The practice and management of cultural heritage by anthropologists, archaeologists, geographers, museum practitioners, and other “experts” has implications for indigenous groups who may challenge how their heritage is represented. This research applied a critical heritage studies framework to investigate the cultural landscape designation developed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to understand the discourse that informs research and management of this category of heritage at two UNESCO-designated sites: Tongariro National Park, New Zealand and Ulur&barbelow;u-Kata Tjuta&barbelow; National Park, Australia.

My objectives were (1) to examine the nature and use of institutional and expert knowledge to determine whose interests were legitimized in how cultural landscapes are defined; (2) to examine the implications of using western models, primarily developed and borrowed from the natural and social sciences, to interpret non-Western landscapes; (3) to understand the implications of cultural landscapes as heritage for indigenous groups; and (4) to determine whether a critical heritage studies framework contributes to understanding the socio-political and historical contexts of heritage practices.

This study revealed that the cultural landscape designation expands the heritage inventory and positions heritage managers as experts along the full heritage continuum and, in some cases, outside of their expertise, training, or qualifications. My analyses of World Heritage and park documents suggest that World Heritage representatives influenced and guided heritage outcomes and practices, and in some cases, adopted a possessive posture in heritage negotiations that excluded third party review and alternative interpretations and largely prevented indigenous groups from asserting their political and cultural authority. Applying a critical heritage studies framework provided insights into the historical, legal, and political contexts that were largely absent in the heritage documents but were clearly intersecting with heritage practices at these sites. This study called attention to the silences and omissions in the stories of both national parks and revealed how the legacies of colonial policies were embedded in contemporary land management practices. State and national laws and World Heritage and national park policies forced traditional owners to make their claims within systems that are largely incompatible with their custodial responsibilities, knowledge practices, and customary laws.