learning from world heritage: lessons from ‘international ... · mixed sites, embodying both...

The 7th US/ICOMOS Symposium fo-cused on lessons from the preservation andconservation of cultural landscapes, pro-tected areas, heritage areas, biospherereserves, and mixed resources of nationaland global significance. The symposiumsought to explore the challenges of preserv-ing landscapes of ecological and culturalsignificance, using the framework of WorldHeritage experience. This is a rapidlyemerging field that has redefined conceptu-al as well as managerial approaches andprinciples in conservation and preservationand has begun to thrust the natural and cul-tural heritage professions into unprece-dented cooperation. Thus, for the first timein the US/ICOMOS symposium’s history,culture preservationists joined with natureconservationists in a fruitful discussion. A

multi-disciplinary group of 123 profession-als from twelve nations met to share experi-ence, draw lessons, and address issues sur-rounding the interface of nature and culturein the landscape. Drawing upon work con-cerning cultural and natural landscapes inrecent years, and the inscription of 35 cul-tural landscapes on the World Heritage Listfrom 1993 to 2003, complex presentationsand discussions explored a wide range oflandscape preservation and conservationissues.

Opening session papers presented anoverview and context for the symposium,including cultural and natural landscapecategories and status, current World Heri-tage status and progress in heritage land-scape protection, and approaches to pro-tection and stewardship from Australia and

Volume 21 • Number 3 (2004) 41

Patricia M. O’Donnell

Learning from World Heritage:

Lessons from ‘International Preservation &

Stewardship of Cultural & Ecological

Landscapes of Global Significance,’

the 7th US/ICOMOS International Symposium

Introduction

THE UNITED STATES COMMITTEE of the International Council on Monuments and Sites(US/ICOMOS) hosted its 7th annual symposium, titled “Learning from World Heritage:Lessons from International Preservation & Stewardship of Cultural & EcologicalLandscapes of Global Significance,” from 25 to 27 March 2004 in Natchitoches, Louisiana.Gathering professional papers through a widespread call, sixteen presentations addressinga breadth of cultural and natural resources in many nations were selected from the eightyproposals received.

Argentina. Papers addressing the planningand development of pilgrims’ paths inIreland, history and plans for the Cham-paner Pavagadh Sanctuary in India, and arecommendation for Iraqi heritage identifi-cation and preservation presented a rangeof issues related to complex landscapes.Issues in the designation of worldwideinspirational landscapes were explored.Chinese World Heritage natural land-scapes, the Chinese conception of nature,and landscape and cross-cultural miscon-ceptions leading to unexpected results werepresented. The unique character, scenery,and cultural and biological diversity of pro-ductive lands and challenges facing agricul-tural landscapes were highlighted, withpresentations on the rice terraces of thePhilippine Cordilleras, the Japanese farmeras gardener, and the multiple resources ofthe Agave and Tequila agricultural and pro-duction landscapes of Mexico. Preserving,revitalizing, and shaping heritage commu-nities into the future was the topic of a USAnational heritage areas paper and oneaddressing the rebuilding of tribal landsand community at the Blackfeet IndianLand Trust. The range of reciprocal bene-fits resulting from student service learningin Czech Republic heritage landscapesaddressed further issues.

At the closing session the NatchitochesDeclaration on Heritage Landscapes, 27March 2004, was ratified by the assembly.This important declaration states: “Thereis a convergence of natural and cultural val-ues in the landscape, and a growing recog-nition that the traditional separation ofnature and culture is a hindrance to protec-tion and is no longer sustainable. Furtherheritage landscape protection is required atthe local, national and global levels in orderto transmit these universally valuable her-itage landscapes to future generations.” Theterm “heritage landscapes” was used in this

declaration to embrace the combined natu-ral and cultural resources inherent in thelandscape recognizing that either or bothmay be of outstanding universal value. Thedeclaration urges national and local author-ities, as well as institutions and internation-al organizations, but especially ICOMOSand its partners, the World ConservationUnion (IUCN) and the InternationalCenter for Conservation and Restoration ofCultural Property (ICCROM), to press for-ward a series of initiatives around the pro-tection of heritage landscapes using a holis-tic approach, interdisciplinary collabora-tion, response to threats, communityengagement, and national and internationalcooperation to address the multiple valuesinherent in heritage landscapes and themultiple voices to be included in their pro-tection and management.1

World Heritage Overview

As background for readers with varyingdegrees of familiarity with the UNESCO(United Nations Educational, Scientific,and Cultural Organization) World Heritagestructure, the Convention Concerning theProtection of World Cultural and NaturalHeritage was adopted by the GeneralConference of UNESCO in 1972. The pur-pose of the convention is to recognize prop-erties of outstanding and universal value.As of 2004 there are 176 states partiesadhering to the convention and 134 nationshave properties inscribed on the WorldHeritage List. This degree of recognitionand cooperation makes the World HeritageConvention the most universal internation-al legal instrument for global protection ofcultural and natural heritage. It is an impor-tant vehicle for global understanding andpeace.

UNESCO consults with three WorldHeritage advisory bodies: for natural prop-erties, IUCN, based in Gland, Switzerland;

The George Wright Forum42

for cultural properties, ICOMOS, based inParis; and for cultural properties restora-tion and training, ICCROM, based inRome. Even the structure of these advisorybodies expresses the traditional separationof nature and culture in the consideration ofglobally important resources.

Globally, 788 properties are listed asWorld Heritage sites that have beendeemed to be of universal value. Ad-dressing a series of criteria that haveevolved over the past 32 years, there are611 properties listed principally for theircultural values, 154 natural properties, and23 mixed or combined natural and culturalproperty listings. In 1973, the first inscrip-tion was of the Galapagos Islands, based onnatural values. The inclusion of only 23mixed sites, embodying both natural andcultural values, in 30 years of applicationindicates that the confluence of natural andcultural values was not well understood,widely accepted, or specifically targeted forinscription under the original criteria. Thedensest concentration of inscribed proper-ties is in the European nations, whileCentral American countries demonstrate asignificant cluster, as do the African GoldCoast nations.2

A natural property nominated for inclu-sion in the World Heritage List will be con-sidered to be of “outstanding universalvalue” if it meets one or more of the follow-ing criteria3 and fulfills the conditions ofintegrity laid out by the convention. Theproperty must represent:

(i) Major stages in the earth’s history,record of life, geology, landforms, orphysiography;

(ii) Ongoing ecological and biologicalprocesses in evolution, in either terres-trial and aquatic communities;

(iii) Superlative natural phenomena,exceptional natural beauty, or aesthetic

importance;(iv) In situ natural habitats significant for

conservation of biological diversity.

A cultural property nominated forinclusion in the World Heritage List will beconsidered to be of “outstanding universalvalue” if it meets one or more the followingcriteria4 and the test of authenticity. Theproperty must:

(i) Represent a masterpiece of human cre-ative genius;

(ii) Exhibit an important interchange ofhuman values, over time or within acultural area, on developments inarchitecture or technology, monumen-tal arts, town planning, or landscapedesign;

(iii) Bear a unique or exceptional testimonyto a cultural tradition or to a civiliza-tion which is living or which has disap-peared;

(iv) Be an outstanding example of a type ofbuilding or architectural or technolog-ical ensemble or landscape which illus-trates (a) significant stage(s) in humanhistory;

(v) Be an outstanding example of a tradi-tional human settlement or land usewhich is representative of a culture (orcultures), especially when it hasbecome vulnerable under the impact ofirreversible change;

(vi) Be directly or tangibly associated withevents or living traditions, ideas orbeliefs, or artistic and literary works ofoutstanding universal significance.

These criteria, or earlier versions ofthem, have been applied to the analysis ofnominations put forward by state partiesfor inscription. In 2004, the criteria weresubstantially revised to address all proper-ties, both cultural and natural. This is a


clear expression of the growing integrationof cultural and natural values in recognizingoutstanding global resources.5

World Heritage in the United States

In order to shed some light on the pres-ervation construct for World Heritage sites,the example of the United States may behelpful. All of us in the preservation fieldand many owners of antique properties arefamiliar with the National Register of His-toric Places. National Register listing is thehonor roll of properties of local, regional, ornational significance and contains some73,000 listings. By contrast, the designa-tion of a National Historic Landmark rec-ognizes nationally significant propertiesthat are not only historically important toour country but have a high degree ofintegrity, meaning that they embody thecharacter and qualities that were presentwhen they acquired historic importance.There are some 2,300 National HistoricLandmarks, representing a mere 3.2% ofthe number of National Register listings. Inthe United States, conceptualizing heritageat the territorial level has led to the rapidgrowth of heritage areas and corridors astools for both preservation and communitydevelopment. The relatively new nationalheritage areas program has designated 24communities or multiple community areasof the nation as embodying heritage values.

A further narrowing of this type ofrecognition is seen in the twenty WorldHeritage sites in the United States, all ofwhich have been judged to meet variouscriteria for global universal value by WorldHeritage experts. Olympic, Yellowstone,Redwoods, Yosemite, Grand Canyon,Carlsbad Caverns, Mammoth Cave, GreatSmoky Mountains, Everglades, and HawaiiVolcanoes national parks, along with twoUSA–Canada transboundary protectedareas, Waterton–Glacier International

Peace Park and the Kluane/Wrangell–St.Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini–Alsek com-plex, comprise the natural listings. Theeight cultural sites include Mesa VerdeNational Park, Pueblo de Taos, ChacoCulture National Historical Park, CahokiaMounds State Historic Site (all first peo-ples’ sites of prehistoric and archeologicalvalue), the Statue of Liberty, IndependenceHall, La Fortaleza and the fortifications atSan Juan, and Thomas Jefferson’s Monti-cello and the University of Virginia. Theseproperties represent less than 1% of theNational Historic Landmark count ofapproximately 2,300. Hence a pyramid ofheritage preservation hierarchy is formed,with a broad base of local and regionalproperties of heritage value, 73,000National Register listings; an elite group ofnationally important ones, 2,300 NationalLandmarks; and a small representation ofcultural heritage of global significance, 8cultural properties inscribed on the WorldHeritage List.

There is a parallel pyramid of protectedareas designated for natural values, rangingfrom local and state parks to national parks,national forests, and nature preserves, andthence to the dozen natural propertiesnoted above that are inscribed on the WorldHeritage List. Many of our local and nation-al parks are also express cultural values.The recognition of mixed values and themanagement for both was a theme through-out the symposium. The U.S. NationalPark Service defines cultural landscapes asa geographic area associated with a historicevent, activity, or person, or exhibitingother cultural or aesthetic values. Whenpresenting to the public in our work atHeritage Landscapes, we indicate that val-ued cultural landscapes are places wherenature and culture have interacted to shapea place over time, the results of the interac-tion have imbued heritage values, and the


cultural landscape is worthy of our respectand stewardship to preserve and conserve itinto the future.

It is curious that there is such a limitedrecognition of World Heritage designationin the United States. In contrast, considerAustralia. As Jane Lennon indicates in dis-cussing her country, “Today the 15 WorldHeritage areas in Australia are householdnames, icons of popular heritage and majortourist destinations but only after bittercontests with a variety of communities andcommercial interests. World Heritage inAustralia has been a very political issue.”Particularly with the global economicengine of heritage tourism as a growingfocus in the initiatives of many nations,World Heritage inscription is widely toutedelsewhere, but remains unknown to manyAmericans.

World Heritage Cultural Landscapes

Since the adoption of the WorldHeritage Convention in 1972, a rich inter-national discussion strongly influenced bythe heritage policies of its 176 state parties,including the United States, have shapedconsensus on its criteria and operationalguidelines. Reciprocally, World Heritagepolicies and principles have returned hometo every country to refine and enhance eachstate party’s ability to address the complex-ity of its cultural and national heritage. Amajor influence in this exchange was thesearch in recent decades by preservationand conservation stewardship professionalsfor methods to protect and interpret areaswhose significance is inextricably bound toboth natural and cultural resources. In1992, after a decade of extensive debate, theWorld Heritage Committee introduced cul-tural landscapes into the convention’s oper-ational guidelines with definitions and astructure that enables nominations of cul-tural landscapes of universal value to the

World Heritage List. The criteria definedthree types of cultural landscapes, whichare noted here with the number of timeseach criteria has been applied to the thirty-six cultural landscapes listed from 1993 to2003:

• Designed cultural landscape, one creat-ed under a plan at a specific time (8);

• Evolved cultural landscape, one which isin either an Evolved Relict form that isno longer inhabited (3), or in an EvolvedContinuing form where inhabitationand the actions of humanity continue toshape the landscape (22);

• Associative cultural landscape, one relat-ed to spiritual beliefs, art, or literature(7).

The watershed decision to include cul-tural landscapes recognized the inextrica-ble links between people and places, cul-ture and nature, the tangible physicalaspects of heritage and intangible societaltraditions and practices. As Mechtild Röss-ler states in her symposium paper:

In 1992 at Santa Fe, after extensivediscussions, World Heritage CulturalLandscapes criteria were adopted toaddress the combined works ofhumanity and nature.... It also provid-ed a new focus on the key areas oftomorrow’s crops. At the same timeinnovations were introduced with theacceptance of traditional custodian-ship and customary land tenure inWorld Heritage protection. Thesedevelopments both on the conceptu-al and operational levels haveshown the stewardship role of WorldHeritage conservation with far-reaching impact for other conserva-tion instruments.6


The first cultural landscape listing,inscribed in 1993 under the associative cri-teria, was Tongariro National Park, NewZealand, the Maori sacred mountains.“The [World Heritage] Committee recog-nized that these mountains have culturaland religious significance for the Maoripeople and represent the spiritual linksbetween this community and its naturalenvironment. It was the first time that a nat-ural World Heritage site received interna-tional recognition for its intangible culturalvalues.”7 In addition, there are severalWorld Heritage properties, listed prior to1992, which could be inscribed under cul-tural landscape criteria. For example,Lennon indicates that heritage in Australiahas been perceived as nature andAboriginal culture, with misconceptionsarising. She discusses the original nomina-tion and listing of Ayers Rock under naturalcriteria, using the European name for thisgeological site, with subsequent re-nomina-tion as Uluru under cultural criteria withredefined boundaries developed in consul-tation with the Aboriginal peoples whoshaped this cultural landscape. Lennonstates: “Four of Australia’s World HeritageAreas (Kakadu, Uluru, Willandra Lakesand Tasmanian Wilderness) are inscribedas ‘mixed sites’ for their Indigenous cultur-al World Heritage values, in addition totheir natural values. These mixed site list-ings require the integrated management ofboth the cultural and natural values.”

From the perspective of local andindigenous peoples, the hands of people onthe land and the continued application andsustainability of traditional practices is alsoa component. As stated by Rössler:

With the inclusion of cultural land-scape categories in 1992, theWorld Heritage Committee recog-nized traditional management sys-

tems, customary law and long-estab-lished customary techniques to pro-tect the cultural and natural heritage.Through these protection systemsWorld Heritage sites contribute tosustainable local and regional devel-opment.

Cultural landscapes are particularlyvulnerable to social, economic andenvironmental changes. The mainte-nance of the fabric of societies, tradi-tional knowledge and indigenouspractices are vital to their survival. Inmany cases, cultural landscapes andsacred natural sites are of vital impor-tance to the protection of intangiblevalues and heritage. World Heri-tage cultural landscapes and sacredproperties can be models in effectivelandscape management, excellencein conservation practices and inno-vation in legislative protection. Theyare places where we can learnabout the relation between people,nature and ecosystems and how thisshapes culture, identity and enrichescultural, and in some cases, biologi-cal diversity.

Since 1992 ICOMOS and IUCN havecollaborated increasingly on the identifica-tion, designation, and protection of land-scapes embodying both natural and cultur-al resource values. Within ICOMOS, theterritorial concept of cultural itineraries hasbeen effectively expanded to addressassemblies of non-contiguous territoriesunified by an overarching theme. The effec-tiveness of defragmenting protective mech-anisms through consolidation of valuedheritage into broader protected territoriesis indicated by the diversity of cultural land-scapes and cultural itineraries recentlyinscribed on the World Heritage List. From


this milieu, multiple values and voicesemerge, along with the related challenges ofdiverse resources, large-scale distribution,changing culture, community character,resource protection, and sustainability,among others.

IUCN, Cultural Landscapes, and

Protected Areas

Cultural landscapes often embody bothcultural and natural values. As AdrianPhillips has written, many World Heritagecultural landscapes coincide with protectedareas recognized by IUCN. IUCN hasdefined protected areas as “areas of landand/or sea especially dedicated to the pro-tection and maintenance of biologicaldiversity, and of natural and associated cul-tural resources, and managed through legalor other effective means.”8 The resourcesconserved in protected areas are valued forbiodiversity and sustainable development,among other environmental values. Thereare six IUCN protected area managementcategories:9

• Ia, strict nature reserve, managed for sci-ence;

• Ib, wilderness area, managed for wilder-ness;

• II, national park, managed for ecosys-tem protection and recreation;

• III, natural monument, managed forconservation of specific natural features;

• IV, habitat/species management area,managed for conservation through man-agement intervention;

• V, protected landscape/seascape, man-aged for conservation and recreation;and

• VI, managed resource protected area,managed for sustainable use of naturalecosystems.

Phillips notes that this typology is a use-

ful construct that increasingly is beingadopted by national governments. “A grow-ing number of countries have integrated itwithin their domestic legislation or policyrelating to conservation and protectedareas. Only a few weeks ago, at the SeventhConference of the Parties to the CBD[Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, February 2004],this IUCN system was given intergovern-mental support.”10

The United Nations’ most recent listingof protected areas, prepared for the WorldParks Congress, Durban, South Africa,September 2003, records some 102,102sites covering an area of 18.8 million km2,designating 11.5% of the earth’s lands andless than 1% of the marine environments.The lack of representation of certain typesof landscape is a source of concern, withlimited savannah, lakes, and temperateforests, for example. Nonetheless, Phillipsnotes that “this is an impressive achieve-ment and represents a major commitmentby countries to protect their natural her-itage. It is also a great gift to the new centu-ry, giving peoples and governments devel-opment and conservation options, whichwould otherwise have been lost.”11

Phillips has found that many WorldHeritage cultural landscapes are listed forboth natural and cultural values, and/orcoincide with protected areas of variouscategories, most often with national desig-nation. He states:

In the case of three of these,Tongariro, Uluru and Mt Perdu, natu-ral values are so important that thearea has been inscribed as a WorldHeritage property for these as wellas for cultural values. These threeareas, and another 16 of the 36sites on the list, are recognized asnational parks or designated asother kinds of protected areas under


national legislation. In other words,more than half of all World HeritageCultural Landscapes currentlyinscribed on the UN List have naturalvalues that are considered sufficient-ly important to merit their designa-tion, by national or provincial author-ities, as protected areas.

This assessment solidifies the case formultiple-value consideration of propertieswith intertwined cultural and naturalresources. From another position, there areWorld Heritage cultural landscapes thathave natural values that remain unrecog-nized and without protected area designa-tions, and for which further assessment andprotection are required. A common issue inproperties with multiple values is the ascen-dancy of one set of values over another,rather than an appropriate balance of recog-nition and protection for all relevant values.In light of that challenge, IUCN has devel-oped procedures for identifying natural val-ues in cultural landscapes, which, in sum-mary, attempt to:

• Reflect specific techniques of sustain-able land use within characteristics andlimits of the natural environment;

• Embody a specific spiritual relationshipto nature;

• Maintain or enhance natural values inthe landscape;

• Demonstrate traditional forms of landuse supporting the biological diversityof wild species, domesticated animals,and cultivated crops;

• Embody outstanding natural beautyand aesthetic values; and

• Provide evidence of a unique past rela-tionship between humanity and nature.

The conservation and management ofprotected areas also reflects shifting para-

digms, which Phillips skillfully demonstrat-ed as being a contrast of considerationsbetween past and present (Table 1). Theobvious challenge is for IUCN and ICO-MOS to move forward in collaboration,seeking to identify and reflect both naturaland cultural values of not only WorldHeritage properties but to apply the sameconstructs to national and regional protect-ed areas and cultural landscapes globally.

International Case Studies

from the Symposium

Argentina and World Heritage.Presented by Maria Susana Pataro, the caseof Argentina offers a national perspective. Acountry with 23 provinces and a capital cityin a federal district, a land area of3,761,274 km2, including an Antarcticregion and islands, and a population of 36million, Argentina contains a variety of her-itage resources. Adopting the convention in1978, it has eight sites, four cultural andfour natural, on the World Heritage List.The forming of a national World Heritagecommittee and continuing engagement atnational, regional, and international levelshas presented organizational challenges.There is a firm basis for addressing heritagepreservation. Pataro states that “in 1994 theArgentine National Constitution was amen-ded and the new text included an Articlethat clearly recognized the preservation ofthe natural and cultural heritage as a valueto be promoted.” Argentina has engaged inthe World Heritage dialogue, for examplethrough participation in the debates andadoption, in 2002, of the Budapest Dec-laration, expressing the interrelationshipsamong conservation, sustainability, anddevelopment.

The first cultural landscape listed inSouth America was the Argentine Que-brada de Humahuaca, a major trade routeused for over 10,000 years, running from



Topic As it was: protected areas were …

As it is becoming: protected areas are …

Objectives • Set aside for conservation• Established mainly for

spectacular wildlife andscenic protection

• Managed mainly forvisitors and tourists

• Valued as wilderness• About protection

• Run also with social andeconomic objectives

• Often set up for scientific,economic, and cultural reasons

• Managed with local people morein mind

• Valued for the culturalimportance of so-called“wilderness”

• Also about restoration andrehabilitation

Governance Run by central government Run by many partnersLocal people • Planned and managed

against people• Managed without regard

to local opinions

• Run with, for, and, in somecases, by local people

• Managed to meet the needs oflocal people

Widercontext

• Developed separately• Managed as ‘islands’

• Planned as part of national,regional, and internationalsystems

• Developed as ‘networks’(strictly protected areas,buffered and linked by greencorridors)

Perceptions • Viewed primarily as anational asset

• Viewed only as a nationalconcern

• Viewed also as a communityasset

• Viewed also as an internationalconcern

Managementtechniques

• Managed reactively withinshort timescale

• Managed in a technocraticway

• Managed adaptively in long-term perspective

• Managed with politicalconsiderations

Finance Paid for by taxpayer Paid for from many sourcesManagementskills

• Managed by scientists andnatural resource experts

• Expert-led

• Managed by multi-skilledindividuals

• Drawing on local knowledge

Table 1. Shifting paradigms in protected area designation and management: a comparison ofthe “old” with the “new.” Source: Adrian Phillips, “Turning Ideas on Their Head: The NewParadigm for Protected Areas,” The George Wright Forum vol. 20, no. 2 (2003), p. 20.

the high Andean land to the plains. It wasinscribed in 2003 as the culmination of anextensive process involving local communi-ties. A cooperative multinational effort onthe Qhapaq Nan (Inka Trail) Projectincludes Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Col-ombia, Ecuador, and Peru. In the spirit ofthe Budapest Declaration and with a strongposture on community involvement, Argen-tina took an early role in supporting thetransboundary Qhapaq Nan Project. Thetrail crosses through seven provinces inArgentine territory alone. This large-scale,linear project is an example of the expand-ed concept of World Heritage that culturallandscape thinking has fostered.

In Argentina as elsewhere, economicsand tourism play a notable role in heritagepreservation. Pataro states: “The dramaticsocial and economic situation of the coun-try, that exploded by the end of December2001, led to a chaotic period during whichseveral changes occurred within differentareas of the government, creating a time ofdiscontinuity for those involved in heritageprotection.”12 Following on the politicalshifts, the economic changes that decreasedthe value of the peso increased tourism inArgentina. As a result, “In December 2003,there was a 35% increase in tourism, themost visited sites being: the PatagoniaRegion, with the Glaciar Perito Morenoand the Peninsula Valdes, the Iguazu Fallsin Misiones, and the Northwest, with theQuebrada de Humahuaca—three of oureight planetary jewels.” Increased tourism,while adding economic value, appliesincreased pressure to natural and culturalresources, potentially degrading valuedsites. These pressures also fuel the need forcontemporary facilities that can be de-signed adjacent to rather than within thecore resource areas and designed for har-mony with the resources and region, butwhich are often placed adjacent to core

areas and developed with incompatible andjarring styles or scale. Success in drawingvisitors can therefore threaten the veryresources that draw them.

Australia and World Heritage. Asnoted previously, there is broad recognitionamong the populace of Australia regardingWorld Heritage. This country of coastlines,unique species, and impressive interiorlands has set aside 4,100 protected areasfor nature conservation, which is 8% (60million ha) of its land area. The Register ofthe National Estate currently lists some13,000 properties for heritage conserva-tion. The Burra Charter, other charters andadvisory tools, and the work of preservationprofessionals in Australia have been for-ward-thinking and useful as models toother nations. For example, both naturaland cultural heritage are addressed in theEnvironment Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act 1999. Lennon indicatesthat “the matters of national environmentalsignificance are: World Heritage properties,Ramsar wetlands of international impor-tance, listed threatened species and com-munities, migratory species protected un-der international agreements, nuclear ac-tions, and the Commonwealth marine envi-ronments.”13

A transformation of the preservationprocess has taken place in recent decadesfrom a top-down, government-mandatedprocess to one that engages the populace, toinclude the traditional owners, local indige-nous people. This involvement is movingtoward a community partnership in assess-ing conservation value and formulating her-itage management decisions. These prac-tices, proving useful for World Heritagesites, are being transferred to protected areaconservation and management as well.

From a national perspective, Lennonindicates that the natural resources of thecountry and the Aboriginal imprints are


widely perceived as Australian heritage.However, this national focus limits the con-sideration of global significance. The move-ment to develop a national list of propertiesof heritage significance could serve toestablish national historical contexts.Progressing from these contexts, the inter-national significance of resources could beconsidered more holistically. For example,Lennon states: “The Royal ExhibitionBuildings, Melbourne, [have] been nomi-nated this year and the nomination of theSydney Opera House is still under devel-opment as is a nomination of places exem-plifying outstanding values in relation toconvict history.”

In terms of tourism, Australian WorldHeritage is highlighted through aggressivemarketing. Early World Heritage designa-tion battles, amid predictions of economicdisaster for the logging and mining indus-tries, pitted forces opposing internationalinterference against those for inscription.Some twenty years later, attitudes haveturned about, with a clamor for more WorldHeritage designations. Evidence of in-creased tourism and economic benefit, withan average visitor expenditure of $4,000,and 4.93 million visitors in 2000 and some4.74 million visitors in 2003, is fueling thischange in attitude. It should also be notedthat terrorism, war, and Asian health threatseffected a decline in Australian tourism andwere beyond national control.

Pilgrimage routes, India and Ireland.Places of pilgrimage are imbued with mean-ing and association. The issue of pilgrim-age, unlike that of heritage tourism, is basedon spiritual beliefs. The act of pilgrimagetakes a corporeal form in the tangibleworld, but the process of pilgrimage isintangible and contributes to salvationbeyond this life. Heritage resources in bothIndia and Ireland were explored.

Amita Sinha explored issues and solu-

tions for the 2004-inscribed cultural land-scape of Champaner Pavagadh CulturalSanctuary, Gujarat, India.14 The protectedarea (6 km2) is focused on the volcanicPavagadh hill, which rises 830 m over anotherwise flat landscape. An important pil-grimage destination for Hindus is the Kalitemple at the Pavagadh summit. Sacredsites link the goddess to earth. Jain templesand a Muslim tomb add religious eclecti-cism to the site. The multireligious import,environmental degradation, remains ofChampaner (a 15th-century city), needs oflocal communities, and an influx of some 2million pilgrims annually combine in acomplex milieu requiring a multidimen-sional solution. This project of theUniversity of Illinois brought professors,students, and local authorities together in aplanning and design process focused onsustainability and pilgrimage-based her-itage tourism. Diverse heritage resourcespermeate the area, with the archeologicalresources of Champaner and the sacred ele-ments of the hill, including tombs, shrines,temples, and water tanks. Farming andgrazing communities inhabit the ruins ofChampaner and the plateaus of Pavagadhhill. Water is a scarce resource and rainfallscours unstable areas of the pilgrimagepath. Inadequate planning legislation isalso a stumbling block. Solutions strive torespect the historic and traditional charac-ter of the pilgrimage route, improve localcommunities, and absorb high-visitationimpacts. In summary, Sinha notes: “Weadvocate a landscape management solutionthat integrates the needs of both the resi-dent community and transient visitors, theurban fabric with the complex environmen-tal ecosystem, and the buildings with theequally expressive intervening spaces.”This should be coupled with “site-specificdesign solutions that promote access to thelayered experience of landscape and


express the identity of the diverse sects andreligions (Hindu, Jain, Muslim) that havehistorically embellished the area.”

The identification, demarcation, man-agement, community engagement, and sus-tainability of a network of medieval Chris-tian pilgrim routes in Ireland was presentedby Tomas O Caoimh.15 The identificationand development of a series of recognizableIrish pilgrims’ paths that access a series ofsacred sites was the overriding projectobjective. Community development, her-itage tourism, and increased awareness ofboth cultural and natural resources alongthese routes were sought. The research onseveral pilgrimage routes used in medievaltimes to sacred sites proceeded with a focuson seven paths:

• St. Kevin’s Way, from Hollywood toGlendalough in County Wicklow;

• St. Declan’s Way, from Lismore toArdmore in County Waterford;

• Cosán na Naomh or The Saints’ Road,from Ventry to Mount Brandon inCounty Kerry;

• The Slí Mhór or Great Way, fromLemanaghan to Clonmacnois in CountyOffaly;

• The Tóchar Phádraig or St. Patrick’sCauseway, from Ballintubber to CroaghPatrick in County Mayo;

• Lough Derg, pilgrim path to the shore ofLough Derg in County Donegal, site ofSt. Patrick’s Purgatory; and

• Turas Cholmcille or Colmcille’s Round,traditional pilgrim rounds in Glencolm-cille, County Donegal.

Research findings indicated some evi-dence of use as early as the sixth and sev-enth centuries, prior to the establishment ofChristianity in Ireland. Known sacred sites,Ordnance Survey maps, and field monu-ments were used to verify routes. The plan-

ning process considered authenticity ofalignment along with issues of ecologicallysensitive, safe passage along busy roads,access over private property, and proximityof services for pilgrim path users, with con-temporary routes being adjusted accord-ingly. Eventually five paths were developedwith marking systems and local informationthrough intensive community involvement.Engagement of local communities hasenhanced pride of place and increasedownership and an understanding of preser-vation needs of the pilgrims’ paths, thusachieving the primary goals of the HeritageCouncil. In conclusion, O Caoimh states:

Across our planet there are manylandscapes which are sacred to thepeople who inhabit them, [and]many of them provide a way for pil-grims making a journey to a sacredsite, a journey which is also sacred initself for those making it. Pilgrimagesare said to be responsible for thelargest gatherings of human beingson the planet. Whether it is the haj, ajourney to Benares, walking on theCamino to Santiago or on the med-ieval pilgrim routes in Ireland, pilgrim-age is an activity very much part ofthe human story. At the HeritageCouncil in Ireland we believe thatwe have learned much from this proj-ect, which has had an impact rightacross our work, and we are veryhappy, now and for the future, toshare what we can of what we havelearned.

Student learning, Czech Republic.Penn State University’s Department ofLandscape Architecture sponsors a Czechprogram of on-site learning partnering withthe Silva Tarouca Research Institute. BrianOrland reported on an exchange program


that had eight students participating instudying and problem solving for targetlandscapes within Cesky Raj (BohemianParadise) region in the northern CzechRepublic (Figure 1).16 This area, a touristdestination for two centuries, is of geologi-

cal interest with sandstone cliffs, caves, tun-nels, and rock windows. It was proposedfor listing as a natural property and is aCzech Protected Area, but the traditionalBohemian villages, chateaux, castles, ruins,and designed and agricultural landscapescomprise a cultural heritage of import.Management practice cannot proceed inCzech protected areas until local land useplans are completed and approved, but theskills required to produce such plans arelacking at the local level, hence the value ofa professor and graduate student team inshaping elements of such a plan. The stu-dent team used field study of issues, devel-opment of graphics, team problem solving,and intensive community workshops toaddress the issues of both cultural and nat-ural resource protection and to provide anexample of a targeted planning process thatsystematically collects and applies informa-tion to the resolution of management

issues. Approaches in landscape and visualcharacter analysis were modeled, address-ing such issues as managing viewsheds,maintaining traditional village form whileaccommodating growth, retaining andrevealing traces of the local strip field pat-

terns, and other relevant issues.For example, at Castle Humprectin Sobotka managers sought aplan for the surrounding forestthat would “defuse a conflict ofinterest between the foresters’production practices, protectionof the historic monument, andconservation of nature and his-toric landscape character.”Orland goes on to state: “Theliaison of State agency, communi-ty and University may provide amodel for assisting emergingcountries in their goals for pro-tecting heritage landscapes andat the same time meeting impor-

tant educational goals.”International interest in the heritage

of Iraq. In his paper addressing the richheritage of Iraq at risk from armed conflict,Salim Elwazani stressed the role of theinternational community in preservationadvocacy and action.17 The ancient Meso-potamian landscape, one of the cradles ofcivilization, holds a wealth of incomparableand valuable heritage resources that are vul-nerable. Elwazani reports that “the militaryconfrontations that have engulfed theregion in the last few decades have acceler-ated the pace of danger not only for thedefenseless ancient sites, heritage areas, andmonuments, but also for the ‘sheltered’archeological collections.” The develop-ment of an indicative list of resources andmovement toward World heritage nomina-tions were called for. Viable protectionmechanisms for both environmental andcultural resources at risk are urgently


Figure 1. Czech students taking part in field session onlandscape analysis. (photo courtesy of the author)

needed. Engagement of the internationalcommunity was seen as the solution. In alate-breaking presentation on the situationin Iraq, Alvin Rosenbaum focused onpotential opportunities for local work pro-grams that would address heritage preser-vation, environmental restoration, recoveryfrom conflict, and a return to peace. Withinthe complexity of the situation, creativeproject development to address all theseissues was taking form.

Traditional agriculture—PhilippineCordilleras Rice Terraces. The PhilippineCordilleras Rice Terraces were the firstproperty inscribed on the World HeritageList as an “evolved continuing” culturallandscape where people live and interactdaily with heritage resources. These dra-matic, beautifulcompositions ofsmall rice pad-dies framed bylow walls onsteep slopes (Fig-ure 2) were creat-ed by rice-farm-ing peoples overtime and arethought to besome 2,000 yearsold. This majes-tic agriculturallandscape of riceterraces is spreadover 20,000 km2,or 7% of the Phil-ippine land area,in the provincesof Kalinga–Apayao, Abra, Benguet, andIfugao. The conservation, current use (orlack thereof ), and integrity of these terracedareas vary widely.

The farming and management of therice terraces are linked to water supply forirrigation and forest conservation for water-

shed protection and building materialsthrough traditional tribal practices withineach hamlet. Inscribed for cultural values,ecological values and the lessons of tradi-tional practices are also inherent in the riceterraces of the Philippine Cordilleras.Phillips enlarges on this by observing:“Although the rice terraces are not recog-nized under national law as a protected areawithin the IUCN system, in fact they mani-fest many of the characteristics of a Cat-egory V protected area [i.e., protected land-scape]; indeed they are given as a casestudy in IUCN’s published advice on thistopic.... Strategies for its future manage-ment should draw on experience in themanagement of many Category V protectedareas elsewhere in the world. Examples are:

integration of rice growing with eco-tourism; the development of new marketsfor rice and rice wine from the region; andcapacity building among the local commu-nity based on traditional values.”

With access limited by steep slopes, ricefarming at high altitudes in small paddies is


Figure 2. Landscape of rice terraces in the Philippine Cordilleras. (photo

courtesy of the author)

a strenuous and difficult work of manuallabor. Among the risk factors for conserva-tion and sustainability of the resources andtheir unique character are the breakdown oftribal practices, out-migration of youngerpeople, and importation of nontraditionaltools and materials. In his presentation,Augusto Villalón itemized a comprehensiveplanning approach: “Program componentswere: (a) natural hazard management, (b)agricultural management, (c) watershedmanagement, (d) water management andirrigation, (e) transport development, (f )tourism development, (g) socio-culturalenhancement, (h) livelihood development,(i) institutional development.” It is clearthat the perpetuation of traditional prac-tices unique to this cultural landscape isrequired to sustain the resources. However,management challenges are significant,with changes in management structure andorganization since World Heritage statushindering both continuity and availabilityof resources for conservation. Placed on theList of World Heritage in Danger in 1999,the Rice Terraces of the PhilippineCordilleras are truly at risk from multiplefactors. In closing, Villalón stresses that“unless national authorities see the need tosimultaneously preserve theintegrated network of culture,nature, agriculture, and envi-ronment that are the elementsto preserving the site, only littlegains can be achieved and thecultural landscape will deterio-rate into disrepair.”

Traditional agriculture—Mexico Tequila District. Thecultivation of blue mezcal, ormezcal azul, in fields, planta-tions, and other early tequilaproduction sites comprises asizable agricultural and indus-trial system in the Tequila

Volcano region of Mexico (Figure 3). Inwestern pre-Hispanic Mexico, two types ofalcoholic beverage were prepared, derivedfrom agave from fermented juices andcooked agave hearts. Cooking the tatema-do, the center core of the plant, produced aform of sugar. Wells and circular ovens usedin fermentation are dispersed over the land-scape. In a visually stunning presentationby Ignacio Gómez Arriola and FranciscoJavier López Morales, the complex systemof agave field patterns (Figure 4), tequilaplantations, transportation routes, produc-tion facilities, and social traditions weredemonstrated to have developed frombefore Spanish contact to the present inthis evolved continuing landscape.18 Thenomination of the Tequila region culturallandscape is in progress. As a context for itspossible inscription, the medieval vine-yards of Wachau in Austria and Hungary,the Loire Valley landscape of France, theCuban tobacco plantations of the Valley ofViñales, the Portuguese Alto Douro wineregion, and the Philippine Rice Terracesalready have been inscribed on the WorldHeritage List. The complex system ofresources that comprises the Tequila regionis an example of an agricultural and indus-


Figure 3. Typical agave field in the Tequila VolcanoRegion of Mexico. The plants are a striking shade ofblue. (photo courtesy of the author)

trial heritage that is unique and of high her-itage value to Mexico and quite possibly tothe world.

Traditional agriculture—the Japanesefarmer as gardener. “The farmer is a goodgardener for Japan.”19 In Japan the entiresurface of the available land has been culti-vated, tended, and shaped into a scenic,aesthetically pleasing cultural landscape(Figure 5). In the spring, rice paddiesreflect the sky as bright green growthemerges. In each view alandscape of fields, pad-dies, canals, terraces,and mountains is seen.Productivity and ruralbeauty are the goals ofthe Japan Ministry ofAgriculture, expressedin the motto “Aiming fora stable food supply anda beautiful country.”However, the agricultur-al landscape and the tra-ditional rural culturethat supports it arethreatened by various

forces. Increased devel-opment overtakes farm-lands, while rural revital-ization projects createnew patterns and bringnontraditional architec-ture into rural areas.Declining farm incomesand out-migration fromrural to urban areasmake agriculture lessviable. However, theJapanese people valuefresh, tasty, farm-grownfoods. Some interestingtechniques are beingapplied to these issues.Modest grassroots ap-

proaches by rural citizens as well as granderMinistry of Agriculture initiatives are beingdirected to rural preservation issues. Forexample, rice is a dietary staple, and a pro-gram providing for rural rice paddy cultiva-tion by city families at an annual fee that isless than the cost of the purchase of the ricehas had some success. In addition, as MaryHumstone notes, “Urban–rural exchangeprograms give urban people a chance toexperience rural life while also helping to


Figure 4. Aerial view shows agave field patterns. (photo courtesy of

the author)

Figure 5. Japanese thatch harvest. (photo courtesy of the author)

preserve some of Japan’s most beautifullandscapes. With help from the Ministry ofAgriculture and organizations such as theJapan National Trust, many rural communi-ties have set up exchanges with urban resi-dents, who volunteer to repair terraces,roads and canals, and help with plantingand harvest.”

Japanese building traditions are basedon local climate and materials (Figure 6).These yield, as Humstone observes, “sig-nificant features of the cultural landscapeincluding rice storage buildings, storehous-es for household goods (kura), barns andother farm outbuildings, irrigation canalsand ponds built to heat water from themountains for irrigating rice fields, ruralshrines, stone markers, some inscribed withhaiku, and even self-service vegetablestands.” The designation of historic ruralvillages as preservation districts to includelandscape features has made governmentr e s t o r a t i o ngrants available.While preserva-tion and conser-vation efforts inJapan have mostoften focused oni m p o r t a n tshrines, palaces,gardens, and sce-nic landscapes inthe past, recentlya new directionwas signaled bythe designationof two rice terraces as “Places of ScenicBeauty.” This action has led to broaderconsideration of how to identify and pro-tect notable agricultural landscapes.Humstone notes that “the government isalso considering adding a new category,Cultural Landscapes, to its ‘Historic Sitesand Monuments’ division, which currently

includes Historic Sites, Places of ScenicBeauty and Natural Monuments.”

Programs promoting rural villages rec-ognize both the tangible and intangibleresources of village beauty and traditions,giving awards “for places that not only lookbeautiful, but also have kept or rekindledcommunity traditions, or that have diversi-fied and strengthened their agriculturalbase.” Direct marketing programs promoteincreasing farm incomes. As always, a con-cern raised is the potential to degrade vil-lage culture and traditions through theseprograms.

China and cross-cultural miscommu-nication in natural area protection. TheChinese view, with its origins inConfucianism and Taoism, includeshumanity and nature. As Feng Han states,“Scenic and Historic Interest Areas are theplaces where the natural beauty and cultur-al elements are at ‘perfect oneness’ and

present the Chi-nese perceptions ofNature, namely,beautiful, peaceful,full of human spiri-tuality, and embrac-ing human beings.”In China, the nam-ing of the nationalpark system as sce-nic and historicinterest areas ratherthan nature reservesexpresses these val-ues. In opposition

to this harmony of nature and humanity,Western thinking positions nature as apartfrom humanity and the wilderness isrevered as a place separate from people.Even the term cultural landscape poses aquandary for the Chinese. As Han notes,“The core of the concept of cultural land-scape that is aimed at broadening the view


Figure 6. Traditional Japanese farm. (photo cour-

tesy of the author)

of the landscape towards settlement and allinterfaces between humans and Nature andbeyond the aesthetic, the past, and ‘wilder-ness’ in the West, is not widely accepted bythe Chinese because of the lack of theoreti-cal understanding of contemporary culturallandscape.”

Traditionally, wilderness is not a type ofnatural setting or a concept understood orvalued in China. Nature is aestheticallypleasing and human influenced. Han elec-trified the symposium audience with herstatement that “the Chinese believe artisticre-built Nature is more beautiful than theoriginal one, based on their tradition ofgreat aesthetic achievements.” However,with global influences being brought tobear on China to a degree, a yearning forwilderness is now in evidence and a debateover the unity and separation of nature andculture is in play.

Added to this friction is the recentreview of two World Heritage sites desig-nated for natural values where foreignreview teams found increased developmentas a threat to the natural resources and werecritical of the burgeoning growth in theinscribed areas. The Chinese governmentresponse to the critique was to pursueremoval of development, including tradi-tional villages, at a high cost. In theWulingyuan Scenic and Historic InterestArea, designated in 1992, a 1998 report byUNESCO noted that it was “overrun withtourist facilities, having a considerableimpact on the aesthetic qualities of thesite”; agriculture and urbanization werealso cited. In response, “the Central andProvincial Governments of China decidedto demolish 340,000 m2 of recently builtfacilities and artificial scenic spots torespond to the Committee’s critics in thefive years beginning in 2001; and to removeor resettle 1,791 people from 546 familiesfrom 2001 to 2003 in order to restore the

natural ecosystem.” Shocked reaction fol-lowed Han’s disclosure of the resistance,confusion, and questions raised by themandate to “move [people] out of the landwhere they have lived for generations andwhy their existence is an ‘ecological andvisual impact on the nature’. They are alsoworried about how to survive in a newstrange world [away from their] mountainwith limited financial compensation fromgovernment.” Similarly, in the JiuzhaigouValley Scenic and Historic Interest Area,the 1 million annual visitors prized the col-ors of the water and unique natural scenery.An ecological restoration program thatremoved tourist facilities, with reconstruc-tion limited to adjacent lands, followeddegradation and development. Again, acostly process was pursued, resulting inwrenching changes. Han explains:

The price of the removal of alltourism facilities and the prohibitionof grazing of the local minorities isthe disappearance of culture. Tradi-tional local life formed ... five thou-sand years ago has been totallychanged. It was once a living cultur-al landscape with nine minority vil-lages living in this valley (the mean-ing of [the] name of JiuzhaigouValley) [with] their own customs,grazing and farming generations bygenerations. Now they still live [on]this site but their existence hasbecome a tourist gaze, [and theyhave become] the tourists’ image ofminorities and herdsmen. Theystopped their traditional life of livingin Nature, in return for the high eco-nomic benefits from the local govern-ment. Tourism has eliminated theneed for the natural resources‘exploitation’ that they formerly livedon.... While the local people are los-


ing their homeland, we are losingour living culture; we are creating‘dead culture’ (museums) while weare killing living culture.

These two examples from China arecomplex, but clearly they highlight culturaldifferences and target the potential misstepsin application of natural and cultural valuesas judged by those outside of a culture.

Financial Support

While individual project efforts can becited in the emerging conjunction and/orcollision of natural and cultural resourcesand their identification, documentation,preservation, use, and management, thereare pervasive limitations of funding at alllevels. Traditional sources of support inboth the public and private sectors respondto either natural or cultural resources activ-ities. Rössler recommends support fromdonors in exploring the interaction of natu-ral and cultural resources and in providingsupport for their safeguarding. Pataronoted that it would be desirable to increaseawareness about the intertwined relation-ships between conservation and develop-ment (and, I would add, economic viabilityand sustainability) among internationalfinancial institutions. Donors to theUNESCO World Heritage Fund shoulddirect funding toward cultural landscapeprograms. Lennon targets the gap betweenprivate and public with her comment that,in Australia, “while much practical conser-vation effort over the last decade hasoccurred at whole-farm and water catch-ment levels through the federally fundedNational Heritage Trust identifying andprotecting remnant vegetation, there hasbeen little effort at regional landscape pro-tection and in managing delineated culturallandscapes either on private property or inpublic land reserves. Since 1996, the Trust

has invested $1.4 billion to help local com-munities support the sustainable manage-ment of Australia’s natural resourcesthrough Landcare, Bushcare, Coastcare,and Rivercare programs.”20 Funding re-mains a challenge; however, the ability topoint to comparable funded programs anda level of international attention to the sub-ject of cultural and natural resource stew-ardship is an advantage.

Conclusions and Declaration

The papers presented and extensive dia-logue among presenters and attendees atthe 7th US/ICOMOS Symposium was, asintended, a highly interesting and usefulplatform for learning form each other. As aplethora of issues emerged in a variety offorms, it became clear that a declarationcould be crafted that would aid us all in ourefforts. In closing her paper, MechtildRössler brought us this useful quote:“Biodiversity should be appreciated interms of human diversity, since differentcultures and people ... confront and per-ceive biodiversity in different ways. This isdue to their distinct heritage and experi-ences, which are translated into knowledgesystems, cultural expressions and language,and which enrich and transform the envi-ronment, landscapes and especially biodi-versity.”21 Multiple values—cultural andnatural, tangible and intangible, historical,ecological, and social—were stated andexplored. It was widely agreed that multiplevoices—traditional, local, regional, nation-al, international, multicultural, and profes-sional, and those of students, politicians,and citizens—need to be brought to contin-uing exchanges. Identification and docu-mentation need to be followed by adequateplanning in a holistic approach. Recog-nizing that the quality of life and experienceof places is enriched greatly by the sharedglobal heritage of cultural and natural land-


scapes, we affirmed in the NatchitochesDeclaration on Heritage Landscapes, 27March 2004, that the traditional separationof cultural and natural resources within ourshared legacy of heritage landscapes was nolonger sustainable. Within the variety ofcultural frameworks, patience and insightare required in listening, understanding,and acting on the many facets of protectionof heritage landscapes.

Endnotes1A compact disk with the program, declara-tion, introductory paper by the author,speaker papers, PowerPoint presentations,and descriptions of some field sessions isavailable from US/ICOMOS ([email protected]).2 An interactive world map of sites is athttp://whc.unesco.org/.3 World Heritage natural property criteriaare excerpted from documents (2003) thatcan be found on the World Heritage web-site (URL above). For the purposes of thispaper, the author has summarized the crite-ria wording.4 Cultural property criteria are also drawnfrom the World Heritage website. For thepurposes of this paper, the author has sum-marized the criteria wording.5 As noted by Mechtild Rössler, chief,Europe & North America, UNESCOWorld Heritage Centre, in her remarks tothe symposium.6 Mechtild Rössler, “World Heritage—Linking Cultural and Biological Diversity,”7th US/ICOMOS Symposium, 2004.Hereinafter, all papers cited are from thesymposium unless noted otherwise.7 Ibid.8 Adrian Phillips, “World Heritage CulturalLandscapes—An Overview of the NaturalValues.” Phillips serves as vice chair forWorld Heritage of the IUCN WorldCommission on Protected Areas (WCPA).

9 IUCN, Guidelines for Protected AreaManagement Categories (Gland, Switzer-land, and Cambridge, U.K.: IUCN andWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre,1994).10 See the CBD website, www.biodiv.org.11 Phillips, “World Heritage CulturalLandscapes—An Overview of the NaturalValues.”12

Maria Susana Pataro, “Implementationof the World Heritage Convention inArgentina.” Pataro is with Argentina’sMinistry of Foreign Relations, InternationalTrade, and Worship.13 Jane L. Lennon, “Paris Down Under—World Heritage Impacts in Australia.” Seealso www.environment.gov.au/epbc.14 Gary Kesler, D. Fairchild Ruggles, AmitaSinha, and James Wescoat, Jr., “ChampanerPavagadh Cultural Sanctuary, Gujarat,India: Challenges and Responses inCultural Heritage Planning and Design.”Sinha is a professor in the Department ofLandscape Architecture, University ofIllinois at Urbana–Champaign, USA.15 Tomas O Caoimh, “The Pilgrims’ Path:Promoting Sustainable Development ofWalking Routes through Sacred Sites inIreland.” O Caoimh is with the HeritageCouncil of Ireland.16 Cecelia Rusnak, Brian Orland, and JanHendrych, “Reciprocal Benefits of StudentService-Learning in Addressing the Needsof Heritage Landscapes.” Orland is head ofthe Department of Landscape Architecture,Penn State University. The project was apartnership with the Silva TaroucaResearch Institute for Landscape andGardening, Pruhonice, Czech Republic.17 Salim Elwazani, “Identification andPreservation of the Iraqi Heritage Areas:The International Hand.”18 Ignacio Gómez Arriola and FranciscoJavier López Morales, “The AgaveLandscape and the Ancient Tequila


Industrial Installations: A ProposedMexican Cultural Landscape.”19 This old saying was used as the title ofMary Humstone’s paper “‘The Farmer is aGood Gardener’—Lessons from Japan.”

Humstone is at the University of Wyoming,USA.20 See www.nht.gov.au/overview.html.21 Juan Mayr, “Cultural Diversity and theEnvironment,” unpublished report (2003).


Patricia M. O’Donnell, Preservation Landscape Architects & Planners, 501 Lake Road,Charlotte, Vermont 05445; [email protected]

learning from world heritage: lessons from ‘international ... · mixed sites, embodying both...

Documents