Saltar para o conteúdo

Usuária:Marcela Momi/Testes/Gestão de patrimônio cultural

Origem: Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre.

Gestão de patrimônio cultural é um campo profissional e um ramo da gestão de recursos culturais, apesar de também se basear nas práticas da conservação cultural, restauração, museologia, arqueologia, história e arquitetura.

Tradicionalmente, a gestão de patrimônio cultural aborda a identificação, interpretação, manutenção e preservação de locais e objetos de valor cultural, mas também volta os olhos para aspectos imateriais do patrimônio, como habilidades tradicionais, aspectos culturais e línguas. Geralmente, o campo do patrimônio cultura recebe maior atenção e recursos financeiros quando está sob ameaça, em momentos em que o foco recai sobre o resgate ou proteção de bens arqueológicos. Desenvolvimento urbano, agricultura de larga escala, atividade mineradora, pilhagens ou números excedentes de visitantes são alguns exemplos de ameaça ao patrimônio cultural.

A face pública da gestão de patrimônio cultural, e uma importante fonte de recursos para garantir sua manutenção, é a interpretação e apresentação para o público, sendo um importante aspecto do turismo. Portanto, a comunicação com o governo e com a população é uma competência essencial.

O desenvolvimento da gestão de patrimônio cultural[editar | editar código-fonte]

CHM has its roots in the rescue archaeology and urban archaeology undertaken throughout North America and Europe in the years surrounding World War II and the succeeding decades. Salvage projects were hasty attempts to identify and rescue archaeological remains before they were destroyed to make room for large public-works projects or other construction. In the early days of salvage archaeology, it was nearly unheard-of for a project to be delayed because of the presence of even the most fascinating cultural sites, so it behooved the salvage archaeologists to work as fast as possible. Although many sites were lost, much data was saved for posterity through these salvage efforts.

In more recent decades, legislation has been passed that emphasizes the identification and protection of cultural sites, especially those on public lands. In the United States, the most notable of these laws remains the National Historic Preservation Act. The administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson was most instrumental in passing and developing this legislation, although it has been extended and elaborated upon since. These laws make it a crime to develop any federal lands without conducting a cultural resources survey in order to identify and assess any cultural sites that may be affected. In the United Kingdom, PPG 16 has been instrumental in improving the management of historic sites in the face of development.

The subject has developed from an emphasis on preservation of material culture (by record if not by physical remains), to encompass the broader concepts of culture, which are inseparable from the local communities. Modern thinking takes the view that cultural heritage belongs to the people, therefore access to cultural heritage has to be ensured. The public reaction to the proposed destruction of the Newport ship shows the importance of heritage to local communities.

The legislation of individual nations is often based upon ratification of UNESCO conventions, such as the 1972 World Heritage Convention, the Valletta treaty and the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Specific legislation is sometimes needed to ensure the appropriate protection of individual sites recognized as World Heritage Sites.

Some researchers argue that the lack of proper project management is an important issue in the implementation of cultural heritage projects; the poor definition of indicators in the field of project performance also contributes to this. Another identified other issues: 1) inadequate evaluation of existing policies and procedures (e.g. public procurement) necessary for project implementation; 2) non-preparation of the project action plan (which would ensure the efficiency of project implementation); 3) the documentation of cultural heritage objects has not been arranged.