Community Perceptions of the Importance of Heritage Protection Relative to Other Local Government Council Operations

D. Spennemann
{"title":"Community Perceptions of the Importance of Heritage Protection Relative to Other Local Government Council Operations","authors":"D. Spennemann","doi":"10.3390/urbansci7040119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cultural heritage management at the local government level relies on community participation, mainly interested stakeholders, in the identification, nomination and, in some jurisdictions, the co-evaluation of heritage assets. These are then “listed,” i.e., included in planning schemes and other development controls. Such inclusion in planning schemes is predicated on the assumption that the local community values its heritage, appreciates its protection and supports local council investment and actions in the matter. This assumption is treated as axiomatic but only very rarely formally tested. Drawing on a community heritage survey in Albury, a regional service center in southern New South Wales (Australia), this paper discusses the perceptions held by the community on the relative importance of heritage protection when compared with the other services offered by council. The findings show that the community ranked cultural and natural heritage places higher than cultural institutions (museums, libraries and theatres). The findings also showed that the community valued cultural and natural heritage more than traditional engineering services, such as roads/footpaths, rubbish removal and even sporting facilities. The survey highlighted intergenerational differences, with cultural heritage places and cultural institutions ranking high only among Generation X and the generations prior (Builders and Baby Boomers). This has clear implications for the present provisioning of heritage services and community education. The paper concludes with an exploration of the long-term implications of the observed intergenerational differences for local government authorities and community development in general.","PeriodicalId":510542,"journal":{"name":"Urban Science","volume":"183 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci7040119","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cultural heritage management at the local government level relies on community participation, mainly interested stakeholders, in the identification, nomination and, in some jurisdictions, the co-evaluation of heritage assets. These are then “listed,” i.e., included in planning schemes and other development controls. Such inclusion in planning schemes is predicated on the assumption that the local community values its heritage, appreciates its protection and supports local council investment and actions in the matter. This assumption is treated as axiomatic but only very rarely formally tested. Drawing on a community heritage survey in Albury, a regional service center in southern New South Wales (Australia), this paper discusses the perceptions held by the community on the relative importance of heritage protection when compared with the other services offered by council. The findings show that the community ranked cultural and natural heritage places higher than cultural institutions (museums, libraries and theatres). The findings also showed that the community valued cultural and natural heritage more than traditional engineering services, such as roads/footpaths, rubbish removal and even sporting facilities. The survey highlighted intergenerational differences, with cultural heritage places and cultural institutions ranking high only among Generation X and the generations prior (Builders and Baby Boomers). This has clear implications for the present provisioning of heritage services and community education. The paper concludes with an exploration of the long-term implications of the observed intergenerational differences for local government authorities and community development in general.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社区对文物保护相对于地方政府理事会其他业务的重要性的看法
地方政府层面的文化遗产管理依赖于社区参与,主要是利益相关方参与遗产资产的 识别和提名,在某些司法管辖区还包括共同评估。这些遗产随后被 "列入名录",即纳入规划方案和其他发展控制措施。将其纳入规划方案的前提是,当地社区重视其遗产,赞赏对遗产的保护,并支持地方议会在这方面的投资和行动。这一假设是不言而喻的,但很少经过正式检验。本文以澳大利亚新南威尔士州南部地区服务中心阿尔伯里的一项社区遗产调查为基础,讨论了社区对遗产保护与议会提供的其他服务相比的相对重要性的看法。研究结果表明,与文化机构(博物馆、图书馆和剧院)相比,社区对文化和自然遗产场所的重视程度更高。调查结果还显示,社区对文化和自然遗产的重视程度高于传统的工程服务,如道路/人行道、垃圾清理,甚至体育设施。调查凸显了代际差异,文化遗产场所和文化机构仅在 X 代和上一代人(建设者和婴儿潮一代)中排名靠前。这对目前提供遗产服务和社区教育有着明显的影响。本文最后探讨了观察到的代际差异对地方政府当局和整个社区发展的长期影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
House Sparrow Nesting Site Selection in Urban Environments: A Multivariate Approach in Mediterranean Spain A Strategic Multidirectional Approach for Picking Indicator Systems of Sustainability in Urban Areas Urban Parks in Novi Sad (Serbia)—Insights from Landscape Architecture Students Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Land Use and Community Perception in Peri-Urban Environments: The Case of the Intermediate City in Indonesia Mapping Urban Landscapes Prone to Hosting Breeding Containers for Dengue-Vector Mosquitoes: A Case Study in Bangkok
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1