Abstract
As an initial step in more extensive research into the links between biological and cultural diversity in present-day Italy, we reviewed Biocultural Diversity studies that explore the relationship between biological and cultural patterns of diversity to determine whether any direct causal relationships or common drivers could be inferred. We found no significant attempts to quantitatively measure biocultural diversity in the country as a whole. Italy shows a high number of mutual interactions, but common drivers and patterns between biological and cultural diversity were not evident. This could be either a problem of quantification due perhaps to an inherent incommensurability between the two dimensions, or different causative patterns that drive biological and cultural diversity.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Interactions between humans and their environment are multifaceted, and it can be argued that ecosystems and the human cultures inhabiting them influence and shape each other (Rozzi, 1999). It is well known that biodiversity “hotspots,” such as the Amazon basin, Central Africa, or Southeast Asia also demonstrate exceptionally high degrees of cultural diversity (Gorenflo et al., 2012; Maffi, 2005). The deep interconnectedness of biological and cultural diversity and the notion of an “inextricable link” between the two has given rise to the concept of “Biocultural Diversity” (ISE, 1988; Posey, 1999).Footnote 1 Undoubtedly, an area’s climate, landscape, and natural environment can profoundly impact the cultural values, norms, livelihoods, knowledge, and languages of its inhabitants (Berkes, 2008; Milton, 1998). On the other hand, human activities over the past 12,000 years have had a wide range of opposing consequences on their environment, from creation of novel ecological niches and new ecosystems to mass extinctions and overall reduction in biodiversity (Ellis, 2021; Stephens et al., 2019).
The concept of Biocultural Diversity to promote the recognition of the relationship between human cultures and biodiversity and their simultaneous preservation has gained increasing popularity (Bridgewater & Rotherham, 2019). The core problem in biocultural diversity studies, however, remains that while biological diversity can be studied quantitatively, culture is largely qualitative and therefore not easily subject to measurements (Patsiurko et al., 2012; Posey, 1999; Seele et al., 2019). Indices proposed to assess biocultural diversity take into account only a few cultural proxies that are relatively easy to quantify but are hardly related to the material aspects of cultural diversity (e.g., language, religion, or ethnicity; Loh & Harmon, 2005). Naturally, such indices perform best where these particular proxies are at their highest diversity, but fail in nations that are relatively homogenous in terms of language and/or religion and yet demonstrate remarkable biological and cultural diversity due to other drivers (e.g., history, geography, geomorphology, climate, etc.).
To date, majority of the studies on biocultural diversity around the world have been focused on Indigenous and local populations and their relationship with their local environments, which are usually situated in global biodiversity hotspots. To test whether parallels between biological and cultural diversity can also be empirically assessed in industrialized nations, where direct links between human communities and their local natural environment have weakened over the last few centuries, we investigated this phenomenon in Italy, a European country with high levels of biological diversity and human cultural manifestations (Anagnostou et al., 2022; CBD, 2023). We focused on the following questions:
-
1.
How do the interactions between biological and cultural dimensions develop in the modern era?
-
2.
Does cultural diversity drive and enhance biological diversity, or vice versa, and is there any bi-directional interaction between the two?
-
3.
Can the present state of biocultural diversity be formally assessed in Italy?
-
4.
What are the features of current biocultural projects in Italy?
We conducted an exhaustive literature search using relevant online databases (e.g., Web of Science, Google Scholar, etc.) with subsequent bibliography mining. We retrieved existing literature from diverse disciplines focused either on biocultural diversity or on the intersection of biological and cultural diversity in Europe and/or Italy. We divided the literature in two broad categories: a) Cases where biodiversity is shown to enhance cultural diversity (the former as a driver of the latter); and b) Cases where human cultural activities have modified the selective pressures and shaped the local biodiversity and ecosystems.Footnote 2
We first describe the literature on linguistic and genetic diversity in Italy (question 1) followed by the review of the biocultural landscapes in Italy in order to understand how Biodiversity could be a driver of cultural diversity or vice versa (question 2). We then combine all the data to address the possibility for a formal assessment of Biocultural Diversity in the country (question 3). Finally, we analyze the characteristics of biocultural projects in Italy (question 4).
Human Linguistic and Genetic Diversity in Italy
Language is a key component of human culture (Honkola et al., 2018; Maffi, 2005; Skutnabb-Kangas & Harmon, 2017) not simply as a means of communication but as a historical repository for a people’s relationship with the land, the living natural web, and for entire worldviews. It has been argued that languages are transmitted through processes similar to genes, and a positive correlation exists between major language and genetic groupings (Barbieri et al., 2022; Cavalli Sforza & Menozzi, 1994). Although the linguistic richness of European countries cannot be compared to certain areas of the planet recognised as cultural hotspots (see Skutnabb-Kangas & Harmon, 2017), the linguistic diversity observed in Italy has been enriched by influences from Eastern, Central, and Western Europe, so much so that it is greater than that of other continental countries with comparable population size and geographical extent, both in terms of languages spoken and probability of randomly extracting two individuals of different mother tongues (Anagnostou et al., 2022). This pattern, mirrored by significant differences in ancestry as a result of migration, admixture, and isolation have generated in Italy the largest degree of population structure detected to date in Europe (Anagnostou et al., 2022; Destro Bisol et al., 2008; Raveane et al., 2019; Sazzini et al., 2020). An important role is played in this regard by linguistic minorities of German, Occitan, Provençal and Slavic derivation in the north, Croatian in the centre, and Greek and Albanian in the south and on the islands, most of whom are safeguarded by the Italian Constitution.Footnote 3 Numerous studies have been conducted in these communities (e.g., Bellia & Pieroni, 2015; Di Tizio et al., 2012; Mattalia et al., 2013; Mattalia et al., 2020a, b; Nebel et al., 2006; Pieroni & Cattero, 2019; Pieroni & Quave, 2005; Sarno et al., 2017; 2021b). Among them are the Arbëreshë, descendants of Albanians who emigrated in several flows from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries to diverse central and southern Italian inland areas (Dessart, 1982; Tagarelli et al., 2005). Studies on the Arbëresh demonstrate the prolonged intercultural exchange between a local culture (South Italian) and an ‘imported’ one (Albanian). This exchange has involved not only language, but also many other aspects of social life, such as ethnobotanical knowledge (Pieroni, 2003; Pieroni et al., 2002a, b).
Of particular interest are case studies investigating the correlation between “linguistic islands” in Italy and their genetic characteristics. Research in the eastern Alps (Lessinia, Sauris, Sappada, and Timau) (Capocasa et al., 2013), western Alps (Walser and Romance minorities in the Upper Lys Valley) (Boattini et al., 2011), among the Ladin- and Germanic speaking Cimbri in Trentino (Boattini et al., 2021; Coia et al., 2012), and among the Alghero and Carloforte in Sardinia (Maxia et al., 2007; Moral et al., 1994; Robledo et al., 2012) all show remarkable genetic structures shaped by a combination of a founder event and continued isolation even from culturally-related neighbouring populations, with ethnicity playing an important role in increasing endogamy and inbreeding rates related to consanguinity and other cultural factors. In this respect, surnames are shown to be clearly structured according to regional geographic patterns particularly in southern Italy and Sicily (Boattini et al., 2018), but not in Trentino (Coia et al., 2012).
A similar pattern of limited genetic diversity, high frequency of specific haplogroups, and an outlier position within the Italian genetic space is reported among the Commons in northern Italy. These are peculiar institutions of medieval origins whose key feature is not a minority language, but a tight relationship between population and territory, mediated by the collective property of shared resources (Sarno et al., 2021a).
Some congruence has been noted between the geographic ethno-linguistic repartition of human communities with the genetic clusters of economically important plants (i.e., walnut and chestnut) across the range of these species in Eurasia, suggesting that phenomena such as isolation by distance, landscape heterogeneity, and cultural boundaries may simultaneously promote human language diversification and differentiation of plant species across the same geographic region (Pollegioni et al., 2020).
Biocultural Dynamics in Italy
The term Biocultural Landscape refers to a complex set of cultural assets that represent the combined work of nature and humans (Merola, 2021; UNESCO, 2019) that is theoretically related to Cultural LandscapeFootnote 4 and Biocultural Refugia.Footnote 5 Some studies in Italy have focused on specific biocultural landscapes and their importance in preservation of environmental resources, agro-ecosystems functionality, landscape diversity and traditional and cultural memory; e.g., the traditional landscapes of fruit trees and vines (Barbera & Biasi, 2011), olive trees in Apulia (Mohamad et al., 2013), cork oaks in Sardinia (Vogiatzakis et al., 2005), or the silvopastoral systems with carob trees in Sicily (Venturi et al., 2021). A wider assessment of Italian biocultural landscapes has been carried out led by the institution of the National Register of Historical Rural LandscapesFootnote 6 (Agnoletti, 2010, 2013).
A new direction in biocultural diversity studies that has impacted research in Italy has been spearheaded by the independent Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (https://www.ipbes.org), established in 2010 with the aim to strengthen the science–policy interface for the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable development. IPBES alone is responsible for popularizing terms such as Ecosystem Services,Footnote 7 which includes provisioning services (e.g., food and water), regulating services (e.g., regulation of floods, drought, land degradation, and disease), supporting services (e.g., soil formation and nutrient cycling), and cultural servicesFootnote 8 (e.g., recreational, spiritual, religious, and other non-material benefits) (MA, 2003). Another term coined by IPBES that is increasingly gaining popularity is Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP)Footnote 9 (Pascual et al., 2017; originally Nature’s benefits to people, Díaz et al., 2015). Studies on distribution of NCPs have explored potential priority areas for conservation in Europe, including in Italy, that will co-benefit both nature and people (O'Conner et al., 2021) and have demonstrated a substantial global overlap between areas that provide the majority of NCPs (“critical natural assets”) with hotspots for biological and cultural diversity (Chaplin-Kramer et al., 2022). In addition to this approach, increasing attention is being paid to the mutual interactions that connect peoples and their environments, so that, while NCPs focus mainly on the benefits that humans can derive from natural elements, People’s Contributions to Nature draws attention to the central role that indigenous peoples and local communities and their long-term, low-impact activities play in shaping the ecological and biological interactions of the local environment (Ojeda et al., 2022; Reyes-García et al., 2014).
Biodiversity as a Driver of Cultural Diversity
The accumulated body of knowledge, practices, and beliefs of locals about their environment, variously termed Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), Local Environmental Knowledge (LEK), Indigenous knowledge (IK), ecoliteracy, or simply ecological knowledge, is a key element in biocultural studies (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2014; Nakashima et al., 2012; Pilgrim et al., 2008; von Glasenapp & Thornton, 2011; Zent & Zent, 2013). Among the main components of such ecological knowledge are ethnobotanical and ethnozoological aspects.
Ethnobotanical studies have highlighted the significant and crucial role of TEK, which encompasses a range of traditional land and resource management techniques (Anderson, 2005). The botanical biodiversity of a landscape is correlated with the richness of medicinal and culinary traditions of the local peoples and richness of their vocabulary. Italian local food products show an enormous amount of cultural diversity,Footnote 10 undoubtedly influenced by local elements of biodiversity (e.g., wild greens, mushrooms, berries, fish and other seafood etc). Another prominent example is cheese, where the organoleptic qualities and taste of milk for dairy products are heavily influenced by the species composition of grasses growing in local pastures (Carpino et al., 2004; Povolo et al., 2012).
The ethnobotanical literature in Italy is very rich; however, while the majority of studies investigate local traditions and practices in one or a few regions of Italy, nation-wide studies are rare. Summaries are given by Guarrera’s encyclopedia of traditional and folk medicine in Italy (Guarrera, 2006), Ghirardini et al. (2007), who reported on wild food plant consumption in 21 local communities across the country, and Monari et al., (2022), who present a dataset of wild and cultivated plants traditionally used as medicinal remedies in Italy. Comparative studies between Italy and Bulgaria (Leporatti & Ivancheva, 2003) and Italy and Tunisia (Leporatti & Ghedira, 2009) show considerable convergence in therapeutic uses of many species, signaling shared heritage between Italy and other nations. Noteworthy is the database for Italian wild edible plants of Paura et al., (2021), in which 1103 taxa are documented to be used as alimurgic species, a significant contribution to the understanding of the wealth of uses of edible vascular plants throughout Italy.
Traditionally, ethnobotanical research has developed more in central-southern Italy than in the north (Guarrera, 2005; Guarrera & Lucia, 2007). Most regional ethnobotanical studies follow Guarrera (2006) in grouping traditional plant uses into discrete categories (e.g., medicinal, cosmetic, nutrition, religious, games, etc). In a series of relevant publications, Motti and colleagues have reviewed traditional herbal remedies across Italy used in pediatric health care (Motti et al., 2018), in women’s health care (Motti et al., 2019), in managing anxiety and insomnia (Motti & deFalco, 2021), as herbs and spices (Motti, 2021), and in making alcoholic beverages (Motti et al., 2022).
Other examples of floristic diversity driving cultures include local economies based on the transformation or use of a specific tree or shrub found only in certain regions; e.g., broom makers in Tuscany and Abruzzo using Erica scoparia (Congedo, 2019) or Sorghum spp. (Serafini, 2011), wine barrel makers using Abies alba from (planted) forests in Casentino, Tuscany (Anonymous, 2021), Ampelodesmos mauritanicus and other fibre plants used in basket weaving in Mt. Aurunci Regional Park in Central Italy (Novellino, 2006), collection of resin from pine trees in Valvestino, Lombardy (GardaPost, 2021), or the historical “chestnut civilization” of the lower Alps and Apennines (Rao, 2013). In addition, diverse traditional plant nutraceuticals are used to improve animal health as well as the quality of milk and dairy products. Such ethnoveterinary practices have been documented in some regions of Italy, e.g., in central Lucania, Basilicata (Guarrera, 2006; Pieroni et al., 2004).
Zootherapy, the treatment of human ailments with remedies derived from animals or their products, is a neglected field of study compared to medicinal plant research despite its prevalence in traditional medical practices worldwide. One study identified 80 animal species used in a wide range of zootherapeutic remedies in Italy, Albania, Spain, and Nepal, representing four phyla (Annelida, Arthropoda, Chordata, Mollusca) (Quave et al., 2010).
It should be noted that these traditional preferences are prone to change over time. An example is the recent development of interest in wider consumption of edible mycorrhizal fungi in Sardinia, a society that has traditionally shunned using fungi as food, thanks to increasing contacts and influences from continental Italy, a strongly mycophilic country (Comandini et al., 2018; Pérez-Moreno et al., 2020).
Culture as a Driver of Biological Diversity
Human cultural activities in many cases have modified selective pressures and shaped local biodiversity and ecosystems. Land use change is the main direct cause of biodiversity loss, especially in large-scale agricultural and productive forestry operations. This factor alone drives an estimated 30% of biodiversity decline globally (IPBES, 2019; UNEP, 2019). In addition, depopulation and abandonment of traditional practices, especially in the mountainous areas, affect the land use and land cover inducing the modification of the landscape mosaic. The latter process facilitates secondary forest expansion, modifying the structure, floristic composition, stand density, and regeneration capacity of forests, thus changing the ecosystems’ functionality and resilience (Chauchard et al., 2007; Vacchiano et al., 2017). These processes have sometimes been considered a form of “landscape degradation” (Marchetti et al., 2018; Palombo et al., 2013), however using this term for the return to natural processes to areas managed for centuries by humans is highly controversial.
Abandonment of arable land and pastures since the 1960s in Italy has resulted in an increase in forests and artificial areas and a decrease in croplands and pastures (Falcucci et al., 2007; Malandra et al., 2018). The loss of open habitats in favour of afforestation processes has led to decreased fragmentation and patchiness (Geri et al., 2010) and consequently a decrease in species connected to cultural landscapes (Amici et al., 2015) and an increase in species linked to natural habitats in different parts of peninsular Italy (Amici et al., 2013; Lelli et al., 2021). Changes in species composition have also been noted in the fauna, with forest birds, ungulates, and carnivores increasing, while typically Mediterranean species are decreasing (Falcucci et al., 2007). Studies in Italy have shown that cessation of traditional farming in depopulated areas results in spontaneous reforestation accompanied by simplification and homogenization of the original mosaic, with no intermediate fragmentation process (e.g., Bracchetti et al., 2012; Marchetti et al., 2018).
Various efforts have been undertaken to valorize biocultural heritage and combat abandonment of traditional landscapes, depopulation, and the consequent loss of knowledge, practices, and landscape features, e.g., in the area of Lake Trasimeno in Umbria (Marchesini & Parbuono, 2022), Garfagnana in northern Tuscany (Belletti et al., 2022), or the Italian Inner Areas in Molise (Trivisonno, 2022). These projects focus either on sustainable rural territorial development, or on preservation of particular aspects of rural lifestyles, e.g., craftsmanship of iron, terracotta, wood, and textiles etc., by the process of “re-peasantization” with the aim of recovering traditional knowledge from the past and combining it with creative innovations to accommodate new expectations and multifunctionality (Bindi, 2022a). Studies on biocultural values of traditional agricultural activities such as apiculture in Piedmont and Liguria (Hearn & Dossche, 2016) or preservation of local breeds of sheep in Basilicata (Sardaro & La Sala, 2021) also highlight the importance of combination of such historical practices with new innovative methods and allow further income to farmers and preserve their heritage.
In the Alps, animal herding and grazing was historically linked to larch forests since they have a light canopy and allow for good grass growth in the understory. As a consequence, these forests were also shaped to be better grazing lands. Larch forests today remain a heavily modified ecosystem, a real cultural landscape, and a good example of bidirectional influence or self-reinforcing feedback between biological and cultural diversity (Garbarino et al., 2010; Motta & Lingua, 2005; Schulze et al., 2007).
Itinerant pastoralism (transhumance) is a form of extensive farming that is based on the continuous movement of flocks following the availability of grasslands for pasture along different and complementary ecosystems (Nori & De Marchi, 2015). This ancient practice is deeply rooted since the Roman Empire and has influenced settlements, routes, local landscapes, and sociocultural structures in Italy. Recent studies on transhumance in Southern Apennines (Troiano et al., 2021), Collina Po protected area in Piemonte (Genovese et al., 2022), Friuli (Lozej, 2022), and the Alms in South Tyrol/Alto Adige (Colombino & Powers, 2022) not only underline the importance of transhumance grazing as a valuable management tool to maintain high biological diversity in mountain pastures, but also highlight the latent conflicts in areas where traditional farming activities coexist with a renewed and multifunctional way of inhabiting the land. The “heritagization” and “touristization”Footnote 11 of transhumance in recent years, accompanied by controversial uses of pastures and proliferation of illegal permits, pose serious challenges to efforts to support pastoral activities, an unresolved area in European or Italian agricultural policies for this sector (Bindi, 2022b).
There is a growing recognition that Sacred Natural Sites (SNS)Footnote 12 form hotspots of biocultural diversity and significantly contribute to conservation in traditional non-western societies. Ritual pilgrimage to these sites in south Italy (e.g., Campania) is mostly linked to Christianity (Francescato & Talamo, 2012), although it is likely that many of the Italian SNS have been inherited by Catholicism from earlier forms of religion, perhaps with animistic features, whose vestiges have been preserved in popular beliefs and festivities. Interestingly, the practices of different monastic orders have had different effects on forest composition and structure: While Franciscans preserved (and used) the “native” forests as a form of respect for the creation, the Benektin and Camaldulese orders planted and managed evergreen Abies trees as a symbol of eternity and spiritual aspiration (Redazione Toscana Oggi, 2015). The Camaldulese monks created the first forest management “law” of the world (Codice Forestale Camaldolese of 1520) and their abbey at Vallombrosa is the birthplace of Italian Forest Science Universities (Romano, 2010).
In Central Italy (Tuscany, Marche, Umbria, Lazio, Abruzzi, and Molise), a high proportion of sacred Catholic sites are located in natural areas. These SNS harbor higher richness of plant and lichen species and a more valuable species pool, and are also important for conserving stands of large trees and habitat heterogeneity across different land-cover types (Frascaroli, 2013; Frascaroli et al., 2016; Nascimbene et al., 2019). These patterns are related not only to pre-existing features, but also to traditional management. Ritual and processual interplays between humans and non-humans are shown to be essential for sustaining the resilience of these sites, and continuation of traditional management practices are crucial for conservation of SNS sites (Frascaroli, 2016; Frascaroli et al., 2016; Frascaroli & Verschuuren, 2016). In the Italian forest landscape where old-growth stands are practically absent, sacred forest sites may provide unique old-growth structures and buffer anthropogenic disturbances (Nascimbene et al., 2019).
Can Present Biocultural Diversity Be Formally Assessed in Italy?
In order to empirically assess the biocultural diversity of any given area, a scientific approach requires accurate measurement of the variables involved. Efforts to quantify biological or cultural diversity both rely heavily on selected proxies. Biodiversity is usually extrapolated from the known richness of one or a few groups of plants or animals in an area. This task however is much more complicated with respect to cultural diversity, as fewer quantifiable proxies exist in the cultural context.
The global Index of Biocultural Diversity (IBCD) proposed by Loh and Harmon (2005) is a measure of the average of biological (BD) and cultural (CD) diversities in an area (IBCD=BD + CD/2), where biological diversity is defined as the average of diversity of mammals and vascular plants (BD = MD + PT/2) and cultural diversity as the average of linguistic, religious, and ethnic diversity (CD = LD + RD + ED/3). Other indices attempt to quantify certain aspects of biocultural diversity, e.g., the Cultural Food Significance Index (CFSI) which aims to evaluate the cultural significance of wild edibles (Pieroni, 2001), or the Dietary Species Richness (DSR) as a measure of food biodiversity (Lachat et al., 2018). More sophisticated mathematical indices for biocultural complexity have been proposed by Reyes-Valdés and Kantartzi (2020), who present an information theory approach to biocultural complexity, by Reyes-García et al., (2023), who utilize the “Culturally Important Species” concept (CIS) to assess the biocultural status of specific components of nature that matter to people, and by Zent and Maffi (2009), who introduce Vitality Index of Traditional Environmental Knowledge (VITEK) as a measure for loss/retention of traditional environmental knowledge between generations (Zent & Maffi, 2009). Indices such as these generally do not take into account the fluid nature of culture and do not have the capacity to cater for historical change (Beinart, 2014). They rely on proxies (i.e., religion or languages) that favour zones of high indigenous and linguistic diversity and are not very informative in industrialized nations such as Italy, or are otherwise too data-demanding and time-consuming to calculate. Even though new studies often employ modern technologies and novel methodological approaches to collect and analyze data related to traditional landscapes and historical ecology (e.g., Ferrara & Wästfelt, 2021 in Sicily, or De Pasquale & Livia, 2022 in Vallecorsa, Lazio), in our review of literature we did not find any significant and focused attempts to quantitatively measure biocultural diversity in Italy.
Biocultural Projects in Italy
Over the past two decades, several national and international projects in Europe and Italy have explicitly or implicitly focused on biocultural diversity in Italy with various outcomes. Among these are: RUBIA (circum-Mediterranean ethno-botanical and ethnographic heritage in traditional technologies, tools, and uses of wild and neglected cultivated plants for food, medicine, textiles, dyeing, and handicrafts, 2003–2005) (Frank, 2011); the ECONET project “Sustainability using Ecological Networks” of the European Commission’s Life Environment Programme (1999–2004), with over 1500 people involved in three countries (Italy, the UK, and the Netherlands), which was successful in raising awareness on the concept of ecological networks, supported its integration into farming, forestry, and land regeneration, and its incorporation into regional and local land use and management policies to overcome the problems of habitat loss, fragmentation, and species isolation (Pungetti, 2013); The Green Pilgrimage Network, launched in 2011 at Assisi (Umbria) by the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC, https://www.arcworld.org), attempting to build a network of Sacred Sites to protect a valuable patrimony of natural, historical and architectural sites linked to Christianity (Francescato & Talamo, 2012); and BIOESSaNS (Biodiversity and ecosystem services in sacred natural sites), implemented since 2010 to address the nexus between SNS and biocultural diversity in Central Italy, with three distinct phases: (1) identification, categorization, and mapping of the SNS; (2) floristic assessment and comparison of a sample of thirty representative SNS as well as control non-sacred sites; and (3) interviews and participant observations at the same sample SNS (Frascaroli, 2013; Frascaroli et al., 2019; Frascaroli & Verschuuren, 2016; Zannini et al., 2021, 2022).
The Atlante Bioculturale Italiano is an Istituto Italiano di Antropologia project concerning the genetic and genomic diversity of Italian populations in relation to their cultural diversity using a systematic analysis of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome diversity in a large set of communities, including those subject to geo-cultural isolation factors. Their results show that the magnitude of genetic diversity among them is greater than that observed throughout the rest of the European continent, largely driven by the multitude of geographic and linguistic isolates across the country (Anagnostou et al., 2022; Capocasa et al., 2014).
Another program, Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) (2002-present), was established by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (https://www.fao.org/giahs) that included traditional lemon gardens and the terraced agricultural system on Amalfi coast, the olive groves of the slopes between Assisi and Spoleto, and Soave traditional vineyards (Pinheiro et al., 2022). The Italian Ministry of Agricultural, Food, and Forestry Policies conducted a survey in 2009–2010 that identified 123 areas across in Italy with an average size of 1300 ha in order to establish a national monitoring system for traditional rural landscapes, which led to the establishment of the Italian National Register of Historical Rural Landscapes that also serves as the Italian list for potential application to GIAHS. These landscapes are characterized by a long history of human occupation, the presence of traditional practices, typical foods, complex landscape mosaics and high biocultural diversity. The resilience of these systems was demonstrated when, despite climatic and socioeconomic pressures, a second survey five years later found no major changes between 2014 and 2019 (Agnoletti et al., 2019; Agnoletti & Santoro, 2022).
Discussion and Conclusion
Italy shows a high number of mutual interactions between humans and their ecosystems, but to date no common drivers and patterns between biological and cultural diversity have been identified. Among the factors underlying the remarkable diversity in modern Italian human populations, Anagnostou et al. (2022) list migration, isolation, and natural selection generated by the interplay of geography, environment, and culture. This may be a good starting point; however, it only views Biocultural Diversity from the perspective of human genetics. Different causative patterns drive biological and cultural diversity, and the problem of quantification - due perhaps to an inherent incommensurability between the two dimensions - further impedes progress. Thus, a comprehensive analysis of biocultural diversity in Italy remains elusive.
To date, ethnobotanical studies in Italy have been the main sources of robust analysis of the interactions and links between plant biodiversity and cultural diversity. These studies show a remarkable diversity of biocultural links, most probably due to the diversity of Italian flora, but more specifically due to the cultural diversity that the country still hosts, possibly attributed to the interplay between geography and history. Proofs of these patterns can be found, for example, in the remarkable number of landraces of cultivated plants, or the huge diversities of local food products and cuisines, confirmed by over 200 ethnobotanical studies conducted on wild flora in the past 50 years. In particular, ethnobotanical studies specifically conducted among linguistic and religious communities in Italy have shown remarkable idiosyncratic and distinctive patterns of wild plant uses, although often mitigated by the usual phenomena (such as urbanization and globalization) that in the last decades have eroded TEK in industrialized nations and therefore possibly diluted biocultural differences. The erosion of TEK has been significant due to the lack of direct contact with nature while tending animals, agricultural fields, or home gardens, suggesting that there is a very urgent need for further in-depth studies on plant biocultural diversities in Italy and to document this knowledge before it is lost to future generations (Pyle, 1993; Quave et al., 2012; Soga & Gaston, 2016).
Given global urbanisation processes and the abandonment of many mountain and remote areas driven by contemporary socio-economic upheavals, the idea of preserving cultural landscapes as they were for many centuries seems impractical. In Italy and other industrialized nations, parts of traditional landscapes will inevitably return to nature in a process that is now defined as “rewilding” (Navarro & Pereira, 2012; Perino et al., 2019). This can be seen as a positive development in human-nature interactions, since it will contribute to biodiversity preservation (Genes et al., 2019; Nogués-Bravo et al., 2016). Nonetheless, there is an urgent need to develop a proper understanding of a potential new equilibrium in human-nature interactions, where the return of parts of the previously-traditional landscapes to nature leads to sustainability in nature-culture dynamics (Mikołajczak et al., 2022; Schulte to Bühne et al., 2022).
We also note that some areas of biocultural diversity seem to be severely under-studied in Italy, e.g., the impact of invasive, exotic, and alien species on biocultural diversity, or biocultural diversity with respect to marine environments. Collecting and analyzing in a quantitative way these and other relevant data will be fundamental in understanding and creating an index of Biocultural Diversity that can be combined with other quantitative indices.
In addition, in this review, we did not investigate the historical and anthropological aspects of biocultural diversity in Italy. A separate review on the latter topic might be interesting from a methodological point of view, as certain case studies may be applied to a modern context where variability in material culture and traditional habits can be measured while comparing it against biological variability and indices of human mobility and interconnectedness.
Data Availability
Not applicable.
Notes
“... la Repubblica tutela la lingua e la cultura delle popolazioni albanesi, catalane, germaniche, greche, slovene e croate e di quelle parlanti il francese, il franco-provenzale, il friulano, il ladino, l’occitano e il sardo” (Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 1999).
Defined as the physical places that not only shelter farm biodiversity, but also carry knowledge and experiences about practical management of how to produce food while stewarding biodiversity and ecosystem services (Barthel et al., 2013).
The National Register can be accessed online. https://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/17423
Defined as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems (MA, 2003).
Defined as non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through cultural diversity, spiritual and religious values, knowledge systems, educational values, inspiration, aesthetic values, social relations, sense of place, cultural heritage values, recreation and ecotourism (MA, 2005; Reyes-García et al., 2015).
Ddefined as all the contributions, both positive and negative, of living nature (diversity of organisms, ecosystems, and their associated ecological and evolutionary processes) to people’s quality of life (Díaz et al., 2018).
See, for example, Presìdi in Italia: https://www.fondazioneslowfood.com/it/nazioni-presidi/italia-it/
E.g., “Ecomuseum of Pastoralism” in Pontebernardo, Cuneo, and the Ecomuseum Itinerari Frentani, Larino (Belligiano et al., 2021). See also studies in Veneto and Lombardy (Chang et al., 2010; Iseppi et al., 2015), in Amalfi coast (Merola, 2021), and in the area of Judicarie, Trento (Povinelli et al., 2022).
Defined as areas of land or water having special spiritual significance for peoples and communities (Wild & McLeod, 2008).
References
Agnoletti, M. (ed). (2010). Paesaggi rurali storici. Per un catalogo nazionale. Editori Laterza, Bari.
Agnoletti, M. (2013). Valorising the European rural landscape: The case of the Italian National Register of Historical Rural Landscapes. Chapter 5 in Rotherham ID (ed) Cultural Severance and the Environment. Environmental History, 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6159-9_5
Agnoletti, M., Emanueli, F., Corrieri, F., et al. (2019). Monitoring traditional rural landscapes. The case of Italy. Sustainability, 11, 6107. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216107
Agnoletti, M., & Santoro, A. (2022). The Italian National Register of historical rural landscapes. In Henrik et al. (Eds.), Cultural heritage– Possibilities for land-centered societal development (p. 390). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58092-6
Alexander, R. D. (1990). Epigenetic ruless and Darwinian algorithms: The adaptive study of learning and development. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 241–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(90)90012-U
Amici, V., Landi, S., Frascaroli, F., et al. (2015). Anthropogenic drivers of plant diversity: Perspective on land use change in a dynamic cultural landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(13), 3185–3199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0949-x
Amici, V., Santi, E., Filibeck, G., et al. (2013). Influence of secondary forest succession on plant diversity patterns in a Mediterranean landscape. Journal of Biogeography, 40(12), 2335–2347. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12182
Anagnostou, P., Montinaro, F., Sazzini, M., et al. (2022). From the Alps to the Mediterranean and beyond: Genetics, environment, culture and the “impossible beauty” of Italy. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 100, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.4436/jass10010
Anderson, M. K. (2005). Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and the management of California’s natural resources. University of California Press.
Anonymous. (2021). Antichi mestieri in Toscana: il bigonaio. Online blog post https://blog-agricoltura.regione.toscana.it/-/antichi-mestieri-in-toscana-il-bigonaio. Accessed March 2023.
Barbera, G., & Biasi, R. (2011). I paesaggi agrari tradizionali dell’albero: il significato moderno di forme d’uso del suolo del passato. Review n. 14. Italus Hortus, 18(2), 21–38.
Barbieri, C., Blasi, D. E., Arango-Isaza, E., et al. (2022). A global analysis of matches and mismatches between human genetic and linguistic histories. PNAS, 119(47), e2122084119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2122084119
Barthel, S., Crumley, C. L., & Svedin, U. (2013). Biocultural refugia: Combating the erosion of diversity in landscapes of food production. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 71. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06207-180471
Beinart, W. (2014). Bio-invasions, biodiversity, and biocultural diversity: Some problems with these concepts for historians. In C. Mauch & L. Robin (Eds.), The edges of environmental history: Honouring Jane Carruthers (RCC perspectives) (Vol. 1, pp. 75–80).
Belletti, G., Ranaboldo, C., Scarpellini, P., et al. (2022). Redes y dinamización territorial, factores clave para la valorización sostenible e inclusiva del patrimonio biocultural rural: un análisis desde el territorio de Garfagnana (Italia). Chapter 4 in Bindi L (ed) Bio-cultural Heritage and Communities of Practice. Participatory Processes in Territorial Development as a multidisciplinary Fieldwork. Perspectives on Rural Development n. 6, Università del Salento. 311 p. https://doi.org/10.1285/i26113775n6
Bellia, G., & Pieroni, A. (2015). Isolated, but transnational: The glocal nature of Waldensian ethnobotany, Western Alps, NW Italy. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 11, 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-015-0027-1
Belligiano, A., Bindi, L., & Ievoli, C. (2021). Walking along the Sheeptrack . . . Rural tourism, Ecomuseums, and bio-cultural heritage. Sustainability, 13, 8870. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168870
Berkes, F. (2008). Sacred ecology (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Bindi, L. (2022a). Bio-cultural Heritage and Communities of Practice. Participatory Processes in Territorial Development as a Multidisciplinary Fieldwork. pp. 15–31 in L. Bindi (Ed.), Bio-cultural Heritage and Communities of Practice. Participatory Processes in Territorial Development as a multidisciplinary Fieldwork. Perspectives on Rural Development n. 6, Università del Salento. 311 p. https://doi.org/10.1285/i26113775n6
Bindi, L. (2022b). Transhumance Is the New Black: Fragile Rangelands and Local Regeneration. Chapter 7 in L. Bindi (Ed.), Grazing Communities: Pastoralism on the Move and Biocultural Heritage Frictions. Environmental Anthropology and Ethnobiology Vol 29. Berghahn books, 314 p. https://doi.org/10.3167/9781800734753
Boattini, A., Bortolini, E., Bauer, R., et al. (2021). The surname structure of Trentino (Italy) and its relationship with dialects and genes. Annals of Human Biology, 48(3), 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460.2021.1936635
Boattini, A., Griso, C., & Pettener, D. (2011). Are ethnic minorities synonymous for genetic isolates? Comparing Walser and romance populations in the upper Lys Valley (Western Alps). Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 89, 161–173. https://doi.org/10.4436/jass.89014
Boattini, A., Sarno, S., Fiorani, O., et al. (2018). Ripples on the surface. Surnames and genes in Sicily and southern Italy. Annals of Human Biology, 45, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460.2017.1411525
Bracchetti, L., Carotenuto, L., & Catorci, A. (2012). Land-cover changes in a remote area of central Apennines (Italy) and management directions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.09.005
Brey, P. (2007). Theorizing the cultural quality of new media. Technè 11(1). https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v11n1/brey.html. Accessed December 2022.
Bridgewater, P., & Rotherham, I. D. (2019). A critical perspective on the concept of biocultural diversity and its emerging role in nature and heritage conservation. People and Nature, 1, 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10040
Capocasa, M., Anagnostou, P., Bachis, V., et al. (2014). Linguistic, geographic and genetic isolation: A collaborative study of Italian populations. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 92, 201–231. https://doi.org/10.4436/JASS.92001
Capocasa, M., Battaggia, C., Anagnostou, P., et al. (2013). Detecting genetic isolation in human populations: A study of European language minorities. PLoS One, 8(2), e56371. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056371
Carpino, S., Mallila, S., La Terra, S., et al. (2004). Composition and aroma compounds of Ragusano cheese: Native pasture and Total mixed rations. Journal of Dairy Science, 87, 816–830. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73226-9
Cavalli Sforza, L., & Menozzi, P. (1994). The history and geography of human Genes. Princeton University Press.
CBD. (1992). The Convention on Biological Diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/convention. Accessed December 2022.
CBD. (2016). Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/convention/text. Accessed December 2022.
CBD. (2023). Country profiles: Italy. https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/?country=it. Accessed March 2023.
Chang, T. F. M., Iseppi, L., & Piccinini, L. C. (2010). Robust comparison between biocultural fingerprints in the Alpine-Adriatic area. Agribusiness Paesaggio & Ambiente, 13(1), 15–28.
Chaplin-Kramer, R., Neugarten, R. A., Sharp, R. P., et al. (2022). Mapping the planet’s critical natural assets. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01934-5
Chauchard, S., Carcaillet, C., & Guibal, F. (2007). Patterns of land-use abandonment control tree-recruitment and forest dynamics in Mediterranean mountains. Ecosystems, 10, 936–948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-007-9065-4
Coia, V., Boschi, I., Trombetta, F., et al. (2012). Evidence of high genetic variation among linguistically diverse populations on a micro-geographic scale: A case study of the Italian Alps. Journal of Human Genetics, 57, 254–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/jhg.2012.14
Colombino, A., & Powers, J. J. (2022). Revisiting Transhumance from Stilfs, South Tyrol, Italy – The Everyday Diverse Economy of a Forgotten Alternative Food Network. Chapter 6 in Bindi L (ed) Grazing Communities: Pastoralism on the Move and Biocultural Heritage Frictions. Environmental Anthropology and Ethnobiology vol 29. Berghahn Books, 314 p. https://doi.org/10.3167/9781800734753
Comandini, O., Paulis, S., & Rinaldi, A. C. (2018). Sardinia: Mycovisions from a charming land. Current Research in Environmental and Applied Mycology, 8, 474–491. https://doi.org/10.5943/cream/8/5/1
Congedo, G. (2019). Nelle brughiere del Pratomagno rinascerà la lavorazione delle scope. Toscana Chianti Ambiente, online article: https://www.toscanachiantiambiente.it/nelle-brughiere-del-pratomagno-rinascera-la-lavorazione-delle-scope/. Accessed March 2023.
De Pasquale, G., & Livia, S. (2022). Biocultural diversity in the traditional landscape of Vallecorsa. Biodiversity and Conservation, 31, 2373–2396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02400-1
Dessart, F. (1982). The Albanian ethnic groups in the world: An historical and cultural essay on the Albanian colonies in Italy. East European Quarterly, 4, 469–484.
Destro Bisol, G., Anagnostou, P., Batini, C., et al. (2008). Italian isolates today: Geographic and linguistic factors shaping human biodiversity. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 86, 179–188.
Di Tizio, A., Łuczaj, Ł., Quave, C. L., Redžić, S., & Pieroni, A. (2012). Traditional food and herbal uses of wild plants in the ancient south-Slavic diaspora of Mundimitar/Montemitro (southern Italy). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 8, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-8-21
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., et al. (2015). The IPBES conceptual framework — Connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., et al. (2018). Assessing nature’s contributions to people: Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science, 359(6373), 270–273. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826
Ellis, E. C. (2021). Land use and ecological change: A 12,000-year history. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-010822
Falcucci, A., Maiorano, L., & Boitani, L. (2007). Changes in land-use/land-cover patterns in Italy and their implications for biodiversity conservation. Landscape Ecology, 22, 617–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9056-4
Farina, A. (2000). The cultural landscape as a model for the integration of ecology and economics. BioScience, 50(4), 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0313:TCLAAM]2.3.CO;2
Ferrara, V., & Wästfelt, A. (2021). Unpacking layers of space–time complexity in land–use dynamics. A case study from the olive Agrosystems of Sicily (Italy). GI Forum, 2, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1553/giscience2021_02_s108
Francescato, G., & Talamo, D. (2012). The Roman goddess care: A therapy for the planet. Chapter 12. In G. Pungetti, G. Oviedo, & D. Hooke (Eds.), Sacred species and sites: Advances in biocultural conservation (pp. 178–191). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139030717.018
Franco, F. M. (2022). Ecocultural or biocultural? Towards appropriate terminologies in biocultural diversity. Biology, 11, 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11020207
Frank, B. (2011). Biocultural diversity in Europe: A literature review of selected projects (p. 68). Masterarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Department für Nachhaltige Agrarsysteme, Institut für ökologischen Landbau.
Frascaroli, F. (2013). Catholicism and conservation: The potential of sacred natural sites for biodiversity management in Central Italy. Human Ecology, 41, 587–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9598-4
Frascaroli, F. (2016). Shepherds, rituals, and the sacred. Worldviews, 20(3), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685357-02003005
Frascaroli, F., Bhagwat, S., Guarino, R., et al. (2016). Shrines in Central Italy conserve plant diversity and large trees. Ambio, 45, 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0738-5
Frascaroli, F., & Verschuuren, B. (2016). Linking biocultural diversity and sacred sites: Evidence and recommendations in the European framework. pp. 389–417 in M. Agnoletti, & F. Emanueli (Eds.), Biocultural Diversity in Europe. Springer, 537 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26315-1
Frascaroli, F., Zanninia, P., Acosta, A. T. R., et al. (2019). Sacred natural sites in Italy have landscape characteristics complementary to protected areas: Implications for policy and planning. Applied Geography, 113, 102100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.102100
Garbarino, M., Lingua, E., Subirà, M. M., & Motta, R. (2010). The larch wood pasture: Structure and dynamics of a cultural landscape. European Journal of Forest Research, 130, 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-010-0437-5
Gardapost. (2021). I pini di Armo: la storia incisa nella corteccia. Online article: https://www.gardapost.it/2015/11/02/i-pini-di-armo-la-storia-incisa-nella-corteccia. Accessed March 2023.
Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana. (1999). Legge 15 Dicembre 1999, n. 482. Norme in Maniera di Tutela della Minoranze Linguistiche Storiche. Ufficio Poligrafico della Zecca.
Genes, L., Svenning, J., Pires, A. S., & Fernandez, F. A. S. (2019). Why we should let rewilding be wild and biodiverse. Biodiversity and Conservation, 28(5), 1285–1289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01707-w
Genovese, D., Ostellino, I., & Battaglini, L. M. (2022). The Conflict of Itinerant Pastoralism in the Piedmont Po Plain (Collina Po Biosphere Reserve, Italy). Chapter 2 in Bindi L (ed) Grazing Communities: Pastoralism on the Move and Biocultural Heritage Frictions. Environmental Anthropology and Ethnobiology vol 29. Berghahn Books, p. 314. https://doi.org/10.3167/9781800734753
Geri, F., Rocchini, D., & Chiarucci, A. (2010). Landscape metrics and topographical determinants of large-scale forest dynamics in a Mediterranean landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95(1/2), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.12.001
Ghirardini, M. P., Carli, M., del Vecchio, N., et al. (2007). The importance of a taste. A comparative study on wild food plant consumption in twenty-one local communities in Italy. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 3, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-3-22
Gorenflo, L. J., Romaine, S., Mittermeier, R. A., et al. (2012). Co-occurrence of linguistic and biological diversity in biodiversity hotspots and high biodiversity wilderness areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 8032–8037. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117511109
Guarrera, P. M. (2005). Traditional phytotherapy in Central Italy (Marche, Abruzzo, and Latium). Fitoterapia, 76(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2004.09.006
Guarrera, P. M. (2006). Usi e tradizioni della flora italiana. Medicina popolare e etnobotanica. Aracne Editrice S.r.l., Rome. p. 433.
Guarrera, P. M., & Lucia, L. M. (2007). Ethnobotanical remarks on central and southern Italy. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-3-23
Hearn, R., & Dossche, R. (2016). Apicultural Spaces as Biocultural Places: A Comparative Temporal and Spatial Examination of Beekeeping Practices and Their Contextual Landscapes in the Northwest Apennines. pp. 123–139 in M. Agnoletti, & F. Emanueli (Eds.), Biocultural Diversity in Europe. Springer, p. 537. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26315-1
Hernández-Morcillo, M., Hoberg, J., Oteros-Rozas, E., et al. (2014). Traditional ecological knowledge in Europe: Status quo and insights for the environmental policy Agend. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 56(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2014.861673
Honkola, T., Ruokolainen, K., Syrjänen, K. J. J., et al. (2018). Evolution within a language: Environmental differences contribute to divergence of dialect groups. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 18, 132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1238-6
IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6417333
ISE (International Society of Ethnobiology). (1988). Declaration of Belém. http://www.ethnobiology.net/what-we-do/core-programs/global-coalition-2/declaration-of-belem. Accessed March 2023.
Iseppi, L., Chang, T. F. M., & Droli, M. (2015). Lombardy and Veneto biocultural fingerprint: A driving force for tourism and residential attraction. Proceeding of the International Scientifical Conference, 2, 353–364.
Lachat, C., Raneri, J. E., Walker, K., et al. (2018). Dietary species richness as a measure of food biodiversity and nutritional quality of diets. PNAS, 115(1), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1709194115
Lelli, C., Nascimbene, J., Alberti, D., et al. (2021). Long-term changes in Italian mountain forests detected by resurvey of historical vegetation data. Journal of Vegetation Science, 32(1), e12939. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12939
Leporatti, M. L., & Ghedira, K. (2009). Comparative analysis of medicinal plants used in traditional medicine in Italy and Tunisia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 5(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-5-31
Leporatti, M. L., & Ivancheva, S. (2003). Preliminary comparative analysis of medicinal plants used in the traditional medicine of Bulgaria and Italy. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 87, 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-8741(03)00047-3
Loh, J., & Harmon, D. (2005). A global index of biocultural diversity. Ecological Indicators, 5, 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.02.005
Lozej, S. L. (2022). Mountain pasture in Friuli (Italy): Past and present. Ch. 10 in L. Bindi (Ed.), Grazing Communities: Pastoralism on the Move and Biocultural Heritage Frictions. Environmental Anthropology and Ethnobiology vol 29. Berghahn Books, p. 314. https://doi.org/10.3167/9781800734753
MA [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment]. (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Island Press.
MA [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment]. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.
Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34(1), 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437
Maffi, L. (2007). Biocultural Diversity and Sustainability. Chapter 18, pages 267–277. In: J. Pretty et al. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of Environment and Society. Sage Publications, 2007.
Maffi, L. (2018). Biocultural diversity. In H. Callan (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of anthropology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1797
Malandra, F., Vitali, A., Urbinati, C., & Garbarino, M. (2018). 70 years of land use land cover changes in the Apennines (Italy): A Meta-analysis. Forests, 9, 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9090551
Marchesini, C., & Parbuono, D. (2022). TrasiMemo. Banca della memoria del Trasimeno. pp. 67–89 in Bindi L (ed) Bio-cultural Heritage and Communities of Practice. Participatory Processes in Territorial Development as a multidisciplinary Fieldwork. Perspectives on Rural Development n. 6, Università del Salento. p. 311. https://doi.org/10.1285/i26113775n6
Marchetti, M., Vizzarri, M., Sallustio, L., et al. (2018). Behind forest cover changes is natural regrowth supporting landscape restoration findings from Central Italy. Plant Biosystems, 152(3), 524–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2018.1435585
Massimini, F., & Delle Fave, A. (2000). Individual development in a bio-cultural perspective. American Psychologist, 55, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.24
Mattalia, G., Quave, C. L., & Pieroni, A. (2013). Traditional uses of wild food and medicinal plants among Brigasc, Kyé, and Provençal communities on the Western Italian Alps. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 60, 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-012-9859-x
Mattalia, G., Sõukand, R., Corvo, P., & Pieroni, A. (2020a). Dissymmetry at the border: Wild food and medicinal ethnobotany of Slovenes and Friulians in NE Italy. Economic Botany, 74, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-020-09488-y
Mattalia, G., Sõukand, R., Corvo, P., & Pieroni, A. (2020b). Blended divergences: Local food and medicinal plant uses among Arbëreshë, Occitans, and autochthonous Calabrians living in Calabria, southern Italy. Plant Biosystems, 154, 615–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2019.1651786
Maxia, A., Lancioni, M. C., Balia, A. N., et al. (2007). Medical ethnobotany of the Tabarkins, a northern Italian (Ligurian) minority in South-Western Sardinia. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 55, 911–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-007-9296-4
Merola, M. (2021). The value of the technological footprint on the territory in bio-cultural landscapes: The terraces of the Amalfi coast. Sustainable Mediterranean Construction, 6, 110–125.
Mikołajczak, K. M., Jones, N., Sandom, C. J., et al. (2022). Rewilding—The farmers’ perspective. Perceptions and attitudinal support for rewilding among the English farming community. People and Nature, 4(6), 1435–1449. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10376
Milton, K. (1998). Nature and the environment in indigenous and traditional cultures. In D. E. Cooper & J. A. Palmer (Eds.), Spirit of the environment: Religion, value and environmental concern (pp. 86–99). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203696262
Mohamad, R. S., Bteich, M. R., Cardone, G., & Marchini, A. (2013). Economic analysis in organic olive farms: The case of the ancient olive trees in the rural parkland in Apulia. New Medit, 4, 55–61.
Monari, S., Ferri, M., Salinitro, M., & Tassoni, A. (2022). Ethnobotanical review and dataset compiling on Wild and cultivated plants traditionally used as medicinal remedies in Italy. Plants, 11, 2041. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11152041
Moral, P., Moragna, G., Salis, M., Succa, V., & Vona, G. (1994). Genetic data on Alghero population (Sardinia): Contrast between biological and cultural evidence. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 93, 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330930405
Motta, R., & Lingua, E. (2005). Human impact on size, age, and spatial structure in a mixed European larch and Swiss stone pine forest in the Western Italian Alps. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35, 1809–1820. https://doi.org/10.1139/X05-107
Motti, R. (2021). Wild plants used as herbs and spices in Italy: An ethnobotanical review. Plants, 10, 563. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10030563
Motti, R., Bonanomi, G., & de Falco, B. (2022). Wild and cultivated plants used in traditional alcoholic beverages in Italy: An ethnobotanical review. European Food Research and Technology, 248, 1089–1106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-021-03948-y
Motti, R., Bonanomi, G., Emrick, S., & Lanzotti, V. (2019). Traditional herbal remedies used in women’s health Care in Italy: A review. Human Ecology, 47, 941–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-00125-4
Motti, R., & deFalco, B. (2021). Traditional herbal remedies used for managing anxiety and insomnia in Italy: An Ethnopharmacological overview. Horticulturae, 7, 523. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7120523
Motti, R., Ippolito, F., & Bonanomi, G. (2018). Folk Phytotherapy in Paediatric health Care in Central and Southern Italy: A review. Human Ecology, 46, 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-018-0005-z
Nakashima, D. J., Galloway McLean, K., et al. (2012). Weathering uncertainty: Traditional knowledge for climate change assessment and adaptation. UNESCO and Darwin, UNU.
Nascimbene, J., Di Cecco, V., Di Martino, L., et al. (2019). Epiphytic lichens of the sacred natural site “Bosco di Sant’Antonio” (Majella National Park – Abruzzo). Italian Botanist, 7, 149–156. https://doi.org/10.3897/italianbotanist.7.34639
Navarro, L. M., & Pereira, H. M. (2012). Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems, 15(6), 900–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9558-7
Nebel, S., Pieroni, A., & Heinrich, M. (2006). Ta chòrta: Wild edible greens used in the Graecanic area in Calabria, southern Italy. Appetite, 47, 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.05.010
Nogués-Bravo, D., Simberloff, D., Rahbek, C., & Sanders, N. J. (2016). Rewilding is the new Pandora’s box in conservation. Current Biology, 26(3), R87–R91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.044
Nori, M., & De Marchi, V. (2015). Pastorizia, biodiversità e la sfida dell’immigrazione: il caso del Triveneto. Culture Della Sostenibilità, 8(15), 78–101. https://doi.org/10.7402/CdS.15.073
Novellino, D. (2006). An account of basket weaving and the use of fibre plants in the Mount Aurunci Regional Park (Central Italy). Proceedings of the IVth International Congress of Ethnobotany (ICEB 2005): 1–10.
O'Conner, L. M. J., Pollock, L. J., Renaud, J., et al. (2021). Balancing conservation priorities for nature and for people in Europe. Science, 372, 856–860. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc4896
Ojeda, J., Salomon, A. K., Rowe, J. K., & Ban, N. C. (2022). Reciprocal contributions between people and nature: A conceptual intervention. BioScience, 72, 952–962. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac053
Palombo, C., Chirici, G., Marchetti, M., & Tognetti, R. (2013). Is land abandonment affecting forest dynamics at high elevation in Mediterranean mountains more than climate change? Plant Biosystems, 147(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2013.772081
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., et al. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Patsiurko, N., Campbell, J. L., & Hall, J. A. (2012). Measuring cultural diversity: Ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization in the OECD. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(2), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.579136
Paura, B., Di Marzio, P., Salerno, G., Brugiapaglia, E., & Bufano, A. (2021). Design a database of Italian vascular alimurgic flora (AlimurgITA): Preliminary results. Plants, 10, 743. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10040743
Pérez-Moreno, J., Guerin-Laguette, A., Rinaldi, A. C., et al. (2020). Edible mycorrhizal fungi of the world: What is their role in forest sustainability, food security, biocultural conservation and climate change? Plants People Planet, 3, 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10199
Perino, A., Pereira, H. M., Navarro, L. M., et al. (2019). Rewilding complex ecosystems. Science, 364(6438), eaav5570. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav5570
Pieroni, A. (2001). Evaluation of the cultural significance of wild food botanicals traditionally consumed in northwestern Tuscany, Italy. Journal of Ethnobiology, 21(1), 89–104.
Pieroni, A. (2003). Wild food plants and Arbëresh women in Lucania, southern Italy. In P. L. Howard (Ed.), Women and plants: Gender relations in biodiversity management and conservation (pp. 66–82). The University of Chicago Press.
Pieroni, A., & Cattero, V. (2019). Wild vegetables do not lie: Comparative gastronomic ethnobotany and ethnolinguistics on the Greek traces of the Mediterranean diet of southeastern Italy. Acta Botanica Brasilica, 33, 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-33062018abb0323
Pieroni, A., Howard, P., Volpato, G., & Santoro, R. F. (2004). Natural remedies and nutraceuticals used in Ethnoveterinary practices in inland southern Italy. Veterinary Research Communications, 28, 55–80.
Pieroni, A., Nebel, S., Quave, C. L., et al. (2002a). Ethnopharmacology of liakra: Traditional weedy vegetables of the Arbëreshë of the vulture area in southern Italy. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 81(2), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-8741(02)00052-1
Pieroni, A., & Quave, C. L. (2005). Traditional pharmacopoeias and medicines among Albanians and Italians in southern Italy: A comparison. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 101, 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2005.04.028
Pieroni, A., Quave, C. L., Nebel, S., & Heinrich, M. (2002b). Ethnopharmacy of the ethnic Albanians (Arbëreshë) of northern Basilicata, Italy. Fitoterapia, 73(3), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0367-326x(02)00063-1
Pilgrim, S. E., Cullen, L. C., Smith, D. J., & Pretty, J. (2008). Ecological knowledge is lost in wealthier communities and countries. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(4), 1004–1009. https://doi.org/10.1021/es070837v
Pinheiro, R. O., de Paula, L. F. A., & Giardino, M. (2022). Agricultural heritage: Contrasting national and international programs in Brazil and Italy. Sustainability, 14, 6401. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116401
Pollegioni, P., Del Lungo, S., Müller, R., et al. (2020). Biocultural diversity of common walnut (Juglans regia L.) and sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa mill.) across Eurasia. Ecology and Evolution, 10, 11192–11216. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6761
Posey, D. A. (1999). Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity (p. 731). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Povinelli, I., Dallapè, C., Baratter, L., & Raffaetà, R. (2022). Alla ricerca della cultura: valorizzare la cultura come fattore di sviluppo delle comunità rurali del Trentino. pp. 233–251 in L. Bindi (Ed.), Bio-cultural Heritage and Communities of Practice. Participatory Processes in Territorial Development as a multidisciplinary Fieldwork. Perspectives on Rural Development n. 6, Università del Salento. 311 p. https://doi.org/10.1285/i26113775n6
Povolo, M., Pelizzola, V., Lombardi, G., et al. (2012). Hydrocarbon and fatty acid composition of cheese as affected by the pasture vegetation type. Journal of Agricultural Food and Chemtry, 60, 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf203802y
Pretty, J., Adams, B., Berkes, F., et al. (2009). The intersections of biological diversity and cultural diversity: Towards integration. Conservation and Society, 7(2), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.58642
Pungetti, G. (2013). Biocultural diversity for sustainable ecological, cultural and sacred landscapes: The Biocultural Landscape Approach. Chapter 4 (pp. 55–76) In B. Lu, K. B. Jones (Eds.), Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture. Springer, p. 368.
Pyle, R. M. (1993). The thunder tree. Lessons from an urban wildland. Oregon State University Press.
Quave, C. L., Lohani, U., Verde, A., et al. (2010). A comparative assessment of zootherapeutic remedies from selected areas in Albania, Italy, Spain and Nepal. Journal of Ethnobiology, 30(1), 92–125. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-30.1.92
Quave, C. L., Pardo-de-Santayana, M., & Pieroni, A. (2012). Medical ethnobotany in Europe: From field ethnography to a more culturally sensitive evidence-based CAM? Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2012, 156846. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/156846
Rao, R. (2013). Una civiltà del castagno: uomini e boschi nell'Appennino ligure-piemontese durante l'apogeo del medioevo (secoli XII - metà XIV). Archivio Storico Italiano, 171(2), 207–228 https://doi.org/10.2307/26226196
Raveane, A., Aneli, S., Montinaro, F., et al. (2019). Population structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient and archaic ancestries in southern Europe. Science Advances, 5, eaaw3492. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw349
Redazione Toscana Oggi. (2015). Le foreste dei monaci e dei frati. Online article: https://www.toscanaoggi.it/Cultura-Societa/Le-foreste-dei-monaci-e-dei-frati. Accessed March 2023.
Reyes-García, V., Aceituno-Mata, L., Calvet-Mir, L., et al. (2014). Resilience of traditional knowledge systems: The case of agricultural knowledge in home gardens of the Iberian Peninsula. Global Environmental Change, 24, 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.022
Reyes-García, V., Cámara-Leret, R., Halpern, B. S., et al. (2023). Biocultural vulnerability exposes threats of culturally important species. PNAS, 120(2), e2217303120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2217303120
Reyes-García, V., Menendez-Baceta, G., Aceituno-Mata, L., et al. (2015). From famine foods to delicatessen: Interpreting trends in the use of wild edible plants through cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 120, 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.003
Reyes-Valdés, M. H., & Kantartzi, S. K. (2020). An information theory approach to biocultural complexity. Scientific Reports, 10, 7203. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64260-5
Riva, G., Waterworth, J. A., & Waterworth, E. L. (2004). The layers of presence: A bio-cultural approach to understanding presence in natural and mediated environments. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2004.7.402
Robledo, R., Corrias, L., Bachis, V., et al. (2012). Analysis of a genetic isolate: The case of Carloforte (Italy). Human Biology, 84(6), 735–754. https://doi.org/10.3378/027.084.0602
Romano, R. (2010). Il Codice forestale camaldolese: le radici della sostenibilità. Agriregionieuropa, 6, 21.
Rozzi, R. (1999). The reciprocal links between evolutionary-ecological sciences and environment ethics. BioScience, 49(11), 911–921. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313650
Sardaro, R., & La Sala, P. (2021). New value to wool: Innovative garments for preservation of sheep landraces in Italy. Animals, 11, 731. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030731
Sarno, S., Agostini, R. B., De Fanti, S., et al. (2021a). Y-chromosome variability and genetic history of commons from northern Italy. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 175, 665–679. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24302
Sarno, S., Boattini, A., Pagai, L., et al. (2017). Ancient and recent admixture layers in Sicily and southern Italy trace multiple migration routes along the Mediterranean. Scientific Reports, 7, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01802-4
Sarno, S., Petrilli, R., Abondio, P., et al. (2021b). Genetic history of Calabrian Greeks reveals ancient events and long-term isolation in the Aspromonte area of southern Italy. Scientific Reports, 11, 3045. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82591-9
Sazzini, M., Abondio, P., Sarno, S., et al. (2020). Genomic history of the Italian population recapitulates key evolutionary dynamics of both continental and southern Europeans. BMC Biology, 18, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-020-00778-4
Schulte to Bühne, H., Pettorelli, N., & Hoffmann, M. (2022). The policy consequences of defining rewilding. Ambio, 51(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01560-8
Schulze, E. D., Mischi, G., Asche, G., & Börner, A. (2007). Land-use history and succession of Larix decidua in the southern Alps of Italy–an essay based on a cultural history study of Roswitha Asche. Flora, 202, 705–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2007.05.003
Seele, B. C., Esler, K. J., & Cunningham, A. B. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A Mongolian case study. Ecology and Society, 24(4), 27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11207-240427
Serafini, I. (2011). Riscoprire gli antichi mestieri. La fabbricazione tradizionale di scope in saggina. Online article, http://www.altovastese.it/cultura/riscoprire-gli-antichi-mestieri-la-fabbricazione-tradizionale-di-scope-in-saggina/. Accessed March 2023.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Harmon, D. (2017). Biological diversity and language diversity. Routledge Handbooks Online. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315687391.ch1
Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of human–nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225
Stephens, L., Fuller, D., Boivin, N., et al. (2019). Archaeological assessment reveals Earth’s early transformation through land use. Science, 365(6456), 897–902. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax1192
Tagarelli, A., Piro, A., Tagarelli, G., et al. (2005). Genetic characterization of the historical Albanian ethnic minority of Calabria (southern Italy). Human Biology, 77(1), 45–60 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41466304
Taylor, K., & Lennon, J. (2011). Cultural landscapes: A bridge between culture and nature? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17(6), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2011.618246
Trivisonno. (2022). Voci del Molise. Anthropological perspectives for participatory development. pp. 191–207 in Bindi L (ed) Bio-cultural Heritage and Communities of Practice. Participatory Processes in Territorial Development as a multidisciplinary Fieldwork. Perspectives on Rural Development n. 6, Università del Salento. 311 p. https://doi.org/10.1285/i26113775n6
Troiano, C., Buglione, M., Petrelli, S., et al. (2021). Traditional free-ranging livestock farming as a management strategy for biological and cultural landscape diversity – A case from the southern Apennines. Land, 10, 957. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10090957
UNEP. (2019). Global environment outlook – GEO-6: Healthy planet, healthy people. Nairobi. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/27539. Accessed 24 February 2023.
UNESCO. (2001). Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Available Online: https://en.unesco.org/about-us/legal-affairs/unesco-universal-declaration-cultural-diversity. Accessed December 2022.
UNESCO. (2019). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Paris. Available Online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines. Accessed December 2022.
Vacchiano, G., Garbarino, M., Lingua, E., & Motta, R. (2017). Forest dynamics and disturbance regimes in the Italian Apennines. Forest Ecology and Management, 388, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.10.033
Venturi, M., Piras, F., Corrieri, F., et al. (2021). The multifunctional role of linear features in traditional silvopastoral systems: The sabana de morro in Dolores (El Salvador) and the pastures with carob trees in Ragusa (Italy). Biodiversity and Conservation, 31, 2315–2327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02220-9
Vogiatzakis, I. N., Griffiths, G. H., & Bacchetta, G. (2005). Human impacts on Quercus suber habitats in Sardinia: Past and present. Botanika Chronika, 18(1), 293–300.
von Glasenapp, M., & Thornton, T. F. (2011). Traditional ecological knowledge of Swiss Alpine farmers and their resilience to socioecological change. Human Ecology, 39(6), 769–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-011-9427-6
Wild, R., & McLeod, C. (2008). IUCN world commission on protected areas task force on cultural and spiritual values of protected areas and UNESCO Programme on man and the biosphere. In Sacred natural sites: Guidelines for protected area managers. IUCN, UNESCO.
Wiley, A. S., & Cullin, J. M. (2016). What do anthropologists mean when they use the term biocultural? American Anthropologist, 118(3), 554–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12608
Zannini, P., Frascaroli, F., Nascimbene, J., et al. (2021). Sacred natural sites and biodiversity conservation: A systematic review. Biodiversity and Conservation, 30, 3747–3762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02296-3
Zannini, P., Frascaroli, F., Nascimbene, J., et al. (2022). Investigating sacred natural sites and protected areas for forest area changes in Italy. Conservation Science and Practice, 2022, e12695. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12695
Zent, S., & Maffi, L. (2009). Final report on Indicator no. 2: Methodology for developing a vitality index of traditional environmental knowledge (VITEK) for the project “global indicators of the status and trends of linguistic diversity and traditional knowledge”. Terralingua, 1–112.
Zent, S., & Zent, E. (2013). Processual perspectives on traditional environmental knowledge continuity, Erosion, transformation, innovation. In R. Ellen, S. J. Lycett, & S. E. Johns (Eds.), Understanding cultural transmission in anthropology: A critical synthesis. Berghahn Books.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Padova within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All co-authors contributed equally to the development and completion of this manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
Not applicable.
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing Interests to declare.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Nazari, V., Belardinelli, S., Pieroni, A. et al. Biocultural Diversity in Italy. Hum Ecol 51, 1263–1275 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-023-00455-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-023-00455-4