year 7, Issue 25 (12-2023)
Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud. 2023, 7(25): 361-388 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Riahi Moghadam S, Talebian M H, Mohammad Moradi A. (2023). Review of Management and Conservation System of Architectural Heritage with Classification Instrument in East and Central Asia. Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud.. 7(25), 361-388. doi:10.30699/PJAS.7.25.361
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-712-en.html
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-712-en.html
1- Ph.D. Candidate in Architectural and Urban Heritage Conservation, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2- Associate Professor, Department of Restoration, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran ,mh.talebian@ut.ac.ir
3- Professor, Department of Restoration, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
2- Associate Professor, Department of Restoration, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran ,
3- Professor, Department of Restoration, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (2432 Views)
Abstract
Today, architectural heritage management faces many challenges due to the extent of assets, limited financial resources, development threats and change in concepts and social values. Accordingly, comprehensive principles are essential for integrated management and conservation prioritization. Most developed or developing countries in the region have reached a logical framework for the classification of immovable cultural heritage as an instrument for management and conservation, But in Iran, an independent policy and approach in this field has not been presented yet. This study tries to develop theoretical concepts in the field of classification system by reviewing the constitutions, national guidelines and experiences of countries of the common cultural field of Iran in East and Central Asia. The main question is the types of approaches, Classification levels and how to evaluate the assets in the decision-making process in the countries of the region. Due to the subject, the research approach is qualitative and with the method of documentary study, first, policies and actions are reviewed and regulated and then the content analysis done by descriptive-interpretive and comparative. According to the research findings, achieve an appropriate mechanism to prioritize the level of conservation for the implementation of integrated policies in order to raise awareness of local communities and economic participation, respect the rights of private owners and facilitate future decisions, has been the main aims of classification. Architectural heritage classification in case countries is done with a Managerial- Conservative approach in a specific system. In this process, after comprehensive identification and listing, based on criteria of Cultural Significance, Historical and Architecture importance, Outstanding Values, Uniqueness, Authenticity and Integrity, Aesthetic features and at risk, by the advisory committee in the presence of government officials, experts and stakeholders, level of assets is evaluated and determined. Finally, classification is considered as a tools to explain the management approach and level of conservation.
Keywords: Architectural Heritage, Classification, Heritage Management, Conservation, Asia.
Introduction
Architectural heritage, like biology, requires an integrated and centralized organization system and pattern for classification, given the wide and diverse range of assets. Iran has many cultural properties from prehistoric period to modern times that are difficult and intricate to manage and protect based on the current situation. Despite the passage of more than one hundred years of modern cultural thought in Iran, to date, no independent policy and approach for classification of immovable cultural heritage has been presented; while most developed or developing countries in the region have reached a logical framework in this regard.
One of the main challenges that led to the formation of this research is the lack of appropriate tools to create a unified procedure in decisions and conservative measures. This study tries to help develop knowledge in the field of management and conservation by review, survey and analyzing constitutions, guidelines, policies and experiences of countries with a common cultural sphere with Iran in East and Central Asia. Achieving the aims, approaches, evaluation process and criteria for classification of architectural heritage in other countries in the region is the main purpose of this study. The two main questions of this research are: 1-What policies and approaches have the countries of East and Central Asia used in the system of management of assets and classification of architectural heritage? 2-What is the level and process of decision-making in evaluating the classification of the architectural heritage of these countries? This research has a qualitative approach and the method used is descriptive-interpretive. Research data have been collected and organized through documentary studies and have been evaluated by interpreting and analyzing the content.
Identified Traces
Japan is a leader in the classification of heritage among the countries of the East Asian region, and the Republic of Korea has largely followed its policy. Tangible cultural in Japan are first divided into two categories, “national treasures” and “important cultural”, and then national treasures are divided into two groups: “architectural heritage” and “fine arts and crafts”; finally, architectural heritage is classified according to a “Designation System” at three levels: national, regional and local. South Korea first classifies its heritage into three levels: national, provincial, and local, and then categorizes each into different groups. Thus, South Korea’s cultural heritage is classified into five levels based on national, provincial, or local significance, period of construction, and location, with intangible, tangible, movable, and immovable heritage.
China lags behind other countries in the region in terms of classification due to many challenges such as the large number of assets, political conflicts, as well as rapid development. China’s architectural heritage is classified into three levels of protection, including national, provincial and local, and unclassified assets are listed and registered only to inform the Authorities of the location and type of the assets. Hong Kong, in a specific process and according to an administrative system, classifies architectural heritage into three levels, including: Grade 1: Buildings with outstanding features and competencies that must be maintained; Grade 2: Buildings with special qualifications that are protected selectively and on a priority basis; Grade 3: Buildings with relative competencies that will be desirable to protect and if conservation is not possible, other methods and tools can be substituted.
The policy of management and protection of architectural heritage in Turkey and Egypt emphasizes the implementation of laws with international standards and the promotion of world heritage sites as tourist destinations and the use of existing capacities such as local councils, endowments, municipalities and the private sector. In these countries, decisions on classification are made by interdisciplinary advisory committees at the regional and national levels. The Government of India considers classification to be a subset of the categories “economic”, “cultural” and “environmental” and considers this policy to be in the interest of society and the people. Indian architectural heritage is classified into three levels: One: Buildings of national or historical significance. Two: buildings of regional or local importance and Three: Important buildings for the urban landscape that evoke architectural, aesthetic or sociological features.
Conclusion
The process of architectural heritage conservation includes inclusive activities that the provision of management tools can greatly help to prioritize and facilitate actions by responsible Authorities and the community. Therefore, it would be useful to develop logical principles for classification of architectural heritage by reviewing the experiences of other countries. According to the research findings, achieve an appropriate mechanism to prioritize the level of conservation for the implementation of integrated policies in order to raise awareness of local communities and economic participation, respect the rights of private owners and facilitate future decisions, has been the main aims of classification. Architectural heritage classification in case countries is done with a Managerial- Conservative approach in a specific system. In this process, after comprehensive identification and listing, based on criteria of Cultural Significance, Historical and Architecture importance, Outstanding Values, Uniqueness, Authenticity and Integrity, Aesthetic features and at risk, by the advisory committee in the presence of government officials, experts and stakeholders, level of assets is evaluated and determined. According to the structure of laws and policies in East and Central Asia, architectural heritage works are classified into three levels: National, Provincial (state, city, and region) and Local (municipalities and councils).
Acknowledgment
The authors feel obliged to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers of the journal who graciously accepted the task and enriched the content of the article with their constructive suggestions.
Observation Contribution
Equally between authors.
Conflict of Interest
The authors, while adhering to publication ethics, explicitly declare the absence of any conflict of interest in this research.
Today, architectural heritage management faces many challenges due to the extent of assets, limited financial resources, development threats and change in concepts and social values. Accordingly, comprehensive principles are essential for integrated management and conservation prioritization. Most developed or developing countries in the region have reached a logical framework for the classification of immovable cultural heritage as an instrument for management and conservation, But in Iran, an independent policy and approach in this field has not been presented yet. This study tries to develop theoretical concepts in the field of classification system by reviewing the constitutions, national guidelines and experiences of countries of the common cultural field of Iran in East and Central Asia. The main question is the types of approaches, Classification levels and how to evaluate the assets in the decision-making process in the countries of the region. Due to the subject, the research approach is qualitative and with the method of documentary study, first, policies and actions are reviewed and regulated and then the content analysis done by descriptive-interpretive and comparative. According to the research findings, achieve an appropriate mechanism to prioritize the level of conservation for the implementation of integrated policies in order to raise awareness of local communities and economic participation, respect the rights of private owners and facilitate future decisions, has been the main aims of classification. Architectural heritage classification in case countries is done with a Managerial- Conservative approach in a specific system. In this process, after comprehensive identification and listing, based on criteria of Cultural Significance, Historical and Architecture importance, Outstanding Values, Uniqueness, Authenticity and Integrity, Aesthetic features and at risk, by the advisory committee in the presence of government officials, experts and stakeholders, level of assets is evaluated and determined. Finally, classification is considered as a tools to explain the management approach and level of conservation.
Keywords: Architectural Heritage, Classification, Heritage Management, Conservation, Asia.
Introduction
Architectural heritage, like biology, requires an integrated and centralized organization system and pattern for classification, given the wide and diverse range of assets. Iran has many cultural properties from prehistoric period to modern times that are difficult and intricate to manage and protect based on the current situation. Despite the passage of more than one hundred years of modern cultural thought in Iran, to date, no independent policy and approach for classification of immovable cultural heritage has been presented; while most developed or developing countries in the region have reached a logical framework in this regard.
One of the main challenges that led to the formation of this research is the lack of appropriate tools to create a unified procedure in decisions and conservative measures. This study tries to help develop knowledge in the field of management and conservation by review, survey and analyzing constitutions, guidelines, policies and experiences of countries with a common cultural sphere with Iran in East and Central Asia. Achieving the aims, approaches, evaluation process and criteria for classification of architectural heritage in other countries in the region is the main purpose of this study. The two main questions of this research are: 1-What policies and approaches have the countries of East and Central Asia used in the system of management of assets and classification of architectural heritage? 2-What is the level and process of decision-making in evaluating the classification of the architectural heritage of these countries? This research has a qualitative approach and the method used is descriptive-interpretive. Research data have been collected and organized through documentary studies and have been evaluated by interpreting and analyzing the content.
Identified Traces
Japan is a leader in the classification of heritage among the countries of the East Asian region, and the Republic of Korea has largely followed its policy. Tangible cultural in Japan are first divided into two categories, “national treasures” and “important cultural”, and then national treasures are divided into two groups: “architectural heritage” and “fine arts and crafts”; finally, architectural heritage is classified according to a “Designation System” at three levels: national, regional and local. South Korea first classifies its heritage into three levels: national, provincial, and local, and then categorizes each into different groups. Thus, South Korea’s cultural heritage is classified into five levels based on national, provincial, or local significance, period of construction, and location, with intangible, tangible, movable, and immovable heritage.
China lags behind other countries in the region in terms of classification due to many challenges such as the large number of assets, political conflicts, as well as rapid development. China’s architectural heritage is classified into three levels of protection, including national, provincial and local, and unclassified assets are listed and registered only to inform the Authorities of the location and type of the assets. Hong Kong, in a specific process and according to an administrative system, classifies architectural heritage into three levels, including: Grade 1: Buildings with outstanding features and competencies that must be maintained; Grade 2: Buildings with special qualifications that are protected selectively and on a priority basis; Grade 3: Buildings with relative competencies that will be desirable to protect and if conservation is not possible, other methods and tools can be substituted.
The policy of management and protection of architectural heritage in Turkey and Egypt emphasizes the implementation of laws with international standards and the promotion of world heritage sites as tourist destinations and the use of existing capacities such as local councils, endowments, municipalities and the private sector. In these countries, decisions on classification are made by interdisciplinary advisory committees at the regional and national levels. The Government of India considers classification to be a subset of the categories “economic”, “cultural” and “environmental” and considers this policy to be in the interest of society and the people. Indian architectural heritage is classified into three levels: One: Buildings of national or historical significance. Two: buildings of regional or local importance and Three: Important buildings for the urban landscape that evoke architectural, aesthetic or sociological features.
Conclusion
The process of architectural heritage conservation includes inclusive activities that the provision of management tools can greatly help to prioritize and facilitate actions by responsible Authorities and the community. Therefore, it would be useful to develop logical principles for classification of architectural heritage by reviewing the experiences of other countries. According to the research findings, achieve an appropriate mechanism to prioritize the level of conservation for the implementation of integrated policies in order to raise awareness of local communities and economic participation, respect the rights of private owners and facilitate future decisions, has been the main aims of classification. Architectural heritage classification in case countries is done with a Managerial- Conservative approach in a specific system. In this process, after comprehensive identification and listing, based on criteria of Cultural Significance, Historical and Architecture importance, Outstanding Values, Uniqueness, Authenticity and Integrity, Aesthetic features and at risk, by the advisory committee in the presence of government officials, experts and stakeholders, level of assets is evaluated and determined. According to the structure of laws and policies in East and Central Asia, architectural heritage works are classified into three levels: National, Provincial (state, city, and region) and Local (municipalities and councils).
Acknowledgment
The authors feel obliged to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers of the journal who graciously accepted the task and enriched the content of the article with their constructive suggestions.
Observation Contribution
Equally between authors.
Conflict of Interest
The authors, while adhering to publication ethics, explicitly declare the absence of any conflict of interest in this research.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Interdisciplinary
Received: 2021/12/30 | Accepted: 2022/03/13 | Published: 2023/12/3
Received: 2021/12/30 | Accepted: 2022/03/13 | Published: 2023/12/3
References
1. - محمدمرادی، اصغر (1396). احیای بافت قدیم شهرها (مروری بر تجربیات)؛ ارائه راهبردها و ضوابط برای حفاظت و احیای بافت قدیم شهرهای ایران. چاپ اول، تهران: ناشر مؤسسه انتشارات دانشگاه تهران به سفارش معاونت معماری و شهرسازی وزارت راه و شهرسازی.
2. - سازمان باستانشناسی هند، (2019).
3. - چنیینگجی، (2019).
5. - Abdul-Aziz Osman, Kh., (2018). “Heritage conservation management in Egypt: A review of the current and proposed situation to amend it”. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 9 (4): 2907-2916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.10.002.
6. - Act No.15639., (2018). “Cultural Heritage Protection Act”. Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea. English statute is provided by the Korea Legislative Research Institute. Retrieved from: https://law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=203735&viewCls=engLsInfoR&urlMode=engLsInfoR&chrClsCd=010203#0000 (access date 2/25/2021).
7. - Agency for Cultural Affairs., (2009). “Preservation and Utilization of Cultural Properties”. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_National_Treasures_of_Japan (access date 1/15/2020).
8. - Agency for Cultural Affairs (a)., (2011). “Cultural Properties for Future Generations: Outline of the Cultural Administration of Japan”. Retrieved from: https://web.archive.org/web/20110813130933/http://www.bunka.go.jp/bunkazai/pamphlet/pdf/pamphlet_en_03_ver03.pdf (access date 1/13/2020).
9. - Agency for Cultural Affairs (b)., (2011). “Preservation and Utilization of Cultural Properties”. Retrieved from: https://web.archive.org/web/20120119143921/http://www.bunka.go.jp/english/pdf/h23_chapter_06.pdf (access date 1/13/2020).
10. - Blake, J., (2000). “On Defining the Cultural Heritage”. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 49: 61-68.
11. - Burra Charter., (2013). The ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Adopted by Australia ICOMOS in October 2013. Retrieved from: https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf (access date 2/26/2020).
12. - Carlisle, Ph. & Edmund, L., (2016). “Recording the Past: Heritage Inventories in England”. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 6: 128-137.
13. - Coaldrake, W. H., (2002). Architecture and Authority in Japan. London; New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-05754-X.
14. - Cooper, C. & Helmy, E., (2010). “An assessment of sustainable tourism planning for the archaeological heritage: The case of Egypt”. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10 (6): 514- 535.
15. - Cosovic, M.; Amelio, A. & Junuz, E., (2019). “Classification Methods in Cultural Heritage”. 13-24.
16. - Council of Europe, (1975). “European Charter of the Architectural Heritage”. Retrieved from: https://rm.coe.int/090000168067c186 (access date 05/07/2020).
17. - Council of Europe, (1985). “Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe”. European Treaty Series, 121, Granada: Retrieved from: https://rm.coe.int/168007a087 (access date 05/07/2020).
18. - CPWD., (2013). “Handbook of Conservation of Heritage Buildings”. Directorate General, Central Public Works Department, New Delhi, India.
19. - Dutra, M., (2004). “Sir, How Much is that Ming Vase in the Window? Protecting Cultural Relics in the People's Republic of China”. University of Hawaii Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, 5: 62-95.
20. - Enders, S. & Gutschow, N., (1998). Hozon: architectural and urban conservation in Japan. Stuttgart/London: Edition Axel Menges.
21. - Edwards, W., (2005). “Japanese Archaeology and Cultural Properties Management: Prewar Ideology and Postwar Legacies”. In: Robertson, Jennifer Ellen (ed.). A companion to the anthropology of Japan, Blackwell Companions to Social and Cultural Anthropology (illustrated ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 36–49.
22. - Fahmy, H., (2013). “Egyptian legislations in relation to the rehabilitation of Historic Cairo”. Report in the framework of Urban Regeneration project for Historic Cairo – UNESCO, World Heritage Centre. URHC, Cairo.
23. - Gibbon, K. F., (2005). Who Owns the Past?: Pultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. Rutgers series on the public life of the arts. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
24. - Gok, T., (2017). “Conservation Of Cultural Heritage In Turkey, Development Of Legal And Institution In: Historical Perspective Of Heritage Legislation,Balance Between Laws And Values”. International conference, October 12-13, 2016, ICLAFI, ICOMOS Estonia NC, Estonian Academy of Arts, Tallinn: 39-42.
25. - Gruber, S., (2007). “Protecting China’s cultural heritage sites in times of rapid change: current developments, practice and law”. Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law.10 (3 & 4): 253-301.
26. - Hampikian, N., (1999). “Challenges facing conservation projects in historical Cairo”. 9th Conference for the Egyptian Architects :union:, Architectural Heritage and Planning Development, Cairo.
27. - Harpring, P., (2019). “Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA), list of Categories and Definitions”. J. Paul Getty Trust & College Art Association, Inc. Retrieved from: http://www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/cdwa/definitions.html (access date 04/19/2020).
28. - Hassler, U.; Algreen-Ussing, G., & Kohler, N., (2004). “Cultural heritage and sustainable development in SUIT, Sustainable development of urban historical areas through an active integration within towns”. Brussel: European Commission.
29. - Hickman, M. L., (2002). Japan's Golden Age: Momoyama. New Haven: Yale University Press.
30. - Hjorland, B., (2017). “Classification”. Knowledge Organization, 44, (2): 97-128. Retrieved from: http://www.isko.org/cyclo/classification (access date 05/31/2020).
31. - Hua, S., (2010). “World Heritage Classification and Related Issues-A Case Study of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage”. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier Ltd, 2: 6954–6961.
32. - INTACH., (2004). “Charter for the Conservation of Unprotected Architectural Heritage and Sites in India”. New Delhi, India: Indian National Trust For Art and Cultural Heritage.
33. - INTACH (2019). “Guidelines for Chapters: Architectural (Built) Heritage Division”. New Delhi, India: Indian National Trust For Art and Cultural Heritage, Colorcom Advertising.
34. - Japanese Government Policies in Education, Science and Culture (a)., (1993). “Culture Connects the World”. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, Retrieved from: https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpae199301/hpae199301_2_181.html (access date 10/17/2021).
35. - Jokilehto, J., (2002). A History of Architectural Conservation. Butterworth-Heinemann Series in Conservation and Museology, Conservation and Museology Series. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
36. - Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act., (1961). Department of Town Planning. Govt. of Karnataka, 2006.
37. - Khaled, Abdul-A., (2004). Enhancing conservation management: a model for management, finance and implementation of conservation projects. University of Cairo, Egypt.
38. - Kurniawan, H.; Salim, A.; Suhartanto, H. & Hasibuan, Z. A., (2011). “E-cultural heritage and natural history framework: an integrated approach to digital preservation”. International Conference on Telecommunication Technology and Applications, IACSIT Press, 5: 177–182.
39. - Law No. 2863., (1983). “Law on the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Property”. Official Gazette Number: 18113, Retrieved from: http://www.lawsturkey.com/law/2863-law-on-the-conservation-of-cultural-and-natural-property (access date 1/20/2022).
40. - Law No.117 (1983). “Promulgating The Antiquities Protection Law”. The General Authority for Al-Amiria Printing House.
41. - Law No. 144., (2006). “The Executive By-law for the Law Regulating the Demolition of Non Falling Establishments and Buildings and the Preservation of Architectural Heritage”. The General Authority for Al-Amiria Printing House.
42. - Lee, E., (2017). “Knowledge was their Treasure: Applying KO Approaches to Archaeological Research”. Knowledge Organization, 44(8): 644-655.
43. - Lee, E., (2019). “Archaeology and knowledge organization”. Edited by: Birger Hjorland and Claudio Gnoli. Retrieved from: https://www.isko.org/cyclo/archaeology (access date 05/28/2020).
44. - Mai, J. E., (2004). “Classification in context: Relativity, reality, and representation”. Knowledge Organization, 31 (1): 39-48.
45. - Mai, J., E., (2011). “The modernity of classification”. Journal of Documentation, 67 (4): 710-730.
46. - Murphy, J. D., (1994). “An annotated chronological index of People's Republic of China statutory and other materials relating to cultural property”. International Journal of Cultural Property, 3: 159-68.
47. - Murray, T., (2001). Encyclopedia of Archaeology. Vol. 1-3. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.
48. - NPC–AMASR., (2014). “National Policy For Conservation For The Ancient Monuments, Archeological Sites And Remains”. Archaeological Survey of India, Ministry of Culture Government of India, Janpath, New Delhi.
49. - Nobuko, I., (1998). Policy and System of Urban Territorial Conservation in Japan. Tokyo: Tokyo National Research Institute of Cultural Properties.
50. - Orton, C., (1982). Mathematics in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press.
51. - Ozdogan, M., (2013). “Dilemma in the archaeology of large scale development projects: A view from Turkey”. Pia Journal: Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 23 (1): 1-8.
52. - Pickard, R., (Ed.), (2001). Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation. London: Council of Europe, Spon Press.
53. - Presidential Decree No. 28908., (2018).“Enforcement Decree of The Cultural Heritage Protection Act”. Retrieved from: https://law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=203579&viewCls=engLsInfoR&urlMode=engLsInfoR&chrClsCd=010203#0000 (access date 06/20/2021).
54. - Report No. 60., (2013). “Conservation of monuments and historic buildings”. Audit Commission, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Retrieved from: http://www.aud.gov.hk (access date 12/22/2020).
55. - Shankar, B. & Swamy, Ch., (2015). “Listing and Grading of Heritage Buildings in Mysore City”. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), 4 (10).
56. - Shepherd, R., (2014). “China: Cultural Heritage Preservation and World Heritage”. In: Smith C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, Springer, New York, NY.
57. - Sofield, T. & Li, F. M., (1998). “Tourism development and policies in China”. Annals of Tourism Research, 25: 362-92.
58. - Shuzhong, He., (2000). “The Mainland's Environment and the Protection of China's Cultural Heritage: A Chinese Cultural Heritage Lawyer’s Perspective”. Art Antiquity and Law, (5): 19.
59. - Sung-ja, Ch., (2012). “Fifty Years of Endeavors for Preservation and Transmission”. Koreana, 26 (3). Retrieved from: https://koreana.or.kr/user/action/backIssueView.do?bIdx=2243&zineInfoNo=0020&pubLang=English&pubYear=2020&pubMonth=WINTER&mid=0000873&vol=26&no=3&year=2012&season=AUTUMN (access date 02/25/2021).
60. - Su, X. B. & Teo, P., (2009). The Politics of Heritage in China: a view cultural from Lijiang. London: Routledge.
61. - UNESCO., (2014). “Urban regeneration project for historic Cairo (URHC): report about works from July 2012 to November 2014 (Report No. 1)”. Cairo, Egypt, Retrieved from: https://whc.unesco.org/document/120190 (access date 1/18/2022).
62. - UNESCO., (2017). “Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention”. World Heritage Committee, (WHC.17/01: 12 July 2017).
63. - Wu, H., (2005). Remaking Beijing: Tiananmen Square and the Creation of a Political Space. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
64. - Yildirim, A., (2015). “The changing role of urban heritage: Governance and stakeholders’ perceptions in Turkey and The United Arab Emirates”. METU JFA, 32(1): 121-145.
65. - Yildiz, S., (2010). “The Model of Turkey in Legal Protection of Cultural Heritage”. International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, (5): 627-632.
66. - Yilmaz, Y. & El-Gamil, R., (2018). “Cultural Heritage Management in Turkey and Egypt: A Comparative Study”. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research, An International Journal of Akdeniz University Tourism Faculty, 6 (1): 68-91.
67. - Youssry, M. et al., (2003). Visual Pollution in Greater Cairo, The Case of the Nile Front, ASRT. Housing and Building Research Centre (HBRC), Egypt.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |