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?

中文翻译：

---

是什么让一些缓解措施和计划“有创意”？（剩下的人在哪里？）

快速搜索“创意”的反义词会产生明显的结果，例如“缺乏创意”、“缺乏想象力”和“没有灵感”，但也会出现“沉闷”、“衍生”和“呆板”等术语。在文化资源和减轻不利影响的世界中，“创意”通常与“标准”相对立。这听起来是件好事，对吧？旧的、可靠的、可靠的、可预测的标准缓解。但正如我们将从本期特刊的文章中看到的那样，当那些设计缓解计划的人取代或增加“标准”方法时，可能会发生非凡的事情。是什么让我们将其称为“创造性”的缓解措施或计划？我们如何扩展创造性缓解措施和计划的定义质量，以提高标准缓解方法的质量？我们如何制定标准方法，