Monitoring the historic environment of Wales: the archaeological resource
The rural historic environment of Wales reflects a complex mixture of attributes encompassing archaeological sites, historic buildings, land-use patterns, field boundaries, designed landscapes and ancient trees. However, at present very little information is gathered to inform policy makers on the nature and extent of changes taking place to the historic environment. As a first step toward improving this situation Cadw commissioned the CCRI and the Dyfed Archaeological Trust to develop a workable methodology to monitor the condition of the archaeological resource in Wales. Peter Gaskell led the CCRI team with contributions from Janet Dwyer and Bob Ford, and Ken Murphy led the team from the Dyfed Archaeological Trust.
The project, completed in March 2008, consisted of three stages. First, a review of existing literature on the likely impacts of CAP reform, and other drivers of agricultural change, on the archaeological resource of Wales was undertaken. The review contributed to the production of summaries of the CAP reforms, impacts on farm management and implications for the archaeological resource. Second, an evaluation of the data sources that could provide indicators to monitor the threat to and condition of the archaeological resource was undertaken. The evaluation included sources already assessed - the Welsh Archaeological Trusts’ threat-related assessments - and considered a range of other data sources including vertical and oblique aerial photography, Light Detection and Ranging surveys (LiDAR), Cadw field monument warden Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) files, Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales (RCAHMW) upland survey data and Tir Gofal agri-environment scheme generated historic environment data. Third, a number of operational indicators were then designed to monitor the threat to and condition of the archaeological resource. The information required to instigate a monitoring programme was identified, including the estimated resources required for collecting the data, frequency of survey and sampling strategies. This resulted in a suite of six early warning and five actual impact indicators being designed.
