Mapping and characterizing the Jefoure roads that have cultural heritage values in the Gurage socio-ecological production landscape of Ethiopia

Highlights

• The Gurage people in Ethiopia designs a unique grass-cover road called Jefoure.

• Jefoure roads have long lengths and wide breadth, but they are not consistent.

• The physical geography of the landscape has an impact on the Jefoure roads.

• Jefoure roads are a multifunctional road.

• The Jefoure roads and their evolving landscape require international recognition.

Abstract

Information about cultural landscape settings and characteristics is essential for understanding and finding solutions for their sustainable management. In the Gurage socio-ecological production landscape of Ethiopia, “Jefoure” refers to a traditional grass-covered road with households on either side. This study aims to map and characterize Jefoure roads to help manage them sustainably. Data were compiled using survey tools and recent orthophoto images and then were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed. The results underscore Jefoure as a network of roads of variable lengths that can be as extensive as 87 m. Notably, the physical geography of the landscape has an impact on the length, shape, and directions of these roads. Jefoure roads are multifunctional roads that have been designed and managed by local people for centuries. The Gurage settlement pattern is centered on these roads, which influences their home garden functional spaces. Residents, local groups, land-use planners, and decision-makers need to manage the cultural roads sustainably. This study generates valuable empirical information regarding a Gurage landscape feature that is not common knowledge, and it can support decision-makers and other conservation initiatives aimed at the sustainable management. It may also inform and encourage other researchers in their studies on similar cultural roads. This road has a cultural value and needs to work on its heritagization, in conjunction with the community's various cultural assets.

Introduction

Socio-ecological production landscapes are characterized by a mosaic of ecosystems such as secondary forests, home garden agroforestry, grasslands, water bodies, and human settlement. They are managed through interactions between ecosystems and humans to create various goods and services for human well-being (Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment (JSSA), 2010, Takeuchi, 2010). The term “cultural landscapes” is often used synonymously for similar landscapes where people have developed and sustainably managed the landscape over a long time (Saito, Subramanian, Hashimoto, & Takeuchi, 2020). The World Heritage Committee states that cultural landscapes are produced by long-term interactions between people and nature within indigenous societies (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2015). They represent the continuous modification of the natural landscape by indigenous people as a means to better adapt land uses and spatial structures to meet changing human demands (Antrop, 2005, Campolo et al., 2016, Fisher et al., 2009, Huntsinger and Oviedo, 2014). These landscapes are a vital part of daily living environments and include scenery with aesthetic and recreational qualities (Hartel et al., 2014), feature biodiversity (Herzog, 1998), and provide goods and services to society (Plieninger, van der Horst, Schleyer, & Bieling, 2014). Cultural landscapes reflect specific practices of sustainable land-use (UNESCO, 2015) and can be multifunctional (Rabbinge & Bindraban, 2012). Cultural roads and routes are characteristics of cultural landscapes (Brenna, Larsen, & Hvattum, 2011). Roads shape and reshape valuable and commonplace landscapes, enhancing and/or diminishing their qualities. Over time, roads and their elements can become cultural heritage objects themselves because they represent technical or historical phases of cultural landscape development and interconnections with works of art (Grazuleviciute-Vileniske & Matijosaitiene, 2010).

Cultural landscapes and their road development are undergoing rapid and fundamental transformations, chiefly because of sustainable management challenges linked to urban and rural land-use (Verburg, van Berkel, van Doorn, van Eupen, & van den Heiligenberg Harm, 2010). Cultural landscape changes are driven by changes to institutional arrangements, demographics, economic conditions, infrastructure provisions, climate, and policies (Plieninger et al., 2013). These changes have resulted in standardized and mechanized land-use methods gradually replacing traditional landscape practices (Kizos & Vlahos, 2012). These changes can lead to the deprivation of landscape assets, leaving the future of many cultural landscapes highly uncertain (Plieninger et al., 2014).

Accordingly, understanding, retaining, developing, and sustainably using traditional landscapes are increasingly considered important topics in discussions among experts on geography, regional planning, landscape planning, and cultural heritage conservation (Rotondo, 2016). In recent years, several initiatives have called for integrated landscape approaches within socio-ecological production landscape management. For example, the Satoyama Initiative (Takeuchi, 2010) is among the internationally recognized initiatives that foster the management and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in human-influenced landscapes. These initiatives aim to preserve regional diversity and the heritage of cultural landscapes while identifying pathways to a more sustainable future (Plieninger et al., 2014).

Rural cultural landscapes, which can be understood as coupled social-ecological systems, support human well-being and development (Parrott & Meyer, 2012). Large portions of the African continent’s people live in rural landscapes close to nature. Several African cultural landscapes that were developed by long-term interactions with nature are listed as World Heritage sites (African World Heritage, 2018). Various groups of Ethiopian people developed diverse cultural values based on their indigenous knowledge; these include the Konso and Gedio cultural landscapes (UNU-IAS and IR3S/UTIAS, 2016, Watson, 2009). The Gurage socio-ecological production landscape in Ethiopia is characterized by a mosaic of different ecosystem types such as forests, home garden agroforestry system, cereal crops, grasslands, woodlots, wetlands, surface water, and roads, as well as human settlements. The Gurage people are a group in Ethiopia that formed village settlements based on the ecological conditions linked to Jefoure roads and Enset culture (Shack, 1966).

Jefoure roads are long and wide grass-covered streets that run through the middle of Gurage villages. Houses and trees flank these roads on both sides. The roads connect villages and have long served as a medium of transport to main roads, markets, and towns within the Gurage socio-ecological production landscape of Ethiopia. In Western Gurage, the establishment of a formal road network began in the 1960s (Nida, 2000). However, road networks in the region remain limited (GZFED, 2018). The bulk of rural people use Jefoure green roads as a medium of transport on foot, the backs of animals, and in motorized vehicles in large landscape areas. Additionally, the roads present open spaces running through villages and serve as public gathering areas, mourning areas, squares for making bonfires, wedding venues, communal grazing sites, and playgrounds for children and youths (Yirga, Abera, Kebede, & Kifle, 2012).

Although the Gurage socio-ecological production landscape has an exemplary rural landscape and road design comparable to modern urban planning and road networks, we could not find any well-documented study on the landscape characteristics. The roads’ spatial dimensions, biophysical characteristics, hierarchies within roads, management practices, socio-cultural and environmental contributions, and heritage values have to date not been studied in detail. Accordingly, there is an increasing demand on society to better understand the road designs and the general landscape characteristics to enable their conservation, sustainable management, and promotion.

Landscape characterization approaches demonstrate the distinct features and values that the current environment can generate (Warnock & Griffiths, 2014). By engaging with these landscape characterizations, unified communication in management and research can be achieved (Hazeu et al., 2011, Simensen et al., 2018). Mapping and characterizing the Gurage socio-ecological production landscape with its integral Jefoure roads can assist for documentation and communication; enhancing the understanding of residents, land-use planners, and decision-makers; and providing support for conservation and the development of sustainable management. This paper aims to map and characterize Jefoure cultural roads and their surrounding environments to enable their sustainable management in the Gurage cultural landscape of Ethiopia. Since Jefoure roads influence settlement patterns and the existing research on Jefoure roads is lacking, our focus is on the roads themselves. The generated data can also assist work linked to the roads’ heritage value as it concerns the Gurage socio-cultural landscape’s various traditional characteristics. The literature indicates that previous studies on-road characteristics have primarily focused on paved roads within rural and urban areas, heritage sites, and historical routes. However, studies exploring grass-covered roads that exist in socio-ecological production landscapes are lacking. The current research can thus help to enhance our understanding of indigenous grass-covered road designs and management.

This paper is organized into five sections. The second section describes the materials and methods used in this study and includes a description of the study area. The findings are presented in the third section and include six sub-sections that outline the overall landscape features and describe the spatial, physical geography, design trends, management, and socio-cultural characteristics of Jefoure roads. The major findings are discussed in section four. The fifth and final section concludes the study.