The Protected Landscape Approach - Centre for Mediterranean ...

The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture and Community
Evolution of landscape concepts
Changing perceptions of the Australian landscape are recorded in the work of painters, poets
and writers, and in political rhetoric. The initial Register of the National Estate concentrated on
archaeological sites, historic buildings and natural areas. The Commission registered modified
landscapes such as historic precincts, townships and mining areas. However, the term cultural
landscape was not used by the Commission until 1980 when the Tasman Peninsula was
promoted as a cultural landscape as a means of linking all the historic convict sites and their
surrounding landscapes. The cultural landscape concept has now become accepted in heritage
agencies and represents a shift from valuing Eurocentric monumental heritage and areas of
predominantly visual value, to also appreciating the expression of values relating to practices of
cultures (AHC, 2000). The concept of ‘place’, linking natural heritage and cultural values, was
applied by Australia ICOMOS in the Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS, 2000). This concept
enabled the idea of conserving extensive landscapes with cultural significance.
In 1992, the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO revised the cultural heritage criteria for
nominations to include cultural landscapes (see Rössler and Phillips in this volume). This
change recognised the role of hunter-gatherer societies in managing landscapes and ack -
nowledged the intangible values of these landscapes to Indigenous peoples. In 1993 Tongariro
National Park in New Zealand, already inscribed on the World Heritage List for its natural
values, was included as a universally outstanding example of a landscape strongly associated
with Maori beliefs (Titchen, 1994). This listing set a precedent for recognising cultural values
in natural areas and living cultural values expressed in the landscape.
Australians have traditionally perceived ‘nature’ and Aboriginal culture as the key types of
heritage, which partly explains the absence of any historic place in the representation of
Australia’s heritage of outstanding universal significance. 2 Initially the World Heritage
Convention was used in Australia to protect large expanses of undisturbed natural environ -
ment. This has delayed recognition of landscapes with cultural values, especially those with
historic values. Despite extended research into the range of historic values in some natural areas
like the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, these values have not been officially
recognised even though they form the basis of popular tourist itineraries (Lennon, 2003b). This
is repeated in other World Heritage areas such as the Wet Tropics and Fraser Island.
World Heritage methodology has played a significant role in Australia in drawing attention
to the obvious heritage evidence in the landscape especially following the 1992 amendments to
the World Heritage criteria (see Rössler in this volume). These amendments provided for the
following cultural landscape categories: intentionally designed – as in gardens; relict – as in
archaeological sites; organically evolving or continuing use with material evidence of its
evolution; and associative landscapes with powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations
of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence. These categories have been
applied by some managers at national park level and at local level in municipal planning
schemes as a means of protecting diverse heritage values in their landscapes.
The rest of this chapter discusses adoption of the cultural landscapes concept over the last ten
years in three designated protected areas in many parts of Australia. The role of urban parks and
the Landcare movement are also examined for their role in involving different con stituencies in
conservation of human-modified landscapes (see Boxes 1 and 2).
2
The Royal Exhibition was added to the World Heritage List in June, 2004.
208