What is biological cultural heritage and why should we care about it? An example from Swedish rural landscapes and forests

Abstract

Citation: What is biological cultural heritage and why should we care about it? An example from Swedish rural landscapes and forests. Nature Conservation 28: 1-32. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.28.25067 AbstractThere is currently a growing concern that biocultural heritage is threatened in many landscapes. This paper focuses on biological cultural heritage, broadly meaning biological cultural traces that are considered as heritage, but leaving out other aspects of the biocultural heritage concept. An operational definition of biological cultural heritage (BCH) is suggested, based on niche construction theory: "biological manifestations of culture, reflecting indirect or intentional effects, or domesticated landscapes, resulting from historical human niche construction". Some factors that influence recognition of BCH are discussed, using a comparison between Swedish open to semi-open vs. forested landscapes. While the former landscapes are generally associated with biological cultural values, BCH is generally over-looked in forests. Two main reasons for this are suggested: loss of cultural memory and a perception of forests as wilderness. A conclusion is that recognition of BCH is essential for guiding development of biological conservation programmes in forests, irrespective of whether the conservation goal is to focus on culturally impacted forests or to conserve what is considered as close to pristine forests. Furthermore, recognising BCH in forests will promote interest and learning of the history of forests and their values and will be informative for developing conservation programmes for all biota in forests, not only those that historically were favoured by culture. Hence, there is no inherent conflict between preserving relatively untouched forests and those with remaining traces of pre-industrial forest management. The recognition of BCH in forests will inspire and promote further integration of cultural and natural heritage research. Keywords REVIEW ARTICLE Launched to accelerate biodiversity conservation A peer-reviewed open-access journalOve Eriksson / Nature Conservation 28: 1-32 (2018) 2

’Gooseberry is the only thing left’ – a study of declining biological cultural heritage at abandoned crofts in the province of Södermanland, Sweden

“…As has been remarked by several authors discussing biological cultural heritage (e.g. Emanuelsson 2003;Ljung, Lennartsson, and Westin;Eriksson 2018), biological remains of previous human activity present some special problems as compared with other material remains, due to the simple fact that they are living. Thus, specific individuals, for example trees, which are indications of previous human activity (e.g.…”

“…The study of biological traces of past human activity is a topic relevant for both heritage research (e. g. Rotherham 2015;Eriksson 2018;Lennartsson et al 2018;) and historical ecology (e.g. Balée 2006;Crumley 2017;Crumley, Lennartsson, and Westin 2018).…”

“…Rackham 2003;Emanuelsson 2009;Eriksson and Cousins 2014). However, biological cultural traces have to a lesser extent been placed in the context of conservation of cultural heritage (but see, for example, Östlund, Zackrisson, and Hörnberg 2002;Emanuelsson 2003;Ljung, Lennartsson, and Westin 2015;Andersson, Östlund, and Lundqvist 2005;Eriksson 2018).…”

“…'aesthetically pleasing material objects, sites, places and/or landscapes that current generations "must" care for, protect and revere so that they may be passed to nebulous future generations for their "education", and to forge a sense of common identity based on the past' (Smith 2006, 29). Forests in Sweden today are mostly used for the production of pulp and timber, or, to a minor extent, perceived as 'wilderness' (Eriksson 2018), useful for leisure activities and commercially for tourism (e.g. Svensson 2009).…”

“…Thus, interpreting and valuating biological cultural heritage is not trivial. Eriksson (2018) suggested that in order to be valued as 'heritage', a biological cultural trace should fulfil three criteria. The biological cultural trace should (1) be rooted in what is considered as a 'tradition' (itself a problematic concept, but implies a necessity of a time depth, a history); (2) have, or have had, a known function to people; and (3) have a role for people's identity or sense of place, or for its beauty.…”