Digitizing Temples for heritage conservation: Kalinga Architecture

Imperatives for urban historic preservation in the United States are retaining diverse elements of the past, perpetuating distinctive identities of places, involving amateurs in landscape care, and practicing conservative approach to environmental change. These aspects of the preservation movement were identified by comprehensive survey of historic districts and preservation organizations in the Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco Bay areas. The preservation movement provides sense of by accentuating memory and beauty in the ordinary landscape. THE United States Conference of Mayors sponsored report on historic preservation in 1966. According to the report, the country suffered from a feeling of rootlessness associated with the postwar building boom and high mobility rate. The preservation movement could assuage that feeling and could provide American society with a sense of orientation by using and objects of the past to establish values of time and place.' The report proved to be influential. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 incorporated many of its ideas, including the specific charge to create sense of for Americans through the preservation movement, into federal law. In this article, I examine how this charge has been carried out in three metropolises-Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and the San Francisco Bay area. The discussion is based on comprehensive inventory of historic districts and survey of preservation organizations in the central cities, suburbs, and exurbs of these regions. The sense of inspiring present-day efforts at historic preservation differs from the motivations of earlier preservationists, whose main lessons were patriotism and respect for the accomplishments of their forbears.2 In pursuit of goals of stability, identity, and environmental control, current preservationists follow four imperatives: to retain diverse elements of the past, to perpetuate the distinctive identities of places, to involve amateurs in landscape care, and to practice conservative approach to environmental change. In order to understand how these imperatives function in particular places, it is necessary to be knowledgeable about three general, interrelated trends in the preservation movement in recent years. * I acknowledge with gratitude the support provided for this research in 1980-81 by the Maybelle G. McCullough Endowed Fellowship from the American Association of University Women. 1 United States Conference of Mayors, With Heritage So Rich (New York: Random House, 1966), p. 207. 2 David Lowenthal, The American Way of History, Columbia University Forum, Summer 1966, pp. 27-32; and David Lowenthal, The Place of the Past in the American Landscape, in Geographies of the Mind (edited by David Lowenthal and Martyn J. Bowden; New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), pp. 89-117. * DR. DATEL is research associate in the Department of Environmental Design, University of California, Davis, California 95616. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.112 on Wed, 07 Sep 2016 05:16:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW An important recommendation in the Conference of Mayors report was the need to consider not only 'proper' historic credentials, but also pleasing appearance and sentiment in designating properties for preservation.3 This advice was heeded. Federal law recognized that the public significance of property could rest on its architectural, historical, cultural, or archaeological qualities. Nearly all local historic-preservation ordinances in the three regions I studied permitted the protection of landscape features for their artistic or affective qualities. Almost two-thirds of the preservation groups surveyed had an interest in architecture and environmental amenity that was equal to or greater than their interest in commemorating historical events or honoring local heroes. A second recommendation was that preservation should not be limited to individual structures but should be involved with areas and districts which contain special meaning for the community.4 Today, several thousand historic districts are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In 1981 the National Trust for Historic Preservation identified 832 American cities and towns where historic district zoning was in effect.5 The Philadelphia Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) had eighty-five historic districts, the Washington, D.C., SMSA seventy, and the San Francisco Standard Consolidated Area forty-two. Thirteen percent of the District of Columbia, six percent of the City of Philadelphia, and one percent of the combined cities of San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose were within historic district

<p>This thesis proposes a composite framework for the evaluation of the environmental impact of tourism development on host destinations. In this study, the environmental impact of tourism is considered as a social-ecological phenomenon that can be categorized into the two aspects of natural and social-cultural impacts. Ecotourism is introduced as a type of sustainable tourism in that its policies and principles for development are based on conservation of environmental heritage (including natural and cultural heritage) via engagement of local people and communities in the tourism development process. The proposed composite framework arises from the integration of an ecological and a cultural framework for the sustainable development of tourism. This framework places the conservation of natural resources as the main ecological outcome for eco-tourism. The proposed framework uses the ecological footprint (EF) of the main tourism activities and services (including transportation, food and accommodation services) as the ecological indicator for evaluation of ecotourism development to ensure it is ecologically compatible. Ecological footprint (EF) is a way of measuring environmental impact. It assumes that everything needed for living, including all energy, goods and services can be obtained from land, and that any wastes produced can be absorbed by land (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996:9). Because land productivity varies considerably around the world the average global productivity is the normal measure, and this is called global hectares (gha). The ecological footprint of a product or activity produced/ consumed and conducted by a defined group of people can be measured through the following equation: EF (gha) = Lifecycle energy use of a given group of people (product and activity pro-duced or conducted) Gigajoules (GJ) / carrying capacity of the Earth (GJ/gha). The above equation determines the area required to produce resources and to absorb pollutants like carbon dioxide generated in the lifecycle energy use of the product or activity through using fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas). Through using an ecological perspective, this thesis views culture as a system that links a group of people or a community to their surroundings through their use of local mate-rials and energies, and the production and consumption of products from these. The proposed framework determines the main cultural outcomes for ecotourism development such as conservation of heritage and making the host people aware of their cultural values. In addition, it introduces related activities such as social events, conservation of heritage and producing and consuming local products as contributive activities for achieving the outcomes stated above. Furthermore it investigates and refines a number of indicators that can be used as tools for evaluation of the cultural footprint of the development of ecotourism. Within these, local gross domestic product (GDP) as a social-economic indicator arising from tourism activities is also considered. This thesis concludes by presenting a case study of ‘The Otago Central Rail Trail’ (OCRT) as an example of ecotourism. The OCRT was introduced in the New Zealand Tourism Strategy (NZTS) for 2015 as a successful model for community-based development of sustainable tourism. The investigation reviews the impacts of the OCRT on natural and cultural heritage by using the framework developed in the thesis and its related ecological and cultural indicators. Through using the proposed holistic framework and the model for sustainable development of ecotourism, this thesis finds that, influenced by the development of the OCRT, many cultural heritage items including 60 bridges, 3 tunnels, and 78 buildings (used as OCRT accommodation services) have been refurbished. The restoration of this heritage can be considered as a policy that contributes to awareness of OCRT residents of their cultural heritage and identity. Likewise, as a part of the educational process related to ecotourism, this also makes an opportunity for OCRT visitors to learn about the cultural values of their host people. As shown in Table 5.84, in 2011, the total EF of 11,788 OCRT visitors including the EFs of the four categories of transportation, food, accommodation and activities is 1,617 gha (0.138 gha /visitor). In comparison with the EF of 0.03 gha/ visitor for sustainable tourism (see Table 5.86), the overshoot portion of the EF of the OCRT is equivalent to (0.138 – 0.03) 0.108 gha/ visitor. Likewise the total overshoot EF of 11,788 OCRT visitors is (11,788 visitors × 0.108 gha) 1,273 gha (see Table 5.86). This overshoot EF of the OCRT indicates that although the project has already been considered as a successful sustainable tourism project, still needs to reduce its total EF by 1,273 gha to be environmentally sustainable. As determined in Chapter 5 (see Table 5.88), the overshoot portion of the OCRT is calculated as 127,310.4 GJ/year. Since the costs to generate 1 GJ of overshoot energy use through using renewable energy sources (in this case wind + solar) is NZ$ 19.8, consequently the total cost to generate the overshoot energy use of the OCRT through using the latter systems (wind + solar) is equivalent to (127,310.4 GJ × NZ$ 19.8) NZ$ 2,720,746. Table 5.90 shows that in 2011, the total GDP of the OCRT is NZ$ 6,245,289 This means the total cost that must be spent to generate the overshoot portion of the OCRT energy use in a sustainable way (NZ$ 2,720,746) is 43.6% of its total GDP (NZ$ 6,245,289). Consequently the sustainable portion of the GDP (GDPs) of the OCRT is (NZ$ 6,245,289 – NZ$ 2, 720,746) NZ$ 3,524,543. The results of this thesis demonstrate that using local products (e.g. home prepared foods) as a sustainable cultural behavior not only contributes to the ability of the host destinations located along the OCRT (such as Naseby and Cromwell, used as further case studies) to present their cultural products, but also contributes to reduce the environmental impacts and increase the economic outcomes of the OCRT. For example, producing 17% (13,346.4 kg) of the total of 65165.05 kg consumed food as home prepared food reduces by 5.5% the ecological footprint related to the food consumed by OCRT visitors. As determined in Chapters 5 and 6, in three case studies, producing home prepared food contributes in a sustainable way to the increasing of the economic outcomes by about NZ$3.5 / kg of food produced. This thesis indicates that in all three case studies, using refurbished buildings as accommodation services, which is considered as an activity that contributes to preserving the cultural identity of the host destinations also contributes to reducing of environmental impacts and increasing the economic outcomes related to OCRT. For example in OCRT using 12.9% of bed space as refurbished buildings reduces by14.5% (7.3gha) the total 50.5 gha ecological footprint of accommodation services compared with when all accommodation buildings are assumed as new buildings. Chapters 5 and 6 determine that in OCRT using 21,378 m2 of refurbished buildings as accommodation services (12.9% of total bed spaces) increases by 5% the sustainable portion of GDP related to accommodation services. In Naseby also using refurbished buildings as accommodation services has the same sustainable ecological, cultural and economic outcomes as for the OCRT as a whole. The framework indicates the use of open air areas as being a cultural-ecological indicator for evaluation of architecture as being sustainable. Through using the framework, it is determined that using open air areas including balconies and verandas as part of OCRT accommodation buildings exerts environmentally friendly influences on the host destination. For instance in OCRT using 387 square meters of veranda and balcony as part of the 80,356m2 accommodation buildings decreases by 1.5% the total ecological footprint (50.5gha) of buildings used as accommodation services in OCRT. The thesis results demonstrate that an architecture that will contribute to sustainable development through ecotourism has a cultural footprint area in which the architecture contributes to the host societies knowing and preserving their cultural identity, capitals and heritages. Simultaneously, it contributes to reducing the environmental impacts and increasing the economic outcomes of the host societies through ecotourism. This thesis determines that since all ecological, cultural and economic characteristics of sustainable architecture are linked together, a strategy to develop sustainable architecture is successful when it considers the linkage between all of these profiles and influences that they exert on each other.</p>

The paper is a review of the work of Paolo Leon (1935-2016), Emeritus Professor of Public Economics at the University of Rome Three, in the field of cultural economics, director of this revue from 2002 to 2014. Within his broader research interests in economic policy and public economics, Paolo Leon has been a leading and influential scholar in nurturing and consolidating an Italian approach in the economics of cultural heritage and cultural activities and industries. The paper reviews his contributions during more than thirty years of academic and applied research, taking also account of a tireless and informed participation to the Italian and European public discussion on cultural policies and policies for the preservation of historic, artistic and archaeological heritage. The Paolo Leon' intellectual legacy in this field is linked not only with his academic work (culture as a Musgrave-type merit good, tools for the economic and impact evaluation of public projects in the cultural sector, cultural sector as an engine for local economic development, appraisal and contribution to the Italian national policies for culture, and more), but also with his work as an applied economist, providing expertise and consultancy to a large number of Italian institutions for the realization of public and public-private projects for the preservation of heritage and the improvement of cultural organizations.

The article provides an overview of the main ethical and associated political‐economic aspects of the preservation of born‐digital content and the digitization of analogue content for purposes of preservation. The term “heritage” is used broadly to include scientific and scholarly publications and data. Although the preservation of heritage is generally seen as inherently “good,” this activity implies the exercise of difficult moral choices. The ethical complexity of the preservation of digital heritage is illustrated by means of two hypothetical cases. The first deals with the harvesting and preservation in a wealthy country of political websites originating in a less affluent country. The second deals with a project initiated by a wealthy country to digitize the cultural heritage of a less affluent country. The ethical reflection that follows is structured within the framework of social justice and a set of information rights that are identified as corollaries of generally recognized human rights. The main moral agents, that is, the parties that have an interest, and may be entitled to exercise rights, in relation to digital preservation, are identified. The responsibilities that those who preserve digital content have toward these parties, and the political‐economic considerations that arise, are then analyzed.

Heritage in its very diverse forms has become a significant force in contemporary society. This is manifested by the importance of heritage in shaping identities, the use of heritage by political forces, and the increasing interconnectedness of heritage, the entertainment business and tourism. Heritage is a part of tangible reality while at the same time being an intangible phenomenon. Heritage connects people to each other and to the environment, both its material and natural aspects, therefore forming part of our world. By relying on heritage, recreating it and attributing important meanings to it, people shape the way societies function. The aim of this article is to create a conceptual framework for treating the preservation of intangible cultural heritage. In order to do that, I will use the concept of heritage on the one hand and the information ecological approach on the other hand. The article proposes to create a clearer conceptual framework for treating intangible cultural heritage, with the main emphasis on the preservation aspect. Heritage can be considered from very different aspects, from its philosophical meaning to highly technical conservation proceedings. In this article, I proceed from the idea that heritage is a phenomenon currently being created by people, i.e. from the principle of socio-cultural construction. Of course, this is just one possible way to interpret and utilise the past. It is clear that the treatment of heritage in this way poses a serious challenge to preservation – how should the heritage process be preserved? In my discussion of the heritage process, I use the information ecology framework, mainly drawing on ideas of Bonnie Nardi and Vicky O’Day. Information ecology is a system of people, activities, and technologies in a specific local environment. The information ecologic system is an intertwined network of a specific group of people and their tools and activities. The information ecological approach is characterised by systematicity, diversity, co-evolution and locality. All these aspects are also very important when it comes to intangible heritage. It is evident from the information ecological perspective that preservation of heritage is not a neutral technical activity but rather a social process, in the course of which values and meanings are created, changed and preserved. In preserving heritage, it is important to consider both the heritage itself and the level of society in the framework of which the management takes place. With intangible heritage, it is important to differentiate between individuals and families, groups and communities who practice it. At the national and international levels, specific heritage practices can be recognised and supported, but determining these practices and their actual preservation takes place at the community and individual levels. In order to preserve intangible heritage, we need to support the people, groups and communities who use and develop the given tradition. This means supporting a social and cultural process, in the event that such support is needed in the first place. Communities use intangible heritage to fix their current problems. These aims might not overlap with the national and international goals of preservation. To sum up information ecological principles from the aspect of preserving intangible heritage, what has to be emphasised is the importance of systemic treatment. People practicing heritage skills, their clients, researchers, preservers of heritage and community activists, to name just a few stakeholders, should form an integral system. Different parties are bound to see the system from different perspectives; on the one hand, this cannot be avoided, on the other hand, it is a barrier that needs to be overcome. What is extremely important is the reflection of the so-called grass-roots level perspective, expressed in the subjective view of the person with heritage skills, when determining and preserving heritage. When treating the functions of heritage skills, in addition to their economic significance, which often prevails, what needs to be observed is also the role of these skills in shaping community identities and in creating and preserving social cohesion, but also as parts of education and the wider social communication system. Via heritage skills, meanings are created and values are presented to the community and to society as a whole. I think the fact that heritage participates in the creation of value environments is what guarantees heritage a place in contemporary information society.

Ned Kaufman Place, Race, and Story: Essays on the Past and Future of Historic Preservation . New York: Routledge, 2009, xi + 421 pp., 50 b/w illus. $39.95, ISBN 9780415965408 Thomas F. King Our Unprotected Heritage: Whitewashing the Destruction of Our Cultural and Natural Environment . Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press, 2009, 200 pp., no illus. $24.95 (paper), ISBN 1598743813 Place, Race, and Story presents essays on historic preservation's past and future that are intellectually provocative, culturally incisive, and politically astute. At its core this book challenges the twentieth-century alliance, or confusion, between the practices of architectural history and historic preservation. That alliance often tended to define historic preservation as a curatorial pursuit, committed to preserving a three-dimensional encyclopedia of the objects of historians’ desire, aesthetically and stylistically considered. This framing of historic preservation drastically narrowed its social and cultural possibilities. Ned Kaufman points the way toward a more relevant, expansive, and vital historic preservation movement; a movement committed to social equity, steeped in ethnography and politics and guided less by the imperatives of architectural history practice and more by sensitivity to the human values manifested in everyday attachments to place. Some historic preservation practitioners have used the criteria and models of architectural history to insulate their work from social claims of various stakeholders and communities. Kaufman argues, “It is hard to understand how separating heritage from society's most pressing concerns can enhance the cause of conservation.” He challenges the tendency of many not-for-profit preservation organizations that allocate “resources to protect a historic site admired by architectural historians” (9) while making no effort to discover and help protect sites that are meaningful to a much broader array of neighborhood and community groups. Kaufman does not stand alone. Retiring in 2010 as president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Richard Moe reflected on the field; he wrote, “Historic preservation has evolved into something much more than just saving historic buildings. Today it is about people and the places that they care about—where they live, work, shop, worship, and celebrate. We need historic places to help ground us in our past, but also in our future, as …

The Evolving Definition of “Historic Preservation”:More Complex, More Inclusive Susan West Montgomery (bio) With some 50 years of federal preservation law and policy in place and decades more of individual and collective action to save places, you’d think we’d have a clearer definition of what we mean when we say “historic preservation.” Instead, it is as though the more time that goes by the more complex the meaning becomes, the more diverse the motivations that lead us to it, and the more wide ranging the actions we take in its name. The effort to find a clear and common definition is also muddied by how others define the concept for us. As we look to the future of preservation, we should understand and own this complexity and be deliberate in pointing out preservation everywhere we see it. One way to look at the discipline known as historic preservation is as a continuum that flows from the micro to the macro and back again. When I spackle mortar on brick to repoint a wall, or hammer a nail to repair a joist, I am engaging in historic preservation. When I survey and document a set of resources and nominate them to the National Register of Historic Places I am engaging in historic preservation. When I acquire a vacant manufacturing building, save some of its original fabric, but adaptively reuse it as a hotel and retail space I am engaging in historic preservation. When I work to enact a design review ordinance in a historic district I am engaging in historic preservation. When I develop a comprehensive marketing plan and recruit new businesses to open on Main Street in rehabbed older buildings I am engaging in historic preservation. What all these examples have in common is they revolve around a building or buildings, but historic preservation can also be the act of saving a landscape. We might preserve a farmstead, for example, with its particular arrangement of fences, fields, trees, hedgerows and ruins; or a Native American trail, still discernible after decades of disuse. Even a stretch of riverbank with its telltale [End Page 34] scars and manmade topographical features can reveal an industrial past and be worthy of preservation. Click for larger view View full resolution Supporting traditional cultural activities is also an aspect of historic preservation, especially when that helps to promote continued use of places where those activities are best experienced. Traditional dances of the Chamorro people were featured at a celebration of Pågat, one of the last ancient village sites still publicly accessible on Guam. PHOTO BY BRIAN TURNER Moving even further away from physical fabric, we may find ourselves preventing new building on a site even when there are few or no historic remnants on the property. Even places that seem empty and unused can be inextricably tied to a people or an event that is best experienced and interpreted in that open space. We have also learned that historic preservation can be the act of uncovering the names, experiences and actions of individuals even where no tangible history remains, as is the case with the narratives of so many enslaved and working-class people. Our work to protect sacred and cultural traditions—dance, sport, music, language, food ways—is also historic preservation when it recognizes, honors and encourages the continued use of the traditional cultural places where such activities occur. Historic preservation then is essentially rooted in the concept of “saving” something, whether a building, place or landscape; or, in its wider applications, a story, cultural practice or tradition associated with a place. We generally consider something saved when a place, story, practice or tradition is able to continue to exist for some time to come. In a way, it is the antithesis of consumption, when a building, place, landscape or other resource is used up or used in such a way that it loses its value over time. Preservation is all about retaining value, even enhancing it. Every action we take that adds value—including continued use, continued practice, [End Page 35] revival, restoration, rehabilitation, reuse, interpretation—can in its own way fall under the rubric of historic preservation. If you...

Review: <i>Saving Spaces: Historic Land Conservation in the United States</i>, by John H. Sprinkle Jr.

This chapter offers a new sustainability-oriented paradigm for cultural and heritage tourism studies: an integrated approach to heritage tourism and heritage conservation based on resilience. Its extensive literature review examines resilience in a range of disciplinary areas, including heritage conservation and tourism studies. An important aim is to “make visible” often neglected parameters in the interactions among social, cultural, economic, and environmental dimensions of heritage conservation and tourism. Within the broader concept of resilience, “cultural resilience” was identified as a crucial bridge between conservation and tourism. The study argues that resilience in general and its cultural forms in particular offer a potentially valuable framework vital for an integrated approach between the two in the common pursuit to manage change and uncertainty in cultural and heritage destinations. The chapter concludes with directions for further development of sustainability-oriented paradigm studies.

Urban heritage districts, which preserve rich cultural, architectural, and social histories, often face the dual challenge of protecting their historical value while accommodating modern mobility needs driven by urbanization and changing lifestyles. However, there is a growing disconnect between mobility infrastructure and actual accessibility has emerged in urban heritage districts, particularly affecting vulnerable groups. This thematic review aims to analyze the key challenges related to mobility and accessibility in urban heritage districts, with a focus on elderly individuals, persons with disabilities, parents with strollers, and those with limited mobility. It also seeks to review existing literature on mobility and accessibility in urban heritage districts, and identify conceptual and empirical research gaps that need to be addressed. Additionally, this study proposes future research directions aimed at supporting more inclusive and sustainable mobility planning in historic urban environments. Based on a thematic analysis of 21 selected research papers, five key themes were identified: sustainable mobility and green transport, walkability and accessibility, transport infrastructure and planning, socioeconomic and behavioral factors, and urban heritage and cultural preservation. The findings show that while there is growing support for green commuting, major gaps remain in infrastructure, policy integration, and stakeholder engagement. Conflicts between heritage preservation, inclusive mobility needs, underdeveloped accessibility infrastructure, fragmented planning, and lack of participatory approaches also limit progress. This research highlights the urgent need for better policy coordination, inclusive planning, reliable data collection, and cross-sectoral strategies to balance modern mobility needs with heritage preservation in order to create more accessible, resilient, and sustainable environments.

PurposeCommunity involvement in heritage preservation requires appropriate approaches. Sanciai (in Lithuanian: Šanciai) historic district in Kaunas (Lithuania) has long-lasting military and industrial heritage, valuable urban structure and connections to the natural frame of the city. Sanciai residents’ willingness to participate in heritage preservation and urban planning prompted the aim of this research – to develop, test and present the mapping methodology, that would be applicable in the process of community involvement into heritage identification, preservation, interpretation and creation process.Design/methodology/approachThe methods of research included analysis of literature and theoretical research, development and testing of the methodology for the community involvement in heritage identification, preservation, interpretation and creation process. The workshop methodology and interactive online map are presented in this research. The memory map methodology developed and presented in this research includes the elements of mental mapping, design thinking and citizen science.FindingsThe methodology was tested in spring of 2021 in two-day online workshops with the students of pro-gymnasium located in Sanciai. Workshop participants together with workshop coordinator and moderators created different layers of the mental map, collected stories from the members of community and gathered the data for online interactive Sanciai memory map. The evaluation of the methodology and workshop results allowed concluding that memory map methodology is a functioning participant, community and research-oriented approach that can be applied in diverse heritage and community related circumstances.Originality/valueThe originality of the research is determined by the synergistic nature of developed memory map methodology which complements traditional mental mapping with creative hands-on techniques, empathy-oriented tasks and interactive online tool. Moreover, the research reveals the importance of local-global connections in urban studies as active local community became the stimulus for memory map methodology. The two-fold aim of the methodology – community cohesion and empowerment as well as research data collection – contributes to the originality of the research as well.

Reviewed by: Stewards of Memory: The Past, Present, and Future of Historic Preservation at George Washington’s Mount Vernon ed. by Carol Borchert Cadou Anna Nau Stewards of Memory: The Past, Present, and Future of Historic Preservation at George Washington’s Mount Vernon. Edited by Carol Borchert Cadou, with Luke J. Pecoraro and Thomas A. Reinhart. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2018. ISBN: 9780813941516 Hardcover: 280 pages Mount Vernon is known to most Americans as the historic home of the first president of the United States. It is also considered the birthplace of the historic preservation movement in the United States. The continuing legacy of the latter forms the central subject of Stewards of Memory. This diverse collection of eight concise, readable essays by respected scholars and preservation professionals uses Mount Vernon as a case study offering a cross-section of current theories and practices in historic site preservation and management. These include cultural landscape research, digital documentation tools, and the challenges of achieving more inclusive historic interpretation. The book grew out of a 2013 symposium celebrating the 160th anniversary of the purchase of Mount Vernon by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association (MVLA). As the oldest preservation organization in the United States, the MVLA’s contributions to preservation have been well established. The essays here succeed in presenting a window into the paradigms and practices of current work, as lead editor Carol Borchert Cadou, former Senior Vice-President for Historic Preservation and Collections at Mount Vernon, sets forth in the introduction. But the volume would have benefited from an organization that grouped the essays in such a way as to make those themes more apparent. This shortcoming, however, does not detract from the contribution made by each essay. Together, the essays offer enriching interdisciplinary insight into the challenges, needs, and opportunities facing America’s historic sites and house museums in the twenty-first century. This is facilitated by the contributing authors’ diverse backgrounds that include history, architectural history, historic preservation, architecture, archaeology, and collections management. In the opening essay, “New History in Old Buildings,” Carl R. Lounsbury presents an engaging examination of how historic site research and interpretation has evolved over the last fifty years. The new social history methodologies of the 1960s and 1970s fostered broader definitions of historic and architectural value that moved beyond the early twentieth-century model of commemoration and antiquarianism. Drawing on his own experiences at Colonial Williamsburg and other sites in the southeast, Lounsbury traces how scholars have incorporated advances in archaeology and materials analysis along with more inclusive research and survey practices to reach new understandings of sites like Mount Vernon. This research has in turn revised concepts of early American society. Expanded research methodologies are only one part of the preservationist’s toolbox, as George W. McDaniel demonstrates in his essay on “whole place preservation.” In “Stepping Up and Saving Places,” he examines five cases that illustrate varying degrees of success in the preservation of historic sites and their broader environments, including Mount Vernon and the Ashley River region around Drayton Hall in South Carolina, where McDaniel formerly served as director. He argues that effective preservation demands thoughtful management of change in the landscapes surrounding historic sites through proactive, widespread community support. That support requires strong partnerships and advocacy as well as an understanding of larger economic and social contexts. In his essay entitled “’We Have Done Very Little Investigation There; There Is a Great Deal Yet to Do’,” Luke J. Pecoraro examines another aspect of cultural landscape preservation in a brief summary of past and current “Archaeology of George [End Page 43] Washington’s Mount Vernon.” He presents new efforts to understand and protect the larger cultural landscape of the site—the historic core and the original eight thousand acres—as a means to tell a broader history of its multiple generations of owners, occupants, and uses. This includes a program to document forgotten slave cemeteries using GIS (geographic information system) software to analyze historic maps and visitor accounts as well as continued efforts to protect Mount Vernon’s historic viewshed along the Potomac River. Historians of the American preservation movement may find the essays by Lydia Mattice Brandt and Scott...

Acknowledgments. Chapter 1: What This Book Is About. Chapter 2: Using (and Not Using) The Past. Livable Cities. What Can Historic Preservation Contribute to This Challenge? An Historic Preservation Tale of Two Cities. Is Historic Preservation Legal? Chapter 3: What Is Historic Preservation? The People of Historic Preservation. What Qualifications Do Preservation Professionals Have? How Do Preservationists Decide What Should Be Protected? Who Are We Saving It For? Haven't We Saved Enough? Saving for Everyone. Chapter 4: The Actors: Community Groups and Governments. Greenfield Village in Michigan. The Arthur Ashe Statue in Richmond, Virginia. The African Burial Ground in Lower New York City. Participatory Efforts. Chapter 5: The Actors: Community Groups and Governments Case Study: Station Square, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Chapter 6: Intersections: How They Work Together. Denver: Lower Downtown. What Do Planners Do? Historic Preservation. Historic Preservation and Planning. Neighborhood Conservation Districts. Form- Based Zoning. What We Have Here Is a Failure to Coordinate. Chapter 7 Bringing Them Back from the Malls: Revitalizing Downtown. Step 1: Capture the Vision. Step 2: Develop a Strategic Plan. Step 3: Forge a Healthy Private/Public Partnership. Step 4: Make the Right Thing Easy. Step 5: Establish Business Improvement Districts and Other Not- for- Profit Organizations. Step 6: Create a Catalytic Development Company. Step 7: Create an Urban Entertainment District. Step 8: Develop a Rental Housing Market. Step 9: Pioneer an Affordability Strategy. Step 10: Focus on For- Sale Housing. Step 11: Develop a Local- Serving Retail Strategy. Step 12: Re- Create a Strong Office Market. Conclusion. Chapter 8: Bringing Them Back from the Malls: Revitalizing Downtown Case Study: Chattanooga, Tennessee. Chapter 9: Using the Tools We Have: Urban Planning Tools That Preserve Historic Character. Zoning. Comprehensive Plans. Form- Based Codes. Affordable Housing. Planning for Integrated and People- Oriented Spaces. Chapter 10: Using the Tools We Have: Urban Planning Tools That Preserve Historic Character: Case Study: Dallas, Texas. Historic Districts and Conservation Districts. Regulation under the Three- Tier System. Chapter 11: Neighborhoods for Great Living: Historic Districts. The Experience of Colonial Williamsburg. Charleston, South Carolina, Creates an Historic District. Manchester: Historic Districts for All. Historic Districts in Livable Cities. Chapter 12: Neighborhoods for Great Living: Historic Districts Case Study: Manchester, Pennsylvania. Chapter 13: Sustainable Development and Historic Preservation. Community Movements. Preservation as Growth Management. Reusing Our Existing Buildings. The Cobb Building, Seattle, Washington. Waste Management. The Economics of Sustainability. The Role of LEED and the U.S. Green Building Council. Chapter 14: Sustainable Development and Historic Preservation: Case Study: The Cobb Building, Seattle, Washington. Chapter 15: New Urbanism versus the Livable City. The New Urbanism Charter. Ebenezer Howard's Garden City. New Urbanism: The New Garden City? Seaside, Florida. Facing the Criticism. Chapter 16: New Urbanism versus the Livable City: Case Study: Radburn, New Jersey. Chapter 17: The Global Picture. Rebuilding the Past. Vancouver: Queen of the Livability Stakes. Imperial Vienna (Second Place in Global Livability). Melbourne: Recent Heritage (Third Place in Global Livability). Preserving Heritage for Livable Cities around the World. Chapter 18: Afterword. Endnotes. Index.

1. In this article, the national historic preservation program means the activities of identification, evaluation, and protection of historic properties conducted for the Secretary of the Interior by the state historic preservation officers pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980. To participate in the federal preservation program, each state must appoint a state historic preservation officer and establish a professionally qualified staff to run the federal program in the state. Section 101(b)(3) of the act sets out the responsibilities of the SHPOs: (3) It shall be the responsibility of the State Historic Preservation Officer to administer the State Historic Preservation Program and to(A) in cooperation with Federal and State agencies, local governments, and private organizations and individuals, direct and conduct a comprehensive statewide survey of historic properties and maintain inventories of such properties; (B) identify and nominate eligible properties to the National Register and otherwise administer applications for listing historic properties on the National Register; (C) prepare and implement a comprehensive statewide historic preservation plan; (D) administer the State program of Federal assistance for historic preservation within the State; (E) advise and assist, as appropriate, Federal and State agencies and local governments in carrying out their historic preservation responsibilities; (F) cooperate with the Secretary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other Federal and State agencies, local governments, and organizations and individuals to ensure that historic properties are taken into consideration at all levels of planning and development; (G) provide public information, education and training, and technical assistance relating to the Federal and State Historic Preservation Programs; and

Cultural heritage is used to promote political ideas and economic initiatives these days. It is not only a political construct but also a useful tool in both reaching domestic political goals (for instance, building one’s national identity) and developing international relationships (building soft power). This case study focuses on the cooperation of public and private institutions over the project of revitalisation of the Chinese Alley and building a Chinese garden in the Royal Łazienki Museum in Poland between 2012 and 2014. Using the concept of ‘heritage diplomacy’ coined by Tim Winter (2015), this paper analyses the relationship between the key actors that participated in the project and those who have been benefi tting from its results. The analysis shows how cultural heritage becomes an element of strategy in foreign relations in order to strengthen international and interinstitutional relations and how the political actors benefit from the outcomes of conservation and promotion of cultural heritage. It also makes it possible to identify the motivation of various actors while engaging in conservation of heritage on domestic and international levels.