National Academies Press: OpenBook

Evaluating Cultural Resource Significance: Implementation Tools (2005)

Chapter: Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background

« Previous: Summary
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Evaluating Cultural Resource Significance: Implementation Tools. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13815.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Evaluating Cultural Resource Significance: Implementation Tools. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13815.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Evaluating Cultural Resource Significance: Implementation Tools. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13815.
×
Page 7

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This research effort is the second phase of an NCHRP proj- ect on improving current approaches to evaluating cultural resource significance (i.e., National Register eligibility) in the context of both transportation projects and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The NCHRP panel overseeing this two-phased study, which began in 2000, consists of representatives from state DOTs, TRB, the FHWA, and private consultants. URS conducted both phases of study for the NCHRP. PHASE 1 The following summary provides the scope, research approach, and objectives of the first phase. A more detailed discussion of the Phase 1 study can be found in NCHRP Research Results Digest 277: Review and Improvement of Existing Processes and Procedures for Evaluating Cultural Resource Significance. The evaluation of the significance of historic and archaeo- logical resources (i.e., determining their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places) is an important and critical problem in the transportation planning process, at both the state and local level. This problem has been gen- erally addressed in a piecemeal manner and in the context of a specific project or group of projects, often resulting in proj- ect delays, conflicts, and increased cost. What is required to solve this problem and avoid these delays and conflicts is to have an existing general framework for making resource evaluation decisions. The primary goal of this NCHRP study is to develop and test possible tools to improve cultural resource significance decision making. The Phase 1 study examined current methods used nation- wide to manage and organize cultural resource inventory data and historic contexts. The study also determined if IT appli- cations have been useful in developing inventories and con- texts. Finally, the study provided recommendations regard- ing IT applications to improve the development and use of resource inventories and historic contexts as tools for deter- mining resource significance. Through a nationwide survey of SHPOs, state DOTs, THPOs, and several federal agencies (including the FHWA), the research team (1) examined current methods for managing and organizing cultural resource data and historic contexts and (2) evaluated IT applications for inventories and context use. The survey was conducted in the fall of 2001. A literature review of published documents and reports on CRM practices was also conducted. The literature review and the nationwide survey resulted in several interesting observations as to how existing computer- ized inventories were structured and how historic contexts were used. Geographic information system (GIS) programs from Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), are the most popular software programs used. Together, Arc- View and ArcInfo are used by more than half of the agencies with computerized cultural resource databases. MS Access is the next most popular software and is in use by 30 to 40 per- cent of the agencies. Oracle and dBASE are less common. Many agencies are using more than one software package and may have migrated their databases one or more times. Eighty-nine percent of the SHPOs and 51 percent of the DOTs had computerized archaeological inventory files. How- ever, only 70 percent of SHPOs and 40 percent of DOTs with computerized inventories also had the resource locations com- puterized. Historic structure inventories showed similar per- centages, but historic bridges and landscapes were less likely to be computerized. Of the agencies with computerized inven- tories, only 60 percent of the SHPOs and 40 percent of DOTs had historic bridges and landscapes computerized. The concept of a “digital divide” has become common in the popular media, and to some extent the survey results indi- cate such a divide among agencies in their progress toward computerizing cultural resource inventories. In particular, most of the SHPOs have made either substantial progress (over 75 percent of their resource inventory is computerized) or little progress (less than 25 percent is computerized). When asked the question “If there is no computerized resource inventory, what is the number one impediment to the development of this inventory?” the most frequent responses were lack of personnel and lack of funds. Lack of time was the third most common answer, and not an agency priority ranked fourth. When asked the question “Should there be a national clearinghouse (with Internet access) listing all exist- ing computerized inventory database and historic contexts?” approximately two-thirds of all respondents said yes. The states, however, are wary of national database efforts for two main reasons. First, they perceive problems with previous federal attempts at centralized data collection, particularly the National Park Service’s National Archaeological Database

(NADB) project. Second, many states question the utility of national systems to address local and regional issues, and these states do not want to see database queries being passed off as a substitute for thorough background studies for projects. One of the more surprising results of the nationwide sur- vey is the indication that historic contexts are rarely consulted and are not frequently updated, even though the survey respon- dents noted that they considered historic contexts to be useful tools in determining resource significance. DOTs and most federal agencies rely mostly on consultants’ reports for signif- icance decision making, and SHPO staff rely mostly on their personal experience. Historic contexts were ranked fourth and fifth in value in the decision-making process by DOTs and SHPOs, respectively. Further, only 14 percent of the SHPOs and 22 percent of the DOTs report using historic contexts 100 percent of the time in significance determinations. In addi- tion to problems of infrequent use, the linkages between con- texts and resource inventories are poor and hard to access. While 60 percent of the SHPOs report some kind of linkages, only 20 percent of them report computerized linkages. To further explore the trends noted in the survey responses, follow-up questions were developed and e-mailed to all SHPOs and DOTs that responded to the original survey. Ten SHPOs and nine DOTs answered these follow-up questions. The comments received suggest that even in states where historic contexts are reported as being used regularly, the decision- making process is rarely systematic and formalized. These responses also supported observations that contexts are not used because they are out of date (or never developed) and often do not provide specific guidance relevant to the kinds of problems commonly encountered in historic preservation compliance projects (i.e., problems complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended). To deal with the day-to-day requirements for mak- ing significance decisions, agencies fall back on staff experi- ence and knowledge and assess each resource on a project-by- project basis. Based on the results of the literature search and nationwide survey, URS proposed several IT tools for improving the col- lection, organization, and management of data for making decisions on resource significance. The NCHRP panel over- seeing the Phase 1 study recommended that prototypes for five of these IT tools be developed and tested in the next phase of study: • Tool 1: An electronic “Historic Context Development Tool.” This tool would contain all of the necessary com- ponents of a historic context as defined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Planning. The purpose of this tool would be to assist agencies in the creation of historic contexts and to pro- duce contexts in a format that could be accessed and shared electronically. This tool, along with Tool 2, even- tually became the HPST in Phase 2. 6 • Tool 2: A “Historic Significance Attribute Table” for organizing and documenting information used to make decisions on resource significance. This tool would provide an electronic mechanism for capturing decision making in a somewhat standard format, fol- lowing National Register guidance (e.g., National Reg- ister Bulletin 15). This tool, along with Tool 1, eventu- ally became the HPST in Phase 2. • Tool 3: An MS Access database application that stan- dardizes resource inventory data for use in evaluating resource significance. This database would include the above “Historic Significance Attribute Table” and a way to link data to existing historic contexts. • Tool 4: A common electronic format that would replace existing historic contexts, National Register nomination forms, and Consensus of Eligibility doc- uments. These documents would be scanned, indexed, and then made searchable using key words. Documents from a sample of states would be used to develop and test this prototype. This tool eventually became ECREL in Phase 2. • Tool 5: ESRI’s Geography Network as the mecha- nism for making the above IT prototypes accessible to potential users across the country. PHASE 2 The following sections describe the Phase 2 approach to developing and testing prototypes for the five above-listed IT tools. In Phase 2, Tool 1 was evaluated independently from the others because it was seen as a stand-alone tool; thus, the following sections discuss Tool 1 independently from the other tools. Tool 1: A Historic Context Development Tool The purpose of the Historic Context Development Tool was to provide a method by which consistent electronic ver- sions of historic context documents could be generated. The tool was intended to be a stand-alone system that any user could install on his or her desktop computer and use without additional training. A user guide and example would be pro- vided with the application. The first step in developing a prototype Historic Context Development Tool was to complete a requirements definition document and to prepare a design of the tool. Some basic requirements for this tool were specified in the Phase 1 study, but additional requirements needed to be identified and doc- umented. URS was to also evaluate existing standards that could be used as the basis for this tool. The best candidate in terms of existing standards appeared to be the National Reg- ister’s Multiple Property Submission form. Examples of his- toric contexts were also to be collected and a small number selected as models. These models were to be used to guide the development of the tool with respect to

• Required elements or sections, • Format, and • Size of each section and whether it is fixed or variable. The project team was also to identify (1) elements that pro- vided the user with a list of acceptable values from which to select and (2) elements that had to be free text. The design phase would be documented in a requirements definition and a detailed design. The requirements definition document would summarize the proposed functionality (i.e., what the application was expected to do). This summary would be the first step in translating the user’s needs into a document for programmers. The detailed design was to be a specification that programmers would use to develop the sys- tem. When the system was verified as working correctly, it would be finalized. The URS project team would also iden- tify one state agency (probably either an SHPO or a state transportation agency) that would agree to test the prototype Historic Context Development Tool. Tools 2–5: A Historic Significance Attribute Table, an MS Access Database, a Common Electronic Format for Contexts, and ESRI’s Geography Network Prior to developing and testing the four remaining tools, the NCHRP panel recommended the convening of a focus group of IT professionals to review the four options. The pur- poses of this meeting would be to evaluate the utility of these tools from an IT developer and user perspective. The recom- mendations of the focus group would then be presented to the panel, and the panel would determine whether or not a spe- cific prototype would be advanced to the full development and testing stage of the Phase 2 study. The focus group would consist of IT experts currently involved in IT management of historic preservation data and files. To assist the focus group members in their deliberation, URS would develop a more detailed description of each tool that included the system architecture, the testing plan, and other details that IT professionals would need in order to make informed recommendations. These detailed descrip- tions (i.e., a “Business Case”) would include, but would not be limited to, • Minimum and recommended requirements for the user’s hardware and operating system, 7 • Software type and versions to be used for development, • Work plan outlining the general approach for develop- ment of each component, • Testing/training plans, • Distribution plans, and • User support plan (if any). In order to develop realistic hardware requirements and system architectures, URS was to contact 10 states from the original Phase 1 survey by telephone and/or e-mail. Building upon the previous Phase 1 study, a new questionnaire would be developed, which would begin by asking questions such as “If IT systems are developed, will you actually use them? If not, what would it take to induce you to use such a system or systems?” In addition, basic information about the hard- ware and software available to the states would be collected. States that were the most responsive to the original survey would be included in this second survey, but an attempt to balance this small sample would be made by including both states with advanced IT systems and those with very basic IT systems. The results of this second survey would be shared with the members of the focus group before their meeting. Based on the recommendations made by the focus group, URS would then finalize the descriptions of each prototype, including the proposed system architecture, testing plan, and other details. An important component of the testing plan would be the selection of a sample of state agencies (i.e., DOTs and SHPOs) to use and review the prototypes. Costs associ- ated with each option would also be outlined. The NCHRP panel would subsequently review the recommended IT options. The panel would also determine if these options would be advanced to the full development and testing stage during the second phase of the study. REPORT ORGANIZATION The following chapter describes the process used to select the IT tools for development during Phase 2. This discussion includes the results of the IT professional focus group meet- ing and the NCHRP panel’s recommendations based on the focus group meeting. Chapter 3 discusses the design and test- ing of the prototypes selected by the NCHRP panel. Chapter 4 presents an implementation plan for the dissemination and use of the IT tools and the conclusions of the Phase 2 study.

Next: Chapter 2 - Selection of Information Technology Tools for Development »
Evaluating Cultural Resource Significance: Implementation Tools Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 542: Evaluating Cultural Resource Significance: Implementation Tools examines information technology (IT) tools that are designed to improve and streamline the National Register evaluation of cultural resources. The report highlights IT prototype tools that include a searchable database of historic contexts and a collection of National Register evaluation documents. The second prototype provides an explicit, but flexible tool designed to improve the National Register eligibility determinations.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!