Ecosystemic services are those that provide material or immaterial benefits to the inhabitants of a landscape from its water, food, medicines and raw materials. They are classified into four types: provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural. The latter can be defined as those non-material benefits that humans obtain through ecosystems. They include educational value, cultural diversity, sources of inspiration, spirituality and religious values, aesthetic value, social relations, rootedness or belonging, cultural heritage, recreational and ecotourism services, and scientific knowledge, among others. Characterising such diverse factors requires a systematisation in study facets for their management. We propose three: memory, image and socio-system, as differentiated spheres of approach to the urban landscape. The memory facet would include the ecosystemic services of belonging, cultural heritage and, in certain themes, cultural diversity, sources of inspiration and religious values. The image facet includes the aesthetic value and perceptual aspects of ecotourism. In the socio-system we would study the educational value, scientific knowledge and recreational or spirituality services, reflected in the endowments; but also social relations, rootedness and another vision of ecotourism.

In this article, a critical reflection is made that involves questioning the notion of historic urban landscapes profiled in the Memorandum of Vienna (UNESCO, 2005) and the Paris Recommendation (UNESCO, 2011) as a conceptual paradigm on which to base urban conservation in the 21st century. Its limited methodological development and the assumption of change as an inherent part of the urban condition constitutes the source of many of the problems and difficulties posed by management and protection of contemporary cities, since there is no consensus as to what the acceptable limits of change should be in historic urban landscapes - difficulties that become ever more apparent, given the background of Weberian administrative doctrines present in current governance models. Likewise, the concept of Buffer Zones as a landscape management tool is analyzed, with the aim of establishing new methodological proposals that enable spatial organization to be regulated by defining areas of harmonization that are made up of flexible and multifunctional spaces for cooperation where territorial scale comes into contact with modernization of the historical fabric.