We have so far made three connections about cultural landscapes (out of four categories as defined by Unesco). However, out of more than 80 cultural landscapes on the list we have only classified about 20. Any suggestions as to further improvements of the connection?
The following link lists all cultural landscapes and also summarizes the definitions.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/#2

Yesterday, when adding the connection for Mapungubwe, I found this paper: http://culturallandscapes.ca/blahdocs/uploads/rossler_2006_world_heritage_cultural_la ndscapes_unesco_3473.pdf

It states that all Cultural Landscapes that are entered with criterion vi, are "automatically" Associative Cultural Landscapes.

Those with criterion ii, iii, iv or v are either Relict or Organically evolved.

And those with criterion i are clearly defined landscapes (designed and created intentionally by man)

Sites can be a combination of those too...

P.S.: I will add the Associatives. Don't know if we have to add the Organically evolved ones too (probably all the vineyards)

The organically evolved are classified into continuing and relict CL.
The missing category is planned CL (e.g. Sintra, Persian gardens, Lushan...).

I note the addition of a new Connection for the "Clearly Defined Landscapes" sub-category. In it the following comment is made "Clearly defined landscapes designed and created intentionally by humans, are a subcategory of cultural landscapes (CLss). They were nominated under cultural criterion i. "
This is presumably carried forward from the quote above taken from the Mechtlid Rossler paper whose link is provided above.
To be absolutely pedantic she does NOT say that EVERY "Clearly defined landscape" HAS to have been nominated under criterion i - though that is the implication of her Table 2a.

In fact by stating in her paper "clearly defined landscapes designed and created intentionally by humans, such as many gardens and parks. Such landscapes had been already included on the World Heritage List in the early years such as Versailles in France, but the concept opened the List for sites such as Kew Gardens in the United Kingdom, or the large-scale extended designed area of the Lednice Valtice Cultural Landscape in the Czech Republic" she goes against it - Kew Gardens is NOT inscribed under Criterion i - only ii, iii and iv.
It might be said of course that there is nowhere (that I can find) where it is explicitly stated that Kew Gardens is a "clearly defined landscape" (though how it could not be so escapes me!). A problem with the CL subcategories is that UNESCO/ICOMOS have not been consistent in officially assigning subcategories. It might be interesting to produce a sub list of CLs for which we do NOT know their official subcategory!!
However I can support my point with another CL whose sub category HAS been officially identified - that of Sintra. The AB evaluation of this states "As a landscape designed and created intentionally by man for cultural and aesthetic reasons, the whole ensemble fits into the first category of cultural landscapes (Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, WHC/2/Revised February 1994, para 39). lt also corresponds with the second category as it is an evolutive landscape which has changed over time, adapting to the different human settlements that have succeeded one another while maintaining an active role in society. "
So, there we have another problem - CLs which fit into more than 1 category!! And Sintra is NOT inscribed under criterion i - only ii, iv and v

I haven't fully searched the Web for all potential candidiates for the "clearly defined" sub category but have found papers which describe Aranjuez as a being one - it seems reasonable enough too!

For instance this paper from ICOMOS http://www.icomos.org/landscapes/Cultural%20Landscapes%20and%20Monuments%20of%20Natur e.pdf
only recognises 2 categories of CL (omitting "Associative" and not entering the "relict" etc issue) but includes Aranjuez (and Kew) among others as being "clearly defined

I fear we have problems trying to assign subcategories to CLs - if we limit such assignments ONLY to those where a comment is made in an official UNESCO/WHC document then we will miss out a number - and even where such offical pronouncements have been made they are not always logical!

Yes I was in doubt also before adding it. I fear it's a bit of a mess. The Bamiyan Valley for example is weird.

We so far had the following for the 1st cultural landscape category (clearly defined):
•Bamiyan Valley >> named as organically evolved in the AB ev, so should be out
•Lednice-Valtice Cultural Landscape >> "designed landscape"
•Loire Valley >> not too clear in the AB ev, but looks organically evolved (so out)
•Muskauer Park >> not specified, but must be in this subcategory
•Persian Garden >> "designed" cultural landscape in the AB ev

I think what is meant by Clearly Defined is that the entire landscape was planned as such. The Loire Valley has some parts such as the castles and gardens that were planned but the entire landscape including the vineyards and sequence of castles was not.

In his paper"World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992-2002" ( http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001331/133121e.pdf ) PJ Fowler, the Cultural Landscape "guru", states (referring to the situation as of June 2002)
"The 30 official cultural landscapes are distributed thus:
Category 1: 3 (Lednice, Dessau-Wörlitz, Aranjuez)
Category 2a: 2 (Blaenavon, Cuban Plantations)
Category 2b: 18
Category 3: 7 (Tongariro, Uluru, Sukur, Quadisha,
Kalwaria, Vat Phou, Ambohimanga)"

He also says "Studley Royal Park including the ruins of Fountains Abbey, UK: in one of the great vistas among the 'clearly defined' landscapes 'designed and created intentionally by man', now-mature woodland leads the eye along the still waters of the canalised River Skell towards the 'Romantic' ruins of Fountains Abbey."
So, he regards Studley Royal as a "clearly defined landscape" albeit that it was inscribed BEFORE CLs were officially accepted and is not therefore, officially, regarded as a CL

It would seem that Aranjuez, at least, should be regarded as a "Clearly defined landscape". The AB evaluation describes it as a CL but doesn't attempt to categorize it.

Regarding later inscriptions (2003-2012):
Category 3 (associative) is easy to recognise (criterion vi).
Category 2a (relict):
Madriu Claror
Thingvellir (as well as associative)
Bam
Tamgaly
Kernave
Vega
Incense Route
Cornwall and Devon
Gobustan
Le Morne (also associative)
Saloum
Grand Pre (also associative)
Calais mining sites (also associative)
Rock Islands
Paestum (it's from 1980, can't see why it wasn't counted under relict)
Kuk
Yagul and Mitla
Mt. Perdu (from 1997, same question)
Category 1 (clearly defined): Muskauer Park

Yes, Fowler seems to have made an error in the summary by category I copied above. Table 8 of his paper lists the 30 "official" CL sites in each category UP TO 2002 (plus 70 others which "could have been" CLs)
Re Assif's 2 questions -
Cilento/Paestum was actually 1998 (rather than 1980) but is categorised by Fowler in Table 8 as "2a -Organically Evolved - Relict" (seems reasonable!)
Perdu from 1997 is categorised as "2b - Organically evolved - Continuing" (again seems reasonable)

I have done a full check on the "30 list" and there are other "discrepancies" too - eg he categorises Sukur as 2b in the table whereas it is "3 -Associative" in the summary. A "judgement call" I suspect!! Sintra is cat 1 in the table (correctly!) but not in the summary and Anbohimanga - is 2b in the table and "3 - Associative" in the summary - It seems to have elements of both???

So, taking the Table as being correct, the arithmetic for the summary SHOULD have been (changes from earlier summary in caps/bold)
"The 30 official cultural landscapes are distributed thus:
Category 1: 4 (+1) (Lednice, Dessau-Wörlitz, Aranjuez, SINTRA)
Category 2a: 3 (+1) (Blaenavon, Cuban Plantations, CILENTO)
Category 2b: 18 - AMBOHIMANGA, SUKUR, Rice Terraces, Hallstadt, Wachau, Ferto, St Emelion, Loire, Mt Perdu, Rhine, Hortobagy, Tokaji, Cinque Terre, Amalfitana, Curonian, Douro, Oland, Vinales
Category 3: 5 (-2) (Tongariro, Uluru, Quadisha, Kalwaria, Vat Phou)"

Re Assif's suggested category assignments for CLs insccribed since Jun 2002. Most seem ok although I haven't considered every one! I wonder, however, whether some of those suggested as "2a - Relict" are not in fact "2b - Continuing" e.g Vega and Grand Pre?? Both nominations do refer to the continuing use of the landscapes for the sorts of things for which they were originally developed

is 2b- continuing (AB ev)

Yet unclassified CLs:

My suggestions that are open for discussion -

Sacri Monti - still in religious use so continuing
Agave - still in agricultural use so continuing
Bam - archaeological so relict
Roi Mata - apart from associative still in religious use so continuing
Coffee plantation - still in agricultural use so continuing
Cornwall - ??
Bamiyan - ??
Bali - apart from associative still in agricultural use so continuing
Tramuntana - ??
Halsingland - still lived at so continuing
Hiraizumi - still in religious use so continuing
Incense Route Negev - archaeological so relict
Kernave - archaeological so relict
Konso - still lived at tradionally so continuing
Koutammakou - still lived at traditionally so continuing
Kuk - archaeological so relict
Pico - still in agricultural use so continuing
Le Morne - ??
Lushan - still in religious use so continuing
Matobo - in addition to associative still in religious use so continuing
Wutai - still in religious use so continuing
Pas de Calais - no mining is practiced anymore so relict
Orkhon - still lived at traditionally so continuing
Wadi Qadisha - still lived at traditionally so continuing
Papahānaumokuākea - ub addition to associative still lived at traditionally so continuing
Pearling - not practiced anymore so relict
Tamgaly - archaeological so relict
Yagul and Mitla - archaeological so relict
Humahuaca - still lived at traditionally so continuing
Richtersveld - still lived at traditionally so continuing
Rio de Janeiro - a living urban landscape so continuing
Ambohimanga - in addition to associative still in religious use so continuing
Mijikanda - in addition to associative still in religious use so continuing
Bassari - in addition to associative still being traditionally lived at so continuing
Kalwaria - in addition to associative (no criterion vi?) clearly defined?
Oson Osogbo - in addition to associative still in religious use so continuing
Kii - in addition to associative still in religious use so continuing
Saloum - archaeological so relict
Stari Grad - still in agricultural use so continuing
Sukur - in addition to associative still lived at traditionally so continuing
Causses and Cevennes - still in agricultural use so continuing

Could the Derwent Valley classify as a relict landscape?

Then there's the Greater Blue Mountains and the Wet Tropics both of which have been mooted for additional cultural criterion.

As I see it "continued religious use" isn't the relevant criterion for assigning the "Continuing" category
"Religious use", or rather "religious, artistic or cultural associations" is/are only relevant for those sites which are inscribed primarily on such associations and where such associations are "related to the natural element" (UNESCO - Associative CLs are "justifiable by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent". )

So Kii, for instance, is inscribed primarily for the mountain range/forests and the pilgrimage aspects which these engendered. The fact that
a. There are "material" aspects in the form of temples is only a part of this (Cf a Gothic cathedral which is inscribed primarily for its architectural rather than its religious aspect)
b. The religious use continues to this day
do not, in my understanding alter the fact that this is an "Associative CL"

I have looked at the AB evals of a few others from above
Sulaiman too
"For more than a millennium and a half Sulaiman-Too was a beacon for travellers along the Silk Roads and has been revered as a sacred mountain.......Most of the nominated property is a relict landscape little used, although the first peak with some caves, and the lower parts of the southern slopes of the second and third peaks, are ritual sites frequented by pilgrims and tourists." (AB). So - "Relict" even if it is "still in religious use" since this aspect is subordinate to its main value in terms of being a "relict" CL

West Lake
"West Lake is a designed landscape, an associative landscape and an evolving landscape" (AB). An example of a CL with multiple aspects - In my view it could be viewed primarily as "designed" or as "Associative" - the "Evolving" I see as less important

Papahanaaumokuakea
"This criterion is justified by the State Party on the grounds that Papahānaumokuākea, as an associative cultural landscape, represents core elements of Native Hawaiian cosmology and tradition." (AB). So - "Associative"?

Matabo
"What gives Matobo its continuing relevance to local communities today is the strong persistence of indigenous beliefs and practices associated with Matobo as a sacred
place – the seat of God, (Mwari/Mwali), the home of ancestral spirits, and the focus for rituals and ceremonies linked to rain, harvest, disease and appeasement of spirits.
Overall the landscape has a strong aesthetic quality – the natural phenomena give the place a dramatic 'natural beauty'. From strategic points on the hills there are far reaching views over the surrounding landscape. It is easy to see why so many people have imbued this landscape with a special meaning." (AB). So - Associative?