Biosemiotics

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 139–158 | Cite as

Rural Sanctuary: an Ecosemiotic Agency to Preserve Human Cultural Heritage and Biodiversity

Article
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

A Rural Sanctuary is defined as an area where farming activity creates habitats for a diverse assemblage of species that find a broad spectrum of resources along the season. A Rural Sanctuary is proposed as a new model of land management to protect nature inside a framework of cultural identity and agro-forestry sustainability. A Rural Sanctuary has a dual mission: to provide immaterial (amenity, sense of place, conservation of cultural heritage) and material (agricultural products) resources for people, and to guarantee living spaces to a large assemblage of species. A Rural Sanctuary represents an ecosemiotic agency in which human eco-fields and animal eco-fields interact. This reflects a model that is rooted in the Mediterranean region, where for long time people and nature have harmoniously lived in strict contact and inter-dependence. An example of a Rural Sanctuary from this region is proposed to demonstrate the amazing diversity of living beings observed on only few hectares of farmland. A Rural Sanctuary offers possibilities to educate people about a more sustainable approach to nature, and it represents a unique place to investigate animal perception. Finally, between the different approach to certify the validity of a Rural Sanctuary, sound recording is suggested as one of the less invasive methods for ecological investigation and long-term monitoring.

Keywords

Rural sanctuary Ecosemiotics Full world Eco-field Nature conservation Mediterranean landscape 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aniah, P., & Yelfaanibe, A. (2016). Learning from the past: The role of sacred groves and shrines in environmental management in the Bongo District of Ghana. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75, 916.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5706-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aniah, P., & Yelfaanibe, A. (2017). Environment, development and sustainability of local practices in the sacred groves and shrines in Bongo District: a bio-cultural study for environmental management in Ghana. Environment, Development and Sustainability.  https://doi.org/10.10007/s10668-017-0001-2.
  3. Arntzen, J. W., Abrahams, C., Meilink, W. R. M., Iosif, R., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2017). Amphibian decline, pond loss and reduced population connectivity under agricultural intensification over a 38 year period. Biodiversity and Conservation, 26, 1411–1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battin, J. (2004). When good animals love bad habitat. Ecological traps and the conservation of animal populations. Conservation Biology, 18(6), 1482–1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blondel, J., & Aronson, J. (1999). Biology and wildlife of the Mediterranean region. Oxford: Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carrion, J. S., Rose, J., & Stringer, C. (2011). Early human evolution in the Western Palearctic: Ecological scenarios. Quaternary Science Review, 30, 1281–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caula, S., de Villalobos, A. E., & Marty, P. (2014). Seasonal dynamics of bird communities in urban forests of a Mediterranean city (Montpellier, southern France). Urban Ecosystems, 17, 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cecere, J. G., Panuccio, M., Chiarugi, A., Urbano, F., Imperio, S., Celada, C., & Lopez-Lopez, P. (2017). Snake species richness predicts breeding distribution of short-toed snake eagle in central Italy. Ethology, Ecology & Evolution.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03940370.2017.1323800.
  9. Claval, P. (2005). Reading the rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clayton, S., Colleony, A., Conversy, P., Maclouf, E., Martin, L., Torres, A.-C., Truong, M., & Prevot, A.-C. (2016). Transformation of experience: Toward a new relationship with nature. Conservation Letters.  https://doi.org/10.1111/concl.12337.
  11. Dos Santos, S., Adams, E. A., Neville, G., Wda, Y., de Sherbinin, A., Mullin Bernhardt, E., Adamo, S. B. (2017). Urban growth and water access in sub-Saharan Africa: Progress challenges, and emerging research direction. Science of Total Environment.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.157.
  12. Fanelli, G., Battisti, C., & Malavasi, R. (2014). Comparing alpha-diversity between plants and birds in a remnant wetland: evidence for a threshold and implication for management. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 22(5), 565–569.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-014-9353-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farina, A. (2000). The cultural landscape as an example of integration of ecology and economics. BioScience, 50, 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farina, A. (2012). A biosemiotic perspective of the resource criterion: Toward a general theory of resources. Biosemiotics, 5, 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farina, A., & Belgrano, A. (2004). Eco-field: A new paradigm for landscape ecology. Ecological Research, 19, 107–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farina, A., & Belgrano, A. (2006). The eco-field hypothesis: toward a cognitive landscape. Landscape Ecology, 21, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farina, A., & James, P. (2016). Acoustic community structure and dynamics: A fundamental Component of ecoacoustics. Biosystems, 147, 11–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Farina, A., Johnson, A. R., Turner, S. J., & Belgrano, A. (2003). “Full” world versus “empty” world paradigm at the time of globalization. Ecological Economics, 45, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gosling, A., Schakleton, C. M., & Gambiza, J. (2017). Community-based natural resource use and management of Bigodi Wetland Sanctuary, Uganda, for livelihood benefits. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 25, 717–730.  https://doi.org/10.10007/s11273-017-9546-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen-Moller, J. (2009). Natursyn model: A conceptual framework and method for analysing and comparing views of nature. Landscape and Urban Planning, 89, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanski, I. (1999). Metapopulation ecology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hale, R., & Swearer, S.E. (2017). Ecological traps: current evidence and future directions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 283, 20152647.Google Scholar
  23. Hoffmeyer, J. (1996). Signs of meaning in the universe. Indiana University Press, Bloomington & Indianapolis.Google Scholar
  24. Homberger, B., Duplain, J., Jenny, M., & Jenni, L. (2017). Agri-evironmental schemes and active nest protection can increase hatching success of a reintroduced farmland bird species. Landscape and Urban Planning, 161, 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IPCC (2013). Summary for policymakers. In: Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor,M. Allen, S.K., J (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC, 2014. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
  26. IUCN (2000). IUCN red list categories and criteria. Version 3.1 Second Edition.Google Scholar
  27. Karanth, K. K., & Kudalkar, S. (2017). History, location, and species matter: Insights for human-wildlife conflict mitigation from India. Human Dimension of Wildlife, 22(4), 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kopnina, H. (2016). Half of the earth for people (or more)? Addressing ethical questions in conservation. Biological Conservation, 203, 176–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kull, K. (1998). Semiotic ecology: Different natures in the semiosphere. Sign Systems. Studies, 26, 344–371.Google Scholar
  30. Lepart, J., & Debussche, M. (1992). Human impact on landscape patterning: Mediterranean examples. In: Hansen, A.J., di Castri, F. (Eds.), Landscape boundaries. Consequences for biotic diversity and ecological flows (pp. 76–106) New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. MacIvor, J. S. (2016). Cavity-nest boxes for solitary bees: A century of design and research. Apidologie, 48, 311–327.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-016-0477-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maiorano, L., Amori, G., Capula, M., Falcucci, A., Masi, M., Montemaggiori, A., Pottier, J., Psomas, A., Rondinini, C., Russo, D., Zimmermann, N. E., Boitani, l., & Guisan, A. (2013). Threats from climate change to terrestrial vertebrate hotspots in Europe. PLoS One, 8(9), e74989.  https://doi.org/10.1371/Journal.pone.0074989.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Maran, T., & Kull, K. (2014). Ecosemiotics: Main principles and current developments. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 96(1), 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin-Garcia, J., Barbaro, L., Diez, J. J., & Jactel, H. (2013). Contribution of poplar plantations to bird conservation in riparian landscapes. Silva Fennica, 47(4), 1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Medail, F., & Quézel, P. (1999). Biodiversity hotspots in the Mediterranean basin: Setting global conservation priorities. Conservation Biology, 13(6), 1510–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mittermeier, R. A., Turner, W. R., Larsen, F. W., Brooks, T. M., & Gascon, C. (2011). Global biodiversity conservation: The critical role of hotspots. In F. E. Zachos & J. C. Habel (Eds.), Biodiversity hotspots: Distribution and protection of conservation priority areas (pp. 3–22). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morales, M. B., Onate, J. J., Guerrero, I., & Melendez, L. (2015). Influence of landscape and field-level agricultural management on a Mediterranean farmland winter bird community. Ardelola, 62(1), 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mullet, T., Farina, A., & Gage, S. H. (2017). The acoustic habitat hypothesis: An ecoacoustic perspective on species habitat selection. Biosemiotics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-017-9288-5.
  39. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Naveh, Z. (1998). From biodiversity to ecodiversity - Holistic conservation of the biological and cultural diversity of Mediterranean landscapes. In P. W. Rundel, G. Montenegro, & F. M. Jaksic (Eds.), Landscape disturbance and biodiversity in Mediterranean-type ecosystems (pp. 23–53). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nielsen, S. N. (2007). Towards an ecosystem semiotics. Some basic aspects for a new research programme. Ecological Complexity, 4, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nöth, W. (1998). Ecosemiotics. Sign Systems Studies, 26, 332–343.Google Scholar
  43. Perni, A., & Martinez-Paz, J. M. (2017). Measuring conflicts in the management of anthropized ecosystems: Evidence from a choice experiment in a human-created Mediterranean wetland. Journal of Environmental Management, 203, 40–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Piano, E., De Wolf, K., et al. (2017). Urbanization drives community shifts towards thermophilic and dispersive species at local and landscape scales. Global Change Biology.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13606.
  45. Pieretti, N., Farina, A., & Morri, D. (2011). A new methodology to infer the singing activity of an avian community: The acoustic complexity index (ACI). Ecological Indicators, 11, 868–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pulliam, H. R. (1988). Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist, 132, 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reba, M., Reitsma, F., & Seto, K. C. (2016). Spatializing 6,000 years of global urbanization from 3700 BC to AD 2000. Scientific Data, 3, 160034.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwartz, M. W., & van Mantgem, P. J. (1997). The value of small preserves in chronically fragmented landscapes. In M. W. Schwartz (Ed.), Conservation in highly fragmented landscapes (pp. 379–394). New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Strang, V. (2016). Justice for all: Inconvenient truths and reconciliation in human-non-human relations. In H. Kopnina & E. Shoreman-Ouimet (Eds.), Routledge handbook of environmental anthropology (pp. 263–278). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Suarez-Esteban, A., Delibes, M., & Fedriani, J. M. (2013). Unpaved road verges as hotspots of fleshy-fruited shrub recruitment. Biological Conservation, 167, 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sueur, J., Farina, A., Gasc, A., Pieretti, N., & Pavoine, S. (2014). Acoustic indices for biodiversity assessment and landscape investigation. Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 100, 772–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tonelli, M., Verdù, J. R., & Zunino, M. (2017). Effects of the progressive abandonment of grazing on dung beetle biodiversity: body size matters. Biodiversity and Conservation.  https://doi.org/10.10007/s10531-017-1428-3.
  53. Uexküll, J.V., 1982(1940). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42, 25–82.Google Scholar
  54. Uexküll, J.V, 1992(1934). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men. Semiotica, 89(4), 319–391.Google Scholar
  55. Vladimirova, E., & Mozgovoy, J. (2003). Sign field theory and tracking techniques used in studies of small carnivorous mammals. Evolution and Cognition, 9(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  56. Vos, W., & Stortelder, A. (1992). Vanishing Tuscan landscapes: Landscape ecology of a Sud-Mediterranean-montane area (Solano Basin, Tuscany, Italy). Wageningen (The Netherlands): Pudoc Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. WWF (World Wildlife Fund) (2014). Living Planet Report 2014. Available from: http://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/living-planet-report-2014 Accessed August 29, 2016.
  58. Zakkak, S., Kakalis, E., Radovic, A., Halley, J. M., & Kati, V. (2014). The impact of forest encroachment after agricultural land abandonment on passerine bird communities. Journal of Nature Conservation, 22, 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pure and Applied SciencesUrbino UniversityUrbinoItaly

Personalised recommendations