The Historic Environment最新文献

{"title":"Mapping Living Heritage in Kingston and Arthur’s Vale Historic Area, Norfolk Island: Routes, Customary Practices and Emotions","authors":"Sarah Baker, Zelmarie Cantillon, Chelsea Evans","doi":"10.1080/17567505.2023.2279386","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2023.2279386","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTIn heritage management plans, maps have long been used to draw boundaries around regions and plot natural and cultural sites, trails and routes. Attention to participatory mapping and counter-mapping has increased alongside trends towards bottom-up approaches to heritage that recognise local communities as experts in their own heritage. This article reflects on participatory mapping activities undertaken on Norfolk Island, home to the UNESCO World Heritage listed Kingston and Arthur’s Vale Historic Area. Since the production of the first management plan in 1980, heritage management of Kingston has overwhelmingly privileged the preservation and interpretation of its convict heritage, with historically little attention paid to the island’s past Polynesian settlement and the ongoing Pitcairn settlement since 1856. The article presents findings from collaborative mapping exercises centred on routes, customary practices, and emotions undertaken with Pitcairn Settler descendants and others with long and deep connections to Norfolk Island. In particular, we focus on participants’ commentaries on Kingston’s heritage management. Our analysis highlights the importance of protecting heritage in ways that account for everyday and contemporary experiences, emotional resonances, and unbounded uses of this living heritage site.KEYWORDS: Heritage managementliving heritageWorld HeritageNorfolk IslandKingston and Arthur’s Vale Historic AreaAustralian Convict Sitesparticipatory mappingcounter-mappingmobilitiesemotions Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1. Poulios, “Discussing Strategy in Heritage Conservation,” 21.2. Ibid., 23.3. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts et al., Conservation Management Plan, 66.4. Smith, “Towards a Theoretical Framework,” 62.5. Department of Home Affairs and Environment, KAVHA Management Plan.6. Smith, Uses of Heritage.7. Avrami, “Spatializing Values in Heritage Conservation,” 35.8. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts et al., Conservation Management Plan, 22.9. Harley, “Maps, Knowledge, and Power”10. Campos-Delgado, “Counter-Mapping Migration”11. Sletto, “We Drew What We Imagined,” 445.12. e.g. Peluso, “Whose Woods Are These?”; Boatca, “Counter-Mapping as Method”13. e.g. Lobo et al., “Practising Lively Geographies”; Boschmann and Cubbon, “Sketch Maps and Qualitative GIS”14. e.g. Sletto, “We Drew What We Imagined”; Rye and Kurniawan, “‘Claiming Indigenous Rights”15. Wainwright and Bryan, “Cartography, Territory, Property,” 153.16. Ibid., 169.17. Reitz, “Back to the Drawing Board,” 328.18. Ibid. 327.19. Campos-Delgado, “Counter-Mapping Migration”20. Kim, “Critical Cartography 2.0,” 215.21. Avrami, “Spatializing Values in Heritage Conservation”; Brown, “Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management and Mapping”; Byrne and Nugent, Mapping Attachment; Byrne, “Counter-Mapping”; Harrison, “’Counter-Mapping’ Heritage, Communities and Places”; La Frenier","PeriodicalId":331310,"journal":{"name":"The Historic Environment","volume":"102 8‐10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135393328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Sustainable Assessment of Built Heritage Adaptive Reuse Practice: Iranian Industrial Heritage in the Light of International Charters","authors":"Farzaneh Gharaati, Mohammadjavad Mahdavinejad, Adam Nadolny, Hassan Bazazzadeh","doi":"10.1080/17567505.2023.2261328","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2023.2261328","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTAdaptive reuse of Industrial heritage is among the most common of sustainable approaches to preserve heritage values and pass them on to the future generations. It also leads to a reduction in environmental effects, and carbon footprint. The purpose of this research is to present an assessment of the sustainability of 12 Iranian adaptively reused industrial heritage sites in light of international charters. To reach this objective, 7 indexes and 20 indicators have been selected in terms of principles of sustainability and compliance with the green international charters. Then, five experts were interviewed through focus group discussion (FGD) to assess the cases based on the sustainable criteria. The findings indicate that the case studies generally meet sustainability criteria set by international charters, however community participation in the decision – making process and more creativity is highly recommended in the green adaptive reuse process. Moreover, it was observed that mixed-use flourishes in contrast to other alternatives. This research, aims to evaluate the case studies of the adaptively reused in Iran covering strengths and weaknesses to use the experience gained in future studies. Although this study focused on Iranian cases, the methodology can be useful in similar cases worldwide in the future.KEYWORDS: Green adaptive reuseindustrial heritage of Iraninternational chartersfuture generationlow-carbon architecturesustainability assessment AcknowledgmentsThis article is based on the first author’s Ph.D. thesis in Tarbiat Modares university of Tehran, Iran with collaboration of Prof. Mahdavinejad as supervisor and Prof. Adam Nadolny as advisor.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Geolocation InformationIndustrial Heritage Case studies of Iran.Notes1. Bullen & Love, “Factors influencing the adaptive re‐use of buildings”, a: 419.2. Markus and Oevermann, “Neighbourhood revitalisation and heritage conservation”, 244.3. Sulimowska-Ociepka, Glass Structures in Post-Industrial Buildings: 282–34. ibid, 284.5. TICCIH.6. Douglas, Building Adaptation.7. Farjami and Turker, “The Extraction of Prerequisite Criteria” :3.8. Bullen and love, b, Factors influencing the adaptive re‐use of buildings: 42.9. Sowi´nska-Heim, 2020: 4.10. Conejos, Optimisation of future building adaptive reuse: 1.11. Fisher, Adaptive reuse architecture documentation: 6.12. Gregorio et.al, “Designing the sustainable adaptive reuse of industrial heritage”: 2.13. Arfa et.al., Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: 156.14. Sulimowska-Ociepka, “Glass Structures in Post-Industrial Buildings”: 284.15. Kilinç, “Value assessment for industrial heritage”: 27–4516. Gregorio et.al, “Designing the sustainable adaptive reuse of industrial heritage”: 3.17. Vardopoulos, “Critical sustainable development factors”: 2.18. Bullen & love “Factors influencing the adaptive re‐use of buildings.”19. Fouad et.al. “The innovative reuse of post-indust","PeriodicalId":331310,"journal":{"name":"The Historic Environment","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135696390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}