Forest Stewardship Council®
FSC® Canada
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL LANDSCAPES (ICL)
DISCUSSION PAPER
Version 1
Release Date: December 6, 2016
This Discussion Paper on Indigenous Cultural Landscapes (ICLs) aims to provide initial thoughts
and approaches as to how ICLs may be incorporated into the new FSC Canada Forest
Management Standard. While still in very early stages of development, ICLs will ultimately be
incorporated into the Standard as a complementary landscape concept to IFLs. For details
regarding FSC Canada’s current approach to IFLs, refer to the IFL Technical Working Document
Version 1.
The Intact Forest Landscapes (IFL) Policy Motion 65, approved by FSC at the 2014 General
Assembly, is designed to ensure that large intact landscapes are protected through the
development, modification, or strengthening of indicators within Standards. A key component of
the Motion is to take into account cultural, social and economic values of Indigenous peoples
and forest-dependent communities, including the provision of Free Prior and Informed Consent
(FPIC). The Aboriginal Chamber of FSC Canada introduced the concept of Indigenous Cultural
Landscapes (ICLs) as one tool for implementing the requirement of FPIC stated within the Policy
Motion.
Status of Concurrent FSC International Work Related to IFL and ICL
A small handful of countries contain a significant portion of the world’s IFLs. These countries
(Canada, Brazil, Russia, Congo Basin1) have been identified by FSC International as priority areas
for implementing the process to define national approaches to address Motion 65. The IFL
Technical Working Document reflects the current Canadian proposal to meeting the IFL
identification component of Motion 65 objectives.
ICLs are a recognized concept, as noted in FSC International’s recent Advice Note, that will
have close association related to Principle 9 (HCV 5 and 6), Principle 3 and FPIC. This process is
still in very early stages and Canada is expected to provide lead technical advice on their
development.
Concurrently, through the HCV Technical Working Group, FSC International is developing
International Generic Indicators (IGIs) for IFLs. Once these IGIs are finalized, each country will be
required to transfer these IGIs into their standard, which will then be approved by FSC
International through the standard approval process.
While there is coordination between FSC Canada and these international processes, discussions
are underway to ensure these processes (e.g. national efforts, IFL IGI’s, and ICLs) will align. FSC
Canada is committed to work with FSC International to understand and align requirements.
Origin of this Document
This document is a slight refinement of the ICL concepts initially presented in the IFL and ICL
Discussion Paper (January 2016), and has been reviewed by FSC Canada and the chamberbalanced Standard Development Group (SDG). Although ICL concepts are in their infancy, the
Congo Basin includes portions of several countries, including Congo-Brazzaville, Cameroon, Gabon, Central African
Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo
1
Page i of 16
SDG supports the foundational concepts and process of incorporating IFL and ICLs into the new
Canadian FSC Standard. The Permanent Indigenous Peoples Committee (PIPC) is developing
an international work plan to address the development of ICL indicators and guidance
documents. FSC Canada is well positioned to take a lead role in the development of this work.
Going forward, it is expected that the next iteration of this document will include: guidance from
PIPC to situate the ICLs in the international context; ICL specific draft indicators, ICL related
indicators and technical guidance notes on ICL identification.
FSC Canada Work Plan for Progressing the Development of IFLs and ICLs
To date, FSC Canada has focused on the development of IFLs as per the requirement of Policy
Motion 65. Moving forward, the intention is that IFLs and ICLs work in parallel as complementary
approaches to landscape management.
The key points of FSC Canada’s work plan to achieve this objective are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
November - December 2016: consultation on Version 1 of IFL and ICL documents with
Certificate Holders, stakeholders and Certifying Bodies
January - April 2017: Field testing and technical working group sessions
Spring 2017: Version 2 of IFL and ICL requirements
Summer 2017: Deadline for Version 2 consultation
TBD: IFL and ICLs required to be included in new National Standard (refer to Advice Note
above)
Note to Readers
The FSC Canada Board of Directors and Standard Development Group are committed to
working with members and stakeholders in finding solutions for managing large landscapes with
respect for FPIC and all other values and interests captured in FSC Canada’s National Forest
Management Standard. As stated by FSC Canada President, Francois Dufresne, “it is a shared
responsibility on all FSC members to find solutions to actualizing the requirements of Motion 65”.
While it is recognized is that these are newly evolving and complex issues, FSC seeks constructive
input to solving these technical issues at this point in the process.
Page ii of 16
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 4
2 Indigenous Cultural Landscapes (ICLs) ............................................................ 4
Traditional Ecological Knowledge .............................................................................................5
Values and Functions of ICLs ......................................................................................................6
2.1
2.2
3 Indigenous Cultural Landscapes (ICLs) and the FSC Canada National Forest
Management Standard ............................................................................................ 7
3.1 Working Definition of ICL..............................................................................................................7
4 ICLs, IFLs and FPIC ............................................................................................... 8
5 Proposed ICL Indicator ....................................................................................... 9
6 ICL Related Indicators ....................................................................................... 10
7 Moving from Concept to Indicators ................................................................ 11
References ............................................................................................................... 12
Appendix A: Table of definitions of cultural landscapes .................................... 14
Page iii of 16
1 Introduction
This Discussion Paper provides preliminary guidance on the application of Indigenous Cultural
Landscapes, or ICLs, in Canada’s National Forest Standard, as well as the relationship between
ICLs, IFLs and FPIC, the process of developing normative indictors and the plan for integration
beyond Draft 2 of the National Forest Management Standard.
Information presented in this document will be particularly relevant to Principles 3, 6 and 9,
however it may also support the development of culturally appropriate engagement strategies
with Indigenous Peoples as per the requirements of indicators in other Principles as well.
As FSC Canada moves towards the further development and integration of ICLs into the
Standard, the expectation is that the next version of this document will reflect a Technical
Working Document format. Version 1 of this document is specific to the content of Draft 2 FSC
Canada’s National Forest Management Standard.
2 Indigenous Cultural Landscapes (ICLs)
Many discussions implicitly or explicitly assume that biodiversity conservation is possible only
within protected areas. Yet most of the world’s biodiversity is in areas used by people.
Hence, to conserve biodiversity, we need to understand how human cultures interact with
landscapes and shape them into cultural landscapes (Berkes 2006:35).
The term “cultural landscape” was first used in the 1890’s in the German academy, and was
later introduced in America by geographer Carl Sauer in 1925. Sauer’s writings detail the role
human beings in changing, intentionally or unintentionally, the face of the earth in directions
determined by their immediate needs. He demonstrated that the shaping of a cultural
landscape is a cumulative process, each stage of which conditions the next one (Sauer 1925).
The cultural landscape concept was primarily discussed in the fields of human geography and
anthropology, until popularity increased when it was adopted in the International Convention
for the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage (or the World Heritage
Convention) by UNESCO in 1992 (Wu 2012). Since then, the term has been used in a variety of
management contexts – cultural heritage, environmental assessment and sustainable
development to name a few. Appendix A provides a sample of ‘cultural landscape’ definitions
and sources from different fields of study used to inform the conceptual framework of ICL. They
are divided based on references into 1) cultural landscapes, in general, 2) associative cultural
landscapes, and 3) Aboriginal cultural landscapes.
The definitions above contain the following explicit or implicit conditions:
• A natural landscape precedes the creation of a cultural landscape
• Anthropogenic activities are central to the creation and evolution of cultural
landscapes, including deliberate interventions that altered species composition
• Interrelated and complex ecological and social dynamics are protected and
manipulated to ensure a sustainable livelihood
Page 4 of 16
•
•
Characteristics develop as a result of long-term interactions between people and the
land
Tangible and intangible evidence may be present
In short, ICLs are the result of ecosystem management decisions linked to human well-being,
where the “long-term health of the forest ecosystem and livelihood needs are complementary,
rather than opposing goals.” (Berkes 2006:36).
An Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) may be used to express the multi-faceted relationship
Aboriginal peoples have with the Canadian landscape across centuries. They have, and
continue to, emerge, as
… living landscapes that change as time progresses, where oral tradition is the canon of
proof and where changing practices of embodied experience and landscapes grow from
generation to generation all the while being acted out on a global stage (Andrews and
Buggy, 2008: 70).2
A society’s environmental perception, values, institutions, technologies and political interests will
result in particular planning and management goals and objectives for a specific landscape
(Davidson-Hunt 2003). These cultural landscapes or “lived environments” are to a greater or
lesser extent, anthropogenic. Walter and Hamilton (2014) stress that “any ecosystem model that
includes humans must be based on a realistic understanding of how humans have interacted
with landscapes over the long-term” (43). However, not all human and environment interactions
are obvious. Those wanting to assess the environment for landscape values must access
historical, cultural and local information from the people that closely associate themselves with
that environment.
Past and present interactions between people and the land may leave tangible evidence of
use, while evidence of spiritual (e.g. ceremonial) and cultural (e.g. storytelling) activities may be
intangible. For example, an activity may give meaning to a physical environment or landscape
feature. These landscape features in turn may function as a reminder of the stories detailing the
evolving relationship between people and the land.
It is important to understand that just as humans have the power to manipulate nature for their
own benefit, a key aspect of the Indigenous worldview is the knowledge that the land has an
inherent potential to shape a culture. In other words, the land exerts control by possessing and
presenting opportunities for human intervention (e.g. soil, hydrological and genetic
characteristics). The key to developing this understanding and putting it to use in forest
management is to promote the full participation of the knowledge holders the planning process.
2.1
Traditional Ecological Knowledge
The foundation of an ICL is Indigenous knowledge, more often referred to as traditional
ecological knowledge in Canada (TEK). TEK is a knowledge that has developed over time by a
people living with the land. Becker (2003) defines TEK as “encompassing everything from cursory
awareness of natural histories associated with local wildlife to cultural norms for land
For an example of the historical cultural landscape changes undertaken by the Anishinaabe in Canada see DavidsonHunt (2003).
2
Page 5 of 16
management and resource allocation”(1). Perhaps the most comprehensive definition of TEK is
provided by Berkes (2008):
TEK encompasses 1) factual knowledge about ecological components and processes, (2)
knowledge put into practices of environmental use, and (3) the cultural values, ethics, and
philosophies that define human relationships within the natural world (as quoted in Gagnon
and Berteaux 2009:19).
Practices that have shaped natural landscapes into ICLs include pruning, harvesting, gathering,
cultivation, transplanting, propagation, sowing, weeding, and perhaps most well-known to the
field of forest ecology, burning (Watson, Alessa et al. 2003). Traditional practices carried out by
Indigenous peoples in the past and at present to create ICLs resemble scientific practices
typically associated with ecosystem-based management (Berkes 2006, Berkes 2006, Parlee 2006)
• Succession management
• Landscape patchiness management
• Resource rotation
• Multiple species management
Not only do these practices alter the landscape, they ensure the survival of the people
depending on it. The landscapes (i.e. ICLs) that manifest a “way of life” are a reflection of the
values held by the distinct cultures that created it.
2.2
Values and Functions of ICLs
Based on the description in the previous section, a preliminary list of values that may be
attributed to ICLs include:
• Relationships/Connections (biotic and abiotic)
• Responsibilities (custodial and kinship)
• Livelihoods (wage economy and subsistence needs)
• Well-being (food security, governance, health)
• Spiritual (ceremony)
There are also a number of functions that ICLs would fulfil in the context of sustainable forest
management and FSC:
• Historical archive of land use and alteration
• Ecosystem services
• Support Natural (or Sacred) Law
• Representative of land use planning goals and objectives
• Build and support Indigenous Traditional Knowledge
• Connect people to their traditional lands
• Guideline for forest restoration
• Representative of the original tenure management system
The ICL concept assists our understanding of past and present relationships between people
and their environment (Greer and Strand 2012). It counters the popular ideology that Indigenous
societies lived “in equilibrium with their landscapes” (Walter and Hamilton 2014), but instead
manipulated the land, and in turn the land supported the development of distinct cultural
traditions, systems of knowledge and languages (Barsh 2000).
Page 6 of 16
The practical utility of ICL concept to conservation and FSC certification in particular, is to
provide a lens through which an Organization may view Indigenous relationships to land (Berkes
2006), gaining a better understanding of the requirements of free, prior and informed consent
(FPIC).
3 Indigenous Cultural Landscapes (ICLs) and the FSC Canada
National Forest Management Standard
The term Indigenous Cultural Landscape*, or ICL is used by FSC Canada to describe a growing
array of landscape level management and planning processes and tools used by Indigenous
Peoples* to achieve their specific management objectives.
3.1
Working Definition of ICL
FSC Canada has maintained the descriptive definition of ICL originally presented in the IFL-ICL
Discussion paper released in January 2016. This definition is included in the Glossary of Draft 2 of
the National Forest Management Standard:
Indigenous Cultural Landscapes are living landscapes to which Indigenous Peoples attribute
environmental, social, cultural and economic value because of their enduring relationship
with the land, water, fauna, flora and spirits and their present and future importance to their
cultural identity. An ICL is characterized by features that have been maintained through
long-term interactions based on land-care knowledge, and adaptive livelihood practices.
They are landscapes over which Indigenous peoples exercise responsibility for stewardship.
There are four key components of definition:
1. Multiple values under consideration;
2. Defined by the relationship Indigenous Peoples have had and continue to have with the
environment in order to protect the rights of future generations;
3. Grounded in established stewardship knowledge and practice; and
4. Based on the responsibilities that accompany the inherent rights of access, use and
protection articulated through Indigenous governance systems.
An ICL is a concept that has been designed to reflect the values and concerns of Indigenous
Peoples, however many of these values and concerns are shared across the four Chambers of
FSC Canada. The broad and descriptive definition presented above does not delineate the size
or form of an ICL. Landscape values held by Indigenous Peoples (and many others) are
multifaceted and multifunctional.
An ICL, or landscape management methodology, would allow for the identification of not just
singular values on the landscape, but also the significance of their interrelationships. An ICL
would support the use of various management regimes to protect those relationships. For
example, FSC Standards require Organizations to identify cultural sites that are of significance to
Indigenous Peoples. These sites have typically been identified through archaeological
assessments and recorded as data points and held within larger graphical data sets. This data is
most often embedded in larger polygons with little to no descriptors (i.e. metadata). As a result,
Page 7 of 16
the choice of management options to protect the integrity and significance of cultural sites is
difficult to near impossible for the Organization to decipher.
ICLs are a demonstration of the decision-making authority of Indigenous Peoples to identify the
values and set the priorities and boundaries for forest management. FPIC is essential in the
realization of this process. ICLs are the manifestation of a truly comprehensive and valid FPIC
process.
4 ICLs, IFLs and FPIC
While ICLs have been introduced in the Canadian and international FSC system as a counterbalance to IFLs, it is perhaps more accurate to express an ICL as a complementary landscape
concept to IFLs. It is complementary because it includes environmental, social, economic and
cultural values. Preliminary work on ICLs in the FSC context indicates that these two concepts
may differ most in how they prioritize the social and cultural values of stakeholders and
Indigenous Peoples.
When considering the interaction between IFLs and ICLs, it should be recognized that an
ecosystem within an IFL may also be part of the larger cultural identity of an Indigenous People
who engage in on-going traditional activities3 on the landscape. The inclusion of FPIC in Motion
65 is meant to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples as per the United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). IFL designations within Canada will need to take this
into account. Andrews and Buggey (2008: 68) argue that,
Considerations of wholeness or intactness, the defining conditions of integrity of the cultural
landscape, must situate within this cultural context. Aboriginal groups may consider
authenticity to be lost where land management approaches intrude on their access to the
land and their continuing relationship with it.
The juxtaposition of IFLs and ICLs prompts the question of whether or not a segregated
approach, which separates humans from nature within large tracts of land, is reasonable and
justifiable. An affirmation of ICLs, whether within IFLs or not, would mean recognizing the existing
cultural foundations of Indigenous peoples, including their right to free, prior and informed
consent.
FSC Canada has created an FPIC Guidance document to assist Organizations meet the
requirements of Principle 3. That document should be read along with this Discussion Paper to
ensure FPIC is understood in the context of FSC certification.
Traditional activity in this context is not meant to imply activities must be carried out in the same way as they were prior
to European contact. These activities and the tools use to pursue them evolve as knowledge is gained and technology
improves or becomes more accessible to Indigenous Peoples.
3
Page 8 of 16
5 Proposed ICL Indicator
ICL requirements are introduced in Principle 3 of Draft 2 of the National Forest Management
Standard. The expectation is to include ICL specific indicators in other Principles (i.e. Principle 6
and Principle 9) after the required technical work and vetting processes are completed. For
now, a group of indicators have been identified as “related to ICLs” and are discussed in the
next section.
PRINCIPLE 3: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ RIGHTS
Indigenous cultural landscape (or ICL) is the term used by FSC Canada to describe areas of land larger
than the stand level that support and protect social, cultural and economic values critical to the health
and well-being of Indigenous Peoples. These areas have traditionally been identified and recorded
through oral history; however, in the more recent past, Indigenous Peoples have led landscape level
planning processes to map and analyse these values to assist in resource development decisionmaking. ICLs are defined in the Glossary of this Standard and examples of ICLs will be provided in the
upcoming P3 Companion Document. ICL identification and management will be addressed in Principle
6 and Principle 9.
3.1.2
Through culturally appropriate* engagement* with the Indigenous Peoples* identified in 3.1.1,
the following will be documented and/or mapped:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Their legal* and customary rights* of tenure*;
Their legal* and customary* access to, and use rights*, of the forest* resources and
ecosystem services*;
Their legal* and customary rights* and responsibilities that may be affected by
activities in the forest management unit;
The evidence supporting these rights and responsibilities;
Areas where rights are contested between Indigenous Peoples*, governments and/or
others;
The expressed aspirations and goals of Indigenous Peoples* related to management
activities;
The impact of management activities as it relates to their legal* and customary
rights*;
Indigenous Cultural Landscapes (ICLs)*, where they have been identified by
Indigenous Peoples*.
For part 8, Indigenous Cultural Landscapes*, where Indigenous Peoples* have indicated landscape
level aspirations and management goals, but have yet to provide the information to document and/or
map them, a mutually agreed to action plan* will be developed to compile this information. (Adapt)
Because ICL indicators will be developed in the future, most likely after the release of the final
standard in 2017, Indicator 3.1.2 includes a caveat that for the parts of this indicator that cannot
be fully addressed (e.g. ICL) during the transition from the regional to national standard, a plan
of action will be required by the Organization.
Page 9 of 16
6 ICL Related Indicators
There are at least 24 indicators at the site and landscape level that require an Organization to
engage with Indigenous Peoples in order to identify, assess, develop and/or approve
management strategies. They are presented in Table 1 below by indicator and topic only to
save space. Refer to Draft 2 of the National Forest Management Standard and the IFL Technical
Working Document for further details.
Table 1: Relevant existing indicators to the identification, protection and management of ICLs
Indicators
3.1.2
3.2.1
3.2.6
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.6.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.2.2
6.4.1
6.4.5
6.5.1
6.5.2
6.5.5
6.5.7
6.5.8
6.8.5
8.2.2 (8-11)
9.1.2
9.1.3
9.2.2
9.4.2
Topic
Documentation and mapping of various rights of use and access, including ICLs
Engage with Indigenous Peoples to determine their participation in strategic and
operational management planning
FPIC is granted prior to management activities that affect identified rights
Through engagement, sites of cultural, ecological, economic, religious or spiritual
significance are identified
Measure to protect sites are agreed through engagement
Cease of operations until protective measures have been agreed to when new sites of
significance are discovered
Traditional knowledge is protected and used only with FPIC
Best available information on point-specific wildlife values (e.g. salt licks)
Current forest assessment
Assessing impacts at stand level prior to management activities
Best available information for SAR
Work cooperatively with Indigenous Peoples to address SAR management
requirements
Engagement through an FPIC process with Indigenous Peoples to identify special
management areas and candidate protected areas
Consultation with Indigenous Peoples to identify gaps in conservation area network
Consider input from Indigenous Peoples when designating special management areas
or candidate protected areas
Consider input from Indigenous Peoples when establishing the total proposed area of
the conservation area network
FPIC is obtained when identifying candidate protected areas and special
management areas
Coordinate approaches to landscape level management with Indigenous Peoples
Monitoring social and economic impacts of management activities
Engagement with Indigenous Peoples to assess for HCVs and HCV Areas
Delineation of HCVs and HCV Areas on maps
Engagement with Indigenous Peoples in development of management strategies
Engagement with Indigenous Peoples to develop monitoring program
Page 10 of 16
7 Moving from Concept to Indicators
The FSC Canada staff and consulting team worked to strike a balance between investment in
effort needed to fully articulate FPIC, an already established and global requirement of FSC
Principles and Criteria (V5), and new work and additional resources required to develop the ICL
concept. Work completed to date on ICLs includes:
•
•
•
•
the release of a Discussion paper to FSC members in January 2016;
a national forum coordinated by the National Aboriginal Forestry Association (NAFA) was
held to bring together Indigenous Peoples and FSC members to discuss FPIC and ICLs;
and
the formation of an interim advisory group on ICLs has met to plan a comprehensive
strategy to further develop normative and non-normative guidance on ICLs.
a Call for Participation to test some of the IFL, ICL and caribou related indicators was
issued to Organizations in July of 2016.
A comprehensive strategy and work plan for the development for the ICLs will be developed
and shared with FSC International and FSC Canada members soon after the release of Draft
2 of the National Standard.
Page 11 of 16
References
Andrews, T.D. and S. Buggey (2008). ”Authenticity in Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes” APT Bulletin
39(2/3):63-71. URL: http://jstor.org/stable/25433954
Barsh, R. (2000). "Grounded Visions: Native American Conceptions of Landscapes and
Ceremony." St. Thomas Law Review 13: 127-154.
Becker, C. D. and K. Ghimire (2003). "Synergy Between Traditional Ecological Knowledge and
Conservation Science Supports Forest Preservation in Ecuador." Ecology and Society 8(1).
Berkes, F. (2008). Sacred ecology. New York, Routledge.
Berkes, F., and Iain J. Davidson-Hunt (2006). "Biodiversity, traditional management systems, and
cultural landscapes: examples from the boreal forest of Canada." International Social
Science Journal 58(187): online.
Berkes, F., and Nancy J. Turner (2006). "Knowledge, Learning and the Evolution of Conservation
Practice for Sociological-Ecological System Resilience." Human Ecology 34(4): 479-494.
Buggey, S. (1999). "An approach to Aboriginal cultural landscapes. Ottawa: Historic Sites and
Monuments Board of Canada.
Buckley, R. and C. Ollenbury Kunseng Zhong (2008). "Culturall landscape in mongolian tourism."
Annals of Tourism Research 35(1):47-61.
Conzen, M.P. (2002). "Cultural Landscape in Geography." International Encyclopedia of the
Social and Behavioural Sciences. 3086-3092. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-0430767/02543-2
Davidson-Hunt, I. J. (2003). "Indigenous Lands Management, Cultural Landscapes and
Anishinaabe People of Shoal Lake, Northerwestern Ontario, Canada." Environments
31(1): 21-40.
Domosh, M. (2001). "Cultural Landscapes in Environmental Studies." International Encyclopedia
of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. 3081-3086. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-08043076-7/04147-4
Gagnon, C. A., and Dominique Berteaux (2009). "Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge
and Ecological Science: a Question of Scale." Ecology and Society 14(2): 19.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art19/
Greer, S. and D. Strand (2012). "Cultural Landscapes, Past and Present, and the South Yukon Ice
Patches." Arctic 65(1): 136-152.
Hill, R., L. Cullen-Unsworth, L.D. Talbot and S. McIntyre-Tamwoy (2011). Empowering Indigneous
peoples' biocultural diversity through Wolrd Heritage cultural landscapes: a case study
form the Australian humid tropical forests. Intenrational Journal of Heritage Studies
17(6):571-591
Parlee, B., Fikret Berkes, and Teetl'it Gwich'in Renewable Resources Council (2006). "Indigenous
Knowledge of Ecological Variability and Commons Management: A Case Study on Berry
Harvesting from Northern Canada." Human Ecology 34(4): 515-528.
Page 12 of 16
Plieninger, T., D. van der Horst, C. Schleyer and C. Bieling (2014). "Sustaining ecosystem services in
cultural landscapes." Ecology and Society 19(2):59
Sauer, C.O. (1925) The Mophology of Landscape. Geography 2(2) 19-25.
Sobrevila, C. (2008). The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation. The World Bank.
Washington, DC.
Walter, R. K. and R. J. Hamilton (2014). "A cultural landscape approach to community-based
conservation in Solomon Islands." Ecology and Society 19(4): 41.
Watson, A., L. Alessa and B. Glaspell (2003). "The Relationship between Traditional Ecological
Knowledge, Evolving Cultures, and Wilderness Protection in the Circumpolar North."
Ecology and Society 8(1).
Wu, J. (2012). A Landscape Approach for Sustainability Science. Sustainability Science: The
Emerging Paradigm and the Urban Environment. M. P. Weinstein and R. E. Turner. New
York, Springer: 59-78.
Page 13 of 16
Appendix A: Table of definitions of cultural landscapes
Table 2: An overview of the variety of definitions and meaning of ‘cultural landscape’ found in
literature.
‘CULTURAL LANDSCAPES’ Defined
Source
A cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a culture group. Culture is
the agent; the natural area is the medium. The cultural landscape the result.
Sauer, 1925
Combined works of nature and humankind. They can be:
•
A clearly defined landscape designed and created intentionally by humans (e.g.
garden and parkland landscapes).
UNESCO, 2015
Or an organically evolved Landscape, meaning:
•
A relict (or fossil) landscape in which an evolutionary process came to an end at
some time in the past, either abruptly or over a period with significant
distinguishing features still visible in material form.
A continuing landscape which retains an active social role in contemporary society
closely associated with the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is
still in progress. Also exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time.
The interface between nature and culture due to the complex interactions between
people and the environment over time.
Hill et al., 2011
Patterns that cultures imprint on the land.
Domosh, 2004
The successive alteration over time of the material habitat of a sedentary human society.
Conzen, 2002
An area where the landforms have been created by human culture as well as by nature;
human culture has been created by the landscape as well as the people; and each now
depends upon and continues to exist because of the other…a place where the setting
would not look the same without the culture, and the latter would not look the same
without the landscape.
Buckley et al., 2008
At the interface between nature and culture, tangible and intangible heritage, biological
and cultural diversity – they represent a closely woven net of relationships, the essence of
culture and people’s identity.
Rössler 2006
(quoted in
Plieninger et al.
2014)
Cultural landscapes are a focus of protected areas in a larger ecosystem context, and
they are a symbol of the growing recognition of the fundamental links between local
communities and their heritage, humankind and its natural environment.
Places where complex interactions occur between ideas, social structures, and physical
features.
Plieninger and
Bieling, 2012
(quoted in Walter
& Hamilton, 2014)
A geographic area in which the relationships between human activity and the
environment have created ... patterns and feedback mechanisms that govern the
presence, distribution and abundance of species assemblages.
Farina 2000
(quoted in Walter
& Hamilton, 2014)
The physical expression of the complex and dynamic sets of relationships, processes and
linkages between societies and environments. Cultural landscapes are an expression of
societies writing their history upon the land.
‘ASSOCIATIVE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE’ Defined
Davidson-Hunt,
2003
Source
Page 14 of 16
A landscape that carries powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural
element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even
absent.
UNESCO, 2105
Large or small contiguous or non-contiguous areas and itineraries, routes, or other linear
landscapes - these may be physical entities or mental images embedded in a people’s
spirituality, cultural tradition and practice… while rooted in land, these landscapes focus
recognition of values not on design or material evidences, but on the spiritual significance
of place.
‘ABORIGINAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE’ Defined
Buggey, 1999
A place valued by an Aboriginal group (or groups) because of their long and complex
relationship with that land. It expresses their unity with the natural and spiritual
environment. It embodies their traditional knowledge of spirits, places, land uses, and
ecology. Material remains of the association may be prominent, but will often be minimal
or absent.
Not sites or relics, but living landscapes that indigenous people identify as fundamentally
important to their cultural heritage, areas that embody their relationship with the land.
Source
Parks Canada,
2008; Buggey, 1999
Andrews and
Buggey, 2008
Page 15 of 16