Valuing landscape identity of local inhabitants through a tourism discourse

Landscape, people and identity Landscape is about the interaction of a place or an area with people, which is reflected in the material interaction of people creating or shaping the landscape as well as in their mental perception, valuation and symbolic meaning of that landscape (Cosgrove 1998). This mutual and dynamic interaction forms the fundamental principle of the concept of landscape identity. Landscape identity has been described in scientific literature as a concept to bridge the physical, social and cultural aspects of landscapes. Also policy documents related with landscape and heritage (for example the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, the European Landscape Convention, the Faro Convention) are mentioning identity and landscape as key concepts. In those examples, landscape identity can refer to either the landscape itself - its features that makes the landscape unique (thus the landscape character), or to the social and personal construction. However, there is an interdependency between those two perspectives that needs to be conceptualised. Landscape identity is therefore defined as the multiple ways and dynamic relation between landscape and people (Loupa Ramos et al 2016).

U-Pb geochronology and Nd isotope contributions to the interpretation of a peculiar ring massif: the Santa Eulália plutonic complex (SW Iberia, Portugal)

The Santa Eulalia plutonic complex (SEPC) is a late-Variscan granitic body placed in the Ossa-Morena Zone. The host rocks of the complex belong to metamorphic formations from Proterozoic to Lower Paleozoic. The SEPC is a ring massif (ca. 400 km2 area) composed by two main granitic facies with different colours and textures. From the rim to the core, there is (i) a peripheral pink medium- to coarse-grained granite (G0 group) involving large elongated masses of mafic and intermediate rocks, from gabbros to granodiorites (M group), and (ii) a central gray medium-grained granite (G1 group). The mafic to intermediate rocks (M group) are metaluminous and show wide compositions: 3.34–13.51 wt% MgO; 0.70–7.20 ppm Th; 0.84–1.06 (Eu/Eu*)N (Eu* calculated between Sm and Tb); 0.23–0.97 (Nb/Nb*)N (Nb* calculated between Th and La). Although involving the M-type bodies and forming the outer ring, the G0 granites are the most differentiated magmatic rocks of the SEPC, with a transitional character between metaluminous and peraluminous: 0.00–0.62 wt% MgO; 15.00–56.00 ppm Th; and 0.19–0.42 (Eu/Eu*)N ; 0.08–0.19 (Nb/Nb*)N [1][2]. The G1 group is composed by monzonitic granites with a dominant peraluminous character and represents the most homogeneous compositional group of the SEPC: 0.65–1.02 wt% MgO; 13.00–16.95 ppm Th; 0.57–0.70 (Eu/Eu*)N ; 0.14–0.16 (Nb/Nb*)N . According to the SiO2 vs. (Na2O+K2O–CaO) relationships, the M and G1 groups predominantly fall in the calc-alkaline field, while the G0 group is essencially alkali-calcic; on the basis of the SiO2 vs. FeOt/(FeOt+MgO) correlation, SEPC should be considered as a magnesian plutonic association [3]. New geochronological data (U-Pb on zircons) slightly correct the age of the SEPC, previously obtained by other methods (290 Ma, [4]). They provide ages of 306  2 Ma for the M group, 305  6 Ma for the G1 group, and 301  4 Ma for the G0 group, which confirm the late-Variscan character of the SEPC, indicating however a faintly older emplacement, during the Upper Carboniferous. Recent whole-rock isotopic data show that the Rb-Sr system suffered significant post-magmatic disturbance, but reveal a consistent set of Sm-Nd results valuable in the approach to the magmatic sources of this massif: M group (2.9 < Ndi < +1.8); G1 group (5.8 < Ndi < 4.6); G0 group (2.2 < Ndi < 0.8). These geochemical data suggest a petrogenetic model for the SEPC explained by a magmatic event developed in two stages. Initially, magmas derived from long-term depleted mantle sources (Ndi < +1.8 in M group) were extracted to the crust promoting its partial melting and extensive mixing and/or AFC magmatic evolution, thereby generating the G1 granites (Ndi < 4.6). Subsequently, a later extraction of similar primary magmas in the same place or nearby, could have caused partial melting of some intermediate facies (e.g. diorites) of the M group, followed by magmatic differentiation processes, mainly fractional crystallization, able to produce residual liquids compositionally close to the G0 granites (Ndi < 0.8). The kinetic energy associated with the structurally controlled (cauldron subsidence type?) motion of the G0 liquids to the periphery, would have been strong enough to drag up M group blocks as those occurring inside the G0 granitic ring.

Identification with the neighborhood: Discrimination and neighborhood size

This paper analyzes the impact of a geographical social grouping (neighborhood) and its relative perceived size in the spontaneous group’s identiication level and place satisfaction, as well as the intensity of and motives for discrimination against inhabitants of other places. Two studies are presented: an experimental one using the minimal group categorization paradigm and an onsite investigation of a city neighborhood. Consistent with the predictions, the results showed that smaller neighborhoods reported higher identiication and satisfaction with the place of residence, as well as higher discrimination of other neighborhoods. In line with the optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT), the indings showed that the motivation for discrimination varies as a function of the in-group size. Thus, the members of larger groups discriminate by increasing the diferentiation between the in-group and the out-group, whereas the members of smaller groups increased the value of the in-group. Furthermore, the results were consistent with a social identity theory and ODT explanation of diverse research that shows the non-trivial nature of geographical bounded social grouping and its importance in a diverse set of contexts and its impact in inter-neighborhood relationships.