Boccard - From Mitigation To Adaptation A New Heritage Paradigm For The Anthropocene 2015 PDF

From Mitigation to Adaptation:
A New Heritage Paradigm for the Anthropocene

Giovanni Boccardi1
Introduction: The dawn of a new era
According to the Geological Society of London, among other bodies, the Earth might
be currently transiting from the Holocene, a temperate and placid epoch which lasted
around 10,000 years and saw the birth of agriculture and the industrial civilization
as we know it, into the so‑called Anthropocene epoch, defined by the irreversible
impact of human activities on the environment (Irwin, 2011, p. 34). The Anthropocene,
it has been suggested, is being caused by humans “disrupting the grand natural cycles
of biology, chemistry and geology by which elements like carbon and nitrogen circu-
late between land, sea and atmosphere”, which will lead to a “hotter, stormier and
less diverse planet”.2 The effects of this new era will extend well beyond climate
change, ranging from deforestation and soil erosion to the loss of biodiversity, the
decline of food and energy sources and massive migrations. The range of challenges
that the Anthropocene is posing to us are, to quote Jared Diamond, “time bombs with
fuses of less than fifty years” (Diamond 2005, p. 498).
Experts are still debating whether the beginning of the Anthropocene is a con-
temporary event or if it should be placed at the time of the Industrial Revolution of
the eighteenth century. At any rate, it is today that we seem to have become aware
that the scale and range of our activities and their impact on the planet have passed
a tipping point beyond which the nature of the relationship between humans and
their environment has changed fundamentally. In this new world, the paradigms,
ideas, attitudes and beliefs that emerged and developed in the past – across fields of
knowledge as diverse as philosophy, religion, politics or economics – seem to be
increasingly challenged.
Copyright © 2015. De Gruyter. All rights reserved.
One area that is likely to be particularly affected by the above trends is the field
of tangible cultural heritage conservation, because it sits at the threshold between
different and often conflicting societal interests associated with the use of land
resources. The aim of this paper is to discuss the viability of heritage conservation in
the Anthropocene by exploring the impact that this new epoch may have on its key
principles and practice. In doing so, it focuses on some aspects that define its
1 The author is responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this article,
and for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO.
2 See http://www.anthropocene.info/en/anthropocene (accessed 25 July 2014).
Albert, M. (Ed.). (2015). <i>Perceptions of sustainability in heritage studies</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from dainst on 2017-07-19 03:26:05.
88 Giovanni Boccardi
f undamental relationship with the larger environment and the broader goals of society,
with particular reference to the author’s experience in implementing the World Heritage
Convention.
Heritage vs. the rest and the strategy of mitigation
The birth of the conservation movement has been placed traditionally in the nineteenth
century in Europe, as a reaction to disconcertion provoked by rapid changes and the
loss of a familiar order following the emergence of modernity (Lowenthal, 1985). What
raised concern in particular was the loss of those testimonies to our past whose
meaning was thought to transcend the specific reasons that led to their original
creation and which, because they had become in some ways symbolic of our identity,
were thought to possess special value to society as its collective “cultural heritage”.
It has been noted, in this respect, how the notion of heritage as a testimony of the
past worth preserving was directly associated with the contemporary rise of the
historicist philosophy, which introduced the idea that the history of each epoch and
nation, indeed of each individual, was unique (Riegl, 1982). According to Lowenthal
and Binney (1981, p. 17), the urge to conserve heritage stemmed from “a threefold
awareness of the past: that it was unlike the present, that it is crucial to our sense of
identity, and that its tangible remnants are rapidly disappearing”.
The realization that our world was undergoing dramatic and irreversible changes
is also at the root of the birth, in the West, of the environmentalist movement. In his
seminal book Man and Nature, published in 1865, George Pershing Marsh examines
the negative consequences of human activities on the land and advocates the conser-
vation of nature as well as of history. Lowenthal (1985, p. xvii) considers this book
“the fountainhead of conservation consciousness”.
It is thus apparent, how conservation is a field of activity that has defined its
essence in opposition to trends and phenomena induced by humans that it wished to
prevent – the destruction of the old and its replacement by the new – brought about
by modernization and development. The confrontational and antagonistic nature of
heritage conservation is also evident from the terminology that characterizes its
policies and practice, as it developed over the course of the twentieth century. This
is defined by words such as “protection” or “safeguarding” and concepts such as
“boundaries”, “buffer zone”, “integrity” or “danger”, which seem to be borrowed from
a military or medical field handbook. From the beginning, conservation was from
and against something. Underpinning this ideology, at least in Western societies, was
the implicit belief that the timeline of human history is somehow cut into two separate
parts. On one side, the past as a golden age, when people lived more in harmony with
nature and knew instinctively how to build beautiful and lasting things, which
somehow enriched, rather than spoiled, the existing cities and landscapes. On the
other hand, the present, when – as a result of the rupture caused by modernity – we
From Mitigation to Adaptation 89
seem to have lost the ability to add our layer to the legacy of previous generations
without compromising the whole thing and all we can hope to achieve, when inter-
vening within a historic environment, is to address practical needs without causing
too much harm.
This separation in the timeline is mirrored by a separation in space. An implicit
tenet of conservation is that the world is divided into two: heritage and the rest. The
idea that heritage is something that exists per se and is fundamentally different and
separate from the rest is also reflected in the manner in which heritage is referred to
in many languages. As Laurajane Smith has rightly pointed out, “there is no such
thing as ‘heritage’” (Smith, 2006, p. 13), in the sense that what we call heritage does
not exist as such in its own right, but only as a social construct, the result of a con-
tinuous process “concerned with the creation and maintenance of certain social and
cultural values” (ibid., p. 42) within a subject-object relationship. In the common
conservation discourse, however, we often find that heritage is referred to through
terms such as “property”, “asset”, “object”, “element”3 and so on, implying that
certain things are heritage, in their essence, as opposed to others which are not.
Over the years, this duality has been reflected in the terminology of charters,
recommendations, planning guidelines and legislation and informed the names, struc-
ture and language of global and national institutions and intergovernmental instruments
devoted to heritage, such as the World Heritage Convention.4 In this approach, places
identified as heritage are treated as “islands” that are surrounded by a sea of non-
heritage. Competent authorities and experts discover and then preside over these
islands, by virtue of legal instruments and management plans whose aim is, citing as
an example the provisions of the World Heritage Convention, to “ensure their safe-
guarding” as well as “protection against development and change that might negatively
impact the(ir) Outstanding Universal Value” (UNESCO, 2012a, p. 25). In this process,
what happens outside these islands is taken into consideration only insofar as it may
pose a threat to the islands themselves. In the context of the World Heritage Convention,
these threats are referred to as “factors affecting the property” (ibid., p. 109).
Coherently with this conflictual approach, over the past 150 years and in the face
of increasing pressure from modernity in all its manifestations, the underlying strat-
egy of heritage conservation has been that of mitigation, that is, “to make less severe,
harmful, or painful”5 the effects of perceived external factors on the subject of its
interest.
3 For example, in the context of the UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage.
4 The Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted
by UNESCO in 1972. See more on its aims and activities at http://whc.unesco.‌org/
5 From Merriam-Webster online dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mitigation
(accessed 26 July 2014).
Mounting tensions
This approach worked more or less well at the initial stages of the conservation
movement and for much of the twentieth century, when the focus of the heritage
sector was on a select number of prominent monuments and sites, claims over which
were more or less undisputed, while pressure from development was still relatively
modest. The deal was clear then: heritage was a small portion of the land, possibly
surrounded by fences and under the authority of some public institution. This was to
be protected and conserved as it was, whereas changes could happen outside, where
there was no concern for cultural values and sufficient space was available.
Progressively, however, radical changes in the context surrounding heritage
conservation have put this paradigm under strain. A comprehensive review of these
changes is beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that these include the
extraordinary broadening of the scope of heritage, both in terms of typology and
timeline, as a result of a new, larger understanding of what has cultural meaning; the
democratization of decision-making processes relating to heritage and the correspond-
ing growing role of civil society and local communities; the emergence of new regions
of the world in the post-colonial era, which has brought new cultural perspectives in
the international discourse on heritage; and the wider social, economic and environ-
mental pressure associated with industrialization, growing populations, the depletion
of natural resources and climate change.
As a result of all these trends, the boundaries between heritage and the rest became
increasingly blurred and contentious, leading to growing tensions between heritage
conservation and other societal or political goals, both in practical terms and con-
ceptually. The World Heritage Convention offers an eloquent example of the issue. An
analysis of the State of Conservation (SoC) reports prepared for the 2008 session of
the World Heritage Committee (UNESCO, 2011, p. 3) has revealed, for example, how
factors hindering effective management of World Heritage properties were related – in
the vast majority of cases – to development threats and other forms of pressure asso-
ciated with human activities, which came from outside the confines of the listed
properties. In other words, the causes of most of the problems affecting World Heritage
sites seemed to be rooted in a conflictual relationship with their wider physical and
social environment and an unresolved dispute, within the concerned communities
and national authorities, between what should be conserved and what should be
allowed to change.
Controversies were bound to increase as the definition of heritage continued to
expand its scope, both in typology and chronology. The World Heritage List has recently
exceeded 1,000 properties and now includes more than 250 cities, numerous sites
associated with so‑called industrial archaeology and late testimonies to the architec-
ture of the modern movement, such as the Sydney Opera House (inaugurated in 1973
and inscribed in 2007). The timespan between the past and the present, in fact, is
getting smaller and smaller. In the 2010 exhibition Cronocaos at the Venice Biennale,
the renowned Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas reflected on the growing scope of what
our societies intend to preserve and underlined the ironic ambivalence of this desire
to freeze the status quo at one moment in time and the underlying problem of how to
ensure the survival of so much heritage. Elsewhere, Koolhaas had already noted, in
this regard, how the current scope of conservation had reduced the chronological
distance between us and “heritage”: “in 1818, that was 2,000 years. In 1900, it was
only 200 years. And now, near the 1960s, it became twenty years. We are living in an
incredibly exciting and slightly absurd moment, namely that preservation is overtak-
ing us” (Koolhaas, 2004, p. 2).
There is indeed a growing resentment for what many perceive as an obsession for
preservation that undermines the ability of our generation to create and shape the
environment according to our needs. An Italian architectural review, Casabella, pub-
lished in 2012 a long article about World Heritage by the Spanish architect Beatriz
Ramo (2012). It was not the usual series of postcards from the wonders of the world.
This time, World Heritage was on the bench of the defendants for allegedly preventing
societies from expressing themselves. “If UNESCO had been around in the thirteenth
century”, suggests the author, “today the vast majority of our heritage would simply
not be there”. For example, the famous Leaning Tower of Pisa would have never been
allowed as “it affects the visual integrity of the pre-existing Cathedral, hampering its
view from various key vantage points”. The language made a deliberate and somewhat
ironic reference to the arguments typically found in reports drafted by heritage experts
when requested to assess the impact of a new development on a nearby heritage
property. The article goes as far as to propose the establishment of a new type of in-
ternational designation for areas reserved to development and creativity where all
sorts of conservation regulations or other restrictions would be “strictly forbidden”.
But regardless of the concern for freedom and creativity expressed by the architects,
let us assume, for the purpose of our argument, that an ever-growing share of our built
environment should indeed be recognized as “cultural heritage” and as such set aside
for preservation. The real question is whether this would be feasible in the face of the
increasing pressure associated with environmental, economic and social phenomena.
Erica Avrami, from the World Monuments Fund, believes that “changing demographics
and diminishing resources are making options more limited” (Avrami, 2011, p. 5). She
notes that when considered against other pressing social, economic, and environmen-
tal priorities, such as clean air and water, reducing CO2 emissions, job creation and
the like, heritage conservation should “rationalize its cause and better align its goals
and processes with those of sustainability planning for the built environment as a
whole”. That means, she adds, “questioning many long-held goals and practices about
what to preserve and how” (ibid., p. 5). What this implicitly suggests is that, especially
in developing regions of the world, it may become difficult if not impossible to main-
tain large numbers of cultural heritage assets, unless their use is aligned to the wider
needs of their communities and sustainable in environmental terms. In certain areas
most affected by climate change, such as coastal areas exposed to sea level rise or
mountain regions with sensitive ecosystems, communities may not be able to support
themselves and might be forced to migrate en masse, endangering the survival of
entire cultures, let alone the conservation of their tangible heritage.6
Dissolving the boundaries
This raises a symmetrical and important issue that is often neglected: the seeming
lack of concern by the discipline of heritage conservation for the areas currently not
designated as heritage and for what is going to happen there. Almost all over the
world, at the time of writing, new urban areas and industrial complexes are being
constructed, especially in the suburbs of large metropolises of developing regions,
which have no architectural quality whatsoever and are absolutely indistinguishable
from one continent to the other. The product of this massive urban sprawl, with its
often unhealthy and incoherent environment deprived of any harmony and character,
will constitute the daily backdrop for the life of millions, if not billions of people.
Regardless of the possible impact of these massive developments on identified heritage
properties, should those concerned with the preservation of meaning and beauty
(including, one would think, the heritage professionals) not also be concerned about
this cultural disaster on a planetary scale? In a country such as Italy, which is reputed
to have contributed significantly to the development of the theory and practice of
heritage conservation, a stark contrast can be observed between beautifully preserved
historic centres, which are subject to the strictest regulations and controls, and the
chaotic ugliness of their anonymous surroundings where, on the contrary, a laissez-faire
policy has often prevailed. Looking towards the future, the scale of the problem is
mind-boggling. An issue brief published recently by the United Nations on sustaina-
ble cities and human settlements (UN, 2014, p. 1) states that “humanity is now half
urban and expected to be nearly 70 per cent urban by 2050. … During the next two
decades the world will more than double the amount of land used for cities”. The brief
further emphasizes how “as cities lose density and sprawl, they lock themselves into
unsustainable land use patterns where jobs and people are far from one another,
transportation costs and congestion are high, infrastructure runs are longer and more
costly, segregation of socioeconomic groups and land use types are more pronounced
and environmental impacts are greater”. How are these immense urban areas going
to be built? Is this not a legitimate cause for concern for the heritage sector, a discipline
whose original raison d’être was to protect an environment at the human scale from
insensitive development? If our culture is ‘one’, should we not want to safeguard and
promote it at 360 degrees, including both heritage and new creation? In the same
6 As an example, Bangladesh is expected to lose 17 per cent of its land by 2050 due to flooding
caused by climate change, which may lead to as many as 20 million climate refugees.
vein, somewhat puzzling is the growing support, within our societies, for the preser-
vation of heritage and, at the same time, the tolerance we seem to have developed for
the poor quality and obsolescence of the things that we produce and use in our daily
lives, such as the new buildings we construct, the cars, home appliances and clothes
we buy, which we replace as soon as they get slightly worn or out of fashion. In other
words, the same qualities we seem to appreciate in heritage, for example when we
admire the timeless, exceptional design and the mastery of execution of the Parthenon
Temple in Athens – which we may be able to visit once or twice in our life if we are
lucky – appear to be much less of a concern than the things that are created now and
surround us every day.
This sort of cultural schizophrenia was certainly not affecting those who built
the places that today we consider outstanding cultural heritage properties. When
Michelangelo Buonarroti was asked by Pope Paul III to rearrange the Capitol Hill in
Rome (1536–46), the ancient seat of power and one of the most ancient and historically
charged areas of the city, he conceived a grand oval piazza turned towards the new
centre of power, the Vatican, thus reversing the classical orientation towards the
Roman forum. This involved the demolition of some medieval buildings, the extensive
rehabilitation of the old Senators’ palace, including the moving of a bell tower on the
axis of the new complex, and the construction of a new building to complete the
symmetry of the design. In doing so, Michelangelo was not concerned with the pres-
ervation of the ‘cultural heritage’, in the sense that we attribute to this term today,
and certainly did not respect the principles codified over 400 years later by interna-
tional heritage charters and recommendations. Notwithstanding, he was able to re-
alize something which was not only sensitive to the context, fitting to the needs of
the time, durable and beautiful in itself, but also became a cherished symbol for future
generations. Needless to say, if Michelangelo had lived today, he would never have
been allowed to do what he did.
The current approach to heritage thus appears not only contradictory because of
the artificial distinction between heritage and the rest, but also, to some extent, in-
herently unsustainable. On one hand, because the battle to preserve the existing
remnants of the past is sooner or later going to be lost, as nothing lasts forever; on
the other hand, because much of what our generation is producing is often of poor
quality and will probably not survive the next 100 years, let alone become the herit-
age of the future. More significantly, at a time when the impacts of the Anthropocene
seem to have the potential to undermine human civilization as we know it, and all
efforts should be directed towards addressing this existential challenge, the heritage
sector appears to be still locked within its intellectual precinct, preoccupied with
finding an increasingly self-referential “cultural” value,7 and with mitigating damage
7 And an even more abstract Outstanding Universal Value, in the case of the World Heritage
Convention.
to a small portion of the planet from the adverse effects of “external factors”. In doing
so, conservation does not seem to have fully acknowledged that heritage is only a
component of the larger ecosystem in which we live, and that “the network of rela-
tionships linking the human race to itself and to the rest of the biosphere is so complex
that all aspects affect all others to an extraordinary degree” (Gell-Mann, 1994). Climate
change and the progressive loss of environmental resources caused by the current
development model are questioning the viability of our societies and the continuity
of their cultures, whose safeguarding was the very reason why the conservation
movement emerged. In the new circumstances, the heritage paradigm should thus be
reassessed by dissolving the artificial boundaries that kept it for so long segregated
from the non-heritage. At the same time, the mitigation strategy of heritage conser-
vation would also need to be reconsidered. There seems to be no point in carefully
preserving the portrait of an ancestor in the living room, if the entire house is at risk
of being washed away.
From mitigation to adaptation
While the discussion on the relationship between heritage and ‘development’ has
been going on for some decades now, it is only recently that the need to reconcile
heritage conservation objectives with environmental, social and economic imperatives
has really taken centre stage in technical symposia, the academia and international
forums. New ideas and recommendations are being formulated, such as that by
UNESCO in 2011 on Historic Urban Landscapes,8 the International Council on
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Declaration on Heritage as a Driver of Development,
also adopted in 2011,9 or the new policy currently being elaborated to integrate a
sustainable development perspective into the processes of the 1972 Convention
(UNESCO, 2012b, p. 6). In shaping these new theoretical and practical frameworks,
the idea that heritage is a “thing” and that the world is divided into heritage islands
and a sea of non-heritage may have to give way to a new approach. One which appears
more appropriate to describe reality is that of heritage as a quality, that is, the varying
ability of things to convey cultural meaning and values, which in different degrees
may be attributed to everything under the sun. To continue with our metaphor, thus,
rather than islands in two dimensions, heritage might be better represented as the
‘contour lines’ of reliefs on a map, expressing the boundless peaks, valleys and plateaus
of cultural value across the whole of our environment. The responsibilities of heritage
agencies and experts, in this new approach, would not be limited to certain designated
spots, but extend over the entire territory with the aim of representing one among
8 http://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/638
9 http://www.international.icomos.org/Paris2011/GA2011_Declaration_de_Paris_EN_20120109.‌pdf
other legitimate societal interests, all deeply connected within the bio-cultural con-
tinuum that the anthropologist Philippe Descola calls the “ecology of relations”
(Descola, 2011). Naturally, the attention of heritage practitioners would be directed in
particular towards the places where cultural meaning is deemed to be especially high,
as these are the areas where risks and opportunities – from their perspective – are
also greater.
The most significant change that may be required, however, is the redefinition of
the purpose of what we call heritage and of its role in society. Initially, and for the
past 150 years, we have been preserving heritage from the adverse effects of modernity,
in a sort of reactive mode, to safeguard the symbols of our endangered cultural
identity. In doing so, we were somewhat carried away by our enthusiasm, to the point
where almost anything became potentially “heritage”. In the Anthropocene, the
question is likely to be reversed. In the face of what is possibly the greatest challenge
that human civilization has ever faced, how can cultures, which developed over
millennia of adaptation and interaction with the environment, come to our help? Could
our historic cities and cultural landscapes, managed according to traditional knowl-
edge, hold useful lessons that we can draw upon, in combination with modern science
and technological innovations, to plan for the environment as a whole and finally
change what appears to be a completely unsustainable pattern of production and
consumption? From this perspective, what should we keep and repair and what should
we let go? Which of the things we call heritage would contribute to our resilience
against the disruptions of the Anthropocene and which, on the contrary, would add
to our vulnerability? In answering these questions, of course, the ability of old things
to provide us with a sense of identity and belonging – or just to make the world more
beautiful – will play a significant role, but within a larger array of considerations.
Places such as Stonehenge and the Taj Mahal will continue to be preserved as they
are, but a more healthy proportion between the highly symbolic and the more worldly
aspects of our environment should probably be established.
The future of heritage, in this new approach, might involve moving from the
current strategy based on mitigation, that is, reducing harm, towards one based on
adaptation, in which the systemic relationship between what we call heritage and
the rest would be renegotiated to fit the new circumstances and serve newly perceived
priorities. In the process, the artificial separation between the past and the present,
the tangible and the intangible, as well as between heritage and creativity, should
be overcome. Rather than an exclusive focus on the protection of the remnants of
the past for their own sake, the goal should be the promotion of more sustainable
ways of life that nurture cultural continuity by building on past experience (that is,
heritage in the largest sense) while at the same time integrating the best of modern
science within a single, holistic approach to the planning of the environment in its
entirety.
In adapting to new circumstances, humans must be able to discern and select
from these past experiences, retain what ‘works’ and integrate it in new and more
effective strategies.10 Adaptation is, by the way, the very process through which
cultures have developed and prospered since the beginning of time, in all their di-
versity, when humans began responding to the pressure of their environment through
behavioural changes and not simply by means of genetic evolution. Mitigation, on
the other hand, has led many historic city centres to the all too familiar artificial,
museum-like atmosphere that appears to be the contrary of a healthy, lively and
creative culture which offers viable solutions to the challenges of our time. The ques-
tion will be, then, if future generations will still find a use for the word ‘heritage’, a
concept that developed out of a specific historical and cultural context and which,
like many ideas in the past, may lose its relevance as a result of the dramatic, epochal
changes that the world is expected to go through in the Anthropocene.
References
Avrami, E. 2011. Sustainability and the built environment, forging a role for heritage conserva-
tion. Conservation Perspectives, The GCI Newsletter, Spring Issue. Los Angeles.
Descola, P. 2011. L’écologie des autres : l’anthropologie et la question de la nature. Paris, Éditions
Quae.
Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. London, Penguin Books.
Eco, U. 2011. Oral presentation delivered on the occasion of the launching of Encyclomedia (in
Italian) http://www.laterza.it/index.php/index.‌php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
415:umberto-eco-encyclomedia-per‑la-scuola&Itemid=101
Gell-Mann, M. 1994. The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. New
York, W. H. Freeman & Co.
Irwin, R. 2011. Welcome to the Anthropocene. Paris, UNESCO Courier 64th Year, No. 4, pp. 34–36.
Koolhaas, R. 2004. Preservation is overtaking us. Future Anterior, Vol. 1, No. 2, Fall 2004.
Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Lowenthal, D. 1985, The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Lowenthal, D. and Binney, M. (eds). 1981. Our Past Before Us: Why Do We Save It? London, Temple
Smith.
Pershing Marsh, G. 1865. Man and Nature. New York, Charles Scribner.
Ramo, B. 2012. Merry Go Round; proposte per un manisfesto non troppo paradossale. Casabella,
Italian review of architecture, No. 812, April. Milan, Mondadori.
Riegl, A. 1982, The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and its Origin. Cambridge (Mass.)
MIT Press.
Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London/New York, Routledge.
UN. 2012. Realizing the Future We Want for All. Report of the UN Task Team on the Post-2015
Development Agenda to the Secretary-General. New York, United Nations.
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/Post_2015_UNTTreport.‌pdf
10 The Italian semiologist Umberto Eco (2011) notes that one of the main functions of memory and
culture is to enable us to forget what is no longer useful, lest we should all become like the idiotic
character of Borges’ novel, Funes el memorioso, who remembered everything and was therefore in-
capable of any generalization and of formulating any concept.
UN. 2014. Issues Brief: Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements. Prepared by the Technical
Support Team co‑chaired by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the United
Nations Development Programme, New York. http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/
documents/2306TST%20Issues%20Brief%20Cities_FINAL.‌pdf
UNESCO. 2011. Presentation and Adoption of the World Heritage Strategy for Capacity Building.
Paris, UNESCO World Heritage Centre. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2011/whc11-35com-
9Be.‌pdf (WHC‑11/35.COM/9B.)
UNESCO. 2012a. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
Paris, UNESCO World Heritage Centre. http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/
UNESCO. 2012b. Decisions adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session
(Saint-Petersburg, 2012). Paris, UNESCO World Heritage Centre. http://whc.unesco.org/en/
sessions/36COM (WHC‑12/36.COM/19.)

Boccard - From Mitigation To Adaptation A New Heritage Paradigm For The Anthropocene 2015 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boccard - From Mitigation To Adaptation A New Heritage Paradigm For The Anthropocene 2015 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From Mitigation to Adaptation:

A New Heritage Paradigm for the Anthropocene

Introduction: The dawn of a new era

Heritage vs. the rest and the strategy of mitigation

Dissolving the boundaries

From mitigation to adaptation

You might also like