Suchergebnisse

The options listed above provide the basis for the solutions to the problem of conflict between proposed mine development and heritage resources. There must, of course, be adequate funds allocated so that such options can be exercised; there must be adequate lead time provided; an adequate legislative base to ensure that the various options can be exercised; and a willingness on both the developer's and the resource manager's side to cooperate toward achieving these goals. In terms of reclamation, there are in fact some means by which the mine developer can provide for a legacy of heritage resources that might be physically destroyed by mining operations. These are, however, entirely contingent upon the procedures and options outlined above and may include one or more of the following: 1) A small museum facility, interpretive or a historic reconstruct ion centre can be provided in the area of the development to present displays relating to heritage resources and objects identified during the various assessment and mitigation stages. 2) Information boards and historic site markers can be erected to identify and interpret heritage values within the development area. 3) Published information in the form of pamphlets and books can be produced whose contents and impact would be much the same as an interpretive centre. 4) Archaeological and historic investigations in the development area during the assessment and mitigation stages quite often have a positive effect upon local residents. Such projects have often provided the impetus for the formation of historical societies in local areas. 5) The long-term potential for increased tourism to areas that have developed heritage resources in ways as described above, is excellent. Lastly, it should not be forgotten that all or any of the above actions or consequences of a well-planned program of heritage conservation can be of great value to a developer in terms of public relations and the image of the developer in the eyes of government and public. ; Non UBC ; Unreviewed ; Other

Liability and increased federal involvement in issues of public safety has resulted in the development of a bewildering array of agencies and entities at all levels of government* In spite of this increased involvement, losses from catastrophic natural hazardous events are continuing to increase at an alarming rate. Although there is an increased federal involvement, primary responsibility and authority for dealing with the problems associated with natural hazard exposure rests with the states and local governments. However, the capacity of state and local governments to deal with these problems is significantly constrained by geophysical, ecological, and sociopolitical factors. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the context in which natural hazard problems are defined and policies adopted in the United States. Further we will examine the barriers to the adoptation and implementation of natural hazard mitigation policies. Professionalization of the policy adoptation and implementation process is presented as a basis for increased success in reducing societal risks to natural hazasrds.