No abstract

The cultural and spiritual significance of nature has been defined as the spiritual, cultural, inspirational, aesthetic, historic and social meanings, values, feelings, ideas and associations that natural features and nature in general have for past, present and future generations of people – both individuals and groups. These guidelines respond to a growing need to make conservation more inclusive, effective and socially just by accommodating multiple worldviews; by treating natural and cultural heritage as interlinked; and by suggesting ways for engaging and empowering all relevant groups and stakeholders in protected area design, governance and management. The guidelines also assist with creating common ground, resolving conflicts and implementing rights-based approaches that recognise human rights and legal pluralism.

A growing number of protected areas are defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as protected landscapes and seascapes, or category V protected areas, one of six protected area categories based on management approach. Category V now makes up over half the protected area coverage in Europe, for instance. While the earliest category V areas were designated mainly for their landscape and recreational values, they are increasingly expected also to protect biodiversity. Critics have claimed that they fail to conserve enough biodiversity. The current paper addresses this question by reviewing available evidence for the effectiveness of category V in protecting wild biodiversity by drawing on published information and a set of case studies. Research to date focuses more frequently on changes in vegetation cover than on species, and results are limited and contradictory, suggesting variously that category V protected areas are better than, worse than or the same as more strictly protected categories in terms of conserving biodiversity. This may indicate that differences are not dramatic, or that effectiveness depends on many factors. The need for greater research in this area is highlighted. Research gaps include: (i) comparative studies of conservation success inside and outside category V protected areas; (ii) the contribution that small, strictly protected areas make to the conservation success of surrounding, less strictly protected areas-and vice versa; (iii) the effectiveness of different governance approaches in category V; (iv) a clearer understanding of the impacts of zoning in a protected area; and (v) better understanding of how to implement landscape approaches in and around category V protected areas.

PurposeThis paper seeks to offer an overview on the theme of “Traditional agricultural landscapes and indigenous and community conserved areas.” It aims to explore questions related to the special values of these landscapes, the threats facing them and ways to sustain them in the future. It also aims to discuss recent developments in conservation, particularly related to governance of protected areas and the emerging recognition of “indigenous and community‐conserved areas” in diverse regions worldwide.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on a collection of conceptual papers and case‐studies presented at a workshop (Cusco, Peru, 2008) and compiled in the present issue of this journal, this overview paper explores key issues and challenges related to community stewardship of traditional agricultural landscapes. It synthesizes a few common themes emerging from these papers and the discussions in Cusco, and reviews these in the context of global developments in protected areas and conservation.FindingsAcross diverse settings, traditional agricultural landscapes, created by indigenous peoples and local communities, have been shaped by the dynamic interaction of people and nature over time. These landscapes, rich in agro‐biodiversity as well as inherent wild biodiversity and cultural and spiritual values, embody human ingenuity and are continually evolving. Key points emerging from this review include the role of traditional ecological knowledge systems, cultural practices and social institutions in creating these landscapes and ensuring their stewardship; the importance of securing customary governance; and need for dynamic socio‐ecological indicators to measure the resilience of different landscapes.Originality/valueThe paper shows that these “living landscapes” play a vital role in sustaining agro‐biodiversity as well as inherent wild biodiversity values, ensuring ecosystem function, and supporting livelihoods and food security. These landscapes and their associated management systems have much to teach us about sustainability and resilience in the face of global change.

No abstract