Introduction

This dissertation aims to critically explore the impact of the historical division between natural and cultural heritage conservation as a means of understanding the development of biocultural heritage conservation. Through this critical exploration a certain approach highlighted and explored in further depth which is borne out of the development of biocultural heritage conservation is community based conservation and this will be discussed through a project run at Goonhilly Downs in West Cornwall as a case study to explore this in more depth.

Chapter 1 outlines and critically explores definitions of both natural and cultural heritage in order to ascertain the different cultural and social meanings behind them. This is supported by primary research in the form of a questionnaire that aimed to gain insight into people's understandings of definitions of conservation as a way of supporting the inherent misunderstanding and lack of connection between the two, thus highlighting the inherent challenges that have been faced in heritage conservation practice.

Chapter 2 then introduces a case study of Goonhilly Downs, a 1,271 hectare national nature reserve on the Lizard Peninsula in South West Cornwall that is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) managed by Natural England. The aim of using Goonhilly Downs as a case study is to demonstrate the importance of biocultural conservation today, showing how both natural and cultural heritage are inexplicably linked, whilst exploring the meanings of conservation in more depth. Primary research in the form of an interview is carried out with Morgan Ravine at The Lizard National Nature Reserve and his responses are used to support the discussion within.

Chapter 3 then introduces the concept of community based conservation as a method of bridging the divide between natural and cultural heritage conservation and demonstrating an effective method for biocultural heritage conservation for the future, particularly with supporting and connecting local people with their surrounding environments. Community based projects present an alternative approach to more traditional paradigms of conservation and include linking the arts to the sciences as a mode of engaging local and new audiences in investing in heritage conservation, this is discussed and explored in chapter 3. Using Goonhilly Downs, Chapter 3 explores The Goonhilly Village Green Project as a unique case study for primary research which was a community based project that aimed to link conservation with arts based activities as a means of engagement with the local community. In order to support this discussion and case study, further primary research in the form of an interview by the curators of Goonhilly Village Green Project, Sara Bowler and Lizzy Masterton was carried out and their responses are used to inform the discussion further. The potential success of community based projects can be used to develop and promote a more enhanced, holistic and collaborative approach to biocultural heritage conservation.

Chapter 1

Heritage conservation is a broad term used to describe two different subcategories of conservation that have historically been treated distinctly from one another and with relatively different values. These two subcategories are often referred to as natural and cultural heritage conservation. Both have historically developed different practices for conservation, which have subsequently used different governance, management and policy procedures. This has not only impacted the funding for both which may have disproportionately led to an imbalance in conservation efforts, but even in the present day where biocultural heritage conservation is a preferred term to encompass both, there has been a struggle to represent an emergence of the two fields, there are still apparent disparities that emerge.

UNESCO (2021) defines cultural heritage conservation as the activity relating to “ ...the domain of cultural property, ” with the aim being to maintain these man-made objects and both their physical and cultural characteristics in order to ensure that their value is not diminished and to preserve these material objects beyond our own lifespans. Heritage21 (2021) an Australian heritage association discusses cultural heritage conservation proposing that it is aimed at safeguarding the ‘character-defining’ elements of a cultural resource to retain its heritage value and extend its physical life. Furthermore most of its definition of cultural heritage surround the discussion of preserving buildings, “ ...conservation does not simply mean freezing a ‘building’ in time but preserving and maintaining the valuable features of the building, favouring restoration over demolition. ” Thus historically cultural heritage conservation is deeply ingrained in the association of tangible man made structures, more specifically buildings (Heritage21 2021).

By contrast to definitions of cultural heritage, the term ‘natural heritage’ refers to,

“natural features, geological and physiographical formations and delineated areas that constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants and natural sites of value from the point of view of science, conservation of natural beauty” (UNESCO 2021). The Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (2021) outlines a definition of natural heritage that describes how it relates to the components of the natural environment that have, “ ...aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance or other special value for future generations as well as for the present community.

However, natural heritage conservation from a global perspective may be different; geographically specific areas generally present differing definitions, e.g. by comparison to Australian landscapes, much of the geological history of Europe has been shaped through human activity and thus man’s connection to the land is more inextricable. Europe is renowned for its rich and diverse heritage from a combination of natural and cultural heritage which is one element that distinguishes it apart from other continents globally. The heritage of Europe can be attributed to thousands of years of history that has resulted from a very intricate mix of languages, traditions, cultures, costumes, values coupled with land-issues as two hundred

years ago over 80% of the population of Europe lived off that land and this is reflected through the cultural heritage of those areas (European Commission 2019).

Harmon (2007:380) supports the idea that natural and cultural heritage conservation have historically been treated differently and attempts to explain why. He argues that there has been a long-standing rift between the social and biological sciences that accounts partially for this and has shaped how they are practised today, “In the field of protected areas, fundamental differences in outlook have contributed to an unproductive atmosphere in which seemingly endless rounds of criticisms are traded among disciplines.

Lowenthal (2006) proposed over 15 years ago the importance of perceiving cultural and natural heritage as the same,

“We receive communal legacies from two sources—the natural environment and the creations of human beings. To be sure, these inheritances everywhere commingle; no aspect of nature is impacted by human agency, no artefact devoid of environmental impression.

Despite this coexistence, they have traditionally been dealt with independently and consequently quite differently. Although they share similar management, leaders and spokesmen, historically there has remained envy and rivalry amongst them (Lownethal, 2006). Evan (2014) discusses heritage in a more complex way where it is clear to see the synergy between natural and cultural heritage, emphasising the intangible elements of cultural heritage “ ...the built historic environment, natural heritage or intangible culture such as stories, knowledge and practices that people and communities have amassed over the years.

Through the use of primary research in the form of a questionnaire, social perceptions regarding the differences between natural and cultural heritage were explored. The survey was given to a random sample of people from different age ranges and backgrounds. A total of 26 participants responded. Interestingly, the overall results showed that people do not see natural and cultural heritage synonymous in any way and there were clearer and more consistent definitions provided for natural heritage compared to cultural heritage.

Definitions of natural cultural heritage included descriptions of plants, trees, flora, fauna land and geological areas without reference to people as part of this. For example, some of the responses included:

“Trees and bushes and greenery”

“Our geological history?”

“Habitats, biological and physiological environment?”

“Natural habitats of nature, threatened animals/plants.

”Relates to natural scenery, so in Cornwall that would be something like Kynance Cove”

“Natural heritage refers to the sum total of the elements of biodiversity, including flora and fauna, ecosystems and geological structures.

Figure 2: Looking up at trees (Photo: Jake Riding)

Responses to defining cultural heritage elicited a range of definitions that were at times ambiguous and more complex than natural heritage. There was some subtle indication that cultural heritage covered both land and people, traditions, values and human practices. Definitions of cultural heritage included:

“Cultural Heritage is an expression of the ways of living developed by a community and passed on from generation to generation, including customs, practices, places, objects, artistic expressions, and values.

“Anything which represents something to a community.

“Asset/item/theme which has strong links through the ages to a group of people/location.

“Heritage that correlates to a particular culture.

One of the other central questions within the survey asked respondents to prioritise investment into different conservation projects. Most respondents prioritised a nature reserve, justifying that preserving our biological habitats on earth were essential in helping to thus preserve everything

else. This demonstrates a developed awareness of the global climate crisis that we currently face. But the paradox lies in knowing and understanding how to fix the world problems relating to climate change and many may argue that it starts with changing social perceptions about the natural world, taking responsibility for the natural world is linked to our understanding of how we are linked to it. If people see themselves as outside of the natural world there is arguably less motivation to the natural world.

Seeing nature as outside of ourselves is a common social perception. Research demonstrates how nature is seen as something ‘separate’ from humans. This has negative consequences in how motivated to preserve and maintain the natural environment around them. Lowenthal (2006) attempts to unravel the psychology behind our differing perceptions of both natural and cultural heritage by suggesting that they,

“[...] nature seems essentially other than us ... unlike certain aboriginal and tribal peoples we seldom put ourselves in nature's place or project ourselves into non‐human lives. By contrast, cultural heritage promotes empathy [...] Our ancestral specificity imbues the human heritage with personal allure. However deeply we may love nature, most of us identify more easily with human relics and rise more readily to their defence.

Lowenthal (2006) further adds to this point by suggesting that natural heritage cannot be exported, “ ...its value inherited almost wholly in its locale. ” Thus it rarely features as a “calculable commodity. ” He takes the distinction between natural and cultural heritage further, suggesting natural heritage cannot be moved or bought like a piece of ark work, hypothesising that if ecosystems could be bought like a relic of antiquity or work of art, then the commodification of it might raise value and thus society’s care and compassion for it. This is a sad unethical indictment of the world we live in.

The social need for belonging with humans is very much dependent on the relationship that natural and cultural heritage have, “This long-standing marriage of nature and culture that has shaped much of the European landscape we see today, and gives Europeans their sense of belonging and cultural identity” (European Commission 2019:2).

Past research has outlined the importance of learning from the experience and holistic worldviews of indigenous peoples and more recently the focus has been to promote approaches that are able to reconnect people with nature and, “ ...bridge the nature-culture divide” (IIED 2020). A way of taking a more holistic view is to explore traditional knowledge of communities, the landscapes surrounding them as well as the cultural and spiritual values, customary laws and languages of communities and cultures. This can be often achieved by harnessing indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ knowledge and skills and use these to support research and policy development (IIED 2020).

Mallarach (2021) argues that more recent developments in heritage conservation acknowledge the difficult historical positions of both natural and cultural heritage as being distinct from one another and believes by adopting a new paradigm this can help towards climate change