Restoration principles applied to cultural landscapes

ARTICLE IN PRESS Journal for Nature Conservation 14 (2006) 217—224

www.elsevier.de/jnc

Restoration principles applied to cultural landscapes Francisco Moreiraa,, A. Isabel Queirozb, James Aronsonc a

Centro de Ecologia Aplicada ‘‘Prof. Baeta Neves’’, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade Te´cnica de Lisboa, Portugal b CIBIO, Faculdade de Cie ˆncias da Universidade do Porto, Portugal c Restoration Ecology Group, CEFE, CNRS Montpellier France and Missouri Botanical Garden, USA Received 28 November 2005; accepted 5 April 2006

KEYWORDS ‘‘Mixer board’’ landscape model; Reference landscapes; Restoration

Summary Restoration models and practise to date have been applied mainly to ecosystems. More recently, there has been a focus on the ‘‘landscape perspective’’ of ecosystem restoration in order to improve nature conservation and management effectiveness. Here, we clarify some of the differences between ecosystem- and landscapeoriented restoration, and propose four components that should be considered in planning and conceptualising: (a) landscape composition and configuration; (b) traditional land management techniques; (c) linear and point features; and (d) other heritage features. We further discuss the concept of reference landscapes, and the contrasts between restoration and rehabilitation. Spatial approaches to restoration are explored, comparing small areas with complete restoration (‘‘museum landscapes’’) from large areas with rehabilitation of landscape physiognomy or point and linear features. The linkages with nature conservation and the sustainable use and management of natural resources are examined in the context of a rapidly changing world. & 2006 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Introduction Many concepts associated with restoration and rehabilitation were originally devised for ecosystems (e.g. Aronson, Floret, Le Floc’h, Ovalle, & Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 3616080; fax: +351 3623493.

E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Moreira).

Pontanier, 1993a; Cairns, 1993; Hobbs & Norton, 1996). However, subsequent developments have shown that restoration at an ecosystem-level was not always effective enough for nature conservation. Hobbs and Saunders (1991) developed the concept of ‘‘reintegration of landscapes’’, based on ecosystem restoration at a landscape scale. In situations where human activities have caused

1617-1381/$ - see front matter & 2006 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2006.05.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS 218 major disturbance and fragmentation (Aronson & Le Floc’h, 1996a) this can be applied for reestablishing ecosystem connectivity, such as wildlife corridors across multiple habitats, and in restoring the flow of ecosystem goods and services. Aronson and Le Floc’h (1996b) highlighted the need for the identification and application of landscape attributes that could serve as quantifiable markers for the changes observed during degradation, restoration and rehabilitation. Some of these attributes considered both ecological and socio-economical aspects. Concurrently, even more comprehensive strategies and tools for holistic landscape planning and dynamic conservation management were deemed indispensable by other researchers (e.g. Farina, 1998; Green & Vos, 2001; Grove et al., 1994; Naveh, 1993, 2005). Consequently, a new approach to landscape restoration is suggested here within the scope of the European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2000). The European Landscape Convention defines landscape as ‘‘an area, as perceived by people, whose character is a result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors’’. This definition emphasises that the human dimension of landscapes is not restricted to their its negative impact on ecosystems, or exploitation of natural resources, but also concerns peoples emotional, intellectual and socio-economic inputs, and the resulting ways in which people contribute to landscape distinctiveness and diversity. Furthermore, the recognition of different landscapes and related values depends on human perception, which has strong cultural and socio-economical elements. Here we focus exclusively on cultural landscapes, which are produced by the long-term interaction of humans and nature (Farina, 1998; UNESCO, 1999). These landscapes provide multiple values and functions, including natural resources, wildlife habitats, economic benefits in the form of goods and services, recreation (Merlo & Croitoru, 2005), and, last but not least, cultural heritage (EEA, 1995). From a nature conservation perspective, landscapes created by low-intensity farming contain a mosaic of wildlife habitats of European importance (Moreira, Pinto, Henriques, & Marques, 2005). In terms of human ecology, the interaction with local landscapes remains a constant feature for influencing societal development through time. As Berque (1984) stated ‘‘landscapes are the biophysical imprint of past generation’s activities as well as the matrix for those of the current generation and, of course, for the generations to come’’. Thus, besides a larger spatial scale and ecological

F. Moreira et al. complexity, landscapes include intangible cultural and scenic features which should be addressed in the framework of integrative restoration projects. Currently, negative changes in cultural landscapes worldwide are of major concern, because driving forces such as land abandonment, agricultural intensification, afforestation and urbanisation constitute threats to their diversity, coherence and identity (Antrop, 2005). For example, rural areas are losing their traditional landscapes, characterised by a small spatial scale, mixed cultures, limited technology, low use of fertilisers and pesticides, and high biodiversity and amenity value (Vos & Klijn, 2000). Within this context, cultural landscape restoration is justified by historical, ecological and aesthetical reasons.

Contrasting ecosystem and cultural landscape restoration Several features distinguish ecosystem and cultural landscape restoration (Table 1), besides spatial scale, with ecosystem restoration often occurring within landscapes. Contrasting objectives result in cultural and scenic values being an integral component of landscape restoration, whereas these are of less relevance in ecosystem restoration. Conversely, many landscape restoration projects are not focused on biodiversity. As landscape structure affects the abundance and distribution of organisms, in some cases, restoration approaches at an ecosystem-level may be ineffective for restoring ecosystems or populations. This applies to species requiring separate habitats for different activities such as foraging, nesting or resting, or those with daily or seasonal patterns of multiple habitat use. As an example, the pseudosteppes of the Iberian Peninsula are a cultural landscape mosaic where several birds occur of threatened conservation status (Sua ´rez, Naveso, & De Juana, 1997). Most of these species require several different habitats (e.g. Moreira, Morgado, & Arthur, 2004), which illustrates the futility of a single ecosystem restoration approach. Similarly, when a valuable ecosystem coincides with a cultural landscape, such as cork and holm oak woodlands (montados or dehesas), or an ecosystem is maintained within traditional farmland, e.g. Mediterranean temporary ponds (Moreira et al., 2005), a strict ecosystem restoration approach has limited application. Landscape restoration focuses on composition (the number of land use types and the area of each)

ARTICLE IN PRESS Restoring cultural landscapes Table 1.

Main differences between ecosystem and cultural landscape restoration approaches

Ecosystem

 focus on a single ecosystem and fine spatial scales;  biodiversity is main objective, along with sustainable     

219

economic productivity; may not be effective for restoring some ecosystems or species populations that depend on landscape structure; focus on habitat/ecosystem patches; landscape composition much more important than configuration; always aims at the improvement of degraded areas and maintenance of native ecosystems; alien species considered undesirable; management actions may rely on modern or traditional techniques; cost-effectiveness of the techniques is the most important criterion for selection.

and configuration (spatial location of land uses, e.g. number of patches, mean patch size and measures of connectivity). Configuration is particularly important in cultural landscapes, as it results from the interactions between natural and cultural features. Furthermore, it contributes significantly to the distinctiveness and readability of the landscape, which are elements of identity and coherence. Cultural landscapes often include what many would consider as degraded ecosystems. Typical examples are the montados and dehesas of the Iberian Peninsula, which are the long-term product of modifying and simplifying the original Mediterranean oak woodlands, achieved through progressive clearing, burning and thinning (Pereira & Pires da Fonseca, 2003). In some situations, it may even be necessary to heavily modify or destroy valuable ecosystems to ‘restore’ cultural landscapes, such as clearing forest to reveal former abandoned agricultural terraces or stonewalls. Other landscapes are recognised by their nonnative elements, which may have limited biodiversity value, yet impart strong cultural and scenic value, such as the Tuscany landscape, typified by its cypress trees (Cupressus sempervirens), though introduced by the Phoenicians. The maintenance of these heritage elements contrasts with the conventional objectives of ecosystem restoration, which often include the control or eradication of alien species. A more complicated example is the so-called ‘mimosa’ (Acacia melanoxylon), which originally introduced from Australia for the perfume industry has subsequently escaped and widely naturalised. This species is of great concern to

Cultural landscape

 focus on mosaics of land uses/ecosystems at broader spatial scales;

 main objectives include cultural and scenic values, as well as biodiversity and economic productivity;

 may be very effective in restoring some ecosystems    

and species populations that depend on landscape structure; focus on landscape composition and configuration; may include preservation of degraded patches (from an ecosystem perspective) and even destruction of native ecosystems; may include maintenance of alien species; traditional land management much more valuable than modern techniques.

ecologists, yet the majority of the population from Provence, southern France, considers it to be emblematic. Finally, while the selected management techniques for restoration of an ecosystem are mostly based on their cost effectiveness, irrespective of being traditional or alternative (e.g. using prescribed burning instead of grazing or traditional manual clearing), in cultural landscapes, traditional management may be highly valuable, particularly if it has cultural (ethnographic) and scenic value by itself.

Restoration concepts applied to cultural landscapes Components of a cultural landscape The cultural landscape restoration challenge is partly natural and partly cultural. Thus, it goes beyond the field of natural sciences to integrate those from social sciences, the humanities and local knowledge, in a transdisciplinary approach (Tress & Tress, 2001). Winterhalder, Clewell, and Aronson (2004) claim that the future of ecological restoration lies in becoming more interdisciplinary and integrative with respect to its scientific and value-based components. We can consider four different operational components of a cultural landscape: (a) Landscape composition and configuration: These address the spatial patterns of the

ARTICLE IN PRESS 220 landscape; individual elements (e.g. landforms, ecosystems, land uses) and the way in which they are organised strongly influence landscape services and physiognomy, as well as human perception and valuation. (b) Traditional techniques of land management: These have enabled landscapes to be created through time, including animal traction, livestock grazing (including the use of local races), equipment and tools, cultivation techniques and the organisation of work (individually or communal). (c) Linear and point features: These mostly result from (a) and (b), yet are considered separately as they may form an independent part of landscape restoration, including stonewalls, terraces, tracks, hedgerows, small forest patches, ponds, etc. (d) Other heritage features: These include the ethnography associated with traditional techniques and tools, architecture, dialects, music, oral tradition, place names (toponyms), specific forms of social organisation, etc.

F. Moreira et al. place, different time, and (d) same place, same time (auto reference). As applied to landscapes: (a) the information on composition and configuration can be obtained from well-preserved landscape portions; (b) integrative research on land use changes can inform landscape restoration (Silbernagel, 2005), preferably if data are available from the same location; (c) data from other sites with similar temporal and spatial conditions can be potentially valuable; (d) due to the retention of land use legacies (Foster et al., 2003), contemporary evidence can also inform about past landscapes. In addition, the reference landscape could even be a painted or a literary landscape, which allows some elements of the landscape character to be valuated and, through a social identification process, to become the key features of the landscape identity. Examples include the mountain Saint-Victoire (France) made famous by Cezanne’s paintings or the Concorde region (New England, Massachusetts) described in detail by H.D. Thoreau.

Landscape restoration versus rehabilitation Defining the reference landscape Restoring means repairing something to its ‘‘original’’ or predisturbance condition. In ecological restoration this original condition is called the ‘‘reference system’’, which helps identify restoration goals within acceptable ranges of variability (Aronson, Floret, Le Floc’h, Ovalle, & Pontanier, 1993b; Egan & Howell, 2001; Holl, Crone, & Schultz, 2003; Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) Science and Policy Working Group, 2004; White & Walker, 1997). However, often only fragments of ecosystems survive as potential references for ecological restoration. For landscapes, the many layers of history and culture make the choice of references highly arbitrary (Aronson & Vallejo, 2005) and often incomplete in terms of composition, relationships and functions. Antrop (2005) argues that to understand contemporary European landscapes, three periods have to be recognised: (a) the pre-18th century; (b) the period of expanding industrialisation; and (c) post-war. Therefore, a first step in establishing a reference landscape is to locate its corresponding period of origin. Additionally, a search for information sources concerning the landscape components is needed. White and Walker (1997) defined four types of references for ecosystems, yet applicable to landscapes, combining place and time: (a) different place, same time (refuges); (b) same place, different time (archaeology); (c) different

Based on the terminology used for ecosystems (SER, 2004), ‘‘landscape restoration’’ can be defined as the process of assisting the recovery of a landscape that has lost diversity, coherence and identity. Landscape restoration implies the recovery of the four components of the cultural landscape. This might prove difficult or even impossible, depending on the degradation stage in comparison to the reference landscape, besides changing tastes and various socio-economic drivers. Similarly to ecosystem rehabilitation (SER, 2004), we use the term ‘‘landscape rehabilitation’’ when full restoration is not possible. This implies working in just a few of the four components of landscape restoration, and achieving partial recovery, in comparison with the reference landscape. Often, only landscape rehabilitation can be carried out and choices have to be made. Should priority be given to landscape composition and configuration, for ecological and aesthetical purposes, or should it be focused on maintaining traditional management techniques and cultural values? And who should decide these priorities? Local people or regional governments? Robertson, Nichols, Horwitz, Bradly, and Mackintoh (2000) argue that ‘‘restoration in fragmented agricultural landscapes requires an understanding of and respect for cultural attributes of landscapes, including the beliefs, values, and perceptions people hold about their local environment, such as a sense of loss felt for particular landscape components, features, or functions’’.

ARTICLE IN PRESS Restoring cultural landscapes

Spatial approaches to landscape restoration Because of the large scale of landscape management projects, they are usually technically complex and costly. Furthermore, these projects may conflict with different stakeholders’ interests, independently of their concern for landscape protection. Thus, they generally cannot, and should not, be pursued without intensive, serious consultation with and involvement of local people. These kind of difficulties may lead to a choice between restoring small museum landscapes (that is, small areas preserved in their entirety primarily for educational purposes) (EEA, 1995) or rehabilitating larger areas for ecological, economic and life quality purposes. In the first option, all the four above-mentioned components are addressed, and the end stage resembles the reference landscape. Behind this option is the concept of landscape as a patrimony, i.e. something that should be maintained in a meta-stable and resilient condition for the future generations. However, in a changing world it is unrealistic to attempt to ‘freeze’ a landscape in the avatar of its development at a particular time in its long evolution (IUCN, 2000). In fact, the dynamic natural and social elements of a landscape

Reference landscape

Cultural landscape component levels

Even when a rehabilitated landscape ‘‘looks like’’ the reference landscape, we should be aware of its pastiche or patchwork condition; authenticity is never recovered and some elements might have been definitively lost (e.g. species, traditional shepherds or architectonical elements). In some cases they could be replaced by similar ones for ensuring desirable ecological, economic and aesthetical functions. Furthermore, the restored landscape has a history of degradation and recovery, and maintains memories from all the time periods. In the end, the result is what could be called an ‘‘emerging landscape’’. According to Hobbs et al. (2006), ‘‘emergent ecosystems’’ are those that result when species occur in combinations and relative abundances that have not previously occurred within a given biome. Similarly, ‘‘emerging landscapes’’ can and will combine substitute elements and/or alternative processes along with native ones. As Harris, Hobbs, Higgs, and Aronson (in press) have noted, climate change creates a volatile new context, which may favour combinations not known from previous analogues. Figure 1 summarises the theoretical evolution of cultural landscape degradation and restoration/ rehabilitation over time, using a ‘‘mixer board’’ landscape model.

221

Restoration

Max

Rehabilitation stage Min

a b c d components

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation stage (failure)

Degraded stage

Time

Figure 1. The ‘‘mixer board’’ landscape model and evolution of cultural landscape degradation and restoration/rehabilitation over time (based on Hobbs & Norton, 1996). The ‘‘mixer board’’ model assumes that the four operational components of a landscape ((a) landscape composition and configuration; (b) traditional techniques and tools; (c) linear and point features; and (d) other heritage features) can be seen as ‘fader keys’. Each of the components varies between a maximum and a minimum level (equivalent to total loss of the component). In the real world, two or more components will be linked and thus the ‘fader keys’ will not move independently of each other. In the reference landscape, the fader keys of all components are set to a maximum. As degradation occurs, one or more components will progressively move into lower levels, frequently with a differential speed (e.g. traditional techniques will probably be lost at a faster rate than landscape composition or configuration). Rehabilitation implies moving up some or all of the fader keys. There can be a variety of rehabilitation stages, depending on the levels of improvement in the various components. In the absence of rehabilitation actions or if rehabilitation fails, the degradation stage will be maintained or worsened. In a restored landscape all keys are set to a maximum.

dictate change, as well as changing global contexts. Thus, restoring and preserving a museum landscape may require non-ending interventions.

A case study: Terras do Demo, a literary territory In the north-eastern part of Portugal (Beira Alta), the so-called Terras do Demo region corresponds to a literary territory created and named by the Portuguese writer, Aquilino Ribeiro (1895–1963).

ARTICLE IN PRESS 222 His detailed descriptions of the rural landscape created a reference landscape (Queiroz, 2006). We summarise the main changes which have occurred in each of the four operational landscape components during the last 50 years. Fig. 2 illustrates what is left in the current ‘‘degraded stage’’, for each landscape component. Landscape composition and configuration is still characterised by a small-scale land use mosaic of farmlands (ager), shrublands and grasslands (saltus) and forests (sylva). However, ager has been decreasing and saltus and sylva increasing due to afforestation, land abandonment and recurrent wildfires (Queiroz, 2005). Furthermore, crop fields have been progressively replaced by more profitable uses, such as chestnut groves, pastures, orchards or vineyards. The typical sheep and goat livestock are disappearing, which results in progressive shrub encroachment. Biodiversity changes have also occurred. The writer mentioned the occurrence of the great-bustard (Otis tarda) in the Leomil Highlands, which no longer exists (Queiroz & Andresen, 2006), while the wolf (Canis lupus), common in the time of Aquilino, is endangered in this region.

F. Moreira et al. Traditional manual techniques of land management have been replaced by mechanisation and chemical fertilisation. As an example, brushwoodcutting traditionally occurred communally in autumn on the common lands. Brushwood was used to cover the stable floors, and subsequently as a soil fertiliser. Currently, there are no people or economic reasons for continuing the cut–grow cycle, while carts and other vehicles of animal traction are being replaced by tractors and trucks. Linear features, such as stone walls, are characteristic of the reference landscape. Although, persisting on abandoned lands, some are ruined and many are being dismantled and sold off for decorative stones in new buildings outside the region. Other heritage features include the rich vocabulary used to describe this literary landscape, which produced in part the local language related to territory and landscape. It includes names of places (toponyms), land use types, geomorphologic patterns, techniques, tools and activities linked to land management. While remaining in the literature, the common use of these terms has been lost as elder farmers and shepherds disappeared. But at

Figure 2. What is left from the ‘‘aquilinian landscape’’? (a) Ager-saltus-sylva land use mosaic (Lapa Highlands); (b) villager driving a cart (Quintela, Sernancelhe); (c) stone walls dividing pasture fields (Alvite, Moimenta da Beira); and (d) local newspaper (Moimenta da Beira).

ARTICLE IN PRESS Restoring cultural landscapes the same time, the cultural value attributed to Aquilino as an icon of the region, has inspired new designations for places, associations, commercial institutions and products (e.g. the local newspaper title).

Final remarks Cultural landscape restoration considers both biodiversity and cultural perspectives, including socio-economics. Taken together, the four landscape operational components defined constitute an integrative process for research, management and planning. Landscape restoration should form part of the concepts for landscape protection legally addressed by the European Landscape Convention and currently accepted by scientists, managers and the general public. Throughout its jurisdictional area, countries have carried out steps towards making inventories and classifying their landscapes (e.g. Cancela de Abreu, Pinto-Correia, & Oliveira, 2004, for Portugal). At a European level, the European Environment Agency is promoting a similar process (Washer & Jongman, 2000). However, cultural landscapes are increasingly threatened, and some, like species, face extinction. Their eventual disappearance will be a double loss, in both natural and cultural terms. The Red Books of Threatened Landscapes (Green & Vos, 2001; Naveh, 1993), calling for their conservation, are a highly valid starting point to develop a categorising system that identifies driving forces of change and levels of threat at a global and/or regional level. Criteria for assessing threats should be based on: (a) identifying the reference landscape; and (b) evaluating the level of degradation for each of the landscape operational components. The ‘‘mixer board’’ model can be used as an approach. At a subsequent stage, priorities for protection and opportunities for restoration should be defined. Landscape restoration limitations suggest that there is an urgent need to preserve threatened landscapes before they are further degraded. Besides their fundamental importance in terms of natural and cultural values, they provide also a reference for restoration projects.

Acknowledgements We extend our warm thanks to Alex ChepstowLusty, Christelle Fontaine and Paddy Woodworth for helpful comments on the manuscript. James

223 Aronson gratefully acknowledges the European Commission for support of the CREAOK project FP5: QLRT-2001-01594. Ana Isabel Queiroz was funded by Grant SFRH/BD/8132/2002 from the Fundac-a ˜o para a Cie ˆncia e a Tecnologia.

References Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 21–34. Aronson, J., Floret, C., Le Floc’h, E., Ovalle, C., & Pontanier, R. (1993a). Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems. I. A view from the South. Restoration Ecology, 1, 8–17. Aronson, J., Floret, C., Le Floc’h, E., Ovalle, C., & Pontanier, R. (1993b). Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems. II. Case studies in Chile, Tunisia and Cameroon. Restoration Ecology, 1, 168–187. Aronson, J., & Le Floc’h, E. (1996a). Que faire de tant de notions du paysage? Natures, Sciences, Socie´te´s, 4, 264–266. Aronson, J., & Le Floc’h, E. (1996b). Vital landscape attributes: Missing tools for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology, 4, 377–387. Aronson, J., & Vallejo, R. (2005). Challenges for ecological restoration. In J. van Andel, & J. Aronson (Eds.), Restoration ecology: The new frontier (pp. 234–247). Oxford: Blackwell Science. Berque, A. (1984). Paysage-empreinte, pausage-matrice. L’espace ge´ographique, 12, 3–4. Cairns, J., Jr. (1993). Ecological restoration: Replenishing our national and global ecological capital. In D. Saunders, R. Hobbs, & P. Ehrlich (Eds.), Nature conservation 3: Reconstruction of fragmented ecosystems (pp. 193–208). Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty and Sons. Cancela de Abreu, A., Pinto-Correia, T., & Oliveira, R. (2004). Contributos para a identificac-a ˜o e caracterizac-a˜o da Paisagem em Portugal Continental. DGOTDU – Direcc-a ˜o Geral do Ordenamento do Territo ´rio e Desenvolvimento Urbano, Lisboa. Council of Europe. (2000). European landscape convention. Strasbourg. EEA. (1995). Europe’s Environment: The debris assessment. Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency. Egan, D., & Howell, E. (2001). The historical ecology handbook. A restorationists guide to reference ecosystems. Washington: Island Press. Farina, A. (1998). Principles and methods in landscape ecology. London: Chapman & Hall. Foster, D., Swanson, F., Aber, J., Burke, I., Brokaw, N., Tilman, D., et al. (2003). The importance of land-use legacies to ecology and conservation. Bioscience, 53, 77–88. Green, B., & Vos, W. (Eds.). (2001). Threatened landscapes: Conserving cultural environments. London, New York: Sponpress.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 224 Grove, A.T., Ispikoudies, J., Kazaklis, J.A., Moody, J.A., Papanastasis, V., Rackham, O. (1994). Threatened Mediterranean landscapes, west Crete. Research Report to EU, Department of Geography, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK. Harris, J. A., Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E., & Aronson, J. (in press). Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restoration Ecology. Hobbs, R. J., & Norton, D. A. (1996). Towards a conceptual framework for Restoration Ecology. Restoration Ecology, 4, 93–110. Hobbs, R. J., & Saunders, D. (1991). Reintegration of fragmented landscapes—A preliminary framework for the Western Australian Wheatbelt. Journal of Environmental Management, 33, 161–167. Hobbs, R. J., Arico, S., Aronson, J., Baron, J. S., Bridgewater, P., Cramer, V. A., et al. (2006). Novel ecosystems: Theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 15, 1–7. Holl, K., Crone, E., & Schultz, C. (2003). Landscape restoration: Moving from generalities to methodologies. BioScience, 53, 491–502. IUCN. (2000). Landscape conservation law: Present trends and perspectives in international and comparative law. Switzerland, Cambridge, UK: IUCN, Gland. Merlo, M., & Croitoru, L. (Eds.). (2005). Valuing Mediterranean forests: Towards total economic value. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Publishing. Moreira, F., Morgado, R., & Arthur, S. (2004). Great bustard (Otis tarda) habitat selection in relation to agricultural use in southern Portugal. Wildlife Biology, 10, 251–260. Moreira, F., Pinto, M. J., Henriques, I., & Marques, T. (2005). Importance of low-intensity farming systems for fauna, flora and habitats protected under the European ‘‘Birds’’ and ‘‘Habitats’’ Directives: Is agriculture essential for preserving biodiversity in the Mediterranean region? In A. R. Burk (Ed.), Trends in biodiversity research (pp. 117–145). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Naveh, Z. (1993). Red Books for threatened Mediterranean landscapes as an innovative tool for holistic landscape conservation. Introduction to the western Crete Red Book case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 24, 241–249. Naveh, Z. (2005). Epilogue: Toward a transdisciplinary science of ecological and cultural landscape restoration. Restoration Ecology, 13(1), 228–234. Pereira, P. M., & Pires da Fonseca, M. (2003). Nature vs. nurture: The making of the montado ecosystem. Conservation Ecology, 7(3), 7 (online) URL: http:// www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art7. Queiroz, A. I. (2005). Building landscape memory through combined sources: Commons afforestation in Portugal. In B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, & P. Opdam (Eds.), From

F. Moreira et al. landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of integration, education, and application. Wageningen UR Frontis Series, Vol. 12 (pp. 335–344). Dordrecht, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Queiroz, A. I. (2006). Landscape and literature: The ecological memory of Terras do Demo (Beira Alta – Portugal). In Z. Roca (Ed.), European landscapes: Past and recent changes and challenges—Proceedings of the 21st Session of the PECSRL, Limnos/Lesvos, 2004. Lisbon: Edic-o ˜es Universita ´rias Luso ´fonas. Queiroz, A. I., & Andresen, M. T. (2006). Wild birds in Aquilino Ribeiro’s Writings: Using literature as a source for environmental history. In D. Aftandilian (Ed.), What are the animals to us?. Tennessee University Press. Robertson, M., Nichols, P., Horwitz, P., Bradly, K., & Mackintosh, D. (2000). Environmental narratives and the need for multiple perspectives to restore degraded landscape in Australia. Ecosystem Health, 6, 119–133. Silbernagel, J. (2005). Bio-regional patterns and spatial narratives for integrated landscape research and design. In B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, & P. Opdam (Eds.), From landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of integration, education, and application. Wageningen UR Frontis Series, Vol. 12 (pp. 107–118). Dordrecht, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) Science and Policy Working Group. (2004). The SER primer on ecological restoration (4 April 2003, www.ser.org). Sua ´rez, F., Naveso, M., & De Juana, E. (1997). Farming in the drylands of Spain: Birds of the pseudosteppes. In D. Pain, & M. Pienkowski (Eds.), Farming and birds in Europe: The common agricultural policy and its implications for bird conservation (pp. 297–330). San Diego: Academic Press. Tress, B., & Tress, G. (2001). Capitalising on multiplicity: A transdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 143–157. UNESCO. (1999). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Paris. Vos, W., & Klijn, J. (2000). Trends in European landscape development: Prospects for a sustainable future. In J. Klijn, & W. Vos (Eds.), From landscape ecology to landscape science (pp. 13–29). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Washer, D., & Jongman, R. (2000). European landscapes. Classification, assessment & conservation. EEA technical report. White, P. S., & Walker, J. L. (1997). Approximating nature’s variation: Selecting and using reference information in restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology, 5, 338–349. Winterhalder, K., Clewell, A., & Aronson, J. (2004). Values and science in ecological restoration—A response to Davis and Slobodkin. Restoration Ecology, 12, 4–7.