The Dehesa as Landscape Heritage from the Perspective of the New Generation

Abstract

The dehesa, as a socio-ecological system and cultural landscape, is a strategic resource for environmental education, territorial sustainability, and the intergenerational transmission of knowledge. This study analyzes the perception of primary school students in Extremadura regarding this environment, using a mixed methodology that combines statistical, semantic, and spatial analysis. The results show a generally positive assessment of the dehesa heritage, although accompanied by a disconnect between this symbolic assessment and direct experience of the territory, especially in urban contexts. It identifies significant differences between students from rural and urban environments in terms of their knowledge of trades, products, and dehesa spaces, as well as their preferred activities in the dehesa. While rural students show greater interest in operational activities and direct contact with the environment (such as feeding livestock and milking), urban students lean toward sensory or symbolic experiences (such as consuming products or occasional harvesting), reflecting different ways of connecting with the territory. Spatial analysis reveals that more than 80% of schools are located less than 5 km from well-preserved dehesa areas, which represents an opportunity to integrate these landscapes into formal education. However, inequalities in access from special education centers have been detected, posing challenges in terms of territorial and educational equity. This study concludes that the dehesa should be recognized as an open classroom, capable of fostering roots, ecological literacy, and cultural sustainability through contextualized and territory-sensitive pedagogical approaches.

1. Introduction

The dehesa—or montado in Portugal—is defined as a Mediterranean agro-silvo-pastoral system resulting from a long process of anthropization of the sclerophyllous forest, characterized by the scattered presence of species of the genus Quercus over grasslands and rotational crops [1]. In the Iberian context, this model is also recognized as a cultural landscape and as a complex socio-ecological system, as it integrates productive, ecological, and symbolic-identity functions [2]. Its contemporary relevance lies in the provision of ecosystem services, the conservation of Mediterranean biodiversity, and its contribution to territorial resilience in the face of climate change, while sustaining rural economies and identity values across approximately 3.5 million hectares between Spain and Portugal [3]. Moreover, the dehesa aligns with the concept of cultural landscape proposed by the European Landscape Convention (2000), as a symbolic and relational construction resulting from the prolonged interaction between human communities and their environment [4].

Its ecological dimension is crucial to understanding its uniqueness. With its mosaic structure—grasslands, cleared woodlands, dryland crops, and extensive livestock farming—the dehesa emerges as a resilient system adapted to poor soils and the seasonality and irregularity of Mediterranean rainfall. It is capable of co-producing agricultural, forestry, and livestock goods under extensive and sustainable management practices that maintain high levels of biodiversity, conserve soils, regulate the hydrological cycle, and contribute to carbon sequestration; indeed, it covers around four million hectares in the Iberian Peninsula [5,6]. This functioning has been possible thanks to a historical-environmental evolution in which traditional ecological knowledge has harmonized resource exploitation with the conservation of fundamental processes such as tree regeneration, soil fertility, and water balance [7,8,9]. Within this convergence of knowledge and practices lies its condition as a high-value biocultural landscape, where rural lifestyles, traditional crafts, and local knowledge configure an intangible heritage of notable ethnobiological richness [10,11,12].

However, the dehesa is currently subject to pressures that threaten its sustainability. The intensification of agricultural uses, the progressive abandonment of rural areas, landscape fragmentation, and the loss of profitability of traditional farms combine with the cumulative effects of climate change, weakening both the ecological functionality and the social structures that historically favored its resilience [13,14,15,16]. The globalization of agri-food markets has reinforced trends toward intensive production models disconnected from territorial logics, with impacts on cultural and economic homogenization in rural areas [17]. These transformations call for rethinking its management through approaches that recognize the system’s multifunctionality, its associated cultural capital, and the opportunities arising from its comprehensive valorization.

At this point, the legal-political framework provides elements of recognition and, at the same time, limitations that must be considered. In Extremadura, Law 1/1986, of 2 May, on the Dehesa, establishes its uniqueness and promotes its conservation, regeneration, and valorization as natural and cultural heritage, although it emphasizes agronomic criteria (minimum area and extensive livestock use) that do not always capture the socio-ecological complexity of the dehesa [18]. In contrast, the Green Book of the Dehesa proposes an integrative vision that conceives it as a rational and sustainable resource exploitation system based on the coexistence of multiple uses and the predominance of Quercus species producing acorns, introducing variables such as tree density and the ratio between wooded and unwooded areas to understand its spatial and functional diversity [19]. This tension between normative definitions and more holistic ecosystem conceptualizations underscores the need for place-sensitive policies that integrate production, conservation, and culture [20,21].

The intangible heritage associated with the dehesa—traditional ecological knowledge, crafts, and cultural practices—has been explicitly recognized by the UNESCO Convention (2003), which highlights intergenerational transmission as a condition for territorial sustainability [22]. Research shows that such transmission is not only an essential component of cultural heritage but also a key vector for sustainable resource management and socio-ecological resilience [23,24,25,26]. When transmission is interrupted, communities’ capacity to manage territory and conserve biodiversity is weakened [24,27]; conversely, its strengthening through support policies, education, and community participation increases adaptation to challenges such as climate change [23]. Incorporating this knowledge transmission into environmental governance frameworks and conservation strategies ensures greater equity, cultural relevance, and effectiveness of actions [26], while contributing to transforming cultural capital into territorial capital: a set of identities, practices, and knowledge that reinforce social cohesion, collective identity, and crisis response capacity [28,29,30,31].

Spatial inequalities typical of rural and peripheral territories, where the dehesa extends, justify the need to place spatial justice at the center of educational and territorial agendas. Distance, settlement dispersion, and lack of infrastructure limit access to educational and cultural resources. These deficits impact social cohesion and sustainable development, requiring public policies that address territorial specificities, improve accessibility, and promote equity [32,33,34]. In the educational sphere, equity is not limited to equal access: it involves recognizing and integrating local knowledge and practices into curricula, a condition that strengthens the cultural relevance of teaching in rural territories [35,36]. Hence, educational policies sensitive to place are recommended, with community participation in decision-making to ensure relevance and sustainability [37,38]. In regions such as Extremadura, the dehesa can and should operate as a proximity resource that compensates for the lower density of educational infrastructure and brings learning opportunities closer to students.

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) precisely promotes this logic of contextualization. UNESCO (2014) advocates integrating local contexts into educational processes, understanding that sustainability is learned through direct contact with territories and their problems [39]. Evidence indicates that incorporating local and indigenous knowledge into sustainability education fosters more meaningful learning, strengthens identity and cultural relevance, and improves academic outcomes by connecting content with students’ realities [40,41,42]. Furthermore, territorial contextualization enhances community participation, real problem-solving, and the development of key competencies for sustainability, such as critical thinking, collaboration, and transformative action [43,44]. All this gives the dehesa a central role as an open classroom where environmental and heritage education can be articulated in a situated and effective manner.

Nevertheless, recent research reveals a growing disconnection between younger generations and the rural environment due to increasing urbanization processes, so much so that the perception of the landscape by children living in urban areas differs from that of children living in rural areas [45]. Furthermore, Özdemir (2018) determined that learning verbal information through experience with visual data increased students’ levels of perception and awareness [46]. Alongside this, it is worth noting that children are aware of environmental problems evident in the places where they live and of possible future issues. They show clear environmental awareness [47]. In Primary Education, limited knowledge of the ecosystem is observed, with greater deficiencies in cultural and historical dimensions [48,49,50]. This situation is aggravated by the scarce presence of the dehesa in curricula and the lack of didactic proposals that integrate cultural and natural components in a transversal and meaningful way [51]. Although heritage education appears as a curricular axis, an excessively material and monumental orientation persists, relegating cultural landscapes and intangible knowledge linked to everyday life [52]. The result is a missed opportunity to develop critical, inclusive, and sustainability-oriented heritage education, as required by international ESD frameworks [39].

Incorporating the dehesa into Primary Education processes should not be interpreted as a mere expansion of content but as an opportunity to rethink methodologies, approaches, and objectives from territorial, ecological, and cultural perspectives. Specialized literature emphasizes that situated learning, based on direct experience and student participation, favors the development of competencies such as critical thinking, empathy, collaboration, and transformative action capacity [53]. In practice, this translates into proposals such as sensitive cartographies, school biodiversity laboratories, interviews with elders, and field trips, which promote interdisciplinary learning, a critical view of the environment, the identification of local problems, and the formulation of creative and contextualized solutions [54,55,56]. This experiential pedagogy—learning in, from, and with the territory—activates cognitive, emotional, and social processes that are difficult to reproduce in conventional classrooms and promotes inclusion, equity, and engaged citizenship [57,58,59,60,61].

Collaboration between schools, universities, and local actors—livestock farmers, artisans, cultural associations, environmental technicians—reinforces this orientation through participatory governance schemes that enrich educational processes, generate territorial synergies, and strengthen the social fabric. Immersive experiences, service-learning, and inter-institutional projects have proven effective in promoting meaningful learning and real commitments to sustainability, while favoring intergenerational knowledge transmission and the revaluation of crafts and practices [62,63,64]. In parallel, responsible tourism modalities—agrotourism, ecotourism, and educational tourism—help diversify the local economy, generate employment, strengthen the social fabric, and revalue heritage by facilitating direct interaction with the landscape and participation in traditional activities under sustainable management criteria [65,66]. In this framework, education and tourism act as complementary levers for sustainable rural development, provided they are designed with respect for ecosystem rhythms and capacities and with informed community participation [67,68,69].

On these bases, theoretical approaches to cultural landscape and cultural capital provide fertile analytical frameworks for understanding the dehesa and guiding educational interventions. The cultural landscape approach allows conceiving the dehesa as a symbolic and relational construction, an interweaving of materialities, practices, and meanings that are historically co-produced [70,71]. Bourdieu’s (1997) theory of cultural capital helps interpret the knowledge, skills, and dispositions linked to dehesa crafts as symbolic capital that can be mobilized to generate social recognition, collective self-esteem, and economic opportunities [72]. Integrating these frameworks into curriculum design and educational actions means recognizing and legitimizing local knowledge as a first-order pedagogical resource, in line with ESD recommendations and the need to strengthen community resilience [73,74].

Consistent with the above, studying the dehesa in Primary Education is justified for ecological, cultural, pedagogical, and territorial reasons. Ecologically, it offers the possibility of understanding the complexity of socio-ecological systems and the interdependence between society and nature, as well as experimenting with observation, analysis, and environmental care practices that translate into learning about biodiversity, soils, and the water cycle [5,6,7,8,9]. Culturally, it activates processes of symbolic appropriation of the territory and strengthening of the sense of belonging, essential for building resilient local identities, and enables the transmission and updating of traditional knowledge and crafts (transhumance, acorn collection, artisanal cheese-making, extensive livestock management), with impacts on collective self-esteem and continuity of intangible heritage [6,22,75,76]. Pedagogically, it articulates a critical and situated heritage education that aligns curricular content with students’ experience, improves motivation, and facilitates the development of sustainability competencies [44]. Finally, territorially, it contributes to spatial justice by bringing high-quality educational resources closer to rural contexts, mitigating inequalities in access and relevance [32,34].

It should be acknowledged that rural youth today face a double process of disengagement: on the one hand, limited job opportunities and social mobility in their home territories; on the other, the symbolic devaluation of the rural environment, often perceived as a space without a future [77]. This disconnection translates into a loss of cultural capital linked to the dehesa and, consequently, a reduction in communities’ adaptive capacity. The response requires integrated, interdisciplinary, and territorially adapted approaches that recognize the system’s multifunctionality and its value as a strategic resource for sustainable rural development [78,79,80]. In this horizon, the intersection between education, heritage, and territorial planning—supported by participatory governance, social innovation, and multi-actor alliances—emerges as a promising path to ensure the continuity of the dehesa as a resilient socio-ecological system and shared cultural legacy [81,82].

From this applied orientation, the present study focuses on childhood as a key agent for rearticulating links between territory and community. Direct contact of students with the dehesa and its traditional practices—visits to livestock farms, dairies, artisanal workshops—favors the revaluation of TEK, the strengthening of local identity, and the intergenerational transmission of knowledge, while promoting a critical, empathetic, and committed citizenship in the face of sustainability challenges [6,75,83]. Integrating these learnings into coherent curricular proposals—from classroom projects to didactic itineraries—implies recognizing that the dehesa is not only a productive ecosystem but a complex socio-ecological construction in which ecological, economic, cultural, and symbolic dimensions converge [10,11,12,70,71,72].

The continuity of this discourse therefore demands a dual movement: on the one hand, ensuring public policies and regulatory frameworks that recognize and support the diversity of dehesa configurations and management practices, incorporating ecosystemic and cultural criteria alongside agronomic ones [20,21]; on the other, deploying situated educational practices that integrate local heritage into the curriculum, reduce territorial gaps, and promote school-community-university alliances, as well as educational tourism and agrotourism modalities compatible with carrying capacity and heritage safeguarding [32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Only in this way can the dehesa continue to offer a privileged environment for integral learning, value acquisition, and the construction of life projects linked to the territory, in line with sustainability and territorial cohesion agendas [73,74].

To contribute to this agenda, this study presented here is structured around a series of objectives and empirical contrasts that take as their starting point the perceptions and knowledge of Primary Education students about the dehesa. Specifically, the following objectives are proposed: (i) to explore the degree of knowledge and perception that students have about the dehesa; (ii) to identify the heritage elements that are most attractive to them; (iii) to analyze differences in heritage valuation according to variables such as place of residence or frequency of visits to the natural environment; (iv) to determine the activities preferred by students to carry out in the dehesa; and (v) to locate educational centers close to well-preserved dehesa areas, in order to promote their use as educational spaces. These objectives derive from the premise that the dehesa, as a cultural landscape, constitutes a strategic educational resource to align heritage and environmental education with territorial planning in a sustainability key [8,10,11,42,44].

Based on this justification and the reviewed literature, the following starting hypotheses are formulated: (H1) Primary Education students have limited knowledge about the dehesa, especially regarding its cultural components, such as traditional crafts, tree species, and derived products; (H2) their perception tends to focus on natural values and biodiversity, while cultural aspects go relatively unnoticed; (H3) there is a greater appreciation of natural, landscape, and gastronomic resources compared to elements of intangible heritage; (H4) urban or rural origin does not significantly influence heritage valuation, although it does condition the frequency of visits and contact with the environment; and (H5) place of residence modulates the activities that are most attractive to students, which can guide the design of more contextualized educational proposals. These hypotheses guide the empirical analysis and, in turn, aim to provide evidence for the design of policies and educational practices that strengthen the link between childhood, territory, and heritage, an essential condition to guarantee the continuity of the dehesa as a resilient socio-ecological system and as a shared cultural legacy [72,73,74].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Study Area

The region selected for this research is Extremadura, an autonomous community located in southwestern Spain, comprising the provinces of Cáceres and Badajoz. With an area of 41,634 km², it is one of the largest regions in the country, although also one of the least populated. According to official data from the National Institute of Statistics, in January 2025 the total population was 1,052,998, of which 108,250 were under 12 years of age, representing approximately 10.3% of the total population [84]. These students are distributed among 572 nursery and primary schools, in addition to 18 special education centers [85].

In the field of education, during the 2024–2025 school year, Extremadura had a total of 1047 non-university educational centers, distributed among early childhood education, primary education, secondary education, high school, vocational training, and special education 1. In terms of school enrollment, there were 22,940 students enrolled in the first and second cycles of early childhood education, in addition to 55,888 students in primary education and 779 in special education. In addition, 47,312 students were enrolled in compulsory secondary education (ESO), 15,204 were enrolled in upper secondary education, and 17,890 were enrolled in vocational training courses, both intermediate and advanced [85].

Furthermore, more than 80% of Extremadura’s students attend public schools, placing the region among the autonomous communities with the highest proportion of public education in Spain. This characteristic reflects the strong influence of the public education system in the region, especially in rural and sparsely populated areas, where the network of subsidized and private schools is more limited.

In addition, the area of dehesa landscapes in this autonomous community covers more than 1,450,000 hectares. This makes it one of the areas with the highest representation of this agrosystem [75] in the Iberian context and makes it an ideal setting for implementing specific policies to enhance its value (Figure 1). In addition, it is necessary to highlight their good ecological condition, possibly due to the low demographic pressure they experience. To understand this, it is necessary to consider that the region has a population density of barely 25 inhabitants per km². This figure is even lower in the dehesa areas, where the dispersion of the population and rurality are particularly pronounced.

Beyond its productive function, the dehesa is also a space steeped in cultural and heritage values. A significant percentage of Extremadura’s dehesas are located within protected areas, such as the Natura 2000 Network, natural parks, and biosphere reserves, which reinforces their role in biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services [86]. They also preserve material elements such as livestock trails, farmhouses, huts, dry stone walls, fountains, and hermitages, many of which are protected or listed as immovable cultural heritage. Unfortunately, however, many others are abandoned and almost in ruins. In addition, there are monumental sites of great historical value, such as Trujillo, and natural areas of international importance, such as Monfragüe and Villuercas-Ibores-Jara. Likewise, the associated intangible heritage—traditional crafts, transhumance, knowledge linked to land management—constitutes a living legacy, although one that is increasingly fragile due to the lack of generational renewal [77,83]. In this sense, rural tourism, hunting tourism [87], and agrotourism [82], together with initiatives to enhance heritage, are emerging as ways to diversify the economy and strengthen territorial roots. Although their demographic impact is still limited, these activities contribute to revaluing the rural environment and strengthening the link between the population and the territory [88,89].

Therefore, the integration of heritage education and the promotion of sustainable tourism experiences are key strategies for ensuring the active conservation of the dehesa and addressing the demographic challenges that threaten its continuity as a cultural landscape and way of life.

2.2. Data and Processing

The data were obtained through a survey conducted among third-cycle primary education students during May and June 2025, as detailed in the survey technical data sheet (

Table 1. Survey technical data sheet.

Study title:	Image of the dehesa among third-cycle primary education students
General objective:	To ascertain the image of the dehesa among third-cycle primary school, as well as their preferences in relation to different activities that take place in this landscape students.
Geographical scope:	Area where this study was conducted: Extremadura
Study population:	55,888 (primary school students)
Sample size:	233 people
Type of sampling:	Intentional and convenience
Margin of error and confidence level:	±3.5% for a 95% confidence level
Data collection technique:	Face-to-face survey
Method of application:	CAPI (Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing)
Average interview duration:	15–20 min
Fieldwork period:	May and June 2025
Ethical Considerations: The survey, conducted within the framework of the research project “Dehesa Heritage: A Comparison Between Primary School Students in Rural and Urban Areas”, received approval from the Ethics Committee of the University of Extremadura on 12 May 2025. Given that the participants were minors, explicit authorization was also obtained from the principals of the participating schools, as well as informed consent from the students’ parents or legal guardians.

).

The survey consists of 11 items, 10 closed-ended and 1 open-ended, designed to capture different dimensions of students’ relationship with the dehesa as a cultural landscape (

Table 2. Survey questions.

Questions	Hypotheses	Objectives
Q1. Do you usually go to the countryside?	H4: Urban or rural origin does not significantly influence heritage valuation, although it does condition the frequency of visits and contact with the environment.	(iii) Analyze differences in heritage valuation according to variables such as place of residence or frequency of visits to the natural environment.
Q2. Do you usually have contact with farm animals other than pets: pigs, cows, sheep…?
Q3. Do you like being in nature?
Q4. Who do you usually go to the countryside with?
Q5. Do you live in a village or a city?
Q6. What traditional trades do you know?	H1: Limited knowledge about the dehesa, especially regarding its cultural components (traditional crafts, tree species, derived products).	(i) Explore the degree of knowledge and perception that students have about the dehesa.
Q7. What products do the dehesa provide?
Q8. What vegetation is typical of the dehesa?
Q9. How much do you like it? Dehesa with oak trees and a pond Shearer Pigs in the montanera Shepherd Traditional shepherd’s huts Beekeeper Production of traditional products (cheeses, sausages, etc.) Cork extractor Pigsties/pens Charcoal burner	H2: Perception tends to focus on natural values and biodiversity; cultural aspects go relatively unnoticed. H3: Greater appreciation of natural, landscape, and gastronomic resources compared to elements of intangible heritage.	(ii) Identify the heritage elements that are most attractive to students.
Q10. Write down the first three words that you associate with the dehesa.	Related to H2 and H3: Predominance of natural terms over cultural ones.	(i) Explore perceptions about the dehesa.
Q11. Which of the following activities would you prefer?	H5: Place of residence modulates the activities that are most attractive to students.	(iv) Determine the activities preferred by students in the dehesa.

).

The first group of questions (1–5) explores the degree of interaction with rural environments and the place of residence, whether urban or rural. These variables provide indicators of exposure to nature, frequency of visits to the countryside, and social context, such as whether visits occur alone or accompanied by family or peers. Understanding these aspects is essential for interpreting how direct contact with natural settings influences heritage perception and environmental attitudes. The second group (Questions 6–8) focuses on cultural knowledge of the dehesa, addressing recognition of traditional trades, characteristic products, and typical vegetation. These items are critical for assessing awareness of tangible heritage and for determining whether cultural dimensions—often less visible than ecological ones—are integrated into students’ conceptual frameworks. Identifying gaps in this knowledge is fundamental for designing educational interventions that reinforce cultural heritage awareness.

Question 9 introduces a perceptual dimension through AI-generated images depicting natural and cultural elements of the dehesa, allowing the evaluation of attractiveness and preference for specific resources. Question 11 complements this by identifying activities students would most like to engage in within the dehesa, providing insights for the development of contextualized educational proposals aligned with students’ interests and territorial realities.

The open-ended question (Question 10) captures spontaneous associations with the dehesa, offering qualitative data on mental representations and symbolic interpretations. This item is particularly relevant for detecting implicit values and emotional connections that structured questions may not reveal. Additionally, this study includes the identification of educational centers located near well-preserved dehesa areas, supporting the integration of cultural landscapes into formal education and reinforcing the link between heritage, territory, and sustainability. The complete questionnaire is available in the Supplementary Material.

The responses were used to create a database that underwent two types of processing. On the one hand, statistical analysis was used, and on the other, semantic analysis was applied.

The database generated has been subjected to a basic statistical analysis, but one that is highly relevant to achieving the objectives proposed in this research. It focuses on the joint analysis of frequency distribution tables, contingency tables, the chi-square test, and Cramer’s V coefficient. Despite its simplicity, it constitutes a robust methodological strategy for exploring and quantifying relationships between categorical variables, widely used in disciplines such as epidemiology, psychology, sociology, and behavioral sciences. This approach allows not only the identification of patterns of association but also the evaluation of their statistical significance and intensity, providing a solid empirical basis for the interpretation of complex phenomena.

Frequency distribution tables are the starting point for organizing and visualizing categorical data, facilitating the identification of trends, asymmetries, and possible biases in the distribution of categories [90]. When the analytical objective is oriented toward exploring relationships between two qualitative variables, contingency tables are used, which allow us to observe the joint frequency of occurrence of the categories and detect possible structural dependencies between them [91,92].

The chi-square test of independence is applied to these tables, which contrasts the observed frequencies with those expected under the null hypothesis of independence between variables. The resulting statistics allow us to determine whether the observed association is statistically significant, that is, whether it is unlikely to have occurred by chance [93]. However, this contrast does not provide information on the magnitude of the effect, which limits its interpretive capacity in practical terms. It is therefore essential to consider that the validity of the chi-square test depends on certain assumptions, such as the sample size and the magnitude of the expected frequencies in each cell [94]. To overcome this limitation, Cramer’s V coefficient is incorporated, a normalized measure of association that quantifies the strength of the relationship between categorical variables. This coefficient is especially useful in non-square contingency tables or tables larger than 2 × 2, and its value ranges from 0 (no association) to 1 (perfect association), which facilitates its comparative interpretation [95].

Taken together, this integrated methodological approach not only allows us to detect the existence of associations between categorical variables, but also to estimate their empirical relevance and understand the underlying structure of the data. Its rigorous application is essential to ensure the internal validity of studies and to support solid inferences in quantitative research of an explanatory or exploratory nature.

The present analysis is complemented by the application of computer-assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS) techniques, which allow for the systematic, rigorous, and traceable management of unstructured data—such as texts, interview transcripts, images, audio and video files—in the context of scientific research. This methodological approach is based on the segmentation of the corpus into units of meaning, the analytical coding of relevant fragments, and the construction of conceptual networks that enable the identification of patterns, semantic relationships, and emerging categories. This study used Atlas.ti v.25 software, a specialized tool that offers advanced features for code management, analytical memo creation, co-occurrence visualization, and conceptual map generation. These capabilities not only optimize the organization of qualitative material but also reinforce the transparency of the analytical process by allowing for the traceability of interpretive decisions and the replicability of the procedure [96].

Specifically, semantic analyses based on word frequencies were carried out to identify the terms most frequently repeated by students. In this process, empty terms that are too general or do not provide any excluded information (much, quite, no, be, aspect, etc.). Concepts that refer to the same reality (tree and grove; flora and have also been unified vegetation; livestock farmer and livestock farming; tranquility and tranquil, etc.), choosing the word that is repeated the most times. After this selection process, a total of 610 terms were recognized. Finally, this analysis has made it possible to synthesize and project the students’ perceptions in an illustrative way using word clouds. To do this were, terms repeated more than 10 times considered.

About spatial analysis, the geographical location of the educational centers, as well as information on the distribution and conservation status of the dehesas in the autonomous community of Extremadura, was obtained from the Extremadura Territorial Information System (SITEX). This platform, managed by the Regional Government of Extremadura, provides geospatial data under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) license, which guarantees free access, reuse, and scientific traceability [97].

Based on these layers of georeferenced information, the minimum distance between each educational center and the dehesas classified as best preserved has been calculated. To do this, ArcGIS version 10.8 software was used, employing spatial analysis tools that allow proximity relationships between vector entities to be determined. This procedure has made it possible to generate a key quantitative variable for this study, which serves as an indicator of the potential accessibility of schools to the dehesa do environment in optimal conservation conditions.

2.3. Workflow

This research is structured around six distinct phases, ranging from a review of the literature to a presentation of the main conclusions of this study (Figure 2).

The first phase corresponds to the introduction, conceived as the space for theoretical foundation and delimitation of the object of study. At this stage, a systematic and critical review of the specialized literature is carried out, aimed at identifying gaps in knowledge, conceptual tensions, and relevant methodological approaches. Based on this analysis, the research problem is formulated with analytical precision, and the general and specific objectives are defined, which serve as the backbone of the methodological design and empirical scope of this study.

The second phase focuses on the description of the methodology and design of this study, where the epistemological position is made explicit and the most appropriate methodological strategies (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed) are selected. This section details the data collection instruments, sampling criteria, units of analysis, and validation procedures. Specific techniques are incorporated, such as the design of structured surveys, the development of protocols for qualitative analysis, and the application of geographic information systems (GIS), which allow for an accurate spatial representation of the phenomena observed.

The third phase, corresponding to data collection and analysis, constitutes the empirical core of the research process. It includes the implementation of field instruments (surveys and participant observation), the statistical processing of quantitative data, and the thematic coding of qualitative information.

The results section presents the findings in a systematic, objective manner, without interpretation. This section will include thematic maps, comparative analyses between population subgroups, and descriptions of territorial patterns.

The discussion constitutes the space for critical interpretation, where the results are contextualized in relation to the theoretical framework, contrasted with previous studies, and theoretical, methodological, and practical implications are derived. Likewise, the limitations of this study are identified, and its original contributions are highlighted. In applied research, this section may include proposals for intervention or territorial management strategies.

Finally, the conclusion summarizes the main findings, evaluates the degree to which the objectives have been met, and proposes future lines of research. This phase closes the research cycle, highlighting this study’s contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge and its applicability in real and complex contexts.

3. Results

3.1. Involvement with the Field and the Rural World

The results obtained through the questionnaire reveal a complex and nuanced reality: the relationship between students and the rural and natural environment is neither homogeneous nor linear, but is constructed from multiple interacting factors—geographical, cultural, emotional, and educational. From both a quantitative and qualitative perspective, the data reveal patterns of behavior and perception that, while showing a frequent presence in natural environments, also hint at a certain disconnect with the dynamics of the rural world (

Table 3. Main characteristics of respondents and their relationship with the countryside.

Question	Frequency		Percentage
	No	Yes	No	Yes
1. Do you usually go to the countryside?	89	144	38.2	61.8
2. Do you usually have contact with farm animals other than pets: pigs, cows, sheep…?	134	99	57.5	42.5
3. Do you like being in nature?
Very much	107		45.9
Quite	77		33.0
Somewhat	40		17.25
Very little	7		3.0
None	2		0.9
4. Who do you usually go to the countryside with?
With friends	25		10.7
With school or on field trips	4		1.7
With my family	187		80.3
I don’t usually go to the countryside	17		7.3%
5. Do you live in a village or a city?
Village	134		57.5%
City	99		42.5

).

A first reading reveals that 61.8% of students regularly visit the countryside. This figure suggests good accessibility to the natural environment and a certain continuity in contact with it, due to geographical proximity and established family habits. However, when we look more closely at the quality of this experience, the picture becomes more nuanced: only 42.5% say they have contact with farm animals such as cows, pigs, or sheep. This data points to a more superficial experience of the countryside, focused on walking or enjoying the scenery, but far removed from the productive and cultural processes that have historically defined life in rural areas.

In emotional terms, the relationship with nature is stronger. Almost 79% of students say they are “very much” or “quite” like being in nature, which constitutes an important emotional basis on which to build meaningful educational proposals. This affinity, however, is not universal: a small but significant 3.9% express little or no interest in the natural environment. This indifference could be related to a lack of previous experiences, the urbanization of lifestyles, or the absence of cultural references that value the rural environment as a space for learning and belonging.

The context in which visits to the countryside take place also offers valuable insights. Most students (80.3%) visit the countryside accompanied by their families, while only 10.7% do so with friends and a mere 1.7% as part of school activities. This data reinforces the role of the family environment as the main mediator in the relationship with nature, but it also highlights a structural deficiency: the lack of trips to the rural environment in formal educational programming. Schools, as socializing institutions, have not yet systematically integrated the territory as a pedagogical resource, which represents a strategic opportunity for the development of active methodologies such as experiential learning, fieldwork, and heritage education, as well as for educational tourism experiences.

Finally, the place of residence of the students—57.5% in villages and 42.5% in cities—introduces a contextual variable that helps to understand part of the results. Although one might expect that living in a rural environment would foster a closer relationship with nature, the data show that geographical rurality does not guarantee experiential or symbolic rurality. In other words, living in a village does not necessarily imply being connected to its practices, values, or landscapes.

Overall, the results paint a picture of a frequent but functionally weak relationship with the rural environment. Students are physically present in the countryside, but they do not always experience it in an emotional, transformative, or critical way. This finding invites us to rethink the role of territory in teaching and learning processes. It is not just a matter of taking students to the countryside, but of helping them to see, feel, understand, and appreciate what happens there. To this end, it is necessary to design educational strategies that integrate ecological knowledge, rural issues, rural memory, and sustainability as the backbone of the curriculum, promoting an emotional and cultural appropriation of the environment that contributes to forming citizens who are more aware, sensitive, and committed to their territory.

Statistical analysis reveals differences in the relationship with the rural environment between people living in urban and rural contexts. In line with this, the results obtained allow us to identify different patterns that reflect not only physical access to the natural environment, but also the ways in which it is experienced, valued, and shared by different population groups (

Table 4. Main characteristics of respondents and their relationship with the countryside according to place of residence.

Q1. Do you normally go to the countryside?
	No	Yes				Chi	Cramer’s V
City	44.8	55.2				0.016	0.016
Village	29.3	70.7
Q2. Do you usually have contact with farm animals?
	No	Yes				Chi	Cramer’s V
City	68.7%	31.3				0.000	0.26
Village	42.4	57.6
Q3. Do you like being in nature?
	Very much	Quite	Somewhat	Not very	Not at all	Chi	Cramer’s V
City	48.5	30.6	17.9	1.5	1.5	0.286	0.15
Village	42.4	36.4	16.2	5.1	0.0
Q4. Who do you usually go to the countryside with?
	With friends	With school	With my family	I don’t usually go to the countryside		Chi	V de Cramer
City	36.0	100.0	58.8	64.7		0.042	0.19
Village	64.0	0.0	41.2	35.3

).

First, it was observed that the frequency with which people visit the countryside varies significantly depending on their place of residence. Seventy-seven percent of rural residents said they go to the countryside regularly, compared to 55.2% of urban residents. Although this difference was statistically significant, χ² = 0.016, the effect size was very low (Cramer’s V = 0.016), suggesting a weak association between the two variables.

In relation to direct contact with farm animals, the data revealed a more pronounced difference. Fifty-seven-point six percent of rural residents reported having regular contact with animals, compared to 31.3% of urban residents. This difference was highly significant, χ² = 0.000, and had a moderate effect size (Cramer’s V = 0.26), indicating a substantial relationship between the residential environment and interaction with rural wildlife.

Regarding personal preferences for nature, both groups showed a positive assessment, although with nuances. Forty-eight-point five percent of respondents in urban schools said they “very much” like being in nature, compared to 42.4% of rural respondents. The latter, however, showed a more balanced distribution between the categories “very much” and “quite a lot.” The difference was statistically significant, χ² = 0.286, although with a low effect size (Cramer’s V = 0.15), suggesting that, while there are differences in the intensity of enjoyment, appreciation for nature is a widely shared value.

Finally, when analyzing who participants usually go to the countryside with, relevant differences were identified in the social dynamics associated with this activity. Rural residents tend to go more with friends (64%), while urban residents do so more frequently with family (58.8%) and, notably, with school (100%). This difference was significant, χ² = 0.042, and had a low-moderate effect size (Cramer’s V = 0.19), suggesting that the context of residence influences the forms of socialization linked to the natural environment.

Taken together, these results emphasize that the residential environment conditions not only access the natural environment, but also the way in which it is experienced, valued, and shared. The differences observed, although subtle in some cases, offer important clues for understanding contemporary relationships with nature and can inform educational, environmental, and territorial policies aimed at strengthening the link with the rural environment from an inclusive and contextualized perspective.

3.2. Concept of the Dehesa

3.2.1. Traditional Trades

A descriptive analysis was carried out of the declared knowledge of various traditional trades in the rural environment, with the aim of exploring possible differences between people living in urban and rural contexts. This exploration is part of a broader interest in understanding how knowledge about the working heritage linked to the natural environment is preserved, transmitted, and transformed depending on the living environment (

Table 5. Traditional trades associated with the dehesa.

	Total		City		Village
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Q6a. Shepherd	219	94.0	125	57.1	94	42.9
Q6b. Beekeeper	127	54.5	77	60.6	50	39.4
Q6c. Shearer	144	61.8	81	56.3	63	43.8
Q6d. Carbonero	87	37.3	53	60.9	34	39.1
Q6e. Cork extractor	104	44.6	71	68.3	33	31.7
Q6f. Fisherman	2	0.9	1	50.0	1	50.0
Q6g. Farmer	21	9.0	9	42.9	12	57.1
Q6h. Livestock farmer	27	11.6	9	33.3	18	66.7
Q6i. Farmer	1	0.4	0	0.0	1	100.0
Q6j. Hunter	3	1.3	3	100.0	0	0.0
Q6k. I don’t know	6	2.6	4	66.7	2	33.3

).

The results show that the profession of shepherd is by far the most widely recognized by the sample, with 94.0% of mentions. This high frequency suggests that shepherding maintains a strong symbolic and cultural presence, possibly due to its representation in educational, cultural, and tourist media. The distribution between urban (57.1%) and rural (42.9%) residents is relatively balanced, indicating that this knowledge transcends the immediate geographical context and is part of the collective imagination.

Other occupations also enjoy high levels of recognition, such as shearer (61.8%), beekeeper (54.5%), and cork harvester (44.6%). In these cases, although most mentions come from urban dwellers, the difference is not extreme, suggesting a certain cultural dissemination of these trades, possibly through school programs, environmental education activities, or initiatives to promote rural heritage. The case of beekeeping is particularly interesting, as 60.6% of those who mention it live in cities, which could reflect a growing interest in urban beekeeping or its role in environmental sustainability, given the increasing visibility of bees in contemporary ecological discourse.

In contrast, some occupations show a clear association with rural areas. 66.7% of those who mention livestock farming as a known occupation live in villages, compared to 33.3% in cities. Similarly, farming is more widely recognized by people in rural areas (57.1%) than in urban areas (42.9%). These data suggest that, although these occupations remain fundamental to the rural economy and culture, their visibility in urban contexts is more limited, which could be related to processes of territorial disconnection and the loss of traditional productive references in cities.

Other occupations, such as charcoal burner (37.3%) or cork harvester (44.6%), although less well known in absolute terms, maintain a relatively balanced distribution between the two groups. This could be interpreted as an indication that, although their active practice has declined, their presence in the collective memory is maintained thanks to their heritage value or their inclusion in historical and cultural narratives.

The least associated occupations were fisherman (0.9%), farmer (0.4%), and hunter (1.3%), with very low frequencies and unrepresentative distributions. It should be noted that hunters were mentioned exclusively by urban respondents, while farmers were only recognized by one rural respondent. Although these data do not allow for firm conclusions due to the low number of cases, they do invite reflection on the invisibility of certain occupations or activities in contemporary discourse, as well as on the possible stigmas or transformations associated with them.

Finally, a small percentage of participants (2.6%) stated that they did not know any of the occupations listed. This response, although a minority, can be interpreted as an indicator of cultural disconnection from the rural world, especially considering that most of the occupations mentioned have historically been fundamental to life in the countryside.

Overall, the results show that knowledge of traditional rural occupations is not distributed evenly among the population, and that the place of residence influences familiarity with certain professions. While some trades maintain a strong symbolic presence in both contexts, others seem to be more rooted in direct experience of the rural environment. These findings reinforce the need to promote educational and cultural strategies that reconnect the urban population with rural knowledge, not only as a way of preserving intangible heritage, but also as a means of fostering a deeper and more respectful understanding of the territory and its knowledge.

3.2.2. Products of Dehesa Landscapes

A descriptive analysis of declared knowledge about rural products was carried out, with the aim of identifying differential patterns between people living in urban and rural contexts. This distribution suggests that, although knowledge about rural products is present in both contexts, their nature and depth may vary depending on the life experience and everyday environment of the participants (

Table 6. Products associated with the dehesa landscapes.

	Total		City		Village
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Q7a. Iberian pork	150	64.4	83	55.3	67	44.7
Q7b. Beef	101	43.3	48	47.5	53	52.5
Q7c. Sheep	101	43.3	48	47.5	53	52.5
Q7d. Goat	101	43.3	48	47.5	53	52.5
Q7e. Firewood and charcoal	92	39.5	43	46.7	49	53.3
Q7f. Cork	89	38.2	53	59.6	36	40.4
Q7g. Honey	103	44.2	62	60.2	41	39.8
Q7h. Mushrooms	124	53.2	63	50.8	61	49.2
Q7i. Asparagus	124	53.2	63	50.8	61	49.2
Q7j. Acorns	4	1.7	2	50.0	2	50.0
Q7k. I don’t know	50	21.5	32	64.0	18	36.0

).

The most widely recognized product was Iberian pork, with 64.4% of mentions. This result is consistent with the symbolic, economic, and cultural centrality of this animal in regions such as Extremadura, where its extensive breeding in dehesas is not only a productive activity but also a deeply rooted element of identity. The distribution of mentions between cities (55.3%) and villages (44.7%) indicates that awareness of this product transcends the rural sphere, probably due to its presence in gastronomy, tourism, and the media. This phenomenon can be interpreted as an example of how certain rural products manage to enter the urban collective imagination through processes of cultural and commercial valorization.

At a second level of recognition are livestock products such as beef, sheep, and goat, all with 43.3% of mentions. Unlike Iberian pork, these products have a slight majority of mentions in rural areas (52.5%), suggesting greater familiarity derived from direct experience or the local productive environment. This difference, although not extreme, points to a persistent connection between rural life and knowledge of traditional livestock farming, which continues to be a source of identity, livelihood, and intergenerational transmission of knowledge.

Other products, such as firewood and charcoal (39.5%) and cork (38.2%), show different patterns that reflect different ways of relating to natural resources. Firewood and charcoal are more widely recognized by rural people (53.3%), which may be linked to their continued use in homes or agricultural activities, especially in areas where traditional energy sources remain relevant. In contrast, cork is mentioned more often by urban students (59.6%), which could be due to its growing value as an ecological and renewable material in urban contexts, especially in sectors such as design, sustainable architecture, and fashion. In addition, it is also possible that this is related to the information included in the textbooks they use. This contrast illustrates how the same resource can take on different meanings depending on the context: functional and every day in rural areas, symbolic and aesthetic in urban areas.

Products such as honey (44.2%), mushrooms (53.2%), and asparagus (53.2%) show a more balanced distribution between the two groups, although with a slight urban majority in the case of honey (60.2%). These products, associated with both harvesting and artisanal production, seem to have gained visibility in both contexts, possibly due to their link to healthy eating practices, ecotourism, or local cuisine. Their presence in local markets, agri-food fairs, and responsible consumption campaigns may have contributed to their spread beyond rural areas.

The case of acorns is marginal, with only 1.7% of mentions and an equal distribution between cities and villages. This low level of recognition may be since, although they are essential in the diet of Iberian pigs, they are not usually perceived as a product for direct human consumption, which limits their visibility. However, their low mention rate can also be interpreted as a symptom of the disconnect between end products and the ecological processes that sustain them.

Finally, 21.5% of participants stated that they did not know how to identify products from the rural environment. This response was more frequent among urban dwellers (64.0%), which could be interpreted as an indicator of disconnection from the natural environment or less exposure to rural contexts. This finding is particularly relevant from an educational perspective, as it highlights the need to strengthen knowledge about the rural environment in urban contexts, not only as part of the curriculum, but also as part of a broader territorial literacy. Lack of familiarity with farm products not only limits understanding of food and ecological systems but also impoverishes the symbolic and emotional relationship with the territory.

In summary, the results show that knowledge about agricultural products is conditioned by the environment in which people live, although there are significant areas of convergence. While rural inhabitants tend to be more familiar with products linked to livestock farming and the direct use of natural resources, urban dwellers are more familiar with products that have been revalued in contemporary environmental, gastronomic, or cultural discourse. These findings reinforce the importance of promoting territorially sensitive education that recognizes and values rural knowledge as part of our common heritage and as the basis for a more sustainable, informed, and respectful relationship with the environment. Furthermore, they invite us to rethink cultural and educational policies from a perspective that integrates the rural world not as a fading past, but as a living present that is necessary for imagining more balanced and resilient futures [20].

3.2.3. Dehesa Vegetation

The dehesa is defined precisely by its vegetation structure, consisting of a mosaic of scattered trees, Mediterranean scrub, and grasslands, the result of centuries of human interaction in balance with nature. The analysis of the responses allows us to identify not only which species are most recognized, but also how the vegetation that sustains this cultural landscape is perceived and valued. To achieve this, a descriptive analysis of the declared knowledge about different types of vegetation and rural landscapes was carried out, with the aim of identifying differential patterns between people living in urban and rural contexts.

The total sample collected 747 mentions, of which 55.2% came from students living in cities and 44.8% from residents of villages. This relatively balanced distribution suggests that knowledge about the rural landscape is not restricted exclusively to the environment in which one lives, although significant differences are observed depending on the type of vegetation recognized (

Table 7. Vegetation associated with the dehesa.

	Total		City		Village
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Q8a. Holm oaks and cork oaks	162	69.5	85	52.5	77	47.5
Q8b. Rockroses	87	37.3	36	41.4	51	58.6
Q8c. Robles	74	31.8	43	58.1	31	41.9
Q8d. Olive trees	141	60.5	82	58.2	59	41.8
Q8e. Eucalyptus trees	49	21.0	20	40.8	29	59.2
Q8f. Gall oaks	74	31.8	43	58.1	31	41.9
Q8g. Fruit trees	70	30.0	46	65.7	24	34.3
Q8h. Dehesas without trees	43	18.5	24	55.8	19	44.2
Q8i. I don’t know	47	20.2	33	70.2	14	29.8

).

The most widely identified type of landscape was formed by holm oaks and cork oaks, with 69.5% of mentions. This result reflects the centrality of the dehesa as an emblematic ecosystem of the southwestern peninsula, especially in regions such as Extremadura. Its widespread recognition in both urban (52.5%) and rural (47.5%) contexts indicate that this landscape has transcended its local dimension to become a widely recognized cultural and ecological symbol. In addition to its productive value, the dehesa represents a model of sustainable land management, which may explain its presence in educational, tourism, and environmental discourse.

Olive trees were the second most mentioned type of vegetation (60.5%), with many urban mentions (58.2%). This data can be interpreted because of the strong presence of olive trees in Mediterranean food culture, as well as their visibility in everyday consumer products such as olive oil. Unlike other elements of the rural landscape, the olive tree has been widely integrated into the urban imagination, not only as a crop, but also as a symbol of tradition, health, and sustainability. However, its inclusion reveals a significant lack of knowledge about the trees that make up the dehesa.

At an intermediate level of recognition are species such as oak and gall oak (both with 31.8% of mentions), whose distribution is slightly higher in urban environments (58.1%). This trend may be because, although these species are not predominant in all territories, their presence in schoolbooks, urban parks, and reforestation campaigns has contributed to their cultural dissemination. In this sense, knowledge does not always derive from direct experience, but also from educational and symbolic mediation.

In contrast, rock roses (37.3%) and eucalyptus trees (21.0%) were more widely recognized by people in rural areas (58.6% and 59.2%, respectively). In the case of rock roses, their abundance in scrubland areas and their traditional use in activities such as beekeeping or the production of essences may explain their greater familiarity among those who live in direct contact with the natural environment. The case of eucalyptus trees, an exotic species that has nothing to do with the dehesa, is more complex, although they form part of the forest landscape in many rural areas due to their use in the timber industry, which also explains their greater recognition in these contexts. However, their lesser presence in urban environmental discourse, where they are often associated with negative impacts on biodiversity, could explain their scarcity of mention among urban residents.

Fruit trees (30.0%) were mentioned mainly by urban dwellers (65.7%), which could be interpreted as an idealization of the rural landscape from the city. In many cases, fruit trees are associated with family or community, gardens, or recreational activities, rather than intensive agricultural operations. This perception, although positive, may be more linked to a symbolic image of the countryside than to a deep understanding of its productive reality.

Treeless dehesas were the least mentioned type of landscape (18.5%), with a slightly higher distribution in urban areas (55.8%). This low frequency may be because open spaces without tree vegetation tend to be less valued or recognized as part of the rural landscape, despite their ecological and livestock importance. Their lack of visibility may be related to an aesthetic perception that favors wooded landscapes or to a lack of information about their ecological function.

Finally, 20.2% of participants stated that they did not know how to identify types of vegetation or rural landscapes. This response was significantly more frequent among urban dwellers (70.2%), which could be interpreted as an indicator of disconnection from the natural environment or less exposure to rural settings. This finding is relevant from an educational perspective, as it highlights the need to reinforce knowledge about elements of the natural landscape as part of our shared cultural and ecological heritage. Lack of familiarity with the elements that make up the natural environment not only limits understanding of ecosystems but also improves the symbolic and emotional relationship with the territory.

Therefore, the results reflect that knowledge about types of vegetation and rural landscapes is conditioned by the environment of residence, although with significant areas of convergence. While rural residents tend to recognize elements of Mediterranean scrubland and forest use more frequently, urban residents show greater familiarity with more symbolic or idealized landscapes. This highlights the importance of promoting ecological and territorial literacy that connects the population with their environment, recognizing the diversity of rural landscapes and their productive and cultural value. Promoting this type of knowledge not only contributes to the conservation of the natural environment but also strengthens the sense of belonging and shared responsibility towards the territories we inhabit and on which we depend.

3.3. Resource Assessment

Table 8. Resource assessment (5 = very much/1 = not at all).

	Mean	SD	Md	Mo	City	Village	% City	% Village	Chi	V Cramer
Q9a. Dehesa with holm oaks and pond	4.3	0.8	4	5	581	421	58.0	42.0	0.140	0.170
Q9b. Shearer	3.6	1.1	4	3	467	375	55.5	44.5	0.076	0.190
Q9c. Pigs in free-range farming	3.8	1.1	4	4	507	369	57.9	42.1	0.113	0.180
Q9d. Shepherd	4.1	1.1	4	5	541	415	56.6	43.4	0.151	0.170
Q9e. Traditional shepherd’s huts	3.4	1.3	4	4	440	346	56.0	44.0	0.070	0.190
Q9f. Beekeeper	3.2	1.4	3	3	416	320	56.5	43.5	0.800	0.080
Q9g. Production of traditional products (cheese, cured meats, etc.)	4.4	1	5	5	592	427	58.1	41.9	0.170	0.170
Q9h. Cork extractor	3.3	1.2	3	3	423	335	55.8	44.2	0.258	0.150
Q9i. Pigsties/pens	3.4	1.2	4	4 & 3	450	353	56.0	44.0	0.643	0.100
Q9j. Carbonero	3	1.3	3	4	395	309	56.1	43.9	0.043	0.210

presents the results of a Likert-type rating scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much) applied to a series of representative elements of the landscape, traditional crafts, and products linked to the dehesa. Measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode) and dispersion (standard deviation) are included, allowing for an accurate quantitative reading of the degree of social appreciation of each resource.

The results of the assessment of a series of elements representative of the landscape and traditional rural trades show that the elements most highly valued by the participants as a whole were the production of traditional products (M = 4.4, SD = 1.0), the dehesa landscapes with holm oaks and ponds (M = 4.3, SD = 0.8), and the figure of the shepherd (M = 4.1, SD = 1.1). These scores reflect a highly positive assessment of practices and landscapes that are not only part of the rural heritage but are also deeply rooted in the cultural identity of many regions. The mode in these three cases was 5, indicating that most participants gave the highest possible score, reinforcing the idea that these elements are perceived as valuable, authentic, and representative of a sustainable and meaningful way of life.

The case of traditional product manufacturing (cheeses, sausages, etc.) stands out in particular, not only for its high average score, but also for its low dispersion (SD = 1.0), suggesting a broad consensus around its value. This result can be interpreted as an expression of appreciation for the quality, craftsmanship, and connection to the local area that these products represent, both in rural and urban contexts. In this sense, food acts as a symbolic bridge between the countryside and the city, facilitating the transmission of cultural and emotional values.

The dehesa landscapes with holm oaks and ponds, as an emblematic landscape of the southwestern peninsula, also received a very high rating (M = 4.3), with a low standard deviation (SD = 0.8), indicating a shared perception of its ecological, aesthetic, and cultural value. This type of landscape, in addition to its productive function, represents a model of balance between human activity and biodiversity conservation, which may explain its high rating in both environments.

The profession of shepherd (M = 4.1) was equally well rated, with a mode of 5 and a median of 4, suggesting a positive perception of this profession as a symbol of ancestral wisdom, connection with nature, and resilience. Although in many contexts this profession has lost visibility, its representation continues to evoke respect and admiration, especially at a time in history when traditional knowledge is being revalued in the face of contemporary ecological challenges.

At an intermediate level of appreciation are elements such as free-range pigs (M = 3.8), the shearer (M = 3.6), traditional shepherd’s huts (M = 3.4), pigsties or corrals (M = 3.4), and the cork harvester (M = 3.3). These scores reflect a positive perception, although somewhat more nuanced, possibly due to less direct familiarity or more limited visibility in public discourse. In particular, the shearer and the cork extractor, although fundamental to the rural economy, may be less well known to those who have not had direct contact with these activities.

The figure of the beekeeper (M = 3.2) showed the greatest dispersion (SD = 1.4), suggesting wide variability in responses. This variability may be due to differences in the degree of knowledge, the perception of risk associated with the activity, or the lack of direct contact with beekeeping, especially in urban contexts. However, its average rating remains positive, indicating a general recognition of its ecological and productive importance.

The occupation with the lowest rating was charcoal burner (M = 3.0, SD = 1.3), despite its historical relevance in many rural communities. This score may reflect a perception of obsolescence or a disconnect with occupations that have disappeared from the contemporary landscape. However, it is important to note that this item had the highest Cramer’s V value (0.21), indicating a moderate association between the rating and the residential environment, with it possibly being more highly valued in rural contexts where its memory remains alive.

In terms of distribution by residence, most items were rated slightly higher by urban dwellers (between 55% and 58% of mentions), suggesting a symbolic appropriation of the rural world from the city. This trend can be interpreted as a form of idealization or a search for authenticity in contrast to urban life. However, the differences were not statistically significant in most cases, as indicated by the chi-square values (all >0.05, except in the case of the charcoal burner, χ² = 0.043), suggesting that the positive assessment of rural heritage is widely shared between both groups.

Overall, the results show a high appreciation of the elements of the landscape and traditional rural crafts, both in urban and rural contexts. This widespread appreciation can be interpreted as an indicator of the cultural, identity, and emotional value that these elements continue to have in today’s society. Likewise, the data invite reflection on the need to preserve and raise awareness of this knowledge and these practices, not only as part of tangible and intangible heritage, but also as educational, community, and territorial resources that can contribute to strengthening the bond between people and their environment. In a context of increasing urbanization and disconnection from nature, these elements can play a key role in building a more conscious, rooted, and committed citizenry.

3.4. Imaginary of the Dehesa

Semantic analysis based on word frequency reveals the main terms with which students associate the dehesa (Figure 3). This analysis provides a conceptual corpus that defines the image that young people have of this landscape.

The results show that students associate the dehesa with the terms countryside, animals, nature, trees, and trades. This reveals that students are aware of the natural value and biodiversity of this landscape. Likewise, the term “holm oak” is also one of the most repeated, suggesting an accurate identification of the characteristic elements of the dehesa.

However, it is particularly relevant that 34 students say they do not know what is a dehesa. This may be associated with a lack of knowledge of the explicit name of this landscape, even though many of them do recognize its characteristic elements (such as “pig,” “cattle,” “sheep,” “acorn,” “cork oak,” or “vegetation”) or show familiarity with its appearance and functions. This lack of knowledge highlights the need to give greater prominence to local ecosystems in the curriculum. This lack of knowledge is also evident in the high representation of the term “olive tree,” a tree that is not associated with this landscape, which reinforces the importance of promoting greater education about it.

Finally, it is worth noting the presence of concepts such as “beautiful” or “freedom,” which suggest a positive emotional connection with the dehesa, associating it with feelings of well-being and beauty.

3.5. Favorite Activities

Several studies have shown that the residential environment—urban or rural—significantly influences children’s preferences and participation in activities related to nature and the rural environment. The specialized literature indicates that schoolchildren living in rural areas tend to engage in a wider range of activities and more frequently than their urban peers, especially those of physical, recreational, and direct interaction with the natural and productive environment. This greater diversity and frequency are associated with an operational and experiential familiarity with the rural environment, derived from daily exposure to agricultural practices and outdoor life.

In line with this evidence, the results of this study—based on a sample of primary school students who selected up to three activities related to the dehesa—show a general convergence in interest in the rural environment, with an average selection per activity of 32.67% among urban and r students and 32.10% among rural students. However, analysis of the percentage differences reveals clearly differentiated patterns of preference between the two groups (

Table 9. Preferred activities for participation.

	Total		City		Village
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Q11a. Accompanying the herder in moving livestock	87	37.3	41	30.6	46	46.5
Q11b. Feeding livestock	131	56.2	71	53.0	60	60.6
Q11c. Helping to strip the bark from cork trees and extract firewood	35	15.0	18	13.4	17	17.2
Q11d. Helping with sheep shearing	49	21.0	27	20.1	22	22.2
Q11e. Eating products from the dehesa such as meat, honey, etc.	107	45.9	74	55.2	33	33.3
Q11f. Going for walks in the countryside	95	40.8	50	37.3	45	45.5
Q11g. Milking	63	27.0	34	25.4	29	29.3
Q11h. Doing wool-related work	46	19.7	27	20.1	19	19.2
Q11i. Gathering wild products (mushrooms, asparagus, etc.)	97	41.6	60	44.8	37	37.4
Q11j. Seeing the old buildings in the dehesa, such as huts, corrals, or pigsties…	57	24.5	33	24.6	24	24.2

).

The activities with the greatest positive difference in favor of students living in villages were walking in the dehesa (45.5% in villages compared to 37.3% in cities), feeding livestock (60.6% vs. 52.9%), and milking (29.3% vs. 25.4%). These preferences reflect a functional and everyday relationship with the landscape, based on direct experience with agricultural and livestock practices. In addition, a stronger connection with nature and more consolidated pro-environmental behavior is observed among rural schoolchildren, mediated by regular contact with the natural environment.

In contrast, urban schoolchildren showed a marked preference for sensory, symbolic, or recreational activities, such as eating products from the dehesa (55.2% in cities compared to 33.3% in villages), gathering wild products such as mushrooms or asparagus (44.8% vs. 37.4%), and working with wool (20.1% vs. 19.2%). These choices suggest a more idealized and representational approach to the rural environment, focused on consumption and aesthetic experience rather than participation in productive processes.

The differences observed are not solely due to physical access to the territory, but also to social and cultural factors and attachment to the place, which influence the value and meaning attributed to the landscape. In this sense, rural schoolchildren show a greater degree of territorial attachment, while urban schoolchildren tend to build a more recreational and episodic relationship with the natural environment.

These findings have important implications for the design of educational programs and heritage interpretation strategies, which must consider contextual differences in children’s perception of the territory. Promoting cultural sustainability and the intergenerational transmission of territorial knowledge requires pedagogical approaches that are sensitive to the residential environment and capable of integrating both direct experience and symbolic representation of the landscape.

3.6. Spatial Analysis of Educational Centers

Analysis of the spatial distribution of educational centers in Extremadura reveals a notable proximity between preschool and primary schools and the best-preserved dehesas in the region. This proximity represents a strategic opportunity to integrate these ecosystems as outdoor learning environments, facilitating educational experiences linked to traditional knowledge, biodiversity, and sustainability. The dehesas offer an ideal context for the development of key skills in the students, especially in relation to environmental education and knowledge of natural and cultural heritage.

Based on the analysis of geospatial data, the results of which can be seen in the Supplementary Material, four distance intervals between the dehesas and the educational centers were established: less than 1 km, between 1 and 2.499 km, between 2.5 and 4.999 km, and 5 km or more. These ranges allow for the evaluation of different levels of accessibility, from walking to those requiring motorized transport. The choice of these thresholds therefore responds to criteria of sustainable mobility and logistical feasibility for carrying out educational activities in the immediate natural environment (

Table 10. Distance from nursery, primary, and special education schools to well-preserved dehesas.

Distance	Nursery and Primary Schools
<1 Km	129
1 < 2.5 Km	182
2.5 < 5 Km	170
≥5 Km	91

).

The data analyzed shows that 129 schools are located less than 1 km from dehesa landscapes, 182 between 1 and 2.5 km, 170 between 2.5 and 5 km, and 91 at a distance equal to or greater than 5 km. This distribution reveals that 54.4% of educational centers are located less than 2.5 km from these areas, which represents immediate and highly favorable accessibility for the development of regular educational activities in direct contact with the environment. In many cases, this proximity allows for travel on foot, reducing dependence on motorized transport and minimizing logistical costs, while strengthening the daily link between students and their cultural landscape.

In the intermediate range, corresponding to distances between 2.5 and 5 km, 29.7% of schools are located. Although this range requires more careful planning, it is still viable for regular activities, especially if school transportation or collaboration agreements with local entities are available. In this case, distance is not an insurmountable barrier, but it does require greater institutional coordination and an explicit willingness to integrate environmental education into the teaching program.

On the other hand, 15.9% of schools are located 5 km or more from dehesa landscapes areas, which can be a structural limitation for the regular implementation of activities in these environments. In these cases, it is necessary to explore complementary strategies, such as the creation of contextualized teaching materials, the use of digital and immersive technologies [98] for virtual visits, or the organization of occasional outings with institutional support. Likewise, the possibility of establishing agreements with private farms or closer public spaces that reproduce the ecological and cultural characteristics of the dehesa landscapes could be considered.

From a territorial perspective, these data reflect a relatively favorable distribution for the development of environmental education programs linked to the dehesa, especially considering that more than 80% of the centers are located less than 5 km from these spaces (Figure 4). This proximity is a strategic asset for promoting territorial roots, ecological literacy, and the intergenerational transmission of traditional knowledge, in line with the objectives of educational and heritage sustainability. The planning of educational activities in these environments must consider not only physical distance, but also mobility conditions, the involvement of the educational community, and the design of contextualized and culturally relevant pedagogical proposals.

In this sense, environmental education takes on a central role as a tool for reconnecting new generations with their immediate environment. Numerous studies have shown that learning in direct contact with nature improves students’ attention, intrinsic motivation, emotional self-regulation, and overall well-being [58]. In addition, these open and sensory-rich environments promote educational inclusion, as they allow for greater methodological flexibility and a more natural adaptation to the diversity of learning rhythms, styles, and needs [57]. In this context, the dehesa should not only be understood as an ecological or productive resource, but also as a privileged pedagogical space for the comprehensive education of students.

In short, the territorial accessibility of the dehesa to educational centers is a key facilitating factor for its integration into teaching-learning processes. Its use as an educational resource requires strategic planning that articulates public policies, institutional commitment, and community participation. Only in this way will it be possible to consolidate an environmental education rooted in the territory, capable of contributing to the ecological, cultural, and social sustainability of rural landscapes.

4. Discussion

The results show that, although young people value the dehesa positively and recognize elements such as the Iberian pig and holm oaks, there is a disconnect between this symbolic value and practical knowledge of the territory. Direct experience is key to building strong territorial ties [99], and ecological memory plays an essential role in the sustainability of systems such as the dehesa [100]. However, being physically present in the rural environment does not guarantee meaningful appropriation or the transmission of knowledge [101,102].

This phenomenon, known as “appreciation without roots” [103], reflects how young people can value the rural environment without feeling connected to it. Although many visit the countryside, few interact with its productive elements, such as animals or traditional crafts. This indicates that the rural environment is not always experienced as a space for learning or belonging.

Education reinforces the need to use the dehesa as a living classroom. Active outdoor methodologies improve student motivation, attention, and well-being [104] and foster respect for the environment, especially if they take place in landscapes with cultural significance such as the dehesa [105].

The literature on educational inclusion emphasizes the importance of designing learning environments that are accessible, flexible, and culturally relevant to all students [57]. In this context, the dehesa can become a privileged resource for inclusive education, provided that physical, pedagogical, and symbolic access to its values and resources is guaranteed. This involves not only adapting infrastructure and materials but also training teachers in methodologies that integrate diversity as a value rather than an obstacle.

Another relevant aspect is the intergenerational transmission of knowledge. The results show that traditional trades, although valued, are little known to young people, especially in urban contexts. This loss of practical and symbolic knowledge threatens the continuity of the intangible heritage associated with the dehesa. The sustainability of agroforestry systems depends not only on their economic or ecology, but also on their ability to be understood, valued, and culturally reproduced [106,107].

In addition, rural students show a greater preference for activities involving direct interaction with the environment, such as walking in the dehesa, feeding livestock, and milking. This reflects a functional and everyday relationship with the landscape, based on direct experience with agricultural and livestock practices [108], which is common in areas where agriculture and livestock farming are the livelihood of many families. In contrast, urban schoolchildren tend to prefer sensory or symbolic activities, such as eating products from the dehesa, gathering wild products, and working with wool. This trend suggests a more idealized approach to the rural environment, focused on consumption and aesthetic experience rather than participation in productive processes [109]. These results are consistent with previous research indicating that urban children tend to construct a more symbolic and recreational image of the natural environment, while rural children develop a more operational and experiential relationship [76,83]. In line with this, it can be deduced that the differences observed are not only due to physical access to the territory, but also to sociocultural factors and attachment to the place, which influence the value and meaning attributed to the landscape. In this sense, rural schoolchildren show a greater degree of territorial attachment, while urban schoolchildren tend to construct a more episodic and fragmented relationship with the natural environment. This divergence in the symbolic construction of the territory has direct implications for environmental education, territorial planning, and heritage management.

In addition, educational tourism and agrotourism are emerging as complementary tools for strengthening the connection between young people and the territory. In this regard, it should be noted that rural environments are becoming recreational areas, although they are subject to paradoxes such as ignorance of what is closest to them [109]. Immersive experiences, when developed under the principles of sustainability, authenticity, and community participation, generate meaningful and transformative learning. These practices not only raise awareness of the importance of conserving natural and cultural heritage but also strengthen the emotional bond with the territory and promote responsible attitudes towards its management.

The triangulation between the empirical results obtained and the hypotheses initially formulated allows for an accurate assessment of the degree of achievement of the objectives set.

Firstly, hypothesis H1, which anticipated significant gaps in primary school students’ knowledge of the dehesa and its associated heritage, is corroborated by the data. The limited identification of traditional trades, derivative products, and plant species characteristic of the dehesa ecosystem confirms the existence of a significant cognitive gap, especially in urban contexts.

Hypothesis H2, which posited a predominantly naturalistic perception of the dehesa to the detriment of its cultural dimension, is also confirmed. Semantic analysis and resource assessment show a greater association of the landscape with ecological and sensory elements, while components linked to intangible heritage—such as traditional crafts—are less recognized and valued.

In relation to H3, the results show a clear preference for natural, landscape, and gastronomic resources over cultural elements, which validates the hypothesis. The production of traditional products and the contemplation of the landscape receive significantly higher scores than trades such as shearer, charcoal burner, or cork extractor, suggesting a symbolic hierarchy of rural heritage.

Hypothesis H4, which proposed that place of residence had no significant influence on the valuation of heritage, is partially rejected. Although the overall valuation is positive in both groups, statistically significant differences are identified in the frequency of visits to the countryside, contact with animals, and preferred activities, indicating that the residential environment conditions the experience and connection with the dehesa.

Finally, hypothesis H5, regarding the influence of place of residence on preferred activities, is fully confirmed. Rural students show a preference for operational activities and direct interaction with the environment (such as feeding livestock and milking), while urban students opt for symbolic or sensory experiences (such as consuming products or occasional harvesting), reflecting different ways of connecting with the land.

In terms of meeting the specific objectives, there is a direct correlation between the findings and the goals set. The following has been achieved:

SO1: Explore students’ level of knowledge and perception of the dehesa landscapes, highlighting relevant educational gaps.

SO2: Identify the most attractive heritage elements, highlighting traditional products and the natural landscape.

SO3: To determine significant differences in the valuation of heritage based on origin and direct experience with the environment.

SO4: Assess the activities preferred by students, which allows for the development of contextualized educational proposals.

SO5: Establish the proximity of educational centers to well-preserved dehesa areas, opening possibilities for their integration into the curriculum.

This interrelationship between hypotheses, objectives, and results reinforces the internal validity of this study and provides a solid basis for the design of territorially sensitive educational strategies aimed at the cultural, ecological, and pedagogical sustainability of the dehesa landscape.

Despite the results obtained, this study has some limitations that should be considered. First, the use of intentional and convenience sampling limits the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the application of the survey at a specific time of year may have influenced responses related to the seasonality of rural activities. The qualitative analysis, based on self-reports, could be affected by social desirability bias. Likewise, the measurement of accessibility to dehesas has been carried out solely in terms of geographical distance, without considering factors such as the availability of transport, terrain conditions, or institutional barriers. Finally, unequal access has been detected between early childhood and primary education centers and special education centers, which poses challenges in terms of territorial and educational equity.

These limitations open new possibilities for future research. It would be relevant to extend this study to other regions with similar agroforestry systems, as well as to incorporate ethnographic methodologies that delve deeper into the cultural practices linked to the dehesa landscapes. It is also recommended that longitudinal studies be carried out to assess the evolution of young people’s perceptions and the impact of specific educational programs. In the area of inclusion, it is necessary to explore the barriers faced by special education centers in accessing natural environments and to design strategies that guarantee equitable environmental education. Finally, the use of immersive technologies could be a complementary way to bring the dehesa closer to those groups with physical access difficulties, thus promoting more inclusive and transformative territorial literacy.

5. Conclusions

The dehesa, as a cultural landscape and socio-ecological system, represents much more than a productive space: it is a living setting of memory, identity, and sustainability. This study has shown that although the younger generations value its most emblematic elements—such as Iberian pigs, holm oaks, and traditional products—there remains a worrying disconnect between this symbolic value and a deep, experiential, and everyday knowledge of the territory.

The data reveal that contacts with the rural environment do not always translate into a meaningful experience. Many young people visit the countryside, but they do so for leisure or contemplation, without a clear understanding of the ecological, cultural, and economic processes that sustain it. This gap between physical presence and cultural appropriation directly challenges educational systems, which have not yet systematically integrated the territory as a pedagogical resource.

Despite this, clear opportunities can be identified. The high value placed on the resources of the dehesa by students, regardless of their place of residence, suggests fertile ground for the design of educational proposals that connect emotion, knowledge, and action. Outdoor education, heritage education, and immersive experiences in rural areas are emerging as effective strategies for strengthening the link between young people and the territory. In addition, the analysis of the activities preferred by students provides a key dimension for understanding how relationships with the rural environment are built. In this sense, schoolchildren living in villages show a greater inclination towards operational and experiential activities—such as feeding livestock, milking, or accompanying the shepherd—while urban children prefer sensory or symbolic activities—such as eating products from the dehesa or occasional gathering.

Likewise, spatial analysis has revealed inequality in access to dehesas between preschool and elementary schools and special education centers. This difference poses a challenge in terms of educational equity and requires public policies that guarantee inclusive access to natural spaces, especially for those groups that face greater barriers.

It is concluded that the dehesa landscape represents a valuable educational, cultural, and socio-ecological resource. Its continuity depends on the effective integration of academic knowledge, experiential learning, and collective memory, as well as educational and territorial policies that are sensitive to the diversity of contexts. Only by building bridges between knowledge, experiences, and values will it be possible to guarantee the transmission of this cultural landscape as a living, diverse, and shared legacy for future generations.

In short, the dehesa can and should be an open classroom, a space for comprehensive learning where ancestral knowledge and contemporary challenges intertwine. To this end, it is necessary to build bridges between schools, communities, and the territory and to recognize that sustainability is not taught only through content but also through experiences that transform the perspective and commitment of those who inhabit and inherit these landscapes.