Biodiversity as an Outstanding Universal Value for Integrated Management of Natural and Cultural Heritage

Abstract

UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre has set ten criteria for assessing Outstanding Universal Values (OUVs) for the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List. Recognising the growing challenge for heritage conservation and the need for professionals to work within systemic, holistic, and integrated frameworks in managing cultural heritage and using biodiversity as an OUV, this paper investigates how the intangible and tangible cultural and natural heritage of the Region of East Macedonia and Thrace, Greece is interconnected over the course of centuries. We review the evolution of the existing legislative framework to protect archaeological treasures and local flora and fauna and document the richness of ongoing ecological and biological processes in the region for strengthening the arguments for an integrated protection and management system. Locating the archaeological sites and monuments in protected natural zones and areas of exceptional beauty with the use of the open code QGIS programme and focusing on their description and analysis, the present research recommends their interlinked management under the leadership of a Joint Destination Management Organisation.

1. Introduction

The UNESCO World Heritage Convention first imported the concept of Outstanding Universal Values (OUV) in 1972 as an international instrument for protecting cultural and natural heritage. After the amendments adopted in 1992, if a property meets at least one of the ten criteria enshrined in the context of OUV, one or more of the four for attributing value to cultural heritage, and one or more of the six for attributing value to natural heritage, this could ensure its inscription on the World Heritage List [1]. That means the importance of cultural or natural heritage transcends national boundaries and should be safeguarded for the present and future generations of humanity. Even though the meaning of “value” is open to different interpretations, its contribution to heritage conservation and protection is of the highest significance for both the local and the international community [2,3,4]. The dimension of internationality and the definition of decisive criteria for each property can help to enhance the promotion of protection policy implementation. Additionally, a holistic approach to the protection of sites or landscapes possessing both natural and cultural characteristics has been rarely applied [5]. Instead, in most cases, decision making on their management is based on one heritage aspect.

Since the adoption of the Paris International Convention for the Protection of Natural and Cultural Heritage in 1972, the international community has embraced the concept of “sustainable development” [6]. The protection and conservation of the natural and cultural heritage constitute a significant contribution to sustainable development. Although “sustainability” is not mentioned explicitly in the ten criteria of OUV, UNESCO’s guidelines repeatedly emphasise that the protection and conservation of natural and cultural heritage constitute a significant contribution to sustainable development. World Heritage properties may sustain biological and cultural diversity and provide ecosystem services and other benefits, which may contribute to environmental and cultural sustainability along with protection and enhancement of the quality of life and wellbeing of traditional societies, local communities, and indigenous peoples.

For the first time, the protection of both the natural environment and the historical man-made environment, the “cultural heritage”, is foreseen with the provision of Article 24 of the Constitution of Greece of 1975. The identification of the natural and cultural environment is a particularly important originality of the Greek Constitution, which is not found in constitutions of other countries [7,8]. Elements from two decisive international texts have been taken into account: the Venice Charter (1964) [9], in which the concept of protection extends from a single monument to the natural or man-made complex into which it is integrated, and the Convention (1972) [6]. The wording of Article 24 proved extremely successful, as it remained unchanged until the 2001 revision when the concept of sustainability was added. Over the years, it has facilitated the incorporation of hundreds of EU directives and numerous international conventions without raising questions of constitutional conflict. The preparation of the Forestry and Archaeological Cadastre are the products of the constitutional revision of 2001 [10]. The executive laws of Article 24, (i) for the “environment” as “the set of natural and man-made factors and elements that are in interaction and support the ecological balance, the quality of life, the health of the inhabitants, the historical and cultural tradition and the aesthetic values” (L/1650/1986) [11] and (ii) for the cultural environment (L/3028/2002) [12], revised or rather augmented, but the basic texts, their ideology and structure, and the basic concepts remain [13].

The European Commission (EC) recognises the intense link between natural and cultural heritage, particularly in the context of Natura 2000. The latter as the largest network in the world safeguards biodiversity and contributes to the formation of cultural values. A study of the management of various sites in Europe, which host both natural and cultural assets and values, indicates similar pressures and threats. Thus, the EC suggests the need to create a common interdisciplinary management body adapted to local conditions with the effective involvement of the local community and stakeholders for continuous monitoring of natural risks and man-made impacts. Of particular interest is the effect of climate change and tourism on the site sustainability and the need to provide information and raise public awareness [14,15,16]. The EU also provides Copernicus services data for supporting the monitoring and protection of its cultural and natural heritage against future threats of climate change emphasizing the interaction and coordinated action of many agencies [17]. Research presented in the ICOM Committee for Conservation Conference of 2005 recommends strategies and policy action based on cross-disciplinary cooperation, investigation for the development of appropriate sustainability indicators for monitoring, education of the public, sharing of good examples of climate change adaptation, and funding for maintenance and repairing the cultural heritage in an unstable natural environment [18]. However, all of the above seems to be empty rhetoric as dissimilar, diverging, and rival approaches dominate the management, conservation, and protection of the natural environment and human artifacts [19,20,21].

A sampling of the wider research conducted worldwide and relevant to the sustainable conservation of cultural and natural heritage for their protection from natural disasters, climate change, and the extending threats caused by the human factor indicates a top-down policy based on dissociate management of nature/culture rather than on an interconnected action. Visitors of Antarctica consider natural and cultural environments as interconnected, which should be interpreted as the need to promote fighting climate change [22]. For addressing climate change and protecting marine areas, previous research highlights the need to include cultural heritage and community engagement for sustainable management [23]. In Teluk Bahang, Penang, Malaysia, the expanding acceptance of the significance of natural and cultural heritage by the local people combined with the introduction of governmental measures for preserving traditional fishing contribute to the community’s sustainable development which is endangered by industrialisation [24].

Apart from the analysis of specific landscape characteristics and cultural values of inland Salinas in Spain, it seemed necessary to invite local players to design and use new products as a means to safeguard their sustainability and identity [25]. In the Pantelleria National Park, Sicily, cooperation between institutions and the local community is used for the development and successful management of interweaving nature and culture [26]. The case of building stones in Brno, Czech Republic, presents an example of how the connection between natural and cultural heritage and the multidisciplinary approach could promote geotourism, environmental education, further research, and acceptability of conservation measures [27]. In Siq of Petra, Jordan, the interdisciplinary approach and use of technology for continuous monitoring and investigation have also been proven necessary for sustainable conservation [28] and for the climate change adaptation [29]. In Siberia, the conservation of cultural heritage in the natural environment involved the creation of ecomuseums and the development of appropriate programmes with the participation of indigenous populations and various specialists [30]. Overcoming the dichotomy of cultural and natural heritage in the Wadden Sea National Park in Denmark as well as their more nuanced appreciation presuppose that the visitors are well aware of the need to enhance the park’s protection and management [31]. Moreover, its protection can promote research, environmental education programmes, and sustainable development locally and globally [32]. In the project “School for Cultural Heritage through Map Exploitation” (SCHEME) in Albania, a bottom-up approach was used for the country’s heritage promotion: a map tool was designed for collecting and updating data relevant to the culture and nature of a pilot area by students [33]. The case of Boka Bay in Montenegro shows how the planning tools of sustainable urban mobility plans and heritage impact assessment could assist in urban regeneration while integrating cultural and natural heritage management [34]. Raising a storage dam wall in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area in New South Wales, Australia designates that the binary natural/cultural heritage consideration causes problems in their protection and highlights the need for adopting an allied strategy [8]. The tourists’ experience of the Humble Administrator’s Garden, China indicates a perception of integrated and connected cultural and natural heritage values [35], which could promote ecotourism, environmental education, and ethics [36].

Recently, Khalaf suggested replacing the authenticity/integrity, an unclear and incomplete notion and nomination criterion of OUV that includes the Nara document as a practical guide, with the tripartite integrity–continuity–compatibility for bridging the culture–nature divide [37,38,39]. Finally, a literature review indicates that the integration of cultural heritage in ecosystem services benefits their management [40].

From this literature review, it emerges that (i) Natura 2000 is a European network for the protection of biodiversity and species habitats, while other countries may use different legislation, policies, and strategies for environmental protection. The richness of natural and cultural heritage sites in Greece is incommensurable compared to other countries and their safeguarding and management are particularly challenging and could attract global interest; (ii) however, independent of the protection regime, there is a need for the management of natural and cultural heritage, tangible and intangible, jointly and (iii) for the involvement of the local community and stakeholders and an interdisciplinary approach to ensure their protection and achieve the goals of sustainable development locally.

The present paper discusses the possibility of enhancing the conservation and protection of cultural and natural heritage from various natural and human factor threats through integrated management, examining the case of the region of East Macedonia and Thrace (REMTh). In Section 1, we critically analyse the existing legal framework in Greece for the protection of cultural and natural heritage. In Section 2, we present the analysis of designated protected areas in REMTh using QGIS. In Section 3, we identify the collocated cultural sites in protected natural areas. In Section 4, we discuss the results and propose a scheme for integrated management. Finally, in Section 5, we draw conclusions for theoretical and practical implementation.

1.1. Legislation for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in Greece

The ancient Greek past was one of the ethnocentric ideals of the modern Greek state, founded in the environment of nationalism and romanticism of the 19th century. It is not surprising, therefore, that the archaeological legislation is one of the oldest in Greece. In 1829, the first archaeological museum was founded, in 1833 the Archaeological Service was established, and in 1834 the first archaeological law was passed. According to this law, immovable antiquities are inextricably linked to the natural environment in which they are located, i.e., the soil, subsoil, seabed, rivers, lakes, and swamps [41]. The Law 3028/2002 and its subsequent 4858/2021, in force today, are part of a wider group of environmental laws derived from Article 24 of the Constitution and clarify the vague concept of “environment” [12,42].

Antiquities are defined in three axes: spatial, chronological, and qualitative, tangible or intangible, immovable and movable objects but also oral traditions and intangible heritage. The L/3028/2022 clarifies that “the cultural heritage of the Country consists of the cultural goods located within the borders of the Greek Territory, including territorial waters, as well as within other maritime zones over which Greece exercises relevant jurisdiction in accordance with international law. Cultural heritage also includes intangible cultural goods.” [12].

The relationship of immovable antiquities with the site, which was established in the founding law of the protection of antiquities of 1834, was preserved and enhanced. The “immovable monuments” are attached or firmly attached, impossible to move without damage to their value as testimony, to the ground and remain on it or at the bottom of the sea, lakes, and rivers. Furthermore, immovable antiquities are now distinguished in monuments, archaeological sites, and historical sites, following the wording of the Venice Charter (1964) and the Paris Convention (1972) [6,9].

“Archaeological sites” are areas on land or at sea, in lakes, and rivers which contain, or there are indications that accommodate, ancient monuments or are formed from the most ancient times up to 1830 monumental, residential, or burial complexes. They also include the necessary surroundings that allow their safeguarding to be composed in a historical, aesthetic, and functional unity. They may contain areas that have not yet been excavated; the antiquities are therefore underground. While “Historical places” are defined areas on land or in the sea, lakes, and rivers where, or there are indications where, outstanding historical or mythical events took place, or areas that contain, or there are indications that accommodate, monuments later than 1830, or complex works of man and nature after 1830. These homogeneous and demarcated areas topographically require protection due to folklore, ethnological, social, technical, architectural, industrial, or general historical, or of their artistic and scientific importance [12]. In the concept of the archaeological site, e.g., mountain Pangeo, Philippi, Maroneia cave, and even more so in that of the historical place, e.g., mythical Olympus, the cultural heritage is partially or fully identified with the natural environment. In other cases, however, it is identified with the man-made environment in which it developed, e.g., the traditional market of Komotini.

The relationship of immovable antiquities with time is determined by a chronological milestone, the year 1830, the foundation of the Greek State. All immovable antiquities dating before 1830 are automatically considered protected without the obligation to issue an administrative act. For immovable monuments dating between 1830 and the last 100 years (moving date limit), protection requires the issuance of an administrative act following a reasoned report by the competent protection body. It is, therefore, a dual system that combines ex lege and without quality criteria protection for the ancient monuments, with the issuance of an administrative act for the newer ones [13].

The Greek state is responsible for protecting the cultural goods originating from the Greek territory at any time, even if they were removed from it, within the framework of international law of the protection of cultural assets historically linked to Greece, wherever they are. The implementation of archaeological legislation was undertaken by the Archaeological Service, one of the first public services established in the Greek state (1833). The Archaeological Service was organised with geographical (Archaeological Regions) and historical criteria (Regions of Classical Antiquities initially and Byzantine Antiquities from 1910 onwards). Greece, however, acquired its present size during the 20th century. In 1915, after Macedonia joined the Greek state, there were 12 archaeological regions in Greece. Eastern Macedonia and Western Thrace joined this legal and administrative framework in 1920. Essential archaeological care of the area was practically impossible for decades. The first Ephorates of Antiquities will operate after the war, first in Kavala (1945) and then in Komotini (1962) [41,43]. The delay in the administrative organisation of the area resulted in limited archaeological research. The identified antiquities are overwhelmingly more than those investigated and displayed.

Today, the administrative organisation is much more complex and completely different. It is regulated by organisational charts derived from the provisions of the L/3028/2002 [44]. In the Regional Services, the administrative-geographic organisation prevailed over the historical one. The protection of the cultural stock dating back to before 1830 was entrusted to Ephorates with a mixed composition of specialties, archaeologists with prehistoric-classical and Byzantine specialisation, architects and other engineers, and conservators of various specialties. An effort was made to organise the Ephorates by regional unit, the administrative unit. The protection of the newest cultural stock, which dates after 1830, was assigned to Technical Works Services, consisting mainly of engineers of various specialties, organised by the administrative unit. The protection of antiquities that requires technically specialised scientific personnel, such as antiquities in caves and on the seabed, was entrusted to Special Regional Services of nationwide scope.

In the REMTh, six Ephorates of Antiquities operate, one in each regional unit, with the object of protecting antiquities dating before 1830. They include the following departments: (a) Department of Prehistoric and Classical Archaeological Sites, Monuments, Archaeological Research and Museums, (b) Department of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Archaeological Sites, Monuments, Archaeological Research and Museums, (c) Department of Archaeological Works and Studies, (d) Department of Conservation, and (e) Department Administrative and Financial Support, Custody and Security [45]. A Service of Newer Monuments and Technical Works, in Xanthi, takes care of the monuments dated after 1830 throughout the REMTh. Two special Ephorates, the Speleology and Marine Antiquities, with headquarters in Athens and branches in Thessaloniki, take care of the respective archaeological sites throughout the REMTh. The decisions are issued following the opinion of advisory bodies of a local or nationwide nature (Local Council of Monuments, Central Archaeological Council, Central Council of Newer Monuments, and Council of Museums).

The Εphorates serve the objectives of (a) scientific research, disclosure, preservation and conservation, protection, promotion, and safeguarding of antiquities, their exhibition in Museums, exhibitions in the country, and abroad. In addition, they have the responsibility of the study, planning, management, and execution of any archaeological maintenance, repair, and restoration, highlighting and shaping of the monuments and archaeological sites, as well as their immediate physical or nonenvironment, the execution of all the above works with self-monitoring and accounting by the applicable provisions. They have (b) responsibility for the scientific study and publication of antiquities, the management of monuments, archaeological sites, museums, and collections belonging to the State, participation in international and European programmes, the organisation and participation in meetings, conferences, seminars, and educational activities on matters, as well as the production of conventional and digital editions and educational material [45].

Finally, the Central Archaeological Council gives opinions, with institutional guarantees of autonomy and independence, on matters of great importance dating as far back as 1830 and matters the Minister of Culture and Sports assign to it. Case files are submitted to the Council for which the possibility of being dealt with at the level of Antiquities Offices, Local Councils, or Directorates of the Central Service of the Ministry of Culture and Sports has been excluded [12].

1.2. Environmental Legislation in Greece

The creation of new environmental international and European legislation needs to be ratified and incorporated into national law and all necessary measures for its implementation also have to be taken. Consistent implementation of the regulations is not enough unless it ultimately contributes to the purpose of each piece of legislation. Implementation and compliance are monitored and controlled, while the adequacy of the measures is evaluated based on all available scientific data. When the need for new or additional measures arises, a new round of negotiations and consultations begins to reach a new agreement (Figure 1a).

In Greece, the environmental legislation follows the international and European initiatives quite closely (Figure 1b). The definition of national parks has been in place since the 1930s. The 1975 Constitution of Greece and its 1986 and 2001 revisions, in particular Article 24, (i) enshrines the protection of the natural and cultural environment as an obligation of the State and as a right of everyone, (ii) establishes the principle of sustainability as a legal rule from which obligations, commitments, and restrictions for the legislator, public policies, and private activities arise, and (iii) emphasises the protection of forests [46].

Law 1650/1986 is the main legislative tool that translates into practice in Article 24 and the regulations on the obligation of the state to environmental protection. Therefore, the state and its mechanisms can implement specific actions and projects to protect the environment. In particular, the criteria and the process of characterisation of protected areas are changed by adding five new categories: absolutely protected natural area, protected natural area, protected natural monument, protected landscapes, area for ecodevelopment. The same law (i) established the principles of protection of the natural environment and the first environmental services, (ii) laid the foundations for the operation of control mechanisms, and (iii) provided protection of native species of flora and fauna and the possibility of imposing sanctions for violation of environmental legislation. The Ministry of Environment, Planning, and Public Works gains more power to act toward the protection of the new categories, Ramsar areas, and national parks, while the executive power remains locally at the Forest District Offices overseen by the Ministry of Agriculture [47].

Law 3937/2011 partially amends insufficient sanctions and administrative difficulties and supplements Law 1650/1986. In particular, it proposes:

• The establishment of a National System of Protected Areas;
• The conservation of Greek biodiversity species through the employment of monitoring and protection tools, special provisions for the protection and conservation of endemic biodiversity, but also special regulations for invasive alien species;
• The conservation of natural ecosystems and the prevention of their degradation;
• The scientific research, social information, and participation;
• (a) It defines also the national list of areas included in the Natura 2000 Network and (b) updates and identifies the framework for the integrated protection of the Greek biological wealth and the fulfilment of its community obligations in relation to the Natura 2000 Network [48].

Law 4685/2020 adopts a new European model of protected area management. The governance environmental protection system is structured at the central and regional levels. At the central level, it is composed of the agencies: (a) the Ministry of Environment and Energy; (b) the Organisation for Natural Environment and Climate Change of article 27; (c) the Ministry of Interior, which has the responsibility of supervising the Decentralized Administrations and the Local Authorities (Regions and Municipalities); (d) the Ministry of Rural Development and Food, which is responsible for managing fishery resources in the maritime area and promotes the modernization and development of the country’s agricultural sector; (e) the Ministry of Digital Governance, which pursues digital policy and promotes e-government; (f) the Ministry of Shipping and Island Policy, which exercises its responsibilities mainly in the maritime area, the ports, their land area, and in coastal areas; (g) the Ministry of Tourism which pursues the tourism policy and supports the mild tourist activity in protected areas; and (h) other ministries participate in the governance system based on their substantive responsibilities. At the regional level, it is composed of the bodies: (a) the Protected Areas Management Units referred to in Article 34, (b) the Decentralized Administrations, (c) the Regions, and (d) the Municipalities. In addition, they can be assisted by academic and research institutions in the country and abroad, and environmental and nonprofit organisations [49].

Comparing the two legal frameworks, which are essentially interconnected and complementary, the environmental one seems more complicated and involves many stakeholders with conflicting values and interests. Instead, the Ministry of Culture and Sports only commits to preserving the country’s cultural heritage and landscapes. In particular, the main characteristics of the environmental legislation could sum up to:

• As a dynamic law field that has evolved into one of the most voluminous and ever-evolving specialised legal fields.
• All provisions related to the protection of the environment are the political and legal response to scientific remarks and observations. The legal framework has to be (re) adapted to respond more effectively to environmental challenges and scientific solutions to environmental degradation.
• In addition to strict legal commitments, political decisions and resolutions of international organisations set rules that cultivate a sense of responsibility and ultimately an obligation that states respect.
• Many stakeholders in all phases of its constantly evolving cycle, from its creation to implementation and enforcement, compliance, monitoring, and revision, are involved, including states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), businesses, academia and scientists, and internal administration of each state, as well as local government.
• The application of environmental law affects the daily life of the citizen at the local level and requires a change in the lifestyle of every citizen of the planet.

Therefore, the coplacement of cultural properties and natural places under a protection regime while increasing the criteria of outstanding values can simultaneously cause conflicts in their management.

2. Methodology Approach

2.1. Materials and Methods

We illustrated the existing legislative framework on the region of East Macedonia and Thrace (REMTh) using maps applying the open code QGIS programme to locate the archaeological sites and monuments in protected natural zones and areas of exceptional beauty [50].

Table 1. Protection legislative regime in the region of East Macedonia and Thrace.

Level	Protection Regime	Description	Legislation	Protected Areas
National	Nature Reserve Areas	areas with natural habitats and/or habitat species, the presence and representativeness of which is considered high or whose condition requires strict protection, only gentle necessary work, scientific research, and mild activities are allowed	Law 1650/86 (articles 18, 19) Law 3937/2011 (article 5)	Zones A, B, and C of the National Park of Evros Delta Zones A1, and A2 of the National Park of the Forest Dadia-Lefkimi Soufliou Zones A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5 of the National Park of Delta Nestos. Vistonida and Ismarida Lakes and lagoons Zones Β1, Β2, Β3, Β4, Β5, Β6, and Β7 of the National Park of Rhodope mountain range
	Strict (absolute) Nature Reserve Areas	areas with extremely sensitive natural habitats, and/or with habitats of extremely sensitive species, which requires extremely strict protection, activities are allowed only absolutely necessary and scientific research	Law 1650/86 (articles 18, 19) Law 3937/2011 (article 5)	Zones A1, A2, and A3 of the National Park of Rhodope mountain range
	National Natural Parks	terrestrial, aquatic or mixed areas of particular value due to the quality and variety of their natural and cultural characteristics, especially biological, ecological, geological, geomorphological and aesthetic ones, and simultaneously offer significant opportunities for activities harmonised with nature and landscape	Law 1650/86 (articles 18, 19) Law 3937/2011	the Forests of Dadia-Lefkimi, Evros Delta, East Macedonia-Thrace, and Rhodope mountain range
	National Forest Parks	forests with special ecological and scientific interest, and when a National Park occupies forest areas	Law 996/71 Law 3937/2011	the Forests of Dadia-Lefkimi, Evros Delta, East Macedonia-Thrace, and Rhodope mountain range
	Aesthetic Forests	forests with aesthetic and ecological interest	Law 996/71 Law 3937/2011 (article 5)	Amygdaleonas Kavala (FEK 606/D/1979) Strait of Nestos (FEK 283/D/1977)
	Natural Monuments and Landmarks	single or groups of trees with special botanical, ecological, aesthetical, or historical and cultural value	Law 996/71 Law 3937/2011 (article 5)	the Virgin Forest of Central Rhodope -the Virgin Forest of Fraktos (FEK 121/D/1980), the Coastal Forest at Tsichla of Chaindou in Xanthi region (FEK 121/D/1980)
	Wildlife Refuges	areas with important species and habitats for the conservation of local populations (breeding, transit, wintering areas)	Law 177/75 as amended by Law 2637/98	54 areas
	Landscapes of Outstanding Natural Beauty	areas of aesthetic value which remains remarkably natural, and often include traditional settlements, archeological or historical sites	Law 1469/1950 and 1650/86	FEK 248/A.P.P./28-10-2018, Article 8 24 areas of international significance: Philippi. Deltas of Nestos and Evros rivers National significance: the straits of Nestos. Maroneia—Mesimvria Regional significance: Dams of Thisavros and Platanovrisi. Mountain settlements, Porto lagos, Lake Vistonida. Lagoons, and lakeside settlements
	Game Breeding Stations	areas for conservation and protection of certain animals and/ or plants, differ from protected areas, which are largely intended for public recreation	Law 177/75, as amended by Law 2637/98	Kirki (FEK 1325/15-5-96) Chrysoupolis (FEK 419/Β/31-3-76)
	Protected Forests	areas of great ecological, geological, aesthetic, or cultural value and particularly suitable for recreation of the public or contribute to the protection of natural resources due to their special natural or man-made characteristics	Law 3937/2011	Administrative boundaries of the Municipality of Komotini, Area of the Municipality of Sappes, Against the settlement of Maronia, West Rodope area, Area of Imeros—Profitis Ilias—Recess of the Municipality of Maronia (FEK 253/D/03-04-06) Public Aesthetic forest of Kavala (FEK 299/D/13-04-06) Part of the public forest complex of Myki, Public suburban forest of Xanthi and adjacent settlements, Kryoneri area of Paggaio Antiphilippon, Municipality of Eleftheropoulis (FEK 300/D/13-04-06) Public settlement forest Avantas, Alexandroupolis, Public forest in the forest Martini of Therma Loutra, of Samothrace, Tsiggla forest of Didimoteicho (FEK 407/D/12-05-06) Forest of Palagia of Alexandroupolis, Public forest of Agia Paraskevi, of Ferres, Municipal forest of Chora Samothrace (FEK 408/D/12-05-06)
	Geosites	geological structures that represent the long evolution of the earth’s geological history or show current natural, geological processes that continue to evolve on the Earth’s surface	Law 3937/2011 (FΕΚ/A 60)	Lefkimi fossilised forest, Thermal springs of Traianoupolis, Eleftheron and Therma, ancient quarries, mines, veins and beds, Museum of Natural History of Paranesti, cave of Agitis springs and Hionotrypa, landforms of Aliki Peninsula, Coastguards of Poseidon and Nestos gorge, lava flow on Tourli Samothrace, active rift of Maronia-Makri (http://www.topoguide.gr/greece/geosites_en.php (accessed on 22 October 2022))
	Marine Protected areas			Evros Delta, East Macedonia-Thrace coastal area
European	Natura 2000	Special Protection Areas—SPA for avian fauna and the conservation of “wild birds” and Special Areas of Conservation—SAC resulting from the Sites of Community Importance—SCI	Directives 79/409/EEC 92/43/EEC, based on the Birds Directive (2009/147/ΕC, Article 4) and the Habitats Directive (92/43/ΕEC) and 2006/613/ΕC (L 259)	37 areas: 12 in Evros, 7 in Rhodope, 3 Xanthi, 6 in Drama, 9 in Kavala prefecture
International	World Heritage Sites	sites designated by UNESCO	Ratified in 1981	Philippi (2016)
	Biogenetic Reserves	aims to preserve representative species of flora and fauna of European natural areas	Council of Europe (1976)	the virgin forests of central Rhodope and Paranesti the Coastal Forest at Tsichla of Chaindou in Xanthi region
	Ramsar Convention	Treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971)	Ratified by Law 191/74 (Official gazette 350/A/1974 and amended by Law 1950/91 (OG 84/A/1991)	Evros Delta, Lakes Vistonida-Porto Lagos, Lake Ismaris, and adjoining lagoons Nestos Delta

presents the environmental protection regime under national, European, and international legislation for all protected areas in REMTh in detail.

2.2. Study Area

The REMTh (Figure 2a) extends to the northeastern end of Greece and consists of five prefectures of Evros, Rhodope, Xanthi, Kavala, and Drama (Figure 2b).

Numerous and various combinations of ecological parameters and environmental conditions in the area create a large number of significant habitats with large concentrations of wildlife and a wide variety of natural landscapes, and consequently, an extremely rich flora and fauna. From the mountain range of Rhodope to the coastal and the Vistonida lagoon habitats, the long valleys of three cross-border rivers, Ardas, Evros and Nestos, to extensive wetlands of two deltas, the various ecosystems and landscapes are relatively small-scale and thus sensitive and vulnerable to pressures (Figure 2b). The bioclimatic variations result in the following natural zones:

• Mid-Mediterranean formation of Aria (Quercion ilicis) Balkan and Eastern Mediterranean type;
• Sub-Mediterranean formation (Ostryo-Carpinion);
• Variations of thermophilic subcontinental deciduous oaks;
• Mountain-Mediterranean formation of Oak-hybrid Spruce;
• Mountain-Mediterranean pine forest, Erythrelatis;
• Azonian riparian delta formations of estuaries.

While regarding the flora and fauna three geographical subsystems formations are encountered: (i) the coastal and inland plains, the river and tributary valleys, (ii) the hilly, and (iii) the mountainous areas. Northeastern Greece is considered the richest flora-geographical region with about 3300 species and subspecies. The mountains Falakron, Pangeo, and the islands Thasos and Samothrace are characterized as flora diversity hotspots and endemic centres, while the knowledge of flora has not yet been completed because of the richness of endemic and rare taxa. The local exceptional cultural wealth linked to the diversity of nature contributes to the creation of many remarkable landscapes, which combine natural beauty and cultural values, and tangible and intangible heritage as the result of human interaction with the natural environment [51,52,53,54]. Additionally, according to the Red Book of the threatened animals of Greece, 121 species in the region need protection. In particular, six endemic fish species, four critically endangered (CR) and two vulnerable in the medium term (VU); three amphibia, two VU and one endangered in near future (EN); and one reptile VU. Of the 407 bird species in Greece, 338 are observed in Thrace. Eighteen important bird areas host nine CR, fifteen EN, and twenty-six VU bird species, several of which are internationally VU. The CR red deer survives only in the Rhodope Mountains, another six mammals are in danger (EN) and eight VU. Of the seventeen gasteropoda, six are endemic to Thasos Island, three to Samothrace Island, one to Thasos and Samothrace, and three are found only to Thrace, five of which are characterized as CR, two EN, and the rest VU. Of the twenty-five endemic insect species, sixteen are VU, three CR, and six EN [55,56,57].

3. Analysis and Results

According to the Archaeological Cadastre (https://www.arxaiologikoktimatologio.gov.gr/en (accessed on 22 October 2022)) and the Permanent List of Proclaimed Archaeological Sites and Monuments of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture (http://listedmonuments.culture.gr/search_declarations.php (accessed on 22 October 2022)), 918 cultural resources, 608 points, and 310 polygonal were identified in the region, with the majority of them located in the prefecture of Kavala (

Table 2. The number of cultural resources of area, points and polygons.

Spatial Unity	Cultural Resources	Points	Polygons
Prefecture Evros	185	129	56
Prefecture Rhodope	89	62	27
Prefecture Xanthi	202	176	26
Thasos island	57	22	35
Prefecture Kavala	250	105	145
Prefecture Drama	135	114	21
Total	918	608	310

and Figure 3) [58,59].

Simultaneously, nine layers with information on the natural environment of REMTh and under a special legal regime of protection were recorded (Table 1). Calculating the protected area of the nine levels that cover the natural environment and the area of the polygonal archaeological sites, after removing the overlapping areas, 52.5% or 7451 km² of the 14,192 km² of the total region surface is governed by a special protection regime. It is worth noting that for the geosites, because they are recorded as point positions, an influence zone of a 1 km radius was estimated (Figure 4). Subsequently, the relationship between the natural and cultural environment was investigated and, in particular, the cultural resources were identified that satisfy the colocation criterion, that is, they intersect, border, or overlap with areas of the natural environment (Figure 5). A total of 238 (out of 918) or 26% of cultural resources meet the colocation criterion. This percentage increases to 45% (194 out of 433) if the newer monuments and museums are excluded from the analysis, the vast majority of which are within the urban sprawl. These findings highlight as a first priority the need to comanage natural and cultural heritage [60,61].

Table 3. Colocation of cultural properties and natural places.

Map Position	Culture Place	Description	Legislative Protection Regime
evr_155a polygon	Fortress, Tsamtsas Kale Lefkimi	preserved ruins of a Byzantine fortress on the rocky hill of Tsamtsas Kale (possibly 6th cent.)	Natura 2000 [GR1110002 (SPA*), GR1110005 (SAC**)], National Park Dadia-Lefkimi forest, strict nature reserve area, wildlife refuge, geosite (97 fossilised trees)
rdp_3 polygon	Anastasioupolis/ Peritheorion	Byzantine fortified city, and a port in the lagoon of Vistonida, next to the Via Egnatia	Natura 2000 [GR1130010 (SPA), GR1130009 (SAC)], National Park Rhodope Mountain-Range, nature reserve area
rdp_7 point	Kompsatos Bridge, Polyanthos	bridge of triple arch built with flat stones over the river Kompsatos, Ottoman era	Natura 2000 [GR1130012 (SPA), GR1130007 (SAC)], Wildlife refuge, geosite (Thracian rift)
rdp_15a and rdp_15b polygons	Molyvotis Peninsula and Ancient Stryme	ruins of the Late Classical city of Strymi, which include parts of the fortification, farmhouses and cemetery, 5th–4th cent. BC	Natura 2000 [GR1130010 (SPA), GR1130009 (SAC)], National Park East Macedonia-Thrace, nature reserve area, wildlife refuge, landscapes of special value
rdp_18 and rdp_19 polygons	Fountain of Daout and Ancient Dikaia, Laspotopos	extensive diachronic site around the coastal settlement of Fanari, which includes (a) prehistoric settlement (NE of Fanari), (b) part of the archaic and classical city of Dikaia, natural harbour (in Daliani lagoon), archaic cemetery (at the site Fountain of Daout), ruins of fortification and dwellings, 5th century BC	Natura 2000 [GR1130010 (SPA), GR1130009 (SAC)], National Park East Macedonia-Thrace, nature reserve area, wildlife refuge, landscapes of special value
rdp_54 polygon	Maroneia Cave	evidence of habitation from the Late Neolithic to the Late Byzantine period	Natura 2000 [GR1130008 (SAC)], Wildlife refuge, geosite, Landscapes of special value
xan_2 polygon	Settlement, Lake Lafrouda Mandra	settlement of the later Neolithic era, mid 6th millennium BC	Natura 2000 [GR1130010 (SPA), GR1130009 (SAC)], National Park East Macedonia-Thrace, Nature reserve area, Wildlife refuge
xan_n31 polygon	Ancient quarries, Petrolofos, Mandra Abdera	(a) scattered evidence of habitation from the Neolithic period to Imperial times (b) ancient quarries in use from the end of the 6th to the end of the 4th cent. BC	Natura 2000 [GR1130010 (SPA), GR1130009 (SAC)], National Park East Macedonia-Thrace, Nature reserve area
xan_155 polygon	Mount Mausoleum	Thracian settlement of the early Iron Age, settlement continued to exist from the Archaic to Roman Times	Natura 2000 [GR1150010 (SAC)], National Park Rhodope Mountain-Range, Nature reserve area, Wildlife refuge, geosite (Thracian rift)
kvl_147 polygon	Mountain Pangeo	diachronic site with dense findings from various periods, from the prehistoric to the post-Byzantine period: settlements, aqueducts, cemeteries, caves, sanctuaries, mining galleries and rusts, rock paintings and fortresses	Natura 2000 [GR1260002, GR1150011 (SPA), GR1260002, GR1150005 (SAC)], Wildlife refuge, geosite [(1224***—Peaks of Paggaeo, 1225—Silver stones in Kallithea, 1508—Black piles of rust: the remnants of old mining activity, 1227—Silverstone of Forest Village, 1234—Springs in the middle of mountains hole (Mesoropi), 1235—Lodges (Moustheni)]

* (SPA) Special Protection Areas ** (SAC) Special Areas of Conservation *** Reference number according to IGME [49].

presents and describes the ten cultural sites and monuments located in natural areas under more than one protection regime.

A detailed analysis of the natural and cultural heritage of the ten places is presented in the Appendix A (Appendix A.1 and Appendix A.2).

No cultural resource satisfies the criterion of colocation with absolute nature protection areas. Within the aesthetic forest of Amygdaleonas Kavala, there is part of the Roman route Via Egnatia, 2nd century BC, which connected Rome with Byzantium, next to the Monastery of Saint Syllas (Table 1, Figure 6) [62].

Figure 7 presents detailed maps and photos of the ten cultural sites and monuments located in the protected natural environment.

Findings

In short, the analysis, the description of the ten collocated natural and cultural assets and the photo documentation demonstrate (i) the existence of a comprehensive legal framework; (ii) the variety and the vulnerability of habitats and ecosystems, the high biodiversity, and the large number of rare and endemic species at risk; (iii) the cultural diversity and continuous human presence from the prehistoric period until Byzantine times in most of the cultural sites, and the profound interconnections between cultural and natural heritage over the centuries; (iv) the rich intangible heritage connected with the places and unknown to the general public; (v) the lack of excavation activities and preserving frameworks, and the poor restoration; (vi) most of the archaeological sites and ruins are buried under lush wild vegetation and ‘immersed’ in it; and (vii) they are insufficiently protected, remote, and inaccessible to the public.

Focusing on visibility and accessibility of the sites, we could evaluate them according to the following criteria:

• High-visibility, the possibility of visitation: a monument/site that has been fully excavated is regularly cleaned and conserved so that the antiquities remain visible, can be located via signage, information boards, digital tools, etc., is accessible easily and safely via maintained and safe roads, has infrastructure for the public, is open at specific times in case it is enclosed, which on the one hand are respected, and on the other hand are easy to know.
• Partial visibility, potential visitation: a monument/site that, although it has not been excavated and displayed, is preserved to a great extent, resulting in someone with special means and personal responsibility being able to approach it with relative safety and see a part of it.
• Low-visibility, impossible/restricted/conditional access: archaeological sites where research has stopped, or is progressing, and are therefore impossible to be displayed and remain restricted for the safety of the antiquities first and the public second. They can only be visited by experts and by appointment.
• Invisibility, impossible to visit: Archaeological sites that have yielded only mobile findings in surface research or during excavation of any construction, tombs usually, and were removed. These positions are only of topographical interest, mainly for expert groups, scientists, teachers, students, and pupils. To expand their visitation, they should be combined with an exhibition of their antiquities in an archaeological collection and a relevant information sign in the place. Usually, after visiting the local museum and admiring the exhibitions, the visitors are curious and can look for the place. This, of course, is impossible in the case of movable antiquities that remain in place. In addition, the financial and environmental cost of providing accessible facilities, fencing, opening roads, signage, etc., should be balanced and co-assessed with the expected result. Finally, what is the value/importance of the general public’s visit to a location that offers nothing to see?

Table 4. Assessment of visibility and accessibility of case studies.

Map Position	Monument/Archaeological Site	Visibility/Accessibility
		1	2	3	4	Conditions
evr_155a	Fortress, Tsamtsas Kale Lefkimi		X			difficult to spot, visibility depends on the season and vegetation, rather dangerous access
rdp_3	Anastasioupolis/ Peritheorion		X			easy and safe access by provincial road, car park, short hike, marked on satellite portals /no signage, poor fencing difficult tour but possibility of hiring a sufficient image
rdp_7	Kompsatos Bridge, Polyanthos		X			easy and safe access by provincial road, car park, short hike, marked on satellite portals /no signage
rdp_15a and rdp_15b	Molyvotis Peninsula and Ancient Stryme			X		possible to visit for an important reason judged by the protection agency
rdp_18 and rdp_19	Fountain of Daout and Ancient Dikaia, Laspotopos			X		impossible to visit
rdp_54	Maroneia Cave		X
xan_2	Settlement, Lake Lafrouda Mandra				X	difficult to locate, unsafe access
xan_n31	Ancient quarries, Petrolofos, Mandra Abdera		X
xan_155	Mount Mausoleum			X
kvl_147	Mountain Pangeo		X
kvl_2	Forest Amygdaleonas/Via Egnatia	X				safe access, signage/no information about specific visit times for public

presents the assessment of sites/monuments studied according to the proposed criteria.

4. Discussion

A closer examination of the present analysis of the collocated archaeological sites and monuments reveals the lush and unique biodiversity and natural landscapes of the protected areas but also the inaccessibility to the public. On the one hand, the protection regime of cultural sites contributes to providing shelter for wildlife and creating favourable conditions for its development. On the other hand, the latter, particularly the uncontrolled flora growth, could threaten their unity and integrity (Figure 7a,b,f,j,i). Therefore, the common approach in their management is challenging, not always a panacea, and could cause conflicts among the involved stakeholders. Moreover, in most of the protected sites, the human presence has been continuous through the centuries since prehistoric times (Table 3, Figure 7f–k), while in several protected sites, ancient quarries and goldmines are encountered (Table 3, Figure 7i,k), which indicates human activities incompatible with the natural environment, but simultaneously the sustainable use of natural resources during historic times.

The inapproachable sites and the lack of excavation and maintenance activities deprive a series of values from the present and future generations, connected with OUVs as the central concept of world heritage and the 17 sustainable development goals of the UN directly and indirectly (Figure 8). The diverse values encompassed in all dimensions of linked cultural and natural heritage can powerfully contribute to sustainable development, provide ideal opportunities and settings, and develop novel local partnerships for tackling local threats and global challenges [77,78].

The need to work with local communities and the mutual collaboration of the involved stakeholders in heritage management gains increasing attention. However, the lack of suitable mechanisms obstructs the representation and participation of communities in the ultimate decision making and the effective coordination of the multiple participating stakeholders [79,80]. The case of Dadia-Lefkimi forest, the unique of the ten places detected according to the set criteria accessible to visitors, is an excellent example of the legislation implementation, successful ecotouristic development, and the residents’ positive stance and collaboration with the management body. Nevertheless, the recent fire of 21 July 2022 in the national park designates management weaknesses and vulnerability. A preliminary analysis has identified as the main causes of the fire: (i) the potential abandonment of the protected maintenance of forest openings, (ii) unplanned logging, and (iii) the lack of sufficient firebreaks zones because of the legislative restrictions and concern for possible disruption to the ecosystem. Additional causes include (iv) the lack of human resources of the Forest and Fire Services, (v) the need for clarification and redefinition of their role and responsibilities, and (vi) the lack of a more substantial involvement of the local community. Moreover, the ruins of the Byzantine fortress located in zone A of the forest (Figure 3a) where human activities are strictly prohibited make them inapproachable, while their cultural value seems to be ignored and not included in the park management system. Moreover, the proposal submitted to UNESCO for nomination is supported only on the criterion x, the OUV of natural habitat for the threatened species of vultures and raptors and the need for biodiversity conservation [81,82,83,84,85]. This case establishes that the inclusion of cultural heritage could add substantial value to the forest management system but also indicates the lack of a management plan at present.

A heritage management system is associated with a dynamic strategy, which can be adapted over time to changing conditions focusing on host community needs, benefits, and wellbeing. Whereas a management plan as an instrument entails short-term objectives, the implementation of which depends on the integration of different interests and the ability of an interdisciplinary approach focusing on accountability and evaluation [86]. After gaining a clearer view on the ten case studies, the resulted question is whether the integration of culture and nature would ameliorate and enhance their management. A SWOT analysis could assist in strategic thinking and planning identifying internal (strengths—weaknesses) and external factors (opportunities—weaknesses) influencing the coordinated management of both natural and cultural heritage for sustainable development implementation in the region (Figure 9) [87].

Additionally, a stakeholder analysis illustrates the possible difficulties and conflicts among the multidisciplinary agents and the bottom-up and top-down perspectives [88,89]. Decisions of the Council of State and the adjudication of cases of conflicting interests related to cultural and natural heritage, such as the case of Kandanos Chania, can substantiate the identification of the stakeholders involved in heritage management and their values (

Table 5. The stakeholders and their perspectives, interest, and values.

Institutional Level	Stakeholders	Environmental Perspectives, Interest, and Values	Cultural Perspectives, Interest, and Values
Global and International	Environmental agencies Future generations European Union	Biodiversity Natural resources conservation	Cultural heritage conservation Traditional activities and values
National	Governmental departments	Ecotourism development Environmental policy making Need for sacrificing environmental capital under criteria Intrinsic values of all plants, animals, and organisms	Sustainable tourism development Cultural policy making Intrinsic values of all cultural positions Need for sacrificing cultural capital under criteria
	Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports Hellenic Ministry of Environment and Energy
	Scientists
	Archaeologists Engineers Environmentalists
Regional	Archaeological services Forest services Region of East Macedonia and Thrace	Policy implementation Coordination of local stakeholders	Policy implementation Coordination of local stakeholders
Local-off-site	Local officials People of the around villages and cities Entrepreneurs	Ecotourism development Natural heritage protection Conflict avoidance	Sustainable tourism development Cultural heritage protection Conflict avoidance
Local on-site	Local Authorities Management agenciesInhabitantsEntrepreneurs	Ecotourism development Emergencies and risks management Natural heritage protection	Sustainable tourism development Emergencies and risks management Cultural heritage protection

) [90].

The discussion suggests that inclusion of natural and cultural heritage could add substantial value to their management and, consequently, to the need for an integrated management given that both assets suffer from similar pressures and threats and provide similar opportunities toward sustainable development (Figure 4 and Figure 5). The interlinked management can have multiple positive environmental, economic, and social benefits for both the resource itself and the local community. At the same time, it contributes to the coordination of actions to protect the resource from natural and man-made disasters, emergencies, and the imminent risks due to climate change. However, the challenge would be to solve the problems and answer questions in such a way that go further towards sustainability, to regenerative sustainability, not only to preserve what has remained of the infrastructure of the ecosystems, and natural and living systems, but to enhance their thriving and increase biodiversity [91,92]. Moreover, we should not stay only at the protection of archaeological sites and monuments but improve their accessibility infrastructure, strengthen the excavation work, and include communities in all processes and scales.

A new policy for comanagement highlights the requirement for establishing a single management body for involving and harmonising different interests, and resolving conflicts (Table 5). Therefore, the formation of a Joint Destination Management Organisation (JDMO) is suggested in order to play an essential role not only in coordinating different stakeholders involved and the top-down and bottom-up approach but also in conceiving vision, inspiring motivation, undertaking responsibilities towards safeguarding and making visible the heritage values and their contribution to sustainable development and in reporting on management plans evaluation. The main custodians of the values of both heritage resources will participate in the JDMO with representatives of the quadruple helix, companies and entities of the (1) public and (2) private sector, and (3) academic and research institutions, as well as (4) civil society. In the context of equal representation, the above scheme ensures (a) the public character and constitutional protection of the natural-cultural capital, (b) the active participation of economic entities to strengthen the employment and income of the residents of the area, (c) the continuous scientific documentation and research, but also (d) the dissemination of the benefits to the local community.

Figure 10 presents a recommendation of commingle management integrating natural and cultural heritage toward sustainable development of the region under the leadership of the JDMO. The statement of a common and clear vision and the definition of specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time bound aims to involve all stakeholders, encouraging interdisciplinarity, encapsulating multiple values, and in the context of the existing legislation conserving and protecting cultural properties and halting biodiversity loss, fragile habitats, and processes, which consist of an initial step. A next step includes a holistic reading of the situation, an analysis of internal and external factors, as well as an assessment of the provided resources and a definition of the indicators to measure the aims with satisfaction. After conceiving a strategic plan and collecting quantitative and qualitative data, building and implementing plans based on bridging culture and nature and raising funds will follow. Ecomuseums, geoparks, cultural routes, and stations on via Egnatia and the unification of sites or creation of routes and activities according to the intangible culture, historical periods, wildlife, aesthetic qualities, and natural beauty of places and landscapes could be considered as ideal models of sustainable development, tools, and protection frameworks for the participatory and integrated management of the present case studies. In addition, such projects can play a crucial role in involving different local players, providing opportunities for links between private organisations, NGOs active in the region, and public institutions, enhancing social cohesion, increasing heritage values awareness, erasing the remoteness and inaccessibility, and making heritage sites broadly visible. Finally, a fundamental component of management constitutes evaluation, progress monitoring, and development suggestions for improvements.

5. Conclusions

The present paper shines a light on the complexity and functions of natural and cultural heritage through the case of REMTh, which demonstrates the interconnections between them on the place and over time but also highlights the ineffectiveness in practice of the available theoretical tools and the relevant legislative framework for their protection. Facing the challenges of climatic crisis, individuals and governmental organisations must be trained to abandon their narrow self isolation and view heritage places through integrated protection and management.

The present analysis reveals, in general, the growing challenge to work within systemic, holistic, and integrated frameworks for heritage management and with local communities, and in particular, it provides useful insights for theoretical implementation, such as (i) culture and nature comprise a big picture understood only by a cultural–landscapes approach; (ii) tangible and intangible heritage are intertwined; (iii) gaining a clear view of the big picture rather than on fragments of reality will ensure innovative and effective protection; and (iv) focusing on OUV and UN goals raises new perspectives of assessment and reports under the three pillars of sustainability.

For future practical implementation, the development of arguments in favour of holistic management leads to the need for the establishment of a Joint Destination Management Organisation for leading a suggested ‘VALUES’ integrated management system and plans for natural and cultural heritage. Additionally, this governance agency should (i) locate which axis outbalances the other in terms of accessibility management, in most cases the natural environment outweighs the cultural heritage, (ii) identify the common or divergent public attention for visiting a place, (iii) achieve the maximum accessibility, and (iv) safeguard equivalent development without endangering each other.

Future actions and research could be the exploration of citizens’ knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behaviours toward a monument, a cultural heritage site, and a natural ecosystem.