Discovering archaeological landscapes in parks and protected areas

Abstract

Monitoring cultural resources in parks and protected areas is greatly enhanced using Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR). For this example, a pilot inventory of cultural resources is illustrated for the United States National Park Service lands that protect the Appalachian Trail in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, the trail stretches 145.2 kilometers (90.2 miles) and is protected by nearly 2052 hectares (5070 acres) of land. To aid in the resource monitoring, these remote sensing data are corroborated with historic records to identify the historical archaeological resources in the corridor. The inventory are then added to existing management plans to help protect the national park with a more complete understanding of the historical human impacts in the backcountry of New England.

Keywords

historical archaeology parks and protected areas Appalachian Trail LiDAR

Introduction

Monitoring parks and protected areas is a challenge for any land management agency. For the Appalachian Trail, a 3380 km (2100 miles) trail following the Appalachian Mountains in eastern United States, a unique management strategy has been established. The Appalachian Trail received federal recognition in the National Trails System Act in 1968 (NTSA Public Law 90–543). This Act recognized the importance of the nation’s trails and through an amendment of the Act in 1978, provided the necessary federal funds to secure a permanent right-of-way (ROW) that would preserve not only the trail route but also the character of the Appalachian Trail corridor. Exterior boundary surveys were conducted between 1979 and 2005 as part of the National Park Service (NPS) land protection program to create permanent and protected corridor for the trail. Since the boundaries are often in the middle of a forest, monuments were embedded in the ground at corners and periodically along the stretches of straight edges to delineate the national park.

In 1984, the NPS took a historic step by delegating the Appalachian Trail Conference (now Appalachian Trail Conservancy), and its member trail maintaining clubs the responsibility for managing the recently acquired AT lands. This was the first time the federal government had delegated a group of citizens with the responsibility of managing a national park. It also formalized a long-term relationship that has made the AT one of the premier hiking experiences available to the public and a model for other long-distance trails (Bristow, 2004, 2019).

A team of volunteers have the responsibility of maintaining the actual trail and camp sites, which include the historic Adirondack style shelters, and also the corridor. The national park lands are frequently remote, forested, and otherwise lack much of a contemporary human impact. Yet vast areas of the eastern region of America have remnants of our history under the canopy of growing timber. Since the landscape corridor encompasses several elements of the cultural and natural environment, a more holistic approach to analyze the resource is needed (Rubertone, 1989).

Volunteers are now tasked with the responsibility of monitoring cultural resources along the AT corridor, especially those sites in the backcountry. Strategies for this responsibility come from the National Park Service Archaeology Program (Kelly, 2007). This technical brief guides volunteer stewards in the tasks needed to protect, preserve, and/or interpret archaeological sites on public or private lands.

A new tool for detecting sites are remote sensing technologies. Remote sensing technologies can create a comprehensive overview of a resource and provides land managers with additional data for the planning and protection of park and protected areas (Gillespie et al., 2015; Gross et al., 2009; Nagendra, et al., 2013). For example, Gillespie et al. (2015) report that there are as many as 100,000 protected areas around the globe that lack basic information about the resources. This demand fuels the interest in time-saving resource inventory technologies to help detect and identify resources for future management needs.

To address this gap, this paper illustrates a volunteer pilot case study using Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) imagery for an old farmstead within the Appalachian Trail corridor in Massachusetts, USA. The authors are exploring the application of LiDAR imagery to detect evidence of human settlements in the backcountry lands of the NPS lands. Once we add this information to historic records and field surveys, we can create a better inventory of the cultural resources. This information is then added to the Massachusetts AT Management Plan for a more all-inclusive strategy in the protection of our backcountry resources along the Appalachian Trail.

The paper follows this structure. First, we describe the landscape and strategy of management. Next, the use of remote sensed imagery, specifically LiDAR is described. A pilot case study of park lands administered by the United States National Park Service is introduced highlighting two specific cultural resources: a long abandoned nineteenth century mountain road and a former farmstead in Tyringham, Massachusetts. We conclude with a summary of practical steps for others to follow to discover archaeological sites in semi-remote areas of North America.

Parks and protected areas

Parks and protected areas can be described as “(a) clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Leung et al., 2018, preface). Paramount in this definition is the long-term conservation of the natural and cultural landscapes. In this case, we explore the unique environment found protecting a recreational foot-path known as the Appalachian National Scenic Trail that stretches along the eastern United States from Mount Katahdin, Maine south to Springer Mountain, Georgia.

Construction of the Appalachian Trail began during the 1920s and was completed in 1937. Since the trail was conceived, the general path has followed ridgelines along the Appalachian Mountains (Figure 1). The area is rich with scenic landscapes of both cultural and natural features (Flink et al., 2001). Like any park and protected area to date, most management studies emphasized visitor impacts (Anderson et al., 1998; Cole et al., 1987; Eagles and McCool, 2002; Ervin et al., 2007; Hammitt et al., 2015) and natural resource protection. Natural resources include soil, habitats, invasive species, encroachments, air, water, and sound pollution (Benninger-Truax et al., 1992; Brown and Harris, 2005; Collinge, 1996; Manning, 1979). To address these broad reaching influences, a more comprehensive approach to resource changes in parks and protected areas is found in Hammitt et al. (2015), where the impacts are not just confined to the specific resource, i.e., trails and campsites, but a more ecological approach that includes the entirety of the cultural and natural resources throughout the park.

Figure 1.

Map of Appalachian Trail, with Western Massachusetts emphasized.

Yet most of the literature on managing parks has concentrated on natural resource protection. Cultural resources need the same level of attention. Leung et al. (2018) note “(h)eritage refers specifically to the condition of being inherited from past generations, maintained in the present, and bestowed to future generations.” (Leung et al., 2018: 97). This emphasis places our human history on equal status with clean water and air.

The challenge that remains is one of detection and identification of our human heritage in the thousands of hectares within the backcountry of parks and protected areas. Since volunteer management needs to prioritize tasks, areas off the beaten track are often neglected. But the use of remote sensing adds to the arsenal of tools, our land managers can employ for the task of identifying sites of interest. For example, recent research has used LiDAR to explore hiker impacts on the AT (Arredondo, 2018). This work permits long-term monitoring of user impacts and aid trail managers with sustainable practices of the heavily used park. How this imagery may be used in cultural resource monitoring is introduced next.

Remote sensing and LiDAR

Remote sensing is a science of identifying, observing, and measuring an object without coming into direct contact with it (Graham, 1999). Early forms of remote sensing involved taking cameras into the air on tethered balloons, and then eventually on aircraft where the images were used for topographic mapping purposes (Graham, 1999). In the 1960s, a shift from photographic-based imagery was replaced by electronic systems for obtaining and storing images (Klemas, 2012). Further improvements in remote sensing permitted the ability to observe and detect features not visible by human eyes by using near-infrared, thermal infrared, and microwave wavelengths imagery (Klemas, 2012). These tools in image processing also allow positional accuracy with multiple proficiencies for improved image analysis.

Besides natural resource management, remote sensing has been very beneficial for cultural analysis through aerial imaging. In particular, LiDAR has greatly improved the outcome of these projects since it allows researchers to get more accurate data regarding the biophysical measurements and to create three-dimensional models to further the accuracy of topographic landscapes (Lefsky et al., 2002). Data points are collected from sensors by recording the time it takes to send and receive pulses of energy. The resulting three-dimensional data provides fairly accurate surface coordinates as well as elevation (Opitz and Cowley, 2013). These points usually have multiple returns, so the data can be separated into first return, second return, so on and so forth which provide another level of accuracy (Bolton et al., 2013). These points are then converted for image analysis. LiDAR has been successfully used in agriculture, forestry, land use planning, fire detection, wetlands mapping, beach erosion control, and a plethora of other scenarios (Klemas, 2012). Of particular note is the usefulness of large scale inventories of lands to conduct archaeological topographical analysis to discover landscapes undetected by on-the-ground scientists (Opitz and Cowley, 2013).

LiDAR has become a useful tool to discover cultural landscapes and resources (Chase et al., 2011; Cowley, 2011; Devereux et al., 2008; Giardino, 2011; Harmon et al., 2006; Johnson and Ouimet, 2014; Schindling and Gibbes, 2014). For example, a study done by Chase et al. (2011) in Belize shows the success LiDAR had in mapping an ancient Maya landscape. With LiDAR, the Belize study was able to survey larger areas of the Mayan landscape than had previously been inventoried.

Instead of going out and searching for these locations, LiDAR can be used as a less intrusive option. By using the digital elevation model (DEM) you are able to remove the vegetation just to analyze the ground topographic features (Crow et al., 2007; Devereux et al., 2008). The use of hillshading techniques enhances the landscapes so that the cultural resources are more easily identified (Devereux et al., 2008). In Devereux et al.’s earlier work (2005) at Welshbury Hill in the Forest of Dean, hillshade maps were used. The researchers were able to employ these maps to guide their field work. Examples like this add another dimension to resource management to aid decision makers with their task of protecting our historic resources.

Covering vast areas, the initial discovery of archaeological sites can be quickly obtained using LiDAR imagery (Crutchley, et al., 2010; Hesse, 2013; Krasinski et al., 2016). Areas of interest can then be compared to historic records to help the researcher prioritize sites needing additional exploration. For example, Crutchley et al. (2010), research in Savernake Forest in Wiltshire, England, showed that the combination of LiDAR with other aerial imagery and historic photographs can be very successful. As a result, over 300 new historical sites were recorded without the need to conduct a field inventory. The authors also point out that using multiple sources of data will help eliminate misinterpretation, which is sometimes common.

A different study in southern New England in the United States shows the success of this technique and how it may be replicated elsewhere (Johnson and Ouimet, 2014). New England is dominated by forests, hiding features that show remnants of a place that was mainly farmland in the past. The researchers obtained DEM files that were then used to create hillshade maps along with slope and relief raster imagery. Historical maps were then georeferenced in ArcGIS™ and compared to the LiDAR hillshade maps. The historical maps offer insight about the features that are suspected to be historically significant. Building foundations appear on the hillshade maps as small clusters of pixels, stone walls show up as thin linear ridges, and farmsteads can be characterized by a cluster of stone walls that surround building foundations (Johnson and Ouimet, 2014). They were able to identify 76 historic archeological sites by using these techniques. As useful as these techniques are, there are still some issues with the accuracy of them.

While hillshading maps are a great way to identify possible cultural resource locations, field work should always be done to verify the existence of these sites (Devereux et al., 2008). By using these newly acquired LiDAR data and comparing this to archival maps and documents, a better understanding of the heritage of a landscape can be found. Since LiDAR imagery typically has a resolution of 1 m, the detection of small stone walls is possible (Johnson and Ouimet, 2014). Other forms of topographic data, such as topographic maps, do not provide this level of detail. In sum, LiDAR use in historical archaeological inventories is still in its infancy, and the potential discoveries that lie on the future are boundless. The improved resolution is particularly noteworthy, especially for small features left by humans. The time and effort to link this new tool to historical records and maps will only add to the detection of features long lost under the forest canopy.

Methods

To undertake a cultural resource inventory of the Appalachian Trail corridor in Massachusetts, a pilot study of one backcountry site on NPS lands was prepared. We began our study with historic print documents that provided valuable information of settlement patterns and the natural landforms. Early maps and atlases also highlight many of the features in the area. We now suggest adding LiDAR imagery from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as a means to discover these lost settings of human activity.

LiDAR Massachusetts data were obtained from NOAA’s title index on their website. These data were collected by NOAA in the spring and fall of 2015 and accessed on 7 February 2019. From the title index, LAZ files were downloaded and unzipped into LAS files. In ArcMap 10.6.1, the LAS files were transformed into a LAS dataset with a 1-m resolution and the Massachusetts State Plane NAD83 projected coordinate system. From the LAS data, the ground return points were isolated using the LiDAR Toolbar in ArcMap. These points were then converted into a raster image using the LAS to Raster tool, with the interpolation type being triangulation and the interpolation method being natural neighbor. The raster image itself does not display much useful information, so the hillshade tool must be used. This tool creates shaded relief from raster images. The hillshade maps were made using the default setting on ArcMap which has an azimuth of 315° and an altitude of 45°. From these maps, a visual inspection was performed to identify areas of interest.

Case study: Morrison Farm, Tyringham, Massachusetts

The AT is over 3380 km (2100 miles) in length, and the protected corridor of the park is even larger. Given the area needing exploration, we focus on the trail corridor in western Massachusetts and a small rural community. In the south-central section of the AT corridor in Massachusetts lies the small farming community of Tyringham. Tyringham is named after Tyringham, England (Palmer, 1900) and was established in 1762. Today, the community has 327 residents. This community has never been large in terms of population yet was probably one of the first settlements in the region (Beers, 1855). Exploring historic records and gazetteers of the nineteenth century, the name of W Morrison is found.

This name is also found south of a school house in the Barnes and Farnham (1904) Atlas of Berkshire County. Research into the historic archives for the area also mentions this family name. Myers (1944) reports on the homes found along Webster Road and the school house found on the “upper corner of Morrison Road” (Myers, 1944). One of the documented censuses for the region was prepared in 1885 and reported that William Morrison farmed 150 acres (60.7 hectares), off State Route 8 (Child, 1885: 428). Further archived evidence describes

… Morrison Road led south along the side of the mountain to the Morrison farm, where it turned down the mountain entering Main Road between the present McCarthy and Du Vernois farms. Around 1900 a cloud-burst washed out the lower part and it was never rebuilt. The old house burned and the whole road was then abandoned. (Myers, 1944: 57)

For the past 120 years, the road and farmstead have crumbled over time.

Little else is known about this farmer and the road that served the school children and others between Main Road and Webster Road. But soon after the demise of the road and farm, in the late 1920s and early 30s, the AT was blazed through the community and even followed Webster Road until the mid-1980s when it was re-routed over the newly acquired AT corridor. The review of the deed finds the parcel was acquired by the United States government in 1986 for $90,500 and included 53.06 acres. The parcel now has the tract name of Appalachian Trail 246–27. The western edge of the property followed in part the old Morrison Road. In addition to protecting a permanent ROW for the trail, all the remaining lands become the responsibility of the volunteer managers as mandated by the 1984 agreement between the NPS and local trail clubs. The club responsible for this section of trail, and the entire trail in Massachusetts is the Berkshire Chapter of the Appalachian Mountain Club.

LiDAR and records

To compare and contrast the information from historic archived documents and the recently acquired remote sensing imagery, a series of maps are prepared for the reader. First, we show the current state of the trail corridor environment with aerial photography to display the landscape. This is compared to historic maps to discover many of the features that are no longer found on contemporary maps. Next, two LiDAR images are shown, one with basic information and a second with enhanced highlighting to help interpretation.

The area surrounding Morrison Road is illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2(a) uses a recent air photo (2014) of the area in eastern Tyringham, Massachusetts, and is anchored on the north by Webster Road and on the southwest by Main Road. Much of the area is forested with conifers and also the leafless deciduous trees found in the central portion of the figure. The Appalachian Trail winds between these two roads and is bounded by the protected NPS lands. A historical map (1871) is shown in Figure 2(b) where the relative area and topographic features of the community are found, and an insert box highlights the approximate location (Walling and Gray, 1871). Of interest, here is the location of Morrison Road and an eastward spur that leads to a pasture or animal pen bounded by stone walls. Figure 2(c) shows the exact area as Figure 2(a), but with LiDAR imagery transformed into a hillshading that provides the reader with detailed topographic features. The gully of the unnamed stream meanders southwesterly through the property. To illustrate the usefulness of LiDAR in historical road detection, Figure 2(d) is enhanced to map Morrison Road that has been unmapped for nearly 150 years. Coincidentally, this road follows much of the present-day boundary for the National Park Lands.

Figure 2.

Aerial photography, historic map and LiDAR imagery of Morrison Road. (a) shows a current (2014) aerial photograph with the AT corridor, trail and anchoring roads highlighted. (b) is a 1871 map of Tyringham, Massachusetts and the insert showing the study area. Details from the LiDAR data transformed into a hillshade are found in (c) and represents the same view as in Figure 2a. In (d) the AT corridor is removed permitting the traced route of Morrison Road based on the LiDAR image.

Morrison’s farmstead is explored next in Figure 3. The aerial photo (2014) in Figure 3(a) shows that much of the 150-acre (60.7 hectares) deciduous forested property and is presumed to have been timbered by the late nineteenth century. A historic United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map (Housatonic, MA, 1899, 1:125,000) provides additional details of the property in Figure 3(b). Figure 3(c) shows the LiDAR image that follows the Morrison Road on the western edge of the farm and the Appalachian Trail to the east. The LiDAR imagery in Figure 3(d) is traced and includes several foundations of farm buildings and the numerous stone walls bounding the property. As was characteristic of farms of the period, the farm house was located near the road (Waugh, 1914).

Figure 3.

Aerial photography, historic map and LiDAR imagery of Morrison Farm. A 2014 aerial photography in (a) shows much of the farmstead has a canopy of deciduous trees during a leaf-off season. Details from the USGS Housatonic, MA, 1899, 1:125000 topographic map are found in (b). A LiDAR based hillshade map is found in (c) where details of the farmstead become evident. In (d), highlights of several walls and foundations are shown.

Zooming into the farmstead opens the discovery of several key features of the late nineteenth century farm. The ubiquitous stone walls are clearly delineated on the landscape. Thorson’s (2002) work notes the abundance of surface rocks in New England and that the rock contributed to the settlement and farming patterns associated with rock walls. The walls on this site extend over 900 meters (about 3000 feet) around the property and are clearly identified in the LiDAR imagery with the one meter resolution. Within these walls are several other walls of various lengths and were likely cleared from the fields for farming purposes.

Next evident in the LiDAR imagery are the remains of several buildings. On the northern edge of the farm, the foundation of the farm house is found. Field measurements found the overall structure was approximately 9.5 meters by 4 meters (31 by 13 feet). Details of this foundation and other nineteenth century structures are found in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Details of LiDAR imagery compared to ground photography. (a) shows the details of the hillshade image with a symbol representing the location of the ground view of a stone wall adjacent to Morrison Road. The farmer's home foundation is found in (b) and a southerly view from the ground is in the photograph. The largest barn foundation is found in (c) with a westerly view of the present day foundation. On the eastern edge of the farm, a 0.25 hectare stone wall pen (d) may have enclosed crops needed to support the farm.

The edge of the Morrison Road (Figure 4(a)) is bounded by a stone wall approximately 0.5 meters in height and 1 meter in width. The blazing on the tree in Figure 4(a) shows the NPS boundary. Details of the Morrison home are found in Figure 4(b) showing the cellar walls of the foundation. Figure 4(c), shows the three sided barn that opens to south and is 8 meters long by 6 meters wide (26 by 19 feet). The open end of the ground floor of the barn enters an enclosed area bounded by several stone walls likely used for livestock. The final detailed image shows a wall enclosing a rectangular field that was likely farmed for grains (Figure 4(d)). The area of this enclosure is about 0.25 hectare (0.64 acres). Given the current growth of the forested landscape, many of the stone features would be difficult to discover and measure without the use of LiDAR.

Discussion

Although LiDAR is considered a mature technology, it is not as easily accessible or available as other forms such as aerial imagery. There is a push in many countries to change that. Freely available publicly sourced LiDAR data is limited in the US, while interested parties could always hire a private contractor to do the survey. Yet the USGS and NOAA are the best places to obtain LiDAR data in the US at the moment. On NOAA’s website, a map of the country shows what data are currently available. Approximately 10% of the country has readily available LiDAR data for free download. Of course, a costlier option for researchers to obtain LiDAR data is to collect it themselves. Technology has advanced quite a bit, so drones can be used to do this, providing LiDAR sensors and the resulting imagery is georeferenced with global positioning systems (GPS). But this remains outside the realm of smaller land management agencies that must depend on government sourced public domain data for their planning concerns.

LiDAR is not the end of data collection. It is important to note that forest cover, while for the most part is penetrated by the sensor, does influence the LAS image. Reutebuch et al. (2003) found slight differences in terrain analysis depending on the presence or absence of forest canopies. Lands not covered by trees yielded the highest accuracy of topographic information as opposed to heavily forested terrain. For our case study here, a mix of conifers and deciduous trees are found. Leaves fall off the New England forests every autumn, leaving a much clearer image for aerial photography and LiDAR. The exact date of LiDAR acquisition is not known except as reported by MassGIS as spring and fall 2015. For this reason, aerial photography was acquired in leaf-off season to discern the forest type difference. The pine trees in the area remain green all year and may yield a different terrain image for analysis. We note the Morrison’s farm lands are predominately deciduous, so the results within the property should be consistent and reliable. The Morrison Road analysis is a larger area and covers a mix of forest types, so some difference in terrain analysis may be expected.

This study adds to the use of LiDAR in parks and protected area management of cultural resources. To date, cultural resource monitoring with LiDAR has been used more extensively in Europe and Central America (Johnson and Ouimet, 2014). This is by no means the fault of the archaeologists, rather, given that NOAA has begun to publish these data and free, it is likely more research will begin to take place. We have this history in the eastern US, but much has been bulldozed over with population expansion. Yet here is a protected corridor, owned by the NPS, managed, for the most part by enthusiastic volunteers with no money. Free LiDAR and bushwhacking through the woods can find these sites of human activity. Since LiDAR has been shown to provide both a visualization tool for discovery and measurement, parks and protected areas will greatly benefit from its use. Large area analysis of historic archaeology can now be undertaken with LiDAR, and the necessary baseline data are gathered for cultural resource management.

LiDAR has great potential for studies like the one illustrated here. Whether or not it becomes the standard remote sensing tool, it is important to develop some standard protocol so we can be assured the results found here are consistent with cultural resource studies elsewhere. Parks and protected area managers need these data. LiDAR provides cultural resource managers an additional tool to discover sites to explore. Since the bulk of our parks and protected areas are away from roads, trails, and other access points, LiDAR can be used to identify potential sites. Then a field team can enter the property to get precise measurements, photographic evidence, and other important data about the site. If volunteers can find these special places, we can then anticipate the management needs for the future, instead of just forgetting about them and allow the site to disappear.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Robert S Bristow received his PhD from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale and is currently a Professor in the Geography, Planning and Sustainability Department at Westfield State University, in Westfield, Massachusetts. His research interests are in recreation resource management and tourism planning.

Anna Therien is a senior Regional Planning and Environmental Science student at Westfield State University. Her research interests include Geographic Information Systems and land conservation.

References

Anderson

Lime

Wang

(1998) Maintaining the Quality of Park Resources and Visitor Experiences. A Handbook for Managers. St. Paul: Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota.

Arredondo

(2018) Modeling Areal Measures of Campsite Impacts on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, USA Using Airborne LiDAR and Field Collected Data. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.

Barnes Farnham (1904) Atlas of Berkshire County, Massachusetts. Pittsfield: Barnes and Farnham

Benninger-Truax

Vankat

Schaefer

(1992) Trail corridors as habitat and conduits for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. Landscape Ecology 6(4): 269–278.

Beers

(1855) History of Berkshire County, Massachusetts, VolII. New York: J. B. Beers and Co.

Bolton

Coops

Wulder

(2013) Measuring forest structure along productivity gradients in the Canadian boreal with small-footprint Lidar. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 185(8): 6617–6634.

Bristow

(2004) Volunteer-based recreation land management: The eyes and ears for the appalachian trail. In: Camarda

(ed) Global Challenges of Parks and Protected Area Management. Sardinia: Carlo Delfino, pp. 10–13.

Bristow

(2019) Altruistic Adventure Voluntourism: Help manage the park you visit. In: Jenkins

(ed) Adventure Tourism and Outdoor Activities Management: A 21st Century Toolkit 145–154. London: CABI.

Brown

Harris

(2005) Comanagement of wildlife corridors: the case for citizen participation in the Algonquin to Adirondack proposal. Journal of Environmental Management 74(2): 97–106.

10.

Chase

Weishampel

, et al. (2011) Airborne LiDAR, archaeology, and the ancient Maya landscape at Caracol, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(2): 387–398.

11.

Child

(1885) Gazetteer of Berkshire County, MASS 1725-1885. Syracuse: Hamilton Child.

12.

Cole

Petersen

Lucas

(1987) Managing wilderness recreation use: Common problems and potential solutions. Ogden: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

13.

Collinge

(1996) Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: Implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 36(1): 59–77.

14.

Cowley

(2011) Remote sensing for archaeological heritage management. EAC Occasional Paper No. 5. Proceedings of the 11th EAC Heritage Management Symposium, Reykjavík, Iceland, 25–27 March 2010.

15.

Crow

Benham

Devereux

, et al. (2007) Woodland vegetation and its implications for archaeological survey using LiDAR. Forestry 80(3): 241–252.

16.

Crutchley

Winton

Heritage

(2010) Using Lidar in conjunction with other investigation techniques in Savernake Forest, Marlborough. In Proceedings of a one-day conference at The Park Campus, University of Gloucestershire, September 2010 (p. 35).

17.

Devereux

Amable

Crow

, et al. (2005) The potential of airborne lidar for detection of archaeological features under woodland canopies. Antiquity 79(305): 648–660.

18.

Devereux

Amable

Crow

(2008) Visualisation of LiDAR terrain models for archaeological feature detection. Antiquity 82(316): 470–479.

19.

Eagles

McCool

(2002) Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning and Management. London: CABI.

20.

Ervin

Spensley

Hayman

, et al. (2007) Capacity Action Planning for Protected Areas: A Quick Guide for Practitioners. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy.

21.

Flink

Olka

and Searns

(2001) Trails for the Twenty-First Century: planning, Design, and Management Manual for Multi-Use Trails. Washington DC: Island Press.

22.

Giardino

(2011) A history of NASA remote sensing contributions to archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(9): 2003–2009.

23.

Gillespie

Willis

Ostermann-Kelm

(2015) Spaceborne remote sensing of the world’s protected areas. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 39(3): 388–404.

24.

Graham

(1999) Remote Sensing Available at https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/RemoteSensing (accessed 14 March 2019)

25.

Gross

Goetz

Cihlar

(2009) Application of remote sensing to parks and protected area monitoring: Introduction to the special issue. Remote Sensing of Environment 113(7): 1343–1345.

26.

Hammitt

Cole

and Monz

(2015) Wildland Recreation: ecology and Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

27.

Harmon

Leone

Prince

, et al. (2006) LiDAR for archaeological landscape analysis: a case study of two eighteenth-century Maryland plantation sites. American Antiquity 71(4): 649–670.

28.

Hesse

(2013) The changing picture of archaeological landscapes: LiDAR prospection over very large areas as part of a cultural heritage strategy. In: Opitz

Cowley

(eds) Interpreting Archaeological Topography. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 171–183.

29.

Johnson

Ouimet

(2014) Rediscovering the lost archaeological landscape of southern New England using airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR). Journal of Archaeological Science 43: 9–20.

30.

Kelly

(2007) Developing and Implementing Archeological Site Stewardship Program, Archeological Assistance Program, Technical Brief No. 22, Washington: USDI, NPS. Available at: www.nps.gov/archeology/PUBS/TECHBR/index.htm (accessed 1 May 2019).

31.

Klemas

(2012) Airborne remote sensing of coastal features and processes: An overview. Journal of Coastal Research 29(2): 239–255.

32.

Krasinski

Wygal

Wells

, et al. (2016) Detecting Late Holocene cultural landscape modifications using LiDAR imagery in the Boreal Forest, Susitna Valley, Southcentral Alaska. Journal of Field Archaeology 41(3): 255–270.

33.

Lefsky

Cohen

Parker

, et al. BioScience 52(1): 19–30.

34.

Leung

Spenceley

Hvenegaard

Buckley

(2018) Tourism and Visitor Management in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Sustainability. Gland: IUCN.

35.

Manning

(1979) Impacts of recreation on riparian soils and vegetation 1. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 15(1): 30–43.

36.

Myers

(1944) A Hinterland Settlement: Tyringham, Massachusetts and Bordering Lands. Pittsfield: Eagle Printing and Binding Co.

37.

Nagendra

Lucas

Honrado

, et al. (2013) Remote sensing for conservation monitoring: Assessing protected areas, habitat extent, habitat condition, species diversity, and threats. Ecological Indicators 33: 45–59.

38.

Opitz

Cowley

(2013) Interpreting archaeological topography: Lasers, 3D data, observation, visualisation and applications. In: Opitz

Cowley

(eds) Interpreting Archaeological Topography: Airborne Laser Scanning, 3D Data and Ground Observation. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 1–12.

39.

Palmer

(1900) Berkshire County, Its past History and Achievements. Lanesboro: Charles L. Palmer. Available at: https://archive.org/details/berkshirecountyi00palm/page/n4

40.

Reutebuch

McGaughey

Andersen

, et al. (2003) Accuracy of a high-resolution LiDAR terrain model under a conifer forest canopy. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 29(5): 527–535.

41.

Rubertone

(1989) Landscape as Artifact: Comments on “The Archaeological Use of Landscape Treatment in Social, Economic and Ideological Analysis”. Historical Archaeology 23(1): 50–54.

42.

Schindling

Gibbes

(2014) LiDAR as a tool for archaeological research: a case study. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 6(4): 411–423.

43.

Thorson

(2002) Stone by Stone: The Magnificent History in New England's Stone Walls. New York: Walker and Co.

44.

Walling

Gray

(1871) Official Topographic Atlas of Massachusetts. Boston: Stedman, Brown and Lyon.

45.

Waugh

(1914) Rural Improvement. New York: Orange Judd Co.