If we refer to landscape as a process and not a mere product of human action, it must evolve in order to ensure its survival. There is an underlying assumption that cultural landscapes, as a continuous process, adjust to conditions yet this does not take into account any unpredictability in the system. If landscapes are more irrational than rational, how do we attain a unison method of preservation? How predictable is the landscape’s development?
Authenticity of cultural landscapes is hard to measure, mostly due to its intangible nature. As a continuously changing process or “process of evolution”, is it really best to measure landscapes by their integrity (wholeness, uncorrupted condition, continuation of traditional uses and social fabric)?
In terms of conservation strategies, if as a consequence of globalization, the landscape changes at a faster pace, then should one of the strategies seek to lower the rate of this change? Is that even possible when many of the factors behind this fast rate of change are out of reach (climate change, population growth, resource consumption, urbanization, socioeconomic change)?
What degree of alteration or human activity must a landscape have visibly present in order to be considered a cultural landscape? Or are all landscapes irrefutably cultural? How visible or tangible must the human footprint be in the landscape to be considered cultural?