COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED REPRODUCED CULTURE: OUR SECONDOR NATURE • 1

Cultural Heritage and the Challenge of Sustainability

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED REPRODUCED CULTURE: OUR SECOND OR NATURE • 3

Diane Barthel-Bouchier

Cultural

HERITAGE

SUSTAINABILITY

and the Challenge of

Walnut Creek CAlifornia

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED

#400 Walnut Creek. or transmitted in any form or by any means.LCoastPress. Title. 5. All rights reserved. Inc.  Cultural property—Environmental aspects. 6.       p. 1630 North Main Street. Diane L.5.b33 2012  363. stored in a retrieval system.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 4 • CHAPTER ONE Left Coast Press. 4. paper) — isbn 978-1-61132-238-5 (pbk.  World heritage areas—Environmental aspects.  Heritage tourism. without the prior permission of the publisher.  I. 1949 Cultural heritage and the challenge of sustainability / Diane Barthel-Bouchier.6’9--dc23                                                            2012020774 Printed in the United States of America ∞ ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials.com Copyright © 2013 by Left Coast Press. mechanical.  g140. CA 94596 http://www. 3. No part of this publication may be reproduced. isbn 978-1-61132-237-8 (hardback : alk.  Sustainable tourism.  Cultural landscapes. recording.48–1992. electronic. cm. paper) — isbn 978-1-61132-239-2 (institutional eBook) — isbn 978-1-61132-678-9 (consumer eBook)  1. : alk. 2. Inc. ansi/niso z39. isbn 978-1-61132-237-8 hardback isbn 978-1-61132-238-5 paperback isbn 978-1-61132-239-2 institutional eBook isbn 978-1-61132-678-9 consumer eBook  Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Barthel-Bouchier.. photocopying.  Includes bibliographical references and index. or otherwise. Cover design by Jane Burton COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED .  Sustainability.

Deforestation.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED REPRODUCED CULTURE: OUR SECOND OR NATURE • 5 CONTENTS Acknowledgments Chapter One Culture: Our Second Nature 7 Chapter two Is Heritage a Human Right? Chapter three 27 Fighting Climate Change and Achieving Sustainability: Organizational Processes of Mission Change 53 Chapter four Global Cities and Historic Towns: Rising Waters. Threatened Treasures 79 Chapter five The Loss of Cultural Landscapes: Desertification. and Polar Melting 103 Chapter six Heritage and Energy: The Interaction of Coercive and Normative Pressures Chapter seven 129 Cultural Tourism and the Discourse of Sustainability 153 Chapter eight Conclusion: The Future of Heritage 177 References 197 Index 223 235 About the Author COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED .

such errors as remain are mine. Walsh. and I am very grateful to her for her efficiency and overall professionalism. my editor at Left Coast Press. Putman and Willem Derde for the kind invitation to serve as a plenary speaker for the ENAME Center Conference on Climates of Conservation. Ned Kaufman. and Haiming Yan. Adrien Perez Melgos. either read chapters of the manuscript or otherwise helped me think through some of the issues involved. with myself and Professors Flesler and Perez Melgos as speakers. COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . Ireland. He shared the travels and the travails. Research conventions prevent me from mentioning them all by name. Several Stony Brook colleagues. Daniel Levy. Volker Kirchberg. in 2010. Victor Roudometof. Daniela Flesler.” providing critique and encouragement. and Michael J. I am also grateful to Ann Kaplan. Neil Silberman. and the late Donny George Youkhanna. I also benefitted from the advice of Michelle Berensfeld. would not have been possible without a sabbatical and subsequent research leave granted by Stony Brook University. and served as my “in-house editor. notably Crystal Fleming. This research. The book is dedicated to him. the Director of the Institute. presented in association with Stony Brook’s Humanities Institute. I would also like to thank Neil Silberman and Pamela Jerome for inviting me to participate in the Scientific Symposium of the ICOMOS Advisory Committee meeting in Dublin. and J. It was a pleasure to work with Jennifer Collier. Ian Roxborough. David Bouchier. Sacha Kagan. as did the students in Peter Manning’s Mellon Seminar. My greatest debt is to my husband. L. John Shandra. My students in courses on cultural sociology and the sociology of the arts served as an important sounding board. This list would include Gustavo Araoz. which involved considerable travel. I can and would like to thank those people who were instrumental in putting me in touch with others.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 6 • CHAPTER ONE Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge all those heritage managers and professionals who took time from their busy schedules to share their views and answer my questions. K. However. for sponsoring a colloquium dedicated to heritage and tourism.

plastic utensils. There’s irony to be found in the fact that well-heeled delegates. “all this garbage. easier to identify sites that should be “saved” than to convince the public that it COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . this forum distributed the usual conference souvenir trinkets and relied on the usual seemingly endless supplies of paper napkins. Run by a professional conference organizer. Yet the very expansion of the heritage field created its own problems. It was easier to set up academic programs in historic preservation than to find well-paying positions for all the graduates. the definition was further expanded to encompass not just tangible heritage but also intangible cultural practices. Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) conventions and declarations. disproportionately drawn from distant Europe and North America. As cultural heritage developed as an organizational field in the postwar period. including the impressive Venetian Resort Hotel—a simulacrum of the original World Heritage site of Venice. it derived legitimacy from the idea that cultural heritage was a human right among other human rights. This human right to heritage became embedded in a number of United Nations Educational. Macao was an appropriate location. In time. and bags. It served to justify the classic tasks associated with the conservation of heritage structures and sites. added to carbon emissions through their long-distance flights in order to discuss climate change and to forge a common commitment to sustainability. cups. In brief. Or.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED REPRODUCED CULTURE: OUR SECOND OR NATURE • 7 Chapter One Culture: Our Second Nature I n the spring of 2008 heritage conservationists from around the world gathered in the peninsular city of Macao to discuss the global ecological crisis. and to expand the definition of heritage to include not just sites but whole landscapes. insofar as its historic center has achieved World Heritage status. such as the right to worship freely or the right not to be tortured. it was easier to name sites to a UNESCO World Heritage List than to convince national governments to provide the necessary funds to look after all the sites on the list.” The contradictions between the stated purpose of the conference and its actual environmental impact were all too apparent. But it is better known for its casinos. as one disgruntled conference attendee put it.

In this book I discuss how heritage organizations have responded to these challenges. Expedia. I focus in particular on how the theme of sustainability has become an increasingly important consideration in the conservation of historic sites. and Royal Caribbean cruises. but pragmatic experts who could contribute scientific solutions to global problems of climate change and unsustainable social practices.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 8 • CHAPTER ONE was their human right not simply to save the site. Heritage conservationists. The funds provided by these major corporations shored up many a heritage project and provided career opportunities for many graduates of heritage conservation programs. well aware of the problem. To some extent this new emphasis was forced on heritage organizations by governments who viewed historic structures as inherently wasteful of resources and energy inefficient. as many heritage professionals felt they did not receive recognition commensurate with their contributions when compared. not only because of material considerations stemming from the tasks associated with their work—the very real threats to historic sites and landscapes—but also in response to the above-mentioned tensions relating to government and public support and to professional status. for example. heritage professionals moved from critiquing tourism’s impact on cultural sites to the eager embrace of tourism through the formation of partnerships with travel-oriented corporations such as American Express. Heritage proponents have created a discourse that views cultural heritage as contributing in significant ways to broader efforts to create sustainable societies. although the new focus on sustainability solved some problems it created others. These challenges added to an underlying sentiment of status inconsistency. Over the course of the late twentieth century. as contradictions emerged between this focus and the concurrent alignment of the heritage professionals and managers with tourism and development interests. In large measure. have attempted to COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . the mission of sustainability was freely chosen by heritage conservationists. or Latin America. Cultural heritage organizations and agencies had already significantly deviated from their classic mission of heritage conservation by altering their relationship with the tourism industry and by adopting heritage tourism as a major part of their activities. to their counterparts active in nature conservation. but to pay for the privilege. This new mission was meant to convince decision makers and publics that heritage conservationists were not “woolly-headed idealists” interested only in art and history. Asia. however. However. as when tourists from Europe or North America board planes to vacation in Africa. It is nonetheless well recognized that global tourism is contributing to climate change and resource depletion. and landscapes. monuments.

We live in what has been called a “world risk society” where the discourses surrounding possible global catastrophes differ from those relating to earlier. This argument holds that. the underlying question of what the role of heritage conservation should be concerns us all. urban planning. Heritage professionals would prefer that we see cultural heritage embedded not simply in old objects and practices but rather as living history incorporating social processes of both continuity and change.3 It is not simply a question of the survival of “old stuff ” and “old ways. Proponents of this latter view hold that any definition of sustainability must extend to cover issues of social justice. and public policy. so too do political tensions and a sense that heritage conservationists have not yet decided exactly how conservation of the past can contribute fully to a sustainable future. chemistry. in today’s world. material science. The heritage professionals and others active in what I call the “global heritage community” have positioned themselves at the cutting edge of questions about how much the culture of the past will form part of a future increasingly subject to destructive environmental forces.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED REPRODUCED CULTURE: OUR SECOND OR NATURE • 9 resolve such contradictions by promoting the concept of sustainable tourism.4 The challenge facing heritage COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . archaeology. Viewed more broadly. The analysis contained in this volume is thus significant both for what it reveals about the current state of heritage conservation and for its implications for other organizational fields embarking upon programs of mission change. social inequality is itself unsustainable. Yet. as the physical evidence of the costs of tourism and development to both the historic and the physical environment grows. including recognition of the claims of disadvantaged populations. law. more specific and localized forms of risk.2 The global heritage community draws on forms of expertise associated with a range of professions. By the term global heritage community I mean to include those who form part of a professional community dedicated to the values associated with a cosmopolitan approach to heritage conservation. cultural objects and ways of life to which each of us respond with varying degrees of attachment. Some people prefer a relatively narrow definition that emphasizes the importance of living within the limits of our natural resources. The question then becomes whether and in what ways this living history can contribute to the creation of more sustainable societies.” that is. among others.1. This involves an understanding not simply of the work of heritage professionals but of the definition and scope of sustainability. Others believe the problem is not simply one of the levels of natural resources available but of their distribution. including architecture. however constituted and defined. history.

or Tokyo because of the risk of flooding. and in some cases. rehabilitation. may be unwilling to accept the price tag for their continued conservation. Although damage to the tangible heritage represented by physical sites is usually visible to the naked eye. representations [and] expressions” but also livelihoods and group survival. built heritage is of special interest because of the significant problems it presents.10 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . UNESCO defines intangible cultural heritage as “the practices. faced with responding to a series of environmental crises. sites such as Machu Picchu. artifacts and cultural spaces associated therewith—that communities. few people want to contemplate moving whole cities like Amsterdam. Although a multinational effort in the 1960s and early 1970s did succeed in moving the Nubian temples when the Aswan Dam threatened to flood their site. Within the context of adapting cultural forms to environmental constraints. representations. and Chartres Cathedral are all exposed to the elemental forces of nature and are all highly susceptible to damage. I argue. they must also decide whether to commit themselves to activities that contribute to possible solutions at the risk of straying further from their classic tasks of restoration. among others. Philadelphia’s Independence Hall. expressions. The threats are even greater for earthen architecture or fragile archaeological sites.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 10 • CHAPTER ONE conservationists in these first decades of the twenty-first century is thus to decide how to position themselves vis-à-vis the debate on sustainability. Third.8 that globalization’s impacts on intangible heritage are varied and complex (a subject to be treated in more depth later in this book). Governments. groups. objects.9 which threaten not just “practices.6 intangible heritage is also threatened. and that a more direct impact on communities is that made by environmental pressures. individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. necessitates a reconsideration of the field’s historic development and a reevaluation of its public service mission or missions.5 the conservation of cultural heritage may be entering an equally dramatic period of contraction and loss. First. after a half century of dramatic expansion. A second set of problems concerns the relative immobility of built architecture. knowledge. Thus. and interpretation. when compared to other cultural forms and artifacts. New York. Much of the cultural significance of a structure is linked to its physical site and therefore to the social groups and/or nations who value it for its role in their history and in their lives. This transition. and then for their continued maintenance and interpretation to the public. as others have. maintenance. skills—as well as the instruments. many sites require vast sums for their initial stabilization and/or reconstruction.7 Whereas UNESCO sees the major threat to intangible heritage as coming from globalization. I would argue.

and social institutions: in short. Anthropological critics saw it as a holistic. In response to the racism inherent in this widespread assumption. But by the 1970s and 1980s. anthropologists active in the early twentieth century developed an alternative definition. Ironically.12 In the nineteenth century a nation’s culture was seen as comprising its highest artistic and intellectual achievements: what Matthew Arnold called “the best that has been thought and said.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED CULTURE: OUR SECOND NATURE • 11 To engage fully with these issues. everything that is socially learned rather than biologically inherited. Yet since it would be hard to imagine any society without culture. Culture was seen as an integral part of everyday practice as well as providing much of the form and content of social rituals. they. their counterparts in anthropology were questioning whether it served any analytic purpose whatsoever. HERITAGE AND CULTURE Nietzsche argued. This definition meant that all societies had cultures and that these cultures must be studied on their own terms rather than viewed through the ethnocentric prism of Western values. even as younger sociologists were rediscovering and redefining the culture concept. looked for other ways to define culture and to study cultures. They turned to the analysis of discourse and to examine the tensions between global and local cultures.”13 It was largely taken for granted that culture was the elevated product of rational thought. and of how nature is both natural and cultural. the study of culture took a back seat to a midcentury focus on social structures. They argued that in addition to representing grounds for consensus. a younger generation of sociologists rebelled against this restricted definition. Culture became largely limited to the idea of a dominant set of values and norms that served to create social consensus and legitimate social institutions.”11 The concept of culture has such a long and complex history as to render its definition highly problematic. “only that which has no history can be defined. In sociology.14 In both disciplines. we need first to have a better sense of what we mean by heritage and culture. culture could provide tools for group conflict or for individual creativity. overly generalized term that explained everything and nothing. This new definition viewed culture as the total way of life of a people. culture came to be COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . and that Western culture was superior to all other cultures. by contrast. like the sociologists. values and beliefs. encompassing their patterns of thought and behavior.

History “explores and explains pasts grown ever more opaque over time. as demonstrated by the controversies over the wearing of the burqa or the erection of minarets. that is. one in which we can learn from each other’s efforts and experiences: “In realizing how we variously affect these linked realms. and J. we learn to relish. rather it provides the context in which COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . history and heritage are linked but separate phenomena. between societies as well as individuals.”17 The phrase “welcome or not” is a key element of this definition. for it implies that heritage interpretations can be imposed by one social group on another. welcome or not. with history likely to be transformed through updating and upgrading. . They define heritage as “almost any sort of intergenerational exchange or relationship. This multifaceted quality is now an implicit part of our understanding of the concept of culture and of any discussion of particular cultures. who are neither passive receivers nor passive transmitters. The “present” does not create. rather than resent.” whereas heritage “clarifies pasts so as to infuse them with present purposes. Lowenthal’s presentation errs on the side of normalizing social conflict and social exclusion by stating simply that they are part and parcel of what is. is not the same as heritage. History. For cultural historian David Lowenthal. or over interpretations of the Holocaust or the United States’s dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The idea that heritage implies a power relationship is more evident in the work of Brian Graham. there is little toleration evident in heritage disputes today.”15 Although recognizing that conflict is endemic to heritage and that the historic representations of one social group frequently exclude other groups through a kind of selective memory. Cultures are intimately interwoven with and shaped by local and national history. as capable of creating social change. Tunbridge. These scholars go on to assert that heritage is not created through the existence of the past as an objective reality. an act of creation in which we can all participate. but rather through the present needs of people. However.”16 However. .COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 12 • CHAPTER ONE seen as something that could be analyzed in terms of its symbolic complexity and as having causal force. At the same time. Ashworth. . Lowenthal views the whole process of heritage as a creative act. culture could be a tool wielded by individuals or social groups to attain specific ends. E. G. J. our own interventions and even to tolerate those of others . they then tell us that “the present creates the heritage it requires. in the end. however.” thereby once again mystifying the human relationships of power that are contained in the present.

and numerous sites are dedicated to the depiction of slavery and other forms of oppression. the concepts of symbolic bankers and spiritual currency still have value to the extent that specific social groups are holding heritage in trust. is the evident contrast between the concept of a state of nature as originally put forward in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the concept of a “new state of nature” to describe a different way of imagining the relationship between nature and society.20 Intangible heritage includes distinctive conceptions of and perceived relationships to nature. The (old) state of nature. As Burke argued.19 What exactly these symbolic bankers held in trust—that is. and the other human vices. was a hypothetical description of what life would be like if people lived without social controls and constraints. Originally focused largely on major monuments. the chaos and violence that would result from such a state would lead people to accept the constraints necessary for a peaceful and productive existence. including oral traditions. however. heritage conservationists also added a proprietary regard for intangible values and practices. but then society inevitably introduced competition.” at the expense of other social classes or races. what sorts of things could be and were considered “heritage”—grew dramatically in scope over the course of the twentieth century. “A complex symbolism is a kind of ‘spiritual currency’—and a group of ‘bankers’ may arise who manipulate this medium of exchange to their specific benefit. To such tangible reminders of the past. and craftsmanship. Burke detected a set of motives he considered extrinsic: those based on class relations and the need for the ruling class to “ritualistically (re-)integrate the disparate world. performing arts. For others. envy.”18 Although worker history is now included as part of industrial heritage. many of which include furthering group advantage. Jean-Jacques Rousseau first and foremost. as it were. For some. knowledge practices. rituals and festivities. this is a vast topic that extends far beyond what can be discussed here. Kenneth Burke was more to the point when he turned his critical attention to what he called society’s “symbolic bankers. as elaborated by a number of leading Enlightenment theorists.21 What does concern us. who lack either “appropriate” perspective or professional training or both.” Among different attitudes toward history. heritage came to encompass a wide range of sites and cultural landscapes. notably Thomas Hobbes. COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . Different ethnic cultures have woven nature into a complex web of symbolism. people in a state of nature lived in peaceful coexistence. for the benefit of others.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED CULTURE: OUR SECOND NATURE • 13 real people use heritage for a wide range of social purposes.

22 However. setting in motion a negative spiral of social and environmental interaction. According to Welzer. as its proponents like to say. As climate change and resource depletion make whole areas of the globe uninhabitable.23 In this context. then this is something with which they must be concerned. offered profound insights into the “nature of nature. The term “human exemptionalism” has been used to describe the deep cultural belief from the Industrial Revolution onward that the human species is not tied to the same natural limits and laws as other animal populations: that because of our cultural creativity and technological ingenuity we can rise above such limits. If heritage is. and/or find themselves in competition for these resources with other peoples. and loss of biodiversity create what have been called “tests” to which state and civil society must respond effectively if they are to maintain the fundamental state of social order with which Hobbes was so concerned. not about places but about people. the Middle East. the climate wars that will occur and are already occurring when populations are caught in unsustainable situations will cause further degradation of the natural environment.” Political philosophers were naturally more interested in using this abstract concept as a heuristic device on which to build their theories of state and society. For Welzer. COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . Africa. and Asia over the resource consequences of actual and proposed dams on populations downstream are only one example.24 The consequences for both natural and cultural heritage will be huge. and the triumph of humanity over nature. increasing numbers of people lack critical resources of water and food. resource exhaustion. it is now increasingly clear that nature is presenting dilemmas to which technology has difficulty responding. whether optimistic or pessimistic regarding human nature. and the existing distinction between political refugees and climate refugees will become more and more obscured. it is worth noting that German social psychologist Harald Welzer has predicted that climate wars will be the dominant form of warfare in the twenty-first century. the generation of wealth. The ongoing processes of climate change. The present conflicts occurring between nations in South America.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 14 • CHAPTER ONE Neither view. The 2010 BP oil platform explosion and subsequent massive leak in the Gulf of Mexico is one example of what can happen when interested parties assume that any problems created by the relentless exploitation of the earth’s resources can be readily countered by a technological fix. These Enlightenment theories represent one of the pillars of Western civilization: a civilization that was dedicated to the concepts of progress. population movements will increase.

Dunlap proposed an alternative to the theory of human exemptionalism. an approach that they labeled the “new ecological paradigm. environmental sociologists have increasingly turned their attention to both global and local impacts of environmental change. they nonetheless argued that humans were still ecologically interdependent with other species and both caused and were affected by various ecological feedback mechanisms. Thomas Dietz. This latter approach denied the independent importance of natural or material facts: for such constructionists everything is based on social processes of interpretation. For example.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED CULTURE: OUR SECOND NATURE • 15 ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE This research contributes to a growing body of sociological literature on environmental sustainability. and Richard York sought to change the definition of sustainability from one based primarily on national resources and economic processes to one focused on the relationship between human well-being and environmental impacts. when the National Science Foundation held a special COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . Much of this research relates to the political. environmental sociologists accepted the material reality and causal force of natural processes and events. and how these social processes interact with natural processes. many environmental sociologists found themselves taking issue with sociologists who took a radical constructionist approach. in a 2008 article. one based on understanding the relationship of humans to their natural environment. organizations. but still showed marked interest in how social groups. Environmental sociology originally emerged out of the ecological movement of the late 1960s and 1970s.26 Other sociologists have taken more of a human ecology approach. Catton and Riley E. Such work is often highly quantitative. social. it found itself in opposition to key ideas in both society and sociology. and frequently contains a specific concern with policy formation. Eugene Rosa. comparing statistics across a large number of nations. As the field developed. William R. By contrast. and economic organization of modern industrial societies. Over the past decade. Within their own disciplinary borders. and institutions went about defining situations and problems. This approach emphasizes the sociospatial dynamic of environmental changes while providing opportunities for modeling their causes and consequences.27 The extent to which environmental sociology has developed as a field was shown in 2008. In the 1970s.”25 While Catton and Dunlap believed in the power of human creativity to address many problems.

and Anita M.28 This research. sentiments. “a reflection of its needs. and moral orientation for realizing them. “a program that defines its experience. has equated collective memories with national memories. on the other. problems. in fact began many years earlier. including Pierre Nora’s impressive seven-volume collective effort. HERITAGE. Daniel Levy and Natan Sznaider argue for the existence of “cosmopolitan memories.29 Thus this analysis also contributes to a very different body of scholarship. Jamaica. MEMORY. individual beliefs. Les lieux de mémoire. fears. and judgments of the past. Yael Zerubavel’s analysis of the formation of collective memories in Israel. GLOBALITY The topic of collective memory refers to the “relations between history and commemorative symbols on the one hand and. a leading scholar of environmental organizations. and aspirations. Sometimes explicit comparisons are drawn between commemorative practices associated with different nations. other examples (among many possibilities) include Jeffrey K.” which they view as constituting “a process of ‘internal globalization’ through which global concerns become part of the COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . mentality. and provides cognitive. affective. On that occasion. It developed out of my long-running interest in how people interpret their past and how that past becomes integrated into political decision-making processes. articulates its values and goals. called for analysis of the activities of nonenvironmental organizations that have adopted climate change as part of their mission.33 In contrast to these analyses of national collective memories and forms of commemoration. Olick and Jennifer A.” and provides a model for society. which can be seen as a response to this call. and as I did in my earlier book comparing heritage conservation in the United States and Great Britain. JoAnn Carmin.32 Nora’s work explores the diverse facets of tangible and intangible heritage in France.”30 For Barry Schwartz. as Lyn Spillman does for Australia and the United States. Waters’s critique of various heritage representations in Port Royal.”31 Much of this literature. collective memory represents both a model of society. namely the sociological literature on collective memories.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 16 • CHAPTER ONE two-day workshop to which it invited 40 sociological researchers. Jordan’s examination of commemorative practices in Germany. These distinguished academics were asked to speak to the questions of what we know and what we need to know about the social dimensions of climate change.

involve the conscious. the mass media. Indeed.41 Here I argue that cosmopolitan memories are formed through the repetition of images provided by a number of social agencies. He defines repetition as “the moment of memory through which we bear forward images of the past that continue to shape our present understanding in unreflective ways. By speaking of “living traditions” and “habits of mind” that operate in unreflective ways. one of the first theorists of collective memory. Maurice Halbwachs. This distinction between repetition and recollection.40 Lowenthal also emphasizes the importance of revising as a process associated with social memories.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED CULTURE: OUR SECOND NATURE • 17 local experiences of an increasing number of people. Heritage sites provide the physical grounding for COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . among others. even as the drama assumes a particular narrative form and content in each national setting. but rather subject to the operation of cultural logics. or by mediated knowledge. advertisers. Olick and Levy provide a more subtle approach in viewing social memories as an ongoing process of negotiation through time. Hutton downplays the role of agency. media professionals.”39 These moments of memory are like “habits of mind” that are readily associated with collective memories. They argue that the Holocaust provides a drama of good and evil that has allowed it to transcend national boundaries. the interplay between repetition and recollection is of key importance in establishing the relationship between history and memory. and tourism representatives.35 Cosmopolitan memories of remarkable places can be formed either by direct knowledge. They point out that Benedict Anderson. and allows for its unintentional as well as intentional dimension.37 “makes it clear that it was precisely the now-lambasted media that produced the requisite solidarity for nation formation through a constant repetition of images and words. with memories neither totally durable nor malleable. Recollections. politicians. while of some heuristic value. whether as a local or a tourist.”38 For Patrick Hutton. which are shared by those who directly experience them. in his well-respected work on nations as imagined communities. nonetheless has the drawback of naturalizing the social processes through which social memories are formed. and historical memories. selective. by contrast. reconstruction of the past to suit the needs of the present.36 Levy and Sznaider emphasize that the fact of this mediation does not make historical memories in some sense second rate or spurious. including heritage professionals. which are mediated by education. or even hearsay.”34 Levy and Sznaider raise the questions of how transnational memories are formed and of what they consist. drew a distinction between social memories. By contrast.

generally unavailable to them in the structured life of the office. “The Parthenon. Thus both iconic nature (the polar bear. people the world over worried about the potential loss. public celebration (Times Square. and expressed their concern. and by seeing in the very diversity of sites a certain reflexive contemplation about the human condition. the Antarctic penguins) and iconic culture (the Pyramids. Indeed. Individual memories may also share a specific backdrop.45 Even so. specific sites have become a metonym for nation-states or political offices. and as such form part of the sociology of place. or protest (Tahrir Square. COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED .” They continue.43 Indeed. many of our images of nature have acquired a sacred dimension. Cosmopolitan memories associated with heritage sites help conservationists communicate the ecological risks faced by such sites.” “10 Downing Street. Saint Sophia. the shop floor. Michel or St. they are seeking an almost sacred. or the Houses of Parliament for England. for example the Arc de Triomphe appearing as the backdrop for France. as when one speaks of “the Kremlin.” Other sites provide ready associations of travel (Venice. or the mine. the Pyramids). often symbolic mode of communitas.42 Some sites become the habitual televised backdrop for news emanating from a specific nation with. If. might be less likely to evoke spiritual awe or enchantment. as Simon Schama has argued. including Sweden’s Varburg Radio Station or Chile’s Sewell Mining Town. not all socially recognized sites are equally imbued with a spiritual dimension. as tour buses pull up at the exact same spot so that tourists can photograph each other in front of Mont St. Having identified the first 12 sites in 1978. by the summer of 2011 the list had expanded to 936 sites considered to be of universal significance to humankind. When historic towns in Great Britain such as Oxford were hit by flooding. people in other nations watched the footage on television or read about it. Peter’s Basilica. Trafalgar Square). Be this as it may. “Even when people bring themselves in anonymous crowds on beaches. the same can be said of specific cultural sites.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 18 • CHAPTER ONE many such memories.” or “the White House. Borobudur.”44 Dean MacCannell develops the parallel by discussing the processes of site sacralization and ritual visitation involved in tourism. Tiananmen Square). When Mount Olympus was threatened by fire in the summer of 2007. Venice. is proposed by neither science nor critical analysis. the World Heritage List continues to grow by some 30 sites a year. in our disenchanted world.”46 But other sites on the World Heritage List. if a pilgrim is half a tourist. Notre Dame Cathedral) draw attention to widespread threats. Victor Turner and Edith Turner claim that “a tourist is half a pilgrim. As French historian Françoise Choay writes. and Chartres recall the enchantment of a quest that.

I continued interviews and participant and nonparticipant observation at conferences until the information became simple reinforcement of information already gathered. in one way or another. In other cases I worked through a growing list of contacts. Each interview was tailored to the particular expertise of the individual and allowed opportunities for the interviewee to raise points that I had not suggested. When such personal contact was impossible because of distance or time conflicts.49 In order to remedy their relative absence from intellectual discourse.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED CULTURE: OUR SECOND NATURE • 19 Does the presence of these less awe-inspiring sites devalue the World Heritage List as a whole? Or will the listing of lesser-known cultural sites increase public awareness of cultural diversity? More importantly.”47 As Karin Knorr Cetina has pointed out. Over the course of three years I have spoken with approximately 50 representatives of heritage organizations who see themselves as engaged in facing the challenge of sustainability. how will it respond to the cutbacks threatened by governments unwilling to commit scarce resources to the conservation of historic sites and cultural landscapes? These and other questions will be addressed in the chapters that follow.48 The heritage professionals with whom this book is concerned fit this description of significant shapers whose activities often go unexamined. I also attended a dozen conferences where I spoke with delegates who presented papers pertaining to this research. asking to speak to someone who could talk to me about the organization’s mission and programs. Following usual ethnographic practice. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH Several scholars working within the sociology of knowledge and intellectuals have called for a greater attention to the role of social experts and to the forms and modes of expert intervention. and closely followed discussions at meetings and workshops. I relied on several interlocking methods. such experts exercise a form of power that remains relatively invisible. Most interviews took place in the expert’s office. to “the different ways in which knowledge and expertise can be inserted into the public sphere. that is. The typical length of an office interview was one hour. how will the global heritage community respond to the changing environment of the twenty-first century? After 50 years of dramatic expansion and development as a global organizational field. In some cases I contacted organizations directly. In order to protect the COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . compared to the more obvious power exercised by politicians or the media. interviews were conducted by telephone or email.

has more to do with the broader task of safeguarding the cultural significance of a structure or place. I have also made extensive use of secondary and primary sources on heritage conservation.”51 Not only does the task of conservation recognize the need to incorporate a certain amount of change within sites. preservation means keeping an object or structure in its original state. and thereby avoiding deterioration through maintenance and/or preventive measures. I have direct experience with the issues facing nonprofits. created by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Australia in 1979 and later revised. prevented me from being critical or from asking to what extent these organizations are effective in adapting their principles and programs to fit a changing social and physical environment. These sources range from academic analyses and monographs to newspaper articles.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 20 • CHAPTER ONE anonymity of interviewees while avoiding the awkward s/he construction. As the founder of an international arts organization. I therefore have great respect for the people who work in these organizations and their dedication to their mission. I have randomly used the pronouns he or she when presenting interview data.50 My interest in NGOs is not. present or future generations. they are concerns that this epistemic community has freely and in some cases eagerly embraced as central to its mission. solely academic. conservation seems the more appropriate term. however. Researching the processes through which history is transformed into heritage meant understanding the role and operations of the major nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). including the need to increase funding and public support. historic. Preservation is the more frequent term used within the States. with cultural significance defined as “the aesthetic. whereas conservation is more widely used elsewhere. scientific. According to a distinction found within the Burra Charter. The chapters that follow consider how thoroughly the theme of COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . it also recognizes that the cultural significance of sites varies for different social groups and in different time periods. These issues are not ones that I or others have imposed on the global heritage community. A note on terminology: throughout the discussion that follows I will favor the term heritage conservation over heritage preservation. Conservation. however.52 Thus the term conservation more aptly describes the broader issues to be discussed. Much primary material is also now available online. Such respect has not. Rather. Since I am taking a global perspective and talking about the interconnections between natural and cultural heritage. including organizational and government documents. A more substantive difference may also be drawn between the two terms. by contrast. social or spiritual value for past.

and propose that their acceptance in many corners of the globe may be more reflective what has been called “the banality of good. Cultural tourism is implicated in these all these phenomena.” I question how deeply these values are held. I review the central argument regarding the tensions between competing missions and demonstrate how it relates to the COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . Chapter 6 reveals how energy conservation has become a veritable battleground between conservationists and governments in some instances. they all reveal the difficulties involved when one moves from being concerned with the conservation of isolated sites or monuments to that of whole landscapes. deforestation. Diverse though these geographical settings may be.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED CULTURE: OUR SECOND NATURE • 21 sustainability has become integrated with the more traditional mission of heritage conservation. in Chapter 3 I look at the structure of heritage as an organizational field. I analyze exactly why the theme of sustainability proved so attractive to major nongovernmental organizations and intergovernmental entities such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe. and between conservationists and private owners or developers in others. Chapter 4 examines how historic towns and global cities are threatened by the dual phenomena of rising sea levels and incidents of river flooding.”53 Having considered the question of values. become viewed as the exotic “Other” to heritage professionals. Chapters 4 through 6 deal with the specific. and Chapter 7 traces the changing relationship between heritage professionals and the tourism industry and how a discourse of sustainability developed to try to resolve the differences between the goals of the two organizational fields. and provide a historical summary of some of their major programmatic efforts. We also see how the indigenous population. Here we see revealed how even the most technical controversies concerning energy production and use involve debates over aesthetic and social values. whether living in the Arctic or the Amazon. In Chapter 5 I move from towns and cities to examine the sustainability of whole cultural landscapes threatened by processes of desertification. especially if one is speaking not of individuals but of national governments. or polar melting. and compare that to more recent assertions that it represents not so much a universal right as a social value that is being spread by the emergence of a “World Polity. Finally. namely that it represents a basic human right. substantive threats to cultural heritage posed by climate change and unsustainable social practices. I argue that the destruction caused by some of the most dramatic weather events has resulted not simply from the forces of nature but from failures of stewardship. I begin in Chapter 2 by examining the traditional basis of legitimacy for cultural heritage. in Chapter 8.

which is available at conventions.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 22 • CHAPTER ONE current controversy within the global heritage community over its position vis-à-vis other social actors and organizational fields.” available online at unesdoc. 4 See Sacha Kagan. “The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. UK: Cambridge University Press. ed.coe. 8 See Tyler Cowen. 2 Peter M. I conclude by arguing for a commitment to sustainability broadly defined so as to include social justice. Art and Sustainability: Connecting Patterns for a Culture of Complexity (Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. and propose several reasons why heritage can and should be seen as not just responding to societal conundrums.unesco. Creative Destruction: How Globalization is Changing the World’s Cultures (Princeton: Princeton University Press. Haas. to sustain and transmit to future generations.” because some of the threats to built heritage that have been associated with climate change are not readily visible including. It may well also include people lacking in relevant expertise and interested only in local or national heritage manifestations. UK: Polity Press. For example. 6 I say “usually. 2011). int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous. within the framework of public action. 2010). An Argentinian biochemist will resemble his Norwegian counterpart more closely than he does his next-door neighbor.org/images/0018/001897/189761e. World Risk Society (Cambridge. infestations by new insect populations. “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and international Policy Coordination. 2002). A History of Architectural Conservation (Oxford. 1999). “people who value specific aspects of cultural heritage which they wish. rev. 7 UNESCO. 5 See Derek Gillman. 1999). The Idea of Cultural Heritage. and Jukka Jokilehto. UK: Elsevier. an architect in the Netherlands may well have more in common with an architect in Japan than she will with a Dutch farmer or floriculturalist. Notes 1 In proposing this concept I am drawing on the work of Anthony King. 3 Ulrich Beck. See Anthony King. The concept is embedded within the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. “Architecture.” that is. (Cambridge. King proposes the term “global professional cultures” to describe this phenomenon.” Theory. Culture & Society 7 ( June 1990): 397–411.” International Organizations 46 (1992): 3. for example. Capital and the Globalization of Culture. “Intangible Heritage and Erasure: Rethinking Cultural Preservation and Contemporary Museum COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . who describes how members of the same profession in different countries come to resemble each other more than they do other people who presumably share their national cultures. Marilena Alivizatou.” Unlike the global heritage community. but as helping to resolve them. I should also emphasize that the global heritage community differs in scope and content from what the Council of Europe has defined as “heritage communities.pdf.asp?NT=199&CM=88CL=ENG. a heritage community can be expected to include not just professionals but also amateurs.

19 Pierre Bourdieu made a similar argument when he introduced the concept of cultural capital. Relexification. Attitudes Toward History.php?pg=00002 (accessed 9/18/2012). 10 See Ben Wisner. 87. www. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict (New York: John Wiley & Sons. The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology (Cambridge. 14 See Robert Brightman. 179. and Pamela Jerome. The Combing of History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Culture. Brown. “World-Heritage Historic Urban Landscapes: Defining and Protecting Authenticity. On the general topic of history and heritage see also Margaret Macmillan. See Williams. Schmitt. Dangerous Games: The Uses and Abuses of History (New York: The Modern Library. 509–46. “Heritage Trouble: Recent Work on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Property. Keywords. Utopia & Anti-Utopia in Modern Times (Oxford.” International Journal of Cultural Property 18 (2011): 37–60.” International Journal of Cultural Property 15 (2008): 25–47. “Culture” in Bryan S. 1987). and Michael F. “An Introduction to Authenticity in Preservation. 1994). 1996). 11 Cited in Krishan Kumar. “Nature and Culture: A New World Heritage Context. Gustavo F. Ashworth. 1984). xi.” APT Bulletin 39:2-3 (2008): 33–37. “Forget Culture: Replacement. E. The Heritage Crusade. J. See also J. A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. G. See for example Paul Hawken. Power.” Cultural Anthropology 10:4 (1995). E. 16 Lowenthal. 21 See for example Shabnam Inanloo Dailoo and Frits Pannekoek. which will be discussed in Chapter 3. rev. “The Conservation of Natural and Cultural Heritage COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . Tunbridge and G. (New York: Oxford University Press. Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming (New York: Viking. 2009) and David William Cohen. Tunbridge. 9 This is not to say that environmental decline is unrelated to aspects of globalization. Transcendence. J.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12 (2005): 40–61. 111. CA: University of California Press. 17 Brian Graham. Hodder Arnold. 20 See Thomas M. See also “What is Intangible Cultural Heritage?”. “The UNESCO Concept of Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage: Its Background and Marrakchi Roots. UK: Cambridge University Press. UK: Cambridge University Press. Ashworth and J. The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History (Cambridge. 32. 2008): 95–111.” He neglected to tell us what the other contenders were.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED CULTURE: OUR SECOND NATURE • 23 Practice. 2000). Turner (ed. 15 David Lowenthal. International Social Science Journal 61: 199 (2010): 131–40. 2007). UK: Basil Blackwell. 12 Raymond Williams famously called culture “one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language. and Economy (London. 2006). “Climate Change and Cultural Diversity. 1983). 3rd Edition (Berkeley. 250. Giorgos Catsadorakis.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 14:2 (March.” APT Bulletin 39:2–3 (2008): 3–7. 1996). 18 Kenneth Burke. A Geography of Heritage.unesco.). Araoz. 13 Matthew Arnold cited in Isaac Reed and Jeffrey Alexander.org/ culture/ich/index. ed.

“Global Warming and Sociology. See also Christian Parenti. Les guerres du climat.” 1978. Dunlap. 28 JoAnn Carmin.: Sociology Program. “Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm.” Current Sociology 56:3 (2008): 445–67. and Richard York and Philip Mancus.” International Journal of Cultural Property 16 (2009): 325–39. “Governance for Achieving Urban Climate Adaptation. Amana: From Pietist Sect to American Community (Lincoln NE: University of Nebraska Press. and Knowledge in New Zealand. 2010). Thomas Dietz. Catherine Porter (Princeton. Directorate for Social.). D. City. 1975–2000. and Jeffrey Broadbent (Washington. Jr. Heather Burke and Claire Smith.” American Sociological Review 68 (2003): 279–300. 1995). 1990). National Science Foundation. “The Sociology of Unequal Exchange in Ecological Context: A Panel Study of Lower-Income Countries. 1991). Les économies de la grandeur (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. See also Steven R. “Critical Human Ecology: Historical Materialism and Natural Laws. N J : Princeton University Press. Jorgenson. On Justification: Economics of Worth. Smith (Gainesville: University Press of Florida. For an examination of the relationship of different nations to ecological resources.” Sociological Theory 27:2 (2009): 122–49. “Environmentally Efficient WellBeing: Rethinking Sustainability as the Relationship between Human Well-being and Environmental Impacts. 29 See for example my volume. “Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm. 1987) and also their 1991 volume. Eugene Rosa. and Terry Leahy..” 467–74. trans. Eugene Rosa. and Richard York. trans. 24 See Harald Welzer. see Constance LeverTracy. Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence (New York: Nation Books. ob. see Dee Mack Williams. “Discussion of Global Warming and Sociology. 25 Catton and Dunlap. Behavioral and Economic Sciences. “Representations of Nature on the Mongolian Steppe: An Investigation of Scientific Knowledge Construction.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 24 • CHAPTER ONE in Europe and the Mediterranean: A Gordian Knot?” International Journal of Heritage Studies 13:4 (2007): 308–20. Joane Nagel. Brechin. and American Sociological Association. “Footprints on the Earth: The Environmental Consequences of Modernity. Phyllis Mauch Messenger and George S. Catton.” 475–484 in the same volume. 2009). see Andrew K. Capital (Manchester: Manchester University Press. cit. “Who Owns Native Nature? Discourses of Rights to Land. 23 See Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot. May 30–31. 26 For an overview of the specific literature on global warming. ed. 27 Thomas Dietz. Landscape and Memory (New York: Vintage. Pourquoi on tue au XXIe siècle. Simon Schama. Sociological Forum 24:1 (March 2009): 22–45. ed. 2010). Reading Landscape: Country. and Riley E.” in Workshop on Sociological Perspectives on Global Climate Change.C. Bernard Lortholary (Paris: Gallimard. See also Richard York. and Simon Pugh (ed. 59–62.” in Cultural Heritage Management: A Global Perspective. 2008. 1984) and also my comparative study of conservation COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . Culture. and Thomas Dietz. 21–37. 2011). “Ostriches and Change: A Response to ‘Global Warming and Sociology. “Vestiges of Colonialism: Manifestations of the Culture/Nature Divide in Australian Heritage Management. For an analysis of conflicting attitudes toward nature.” Human Ecology Review 16 (2008): 113–22.” The American Sociologist 13(1978): 4–49.” American Anthropologist 102:3 (2000): 503–19 and Michael Goldsmith. 22 William R.

Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historic Identity (New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press. See also Jeffrey K. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso. Griswold provides a model that helps account for different national patterns of cultural reception. COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . Waters. Jordan. “Memory Unbound. Nation and Commemoration: Creating National Identities in the United States and Australia (Cambridge. Each volume had a different set of coauthors. Great Britain. American Journal of Sociology 92 (1987): 1077–1117.” 87. and Lyn Spillman. 1983). The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Culture (Oxford. See Levy and Sznaider. that the event must have significance in all national settings. See Wendy Griswold. “Collective Memory and Cultural Constraint: Holocaust Myth and Rationality in German Politics. 35 No specific claims are made. The Agonies of German Defeat. Kazuya Fukuoka. Olick. 2011). see Brad West. 2005). “Enchanting Pasts: The Role of International Civil Religious Pilgrimage in Reimagining National Collective Memory. Jennifer A.” in Mark D. Yael Zerubavel. Sociological Theory 26:3 (September 2008): 258–270.” European Journal of Social Theory 5 (2002): 87. “Memory Unbound. 1943–1949 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Anita M. UK: Oxford University Press. 1993). “The Fabrication of Meaning: Literary Interpretation in the United States. 34 Daniel Levy and Natan Sznaider. 1996). Nor is it to be misconstrued as an apologia for negationism. Jacobs and Nancy Weiss Hanrahan (eds. 37 Benedict Anderson. Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historic Identity (New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press. The Politics of Regret: On Collective Memory and Historical Responsibility (New York: Routledge. 40 Jeffrey Olick and Daniel Levy. UK: Blackwell. 1996).). Vered Vinitsky-Seroussi and Daniel Levy. In the House of the Hangman. 2005). 2007). The Collective Memory Reader (Oxford. 1997). 254. UK: Cambridge University Press. Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire (Paris: Presses Universitaires Françaises. and Sachiko Takita-Ishii.” American Sociological Review 62 (1997): 921–36. 32 This series was published between 1981 and 1992.” American Sociological Review 61 (1996): 910. 36 Maurice Halbwachs. 31 Barry Schwartz. however. History as an Art of Memory (Hanover VT: University Press of New England. 2006).COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED CULTURE: OUR SECOND NATURE • 25 themes in the United States and the United Kingdom. 30 Barry Schwartz. Olick. Also. Diane Barthel. Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 39 Patrick Hutton. “Collective Memory: Why Culture Matters. “Memory as a Cultural System: Abraham Lincoln in World War II. For an overview of the field see Jeffrey K. For how global memories can be incorporated with national memories. 2006). xx. 1995). and the West Indies. Olick. Planning the Past: Heritage Tourism and Post-Colonial Politics at Port Royal (New York: Lexington Books. 38 Levy and Sznaider.” 91. 33 Jeffrey K. 1952). Structures of Memory: Understanding Urban Change in Berlin and Beyond (Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. “Memory Unbound: The Holocaust and the Formation of Cosmopolitan Memory.

exceptions. 1976). Sharon Zukin. 20. Art and Sustainability. See also Henri Lefebvre. and Rob Shields. 53 Ulrich Beck. UK: Cambridge University Press. “Culture in Global Knowledge Societies: Knowledge Cultures and Epistemic Cultures. “Conservation versus Preservation.” in The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Culture. Landscape and Memory. 1989). trans. See also Harry Collins and Robert Evans. 1985). (Paris: Seuil. 48 Karin Knorr Cetina. UK: Blackwell. Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture: Anthropological Perspectives (New York: Columbia University Press. 1995. Duncan. Britain’s National Trust and English Heritage have received a comparably high level of attention. of course. 42 For an overview of the field. 1978).” British Journal of Sociology 51 (2000): 79–105.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 26 (1997): 399–420. COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . See Chapter 3 for more discussion of their significance. Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World (Berkeley: University of California Press. 52 This distinction reflects developments in other disciplines. 206–210. “The Role of ‘Fictions’ in the Redefinition of Mission. UK: Blackwell. 65–79. Agnew and James S. 49 There are. Consuming Places (New York: Routledge. 51 Michael Balston. Schocken. rev.” Annual Review of Sociology 26 (2000): 463–96. Ed. See Kagan. Gieryn. “From the Sociology of Intellectuals to the Sociology of Interventions. 2011. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class (New York. 2005). The Power of Place: Bringing Together Geographical and Sociological Imaginations (Boston: Unwin Hyman.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 26 • CHAPTER ONE 41 David Lowenthal. Donald Nicholson-Smith (Cambridge. “A Space for Place in Sociology. 44 Victor W.” Annual Review of Sociology 36 (2010): 117. Rethinking Expertise (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1991). ed. John Urry. see Thomas F. L’Allégorie du patrimoine. “The Cosmopolitan Perspective: The Sociology of the Second Age of Modernity. eds. 45 Dean MacCannell. Jacobs and Nancy Weiss Hanrahan (Oxford. 43 Schama. perhaps because of the extent of the Trust’s holdings and English Heritage’s pivotal and powerful role as a quasi-governmental agency whose approval is needed for many projects. 46 Françoise Choay. 1995). Mark D. Places on the Margin: Alternate Geographies of Modernity (London and New York: Routledge. 50 Diane Barthel. 185. Turner and Edith Turner.” Europa Nostra Cultural Heritage Review 1 (2003): 9–15. 47 Gil Eyal and Larissa Buchholz. John A. 1996). 1991). The Past is a Foreign Country (Cambridge. The Production of Space. 1991).. 2007).

58 Brooks. Steven. 157.. proposed dam project. 70 Athens Charter (1931). wind turbines and. 119 branding concept. 55 Binette. 105. 109. Graham. 134–35 Australian Council of National Trusts. Thailand. 159–60 building reuse. 13 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED .COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED INDEX • 223 index A Abbott. 53. Cape Adare. proposed. 183 Bourges cathedral. 59 Ashworth. Mexico. See also names of individual Asian countries Association of Preservation Technology. the. 66. 12–13 Asia. Thailand. 71–72. 182. 64 Bermuda. Pierre. 78n64 soil structure. 105. 170 Arctic Circumpolar Route. 41–43 Belvedere Strategy. 129 Borchgrevnik. 107 Adaminaby. 110 Altai Mountains. Carsten. Cyprus. 41 Argentina. Italy. 129 biodiversity. 122n18. Andrew. wind farms and. 127n62 Bourdieu. 78n64 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Council of Europe). 121n8 agrotourism. Cyprus. Hannah. 103–4. J. Kenneth. tourism and. Egypt. 163 birds. New South Wales. 142 Africa. 119. 122n20 desertification. 181–87 archaeological research funding. Kenneth. definition and study of culture. 64. 189–90 aboriginal ceremonial landscapes. 106–7 solar power. 29. 141–42 Bulgaria. 50n47 Brint. 103–4. Faith. 114 American Express. 122n10 Bamiyan Buddhas. 114. 76n46 agriculture. 115–19. 111 Alexandria. 126n61 anthropologists. 136–37 wind farm industry. risks to. Turkey. 92 Allianoi. 162 best practices. 95 Barragan house and studio. 78n64. Gustavo. 135 Avila. 149n24 Aga Khan Foundation. 117 Amazon. 38 banality of good. 143 Beck. Ulrich. 76n44. 99n13 Burke. France. 170 greenhouse gas emissions. 95 b Baltonea. 123n29 airport expansions. 71–72. 107 agricultural production decline. 28. 82. 35 Australia Aboriginal people. 66 Ayutthaya. 113. 11 APT Bulletin. destruction by Taliban. 165–66 Antarctica. 41–43 Bangkok. Michael. 131. National Trust organization. Barbara. 119 aesthetic pollution. 106 Adélie penguins. 117–18 Arendt. 77n49 Bundheemschut. G. Australia. 167 Aboriginal people of Australia. 107–8 National Trust organization. 45 BATAN project. 105 Great Barrier Reef. Michelle. 44 BP oil platform explosion. 112–14. LEED system and. 186 Akamas Peninsula. France. 99n12 Berenfeld. 104. 95 Allen. 14 Branagh. 119–20 Antarctic Treaty System and Protocols (Madrid Protocol). 28. 131 Birol. the. 106. 106 carbon tax. 131 aesthetic quality of historic structures. 70 Araoz. 114 Arctic.

20. 163 Carmin. 108 Cinque Terre. 46 as living history. 188 climate change in the Arctic. 95. UNESCO. Riccardo. 118 Inuit petition to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 36 and barriers to adaptation. 8–9 heritage professionals and theme of. 182–83 conservation. 106 global and local impacts of.. 68. 67 Climate for Culture project (European Union). 19 Cevennes and Causses region. 72n6 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage. 14 women as pioneers on. 111 efforts to fight. 162 CRATerre-EAG. 16 competition. 190 cosmopolitan memories. 15 global tourism as contributor to. 7. 120 lack of political will to take effective measures against. 109 Cedars of Lebanon. 97. Egypt. 109 CFS Venise (Le Comité française pour la sauvegarde de Venise). 15–16 Causse Méjan. 104. 89 Cambodia. ICOMOS. 78n65. 121n6 Chinguetti Mosque. 30–32 Copenhagen Climate Conference (2009). 85 change tolerance. France. 35–36 Chartres cathedral. 187–88 climate tourists. 9 and world polity. 30–31 conventions on cultural heritage conservation. 1979). 15–16 frequency of extreme weather events and. controversy over. 107–8 population movements in response to. declarations. 57 human suffering due to. 158–60 charters. 113 destruction of. Mauritania. JoAnn. 114 Canada. 29–34. 154. 129 collective memory. 179–80 heritage work materially affected by. tourism-related. and destruction of coastal villages. 78n63 Cetina. Qadisha Valley. in heritage organizational field.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 224 • INDEX Burkina Faso. 97 City of the Dead. 116–17 effect on heritage sites in urban areas. during World War II. Peter. 59 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (UN). 30 global dimension in ways of seeing. Carlo. William R. 112 Christoff. 14 coastal erosion. 116 coercive pressure on heritage organizations. Oslo. 166. 34–41 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . 39. 103 Catton. 116–17. 105. 41–42. 165 cruise ships. 90 Cassar. 18 Council of Europe. Italy. 61–64. 27–28 as human right. France. 180 cosmopolitanism. 114. 66 climate refugees. 16 Carraro. 170 climate wars. 181–87 Charter on Cultural Tourism (ICOMOS). 39. 44 China. 70. 16–18. 113 Burra Charter (ICOMOS. 174n34 Cultural Emergency Response program. 71 corporate funding for heritage conservation. 126n39 carbon costs of tourism. 112 Croatia. Cairo. 77n52. Alfredo. 35. 87. University College of London. May. 64. 36 c Calimani. 14. in Europe. 64–65. and resolutions on cultural heritage conservation. University of Grenoble. 42. 187–88 indigenous people in discussion on. 164 corporations. 109 Centre for Sustainable Heritage. 65–69 environmental sociology and. 54–55. See cultural heritage conservation Conti. 66 cultural heritage authenticity of. Karin Knorr.

178. 54–55. John. Riley E. 162–63. 104–6. 139–40 Hearth and Home project. 93 energy. UK energy efficiency of historic buildings and. 146 energy efficiency in historic structures. 144 economic sustainability. 121n4 development initiatives. 58–59 political context. Chile. India. 35. concept of. 153–56 retreat of glaciers. 66. 103. 76n44. 189 economic recession. 36 private sponsorship of. 125n45 Davenport. 185 cultural sustainability. 29 Culzean Castle. 20 moral component in early movement.S. 144 El Salvador. 122n10 dryland ecosystems. See also sustainable development Dietz. 133 Cyprus. new structures. 161–62 eastern Europe. 7. 142 earthen architecture. Green Building Council. vulnerability of. 77n49 economic development. 76n44. 180–81 culture. 62. 168–69.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED INDEX • 225 cultural heritage conservation challenges in early 21st century.” 148n9 wind farms and. 66. 15–16 e Earthcraft Historic program. 188 Eifler. heritage organizations and. 145 Egypt. 189 Dramatse Lhakhang monasteries. 180 Europa Nostra. 70. 137 energy conservation. 154 environmental sociology. and cultural heritage conservation. Paul J. 57. 163–64 Europe efforts to fight climate change and achieve sustainability. 10 contradictions in field of. 67–68 “Wind Energy and the Historic Environment. 15–16 environmental sustainability. 184–85. Mali. 110–11. 143 role of. 26n49 sustainability and. and restoration of existing housing stock. proposed. 178–79 professionalization of. Thomas. 186–87 extent of international acceptance. 177 heritage preservation vs. 112. 124n31 Easter Island.. 9 Cultural & Heritage Tourism Alliance. 138–39 Emerging Green Builders. 44 DiMaggio. climate change and. 32. protection for cultural heritage in. Scotland. 156 Djenné. 169 discourse. 108–9. 130–32 Enlightenment philosophers. Iowa. 54–55 disasters. U. 112.. 65–69. 166 Denmark. 121n6. 134 Desertec Industrial Initiative. 110–12. 153 d dam projects. 77n49 focus on sustainable tourism and development. Greek ruins of. 8. 96 deforestation threats. tourism and. 145. 105 See also names of individual European nations European Commission. 104 “Dublin Declaration” (INTO). sustainable. 61 role in world risk society. 53. Germany. 123n29 Cyrene. 146. 184–85. 95. 110. 157–60. 29. 162 grand tour compared to mass tourism. 158 cultural landscapes. 13–14. 71 Dunlap. 149n24 desertification threats to cultural heritage. 11–12. 15 Die Wies church. 162–64. 95 embodied energy of historic vs. 145 cultural tourism. 137–45. 137–45 English Heritage. 37–39 as global organizational field. 113–15 Delhi. 61–65. 57–58. 112. defined. 76n45 drought. 173n22 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . 134. 67.. 129–31.

113. 29 Hall. 65–67. 109. Robin. 118–19 flood control. 113 Global Heritage Fund. 141 greenhouse gas emissions. 13. Cuba. 109. 123n23 forestry. 186 Florence. England. 84 Forest of the Cedars of God. 76n45. Stuart. globality. 109. 66–67 Paris. in Netherlands. 169 Gardening in the Global Greenhouse project. 12–13 Grand Mosque restoration. Havana. 97–98 global climate change. 12–13 intangible. 138. 79–80. 32. impact of tourism on. See climate change global heritage community. Brian. 133–34. 109 and cultural heritage. 41. Djenné. 11–14 expansion in scope of. 76n47 leadership on sustainability. 121n8 Faro Convention (Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society). 95 extreme weather events. 80–81 flooding. 70–71. power of the. 104. 22n2. 106 f Famagusta. 143 global cities facing threat of flooding. 97. 113 France BATAN project. Illinois. 85 G8. 72n6 Georgia Trust. 69 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . 111 farming. 32–33 global South. 59 federal investment tax credits. 32 gender. and. diminishing. 77n49. 94–95 global warming. 177 as justification for ethnic conflicts and ethnocentrism. 68. 67 groundwater. 185 Cevennes and Causses region. 67. 33 efforts to safeguard Venice. 48n20. 78n63 Gibson Mill. 96 Friends of the Earth Cyprus. Cyprus. Maurice. 77n54. Johann. Republic of Ireland. 77n54 gaze. Mali. 164 Hearth and Home project. 79 threats to cultural landscapes. 155 Green Lab (NTHP). 194n37 Halbwachs. 138 extinction threats due to climate change. 184 Grafton. 121n8 Gulf of Mexico. 109. 14 Guyana. Michael. Mali. 71–72.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 226 • INDEX European Union. 65 globalization. and issues of climate change and sustainability. 46–47. 112 Great Wall of China. 185–86 Vaison la Romaine. 96 Graham. 143 Bourges and Chartres cathedrals. 9. Djenné. 79–80. See cultural heritage conservation Heritage Council. 156 Hari. 62–63. 77n54. 111 Fulbe people. 10–11. Italy. 95 h Habana Vieja. 143 heritage and culture. 65 Global Heritage Network. 189 Great Barrier Reef. 16–19 See also cultural heritage Heritage Canada Foundation. 165 Hague Convention (UN). Australia. 46 memory. 142–43 Germany. 162 Fedden. 96–98. 106. 105. 17. 148n14 Getty Conservation Institute. 70 heritage conservation. 13 implied power relationship. 145 Green Lines Institute for Sustainable Development (Portugal). 30–31 Haiti. 194n35. 188–89. protection against homogenizing forces of. 113 g Galapagos. 107–8. See climate change Goldman. Yorkshire. BP oil platform explosion. 106 Great Mosque. 44 budget for culture. Burkina Faso. 44 Green Building Rating. 84. 57 Finland.

182. 179 social activism. 53–54 sustainability interest. 18. 54–55. 130. 145 solar panels and. 32. 77n49 ICOMOS Canada. 109. 186 Historic Route 66. 20. 135–36 historic urban landscapes. 178–79. 104–5 inequality issues. 63–64 International Polar Heritage Committee. 39. 29 universalism within discourse on. destruction of. 10–11. 64. 187–89 INGOs. 182–83 heritage professionals and organizations climate change theme and. as phenomenon separate from heritage. 163–64 partnerships with protourism corporations. 43 human exemptionalism. 185 Himalayan glaciers. 70 IGOs. 153. 17. 76n45. See International nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) intangible heritage. 48n20. Green Lab and. 154 International Center for the Study of Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). expansion of. 165–66 pressure toward isomorphism. 103–4. See also World Heritage List heritage tourism. 59–61. 114 Indus Waters Treaty. 126n39 international aviation. 17 i ICCROM. 65 social activism by. 116 heteronomy. 172. 166 indigenous peoples. 32. 14–15 human loss. 163 tourism and. 167–68 heritage sites. See International Center for the Study of Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) ICOMOS. Ming Min. 13. 90 engagement with issue of climate change. 95 human rights concept of. 162 international cooperation. 166 historic structures green building movement and. 89 Hui. 181 history. 17. 7. 107. 117–19. 28. Patrick. 33 particularistic cultures and. declarations. 91–94. Canada. 179–80 development initiatives and. 157–60. 129 scientific expertise. 177 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 35–36 earthen architecture of Timbuktu. 111. 92–93 historic neighborhoods. state sovereignty and strength through. 75n32 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . 182 charters. 64–65. 66 heritage organizational field. Yukon Territory. 29 Home Again! program. tension between autonomy and. See International Government Organizations (IGOs) India. as ultimate recycling. and resolutions on cultural heritage conservation. 168–69. 105–6 Historic Green. 8. Mali. See International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) ICOMOS Bulgaria. 31. 12 Hobbes. 44. 100n27 Hutton. 7–8. 27 to cultural heritage. 115–18 objectives of. 104–5. 92–93 Hooper. 180–81 Herschel Island. 112 on ecological risks to Venice lagoon and town.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED INDEX • 227 Heritage in Peril program. 13–14 Holocaust. cosmopolitan memories and. 74–75n27. 59 Hurricane Katrina (2005). 36 change-oriented theme at Malta (2009). 164. John. 9 ties to for-profit organizations. 129 preservation of. 63–64. 138–39 retrofitting. climate change and. 167 Indonesia. Thomas. 172n5. 41–42 International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Burra Charter (1979).

106 Landrieu. 66–67. Turkey. Djenné. 120 Jordan. 162 Scientific Committee on Cultural Tourism. South Australia. See also Venice. England. Jean-Michel. 123n22 k Kalahari. Aqqaluk. Sir John. 149n31 Lifu. ICOMOS. 158–60 sustainability mission. 150n43 List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. 108–9 Jordan River. 86–87 Luang Prabang. London. 109 Lee. 93–94 Laona Foundation. 110–11 Latin America. 118. Mali. 90. 69. Laos. 184 international government organizations (IGOs). 61 low-income housing. 87 Italy. 71–72 Inuit Circumpolar Council. Italy IUCN (World Conservation Union).. 143. 75n35 j Japan. 64 Leniaud. 139. 189 Rimaiibe people. Burkina Faso. 130–31 Lake Eucumbene. 69 Irish Georgian Society. historic structure renovation for. 34–35. Washington. India. 168–69 Lynge. 116 Ireland. 122n10. 54–55. 37 Liverpool. 57. 153 King. England. 84. 115–18 International Style architecture. Saif al-Islam. Mitch. 113 as stakeholders and resource for conservation. 88 Kivalina. 72. David. 91 Low Energy Victorian House project. 56. 143 Lowenthal. 16 Life Beyond Tourism. 186 Levy. 61 LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). destruction of. 118 Lyotard. 74n27. 53 Kay. 131 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . new buildings. 130 Istanbul. Australia. 116 Kyoto Protocol. Alaska. 167 Lincoln’s Cottage. 12. D. Meun. effects of tourism. 97. 115 Les lieux de mémoire (Nora). 66. 91 Louisiana Trust for Historic Preservation. 107 l Lake District. 74n27 World Bank and. 79 Jenkins.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 228 • INDEX participation in. Sir David. 156 Lyveden New Bield. 155 life cycle analysis of existing vs. Antoinette. 55 UNESCO World Heritage Center and. 177 relationship between cultural conservation and tourism. 190 London. 58. 71–72. 120. Jean-François. 16–17 Liberia. 125n45 development interests and. 165 Kanyaka. 140 INTO (International National Trusts Organization). 185 heritage tourism and. 166 Louisiana Landmarks Society. 48n20 List of World Heritage in Danger. Ned. 108–9 Kaufman.C. 107 Karak. 134. 125n45 International Polar Heritage Committee. 34–35 international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs). Jordan. 165 impact of preservation guidelines on. 141–42 Leh. Daniel. 39. 88 Khadafi. 165 Lebanon. 44–45 local residents alliances with INGOs. Sir Simon. 126n39 Inupiat villages. 186 Italia Nostra. 69 isomorphism.

78n64 natural environment. 34–35. 166 Meyer. defined. Jean. 130 mining industry. 178 sustainability issue and. 177 Monogaga coastal forest. 123n23 memories. 157 National Historic Preservation Act (1966). 107 Musitelli. Cultural Landscape. 91–94 New Zealand. 54–55 Mouton. 20 international (INGOs). Christine. 80. 94 Make It Right Foundation. Australia. 84 Mak. 150n43 reason for founding of. Netherlands. Moahammed. 81–82 National Trust. 105. 34 mimetic processes. 112 McIntyre. 65–66. 130–32. 39 n Näkkäläjärvi. Benjamin. Netherlands. 145 Hurricane Katrina and. 157 National Council for Preservation Education. 58 National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). 64. Jean. 166 National Service for Archaeology. 132 National Trust for Scotland. Dean. 161 Matelly. 41 NEA (National Endowment for the Arts). 157 Netherlands coastal flooding (1953). 99n13 “Newer Orleans” symposium. 167 mission change. 82–84 wind farm industry. UK. 81–82. heritage attitude toward. 156 methodological approach. 131 Nauru. 57–58 National Park Service (NPS). 91 state of denial in. 94 Marrakech Task Force on Sustainable Tourism. 177 National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) campaign to fight sprawl. 126n61 Maheu. 183 Myanmar. 77n53. 167 MacCannell. 118 Nantucket Sound. 95 NGOs. 136. 114–15 moral pressures. on heritage organizations.. René. 67–69. 80 flood control. and banality of evil. Sylvie. and Built Heritage (RACM). 149n26 Moe. 143. 39. 133 National Trust organizations. 57. Juvvá Lemet-Klemetti. Susan. 92–93 LEED certification and. 7. 27 Murray Darling river basin. 18 MacDonald. 94 sustainability issues and. Louisiana. 108–11. Richard. 39 New Orleans. defined. 70. 100n27 New Guinea. 94 National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. 111 Noah’s Ark initiative (European Union). 138 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) author’s interest in. See nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) Nicosia Master Plan. 105 Mexico City. 40. 100n27 New Orleans compared to. 17 metanarratives. John W. 80–81 heritage conservation. 144–45 Green Lab. Ivory Coast. 108 Mauritania. 107 nature conservation. 134 “Newer Orleans” symposium. 55–61 Mississippi. 69 Monneti. historical.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED INDEX OR REPRODUCED • 229 m Macao conference on global ecological crisis (2008). 69–70 wind farms and. 131 Nasheed. logic of. 92 mitigation. 79. 100n34 Maldives. 164 Madrid Protocol. 167 Mediterranean basin. 19–22 Mexico. 13–14. 55–56. divisions within field. Geert. 26n49. 94–95 Nazi Germany. 125n45 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED .

7–8. Douglas. 164–67 Partners in Preservation Program. 34 See also names of specific NGOs Nora. 169 Pickens. 115 responsible tourism. American Express and.. 107. Australia. 54–55 North America. 115–16. and Built Heritage). 178–79. 167 RACM (National Service for Archaeology. 54–55. 171 concept. 92–93 “Pretoria Recommendations” (ICOMOS. 67 NPS (National Park Service). Germany. Nauru. 160 plants. 54–55 power generation. 103–4. Mediterranean basin. 169 political refugees. Netherlands. 69–71 Norway. 123n24 Olynyk. 193n23 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . 92–93 world polity theory and. 66 professional cultures.. 17 olive trees. 105 place attachments. 93 Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (UN). technological fixes vs. tourism and. 39. 91.. Eileen. 66 and rebuilding of New Orleans. 121n8 Olick. 32 resource conservation. 67 poverty. 16. cultural heritage and. 108 polar heritage. Walter W. 182 phosphate mining. 116. Thailand. See National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) o Ogallala Aquifer. 117–19. 182–83 Organization of World Heritage Cities. 109 p Paris. 151n48 reuse of old buildings and. 97. 22n1 professionalization. 185. 165–66 Passive House (Passivhaus) movement. 7. 81–82 Rapa Nui National Park. 108–9. 146 resource depletion. 92. 70. Michael. 175n39 Powell. and heritage preservation. Boone. 94–95 Phuket. and cultural disintegration. 144 Rimaiibe people. Cultural Landscape. 63 Prince Albert Foundation. 66 Prince Charles Foundation. 1998). 117 Perth. 106–7 permafrost changes. Burkina Faso. Pierre. on heritage organizations. 16 normative pressures. 2007). 66 Prince Claus Fund. 69. 178–79. 61–65. and mental health. 29 Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. 14 Portugal. 115–16 political instability. 105. 54 global. 177 heritage. 192n14 defined. 101–2n50 O’Rourke. 170–71 restoration development. 113 Risk Preparedness: A Management Manual for World Cultural Heritage (ICCROM. in response to climate change and resource depletion. 63 Roman Colosseum. 150n41 Patrimoines program. 91 Preservation Trades Network. 117 organizational fields career advancement in. 161 regime. 79 partners in preservation. 166 NTHP. 57. Michael. Jeffrey K. 136. 73n10 public opinion. 118–19 Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage (NIKU). T. 14 population movements. 183. defined. 169 poverty tourism. 136 Petzet. 130. 185 Pearson. 28 r race. 181. global. 143 Preservation Resource Center. use of term. discourse and practice.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 230 • INDEX involvement in sustainability issues.

and study of culture. 166 sustainability broadening definition of.. 67. sustainability and. 179 Scientific Committee on Cultural Tourism. 106–7. and exacerbation of flooding. Senegal. 116 Smithsonian Institution. 129–31. 88 Rykwert. 15 soils. 9 defined.S. 145 social engineering. 188 definition and scope in heritage work. 9 European efforts to achieve. heritage and. 53–54. 65 Scandinavia. 181 social justice. 13 Spring Greening. 88–89. 95. 56–58. 179–80 hope for. 86. Antarctica. Altai Mountains. Egypt. 124n40 sustainable tourism Akamas villages. 9 social memories. 64 Scythian burial mounds (kurgans). Mark’s Square. 88 s Saami people and cultural heritage. 167 Netherlands and. Lake Dalton. 172n5 urban renewal and. 166 Royal Geographical Society debate. 158–60 Scotland. 159 sustainable development. 144 Shetland Islands. See also names of individual Scandinavian nations Scarpaci. 16 science. 59–61. 117. 80. 8. 137 Saint Louis. 115–17 sea level rise. 145. 18. Simon. Barry. 93 Sri Lanka. 133 Scott’s Hut. 153 sustainable energy. 82–84 projects. Department of the Interior). 122n13 solar power. Alaska. 89 Saving Our Vanishing Heritage (GHF). 55. 39 social activism. 118 as theme in cultural heritage conservation. 187–88 inequalities in benefits and costs of tourism. as new metanarrative. 59 St. 141. 95 Seth Peterson Cottage. 68–69. Venice. 61. 133 Shishmaref. 111 connoisseurship and. 154 cultural tourism and. 111 concept promotion by heritage conservationists. loss of. 160 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . 95 Rousseau. 149n24 Sonargaon-Panam City. 135–37. 65–69 gender. 81 Schwartz. 94–95 stewardship failures. London. 66–70. 11. Marcus. London. 117 sea ice. 15 Rosetta. 178–79 Störtkuhl. Eugene. Denmark. 174–75n36 spiritual currency. Paul’s Cathedral. 145 sociology. by heritage professionals. 53–54 social class and access to water. 96 St. 72n6 heritage organizations and. 165 Schama. 105 Spain. heritage professionals and. and issues of. 190 and human suffering from climate change. 17 social sustainability. 118–19 Sahara desert. 137 sustainable farming. Joseph. ICOMOS. 169 Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Structures (U. Jean-Jacques. former. proposed solar panel construction.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED INDEX • 231 Rosa. Joseph. Bangladesh. 32 distinction between locals and occupational cosmopolitans. 35 status signaling. 156–57 impact of tourism in discourse of. 13 Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. 64 Soviet Union. 95 Samsø island. Beate. 143 as question of justice. 156 Stephen. 134 Save Venice.

116 Switzerland. 160 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). 172n5 as liberating experience vs. 153.. See United Nations (UN) UNESCO. limitations of. See United Kingdom (UK) UN. E. 61–62 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . 140 terrorist attacks.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 232 • INDEX ecological costs of. 76n45 transnational memories. 143 Lake District. Bhutan. 109 democratization of. 85 energy efficiency in historic structures. 18 in Venice. 161 European Commission and. Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Arctic. 159–60. 45 See also heritage tourism. 81 Turner. 16–17 t Taiwan. 112 Tocca da Casuria. 18 u UK. 30–31 Convention to Combat Desertification. 156–64 Svalbard. 38 Tanzania. J. 166 Scotland. Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) United Kingdom (UK) Climate Impact Program. 68. 77n54 efforts to safeguard Venice. 155–56 negative impacts on cultural heritage sites and local residents. 64. 12–13 Tung. 27. 137–38 Gibson Mill. Anthony M. 163–64 traditional building techniques. UK United Nations (UN) Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Hague Convention). 30–32 and human right to cultural heritage. 104. 169 hit-and-run. 165. 186–89 poverty and hardship as reason for. 157 tropical rainforests. 89–90 world heritage status and. upmarket. Yorkshire. 133 See also English Heritage. National Trust. 146 Tel Aviv. Mali. 134 tourism agro-. 123n26. 114 Tunbridge. 30 promotion of sustainable tourism. 78n64 Taj Mahal. Israel. 29 United Nations Educational. 170–71 rise of discourse of. 116. 154–55 disasters and. destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas. 85 Sznaider. Victor. See United Nations Educational. 87. UK. 35 Europe’s focus on. and biodiversity. 140–41 Trahigang Dzong fortress. 173n22 European IGOs and INGOs and. 16–17 Travel Industry Association. 143. 7 mission of. Italy. plague. 64 technology.. 163 cultural heritage conservation and. 169 Thailand. 162 cultural landscape reshaping by. 123n29 contributions to climate change and resource depletion. Norway. 14. 44–45 London. 116 Timbuktu. sustainable tourism tours. 174n34 inequality in benefits and costs of. tourism and. 95 thatched roofs. 175n38 process of site sacralization and ritual visitation in. 130–31 Liverpool. 118 conventions on cultural conservation. 121n4 creation of human rights regime concerned with cultural heritage. 44 Taliban. 18 Turner. Edith. 8–9. 167–70. 140–41 Thule people. Natan. 68–69. 162 individualization of responsibility for.

84–85 safeguarding efforts. 80–84. 49n38 WMF. Mark’s Square. 45 transformation of. 39 Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area. 85. 59 University College of London. 35 efforts to safeguard Venice.S. and regional workshops. 160 World Conservation Union (IUCN). 104–5 Welzer. 112. 90 competition for. 168–69 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . 59–60. 79–80. public attitudes toward. 182–83 and concept of universal ownership of sites. 45 Venice debate over. by tourist presence. 40–41 Rapa Nui National Park. 31–32 desertification threats to sites on. 86. 61–65 Scythian burial mounds. 131 National Park Service (NPS). 141–42 Hurricane Katrina. 88–89 Verrier. 84–88 St. 101n41 Nantucket Sound. 177 World Heritage Fund. 92 urban renewal. 42–43 World Heritage in Danger List. 31. 62–63 growth in. case studies. 43–47 World Heritage Alliance. 43 flooding threats to. 57. 112 World Heritage List. 136. 88 “Wind Energy and the Historic Environment” (English Heritage). Australia. 145 v Vaison la Romaine. 40 pros and cons of designation. 177 growth in. 27. 14 Wildlife Conservation Society. 88–90 flooding (1966). 79 Green Building Council. 38–39 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN. 74n27. Sweden. UNESCO. 105. 75n31 role in cultural heritage organizational field. 18–19. 147n8. 130–36. See World Monuments Fund (WMF).. UNESCO. 42–43 Tel Aviv. 84 as metaphor for failure to confront problems. 77n52 University of Florida College of Design. A. 70. UNESCO. N. within human rights and scientific discourse. 91–94. 166 New Orleans. 80. 101n41 Department of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Structures. 149n24 Wise Use movement. 170 World Heritage Center. and Planning. Louisiana.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED INDEX • 233 pilot projects. 74n27. 183 World Heritage Committee. 69. 1948). UNESCO. 36. 119 World Bank. Canary Islands (1995). 90 New Orleans compared to. 100n27 levees at risk. 60. 70 Varberg Radio Station. NPS.) Army Corps of Engineers. 91 rationale for inaction. UNESCO. 140 tourism and. 129 w water management. 91–94 resistance to universal norms in heritage conservation. 29 universalism. 62–63 World Heritage Convention. 75n35 world heritage. 44–45. and status of. 184 World Conference on Sustainable Tourism. 161. Israel. Harald. UNESCO addition of Venice to. WMF Watch List. 106 Wilson. heritage organizations and. 161 status and benefits of. France. 42. 74n21. 117 See also World Heritage entries United States (U. 85–86 global cities facing threat of flooding. 35 Venice in Peril. Robert. 64. 109–11 water wars. 96 Vanishing Treasures Program. 178–79 Venice Charter (1966). UNESCO. 148n9 wind farms. Construction. 62 expansion of.

183–84 World Monuments Fund (WMF). 115–16 world heritage regime. tensions in. Manitoba province. Richard. 155 World War II. 33. Canada. 64. 117 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . Frank Lloyd.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED 234 • INDEX underrepresentation of polar heritage. 166 world polity (world society) theory. 15 York Factory. 28 Wright. 34–41. 40 world market of heritage. 92–93. 144 y York. 28. 66. 192n14 World Tourism Organization (WTO). cultural destruction caused by.

England. and been Visiting Research Professor at the Martin Centre for Architecture and Urban Studies. as well as more than 40 articles published in professional journals and edited volumes. she is the author of Amana: From Pietist Sect to American Community (1984). A recognized expert in the sociology of heritage. New York. Putting on Appearances: Gender and Advertising (1988). She has also taught at Boston College and the University of Essex.COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED INDEX • 235 about the author Diane Barthel-Bouchier received her doctorate from Harvard University and is currently Professor in the Department of Sociology at Stony Brook University. art. COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR REPRODUCED . and Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity (1996). and culture. Stony Brook. Cambridge University.