Historic construction of diffuse cultural landscapes: Towards a GIS-based method for mapping the interlinkages of heritage

Historic construction of diffuse cultural landscapes: Towards a GIS-based method for mapping the interlinkages of heritage Marina López Sánchez a*, Mercedes Linares Gómez del Pulgar a and Antonio Tejedor Cabrera a a Instituto Universitario de Arquitectura y Ciencias de la Construcción, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain *corresponding author: marina[email protected] Abstract The convergence of research on landscape and heritage holds great strategic potential for establishing novel connections between the heritage resources of a territory. This text reflects on the ability of the landscape to situate inherited assets within a framework of spatial coherence in relation to the peri-urban spaces of large cities, heritage areas of great historical depth that have been particularly aggressively exposed to the urban development dynamics of the second half of the 20th century. In order to address these often forgotten spaces, this text presents a system for heritage management argued from the standpoint of and towards the landscape and based on historical interpretation, cartographic analysis, mapping and digital documentation. Geographic technologies and graphic expression are basic pillars to integrate historical information with the language and resources of the disciplines involved in landscape planning and design, advancing criteria for a forwardlooking landscape-based heritage management. Keywords: cultural landscape; peri-urban areas; heritage; Geographical Information Systems; sustainable development 1 Introduction The need to care for and protect the landscape has been consolidated in heritage research over the last two decades (Agnoletti, 2006; Bloemers et al., 2010; Kolen & van der Laarse, 2010; Longstreth, 2008; Scazzosi, 2004; Taylor et al., 2018; Taylor, 2016; Whelan & Moore, 2016). Since the beginning of the 20th century, the contemporary notion of landscape has been shaped by the geographical sciences (Sauer, 1925; Meining, 1979) and is now embraced by a wide field of multidisciplinary research (Antrop & Van Eetvelde, 2017). It is conceived as a rich space-time framework that expresses the historical relationships forged between humans and the territory they inhabit. From this point of view, landscape has been consolidated as a focus of attention for the heritage sphere (Rössler, 2006). Its recognition as a heritage asset not only represents a new target for safeguarding and protection, but is also a solid demonstration of the ineffectiveness of the usual conservation practices when it comes to dealing with humanised and living environments, since the emphasis cannot be placed on static permanence but rather on controlled transformation and the creation of sustainable value (Poulios, 2014). From the landscape approach, the choice between conservation or development is proven to be obsolete (Appendino, 2017; Araoz, 2011). On the contrary, landscape is a strategic factor for the construction of a renewed integrative heritage management (Taylor & Lennon, 2010) based on the principles of sustainable development (Feria, 2012; Manero & García, 2016). When the historical evolution of a place is understood through its landscape, the heritage resources found there cease to be understood as individual elements, as they are all read as an integral part of that landscape and its evolutionary process. In addition, the landscape begins in the moment at which relationships are established between the components of the territory, therefore the study of the historic landscape enables the detection of long-standing links between the heritage resources (Sabaté, 2005; Llop, 2011). These links, given that they are based on evolutionary events and circumstances that occur throughout history, can take on the form of a narrative. The landscape turns a “place with unique heritage pieces”, that is, a territory where several resources recognised as cultural or natural heritage can be located, into a space built through a unitary reading whose overall value exceeds that of the sum of its parts (Calderón & García, 2016). Therefore, the landscape retains an interesting potential as a strategy for a cohesive understanding of the heritage content of the territory due to its relational and narrative capacity. The landscape functions as a roadmap for finding the historical relations between the heritage resources, which at the end of the day are the beneficiaries, the ones that must be protected and valued. This text presents a methodology for putting this conceptual framework into practice based on historical interpretation, cartographic analysis, mapping and digital documentation through GIS. Specifically, a three-step method is introduced for heritage management argued from the standpoint of and towards the landscape. It reformulates the tasks of documentation and registration of heritage as tools that advance criteria and strategies of planning and spatial design for territorial balance and sustainable development. To this end, the proposed methodology begins with a GIS-based procedure to detect and record the territory’s heritage resources and their relationships (step 1). Consecutively, a modus operandi is developed to construct narratives through these links. The narratives aim to encourage the transmission to the population of the heritage relations that are identified (step 2). Lastly, the processes and tools for these relations and narratives to be able to act as the basis for a landscape design and planning project are considered (step 3). The methodology that will be presented is considered to be potentially applicable to any urban or rural landscape. Nevertheless, it becomes especially relevant for landscapes with high levels of fragmentation, given that the method is aimed at creating heritage connections that strengthen a unitary reading. This paper will refer to these disjointed landscapes as diffuse landscapes, given the difficulty they present when being read, interpreted and understood. The peri-urban areas of the large and medium-sized cities are a paradigmatic example of these diffuse landscapes. The urban expansion model of the second half of the 20th century has formed an image of the peripheral areas as lacking an identity (Augé, 2008; Koolhass, 1997; 2002), largely compromising their heritage intelligibility. They have never been recognised as spaces with sufficient landscape or heritage value, remaining at the mercy of dispersed regional planning which, moving forward at the expense of real estate developments, industrialisation projects and new roads, has largely compromised their visibility as heritage spaces. However, their proximity to major urban centres makes them places with great historical depth and a considerable density of heritage resources. It is therefore necessary to reduce the serious situations of decontextualisation of many of the heritage pieces found in these environments through the development of mechanisms and spatial procedures that, due to the relational nature and the narrative potential of the landscape, improve their visibility and integration into the contemporary landscape (Hökerberg, 2013; Ureña & de Coronado, 2018). The heritage scenario must express itself in this respect in coordination with the landscape science, proposing mechanisms that react to the hegemonic reproduction of a standardised and unsustainable model of development that entails the loss of cultural and ecological diversity (Magnaghi, 2012). 2 Case study The methodology will be applied in a peri-urban area of the city of Seville (Spain) (Figure 1). The scope of the study is approximately 600 km2 and includes eighteen municipalities in the north-western sector of the area of influence of the most populated city in southern Spain. The population of Seville is around 700,000 inhabitants and the total number of municipalities in the area studied has approximately 100,000 inhabitants. In selecting the field of study, the aim was to address a dispersed and landscape-diverse heritage network that nevertheless contains valuable heritage resources. The territory chosen is paradigmatic in this respect since, within a relatively small area, there is an agricultural landscape in the central area, whose land division system dates back to medieval times; a mining landscape that has been exploited since prehistoric times at the foot of the northern mountains; the landscape of the metropolitan area of Seville, which is located in the south of the area, in the privileged elevated position of the Aljarafe cornice; and, on both sides, the fluvial landscapes of the Guadalquivir and Guadiamar rivers. Figure 1. Area of study. Author: Marina López, 2020. The area constitutes a complex heritage network of great landscape richness that covers a very wide time span; however, its resources are isolated in such a way that they do not establish relationships with other nearby assets or with the landscape they belong to. Consequently, the historical connections between them remain hidden from the population. It is a representative example of those areas located in the proximity of medium and large cities, where the landscape diversity and the historical depth of the territory coexist with fast roads, industrial areas, business parks or large commercial infrastructures that fragment the landscape and make it very difficult to appreciate it as heritage (Figures 2 and 3). Figure 2. Photo of the North Cornice of El Aljarafe. Author: Marina López, 2020. Figure 3. Photo from the North Cornice of El Aljarafe with Seville in the back. Author: Marina López, 2020. 3 Methods and Results 3.1 Methodological framework The study is based on the historical reconstruction of the landscape from prehistoric times to the present day through contrasted archival research from eight different sources, comprising a historical bibliography, research work (eg. Cornejo, 2017; García, 2003; Garrido, 2011; Mejías, 2017; Rosa, 2003), archaeological maps (eg. Fernández et al., 2017; Hunt et al, 2017), municipal planning, heritage inventories, landscape catalogues (Zoido & Rodríguez, 2015), iconographic sources of landscape views and historical cartography, the latter being especially revealing of the values and meanings of the landscape. This method therefore shares techniques with the consolidated line of research focused on advancing historical knowledge of landscape through the study of graphic sources (Alonso-Rodríguez et al., 2017; Chías, 2012; Giordano & Nolan, 2007; Maio et al., 2013; Pinho & Oliveira, 2009). The historical reconstruction of the landscape is an analytical process mainly rooted in geography and archaeology that has numerous international benchmarks, such as the English historic landscape characterisation (HLC) (Alfred & Fairclough, 2002), the analysis of the territorialisation processes of the Italian territorialist school (Magnaghi, 2017; Poli, 2017) or the Dutch landscape biography approach (Kolen et al., 2015), among others. Their objective is to understand how nowadays landscape character has been shaped by historic processes and relate this information to present day decision-making in landscape planning. These approaches are in tune with the spatial turn in historical studies that Karl Schlögel has called for: “an expository form that focuses on the historical place has turned out to be the most appropriate way to make history present” (Schlögel, 2003). Compared to the approach most aimed at detecting the time depth and the change patterns of land use that characterise HLC studies, this research focuses on heritage assets. The methodology matches the Italian experience in focusing on the relational capacity of the landscape, developed in phase 1 of the proposed methodology. This exercise is identified with the Piani Paesaggistici Regionali (Magnaghi, 2016), regional instruments of landscape planning that are presented from a structural interpretation of the landscape, understanding it as an integrating network of factors and processes that articulate the territory. The process indeed detects the invarianti strutturali (Maggio, 2014), which constitute the complex network of heritage elements and features that determine the character of a landscape. Structural invariants are organised into networks, so that each component of the landscape is linked to a higher structure that interrelates it with others, rather than functioning as an isolated piece in the territory. In addition, the methodology coincides with Dutch research in terms of the emphasis on the narrative potential of the landscape, considered in phase 2 of the proposed methodology. The study shares the Landscape Biography approach of situating heritage in a framework of spatial and temporal coherence in the present through the long-term stories contained in the landscape (Kolen et al, 2015; Roymans et al., 2009; van der Schriek, 2019). According to the biographical perspective on the landscape, the study of the evolution of a cultural landscape until today —as a long-term assessment of its constant process of renovation and revaluation— has an intrinsic potential to generate powerful and innovative narratives of the ways in which communities have used, organised and interpreted the territory over time (Kolen, 1995). The diachronic analysis of the landscape has the capacity to build narrative threads from which to offer a structured and attractive interpretation of the heritage fabric that sustains it (Kolen & Renes, 2015). The specific contribution of the methodology proposed below is the development of a methodological sequence that is capable of turning these landscape relations and narratives into a specific spatial proposal that can be implemented by landscape design and planning professionals. This topic has been developed in phase 3 of the proposed methodology. 3.2 Step 1. GIS-based relational database The first step is set in a GIS environment. The diachronic analysis of the landscape moves to an operational plane by a georeferenced record that collects all the currently existing heritage resources that contribute to transmitting the identified historical processes. The fundamental starting point of this work has been the Management and Information System of the Cultural Assets of Andalusia, MOSAICO, produced by the Documentation and Studies Centre of the Institute of Historical Heritage of Andalusia (IAPH) and implemented in 2011. Its information is disseminated through the Digital Guide to the Cultural Heritage of Andalusia (Instituto Andaluz de Patrimonio Histórico, n.d.). The Documentation and Studies Centre provided the research team responsible for this work with a vectorial layer in shape (.shp) format referring to the scope of study that contained all the heritage resources currently recorded in the Digital Guide. This layer has been completed and updated through the diachronic study of the landscape. The novelty of the method with relation to MOSAICO is that a system based on the landscape to a greater extent promotes the detection of situations of anonymity, abandonment and risk of disappearance of the minor assets, as even they are not salient in terms of heritage significance, they could allow to explain the diachronic processes of landscape formation. With the expansion of the inventory, 751 heritage resources have been registered. Specifically, 439 archaeological sites, 131 architectural buildings, 63 heritage infrastructures, 56 historic roads, 22 urban ensembles, 16 intangible heritage manifestations, 14 spaces of commemoration and 10 elements of the natural environment. Each resource, while in constant interrelation with the other heritage pieces, provides specific interpretative keys on the analysed landscape. The resources are systemised through a standardised digital documentation process that establishes temporal, typological, and hierarchical associations between them through a controlled thesaurus of terms. The design of a repository of words allows to establish a semantic organisation, a vocabulary management and a conceptual structure from which to build a relational database. The repository began with the MOSAICO thesaurus, although it has been modified under the aim of increasing its relational capacity (e.g. amalgamating some terms). Although the methodology is considered potentially applicable to any area, the word repository will always have to be adapted to the specific features and components of the landscape being analysed. In order to build the relational database, each heritage item of the record is associated with an attribute table composed of three data blocks. The first block aims to correctly identify and locate the heritage assets (Table 1; Figure 4). The next block establishes temporal and typological relationships between them (Table 2; Figure 5). The repository of words is especially relevant in this data block, as it guarantees fluid semantic searches from which to detect heritage networks resulting from such connections. Table 1. Information provided in the attribute table of Block I: Identification. BLOCK I: IDENTIFICATION Nº of terms Keywords ID - - Spatial shape 3 Point; line; area Name - - Municipality 25 E.g. La Algaba; La Rinconada; Santiponce; Guillena; Gerena, etc. Coord. x - - Coord. y - - Context 3 urban; peri-urban; rural Protection status* 15 E.g. World Heritage; Property of Cultural Interest; Protected Landscape, etc. Heritage inventory it appears in* 18 Ej. Management and Information System of the Cultural Assets of Andalusia; Inventory of archaeological sites in the province of Seville; Inventory of Cortijos, Haciendas and Lagares in Andalusia. * Heritage items can have more than one keyword in this field Figure 4. Map of the recorded heritage resources with the information of Block I: Identification. Author: Marina López, 2020. Table 2. Information provided in the attribute table of Block II: Classification. BLOCK II. CLASSIFICATION Nº of terms Keywords Time period* 14 Paleolithic (PL); Neolithic (NL); Copper Age (CA); Early and Middle Bronze Age (BA-EM); Late Bronze Age (BA-L); Early Iron Age (IA-E); Late Iron Age (IA-L); Roman Age-Republic (RA-R); Roman Age-High Empire (RAHE); Roman Age-Low Empire (RA-LE); Early Middle Ages (MA-E); Late Middle Ages (MA-L); Modern Age (MoA); Contemporary Age (CoA). Basic classification* 8 Urban ensemble (URBAN); Archaeological heritage (ARCHAEO); Architectural heritage (ARCHI); Heritage infrastructures (INFRA); Historic roads (ROAD); Intangible heritage (INT); Natural heritage (NAT); Commemorative spaces (COM) General typology* 12 Human settlement (HSETTLE); Funeral systems (FUN); Agricultural architecture (AGRI); Defensive architecture (DEF); Religious architecture (RELIG); Civil architecture (CIV); Residential architecture (RESID); Mobility infrastructures (MOB); Water infraestructures (WATER); Mining infrastructures (MIN); Electric infrastructures (ELEC); Railway infrastructure (RAIL) Specific typology* 64 E.g. (for WATER) hot springs; cisterns; aqueduct; river port; dam; pond; irrigation ditch; watermill; water reservoir; deposit; hydroelectric power station; filtering station. * Heritage items can have more than one keyword in this field Figure 5. Map of the recorded heritage resources with the information of Block II: Classification. Author: Marina López, 2020. The third block aims to establish a hierarchy of the recorded heritage pieces based on the role they currently play in the landscape (Table 3; Figure 6). First, information is provided on whether the heritage asset is nowadays recognisable or whether, on the contrary, it is invisible because it is a buried archaeological site. Second, the resources have been measured, on the one hand, by their structural value (STv), which refers to the capacity of heritage to express long-term territorial processes. On the other hand, they have also been measured by their identity value (IDv), which determines how much heritage impacts the local population nowadays. The structural value is obtained from the assessment of the state of conservation (SC) of the heritage asset and its historic-cultural relevance (HR). The identity value is the result of four variables, which are social recognition (SR), physical accessibility (PA), level of adaptation for receiving visits (AV) and frequency of appearance in tourist guides (AG). From the analysis of both values, a three-level hierarchy of heritage resources is obtained, consisting of central poles, structuring heritage, and historical traces. In this way, the inventory incorporates an assessment of the current capacity of the heritage resources to transmit the cultural values they represent. This is a novelty compared to MOSAICO, as its table of attributes refers to topics exclusively linked to the historical-heritage value of the assets (historical period, chronology, typology, style etc.), while the proposed model also assesses the present-day legibility of the heritage resources. Tolina Loulanski (2006) defines this process as a transition from objects to functions and, consequently, from conservation to sustainable development. Overcoming an exclusively contemplative vision of heritage ensures its survival in periods when their original uses are already obsolete. If heritage does not find a purpose in line with the present which justifies the need to extend its useful life, it will inevitably end up becoming an obstacle. Table 3. Information provided in the attribute table of Block III: Hierarquy. BLOCK III. HIERARCHY Nº of terms Keyword Associated value Recognisable 2 Yes; No State of conservation (SC) 5 destroyed/missing; Low; Medium; Good; Very good Destroyed/missing = 0 Low = 1 Medium = 2 Good = 4 Very good = 6 Historic-cultural relevance (HR) 3 Low; Medium; High Low = 0 Medium = 3 High = 5 Social recognition (SR) 3 Unknown/low; Medium; High/Very high Unknown/low = 0 Medium = 3 High/Very high = 5 Physical accessibility (PA) 3 No indications + Difficult access area; No indications + Easy access area; With indications No indications + Difficult access area = 0 No indications + Easy access area = 3 With indications = 5 Level of adaptation for receiving visits (AV) 3 No visits allowed; The item can be visited, although the place is not accommodated for it; Visits are allowed and the place is prepared for visits. No visits allowed = 0 The item can be visited, although the place is not accommodated it= 3 Visits are allowed and the place is prepared for visits = 5 Frequency of appearance in tourist guides (AG) 3 Null/low; Medium; High/very high Null/low = 0 Medium = 3 High/very high = 5 Structural value (STv) 5 Null; Low; Medium; High; Very high STv= EC + RP STv Null = 0 STv Low = 1-4 STv Medium = 5-6 STv High = 7-8 STv Very high = 9-11 Identity value (IDv) 5 Null; Low; Medium; High; Very high IDv= RS + AF + AV + GT IDv Null = 0 IDv Low = 3-9 IDv Medium = 10-12 IDv High = 14-16 IDv Very high = 18-20 Hierarchy level 3 Central poles (CP); Structuring heritage (SH); Historical traces (HT) Hierarchy level = STv + IDv CP>20 9<SH≤20 HT≤9 Appendino, F. 2017. “Balancing Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development - The Case of Bordeaux”. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 245(6): 062002. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/245/6/062002 Araoz, G. F. 2011. “Preserving heritage places under a new paradigm”. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 1(1): 55-60. doi: 10.1108/20441261111129933 Augé, M. 2008. Non-places: An introduction to supermodernity. London: Verso. Bloemers, J.H.F., H. Kars, A. van der Valk, and M. Wijnen, eds. 2010. The Cultural Landscape Heritage Paradox. Protection and Development of the Dutch Archaeological–Historical Landscape and its European Dimension. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Burgers, G., M. de Kleijn, M., and N. van Manen. 2014. “Urban Landscape archaeology, geodesign and the city of rome”. In Geodesign by Integrating Design and Geospatial Sciences, edited by D. J. Lee, E. Dias, and H. J. Scholten, 183-192. Cham: Springer. Calderón Calderón, B., and J.L. García Cuesta. 2016. “Heritage and territory in Spain: fundamentals and strategies for managing territorial culture”. In Cultural Heritage & territorial development, edited by F. Manero Miguel and J.L. García Cuesta, 51-105. Cizur Menor: Thomson Reuters Aranzadi. Chen, Y., A. Dang, and X. Peng. 2014. “Building a Cultural Heritage Corridor Based on Geodesign Theory and Methodology”. Journal of Urban Management 3(1–2): 97–112. doi: 10.1016/S2226-5856(18)30086- 4. Chías, P. 2012. “Territory and cartography. Landscapes and interpretations. Graphic, cartographic and literary images: Cádiz as a case study”. EGA Expresión Gráfica Arquitectónica 19: 38-47. doi: 10.4995/ega.2012.1356 Cornejo Ortíz, S. 2017. Del conocimiento a la protección del patrimonio en pequeños municipios del Aljarafe sevillano [From knowledge to the protection of heritage in small municipalities of the Sevillian Aljarafe]. Doctoral thesis. Universidad de Sevilla. Feria Toribio, J.M., ed. 2012. Territorial Heritage and Development. London: CRC Press. Fernández Flores, A., A. Rodríguez Azogue, and S. García-Dils de la Vega, S. 2017. Carta Arqueológica Municipal de Alcalá del Río, Sevilla [Municipal Archaeological Charter of Alcalá del Río, Seville]. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura. Fredholm, S. et al. 2018. “Conservation of historical landscapes: What signifies 'successful' management?”. Landscape Research 43(5): 735-748. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2017.1335864 Galindo González, J., and J. Sabaté Bel. 2009. El valor estructurante del patrimonio en la transformación del territorio [The structuring value of heritage in the transformation of the territory]. Apuntes: Revista de estudios sobre patrimonio cultural 22 (1): 20-33. Retrieved from: http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/apun/v22n1/v22n1a03.pdf (accessed 09/10/20) Garrido González, P. 2011. La ocupación romana del Valle del Guadiamar y la conexión minera [The Roman occupation of the Guadiamar Valley and the mining connection]. Doctoral thesis. Universidad de Sevilla. García Fernández, F.J. 2003. El poblamiento turdetano en el Bajo Guadalquivir [The Turdetan settlement in the Lower Guadalquivir]. Doctoral thesis. Universidad de Sevilla. Giordano, A., and T. Nolan. 2007. “Civil War maps of the Battle of Stones River: History and the modern landscape”. Cartographic Journal 44(1): 55-70. doi: 10.1179/000870407X173850 Goodchild, M. F. 2010. “Towards Geodesign: Repurposing Cartography and GIS?” Cartographic Perspectives 66: 7-22. doi: 10.14714/CP66.93 Hökerberg, H., 2013. “Contextualising the periphery. New conceptions of urban heritage in Rome”. International Journal of Heritage Studies 19 (3): 243-258. doi: 10.1080/13527258.2011.651739 Hunt Ortiz, M.A., J. Vázquez Paz, and P. Garrido González. 2017. Carta Arqueológica Municipal de Aznalcóllar [Municipal Archaeological Charter of Aznalcóllar]. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura. Instituto Andaluz de Patrimonio Histórico. Junta de Andalucía (n.d.). Guía digital del Patrimonio Cultural de Andalucía [Digital guide of the Cultural Heritage of Andalusia]. Retrieved from: https://guiadigital.iaph.es/ (accessed 13/10/20) Janssen, J., E. Luiten, J. Renes, and I. Rouwendal. 2012. Heritage planning and spatial development in the Netherlands: changing policies and perspectives. International Journal of Heritage Studies 20(1): 1-21. doi: 10.1080/13527258.2012.710852 Kolen, J., J. Renes, and R. Hermans. 2015. Landscape Biographies. Geographical, historical and archaeological perspectives on the production and transmission of landscapes. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Kolen, J., and J. Renes. 2015. “Landscape Biographies: Key Issues”. In Landscape Biographies. Geographical, historical and archaeological perspectives on the production and transmission of landscapes, edited by J. Kolen, J., Renes, and R. Hermans, 21-47. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Kolen, J., Renes, J., and Hermans, R. 2015. Landscape Biographies. Geographical, historical and archaeological perspectives on the production and transmission of landscapes. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Kolen, J., N. van Manen, and M. de Kleijn 2014. “History Matters: The Temporal and Social Dimension of Geodesign”. In Geodesign by Integrating Design and Geospatial Sciences, edited by D.J. Lee, E. Dias and H.J. Scholten, 173-181. Cham: Springer. Kolen, J., and R. van der Laarse. 2010. Reader in Landscape and Heritage. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Kolen, J. 1995. “Recreating (in) nature, visiting history. Second thoughts on landscape reserves and their role in the preservation and experience of the historic environment”. Archaeological Dialogues 2: 127– 159. doi: 10.1017/S1380203800000453 Koolhaas, R. 2002. Junkspace. October 100: 175-190. Koolhaas, R. 1997. The Generic City. Domus 791: 3-12. Llop Torné, C. 2011. La valoración y dinamización de los paisajes y el desarrollo económico local [The valuation and dynamization of landscapes and local economic development]. In Retos y perspectivas de la gestión del paisaje en Canarias, edited by M. Simancas Cruz and A. Cortina Ramos, 413-436. Gobierno de Canarias. López Sánchez, M., A. Tejedor Cabrera, and M. Linares Gómez del Pulgar. 2020a. “Guidelines from the Heritage Field for the Integration of Landscape and Heritage Planning: A Systematic Literature Review”. Landscape and Urban Planning 204: 103931. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103931 López Sánchez, M., Tejedor Cabrera, A. y Linares Gómez del Pulgar, M. 2020b “Arquitectura y Sistemas de Información Geográfica: Hacia un Proyecto de Paisaje Informado” [Architecture and Geographic Information Systems: Towards an Informed Landscape Project]. Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura 22: 72- 87. doi: 10.12795/ppa.2020.i22.04 Longstreth, R., ed. 2008. Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Loulanski, T. 2006. “Revising the Concept for Cultural Heritage: The Argument for a Functional Approach”. International Journal of Cultural Property 13: 207-233. doi: 10.1017/S0940739106060085 Maggio, M. 2014. Invarianti strutturali nel governo del territorio [Structural invariants in territorial governance]. Florence: Firenze University Press. Magnaghi, A. (2017). “La storia del territorio nell’approccio territorialista all’urbanistica e alla pianificazione” [The history of the territory in the territorialist approach to urbanism and planning]. Scienze Del Territorio 5: 32-41. doi: 10.13128/Scienze_Territorio-22229 Magnaghi, A. 2016. La pianificazione paesaggistica in Italia. Stato dell‘arte e innovazioni [Landscape planning in Italy. State of the art and innovations]. Florence: Firenze University Press. Magnaghi, A. 2012. Il territorio bene comune [The common good territory]. Florence: Firenze University Press. Maio, C.V., D.E. Tenenbaum, C.J. Brown, V.T. Mastone, and A.M. Gontz, A.M. 2013. “Application of geographic information technologies to historical landscape reconstruction and military terrain analysis of an american revolution battlefield: Preservation potential of historic lands in urbanized settings, boston, massachusetts, USA”. Journal of Cultural Heritage 14(4): 317-331. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2012.08.002 Manero Miguel, F., and J.L. García Cuesta, eds. 2016. Cultural Heritage & territorial development. Cizur Menor (Navarra): Thomson Reuters Aranzadi. Meinig, D.W., ed. 1979. The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays. New York: Oxford University Press. Mejías García, J.C. 2017. Formaciones sociales del III Milenio A.N.E. en Valencina [Social formations of the III Millennium A.N.E. in Valencina]. Doctoral thesis. Universidad de Sevilla. Pinho, P., and V. Oliveira. 2009. “Cartographic analysis in urban morphology”. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(1): 107-127. doi: 10.1068/b34035 Poli, D. 2017. Processi storici e forme della rappresentazione identitaria del territorio [Historical processes and forms of identity representation of the territory]. Scienze Del Territorio 5: 42-53. doi: 10.13128/Scienze_Territorio-22230 Poulios, I. (2014). Discussing strategy in heritage conservation. Living heritage approach as an example of strategic innovation. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 4 (1): 16- 34. doi: 10.1108/JCHMSD-10-2012-0048. Rosa Jiménez, C.J. 2003. Transformaciones metropolitanas en el territorio cultural del Aljarafe Sevillano [Metropolitan transformations in the cultural territory of Aljarafe Sevillano]. Doctoral thesis. Universidad de Sevilla. Rössler, M. 2006. “World heritage cultural landscapes: A UNESCO flagship programme 1992-2006”. Landscape Research 31(4): 333-353. doi: 10.1080/01426390601004210 Roymans, N., et al. 2009. “Landscape biography as research strategy: The case of the South Netherlands Project”. Landscape Research 34(3): 337–359. doi: 10.1080/01426390802381185. Sabaté Bel, J. 2005. De la preservación del patrimonio a la ordenación del paisaje [From heritage preservation to landscape planning]. Identidades: territorio, cultura, patrimonio, 1: 15-33. Sauer, C. O. 1925. “The Morphology of Landscape”. University of California Publications in Geography 2 (2): 19-53. Scazzosi, L. 2004. “Reading and assessing the landscape as cultural and historical heritage”. Landscape Research 29(4): 335–355. doi:10.1080/0142639042000288993. Schlögel, K. 2003. In Space We Read Time: On the History of Civilization and Geopolitics Bard Graduate Center cultural histories of the material world Cultural histories of the material world. New York: Bard Graduate Center Stenseke, M. 2009. “Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance: Lessons from Sweden”. Land Use Policy 26(2): 214-223. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.01.005 Taylor, K., A. St Clair, and N. Mitchell, eds. 2017. Conserving Cultural Landscapes: Challenges and New Directions. London: Routledge. Taylor, K. 2016. “The Historic Urban Landscape paradigm and cities as cultural landscapes. Challenging orthodoxy in urban conservation”. Landscape Research 41(4): 471-480. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2016.1156066. Taylor, K., and J. Lennon. 2011. “Cultural landscapes: a bridge between culture and nature?” International Journal of Heritage Studies 17(6): 537-554. doi: 10.1080/13527258.2011.618246 Thorkildsen, A., and M. Ekman. 2013. “The complexity of becoming: collaborative planning and cultural heritage”. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 3(2): 148-162. doi: 10.1108/JCHMSD-10-2012-0053 Ureña, J. M. de, and Coronado, J. M., 2018. “El patrimonio urbano como oportunidad para recualificar las periferias metropolitanas: especial referencia a Madrid” [Urban heritage as an opportunity for urban renewal of peripheral metropolitan areas: special reference to Madrid]. Ciudad y Territorio Estudios Territoriales (CyTET) 50 (195): 85-100. Retrieved from https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/CyTET/article/view/76611 van der Schriek, M. 2019. “Landscape biographies of commemoration”. Landscape Research 44(1): 99- 111. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2018.1427710 Wang, S., and K. Gu. 2020. “Pingyao: The historic urban landscape and planning for heritage-led urban changes”. Cities 97: 102489. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.102489. Whelan, Y., and N. Moore. 2016. Heritage, Memory and the Politics of Identity: New Perspectives on the Cultural Landscape. London: Routledge. Zoido Naranjo, F., and J. Rodríguez Rodríguez. 2015. Catálogo de paisajes de la provincia de Sevilla [Landscape catalogue of the province of Seville]. Sevilla: Centro de Estudios de paisaje y territorio, Consejería de Medio Ambiente y Ordenación del Territorio.