Stewardship of Heritage Areas Origins Founded in 1980

Home , 1979 NHL expansion

The George Wright

FORUvolume 20 number M2 • June 200 3

Stewardship of Heritage Areas Origins Founded in 1980. the George Wright Society is organized for the purpos es of promoting the application of knowledge, fostering communication, improving resource management, and providing information to improve public understanding and appreciation of the basic purposes of natural and cultural parks and equivalent reserves. The Society is dedicated to the protection, preservation, and management of cultural and natural parks and reserves through research and education.

Mission The George Wright Society advances the scientific and heritage values of parks and protected areas. The Society promotes professional research and resource stewardship across natural and cultural disciplines, provides avenues of communication, and encourage public policies that embrace these values.

Our Goal The Society strives to be the premier organization connecting people, places, knowledge, and ideas to foster excellence in natural and cultural resource management, research, protection, and interpretation in parks and equivalent reserves.

Board of Directors DENNIS B. FENN, President • Flagstaff, Arizona ABIGAIL B. MILLER, Vice President ' Alexandria, Virginia DwiGIlTT.PlTCAITHLEY, Treasurer • Rcston, Virginia GILLIAN BOWSER, Secretary B College, Station, Texas JERRY EMORY ' Mill Valley, California BRUCE E. KILGORE * Poeafello, Idaho DAVIDj. PARSONS " Florence, Montana JOHN J. REYNOLDS • Castro Valley, California RICHARD B. SMITH ^ Placitas, New Mexico STEPHEN WOODLEY * Chelsea, Quebec

Executive Office DAVID HARMON, Executive Director ROBERT M. LINN, Membership Coordinator EMILY DELKER-FIALA, Conference Coordinator P. O. Box 65 • Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 USA 1-906-487-9722 • fax 1-906-487-9405 [email protected] • http://www.georgewright.org

The George Wright Society is a member of US/ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites—U.S. Committee), IUCN-The World Conservation Union, and The Natural Resources Council of America

Editorial guidelines may be found on the inside back cover. Text paper is made of 50% recycled fibers. Printed by Book Concern Printers, Hancock, Michigan.

Society News,3 Notes & Mail Nearly 850 Attend GWS/CR2003 Conference Despite the uncertainties of war and significant budget squeezes, the George Wright Society / Cultural Resources 2003 joint conference drew a very healthy crowd of almost 850 people to San Diego in April. This was the 12th in a series of conferences dating back to 1976 and which have been organized by the Soci- ety since 1982. The attendance was the highest ever since the GWS became involved. Over 130 sessions covering an exceptionally wide range of natural and cultural resource topics were held. If you missed it, you can still get a feel for the meeting by browsing the abstracts on-line at www.georgewright.org/ 2003abstracts.pdf. A conference proceedings CD and book containing over 80 papers is in preparation. If you are a GWS member, you will be notified upon publication. If not, you can ask to be notified by sending a message to [email protected].

GWS Signs on to Iraq Looting Letter In mid-April the Society added its name to an urgent letter that went out to top American officials soon after the deplorable ransacking of the National Museum in Baghdad became known. The letter asked the American president, secretary of state, and secretary of defense to take immediate and decisive steps to intervene to stop the looting and destruction of Iraq’s cultural treasures. The letter read in part: “As leaders of national organizations representing millions of Americans who believe that the material culture inherited from our ancestors constitutes one of humanity’s greatest treasures, we call on you to use all means at your disposal to stop the pillaging and protect cultural sites and institutions of Iraq. These include historic sites, historic urban districts, cultural landscapes, buildings of unusual aesthetic values, archaeological sites, museums, libraries, archives and other repositories of cultural property and human memory.” The letter was signed by, among others, the American Anthropological Association, Archaeological Institute of America, National Geographic Society, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Society for Historical Archaeology,and the U.S. Committee for ICOMOS (International Council of Monuments and Sites).

The Society at the World Parks Congress The Society will be well represented at the fifth World Parks Congress (WPC), upcoming in Durban, South Africa, this September. The WPC is the largest professional meeting devoted to parks and protected areas, and is held only once every ten years. It is organized by IUCN-The World Conservation

2 The George Wright FORUM Union through its Protected Areas Program office and with the assistance of the World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN’s global volunteer network of park professionals. The Durban meeting will, as one would expect, have a strong African theme, but attendance from around the world assures a global focus. The GWS will be represented by three members of the current board of directors: Dave Parsons, director of the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute; Rick Smith, an NPS retiree who has been deeply involved with the International Ranger Federation; and Stephen Woodley, chief scientist of Parks Canada. In addition, Dave Harmon, the GWS executive director, will attend. Parsons and Harmon will both take part in a pre-Congress mountain protected area workshop, and Harmon will also be involved in the launch of a new book, The Full Value of Parks: From Economics to the Intangible, which he co-edited with Allen D. Putney. We will provide a report from Durban in the December issue.

A New Logo for the GWS ... and a New Look for the Forum We hope you will have already noticed the updated look to this issue of the Forum. We’ve refreshed our style to accompany the new GWS logo, which you can see in full color on the back cover. The GWS board decided last year to have the logo professionally re-designed to make it simpler and more intelligible. Our original logo, you’ll recall, was a view of Earth as if you were standing on the surface of the moon. The view of the entire world at once was intended to convey the holistic aspect of the GWS mission, covering parks everywhere. In the original logo, the continents and seas were partially obscured by swirling clouds, which made the intended symbolism more difficult to understand. The new logo is essentially a stylized version of the old one, with the grey “swoosh” motif representing the moonscape and the blue and green semi-detached circle the Earth. The two colors signify our dual mission of promoting the science and heritage values of parks. In addition, the new logo incorporates the Society’s name as an integrated element. The logo is being introduced to all Society publications and our website, which itself is in the process of a major re-design.

From Yellowstone to Africa “Beyond the Arch: Community and Conservation in Greater Yellowstone and East Africa” is the theme of the 7th Biennial Scientific Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The event will be October 6–8, 2003, at Mam- moth Hot Springs. The goal is to generate, in non-technical language, a publicly oriented discussion of issues that draw together national parks in the Greater Yellowstone Area and East Africa. Participants will make comparisons and foster dialogue across boundaries marking the intersections of global and local, private and public, natural and cultural, and scientific and social spheres. Man- agers, scientists, policy-makers, and the public will come together to discuss and consider the interdependence of both nature–society relations and natural

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 3 and cultural history in local and global contexts. The conference will promote understanding of the ecological and social challenges facing parks in the Greater Yellowstone Area and East Africa, and initiate the development of useful strategies for sustaining the national park idea at the dawn of the 21st century. Featured speakers will include Richard Leakey, a leader in fighting political corruption and the destruction of Kenya’s natural resources, and global spokesperson for conservation. Details at: www.nps.gov/yell/technical/conference.htm.

Errata A reader has pointed out an error and a possible point of confusion in Robert M. Dunkerly’s article “Our History’s History” in the last issue (Volume 20, Number 1). First, the National Park System Advisory Board is referred to as “congressionally appointed” when in fact its members are appointed by the secretary of the interior. Second, we were reminded that referring to the law that created the National Park Service as the “Organic Act” with capital letters (as Dunkerly did ... and we often have!) is misleading. As our reader notes, if one goes to the U.S. Code and looks up “Organic Act” one will come up empty- handed because there is no such law.The term “organic act” (lowercased) properly refers, in a generic way, to any law creating an agency. The correct name of the NPS organic act is the “National Park Service Act of 1916,” and that is how one can find it in the Code. 3

4 The George Wright FORUM Brenda Barrett Nora Mitchell Stewardship of Living Landscapes

t is timely to dedicate an issue of The George Wright Forum to the heritage areas movement. This is an important direction in conservation, as demonstrated by the growth in the number of heritage area initiatives at every level in the United States. Today there are twenty-three congressionally designat- Ied heritage areas and corridors and more than a dozen proposals for additional national areas. A number of new state heritage programs have joined the established ones in New York and Pennsylvania, and literally hundreds of regional grassroots initiatives are underway across the country. While the first national heritage Paradigm for Protected Areas,” the area was designated as recently as article looks at the new models for 1984, the concept of conserving conservation that are emerging around important lived-in landscapes—by the world. The classic view of protect- harnessing the energy of every level of ed areas has been that of the govern- government and, most critically, of the ment-owned, government-run nation- people who live in them—has been al park units as developed in the under development for over thirty United States. Through careful com- years. These ideas have been tested parison of international trends in con- not just in the United States, but also servation, Phillips demonstrates that in Europe and, now,around the world. the approach to protected areas has The shift has been from a straightfor- shifted radically from a top-down, reg- ward park model with a sharp bound- ulatory one to an inclusive vision with ary, owned and managed by a public shared management and multiple agency,to large landscapes with multi- objectives that include those of the ple owners and complex partnerships community. as the managing entity.This collection His work, along with Brent of papers examines global trends in Mitchell’s, provides an international conservation stewardship, reviews the perspective and allows for thoughtful historical development of heritage comparisons between international areas in the United States, and exam- trends and some of the innovations in ines some of the benefits of this collab- protected areas here in the United orative approach in telling richer sto- States. The similarities between the ries and tackling daunting preserva- conservation practices in other coun- tion projects. tries around the world and the experi- We are indeed fortunate to have ence in designating large living land- Adrian Phillips’ paper to lead off this scapes as heritage areas are striking. issue of the Forum. Titled “Turning The opportunity for placing these Ideas on Their Heads: The New new larger living landscapes in a con-

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 5 servation framework broadens the significance, but present an over- context of our work and increases the whelming management challenge to a public benefit. park-based agency. Her overview Brenda Barrett and Glenn Eugster defines the scale of the issue and offers provide a historical context for the an alternative to the total loss of these emergence of national heritage areas in resources by transforming how we the United States. Tracing both ideas think of their preservation. on landscape-based conservation Although the national heritage area within the federal government and movement is still young, it is not too such outside societal influences as early to try and place the ideas that transportation and suburban sprawl, give it energy within the larger context these papers track the development of of community-based conservation. a new partnership role for the National Developing a heritage area at any gov- Park Service. This is characterized by ernmental level involves working in a fundamental shift in control and gov- partnership across political and disci- ernance that empowers the people plinary boundaries. It is a strategy to who live in special places with the achieve conservation in concert with responsibility for telling their stories compatible economic development, and caring for their resources. Laura whether renewing traditional econom- Gates and Nancy Morgan illustrate ic pursuits or finding new ways to sus- how national park units and national tain the people that give the landscape heritage areas can work together to life. The goal is to maintain resource preserve a larger whole. The success- values, both natural and cultural, as ful partnership of the Cane River well as maintaining community vitali- Creole National Historical Park and ty: to manage change with losing the the larger Cane River National spirit of place. Heritage Area recognizes the unique Forty-five million people live within value the local community can add to the boundaries of existing national interpretation of place and the power heritage areas. The proposed new that partnerships bring to resource areas showcase strong partnerships conservation. As new heritage areas with national park units, Western are proposed that incorporate larger landscapes, diverse stories, and even expanses of public lands, particularly more people. For this reason alone the in the West,these models of collabora- National Park Service and all organi- tion between land manager and com- zations that care about conserving the munity will become more and more American landscape should look significant. closely at this phenomenon. Adrian Finally, national heritage areas can Phillips suggests that this new para- play a critical role in saving at least digm may offer unparalleled potential something of what Constance to view protected areas in a broader Bodurow calls the “big and dirty” context and to build support among industrial landscapes. Such areas as residents and their political leaders. the Ford Rouge Plant and the steel val- Finally, it is valuable to understand leys in Pittsburgh are of unparalleled that these areas are not out of step with

6 The George Wright FORUM the history of resource protection in living landscapes will be explored. the United States and around the New possibilities for conservation world. Undoubtedly, the idea of what with communities are still developing, constitutes a heritage area will contin- and we hope that the ideas in this issue ue to evolve and new and innovative will provide both background and a ways to address the conservation of starting point for future work.

Brenda Barrett, National Coordinator for Heritage Areas, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240; brenda_barrett@ nps.gov Nora Mitchell, Director, Conservation Study Institute, National Park Service, 54 Elm Street, Woodstock, Vermont 05091; [email protected] 3

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 7 Adrian Phillips Turning Ideas on Their Head The New Paradigm For Protected Areas

Introduction he ideas that this paper brings together will be individually familiar to resource managers, protected area planners and managers, and other conservation experts, but they may not have considered their combined Tsignificance. So its purpose is not so much to break new ground as to suggest that the changes that have occurred in our thinking and practice towards protected areas over the past 40 or so years amount to a revolution. But while the merits of many of these individual changes have been fiercely debated, their col- lective significance, which can be traced in the decisions of four world parks congresses, has largely gone unnoticed. Yet taken together they have produced a new paradigm for protected areas in the 21st century. Powerful forces have helped to bring about this new paradigm—and they will have an even greater influence on protected areas thinking and practice in future.

Protected Areas •To be area-based concepts that A starting point is a definition of might be found anywhere; “protected area.” IUCN adopted this •To require specific measures (dedi- in 1994: cation, designation, regulation) for [An] area of land and/or sea especial- the purposes of biodiversity con- ly dedicated to the protection and servation (i.e., protection and maintenance of biological diversity, maintenance); and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal •To require management, delivered or other effective means (IUCN 1994). through legal or other effective means; and The Convention on Biological • By implication, to require that Diversity (CBD) uses a different defi- some kind of management authori- nition: ty is in place to secure conserva- [A] geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and man- tion. aged to achieve specific conservation There are some 60,000 protected objectives (Article 2). areas around the world—that is, places In practice these definitions are that satisfy the IUCN definition and only marginally different. Either are held in the database kept by the would suffice for the purposes of the United Nations Environment Pro- argument in this paper. Note that both gram’s World Conservation Monitor- of them consider protected areas: ing Center (UNEP/WCMC) at Cam-

8 The George Wright FORUM bridge, United Kingdom. However, A Classic View fewer than a quarter of these are large of Protected Areas enough to be included in the United It is traditional (and correct) to Nations List of Protected Areas, accord to the United States the honor whose listings are normally restricted of pioneering protected areas in their to areas greater than 10 sq km. The classic form, as government-owned, U.N. list is published every few years; government-run areas set aside for the last edition dates from1997 protection and enjoyment. This (IUCN 1998a). model was, and remains, a simple but Protected areas are managed for powerful expression of peoples’ con- many purposes and nationally have cern to protect their heritage for all been called by many different names. time. If this paper sets out to show To bring some order into this compli- why it is now often regarded as incom- cated situation, IUCN has developed a plete, and in some situations potential- system of protected area categories, ly counterproductive, this is not to based on primary management objec- diminish its achievements in many tives (IUCN 1994). All categories are countries, nor to suggest that it has no intended to fit within IUCN’s overall role to play in the future. definition of a protected area. These Notwithstanding the leadership categories are summarized in Table 1. role of the USA, in fact the idea of for-

Table 1. IUCN categories of protected areas (IUCN 1994) Category Description Ia Strict Nature Reserve: Protected area managed mainly for science. Ib Wilderness Area: Protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection. II National Park: Protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation. III Natural Monument: Protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features. IV Habitat/Species Management Area: Protected area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention. VProtected Landscape/Seascape: Protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation. VI Managed Resource Protected Area: Protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems.

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 9 mally designated protected areas— around the world, though the driving national parks in particular—took root force has been different in different in a number of countries around the regions. For example, in Africa, the same time. The origins of Yosemite emphasis was on creating large game National Park go back to 1864, and parks; in Europe, a focus on landscape Yellowstone National Park, of course, protection was more common. came into being in 1872. But the Por- The inspiration of the United tuguese colonial government of Brazil States was much in evidence in this initiated what is now Tijuca National worldwide trend—creating a family of Park in 1861. The British colony of “Yellowstone’s children” (Everhart New South Wales (Australia) reserved 1972). Indeed, active marketing of the a number of areas west of Sydney for U.S. experience has a long history. protection and tourism in the 1860s Thus, the 1940 Washington Conven- and 1870s, some of which later tion on Nature Protection and Wildlife became part of Blue Mountains Preservation in the Western Hemi- National Park. In 1879, Royal Nation- sphere called on contracting parties to al Park was created in the wilds south create protected areas, of which the of Sydney as a natural recreation area principal model was national parks, for its burgeoning population. In sensu USA. The first two world parks 1885, Canada protected hot springs in congresses were held in the United the Bow Valley of the Rocky Moun- States (Seattle in 1962; Yellowstone tains; part of this became Banff and Grand Teton national parks in National Park. Several forest reserves 1972). Beginning in 1965, the USA were set up in South Africa in the last (and Canada) hosted a very influential years of the nineteenth century. In annual short course on parks for 1887 in New Zealand, the Maori Chief young conservation leaders from Te Heuheu offered the Crown 2,400 around the world. Also, the interna- ha of sacred mountain summits, which tional office of the U.S. National Park later became Tongariro National Park Service helped many countries to Act. The provincial or state tier of gov- establish national parks. Pride in the ernments also started to create pro- American achievement was evident: as tected areas: the province of Ontario the writer Wallace Stegner said, in Canada created Queen Victoria “National Parks are the best idea we Niagara Falls Park in 1885, and Algo- ever had. Absolutely American, nquin National Park (later Algonquin absolutely democratic, they reflect us Provincial Park) in 1893 (Holdgate at our best rather than our worst” 1999). (Stegner 1983). While the modern protected areas As protected areas were set up in movement had 19th-century origins more and more countries, it became mainly in the then “new” nations of more difficult to generalize about why North America, Australia, New they were established and how they Zealand, and South Africa, other were managed. Nonetheless, for many countries were quick to follow.During years the classic model dominated the twentieth century, the idea spread thinking, and was at the center of

10 The George Wright FORUM much national legislation to set up areas were set up favored a top-down protected areas. This view was rein- and rather exclusive view of protected forced by IUCN’s advisory, promo- areas. Setting up large game parks tional, and training work in this field, without too much concern for the which treated national parks as primus impact on local people fitted well with inter pares among the different kind of the autocratic style of colonial admin- protected areas.1 These ideas were istration (especially in Africa), and it delivered on the ground in many parts was equally at home in the early days of the developing world through sup- of post-colonial government which port given to national park projects by followed many of the same styles of FAO (the Food and Agriculture Orga- administration. Thus, modeled in part nization of the United Nations, in on the 1940 Western Hemisphere which U.S. experts played a very influ- Convention, the 1968 Africa Conven- ential role, especially in Latin Ameri- tion on Nature and Natural Resources ca), and (after its establishment in encouraged the creation of protected 1972) UNEP, as well as by some other areas from which local people would donors. Also, many countries set up be excluded, though tourists (and specialized agencies (national parks their activities such as sport fishing) services) to manage these areas. would be welcome (see Table 2). At least until around the mid- Certainly the opinions and rights of 1960s, the climate in which protected indigenous peoples were of little con-

Table 2. Extracts from the 1968 Africa Convention on Nature and Natural Resources.

Conservation area “means any protected natural resource area, whether it be a strict natural reserve, a national park, or a special reserve....”

Strict nature reserve “means an area ... under State control ... throughout which any form of hunting or fishing ... [is] strictly forbidden ... where it shall be forbidden to reside, enter, traverse or camp....”

National park “means an area ... under State control ... exclusively set aside for the propagation, protection, conservation and management of vegetation and wild animals ... in which the killing, hunting and capture of animals and the destruction or collection of plants are prohibited ... and [in which measures are taken] to enable the public to visit these parks.... [S]port fishing may be practised with the authorisation and under the control of the competent authority....”

Special reserve “means other protected areas such as: ‘game reserve’ ... within which the hunting, killing or capture of fauna shall be prohibited ... where settlement and other human activities shall be controlled or prohibited; ‘partial reserve’ or ‘sanctuary’ ... an area set aside to protect characteristic wildlife.... ‘Soil,’ ‘water,’ or ‘forest’ reserve shall denote areas set aside to protect such resources.”

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 11 cern to any government before about area or profession made little effort to 1970; these groups were not organ- build bridges to others employed in ized as a political force as they are now related topics; protected areas were no in many countries. Even in more exception. In short, many protected developed countries, the prevailing areas came into being at a simpler time view until about the 1960s was that in a less complex world. governments knew best, and public It is this context that accounts for opinion was something for officials to the main features of the classic model, help shape, not to be influenced by. or paradigm,2 of protected areas as it Moreover, the scientific foundation for was before, say, 1970, and which are protected areas was often limited: the summarized in Table 3. basis upon which areas were selected, Of course, Table 3 is a bit of a cari- and their boundaries drawn, often cature, and certainly a rather crude involved arbitrary judgment based on generalization that overlooks many of superficial knowledge. More generally, the detailed ways in which protected the idea of inter- or multi-disciplinary area management in one country dif- working was in its infancy. The great fered from that in another. Nonethe- majority of people working in their less, it captures the prevailing values

Table 3. A classic model of protected areas (adapted from Phillips 2002).

Objectives Local people • “Set aside” for conservation, in the sense • Planned and managed against the that the land (or water) is seen as taken out impact of people (except for visitors), of productive use and especially to exclude local people • Established mainly for scenic protection • Managed with little regard for the local and spectacular wildlife, with a major community, who are rarely consulted emphasis on how things look rather than on management intentions and might how natural systems function not even be informed of them • Managed mainly for visitors and tourists, Wider context whose interests normally prevail over those • Developed separately—that is, planned of local people one by one, in an ad hoc manner • Placing a high value on wilderness—that is, • Managed as “islands”—that is, on areas believed to be free of human managed without regard to influence surrounding areas • About protection of existing natural and Management skills landscape assets—not about the restoration • Managed by natural scientists or of lost values natural resource experts Governance • Expert-led • Run by central government, or at least set Finance up at instigation only of central government • Paid for by the taxpayer

12 The George Wright FORUM held by protected areas professionals of the texts of the recommendations and political leaders at the time. tends to bear out the following conclusions. Charting the Changes in Thinking The First World Conference on To help chart the progress in think- National Parks adopted a number of ing about protected areas since, an brief recommendations, but not all of analysis has been undertaken of the them focused on protected area policy. topics chosen for recommendations at Several addressed institutional ques- the four global protected areas events tions (e.g., support for the newly that have occurred since 1962. These founded World Wildlife Fund), site- are the first (Seattle, 1962), second specific issues (e.g., Galapagos), and (Yellowstone/Grand Teton, 1972), species conservation issues. Table 4 third (Bali, 1982), and fourth (Cara- includes only those recommendations cas, 1992) world parks congresses. that relate to protected area policy in Also included in the analysis are two general. other international protected area

Table 4. Topics of relevant recommendations of the First World Conference on National Parks, Seattle, USA, 1962 (Adams 1962).

5: Park interpretation services 6: Research into undisturbed biotopes 7: Management to be based on scientific research 8, 9, 10: Protected areas definitions and standards 11: Exclusion of damaging development 13, 14: Inclusion of support for protected areas in aid programs 15: Marine protected areas 22: Species protection by protected areas

[Because the original recommendations were only given numbers, titles have been added by the author.] events held since 1992, and the The recommendations adopted by themes selected for the fifth congress the Second World Conference on to be held in Durban, South Africa, in National Parks were much more clear- September 2003. Each congress was ly focused on what were then seen as (or will be) a global gathering of pro- the global priorities for protected tected area and other conservation areas. They are set out in Table 5. experts, addressing the issues that The most remarkable thing about they regard as the most pressing. The this list, fully borne out by a detailed strictly limited number of recommen- analysis of the texts of the recommendations adopted at each event forced a dations, is the failure to address the prioritization that can be quite reveal- connections between protected areas ing. Of course this is a crude form of and questions of development in gen- analysis on its own, but detailed study eral, and between protected areas and

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 13 Table 5. Topics of recommendations of the Second World Conference on National Parks, Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, USA, 1972 (National Parks Centennial Commission 1973).

1. Conservation of Representative Ecosystems 2. Conservation of Tropical Forest Ecosystems 3. Conservation of North and Sub-Polar Ecosystems 4. Marine National Parks and Reserves 5. Establishment of Antarctica as a World Park under U.N. Administration 6. International Parks 7. Regional Systems of National Parks and Other Protected Areas 8. Conservation of the World Heritage 9. Wetlands Convention 10. Standards and Nomenclature for Protected Areas 11. Integrity of National Parks and Equivalent Reserves 12. Usage of National Parks 13. Detrimental Effects of Vehicles, Boats, and Aircraft in National Parks and Other Protected Areas 14. Research on National Park Values 15. Planning of National Parks and Other Protected Areas 16. Exchange of Information 17. Technical and Financial Assistance for National Parks 18. Training 19. Interpretation Services for National Parks 20. Education in National Parks and Other Protected Areas the areas around them in particular. later (see Table 6).While some themes There is also little interest shown in are the same or similar, there are a local communities or indigenous peo- bunch of recommendations that ples—except as a threat to protected address a wholly new agenda—see areas. And no direct attention is given those emphasized in italics. Even to biodiversity and genetic resources familiar topics, like poaching, are con- conservation. From today’s perspec- sidered from a much more construc- tive, these products of the 1972 con- tive viewpoint, with as much stress on ference in Yellowstone appear to rep- alternative sources of income for local resent an inward-looking and narrow people as on combating illegal activi- view of protected areas. They produce ties. In place of education in protected a much more comprehensive agenda areas has come the much bigger chal- than that adopted at Seattle, and may lenge of building public support for be said to capture the priorities of protected areas. In this way,by making advocates of the classic paradigm in the link between protected areas and Table 3. development questions, and by acknowledging the key role of local Toward a New Paradigm and indigenous groups, Bali repre- It is instructive to compare Table 5 sented a real watershed. with the topics of recommendations Analysis of the recommendations adopted by the Third World Parks adopted at the Fourth World Congress Congress in Bali, Indonesia, ten years on National Parks and Protected

14 The George Wright FORUM Table 6. Topics of recommendations of the Third World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia, 1982 (McNeely and Miller 1984). 1. Information on Protected Areas 2. Global System of Representative Terrestrial Protected Areas 3. Marine and Coastal Protected Areas 4. Antarctica 5. The Role of Protected Areas in Sustainable Development 6. Threats to Protected Areas 7. Combating Poaching 8. Environmental Planning and Protected Areas 9. Protected Areas and Traditional Societies 10. Conservation of Wild Genetic Resources 11. Development Assistance and Protected Areas 12. Management of Protected Areas 13. Protected Areas Personnel: Training and Communication 14. Development of Public Support for Protected Areas 15. Voluntary Assistance for Protected Areas 16. World Heritage Convention 17. Biosphere Reserves 18. International Agreements and Protected Areas

Areas, Caracas, Venezuela, shows a by issues that were to come to the fore number of further new themes emerg- in Rio de Janeiro a few months later, ing. This congress took place just such as global change and biodiversity before the United Nations Conference conservation; see italicized recom- on Environment and Development mendations in Table 7 below. It (UNCED) and was clearly influenced should be noted, however, that other

Table 7. Topics of recommendations of the Fourth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela, 1992 (McNeely 1993). 1. Strengthening the Constituency for Protected Areas 2. Global Change and Protected Areas 3. Global Efforts to Conserve Biodiversity 4. Legal Regimes for Protected Areas 5. External Forces Threatening Sustainability 6. People and Protected Areas 7. Financial Support for Protected Areas 8. Protected Areas and the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources 9. Tourism and Protected Areas 10. Partnerships for Protected Areas 11. Marine Protected Areas 12. Information, Research, and Monitoring 13. Ecological Restoration 14. Water and Protected Areas 15. Development Planning and Natural Resource Use 16. Expanding the Global Network of Protected Areas 17. Protected Area Categories, Management Effectiveness, and Threats 18. Building Protected Areas Institutions 19. Developing Protected Areas Professionalism 20. Biosphere Reserves

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 15 new ideas, such as encouraging Caracas Congress in Albany, Aus- (supranational) regional strategies for tralia. The theme was “From Islands protected areas and promoting the to Networks,” and the meeting empha- idea of corridors between protected sized the importance of bioregional areas, were included in the Caracas planning as a context for protected Action Plan but not in the recommen- areas management (IUCN 1998b). dations adopted there (see McNeely It is of course too soon to say what 1993; Holdgate and Phillips 1999). will be decided at the forthcoming In the years since Caracas, ideas Fifth World Parks Congress to be held about protected areas have continued in Durban, South Africa, in Septem- to evolve rapidly at the international ber 2003, but the pre-congress draft level. Thus, the first Latin American list of proposed topics for recommen- Congress on National Parks and dations is analyzed in Table 8.3 Other Protected Areas (Santa Marta, Table 9 attempts to synthesize this Colombia, 1997), gave priority to (a) analysis by showing how various the spiritual dimension of protected themes have emerged over the course areas; (b) the emerging impacts on of these five congresses while others protected areas of an increasingly have declined in importance. The globalized free-market economy; and grouping of recommendations is sub- (c) the changing role of protected area jective, as is the assignment of recom- agencies, from “managers” to “regula- mendations. Moreover, the titles are tors” (Castaño Uribe 1997). In the far less important than the contents of same year, IUCN convened a “mid- the decisions. Also, it is noticeable that term” meeting five years after the over time the range of issues covered

Table 8. Draft topics for recommendations at the Fifth World Parks Congress, 2003.

1. Protected Areas and Global Change 2. Protected Areas and The CBD 3. Protected Areas in Africa 4. Protected Areas and Extractive Industry 5. Protected Areas and Tourism 6. Protected Area Categories for the 21st Century 7. Protected Area and Mountains 8. Transboundary Protected Areas 9. Spiritual Values of Protected Areas 10. Linking Protected Areas to International Programmes 11. Urban Protected Areas 12. Protected Areas and Armed Conflict 13. Protected Areas and Politics 14. Governance for Protected Areas 15. Capacity Building for the 21st Century 16. Protected Areas and Information Technology 17. Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas 18. Financial Security for Protected Areas 19. Building Comprehensive Protected Area Systems 20. Communities and Equity 21. Marine Protected Areas

16 The George Wright FORUM Table 9. Changing priorities for world parks congresses. Topic Recommendations adopted at (or proposed for): 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th (1962) (1972) (1982) (1992) (2003) Ecosystem coverage 15 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2, 3, 4 11, 14, 7, 19, 21 (including marine) 16 Standards, definitions, 8, 9, 10 10, 16 1 12, 17 6, 16, 17 information Threats, pressures, 11 11, 12, 13 6, 7 2, 5, 9 1, 4, 5, 12 global change Technical assistance, 13, 14 17 7 18 finance Interpretation, 5 19, 20 14 education Species, genetic 22 10 3, 8 resources, biodiversity Research, science 6, 7 14 Law, planning, and 15 12 4 management Training, capacity 18 13 18, 19 15 building Conventions, 6, 7, 8, 9 16, 17, 18 20 2, 8 transboundary, etc. Building support, 15 1, 10 13 partnerships Development, bio- 5, 8, 11 15 10 regional scale, etc. People (including 9620 indigenous peoples) Ecological restoration 13 Governance 14 Spiritual values 9 Urban links 11 N.B.: the proposed region-specific recommendation on Africa at the Vth Congress has been excluded from this analysis. under the topic headings has how much ideas about protected areas increased greatly,so titles alone can be changed in quite a short time. A num- misleading. Nonetheless, this analysis ber of critical external events were serves to illustrate what has been seen responsible for moving the agenda of as important at different ten-year the world parks congresses over this stages over the past 40 years, and to period. At the international level, the that extent the broad trends are clear. most important were: This analysis of the topics chosen • The 1972 United Nations Confer- for recommendations at the world ence on the Human Environment parks congresses between 1962 and held in Stockholm (which may be 2003, albeit a subjective one, reveals seen as signaling the end of a colo-

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 17 nial period of conservation); • The publication of the World Con- • The development around the same servation Strategy in 1980, which time of the biosphere reserve con- expressed new thinking on conser- cept as part of the Man and Bios- vation and its relationship to devel- phere program of the U.N. Educa- opment (IUCN 1980); and tional, Scientific, and Cultural • The adoption of Agenda 21 and Organization, with its idea of a core the CBD at the 1992 UNCED. area for strict protection surround- These same events influenced (and ed by buffer and transitional zones, reflected) thinking about people and and its integration of conversation nature in general over the same peri- and development; od—see Table 10. Table 10. Summary of people—nature problematics in international conservation, 1960-1999 (Jeanrenaud 2002)

Variable 1960+ 1980+ 1990+ Perception of Wilderness Ecosystem; Culture in nature and nature biodiversity; nature in culture ecoregions Environmental Theocentric and Anthropocentric and Anthropocentric and values anthropocentric cosmocentric cosmocentric Diagnosis of Overpopulation; poverty; Power relations; environmental exceeding the land’s overpopulation North–South problems carrying capacity inequalities; what counts as a problem and to whom? Representations People are the threat People can’t be Align with rural people of local people ignored; people are a resource Solutions and Exclusionary protected Buffer zones, Alternative protected technologies areas integrated areas; participatory conservation and natural resource development management; human programs; sustainable rights use; community-based conservation Power relations Alliances with elites Technocratic alliances Alliances with grassroots Key influences Colonial conservation; Sustainable Democracy/human elitist interests development debate; rights movement; growing concern for participatory livelihoods development; post- modern influence on natural and social sciences Author’s note: Whereas the 1980+ column corresponds very well with the message in the World Conservation Strategy of 1980, the 1990+ column seems to go beyond UNCED and Agenda 21. Perhaps this most recent group of ideas challenges governments too much to find expression in an international agreement. Nonetheless, the ideas in the right-hand column are beginning to influence thinking profoundly, especially the idea of linking human rights and environmental protection. Indeed, what seems to be emerging is the idea of an environmental human right as against, or as well as, a theory of rights of nature. 18 The George Wright FORUM The Modern Paradigm None of the ideas in Table 11 (sum- for Protected Areas marized in the right-hand column of The result is the emergence of a Table 12) is particularly novel. They new paradigm for protected areas, one are becoming the standard ways of which contrasts in almost every working among professionals in the respect with that which prevailed 40 protected areas business in many or even 30 years ago. The essential ele- countries, although progress with ments of the paradigm at the outset of some issues is more rapid than with the 21st century are listed in Table 11. others. The contrast with the classic The contrasts with the classic model model is very striking. In almost every (Table 3) are summarized in Table 12. respect, established ideas that pre-

Table 11. The main elements of the modern paradigm for protected areas.

Objectives Local people • Run also with social and economic • Run with, for, and in some cases by local objectives as well as conservation and people—that is, local people are no longer recreation ones seen as passive recipients of protected • Often set up for scientific, economic and areas policy but as active partners, even cultural reasons— the rationale for initiators and leaders in some cases establishing protected areas therefore • Managed to help meet the needs of local becoming much more sophisticated people, who are increasingly seen as • Managed to help meet the needs of local essential beneficiaries of protected area people, who are increasingly seen as policy, economically and culturally essential beneficiaries of protected area Wider context policy, economically and culturally • • Planned as part of national, regional, and Recognizes that so-called wilderness areas international systems, with protected areas are often culturally important places developed as part of a family of sites. The • About restoration and rehabilitation as well CBD makes the development of national as protection, so that lost or eroded values protected area systems a requirement can be recovered (Article 8a) Governance • Developed as “networks,” that is, with • Run by many partners, thus different tiers strictly protected areas, which are buffered of government, local communities, and linked by green corridors, and indigenous groups, the private sector, integrated into surrounding land that is NGOs, and others are all engaged in managed sustainably by communities protected areas management Perceptions Management technique • Viewed as a community asset, balancing • Managed adaptively in a long-term the idea of a national heritage perspective, with management being a • Management guided by international learning process responsibilities and duties as well as • Selection, planning, and management national and local concerns. Result: viewed as essentially a political exercise, transboundary protected areas and requiring sensitivity, consultations, and international protected area systems astute judgment Management skills Finance • Managed by people with a range of skills, • Paid for through a variety of means to especially people-related skills supplement—or replace—government • Valuing and drawing on the knowledge of subsidy local people

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 19 Table 12. Contrasting paradigms: a summary of Tables 3 and 11 (adapted from Phillips 2002). As it was: protected areas were... As it is becoming: protected areas are... Objectives • Set aside for conservation • Run also with social and • Established mainly for economic objectives spectacular wildlife and • Often set up for scientific, scenic protection economic, and cultural reasons • Managed mainly for visitors • Managed with local people more and tourists in mind • Valued as wilderness • Valued for the cultural • About protection importance of so-called wilderness • Also about restoration and rehabilitation Governance • Run by central government • Run by many partners Local people • Planned and managed • Run with, for, and in some cases against people by local people • Managed without regard to • Managed to meet the needs of local opinions local people Wider context • Developed separately • Planned as part of national, • Managed as “islands” regional, and international systems • Developed as “networks” (strictly protected areas, buffered and linked by green corridors) Perceptions • Viewed primarily as a • Viewed also as a community national asset asset • Viewed only as a national • Viewed also as an international concern concern Management • Managed reactively within • Managed adaptively in long- techniques short timescale term perspective • Managed in a technocratic • Managed with political way considerations Finance • Paid for by taxpayer • Paid for from many sources Management • Managed by scientists and • Managed by multi-skilled skills natural resource experts individuals • Expert-led • Drawing on local knowledge vailed only 30 years ago have been (though existing laws can often be turned on their heads. The result is a stretched to accommodate many of the revolution in our approach to protect- new approaches); the “re-engineer- ed areas. ing” of protected areas people; the re- Putting this new paradigm into education of politicians and the public action calls for a new, more people- so that they understand the new focused protected areas legislation, model of protected areas; and the re- such as that adopted in Peru or Brazil orientation of development assistance

20 The George Wright FORUM policies so as to integrate protected been significant—thereby to some areas into poverty reduction projects extent undermining the power of the and strategies. Bringing about such a wilderness argument. It has revealed revolution has not been easy. There many new frontiers for conservation, are many people who—for good rea- especially in the marine environment, sons or bad—do not wish to hear that including the high seas, and many new the values and policies associated with challenges, such as climate change. It protected areas are now very different has also shown that techniques exist from those that prevailed in the past. for ecological restoration. And indeed there may be some in the Cultural and social awareness profession who still yearn for the old encourages greater respect for local certainties. communities and traditional and indigenous peoples, an understanding The Forces Behind the Changes of the true character of their relation- The forces that have driven these ship with nature, and an appreciation changes are increasingly powerful. It is of the sustainable practices that many not the aim of this paper to analyze of them have followed. This too has them in detail: the implications are led people to question the value of the very broad, since they touch on many wilderness concept, since many so- aspects of the way that society oper- called wilderness areas are in fact the ates and how nature functions. But it is homelands of indigenous peoples. possible to identify the main factors The views and experience of women that have brought about a very differ- are acknowledged now to be of special ent way of looking at conservation importance, and there is concern that issues, and the management of natural ethnic minorities should not be mar- resources in general and of protected ginalized; this too affects views of the areas in particular. These relate to sci- relationship between protected areas entific understanding, cultural and and the people living in or near them. social awareness, the acknowledgment More generally, greater understanding of human rights, political develop- of the values held by different sectors ments, general developments in man- of society has made it incumbent on agement practice, technological protected area managers to listen to advances, and economic forces. the views of local people and to Scientific understanding has taught respond to their concerns. The cur- us, for example, that many protected rent pre-occupation with stakeholder areas are too small to function effec- analysis is an expression of this. tively and need to be joined up with Linked to this has been the emer- others, or set in an ecologically friend- gence in recent decades of an interna- ly landscape, if the species within tional doctrine and law on human them are to survive. It has also shown rights, especially the rights of indige- us that the human impacts on what nous peoples, particularly in relation were previously thought of as pristine to the environment. This is evident in environments, from the Amazon forest the International Labor Organiza- to the Australian outback, have often tion’s Convention 169, the draft Dec-

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 21 laration on the Rights of Indigenous also more and more involved. The Peoples, and the Inter-America Decla- enhanced role of civil society favors ration on the Rights of Indigenous non-governmental organizations Peoples. In response, governments (NGOs) playing an increasingly have been obliged to make big changes important role in protected areas. in how they approach protected areas Greater use of market mechanisms to in indigenous territories. In Latin effect change, deliver services, or man- America, the Arctic, New Zealand, age processes impact in many ways on and Australia, for example, govern- protected areas and how they are man- ments are transferring responsibility aged. For example, private individuals for management, and even for initiat- are creating their own reserves, coming protected areas, to local communi- mercial ventures are more involved in ties. Respect of indigenous rights and delivering aspects of protected area awareness of the values of indigenous management, and protected area man- knowledge have been reinforced agers have to approach their job in a through the implementation of inter- more business-like way. At the other national conservation agreements. end of the scale, governments increas- Thus the CBD includes article 8(j), ingly recognize that protected areas which specifically calls on countries to are in part an international responsi- work with indigenous and local com- bility. This is sometimes very precise, munities. And even though conven- for example where a site is designated tions dating from the early 1970s, under the World Heritage or Ramsar notably Ramsar (wetlands) and World conventions (or regional agreements Heritage, do not include such meas- such as those in Europe), and some- ures, their implementation (and that of times it is a more general sense of UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Pro- responsibility encouraged particularly gram) has been increasingly guided by by the requirements of the CBD to the need to be sensitive to cultural conserve biodiversity in situ. diversity and the values of indigenous General developments in manage- groups. ment practice have affected protected It is impossible to generalize about area management in a number of ways. political developments, but several For example, in the latter part of the broad trends do seem to be underway 20th century it has become clear that in many parts of the world, in Africa, making connections across profes- Latin America, Eastern Europe, India, sional and institutional boundaries is China, and so on. For example, greater one of the biggest challenges facing democratization and the devolution of governments and managers of all power from the center to regional and kinds. For protected areas, this means local tiers of government (including making connections to the areas indigenous peoples) means that cen- around and adopting a multi-discipli- tral government is no longer the only nary approach. Another broad trend government agency that creates or in management in general is away from manages protected areas: provincial, detailed master plans and towards the municipal, and local governments are adoption of a strategy of clearly

22 The George Wright FORUM defined objectives coupled with adap- •Devolution of political power from tive forms of response; this too finds the center has led to the break-up of an echo in protected areas practice. some protected area agencies with Technological advances also have unfortunate results. An extreme their impact on protected areas man- case is Indonesia, where the parks agement. It is not just that IT or GIS system in a country of globally make possible the handling and shar- important biodiversity has, to a ing of vast amounts of data and infor- large extent, been undermined by mation, but that they create a different the breakdown of central control set of understandings and expecta- and widespread corruption. Sever- tions among all concerned. In partic- al vital sites (such as Gunung ular, they encourage a belief that the Leuser National Park in Sumatra) boundaries to what are possible are face wholesale destruction from a not so often technical as they are range of threats; Jakarta has neither human and political. the will nor the ability to do much Finally there are economic forces, to defend the area in a political cli- ranging from the global to local, but all mate that encourages the ruthless putting pressure on protected areas extraction of natural resources. planners and managers. As these pres- •Stakeholder participation and com- sures have grown, so the management munity involvement may be essen- of protected areas has been ‘invaded’ tial but they can make great by economic theory. Managers have demands of resources (staff, time, had to master the language of values and money) from over-stretched pro- and benefits that protected areas rep- tected areas agencies. Also, they call resent, and to adopt more business- for fine political judgments about like approaches to the care of these who stakeholders are and how con- places, including the requirement to flicting interests can be determined develop business plans. Increasingly, and reconciled. Sometimes it is all this has included the idea of generat- too difficult and managers coming income to supplement government plain of “analysis paralysis” and subventions. “stakeholder fatigue.” •We should not be naïve about the Some Critical Reflections willingness or ability of all local on the Modern Paradigm communities to support conserva- As noted at the outset of this paper, tion and sustainable use. Not every the current approach to protected community has responsible tradi- areas is now widely shared. It accords tions in its use of natural resources; well with prevailing political, econom- modern hunting technology (e.g., ic, and scientific conditions. But it is high-velocity rifles) can change the not without major problems and the balance between hunters and reality is that it is not always easy to wildlife; and a community with a operate the modern paradigm. Here fast-growing population has a dif- are several of the criticisms that are ferent impact on natural resources sometimes heard: than one with a stable population.

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 23 How to build partnerships with urged to think beyond the protect- local people in the context of such ed area’s boundaries, to engage in challenges poses major dilemmas bioregional planning initiatives (see for many protected area managers. below), and even to address wider • In our enthusiasm for people-based social problems faced by ethnic conservation, we are in danger of minorities in nearby cities. diminishing the achievements of There are many more such difficult government-managed, strictly pro- questions, and no easy answers to tected areas. That is not the inten- tion; in fact, government-owned them. The modern paradigm may and -managed parks that are strict- indeed represent the outcome of a rev- ly protected against all kinds of olution in protected areas manage- exploitative use will remain the cor- ment, but it greatly complicates the nerstone of many countries’ sys- task of management. Nonetheless, as tems of protected areas. The new the last part of this paper shows, it is paradigm is not intended to under- fast becoming a reality. mine the value of such places but to show how their management has The Modern Paradigm in Action changed (or should change) radi- Three examples of the application cally, and to stress that the contri- of the new approach to protected areas bution that other kinds of protect- planning and management are briefly ed areas can make is equally impor- explored, with references to on-the- tant. It also a reminder that all gov- ground action: community-conserved ernments try to meet the demands areas, bioregional planning/ecological of many different groups and there- networks, and protected landscapes fore find it hard to support protect- and seascapes (IUCN protected area ed areas at the expense of other management category V). They all interests. The relevance of new par- suggest that the cutting edge of pro- adigm is that it offers more scope tected area work has moved into very for negotiation. different fields from those that •We are in danger of making the received most attention 30 years ago. manager’s job undoable. The 4 demands of stakeholder analysis Community-conserved Areas are only one part of the protected Community-conserved areas area manager’s ever-expanding set (CCAs) may be thought of as natural of responsibilities. He or she is ecosystems containing significant bio- expected to master (or at least diversity value that are conserved by employ experts in) many new and communities that depend on these complex areas of expertise (busi- resources, either culturally, for their ness skills and fundraising, eco- livelihoods, or both. While conserva- nomics, conflict resolution, public tion efforts may or may not include relations, and so on) on top of nat- outside support, the three key features ural resource and visitor manage- are that the local communities: ment. Now the manager is being •Are concerned about the ecosys-

24 The George Wright FORUM tem though their relation to it; environments go unrecognized and •Take effective action to maintain or unsupported, it means that a major enhance biodiversity; and contribution to conservation (and a •Are major players (usually the ready-made tool for building local major players) in decision-making support for conservation) is being and implementing decisions. neglected. Nonetheless, there are It is becoming clear that while such encouraging signs that some govern- areas provide a potentially important ments are coming to see the value of new tool in the conservation armory, treating local and indigenous commu- they have often gone unrecognized. nities as partners (see Table 13). There are several reasons for this. It is important to keep a sense of Many government conservation agen- proportion. Not all community-based cies are just too busy running their resource use is sustainable and not own protected areas, and hard pressed every local group will manage nature financially, to reach out to support in a responsible way. But there is community initiatives. Some conser- enough hard evidence now,from many vation experts do not believe that local parts of the world, to show that the people can live alongside nature and idea of CCAs needs to be recognized conserve it. In some countries, legal as a fourth arm of conservation, along- and policy frameworks do not recog- side the efforts of governments, nize the role of local people in conser- NGOs, and the private sector. There vation. Finally there are many coun- are important lessons being learned tries where indigenous peoples and too about why such approaches work rural communities have yet to secure better in some countries than in oth- their full legal rights to the territories ers. For example, CCAs will thrive and resources that they have occupied where power is devolved to local peo- or used in the past. ple, human rights are respected, and Yet the importance of CCAs is con- decision-making is transparent and siderable, for they are far more com- equitable. Where this happens, CCAs mon than was previously appreciated. contribute to conserving biodiversity In South Asia, for example, it is esti- and landscapes but also demonstrate mated that there are many such areas the integration of conservation and under community protection development, contribute to national (Kothari, Pathak, and Vania, 2000). protected area systems, and are part of They exist too in the form of sacred ecological networks and bioregional groves in Africa, as “tapu” areas in the planning (see next section). South Pacific, or as “hemas” reserves in pastoral communities of western Bioregional Planning/ Asia. They are common also in many Ecological Networks parts of the world, ranging from the IUCN has recently published a Arctic to tropical rainforests, where review of ecological networks (Ben- indigenous peoples have long lived nett and Wit 2001). It draws in part on close to nature. So where the efforts of earlier unpublished work by Miller local people to conserve their own and Hamilton (1997). What these

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 25 Table 13. Some examples of the successful partnerships between government and CCAs (source: personal communications as shown) Country Initiative Brief description Significance Australia indigenous protected IPAs allow indigenous IPAs account for nearly 17% of areas (IPAs) landowners to declare that total protected areas estate in they will manage their lands Australia mainly for protection of Source: Steve Szabo natural and associated cultural resources Mexico community protected laws recognize community local communities in Oaxaca (state of natural areas land and resources, (the most biodiverse rich Oaxaca) community land-use region of Mexico) protect planning, and local nearly 200,000 ha decision-making Source: Gonzalo Oviedo Ecuador negotiations over transfer of responsibility of 50,000 ha of land will be (Cofan de rights of indigenous ecological reserve from managed by local people with Bermejo) groups government to local outside support federation of indigenous Source: Gonzalo Oviedo groups Colombia negotiations over transfer of responsibility of 70,000 ha of land will be (Indiwasi rights of indigenous national park from managed by local people with National groups government to indigenous outside support Park) groups (first of 47 in Source: Gonzalo Oviedo Colombia) Samoa establishment of local communities have 30,000 ha + of land/sea will be (Safata marine protected taken the initiative to protected and managed by and areas for sustainable define and establish MPAs customary laws and Aleipata fisheries (including “no-take regulations, approved by Marine zones”) in the waters and government in community- Protected coastal areas of the District prepared management plans Areas) Communities of Safata and Source: Pedro Rosabal Aleipata Isle of community-based small island community, in 7,500 hectares of high Eigg, purchase of the island partnership with Scottish biodiversity and scenic value Scotland, conservation NGO and now conserved by local people U.K. regional agency, bought who have developed island for conservation and sustainable forms of tourism sustainable development Source: Web site overviews show is that there are initia- planning, landscape-scale or ecore- tives now underway in many parts of gion-based planning). the world to promote large-scale plan- Bennett and Wit found 150 such ning for conservation and sustainable schemes in all, and studied 38 in resource use, which involve develop- detail. Of these, over a third were ing networks of protected areas linked being implemented. Their examples with other land and water zones, all are found in all parts of the developed managed in an integrated way. Such and developing worlds. As the exam- initiatives go by several different ples in Table 14 show, ecological net- names that relate to similar concepts works vary greatly in size, from county (e.g., ecological networks, bioregional to continental scale, and the aims

26 The George Wright FORUM sometimes differ too. Several of them • They seek to integrate economic involve two or more countries. Rough- land use and biodiversity conserva- ly half of such initiatives are govern- tion. ment-led, with the rest inspired by All these schemes have important NGOs. Many form parts of interna- implications for the established pro- tional programs (e.g., biosphere tected areas within them. National reserves); others are stand-alone parks and other protected areas schemes. But while the initiatives dif- become the “anchors” of the network, fer widely in many respects, they have the core areas around which buffers certain features in common: are created and between which corri- • They focus on conserving biodi- dors are established; they also set the versity at the ecosystem, landscape, standards toward which restoration or regional scale, rather than in sin- schemes can aspire. Such projects, gle protected areas; therefore, have the effect of linking the • They emphasize the idea of ecolog- protected areas to the surrounding ical coherence through encourag- land and water areas, and to the ing connectivity; regional economy.They also provide a • They involve buffering of highly framework within which privately, protected areas with eco-friendly publicly, and communally owned land land management areas; can be managed through voluntary • They include programs for the agreements for a common cause. restoration of eroded or destroyed While early indications of the benefits ecosystems; and of bioregional planning are encourag-

Table 14. Some ecological network/bioregional planning initiatives (Bennett and Wit 2001). Title of Areas involved Leading Main objectives Main initiative organizations components Mesoamerican eight Meso- inter-governmental halt biodiversity loss, • core areas Biological american leadership ecosystem • corridors Corridor countries fragmentation; integrate • buffer zones (multi-national) with regional (multiple use development, including areas) integrated coastal zone management and MPAs Yellowstone– Canadian and NGO alliance ensure that wilderness, • wildlife cores Yukon U.S. Rockies wildlife, native plants, • connecting (bi-national) and natural processes movement continue to support corridors natural and human • transition areas communities Netherlands The Netherlands Dutch Ministry of create coherent network • core areas Ecological (national) Agriculture, Nature for species and habitats; • ecological Network Management and stimulate self-sustaining corridors Fisheries natural processes; • buffer zones develop/restore • nature connectivity development areas Cheshire Cheshire County, Cheshire County manage landscape for • core areas Econet U.K. Council/E.U. LIFE people and wildlife, and • restoring and (local) program improve the connections re-connecting between surviving landscape wildlife habitats features

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 27 ing, a major challenge over the next world around than the development of few years will be to assess the true such initiatives. value of these initiatives for biodiversity conservation and sustainable devel- IUCN Protected Area opment. A particular challenge will be Management Category V: to establish how effective such large- Protected Landscapes and scale initiatives are in linking with Seascapes local people on the ground. (For a Table 1 summarizes the IUCN thoughtful analysis of the relationship management categories for protected between local participation and one of areas. While IUCN insists that all cat- the largest bioregional projects, the egories are important, traditionally the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, focus of most conservation attention see Rivera et al. 2003.) has been on categories I–IV, the so- called strictly protected areas. These The institutional and capacity- are areas in which the human pres- building implications of bioregional or ence—though it often exists—is kept at ecological network planning are a minimal level. The need for them is indeed formidable. Three kinds of greater than ever if much biodiversity challenges arise: is to be protected. However, there is now also a growing interest in protect- •To build the capacity to plan and ed areas which are lived-in landscapes, manage at a scale that is unfamiliar that is categories V and VI, the so- to most protected area managers; called multiple-use protected areas.5 •To foster stakeholder participation To promote interest in the approach, for a wide range of partners, which IUCN has just published guidelines can be very challenging given the on the management of Category V complex social and economic protected areas: Protected Land- implications of working at a large scapes and Seascapes (Phillips 2002). geographic scale; and This section draws on that advice. •To establish cooperative institu- In the IUCN Guidelines for Protect- tions to ensure the delivery of ed Area Management Categories results, where previously agencies (IUCN 1994), category V, protected were typically more narrowly landscape/seascape, is defined thus: focused (Miller 1996). [An] area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has While it is not suggested that pro- produced an area of distinct character tected area managers—with their limit- with significant aesthetic, ecological ed responsibilities and geographically and/or cultural value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding circumscribed powers—should lead the integrity of this traditional interac- such initiatives on their own, their full tion is vital to the protection, mainte- involvement in them is essential. nance and evolution of such an area. Nothing illustrates more the need for With more than 50 years of experi- protected area management to be out- ence in Europe, and a growing body of ward-looking and connecting with the experience from elsewhere, it is now

28 The George Wright FORUM possible to identify with confidence ficial concern with how places look. the main features of the category V Also most scientists argued that the approach. Thus it is concerned with global priority should be the remain- both people and their environment, ing core “natural” areas. Such views and with a range of natural and cultur- prevailed also because of the domi- al values. It focuses on areas where nance of biologists, zoologists, and people–nature relationships have pro- other natural scientists in the conser- duced a landscape with high aesthetic, vation movement. Finally, there was ecological, biodiversity,or cultural val- the power of the essentially North ues, and which retains integrity. It American model of a national park: a views communities, and their tradi- simple concept that stood in marked tions, as fundamental to the success of contrast to the complex idea of pro- the approach; therefore, stakeholder tecting environments that people had and partnership approaches are need- occupied and shaped for perhaps ed. The approach recognizes the need thousands of years. The contrast is to support the stewardship role of the illustrated by Table 15. private landowner or manager (includ- The focus is now being placed ing that of land trusts or similar bod- more on outstanding, lived-in land- ies). It usually involves management scapes because of important concep- arrangements that are resolved tual and operational advances in con- through decision-making at local gov- servation and protected areas. Thus, ernment or community levels. It can conservation biology has shown the bring social, economic, and cultural need to work at the ecosystem scale benefits to local communities, along and across the wider landscape, with environmental, cultural, educa- through bioregional planning (see tional, and other benefits to a wider above) in which lived-in landscapes public. It requires that management must form a part. It is accepted too activities are integrated, promote sus- that protected areas cannot be treated tainability, and help to resolve con- as islands, but must be seen in their flicts. Properly run, such areas can larger context. The existence of offer models of sustainability for wider “paper parks”—areas protected in application elsewhere in rural areas. name only—shows that reliance on But as with all protected areas, catego- regulation and enforcement is costly ry V protected areas require effective and too often fails. Also, there is a new management systems, including objec- understanding of the link between tive setting, planning, resource alloca- nature and culture. Thus healthy land- tion, implementation, monitoring, scapes are shaped by human culture as review, and feedback. well as by the forces of nature; rich Several reasons explain why so lit- biological diversity often coincides tle international interest was shown in with cultural diversity; and conserva- category V protected areas in the past. tion cannot be undertaken without the It was seen (wrongly) as an essentially involvement of those people closest to Euro-centric idea which had little the resources (Brown and Mitchell application elsewhere, and as a super- 2000).

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 29 Table 15. Categories II and V contrasted. Characteristic Typical situation in Category Typical situation in Category V II National Parks Protected Landscape/seascape natural apparently “natural” ecosystems greatly modified ecosystems environment management ecosystem conservation and landscape protection, tourism, local objectives tourism economy and culture, sustainable use principal economic tourism farming, forestry, tourism land uses land/water mainly publicly owned mainly privately owned ownership management central/provincial government provincial/local government agency human settlement limited (sometimes illegal) long established, “part of the scene”

Although the greatest concentra- • The mountain communities of tion of category V protected areas is to the Himalayas, e.g., the Anna- be found in Europe, under names purna Conservation Area, such as regional nature park (France), Nepal; nature park (Spain), protected land- • Japan, where many national scape area (Czech Republic), and parks are managed as Category national park (U.K.), there are catego- V protected areas; and ry V protected areas in many other • The rice terraces of the Philip- parts of the world. Examples are: pines. • The small island developing In 1997, WCMC recorded 3,178 states in the Caribbean and the category V protected areas in its data- Pacific; base, covering in total 676,892 sq • The traditional farming lands of km—that is, 23.8% in terms of the the Andes; number of all protected areas and 11% • The traditional coffee-growing in terms of area covered (IUCN areas of Mexico and Central 1998a). The publication of IUCN’s America; guidelines for category V protected • The long-settled landscapes of areas (see above) is an indication that eastern parts of the USA and this is becoming a growth sector for Canada; new protected areas. • The growth, within the U.S. national park system, of new Conclusion protected areas relying on part- It is not the purpose of this paper to nerships with local communi- diminish in any way the value of strict- ties; ly protected areas, nor to disparage the •Wildlife dispersal areas of East achievements of this kind of conserva- Africa; tion. Well-managed protected areas of • The ancient “hemas” reserve all categories are needed more than and irrigation systems of Saudi ever. Indeed, in many places biodiver- Arabia; sity conservation will not be secured

30 The George Wright FORUM without a still greater effort to protect a protected area and the IUCN large parts of the planet against protected area categories, so that exploitation of any kind. But it is we can embrace parts of the essential to adopt new ways of manag- lived-in landscape, for example ing these, and in any case strictly gov- as category V protected areas. ernment-owned and -managed pro- There have in fact been huge con- tected areas alone are no longer ceptual advances in thinking about enough. What is called for in the 21st protected areas over the past 30–40 century, and what is now emerging in years, as this paper has shown. In the- the new paradigm, is a broader way of ory, at least, we know now what needs looking at protected areas. to be done to achieve successful pro- It is broader in three senses: tected areas. The challenge, as always, • By including a wider range of is to apply the theory. This requires actors among those who initiate that we develop support among peo- and manage protected areas, of ple and their political leaders for pro- which CCAs are an example; tected areas. This in turn depends • By working at a far broader scale upon us being able to show the bene- than hitherto, as exemplified by fits that they can bring to society.That ecological networks and biore- is the theme —Benefits Beyond gional planning; and Boundaries—of the Fifth World Parks • By broadening our understand- Congress to be held in Durban this ing of the range of possibilities coming September. encompassed in the definition of

Acknowledgments The author is indebted to Clive Anstey, Ed Barrow, Grazia Borrini-Feyer- abend, Elery Hamilton-Smith, Hanna Jaireth, Ashish Kothari, Sango Mahanty, Bob Manning, Gonzalo Oviedo, Pedro Rosabal, Peter Shadie, David Sheppard, and Andrew Tilling for their helpful comments on drafts of this paper.

Endnotes 1 Thus, the first title of what is now the United Nations List of Protected Areas was United Nations List of National Parks and Equivalent Reserves. The first title of the IUCN commission on the topic was the International Commission on National Parks (later Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, now World Commission on Protected Areas). The title of the 1962 and 1972 congresses were “International Conference on National Parks,” the 1982 event was called the “Third World Congress on National Parks” that in 1992 was entitled “Fourth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas,” while that which is planned for 2003 will be the “World Congress on Protected Areas.” 2“Paradigm” is used here to mean a prevailing pattern of concepts and attitudes which together constitute an ideal for the planning and management of protected areas. 3 The author added the titles as the originals were only numbered. 4 See the IUCN/WCPA web site: http://wcpa.iucn.org/. 5 This section draws in particular from material provided by Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Ashish Kothari, and Gonzalo Oviedo, to whom I am therefore indebted. 6 Though category V is unique among the categories in its emphasis on interaction between

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 31 people and nature, it shares with category VI the idea of multiple use. Many of the reasons for a growing interest in category V apply to category VI as well, for example the emphasis on sustainable use of natural resources. But there is an important difference. While category V protected areas are lived-in landscapes that have been extensively modified by people over time, the definition of category VI speaks of an “area of predominantly unmodified natural systems,” which is to be managed so that at least two-thirds of it remains that way.

References Adams, A. B., ed. 1962. First World Conference on National Parks. Washington, D.C.: National Park Ser- vice. Bennett, G., and P. Wit. 2001. The Development and Application of Ecological Networks. Amsterdam: AIDEnvironment. Brown, J., and B. Mitchell. 2000. The stewardship approach and its relevance for protected landscapes. The George Wright Forum 17:1, 70-79. Castaño Uribe, C. 1997. Santa Marta Declaration. Bogotá, Colombia: El Sello Editorial. Everhart, W. C. 1972. The National Park Service. New York and London: Praeger. Holdgate M. 1999. The Green Web: A Union for World Conservation. London: IUCN and Earthscan. Holdgate M., and A. Phillips. 1999. Protected areas in context. In Integrated Protected Areas Management. M. Walkey, I. Swingland, and S. Russell, eds. Boston: Kluwer Academic. IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Cambridge, U.K., and Gland, Switzer- land: IUCN. ———. 1998a. 1997 United Nations List of Protected Areas. Cambridge, U.K., and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. ———. 1998b. From islands to networks—Report on the mid-term expert meeting, Albany, Australia, November 1997. Unpublished report. Jeanrenaud, S. 2002. People-Oriented Approaches to Global Conservation—Is the Leopard Changing its Spots? London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Kothari, A., N. Pathak, and F. Vania. 2000. Where Communities Care: Community Based Wildlife and Ecosystem Management in South Asia. London and Pune, India: International Institute of Environ- ment and Development and Kalpavriksh. McNeely, J. A., ed. 1993. Parks for Life: Report of the Fourth World Congress on National Parks ad Protect- ed Areas Cambridge, U.K., and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. McNeely,J. A., and K. R. Miller K. R., eds. 1984. National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Miller K. R. 1996. Balancing the Scales: Guidelines for Increasing Biodiversity’s Chances through Bioregion- al Management. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. Miller K. R., and L. Hamilton. 1997. Scaling up: Elements for a strategy for protected areas in the 21st century. Unpublished report. National Parks Centennial Commission. 1973. Preserving a Heritage. Washington, D.C.: National Parks Centennial Commission. Phillips, A. 2002. Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Areas—Protected Landscapes/Seascapes. Cambridge, U.K., and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Rivera S. R., P.M. Cordero, I. A. Cruz, and M. F.Borras. 2003. The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor and local participation. Parks 12:2, 42-54. Stegner W., 1983. The best idea we ever had. Wilderness (spring), 4-5.

Adrian Phillips, Senior Advisor to IUCN on World Heritage, 2 The Old Rectory, Dumbleton near Evesham WR11 6TG, United Kingdom; adri- [email protected] 3

32 The George Wright FORUM Brent Mitchell International Models of Protected Landscapes Introduction ur concepts of parks and protected areas—what they should protect, how, and even why—have expanded greatly in recent decades, as described in the article by Adrian Phillips in this issue. Both by necessity and design, models of conservation are increasingly more inclu- Osive, embracing both natural and cultural values of lands where the two are related and indeed closely interdependent. Protected landscapes—outstanding, lived-in lands shaped by people over time—have produced a level of interest within the international conservation community such that guidelines for their designation and management have recently been developed. Examples of protected areas that include many or all of the characteristics of the protected landscapes model are growing in number and diversity,including heritage areas (and other park partnership areas) in North America. Examining some of this recent work in the context of international guidelines may inform future site-specific efforts, while contributing to the growing understanding of the challenges and benefits of protecting landscapes worldwide. Protected Landscape/Seascape gory V protected areas. By area, pro- Here, the term “protected land- tected landscapes constitute slightly scape” follows the IUCN definition more than one-tenth by the world’s (IUCN 1994), which is quoted by protected area estate. However, Phillips elsewhere in this issue. Safe- because the capacity of the interna- guarding the integrity of the tradition- tional community to recognize pro- al interaction between people and the tected landscapes is relatively new, the environment is vital to the protection, number and extent of areas that meet maintenance, and evolution of protect- the criteria without formal designation ed landscapes. As described below, may be underrepresented in these fig- areas meeting this definition are given ures. diverse names in different countries; The principle distinction of catego- thus, the IUCN categories are set out ry V is its emphasis on the interaction to apply a standard name to areas of people and nature. Over much of meeting this definition, in this case, the world, healthy landscapes are Category V Protected Landscapes/ shaped by human culture as well as Seascapes. Approximately one-quar- nature. Rich biological diversity often ter of the protected areas listed in the coincides with cultural diversity. most recent United Nations List of As both a practical and ethical mat- Protected Areas (IUCN 1998) are cate- ter, failure to include diverse interests

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 33 intimately in protected area decisions initiatives such as the Yellowstone-to- is becoming increasingly unaccept- Yukon (Y2Y) and Northern able. In all but the most narrow of cir- Appalachians–Acadia ecoregion proj- cumstances, conservation cannot be ects. effective without the involvement of people closest to the resources. Pro- Management Guidelines tected landscapes make conservation Aware of the growing importance possible in places where people live of protected landscapes, IUCN sought and work. They are the kind of places to provide guidance to them. A hand- most likely to be the focus of commu- book on protected landscapes had nity-based management. This has geo- been published by P. H. C. “Bing” graphic and educational implications, Lucas in 1992, but was in need of as conservation is not just something updating in light of a wealth of new that happens in a remote reserve dis- experience. A task force was estab- tant from the experience of most peo- lished for the purpose, leading to the ple, but in their back yard, where they publication of management guidelines can see it. last year (Phillips 2002). The guide- This is not in any way to diminish or lines describe considerations for the discount the importance of other planning and management of protect- kinds of protected areas to conserva- ed landscapes, providing guidance tion. There is and always will be a gleaned from experts from around the vitally important role for strict nature world. The guidelines are, in turn, reserves, wilderness areas, Category II founded upon 12 principles, listed in national parks, and natural monu- Table 1. ments. Protected landscapes should Because they are inherently cultur- be seen as a complement to these al, protected landscapes are of course types of protection models, not as very different in appearance and competition. Indeed, as the field of expression in different regions and ecosystem design becomes increasing- countries. Applying a common defini- ly sophisticated, protected landscapes tion to all of them—and suggesting could be designated between and guidelines for their management—is around more restrictive protected not intended to homogenize their areas to provide buffer zones and habi- development or care. To the contrary, tat connectivity. the very point is to celebrate and pre- Ecosystem science is increasingly serve their natural and cultural diversi- indicating the necessity of managing at ty. large geographic scales to achieve Examples of functional benefits in ecosystem serv- Protected Landscapes ices, adding to the well-recognized North American conservationists need for suitable habitat for wide- are perhaps most familiar with Catego- ranging species. Protected landscapes ry V Protected Landscapes of Europe, offer opportunities for carrying out especially Western Europe. The man- conservation over large areas; for agement model, at least as we recog- example, as part of North American nize it today, developed there during

34 The George Wright FORUM Table 1. Twelve principles for the management of category V protected areas (Phillips 2002). 1. Conserving landscape, biodiversity, and cultural values are at the heart of the category V protected area approach. 2. The focus of management should be on the point of interaction between people and nature. 3. People should be seen as stewards of the landscape. 4. Management must be undertaken with and through local people, and mainly for and by them. 5. Management should be based on co-operative approaches, such as co-management and multi-stakeholder equity. 6. Effective management requires a supportive political and economic environment. 7. Management of category V protected areas should not only be concerned with protection but also enhancement. 8. When there is an irreconcilable conflict between the objectives of management, priority should be given to retaining the special qualities of the area. 9. Economic activities that do not need to take place within the protected landscape should be located outside it. 10. Management should be business-like and of the highest professional standard. 11. Management should be flexible and adaptive. 12. The success of management should be measured in environmental and social terms. this century, especially since World ed state. Residents value the aesthetic War II. All of the national parks in the qualities of the meadows and fields, United Kingdom are in fact Category and growing tourism interest in the V protected landscapes, as are the area is placing an economic value on French regional parks. the appearance of the landscape as White Carpathians Protected well. Efforts to preserve the landscape Landscape Area. In the White are taking many forms, including rein- Carpathian Mountains on the border troduction of extensive grazing on a of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, reduced scale, voluntary mowing of unnatural habitats have long been cre- the meadows by traditional means ated and maintained by management (with a hand scythe) as a cultural activ- of meadows for hay (Figure 1). Today ity, and more overt habitat manipula- there is no longer a significant market tion, such as mechanized mowing as a for the hay,and the meadows are filling substitute for agricultural practices. in. Working in the White Carpathian Efforts are continuing to find mecha- Protected Landscape Area (PLA; for- nisms for maintaining the benefits of mally, two PLAs on either side of the traditional use of the land while adapt- border), conservation groups recog- ing to the reality that the economic nize the natural and cultural value of underpinnings of that use are gone, these meadows and are working to probably forever. keep them open. For some, the most Pisac Cusco Potato Park. In the important value is cultural, keeping Andes of Peru, seven Quechua com- alive a tradition that long defined their munities are proposing a “potato agrarian communities. Others stress park” to ensure the future of agrobio- the importance of biodiversity; species diversity in their area (Figure 2). Many richness is reduced when the land is varieties of potato and other crops allowed to return to a “natural” forest- have been developed here over thou-

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 35 Figure 1. The interaction of people and nature is disrupted by systemic economic change. The traditional agricultural activities in the White Carpathian Protected Landscape Areas span- ning the border of the Czech Republic and Slovakia are no longer viable. Efforts are ongoing to restore meadow management by restoring some of the viability and accentuating the cultural benefits of maintaining the tradition. Photo: Jessica Brown. sands of years. Creation of a protected be worthy of protection. landscape will not only protect the land these important genetic resources Relevance to Heritage Areas are on, but also the local knowledge As previously mentioned, protect- needed to care for them and the cul- ed landscapes as a broad management tural heritage intimately associated category will appear in strikingly dif- with them. It will help to ensure that ferent forms in different cultural, polit- this rich landscape continues to be ical, and economic contexts. The managed in traditional ways, and advent of national heritage areas (and should secure the rights of the local similar areas not presently considered communities to maintain their custo- for the specific designation) in the dial function of the resources (Alejan- United States certainly relates to the dro Argumedo, personal communica- international model described here. tion). Table 2 provides a brief comparison of These examples are put forward suggested criteria for national heritage because of the clarity with which they areas and key characteristics of pro- illustrate the concepts of the intercon- tected landscapes, indicating several nectedness of people and nature. points of parallel philosophy. The However, landscapes do not have to be overlap is not perfect, of course. Pro- pastoral, nor shaped over millennia, to tected landscapes do not emphasize

36 The George Wright FORUM Figure 2. The interaction of people and nature over millennia in the Andes has produced areas of great agrobiodiversity. Seven Quechua communities in Peru are proposing a protected landscape to preserve genetic diversity of potato and other crops, and the local knowledge of how to care for them. Photo: Jessica Brown. historical aspects (as a subset of cul- And yet the affinities are very tural values) as do many heritage strong. A workshop on areas managed areas, for example. through National Park Service (NPS)

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 37 Table 2. Comparison of characteristics of heritage areas and protected landscapes. Heritage area column derived from NPS 2003; key characteristics of protected landscapes taken from Phillips 2002 (p. 12). Heritage Area Protected Landscape Public/Community Role • Demonstration of widespread • Views communities as public support among fundamental to success residents Planning and • Residents, business interests, • Management arrangements Management non-profit organizations, and are determined by local governments are involved in circumstances and needs, planning and resolved through • Management entity and units decision-making at local of government are willing to government or community commit to working in levels partnership Distinct/High Value • Assemblage of natural, • Area where people–nature historic, or cultural resources relationships have produced that together represent a landscape with high distinctive aspects of aesthetic, ecological, American heritage biodiversity, and/or cultural • Area provides outstanding values, and which retains opportunities to conserve integrity natural, cultural, historic, and/or scenic features • Area retains a degree of integrity partnerships (heritage areas, wild and emphasized in considerations of initi- scenic rivers, national trails and affili- ating or planning a protected land- ated areas) identified the following scape. These are areas in which con- four benefits of partnership areas servation and development go hand in (Tuxill and Mitchell 2000): they (a) hand. There is an implicit caution, help NPS reach new constituencies however, in the potential for an and build public support; broaden the overemphasis on direct economic ben- impact of NPS; (b) offer lessons appli- efits. Neither conservation nor devel- cable to other settings; (c) foster a opment should gain the upper hand, stewardship ethic among the general and thus balanced decision-making public; and (d) are strikingly similar to mechanisms and public involvement the benefits described in the category must be maintained to ensure that eco- V guidelines. nomic activities that derive benefits Protected landscapes and heritage from the heritage in protected land- areas also offer tangible economic ben- scapes do not deter nor detract from efits, especially with regard to prod- its conservation. Heritage must be ucts and services that can be produced used without expanding to a scale of and sold or provided locally, and pro- exploitation, potentially triggering a moted with an identity associated with decline in the landscape that harbors the locale or region. Not surprisingly, it. The “protection” of landscapes is these economic opportunities are further enhanced by putting forward

38 The George Wright FORUM the indirect and social benefits in On the other hand, that mix is equal measure. already complicated in the case of In the majority of cases, the “inter- coastal landscapes, where a growing action of people and nature over time” proportion of the world’s population that “has produced an area of distinct reside. Protected seascapes, in many character” now has or once had a fun- forms, can play a highly significant damental economic use at its founda- role in determining the impact of pop- tion, be it agriculture, forestry, ulation concentration on coastal envi- resource extraction, etc. Sometimes ronments. creative mechanisms can be devised to But the expanding dimensions and restore some or all of the economic diversity of these kinds of areas would engine to a landscape, or else mimic suggest that they are attractive to many that engine. But the temptation to sup- people, both local interested parties port land interaction or use artificially and policy-makers. Convergence of is to be resisted, subject as it is to ces- experience confirms that the inclusive sation of disassociated support. approach to conservation and authen- The protected landscapes concept tic heritage enhancement in the Unit- “reflects a visionary and pro-active ed States is consistent with protected approach, aiming to enhance values area innovations elsewhere, suggesting rather than simply to maintain or pro- opportunities for mutually beneficial tect existing assets” (Phillips 2002). In exchange among practitioners, policy- practice, as the values of an area are to makers, and sites. be considered holistically, there is often a degree of subjectivity as to Conclusion whether a specific management Recently, David Lowenthal (2003) change (e.g., an infrastructure devel- observed that “to become a viable opment, or new land use) would goal, conservation ... needs to become enhance those values or diminish more inclusive in three senses: it must them. For this reason, a clear, adaptive care for all locales, not just a select few; management planning process is nec- it must involve all the people, not just essary to ensure that specific policies a select few; it must laud all creative and activities within a protected land- acts, not just those that preserve some scape are in keeping with its overall past.” The protected landscape model objectives. presents one opportunity to make Protected landscapes and heritage conservation more inclusive: by areas are attractive in that they can broadening the base of protected broaden the participation of many dif- areas, broadening the number and ferent kinds of people in conservation. variety of people involved in their This also poses a challenge to man- management, and protecting features agers, who must deal with a complex of people’s interaction with the land in mix of stakeholders and partners ways that celebrate heritage and adapt unprecedented in the experience of for the future. protected areas.

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 39 Acknowledgments The author respectfully acknowledges the work of the Protected Landscapes Task Force of IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas—and especially author Adrian Phillips—whose work on the Management Guidelines forms the basis of this article.

References Lowenthal, David. 2003. Epilogue. In Speaking of the Future: A Dialogue on Conservation. Nora J. Mitchell, Leslie J. Hudson, and Deb Jones, eds. Woodstock, Vt.: Conservation Study Institute. Lucas, P.H. C. 1992. Protected Landscapes: Guidelines for Policy-makers and Planners. London: Chapman and Hall. IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Cambridge, U.K., and Gland Switzerland: IUCN. ———. 1998. 1997 United Nations List of Protected Areas. Cambridge, U.K., and Gland Switzerland: IUCN. NPS [National Park Service]. 2003. Suggested criteria for heritage areas. At: www.cr.nps.gov/heritagear- eas/faq/crit.htm. Phillips, Adrian. 2002. Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Areas: Protected Landscapes and Seascapes. Cambridge, U.K., and Gland Switzerland: IUCN. Tuxill, J. L., and N. J. Mitchell, eds. 2001. Collaboration and Conservation: Lessons Learned in Areas Managed through National Park Service Partnerships. Conservation and Stewardship Publication no. 3. Woodstock, Vt.: Conservation Study Institute.

Brent A. Mitchell, Director, International Stewardship, Quebec–Labrador Foundation Atlantic Center for the Environment, 55 South Main Street, Ipswich, Massachusetts 01938; [email protected] 3

40 The George Wright FORUM Brenda Barrett Roots for the National Heritage Area Family Tree

elcome to Independence National Historical Park, a property of the National Park Service (NPS). The reality behind the brown sign and the arrowhead is more complicated than meets the eye. WThe city of Philadelphia owns Independence Hall and until recently, when the bonds were finally paid off, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania owned the adjacent mall. From the time the national park idea migrated back East, the agency has had to work in partnership in a more and more complex and peopled environment. Unfortunately, in many cases these partnership arrangements had more the air of an arranged marriage and not that of a more perfect union. Shared ownership and authority over resources was seen as a problem to overcome, not as an opportunity for expanding the scope of conservation. Today this attitude is changing and these newer collaborative approaches NPS recognizes the value in a partner- can be better integrated into the ship approach to resource manage- National Park System. ment. But even with this shift, commu- The definition of a national park nities across the country and their has always been a dynamic process congressional delegations are asking with the agency expanding its scope for more partnership initiatives. They from natural wonders to historic land- are pushing NPS to become part of the marks, and then to places offering out- mix in recognizing and preserving standing recreational opportunities. special places where people live and The expanding definition of the work, looking at larger and larger land- agency’s mission and the need to offer scapes and providing their expertise park experiences closer to population and imprimatur to conservation efforts centers has brought the National Park where the people that live there set the Service into more complex relation- agenda. These large landscapes are, of ships with certain landscapes. In course, the national heritage areas or 1961, Cape Cod National Seashore corridors of which 23 have been des- was authorized with the recognition ignated to date, incorporating almost that ownership of the 43,500 acres 45 million people in over 150,000 within the defined park boundary square miles. With proposals for a would always be a mix of federal, state, dozen new areas before Congress, it is municipal and private landowners.2 an appropriate time to begin the The 40-mile strip of Atlantic beaches, search for the roots of the heritage area dunes, and wetlands included parts of idea.1 By understanding the context of six cape communities and hundreds of landscape conservation in the past, owner-occupied buildings. The

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 41 authorizing legislation contained a National Park System—and how to number of innovations to mesh the pay for it with public dollars—that new park presence with the existing introduced some new thinking on conditions. Under what became roles and responsibilities. known as the “Cape Cod formula,” The Santa Monica Mountains con- NPS was prohibited from condemn- sist of almost 200,000 acres of moun- ing private improved property if the tain peaks, valleys, and Pacific coast- local governments adopted zoning line adjacent to the heavily urbanized ordinances that were consistent with Los Angeles Basin. In the early 1970s, the park’s purpose. This had the effect citizens concerned that rapidly of not just appeasing local property spreading residential development owners concerned about forced reset- would destroy the area’s natural values tlement, but preserving the living sought both state and federal assis- landscape of fishing villages and sum- tance. At the request of the secretary of mer cottages.3 Another innovation in the interior, the Bureau of Outdoor the Cape Cod legislation was the Recreation studied the region and establishment of a park advisory com- concluded that its designation as a mission representing the six units of national recreation area was not justi- local government, the county,the com- fied based on considerations of cost monwealth of Massachusetts, and a and carrying capacity. Furthermore, representative of the secretary of the the bureau thought that designation interior. This gave the local communi- might stifle local and state land preser- ty an ongoing forum for issues that vation initiatives.5 arise in any area where there are multi- Not satisfied with this response, ple owners with varying interests.4 Senator J. Bennett Johnston, chairman Cape Cod National Seashore was of the Subcommittee on Parks and not the only new unit that challenged Recreation, reflected that while the the National Park Service to manage National Park Service might have been more and more complex landscapes. too successful in bringing parks to In the 1960s and 1970s, Cuyahoga “where the people are,” this was not National Recreation Area (now the time to do nothing. He suggested National Park) in Ohio, Delaware that the escalating cost of land in Water Gap National Recreation Area urban locations, rising administrative in Pennsylvania, Gateway National costs, and an uncertain economy Recreation Area in New York and called for a different approach. To this New Jersey, and Golden Gate Nation- end he requested assistance from the al Recreation Area in California, to Congressional Research Service. The name just a few,were added to the sys- innovative answer, authored by tem. All included large land areas with Charles Little, was to establish a new non-federal owners and different kind of park, a “greenline park.”6 The visions of how the areas should be concept was modeled after national managed for the future. But it was the park practice in England and Wales question of how to manage the Santa where land acquisition is kept to a Monica Mountains as a part of the minimum and land is protected by

42 The George Wright FORUM land development controls. The vation which, if approved by the secre- report defined these new parks as “a tary of the interior, would secure the resource area containing a mix of pub- federal funding for implementation. lic and private land which is compre- The new idea was that “a mix” of pri- hensively planned, and regulated by vate and public lands would be an independent State agency set up planned and controlled in a way that specifically to preserve its recreational, would optimize preservation, not of a aesthetic, ecological, historic and cul- series of recreational sites and proj- tural values.”7 ects, but of the whole landscape.8 The report offered a new This concept is new in that it propos- approach, a compromise by which the es a strategy for planning, managing, Santa Monica Mountains could be and funding a park unit through part- saved by setting a boundary that nerships, but not new in that it pre- includes both public and private serves state governments’ pre-emi- lands, by authorizing federal funding nence in land use and the federal inter- in a defined amount, and by requiring est in protecting large, significant the state of California to prepare a recreational landscapes (Figure 1). comprehensive plan for land conser- In 1978, the new Heritage Conser-

Figure 1. Canoes heading to Philadelphia, Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area. Photo provided by National Park Service.

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 43 vation and Recreation Service in the dilution of the existing National Park Department of Interior expanded on System.11 Finally, the report evaluated the greenline parks concept with a a series of high-priority legislative pro- proposal for a system of national posals that were before Congress for reserves, later called “areas of national their potential to be managed under concern.”9 The development of a this new approach and analyzed the reserve concept was in part motivated possible outcomes based on protec- by a series of legislative proposals that tion, coordination, and cost.12 were based on community desire to Since four of these park proposals conserve special places (usually large are often referred to as precursors of landscapes) and the agency’s concern the heritage area and corridor propos- that, if approached with the usual buy- als, it is useful to look at how Congress and-hold strategy, these proposals actually crafted the planning, manage- would be prohibitively expensive. ment and funding for each. Note that Under the reserve concept, a process all were enacted as part of the was delineated whereby residents at Omnibus Park and Recreation Act of the local or regional level would initi- 1978. ate a proposal for protection as a Pinelands National Reserve potential national reserve or area of (1,000,000 acres; all nonfederal). This special concern. If found appropriate, was the only proposal that legislatively they would receive assistance in followed the reserve model outlined preparing a management plan that above, and to date it is the only exam- would identify a spectrum of support- ple of a reserve as envisioned in the ing and funding partners. If approved original report. The authorizing legis- by the secretary, Congress would allo- lation for the Pinelands National cate limited funds for implementa- Reserve stated that the governor of tion.10 New Jersey would establish a planning The proposed system of national entity with representatives of local reserves was to emphasize planning government, agriculture, and conser- and commitment from many partners, vation interests, as well as a designee including asking local and state gov- of the secretary of the interior. This ernment to tackle land use control and body, known as the Pinelands Com- management in lieu of federal land mission, was responsible for both acquisition. The reserves would assessing the environmental, cultural, remain a living landscape, a place for and recreational resources of the people to reside and carry out compat- region and preparing a strategy that ible economic development. Some of includes regulatory, educational, and the benefits of the strategy to the economic tools. It was to do so with Department of Interior would be its maximum public involvement. In cost-effectiveness and proactive addition, grant funding of up to $23 nature, its capacity to aid local govern- million was made available for selec- ments, the additional protection it tive land acquisition.13 would afford around existing national Santa Monica Mountains Nation- parks, and its role in preventing the al Recreation Area (153,700 acres;

44 The George Wright FORUM 21,000 federal). The Santa Monica ing, fishing, and trapping in the legislation was a compromise, but not Barataria Marsh. Again an advisory the one suggested in the Greenline commission was established, repre- Park report or in the proposal for a senting state and local government, national reserve. The role that the land representatives of commercial fishing use authority of the state of California interests, conservation groups, and a and its local governments could play representative from the National in protecting the area’s resources is Endowment for the Arts. The funding recognized, but they were not author- was authorized at an amount not to ized to step into that role either in exceed $50 million from the Land and return for substantial federal funding Water Conservation Fund. or, as in Cape Cod, as a bar to federal Lowell National Historical Park condemnation in exchange for appro- (137 acres; 28 federal). The legislation priate zoning. The approach is more establishing a National Park Service about coordination.14 As in other presence in the city of Lowell, Massa- parks with multiple stakeholders, the chusetts, included both a park unit, Santa Monica Mountains Advisory Lowell National Historical Park, and Commission was established as a the Lowell Historic Preservation forum for state, county, and local gov- Commission, with jurisdiction over a ernment partners. The amount of larger 583-acre historic district. The funding provided for land acquisition, 15-member commission included rep- while limited, far exceeded the $50 resentatives of local government, state million discussed in the Greenline government, and federal agencies. Park report and is subject to annual Unlike other commissions from this appropriations, not a fixed allocation. period, it had authority to undertake Jean Lafitte National Historical direct development projects, offer Park and Preserve (20,000 acres; grant and loan assistance, and review 10,600 federal). The land assembly other development projects in the his- authority for this unit was very com- toric district. The funding for the park plex, including the 20,000-acre was authorized at $18.5 million and Barataria Marsh, an interpretive loca- for the commission’s programs at tion in New Orleans to be selected $21.5 million.15 The legislation also later, the already-existing Chalmette set an annual funding limit for the National Historical Park, and other commission based on the aggregate of sites in the delta regions subject to the state, local, and private dollars development of cooperative agree- expended for related purposes in the ments. Guidelines to preserve envi- prior year. ronmental values were to be enacted From these four examples some of by local governments who could cede the key new concepts in park creation their enforcement authority to the sec- can be traced. These ideas include: retary of the interior. If they failed to • Establishing a boundary based act, the land could be acquired to pro- more on the definition of the tect those values. In deference to local resource than on the government’s culture, the legislation permitted hunt- ability to acquire the land in ques-

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 45 tion; coalition lobbied congress for a new • Harnessing the power of local land national park unit to bring dollars and use authorities to preserve recognition to the canal and to the resources; many adjacent historic communities. • Embracing other agencies’ parks NPS’s response in 1981 was to pro- and less-than-fee-simple ownership pose a new approach: a concept plan to preserve resources within the for stabilizing the canal, developing a boundaries without federal acquisi- recreational trail, interpreting the cul- tion; tural and natural resources, and revi- •Involving the local community and talizing the adjacent communities other interest groups through advi- under the leadership of a commission sory commissions; and composed primarily of citizens living • Limiting funding by setting fixed in the corridor.16 Congress acted on dollar limits, matching require- this proposal, establishing the Illinois ments, or both. and Michigan Canal National Heritage Many of these principles are seen in Corridor in 1984. the newest wave of greenline parks, The above discussion attempts to now called partnership parks: trace both the ideas and actions taken Keweenaw National Historical Park to wrap the National Park Service’s (authorized in 1992; 1,870 acres, all mission around large living landscapes nonfederal); Boston Harbor Islands (Figure 2). Where do national heritage National Recreation Area (1996; 5 areas fit into this evolutionary model? acres federal, 1,477 nonfederal); New Are they the logical extension of Bedford Whaling National Historical greenline parks, national reserves, and Park (1996; 20 acres, all nonfederal); partnership parks, applied to even and Rosie the Riveter / World War II larger and more complex landscapes Home Front National Historical Park that incorporate whole human ecosys- (2000; no fixed boundaries at this tems? The answer seems to be “yes” time). with one more evolutionary turn. In Changes in administration and eco- national heritage areas, the mission of nomic climate slowed park creation the National Park Service is placed in after 1978 and the National Park Ser- the hands of the people who live there. vice’s next major “alternative” land This is not a subtle shift—this is a rev- conservation initiative was one of the olution. most innovative. Citizens up and What had been commissions made down the corridor of the Illinois and up of local interests with an advisory Michigan Canal sought to involve the role to an adjacent national park unit agency in the preservation of this have been transmuted into operating nationally important resource. The commissions of local citizens and canal was owned by the state of Illi- stakeholders with full management nois, but its length (75 miles) and the responsibility for the designated area. deteriorated condition of the infra- In more recently designated national structure was a management chal- heritage areas, the commissions them- lenge. To remedy this situation, a selves have been replaced by more

46 The George Wright FORUM Figure 2. The valley in autumn, John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor. Photo provided by National Park Service.

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 47 flexible nonprofit management enti- tion programs to build a stewardship ties. This shift in governance is reflect- ethic rather than relying on regulation. ed in the planning and development of A lot of energy has been released in the heritage areas. The management adopting this new way of conserving plan is an undertaking of the manage- our nation’s landscapes and the num- ment entity from scoping through ber of new congressional proposals identification of alternatives. The fed- demonstrates the high level of com- eral role is only to provide technical munity support. However, somewhere assistance and final approval of the along the line the national heritage document. Finally, and most impor- area idea has become disconnected tantly, the local entity is responsible from its historical antecedents as the for funding and implementation of the logical outcome of an expansive and plan. NPS provides only limited dol- inclusive approach to conserving the lars, and those allocations must be living landscape. The 23 national her- matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis.17 itage areas are the not-so-distant rela- Another shift in direction is the role tives of Cape Cod National Seashore, that the heritage areas play in land Jean Lafitte National Historical Park, conservation. While earlier greenline and Santa Monica Mountains Nation- parks and reserve models envisioned al Recreation Area and of course are state and local governments doing the close cousins of the innovations at heavy lifting with land use regulations Lowell National Historical Park and and mandated resource protection, the later partnership parks of the this has not been the path that heritage 1990s. By not recognizing this kin- areas have traveled. In part this is ship, the national heritage areas are based on a political climate that missing the opportunity to be counted eschews any regulation of private as contributing to the larger mission of property. The statement in the 1973 the National Park Service and to bene- study of the Santa Monica Mountains fit from association with the nation’s that ”President Nixon has given premier conservation agency. But the national land use legislation the high- bigger lost opportunity may be to the est priority ... and chances of passage National Park Service itself, which is are good” was from another time.18 not engaging this expanded con- But in addition to federal land use stituency, learning about partnerships controls being politically out of favor, from the ground up, and claiming the heritage areas prefer a cooperative preservation of many of the unique liv- approach to preserving resources. ing landscapes that define this nation. They focus on strong heritage educa- Endnotes 1 As of spring 2003, Congress has introduced four study bills and eleven designation bills for individual heritage areas. 2 Cape Cod National Seashore includes 16,000 acres in nonfederal ownership. National Park Service, The National Parks: Index 2001-2003 (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 2001), p. 52. 3 The Conservation Foundation, National Parks for a New Generation: Visions, Realities, Prospects (Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1985), pp. 160-162. 4 The authorization for the Cape Cod Commission was extended beyond the original 10 years and was then reauthorized by legislation in 1998 (P.L. 105-280).

48 The George Wright FORUM 5 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Santa Monica Mountains Study (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1973), pp. 4-7. 6 The term “greenline” was derived from the blue line that the state of New York drew around the Adirondack region when it created a reserve that included both public and private lands. Charles Lit- tle, Greenline Parks: An Approach to Preserving Recreational Landscapes in Urban Areas (Washing- ton, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 1975). 7 Ibid., p. 2. 8 Ibid., p. 9. 9 Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, National Reserves System (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 1978). 10 Ibid., pp. 1-2. 11 Ibid., p. 3. 12 Ibid., pp. 12-13. 13 Ebey’s Landing National Historical Reserve in the state of Washington, while titled as a reserve, dif- fers in substantial ways from the Pinelands National Reserve. Ebey’s Landing is designated as a unit of the National Park System and is managed not by a governmental agency, but by a nonprofit organization without regulatory authority. 14 Parks for a New Generation,p.230. 15 In October of 1987, the park’s authorization was raised to $19.8 million and the commission’s to $33.6 million. 16 National Park Service, Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor: A Concept Plan and Implemen- tation Strategy (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1981). 17 More recently the formula for designated areas has been $10 million over 15 years. 18 Santa Monica Mountains Study, p. 55.

Brenda Barrett, National Coordinator for Heritage Areas, National Park Ser- vice, 1849 C Street NW,Washington,D.C. 20240; [email protected] 3

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 49 J. Glenn Eugster

Evolution of the Heritage Areas Movement Introduction racing the evolution of heritage areas in the United States is a daunting and inherently leaky task that calls to mind D.W. Meinig’s 1979 paper, “The Beholding Eye: Ten Versions of the Same Scene.” Meinig said Tthat “even though we gather together and look in the same direction at the same instant, we will not—we cannot—see the same landscape. We will see many of the same elements, but such facts take on meaning only through association; they must be fitted together according to some coherent body of ideas.” According to Meinig, “Any landscape is composed not only of what lies before our eyes but what lies within our heads” (Meinig 1979). Heritage areas are like a view of the approach being used today is much landscape in that everyone sees them, more than historic preservation and and their origins, differently because cultural resource conservation. those involved have different values, The major influences that have cre- goals, and backgrounds. This descrip- ated the first generation of heritage tion of the evolution of heritage areas areas include evocative journalism, is one view of the movement. automobiles and the Interstate High- The heritage areas movement way System, cultural resource conser- began, arguably, in a dozen different vation, and innovative approaches in places and points in time. The park protection, historic preservation, approach that is being used in hun- and economic development. The key- dreds of places evolved from a number stone philosophies that hold these ele- of separate but related conservation, ments together, and create the synergy historic preservation, land use and that is a signature of these places, economic development movements. include advocacy and civic engage- Without question, heritage areas have ment, a place-based focus, interdisci- evolved as a result of the creation in plinary approaches to planning and 1949 of the National Trust for His- action, interpretation, and heritage toric Preservation and the passage in tourism. 1966 of the National Historic Preser- Heritage areas, individually and as vation Act. Over more than fifty years a movement, benefit from the work of community leaders have worked to writers—their research, books, and first preserve and conserve individual stories. They demonstrate the effec- buildings and structures, and then dis- tiveness of the historic preservation tricts, and then landscapes, and now and parks movement in changing the entire regions. However, the heritage way that Americans look at and man-

50 The George Wright FORUM age their communities and landscapes. 1935 as one of the New Deal’s under- Heritage areas are an expression of the takings, was a “government-sponsored resurgence of democracy in America national self-portraiture.” The guides, and the traditions of home rule. They which came before superhighways, illustrate the ability of economic lead- television, and computers, included an ers to broaden their focus to be able to enormous amount of research on an integrate their goals with those of array of heritage topics and turned the other interests and disciplines, thus untapped wealth of local history into a creating a synergy with greater bene- lasting treasure. fits to everyone. Across America talented local writ- Most importantly, the heritage area ers wrote more than 1,200 guides and movement illustrates how the term pamphlets about landscapes and com- “heritage” can be used as an organiz- munities. The writers used the docu- ing principle at all levels of the governments to capture the sense of these ment and in the private sector. In hun- places in a readable, evocative, endur- dreds of regions the heritage idea is ing, and endearing way. The early the unifying force that is strengthening guides gave people information on communities and helping them suc- their own areas as well as descriptions cessfully plan for their environmental, of other places. cultural, and economic future. It uni- fies because all people have a heritage Interstate Highway System and it has meaning to them. Heritage As people became more aware of gives people visions of the past, pres- their own communities and others, the ent, and future. Heritage areas have a government was working on the feder- heart, soul, and human spirit that al Interstate Highway System, to give many traditional master plans, land them access to these places. use plans, and zoning ordinances lack. In 1954 President Eisenhower Heritage areas allow people to claim formed a Committee on a National these places and make our communi- Highway Program to assess the trans- ties, landscapes. and regions relevant portation needs of the nation. The and special to the populations they committee included representatives serve. from the Teamsters Union, a large construction firm, the National Cham- Evocative Journalism ber of Commerce, and a road con- Author Chuck Little has said that struction machinery manufacturer. “behind every successful conservation These groups had key leaders with a movement is a writer”(personal com- strong interest not only in the road munication, 1994). Writers, and their system, but in the outputs, products, stories about places and people, have and impacts of the 41,000 miles of been important parts of the heritage road that were part of Eisenhower’s areas movement. The origins of the vision. movement are obvious in the Federal Although the president’s plan Writer’s Project state and place guides stressed solving safety, transportation of the 1930s. The project, created in congestion, and nuclear evacuation

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 51 issues, the impact on tourism—and efforts were acting as the incubators of access to the natural and cultural her- new ideas. itage—was profound. The new high- In 1968 the federal Bureau of Out- ways gave people access to travel and door Recreation concluded a heritage the ability to compare and contrast study to assess the feasibility of estab- other communities, landscapes, and lishing the Connecticut River Valley as cultures with their own. a national recreation area. The study report recognized “an outstanding Special Places array of historical, educational and The highways fueled land develop- cultural heritage, high quality scenic ment, and leaders became concerned and recreational resources, and the about the adverse impact of land use need for a coordinated and interrelat- change on special places. Between ed program of public and private 1965 and 1977, as part of what has action” (Bureau of Outdoor Recre- been called the “Quiet Revolution in ation 1968). New England’s views Land Use Control” (Bosselman and about “home rule” disagreed with the Callies 1972), state governments rec- recommendations and Congress never ognized that portions of the landscape acted on the study. However, the pro- were “sensitive areas.” This view posal outlined a multi-objective emphasized the importance and approach centered on heritage values uniqueness of place and resulted in and an integrated partnership for state legislatures adopting nearly 100 implementation. statutes creating minimum development control standards for sensitive Cultural Resources areas that included floodplains, wet- and Interpretation lands, historic sites, and scenic areas. Heritage areas and people are Congress acted to help govern- inseparable and the combination is ments and the private sector conserve part of the intrinsic value of these important values and improve special places. This view wasn’t always the place land use decision-making. Not case, and in the late 1960s and mid- surprisingly, the management of the 1970s historic preservationists, plan- land–water interface was a major focus ners, and landscape architects began of these initiatives as Congress enacted to change the way decision-makers the National Wild and Scenic Rivers looked at the relationship between Act in 1968 and the Coastal Zone people, the land, and the built envi- Management Act in 1972. ronment. Both the coastal zone and scenic Heritage areas benefited from work rivers legislation defined federal poli- in cultural conservation, human ecolo- cies to help all governments and the gy, and cultural anthropology. As the private sector plan for the future uses historic preservation community and enjoyment of these special land- broadened its context for cooperation, scapes. While federal legislation creat- technical and financial assistance, as ed frameworks for coastal and river well as outreach, were used to help corridor place-based work, individual people outside of the movement

52 The George Wright FORUM understand the importance of the rela- landscape architects who would tionship between people and the built become prominent leaders of the her- environment. Greater value was itage areas movement within the placed on traditional land uses, ver- National Park Service (NPS). nacular architecture, “working” and Congress reinforced this view of everyday landscapes, and the popula- culture through the creation of the tions they serve. American Folk Life Center in 1976 to In 1969 Congress created the His- “preserve and present the heritage of toric American Engineering Record American folk life” through programs (HAER) as a way to document Ameri- of research, documentation, archival ca’s engineering, industrial, and tech- presentation, reference service, live nological heritage with measured and performance, exhibition, publication, interpreted drawings, large-format and training. The center includes the photographs, and written histories. Archive of Folk Culture, which was The work was used to promote aware- established in 1928 in the Library of ness and recognition of industrial her- Congress, and is one of the largest col- itage and assist state and local historic lections of ethnographic material from preservation and heritage area efforts. the nation and the world. The HAER program was used to In 1990 UPenn and the American help create one of the earliest heritage Folk Life Center collaborated on a area efforts in the USA, on the Lehigh project in the New Jersey Pine Bar- Canal in Pennsylvania. Led by a team rens. Mary Huffard of the Center, that included Alan Comp and Karen Berger, and Jonathan Sinton of Rut- Wade, the Lehigh effort refined the gers University used their human ecol- heritage area idea and built support ogy methods to prepare a report for for collaborative action. the New Jersey Pinelands Commis- In 1974 the University of Pennsyl- sion entitled “Planning the Use and vania’s (UPenn’s) Department of Management of the Pinelands: An Landscape Architecture, under Pro- Historical, Cultural, and Ecological fessor Ian McHarg, brought in a team Perspective” (Berger 1980). More so of human ecologists and cultural than any other heritage planning doc- anthropologists to teach graduate- ument, the report identified, level ecological planning and design. explained, and illustrated the link The team was challenged to integrate between people, nature, and heritage the “other ecology” into the planning in a form suitable for land use manage- philosophy. Practical approaches for ment decisions. using human ecology to help make land use decisions, reflecting natural Innovation in Parks, and cultural values and functions, Preservation, and Development were taught and demonstrated. Jon In the 1970s leaders were search- Berger and Dan Rose, two of the pro- ing for new ways to conserve land- fessors, published Human Ecology scapes. Land development outpaced and the Regional Plan (Berger and conservation and preservation, land Rose 1974) and trained a legion of use controls were increasingly unpop-

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 53 ular, the cost of conservation far Historical Park and the Lowell His- exceeded available budgets, and con- toric Preservation Commission, a flicts between protection and develop- decision that proved to be a keystone ment were commonplace. of the heritage areas movement. People were changing the way they Nationally,the movement was mak- looked at parks and special places. ing a shift. In 1976 Congress directed The public wanted these places close NPS to conduct the National Urban to where they lived for recreation and Recreation Study to conduct a review education, and to improve the quality and report on the needs, problems, of life. This change from viewing parks and opportunities associated with and special landscapes, as places to urban recreation in highly populated live in rather than just visit, dramati- regions, including the resources avail- cally expanded definitions of what was able for meeting such needs (National important to conserve. Park Service 1978). The reports rec- These changes had two impacts. ommended establishment of a system One placed greater emphasis on qual- of national reserve landscapes based ity of life and land use, and firmly on a partnership between local, state, established “sense of place” as a and federal governments; creation of a national and community goal. It also new urban recreation funding pro- placed greater value on “living,” gram; and a series of specific place- “working,” and everyday landscapes based heritage areas. and vernacular architecture. The new Author Chuck Little, then of the perspective shifted interest from dis- Congressional Research Service, pre- tant natural parks and landscapes to pared a report for Congress that sum- those close to large populations and marized the need for a new approach with a diversity of natural, cultural, to urban park acquisition and manage- and economic uses. ment titled Greenline Parks: An The heritage movement evolved in Approach to Preserving Recreational special places and in Congress. In the Landscapes in Urban Areas (Little early 1970s, in response to a 1975). The concept of greenline parks depressed economy and an exodus of (see also Corbett et al. 1983) was young people, the leaders of Lowell, based on U.S. and international prece- Massachusetts, proposed a plan for dents, and suggested that special land- revitalization. Educator Patrick J. scapes could be protected using a Mogan insisted that any revitalization combination of federal, state, and local of the city should be based on its means under a coordinated regional industrial and ethnic heritage. After plan. study and debate on Mogan’s propos- Although Congress never enacted al, leaders decided to make Lowell a legislation for this approach, many new kind of national park based on government agencies and private labor and industrial history, and part- groups, with the assistance of the nerships with local and state govern- National Parks Conservation Associa- ments and the private sector. In 1978 tion and the American Land Forum, Congress established Lowell National began to apply it in specific communi-

54 The George Wright FORUM ties and landscapes. areas. Massachusetts developed a In 1979 the National Wild and strategy, based on the success of Low- Scenic Rivers Act program, in ell, for conserving and promoting the response to public support, was mod- cultural resources of aging and declin- ified to create a technical and financial ing cities to build community pride, assistance program to help states and enhance the quality of life, and stimu- local governments conserve and pro- late economic revitalization. In 1979 tect important river corridors. Using a the state created the Urban Cultural philosophy of helping people help Park Program and designated 14 themselves, NPS created the Rivers & locally administered heritage parks Trails Program. In testimony before located in 21 cities and villages. Congress, William K. Reilly,then pres- Private-sector historic preservation ident of the Conservation Foundation, interests also changed their heritage described the assistance as being “in approaches. In 1980 the National the best tradition of federalism and Main Street Program worked with local initiative and a prototype for the communities to revitalize their historic next generation of land and water con- and traditional commercial areas. The servation techniques in America, one Main Street approach was developed that adroitly melds federal, state, local to save historic commercial architec- and private efforts into a cost-effective ture and the fabric of American com- partnership” (Reilly 1985). munities’ built environment by part- Working in response to public and nering with development interests and private requests, and with other public using economic tools. With inspired and private assistance programs, NPS leadership from such people as Mary expanded the scenic rivers program to Means and Scott Gerloff, Main Street help communities design and imple- brought historic preservation and cul- ment plans and strategies for their spe- tural conservation into communities cial places. with an emphasis on empowerment, The Rivers & Trails Program’s innovation, sustainability, and flexibil- community-based view (Steiner 1986) ity. was responsive to requests that didn’t Heritage area elements also sur- fit neatly into existing federal pro- faced in the White House. In 1981 the grams. Requests came for places Council on Environmental Quality where community, and often congres- (CEQ) issued a report called Land- sional, leaders wanted to coordinate scape Conservation and Development: historic preservation, parks, and eco- An Evolving Alternative to Public nomic development into an integrated Land Acquisition to articulate the approach. As a result of this need to find a way to protect national- approach, NPS became a sought-after ly significant landscapes faced with federal partner for many of the earliest urbanization (CEQ 1981). The report heritage area efforts, including eight built on greenline park philosophy current federal areas. and examined alternative ways to link Massachusetts and New York protection and development, using played a leadership role in heritage appropriate federal roles. The effort

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 55 sent a signal from the office of the First Generation president that it was important to find of Heritage Areas ways to make land use decisions that The 1980s saw the arrival of the would allow communities and regions first generation of national heritage to protect important values and pros- areas. The movement surfaced in per economically. 1984 with the designation of the Illi- Over time these efforts laid the nois and Michigan Canal National foundation for the heritage movement, Heritage Corridor (I&M). The I&M shaping the principles that make it initially was an educational and identi- effective. These laws and projects fication program undertaken by the proved to be important policy and Open Lands Project, a private not-for- place-specific testing grounds for new profit organization that focused on a approaches to integrate different pub- 25-mile segment of the corridor along lic objectives. The legislative and com- the Des Plaines River (Figure 1). It munity initiatives also began to move began in 1980 and was unlike tradi- government away from top-down, sin- tional state or national parks because it gle-purpose approaches to conserva- was located in one of the nation’s most tion, historic preservation, park, and industrialized regions. economic development assistance and The I&M effort combined a diver- decision-making. sity of land uses, management pro-

Figure 1. Roger Gasa Lock, Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor. Photo provided by National Park Service.

56 The George Wright FORUM grams, and historical themes (Figure historic structures within commercial 2), blended with economic develop- centers. The concept envisioned that ment and grassroots involvement. the federal government would provide With leadership from Jerry Adlemann recognition, technical assistance, and and others, it was intended to encour- coordination through a corridor com- age economic growth by preserving mission. natural lands alongside industries and The I&M’s goal for linking and

Figure 2a and 2b. Boats on the canal, then and now: Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor. Photos provided by National Park Service.

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 57 maintaining the balance between monwealth was well versed in integrat- nature and industry, and encouraging ing state-run environmental, cultural, economic regeneration, caught the and economic programs in cities and attention of many states and commu- communities and had been exploring nities within the eastern United States. the state heritage park approach. In In 1983 Congress directed NPS to 1984 the commonwealth developed a assist Massachusetts and Rhode framework for a Pennsylvania Heritage Island with a strategy for the future Parks Program “to preserve cultural conservation, management, and use of resources in a manner which provides the Blackstone River corridor. In addi- educational, recreational and econom- tion, NPS was directed by Congress to ic benefits” (Commonwealth of Penn- assess whether the valley should be sylvania 1984). A partnership between included in the National Park System. the commonwealth and NPS formed The Blackstone study (NPS 1985) and the two worked in tandem to col- did not recommend traditional nation- laboratively support a series of state al park designation. However, the and federal heritage designations. report indicated that “there may be a Heritage area interest in Pennsylva- role for federal assistance in the area of nia, as well as other eastern states, resource interpretation,” and that peaked when the population turned its “federal recognition of the valley may interest—and disposable income— be appropriate given its historical sig- toward heritage tourism. In the late nificance….” The report spoke to the 1980s Americans were more educat- need for shared responsibility by indi- ed, older, and willing to spend more cating that “such recognition should money on travel and recreation than follow an increased commitment from previously. The Baby Boomer “back- state and local governments to envi- to-the-city movement” was beginning ronmental improvements, protection and public demand for shorter, less of the valley’s cultural resources, and strenuous, and more authentic vaca- protection of its rural setting.” Massa- tions was increasing. Heritage tourism chusetts had already designated its expert Richard Roddewig described part of the Blackstone as a state her- the situation by saying: “The U.S. was itage park, the Blackstone was Rhode mature enough as a country to have a Island’s highest priority, and NPS had varied and rich architectural, cultural good relations with both states, so the and social history that makes every study recommendations were sup- corner of the country fascinating” ported. Federal legislation modeled (Roddewig 1989). after the I&M was enacted in 1986, Heritage tourism increased the creating the Blackstone River Valley forces of fundamental demand and National Heritage Corridor (now supply for heritage areas. As these called John H. Chafee Blackstone forces were converging, the human River Valley National Heritage Corri- spirit, public and political support, dor). technical know-how, and legislative The heritage areas movement also precedents were available to meet the surfaced in Pennsylvania. The com- demand. Heritage areas began to mul-

58 The George Wright FORUM tiply exponentially each year as this meeting environmental, cultural, and community-based movement became economic goals. a publicly supported approach to

[Ed. note: This article first appeared in the summer 2003 issue of the Nation- al Trust for Historic Preservation’s Forum Journal and has been reprinted with the permission of the Trust; 1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036; www.nationaltrust.org.] References Berger, Jon. 1980. Planning the use and management of the Pinelands: A cultural, historical, and ecological perspective. Unpublished report to the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, N.J. Berger, Jon, and Dan Rose. Human Ecology in the Regional Plan. Philadelphia; Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania. Bosselman, Fred, and David Callies. 1972. The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 1968. New England Heritage: The Connecticut River National Recreation Study. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. CEQ [Council on Environmental Quality]. 1981. Land Conservation and Development: An Evolving Alter- native to Public Land Acquisition. Washington, D.C.: CEQ. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 1984. Pennsylvania Heritage Parks: A Concept With Applications. Harris- burg, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Corbett, Marjorie, J. Glenn Eugster, et al. 1983. Greenline Parks: Land Conservation Trends for the Eight- ies and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: National Parks & Conservation Association. Eugster, J. Glenn, and Deirdre Gibson. 1989. Heritage areas: An approach to integral landscape conservation. Paper presented at the National Preservation Conference, Philadelphia. Little, Charles, E. 1975. Greenline Parks: An Approach to Preserving Recreation Landscapes in Urban Areas. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Meinig, D. W.1979. The beholding eye: Ten versions of the same scene. In The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays. D. W.Meinig and John Brinckerhoff Jackson, eds. New York: Oxford University Press. NPS [National Park Service]. 1978. National Urban Recreation Study, Technical Reports, Volume 1. Urban Open Space: Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Issues. Washington, D.C.: NPS. ———. 1985. Blackstone River Corridor Study: Conservation Options. Philadelphia and Boston: NPS. Reilly, William, K. 1985. Statement before the Subcommittee on the Interior and Related Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations, Washington, D.C. Roddewig, Richard, J. 1989. The economic value of heritage tourism. Remarks at the Arkansas Governor’s Conference on Tourism, Jonesboro, Arkansas. Steiner, Frederick. 1986. Special Issue: River Conservation. Small Town & Rural Planning (American Planning Association and University of Washington).

J. Glenn Eugster, Assistant Regional Director, Partnerships Office, National Park Service, National Capital Region, 1100 Ohio Drive SW, Washington, DC 20242-0001; [email protected] 3

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 59 Laura Gates Nancy I.M. Morgan Report from the Field: The Whole is So Much Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts

Introduction n evolution occurs in any relationship as the parties to that relationship precipitate events, experience other events, react to them, and react to each other. This process of movement and interaction is criti- Acal to any partnership. A study of this partnership process in northwestern Louisiana yields elements that have led to the successful interactions between a park and a heritage area, the preservation of nationally significant resources, and the deep involvement of the community in the process. In 1994 Congress passed legisla- direction of Louis Juchereau de Saint tion enabling the creation of Cane Denis, the French gradually built up River Creole National Historical Park business interests in the area, much to and Cane River National Heritage the consternation of the Spanish who, Area, following the 1993 completion concerned about French incursion of a Special Resource Study/Environ- into the interior of the North Ameri- mental Assessment at the behest of the can continent, established their mis- community and under the direction of sion post of Los Adaes just a few miles Congress. As a result of that study, to the west in 1717. Congress concluded that the best The formal transfer of the former approach for the preservation of the French colony of Louisiana to Spain resources in the Cane River region was occurred in 1767, but despite Spanish a combined program of national park rule French Colonial culture flour- and national heritage area, and wrote ished for several reasons. The Spanish the legislation accordingly. regime caused little change in daily life The Cane River region is in north- around Natchitoches, and the Spanish western Louisiana midway between retained the services of French Com- Dallas and New Orleans, and its histo- mandant Athanase de Mezieres to ry is culturally complex. In 1714 the maintain authority. Under his influ- French became the first Europeans to ence the Spanish adopted the French establish a permanent settlement at manner of dealing with the tribes Natchitoches on the Cane River, for- through trade rather than through merly the main channel of Red River. missionary control. French remained Their intents were to revitalize trade the primary language. with the Indians and more fully By the late 18th century commer- exploit the agricultural and commercial agriculture in the Cane River area cial potential of the region. Under the replaced the trade in animal skins and

60 The George Wright FORUM products as the primary economic who began life as a slave and by the base. French and Spanish land-grant end of her life owned about 5,000 farms produced indigo and tobacco, acres of land and held 99 slaves. Her and farmers adopted the plantation 25-year liaison with an officer at the system to work these large pieces of fort in Natchitoches resulted in 10 land with slave labor. Natchitoches, children, whose freedom she which had been a trade center prehis- acquired. Considered the matriarch of torically,remained an important cross- the Cane River gens de couleur libre roads of overland routes to the east, (free people of color), she founded a northeast and southwest, and a water family that at one point in the 19th route to New Orleans and the Gulf of century owned 19,000 acres land, Mexico. The area was a cultural nexus 16,000 of which remains in descen- of French, Spanish, Indian, and dents’ hands today. African traditions, and out of this During the 19th century, cotton developed the anthropological defini- became the principal crop for the agri- tion of the term “Creole”: adaptations cultural lands, and the plantations of French, Spanish, Indian, and imported additional slaves from the African peoples to the New World and southeastern United States. Although to each other (Figure 1). the 1803 Louisiana Purchase quickly French and Spanish legal traditions brought about governmental changes, allowed, at least nominally, for various cultural changes lagged behind. sorts of manumission. In the Cane French remained the primary lan- River area the most famous instance guage, and most people felt a cultural was that of Marie-Thereze Coin-Coin, affinity to the French. The Red River

Figure 1. Creole women at the Badin-Roque House, Isle Brevelle, Louisiana. Photo courtesy of the Cammie G. Henry Research Center, Northwestern State University.

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 61 Campaign during the Civil War which had been in the ownership of wreaked havoc on Cane River, and the the same families since the time of area received heavy losses. Natural Spanish land grants, and both of and human-caused changes on the which contained nationally significant Red River caused it to change its architectural and landscape resources. course, and as a result Cane River The heritage area included 116,000 became a virtual oxbow, cutting it off acres of land that made up the heart of from lucrative river trade. In addition, Cane River’s historic and scenic the development of Shreveport as a places, the national park, three state successful river port rang a death knell historic sites all tied to the historic for the economic progress of Natchi- roots of the area, and properties in the toches and the Cane River region. The downtown National Historic Land- area and its peoples were left in rela- mark district that would be subject to tive isolation, and this lack of in-depth cooperative agreements. Within the interaction with the outside world and heritage area was the homeland of the lack of economic progress resulted in Cane River Creoles, descended from preservation of landscapes and build- Marie-Thereze Coin-Coin. Perhaps ings, but more importantly conserva- the most significant aspect of the her- tion of cultures. Descendents of the itage area was the continued use of the early peoples of the Cane River area— land in this small geographic area by French, African, Spanish, and Indian the historic peoples who used it, com- peoples—were from families who had bined with the highly visible, identifi- interacted with each other for more able cultural landscape that gave this than 200 years, in some cases. Planta- area an overwhelming sense of place. tion owner, enslaved, free person of The legislation for the park and the color, sharecropper, tenant farmer—all heritage area mandated the relation- were related either through familial or ship between the two entities, and it geographic ties. Isolation had been an specified the creation of a 19-member ally of preservation and cultural con- volunteer commission representing servation. various community stakeholders. One purpose of the commission was to Phase I: The Park as Catalyst ensure that a “culturally sensitive When the National Park Service approach” was used in the develop- (NPS) undertook the Special History ment of both the park and heritage Study in the early 1990s, Natchitoches area. and Cane River had decades of experi- Funding came first to the park, ence with historic preservation proj- which allowed us gradually to begin ects, and the people connected with planning and preservation work (Fig- those efforts were the primary forces ure 2), and to start park operations behind the legislation. Public Law amid the on-going construction. For 103-449 (16 U.S. Code 410) was four years, however, funding never enacted, creating the national park and came through the appropriations the heritage area. The park included process to the heritage area. Heritage two former cotton plantations, both of area resources were in dire need of

62 The George Wright FORUM Figure 2. Oakland Store, Oakland Plantation Unit, Cane River Creole National Historical Park. Courtesy of Jack Boucher, National Park Service. funding, and this lack of financial sive community involvement; often the backing for preservation of heritage team on a project included communi- area resources and programs created ty members representing their own very high levels of frustration in the cultures. This project inclusion was a community. The heritage area had no key factor in mobilizing some of the funding, no staff, and a volunteer com- cultural groups in the heritage area. mission. Their hands were tied. The execution of a cooperative NPS began sponsoring or conduct- agreement between the park and the ing ethnographic, archeological, and heritage area in 1998, and the subse- historical studies in the heritage area quent transfer of funds from the initial soon after the legislation passed. The appropriations, provided a jump-start law specifically mandated that the to the heritage area, and its funding park would coordinate a comprehen- has remained in the president’s budg- sive research program on cultural et since that time. resource and genealogical topics, and this, along with a need to understand Phase II: Action and Reaction the cultural communities, provided The second phase of development the justification for studies completed for the park and the heritage area for the park’s general management occurred between 1998 and 2002, plan. The research all included exten- after the execution of the cooperative

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 63 agreement and the initial funds trans- In addition, the heritage area com- fer. During this period, the heritage mission established a competitive area commission was able to build on grants program in which individuals, the groundwork laid by NPS through organizations, and businesses could Cane River Creole National Historical receive grants to carry out projects in Park. the categories of historic preservation, Two important tasks characterized research, and development. Through management of the park and the her- this program, a committee composed itage area during this phase: building of heritage area commissioners and an identity in a region where many community partners reviews grants long-standing public and nonprofit annually, targeting projects that align organizations had prospered for with the park and heritage area mis- decades, and expanding partnership sions as outlined in the enabling legis- relationships with those existing lation. Begun in 1998, the grants pro- organizations. Both entities set out to gram facilitates the process of moving accomplish these tasks in a number of federal seed money into the communi- different ways. The park continued to ty to accomplish projects chosen by carry out its research mandate in con- community. Furthermore, the grants junction with subject-matter experts program builds partnerships between and the community, and advanced the the commission, the park (which pro- preservation and development of park vides technical assistance to grantees), resources. Importantly, the park also and grant recipients. In some provided invaluable technical assis- instances, heritage area grants serve as tance to the community on a wide vari- a catalyst for extensive partnership- ety of projects. The heritage area com- building. The American Cemetery mission began developing a stronger Association’s preservation and identity through the creation of a map restoration project provides an exam- brochure, moving the concept of the ple in which a heritage area grant to a heritage area from an idea to a tangible local non-profit organization initiated article that could be distributed wide- a project that today involves city gov- ly to both tourists and residents for the ernment, a landmark district develop- first time. Also, the commission ment organization, Cane River Creole received a Save America’s Treasures National Historical Park, and the matching grant through NPS to assist National Center for Preservation two local organizations in restoring Technology and Training. two National Historic Landmark The Save America’s Treasures properties in the region. The park award and the Cane River National provided a historical architect to assist Heritage Area grants program proved with both projects. The Save Ameri- critical in raising awareness about the ca’s Treasures grant allowed the com- park’s and the heritage area’s existence mission and the park to cement com- and objectives, while at the same time munity partnerships in the process of accomplishing projects central to the preserving nationally significant missions of both entities. This resources. progress was complemented by staff

64 The George Wright FORUM development at both the park and the partners. Such definition makes part- heritage area. With staff came the sta- nerships more effective without put- bility that is critical for long-term suc- ting limitations on future innovation. cess in any organization. Finally, a foundation for continued communication, built on openness, Phase III: Symbiosis honesty, trust, and mutual respect, At present, the park and the her- exists amongst the park, the heritage itage area are entering a new phase of area commission, and their partners. development, one characterized by This foundation of trust and mutual true joint effort. In 2003, both entities respect is critical to the past success of are moving into an operational phase, the partnership region; maintaining it growing into the enabling legislation is essential to all future success. that set their paths in 1994. New visitor facilities are coming on-line in the Cautionary Visions park, and attendance has increased from the Crystal Ball significantly from early days. Similarly, Looking toward the future in Cane the heritage area commission is River and in other regions with her- orchestrating a shift from smaller, itage initiatives—existing national her- identity-building projects to larger itage areas and those that will come projects that contribute to infrastruc- on-line in the future—there are some tural development of the region. Sev- potential obstacles on the horizon. eral projects in the development plan- First, the National Park Service may ning concept stage and a comprehen- be facing significant budgetary issues. sive signage initiative mark the transi- Today, even flat funding for NPS rep- tion to this third phase. Importantly, resents operational and program funding for the park, the heritage area, decline due to the rising cost of doing and other local partners is relatively business. In these uncertain budgetary consistent at this juncture. These fac- times, the future may hold internal tors allow both park and heritage area battles over available funding. In light to build a solid foundation for joint of this knowledge, it is vital to maxi- management now and in the future. mize our partnerships and build sup- A strong framework built of three port internally and externally for primary elements characterizes this national heritage area programs. phase. First, both the heritage area and More than most traditional park the park have succeeded in developing units, heritage areas often are very tied effective programs. This proven track into local, state, and federal politics. record provides a solid base for future Although politicization has some projects, programming, and partner- advantages regarding obtaining fund- ships for both entities. Furthermore, ing and bringing attention to impor- by now all partners have built strong tant issues, politics can become over- relationships in which the way every- bearing. Managers must work to one interacts is defined, yet flexible. ensure that the resources remain the Clear roles exist for the park, the her- highest priority of heritage initiatives, itage area commission, and their many and that politics remain supportive,

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 65 not directive. area as “outsiders” or “newcomers” Heritage development is at an however, is only effective when we rec- important juncture in 2003. The con- ognize the value of local community cept of national heritage areas is grow- knowledge. Over 200 years of wisdom ing rapidly in popularity, and interest and existing understanding of the in establishing general legislation for sense of place in the region can guide heritage areas is on the rise in Con- park and heritage area efforts and congress and in heritage regions across tribute to a solid foundation for the the United States. Heritage region future. In conjunction with local managers, NPS, and all of our partners knowledge, it is important to involve should not squander this opportunity subject-matter experts early and often. to establish general standards for des- Whether dealing with historic preser- ignation and criteria for best practices. vation, history,interpretation, archeol- Such standards and criteria will help ogy,or any number of disciplines, sub- to ensure that the designation and ject-matter experts can help advance development of national heritage areas critical dialogue in heritage areas. remains a productive strategy to pro- Finally, nonfederal national her- tect important pieces of America’s itage area management entities and landscape. other partners have the opportunity and flexibility to communicate needs The Secrets of Our Success of the region to legislators, benefiting In the Cane River region, both the both federal and nonfederal partners park and the heritage area commission in our endeavors to conserve living are on track to heed these cautionary American landscapes. visions and continue our successful partnership. Our success is built of Conclusions many components. First, we have a From the park’s standpoint, our clear understanding of the mission of partnerships raise awareness. They all partners and the way we interrelate. help us preserve our geographic This understanding derives from the buffers. Preserving geographic buffers structure and concepts set forth in our helps, in turn, to preserve the “scenery enabling legislation, the guiding force and wildlife therein” that lie inside in our development. Also, all partners park boundaries. Partnerships help us share trust and mutual respect. The preserve the natural and cultural con- park and the heritage area commission text. Partnerships increase staff under- work hard to ensure the fair treatment standing of the resources and their of all partners and the inclusion of all inherent meaning. Partnerships voices. As organizations that are new increase our stewardship capabilities. to the region, the park and the com- From the standpoint of the heritage mission are in a unique position to area, it preserves lands and resources build bridges between diverse local that may not meet national park crite- organizations where none have existed ria but that do contain critical pieces before. of the American landscape. These are The status of the park and heritage pieces that help us define our national

66 The George Wright FORUM character. ings. Viewed simply as a life support For all partners involved in this system, the earth is an environment. venture—for management, communi- Viewed as a resource that sustains our humanity, the earth is a collection of ties, and visitors—we all share a deep- places. It is always places we have er understanding of the cultures, known and recall. We are homesick for places, and stories that make this places. We are reminded of places. It region significant. is the sounds and the smells and the At the first national heritage area sights of places which haunt us, and against which we often measure our commission meeting in Natchitoches, present. National Park Service Deputy Direc- tor Denis Galvin read a quote from The business of parks and heritage artist and conservationist Alan Gus- areas is the business of places. It is our sow’s 1972 book A Sense of Place: The business to ensure that each national Artist and the American Land: heritage area remains that kind of place, by combining the best of A place is a piece of the whole environment that has been claimed by feel- resources and partners.

Laura Gates, Superintendent, Cane River Creole National Historical Park, 400 Rapides Drive, Natchitoches, Louisiana 71457; [email protected] Nancy I. M. Morgan, Executive Director, Cane River National Heritage Area, P.O. Box 1201, Natchitoches, Louisiana 71457; nmorgan@caneriverher- itage.org 3

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 67 Constance C. Bodurow A Vehicle for Conserving and Interpreting Our Recent Industrial Heritage

Industry—the source of every evil and every good— becomes the true protagonist in the transformation of the city.1

Introduction he U.S. National Park Service (NPS) has served, for the last century, as the lead agency for the conservation and interpretation of America’s natural and cultural heritage. While the NPS has addressed 18th- and T19th-century industry, our more recent industrial heritage presents unique challenges because of the scale of the resources and the inherent conflicts of the stories—the societal and environmental impacts generated, both positive and negative. This nationally and internationally significant heritage moves beyond textile mills and canals to include basic and manufacturing industries, such as steel, automotive, and mining—industries that employ millions of Amer- icans, and have changed the face of the nation and the world. My central thesis is that 20th-cen- are attempting to address industrial tury industry has left an indelible mark themes and resources that convey this on the American consciousness, iden- transcendentally important heritage. tity, heritage, and landscape; and that America’s 20th-century industries— our nation, NPS, and its partners have particularly the automobile and steel not yet done an effective job in con- industries—transformed not only serving and interpreting the nation’s America, but also the entire world. nationally and internationally signifi- These resources and their embedded cant industrial resources. This, stories are a source of pride, commu- despite the presence of resources that nity identity, innovation, and beauty meet NPS designation criteria for sig- for our nation (Figure 1). The oppor- nificance, stories that are directly rele- tunities are ripe and time is of the vant to tens of millions of Americans essence, as we are losing significant and international visitors (NPS’s con- resources to the inevitable march of stituents), and the potential for revital- technological evolution, industrial ization partnerships with the nation’s modernization, and abandonment, largest corporations. Fortunately, sev- and an entire generation of Americans eral national heritage areas (NHAs) has grown up without knowledge of

68 The George Wright FORUM Figure 1. Above: Criss Cross Conveyors, by Charles Sheeler, 1932 (The Henry Ford, Benson Ford Archives. Below: Sheeler Redux, by Jett Lowe, 2001 (Historic American Engineering Record, Library of Congress).

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 69 the role of manufacturing. embrace their industrial resources, as they do with their historic residential Context infrastructure. But the European con- The industrial landscape is conservation and re-use ethic cannot stantly becoming obsolete. Each era merely be explained by its being con- brings another paradigm shift in man- fined to a limited geographic area. It ufacturing techniques and technolo- represents an entrenched ethic of put- gies, manifesting themselves physical- ting the cultural landscape into a con- ly and geographically in the world. tinuous cycle of use. European nations This is increasing true in the 20th and have also actively sought international 21st centuries, as technological recognition of their industrial advancements and the globalization of resources. UNESCO (United Nations industries accelerate. But the industri- Educational, Scientific, and Cultural al landscape is a wellspring of memo- Organization) recognizes the signifi- ry, and therefore a powerful force for cance of industrial heritage as an learning and change. The heritage of important aspect of world civilization, such sites, and their associated archi- stating: “Industrial sites are important tecture and infrastructure, can and milestones in the history of humanity, have been utilized as a basis for revital- marking humankind’s dual power of ization, both in an economic and cul- destruction and creation that engen- tural sense, regaining valid meaning ders both nuisances and progress. for contemporary society. Beyond They embody the hope of a better life, their infrastructure and location value, and the ever-greater power over mat- these sites contain tremendous infor- ter.”5 To date, 33 industrial sites have mation and cultural value, as I argued been designated as World Heritage in my master’s thesis, “Rethinking the Sites in Europe, South America, and Industrial Landscape: The Future of Asia. Despite the obvious internation- the Ford Rouge Complex,”2 and rep- al significance of our recent industrial resent, as Spiro Kostof said, “bench- heritage, none have been nominated marks of an excelling vision.”3 by or designated in the United States. The United Kingdom is credited as European the first country to celebrate and invest Trends and Precedents4 in industrial heritage. Since the 1970s, Europe provides over 30 years of the U.K. has established the Heritage experience in projects dealing with the Lottery Fund and the SITA Environ- recent industrial past, characterized by mental Trust to provide grants to sup- partnerships and investment by both port a wide range of local, regional, the public and private sectors. As the and national heritage projects.6 The U.S. was celebrating its bicentennial, project that launched the movement in Europe was already conserving and the U.K. was Ironbridge Gorge, Coal- interpreting their 20th-century indus- brookdale, England, significant as the trial heritage. It may seem natural for site of the world’s first iron bridge, the countries that live with thousands of birthplace of the industrial revolution, years of built heritage to easily and designated as a World Heritage

70 The George Wright FORUM Site in 1986. Since 1971, nine sites Welland and Lachine canal projects. have been developed along the Severn Since then, the Canadian government River, and over £20 million have been has invested millions in restoration raised for preservation and interpreta- and interpretation, including the cre- tion. European examples of conserva- ation of linear parks and adjacent tion of 20th-century industrial neighborhood revitalization.8 The resources are identified in Table 1. trend began later in the United States, a nation whose citizenry did not North American embrace historic preservation until its Trends and Precedents bicentennial in 1976. Fewer than 10% In the 1980s, the Canadian govern- of the 2,400 national historic land- ment, through Parks Canada, began marks (NHLs) in the U.S. relate to embracing industrial heritage with the industrial production processes, busi-

Table 1. European precedents addressing 20th-century industry. Project / Year Initiated/Lead Significance Conservation of Location Resources Fiat Lingotto 1988–1995. Fiat SPA Fiat's main factory, built in The Lingotto, redesigned / Turin, Italy initiated an 1914, and modeled on by Renzo Piano, now international design Henry Ford and Albert serves as a university, competition, and Kahn's Highland Park Plant offices, auditorium, hotel, provided investment and retail center La Halle 1988. The city of 1909 slaughterhouse and The remaining facility Tony Lyon, the owner, World War II ammunition (700 feet long, 200,000 Garnier / decided to rehabilitate factory was part of a larger square feet in area) to Lyon, France complex that was host concerts, exhibits, demolished in the 1970s conventions, and sports events, similar to Halle de la Villette in Paris Emscher 1989. IBA was The Ruhr Valley has long Seven master plans have Park—The established by the state been the industrial been developed, linking International of North-Rhine- heartland of Germany, 19 sites. Close to 100 Building Westphalia to fueling the country's projects are currently Exhibition coordinate the military and economic underway, from re-use of (IBA) / Ruhr ecological and prowess through the 1970s industrial buildings to Valley, economic renewal of land reclamation and Germany the then-depressed neighborhood and Ruhr district, with 2 housing development million residents Volklingen 1986. In that year, A World Heritage Site, In 1999, the European Ironworks / furnaces went out of Volklingen is the only intact Center of Industrial Art Saarland, production, and in example in Western Europe and Culture opened on Germany 1992 Saarland began and North America of an site redevelopment integrated ironworks built and equipped in the 19th and 20th centuries Tate Modern 1981. In that year, the Former Bankside Power The building has been (art museum) power station closed. Station, built in two phases adaptively re-used to / London, In 2000, the U.K. from 1947–1963 house the Tate Modern England — Millennium Collection. In 2001, the south bank of Commission publicly museum drew over 5 the River funded the million visitors Thames rehabilitation

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 71 ness, energy, or extraction/mining several other NPS units interpret U.S. themes.9 In addition, only 4 of 388 18th- and 19th-century industrial her- National Park System units deal with itage. During the 1990s, NPS began to 20th-century industrial or labor consider 20th-century and World War themes.10 Moreover, recent efforts to II-era industrial resources for inclu- gain designation for industrial sites sion in the system. NPS units and affil- have been met with NPS resistance— iated areas that address 20th-century largely due to issues of feasibility and industrial and labor history are identi- cost.11 fied in Table 2.14 In 1991, Congress The Historic American Engineer- authorized NPS to conduct a NHL ing Record (HAER) was established theme study on American labor histo- in 1969 by NPS, the American Society ry. The purpose of the Labor History of Civil Engineers, and the Library of Theme Study was to identify key sites Congress. HAER reflects “the Federal in American labor history; nominate Government’s concern for the as NHLs those districts, sites, build- destruction of American’s industrial ings, and structures that best illustrate and engineering heritage, and the need or commemorate that history; and for a well-informed assessment as a prepare a list of most appropriate sites basis for deciding what should be pre- for “possible park units.” Twelve years served.”12 Since 1969, HAER has later, the study is in Phase IV and has documented close to 2,000 buildings, yet to be submitted to Congress for sites, and structures, though a large further direction.15 percentage of the resources docu- In 1984, U.S. Congress designated mented have been since lost. Both the the first NHA—the Illinois and Michi- Rouge Complex and Homestead/Car- gan Canal near Chicago. NHAs were rie (described below) have been docu- conceived of as being a partnership mented by HAER. between NPS and the local communi- The NPS began embracing U.S. ty to extend the NPS mission of industrial heritage with the designa- resource preservation and interpretation in 1978 of the Lowell National tion without direct ownership and Historical Park in Lowell, Massachu- management.16 While many of the setts. Lowell commemorates Ameri- twenty-three NHAs designated to date ca’s industrial revolution, 19th-centu- deal with pre-20th-century industrial ry industrialization through the early resources and stories, there are cur- textile industry, and themes of immi- rently only two nationally designated gration and urbanization.13 Over 4 NHAs that are defined by 20th-centu- million square feet of vacant mill space ry industrial and labor heritage and and 5.6 miles of canals have been revi- focus on the re-use and interpretation talized since designation—both as of resources of national importance.17 NPS visitor sites and through other These NHAs still possess, intrinsic to public and private institutional, resi- their cultural landscapes, 20th-centu- dential, and commercial development. ry “living industries.” Two of the best Lowell, the Blackstone River Valley in examples of this are within the bound- Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and aries of the MotorCities–Automobile

72 The George Wright FORUM Table 2. NPS units addressing 20th-century industry and labor.

Park Unit / Significance Conservation of Resources Location / Year Designated Wrangell–St. Elias Kennecott Mines are one of The dilapidated state of resources has NP&Pres the largest and most intact limited public access, interpretation, and (Kennecott Mines) / abandoned copper mining conservation efforts Kennecott, Alaska / enclaves in the United States 1980 (Kennecott NHL 1986) Keweenaw NHP / Interprets copper mining and Keweenaw is a partnership park and Calumet and processing and its effects on virtually all land and buildings within the vicinity, Michigan / settlement in Michigan’s park boundary remain privately owned. 1992 Upper Peninsula. The period Calumet & Hecla Library and General of significance for its Office buildings have been adaptively re- resources runs from 1840 used to serve as park headquarters; Quincy until 1968 Mine Pay Office serves as office space; Quincy Mine Shafthouse #2 is operated by park partners as a historical attraction Rosie the Riveter / Former Henry Kaiser Rosie is a partnership park; most of its 14 World War II Shipyards, buildings and sites sites are city- or privately owned, and will Home Front NHP / associated with the industrial, remain so, coordinating adaptive re-use Richmond, governmental, and citizen with the NPS. The park includes a California / 2000 efforts that led to victory in 561,000-square-foot, Albert Kahn- World War II. None of the designed Ford Assembly Building. This resources within the park are structure and its oil house are undergoing NHLs, though several are on adaptive re-use by local partners. Many the National Register park resources will retain their original uses Port Chicago Naval Site of an explosion on July Port Chicago is an affiliated area of the Magazine National 17, 1944, that killed 320 National Park System and remains an U.S. Memorial / men, 202 of whom were Naval base. Visits must be arranged in Concord Naval African American enlisted advance and require an U.S. Navy escort Weapons Station, men. The incident sparked for entry to the site, making it of limited California, on the protests that led to the interpretive value to the general public Sacramento River / military’s end to racial 1992 inequality after World War II

NHA (MotorCities–ANHA) and in a 10,000-square mile, 13-county Rivers of Steel NHA, respectively: area in southeastern and central Detroit, still the capital of the global Michigan. Telling the nationally signif- automobile industry on which one in icant story of the American automo- seven U.S. jobs depends; and Pitts- bile industry,the Automobile National burgh, still the headquarters of the Heritage Area Partnership, Inc., man- U.S. steel industry. ages MotorCities–ANHA through a cooperative agreement with NPS. The Ford Rouge Complex MotorCities–ANHA’s mission is to MotorCities–ANHA was designat- preserve, interpret, and promote ed by Congress in 1998, and is located Michigan’s rich automotive and labor

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 73 heritage in ways that are meaningful nings on remote farmland and marsh and relevant to contemporary society. in 1917, Henry Ford and architect Within the MotorCities–ANHA Albert Kahn’s joint vision for the boundaries lie over 1,200 document- Rouge quickly eclipsed their revolu- ed 20th- century industrial and labor tionary Highland Park facility, inherit- history resources, 16 of which are ed its assembly line, and grew to NHLs. A key resource and NHL, the become the largest manufacturing Ford Rouge Complex, serves as a case complex in the world, with, at its peak, study. 15 million square feet under roof (Fig- The story and significance of the ure 2). The self-proclaimed “industri- Rouge. The Ford Motor Company al city” was admired, imitated, por- (FMC) Rouge Complex is located on trayed, and visited by millions of 1,200 acres along the banks of the industrialists, dignitaries, artists, Rouge River18 in Dearborn, Michigan. designers, architects, and tourists from The dense urban context of the Rouge every corner of the world. By the is metropolitan Detroit, home to 4.6 1930s, artists such as Diego Rivera million residents, and a historically and Charles Sheeler captured Ford’s mixed industrial, residential, and com- immense facility and Kahn’s architec- mercial district—including the exten- tural innovation, their images pub- sive FMC campus. Throughout its 86- lished and communicated around the year history the Rouge has served as world. There are few other sites in the the centerpiece of the regional auto- world that are so charged with historic motive economy in southeastern and cultural meaning; which are of sig- Michigan and automotive manufactur- nificance at a local, national, and inter- ing in the U.S. From modest begin- national level; and where the juxtapo-

Figure 2. Ford Rouge Plant, circa 1930 (Ford Motor Company Archives).

74 The George Wright FORUM sition of 20th- and 21st-century and its utilities along Road 4. In the industrial landscape and technology early 1990s, community advocacy for meet.19 the conservation of the Rouge NHL The Rouge grew out of Ford’s per- began, and it became a key resource in sonal obsession with industrial self- the community’s argument for the sufficiency. Here he perfected the designation of the Automobile Nation- “vertical manufacturing” approach, al Heritage Area. bringing in raw materials—iron ore, Plans for re-use and interpreta- coal, limestone, sand—via water, road, tion. FMC began its “Rouge Heritage and rail, then converting them into 2000” master plan on May 3, 1999, steel, parts, components, and, ulti- when FMC Chairman and Chief mately,automobiles at a rate of 10,000 Executive Officer William Clay Ford, per day. Hourly employment at the Jr., announced at the National Earth Rouge rose to over 98,000 in 1929.20 Day celebration, “If there is a symbol But at the time, employment with of the Ford Motor Company, it’s the FMC was not all privilege, and the Rouge. For us to walk away would Rouge became the site of several sig- have been an absolute crime.... [W]e nificant labor actions, including the just can’t keep moving on and build- 1932 Ford Hunger Strike and the ing new sites.”23 Since that time, FMC 1937 Battle of the Overpass, which has committed $2 billion to transform catapulted labor leader Walter the icon of 20th-century industrialism Reuther and the United Auto Workers into an icon of 21st-century sustain- into the national spotlight and led to able manufacturing. The project has a the unionization of FMC by 1941. clear environmental agenda, with The NHL district designation of the improvement of the site’s natural and Rouge occurred in 1978, concluding work environments taking precedence “the Rouge signally worthy because of over the Rouge’s nationally significant its unique nature and its vital contri- cultural resources. In 2000, FMC butions to improved manufacturing retained William McDonough24 and techniques.”21 By the 1980s, the glob- subconsultants to create the five-year alization of the auto industry and master plan, which includes the con- national recession caused FMC to re- struction of a new 1.6-million-square- evaluate the central role of their his- foot Dearborn Truck Plant (DTP), toric facility. In 1985, Ford Land featuring flexible manufacturing, ener- Development created a plan entitled gy and waste efficiency, roof-top mon- Rouge Complex: An Outline for Order- itors for natural sunlight, a 10.4-acre ly Evolution, based on the assumption living roof (the world’s largest), and that a number of plants within the greatly improved working conditions complex would be phased out for rea- on the plant floor. The DTP will sons of obsolescence or as a result of replace the historic Dearborn Assem- the company’s approach to bringing bly Plant (DAP) on site, producing F- products to the market.22 In 1989, a 150 series pick-up trucks. Other site consortium of four companies pur- features include a new 735,000- chased Rouge Steel, separating the site square-foot body shop, porous pave-

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 75 ment, stormwater cleaning swales to is intended to be “completely immer- mimic the natural action of wetlands, sive, enveloping the visitor with all the and a 1.5-mile greenbelt along Miller visual and sensory effects of the manu- Road.25 All site improvements will facturing floor.”28 Visitors then take an greatly benefit the water quality of the elevator to a roof-top observation deck Rouge River watershed, once named where, surrounded by glass, they view the largest point-source of pollution in the DTP green roof, a panorama of the the Great Lakes basin. entire plant, the Detroit skyline, and The Ford Rouge Center project has interpretive displays on the environ- evolved into a partnership for the mental features which make the Rouge interpretation of the Rouge and its a model for sustainable manufactur- nationally significant 20th-century ing. Returning down the elevator, visi- industrial heritage. A partnership has tors traverse a walkway to the new been legally contracted between FMC DTP where they enter on the mezza- and The Henry Ford (THF; formerly nine level 18–24 feet above the plant known as the Henry Ford Museum & floor and look down on the operations Greenfield Village) in Dearborn, of the plant. Along the mezzanine Michigan. According to Patricia walkway, interactive video monitors Mooradian, chief operating officer at explain what workers are doing on the THF, the objective of a planned two- plant floor below. Visitors then return hour Ford Rouge Factory Tour to the visitor center and experience a (FRFT) is “to focus on the history of timeline of vehicles that have been manufacturing—manufacturing in made at the Rouge, including the America and the world.”26 Visitors Model A and Mustang. On the return will begin the FRFT at THF,boarding bus trip, visitors view a closing video buses equipped with video monitors with additional information on what to watch a presentation en route to the they can see to round out their experi- Rouge that highlights key landmarks ence. According to Mooradian, “The in Dearborn, including the FMC cam- objective is to give visitors enough to pus. Once at the Rouge, visitors get a whet their palate, then tell them where brief site tour, with a video highlight- they can get more information and ing significant locations on site. Visi- detail, through books, web site links, tors then arrive at a new “state-of-the- etc.”29 art” Rouge Visitor Center next to the Adaptive re-use and interpretation DTP, which FMC has specifically of the historic buildings and infra- designed and built for this purpose.27 structure of the Rouge has been sec- The visitor center features two film ondary to the development of FRFT. experiences: “The Legacy Theatre,” The McDonough master plan shows showing an 11-minute film that high- much of the most significant and intact lights the history of the Rouge, labor, fabric being demolished for new con- and manufacturing, and the “Art of struction, surface parking lots, and Manufacturing,” an overview of con- wetland swales. Last year, perhaps the temporary auto manufacturing. This most seminal industrial building of the 10-minute, multi-sensory experience 20th century—Albert Kahn’s 1923

76 The George Wright FORUM glass plant—was partially demolished have to make “tough but conscious to make way for construction of the decisions as they work their way new body shop. However, under the through the site.”36 Under directive leadership of Timothy O’Brien, vice from the U.S. Environmental Protec- president of corporate relations, FMC tion Agency (EPA), FMC has been is currently restoring the glass plant remediating approximately 30 acres of façade and remaining 570,000 square the Rouge Steel site, south of Road 4 feet. FMC is being meticulous with and west of Miller Road. In coming this remnant, recreating the plant’s years, FMC and Rouge Steel will four signature “stacks,” and identify- address taking down the now-obsolete ing the original manufacturer of the coke ovens and other steel infrastruc- glass in the façade (Crittle) to recreate ture and reprogramming the land. the single-pane steel sash details, but The MotorCities–ANHA general does not yet have a program for the management plan (GMP) includes an facility. O’Brien’s hopes that “once optimistic vision for the Rouge’s his- people within the company see how toric infrastructure, proposing that the fantastic the building is, someone will core of the site—with its most signifi- want it.”30 O’Brien has also led the cant buildings and infrastructure— recreation of the historic Road 4 over- could be reclaimed through adaptive pass, site of the 1937 Battle of the re-use for an on-site interpretive expe- Overpass and named by NPS as one of rience. The GMP advocates using the the top ten labor history sites in the “historic core of the Rouge site to nation.31 A new brick entryway is also enhance the visitor experience ... mak- planned where FMC will site an inter- ing use of the dramatic ‘cultural land- pretive park with waysides to honor scape’ of the Rouge Plant” to create an the decades of workers at the Rouge industrial interpretive park in the man- and serve as a memorial to the Battle of ner of Emscher Park in Germany.37 the Overpass and the 1999 power The proposal features visitors arriving house disaster that claimed six lives.32 via boat or bus, then being Over the next five years, O’Brien “processed” through the site in the hopes to increasingly address the his- same way that raw materials were toric buildings on site, stating that processed into a finished vehicle (Fig- “the biggest challenge is getting the ure 3). The GMP also suggests that corporation to appreciate that the “visitors could be safely guided Rouge is something of significance, through the massive sculptural ele- intrinsic to American culture, and ments of the early Rouge Plant where convincing operating divisions that the blast furnaces, the high line, the adaptive re-use can be of value to foundry and the old coking tower them.”33 Buildings on his list include might be used to expose visitors to the the historic 1922 power house34 and massive scale of this landmark plant the historic 1917 DAP.35 O’Brien and provide interpretive content.”38 reminds us that the Rouge is not a The GMP also emphasizes the Rouge museum, but a functioning manufac- as an important resource and visitor turing plant—and the company will services point in proposals for local

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 77 Figure 3. Interpretive potentials at the Rouge, 2001 (MotorCities–ANHA). and regional land and water linkages, Wayne County involved with delibera- interpretive waysides, and a heritage tions on the site. To date, MotorCi- ranger program. ties–ANHA has not requested Con- The GMP also called for a special gress to authorize NPS to conduct a resource study to evaluate all of the special resource study. Recently, region’s resources for NPS involve- US/ICOMOS (U.S. Committee for ment, identifying the Rouge is a key the International Council on Monu- focus, given its national significance. ments and Sites) staff suggested that However, the GMP suggests that a MotorCities–ANHA pursue World more innovative designation be Heritage Site designation for the auto explored. A learning center, as identi- industry through either FMC’s High- fied in a recent National Park System land Park or Rouge plants, “before the Advisory Board publication,39 is also Germans, French or Italians beat us to a role recommended for the Rouge, it.”40 given its planned sustainable rebirth Partnerships in planning and and enormous educational value. implementation. FMC has led and Community advocacy for the Rouge borne the cost of the master planning and its nationally significant resources and all new construction and renova- comes primarily through MotorCi- tion at the Rouge, though Wayne ties–ANHA, with several board mem- County partnered on the reconstruc- bers who work for FMC, THF, and tion of Miller Road. FMC turned to its

78 The George Wright FORUM close ally THF to create, operate, and (SIHC) manages Rivers of Steel manage the interpretive experience at through a cooperative agreement with the Rouge. Though separate entities, a NPS. SIHC’s mission is to conserve, Ford family connection remains. interpret, promote, and manage the Henry Ford founded the Edison Insti- historic, cultural, natural, and recre- tute (which became THF) in 1929 to ation resources of steel and related house his extensive collection, and the industries in Rivers of Steel and to board still includes several family develop the use of these resources so members. THF will operate the entire that they may contribute to the revital- interpretive experience, and revenues ization of the region. Within the NHA generated through ticket and mer- boundaries lie several hundred docu- chandise sales go back into the institu- mented 20th-century industrial and tion. labor history resources, perhaps the To assist THF and FMC to reduce most significant of which is the Home- the Rouge’s immense history into a stead/Carrie site. concise story and create the visitor The story and significance of and interpretive experience, THF Homestead/Carrie. The former hired a consultant to lead concept, Homestead Works (Homestead/Car- design, and production. FMC con- rie) is located in Allegheny County on tracted separately with a team of local the banks of the Monongahela River in architects to build the visitor center. southwestern Pennsylvania. Home- Prior to funding the design, an eco- stead/Carrie was the site of some of nomic consultant was contracted with America’s most significant labor histo- to conduct a management resources ry: the “Battle of Homestead” in 1892 feasibility and operations analysis. and the 50-year non-union period in The study determined capacity, flow, the steel industry which followed. operation needs, pricing, and target First established by Andrew Carnegie attendance. THF is estimating and later acquired by U.S. Steel Cor- 125,000–250,000 visitors per year for poration (USX), the operation of the the FRFT.FMC plans to open the vis- integrated plant was pivotal in the itor center as part of the corporation’s development of the American iron and centennial celebration in June 2003, steel industry from 1892 to 1951, though public tours are not scheduled making Pittsburgh the capital of “Big to begin until the spring of 2004. Steel” and influencing steel-making locally, nationally, and internationally. Homestead Works/Carrie The site was the hub of industrial Furnaces development and major technological The Rivers of Steel NHA was des- advances within the steel industry, ignated by Congress in 1996, and is including the “hard driving” method located in a seven-county area in Pitts- of steel-making and the development burgh and southwestern Pennsylva- of techniques for smelting Mesabi nia. Telling the nationally significant ores.41 A primary armor-producing story of “Big Steel” in the U.S, the facility, Homestead/Carrie and the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation workers of the Monongahela Valley

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 79 produced the steel that helped win reporters who covered the strike. In World Wars I and II. 1999, the Bost Building was designat- Homestead/Carrie is located in and ed the district’s only NHL to date, and adjacent to some of greater Pitts- has since been renovated to serve as burgh’s most severely depressed com- SIHC headquarters, housing archives munities, places that have been affect- and exhibits interpreting the building ed by the downsizing of the steel and events of 1892, and providing industry and its attendant permanent information on the NHA. SIHC plans job losses. Operations at Home- to expand the Bost as a welcome cen- stead/Carrie ceased in 1979 and the ter and gateway to the proposed SIHC has been leading efforts to national historical park and the region, secure both NHL district status and and as the launching point for Monon- the establishment of a national histori- gahela River tours. cal park since 1990. Since closure, the Carrie furnaces 6 and 7 across the integrity of the Homestead/Carrie Monongahela also retain integrity resources has been affected, with its (Figure 4). Built in 1906–1907, they context of abandoned industrial sites are the only remaining pre-World War along the Monongahela undergoing II blast furnaces in the Pittsburgh dis- dramatic redevelopment. Park Corpo- trict. A docking area is planned at the ration recently purchased the Home- Carrie site. The Hot Metal Bridge stead site, demolished the steel mills, linking the two sites retains basic and created a major 360-acre mixed- integrity from 1900–1901 and is cur- use development called the Water- rently interpreted from afar. In the front, covering 80% of the former future, the bridge, one of six of its type works. The nearby Nine Mile remaining in the world, is envisioned Run/Summerset residential develop- as a multi-modal link in the regional ment reclaims a former slag dump, and greenway system. The landing site Frick Park, owned by the city of Pitts- where the battle of 1892 occurred still burgh, plans expansion into the resi- includes the retaining wall and pump dential area. house, currently undergoing renova- Plans for re-use and interpretation for basic visitor amenities. The tion. The Rivers of Steel GMP pro- pump house, where SIHC hopes to poses conservation and interpretation interpret the battle and the rest of site, of the Homestead/Carrie resources, is currently a venue for lectures, with addressing 35 acres of the 160-acre new exhibits planned to open in 2003. site. Portions of the Homestead/Carrie It is also a stop on the Rivers of Steel site from the 1892–1900 period bus tour, and included in a digital remain intact, and a number of proj- driving tour planned for summer of ects identified in the GMP have been 2003.42 implemented. The Bost Building, for- Any individual who has visited an mer headquarters of the Amalgamated operating steel mill knows that it is an Associated Iron and Steel Workers extremely visceral and memorable during the 1892 Homestead lockout experience. There has been “no heat” and strike, also housed the newspaper at Carrie since 1979, so Rivers of Steel

80 The George Wright FORUM Figure 4. Carrie Furnaces, circa 1965 (SIHC). has focused on interpreting the land- rie, but SIHC’s route through the scape and the physical remains of the application and designation process site. The GMP planners proposed a with NPS has not been smooth. In “virtual reality” film so visitors might 1998, SIHC submitted an NHL dis- feel the “heat and the fury” of steel- trict nomination for Homestead/Car- making, without putting people in rie,43 and in 1999 Congress author- harm’s way. There remains the possi- ized NPS to conduct a special bility of offering visitors a separate resources study to determine whether tour of USX’s nearby Edgar Thomp- Homestead/Carrie meets NPS criteria son Works, which are still operating. for national significance, suitability, However, interpretive planning has yet and feasibility in order to be designat- to begin in earnest. Once the Home- ed a unit of the National Park System. stead/Carrie park unit is designated, When the special resources study NPS will have to generate another began, SIHC Chief Executive Officer GMP, including an interpretive August Carlino was told by tNPS that approach to the site. Homestead/Carrie “will not fit at least Partnerships in planning and one category, and that category will implementation. SIHC leads imple- likely be feasibility. Because of the mentation efforts with strong local, scale of the site and the costs associat- county, and state support. The Rivers ed with taking it on—it would likely be of Steel GMP suggested a special turned down.”44 While the NPS spe- resources study for Homestead/Car- cial resources study continues, the

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 81 designating legislation is going to con- industrial resources do indeed gressional committee. Carlino remains embody significance. Such confident SIHC will gain designation, resources must first be accepted as noting that whatever NPS says or intrinsic to American culture—as does, Congress is the ultimate deter- important to the shaping of the minant in getting an NPS unit. American experience as Plymouth According to Carlino, “If you think Rock or Gettysburg. But a history merit will win out, you are naïve. You that is too close is not always held need the political support—not only in dear. Attitudes, policies, and pro- Washington, it has to be something the grams must change at the federal, region supports.”45 state, and local levels to encourage SIHC projects implementation appreciation among our citizens. costs at approximately $100 million. As the nation’s lead “heritage” SIHC recently secured commitments agency, NPS should play a leading from USX and International United role in raising awareness and mak- Steel Workers of America to lead a ing a credible case for significance. capital campaign.46 Park Corporation The interest and advocacy of has committed to donating the land on preservation and cultural profes- the condition that SIHC gains federal sionals alone have proven to be not government involvement through NPS enough. NPS must become a designation, but has limited access to proactive advocate for and steward the site due to liability concerns. The of our industrial heritage, identify- Union Railroad (part of USX) donating ways to meaningfully incorpo- ed the Hot Metal Bridge to SIHC in rate these resources and stories into 2001. SIHC now owns the Bost the National Park System. Theme Building, the pump house, the water study, NHL, and special resources tower, and the Hot Metal Bridge. But, study determinations for industrial according to SIHC staff, the “big fish and labor heritage should not take a is still in the pond.”47 decade or more. NPS feasibility assessments, particularly their Challenges costs, seem to be the chief impedi- History demonstrates that conser- ment to the agency playing a lead- vation and interpretation of the United ership role, ultimately prompting States’s recent industrial past has been local political and congressional challenging and not wholly successful. intervention. Imagine a future The time and resources devoted to proactive NPS approach to three date have yielded little in terms of other significant 20th-century national recognition and public use industries: aerospace, oil, and com- and enjoyment of these significant puter/web. Such a structured and resources and stories. I propose three proactive approach on the part of primary challenges to success in con- NPS might limit political initiatives serving our recent industrial past: that force the inclusion of sites and • Appreciation of significance. U.S. resources of questionable signifi- society48 must recognize that cance, further reinforcing NPS’s

82 The George Wright FORUM role in making such determina- 20th-century industrial re-use and tions. interpretation is not intrinsic to the • The nature of industry. All indus- missions of these major U.S. insti- try is in a constant state of evolution tutions. As suggested by Randall and technological advancement. Cooley, NPS is, by definition, an Such “living” industries and “liv- “iconic” interpretive agency, focus- ing” landscapes will, by their very ing only on those resources that are nature, evolve. As Fred Mueller icons of the American landscape observes, industrial areas “canni- and experience. If too many similar balize themselves” in the name of resources survive to tell a nationally progress. The history of industry is significant story—such as steel the history of technological evolu- mills or auto factories—NPS is tion, and in the productivity cycle, inclined to wait to preserve the last the old is taken away and new is put example left. NPS’s focus is not on in place. Often, 20th-century the evolution of resources, but on industrial buildings and infrastruc- capturing a resource at a specific ture were designed and built with period of significance. For industri- the capacity for evolution, given the al resources, this evolution co- enormous investment involved. exists on one site.49 NPS creates a Fortunately, the ideal conservation catch-22 by arguing a lack of and interpretation strategy for integrity for an evolved industrial industrial resources is to put them site. However, if such sites were into a continuous cycle of use, fully intact, NPS would likely be retaining the opportunity to tell not even more resistant on issues of fea- only the story of how technology sibility and cost. originated, but how it continues to evolve. Embracing this evolution- History museums focus on the ary nature is the next step in interpretation of artifacts in con- embracing our 20th-century indus- trolled environments, and are not trial heritage. As the two case histo- equipped to address context. Most ries reveal, “freezing” industry and interpretive approaches employ technology at a specific time is not traditional methods of interpreta- appropriate for large-scale industri- tion—film and video, virtual reality, al sites, particularly those that interpretive panels, bus tours—all remain intrinsic to the economies of which are sequenced, packaged, and cultures of communities. The and contained experiences. These Homestead/Carrie special re- methods tend to “sanitize” and sources study addressed this phe- “prettify” the resource and the nomenon, describing site integrity story, catering to the mass con- as “commensurate with the ever sumer tastes of a nation accus- changing nature of industry.” tomed to a Disneyland experience • The culture and missions of NPS, of the urban landscape. All while history museums, and corpora- the authentic resource and experi- tions. The capacity to deal with ence are just outside the bus or vis-

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 83 itor center window. landscape interpretation, but the Many 20th-century industrial role and presence of NPS cannot be resources are owned by global cor- underestimated. Success in conser- porations with billions in assets. vation and interpretation is general- Unless abandoned, these facilities ly evident in NHAs with strong are still in productive use. NPS recognition, presence, and Generally, conservation and inter- technical assistance. pretation are not in the “DNA” of these corporations. Most business- A Cooperative Way Forward es do not see beyond the next quar- NPS has a unique opportunity to ter’s financial statements, let alone embrace our recent industrial heritage the ten or twenty years needed for by partnering with and recognizing an adaptive re-use project to come the local leadership of NHAs, corpo- to fruition. However, corporations rations, and public-sector partners often need to keep resources in while reinforcing the importance of productive use as a business strate- park units as part of the agency’s gy, which is also the best conserva- “seamless national network.” tion strategy. For resources of such Partnerships are logical, but to gain scale, strategies for single-purpose legitimacy strong local support must use are generally unrealistic, as is also be coupled with federal recogni- transforming all industrial tion. Few communities would mount resources into museums. Twenty such long-range investments without years ago, a corporation’s first the hope of gaining NPS recognition, instinct was to abandon the site and which remains critical to gaining sup- put a fence around it, but increas- port, participation, and funding from ingly, with pressure from munici- public and private sectors. palities to replace losses in their tax base, corporations have focused on • Seizing new opportunities and agendas. The case studies in this demolition and redevelopment— paper illustrate various motivations still posing a challenge to conserva- for the conservation of industrial tionists. resources beyond education and Each of these sectors can and must interpretation: business opportuni- play critical roles if we are to con- ties, enhancing a corporation’s serve and interpret our recent environmental profile, executives’ industrial heritage. NHAs play an interest in history and legacy. In important role in advocating for an order to succeed in the conserva- ethic of re-use and interpretation tion and interpretation of industrial within each, bringing all parties to resources, cultural resource profes- the table, identifying the strengths sionals must be innovative—tell the of each, and allowing the surround- story, find an ally, appropriate an ing community to provide the con- agenda! But there also must be bal- text. NHAs are also an important ance. An agenda which focuses vehicle for expertise in large-scale only on natural resources can be of

84 The George Wright FORUM detriment to the cultural. Still, scene” at historic industrial sites there is a wealth of opportunities to and whose environmental mitiga- partner with the private sector on tion requirements often result in cultural resources, while continu- the loss of cultural resources.53 We ing to expand the NPS definition of need to creatively leverage state- “partnership.” The corporate com- level programs, such as brownfield munity has already proven their and obsolete buildings legislation. interest and willingness to be asso- But perhaps the most important ciated with NPS on environmental factor in alleviating NPS’s resist- issues.50 NPS and NHAs should ance to such large-scale resources is explore how these motivations can addressing the agency’s lack of be transformed into an equally financial resources and staff expert- enthusiastic conservation ethic ise. Congress must provide NPS addressing cultural resources. with adequate funding to support such designations and additions to • New view of standards and incen- the National Park System. tives. The designation and conservation of industrial resources poses • Innovative approaches for big a challenge to NPS management scale and contested stories. Our standards, preservation proce- recent industrial heritage presents dures, and technologies. NPS eval- unique challenges because of the uation of integrity will likely always scale of the resources and the fail if the site is in a continuous inherent conflicts of the stories. We cycle of use. A more flexible must not to be overwhelmed by approach is required if the ultimate scale. As these resources were con- objective is to conserve resources. ceived by minds of a previous gen- All stakeholders must arrive at a eration, so can they be reconceived reasonable definition of what is by the minds of this generation. We required to retain integrity and sta- require viable strategies that focus tus. The secretary of the interior’s on innovative approaches and standards currently stipulate “new resist “assembled or imagineered use that requires minimal change” heritage landscapes,” as Richard and “each property recognized as a Francaviglia has categorized physical record of its time.”51 them.54 Identifying the essence of These standards need to evolve to their inception can inform our re- address industrial scale and condi- use strategies. If innovation defined tions, particularly the secretary’s them 100 years ago, then whatever rehabilitation standards, which defines innovation today can guide seem most relevant to industrial their future use. We must embrace conservation.52 In addition, NPS difficult stories, and continue to tell should take a proactive lead in the whole story, finding ways to coordinating among federal agen- make them relevant to contempo- cies, particularly with the EPA, rary society. Still vital to most com- which is often the “first on the munities, 20th-century industrial

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 85 sites offer rich opportunities for compellingly convey this heritage. I civic engagement in under-served close my paper with a call to action. urban areas, connecting NPS to a The opportunities are ripe and time is more diverse constituent base. of the essence if we are to address this transcendently important heritage. I hope this history has established The potential benefits are great for the argument for the significance of current and future generations—if we recent industrial heritage in the United as a nation can come together to suc- States and shone a light on the impor- cessfully conserve and interpret our tant role that national heritage areas recent industrial heritage, using that are playing, and the challenges they heritage as a transformative force for face, in attempting to conserve and change, learning, and growth. interpret the resources and stories that

Endnotes 1Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, trans. Diane Ghirardo (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1982). 2 Constance C. Bodurow,“Rethinking the industrial landscape: The future of the Ford Rouge Complex” (master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1991). 3 Spiro Kostof, America by Design (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). 4 My focus here is on projects that include re-use and interpretation. There are hundreds of projects in Europe and North America that have a more conventional approach to re-use, but do not attempt to leverage embedded information value or educational opportunities. While there are examples across the U.S. of the successful adaptive re-use of 19th-century mill and warehouse buildings for residential, loft, commercial, and retail space, but only a few examples of large-scale 20th-century industrial sites have been adaptively re-used through private-sector initiative and public-sector incentives. Higher-profile examples include the Monterey Aquarium (Monterey, California; a former canning factory), Stroh RiverPlace mixed use development (Detroit; the former Parke Davis Laboratories—though the complex lost its NHL designation because of adaptive re-use), and the Briggs–Courtyard by Marriott hotel (Omaha, Nebraska; former warehouses). 5At http://whc.unesco.org/sites/industrial.htm. 6Jerome Hugron, Industrial Heritage in Europe: Preservation and Revitalization Initiatives (Lyon, France: Université de Bourgogne, 2002). 7 Sources of information for European projects: Bodurow, “Rethinking the industrial landscape”; Hugron, Industrial Heritage in Europe. 8 Hugron, Industrial Heritage in Europe. 9 In the NHL system, there are currently 12 theme categories potentially relating to industrial resources. NHL research, NPS Washington Cultural Resources Office staff. 10 Author’s research of current National Park System. I have excluded sites such as Los Alamos National Laboratories, which deal primarily with 20th-century military history. 11 This was the experience of Rivers of Steel NHA in attempting to gain designation for the Homestead/Carrie site; see below. 12 Historic American Engineering Record informational brochure, undated. 13 At http://www.nps.gov/parks. 14 Though not an NPS initiative, Bethlehem Steel in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, merits inclusion as the largest brownfield project the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has undertaken with private industry, the future site of a new National Museum of Industrial History (NMIH), and a unique partnership approach led by high-level Bethlehem Steel executives. Located on the Lehigh River, the plant served from 1904–2002 as the headquarters of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and is also a key site in the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor (DLNHC). Steel-making ceased in 1995,

86 The George Wright FORUM and over the last 10–15 years, a master plan was developed for the re-use and interpretation of the 160- acre site as a mixed-use complex. The plan incorporates three-fourths of the existing historic structures, effectively preserving the historic core of operation. The most significant resources on site are the five furnaces, illustrating over 50 years in steel-making technology. The proposed program includes museum and interpretive uses, community recreation, and commercial areas. In 1997, a memorandum of understanding was signed with the Smithsonian Institution for a new affiliate museum, the NMIH, to be located in the plant’s No. 2 machine shop. Planning and implementation has been managed by the nonprofit BethWorks, working in conjunction with the Delaware County Development Corporation. Unfortunately, plans have recently stalled due to Bethlehem Steel’s recent bankruptcy and purchase by a Cleveland-based corporation, though the NMIH project is expected to proceed. Interview with C. Allen Sachse, executive director, DLNHC. 15 Interview with Robie Lange, National Historic Landmarks Survey, April 9, 2003; National Park Service, Labor History Theme Study: Phase III (Denver: NPS Denver Service Center, 1997). Phase I of the labor history theme study was a reconnaissance survey by qualified scholars of labor history.During Phase II, historians at the Newberry Library in Chicago, under contract to the NPS, identified a list of 52 sites, including the Schloss Blast Furnaces in Birmingham, Alabama (now owned and operated by the city of Birmingham and open to the public as a museum of industry), the Ford Rouge Complex, and the Butte–Anaconda Mining and Smelting Complex in Montana. The initial study did lead to some NHL designations. Phase III was initiated in 1995 at the George Meany Conference, reducing the list to 11 sites. NPS, now in phase IV, has revised the study and further reduced the list of eligible sites. Currently under internal review, the study may lead to a multiple-property designation. 16 See the papers in this issue by Eugster and Barrett for discussions on the origins and evolution of the heritage area movement in the United States. 17 To some extent, other NHAs deal with 20th-century industrial heritage. Silos and Smokestacks NHA deals with agricultural themes and includes the John Deere Works, and Augusta Canal NHA deals with textile production and power generation. However, neither deals with industrial re-use and interpretation at the scale of the two case studies selected for this paper. 18 The factory gets its name from the river on which it was built. La Riviere Rouge (Red River) was named by the region’s French settlers in the early 1700s for its rich red clay soil and, therefore, its distinctive color. 19 Bodurow, “Rethinking the industrial landscape.” 20 Allan Nevins and Frank Ernest Hill, Expansion and Challenge (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1957), p. 687. 21 Ralph J. Christian, Rouge NHL nomination, May 1977. 22 Bodurow, “Rethinking the industrial landscape,” p. 189. 23 Detroit News, May 4, 1999. 24 McDonough is known as the “green dean” for his innovative sustainable design practice and status as former dean of the University of Virginia School of Architecture. 25 Ford Centennial Operations/Rouge Communications 6-02. 26 Interview with Patricia Mooradian, THF, March 17, 2003. 27 Ford Centennial Operations/Rouge Communications 6-02. 28 Mooradian interview. 29 Ibid. 30 Interview with Timothy O’Brien, FMC, February 25, 2002. 31 National Park Service, Labor History Theme Study: Phase III. 32 O’Brien interview. 33 Ibid. 34 The power house was damaged in the 1999 explosion and its landmark stacks and precipitators were recently removed because of safety and environmental concerns. 35 Albert Kahn’s first building on site was originally known as the B-Building because it was built to produce Eagle boats for the U.S. Navy in World War I. 36 O’Brien interview. 37 MotorCities–Automobile National Heritage Area General Management Plan (N.p., November 2001), pp.

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 87 233-235. 38 Ibid. 39 National Park System Advisory Board, Rethinking the National Parks in the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2001). 40 Conversation with Gustavo Araoz, executive director, US/ICOMOS, October 11, 2003. 41 National Park Service, Battle of Homestead and Carrie Furnaces 6 and 7 Special Resources Study (Boston: NPS Northeast Region, August 2002). 42 Interview with Ron Baraff, SIHC staff historian, April 11, 2003. 43 The NHL district nomination for Homestead/Carrie was drafted in 1998 by Michael Bennett, research historian at the University of Vermont. According to SIHC staff, NPS has repeatedly reviewed and returned the document, which is now in its third iteration. The NPS Washington staff has expressed concern about integrity of the site, and, absent a national context study, has instructed Bennett and SIHC to complete a comparative analysis of blast furnaces in the area, particularly now that Bethlehem has expressed intent to acquire NHL status. Bennett’s latest conclusions focus on the fact that no other extant furnaces are (1) tied to Andrew Carnegie and (2) linked to Pittsburgh district. The newly revised NHL is still in the process of review, but is moving forward. 44 Interview with August R. Carlino, chief executive officer, SIHC, April 13, 2003. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. Local foundations made it clear to SIHC that without visible industry support, it would be impossible for them to raise money for the project. 47 Baraff interview. 48 Citizens, private property owners, government servants. 49 Interview with Randall Cooley, executive director, Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission, March 28, 2003. 50 FMC partnership with NPS on the Glacier National Park “red buses” alternative fuel conversion project, and THINK! electric vehicle donations throughout the National Park System. 51 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, 1995. 52 FMC chose not to use historic tax credits at the Rouge, believing that the secretary’s standards would hold them up for years, but then still decided to painstakingly recreate the single-pane glass windows of Kahn’s historic Glass Plant. 53 An example of this can be found at the Rouge, where environmental remediation is resulting in the demolition of the historic coke ovens. 54 Alanen and Melnick, 2000.

Constance C. Bodurow, 2900 East Jefferson Avenue, A-200, Detroit, Michigan 48207; [email protected] 3

88 The George Wright FORUM Submitting Materials to THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM

The Society welcomes articles that bear importantly on our objectives: promoting the application of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom to policy-making, planning, manage ment, and interpretation of the resources of protected natural areas amd cultural sites around the world. THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM is distributed internationally; submissions should minimize provincialism, avoid academic or agency jargon and acronyms, and aim to broaden international aspects and applications. We actively seek manuscripts which represent a variety of protected area perspectives. Length and Language of Submission. Manuscripts should run no more than 3,000 words unless prior arrangements with the editor have been made. Articles are published in English; we welcome translations into English of articles that were originally prepared in another language. In such cases we can publish an abstract of the article in the original lan guage, where possible. Form of Submission. We now accept articles in two formats: in manuscript (double- spaced) accompanied by computer disk, or by e-mail. We operate on Macs, and can translate most files from their original format; please indicate the version of the software. If submitting by e-mail, use the e-mail text as a cover letter. Do not embed the document—send it as an attachment. Again, note the version of the software used to create the attachment. For all sub missions, give complete contact details (including e-mails) for each author. Citations. Citations should he given using the author-date method (preferably following the format laid out in The Chicago Manual of Style). Editorial Matters; Permissions. Generally, manuscripts that have been accepted are edit ed only for clarity, grammar, and so on. We contact authors before publishing if major revisions to content are needed. THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM is copyrighted by the Society; written permission for additional publication is required but freely given as long as the article is attrib uted as having been first published here. We do consider certain previously published articles for republication in THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM. Authors proposing such articles should ensure all needed copyright permissions are in place before submitting the article for consid eration. Illustrations Submitted in Hard-Copy. Submit original (not photocopied) line draw ings, charts, and graphs as nearly "camera-ready" as possible. If submitted in a size that exceeds THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM'S page dimensions (6x9 inches), please make sure the reduction will still be legible. Color prints and slides are also acceptable; half-tones and pho tocopies are not. We particularly welcome good vertical photos for use on the cover, either in black-and-white or, preferably, in color. Please provide captions and credits and secure copy right permissions as needed, and indicate whether you wish materials to be returned. Illustrations Submitted Electronically. We accept illustrations on floppy or Zip disk, on CD-ROM, or as e-mail attachments. All graphics must be in TIFF or EPS format (not JPG, GIF, or PICT). Scans must be at 300 dpi or higher. If in doubt, please ask for complete guide lines. Send all correspondence and submissions to: The George Wright Society, ATTN: Editor, THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM, P.O. Box 65, Hancock, MI 49930-0065 USA.

^ 1-906-487-9722. Fax: 1-906-487-9405. E-mail: [email protected] P. O. Box 65 GEORGE Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 WRIGHT USA

SOCIETY www.georgewright.org

Dedicated to the Protection, Preservation, and Management of Cultural and Natural Parks and Reserves Through Research and Education