What is biological cultural heritage and why should we care about it? An example from Swedish rural landscapes and forests

Ove Eriksson

doi:10.3897/natureconservation.28.25067

Abstract

There is currently a growing concern that biocultural heritage is threatened in many landscapes. This paper focuses on biological cultural heritage, broadly meaning biological cultural traces that are considered as heritage, but leaving out other aspects of the biocultural heritage concept. An operational definition of biological cultural heritage (BCH) is suggested, based on niche construction theory: “biological manifestations of culture, reflecting indirect or intentional effects, or domesticated landscapes, resulting from historical human niche construction”. Some factors that influence recognition of BCH are discussed, using a comparison between Swedish open to semi-open vs. forested landscapes. While the former landscapes are generally associated with biological cultural values, BCH is generally over-looked in forests. Two main reasons for this are suggested: loss of cultural memory and a perception of forests as wilderness. A conclusion is that recognition of BCH is essential for guiding development of biological conservation programmes in forests, irrespective of whether the conservation goal is to focus on culturally impacted forests or to conserve what is considered as close to pristine forests. Furthermore, recognising BCH in forests will promote interest and learning of the history of forests and their values and will be informative for developing conservation programmes for all biota in forests, not only those that historically were favoured by culture. Hence, there is no inherent conflict between preserving relatively untouched forests and those with remaining traces of pre-industrial forest management. The recognition of BCH in forests will inspire and promote further integration of cultural and natural heritage research.

Highlights

There is currently a growing interest in conservation of cultural landscapes, motivated by a concern that values associated with these landscapes are eroding (e.g. Rössler 2006, Harrop 2007, UNESCO 2008, 2014, Agnoletti and Rotherham 2015)
Biological cultural heritage ( biological cultural heritage (BCH)) has been defined as: “...ecosystems, habitats and species which have originated, developed or been favored by human utilization of the landscape and whose long-term persistence and development is dependent on, or favored by management.” (Swedish National Heritage Board 2014). This definition is similar to, but more specific than the UNESCO (2008) definition of biocultural heritage as “living organisms or habitats whose present features are due to cultural action in time and place”, the latter leaving out any reference to long-term persistence
The growing interest in conservation of cultural landscapes reflects the fact that many old cultural landscapes are threatened, and an awareness that cultural landscapes may be biologically rich

Summary

Introduction

There is currently a growing interest in conservation of cultural landscapes, motivated by a concern that values associated with these landscapes are eroding (e.g. Rössler 2006, Harrop 2007, UNESCO 2008, 2014, Agnoletti and Rotherham 2015). Biocultural heritage as “living organisms or habitats whose present features are due to cultural action in time and place”, the latter leaving out any reference to long-term persistence Both these definitions are rather broad and avoid any specification of the time-depth of the origin of the cultural actions, i.e. the human utilisation of the landscapes. The third level is when the biological cultural traces are the result of long-term reciprocal interactions between culture and the biological communities that serve as a basis for the culture These interactions create what has been called domesticated landscapes, broadly meaning whole landscapes transformed by humans to support society, and affecting many other species I propose the following definition of Biological Cultural Heritage (BCH): biological manifestations of culture, reflecting indirect or intentional effects or domesticated landscapes, resulting from historical human niche construction (Figure 1). A time-depth, a history, is essential. (2) If the biological cultural trace no longer has a function or role, knowledge of its previous function or role is essential. (3) It is essential that the biological cultural trace evokes feelings, either due to its role for people’s identity and sense of place or for its sanctity or sheer beauty

Background

Findings

Discussion