Journal of Resources and Ecology >
The Origin and Vision of National Cultural Park Management Policy in China
ZOU Tongqian, E-mail: zoutongqian@bisu.edu.cn |
Received date: 2021-10-16
Accepted date: 2022-02-20
Online published: 2022-06-07
Supported by
The China National Social Science Fund of Art Sciences(20ZD02)
Research on the evolution of cultural policy is the key in the field of public policy study, and it is also an important means to solve the problems that have emerged in cultural heritage management. The National Cultural Park is an innovative cultural heritage protection system proposed by Chinese leaders within the context of national rejuvenation and building a culturally-strong country campaign. From the perspective of system evolution theory, this paper systematically sorts out the ideas behind international heritage management and the evolutionary process of the Cultural Relics Protection Unit system, in an effort to explore the origin, innovation and vision of the National Cultural Park System. A review of the international heritage documents revealed that the principle of heritage protection has developed from “authenticity” to “integrity”, and the focus of the protection object has also changed from “monism” to “diversity”, which provided a theoretical background for the burgeoning National Cultural Park. The Cultural Relics Protection Unit system has been promoted as the most crucial cultural heritage management system in China. Therefore, this study sheds light on the evolution and limitations of the system that lays a practical foundation for the National Cultural Park System. There have been three stages in the history of China’s National Cultural Relics Protection Unit, namely, the creation of the system (1956-1965), the survival crisis of the system (1966-1977), and the rebirth and development of the system (1978 to the present), in which the main driving concepts of China's cultural heritage management have been sequentially elucidated as simple protectionism, tolerant conservatism and comprehensive developmentalism, respectively. Since the establishment of China’s Cultural Relics Protection Unit system, tremendous progress has been made not only in the enlightenment of the public’s mindset and but also in the development of system and culture. However, the changes in the institutional environment gradually exposed its limitations regarding cultural relic management and value expression. The National Cultural Park System is the fruit created by the internal contradictions of the cultural heritage system itself and the evolution of heritage theory. Its biggest innovation lies in the two core connotations of “integrated protection” and “integrated development”. In the future, as the National Cultural Park management system matures, a Chinese cultural heritage management system will take shape in which the National Cultural Parks become dominant and various cultural resources are utilized. Finally, the National Cultural Park will become a symbol of Chinese culture and will be internalized into the common belief system of the Chinese nation.
ZOU Tongqian , QIU Ziyi , HUANG Xin . The Origin and Vision of National Cultural Park Management Policy in China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2022 , 13(4) : 720 -733 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.04.017
Fig. 1 From authenticity to integrity |
Table 1 The expansion of cultural heritage protection types |
Year | Statute | Authority | Protection target |
---|---|---|---|
1931 | Carta del Restauro | ICOM (Predecessor of ICOMOS) | Historical monuments |
1976 | Nairobi Recommendations | UNESCO | Historical areas |
1982 | Florence Charter | ICOMOS | Historical gardens and landscape |
1987 | Washington Charter | ICOMOS | Historical towns and urban areas |
1992 | The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention | UNESCO | Cultural landscape added into appendix of cultural heritage |
1999 | Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage | ICOMOS | The built vernacular heritage |
2003 | The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage | TICCIH | Industrial heritage |
2003 | Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage | UNESCO | Intangible cultural heritage |
2005 | Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention | UNESCO | Heritage canal and heritage routes added into appendix |
2008 | The Charter on Cultural Routes | ICOMOS | Cultural route |
Fig. 2 Evolution of the Cultural Relics Protection Unit system |
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites). 2011. International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (The Venice Charter-1964). https://www.icomos.org/en/157-the-venice-charter. Viewed on 2021-09-10.
|
[14] |
ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites). 2012. The NARA Document on Authenticity (1994). https://www.icomos.org/en/386-the-nara-document-on-authenticity-1994. Viewed on 2021-09-10.
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
National Cultural Heritage Administration. 2009. Compilation of Chinese cultural heritage regulations and documents. Beijing, China: Cultural Relics Publishing House. (in Chinese)
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
[34] |
UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization). 1970. Some aspects of French cultural policy. Studies and Research Department of the French Ministry of Culture. Paris, France: Blanchard.
|
[35] |
UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2001. The universal declaration on cultural diversity. https://www.unesco.org/. Viewed on 2021-09-11.
|
[36] |
|
[37] |
|
[38] |
|
[39] |
|
[40] |
|
[41] |
|
[42] |
|
[43] |
|
[44] |
|
[45] |
|
[46] |
|
[47] |
|
[48] |
|
[49] |
|
[50] |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |