To provide observations and information on the emerging fields of landscape scale conservation, heritage preservation, and sustainable community development.
Stay up-to-date with the latest nature, culture and community news.
We won’t spam you or share your information. Newsletters are sent approximately 10 times a year. Unsubscribe at any time.
What happens when a highway project, long planned to improve the functionality of the overall transportation system, runs up against new designations that look at the value of resources on a landscape scale? How can infrastructure development manage this changing landscape? After all it does not look like this kind of thinking is going away. Read the back story and some recommendations for the future.
Creating new national parks and protecting public lands on a landscape scale is not for the faint of heart. An analysis of the ongoing debate over a possible national park in Maine’s North Woods as well as the long-running efforts to resolve land-use practices on millions of federal acres in Utah highlight some of the challenges. While the rhetoric is intense left on the sidelines is the American public and the most affected communities, what do they think?
In November 2015 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report “An Evaluation of the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives”, which concluded that a landscape approach is needed to meet the nation’s conservation challenges and that the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) provide a framework for addressing that need. The NAS undertook the study pursuant to a Congressional directive to evaluate the LCC program.
Government development projects, really any large infrastructure projects, have the potential to damage the environment, which includes its cultural heritage aspect. While most nations have put in place a process to assess such impacts, as applied to cultural resources the process seems formulaic, does not address impacts to the broader cultural landscape, and ignores or discounts what the communities value as their heritage and what is important for their living traditions.
If ever there was a cultural landscape worthy of being a heritage corridor, it is this one – especially in the Low Country. Local and regional leaders fervently hoped national designation would bring badly needed public exposure, funding to preserve, interpret and market the corridor’s sites and communities, and greater clout when advocating for the preservation of fragile communities.
What happens when a highway project, long planned to improve the functionality of the overall transportation system, runs up against new designations that look at the value of resources on a landscape scale? How can infrastructure development manage this changing landscape? After all it does not look like this kind of thinking is going away. Read the back story and some recommendations for the future.
Creating new national parks and protecting public lands on a landscape scale is not for the faint of heart. An analysis of the ongoing debate over a possible national park in Maine’s North Woods as well as the long-running efforts to resolve land-use practices on millions of federal acres in Utah highlight some of the challenges. While the rhetoric is intense left on the sidelines is the American public and the most affected communities, what do they think?
In November 2015 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report “An Evaluation of the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives”, which concluded that a landscape approach is needed to meet the nation’s conservation challenges and that the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) provide a framework for addressing that need. The NAS undertook the study pursuant to a Congressional directive to evaluate the LCC program.
Government development projects, really any large infrastructure projects, have the potential to damage the environment, which includes its cultural heritage aspect. While most nations have put in place a process to assess such impacts, as applied to cultural resources the process seems formulaic, does not address impacts to the broader cultural landscape, and ignores or discounts what the communities value as their heritage and what is important for their living traditions.
If ever there was a cultural landscape worthy of being a heritage corridor, it is this one – especially in the Low Country. Local and regional leaders fervently hoped national designation would bring badly needed public exposure, funding to preserve, interpret and market the corridor’s sites and communities, and greater clout when advocating for the preservation of fragile communities.