Anthropological approaches for cultural resource conservation design and planning

References

• Anderson MK. 2005. Tending the wild: native American knowledge and the management of California’s natural resources. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bernard HR. 2011. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. New York (NY): AltaMira Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bixler RP, Johnson S, Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Reuling M, Curtin C, Romolini M, Grove JM. 2016. Networks and landscapes: a framework for setting goals and evaluating performance at the large landscape scale. Front Ecol Environ. 14(3):145–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bliege Bird R, Bird DW, Codding BF, Parker CH, Jones JH. 2008. The “fire stick farming” hypothesis: Australian Aboriginal foraging strategies, biodiversity, and anthropogenic fire mosaics. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 105(39):14796–14801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodin O, Crona B. 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Global Environ Change. 19:366–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodin O, Crona B. 2011. Barriers and opportunities in transforming to sustainable governance: the role of key individuals. In: Bodin O, Prell C, editors. Social networks and natural resource management: uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; p. 75–94.
   Google Scholar
• Brown M. 2017. Contracting the commons: socioecological dynamics of wild mushroom harvesting in Yunnan, China [Doctoral Dissertation]. Stanford University. purl.stanford.edu/nb366tm6258.
   Google Scholar
• Brown M, Murtha T. 2018. The present and future possibilities of landscape scale conservation: the Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative (AppLCC) ethnographic study. Technical report. https://maddiebrown. github.io/LCC/LCCreport_finalforweb.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Brown M, Murtha T. 2019. Integrating natural and cultural resources in North American large-landscape conservation. Environ Pract. 21(2):57–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown M, Murtha T, Wang L, Wang Y. 2019. ILAS: intrinsic landscape assessment system for landscape design and planning in the national capital region. J Digital Landscape Archit. 4:84–94.
   Google Scholar
• Bruyninckx J. 2015. Trading twitter: amateur recorders and economies of scientific exchange at the cornell library of natural sounds. Soc Stud Sci. 45(3):344–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bubalo M, van Zanten BT, Verburg PH. 2019. Crowdsourcing geo-information on landscape perceptions and preferences: a review. Landscape Urban Plan. 184:101–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büscher B. 2016. Nature 2.0: exploring and theorizing the links between new media and nature conservation. New Media Soc. 18(5):726–743.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler JRA, Tawake A, Skewes T, Tawake L, McGrath V 2012. Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and fisheries management in the Torres Strait, Australia: the catalytic role of turtles and dugong as cultural keystone species. Ecology Soc. 17(4). doi:10.5751/ES-05165-170434
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandler M, See L, Copas K, Bonde AMZ, López BC, Danielsen F, Legind JK, Masinde S, Miller-Rushing AJ, Newman G, et al. 2017. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol Conserv. 213:280–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chase SK, Levine A. 2016. A framework for evaluating and designing citizen science programs for natural resources monitoring: resource-based framework for citizen science. Conserv Biol. 30(3):456–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chirikure S, Pwiti G. 2008. Community Involvement in archaeology and cultural heritage management: an assessment from case studies in Southern Africa and elsewhere. Curr Anthropol. 49(3):467–485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clemente P, Calvache M, Antunes P, Santos R, Cerdeira JO, Martins MJ. 2019. Combining social media photographs and species distribution models to map cultural ecosystem services: the case of a natural park in Portugal. Ecol Indic. 96:59–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crona B, Bodin Ö. 2006. What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecology Soc. 11(2):7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crona B, Bodin Ö. 2011. Friends or neighbors? Subgroup heterogeneity and the importance of bonding and bridging ties in natural resource governance. In: Bodin Ö, Prell C, editors. Social networks and natural resource management: uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; p. 206–233.
   Google Scholar
• Crona B, Ernstson H, Prell C, Reed M, Hubacek K. 2011. Combining social network approaches with social theories to improve understanding of natural resource governance. In: Social networks and natural resource management: uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. p. 206–233.
   Google Scholar
• Deák B, Tóth CA, Bede Á, Apostolova I, Bragina TM, Báthori F, Bán M. 2019. Eurasian Kurgan database – a citizen science tool for conserving grasslands on historical sites. Hacquetia. 18(2):179–187.
   Google Scholar
• Dhonju HK, Xiao W, Shakya B, Mills JP, Sarhosis V. 2017. Documentation of heritage structures through geo-crowdsourcing and web-mapping. ISPRS. XLII-2/W7:17–21.
   Google Scholar
• Di Minin E, Tenkanen H, Toivonen T. 2015. Prospects and challenges for social media data in conservation science. Frontiers Environ Sci. 3. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2015.00063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donahue ML, Keeler BL, Wood SA, Fisher DM, Hamstead ZA, McPhearson T. 2018. Using social media to understand drivers of urban park visitation in the Twin Cities, MN. Landscape Urban Plan. 175:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher DM, Wood SA, White EM, Blahna DJ, Lange S, Weinberg A, Tomco M, Lia E. 2018. Recreational use in dispersed public lands measured using social media data and on-site counts. J Environ Manage. 222:465–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FPAN. Projects. [ accessed 2019 Oct 29]. https://www.flpublicarchaeology.org/projects/.
   Google Scholar
• Geertz C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York (NY): Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg LK, Murtha TM, Orland B. 2018. The use of crowdsourced and georeferenced photography to aid invisual resource planning and conservation: a Pennsylvania case study. In: Gobster PH, Smardon RC, editors. Visual resource stewardship conference proceedings: landscape and seascape management in a time of change. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-183. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. p. 116–126.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison R. 2015. Beyond “natural” and “cultural” heritage: toward an ontological politics of heritage in the age of anthropocene. Heritage Soc. 8(1):24–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollowell J, Nicholas G. 2009. Using ethnographic methods to articulate community-based conceptions of cultural heritage management. Public Archaeol. 8(2–3):141–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langemeyer J, Calcagni F, Baró F. 2018. Mapping the intangible: using geolocated social media data to examine landscape aesthetics. Land Use Policy. 77:542–552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonard PB, Baldwin RF, Hanks RD 2017. Landscape-scale conservation design across biotic realms: sequential integration of aquatic and terrestrial landscapes. Sci Rep. 7(1). doi:10.1038/s41598-017-15304-w
   Google Scholar
• Levin N, Lechner AM, Brown G. 2017. An evaluation of crowdsourced information for assessing the visitation and perceived importance of protected areas. Appl Geogr. 79:115–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazurczyk TJ, Murtha T, Goldberg L, Orland B. 2018. Integrating visual and cultural resource evaluation and impact assessment for landscape conservation design and planning. In: Gobster PH, Smardon RC, editors. Visual resource stewardship conference proceedings: landscape and seascape management in a time of change. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-183. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. p. 149–160.
   Google Scholar
• Murtha T, Lawres N, Mazurczyk T, Brown M. 2019. Investigating the role of archaeological information and practice in landscape conservation design and planning in North America. Adv Archaeol Pract. 1–13. doi:10.1017/aap.2019.32
   Google Scholar
• National Park Service. 2019. Enjoy the View: Potomac Heritage Trail Network. [accessed 2019 Nov 4]. https://www.nps.gov/pohe/learn/enjoy-the-view.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Nazarea V. 1999. Ethnoecology: situated knowledge/located lives. Nazarea V, edited. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norman P, Pickering CM. 2017. Using volunteered geographic information to assess park visitation: comparing three on-line platforms. Appl Geogr. 89:163–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogletree SS, Powell RB, Baldwin RF, Leonard PB. 2019. A framework for mapping cultural resources in landscape conservation planning. Conserv Sci Pract. 1(6):e41.
   Google Scholar
• Oomen J, Aroyo L. 2011. Crowdsourcing in the cultural heritage domain: opportunities and challenges. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Communities and Technologies, C&T 2011, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. p. 138–149.
   Google Scholar
• Orland B, Murtha T. 2015. Show me: engaging citizens in planning for shale gas development. Environ Pract. 17(4):245–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlove BS, Brush SB. 1996. Anthropology and the conservation of biodiversity. Annu Rev Anthropol. 25(1):329–352.
   Google Scholar
• Pocock MJO, Chandler M, Bonney R, Thornhill I, Albin A, August T, Bachman S, Brown PMJ, Cunha DGF, Grez A, et al. 2018. A vision for global biodiversity monitoring with citizen science. In: Advances in ecological research. Vol. 59. Elsevier. p. 169–223. [accessed 2019 Sep 13]. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0065250418300230.
   Google Scholar
• Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M. 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour. 22(6):501–518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prell C, Reed M, Racin L, Hubacek K. 2010. Competing structure, competing views: the role of formal and informal social structures in shaping stakeholder perceptions. Ecology Soc. 15(4):34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ridge M. 2013. From tagging to theorizing: deepening engagement with cultural heritage through crowdsourcing. Curator. 56(4):435–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts HV. 2017. Using Twitter data in urban green space research: a case study and critical evaluation. Appl Geogr. 81:13–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarlett L, McKinney M. 2016. Connecting people and places: the emerging role of network governance in large landscape conservation. Front Ecol Environ. 14(3):116–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan RG, Meyer M. 2016. Documenting America’s Scenic Treasures: The National Park Service Visual Resource Inventory. Paper presented at: National Association of Environmental Professionals Annual Conference, Chicago, Illinois. [accessed 2019 Nov 4]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301698961.
   Google Scholar
• Tenkanen H, Di Minin E, Heikinheimo V, Hausmann A, Herbst M, Kajala L, Toivonen T 2017. Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas. Sci Rep. 7(1). doi:10.1038/s41598-017-18007-4
   Google Scholar
• van der Hoeven A. 2019. Historic urban landscapes on social media: the contributions of online narrative practices to urban heritage conservation. City Culture Soc. 17:61–68.
   Google Scholar