Landscape interfaces –
Analysis of the relationships between World Heritage Cultural Landscapes and IUCN categorized Protected Areas
Gunnar Finke, Diplomarbeit - 2010
Background
Since 1992 cultural landscapes of outstanding universal value can be nominated as a form of cultural property for inclusion on the World Heritage list. The global efforts for conserving such landscapes under the World Heritage Convention are closely related to the recognition within the nature conservation movement that they hold significant natural values. Their safeguarding thus provides for the conservation of their inherent biodiversity. At the same time, such humanized, lived-in landscapes reflect the cultural and spiritual relationships of humans with nature and, as such, the cultural dimension to conservation of nature. Hence, cultural landscapes play an important role in providing a multitude of ecosystem services.
As an advisor to the World Heritage Committee, IUCN takes an active interest in the natural values of cultural landscapes, working through ICOMOS as the lead advisor on all cultural aspects of the World Heritage Convention. The role of IUCN in the conservation of natural heritage is also apparent in relation to the international IUCN protected area management category system.
Problem statement
The important role of protected (“cultural”) landscapes and seascapes, and their integration in the IUCN protected area category system, illustrate the strong link between World Heritage cultural landscapes and protected areas. Initial studies have resulted in the observation that World Heritage cultural landscapes often appear to overlap or partially coincide with IUCN categorised protected areas. Up to now though, the extent of overlap – both conceptually and spatially, in theory and in practice – between World Heritage cultural landscapes and the various IUCN protected area management categories has not been analysed and described in detail. At the same time, with the increasing number of cultural landscapes on the World Heritage List, there is a growing need for agreed guiding principles for their conservation and a therewith-contiguous exchange on related approaches for their management. Yet it is not clear in how far protected area management and governance integrates in practice with the management and governance of World Heritage cultural landscapes.
Thesis objective
The research therefore aims at establishing the degree to which there is an identity between the 66 World Heritage listed cultural landscapes and protected areas categorised after the international system of the IUCN. This analysis will thus cover (i) the conceptual similarities and differences, (ii) an areal-based empirical examination regarding spatial overlap, and (iii) the practical integration that occurs on the ground.
Material and Methods
The problem statement requires a gradual approach, which involves a range of different rudiments. In the first phase of the research, an analysis of the common and distinguishing conceptual characteristics of World Heritage cultural landscapes and the IUCN protected area management categories will be carried out through a literature review. The second phase involves an analysis in terms of spatial overlap between the World Heritage listed cultural landscapes under the relative subcategories and respective protected areas categorized under the relative IUCN management categories through a data base and GIS-based research as well as consultation of additional material (i.e. World Heritage technical evaluations) and experts involved in the management of the relative protected areas. The third phase, which takes into account the results of phases one and two, focuses on several case studies, integrating an accurate boundary-by-boundary analysis and semi-structured interviews.
The results should provide information that can help deepen our understanding of the relationship between World Heritage sites and protected areas, and thereby strengthen cooperation and exchange among the institutions that are involved.
| Duration: |
April - October 2010 |
| Projekt leader: |
|
| Second reviewer: |
|
| Supervisor: |
|
| Research by : |
Gunnar Finke |
|
|
Dr. Claire Cave 
