A quick search on antonyms for “creative” yields obvious results such as “uncreative,” “unimaginative,” and “uninspired,” but also terms such as “dull,” “derivative,” and “stodgy.” In the world of cultural resources and mitigation of adverse effects, “creative” is most often opposed to “standard.” That sounds like a good thing, right? Good old, reliable, dependable, predictable standard mitigation. But as we will see from the articles in this special issue, remarkable things can happen when those designing mitigation programs replace or augment “standard” approaches. What is it about a mitigation measure or program that leads us to term it “creative”? How can we expand those defining qualities of creative mitigation measures and programs to enhance the quality of standard mitigation approaches? How can we make the standard approaches, if not creative, at least not stodgy?

Standard mitigation treatment for adverse effects to significant cultural resources has historically been a combination of data recovery excavation along with artifact analysis, reporting, and curation, whose purpose is to move the undertaking forward. Over the past several decades, there has been increased interest and understanding of alternative, or creative, mitigation options in these situations, which may, in the end, be the best option for the resource and more meaningful to both project stakeholders and the public. This article, the first in this special issue on creative mitigation, introduces the regulatory and conceptual framework for creative mitigation and weaves themes introduced in subsequent articles in this issue.

In the 54 years since passage of the National Historic Preservation Act, more than 56 million ha of land have been surveyed in the United States, and nearly one million cultural resources have been identified and recorded. These efforts have produced hundreds of thousands of project reports, vast collections of data, and a wealth of descriptive information about the past. The accumulated data can be used to generate important new knowledge about the past, with many scientific and management implications, but remain largely untapped. Following current approaches, many resources will be damaged or lost before effective strategies for studying or preserving them can be developed. Synthesis and modeling are needed in creative mitigation efforts to identify which resources to preserve and study and how best to do so with limited time and funding. This article explores the potential for compiling and synthesizing large cultural and environmental datasets within a geographic information system to model the nature and distribution of cultural resources. It is argued that dedicated synthesis and modeling of cultural resource management data will allow development of more effective and proactive research and management strategies, providing lasting benefit to diverse scientific and traditional communities and the public.

Public Archaeology in the Mediterranean Context (#pubarchMED) is a project that focuses on the management of archaeological heritage in the Mediterranean context from the perspective of public archaeology. Ranging from fully public models where preventive archaeology itself is a challenge to mixed models where the outsourcing of this work has been accomplished to a full extent, the variety of solutions is wide and with a common trend: struggle with mitigation and little space for creativity. This article will delve into the range of models that exist in the Mediterranean, exploring the way they approach, first of all, preventive/rescue archaeology, and then, the relationship between archaeology and society in the process. Building on the challenges of an underfunded scheme for an extremely archaeologically rich territory, different solutions have been set in practice—in some cases, under the auspices of competent administrations in the form of public policy—in the endeavor to include public archaeology in the practice, mostly encouraged by professionals as a personal or corporate initiative, and sometimes even consciously avoided. The discussion will offer some ideas for creative mitigation in the different scenarios, built on the comparative study and the broad possibilities to engage stakeholders positively in the process.

This article discusses recent trends in archaeological and historic preservation practices in Albania that are leading to new and innovative approaches to what is often termed “mitigation.” To understand this in an Albanian context, it is necessary to review the historical, political, and social context that has shaped the stand of this postcommunist society toward its past as well as the role that this context plays in heritage practices today. I argue that the nationalistic approach toward heritage as a key component of “nation building” in the twentieth century still resonates strongly in the current discourse. This review leads to the conclusion that standard mitigation based on avoidance, recovery/excavation, and documentation phases is the most dominant practice. Experience has shown that this is not always effective in the harmonization of conflicting interests. Public-private benefits, definition of values and significance associated with historic properties, and costs of requested mitigations have all made it clear in the last decade that alternative solutions must be found, even within the rigid boundaries of the existing legal framework. The concept of “creative mitigation” is emerging as a logical need in the practice of historic preservation.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration are undertaking a long-term, multiphase project to improve and rebuild Interstate 95 (I-95) in Pennsylvania, within the historic city of Philadelphia. Given the complex urban setting, the archaeological subsurface testing for the I-95 Girard Avenue Interchange Improvement Project is being guided by a programmatic agreement under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act. Through data-recovery excavations, the contractor for the project, AECOM, has documented 30 historical-period and Native American archaeological sites. The project includes its own professional journal, live interactive reporting, and a public archaeology center.

For historic property types such as archaeological sites and historic buildings, data recovery is often the main part of mitigation plans offered by federal agencies with undertakings that will destroy part or all of a cultural resource. In theory, by extracting important information before destruction, we recover some part of a historic resource's cultural value. In some situations, however, data recovery is impossible or otherwise undesirable, and “creative” or off-site mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate adverse effects. In such circumstances, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has accepted funding from federal agencies to create, implement, and enhance an online digital information system for cultural resources. This article describes the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) and provides an example of a federal agency funding WISAARD development as creative mitigation for the transfer of archaeological sites out of federal ownership. We discuss the benefits of such systems and address how their development meets preservation goals established by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.