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.
Spanning two Canadian provinces, Pimachiowin Aki was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2018. What is most noteworthy about the site is its innovative management approach that stems from a joint understanding of nature and culture via a bottom-up partnership between four Anishinaabe First Nations communities and provincial government representatives.
The events of the past year, along with the ongoing crisis of global climate change, all underscore the need for a robust system of protected areas that can serve as sites of dialogue, research, and rejuvenation. But how do we ensure that these sites, which vary tremendously in their scale and their approaches to land management, remain connected to one another? What mechanisms can be put in place to facilitate knowledge exchange among staff, partners, and volunteers? And how can we continue to bridge the artificial divides of science / humanities and nature / culture that (still) remain so pervasive?
Je-Hun Ryu and Fran Han point at the problem of using the concept behind World Heritage “cultural landscape” in Korea and China respectively, because it follows a modern Western-European idea of nature, as separate from culture. They both explain the historical background in their own contexts of an undivided nature-culture paradigm, and where humans are understood as part of the natural world
Spanning two Canadian provinces, Pimachiowin Aki was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2018. What is most noteworthy about the site is its innovative management approach that stems from a joint understanding of nature and culture via a bottom-up partnership between four Anishinaabe First Nations communities and provincial government representatives.
The events of the past year, along with the ongoing crisis of global climate change, all underscore the need for a robust system of protected areas that can serve as sites of dialogue, research, and rejuvenation. But how do we ensure that these sites, which vary tremendously in their scale and their approaches to land management, remain connected to one another? What mechanisms can be put in place to facilitate knowledge exchange among staff, partners, and volunteers? And how can we continue to bridge the artificial divides of science / humanities and nature / culture that (still) remain so pervasive?
Je-Hun Ryu and Fran Han point at the problem of using the concept behind World Heritage “cultural landscape” in Korea and China respectively, because it follows a modern Western-European idea of nature, as separate from culture. They both explain the historical background in their own contexts of an undivided nature-culture paradigm, and where humans are understood as part of the natural world