background

Synopsis of the Laws Protecting Our Cultural Heritage

A provenance research study of archaeological curation

/pdf/heritage-places-evolving-conceptions-and-changing-forms-44jns9sxmw.pdf

Heritage places: Evolving conceptions and changing forms

Architectural heritages, especially heritages of tourism, were destroyed in the process of urban reconstruction of China because of lacking protection from stakeholders. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify the critical stakeholders to perform the responsibility of protection. The paper, focusing on architectural heritage of tourism, aims to identify the most important stakeholders for making them realize their critical roles in maintaining architectural heritages. Moreover, this paper also aims to evaluate the enthusiasm of stakeholders. As a result, the stakeholders with high importance and enthusiasm would be the critical stakeholders in maintaining architectural heritages. Thirteen stakeholders were selected through comprehensive literature review and the reality of China. A questionnaire survey was conducted with the qualified respondents in Mainland China. A five-point Likert scale and other statistical methods were used for achieving the results of evaluation. The findings demonstrated local government, central government, real estate development enterprise, expert groups, administration of architectural heritage protection, and construction company of architectural heritage are considered as the critical stakeholders for the sustainable development (SD) of architectural heritage of tourism. Finally, some helpful implications were introduced for improving the efficiency of participation and cooperation among all stakeholders.

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1671/pdf

Identifying the Critical Stakeholders for the Sustainable Development of Architectural Heritage of Tourism: From the Perspective of China

ntil the enactment of the Great Society legislation that created a host of U social and cultural programs, support for historic preservation, as with other social and cultural activities in the United States, had been largely episodic and undertaken through private initiative. Today, a shared cultural heritage is considered a public good, with a commensurate public subsidy. The growth of interests, the development of legislation, and the growth of federal cultural agencies spawning progeny in each state have engaged the interest of various publics.’ In preservation for example, these publics are real estate developers, bankers, preservationists, legislators, and bureaucrats. Their interest in preservation results in government policies, programs, and support that encourage, augment, and leverage private efforts. In preservation, federal leadership provided an essential framework for state and local initiatives. According to Phelan, “Most historic preservation is accomplished through the states in cooperation with the federal government. Numerous state preservation programs were commenced in the past decade with each state having some form of state preservation agency” (1993,76). The programs begun with seed money have been encouraged, sustained, and expanded the various publics that form issue networks across the country (Kirst, Meister, Rowley 1984; Heclo 1978). What had been largely intramural activity within political and policy circles in Washington has proliferated in the states and evolved to include economic science as a political and technocratic management tool, in addition to the moral flavor of policy arguments (Heclo 1996).

Politics and Policymaking: Tax Credits and Historic Preservation

In this paper I explore the list as a tool for heritage preservation. My focus will be on extent to which a list is useful in and of itself, decoupled from any other forms of intervention. While considerable attention has been paid to the regulatory and incentive mechanisms that typically accompany listing, rather less attention has been paid to the act of listing as a tool in its own right. What is a list for? How do those who use it as a tool of historic preservation conceive of it? Is it merely a designation or is it an award? What are the intended reactions to the fact of listing? What are the actual reactions? What are the issues involved in compiling the list? Can a list be too long? Can it be too short? Is a listing process ultimately self-defeating? Under what conditions? Are there ways in which lists can be designed to increase their effectiveness as a preservation tool?

Synopsis of the Laws Protecting Our Cultural Heritage

Citations

A provenance research study of archaeological curation

Heritage places: Evolving conceptions and changing forms

Identifying the Critical Stakeholders for the Sustainable Development of Architectural Heritage of Tourism: From the Perspective of China

Politics and Policymaking: Tax Credits and Historic Preservation

Making a List and Checking it Twice: The List as a Tool of Historic Preservation

Related Papers (5)

Property Rights and Public Responsibilitiesof Private Owners of Cultural Heritage

International Legal Protection of Cultural Heritage:Retrospect and Prospect

Preservation of cultural heritage in Malaysia: an insight of the National Heritage Act 2005.

Property Protection and Protection of Cultural Heritage

Legal protection of the cultural heritage