Landscape ethnoecological knowledge base and management of ecosystem services in a Székely-Hungarian pre-capitalistic village system (Transylvania, Romania)

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Marianna Biró¹  Katalin Margóczi²  Krisztina Gellény²  Zsolt Molnár¹ 

[1]Institute of Ecology and Botany, MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Alkotmány u. 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary

[2]University of Szeged Department of Ecology, Közép fasor 52, H-6726 Szeged, Hungary

关键词: Sustainability;    16-19^th centuries;    Village laws;    Traditional ecological knowledge;    Resource management;    Habitats;    Ecosystem regeneration;    Ecosystem functions;    DPSIR framework;    Central Europe;   

Others  :  1133410
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-4269-11-3

 received in 2014-04-10, accepted in 2014-12-12,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Previous studies showed an in-depth ecological understanding by traditional people of managing natural resources. We studied the landscape ethnoecological knowledge (LEEK) of Székelys on the basis of 16-19^th century village laws. We analyzed the habitat types, ecosystem services and sustainable management types on which village laws had focused.

Methods

Székelys had self-governed communities formed mostly of “noble peasants”. Land-use was dominated by commons and regulated by village laws framed by the whole community. Seventy-two archival laws from 52 villages, resulting in 898 regulations, were analyzed using the DPSIR framework. Explicit and implicit information about the contemporary ecological knowledge of Székelys was extracted. We distinguished between responses that limited use and supported regeneration and those that protected produced/available ecosystem services and ensured their fair distribution.

Results

Most regulations referred to forests (674), arable lands (562), meadows (448) and pastures (134). Székelys regulated the proportion of arable land, pasture and forest areas consciously in order to maximize long-term exploitation of ecosystem services. The inner territory was protected against overuse by relocating certain uses to the outer territory. Competition for ecosystem services was demonstrated by conflicts of pressure-related (mostly personal) and response-related (mostly communal) driving forces. Felling of trees (oaks), grazing of forests, meadows and fallows, masting, use of wild apple/pear trees and fishing were strictly regulated. Cutting of leaf-fodder, grazing of green crops, burning of forest litter and the polluting of streams were prohibited. Marketing by villagers and inviting outsiders to use the ecosystem services were strictly regulated, and mostly prohibited. Székelys recognized at least 71 folk habitat types, understood ecological regeneration and degradation processes, the history of their landscape and the management possibilities of ecosystem services. Some aspects of LEEK were so well known within Székely communities that they were not made explicit in village laws, others remained implicit because they were not related to regulations.

Conclusions

Based on explicit and implicit information, we argue that Székelys possessed detailed knowledge of the local ecological system. Moreover the world’s first known explicit mention of ecosystem services (“Benefits that are provided by Nature for free”) originated from this region from 1786.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Molnár et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Feeny D, Berkes F, McCay BJ, Acheson JM: The tragedy of the commons: twenty-two years later. Hum Ecol 1990, 18(1):1-19.
• [2]Berkes F: Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis; 1999.
• [3]Johnson LM, Hunn ES: Landscape Ethnoecology, Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books; 2010.
• [4]UNESCO-IPBES: The Contribution of Indigenous and Local Knowledge Systems to IPBES: Building Synergies with Science. Report of International Expert Workshop, Tokyo, 9–11.06.2013. Towards principles and procedures for working with Indigeneous and Local Knowledge systems 2013. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002252/225242e.pdf webcite
• [5]Imreh I: Törvényhozó székely falu. Kriterion Könyvkiadó: Bukarest; 1983.
• [6]Ludwig D, Hilborn R, Walters C: Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: lessons from history. Science 1993, 260(5104):17,36.
• [7]Ostrom E: A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325:419-422.
• [8]Curtis DR: Tine De Moor’s Silent Revolution: reconsidering her theoretical framework for explaining the emergence of institutions for the collective management of resources. International Journal of the Commons 2013, 7(1):209-229.
• [9]Ault W: Open-Field Farming in Medieval England: A Study of Village By-laws. Reprinted by Routledge. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis; 2006:192.
• [10]Hybel N, Poulsen B: The Danish Resources C. 1000–1550: Growth and Recession. BRILL. 2007, 448.
• [11]Tremel F: Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Osterreichs. Wien: Franz Deuticke; 1969.
• [12]Grimm J: Weisthümer. Gesammelt von Jacob Grimm. I-VII. Göttingen: Dieterich; 1840–1878
• [13]Dirkx GHP: Wood-pasture in Dutch Common Woodlands and the Deforestation of the Dutch Landscape. In The Ecological History of European Forests. Edited by Kirby KJ, Watkins C. Oxford: CAB International; 1996:241-263.
• [14]Imreh I: A rendtartó székely falu. Kriterion Könyvkiadó: Bukarest; 1973.
• [15]Vera F, Buissink F, Weidema J: Wilderness in Europe: what really goes on between the trees and the beasts. Tirion BV Baarn, Staatsbosbeheer: Driebergen; 2007.
• [16]Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005.
• [17]Gómez-Baggethun E, de Groot R: Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services: The Ecological Foundation of Human Society. In Issues in Environmental Science and Technology. Edited by Hester RE, Harrison RM. London: Royal Society of Chemistry; 2010:105-121.
• [18]Kumar P: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. UNEP, Earthscan: London, Washington; 2010.
• [19]Imreh I: A természeti környezet oltalmazása a székely rendtartásokban. In Európa Híres Kertje. Edited by Várkonyi RÁ, Kósa L, Várkonyi G. Budapest: Orpheusz; 1993:122-140.
• [20]Cooter W: Ecological dimensions of medieval agrarian systems. Agr Hist 1978, 52(4):458-477.
• [21]Ecker K, Gruenweis FM, Muellner A, Sonnlechner C, Wilfing H, Winiwarter V, et al.: Landscape and history: a multidisciplinary approach. Coll Antropol 1999, 2:379-396.
• [22]Krausmann F: Milk, manure and muscle power: livestock and the transformation of preindustrial agriculure in central europe. Hum Ecol 2004, 32:735-772.
• [23]Bender O, Boehmer HJ, Jens D, Schumacher KP: Using GIS to analyse long-term cultural landscape change in Southern Germany. Landsc Urban Plann 2005, 70(1):111-125.
• [24]Feurdean A, Liakka J, Marinova E, Hutchinson SM, Mosbugger V: 12,000-Years of fire regime drivers in the lowlands of Transylvania (Central-Eastern Europe): a data-model approach. Quaternary Sci Rev 2013, 81:48-61.
• [25]Szabó P: Open woodland in Europe in the Mesolithic and in the Middle Ages: Can there be a connection? For Ecol Manage 2009, 257(12):2327-2330.
• [26]Szabó P: Why history matters in ecology: an interdisciplinary perspective. Environ Conserv 2010, 37(4):380-387.
• [27]Olsson E, Gunilla A: Agro-ecosystems from Neolithic time to the present. Ecol Bull 1991, 41:293-314.
• [28]Blondel J: The ‘design’of Mediterranean landscapes: a millennial story of humans and ecological systems during the historic period. Hum Ecol 2006, 34(5):713-729.
• [29]Johann E: Traditional forest management under the influence of science and industry: the story of the alpine cultural landscapes. Forest Ecol Manag 2007, 249(1):54-62.
• [30]Berasain LJM: From equilibrium to equity. The survival of the commons in the Ebro Basin: Navarra from the 15th to the 20th centuries. International Journal of the Commons 2008, 2(2):162-191.
• [31]Echegaray PE: Communities and sustainability in medieval and early modern Aragon, 1200–1600. International Journal of the Commons 2011, 5(2):535-556.
• [32]Belényesy M: Fejezetek a középkori anyagi kultúra történetéből II. L’Harmattan, MTA BTK Néprajztudományi Intézete: Budapest; 2012.
• [33]Johann E, Agnoletti M, Bölöni J, Erol SC, Holl K, Kusmin J, et al.: Europe. In Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge: Sustaining Communities, Ecosystems and Biocultural Diversity. World Forest 12. Edited by Parrotta JA, Trosper RL. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer Science, Business Media BV; 2012:203-249.
• [34]Gómez-Baggethun E, Reyes-García V, Olsson P, Montes C: Traditional ecological knowledge and community resilience to environmental extremes: A case study in Doñana, SW Spain. Glob Environ Chang 2012, 22(3):640-650.
• [35]Rackham O: The history of the countryside. London: JM Dent; 1986.
• [36]Meilleur B: Alluetain Ethnoecology and Traditional Economy: The Procurement and Production of Plant Resources in the Northern French Alps. PhD thesis. Washington: University of Washington; 1986.
• [37]Imreh I: Erdélyi eleink emlékezete. Budapest, Kolozsvár: Teleki László Alapítvány, Polis Könyvkiadó; 1999.
• [38]Wilson JB, Peet RK, Dengler J, Pärtel M: Plant species richness: the world records. J Veg Sci 2012, 23(4):796-802.
• [39]Babai D, Molnár Z: Small-scale traditional management of highly species-rich grasslands in the Carpathians. Agr Ecosyst Environ 2013, 182:123-130.
• [40]Szabó I: Magyarország népessége az 1330-as és az 1526-os évek között. In Magyarország történeti demográfiája. Edited by Kovacsics J. Budapest: Közgazdasági és Jogi Könyvkiadó; 1963.
• [41]Köpeczi B, Miskolczy A, Szász Z: Erdély története III. 1830-tól napjainkig. Akadémiai Kiadó: Budapest; 1986.
• [42]Imreh I, Pataki J: Kászonszéki krónika. Budapest, Bukarest: Európa Könyvkiadó, Kriterion Könyvkiadó; 1992.
• [43]Szabó P: Changes in woodland cover in the Carpathian Basin. In Human Nature: Studies in Historical Ecology and Environmental History. Edited by Szabó P, Heidl R. Brno: Institute of Botany of ASCR; 2008:106-115.
• [44]Takács P: Csík-, Gyergyó-, Kászonszék és Aranyosszék parasztvallomásai 1820-ból. Források Erdély történetéhez 1587–1848. Erdély-történeti Alapítvány: Debrecen; 2002.
• [45]Jeanrenaud S: Communities and Forest Management in Western Europe: A Regional Profile of WG-CIFM the Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management. Switzerland: IUCN and Island Press; 2001.
• [46]Montiel MC: Cultural heritage, sustainable forest management and property in inland Spain. Forest Ecol Manag 2007, 249(1):80-90.
• [47]Scotti R, Cadoni M: A historical analysis of traditional common forest planning and management in Seneghe, Sardinia - lessons for sustainable development. Forest Ecol Manag 2007, 249(1):116-124.
• [48]European Environment Agency (EEA): Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. In Unpublished Technical Report. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency; 1999. No. 25
• [49]Bürgi M, Hersperger AM, Schneeberger N: Driving forces of landscape change – current and new directions. Landscape Ecol 2004, 19:857-868.
• [50]Babai D, Molnár Z: Multidimensionality and scale in a landscape ethnoecological partitioning of a mountainous landscape (Gyimes, Eastern Carpathians, Romania). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2013, 9:11. BioMed Central Full Text
• [51]Omann I, Stocker A, Jäger J: Climate change as a threat to biodiversity: an application of the DPSIR approach. Ecol Econ 2009, 69(1):24-31.
• [52]Sekovski I, Newton A, Dennison WC: Megacities in the coastal zone: using a driver-pressure-state-impact-response framework to address complex environmental problems. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 2012, 96:48-59.
• [53]Karageorgis AP, Kapsimalis V, Kontogianni A, Skourtos M, Turner RK, Salomons W: Impact of 100-year human interventions on the deltaic coastal zone of the inner Thermaikos Gulf (Greece): A DPSIR framework analysis. Environ Manag 2006, 38(2):304-315.
• [54]Schneeberger N, Bürgi M, Hersperger AM, Ewald KC: Driving forces and rates of landscape change as a promising combination for landscape change research - an application on the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps. Land Use Policy 2007, 24(2):349-361.
• [55]CICES: Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services version 4.3. 2013. http://cices.eu webcite
• [56]Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C: Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 2000, 10:1251-1262.
• [57]Bürgi M, Gimmi U, Stuber M: Assessing traditional knowledge on forest uses to understand forest ecosystem dynamics. Forest Ecol Manag 2013, 289:115-122.
• [58]Szmorad F: 91G0 Pannon gyertyános tölgyesek Quercus petraea-val és Carpinus betulus-szal. In Natura 2000 fajok és élőhelyek Magyarországon. Edited by Haraszthy L. Csákvár: Pro Vértes Természetvédelmi Közalapítvány; 2014:904-909.
• [59]Berkes F, Kislalioglu M, Folke C, Gadgil M: Exploring the basic ecological unit: Ecosystem-like concepts in traditional societies. Ecosystems 1998, 1:409-415.
• [60]Zs M: Perception and management of spatio-temporal pasture heterogeneity by hungarian herders. Rangel Ecol Manage 2014, 67:107-118.
• [61]Gy Z: Gomba és hagyomány. Etnomikológiai tanulmányok. LKG-Pont Kiadó: Sepsiszentgyörgy, Budapest; 2009.
• [62]Rab J: Népi növényismeret a Gyergyói-medencében. Pallas, Akadémia Könyvkiadó: Budapest; 2001.
• [63]Tagányi K: Magyar erdészeti oklevéltár: 1743–1807. Háromszéknek a székely határőrezreddel közösen megállapított határozatai az erdők hathatósabb megóvásáról. No. 187. Date 14.02.1787. pp. 527–531. Pátria: Budapest; 1896.
• [64]Mooney HA, Ehrlich PR: Ecosystem Services: A Fragmentary History. In Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Edited by Daily GC. Washington: Island Press; 1997.
• [65]Gómez-Baggethun E, De Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C: The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 2010, 69(6):1209-1218.
• [66]Fischer J, Hartel T, Kuemmerle T: Conservation policy in traditional farming landscapes. Cons Lett 2012, 5:167-175.
• [67]Gómez-Baggethun E, Mingorría S, Reyes-García V, Calvet L, Montes C: Traditional ecological knowledge trends in the transition to a market economy: empirical study in the Doñana natural areas. Cons Biol 2010, 24(3):721-729.
• [68]Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C: Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.