Davide Marino*, Aurora Cavallo*, Benedetta Di Donato*, Lorenzo Nofroni**, Serena Savelli* * Department of Bioscience and Territory, University of Molise, Contrada Fonte Lappone, 86090 Pesche
(Isernia) – Italy.** PhD student La Sapienza University of Rome.
KEYWORDS: Traditional Agricultural Landscapes, Italy. ABSTRACT
This research belongs within the framework of a PRIN project named “i paesaggi tradizionali dell’agricoltura italiana (TAL): definizione di un modello interpretativo multidisciplinare e multiscala finalizzato alla pianificazione e alla gestione.”
The focus is the development of a methodology to define, identify and study traditional agricultural landscapes, their dynamics and transformation.
Nowadays many new elements and structures are superimposed upon the traditional landscape that become highly fragmented and lose their identity. Many heritage, values and resources become irreversibly lost. Specific landscape inventories indicate that many valuable fragments of traditional landscapes still remain, and they demand special attention (Antrop M. 2004) Our study had this particular purpose.
Our definition of TAL builds upon the co-evolution paradigm (Noorgard, 1994). TAL is the result of a dynamic balance produced by secular and reciprocal interactions between the environment and settled population. TAL can be considered as a maximum degree of harmonisation between corema and iconema (Turri 1998) as well as between ecological and socio-cultural components of ecosystems. TAL is the guardian of an unwritten vernacular, of traditional agronomical knowledge.
In particular, the subsistence of the traditional condition is valued by an analysis that crosses some parameters. The inner connection, complexity, and resilience of agroecosystem are the main factors considered in the assessment. The evaluation is based on a set of specific indicators. The analysis deals separately with all ecological, social and economic components that interact to determine habitus and functionality of landscape. In consideration of this key principle, the traditional condition can be released by historicity and persistence conditio sine qua non. This allows the opportunity for construction and conversion into new TAL with interesting applications for landscape planning and management. Identification, localisation and transformation of TAL are based on a diachronic analysis (1960-2015) which involves Land Use Change Cover (detected by GIS) and a set of driving forces indicators.
Introduction
For the purpose of this work, TAL refers to those traditional agricultural landscapes that have existed for a long time in a particular territory. These landscapes can be stabilised within their forms, relations and productive functions, or may also (but not only) evolve slowly (Marino and Cavallo, 2009, Barbera et al., 2014). Our definition allows for the creation of new TAL, as the historical permanence is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition. Traditional means
❝
UNISCAPE En-Route - a. I - n. 2 - 2015☞
✔ ✒
❝66 67❞ that the agronomical landscape is the result of a long co-evolution between socio-cultural and environmental systems (Noorgard, 1994).
Traditional means that the agricultural landscape is at the interface of an active dynamic equi- librium, where the involved forces are the human niche-construction and the multiple feed- backs that the habitat returns to the community. Traditional means that such human activities were conducted using knowledge passed down through 300 generations of farmers (Blondel e Aronson, 1999).
With this definition the TAL are configured as laboratories of the knowledge of places. Finally,
traditional means that the agricultural landscape and the underlying agro-ecosystem have high ecological resilience.
Anthropic ecosystems that are products of a built environment, are affected by human actions which act as a driving force relative to the “ability of a system to adsorb change and return to its equilibrium state after a temporary disturbance” (Holling, 1973).
Therefore, within the concept of TAL ecosystem resilience, the conditions of economic and cultural subsystems are nested.
The landscapes cultivated by traditional practices are paradigmatic examples, which provide functional choices according to the site ecological conditions and the vegetation vocation. Furthermore, they are examples of the human mark merging and harmonizing with the coremi geography, examples of places of familiarity, and offer a sense of place.
This trait - a sense of place, site-specific and co-evolutive knowledge, as opposed to atopic homogenization of industrial agricultural landscape - makes the landscape a laboratory for good living, an attractive destination for cultural tourism and the amenity of local products.
A methodology note: rules and paths to define TAL
Read changes in agricultural phenomenon ask us for a definition of a timeframe and differ- ent areas of interest with same characters in terms physiography, settlements, farming type, infrastructure, usable to understand new and old forms and functions in different landscapes. We set our timeframe from 50s to today in order to look at evolutionary phenomena in Italian agricultural landscape. We choose as T0 the period after the war because during the second half of the twentieth century, all process of transformation increases in direction of a new model of production – mechanization, intensification, and industrialization. Defining areas of interest, we choose different sources able to built a common picture of the Italian agri- cultural landscape and a model to make sources interact. The first source is the “Carta delle Ecoregioni” (Blasi et al., 2014), it divide Italy in homogeneous ecological areas – with same weather trend, physiographic, hydrographic, faunistic and environmental characters - and give back to us a set of frames to understand ecological process and driving force in change. With the “Carta delle Ecoregioni” we look at the “Analisi zonale dell’agricoltura” (Rossi Doria, 1969), it define homogeneous area in terms of economic trend and characters in agriculture, it tell us about agricultural system and their role in defining different trend. We also use the
❞
❝
UNISCAPE En-Route - a. I - n. 2 - 2015“Catasto Agrario” (1929) and the “Carta dei Tipi di Impresa” (Medici, 1958), both minor role sources but able to describe farm model, property aspects and labor system characters. At last the “Carta di Uso di Suolo” (TCI, 1963) and the “IGM” to look at hydrography, morphol- ogy and settlements.
The model organize sources in a hierarchical way, it’s not because we recognize differ- ent value to each source, but just because each source can act at different level in terms of scale and detail. All sources – except the “Carta delle Ecoregioni” – are products of research project developed by dataset during the 50s and published during the 60s and 70s. We also look at a different reports and documents by the INEA (Istituto Nazionale di Economia Agraria) about agriculture, local farms systems, relations between property and agricultural characters, social movement linked or not with agriculture and historic process of change.
Looking at all sources, we define different “Unità di Paesaggio Agrario, UPA” (Agricultural Landscapes Unit, Area of agricultural landscape with same characters) 50s, homogenous areas in terms environmental, economical and social aspect and their forms and functions in land- scape, not just overlaying data and sources but query each one by itself and with all others. UPA can be also aggregate in groups of areas applying a thematic filter or an administrative boundary.
We have aggregate UPAs in “Sistemi di Paesaggio Agrario, SPA” (Agricultural Landscape Sys- tem), UPAs tells about characters, SPAs about rules and structure of agrarian landscape. Testing the processes on Lazio and Puglia Region we appoint that it is inductive and based on experience and knowledge - outcome information are not just a sum and overlay of sources - and it has an interdisciplinary approach. At the same time all sources have both a descriptive and interpretative point of view and we used them as a base point to understand forms and functions relation.
Reading Traditional Agricultural Landscape between evolution and permanence
Our study is based on a conceptual framework of the relationships between rural landscape and land use cover (LUC) organization of traditional agricultural systems, (Van Eetvelde and Antrop, 2004; Sluiter and De Jong, 2007; Serra et. al. 2008). We consider the permanence of LUC as an indicator of a long term interaction between the environment and human settle- ments (Antrop, 1997).
However the permanence of LUC is a necessary but not sufficient requirement to define TAL. In fact the permanence of LUC proves the stability and continuity in the relationship between socio-economic and environmental systems, but does not supply any information about the processes used to maintain the agricultural ecosystems. Moreover, in order to locate a TAL it is necessary to consider its wider territorial frame, whose extension must consistently iden- tify the relation between rural and local settlement systems. Our approach is based on the analysis of land use cover change (LUCC). The first phase is the study of LUCC spatial struc-
❞
UNISCAPE En-Route - a. I - n. 2 - 2015
❝68 69❞
tures and patterns using GIS- through the comparison between cartographic data1 (Veldkamp
and Fresco, 1996; Verburg et al., 1999; Pontius et al., 2001; White and Engelen, 2000; Pijanowski et al., 2000).
The second phase is the study of evaluation of socio-economic and environmental factors comparing different parameters acquired from regional demographics2 to describe LUC
transformation and stability features.
These phenomena were studied on different scales of SPA, UPA and and micro “Agricultural Landscape” (AL). Each of the three zooms has consistent levels of detail in the analyses of transformation, stability and descriptive factors.
The reporting period covers 50 years, from the late 50s to 2006. The analogical and digital geographical information for the 1950s was deduced from “Carta della utilizzazione del suolo
d’Italia 1:200.000 degli anni ’50”3 (CNR-TCI ‘60) edited by CNR and published by Touring
Club Italiano between 1957 and 1967. Corine Land Cover 2006 (CLC’06) was used for data of 2006.
The first step was the conception of a transition legend between the CNR-TCI 1960 and CLC 2010 maps. This implied the conversion of the entries from “land cover” (2006) to “land use” (1960), in order to make them comparable - we remind the reader that land use can be presumed but not directly derived from land cover (Brown and Duh, 2004). For this rea- son CLC ‘06 land cover entries were specifically checked comparing cartographic land use sources edited by regional and local authorities.
At a later stage, maps overlaying resulted in a transition matrix and thematic mapping which define three levels of detail according to the analysis scale:
- the first layer, at SPA scale, allows to determine, with a binary interpretation, the perma- nence or the variation of LUC spatial structures and patterns. It also allows to give a first interpretation of the processes which caused the transformations;
- the second layer, at UPA scale, allows to define, for each pattern unit, the permanence or variation LUC, using a dual code system that describes the land use values of the 1950s and of 2006;
- the third layer, at AL scale, allows to understand the spatial relationship between perma- nence and variation in a consistent portion of the territory, wide enough to describe the connection between local urban and rural settlements.
The interpretation of LUCC results on the first level - SPA scale - allowed to identify macro categories of permanence and transformation useful to describe LUCC phenomena related to the agricultural landscapes.
The second layer of interpretation - UPA scale - allows to introduce an approximate multi- criteria analysis of statistic data related to LUCC spatial structures and patterns.
On this level it is possible to formulate a general description of the socio-economic and environmental factors which are essential for LUC permanence. Moreover these factors can be filed in a descriptive and interpretational matrix that connects environmental, social, eco- nomic and settlement systems with complexity, resilience and connection parameters (Bar- bera, et. al., 2014).
The third layer - AL scale - allows to identify a study and observation area of LUC perma- nence and variations and descriptive and interpretative indicators related to specific portions of territory. This framework enables to understand precisely space, time and process-related interactions between the two elements of analysis above mentioned. It is defined by an inte- grated combination of morphology and processes of the territory, such as forms and organi- zation of urban and infrastructural settlements, morphology of the territory, features of the environment, social and cultural characteristics of the local population, organization of the local economy.
The chosen methodology implies practical verification on site as an instrument to verify and adjust the analysis model.
Some final remarks
In this perspective, UPA and SPA have to be considered as a method to investigate and under- stand transformations and changes in landscape.
Indeed, UPA and SPA are defined by layers of relations, processes and rules between parts, in this sense they can be considered like framework in which study a landscape dynamics of evolution and its definition in spatial terms (Marino and Cavallo, 2009). In this context, it is clear that observing landscapes does not involve only analyzing transformations in land use or study landscape from an ecological point of view but, rather, it means reading changes oc- curring in agricultural production, in its relationships with urban phenomenon and its impact on social issues, building patterns and the environment. UPA and SPA can help us in defining planning and governance actions able to consider agricultural landscape as a key tool in terms of development.
Analyzing transformations in agricultural landscapes is a key step in organizing a regulation policies and a territorial-level programme and planning action able to recognize and under- line differences and value in landscape processes. The point of view chosen here is that of the landscape, analyzed and interpreted within a wider context involving the relationships between agriculture, environment and society and our way of settling and transforming a landscape. This development is located within a conceptual path that involves moving from a sector-based to a territory-based approach, and it underlines the necessity for a greater integration between disciplinary areas and areas of intervention, both in the scientific debate and in the actual planning of policies that are both the foundation and the purpose of territo- rial research.
As part of the widespread processes for landscape uniformity, we have tried to highlight the role of intelligent understanding as a decisive tool for improving our capacity to interpret and plan agricultural landscape, while keeping in mind and recognizing environmental, productive, social and cultural processes that have directed its construction.
Notes
1 Carta dell’Utilizzazione del Suolo CNR-TCI, 1960, Corine Land Cover 2010) and satellite images 2 Sistemi Locali del Lavoro, Censimento della popolazione, Censimento dell’Agricoltura
3 CNR-TCI’60 is based on land registry data of Nuovo Catasto Terreni d’Italia, it has a minimum unit of 35-36 hectares and divides the territory in 22 land use categories, derived from the 30 types of cultivation set by Direzione Generale del Catasto.
References
Antrop, M., 1997. “The concept of traditional landscapes as a base for landscape evaluation and planning. The example of Flanders Region”, in Landscape Urban Plann. 38 (1/2), 105–117;
Barbera, G., Biasi, R. and Marino, D., 2014. (edited by) I Paesaggi Agrari Tradizionali, un percorso per la conoscenza, Franco Angeli;
Blasi, C., Capotorti, G., Copiz, R., Guida, D., Mollo, B., Smiraglia D., & Zavattero, L., (2014), “Classification and map- ping of the ecoregions of Italy”, in Plant Biosystems, Volume 148, Issue 6, 2014;
Brown, D.G. and Duh, J. D., 2004. ‘Using spatial simulation to translate between land use and land cover”, in Inter-
national Journal of Geographical Information Science, 18(1), 35-60;
Marino, D., and Cavallo, A., 2009. “Rapporti coevolutivi tra costruzione sociale e caratteri naturali: il paesaggio agrario tradizionale”, in Rivista di Economia Agraria, n. 3 – 4;
Medici, G., 1956. Carta dei tipi di impresa nell’agricoltura italiana, Inea, Rome;
Pijanowski, B.C., Gage, S.H., Long, D.T. and Cooper, W.C., 2000. “A land transformation model for the Saginaw Bay Watershed”, in Sanderson, J. and Harris, L.D., (eds.), Landscape Ecology: A Top Down Approach, Lewis Publishing; Pontius, R.G., Cornell, J.D. and Hall, C.A.S., 2001. “Modeling the spatial pattern of land-use change with GEO-
MOD2: application and validation for Costa Rica”, in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 85, 191–203; Rossi Doria, M., 1969. L’analisi zonale dell’agricoltura italiana, Inea, Rome;
Serra, P., Pons, X., Saurı, D., 2008. “Land-cover and land-use change in a Mediterranean landscape: A spatial analysis of driving forces integrating biophysical and human factors”, in Applied Geography 28 (2008,) 189–209; Sluiter, R., and De Jong, S. M., 2007. “Spatial Patterns of Mediterranean Land Abandonment and Related Land
Cover Transitions”, in Landscape Ecology, 22, 559-576;
Turbati, E., 1947. La distribuzione della proprietà fondiaria in Italia, Inea Ed. Italiane;
Veerle Van Eetvelde, Marc Antrop, 2004. “Analyzing structural and functional changes of traditional landscapes - two examples from Southern France”, in Landscape and Urban Planning 67, 79–95;
Veldkamp, A., and Fresco, L.O., 1997. “Reconstructing land use drivers and their spatial scale dependence for Costa Rica”, in Agricultural Systems 55, 19–43;
Verburg P.H., Veldkamp A., de Koning G.H.J., Kok K. and Bouma J., 1999. “A spatial explicit allocation procedure for modelling the pattern of land use change based upon actual land use”, in Ecological Modelling 116, 45–61; White, R. and Engelen, G., 2000. “High-resolution integrated modelling of the spatial dynamics of urban and
regional systems”, in Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 24, 383–400.
❞
UNISCAPE En-Route - a. I - n. 2 - 2015
❞