Partnerships in Heritage Governance and Management: Review Study of Public–Civil, Public–Private and Public–Private–Community Partnerships

IF 2 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Heritage Pub Date : 2023-10-20 DOI:10.3390/heritage6100358
Ana Žuvela, Marta Šveb Dragija, Daniela Angelina Jelinčić
{"title":"Partnerships in Heritage Governance and Management: Review Study of Public–Civil, Public–Private and Public–Private–Community Partnerships","authors":"Ana Žuvela, Marta Šveb Dragija, Daniela Angelina Jelinčić","doi":"10.3390/heritage6100358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cultural heritage governance and management has been shifting from the sole authority of the state and public bodies towards approaches that list multi-actor partnerships in several combinations involving public actors, civil society, private actors and community. This paper examines the public–civil, public–private and public–private–community partnerships through expounding rationales, conceptual backgrounds and theoretical framings for each partnership, followed by a systemic review and analysis of the academic literature sourced through the PRISMA protocol. The analysis objective was to assess the main advantages and disadvantages of each of the partnerships in governing and managing cultural heritage, noting the levels of representation of each governance and management approach. The results have shown that the public–civil and public–private–community partnerships have similar advantages and disadvantages, with the public–civil partnership being the least represented approach in the literature, while the public–private partnership has the highest level of representation with advantages and disadvantages that are inclined towards more pragmatic aims than those of the other two examined approaches. The so-called ‘new governance models’ of heritage were also detected in the analysis; however, they represent only a variant of the already analysed models.","PeriodicalId":12934,"journal":{"name":"Heritage","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heritage","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6100358","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cultural heritage governance and management has been shifting from the sole authority of the state and public bodies towards approaches that list multi-actor partnerships in several combinations involving public actors, civil society, private actors and community. This paper examines the public–civil, public–private and public–private–community partnerships through expounding rationales, conceptual backgrounds and theoretical framings for each partnership, followed by a systemic review and analysis of the academic literature sourced through the PRISMA protocol. The analysis objective was to assess the main advantages and disadvantages of each of the partnerships in governing and managing cultural heritage, noting the levels of representation of each governance and management approach. The results have shown that the public–civil and public–private–community partnerships have similar advantages and disadvantages, with the public–civil partnership being the least represented approach in the literature, while the public–private partnership has the highest level of representation with advantages and disadvantages that are inclined towards more pragmatic aims than those of the other two examined approaches. The so-called ‘new governance models’ of heritage were also detected in the analysis; however, they represent only a variant of the already analysed models.
遗产治理和管理中的伙伴关系:公共-民间、公共-私人和公共-私人-社区伙伴关系的回顾研究
文化遗产的治理和管理已经从国家和公共机构的唯一权威转向以多种组合方式列出涉及公共行为体、民间社会、私人行为体和社区的多行为体伙伴关系。本文通过阐述每一种伙伴关系的基本原理、概念背景和理论框架,对公共-民间、公共-私营和公共-私营-社区伙伴关系进行了研究,随后对通过PRISMA协议获得的学术文献进行了系统的回顾和分析。分析的目的是评估每一种伙伴关系在管理和管理文化遗产方面的主要优势和劣势,并指出每一种管理和管理方法的代表性水平。结果表明,公共-民事伙伴关系和公共-私营-社区伙伴关系具有相似的优点和缺点,其中公共-民事伙伴关系是文献中代表性最少的方法,而公共-私营伙伴关系具有最高水平的代表性,其优点和缺点比其他两种研究方法更倾向于务实的目标。在分析中也发现了所谓的遗产“新治理模式”;然而,它们只是已经分析过的模型的一个变体。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Heritage
Heritage Multiple-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
17.60%
发文量
165
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信