![Sample our Museum and Heritage Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5945/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Museum-Heritage-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper examines issues concerning the protection and management of World Cultural Heritage properties in five countries (China, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States) which formed part of a research network funded by the United Kingdom’s Arts and Humanities Research Council during 2013–2015. The themes examined in this context include: legal and administrative measures for protection (including recommendations and guidelines of international organisations), other protection mechanisms (planning policy and regulations), management systems and their efficiency at protecting cultural world heritage properties in ‘the day to day’ administration (tourism, financial resources and sustainable development), as well as unusual situations (development, risk and disaster), and the role of management bodies and representatives, capacity building and monitoring of the properties (practical experiences). These issues are broadly examined from questionnaires responses from the five countries through this paper and set the scene for the development of the themes of the international conference on ‘World Heritage Sites in a National Context: The Implementation of the 1972 UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage’ held at the University of Kent, Canterbury 15–16 January 2015, which are examined in the other papers included in this issue.
Acknowledgements
This paper has been developed as part of a research project funded by United Kingdom Arts and Humanities Research Council, which supported a research network of international collaborators. The paper brings together issues raised by collaborators in the research network including Prof. Patty Gerstenblith and Ms Margaret Rhoda, DePaul University, Chicago, (USA); Prof. Susanna Galera, GDRI, University of Rey Juan Carlos of Madrid (Spain); Prof. Yunxia Wang, University of Renmin (China); Dr Sophie Vigneron, University of Kent (UK); and Dr Alessandro Chechi, University of Geneva, (Switzerland), who submitted responses to a questionnaire on the management of world heritage properties in a national context as part of the funded research.
Notes
1 Mixed properties of cultural and natural heritage were not specifically considered, but all of the countries examined have some mixed status properties with the exception of Switzerland: China (4), Spain (2), UK (1), and US (1).
2 UNESCO, Managing World Cultural Heritage.
3 UNESCO, Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO, 1972. http://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/ [accessed 15 July 2015].
4 UNESCO, Operational Guidelines.
5 UK Government, Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), National Planning Policy Framework. London: DCLG, 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2 [accessed 15 July 2015].
6 UK Government, Department for Communities and Local Government, National Planning Practice Guidance. London: DCLG, 2014. http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/ [accessed 15 July 2015].
7 The paper by Susana Galera in this special edition (The Benefits of Legal Globalization: Soft Law: A Case Study of Heritage Law) looks at the Operational Guidelines adopted by the World Heritage Committee as a ‘soft law mechanism’ to deal with the governance challenge of managing heritage in a global context, viewed against other standards for protecting natural and cultural heritage.
8 Australia ICOMOS, Burra Charter.
9 English Heritage, Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance.
10 UNESCO, Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. Paris: UNESCO, 2011. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=48857&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [accessed 15 July 2015].
11 ICOMOS, Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments.
12 ICOMOS, “Venice Charter”.
13 ICOMOS, The Nara Document on Authenticity.
14 Agnew and Demas, Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China.
15 Historic England, Heritage Protection Guide (English Heritage was rebranded as Historic England on 1 April 2015).
16 Management plans and systems are also considered in this special edition in the paper by Borgarino, Della Torre, Gasparoli and Ronchi in the case of the industrial heritage of the town of Crespi d’Adda, which refers to the fact that management plans have been required for all Italian World Heritage properties since 2006: see Ronchi et al., "Crespi D’Adda, Italy". Furthermore, the paper by Siguencia Avila and Rey Pérez explores the problems of developing a management system from an urban landscape viewpoint in the case of the historic centre of Santa Ana de los Ríos de Cuenca in Ecuador: "Heritage Values Protection". Similarly the historic urban landscape approach is considered in the paper by Sanjbod, Hermans, Reijnders and Veldpaus, concentrating on the role mapping attributes and values for local management practice: "Captain, Where Can We Find the Attributes?".
17 The issue of citizen participation, in the context of Kenya, is further explored in this special edition in Carril, "Indigenous Peoples' Participation".
18 Smith, M. Liverpool Water Redevelopment gets the Government Green Light, The Guardian, March 5, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/05/liverpool-waters-redevelopment-green-light [accessed 10 October 2015].
19 A useful example of sustainable regeneration and tourism development associated with the Ironbridge industrial World Heritage property is further explored in White, "Any Old Iron?".
20 UNESCO, Managing World Cultural Heritage.
21 Ibid.
22 UNESCO, World Heritage Committee, Decisions Adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th Session, 2015. http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/39COM/ [accessed 10 October 2015].
23 The role of periodic reporting and reactive monitoring in the context of management of world heritage properties is further explored in Young, "Understanding Management in a World Heritage Context".
24 The particular problem of properties at risk due to conflict has been explored in Lostal and Cunliffe, "Cultural Heritage That Heals", the context of Syria (where all of the six world heritage properties were listed as being in danger in 2013), reflecting on what could be done at the international level to protect properties and raises the issue of reconstruction as a post-conflict solution and the role of cultural heritage in peacebuilding.
25 Financial support measures are further explored in the paper in this issue in the paper by Cabbar and Yazgan, "Financing Tools".
26 Issues concerning the management of transboundary properties are further explored in Vileikis, "Monitoring Serial Transnational World Heritage", with particular reference to the ICOMOS 2005–2013 Silk Roads Project, including the development of mapping techniques, inventory systems and risk management through monitoring, as well as a ‘geo context management system’ for the nomination of properties and for sharing issues in the management process.