**3. Rurality, territory and cultural landscape**

#### **3.1 Hominid frontier expansion and cultural landscape**

Land cropping and the following appearance of the rural cultural open landscape1, occurs only starting around 10.000 years ago. This is the starting point of the process of landscape hominization [45, 46] and the homind frontier expansion. Each society relates differently to nature and its surroundings, arranging the territory according to its culture, setting the bases of the different cultural landscapes.

The nature artificialization process, and the expansion of the hominid frontier is intended to conquer niches and improve anthropogenic canalization of goods and services, requiring the extraction and insertion of elements into the ecosystem.

As example of the hominid frontier expansion and creation of a cultural landscape, Gastó [47] reports what happened in the range lands of the North American west. After the arrival of settlers there was degradation of the soil and vegetable covering, and as a consequence of this, large stretches of land were abandoned due to low productivity. These settlers didn´t have the necessary knowledge to open up, order, manage and administer the territory. Faced with this, the Government, got involved and establishes the National Park Service (1873), National Forest (1890), Native American Reservations, Wild Life Shelters and the Land Grant College. At the same time, and in order to improve the public land management, the Government set up the Forest Service (1905), Bureau of Land management-BOM (1935), and the Soil Conservation Service (1905). Meanwhile settlers were converting private land into great ranches. The American Society of Range Land Management was created in the 1940´s, with the intention of developing a science based on principles differing from those of agronomy. Currently one of the most important aspects is

<sup>1</sup> Rural, etymologically means wasteland, opened by and for mankind. This is within the expansion of the hominid frontier, the place where man can live and generate rurality.

Agriculture and Rurality as Constructor of Sustainable Cultural Landscape 157

its transformation into rural (wasteland) and, afterwards into urban (built territory); *bann* (abandoned territory) and *agri deserti* (agonizing territory) [49, 52]. When man clears the *wildland*, there is a simultaneous hominid frontier expansion, simplification of the natural ecosystems and input-output of ecosystem elements, shaping the territory on the basis of society´s culture and technology. In this context, the cultural landscape appears gradually as an expression of the sociostructure over the biogeostructure, in a coevolutive context

The hominid frontier expansion is followed by a territorial specialization and the emergence of different territory typologies, such as: protected wildlands, rural and urban. These territorials typologies are differentiated by the various proportions of the three territorial components within: *saltus, ager* and *polis* (Figure 2). *Saltus* represents the territorial component which is not directly affected by the anthropic action; *ager* is a territorial component cleared with direct artificialization due to the anthropic action in a intermediate level, being land cropping the predominant artificialization style; *polis*, refers to a territorial component with a high level of artificialization, being its main style construction and infrastructure. The protected wildland territories are made up of in large proportion by *saltus* and in lower proportions by *ager and polis*. Urban territories are mainly made up of the *polis* component; and rural territories present a more balanced situation of these three

Fig. 2. Relative proportions of territorial components: *saltus*, *ager* and *polis*, belonging to the territorial typologies: protected wildland, rural and urban, depending on the level and style

articulated by the tecnostructure [23, 52, 53].

elements: *saltus, ager and polis*.

of artificialization [adapted from 54].

the publishing journal of range management for continuous renewal of concepts, technology, and guidelines, in order to be consistent with the demands of society and maintain the sustainability of the territory [28]. Because this, "rangeland" is an expression of the contemporary American cultural landscape.

Another interesting case of cultural landscape generation is *dehesa2*, in Mediterranean Spain. Dehesa corresponds to a cultural landscape created and developed by the popular culture. By definition it is a typical natural dense sclerophyllous Mediterranean forest, with a simplified structure and diversity of species achieved by reducing the tree density by pruning and thinning, developing isolated fruit producing trees loaded with acorns and stimulating the formation of a natural prairie in the undergrowth [47, 48]. Two main livestock niches are generated: one of the acorn consuming pig and the other of the ruminant ovine and bovine grass consumers (Gastó 2008). The evolution of the *dehesa*, of its elements and landscapes is deeply related to the development of the transhumant livestock, which has been very important for the Iberian development. According to Gastó [47] the *dehesa* is a sustainable system by generating products of great value while maintaining landscapes of immense aesthetic value with a mixed wintry herbaceous cover and evergreen trees.

In both cases, the rangeland in the United States, as well as, the *dehesa* in the Iberian peninsula, the expansion of the hominid frontier and of the construction of the cultural landscape, created a stable cultural landscape, harmonizing the economic, social and ecological services with a remarkable identity [49].

Easter Island on the other hand has become an emblematic case [12, 50] of a very fast hominid frontier expansion, which extremely modified and depleted a fragile ecosystem (isolated area in the middle of the Pacific, 388 Km2). There are various hypotheses, which explain this particular degradation process. Some of them suggest that the deforestation and severe depletion of the ecosystem was the result of the increased demand for logs used for the transportation of the Moais, and that the population of the Island got to be 7.000 [12]; other hypothesis sustain that the disease and slavery brought by the Europeans were the main reason that triggered the population crisis, aside from the introduction of the Polynesian rat that prevented the forest from regenerating and generalized harvest [50]. Nevertheless, the Eastern Island society colonized said territory but failed in its attempt to make it sustainable, producing the depletion of its own ecological support and thus, its own extermination.

In each one of these situations (rangeland, *dehesa* and Easter Island) man colonized a territory, expanded the hominid frontier, artificialized nature and transformed the ecosystem, creating a new cultural landscape to fit their needs, culture and technology, and attaining an improved or poorer system in terms of sustainability and life quality [28, 49].

#### **3.2 Rural, urban and wildland. Territories typologies and components**

Before mankind all that existed were natural scenarios based on systemogenic processes and ecological succession guiding the ecosystem to more complex and self-organized stages [49, 51]. People colonize habitats and develop niches; starting the process of nature artificialization and hominid frontier expansion, as well as, the clearing of the wildland and

<sup>2</sup> The *dehesa* is a *savannah* Spanish landscape type.

the publishing journal of range management for continuous renewal of concepts, technology, and guidelines, in order to be consistent with the demands of society and maintain the sustainability of the territory [28]. Because this, "rangeland" is an expression of

Another interesting case of cultural landscape generation is *dehesa2*, in Mediterranean Spain. Dehesa corresponds to a cultural landscape created and developed by the popular culture. By definition it is a typical natural dense sclerophyllous Mediterranean forest, with a simplified structure and diversity of species achieved by reducing the tree density by pruning and thinning, developing isolated fruit producing trees loaded with acorns and stimulating the formation of a natural prairie in the undergrowth [47, 48]. Two main livestock niches are generated: one of the acorn consuming pig and the other of the ruminant ovine and bovine grass consumers (Gastó 2008). The evolution of the *dehesa*, of its elements and landscapes is deeply related to the development of the transhumant livestock, which has been very important for the Iberian development. According to Gastó [47] the *dehesa* is a sustainable system by generating products of great value while maintaining landscapes of immense

In both cases, the rangeland in the United States, as well as, the *dehesa* in the Iberian peninsula, the expansion of the hominid frontier and of the construction of the cultural landscape, created a stable cultural landscape, harmonizing the economic, social and

Easter Island on the other hand has become an emblematic case [12, 50] of a very fast hominid frontier expansion, which extremely modified and depleted a fragile ecosystem (isolated area in the middle of the Pacific, 388 Km2). There are various hypotheses, which explain this particular degradation process. Some of them suggest that the deforestation and severe depletion of the ecosystem was the result of the increased demand for logs used for the transportation of the Moais, and that the population of the Island got to be 7.000 [12]; other hypothesis sustain that the disease and slavery brought by the Europeans were the main reason that triggered the population crisis, aside from the introduction of the Polynesian rat that prevented the forest from regenerating and generalized harvest [50]. Nevertheless, the Eastern Island society colonized said territory but failed in its attempt to make it sustainable, producing the depletion of its own ecological support and thus, its own

In each one of these situations (rangeland, *dehesa* and Easter Island) man colonized a territory, expanded the hominid frontier, artificialized nature and transformed the ecosystem, creating a new cultural landscape to fit their needs, culture and technology, and attaining an improved or poorer system in terms of sustainability and life quality [28, 49].

Before mankind all that existed were natural scenarios based on systemogenic processes and ecological succession guiding the ecosystem to more complex and self-organized stages [49, 51]. People colonize habitats and develop niches; starting the process of nature artificialization and hominid frontier expansion, as well as, the clearing of the wildland and

**3.2 Rural, urban and wildland. Territories typologies and components** 

aesthetic value with a mixed wintry herbaceous cover and evergreen trees.

the contemporary American cultural landscape.

ecological services with a remarkable identity [49].

2 The *dehesa* is a *savannah* Spanish landscape type.

extermination.

its transformation into rural (wasteland) and, afterwards into urban (built territory); *bann* (abandoned territory) and *agri deserti* (agonizing territory) [49, 52]. When man clears the *wildland*, there is a simultaneous hominid frontier expansion, simplification of the natural ecosystems and input-output of ecosystem elements, shaping the territory on the basis of society´s culture and technology. In this context, the cultural landscape appears gradually as an expression of the sociostructure over the biogeostructure, in a coevolutive context articulated by the tecnostructure [23, 52, 53].

The hominid frontier expansion is followed by a territorial specialization and the emergence of different territory typologies, such as: protected wildlands, rural and urban. These territorials typologies are differentiated by the various proportions of the three territorial components within: *saltus, ager* and *polis* (Figure 2). *Saltus* represents the territorial component which is not directly affected by the anthropic action; *ager* is a territorial component cleared with direct artificialization due to the anthropic action in a intermediate level, being land cropping the predominant artificialization style; *polis*, refers to a territorial component with a high level of artificialization, being its main style construction and infrastructure. The protected wildland territories are made up of in large proportion by *saltus* and in lower proportions by *ager and polis*. Urban territories are mainly made up of the *polis* component; and rural territories present a more balanced situation of these three elements: *saltus, ager and polis*.

Fig. 2. Relative proportions of territorial components: *saltus*, *ager* and *polis*, belonging to the territorial typologies: protected wildland, rural and urban, depending on the level and style of artificialization [adapted from 54].

Agriculture and Rurality as Constructor of Sustainable Cultural Landscape 159

human society development; the non-inclusion of the social and environmental services in

The predominant green agricultural industrial revolution known as conventional agriculture is associated with institution, policies and technologies administered form urban centers and markets, which interact with the present-day development model. The green agriculture revolution is based on a great use of capital and exhaustive transformation technology, as well as, laborer reduction, high energy, water and mechanization input, applied in high potential productive ecosystems. Industrial agriculture can be defined as a way of artificializing nature and natural resource management, in pose of agriculture productivity, giving great importance to the economic profit through marketing, and occasional technological processing of highly homogenous products, by means of exogenous inputs into the agro ecosystem, by its artificialization, simplification and destruction of the natural recycling energy and

This kind of context and agriculture has generated an important territorial-ecological impact and footprint in rural areas. The main footprints have been: carbon, energy, water and information, which put together, can be considered the agricultural footprint of our era. The agricultural frontier expansion and domestication of nature, both associated to the rural and cultural landscape construction, have developed several ecosystem diseases and affected life quality; such as: soil erosion, desertification, biodiversity reduction, cultural landscape homogenization, loss of niches and habitat diversity, in other words eco-diversity, unstable

Several studies show the consequences of the great economic importance given to the ecological-territorial management, generating ecosystem dysfunction in maintenance, use and regeneration of resources, as well as, degradation of the ecosystem services [60]. These authors indicate the importance of keeping the pressure on the landscape within the required limits for a stable ecosystem function, key for a sustainable management. Unfortunately these limits are frequently trespassed. This is the case of the Australian grazing system management. The innovation and production goals motivated by the wish for great short term profit in the ranching activities have produced many ways of degradation of the cultural landscape: Diminished natural grange and crop productivity; lower tolerance to drought, salinization, acidification, soil structure and erosion, water salinization, eutrophication of streams and lakes; loss of trees considering the cultural landscape scale; loss of important local and regional plant and animal species; invasion of native and exotic grasses; loss of future potential use of the land (tourism, research, etc.);

In Latin America there are also many cases. One is the Chilean forestry crop industry, broadly studied in academic and scientific literature and fully examined by Erlwein *et al*., [61]. The tremendous growth of this industry, explained mainly by the forest plantation territorial expansion starting the mid 60's till the end of the 90´s, and due to the increase of plants and production of cellulose, has triggered effects, such as: the unsustainable rurality; increase of the surface intended for intensive production; extreme production which excludes other uses and activities; reduction of native forest patches and of bio and ecodiversity; separation from land multiple use; resource degradation and production

the regional o national accounting [58].

ecosystems, loss of resilience and stability, etc.

besides the lower rural life quality [57, 60].

material process [59].

Various farms management typologies appear in these territories: in the urban territories, there are megacities, cities, towns, villages, among others; in rural territories, different kind of farms, vegetable gardens, urban parks, ranches, coexist; an finally, in the natural territories there are National Parks, Biosphere Reserves, Forest Reserves, Nature Sanctuaries, ethnic reserves, and the like.

#### **4. Cultural landscape construction and governance**

#### **4.1 Spirit of age and place**

Culture has become the main factor to determine the evolutionary dynamic of the ecological-territorial systems of our age, and consequently the construction and resulting cultural landscapes of the stakeholders. The spirit of age was first developed in Germany in the year 1769 by the poet and philosopher John Gottfried von Herder, giving it the name of *Zeitgeist* which means: spirit (*Geist*) and age (*Zeit*). The *Zietgeist* concept is mainly known in relation with the German historical philosophy of the philosopher George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Zeitgeist refers to the predominant cultural tendency at a certain time in the history of mankind. There is a certain vision and behavior during each particular period of sociocultural evolution which is expressed in the ecological-territorial systems and resulting cultural landscapes. This vision and style corresponds to the profile of the age and the conception of the world [55], which would be equivalent to the concept of paradigm in the world of science. Zeitgeist defines in the Hegel approach a certain state of the dialectic evolution of a person, a group of people, society or the whole world. Also important, and complementary with the spirit of age concept, is the spirit of place (*Volkgeist*), which mainly refers to the cultural tendencies of groups or societies in different places. This is related with the Nature's conditions in each place.

A common characteristic of the beliefs from eras preceding the industrial revolution was that human acts were limited to our basic needs and that technology only developed according to them [56]. During the industrial age, development was understood as a rebellion in contradiction to the need governing all societies until the XVIII century, and that progress is the success of said rebellion [56]. This has happened in association with technocracy and economic rationality predominance and with the neoliberal economic model [57]. This world notion and, the related growth model have generated great impact on the ecosystems, natural resources and, have been associated with the unsustainability tendencies of the ecological-territorial systems.

During the last decades of the XX century there have been territorial tendencies damaging sustainability and life quality, motivated by the stakeholders. The predominant sociocultural, economic and territorial tendencies in our time make it necessary to integrate new regulatory and management parameters, as well as new methodological tools to explicit and integrate the ecologic and social approach, methodological frameworks and design tools in addition to ecological-territorial planning [51].

Such unsustainable territorial tendencies have been and are presently generated by issues, such as: the economic strategies and targets that seek principally short term maximization of financial profit; predominance of private short term interest above long term public interest; a sectorial organization and design incapable of integrating the various dimensions of

Various farms management typologies appear in these territories: in the urban territories, there are megacities, cities, towns, villages, among others; in rural territories, different kind of farms, vegetable gardens, urban parks, ranches, coexist; an finally, in the natural territories there are National Parks, Biosphere Reserves, Forest Reserves, Nature

Culture has become the main factor to determine the evolutionary dynamic of the ecological-territorial systems of our age, and consequently the construction and resulting cultural landscapes of the stakeholders. The spirit of age was first developed in Germany in the year 1769 by the poet and philosopher John Gottfried von Herder, giving it the name of *Zeitgeist* which means: spirit (*Geist*) and age (*Zeit*). The *Zietgeist* concept is mainly known in relation with the German historical philosophy of the philosopher George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Zeitgeist refers to the predominant cultural tendency at a certain time in the history of mankind. There is a certain vision and behavior during each particular period of sociocultural evolution which is expressed in the ecological-territorial systems and resulting cultural landscapes. This vision and style corresponds to the profile of the age and the conception of the world [55], which would be equivalent to the concept of paradigm in the world of science. Zeitgeist defines in the Hegel approach a certain state of the dialectic evolution of a person, a group of people, society or the whole world. Also important, and complementary with the spirit of age concept, is the spirit of place (*Volkgeist*), which mainly refers to the cultural tendencies of groups or societies in different places. This is related with

A common characteristic of the beliefs from eras preceding the industrial revolution was that human acts were limited to our basic needs and that technology only developed according to them [56]. During the industrial age, development was understood as a rebellion in contradiction to the need governing all societies until the XVIII century, and that progress is the success of said rebellion [56]. This has happened in association with technocracy and economic rationality predominance and with the neoliberal economic model [57]. This world notion and, the related growth model have generated great impact on the ecosystems, natural resources and, have been associated with the unsustainability

During the last decades of the XX century there have been territorial tendencies damaging sustainability and life quality, motivated by the stakeholders. The predominant sociocultural, economic and territorial tendencies in our time make it necessary to integrate new regulatory and management parameters, as well as new methodological tools to explicit and integrate the ecologic and social approach, methodological frameworks and

Such unsustainable territorial tendencies have been and are presently generated by issues, such as: the economic strategies and targets that seek principally short term maximization of financial profit; predominance of private short term interest above long term public interest; a sectorial organization and design incapable of integrating the various dimensions of

Sanctuaries, ethnic reserves, and the like.

the Nature's conditions in each place.

tendencies of the ecological-territorial systems.

design tools in addition to ecological-territorial planning [51].

**4.1 Spirit of age and place** 

**4. Cultural landscape construction and governance** 

human society development; the non-inclusion of the social and environmental services in the regional o national accounting [58].

The predominant green agricultural industrial revolution known as conventional agriculture is associated with institution, policies and technologies administered form urban centers and markets, which interact with the present-day development model. The green agriculture revolution is based on a great use of capital and exhaustive transformation technology, as well as, laborer reduction, high energy, water and mechanization input, applied in high potential productive ecosystems. Industrial agriculture can be defined as a way of artificializing nature and natural resource management, in pose of agriculture productivity, giving great importance to the economic profit through marketing, and occasional technological processing of highly homogenous products, by means of exogenous inputs into the agro ecosystem, by its artificialization, simplification and destruction of the natural recycling energy and material process [59].

This kind of context and agriculture has generated an important territorial-ecological impact and footprint in rural areas. The main footprints have been: carbon, energy, water and information, which put together, can be considered the agricultural footprint of our era. The agricultural frontier expansion and domestication of nature, both associated to the rural and cultural landscape construction, have developed several ecosystem diseases and affected life quality; such as: soil erosion, desertification, biodiversity reduction, cultural landscape homogenization, loss of niches and habitat diversity, in other words eco-diversity, unstable ecosystems, loss of resilience and stability, etc.

Several studies show the consequences of the great economic importance given to the ecological-territorial management, generating ecosystem dysfunction in maintenance, use and regeneration of resources, as well as, degradation of the ecosystem services [60]. These authors indicate the importance of keeping the pressure on the landscape within the required limits for a stable ecosystem function, key for a sustainable management. Unfortunately these limits are frequently trespassed. This is the case of the Australian grazing system management. The innovation and production goals motivated by the wish for great short term profit in the ranching activities have produced many ways of degradation of the cultural landscape: Diminished natural grange and crop productivity; lower tolerance to drought, salinization, acidification, soil structure and erosion, water salinization, eutrophication of streams and lakes; loss of trees considering the cultural landscape scale; loss of important local and regional plant and animal species; invasion of native and exotic grasses; loss of future potential use of the land (tourism, research, etc.); besides the lower rural life quality [57, 60].

In Latin America there are also many cases. One is the Chilean forestry crop industry, broadly studied in academic and scientific literature and fully examined by Erlwein *et al*., [61]. The tremendous growth of this industry, explained mainly by the forest plantation territorial expansion starting the mid 60's till the end of the 90´s, and due to the increase of plants and production of cellulose, has triggered effects, such as: the unsustainable rurality; increase of the surface intended for intensive production; extreme production which excludes other uses and activities; reduction of native forest patches and of bio and ecodiversity; separation from land multiple use; resource degradation and production

Agriculture and Rurality as Constructor of Sustainable Cultural Landscape 161

During the last thirty or forty years there has been a paradigm shift due to the postmodern scientific revolution, mainly with the emergence of so called complex sciences, which change the object of study from the parts to the whole [30]. This has meant no longer centering the study in linear and determinant processes, but in non-linear processes organized in hierarchical interrelated networks, in order to identify the main interactions among variables and the processes involved in the study´s objective; this way the processes and tendencies that emerge from these interactions, turn the concepts of complexity,

This means changing the fragmentation for integration and complementation of the parts. The intention is to trespass the limits of the traditional scientific knowledge which proposes the objectivity and certainty of scientific truths, recognizing the need for an integral and contextual vision, as well as, and the need to deal with uncertainties [13, 30, 63, 64]. The key of the epistemological property of this paradigm shift is the development of an inter- and trans-disciplinary approach that requires variation in the current scientific reasoning. Röling [13] proposes the evolution of the science paradigm, starting with the simple dynamic structures and mechanical models, passing by the self-regulated models and homeostatic feedback models, towards the complex adapting auto-organizing systems, as well as, the

**4.2 Change of paradigm** 

network and hierarchy into fundamental issues [57].

Fig. 3. New scientific paradigm evolution [adapted from 13].

The main difference between positivism and constructivism lies in how you consider epistemologically, the relationship between the observer and the object and phenomena observed. Positivism considers the independent phenomena of the particular observer. Constructivism, on the other hand, incorporates an interaction between the observer and the

autopoietic cognitive models (Figure 3).

potential; capital concentration and socioeconomic inequity; inconsideration to cultural diversity contrary to social ethics; and cultural landscape uniformity, among many others. In conclusion it has been a sectorial growth which hasn´t incorporated any aspect other than the economic growth (such as the historic, social, ecologic, etc.) nor objectives different from the personal and private ones of the social actors, who have administered the process, and consequently have not stimulated and integral and sustainable territorial development [57].

This has all happened jointly with the emergence and development of the "industrial empires" pertaining to our industrial era. By the end of the XVIII century, with the industrial revolution there is a modification of products, transportation, technology and the demand for elements from nature which start becoming scarce or limited, generating the term natural resources in 1875. Modern industrial empires, such as: USA, United Kingdom, Japan, China, Germany, France, and others. Their natural resource requirement is so high that the commodities are extracted from the rest of the planet, generating the ecological footprint [62] of our industrial age. Said ecological footprint is grater in the countries producing the commodity to fulfill the demand of industrialized countries [53].

According to the ecophilosofer Sigmund Kvaloy two basics kinds of society can be distinguishes as a result of the industrial cultural tendencies and cultural landscape construction style: the Industrial Growth Society (IGS) and Life Necessity Society (LNS). The IGS are orientated towards industrial growth, whereas the LNS to fulfilling vital necessities.

IGS are developed through the interaction of four main dynamic factors [41]: oriented towards the linear or accelerated expansion to the production of industrial goods and services using industrial methods, as massive standardized production, the concentration of a few urban centers, and the specialization; the main force is the individual competition in every field of human effort, including leisure and art; the main resource for expansion and to eliminate competitors is not the mineral, energy, etc. resource control but the applied science control. The leading method to manage everything and perform diagnosis and prognosis is quantification. There is only one historic case of this kind of society: The present one which is becoming global. Most human societies have been of the LNS type. Among them there is a subvariety: the "Life Growth Societies" (LGS). These societies are focused on life improvement and promoting ecological complexity, cultural development and human creativity. This kind of society only can surface as a subspecies of the LNS type [41].

At present, progress is focused on the full understanding of territorial development. In which the territory is not a circumstantial factor of the economic analysis, but a descriptive element of the development processes. For a society to approach sustainability there must be cultural and paradigmatic changes to favor and direct, the integral construction of sustainable cultural landscapes, suitable for a good quality of life. For such paradigmatic changes to take place, there must be a considerable reorientation in the approximations that study these issues. Within the following paragraphs we present the theoretic and conceptual basis for the integral construction of the cultural landscape in the context of our era.

### **4.2 Change of paradigm**

160 Landscape Planning

potential; capital concentration and socioeconomic inequity; inconsideration to cultural diversity contrary to social ethics; and cultural landscape uniformity, among many others. In conclusion it has been a sectorial growth which hasn´t incorporated any aspect other than the economic growth (such as the historic, social, ecologic, etc.) nor objectives different from the personal and private ones of the social actors, who have administered the process, and consequently have not stimulated and integral and sustainable territorial

This has all happened jointly with the emergence and development of the "industrial empires" pertaining to our industrial era. By the end of the XVIII century, with the industrial revolution there is a modification of products, transportation, technology and the demand for elements from nature which start becoming scarce or limited, generating the term natural resources in 1875. Modern industrial empires, such as: USA, United Kingdom, Japan, China, Germany, France, and others. Their natural resource requirement is so high that the commodities are extracted from the rest of the planet, generating the ecological footprint [62] of our industrial age. Said ecological footprint is grater in the countries producing the commodity to fulfill the demand of industrialized

According to the ecophilosofer Sigmund Kvaloy two basics kinds of society can be distinguishes as a result of the industrial cultural tendencies and cultural landscape construction style: the Industrial Growth Society (IGS) and Life Necessity Society (LNS). The IGS are orientated towards industrial growth, whereas the LNS to fulfilling vital

IGS are developed through the interaction of four main dynamic factors [41]: oriented towards the linear or accelerated expansion to the production of industrial goods and services using industrial methods, as massive standardized production, the concentration of a few urban centers, and the specialization; the main force is the individual competition in every field of human effort, including leisure and art; the main resource for expansion and to eliminate competitors is not the mineral, energy, etc. resource control but the applied science control. The leading method to manage everything and perform diagnosis and prognosis is quantification. There is only one historic case of this kind of society: The present one which is becoming global. Most human societies have been of the LNS type. Among them there is a subvariety: the "Life Growth Societies" (LGS). These societies are focused on life improvement and promoting ecological complexity, cultural development and human creativity. This kind of society only can surface as a subspecies of the LNS type

At present, progress is focused on the full understanding of territorial development. In which the territory is not a circumstantial factor of the economic analysis, but a descriptive element of the development processes. For a society to approach sustainability there must be cultural and paradigmatic changes to favor and direct, the integral construction of sustainable cultural landscapes, suitable for a good quality of life. For such paradigmatic changes to take place, there must be a considerable reorientation in the approximations that study these issues. Within the following paragraphs we present the theoretic and conceptual basis for the integral construction of

the cultural landscape in the context of our era.

development [57].

countries [53].

necessities.

[41].

During the last thirty or forty years there has been a paradigm shift due to the postmodern scientific revolution, mainly with the emergence of so called complex sciences, which change the object of study from the parts to the whole [30]. This has meant no longer centering the study in linear and determinant processes, but in non-linear processes organized in hierarchical interrelated networks, in order to identify the main interactions among variables and the processes involved in the study´s objective; this way the processes and tendencies that emerge from these interactions, turn the concepts of complexity, network and hierarchy into fundamental issues [57].

This means changing the fragmentation for integration and complementation of the parts. The intention is to trespass the limits of the traditional scientific knowledge which proposes the objectivity and certainty of scientific truths, recognizing the need for an integral and contextual vision, as well as, and the need to deal with uncertainties [13, 30, 63, 64]. The key of the epistemological property of this paradigm shift is the development of an inter- and trans-disciplinary approach that requires variation in the current scientific reasoning. Röling [13] proposes the evolution of the science paradigm, starting with the simple dynamic structures and mechanical models, passing by the self-regulated models and homeostatic feedback models, towards the complex adapting auto-organizing systems, as well as, the autopoietic cognitive models (Figure 3).

Fig. 3. New scientific paradigm evolution [adapted from 13].

The main difference between positivism and constructivism lies in how you consider epistemologically, the relationship between the observer and the object and phenomena observed. Positivism considers the independent phenomena of the particular observer. Constructivism, on the other hand, incorporates an interaction between the observer and the

Agriculture and Rurality as Constructor of Sustainable Cultural Landscape 163

The Adaptive Complex System (ACS) is a concept and model that correspondence a turning point for the study systems of traditional sciences. The main feature of ACS, according to Gell-Mann [64], could be its use for landscape study. Each landscape is an iterative information processing system interacting with its environment; it continuously processes new information from its surrounding environment, generating new adaptive tendencies, coupling and stability. Since, the historical evolving process doesn't couple under the new circumstances and information, it can`t adapt to the system not connect with its surrounding

In systems far from equilibrium, such as the ACS's, order and disorder (chaos) are continuously interacting. In the chaotic stage, these systems tend to dissipate energy and generate entropy, creating conditions with new, continuous and iterative, order patterns, and occasionally developing a new organizational pattern and type of system [8, 13, 30]. This perspective is necessary to understand the adaptive evolution of cultural landscapes

The goal of the ACS's is to adapt to variable and changing environments, through different schemes stored in the historic system memory. The self-oriented capacity to adjust is explained by the ACS model. Highlighting human behavior as the main determining factor

At this moment in time, the processes of human society development are dominated by the sectorial approach. Each sector pursues optimization according to their own requirements, such as: economic, urbanistic; agricultural, rural, real state, forestry, mining sectors. This approach triggers territorial degradation tendencies as is doesn't considerer territorial integrity. It is a merological approach, reducing the problem to specific problems and

On the other hand, the territorial approach centers the main objective on the landscape planning units and its surroundings, focusing on the integral system development. It is based on the holistic system paradigm, emphasizing a transdisciplinary approach as a key

The XX century traditional paradigm focuses on three main interacting components: sectors, people and economic efficiency (Figure 4). With this approach, activities and development processes are evaluated as successes or failures, considering mainly the economic

In the XXI century a new paradigm emerges. The model integrates three dimensions: territory in instead of sectors; stakeholders instead of people; global quality instead of economic efficiency (Figure 4). The global indicator parameter for the sustainable cultural landscape construction and evaluation is related to each specific condition, and is a function of the following variables: ecological, social and economic. It is a determinant based on the interaction of three main axes: economic productivity, social equity and ecological sustainability [66, 69]. This approach and paradigm focus on the sustainable development

parameters, such as IRR (internal return rate) and NAV (real net value) [53].

environment, and thus, collapses.

in the cultural landscapes dynamic and evolution.

epistemological attribute for human development processes.

**4.3 Development approach and models** 

[13, 30, 67, 68].

interests.

and life's quality.

phenomenon observed, and recognizes that our perception of the world is only an individual and partial one [63]. From the perspective of constructivism, there should be a permanent dialog between the various observers, in order to piece together a group vision of reality, turning this into a collective cognition process. This effective dialogue, resulting from the collective construction is the foundation for the study of the phenomenon from the constructivism perspective.

In the XVII century, the French mathematician Rene Descartes formalized the reductionism perception. According to him, it is necessary to dissect and analyze separately and make precise measurements of the complex phenomena to fully understand it. This approach is synthetized in D*iscours de la méthode* (1637). As a consequence, it has created a utilitarian criteria of the truth and a reduction of the phenomenon studied to an instrumental notion [30]. During the same century, the English physicist, Isaac Newton, complemented this approach with mechanical vision of the universe. In this approach the wish to set rules and laws, and even some regularities could be sensed [65].

The holistic approach is based on the system theory, and thus, on the approach which established that the universe is an interrelated system, originating in the aristotelic consideration that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. All the data is more than the sum of the fragments of information, having to know it all to understand the collective behavior of the parts [30], namely, its combinations, and functional interactions in the construction of the systemic totality. The holistic approach considers that the problems must be tackled from the totalities and considering the contexts, as well as from the qualitative approach which gives meaning and sense to the quantitative.

The first quadrant of Figure 3, shows the reductionist - positivist approach, where each phenomena is perceived and treated independently from every discipline; the second quadrant is still based on positivism, but has evolved from a reductionist to a holistic perspective. There is a partial integration of the positivist – reductionist disciplines, but not enough to develop an integral and operational approach toward transdisciplinary and multidimensional problems.

The third quadrant presents an holistic and constructivist approach. Here the Adaptative Complex System (ACS) is located [*sensu* 64], the cognitive theory [39, 40, 8], the social knowledge based on and intentional and adaptive collective cognition in the design and management of our own destiny [1, 2, 13].

One of the outstanding values of the systemic approach, which is based on second order cybernetics, is that it may overcame epistemological barriers between science and humanity, as well as, between the techno-economical-political areas, where the decision process regarding the management of territories and natural resources take place [13, 30].

The homeostatic systems are related to the model equilibrium paradigm [35, 63], that is to say, they are connected to nature and to the perception of ecosystem as a balanced system. A central issue of this paradigm is the system´s tendency to reach a unique state of stability. In the evolving complex system study emerges a non-equilibrium paradigm [66]. Key aspects of the non-equilibrium paradigm are: the system can reach numerous constant states and keep the organizational pattern; the system has an open relation with its surroundings; it is capable of focusing on the continuous process co-evolutionary coupling [66].

phenomenon observed, and recognizes that our perception of the world is only an individual and partial one [63]. From the perspective of constructivism, there should be a permanent dialog between the various observers, in order to piece together a group vision of reality, turning this into a collective cognition process. This effective dialogue, resulting from the collective construction is the foundation for the study of the phenomenon from the

In the XVII century, the French mathematician Rene Descartes formalized the reductionism perception. According to him, it is necessary to dissect and analyze separately and make precise measurements of the complex phenomena to fully understand it. This approach is synthetized in D*iscours de la méthode* (1637). As a consequence, it has created a utilitarian criteria of the truth and a reduction of the phenomenon studied to an instrumental notion [30]. During the same century, the English physicist, Isaac Newton, complemented this approach with mechanical vision of the universe. In this approach the wish to set rules and

The holistic approach is based on the system theory, and thus, on the approach which established that the universe is an interrelated system, originating in the aristotelic consideration that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. All the data is more than the sum of the fragments of information, having to know it all to understand the collective behavior of the parts [30], namely, its combinations, and functional interactions in the construction of the systemic totality. The holistic approach considers that the problems must be tackled from the totalities and considering the contexts, as well as from the qualitative

The first quadrant of Figure 3, shows the reductionist - positivist approach, where each phenomena is perceived and treated independently from every discipline; the second quadrant is still based on positivism, but has evolved from a reductionist to a holistic perspective. There is a partial integration of the positivist – reductionist disciplines, but not enough to develop an integral and operational approach toward transdisciplinary and

The third quadrant presents an holistic and constructivist approach. Here the Adaptative Complex System (ACS) is located [*sensu* 64], the cognitive theory [39, 40, 8], the social knowledge based on and intentional and adaptive collective cognition in the design and

One of the outstanding values of the systemic approach, which is based on second order cybernetics, is that it may overcame epistemological barriers between science and humanity, as well as, between the techno-economical-political areas, where the decision process

The homeostatic systems are related to the model equilibrium paradigm [35, 63], that is to say, they are connected to nature and to the perception of ecosystem as a balanced system. A central issue of this paradigm is the system´s tendency to reach a unique state of stability. In the evolving complex system study emerges a non-equilibrium paradigm [66]. Key aspects of the non-equilibrium paradigm are: the system can reach numerous constant states and keep the organizational pattern; the system has an open relation with its surroundings; it is

regarding the management of territories and natural resources take place [13, 30].

capable of focusing on the continuous process co-evolutionary coupling [66].

constructivism perspective.

multidimensional problems.

management of our own destiny [1, 2, 13].

laws, and even some regularities could be sensed [65].

approach which gives meaning and sense to the quantitative.

The Adaptive Complex System (ACS) is a concept and model that correspondence a turning point for the study systems of traditional sciences. The main feature of ACS, according to Gell-Mann [64], could be its use for landscape study. Each landscape is an iterative information processing system interacting with its environment; it continuously processes new information from its surrounding environment, generating new adaptive tendencies, coupling and stability. Since, the historical evolving process doesn't couple under the new circumstances and information, it can`t adapt to the system not connect with its surrounding environment, and thus, collapses.

In systems far from equilibrium, such as the ACS's, order and disorder (chaos) are continuously interacting. In the chaotic stage, these systems tend to dissipate energy and generate entropy, creating conditions with new, continuous and iterative, order patterns, and occasionally developing a new organizational pattern and type of system [8, 13, 30]. This perspective is necessary to understand the adaptive evolution of cultural landscapes [13, 30, 67, 68].

The goal of the ACS's is to adapt to variable and changing environments, through different schemes stored in the historic system memory. The self-oriented capacity to adjust is explained by the ACS model. Highlighting human behavior as the main determining factor in the cultural landscapes dynamic and evolution.
