سایت های میراث فرهنگی جهانی شهری و مشکل اعتبار
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|242||2009||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Cities, Volume 26, Issue 6, December 2009, Pages 349–358
The number of designated World Heritage Sites (WHS) has proliferated across the world over the last two decades. Often associated with relatively self-contained sites of historic or architectural importance and their immediate surroundings, an increasing number of urban WHS now extend to broader areas within cities. The urbanness of WHS presents a series of challenges related to the designation, assessment and management of conservation objects in the context of dynamic and heterogeneous urban systems. One dimension that is often commented on is the tension between authentic conservation and commodification. However, there are also issues around how the ‘urban experience’ is treated. In this paper we discuss the difficulty of translating traditional conservation concepts, which we centre on the concept of authenticity, to the diverse and dynamic urban contexts urban WHS represent, and the concerns over their management that result. Specifically we explore the ‘coming to ground’ of the WHS designation in three British urban contexts. It is argued that the urban problematic of conservation is leading to something of a crisis in WHS designation as a primarily object-based logic is forced to contend with the complexities of place. This is beginning to lead to a changing set of practices related to urban WHS management.
In 1972 the UNESCO General Conference adopted the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage, otherwise known as the World Heritage Convention. The rationale of the convention was that there are places of ‘outstanding universal value’, that these are part of the heritage of all humankind and that their protection is therefore a shared responsibility. The most well known outcome of this was the identification of cultural and natural properties and their inscription as World Heritage Sites (WHS) that effectively sit at the pinnacle of international heritage status. Sites were, and still are, considered on the basis of nominations put forward by national governments. Sites are inscribed on the basis of their ‘outstanding universal value’, ‘cultural and/or natural significance which is considered so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity’ (UNESCO, 2008; para 49). To be considered to have outstanding universal value (OUV) a site must meet at least one of ten criteria (see Table 1) and must meet tests of authenticity and the related concept of integrity as well as demonstrating an adequate protection and management system. The first 12 WHS were inscribed in seven countries in 1978. By summer 2009 the total had reached 890 sites (689 cultural, 176 natural and 25 ‘mixed’) across 148 states. World Heritage Sites are often associated with relatively self-contained sites of historic or architectural importance and their immediate surroundings. However, WHS inscriptions have included historic cities from the inception of the designation with Cracow (Poland) inscribed in the first World Heritage list in 1978. As the World Heritage list has grown so have the number of WHS that extend to broad and heterogeneous areas within cities. The Organisation of World Heritage Cities, founded in 1993, lists 242 cities (http://www.ovpm.org/cities, xxxx), varying vastly in scale and extensiveness of site, but including, for example, historic Cairo (Egypt, inscribed 1979), Havana (Cuba, 1982), the City of Bath (UK, 1987), Prague (Czech Republic, 1992), Naples (Italy, 1995), Karlskrona (Sweden, 1998), Hoi An (Vietnam, 1999), Zanzibar Stone Town (Tanzania, 2000), and the historic centre of Bordeaux (France, 2007). Often located in or around the central areas of cities, the designation of a WHS can effectively transform those places into World Heritage cities, especially as the authorities responsible for managing the site are required to consider the impact on the site of developments beyond the site boundary. It is our contention that urban WHS, and more specifically the ‘urbanness’ of urban WHS, has opened up a series of problems for WHS management, resulting in what has become a nascent crisis. Part of this is about the conflict between the preservationist ethos of the WHS designation and attempts by local authorities to extract economic benefit or at least secure appropriate economic and social development. In this sense problems around the WHS designation revolve around attempts to fix ideas of conservation value on dynamic, heterogeneous urban landscapes. It might be argued that there are fundamental tensions between the desire to preserve a sense of the past and recognising that heritage cities are the product of layers of development and habitation. In this context urban WHS present a particularly telling example of the contestations and multi-scalar perspectives that frequently exist with urban conservation. WHS governance (in the UK at least) is led by local government bodies that have a remit that extends much wider than cultural issues. Local government is engaged in a complex interaction between frequently divergent local interests, national government and agencies and international conservation bodies. This latter dimension is unique to WHS and arguably presents a top-down view in which questions of value (and places themselves) are objectified. As in most conservation contexts, these issues have revolved around the idea of value and authenticity and its subsequent management. Articulating what authenticity is and how it should be sustained has proven particularly difficult with urban WHS. In the examples we discuss this has often been less to do with the particular material artefacts in which outstanding universal value is said to rest as in providing a broader framework for these objects that is considered appropriate. This has led to both ICOMOS/UNESCO seeking to develop its own conceptual framework for thinking about historic cities and to a higher degree of scrutiny by these agencies over development taking place. In turn there has been a greater willingness to ‘get tough’ with national and local governments. Thus the paper begins by briefly reflecting on some of the tensions of WHS management that might be considered near-universal, such as the pressures of commodification and tensions over ‘ownership’, before focusing on issues more specific to urban WHS. These include the very different economic and governance contexts of urban WHS, as part of cities, when compared to more discrete monumental sites. Crucially, a significant part of the conflict that arises in the management of urban WHS derives from a lack of clarity and consensus over the nature of authenticity when translated to an urban scale, and this is the focus of the next section. UNESCO is seeking to develop the idea of ‘historic urban landscapes’ to give greater clarity to this vexed issue. This section is followed with a discussion of the UK urban WHS of Bath, Liverpool and Edinburgh and specifically the tensions that have led to UNESCO missions visiting each city.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
All WHS have a particularly complex set of governance arrangements. We have noted the potential for conflict between the international regulatory bodies and local decision-makers. An added layer to this, demonstrated by the situation in the UK, is the role of national government. As the state party, the UK government is responsible not only for nominating sites but for implementing the convention and reporting back to UNESCO. It has had to become, as a result, far more involved than is usual in local decision-making about particular development as a result of intense interest and pressure from UNESCO and ICOMOS and has therefore had to mediate between competing, and often hostile, interests. In the case of urban WHS this complexity is magnified. Single monument sites in urban areas are difficult to manage (see the example of the Tower of London site in Worthing and Bond (2008)) given that development will continue to take place around them, but in urban World Heritage Sites the range of factors to consider and mediate are many: the extent of WHS boundaries and buffer zones; large numbers of landowners and stakeholders; and, conflicts between tourism development and planning for the local population. The level of complexity and difficulty in making meaningful decisions about conservation, management and development within this context will continue to result in friction between the different scales of governance. Tall buildings are a particularly potent example of a development-type that galvanises a wide range of interests. In the UK this tends to mean powerful local interests pursuing pro-development strategies within the context of an often relatively weak regulatory regime. Weaker local conservation interests resist perceived threats to the integrity and authenticity of place, calling in UNESCO as an ally with their infrequently used, but politically powerfully, potential sanction to classify a site as ‘in danger’ or, in extremis, to remove sites from the list. Underpinning these conflicts is a weakly defined sense of what the authenticity of OUV means at an urban scale which, in turn, exist in competition with different locally held visions of the city. The concept of a WHS as a ‘historic urban landscape’ is interesting but remains sketchy at best. This is an urgent problem for UNESCO/ICOMOS. It is evident that the problems of urban WHS management we have described are not unique to the United Kingdom but common throughout the developed world. This has placed stress upon the international bodies both in terms of the resources required for active monitoring and intervention in site-management (through missions) and politically in terms of the need to demonstrate the seriousness of the regime through, for example, removing Dresden from the list. Furthermore, even if it is possible for ‘historic urban landscapes’ to develop into a more robust mechanism it will inevitably be part of a universalising approach to heritage which denies space to, or at least exists in competition with, locally produced notions of heritage, authenticity and sense of place. Thus whilst WHS may sit at the pinnacle of international conservation regime, there is significant room for manoeuvre as this comes to ground in particular places. This multi-scaled negotiation is evident in each of the cases we describe, where, to different degrees, pro-development local and national administration is involved in an on-going debate with UNESCO and ICOMOS over questions about the significance of the site and the most appropriate form of WHS management. Locally the scale politics of World Heritage can become polarised around positions perceived as pro- and anti-development with each side mobilising around interpretations of the meaning of the WHS. This tension can develop to the point whereby the value of the status to the locality comes to be challenged; for some interests the restrictions on economic vitality and external interference outweigh the marketing and place promotion benefits of WHS status. Indeed, given the demands placed upon city managers to respond to UNESCO concerns, and their reluctance to use WHS as a means of restricting development, it may be that local decision-makers begin to reach a similar point of view.