Gardens of Memory as Cultural Landscapes for Sustainable Destination Planning

Abstract

Commemorative gardens—particularly those shaped by classical arboreal symbolism—offer underexplored potential for sustainable destination planning. This study investigates how evergreen species such as laurel, cypress, and holm oak function as cultural signifiers in historic cemeteries, contributing to ecological resilience, civic education, and ethical tourism. Through a qualitative, transdisciplinary methodology combining site observation, symbolic analysis, and landscape semiotics, the paper examines three Florentine memorial sites: Santa Croce, the English Cemetery, and the Florence American Cemetery. Each represents a distinct commemorative paradigm—national, cosmopolitan, and transnational—yet all employ a vegetated design to inscribe memory within a landscape. The findings reveal how these gardens foster slow, multisensory visitor engagement while anchoring cultural identity and biodiversity, with participatory stewardship and symbolic vegetation emerging as key factors in transforming cemeteries into living heritage infrastructures. By tracing the evolution of commemorative landscapes from Greco–Roman groves to Romantic and modern garden cemeteries, the study illuminates their enduring capacity to mediate memory, ecology, and place. The paper argues that integrating symbolic literacy and environmental care into tourism policy can generate meaningful, low-impact visitor experiences. Florence exemplifies how commemorative gardens, rooted in ancient codes yet adaptable to contemporary needs, can serve as ethical blueprints for resilient, inclusive, and culturally legible destinations.

1. Introduction

• “[…] sorge or commosso il lauro, e tra le tombe
• non mai spento l’allor che a lui cresceva.”
—Ugo Foscolo, Dei Sepolcri, vv. 155–156

In recent years, tourism destination planning has increasingly moved beyond infrastructure and marketing to embrace more integrated priorities: environmental sustainability, cultural resilience, and social equity (Ekka et al., 2023; Morrison, 2023). Within this evolving framework, commemorative landscapes—particularly historic cemeteries and memorial gardens—are gaining recognition as powerful spatial and symbolic resources (Duxbury & Jeannotte, 2015; Richards, 2021; Timothy & Boyd, 2015; Osborne, 2001). By “commemorative landscapes”, we refer to designed or historically evolved places in which practices of remembrance are enacted through material, vegetal, and ritual affordances. These sites operate simultaneously as cultural heritage, green infrastructure, and public realms for reflective visitation; they mediate memory through symbolic vegetation, spatial choreography, and community use (Smith, 2006; Waterton & Watson, 2013; Harrison, 2012; Duxbury & Jeannotte, 2010). This definition frames the “Gardens of Memory” discussed in this paper as hybrid cultural–ecological infrastructures within destination planning.

These “Gardens of Memory,” as conceptualized in this paper, represent hybrid environments where ecology, remembrance, identity, and civic care intersect, offering exemplary models of sustainable heritage destinations.

Although often overlooked in conventional tourism strategies, these spaces foster slow, meaningful, and low-impact forms of visitation. Their deep connections to both cultural memory and natural symbolism position them as exemplary models of sustainable heritage destinations (Tilley, 2012).

The idea of commemorative gardens as cultural infrastructure is not new. In Western tradition, trees have long played symbolic, political, and ritual roles (Rival, 2021). Laurel, cypress, and holm oak were central to Greco–Roman funerary ecologies, encoded with meanings of mourning, virtue, and immortality. Classical texts—from Ovid’s Metamorphoses to Pliny the Elder and Pausanias—reveal a symbolic grammar in which vegetation served not only esthetic but also civic and spiritual functions (Carroll, 2017).

This botanical language of memory persisted into modernity. Napoleon’s Edict of Saint-Cloud (1804), which redefined urban burial practices, marked a turning point in European memorial design (Mansel, 2015). The shift from intramural churchyards to landscaped cemeteries—exemplified by Père Lachaise in Paris—inspired Romantic poets like Ugo Foscolo to reassert the civic value of the tomb and reframe nature as a vessel of cultural transmission (Etlin, 1984). In Dei Sepolcri (1807) (Foscolo, 1994), evergreen plants reemerge as symbols of resistance to oblivion and the continuity of virtue.

Today, these cultural codes offer critical insight for tourism planners seeking alternatives to extractive tourism. Commemorative gardens can serve as ecological and symbolic infrastructures for sustainable urban regeneration, enriching destination narratives through care, slowness, and civic engagement (Cloke & Pawson, 2008). Their vegetated design, participatory management, and cultural depth make them valuable components of climate-resilient planning.

This paper focuses on Florence—a city that uniquely integrates monumental memory, symbolic vegetation, and civic identity—examining three emblematic sites, as follows:

• Santa Croce, a national pantheon of artistic and scientific greatness;
• The English Cemetery, a Romantic, cosmopolitan garden of mourning;
• The Florence American Cemetery, a transnational, landscaped memorial of 20th-century sacrifice.

Building on this selection, the central research question guiding this paper is as follows: how can commemorative gardens—through their arboreal symbolism, cultural layering, and governance models—function as sustainable heritage infrastructures in destination planning, and what insights can be drawn from a comparative analysis of these three Florentine sites?

Florence provides a particularly relevant context because, unlike other Italian and European cities where commemorative traditions tend to follow a more uniform trajectory, here, national, cosmopolitan, and transnational models coexist within a compact geography. This plural dimension makes the city an exemplary laboratory for investigating how memorial landscapes can support sustainable tourism and heritage-based planning. The three selected sites are therefore not arbitrary, but rather represent distinct paradigms of remembrance—national, Romantic, and transnational—that together offer a diachronic and comparative framework for analysis.

Across these sites, evergreen species act as ecological anchors and cultural storytellers, offering blueprints for a new ethics of destination planning.

By weaving together classical symbolism, landscape semiotics, and heritage tourism theory, this paper argues for the integration of commemorative gardens into sustainable tourism strategies. It proposes that memory, when cultivated through vegetated and participatory design, becomes a regenerative force—capable of bridging past and future, culture and ecology, and visitors and place.

To understand how commemorative gardens acquired this layered meaning, it is essential to trace their symbolic roots. Classical traditions, and especially the arboreal grammar of laurel, cypress, and oak, established the cultural codes that continue to shape memorial landscapes today.

2. Historical and Symbolic Framework of Commemorative Gardens

2.1. Classical Literature and Arboreal Symbolism: Cultural Roots of Contemporary Memorial Landscapes

2.1.1. Why Trees Matter: Classical Symbolism and Contemporary Spatial Design

The symbolic use of trees in classical antiquity offers more than a historical curiosity—it provides an enduring cultural lexicon that continues to shape the design, perception, and function of commemorative landscapes today. As we increasingly look to green infrastructure, symbolic resonance, and sustainable memory in destination planning, understanding the cultural codes inherited from ancient models becomes essential. This section explores how three emblematic evergreen species—laurel, cypress, and holm oak—functioned in Greek and Roman traditions as semantic agents. These trees were not merely decorative: they were tools for encoding civic virtue, divine authority, mourning, and poetic legacy. Their legacy persists in modern memorials, where they serve as spatial markers, affective symbols, and ecological anchors—particularly in sites designed for slow, reflective, and ethically grounded tourism. Analyzing these symbolic frameworks allows us to better understand how modern commemorative gardens function not only as public spaces but as culturally layered environments where memory, nature, and identity converge—key dimensions in sustainable destination planning (Duxbury & Jeannotte, 2015; Richards, 2021).

2.1.2. The Laurel (Laurus nobilis): Poetic Immortality and Cultural Prestige

Sacred to Apollo, the laurel signified more than poetic inspiration. Its mythological origin—Daphne’s metamorphosis to escape Apollo’s pursuit—encapsulates powerful ideas: transformation as survival and nature as archive. In Metamorphoses I. 562–564, Ovid writes (Anderson, 1997) the following:

• “Laurel, you will grace the brows of Roman generals,
• be a loyal guardian at Augustus’ doorposts,
• and stand before the palace, watching over its halls.”

Here, the tree becomes an emblem of imperial legitimacy, poetic genius, and enduring fame. In modern funerary landscapes, particularly those inspired by neoclassical and Romantic models, laurel trees and motifs are still widely used to convey similar values—memory, distinction, and symbolic permanence.

The laurel’s continued use in memorial gardens and cemeteries illustrates how classical symbols inform today’s visual language of remembrance, helping destination planners create environments that resonate across generations and cultural backgrounds (Tarlow, 2000; Schuyler, 1984).

In destination planning, the laurel tree can be used to frame thematic trails around poetic heritage, especially in urban areas linked to literary figures or classical traditions (Liu et al., 2022).

2.1.3. The Cypress (Cupressus sempervirens): Funerary Transition and Sacred Silence

In Greco–Roman culture, the cypress was the most unequivocal symbol of death and mourning. Its dark, vertical form, and evergreen foliage made it a visual marker of liminality—the boundary between life and death.

In Aeneid III, Virgil notes the following (Virgil et al., 2008):

• “We planted cypresses by the altars.”
(III. 68)

This act transforms the space into a sacred zone of mourning, where vegetation is used to frame memory spatially and ritually (Tomkins, 2012); Pliny the Elder additionally confirms its domestic use to mark ritual impurity and transition (Whalley & Victoria and Albert Museum, 1982). Today, cypress trees are ubiquitous in European cemeteries—not simply for esthetic reasons, but as cultural carriers of mourning and dignity (Worpole, 2003; Bryant & Peck, 2009). Their presence in places like the Florence American Cemetery reinforces the solemnity and ritual ecology of the space, connecting modern memory practices to ancient semiotics. Cypress trees are integral to the design of heritage landscapes where ritual space and visual solemnity are required. Recognizing their symbolic value helps avoid esthetic tokenism and instead promotes historically informed, culturally sensitive planning (Bommas, 2012).

For planners, integrating cypress-lined axes can reinforce solemnity and guide visitor movement within memoryscapes, creating spatial hierarchies that support slow tourism.

2.1.4. The Oak and Holm Oak (Quercus ilex): Civic Virtue and Sacred Wisdom

In classical antiquity, oaks symbolized strength, justice, and divine authority (Cusack, 2011; Young, 2013). The sacred oak of Dodona, which spoke through the rustling of its leaves, was a living oracle, as Pausanias recounts in the following (Giesecke, 2014; Nicol, 1958; Hutton, 2005):

“The most ancient oracle was that of Dodona, where people consulted the sacred oak of Zeus.”

In Rome, oak leaves formed the corona civica, awarded to those who saved a fellow citizen—linking vegetal life to civic ethics and social valor (Lamp, 2013; Omrani, 2017). The holm oak, native to the Mediterranean, extended these meanings through its evergreen character, evoking resilience, moral constancy, and legal order (Rodà, 1999).

As both a native and symbolic species, the holm oak strengthens a climate-resilient landscape design while reinforcing civic virtue and intergenerational continuity in public memory.

In modern memorial planning, holm oaks are increasingly valued not only for their symbolism but for their ecological resilience (Sather-Wagstaff, 2015; McMillen et al., 2017; Cloke & Pawson, 2008), appearing in civic cemeteries, historic parks, and commemorative greenways, often as part of biodiversity planning tied to symbolic design. The oak’s association with law, resilience, and community ethics makes it a powerful species for landscapes of democratic memory, especially in contexts seeking to combine ecological goals with civic pedagogy.

Understanding classical vegetal symbolism is not only relevant for heritage interpretation, but provides planners with a shared semiotic toolkit that informs planting strategies, narrative curation, and experiential design in memorial tourism landscapes.

To consolidate these cultural meanings, the following comparative table (

Table 1. Symbolic functions of classical evergreen species and their cultural relevance.

Tree	Associated Figures	Symbolic Core	Cultural Functions
Laurel	Apollo, Augustus	Poetic immortality, transformation	Crowning poets and victors; imperial symbolism; ritual purification
Cypress	Hades, Anchises (via Aeneas)	Mourning, sacred transition	Necropolis design; ritual boundary marking; funerary architecture
Oak/Holm Oak	Zeus, Jupiter	Strength, civic justice, divine wisdom	Sacred groves; civic rituals (e.g., corona civica); markers of legal and sacred order

) outlines the symbolic functions of each tree, highlighting their relevance to both classical tradition and contemporary landscape planning:

Across these species, a consistent symbolic grammar emerges—evergreen trees function as natural emblems of endurance, transition, and virtue, shaping both the ritual and physical landscapes of antiquity and their modern commemorative counterparts.

2.1.5. Sacred Groves: Archetypes of Memorial Landscapes

While individual trees carried meaning, sacred groves (ἄλσος in Greek, lucus in Latin) represented the spatial synthesis of arboreal symbolism. These were not mere clusters of vegetation, but ritual ecosystems where law, memory, and belief coalesced, and Roman legislation, such as the Lex Julia Municipalis, protected these groves as sacred and inviolable spaces (Gargola, 1995; Banii, 2024; Jenkyns, 2013). As Titus Livius narrates, Numa Pompilius consecrated natural springs and groves to embed spirituality into Rome’s urban planning (Taylor et al., 2016; Fraschetti, 2019; Livius & Eduardus Raschig, 1829). The sacralization of landscape in antiquity provides a historical foundation for today’s concept of green memory infrastructure: landscapes that are ecologically functional, legally recognized, and symbolically charged (Chkird et al., 2024; Caseau, 1999).

In classical thought, trees were not passive elements of the environment but symbolic mediators, active in rituals, law, the literature, and space-making (Sen & Silverman, 2014), offering a shared visual and ethical language through which societies expressed grief, virtue, power, and transformation. Understanding this arboreal semiotics can help contemporary scholars and planners recognize that modern commemorative gardens are not arbitrary design choices, but rather continuations of a symbolic and spatial tradition rooted in antiquity (Cosgrove & Daniels, 1988). In destination planning, this awareness can inform the design of memorial trails, heritage gardens, and cemetery tourism strategies that balance ecological goals with cultural intelligibility—ensuring that sites are not only beautiful and sustainable, but also legible and meaningful to diverse publics. As we move on to the next section, we will examine how this symbolic inheritance was reinterpreted in modern Europe, beginning with the Edict of Saint-Cloud (1804) and Ugo Foscolo’s Dei Sepolcri—the pivotal moments at which classical vegetal memory was recoded within new political and spatial paradigms.

Revisiting the arboreal codes of antiquity equips today’s planners with a cultural grammar for designing memory-rich, ecologically resilient, and symbolically intelligible tourism destinations.

While classical codes provided the symbolic foundations of remembrance, the modern configuration of cemeteries emerged only with the political and spatial reforms of the early nineteenth century. The Saint-Cloud Decree marked the decisive turning point, transforming commemoration from a sacred, ecclesiastical practice into a civic and regulated landscape.

2.2. The Saint-Cloud Decree and the Secularization of Memory

2.2.1. Death Moves Outside the City: From Ritual to Regulation

Until the early nineteenth century, European burial practices were deeply interwoven with the spiritual and architectural fabric of the city. Churchyards, crypts, and intramural cemeteries functioned not only as spaces of interment but as ritual topographies, where the presence of the dead reinforced the eschatological and civic rhythms of Christian urban life (Retief & Cilliers, 2010; Rugg, 2021). These spaces were sacred in both the theological and social sense: places of prayer, continuity, and community belonging (Emsley, 2014).

This paradigm was dramatically reconfigured by the Décret impérial sur les sépultures, issued at Saint-Cloud on 12 June 1804 by Napoleon Bonaparte (Levati, 2024; Foscolo, 1994). More than an administrative measure, the decree redefined the spatial, legal, and symbolic framework of death, mandating that cemeteries be located outside city limits, insisting on the equal treatment of graves regardless of class or faith, and transferring authority over burial practices from the Church to the modern bureaucratic state.

The decree’s language—“les sépultures seront placées… hors de l’enceinte des villes”—(the burials will be placed… outside the city walls) emblematically marked the removal of death from the urban sacred core and its reinsertion into a regulated, peripheral landscape. This marked the start of a secular turn in commemorative practice, transforming the cemetery from a site of divine passage into an instrument of public hygiene and state planning (Serageldin et al., 2001). The decree anticipated modern forms of urban land use regulation, introducing zoning principles and setting a precedent for how memory could be managed as a matter of infrastructure, governance, and spatial policy—foundational concerns in contemporary destination and landscape planning.

2.2.2. The Shift from Sacred to Civic Memory

The Saint-Cloud Decree catalyzed not only a spatial transformation but also a cultural and epistemic shift in the very nature of remembrance. Funerary practices, once embedded in ecclesiastical authority and collective ritual, were now reframed as civic duties governed by the state (Walter, 2005). Cemeteries evolved into didactic and esthetic spaces, where the memory of individuals, families, and nations could be staged and transmitted. This reorganization mirrored Enlightenment ideals of rational planning, equal citizenship, and historical pedagogy (Johnson, 2008). Cemeteries ceased to be anonymous repositories of faith and became symbolic infrastructures of national identity and civic education. The classical revival in funerary architecture—columns, urns, inscriptions—embodied this transformation, fusing neoclassical form with modern values of public memory and secular permanence. This shift laid the groundwork for the memorial landscape as a cultural destination—a space where visitors engage with history not only as mourners, but as participants in a shared civic narrative, fostering heritage literacy and place-based tourism.

2.2.3. Literary Resistance: Ugo Foscolo’s Dei Sepolcri

In Italy, this redefinition of the tomb provoked a poetic and philosophical counter-narrative. Ugo Foscolo’s Dei Sepolcri (1807) responded to the Saint-Cloud Decree not by rejecting its hygienic rationale, but by reasserting the symbolic, ethical, and civic function of commemorative space (Foscolo, 1994). For Foscolo, the tomb was not just a final resting place; it was a generator of meaning, a civic monument in the moral and imaginative life of the nation.

• “vivea per l’urna un nome”—“a name lived on through the urn.”
(Dei Sepolcri, vv. 5–8)

Drawing on classical sources and Romantic sensibilities, Foscolo envisioned the cemetery as a theater of collective memory, where the virtues of the dead nourished the ethical life of the living. He opposed the homogenizing effects of Napoleonic standardization with a vision of a funerary culture steeped in symbolic continuity and moral resonance (Streb & Kolnberger, 2021). Foscolo’s emphasis on the formative value of memory anticipates today’s discourse on heritage education, highlighting how memorial sites can foster civic consciousness, intergenerational connection, and public responsibility—core principles in sustainable cultural tourism.

2.2.4. Nature Re-Enters the Scene: The Birth of the Garden Cemetery

The secularization introduced by the Saint-Cloud Decree coincided with Romanticism’s call for a return to nature, producing a new typology of funerary space: the garden cemetery. These new landscapes—beginning with Père Lachaise in Paris (1804)—reunited natural esthetics with civic commemoration (Legacey, 2019; Legacey, 2016). Winding paths, terraced terrain, and symbolic vegetation offered a softer, more reflective environment, where grief could be mediated through beauty and botany. This model quickly spread across Europe: from the English Cemetery in Florence (1827) to the Cimitero Monumentale di Milano (1866), commemorative design embraced both neoclassical language and ecological structure (Holloway, 2024; Beltrami, 1894). Trees like cypress, laurel, and holm oak were deliberately planted not only for esthetic purposes but as carriers of cultural meaning, continuing the arboreal semiotics of antiquity in a modern spatial form. These cemeteries pioneered the integration of green space and cultural heritage, offering a model for multifunctional memorial landscapes—spaces that support mourning, leisure, ecological balance, and slow tourism. Their enduring appeal today demonstrates how commemorative gardens can function as non-commercial, reflective destinations that promote cultural depth, environmental literacy, and emotional well-being, aligning with sustainable tourism models (Timothy & Boyd, 2015; Duxbury & Jeannotte, 2015).

The Saint-Cloud Decree reshaped Europe’s funerary topography, replacing ecclesiastical ritual with civic rationality and inaugurating a modern politics of commemoration. Yet, this rationalist intervention also triggered esthetic and cultural innovations that resisted its bureaucratic logic, opening a path toward a new symbolic ecology of remembrance. Authors like Foscolo, and the architects and planners who followed, reimagined cemeteries as Gardens of Memory—spatial syntheses where state regulation, classical symbolism, and Romantic naturalism could coexist. These sites no longer served only the dead; they engaged the living in a dialog of place, identity, and care.

Today, these landscapes represent multifunctional assets for urban and tourism planning. They are at once archives of history, ecological corridors, and civic classrooms—spaces where sustainability is practiced through stewardship, slowness, and shared memory. Their continued vitality depends on integrated governance frameworks that combine public maintenance, local participation, and heritage-sensitive policy, ensuring that cemeteries remain accessible, legible, and meaningful for future generations. As we reconsider the role of memory in building resilient communities, Dei Sepolcri speaks anew, reminding us that commemorative spaces are not relics of the past, but educational and emotional infrastructures for the future—a poetic foundation for sustainable place-making in a fragmented world.

The transformation set in motion by the Saint-Cloud Decree—namely, the spatial, symbolic, and administrative reconfiguration of commemorative space—continues to resonate in contemporary cemetery governance and planning. Nowhere is this legacy more visible than in Florence, which serves as a living laboratory where classical symbolism, Romantic ideals, and modern sustainability practices converge in the design and management of memorial landscapes.

2.2.5. Participatory Governance and Policy Frameworks in Contemporary Memorial Landscapes

In the contemporary European context, the sustainable management of commemorative landscapes—especially historical cemeteries and “Gardens of Memory”—increasingly depends on multi-level governance strategies, combining public administration, civil society, and heritage professionals. These spaces, once under the sole purview of religious or municipal authorities, now require integrated policies capable of balancing conservation, access, tourism, and civic engagement.

Across various countries, normative instruments and planning frameworks support this transition, as follows:

• In Italy, the Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio (Legislative Decree 42/2004) recognizes historical cemeteries as cultural assets (beni culturali), subject to protection and eligible for valorization projects involving public–private partnerships, educational initiatives, and community stewardship (Sandulli, 2012).
• The Council of Europe’s (2005) Faro Convention, ratified by numerous member states, introduces the concept of “heritage communities”—groups of citizens who value and care for specific cultural environments, including cemeteries, regardless of their official designation. This approach legitimizes bottom-up practices of interpretation, maintenance, and co-management, positioning memory landscapes as shared cultural resources (Zagato, 2015).
• In France, the Inventaire général du patrimoine culturel includes several cemeteries within the broader framework of landscape heritage (patrimoine paysager). Municipalities can develop plans de gestion durable in collaboration with local associations, landscape architects, and historians, particularly in connection with eco-tourism and educational trails (Cron, 2014).
• At the European level, initiatives such as the ASCE—Association of Significant Cemeteries in Europe—promote transnational cooperation, offering guidelines for sustainable cemetery management, digital heritage documentation, and integration into cultural itineraries and thematic routes, such as the European Cemeteries Route certified by the Council of Europe (Lopez Duarte, 2023; Beebeejaun et al., 2022).

These frameworks reflect a growing consensus: commemorative gardens are not static relics, but dynamic civic infrastructures, whose resilience depends on the ability to mobilize communities, adapt to contemporary uses, and engage new publics. Practices such as those listed below are increasingly common, allowing cemeteries to become open-air classrooms, ecological sanctuaries, and platforms for intergenerational transmission.

• “Adopt-a-monument” programs (e.g., Florence’s Adotta un monumento) (Francini, 2008);
• Interpretive signage co-designed with schools;
• Community gardening and arboreal labeling;
• Memorial walks curated by local guides.

These practices illustrate a shift toward participatory governance models, in which memory is not merely preserved top-down, but co-produced and ritualized in place. For destination planners, this opens a path to slow, ethical, and inclusive tourism, rooted in local identity, ecological sensitivity, and shared stewardship.

The reforms introduced by Napoleon and reinterpreted by Romantic thinkers like Foscolo laid the foundation for the modern garden cemetery. From that moment onward, commemorative spaces evolved not only as sites of mourning, but also as cultural and ecological infrastructures. This legacy frames today’s understanding of commemorative gardens as living archives and sustainable heritage landscapes.

2.3. Commemorative Gardens as Living Archives and Sustainable Heritage Spaces

As integrated components of the urban and peri-urban landscape, commemorative gardens function as distinctive forms of cultural infrastructure: physically rooted in place, socially activated through memory practices, and symbolically stratified across time. Unlike conventional monuments or isolated memorial museums, these sites are designed not for passive contemplation, but for immersive and relational engagement, grounded in the rhythms of nature and community (Osborne, 2001; Holtorf & Williams, 2006).

Through their open, vegetated design and historical stratification, Gardens of Memory promote a form of slow, reflective tourism—one that prioritizes sensory experience, emotional resonance, and cultural literacy. Visitors move through these spaces by walking along tree-lined paths, reading epigraphs, observing seasonal changes, and interacting with interpretive signage or guided routes. This multisensory engagement supports emerging models of ethical and low-impact tourism, grounded not in spectacle but in authenticity, local narratives, and ecological awareness (Timothy & Boyd, 2015; Jokilehto, 2017). For example, at the Florence American Cemetery, annual commemorative ceremonies organized in partnership with U.S. consular institutions and local schools include guided tours, arboreal heritage walks, and educational workshops on landscape symbolism and military history. These events support intergenerational transmission and encourage an environmentally and historically conscious experience of place.

In all three case studies—Santa Croce, the English Cemetery, and the Florence American Cemetery—different models of community engagement and governance are evident. Although their scales and institutional frameworks vary, each demonstrates a combination of botanical planning, symbolic layering, and forms of public or civic stewardship. For instance, the English Cemetery is maintained by the Swiss Evangelical Church with the support of international volunteers and local foundations. Educational activities and collaborative gardening projects foster participatory maintenance, where care of the landscape becomes a shared civic practice. These participatory dynamics align with contemporary heritage theory, which has shifted from static preservation to a view of heritage as performative and co-produced (Smith, 2006; Harrison, 2012). Within this framework, commemorative gardens function not only as spaces of memory, but also as platforms for community-based environmental education, intercultural dialog, and inclusive public engagement (Riley & Bogue, 2014), accommodating multiple temporalities and identities—national and transnational, religious and secular, and historical and contemporary. At Santa Croce, while access is mediated by the Opera di Santa Croce and ticketing systems, the site nonetheless integrates commemorative events (e.g., anniversaries of national figures) with educational visits involving schools and cultural institutions that emphasize the civic and ethical dimensions of heritage.

To consolidate the comparative dynamics across the three sites, the following table (

Table 2. A comparative overview of three commemorative gardens in Florence, highlighting their governance structures, symbolic vegetation, forms of civic engagement, and integration into touristic experiences. The table illustrates the plural modalities through which memory landscapes function as civic, ecological, and heritage assets within sustainable destination planning.

Site	Governance	Vegetation	Civic Engagement	Touristic Functions
Santa Croce	Opera di Santa Croce; municipal heritage	Laurel, ornamental cypress	Commemorations, educational visits	National memory, cultural tourism
English Cemetery	Swiss Evangelical Church; volunteers	Cypress, laurel, ivy	Gardening programs, school partnerships	Romantic heritage, literary routes
Florence American Cemetery	American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC)	Cypress, holm oak, ornamental laurel	Memorial ceremonies, interpretive tours	Military heritage, educational tourism

) summarizes their governance models, vegetative compositions, civic uses, and touristic functions:

In peri-urban contexts, particularly those marked by spatial fragmentation or underutilization, commemorative gardens contribute to silent urban regeneration. They reclaim marginal or transitional spaces—often adjacent to infrastructure corridors or suburban zones—and transform them into biodiversity corridors, historical markers, and civic gathering areas (Sanches et al., 2021; Honeck et al., 2020). This approach reflects an understanding of these sites as green infrastructures of memory which complement, rather than compete with, more conventional tourism assets. As documented in recent landscape studies (Bartolini & DeSilvey, 2020), such spaces contribute to urban resilience by stabilizing cultural identity, fostering biocultural diversity, and enabling sustainable land use practices in cities facing environmental and social pressure. However, the success of these initiatives depends on local governance structures, including the involvement of municipal heritage offices, religious and diplomatic institutions, and nonprofit cultural actors. The degree of coordination varies; while the Florence American Cemetery benefits from transnational funding and institutional management (through the American Battle Monuments Commission), the English Cemetery relies heavily on volunteer work and hybrid institutional arrangements, which makes its sustainability more precarious, yet also more flexible and community embedded (Harrison et al., 2020).

The effective integration of commemorative gardens into sustainable destination strategies requires multi-level governance that combines public planning tools with grassroots engagement and institutional partnerships (Alipour & Arefipour, 2020; Castillo-Salazar et al., 2025). These gardens, therefore, should not be seen merely as repositories of historical memory, but as active spatial and social agents within the broader framework of sustainable destination planning. Their hybridity—natural and cultural, symbolic and ecological, and individual and collective—makes them particularly suited to address the complex demands of 21st-century urban tourism.

They support the following:

• Ecological health, by hosting native and symbolic tree species and contributing to urban green networks;
• Civic inclusion, by engaging diverse publics in participatory stewardship and educational initiatives;
• Slow and responsible tourism, by offering meaningful alternatives to overcrowded or commodified heritage attractions.

Rather than reinforcing extractive tourism logics, commemorative gardens model a regenerative ethic of place-making—one in which memory is not consumed but cultivated, and where sustainability is understood as a relational practice among people, plants, and the built environment (Caicco, 2007; Pitt, 2013). From this perspective, commemorative gardens emerge as cultural infrastructure enabling sustainable local development, capable of enriching destination narratives while grounding them in care, continuity, and collective responsibility.

Having outlined the historical, symbolic, and policy frameworks that shape commemorative gardens, the next step is to clarify how this study investigates them. The following section explains the methodological approach used to interpret the symbolic vegetation, commemorative functions, and spatial design of the selected Florentine sites.

3. Materials and Methods

This study adopts a qualitative, interpretive, and transdisciplinary methodology aimed at exploring commemorative landscapes—conceptualized here as Gardens of Memory—through the lenses of arboreal symbolism, classical heritage, and public memory. In particular, it investigates how specific tree species (laurel, cypress, holm oak) function as symbolic agents within funerary and commemorative environments, and how these landscapes contribute to contemporary debates in destination planning, ecological resilience, and civic identity. The research is situated within the fields of cultural geography, environmental humanities, and heritage studies, while drawing methodologically from symbolic analysis, spatial hermeneutics, and landscape semiotics. It aligns with recent interdisciplinary work that considers vegetal elements as narrative and mnemonic agents in public space design (e.g., Bartolini & DeSilvey, 2020).

Each site was examined through a structured interpretive reading guided by three analytical categories, as follows:

▪

Botanical symbolism (species, vegetal motifs, mythological references);

▪

Commemorative function (social meaning, ritual use, narrative layering);

▪

Spatial and esthetic design (layout, materials, vegetal–architectural integration).

These three analytical categories were chosen because they directly reflect the conceptual framework of the study and allow the symbolic, social, and spatial dimensions of commemorative landscapes to be examined in an integrated way. Botanical symbolism highlights the cultural meanings encoded in vegetation; commemorative function captures the social and ritual practices enacted in these spaces; and spatial and esthetic design reveals how natural and built elements interact to shape the visitor experience. Taken together, these categories provide a coherent and replicable framework that ensures methodological transparency and facilitates comparative analysis across sites.

In response to the need for greater evaluative clarity, each analytical category was not only defined by guiding questions and key indicators but also supplemented with a descriptive evaluative scale (see

Table 3. Analytical framework: the three reading categories.

Analytical Category	Guiding Questions	Key Indicators	Evaluative Notes (Descriptive Scale)
Botanical Symbolism	Which tree species are present? What cultural, mythological, or historical meanings do they carry?	Presence of laurel (Laurus nobilis), cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), holm oak (Quercus ilex); references to Ovid, Virgil, Pliny, etc.	Strong presence where arboreal symbolism is consistent and explicit; partial presence where species occur without strong symbolic integration; weak presence where symbolism is minimal or absent
Commemorative Function	What forms of memory making are expressed in the site? How is remembrance socially and ritually enacted?	Epitaphs, rituals, ceremonies, civic values, poetic legacy	Satisfactory where commemorative layers are rich and multi-scalar; partially satisfactory where limited or restricted to elite burials; unsatisfactory where ritual/social functions are minimal
Spatial and Esthetic Design	How is the space organized? How do natural and built elements interact?	Pathways, symmetrical layouts, integration of vegetation and architecture	Strong coherence where spatial order reinforces symbolic and commemorative functions; partial coherence where design is fragmented; weak coherence where integration is absent or minimal

). This addition strengthens transparency, mitigates subjectivity, and enhances the replicability of the symbolic reading, even while remaining within a qualitative interpretive approach.

• Application Example

The following analysis illustrates the evaluative notes in practice, as follows:

• In the English Cemetery, botanical symbolism is rated as strongly present due to the dense planting of Cupressus sempervirens and Laurus nobilis and their clear symbolic resonance.
• Commemorative function is assessed as being satisfactory, since the site hosts cosmopolitan burials with ritual and literary layers.
• The spatial and esthetic design is considered partially coherent, given the hybrid elliptical plan that integrates axial pathways and vegetation, but with less monumental order than Santa Croce or the Florence American Cemetery.

This example shows how the descriptive scale supports transparency and comparability across sites without reducing the interpretive depth of the analysis.

This framework allowed for a comparative reading across cases while attending to their specific historical and cultural contexts. The case studies—Santa Croce, the English Cemetery, and the Florence American Cemetery—were selected based on the following:

▪

Their integration of evergreen vegetation with funerary architecture;

▪

Their engagement with classical and Romantic cultures of memory;

▪

Their accessibility for site visits and archival research;

▪

Their spatial proximity within the Florentine metropolitan area.

In choosing Florence as the focal context, the study responds to the city’s unique position as a crossroads of cultural memory, symbolic vegetation, and heritage governance. Unlike other Italian and European contexts that tend to emphasize a single memorial model—whether monumental, Romantic, or national—Florence juxtaposes all three within a coherent urban and peri-urban framework. This plurality provides a fertile ground for comparative analysis, as it allows the coexistence of different commemorative traditions to be examined within a shared cultural landscape. The selected sites—Santa Croce, the English Cemetery, and the Florence American Cemetery—were therefore chosen not only for their emblematic synthesis of vegetation, symbolism, and commemorative design, but also because they represent national, cosmopolitan, and transnational perspectives. Together, they provide an especially instructive case for understanding how symbolic vegetation and commemorative practices interact with sustainable tourism planning in ways that resonate beyond Florence itself.

• Site Descriptions and Layouts

To support readers unfamiliar with Florence, a concise description of each case study site is provided below, accompanied by schematic layouts that illustrate their main commemorative and spatial features.

• Santa Croce (Basilica and Memorial Complex)

Santa Croce: Founded in 1294 and completed in the 15th century, the Basilica of Santa Croce functions as Italy’s foremost national pantheon. Its chapels and naves host the tombs of eminent figures such as Michelangelo, Galileo, Machiavelli, and Rossini, making it a monumental space where civic identity and artistic memory converge. Although the basilica itself is largely devoid of vegetation, its cloisters—designed as green courtyards—frame the funerary architecture and symbolically connect the built space to the natural cycle of remembrance. The following schematic layout (Figure 1 and Figure 2) highlights the main commemorative nodes, including the tombs of Michelangelo, Galileo, and Machiavelli, alongside the Pazzi Chapel and the First Cloister, which collectively articulate a narrative of cultural immortality.

• The English Cemetery

Founded in 1827 by the Swiss Evangelical Reformed Church, the so-called English Cemetery of Florence is an oval-shaped burial ground located just outside the historic walls of the city, along today’s Piazzale Donatello. Its Romantic design combines axial pathways and peripheral plots with a vegetal frame that symbolically reinforces its character as a garden of mourning. The cemetery became the resting place of a cosmopolitan community of expatriates, including writers, artists, diplomats, and intellectuals, who contributed to Florence’s 19th-century cultural milieu. Among the most renowned burials are the poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning, the writer Walter Savage Landor, and the sculptor Hiram Powers, whose presence underlines the site’s transnational identity.

The symbolic use of evergreens and flowering plants reflects the Romantic conception of cemeteries as spiritual landscapes—spaces where nature mediates between grief and consolation. The English Cemetery thus embodies a cosmopolitan paradigm of memory, contrasting both with the monumental nationalism of Santa Croce and the transatlantic commemorative design of the Florence American Cemetery. Its elliptical form, terraced organization, and dense plantings of cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) and laurel (Laurus nobilis) create a hybrid landscape of vegetation and remembrance. Its design integrates a central axis with radial divisions, producing a reflective garden atmosphere. (See Figure 3 for a schematic layout of the elliptical form, central path, and vegetated perimeter).

• Florence American Cemetery

Established in 1944 and dedicated in 1960, the Florence American Cemetery is located in Tavarnuzze, south of Florence, along the Greve River valley. It contains over 4000 graves of U.S. military personnel who fell during the Italian Campaign of World War II, symbolizing a transnational memory of sacrifice and liberation. The site is carefully designed as a monumental landscape where vegetation, spatial order, and symbolism converge. A central axis lined with cypress trees (Cupressus sempervirens) leads from the river entrance to the memorial complex, organizing the burial plots into symmetrical lawns. The extensive use of evergreen trees and Mediterranean species integrates the cemetery into the Tuscan countryside, reinforcing both solemnity and ecological continuity.

The cemetery combines a rational design with symbolic planting: the alignment of the white marble crosses across terraced lawns embodies order, sacrifice, and collective remembrance, while the framing vegetation transforms the site into a garden-like sanctuary. Unlike the monumental nationalism of Santa Croce or the cosmopolitan Romanticism of the English Cemetery, the American Cemetery reflects a transnational paradigm of memory—one that unites landscape architecture, ecological symbolism, and political values of freedom and democracy. Its design bridges commemorative solemnity and ecological resilience, offering both a site of pilgrimage and a reflective green infrastructure within the Florentine territory (Figure 4 and Figure 5).

These three sites embody distinct commemorative paradigms—national, cosmopolitan, and transnational—while offering a diachronic view of how symbolic vegetation and a funerary design evolved from the early 19th century to the post-World War II period. While other cemeteries in Italy or Europe might offer valuable comparative insights (e.g., Cimitero Monumentale di Milano, Père Lachaise in Paris), these three were selected for their emblematic synthesis of commemorative, botanical, and spatial registers, making them especially relevant to a symbolic and planning-focused inquiry.

Although each site reflects a unique socio-historical framework, their comparative reading reveals persistent symbolic structures and design strategies which speak to the evolving cultural role of memorial landscapes in urban and touristic contexts. The research draws on a combination of documentary sources, secondary literature, and empirical site-based observation, organized as follows:

• Documentary Sources

▪

Classical texts (e.g., Ovid, Virgil, Pliny, Pausanias) for mythological and vegetal symbolism;

▪

Legal–historical documents (e.g., Saint-Cloud Decree, Lex Iulia Municipalis);

▪

Literary works, notably Ugo Foscolo’s Dei Sepolcri, for poetic and ideological framing.

Empirical Data:

○

Site visits conducted between March and July 2025, including photographic documentation, informal spatial mapping, and field notes focused on species identification, spatial layout, interpretive signage, and visitor behavior. While the limited fieldwork period restricted the possibility of observing seasonal variations in vegetation and visitor practices, this limitation was mitigated through the use of archival photographs, historical iconography, and landscape management documents. Moreover, the symbolic vegetation central to this study—cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), laurel (Laurus nobilis), and holm oak (Quercus ilex)—are evergreen species, ensuring relatively stable perceptual and symbolic continuity throughout the year.

○

Analysis of architectural plans, archival materials, and landscape management documents, where available.

• Secondary Sources

○

Environmental humanities (Buell, 2005; Harrison, 2012);

○

Landscape and heritage studies (Duxbury & Jeannotte, 2015; Timothy & Boyd, 2015);

○

Studies in cultural tourism and place-making (Richards, 2021; Smith, 2006; Waterton & Watson, 2013).

Analytical Tools and Site Work:

○

Site visits were conducted between March and July 2025. These included photographic documentation, informal spatial mapping, and field notes focused on species identification, spatial layout, interpretive signage, and visitor behavior. Fieldwork also included qualitative observations of the general ecological condition of the sites, such as tree vitality, canopy coverage, and signs of natural regeneration. While no quantitative ecological metrics (e.g., biodiversity counts, growth rates) were employed, these observations provided contextual insights into the resilience and management of the symbolic vegetation.

○

Observations were complemented by the analysis of architectural plans, archival materials, and landscape management documents, where available.

All translations of classical sources were cross-referenced using standard scholarly editions (Loeb Classical Library; Oxford World’s Classics). A comparative–symbolic method was used to analyze the role of vegetation in encoding and transmitting collective memory. Trees were interpreted not merely as ecological elements, but as semiotic devices embedded in ritual, literary, and spatial systems. The cemeteries were read as textual landscapes where material arrangements (plants, paths, monuments) function as narrative layers capable of sustaining cultural and ecological meanings over time.

The symbolic analysis followed a thematic coding process along three axes, as fllows:

• Vegetal meanings (immortality, mourning, fame, sacrifice);
• Civic and poetic values (virtue, identity, resistance to oblivion);
• Spatial patterns and affordances (monumentality, garden esthetics, sensory experience).

This reading strategy foregrounds memory as a dynamic relation between space, species, and society, rather than as a static inscription or fixed heritage. While the approach developed here is primarily theoretical and interpretive, it also reflects practices already visible in Florence, particularly through participatory stewardship initiatives, heritage education projects, and the inclusion of cemeteries in cultural tourism itineraries. This dual orientation ensures that the model remains both conceptually innovative and grounded in emerging applications.

This study is limited to Western, institutionalized commemorative traditions, and does not address vernacular, indigenous, or non-Western funerary landscapes—an omission that presents opportunities for future comparative studies in more diverse ecological and cultural contexts. Moreover, the selection focuses on elite burial environments with strong architectural and literary documentation, excluding popular or ephemeral forms of remembrance. The absence of empirical methods (e.g., interviews, surveys) reflects the study’s symbolic and interpretive orientation. However, future research could profitably integrate ethnographic or participatory approaches, especially to examine visitor experience, community narratives, and the evolving governance models behind these spaces. Similarly, future research could incorporate systematic ecological indicators, such as biodiversity indices or vegetation health metrics, in order to complement the qualitative readings presented here. The present study deliberately limited itself to symbolic and interpretive registers, while acknowledging ecological vitality as an essential contextual dimension.

Although seasonal dynamics could not be fully captured within the timeframe of the fieldwork, the integration of archival documentation and the focus on evergreen species provide a robust basis for interpretation that transcends temporary ecological conditions.

These methodological choices are acknowledged as deliberate, enabling a focus on symbolic continuity and spatial semiotics while laying the groundwork for expanded interdisciplinary inquiry into commemorative ecologies as tools for sustainable tourism and heritage-based planning.

Finally, it is important to clarify the methodological positioning of this research. The analysis was conducted by a single researcher, which ensured consistency in the application of the analytical categories and the coherence of the interpretive framework. While the absence of team-based triangulation or empirical surveys may appear as a limitation, it also minimizes variability in subjective interpretation and secures a unified hermeneutic perspective across all sites. To strengthen reliability, a set of explicit analytical criteria—botanical symbolism, commemorative function, and spatial–esthetic design—was applied systematically and transparently, allowing the method to be replicated by other scholars. The comparative–symbolic approach was further reinforced by cross-referencing classical sources with contemporary scholarship, as well as by direct site observations documented through photographic records, spatial sketches, and archival verification. In this sense, although primarily qualitative, the methodology follows a rigorous, codified procedure that limits arbitrariness, foregrounds transparency, and offers a transferable framework for future interdisciplinary research. By articulating clear evaluative axes and maintaining methodological consistency throughout, the study contributes not only interpretive insights but also a replicable model for investigating commemorative ecologies as sustainable heritage infrastructures.

Taken together, the Florentine memorials reveal a diachronic narrative: from Santa Croce’s monumental nationalism, to the English Cemetery’s cosmopolitan Romanticism, to the American Cemetery’s transnational commemorative design. These trajectories prepare the ground for the concluding reflections, where the broader implications for sustainable destination planning are synthesized.

4. Case Studies: The Florentine Sites—Florence as a Living Archive: Evergreen Trees and the Politics of Memory

4.1. From Santa Croce to the English Cemetery: Monument and Landscape in Dialog

Florence offers a layered geography of memory, where monumental nationalism and intimate landscape commemoration coexist (Osborne, 2001). Santa Croce—the pantheon of Italian greatness—frames figures like Michelangelo, Galileo, and Ugo Foscolo within grandiose Neo-Gothic tombs and sculptural allegories (Veress, 2023; Craske, 2017). Its inscriptions and allegoric figures cast each tomb as a civic myth, reinforcing national identity (see Figure 6). In contrast, the English Cemetery (1827), positioned just outside the city walls, fosters a Romantic, landscape-based mourning. Its modest epitaphs—often multilingual—sit under cypresses and laurels, inviting personal narrative and cross-cultural reflection. Here, individual grief and literary heritage replace a grand narrative, demonstrating a symbolic shift: from the marble of myth to the soil of empathy.

This juxtaposition illustrates how memory practices evolve from monumentality to intimacy, offering destination planners a spectrum of commemorative models. By balancing civic pride with reflective mourning, these two sites already embody complementary forms of tourism: celebratory heritage at Santa Croce and contemplative heritage at the English Cemetery.

This site pair exemplifies how destination planners might design itineraries that balance monumentality with intimacy, appealing to both civic pride and reflective tourism (see Figure 7).

4.2. Evergreen Trees and Modern Commemorative Design

Across the 19th and 20th centuries, evergreen species persisted as symbolic anchors in Florence’s commemorative landscape, as follows:

• Cypress (Cupressus sempervirens): Vertical markers of mourning and transcendence, defining paths and rows;
• Holm oak (Quercus ilex): Symbols of resilience and civic virtue, defining memorial groves;
• Laurel (Laurus nobilis): Emblems of poetic immortality, woven into wreaths and sculptural motifs.

These species create a botanical grammar that enables visitors to ‘read’ memory through vegetation. The Florence American Cemetery (est. 1945) integrates these species in a layout of Roman-inspired symmetry, combining cypress-lined avenues, holm oak plantings, and a central memorial wall (Goody & Poppi, 1994; Freeman, 1993). This typology supports transnational remembrance, ecological design, and narrative coherence, making the site an exemplar of memory landscapes as heritage tourism assets (see Figure 8). The symbolic evolution from Santa Croce’s nationalist discourse to the English Cemetery’s cosmopolitan mourning, to the American Cemetery’s transnational secular narrative, reflects three shifts in how memory is shaped in the landscape, and for whom, as follows:

• Audience: From a national community to global publics;
• Narrative: From mythologized heroes to personal and cross-cultural stories;
• Symbolic vegetation: From classical motifs to ecocultural infrastructures.

These parallel evolutions show that evergreen trees act as semantic bridges, accommodating changing public values, diversifying heritage tourism demand, and promoting destination resilience through cultural pluralism (Commissario generale per le Onoranze ai Caduti di Guerra, 1961). An environmental humanist lens repositions vegetated memorial spaces from passive relics to active biosocial systems. In Florence, the intentional planting of cypress and holm oak provides not only cultural symbols but also ecological services—carbon absorption, shade, and biodiversity support—thus linking heritage symbolism to sustainability agendas (Watkins, 2014; Stafford, 2016; Architetti, 2021). These trees function as ecological educators, integrating botanical literacy into heritage tourism experiences. Features like botanical signage and guided walks, developed in collaboration with local volunteers and schools, emerge as interpretive tools that translate ancient symbolism for modern visitors (Honig, 2000; Villagra-Islas, 2011). These initiatives transform memory sites into open-air classrooms, where landscape, history, and ecology intersect, aligning with slow tourism and intergenerational cultural transmission. Flourishing where memory, ecology, and experience converge, Florence’s memorial gardens model a triadic approach to sustainable tourism planning, as follows:

• Memory: Historical continuity through classical symbolism;
• Ecology: Living infrastructure providing ecosystem services;
• Experience: Slow, place-based, and reflective tourism.

Here, heritage becomes experiential: visitors are invited to learn about ecology and history simultaneously, embodying principles of slow tourism and intergenerational education.

4.3. Symbolic Vegetation and Visitor Experience

The integration of evergreen trees ensures perceptual stability across seasons, reinforcing continuity in the visitor experience. Unlike ornamental or deciduous plantings, cypress, laurel, and holm oak remain constant throughout the year, sustaining symbolic and ecological meaning regardless of timing. For tourism planning, this guarantees that visitors encounter consistent landscapes, reducing seasonality and supporting year-round cultural itineraries.

Symbolic vegetation also cultivates reflective and ethical forms of tourism. Visitors are encouraged to slow down, walk shaded paths, and engage with narratives of mourning and resilience rather than consuming spectacular or entertainment-based experiences. In this sense, Florence’s memorial gardens exemplify non-extractive cultural tourism, transforming visitors into co-curators of memory and ecological awareness.

4.4. Memory Layering and Civic Identity

Florence’s memorial sites embody distinct yet interconnected layers of memory, as follows:

• Santa Croce: Monumental nationalism rooted in civic pride;
• English Cemetery: Romantic cosmopolitanism centered on cultural exchange;
• American Cemetery: Transnational diplomacy and collective sacrifice.

This palimpsest reflects a plural civic identity, where diverse cultural groups and epochs are remembered within a shared urban geography. For destination planning, this layering offers an opportunity to diversify itineraries beyond the historic core, redistributing visitors while enhancing cultural depth.

Moreover, the multilingual inscriptions and cross-cultural burials of the English Cemetery, alongside the diplomatic symbolism of the American Cemetery, embody models of inclusive heritage. Such pluralistic commemoration aligns with contemporary planning frameworks that emphasize intercultural dialog, social cohesion, and participatory governance.

4.5. Governance and Planning Implications

The Florentine case demonstrates that commemorative landscapes function as living archives, where ecology, symbolism, and governance intersect. Three implications for sustainable planning emerge, as follows:

• Integration into Green Infrastructure: Cemeteries and cloisters can be planned as ecological corridors that provide ecosystem services while preserving cultural values.
• Diversification of Tourism Offers: By including cemeteries in cultural itineraries, visitor flows can be spread across different urban and peri-urban areas, alleviating pressure on saturated heritage zones.
• Civic Engagement: Participatory stewardship initiatives—such as school projects, volunteer programs, and heritage walks—anchor these sites within contemporary urban life, ensuring their transmission across generations.

In this sense, Florence’s commemorative gardens move beyond symbolic continuity: they become regenerative infrastructures that bind together policy, ecology, and memory. Their value lies not only in historical depth but in their capacity to educate, engage, and sustain, offering a replicable framework for other heritage cities facing the challenges of mass tourism and environmental fragility.

4.6. Comparative Perspective and Synthesis

While this study focuses on Florence, placing these sites in the broader Italian context underscores their distinctiveness. Cemeteries like Milan’s Cimitero Monumentale (1866) or Genoa’s Staglieno (1851) embody sculptural monumentality, where architecture dominates over vegetation. By contrast, Florence juxtaposes stone-based and vegetation-based commemorative models within a single urban territory. This unique plurality transforms the city into a laboratory of memory where national myths, cosmopolitan exchanges, and transnational diplomacy coexist.

The comparative reading of Santa Croce, the English Cemetery, and the Florence American Cemetery reveals how divergent temporalities and symbolic vocabularies mirror evolving social values, as follows:

• Santa Croce: National identity through marble and allegory;
• English Cemetery: Romantic cosmopolitanism through vegetation and narrative epitaphs;
• American Cemetery: Transnational diplomacy through ecological symbolism and rational design.

Together, these sites embody a diachronic narrative of how memory landscapes evolve from civic monumentality to ecological diplomacy. More importantly, they illustrate how commemorative gardens can serve as infrastructures of sustainable tourism, bridging history, ecology, and community in ways that regenerate rather than deplete urban heritage.

To consolidate the comparative reading, the three Florentine memorials were not only analyzed in terms of their symbolic vegetation and commemorative narratives but also assessed for their broader implications in heritage planning and sustainable tourism. The following

Table 4. A comparative framework of the three Florentine memorials (Santa Croce, the English Cemetery, and the Florence American Cemetery), highlighting their commemorative intents, symbolic vegetation, socio-political functions, and planning implications for heritage and sustainable tourism.

Site	Date/Period	Commemorative Intent	Symbolic Flora	Social/Memory Politics	Planning Implications
Santa Croce (Basilica and Memorial Complex)	Medieval origins; expanded as national pantheon in 19th c.	Civic and national commemoration of artistic and scientific greatness	Minimal/absent (stone and sculpture dominate)	National identity, patriotic myth-making, civic pride	Supports cultural tourism centered on monumental heritage; requires careful visitor management to avoid overtourism in the historic core
English Cemetery	Established 1827 (Romantic period)	Cosmopolitan mourning, literary and artistic memory	Cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), laurel (Laurus nobilis), ivy (Hedera helix)	Romantic individualism, transnational cultural exchange	Expands cultural itineraries beyond the historic center; offers reflective, slow-tourism experiences; potential for heritage education and intercultural dialog programs
Florence American Cemetery	Established 1945 (post-WWII); dedicated 1960	Commemoration of U.S. soldiers fallen in Italy	Cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), holm oak (Quercus ilex), laurel (Laurus nobilis)	Transnational diplomacy, collective sacrifice, Cold War-era symbolic politics	Integrates into peri-urban green infrastructure; exemplifies heritage landscapes with ecological services; potential model for combining remembrance with sustainable territorial planning

integrates descriptive criteria (date, intent, symbolic flora, memory politics) with an additional dimension—planning implications—which translates interpretive findings into practical insights for destination management and cultural policy.

This comparative framework highlights the ways in which these three Florentine memorials embody distinct commemorative paradigms while simultaneously offering valuable insights for contemporary destination planning. Santa Croce illustrates how monumental architectures of memory can reinforce national identity, yet it also warns of the risks of over-concentration on stone-based heritage with limited ecological functions. The English Cemetery demonstrates the potential of intimate, vegetated memorials to foster cosmopolitan identity and reflective forms of tourism, suggesting how small-scale, community-oriented sites may enrich urban cultural itineraries. The Florence American Cemetery, in turn, exemplifies how transnational commemoration can be articulated through both symbolic vegetation and rational design, generating a hybrid infrastructure of remembrance that is solemn, ecologically resonant, and accessible to international audiences. Taken together, these sites reveal not only the diachronic layering of civic, Romantic, and transnational memory, but also their capacity to inform sustainable planning practices. By showing how symbolic vegetation, spatial design, and commemorative intent intersect, these Florentine case studies position cemeteries not as marginal or morbid spaces, but as active infrastructures of cultural resilience, ecological continuity, and tourism innovation.

5. Conclusions: Reimagining Commemorative Landscapes for Sustainable Destination Planning

In an era defined by environmental precarity, cultural fragmentation, and the saturation of heritage destinations, commemorative gardens—conceived of as Gardens of Memory—offer a compelling, underutilized resource for sustainable and ethical tourism planning. Far from being static repositories of loss, these spaces represent dynamic infrastructures of remembrance, where ecological function, symbolic depth, and civic engagement coalesce. Through their integration of evergreen vegetation, layered cultural memory, and participatory stewardship, they exemplify a regenerative approach to destination design—one that privileges care over consumption and continuity over spectacle.

As this paper has argued, the symbolic vocabulary inherited from classical antiquity—laurel for poetic immortality, cypress for sacred mourning, and holm oak for civic virtue—continues to inform contemporary spatial practices in funerary landscapes. These arboreal grammars are not merely esthetic legacies but active tools for shaping multisensory, low-impact visitor experiences. When understood and applied through an environmental humanist lens, they allow destinations to encode ethical values, ecological awareness, and intergenerational learning directly into the fabric of place.

The case of Florence—where Santa Croce, the English Cemetery, and the Florence American Cemetery trace a diachronic arc from the national pantheon to the transnational memorial park—demonstrates how commemorative landscapes can support memory politics while advancing biodiversity, urban resilience, and inclusive tourism. These sites respond to key challenges of destination planning today: balancing access and preservation, fostering civic participation, and offering visitors meaning-rich alternatives to extractive models of cultural consumption.

Crucially, the planning and governance of these spaces call for an integrated approach—one that recognizes the hybrid nature of commemorative gardens as both cultural heritage and green infrastructure. More specifically, the findings demonstrate how the integration of commemorative gardens into destination planning can actively advance key sustainable goals. By balancing access and preservation, these sites provide structured visitation models that protect fragile heritage while ensuring inclusivity; by fostering civic participation, they engage local communities in stewardship, transforming visitors into co-curators of memory and ecology; and by offering meaning-rich alternatives to extractive tourism, they support slow, reflective, and ethical practices that enhance cultural depth without intensifying visitor pressure on already saturated urban heritage sites. Finally, the integrated approach advocated in this paper refers to the coordination of cultural heritage management, ecological planning, and participatory governance, ensuring that commemorative gardens function not only as symbolic landscapes but as active infrastructures of sustainability, bridging policy frameworks, community engagement, and ecological resilience. Policies rooted in participatory management, heritage communities, and symbolic literacy can ensure that these landscapes remain legible, accessible, and sustainable across generations.

Gardens of Memory invite us to rethink tourism not as a movement alone, but as a practice of rootedness—where walking slowly among trees becomes an act of remembrance, reflection, and responsibility. As destinations worldwide seek models for ethical regeneration, these commemorative landscapes offer more than historical interest; they offer a living blueprint for how memory, nature, and society can be designed together, with care and vision.

This study addressed the research question of how commemorative gardens—through their arboreal symbolism, cultural layering, and governance models—can function as sustainable heritage infrastructures in destination planning. The analysis shows the following:

• Arboreal symbolism provides a shared cultural grammar (laurel, cypress, holm oak) that links ancient meanings with contemporary ecological and educational functions;
• Cultural layering across Santa Croce, the English Cemetery, and the Florence American Cemetery illustrates how different historical moments and commemorative intents translate into distinct yet complementary models of memory landscapes;
• Governance models demonstrate that sustainability depends on diverse but effective forms of stewardship, from institutional management to volunteer participation.

Taken together, these findings demonstrate that Florence’s commemorative gardens are not isolated monuments, but living infrastructures of sustainable memory, answering the research question by showing how symbolic vegetation, layered cultural narratives, and adaptive governance can be mobilized as transferable tools for ethical, participatory, and resilient destination planning in wider European and global contexts. While this study is primarily conceptual and interpretive, it also reflects emerging practices already visible in Florence and beyond, such as participatory stewardship initiatives, heritage education projects, and the integration of cemeteries into cultural itineraries. This dual perspective ensures that the model is not only theoretically innovative but also grounded in practical sustainable tourism planning trajectories.