what is a cultural park? - digital.csic: home
TRANSCRIPT
Preserving the future,
Projecting the past.
What is a Cultural Park?
Pablo Alonso González
Peterhouse
August 2011
This dissertation is submitted for the Degree of Master of Philosophy
1
Declaration
This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the
outcome of work done in collaboration, except where specifically indicated in the text.
This dissertation does not exceed the word limit stipulated by the Degree
Committee for the Faculty of Archaeology and Anthropology.
2
Abstract
The number of cultural parks has been steadily increasing in recent years
throughout the world. But what is a cultural park? The aim of this dissertation is to
provide an answer to this question or at least to set out the basis for an academic debate
that moves beyond technical narratives that have prevailed to date. It is important to
open up the topic to academic scrutiny given that cultural parks are becoming
widespread devices being employed by different institutions and social groups to
manage and enhance cultural and natural heritage assets and landscapes. The main
problem to deal with is the predominant lack of theory-grounded, critical reflection in
the literature about cultural parks. These remain largely conceived as technical
instruments deployed by institutions in order to solve an array of problems they must
deal with. Also, cultural parks are overally regarded as positive and constructive tools
whose performance is associated with the preservation of heritage, the overcoming of
the nature/culture divide, the reinforcing of identity and memory and the strengthening
of social cohesion and economic development. This dissertation critically explores these
issues through the analysis of the literature on cultural parks. Also, it provides a novel
theoretical conceptualization of cultural parks that is connected and underpins a
tentative methodology developed for their empirical analysis.
3
Table of Contents
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………...….6
1.1 Aims………………………………………………………………………………..10
1.2 Methodology…………………………………………………………………..…...11
1.3 Some remarks on literature about cultural parks…………………………………..12
1.4 Overview…………………………………………………………………….….….15
2. The ambivalence of landscapes: between representation and reality…..18
2.1. The concept of “landscape” ……………………………………………….…..….18
2.2 Managing landscapes……………………………………………………….…...…23
2.2.1 European Landscape Convention (ELC). ………………………………….……24
2.2.2 Belvedere Nota: “Conservation through development”. …………….…….……26
3 Territory and Heritage: From Cultural Landscapes to Cultural Parks.....28
3.1 The UNESCO Framework. ……………………………………….……………… 31
3.2: The N.P.S. framework. ……………………………………………………...……32
3.3 Concluding remarks on landscapes. ………………………………………………34
4. Charting the path to Cultural Parks. …………………………………….…………36
4.1 Europe……………………………………………………………………….…….37
4.2 United States. ……………………………………………………………….…… 40
5. Cultural Parks. ………………………………………………………….…….…44
5.1 From definitions to structures. ……………………………………………………44
5.2 Institutions and Management schemes in Europe and the United States……….…46
5.3 The inventory and the story. …………………………………………………..… 49
5.4 Objectives, planning and legislative framework. …………………………………51
6. Some issues for discussion. ……………………………………………..……56
4
6.1 Governmentality, local communities and spatial planning. ………………...….…56
6.2 Preservation through change? …………………………………………….…….…62
6.3 A story for whom? ………………………………………………………….….… 67
6.4 Nature – Culture and the conflict over representation…………………………….71
6.5 Economic forces and Cultural Parks……………………………………..…….….74
7. A new concept of Cultural Parks: towards an ethnographic methodology…….…...80
7.1. Assembling Cultural Parks…………………………………………………….….82
7.2 An ethnographic methodology for the analysis of cultural parks. …………….… 89
8. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………..…..91
9. Appendices…………………………………………………………………….…97
9.1 Appendix 1. Definitions of “landscape”.……………………………………….…97
9.2 Appendix 2 Definitions of “cultural landscape” ……………………………....….98
9.3 Appendix 3 Definitions of “cultural park/heritage areas”. ………………………100
9.4 Appendix 4 The Val di Cornia Partnership Cultural Park. ………………………105
9.5 Appendix 5 Tables and Schemes. …………………………………………….… 115
9.6 Appendix 6 Images. …………………………………………………………...…142
10. Bibliography …………………………………………………………….……153
5
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Caja España for its financial support through the “Caja España
Masters Award 2010” program. I would also like to express my appreciation to
Peterhouse for the financial and academic support. Thanks to Joaquín Sabaté Bel from
the Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña for the long discussions about cultural parks
and for kindly letting me consult his documentation. Thanks, lastly, to Marie Louise
Stig Sørensen and Margarita Fernández Mier for their comments and support.
6
1. Introduction
“Even within the park and historic preservation communities there is little
understanding of what heritage areas represent. … Heritage Areas don’t fit neatly
within any concept or specialization we are familiar with. … Planning, development
and management of heritage areas requires the coordination of many specialized skills
including those of architects, landscape architects, planners, historic preservationists,
educators, and tourism and economic development specialists to address the intricate
relationships found in a living landscape encompassed in a heritage area. A positive
consequence of this circumstance is the opportunity to enlarge the dimension of
specialized skills by linking up disciplines. But it has left heritage areas to be an orphan
without one specialized profession able to claim it as its very own” (Bray 1994a: 34)
The quotation from Paul Bray brilliantly captures the essential traits of cultural
parks and heritage areas. He highlights the general lack of knowledge about their
existence, their constitutive interdisciplinary character and the absence of professionals
and scholars dedicated to their development and study. Notwithstanding, their number is
growing rapidly. In fact, the present research is tightly linked with real problems
encountered when I was given the responsibility for a project for the creation of a
cultural park in Maragatería (Spain) by the regional Government of Castilla y León in
2009. The complete absence of theory-grounded debate on the one hand, and the lack of
any pragmatic guidelines for the development of cultural parks on the other, made me
aware of the necessity for further research in the topic.
The first striking fact when addressing the topic of cultural parks is the general
lack of academic and institutional publications about them. Paradoxically, this
7
deficiency is probably due to the fact that renders them so interesting from my point of
view, that is, their interdisciplinary and complex nature. A cultural park is a good
example of what Law and Mol (2002) called “slippery objects”. In a cultural park it is
impossible to disentangle some aspects from others, to “purify” and analyze separately
each element. Spatial planning, tourism, institutional organization, heritage and museum
management among others interact in such a way that it is impossible to define precise
areas of activity for each discipline. Thus, cultural parks can take different meanings
depending on the disciplinary root of the author who is accounting for them. They can
be simultaneously spatial planning instruments, cultural heritage stewards or vectors for
tourism attraction. In parallel, cultural parks can be articulated differently at the local
level depending on who plans and supports them, with which objectives and in what
context. Hence, the analysis of cultural parks calls for a holistic approach, one that
conceives of them as a whole entity.
Another factor which partially explains the lack of academic attention they have
received is their dynamic nature. Cultural parks must be conceived as constantly
evolving processes, a fact that hampers the standard scientific effort of fixing and
stabilizing meanings and functions (DeLanda 2004). This situation is interesting with
regard to the study of heritage as it induces the researcher to avoid essentialist
conceptualisations of it. That is, a heritage asset within a cultural park is not defined by
the functions or features that the researcher externally attributes to it. Rather, it is
determined by its particular articulation in a broader scheme where issues ranging from
economy to politics, from science to folklore, intersect constantly.
Cultural parks move beyond the conception of a “park” as a publicly-owned,
enclosed space, aimed at conservation. Cultural parks seek to actively preserve
8
extensive inhabited landscapes and their heritage resources, linking them to the tourist
enterprise through the development of a management structure. Thus, they overcome
the idea of a “heritage site” as a dot in space, embracing the notion of “territorial
heritage” or cultural landscape. This change in focus would allow cultural parks to
overcome the nature/culture (Sabaté 2004b) and tangible/intangible dichotomies
(Bustamante 2008) thanks to a holistic conception of human’s relation with space.
According to different authors, the involvement of local communities and a number of
social actors in decision-making regarding heritage and landscape management would
preclude the commodification of the area in spite of the increase in touristic inflows.
Likewise, this would be so because cultural parks allegedly maintain a close link
between people and their heritage (Daly 2003). Despite these assumptions have never
been proved against actual case studies, cultural parks are overall regarded as positive
technical territorial interventions and devices of local development based on “heritage
resources”.
Consequently, the conception of cultural parks as “technical devices” has
prevailed hitherto both in the literature and in management practices. This situation
stems from the fact that architects and engineers have to pragmatically address the
design and implementation of parks along with the problems and difficulties that it
entails as we shall see later. Also, “technical” conceptions prove useful for institutions
that can easily link cultural parks with politic and socio-economic discourses. Then,
cultural parks become instruments to strengthen the identity and memory of local
communities, to slow down rural depopulation or to reverse the process of economic
decline derived from the end of local productive activities. This empty rhetoric pictures
cultural parks as stable and simple structures, therefore reducing their complexity and
9
agency. In addition, from this viewpoint heritage is regarded as a bare “resource” to be
enhanced for the well-being of the community.
Clearly, this standpoint precludes the possibility of a socio-political analysis of
the performance of cultural parks by leaving out many controversial issues. But in fact
cultural parks play an important role in defining what heritage is, what narratives will be
remembered and represented and which not, thus performing an overtly political task
concerning issues of identity, inclusion and exclusion. Furthermore, cultural parks can
be political in other ways. For instance, they can bring to the public eye hidden
controversies such as ecological degradation, depopulation, lack of democracy, etc.
Therefore, the subject of cultural parks is worthy of further research as it is
related to many socio-political and academic issues and debates. They provide an
outstanding framework for analysing a wide array of matters such as identity politics,
cultural display ethics, representation, tourism, heritage property, commodification and
modern dichotomies such as the nature-culture divide. But cultural parks also entail
huge economic, physical and affective investments by different social actors and real
changes in the lives of people. Thus, commonplace assumptions and potential
mismatchings between theory and practice may bring about harmful consequences in
different ways: investments may be wasted, communities may feel excluded from the
project or heritage could be damaged. This dissertation aims to be a useful contribution
to the academic and practical fields, two areas that are often inextricably linked in every
cultural park project.
10
1.1 Aims
The present dissertation aims to set up the basis for the analysis of cultural parks
and to open up the topic to academic scrutiny. The purpose is not to reach an all-
encompassing definition of cultural parks. Rather, the aim is to map the different
elements that play a role in their constitution and to explore critically dominant
assumptions about them in order to build a new theory and methodology for their study.
The purpose, therefore, is not primarily to answer the problems raised by cultural parks,
but to access the epistemological and ontological assumptions behind their
development. On this basis, it will be possible to move beyond technical narratives that
have prevailed to date and elucidate how cultural parks could be studied more
effectively.
In other words, the aim is to reveal the potential motivations behind the decision
to construct cultural parks, to establish what conceptions of cultural parks they are
rooted in, and to assess to what extent they may function according to their perceived
roles. Therefore, it is essential to shed light on the “genealogy” of cultural parks, that is,
the antecedents and elements that have rendered them possible. Also, it is necessary to
account for their empirical constitution, comprising their social and institutional
organisation and structure. These developments will facilitate the task of analysing the
role heritage plays within cultural parks.
Instead of considering cultural parks as technical instruments, this dissertation
conceives them as emergent processes. From this stance, the paper will question
whether cultural parks really do overcome the nature/culture dichotomy and, if so, how
they do it. Afterwards, the dissertation brings into question the validity of essentialist
11
statements straightforwardly assuming that cultural parks “preserve identity and
memory” or “reinforce community cohesion”. Finally, cultural parks will be set as a
definite object of study or “research problem”. This paves the way for the development
of a methodology that allows the study and explaination of the empirical performance of
cultural parks.
1.2 Methodology
The approach used here to account for cultural parks is largely qualitative. Also,
the investigation calls for an inductive reasoning stance. The newness of the topic and
the particular methods of the Heritage studies discipline make it difficult to work within
a deductive, hypothesis-testing standpoint. Rather, an exploratory and qualitative
methodology is required in order to elucidate the more relevant issues about cultural
parks and to provide a novel framework for their analysis.
Essentially, a library-based work has provided the necessary data to carry out the
investigation. The main resources consulted have been journal papers, books and
normative texts from different institutions such as UNESCO, ICOMOS, European
Council, National Park Service of the United States along with national and regional
governments. Moreover, some cultural park promoters have provided me with planning
guidelines and information. Also, during a research stay at the Universitat Politècnica
de Catalunya in June 2011, Professor Joaquin Sabaté allowed me to consult the
documentation produced by his research group after the implementation of four cultural
parks in Catalunya (Spain).
12
The majority of cultural parks do not publish, or their publication range is limited
to the local level. Hence, the information retrieved from official Websites and blogs is
essential. Digital leaflets, maps, itineraries and short guides provide useful data about
the story of the park, the administrative framework, the main heritage resources or the
socio-economic context. The information gathered from these sources has been
organised and analysed according to the requirements of the specific tasks to be
performed.
Finally, it is important to justify the fact that no fieldwork has been carried out.
Although, I believe that it is not enough to analyze discourses and that fieldwork
research is crucial to understand heritage issues, given the underdeveloped theoretical
state of the subject it is necessary to set out the basis for a realistic empirical research
agenda before plunging straight into the field. The present investigation aims at
establishing a connection between a theoretical framework, an ethnographic
methodology and a clear object of study, an endeavour that will enable me in the future
to carry out meaningful and problem directed fieldwork.
1.3 Some remarks on literature about cultural parks
There are some general remarks to be made before turning to the commentary of
the different bodies of literature concerning cultural parks. As already stated,
scholarship dealing specifically with cultural parks is scarce and comes mainly from the
fields of architecture and spatial planning. This does not mean they are totally isolated
at an academic level. Cultural parks bring together knowledge and expertise from
different lineages and fields, among which essentially museology, spatial planning and
protected area management, architecture and archaeology. Similarly, at an
13
epistemological level they are part of discussions that affect the social sciences at large,
such as the nature/culture dichotomy or the conflict over representation embodied in the
subject/object dialectic. Then, when I mention the lack of specific investigations on
cultural parks I am referring to the absence of research integrating the different fields of
knowledge and dealing with the various epistemological and practical controversial
issues that they entail.
Then, not only there is a lack of interdisciplinary works about cultural parks, but
almost all the studies come from the U.S. and Europe due to the fact that very few
cultural parks exist out of these areas and access to information is more difficult. In fact,
only three cases have been found in China (Zhi-fang & Peng 2001) and Australia
(Henry 2000; Ryan & Huyton 2002). In South America cultural parks are conceived as
open air museums, such as the “Parque Cultural del Caribe” in Colombia or the “Parque
Cultural Valparaíso” in Chile (Holmes et al. 2009) A further difficulty is that
management guidelines and projects are rarely made public apart from exceptional
cases (i.e.Casas 2006).
Normally, papers about cultural parks tell the story of their development, the
involvement of different institutions, the socio-economic context and the heritage
resources included in the park. Each author deploys a different understanding of what is
a cultural park and how it works, taking for granted that their particular concept is
universal. Also, there is a tendency to bring cultural parks into each author’s
disciplinary framework without the necessary epistemological translation. Thus, for
archaeologists they become a good solution for the problem of the preservation of
archaeological remains (Fairclough & Rippon 2002; Ballesteros Arias et al. 2004), for
spatial planners an instrument for the management of special territories such as cultural
14
landscapes (Hernández & Giné 2002) whereas for economists they are seen as an
opportunity to generate wealth and development (Pecchia 2003). Finally, it is relevant
that only one author acknowledges the fact that the cultural park that he is studying has
failed (Rubio Terrado 2008). Cultural parks are only accounted for when they become
thriving projects with positive performances.
The only investigation dealing specifically with cultural parks has been carried out
by Dennis Frenchman and Joaquín Sabaté (2001). Also, Leonel Bustamante has
extended their previous research under the guidance of Joaquín Sabaté (Bustamante
2008). Both works approach cultural parks from an architectural stance that privileges
issues of landscape design and spatial planning. The rest of studies in Europe focus on
individual cases and specific types of parks such as regional (Fernández Mier & Díaz
López 2006), hydraulic (Muñoz Sánchez 2009), agricultural (Ferraresi et al. 1993; Torre
2007), archaeological (Battaglini et al. 2002) or industrial (Butler et al. 1994; Goodall
1994; Hayward 1987; Kunzmann 1999). The works of the Cultural Park system in
Aragón (Spain) stand out because they provide a coherent framework for the six parks
in the system (Aragón 1997). These authors analyse the performance of cultural parks in
relation to spatial planning, sustainable development and tourism. Furthermore, the
promoters of the Val di Cornia Cultural Park (Toscana, Italy) developed a
comprehensive study of their own park which represents the most in-depth account
carried out to date on the issue. In a book produced by themselves (Zucconi 2003), the
promoters critically analyse the development of the park from many different
standpoints, ranging from economy to heritage management.
In the case of the U.S., information about cultural parks (denominated also
Heritage Parks or National Heritage Areas (NHA) comes from different sources. Papers
15
exist dealing with particular cases (e.g. Hayward 1987; Laven et al. 2010; Hamin 2001;
Hart 2000). Occasionally, the National Park System (N.P.S.), the organism responsible
for the management of National Parks in the U.S., provides some technical information
about NHA. However, most of the information comes from their own NHA. promoters
(i.e. Prola 2005) and from private Cultural Resource Management consultants (i.e. Bray
1994a). In particular, the N.H.A. Web pages provide useful information about the park's
history, heritage resources and the subject matter.
Overall, critical and theory-grounded literature on cultural parks is lacking. There
is a clear predominance of positivist and functionalist narrations merely presenting the
history of the development of the park and its heritage resources. Normally, authors rely
on essentialist and commonsense categorizations that assume normative definitions to
create watertight categories where cultural parks fit. The idea that cultural parks are
neutral instruments that smoothly translate the “great narratives” of sustainable
development or heritage preservation into praxis permeates the vast majority of the
literature reviewed.
1.4 Overview
The text is divided into two distinct sections. The first five chapters set out the
noteworthy factors that have led to the formation of cultural parks and explore their
functioning and structures. The last two chapters comprise a theoretical reflection and
focus on the development of a methodology for the empirical study of cultural parks.
“The ambivalence of landscapes: between representation and reality”. The
chapter examines the epistemological evolution of the concept of “landscape” and how
16
it interweaves with issues of governmentality. The aim is to show how the ambivalence
of the notion of landscape was generated in parallel with the development of the modern
epistemology and the scientific paradigm. The chapter shows how some of the
controversial aspects of cultural parks stem from placing the idea of landscape at the
heart of its spatial and heritage planning efforts. Finally, two institutional frameworks
for the management of landscapes are analysed.
“Territory and heritage: from cultural landscapes to cultural parks”. This
chapter investigates how the ambivalence of the notion of “landscape” is reproduced in
the conceptualization of cultural landscapes. Also, it shows how under the apparently
positive character of “cultural landscapes” lies a utilitarian notion that opens the door to
the reification and commodification of landscapes. Finally, it presents the different
views of UNESCO and the N.P.S. and how these influence the nature of cultural parks
in each area.
“Charting the road to cultural parks”. The chapter points to some of the
museum practices and protected areas’ management frameworks that have been most
influential in the development of cultural parks. To this end, the main theoretical trends
and some practices in Europe and U.S. are exposed. The chapter aims to show how the
cultural park phenomenon is not entirely original, but rather a hybridization of previous
traditions and practices that undergo different articulations at the local level.
“Cultural parks”. The chapter provides an overview of the process of
implementation and operation of cultural parks. The various definitions of cultural parks
are reviewed along with several key issues that play a role in their constitution such as
17
the inventories, the storytelling process and the role of institutions, legislation and
commonplace objectives.
“Some issues for discussion”. The objective of the chapter is to discuss some
contentious issues about cultural parks while at the same time linking them with other
disciplines and subjects and in particular with the field of heritage studies. A further aim
is to open the subject to academic scrutiny and potential future research.
“A new conception of cultural parks: towards a methodology of analysis”
provides a theoretical conceptualization that serves as a base for the development of a
methodology for the ethnographic study of cultural parks. To do this, I start from a
critical review of the methodologies that have previously been used by other authors.
Then, cultural parks are conceptualized as complex “assemblages”. Afterwards, some
suggestions for the creation of a methodology for their study are provided.
“Conclusions” reviews the main points of the dissertation and discusses their
significance.
18
2. The ambivalence of landscapes: between representation
and reality
2.1. The concept of “landscape”
The etymology of the word for “landscape” derives from the Latin “pagus” in the
Romance languages1 and refers to a place where a human being has been born or lives
and to which a person feels attached (Muñoz 2006). The same link between place and
identity is reproduced in English with “land” and “landscape”, in this case deriving
from the Dutch “Landschap” or German “Landschaft”. Moreover, the literature on
landscapes shows a wide range of positionings on the origins of the modern meaning of
the term. Maderuelo (2006) situates it in the fifth century Chinese artists’ conception of
space, while Zimmer (2008) locates it in the modern Flanders. For Burckhardt (2004)
and the cultural geographers (see Cosgrove 1985) the modern idea of landscape
emerged with the Italian Renaissance paintings. These paintings placed the artist-
observer outside the frame, a movement that Cosgrove relates with the incipient birth of
modern science’s epistemology. Moreover, this conception breaks with medieval
landscape paintings which expressed the manifestation of the divine order in nature
(Fuller 1988) without establishing a separation between man and nature nor even a
linear perspective that could represent the world accurately (Berque 1997).
The long process whereby medieval epistemology was replaced by the modern
one gave rise to a neutral and scientific notion of nature and the world (Livingstone
1992). The landscape becomes part of the biopolitical machinery deployed by modern
1 “Paisaje” in Spanish, “paysage” in French, “Paesaggio” in Italian, “Paisagem” in Portuguese or “Peisaj” in Romanian.
19
states to control and discipline the population (Foucault 2007). Mitchell (2002) and
Cosgrove (2003) provide examples of how the representation of landscape served to
establish a real domination over spaces and populations in Italy, England and other
European states during the modern era: every new spatial theory implies a new socio-
political order (see Fagence 1983; Foley 1960; Kramer 1975; Reade 1987).
Thus, by tying together morals and politics, science and aesthetics, the adaptation
of the notion of landscape in the discipline of Geography became controversial and
derived in a conflict throughout the eighteenth century in France and Germany between
a “pure geography” aspiring to be a neutral and scientific discipline, and the “State
geography”, which focused on supporting the performance of the aristocratic State
(Dematteis 1985). This second position derived in what was known in the United
Kingdom as geography for the sake of the Empire (Wallach 2005). The coming to
power of the bourgeoisie in France and Germany during the nineteenth century led to an
ambiguous compromise between knowledge and power (Minca & Bialasiewicz 2008)
whose precarious balance still weighs heavily in our way of managing and
understanding space (Foucault & Gordon 1980).
Alexander von Humboldt transformed the aesthetic concept of landscape into the
scientific notion commonly used in the social sciences still today (2003). The scientific
adaptation of the term was charged with ambivalence, since “Landschaft” referred both
to the reality of a neighbourhood and the figurative representation of the neighbourhood
itself. It comes by no surprise that this dialectic between representation and reality will
impinge on the operation of cultural parks. This is so because the aesthetic, emotional
and affective dimension of landscape is confused with its concrete physical, material
dimension. The modern scientific quest to “purify concepts” (Latour 1993b) has
20
prevented the acceptance of “landscape” as a hybrid where the objective and subjective
dimensions coexist. From Humboldt’s conceptualization onwards, the diverse
approaches to landscapes have only swung the balance toward the objectivist or the
subjectivist side, with the result that “territory”, “space” and “place” are confused with
“landscape”.
In the early twentieth century a “descriptive-cartographic” turning point
transformed landscapes into sets of objects, a move that could be linked to war needs of
the states at that time (Vázquez Varela & Martínez Navarro 2008). From the 1940s
onwards there was a revolution in landscape studies in the U.S. and the U.K. thanks to
the works of John Brinckerhoff and William Hoskins with his classic work “The
making of the English Landscape” (1955). It was Carl Sauer who reinstated the
significance of existential values in the notion of landscape, conceived as a stable
territory with a specific identity (Getis & Getis 2006; Rubenstein 2010). Interestingly,
this view led him to propose the preservation and enhancement of historic landscapes
already in the 1950s (Mathewson & Kenzer 2003).
During the 1960s the works of Augustin Berque integrated the concept of
landscape within the phenomenological tradition (Relph & Mugerauer 1985; Muñoz
Jiménez 1979). Heideggerian phenomenology caused a shift in the conception of
landscapes by placing the subject as “being-in-the-world” in the centre of its ontology
(Safranski 1998). Consequently, the observing subject is what gives meaning to the
outer world and the landscape becomes a human experience rather than a part of the
objective world (Berque et al. 1994). Afterwards, the New Cultural Geography
hybridized phenomenology with Marxism providing a strong characterization of
“landscape” as a “visual ideology” (Cosgrove 1985) or “way of seeing” that serves to
21
sustain mystification (Berger 1972; see also Ingerson 2000). Cultural Geography has
been harshly criticised by anthropologists considering that this paradigm conveys an
“elitist” vision of the landscape (Zusman 2004). In fact, some recent approaches to
landscapes could be regarded as a response to the “culturalist” perspective (e.g. Bender
& Winer 2001; Tilley 1994; Hirsch & O'Hanlon 1995)2.
From the 1990s onwards, there is an outburst of works on landscapes from
heterogeneous viewpoints whose detailed review exceeds the scope of this thesis.
Recent scholarship has questioned the functionality of the notion of landscape and tried
to bridge the epistemological gap between nature and culture (see Thrift 2008;
Whatmore 2002) Currently, the acceptance of the interweaving between nature and
culture seems to be widespread in scientific contexts (see Naveh 1995; Antrop 2006;
Palang & Fry 2003). This recognition runs in parallel with the acknowledgement that no
ecosystem can be defined as external to man and that no scientist can claim to be totally
foreign to its object of study, thus accepting the contingency of his categories (Couston
2005). However, according to Gerard Chouquer (2007) the epistemological split will
continue to exist as natural science requires the separation of nature and culture. This is
so since otherwise its sphere of influence would be reduced as everything would be
“socially constructed”. For this reason, it is important to maintain the term
“environment”, a concept that enables natural science to keep an a-historical conception
of nature where man has not intervened (Chouquer 2000).
Despite the progress of the academic forefront, two trends with different
conceptions of landscapes remain clearly separated. First, the objectivist paradigm,
“illustrated by the many surveys of landscapes which classify and evaluate their quality”
2 See Appendix 1: “Definitions of landscape”.
22
(Lothian 2000: 179). Secondly, the subjectivist paradigm that “requires the assessment
of respondent preferences of landscapes and, through the use of statistical methods, the
contribution which the landscapes’ physical components make to its quality is
identified” (idem: 179). Lothian shows that there is an insurmountable break between
institutional objectivist assessments and academic subjectivist approaches. The
objectivist trend has gained momentum recently thanks to the development of the
“applied geography” and the strength of institutions such as the Countryside Agency in
U.K. and similar entities in Europe (see Mata Olmo et al. 2003; Martínez de Pisón &
Sanz Herráiz 2000).
Moreover, the issue becomes increasingly complex considering that the objectivist
hypotheses generates otherness and is inherently appropriative: the will to know runs in
parallel with the will to dominate (Adorno 1997). The process of objectification-
reification makes possible the act of “possessing” and facilitates the entrance of the
possessed object into the sphere of the market: colonialism reified dominated cultures
which became “resources” available to the imperialist (Bru Bistuer & Agüera Cabo
2000). Then, the objectification of the landscape can open the door to processes of
enhancement and touristification. Thus, for most institutions and for “pure” science,
landscape is still considered from an utilitarian and functional perspective.
This utilitarian position is reflected in the use modern states make of the
“archetypal landscapes” to tell their own histories and gain legitimacy (see Minca 2000;
Schama 1995 for examples of these practices in the U.K. and the U.S.) through the
establishment of an exemplary ideal of “order” (Turri 1998). This is possible thanks to
the appropriation of the subjective communicative potential of landscapes (Turco 2002;
Guarrasi 2002) that is channelled through the emotional and aesthetic elements giving
23
rise to feelings of belonging (Cosgrove & Daniels 1989). The affective dimension
comprising the myths, obsessions and memories which make up the “landscape as a
shared culture” (Schama 1995) is thus reified with political or economic objectives, as
is the case with cultural parks. Therefore, it is not possible to perform a technical or
neutral action on landscapes: their management always revolves around the political and
ideological control of the meanings attached to the territory and the limits set to it.
In conclusion, despite the diversity of academic approaches to the landscape, an
objectivist viewpoint prevails among most scholars, politicians, planners and
journalists. Is it possible to reconcile the subjective understanding of landscape as gaze,
as feeling, as a narrative of our past, with a scientific-bureaucratic notion that reifies it?
Does a reifying conception of landscapes transform them into fetishes to which
meanings, experiences and products can be associated for a passive subject who
consumes them as a tourist or a citizen? These problems inherent to the concept of
landscape will also haunt cultural parks from their inception.
2.2 Managing landscapes
This section reviews two influential European texts on landscape management that
have served as an inspiration for the creation of cultural parks. Both texts keep a
precarious balance between the two facets of the concept of landscape. Also, they show
an incipient interweaving between territory3 and heritage that opens the door to the
advent of cultural landscapes and cultural parks.
3 “Territory” can be understood in many ways. Here it is conceived in a political manner as a physical area under control of a social group. As a reified category, it can be equated with the objectivist conception of “landscape” as a delimited area in space that sets aside the interference of the human perception or gaze.
24
2.2.1 European Landscape Convention (ELC)
The ELC (2000) defines landscape as an “area, as perceived by people, whose
character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”. The
aim of the chart is to safeguard everyday and even degraded landscapes where the
majority of Europeans live, instead of merely preserving the aesthetically beautiful or
outstanding (see Priore 2002).
The simple and integrating definition put forward purports a dynamic and
relational view of landscapes where the subjective, social and non elitist components are
prioritised (Spingola & Pizziolo 2002). The ELC stands in contrast with other texts that
present a narrower understanding of the concept: the UNESCO opts for “cultural
landscape” (Rössler 2006), environmental policies normally refer to “natural
landscapes” while the European Charter on Spatial Planning (1984) refers to “rural
landscapes”. This positioning is related to the will to make the legislation extensive to
the whole territory, a notion that breaks with all previous legislative mechanisms that
focused on restricted areas of planning (Pedroli & Van Mansvelt 2006). According to
Florencio Zoido (2001), the extensive conception of landscape generated an intense
debate among the promoters of the chart because some groups opposed it arguing that
an excessive safeguarding of landscapes would threaten economic development.
The ELC stresses the idea of change as an inherent reality of landscapes (Vos &
Meekes 1999). Thus, in response to the diverse menaces threatening landscapes, the aim
should be to “guide and harmonise changes which are brought about by social,
25
economic and environmental processes” through three distinct attitudes toward
landscapes: protection, management and planning.4
The ELC shows an inclination to relate landscape to spatial and urban planning
(Zoido Naranjo 2004). This peculiarity opens the door for architects to actively
intervene in the management of landscapes, a path that has led many to participate in the
implementation of cultural parks. The convention has received a broad normative
recognition, but its practical implementation has only been considered by Holland and
Denmark. The Nordic Council, the British Countryside Agency and the Swiss Federal
Bureau have also adopted it within their working framework. Furthermore, many
landscape catalogues and inventories are underway throughout Europe with different
degrees of intensity (Clark et al. 2004; Abellán & Fourneau 1998; Gómez Mendoza &
Sanz Herraiz 2010) and methodological originality (see Galstyan 2005; Wascher 2005).
Despite being a key text for the management and understanding of landscapes, the
ELC poses unattainable objectives for many countries (Gambino 2003). Thus, the
document remains a “utopian projection” (Magnaghi 2005) as it is not a realistic goal to
manage all territories with the same care. This fact paves the way for the spread of
cultural landscapes conceived as isolated areas to be safeguarded. Also, the ambivalence
of the ELC may lead to a disjunction between discursive assumptions and practical
aims. Despite highlighting the importance of the existential properties of landscapes,
these are actually treated as “territory” to be delimited, inventoried, and managed by
spatial planning instruments. Therefore, the underlying character of the norm presents a
clear tendency towards the objectification of landscape.
4 See Table 1.
26
2.2.2 Belvedere Nota: “Conservation through development”
The Dutch “Belvedere Nota” (1999) continues with an original tradition on spatial
planning that develops an understanding of spatial and heritage planning unprecedented
in other countries (Ploeg 1999; Ministerie van Cultuur 1996; Feddes & Platform 1996).
The two crucial areas of the Nota are, firstly, the combination of historical and cultural
disciplines with spatial planning. Secondly, the selection of Belvedere areas of heritage
value throughout the country. These areas are not restrictive and can bring together
large frameworks of cities, landscapes, historical and archaeological areas (Schoorl
2005).
The Nota is concerned about national landscapes becoming homogeneous, thus
highlighting the necessity of strengthening the material links between past, present and
future. This fact does not entail a “preservation at all costs” policy as “we cannot live in
the past –we must build and design to meet and reflect the culture of our own age” (p.
5). The most salient characteristic of the Nota is that it places “landscapes” in the centre
of the planning efforts, acknowledging and dealing creatively with their ambivalence.
The daunting dichotomy of change-preservation is overcome thanks to an understanding
of conservation not as preservation but as management of change (Beresford & Phillips
2000; Brown et al. 1999).
Instead of establishing a clear-cut separation between spatial planning and heritage
management, the Nota underscores the need to keep both fields in a close dynamic
interrelation. Accordingly, cultural history disciplines should not only focus on the
preservation of isolated cultural heritage elements, but should be also concerned with
the cohesion of areas and current spatial developments. In turn, spatial planning should
27
contribute to the enhancement of cultural and heritage values and the strengthening of
each area’s identity. Thus, landscape planning “demands a supplementary, integrated
approach … assuming an intrinsic interrelationship between archaeology, the
conservation of listed buildings and that of historic landscapes. Independent elements
and patterns are thereby to be regarded as forming part of a greater whole. This implies
a regional approach” (p. 19). Then, “when both disciplines widen their field of vision in
this way, looking back and looking forward, will become extensions of each other and
each will contribute to the forging of the link between past and future” (p. 19-20).
The Nota combines its technical nature with an openly political stance. In fact, it
can be included within the multiculturalist set of policies that aim to mitigate the social,
religious and ethnic fragmentation of the Netherlands (see Scheffer 2011). Actually, the
text prioritizes notions of identity over authenticity (Schoorl 2005) in order to reduce
the gap between native groups and immigrant communities. This political positioning
has raised criticisms of the Nota claiming that it represents a social-engineering attempt
that aims to use spatial and heritage planning to “shape society” (Pellenbart & van Steen
2001).
The Nota considers issues of social cohesion, ecological sustainability, scientific
and aesthetic interest and cultural identity as legitimate benchmarks to judge spatial
interventions independently of the utilitarian aspects (VROM-Raad 1998). Hence, it
performs a turning point concerning landscape and heritage planning. In particular,
three aspects stand out that strongly condition the development of cultural parks: the
emphasis on a holistic and regional approach to planning, the disciplinary and empirical
coalescence between heritage and space management and the balanced articulation
between identity, ecology, aesthetics and economic interests.
28
3 Territory and Heritage: From Cultural Landscapes to
Cultural Parks
The ELC intended to extend landscape planning on a continental scale in Europe.
The impossibility of implementing this utopian projection often reduces landscape
management to places deemed of “outstanding value” or, as recognized by Italian
legislation, a “beautiful panorama” (Campanelli 2004). Despite their apparent similarity,
“landscapes” and “cultural landscapes” need to be conceptualised separately. The
concept “cultural landscape” is somehow close to that of “heritage”, implying an idea of
something valuable that has to be preserved, a trait that is no straightforwardly present
in “landscape”. Moreover, the differentiation between them is at the root of the problem
of protected areas’ management. Is it preferable to implement holistic landscape and
heritage management plans comprising whole territories or to focus on taking care of
some specific landscapes? Is it fair to give preference to some areas in democratic states
where theoretically all people and their landscapes should be treated equally, as the ELC
states?
The conceptualization of cultural landscapes has to be necessarily open since all
definitions are based on a particular epistemological foundation, resulting partial and
sometimes even contradictory (Maderuelo 2006; Vázquez Varela & Martínez Navarro
2008)5. New perspectives based on post-structuralism and artistic practice are added to
the traditional positivist viewpoint deriving from natural sciences or from
phenomenology. For cultural geographers, the same space can be constituted in
different cultural landscapes depending on the observer’s perspective (Ballesteros Arias
et al. 2004). Moreover, from the point of view of Actor-Network-Theory the concept
5 See Appendix 2 “Definitions of cultural landscape”.
29
“cultural landscape” can refer to many different realities: that of legislation, the
academic, that of the local association or the tourist, etc. All of them are connected but
are not necessarily the same (Pinch 2003).
The origins of the cocnept date back to the works of nineteenth century German
geographers (Minca 2001) and to the romantic will to see the monument in its original
spatial context (Busquets et al. 2009). Carl Sauer offered the first definition of cultural
landscape in his “Morphology of Landscape”: “the cultural landscape is shaped from a
natural landscape by a cultural group. Culture is the agent, nature is the means, the
cultural landscape is the result” (Sauer & Leighly 1963 [1925] :343).
In Europe, the works on cultural geography carried out by Sorre (1967)
anticipated the consolidation from the 1960’s onwards of a tendency towards a
spatialised notion of heritage (Alvarez Areces 2002). Landscape archaeology has
contributed to the process since the 1980s by widening the concept of “archaeological
site” and providing landscapes with scientific narratives (see Criado-Boado 1997;
Clavel-Lévêque et al. 2002; Darvill et al. 1993; Fairclough & Rippon 2002).
Accordingly, Archaeology gained legitimacy to participate in the management of
landscapes with its own methods and to promote the idea of “landscape heritage” in
spatial planning guidelines (Cacho 2006). Especially since the 1980s, archaeologists
have increasingly acknowledged that cultural heritage can no longer be perceived in
isolation, thus recognizing the need for unitary legislation covering cultural heritage,
environment, territory and landscape (Marciniak 2000).
However, despite the increasing recognition that the concept has gained in
different disciplines, it is not free of contradictions. Sabaté considers that the idea of
30
“cultural landscape” is redundant because every landscape “is cultural” (2002) and all
people have a “cultural relation” with land (O'Flaherty & California State Parks n.d.).
Then, one might wonder why it is so commonly used, even within Sabaté’s research
group6. Again, the disjunction between actual practices and institutional and academic
discourse is patent. On one side, the concept of cultural landscape seems to be used
because it satisfies the need of the State to define limits, create boundaries and
classifications for management purposes. On the other side, it suits the functioning of
the market as it produces differences, a source of added territorial value (Rullani 2006;
Galindo González & Sabaté Bel 2009). In fact, place differentiation is the constitutive
cornerstone of tourism (Prats 2003; Vázquez Barquero 2009).
From this standpoint, the cultural landscape becomes a scarce commodity that
goes into the struggles for social appropriation, whether symbolic or real (Duncan &
Duncan 2004). Also, the reification of the notion stems from its conception as “artwork”
(e.g. Ojeda Rivera 2004; Zimmer 2008). According to this view, to manage a cultural
landscape “planners need to be artists as well as scientists” (von Haaren 2002: 80). This
“artistic” viewpoint entails the reification of cultural landscapes, which far from being
artworks are the outcome of a specific utilitarian relation of past societies with their
surroundings (Chouquer 2000).
Nowadays, a novel and more complex form of utilitarianism is deployed whereby
landscape and heritage are linked with tourism and development (Urry 2002) under the
motto of “conservation through change” (Sabaté 2007; see also Schofield 2009).
Therefore, the ambivalence of the “landscape” remains in the notion of “cultural
landscape”. Likewise, the contradiction persists between discourses and actual practices
6 See Table 2.
31
and between the representative and the objective dimensions of landscapes. This
opposition is difficult to overcome because any present intervention on the landscape is
mediated by technology and bureaucracy (Cauquelin 2002). Better then to acknowledge
that cultural landscapes are concepts oriented toward functional objectives. As
Domenech Reinoso points out, “while traditional historical preservation sought to
recognize and protect the distinctive material traits of a shared past, the goal of cultural
landscapes is to promote and put to work these features for new forms of economic
development” (2005: 64).
3.1 The UNESCO Framework
The most widely applied definition of “cultural landscape” is provided by the
UNESCO. The definition has been criticized for its clear Universalist and Western
epistemological bias (Castillo Ruiz 2007). Of course, it does not address issues of
economy or touristic management.
The UNESCO laid the foundations of the concept in the World Heritage
Convention (1972) due on one side to the threat that industrialization posed to landscape
preservation and on the other to the academic theoretical developments that were taking
place at that time (Martínez de Pisón Stampa 2004). The definitive establishment of
cultural landscapes as a working category came in the “La Petit Pierre” meeting
(October 1992) and in the “Expert meeting on Cultural Landscapes” (October 1993).
The Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention
(2006) already includes the category “cultural landscapes” along with specific
instruments for their identification, protection and preservation (Rössler 2003; see also
Rössler 2006). Cultural landscapes “represent the combined works of nature and of man
32
… illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the
influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural
environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and
internal” (UNESCO 2006 items 45 - 47)7.
To date, sixty-six cultural landscapes have been inscribed on the World Heritage
List8. The subjective and controversial task of deciding which landscapes are “cultural”
and which not has caused difficulties for the UNESCO. In response, the UNESCO has
provided some guidelines to facilitate the process of inscription (i.e. Prada Bengoa
1994; UNESCO 1996 prf. 6 and 39) that have been complemented by academic
attempts to establish a definite set of assessment criteria (i.e. Darvill 1994; Mascarenhas
1995).
3.2 The National Park Service framework
As early as 1983 the N.P.S. recognised cultural landscapes as a specific kind of
heritage, establishing a set of criteria to define and identify them (Birnbaum 1994). A
cultural landscape is “a geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources
and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity,
or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values” (Birnbaum et al. 1996)9.
Contrarily to UNESCO’s, N.P.S. pragmatic definitions reflect the actual
commitment to manage and present cultural landscapes to the American public. Within
the N.P.S. framework, cultural landscape characterization is the first step in the
7 See Table 3. 8 See UNESCO’s Webpage for an updated list: http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape 9 See Table 4.
33
implementation of broader “preservation plans”. Also, cultural landscape assessment is
openly tied to political objectives that aim to reinforce the identity of the American
Nation.
Therefore, the underlying conception of cultural landscapes diverges between
UNESCO and N.P.S.’ frameworks despite the apparent similarities (Hall et al. 2000).
The N.P.S. straightforwardly considers cultural landscapes as spaces that must be
associated with events and a number of heritage assets (Rowntree 1996). Then, cultural
landscapes should “tell stories” that connect heritage resources with an identity (García
López 2008). The N.H.A. phenomenon is a clear outcome of this standpoint.
Probably this conception derives from the formation process of the country
whereby vast natural regions were put at the service of human development in a short
time. The sense of durability is scarce and therefore the American point of view is more
instrumental than philosophical or aesthetic (Conzen 2001). Furthermore, the lower
human alteration of the U.S. landscapes fosters an idea of territory as “natural space”.
Thus, it is difficult for Americans to get used to the idea that people live within parks as
is normal in Europe (Bray 2000).
Instead, the European view represented by UNESCO regards cultural landscapes
as the result of a gradual sedimentation of long-term socio-economic historical
processes (Gambino 2002). Consequently, the cultural landscape cannot be separated
from the communities that crafted it (Waterton 2005). Furthermore, UNESCO’s
objectivist standpoint does not favour any pattern of management. This fact leads to a
preservationist approach: cultural landscapes are isolated from the rest of the
“landscapes” and apparently the only legitimate approach becomes the “preservation of
34
difference”. These structural divergences in the epistemological conception of the
relation between heritage and territory are reflected in the two different understandings
of cultural parks on either side of the Atlantic10.
3.3 Concluding remarks on landscapes
The landscape – cultural or otherwise – is a difficult concept to grasp. If it is
considered as a social construction it cannot be simply equated with a territory, but
neither with a subjective individual representation (Greider & Garkovich 1994; Delgado
Rozo 2010; Foster 2005). Also, it is believed that landscapes hold intrinsic qualities that
foster a sense of belonging, identity and memory. Moreover, they have an ontological
character as they produce subjectivities and social realities. According to the main
institutional texts (ELC, Belvedere Nota, etc.), in theory all landscapes have the same
value and should be managed equally. Supposedly, in landscapes nature and culture
along with the material and existential dimensions of space are harmoniously unified. In
practice, however, UNESCO and N.P.S. support the idea of cultural landscapes, which
is already a politically charged decision as it entails the establishment of territorial
hierarchies, instead of purporting a view of “landscape” as a common social value:
some landscapes are “cultural” and valuable whereas others are not.
According to Bray (2004a), Whatmore and Boucher (1993) several underlying
narratives pervade discourses on landscape preservation. First, the conservationist
narrative values landscape as a scientific and aesthetic “natural” reserve that is
necessary to preserve, in opposition to change and development. The ecological and
historical narrative considers landscape as a common support of wild and human life as
10 See Table 5.
35
well as a source of sense of belonging. Finally, the utilitarian narrative regards
landscapes as an “added value”.
However, away from the field of discourse heritage managers and spatial planners
have to deal with the complexity and hybridity of the real world. Therefore, I believe
that “landscapes” should be conceived as an entity that can “stand for something”:
norms, affects, desires, identities, ways of life and so on (Schein 2003: 202-203). But
also as a “field of tension” (Wylie 2007: 1) where market forces, bureaucracies, the
social desire for the past, etc. intersect with the epistemological dichotomies of
modernity (i.e. nature-culture, etc.). To manage landscapes involves that a social group
or institution must project towards the future a certain way of understanding and
handling its relation with its surroundings. The issue at stake is to discern whose
representation of landscapes prevails in their management.
36
4. Charting the path to Cultural Parks
“Heritage areas are like a view of the landscape in that everyone sees them, and
their origins, differently because those involved have different values, goals, and
backgrounds. This description of the evolution of heritage areas is one view of the
movement. … The heritage areas movement began, arguably, in a dozen different places
and points in time. The approach that is being used in hundreds of places evolved from
a number of separate but related conservation, historic preservation, land use and
economic development movements” J. Glenn Eugster (2003: 50).
This chapter outlines the practices that have been most influential for the
development of cultural parks in the fields of museum and protected areas management.
The term “background” has been intentionally avoided to keep away from setting a
clear-cut division between a before and an after. In reality, the different management
experiences intermingle taking a little from here and there to result in heterogeneous
instruments (Mose 2007). Thus, an ecomuseum like Bergslagen (Sweden) has recently
been renamed as a cultural park (Bergdhal 2005) without a radical change in its
structure. Although the U.S. and European cases have been considered separately, it
would be misleading to convey an image of isolation between them. In fact, the
exchange of influences concerning heritage and landscape management date back to the
nineteenth century as evidenced by the works of Ralph Emerson (1971) and George
Perkins (1965).
37
4.1 Europe
The European case is complex given the heterogeneity of practices in each state.
However, it is possible to identify a more or less common management framework at a
continental level throughout the twentieth century. At present, the legislation of
UNESCO and the Council of Europe tend to standardize management practices all over
the continent.
A crucial factor in Europe is the conceptualization of the museum (i.e. Prado,
Louvre, etc.) as a fundamental cultural foundation of the legitimacy of the nation state
born in the nineteenth century (Sherman 1989). This idea is still very influential and has
led to a clear-cut separation between museums and protected areas such as National or
Natural parks11, which are more associated with the idea of natural preservation.
Actually, National parks appeared relatively late in comparison with the U.S., first in
Sweden (1909) and then in Switzerland (1914), Spain (1916) and France in the 1960s.
Moreover, several processes and specific forms of management have facilitated the
advent of cultural parks throughout the twentieth century:
Scandinavia has a significant tradition of open-air museums where folkloric
collections were exposed in contact with nature. Examples include the outdoor section
of the first Scandinavian museum of ethnography (1873), origin of the future Nordiska
Museet (1880) (Layuno 2007), and the Skansen museum (1891). The influence of this
11 National Parks are State-owned areas set aside for the preservation of nature with a view to purposes of recreation. Nomally, these are conceived as enclosed spaces with clear limits where human intervention is absent or reduced to a minimum degree.
38
tradition is clearly discernible in contemporary Scandinavian ecomuseums and cultural
parks such as Bergslagen (Hamrin 1996).
The advent of New Museology and the ecomuseum phenomenon was a turning
point in the conception of museums throughout the world (see Rivard 1984; Hubert
1985; Evrard 2009; Desvallées 1980). The aim of ecomuseums is to become a synthesis
of man-nature relationships in time and space (Vergo 1997) in stark contrast with
traditional forms of museums (Corsane & Holleman 1993; Davis & Gardner 1999;
Davis 2000). At the same time it becomes a representative of the community where the
ecological traits, the characteristic buildings and folkloric elements converge “in the
same way of ethnological outdoor museums” (Rivière 1993: 189). Ecomuseums were
innovative in their quest to become instruments of economic and social growth (Maggi
& Falletti 2000). Subsequent international museum meetings adopted some of its
precepts thereof (see Meijer 1989; General Conference of Icom 1995) up to the current
definition of a “museum-territory” (Ballart & i Tresserras 2001). Thus, ecomuseums
move from the symbolic and representative traditional museum to a conception of
museums as producers of identities and territories (Cancellotti 2011). Although
ecomuseums can be considered as immediate antecedents of cultural parks, Balerdi
(2008) warns that ecomuseums do not manage cultural landscapes and that most of
them are just “open air sites”.
The Italian tradition of protected area management is noteworthy because it
never conceived parks as enclosed spaces or wildlife sanctuaries but as part of a
complex ecological and cultural fabric (Gambino 1997). Moreover, the Italian paradigm
has a strong cultural character, in contrast to the naturalist-functionalist American
school. This tradition has resulted in the elaboration of complex “landscape plans” (see
39
Gambino 1989; Mazza 2000; Secchi 2002; Magnaghi 2005; Gambino 1988) that have
served as a base for the constitution of cultural parks and cultural park networks such as
the one in Toscana (Italy) (Toscana 1995). Also, the Italian experience stands out in the
management of large archaeological sites (see Battaglini et al. 2002; Orejas 2001)
influencing the development of similar experiences in other countries (Baptista et al.
2007; Querol 1993; Sánchez-Palencia Ramos et al. 2001).
Probably, the closest precedent to cultural parks is the French regional park
scheme operating since the 1960s. Whereas national parks are owned and managed by
the State, regional parks are locally-driven initiatives that involve different types of
ownership and social actors (Frenchman 2004). The parks encompass both natural and
cultural heritage resources deemed representative of the French culture, giving
preference to spaces threatened by degradation (Hernández Prieto & Plaza Gutiérrez
2007). According to Lacosta Aragües (1997), natural and cultural heritage conservation
is not a scope in itself. Instead, these resources provide the region with an image of
quality that supports socio-economic development, attracting tourism and research and
enhancing local capabilities.
Finally, the development of Industrial Archaeology from the 1960s has been a
determining factor on both sides of the Atlantic. The discipline has contributed to the
transformation of the idea of heritage and its management. First, it sets out a spatial
conception facing the enhancement of industrial sites (Benito del Pozo 2002). Also,
grassroots groups have played an essential role in protecting industrial heritage and
bringing its management close to local communities. Finally, Industrial Archaeology
practitioners seek to link the industrial remains with socio-economic development
(Casanelles Rahola 1998). The 1970s witnessed the birth of the enhancement projects in
40
New Lanark (Beeho & Prentice 1997), Le Creusot-les-Mines in France (Jacomy 1982;
Maiullari & Whitehead 1997) and Ironbridge Gorge in England (Cossons 1980).
Interestingly, these initiatives combine the ideas of Industrial Archaeology and
ecomuseums with the traditional concept of museum. Thus, these projects do not
embrace the idea of “territorial heritage”, but instead create “networks of museums”
where the main objective is preservation (Frenchman 2004). The Ironbridge’s case is
exemplary in this regard. Therefore, these initiatives remain conceived as “territory-
museums” (Layuno 2007: 149). Halfway between these enterprises and cultural parks
lies the Emscher Park in the Ruhr (Germany). The park was developed throughout the
1980s with the collaboration of seventeenth institutions and different social groups that
created a complex territorial network (Schwarze-Rodrian 1999). In addition to
decontaminate the area (Kunzmann 1999), the main aim was to provide an economic
outlet for the region after the industrial decay (Shaw 2002; Brown 2001). The initiative
promotes an open idea of heritage management and has been recently considered as a
successful cultural park (Ling et al. 2007). Emscher Park has served as a model for
other projects of territorial reinvention after deindustrialisation in Europe (Yáñez
2008)12.
4.2 United States
The National Park scheme in the U.S. began with Yellowstone (1872) and was
institutionalized with the establishment of the National Park Service in 1916 (Winks
1996). Since their beginning, the parks functioned as a “pastoral myth” (Bray 1994a),
that is, as repositories of the national identity (Albright & Cahn 1985). In a way, they
play the role of national museums in Europe. National Parks strive to reach a balance
12 See Table 6.
41
between preservation of natural wilderness and the narration of the conquest of that
nature and the events associated with it. The constitution of cultural parks has been a
controversial and difficult process to assume in the U.S. due to a deeply rooted idea of
parks as conservationist and enclosed spaces with gates that are publicly owned and
managed (Bray 1988).
According to Eugster (2003), the creation of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation (1949) and the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966)
opened the door to the emergence of American cultural parks or National Heritage
Areas (N.H.A.). Then, from the 1960s onwards there was a shift in the management of
the parks associated with the environmentalist turn represented by the ecological
planning school in the U.S. (see Steiner et al. 1988; Steinitz 1968) and landscape
ecology in Europe (Forman & Gordon 1984). This new paradigm overcomes the idea of
a Park as a delimited space to embrace an all-encompassing idea of large ecosystems
that include socio-cultural elements. Also, the appearance of Industrial Archaeology
was a determining factor due to its emphasis on territorial heritage and community
involvement. The reactivation program of the decaying industrial city of Lowell (see
Hayward 1987; Mogan 1972; Mogan 1975; David 1975; Weible 1984) broke with
previous ideas about what is considered heritage, what is a park, and how to manage
them. The “Lowell National Historical Park” paved the way for the emergence of
similar initiatives throughout the U.S. such as Blackstone (Kihn et al. 1986) and
Lackawanna (McGurl & Kulesa 2001).
The 1980s witnessed the appearance of new spatial and heritage management
programs in the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. These
State-lead parks seek to improve the regional economy and enhance its heritage values
42
(Bray 2003). The state of New York fostered the development of a different type of
protected spaces denominated “Urban cultural parks” (New York State Parks 1982).
These parks promote the participation of local communities (Frenchman & Lane 1979)
and seek to bring the rural to the city following the original idea of Frederick Olmsted
to “provide the citizens with the beneficial influences of nature” (Schuyler 1988; in
Bray 2004b para. 3). Also, the parks included economic objectives in the urban
planning schemes (Cranz 1982). Gradually, the idea that park planning should be
extended to the entire city and then to the region permeated among planners and
politicians (Mumford 1984).
These initiatives were set within a context of transformation of the concept of
“protected areas” in America. According to Nelson and Sportza (1999) the maintenance
of a unilateral management by public bodies is problematic and unsustainble. On one
hand, the human dimension is lost in the absence of local participation. On the other
hand, the wide variety of public, private and social agents involved in spatial and
heritage management today preclude the possibility of an unilateral corporate vision.
The “National Parks for a new generation report” (1985) marked a turning point on the
issue. In fact, the report acknowledged that State-led and local initiatives were actually
“parks” and should therefore be supported and recognized as such by the N.P.S., which
had neglected them hitherto (Alanen & Melnick 2000)13.
Again, Bray (1988) captures the essence of the problem when he states that the
difficulties of the current park management schemes have not been addressed properly.
Given the pragmatic need to change the conception of parks, two incipient alternatives
have been implemented without any institutional or academic debate on the subject.
13 See Tables 7 and 8.
43
Firstly, it has been suggested to replace them “by broader environmental policies
applied in regional systems” (Bray 1988: para. 16). Secondly, they have been
considered as frameworks to manage whole natural and cultural landscapes. Instead, the
best solution for him would be to “create an expanded park idea that will give U.S. the
city or region as a park” (idem: para. 17). Thus, the solution for him would be to
recognize and extend the N.H.A. management framework throughout large ares of the
country.
In both the European and American cases the institutional and epistemological
transformations are crucial to understand the emergence of cultural parks. However, it
would be reductionist to consider that cultural parks are the immediate consequence of
the aforementioned developments. In fact, their appearance is equally conditioned by
the rise of new socio-economic problems to which cultural parks may pose a solution in
one way or another14.
14 See Table 9.
44
5. Cultural Parks
The aforementioned changes at the academic, institutional and socio-economic
levels have resulted in the emergence of a new form of heritage and space planning that
responds to new political and socio-economic problems. This phenomenon, that has
received different denominations such as “cultural park”, “heritage park” or “heritage
area”, cannot be assimilated to previous forms of management. Also, it is useless to
pursue an essentialist definition of “what is a cultural park”. This is so due to the wide
variety of legislations, academic, administrative and socio-economic contexts and the
intermingling of different former management frameworks. Therefore, it is more
functional to provide an outline of “a way of doing” that is characteristic of cultural
parks. As any abstract discourse, this approach reduces the complexity of the
phenomenon and sets aside some of its traits. In return, it provides an overview that will
bring up the essential elements and controversial issues raised by cultural parks. Thus,
the aim is to refocus the study around the key elements that can lead to interesting
conclusions in the face of future research.
5.1 From definitions to structures
The ambivalence and hybrid status of cultural parks has paradoxically encouraged
various authors to seek precise definitions of what they are. Actually, the abundance of
definitions shows in itself the futility of the enterprise. None is mistaken and all capture
a part of the cultural parks phenomenon, but in the end all respond to their own
disciplinary and epistemological conditionings.
45
There is no need to quote at length each definition to notice the variety of views
on cultural parks. For instance, for the archaeologist Almudena Orejas (2001: 6) it
would be an “instrument of heritage coordination”, whereas for the geographer Rubio
Terrado (2008: 26) it is “an spatial planning proposal in rural areas”. According to the
Cultural Park Act of Aragón (Spain) it would be a “territory where cultural heritage is
concentrated and managed” (1997). For Daly, a N.H.A. promoter from the U.S. they are
“dynamic regional initiatives that build connections between people, their place, and their
history” (2003: 2), while Rosemary Prola considers them as landscapes where
“community leaders and residents have come together around a common vision of their
shared heritage” (2005: 1). For urban planners Bustamante and Ponce cultural parks are
“projects that seek to build an image of regional identity” (2004: 10). Finally, the
architect Sabaté considers them as “instruments of projecting and managing that put
into value a cultural landscape, whose scope is not only heritage preservation or the
promotion of education, but also to favour local economic development” (Sabaté 2009:
21-22). For him, cultural parks are tightly linked with cultural landscapes, poetically
described as “the trace of work on territories, a memorial to the unknown worker”
(Sabaté 2006: 19)15.
All these definitions show a tension similar to what Healey (2006; 2007) has
identified in the field of spatial planning as a divergence between a “transcendent ideal”
of cultural park and the empirical perception of its complexity. Actually, the
ambivalences of “landscape” are reproduced in cultural parks. On one side, there is
contradiction between existential issues related to identity and a utilitarian vision of
15 See Appendix 3 “Defnitions of cultural parks”
46
space. On the other side, tension arises between those who consider them as future-
oriented projects and those who see them as instruments for the preservation of the past.
Nevertheless, some elements are repeatedly highlighted in every definition,
namely the importance of local participation, the establishment of heterogeneous
management partnerships and the “regional vision” of landscape and heritage. However,
some definitions pose heritage preservation as the main objective whereas others place
economic development in the centre. Thus, for Bustamante and Ponce (2004) the aim
would be to construct a “strong regional image” to achieve the economic objectives.
Instead, for Sabaté the first premise is to increase the self-esteem of local communities,
“tourism will arrive later” (Sabaté 2004a). Daly considers that the main purpose of a
cultural park should be to use cultural heritage as a basis for the development of a
common project for the future planned by a social group at a regional scale, a view also
shared by Casas (2008).
These definitions outline a more or less clear definition of cultural parks.
However, there is only one work based on specific research on cultural parks (i.e.
Sabaté and Frenchman (2001). All the other conceptualizations are built on common-
sense reasoning or on occasional practical engagement of the authors in their
management.
5.2 Institutions and Management schemes in Europe and the
United States
Despite local variables, the analysis of various cultural parks allows establishing
some common trends in the specific “ways of doing”. One of the most difficult
47
processes to trace is the birth of the idea to create a park. In this respect, as in many
others, the American and European contexts differ. In the U.S., most N.H.A. arise from
local initiatives supported by each State. In some cases the initiative comes from the
city council but in others it is groups of heritage enthusiasts, widely denominated “task
force”, who promote them. Conzen (2001) points that during the 1990s the habitual
promoting groups were local non-profit or public interest organizations, with particular
prominence of environmental groups. The participative and consultative character of the
American framework contrasts with the European context where the intervention of
regional or national institutions is essential. Such a situation is conditioned by the
different management traditions and by socio-economic constraints. For instance, it
would be strange to receive private financial support to develop a cultural park in
continental Europe whereas in the U.S. it is usual16.
In Europe, the implementation of cultural parks is carried out through a top-down
approach. Although local groups are usually involved, they do it under the framework
provided by a regional or national institution (Iranzo García & Albir Herrero 2009). In
any case, the creation of cultural parks is a complex process that varies in accordance to
the local context. For example in Aragón (Spain) the trusts governing each cultural park
are composed of representatives of the regional government, the University of
Zaragoza, local councils and local associations of all kinds, from corporate partnerships
to environmentalist groups (Vázquez Varela & Martínez Navarro 2008). Sabaté (2004b)
notes that in the case of Catalonia the development of cultural parks was initially an
academic endeavour which found the support of regional institutions and local groups.
In fact, the role of Universities in Europe has been essential in facilitating the relation
among different social agents and providing expertise, knowledge and support.
16 See Table 10.
48
In the U.S. public support is important in a different way. Contrarily to Europe,
the process tends to work from bottom to top. Hence, local groups place pressure on
institutions to obtain official recognition in order to facilitate the attraction of private
investments. Normally, local promoters seek to gain recognition from the Congress and
from the N.P.S. which has always maintained an ambiguous stance regarding N.H.A.
To date, N.H.A. have been officially recognized by the Congress (Vincent et al. 2004)
but their status remains vague as they have not been integrated within the N.P.S.
scheme, which provides occasional technical support and funding (Bray 1995).
The local groups run the N.H.A. through corporate management schemes where it
is usual to rely on private “cultural resource management” consultants and to perform
“best practices” contests among them. Also, they develop quantitative tools to measure
the impact of the park in the regional economy and qualitative methods to assess the
consequences for issues of identity, sense of belonging, etc. (see Hiett 2007; Vincent et
al. 2004). A situation which is probably motivated by the cut of N.P.S. funding after 5
to 15 years after the designation (Copping & Martin 2005). These sorts of practices and
the large number of entities involved in their management have commonly led to
denominate N.H.A. as “partnership parks” (see Hamin 2001; National Park Service
1991). Actually, the development of N.H.A. has been strongly influenced by the parallel
expansion of the Cultural Resource Management sector during the 1990s. Heritage
consultants have been criticised for their clear utilitarian approach to heritage issues
where economic and legal issues prevail (see Birch 2010). A similar situation can be
witnessed in the entrepreneurial character of museum management throughout the U.S.
This stands in sharp contrast with the European system, where bureaucratic
49
management prevails and cultural heritage management is usually carried out by
archaeologists or architects with little or no presence of economists and lawyers17.
5.3 The inventory and the story
A first step in the implementation of a cultural park is the delimitation of the area
to consider as a park. This requires a task of historical documentation and a justification
of the boundaries established according to criteria of geographical, administrative or
cultural uniformity. Then, promoters normally carry out an inventory and classification
of heritage assets in the area which are commonly referred to as “resources”
(Bustamante 2008). In Europe, inventories are normally carried out by universities or
bureaucratic technicians, whereas in the U.S. grassroots groups perform the task. The
catalogues provide a homogeneous cartography and data record that facilitate the
planning process whereby the structure of the park is defined.
According to Sabaté (1998) every successful cultural park must tell a story.
Moreover, heritage assets must be organized in a hierarchy in order to fit the narrative
of the event or story to be narrated. However, this does not happen in the European
cases with the exception of Italian Literary Parks (Barilaro 2004) and the cultural parks
designed by the own Sabaté. Instead, his argument is valid in the U.S. where it is
assumed that each N.H.A. must “tell a story” such as the conquest of the West, or be
“associated with an event” like a Civil War battle. This has to do with the very origin of
the Parks in America as depositories and narrators of the “national identity” (Bray
1994a)18.
17 See Table 11. 18 See Table 12
50
Sabaté notes that the importance of the narrative may be due to the strong roots
that “storytelling” has in American culture. Indeed, he considers that to create a heritage
park skills are needed “similar to those of a scriptwriter” (Sabaté 2004b: 23).
Consequently, for him the keyword becomes “interpretation” of the material remains. In
fact, some stories deployed in the N.H.A. are conceived as or based on films (e.g.
George Washington Frontier National Heritage Area 2009). This would explain the
large amount of American parks associated with linear elements or “heritage corridors”
such as rivers, canals, roads and railways that facilitate the deployment of the narrative
(see Conzen & Wulfestieg 2001). In Europe, recognition of ICOMOS and UNESCO to
“Heritage Canals” (UNESCO 1994) has raised awareness concerning this type of
“linear” heritage, leading to the implementation of many successful projects such as
cultural park Duisburg Nord (Latz 2004)19.
In contrast to the U.S. paradigm, the European vision of cultural parks regards
them as sources of territorial identity, ecological balance and economic development.
Cultural heritage assets are not ranked according to any unitary pattern. In some
occasions, cultural parks bring together homogeneous landscape areas. In other cases
they create a regional network that works as an “umbrella” to assemble a number of
existing heritage resources and museums. Then, while American N.H.A. are relatively
easy to associate with a specific topic, European parks amalgamate heterogeneous
elements which overlap in the different historical layers of the landscape palimpsest20.
19 See Table 13. 20 See Table 14.
51
5.4 Objectives, planning and legislative framework
I have attempted to show how the structure of the cultural park varies depending
on the social group that creates it and the particular heritage and territorial context. It is
also important to understand what kinds of objectives are posed by each cultural park
and their capacity to achieve them. While each cultural park tends to articulate its aims
in relation to the local context, there are a number of recurring objectives in many of
them:
- To link the local people with their heritage and history.
- To develop mechanisms for heritage conservation in accordance with the
“preservation through change” scheme.
- To improve cooperation and dialogue between institutions and local
communities.
- To integrate the park in the daily lives of residents, promoting education and
improving recreational areas.
- To pursue sustainable economic development by using heritage to attract
tourism and investments21.
After having acquired a good knowledge of the heritage resources and given the
objectives posed, it is necessary to develop a management plan that sets out the actions
required to create the territorial structure of the park. In Europe, these plans are
normally developed by teams of experts from universities or public institutions. In the
U.S. the local groups of promoters craft them with the sporadic support of the N.P.S.
and private consultants. In addition, it is common for the American parks to regularly
21 See Table 15.
52
update the Park guidelines to meet the requirements posed by the Congress and the
N.P.S., or to plan the prospective development of the park (Copping & Martin 2005).
The technical issues of architectural design, that have most interested many
authors exceed the purpose of this dissertation and will only be superficially reviewed.
The essential investigations in this regard are the already mentioned works by Sabaté
and Frenchman. Also, a few park projects have been published (Casas 2006; AAVV
2000a; AAVV 2000b). According to Sabaté, the design of cultural parks can be equated
to the syntax put forward by Kevin Lynch in his book “The image of the city” (1960).
Accordingly, five elements can be clearly identified:
- Global scope and sub-domains of the Park (areas).
- Heritage resources and services (milestones).
- Gates, accesses, interpretive centres and museums (nodes).
- Paths and roads linking the overall structure (routes).
- Visual and administrative limits of the intervention (edges).
Nonetheless, it is important to consider that what Sabaté is presenting here is his
“ideal cultural park scheme” and not a pattern deduced from the analysis of existing
cultural parks. Far from being neutral, his vision is distinctly rooted in the interventional
American tradition. Thus, design prevails over preservation and efforts are geared
towards the artificial reinforcing of the identity of the different elements of the park. For
instance, the limits (edges) should be evidenced by the use of vegetation or signposting
so that “we always know whether we are inside or outside the park” (Sabaté 1998: 240).
This approach would be unthinkable in other European cultural parks such as the ones
in Toscana or Aragón where the degree of intervention through architectural planning is
53
low. Moreover, it reinstates some of the elements present in traditional parks that
allegedly cultural parks overcome. For example, the need to create gates and borders
breaks with the conception of landscapes as open and limitless entities.
Therefore, his scheme can be easily applied to some American cases where the
aforementioned elements and a linear narrative “in stages” are present, such as Illinois
& Michigan Canal N.H.A. (Conzen & Wulfestieg 2001), Rivers of Steel N.H.A. (Greer
& Russell 1994), Illinois and Michigan Corridor (Peine & Neurohr 1981) or the
Allegheny Ridge Heritage Park (AAVV 1992). In other cases such as the Tennessee
Civil War N.H.A. (Center for Historic Preservation 2001) or the Lackawanna Heritage
Valley (AAVV 1991) the system does not work so well and still less in most European
cases where the boundaries are diffuse and structures are scarcely linear.
Even in the cases where linear cultural parks are planned in Europe as in the Po-
Adige (Piemonte 1989; Calzolari 1991), the Ripoll (Vidal Palet 1999) or Besós rivers
(Alarcón et al. 1997), they are more about a holistic management of heritage and space
rather than the “design of a park”, as Campeol has shown (1990). Accordingly, in
Aragón (Spain) cultural parks are considered useful tools in areas with a wide variety of
historical, geographical and natural resources to be protected together by legal
constraints to promote sustainable development (Hernández & Giné 2002). This stands
in sharp contrast with the Illinois and Michigan Heritage Corridor which as early as
1981 planned to create visitor centres according to a definite plan to tell the story of the
canal (Peine & Neurohr 1981)22.
22 See Table 16.
54
It is clear then that Sabaté’s model is halfway between the “preservation through
change” of the Belvedere Nota and ELC, and the interventionist U.S. paradigm. In any
case, his vision favours a transformation in the forms of designing protected areas,
promoting the compatibility of activities and the dialogue among different social agents.
This conception of heritage and spatial planning avoids contentious issues like “zoning”
which restricts land use in protected areas and usually produces rejection among local
people (Bustamante 2008). This rejection is particularly strong in the U.S. where
“planners are well aware of the resistance to land use planning in rural areas (Means
1999). Therefore, the complexity of cultural parks is also evinced at the level of spatial
design. Somewhat, cultural parks “compel” planners to pay similar attention to matters
of identity, storytelling and community involvement than to traditional technical issues
of architectural planning such as land use, zoning, design, etc.
Finally, it is important to note that the tendency for all kinds of protected areas to
adopt the management scheme of cultural parks is expected to increase. This is
primarily due to the widespread will to link protected areas to economic development.
But it is also the result of the increasing social and institutional awareness of the
impossibility to manage parks and reserves as islands with defined limits. Actually,
most protected areas worldwide face threats to their assets from outside their borders. In
the U.S. up to 85% of them are threatened in one way or another (GAO 1994). This
controversial question is impossible to solve through a unilateral management scheme
that does not rely on different agents and communities to deal with problems.
According to the former N.P.S. Deputy Director Denis Galvin "the future of our parks,
their ecological integrity and quality of their historic settings, depend on our ability to
establish lasting partnerships with adjoining landowners and communities. We must
move beyond the old notions about conflicts between parks and adjacent lands to a new
55
era that recognizes the shared interests of parks and their neighbours” (in Bray 2004a:
para. 14).
Then, the problem that arises is that legislation is slower than the creation of new
parks. As a consequence, these tend to have trouble fitting in the administrative spatial
and heritage framework. In this regard, the case of the N.H.A. in the U.S. is
paradigmatic. Despite having been active for more than three decades in some cases,
their administrative status remains unclear and ambivalent. Meanwhile, in Europe there
is no legal form of “cultural park” except in some Spanish and Italian regions and the
French Regional Park system that could be included in this category. In fact, only the
regional governments of Aragón (Spain) and Tuscany (Italy) have established specific
laws on cultural parks hitherto. Elsewhere, cultural parks are occasionally included as a
generic heritage management tool in heritage legislation (i.e. Spanish regions of
Valencia, Asturias, Andalucía and Castilla y León). Therefore, although there is a trend
towards the expansion of cultural parks, these remain an unknown, poorly studied and
controversial minority. For all these reasons, confusion and commonplace assumptions
concerning their conceptualization, implementation and operation still prevail.
56
6. Some issues for discussion
This section attempts to identify the distinctive elements of cultural parks with
regard to other forms of spatial and heritage management. At the same time, cultural
parks are linked with broader topics with particular emphasis on matters concerning
heritage issues. Moreover, the chapter explores some controversial issues identifying
the elements that need further investigation.
6.1 Governmentality, local communities and spatial planning
“We are living in a shifting and evolving framework for protected areas, nature
conservation and sustainable development. This situation is marked by the involvement
of many government agencies and private groups … Pluralism needs to be explicitly
recognized and to be dealt with in a collaborative rather than a predominantly or
exclusively corporate manner.” (Nelson & Sportza 2000)
The novelty that cultural parks introduce in the field of spatial planning is to place
the concept of “landscape” in the centre of the planning and administrative efforts. This
approach assumes that property and territory come together in the concept of landscape,
which implies a holistic conception of space. According to Sabaté (2004b) the
combination of “nature/culture” in cultural parks replaces previous models of territorial
planning based on industry, infrastructures and demography, enabling to find a balance
between preservation of the past and sustainable future-oriented creation.
Thus, as the Belvedere Nota envisaged, there is a convergence between the
tendency to include heritage in spatial planning (Cacho 2006) and that of extending the
57
concept of archaeological and heritage site to encompass large areas (Ballesteros Arias
et al. 2004). As previously mentioned, this marks a break with previous planning forms
which prioritized zoning and land use without considering landscape identity and the
various viewpoints of stakeholders (Lamme 1989). Also, this shift enables planners to
avoid the controversial traditional sectoral policies where the management of heritage,
forests, infrastructures, space, etc. corresponded to different entities without
coordination, a situation deriving from the positivist planning theory of Faludi (1987)23.
However, as Bray (1994a) points out, the fact that the projection and
implementation of cultural parks require the participation of so many fields of
knowledge has left them outside the academic debate and the different administrative
frameworks. Still, according to Sabaté (2004b), interdisciplinarity is the only factor that
ensures the possibility of accounting for the complexity of managing landscapes. This
would be necessary because every cultural park implies the notion of project and a
subsequent territorial intervention, which raises the fundamental problem of how to
translate landscape and heritage identity into physical planning and management.
Here lies the essential difficulty, which is that landscapes are ambivalent and
move in a twofold dimension. Similarly, most spatial planning paradigms, either
culturalist or naturalist, tend to act exclusively on the material dimension.
Consequently, these approaches to landscape generate representations that reify and
objectify it, thus eroding the linkage with the local inhabitants. A similar phenomenon
to what occurs in the field of conservation (Handler 1985) or what Byrme terms the
“thingification of heritage” (2009). In this regard, Bustamante (2008) argues that the
only legitimate way to overcome this impasse is to allow and encourage the local people
23 See Table 17
58
to participate in the construction of the representation of their own territory through the
idea of cultural park as a “common project”. In any case, the proposal put forward by
Bustamante to overcome the representational impasse is more discursive than real. This
is so because it is planners themselves who determine the conditions under which local
communities are involved and participate in the cultural park, especially in Europe.
Also, it is common to use the term “community” as a fixed element that exists
“out there”, in a world which is ‘more or less specific, clear, certain, definable and
decided’ (Law 2004: 24-25) along with other concepts such as “groups, individuals,
race, attitudes, intentions, the State, societies or symbols” that spatial planners take for
granted (Alvesson 2002: 52). Therefore, the holistic understanding of cultural parks
becomes troublesome if spatial planners maintain that they can create accurate and valid
representations of landscape and heritage objects in texts, maps and plans (Hillier
2008). Also, the will of planners to focus on community inclusion, an issue that is
clearly present on cultural parks, is questionable. In most cases “inclusion” means the
depolitisation of conflicts and the legitimisation of government and private sector
interests (Gunder 2010). The “community” becomes a one-dimensional entity that
unites to compete for the scarce resources available from the State and the market.
Then, people would “leave “old” antagonisms behind and become reasonable, rational,
sensible, communicative, responsible agents with smooth relations with central
government and its funding bodies” (Baeten 2009: 247). Thus, ideological
deconstruction and political antagonism are negated by “particularizing and making
locally contestable what have traditionally been universal demands of class based on
equity and fairness” (Gunder 2010: 302). Probably, a field investigation would point to
a greater distance between the viewpoints of local groups and planners of what literature
on cultural parks reveals.
59
Still, assuming that the inclusion of local communities in cultural park planning
and development was real and set into practice, it would be problematic. The question
arises of which groups within the community are responsible for carrying out the
representation of landscape and heritage, whose interests and objectives they serve and
what values they promote. Also, the fact that cultural parks are regional projects where
the views of “what should landscape stand for” can vary widely from one place to
another can not be overlooked. Actually, it is usual that local groups responsible for
implementing cultural parks regard the past as something alien, “stable and reified”
(Mowaljarlai et al. 1988; Merriman 1991). Only then it is possible for these groups to
consider themselves and their heritage as a resource “to value”. A process through
which self-knowledge and self-expression become repositories of value underpinning
the enhancement process (Corsin Jimenez 2009). Actually, there is no intrinsic relation
between community and heritage, it “is a relation constituted after gaining awareness of
the potential value an asset can have for life within an environment” (Guerra & Skewes
2008: 30). Therefore, the projection of the park that a group elaborates may not satisfy
the entire community, and may not correspond with the ideas of planners. For example,
according to Knight “green groups are typically the drivers of Heritage Areas … These
are oftentimes the initiative of national organizations or small wealthy organizations
within the locality” (2006b).
Moreover, in many occasions planners and local groups intend to use the cultural
park as a way to “reconstruct” the local civil society (Prola 2005). However, the
potential of heritage to function as a kernel of local belonging and participation is
uncertain and varies in each case (Zapatero 2002). Hence, whereas in Bergslagen
(Sweden) the cultural park has served to promote participatory social democracy, in the
60
U.S. there are complaints pointing that some parks benefit local oligarchies (Peyton
Knight 2002; Parker 2011, March 2). It is therefore impossible to judge the role played
by cultural parks in general without specific ethnographic case studies.
In any case, to acknowledge that people and their way of seeing and understanding
place is a constituent part of landscapes in a similar way to its material components
hardly fits with current forms of management and planning (Phillips 2003). Actually,
while institutions discursively accept and adapt the terminology of “landscapes”, they
are not ready to manage them without reducing landscapes to their objective dimension
(Lothian 2000). These contradictions between representation and reality connect
cultural parks with a general transformation in the forms of governmentality (sensu
Foucault 2007) towards management schemes that involve a wider number of agents, a
shift that directly affects issues of heritage and space management (Gunder & Hillier
2007). This change has been facilitated by the advent of neo-liberal policies advocating
a “weak state” and the hybridisation of market and State whereby public tasks are
adapted to the corporate logic (Hardt & Negri 2009). In fact, current forms of spatial
planning rely on competitive market logics, combining the reality of globalisation with
an ideology of utopian transcendent ideals of economic sustainability, community
participation, etc. (see Kipfer & Keil 2002; McGuirk 2007).
Then, cultural parks can only be understood within this new governmentality and
spatial planning framework. In fact, from the viewpoint of the modern governmentality
scheme, cultural parks would represent a threat as they entail a loss of legitimacy for the
State. On one hand, the State delegates (not decentralizes) significant management tasks
in civic local groups (especially in the U.S.), which affects one of the pillars of the
modern State: the control over territory, people and heritage as a source of legitimacy
61
(see García Canclini 1990; Hardt & Negri 2000). On the other hand, it means the
recognition of heritage and landscape as a common dimension of a social group. This
undermines the prevailing liberalist and individualist ideas as evidenced by the angry
reactions of the Property Rights Association against N.H.A. in the U.S. (Peyton Knight
2006a; 2004; 2005).
The paradox of the American experience is that whereas cultural park promoters
gain independence and capacity to act aside from the State, at the discursive level their
performance is oriented primarily towards the legitimising of the idea of “Nation”
through the narration of its founding myths and great deeds. A disjunction Lazzarato
(2009) identifies as characteristic of neo-liberalism. On one side, it promotes a
“hipertechnification” and enlargement of the private sphere at the expense of the State,
while on the other side it reinvigorates the “neo-archaisms” of nation, race, family, etc.
Thus, the significance of heritage as an instrument to reinforce national identity (see
Meskell 1998; Boswell 1999; Tsing et al. 2009) reaches a new dimension with cultural
parks where heritage intersects with the neo-liberal context (see Herzfeld 2005).
In relation with the issue of governance, Bray (2004b) compares the complexity of
tackling climate change with managing a cultural park. It could be said that cultural
parks involve a similar turning point for heritage management than climate change for
environmental science in the 1990s. That change influenced not only the environmental
sciences but also forms of governance, deriving in the rise of novel proposals for
political and scientific organization based on cooperation and dialogue between actors
such as “MODE2” (Nowotny et al. 2007) or “Post-normal science” (Etzkowitz &
Leydesdorff 2000). These currents acknowledge the impossibility of reaching a
“scientifically accurate” solution for several problems and the inability to continue to
62
deal with them unilaterally. The same goes for cultural parks and heritage, for which
there is no ideal or universally valid projection, that is, no intrinsic answer to the
question of ‘what is to be done with cultural parks and heritage’.
Thus, what the Belvedere Nota openly acknowledged becomes apparent: all
landscape and heritage planning attempt is essentially political (Miró Alaix 1997). This
realization evinces the futility of thinking that “planners’ representations of people and
space are value-free and objective” (Hillier 2008: 25). However, the Nota is a document
intended to reach the discursive and institutional levels aiming to implement a policy in
a territory. Instead, cultural parks work at a different political plane because they do not
only act at the discursive or metacultural level (see Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2004). They
must deal with real-world situations, producing subjectivities at the local and regional
scale through the use of heritage. In the “messy” politics of cultural parks, discourses
are important but do not determine the final outcome of the enterprise.
6.2 Preservation through change?
The traditional perception of the “park” as a delimited space linked to the ideals of
preservation, recreation and scientific management of natural and cultural sites is still
pervasive among the European and American populations (Carr 2007). To assess and
create these Parks the prevailing ideas of “significance” were the possession of
impressive scenic views, scientific or historic values (MacGimsey & Davis 1984). At
the epistemological and academic levels the conservationist paradigm has been
criticised from different positions. Adorno already pointed to the close relation of this
ideal with Rousseau’s naïve “back to nature” (1983). In fact, most parks generate
“artificial wilderness” as they actually are “intensively managed spaces subject to
63
myriad crosscutting interests” that strive to represent the nation’s purest and most
altruistic expression (Meskell 2007: 386). For Lucas the conservationist stance of these
initiatives “stop the clock for material remains, but in doing so, help to create the very
distance and disconnection to the present that archaeological narratives try so hard to
close” (Lucas 2005: 126). Cultural parks distance themselves from preservationist
parks, refraining from turning the landscape into a museum and recognizing its
dynamism and the fact that only its monitored transformation can ensure the endurance
of heritage and regional identity (Nogué i Font 2005). Preservation through change is
the motto (Sabaté 2006)24.
Again, this idea adapted from the Belvedere Nota is problematic as it was intended
only for the “material dimension” of space and cannot account for the intangibles of
landscape. Despite the positive rhetoric of discourse, cultural park designers end up
promoting the same materialistic logic because, after all, it is the “physical features,
elements and heritage areas which endow a landscape with a specific identity.
Therefore, we believe that a cultural landscape enhancement project needs to be
conceptualized from its tangible manifestations” (Bustamante 2008: 246). From this
standpoint, “preservation” means conservation of the material forms, while “change”,
connotes the touristification/commodification of these forms.
The core of the problem lies in the essentialist consideration of material heritage
remains as “the expression of the identity and memory of a community” (Sabaté 2006:
342). From this viewpoint, territorial heritage would work as a signifier of a deeper
signified in the form of social memory or identity. Thus, this move overlooks the
problem of dealing with the question of the different dimensions of the landscape.
24 See Table 18.
64
Moreover, when landscape and heritage are linked to an “existential dimension” they
become more valuable for touristic purposes. Therefore, rather than “preservation
through change”, what this conception of planning entails is the commodification of
heritage, or better, of landscape as heritage (Birch 2010).
In this respect, Mitchell (2001) coincides with Harvey (2001) in highlighting that
in situations of “creative destruction” or heritage commodification converge the
entrepreneurial drive to accumulate profit, the need of capitalism to reinvent itself and
the social desire to accumulate nostalgia or, with Urry (1990) signposts of the past and
aesthetic experience. For Taylor and Konrad (1980) economic factors are secondary.
The key role of heritage would be to satisfy the human psychological need to establish
continuity between present and past. Moreover, Connerton (2009; 1989) believes that
this shared representation of memory is a prerequisite for maintaining social order and,
according to Grenville (2007), individual stability as well.
Parr (2008) goes further affirming that market forces impede U.S. to forget
because memory can be turned into capital. From this perspective, the rhetoric held by
Jameson (1991) who argued that postmodernism fosters amnesia loses its sense. From
another point of view, Criado-Boado (2001) points to the possibility of a positive use of
memory as the foundation for a social project for the future based on some shared social
values. Cultural parks are placed halfway between these extremes. On one hand, they
promote the preservation of the past and the reification of memory for tourist purposes.
On the other hand, cultural parks involve a common vision of what the residents in a
region want their future to be and how to get there (Prola 2005).
65
On one side, cultural parks strive to differentiate themselves from preservationist
parks. On the other side they mark the distances with theme parks as symbols of the
maximum degree of commodification, reification and deterritorialization of space.
Accordingly, Sabaté considers that the border between theme park and cultural park can
be very thin if the past and memory are reduced to performances managed through
commercial strategies. Therefore, every cultural park should “offer a type of service that
is closely linked to a region’s cultural identity” (Sabaté & Frenchman 2001: 47). In a
similar vein, Daly considers that in contrast to other “inauthentic” touristic destinations,
cultural parks are “the expression of the people who live, work and shape the land” that
“provide a bridge connecting the past with the present and the people to their place”
(2003: 4).
Interestingly, Disneyland has been used from time to time as a yardstick to
measure the degree of “authenticity” in heritage sites (see Solà-Morales 1998; O'Guinn
& Belk 1989; Gable & Handler 1996; Teo & Yeoh 1997; AlSayyad 2001 among
others). As is the case with cultural parks, theme parks have been poorly researched.
Theme parks are areas of corporate management (see Sorkin 1992; Atkins et al. 1998)
that through the spatialization of imagination organize an area around one or several
issues in order to make profits (Eyssartel et al. 1992; Chassé & Rochon 1993). The great
difference from cultural parks is that theme parks can not be defined by the identity or
by the relationships established by its inhabitants, but rather by the absence of memory
and society (Augé 2008).
The American N.H.A. experience is close to theme parks in that they tell a highly
abstract story, with the significant difference that this story is supposedly based on a
scientific narrative. Nonethess, the long-term consequences of the heritage-tourism
66
combination are unpredictable and tend to generate a dijunction between material
culture and social memory (Mitchell & Coghill 2000). Well-known examples are the
touristification process of the historic centres of Barcelona (Tironi 2009; Harvey 2002)
and Singapur (Teo & Huang 1995), or places such as Puy du Fou where it is impossible
to tell whether it is a cultural area or a theme park (Martin & Suaud 1992).
The issue of theme parks should not be taken lightly as they are being highly
influential in the ways of producing space, urbanism and society in the U.S. and beyond
(Bryman 1999). This trend is characterised by the promotion of the thematisation of
territories with a view to their inclusion into a new economic model based on leisure
(Clavé 1999). Far from causing a postmodern spatial relativism of empty signifiers à la
Baudrillard (1994), this situation fosters a widespread rationalization of space and of the
relations of production and consumption (Ritzer & Liska 1997). Interestingly, theme
parks are breaking with preconceived notions by including well-documented
ethnographic exhibitions and creating sustainable urban projects like “Celebration City”
(Frantz & Collins 2000; Didier 1999). More interesting is the recent turn of theme parks
towards a lower degree of thematization and abstraction, a fact that brings them closer
to cultural parks. Starting from the adaptation of Disneyland to France (Altman 1995)
and China (O'Brien 1999), theme parks are undergoing a shift towards the hybridization
with local history and heritage (Jones et al. 1993). This phenomenon is particularly
intense in Southeast Asia where their number increases exponentially (Robertson 1993).
Therefore, cultural parks can be included within an overall socio-economic shift
towards the leisure sector and the thematization of space (Molitor 1999). Currently,
cultural parks differ from theme parks in many obvious ways: they are not run by
corporations, involve different actors, start from a given empirical context, etc.
67
However, it is important to reframe the terms of the debate and set cultural parks in a
context where the boundaries between leisure and culture, identity and economy,
heritage and tourism are blurred. From this standpoint, it becomes possible to analyze
how each cultural park is organized and articulated diversely depending on its main
tendency: to set up closer bonds with the territory and local communities, to use it as a
background to deploy an abstract narrative for tourists, and so on.
6.3 A story for whom?
Many cultural Parks in Europe and especially in the U.S. are structured around the
narration of a story. For instance, the Llobregat C.P. tells the story of work in the
Llogregat river under the slogan “Europe’s hardest working river” (Casas 2004), the
Blackstone Valley (Worcester Historical Museum & Chafee 2009) narrates the story of
the industrial revolution in the area whereas the South Carolina Heritage Corridor
(2005) tells the story of the Civil War. According to Sabaté (2002) the story narrated
has to be original and work as the backbone of the park. Hence, it must attach meanings
to objects, create hierarchies and facilitate the creation of links among different heritage
areas. Moreover, the story enables the public to venture into the territory following a
definite pattern, instead of visiting a mere juxtaposition of elements (Miró Alaix 1997).
From this perspective, the story can be equated to what Zaera-Polo (2008) has
called “the envelope” in architecture. His theory, discussed and extended by Žižek
(2010), considers the façade of the building as an envelope that materializes the division
between inside and outside. Therefore, it is immanently political as it defines the
boundary between inclusion and exclusion. Also, it is conceived as an aesthetic
mechanism that attracts people acting as a representation towards the exterior that
68
generates value in the process. The envelope works as a device to affect and
communicate with people, to order visibilities, distribute spaces and plan movements, to
convey messages and feelings.
In a somewhat similar fashion to the façade, the story can be conceived as an
aesthetic device sustained by scientific knowledge whose objective is to attract external
visitors and generate profit. It is politically loaded because as discursive processes,
stories can convey all kind of meanings (Shaviro 1993) and affect micropolitical
realities (Connolly 2007). Also, stories can reproduce dominant narratives and disregard
the histories of less powerful groups (Hall 2000). For instance, the main aim of N.H.A.
in U.S. is to tell the founding myths of the nation, deeds of heroism and progress that
convey a univocal and fixed idea of the past. For instance, the proposal to establish the
George Washington Frontier Area as a N.H.A. states that its main aim is to narrate the
struggle of “the Nation” against Native Americans along with the heroic acts of George
Washington (2009). Therefore, discursive statements in cultural park plans that
emphasize the potential of heritage to foster inclusion are undermined by real practices
deploying exclusionary narratives.
At the same time, the story conditions the organization of the internal parts of the
cultural park. The physical organization of paths, museums, heritage sites and hotels,
the value attributed to the sites and marketing strategies are all related to the story being
told. To analyze cultural parks according to their story or lack of it may provide a better
framework to establish classifications that could be related to social and politically
relevant issues. Then, instead of elaborating lists with “types” of parks it would be more
functional to speak of “degrees” of complexity and abstraction of the story being told25.
25 See Scheme 19
69
Further research is needed in order to clarify who is responsible for crafting the
story, as it is not possible to elucidate it from the literature about cultural parks. The
“ideal CP scheme” sketched by Sabaté (2004b) sets out a solid interdisciplinary
research as a support for the story. Also, some landscape archaeologists consider that
part of their research should focus on providing a narrative for territorial projects of
interpretation such as cultural parks. The aim and the challenge would be to render
landscapes understandable and meaningful for a wide audience without oversimplifying
those (Orejas 2001; Criado-Boado 1996). Nevertheless, none of the cultural parks
reviewed or academic accounts of them define a clear strategy for creating the story.
Another point of discussion is the affirmation put forward by Sabaté (2006) that
cultural parks lacking a story are less successful in terms of economic development and
local involvement. It is impossible to assess the validity of this claim as it is rare to find
accounts of failed projects. In fact, only one of the cultural parks reviewed has been
deemed unsuccessful. This is the case of the Albarracín CP (Spain) which despite its
outstanding cultural richness (Merino 2005) has not reached the objectives posed by the
original plan (Rubio Terrado 2008). Actually, this example would support Sabaté’s
claim because the Albarracín C.P. does not deploy a story. However, many other factors
could be involved in its failure. The study of failed projects is another interesting area of
research as the “leftovers of modernity” can offer as much information as successful
enterprises (Lien & Law 2011).
To avoid becoming a failure, the story told by the park can not be only oriented
towards the exterior to attract visitors, but must take into account the local perspective
as well. Drawing an analogy with architecture, Zizek states that “managers cannot
70
simply rely on performances to provide a sufficient attraction; the building must create a
new experience, and a sense of place, for its increasingly demanding audience” (2010:
para. 29). Thus, it is essential for cultural parks to maintain a certain internal cohesion
and identification with local communities if they are to keep a high degree of place
attachment.
Nonetheless, the issue of place attachment and belonging is quite complex and
involves several factors such as affect and amusement (Proshansky & Fabian 1987),
cognitive factors (Williams et al. 1992) or environmental ones (Altman & Low 1992;
Vorkinn & Riese 2001). With regard to cultural parks, the most challenging issue is to
be able to represent the different perspectives of the local community. A failure to do so
could entail the exclusion of minorities that may not feel attached to the story told or the
heritage elements enhanced. In fact, exclusionary or assimilationist narratives such as
those deployed in some N.H.A. can foster a sense of identity associated with a
reactionary vocabulary (Harvey 1996: 202; Keith & Pile 1993: 20; Massey 1994: 169-
171) and a concept of community subject to exclusionary impulses (Young 1990: 236).
Also, multiculturalist policies such as the Belvedere Nota have been criticised as
well (see Vink & van der Burg 2006). Despite seeking to preserve the heterogeneity of
territories through heritage and landscape conservation, this is done for the sake of
keeping the singularity of the dominant one (Badiou 2000). Multiculturalism can be
considered as an upper-middle class western liberal phenomenon (Zizek & Schelling
1997) willing only “to accommodate a filtered other which conforms to dominant
liberal-capitalist standards” (Hillier 2007: 116). Furthermore, Nancy Fraser considers
multiculturalism and identity politics in general as a way of undermining claims for
socio-economic redistribution (1997).
71
Then, the challenge for cultural parks is to create inclusive stories without
stopping the clock of material past remains. This would enable cultural park promoters
to avoid conveying a fixed image of the past that supplants “a community’s memory-
work with its own material form” (Young 1992: 272-273). Failing to do so would
preclude different social groups from feeling attached to the cultural park project and
could cause a disjunction between representation and reality. Instead, when cultural
parks are conceived as common projects for the future, they can provide a novel
alternative to the dichotomy of multiculturalism and assimilationist policies. To do so,
identity can not be considered as an essence but as an active process driven by “the
capacity to form new relations, and the desire to do so” (Buchanan 1997: 83). The most
original cultural parks such as Val di Cornia (Italy) are already moving in this direction
with positive outcomes hitherto (Francovich 2003).
6.4 Nature – Culture and the conflict over representation
Allegedly, one of the main differences between cultural parks and other types of
parks and protected areas is that their performance does not establish an a priori
separation between the natural and cultural planes. This affirmation is reflected in two
patterns of empirical functioning:
1. Projects where different natural and cultural resources are brought
together under one “umbrella” designation, such as Aragon’s Cultural Parks or the
majority of N.H.A. in the U.S.
72
2. Projects in which the concept of landscape is placed in the centre of the
planning efforts, assuming that nature and culture converge in it. This is the case of the
Llobregat, Val di Cornia or Bergslagen cultural parks.
In the first case it is clear that the overcoming of the dichotomy is merely
discursive. Actually, in these parks resources are assorted since the early stages of the
project under the customary watertight categories of nature-culture, tangible-intangible,
etc. This view sets out an utilitarian conception of space (Zimmer 2008) that reveals
how institutions and academic disciplines are not prepared to work without the cardinal
epistemological divisions of modernity (Couston 2005).
In the second case the matter is more complex. By placing landscape in the centre
of planning, the hybrid condition of reality and the impossibility to split nature and
culture are assumed. However, the use of the concept of landscape brings about the
dilemmas of its twofold reality: to be a fragment of a territory and its abstract
representation. Thus, the question outlined before arises again articulated in a different
way: how can cultural park planners and promoters generate abstract cultural
representations of landscape, interpreting and managing it, without losing the link with
its natural dimension?
Actually, this issue is related to the hermeneutical and postmodern readings of
landscape that reformulate their ambivalence in terms of the signifier – signified couple.
Accordingly, “landscape encompasses more than an area of land with a certain use or
function … and the immaterial existential values and symbols of which the landscape is
the signifier” (Antrop 2006: 188). This interpretation is recurrently reproduced by
cultural park promoters for whom landscapes “are the expression of the memory and
73
identity of a region (Bustamante & Ponce 2004). Thus, when a landscape is enhanced
and the influx of tourism transforms the area the reading that follows is that there has
been a break between the existential and material dimensions, signified and signifier
(e.g. Knudsen & Greer 2008). These interpretations derived from the philosophy of
Baudrillard have influenced the field of heritage studies as well. For instance,
Lowenthal (1986) establishes a break between a supposedly neutral “real history” and
heritage as a “fake”, a stance that has conditioned the works of many authors (see
Peleggi 1996; Olshin 2007; Waitt 2000).
From my standpoint, it is useless to apply this interpretation to cultural parks
because it rearticulates the nature-culture split into another false dichotomy between
copy and original (Massumi 1987). Also, it ignores the fact that many variables that
affect the configuration of heritage and cultural parks like identity, memory or the
functioning of the market can not be reduced to a textual representation based on the
signifier-signified couple (Guattari 1980). In reality, there is no original landscape or
nature to which the representation has to fit rigorously. Therefore, to say that there has
been a break between reality and representation is merely an empty affirmation
(Massumi 1987). What is at question is to understand cultural parks and its heritage
assets as original creations or emergent realities that transform the previous context
through the negotiation and rearticulating of meanings, affects, power relations, material
forms, etc.
Hence, cultural parks transform the relation of a society with space. This task is
inherently political because value systems and dominant beliefs are reflected in the
ways through which space is created. Ideology shapes what each person deems
important and conditions planning objectives and long term goals (Gunder & Hillier
74
2007). Against this background, it is now clear that landscape and heritage, nature and
culture have become assets among many others within a society that shamelessly blends
spectacle and production (Thrift 2006). Therefore, it is crucial to analyze in specific
cases how a cultural park articulates the balance between nature and culture in the
production of new spaces. Only then will it be possible to elucidate whether these
categories are still considered and managed separately or if on the contrary they are
interpreted as a whole and managed as such.
6.5 Economic forces and Cultural Parks
“The name itself for this national heritage area raises serious questions. It seems
improper, even indecent, to name this the Hallow Ground Corridor and claim it is to
appreciate, respect and experience this cultural landscape that makes it uniquely
American, when it tramples on the very principles of private property rights, individual
liberty and limited government that the Founding Fathers risked and gave their lives
for” R.J. Smith (in National Center for Public Policy Research 2006: 4).
The existence of parks and nature reserves has been tied to economic matters since
its inception, when the Northern Pacific Railroad supported the creation of Yellowstone
National Park in 1872 (Sellars 1999). At that time, Omlsted estimated the huge impact
of Central Park in increasing real estate values in adjacent areas of New York (Cranz
1982). At the municipal and regional levels, economic development and parks have
always been in close relation. However, economic issues were always considered as
“external” to the development of the park. The Urban Park system created in the 1980’s
by the New York State was the first project to include economic development among its
main goals (Bray 2004b). The plan considered four areas where the parks influenced
75
economic development: tourism, increment in real estate values, knowledge workers
and retirees that would be attracted to work and live and homebuyers that would
purchase homes (Bray 1994b).
Despite this intrinsic relation between parks and economy, the scarce scholarship
about cultural parks has neglected both macroeconomic and local economy issues, only
referring succinctly to the potential of cultural parks to foster sustainable development.
It is important to consider that the creation of cultural parks is framed within a general
process of financialisation of economy in Europe and North America. This process
leads to the concentration of wealth and profit in large metropolis whereas the
productive sectors or “real economy” tend to disappear (see Marazzi 2010; Lucarelli
2009). Then, there is an overall passage from a paradigm of profit generation towards a
model where rent becomes crucial in its many forms: territorial, financial, real estate,
etc. (Vercellone 2008; Harvey 2002).
The vast spaces that remain between the metropolises lose their productive
function (relocated in Asia or South America) and go on to become “junkspace”
(Koolhaas 2002) or just abandoned areas. Consequently, territories are forced to re-
invent themselves. A good option is to do it through the enhancement of landscape and
heritage that become sources of territorial rent (Rullani 2009). For some, this is a subtle
way to disguise what in reality are processes of touristification of areas (Bertoncello &
Geraiges de Lemos 2006) placing ecological and cultural objectives in the background
(Rojek & Urry 1997). From this perspective, cultural parks could be considered as
devices to control, articulate and extract rent from heritage and landscape. The issue
becomes patent when moving away from the Western context. In Asia, for example, the
current relevant question is not how to gain profit from cultural landscapes, but how to
76
protect them from massive development and industrialisation (Taylor 2009; Taylor &
Altenburg 2006).
This generic framework is structured in various ways at the local level. For
example, Hays considers that in the U.S. there is a historic opposition between a
utilitarian vision of territory focused on economic development, represented by the
West and an environmentalist perspective in accordance to the values of the East
(1999). This context places N.H.A. promoters under pressure to demonstrate both the
economic and environmental viability of their projects to local communities and the
institutions and corporations that support them, something that happens to a lesser
extent in Europe.
In Europe, the need to link cultural parks and sustainable economic development
is emphasized. Without getting into the review of this concept (see Latouche &
Harpagès 2010; Great Britain. Sustainable Development Commission & Jackson 2010)
it is important to note that its birth and implementation relied on the existence of a
strong welfare state (Huber & Stephens 2001). Quite the contrary to the current
situation where the weakness of central administrations and institutions is patent and
heritage preservation tends to be set aside. Further investigation is required to
understand how cultural parks manage to attain sustainability in this adverse
environment and what would be the role of heritage in the process.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the main factor of development in cultural
parks is tourism. Thus, it would be essential to research in empirical contexts how the
issue of sustainability is articulated with the couple heritage-tourism that has prompted
77
so much research (see Prentice 2001; Jolliffe & Smith 2001; Silberberg 1995; Poria et
al. 2003).
According to Sabaté (2004b) there are two types of tourism: a tourism that can be
done anywhere and the kind of tourism offered in cultural parks where the visitor comes
into contact with the local identity and culture. However, the question is more complex.
First, because it is difficult to maintain a sustainable economy based on tourism
(Precedo & Míguez 2007). Secondly, because in most cases the interpretation and
presentation of cultural assets has to adapt to the requirements of foreign visitors,
usually urban and with specific tastes (Almirón et al. 2006). This is known as the
passage from product-driven tourism to consumer-driven tourism which can cause a
disjunction between the touristic product and the local interpretation and enjoyment of
heritage (Apostolakis 2003). Thus, the process of selection and heritage enhancement is
twofold. First, the promoters decide which assets should be enhanced. Afterwards, the
tourists perform a second selection that may not match the choice of the promoters
(Almirón et al. 2006). Accordingly, some authors consider that tourists end up
consuming just a symbol that obliterates history and deterritorializes the material reality
of the place (Knudsen & Greer 2008). In this sense Terrado and Hernández are clear: for
cultural heritage to have use value and generate benefits it must meet a social demand
(2007).
Therefore, cultural parks must be able to generate a representation of landscape
and heritage that meets external demands without overlooking the interests of the local
community. Similarly, the cultural park must contest the tendency to override the
heterogeneity of landscape and heritage brought about by the implementation of
planning regulations and heritage enhancement plans (Tonts & Greive 2002). If a
78
cultural park homogenizes and reifies the landscape for tourist consumption it remains
exposed to contestation from other agents with different perspectives on what do
landscape and heritage should stand for.
The dispute over the property rights in the U.S. is exemplary in this regard. The
Property Rights association believes that the N.H.A. system violates the basic principles
of the American State, deadening economic development and enabling environmentalist
groups to take over control of land use (Peyton Knight 2005). N.H.A. represent for them
a veiled form of expansion of the bureaucratic state regulations under the guise of
protecting heritage (see Herzfeld 2006 ; Breglia 2006 on heritage and the expansion of
bureaucratic management). According to James Burling “the legacy we will leave to
future generations will not be the preservation of our history, but of the preservation of
a façade masquerading as our history subverted by the erosion of the Rights that
animated our history for the first two centuries of the Republic” (National Center for
Public Policy Research 2006: 3). Similarly, Joe Waldo considers that “the elderly,
minorities and the poor are most impacted by regulatory measures that restrict property
owners in the use of their land.” (National Center for Public Policy Research: 3).
Therefore, advocates of the Property Rights have a different ontological conception of
heritage. Accordingly, heritage is not a material, tangible remain but an intangible “way
of doing”, in this case the founding principles of the American State based on private
ownership and utilitarianism. For them, what Americans “share” is a set of ideals that
cannot be reduced to any material expression.
In conclusion, it is useless to understand economy and culture as
incommensurable fields (Gudeman 1986), the former dealing with quantification and
concreteness, the latter with abstraction and qualification. In cultural parks both fields
79
mingle in a constant interaction between economic and cultural interests in a wide
sense. This situation is related to the different understandings of landscape and heritage
each park deploys. These tend to be either materialist and objective or existential and
subjective. Also, for each social group heritage and landscape holds a different
ontological status. That is, in every cultural park there are not only different material
remains but also diverse ways of understanding, valuing and representing these remains.
Therefore, each cultural park must be articulated in a different manner to adapt to the
local reality adequately without losing sight of its objectives. Only the empirical
analysis of specific cases could shed light on how this process is put into action.
80
7. A new concept of Cultural Parks: towards an
ethnographic methodology
“On neither side [rationalist and culturalist] are systematic explanations for
political and economic outcomes being integrated with contextually informed analyses
of social relations. Yet we need works of such combinatorial weight more than ever
before, in a world where global endeavors cross multiple contexts” (Hall 2007: 134).
The objective of this section is to set out the foundation of a methodology for the
ethnographic study of cultural parks. As Castañeda (2008) remarks, all methodologies
are derived from a specific theoretical framework, whether explicitly or not.
Accordingly, a novel theoretical formulation of cultural parks that connects them to the
methodology constructed is developed and exposed. This “theoretical image” has been
elaborated from the foregoing reflections on landscapes and cultural parks, and from the
review of theories and methods of other authors from different disciplines that can be
tailored to suit the analysis of cultural parks.
Also, the methodologies employed so far for the study of cultural parks have been
critically reviewed. In this sense, the main reference is the work of Sabaté, subsequently
extended by another member of his research group, Bustamante. Another key
investigation is the collaboration between the research teams of Sabaté - Universitat
Politècnica de Catalunya, UPC - and Frenchman - Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, MIT - (2001). Each team studied nine cultural parks in their respective
geographical contexts using different methodologies.
81
The UPC team developed a morphological and typological approach that focused
on the identification of patterns in the resources and the physical manifestations of each
cultural park. Instead, the MIT team was less faithful to their architectural disciplinary
root. They developed a structural and broader approach focusing in the history and
evolution of the Parks, the role of the institutions, the story narrated through the cultural
resources and finally their physical design. According to them, this disparity can be
related to the different regional planning traditions in Europe and the U.S. For both, the
eighteen cultural parks studied fall under three close-cut categories: river corridors,
industrial or agricultural parks. Also, cultural parks seem to be the result of some
institutional decision or master plan put into operation through the use of technology.
Either way, both approaches are rather reductionist. In Sabaté’s case, cultural parks are
merely considered as planning projects and classified according to their physical shape
or prevailing heritage resources26.
In Frenchman’s case, cultural parks are reduced to their historical evolution and
institutional structure. Bustamante (2008) extends their work in an attempt to combine
both methodologies, achieving similar outcomes. He widens the range of parks studied
and elaborates more accurate classifications. Also, he connects cultural parks to
planning and architectural theory, considering those as the most evolved planning
instrument for rural areas. In any case, their approaches do not provide a useful
framework to develop a holistic explanation of cultural parks as they leave no room for
complex relations and processes.
Theirs is a good example of how methodologies create what researchers are
looking for (Law 2004), revealing the tight links between methods and theoretical
26 See Scheme 20
82
standpoints (Castañeda 2008). Thus, from their work it would seem that cultural parks
are mere planning instruments that attain some objectives following a linear causality
thanks to the use of technology. Also, the theory behind their respective views is firmly
anchored in the dichotomies of modernity, subject-object, nature-culture, tangible-
intangible, and so on. This position could be summarized in the already mentioned
affirmation that cultural landscapes are “the expression of the identity and memory of a
community”. Thus, the image of cultural parks is simplified and its hybrid nature
obliterated by “the purification of the elements” through classification and
systematization (Latour & Woolgar 1986).
7.1. Assembling Cultural Parks.
On the basis of the ideas exposed above I intend to set out a novel theoretical
conceptualization of cultural parks. These are the initial hypotheses:
1. Like landscapes and cultural landscapes, cultural parks are hybrid entities or
“messy objects” (Law & Mol 2002). Therefore, binary thinking is not functional for
their study, whether as the signifier-signified couple, the real history-fake heritage
dialectic or in the form of traditional modern dichotomies.
2. An epistemological turn is needed to understand cultural parks and to avoid the
categories of modernity. However, it is necessary to acknowledge their ontological
status as well. Actually, cultural parks produce subjectivities, change the relationship
between humans and their environment, their identity and their past, creating new socio-
economic territorial contexts or “matters of concern” (sensu Latour 2004).
83
3. Cultural parks are complex and many different elements converge in their
constitution. Therefore, strictly disciplinary research can not account for them either at a
practical or ideological level (Nguyen & Davis 2008). Thus, it is necessary to recognize
the impossibility of “purifying” and isolating an element for its analysis in a cultural
park. All its constituent parts are interrelated and in continuous reciprocal determination
through different processes.
4. There is no need to place cultural Parks in a useless dichotomy between the
local and the global. These are not the consequence of macro processes but neither
“local splinters” of a world in fragments (Geertz 2000). In cultural parks different issues
and processes converge with branches on different scales.
These premises pave the way for the conceptualization of cultural parks as
“assemblages”. To elaborate this formulation I have drawn on previous works
conducted in several disciplines, from anthropology (Rabinow 2008) to political science
(Srnicek 2007). The concept of assemblage was originally conceived by Foucault and
Deleuze (Deleuze 1988; see Srnicek 2007 for an in-depth account of "assemblages")
from the work of Danish linguist Louis Hjemslev (see Bell 2008; Pisters 2003)27. The
concept was intended to overcome the structuralist, phenomenological and Marxist
interpretations of the social world. However, its use has spread due to the appropriation
of the concept by the Actor-Network-Theory (see Latour 2005b; Callon & Caliskan
2005) and the recent Deleuzian-turn in anthropology (Hamilton & Placas 2010).
Actor-Network scholars consider assemblages as “loose descriptors of
heterogeneous structures, consisting of human as well as non-human elements” (Palmås
27 See Scheme 21
84
2007: 2). Hence, it is “like an episteme with technologies added ... connoting active and
evolving practices rather than a passive and static structure” (Watson-Verran &
Turnbull 1995: 117). Non-linear and complex relations prevail among the components
of the assemblage because “assemblages are formed and affected by heterogeneous
populations of lower-level assemblages, but may also act back upon these components,
imposing restraints or adaptations in them” (Zaera-Polo 2008: 90). Thus, assemblages
can be equated with “boundary objects” (Star & Griesemer 1989) or “global forms”.
These are a “set of templates that organize, in specific situations, values, norms, morals,
modes of self formation and ethical reasoning” (Collier & Ong 2005: 11) articulated in
local situations by specific administrative apparatuses, technical infrastructures or value
regimes (Frohmann 2008).
Moreover, assemblages do not only account for discourses but also for material
realities (Lazzarato 2002), enabling to make sense of the emergence of new socio-
economic configurations. Foucault’s analysis of the disciplinary system provides a good
example: at the non-discursive, material level (content of the assemblage) there is a
prison (form) and prisoners (substance). The “substance of content” is the human and
physical resources arranged in the assemblage, whereas the form of content is the
material way of sorting and compartmentalising these resources (Bell 2008: 9). At the
discursive level (expression of the assemblage), “the form is “penal law” and the
substance is “delinquency” in so far as it is the object of statements” (Deleuze 1988:
47)28. When assemblages are stabilized they are called “structures” that are more or less
stable, like the disciplinary system (see DeLanda 2009 for an explanation of
28 See Scheme 22 & 23.
85
assemblages in social contexts). Starting from this formulation, a tentative model of
cultural park can be set out29.
The abstract representation of the assemblage has the advantage of not
differentiating from the outset between nature-culture, object-subject or tangible-
intangible. This fact enables the researcher to analyze in empirical contexts how these
dichotomies are established and negotiated during the process of implementation.
Furthermore, the formulation of cultural parks as assemblages does not allow the
investigator to establish a direct linear relationship between discourses on heritage,
sustainability, memory and identity (substance of expression) and the material territory
(substance of content). There should always be some sort of intervention distributing
value and meaning and arranging the material reality in accordance with a logic. In
some cases, this rationale will be determined by research and a story to be told. In
others, the architectural design and planning will have a greater weight.
Thus, this model prevents an essentialist conception of heritage that defines it by
its intrinsic functions. Within the assemblage, the role of heritage is always negotiated
and variable because relations are always external to the internal constitution of the
elements (Zourabichvili et al. 2004). Therefore, it is necessary to analyze how heritage
is functioning assembled within structures (Dolphijn 2004). Also, cultural parks are not
the expression of the identity and memory of a place, but a way of arranging,
assembling these elements along with many others into a co-functioning system with a
purpose. Thus, both expression and content are reciprocally conditioned avoiding any
causal or linear relationship (Lazzarato 2004). This move prevents falling into
29 See Scheme 24
86
determinism: a cultural park is not exclusively the result of the socio-economic content
as in Marxism, nor the outcome of the discursive expression as in structuralism.
Furthermore, the assemblage reflects the complexity of the cultural park showing
the futility of conceiving it as an outcome of a transcendental, top-down ordering of
reality, whether as a planning guideline or the will of an institution. Conversely, the
cultural park is considered as an emergent element that adapts locally through ongoing
processes of negotiation and reciprocal determination. Then, as can be appreciated in
the graph, there are four main subdivisions traversed by two axes. The pre-existing
material (content substance) includes items such as institutions, material remains from
the past or the local people. These components are the subject of academic study
regarding of the creation of inventories to facilitate architectural design or the
development of a story. The planning efforts and the story sort out these material
elements of the past and some specific contemporary practices turning them into
“heritage” to be enhanced, valued, and presented to a public.
These elements are affected and in turn determine the physical structure of the
cultural park and the management of space and heritage (content form), that is, the
material way of compartmenting and sorting resources. The spatial planning blueprints
are closely related to the local context and the “image of the park” (expression form),
that is, with scientific research and the story that is narrated. This section is politically
loaded, enabling to analyse cultural park’s performance considering the story as an
“envelope”. Issues of identity politics, inclusion and exclusion can be addressed here,
looking at processes whereby some heritage resources, memories and stories are
highlighted whereas others fall in oblivion. Normally, when a cultural park narrates a
story it becomes the hub of its performance. This fact opens the door to an investigation
87
of the park from the story told: Is it based on research? And if so, what kind of research,
and who does it? Is it reflecting the local identity or is it an abstraction to attract
tourism? How does the story affect the meanings and uses of heritage?
Finally, the pre-existing discourses (expression substance) support and shape the
idea of “heritage-as-value” in its various forms: as cultural landscape, as identity, etc.
Also, this section includes discourses considering heritage assets as the basis for
economic development, that is, heritage-as-development (World Bank 2001). At the
same time, these discourses determine how actors should act, fixing ideas of how space,
heritage and economic development should be managed. Therefore, this area is closely
related to regulations and legislation developed by national and international institutions
(UNESCO, ICOMOS, World Bank, national heritage laws and so on). Both “expression
substance” and “expression form” would allow for an analysis of the ideological
underpinnings of the cultural park in the sense of Zizek or Rancière (see Rancière 2004;
Goodwin & Taylor 2009; Jackson & Jackson 2009; Butler et al. 2000; Swyngedouw
2010).
Once all these elements are conjoined and assembled, the cultural park becomes a
structure, or rather a “cultural image of stability” (DeLanda 2002), because it does not
lose its changing and dynamic status. At this point, it is not enough to affirm that the
assemblages exist. It is necessary to analyze how they touch ground in real contexts,
how they take on institutional grip and human valence. To do so, it is necessary to use
the “tools of anthropology, philosophy, metaphysics, history, sociology to detect how
many participants are gathered in a thing to make it exist and to maintain its existence”
(Latour 2005b: 256).
88
The analysis of real assemblages is the only way of accounting for the diagram
lying behind cultural parks (Palmås 2007). The diagram is different from a rational
blueprint or a project; it is not a top-down plan that grounds the whole cultural park. It
could be defined as a structure-generating process or the “functions or principles”
(Hardie & MacKenzie 2007) underpinning the workings of the assemblage. In plain,
what is at stake when seeking to map the diagram of a social structure is to understand
how the same concept “cultural park” can produce different territorial configurations
and how heritage can be articulated in many ways. That is, “how do the assemblages
come about in a variable way in each particular case? … Foucault gives it its most
precise name: it is a “diagram”, a “functioning, abstracted from any obstacle” (Deleuze
1988: 34). The diagram facilitates the task of tracing the key elements of cultural parks
according to “degrees”, instead of relying on closed categories: to which extent is
heritage being commodified? To what degree is the story fostering a fixed and
exclusionary idea of identity30?
The hypothetical representation of a diagram presents the main variables that play
a role in the constitution of a cultural park The diagram does not reintroduce a
dichotomous thinking since it does not classify or judge some elements according to
pre-existing criteria. Instead, it evaluates the “intensity” with which each element
operates, sorting it in a gradient where certain “attractors” are at work, in complexity
theory parlance (Ansell-Pearson 1997). Thus, it is possible to explore what kind of
transformation a cultural park causes in the relation between a society and its landscape
and heritage. To analyze the behaviour of a cultural park and “map” the underlying
diagram at work, it is necessary to conduct fieldwork research.
30 See Scheme 25.
89
7.2 An ethnographic methodology for the analysis of cultural
parks
In connection with the study carried out and the foregoing reflections, this section
provides some ideas for a suitable methodology for the investigation of cultural parks.
First, the methodologies developed by the research teams of the UPC and MIT should
not be completely dismissed. The analysis of physical planning and knowledge about
the history of the park and the role of the institutions in its development is relevant.
Indeed, these perspectives help to overcome the difficulties of anthropological studies in
linking macro contexts with ethnographic narrative (Hamilakis & Anagnostopoulos
2009). However, Sabaté and Frenchman already pointed out that “we have a long way
to go to fully understand the implications of these examples. Thus, there is an important
role for practice-based inquiry into this field” (2001: 35). Therefore, a study that seeks
to “problematise” the performance of cultural parks should be based on ethnographic
research of one or several case studies. This approach would enable researchers to
deepen several controversial issues and to draw comparisons between different cultural
parks.
In addition to the methodological contributions in the field of heritage studies (see
Sørensen 2009), the “ethnography of archaeology” provides a valuable research
framework. In particular, Castañeda’s notion of transculturation (2008) can prove useful
for the analysis of the “social life” of cultural parks (sensu Appadurai 1986). He extends
the use of the term to comprise not only the borrowing of meanings across ethnic groups
but also “between socio-cultural communities and diverse kinds of institutions, sets of
practices, bodies of knowledge and social agents” (Castañeda 2009: 263). Also, Lynn
Meskell’s investigation at Kruger National Park (2005; 2009) provides an outstanding
90
methodological framework that meshes archaeology and anthropology following the
call to “decolonize methodologies” (see Smith 2008)”. In her account she analyzes
issues of inclusion, the nature-culture divide, cultural display, tourism and
representation in the Park. However, Kruger (1926) is the stereotype of a traditional
“natural reserve” National Park. Therefore, her methodology should be adapted to the
particularities of cultural parks.
The methodology must take into account that “messy objects” as cultural parks
need a holistic, long-term ethnographic approach because these can mean different
things for each actor. Also, the methodology should combine an etic (broad or common)
and emic (culture specific) approach (Morris et al. 1999), working at two levels. The
first would comprise structured interviews in order to establish similar patterns of
analysis to facilitate inter-contextual comparison. At the second level, free and semi-
structured interviews should be carried out (see King & Horrocks 2009) enabling to
“follow the actors” instead of merely collecting data to fit a hypothesis (Sørensen 2009).
91
8. Conclusions
Most authors who have written on the subject agree that the most innovative
feature of cultural parks is that they place landscape at the heart of planning efforts.
More specifically, they rely on the idea of cultural landscape which itself incorporates a
broad notion of heritage or “territorial heritage”. Supposedly, in this way cultural parks
move beyond the dichotomies between nature-culture, intangible-tangible, etc., so
clearly embodied by the traditional national parks or nature reserves. In theory, the
prevailing role of landscape should prevent the process of economic development and
touristification that every cultural park entails from breaking with the local
communities’ activity and cultural forms of self-representation.
The investigation has attempted to show that the picture is more complex. The
purpose of the review of the notions of landscape and cultural landscape was to show
how their roots lie in modern epistemology and how their development was parallel to
that of the scientific paradigm. Although the “landscape” can overcome certain
dichotomies such as nature-culture, it reintroduces others because it implicitly carries
the notions of “material territorial reality” and at the same time the “visual
representation” of that reality. Therefore, it is necessary to re-establish their unity and
close the gap opened up at the heart of landscapes by the modern Humboldtian appraisal
of them.
Also, it is usual to articulate the landscape in cultural parks following the
problematic linguistic duality of signifier-signified: the landscape as an expression of
memory and identity. In fact, the conception of landscape has historically oscillated
between objectivism and subjectivism depending on the epistemological trend or social
92
agent that interpreted and put it to work. On one side, the subjectivist paradigm has
evolved from the connotative interpretations of romanticism to the phenomenological
and social constructivist positions (see Wylie 2007). On the other, objectivist trends
starting from the denotative interpretations of Enlightenment endured in positivist
approaches and in technical disciplines. This latter utilitarian perspective has been
assumed by institutions and States since the eighteenth century. It was also embraced by
the hard sciences, which needed to maintain an autonomous idea of nature to avoid a
universal social constructivism that would threaten the isolation of their object of study
(Chouquer 2007).
For its part, UNESCO (Rössler 2006) added “cultural landscape” to its categories,
endorsing definitely the hybridization between heritage and landscape according to
Western standards. The questionable objectivist standpoint of UNESCO does not go
into contentious areas such as management or ownership, opening the door to the
management of “cultural landscapes” in different ways and with clear economic
purposes. Cultural parks represent one of these forms of management. They provide a
cultural landscape with a structure and organisation, linking a material state of affairs
(e.g. a beautiful vineyard valley) with a discourse (e.g. UNESCO’s discourse on
“organically evolved landscapes” as valuable) and extracting an economic rent from it.
All the aforementioned contradictions and epistemic inheritances from modernity
are reflected in the crucial question that every cultural park has huge problems to deal
with, that is, how to translate “landscape identity” into spatial and heritage planning.
The fact that local groups and various stakeholders can participate in the process of
implementation and management of the cultural park facilitates this task. However, it is
difficult to assess to what extent is local people involved and which specific groups are
93
the most active in the process. Nonetheless, this possibility is not really an original
contribution of cultural parks but stems from a number of issues. On one hand,
transformations in the economy and forms of governmentality have left a prospect of
weak States that gives way to the intervention of different agents with more weight in
the territory. On the other hand, changes in scientific paradigms and subsequently in the
conceptualisation of heritage, museums, parks and protected areas are determining.
Thus, open-air museums, networked museums and ecomuseums condition the
development of cultural parks. Similarly, managers of national and nature parks are
gradually abandoning the idea of the park as an isolated wildlife sanctuary with clear
limits, therefore trying to connect it with local communities and society at large.
Under these premises, cultural parks began to emerge during the 1990s
conforming to different criteria in Europe and the U.S. Also, their forms and structures
are highly heterogeneous due to the wide variety of local articulations and the
participation of different social agents in their implementation. This reality renders
cultural parks highly political entities. Externally, they require funding, political
negotiation, bureaucratic management and institutional support. Internally, their
performance is tied to the politics of identity because they link heritage with
representations of identity and memory that may play a role in issues of social inclusion
and exclusion. The situation becomes more intricate if the park narrates a story as in the
American National Heritage Areas.
The research has tried to show how the technical approaches and their theoretical
foundations used so far to account for the complexity of cultural parks do not suffice to
understand them. It is not that these are wrong, but they only provide a partial view of
cultural parks. Something that would also happen if the researcher places himself on the
94
other side and conceives cultural parks as social constructions (see Carman 1995 on
heritage as social construction). Therefore, to build the theoretical image of cultural
parks I have tried to follow Latour (1993a) and adopt a symmetric stance whereby a
cultural park becomes a technical and a social entity, a set of objects, negotiations and
exchanges.
A purely technical perspective like the ones deployed by Sabaté, Frenchman or
Bustamante overlook that every technical project involves a series of parallel social
processes that render it possible and keep it alive. Thus, the technical procedures are in
constant dialogue and engagement not only with the material realities they deal with and
shape, but with different social actors. Therefore, it is trivial to give a technical
explanation of the performance of cultural parks to which some “external” social and
political components are added later. Equally, it is useless to focus on social issues and
the “social construction” of cultural parks without considering the technical aspects.
Hence, it should be assumed that the material and technical framework is socially
negotiated. Then, to keep the symmetry it should be recognized that the own cultural
park can also enrol and incorporate different social actors in its development.
Consequently, the cultural park has agency and ontological potential to create new
territorial truths that decentre previous equilibriums (Law 2004). They can create
delimited frameworks with “new sets of rules” (Serres 1982) where it is easier to
individuate particular issues to deal with (Latour 2005a).
From this perspective, it becomes unproductive to try to “purify” cultural parks
seeking to identify and individuate their functions. For instance, the researcher should
not aim to unravel and neatly separate what is culture and what is economy within
95
cultural parks in order to “judge” and criticise their performance if they tend to focus on
economic objectives that entail the commodification of heritage. This would imply the
introduction of preconceived notions and contexts from outside the assemblage
determining what it means and what is to be done with heritage, culture, nature,
economy, etc. Instead, the researcher’s work should be to follow those agents involved
in the creation of the cultural park and to investigate how other actors are involved in
different ways, joining or disengaging from the project. Only in this manner it is
possible to understand how social actors create different categories, attach meanings,
decide what are landscape and heritage, culture and nature, and what to do with them.
From this stance, the investigation would probably reveal that local conceptualizations
diverge from the researcher’s own preconceptions, a situation that leads to an encounter
that generates knowledge.
Also, the idea of what is and what to do with heritage varies in accordance to the
different evaluations and classifications. The inventories elaborated in cultural parks
define what heritage consists of. A further selection organises them in a hierarchy based
on their value and utility in relation to the story or the goals pursued. This
categorization can be challenged and can either match or not the representations of local
communities, the criteria of heritage experts and tourists. Thus, the axis of the debate
must be rethought in different terms. The question is not whether or not heritage
represents the memory and identity of a community, but why is there a need to bring
them together, for what purposes, how is it negotiated and among which actors, how
would the material reality of the place be affected, and so on. In short, how heritage is
assembled into a larger framework where it has also agency, the capacity to engage
stakeholders around it.
96
Finally, for a cultural park to be constituted and stay active it must be located at
the “intersection” where the wills of different social actors converge. At present, the
“active principle” of cultural parks lies in the intersection of a growing number of
heterogeneous social groups and institutions across the U.S. and Europe. It is at this
intersection where the researcher should situate her/himself, half way between technical
objects and social interests, in order to account for the exchanges and relations between
them. The concept of assemblage enables us to assume an intermediate position,
without prioritising any of the two fields.
In hindsight, this investigation has allowed me to focus, formulate and conceive
cultural parks as a concrete research problem now open for future research and
academic scrutiny. In this regard, almost everything remains still to be done.
97
9. Appendices
Appendix 1. Definitions of Landscape
Tim Ingold (1993): “Landscape, in short, is not a totality that you or anyone
else can look at, it is rather the world in which we stand in taking up a point of view on
our surroundings. And it is within the context of this attentive involvement in the
landscape that the human imagination gets to work in fashioning ideas about it”.
Evans, M.J., Roberts, A, Nelson, P. (2001): “Landscapes are “symbolic
environments” that people create to give meaning and definition to their physical
environment”.
Sánchez Palencia & Pérez García (1996): “Landscape is a cultural creation, not
only for the society that constructed it but also to contemporary society that approaches
it”.
Marc Antrop (2006): “Landscape encompasses more than an area of land with a
certain use or function. I consider landscape as a synthetic and integrating concept that
refers both to a material-physical reality, originating form a continuous dynamic
interaction between natural processes and human activity, and to the immaterial
existential values and symbols of which the landscape is the signifier”.
Wikipedia (access January 20, 2011): “Landscape comprises the visible features
of an area of land, including the physical elements of landforms, water bodies such as
rivers, lakes and the sea, living elements of land cover including indigenous vegetation,
human elements including land uses, buildings and structures, and transitory elements
such as lighting and weather conditions”.
Milton Santos (1997):
98
- “Landscape is the realm of the visible. It is not only constituted by volumes, but
also by colours, movements, smells, sound, etc. Landscape is the collection of objects
that our body grasps and identifies.”
- “Landscape comprises the reality that can be visually perceived from a point of
observation. It is constituted by natural and human elements, presents a dynamic
character and is the product of human work and history”.
Joan Nogue (2007): “Landscape is a physical reality and the cultural
representation we make of it. It comprises the geographic physiognomy of a territory
along with all the human and natural elements present on it. Also, landscape comprises
all the sentiments and emotions arisen when it is contemplated. In conclusion, landscape
is socially constructed, as the cultural projection of a society in a limited space
determined from a material, spiritual and symbolic dimension”.
Roberto Barocchi (1982) “Landscape is the form of the environment”.
Vázquez Varela & Martínez Navarro (2008) : “Landscape is the
phenomenological expression of social and natural processes in a given time, directly
related to the spatial planning of productive as well as cultural activities, according to
the varying social options that apply”.
Appendix 2. Definitions of Cultural Landscape
María Ángeles Layuno (2007): “Against natural landscapes, cultural landscapes,
imply a human contribution, that is, the modification or transformation of landscape by
human action over time”.
99
Almudena Orejas (2001): “Cultural landscape is a kind of cultural asset whose
value lies in the combination of the natural and the cultural realms, that is, the
interaction between people and their surrounding environment”.
Charles Birnbaum and N.P.S. (1994): “a geographic area, including both cultural
and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a
historic event, activity, or person exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values”.
Ballesteros Arias, Otero Vilariño and Varela Pousa (2004): “Cultural landscape
is a part of the territory containing different natural, historic, monumental and
archaeological elements. It comes into being only when it is appreciated by the
observer. The gaze builds the landscape. Without an observer and a code landscape is
only a space”.
Peter Fowler (2003): “Memorial to the unknown worker”.
Carl Sauer (1925): “The cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape
by a culture group. Culture is the agent, the natural area is the medium, the cultural
landscape the result”.
Joaquin Sabaté (2006): “Cultural landscape is a geographic ground associated to
an event, an activity or a historical character, containing aesthetic and cultural values”.
Ministry of Culture, Government of Spain (n.d.): Cultural landscape is the result
of human activity in a particular territory, whose component parts are:
1. Natural substratum (orography, soils, vegetation, hydrography...).
2. Human action: modification and/or alteration of natural elements and
constructions with a determinate scope.
3. Kind of activity performed in the area (a functional component in relation
with economy, beliefs, culture, ways of life...).
100
Ramón Buxó (2006): “Cultural landscapes are multidimensional constructions
resulting from the interaction between certain historical structures and contingent
processes”.
California State Park scheme (n.d.): “Cultural landscapes portray how humans
have used and adapted natural resources over time, whether through agricultural,
mining, ranching and settlement activities, or traditional Native American cultural
practices”.
Fernández Mier and Díaz López (2006): “Cultural Heritage currently
incorporates the territory, because territory is the natural and humanized landscape, a
product of the human alteration of the environment in order to obtain the necessary
resources to enable its survival and to progress in the organization and economic sustain
of the society. This is what we mean by cultural landscape”.
Michael O'Flaherty (n.d.): “Since all people have a (cultural) relationship to land
and its other inhabitants, the term "cultural landscape" is redundant. Our goal should not
be to defend the simple fact that landscapes are cultural but to find ways to describe the
myriad of relations and their interaction with one another”.
Jaume Domenech (2005): “Cultural landscapes are the outcome of a continuous
and gradual sedimentation of historic socio-economic processes, reflecting the growth
of a society in a territory. We should not discuss about landscape, art or heritage without
taking into account the protagonism of man in the territory. Man is the actor and agent
of the transformations that leave traces in the landscape”.
Appendix 3. Definitions of Cultural Park / Heritage Area
Aragón Cultural Park Act (1997): “A territory containing relevant cultural
heritage elements that are integrated within a geographic environment of singular
101
ecological and natural value, that will enjoy of promotion and protection as a whole,
with specific measures for the protection of the aforementioned relevant heritage
elements”.
Joaquín Sabaté (2009): “I understand Heritage Park as an tool to Project and
manage, to recognize and enhance an specific Cultural Landscape, whose aim is not
only to preserve heritage or to promote education, but also to favor local economic
development”.
Joaquín Sabaté (2004b): “A Cultural Park implies the necessity to ensure the
preservation of heritage assets and to enhance and value them in order to foster
economic development within a particular Cultural Landscape”.
Leonel Pérez Bustamante and Claudia Parra Ponce (2004):
- “Heritage Park is an initiative or project that privileges the production of an
image that grants an identity to a territory, where heritage along with other natural and
cultural resources are combined, presented, and promoted intentionally in order to form
a patterned landscape that tells the story of such territory and its dwellers”.
- “Heritage Park is a concept with the implicit notion of “project”. As such, it
entails the composition of an image contributing to the enhancement of territorial
identity providing the territory with some elements that facilitate economic
development”.
Pascual Rubio Terrado (2008): “The Cultural Park constitutes an evolution of
the traditional enclosed museum, or “museum-institution”, of historic and
anthropological character, that extends throughout a whole territory. It can be likened to
a field with specific common characteristics in the majority of the cultural
manifestations present on it. Therefore, the essence of a Cultural Park is the territory
that represents the complex workings of a determinate culture through a varied array of
forms and elements. Each Cultural Park is configured according to all the cultural
102
manifestations present in the territory, whether material (archaeological sites,
monuments, landscapes, etc.) or intangible (beliefs, habits, folklore, etc.). Local
participation is essential for the enhancement and protection of heritage and for the
consolidation of the Park”.
Jane Daly (2003): “While the language can be confusing, the basic principle is
not. Heritage areas are dynamic regional initiatives that build connections between
people, their place and their history. These connections are strengthened by capturing
and telling the stories of the people and their place. These stories, when linked together,
reflect a regional identity and support a collective awareness of the need to protect and
enhance what makes our places unique. They give rise to opportunities for economic
development that promote and preserve the region’s assets”.
Peyton Knight (2006b): “But what is a National Heritage Area? In short, it is a
pork barrel earmark that harms property rights and local governance. Let me explain
why that is. Heritage Areas have boundaries. They are very definite boundaries, and
they have very definite consequences for folks who reside within them. What happens
when a Heritage Area bill passes is that a management entity is tasked with drawing
boundaries around a particular region and then coming up with a management plan for
the area”.
Rosemary Prola (2005): “The heritage area movement in the United States
represents a strategy for protecting heritage that transcends the traditional focus of
historic preservation of structures and sites to encompass the conservation of their
historic, cultural, and natural contexts. Heritage areas are founded on the concept that
the best way to preserve historic and cultural landscapes is through partnerships and
community participation. With its concern for creating sustainable local economies as a
means of resource protection, the heritage area movement incorporates current historic
preservation practice, which is increasingly concerned with revitalizing “main streets,”
103
bringing back urban neighborhoods, and protecting farmland, with landscape-scale
conservation, interpretation and tourism”.
Paul M. Bray (1988): “Heritage areas are multi-resource urban and regional
settings with a coherence or distinctive sense of place based on factors like rivers, lakes,
transportation systems (canal and historic railroad lines) and cultural heritage. They
have been called partnership parks because of the diversity of stakeholders (including
private land owners, NGOs and multiple units of governments and functional
governmental agencies) involved in the planning and management for the area's
intersecting goals of preservation, recreation, education and sustainable economic
development like cultural and eco-tourism. Successful heritage areas keep current
residents in the forefront in terms of ownership, control and celebration”.
San Francisco Planning Department (n.d.): “Heritage Areas feature historic and
cultural resources that are integral with their geography. The combined landscape and
development of a Heritage Area tells a story”.
National Park Service (n.d.): “A national heritage area is a place designated by
the United States Congress where natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources
combine to form a cohesive, nationally distinctive landscape arising from patterns of
human activity shaped by geography. These areas tell nationally important stories about
our nation and are representative of the national experience through both the physical
features that remain and the traditions that have evolved with them”.
Brenda Barrett and Suzanne Copping (2004): “Heritage areas and heritage
corridors are large-scale living landscapes where community leaders and residents have
come together around a common vision of their shared heritage”.
Rafael Martínez Valle (2000): “What is a cultural park? It is an approach to
landscape that focuses on the relations between human beings and their environment. The
cultural park as a museum can be equated with what Querol defined as an archaeological
104
park. However, in cultural parks the archaeological heritage is only one element among
others”.
Burillo, F., Ibañez, E.J., and Polo. C. (1994): “Cultural landscapes represent a
total archaeology: they a single thematic unit that is distributed throughout a territory.
Then, the philosophy is to foster rural development on the basis of research and
heritage”.
Ewa Bergdahl (2005): “A cultural park contributes to the economic development of
a region, a unusual objective for a traditional museum. Thus, cultural parks are projected
towards the future”.
Heritage Act of the Comunidad Valenciana (1998): “A space containing significant
cultural heritage elements integrated within a environment with relevant landscape and
ecological values”.
Matilde González Méndez (1997): “In contrast to archaeological parks, cultural
parks strive for the protection and promotion of larger areas with more of a cultural
presence than that found in archaeological remains and their surroundings. They
therefore promote the control of the archaeological historical and natural resources in
large areas. A cultural park is more than a single site within a group of natural and
historical resources in an area which may be opened for public use”.
Almudena Orejas (2001): “A cultural park is an open and dynamic support to
address the cultural, social and economic enhancement of cultural landscape. It is an
instrument that coordinates and integrates the interests of researchers, heritage
administrations and diverse publics, working as an useful framework for the protection
and management of heritage”.
Battaglini G., Orejas, A. Clavel-Lévêque, M. (2002): “A cultural park must be
able to bring together many different elements while at the same time constituting itself
as a dynamic reality. The park must also integrate the present to propose potential ways
105
of change in relation with the past elements. Also, the park must become a living
landscape able to conduct visitors from the present territories to the ancient ones …
parks are structured on a geo-historical space and around a specific theme from a central
reference: an archaeological area, a site, or a regional complex”.
Appendix 4. The Val di Cornia Partnership Cultural Park.
This appendix presents and briefly analyses the constitution and evolution of the
Val di Cornia cultural park. This case study cannot be considered as a “test proof” of the
methodology developed in the dissertation because no fieldwork has been carried out.
Instead, my aim is to illustrate how a cultural park is created in practice, thus
complementing the more theoretical perspective assumed in the dissertation. I have
chosen the Val di Cornia because I know well the area (I spent six months there
working as an archaeologist) and because I consider the book “Un’impresa per sei
parchi” (Casini & Zucconi 2003) the best work carried out to date focusing on a single
cultural park. In fact, the book reflects the conception of the park as it brings together
contributions from the wide array of professionals involved in its development. Also,
the authors insist in considering the park as an ongoing process that needs to be
constantly updated and rethought.
The Val di Cornia region and the park.
The Val di Cornia is a coastal area located in the south of the region of Toscana
(Italy), comprising five city councils with a chief urban centre called “Piombino”. The
area has been known since medieval times for its intensive dedication to the steel and,
more recently, the iron industries. Most people in the area worked in the industry sector
106
during the twentieth century. However, the 1980s brought about a worldwide crisis of
the iron industry that affected directly the Val di Cornia. Consequently, unemployment
and social unrest rocketed during that decade. For some politicians and professionals,
the only way out of the economic downturn would be the focus on agricultural
production and tourism (Casini & Zucconi 2003: 6). Accordingly, since the late 1980s
large areas of the region comprising archaeological remains, coastal areas, forests and
mountains were subjected to a public regime of protection through expropriation or
voluntary transfer (idem: 23). The outcome of this process was the creation of different
parks owned directly by the city councils31. Since then on, many other areas and
archaeological remains have fallen under public control. Obviously, the process was not
devoid of controversy as many people thought that investments should be directed to the
maintenance of the industrial and extractive sectors, whose activities were irreconcilable
with the creation of the park due to the high environmental damage and degradation that
they entailed.
Notwithstanding this contentious issue, the idea of the park gained popular support
during the early 1990s. Instead of focusing solely on conservation policies and the
creation of “protected areas”, the promoters of the park moved towards an active
position aiming at the development and enhancement of certain environmentally and
historically valuable sites (idem: 50). Accordingly, the promoters sought a form of
management that enabled them to holistically consider issues of heritage,
infrastructures, residential and industrial spaces, tourism, services, landscape and
archaeology. Finally the “Parks of Val di Cornia Partnership” was created in 1993 with
the following objective: “To activate the Val di Cornia Parks framework through the
31 Namely, the Archaeological Park of Populonia and the Coastal Park of Sterpaia in Piombino, the Coastal Park of Rimigliano in San Vincenzo, the Mining Archaeological Park of Sal Silvestro in Campiglia Marittima, the Natural Park of Montioni in Suvereto and the Forestal Park of Poggio Neri in Sassetta.
107
creation of the necessary management facilities and services located in the affected
areas, promoting the protection and development of social, economic and territorial
cohesion”32 (idem: 5). The Val di Cornia became one more of the 25 areas considered as
“Cultural Parks” by the Toscana region, subsequently receiving funding from it and
later on from the E.U. as well (AAVV 1995). Then, without going into detail, it is easy
to identify in Val di Cornia the main issues at work in most cultural parks:
- The project starts as a consequence of the transition from industrial-productive
economies to post-productive economies based on the service sector.
- The project is based on the assumption of an extended idea of “heritage and
territorial value” that underpins the whole process.
- The project entails a shift from the preservationist stance focusing on the
creation of natural parks to the active and entrepreneurial management of heritage as a
“resource”.
- Economy is considered at two levels. The first focuses on direct profits from
museums, parks or touristic expenditure mainly. But the second level takes into account
the added value of the “identity of the region” that only heritage can provide (see Casini
& Zucconi 2003: 165)33
Structures and functioning of the park
The governing body of the parks of Val di Cornia is a complex structure that
brings together many professionals from different fields of expertise such as economy,
management, archaeology, biology, curatorial studies, sociology or engineering. Also,
many features of the park are original in the European context and entail a rethinking of
32 Translated from Italian by the author. 33 See Scheme 26
108
concepts of heritage, territory and management, in some cases with clear political
connotations.
The partnership and the relation with other institutions.
The Val di Cornia is the first entrepreneurial partnership created by city councils
with the participation of private companies in Italy (idem: 7). In Italy and many other
European countries the parks are established through complex bureaucratic procedures
involving national and regional institutions that subtract powers to local governments.
Instead, in Val de Cornia the parks are the direct emanation of the city councils: their
delimitation, roles, interventions, management and planning are carried out by the
partnership. Therefore, Val di Cornia has clearly chosen a framework whereby the local
government becomes an autonomous entity that not only grants some public services
but decides how to plan its own future in a complex manner, establishing an equal
relation with different other bodies such as the regional, national or European
institutions, the universities and the specific public Boards of Archaeological and
Cultural Heritage. Clearly, this stands in opposition with the Italian Constitution that
endows the State with competences on cultural goods and the Regions with
competences on tourism34. Moreover, in the late 1990s the development of the park
transcended to the political level with the creation of a political institution called
“circondario” (district) that brings together the five city councils and does not fit with
the traditional administrative framework of the Italian State. The situation created in the
region thanks to the development of the park is not only due to a political stance, but is
related to pragmatic concerns. As the authors state, the regional and national
governments lack the necessary rapidity to respond to the necessities of a decaying
34 However, there are attempts at present to move towards a greater decentralisation of the Italian State that would grant more competences to the regions.
109
economy such as the one of Val di Cornia. If they had not taken action fast, they would
“still be waiting for public funding and the completion of bureaucratic procedures”
(idem: 7).
Consequently, discussions revolving around issues of ownership of cultural and
natural heritage become secondary. What is at stake is to understand how to manage
these resources successfully in order to generate profits, employment and provide high
quality services for the population. Accordingly, the partnership of the park manages
archaeological sites owned by the State, historic buildings property of the Province and
forests of the Region, thus avoiding sectoral policies and overlapping competences.
Instead, the guiding motto has been “integration” (idem: 8). First, the integration of both
natural and cultural goods. The park distinguishes clearly both at the discursive and the
practical level of management between nature and culture: some areas are “natural” and
other areas are “cultural” or “archaeological” (idem: 119-122). Secondly, traditional
“cultural services” such as natural preservation, museums or restoration are integrated
with the ownership of hotels, restaurants and commercial services at large, thus
enabling the park to be economically sustainable. The promoters consider the
partnership model as a solution for the problems that managing territorial networks of
cultural heritage entails (idem: 38)
Therefore, the promoters of the park reject the traditional vision of heritage as a
pristine element owned and preserved by the State. Heritage is for them a “resource” or
“cultural asset” that underlies the whole enhancement process in a wide
conceptualization: for instance, the promoters take into account that contemporary
industrial factories can become valuable assets in the future in the form of industrial
110
heritage. They do not discuss ownership but management, what is at stake for them is to
provide new opportunities for local people and to generate a new territorial identity.
In parallel, they consider that the neo-liberal model whereby public institutions are
in charge of the expenditures derived from taking care of cultural heritage whereas the
private sector collects profits is outdated. For them, the only possibility of achieving a
real sustainability lies in a fair share of expenditure and profit between the private and
public sectors. Moreover, the public sector should work following entrepreneurial
models of flexibility and mobility. This model facilitates the partial self-funding of the
partnership and the redistribution of benefits towards university-led research. Indeed,
the establishment of the park has significantly increased the investments on culture-
related activities and research in an area without a tradition of heritage or nature
enhancement due to the historical focus on industry.
The role of archaeology and research
In the case of the Val di Cornia it could be said that archaeology was one of the
main catalysts for the development of the cultural park, a fact that cannot be separated
from the figure of the medieval archaeologist Riccardo Francovich. For him,
archaeology is conceived as a tool that could and should be linked to social action.
Accordingly, the archaeological charts of the south of Toscana ceased to be mere
inventories of sites and took the form of landscape archaeology to deal with issues of
spatial change and planning that could be linked with current forms of spatial and
heritage planning (Francovich et al. 2001). Something that promoters in Val di Cornia
bear in mind themselves, as they believe that archaeologists need to expand the scope of
their research if they are to discuss face to face with politicians and planners (Casini &
111
Zucconi 2003: 80): “It is therefore asked to archaeologists to work according to their
own methods, but at the same time to adequate their own work to the exigencies of
landscape architecture and spatial planning … The University admits, then, that to
affirm the independency of scientific research does not entail setting aside the socio-
economic problems of the area where research is carried out” (idem: 81).
Thus, for Francovich "incisive archaeological research should not only involve
those who work in it, but also the territorial policies widely. There cannot be a policy
for the protection of archaoelogical and heritage goods without taking into account
issues of urbanism and planning” (Francovich 2003). Then, all research conducted in
Southern Toscana was included within an overall strategic plan, integrated through the
pioneering use of GIS software at the service of public institutions (Francovich 2002;
Francovich & Valenti 1999).
In fact, the Val di Cornia Park builds on the previous archaeological work carried
out in the area. The origins of many of the “cultural parks” of the partnership lie in the
diggings conducted by Francovich in the area, which culminated in the development of
the archaeological park of Rocca San Silvestro (Francovich & Jamie 1995). In this case,
archaeology is in charge of telling “different stories for the same network” in the park,
providing an scientific narrative for the whole territory that serves as a basis for the
enhancement process (Casini & Zucconi 2003: 89). However, this fact does not entail
the “reinvention” of an exclusionary identity for the region. Rather, it merely highlights
some of the processes that leave traces in the landscape, some of which have endured
until recent times as the iron industry, which is present in the area since medieval times
(Francovich 2003). Similarly, the identity put forward by the park has overcome the
regionalisms that had begun to emerge since the steel industry crisis claiming that the
112
creation of a new province in the area of Val di Cornia was necessary and the localisms
that fostered competition between the different cities in the area (Casini & Zucconi
2003: 47).
At the same time, the economic success of the initiative has ensured the continuity
of archaeological works, heritage enhancement and research. Subsequently, archaeology
has really become “public” and has installed itself in the daily life of the place: in
education, world view, imagination, the relationship with the environment and so on.
Therefore, archaeology does not only play a role in providing a “narrative of identity” to
the area but also participates in processes of decision and management of the park and
the territory.
Assembling Val di Cornia
In this final section I apply the concept of “assemblage” to the park of Val di
Cornia. As previously mentioned, the scope of this analysis is limited and its aim is to
illustrate briefly some of the concepts and topics exposed above. It is necessary to
understand that the park is an ongoing process that will never be finished, as it is
constantly improving and posing new objectives for the future. The assemblage traces
the main elements that play a role in the development of the park and analyses them
symmetrically without getting rid of their complexity.
- Content substance comprises all the elements that are brought together and re-
arranged by the park structure through expropriation or voluntary transfer, ranging from
natural and coastal areas, hotels, restaurants, residential and productive areas, roads,
113
archaeological remains, re-utilised buildings and the dwellers of the area, specially
unemployed ex-workers of the iron industry.
- Content form establishes how the elements are arranged into a new co-
functioning system. In Val di Cornia this is the more politically charged area of the
assemblage instead of expression form, which refers to ideological and discursive
issues. The park has challenged traditional forms of territorial and heritage management
practices in Italy putting forward a novel view focusing on local autonomy and down to
top planning strategies. Moreover, the promoters have set out a management structure
whereby both public and private sector share loses and profits. The local promoters have
organised the elements to fit entrepreneurial models of management that revert in the
local economy thanks to the profit generated by tourism and investments. The plan of
the whole region has drawn on an archaeological understanding of the territory that
places landscape in the centre of its research agenda. However, architects and spatial
planners have decided to divide the management of nature and culture into clear-cut
administrative sections working with different frameworks and getting rid of the idea of
“landscape”. However, they have integrated the whole set of elements into a large
scheme whereby hotels, tourism and marketing are in close contact with researchers
from different universities and the local population.
- Expression form is related with the discursive and ideological elements present
in the park. In Val di Cornia there is not an all encompassing narrative. Instead, the
prevailing motto is “many stories into one network” (Casini & Zucconi 2003: 81). The
stories are based on scientific research carried out by archaeologists mainly and are
restricted to the archaeological sites. The promoters put effort into changing the external
perception of the area, traditionally regarded as an industrial region. The aim of the park
is therefore to “look for a new identity for the area” (idem: 41) and to shift towards a
model of leisure-tourism that enables to relate the park with nature preservation and
114
cultural activity. Then, it can be said that the denomination works as an umbrella under
which all the resources are assembled and managed as a system to fit into a new model
based on a link between heritage and identity.
- Expression content comprises the discourses assembled into the park that, in
turn, are reinforced and put to work by it. The main discourses are related with the need
to fight for the autonomy of local communities and the need to share profits and
expenditures between the private and public sectors. But also there is a declared will to
bring the public sector into entrepreneurial private management schemes. Therefore,
discourses on efficiency, flexibility, results culture, mobility, economic diversification
mingle with discourses on heritage and landscape preservation and enhancement.
Consequently, the overall discourse of the park fits with the model of an integrated view
of culture and leisure.
The view offered here is clearly partial as it has been already mentioned.
However, it shows how cultural parks are complex enterprises that use heritage to
produce a significant territorial shift towards post-productivist economic models based
on the couple “culture and leisure”. Thus, in cultural parks heritage cannot be isolated
from other elements: the role it plays depends on many other factors and, in fact, the
concept pervades the whole assemblage. That is, everything “tends” to become
heritagised, from the abstract identity, the coastal and forest areas, the archaeological
sites, the agricultural products, the villages to the recently abandoned steel factories.
Clearly, the park is not just the product of a “technical” arrangement of the
territory. Despite these issues can only be accounted for through ethnographic
fieldwork, there must be many social bounds and a high degree of cohesion between
different actors to sustain such a complex project. This is not to say that the plan is
115
devoid of controversy. However, it is not possible to assess the relation between the
representation generated by the promoters and the perception of local people without
carrying out fieldwork. Finally, analysing cultural parks can prove useful for researchers
to understand how “heritage” cannot be isolated from the complex assemblages that
give meanings and values to it and extract profit from it through different practices. In
cultural parks, heritage is the product of a social construction as much as it is the
outcome of a complex technical procedure.
Appendix 5. Tables and schemes
The classifications of cultural parks have been developed according to different
patterns. Actually, I agree with Bitonti (2008) that classifications are only useful when
typologies can be linked with their potential social and political effects. However, only
ethnographic research on cultural parks can offer this possibility. Thus, assuming that
the typological approach provided is tentative, it can provide a useful outline that
clarifies some of the issues exposed above.
116
TABLE 1
Landscape
Area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the
action and interaction of natural and/or human factors
Landscape policy
An expression by the competent public authorities of general
principles, strategies and guidelines that permit the taking of specific measures aimed at the protection, management and planning of
landscapes
Landscape
quality objective
The formulation by the competent public authorities of the
aspirations of the public with regard to the landscape features of their surroundings
Landscape protection
Actions to conserve and maintain the significant or characteristic
features of a landscape, justified by its heritage value derived from its natural configuration and/or from human activity
Landscape management
Action, from a perspective of sustainable development, to ensure the regular upkeep of a landscape, so as to guide and harmonise changes
which are brought about by social, economic and environmental processes
Landscape planning
Strong forward-looking action to enhance, restore or create landscapes
Main definitions established by the ELC. Adapted from “European Landscape
Convention” (Council of Europe 2000).
117
TABLE 2
The table shows the formulation put forward by Joaquín Sabaté and Dennis
Fenchman of cultural landscapes as a socially constructed expression of a “real
place”. This binary conceptualisation is problematic as it reinstates new dichotomies
while trying to overcome the previous “modern” ones. Adapted from Sabaté (2004b).
Tradition Knowledge
Literary Culture
Legends and stories (Shared narrations)
History
(Documented narration)
Material Culture
Place
(Form + information)
Cultural Landscape
(documented narration and form)
118
TABLE 3
Landscape
designed and created by
man
This embraces garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons.
Organically evolved
landscape
This results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment. They fall into two sub-categories: - A relict (or fossil) landscape is one in which an evolutionary process came to an end at some time in the past, either abruptly or over a period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in material form. - A continuing landscape is one which retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress.
Associative
cultural landscape
The inscription of such landscapes on the World Heritage List is justifiable by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent.
Table with the categories of cultural landscapes defined by UNESCO. Adapted from
Fowler (2003).
119
TABLE 4
Historic Designed
Landscape
A landscape that was consciously designed or laid out by a landscape architect, master gardener, architect, or horticulturist according to design principles, or an amateur gardener working in a recognized style or tradition.
Historic Vernacular Landscape
A landscape that evolved through use by the people whose activities or occupancy shaped that landscape. Through social or cultural attitudes of an individual, family or a community, the landscape reflects the physical, biological, and cultural character of those everyday lives
Ethnographic
Landscape
A landscape containing a variety of natural and cultural resources that associated people define as heritage resources
Historic Site
A landscape significant for its association with a historic event, activity, or person. Examples include battlefields and president's house properties.
Table with the categories of cultural landscapes defined by the N.P.S.. Adapted
from Birnbaum (1996)
120
TABLE 5
Cultural Landscapes
N.P.S.
Cultural Criteria
Cultural Landscapes
UNESCO
Historic Designed
Landscape
(i) A masterpiece of human creative genius.
Landscape designed and created intentionally by
man
Historic Vernacular Landscape
Ethnographic Landscape
(ii) An important interchange of human value, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design. (iii) A unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or civilization, living or disappeared. (iv) An outstanding example of a type of building or architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which – a key, and much misunderstood phrase, this – illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history. (v) An outstanding example of a traditional human settlement or land-use, representative of a culture (or cultures), especially when under threat.
Organically evolved landscape:
A relict (or fossil) landscape A continuing landscape
Ethnographic Landscape
Historic Site
(vi) Be directly or tangibly associated with
events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance.
Associative cultural landscape
The table compares N.P.S. and UNESCO frameworks on cultural landscapes.
Adapted from Fowler (2003) and Birnbaum (1994).
121
TABLE 6
1972- Industrial heritage and urban revitalisation projects
1980- Regional initiatives with focus on industrial heritage
1985- Heritage Canals and Rivers, territorial historical infrastructure
1990- Focus on landscapes
1996- Diversification of resources and themes, development of national/regional programs
-Paterson National Industrial District -Lowell National Historical Park -Beamish Open Air Museums -Dunaskin Open Air Museums -Rhondda Heritage Park -French Regional Park system -EC, Le-Creusot- Montceau-Les Mines -Ironbridge Gorge OA Museums -New Lanark WHS
-Oil Region SHP -National Road SH. Corridor -Lincoln Highway SH Corridor -Endless Mountains SHP -California Citrus SHP -Skagit Valley -Agriculture Enterprise District Cumberland - Bergslagen EC/CP -Gettysburg N Military Park -Hudson River Valley NHA -Lackawana Heritage Valley NHA -Allegeny Ridge SHP -Rivers of Steel NHA -Schuylkill NHC
-Illinois & Michigan Canal NH Corridor -Southwestern Pennsylvania NH Route -Delaware & Lehigh NHC
-IBA Emscher Park -Duisburg Nord LP - Ripoll FP -IBA Fürst Pücler Land -IBA Routes Emscher Park -Navás-Berga FP - Ciaculli Palermo AP - Toscana CP scheme - Baix Llobregat AP - Grenoblois AP - Po FP - Alba-Ter FP - Camín de la Mesa CP - Val di Cornia CP
-Ohio &Erie NHC -Quinebaug & Shetucket Valley NHC -Augusta Canal NHA -South Carolina NHA -National Coal NHA -Cane River NHA -Cache La Poudre River Corridor NHA -Essex NHA - Aragón CP scheme - Camín de la Mesa CP -Automobile NHA - Silos & Smokestacks NH Park - Colonies Llobregat CP -Shenandoah Valley Battlefields NH District -Tennessee Civil war NHA
Development of Heritage Areas and Cultural Parks. NHA: National Heritage
Area NHC: National Heritage Corridor NHD: National Heritage District SHP: State
Heritage Park OAM: Open Air Museums EC: Ecomuseum FP: Fluvial Park, WHS
:World Heritage Site, AP: Agricultural Park, LP, landscape Park, CP: Cultural Park.
Source: elaborated by the author from different sources.
122
TABLE 7
Objectives - “Set aside” for conservation, in the sense that the land (or water) is seen as taken out of productive use - Established mainly for scenic protection and spectacular wildlife, with a major emphasis on how things look rather than how natural systems function - Managed mainly for visitors and tourists, whose interests normally prevail over those of local people - Placing a high value on wilderness—that is, on areas believed to be free of human influence - About protection of existing natural and landscape assets—not about the restoration of lost values Governance - Run by central government, or at least setup at instigation only of central government
Local people - Planned and managed against the impact of people (except for visitors), and especially to exclude local people - Managed with little regard for the local community, who are rarely consulted on management intentions and might not even be informed of them Wider context - Developed separately—that is, planned one by one, in an ad hoc manner - Managed as “islands”—that is, managed without regard to surrounding areas Management skills - Managed by natural scientists or natural resource experts - Expert-led Finance - Paid for by the taxpayer
A classic model of protected areas. Adapted from Phillips (2002).
123
TABLE 8
Objectives - Run also with social and economic objectives as well as conservation and recreation ones. - Often set up for scientific, economic and cultural reasons— the rationale for establishing protected areas therefore becoming much more sophisticated. - Managed to help meet the needs of local people, who are increasingly seen as essential beneficiaries of protected area policy, economically and culturally. - Recognizes that so-called wilderness areas are often culturally important places. - About restoration and rehabilitation as well as protection, so that lost or eroded values can be recovered. Governance - Run by many partners, thus different tiers of government, local communities, indigenous groups, the private sector, NGOs, and others are all engaged in protected areas management Management technique - Managed adaptively in a long-term perspective, with management being a learning process. - Selection, planning, and management viewed as essentially a political exercise, requiring sensitivity, consultations, and astute judgment. Finance - Paid for through a variety of means to supplement—or replace—government subsidy.
Local people - Run with, for, and in some cases by local people—that is, local people are no longer seen as passive recipients of protected areas policy but as active partners, even initiators and leaders in some cases. - Managed to help meet the needs of local people, who are increasingly seen as essential beneficiaries of protected area policy, economically and culturally. Wider context - Planned as part of national, regional, and international systems, with protected areas developed as part of a family of sites. - The CBD makes the development of national protected area systems a requirement. - Developed as “networks,” that is, with strictly protected areas, which are buffered and linked by green corridors, and integrated into surrounding land that is managed sustainably by communities. Perceptions - Viewed as a community asset, balancing the idea of a national heritage. - Management guided by international responsibilities and duties as well as national and local concerns. Result: transboundary protected areas and international protected area systems. Management skills - Managed by people with a range of skills, especially people-related skills - Valuing and drawing on the knowledge of local people.
The main elements of the novel paradigm for protected areas. Adapted from
Phillips (2002).
124
TABLE 9
Changes in Heritage
From territorialisation of heritage to heritagisation of territory. Widening of the concept of heritage: spectacular growth in sites to be protected.
Change in the objectives of protection: from access to culture and enjoyment of cultural goods to a functional economic standpoint focusing on revenue. Heritage as a source for direct and indirect, tangible and intangible profit. Increasing awareness among heritage professionals concerning the necessity of interdisciplinary, institutional and local collaboration: need for a comprehensive legislation comprising environment, territory, heritage, landscape and ecology.
Changes in Territory and
Space
Cultural landscapes as communicative places where stories and meanings can be attached to forms and spaces. Cultural landscapes are viewed as non-renewable, increasingly scarce and valuable sources. Against the widespread of non-places, the loss of meaning and globalization Cultural Parks become strongholds of identity. Reaction against the consequences of the European Common Agricultural Policy and the shift from traditional to technological productivism: homogenisation of landscapes due to the uniform way of working the land, growth of parcel surface, disappearing of singular landscape symbols: walls, trees, hedges, paths, etc. Also, there is an increasing number of fenced enclosures in contrast with the traditional openfield landscape: land is seen in terms of productivity. Increasing income gap between urban and rural areas. Air, water and soil pollution, erosion and land abandonment entail an increase in forest fires, abandonment of vernacular architecture houses, etc. Rural areas accumulate waste from wealthier urban areas, along with other environmentally and visually aggressive activities. Spatial planning policies take into account endogenous resources in order to reinvent and render efficient withered territories: development is increasingly based on the singularity of territories and their social capital. Shift in focus on territorial policies. Whereas the paradigm of the XX century stressed the importance of demographic and industrial development policies, in the XXI century the main couple is a mix of nature and culture.
Social
Social and spatial fragmentation and exclusion: growth of enclosed Parks and spaces, excluded social groups, social obsession for security and lack of open and communicative spaces.
New alternatives in spare time activities and tourism as a reaction to massive tourism options. Rapprochement of urban culture to the rural and “urbanization” of the rural through the media. Growing demand of rural values from urban population.
Social demands of culture run in parallel with the commodification of it: culture as entertainment, linked to the concept of “Park”. Public policies prioritize preservation and presentation to the public over research. Worry about the disappearing of “traditional” peasants as referents of vernacular
125
ideas, know-how, myths and symbols that provide meaning to their associated landscapes. This fact is related to depopulation in rural areas and deindustrialisation. Landscape as a source for environmental education and physical and psychological overall well being. Social acknowledgement of the value of landscape as a valuable externality, whose quality and worth decreases within market conditions. There is a need for public intervention in order to achieve an optimal equilibrium. Respect for local values and decisions in policy-making, fostering self-management according to sustainable development principles. Social awareness of the importance of the culture sector in the creation of employment and wealth. Environmentalist turn in developed countries. The politization of culture runs in parallel with the increasing social claim to have access to culture: development of “cultural rights”. Increasing social concern about aesthetics along with the disempowerment of ideology: a demand for the right to beauty. Social claim for a strengthening of the local identity against the global tendency to homogenization
Summary of the main arguments put forward by different authors to explain or
contextualize the appearance of cultural parks. Source: elaborated by the author from
different sources.
126
TABLE 10
1984 1986 1988 1988 1994 1994 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1998 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2003 2004 2004 2004 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2011 2011
Illinois & Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor IL John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor MA Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor PA Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Route (Path of Progress) PA Cane River National Heritage Area LA Quinebaug & Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor CT & MA Cache La Poudre River Corridor CO America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership IA Augusta Canal National Heritage Area GA Essex National Heritage Area NY Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area MA National Coal Heritage Area WV Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor OH Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area PA Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District VA South Carolina National Heritage Corridor SC Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area TN Automobile National Heritage Area MI Wheeling National Heritage Area WV Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area AZ Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area PA Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area PA Erie Canalway National Heritage Area NY Blue Ridge National Heritage Area NC Mississippi Golf Coast National Heritage Area MS National Aviation Heritage Area OH Oil Region National Heritage Area PA Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area GA Atchafalaya National Heritage Area LA Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership NY & VT Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area NJ Freedom’s Frontier National Heritage Area KS & MO Great Basin National Heritage Area NV & UT Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor NC, SC, GA, FL National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area UT Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area NM National Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area CT & MA Abraham Lincoln NHA, P.L. Journey through Hallowed Ground N.H.A. P.L. Niagara Falls N.H.A. NY Susquehanna Gateway N.H.A. PA Santa Cruz Valley NHA Sangre de Cristo NHA, CO South Park NHA, CO Northern Plains NHA, ND Baltimore NHA, MD Freedom's Way National Heritage Area, MA/NH Mississippi Hills National Heritage Area, MS Mississippi Delta NHA, MS Muscle Shoals NHA, AL Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm NHA, AK Sacramento-San Joaquín Delta NHA Buffalo Bayou NHA
National Heritage Areas: year of designation and State. Source:
http://www.N.P.S..gov/history/heritageareas/VST/index.htm
127
TABLE 11
National
Local
NGO
Regional
Partnership
-Blackstone River Valley NHC -Southwestern Pennsylvania NH Route -National Coal HA -Delaware & Lehigh NHC -Illinois & Michigan Canal NHC -Cache La Poudre River Corridor NHA -Cane River NHA -Gettysburg N. Military Park
-Lackawanna Heritage Valley NHA -Allegheny Ridge SHP -Augusta Canal N.H.A. -Oil Region SHP -Beamish Open Air Museums -Dunaskin Open Air Museums -Rhondda Heritage Park - Ripoll FP -Sud Milano AP -Ciaculli Palermo AP -Shenandoah Valley Battlefields NH District -IBA Fürst Pücler Land - Bergslagen EC/CP - Camín de la Mesa CP
-Rivers of Steel NHA -Ohio &Erie Canal N Heritage Corridor -Automobile N.H.A. -Essex N.H.A. -Ecomusee Le-Creusot-Montceau Les Mines -Ironbridge Gorge O A Museums -Silos & Smokestacks NH partnership -Grenoblois AP -IBA Routes Emscher Park -Tennessee Civil War NHA -Quinebaug &Shetucket - Rivers Valley N Heritage Corridor
-IBA Emscher Park -South Carolina NHA -Hudson River Valley NHA -Schuylkill Heritage Corridor NHA -National Road Heritage Corridor SHP - Toscana CP scheme - Aragón CP scheme -Lincoln Highway Heritage Corridor SHP -Endless Mountains S. Heritage Park - Po FP -Duisburg Nord LP - California Citrus SHP
-Lowell NHP -New Lanark WHS -Navás-Berga FP -Skagit Valley -Agriculture Enterprise District Cumberland -Baix Llobregat AP -Alba-Ter FP - Colonies Llobregat CP
Management framework of Heritage Areas and Cultural Parks. Source:
elaborated by the author from different sources.
128
TABLE 12
High communicative potential
Low communicative potential
High
formal value
Reenacted sites
Ruins and material remains
Low formal value
Historic festivals
Scenifications
Traditional Museums and exhibitions
Heritage practices according to communicative and formal potential. From
Sabaté (2004b).
129
TABLE 13
Linear (river, canal, historic
route, etc.)
Homogeneous natural
or administrative area
Decentralized
network of Heritage elements
Monocentric
projects
-Illinois & Michigan Canal NHC - Blackstone River Valley NHC -IBA Emscher Park-Delaware &Lehigh NHC -Ohio &Erie Canal NHC -Rivers of Steel NHA -Schuylkill Heritage Corridor NHA -National Road Heritage Corridor SHP -Lincoln Highway Heritage Corridor SHP -Augusta Canal NHA -Cache La Poudre River Corridor NHA - Po FP - Ripoll FP - Alba-Ter FP - Navás-Berga FP
-Lackawanna Heritage Valley NHA -National Coal HA -Allegheny Ridge SHP -Hudson River Valley NHA - Aragón CP scheme - Toscana CP scheme -Essex NHA -Oil Region SHP -Endless Mountains SHP -Silos &Smokestacks NH Partnership -Tennessee Civil war NHA -Shenandoah Valley Battlefields NH District -IBA Fürst Pücler Land - Grenoblois AP - Val di Cornia CP - Bergslagen CP - Camín de la Mesa CP
-Southwestern Pennsylvania NH Route -South Carolina NHA -Quinebaug & Shetucket Rivers Valley Heritage Corridor -Automobile NHA-EC Le Creusot Montceau-Les Mines -Ironbridge Gorge O.A. Museums -IBA Routes Emscher Park - Aragón CP scheme
-Lowell NH Park -Cane River NHA -New Lanark WHS-Duisburg Nord LP -Beamish Open Air Museums -Dunaskin Open Air Museums -Rhondda Heritage Park -Skagit Valley -Agriculture Enterprise District Cumberland -California Citrus SHP - Ciaculli Palermo AP - Baix Llobregat AP -Gettysburg N Military Park - Louisville Riverside -Candestlick Point CP
Projects classified according to their topological shape. Source: elaborated by the
author from different sources.
130
TABLE 14
Historic Heritage: artistic or architectural
Territorial Heritage: Industrial, built and agricultural landscapes
Natural Heritage: natural areas, areas of ecological interest
Recreational areas with routes or scenic views and landscapes
-Lowell NH Park -Southwestern Pennsylvania NH
Route -Allegheny Ridge
SHP -Augusta Canal
NHA -Cane River NHA -New Lanark
WHS -Duisburg Nord LP -Beamish Open
Air Museums -Dunaskin Open
Air Museums -Rhondda Heritage Park -IBA Routes Emscher Park -National Road Heritage Corridor SHP -Lincoln Highway Heritage Corridor
SHP -Shenandoah
Valley Battlefields NH District -Gettysburg N. Military Park
-Blackstone Valley NHC -IBA Emscher Park -Lackawanna Heritage Valley
NHA -Rivers of Steel
NHA -Delaware & Lehigh NHC -Schuylkill Heritage Corridor NHA -Hudson River
Valley NHA - Aragón CP scheme - Toscana CP
scheme -EC Le Creusot- Montceau-Les Mines -Ironbridge Gorge O.A. Museums - Navás-Berga FP - Val di Cornia CP - Bergslagen EC/CP - Ripoll FP -National Coal HA -Essex NHA -Oil Region SHP -Automobile N.H.A.
-Endless Mountains SHP -Tennessee Civil War NHA -IBA Fürst Pücler
Land - Grenoblois AP
-South Carolina NHA -Quinebaug & Shetucket Rivers Valley NH Corridor - Po FP - Alba-Ter FP -New River American
Heritage River
-Illinois & Michigan Canal NH Corridor -Ohio &Erie Canal NH Corridor -Cache La Poudre River Corridor NHA -Silos & Smokestacks NH Partnership -Skagit Valley -Agriculture Enterprise District Cumberland -California Citrus SHP - Sud Milano AP - Ciaculli Palermo AP - Baix Llobregat AP - Louisville Riverside -Candestlick Point CP
- Camín de la Mesa CP
Classification according to the prevailing type of heritage resource. Source:
elaborated by the author from different sources.
131
TABLE 15
Economic development
Cultural preservation
Natural preservation
Education,
interpretation and research
-Blackstone River Valley NHC -Hudson River Valley NHA -Rivers of Steel NHA -Ohio & Erie Canal NHC -South Carolina N.H.A. -Schuylkill Heritage Corridor SHP -Cache La Poudre River Corridor NHA -Augusta Canal NHA -IBA Emscher Park - Grenoblois AP -Silos &Smokestacks NH Partnership - Baix Llobregat AP - Cisculli Palermo AP -Agriculture Enterprise District Cumberland - Val di Cornia CP - Camín de la Mesa CP
-Southwestern Pennsylvania NH Route -Delaware & Lehigh NHC -Lackawanna Heritage Valley -National Coal HA -Allegeny Ridge SHP - Navás –Berga FP -Automobile NHA - Ripoll FP -Essex NHA -Cane River NHA -Lowell NHP -New Lanark WHS -Lincoln Highway Heritage Corridor SHP -National Road Heritage Corridor SHP -Endless Mountains SHP -Skagit Valley - Colonies Llobregat CP
-Illinois& Michigan Canal NHC -Quinebaug &Shetucket Rivers Valley NHC -Oil Region Heritage Park -Duisburg Nord Landscape Park - Po FP -Land Garden Show IBA -Nordstern Landscape Park IBA -Lakeside park IBA -Gehölzgarten Riphorst oberhausen - Sud Milano AP -IBA Fürst Pückler Land
- Le Creusot-Montceau -Les Mines EC -Ironbridge Gorge Open Air Museums -Beamish Open Air Museums -Shenandoah Valley Battlefields NH District -Tennessee Civil war NHA -California Citrus SHP - Bergslagen EC/CP
Classification according to the predominant stated objective of the project.
However, in most cases all objectives are interrelated. Source: elaborated by the author
from different sources.
132
TABLE 16
Classification according to the territorial scope of the project. Source: elaborated
by the author from different sources.
Valley, region
Linear development
(river, historic route, etc.)
Sub-region / group of
local communities
Local area, historical site
-Blackstone Valley NHC - IBA Emscher Park -South Carolina NHA - Quinebaug & Shetucket Rivers Valley NHC -EC Le Creusot-Montceau-Les Mines -National Coal Heritage Area - Hudson River Valley NHA -Parco Fluviale del Po -Proyecto Alba-Ter, FP -Silos &Smokestacks NH partnership -Tennessee Civil war NHA -Shenandoah Valley Battlefields NH District IBA Fürst Pücler Land - Grenoblois, AP - Bergslagen EC/CP
-Illinois & Michigan Canal NHC -Delaware &Lehigh NHC -Ohio &Erie Canal NHC -Rivers of Steel NHA -Schuylkill Heritage Corridor NHA - Colonies Llobregat CP -Southwestern Pennsylvania NH Route -National Road Corridor SHP -Lincoln Highway Corridor SHP -Cache La Poudre River Corridor NHA - Ripoll FP - Navás-Berga FP -IBA Routes,Emscher Park - Camín de la Mesa CP
-Lackawanna Heritage Valley NHA -Allegheny Ridge S. Heritage Park -Oil Region SHP - Val di Cornia CP -Endless Mountains SHP -Cane River NHA -Essex NHA Automobile NHA -Ironbridge Gorge O. A. Museums -Toscana CP scheme - Aragón CP scheme
-Augusta Canal NHA - Lowell N. Historical Park -Cane River NHA - New Lanark WHS -Duisburg Nord LP -Beamish Open Air Museums -Dunaskin Open Air Museums- Rhondda Heritage Park -Skagit Valley Agriculture Enterprise District Cumberland -California Citrus SHP - Sud Milano AP - Ciaculli Palermo AP - Baix Llobregat AP -Gettysburg N. Military Park - Louisville Riverside -Candestlick Point CP
133
TABLE 17
Traditional park management
framework
New tendencies in park
management framework
Objectives
-Set aside for conservation -Established mainly for spectacular wildlife and scenic protection -Managed mainly for visitors and tourist -Valued as wilderness -About protection
-Run also with social and economic objectives -Often set up for scientific, economic, and cultural reasons -Managed with local people more in mind -Valued for the cultural importance of so-called Wilderness -Also about restoration and rehabilitation
Governance
-Run by central government -Run by many partners
Local people
-Planned and managed against people -Managed without regard to local opinions
-Run with, for, and in some cases by local people -Managed to meet the needs of local people
Wider context
-Developed separately -Managed as “islands”
-Planned as part of national, regional and international systems -Developed as “networks”(strictly protected areas, buffered and linked by green corridors)
Perceptions
-Viewed primarily as a national asset -Viewed only as a national concern
-Viewed also as a community asset -Viewed also as an international concern
Management techniques
-Managed reactively within short timescale -Managed in technocratic way
--Managed adaptively in long-term perspective -Managed with political considerations
Finance
-Paid for by taxpayer -Paid for from many sources
Management
skills
-Managed by scientists and natural resource experts -Expert-led
-Managed by multi-skilled individuals -Drawing on local knowledge
Summary of differences between park management frameworks. Adapted from
Phillips (2003).
134
TABLE 18
Variable
1960+
1980+
1990+
Perception of nature
-Wilderness
-Ecosystem;biodiversity; ecoregions
-Culture in nature and nature in culture
Environmental values
-Theocentric and anthropocentric
-Anthropocentric and cosmocentric
-Anthropocentric and cosmocentric
Diagnosis of environmental problems
-Overpopulation; exceeding the land´s carrying capacity
-Poverty; overpopulation
-Power relations; North-South inequalities; what counts as a problem and to whom?
Representations of local people
-People are the threat
-People can´t be ignored; people are a resource
-Align with rural people
Solutions and technologies
-Exclusionary protected areas
-Buffer zones, integrated conservation and development programs; sustainable use; community-based conservation
-Alternative protected areas; participatory natural resource management; human rights
Power relations
-Alliances with elites
-Thechnocratic alliances -Alliances with grassroots
Key influences
-Colonial conservation; elitist interests
-Sustainable developmentdebate; growing concern for livelihoods
-Democracy / human rights movement; participatory development; post-modern influence on natural and social sciences
Evolution of management practices during the last decades. Adapted from Sally
Jeanrenaud (2002).
135
SCHEME 19
Tentative classification of cultural Parks according to the negree of abstraction of
the story. Source: author.
136
SCHEME 20
Scheme summarising Joaquin Sabaté’s view of cultural parks according to his
“ideal cultural park” formulation. Source: author from Sabaté (2004b)
137
SCHEME 21
The scheme shows the different conceptions of the functioning of language
according to Saussure and Hjemslev. Source: author.
SCHEME 22
Michel Foucault’s disciplinary system assemblage. Adapted from Foucault
(1975).
138
SCHEME 23
Karl Palmas’ “modern corporation” model of assemblage. Adapted from Palmas
(2007).
139
SCHEME 24
The image shows an ideal formulation of a cultural park conceived as an
“assemblage” following the ideas of Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze. Source:
author.
140
SCHEME 25
The scheme shows an ideal formulation of the diagram in a cultural park. The
diagram does not reinstate binary thinking but rather traces how the social actors
create and put to work these dichotomies. Moreover, it does so according to degrees of
intensity and not to clear-cut categories. No real park ever entirely coincides with
either category, only approaching the different categories as a limit: the park becomes
more or less preservative or creative depending on the degree to which it approaches
the connections laid out for it by a social group. The scheme shows the most common
oppositions at work in cultural parks that play a key role in their constitution and
functioning. Source: author.
141
SCHEME 26
Scheme showing the administrative framework of the Val di Cornia Partnership
Park. There is a clear division between nature and culture management and between
issues of “heritage” and “marketing”. Source: adapted from (Casini & Zucconi 2003).
142
Appendix 6. Images
IMAGES 1 - 2
Photography of Lowell (U.S.) and map of the Ironbridge Gorge Museum (U.K.).
The enhancement process of both industrial sitesl during the 1970’s opened the door for
the implementation of similar projects throughout Europe and the United States.
1. From www.historycooperative.org
2. From www.ironbridgegorgewhs.co.uk
143
IMAGES 3 - 4
Maps of Emscher Park (Germany) and Ekomuseum Bergslagen (Sweden). Both
projects were implemented during the 1980’s, deploying a similar vision of “territorial
heritage” that paved the way for the constitution of cultural parks in Europe. Actually,
Bergslagen Ecomuseum is also denominated “Cultural park”.
3: From www.lwl.org
4: From http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergslagen
144
IMAGES 5 - 6
Map of the Aragón Cultural Park scheme and picture of the historic village of
Albarracín (Spain). The system has developed an innovative legislation and conception of
parks as “partnerships” that facilitate the participation of local groups. This framework is
unmatched in Spain and the only one in Europe dealing specifically with cultural parks.
5: From www.naturalezadearagon.com
6: From www.viajesdiarios.com
145
IMAGES 7 - 9
Italy has developed different management frameworks for cultural parks. The first
image (above) is the logo of the “Literature Parks scheme”. Below, the picture at the
left shows the cover of a book summarising the different cultural parks at work in
Tuscany. At the right there is a map of the Val di Cornia Park scheme, one of the most
innovative and evolved management experiences in Europe.
7: From www.turismo.it
8: From www.michelucci.it/node/69
9: From www.olaszorszagbajottem.wordpresscom
146
IMAGE 10
Map showing the location of National Heritage Areas in the United States.
From http://www.N.P.S..gov/history/heritageareas/VST/INDEX.HTM
147
IMAGES 11 - 12
Logo and picture of the Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area (U.S.). This
park is one of the most active Heritage Areas in the U.S., performing historic
recreations of the civil war battles, as shown in the picture.
12: From www.civilwar.com
13: From www.flickr.com
148
IMAGES 13 - 14
Logo and picture of the Tjapukai Aboriginal Cultural Park (Australia). The park
mingles aboriginal culture preservation with a high-end touristic experience.
13: From www.svc111.wic859dp.server-web.com
14: From www.cairnstours.org
149
IMAGES 15 – 16
Logo and picture of one of the textile colonies spread along the Llobregat River
(Barcelona, Spain). This park was the first designed by Joaquín Sabaté in Catalonia
trying to follow American management strategies.
15: From www.turismepropbarcelona.cat
16: From www.intermediatelandscapes.wordpress.com
150
IMAGES 17 – 19
Logo of the Rivers of Steel and Motorcities National Heritage Areas and picture
of the Tennessee National Heritage Area merchandising. In contrast to the European
cases, U.S. parks normally deploy entrepreneurial management strategies comprising a
corporative image and merchandising.
17: From www.pittsburghgives.guidestar.org
18: From www.logosdatabase.com
19: From www. tnvacation.com
151
IMAGES 20 – 21
Pictures showing Disney Celebration city (U.S., left) and Puy du fou (France,
right). There is a clear spreading tendency from the U.S. to Europe and Southeastern
Asia, to mingle leisure, tourism and heritage. Actually, urban and land planning is
increasingly tending towards the “thematization” of spaces rather than to the
traditional positivist planning schemes based on infrastructures and demography or the
ecologist paradigm based on preservation of landscapes. Cultural parks and heritage
areas participate to some extent in this process whereby large areas are
deterritorialised and adapted to fit into a different socio-economic environment.
20: From www.puddleofred.com
21: From www.mobil-home-st-jean-de-monts.fr
152
IMAGES 22 - 23
Logos of the American Land Rights Association and the Northwest Arkansas
Property Rights Association. These groups are growing rapidly in different States of the
U.S. They oppose public ownership of land and strongly reject the creation of National
Heritage Areas throughout the country. For them, these areas go against the principles
of the American nation and are a form Green groups and public institutions use to take
over land control and impede economic development.
22: From www.alra.com
23: From www.nwapra.com
153
10. Bibliography
AAVV, 1991. Plan for the Lackawanna heritage valley, Scranton: The Lackawanna
valley team.
AAVV, 1992. Plan for the Allegheny ridge, Boston: Lane, Frenchman and associates,
Inc.
AAVV, 1995. Parchi culturali in Toscana, Firenze: Pontecorboli.
AAVV, 2000a. Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District: executive
summary of the plan, Virginia: Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation.
AAVV, 2000b. Strategic plan for Illinois and Michigan canal National Heritage
Corridor: the nation's first National Heritage Corridor, Chicago: IMCNHCC.
Abellán, J. A. & F. Fourneau, 1998. El paisaje mediterráneo: Le paysage
méditerranéen: Editorial Universidad de Granada.
Adorno, T. W., 1983. Prisms: The MIT Press.
Adorno, T. W., 1997. Aesthetic theory: Continuum Intl Pub Group.
Alanen, A. R. & R. Melnick, 2000. Preserving cultural landscapes in America,
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Alarcón, A., P. Kolb & J. Marull, 1997. Recuperación medioambiental del tramo final
del río Besós. Bio, 10, 7-11.
Albright, H. M. & R. Cahn, 1985. The birth of the National Park Service: the founding
years, 1913-33: Howe Bros.(Salt Lake City).
Almirón, A., R. Bertoncello & C. A. Troncoso, 2006. Turismo, patrimonio y territorio:
Una discusión de sus relaciones a partir de casos de Argentina. Estudios y
perspectivas en turismo, 15(2), 101-24.
AlSayyad, N., 2001. Consuming tradition, manufacturing heritage: global norms and
urban forms in the age of tourism: Routledge.
154
Altman, I. & S. M. Low, (1992). Place attachment, human behavior, and environment:
Advances in theory and research, New York: Plenum Press.
Altman, Y., 1995. A theme park in a cultural straitjacket: the case of Disneyland Paris,
France. Managing Leisure, 1(1), 43-56.
Alvarez Areces, M. A., 2002. Nuevas miradas al paisaje y al territorio. Abaco, (34), 17-
28.
Alvesson, M., 2002. Postmodernism and social research, Buckingham ; Philadelphia:
Open University Press.
Ansell-Pearson, K., 1997. Deleuze and philosophy: the difference engineer: Psychology
Press.
Antrop, M., 2006. Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landscape
and urban planning, 75(3-4), 187-97.
Apostolakis, A., 2003. The convergence process in heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 30(4), 795-812.
Appadurai, A., 1986. The Social life of things : commodities in cultural perspective,
Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Aragón, (1997). Ley 12/1997, de 3 de diciembre, de Parques Culturales de Aragón,
Gobierno de Aragón.
Aragüés, L. & J. Antonio, 1997. Aprovechamiento turístico del patrimonio natural y
cultural en los Parques Naturales regionales franceses. Geographicalia, (35),
129-48.
Atkins, P., I. Simmons & B. Roberts, 1998. People, land and time: an historical
introduction to the relations between landscape, culture and environment:
Headline Group.
Augé, M., 2008. Non-places, London: Verso.
155
Badiou, A., 2000. Deleuze : the clamor of being, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Baeten, G., 2009. Regenerating the South Bank: Reworking community and the
emergence of the post-political regeneration. Regenerating London—
governance, sustainability, and community in a global city, 237–53.
Balerdi, D., (2008). Museos en la encrucijada. Estructuras, redes y retos en el País
Vasco, in El futuro de los museos etnológicos, Donostia: Ankulegi, 69-85.
Ballart, J. & J. J. i Tresserras, 2001. Gestión del patrimonio cultural: Ariel.
Ballesteros Arias, P., C. Otero Vilariño & R. Varela Pousa, 2004. Los Paisajes
Culturales desde la arqueología: propuestas para su evaluación, caracterización y
puesta en valor. ArqueoWeb, 2(6).
Baptista, A. M., A. Pedro & B. Fernandes, (2007). Rock art and the Côa Valley
Archaeological Park: a case study in the preservation of Portugal’s prehistoric
parietal heritage, in Palaeolithic cave art at Creswell Crags in European
contextOxford: Oxford University Press, 263-92.
Barilaro, C., 2004. I parchi letterari in Sicilia: un progetto culturale per la
valorizzazione del territorio: Rubbettino Editore
Barocchi, R., 1982. Dizionario di urbanistica: F. Angeli.
Barrett, B. & S. Copping, (2004). National Heritage Areas: Developing a Model for
Measuring Success, in US/ICOMOS International Symposium Nanintoches,
Louisiana.
Battaglini, G., A. Orejas & M. Clavel-Lévêque, (2002). La valorisation des paysages
culturels antiques. Les parcs culturels, in Atlas historique des cadastres
d’Europe IILuxembourg: Office des publications officielles des Communautés
européennes.
156
Baudrillard, J., 1994. Simulacra and simulation, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Beeho, A. J. & R. C. Prentice, 1997. Conceptualizing the experiences of heritage
tourists:: A case study of New Lanark World Heritage Village. Tourism
Management, 18(2), 75-87.
Bell, J. A., (2008). Between individualism and socialism: Deleuze’s micropolitics of
desire.
Bender, B. & M. Winer, 2001. Contested landscapes: movement, exile and place: Berg
Publishers.
Benito del Pozo, P., 2002. Patrimonio industrial y cultural del territorio. Boletín de la
Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, 34, 213-28.
Beresford, M. & A. Phillips, (2000). Protected landscapes–a conservation model for the
21st century, 15-26.
Bergdhal, E., 2005. Ecomuseo Bergslagen, un proyecto sueco de parque cultural.
Identidades, (1), 4.
Berger, J., 1972. Ways of seeing. London and Harmondsworth.
Berque, A., 1997. En el origen del paisaje. Revista de Occidente, 189, 7-21.
Berque, A., M. Conan & P. Donadieu, 1994. Cinq propositions pour une théorie du
paysage, Seyssel: Champ Vallon.
Bertoncello, R. & A. Geraiges de Lemos, 2006. Turismo, territorio y sociedad. El mapa
turístico de la Argentina. CLACSO: América Latina: cidade, campo e turismo.
San Pablo, 317-35.
Birch, J., (2010). Public Archaeology and the cultural resource management industry in
Southern Ontario, Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa,
Ontario.
157
Birnbaum, C. A., 1994. Protecting cultural landscapes : planning, treatment and
management of historic landscapes, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance
Division.
Birnbaum, C. A., United States. Dept. of the Interior, C. Capella Peters & Historic
Landscape Initiative, 1996. The Secretary of the Interior's standards for the
treatment of historic properties : with guidelines for the treatment of cultural
landscapes, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Interior, National Park Service,
Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services,
Historic Landscape Initiative.
Bitonti, F., 2008. Alejandro Zaera Polo reviewed by Francis Bitonti. Manifold, (2), 115-
21.
Boswell, D., 1999. Jessica Evans, eds. , London and New York: Routledge.
Bray, P. M., 1988. Possibility of Parks Unbounded. Environment.
Bray, P. M., 1994a. The Heritage Area Phenomenon: Where it is Coming From.
Cultural Resource Management, 17(8), 34.
Bray, P. M., 1994b. A new tool for renewing the central city: The urban cultural park.
National Civic Review, 83(2), 196-200.
Bray, P. M., 1995. The Riverspark Story: Partnerships Making a Real Place into a
Living Park. http://www.braypapers.com/riverspark.html
Bray, P. M., 2000. Italian and American Park and Protected Area Twinning.
http://www.braypapers.com/IAPT.html
Bray, P. M., 2003. Evolving policies and laws for governance of urban protected areas:
New York State's Landmark heritage Area system, New Dehli: Ane Books.
Bray, P. M., 2004a. On the American parks and economic forces. Places, 16(2).
Bray, P. M., 2004b. Rethinking Urban Parks Places, 16(2).
158
Breglia, L., 2006. Monumental ambivalence: the politics of heritage: Univ of Texas Pr.
Brown, B., 2001. Reconstructing the Ruhrgebiet The 200-square-mile Emscher
Landscape Park emerges from the industrial ruins of the Ruhr River Valley in
Germany. Landscape architecture, 91(4), 66-75.
Brown, P. M., M. R. Kaufmann & W. D. Shepperd, 1999. Long-term, landscape
patterns of past fire events in a montane ponderosa pine forest of central
Colorado. Landscape ecology, 14(6), 513-32.
Bru Bistuer, J. & M. Agüera Cabo, 2000. L'Ordenació del territori des d'una perspectiva
de gènere. Revista de debats territorials, 8.
Bryman, A., 1999. The Disneyization of society. The Sociological Review, 47(1), 25-47.
Buchanan, I., 1997. The problem of the body in Deleuze and Guattari, or, what can a
body do? Body & Society, 3(3), 73.
Burckhardt, J., 2004. La cultura del Renacimiento en Italia, Madrid: Akal Ediciones
Burillo, F., E. J. Ibañez & C. Polo, (1994). El Patrimonio Arqueológico en el medio
rural, in Conservación arqueológica. Reflexión y debate sobre teoría y práctica,
ed. Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico-Instituto Español de
Arquitectura, pp. 36-49.
Busquets, J., A. Cortina & S. C. Anton, 2009. Gestión del paisaje: Manual de
protección, gestión y ordenación del paisaje: Ariel.
Bustamante, L. P., (2008). La mirada y la memoria. Elementos de estructuración y
revalorización del paisaje cultural de Lota Alto, Chile., in Departamento de
Urbanismo y Ordenación del territorio Barcelona: Universitat Politécnica de
Catalunya.
Bustamante, L. P. & C. P. Ponce, 2004. Paisajes culturales: el parque patrimonial como
instrumento de revalorización y revitalización del territorio. Theoria, 13, 9-24.
159
Butler, D., S. Duckworth & T. Dalmellington and District Conservation, 1994.
Development of an industrial heritage attraction : the Dunaskin experience,
London: Built Environment.
Butler, J., E. Laclau & S. Zizek, 2000. Contingency, hegemony, universality :
contemporary dialogues on the left, London: Verso.
Buxó, R., 2006. Paisajes culturales y reconstrucción histórica de la vegetación.
Ecosistemas, 15(1), 1-6.
Byrne, D., 2009. A critique of unfeeling heritage. Intangible heritage, 229-53.
Cacho, S. F., (2006). Patrimonio Arqueológico y Políticas Territoriales en Andalucía, in
Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.
California State Parks, n.d. Cultural landscapes.
http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22500
Calzolari, V., 1991. Natura, sito, opera: il caso del parco fluviale. Casabella, 575-576.
Callon, M. & K. Caliskan, 2005. New and old directions in the anthropology of
markets, New York,: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research
Campanelli, M., 2004. Guida al nuovo Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio:
HALLEY Editrice.
Campeol, G., 1990. Parchi fluviali : esperienze di pianificazione ambientale : il caso
del progetto Olona e dell'Emscher, Varese, Brescia: Varese ecologia ; Grafo.
Cancellotti, C., 2011. L’écomusée n’est pas musée”. Gli ecomusei come laboratori
produttori di cultura, territorio e relazione. Altre Modernità, 5, 99-114.
Carman, J., (1995). Interpretation, writing and presenting the past, in Interpreting
archaeology: finding meaning in the past, ed. I. Hodder London ; New York.:
Routledge.
Carr, E., 2007. Public landscapes - National Parks: The Uncertain Road Ahead - Caught
between politics and underfunding, landscape architects in the National Park
160
Servide evolves while struggling to preserve parks unimpaired for future
generations. Landscape architecture., 97(3), 80.
Casanelles Rahola, E., 1998. Recuperación y uso del patrimonio industrial. Abaco, (19),
11-8.
Casas , P. V., 2004. La recuperación del paisaje cultural como un proceso abierto: el
caso del Parque Fluvial Colonias del Llobregat. Ciudad y Territorio. Estudios
Territoriales, 36, 407-17.
Casas, P. V., 2006. Pla director urbanístic de les colònies del Llobregat.
http://ptop.gencat.cat/rpucportal/AppJava/cercaExpedient.do?reqCode=veure&c
odintExp=221487&fromPage=load
Casas, P. V., 2008. Revisión metodológica sobre el planeamiento de un paisaje cultural.
El Plan Director Urbanístico de las colonias del Llobregat. Urban, (13), 122-36.
Casini, A. & M. Zucconi, 2003. Un'impresa per sei parchi. , Milano: Il sole 24 Ore.
Castañeda, Q. E., (2008). The ‘ethnographic turn’ in archaeology: research positioning
and reflexivity in ethnographic archaeologies, in Ethnographic archaeologies:
reflections on stakeholders and archaeological practices, Lanham MD:
AltaMira Press, 25–61.
Castañeda, Q. E., 2009. The 'Past' as Transcultural Space: Using Ethnographic
Installation in the Study of Archaeology. Public Archaeology, 8(2), 262-82.
Castañeda, Q. E. & C. N. Matthews, 2008. Ethnographic archaeologies : reflections on
stakeholders and archaeological practices, Lanham, MD: AtlaMira Press.
Castillo Ruiz, J., 2007. El futuro del Patrimonio Histórico: la patrimonialización del
hombre. e-rph Revista Electrónica de Patrimonio Histórico, (1).
Cauquelin, A., 2002. L'invention du paysage: Presses universitaires de France.
161
Center for Historic Preservation, 2001. A Master Plan for the Tennessee Civil War
National Heritage Area.
http://www.sitemason.com/files/bveExy/TCWNHA%20master%20plan.pdf
Clark, J., J. Darlington & G. J. Fairclough, 2004. Using Historic Landscape
Characterisation: English Heritage's Review of HLC: Applications 2002-03:
English Heritage and Lancashire County Council.
Clavé, A., 1999. El desarrollo de parques temáticos en un contexto de globalización.
Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, (28), 85-102.
Clavel-Lévêque, M., P. Doukellis & G. Tirologos, 2002. Cultural landscapes: new
strategies of preservation. R. Kozlowski et al, 16-8.
Collier, S. J. & A. Ong, 2005. Global Assemblages Anthropological Problems. Global
assemblages, 3-21.
Connerton, P., 1989. How societies remember, Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Connerton, P., 2009. How modernity forgets, Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Connolly, W. E., 2007. Neuropolitics : thinking, culture, speed, Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Conservation Foundation, (1985). National Parks for a New Generation: Visions,
Realities, Prospects, Washington D.C.
Conzen, M. P., 2001. Heritage Corridors und neuer Tourismus an historischen Kanalen
in den USA. GEOGRAPHISCHE RUNDSCHAU, 53, 49-55.
Conzen, M. P. & B. M. Wulfestieg, 2001. Metropolitan Chicago's Regional Cultural
Park: Assessing the Development of the Illinois & Michigan Canal National
Heritage Corridor. Journal of Geography, 100(3), 111-7.
162
Copping, S. & S. Martin, (2005). The Current State of Heritage Areas Research:
Challenges and Opportunities, in Proceedings of the Northeastern Recreation
Research Symposium, 24-30.
Corsane, G. & W. Holleman, 1993. Ecomuseums: a brief evaluation. Museums and the
Environment, 111–25.
Corsin Jimenez, A., 2009. Managing the social/knowledge equation. CAMBRIDGE
ANTHROPOLOGY, 28(3), 66-90.
Cosgrove, D., 1985. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape: Barnes & Noble
Imports.
Cosgrove, D., 2003. Apollo's eye: a cartographic genealogy of the earth in the western
imagination: Johns Hopkins Univ Pr.
Cosgrove, D. & S. Daniels, 1989. The iconography of landscape: essays on the
symbolic representation, design and use of past environments: Cambridge Univ
Pr.
Cossons, N., 1980. Ironbridge Gorge: le musée dans la vallée. Museum International
(Edition Francaise), 32(3), 138-53.
Council of Europe, (2000). European Landscape Convention.
Council of Europe & European Conference of Ministers Responsible for Regional
Planning, 1984. European Regional Spatial Planning Charter : Torremolinos
Charter, adopted on 20 May 1983 at Torremolinos (Spain), Strasbourg.
Couston, F., 2005. L'écologisme est-il un humanisme, Paris: Harmattan.
Cranz, G., 1982. The politics of park design. A history of urban parks in America. The
politics of park design. A history of urban parks in America.
Criado-Boado, F., 1996. La arqueología del paisaje como programa de gestión integral
del patrimonio arqueológico. Boletin del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio
Histórico, 4(14), 15-9.
163
Criado-Boado, F., 1997. Introduction: combining the different dimensions of cultural
space: is a Total Archaeology of Landscape possible? Landscape, Archaeology,
Heritage. CAPA 2, 5-9.
Criado-Boado, F., 2001. La memoria y su huella. Sobre arqueología, patrimonio e
identidad. Claves de Razón Práctica, (115), 36-43.
Chassé, S. & P. Rochon, 1993. Analyse de certaines variables stratégiques pour
l'implantation d'un parc thématique au Quebec: Téoros.
Chouquer, G., 2000. L'étude des paysages: essais sur leurs formes et leur histoire:
Editions Errance.
Chouquer, G., 2007. Quels scénarios pour l'histoire du paysage? : orientations de
recherche pour l'archéogéographie : essai, Coimbra: Centro de Estudos
Arqueológicos das Universidades de Coimbra e Porto.
Daly, J., 2003. Heritage areas: connecting people to their place and history. Forum
Journal, 17, 5-12.
Darvill, T., 1994. Value systems and the archaeological resource. International Journal
of Heritage Studies, 1(1), 52-64.
Darvill, T., C. Gerrard & B. Startin, 1993. Identifying and protecting historic
landscapes. Antiquity -Oxford-, 67, 563-.
David, A., 1975. Lowell : a proposal to develop an Urban National Cultural Park,
Lowell: Ed. David Crane and Partners, Gelardin Bruner Cott Inc., Michael Sand
and Associates, Inc.
Davis, J. & H. Gardner, 1999. Open windows, open doors. The educational role of the
museum, 99-104.
Davis, P., 2000. Places,'cultural touchstones' and the concept of the ecomuseum. II
Econtro International de Ecomuseus, Santa Cruz-Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
164
DeLanda, M., 2002. Deleuze and the Use of the Genetic Algorithm in Architecture -
Manuel DeLanda. Architectural design : A.D., 72(1), 9.
DeLanda, M., 2004. Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy, London: Continuum.
DeLanda, M., 2009. A new philosophy of society : assemblage theory and social
complexity, London; New York: Continuum.
Deleuze, G., 1988. Foucault, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Delgado Rozo, J. D., (2010). La construcción social del paisaje de la Sabana de Bogotá:
1880–1890/Social construction of landscape: the sabana de Bogotá 1880-1890,
in Historia Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Dematteis, G., 1985. Le metafore della terra: la geografia umana tra mito e scienza:
Feltrinelli.
Desvallées, A., 1980. Musée national des arts et traditions populaires : galerie
culturelle, Paris: Éditions de Musées nationaux.
Didier, S., 1999. Disney urbaniste: la ville de Celebration en Floride. Cybergeo:
European Journal of Geography.
Dolphijn, R., 2004. Foodscapes : towards a Deleuzian ethics of consumption, Delft,
UK: Eburon.
Domenech Reinoso, J., (2005). La superficie y lo invisible. Patrones en la
transformación territorial de la Cuenca Central Asturiana 1890-1960, in
Departamento de Urbanismo Barcelona: Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña.
Duncan, J. S. & N. Duncan, 2004. Landscapes of privilege: The politics of the aesthetic
in an American suburb: Psychology Press.
Emerson, R. W., R. E. Spiller, A. R. Ferguson, J. Slater, J. F. Carr, W. E. Williams, R.
A. Bosco, D. E. Wilson, A. J. Von Frank & T. Wortham, 1971. The collected
works of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.
165
Etzkowitz, H. & L. Leydesdorff, 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National
Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government
relations Research policy, 29(2), 109-23.
Eugster, J. G., 2003. Evolution of the heritage areas movement. The George Wright
Forum, 20(2), 50-9.
Evans, M. J., A. Roberts & P. Nelson, 2001. Ethnographic landscapes. CRM-
WASHINGTON, 24(5), 53-6.
Evrard, M., 2009. Le Creusot-Montceau-les-Mines: The life of an ecomuseum,
assessment of ten years. Museum International, 32(4), 226-34.
Eyssartel, A. M., B. Rochette & J. Baudrillard, 1992. Des mondes inventés: les parcs à
thème: Editions de la Villette.
Fagence, M., 1983. Ideological fundamentalism in town planning-an exploratory
appraisal. The Environmentalist, 3(1), 17-27.
Fairclough, F. & S. Rippon, (2002). Conclusión: archaeological management of
Europe’s cultural landscape, ed. G. R. Fairclough, S. & Bull, D.(Eds.). EAC
Occasional paper, 201-6.
Faludi, A., 1987. A decision-centred view of environmental planning, Oxford, UK; New
York: Pergamon Press.
Farinelli, F., 2003. Geografia: un'introduzione ai modelli del mondo: Einaudi.
Feddes, F. & Ingenieursbureau Oranjewoud, 1999. Nota Belvedere : beleidsnota over de
relatie cultuurhistorie en ruimtelijke inrichting, Den Haag: VNG uitgeverij.
Feddes, F. & A. Platform, 1996. De architectuur van de ruimte : nota over het
architectuurbeleid 1997-2000, Zoetermeer; Den Haag: Ministerie van
Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen; Distributiecentrum Sdu/DOP.
166
Fernández Mier, M. & E. Díaz López, (2006). El Parque Cutlural del Camín Real de la
Mesa, in The Archaeology of crop fields and garden Bari: Centro Universitario
Europeao per i beni Culturali.
Ferraresi, G., A. Rossi & t. Politecnico di Milano. Dipartimento di scienze del, 1993. Il
Parco come cura e coltura del territorio : un percorso di ricerca sull'ipotesi del
parco agricolo, Brescia: Grafo.
Foley, D. L., 1960. British town planning: one ideology or three? The British Journal of
Sociology, 11(3), 211-31.
Forman, R. T. T. & M. Gordon, 1984. Landscape Ecology Principles and Landscape
Functions in: Proceedings of the first International Seminar on Methodology in
Lndscape Ecological Research and Planning. IALE International Association for
Landscape Ecology, 4-15.
Foster, J., 2005. The social construction of landscape continuity on the Niagara
Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine: whose continuity? whose landscapes?:
York University.
Foucault, M., 1975. Surveiller et punir : naissance de la prison, Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, M., 2007. Security, territory, population : lectures at the Collège de France,
1977-78, Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan : République Française.
Foucault, M. & C. Gordon, 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other
writings, 1972-1977: Vintage.
Fowler, P. J., 2003. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: UNESCO World Heritage
Center, Paris.
Francovich, R., (2002). Per un sistema informatico applicato alla'Risorsa'Beni Culturali:
L'esperienza degli archeologi medievali senesi, in Giornate di studio in ricordo
di Giovanni Previtali, 375-84.
167
Francovich, R., (2003). Dalla ricerca al parco archeologico: il caso di Rocca San
Silvestro e l'esperienza della Societa Parchi Val di Cornia, in Un'impresa per sei
parchi, eds. A. Casini & M. Zucconi Milano: Il sole 24 ore.
Francovich, R. & B. Jamie, (1995). Il progetto del Parco Archeominerario di Rocca San
Silvestro (Campiglia Marittima), in I siti archeologici: un problema di
musealizzazione all’aperto, ed. B. Amendolea Roma: Gruppo editoriale
internazionale.
Francovich, R., A. Pellicano & M. Pasquinucci, (2001). La carta archeologica fra
ricerca e pianificazione territoriale, in Atti del Seminario di Studi organizzato
dalla Regione Toscana-Dipartimento delle Politiche Formative e dei Beni
Culturali.
Francovich, R. & M. Valenti, 1999. Cartografia archeologica, indagini sul campo ed
informatizzazione. Il contributo senese alla conoscenza ed alla gestione della
risorsa culturale del territorio. La carta archeologica. Fra ricerca e
pianificazione territoriale, Florence, 6-7.
Frantz, D. & C. Collins, 2000. Celebration, USA: living in Disney's brave new town:
Holt Paperbacks.
Fraser, N., 1997. Justice interruptus : critical reflections on the "postsocialist"
condition, New York: Routledge.
Frenchman, D., (2004). International Examples of the United States Heritage Area
Concept, Unpublished.
Frenchman, D. & J. Lane, 1979. Urban cultural park preservation and revitalization
strategy. Architectural record, 108.
Frohmann, B., 2008. Documentary ethics, ontology, and politics. Archival Science, 8(3),
165-80.
Fuller, D., 1988. Blake's heroic argument: Croom Helm Ltd.
168
Gable, E. & R. Handler, 1996. After authenticity at an American heritage site. American
Anthropologist, 98(3), 568-78.
Galindo González, J. & J. Sabaté Bel, 2009. EL valor estructurante del patrimonio en la
transformación del territorio. Apuntes: Revista de estudios sobre patrimonio
cultural-Journal of Cultural Heritage Studies, 22(1), 20-33.
Galstyan, M., (2005). Landscape and society, in Second meeting of the Workshops for
the implementation of the European Landscape Convention,, ed. C. o. Europe
Ljubljana.
Gambino, R., 1988. Piani Paesistici. Uno sguardo d’insieme. Urbanística, 6-22.
Gambino, R., (1989). Il paesaggio edificato: piani paesistici e prospettive di recupero,
Recuperare.
Gambino, R., 1997. Conservare innovare: paesaggio, ambiente, territorio: Utet.
Gambino, R., (2002). Maniere di intendere il paesaggio, in Interpretazioni di paesaggio,
ed. A. Clementi Roma: Meltemi editore, 54-72.
Gambino, R., 2003. Parchi e paesaggio: l’applicazione della Convenzione Europea del
Paesaggio nelle politiche dei parchi. Atti Conv. Parchi italiani: le sfide della
qualità.
GAO, (1994). National Park Service: Activities Outside Park Borders Have Caused
Damage to Resources and Will Likely Cause More, Government Accountability
Office of the U.S.
García Canclini, N., 1990. Culturas híbridas. Estrategias para entrar y salir de la
modernidad, 140-90.
García López, A., 2008. Patrimonio cultural: diferentes perspectivas. Arqueoweb:
Revista sobre Arqueología en Internet, 9(2), 10.
Geertz, C., 2000. Local knowledge : further essays in interpretive anthropology, New
York: Basic Books.
169
General Conference of Icom, (1995). "Museum and communities" : proceedings of the
in XVIIth International Council of Museums General Conference, July 2-7
Stavanger, Norway: Norsk ICOM.
George Washington Frontier National Heritage Area, G., 2009. Proposal for
Establishment of the George Washington Frontier National Heritage Area.
http://www.fortedwards.org/cwffa/gwfha/proposal.pdf
Getis, A. & A. Getis, 2006. Introduction to geography, Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher
Education.
Gobierno de la Comunidad Valenciana, (1998). Ley 4/1998, de 11 de junio, del
Patrimonio Cultural Valenciano.
Gómez Mendoza, J. & C. Sanz Herraiz, 2010. De la Biogeografía al paisaje en
Humboldt. Población & sociedad, (17), 29-58.
González Méndez, M., (1997). Landscape Archaeology as a Narrative for Designing
Archaeological Parks, in Landscape, Archaeology, Heritage, eds. F. Criado-
Boado & C. Parcero-Oubiña Santiago de Compostela: Grupo de Investigación
en Arqueología del Paisaje, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela,, 47-51.
Goodall, B., 1994. Industrial heritage and tourism, Oxford: Alexandrine Press.
Goodwin, B. & K. Taylor, 2009. The politics of Utopia: A study in theory and practice:
Peter Lang Publishing.
Great Britain. Sustainable Development Commission & T. Jackson, 2010. Prosperity
without growth? the transition to a sustainable economy, London: Sustainable
Development Commission.
Greer, N. R. & J. S. Russell, 1994. Preservation-s vast new horizons. Architectural
record, 182(2), 24.
Greider, T. & L. Garkovich, 1994. Landscapes: The social construction of nature and
the environment. Rural Sociology, 59(1), 1-24.
170
Grenville, J., 2007. Conservation as Psychology: Ontological Security and the Built
Environment. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 13(6), 447-61.
Guarrasi, V., 2002. Ground zero : grandi eventi e trasformazioni urbane. Bollettino della
Società geografica italiana, 7.
Guattari, F., 1980. La révolution moléculaire: Union générale d'éditions, Paris.
Gudeman, S., 1986. Economics as culture: Routledge.
Guerra, M. & J. C. Skewes, 2008. ¿Vernacularización, hibridación, enajenación o
patrimonialización? Conserva, (12), 5-37.
Gunder, M., 2010. Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Planning Theory,
9(4), 298-314.
Gunder, M. & J. Hillier, 2007. Planning as urban therapeutic. Environment and
Planning A, 39(2), 467-86.
Hall, M., M. Agnoletti & S. Anderson, (2000). Comparing damages: Italian and
American concepts of restoration, CABI Publishing, 165-72.
Hall, P., 2007. The dilemmas of contemporary social science. boundary, 34(3), 121.
Hall, S., 2000. Whose heritage? : un-settling "the heritage," re-imagining the post-
nation. Third text: critical perspectives on contemporary art and culture., 49, 3-
13.
Hamilakis, Y. & A. Anagnostopoulos, 2009. What is Archaeological Ethnography?
Public Archaeology, 8, 2(3), 65-87.
Hamilton, J. A. & A. J. Placas, 2010. Anthropology Becoming…? The 2010
Sociocultural Anthropology Year in Review. American Anthropologist, 113(2),
246-61.
Hamin, E. M., 2001. The US National Park Service's partnership parks: collaborative
responses to middle landscapes. Land Use Policy, 18(2), 123-35.
171
Hamrin, Ö., 1996. Ekomuseum Bergslagen från idé till verklighet. Nordisk Museologi,
2, 27-34.
Handler, R., 1985. On having a culture: nationalism and the preservation of Quebec's
patrimoine. Objects and others: essays on museums and material culture, 192-
217.
Hardie, I. & D. MacKenzie, 2007. Assembling an economic actor: the agencement of a
Hedge Fund. The Sociological Review, 55(1), 57-80.
Hardt, M. & A. Negri, 2000. Empire, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Hardt, M. & A. Negri, 2009. Commonwealth, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Hart, J., 2000. Planning for and preserving cultural resources through national heritage
areas. CRM: Cultural resource management, 23(7), 29-32.
Harvey, D., 1996. Justice, nature and the geography of difference: Wiley-Blackwell.
Harvey, D., 2001. Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: temporality, meaning and the
scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(4), 319-
38.
Harvey, D., 2002. The art of rent: globalization, monopoly and the commodification of
culture. Socialist Register, 38, 93-110.
Hays, S. P., 1999. Conservation and the gospel of efficiency : the progressive
conservation movement, 1890-1920, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hayward, J., 1987. Evaluation d’une politique urbaine. Revitalisation d’une ville
industrielle par le tourisme, l’exemple de Lowell. Urbanisme, 76-9.
Healey, P., 2006. Transforming governance: challenges of institutional adaptation and a
new politics of space. European Planning Studies, 14(3), 299-320.
Healey, P., 2007. Urban complexity and spatial strategies: towards a relational
planning for our times: Taylor & Francis.
172
Henry, R., 2000. Dancing into being: The Tjapukai Aboriginal Cultural Park and the
Laura Dance Festival. The Australian journal of anthropology, 11(2), 322-32.
Hernández, M. L. & H. Giné, 2002. Los parques culturales de Aragón: un ejemplo
pionero en la protección y gestión turística de espacios culturales y naturales.
Turismo y transformaciones urbanas en el siglo XXI, Almería, Universidad de
Almería, 199-207.
Hernández Prieto, P. & J. I. Plaza Gutiérrez, (2007). Los parques naturales regionales
franceses como herramientas de ordenación y gestión territorial : el caso del
Parque Natural Regional de Chartreuse (Isère), in Facultad de Geografía e
Historia Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.
Herzfeld, M., 2005. Cultural intimacy: Social poetics in the nation-state: Psychology
Press.
Herzfeld, M., 2006. Spatial Cleansing. Journal of Material Culture, 11(1-2), 127.
Hiett, C., (2007). Assessing the National Heritage Initiative, in School of Architecture,
Planning, and Historic Preservation Maryland: University of Maryland.
Hillier, J., 2007. Stretching beyond the horizon : a multiplanar theory of spatial
planning and governance, Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Hillier, J., 2008. Plan(e) Speaking: a Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning. Planning
Theory, 7(1), 24-50.
Hirsch, E. & M. O'Hanlon, 1995. The anthropology of landscape : perspectives on
place and space, Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press.
Holmes, J., M. Labbé, C. Portugueis & O. Spichiger, 2009. Parque Cultural Valparaíso:
Cerro Cárcel. ARQ Obras y Proyectos, (73), 46-51.
Hoskins, W. G., C. Taylor & A. Butler, 1955. The making of the English landscape:
Hodder and Stoughton London.
173
Huber, E. & J. D. Stephens, 2001. Development and crisis of the welfare state: parties
and policies in global markets: University of Chicago Press.
Hubert, F., 1985. Ecomuseums in France: contradictions and distortions. Museum
International, 37(4), 186-90.
Ingerson, A., 2000. What Are Cultural Landscapes? Institute for Cultural Landscape
Studies, Harvard University.
Ingold, T., 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World archaeology, 25(2), 152-74.
Iranzo García, E. & C. Albir Herrero, 2009. Las Salinas de Arcos y su paisaje. Bases
para el diseño de un parque patrimonial municipal. Cuadernos de geografía,
(85), 109-36.
Jackson, R. & R. Jackson, 2009. Knowledge, power and politics in the study of political
terrorism. Critical terrorism studies: a new research agenda, 66–83.
Jacomy, B., 1982. El Ecomuseo de Le Creusot-Montceau-Les Mines: balance de diez
años de actividad. AA. VV.) Primeras Jornadas sobre la protección y
revalorización del patrimonio industrial, Bilbao: Consejería de Cultura del
Gobierno Vasco, 435-50.
Jameson, F., 1991. Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism: Duke
University Press Books.
Jeanrenaud, S., 2002. People-oriented approaches in global conservation Is the leopard
changing its spots?, London: International Inst. for Environment and
Development; Institute of Development Studies.
Jolliffe, L. & R. Smith, 2001. Heritage, tourism and museums: the case of the North
Atlantic islands of Skye, Scotland and Prince Edward Island, Canada.
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(2), 149-72.
Jones, C. B., J. Robinett & T. Zito, 1993. The future role of theme parks in international
tourism. World Travel and Tourism Review 1993, 3, 144-50.
174
Keith, M. & S. Pile, 1993. Place and the Politics of Identity: Psychology Press.
Kihn, C. C., J. G. Eugster, F. Steiner, M. Judd, R. Diamant & N. Gerdtz, 1986.
Conservation Options for the Blackstone River Valley. Landscape and urban
planning, 13, 81-99.
King, N. & C. Horrocks, 2009. Interviews in qualitative research: Sage Publications
Ltd.
Kipfer, S. & R. Keil, 2002. Toronto Inc? Planning the competitive city in the new
Toronto. Antipode, 34(2), 227-64.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B., 2004. Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production.
Museum International, 56(1-2), 52-65.
Knudsen, D. C. & C. E. Greer, 2008. Heritage tourism, heritage landscapes and
wilderness preservation: The case of National Park Thy. journal of HEritaGE
tourism, 3(1), 18-35.
Koolhaas, R., 2002. Junkspace. October, 100, 175-90.
Kramer, F. A., 1975. Policy analysis as ideology. Public Administration Review, 509-
17.
Kunzmann, K. R., 1999. White work elephants in the Ruhr district‘s park of the future.
Topos. European landscape magazine, 27, 79-86.
Lamme, A. J., 1989. America's historic landscapes: community power and the
preservation of four national historic sites: Univ of Tennessee Pr.
Latouche, S. & D. Harpagès, 2010. Le temps de la décroissance, Paris: Magnier.
Latour, B., 1993a. Ethnography of a high-tech case. Technological Choices:
transformation in material cultures since the neolithic, 372–98.
Latour, B., 1993b. We have never been modern, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
175
Latour, B., 2004. Politics of nature : how to bring the sciences into democracy,
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B., 2005a. Making things public : atmospheres of democracy, Cambridge,
Mass.; [Karlsruhe, Germany]: MIT Press ; ZKM/Center for Art and Media in
Karlsruhe.
Latour, B., 2005b. Reassembling the social : an introduction to actor-network-theory,
Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. & S. Woolgar, 1986. Laboratory life : the construction of scientific facts,
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Latz, P., 2004. Landscape Park Duisburg-Nord: the metamorphosis of an industrial site.
Manufactured Sites: rethinking the post-industrial landscape, 149.
Laven, D., C. Ventriss, R. Manning & N. Mitchell, 2010. Evaluating US National
Heritage Areas: Theory, Methods, and Application. Environmental management,
46(2), 195-202.
Law, J., 2004. After method : mess in social science research, London ; New York:
Routledge.
Law, J. & A. Mol, 2002. Complexities : social studies of knowledge practices, Durham:
Duke University Press.
Layuno, M. A., 2007. El museo más allá de sus límites. Procesos de musealización en el
marco urbano y territorial. Oppidum, 133-64.
Lazzarato, M., 2002. Puissances de l'invention : la psychologie économique de Gabriel
Tarde contre l'économie politique, Paris: Empêcheurs de penser en rond.
Lazzarato, M., 2004. Les révolutions du capitalisme, Paris: Les Empêcheurs de penser
en rond.
Lazzarato, M., 2009. Expérimentations politiques, Paris: Éditions Amsterdam.
176
Lien, M. E. & J. Law, 2011. ‘Emergent Aliens’: On Salmon, Nature, and Their
Enactment. Ethnos, 76(1), 65-87.
Ling, C., J. Handley & J. Rodwell, 2007. Restructuring the post-industrial landscape: A
multifunctional approach. Landscape Research, 32(3), 285-309.
Livingstone, D. N., 1992. The geographical tradition: Blackwell.
Lothian, A., 2000. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality
inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Journal of Planning
Literature, 14(4), 177-98.
Lowenthal, D., 1986. The past is a foreign country: Cambridge University Press.
Lucarelli, S., 2009. La finanziarizzazione come forma di biopotere. Fumagalli A,
Mezzadra S.(eds.), 101-20.
Lucas, G., 2005. The archaeology of time, London; New York: Routledge.
Lynch, K., 1960. The image of the city, Cambridge [Mass.: Technology Press.
MacGimsey, C. R. & H. A. Davis, (1984). United States of America, in Approaches to
the archaeological heritage : a comparative study of world cultural resource
management systems, ed. H. Cleere Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge
University Press, 116-24.
Maderuelo, J., 2006. El paisaje : génesis de un concepto, Madrid: Abada.
Maggi, M. & V. Falletti, 2000. Ecomuseums in Europe : what they are and what they
can be, Torino: Istituto ricerche economico-sociali del Piemonte.
Magnaghi, A., 2005. La rappresentazione identitaria del territorio: atlanti, codici,
figure, paradigmi per il progetto locale: Alinea Editrice.
Maiullari, M. T. & P. P. Whitehead, 1997. Industrial heritage and size effects. Industrial
heritage and size effects. Euroconference: industrial heritage,
http://www.cordis.lu/tmr/src/res970232.htm
Marazzi, C., 2010. The Violence of Financial Capitalism: MIT Press Books.
177
Marciniak, 2000. Protection and management of archaeological heritage in Europe: the
importance and achievements of the European Association of Archaeologists.
The European Archaeologist, (14), 11-4.
Marsh, G. P., 1965. Man and nature, Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
Martin, J. C. & C. Suaud, 1992. Le Puy du Fou. L’interminable réinvention du Paysan
vendéen. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 93, 21-37.
Martínez de Pisón, E. & C. Sanz Herráiz, 2000. Estudios sobre el paisaje, Madrid:
UAM Ediciones ; Fundación Duques de Soria.
Martínez de Pisón Stampa, E., 2004. Defensa del paisaje. Sociedad Geográfica
Española, (18), 136-43.
Martínez Navarro, J. M. & C. Vázquez Varela, 2008. Paisaje cultural y desarrollo
socioeconómico en un área desfavorecida: consideraciones éticas y estratégicas
para un proyecto de musealización en el valle del río Cabriel. Scripta Nova:
revista electrónica de geografía y ciencias sociales, (12), 82.
Mascarenhas, J. M., (1995). Archéologie et conservation du paysage environnant, in
Cité et térritoire. Colloque Européen, eds. M. Clavel-Lévêque & R. Plana-
Mallart Paris, 227-30.
Massey, D. B., 1994. Space, place, and gender: Univ of Minnesota Pr.
Massumi, B., 1987. Realer than real: The simulacrum according to Deleuze and
Guattari. Copyright, 1, 90-7.
Mata Olmo, R., C. Sanz Herráiz & España. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2003. Atlas
de los paisajes de España, Madrid: Centro de Publicaciones, Ministerio de
Medio Ambiente.
178
Mathewson, K. & M. S. Kenzer, 2003. Culture, land, and legacy : perspectives on Carl
O. Sauer and Berkeley School geography, Baton Rouge, LA: Geoscience
Publications, Dept. of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University.
Mazza, L., 2000. Strategie e strategie spaziali. TERRITORIO, 13, 7.
McGuirk, P., 2007. The Political Construction of the City Region: Notes from Sydney.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(1), 179-87.
McGurl, B. & D. H. Kulesa, 2001. Lackawanna River Watershed Conservation Plan.
Lackawanna River Corridor Association.
Means, M., 1999. Happy Trails. Planning (Journal of the American Planning
Association), 65(8).
Meijer, M., (1989). in General conference of ICOM: museums : generators of culture :
reports and comments. , ed. ICOM The Hague.
Merino, A., (2005). Los treinta pueblos más bonitos de España, in El Mundo.
Merriman, N., (1991). Beyond the Glass Case: the public, museums and heritage in
Britain, London: Leicester University Press.
Meskell, L., 1998. Archaeology under fire: nationalism, politics and heritage in the
eastern Mediterranean and Middle East: Psychology Press.
Meskell, L., 2005. Archaeological ethnography: conversations around Kruger National
Park. Archaeologies, 1(1), 81-100.
Meskell, L., 2007. Falling walls and mending fences: archaeological ethnography in the
Limpopo. Journal of Southern African Studies, 383-400.
Meskell, L. & L. M. Meskell, 2009. The nature of culture in Kruger National Park.
Cosmopolitan Archaeologies, 89-112.
Minca, C., (2000). El sujeto, el paisaje y el juego posmoderno, in Los paisajes de la
postmodernidad, ed. J. Nogue Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
179
Minca, C., 2001. Postmodern geography : theory and praxis, Oxford; Malden, Mass.:
Blackwell.
Minca, C. & L. Bialasiewicz, 2008. Spazio e politica : riflessioni di geografia critica,
Padova: CEDAM.
Ministerie van Cultuur, (1996). Pantser of ruggengraat : cultuurnota 1997-2000, Den
Haag: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen :
Distributiecentrum DOP.
Ministerio de Cultura Gobierno de España, n.d. Plan Paisajes Culturales: Definición de
Paisaje Cultural.
http://www.mcu.es/patrimonio/MC/IPHE/PlanesNac/PlanPaisajesCulturales/Def
inicion/DefinicionPaisCultural.html
Miró Alaix, M., 1997. Interpretación, identidad y territorio. PH, 5(18), 33-7.
Mitchell, C. J. A., R. Atkinson & A. Clark, 2001. The creative destruction of Niagara on
the Lake. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 45(2), 285-99.
Mitchell, C. J. A. & C. Coghill, 2000. The creation of a cultural heritage landscape:
Elora, Ontario, Canada. The Great Lakes Geographer, 7(2), 88-105.
Mitchell, W. J. T., 2002. Landscape and power: University of Chicago Press.
Mogan, P. J., 1972. Profile: Lowell. National Elementary Principal, 52(1), 31-3.
Mogan, P. J., (1975). Renewal Process in Lowell, Massachusetts: Toward an
Ecologically Sensitive Educational Model, University of Massachusetts.
Molitor, G. T. T., 1999. The Next 1,000 Years: The "Big Five Engines Of Economic
Growth - Five great waves will sweep through the world economy over the next
1,000 years, predicts one prominent futurist. The Futurist, 33(10), 13.
Morris, M. W., K. Leung, D. Ames & B. Lickel, 1999. Views from inside and outside:
Integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgment. The
Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 781-96.
180
Mose, I., 2007. Protected areas and regional development in Europe: towards a new
model for the 21st century: Cambridge Univ Press.
Mowaljarlai, D., P. Vinnicombe, G. K. Ward & C. Chippindale, 1988. Repainting of
Images on Rock in Australia and the Maintenance of Aboriginal Culture.
Antiquity, 62, 690-6.
Mumford, L., 1984. Urban prospect, New York: Peter Smith Pub , Inc.
Muñoz Jiménez, J., (1979). El lugar de la geografía física, in Departamento de
Geografía Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo.
Muñoz, M. D., 2006. Los paisajes del agua en la cuenca del río Baker : bases
conceptuales para su valoración integral. Revista de geografía Norte Grande, 36,
31-48.
Muñoz Sánchez, V. M., 2009. Agua, Arroz y Doñana. Anduli, (8), 135-52.
National Center for Public Policy Research, (2006). Statement of Peyton Knight
concerning H.R. 5195 "The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National
Heritage Area Act of 2006 Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee
on Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands,
from
http://naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PeytonTestimony09.28.06.pdf.
National Park Service, (1991). Proceedings and bibliography : partnerships in parks &
preservation, in Partnerships in Parks Preservation Conference Albany, N.Y.:
National Park Service.
Naveh, Z., 1995. Interactions of landscapes and cultures. Landscape and urban
planning, 32(1), 43-54.
Nelson, J. G. & L. M. Sportza, 1999. Regional approaches to parks and protected areas
in North America, Waterloo, Ont.: Heritage Resources Centre, University of
Waterloo.
181
Nelson, J. G. & L. M. Sportza, (2000). Evolving protected area thought and practice, in
The George Wright Forum, 59-69.
New York State Parks, (1982). Recreation and Historic Preservation Law, Title G-
Heritage Areas.
Nguyen, J. & M. Davis, 2008. Brian Massumi. Manifold, (2).
Nogué i Font, J., 2005. Paisaje y renovación urbana, Barcelona: Planeta UOC.
Nogué, J., (2007). El Observatorio del Paisaje y los catálogos de paisaje de Cataluña, in
La conservación del paisaje en los Parques Nacionales, eds. E. Martínez de
Pisón & N. Ortega Cantero Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid y
Fundación Duques de Soria, 37-63.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott & M. Gibbons, 2007. Re-thinking science: knowledge and the
public in an age of uncertainty: SciELO Argentina.
NPS, n.d. What is a National Heritage Area?
http://www.blueridgeheritage.com/about/what-is-a-national-heritage-area
O'Brien, T., 1999. Taiwan's $180 Mil Discovery World set to open in 2001 with 24
rides. Amusement Business, 36.
O'Flaherty, M. & California State Parks, n.d. " Cultural Landscape"—is the term not
redundant? http://www.culturallandscapes.ca/uploads/oflaherty-redundant.pdf
O'Guinn, T. C. & R. W. Belk, 1989. Heaven on earth: consumption at Heritage Village,
USA. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 227-38.
Ojeda Rivera, J. F., 2004. El paisaje-como patrimonio-factor de desarrollo de las áreas
de montaña. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, (38), 273-8.
Olshin, B. B., (2007). Cultural Heritage and the Curse of History, in Conference on
“When Creative Industries Crossover with Cities” ed. E. Y. Helen Wan, and
Theresa Yeung, ed Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Planners.
182
Orejas, A., 2001. Los parques arqueológicos y el paisaje como patrimonio. ArqueoWeb,
3(1).
Palang, H. & G. Fry, 2003. Landscape interfaces: cultural heritage in changing
landscapes: Springer Netherlands.
Palmås, K., (2007). Deleuze and DeLanda: A new ontology, a new political economy?,
in Economic Sociology Seminar Series London School of Economics & Political
Science.
Parker, B., 2011, March 2. Who benefits from a National Heritage Area? Daily Journal.
Parr, A., 2008. Deleuze and memorial culture: desire, singular memory and the politics
of trauma: Edinburgh Univ Pr.
Pecchia, E., (2003). Gli investimenti nei parchi, in Un'impresa per sei parchi, eds. A.
Casini & M. Zucconi Il sole 24 ore.
Pedroli, B. & J. D. Van Mansvelt, (2006). Landscape and awareness-raising, training
and education, in Landscape and sustainable development : challenges of the
European Landscape Convention, ed. C. o. Europe Strasbourg, 119-40.
Peine, J. & D. Neurohr, 1981. Illinois and Michigan canal corridor: A Concept plan,
Chicago: IMCNHCC.
Peleggi, M., 1996. National heritage and global tourism in Thailand. Annals of Tourism
Research, 23(2), 432-48.
Pellenbart, P. H. & P. J. M. van Steen, 2001. Making space, sharing space: The new
memorandum on spatial planning in the Netherlands. Tijd voor Econ & Soc
Geog Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 92(4), 503-12.
Pérez García, L. C., F. J. Sánchez-Palencia Ramos, J. Fernández Manzano, L. F. López
González, A. Orejas Saco del Valle, M. D. Fernández-Posse & Y. Alvarez
González, 1996. Las zonas arqueológicas como paisajes culturales. Complutum,
(6), 383.
183
Peyton Knight, J., 2002. Attacking America's Heritage.
http://www.newswithviews.com/your_govt/your_government39.htm
Peyton Knight, J., 2004. National Heritage Areas — Congressional Testimony —
Knight. http://www.vlrc.org/articles/99.html
Peyton Knight, J., 2005. Peyton Knight's testimony on National Heritage Areas
submitted to the U.S. Senate subcommittee on National Parks.
http://americanpolicy.org/property-rights/peyton-knights-testimony-on-national-
heritage-areas-submitted-to-the-us-senate-subcommittee-on-national-parks.html/
Peyton Knight, J., 2006a. Mississippi River Trail Study Act — Congressional
Testimony — Knight. http://www.vlrc.org/articles/180.html
Peyton Knight, J., (2006b). National Heritage Areas - An Appearance of Innocence, in
Thent Annual National Conference on Private Property Rights, ed. I. Property
Rights Foundation of America Albany, N.Y.
Phillips, A., 2002. Management guidelines for IUCN category V protected areas:
Protected landscapes/seascapes: World Conservation Union.
Phillips, A., 2003. Turning ideas on their head. The George Wright Forum, 20(2), 8-32.
Piemonte, R., (1989). La proposta della Regione Piemonte per la tutela e la
valorizzazione del fiume Po, in Un progetto per il Po - Proposte e prospettive
nell'esperienza europea, ed. R. Piemonte Torino.
Pinch, T., 2003. Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices, edited by John
Law and Annemarie Mol (Book Review). AMERICAN JOURNAL OF
SOCIOLOGY, 109, 534-5.
Pisters, P., 2003. The matrix of visual culture: Working with Deleuze in film theory:
Stanford Univ Pr.
Ploeg, R., (1999). Cultuur als confrontatie–Uitgangspunten voor het cultuurbeleid 2001-
2004, ed. C. e. W. Ministerie van Onderwijs, Zoetermeer.
184
Poria, Y., R. Butler & D. Airey, 2003. The core of heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 30(1), 238-54.
Prada Bengoa, J. I., 1994. La inclusión de los bienes culturales en la lista del Patrimonio
Mundial. Criterios y procedimiento vigente. Boletin informativo. Comisión
Española de la UNESCO, 15-21.
Prats, L., 2003. Patrimonio+ Turismo=¿ Desarrollo? Pasos, 1(2), 127-36.
Precedo, A. & A. Míguez 2007. Especialización turística y desarrollo urbano en las
ciudades españolas (1997-2002). Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos
Españoles, (45), 191-211.
Prentice, R., 2001. Experiential Cultural Tourism: Museums & the marketing of the
New Romanticism of evoked authenticity. Museum Management and
Curatorship, 19, 5-26.
Priore, R., (2002). Derecho al paisaje, derecho del paisaje, in Paisaje y ordenación del
territorio, eds. F. Zoido Naranjo & C. Venegas Moreno, 92-9.
Prola, R., 2005. Best Practices in Heritage Development from the National Heritage
Areas. http://www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas/REP/10BP2006.pdf
Proshansky, H. M. & A. K. Fabian, 1987. The development of place identity in the
child. Spaces for children: The built environment and child development, 21-40.
Querol, M. A., 1993. Filosofía y concepto de parque arqueológico. Seminario de
Parques Arqueológicos, 11-22.
Rabinow, P., 2008. Marking time : on the anthropology of the contemporary, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Rancière, J., 2004. The politics of aesthetics : the distribution of the sensible, London:
Continuum.
Reade, E., 1987. British town and country planning, Milton Keynes, UK;
Buckinghamshire, Philadelphia: Open University Press
185
Relph, E. & R. Mugerauer, 1985. Dwelling, place, and environment, Dordrecht:
Martinus Nijhoff.
Ritzer, G. & A. Liska, 1997. McDisneyization" and" Post-tourism. Touring cultures:
Transformations of travel and theory, 96–109.
Rivard, R., 1984. Que le musée s'ouvre ... : ou vers une nouvelle muséologie : les
écomusées et les musées 'ouverts', Québec (Ville): R. Rivard.
Rivière, G. H., 1993. La museología: cursos de museología, textos y testimonios: Akal
Ediciones Sa.
Robertson, R. W., 1993. Theme park development in SE: Asia. World Travel and
Tourism Review, 3, 151-5.
Rojek, C. & J. Urry, 1997. Touring cultures: Transformations of travel and theory:
Psychology Press.
Rössler, M., (2003). Linking Nature and Culture: World Heritage Cultural Landscapes,
in UNESCO World Heritage papers 7: Cultural Landscapes: the Challenges of
Conservation, ed. UNESCO World Heritage Centre Paris.
Rössler, M., 2006. World Heritage cultural landscapes: A UNESCO flagship
programme 1992 - 2006. Landscape Research, 31(4), 333-53.
Rowntree, L. B., 1996. The cultural landscape concept in American human geography.
Earle, Carville, Mathewson, K. y Kenzer, MS. Concepts in Human Geography.
Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Rubenstein, J. M., 2010. An Introduction to human geography : the cultural landscape,
Boston: Prentice Hall.
Rubio Terrado, P., 2008. Desarrollo local y patrimonio cultural: el parque cultural de
Albarracín. Geographicalia, (53), 21-48.
Rubio Terrado, P. & A. Sanz Hernández, 2007. Investigación aplicada al desarrollo de
territorios rurales frágiles, Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.
186
Rullani, E., 2006. Economia della conoscenza: creatività e valore nel capitalismo delle
reti: Carocci.
Rullani, E., 2009. Knowledge economy and local development: The evolution of
industrial districts and the new role of "urban networks". Review of Economic
Conditions in Italy, (2), 237-84.
Ryan, C. & J. Huyton, 2002. Tourists and aboriginal people. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29(3), 631-47.
Sabaté , J., 1998. El patrimonio de la forma del territorio como criterio de ordenación.
Ciudades: Revista del Instituto Universitario de Urbanística de la Universidad
de Valladolid, (4), 233-49.
Sabaté, J., 2002. En la identidad del territorio está su alternativa. OP: Revista del
Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, 12-9.
Sabaté, J., (2004a). ¿Paisajes culturales, consecuencia de la postmodernidad?, in Els
paisatges de la postmodernitat. II Seminari Internacional sobre Paisatge Olot:
CUIMPT, Observatori del Paisatge.
Sabaté, J., 2004b. Paisajes culturales. El patrimonio como recurso básico para un nuevo
modelo de desarrollo. Urban, (9), 8-29.
Sabaté, J., (2006). De la preservación del patrimonio a la ordenación del paisaje, in El
paisaje y la gestión del territorio: criterios paisajísticos en la ordenación del
territorio y el urbanismo Barcelona: Tarroja, A., Mata, R., 329-42.
Sabaté, J., 2007. Paisajes culturales y desarrollo local, Alta costura o prêt a porter?
Labor & Engenho, 1(1), 51 - 76.
Sabaté, J., (2009). Proyecto de parque patrimonial fluvial del Ter, in Gestión del
paisaje. Manual de protección, gestión y ordenación del paisaje. Jaume
Busquets Fàbregas, Albert Cortina Ramos (coords.)Barcelona: Ariel, 625-42.
187
Sabaté , J. & D. Frenchman, 2001. Projectant l'eix del Llobregat : paisatge cultural i
desenvolupament regional = designing the Llobregat corridor : cultural
landscape and regional development, Barcelona: Universidad Politecnica de
Cataluña.
Safranski, R., 1998. Martin Heidegger : between good and evil, Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
San Francisco Planning Department, n.d. DRAFT Japantown Better Neighborhood
Plan. http://www.sf-
planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1680
Sánchez-Palencia Ramos, F. J., M. Ruiz del Árbol & O. López Jiménez, 2001. La
investigación de paisajes culturales y su valoración como zonas arqueológicas:
la zona arqueológica de Las Cavenes (El Cabaco, Salamanca). Arqueoweb:
Revista sobre Arqueología en Internet, 3(1), 5.
Santos, M., 1997. La nature de l’espace, París.
Sauer, C. O., 1925. The Morphology of landscape, Berkeley: University press.
Sauer, C. O. & J. Leighly, 1963. Land and Life a Selection from the Writings of Carl
Ortwin Sauer: Univ of California Press.
Schama, S., 1995. Landscape and memory, New York: A.A. Knopf : Distributed by
Random House.
Scheffer, P., 2011. Immigrant nations, Cambridge: Polity.
Schein, R., (2003). Normative dimensions of landscape, in Everyday America: cultural
landscape studies after JB Jackson, 178–98.
Schofield, J., 2009. Being Autocentric: Towards Symmetry in Heritage Management
Practices. Valuing Historic Environments, 93-113.
Schoorl, F. F. J., 2005. On authenticity and artificiality in heritage policies in the
Netherlands. Museum International, 57(3), 79-85.
188
Schuyler, D., 1988. The new urban landscape : the redefinition of city form in
nineteenth-century America, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Schwarze-Rodrian, M., 1999. Der Emscher Landschaftspark–Ansätze und Strategien
zur Gestaltung der Industrielandschaft. IndustrieNatur–Ökologie und
Gartenkunst im Emscherpark. Ulmer, Stuttgart, 38–54.
Secchi, B., 2002. Territorio, economia e società. tavola rotonda con D. Borri, A.
Clementi, D. Maciocco, in Bianchetti C.(a cura di)“Vecchie e nuove forme della
politica territoriale nel Mezzogiorno”, in Archivio di Studi Urbani e Regionali.
Sellars, R. W., 1999. Preserving nature in the national parks: a history: Yale Univ Pr.
Serres, M., 1982. The Parasite, Baltimore: : Johns Hopkins University Press.
Shaviro, S., 1993. The cinematic body: Univ. Of Minnesota Press.
Shaw, R., 2002. The International Building Exhibition (IBA) Emscher Park, Germany:
A Model for Sustainable Restructuring? European Planning Studies, 10(1), 77-
97.
Sherman, D. J., 1989. Worthy monuments : art museums and the politics of culture in
nineteenth-century France, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Silberberg, T., 1995. Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and
heritage sites. Tourism Management, 16(5), 361-5.
Smith, L. T., 2008. Decolonizing methodologies : research and indigenous peoples,
London: Zed Books.
Solà-Morales, I., 1998. Patrimonio arquitectónico o parque temático. DC: revista de
crítica arquitectónica, ( 1).
Sørensen, M. L. S., Carman, J., 2009. Heritage studies: methods and approaches:
Taylor & Francis.
Sorkin, M., 1992. Variations on a theme park: The new American city and the end of
public space: Hill & Wang.
189
Sorre, M., 1967. El hombre en la tierra, Barcelona: Labor.
South Carolina National Heritage Corridor. African American Tourism, D., 2005.
African-American heritage guide : a resource guide to African-American sites of
the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor, Columbia, S.C.: South Carolina
National Heritage Corridor, African American Tourism Development.
Spingola, F. & G. Pizziolo, (2002). A experience of the European landscape: from the
dynamics, to the social awareness, to the net of the workers of the landscape, in
Mediterranean Landscapes, ed. S. Region Cagliari
Srnicek, N., (2007). Assemblage Theory, Complexity and Contentious Politics. The
political Ontology of Gilles Deleuze, University of Western Ontario.
Star, S. L. & J. R. Griesemer, 1989. Institutional ecology, translations' and boundary
objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate
Zoology, 1907-39. Social studies of science, 19(3), 387.
Steiner, F., G. Young & E. Zube, 1988. Ecological planning: Retrospect and prospect.
Landscape Journal, 7(1), 31.
Steinitz, C., 1968. Meaning and the congruence of urban form and activity. Journal of
the American institute of planners, 34(4), 233-48.
Swyngedouw, E., 2010. Apocalypse Forever? Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2-3), 213.
Taylor, K., 2009. Cultural landscapes and Asia: reconciling international and Southeast
Asian regional values. Landscape Research, 34(1), 7-31.
Taylor, K. & K. Altenburg, 2006. Cultural Landscapes in Asia Pacific: Potential for
Filling World Heritage Gaps 1. International Journal of Heritage Studies,
12(03), 267-82.
Taylor, S. M. & V. A. Konrad, 1980. Scaling dispositions toward the past. Environment
and Behavior, 12(3), 283.
190
Teo, P. & S. Huang, 1995. Tourism and heritage conservation in Singapore. Annals of
Tourism Research, 22(3), 589-615.
Teo, P. & B. S. A. Yeoh, 1997. Remaking local heritage for tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24(1), 192-213.
Thrift, N., 2006. Re-inventing invention: new tendencies in capitalist commodification.
Economy and Society, 35(2), 279-306.
Thrift, N. J., 2008. Non-representational theory : space, politics, affect, Milton Park,
Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge.
Tilley, C. Y., 1994. A phenomenology of landscape : places, paths, and monuments,
Oxford, UK; Providence, R.I.: Berg.
Tironi, M., 2009. The paradoxes of cultural regeneration: Artists, neighbourhood
redevelopment and the creative city in Poblenou, Barcelona. Journal of Urban
Regeneration and Renewal, 3(1), 92-105.
Tonts, M. & S. Greive, 2002. Commodification and creative destruction in the
Australian rural landscape: the case of Bridgetown, Western Australia.
Australian Geographical Studies, 40(1), 58-70.
Torre, C. M., (2007). Tutela e valorizzazione del paesaggio nel Parco Agrario degli
Ulivi Secolari in Puglia.
Toscana, R., 1995. Parchi culturali in Toscana: Pontecorboli.
Tsing, A., B. Adams, D. Rapport, E. Sterling, E. Vintinnerk, E. Hunn, F. Berkes, J.
Pretty, K. Milton & L. Maffi, 2009. The intersections of biological diversity and
cultural diversity: towards integration. Conservation and Society, 7(2), 100.
Turco, A., 2002. Paesaggio : pratiche, linguaggi, mondi, Reggio Emilia: Diabasis.
Turri, E., 1998. Il paesaggio come teatro : dal territorio vissuto al territorio
rappresentato, Venezia: Marsilio.
191
UNESCO, (1994). 18th session of the Committee. Report on the Expert Meeting on
Heritage Canals, Chaffeys Lock. Ontario.
UNESCO, (2006). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention, Paris, France: World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO, ( October 1992). Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention [WHC-
92/CONF.202/10/Add], in Report of the Expert Group on Cultural Landscapes
La Petite Pierre, France.
UNESCO, (October 1993). Report of the International Expert Meeting on Cultural
Landscapes of Outstanding Universal Value [WHC-93/CONF.002/INF.4],
Templin, Germany.
UNESCO, W. R., (1996). Comité Intergouvernmnemental pour la Protection du
Patrimoine Mondial Culturel et Naturel. Orientations devant guider la mise en
oeuvre de la Convention du patrimoine mondial.
Unesco. General, C., 1972. Convention concerning the protection of world cultural and
natural heritage : adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session,
Paris, 16 November 1972, Paris: Unesco.
Urry, J., 1990. The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies.
Urry, J., 2002. The tourist gaze: Sage Publications Ltd.
Valle, M., 2000. El parque cultural de Valltorta-Gasulla (Castellón). Trabajos de
Prehistoria, 57(2), 65-76.
Vázquez Barquero, A., 2009. Desarrollo local, una estrategia para tiempos de crisis.
Apuntes del CENES, 28(47), 117-32.
Vázquez Varela, C. & J. M. Martínez Navarro, 2008. Del inventario patrimonial a la
identificación de unidades de paisaje: estrategias en el marco de un desarrollo
192
territorial sostenible. Scripta Nova: revista electrónica de geografía y ciencias
sociales, (12), 131.
Vercellone, C., (2008). The new articulation of wages, rent and profit in cognitive
capitalism, in The Art of RentLondon: Queen Mary University School of
Business and Management.
Vergo, P., 1997. The new museology: Reaktion books.
Vidal Palet, P., 1999. Ríos urbanos y periurbanos: El proyecto del Parque Fluvial del
Ripoll. OP: Revista del Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos,
(46), 66-79.
Vincent, C. H., D. Whiteman & S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research,
(2004). Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues, US Library
of Congress, Congressional Research Service.
Vink, B. & A. van der Burg, 2006. New Dutch spatial planning policy creates space for
development. DISP -ZURICH-, (164), 41-9.
von Haaren, C., 2002. Landscape planning facing the challenge of the development of
cultural landscapes. Landscape and urban planning, 60(2), 73-80.
Vorkinn, M. & H. Riese, 2001. Environmental concern in a local context. Environment
and Behavior, 33(2), 249.
Vos, W. & H. Meekes, 1999. Trends in European cultural landscape development:
perspectives for a sustainable future. Landscape and urban planning, 46(1-3), 3-
14.
VROM-Raad, (1998). Stedenland-Plus, response to Nederland 2030 - Verkenning
ruimtelijke perspectieven and the Woonverkenningen 2030, ed. C. o. Culture.
Waitt, G., 2000. Consuming heritage:: Perceived historical authenticity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 27(4), 835-62.
Wallach, B., 2005. Understanding the cultural landscape: The Guilford Press.
193
Wascher, D. M., 2005. European landscape character areas–Typologies, cartography
and indicators for the assessment of sustainable landscapes. Final Project Report
as deliverable from the EU’s Accompanying Measure project European
Landscape Character Assessment Initiative.
Waterton, E., 2005. Whose sense of place? Reconciling archaeological perspectives
with community values: cultural landscapes in England. International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 11(4), 309-25.
Watson-Verran, H. & D. Turnbull, 1995. Knowledge Systems as Assemblages of Local
Knowledge. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: Sage, 115–
39.
Weible, R., 1984. Lowell: Building a New Appreciation for Historical Place. The Public
Historian, 6(3), 27-38.
Whatmore, S., 2002. Hybrid geographies: natures, cultures, spaces: Sage Publications
Ltd.
Whatmore, S. & S. Boucher, 1993. Bargaining with nature: the discourse and practice
of'environmental planning gain'. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 166-78.
Williams, D. R., M. E. Patterson, J. W. Roggenbuck & A. E. Watson, 1992. Beyond the
commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place.
Leisure Sciences, 14(1), 29-46.
Winks, R. W., 1996. National Park Service Act of 1916: A Contradictory Mandate, The.
Denv. UL Rev., 74, 575.
Worcester Historical Museum & J. Chafee, 2009. Landscape of industry: an industrial
history of the Blackstone Valley: University of New England. Blackstone River
Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission
194
World Bank, (2001). Cultural heritage and development a framework for action in the
Middle East and North Africa, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Wylie, J., 2007. Landscape, London; New York: Routledge.
Yáñez, M., 2008. Patrimonialización del territorio y territorialización del patrimonio.
Cuadernos de arte de la Universidad de Granada, (39), 251-66.
Young, I. M., 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference: Princeton Univ Pr.
Young, J. E., 1992. The counter-monument: memory against itself in Germany today.
Critical Inquiry, 18(2), 267-96.
Zaera-Polo, A., 2008. The politics of the envelope: a political critique of materialism.
VOLUME, 17, 76-105.
Zapatero, R., 2002. Arqueología e Identidad: la construcción de referentes de prestigio
en la sociedad contemporánea. Arqueoweb: Revista sobre Arqueología en
Internet, 3(1).
Zhi-fang, W. & S. U. N. Peng, 2001. Heritage Corridors. A Comparatively New
Protection And Conservation Method of Heritages Journal of Chinese
Landscape Architecture, 5.
Zimmer, J., (2008). La dimensión ética de la estética del paisaje, in El paisaje en la
cultura contemporánea, ed. J. Nogue Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
Zizek, S., 2010. Living in the end times, London; New York: Verso.
Zizek, S. & F. W. J. v. Schelling, 1997. The abyss of freedom, Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University of Michigan Press.
Zoido Naranjo, F., 2001. La Convención Europea del Paisaje y su aplicación en España.
Ciudad y territorio: Estudios territoriales, (128), 275-82.
Zoido Naranjo, F., 2004. El paisaje, patrimonio público y recurso para la mejora de la
democracia. PH: Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, 12(50),
66-73.
195
Zourabichvili, F., A. Sauvagnargues & P. Marrati, 2004. La philosophie de Deleuze,
Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Zucconi, M., (2003). La Parchi val di Cornia S..A.: storia e missione, in Un'impresa per
sei parchi, eds. M. Zucconi & A. Casini Milano: Il sole 24 ore.
Zusman, P., 2004. Perspectivas críticas del paisaje en la cultura contemporánea. Els
paisatges de la postmodernitat II Seminari Internacional sobre Paisatge, 1-19.