Administration, Landscape and Authorized Heritage Discourse – Contextualising the Nationally Valuable Landscape Areas of Finland

Linkola, Hannu

doi:10.1080/01426397.2015.1074988

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, when critiquing Smith’s AHD, authors also adopt the nominalized ways of describing the AHD(s). For example, the AHD ‘maintains that current generations are responsible for the protection of heritage for future generations’ (Yan, 2015: 66), ‘aims to materialise heritage in order to classify and value it’ (Linkola, 2015: 945) or ‘can seek to control fundamental questions about why material objects from the past should be considered valuable’ (Pendlebury, 2013: 716).…”

Section: Ahd Revisitedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, while Smith acknowledges the non-static nature of the hegemonic AHD and that other heritage discourses exist, examining these is not her primary concern in Uses of Heritage. Indeed the passing nature of these reservations has contributed to a situation where the reservations are largely left unproblematized in the book, to the extent they are often unacknowledged by other scholars' uses of Uses of Heritage and the AHD (Enqvist, 2014;Ho¨gberg, 2012;Johansson, 2015;Linkola, 2015;Ludwig, 2016;Mydland and Grahn, 2012;Parkinson et al, 2016aParkinson et al, , 2016bPendlebury, 2013;Waterton, 2010;Yan, 2015 to name some). The way in which authors describe and use the concept varies greatly.…”

Section: Responses and Refinements To The Ahdmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Uses of Heritage and beyond: Heritage Studies viewed through the lens of Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Realism

Skrede

Hølleland

2018

Journal of Social Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uses of Heritage (2006) has been an important contribution to the development of Heritage Studies. Resting on a thorough ‘re-read’ of this modern classic, the article analyses the text applying some central concepts from Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Realism in order to review the arguments put forward. One of the linguistic features from Critical Discourse Analysis we draw on is ‘nominalization’, which refers to replacing verb processes with a noun construction. Re-reading Uses of Heritage and other succeeding publications, it is apparent that the phrase ‘Authorized Heritage Discourse’ is nominalized and reified into an entity obscuring who does what to whom, thereby making the ‘Authorized Heritage Discourse’ a self-evident unit of explanation. Furthermore, the insistence on viewing heritage as a cultural process rather than as ‘things’ is not readably compatible with Critical Realism’s non-reductionist stance. Wrapping up, we nonetheless argue that really taking Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Realism on board could provide a rule of conduct for the future developments of Heritage Studies, where multifarious conceptions of heritage can co-exist.

show abstract

Section: Ahd Revisitedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Responses and Refinements To The Ahdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uses of Heritage and beyond: Heritage Studies viewed through the lens of Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Realism

Skrede

Hølleland

2018

Journal of Social Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The inventory followed the ELC and was based on the National Land Use Guidelines, which state that "land use must secure that nationally significant built environments and natural heritage maintain their values." Since it was carried out with a top-down approach by a group of governmental actors, it received several critiques regarding the exclusion of locals' values and their vision for landscape change and development [25]. The method for landscape identity assessment in Latvia was not performed by government but by researchers and academics and was based on three stages: the assessment of the historic, visual, and cognitive elements in the formation of landscape identity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although landscape identity is a topic of scientific discussion [1,3,5,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] as well as policy documents on international [12,39] and national levels [4,7,25,26], there seems to be little or no agreement about the definition of the concept.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Landscapes, and Their Importance for National Identity—A Case Study from Slovenia

Seidl

Hribar

Hudoklin³

et al. 2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although each landscape has its own identity, only some of them are recognized as nationally important because of their cultural and natural values and their contribution to national identity. In Slovenia, these landscapes are listed in the national Spatial Development Strategy (adopted in 2004). However, this list was neither supported by implementation instruments nor integrated in any conservation or management policy documents and was poorly integrated into spatial plans. The aim of this research was to renew the methodology for identifying landscapes of national importance. The methods included in-depth interviews with experts, an online questionnaire, participatory workshops, and field visits. The questionnaire results showed that only eight landscapes from the original list of 62 were explicitly recognized as nationally important, which confirmed the hypothesis that the initial method was not transparent and that the criteria were biased. The proposed approach included the following criteria: (1) representativeness, (2) the quality of the landscape features, and (3) the cultural and scientific value. The methodology was accompanied with the list of landscape features and landscape types that are important for Slovenian national identity; recommendations for implementing the method on national, regional, and local levels; and the general guidelines for spatial planning and management of these landscapes.

show abstract

“…In Italy and Spain, the coordination and implementation of the ELC are the responsibility of the ministries specializing in the area of culture; while in countries like France, Switzerland and the Netherlands, they are the responsibility of the environmental departments (De Montis, 2014). Nonetheless, the impact of the ELC on various countries shows that the existence of a variety of approaches among the States also occurs among the regions and municipalities of a single country (De Montis, 2016;Linkola, 2015;Roe, 2013;Sandström & Hedfors, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatialities of cultural landscapes: towards a unified vision of Spanish practices within the European Landscape Convention

Cabrera

Mariné

Escudero

2019

European Planning Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inspired by the European Landscape Convention, landscape conservation policies in European countries are increasingly becoming connected to cultural heritage policies. In some European countries such as Spain, the vision of the ELC has been enriched with that of the guidelines on the inclusion of Cultural Landscapes on the World Heritage List. The Spanish National Cultural Landscape Plan, an instrument for the implementation of the ELC promoted by the Spanish Institute of Cultural Heritage, expressly states that its definition of cultural landscape should be based on the definition of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, but incorporating the ELC. However, this confluence is ultimately reflected in confronting guidelines. This study deepens this duality of the concept of cultural landscape, explores its conflicting spatial implications, and discusses its use in Spanish regional instruments. Through the statistical study of a sample of Spanish cultural landscapes, our study recognizes the need for guidelines for the identification of landscapes of special interest, especially if they are to be converted into cultural properties afterwards. Although the study cannot provide a method that solves the problem of the spatial dimensions of the landscape without major concessions, it has provided a classification of the dominant typology.

show abstract

Administration, Landscape and Authorized Heritage Discourse – Contextualising the Nationally Valuable Landscape Areas of Finland

Cited by 15 publications

References 25 publications

Uses of Heritage and beyond: Heritage Studies viewed through the lens of Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Realism

Uses of Heritage and beyond: Heritage Studies viewed through the lens of Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Realism

Defining Landscapes, and Their Importance for National Identity—A Case Study from Slovenia

Spatialities of cultural landscapes: towards a unified vision of Spanish practices within the European Landscape Convention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About