The issue of economic valuation of wine regions world cultural heritage: The residents’
perceptions and visitors segments of the Alto Douro wine region
João Rebelo,1 Lina Lourenço-Gomes2 and Cristina Ribeiro3
Abstract
In 1992, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee recognized the possibility of cultural
landscapes or “combined works of nature and man” being included in the Convention
concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. In this typology of
cultural sites, the wine regions or cultural landscapes based on the vineyard have assumed an
increasing relevance overtime and worldwide. However, the related costs of maintenance and
safeguard as well the use restrictions pose the challenge of retrieving a balance between world
wine competitiveness, and the preservation of the living and evolving cultural landscape
nature. The achievement of this goal entails a compromise of strengthening the wine industry
competitiveness without jeopardizing the continuity of the authenticity values of the site.
Addressing this challenge requires a deeper knowledge about the key stakeholders of the
cultural site, including the residents who are the driving force behind the wine industry (and
consequently of the maintenance in the landscape of the worldwide cultural attributes) and the
visitors seeking the site and getting private benefits related to the use and public benefits
stretching over other elements of the population.
The present article aims to present contributions to this issue, taking as a case study, the Alto
Douro Wine Region, included in the UNESCO list since 2001. The results of multivariate
techniques allow concluding that the strictly non-economic benefits were the main
determinants that led the residents to have a positive view of the UNESCO’s classification.
This supports the need to adopt policy measures that improve the revenue (added value) for
the local population based on wine industry competitiveness as on tourism related services.
Additionally three segments of visitors are identified, emerging policy and entrepreneurial
implications related to the expansion of the stay length (Same-day visitors), the improvement
of visitor loyalty through repeat visitation (Cultural visitors) and the heritage offered over the
year to older visitors (Mass visitors). The importance of educational measures was stressed
for the overall sample of visitors.
1
João Rebelo, Department of Economics, Sociology and Management (DESG), Centre for Transdisciplinary
Development Studies (CETRAD), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Quinta de Prados,
5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal, E-mail: [email protected].
2
Lina Lourenço-Gomes, DESG-CETRAD-UTAD: [email protected].
3
Cristina Ribeiro, UTAD, E-mail: [email protected].
Keywords: cultural landscape, world heritage, main stakeholders, Alto Douro wine region,
multivariate data analysis
Introduction
The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), since 1972,
has identified the formal recognition and management of World Heritage Sites (WHS) as an
important mean to preserve and to enhance the world´s cultural and natural heritage for
present and future generations. The World Heritage List (WLS) currently (April, 2016)
reports 1031 properties (802 cultural, 197 natural and 32 mixed) scattered over 197 States
Parties. Into the WLS, there are 11 cultural sites basing the core of Outstanding Universal
Value on the vineyard system core, namely: Portugal - Alto Douro Wine Region, 2001;
Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture, 2004; France - Jurisdiction of Saint-Emilion,
1999; Loire Valley, 2000; Champagne Hillsides, Houses and Cellars, 2015; Climats, terroirs
of Burgundy, 2015; Hungary - Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape, 2002; Italy –
Portovenere, Cinqueterre and the Islands (Palmara, Tino and Tinetto), 1997; Vineyard
Landscape of Piedmont: Langhe-Roero and Monferrato, 2014; Switzerland -Lavaux,
Vineyard Terraces, 2007; Germany Middle Rhine Valley, 2002; Austria – Wachau, 2000.
Theoretically, the cultural landscape has been viewed as the most comprehensive and
complete expression of cultural heritage (Petrillo et al., 2015), envisaged at historical and
geographical levels. However the new concept of cultural landscape as a living and evolving
heritage asset leads to a new analytic framework, the system approach that shifts from the
parts to the whole. This approach helps to overcome the excessively reductionist original
vision of culture focused on individual objects or items of significant value, shifting attention
instead to the complex relationships and interaction among components of the system. In this
approach the process of fruition changes, with an increasing degree of involvement of the
user. Furthermore, cultural landscape has become qualified as a productive input or a driver of
competitiveness for products “made in” or with a brand associated to the site.
In the presence of living and evolving landscapes, the management plan should combine
policies that include in a systemic way the preservation of the site attributes recognized by
UNESCO as outstanding universal value (Gullino et al., 2015) with the rights and duties of
the main stakeholders (residents, visitors, producers, publics entities).
The vineyard landscapes are characterized by productive activities and human presence
evolving with more or less chaotic dynamics and reflecting commercial demand, social and
economic needs and trends. The technical, economic and social changes are so the key factors
that influence land use, viticulture practices, demographic trends, way and quality of life for
residents.
The maintenance of the outstanding universal value brings out the challenge of meeting the
competitiveness of the wine industry in market more and more globalized with the
preservation of the living and evolving cultural landscape nature. This entails a compromise
between the strengthening of the wine industry competitiveness, which requires technological
advances in terms of the vineyard cultivation and wine production, without jeopardizing the
continuity of the values of authenticity and integrity of the site. Addressing this challenge
requires a systemic view of the issue, both in terms of knowledge about the main stakeholders
and network of relationships between them.
First of all, in these living landscapes should be considered the residents who are the driving
force behind the wine industry and consequently of the maintenance in the landscape of the
worldwide cultural attributes or characteristics. By other side, the site only became universal
if it will visited, so it is relevant to know the profile of the main visitors who get private
benefits related to the use and public benefits stretching over other elements of the population.
The present paper aims to contribute to this debate, taking as a case study, the Alto Douro
Wine Region (ADWR), included in the UNESCO list since 2001. The main concern is, on
one side, to know the residents´ perceptions about the economic and general impacts of the
UNESCO listing and, on the other side, understanding who are the site visitors and their
socioeconomic characteristics, cultural consumer experience and travel/visit behavior. In
order to reduce the number of original variables, to obtain homogeneous groups of residents
and visitors, and given the typology of data, two multivariate analysis techniques were
applied: the Categorical Principal Components Analysis (CATPCA) and the Cluster Analysis.
To achieve this goal, besides the introduction, the article includes: a brief presentation of the
Alto Douro Wine Region; the results of the surveys applied to the visitors and to the residents,
finishing with some final remarks.
2. The ADWR world heritage site: an overview
Since 2001, almost 10% of the wine Demarcated Douro Region (DDR) was included in the
list of the UNESCO World Heritage sites, as an evolving and living cultural landscape. The
unique elements according to inscription criteria are (UNESCO, 2001):
– The Alto Douro Region has been producing wine for nearly two thousand years and
its landscape has been moulded by human activities;
– The components of the Alto Douro landscape are representative of the full range of
activities associated with winemaking – terraces, quintas (wine-producing farm
complexes), villages, chapels, and roads;
- The cultural landscape of the Alto Douro is an outstanding example of a traditional
European wine-producing region, reflecting the evolution of this human activity over
time.
These criteria point out the centrality of the vine and wine on the cultural configuration of the
landscape. Assuming that we are in the presence of an evolving vine-growing cultural
landscape, whose use by present generations, preservation and transference to future
generations implies to balance the economic competitiveness of the wine industry in an
increasing globalized market with the preservation of the cultural attributes of the landscape
with visitors’ preferences, bearing in mind that the preservation of landscapes “depends on
national policy decisions which in turn will be shaped by the preferences of the general
public” (Howley et al., 2012: 66).
In order to improve the productivity, the quality of the grapes and to reduce the production
costs, ADWR has been under an intense process of vineyards conversion that transforms the
landscape (Andresen and Rebelo, 2013). This raises problems to maintain the authenticity and
integrity of the site, despite being an evolving and living landscape. Figure 1 presents the
evolution of the land occupancy of the vineyard system4 between 2001 and 2012. The area of
patamares increased from 3297 ha in 2001 to 5875 ha in 2012, an increase of 75%, which
represents a large intrusion in the landscape, and one of the main attributes, the socalcos,
decreased by 28% from 4875 ha to 3502 ha. Despite the reduction of the traditional vineyard
systems (pre and post phylloxera socalcos), as expressed by Andresen and Rebelo (2013: 64):
‘the Authenticity of Douro Wine Region prevails and sustainable solutions are being
implemented according to the condition of scarce resources – water and fertile soil – and
steep slopes. In ADWR the composition and functional organization of the place that is
needed to maintain the Integrity of the property is still present. The preference shown today in
the DDR is to build narrow patamares and micro-patamares, to preserve walls, encourage
biodiversity, preserve the diversity of grape varieties and maintain the genetic heritage of the
vine’.
4
The Appendix includes figures with the scheme and pictures of the different land organisation systems of the
vineyards.
Figure 1 – Vineyard Organisation System, ADWR, 20012001-2012
Alongside the landscape changes, the ADWR is witnessing a huge increase of the tourism
(Rebelo et al., 2015),, both fluvial (cruisers in the Douro river) and oenotourism. Therefore, to
meet the needs and expectations of the visitors, public authorities have much to profit from
knowing their characteristics and preferences about the attributes of the site. By the other side,
the living and evolving nature of the cultural landscape imply that
that preservation efforts should
be reconciled with development in the region and the wellbeing of residents, who are the main
stakeholders of the ADWR. In this sense, it is of crucial importance to assess information
about the residents’ perceptions of the
th ADWR inscription.
3. Results of the ADWR surveys
3.1 Residents
In order to know how the ADWR residents feel about the impacts of the classification, a
survey was sent to a random sample of 250 residents in the 13 municipalities of the ADWR.
This survey was conducted between March and September of 2014, and was statistically
statist
representative of the population with a 95% confidence level (Ribeiro, 2015). Given the goal
of the study, the survey included questions examining the socio-economic
socio economic characteristics of
the respondents and their perceptions of the economic benefits and
and of other benefits and
problems.
Most of the respondents were male (68%), married (74%) and were on average 47 years old.
A large proportion of them (44%) only had basic education, with 52% having a net
income/household less than €1000/month. The average
average household consisted of 2.94 people,
80% had a job, 54% worked in the tertiary sector, and on average spent 21 years in the present
job. This indicated an aged population, with a low degree of education, with public
employment in the services playing an important role.
Relative to the economic benefits of the UNESCO designation, 13% considered it as relevant
to the choice of the place of residence, 25% to the job choice and 33% on the economic
return. Additionally, 97% of respondents (of which 79% were owners of productive assets)
answered that, since 2001, have worked in one of the most relevant activities of the region
(viticulture, commerce and services). Among the owners (190 respondents), 69% were in
viticulture, 22% in commerce and 9% in tourism. Amongst the first and third group, 41% and
56% of respondents considered that the return was higher, while in the commerce group, 56%
considered that the return was the same since the inclusion of ADWR in the UNESCO list.
Regarding the general benefits and costs by using the set of indicators described in Snowball
(2008), the perception of the respondents was relatively similar, except for congestion,
outside safety and use restrictions.
In order to reduce the number of original variables, to obtain homogeneous groups of
residents and given the typology of data, two multivariate analysis techniques were applied:
the Categorical Principal Components Analysis (CATPCA) and the Cluster Analysis5.
Based on the meaning of the component loadings, the three principal components can be
described as: Benefits (component 1), since the variables related to general benefits had a
higher loading in this component; Problems (component 2), comprising a set of variables
(age, number of years in present job, rise in the living cost, congestion, outside safety and use
restrictions) that were symptoms of problems; the third component summarised the
experience of living.
Taking the three components and applying the Cluster Analysis, two homogeneous groups
were formed with 200 and 50 residents, respectively. The one-way ANOVA showed that only
the component 1 (Benefits) was relevant in the formation of groups (Table 1). This result
indicated that the biggest group (80% of the sample) had a positive perception of the
UNESCO designation (optimistic residents), essentially a consequence of the way they
5
As a data reduction technique, the CATPCA transforms the number of original variables into a smaller set of
variables, the uncorrelated principal components, which retains as much as possible the information of the
original variables. Simultaneously the CATPCA transforms the categories of the variables into numerical values
through optimal scaling levels, maintaining the order and/or the distance of the original variables (Meulman et
al., 2004). The principal components have the metric properties of quantitative variables that enable the use of
Cluster Analysis, forming homogeneous segments or groups that share common characteristics.
perceived the general benefits. The opposite group with fewer residents (20% of the sample)
had a negative perception of the impacts of UNESCO designation (pessimistic residents).
Table 1 – Clusters and ANOVA F-test statistic*
Cluster 1
(200 residents)
Cluster 2
(50 residents)
F=
QMC
QME
0.41
-1.65
511.07
Benefits (component 1)
-0.01
0.05
0.17
Problems (component 2)
-0.06
0.24
3.785
ADWR Experience (component 3)
*ANOVA: One-Way Analysis of Variance (used to compare means from the three groups for each variable or
component); F-test statistic=Cluster Mean Square (QMC) divided by the Error Mean Square (QME).
These results allowed us to conclude that the strictly non-economic benefits were the main
determinants that led the ADWR residents to have a positive view of the UNESCO’s
classification.
As presented in Table 2, the optimistic residents (Cluster 1) are on average 47 years old, the
majority has the basic education (58%) and is employed (82%) mainly in the tertiary sector
(50%). For more than half, the household average income is less than 1000 €/month (52%).
The most owners consider that the economic return was higher after the inclusion of ADV on
the UNESCO list (79%). The optimistic residents agree with all the benefits listed. Distinctly
from the remaining segment, the optimistic residents feel that the inclusion of ADV brought:
Opportunities for the family to enjoy (B1), Higher Involvement of the community (B3),
Capital Inflows in the region (B6), Investment in the region (B8), Creation of new jobs (B9)
and Real estate valuation (B10).
The majority considers the increasing of seasonality and the rise in living cost as problems
related with the WHS. Problems as congestion, outside safety and relevant use restrictions are
not felt by the most.
The pessimistic residents (cluster 2) have an average age of 45 years, and for near 54% the
household average income is lower than 1000 €/month (54%). 74% are employed mostly in
the tertiary sector (71%). Distinctly from the other segment, the majority of pessimistic
residents do not feel that the WHS inscription increased: the capital inflows in the region;
opportunities for the family to enjoy; the investment in the region; creation of new jobs and
the Real estate valuation. Similarly to the other group, the good image in the region, the pride
in region, the preservation of cultural heritage, and the presence on new visitors are benefits
perceived by the pessimistic residents. By other side, the major problems are related with the
rise in living cost as well as the increasing of seasonality.
For both the segments the inscription of the ADWR in the UNESCO list did not influenced
the choice of the residence place, of the professional activity and the economic return of the
majority of residents.
Table 2- Statistical Descriptive of Residents Clusters
Variables
Gender
Family status
Age (average)
Level of education
Monthly household income
Family size (average)
Employment status
Sector of activity
Time in present job (average)
Influence of designation on residence choice
Influence of the job choice
Influence of the designation on revenue
Work activity
Economic revenue
Opportunities for the family to enjoy (B1)
Good image for the region (B2)
High involvement of the community (B3)
Pride in the region (B4)
Preservation of cultural heritage (B5)
Capital inflows in the region (B6)
New visitors (B7)
Investment in the region (B8)
Creation of new jobs (B9)
Real estate valuation (B10)
Increasing of seasonality (P1)
Rise in the living cost (P2)
Congestion (P3)
Odd people (P4)
Outside safety (P5)
Relevant use restrictions (P6)
DESIGNATION OF GROUPS
Cluster 1
(200 residentes)
Cluster 2
(50 residentes)
68% (Male)
75% (Married)
47
58% (Basic)
52% (<1000€)
2,95
82% (job)
50% (tertiary)
22
87% (No)
76% (No)
69% (No)
66% (Viticulture)
79% (Owners)
69% (Agree)
99% (Agree)
73% (Agree)
96% (Agree)
88% (Agree)
82% (Agree)
93% (Agree)
84% (Agree)
67% (Agree)
67% (Agree)
51% (Agree)
52% (Agree)
41% (Disagree)
43% (Agree)
38% (Disagree)
36% (Indifferent)
66% (Male)
74% (Married)
45
40% (Basic)
54% (< 1000€)
2,88
74% (job)
71% (tertiary)
16
86% (No)
68% (No)
56% (No)
61% (Viticulture)
82% (Owners)
48% (Discordo)
86% (Agree)
36% (Indifferent)
66% (Agree)
54% (Agree)
62% (Disagree)
54% (Agree)
60% (Disagree)
84% (Disagree)
74% (Disagree)
64% (Agree)
64% (Agree)
40% (Disagree)
43% (Disagree)
56% (Disagree)
45% (Disagree)
Optimistic residents
Pessimistic residents
3.2 Visitors
In order to know the socio-economic characteristics, consumption and cultural interest,
familiarity and experience relating to the ADWR and specific trip data (e.g. accommodation,
length of stay, expenditure, and transportation), a random sample of 249 Portuguese visitors
to the ADWR was collected between March and October 2013, at some of the most attractive
locations.
Respondents are on average 41 years old, approximately 53% are male and 81% are
employed. More than half of the respondents (51%) had completed post-secondary education
and for nearly 70% the net average income/household was less than €2000/month. The
average household consists of 2.56 people and average distance between the ADWR and the
place of residence is 149 km.
Around 85% were repeat visitors (only 15% of the respondents were visiting the ADWR for
the first time) and the most significant visit purpose (for nearly 49%) was to discover the
landscape and cultural heritage. The world heritage status influenced the decision to visit the
ADWR for 18.6% of respondents. Most visitors (80%) claimed to have knowledge about the
more emblematic ADWR attributes and nearly half (49%) about the criteria for inclusion on
the UNESCO list. Regarding the consumers’ cultural habits, on average, the respondents
attested that they had attended 15 cultural activities during the previous year and 12% are
members of a cultural association.
On average each visitor spent 69€ per day and the length of stay was three days. During the
visit, 39% of respondents did not use any type of accommodation, 28% stayed overnight in a
hotel establishment and for 27% accommodation was provided by friends or relatives.
Driving a private car was the main means of transport (92.4%), with others (e.g. bus, boat or
train) being far less important.
Applying the CATPCA and the Cluster Analysis three clusters (Table 3) emerge: Same-day
visitors (cluster 1), Cultural visitors (cluster 2) and Individual mass visitors (cluster 3).
Table 3- Description of each cluster according to the original variables
Original variables
KM
JOB
SIZE
GE
EDU
AGE
INCOME
CCULT
MEMBER
FIRST
PURPOSE
LIST
KNOW
IDENT
DAYS
PERSON
EXPEND
ACCOM
1
81
Employed
(82%)
4 (31%)
Male (58%)
Superior (56%)
36
1000€ - 2000€
(58%)
14
Clusters
2
204
Employed
(96%)
3 (31%)
Female (56%)
Superior (46%)
37
1000€ - 2000€
(61%)
18
3
164
Employed
(49%)
2 (61%)
Male (55%)
Superior (46%)
57
2001€ - 3000€
(41%)
12
No (92%)
No (97%)
No (65%)
No (99%)
No (63%)
Landscape and
Heritage (71%)
No (81%)
Yes (57%)
Yes (57%)
3
4
110
Hotel
establishment
(54%)
Own car (89%)
Cultural
visitors
No (94%)
Landscape and
Heritage (69%)
No (88%)
No (57%)
Yes (92%)
3
7
46
Other (79%)
No (79%)
No (53%)
Yes (91%)
1
3
45
None (68%)
TRANSP
DESIGNATION OF GROUPS
Own car (95%)
Same-Day
visitors
Relatives or friends
(48%)
Own car (86%)
Individual Mass
visitors
The Same-day visitors live closer to the ADWR, most of them are employed (even though
92% of the students in the sample fall within this cluster). They have higher qualifications
(only 6% finished their education after primary school), are middle-income earners (19% earn
less than 1,000€/month and 7% more than 3,000€), and their average age is 36 years old.
These visitors have a close relationship with the ADWR, almost all (99%) have visited the
ADWR more than once, mostly for other purposes beyond the cultural heritage and landscape
(visiting family, walking, leisure or professional reasons). The UNESCO status does not
determine the decision to visit, 53% do not know the criteria of ADWR inclusion on the
UNESCO list, but 91% state that they distinguish the distinctive attributes of the landscape.
The visit is short (on average one day), and therefore these visitors don’t spend a night in
collective or private accommodation in the ADWR (68%). On average, the number of persons
on the trip/visit is three and the daily expenditure per person is 45€.
The Cultural visitors have the highest attendance at cultural activities (18 times/ last year)
include the majority (89%) of first-time visitors of the sample and the visiting purpose is to
know the cultural heritage. Most know the listing criteria and the main attributes of the
ADWR. Nevertheless for the majority (81%) the ADWR status as world cultural heritage site
did not influence the decision to visit. On average the visit is made by a group of 4 persons,
during 3 days. The visitors stay overnight in a hotel establishment and the daily expenditure
per person is 110€. Mostly they travel in their own car; however from the sample 48% of
visitors who have travelled on public transport (boat, train or bus) belong to this cluster.
These visitors live farther away from the ADWR (204 km, on average) and mostly are
employed. The income, educational level and age are identical to the previous group.
The Individual mass visitors visit the ADWR in larger groups (7 persons on average), are
older (57 years on average) and those who earn higher income levels (57% earn more than
2,000 €/month). All the retirees of the sample belong to this cluster, but the employment
status is divided into employees (49%) and retirees (43%). Although most have higher
education, one third only completed primary school. These visitors are the lowest attendees of
cultural activities, but the membership of a cultural association is the largest of the three
groups. They are repeat visitors with the purpose of discovering the cultural heritage.
Although the majority state that they know the ADWR attributes, they are unaware of the
inclusion criteria and the UNESCO status does not influence the decision to visit. The daily
expenditure per person is 46€ (Table 3).
3. Conclusions
Since its ratification in 1972, the World Heritage List (WHL), established by the UNESCO
Convention, has included an increasing number of cultural landscapes, namely vine-growing
landscapes. Besides cultural value and increased political and public attention, there is a
widespread belief that the listing has positive effects on the local economy and consequently
on the well being of residents. Nevertheless, the empirical evidence is controversial thus
clearly a topic needing further investigation.
The present article examined a range of information on the perceived effects of the UNESCO
list for residents of the ADWR site, a cultural heritage item since 2001. Distinct from most
economic impact studies based on regional economic models, which attempt to measure the
direct and indirect effects of the inclusion of an item on the UNESCO list, the results
presented are based on univariate and multivariate statistical techniques. The results indicate
that the non-economic benefits (e.g. opportunities for family enjoyment, high involvement of
the community, pride, preservation, new visitors, capital inflows, investments in the region,
creation of new jobs) are the determinants that led the ADWR residents to have a positive
view of the UNESCO’s classification.
This supports the need to adopt policy measures that improve the revenue (added value) for
the local population. Public entities and landscape managers should attempt to integrate the
residents in the value chain, stimulating the production of complementary products and
organising the offer (in the domestic and foreign markets). In addition to the competitiveness
of the wine industry, the promotion of economic activity in the region (vital to keep the
population that ensures the preservation of the cultural landscape) passes through the
stimulation of activities based on the cultural resource, as the tourism. To this end, deep
information about demand is relevant to attract visitors (new and higher spending) and to
create add value in the region which in turn will contribute to the preservation of the site.
Based on the statistical analysis of the visitors´ profile is possible to identify three
homogeneous groups: same-day visitors, cultural visitors and individual visitors. A
transversal evidence for the 3 groups is the absence of a causal linkage between the ADWR’s
UNESCO status and the decision to visit. This result is in line with the evidence of some
unfamiliarity about the inclusion criteria (same-day visitors and mass visitors). There is a
clear basis for reinforcing the role of the UNESCO designation to signal value, enhance
knowledge and information regarding the good. Efforts should be made to extend the length
of stay in the ADWR (namely to same-day visitors), through inter-related activities dispersed
by the 13 municipalities represented in the ADWR territory. To convert first time visitors into
repeat visitors and cultural visitors with the longer duration of stay and higher daily
expenditure is important to supply heritage and history, presenting new interpretations, new
experiences and new narratives. The local population is rich in collective memory and thereby
should be play an important role in this construction of cultural heritage.
In the ADWR the challenge of meeting the competitiveness of the wine industry in market
more and more globalized with the preservation of the living and evolving cultural landscape
nature requires the adoption of policy compensatory measures in order to improve the revenue
(added value) for the local population. The enotourism based on the cultural site is one of the
means to contribute to this desideratum.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the project NORTE -01-0145-FEFER-000038 (INNOVINE & WINE –
Innovation Platform of Vine & Wine) and by European and Structural and Investment Funds in the
FEDER component, through the Operational Competitiveness and Internationalization Programme
(COMPETE 2020) [Project No 006971 (UIC/SOC/04011)]; and national funds, through the FCT –
Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology under the UID/SOC/04011/2013
References
Andresen, T. & Rebelo, J. (2013). Assessment of the state of conservation of the property
Alto Douro Wine Region – Evolutive and living cultural landscape. Volume I –
Assessment Report. Porto: CIBIO/UP/UTAD.
Gullino, P., Beccaro, G. & Larcher, F. (2015). Asssessing and Monitoring the Sustainability
Rural World Heritage Sites. Sustainability, 7, 14186-14210.
Howley, P., Donoghue, C.O., Hynes, S. (2012). Exploring public preferences for traditional
farming landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 66-74.
Meulman J., Heiser W. & Kooij A. (2004). Principal Components Analysis with Nonlinear
Optimal Scaling Transformations for Ordinal and Nominal Data. In D. Kaplan (Ed.),
The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 49-70).
Madison: Sage Publications.
Petrillo, P.L., Di Bella, O. & Di Palo, N. (2015). The UNESCO World Heritage Convention
and Enhancement of Rural Vine-Growing Landsapes. In Gaetano M. Golinelli (Ed.),
Cultural Heritage and Value Creation. Towards New Pathways (pp. 127-169).
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Rebelo, J., Caldas, J. & Guedes, A. (2015). The Douro Region: Wine and Tourism.
AlmaTourism. Journal of Tourism, Culture and Territorial Development, 11, 75-90.
Ribeiro, C. (2015). Estudo das Estratégias de Valorização Económica do Alto Douro
Vinhateiro: Aplicação de Técnicas Multivariadas. Unpublished Manuscript, Master
Degree Thesis. Vila Real: University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro.
UNESCO (2001). http://whc.unesco.org/sites/1046.htm. Accessed 25 may 2008.
Appendix – Vineyard cultivation systems (from the most ancient to the more
recent)
Source: Magalhães N., Magalhães M., & Sousa V. (2013), “Alterações ao Uso do Solo ». In Avaliação do Estado de Conservação do Bem
Alto Douro Vinhateiro – Paisagem Cultural Evolutiva Viva, Volume 2 – Estudos de Base. Porto: CIBIO UP/UTAD: A1.01-A1.31.
Figure 1 Pre-phylloxera walled terraces (socalcos)
Figure 2 Post-phylloxera schist walled terraces (socalcos)
Figure 3 Walled terraces with land platforms (patamares)
Figure 4 Land walled terraces with narrow platforms (patamares)
Figure 5 Vertical planting
Figure 6 Wide platforms (patamares)
Figure 7 Narrow platforms (patamares)
Figure 8 Vertical planting
Figure 9 No land organization