Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

ro,kJo_.

s
<r- 17.3
98 1< A T E C L A R 1<

archies and librarics: Olailable e1idencc proicct. RcJort Lo Muscums Lib ..


. 1 , 'aJJcs and
(MLA) by th c Robcrt Gorclon Unncrsitv, Abcrclccn. Rctric,ecl 1 '\r
http: // 1\'W\\' .m la. gov. uk / information / c,iccncc.
WCCD (Worlcl Commission on Culture ancl Dc,cloJmcnt) 1995. Ou e .
. r reatr~e D
Summary rctn cYccl 26 Dcccmbcr ?005 from http // \\ww uncsco
' - .org cu l
clcvclopmcnt /ocd /occl.html. tur
WSSD (World Summit on Sustainablc DcYclopmcnt) 2002. Plan if lmplementation.
March 2006 from http: // www.johanncsburgsummit.org.
www .hcritagclink .org.uk. Assessing Values in Conservation
Planning
Methodological issues and choices

Randall Masan

nation decisions - whether they are concemed with giving a building 'heritage'
1
d iding which building to invest in, planning for the future of a historie site, or

hin' a ueatment to a monument - use an articulation of heritage \'alues, often called
ltur<~l ,ignificance' (Marquis-Kyle ancl Walkcr 1992; Tainter ami Lucas 1983; Tomlan
~ a~ reference point. Assessment of U1e values atbibuted to heritage is a very
portJnt actiYity in any conservation effort, since values sbongly shape U1e decisions that
macle. Ilowever, even cl10ugh val u es are widely und erstood to be critica! to under -
dmg and planning for heritage conservation, there is littl e knowledge about how, prag
u lly, the whole range of heritage values can be assessed in the context of planning and
on making. This chapter aims to exp lore nlue assessment as a particular aspect of
nation planning ami management.

Characterizing values
a pr lude to specific discussions of val u e assessment, this section del ves into
'rizing th e notion of val u e as a guiding id ea in heritage conservation. One of
r d.! sumptions of this chapter is the uscfulness of th e 'values' perspect ivc to illumi -
<uru erYation and management planning issues and make cl1ese activitics more

Yalues in conservation

u i mo t often used in one of two senses : first, as morals, principies, or otht>r ideas
~ :ne ~ guides to action (individual and coll ective); and second, in reference to U1e
llld 111 and charactcristics seen in things, in particular the positive characteristics (actual
poktrnual). This chapter is concerned directl)' with thc seconcl clefinition. The persJec-
la ln h . .
filll . er IS an anthropologJcal one, and 1t valu es the attempt to und erstancl cl1e full
o 1 values anc1 va umg
processes attachecl to hentage
. - as opposed to the normat1ve,.
.LUU f< A 1~ lJ A L l MA S ON
A S S E S S I N G V AL U E S I N C O N S E R V A TI O N P LA N N I N G 101
art historical view common in UJe .
historical values over otlJeJs. consenatJon fleld, which a priori priYilcges artistic and Val u es in heritage conserration have traditionally been treated in one of t wo ways: ( 1)
ne kind of value pre-dominates anci blots out consideration of otl1ers; or (2) values are
Value suggests usefulness ancl b ,fi 1_ _. . .
]Jrise bt' t b ecause (as one aspect of ene ts.. l leJlJtage IS ,-aluecl notas an mtellectual ent er. ~eated as a black box, with all aspects of heritage nlue collapsed into 'significancc.' Thc
otller l'unctions in wciety. This willn~atena e~ tu re) bitlpiays instrum ental, symbolic, and first ueaon ent is problematic because whole categories of value can be excl ud ed a priori.
vaiue are described. eco me e eaJer e o\\' as cJfferent types ol' heritage For instance , if tl1e economic use value of a historie site is allowed to predominat e, tlw
In tl1e sphere of materi l 1 - ti . wurism activity tl1at maximizes tl10se economic values caJl quickly obscure or erode tlle
tlling?' prolokes l l a lefJitage, le snnple cueslion of ' What is tlle value of th site's historical ,a lues (visitor traffic destroys historie context ancl even tl1e resources
L a w 10 e range 0 ans , . c. l JS
aJl imp t t . . 1 . "ers, a meanmgiU aJld legitima te - and tllerein themsehes , perhaps by careless visitors climbing on ruins or taking fragments as sou -
01 aJl 1ssue. 11 a g 1ven momc t . . 1 . . L . . 1es
number of difrerent Yalues ascribed l n, a ~nen leJ ltage Slte, buddmg, or object has a renirs). The second kind of treabnent (tl1e 'black box ') is problematic because in collaps-
hypoiliet"cal old l - 1 . 1 . o Jt - entage Js mult.Jvai ent. As aJl exmnple take ing all val u es loan aggregate statement of significance, tl1e different types of heritage val u e
' ClUlCJ Jt 1as spn-t ' a
because of the events th~t ha,:e ~ ' u~ ;~ ue as a P. ace of worship; it has historical value are mystified or rendered seconclary ancl are thus negl ected. An example of tl11s would be a
,-alue because it is beaut"ftll ~'lcl a:lspn ec klefr e (or Slmply beca use it is old); it has aesilietic historie church or mosque tl1at is classiflecl by autl1orities m1d underslood by the secular
' ~ a une wor o archt t - . ]
of real estate it has I"t l ' ec UJ e, Jt las economJc value as a piece public primarily as a building of historical or artistic signif1cance; this circumstance can
order and so' on Wh]aJot' '. Jea valtlue aisf'~ symbolic r epresentation of a certain kind of social obscure m1other importan t. value of the building as a sacred si te of worship. By hm1ging ili e
, . s more, l e e' Jerent ,-al tJ b i"
f'crent stakeholders or expcrt ob
and, as mgued below, logicall 'suserver~. ts TI . l;es lat CaJl e e lscerned correspond to dif-
~llU tiYalence is an essential quality of heritage
A sccond imJortanLt . )_ l ggebsts a PI ur ISt.lc, eclecllc approach to value assessment.
determinalion of signiflcance too much on the artistic valu e of ilie religious building, thc
other ('secondary') value of religious worship or even of m.usical performance can be
' ms1g 1t a out 1entage 1. . ili eroded, even iliough it woulcl not be dilftcult to conserve all of tl1ese values simultan-
objectively gilcn The ,-al u es of 1 .t . a u es JS at t ley are contingent, not eously.
L 1enagearenots1m] 'C d' clfi i
as was traditionally theoJ"zod . ti . P Y oun an xec and unchanging There me so many different kinds of values, ami the interactions among tl1em are so
_, ll1 le COnservatiOn fiel] (" tJ f '
being int.Jins1"c) Val .. d d e J. e. le notJon o hentage val u es complex, that a more effective way of treating tl1is issue has to begin witll a clear, effect-
' ues aJe pro u ce 0 t f ili . f .
they don 't emana te from the artil'act its~lf o V le mtera~lJOn o 1an mtJfact and its contexts; ively neutral, agreed-upon way of characterizing different types of heritage value - as seen
ence to social histor l
' '
i
1ca , anc even spatla] e t t
. . a ues CaJl 1US on Y be understood wiili refer-
ili. h l by the wicl e variely of stakeholders in conservation efforts. A typology cif heritage values
and articulating ilie val u e wh el oln elx s - l oug lle lens of who is defining would be an effective guide to characterization and would move conservation stakeholders
, y now an w 1y 1ere? For e . . r
requires some substantial retllinking' f th k" 1 . f onservatJon proJessJonals, iliis closer to having a lingua frm1ca in which all parties' values can be expressed anci discussed.
n eeded to su ort cor . . .~ e mes o research ami knowl eclge that me By use of such a typology - a fram ework tl1at breaks clown significance into constituent
of heritage a!~ work olfseaJrvtaotJOn. TradlJtJofn,lally, val u es were articulated by experts' analysis kinds of herilage value - the views of experts, citizens, communities, governments, and
r a recorc o t 1e past 0 1 h ti
begun lo embrace such e t . n Y r ecent )' as 1e conservation field oilier stakeholclers can be voicecl ami compare el more effectively.
' 1 a e ors as econmmcs lt . l b ]
issues - and they ha ve yet to be f ll . 'i _cu UJ a e 1aJ1ge, pu JC policy, ami social Any effo:rt to break clown and describe ilie values attached to a pmticular heritage site
, u )' mteg:ratec mto the fiel el.
Where do values come frm i' b . immecliately encounters conceptual and practica! difficulties. The different articulations of
material culture reco nized as he~it las eer~ a questJOn of consi_derable debate. Should heritage value (in terms of historical association, artistic merit, or clollars) are at some
ami universal), or sh!uld herita e v:fuee b;e sacJ to have some mtJmsJc value (unchanging leve! different expressions of the same qualities, seen tl1rough clifferent eyes. The units ancl
consoucted out of th . g . l seen as rac!Jcally ancl essentJally extrinsic ancl yarclsticks usecl by a:rt historians, sociologists, and economisls, for instance, are not r eadily
e vm Jous socJa contexts of the b. b .
seems to lie somewhere in betwe . ' l . o Ject, UJ e mg, or sJte? The answer comparable or oanslatable. In acldition to tl1ese clifferences in epistemology ancl modes of
iliings. The viewpoint adopte i . tle_n .. ' a u~ 's bformecl m tlle nexus between id eas and expression, tl1ere me real clifferences in how a particular type of value is assessed by differ -
on one hand evcr ,th,tl arl r tlni liS J esear e 1 orrows from both ends of this spectrum: ent stakeholders - for instance, tl1e economic value as assessed by a corporation operating
' ) g om ec as hent b el fi
itage value (aside fr 0111 ti ti l age "'' ' Y e lllltJon, have some kind of her- and ovvning a heritage si te, versus a typical resident of a nearby village. A tl1ircl difficulty in
Wle 1er 1e va ue h' . .
words, anytlling defined as herita . -~s prnna:J Y rstonc, artJstic, or social). In other clmacterizing values lies in the fact tl1at values are always changing in some respect, ancl
kind of heritag~ value (t110u l tl ge IS saJ t; ~ntrmsJcally ancl tautologically possess some we should expect iliis as part of the essential, social nature of heritage. For all these
otlle:r hancl th . g/1 le nature o lat value is not intrinsically given). On the reasons, heritage values cannot be objectively measured ancl broken clown in tl1e same
' e contmgent constructecl view oint . l l .
facto:rs outside t11e obiect 1ts lf d l . P . ng lt Y pomts to value-formation sense that a chemist, for instance, can analyze ancl break clown a compound lo determine
J e an emp 1as1zes ilie un t
mation. Recognizing the fundament 1 . . pm_ ant soca processes of val u e for- its constituent parts.
possibilit)' of some values tll t . a contmglelnchy of hentage values cloes not preclude tlle While tl1e subjectivity and contingency of heritage values make it diftcult to establish
a a1 e un1Ve1sa y eld (or -] . ) . .
structecl values _ think of the G _ p _ .d r . near ) so 1 11ese soc1ally con- a cl ear frmnework or even a nomenclature of values (akin to a chemist's elements ami
1 eat )'1 am1 s 10r mstance
they are so widely held not b ti 'b. . .' are seen as un1versa because compounds), tl1is is precisely what is neecled to facilitare tl1e assessment ancl integralion of
' ecause 1ey are o jectJve t:ruths.
different heritage values in conservation plmming ancl management. So ilie concept of
val u es neecls to be broken clown ancl defincd in a typology, at least provisional! y. By sug-
Valu e typologies gesting a typology in tl1e r e mainder of this section, 1 will to highlight its provisional
nature. lt is not claimed tl1at tl1is (or any) typology will be appropriate foral! sites or situ -
The pragmatic questions at hand are: how CaJl a wide ran 0 f . . ations - it is simply an ~ttempt to CJeate a common starting point from which a moclified
ancl characterized in a wa tllat 1 . . . . ge . heJitage val u es be Jd entified typology can be constructed in a variety of heritage planning situations.
vant lo al! the disciplines :ncl sta~1h~ll;~~~~!,~\'~~~s?
ancl plannmg decisions, and (2) is rele- The practica! aspects of discussing typologies should al so be emphasized. Establishing
a typology of values will facilitate discussion and understanding of ilie differ ent valuing
102 RA N DA L L M A SON A S S E S S 1 N G V A L U E S 1 N C O N S E R V A T 1 O N P LA N N 1 N G 103

processes at play ~n heri.tage conservation. This kincl of knowledge ultimately can guide lites ancl experts), whercas many otl1er t)1Jologies resonate more witl1 connoisseurship and
practltwners cl:mces of appr?priate assessment methocls for a wide range of heritage e rofessional values ami are stTongly influencecl by the notion ofheritage's inbinsic value.
values . Typologtes also constttute a first-order research too!, ordering and organizin p A broacl clistinction is often mad e between economic ancl cultural values as the two
knowledge so that research builds on itself - it keeps practitioners from having to continu~ rimary metacategories of heritage val u e. This distinction has served as a starting point for
ally reinvent the wheel. The benef1t of using a common typology of values is that it lene! ~e research undertaken by the Getty Conservation lnstitute on values -related issues most
comparability to the evaluation of different projects. This is an important goal of researc~ relevant to conservation. 1-lowever, cl efending a hard -and -fast separation of economic and
01~ conservation planning -e~tablishing some grouncls for comparison among many types ultural spheres is untenable. Economic behavior cannot be beyond, or separate from,
of hentage proJects aml denvmg best-practices guidance applicable to many different situ- culture, which by definition is 'ways of living together' or attitudes anrl behaviors passed
ations. Final! y, the typology is both an analytical too! and a vvay to advance wider partici- on . Indeed, economics is one of tl1e most clominant (sub)cultures - ways ofliving together
pation in the planning process. Value categories correspond to different stakeholder _ in many societies.
positions voiced in heritage debates and projects, and devising and debating the typolog , Nev~rtl1eless, tl1e economic-cultw-al clistinction is wiclely sharecl aml remains a very
are themselves means of stimulating participation. ) useful analytic convenience. The economic-cultwal distinction resana tes because: (1) it high-
As one woulcl expect, given the conceptual cmnplexities outlined so far, f1nding lights privatization and tl1e influen~e of market l~gic into ever more .s~heres of social life , a
agreement on a typology or a nomenclature of heritage values has proven problematic. most pressing contemporary social 1ssue; (2) lt connects to b-achtlOnal debates arouncl
~early everyone intereste~l in heritage - citizen, scholar, writer, professional, or organ- notions of economic base ancl cultural superstructure ancl tl1eir relation in modern societies;
Izatwn - has a shghtly different conception, aclvanced from a particular perspective, of and (3) perhaps most important for our present purposes, economic ancl cultural spheres
how to describe these characteristics of heritage. Consider the sampling of heritage value represent two quite distinct attitudes/perspectives towarcl tl1e subject of val u es ami valuing.
typologies clevisecl by di!Ierent scholars and organizations ancl summarized in Table 7.1
(see also Kellert 1996 ; Rolston 1988; Satterfield 2002). In most instances, they describe
the same pie, but slice it in subtly different ways. Provisional typology
Typologies implicitly minimize some kinds of value, el evate otl1ers, or foreground con-
flicts between the cu ltivation of certain values at U1e expense of others. In the Burra Charter, The provisional typology shown in Table 7.2 - which is neitl1er exhaustive nor exclusive -
for instance, economic values are minimized because tl1ey are seen as derived from cultural is offered as a point of departure ancl discussion.
and historical values and are therefore given secondar y consideration. This typology includes the kinds of value most often associated with heritage si tes ancl
lt is apparent tl1at there are severa] distinct, if not fully separable, categories of her- conservation issues, but it does not assum e that every heritage site has every type of 1alue .
itage value - economic, historical, spiritual, political, eclucational, aesthetic, artistic. If The working assumption behincl tl1e typology presented here is that these categories
one were to map U1ese value schemata, there would be a great deal of overlap even encompass most of tl1e heritage values tl1at shape decision making ancl that must be con-
between such different frameworks as Frey's (1997 from economics) and Reigl's (1902 siclered in conservat:ion planning ancl management. The danger in using such a typology is
from art history). The typology suggested in English Heritage's recent paper on sustain- that it may suggest that one framework of values speaks equally well to al! heritage sites,
ability is 1:erhaps the most comprehensive and balancee! (English 1-leritage 1997 and this issues, and cultur al milieus. If it were u sed in this nonnative way, and asan a priori fram e-
volume). fhts breakdown is well oriented to conservat:ion practice because the value cat- work, it would pref1gure too much about the values of a heritage site . lt is reiteratecl,
egories focus on how heritage is used ami valued (contingently, and by people other tl1an therefore, that any value typology should serve only as a starting point and tl1at value types
will have to be adjusted ancl revised for each project/ setting.
Table 7.1 Summary of hcntagc 1al ue typolog1cs dcviscd by anous scho lars and organ1zat:Jons The two major categories - sociocultural and economic - do not actually refer to differ-
(Rcigl 1982; L1pc 1984; for thc Burra Chartcr, Australia JCOMOS 1999; Frcy 1997; Engiish ent, cliscrete sets of values. Economic and cultural are tvvo alternat:ive ways of w1derstanding
Hcritagc 1997) and labeling tl1e same, wide range of heritage values. There are substantial overlaps betvveen
the val u es each column in Table 7. 2 helps identify. The majar difference between tl1em resides
Rei8 ! (1902) Lipe (1984) Burra Charter Fre)' (1997) Enalish Hericaae in tl1e very difTerent conceptual !i-ameworks ancl methodologies used to articula te U1em.
(/998) ( 1997) The same point must be macle concerning tl1e subcategories witl1in the 'sociocultural
Yalues' group; tl1ey are not distinct and exclusive; in fact, they overlap quite extensively.
Agc Economic Acsthctic Monctary Cu ltural This intermingling contTasts witl1 the categories of tl1e 'economic values ' column, which
Historical Acsthctic Historie Option Educational and are intended to be distinct and exclusive of one another.
acadcmic
Commcmoratii'C Associativc- Scicntifc Existcncc Economic Table 7.2 Provisional typology of hcritagc va lues
symho lic
Use lnformational Sociocultural l'alues Economi c va/ues
Social (including Bcqucst Rcsourc
spiritual, political, Historical Use (markct) valuc
national, othcr Cultural 1symholic Non usc (nonmarkct) 1aluc
cu ltural) Social Existcncc
Nc wncss Prcstigc Rccrcational Spiritual 1rcl igious Option
Educational Acsthctic Aesthctic Bcqucst
104 R A N D A L L M A SON
A S S E S S 1 N G V A L U E S 1 N C O N S E R V A T 1 O N P LA N N 1 N G 105

Sociocultural values reOection and political behavior that builds ciYil society. Politicall ciYil val u e can be mani-
festly symbolic, or it can stem from research ami understanding of how heritage sites are
Sociocultural values are at the traditional core of consenation - values attached to an created and evolve, and from learning about who has shaped tl1e environment. Like all
object, building, or place because it holds meaning for people or social groups due to its heritage values, polilical value can be interpreted through a positive lens - as a key con -
age, beauty, artistry, or association with a significant person or event or (otherwise) con- tributar to civil society - or, more cynically, it can be interpreted as a political too! used
tributes to processes of cu ltural affiliation. to enforce national culture, imperialism, postcolonialism, ancl so on.
The types of sociocu ltural values outlined bclow overlap. For instance, a cuality Craft- or work-relatecl val u es are often ver y important aspecls of heritagc. A building
definecl as a spintual/rehgiOus value (a congregation's ongo ing use of a historie church for embodies tlw metl10ds used to clesign ancl make it , and the \'alues relating to tl1e process of
example) cou ld also be defined as a historie~] ~lue (the histor) of generations ,,orship;Jing making ancl building are often separa te from (or lost among) more static historical or aes-
111 the church and playing a role in the development of the surrounding commun ity) or as thetic values.
an artistic value (the particular design of the building ancl its furnishings) or as a social This category also includes heritage valu s used to stimulate etlmic-group identity, in
Yalue (used for nonreligious gatherings - for instance, a holiday concert or soup kitchen) . cases in which the group does not haYe a strong religious aspect.
While these uses are closely related, it is important to understand these as cli!Terent values,
because they correspond to different ways of conceptualizing the value of the heritage, to
different stake-holder groups, ancl therefore to different bases for making management or Social value
conservation cl ecisions.
Notice that tlwre is no separate category for political value. The reason: al! values The concept of social value follows dosel y the notion of 'social capital,' a widely used
attributed to heritage are political, in that they are part of the power stTuggles ancl exer- concepl in the social science and developmenl ficlds. The social val u es of' heritage enable
tions that determine the fate of heritage. Values occupy center stage when it comes to the and facilitate socia l connections , networks, ancl other relations in a broad sense, one not
decisions - the politics - about thc conservation ofheritage. necessarily related to central historical values of tl1e heritage. The social values of a her-
itage site might include the use of a site for social gatherings such as celebrations,
markets, picnics, or ball games - activiti es that do not necessarily capitalize clirectly on
Historical value the historical val u es of the si te but, rather, on the public-space, sharecl-space qualities.
The kinds of social groups strengtl1ened and enab led by these kinds of values could
1-listorical values are at the root of the very notion of heritage. The capacity of a site to includ e everything from families to neighborhood groups lo ethnic groups to special
convey, embody, or stimulate a relation or reaction to the past is part of the fundamental interest groups.
nature ancl meaning of heritage objects. Historical value can accrue in severa] ways: from Social value also includes the 'place attachment' aspects of heritage valuc. Place attach-
the heritage material' s age, from its association with people or events, from its rarity ment refers lo the social cohesion, comm unity idenlity, or other feelings of aftlliation tl1at
and/ or uniqu eness, from its technological cualities, or from its archiva]/ clocumentary social gro ups (vvhcther very small and local, or national in scale) derive fl-om tl1e specific
poten tia!. heritage ami cnvironment characteristics of th eir 'home' territory.
There are two important subtypes of historical \'alu e that merit mention. Educa-
tionall academic val u e is a type of historical val u e. The ecl ucational value of heritage lies in
the potential to gain knowledge about tl1e past in the futurc through, for instance, archae- Spi ritual/rel igious value
ology or an artist' s crea ti ve interpretation of tl1e historical record embocliecl in the her-
itage. Artistic val u e - val u e based on an object' s being unique, being the best, being a 1-leritage sites are sometimes associated or imbued witl1 religious or other sacred meaning.
good exampl e of, being the work of a particular individual, and so on - is also a type of These spiritual values can emanate from tl1e beliefs and teachings of organized rcligion, but
historical value. they can also cncompass secular experiences of wonder, awe, ancl so on, which can be
provoked by visiling heritage places.

Cultural/symbolic value
Aesthetic value
I-listory and heritage are core elements of all cultures the ideas, materials, ancl habits
passed U1rough time - so cultural values are, like historical val u e, a part of tl1e vcry notion Aesthetic value is widely agreed to be a category of sociocu ltw-al value, tl10ugh it refers to
of heritage. There is no heritage without cultural valu e. Cultural values are usecl to builcl a wicle range of c1ualities. In the main, aesthetic refers to the visual c1ualities of heritage. The
cultural affiliation in ilic present and can be historical, political, ethnic, or related to other many interpretations of beauty, of the sublim e, of ruins, and of tl1e quality of formal rela-
means of living together (for instance, work- or craft-related). As usecl in this typology, tionships consiclered more broadly have long been among tl1e most important criteria for
culturall symbolic Yalue refers to those shar ecl meanings associated witl1 heritage that are labeling tl1ings and places as heritage. The design and c>volution of a building, object, or
not, strictly speaking, historie (relatecl to tl1e chronological aspects ancl meanings of a site). site can be another so urce of aestl1etic value. lt is also argued that the category of the aes-
Political value - tl1e use of heritage to build or sustain civil relations, governmental thetic can be interpretecl more wiclely to encom pass all tl1e senses: smell, sound, ancl
legitimacy, protest, or id eological causes - is a particular type of cultural/ symbolic val u e . feeling, as well as sight. Thus, a heritage site coulcl be seen as valuable for the sensory
These values stem from U1e connection between civic/ social life and the physical enYiron- experience it offers. Aesthetic value is a strong contributor toa sense of well-being anrl is
menl and from the capacity of heritage si tes in particular to stimulate tl1e kind of positive perhaps tl1e most personal ancl individualistic of tl1e sociocultural nlue types.
106 RA N DA L L M A SON A S S E S S 1 N G V A L U E S 1 N C O N S E R V A T I O N P LA N N l N G 107

Economic values ae part ' nonuse- values are an alternative wa)' .of looking'- al the sociocultural
ln 1aib ' .
clescribed and distinguished above. Sociocu ltural Yalues ancl nonuse val ues are t\YO
ya 1ues
Econom ic \'aluing is OIW of the most powerful ways in which society identifies, assesses avs of slicing tl1e same pi e, as it were. . l l l l .
and. decides on the rclatiYe Yalue of things. Economic ,alu es merlap a great deal with th~
11
' Nonuse n lues are often broken clown into the followmg, e ose y re atec categones
SOCI.ocultural values (historical, social, aesthetic, ancl so on) described above, ancl they are (llhich are not .exhaustive) in order to specif)r exactly which qualities of heritagc moti vate
chstmgUJshed most bccause they ar e m easu red by cconomic analyses. In other wonls, eco- conomic decision s:
nomic values are different because they are conceptualizecl in a funrlamentally different e Existence Value: Jndividuals value a heritage item for its mere cxistence, cven though
way (according lo a fundamentally differ ent epistcmology, one not commensurable with themse lves may not experience it or 'consume its services' clirectly.
t he Y , . tJ
U1e narrati,e epistemo logi es used for sociocultural values). According to neoclassical eco- 0 tion J'alue: The option val u e ol he ritage re 1ers to someone s WIS 1 to preserve 1c
nomic theory, econom ic values are the nlues seen primarily through ~th e lens of individual possibflity (the option) that he or she might consume tl1e heritage's scrvices at some future
consumer ami firm choice (utility) ancl are most often expressed in terms of price. Not al! time.
economic Yalues, however, are measured in terms ofmarket prices. Bequest Value: Bequest value stems from Ule wish to bequeatl1 a heritage asset to future
Economic nlues stemming from the conservation of heritage are often by definition generations.
understood. ~o be a public go~d - reflecting collectin' decisi;ns rather tl~an individual:
market decJSions - an cl are tl1 erefore not captured by market price measures. There is an
important clistinction between what values can legitimately be representecl in tenns of Intrinsic values
price (privately held values, which can be tradecl in a market) ancl what factors shape
resource allocat10n deciSIOns (public ones, collectively held, and provid ed o utside of J-low does tl1e typology suggestecl here align witl1 the 'intrinsic valuc' arguments n;ade
marke ts) . Accounting for tl1ese gaps is one of the goals of the research effort. A di verse set regarding heritage - ancl also macl e vis-a-vis nature in envirorun ental conservat10n? fh1 s
of. economic valuation m e thocls, therefore, will be needed to span this gap between typology is prem ised on tl1e assumption tl1at values are funclam entall y contmgent - m
pnvate/market values ancl public/ nonmarket valucs. other words, that they are social! y as well as spatially constructed. But can one assume that
The differ ent economic valu es outlined her e, and the relations among them, are sorne 0 [ tl1e values of heritage are intrinsic (if not fix ed or absolute) - i.e., tl1at some kincl
summanzed m a pap er by Mourato and Mazzanti (2002) (see also Frey 1997; Throsby ofhistoric value is intrinsic to tl1e whole notion of som e tl1ing being id entifi ed as heritage?
2001, 2002; ancl Serageldin and Steer 1994). The main clistinction they dravv is r elated to This int:rinsic-value argum ent in heritage conservation woulcl be analogous to the
use versus non -use values, corresponcling to tl1e types of economic values measurecl 'intrinsic' argument in environmental conservation, tlu-ough ~vhich it is assumecl tl1at
through markets and outsicle of markets. 'natural' characteristics (wilclness) are intrinsically valuable . T!l!S Idea parallels the notion of
authenticity in the heritage fi eld, wh ich presum es tl1at some kincl of historie value is
represented by - inher ent in - some Duly ole! ancl thus authentic material (autl1entic in that it
Use value (market value) was witness to history and carries tl1e authority of tl1is witness). '!'hus, If one can prove
autl1enticity of material, historical val u e is indelibly establishecl (but d. l Iolforf 2005 , Ch. 7).
Use v~lu es are market values - the ones most easily assignecl a price. Use val u es of mater -
Ial hentage r efer to the goocls and services that flow from it that are tradable ancl priceabl e
in existing markets. For instance, aclmission fees for a historie site, tl1e cost of land, and Methodological issues and strategies
U1e wages of workers are valu es . Because they ar e exchanged in markets, these values can
be easily expressed in terms of price , and th ey are susceptibl e to economists' many analyti- It was asserted above that qu estions of val u e and valuing are not, for ilie most pan, suscep-
cal tools basecl on neoclassical theory. tible to technical solutions. Values are embedd ecl in culture ancl social relations, which are
ever in flux. Po ltica! r ealities - th e patterns of power tl1at join ami separate tl1e various
stakeholclers in the heritage- are eve r present: tl1 ey are sometimes on the surface of con-
Nonuse value (nonmarket value) servation activities; often tl1ey lurk just beneath. The practical goal in devising val~e
assessment m ethodologies, approaches, routines , anrl tools is tl1erefor e not to search lor
Nonuse values are economic nlues tl1at are not traded in o r capturecl by markets and are the single best answer( nor is it to yield obj ectivity, technical ~rec ision, ora one-size-fits-
U1 ere~ore difficult to express in terms of price. For instance, many of the qualities all technique for effective conservation planning. Ratl1er, the locus on m etl10clologies (on
descnbecl as sociOcultural values are also nonuse values. They can be classed as economic the process of generating knowledge) will bring relevant infonn.ation to b car, will lencl
values because individuals would b e willing to allocate resources (spencl money) to acquire transparency to the process , and will abet the goal of achJeVJng wicler, meanmgful partJCI-
them and 1or protect them. pation in the process .
. . The economics fi eld describes nonuse values as em anating from the public-good cual- This ection of tl1e chapter airs a number of issues regard ing m ethoclological strategies
Iti es of hentage - those qualities tl1at are ' nonrival' (consumption by one person does not for assessing hcritage val u es and goes on to discuss a number of tools tl1at are,. or could be,
preclucl e consumption by som eone el se) ancl 'nonexclu cl abl e' (once the good 1 scrvice is used for assessmen t . In a suney of these available tools, one recurnng theme IS tl1e conser-
proviclecl to anym:e, otl1ers are not exclucl ecl from consuming it). A public archaeological vation fielcl's great potential for borrowing or adapting proven value-assessment metl1ods
SI te woulcl exhibJt th ese qualities very clearly. Markets fail to provid e public goods from disciplines such as anthropology ancl economi cs.
ancl ser~Jces, ancl nonuse values therefore pose a clifficult m ethodological probl em for Befor e cl cscribing specific metl1ocls ancl tools, som e strategic issu cs uncl erlying tl1e
econom1sts. choice of m ethocl s ancl tools shoulcl be r ehear sed .
108 R A N DA L L M A S O N A S S E S S l N G V A L U E S I N C O N S E R V A T l O N P LA N N I N G 109

General issues and conditions dcrelopecl mcthoclologies ancl tools for analyzing these contexts. But an unclerstanding of
herit agc ralucs in tlle fullest sensc requircs that conservation professionals cast a wider net
Mcthodological choices for Yalue assessment must, at so1nc juncture in tl1e management and consid er m ore and difTerent contexls of conservation econom ic, cultural, ancl polit-
planning process, engage a few broad ancl fundam ental issues (Figure 7.1 ). ical. As a coroll ar y to this, conservation professionals and planners must reach out lo otl1cr
First, the value assessment process actually consists of a few discrC'te but closely fields ancl disciplines - which have already gained some exp erience in assessing such con -
relaten parts. Valu e assessment is nota simple matter of simultaneous icl entification and textual issues - ami bring more rigor to this engagem ent .
mcasurement, like taking the temperature . Assessment can be broken clown into three For instance, in approaching conservation pl anning for an archaeological sile, it is
parts: id entification, elicitation and elaboration (including exploring connections ami over- often imperativc to und erstand ami deal with the pressurcs ami opportunities presented by
laps), and ranking and prioritization. wurism cl <"velopm ent - not just the tourism activities that happen on the site but also tllc
Second, we can assume that no singl e value -assess ment method will give perfect, ,a lues thal shape decisions well befor e and w ell after tl1e actual visit. Such planning
total, or even adecuate knowledge to infonn conserYation decisions on the grouncl. Given requires an und erstanding of economic for ces , m ethod s of economic analysis, public
the varied nature of heritage values, knowl erlge about tl1em is best gain ed by aclopting a policy, cultural tensions, and bade-offs tlut often accompany to urism developm ent, as
number of quite differ ent perspectives ( ep istemologies) and, it follows, methoclologies. well as the r clationship of these factors to lraditional conservation aims ancl prin cipies.
To gauge sufficiently all heritage values of a proj ect or site and to inform conservation Moreo ver, the m ean ing of the archaeological si te to the communities living around it m ay
decisions on the grouncl, a suite of varied methocls quantitatire or cualitative, economic " el] be one of tl1e driving forces behind tl1e effort to plan and conserve. In this case, con -
or anthropological - is likely to be thc best course. A furth er challenge, addressed be low, sen 'ation professionals need to und erstancl tl1e val u es as seen by that community, which
lies in matching appropriate m ethods to al! the va1ues id entified in making a typology . suggest a whol e range of m ethodologies for articulating those values (ranging from ethno-
Third, context is one of the watchwords by which one can assure a varied, robust p er- graphic studies, to focus groups ancl interviews, to community invohement ami 'mapping'
spective on which values to assess. Context, as used her e, r efers to physical, geographical processes) .
surrounclings; to historical patterns and narratives; ancl to the social processes with dis- Fourth , severa] complications flow from tlle fact that values com e from peopl e - they
cernible impact on heritage and its conservation . Th ese includ e the cultural, social, eco- are opinions. Values com e into play on ly when they are articulated and champion ed by
nomic, and other conditions contributing to significance, as w ell as the managem ent stakeholders. But whom does one consult or ask? 1-Iow broad is tl1e net of informants ami
setting and physical surround ings of the site. H eritage sites ami obj ects must be und er - spokespeople ami experts? Where can one draw the line to limil the number of voices so
stood in relation to their contexts- in other words, holistically. One cannot fully und er- that the cliversity of values is r epresenta ti ve anci manageabl e and not overwhelming? There
stand a site without und erstanding its contexts, which, perforce , extend b eyon d the site is no universal solution to this dilemma, but neither does one have only intuition to
itself both literally ami conceptual! y. follow. These cuestions are addressed by constituency anal ysis ancl tl1e ethnographic
Conservation professionals have traditionally been very skilled in looking at certain methocls described be low. Another complication r elates to how one asks the qu estions
contex ts of hedtage - r elating to physical deterioration, environm ental conclitions, and or, in the term s laid out above, how cloes one elicit valu es? As Theresa Satterfield 's
other physical factors; or to art histori cal narratives and aesthetic canons - and have resea.rch shows, asking for num erical r es ponses ancl narrative r esponses to value-elicitation
questions yields somewhat cliffer ent sets of values (Satterfield 2002). First, one should aim
Response
for a diversity of tools and forms of knowl edge (not only num erical, not only narrative);
Identification and Dcscrlption Assessments and Analysis
second, one can seek out tl1e kinds of val ues and stakeholders that usually prove most
elusive - clisadvantaged communities, spiritual val u es , a sense of place.

Quantitative and qualitative methods

Economic ami cultural modes of conceptualizing and gauging value r epresent two distinct
and somewhat incomm ensurate ways of looking at valu e - one cuantifiable ancl based on
individual preferences , tlle other resistant lo quantification and premised on co ll ective
meaning. In the main, economic values are best elicited ancl expressed by quantitative
research methods. Mathematics is, after a1l, the fundam ental language of mocl ern eco-
nomics. Converse! y, cultural val u es submit to quantification only fitfull y ami inacl ecuately .
Qualitative research methocls, ranging from narratives and analyses ~nitten by experts to
mterviews of orclinary citizens, elicit cultural values more cffectively.
Granel claims have been macle that economic m ethocls based on neoclassical th eorv
yield a comprehensive assessm ent of heritage valu es - these m ethods translate all types ;f
value, it is said, into term s of dollars by simulating markets or ass uming that markets ex ist
for them . Su ch claims are fraught with problem s, though. The best assessment of heritage
Monitor, Rcvicw, Revise values , m any agree, com es from a complem entary use of economic and culturalmethocls.
Throsby (2002) reaches tl1 is conclusion, arguing from the perspective of an economist
Figure 7. 1 Planning proccss mcthoclology. thmking about the value of cu lture and tl1e arts .
110 RA N DA L L M A S ON A S S E S S 1 N G V A L U E S 1 N C O N S E R V A T 1 O N P LA N N 1 N G lll

kinds 0 [ tools that luYe been brought up - expcrt analyses, cuantitative/ economic studies
of use and nonusc values, ethnographic assessments - are by design c1uitc broad in their
s\\eep. In each instance, the specifics of the method (tl1e surwy cuestions, the data c-ol -
Integration
lected, tl1e experts consulted) \\ould have to be designed, on a case-by-case basis, to
of respond to tl1e range of val u es associated with the project and to the personncl available to
Culrural Significancc/Va]ue Asscssmcnt Asscssments
and manage them. But it would, for instance, be sensible to imagine a planning process that
cstablishing used assessments w itl1 such components as economic impact analysis; surveys of tourists,
policy
corrtla tion
including botl1 narrative cuestions ancl quantifying methods such as a willingness-to-pay
btrwttn stud y; etlmographic stuclies centered on local communities (ethnic groups, indigenous
,____ _+-.,.. ad physica l
resou.rce.t people, recent migrants); interviews with local poltica! officials and businesspeople; anrl
Apply thorough analyses of thc historical, artistic, educ-ational, and other \'alucs of the site from
sustainability
principies and
the scholarly 1expert commLmity.
Many cul tural orher The aim of the toolbox approach is to get all relevant heritage valu es on the table,
and cconomic decision
mcthods making building tl1e fullest practicable account to inform policy and decision making. The variety
framework.s
0 [ val ues represented in the typology requires tl1e use of a variety of tools in their assess-
ment. To managc this variety of available tools in tl1e planner's toolbox, the notion of tri-
angu lation is useful. Triangulation, which requires the use of a suite of different methods
in complementary ways, should be at tl1e core of an approach to el iciting and assessing
heritage va lu cs. The underlying principi e is tl1at the layering of different, complementary
Figure 7.2 Thc cultural sign ificancc/Ya luc asscssmcnt proccss. This thrcc-part modc l of val uc pieces of information will produce a more accuralc answer tl1an wou ld the pursuit of one
asscssmcnt is a more rlctailccl rcncleri ng of thc 'Cultural sign ificancc/valuc asscssmc nt' oval or two pieces of information.
occupying thc ccntcr o thc planning proccss mcthorlology (Figure 7.1). With thc clifcrcnt Given tlleir diversity, tl1e elicitation of her itage val u es for a si te requires casting tl1is
parts o thc va luc-asscssmcnt proccss iclcntificcl, planncrs can apply a logica l sccuc ncc of tasks type of broad net by layer ing different approaches to yielcl the most robust results. In t.his
to gcncratc and co ll cct know lcclgc about valucs and use this with in thc O\"Cra ll planning vein, Denzin ami Lincoln (1994) describe the contemporary social researcher as a
proccss. bricoleur: one who patches together differ ent metl1ods to glean different sorts of know-
leclge, iteratively, opportunistically, to build the best composite answer to the question at
QuantitatiYe and qualitative rnethodologies derive liorn quite rlifferent episternolo- hancl. In the context of assessing tl1e social impacts of environm ental policies, William
gies. Both provide ways of taking sarnpl es, making proxies of com plex realities that cannot Freud enburg has suggested a somewhat more structured, systematic vcrsion of tl1e
be descr ibed in toto. The two approaches can be secn as attempts to measure the sarne triangulation-bricoleur idea. He outlines a tl1ree-part m etlwd: first, employing secondary
values, albeit frorn different perspectives, with different tools and cliscourses, ancl w ith clif- research techniques using existing, arch iva! elata (both qualitative ancl quantitative);
ferent results. The inform ation generated by both kinds of metlwd is disjunct - it is diffi- second, conducting primary r esear ch using etlmographic fieldwork technicues; anrl tl1ird,
cult, if not impossible, to measure and compare them on the same scale. Though they rnay using 'gaps ancl blinders' techniques (such as structured second -guessing, consult.ation, ami
be se en as competing paracligms, the information they genera te is often complementary. public invo lvement) botl1 to fill in the blanks of knowledge and to correct for tl1e
The particular strengths and weaknesses of cuantitative ancl qualitative approaches researchers' own biases (Freudenburg 1999).
need to be consicl cred carcfu lly. By their Yery nature, some kinds of values resist being The goal of a flexible and useful methodology for Yalue assessment has to be kept in
compar ed or scaled - spiritual values, for instance and tlms are more susceptible to the perspective of tl1e larger goal of seeking more sustainable practices and policies for
humanist, qualitative methods. The scalable results of quantitatiYe methods are more heritage conserYation. It is a truism that the same approach will not work in all places, in
easily cross-compared - thus, quantitative metlwds remain tl1e lingua franca for policy all cultural contexts, for all kincls of heritage - it must be adaptable and variable. Witl1 tl1is
makers. Quantitative methods focus on causal relationships ancl clepencl on variables iso- flexibility in mind, tlle frameworks deve loped here aim to be mean ingful for a range of
lated from tl1eir contexts . 1-lowever, as mentioned above, values and otl1er forms of stakeholders, take a broad Yi ew of valu es as motivations behind conservation, and accept
meaning are produced out of the interaction of artifacts ancl their contexts, not fr om tl1e wicl e participation as an inherent aspect of consen-ation. The nl.ethodol ogica l approach to
artifact itself. This arena is where cualitative research methocls have a parti cular strengtl1; value assessment proposed here must not o nl y be fl exible - tl1e id eas ancl approaches
they are sensitive to contextua! relationships (as opposed to causal connections) ancl are shoulcl be transferable and useful. These are among tl1e ingredients of more sustainable
therefore indispensable in studying the nature and interplay of heritage values (see Denzin conservation.
ancl Lincoln 1994; Frankfort-Nachmias ancl Nachmias 1996).

Stal<eholders and participation in value assessment


A toolbox approach
1-Iaving at one's disposal the most effec-tive metlwds for eli citing and assessing heritage
Since a full assessment of heritage \'alu es will require a cliYerse suite of methods and a flexi- valu es is important. 1-lowever, tl1e real power of a values-based approach comes tl1rough
ble approach, how does one begin to match methods to values? Can tl1e valu es in the pro- usmg th ese too ls to cultivate tl1e values as felt, conceived, and r ealized by actual groups
visional typology be matched up with specific methods? Not in a harcl -and-fast sense. T he concerned with tl1e stewardship of actual heritage sites . Engaging heritage valucs 'on the
112 RA N DA L L M A SON A S S E S SI N G V AL U E S IN CON S E R V A TI O N PLAN N l N G 113

ground' - so lo speak - requires engagement \\ith cucstions of influence, competition aies chscussed herc might make sense to us as conservation prof'essionals, what
tvpo 10 o ~ -
power, and poli:ics. One musl \'enture qu~stions such as: Who participates in heritag~ _ uld be tl1e val u e categories for outsiders? Woulcl they be different? What km el of lan -
,alue assessmentt Whosc values are co untedt Thus, who has power to shape conservation \1
~~
ancl ]Jhrasing ami communication \\oulcl most effectiYel) abet their parlicipation? In
-
outcomes? de,i.~ing and applying a typology ~or a proj c~t, these -~u.estions must be conslcl erecl. By
There are seYeral different sources of heritage valu e: community ami other culture
\\' 11a t 111 etl10ds can tl10se conservatwn xofcsswnals, olf1c1als, cleCJsJOn makers, ancl otl1er
.
groups, the market, lhe slate, c01~serva tors, other experls, property owners, ami o;dinary stakeholders at the table genera tE' knowleclge about the value assessments of those ouls1cle
Cll!zens. In assessmg values, thc snnpksl poltica! guiclcline is uyi ng, as a malter ol equity
the process? _ . _ _ . _. .
ancl accuracy, lo work loward widc participation and accounl for tl1e views of all tl1e rele- The insider/ outs1der 1d ea m ay be useful for !clcn llfymg part1c1panls m lhe prcsent.
vant valucrs. But a tJ1ird set of actors (constituencies) may also be brought into the process design -
The question of stakeholders is an essential issue in value assessmenl. The importance otential stakeholders. These could consist of groups who may in ilie future cxercise some
of stakeholders to the notion of values ami values assessmenl is clear - slakeholclers do the ~ terest in tl1e hcritage site in question - futur e gcnerations, for instance or who may
1
valuing. Thus, identifying tlw stakeholder groups ami employing methocls designecl to exist al a distance from tl1 e heritage si te (literally or metaphorically) but take some inter es t
reach ancl hear tl1em in lighl of their particular character ancl capacity are r equirecl of any in it (for cxample, tl1e 'community' of a nation's citizens). These stakeholclers, too, should
metl10dology for h eritage valu e assessment. As it is wicl<>ly believed that wiclening of the be accounted for in value assessment.
circle of stakeholders involved in a proj ect improves both tl1e process ancl the outcome,
constituency analysis ancl id entificalion of stakeholclers is an extreme!y important lask.
Addressing participation practically
Insiders and outsiders Rhetorically, we all agree on tl1e call for more participation. In princ ipie, it is wid ely
recognized that rigorous ancl meaningful participation necds to be seen as a ,aluable part of
As shorthancl for aclclressing calls for wicler participation and stakeholder involvement in tJ1e pla1ming process and integratecl into many aspects of assessment ancl planning. But it
conservation, consider the gross clistinction between insid ers and outsiders to tl1e conser- willtake real changes in professional attitudes as well as continua! testing of new , context-
valion planning ami clecision -making process. The clistinction stems from the notion tl1at appropriate metl1ods. Professionals need to be open to otl1er, nonexpert Yiews about her-
some stakeholders are 'at th e table ' wh ere values are identifiecl, assessecl, and ranked and itage values a11d decisions ancl embrace alternative ways of understanding nlue,
where decisions are mad e, whil e other legitimate stakeholders are nol presenl. negotiating differences, ancl so on.
lnsiclers are those who can participate in the process by right or might - actors with The urban planning, environm ental consel'\'ation, ancl development fields ancl
power, such as public officials, bureaucrats, policy makers, lhose who influence tl1em , ancl working witl1 each, the discipline of a11tl1ropology - have wrestlecl witl1 this issue a great
(to an extenl) conservation professionals and oilier experls invited into the process. Out- deal, and a vast amount of practica! ami intellectual work has been done on participatory
siders constitute everyone e lse witl1 a stake in tl1e heritage in qu estion but witl1 little or no issues (e.g., SanoiT 2000). Such concerns have also macle some inroacls in heritage conscr -
leverage on the process. In some instances, outsiclers are aclively excludecl from tl1e vation. Progressive examples of participation in tl1e heritage field inclucl e Australia's Burra
process; in otl1er instances, they have no knowledge of tl1e process or lack flu ency in tl1e Charter proeess, the Main Street process pioneered in the United States, and num erous
language of conservation ancl policy ancl perhaps even lack an inclination to participare. more local efforts being pursued, for instance, in Canada (Kerr 1999).
More and more frequently, efforts are m acle by both si eles lo shift outsiclers to ilie insicle. lnsid crs ancl outsiclers have to get integrated nol only in how tlwir responses to value
Outsiclers can be brought into tl1e decision -making process or else tl1ey can for ce them- elicitation are expr essed a11d recorclecl but at tl1e leve! of how they frame qu estions of
selves in - which happens often enough. value. Therefore, insicl ers ancl outsiclers should be included in tl1e composition of proj ect
Outsiclers are not simply nonprofessionals; conservation professionals, in fact, are teams ancl tlnough tl1e planning process itself (in effect, becoming insiders insteacl of out-
often outsid ers in iliat they have little access to making or shaping the most important siclers). The alternative to this kincl of effective integration of insiders ancl outsiders - gen-
decisions affecting a site. It must be noted tl1at the valu es ancl interests of outsiders ancl erating separate assessments of clifferent types of stakeholders ancl simply collecting the m
insid ers do not necessarily conflict (despite tl1e opposition impliecl in these labels). Though - would fall short of a fui! assessment of a proj ect' s heritage val u es.
th ey have a different relation to the decision-making processes, stakeholclers on both sides In terms of the metl1ocls ami planning process involvecl in this resea_ch, there are a
might very well find common ground and benefit by the same course of conservation couple of ways to address practically tl1e issue of wid er participation. First, a tl10rough
action. constituency analysis is needed to iclentify all stakeholclers: insid e ami outsicle, near and
The notion of including outsiders in conservation planning is fundamental! y a political distant, present and proj ecting into tl1e futur e. This analysis should inform composition of
issu e, a matter of power and authority. In one respect, such inclusion can be acldressed a project tea1n ancl a consu ltation process representing as ma11y cliffer ent relevanl stake-
formally by bringing outsiders into ilie client/ steering group of a project, acknowledging holder positions as possibl e . The constituency analysis shoulcl also be revisited p eriodically
outsiclers' rights to properly or use of a site, ami so on. Th e politics of participation can throughout tl1e proj ect, as new or clifferent groups may com e to light. A second measure
also be addressed in choosing m etl10clologies ami designing tl1e planning/ managem ent for ensming participation is tl1e kincl of ethnographic-economic suite of metl10dologics
process. Choosing metl10ds is not only a matter of choosing among different expert/ aca- suggested throughout, the basic purpose of which is to engage many stakeholclers in tl1e
demic cliscourses; it also emboclies a political gesture as to whose analysis, voices, ancl assessmt>nt of herilage values clriving conservation planning and managem cnt, engaging
\'alues are included in the decision-making mix. Participalion neecls to be acldressed at them with elicitation tools congruent with tl1eir 'fluencies' a11cl tl1e values th ey tend to
both levels: formal membership in the process and clesign of tl1e process. holcl dear.
The o utsicler/insicler distinction also highlights practica! problems. While tl1e values
114 RA N DA L L M A SON A S S E S S 1 N G V A L U E S 1 N C O N S E R V A T 1O N P L A N N 1 N G 115

Tools for eliciting heritage values


soiutwns.
Setha Low (2002) describes tl1 e sJecific etlmograJhic approach she anel her co i-
. . . ~
]eagues haYe used in studying ancl plannmg hent~ge projects. . , . .
I-Iow can the views of the many parties with a stake in a heritage site b e searched out, V The tools Low ancl others ha ve employed mclude mterv1ews, !ocus g1 oups, mappmg
s a~ d structured observation techniques (Low 1981; Mcl-Iarg 1992). These eclec-
articulatecl, ancl brought to the table? exerCise ' ' 1 . .
. b t t1uctured ethnoO"raiJhic methocls have been adapted to hentage conservatlon as cl1e
ti C U S b . tJ
rapicl etlmographic assessment procedure (REAP), a planning n~ etl1od developed' w1tl1 1e
Tools suited to cultural values U.S. National Park SerVlce (see Low 1991, 2002 anci clllS volume, -~W\v.cr.nps.gm /aael).
Like\\ise, an applied etlmographic metlwdoiogy called part1e1patory rural assessment
The following general methodologies are offerecl as a spectrum of basic approaches , not (PRA) is often used inthe public health and development fields _(particulariy i_n agricultura!,
specific to any one arena but, rather, applied in anthropology, archaeology, geography, deYelopment efforts m less-cleveloped countnes). PRA cons1sts of a_ fl ex1 bl e menu ol
sociology, city plam1ing/ urbanism, and various hybrid fielels. Each one is newly useel in her- etlmographic anci public-involvement techniques aimecl at unclerstai1clmg the value~ ancl
itage value assessment ancl has potential use for assessing values in conservation planning. knowleclge tl1at local populations - traclitional cultures and nonhterate groups 111 pa:ticular
_ wish to sustain as cl1ey encounter Western, nongovernmental orgamzatwn efforts to
modernize ami eleveiop their economies. PRA not only aims to glean knowleclge about the
Expert analysis (textual/iconographic/formal/semiologic) values and skills of non- experts aml ilie unempowered, it also aims directly to empower
them (see W\Vw.ids.ac.uk/iels a11d www.unv.edu/unvpress/food 2; Bell ancl Morse 1999).
Detailed analysis of particular objects, things, sy1nbols, and texts is the stock-in-tJade of
experts in any academic or professional fielel. As noted above, in tl1e conservation field,
this type of analysis has historically been exemplified by the c01moisseurship judgments of Surveys and interviews
art historians, curators, and collectors.
An expert interprets values and other phenomena through theoretical screens (tacitly As mentioned above, etlmographic m eclwdologies often employ inteni ews and surveys as
making a great many epistemological assumptions) ancl interprets how tl1ey are embeddecl data collection tools. Surveys are used in myriael fields, from market research in the busi -
in their wicler contexts. Often tl1e outcome is some appraisal of the value of the object or ness world to those done to collect elata for sociological studies. Thcy can be designecl ami
phenomenon according to a scale of values interna! to the profession. Such disciplinary dis- conducted in a great many ways (to elicit simple elata or complex respo_nses, gathered in
tinctions purposeiy tend to isolate tl1e juclgments of these experts from other inputs (if person, on paper, by telephone, a11d so on). lnterviews, too,_ can be des1gned 111 a vanety
expert knowieclge is not set off from others' knowledge, it loses its value), so they work of ways - structured or unstructured, using graph1c or .vntten or recorded r esponses.
against the goal of wider participation. Who are tl1ese experts? They are cl1e professionals Jnterviews can be undertaken strategically, focusing on a few key informants, or exten-
trainecl in nearly any humanistic or professional field: historians, art historians, architects, sively, wicl1 sampies of hunclrecls. An enormous literature of applied work exists on cl1ese
anthropoiogists, geographers, ami so on. Since tl1ese analyses are inherently tl1e province tools.
of experts - analyses are de facto valuable if they are done by experts - there are few
opportunities to compare or verify cl1e judgments nucle.
Other participatory methods

Ethnography The fielel of planning / urbanism is another source of metl10ds for engaging m u! tiple stake-
holders in planning ancl management efforts. Since the 1960s, many methocls have been
Etlmography includes n1ecl10els of describing and recording cl1e characteristics of a culture . applied in many kincls of projects. Dealing witl1 clecisions on urban, social, enviromnental,
Etlmography is usually, though not necessarily, qualitative. It relies on information- infrastructural, and economic development issues, planners have employed varied means
gatllering activities such as interviews, oral histories, observation, ami recording of cl1e for understa11ding how ordinary citizens ascribe value ancl how tl1is affects clevelopment
characteristics of material culture. With a number of particular information-gatl1ering clecisions. Mecl10ds often include surveys, public meetings, focus groups, anci key-
tools at hand, ethnography seems well suited asan approach to eliciting heritage values. informant interviews; visioning, D elphi, and other group processes; mecliation anci conflict
Initially seen as a positivist methodology, etlmography has cometo focus on recogniz- resolution, in cases where a clear dispute has arisen; institutionalizing the involvement of
ing the subjectivity of the observer as well as on recording cl1e characteristics of the culture existing community groups; ami e Yen cl1e creation of nevv community groups (or capacity
tl1at is tl1e object. Many etlmographic approaches have been developed in cl1e field of building a111ong existing groups).
ancl1ropology, from participant observation studies of exotic cultures early in the twenti-
etll century to 'tl1ick description' (emphasizing cl1e embecldedness of cultu ral
practices/features in cl1eir myriad contexts, knowledge of which is built up by thick Mapping
clescription) to toda y' s very value-sensitive approaches to representing cl1e many voices
con tribu ting to culture. Piotting elata on a map or plan is one simple ancl clistinctive way of organizing information.
These types of applied social antl1ropoiogy are of particular interest to heritage con- Mapping can be simple or very complex. It is so broad anci basic a way of handling elata
servation. Indeecl, some antl1ropologists ancl designers have jointly empioyecl ethnographic that it is perhaps a stretch to call it a methodology; but in the broacl clefinition being usecl
methocls as part of lancl - and community-planning projects, syntl1esizing information about here, it cloes constitute a way of generating knowleclge.
social ancl physical contexts ancl using cl1is information to generate clesign anci planning Mapping is alreacly a basic mecl10dology in conservation, as part of the assessment of
116 RA N DA L L M A SON ASSESSING VALUES IN CONSERVATION PLANNING 117

the physical conclitions of the heritage being stucliecl. Conservation professionals, architec- Tools suited to economic values
tural anrl landscape designers, ancl planners routinely use mapping and mapped informa-
tion ( existing conclitions) as the most basic methodology for approaching any project - us tools devisecl b)' economists to assess the values of cultural heritage are
f1e va1 10 . ~
(McHarg 1992). The analytical potential of mapping techniques has been made more from those clevisecl earlier to m easure the value of env1ronmental resources as
ae1aptec1 . . . . _. .
powerful by the introduction and wicle use of clesktop geographic information systems f environm ental conservat1on cl eclsJons. Earher work by U1 e Getty Consenat1on
part o - . . 1 1l
t te and the growing cadre of cultural econom1sts has summanzed anc evaluatec t1ese
(GIS) and the digital data bases linkecl to them . GIS systems are not in themselves a met11od lnsti u ' ~ . .
of value elicitation; tl1ey are a too] for organizing and analyzing elata in tl1e service of plan- -butions to heritage valuation . Mourato ancl Mazzanti (2002) prov1cle an excell ent
conti 1 . . .
ning and management. -y of tl1is past ancl present work in the cultural econmmcs of hentage, ancl then
~m al . . . . ~
Anotl1er distinctive kincl of mapping methodology is interactive n1apping, when the rork is clearly on the cutting eclge of econmmc thmkmg about hentage values (see
Q\\11 . ~ ., .
choice and recording of information on a map is not managecl by professionals, experts, or ''
]so Masan 1999; Hutter ancl Rizzo 1997) . In l1ght of Mourato and Mazza nt1 s re\'leW
decision makers but, ratl1er, by community members or otl1er nonprofessionals. Examples ~ibid.) a very brief summary of economic tools for value assessment will do.
of interactive mapping includ e 'mental mapping,' clone as a kind of survey; community-
generated maps (such as U1e 'parish map ' process pioneered by Ule English group
Common Grouncl, which stimulates communities lo represent the identity of their place Revealed-preference methods
in innovative ways); and the informal rocks-and -dirt 'maps' includecl in some PRA models
(see Greeves 1997) (see also the 1998 Getty lnstitule Project "Mapping Local Know- Revealed -preference methocls clraw ancl analyze data from existing markets for h eritage-
ledge ," available al www .getty .edu / research / programs /public / lllk/). related goods ancl services. . .
Econom ic impact studies have becom e very popular because of the use of a qmte s1mple
methocl, ancl they often suggest clearly that investment in a heritage proj ect will yield tan-
Primary (archiva/) research and writing historical narratives gible economic gains. By measuring economic investments ancl employment g~ins clirectly
relatecl to conservation activity, ancl multiplying this on the theory that these cl1rect mvest-
The basic humanistic methodology of research, interpretation, and wntmg a narrative ments yielcl secondary gains as th ey ripple throughout the economy , impact studies
account remains one of the mosl effective to construct aml express knovdedge about identify exact returns on investment (which is to say, increases in the value of the her-
val u es. Constructing a story, basecl on primary and other research, is a particular way of itage). Impact stuclies may be useful in iclentifying some use values ancl some externalities
clocumenting ami describing social phenomena. Narratives deal with causation in a more [ heritage invest:m ents, but they are often suspect b ecause of clouble countmg and beca use
0
circumspect way than, for instance, do statistical methocls. Often the contexts ancl settings they fail to account for ilie opportunity costs of heritage investment. .
of a phenomenon are bundled into stories alongside human actors ancl institutions. Under- Hedo nic pricing methods can m easure non use h eritage values only as U1ey are r efl ecteclm
standing is gained by the unfolcling of a story through characters ancl influences, not, by related market transactions. They measure the increments in financia! value gainecl, for
contrast, through abstracting relationships among isolatecl variables. instance, from the proximity of a real esta te parcel to a particular heritage resource.
In the last few decades, the work of social historians has gained more and more influ- Travel-cost methods measure heritage values U1rough U1e proxy of travel expenclitures
ence in the heritage fiel el. Historians' work speaks most directly to the associational ( often related to cl1e use / consumption of heritage si tes or objects. By only recorcling values vvhen
termed historical) values that are a majar motivation behind conservation. they are translated into individual decisions to travel, U1ese m ethods give highly partial
accounts of heritage val u es.

Secondary literature research


Stated-preference methods
Secondary literature research perhaps goes without saying, but it shoulcl not be overlookecl
as an expeclient, strategic methoclology for quickly generating information relevant to a Stated -prefer ence m eiliods rely on U1e creation of hypothetical markets in which survey
project. lt has become especially time effective, given tl1e wiclening availability of online respondents are asked to make hypocl1etical choices, which are U1en analyzecl as value
bibliographic ancl information -search resources. judgments.
Contingent valuation methods measure total value ascribed to a heritage site by an indi -
vidual (expressecl as willingness to pay for it) but do not break clown the val u e , leaving il
Descriptive statistics undifferentiatecl. The meiliod draws information from individual appraisals ancl decisions,
in hypocl1etical markets, and does not see cl1e collective picture at al!, except by aggrega-
This silnplest of quantitative methods is wid ely usecl by the whole range of qualitative dis- tion ancl inference. This mecl10d is b eginning to be used more extensively for heritage
ciplines, signaling the virtual impossibility of really separating qualitative ancl quantitative projects, because it yielcls th e sought-after conversion of qualitative values into quantif ecl
epistemologies. One application of the simplest kind of descriptive statistics is content prices. (In U1e case of heritage, the corresponcling concept of willingness to accept com-
analysis (of, say, media coverage or interviews: how many times was aesthetic value men- pensation for loss of a res o urce can al so be relevan t.) lt should be noted U1at U1e insights
tionecl versus economic val u e?). More commonly, demographic analysis is used to charac- ancl conclusions drawn from contingent valuation stuclies of heritage resources have been
terize a population in shorthancl. Tabular data are gathered and sometimes mapped or limited to instances where they are carried out under very stringent conditions.
presented graphically, giving an effective, though often quite cursory, account of the Choice modeling is a potentially very interesting meiliocl for h eritage in U1at it does
current state of a population. break clown the specifc attributes of U1e overall value expressecl by study participants.
118 RA N DA L L M A SON ASSESSING VALUES IN CONSERVATION PLANNING 119

Therefore, it could be used to measure the 1alues (tl1e utility to indivirluals) associated undertaken in a linear l'ashion - indeecl, so me of them can ami should be done in parallel
witl1 the different characteristics of a heritage si te according<._;' for instance ' to tl1e L)'pology
<.....: ,
(Figures 7.1 and 7.2).
outlm ed aboYe. 1 hough people do respond well to tl1ese types of scenarios and compar-
tsons, the method presumes very well-informed participants, and it will not captUJe we][
tl1e intangible, difficult-to-price values (such as spiritual nlues). creating statements of significance
Economic meiliods in g~ncr~ l have gainecl a great cleal of creclibility by ( 1) presenting
data m a seemmgly obJeCltve lorm (prices), and (2) appeal ing quite directly to thc Statements ol' significance llow directly out ol' tl1c value assessments. Their function is syn-
~usiness~thinking mentality of global cl ecision makers and, increasingly, of society at large. thesizing the reasons behind all the actions one might propase for the site - conservation,
Economtc methods are used more widely and for new purposes, ami they are gaining cr ed- deYelopm ent, interpretation, and so on - ancl providing clear positions iliat would f'orm
ibility. But there rema ins a grcat clanger in relying on cuantitatiYe econm;1 ic m~ethod the basis of later decisions and evaluation. Generating a statement of significance is stan-
alone - this is a view strongly endorsed by some econom ists. The neodassical economic dard practice in consenation planning in, for instance, the United States. The prof'essional
moclel is so well refined, so tightly theorized to block out uncertainties, that it sets a tone team looks al all the varied Yalues ami assessm ents, culls and winnows f'rom tl1ese the
in which o ther 1alues seem a priori excluded (or deYalued). This situation is problematic dimensions of sign ificance and meaning, ancl articulates significance in tenns U1at 11ill be
in se1eral respects, among them that people cannot talk abo ut certain kimls of value in und erstandable to al! stakehold ers (ancl indeed, they should be unclerstanclable to the
monetary term~; cognitively, cuantitative language cl oesn't work very well, for instance, general public, lo decision makers, investors, ancl so on).
to expr ess spmtual nlues. In otl1er situations, the ability to express a commonly held The statements proposed here depart from the convention by emphasizing tl1e plural,
cualitative value in cuantitative terms has been critica! to getting proconservation ancl perhaps e ven contradictory, nature of a site' s signiflcance. The statements do not
decisions made, so the urge lo quantify remains very strong. necessarily havc to be boil ed dovvn to one or two points, nor do U1ey neecl to rellecl a
All the methocls clescriberl in this section need professional economists to direct them; single consensus or universal view about U1e site. In fact, one woulcl expect con llicting
there are many technical problems to be dealt with, ami the m ethocl s can easily be abused sta~ements of significancc to be articulated for a si te (for instance, one set of stakehold er~
if appli ed in an uninfonn ed manner. But the stated-preference methods, which include may see significance overwhelmingly in terms of profit, while other stakeholders' signifi -
extensive survey processe~, open up a lot of common ground (and potential collaboration) cance would excl ud e the possibility of profit-making activity). Thus, U1 e plural statements is
with the approaches used by anthropologists ami other social researchers. The ways that emphasized, and it signa ls U1 e intent of this stcp to id entify the main themes of sign ificance
economists create ami adjust survey instruments are basically identical to the ways that arising from tl1e nlue assessments, as interpretcd from th e per spectives of the various
anthropologists do it (an iterative process of piloting, refining, rolling out). stakeholder groups involved.
The creation of statements involves two distinct parts. First is the catalogu ing and
articulating of all aspects of site significance. In this sense the statements are unabasheclly
Integrating assessments and frameworl<s for decision mal<ing plural. These would be framed by the overall set of values ancl stakeho ld er s identified
earlier in the process . lt is important to stay away from statem ents that privilege some
Once the broa el array of val u es linked to a si te are assessecl, how do es one go forward? values over others - that is, if one decid es early on that value A is less important than
How does one connect these assessments with the difficu lt, politicizecl work of prioritiza- l'alues B ami C, thc tendency in case of conllict would be to sacrifice A for the sake oC B
tion and decision making? As with most issues r egarding pl anning processes, there is no ancl C; if the values are not ranked, more efforts are likely to be made to fincl policies that
prescription, but tl1is section outlines a series of steps necessarily conceptual, until they respect them al!. Second, one can begin to introduce som e sense of priorities by assessing
are developed in relation to particular proj ects - for building on the value assessments to ancl stating the uniqucness or importance of tl1c site's values vis-a-vis other sites in the
tackle decision-making tasks. These steps must realistically involve some integration and nation /region /world (whatever tl1e decision-making domain is) .
e ven prioritization of ilie values assessed. Suggesting how this can be done- without pre- This recognition and articulation of the relative importance to U1e values - without
scribing it - is the goal of this section. ranking categori ca lly their importance for the site - is borrowed from Pearson and Sulli-
The second part of this section describes (in broad tenns) how sustainability principies van (1995) and from Kerr (2000). They suggest at this point an assessment of' tl1e degree
could be adap_ted to provid e some frameworks for making and evaluating management or leve] of significance of each value, as seen against the universe of si te ancl values in U1e
plannmg decJsJons both wicl1in proj ects ancl across multiple si tes. decision-making domain . This is not wher e one would say that tl1e historical val u e of the
The steps are describecl conceptually, notas a rote set of tasks ami not to the leve! of site is more important than its recreational value . Rather, what is suggested is an eYalu-
dctail U1at would perforce arise fom actually adapting and exccuting them. While specify- ation of tl1e degree of importance of a particular value (unique, important, typical, etc.) of
ing the steps in great detail would need to be done in the case of a specific site, project and a site when compared with that Yalue in related sites.
tea m, that process is beyond the seo pe of this chapter.

Matching values to physical resources and site characteristics


Integrating value assessments
Management, plans, ami cl ecisions must integrate articulations of value ancl the physical
Four steps are suggested for integrating value assessments and implementing them as properties and r esources of the site. The integration has traclitionally been part of the
part of the planning process : cr eating statements of significance, matching values to analysis contributed tacitly by conservation prol'essionals , but the corresponclences
physi cal resources and site characteristics, analyzing U1l'eats ancl opportunities, and between values ancl tl1 e physical attributes of he ritage need to be mad e explicit. Wicl1out
making polici es ancl taking actions. The steps, which are discussed below, are not to be consciously evaluating U1e connections between specifi c physical aspects of heritage ancl
.lLV K A 1~ U A L L lVI A S 0 N
A S S E S S 1 N G V A L U E S 1 N C O N S E R V A T 1 O N P LA N N 1 N G 121

specific values, as well as the appropriateness of tlu: tools chosen to the values present . <al Jrocesses inescapably shaJing and usually ~governing ckcisions abo ut conserva-
the po l1ll<' ~
will be clilhcult to predict or monitor how val u es are affccted by material intencntions' ~:
, . . . . _
. . tJ 1ere an) generalizations tl1al can be made about consenatJOn decision ntakingt lt
management decisions. uon , al e ~ . . f e f . 1 . . aki .
lllere that tl1er e are some robusl prmciJles use ul wr rammg e eciSion m, ng~ m
Therefore, some sort of mapping of tl1e valucs invcsted in specific site elements and 1. argue< e

an)' num
ber of circumstances . These suogestions
tx:
take up tl1e next ancl final sect10n.
characteristics is an important reference botl1 for infonn ing decisions anrl for evaluatin
tl1eir r esults. In U1e Getty Conservation Institutc' s model planning process (Figure 7.1 )~
th1s J~atchu:g ~ccurs at the end of tl1e assessment phase, in which assessment of physica] Assessing management context
condJtwns '.s lmked With th e assessment of significance. I-Iow tl1is is achi eved practically
and m deta] can be worked out m any number of ways , in light of a specific plannin Well befare tl1c integration steps outlined in this section, an assessm ent of the manage-
project. At tl1 e least, al! types of value id entifi ecl in tl1e values assessments shoulcl b~
111ent co11 text needs Lo be unclertaken . Thi s is best uncl ertaken at least
. as
. earl 'v as tl1e phys-
'mapped' onto the site ; all the ma1 physical elem ents of ilic site coulcl be linked with spe- . onditions ancl values assessments are begun, and perhaps earher (F1gure 7. 1).
cific types of value. ca e,Hanagement conte.u refers to a number of factors iliat a!'f ect tl1e capac1ty . o r peop1e ~nd
The benefits of this step would be twofolcl : first, imply, a clear delineation of how t 1011 s to . decid e , direct ancl implem
organiza . .ent . any
. plans_ tl1at
. are fonn ulated._ llus
each of tl1e values iclen tifi ed for U1e site is expressed, embodi ecl, or othenvise r epresented includ t's pragmauc concerns such as financmg, msutuuonal aJ ch1tectures, legal and 1egula-
in ilie materials of the site (ranging in scale from artifacts to buildings to landscapes) tory frameworks, and available personnel, as w cll as pohti cal factors such as tl~ <',patterns,of
second, key 'complexes' of (material) r esources ami (immaterial) values coulcl be id enti: p\\er ancl influence known to sh~~e the mteract10ns ancl capaCiti es of thc \a JIOUs stakc-.
fe d. By iclentifying tl1ese complex es, the planning/ managem ent team is del iberately asso- hold ers in the site . The 1ssues ansmg m tl1e management context - cspec ially ~1ose o
ciating ilie valu es held witl1 r egard to the site to the actual physical resources making up power relationships - a1e cr~ cial to tl1e ultimate s ucc~ss of managemen t pl annmg and
tl1 e Site . For mstancc , the key historical value compl ex for a historie building might associ- must be dea lt witl1 as systematically andas o penly as poss1bl e.
ate the site'~ most important histo:ical events, narratives, and concepts with tl1 e arrange- The manageme nt context assessm ent tl1rough which tl1ese factors ar e docum ented ancl
m ents of bmldmgs on U1e SI te or w1U1 U1e decoration of particular room s or witl1 landscape analyzed has not been studied in cl etail, though som e version of it is pa.It of mosl manage-
elem ents such as walls or heclgerows. The most important complexes will likely be t11e ment planning processes. The review - ancl poss1bly the adaptatiOn . of some of tl1e
fo cus of conservation and managem ent interventions. methocl s for management assessment used in tl1e field s of urba.J1 plan nmg ancl business
managem ent can P'':'ovide a starting poinl for tl1c conservation field.

Analyzing threats and opportunities


Frameworl<s for decision mal<ing
Against the background of tl1e statements of significance and tlleir association witl1 particu-
lar matenal aspects of th e site, tl1e analysis shoulcl turn to the potential threats to tl1e iden- A number of decision-making processes ancl protocols a_-e available ancl wid ely used in
tified complexes of material and significance . Threats can be quite n.riecl ancl could be oilier 11elds, but none of tllem are a priori appropriate to heritage conservation or robust
~ategoriz~d, for instance, according to U1e following categori es : physical tl1reats stemming across all situations. Th er efor e, no specific cl ecision-making tools are advocatecl her e.
lrom env1ronm ental factors, from vandalism or violence, from neglect or poor manage- However, this chapte r do es suggest fram eworks for cl ecision making, es la~li shing a series
m ent, or from economically driven redevelopment; ancl social, cultural, or political forces of guid es useful for assembling information to fuel decision making and lrameworks for
tl1at produce changes in m eaning and valuing. Conservation planners shoulcl not be looking eYaluating cl ccisio ns afterwards.
only for tl1reats, hm.vever. The opportunities encountered at sites should also be brought While tl1ere are no prescriptions or r ecipes for heritage conservation decision making,
into iliis analysis, as cl ecisions to take aclvantage of opportunities (whetl1er economic, guidance for pla.Jming/ managem ent decisions (ranking, prioritizing) can be drawn from otl1er.
political, interpretive , logistical) are very likely to have an impact on tl1e nlue-material fields - in partku]a_-, environm ental conservation. Resea_ch, application, a.J1d evaluation of
complexes- som.etim es positive, sometimes negative. decision making ha ve been tl1e subj ect of considerable work in ilie envirom11ental sphere,. ~md
The professional team, by iliis juncture, should be able to identify the tl1reats. The mud1 of tllis is quite r elevant to heritage conservation decisions. The concept of sustamab1hty,
tl1reats, of course, can only be defin ed against tl1e context of the conservation/manage- in particular, has been an effective and inluential orga.J1izing principie in enviromnen.tal
m ent goals of tl1e stakehold er g:roups governing/influencing tl1e site. One stakeholcl er's decision making. Aliliough full sustainability r emains a.J1 ideal, sustainability principies have , in
tl1reat m ay be anotl1cr' s opportunity. practice, been m erged with extensive experiences in cultivating public participalion. The
result is a growing body of practicallessons clrawn lom tl1e use of sustainability principies .
The use of sustainability principi es for gu iding such compl ex decisions is tl1e state of
Making policies and taking actions ilie an in tl1e environm ental conservation fi elel. Ther e a_ e m any parallels between heritage
planning/m anagem ent cl ecisions ancl environm ental decisions: comparable compl e~iti es in
At iliis point, U1e planning process has moved on to ' response' (Figure 7. 1) . Her e ilie t11e systems ancl processes being ma.J1aged, diversity an.d incomm ensurability ol values
actions n eecl ed involve not so much integrating values but, railier , acdng upon them. The attributecl to the resources being conserved, ancl political clifficulties ancl powe r differ ences
sp ecific steps by which these actions are worked out and implem ented will vary widely among stakehold ers, to na.Jne a few .
from site to site, cl epencling more ilian anything on instilutional setup, organizational cul - A recent publi cation by severa] scholars ancl practitioners in the environm ental fielcl
tures, and ocl1 er issues raised in U1e management context assessmenl. provid es a goocl source of intelligence for acldressing the decision-making chall enges sel
In light of the plural, varied, often conflicting nature of heritage values ami in light of forth in tl1is d1apter (Sexton et al. 1999) . Having icl entified critica] issues ancl cases in
122 RA N DA L L M A SON A S S E S S 1 N G V A L U E S 1 N C O N S E R V A T 1 O N P LA N N 1 N G 123

environmental decision making, Sexton ancl collt>agucs evaluatcd statc-of-the-art decision- sustainability? Each decision can bt> evalualed (informally, or witl1 formal indicators) against
making Lools. Thc conclusion reacht>d was that tl1ere are no hard-ancl-fast rules or proce- cad1 of tl1e principies. The same tests can be applied lo the actions as they are bcmg fonnu -
clures for making effective decisions. The goal of fostcring integrated decision making lated. In this way, tl1e sustainability principies play U1e role of guidelinPs .
r t>q uircs a lot of expt>rimt>ntation and improvisation. The authors offcred the following The fact that suslainability principies art> a flexible, negotiable set of standards cou ld
guidelines, clt>rived from lwenty or so yt>ars of t>xpt>rience 1-vith decision-making strategies be seen as a weakness. In U1P environmental fipld, a distinclion is made betwt>en 'slrong'
in tht> t>nvironmcntal consenation field (Sexton ct al. !999: 44 7- 58): rersus 'wt>ak' sustainability in the environmental sphere. Snong suslainability insists on
immt>diate ancl total conformance to sustainability principies ancl is nol nego tiablt> - so it is
build mutual trust ami undt>rslanding t>nerally seen as infeasible (ami therefore unsustainabl e !). Weak suslainability allows
aclopl sustainabi lity as a unifying prit~~iple; ~hangt>, is flexible, and docsn't attempt to freeze things in place. These two versions of
take shared responsibility; sustainabilily parallel the notion of distinguishing 'sacrcd' versus 'tradable' heritage ancl
institutionalize public participation; the a priori privil eging of culturalvalues over t>conomic values by preservationists (or vice
continually refine ancl use clecision -making tools; r ersa by investors or policy makers). Whercas it is easy to insist on the total prolection of
collect ancl analyze important infonnation (gatl1er elata for e1aluation); things cleem ed sacred, in light of practica] considerations, this is n_ol possible, and bt>comes
use incentives to encourage innovation. tnt>re rhetoric. A more pragmatic strategy recognizcs the need for lrad e-offs and r ccog-
nizes that some heritage is in fact nadable or cotwertible to other forms of capital.
For tht> most part, the advice represented in tht>se points is not specific to environmental Sustainability principies al so recognize the moral aspect of sustainability, through
issues ancl resources ancl is readily applicable lo any other fiel el. In orcler to re too] and principies rt>garding intergenerational and intragent>rational equit~, which. ove:arch ami
rt>orient this rt>search for tlle heritage const>rvation fiel el, though, tht> notion of sustainabil- strengthen t.he scientific, economic, ancl pragmatic arguments for sustamab1bty. Tht>
ity neecls to be rt>thought in terms applicable to heritage . The following section consicl ers notion of equity, which requirt>s moral vis ion and ethical r eflection, should be closely
Ult> second of tht>se gu iddines ancl cliscusses how sustainability principies for heritage con- allied with our collective sense of professional ethics ancl purpose. These ideas could,
servation might be approachecl. (Set> also Clark, this volume.) indeed, provide tl1t> conservation field with sometl1ing of an etllical- moral compass as it
naYigates through a period of great changt>. .
So as we see, sustainability holds great potential as a framing concept for the task of
Sustainability principies for heritage conservation integrating herilage l'alues, yet tl1 e concept needs to be cieveloped furtht>r ami applied to
spt>cific projects. As in tl1e t>Jwironmental and development applications of sustainability,
Principies of sustainable developmt>nt have provecl quite uscful, influential, ancl robust, sustainabilily indicators could be created lo bring rigor and clarity lo U1e application of
not only in t>nvironmenta l conservation ami the fostering of ecological sensitivity in the sustainabilily principies (Hart 1999; Bell ancl Morse 1999).
development field but also, increasingly, in the urban dt>velopment fteld. Sustainability has Addilional work is needecl to make the argument for using these sustainability princi -
already been proposcd as an ideal and as a guide to policy in the heritage fielcl (English pies and to describe how they can bt> used in real situations. For instance, how are th e
Ht>ritagt> 1997; US / ICOMOS 2000). David Throsby has proposed a sel of sustainability rarious sustainability criteria/tesls weighted? Are tl1ey al! equally important in a particular
principies that could form tl1e basis of a ust>ful set of guicldines and nonns for clecision project? Also, what exactly is being sustaint>d - cultural r esources themselves (buildings,
making in the const>rvation-planning model (Throsby 2001; 2002). The principies are artifacts, sites) or cultural memory ancl meaning? Answers to tl1ese qut>stions can help
built on the notion of sustainability developed in the fielcls of t>cological conservation ancl connect tl1e sustainability principies witl1 tl1e issues of heritage values ancl valuing.
economic development ami adaptecl in light of Throsby's notion of cultural capital (her- Final! y, decisions need to be continually evaluatecl and checked against tl1e original
itage resources) as analogous to natural cap ital. aims set out at th e beginning of the process. This continuous rcvisiting of the effectiveness
The nolion of sustainability accords with the principies unclerlying values- basccl con- of decisions is a key' inPTedient to the succe sful impl em.entation of planning measures ami
b ~
servation planning in that it adopts a holistic view of resources (in U1is case, cultural to tht> realization of effective management for heritage conservation.
resources) ancl their contexts ancl aligns with the goal of taking account of the wiclest range
of heritage values. It deals clirectly witll the problem of making decisions in the present but
for the very long term- essential for acknowleclging the role of hcritage as an inheritance Referentes
to be stewardecl ancl passeci on to future generations. Sustainability has also proven to be
politically resonant ( even after twenty or so years) ami practically useful beca use the prin- Bcll, S., ancl S. Morsc. 1999 . Sustainability lndicators: !llcasuring thc lmmeas urable. London:
cipies are a flexible frame of reference ratl1er than a fixed benchmark or rigid method Earthscan Publications.
(and, not surprisingly, sustainabi li ty has been criticized for th e same reason by those who Dcnzin, N., and Y. Lincoln, cds. 1994. Handbook cif Q:,wlitative Research. Thousancl Oaks,
wish for inflexible environmental stanclards). Calif., and London: Sagc Publications.
Ideally, the sustainabili ty principies will influ ence the planning moclel in severa! ways, at English Hcritagc. 1997. Sustaining the Histori e Environment: Nell' Pcrspectil'es on the Fuwre. Engli h
severa! stages. First, they constitute an id eal, which could shape the setting of project goals, Hcritagc Discussion Documcnt. London: English 1-Icritagc.
the composition of the stakeholder group, tl1e analysis of significance ancl management con- Frankfort-Nachmi as, C ., anci D. Nachmias. 1996. Resea rch Methods in rhe Social Scicnces. Fifth
texts, and tl1e evaluation of projcct outcomt>s. The principies will have most direct impact, cd. Ncw York: St. Martin's.
however, al the policy-setting stage: tlle principies would be designed to sene as tests, or Frcudcnburg, W. !999. Tools for undcrstanding thc sociocconomic and political scttings for
criteria, against which the policies (ancl thus tlle actions thal follow from them) can be cnvironmcnta l dccision making. In Dale, V. and English, M. (cds), Tools co Aid Enviran-
judged. Indiviciually andas a group it can be askecl, do nol Do these policies meet the tests of mental Decision Making. Ncw York: Springcr.
U4 R A N D A L L M A SON

Frey, B. 1997. The evaluation of cultural heritage: Somc critica! issues. In l-luttcr, M. and chapter 8
Rizzo, l. (cds), Economic Perspectil'es on Cultural Hericage, London: Macmillan.
Greeves, T. 1987. Parish Maps: Celebraring and Looking cifter l"our Place. Lonclon: Common Ground.
l-lart, M. 1999. Cuide ca Sustainable Communiry lndicacors. North Andmer, Mass.: Sustainablc
Measurcs.
l-loltorf C. 2005. From Sconehenge ca Las l'egas: Archaeolo[J)' as Popular Culture. Walnut Crcek:
AltaMira Prcss.
l-lutier, M., ancll. Rizzo, eds. 1997. Economic Perspecties on Cultural Heriwge. London: Macmillan.
Kellert, S. 1996. The l'aluc r:fLjfe: Biological Divcrsity and Human Sociery. Washington, D.C.:
Is the Past a Non-renewable Resource?
Island Prcss.
Kcrr, A. 1999. Public participation in cu ltural res o urce managcmcnt: A Canadian pcrspectivc.
Draft rnanuscript, March 3 1. Cornelius J. Holtorf
Kcrr, 1. 2000. Conservacion Plan: A Cuide to the Prcparation cj Conservacion Plans jor PI aces cif Euro-
pean Culwral Sign!ficance . Fifth ed. Sydncy: National Trust of Australia (NSW).
Lipe, W. 1984. Value ancl rncaning in cultural resourccs. In Clcere, 1-1. (ed), Appraaches ca the
Archaeological Herirage, 1- 11. New York: Cambridge University Prcss.
Low, S. 1981. Social scicnce methocls in landscape architecture dcsign. Landscape Planning
8:137-48 .
Low, S. 2002. Assessment of Cultural Values in Heritage Conservation. In de la Torre, M.
(ed), Assessing the Values ifCultural Heritage, 31-49. Rescarch Report. Los Angeles: The
Getty Conservation lnstitute.
Mcl-larg, l. [1967]1992. Designwith Nawre. Reprint, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Marguis-Kylc, P., and M. Walker. 1992. Thc !llustrated Burra Charter. Sydney: Austra lia Archaeological heritage management of our times is normally based on four key tenets:
<.0 ~

ICOMOS / Australian Heritage Commission.


Mason, R., ed . 1999. Economics and Heritage Conservation. Los Angeles: Gett y Conservation Institute. Archaeological sites and objects are authentic, in other words, of true antiquity, and
Mourato, S. ancl Mazzanti, M. 2002. Economic valuation of cu ltural heritagc: el"idenee and have a distinctive aura which fakes and copies do not have. Safeguarcling this autl1en-
prospects. In de la Torre, M. (ed), Assessing the Values if Culwral Heritage, 51 - 76. ticity and the aura of the original is the rationale of many museum collections ancl
Rescarch Report. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. justification for preserving ancient si tes in the landscape. In a famous article 'Thc
Pcarson, M., and S. Sullivan. 1995. Looking cifter Heritage PI aces: The Basics if Heritage Planning jor work of art in the age of mcchanical reproduction', Walter Benjamin (1992) has
Managers, Landowners, and !ldministrators. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press. given the notion of aura some philosophical grounding.
Reigl, A. [1902]198 2. The modern cu lt of monuments: lts charactcr and its origins. Reprint, 2 Ard1aeological sites ancl objects are irreplaceable ami non-renewable, because we caJmot
trans. D. Ghirardo and K. Forstcr. Opposicions 25:21 - 51. go back into the past and remake them. Timothy Darvill arguecl accordingly tl1at:
Rolston, 1-1., Ill. 1988. Environmental Ethics: Duties ro and Values in the Natural Worlcl. Philadel-
phia: Temple Uni,ersi ty Press. the ard1aeological resowce is finite in tl1e sense that only so many examples of
Sanoff, 1-1 . 2000. Commun iry Participation Methods in Design and Planning. New York: 1ohn Wiley aJ1)' defined class of monument were ever created . . .. The archaeological
& Sons.
resource is non-renewable in that ... once a monwnent or si te is lost it CaJmot
Satterfield, T. 2002 . Numbness and sensitivity in the el icitation of environmenta l va lues. In de be recreated ... Reconstructed archaeological remains lack authenticit;r.
la Torre, M. (ed), Assessing the Values if Cultural Heritaf!e, 77- 99. Research Re port. Los (Danill 199 3: 6)
Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute .
Serageldin, l., andA. D. Steer. 1994 . Valuing the Environment: Proceedings cjthe First Annual 3 In the modern W estern world, arcl1aeological si tes and objects are in danger of
lnternational Cor:ference on Environmentally Sustainable De'elopment Held at the World Bank. being destroyecl by forces such as changes in ground-water levcls, deep ploughing,
Washington, D.C.: World Bank. wars, industrial and housing development ancl the antiquiti es trade. It has become a
Sexton, K., et al., eds. 1999. Berter Environmental Decisions: Strategicsjor Covernments, Businesses, clich to la~n ent the loss of ancient sites ancl objects in the moclern Western world in
and Communitics . Washington, D.C.: Island Press. much tl1e same way as we do the continuous reduction of the tropical rain forests
Tainter, 1., ancl J. Lucas . 1983. Epistemo logy of the significance concept. American Anciquiry ancl the gradual decline of remaining oil reserves (cf. Lomborg 2001 ). David Lowen -
48(4):707-19.
thal reckonecl ( 1985: 396) that 'this generation has ... destroyed more of prehistory
Throsby, D. 200I. Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. than was previously k:nown to exist.' As a conscquence, rescue archaeology aml the
Throsby, D. 2002. Cultural capital and sustainability concepts in the economics of cultura l preservation of ancient si tes ha ve become the orcler of the da y.
heritage. In de la Torre, M. (ed), Assessing the l'alues ifCultural Heritage, 77-99. Research 4 Professional archaeologists save archaeological sites and objects from further
Report. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation ln stitute. destruction on behalf of future generations who are expected to be grateful tl1at they
Tomlan, M., ed. 1998 . Preservation if What, jor Whom?: !1 Cricical Loo k at Historical Sign!Jicance. too can appreciate these sites and objects, ancl thus thc past. The UNESCO World
Ithaca, N. Y.: National Council for Preservation Edueation. Heritage Centre, for example, writes about its task: