Mc(

SD

a

ARR1AA

KLMHTRA

1

eEtpdalnbp

lavF

0d

Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 98–108

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / landurbplan

apping traditional cultural landscapes in the Mediterranean area using aombined multidisciplinary approach: Method and application to Mount EtnaSicily; Italy)

ebastiano Cullotta ∗, Giuseppe Barberaipartimento di Colture Arboree, Viale delle Scienze, Edificio 4, 90128 Palermo, Italy

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 9 July 2010eceived in revised form1 November 2010ccepted 22 November 2010vailable online 19 December 2010

eywords:andscape inventoryulti-disciplinary approach

a b s t r a c t

Traditional cultural landscapes (TCLs) are prominent in Mediterranean countries. The abundance of thislandscape type, however, is not reflected by broad-scale inventories and mapping tools. The aim of thispaper is to highlight the need for a multidisciplinary approach to landscape analysis, with special refer-ence to the Mediterranean area. We propose an integrated method that combines deductive and inductiveprocesses to define and map TCLs in a study area (Mount Etna, Sicily, Italy). We also develop a procedure tocharacterize the primary components of these landscapes as a reference to be used in cultural-landscapedescriptions. For mapping purposes, three different scales of analysis were examined to select appropri-ate data-sets of interest. At the broadest scale (1:250,000–100,000), land systems of territorial contexts(LSTCs) were detected by overlaying climatic, lithomorphological and topological maps. At the second

ierarchical classificationraditional land-useural heritage featuresgroforestry systems

level (1:100,000–25,000), landscapes of main agroforestry systems (LMASs) were identified by addingprimary land-cover and land-use maps. At the third and most detailed scale (1:25,000–10,000), TCLs werespecified using detailed land-use maps of traditional agro-forestry systems. This procedure provides atool to define and characterize the primary components of TCLs and to designate specific characters ofimportance (e.g., landscape composition and configuration, traditional techniques of land-management,and heritage features). By following this procedure, we detect a large number of TCLs in the Mt. Etna

repre

region, an important and

. Introduction

Contemporary European policies that aim to enhance knowl-dge about and conservation of cultural landscapes (e.g., theuropean Landscape Convention; Council of Europe, 2000) are par-icularly relevant for regions such as Sicily. Because of its centralosition in the Mediterranean Basin, its ecological diversity and bio-iversity, and its longstanding history of exchanges among majorgricultural civilizations, Sicily encompasses several agriculturalandscapes and agroforestry systems. As a consequence of differentatural and historical settings intersecting for millennia, Sicily cane viewed as representative of the Mediterranean area as a whole,articularly its agricultural landscapes.

Owing to its location and the variability of its physiography,

ithology, and pedology (Fierotti, 1988) and therefore of its meso-nd micro-climates, Sicily has been a major reservoir of biodi-ersity since the Tertiary period (Groves and Di Castri, 1991).or example, Sicily is home to approximately 2700 vascular-plant

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 091 23861229; fax: +39 091 23861211.E-mail addresses: cullotta@unipa.it (S. Cullotta), barbera@unipa.it (G. Barbera).

169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.11.012

sentative area of Mediterranean cultural landscapes.© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

species (of which 11% are endemic), making it one of the pri-mary biodiversity hotspots in the Mediterranean Basin (Médailand Quézel, 1997). Substantial diversity is also present in culti-vated species and intraspecific varieties and landraces. Moreover,Sicily has hosted continuous and intensive agricultural activitysince the Neolithic Age (Sereni, 1961), leading to remarkablegrowth of its autochthonous species in terms of both quantity(with varieties brought from other regions as a result of historicalevents) and intraspecific biodiversity (through anthropic selec-tion). These characteristics are common in many areas aroundthe Mediterranean Basin (e.g., Blondel, 2006; Geri et al., 2010a;Grove and Rackham, 2002; Mazzoleni et al., 2004a; Sirami et al.,2010).

Sicily’s high environmental variability is particularly visiblein locations where plains, hills, high mountains, the sea, andsizeable human settlements all occur within a small area. Tra-ditional landscapes (sensu Antrop, 1997) are often encountered

in such areas, showing historical identities that were largely sta-ble until the mid-twentieth century (Antrop, 2005; Bignal et al.,1995; Vos and Meekes, 1999) but that have in recent years beensubject to either agricultural intensification or abandonment (re-naturalization) and degradation (e.g., urbanization). Through these

S. Cullotta, G. Barbera / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 98–108 99

e Med

pd

tpPdb

leaSeatV

iM2Aocaia

tmwri

Fig. 1. Geographic location of Sicily in the heart of th

rocesses, traditional landscapes are now shrinking and graduallyisappearing (Aalen, 2001; Agnoletti, 2007; Green and Vos, 2001).

Traditional agricultural and agroforestry landscapes are charac-erized by low-intensity systems and land-management activities,roviding a high degree of multifunctionality (Jones-Walters, 2008;into-Correia and Vos, 2004; Vos and Klijn, 2000) in terms of pro-uction (typical products), environment (e.g., soil protection andiodiversity), and culture (distinctive landscapes).

The cultural and ecological relevance of traditional culturalandscapes (TCLs) makes it necessary to increase our knowl-dge of these landscapes through an integrated, multidisciplinarypproach (Farina and Naveh, 1993; Naveh and Liebermann, 1994).uch an approach involves a multi-tiered classification of theirnvironmental variability (both natural and anthropic); landscapesre first identified on the basis of their primary natural features andhen on the basis of anthropic activities over time (Antrop, 1997;ogiatzakis et al., 2006).

Similar integrated approaches have been employed in severalnventories and similar initiatives at the European (Bunce, 2001;

eeus, 1995; Stanners and Bourdeau, 1995) and national (APAT,003; Blasi, 2007; Firmino, 1999; Hooke, 1998; Van Eetvelde andntrop, 2009) levels. These studies differ in the particular method-logies used in terms of data inputs and in-depth analyses. Alassification of TCLs in Italy has not yet been produced (Barberand Cullotta, 2009). Devising such a classification is the first stepn the characterization and integrated assessment of their functionnd conservation.

To address this gap, which exists at various territorial levels,

he present study emphasizes the importance of an integrated,

ultidisciplinary, and multi-scale approach to TCLs in a regionith high environmental and cultural diversity that make it rep-

esentative of the Mediterranean area. This approach incorporatesnventories and mapping as well as functional characterization,

iterranean Basin showing the study area of Mt. Etna.

thus integrating landscape-ecology analyses and traditional cul-tural land-management descriptions.

Here, we describe a case study in which TCLs were identified onMount Etna (E Sicily) (Fig. 1), a volcano that is one of the highestmountains in the Mediterranean Basin. Because of its planime-try and orography, Mt. Etna is representative of many natural andcultural Mediterranean landscapes as well as agricultural and agro-forestry systems.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area

Mt. Etna is roughly a right-circular volcanic cone (Fig. 1), extend-ing over about 137,859 ha and ranging from 0 m to 3350 m a.s.l.

Because of its size, Mt. Etna is highly variable in physiographyand slope and in natural and anthropogenic biological richness, andit encompasses a great diversity of cultural systems and landscapes(Barbera et al., 2010; Busacca, 2000; Chester et al., 1985; Patanèet al., 2004; Poli Marchese, 1982; Poli-Marchese and Patti, 2000;Regione Siciliana; 1996; TCI, 1977).

Our study area consists of the volcanic cone and its old andrecent lava flows (effusive vents) (Allard et al., 2006; Chester et al.,1985; Favalli et al., 1999; Salvi et al., 2006). The margins of thestudy area include small landscape patches that are otherwisewidespread elements of the surrounding region, such as fluvial andfluvial-lake incoherent systems and clayey substrates. The studyarea also includes all recent, old, and/or terraced lava deposits;

the latter include marly-clay deposits, varicolored clays, and are-naceous clay or clayey-silt soils (Fierotti, 1988; Regione Siciliana,1996).

Since the Neolithic Age, the study area (as well as all of Sicily)has hosted continuous and intensive agricultural activity, which

100 S. Cullotta, G. Barbera / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 98–108

F nnect

hcettAAB

totac“raEcatti“va

me

ig. 2. Phases and scales of the applied methodology (gray background) and their co

as produced the wide range of landscape systems and forms thatharacterizes the island. Indeed, the Sicilian landscape has beennriched by diverse influences that, in terms of both crops and cul-ure, have come with the various stages of local history (includinghe dominion of Greece and Carthage, the Roman Empire, the “Arabgricultural Revolution” of the Middle Ages, the introduction ofmerican species, 18th- and 19th-century scientific research) (e.g.,arbera, 2000; Di Pasquale et al., 2004).

Mt. Etna is the highest volcano in Europe and by many accountshe most aesthetically regarded volcano in the world. The beautyf its landscape is the result of a unique natural and an excep-ional human history that has inspired many great philosophers,rtists, scientists from Homer and Plato in the Ancient Greek era toontemporary times. For Romantic-era European travelers of theGrand Tour” and today’s tourist alike, Mount Etna has often beeneferred to as: “the solemn moment that makes the heart beat ofny trip to Sicily” (Tuzet, 1988). Of the aesthetic qualities of the Mt.tna landscape that draw such acclaim, perhaps most notable is theontrast provided between the rocky sublime of the volcano itselfnd the rolling, pastoral mix of cultivated fields and woodlandshat surround it. Historically, the landscape of Etna area evolvedhrough continuous ruptures represented by lava flows that period-cally upset ownership and land use. This counterpoint between thedeath” of the sterile lava and the “life” of the woods and fields pro-

ide for a visually complex landscape mosaic that has high culturalnd historic value.

The present landscape matrix of Mt. Etna is characterized by aixture of different traditional land uses and land covers. In gen-

ral, natural and semi-natural communities (especially forests and

ions with other landscape-mapping processes (e.g., vegetation-pattern landscapes).

shrublands) prevail above 1000 m a.s.l. (Poli-Marchese and Patti,2000). Below 1000 m a.s.l., the matrix is agricultural and containsvarious combinations of closed agro-forestry systems (i.e., colturapromiscua) (Barbera et al., 2004; Busacca, 2000).

2.2. Multidisciplinary approach

In landscape ecology, researchers usually employ a hierarchical-classification approach to analyze discrete environmental unitsaccording to a set of applied controlling factors (Howard andMitchell, 1980; Klijn and Udo de Haes, 1994; Zonneveld, 1995). Theidea is to identify homogeneous environmental units according tothe scale of observation.

A set of informative factors that match the relevant geo-informative level can provide a further description of landscapes ingeographical, ecological, and cultural terms. These factors includegeomorphology, geology, climate, soil, vegetation, agricultural landuse, history, and cultural perceptions (Forman and Godron, 1986;Zonneveld, 1995).

First, landscapes are identified on the basis of their primaryabiotic natural factors (physiography, lithology, climate, and ter-ritorial topology). Second, landscapes can be classified based ontheir biotic features and anthropic activity over time (natural veg-etation cover, agricultural land use, and other thematic maps may

be useful) (Antrop, 1997; Vogiatzakis et al., 2006).

For example, the landscape character assessment (LCA)approach tends to define landscape character as a distinct, recognis-able and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that makesone landscape different from another (Swanwick, 2002). Unique

S. Cullotta, G. Barbera / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 98–108 101

Table 1Primary landscape components and features in traditional cultural landscapes (TCLs) and in non-TCLs, especially in Mediterranean areas.

Main components TCLs Modern cultural landscapes Natural and semi-natural landscapes

Landscape composition and configuration:Patch composition Agronomic and forestry land-uses/covers

(domus-hortus-ager-saltus-sylva)Only agronomic land-uses(domus-ager)

Largely forest and pre-forest stands(saltus-sylva)

Patch shape Heterogeneous (topography) Regular (geometric) HeterogeneousPatch configuration Mostly dispersed/clumped Mostly uniform Mostly uniformCorridors Mostly present Mostly not present PresentRemnant natural patches Mostly present Absent (Only natural cover)

Traditional techniques of land management:Mechanisation Usually not employed Employed Employed/not employedLocal plant varieties Employed Usually not employed Natural varietiesCrop rotation Employed Not employed /Crop promiscuity Employed Not employed /Fertilization Organic Chemical /Animal traction Present (today mostly remnant/relict) Absent Present (mostly remnant)Livestock grazing Present (in rotation) Absent PresentLocal animal races Employed Usually not employed Employed

Specific and intra-specific biodiversity:Natural species High (plants and animals) Absent (or very low) High (flora and fauna)Cultivated species Medium-high (polyculture) Low (monoculture) Low-absentCultivated varieties Medium-high (polyculture) Low (monoculture) low-absent

Rural linear elements and features:Stonewalls Widespread (according to the presence of

rock outcrop)Absent Absent

Terraces Generally widespread Absent AbsentDry-stone enclosures Generally widespread Absent AbsentHedgerows and ecotones Generally widespread Mostly absent PresentGreen belts Generally present Mostly absent (Natural cover)Tracks and footpaths Highly present Present PresentSmall ponds Present Mostly not present /Small animal and human shelters Present Absent Present

Material heritage features:Old rural country houses and settlements Present/widespread Absent Absent or isolatedLocal agronomic and forestry manual tools Employed Not employed EmployedOld tools and machines (wine presses,

water mills, water tanks, etc.)Present and mostly employed Absent Absent

Manuscripts Present/widespread Absent PresentPoems Present Absent PresentHistoric paintings and pictures Present/widespread Absent Present

Non-material heritage features:Toponyms Present/widespread Absent PresentDialects Present (words and phrases linked to rural

life)Absent Present

cpdpia

w(ldmidaw1i–

v

Music PresentOther oral tradition Present

ombinations of geology, landform, soils, vegetation, land use, fieldatterns and human settlement create the character, which makesifferent landscapes distinct from each other and gives each itsarticular sense of place (Swanwick, 2004). This process aims to

dentifying areas of similar character, classifying and mapping themnd describing their particular landscape type.

Following these considerations, various hierarchical frame-orks for land classification and mapping have been designed

Blasi et al., 2000; Zonneveld, 1995). From a higher to a lowerevel of abstraction, the following environmental units have beenelineated (see Blasi et al., 2000): land regions (detected byacroclimatic features – scale > 1:250,000); land systems (primar-

ly defined according to significant lithological and geographicalifferences – scale 1:500,000–1:250,000); land facets (identifiedccording to morphology and bioclimatic types and showing unitshere major vegetation series and land-cover types prevail – scale

:250,000–1:50,000); and land units and land elements (includ-ng vegetation series and syntaxonomic associations, respectivelyscale < 1:50,000).

In defining landscape-typological models for the mapping ofegetation patterns, Blasi et al. (2005) have proposed a combined

Absent PresentAbsent Present

approach including both deductive (for abiotic ecological factors)and inductive (for vegetation types) processes.

Here, we suggest a possible methodology for the definition ofTCLs based not only on land-cover and land-use maps (sectorialapproach) but also on a combination of deductive and inductiveprocesses (combined multidisciplinary approach). This procedureidentifies and defines TCLs within homogeneous environmentalunits (in terms of climatic, lithological, and geomorphological fac-tors) and arranges them within a hierarchical classification system.

Fig. 2 shows the integrated methodology for mapping TCLs. Theinteractions between biophysical features and human activities(see the methodological explanations below) and their differ-entiation compared to other landscape-mapping processes (e.g.,landscape of vegetation patterns) are highlighted.

2.3. Definition and characterization of a traditional cultural

landscape (TCL)

For a TCL inventory, it is necessary to begin by defining a tra-ditional landscape. The word “traditional” refers to landscapeswith long histories and slow rates of change in accordance with

1 and U

tslUsha2as

lMuLa2Samalc

lld(s

Caohkp

ctbt2

••••

enci

ffebmal

(p(f

02 S. Cullotta, G. Barbera / Landscape

he environment (Antrop, 1997; Antrop, 2005). Traditional land-capes are partly natural and partly cultural, resulting from theong-term interaction between humans and nature (Farina, 1998;NESCO, 1999). They are often characterized by a small spatial

cale, limited technology, low use of fertilizers and pesticides,igh biodiversity with a mosaic of important wildlife habitats,nd amenity value (Altieri and Nicholls, 2002; Moreira et al.,006; Vos and Klijn, 2000). Such structural and functional char-cteristics separate traditional land uses from modern agriculturalystems.

Most traditional agricultural systems, and the traditionalandscapes where they occur, remained unchanged in Euro-

editerranean countries (e.g., Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Greece)ntil the mid-twentieth century (Geri et al., 2010b; Gomez-imon and Fernandez, 1999; Grove and Rackham, 2002; Kizosnd Koulouri, 2006; Mazzoleni et al., 2004b; Moreira et al.,001; Petanidou et al., 2008; Pinto-Correia, 2000; Sereni, 1961;irami et al., 2010). These systems were based on locally avail-ble resources and on multi-crop and multifunctional productionodels. In Italy, for example, the number of modern landscapes

nd agricultural systems increased remarkably from the mid- toate-1950s onward (Agnoletti, 2007; Di Gennaro, 2007), when theountry underwent substantial industrialization.

In a pan-European landscape inventory, Meeus placed theseandscapes among the most typical in the region (“regionalandscapes”), giving them names such as Coltura promiscua, Monta-os/Dehesa, Polder, Bocages, Semi-bocages, Mountains, and TerracesMeeus, 1995). All of these types are cultural, man-made land-capes, each with distinguishing features.

According to the European Landscape Convention (Article 1;ouncil of Europe, 2000), it is crucial to examine both ecologicalnd socio-economic landscape attributes and features. Therefore,ur work includes both aspects, aiming to define a more compre-ensive and global landscape inventory that can be used as a basicnowledge set for the development of dynamic strategies, holisticlanning initiatives, and cultural landscape conservation.

In defining a cultural landscape, aspects such as its structure,onfiguration, scenery, biodiversity, and economic value should beaken into account because they all contribute to the interactionsetween natural and cultural features. In this study, we consideredhe following primary components (see Table 1 and Moreira et al.,006):

Landscape composition and configuration.Traditional techniques of land management.Rural linear elements and features.Other material and non-material heritage features.

Landscape patches and their configuration are particularly rel-vant in cultural landscapes. Land-cover and land-use types (bothatural and anthropogenic) and their spatial patterns significantlyontribute to environmental sustainability and historical/scenicdentity within a cultural landscape.

Traditional land-management practices and techniques haveormed these landscapes across centuries. The agricultural,orestry, and agroforestry systems that have been employed showcological stability over time, often maintaining a high level ofiodiversity (at the species and structural levels) (Table 1). Manage-ent practices and techniques include types of animal husbandry

nd livestock grazing, uses of local breeds (Moreira et al., 2006),ocal agronomic tools, and crop rotation and mixing.

Specific management practices and the best uses of land spacewhich are particularly important in the Mediterranean area forhysiographical reasons) have produced various types of smallpunctual) and linear rural heritage features. Usually constructedrom local lithological or vegetal materials, these structures include

rban Planning 100 (2011) 98–108

stone walls, terraces, dry-stone enclosures, stone towers, small ani-mal and human shelters, hedgerows, tracks and footpaths, ponds.

Other important heritage features include material and non-material elements: traditional architecture (old rural countryhouses and settlements and their distribution patterns) (Canaset al., 2009; Fuentes et al., 2010), manuscripts, poems, historicpaintings and pictures, toponyms, dialects, forms of social organi-zation, music, oral traditions, and tools such as wine presses, watermills, and water tanks.

A preliminary analysis suggests that TCLs and natural or semi-natural landscapes show many similarities (see Table 1).

2.4. Data processing and mapping

The spatial data layers used in this study to classify and map theMt. Etna-area TCLs (see Fig. 3) include geomorphology (substratesand soils, climate, land cover and land use) and selected histor-ical documents hinting at important rural processes (a detailedmap of terraced systems in Sicily). These data sources include thefollowing:

• a map of the land systems of Italy (Sistemi di Paesaggi d’Italia)(Blasi, 2007), with 37 land systems detected in Sicily and 4 in theMt. Etna area;

• the division of Sicily into 18 territorial contexts (sensu sub-regional areas) (Regione Siciliana, 1996) on the basis of keygeomorphological factors and general cultural characteristics,such as territorial units considered for sub-regional environmen-tal and landscape planning;

• a map of the most recurrent agricultural landscapes in Sicily(mainly an aggregation of land uses) drafted for the Linee Guida delPiano Territoriale Paesistico Regionale (Guidelines for the RegionalLandscape Plan; Regione Siciliana, 1996);

• the CORINE Land Cover 2000 database (EEA, 2000) and its techni-cal implementation throughout Italy, including the relevant mapand a detailed classification system (CLC 2005 – APAT, 2005);

• a map of terraces in Sicily (Barbera et al., 2010), the first inventoryof terraced areas in the whole region;

• a map of land uses in Sicily, with greater detail for agriculturaluses, drafted for the 1994 Agricultural Census (Regione Siciliana,1994);

• several detailed land-use maps drafted for local agricultural usesand forest management practices.

All data were referenced to the same geographic system (UTM32N datum WGS84) and combined in a Geographic InformationSystem (GIS) using ArcGIS - ArcView 9.2 software (ESRI). Withinthis framework, the vector layers were used in the different phasesof the hierarchical procedure to detect TCLs (Fig. 3).

In phase 1, the climatic, lithological, and geomorphological fac-tors (as shown in the land system map; Blasi, 2007) and a map ofthe eighteen primary territorial contexts in Sicily (Regione Siciliana,1996), which includes the Mt. Etna area, were overlaid in a GISto geographically divide the land systems into sub-regional areas,thus defining “Land Systems of Territorial Context” or LSTCs (scale1:250,000–1:100,000; Figs. 2 and 3).

In phase 2 (scale 1:100,000–1:25,000; Figs. 2 and 3), only the Mt.Etna study area was considered (sub-regional scale). “Landscapesof Main Agroforestry Systems” (LMASs) were outlined within LSTCsthrough a map-overlaying procedure involving overall land-coverand land-use maps and thematic maps of relevant rural features

(including the map of primary agricultural landscapes, the CorineLand Cover map, and the terraced-areas map). An LMAS, therefore,includes all relevant landscapes with different degrees of:

• naturalness or anthropization;

S. Cullotta, G. Barbera / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 98–108 103

F he hies

•

•

wllpio

ig. 3. Phases of dataset processing according to the three scales of analysis and tee Table 2).

agricultural intensification or extensification (i.e., monoculturevs. mixed crops and agroforestry systems), andthe absence or presence of rural features (e.g., stonewalls, ter-races, and hedgerows).

Finally, in phase 3 (scale 1:25,000–1:10,000; Figs. 2 and 3), TCLsere identified within the agro-forestry systems through an over-

aying procedure entailing the LMAS map and a detailed regionaland-use map of both agricultural uses and forestry or agroforestryractices. The presence of traditional agricultural land uses was ver-

fied from a checklist of traditional and historical practices carriedut at the regional level.

rarchical definition and mapping of landscape units (for landscape-unit numbers,

Reference units and their denominations identified during thethree processing phases are reported in Table 2. Fig. 3 shows a graphcomparing the different landscape units in spatial terms, thus tak-ing into account the greater detail incorporated as we progress fromphase 1 to phase 3.

3. Results: Mt. Etna as a case study

On a territorial scale, the first phase led to the identification offour LSTCs, all showing a prevalence of volcanic substrate; in thesecond phase, seven LMASs were detected (Fig. 3). Their denom-

104 S. Cullotta, G. Barbera / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 98–108

Table 2Hierarchical classification system for landscape types (s.l.) detected in different phases for the study area of Mt. Etna.

Land system of territorial contexts (LSTC) Landscape of main agroforestry systems(LMAS)

Traditional cultural landscapes (TCL)

(Phase 1) (Phase 2) (Phase 3)(only the epithet of the traditional characteristicland use, which is added to the denominationdetected in phase 2 (middle column), is reported)

1. Basic and intermediate volcanos of Mt. Etna 1.1. High-altitude extra-forest volcaniclandscape

/

1.2. Mountain forest volcanic landscape 1.2.1 . . .. . .. . . of beech coppice1.2.2 . . .. . .. . . of chestnut coppice1.2.3 . . .. . .. . . of deciduous and evergreen oakcoppice1.2.4 . . .. . .. . . of laricio pine high forest

1.3. Submountain-basal volcanic landscapewith fine-grained land mosaic of agroforestrysystems (coltura promiscua) and a considerablepresence of rural heritage features (terraces)

1.3.1 . . .. . .. . . of vineyards

1.3.2 . . .. . .. . . of pistachio-nut orchards1.3.3 . . .. . .. . . of hazelnut orchards1.3.4 . . .. . .. . . of mixed orchards and crops

1.4. Subcoastal-basal volcanic landscape withgenerally irrigated agricultural systems and aconsiderable presence of rural heritagefeatures (terraces)

1.4.1 . . .. . .. . . of citrus orchards

1.4.2 . . .. . .. . . of mixed orchards and crops2. Coastal plains and fluvial deltas of Mt. Etna 2.1. Coastal-plain volcanic landscape with

intensive irrigated agricultural systems and aconsiderable presence of artificial surfaces(human settlements)

2.1.1 . . .. . .. . . of citrus orchards

2.1.2 . . .. . .. . . of mixed orchards and crops3. Mainly arenaceous-conglomeratic compact reliefs of Mt. Etna 3.1. Mainly sandy-conglomerate relief

landscape (the Alcantara River Basin) withdiversified agroforestry systems and aconsiderable presence of rural heritagefeatures (terraces)

3.1.1 . . .. . .. . . of mixed orchards and crops

3.1.2 . . .. . .. . . of sowable fields andpastureland

4. Marly rock reliefs of Mt. Etna 4.1. Marly, terraced, and alluvial relieflandscape (the Simeto River Valley) with

groforural h

4.1.1 . . .. . .. . . of mixed orchards and crops

ica(

ap

itnfcfd

lsidFauwtt

diversified apresence of r

nations reflect their physiography and the distribution of majorrops and/or vegetative cover. Interestingly, LMASs (i.e., macro-griculture landscapes) seem to match particular altitudinal rangesTable 2). The landscapes detected in this phase are listed below.

1.1 – High-altitude extra-forest volcanic landscape. Locatedbove 2000 m, this LMAS is characterized by high-altitude openulvini (prostrate) vegetation and volcanic desert.

1.2 – Mountain-forest volcanic landscape. With an altitude rang-ng from 1100 to 2000 m a.s.l., this type of landscape may vary inerms of prevailing species (deciduous and evergreen oaks, chest-ut, European beech, laricio pine, various endemic shrubs) and

orestry-management or structural systems (currently maintainedoppice, old and abandoned coppice, coppice in conversion to highorest, high forest, and forest stands undergoing natural successionynamics).

1.3 – Submountain-basal volcanic landscape with fine-grainedand mosaic of agroforestry systems (coltura promiscua) and a con-iderable presence of rural heritage features (terraces). Locatedn the foothills (400/500–1000/1100 m), this LMAS shows a highensity of terraced areas and a diversified landscape mosaic (seeig. 5a and b). Mixed fruit crops and other traditional crops, such

s pistachios, hazelnuts, and vineyards, prevail. Several currentlyncultivated agricultural areas are visible between forest patches,ithin variable-structural patches, or within zones that are difficult

o categorize. Here, forest regeneration and human settlements arehe main causes of landscape transformation (Fig. 4).

estry systems and littleeritage features

4.1.2 . . .. . .. . . of sowable fields andpastureland

1.4 – Subcoastal-basal volcanic landscape with generally irri-gated agricultural systems and a considerable presence of ruralheritage features (terraces). Usually located below 300–400 m,these landscapes often show a high density of terraced areas anda diversified landscape mosaic. Irrigated fruit crops (citrus fruits)and mixed crops (such as olive and almond trees, pistachios, andcactus pears) prevail. Here, the abandonment of agriculture, urban-ization, and the building of new infrastructure are the main causesof landscape transformation.

2.1 – Coastal-plain volcanic landscape with intensive irrigatedagricultural systems and a considerable presence of artificial sur-faces (human settlements). This type of landscape is characterizedby fruit orchards (citrus groves), vegetable gardens, and artificialsurfaces. Here, the abandonment of agriculture, urbanization, andthe building of new infrastructure are the main causes of landscapetransformation.

3.1 – Mainly compact sandy-conglomerate relief landscape (theAlcantara River Basin) with diversified agroforestry systems and aconsiderable presence of rural heritage features (terraces). This setof areas is heterogeneous due to diverse physiography and land-cover and land-use types. These areas predominantly feature fruit

crops such as pears, apples, plums, chestnuts, walnuts, cactus pears,almonds, hazelnuts, olives, mulberries, and grapes.

4.1 – Marly, terraced, and alluvial relief landscape (the SimetoRiver Valley) with diversified agroforestry systems and littlepresence of rural heritage features. This set of areas is also het-

S. Cullotta, G. Barbera / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 98–108 105

ment

epcw

dicafaflaa

ddAi

sav2b(htas

Fig. 4. Renaturation through the encroach

rogeneous in terms of its land-cover and land-use types andredominantly features fruit crops such as pears, apples, almonds,actus pears, pistachios, olives, and grapes as well as locallyidespread grazing pastures.

In general, LMAS conservation appears to decrease as altitudeecreases (Fig. 3). For example, within the most widespread LMASs

n our study area (types 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4; Fig. 3), the majorhanges in land cover and use occur along the foothills (type 1.3)nd the coast (type 1.4), where agroforestry systems and ruraleatures prevail. The primary explanation for such changes is thebandonment of agriculture, which has resulted in landscape trans-ormation due to widespread renaturation (Fig. 4), especially inow-altitude forested areas, and anthropization (i.e., urbanizationnd the building of new infrastructure), especially along the coastnd near areas with high population densities.

In the third phase (Fig. 3), sixteen TCLs were identified. Theirenominations are the same as in Phase 2, with the addition ofescriptive phrases designating their traditional land uses (Table 2).s an example, one of the most widespread TCLs in our study area

s described below.1.3.1 − TCL consisting of a “submountain-basal volcanic land-

cape with a fine-grained land mosaic of coltura promiscua andconsiderable presence of rural heritage features (terraces) of

ineyards” (Fig. 5). This TCL is a subunit of LMAS 1.3 from Phase. Its landscape composition and configuration are characterizedy a small-scale land-use mosaic of crops, shrubland, and forests

Fig. 5a and 5b). The proportions of these primary land-use classesave changed over the last century. Traditional vineyard sys-ems were particularly widespread during the nineteenth centurynd the first half of the twentieth century (Busacca, 2000). Sub-equently, diffuse land abandonment occurred, resulting in the

of shrub-tree cover in natural vegetation.

progressive regeneration of shrubland (Fig. 4). Vineyards are nowmainly distributed along the foothills of the northern and north-eastern slopes of Mt. Etna, with small to medium-sized patchesof both pure and mixed (coltura promiscua) crops. Traditional land-management techniques include irregularly spaced grapevines andold grapevine plants (Fig. 5c and 5d). Linear and point rural fea-tures are often detected, especially dry-stone terraces and walls(Fig. 5a–d), dry-stone enclosures, small stone towers (from stonegathering), stone-paved pathways (flagstones) and small stairsor staircases connecting different terracing levels, stone watertanks, and small votive artifacts (as documented in a sizable lit-erature). The scattered old rural settlements in each vineyardproperty include small and simple structures (i.e., single or doublerooms) and larger houses with several rooms (e.g., winery, winecellar, storeroom for agronomic cultivation tools, courtyard, andsharecropper (mezzadro) rooms, all of which make up the coun-try residence of a middle- or noble-class landowner; Barbera et al.,2010) (see Fig. 5g and h). In the local dialect, much of the terminol-ogy is related to agronomic techniques, tools (Fig. 5f), and layoutsof a traditional farm, and various local economic activities are stilllinked to traditional land-management techniques, such as the useof chestnut coppices for wood production along the vegetated beltof Mt. Etna (included in the “mountain forest landscapes”; Table 2).The wood thus obtained is used to make barrel staves and grapevinesupports (Fig. 5c and 5d).

4. Discussion and conclusions

The conservation of traditional landscapes is an issue of growingimportance. A preliminary inventory is an essential tool to acquire

106 S. Cullotta, G. Barbera / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 98–108

Fig. 5. Components and features of a traditional cultural landscape (TCL) of type 1.3.1 (“Submountain-basal volcanic landscape with fine-grained land mosaic of colturapromiscua and a considerable presence of rural heritage features (terraces) of vineyards”) (NE slope of Mt. Etna): (a–b) landscape composition and configuration of land-usemosaics in agroforestry systems (coltura promiscua) dominated by vineyards, with widespread forest and pre-forest patches; (c–d) details of a traditional vineyard for localproduction with dry-stone walls, terraces, and old grapevine plants fastened to chestnut stakes; (e) illustration of the historic landscape with terraces (Escher, 1932); (f) arural monument built with parts of a large old wine press made of local chestnut and oak wood; (g) a landowner’s country residence with winery and wine cellar on theground floor; (h) a common rural country house with winery, wine cellar, storeroom, and a small residence.

and U

mlE

tt

lnchma

oStc

or

atailufiaTceiaoalnaditrf

tTcp

fdmnTmp

A

2MPc

S. Cullotta, G. Barbera / Landscape

ore complete knowledge of the consistency and variability of theandscapes in a given area, whether in a single nation or throughouturope.

The European Landscape Convention of Florence (2000) impliedhe need for an overall knowledge of European landscapes, in con-rast to previous locally focused endeavors in this field.

However, few studies have catalogued traditional agroforestryandscapes through a multidisciplinary approach at either theational or the regional level in Italy and other Mediterraneanountries. In Sicily, for example, efforts to define and classify TCLsave been inconclusive despite the existing literature on landanagement in particular geographical areas and on major local

groforestry systems.In more general terms, there is currently no uniform method-

logy for landscape-inventory and description initiatives in Italy.uch a methodology is greatly needed to guide policy making ando provide consistency in cross-border landscape connection andlassification at different levels.

The proposed methodological approach, which integrates abi-tic and biotic parameters to identify TCLs on and around Mt. Etna,epresents an advanced standardization procedure.

In particular, basing the identification of TCLs on a robustnd wide-ranging ecological analysis (i.e., through the detec-ion of homogeneous environmental units, sensu Land Systems) isn important achievement. This procedure makes it possible tonterrelate and combine (based on the scale involved) differentandscape-classification systems (e.g., ecoregions and landscapenits of real vegetation cover). This eco-environmental strati-cation defines TCLs in successive stages on the basis of thenthropic activity that shapes each land-cover and land-use type.he identification of traditional landscape components (landscapeomposition and configuration, land-management techniques, lin-ar and point rural features, and other heritage features) makest possible to define traditional cultural landscapes consistentlynd efficiently. From this point of view, the analysis conductedn the territory of Mt. Etna illuminates the history and role thisrea played in the formation of the idea of the Mediterraneanandscape. By characterizating the most significant material andon-material elements of rural heritage features (traditional man-gement practices and tools, stone-made buildings and walls,ry-stone enclosures and terraces, manuscripts and poems, paint-

ngs and historic pictures, dialects and other oral tradition, etc...),he analysis shows the key roles that historical and culturalesources play as part of the multidisciplinary approach to TCLormation.

The present case study of the Mt. Etna area is representa-ive of the variability found throughout the Mediterranean Basin.he study area exhibits an extremely rich physical and biologi-al environment combined with interesting historical and culturalrocesses that are evident in the several TCLs identified.

Considering the highly diversified land-use patterns and agro-orestry practices in Mediterranean cultural landscapes, therafting of an inventory and a classification system should be givenore attention, and further technical and scientific research is

eeded. Of course, adjustments will be needed to create a uniformCL language and to reduce (but not eliminate) the subjective ele-ents in the combined mapping process, especially in the inductive

rocedure.

cknowledgements

The research was partially supported by PRIN 2007 – prot.007S2CNC4 (University Programs of Scientific Relevance, Italianinistry of Research and University Education), and by the Regional

roject “Catalogo dei paesaggi tradizionali agrari e agroforestali” (Aatalogue of traditional agricultural and forest landscapes).

rban Planning 100 (2011) 98–108 107

References

Aalen, F.H.A., 2001. Landscape development and change. In: Green, B., Vos, W. (Eds.),Threatened Landscapes, Conserving Cultural Environments. Spon Press, London,pp. 3–20.

Agnoletti, M., 2007. The degradation of traditional landscape in a mountain area ofTuscany during the 19th and 20th centuries: Implications for biodiversity andsustainable management. Forest Ecol. Manag. 249, 5–17.

Allard, P., Behncke, B., D’Amico, S., Neri, M., Gambino, S., 2006. Mount Etna1993–2005: Anatomy of an evolving eruptive cycle. Earth-Sci. Rev. 78,85–114.

Altieri, M.A., Nicholls, C.I., 2002. The simplification of traditional vineyard basedagroforests in northwestern Portugal: some ecological implications. Agroforest.Syst. 56, 185–191.

Antrop, M., 1997. The concept of traditional landscapes as a base for landscape eval-uation and planning. The example of Flanders Region. Landscape Urban Plan. 38,105–117.

Antrop, M., 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. LandscapeUrban Plan. 70, 21–34.

APAT, 2003. Il Progetto Carta della Natura alla scala 1:250000: Metodologia direalizzazione (The Carta Natura Project at scale 1:25000: Methodology). APAT,Manuali e Linee Guida 17, Roma. [in Italian].

APAT, 2005. La realizzazione in Italia del progetto Corine Land Cover 2000 (TheCorine Land Cover 2000 Project in Italy). APAT, Rapporti 36, Roma [in Italian].

Barbera, G., 2000. Sistemi tradizionali dell’arboricoltura da frutto in Sicilia (Tradi-tional systems of arboriculture fruit in Sicily). Ed. L’Epos, Palermo [in Italian].

Barbera, G., Cullotta, S., Pizzurro, G., 2004. Agroforestry Systems of Mt Etna, Italy:Biodiversity Analysis at Landscape, Stand and Specific Level. In: Marchetti, M.(Ed.), Monitoring and Indicators of Forest Biodiversity in Europe – From Ideas toOperationality. EFI Proceedings 51, Joensuu, pp. 481–492.

Barbera, G., Cullotta, S., 2009. Classificare i paesaggi culturali tradizionali: cri-teri metodologici e applicazione (Inventoring Traditional Cultural Landscapes:Methodology and Application), vol. II. III Congresso Nazionale Selvicoltura, AISF,Florence, pp. 960–967.

Barbera, G., Cullotta, S., Rossi-Doria, I., Rühl, J., Rossi-Doria, B., 2010. I paesaggi aterrazze in Sicilia: metodologie per l’analisi, la tutela e la valorizzazione (TheSicilian terraced landscapes: methodology for the analysis, the protection, thevalorisation). ARPA Sicilia, Collana Studi e Ricerche 7, Palermo [in Italian].

Bignal, E.M., McCracken, D.I., Corrie, H., 1995. Defining European low-intensity farm-ing systems: the nature of farming. In: McCracken, D.I., Bignal, E.M., Wenlock,S.E. (Eds.), Farming on the Edge: The Nature of Traditional Farmland in Europe.Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, pp. 29–37.

Blasi, C., 2007. Biodiversity and landscape. In: Blasi, C., Boitani, L., La Posta, S., Manes,F., Marchetti, M. (Eds.), Biodiversity in Italy – Contribution to the National Biodi-versity Strategy. Ministry for the Environment Land and Sea Protection, NatureProtection Directorate. SBI, Ed. Palombi, Roma, pp. 97–103.

Blasi, C., Carranza, M.L., Frondoni, R., Rosati, L., 2000. Ecosystem classification andmapping: a proposal for Italian Landscapes. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2, 233–242.

Blasi, C., Capotorti, G., Frondoni, R., 2005. Defining and mapping typological modelsat the landscape scale. Plant Biosyst. 139, 155–163.

Blondel, J., 2006. The ‘Design’ of Mediterranean Landscapes: A Millennial Storyof Humans and Ecological Systems during the Historic Period. Hum. Ecol. 34,713–729.

Bunce, R.G.H., 2001. An environmental classification of European landscapes. In:Green, B., Vos, W. (Eds.), Threatened Landscapes, Conserving Cultural Environ-ments. Spon Press, London, pp. 31–40.

Busacca, P., 2000. Il racconto del territorio–l’Etna tra le Aci e l’Alcantara (The Etnaland between the Aci and Alcantara). Ed. Gangemi, Roma [in Italian].

Canas, I., Ayuga, E., Ayuga, F., 2009. A contribution to the assessment of scenic qualityof landscapes based on preferences expressed by the public. Land Use Policy 26,1173–1181.

Chester, D.K., Duncan, A.M., Guest, J.E., Kilburn, C., 1985. Mount Etna: The Anatomyof a Volcano. Chapman and Hall, London.

Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention and Explanatory Report.Council of Europe, Document by the Secretary General established by theGeneral Directorate of Education, Culture, Sport and Youth, and Environment,Florence.

Di Gennaro, A., 2007. La grande trasformazione del territorio rurale (The greattransformation of rural areas). In: Di Bene, A., D’Eusebio, L. (Eds.), Paesaggioagrario–Una questione non risolta. Gangemi Editore, Roma, pp. 49–59 [in Ital-ian].

Di Pasquale, G., Garfì, G., Migliozzi, A., 2004. Landscape dynamics in South-easternSicily in the last 150 years: the case of the Iblei mountains. In: Mazzoleni, S., DiPasquale, G., Mulligan, M., Di Martino, P., Rego, F. (Eds.), Recent Dynamics of theMediterranean Vegetation and Landscapes. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester,pp. 73–80.

EEA, 2000. CORINE land cover technical guide–Addendum 2000. European Environ-mental Agency, Technical Report 40, Copenhagen.

Farina, A., 1998. Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology. Chapman & Hall,London.

Farina, A., Naveh, Z., 1993. Landscape approach to regional planning: the future of

the Mediterranean landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 24, 1–295.

Favalli, M., Innocenti, F., Pareschi, M.T., Pasquarè, G., Mazzarini, F., Branca, S., Ribaldi,A., 1999. The DEM of Mt. Etna: geomorphological an structural implications.Geodin. Acta 12, 279–290.

Fierotti, G., 1988. Soil Map of Sicily. University of Palermo, Palermo.

1 and U

F

FF

G

G

G

G

G

G

HH

J

K

K

M

M

M

MM

M

N

P

P

P

P

08 S. Cullotta, G. Barbera / Landscape

irmino, A., 1999. Agriculture and landscape in Portugal. Landscape Urban Plan. 46,83–91.

orman, R., Godron, M., 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.uentes, J.M., Gallego, E., García, A.I., Ayuga, F., 2010. New uses for old traditional

farm buildings: the case of the underground wine cellars in Spain. Land UsePolicy 27, 738–748.

eri, F., Amici, V., Rocchini, D., 2010a. Human activity impact on the heterogeneityof a Mediterranean landscape. Appl. Geogr. 30, 370–379.

eri, F., Rocchini, D., Chiaruccia, A., 2010b. Landscape metrics and topographi-cal determinants of large-scale forest dynamics in a Mediterranean landscape.Landscape Urban Plan. 95, 46–53.

omez-Limon, J., Fernandez, J., 1999. Changes in land use and landscape preferenceson the agricultural-livestock landscapes of the central Iberian Peninsula Madrid,Spain. Landscape Urban Plan. 44, 165–175.

reen, B., Vos, W. (Eds.), 2001. Threatened Landscapes: Conserving Cultural Envi-ronments. Sponpress, London, New York.

roves, R.H., Di Castri, F., 1991. Biogeography of Mediterranean Invasions. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge.

rove, A.T., Rackham, O., 2002. The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: An EcologicalHistory. Yale University Press, New Haven.

ooke, D., 1998. The Landscape of Anglo-Saxon England. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.oward, J., Mitchell, C., 1980. Phyto-geomorphic classification of the landscape.

Geoforum 11 (2), 85–106.ones-Walters, L., 2008. Biodiversity in multifunctional landscapes. J. Nat. Conserv.

16, 117–119.izos, T., Koulouri, M., 2006. Agricultural landscape dynamics in the Mediterranean:

Lesvos (Greece) case study using evidence from the last three centuries. Environ.Sci. Policy 9 (4), 330–342.

lijn, F., Udo de Haes, H.A., 1994. A hierarchical approach to ecosystems and itsimplications for ecological land classification. Landscape Ecol. 9, 89–104.

azzoleni, S., Di Pasquale, G., Mulligan, M., Di Martino, P., Rego, F., 2004a. Recentdynamics of the Mediterranean Vegetation and Landscapes. John Wiley & SonsLtd., Chichester, UK.

azzoleni, S., Di Martino, P., Strumia, S., Buonanno, M., Bellelli, M., 2004b. Recentchanges of coastal and sub-mountain vegetation landscape in Campania andMolise regions in Southern Italy. In: Mazzoleni, S., Di Pasquale, G., Mulligan, M.,Di Martino, P., Rego, F. (Eds.), Recent Dynamics of the Mediterranean Vegetationand Landscapes. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, pp. 145–155.

édail, F., Quézel, P., 1997. Hot-spots analysis for conservation of plant biodiversityin the Mediterranean basin. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 84, 112–127.

eeus, J.H.A., 1995. Pan-European landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 31, 57–79.oreira, M., Rego, F.C., Ferreira, P.G., 2001. Temporal (1958–1995) pattern of change

in a cultural landscape of northwestern Portugal: implications for fire occur-rence. Landscape Ecol. 16, 557–567.

oreira, F., Queiroz, A.I., Aronson, J., 2006. Restoration principles applied to culturallandscapes. J. Nat. Conserv. 14, 217–224.

aveh, Z., Liebermann, A., 1994. Landscape Ecology. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg,New York.

atanè, G., La Delfa, S., Tanguy, J.C., 2004. L’Etna e il mondo dei vulcani (The Etna andthe volcanos). Ed. Maimone, Catania [in Italian].

etanidou, T., Kizos, T., Soulakellis, N., 2008. Socioeconomic dimensions of changesin the agricultural landscape of the Mediterranean Basin: a case study of theabandonment of cultivation terraces on Nisyros Island, Greece. Environ. Manage.41, 250–266.

into-Correia, T., 2000. Future development in Portuguese rural areas: how to man-age agricultural support for landscape conservation? Landscape Urban Plan. 50,95–106.

into-Correia, T., Vos, W., 2004. Multifunctionality in Mediterranean landscapes –past and future. In: Jongman, R.H.G. (Ed.), The New Dimensions of the EuropeanLandscape. Springer, Wageningen, pp. 135–164.

rban Planning 100 (2011) 98–108

Poli Marchese, E., 1982. Zonation altitudinale de la vegetation de l’Etna comparéeavec d’auters hauts volcans (Altitude vegetation belts of Mt Etna and other highvolcanos). Ecol. Mediterr. 8 (1/2), 339–354 [in French].

Poli-Marchese, E., Patti, G., 2000. Carta della vegetazione dell’Etna (Vegetation mapof Mt. Etna). University of Catania, Catania [in Italian].

Regione Siciliana, 1994. Land Use Map of Sicily. Regione Siciliana, Florence.Regione Siciliana, 1996. Linee guida del Piano Territoriale Paesistico Regionale

(Guidelines of the Regional Landscape Plan). Regione Siciliana, Palermo [in Ital-ian].

Salvi, F., Scandone, R., Palma, C., 2006. Statistical analysis of the historical activity ofMount Etna, aimed at the evaluation of volcanic hazard. J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res.154, 159–168.

Sereni, E., 1961. Storia del Paesaggio Italiano (History of Italian Landscape). Ed.Laterza, Bari [in Italian].

Sirami, C., Nespoulousa, A., Cheyland, J.P., Martya, P., Hvenegaarda, G.T., Geniezh,P., Martina, J.L., 2010. Long-term anthropogenic and ecological dynamics of aMediterranean landscape: Impacts on multiple taxa. Landscape Urban Plan. 96,214–223.

Stanners, D., Bourdeau, P., 1995. Europe’s Environment: The Dobris Assessment. EEA,European Commission, Copenhagen.

Swanwick, C., 2002. Landscape Character Assessment. Guidance for England andScotland. The Countryside Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh.

Swanwick, C., 2004. The assessment of countryside and landscape character inEngland: an overview. In: Bishop, K., Philipps, A. (Eds.), Countryside Plan-ning New Approaches to Management and Conservation. Earthscan, London,pp. 109–124.

TCI, 1977. I paesaggi umani: itinerari (The human Landscapes). Touring Club Italiano,Milan (in Italian).

Tuzet, H., 1988. Viaggiatori stranieri in Sicilia nel XVIII secolo (Foreign travelers inthe eighteenth century in Sicily). Sellerio Editore, Palermo [in Italian].

UNESCO, 1999. Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World HeritageConvention, Paris.

Vogiatzakis, I.N., Griffiths, G.H., Melis, M.T., Marini, A., Careddu, M.B., 2006. Land-scape typology in the Mediterranean context: a tool for habitat restoration.Journal of Mediterr. Ecol. 7, 23–30.

Van Eetvelde, V., Antrop, M., 2009. A stepwise multi-scaled landscape typology andcharacterisation for trans-regional integration applied on the federal state ofBelgium. Landscape Urban Plan. 91, 160–170.

Vos, W., Meekes, H., 1999. Trends in European cultural landscape development:perspectives for a sustainable future. Landscape Urban Plan. 46, 3–14.

Vos, W., Klijn, J., 2000. Trends in European landscape development: Prospects fora sustainable future. In: Klijn, J., Vos, W. (Eds.), From Landscape Ecology toLandscape Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 13–29.

Zonneveld, I.S., 1995. Land Ecology: An Introduction to Landscape Ecology as a Basefor Land Evaluation, Land Management and Conservation. SPB Academic Pub-lishing, Amsterdam.

Sebastiano Cullotta is a contract researcher at the University of Palermo (Italy).He hold a PhD in Forest and Landscape Ecology in 2003 at the Mendel Univer-sity of Brno (Czech Republic). Currently, his main research fields are on forest andagroforestry types and traditional landscape unit classification, focusing on forestand agroforestry management planning development, especially for biodiversityassessment.

Giuseppe Barbera is Full Professor of Horticulture at the University of Palermo. Mainresearch interest is focused on traditional agricultural systems and cultural land-scapes of the Mediterranean agriculture. In the last years his interest was focusedon safeguard and valorization of traditional citrus orchards and archeological land-scapes.