Separating natural and cultural heritage: an outdated approach?

ABSTRACT

This paper considers a problematic dynamic in the protection of natural World Heritage properties for sites that also possess significant cultural assets, but that fall short of the World Heritage designation ‘outstanding universal value’ standard for cultural significance. The destruction of cultural heritage places in natural settings is a global concern and we use an Australian case study to illustrate the argument that cultural assets located within natural properties should be given an allied protection status. We argue that protection problems arise, represented by a nature/culture binary trope, despite significant progress in using more holistic approaches, as exemplified by cultural landscapes. To demonstrate our argument, we consider controversy surrounding a development proposal within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA), located in the state of New South Wales, Australia. We find that a development proposal to raise a storage dam wall triggers significant problems for protecting both natural and cultural heritage features across the GBMWHA landscape and, in this context, we recommend a reconsideration of the rigid natural/cultural heritage binary of World Heritage classifications.

KEYWORDS:

• Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area
• natural heritage
• cultural heritage
• cultural landscape
• Australia
• biocultural heritage

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 OUV refers to “cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity”, UNESCO, https://whc.unesco.org/en/compendium/action=list&id_faq_themes=962#:~:text=%E2%80%9COutstanding%20Universal%20Value%20means%20cultural,future%20generations%20of%20all%20humanity.

2 Archaeologically significant is a limiting factor for determining the extent of impact on Aboriginal sites. However, it is useful in this case as that was the number determined in the draft Environmental Impact Statement.

3 Another alternative that recognises the role of Indigenous people managing natural landscapes are ‘Indigenous Protected Areas’. However, this aspect will not be investigated in this paper. For further information see Muller (2003).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Emma Koch

Emma Koch Emma Koch graduated from the School of Geosciences with Honours in 2021 and is currently a tutor in the School of Geosciences at the University of Sydney while continuing her research into natural and cultural heritage.

Josephine Gillespie

Josephine Gillespie is an academic in the School of Geosciences with interest in environmental legal geography and protected area regimes.