Approaches to Wilderness and Aesthetic Values in a Domestic and International Context
Within the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 1991 ('the Madrid Protocol'�) there are a number of key terms which are not adequately defined. This deliberate 'constructive ambiguity'� is useful in the process of reaching agreement between states with div...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Other/Unknown Material |
Language: | English |
Published: |
University of Canterbury
2016
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10092/13841 |
id |
ftunivcanter:oai:ir.canterbury.ac.nz:10092/13841 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftunivcanter:oai:ir.canterbury.ac.nz:10092/13841 2023-05-15T13:49:08+02:00 Approaches to Wilderness and Aesthetic Values in a Domestic and International Context Strachan, Kathryn 2016 application/pdf http://hdl.handle.net/10092/13841 English en eng University of Canterbury http://hdl.handle.net/10092/13841 All Rights Reserved Theses / Dissertations 2016 ftunivcanter 2022-09-08T13:39:17Z Within the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 1991 ('the Madrid Protocol'�) there are a number of key terms which are not adequately defined. This deliberate 'constructive ambiguity'� is useful in the process of reaching agreement between states with diverse cultural and political values but less helpful when it comes to implementing its terms. Within the context of the Madrid Protocol, two such undefined terms are 'wilderness'� and 'aesthetic values'� which must be taken into account and protected from adverse impacts. Across the different treaty party states there are differing levels of engagement with the matter of both 'wilderness'� and 'aesthetic values'� both domestically and in an Antarctic context. Looking at New Zealand, the United States of America and China's approaches to 'wilderness'� shows three different levels of interaction with the concept domestically and three different interpretations of the term within an Antarctic context. The same can be seen in other state's approaches, though it is beyond the scope of this paper to address this. In terms of 'aesthetic values'�, different methodologies for quantifying the visual worth of a landscape are employed by different states but with an emerging theme of public consultation. Both terms have not yet been actively engaged with on a wide scale within the Antarctic Treaty System, but certain themes can be ascertained across the approaches of the various states. Other/Unknown Material Antarc* Antarctic University of Canterbury, Christchurch: UC Research Repository Antarctic New Zealand The Antarctic |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
University of Canterbury, Christchurch: UC Research Repository |
op_collection_id |
ftunivcanter |
language |
English |
description |
Within the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 1991 ('the Madrid Protocol'�) there are a number of key terms which are not adequately defined. This deliberate 'constructive ambiguity'� is useful in the process of reaching agreement between states with diverse cultural and political values but less helpful when it comes to implementing its terms. Within the context of the Madrid Protocol, two such undefined terms are 'wilderness'� and 'aesthetic values'� which must be taken into account and protected from adverse impacts. Across the different treaty party states there are differing levels of engagement with the matter of both 'wilderness'� and 'aesthetic values'� both domestically and in an Antarctic context. Looking at New Zealand, the United States of America and China's approaches to 'wilderness'� shows three different levels of interaction with the concept domestically and three different interpretations of the term within an Antarctic context. The same can be seen in other state's approaches, though it is beyond the scope of this paper to address this. In terms of 'aesthetic values'�, different methodologies for quantifying the visual worth of a landscape are employed by different states but with an emerging theme of public consultation. Both terms have not yet been actively engaged with on a wide scale within the Antarctic Treaty System, but certain themes can be ascertained across the approaches of the various states. |
format |
Other/Unknown Material |
author |
Strachan, Kathryn |
spellingShingle |
Strachan, Kathryn Approaches to Wilderness and Aesthetic Values in a Domestic and International Context |
author_facet |
Strachan, Kathryn |
author_sort |
Strachan, Kathryn |
title |
Approaches to Wilderness and Aesthetic Values in a Domestic and International Context |
title_short |
Approaches to Wilderness and Aesthetic Values in a Domestic and International Context |
title_full |
Approaches to Wilderness and Aesthetic Values in a Domestic and International Context |
title_fullStr |
Approaches to Wilderness and Aesthetic Values in a Domestic and International Context |
title_full_unstemmed |
Approaches to Wilderness and Aesthetic Values in a Domestic and International Context |
title_sort |
approaches to wilderness and aesthetic values in a domestic and international context |
publisher |
University of Canterbury |
publishDate |
2016 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10092/13841 |
geographic |
Antarctic New Zealand The Antarctic |
geographic_facet |
Antarctic New Zealand The Antarctic |
genre |
Antarc* Antarctic |
genre_facet |
Antarc* Antarctic |
op_relation |
http://hdl.handle.net/10092/13841 |
op_rights |
All Rights Reserved |
_version_ |
1766250897603559424 |