The name is absent

the culture, traditions and skills of a community⁴. Whatever the type of heritage, the
conceptualisation of cultural heritage as an asset, and conversely of cultural landscapes as a
superimposition of various cultural and historical features identifying a territory, leads to the
recognition of spatial (geo-referenced) features, impacts, and development potentials that can be
mapped.

2.4 The dynamics and diversity of the cultural heritage

The driving assumption of the ESPON 1.3.3 project and of this article is that CHI has the potential
of positive outcomes for the economy and the society; referring to the kind of spatial planning
models and strategies that enable a “sustainable exploitation” of the heritage resources.

A key issue is to gather information that help substantiate the notion of spatial dynamics of cultural
heritage. This means that the historical process of formation of the heritage and/or the current
development trends are considered, trying to understand the dynamism that will shape future
patterns and uses of cultural heritage. There are conceptual and practical difficulties with this
approach: a research into the past risks to have to deal with identity issues (what was Europe then,
and what is it now), current trends have to deal with speculations about the direction of the
interrelations between culture and development, and forecasts for the future clash against the lack of
“models” of cultural development. Heritage is the meaning we now give to objects, artefacts,
resources of the past; and this meaning varies according to changing values etc.

The following statements are standpoints of this approach:

a) CHI is a renewable resource, although to a limited extent, because it does not just “exist” out
there, but is continuously being (re-)produced and (re-)elaborated;

b) CHI is a phenomenon of social organization: it is based on - and its value is determined by -
cultural/social practices. As such, CHI is intimately linked to the civil society and participation
in civic activities.

c) There are subjects that are active agents in producing CHI, and objects that are the outcomes of
the activities of the agents. The two interact in the manner described by Giddens (2002).

Thus, cultural identity comes to the fore: the focus is not heritage assets as such, but on societies as
“users” and “stewards” of the heritage. In this context, we are dealing with the most powerful
discourses about European heritage. The cultural diversity in the 27 nation-states, but even more on

<<   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >>

More intriguing information