Search results

Cover -- Endorsement Page -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication Page -- Table of Contents -- List of figures -- List of tables -- About the editors -- About the contributors -- Foreword and acknowledgement -- Chapter 1 Heritage and tourism: a literature review -- Introduction -- Cultural heritage -- Natural heritage -- Heritage definition -- Literature review -- Heritage production -- Heritage management -- Heritage tourism definition -- Heritage tourist characteristics -- Heritage tourism motives -- Conclusions -- References -- Chapter 2 Poets know it: cultural heritage and the great divide -- Alternative Ulster -- The Great Divide -- Our heritaged age -- Why, oh why? -- What can we do about it? -- The mote in marketing's eye -- Hell's bells -- Notes -- Chapter 3 Value and values of cultural heritage -- Introduction -- The social and cultural process of creating heritage -- The theory of value from an economic perspective -- The birth of cultural values -- The typologies of value -- Cultural values -- Economic values -- The total economic value of the heritage asset -- Notes -- References -- Chapter 4 Using contestation to elicit values for heritage planning: the case of the urban park at Ekeberg in Oslo, Norway -- Introduction -- The Ekeberg Park as public value -- Conclusions -- Notes -- Chapter 5 Marketing Australia's cultural heritage: The Sydney Olympic Games Closing Ceremony -- Introduction -- Exploring official, popular, and commercial nationalism -- Selling Australia's cultural heritage at the Sydney 2000 Closing Ceremony -- Conclusions -- References -- Chapter 6 Managing sustainable consumption of cultural heritage: the key role of existential authenticity -- Introduction -- Existential authenticity and sustainable consumption -- Conceptual modeling of authenticity for sustainable consumption.

This essay deals with the Italian legislative framework for access to cultural heritage and its interaction with copyright laws on books and other material that reproduces artworks. A system of authorization by multiple actors and by the decentralized offices of the ministry for cultural heritage can make access harder and jeopardize the fruition of such material by researchers, thus resulting in an underutilization of Italian's cultural heritage

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Series Preface -- Introduction -- Bibliography and Further Reading -- Part I Foundations -- The Concept of Cultural Heritage -- 1 John Henry Merryman (2005), 'Cultural Property Internationalism', International Journal of Cultural Property, 12, pp. 11-39. -- 2 Janet Blake (2000), 'On Defining the Cultural Heritage', International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 49, pp. 61-85. -- The Politics of Cultural Heritage Rights -- 3 Rosemary J. Coombe (2009), 'The Expanding Purview of Cultural Properties and Their Polities', Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5, pp. 393-412. -- 4 Jonathan S. Bell (2013), 'The Politics of Preservation: Privileging One Heritage over Another', Lnternational Journal of Cultural Property, 20, pp. 431-50. -- Part II Types of Cultural Heritage Rights -- Natural Heritage as Cultural Heritage -- 5 Shabnam Inanloo Dailoo and Frits Pannekoek (2008), 'Nature and Culture: A New World Heritage Context', Lnternational Journal of Cultural Property, 15, pp. 25-47. -- 6 Gonzalo Oviedo and Tatjana Puschkarsky (2012), 'World Heritage and Rights-Based Approaches to Nature Conservation', Lnternational Journal of Heritage Studies, 18, pp. 285-96. -- Urban Landscapes as Culture Heritage -- 7 Lindsay M. Weiss (2014), 'Informal Settlements and Urban Heritage Landscapes in South Africa', Journal of Social Archaeology, 14, pp. 3-25. -- 8 Michael L. Dutra (2004), 'Sir, How Much is that Ming Vase in the Window? Protecting Cultural Relics in the People's Republic of China', Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal, 5, pp. 62-100. -- Underwater Cultural Heritage Rights -- 9 Sarah Dromgoole (2003), '2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage', International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 18, pp. 59-91

Zimbabwe's Cultural Heritage won first prize in the Zimbabwe Book Publishers Association Awards in 2006 for Non-fiction: Humanities and Social Sciences. It is a collection of pieces of the culture of the Ndebele, Shona, Tonga, Kalanga, Nambiya, Xhosa and Venda. The book gives the reader an insight into the world view of different peoples, through descriptions of their history and life events such as pregnancy, marriage and death. ""...the most enduring book ever on Zimbabwean history. This book will help people change their attitude towards each other in Zimbabwe."" - Zimbabwe Book Publishers

Heritage has traditionally been associated with material objects, but recent conventions have emphasized the significance of intangible culture heritage. This article advocates a holistic approach towards the concept and considers key challenges for Europe's heritage at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Reflecting on the notion of 'European', it considers the question of how one defines European heritage and which European heritage is to be protected. It explores links between national and European conceptions of identity and heritage and queries issues of ownership, language and representation. A number of ethical issues are raised - such as the role of women in the transmission of heritage and the implications of information technology for copywriting traditional practices. The author also asks how one ensures that the process of globalisation facilitates rather than eliminates local cultural heritages? How does one enhance the local so that it becomes glocal and not obsolete?

Together with the evolving definition of cultural heritage, legislation on the matter has extended over the last decades. Not only has the number of legal texts increased, it has also imposed heavier burdens on the owner, adding active to passive conservation obligations. Case law concerning compensation claims demonstrates that some burdens may be excessive, breaking the balance between public and private interests. Moreover, most public interference into property right has been unilateral (classification measures, expropriation), reducing the dialogue between the authorities and the owner to a mere opposition of interests, instead of focusing on common heritage. This paper aims to analyse how the allocation of burdens could be rebalanced. The focus would shift to multilateral protection instruments, taking public and private but also collective interests into consideration. Every interest has a corresponding responsibility, understood as the sharing of burdens for the future and not as the liability for past wrongdoings. Lying in the grey zone between technical law and ethics, the concepts of interest and responsibility are innovative tools to rethink cultural heritage law. Acting to preserve and transfer cultural heritage is acting responsibly, but this may vary depending on the degree of power: a common but differentiated responsibility. In other words, public authorities should be responsible to make sure protected goods aren't in danger, therefore providing sufficient financial and legal aid to overburdened owners, or even to (fiscally) encourage private financial support. Public and private owners on the other hand should act as reasonable managers – as "stewards" – of their listed goods and prevent them from damage or loss. The heritage community should share responsibility to take part in the protection and be given the right to take legal action when cultural heritage is at risk. Thought must also be given to resolving possible conflicts of interests among those actors.

Together with the evolving definition of cultural heritage, legislation on the matter has extended over the last decades. Not only has the number of legal texts increased, it has also imposed heavier burdens on the owner, adding active to passive conservation obligations. Case law concerning compensation claims demonstrates that some burdens may be excessive, breaking the balance between public and private interests. Moreover, most public interference into property right has been unilateral (classification measures, expropriation), reducing the dialogue between the authorities and the owner to a mere opposition of interests, instead of focusing on common heritage. This paper aims to analyse how the allocation of burdens could be rebalanced. The focus would shift to multilateral protection instruments, taking public and private but also collective interests into consideration. Every interest has a corresponding responsibility, understood as the sharing of burdens for the future and not as the liability for past wrongdoings. Lying in the grey zone between technical law and ethics, the concepts of interest and responsibility are innovative tools to rethink cultural heritage law. Acting to preserve and transfer cultural heritage is acting responsibly, but this may vary depending on the degree of power: a common but differentiated responsibility. In other words, public authorities should be responsible to make sure protected goods aren't in danger, therefore providing sufficient financial and legal aid to overburdened owners, or even to (fiscally) encourage private financial support. Public and private owners on the other hand should act as reasonable managers – as "stewards" – of their listed goods and prevent them from damage or loss. The heritage community should share responsibility to take part in the protection and be given the right to take legal action when cultural heritage is at risk. Thought must also be given to resolving possible conflicts of interests among those actors.

Together with the evolving definition of cultural heritage, legislation on the matter has extended over the last decades. Not only has the number of legal texts increased, it has also imposed heavier burdens on the owner, adding active to passive conservation obligations. Case law concerning compensation claims demonstrates that some burdens may be excessive, breaking the balance between public and private interests. Moreover, most public interference into property right has been unilateral (classification measures, expropriation), reducing the dialogue between the authorities and the owner to a mere opposition of interests, instead of focusing on common heritage. This paper aims to analyse how the allocation of burdens could be rebalanced. The focus would shift to multilateral protection instruments, taking public and private but also collective interests into consideration. Every interest has a corresponding responsibility, understood as the sharing of burdens for the future and not as the liability for past wrongdoings. Lying in the grey zone between technical law and ethics, the concepts of interest and responsibility are innovative tools to rethink cultural heritage law. Acting to preserve and transfer cultural heritage is acting responsibly, but this may vary depending on the degree of power: a common but differentiated responsibility. In other words, public authorities should be responsible to make sure protected goods aren't in danger, therefore providing sufficient financial and legal aid to overburdened owners, or even to (fiscally) encourage private financial support. Public and private owners on the other hand should act as reasonable managers – as "stewards" – of their listed goods and prevent them from damage or loss. The heritage community should share responsibility to take part in the protection and be given the right to take legal action when cultural heritage is at risk. Thought must also be given to resolving possible conflicts of interests among those actors.

This title explores the international (including regional) law currently governing the protection and safeguarding of cultural heritage in peacetime and related international cultural policy-making. An important aspect of this publication is the emphasis placed on broader policy and other contexts within which, and in response to which, this law has developed