Participatory planning and monitoring of protected landscapes: a case study of an indigenous rice paddy cultural landscape in Taiwan

  • Kuang-Chung LeeEmail author
  • Shao-Yu Yan


Landscapes can be regarded as ‘a culture–nature link.’ Many examples of ‘living’ landscapes in the world are rich in natural and cultural values and have proven sustainable over centuries because of their maintenance by local communities. Satoyama, a traditional socio-ecological production landscape, provides a functional linkage between paddy fields and the associated environment with many ecosystem services. The idea of landscape conservation and paddy field revitalization was introduced into Taiwan’s amended Cultural Heritage Preservation Act in 2005 as a new legal instrument entitled ‘Cultural Landscape.’ To help stakeholders from governmental authorities and local communities apply this new instrument, this action research employed a community-based landscape and participatory approach to put relevant international concepts into practice. Learning from culturally grounded indicators of resilience in social–ecological systems, the study adopted a set of indicators of resilience in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes to successfully help residents evaluate the management of a designated Cultural Landscape through a series of local workshops. The case study shows that a landscape and participatory approach can be welcomed by rural people and can create a new style for ‘living’ protected landscapes in Taiwan’s nationally protected area system.


Protected landscape Cultural landscape Collaborative planning Participatory monitoring Indicators of resilience Satoyama initiative 



The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Hualien County Cultural Affairs Bureau (HCCAB) and the Ministry of Science and Technology for their financial and administrative support. They would also like to extend special thankfulness, warmth, and appreciation to the local people of Fengnan village, Hualien, Taiwan, who helped to make their research successful.


  1. Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr 24(3):347–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amend T, Brown J, Kothari A, Phillips A, Stolton S (eds.) (2008) Protected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values. Volume 1 in the series, protected landscapes and seascapes, IUCN & GTZ. Kasparek Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  3. Béné C, Newsham A, Davies M (2013) Making the most of resilience. IDS In Focus Policy Brief 32, Brighton: IDS.
  4. Bennett EM, Cumming GS, Peterson GD (2005) A systems model approach to determining resilience surrogates for case studies. Ecosystems 8(8):945–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergamini N, Blasiak R, Eyzaguirre P, Ichikawa K, Mijatovic D, Nakao F, Subramanian SM (2013) Indicators of resilience in socioecological production landscapes (SEPLs). UNU-IAS policy reportGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown J, Mitchell N (2000) The stewardship approach and its relevance for protected landscapes. George Wright Forum 17(1):70–79Google Scholar
  7. Brown J, Mitchell N, Beresford M (eds) (2004) The protected landscape approach: linking nature, culture and community. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabell JF, Oelofse M (2012) An indicator framework for assessing agroecosystem resilience. Ecol Soc 17(1):18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carpenter SR, Bennett EM, Peterson GD (2006) Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecol Soc 11(1):29. [online].
  10. Colding J, Elmqvist T, Olsson P (2003) Living with disturbance: building resilience in social-ecological systems. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 163–185Google Scholar
  11. Cumming GS, Alcamo J, Sala O, Swart R, Bennett EM, Zurek M (2005) Are existing global scenarios consistent with ecological feedbacks? Ecosystems 8:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darnhofer I, Bellon S, Dedieu B, Milestad R (2010) Adaptiveness to enhance the sustainability of farming systems: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 30(3):545–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Denscombe M (1998) The good research guide: for small-scale social research project. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  14. Dudley E (ed) (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  15. Flowerdew R, Martin D (eds) (1997) Methods in human geography: a guide for students doing research project. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Folke C, Colding J, Berkes F (2003) Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 352–387Google Scholar
  17. Gu H, Subramanian SM (2012) Socio-ecological production landscapes: relevance to the green economy agenda. United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, YokohamaGoogle Scholar
  18. Healey P (1998) Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environ Plan A 30:1531–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Healey P (2006) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huberman AM, Miles MB (1994) Data management and analysis methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, London, pp 428–444Google Scholar
  21. IUCN (1994) Guidelines for protected areas management categories. IUCN, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Lebel L, Anderies J, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfeld-Dodds S, Hughes T, Wilson J (2006) Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 11(1):19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee KC (2012) The preliminary project for designation of the Fon-nan rice paddy culture landscape, Fuli Township, Hualien, Taiwan. Research report for the Bureau of Cultural Affair, Hualien County, 2012 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  24. Lee KC (2013) The management plan for the designated Cihalaay cultural landscape, Fon-nan village of Fuli Township, Hualien, Taiwan. Research report for the Bureau of Cultural Affair, Hualien County (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  25. Lee KC (2016) The environmental resilience indicators for the Cihalaay Cultural Landscape, Fon-nan village, Fuli Township, Hualien, Taiwan. Research report for the Bureau of cultural affair, Hualien County (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  26. Lee KC, Hsu TI, Chiang SY, Kacaw L, Lee BS (2015) Conservation and management strategies for cultural landscapes: a case study of a continuing landscape in Taiwan. J Cult Herit Conserv 34:66–92 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  27. Maxwell D, Constas M, Frankenberger T, Klaus D, Mock M (2015) Qualitative data and subjective indicators for resilience measurement. Resilience measurement technical working group. technical series no. 4. Food Security Information Network, RomeGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitchell N, Buggey S (2000) Protected landscapes and cultural landscapes taking advantage of diverse approaches. George Wright Forum 17(1):35–46Google Scholar
  29. Mitchell N, Rössler M, Tricaud PM (eds) (2009) World heritage cultural landscapes: a handbook for conservation and management. World heritage paper, no. 26, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Morse JM (1994) Designing funded qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, London, pp 220–235Google Scholar
  31. Natuhara Y (2012) Ecosystem services by paddy fields as substitutes of natural wetlands in Japan. Ecol Eng 56:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environ Manag 34(1):75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Phillips A (2002) Management guidelines for IUCN category V protected areas: protected landscapes/seascapes. IUCN GlandGoogle Scholar
  34. Phillips A (2004) Landscape as a meeting ground: category V protected landscapes/seascapes and world heritage cultural landscapes. In: Brown J, Mitchell N, Beresford M (eds) The protected landscape approach: linking nature, culture and community. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  35. Rössler M (2006) World heritage cultural landscapes. Landsc Res 31(4):333–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Silverman D (2000) Doing qualitative research—a practical handbook. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Sterling EJ, Filardi C, Toomey A, Sigouin A, Betley E, Gazit N, Newell J, Albert S, Alvira D, Bergamini N, Blair M, Boseto D, Burrows K, Bynum N, Caillon S, Caselle JE, Claudet J, Cullman G, Dacks R, Eyzaguirre PB, Gray S, Herrera J, Kenilorea P, Kinney K, Kurashima N, Macey S, Malone C, Mauli S, McCarter J, McMillen H, Pascua P, Pikacha P, Porzecanski AL, de Pascale Robert, Matthieu Salpeteur, Sirikolo M, Stege MH, Stege K, Ticktin T, Vave R, Wali A, West P, Winter KB, Jupiter SD (2017a) Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nat Ecol Evol 1(12):1798–1806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sterling EJ, Ticktin T, Morgan K, Cullman G, Alvira D, Andrade P, Bergamini N, Betley E, Burrows K, Caillon S, Claudet J, Dacks R, Eyzaguirre P, Filardi C, Gazit N, Giardina N, Jupiter S, Kinney K, McCarter J, Mejia M, Morishige K, Newell J, Noori L, Parks J, Pascua P, Ravikumar A, Tanguay J, Sigouin A, Stege MH, Stege K, Wali A (2017b) Culturally grounded indicators of resilience in social-ecological systems environment and society: advances in research. Spec Issue Meas Metrics 8(1):63–95Google Scholar
  39. Takeuchi K, Ichikawa K, Elmqvist T (2016) Satoyama landscape as social-ecological system: historical changes and future perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 19:30–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taman RR, Meleisea M, Makasiale J (2002) Agricultural diversity and traditional knowledge as insurance against natural disasters. Pac Health Dialog 9(1):76–85Google Scholar
  41. Taylor K, Lennon J (2011) Cultural landscapes a bridge between culture and nature. Int J Herit Stud 17(6):537–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. UNU-IAS (2010a) Biodiversity and livelihoods: the Satoyama initiative concept in practice. Institute of Advanced Studies of the United Nations University and Ministry of Environment of Japan, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  43. UNU-IAS (2010b) Satoyama–Satoumi ecosystems and human well-being: socio-ecological production landscapes of Japan—summary for decision makers. Institute of Advanced Studies of the United Nations University, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  44. UNU-IAS (United Nations University Institute for the Advances Study of Sustainability), Bioversity International, IGES (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies), and UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2014) Toolkit for the indicators of resilience in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes. UNU-IAS, Bioversity International, UNDP-COMDEKS, and the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Society of Paddy and Water Environment Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources and Environmental StudiesNational Dong-Hwa UniversityHualienTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations