Rural areas are generally living spaces in which lifestyles depend on traditional practices that have been shaped by the local topography and climate, local living conditions, and the regional economy. Rural settlements are the basic components that comprise the foundation of rural living. The rural landscape provides an integrated framework for the rural area and represents an entire system that includes areas of agricultural utilization, transportation networks, and natural resources [1].

Rural settlements are identified by the character of the landscape in which they are located, and each rural settlement has its own system of social relations and traditions according to its geographical location [2]. Each rural settlement has its own dynamics and displays differences from other settlements. The most significant indicator of these differences is how the identity of the landscape is defined. The identity of a landscape is, by its nature, defined by its own characteristics and its relationship with the environment [3].

Areas belonging to a rural landscape are sources that provide fields of exploration and implementation for understanding the cultural landscape. Cultural landscapes are areas in which human societies and settlements flourish over time under the influence of social, economic, and cultural forces dictated by the opportunities or restrictions imposed by the natural environment [4]. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines a cultural landscape as a geographical area that emerges as a result of the interaction between people and the natural environment, gains importance over time, and exhibits diverse natural, cultural, and visual values [5].

The cultural landscape comprises areas that reflect the interaction between human beings and nature. The European Landscape Convention, adopted in 2000, defines the cultural landscape as “an area whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” [6]. UNESCO classifies cultural landscapes into three main categories: man-designed and created cultural landscapes, organically evolved landscapes that develop in relation to and in response to the natural environment, and associative cultural landscapes with strong religious, artistic, or cultural ties [5].

Within this conceptual framework, the rural cultural landscape of Gökçeada can be interpreted as corresponding most closely to an organically evolved landscape, specifically its continuing landscape subcategory. According to UNESCO, organically evolved landscapes develop through association with and in response to their natural environment, while continuing landscapes retain an active social role in contemporary society and exhibit material evidence of their evolution over time [7]. In the case of Gökçeada, the adaptation of the historic villages to sloping topography, together with agricultural terraces, vineyards, olive groves, vernacular stone architecture, and structures associated with rural production, demonstrates the long-term relationship between environmental conditions, settlement, and agricultural production ^[6][8][9][6,8,9]. The continued presence of agricultural activities, religious practices, communal spaces, and local traditions further indicates that elements of the historical relationship between community and landscape remain active, although demographic transformation, abandonment, and changes in traditional production have weakened some aspects of this continuity ^[8][10][8,10]. On the basis of these characteristics, the UNESCO category is used here as an analytical framework for interpreting the evolutionary and continuing character of Gökçeada’s rural landscape rather than as an assertion of formal World Heritage status.

The concept of preserving the character of a rural landscape changed with the adoption of the World Heritage Convention and the European Landscape Convention [11], bringing to the fore the notion that landscape must be assessed within the framework of international policy [1]. In the “Principles Concerning Rural Landscapes as Heritage” drawn up by the joint committee known as the ICOMOS-IFLA International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes, while attention is focused on the concept of rural landscape heritage, the dangers that can cause alterations in rural areas and in the landscape are also underlined [8].

The geographical location, topography, hydrology, production landscape, wildlife, and other factors define the landscape identity of each rural settlement. Landscape identity displays variability in each settlement. The rural cultural landscape, which represents the environment that is the product of the activities of nature, is divided into natural and cultural landscapes [12]. The components of the first of these landscapes, natural rural landscapes, are made up of topography, climate, geology, water sources, vegetation, and wildlife. The other rural landscape, the cultural landscape, encompasses the settlement’s physical structure, its architectural character, the construction materials that have been used, the elements making up the streets and the landscape as a whole, the vegetation in the area, and the type of production undertaken [2].

Throughout Anatolia, there are rural cultural landscapes that not only reflect the physical state, topography, climate, vegetation, and materials used in the particular region but also carry evidence of social and cultural values, the historical background, and other local and regional characteristics of the area. One of these landscapes was referred to in the Age of Antiquity as “Imbros.” This island, now known as Gökçeada (İmroz in Turkish), is situated 20 km off the Biga Peninsula, to the north of the Aegean valley. As Turkey’s largest island, Gökçeada (Imbros) is characterized by villages that carry the identity of the rural landscape.

International studies of rural cultural landscapes increasingly emphasize integrated approaches that consider environmental conditions, land use, traditional production systems, and cultural heritage as interrelated components of landscape character. In the Mediterranean literature, for example, multidisciplinary approaches have been developed for identifying and characterizing traditional cultural landscapes through the combined assessment of environmental conditions, land-use patterns, traditional agroforestry systems, land-management practices, and heritage features [4]. Agricultural terraces constitute another important component of this literature. Terraced landscapes have been interpreted through the combined analysis of their structural, biophysical, cultural-historical, and agricultural characteristics [13]. Mediterranean terraced landscapes have also been approached as coupled human–environment systems whose continuity is closely related to the maintenance of traditional agricultural practices [14]. Although Gökçeada is geographically situated in the North Aegean, these studies provide a broader comparative and methodological framework for examining the relationships among topography, agricultural production, settlement, and cultural landscape character. Recent research has further emphasized the social–ecological character of rural cultural landscapes, demonstrating that their conservation depends not only on the protection of physical landscape components but also on the continuity of traditional land-use practices and the socio-economic systems that sustain them [15]. Studies on traditional villages also stress that the preservation of rural architectural heritage should be integrated with the continuing development and use of rural settlements rather than approached solely through the conservation of individual historic buildings [16]. In addition, integrated approaches combining landscape characterization with local knowledge and temporal land-use analysis have proved valuable for understanding the historical development, heritage significance, and future sustainability of rural landscapes [17].

Previous studies on Gökçeada have examined different dimensions of the island and its traditional settlements, including settlement geography and historical development [6], architectural heritage and building typologies ^[18][19][18,19], and the conservation of rural architectural heritage within the historic rural landscape of Zeytinliköy [9]. However, a comparative and integrated assessment of the five historic Greek villages that simultaneously considers their natural environment, settlement morphology, vernacular architecture, productive landscapes, socio-cultural practices, and conservation issues remains limited. This study addresses this gap by applying an integrated rural analysis approach to Tepeköy (Agridia), Zeytinliköy (Aya Todori), Eski Bademli (Gliki), Dereköy (Skinudi), and Kaleköy (Kastro), thereby identifying both their shared and village-specific characteristics and revealing the interrelationships through which these components collectively shape the distinctive rural cultural landscape of Gökçeada.

Accordingly, this study examines these five historic Greek villages through an integrated assessment of their physical environment, topography, climate, locally available materials, vegetation, settlement patterns, vernacular residential and public architecture, cultural structures and traditions, and traditional production practices. Through this assessment, the study aims to identify the natural and cultural components that constitute the rural landscape character of these settlements and to evaluate how their interaction contributes to the distinctive rural cultural landscape and rural heritage of Gökçeada.

The study employs a qualitative rural landscape analysis based on field observations conducted in September 2023 and a review of the relevant literature. The five historic Greek villages—Tepeköy (Agridia), Zeytinliköy (Aya Todori), Eski Bademli (Gliki), Dereköy (Skinudi), and Kaleköy (Kastro)—were selected because they represent the historic Greek Orthodox village settlements examined in this study and retain identifiable components of Gökçeada’s traditional rural landscape. Planned settlements established primarily from the 1960s onward were excluded because the study focuses specifically on the historically evolved rural landscape of these five traditional villages. The villages were examined through seven interrelated analytical dimensions: natural environment, settlement characteristics, architectural characteristics, socio-cultural characteristics, economic activities, landscape character, and conservation issues. Field observations focused on the natural and built characteristics of the settlements, including settlement morphology, streets and squares, vernacular residential architecture, public and religious buildings, structures associated with agricultural production, and productive landscape elements. These observations were considered together with socio-cultural practices and traditional production activities documented in the relevant literature in order to examine the relationships between tangible and intangible components of the rural cultural landscape. The characteristics identified through fieldwork and the literature were subsequently organized into a qualitative comparative framework across the five villages to identify shared landscape components and village-specific variations.

The fieldwork was designed as a qualitative landscape-character assessment rather than as a comprehensive numerical inventory; therefore, total counts of houses, streets, squares, churches, washhouses, mills, and dam structures were not recorded. No separate standardized building-recording form was employed; observations were structured according to the analytical dimensions of the rural analysis framework presented in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S1 and S2). No formal interviews were conducted, and interview data were not used as a research dataset; accordingly, informed consent was not applicable. The fieldwork did not include systematic GIS-based mapping or comprehensive measured surveys of individual buildings. Architectural plans and sections reproduced in the entry derive from previously published documentation and are identified as adapted or reprinted in the relevant figure captions. Detailed research questions and analytical components of the rural analysis method are provided in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S1 and S2).