ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal for Nature Conservation 14 (2006) 217—224

1617-1381/$ - sdoi:10.1016/j.

�CorrespondE-mail addr

www.elsevier.de/jnc

Restoration principles applied tocultural landscapes

Francisco Moreiraa,�, A. Isabel Queirozb, James Aronsonc

aCentro de Ecologia Aplicada ‘‘Prof. Baeta Neves’’, Instituto Superior de Agronomia,Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa, PortugalbCIBIO, Faculdade de Ciencias da Universidade do Porto, PortugalcRestoration Ecology Group, CEFE, CNRS Montpellier France and Missouri Botanical Garden, USA

Received 28 November 2005; accepted 5 April 2006

KEYWORDS‘‘Mixer board’’landscape model;Referencelandscapes;Restoration

ee front matter & 2006jnc.2006.05.007

ing author. Tel.: +351 36ess: fmoreira@isa.utl.p

SummaryRestoration models and practise to date have been applied mainly to ecosystems.More recently, there has been a focus on the ‘‘landscape perspective’’ of ecosystemrestoration in order to improve nature conservation and management effectiveness.

Here, we clarify some of the differences between ecosystem- and landscape-oriented restoration, and propose four components that should be considered inplanning and conceptualising: (a) landscape composition and configuration; (b)traditional land management techniques; (c) linear and point features; and (d) otherheritage features. We further discuss the concept of reference landscapes, and thecontrasts between restoration and rehabilitation. Spatial approaches to restorationare explored, comparing small areas with complete restoration (‘‘museum land-scapes’’) from large areas with rehabilitation of landscape physiognomy or point andlinear features. The linkages with nature conservation and the sustainable use andmanagement of natural resources are examined in the context of a rapidly changingworld.& 2006 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Many concepts associated with restoration andrehabilitation were originally devised for ecosys-tems (e.g. Aronson, Floret, Le Floc’h, Ovalle, &

Elsevier GmbH. All rights rese

16080; fax: +351 3623493.t (F. Moreira).

Pontanier, 1993a; Cairns, 1993; Hobbs & Norton,1996). However, subsequent developments haveshown that restoration at an ecosystem-level wasnot always effective enough for nature conserva-tion. Hobbs and Saunders (1991) developed theconcept of ‘‘reintegration of landscapes’’, based onecosystem restoration at a landscape scale. Insituations where human activities have caused

rved.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

F. Moreira et al.218

major disturbance and fragmentation (Aronson &Le Floc’h, 1996a) this can be applied for re-establishing ecosystem connectivity, such as wild-life corridors across multiple habitats, and inrestoring the flow of ecosystem goods and services.

Aronson and Le Floc’h (1996b) highlighted theneed for the identification and application oflandscape attributes that could serve as quantifi-able markers for the changes observed duringdegradation, restoration and rehabilitation. Someof these attributes considered both ecological andsocio-economical aspects. Concurrently, even morecomprehensive strategies and tools for holisticlandscape planning and dynamic conservationmanagement were deemed indispensable byother researchers (e.g. Farina, 1998; Green & Vos,2001; Grove et al., 1994; Naveh, 1993, 2005).Consequently, a new approach to landscape re-storation is suggested here within the scope ofthe European Landscape Convention (Council ofEurope, 2000).

The European Landscape Convention defineslandscape as ‘‘an area, as perceived by people,whose character is a result of the action andinteraction of natural and/or human factors’’. Thisdefinition emphasises that the human dimension oflandscapes is not restricted to their its negativeimpact on ecosystems, or exploitation of naturalresources, but also concerns peoples emotional,intellectual and socio-economic inputs, and theresulting ways in which people contribute to land-scape distinctiveness and diversity. Furthermore,the recognition of different landscapes and relatedvalues depends on human perception, which hasstrong cultural and socio-economical elements.Here we focus exclusively on cultural landscapes,which are produced by the long-term interaction ofhumans and nature (Farina, 1998; UNESCO, 1999).These landscapes provide multiple values andfunctions, including natural resources, wildlifehabitats, economic benefits in the form of goodsand services, recreation (Merlo & Croitoru, 2005),and, last but not least, cultural heritage (EEA,1995).

From a nature conservation perspective, land-scapes created by low-intensity farming contain amosaic of wildlife habitats of European importance(Moreira, Pinto, Henriques, & Marques, 2005). Interms of human ecology, the interaction with locallandscapes remains a constant feature for influen-cing societal development through time. As Berque(1984) stated ‘‘landscapes are the biophysicalimprint of past generation’s activities as well asthe matrix for those of the current generation and,of course, for the generations to come’’. Thus,besides a larger spatial scale and ecological

complexity, landscapes include intangible cul-tural and scenic features which should be ad-dressed in the framework of integrative restorationprojects.

Currently, negative changes in cultural land-scapes worldwide are of major concern, becausedriving forces such as land abandonment, agricul-tural intensification, afforestation and urbanisationconstitute threats to their diversity, coherence andidentity (Antrop, 2005). For example, rural areasare losing their traditional landscapes, charac-terised by a small spatial scale, mixed cultures,limited technology, low use of fertilisers andpesticides, and high biodiversity and amenity value(Vos & Klijn, 2000). Within this context, culturallandscape restoration is justified by historical,ecological and aesthetical reasons.

Contrasting ecosystem and culturallandscape restoration

Several features distinguish ecosystem and cul-tural landscape restoration (Table 1), besidesspatial scale, with ecosystem restoration oftenoccurring within landscapes. Contrasting objectivesresult in cultural and scenic values being anintegral component of landscape restoration,whereas these are of less relevance in ecosystemrestoration. Conversely, many landscape restora-tion projects are not focused on biodiversity.

As landscape structure affects the abundanceand distribution of organisms, in some cases,restoration approaches at an ecosystem-level maybe ineffective for restoring ecosystems or popula-tions. This applies to species requiring separatehabitats for different activities such as foraging,nesting or resting, or those with daily or seasonalpatterns of multiple habitat use. As an example,the pseudosteppes of the Iberian Peninsula are acultural landscape mosaic where several birdsoccur of threatened conservation status (Suarez,Naveso, & De Juana, 1997). Most of these speciesrequire several different habitats (e.g. Moreira,Morgado, & Arthur, 2004), which illustrates thefutility of a single ecosystem restoration approach.Similarly, when a valuable ecosystem coincideswith a cultural landscape, such as cork and holmoak woodlands (montados or dehesas), or anecosystem is maintained within traditional farm-land, e.g. Mediterranean temporary ponds (Moreiraet al., 2005), a strict ecosystem restorationapproach has limited application.

Landscape restoration focuses on composition(the number of land use types and the area of each)

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1. Main differences between ecosystem and cultural landscape restoration approaches

Ecosystem Cultural landscape

� focus on a single ecosystem and fine spatial scales;� biodiversity is main objective, along with sustainableeconomic productivity;� may not be effective for restoring some ecosystemsor species populations that depend on landscapestructure;� focus on habitat/ecosystem patches; landscapecomposition much more important thanconfiguration;� always aims at the improvement of degraded areasand maintenance of native ecosystems;� alien species considered undesirable;� management actions may rely on modern ortraditional techniques; cost-effectiveness of thetechniques is the most important criterion forselection.

� focus on mosaics of land uses/ecosystems at broaderspatial scales;� main objectives include cultural and scenic values, aswell as biodiversity and economic productivity;� may be very effective in restoring some ecosystemsand species populations that depend on landscapestructure;� focus on landscape composition and configuration;� may include preservation of degraded patches (froman ecosystem perspective) and even destruction ofnative ecosystems;� may include maintenance of alien species;� traditional land management much more valuablethan modern techniques.

Restoring cultural landscapes 219

and configuration (spatial location of land uses,e.g. number of patches, mean patch size andmeasures of connectivity). Configuration is parti-cularly important in cultural landscapes, as itresults from the interactions between natural andcultural features. Furthermore, it contributes sig-nificantly to the distinctiveness and readability ofthe landscape, which are elements of identity andcoherence.

Cultural landscapes often include what manywould consider as degraded ecosystems. Typicalexamples are the montados and dehesas of theIberian Peninsula, which are the long-term productof modifying and simplifying the original Mediter-ranean oak woodlands, achieved through progres-sive clearing, burning and thinning (Pereira & Piresda Fonseca, 2003). In some situations, it may evenbe necessary to heavily modify or destroy valuableecosystems to ‘restore’ cultural landscapes, such asclearing forest to reveal former abandoned agri-cultural terraces or stonewalls.

Other landscapes are recognised by their non-native elements, which may have limited biodiver-sity value, yet impart strong cultural and scenicvalue, such as the Tuscany landscape, typified by itscypress trees (Cupressus sempervirens), thoughintroduced by the Phoenicians. The maintenanceof these heritage elements contrasts with theconventional objectives of ecosystem restoration,which often include the control or eradication ofalien species. A more complicated example is theso-called ‘mimosa’ (Acacia melanoxylon), whichoriginally introduced from Australia for the per-fume industry has subsequently escaped and widelynaturalised. This species is of great concern to

ecologists, yet the majority of the population fromProvence, southern France, considers it to beemblematic.

Finally, while the selected management techni-ques for restoration of an ecosystem are mostlybased on their cost effectiveness, irrespective ofbeing traditional or alternative (e.g. using pre-scribed burning instead of grazing or traditionalmanual clearing), in cultural landscapes, tradi-tional management may be highly valuable, parti-cularly if it has cultural (ethnographic) and scenicvalue by itself.

Restoration concepts applied to culturallandscapes

Components of a cultural landscape

The cultural landscape restoration challenge ispartly natural and partly cultural. Thus, it goesbeyond the field of natural sciences to integratethose from social sciences, the humanities andlocal knowledge, in a transdisciplinary approach(Tress & Tress, 2001). Winterhalder, Clewell, andAronson (2004) claim that the future of ecologicalrestoration lies in becoming more interdisciplinaryand integrative with respect to its scientific andvalue-based components.

We can consider four different operationalcomponents of a cultural landscape:

(a)

Landscape composition and configuration:These address the spatial patterns of the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

F. Moreira et al.220

landscape; individual elements (e.g. landforms,ecosystems, land uses) and the way in whichthey are organised strongly influence landscapeservices and physiognomy, as well as humanperception and valuation.

(b)

Traditional techniques of land management:These have enabled landscapes to be createdthrough time, including animal traction, live-stock grazing (including the use of local races),equipment and tools, cultivation techniquesand the organisation of work (individually orcommunal).

(c)

Linear and point features: These mostly resultfrom (a) and (b), yet are considered separatelyas they may form an independent part oflandscape restoration, including stonewalls,terraces, tracks, hedgerows, small forestpatches, ponds, etc.

(d)

Other heritage features: These include theethnography associated with traditional tech-niques and tools, architecture, dialects, music,oral tradition, place names (toponyms), specificforms of social organisation, etc.

Defining the reference landscape

Restoring means repairing something to its‘‘original’’ or predisturbance condition. In ecologi-cal restoration this original condition is called the‘‘reference system’’, which helps identify restora-tion goals within acceptable ranges of variability(Aronson, Floret, Le Floc’h, Ovalle, & Pontanier,1993b; Egan & Howell, 2001; Holl, Crone, &Schultz, 2003; Society for Ecological Restoration(SER) Science and Policy Working Group, 2004;White & Walker, 1997). However, often onlyfragments of ecosystems survive as potentialreferences for ecological restoration. For land-scapes, the many layers of history and culture makethe choice of references highly arbitrary (Aronson &Vallejo, 2005) and often incomplete in terms ofcomposition, relationships and functions.

Antrop (2005) argues that to understand con-temporary European landscapes, three periodshave to be recognised: (a) the pre-18th century;(b) the period of expanding industrialisation; and(c) post-war. Therefore, a first step in establishing areference landscape is to locate its correspondingperiod of origin. Additionally, a search for informa-tion sources concerning the landscape componentsis needed. White and Walker (1997) defined fourtypes of references for ecosystems, yet applicableto landscapes, combining place and time: (a)different place, same time (refuges); (b) sameplace, different time (archaeology); (c) different

place, different time, and (d) same place, sametime (auto reference). As applied to landscapes: (a)the information on composition and configurationcan be obtained from well-preserved landscapeportions; (b) integrative research on land usechanges can inform landscape restoration (Silber-nagel, 2005), preferably if data are available fromthe same location; (c) data from other sites withsimilar temporal and spatial conditions can bepotentially valuable; (d) due to the retention ofland use legacies (Foster et al., 2003), contempor-ary evidence can also inform about past land-scapes. In addition, the reference landscape couldeven be a painted or a literary landscape, whichallows some elements of the landscape character tobe valuated and, through a social identificationprocess, to become the key features of the land-scape identity. Examples include the mountainSaint-Victoire (France) made famous by Cezanne’spaintings or the Concorde region (New England,Massachusetts) described in detail by H.D. Thoreau.

Landscape restoration versus rehabilitation

Based on the terminology used for ecosystems(SER, 2004), ‘‘landscape restoration’’ can bedefined as the process of assisting the recovery ofa landscape that has lost diversity, coherence andidentity. Landscape restoration implies the recov-ery of the four components of the cultural land-scape. This might prove difficult or evenimpossible, depending on the degradation stage incomparison to the reference landscape, besideschanging tastes and various socio-economic drivers.

Similarly to ecosystem rehabilitation (SER, 2004),we use the term ‘‘landscape rehabilitation’’ whenfull restoration is not possible. This implies workingin just a few of the four components of landscaperestoration, and achieving partial recovery, incomparison with the reference landscape. Often,only landscape rehabilitation can be carried outand choices have to be made. Should priority begiven to landscape composition and configuration,for ecological and aesthetical purposes, or should itbe focused on maintaining traditional managementtechniques and cultural values? And who shoulddecide these priorities? Local people or regionalgovernments? Robertson, Nichols, Horwitz, Bradly,and Mackintoh (2000) argue that ‘‘restoration infragmented agricultural landscapes requires anunderstanding of and respect for cultural attributesof landscapes, including the beliefs, values, andperceptions people hold about their local environ-ment, such as a sense of loss felt for particularlandscape components, features, or functions’’.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Time

Reference landscape

Restoration

Rehabilitation stage

Rehabilitation stageRehabilitation

(failure)

componentsdcbaMin

Max

Degraded stage

Cu

ltu

ral

lan

dsc

ape

com

po

nen

t le

vels

Figure 1. The ‘‘mixer board’’ landscape model andevolution of cultural landscape degradation and restora-tion/rehabilitation over time (based on Hobbs & Norton,1996).The ‘‘mixer board’’ model assumes that the fouroperational components of a landscape ((a) landscapecomposition and configuration; (b) traditional techniquesand tools; (c) linear and point features; and (d) otherheritage features) can be seen as ‘fader keys’. Each ofthe components varies between a maximum and aminimum level (equivalent to total loss of the compo-

Restoring cultural landscapes 221

Even when a rehabilitated landscape ‘‘looks like’’the reference landscape, we should be aware of itspastiche or patchwork condition; authenticity isnever recovered and some elements might havebeen definitively lost (e.g. species, traditionalshepherds or architectonical elements). In somecases they could be replaced by similar ones forensuring desirable ecological, economic andaesthetical functions. Furthermore, the restoredlandscape has a history of degradation and recov-ery, and maintains memories from all the timeperiods. In the end, the result is what could becalled an ‘‘emerging landscape’’. According toHobbs et al. (2006), ‘‘emergent ecosystems’’ arethose that result when species occur in combina-tions and relative abundances that have notpreviously occurred within a given biome. Similarly,‘‘emerging landscapes’’ can and will combinesubstitute elements and/or alternative processesalong with native ones. As Harris, Hobbs, Higgs, andAronson (in press) have noted, climate changecreates a volatile new context, which may favourcombinations not known from previous analogues.

Figure 1 summarises the theoretical evolution ofcultural landscape degradation and restoration/rehabilitation over time, using a ‘‘mixer board’’landscape model.

nent). In the real world, two or more components will belinked and thus the ‘fader keys’ will not move indepen-dently of each other.In the reference landscape, the fader keys of allcomponents are set to a maximum. As degradationoccurs, one or more components will progressively moveinto lower levels, frequently with a differential speed(e.g. traditional techniques will probably be lost at afaster rate than landscape composition or configuration).Rehabilitation implies moving up some or all of the faderkeys. There can be a variety of rehabilitation stages,depending on the levels of improvement in the variouscomponents. In the absence of rehabilitation actions or ifrehabilitation fails, the degradation stage will be main-tained or worsened. In a restored landscape all keys areset to a maximum.

Spatial approaches to landscape restoration

Because of the large scale of landscape manage-ment projects, they are usually technically com-plex and costly. Furthermore, these projects mayconflict with different stakeholders’ interests,independently of their concern for landscapeprotection. Thus, they generally cannot, and shouldnot, be pursued without intensive, serious con-sultation with and involvement of local people.These kind of difficulties may lead to a choicebetween restoring small museum landscapes (thatis, small areas preserved in their entirety primarilyfor educational purposes) (EEA, 1995) or rehabili-tating larger areas for ecological, economic and lifequality purposes.

In the first option, all the four above-mentionedcomponents are addressed, and the end stageresembles the reference landscape. Behind thisoption is the concept of landscape as a patrimony,i.e. something that should be maintained in ameta-stable and resilient condition for the futuregenerations. However, in a changing world it isunrealistic to attempt to ‘freeze’ a landscape inthe avatar of its development at a particular timein its long evolution (IUCN, 2000). In fact, thedynamic natural and social elements of a landscape

dictate change, as well as changing global con-texts. Thus, restoring and preserving a museumlandscape may require non-ending interventions.

A case study: Terras do Demo, a literaryterritory

In the north-eastern part of Portugal (Beira Alta),the so-called Terras do Demo region corresponds toa literary territory created and named by thePortuguese writer, Aquilino Ribeiro (1895–1963).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

F. Moreira et al.222

His detailed descriptions of the rural landscapecreated a reference landscape (Queiroz, 2006). Wesummarise the main changes which have occurredin each of the four operational landscape compo-nents during the last 50 years. Fig. 2 illustrateswhat is left in the current ‘‘degraded stage’’, foreach landscape component.

Landscape composition and configuration is stillcharacterised by a small-scale land use mosaic offarmlands (ager), shrublands and grasslands(saltus) and forests (sylva). However, ager has beendecreasing and saltus and sylva increasing due toafforestation, land abandonment and recurrentwildfires (Queiroz, 2005). Furthermore, crop fieldshave been progressively replaced by more profit-able uses, such as chestnut groves, pastures,orchards or vineyards. The typical sheep and goatlivestock are disappearing, which results in pro-gressive shrub encroachment. Biodiversity changeshave also occurred. The writer mentioned theoccurrence of the great-bustard (Otis tarda) inthe Leomil Highlands, which no longer exists(Queiroz & Andresen, 2006), while the wolf (Canislupus), common in the time of Aquilino, isendangered in this region.

Figure 2. What is left from the ‘‘aquilinian landscape’’? (a)villager driving a cart (Quintela, Sernancelhe); (c) stone wall(d) local newspaper (Moimenta da Beira).

Traditional manual techniques of land manage-ment have been replaced by mechanisation andchemical fertilisation. As an example, brushwood-cutting traditionally occurred communally in au-tumn on the common lands. Brushwood was used tocover the stable floors, and subsequently as a soilfertiliser. Currently, there are no people or eco-nomic reasons for continuing the cut–grow cycle,while carts and other vehicles of animal tractionare being replaced by tractors and trucks.

Linear features, such as stone walls, are char-acteristic of the reference landscape. Although,persisting on abandoned lands, some are ruined andmany are being dismantled and sold off fordecorative stones in new buildings outside theregion.

Other heritage features include the rich vocabu-lary used to describe this literary landscape, whichproduced in part the local language related toterritory and landscape. It includes names of places(toponyms), land use types, geomorphologic pat-terns, techniques, tools and activities linked toland management. While remaining in the litera-ture, the common use of these terms has been lostas elder farmers and shepherds disappeared. But at

Ager-saltus-sylva land use mosaic (Lapa Highlands); (b)s dividing pasture fields (Alvite, Moimenta da Beira); and

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Restoring cultural landscapes 223

the same time, the cultural value attributed toAquilino as an icon of the region, has inspired newdesignations for places, associations, commercialinstitutions and products (e.g. the local newspapertitle).

Final remarks

Cultural landscape restoration considers bothbiodiversity and cultural perspectives, includingsocio-economics. Taken together, the four land-scape operational components defined constitutean integrative process for research, managementand planning.

Landscape restoration should form part of theconcepts for landscape protection legally ad-dressed by the European Landscape Conventionand currently accepted by scientists, managers andthe general public. Throughout its jurisdictionalarea, countries have carried out steps towardsmaking inventories and classifying their landscapes(e.g. Cancela de Abreu, Pinto-Correia, & Oliveira,2004, for Portugal). At a European level, theEuropean Environment Agency is promoting asimilar process (Washer & Jongman, 2000). How-ever, cultural landscapes are increasingly threa-tened, and some, like species, face extinction.Their eventual disappearance will be a double loss,in both natural and cultural terms.

The Red Books of Threatened Landscapes (Green &Vos, 2001; Naveh, 1993), calling for their conserva-tion, are a highly valid starting point to develop acategorising system that identifies driving forces ofchange and levels of threat at a global and/orregional level. Criteria for assessing threats shouldbe based on: (a) identifying the reference landscape;and (b) evaluating the level of degradation for eachof the landscape operational components. The‘‘mixer board’’ model can be used as an approach.

At a subsequent stage, priorities for protectionand opportunities for restoration should be defined.Landscape restoration limitations suggest thatthere is an urgent need to preserve threatenedlandscapes before they are further degraded.Besides their fundamental importance in terms ofnatural and cultural values, they provide also areference for restoration projects.

Acknowledgements

We extend our warm thanks to Alex Chepstow-Lusty, Christelle Fontaine and Paddy Woodworth forhelpful comments on the manuscript. James

Aronson gratefully acknowledges the EuropeanCommission for support of the CREAOK projectFP5: QLRT-2001-01594. Ana Isabel Queiroz wasfunded by Grant SFRH/BD/8132/2002 from theFundac-ao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia.

References

Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past areimportant for the future. Landscape and UrbanPlanning, 70, 21–34.

Aronson, J., Floret, C., Le Floc’h, E., Ovalle, C., &Pontanier, R. (1993a). Restoration and rehabilitationof degraded ecosystems. I. A view from the South.Restoration Ecology, 1, 8–17.

Aronson, J., Floret, C., Le Floc’h, E., Ovalle, C., &Pontanier, R. (1993b). Restoration and rehabilitation ofdegraded ecosystems. II. Case studies in Chile, Tunisiaand Cameroon. Restoration Ecology, 1, 168–187.

Aronson, J., & Le Floc’h, E. (1996a). Que faire de tant denotions du paysage? Natures, Sciences, Societes, 4,264–266.

Aronson, J., & Le Floc’h, E. (1996b). Vital landscapeattributes: Missing tools for restoration ecology.Restoration Ecology, 4, 377–387.

Aronson, J., & Vallejo, R. (2005). Challenges forecological restoration. In J. van Andel, & J. Aronson(Eds.), Restoration ecology: The new frontier (pp.234–247). Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Berque, A. (1984). Paysage-empreinte, pausage-matrice.L’espace geographique, 12, 3–4.

Cairns, J., Jr. (1993). Ecological restoration: Replenishingour national and global ecological capital. In D.Saunders, R. Hobbs, & P. Ehrlich (Eds.), Natureconservation 3: Reconstruction of fragmented ecosys-tems (pp. 193–208). Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia:Surrey Beatty and Sons.

Cancela de Abreu, A., Pinto-Correia, T., & Oliveira, R.(2004). Contributos para a identificac-ao e caracter-izac-ao da Paisagem em Portugal Continental. DGOTDU– Direcc-ao Geral do Ordenamento do Territorio eDesenvolvimento Urbano, Lisboa.

Council of Europe. (2000). European landscape conven-tion. Strasbourg.

EEA. (1995). Europe’s Environment: The debris assess-ment. Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency.

Egan, D., & Howell, E. (2001). The historical ecologyhandbook. A restorationists guide to reference eco-systems. Washington: Island Press.

Farina, A. (1998). Principles and methods in landscapeecology. London: Chapman & Hall.

Foster, D., Swanson, F., Aber, J., Burke, I., Brokaw, N.,Tilman, D., et al. (2003). The importance of land-uselegacies to ecology and conservation. Bioscience, 53,77–88.

Green, B., & Vos, W. (Eds.). (2001). Threatened land-scapes: Conserving cultural environments. London,New York: Sponpress.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

F. Moreira et al.224

Grove, A.T., Ispikoudies, J., Kazaklis, J.A., Moody, J.A.,Papanastasis, V., Rackham, O. (1994). ThreatenedMediterranean landscapes, west Crete. ResearchReport to EU, Department of Geography, CambridgeUniversity, Cambridge, UK.

Harris, J. A., Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E., & Aronson, J. (inpress). Ecological restoration and global climatechange. Restoration Ecology.

Hobbs, R. J., & Norton, D. A. (1996). Towards aconceptual framework for Restoration Ecology. Re-storation Ecology, 4, 93–110.

Hobbs, R. J., & Saunders, D. (1991). Reintegration offragmented landscapes—A preliminary framework forthe Western Australian Wheatbelt. Journal of Envir-onmental Management, 33, 161–167.

Hobbs, R. J., Arico, S., Aronson, J., Baron, J. S.,Bridgewater, P., Cramer, V. A., et al. (2006). Novelecosystems: Theoretical and management aspects ofthe new ecological world order. Global Ecology andBiogeography, 15, 1–7.

Holl, K., Crone, E., & Schultz, C. (2003). Landscaperestoration: Moving from generalities to methodolo-gies. BioScience, 53, 491–502.

IUCN. (2000). Landscape conservation law: Presenttrends and perspectives in international and com-parative law. Switzerland, Cambridge, UK: IUCN,Gland.

Merlo, M., & Croitoru, L. (Eds.). (2005). ValuingMediterranean forests: Towards total economic value.Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Publishing.

Moreira, F., Morgado, R., & Arthur, S. (2004). Greatbustard (Otis tarda) habitat selection in relation toagricultural use in southern Portugal. Wildlife Biology,10, 251–260.

Moreira, F., Pinto, M. J., Henriques, I., & Marques, T.(2005). Importance of low-intensity farming systemsfor fauna, flora and habitats protected under theEuropean ‘‘Birds’’ and ‘‘Habitats’’ Directives: Isagriculture essential for preserving biodiversity inthe Mediterranean region? In A. R. Burk (Ed.), Trendsin biodiversity research (pp. 117–145). New York:Nova Science Publishers.

Naveh, Z. (1993). Red Books for threatened Mediterra-nean landscapes as an innovative tool for holisticlandscape conservation. Introduction to the westernCrete Red Book case study. Landscape and UrbanPlanning, 24, 241–249.

Naveh, Z. (2005). Epilogue: Toward a transdisciplinaryscience of ecological and cultural landscape restora-tion. Restoration Ecology, 13(1), 228–234.

Pereira, P. M., & Pires da Fonseca, M. (2003). Nature vs.nurture: The making of the montado ecosystem.Conservation Ecology, 7(3), 7 (online) URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art7.

Queiroz, A. I. (2005). Building landscape memory throughcombined sources: Commons afforestation in Portugal.In B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, & P. Opdam (Eds.), From

landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects ofintegration, education, and application. WageningenUR Frontis Series, Vol. 12 (pp. 335–344). Dordrecht,Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Queiroz, A. I. (2006). Landscape and literature: Theecological memory of Terras do Demo (Beira Alta –

Portugal). In Z. Roca (Ed.), European landscapes: Pastand recent changes and challenges—Proceedings ofthe 21st Session of the PECSRL, Limnos/Lesvos, 2004.Lisbon: Edic-oes Universitarias Lusofonas.

Queiroz, A. I., & Andresen, M. T. (2006). Wild birds inAquilino Ribeiro’s Writings: Using literature as a sourcefor environmental history. In D. Aftandilian (Ed.),What are the animals to us?. Tennessee UniversityPress.

Robertson, M., Nichols, P., Horwitz, P., Bradly, K., &Mackintosh, D. (2000). Environmental narratives andthe need for multiple perspectives to restore de-graded landscape in Australia. Ecosystem Health, 6,119–133.

Silbernagel, J. (2005). Bio-regional patterns and spatialnarratives for integrated landscape research anddesign. In B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, & P. Opdam(Eds.), From landscape research to landscape plan-ning: Aspects of integration, education, and applica-tion. Wageningen UR Frontis Series, Vol. 12 (pp.107–118). Dordrecht, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) Science andPolicy Working Group. (2004). The SER primer onecological restoration (4 April 2003, www.ser.org).

Suarez, F., Naveso, M., & De Juana, E. (1997). Farming inthe drylands of Spain: Birds of the pseudosteppes. InD. Pain, & M. Pienkowski (Eds.), Farming and birds inEurope: The common agricultural policy and itsimplications for bird conservation (pp. 297–330). SanDiego: Academic Press.

Tress, B., & Tress, G. (2001). Capitalising on multiplicity:A transdisciplinary systems approach to landscaperesearch. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 143–157.

UNESCO. (1999). Operational guidelines for the imple-mentation of the World Heritage Convention, Paris.

Vos, W., & Klijn, J. (2000). Trends in European landscapedevelopment: Prospects for a sustainable future. InJ. Klijn, & W. Vos (Eds.), From landscape ecology tolandscape science (pp. 13–29). Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Washer, D., & Jongman, R. (2000). European landscapes.Classification, assessment & conservation. EEA tech-nical report.

White, P. S., & Walker, J. L. (1997). Approximatingnature’s variation: Selecting and using referenceinformation in restoration ecology. Restoration Ecol-ogy, 5, 338–349.

Winterhalder, K., Clewell, A., & Aronson, J. (2004).Values and science in ecological restoration—A re-sponse to Davis and Slobodkin. Restoration Ecology,12, 4–7.