part 1 - Iccrom

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MEASURING HERITAGE CONSERVATION PERFORMANCE 6th International Seminar on Urban Conservation Figure 1. The role of an indicator in policy making (Source: Moldan, 1997, p. 59, cited in Miller, 2001). meet the desired targets without carefully assessing whether indicators are still applicable. Traditionally, indicators have been selected by conservation professionals or by national or international agencies. However, in the field of environmental conservation a different approach has been proposed by Fraser et al. (2006) and Nazarea et al. (1998) whereby indicators are selected by the stakeholders as a means of promoting community empowerment and sustainable environmental management, as well as capturing an accurate picture of the values attached to the natural environment. This approach could also be very useful in assessing the performance of cultural heritage conservation, since evaluation parameters and criteria would reflect the values that stakeholders confer to cultural heritage. The types of indicators vary widely depending on the aspect that is being assessed. They range from quantifiable, objective and standardized indicators, such as relative humidity ranges for preventive conservation standards, to those qualitative and subjective culturally defined indicators, such as the sense of place related to cultural heritage. It has been pointed out that the multidimensional and multi-objective nature of conservation demands evaluation techniques that comprise multiple criteria, which may be difficult to capture with a single index (Rostirolla, 1993, p. 136). For these reasons, we believe that it is not possible to standardize a method or define a specific list of indicators for evaluating the performance of conservation in different countries and different kinds of projects. Consequently, this paper aims solely at compiling and analysing the existing literature on the topic, so that it informs on the design of specific evaluation tools that could be developed depending on the scale and characteristics of the projects, as well as on the socio-cultural context in which conservation activities take place. Four areas of assessment are reviewed in this paper: a) the conservation of cultural significance, including both the fabric and the values ascribed to cultural heritage, b) economic impacts, c) social impacts, and d) environmental impacts. Each of these areas requires different indicators and methodologies of assessment. 4. Assessing the conservation of cultural significance The cultural significance of heritage comprises both the fabric (materials) and the non-tangible values related to it. An alteration of the constitutive materials, for instance, has an impact on the integrity and authenticity of cultural goods, which are attributes that directly affect the way we perceive and value them. In this sense, it is worth keeping in mind that material and nonmaterial aspects of cultural significance are intricately linked. However, due to the different types of methods that are used to assess the fabric of heritage and those that inform Alonso, V. I. & V. M. Meurs. 2012. Assessing the performance of conservation activities. In Zancheti, S. M. & K. Similä, eds. Measuring heritage conservation performance, pp. 1-14. Rome, ICCROM. 3
MEASURING HERITAGE CONSERVATION PERFORMANCE 6th International Seminar on Urban Conservation on its nonmaterial cultural values, they are reviewed separately. 4.1. Assessing the conservation of the fabric The assessment and monitoring of conservation processes and materials that aim to preserve the fabric of cultural heritage have been long-standing concerns for conservation practitioners. For this reason, much data have been generated relating to the appropriateness of conservation materials and methods of intervention. It is without any doubt the most developed area of assessment, though it lacks standardized indicators due to the large variety of materials, types of decay and conservation processes to be recorded and monitored. Some ranks and standards for the ‘ideal’ or ‘optimum’ conservation of heritage materials have been defined over time (Alcántara, 2002), with numerous publications indicating the results of very elaborate research mainly focused on museum and archive collections, but systematic approaches for the evaluation and monitoring of processes and methods (and their results) are still incipient (World Heritage Centre / ICCROM, 2002). It is also worth mentioning that the relevance of conserving the fabric varies across cultures, since some cultures prioritize nonmaterial values over the conservation of the fabric. Perhaps one of the most disseminated examples is the rebuilding practices of Shinto shrines in Japan. In these shrines what is actually maintained is the tradition and construction know-how rather than the material itself, since buildings are demolished and reconstructed every 20 years (Brock-Nannestad, 2000, p. 30; Inaba, 2005) according to the Shinto belief about the renewal of nature. Examples from other parts of the world were clearly shown in ICCROM’s Forum on living religious heritage (Stovel et al., 2005). Due to the degree of development of this area, as well as the variety of materials and conservation processes involved, this aspect is not analysed in detail here. The reader is advised to consult relevant work on remedial and preventive conservation, such as Appelbaum (2007), Matteini and Moles (2003), Roy and Smith (1994) and Adelstein (2004) as well as on monitoring (World Heritage Centre – ICCROM, 2002). The overall trend is to recommend the use of a combination of identifiable and measurable elements, and accurate documentation techniques, so that evaluations can be repeated over time. 4.2. Assessing the conservation of nonmaterial cultural values Due to the scientific approach that has characterized conservation practice in the last decades and the consequent predominant emphasis on the material fabric of heritage, assessing the conservation and enhancement of nonmaterial cultural values has often been overlooked. This has also been the result of an approach focusing on monuments and art collections that was developed in Western traditions. In this sense, the Nara Document (Lemaire and Stovel, 1994), the Burra Charter (ICOMOS Australia, 1999) and the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 2003) constitute important theoretical baseline knowledge in the formulation of a wider understanding of cultural heritage and for developing approaches that consider nonmaterial cultural values (Wijesuriya et al., 2006). The World Heritage Committee and various national heritage institutions have carried out assessments of cultural significance in order to decide whether a particular building, site or landscape can be inscribed on heritage lists, particularly the World Heritage List. In the same way, a common practice in conservation is to formulate a statement of significance that incorporates the values surrounding cultural heritage, and subsequently formulate the conservation proposal based on that statement. Unfortunately, however, conservation projects do not usually carry out these types of assessments after conservation activities take place, assuming that interventions do not change cultural significance and that only the assessment of the fabric is worth documenting, assessing and monitoring after conservation interventions. Nonetheless, it is clear that conservation activities modify the way we interpret and value objects, landscapes and sites (Lemaire and Stovel, 1994, p. 2; Getty Conservation Institute, 2000, p. 8), and therefore conservation has an important impact on heritage’s cultural significance. A clear example is the cleaning of Michelangelo’s paintings of the Sistine Chapel at the Vatican. In this case, regardless of whether the cleaning processes did or did not remove original materials, the conservation intervention generated a huge controversy that had a tremendous impact on how the public and art specialists perceive these paintings (see Eliot, 1987; González Tirado, 2010), which modifies the values and the cultural significance attached to them. The assessment of cultural significance is particularly relevant for living heritage, due to the crucial Alonso, V. I. & V. M. Meurs. 2012. Assessing the performance of conservation activities. In Zancheti, S. M. & K. Similä, eds. Measuring heritage conservation performance, pp. 1-14. Rome, ICCROM. 4
Page 2 and 3: Silvio Mendes Zancheti Katriina Sim
Page 4 and 5: 6 th International Seminar on Urban
Page 6 and 7: Contents Foreword..................
Page 8 and 9: Monitoring of the state of conserva
Page 10 and 11: Measuring Heritage Conservation Per
Page 12 and 13: Assessing the performance of conser
Page 16 and 17: MEASURING HERITAGE CONSERVATION PER
Page 26 and 27: Conserving and identifying heritage
Page 44 and 45: The Complexity of Historic Garden L
Page 64 and 65:
How to register memory? Documentati
Page 66 and 67:
MEASURING HERITAGE CONSERVATION PER
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Conservation of urban architectural
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Assessing the cultural significance
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Assessing the cultural significance
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100:
show all

part 1 - Iccrom

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?