© W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2014 DOI 10.1179/1465518714Z.00000000072

public archaeology, Vol. 13 Nos 1–3, 2014, 278–87

Sustainable Preservation: Creating

Entrepreneurs, Opportunities, and

Measurable Results

Lawrence S. Coben

Sustainable Preservation Initiative, USA

In recent years terms such as ‘community’, ‘local’, ‘economic development’, and ‘sustainability’ have featured prominently in the discourse of preserva-tion. Yet we have seen little evidence of the successful application of these concepts as most organizations have published broad, vague missives about economic potential and community benefi t rather than providing meaningful measures of their results and avoiding discussion of their failures. What are the measures of successful preservation and economic development, and what are the ‘returns’ both tangible and intangible, of these types of projects? In this paper, I discuss the nature of the prevailing discourse and some potential metrics for measuring success, and then apply these metrics to projects of the Sustainable Preservation Initiative.

keywords archaeology, economic development, sustainability, community,

metrics

Introduction

In recent years, terms such as ‘community-based’, ‘local’, ‘economic development’,

and ‘sustainability’ have featured prominently in the discourse of cultural heritage

preservation. Numerous organizations claim to be initiating and implementing

projects utilizing these concepts, providing vague anecdotal evidence and unsupporte d

claims of the successful application of these notions. Most organizations, to the

extent that they have disclosed any information at all, have published broad, vague

missives about economic potential and community benefi t rather than providing

meaningful measures of their results or discussing failures. Indeed, many of these

projects, whatever their merits, appear not to be ‘community-based’ and ‘sustainable’,

nor do they constitute ‘economic development’.

In this paper, I will discuss briefl y what constitutes community-based sustainable

economic development, and discuss its application in existing preservation paradigms

and programmes. I will then discuss potential metrics of project success, both

279SUSTAINABLE PRESERVATION

economically and from a preservation perspective. Lastly, I will apply these metrics

to evaluate projects of the Sustainable Preservation Initiative (SPI). I will avoid the

debate between the relative merits of top-down versus community-based approaches

to economic development (for a discussion of these alternatives, see Ostrom, 1990;

2009). While I am a strong proponent of the latter, I will not address this issue here,

but rather demonstrate the effi cacy of a community-based approach through a case

study of SPI’s San Jose de Moro project in Peru.

Discussion of key terms

CommunityWhile there are numerous and expansive defi nitions of community (see, for example,

Anderson, 1991; Gumperz, 2009), for the purposes of this paper community refers to

those people residing in the vicinity of a cultural heritage asset who have the potential

to be affected by economic development activity at or near that asset. These residents

frequently, though not always, are members of a similar political subdivision, such

as a village or town. They may, though need not, be culturally homogenous or have

ethnic or economic ties.

For economic development to be community-based, a portion of the economic

benefi ts of such development must accrue to the local community. For example, an

archaeological site where tourists are bussed in from another town, visit a site and

leave, and are guided by someone not living in the community may constitute

economic activity, but, since no money or jobs are being created in the immediate

locality of the site, it would not constitute community-based development.

Ideally, community-based development will include a strong element of local

control as to the nature and scale of economic development. Much recent research by

scholars such as Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom (1990; 2009) demonstrates that

bottom-up, locally formulated solutions to resource exploitation issues are optimal

and more effi cacious than those imposed from outside the community. I shall return

to this point later in this paper.

Economic developmentAccording to the World Bank, local economic development ‘is a process by which

public, business and nongovernmental sector partners work collectively to create

better conditions for economic growth and employment generation’. Its purpose is ‘to

build up the economic capacity of a local area to improve its economic future and

the quality of life for all’ (World Bank, 2011; see also Fleming, this volume).

In addition to these broad goals, at least two others must be added with respect to

cultural heritage preservation. First, such development must not destroy or materi-

ally diminish cultural heritage, and ideally will provide economic and social incentives

to preserve it. In other words, economic development will contribute to the sustain-

ability of cultural heritage, where sustainability is defi ned as balancing the current

exploitation of such heritage while preserving its availability and potential for use by

future generations. Second, given the dearth of funding available for cultural heritage

preservation, such development must ultimately result in businesses and other

economic activity that is self-sustaining and not perpetually dependent upon grants

280 LAWRENCE S. COBEN

or other funding from governmental or non-governmental sources — that is,

economically sustainable.

SustainabilityThe term ‘sustainability’ has multiple meanings and uses in relation to cultural

heritage (Coben, 2014). Most frequently, the term is employed in conjunction with

or as part of such concepts as sustainable preservation, sustainable development,

or sustainable tourism, though these concepts in practice overlap and are closely

intertwined. These concepts of sustainability derive from and grow out of the World

Commission on Environment and Development (also known as the Brundtland

Commission’s 1987 report, ‘Our Common Future’). That report defi ned sustainable

development as ‘development which meets the needs of the present without compro-

mising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Brundtland, 1987:

54). This defi nition, while vague, called attention to the problem of over-exploitation

and damage of natural resources in the pursuit of economic development, and implic-

itly called for the practice of forms of economic development that better utilize and

leave adequate natural resources for future generations. Sustainable development thus

merges perpetual economic growth with the maintenance and enhancement of envi-

ronmental values, thereby providing suffi cient resources for both current and future

economic development (Throsby, 2002). Sustainability seeks to balance the demand

for development from private and governmental actors with the maintenance of con-

ditions necessary for the preservation of the natural environment, or in the cultural

heritage context, the physical and landscape features of archaeological and historic

sites (Murphy, 1985).

The Brundtland Commission’s discussion of sustainability also included social and

economic responsibility as important components of sustainable development, though

in many discussions these components played a secondary role to the environmental

one. Some projects do incorporate these notions with respect to cultural heritage

management, strongly considering and incorporating the rights and interests of

indigenous and local people (Richards & Hall, 2000).

Sustainable development in cultural heritage

In the latter part of the twentieth and early part of the twenty-fi rst century, scholars

and governments began to consider and apply a modifi ed concept of sustainable

development to cultural heritage (see, for example, Endresen, 1999; MacDonald,

2004). At times referred to as sustainable preservation, this discussion of sustainabil-

ity has followed two distinct though related paths: fi rst, the environmental and

energy conservation benefi ts of the preservation and reuse of historic structures, and

second, the potential economic and social benefi ts of the development of cultural

heritage sites as touristic attractions or other drivers of economic development

(Coben, 2014).

Recognizing the potential to create jobs and revenues through tourism and preser-

vation (and in a few cases the increasing destruction of heritage sites from other forms

of economic development), governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),

and heritage practitioners have begun to consider the potential of cultural heritage as

281SUSTAINABLE PRESERVATION

a driver of economic activity and poverty alleviation. The World Bank has described

its evolving approach toward cultural heritage as one that begins with ‘do not harm’,

avoiding damaging cultural heritage while implementing other projects (1970–80), to

‘specifi c intervention’, investing in particular sites to develop tourism (1980–2000), to

the current ‘integrated approach’ that integrates cultural heritage in local economic

development with a focus on historic cities rehabilitation and sustainable tourism

(Sierra, 2009: 7). The InterAmerican Development Bank’s approach has followed a

similar arc (Endresen, 1999).

This evolving method expands the focus of development projects from a particular

site to include the community that surrounds it. Most of the World Bank’s and sim-

ilar earlier projects fall under the rubric of preservation projects designed primarily

to conserve, protect, and regulate access to and use of a site. The later ‘integrated

approach’ places these sites in a broader context of community-based economic

development, with an important if not primary purpose of the use of a site to benefi t

surrounding communities, with preservation necessary in order to permit continued

economic exploitation. Many of these World Bank and similar sustainable economic

development projects state that one of their goals is sustaining or conserving cultural

heritage assets, allowing their use while preserving them for future generations. In

addition to the environmental and cultural benefi ts from preservation and potential

reuse of historical structures, other potential benefi ts include the creation of jobs,

increased retail and handicraft sales and ancillary revenues, serving as a catalyst for

local and regional development, the rejuvenation of declining towns and neighbour-

hoods, gender inclusiveness, and a greater sense of cultural identity for local

communities.

The current preservation paradigm

Current preservation paradigms that focus on the conservation of an archaeological

site alone, while laudable, are not community-based sustainable economic develop-

ment. Conservation projects generally produce economic activity that is limited

temporally to the duration of the actual work (e.g. wages for workers, local accom-

modation, meals, etc.) and wholly dependent upon the continued provision of exter-

nal funding sources. These projects require the employment of signifi cant numbers of

experts who do not reside within the community, and any local jobs are temporary

in nature. Even if local conservators are trained, these trainees will work only as long

as outside funding is present, and will not be able to employ their newly acquired

skill in the absence of continued grants or support. Similarly, projects that focus on

site protection through such methods such as legal property demarcation, fencing,

and hiring of security guards, while helpful, do not constitute sustainable economic

development. While conservation and protection may be an element of a plan of

community-based economic development, there is no evidence that on their own

they inspire or catalyse such activity, in spite of the claims of their proponents to the

contrary.

Moreover, the control of almost all of the projects employing such current preser-

vation paradigms lies either with governmental entities or funding NGOs, leaving

local communities dependent on their continued support and without the means

to manage and preserve their sites themselves. These current paradigms also fail to

282 LAWRENCE S. COBEN

provide an economic incentive for local communities to continue preserving sites after

the departure of archaeologists and conservators. The greatest threats to cultural

heritage and archaeological sites are alternative economic uses that are destructive,

including looting, agricultural development, grazing, and residential and commercial

uses. In the absence of some form of local economic activity, all of these uses are

economically superior uses of the archaeological site to that of maintaining and

conserving them. And the issue is not solely an economic one: how can we tell an

underprivileged person not to economically exploit a site to feed their family, even if

that exploitation is destroying the site, without providing a viable economic alterna-

tive? Can we provide an opportunity that provides income to that person while

simultaneously preserving cultural heritage?

The Sustainable Preservation Initiative (SPI) paradigm

SPI seeks to create a new paradigm to answer these questions. SPI preserves cultural

heritage by providing sustainable economic opportunities to poor communities where

endangered archaeological sites are located. SPI believes the best way to preserve

cultural heritage is creating or supporting locally owned businesses whose success is

tied to that preservation, and the Initiative’s grants provide a two for the price of one

benefi t: they create transformative economic opportunities for the local residents

while saving archaeological sites for future generations to study and enjoy.

SPI exploits the rapid expansion of extreme tourism and globalization, which has

created an enormous potential for locally based tourism and artisan businesses. Even

small local economic benefi ts from these sources can compete successfully against

looting and destructive alternative uses of sites. In addition, the creation of local busi-

nesses with a vested interest in the preservation and maintenance of a site provides

an ongoing and long-term source of incentive and funding for site preservation, as

well as all of the benefi ts normally associated with economic development in poor

communities.

SPI works with community and government leaders, local business people, archae-

ologists, and preservationists. SPI helps create plans for projects and businesses that

will be locally owned and that maximize the spending of money in the communities

surrounding archaeological sites. Through microlenders, charitable organizations,

and other sources of funding, SPI provides small grants to existing or start-up busi-

nesses such as tourism, tour-guides, restaurants, hostels, transportation, artisans, site

museums, and other rapidly implementable projects. Through this combination of

local involvement, decision-making, and ownership, sustainable economic benefi ts

and value will be related to and conditioned upon continued site preservation.

These businesses will also provide an ongoing revenue stream to meet preservation

and other local needs. This paradigm provides a double benefi t: every dollar spent

on economic development and the improvement of local people’s lives will also

contribute to preserving a portion of the world’s cultural heritage.

SPI’s investment paradigm differs dramatically from most other organizations

dealing with preservation. SPI places greater focus on sustainable economic and

social investment as opposed to a conservation-only focus. SPI invests in and advises

on locally owned and controlled businesses whose success is tied to the continued

283SUSTAINABLE PRESERVATION

preservation and sustainable management of local archaeological sites. These busi-

nesses will all have an excellent chance of economic success, thereby creating a local

constituent group whose economic interest is aligned with site preservation. SPI

favours investments that create or stimulate a cluster of businesses, increasing

the multiplier effect of its dollars, the economic benefi ts to the community, and the

attraction of additional investors and funding (see SPI, 2014, for a full list of the

Initiative’s current projects).

The archaeological research associated with a project will generally be taking place

locally, so that an ‘embedded archaeologist’ with strong knowledge of local commu-

nity power structures is available to advise SPI with respect to the selection of

entrepreneurs and ownership structures. These projects must have strong community

support — SPI must be wanted (!) — and a contribution of local funding, resources,

or in-kind labour and services is expected. Consistent with its focus on ‘people

not stones’, SPI will not fund conservation, except as incident to enhancing the

businesses described above. For example, SPI might fund a small amount of conserva-

tion in order to enhance a site’s touristic experience. In no event will SPI fund a

project where more than 20 per cent of the requested proceeds will be utilized for

conservation.

Metrics

Measurement of the economic impact of sustainable development has been described

as ‘nebulous’ due to the diffi culties of data collection (Rypkema & Chong, 2011: 754)

and data has been described as ‘hard to come by’ (Silberman, 2011: 48). All projects

receiving funding from SPI must collect quantitative and qualitative data regarding

both business and preservation results. Every SPI project must have discernible

methods of evaluation in both of these areas. Economic metrics include:

• jobs created

• revenue generated

• profi tability

• additional economic activity generated

• tourist visits stimulated.

Preservation metrics will include:

• site deterioration

• absence or reduction of destructive activities at a site (e.g. agricultural activities,

grazing, and looting)

• encroachments (if any) on a site’s boundaries

• preservation measures taken by the local community in order to preserve their

‘asset’.

SPI utilizes this data to measure the success of ongoing projects as well as to modify

and improve its investment paradigm and criteria for future investments. SPI also

publishes its data so that others can learn from and comment upon its successes and

failures (see SPI, 2014).

284 LAWRENCE S. COBEN

Case study: San Jose de Moro, Peru

Located near the northern coast of Peru, San Jose de Moro’s archaeological excava-

tions have yielded a treasure trove of archaeological artefacts and information.

The site is one of the most important ceremonial centres of the Mochica culture and

subsequent cultures. The San José de Moro Archaeological Program (SJMAP) began

in 1991 and is directed by Luis Jaime Castillo, professor at Pontifi cia Universidad

Católica del Peru (PUCP) in Lima. SJMAP’s excavations at the Moro site have

revealed one of the largest and most complex cemeteries and ceremonial centres

used consecutively by hundreds of civilizations such as the Moche, Lambayeque, and

Chimú. Hundreds of burials, some of them quite complex, have been excavated at

the site since 1991, showing that Moro was for a long period of time one of the most

important ritual centres for the north coast civilizations. Some of the most signifi cant

fi nds have been seven chamber burials containing the remains of elite Moche Priest-

esses, and, associated with them, a large assemblage of ceramics, including several

remarkable late Moche fi neline ceramics (see SJMAP, 2009). However, while the

cultural heritage of San Jose de Moro is rich, the local community is a poor one. The

average daily wage, even when work is available, is just US$9.50 per day.

The role of SPIDr Castillo and his team had attempted to implement community development pro-

grammes alongside their excavations. They tried all of the classical non-sustainable

paradigms to preserve the site and help the local community such as conservation,

education, and small modular museums. Yet by his own admission none of these were

effective, either in preserving the site or benefi ting the community in a sustainable

way. According to Dr Castillo, ‘For years we were doing little contributions to the

towns, schools, and to some pressing need, but we could never focus on a long term

and sustainable effort that was both different from and integrated with the values and

goals of the project’ (L. J. Castillo, pers. comm., 2012). He realized a sustainable

economic-based paradigm was required, and applied for a grant to SPI.

In March 2010, SPI awarded a US$40,000 grant for artisanal and touristic develop-

ment around the site of San José de Moro. The development plan featured a visitor

centre, incorporating a crafts workshop and training centre for young local craftsper-

sons, a store, and an exhibition area. Tourists are able to witness artisans producing

their wares as well as purchase the fi nished artisanal products. The workshop

includes training for additional local artisans and provides tourists with the unprec-

edented opportunity to participate in the ceramic-making process. Adjacent to the

exhibition centre are a picnic and rest area, small snack bar, and toilet facilities, also

constructed with the SPI grant. A new entrance to the site, replete with Moche motifs

and colours, was created and painted. Peruvian archaeologists and residents of San

Jose de Moro prepared a guidebook and brochure for the site, with the former being

available for sale and the latter being given free to visitors. Peruvian archaeologists

also trained local guides.

Julio Ibarrola, a ceramicist renowned for his replicas of late Moche fi neline ceram-

ics like those excavated at the Moro site, and Eloy Uriarte, a blacksmith specializing

in archaeological tools and implements, direct the workshop and train new artisans.

Both men are lifelong residents of San Jose de Moro, and the project has enabled

them to utilize their artisan skills and entrepreneurial talents.

285SUSTAINABLE PRESERVATION

Outcomes of the SPI paradigm

Initial job creationThis project has created to date twelve direct permanent jobs for local artisans that

provide sustainable income to the community, and an additional twenty temporary

jobs that were created for the six-month construction period of the workshop and

tourist centre. Felix Salmon, a fi nancial columnist for Reuters, took note of this

effi cient level of job creation, calling it ‘impressive’. According to Salmon (2010), as

with SPI projects, ‘if you want to create the maximum number of jobs for the small-

est amount of money, the best way of doing so is to provide catalytic capital which

helps to give a small business the step-up it needs to sustain new jobs on a permanent

basis’.

New tourist visitsPrior to the SPI project, almost all of the visitors to San Jose de Moro were local

Peruvians, school children, and the occasional foreign tourist who was well read in

archaeology. The new centre and project has attracted visitors and buses from sev-

eral international and foreign tour companies, many of which are now incorporating

San Jose de Moro into their regular itineraries. The exact increase is unknown, as

inadequate data on visitation is captured at the site, as there is no charge for admis-

sion, and no data was collected before the project began. However, these tourists

spend signifi cantly, as described below.

RevenuesPrior to the SPI projects, sales for local artisans amounted to roughly US$295 in 2010.

Sales at the visitors’ centre in 2011 reached US$5100, while US$2000 in sales occurred

on a single day in July 2011 to an affl uent fi fty-person tour group. Unfortunately, this

sales volume, unexpected by the local artisans, depleted their inventory, leaving little

for subsequent tour groups and resulting in missed sales opportunities. The artisans

have learned from this experience and it is unlikely to be repeated in the future.

Ceramic replicas by Moro artisans have recently begun to be sold at the Museum of

Art (Museo del Arte) in Lima and online through NOVICA — a website specializing

in community artisan crafts — creating additional revenue opportunities. In 2012,

revenues for SPI-supported entrepreneurs have more than doubled, totalling more

than US$11,000 through November of that year. Each artisan retains 80 per cent of

the sale proceeds of his or her work, while the remaining 20 per cent is placed into a

common fund for materials, maintaining the workshop, and other costs. The artisans

themselves determine the level of retention.

Additional economic benefi ts of the projectSPI’s initial investment has inspired additional economic activity to serve tourists

visiting the site:

• A non-SPI sponsored ceramic replica stand in competition with ours was

established just outside the site’s borders.

• Seven local women are now serving traditional lunches in their homes for

tourists and other visitors. These women reported to SPI that these activities

generated US$2530 in 2012.

286 LAWRENCE S. COBEN

• Three local women artisans are selling textiles in the visitor’s centre.

• Two new small snack bars (for a total of three in the town) have opened to

serve tourists.

PreservationLocal residents now view the site as a valuable economic asset, and the key to sustain-

able community income, a sea change from its prior attitudes ranging from diffi dence

to hostility (L. J. Castillo, pers. comm., 2012). Destructive practices, such as looting

and encroachment from economic development, have come to a halt. Local offi cials

are recognizing the economic potential not just of San Jose de Moro, but the entire

cultural heritage in the area. The municipality of Chepen (where San Jose de Moro

is located) is paying for and installing a new entrance and signage on the Pan-

American Highway as well as for the publication of additional Moro guidebooks for

use by their newly reconstituted tourism board and in their schools. Further, the

Mayor of Chepen recently visited the nearby site of Cerro Chepen with police to

denounce incursions and eject interlopers trying to grow crops on that site, an

unprecedented act by a municipal offi cial that acknowledges the vast potential

economic value of the region’s cultural heritage.

Conclusion

This paper demonstrates the potential benefi ts of true community-based, sustainable

economic development. For many cultural heritage sites, this approach represents the

best way to both improve the lives of impoverished people as well to preserve those

sites for future generations. This paper also sets forth key metrics to evaluate these

types of projects, and demonstrates that it is possible to collect the data necessary to

judge both the economic and other results of a particular grant or investment. All

archaeological preservation projects should be similarly evaluated.

BibliographyAnderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities: Refl ections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York:

Verso.

Brundtland, G. (Chairman). 1987. Our Common Future. In: Report of the World Commission on Environment

and Development [accessed 10 January 2014]. Available at: <http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-

future.pdf>.

Coben, L. 2014. Sustainability and Cultural Heritage. In: C. Smith. ed. Encylopedia of Global Archaeology. New

York: Springer.

Endresen, K. 1999. Sustainable Tourism and Cultural Heritage: A Review of Development Assistance and Its

Potential to Promote Sustainability [accessed 9 May 2014]. Available at: <http://www.nwhf.no/fi les/File/

culture_fulltext.pdf>.

Gumperz, J. 2009. The Speech Community. In: A. Duranti. ed. Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Malden, UK:

Blackwell, pp. 66–73.

MacDonald, S. 2004. Heritage and Sustainability, A Discussion Paper [accessed 9 May 2014]. Available at: <http://

www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/research/sustainability.pdf>.

Murphy, P. 1985. Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science,

325(24): 419–22.

287SUSTAINABLE PRESERVATION

Richards, G. & Hall, D. 2000. The Community: A Sustainable Concept in Tourism Development? In: G. Richards

and D. Hall, eds. Tourism & Sustainable Community Development. London: Routledge.

Rypkema, D. & Cheong, C. 2011. Measurements and Indicators of Heritage as Development. In: ICOMOS.

Heritage, a Driver of Development, Proceedings of the 17th ICOMOS General Assembly Symposium [accessed

9 May 2014]. Available at: <http://www.icomos.org/en/component/content/article?catid=157&id=477>.

Salmon, F. 2010. Job Creation Datapoints of the Day. Reuters [online] [accessed 8 March 2010]. Available at:

<http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/08/job-creation-datapoints-of-the-day>.

San Jose de Moro Archaeological Program (SJMAP). 2009. Excavations [accessed 4 April 2014]. Available at:

<http://sanjosedemoro.pucp.edu.pe/02english/01excavaciones.html>.

Sierra, K. 2009. Leveraging Cultural Heritage Assets for Local Economic Development [accessed 9 May 2014].

Available at: <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCHD/Resources/430063-1250192845352/LeveragingCHAs

setsforLED_KSAnnualMeetOct12009.pdf>.

Silberman, N. 2011. Heritage as a Driver of Development? Some Questions of Cause and Effect. In: ICOMOS.

Heritage, a Driver of Development, Proceedings of the 17th ICOMOS General Assembly Symposium [accessed

9 May 2014]. Available at: <http://www.icomos.org/en/component/content/article?catid=157&id=477>.

Sustainable Preservation Initiative (SPI). 2014. Projects [accessed 6 April 2014]. Available at: <http://sustainablep

reservation.org/project>.

Throsby, D. 2002. Cultural Capital and Sustainability Concepts in the Economics of Cultural Heritage. In: M. de

la Torre, ed. Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, pp. 101–17.

World Bank. 2011. What is Local Economic Development (LED)? [accessed 4 April 2014]. Available at: <http://

go.worldbank.org/EA784ZB3F0>.

Notes on contributor

Lawrence Coben is the founder and Executive Director of the Sustainable Preserva-

tion Initiative (SPI). Coben is also an archaeologist and Consulting Scholar at the

University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. He co-

authored the seminal volume Archaeology of Performance: Theater, Power and Com-

munity, a study of the importance and use of theatrical performance at public events,

rituals, and spectacles in ancient societies. He has written numerous articles on

the Inca, empires, and cultural heritage, among other subjects. He has directed or

participated in projects in Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala, Ecuador, and Jordan (Petra).

Coben has started and run numerous energy companies, and still serves on the board

of publicly traded companies in the energy sector. He serves on the US Department

of Homeland Security’s Sustainability and Effi ciency Task Force. Coben writes an

energy and cultural heritage blog for the Huffi ngton Post. He co-wrote the national

energy policy for the Lieberman 2004 Presidential Campaign. Coben has a BA in

Economics from Yale, a JD from Harvard Law School, and a PhD in Anthropology

(Archaeology) from the University of Pennsylvania.

Correspondence to: Lawrence Coben, Sustainable Preservation Initiative, 40 W. 22nd St.

Suite 11, New York, NY 10010, USA. Email: larrycoben@sustainablepreservation.org