1 Introduction
Grenada is a small island state in the English-speaking Caribbean. Like many postcolonial countries, it wrestles with development issues that are the product of an imperial legacy, and which often manifest as a balancing exercize between the need to conserve limited resources and increase their exploitation in order to accelerate economic growth. This presents a challenge where the protection and management of heritage resources, both natural and cultural, is concerned.
Parks and other protected areas figure prominently in modern heritage and environmental law as conservation mechanisms. But national parks are distinctly Western and flawed in conceptualization. Parks represent a relatively new version of the commons, no longer defined by the social regulation of common resources once typical of the original living landscape.
While heritage destruction often occurs during cases of violence and armed conflict, today the Caribbean region is a fairly stable middle-income developing region that experiences heritage loss in more passive and subtle ways; these are notably facilitated by the inherited legal and institutional framework. This chapter argues that virtual enclosure, through the modern dissolution of parks, results in spatial injustice because it denies communities access to heritage resources, undermining their relationships with these resources and thus accelerating heritage loss. The treatment of Camerhogne Park in Grenada is emblematic of this ongoing trend. While there is conservation legislation in place to protect parks, it has never adequately represented the diverse interests reflective of the living landscape and so presents no real obstacle to private property interests.
This failure to acknowledge local interests in the law is the result of legislation that is spatially blind, continuing to rely on abstract language derived from universalist perceptions of a global environment overseen by a detached scientist. However, conservation fundamentally concerns how we perceive landscape, how we place values on landscape and who gets to decide these values.2 Achieving environmental justice is therefore location-specific and has implications for heritage protection. In spite of recent recognition of the need for local participation in the use and protection of heritage resources, local users are still often denied access in the global campaign to protect the worldwide ecology.3 This is due to the impact of ecology’s colonial roots on heritage protection, which resonates particularly in the Caribbean region.
2 Parks as Eco-imperialist Spaces
The British Empire created a single territorial colonized space by eliding local and regional distinctions throughout the world.4 To regulate this space, a certain uniformity in colonial legislation developed, regardless of the cultural and environmental features of the region in which it was imposed. As an ecological
In slave colonies such as those in the Caribbean islands, these reserves served as living laboratories, but their immediate function was to maintain plantation agriculture. These proto-parks, which relied on exclusive land use and suppression of local interests, have come to influence the present day approach to conservation in the region. The earliest legal interventions relevant to heritage conservation in the Caribbean therefore concern property law and environmental law.
The common or clan perception of landscape of the semi-nomadic Kalinago peoples was converted by the British to private property.6 This was virtual enclosure writ large. Kenneth Olwig distinguishes virtual enclosure from the historical enclosure movement in Britain during the 18th and early 19th centuries, in which common land was fenced in so as to make it private property.
Knowledge of these environments coincided with their exploitation under imperial regimes. It is no accident that disciplines such as botany and ecology emerged in concert with economic concerns of finding more efficient ways of exploiting natural resources. Conservation, especially in former colonial societies, is thus hardly ever neutral, even when grounded in science. Property law and environmental law were not rooted in the needs and capacities of these
Law therefore upheld eco-imperialist ambitions even as it contained conservationist impulses.11 This is the ambivalent legacy of exclusive conservation; conservation might preserve some threatened species, but its purpose was not to support the relationship between the natural resources and the needs of the local population. The earliest environmental legislation in the English-speaking Caribbean developed forest reserves to strictly support the priorities of the British Empire.12 The sundering of the relationship between communities and the environment also destroyed a local way of life, social cohesion and cultural ties.
When colonies attained ‘flag’ independence, the environment they inherited was already severely damaged from years of exploitation by colonial administration, and subject to piecemeal legislation for occasional regulation; ultimately, the colonial state was designed to serve economic and political ends at odds with the long term interests of the colonized, which undermined the capacity of post-colonial states to internalize and enforce environmental norms.13 The legacy of colonial resource management policies continues today with inappropriate centralized government decision-making, and frequent reliance on authoritarian modes of regulation which disenfranchise communities closest to nature.14 Entrenched economic exploitation of the natural environment means continued disregard for the historic relationship between communities and these resources. This has implications for the sustainable protection of heritage resources. Eco-imperialist spaces required cultural erasure, particularly in small island states and former slave colonies in the Caribbean. Modern parks law thus reflects the philosophy of the earliest types of conservation legislation drafted for the English-speaking Caribbean, because it continues to be influenced by modern ecology, which also owes its origins to British imperialism. Parks law is blind to the needs of local communities and compromises the capacity of these communities to sustain relationships with
3 Camerhogne Park, Grenada
3.1 Historical Background
Camerhogne Park (hereafter the Park) is located on Grenada’s most popular beach, Grand Anse beach, which is situated on the island’s south coast in the heart of the tourism belt bearing the same name. The name Camerhogne is an Amerindian term for the island in the Kalinago language.15 Historically, the area was known to have been a coconut plantation as part of the larger Grand Anse estate, but during the construction of the Coyaba and Allamanda resorts, Amerindian graves were unearthed.16
A number of surveys have been conducted in the past three decades that are indicative of the site’s archaeological potential. In 1986, an excavation discovered zoomorphic adornos, shells (mostly conch), and some European/historic artefacts. In 1988, Thomas Banks excavated and reported finding abundant potsherds, stone and bone adzes and beads, stone pestles, and a number of amethyst fragments. Fauna included agouti, opossum, iguana, water fowl, dog, shellfish, and various reef and pelagic species of fish. Fragments of human bone were also found. Most recently, Jonathan Hanna has concluded that more excavation is needed to determine the significance of the site.17
The Park was proposed by consultant Leon Taylor in the 1980s during an oas study of the beach area as a means to defuse social tensions between residents and tourists; beach and backshore areas in the islands had long been traditionally accessible to the enslaved population because it was not valued arable land or needed for mercantile or defensive functions.
Today Camerhogne Park is a public park hosting a range of activities that are undertaken by various user groups. It provides residents with access, parking and leisure facilities, while at the same time regulating development on the beach.19 Park activities include picnicking, yoga and exercizing, and sunbathing. The park also functions as a transit area, muster point, and venue for social functions and events such as film festivals, public education initiatives, and charity walks. It is also close to transportation, shopping sites and entertainment venues and the playing field which parallels that section of the beach.20 Employees from those various businesses nearby meet to eat lunch in the park. The tensions between tourists and residents have largely dissipated as both user groups make use of the park.21 As is typical of national parks, the Park is multifunctional and subject to a variety of spatial definitions.22
3.2 The Proposal to Replace Camerhogne Park
In 2015, it was announced that Egyptian developer Naguib Sawiris would be investing ec$270 million in a new hotel project, which would include lands formerly occupied by the Riviera hotel. The first phase would see the construction of a new hotel, Silver Sands, which is expected to be a 400 room facility with a casino, and provide employment for 260 Grenadians when the hotel becomes operational, with employment for 100 persons during the construction phase.
Prime Minister Keith Mitchell announced that Camerhogne Park would be moved to another location along Grand Anse beach, as it would allow Grenadians to continue their activities uninterrupted by the hotel property, but this was also protested as the new location abuts a cemetery. A number of petitions were signed in favour of Camerhogne Park remaining in its original location and shared on social media. Demonstrations were also held in the Park and supported by the Opposition in Parliament. In June 2016, the Prime Minister indicated the Park will not be absorbed by the new resort.
3.3 The Legal Status of Camerhogne Park
National parks legislation was passed in 1991 with the nppa Act. Prior to the enactment of this law, a handful of laws addressed the establishment of other protected areas, on an individual basis, such as the colonial era Grand Etang Reserve Act, or on a thematic basis, such as marine reserves, parks, and sanctuaries under the Fisheries Act.
Although the Park has been in use since the 1990s, and was landscaped with appropriate signage and public facilities, the Park was not in fact legally designated pursuant to the nppa Act. No implementing regulations to outline the details of the designating process for parks have been prepared. Nevertheless, the Park is managed by the Ministry responsible for national parks, the Ministry of Tourism, Civil Aviation and Culture. A 2009 report under the oecs Protected Areas and Associated Sustainable Livelihoods (opaal) project to develop protected areas in the Eastern Caribbean proposed a national system of parks and protected areas for Grenada. The report recommended that parks in Grenada be consolidated based on two categories: where a park has been widely accepted based on administrative and management arrangements, or where land has been identified by other completed and accepted land use studies as priority areas of interest. The plan identified Camerhogne
3.4 Camerhogne Park as a Contested Public Space
On 25th November, 2015, during a sitting of the lower house of Parliament, Prime Minister Dr Keith Mitchell announced in the Budget speech that the Park would be relocated during the design phase of the Silver Sands project.25 Prime Minister Mitchell announced that Camerhogne Park would be moved to another location along Grand Anse beach, so that Grenadians would be undisturbed by the hotel property. No reference was made to the national parks legislation.
There was public outcry and the Government of Grenada (the Government) immediately retracted its stance, stating that no firm decision had been made concerning the Park.26 The administration agreed to work with local communities to address the matter, and Health Minister Nickolas Steele subsequently announced that a broad-based committee would be established to explore the possibility of improving Camerhogne Park.27 Nevertheless, there were no attempts to coordinate with the planning authority, which is empowered to designate environment protection areas, and has an advisory committee on the natural and cultural heritage to vet applications for planning permission and make recommendations for the protection of heritage resources.
Both former Attorney General Sir Lawrence Joseph and former Senator Arley Gill publicly supported the project, citing it as in the nation’s interest, framing the matter as a choice between “preservation or development”, and appealing to the public to avoid letting “emotionalism” hold sway.28 Both writers, lawyers by profession, failed to make reference to environmental law and parks law in Grenada. There was no discussion of the function of parks or the
Consultations continued between the developer and various interest groups across Grenada, including civil society and the private sector.30 During this time, the Park continued to be used by the public. A petition to save the Park drew 15,000 signatures, a not insignificant figure on a small island.
The issue became increasingly politicized when the Opposition Party took up the mantle. A town hall meeting was held,31 locally and within the diaspora, as meetings were held in Brooklyn, New York on 13th March 2016.32 There was an “Occupy Camerhogne Park” sit-in demonstration. A “Save Camerhogne Park” committee was established and a “People’s resolution” prepared in January 2018, which was disseminated to political parties throughout the nation for signing as evidence of commitment to protecting the Park for recreational use for future generations.33 The title is “Protect Camerhogne Park in perpetuity: People’s Resolution, January 31st, 2018.” The committee therefore references the people of Grenada as the authority to publish the resolution, and focuses on the long-term preservation of the Park, “in perpetuity”, which imports the concepts of inheritance and heritage.
The Camerhogne Park resolution documents the conflict concerning Camerhogne Park and the concerns of the interested parties. The resolution situates the conflict within the historic and environmental context. Prime Minister Mitchell’s speech is referenced, in which he announced a new park would be developed by the investors. Environmental threats such as climate change are mentioned, including their particular threats for small-island developing states such as Grenada, and their coastal vulnerabilities. The resolution highlights the purpose of the Park as the solution to conflicting uses,
The resolution makes reference to the Constitution of Grenada, the highest law of the land, which protects the rights of its citizens to own property; that the Government of Grenada has a responsibility to protect the national assets and national patrimony (though not a term in the common law) for the use and enjoyment of its citizens now and in the future. However, in referring to Camerhogne Park and Grand Anse beach as forming part of the “patrimony” of Grenada, the resolution is using a term charged with meaning, for it connotes property inherited from one’s ancestors, not inappropriate given that the Park’s name, Camerhogne, can be taken to mean “Ancestral” Grenada. The resolution concludes with an appeal for signature as evidence of the “irrevocable commitment to protect and preserve, in perpetuity, Camerhogne Park, at its current location as public green space for the use and enjoyment of the people of Grenada”.34 The Government did not sign the resolution.
Nevertheless, the public occupation of the Camerhogne Park space, and resorting to quasi-legal means through the establishment of the committee and its resolutions, are evidence of a public position. The community saw the Park as a public space that was important to their identity and their well-being. The government ignored or was unaware of the significance of the Park to serve both tourists and residents, believing it to be a politicized issue on the part of the opposition, and appealing instead to the nation’s need for development and growth via the foreign revenue injection that a new high-end resort would offer. But residents viewed the Park as an established public space for all to use, regardless of the lack of formal designation.
3.5 Discussion: Virtual Enclosure and Spatial Injustice in Camerhogne Park
The spatial logic of virtual enclosure is based on much older ideas of land as property and landscape as scenery, and this can lead to spatial injustice. As Olwig notes, virtual enclosure extinguishes the commons, creating a shift not just physically with the spatial definition of land as property35 but psychologically in the way land is comprehended, accompanied by the rise of
The idea that space is a result of the struggle between different spatial definitions which co-exist and challenge one another can be linked to the concept of spatial justice that Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos has explained as requiring withdrawal.
The multifunctionality of parks is an inherent characteristic of socially constructed and contested spaces.42 Peter Bengsten notes that giving priority to certain groups is a way to minimize the claims of others.43 The physical characteristics of a park are also reflective of the people’s desires, normativities and agency, as well as legal structures. Practically speaking, another park could have been designated, but the historical and cultural use of Camerhogne Park was ignored. Its removal can be seen as an attempt to establish a space in law through the formal sale to the resort developers.44
The government reserved the right to define the space of the Park, yet this was contested by the public. The government therefore retreated from its claim, and this “radical gesture of withdrawal”45 is in fact evidence of spatial justice. The presence or absence of regulation does not lead to spatial justice necessarily.46 Although the Park was never legally designated, this is
Spatial justice is thus a process which is evident when spatial definitions continuously alternate between a dominant and more subordinate position. Public contesting of the government’s definition of Camerhogne Park took place over a three-year period. People can reclaim the right to define space, and there is ample evidence of Grenadians occupying and using the Park. Examples of space occupation include watching movies and yoga, using the Park daily, along with the more obvious demonstrations within the park such as the sit-in.48
Thus, particular spatial definitions have been established that complement each other. This is evidence of the existence of a type of commons, because the commons tend to be contested places where differences must be worked out in the common interest.49 Prime Minister Mitchell’s statements about moving the Park can be taken as a bid to marginalize, inhibit, shift by subtle means of disciplining, the approved spatial definitions of Camerhogne Park. His appeals to national development and the vaunted attractiveness of the new space are evidence of this. Although it was not a visible power play by the authorities, nevertheless, the aim was to establish a particular space, which is detrimental to spatial justice.50 The letters of the former Attorney-general and a former Senator calling for relocation of the Park “in the national interest”, strengthened the Government’s stance. It was clear which user was being given priority:51 the wealthy foreign party, in a country with a history of foreign exclusive ownership of land (the approved spatial definition of land).
Through the dissolution of a national park, the Government was engaging in virtual enclosure; enclosing land understood as visual space52 rather than landscape. Spatial justice – access to space – is dependent upon the historical settings and ideological contexts in which the institutions controlling national park management have evolved. The conservation framework is directly related
While there is parks and protected areas legislation, park governance is underpinned by the colonial institutional framework, which fails to consider the needs of local communities, and their relationship to these resources. Such legislation can only do so much because it was never intended to meet a diversity of needs– parks and protected areas are frozen in time, while landscapes are dynamic and reflect the community relationship with natural resources. The failure to allocate roles and responsibilities to manage heritage resources reflects the bewilderment on the part of the authorities in identifying and recognizing heritage as a resource necessary for the sustainable development of small island states. The result is a clash between two different cultural views of conservation, outdoor recreation and access rights, representing the government and the public.53 Even if it had been invoked, parks law provides no alternate definition of public space and can offer no challenge to private property as the fixed spatial definition of land.
Deborah Martin and Alexander Scherr have noted the ways that legal frameworks, particularly those governing the use of public space, work to shape landscapes by restricting access to space for some people. Through a focus on public safety, these laws essentially render public space accessible only to some persons; those who already enjoy full access to and benefits of private spaces (such as homes, restaurants and the like) through their economic standing. Thus, ‘public space’ becomes exclusionary rather than a common ground for all persons, and the landscapes of public spaces are to some degree ‘cleansed’ of social difference.54 This recalls the Government’s public safety justification for relocating the Park.
Restricting public space eventually leads to virtual enclosure. Space then becomes accessible only to the wealthiest (the user group most likely able to afford to enter the area) and the multiplicity of spatial definitions are lost. The Government ignored or minimized usage, practice and tradition when it proposed new park space. The purported sale of Camerhogne Park is not a regulatory way of restoring spatial justice; rather, it is completely preventing a recreational space, by establishing boundaries in public space, and excluding the public. This is law reducing space to a controlled context.55 Eliminating the space impedes the activities of the public, and the Government’s offer of an
4 Conclusion: Camerhogne Park and the Roles of Landscape and Spatial Justice in Heritage Protection
Access to land is an important matter in the small island ex-colonies of the Caribbean. There is a long and layered history of imperial land use which was predisposed to devalue heritage as enclosure of land enabled the erasure of local communities. Spaces have thus been contested since the first inhabitants were displaced. Parks as modern symbolic commons are seen as important for community expression, not for exclusive use but common spaces with a multiplicity of uses. In the Camerhogne Park example, this range of communal interests was perceived as under threat, in order to make space specifically for foreigners.
This local understanding of parks diverges from the formal legal definition. Parks as legal conservation mechanisms in the Caribbean originally evolved out of the severing of the cultural functions of the living landscape and the socially regulated resources typical of the commons that pre-dated colonialism. Separating humanity from nature gave rise to the conservation ethos of detachment and separation central to the establishment and management of parks.57 While there are attempts globally to embrace the new conservation philosophy with a strong focus on human rights, linking conservation efforts to the broader agenda of sustainable land use through equity and environmental justice, there is still a failure in domestic law to centre local communities in the protection of heritage resources. Parks law’s foundations are eco-imperialist, advocating conservation in the most exclusive sense.
Recognition of place specificity alongside historical contexts, that these are former slave colonies on small island masses, with communities who traditionally have had limited access to heritage resources, is therefore important to the realization of justice.58 Identifying spatially unjust approaches to
The view of nature as blind to or separate from the existence of landscapes became embodied in the purpose of national park management. The law espouses principles wholly unconnected with the geographic location, making it unresponsive to the needs of local communities. This is symptomatic of a wider framework that enables state controlled commons to be governed by centralized institutions with top down management structures that ignore local communities or regard them as the problem.59 As Dahlberg writes, “attempts at change are often met with official resistance or lose out in competition with market forces aimed at increasing tourist access, tourists being perceived as less harmful to environment than land use custom of local communities.”60 In the Camerhogne Park example, this explains why the Park is managed and maintained by the Tourism authorities and local usage was ignored when an opportunity for a sale presented itself.
The ideological and institutional legacy surrounding the conceptualization of contemporary national park policy can wield a pervasive influence where private interests clash with the priorities of local communities.61 In this case, the blueprint for slave colonies in the Caribbean entrenches eco-imperialist institutions that are hard pressed to recognize local community customs, when they were originally designed to expunge them. These institutions therefore offer no protection to the landscapes upon which heritage communities rely for their existence, because parks are not communal expressions of diverse interests; rather, they are spaces created in law and policy that can be dissolved and recreated at will once they complement private property interests. There are no barriers to the increasing privatization of public space, which marginalizes community interests, erases local custom and extinguishes landscape in the name of development, thereby recreating the conditions for the attrition and ultimate destruction of heritage. Place-protective activities in the form of community protests as seen in Camerhogne Park thus offer the only mechanism to defend park access, use and definition, and by extension secure heritage protection where the law has not been localized.
A Dahlberg, R Rohde and K Sandell, ‘National Parks and Environmental Justice: Comparing Access Rights and Ideological Legacies in Three Countries’ (2010) 8 Conservation and Society 209, 211 quoting Kenneth Olwig, ‘Landscape, Law and Justice: Commons and Landscape’ (Proceedings from a workshop on old and new commons, Uppsala, March 2003). This research has received funding from the ERC under the EU’s Horizon2020 research and innovation programme, grant agreement no. 853514.
Ibid., 211.
Ibid.
R Drayton, ‘Imperial Science and a Scientific Empire: Kew Gardens and the Uses of Nature, 1772–1903’ (DPhil thesis, Yale University 1993), 442. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (umi No. 9331310).
R Grove, Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600–1860 (cup 2005) and see R Drayton, Nature’s Government: Science, Imperial Britain, and the ‘Improvement’ of the World (Yale University Press 2000).
K Olwig, ‘Virtual Enclosure, Ecosystem Services, Landscape’s Character and the ‘Rewilding’ of the Commons: The ‘Lake District’ Case’ (2016) 41 Landscape Research 253, 253.
Ibid.
Ibid.
J Beattie, E Melillo, and E O’Gorman, ‘Introduction’ in J Beattie, E Melillo, and E O’Gorman (eds) Cultural Networks and the British Empire (Bloomsbury 2014), 15.
W Beinart and L Hughes. Environment and Empire (oup 2009), 289.
Ibid., 289.
B Richardson, I Mgbeoji, and F Botchway, ‘Environmental law in Post-colonial Societies: Aspirations, Achievements and Limitations’ in B J Richardson and S Wood (eds) Environmental Law for Sustainability (Hart Publishing 2006), 415.
Ibid., 416.
JA Martin, A-Z of Grenada Heritage (Macmillan Caribbean 2007).
Interview with Mr Michael Jessamy, Heritage Officer, Ministry of Tourism, Civil Aviation and Culture, Government of Grenada (St George’s, 5 November 2016).
J A Hanna, ‘The Status of Grenada’s Prehistoric Sites: Report on the 2016 Survey and an Inventory of Known Sites’ (2007). Manuscript on file at the Grenada National Museum and Ministry of Tourism, Botanical Gardens, Grenada.
L Taylor, ‘Leave Camerhogne Park Alone’ (New Today, 23 December 2015, letter to the editor). On file with the author. On traditional use of beach areas during the colonial period, see C Toppin-Allahar, ‘“De Beach Belong to We!” Socio-economic Disparity and Islanders’ Rights of Access to the Coast in a Tourist Paradise’ (2015) 5 Oñati Socio-legal Series 298, 302–303.
‘The Save Camerhogne Park Committee finalises resolution for signing by political parties’ (Now Grenada, 11 January 2018) <
Dahlberg, Rohde and Sandell (n 1), 220; CM Hall and W Frost, ‘The Future of the National Park Concept’ in W Frost and CM Hall (eds), Tourism and National Parks: International Perspectives on Development, Histories and Change (Routledge 2009), 307.
L Straker, ‘Camerhogne Park to be relocated’, (Now Grenada, 6 January, 2016) <
Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, ‘Grenada Protected Areas System Plan Part 1: Identification and Designation of Protected Areas’ (July 2009) <
‘No decision on Camerhogne Park’ (Now Grenada, 13 January 2016) <
‘Government to work along with Critics on Camerhogne Park’ (Now Grenada, 15 January 2016)
Sir L Joseph, ‘Camerhogne Park and the national interest’ (Now Grenada, 7 March 2016) <
A Gill, ‘Relocate park and build hotel’ (Now Grenada, 14 March 2016) <
‘Government consultations on Camerhogne Park’ (Now Grenada, 5 March 2016) <
‘Town Hall meeting for Camerhogne Park’ (Now Grenada, 16th January 2016) <
‘Camerhogne Debate reaches Brooklyn’ (Now Grenada, 17th March 2016)
See Camerhogne Park final resolution dated January 10th, 2018: ‘The Save Camerhogne Park Committee Finalises Resolution for Signing by Political Parties’ (Now Grenada, 11 January 2018) <
‘People’s Resolution: Protect Camerhogne Park in perpetuity’ (The Save Camerhogne Park Committee, 31 January 2018) <
Ibid., 254.
Ibid., 258.
A Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos ‘Spatial Justice: Law and the Geography of Withdrawal’ (2010) 6 Intl J of L in Context 201, 202.
A Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos ‘Law’s Spatial Turn: Geography, Justice and a Certain Fear of Space’ (2011) 7 L, Culture and the Humanities 187, 199.
Ibid., 201.
P Bengsten, ‘Just Gardens? On the Struggle for Space and Spatial Justice’ (2013) 39 Australian Feminist L J 79, 81.
Dahlberg, Rohde and Sandell (n 1), 220, quoting CM Hall and W Frost, ‘Introduction: The Making of the National Parks Concept’ in CM Hall and W Frost (eds), Tourism and national parks: International perspectives on development, histories and change (Routledge 2009).
Ibid., 81.
Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, ‘Spatial Justice: Law and the Geography of Withdrawal’ (n 38) 201, 202.
Ibid., 92.
K Olwig, Landscape, Nature and the Body Politic: From Britain’s Renaissance to America’s New World (University of Wisconsin Press 2010), 224.
Ibid., 89.
Ibid., 90.
D G Martin, and A Scherr, ‘Lawyering Landscapes: Lawyers as Constituents of Landscapes’ (2005) 30 Landscape Research 379, 380–81.
Ibid.
Ibid., 219.
Ibid., 220.