CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
Culture can be adapted to the ecological landscape and the available natural resources. It depends on people within the landscapes with symbolic meanings, and associated values passed from one generation to another. Culture filters landscape perception. In the 19th century, the landscape in literature and art created new cultural filters caused people to see it in a different ways. (Lynch, 1971; Rapoport,1982; Nasser ,1992)
Culture creates a way of life unique to other groups of people. It is recognized but not adequately linked to a natural landscape framework. Models, methods and data relevant to cultural practices in social and behavioural sciences outside Culture and Natural Landscape Approach have been done. Review of work in natural, landscape, cultural heritage, and cultural landscape demonstrates opportunities for operationally defining cultural services in terms of socioecological models. Such models link ecological structures and functions with cultural values and benefits, which facilitates scientists and stakeholders for economic, evaluation for cultural services.
Based on this study approach, culture frames natural landscape structures and functions for conservation. This provides a foundation for merging ecological social, economical and political factors to integrate natural landscape.
According to Boas, it is important to understand the cultural traits of societies, their language, food, attire, behaviours, beliefs and symbols for examining them in their landscape activities. This geographical scholarly endeavour was continued in the twentieth century through the work and writings of (Carl Sauer, Fred Kniffen, Wilbur Zelinsky, David Lowenthal, Peirce Lewis, Marwyn Samuels, Donald Meinig, Denis Cosgrove and others (Taylor 2009).The global cultural landscapes discourse on language has a World Heritage scale. Language signifies global cultural diversity in religion, tribal membership, dress, livelihood, lifestyle and unity between nature and man for years (Frey, B. S., and Steiner, L. 2011). This created a global cultural landscapes discourse on a World Heritage scale. Language signifies global cultural diversity in religion, tribal membership, dress, livelihood, lifestyle and unity between nature and man over a while (Frey, B. S., and Steiner, L. 2011). Therefore, this diversity rekindles cultural, spiritual values to conserve landscapes. These are developed by the communities with their natural surroundings and location to explain the spatial pattern of the place (Australia ICOMOS, 2013a). These support communities social, economic and ecological conservation((Plieninger et, al 2014)). According to Rapoport (2015), culture is central to environmental design and functional use. In this study, culture is in two groups, namely extractive and performative. (Taylor 2009 ,Steiner,2011; ICOMOS,2013a; Plieninger,2014and Rapoport,2015).
2.1.1 Nature
Nature provides life support materials for the sustenance of life on earth for plants, animals and man. These resources are called Natural Resources. The major ones are; Forest, Water, Mineral, Food, Energy and Land. The two main categories are; renewable and non-renewable. God commanded man to fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air and every living thing (Holy bible, genesis1; 28). Consumption by population explosion will deplete resources shortly, and even renewable resources are endangered and liable to extinction when exploited.
Environmental ethics is central to natural values, whether nature has instrumental or intrinsic value. It becomes instrumental because of the user while intrinsic relates to things that end in themselves. In this study, nature is valued based on human interest or spiritual attachment. High quality landscapes are rich in water, oxygen, geomorphological formations, animals, vegetation species which is important for scientific and educational purposes. Here the aesthetic value of nature and cultural works of man shapes the landscape both exist and is encourages within a western view (Ulrich, R. S.,1983; Feng Han,2006).
Western philosophy views human as separate from and superior to nature. For example, Indians were superior to land and used their knowledge on soil fertility and plants(McCollin, Moore and Sparks, 2000). The Asians also applied culture on the water resource from wells and springs as sacred and protected them from disturbance(Taylor and Lennon, 2011). This research will adopt Ulrich’s approach, 1983; Moore, 2000 and Taylor, 2011which prefers a landscape with minimal disturbance. (Berleant 1993).
2.2.0 Landscapes
Landscapes are formed by components with dynamics of change (Antrop, M. 2004). The result is a relationship with man, animal, plant and land. It is a cultural image, pictorial way of representing surroundings by living in it and comes a part of us (DeLue, R. Z., and Elkins, J. 2007). The landscape is continuously defined by boundaries he difference between value and function together with structure is homologous to that between land and landscape. The landscape is perpetually under construction; the changes are chaotic but man tries to control it regularly by planned actions. However, some activities by man do not contribute to conservation of landscape. According to Syrbe and Walz (2012) landscape reflect practices with cultural values which combine element of space and time representing, political, social and cultural construct.
There are two paradigms for landscape study: one by the narrative approaches of Herodotus and Strabo, and the other from the mathematical and scientific. It is an enduring record of testimony to the lives and works of past generations who have dwelt within it. According to Olwig, (2015) landscape geographically originated in Germany and is referred to us choros, meaning land as the land in landscape. In this study, the researcher will use knowledge gained from landscapes change to determine whether there is a relationship between culture and natural landscape on conservation of Rusinga Island The researcher organizes the hypotheses under two themes. Section A: extractive cultural landscapes which includes (1) Agriculture (2) Fishing (3) Medicinal plants (4) Mining (5) Cutting down of trees (6) Bee keeping and Section B: Performative cultural landscapes which include (7) Narrative (8) Songs (9) Dances (10) Traditional attire (11) wrestling (12) Ritual This study will engage both paradigms as defined by Olwig(2015) that landscape is a multidisciplinary concept and Cosgroves’ theory that landscape is a cultural image, pictorial way of representing surrounding by inhabiting it. Antrop observes landscape to be perpetually under construction with changes
2.2.1 Ecosystems
People who value nature tend to assume that natural landscapes embody ecological quality, cul tural concepts of nature. Scientific concepts of ecological function have no necessary relationship (Nassauer 1992). What looks like beautiful nature may be a polluted former landfill, and neglected abandoned one may be a rich ecosystem. Nature as Western culture interprets it is as much a convention (Crandell 1993) as is the tidy, mown lawn. While the recent rejuvenation of a popular ecological consciousness has begun to challenge, the conventional mown lawn (Bormann et al., 1993: Stein, 1993).
Healthy ecosystems may be more resistant to change because cultural perceptions of naturalness are so deeply identified with cultural perceptions of ecological health. They have the capacity to deliver services from the perspective of human need (Rapport 1998). The goods and services (ES) from ecosystems are a product of natural functions and processes occurring within ecosystems (Daily et al., 1997). However, links between ecosystem function and ES are not straightforward. . Ecosystem functions are carried out by the species inhabiting ecosystems. Thus, understanding how ecosystems are structured in terms of species richness and abundance is central to a comprehensive understanding of ES Human activities can result in both decreases and increases in species richness Biodiversity is decreasing globally because of habitat destruction and the introduction of exotic species. (Zavaleta 2000; Sax and Gaines 2003). This ecosystem function depends on interactions among species and their landscape that may be compromised by the impacts of climate change (Parmesan 2006). In urban environments, planting designers and horticulturalists plants selection have changed to accommodate global climate change. Global climate change threatens the function of ecological landscape structure. An adaptation strategy should accommodate the challenges of changing cultural practices that focuses on adding resilience to natural landscape. The ecosystem benefits and manage challenges of the strategy are in relation to cultural practices, for conservation of landscape structure.
2.2.2 Ecological
Ecological concepts are fundamental to the adaptation strategy by either plasticity and resilience. Good ecological function is based on natural landscape, which is defined as a landscape, which is least, disturbed in response to cultural practices. First plasticity describes how well species perform across a range of environmental conditions. According to Charmantier et al ( 2008) plasticity increases, plant species can persist under a greater diversity of environmental conditions and are better able to manage environmental fluctuations. Plasticity is expressed on multiple axes including temperature, soil moisture, and tolerance of pollution, flood and drought. Second; ecological resilience is the ability of an ecosystem to maintain function in a disturbed environmental (Elmqvist et al. 2003). Ecosystem resilience depends on the way that biodiversity is partitioned relative to ecosystem function (Lawton and Brown 1993).
2.2.3 Drivers of change
Understanding changes in ecosystems and ecosystem services is important for planning interventions. It captures positive impacts and minimizes negative ones. In the Millenium Assessment (2005), a driver is any factor that changes an aspect of an ecosystem. A direct driver influences ecosystem processes and can therefore be identified and measured to degrees of accuracy. An indirect driver often alter one or more direct drivers and its influence is established by understanding its effect on a direct driver. Both indirect and direct drivers functions synergistically. Changes in land cover, increases the likelihood of introduction of alien invasive species. The MA recognizes the role of decision makerswhich affect ecosystems, ecosystem services, and human well-being. These decisions are made at three levels such as a field or forest stand which directly alter part of the ecosystem. The amount of fertilizer applied on a farm is an endogenous driver from the standpoint of the farmer, for example, while the price of the fertilizer is an exogenous driver, since the farmer’s decisions have little direct influence on price.
The indirect drivers of change are primarily: demographic such as population size, age and gender. Structure, and spatial distribution. Economic drivers include per capita income, policies and international trade. Socio political such as democratization, the roles of women on civil society, and of the private sector, and international dispute mechanisms. Scientific and technological such as rates of investments in research and development including biotechnologies and in-formation technologies. Cultural and religious such as choices individuals make about what and how much to consume and what they value. The interaction of several of these drivers, affects levels of resource consumption and differences in consumption both within and between countries. These drivers are changing population and the world economy is growing, for example, there are major advances in information technology and biotechnology, and the world is becoming more interconnected. Changes are aimed to increase the demand for consumption of food, fiber, clean water, and energy, which will in turn affect the direct drivers. The direct drivers are primarily physical, chemical, and biological such as land cover change, climate change, air and water pollution, irrigation, use of fertilizers, harvesting, and the introduction of alien invasive species. Change is apparent here too: the climate is changing, species ranges are shifting, alien species are spreading, and land degradation continues.
2.3.0 Cultural Landscapes
Cultural landscapes increase awareness that heritage places are not isolated islands but depend on people, social structures, and associated landscape ecological systems. Landmark decision by (UNESCO, 1992) recognized the three cultural landscape categories for World Heritage purposes. Fowler (2003) suggested that two centuries is the minimum time in which a landscape can become traditional, for anything less can hardly demonstrate the stability which is essential if the cultural landscape is to meet the World Heritage criterion .According to International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCIN, 2005), Protected Landscapes were merged with cultural and natural heritage criteria. Philosophically to bridge the gap between culture and nature for World Heritage purposes. This includes intangible and tangible. With focus on biological and cultural diversity which embrace customary land tenure of sustainable practices (Rössler 2006a ).
Cultural landscape is an interface between culture and nature, tangible and intangible heritage, biological and cultural diversity. They represent the link between culture and peoples’ identity, which is a symbolic connection between the community, heritage and landscape. However they demonstrate the characters of the peoples who have modified the landscape as noted(Rossler,2006; Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D. R. and Shaw, M. R. (2009). Protection of cultural landscapes can contribute to modern techniques of sustainable land-use which maintain or enhance natural values in the landscape (UNESCO,2008). Professional guides for preserving the authenticity of heritage sites, in context with the Asian culture promote cultural landscape that supports daily life by creating places ((Taylor and Lennon, 2011) According to Agnoletti and Santoro( 2015) cultural landscapes have emerged since early 20th century as combined works of man and nature.
In Asian-Pacific region, traditionally culture and nature are not separate, people are part of nature. However in North America national parks cultural associations is not necessary hence people are forcefully removed from the park. International recognition of T jukurpa as a major religious philosophy linking the Anangu traditional owners to their environment and as a tool for caring for country (Lennon,2005,2011). There are many examples all over the world of forests and plants conserved for their spiritual values. Sacred trees in India are revered along with sacred groves found in Ghana, Venezuela, Nepal, China and India. By mid 2010 66 cultural landscapes had been inscribed on the World Heritage list .as living cultural landscapes an examples is the Kaya Forest Systems in Kenya (Bandarin, 2010).
Cultural landscape professionals working in the field of environmental conservation have addressed the relationship between culture associated with nature in depth (Fowler 2003,Rossler,2006 ,Bandarin,2010,Taylor and Lennon, 2011, Agnoletti and Santoro, 2015) However, this linkage is not sufficiently researched, or properly understood, in the field of landscape conservation.
2.4.0 Cultural HeritageValues
Heritage are evaluated and conserved according to the Cultural Values principles (CV) these are categorized into eight aspects; social, economic, political, historic, aesthetical, scientific, age, and ecological. ( ICOMOS ,1999, and UNESCO 2008).The social values of cultural heritage are conveyed by concepts such as the spirit of the place. The social values are associated with the place and with feelings of identity, especially, social interaction .This result into sense of belonging that enables the establishment of spiritual links between people and buildings (Mason ,2002, English Heritage, 2008). Economic values are distinct from other cultural heritage this is because the interpretation is fundamentally different (Thorsby ,1999, 2007 and Rizzo 2008) According to Snowball and Courtney (2010) economic values in cultural heritage can be classified into two categories namely; market value determined by the sale price and non-market value . However, the economic function income of a place is a measured value (Silva and Roders ,2012).
Political values are not related to power, pride, distinctiveness and ideological approaches, but is symbolized by the power struggle and exertion that determine the fate of cultural heritage. Political power results from decision on the value of the heritage building itself from a cultural (Orders, 2007). Ecological values are first mentioned in the Declaration of Amsterdam (Council of Europe, 1975). According to Silva and Orders (2012). They refer to the relationship between heritage assets and the natural landscape The ecological values provide bond between the building and its natural or manmade environment.
Cultural heritage and management activities with communities and Government agencies are under state cooperation to conserve their natural resources. This system has not been successful in the benefit of the community; it has been responsible for the conservation of Kenya’s heritage. Collection of cultural, ecological and fossil exhibits, documentation of sites and monuments, which are unique in Sub-Saharan Africa. According to Article 11 (3) (a) of the Constitution of (Government of Kenya, 2012)), the Government is to ensure that communities receive compensation for the use of their cultures and cultural heritage. These five characteristics of cultural heritage: social, economic, political, ecological and cultural value will be, integrated with natural landscape in developing the theoretical framework of the study.
2.5.0 Historical perspective of the Abasuba
The Abasuba are a heterogeneous group of non-Luo people of South Nyanza whose origins are the Baganda The name suba means foreigner in Luganda dialect spoken among the major clans of the Abasuba . They settled on Rusinga Island, Mfangano Island and along the South Nyanza lake region in the present day locations of Gembe, Kaksingri and Gwassi. There are twelve clans which include Kaswanga, Kamasengre, Waware, Wanyama, Wakinga, Waganda, Wakula, Kaksingri, Gembe, Kakimba, Wiramba and Wagasi. The Abasuba in Kenya live in the present Suba, Migori, Kuria and Gucha districts. They have nine clans that include Wamohoro, Waikoma, Wagoreme, Wakira, Wategi, Waisenge, Wasimbeti, Watabori and Waimera (Ayot, 1977:5, 1978).
According to the Abasuba migration myths, these people came from Uganda and settled at Yimbo near Ramogi Hills, before they moved to South Nyanza thereby forming the last wave of migration from Uganda into Kenya after the Luo community. Part of their reasons for migration were conflict between them and the Baganda, internal wrangles among themselves, search for pasture due to increased population, new fishing grounds, and outbreaks of animal and human diseases (Ayot 1977, 1978;Ogot, 1967).The Abasuba worshipped everything that appeared super-natural, including the rioba meaning sun (Ayot, 1977). Abasuba clans had totems, in the form of wild animals which were believed to have been their daughters, but due to some mishap turned into totemic animals such as engwe (leopard),engoge (baboon) and kikondo(monkey). These animals were neither to be eaten nor killed even if they destroyed crops (Ayot, 1977:8)
2.5.1. Historical perspective of the Luo
Rusinga Island is one of the biggest islands in Lake Victoria and known for its unique-preserved fossil, ecological functions and cultural values (DeLue, R. Z. and Elkins, J. 2007). Fishing and agriculture are the main cultural and economic practices. The inhabitants are the Abasuba and Luo people through interaction and intermarriage.
Three main topics will be discussed .First the description of culture and cultural heritage. Secondly, natural and isolated landscape. Third the concept of conservation and land protection. Finally the influence of culture on natural landscape will be determined.
2.6.1 Theory of island biogeography
Theory of island biogeography states that the number of species of a given taxon of insects, birds, or mammals present on an island or within a patch representing a_ dynamic equilibrium between the rate of immigration of new colonizing species of that taxon .This determine the rate of extinction of previously established species As rates of immigration and extinction depend on the size of islands and their distance from the mainland.The effect of patch size and isolation appears to have a pronounced influence on the nature and diversity of species within this landscape patch(. MacAnhur and Wilson ,1963, 1967). Rusinga Island is an isolated landscape patch and its species extinction depends on its size and distance from Mbita mainland.
In order to understand complex landscape systems, one needs a bottom-up approach on the biological aspect. The landscape as a whole include; man at the Centre, animals, plants and land. This examines the influence of culture on ecological systems and the habitat connectivity. The landscape structure and the interactions within it result into a connection represented as a graph where thousands of nodes are connected with thousands of vertices. According to Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, and Turner, R. K. (2014) the evolutionary advantages of landscape views approaching predators is seen and protected settings prevent the viewer from being seen. It provides insight into preference but does not limit their inferences to natural landscapes. Information-processing models suggest that the way human beings have evolved to perceive landscapes has implications for all of environmental perception.
2.6.3 Information processing and Transactional theories
Kaplan and Kaplan (1982) critically developed the theory of information processing. This theory contributes to explaining human abilities to cope with stress in the environment and human landscape preferences. It summarizes preferred landscapes as offering exploration: both complex rich, intricate and mysterious with something yet to be discovered; and being understandable: both coherent orderly and legible in accessibility to finding one’s way.
Transactional theories complement information processing theories. Both emphasize the way in which people construct their perceptions of the landscape in cognitive maps. However, transact ional theories emphasize that people do not stand apart from the landscape, but rather are participants in the landscape in mutual influence (Ittelson’s, 1973; Sell et al.,1984) transactional frame work for the study of environmental perception. It states that Landscapes, multimodal. surround ,provide peripheral information, perception provide opportunities for manipulation and are encountered as social activities.
2.6.4 Theory of ecosystem
The global scale have been further advanced by the establishment in 2012 of The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). It is undertaking a global assessment of the status and trends of biodiversity and ecosystems services, four regional assessments in Africa, the Americas, Asia Pacific, and Europe and Central Asia. The conceptual framework used identifies cultural services, along with provisioning and regulating services, as the three forms of ecosystem service. Where by describing them as Nature’s Gifts’ to reflect cultural differences internationally in terms of how human and non-human interactions are conceptualized .These cultural services differ in various aspects from other ecosystem services, presenting strong barriers toward their broader incorporation .( De Groot, 2012; Chan et al., 2012a; Daniel et al., 2012; Bieling and Plieninger, 2013; Diaz et. al. 2013. Fishet al. 2016)
We focus on cultural services with no materiality as set out in the Millenium Assessment(MA). They are often intangible and this approach leads to three interrelated problems. First, viewing benefits as the products. Secondly, by conferring the property of a benefit as. intangibility of the cultural service associated with the measurement of immaterial processes alone. The relationship to the biophysical domain is unclear (Kirchhoff, 2012). Third, intangibility tends to obscure the way human ecosystem relationships can also have a material cultural dimension. . However writing on the cultural dimensions of landscape and place recognizes there are immaterial and material dimensions to both (Massey, 2005; Satterfield et al. 2013). These practices may be creative, ceremonial, and celebratory. For instance, rituals that surround food sharing, naming and gifting ceremonies are linked to salmon in the Pacific Northwest(Chan et al,2011;Raymond and Kenter ,2016).
It is notable that the recent IPBES conceptual framework argues that ecosystem assessments require more than economic valuation within which the interactions between cultural and other ecosystem services are considered. The provision of clean drinking water by vegetated watersheds is seen by some cultures as an entitlement and not a commodity, thus being beyond the market value. A recent study of coastal locations explains how fishing fleets that harvest provisioning services have. Despite declines in the numbers of boats and fishers, an influence on the ports are based beyond the economic value of their catch This has shaped cultural heritage, identities and gives people a sense of place (Acott and Urquhart, 2014; Diaz et al. 2015).
We need in particular to stop conceiving cultural ecosystem services as immaterial as conveyed and advanced by the MA. The separation of cultural ecosystem services from benefits helps researchers and decision makers clarify what knowledge is created. It also emphasizes on relationship between environmental places and cultural practices. It links together biophysical structures and processes with wider human well-being. In doing so we suggest that the framework outlined in this paper not only provides for a more theoretically, approach to culture and natural landscape, but also clarity in their practical assessment across diverse context.
2.6.5 Theory of conservation
The conservation of a place is done to slow down the process of decomposition and stop any damage. Conservation refers to us preserve or maintain. It is import that the people responsible for conservation select the right method because the purpose is to make as little change as possible and maintain the original landscape. UNESCO defines conservation as value transferred from national to universal scale created by social, economical, cultural and natural condition from one generation into the next (Celiklay,1975). The values that we protect are object, the process is conservation, and it is a culture. The establishment of cultural heritage was defined in the Venice chart of 1964.This was the basis for Burra charter of 1994, this include all the process of protecting a place for cultural significance. These include, preservation, maintain, protection and adaptation. Values such as culture and landscape help the world find their identity become less important.(UNESCO,1972;Burra Charte,1994,; Viñas, S. M. 2012) According to Hardin, G. (2018) Conservation is not a state of being, but people’s perception about the state of their landscape, its resources and willingness to modify their behaviour to adapt landscape changes. However every cultural practice in a community will have its interpretation and only some kind of it will qualify as a cultural practice on sustainable landscape argued (Viñas, S. M. 2012).In this context natural landscape will be conserved with the adapted cultural practice to keep culture a live with minimal landscape change
2.6.6 Conceptual framework
Conceptual framework being hypothesized model, identifying concepts under this study and their relationship (Mugenda, Mugenda, 1999).The study will be based on a framework that aims at determining the relationship between the variables, continual cultural change with conservation on natural landscape in Rusinga Island. The research hypothesized to explain independent variable, which is continual cultural change, which is presumed to cause changes on biophysical elements or natural landscape conservation. This cultural change is measured in terms of social, economic, political and ecological. The following is a graphic summary of conceptual framework.