship; and in the studies of Jorgensen, Clementsen, Thorén and Richardson (2016) aimed at an integrated transdisciplinary approach to landscape planning and development. It continues by integrating the work of distinguished scholars such as Antrop (2005, 2013), Fusco Girard (2004, 2009) and Greffe (2009, 2012) for the elaboration of guiding principles and other academic contributions, published in recent international conference proceedings and lectures.

The theoretical approach on multifunctional landscapes and their relationship to sustainable development are derived from the study of Brandt, Tress and Tress (2000) and stems from the international conference held in Roskilde, Denmark, in October 2000.

The literature about ‘transdisciplinarity’ is dispersed in various domains. It is sometimes linked to community-based participation processes, co-design and parallel fields: see, for instance, Brandt et al. (2013), Lang et al. (2012), and Roux, Stirzaker, Breen, Lefroy and Cresswell (2010), or it may be associated with sustainability research, as in the case of Scholz and Steiner (2015) and Stauffacher, Flüeler, Krütli and Scholz (2008). The transdisciplinary framework outlined by Stauffacher et al. (2008), which evaluates processes in a case project on sustainable landscape development,⁹ is more relevant to this study as it offers an analytic and dynamic approach to participation and collaboration of many stakeholders—including practitioners from outside academia—motivated to foster a co-learning and co-design environment.

This article refers to ‘cultural landscapes’ as in the formal definition provided by the first article of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 1972), that is, ‘combined works of nature and of man’ and which ‘are 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 and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal’ (UNESCO, 2016, par. 6). Moreover, it incorporates the definition offered by the European Landscape Convention (European Union [EU], 2000, art. 1), which summarizes the landscape as ‘an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors’. The author refers to ‘sustainable development’ as in definition set out in the well-known Brundtland Report (United Nations, 1992, Chapter 2). However, the definition also includes culture, which was recognized as the fourth pillar of sustainable development during the 1990s.¹⁰

Methodology

The method applied in this research is mainly exploratory, initially involving a literature study of cross-disciplinary and cross-scale approaches for the integrated analysis, evaluation and monitoring of cultural landscapes in their wider context, the latter affected by both economic and social drivers. It is a flexible and dynamic search that aims to investigate the complexity of conserving and managing cultural landscapes considered in their diverse and multifunctional acceptation, related to both physical, functional and associative aspects; thus requiring a reflection on the complex and relatively recent realm of ‘landscape governance’ (Wageningen School of Social Sciences, Centre for Development Innovation, & Forest and Nature Conservation Policy, 2015).

Discussion

Within the above conceptual framework and in consideration of the international doctrine, we commonly deem cultural landscapes as significant expressions of the ‘interaction between humankind and its natural environment’, illustrating ‘the essential and distinct cultural elements’ of a distinctive geo-cultural area (UNESCO, 2016, Annex 3, p. 84). Therefore, if we focus on the main objectives of sustainable development, which calls for a harmonious relationship between the needs and aspirations of a community for social well-being and good life (United Nations General Assembly, 2012, par. 30), the ‘balanced use of environmental and cultural resources and the successful organization of economic and cultural activities in a given area’ (Bagnara Milan, 2016b, p. 20), it becomes apparent that their stewardship and future design are central and sensitive issues in the overall strive for long-term sustainability, which ought to be informed—in the author’s viewpoint—by a culture of resilience and adaptation as a construct for managing change.

In our exploratory study, the management of cultural landscapes is characterized by opportunities and challenges inherent to their evolving dual nature, hence involving both natural and cultural processes for decision-making, as well as cross-disciplinary knowledge.

Opportunities and Challenges

The Rio Declaration (United Nations, 1992) established a dynamic vision of sustainability and introduced some important concepts—or key levers, such as ecological compatibility, economic durability and public participation—that needed to be activated in order to pursue sustainable development. The various levers are to be applied and hierarchically operated in a dynamic way, based on the characteristics of the territory: the ultimate goal is to define the best viable scheme for a specific geo-cultural area, combining economic, social, cultural and environmental aspects of human activity (Campeol, 2016). These various aspects must, therefore, be taken into consideration and coherently balanced by communities, groups and individuals through the implementation of decision-making processes in all spheres of society. A large consensus is required in order to define and implement objectives, and to decide which model of development to pursue, compatible with the attributes of the specific landscape.

Since we are debating about methodological processes, the author believes that in order to govern landscape change effectively—from territorial planning to heritage management—the approach to cultural landscapes cannot be limited to general concepts or declarations of principles; rather it has to be characterized by a quali-quantitative research method. To help meeting the challenges of rapidly changing cultural landscapes, many scholars (Brandt et al., Jørgensen et al., 2016) invite to focus on landscape functions—which are linked to the aesthetic realm, the biodiversity sphere, the historic preservation domain, just to mention a few, or a combination of them like in the more common case of multifunctional landscapes—rather than on their plain conservation, in order to not only improve and expand research findings but also as a process for reaching consensus on a variety of choices. It appears that by applying the scientific method of an interdisciplinary field like ecology—which is based on the study of the reciprocal relationships that living organisms have with each other and their environment, hence on the concept of landscape as an ‘ecosystem’, characterized as a mechanism of interrelation that governs a closed community—the evaluation of the phenomena affecting the landscape in its myriad aspects becomes feasible, more approachable and measurable. More importantly, it allows for a multidisciplinary and multidimensional analysis of the events shaping the landscape.¹¹ In this regard, there are many schools of thought: the author privileges the interdisciplinary approach and the use of multi-criteria models of Aldo Leopold (1947, pp. 338–346), who sensed that for conservation and good government of the land a deeper level of understanding was necessary, that is, an ‘ecological conscience’, and proposed to reconcile the land with its human communities:

No important change in human conduct is ever accomplished without an internal change in our intellectual emphases, our loyalties, our affections, and our convictions. The proof that conservation has not yet touched these foundations of conduct lies in the fact that philosophy, ethics, and religion have not yet heard of it. (pp. 209–210)

At the heart of Leopold’s philosophical thinking is the concept of land as a community in which personal stewardship is nurtured by all aspects of one’s values and believes, touching the emotional, the pragmatic and the intellectual spheres of the mind. By exercising all these aspects in terms of what is not simply economically viable, but also ethically and aesthetically right, the community will be able to preserve the ‘integrity, stability, and beauty’ of the land (Leopold, 1949, pp. 224–225).¹²

If we transpose Leopold’s ethical approach to the conservation and management of cultural landscapes and integrate the remarkable contributions of scholars such as Fusco Girard (2004, 2009) and Greffe (2009, 2012) on the important functions exerted by the so-called ‘aesthetic community’,¹³ the author comes to the conclusion that by focusing on the visible and socially valuable aspects of the landscape—such as ‘beauty’ and ‘culture’—it becomes easier not only to come to an agreement on the common values to cherish the objectives and future landscape scenarios we wish to engage in, but also to establish processes of reconciliation of conflicting interests through the building of a common sense of place and community within the civil society, as well as defining and finding agreement over the evaluation and monitoring systems in the management process. A cultural landscape becomes, therefore, an integral part of a community’s life through a process of ethical elaboration and re-appropriation of its own identity, generating, in turn, new values and meanings in time and space; as well as establishing opportunities for genuine participation and engagement, which are vital for a harmonious sustainable development. As wittingly pointed out by Frederick Steiner (2016) about the emerging of a new ecological aesthetic: ‘This aesthetic involves the sensual connection to natural and cultural processes’ (p. 155),¹⁴ which is exactly the kind of dialogical approach we deem useful in all aspects of decision-making regarding cultural landscapes, essentially for their dual character, calling for a new factual as well as ‘ethical relation to the land’, which cannot exist ‘without love, respect, and admiration for land and high regard for its value’ (Leopold, 1949, p. 223), hence enabling us to reach deeper insights and use them in our future interactions with the cultural landscape.

When we assume that a cultural landscape is an expression of the relationships existing in a given period between a community and a defined territory, the appearance of which is the result of both natural and human factors, it follows that it can be read as a composition, as a text: it becomes literature (Doherty, 2016). Hence, like a poem, it can be read in many different ways, on many levels and by different publics, cultures and in different geographical areas. It also transforms and regenerates around us. Conversely, like poetry and literature in general, landscape has the capability of shaping the human reality by changing ‘the public consciousness as much as, indeed if not more than that, official policy’ (p. 18). From this perspective, cultural landscapes are not simply physical entities: they reflect our own stories, memories and the relationships we have with a place; moreover, they expose our worldwide views along with our desires and imageries,¹⁵ inspiring us in our ways to articulate the social and cultural settings of our being a ‘part of it’ (Moore, 2016, pp. 290–292).

However, the concept of cultural landscape—in space as well as in time—is neither universal nor unanimously acknowledged in its multidimensional acceptation. Its meaning is fluid, ever-changing like the relationships between its space, people and events of its past. It manifests ‘a way of conceptualizing the world that has developed through human history’; hence it is affected by ‘the historical ways of thinking about the organization and management of landscape’ (Brandt et al., 2000, p. 143). Consequently, the concept of multifunctionality in landscape studies, considered as the coexistence of different disciplines,¹⁶ is the result not only of the relationship between society—with its particular value systems—and its environment but it is also rooted in the different government and institutional systems that shaped the same concept of landscape.

The Process

The complexity involved with understanding cultural landscapes and landscape planning calls for the integration of all disciplines and spheres of knowledge to develop a common language as well as a joint research strategy. Transdisciplinary landscape research, therefore, focuses the attention on one ‘global reality’ (Brandt et al., 2000, p. 152) and becomes the key to combining different disciplines, giving the opportunity to reach an understanding of cultural landscapes that represents the integration of several designations into one holistic vision.¹⁷

Results of a transdisciplinary landscape approach are multiple and allow to reach a far more dynamic insight in the conservation, planning and management of cultural landscapes for the following reasons: (a) it is critically linked to the value frameworks associated with the groups present in the geo-cultural area of reference; (b) the related planning process is purposeful and inclusive, involving not only researchers and professionals, but all the stakeholders; (c) it acknowledges and facilitates the incorporation of local cultural traditions, expectations and ethical aspirations of a community or more groups, united by a common shared vision; (d) as a result of the previous reason, it may foster sociocultural appreciation and respect for cultural diversities; and (e) by transcending boundaries between disciplines, it foresees new landscape scenarios and has the potential to generate innovative solutions for the management and planning of cultural landscapes.

As pointed out by Jørgensen et al. (2016, p. 25), we can measure and improve the level of transdisciplinarity by establishing a universal research ground, able to attract not only academics but also practitioners and the general public. It is the author’s opinion that a comprehensive research framework ought to be characterized by the following attributes: (a) a common definition of landscape,¹⁸ able to express its multifunctional acceptation,¹⁹ which could be boosted by the introduction of a shared and holistic concept of landscape—philologically supported and epistemologically oriented—responsive to different interpretations (local, regional and national), preferably by promoting the idea of an international landscape convention;²⁰ (b) an understanding of the challenges connected with the new transdisciplinary learning environment, which requires not only the ability to cooperate with researchers from different disciplines, but also multidisciplinary knowledge and competence; and (c) a shared conceptual research foundation to the different approaches²¹ used to investigate cultural landscapes: this could be achieved by adapting the research design to the particular functions we intend to preserve and enhance, specifically by selecting the method of a particular discipline to employ as the leading investigation player.

Conclusion

After reasoning about the opportunities and challenges connected with cultural landscapes and their management and planning, the author has come to the conclusion that cultural landscapes ought to be considered as well-defined territories, or geo-cultural areas, having strong anthropogenic environmental functions that need to be dynamically preserved, organized and managed in their constantly evolving nature. They are important for the human well-being as much as the ecological balance of any other natural environmental component (Urbani, 2000). Moreover, if we consider cultural landscapes as ‘an expression of the diversity of their [people’s] shared cultural and natural heritage and a foundation of their identity’ (European Union, 2000, art. 1.a), and—as such—whose evolution depends on ‘social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal’ (UNESCO, 2016, p. 83), it follows that the ideal research strategy should reflect the needs and visions of the local communities that generated them and be based on their values: from the social to the ethical and aesthetic ones. Accordingly, the development of any project should be based on a harmonic integration of conservation and sustainable development issues through the adoption of a point of reference based on ‘what benefits the collectivity’ (Urbani, 2000, p. 21),²² such as community well-being and sustainable human development.

In this light, both planning and management processes would benefit considerably from the adoption of a model of transdisciplinary knowledge—especially in the initial phases of projects and plans—when it is crucial to attain an agreement between stakeholders around the particular landscape functions they recognize to be significant, hence to support the future cultural landscape scenarios the ‘aesthetic’ community aims to bring to life and to fruition. By defining the best feasible research framework for a specific cultural landscape based on its specific multifunctionality—incorporating de facto all aspects of environmental and cultural activity—we will be able to reconnect the landscape to the principle of sustainability, which ‘aims at integrating ecological, economic and social functions’ (Brandt et al., 2000, p. 155). Furthermore, shifting the focus away from the rigid schemes of single disciplines, thus allowing for a more comprehensive definition, will allow cultural landscapes to be valued and established within the context in which they can serve the society by mediating between conflicting forces and agendas: political, institutional, social and cultural. As a consequence, cultural landscapes have the potential to serve as strategic ‘medium’ at all levels of governance and stewardship in the initiatives designed to respond to the major challenges affecting people’s everyday lives; as well as in the ability of communities to consciously shape their landscapes focused on the future they aspire, along with the safeguarding of those traits that represent the most authentic ‘portraits of themselves’.²³

Footnotes

Notes

References

Antrop

(2005). From holistic landscape synthesis to transdisciplinary landscape management. In Tress

, Tress

, Fry

& Opdam

(Eds), From landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of integration, education and application (pp. 27–50). Wageningen: UR Frontis Series, no. 12, Springer Science+Business Media. Retrieved 30 April 2017, from http://library.wur.nl/frontis/landscape_research/03_antrop.pdf

Antrop

(2013). A brief history of landscape research. In Howard

, Thompson

& Waterton

(Eds), The Routledge companion to landscape studies (pp. 12–22). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

Bagnara Milan

(2016a). A world heritage to be shared without prejudice: New linkages and strategies in the management of cultural landscapes. In Bassa

& Kiss

(Eds), Proceedings of TCL2016 conference on tourism and cultural landscapes: Towards a sustainable approach, Budapest, Hungary, 12 June–16 June 2016 (pp. 42–54). Budapest: INFOTA. Retrieved 3 April 2017, from http://tcl.infota.org/proceedings/articles/Proceedings_TCL2016.pdf

Bagnara Milan

(2016b). Cultural landscapes: A framework for their holistic management. In Collins

, Kindermann

, Newman

& Cronin

(Eds), Proceedings of landscape values: Place and praxis, Galway, Ireland, 29 June–2 July 2016 (pp. 19–25). Galway, Ireland: Centre for Landscape Studies, NUI Galway. Retrieved 4 April 2017, from https://www.academia.edu/27129540/Cultural_Landscapes_A_Framework_for_Their_Holistic_Management

Basso

K. H.

(1996). Wisdom sits in places: Landscape and language among the Western Apache. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Brandt

, Tress

, & Tress

(Eds). (2000). Multifunctional landscapes: Interdisciplinary approaches to landscape research and management. Conference material for the conference on ‘multifunctional landscapes’. Roskilde, Denmark: Centre for Landscape Research. doi: 10.1.1.126.6445

Brandt

, Ernst

, Gralla

, Luederitz

, Lang

D. J.

, Newing

, … von Wehrden

(2013). A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological Economics, 92(Land Use), 1–15. doi: 10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2013.04.008

Campeol

(2016, September). Le valutazioni ambientali (VAS, VIA, VINCA, Paesaggistica) per la qualità dei progetti e dei piani [Environmental assessments (VAS, VIA, VINCA, Landscape Evaluation) for the quality of projects and plans]). Le valutazioni ambientali (VAS, VIA, VINCA, Paesaggistica) per la qualità dei progetti e dei piani [Environmental assessments (VAS, VIA, VINCA, Landscape Evaluation) for the quality of projects and plans]. In OAPPC—Vicenza, La valutazione ambientale: Aspetti culturali, normativi e pianificatori [Environmental assessment: Cultural, regulatory and planning aspects]. Lecture conducted from Palazzo Festari, Valdagno, Italy.

Doherty

(2016). Is landscape literature? In Doherty

& Waldheim

(Eds), Is landscape…? Essays on the identity of landscape (pp. 13–43). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Emerson

R. W.

(1977 [1903–2004]). Memory. In Van

Doren (Ed.), The portable Emerson (pp. 271–273). New York, NY: Penguin Books.

11.

European Union. (2000). European landscape convention (European Treaty Series No. 176). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub.

12.

Fusco Girard

, & Nijakamp

(Eds). (2004). Energia, bellezza, partecipazione: La sfida della sostenibilità. Valutazioni integrate tra conservazione e sviluppo [Energy, beauty, participation: The challenge of sustainability. Integrated evaluations between conservation and development]. Milano: Franco Angeli.

13.

Fusco Girard

, & Nijakamp

(Eds). (2009, January). Bellezza, partecipazione [Beauty, participation]. In University of Nova Gorica—ETCAEH, Management and Strategic Planning of Heritage Sites. Lecture conducted from ex Convento dei Servi di Maria, Venice, Italy.

14.

Greffe

(2009). Heritage conservation as a driving force for development. In Theeron

& Trigona

(Eds), Heritage and beyond (pp. 101–112). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved 19 April 2017, from https://book.coe.int/eur/en/culturalheritage/4256-heritage-and-beyond.html

15.

Greffe

(2012). Concept study on the role of cultural heritage as the fourth pillar of sustainable development. SustCult. Retrieved 19 April 2017, from http://docplayer.net/24195641-Concept-study-on-the-role-of-cultural-heritage-as-the-fourth-pillar-of-sustainable-development.html

16.

ICOMOS-Australia. (2013). The Australia ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance (the Burra charter). Camberra: ICOMOS-Australia. Retrieved 10 February 2017, from http://australia.icomos.org/publications/charters/

17.

IFLA. (2012). Towards an international landscape conference. Paper presented at the GIAHS (FAO) Meeting in Rome by Kathryn Moore. Retrieved 27 April 2017, from http://iflaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/GIAHS-Presentation-ILC.pdf

18.

Jokilehto

(1994). Questions about ‘authenticity’. In Larsen

K. E.

& Marsetin

(Eds), Paper presented at the Conference on authenticity in relation to the World Heritage Convention: preparatory Workshop, Bergen, Norway, 31 January–2 February 1994 (pp. 9–34). Trodheim: Tapir Publishers. Retrieved 23 March 2017 from UNESDOC.

19.

Jørgensen

, Clemetsen

, Thorén

K. H.

, & Richardson

(Eds) (2016). Mainstreaming landscape through the European landscape convention. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

20.

Lang

D. J.

, Bergmann

, Martens

, Wiek

, Stauffacher

, Moll

, … Thomas

(2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(SUPPL. 1), 25–43. doi: 10.1007/s11625–011–0149-x

21.

Laviolette

(2005). Cultural landscapes in the 21st century. 10th International Forum UNESCO and WAC Inter-Congress, 11–16 April 2005, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Anthropology Today, 21(4), 24.

22.

Leopold

(1939). The farmer as a conservationist. American Forests, 45(6), 294–299.

23.

Leopold

(1947). The ecological conscience. In Flader

S. L.

& Callicott

J. B.

(Eds), The river of the mother god and other essays by Aldo Leopold (pp. 338–346). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

24.

Leopold

(1949). A sand county almanac: And sketches here and there. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

25.

Meine

(2010). Aldo Leopold: His life and work. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

26.

Moore

(2016). Is landscape philosophy? In Doherty

& Waldheim

(Eds), Is landscape…? Essays on the identity of landscape (pp. 285–302). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

27.

Pietropoli

(2016, October). Introduzione [Introduction]. In F.O.A.V., Gli architetti e il restauro del patrimonio costruito nel Veneto: Società, memoria, identità [Architects and the restoration of the built heritage in the Veneto region: Society, memory, identity]. Lecture conducted from Instituto Remondini, Bassano del Grappa, Italy.

28.

Roux

D. J.

, Stirzaker

R. J.

, Breen

C. M.

, Lefroy

E. C.

, & Cresswell

H. P.

(2010). Framework for participative reflection on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(8), 733–741. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.08.002

29.

Scholz

, & Steiner

(2015). The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: Part I—Theoretical foundations. Sustainability Science, 10(4), 527–544. doi: 10.1007/s11625–015–0326–4

30.

Stauffacher

, Flüeler

, Krütli

, & Scholz

R. W.

(2008). Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration: A transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss prealpine region. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21(6), 409–422. doi: 10.1007/s11213008–9107–7

31.

Steiner

(2016). Is landscape planning? In Doherty

& Waldheim

(Eds), Is landscape…? Essays on the identity of landscape (pp. 138–161). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

32.

The Mana of Place. (n.d.). In Historic Hawaii Foundation website. Retrieved March 27, 2017, from https://historichawaii.org/2017/03/22/the-mana-of-place-a-poem/

33.

UNESCO. (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage adopted by the General Conference at the seventeenth session. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 2 May 2017, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/

34.

UNESCO. (2002). The Budapest declaration on world heritage. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 15 March 2017, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001257/125796e.pdf

35.

UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 15 March 2017, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132540e.pdf

36.

UNESCO. (2012). World heritage and sustainable development: The role of local communities in the management of UNESCO designated sites. UNESCO Regional Meeting. Kotor, Montenegro, 7–8 June 2012. Retrieved 12 February 2017, from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Venice/pdf/news/Kotor%20programme.pdf

37.

UNESCO. (2013). The Hangzhou declaration on placing culture at the heart of sustainable development policies. CLT-2013/WS/14. Hangzhou (People’s Republic of China): UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 10 February 2017, from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/images/FinalHangzhouDeclaration20130517.pdf

38.

UNESCO. (2016). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 27 March 2017, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/

39.

United Nations. (1992). Report of the United Nations conference on environment and development. Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992. New York, NY: United Nations.

40.

United Nations General Assembly. (2012). The future we want: Outcome document of the United Nations conference on sustainable development. A/RES/66/288.2012. New York, NY: United Nations.

41.

Urbani

(2000). Intorno al restauro [About restoration]. Milano, Italy: Skira.

42.

Wageningen School of Social Sciences (WASS), Centre for Development Innovation, Forest and Nature Conservation Policy. (2015). WASS Summer School: Governing landscape restoration: Governance, restoration, privatization [Press release]. Retrieved 20 March 2017, from http://www.wur.nl/en/activity/Governing-Landscape-Restoration.htm

43.

Zanardi

(2009). Il restauro. Giovanni Urbani e Cesare Brandi. Due teorie a confronto [Restoration. Giovanni Urbani and Cesare Brandi. Comparison of two theories]. Milano, Italy: Skira.