On the opportunity of coordinating World Heritage sites' management at the regional level: insights from Veneto (original) (raw)
Related papers
The key roles of active research and monitoring in the co-management of serial World Heritage sites
Abstract “States Parties are encouraged to make resources available to undertake research, since knowledge and understanding are fundamental to the identification, management, and monitoring of World Heritage properties.” (Unesco 2012b, § 215). This paper will discuss the framework for research following the inscription of a site, or group of sites to the World Heritage List. For the purposes of their management key personnel must have access to active research knowledge on an on-going basis. Continuing research lies at the very heart of all good heritage management and presentation. The dissemination and sharing of knowledge on protection and conservation measures is essential and research, including interpretative narratives must be shared also. Past research provides the foundation for understanding the significance of sites. But continuing research, with new research and monitoring methodologies and methods of knowledge-sharing, have the capacity to enliven, improve and advance conservation and management discourse, it methods and its on-site and museum interpretation. For serial sites in particular co-management must include: 1) a critical analysis of research undertaken historically and the extent of its dissemination; 2) the strengths and weaknesses of past research conclusions; and 3) the identification of gaps in knowledge. In the case of the Prehistoric Pile Dwellings around the Alps, it also requires consideration of the implications of potential knowledge gaps for all six states parties. This paper will examine some of the changing conceptual frameworks that may now require consideration (for example, more integrated studies on the contexts of the pile dwelling sites and their associated cultural landscapes). It will examine how effectively new and improved technical methods of investigation, monitoring, protection and conservation are being applied and how widely knowledge of these methods is being disseminated across the serial and among its managers. Comparison of research traditions and perspectives in different states may also be a necessary element of continuing research management while re-examination of the existing theoretical framework within which management takes place will always be beneficial.
The term integrated conservation first entered the lexicon of the cultural heritage community in the 1975 European Charter of the Architectural Heritage (Council of Europe 1975) recognising that the future of that component of our heritage depends on the weight attached to it within the framework of urban and regional planning. Since then, formal recognition within the heritage community has expanded to include intangible cultural heritage and diversity of cultural expressions, the agendas of sustainability, sustainable development and climate change have re-framed the overarching context, and the role of today’s communities as both custodians and beneficiaries of the broad spectrum of cultural and natural heritage has assumed a central position in the heritage discourse alongside management, a term with diverse interpretations in practice. Expanding on the tripartite encapsulation of sustainable development in the Brundtland Report (Brundtland Commission 1987), the 2010 Toledo Declaration on Urban Development defined the multiple dimensions of sustainability as “economic, social, environmental, cultural and governance” (European Union 2010) “Good governance,” it reads, “based on the principles of openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, coherence and subsidiarity is required in order to assure the successful implementation of public policies, a more efficient and effective allocation of public resources and to increase citizen’s direct participation, involvement, engagement and empowerment.” This concluding chapter seeks to extract key findings on multilevel governance as the key to sound management and to reframe the role of management plans in so doing. Keywords: management plan, management system, governance, community, human factor, integrated approach.
The term integrated conservation first entered the lexicon of the cultural heritage community in the 1975 European Charter of the Architectural Heritage (Council of Europe 1975) recognising that the future of that component of our heritage depends on the weight attached to it within the framework of urban and regional planning. Since then, formal recognition within the heritage community has expanded to include intangible cultural heritage and diversity of cultural expressions, the agendas of sustainability, sustainable development and climate change have re-framed the overarching context, and the role of today’s communities as both custodians and beneficiaries of the broad spectrum of cultural and natural heritage has assumed a central position in the heritage discourse alongside management, a term with diverse interpretations in practice. Expanding on the tripartite encapsulation of sustainable development in the Brundtland Report (Brundtland Commission 1987), the 2010 Toledo Declaration on Urban Development defined the multiple dimensions of sustainability as “economic, social, environmental, cultural and governance” (European Union 2010) “Good governance,” it reads, “based on the principles of openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, coherence and subsidiarity is required in order to assure the successful implementation of public policies, a more efficient and effective allocation of public resources and to increase citizen’s direct participation, involvement, engagement and empowerment.” This concluding chapter seeks to extract key findings on multilevel governance as the key to sound management and to reframe the role of management plans in so doing.
Towards an Effective Method of Governance of Cultural Heritage Sites
2018
2014 Commission Communication “Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe” argues “Cultural heritage is... a common good”. The fundamental characteristic of this kind of goods is that both their production and their fruition have a collective feature, since they are expression of a voluntary cooperation among individuals sharing an unifying element (territory, ethnicity, religion, ideology, etc.). The choice of the EU to consider CH as a ‘common good’ arises the problem about the best form of governance to apply to it, while seeking a fair balance between public action and private initiative able to maximize the benefits generated by CH and at the same time to assure its complete protection. The paper proposes an analytical reconstruction of the progressive affirmation of rights of information and participation within the international agreements and soft law. More specifically, the paper points out that, even if the 2003 and 2005 UNESCO Conventions contained ref...
Makuvaza S. (eds) Aspects of Management Planning for Cultural World Heritage Sites. Springer, Cham, 2017
The term integrated conservation first entered the lexicon of the cultural heritage community in the 1975 European Charter of the Architectural Heritage (Council of Europe 1975) recognising that the future of that component of our heritage depends on the weight attached to it within the framework of urban and regional planning. Since then, formal recognition within the heritage community has expanded to include intangible cultural heritage and diversity of cultural expressions, the agendas of sustainability, sustainable development and climate change have re-framed the overarching context, and the role of today’s communities as both custodians and beneficiaries of the broad spectrum of cultural and natural heritage has assumed a central position in the heritage discourse alongside management, a term with diverse interpretations in practice. Expanding on the tripartite encapsulation of sustainable development in the Brundtland Report (Brundtland Commission 1987), the 2010 Toledo Declaration on Urban Development defined the multiple dimensions of sustainability as “economic, social, environmental, cultural and governance” (European Union 2010) “Good governance,” it reads, “based on the principles of openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, coherence and subsidiarity is required in order to assure the successful implementation of public policies, a more efficient and effective allocation of public resources and to increase citizen’s direct participation, involvement, engagement and empowerment.” This concluding chapter seeks to extract key findings on multilevel governance as the key to sound management and to reframe the role of management plans in so doing.
Unveiling forms of participation in the governance of UNESCO world heritage sites
European Spatial Research and Policy
This paper focuses on the issues of governance and participation of World Heritage sites. It inquiries how decision-making structures to locally managed World Heritage sites may encompass public participation. Through an in-depth qualitative approach, the paper analyses the World Heritage Arab-Norman Palermo and the Cathedral Churches of Cefalù and Monreale serial site (Italy). By examining the participatory dynamics that occurred during the creation and development of the selected World Heritage serial site, this paper reveals three coexisting forms of participation in WHsite decisions: inter-institutional agreement, social aggregation, and multi-actor collaboration. The main findings suggest that although formal decision-making arenas may be participative weakly, the unpacking of participatory practices in urban spaces uncovers a vibrant scene, as it emerges from the Cassaro Alto and Danisinni districts in the city of Palermo.
Towards Improving the Effectiveness of Management of World Heritage Sites
World heritage sites are very vital cultural and natural areas that need to be effectively protected and improved in order to remain relevant and be used by future generations. UNESCO went ahead and shortlisted over 851 sites across the globe as being heritage sites of global stature. This was seen as a good effort aimed at recognizing and conserving the sites. However, these efforts are not enough. There have been efforts to manage these sites locally through following certain set standards or guidelines. Many of the management of these world heritage sites have failed to meet these quality standards, while some have been seen to succeed. This paper looks at the evaluation process for effective management of the improvement efforts for these world heritage sites. It also mentions tourism as a conflicting factor in the management process. A short look at the Alhambra site as one of the success stories in managing world heritage sites improvements is also given.