volunteers: the new challenge for the cultural heritage arena

VOLUNTEERS:

THE NEW CHALLENGE FOR THE CULTURAL HERITAGE

ARENASOPHIE VISSER / WILLEMKE LANDMAN

DISH 2011– December 8, 2011- Session Local Initiatives

CENTRAL THEME

Concern about involvement and influence of

(formost) volunteering local peoplein typically small organisations


VOLUNTEERS:THE NEW CHALLENGE FOR THE CULTURAL HERITAGE ARENA


Sophie Visser

- Career in information systems : policy, design, methods, info modeling, tc.- Societal activities, e.g.

- ‘Big Brother’ (citizen initiative against privacy threats)- ‘Women & Informatics’ (women movement initiative)

- 2006 Master degree in Historical Geography- Landscape history & heritage information products & use - Collaborative / participative issues-Own firm LandZij Consultancy => e.g. assignments for municipalities-PhD research on Information & Communication on Cultural landscape & Heritage

(Utrecht University, Dpt. Of Geosciences)



Willemke Landmansenior advisor heritage and e-culture

Stichting Landschap Erfgoed Utrecht/ Foundation Landscape Heritage Utrecht


ISSUEStension between

packages that are policy driven, top downexpectations of volunteers (bottom up)

different value systems used by volunteersin comparison to the policy driven values

organisation of platforms to share best practices

role of professional heritage organisations, mediating between official tools and need of volunteers

search for selfsustaining structure of volunteers (when professional heritage organisations finish support)




•and you are …......................


Part 2

Positioning of Volunteers and their rightful involvement



2011 EU Year of Volunteering

' Volunteers: added value for Europe's cultural heritage'

Europa Nostra / Amsterdam Declaration 2011

What is this added value?Does the volunteer get enough value in return?



*European Landscape Convention (ELC)

- Dates from 2000, but States has to ratify it (Netherlands in 2005)

- 2003: Participation essential, but perceived constrained (critiqued as: “the intended methods and GISses showed a very one-sided approach to public involvement”

- 2008: “Participation implies two-way communication” (from experts and scientists to the population and vice versa)

*The Netherlands: struggling with two-way participation & communication



LANDSCHAP ERFGOED UTRECHT

Part 3

USE OF 3D IN PRESENTINGLOCAL AND REGIONAL ARCHEOLOGICAL

HERITAGE

Willemke Landman - DISH 2011– December 8, 2011- Session Local Initiatives

Willemke LandmanLandschap Erfgoed UtrechtDISH 2011, December 8, 2011

USE OF 3D FOR PRESENTINGLOCAL AND REGIONAL ARCHEOLOGICAL HERITAGE

Position archeological volunteers in Province of Utrecht

• What is their role in the preservation and presentation of archeological heritage

• What is their position vis-a-vis professional field/authorities

Willemke Landman - DISH 2011– 8 december 2011Willemke Landman - DISH 2011– December 8, 2011- Session Local Initiatives


• Malta Convention (1992) • Wet archeologische monumentenzorg (Wamz, 2007)

• Responsibility largely from central government to municipalities (planning permits, buildings permits)

• Commercialisation archeological research/fieldwork

• Marginalisation volunteers (fieldwork)



AWN: association for volunteers in archeology• www.awn-archeologie.nl

Reorientation role amateur archeologists/volunteers

1. Field research (assisting professionals/companies)2. Communication (public awareness)3. Lobbyist (checking municipalities)


• MOTIVE • lack of public access to archeological heritage in

Province of Utrecht• Objects ' disappear' in provincial repository

• PILOT COURSE 3d photography of archeological objects

Presentation / exhibitionTarget group: volunteersUtrecht, May-June 2011



<

16

3D-applications in CH:

ResearchDocumentationFysical reconstructionCultural tourismPublic accessEducation



Sunday, November 27, 2011vrijdag 5 juni 2009 LEU Ploegbegeleiders overleg 10


Products in CH

• 3D models• Animations• Visualisations• Digital Terrain Models• Maps



Willemke Landman - DISH 2011– 8 december 2011

• 7 meetings

• Accompanied by • professional, archeological heritage, Ton van Rooijen, LEU• professional, e-culture and heritage, Willemke Landman, LEU




• Method: -Photostitching

• Use of open source

• Free software– Arc 3D – MeshLab



Courtesy of Photomodeler

Sunday, November 27, 2011vrijdag 5 juni 2009 LEU Ploegbegeleiders overleg 21


• Easy Access

• Photo camera (SLR)• Consumer class • (< 5MB pixels)• PC Windows OS • Internet accessOptioneel• Tripod




• praktijk voorbeelden• Provinciaal Depot• nog toe te voegen: foto Willemke in actie


Provincial Repository


• voorbeelden•


MUSEUM DORESTAD


• voorbeelden•



EXPERIENCES



1. START: UPLOAD AND DOWNLOAD

• Arc 3D Software only for OS Windows (now also Mac version)

• Server Arc 3D: Messages can be confusing

• Server errors upload to server• Server download model confusing



• wat ging wat slecht



3. EQUIPMENT

• Lightning• Professional lighting equipment neccesary

• Camera• High level control of necessary

• PC• Resulting 3D-models very big• rendering takes up great capacity of processor



4. FOCUS

• Developed for • large monuments and sites (Arc 3D)• Outside photography: outdoor light

• Regional and local volunteers work mainly with: • objects (coins, shards)• small size• inside photography: artifical lighting



5. VALUES SETS

Official organisations select on basis of adminstrative values

- Volunteers select on basis of mix of ‘official’, emotional and social values

- Official organisations wish to tell the facts- Volunteers wish to tell the story behind the object

- Official organisations wish to document - Volunteers (also) wish to exhibit (webpresentation)



CONCLUSIONS

• Very promising pilot• Participants enthousiast

• Software to much develop software• Not yet suitable for use by volunteers

• Need for • or supporting network / platform• recognition of values volunteers


Part 4

Some examples in view

their actual contributions

to heritage and volunteers

Sophie VisserLandZij Consultancy / Utrecht University, Dpt. Of GeosciencesDISH 2011, December 8, 2011

Sophie Visser - DISH 2011– December 8, 2011- Session Local Initiatives

VOLUNTEERS AND LANDSCAPE HERITAGE INFORMATION

Own background in participation and landscape information



Rotterdam

The Hague Utrecht

AmsterdamCitizens initiative group

Forserious participation in Oude Rijn Zone project

2005-2007Oude Rijn river

Oude Rijn Zone

Supporting local organizations in the Green Heart

in spatial questions, problems, participation

>2007

The ‘Green Heart’ of Holland Master research

+ assigmentsArea of Reeuwijk

2004 +

- Landscape History - Information products

- Digital maps

In cooperation with local en regional

people & organozations

Own background in participation and landscape information



Issues on participation, heritage and information

*Participation in what contribution to what?

- in knowledge about landscape history & heritage?- in information in information systems, websites, other media- just contributing ‘experiences’?- in the valuation of landscape & heritage?- in the heritage choices & decisions?

*Whose norms <-> consequences? - e.g. GIS (Geographic Information System): the professional norm

=> too complex, expensive and time-consuming for volunteers -generally: can volunteers contribute what and how they want and need?

=> What’s done (or not) : for the benefit of who and what?



The Dutch version also says why:“so as to enable anyone using, for instance, Wikipedia, to get a good overview of the magnificent cultural heritage of the Netherlands”

Example (1) - E.g. English « Wiki Loves Monuments


VOLUNTEERS AND LANDSCAPE HERITAGE INFORMATION – Example 1

http://www.landschaperfgoedutrecht.nl/




Actual contribution of ‘Wiki Loves Monuments’ :

- Applying to the State Service’s need for pictures of Rijksmonumenten

- And, of course, for planning, recreation & tourism, public awareness, etc.

But:

-Image building of cultural heritage=> Rijksmonumenten = ‘the’ = all cultural heritage of the Netherlands?!

- Pictures are (just) ‘visual experiences’ : ‘harmless participation’ => free help for the State Service => but just a ‘feel good’ experience for the volunteers?



- Started as a regional initiative by - the regional Historical Society De Motte- the regional NGO for Landscape Protection (NLGO)

- support and money from the Regional Authories (ISGO, Waterboard)- Realisation with help from Landschapsbeheer Zuid-Holland (LBZH



CH Landscape Inventory Goeree + (2005-2006)

Rotterdam

The Hagu

eUtrecht

Amsterdam

Goeree-Overflakkee

CH Landscape Inventory Goeree (South-Holland)

2006 – Digital results in website LBZH



Built elementsMilitary elementsWater management elementsLandscape elements

2010 - The Inventory in KICH : the national GIS on heritage

In this KICH view,460 objects in totalon heritage & CH:

- National-Provincial- Municipal

+ Regional Inventory


VOLUNTEERS AND LANDSCAPE HERITAGE INFORMATION– Example 2

CH Landscape Inventory Goeree

http://www.wikilovesmonuments.nl/english/

http://www.wikilovesmonuments.nl/english/

CH Landscape Inventory Goeree

In ‘Metadata’- ‘Regionals’ are mentioned generally- LBZH + coordinator specifically- Copyrights & intellectual property rights with LBZH

“Described by LBZH”? => incorrect!

=> Bigger & more official role of LBZH!=> What about the role of the ‘Regionals’?


VOLUNTEERS AND LANDSCAPE HERITAGE INFORMATION– Example 2

LBZH and/or the ‘Regionals’ in KICH

Part 5

THE BIGGER PICTURE

POSITIONING THE CASES, THE CONSEQUENCES AND REQUIREMENTS





Involvements in CH Inventory Goeree:- High on ‘heritage choices’- Very high on ‘user generated content’- Lessened on ’information implementation’

Involvements in Wiki Loves Monuments:- None in ‘heritage choices’- Low on ‘user generated content’ (just ‘visual’)- None/Low on ’information implementation’

Involvements in 3D Archeology pilot:- Low in ‘heritage choices’- High on ‘user generated content’ - None on ’information implementation’

DISH 2011– december 8, 2011- Session Local Initiatives


time

degree of involvement

Production cycle of heritage information product

ISSUEStension between

packages that are policy driven, top downexpectations of volunteers (bottom up)

different value systems used by volunteersin comparison to the policy driven values

organisation of platforms to share best practices

role of professional heritage organisations, mediating between official tools and need of volunteers

search for selfsustaining structure of volunteers (when professional heritage organisations finish support)



Questions on Issues 1 – 2

Issue 1: Should the experts & institutions (as they have the money, etc. ) and their needs be leading in choices on packages, or the benefits for everybody involved?

Issue 2: Should (expert’s/official’s) information systems, websites, etc. beadapted to imply different and/or deviating heritage values from volunteers (and other involved people)?



Questions on Issues 3 – 4

Issue 3: Which platforms can be inspiring for volunteers to share experiences?

Issue 4: Should professional organisations do more to accommodate to the needs of volunteers for tools and practical support?

Issue 5: If professional organisations limit or end support, how can volunteers build stepping stones to a self-sustaining structure / self-organisation ?



CONTACT

Sophie [email protected]

Willemke [email protected]



volunteers: the new challenge for the cultural heritage arena

Environment